Comments on: Fistful of Euros on Pipes on Ramadan

By: naomi

naomi — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:37:03 +0000

Yeah, well, there are always worse alternatives to anything… I was going for a slightly more flattering definition but yeah, I agree. I have to say the way he’s reacted has earned him some extra respect. Can’t say the same for the other parties involved, sadly.

By: H�l�ne

H�l�ne — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:57:19 +0000

Agreed, Naomi. I don’t entirely trust Ramadan (TV5, a pan-francophone TV channel available locally, showed his debate with Sarkozy and I wasn’t impressed) but he is to some degree an accomodationist and the alternatives are far, far worse.

By: naomi

naomi — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:40:05 +0000

Absent a universal authority, the tendency in Islam is for the shriller literalists to get heard, not the softer accomodationists. All the more reasons for the ‘softer accomodationists’ to get heard, instead of accused of being terrorists without enough grounds for such accusations, no?

By: H�l�ne

H�l�ne — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:58:43 +0000

No, of course not, Naomi. Modernizing Islam is the only way to go. I’m just a bit pessimistic right now about its chances. One of the problems facing would-be modernizers is that Islam is a very decentralized religion: no Pope, no Archbiship of Canterbury, and so on. Should it so wish, the Vatican could end clerical celibacy with a single prouncement. (Judaism is also decentralized, but it’s a tiny religion and the fact that Jews are also an ethnic category and highly educated as a rule, makes that far less of a problem.) Absent a universal authority, the tendency in Islam is for the shriller literalists to get heard, not the softer accomodationists.

By: Panagakos G

Panagakos G — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:09:39 +0000

they shouldn’t necessarily expect the gentle touch No, Daniel, after all your lies, obscenities and sleazy behavior, after all the demonstrations of your making shit up, “the gentle touch” is something we have learned not to expect. Still, like listening to the Republican Convention, it comes as a shock when people’s worst expectations are confirmed.

By: naomi

naomi — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:54:52 +0000

Another thing, Hélène, on the “western” character of Christianity – don’t you actually agree it’s also the other way round, ie. that it’s Judaism and for the biggest part Christianity that has shaped so much of the western world? Thousands of years of parallel histories, in which religion was one of the biggest factors in shaping mentalities, public life, even politics and laws of Europe, America, and even beyond the limited confines of the west. It’s still a part of that history, like it or not. And it took time and a lot of blood and sweat to make Christianity more “western”, it didn’t happen overnight, and it did happen through concessions and compromises and accomodation as well as fighting. If you do believe that “anyone fighting to Islamize modernity — at least for Muslims living in the West — is also doomed to failure”, then are you suggesting that even attempts at modernising Islam, reaching an integration with Islam, are useless? If so, what’s plan B? Let fundamentalists take over all of Islam all over the world, and let the west deal with that in military terms only? I’m just wondering about the conclusion of this absolute skepticism.

