http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 26 May 2012 02:01:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36586 seth edenbaum Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:19:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36586 Thank you, M. Ramus. Thank you, M. Ramus.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36585 peter ramus Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:28:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36585 Thank you for your thoughtful response, mc. Mind you, my knowledge of Mr. Ramadan coincides exactly with a one page interview posted on the internet. And, given that he is devout, there will always be in my mind at least an intractable difficulty on his part, or on the part of anyone speaking from within their chosen tradition, in squaring the truth-claims of their faith with the sad facts of history. "Re-reading or revelation, which is it?" you ask, regarding his intellectual journey. I honestly don't know how those guys do it myself. Nevertheless, in proposing that his God is silent in this or that important respect, Mr. Ramadan seems to me to be doing exactly what you wish: turning questions over to the efforts of humans to come to an understanding using their own powers rather than appealing to a tradition which more or less resolutely forestalls such inquiry by an insistence on the universal applicability of what's been previously written. Being devout, Mr. Ramadan's argument here is directed at those in his own faith, and it seems unsurprising to me that he would need to make clever use of traditions and texts to bolster such a claim. I didn't mean to suggest by my analogy that the goal of Mr. Ramadan's program was to arrive at the Enlightenment by an Islamic route, but only to point to a very similar tactic employed then in the Christian tradition, appealing to God's silence, although perhaps the humanists would have been a more apposite example. I don't pretend to know where Mr. Ramadan is going with this at all. That would require an immersion in the vast seas of Islamic commentary that I'm not prepared to undertake for reasons of, eh, . . . how does "intransigent reluctance" strike you? Better? Briefly, on irony: when I read that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, the tremendous negotiation between the encompassing Christian tradition and what would make for a more perfect union that went into that phrasing barely registers (on a good day). I do appreciate the consequences a great deal, since they certainly suit my own purposes, but the irony of the situation is directed at me, I think, rather than the writer of the famous words. Thank you for your thoughtful response, mc. Mind you, my knowledge of Mr. Ramadan coincides exactly with a one page interview posted on the internet. And, given that he is devout, there will always be in my mind at least an intractable difficulty on his part, or on the part of anyone speaking from within their chosen tradition, in squaring the truth-claims of their faith with the sad facts of history. “Re-reading or revelation, which is it?” you ask, regarding his intellectual journey. I honestly don’t know how those guys do it myself. Nevertheless, in proposing that his God is silent in this or that important respect, Mr. Ramadan seems to me to be doing exactly what you wish: turning questions over to the efforts of humans to come to an understanding using their own powers rather than appealing to a tradition which more or less resolutely forestalls such inquiry by an insistence on the universal applicability of what’s been previously written. Being devout, Mr. Ramadan’s argument here is directed at those in his own faith, and it seems unsurprising to me that he would need to make clever use of traditions and texts to bolster such a claim. I didn’t mean to suggest by my analogy that the goal of Mr. Ramadan’s program was to arrive at the Enlightenment by an Islamic route, but only to point to a very similar tactic employed then in the Christian tradition, appealing to God’s silence, although perhaps the humanists would have been a more apposite example. I don’t pretend to know where Mr. Ramadan is going with this at all. That would require an immersion in the vast seas of Islamic commentary that I’m not prepared to undertake for reasons of, eh, . . . how does “intransigent reluctance” strike you? Better? Briefly, on irony: when I read that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, the tremendous negotiation between the encompassing Christian tradition and what would make for a more perfect union that went into that phrasing barely registers (on a good day). I do appreciate the consequences a great deal, since they certainly suit my own purposes, but the irony of the situation is directed at me, I think, rather than the writer of the famous words.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36584 mc Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:13:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36584 In other words, Peter, I think you've got a very fair point there, but I also think you're stretching it a bit in seeing a parallel with the deists approach. I don't think Ramadan is positing a deist rewriting of Islam just because he's speaking of God's silence! It's an entirely different context. In other words, Peter, I think you’ve got a very fair point there, but I also think you’re stretching it a bit in seeing a parallel with the deists approach. I don’t think Ramadan is positing a deist rewriting of Islam just because he’s speaking of God’s silence! It’s an entirely different context.