Ideology: The "Islamic socialism" of Tarik Ramadam

by Claudia on December 21, 2009 · Comments

Includes Jihad as "struggle against oppression":

Ramadan has been among the first Islamic thinkers to intentionally reach out to leftists and self-described anti-imperialists, anti-globalists and Third-Worldist groups. He presents Islam as a spiritual complement to these leftist ideologies and emphasizes similarities between them, claiming that his concept of “Islamic Socialism” combines “religious principles with anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist politics that go back to the time of the Russian Revolution.”[104] So far, these ideologies have been mostly regarded as incompatible; a main component of the Bolshevist Revolution in 1918 was the division of state and Church, which was accompanied by the abolishment of religious education in schools. Yet, as in his writings about an Islamic state and sharia, Ramadan avoids discussing contradictions between the classical and the Islamic comprehensions of socialism. For example, the concept of Islamic socialism (al-ishtirakiyya al-islamiyya), which was exemplified in the programs of the Syrian Brotherhood during the late 1940s and 1950s, rejects non-Islamic socialism as a concept that places man over Allah.

While Ramadan tries to find common values between Islam and European political movements, at the same time he attempts to reinterpret the term jihad. In an apologetic attempt to improve the image of Islam against accusations that it is a religion of violence, he seeks to argue understanding of jihad as a liberation struggle against oppression. Yet even classical Islam defines military jihad as a struggle for liberation from non-Islamic rulers; a necessary means of ending oppression and preserving freedom of religion, albeit under Islamic rule.[105] This idea is similarly expressed in the writings of militant proponents of jihad like Said Qutb, who claims that fighting is necessary for the liberation of mankind from rulers who hinder them from embracing Islam. Qutb declares that real justice and freedom of all religions can only exist in the social, economic and political system of an Islamic state under sharia law.[106] But while militant salafists reduce jihad to warfare with the goal of establishing Islamist rule, Ramadan claims to adhere to a more genuine and comprehensive understanding of jihad, which holds that Islam’s expansion can also be achieved under certain circumstances through non-violent means such as dawa. Furthermore, Ramadan never explicitly claims that liberation from oppression has to ultimately end with creation of an Islamist order. The language he chooses deliberately allows for two readings, both Islamist and humanistic/universal. As he writes, “This jihad is a jihad for life in order to preserve for every human being the rights granted for him/her by the Creator,” which, according to classical understandings of Islam, includes only the Islamic version of human rights. He quotes Surat al-Hajj, verse 40, as proof that jihad struggles to defend the rights of every religion. He fails to mention, however, that this Sura is interpreted from a classical Islamic perspective to mean that the preservation of human rights, and the principle of coexistence, can only be achieved through properly Islamic rule.

Must be the definition of terrorism that both Chávez and Gaddafi are searching for…

Thanks to the Iconoclast.

Cross-posted from T&P.

Related posts:

  1. Underestimating Islamic Ideology
  2. Types of Islamic Jihad
  3. Islamic extremist group given £113,000 Government grant to “teach five-year-olds their ideology”
  4. Supreme Celebutard John Leguizamo: “Hey, What’s so bad about Socialism?”
  5. 15 reasons why socialism sucks
  6. Difference between “Islamic moderate” and “Islamic reformist”
  7. If You Don’t Get Islamic Ideology, You Don’t Get the Problem in Afghanistan
  8. Gallup: Majority of Democrats have positive image of socialism
  9. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad congratulates Gaza’s Islamic Jihad group on “victory” over Israel
  10. Iranian blogger protest: Sets fire to Koran; lashes out at Islamic “moderates”
Want automatic updates?
4 choices: Twitter, Facebook, RSS feed or get daily email updates
  • Storm_Rider
    Islam and Marxism are on the same page today. The proletariat class (non-disabled, tax-eating poor) was declared by Karl Marx to be the victim of the hard-working, tax-paying individuals in the middle class. The Marxist State then became empowered to forcibly take possession of middle class property in order to redistribute property to the proletariat "victims of oppression" leading to "social justice." The Marxists never fail to first feather their own nests with the confiscated property before tossing out the remains to the proletarians - social justice thus becomes great fun for the Marxist ruling class. Similarly today’s Muslim is placed into a victim "class" who will be "saved" by the Islamist ruling class; and "social justice" will occur in the same way as it occurs under Marxism, i.e.: by destruction of the American (and Israeli) middle class, i.e.: through destruction of the United States and Israel.

