| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Tariq Ramadan...Tariq Ramadan...Tariq Ramadan, prospero año y felicidad...Tariq Ramadan...Tariq Ramadan...from the bottom of my heart...
"I hope that these answers shed some clarifications," says putative "Muslim Martin Luther" Tariq Ramadan at the end of this Q&A with readers at the Globe and Mail. It's an interesting elision of "shed some light" and "provide some clarifications," making the whole statement ambiguous: did he mean to make things clear, or to shed -- i.e., get rid of -- clarity? And certainly his answers often display the artful ambiguity for which he has become renowned.
Alexander Baillie from Munster, Canada writes: Citizens in the West generally take a live-and-let-live approach to other religions and cultures, including Islam. Westerners also discriminate between ordinary Muslims and their extremist co-religionists. But too many Muslim acts -- such as fatwas against authors, riots and murders in response to cartoons and other intimidating behaviors that threaten freedom of expression -- reinforce the impression that Islam cannot and will not accept criticism. Is Islam compatible with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Does Islam accept a division between mosque and state? (Or is Turkey fighting a losing battle?) Does Islam attach negative attributes to "infidels" or require any negative response to them -- as opposed to tolerating others' religious freedom?Tariq Ramadan: Many questions in one. You are right on your first assessment -- it is as if the Muslims are always overreacting. Nevertheless, I think that the images from abroad should not mislead us. In Canada, as well as in the US or in Europe, Muslims were reacting very often in a reasonable way and this is a good sign. Millions of Muslims are already showing you that they accept life in secular societies, that they respect the laws and are loyal to their Western countries: Do not be misled by the few who are making noise and shouting.
The first thing Muslism should do is to translate the Arabic words in the right way: kafir does not mean "infidel" or "disbeliever" but "someone who does not recognise the last message as the truth." It is a statement, not an insult. Lots of work to do in the field of education….
No answer at all, you'll notice, to the key questions: "Is Islam compatible with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Does Islam accept a division between mosque and state?" Ramadan says, "Millions of Muslims are already showing you that they accept life in secular societies, that they respect the laws and are loyal to their Western countries." But the behavior of individual Muslims, who may or may not be strictly adhering to the tenets of Islam, and who may or may not be hoping eventually to establish Islamic law in their new countries, and working to that end, doesn't actually tell us anything about whether or not Islam is compatible with Western constititional government.
And the redefinition of "kafir" just makes a distinction without a difference.
R. Carriere from Canada writes: Good day. One simple (and complex) question: Can you please explain the term "Jihad?"Tariq Ramadan: It is a complex question indeed for it is at the heart of the Islamic teaching. First, jihad is neither "holy war" nor "crusade." Jihad means effort and resistance. Our first natural inner state, as human beings, is not peace but tension. Tensions between our bad temptations and our positive aspirations. We need to get inner peace by controlling our self: This resistance is an inner jihad. While facing oppression, our resistance is in the same way a jihad. In fact the very meaning of jihad is to go from natural or potential tensions, conflicts or war towards inner serenity and collective peace. Jihad is the way toward peace … exactly the opposite of what is sometime understood by non Muslims … as well as some Muslims.
"Jihad means effort and resistance." Might that mean military effort and violent resistance against non-Muslim states and individuals? Ramadan doesn't rule it out. What constitutes "oppression"? Is oppression the very fact of rule by any law other than Sharia, as many Islamic spokesman have asserted? Ramadan doesn't say.
Jeff Kelly from Kitchener writes: I have read that the tenets of Islam call for the creation of an Islamic state; that a "secular government" as seperate from Islam is a Western idea that is incompatible with true Islam. Is this true? Does true Islam require its followers to work towards a state following the ideals/beliefs of Islam?Tariq Ramadan: This is the problem we have with some Islamic trends and groups. They are confusing the historical models with the eternal principals. For them to remain faithful to the Islamic principles you have to duplicate what the Prophet (PBUH) and the Companions did in a specific time. They want to imitate the model and think that there is something like an "Islamic model" to be distinguished from the "Western model." This is a clear reduction based on a deep misunderstanding. The Islamic principles (such as rule of law, equality, accountability, majority decision process, etc.) are universal, and the Muslims should find new models according to their new environment and the new era. I tried to show that in my last book by trying to draw spiritual and contemporary lessons for our time from the prophetic experience in the 7th Century. It is important to repeat that principles are universal, and models historical -- they must evolve and change.