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36583 mc Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:53:14 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36583 Peter Ramus: <i>Ah, obviously I read Mr. Ramadan’s remarks very differently, seeing them as an overtly Islamic formulation of a desire to slipp past the mind-set that insists inquiry is foreclosed, that all questions are answered and duly written in the Book (which Book in the past was the famous Bible, and which the deists sidestepped with appeals to exactly the sort of silence Mr. Ramadan proposes)</i> Ok, if you put it like that, yes, of course, saying "God is silent" is a lot better than saying "God is speaking to me", "God wants me to tell you that it's so and so", and "God's word is not to be discussed". Absolutely better. :) But, see, Tariq Ramadan is not an imam or mullah, he's not a fundamentalist preacher, he is discussing his religion, he is overtly inclined to reviewing traditions, so it is taken for granted he wouldn't be saying there's no room for discussion. I didn't think Ophelia was mocking anything. Pointing out the irony, yes, but I didn't read her comment as derisive at all. I think she picked up a very interesting ambiguity. Tariq Ramadan is going on about political and social factors and attitudes and mentalities, he is very aware of how those factors act, and then on the very thorniest point of how they interact with religious traditions, he passes the ball to God... It's a very elegant, very poetic notion, this idea of God sitting in silence on a metaphysical fence while men fight each other mercilessly over what God really means, but it also sounds like a bit of a cop out. And, _even from a religious point of view_, it does sound like a cruel idea of God, indifferent and aloof, not interested in how people get to massacre each other in his name... what ever happened to "in the name of the merciful and compassionate Allah?" If that's the God of the Q'ran, how can people assume he'd be silent? Isn't that projecting human failures on God? Then again, maybe it is indeed wiser to refer to a divine silence than to join the fight over meaning and authority, except... Ramadan too is already acting within that fight himself. He does talk of re-reading sources, texts and contexts. And he does know there are a lot of entirely human reasons why in the past 15 years that confrontation between "new" and "tradition" hasn't really produced much. So, the concept that it could be up to something yet to be "revealed" by God who is currently silent sounds contradictory with the rest of his views. Re-reading vs. revelation, which is it? How can they be combined? Are you sure that he's talking of the kind of silence that can lead to challenges? Or is it the silence that can be used as an excuse to avoid them? Is the challenge just about who gets to interpret God's word with more authority, or about who between God and men should come up with decisions ("revelations") on matters of human, social, political behaviour? Or both? I don't think such a position is easy at all, of course. Someone like Ramadan is in the middle of a much bigger contradiction, he is speaking to and from two very different worldviews, and that can be a very good thing. So maybe we shouln't be nitpicking on one phrase or reading too much into it. But there just is a very acute irony in it, and I don't think it's disrespectful of any religious views to point it out. Peter Ramus: Ah, obviously I read Mr. Ramadan’s remarks very differently, seeing them as an overtly Islamic formulation of a desire to slipp past the mind-set that insists inquiry is foreclosed, that all questions are answered and duly written in the Book (which Book in the past was the famous Bible, and which the deists sidestepped with appeals to exactly the sort of silence Mr. Ramadan proposes) Ok, if you put it like that, yes, of course, saying “God is silent” is a lot better than saying “God is speaking to me”, “God wants me to tell you that it’s so and so”, and “God’s word is not to be discussed”. Absolutely better. :) But, see, Tariq Ramadan is not an imam or mullah, he’s not a fundamentalist preacher, he is discussing his religion, he is overtly inclined to reviewing traditions, so it is taken for granted he wouldn’t be saying there’s no room for discussion. I didn’t think Ophelia was mocking anything. Pointing out the irony, yes, but I didn’t read her comment as derisive at all. I think she picked up a very interesting ambiguity. Tariq Ramadan is going on about political and social factors and attitudes and mentalities, he is very aware of how those factors act, and then on the very thorniest point of how they interact with religious traditions, he passes the ball to God… It’s a very elegant, very poetic notion, this idea of God sitting in silence on a metaphysical fence while men fight each other mercilessly over what God really means, but it also sounds like a bit of a cop out. And, even from a religious point of view, it does sound like a cruel idea of God, indifferent and aloof, not interested in how people get to massacre each other in his name… what ever happened to “in the name of the merciful and compassionate Allah?” If that’s the God of the Q’ran, how can people assume he’d be silent? Isn’t that