A stunning development: Tariq Ramadan, the controversial European Muslim, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, moderate or pseudo-moderate depending on who was doing the explaining, was slated to teach at the University of Notre Dame this fall. But his visa has been revoked by the Department of Homeland Security. From the Chicago Tribune, with thanks to LGF:
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has revoked a visa granted to Tariq Ramadan, a renowned Islamic scholar who is accused by some Jewish groups of being a Muslim extremist, effectively barring him from a teaching post he was to begin this week at the University of Notre Dame.Ramadan, a rising academic star in Europe who is regarded by Islamic scholars and experts as a Muslim moderate, was appointed to teach Islamic philosophy and ethics in South Bend through the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. University classes begin Tuesday.
A resident of Switzerland, Ramadan was given a visa in February that permitted him to work in the United States, according to government officials. That decision was reversed July 28.
Notre Dame officials said the university was working with the U.S. government and hoped to have the decision reversed. In a statement issued to the Tribune, the university said no reason was given for the visa revocation.
"Professor Ramadan is a distinguished scholar and a voice for moderation in the Muslim world," the university said. "We know of no reason his entry should be prevented."
Kelly Shannon, a spokeswoman for the State Department's consular affairs section, said Monday that Ramadan initially received a visa after being cleared by Homeland Security. But Homeland Security later reversed its decision, ordering the State Department to revoke the visa.
According to Shannon, Ramadan's visa was revoked under a section of the U.S. immigration law dramatically changed by the USA Patriot Act, the controversial legislation approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In addition to allowing the U.S. to revoke a visa from an alleged member of a terrorist organization, the new section authorizes visa revocation because of someone's political activities if those efforts are seen as endorsing terrorism. Visas also can be revoked because of membership in social groups or other organizations that have offered a "public endorsement of acts of terrorist activity" that could undermine U.S. "efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activities."
Shannon did not say which specific piece of the law was applied in Ramadan's case.
Contacted by phone, Ramadan declined to comment Monday.
It is Ramadan's pedigree, rather than his writings, that has particularly exposed him to criticism. His grandfather is Hassan al-Banna, who in 1928 founded the Muslim Brotherhood, a conservative religious and political organization that has influenced Islamic groups and movements across the world. Founded as a radical group that sought the violent overthrow of the secular Egyptian government, it has since renounced violence as a means for political change.
Notre Dame officials felt Ramadan's perspective would be valuable to the conversation in the U.S. about Islam. Departing from traditional Islamic thinking, Ramadan has written that there are multiple interpretations of the Koran and that Muslims should engage in ijtihad, a perpetual process of interpreting the holy texts of Islam so that the faith evolves and is compatible with modern times.
Barring intellectuals such as Ramadan from the United States undermines the U.S. government's efforts to fight terrorism, said John Esposito, a Georgetown University professor and author of "Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam."
"At the heart of it, people refuse to distinguish moderate Muslims from extremists," said Esposito, who describes Ramadan as "an established academic . . . with a strong record."
"They want to say all Muslims are a monolithic threat, which means they are excluding the very audience President Bush and his administration should be reaching out to--the moderates," said Esposito, a leading expert on Islam.
This is just silly. I don't refuse to distinguish moderate Muslims from extremists. I just don't want to accept any self-proclaimed moderate without making sure he is not an extremist practicing religious deception, or taqiyya. Apparently the jury is still out on Professor Ramadan.
Excellent news. Good one John Ashcroft.
bravo!
this is good news for a change.
any thing to delay the advance of islam in the west
is great.
Why would "barring intellectuals such as Ramadan from the United States" undermine "U.S. government's efforts to fight terrorism"?
If folks like Ramadan (and his friends, I suppose, 'the moderates') are truly against 'terrorism', then why would denying a visa and a teaching stint in Indiana...pretty cold in winter...undermine 'efforts to fight terrorism'? Are they going to switch sides because they can't get a visa? Will they get so pissed off because they do not have a stamp in their passport that they will not tell us when they know of a pending attack that will kill innocent people?
If I were denied a visa to teach in, say, Austrailia, (love the beaches) because my dad was an 'Aussie hater', I would not look the other way if I knew about people who wanted to kill Austrailians. I would not work with the 'Aussie haters' or anything of the sort. And if the Aussies asked for my help, I would give it. So what...I didn't get a visa.
The reasons why Ramadan was denied the visa should be compelling to any rational person who wants to defend innocent life against Jihad: his loyalites are in question. Real loyalties. Loyalties which involve innocent lives, our children, our society. The stakes are too high: given his background and public assertions, the presumption should be against him, and, if he is with us, he should understand that.
Esposito (besides the fallacious, rhetorical generalizations) acts, once again, in an irresponsible manner that, in my opinion, endangers innocent life.
More on this at www.nationalsecurityblog.com
One question, this Tariq Ramadan is the same that in a debate with Nicolas Sarkozy in France ?, he didn´t want to condemn the lapidation, is this man, because if it´s the same, I don´t know what are saying Notre Dame University or John Exposito, I don´t understand, greetings
"Professor Ramadan is a distinguished scholar and a voice for moderation" says someone on behalf of the University of Notre Dame. That someone is a fool. Professor Ramadan is not a "distinguished scholar" -- rather, like the bluestocking in Boswell's Johnson, one is so surprised that he even attempts to engage in something like Western philosophy, even if at a primitive level (why not ask those with Western standards of scholarship, not cheerleaders for Islam, or people in the interfaith racket, what they think of Tariq Ramadan's "scholarship" which in philosophy is about on the level of that of Rashid Khalidi in history -- i.e. nonexistent.
As for being a voice of "moderation," leaving aside his sinister antisemitism, his accusations that French Jews with whom he disagreed on Israel were incapable, because they were Jews, of expressing the universalist sentiments -- you know, like the desire of Ramadan to spread Islam until it covers the globe, and the destiny of every one of us, whether as Believer or as dhimmi.
Ramadan does not disagree one whit with the ultimate goals of Bin Laden or Al-Qaradawi or the Ayatollah Khomeini. He thinks that Islam should cover the globe, and he works diligently toward that end. He consistently fails to convey anything of the central tenets of Islam, preferring to talk about the emptiness of Western man's existence (now that's an original theme, isn't it?), and how we are all here, just waiting for Da'wa, the Call to Islam. If he tells his enthusiastic followers that the way to impose Shari'a is by simmering down, not throwing too many bombs, and accomplishing the same end as the bomb-throwers through other, less violent means -- does that entitle him to the Homeric epithet "moderate"? We are not all idiots. We do think there are certain minimal criteria that have to be met before this weasel-word "moderate" is affixed, like "rosy-fingered" to dawn, "grey-eyed" to Athena, and "wily" to Odysseus.
If the unwise persist in their folly, and try to get the American govenment to reverse its intelligent decision, then this should lead to a close inspection of the teachings, the doctrines, the sly taqiyya, of Tariq Ramadan -- and the brainless support of those who, like Scott Appleby, have not bothered to investigate Islam thoroughl, nor Ramadan himself, but simply assume that they know quite enough. And they expect us all to believe them. But Ramadan represents a threat to all of us, and if it makes Scott Appleby and the Kroc Institute unhappy that the rest of us wish some minimal degree of prevention of propagandists (and Ramadan is that, a propagandist for the world-wide spread of a belief-system that is quite clear on the future position of any remaining non-Muslims -- does anyone at Notre Dame wish to deny that is his entire intention, and that he has hardly hidden it -- or do they not know of his record in Europe).