    "When one compares the histories of Islamism and Communism, despite their awesome differences in content, the parallels are awesome. In fact, what is most amazing is how radical Islamism has developed into a world view closely resembling that of Communism with a veneer of religiosity which obscures what actually is happening... Today the idea of a global "class struggle" in which the Muslims (proletariat) is engaged in a battle against the evil Christians and Jews (capitalists, imperialists) to wage a revolution and create a new utopian Islamist state (communism) seems to be in the mainstream of the Arab and Muslim discussion... Islamism is a newly formulated revolutionary ideology for seizing state power and running all aspects of a country. It has developed virtually in living memory through the Muslim Brotherhoods and Iranian revolution through the Afghan war and down to al-Qa'ida... The Jihadists are the Trotskyists of the Islamist spectrum, very active but smaller in numbers, advocating permanent revolution and disdaining compromise or tactical maneuvers. For example, the Jihadists reject elections as an unwarranted human usurping of God's prerogatives and focus almost completely on armed struggle..." Barry Rubin

    http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/23743.html
  • hellosnackbar
    Spot on SR that's one of your very best posts;the analogy of jihadists and Trotskyites is exactly right!
  • Storm_Rider
    Tarik Ramadam: “This jihad is a jihad for life in order to preserve for every human being the rights granted for him/her by the Creator,”

    Allah-given human rights under Sharia only apply to Muslim men, not to women or non-Muslims; so under Islamic Sharia all men and women are not created equal before the law. Private property (pursuit of happiness) is not an Allah-given human right for non-Muslims; nor is liberty (particularly freedom of speech) or life it’s self.

    Allah-given human rights is tyranny, and it turns out to be little different from the State-given human rights of Marxist Communism.

    Compare Islamic Allah-given human rights to the American God-given human rights of our Declaration of Independence:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson

    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/i...
  • Solkhar
    Yes, S_R, Tarriq Ramadan has an egenda that reflects those particular haddiths he follows and nothing to do with the Qur'an. What you call "Allah-given human rights" is what I think a misunderstanding, but I will not go into either that or your views of rights and Thomas Jefferson. I will say only that in Islam it says that man and woman are not equal, because of biology and responsibilities that come with that, it does not mean that one is better than the other. Any retort you will come back with does not contradict that, as you will be quoting haddiths that were written by 7th century men.
  • Storm_Rider
    Allah and Nature's God of the American Declaration of Independence are not one in the same; the former is a god of tyranny, i.e.: inequality before law which destroys the individual's sacred rights to life, liberty and creatively earned property (pursuit of happiness); whereas the latter God is the God of individual life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness, because each individual is made in God's image - and God is life, liberty and creativity.

    When Allah becomes God, and when all individuals (not just Muslim men) are declared to have equal Sacred rights to life, liberty and creative pursuit of happiness; and when government power (in order to be just) is understood to derive only from the informed consent of the governed and tasked with securing (not destroying) those individual human rights - then I'll be happy with Islam.
  • Solkhar
    I think we will agree to disagree and it all perspective. Islamic principles are my point, not the current actions of meer Muslims with their own political, cultural and other desires.

    As far as I am concerned Allah and God are the same, He demands liberty, respect and rights for all humans, the right to happiness and freedom for all. He does so with a demand, that He is loved and His principles respected. That each of us have a place and a duty to Him as well as to others. That man and women are equal in rights but are also different in nature and therefore responsibilties. Motherhood and family is only possible through woman etc. Nothing sexist, but natural realities. Do not confuse Arab culture and tribalism with Islamic principles. Do not confuse choices for laws and instructions for 7th century men & women as a divine instruciton for all of mankind.
  • Storm_Rider
    Your idea of Islam is theoretical and probably exists only in your own mind and that of a few other idealistic Muslims who remain irrelevant; today's real Islam is totalitarian and murdering. You appear to be on the losing side of the "Islamic Reformation." There were no doubt some idealistic Germans who were equally irrelevant as Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Party took control of the German government, police and military.
  • Solkhar
    I would say the same to you, that you are a victim of hysteria, MSM hype and agenda propoganda. You point is illogical.

