Skip to main content

Examining a dormant dimension of Islamic Thought


Tariq Ramadan is a controversial intellectual. Controversial because he believes that Western Muslims can successfully reconcile their faith with European ideals and identity. In essence, Ramadan believes in reconciliation and inclusion and that is why he is controversial.

He provokes ire and disgust from the European right because he has worked to counter the myth of Islamic exceptionalism. Ramadan, throughout his works, has always tried to ground concepts such as democracy, human rights and liberty into a new language of Islamic ethics and Islamic law.

This latest book from Ramadan, The Quest for Meaning: Developing a philosophy of pluralism, takes a different approach. No longer is Ramadan concerned with Islamic law or religious dogma so to speak, but turns his attention to the treacherous idea of pluralism. Discussions of pluralism in contemporary Islamic thought are present in the works of late Dr Fathi Osman or the American-Arab intellectual, Taha Jabir al-Alwani, so in this sense this new book isn’t anything new. But it is remarkable in its emphasis on mysticism and moral psychology.

There has been a certain expectation of Muslim intellectuals to confront thorny and difficult issues such as secularism, gender equality and religious discrimination, but Ramadan will not have any of that. He says he has already tackled these issues in other works and has made it clear that his conclusions are part of the reformist liberal tradition of religious thinking.

Indeed, Ramadan wrote recently that, “a (so-called) ‘Muslim thinker’ should write only about very specific subjects, and if he fails to do so his intentions are necessarily suspect. He is expected to write about secularism, the Islamic penal code, Muslim women’s rights, the headscarf or burqa, equality.’’

Given the harsh reception The Quest for Meaning had in Europe and the US, it is critical to talk about the expectations readers should have. The Quest for Meaning is not philosophical treatise or a political manifesto for reviving multiculturalism. Nor is it necessarily a mystical antidote to Hungtington’s clash of civilisation. Rather, it should be read as a mystical treatise and it is for this reason it is a fascinating read. It highlights a dimension of Islamic thinking that has been long dormant and considered too removed and abstract.

Mystical thinking within Islam has been shunted to one side due to incredible legal and political pressures, hence our fixation with concepts about democracy and human rights. Granted these concepts are crucial but should they be the reason to condemn mysticism to irrelevance?

The powerful message of The Quest for Meaning is intellectual modesty and humility. It is a meditative book, with liberal sprinklings of poetic reflection and philosophical reasoning. It is not a book of strictly analytical philosophy but an attempt to construct a new framework of Islamic mysticism. The dichotomies between the secular and the sacred are dissolved, and the quest for meaning is imagined as a quest for peace and serenity. The scope of the book is incredible with reflections on Western philosophers such as Schopenhauer, Buddhist sayings, Hindu mantras and Islamic philosophy.

The book achieves the aim it sets itself, that is, being a tapestry for pluralism. Keeping in line with this spirit of pluralism, Ramadan challenges the notion of tolerance as elaborated by the Enlightenment philosophers. The Latin root of the word “tolerate’’ means “to suffer,’’ but Ramadan argues that in a globalised world this apathetic and reluctant acceptance of the other, which more often than not leaves a vacuous field for fundamentalists to rush into, is dated. We need to go beyond tolerance, as Ramadan writes, “When it comes to relations between free and equal human beings, autonomous and independent nations, or civilisations, religions and cultures, appeals for the tolerance of others are no longer relevant.’’ Pluralism and tolerance are hence different concepts. There has been a marked shift towards accepting pluralism in Islamic thinking, for instance in the works of Abdolkarim Soroush, Seyyed Nasr Hossein and Abdulaziz Sachedina.

The most startling aspect of this book is that it doesn’t delve into politics. There is nothing in it about multiculturalism, gender equality or the separation of the mosque and the state. It is a book that calls for personal transformation, and that is what is so refreshing about it. Before we can speak about tolerance and pluralism on a political level we must try and integrate it into our conscience. We must adopt a philosophy of pluralism, so to speak, that guides our life. Indeed the Quran itself talks about this clearly, “Had God so willed, he would have made you one single community,” (5.48). This rhetorical statement seems to suggest that diversity is sanctioned by God, and that the idea of utopia is a purely dangerous and anti-religious idea. The famous Islamic saying, “There are as many paths to God as children of Adam’’ also springs to mind.

But there are problems — and even Ramadan’s transcendental mysticism, with its description of cultural accidentalism, elucidating how we as individuals are shaped by long majestic traditions and various cultural influences — cannot avoid that most perilous paradox of pluralism: if all paths lead to the heart, as Ramadan suggests, then why choose one over the other?