Again, no clear answer. Does seeking "new models" mean that there should be no Islamic state? Ramadan, surprise surprise, does not make this clear.
Posted by Robert at December 20, 2006 10:54 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Well, these "answers" are brilliant and profound when compared to the usual answer that covers all questions regarding jihad-"Evil words and actions from Muslims only come from a tiny minority-the vast majority of Muslims are moderate and peaceful". Ramadan must have lost his slip of paper containing these words when he answered. Take him out and cane him for not delivering the party line correctly.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 20, 2006 11:53 AM
By the way, is Omar the Pimp dead yet? The picture compelled me to ask. No doubt Ramadan will cry his eyes out when he is dead.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 20, 2006 11:57 AM
It's an interesting elision of "shed some light" and "provide some clarifications," making the whole statement ambiguous: did he mean to make things clear, or to shed -- i.e., get rid of -- clarity?
Tariq's responses are as usual as clear as the Western mud in which the Muslim sun sets.
Posted by: remote_control at December 20, 2006 11:58 AM
In the south-of-the-border spirit:
Hace linda pareja con Fidel.
Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2006 12:00 PM
did he mean to make things clear, or to shed -- i.e., get rid of -- clarity?
Tariq means to continually shed his skin like a snake, or to adjust his colors like a chameleon whenever he is on Infidel territory.
Posted by: remote_control at December 20, 2006 12:01 PM
And about Tariq Ramadan:
He mentions the word "equality" but does not stop to explain that there can be no equality between Believers and Infidels. Islam is based on the clear conception not only of its own rightness, but on the duty of Muslims to work diligently, to engage in that struggle, or Jihad, that struggle in the path of Allah, or Jihad fi sabil Allah, that will ensure that all obstacles to the spread of Islam are removed (and any attempt by Infidels to defend themselves and their own ways, which means retaining, in Muslim eyes, those "obstacles" to the spread and dominance of Islam, will be considered an act of aggresson, an act of war), so that Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere.
Posted by: Hugh at December 20, 2006 12:04 PM
Isn't it strange that every Muslim interviewed cannot answer the direct questions posed?
They gloss over the extremists, deflect the question asked to another subject, tell us basically to excuse the tiny number of jihadists, that "millions of Muslims are already showing you that they accept life in secular societies",
and leave us all the more confused about their beliefs when the interview is over.
Posted by: sounder at December 20, 2006 12:16 PM
The fact that he doesn't answer the questions sheds a bright light on what he tries to avoid to answer.
I come to think that Islam is hazardous to one's intelligence.
That should be printed on each Quran.
at December 20, 2006 12:28 PM
Something which Tariq Ramadan repeats time and again whenever he appears in the British media is that European civilisation is not just Graeco-Judaeo-Christian but Islamo-Graeco-Judaeo-Christian.
He's determined to say it so often that it becomes part of received wisdom in the west.
I'm unaware that double talk, lying by commission, lying by omission, exploiting verbal ambiguities and deliberately attributing meanings to words that are different to those generally accepted, was a key element of European civilisation.
The lion's share of the knowledge in the physical sciences which Europe borrowed from Islamic scholars in the century or two following 1100 had been obtained by the Muslims from other cultures. That is their contribution to European civilisation -full stop.
Posted by: wallyUK at December 20, 2006 12:33 PM
OK, so how about this new name for the "war on terror"?
...the jihad against the kafr...
since muslims tell us that jihad is a non-threatening, non-military struggle for inner serenity, and that those who commit terrorist acts are not really muslims, it would seem to be completely appropriate, right?
Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at December 20, 2006 12:44 PM
"In fact the very meaning of jihad is to go FROM natural or potential tensions, conflicts OR WAR TOWARDS inner serenity and collective peace."
Oh!Thats a relief!For a second there,I thought he said jihad is a war FOR peace!
Oh.He did say that...sort of...I think...
at December 20, 2006 1:04 PM
anonamutafa, (let me post this to the correct article)
He means jihad is a means to peace. Of course Muslim peace that is, without the rest of us non-muslims.
at December 20, 2006 1:09 PM
Lies and halftruths.
If you want the Truth about Islam you don't go to a Muslim.
Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 20, 2006 1:10 PM
Ramadan said:
"In fact the very meaning of jihad is to go from natural or potential tensions, conflicts or war towards inner serenity and collective peace."