projecting human failures on God? Then again, maybe it is indeed wiser to refer to a divine silence than to join the fight over meaning and authority, except… Ramadan too is already acting within that fight himself. He does talk of re-reading sources, texts and contexts. And he does know there are a lot of entirely human reasons why in the past 15 years that confrontation between “new” and “tradition” hasn’t really produced much. So, the concept that it could be up to something yet to be “revealed” by God who is currently silent sounds contradictory with the rest of his views. Re-reading vs. revelation, which is it? How can they be combined? Are you sure that he’s talking of the kind of silence that can lead to challenges? Or is it the silence that can be used as an excuse to avoid them? Is the challenge just about who gets to interpret God’s word with more authority, or about who between God and men should come up with decisions (“revelations”) on matters of human, social, political behaviour? Or both? I don’t think such a position is easy at all, of course. Someone like Ramadan is in the middle of a much bigger contradiction, he is speaking to and from two very different worldviews, and that can be a very good thing. So maybe we shouln’t be nitpicking on one phrase or reading too much into it. But there just is a very acute irony in it, and I don’t think it’s disrespectful of any religious views to point it out.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36582 peter ramus Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:19:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36582 Ah! A dead horse, and my very own stick! My objectively churlish attempt to engage one poster in a slightly more substantive evaluation of Mr. Ramadan's remarks than the equivalent of, "Tee–hee, he said "<i>sacred</i>!" met with no success. Naturally, no one is obliged to answer my direct questions, or even to have an opinion on the matters I raise one way or another, or believe, even in the event they have such an opinion, that I of all people deserve a reply. Asking twice, and being met with silence on the subject, I let the matter drop. I was explicitly encouraged to use the term "Islamophobia" if that made me happy, but the only path to happiness I could see in using that term at all was to share equally in whatever limited meaning it may have in describing a mutual unbelief. <i>For a start, I myself don’t have much in common with the views of anyone giving religion such political importance. However, thankfully for the sake of variety, people don’t have to completely agree with someone to find their views worthy of interest and debate. So, even if I may have a completely different point of view to start with, I just might be interested in what they actually say; and secondly, in what others think of it, possibly in more reasoned terms than egocentric polemics or cheap non-motivated tags that are meant to pre-empt any debate. </i> Had I mc's way with words, I would have said just that. Unfortunately, all I could come up with was this: <i>Yet there’s always the off chance that some devout someone or other may say something that makes promising sense even from within their own belief system. To my mind at least, Mr. Ramadan’s sentiments, in the context of the interview linked to above, expressed in words we will agree are too religious, can be taken this way, if you chose. Or, not, should you have some as yet undisclosed reason for contending with them.</i> mc remarks further on: <i>The convenience for someone like Tariq Ramadan of using that excuse to abdicate responsibility for change, even as he seems to be wanting change…</i> Ah, obviously I read Mr. Ramadan's remarks very differently, seeing them as an overtly Islamic formulation of a desire to slipp past the mind-set that insists inquiry is foreclosed, that all questions are answered and duly written in the Book (which Book in the past was the famous Bible, and which the deists sidestepped with appeals to exactly the sort of silence Mr. Ramadan proposes). Not so much a laughing matter to my mind, even for one who abjures Mr Ramadan's faith, however politely, but rather a matter of greatest moment in the development of a liveable modern Islam. Put it down to my deficient humors. I'm a crabby kind of guy. And, I've accused myself of Islamophobia in public, too! (The horse is unmoved) Ah! A dead horse, and my very own stick! My objectively churlish attempt to engage one poster in a slightly more substantive evaluation of Mr. Ramadan’s remarks than the equivalent of, “Tee–hee, he said “sacred!” met with no success. Naturally, no one is obliged to answer my direct questions, or even to have an opinion on the matters I raise one way or another, or believe, even in the event they have such an opinion, that I of all people deserve a reply. Asking twice, and being met with silence on the subject, I let the matter drop. I was explicitly encouraged to use the term “Islamophobia” if that made me happy, but the only path to happiness I could see in using that term at all was to share equally in whatever limited meaning it may have in describing a mutual unbelief. For a start, I myself don’t have much in common with the views of anyone giving religion such political importance. However, thankfully for the sake of variety, people don’t have to completely agree with someone to find their views worthy of interest and debate. So, even if I may have a completely