(UNDATED) As an academic, author and self-described “reformist Muslim,” Tariq Ramadan has angered a range of audiences, including Islamic fundamentalists, Israel supporters, nationalists, atheists and feminists.

His support of Palestinian charities that were later accused of funding terrorism prompted the U.S. to ban him in 2004 — a ruling he is appealing, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union — while his criticisms of dictatorships and Sharia law have also led to bans from Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Tunisia.

After decades of refuting the arguments of all his opponents, Ramadan, 47, has written a 160-page manifesto of his beliefs. The Swiss citizen and Oxford University professor talked about the book, “What I Believe,” which is scheduled for release in the U.S. and Europe in October.

Some answers have been edited for length and clarity.

Q: What prompted you to write this book?

A: People think Tariq Ramadan is a controversial scholar. The controversy is not going to stop, but at least this can clarify my positions. I believe in a shared responsibility to get to a better future in Western society for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It’s telling Muslims to stop the victim mentality, to stop the minority mindset, and to feel really American, really Canadian, really Australian, really European.

Q: You’re a Swiss citizen, ethnically Egyptian, and a devout Muslim. Where do your loyalties ultimately lie?

A: I always say that this is the wrong question, a silly question. We have multiple identities and the priority depends on the context. When I’m going to vote, I’m first a Swiss, because this is my nationality. If you’re asking me at my death who I am, I’m a Muslim. If you’re asking me about my tastes, I will be first a European, because this is my culture.

Q: If you believe that Muslims can integrate their religious beliefs with Western cultural values, how do you explain the radicalization of Muslims who had seemed culturally assimilated, such as the London suicide bombers in 2005?

A: There are different levels of integration. These British Muslims had jobs and they were living in the society, but what was missing was the sense of belonging. They were always speaking about “us vs. them,” they were not feeling British.

Q: You call yourself a “reformist Muslim.” What does this mean?

A: It’s the ability to marry the fundamentals of my religion with the contemporary world. I’m different from the literalists, who think the way they read the texts without taking into account the changing environment. But there is no faithfulness without evolution. If you’re not evolving in your thoughts, you may be betraying the texts that you are representing. You can remain consistent with the principles, but find a new model for today.

Q: How does your view on the role of women differ from traditional Muslim beliefs?

A: There are two main problems in the Islamic tradition. One, people project the patriarchal culture of Arab and Asian societies onto the text, which is distorted. Secondly, we have people with a literal way of reading the text, without having the whole context. We have to liberate ourselves from these interpretations.

Q: In these beliefs and in your condemnation of domestic violence, you distinguish yourself from fundamentalists, yet you’ve been reluctant to denounce stoning of adulterers. Can you clarify your position?

A: My position has been misunderstood. While it’s quite clear to me this is not acceptable in Islam, I’m saying that we have to examine what the texts say, their conditions for implementation and their context. I have called for a moratorium on corporal punishments — both stoning and the death penalty — so we could start having a discussion. If you want to be heard by Muslims, you should take the texts seriously; you cannot just condemn the texts.

Q: In the chapter about your critics, you mainly focus on non-Muslims, including “very dogmatic secularists” and “some homosexual groups.” Is that fair, given that some fellow Muslims are the ones supporting terrorism?

A: This book is about Muslims in the West, so I highlighted more of the opponents in the West. In France, you have powerful fundamentalist secularists; in the Netherlands, you have some homosexual groups that are upset that I say that homosexuality is prohibited in my religion; in the States, the strongest opposition is from people who are not happy with my criticisms about U.S. policies toward Israel.

When you are trying to build bridges, you’re not going to please everyone. I have many opponents, and I decided from the very beginning to speak my mind. But, what’s more important than that, I have friends on each side, too.