Collective peace sure sounds nice, until you think about it a bit. Wasn't rule by the Collective a major part of the failed Marxist plan? Collectives disregard minorities and individuals in favor of what makes the most people happy. (the malcontents tend to disappear)
Ramadan also said:
"The Islamic principles (such as rule of law, equality, accountability, majority decision process, etc.) are universal,"
A "majority decision process" that doesn't protect minorities and individuals can be very repressive. The Western Model has been trending away from that for awhile now. Republics that have protections for minorities (like Separation of Church and State) are the latest and greatest of the Western Model.
Now can an Islamic State allow for that?
Posted by: freedomschool at December 20, 2006 1:47 PM
ISLAM
The good
The bad
The ugly
And the slick
Tarique Ramadan is slickest of the slick. A bit like the Barrak Obama of European Muhammadanism
at December 20, 2006 2:11 PM
"The good
The bad
The ugly"
-- from a posting above
This is the English title of "Il buono, il cattivo, il brutto," a Sergio-Leone spaghetti Western made in Italy. Another of the same school was the relevant "Vado...l'ammazzo, e torno."
at December 20, 2006 3:44 PM
what is wrong with his replies. Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelocy, Ted Kennedy, John Dean, John Kerry et al believe him.
Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 20, 2006 4:33 PM
"...kafir does not mean "infidel" or "disbeliever" but "someone who does not recognise the last message as the truth." It is a statement, not an insult. Lots of work to do in the field of education…".Tariq Ramadan
The "statement" that a "kafir" is "someone who does not recognise the last message as the truth" is a the statement of a supremacist-Nazi-style pig who treats a belief as if it is a proved scientific fact. The belief system is a mental illness. I really do think these people belong in psychiatric hospitals.
at December 20, 2006 5:31 PM
I can't say I fully understand this article(I am linking below) about Tariq Ramadan, but it seems to be exposing a deliberate strategy of taqiyyah, which apparently many of these western Muslims give a great deal of thought to perfecting as an art form:
Some excerpts:
"The Wasatiyyah presents itself as an independent and objective stream which bridges the gap between the liberals and the fundamentalists. According to Polka's findings, this trend "rests on the writings of Hasan al-Banna (1906–1949) [Tariq Ramadan's grandfather], the founder of the society of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose content has been adapted to the needs of modern age." The term "Shumuliyyat al-Islam" (the wholesomeness of Islam) used by Hasan al-Banna and the Brotherhood, was embraced by the Wasatiyyah, which views belief, society, politics, culture, and legislation as an integral part of religion. This is the very same idea held by Tariq Ramadan and al-Alwani under the words "wholesome jurisprudence". Polka's conclusions are as follows:
"The Wasatiyyah School is associated with the Islamic camp and represents its answer to the secular opposition. The Wasatiyyah is attempting to burn the candle at both ends, which is to preserve its Islamic beliefs, such as upholding the application of the Sharia and the sovereignty of Allah, Hakimiyyat Allah, but at the same time to appear liberal. In consequence, the Wasatiyyah often attempts to reach compromises regarding Islamic principles. The ensuing compromises often appear as terminological hair splitting or even casuistry, divorced from any real change in position."29
Understanding the constant use of terminology is the first step in studying the Wasatiyyah. For Wasatiyyah members, theoretically, every word counts and every sentence is measured. If you are the leader of a fundamentalist organization your life is easy. The message you give to the West is the same message you give to your followers, using terms that are clear to all parties. On the other hand if you wish to live in the United States or in Europe "under cultural supervision," you need in fact "very precise Islamic terms." One example: close to the end of the interview Ramadan says "we are against violence, we are against terror," but just a few questions before that Ramadan hinted that he did not except Western sovereignty de jure and called for political Islam: "I, as a Western citizen, respect the Islamic values and am obligated to Western laws. I implement Sharia, but in wholesome understanding and not only in legal punishment."
I leave it to non faint of heart to read in its entirety but the message I get is that "mainstream Islam" is mostly just a verbal sleight of hand and not a substantive change at all and that Tariq Ramadan is a master of the game. ("Ramadan remarks that he learned from a master of terminology in the United States...".)
Posted by: Caroline
at December 20, 2006 8:31 PM
Thankfully, Tariq Ramadan is banned from entering the United States. He can promote his book elsewhere.
Posted by: Urban Infidel at December 21, 2006 6:13 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)