Of course Ramadan wants to conduct Da'wa in the Western world. He can't stand to live in the world of Islam (he tried it, and soon returned to Europe). So for him the shtick is clear: I want to live in Europe, I am really a European man, but on the other hand the only claim on the world's attention that I have is that I am a "Muslim intellectual" (whatever that is) and that I can be brought in as a representative and hopeful example of this for those who like this sort of thing.
Well, the preeners who thought this was a good idea, no matter how this affected the wellbeing and safety of their fellow non-Muslim citizens, will have to think again. And the striking of predictable poses about "freedom of speech" and so on, when what one is dealing with is someone who has far more in common with Goebbels than he does with Bertrand Russell, will fool few.
No American institution has the right to endanger the rest of us because of the bright ideas of some of its shallowest bureaucrats, reveling in the sums of money left them by someone who really ought to have left it all to the Salvation Army. Note to the distinctly well-off: kindly investigate thoroughly what these "institutes for peace and understanding" ALWAYS end up being, and please do not make provision for them in your will. The Salvation Army is good. The Isareli Technion is good. Meals on Wheels are good. But those "peace centers" -- they mean trouble, real trouble, and are ordinarily staffed by people who seem incapable of distinguishing between an imperfect, somewhat silly Western society, and a sinister belief-system that in its major doctrines and attitudes is reminiscent of fascism. .
Guys, please sign this online petition against sharia courts in Canada. I hope Mr. Spencer can make a separate thread about it:
http://www.petitiononline.com/pasc1361/petition.html
Look at what CAIR has to say:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=35122
Tariq Ramadan has to teach his brand of "moderate" Islam to other muslims, not Americans.
Signed! And good to see so Many names and comments on that petition.
OK, well, I know I'm wading into some infested waters here, but a few corrections are in order:
1. Ramadan did debate Sarkozy, but was clear in stating that his opinion is that lapidation is never justified. In his own words, which you can find at his website at www.tariq-ramadan.net:
j'ai dit et écrit que, selon, moi, « la lapidation n'est jamais applicable » et j'ai condamné avec détermination toutes les pratiques (notamment saoudiennes et nigérianes), en ce qui concerne la peine de mort et les châtiments corporels.
[quick translation: I said and wrote that, in my opinion, "lapidation is never applicable" and I have condemned with determination all practices (notably Saudi and Nigerian) concerning the death penalty and corporal punishment.]
2. I'm not sure what the definition of "distinguished scholar" would have to be for Ramadan not to qualify -- I suppose his numerous books, lectures and teaching posts (University of Geneva and University of Freiburg...) don't count because they pertain to Islam? OK, your rules, so let's focus solely on his Western training -- a doctoral thesis on Nietzche is "engaging at a primitive level"? Come on, at least know something about the guy you're vilifying!
3. Tariq Ramadan does teach his brand of moderate Islam to other Muslims. But, uh, news flash: lots (and lots) of Americans are Muslims, too.
Anyhoo, if anyone with an open mind is reading this and wants to decide for themselves what Tariq Ramadan is really about, here are a few links:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-5-57-2006.jsp
http://www.time.com/time/innovators/spirituality/profile_ramadan.html
http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2002/02/15/ramadan/index_np.html
OK, sorry for the intrusion. And now back to your regularly scheduled programming...
Thank you for posting taradasha. Robert and Hugh can surely post with more authority on Ramadan. I have not read much by Ramadan actually, but I check on Hugh's references frequently, and I can assure you, he has not missed one yet, to my knowledge. He is worth reading very carefully.
It is difficult to respond in academic voice here, because I do not want to reveal my training nor the specifics of my knowledge. I never do that in this forum; I do not talk about anything I know too much about, because I do not want anyone to be able to guess who I might be. I am not ashamed, far from it. But the 'literalists', who 'dialogue', 'disagree with' and 'critique' Ramadan, if they knew my identity, might want to kill me; it is that simple. I value my life.
So, without offering a refutation of Ramadan on anything let's play the following game. I will post something he says. And you, or anybody else, convince me that it is not complete nonsense. That's all.
And do not worry. If you or one of your colleagues happens to show that he or she knows something about Islam or western philosophy or you slip and let loose a comment that is 'special to you'...if someone guesses your identity, you will not be in danger. You defend a friend of Islam. You are safe.
But I am not...
Here is the text. So, convince me this is not nonsense.
SOURCE: INTERVIEW WITH OPEN DEMOCRACY
"openDemocracy: But doesn’t this [see interview...you should be able to make sense of Ramadan quite apart from what comes before this, if he makes any sense at all] evade some of the most controversial legal and moral questions where Islam as a political system, including the sharia, conflicts with western values?
Tariq Ramadan: What is “Islam as a political system”? All the concepts I use have a very specific definition. Sharia, by my definition, is not law. We must think about the law when trying to be faithful to a specific goal; but sharia is something extracted by human rationality in order to pave the way towards faithfulness. Here I reject the notion of al-fiqh (the body of law) coming first. It is not first for me.
One interpretation of our laws asserts that during a famine it is not possible to apply the punishment of cutting off of hands. Some Muslims see in this a proof that laws can adapt or improve. My point is different: that this ruling was saying that in the name of our goals, the literal understanding of this rule was wrong. This is a system of values, and not a “political system”.
Within this whole system, I differentiate between principles and models. For example, from the Greek concept of democracy we take at least four principles: state of law; equal citizenship; universal suffrage and accountability – the main universal principles in the western model of democracy. These four principles can also be extracted from Islam, merging at that point with the universality of this system.
I want to sustain these four principles, but to elaborate specific models in the Islamic world that respect them. Every society should respect its culture, its memory and its collective psychology. A specific model that embodies established, respected principles is the aim.
This is what I say to the literalists (such as the Hizb ut–Tahrir): “what is this political system you talk about?” We have to respect some universal principles, but there is no Islamic state. To imitate what was done in 7th century Medina is not only a dream. It is a lie. You cannot do that now."
I maintain this whole passage is nothing but absolute nonsense.
I cannot resist:
For instance, what does it mean to say "Sharia is something extracted by human rationality in order to pave the way towards faithfulness"?
This is nonsense. Somebody read a little Kant, maybe Kierkegaard, maybe a little Aquinas, and wants to say something like, "Sharia is good stuff (i.e. abstracted by human rationality), but don't take it too literally", in nice acceptable quasi-German philosophical prose...and presto...out comes this sentence.
But what part of Sharia is good, if we should not take it literally? And who 'rationally abstracted' Sharia to help us along to faithfullness? The 'Prophet'? Can we do this on our own? If we can, then what do we need the Koran for? Can we abstract things that are inconsistent with literal Sharia? But we do not even know what Sharia is, so how would we know?
But Ramadan thinks consistency is essential. Well, if we must be consistent in our beliefs, consistent with what?
The passage is such nonsense, I must confess, I actually feel like I just wasted my time dealing with it, written by someone who is making things up in an attempt to project his 'belief-system', Islam, as something I should not be suspicious of...maybe someone who has read some Western philosophy but not the Koran will follow along happily...what wonderful ideas...let the 'universalism' all be true. I suppose that is my problem. I read the Koran, and this is...well, bullshit.
