Hoogleraar wil Europa islamiseren

[jan hyoens]

Hoogleraar Ramadan wil Europa islamiseren

vrijdag 15 december 2006 11:41 Elsevier
De Erasmus Universiteit in Rotterdam (EUR) liet het volgende persbericht uitgaan:
'Dr. Tariq Ramadan wordt vanaf 1 januari 2007 voor twee jaar gasthoogleraar "Identiteit en Burgerschap" aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Hij bekleedt de wisselleerstoel die is ondergebracht bij zowel de Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen (FSW) als de Faculteit der Historische en Kunstwetenschappen (FHKW). De wisselleerstoel is voor vier jaar ingesteld op initiatief van de gemeente Rotterdam. De rector magnificus van de EUR nodigt Ramadan uit om colleges te geven en een bijdrage te leveren aan de opzet van een universiteitsbrede minor over burgerschap en identiteit. Ook zal hij een rol spelen in het onderzoek op het gebied van integratie en multiculturaliteit dat aan de betrokken faculteiten wordt verricht.'
Omstreden
Ramadan is een omstreden man, een intellectueel met vele maskers en tongen, een moeilijk te vangen denker - maar één ding is duidelijk: hij zoekt naar mogelijkheden om Europa te islamiseren.
Hieronder een stuk dat ik eerder dit jaar schreef. Het is een bespreking van een stuk van Ramadan in de International Herald Tribune. Het is in het Engels. Het stuk van Ramadan werd door mij 'gefiskt' (een werkwoord ontleend aan de naam van Robert Fisk, een beruchte Britse journalist).
The International Herald Tribune published an article by Tariq Ramadan about the cartoons. Below I am Fisking this piece.
Free speech and civic responsibility, 6 February 2006, by Tariq Ramadan
(Tariq Ramadan is a visiting professor at Oxford's St. Antony's college and a senior research fellow at the Lokahi Foundation in London. He is author of 'Western Muslims and the Future of Islam'. This Global Viewpoint article was distributed by Tribune Media Services International. His comments are adapted from an interview with Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels.)
My comment: he is also considered a person with a double agenda, speaking with two tongues, a fundamentalist under the coating of a liberal intellectual.
Go to (more) below...

• TR - There are three things we have to bear in mind about the controversy over the cartoons published in the European media depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
  
  First, it is against Islamic principles to represent in imagery not only Muhammad, but all the prophets of Islam. This is a clear prohibition.

• LdW - It may be a prohibition, but this rule has been overstepped since many centuries. There is a long tradition in some Muslim countries to depict the Prophet, so it may be clear that there is a prohibition, it is also clear that this prohibition is not absolute.

• TR - Second, in the Muslim world, we are not used to laughing at religion, our own or anybody else's. This is far from our understanding. For that reason, these cartoons are seen, by average Muslims and not just radicals, as a transgression against something sacred, a provocation against Islam.

• LdW - This is a strange paragraph: 'not used to laughing at religion'. How sad. Well, we in the West laugh a lot. Jesus has been the main character of a musical, we have 'The Life of Brian', which is mocking Judaism and Christianity at the same time – we have thousands of books criticizing and insulting religion, so: if you want to live among us, get used to it. Religiosity contains many aspects for ridicule. We cannot make an exception for one single religion. We are all equal for the law and the blasphemers.
  
  By the way: blogger 'Iraq the Model' mentions that the Arab-Islamic world knows many thousands of jokes about Allah and the Prophet, some very blasphemous by nature. So don't paint a picture that is not correct, please.

• TR - Third, Muslims must understand that laughing at religion is a part of the broader culture in which they live in Europe, going back to Voltaire. Cynicism, irony and indeed blasphemy are part of the culture.

• LdW - Yes, it is – when individuals became more educated, when science started to explain the many mysteries that were part of the incomprehensibility and indifference of nature and the cosmos was not magic anymore, when people lost most of their primary fears when science, material security and hygiene progressed, it was possible to use the freedom that was once forbidden by religion and church institutions. We in the West are calling this 'progress'.
  
  
  And again: be honest, admit that Muslims tell each other hard jokes about their religion.

• TR - When you live in such an environment as a Muslim, it is really important to be able to take a critical distance and not react so emotionally. You need to hold to your Islamic principles, but be wise enough not to overreact to provocation.