By: naomi

naomi — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:35:33 +0000

Hélène: yes, mainstream Christianity and Judaism as they are generally practised have modernised, come to terms with modernity, relatively better than Islam. We all know that. So? Where do you go from there? My bringing up the Vatican was not meant to say, Catholicism or even strict Catholicism is the same as Islam. It’s similar in many respects, but even the Vatican has learnt to deal with modernity relatively better than Islam. But, insofar as claims and beliefs about one’s religious view being still superior to a non-religious one, or one from another religion, that’s the part that’s the very same. Even alongside modernisation and acceptance of secular principles, there is always that point of view: I’m religious, so religion is what shapes my whole view of the world. If you don’t believe that, then you’re not religious. Again, I do not share that view myself, but I can live with it when it’s within reasonable enough limits. So I see no reason to fault that view when it comes from a Muslim, that’s all. Does Ramadan refuse secular principles? no. Does he advocate Muslims should be exempted from following secular laws? no. (Even on the headscarf ban, even if he argued against it, he said, now it’s law, let’s respect it. Hardly a fundamentalist stance.) Does he want shariah courts in place of ordinary courts? no. Does he refuse everything that does not come from Islam? no. Quite the contrary. I do not subscribe to his views. His views are not targeted at me. I’m not a Muslim. His main target is young European and American Muslims. He wants them to retain pride in their religion and integrate that in their being citizens of their country. Integrate secular and religious principles. He is against a separatist view of Muslim identity as being in opposition to a European or American identity. What other sensible alternative there is? Keep going on and on about how Islam is irredeemably ancient and will never be able to modernise? Or demand Muslims abandon their religion en mass? How successful would that approach be? It would only drive people even more towards extremes. Shouldn’t the effort to modernise Islam start somewhere and be realistic? It’s no use repeating how Islam is archaic. Of course it is, all religions are, Islam is more rigid than others. It doesn’t make sense to brand as “fundamentalist in disguise” even people who are actually trying to get things moving on. If he has to appeal to Muslims and draw them towards better integration in European and American society, he still has to appeal to Islamic values and praise Islam, that is very obvious. What else should he say? We can’t demand someone like Ramadan starts saying a secular approach is better than an Islamic approach, because then he would be denying the validity of Islam, and that would be a very dumb thing to do, when you’re actually trying to reach people who want to retain their faith. Otherwise, let’s have the mullahs run the show. Doesn’t sound like a great prospect to me. He’s talking from a perspective of living in France, and there even more than in other European countries, there is a growing trend towards fundamentalism even more among young Muslims, third or fourth generation immigrants, who feel more alienated than their fathers. Why not try and counteract that alienation? We don’t do that by demanding people become apostates, or by inferring that even renowned advocate of integration is a terrorist. It’s a reaction that only panders to the fear of western non-Muslim citizens vis a vis Islam. It doesn’t address anything other than emotion and simplistic ideology and us vs. them, who’s better, who’s cooler. And in doing so, paradoxically, it’s not too far from the Islamist mentality it purports to be “fighting”. Mainstream Christianity and Judaism (i.e. as they are practised; most Catholics ignore the Vatican’s pronouncements on sex, abortion, marriage etc.) are now western religions Let’s enlarge the view a little. The “west” is only a part of the world. In some African countries, Christianity has very little of the “western” spirit, if we mean a liberal attitude. In places like Nigeria, for instance, it has taken a scarily fundamentalist approach. And we’re talking millions of followers and billions of profits, not just a bunch. And even in the west, American society is not a secular as Europe. Fundamentalists have obtained creationism be taught instead of scientific theories. It’s not a marginal result. It’s in no way modern or “western” in that sense. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume most Christians ignore pronouncements on things like abortion, whatever branch of Christianity we’re talking about. It seems like it’s one of the hottest issues for practicing Christians. All that goes to show that the danger of religions interfering with public life always exists. I for one would be happier if every religious group and church on earth was like buddhists. But they’re not. So I have to deal with it. I have to give the benefit of the doubt to religious people, and not brand them as extremists just because they believe their view is superior to mine. And I have to appreciate anyone who makes an effort to speak in favour of reconciling any religion with liberal, secular values. Especially if that religion is still stuck in very backward territory and being used by violent extremists to attract more followers to engage in more violence. I don’t see what good it does to keep calling out for Muslim moderates to speak, then, when they do, bash them on the head for still being Muslims. It’s a very obtuse, masochistic, self-serving kind of arrogance.

By: H�l�ne

H�l�ne — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:39:57 +0000

Naomi: I was born and raised Catholic and educated in a convent school (in Québec, if you haven’t already guessed where I’m from) so I know a bit about church attitudes to modern liberal society. To personalize it even further, my first husband was (born) Muslim, and while he had long since lapsed into atheism (where I’ve been ensconced since my teens), some members of his family were still observant and there were ongoing debates. All of this to say that religion is not a subject that interests me much except when it becomes political. Which is too often these days. In my view, (to simplify it enormously), the main obstacle encountered by mainsteam Muslims attempting to “modernize” their religion is that mainstream Islam today is essentially fundamentalist (some argue that this has occurred largely in the 20th century), where literalism has long since been discarded in the mainstreams of the other two monotheistic religions. (This, too, is the argument of Irshad Manji, a lively compatriot Muslimah writer-broadcaster who has raised the hackles of local co-religionists not only with her religious irreverance but with her lesbian lifestyle.) Mainstream Christianity and Judaism (i.e. as they are practised; most Catholics ignore the Vatican’s pronouncements on sex, abortion, marriage etc.) are now western religions and, with variations, reflect the region’s liberal democratic culture and society. They have become modernized. In the long run, I suspect that anyone fighting to Islamize modernity—at least for Muslims living in the West—is also doomed to failure.