"...sharia is something extracted by human rationality in order to pave the way towards faithfulness."
I think 'enforce' would be more accurate than 'pave the way.'
If the fundamental principles of democracy can be 'extracted' from Islam, why haven't there been any Islamic democracies? (Apart from Turkey, thanks to a radical anti-Islamist.) And if anyone can 'extract' universal suffrage from Islam, they are indeed a genius.
"We have to respect some universal principles, but there is no Islamic state."
This could mean anything, ie nation states are an infidel concept, and in a global caliphate there would be no need for them. On the whole though, the passage is unclear, which is fairly typical of a lot of postmodern academic writing - say as little as possible with as many words as possible, so that people have to hire you to explain what you originally said. The money's good, and it's a great ego-trip as well.
Universal suffrage is also not a Greek concept; it has nothing to do with Greek democracy, which has built into it elitist and sexist principles. Universal suffrage has its historical roots in Judaism and the idea that all human beings are created in the image of God, and hence, have moral worth, including 'nonJews'.
But I am an infidel. I not only reject the Koran. I claim that it is nothing but a work of socio-political brainwashing. I oppose the Koran and Islam, what it teaches, everything.
According to the Koran, Muslims are obligated to wage Jihad against me, silence me, destroy me; the idea that on any interpretation I would be in any way entitled to the rights and dignities of Muslims (because I think and say what I do) is absolute nonsense.
So, please defendants of Ramadan. Tell me. Do I have nothing to fear? Please come to my defense Ramadan. Convince the Jihadists that I have moral worth: how about simply the right to life?
Why in the world would a Catholic School like Notre Dame want anyone like this having any affiliation with them at all?
This doesn't make any sense. Could the Saudis be pumping some money into the University? Anyway, Mentat, I read what CAIR had to say, and I'm glad you linked it in for everyone to see.
Can anyone please tell me how this group is still in existence?
Oh Happy Day. Ramadan's visa has been rescinded. Let's throw a going away party.
Unhappily those with real knowledge and expertise on Islam, JTF, Hugh, Robert and many others must mask their identities on pain of death. This state of affairs is not only sad, but shocking, and speaks to the true nature of Islam, which is not the religion of peace as advertised, but is an ideology that denigrates, distorts, enslaves, and kills.
I am not an expert on Islam. I do not want to leave that impression.
But, perhaps one of the only redeeming values of studying Islam is that, if you read the Koran critically and carefully, you will discover with utter clarity after a short while, that the book absolutely ridiculous and touts a dangerous ideology.
I do not understand how so many do not see this. The Koran yells out "lunacy" from the get go. In the Penguin edition of the Koran the first sentence is the infamous, "do not doubt a word of what is written here" garbage...That is precisely what a Western education should teach students NOT to think.
So, if students receive a good education, and read the book critically, they should know after one sentence that the Koran is a bad book...and then it gets much worse from there, of course.
Come on folks. Let's give the Koran names it deserves: how about moral and intellectual rubbish?...and that is kind.
EXCELLENT NEWS. Tariq can howl over this during
RAMADAN!
TARADASHA
Have read your links. What I should like to ask is why Muslims expect everyone else to accomodate
THEM; they must have certain time off for prayers,washing rituals, dogs are unclean etc etc..?Western countries are used to Jews,Buddhists,Hindus and many more who do NOT make outrageous demands on our purses or patience.
I would certainly never employ a Muslim for those
reasons : they are simply too much trouble. Muslim
women insist on going about in tents and hijabs ; their 'modesty' must not be outraged blah, blah.
Your leaders are always thundering at Western Decadence yet insist on living in the West. Altogether , you present a hostile minority who have neither the wish or intention of integrating into Western society. To put it neatly in a nutshell, we are sick of your demands to live in the seventh century in the Muslim mindset.
I am pretty surprised (and I guess a little shocked) by what most you guys are saying. What you are doing and saying is of no use to the cause you claim to espouse and probably of great harm to the ongoing struggle to sustain enlightenment.
In his FAQs Robert Spencer, quite rightly, says that 'what we must do above all is remain true to our principles of freedom and equality of rights and dignity for all. These ideas and related ones are what set us apart from global jihadists. If we discard them in order to fight the jihadists, we risk erasing the distinction between the two camps'.
Yet above I read JTF say that 'given his background and public assertions, the presumption should be against him'.
Excuse me? That attitude puts us back some time before Magna Carta, almost as far back as the most ludicrously fundamentalist Muslim.
None of you has posted any evidence that Ramadan is a threat. You quote something from an interview in order to mock it. It is a verbatim transcript of what he said - verbatim transcripts of anyone saying anything in conversation are always too wordy and never as polished as written prose.
So, the guy (not speaking in his first or even second language) doesn't sound like a journalist from the Wall Street Times? Is this reason to ban him and to reject our precious value of free speech, thought and discussion?
So, you think he isn't really smart? Is this reason to ban him and to reject our precious value of free speech, thought and discussion?
Are these the values the USA was founded on?
Now, I am an atheist. As such I deeply disagree with all religions and all religious philosophies including that of Ramadan. In fact I would agree with JTF that the Koran is 'absolutely ridiculous and touts a dangerous ideology'. The same is true of both the New and Old Testaments (which are, of course, also part of Islam). I do not think that you can extract democracy from the Bible and JTF is simply mistaken to think that universal suffrage has no roots at all in Greek democracy. But these points are not fully relevant. What IS relevant is that the establishment of scientific reason and democracy in Europe involved long, bitter and bloody battle with Christianity. Ultimately, Christianity in Europe, by and large, ceased to make claims about reason and about many secular matters. It retreated into a private and separate sphere of 'faith'. Religion and politics could then be formally separated (as they are in the Constitution).
Now, Ramadan is not trying to convince YOU that democracy is compatible with Islam. He is trying to convince other Muslims. He is trying to convince other European Muslims that they need not feel that their religious faith is compromised by their accepting, and living by, Western political values. That they can sustain their private faith while accepting Western systems of politics,
But people here are arguing that this cannot be done; that Muslims cannot forge a link between their religion and Western democracy.
And this is the painful irony of your position: your very opposition to fundamentalist Islam causes you to make the same arguments against someone like Ramadan as the fundamentalists do. Instead of encouraging and sustaining a reformist you join with your enemies in trying to stamp him out.
The spokesman for Notre Dame and John Esposito (who is a leading scholar of Middle East politics) are quite right to say that the US ought to engage with people like Ramadan and that rejecting him will only fuel radical islamists.
Think, just for a moment, of what things might look like to an ordinary, not very politically minded, person in the Middle East or Muslim in Europe: the US says that there are weapons in Iraq and invades. But there are no weapons. Maybe the charge was just an excuse to start a war wanted for other reasons. Then the US soldiers occupy the country and kill a lot more people. Some independent estimates give figures as high as 20000. The Americans arrest a lot of people. According to reputable international organisations and testimony in very mainstream newspapers many of these are innocent. While these people are in prison the American soldiers torture them, abuse them, anally rape them AND film and photograph the whole thing.