    The opposte is your case, the majority of Muslims are not as the picture you give, neither are their nations. Even with the blowing out of the arses of radicals in the West, they are still not representative of the average Muslim their either.

    You are pushing and then basing theories and condemnations on a wrong assumption and that is the main issue I have with you. That all countries appear to be exactly like the dozen or so sh*t-holes that exist that have radical governments and clerics running the show. You point out bad points but fail to bother to note the good-parts - the normality of lives and concerns of the majority.

    Such a view is a real problem, because in the end, your plans, condemnations and concentration is again the entire groups, populations and people, rather than concentrating on the real issues, dangers and thus you are unable to offer a logical solution.

    I am not a minority at all and I point out the view and bahavour of the majority, but as we all know, most of the majority are sheep and that is the only correlation to the Germans of the 1930s.
  • Storm_Rider
    I believe you are a good person and so are the majority of ordinary Muslims, but there were many good Germans as well in 1933; and they were irrelevant - many ultimately became our enemy on the battlefield or in the military factories.

    It's the totalitarian legal system which brings the majority under its boot that is in question - that is the real issue here. Many ordinary Muslims, now "peaceful," will become jihadists or jihad enablers as this struggle (World War IV) evolves.

    My thoughts are logical - based on reason and direct observation of actual events - no hysteria or hype. My agenda is the American Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution.
  • Solkhar
    I appreciate your acknowledgements of my intentions and the intentions of the ordinary Muslim and will only again point out what I have from the beginning, your assumption is that radicalism is both on an ascendency if not a majority and that is incorrect. Living proof is that the majority of Muslims countries rejected Shari'a legal systems and secondly that the all but one "half a nation" (Somalia) supports Al Qaida. Everyone talks about radicals but forgets almost all of 57 countries are not supporting them and are in fact combatting them.

    Having said that, radical Euro-Muslims are perhpas in growing and that is not the fault of Muslim countries but the policies and weakness of western governments.

    A last comment and time for me to go to bed, and this is not to start another argument at all, and is with all due respect to your good and noble intentions - but if the US Decleartion of Independance and US Constitution is your agenda then I am obliged by my reason and logic to reject it as not irrelevant. I would rather we simply agree to disagree, because I certainly will not tolerate continued discussion on that aspect at all, as simply a waste of my and your good time, as we both have very differing points of views on the matter. Add to that, I think we are both still fighting the same common enemy.
  • Storm_Rider
    The American Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution are relevant because they are the greatest documents pertaining to sacred universal human rights and rational secular government ever written. These codified principles of the American Revolution are not compatible with Fascism, Marxism or Political Islam (Sharia Law).

    I don't share your opinion that totalitarian Islam is the weaker force in Islam today. Like the Nazis (a relatively small group of Fascist radicals) from the 1930's, today’s totalitarian Muslims are calling the shots while ordinary Muslim remains silent. We are not in agreement, and I'll bring up these points frequently; it is not a waste of time. That being said, I do appreciate your statements of opposition to Sharia law and murdering jihad; for that I am grateful and give you credit. The situation in Islam reminds me of the situation in European Socialism (and the American Democratic Party) as well. Some people believe that Euro-Socialism (and that of the American Democratic Party) is benign; but its core philosophy is Marxist, i.e.: totalitarian government power over the individual. I’m equally appalled by Political Islam and Marxist Socialism because a serf is a serf is a serf – whether a godless serf under Marxism or a religious serf under Political Islam. The American Revolution is pro-individual and anti-serfdom.