By: naomi

naomi — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 08:44:25 +0000

“In general, my take on Ramadan is that, as Jacques Jormier puts it, he is not out to modernize Islam but to Islamize modernity.” Well, Hélène, you see, the problem is, that you indeed could have the same approach to a strict Catholic. the Vatican makes many pronouncements on political, social, ethical issues in which it puts Catholic beliefs and views above any other, as is only natural from their point of view. But from a different non-religious or just non-Catholic point of view, one might claim that “the Vatican is not out to modernise Christianity, but to Christianise modernity”. It is literally what they do. And even outside of the Vatican, or of Catholicism alone, or of the clergy, many public figures who overtly support a religious view want that view to shape modernity, and denounce other approaches (secular-only, godless, atheist, rationalist, etc.) as inferior, or even dangerous. I do not like that approach one bit, but as log as it keeps itself this side of lunacy and dictatorship, I can live with it. Because it exists, and it comes from each major religion. I would love it if wasn’t like that, but I can’t demand the impossible. So if everyone can live with moderate Christians being Christians and “Christianising modernity” for themselves, in their point of view, and working to proselitise others to their view, within reasonable, tolerable, non-coercive terms, I don’t see why we cannot live with the same when it’s coming from Muslims. Most people do not tend to assume all Christians are far-out loons that harass women who want to have abortions, so I don’t see why they should tend to assume that all Muslims, just by virtue of believing in Islam as superior to any other set of beliefs, are far-out loons who want to behead or burka everyone else. That’s definitely not the message Ramadan is sending out, unless, of course, he’s saying moderate things in public and then, undercover, underground, goes around advocating mass killing of infidels, but we might as well assume the same “deception” of Daniel Pipes, or anyone. Sometimes, it feels like today we’re hearing echoes of the same ideological paranoia that in medieval times used to be targeted at both Jews and Muslims. Such a triumph for modernity, that.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:39:24 +0000

The comment above is from troll “Angus Cook”, who I assume is also appearing here as “Helene”, “Hannah” etc, and is taken from email I wrote to him/her/it. I suggest we ignore it, and maybe it will go away.

By: John Q

John Q — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:55:01 +0000

“As I’ve previously indicated, I’ll respond on comments threads when and if I choose, and do not intend to respond to harassment from you. Please go away.” John Q

By: angus cook

angus cook — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:50:39 +0000

Naomi seems to have something to hide because his email address is not a@b.ci.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:39:31 +0000

Or to put it another way; everyone on the internet is free if they like to come onto CT, shout the odds, make dubious claims about things that I know about, try to pull rank on me by claiming many (uncheckable) years of experience and call me names, but they shouldn’t necessarily expect the gentle touch if they do it.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:35:25 +0000

Looking back over the thread, I’m happy with my comments, my behaviour, my French translations and my assertions. I can’t remember being so happy since I gave up Valium.

By: Ilya

Ilya — Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:03:03 +0000

Delpiero, As Naomi explained, your IP address is automatically logged on Crooked Timber, as at many (not all) blogs. So there’s nothing sinister about that. But Dsquared’s explanation is, well, a bit disingenuous. There are a lot of things done automatically on a web site but checking someone’s IP address against someone else’s is not one of them. That requires personal intervention (funny how that word reappears). If Helene has a dynamic address, it means that it changes every time she logs onto the Internet. So the most someone could gather from an examination of her current address – and even that would require the use of some tracing utility – is that she was a subscriber to, say, AOL or Comcast or Earthlink, in maybe a specified geographical region. Short of requisitioning the ISP’s own records there is no way of knowing that a particular user was assigned and using a specific address at a specific time. To imply otherwise is dishonest.