In response prominent politicians in the US say that such activities are just a bit of fun, letting off steam, no more than what happens at a frat party. So, you think, Americans believe that anal rape is just letting off steam. You remember some of the things you have seen in popular American films.
Then some politically devious radical tells you, 'look...I told you the Americans hate us and want to kill us and humiliate us. I told you they were wicked and decadent and look what they do and then say about it. I told you they wanted to wage a holy war against us and destroy us'.
Still you think that can't really be the whole truth. You have heard some people with a different view who say that the West and Islam need not be enemies and that the Koran can be interpreted differently. But then, one of the people who says this is not allowed to go to the US. He is banned from talking to people and from sharing ideas about religion and politics. Americans all say that he is a terrorist and that anyone who is a Muslim is a mad killer. You start to think that maybe that radical guy was right.
You can, as I do, disagree with the interpretation of events that my hypothetical ordinary person is exposed to. But you can also see that this is a plausible way for many people in the Middle East and Muslims elsewhere to think.
If you have as closed a mind as the fundamentalist, if you refuse to encourage reformers because you want to prejudge, as JTF does 'because of their background', if you challenge Islam not with our values but with theirs then you will only give them support and succour.
I share with you a concern about the spread of fundamentalist religions (Islam and Christian but also others). But what you are saying and thinking here is a part of the problem and not a solution.
James
I find Taradasha and James' posts fascinating. Very seldomly do Muslims post here with the intention of having a serious debate (because they know that they would get creamed just on the bare facts of Islam alone). However, when the Anti-Islamists win a battle, then they come here and make their drive by posts (with no intention, apparently, of ever coming back to debate the responses to their posts). Obviously, when we win a battle, it really, really, really gets to them.
James' claim that he is an atheist, blah, blah, blah. Well, I am sorry James, you don't sound like an atheist to me. I am an orthodox atheist (my faith that there is no God, absolutely nothing supernatural, is very strong). I personally think James is a Muslim posing as an atheist. Why? If he is an atheist, he is a very ignorant one (and most atheists are hardly ever very ignorant as we have usually examined practically every religious option in depth on the planet before arriving at our "faith"). The reason I say he is a very ignorant one is because he says: "The same is true of both the New and Old Testaments (which are, of course, also part of Islam)." Every one who has even a cursory knowledge of Islam knows that Islam totally rejects the New and Old Testaments as having been corrupted by men since their revelation. In fact, it is a usual Muslim propaganda ploy to tell credulous Christians and Jews that they accept their testaments.
As far as the free speech arguments go, free speech has limits. We have a right to protect ourselves from people that we consider dangerous. Again, this is a classic Muslim ploy to appeal to our own Western values to use them against us. Look, James, go make your arguments to the majority Muslim countries. When there is free speech in any of those countries, come back and talk to me. In the mean time, if any Western country feels it is necessary to curtail the freedom of speech of any particular Islamo-fascist (no matter how sophisticated and ever so courant), then I feel no shame. I say, Hurrah!
Sometimes it is necessary to curtail freedoms in order to protect them from those who would seek to take them away.
First, diverse folks post on this site. I am not affiliated with Jihad Watch, Spencer or Hugh. Lumping our views together is hasty generalization and just plain lazy reading.
Second, how does a presumption 'against someone' from getting a visa to enter this country and teach, i.e. a burden of proof that the person does not cooperate with, help, support, or possess affiliations with those that would murder innocent people, take us back to before the Magna Carta? Rejecting the sense of such a presumption seems to take us beyond magna ignorationem. So, we do not have to prove Ramadan is a threat. He has to prove that he is not a threat. So, let him prove it. And given the Islamic practice of taqyyia, let the burden be set high.
Third, Ramadan has not been banned from speaking to people or discussing (let him do a conference call, it will be standing room only), his life is not threatened, his career is not threatened. In fact the hype will surely make him a Euro-darling...help sell those books. He was probably done a financial favor. He just didn't get a visa. Poor guy. And that makes 'us' like Islamic Jihadists? Great. You know, right now let me give you my real name so I will be denied my next visa to Saudi Arabia...and I don't have to worry about anything. No threats, hey, there is always e-mail; and it will also be good for my career in Muslim lands. Sell those books. Yep. I will come out ahead on the deal. Your argument is really tempting James...I am about to reveal my identity...yea...Oh, I caught myself. No, I don't think I will assume Jihdists are like me.
Fourth, is Ramadan a true reformer or does he want to advance Islamic ideals (supersession, Sharia et alia) under some incoherent framework that is friendly to current modes of academic talk? (And remember 'condemnation' or 'denial', in appropriate circumstances, i.e. in defense of the faith, is not sufficient for nonbelief...please read the Koran and other sources. The prophet says so.) Until that question is answered to rational satisfaction, why does it make sense to 'engage him'? What does that mean anyway?
Fifth, if Islamic 'moderates' are swayed to violent Jihad by the convoluted dribble of dialogue presented above, then why is it irrational to suppose that they in fact already hold these views? And if that is not irrational, why in the world, again, should we 'engage' these folks?
Finally, I have written too much, but you do not know squat about Greek democracy. Find me one sentence in a work by any Greek philosopher or any speech or political text for that matter, that even remotely suggests 'universal suffrage', that all human beings have a right to vote, a voice in governance.
The idea does not exist in the Hebrew bible, but the idea that certain 'moral rights and privileges' extend to all, does; hence the roots for this notion exist in the Hebrew bible. That's the point.
Taradasha~ I am curious as to your thoughts on this petition (link above)? Have you signed it? Will you?
Some of you guys seem to make an awful lot of presumptions about people without any real evidence. Can you really say, hand on heart, that you read what people say and think about rationally without jumping to conclusions and making it fit into your pre-judged views? Mentat bizarrely presumes I am a Muslim. In fact s/he gives the impression that s/he thinks anyone who disagrees with her/him must be a Muslim. Mentat makes ridiculous ad hominem arguments which I will not stoop to refute because there are more important things at stake here (like liberty and reason and acting in ways that secure a safe future for us all).
Here is a principle that is fundamental to Western free societies: people should be held to be innocent until proven guilty. This is not a religious principle. Some religions believe that people are original sinners who have to prove their innocence first. It is a political principle that is foundational for free democratic states such as the US. JTH says the burden of proof should be on those accused. Surely, JTH, you understand why the United States constitution makes it necessary for the state to prove its case against people rather than make people prove their innocence? You cannot prove general innocence you can only prove innocence of a concrete charge.
Meanwhile, Mentat thinks I must be a Muslim because I said that the Bible is part of Islam and this is a lie which means I must be a Muslim using a propaganda ploy. That is fantastically meandering and paranoid reasoning. Yes, the Koran is understood by Muslims to supplant the prophecies and teachings of the Old and New Testaments. But they are still a part of Islam in the same sense that the Jewish Old Testament, which is explicitly rejected by Jesus in the New Testament, is clearly a part of Christianity.
Mentat also says that I should make free speech arguments to the Muslim countries. I agree. We all should. I think that America and Americans should in particular not least because so many oppressive states in the Middle East have been installed and/or supported by US governments (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Baathaist Iraq, Pahlavi Iran). But I don’t think that free speech in the US is conditional on free speech elsewhere as Mentat appears to. He/she says: ‘When there is free speech in any of those countries, come back and talk to me. In the mean time, if any Western country feels it is necessary to curtail the freedom of speech of any particular Islamo-fascist (no matter how sophisticated and ever so courant), then I feel no shame. I say, Hurrah!’.