    Unfortunately I realize our American Revolution is in danger, both from totalitarian Islam and it's new partner totalitarian Marxism; both are the enemies of our Declaration, Bill of Rights and Constitution. It saddens me to realize that totalitarian Islam has useful idiots and Marxist allies right here among some of our own citizens and in our government, and I'm therefore worried about the future of my children. I sometimes wonder if the principles of our Revolution will take hold anywhere else on earth, but I don’t see it happening. It appears to me that the American Revolution is the last best hope on earth for sacred individual human life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

    My agenda is the same as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln; I desire that government of the people, by the people, for the people does not perish from the earth.
  • Beejj
    I always enjoy your posts, Solkhar, and am sure I am not alone. You are, as far as I can recall, the only Muslim who has contributed to this site who displays logic and sanity. Of course, I fervently disagree with your belief that God exists, and with some of your opinions, but you invariably serve us food for thought. The point of this message is this: Why don't other Muslims comment on your posts? How very strange.
  • Solkhar
    "In an apologetic attempt to improve the image of Islam against accusations that it is a religion of violence, he seeks to argue understanding of jihad as a liberation struggle against oppression. Yet even classical Islam defines military jihad as a struggle for liberation from non-Islamic rulers; a necessary means of ending oppression and preserving freedom of religion, albeit under Islamic rule."

    Tarrik Ramadan is the classic example of an apologist and a hypocrit. Apart from his overriding self-importance and making a failed attempt in my country to be "the man in the middle to breach barriers" (a translation of what he claimed to be on a Dutch Nos Channel interview) he is only a middle-quality academic. Rather than face realities and responding, he has constantly attempted to make justifications only and thus deserves the title of a real appeasist. He has also avoided blaming radicals for what they are, the evil that truelly exists within Islam, he has failed to accept the existance of a separate radical Euro-Muslim community that demands the unacceptable in Europe that even the Muslim world rejects - eg Caliphates and theological puritanical 7th century Shari'a Law and worse.

    To some degree Ramadan is himself a Euro-Muslim and the above item is correct in saying that he milks the left as badly as they do, and the best example of all that condemns Ramadan is that he sides with a political bais. Socialism and socialist ideals does not have a link with Islamic principles, but more limited and "human" haddiths with all its good & bad sides. Any academic of value who understands pure Islamic principles is quite aware that one can be either from the left or right, conservative or liberal and be a Muslim. When one sees a Muslim academic or other so-called expert pushing otherwise - he or she is simply pushing another agenda.

    Both his, those of extremists and the above interpretation of what "jihad" was written for are incorrect. They have all shredded and attempted to rebuild the meaning of jihad to suit the needs of today only and thus fails to reflect anything but that.

    His interpretation is pure "excuse" and that of an apologist. Extremists alter faith to support their politics and they seek some political revolution and thus the word means simply violent overthrow. The above interpretation is simply a reaction to those extremists.

    Jihad, in its pure Qur'anic and linguistic reality is the word meaning "struggle" and was most certainly in refernce to the defence to protect the faith or the inner struggle to improve oneself. It has nothing expansionary in it and he examples in the Qur'an and the events of the time of the Prophet had no such expansion within it's meaning. The abuse of the word by extremists is pure political-violence using and abusing the name and thus is referred by academics as "small 'j' jihadism". Interestingly, the only others that use the word "jihad" is in the west, and the average Muslim in the street does not use it at all.

    Tariq Ramadan would be in my book a waste of breath to mention if it was not for the fact that he does more damage to the name of Islam by defending it in the wrong direction.
  • hellosnackbar
    Bang on with that explanation Solkhar;I've always thought of Ramadan as a mealy mouthed phony!
    He's certainly not "bats in the belfry crazy"like that Zakhir Naik chap.
    But his personal narcissism combined with his assertion of intellectual prowess is as thin as tissue paper.
    Yet another lightweight self appointed spokesman for the religion of peace.
  • SirWilhelm
    Muslims are continiously trying to rationalise and justify jihad, because they can't condemn the terrorism that arises from the concept, without weakening Islam, because Islam was founded and grew on a concept of jihad that resulted in an Islamic empire. No matter how they want to spin the "oppression" angle, anyone can see that jihad results in political dominance for Islam. Just the threat of jihad changes the behavior of all too many people.
  • Solkhar
    Unfortunately, my post arrived just after yours, I suggest you read it. I suggest you rethink both your understanding of the real meaning of "jihad" and read a bit of real history first.
  • SirWilhelm
    What history would that be, history accordng to Islam? Or the progressive version in "modern" textbooks? I prefer my own observations, thank you. The almost daily stories of bombings, shootings, beheadings, and other murders that are "jihad" related every day. Call it war against oppression if you will, I will call it as I see it.