different point of view to start with, I just might be interested in what they actually say; and secondly, in what others think of it, possibly in more reasoned terms than egocentric polemics or cheap non-motivated tags that are meant to pre-empt any debate. Had I mc’s way with words, I would have said just that. Unfortunately, all I could come up with was this: Yet there’s always the off chance that some devout someone or other may say something that makes promising sense even from within their own belief system. To my mind at least, Mr. Ramadan’s sentiments, in the context of the interview linked to above, expressed in words we will agree are too religious, can be taken this way, if you chose. Or, not, should you have some as yet undisclosed reason for contending with them. mc remarks further on: The convenience for someone like Tariq Ramadan of using that excuse to abdicate responsibility for change, even as he seems to be wanting change… Ah, obviously I read Mr. Ramadan’s remarks very differently, seeing them as an overtly Islamic formulation of a desire to slipp past the mind-set that insists inquiry is foreclosed, that all questions are answered and duly written in the Book (which Book in the past was the famous Bible, and which the deists sidestepped with appeals to exactly the sort of silence Mr. Ramadan proposes). Not so much a laughing matter to my mind, even for one who abjures Mr Ramadan’s faith, however politely, but rather a matter of greatest moment in the development of a liveable modern Islam. Put it down to my deficient humors. I’m a crabby kind of guy. And, I’ve accused myself of Islamophobia in public, too! (The horse is unmoved)

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36581 abb1 Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:44:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36581 Another Chris, could you elaborate, please. I see my comments and I see your claims about them being "a milestone of stupidity" and "a special sort of bigotry", but there is nothing in the middle. There must be something going on between your ears that leads you to your conclusions. If it's anything like a cerebral process, then you should be able to express it in words. Why don't you? Please do. Otherwise I take it as a knee-jerk emotional response, which is fine too, but I am not a psychiatrist. Thanks. Another Chris, could you elaborate, please. I see my comments and I see your claims about them being “a milestone of stupidity” and “a special sort of bigotry”, but there is nothing in the middle. There must be something going on between your ears that leads you to your conclusions. If it’s anything like a cerebral process, then you should be able to express it in words. Why don’t you? Please do. Otherwise I take it as a knee-jerk emotional response, which is fine too, but I am not a psychiatrist. Thanks.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36580 seth edenbaum Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:03:15 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36580 "I’ll think call it" Yeah, well... “I’ll think call it” Yeah, well…

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36579 seth edenbaum Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:59:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36579 Lawyers express opinions all the time. That's what they're paid for. Or rather, they're paid to have the opinions of their clients. And we call it "The Justice System." There's been a lot written about this... Rilly! And it's all about, like, logic, and stuff [?] I'm thinking of starting a new school of legal theory. I'll think call it "Law and Anthropology." I'll have to ask Brian Leiter what he thinks. Lawyers express opinions all the time. That’s what they’re paid for. Or rather, they’re paid to have the opinions of their clients. And we call it “The Justice System.” There’s been a lot written about this… Rilly! And it’s all about, like, logic, and stuff [?] I’m thinking of starting a new school of legal theory. I’ll think call it “Law and Anthropology.” I’ll have to ask Brian Leiter what he thinks.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36578 Etheldreda Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:15:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36578 <a href="http://htmljnuiqilmth.com/">trudiynwez</a> zlaeoauafte. trudiynwez zlaeoauafte.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36577 Ophelia Benson Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:57:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36577 "We really be shouldn’t having any opinions at all, because there’ll always be someone having a different one, and they may be offended. Or speak for the potential offended. Or something." Just so, MC. An argument I seem to spend all my time making, these days. "And I thought Ophelia was only pointing out the irony in attributing to God’s silence something that is very much obviously up to men." Yup - that's what I was pointing out all right! “We really be shouldn’t having any opinions at all, because there’ll always be someone having a different one, and they may be offended. Or speak for the potential offended. Or something.” Just so, MC. An argument I seem to spend all my time making, these days. “And I thought Ophelia was only pointing out the irony in attributing to God’s silence something that is very much obviously up to men.” Yup – that’s what I was pointing out all right!