I note that Mentat says ‘Hurrah’ to the curtailment of free speech.
Does Mentat know the constitution?
Is Mentat an American?
Perhaps Mentat is a covert islamo-fascist sent here to say ridiculous things and make us so mad and paranoid that we will go and attack yet more Middle Eastern Muslim countries and start up the apocalyptic conflagration that Al Quaeda (and Menat) so desperately want. AQ are doing pretty well so far, getting exactly what they wanted out of 9/11 and Mentat is fanning the flames.
JTH, you are a bit freaked about your ‘real name’. I don’t know why and did not mean to freak you out. I have not asked for your name and I do not seek it. I believe we can just meet here anonymously in cyberspace, free mind to free mind and have a discussion.
Right now that discussion concerns whether or not Ramadan is a ‘true reformer’. Well, don’t we have to listen to him to find out? And when we look at what he says he doesn’t sound like one of the Iranian imams. You seem to think he may just be dissembling but what evidence is there for that? I guess we could just presume that everyone is pretending to think things they don’t really think but that would be a weird paranoid way to go around. And we would never get around to proving our fears to anyone else. We’d have to argue with him first.
So, what evidence is there that Ramadan thinks something other than what he says? Can you provide any?
What is it in his work that you object to?
This is a serious question.
But all this is separate to my main point with which neither of you engage substantially (although JTH does a bit). Let me restate it.
There surely is a battle on, now as ever, between enlightenment and fundamentalisms: particularly Christian fundamentalism ranging from the kind that denies Darwinism to the kind that legitimates the murder of doctors and especially Islamic fundamentalisms ranging from the kind that also denies Darwinism to the kind that legitimates terrorism. The question for people of reason is how can we defeat these fundamentalisms. I think that first you have to understand why people are drawn to them. At least part of the explanation lies with the way in which demagogues and political operators exploit the fears of ordinary people (often people with little else going for them) and offer them a course of action they say will change their situation.
In the Middle East the radical reform movements of the 20th century, the secular ones that advocated modernisation and democratisation were defeated partly by religious conservatism and partly by direct and indirect US intervention. That gave a chance to new forms of Islamic radicalism that explained the failure of modernisation in terms of both American intervention and the alleged innate flaws of Western modernisation. Since this is clearly dangerous and wrong we need to challenge it.
How?
Do we think that sending in our soldiers to kill citizens of a country that was, in fact, one of the few secular states in the region, to blow up their religious buildings, to arrest and anally rape their menfolk, is really going to help demonstrate that we in the West are in fact a freedom loving and decent people who carry the best hope of the world?
Do we think that if we just shout a lot and declare that everyone who has any Muslim faith at all is a mad killer we will somehow change the way people in and around the Muslim world think and how they see us?
You guys think that Muslims are some kind of really really clever and sneaky conspiratorial types who always pretend to think one thing when really thinking another.
Well I think that WE should be like that.
We might think that Islam is an intrinsically dangerous religion but if we go around saying that then all we will do is feed the paranoid fears of that religion. What we ought to do is encourage, ‘engage’, with those who are developing different and new strands of Islam, moderate strands that might in time be forces for change (as opposed to, say, funding the Taliban as the Reagan administration did in the 1980’s).
Because only the moderates can transform their countries and their religions. We can’t do it for them but we can encourage them to and help them out.
Right now, for example, Iran is pretty much split three ways between the religious conservatives, the military nationalists and the democratic reformists. But instead of acting in ways that foster the democratic reformists President Bush rattles his nuclear sabre at them and links them with their arch enemies in Iraq and with the freakiest most weird country on the planet (North Korea). Understandably the average Iranian is more than a little worried by the threat of a US invasion – who wants to have their dad picked up by US soldiers who will film themselves anally raping him? Who wants to have bombs rain down on their house?
So what happens?
People get scared and the military nationalists and the religious conservatives get closer together in the name of protecting the country. They start saying ‘hey, this is no time to be weakening things by reforming the country’ and the democratic opposition gets weaker.
HOW DOES THAT HELP US DEFEAT RADICAL ISLAM?
James
Oh, and on the Ancient Greeks and democracy see Pericles.
James:
Now I am completely convinced. You are a Muslim.
My Modar has gone off the scale.
There are no extant writings from Pericles; there does exist a literay construction of a speech by Pericles from Thucydides, the funeral oration, but that has nothing to do with universal suffrage. Next...Jeez, you are more ignorant than I thought. Mentat was right.
And after that tirade, full of blooming red herrings, I regret writing as much as I did in response to you. What a waste of Cyber Space and time.
If you are interested in learning something from the Greeks, read up on the virtue of courage...
Well, I am sorry I came here. I was looking for people who shared my views on the need to defend the American values of tolerance and equality and freedom from threats of fundamentalism.
I came in strong, I admit, but you guys flamed me immediately and resorted to ad hominem attacks.
You have given no evidence that this Ramadan guy is any kind of threat and have cited none of his work that might indicate he has the views you ascribe to him.
I have asked and you have given none.
I have expressed my concern at the way the current policies of Western governments exacerbate the problem and fan the flames of radical islam. I have substantiated that concern and explained it twice.
JTF - you seem keen on classics. You will know then what Plato thought was the fate of every democracy and you will know why he thought it. I have never been a Platonist but I see, from this brief engagement with you both here, that he may well have been right.
James
In response you have called me a Muslim..
You have shouted the insult 'ignorant' because we appear to disagree as to the relative significance of the Athenian democracy to the emergence of modern democracy. I don't think there is a lot to dispute here but I am willing to listen if you want to argue otherwise.
But I am little angry as well as saddened. I do believe that this is a very historic moment in the evolution of human civilisations. Democracy now rises to the challenge or it crumbles in the face of tradition and dogma.
In response to that challenge you choose to forsake the tradition of Jefferson and Madison and Lincoln. You substitute for it the closed mind and a refusual to discuss and then you want to call it courage.
I know that my attempt to talk with and learn from you has failed.
I know that you will not adapt or adjust your thinking, not even refine it through offering fine refutations.
I know that you are more interested in being reassured by fear than trying to devise a reasonable and plausible way to convert those who imagine they can convert us.
And that fills my heart with sadness and foreboding.
There are all over this country highly intelligent people, with doctorates in philosophy, who cannot find jobs, or find jobs which hardly correspond to what they deserve. Tariq Ramadan is, as a teacher of philosophy, without value. Even such a poseur and knucklehead as Bernard Henri-Levy has managed to see through Ramadan (see his little essay, in October 2003, about Ramadan's incessant taqiyya, on-line in French). Numbers of publications, referred to by someone above, mean nothing. Ramadan's general culture, his understanding of the West, is thin indeed. Let me repeat: he urges his followers to temporarily modify, not their beliefs, but their actions in the West, as long as this is necessary. He never asks them to abandon the idea of Islam's subjugation of the world. Instead, he shows in every way that he yearns for, and is working in his own fashion, for such subjugation. And so he is.
