Tariq tells Barack what’s what
The arrogance of Tariq Ramadan is truly breathtaking.
What we expect from the new president is effective and necessary action as well as a change in attitude. Humility is a key factor…Islam is a great civilisation and Barack Obama should bring a message of true and deep respect by announcing that we all have to learn from each other and that he will commit himself to spreading knowledge of cultural and religious diversity in the United States itself. Humility means we all have to learn from one another and America should be ready to learn from Islam and Muslims as well as from the Hindus or the Buddhists.
Islam is not a civilization at all, just as Christianity and Hinduism and Buddhism are not civilizations; they are all religions, not civilizations. Treating the two as interchangeable is a typically Ramadanesque bullying tactic. The peremptory demands for humility and true and deep respect are…pathetic, if you think about the kind of true and deep respect for other religions (and civilizations) that is on offer in, say, Saudi Arabia. I would urge Tariq Ramadan to learn a little humility himself and stop barking out orders in the name of ‘Muslims’ as if he spoke for all Muslims everywhere.
Does Ramadan believe that Islam and Muslims should learn from Voltaire, David Hume, Robert Ingersoll, and Epicurus? I doubt it.
If he does he certainly doesn’t mention it here – or anywhere else that I’ve seen.
He would probably point to the way Muslim countries only oppressed Christians and Jews a little bit during the middle ages. That and the old “no compulsion in Islam (except for murdering apostates and non-monotheists)” chestnut.
It’s also interesting to note the way he switched from talking about Islam to talking about Muslims. Muslims can learn, but Islam can’t.
The oddest thing about that old chestnut about Muslim countries being so tolerant is that most Muslim countries used to be Christian or Jewish or Zoroastrian, etc. etc., and they were conquered by Muslims. The Crusades, which were no doubt scandalously violent, were a response to Muslim attacks on Europe, which were also scandalously violent. The truth is that we have nothing much to learn from either Islam or Christianity, and the sooner we learn that the better.
Regarding Ramadan’s use of the idea of civilisation, I heard Ramadan in an interview claim that the trouble with Europe and America is that Christianity had lost control of its culture, which Islam would never do. When he speaks of America learning from Islam, he may have that in mind. Time for religion to get back in control, for religion, for Ramadan, is the heart of culture and civilisation. The pope thinks so too.
Speaking as an American, Muslims don’t need to teach us how to blow things up–we already know how to do that.
“The Crusades, which were no doubt scandalously violent, were a response to Muslim attacks on Europe, which were also scandalously violent.” Really? Excuse my apparent ignorance, but I’ve never heard that before. I thought the Crusades were about disgust at the thought of Muslim control of Jerusalem, the centre of the Christian universe. When did Muslims attack Europe?
Oh, dear, Rose, that is such a big subject. The First Crusade (1095) was a response to the appeal by the Eastern Emperor for help against Muslim invasion of Anatolia (1060 et seq). The retaking of Jerusalem was a secondary goal of the Crusade which, in the nature of the case, soon became the primary one. But the precipitating cause was Muslim incursions into the Eastern Empire.
Of course, we have to remember that Christiian Spain was conquered in the period 711-718, and Muslim expansion into what is now France was stopped at the Battle of Tours in 732. Sicily was subjected to Muslim rule in 902, and many incursions into the Italian peninsula were made during the same period. Rome was sacked in 846. Anatolia was conquered in the period 1060-1360, and Muslim expansion to the Northwest was halted only at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, after which the European powers sought to expunge the Ottoman (Muslim) presence from Central and Southeastern Europe.
It is often thought that the Christian powers were the only aggressors, but Islam exploded into a Mediterranean world that was almost entirely Christian. Egypt, the Levant, North Africa, Greece, Sicily, Spain, southern Italy: all of which came under Muslim rule at some point. The fiction that Islam saved Greek culture for Europe is a bit of an exaggeration, since, while it is true that pockets of Muslim scholars were fascinated by Greek culture, and did manage to preserve some of it from the darkening effects of both Christianity and Islam, it is sheer imagination to think that the Muslim world was itself transformed by it.
If only it had been.
Sorry Ophelia, but there I have to agree (a bit) with Ramadan. Islam is a civilization or more exactly the ideology of a civilization.
Islam is about rules and ruling. I really don’t want to call “law” that highly self-serving, immoral mess of arbitrary dictates made by and for a very ambitious warlord. But it’s really all there is to this highly legalistic “religion”. It’s absolutely shocking to anyone who reads the Koran and Hadith with open eyes (rather than presupposing its perfectness).
Yes, Ramadan is correct. Islam is a civilization. But, he doesn’t even realize that it is where the problem lies. Remove the ability for Islam to rule upon societies and human lives and there is strictly nothing left.
As for the supposed “greatness” of Islam, even the most cursory look at countries living under its influence is more than enough to put that notion to rest.
Chances are you’ll never read this Eric, but I just wanted to say thanks for the history lesson. I suppose the reason I didn’t put two and two together is that people normally refer to the people who made incursions into Europe in the period you refer to, as “Moors”, not “Muslims”. Very interesting, something for further research.
Rose: I suggest reading Christopher Tyerman’s God’s War, a good modern one-volume history of the Crusades. Avoid most of the ‘popular’ histories, as those are still largely based on Steven Runciman’s work, which is entertaining, but is over 55 years old and has been largely overturned by more modern research. The prefaces to the 4th ed (2009) of Jonathan Riley-Smith’s What Were the Crusades? sums up the changes in historiography over the past few decades.