    In the meantime, if you personally knew of an impending terrorist attack, what would you do? If you found out someone was storing weapons and explosives in your mosque, what would you do? If you, in your diplomatic capacity, came across news of an impending attack on Israel, what would you do? Answering those questions may clarify where you're coming from.
  • Solkhar
    ".....daily stories of bombings, shootings, beheadings, and other murders that are "j"had" related every day..."

    So your giving examples of political radicalism under the name small "j" jihadists. What has that to do with Qur'anic principles? Do we call the "God fearing KKK" representing Christianity?

    As for if I know about an impending attack, I report it. On Israel or anywhere. I am now a director/owner of a companyn that tracks details and other data on the financial movements of questionable companies, funds and other processes that support terrorism. I and other companies have together stopped literally hundreds of millions of Euros of funds to organisations like hezbollah, hamas and now my principle target - Al Qaida in the Maghreb. I do my bit and I am proud of it.

    Now getting back to the topic, you can bag and condemn terrorism, radicalism and point out all these horrible events and I wil join you willingly and even show you how much worse it is and can get. You can talk about radical Muslims all you like and I will join that as well. You can talk about repressive politics and small "j" jihadists and again I will join you. But, I point out that if you say it as "Islam is or Islam does" or generalise that "Muslims are or Muslims do ....." I will object and point out those phrases are wrong.

    History, according to quality academics all around the world has studied and filtered out the BS from political and radical Muslims or the alterations from good or bad meaning colonial past historians. We know from a multitude of historical refernces that there were only two periods of officially sanctioned Jihads that the various Schools of Jurispudence supported. Those during the time of Mohammed, in defence of attacks by Pagans and other tribes whom did not want the new Islam to form and change their way of life and then a series of sanctioned Jihads in response to the Holy Crusades that started with Pope Urban II whom declared the first one. That Crusade was in response to Arab political, cultural and military expansion against Byzantium and Jerusalem but Pope Urban II made that decision to turn it into a religious crasade and thus the Muslim world in turn did so as well, thus the Jihad. This is not a fabrication of history, it is recorded and I will not site references, as I encourage each and every person to go look it up themselves. Not from blogs, websites or popularist books but from encyclopedieas and real academic books.

    History takes no sides.
  • SirWilhelm
    Al Qeada, the Taliban, Hizbollah, Hamas, and many other smaller groups commit terrorist acts and proudly claim them in the name of Jihad. They claim, as you do, that they are defensive acts against oppressors, but they still say it is Jihad. Their words, not ours. The KKK claims they are Christian, not all Christians belong to the KKK, but most of those that don't, condemn them. I don't hear Muslims condeming those terrorist groups, in fact, they all too often defend them. And I still maintain that Islam is the problem, because I believe there are problems with all religions, which is why I belong to none, but Islam has the worst problems because of it's underlying tenants and philosphies which lead to terrorism, and the passive condoning of it by the vast majority of Muslims. I believe there is no need for religion, that everyone can worship God in their own way, directly, personally, another reason why I obect to Islam's principle of slavery to Allah, there is no need for it. I don't believe a truly spiritual being wants his creations to be slaves in any way shape or form, it contradicts free will, which I believe life is all about.

    If you're telling the truth about what you do, I commend it, but because you admit you are a Muslim, I must allow for taqqiya.

    "History is written by the victors." Winston Churchill



blog comments powered by Disqus