The amusing thing about this fellow is that his main claim to fame is not the quality of his intellect (there is little there there, though when the competition is the leader of the Finsbury Mosque, Al-Qaradawi, and so on it isn't hard to shine by comparison), but that he is, relative to other Muslims doing the same thing, attractive looking (apparently) and has a native command of French. In other words, while he claims to deplore the decadence of the West, which is expressed perhaps best in its shallow choices as to whom to anoint as a public intellectual, Ramadan himself is a prime beneficiary of the phenomenon.
He wants to live in the West. He tried Egypt and could not bear it. He lacks the intelligence to see what is wrong with Islam -- Islam as an intellectual constraint, as a mind-throttling system that explains the lack of intellectual achievement, over a very long period and across a very wide space, of those who were given Islam's Total Guide to the Universe as both consolation and as hobble. So what would someone like Ramadan do in the West to justify his preferring it? Of course he would convince himself that benighted Westerners were just waiting for Islam to come along and save them. He appears to believe that he is the first to have noticed the decadence and stupidity of the West. Oh really? Any intelligent Westerner could provide a far more piercing criticism of that same West -- good god, I could do it right here myself if I were not bored with the whole silly thing -- than the likes of Tariq Ramadan could ever provide.
He is a propagandist and a taqiyya artist. As a "philosopher" he is nothing. If you want a real assault on the modern world, try Ortega y Gasset, try Berdyaev, try Jacques Ellul, try Wladimir Weidle, try any number of people. But please, spare us this ridiculous estimate of this Muslim equivalent of the crackerbarrel philosopher -- only without that crackerbarrel philosopher's rough-hewn folk wisdom, and with, instead, something much more sinister and dangerous -- the desire to fool enough non-Muslims, enough of the time, to push for conversion (i.e. "reversion") within the Bilad al-Kufr. Given that there are always mentally marginal people eager for The Next Big Thing, and given that Islam is now the preferred vehicle for people to express their hatred of (Choose One): The West. The Jews. The System. Capitalism. America. Amerika. Those crazy fundamentalist right-wing Christians who are making us lose all our rights and destroying the very freedoms we are supposed to be defending and therefore are doing exactly What the Terrorists Want.
Really, there is no limit to stupidity, is there? The most powerful force in the world.
JAMES
[Don't keep those horses waitin']
Your posts reveal you to be an aimable twit and Muslim apologist. Usual breast beating ,self hating Westener : perfect tool for Islamo-Fascists. Your naivety is truly amazing if you believe that Coalition withdrawing tomorrow is going to make any difference to Al Quaeda or Islam's well documented [in their own words and writings] aims. John Esposito is NOT thought to be an expert on the Middle East by many but he is
certainly LOVED by Islamists which should speak
VOLUMES to any Infidel with half a brain...Go back and bury your head in the sand : the Middle East should suit as it has a large sandpit to play in.
I would like to correct two things in the second posting made by me above. I misidentified Bernard-Henri Levy as Bernard Henri-Levy, and I misremembered his article on Ramadan,thinking it appeared in October 2003 when, in fact, it appeared on 1 novembre 2003 in Le Monde.
Levy does have some acute things to say about T.R.'s ridiculous books, including his "Les Musulmans dans la laicite" in which he demands such things as separete pools, the wearing of the veil, special courses in biolgy that will not offend Muslim girls, etcetera -- all, mind you, demands this "moderate" Ramadan must be accepted, he insists, by the Western world within which Muslims have come to live. And far from abandoning lapidation, stoning, he gave a very careful answer and said that for the moment he would only suggest a "moratorium" on "bodily punishments" until there could be further consideration of the matter. If he later, for obvious reasons, then abandoned that position, and claimed for the sake of Western audiences that he was against "stoning to death" for adultery, well -- so what? How much are we supposed to overlook about this fellow, and exactly why again?
Nothing I said, despite Taradasha's attempt to indict me, was factually incorrect -- except for the spelling of Henri-Levi's name, and the date I attributed to his article on Ramadan. Read samples of his nonsense for yourself, on line. Does it impress you? Not exactly Willard van Orman Quine, or Alfred North Whitehead (to go back to something a bit more intelligible for most of us), now is it?
Ramadan is a "philosopher" the way Edward Said was a "literary scholar." The latter had a view of literature, in the end, scarcely distinguishable from that of Lunacharsky or Goebbels. The former would not be allowed to teach in a junior high, if there were still standards to be found. He really should get in touch with himself and seek his roots and move back to Egypt. Or become a guest lecturer in Saudi Arabia, where he would shine as such a sophisticate. In the advanced non-Muslim world, he is simply an embarrassment.
The real tragedy of Muslim presence in the West is the deleterious effect it is having on the very fundament of our civilisation, viz freedom to write without fear of being murdered.
Salman Rushdie wrote a novel and what he got was a death sentence. If Muslims cannot abide by the rules and culture of the West, then I would very much appreciate that Muslims leave for a Muslim country of their choice. Writers critical of Islam have had to change their names and live under police protection. It is completely unacceptable that Muslims are a murderous threat to writers. At this moment in time, only writers who are freiendly to Islam, can go about their lives without fear. This is absolutely unacceptable.
Our civilisation advances by critical thought and I detest and abhor the fact that Muslim presence in the West has made it difficult for writers to question Islam. Such an atmosphere of fear among thinkers, seriously limits the advance of our civilisation. It is my opinion that such a situation cannot last for too long. If it does, then it will bring about a collapse of our civilisation.
DP111 speaks of the deleterious effect that Islam has on writers. He fails to mention that posters on this site are hold in danger their own career and necks so much that many MUST write under a pseudonym and write from an "undisclosed location."
He mentions the famous Rushdie, but there are many others that live in fear censorship lives for merely daring to discuss Islam, making it an unworthy belief system. Those that critique Islam fear for their safety and their lives even relative safety of the United States.
Jeez, one more time.
Applying the predicate 'ignorant' to someone because that person obviously does not know something is not an 'ad hominen' attack, it is a 'tautology'.
Please pay more attention in your classes James.
And Plato thought democracy was untenable (the Greek variety, which did not respect the principle of equality as we know it) because the uneducated masses who have a voice in government would not be able to judge what is good for the state as a whole, and hence state policy would lead to the eventually dissolution.
What in the world does that have to do with two educated people dismissing someone in dialogue for exhibiting ignornace, and, I don't know, how about long-winded foolery? Plato would not find that a problem for democracy. I would probably be in for a little praise.
But it is telling you refer to Plato, whom you obviously do not understand (again James, actually read the books. Do not try to 'fit something in' to preconceived ideas about the state of the world). That would in fact be a classic, slipshot Islamic critique of the West...bravo! And let the philosopher kings be mullahs with knowledge of the true 'form' of the world. And the West, with its 'unclean licentiousness' will destroy itself in the natural evoluation of the state...the 'convergence' to 'universalism' (must through in a little Ramadan), ISLAM.
Please educated folks out there. Look at this stuff (generality: Islam). Is this not the most dangerous, hateful, ideological movement imaginable? Let's do something about it. Notre Dame, a lady of peace would not let a snake through the door...as I recall, as the story goes, she left town to a place of refuge. Our institutions must be our refuge. Let's educate. Speak the truth. And put folks like James in places they belong: the bottom of the class. Islam must be revealed for what it is.