Much like the philosopher John Hick, there is always a tension in Ramadan’s work. If the other great religions of the world have so much to offer, and are equally virtuous in their ethical principles and equally breath-taking in their cultural production, then why choose one over the other? What is the point of holding onto just one faith? Then there is the question of faith and reason which is not given enough time or space in the book.

It seems that Ramadan has laid down the foundations of his vision of pluralism. He now has to fill in the gaps and flesh out his ideas on some of the more contentious issues. Failure to do so will mean the good work done in this book will be tragically superficial and brief. The next works should try and reconcile the tensions within the idea of pluralism and discuss in much greater depth and detail the dilemma of faith and reason. The great conundrum facing all theologians since the scientific revolution still haunts the pages of Ramadan’s work. The Quest for Meaning indeed is, as Ramadan writes, “a journey and an initiation’’. Mysticism is not enough to defuse the tensions and anxieties facing us in the modern world.

The question is, will Ramadan continue this journey beyond mere mysticism and tackle more decisively the political, metaphysical and epistemological ramifications of his radical vision? The philosophy of pluralism requires expansion to stay relevant.

Examining a dormant dimension of Islamic thought Reviewed By Ahmad Ali Khalid
Tariq Ramadan.–Book & Authors, The Quest for Meaning: Developing a philosophy of pluralism, (RELIGION), By Tariq Ramadan , Penguin Books, UK, ISBN 9781846141
Related Links:

When he got an invitation in 1932 to deliver six lectures from Madras he penned down histhoughts which were published in book form under the title The Reconstruction of ReligiousThought in Islam published from Lahore where he lived. ...
Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam إعادة بناء الفكر الديني في الإسلام. Ijtihad and Modernity in Islam Dr. Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri. False contest between ijtihad and taqleed. Iqbal-and-reconstruction-of-religious thought in ..

Popular posts from this blog

A historic moment in the Arab world

لحظة تاريخية في العالم العربي
As a democratic revolution led by tech-empowered young people sweeps the Arab world, Wadah Khanfar, Al Jazeera's director-general, shares a profoundly optimistic view of what's happening in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and beyond. In the first talk posted online from the TED 2011 conference in California, Khanfar describes the powerful moment when people realised they could step out of their homes and ask for change. "كما ثورة ديمقراطية بقيادة الشباب التكنولوجيا ذات صلاحيات تجتاح العالم العربي ، وضاح خنفر ، الجزيرة المدير العام والأسهم وجهة نظر متفائلة بشكل كبير ما يحدث في مصر وتونس وليبيا وخارجها. وفي اول حديث له نشر على الانترنت من مؤتمر تيد 2011 في ولاية كاليفورنيا ، خنفر يصف لحظة قوية عند الناس أدركت أنها لا يمكن الخروج من منازلهم ونطلب من أجل التغيير." This talk was given on March 1, 2011 in Long Beach, California. TED 2011 is taking place between March 1 and Mar…

Our Captured, Wounded Hearts: Arundhati Roy On Balakot, Kashmir And India

With his reckless “pre-emptive” airstrike on Balakot in Pakistan, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has inadvertently undone what previous Indian governments almost miraculously, succeeded in doing for decades. Since 1947 the Indian Government has bristled at any suggestion that the conflict in Kashmir could be resolved by international arbitration, insisting that it is an “internal matter.” By goading Pakistan into a counter-strike, and so making India and Pakistan the only two nuclear powers in history to have bombed each other, Modi has internationalised the Kashmir dispute. He has demonstrated to the world that Kashmir is potentially the most dangerous place on earth, the flash-point for nuclear war. Every person, country, and organisation that worries about the prospect of nuclear war has the right to intervene and do everything in its power to prevent it.  Keep reading  >>>>

India has built around itself an aura of a global power whose time has come. For at least the last t…

Kashmir Jihad - Analysis & Options


Kashmir is an incomplete agenda of partition of India. Since 1947, India and Pakistan have fought three wars on this issue. According to UN resolutions, Kashmiris have to decide their accession to Pakistan or India through impartial plebiscite, which could not take place due to Indian reluctance. Recently, India revoked Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special autonomous status to Kashmir, it was done to unilaterally integrate occupied Kashmir. This is a violation of the UN resolutions and the Simla bilateral agreement, which demands to maintain status quo until the final settlement. The US and world powers are emphasizing that Kashmir should be resolved bilaterally, though India has refused to hold talks with Pakistan. In the present scenario, while India has turned Kashmir into the largest prison of 9 million people, denying basic human rights and oppressing the Kashmiris' who want freedom from India, Pakistan cannot watch as a silent spec…