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36576 John Isbell Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:03:19 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36576 pt, I wish you well in your adventures with logic and the English language. Not to mention hatred. I advise you to work on letting it go, and that is friendly advice. pt, I wish you well in your adventures with logic and the English language. Not to mention hatred. I advise you to work on letting it go, and that is friendly advice.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36575 Another Chris Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:26:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36575 Abb1, You've done the discourse on Israel and anti-semitism a great service. This thread will soon disappear as the tide of new posts rises on Crooked Timber. But your comments above will never wash away; they will remain a milestone of stupidity, the very definition of a special sort of bigotry. Whenever people want an example, they will surely be pointed to you. Abb1, You’ve done the discourse on Israel and anti-semitism a great service. This thread will soon disappear as the tide of new posts rises on Crooked Timber. But your comments above will never wash away; they will remain a milestone of stupidity, the very definition of a special sort of bigotry. Whenever people want an example, they will surely be pointed to you.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36574 mc Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:28:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36574 Atheists, dentists, glass houses, rocks, OJ Simpson, yes, it's all a lot clearer now! The relevance of OJ's trial especially. Very. And I thought Ophelia was only pointing out the irony in attributing to God's silence something that is very much obviously up to men. The convenience for someone like Tariq Ramadan of using that excuse to abdicate responsibility for change, even as he seems to be wanting change... If that's "mocking the faithful"... well if an atheist says so, guess it must be so. We really be shouldn't having any opinions at all, because there'll always be someone having a different one, and they may be offended. Or speak for the potential offended. Or something. Atheists, dentists, glass houses, rocks, OJ Simpson, yes, it’s all a lot clearer now! The relevance of OJ’s trial especially. Very. And I thought Ophelia was only pointing out the irony in attributing to God’s silence something that is very much obviously up to men. The convenience for someone like Tariq Ramadan of using that excuse to abdicate responsibility for change, even as he seems to be wanting change… If that’s “mocking the faithful”… well if an atheist says so, guess it must be so. We really be shouldn’t having any opinions at all, because there’ll always be someone having a different one, and they may be offended. Or speak for the potential offended. Or something.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36573 abb1 Tue, 27 Jul 2004 08:07:05 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36573 pt, <i>...my words stand...</i> They sure do, my friend - as an example of the same kind of ugly demagoguery you were trying to defend here. Cheers. pt, …my words stand… They sure do, my friend – as an example of the same kind of ugly demagoguery you were trying to defend here. Cheers.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/24/tariq-ramadan/comment-page-2/#comment-36572 PT Tue, 27 Jul 2004 02:18:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1932#comment-36572 John, I'm an Irish atheist myself (there are some) and have no interest in your religious beliefs. Except, possibly, to think even less of you than your comments above might merit. <i>Pace</i> Gilles, my words stand. John, I’m an Irish atheist myself (there are some) and have no interest in your religious beliefs. Except, possibly, to think even less of you than your comments above might merit. Pace Gilles, my words stand.

]]>