James, for what it's worth, your hypothetical re: the thinking of an average Muslim is pretty close to the truth. (The rest of you need not bother replying that my opinion is not worth much to you, I got that part.) The fact is that most of the (billions and billions) of Muslims around the world have no interest in hurting or killing non-Muslims -- I'm not going to get into debating whether and what the Qu'ran says on the subject, because frankly it's besides the point, unless your point is that Islam is a bad religion. If that's your point (obviously the case for many posters here), fine, gotcha, opinion noted.
But for those that are saying "well, Islam doesn't bother me it's the actions of its adherents -- when they cause harm, discriminate, hurt, kill, etc. others in the name of Islam -- that is the problem. Muslims who go about their business peacefully have every right to do so, and to enjoy equal rights with the rest of us." -- For those people (and I thought the person who runs this blog was one, from his "about me" page), it seems to me highly relevant and important to understand what Tariq Ramadan is saying, because his audience isn't all of you obviously very well-read, well-educated, well-spoken non-Muslim intellectuals, but everyday Muslims -- and they are looking for a way, an explanation, a philosophy that enables them to live in the West and hold onto their faith. Actually, most have found it, or are coming up with their own, but it's nice to hear some of Ramadan's thoughts validate that.
That's all I have time for now, unfortunately. I'd like to say more, but at the same time fear that it would probably meet the same reception James' posts did -- ya'll are really brutal. It's too bad, because it would be nice to find somewhere where these discussions could play out without the bullying. Oh well.
Sorry for the drive-by posting (I like that expression -- reminds me of a junior associate complaining once about my drive-by assigning. Heh heh.)
Thanks for posting taradasha. I happy for the thoughts offered here. One thought in response that I hope finds some consideration.
The 'brutality' of cogent argument is one of the more valuable virtues in Western education. I value it greatly. And that is precisely a virtue that I feel is threatened by intellectual appeasement of Islam.
There are other forms of brutality that should concern us more, I believe; I say again, the brutality that I (or anybody else who speaks out against Islam), will face from adherents of Islam...and I am not at all convinced that the source for these very real, life threatening assaults is limited to the 'few radicals'...is very real. It threatens my ability, and yours, to articulate ideas, argue, study...and the nature of the threat is simply violence and intimidation. And no one has threatened Ramadan in THAT way by refusing a visa or a teaching stint.
Perhaps I have already had some experience and know whereof I speak.
Thank you for posting and best of luck in your efforts to make sense of all this...And I highly recommend reading Robert and Hugh carefully, although, of course, we will all in the end disagree on some things...and that will flow from the brutality of the virtue of critical thought, which you and I learned in institutions that we have an obligation to protect.
Thanks taradasha.
Contrary to the bland assurances given above, Tariq Ramadan is not engaged in that presumably innocuous activity, helping Muslims living in the West "looking for a way,an explanation, a philosophy, that enables them to live in the West and hold on to their faith." What he is engaged in is counselling Muslims, with the most obvious examples of taqiyya (see how he responded when asked initially for his opinion of stoning), not to look for trouble, but to create a situation for themselves where Da'wa (the Call to Islam) can be conducted without interference, and to work toward precisely the same goal as Bin Laden, or Al-Qaradawi, or the Ayatollah Khomeini, or Ibn Taymiyya, or Al-Ghazali, or ten thousand other articulate promoters of Islam -- to wit, the spread of Islam across the globe, so that the conditions are created which will permit it to reign, the Shari'a to be installed (does Taradasha above mean to suggest that Tariq Ramadan does NOT support, in all of its features, the imposition of Shari'a everywhere it can be achieved? His own statements flatly contradict that idea).
The notion that Infidels should sit calmly by while a clever and apparently mediagenic master of taqiyya is invited by some fellow Infidels, who happen to be either fools or criminally negligent or collaborators with a belief-system that is far from benign, but rather based not on a real acceptance of pluralism, but a willingness to use pluralism only to the extent it needs to, until the conditions for the triumph of Islam have been met, and that silly Infidel invention, pluralism, can be safely discarded.
Why should non-Muslims simply sit by and regard with equanimity those who wish to promote a belief-system that, as Ibn Warraq and others have carefully noted, and adduced the historical evidence, has much in common with fascism, and represents a permanent danger to non-Muslims, to their way of life, to their safety, to the integrity of their political and intellectual institutions, to their moral order? Why? On what theory?
One would hope, rather, that conditions would be created that would make it as difficult and unpleasant for the bearers of this belief-system to exist in the Bilad al-kufr, and their existence within the Bilad al-kufr is making life far more npleasant, difficult, expensive, and dangerous, and stressful, for the indigenous Infidels, than it would be without the presence of those who subscribe to this belief-system, or who, even if they do not fully subscribe, help to strengthen it through their own sly kitman/taqiyya, or their own misunderstanding of the central tenets of Islam -- and, of course, there is always the Manchurian Candidate problem, where a "moderate" and seemingly "secular" Muslim -- the Mike Hawash problem -- overnight seems to change. This represents a permanent security risk. It is not one that Infidels need to increase to their own great peril.
Ramadan, the Da'wa man, is a danger to our safety. The arrogance, the cruelty, of those at Notre Dame, and elsewhere, who may protest his being kept out of the country, in order that they may strike phonily brave attitudes of protecting free speech, while helping to increase the long-term dangers to others, to us, to the Infidels who see things clearly because we have bothered to study both Islam and Muslim history, is sickening.
JTF, thanks for the civility.
Thinking about my comments later I regretted having used the word "brutal" -- figuratively -- on a blog committed to highlighting literal brutality. There was no intent on my part to diminish the latter through the use of the former, but it was sloppy and for that I apologize.
I shudder to think of what the US would look like if we took a ride on the slippery slope a lot of posters seem to espouse. After the Muslims are routed out and ... I dunno, what is it exactly you want to do with them all? Send them "back home" if they don't agree to renounce Islam? What about the US-born Muslims?... Anyway, after you've rid the world -- or at least, the Western world -- of Muslims, who's next?
I'm afraid that these arguments could just as easily -- with a few tweaks -- be made about a number of different belief-systems. If your goal is to remove from Western soil anyone who holds beliefs that are, or are related to, or could be related to, or used to be related to, or are also held by persons who hold beliefs that are related to, ideologies that offend or threaten you... hmmmmmmmm. I guess you've got your work cut out for you. Personally, I've got some gardening to do.
taradasha:
Our objection is to a belief system whose stated goal, spelled out in its own religious texts and articulated and re-articulated daily to millions of its adherents around the globe, is to establish a worldwide islamic caliphate and force every single human being on earth to either convert or die.
I don't know about you, but I have a problem with this, and any other "belief-system" that seeks to impose the same. In our society people are free to espouse any "belief-system" they desire, but when a movement - violent or otherwise - is formed to impose such a system on others, it must be opposed by whatever means necessary to insure our freedom from such an imposition.
taradasha:
BTW, there are not "billions and billions" of muslims upon the earth. The latest count is 1.2 billion, which is widely considered to be somewhat inflated, since muslim organizations tend to inflate the number of adherents to gain political advantage.
This is a little long, but well worth the read....
Be careful of Ramadan’s model of Islam
by Olivier Clément
(an Orthodox theologian and intellectual who lives in Paris. What follows is a part of an article that Clément published in the December, 2003 edition of “Vita e Pensiero,” the magazine of the Catholic University of Milan)
The question of school girls wearing veils in France and the debate about the crucifix in an Italian school room are, in spite of appearances, strictly connected, and pose the problem of the behavior of Muslims in these two countries. [...]
We must emphasize immediately that the two cases, French and Italian, are provocations launched by intellectuals or pseudo-intellectuals recently converted to Islam. [...] They are thus exceptions, but they were provoked intentionally and are doubtless revealing.
In France, the two sisters expelled from school, not only because of the veil but more generally for their way of dressing and their behavior, are the daughters of an agnostic lawyer of a Jewish background, named Lévy. He was the one who encouraged them, to demonstrate the intolerance of our society.
In Italy, the father of the two children who said he was scandalized by the crucifix hung on the wall of their school is named Adel Smith, and converted to Islam in 1982. [...]
These isolated provocations seem to me clear testimonies of a new course within the ideological motivations of the Muslim communities. There have certainly always been in France, and there still are, fundamentalist currents of complete hatred and refusal toward Western culture. But these instances from other times have never been able to demolish or even exploit the juridical and mental structures of our society.
The new ideology is now well defined. Its spokesman, at least in France and all of Western Europe, is Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan does not hide himself or devise conspiracies. While affirming his Muslim faith, he presents himself as a great Western intellectual. Young and handsome, he speaks with mastery and clarity the language of the intelligentsia of Western Europe. He teaches philosophy, French literature, and Islamic studies at the University of Geneva. At the same time, he works for Muslim groups like “Young Muslims of France,” and has assured himself of a role as an expert among the commissions that revolve around the European parliament. His media presence does not cease growing. He is author of more than a dozen works, including “Les musulmans dans la laïcité,” “Aux sources du renouveau musulman,” and “Les musulmans d’occident et l’avenir de l’islam.” He is a frequent guest on television and radio, and he circulates pamphlets in French or Arabic among young Muslims.
He proposes a “reformist” and “all-encompassing” Islam. His aim would seem to be that of bringing forth a body of values beginning from Islamic sources, an embodiment of the universal vocation that would take the place of the values of Western civilization. What matters to him is affirming Muslim identity and presenting it as the source of true universality.
Beginning from the statement that the fulcrum of historical movement is now constituted by the Europe-North America combination, with the Muslim countries relegated to the periphery, Ramadan notes how there are nonetheless many Muslims, especially intellectuals, who have succeeded in becoming part of the nucleus. He thus invites them to refashion it and, little by little, islamicize it: “References to Judaism and Christianity are being diluted, if not disappearing altogether” (“Les musulmans d’occident e l’avenir de l’islam,” Actes Sud-Sinbad, 2003). “Only Islam can achieve the synthesis between Christianity and humanism, and fill the spiritual void that afflicts the West” (“Islam, le face à face des civilisations,” Tawhid, 2001).
And again: “The Koran confirms, completes, and corrects the messages that preceded it” (“Les messages musulmans d’occident”). Some Christian personalities whose charitable works cannot be misconstrued – Mother Teresa, Sister Emanuelle, Abbé Pierre, Fr. Helder Camara – are exceptions who show only that all good people are implicitly Muslims, because true humanism is founded in Koranic revelation. Thus, both directly and through this humanism, the “Muslim City” can be founded upon the earth. “Today the Muslims who live in the West must unite themselves to the revolution of the antiestablishment groups from the moment when the neoliberal capitalist system becomes, for Islam, a theater of war […] The revelation of the Koran is explicit: whoever engages in speculation or cultivates financial interests eneters into war against the transcendent” (“Pouvoirs,” 2003, n. 164).
Tariq Ramadan then insists – justly – on the long-neglected intellectual riches of the great Muslim thinkers like Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, but he forgets to situate them in their relation to Greek, Jewish, and Christian thought, and presents them as the true originators of humanism.
Jacques Jomier has efficiently summed up the goal that drives Tariq Ramadan: “His problem is not the modernization of Islam, but the islamification of modernity” (“Esprit et Vie,” February 17, 2000). We must not forget that Ramadan is the nephew of Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Islamic movement of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, a man Ramadan considers an eminent representative of “reformist” Islam, capable of bringing about an endogenous alternative culture from within modernity (“Peut-on vivre avec l’islam?”, Favre, 1990).
'I don't know about you, but I have a problem with this, and any other "belief-system" that seeks to impose the same. In our society people are free to espouse any "belief-system" they desire, but when a movement - violent or otherwise - is formed to impose such a system on others, it must be opposed by whatever means necessary to insure our freedom from such an imposition.' ~ CGW
CG, I agree, but want to add one line for anyone whom I suspect would raise the objection:
The Crusades were Not an attempt to 'impose a system' of beliefs, it was a response to centuries of islamic attacks on Europe.
And now that we are all back on the same page... :P
Gary:
Agreed.
Let's add another stipulation: any "belief-system" with a CURRENT AND ONGOING plan to subjugate the entire globe by force.
taradasha and others sympathetic comments along those lines,
Please read Hugh's posts regarding Ramandan carefully. You may not like the tone, you may not like what the remarks seem to imply, but please read, check the references, look up the words, the concepts.
Likewise, please read what Robert and Hugh have to say about Islam in general (and, of course, we should never assume that these two learned people think the same things); this will take you on a journey through the Koran and other Islamic sources. I am student myself. And we must admit that we are students and not fall back on fuzzy, false assumptions about 'belief systems', 'Islam', 'religions' and 'multiculturalism'.
Taradasha, we all need gardens, but the garden will not make your false analogies any more true, I am afraid. I say again: please take a serious look at what Hugh is saying, all the facts, all the notions, and the context.
These scholars are saying things that we must attend to, like it or not.
Is Mr Ramadan saying that the West can't possibly survive without embracing the Qu'ran?
Hugh:
He lacks the intelligence to see what is wrong with Islam -- Islam as an intellectual constraint, as a mind-throttling system that explains the lack of intellectual achievement, over a very long period and across a very wide space, of those who were given Islam's Total Guide to the Universe as both consolation and as hobble
I tend to regard Muslims as being the prime victims of Islam. Having been born into the faith, they have been thoroughly and effectively brainwashed. V.S. Naipual also mentions this strange phenomenon where Muslims in Pakistan actually side with the Arab invader.
This brainwashing of Muslims is so pervasive from birth, and with no other point of view, that it becomes akin to distoring lens that prevents the Muslim from objective analysys. As such it can be regarded almost as a physical or mental disbility. And in that sense, I have sympathy for Muslims. They are effectively hobbled by the koran.
epg:
Thank you for bringing up the reality, that all of us have to hide our identity to be able to criticise Islam. Even in the dark days of WWII, such a threat to freedom of expression, did not exist. It is totally unacceptable that this has come about in the West.
It is fortitous that we have the Internet and blog sites, at such a time as this, else our civilisation would be in far greater jeopardy then it already is.
Surely no one follows this thread anymore, but, of the record, I was far too nice to taradasha; a failed attempt at persuasion, surely.
Folks with similar attitudes were planting bulbs in Europe while Hilter took the firsts step toward the Holocaust...as Esposito whitewashes Islamic Jihad, looks for 'dialogue' with Sudanese Jihadists, as literally hundreds of thousands vanish, dead.
These folks have blood on their hands. And Hugh it right...it is sickening.