• LdW - It has nothing to do with provocation. The God of most modern Christians and Jews is not a God looking for revenge when He is insulted. Apart from the lunatics who hear 'voices', the God of modern Christians and Jews forgives, comforts, soothes the pain and suffering and will never incite or ask for the death of human beings.

• TR - For Muslim majority countries to react emotionally to these cartoons with boycotts is to nurture the extremists on the other side, making it a test of wills. On one side, the extremists argue: 'See, we told you, the West is against Islam.' On the other side they say, 'See, Muslims can't be integrated into Europe, and they are destroying our values by not accepting what we stand for.'

• LdW - Most Muslim countries are being led by liars and hypocrites, often despots who don't allow their own people freedom, let alone religious minorities. Anyone can live in the free West – just stick to the rules, worship your saints and Gods in the privacy of your home and your church without bothering other people, and try to contribute to the progress of mankind, and by this we mean: contribute to freedom, knowledge, science, to the equality for the law made by men for all human beings.
  
  No, these cartoons are not playing into the hands of the extremists. The West is not against Islam or against it values – it is neutral. But if you are a Muslim and you expect a special treatment in the West, you will be disappointed. Our societies are organized in such a way that they are blind to the various colors of religion.

• TR - This way of opening a debate on emotional grounds is, in fact, a way of closing the door on rational discourse.

• LdW - There is no discourse. Let me make it even stronger: I don't want a discourse about religion, not even a rational one. We can exchange our sets of beliefs, and I grant you your sanctities, but I just want us all to be part of the great adventure of Western culture, which for the first time in human history allows every individual, regardless of gender, race, religion, abilities, to participate in its open democracies.

• TR - What we need now on both sides is an understanding that this is not a legal issue, or an issue of rights. Free speech is a right in Europe and legally protected. No one should contest this. At the same time, there should be an understanding that the complexion of European society has changed with immigrants from diverse cultures. Because of that, there should be sensitivity to Muslims and others living in Europe.

• LdW - There is sensitivity to Muslims as much as there is sensitivity to Hindu's or Buddhists or Sikhs or the Worshippers of Trees (yes, they do exist) – their religious beliefs are personal matters. It is up to every individual in Western societies to believe or not. In these societies the political institutions are neutral to race, religion, gender – this constitutes their strength. It is the key to their success.

• TR - There are no legal limits to free speech, but there are civic limits. In any society, there is a civic understanding that free speech should be used wisely so not as to provoke sensitivities, particularly in hybrid, multicultural societies we see in the world today. It is a matter of civic responsibility and wisdom, not a question of legality or rights. In that context, I think it was unwise to publish these cartoons because it is the wrong way to start a debate about integration. Such a move inflames emotions; it does not court reason. It is a useless provocation.

• LdW - You sound reasonable, but you are nevertheless wrong: these cartoons were not meant as a start for a debate about integration or as a provocation. These cartoons were made because a Danish writer of children's books had problems finding a cartoonist who felt free to make an image of Mohammed. This seems to be a problem, even in the free West.
  
  What did the cartoonists do? They simply copied the image of Mohammed as propagated by the fundamentalists of Islam – we all know that Muslims are being killed daily by fellow Muslims in the name of the Prophet. These fundamentalists are doing a terrible PR job for the Prophet: they tell us that their Prophet wants them to kill infidels and apostates.
  
  An example? Last week, at a trial in Holland, the killer of Theo Van Gogh told the judges: 'Islam and the Prophet Mohammed preach violence against the infidel, and in time of war. Those who claim that Mohammed is a pacifist, are liars and ignorant. The Prophet ordered the heathen to be killed.'
  
  This killer was proud of this statement: he killed a heathen. He is just one of a wide group of imams, warriors, terrorists, all involved in excitement to hate and violence. These people are insulting the Prophet, the cartoonists did not; they just plainly mirrored the images of the fundamentalists.
  
  So don't give us a false idea of the intention of the cartoonists. Blame Van Gogh's killer. Blame the fundamentalists. They provoke. But I agree in one way with you: avoid provocation as much as possible out of civic responsibility.

• TR - How does one imagine that the average Muslim in Europe who opposes terrorism will react seeing the Prophet Muhammad depicted with a bomb in his turban? Publishing these cartoons is a very stupid way to address the issue of freedom of speech.

• LdW - How does one imagine that the average Muslim in Europe who opposes terrorism will react seeing a video showing Muslims killing innocent prisoners as if they were sheep and shouting 'Allah is great and his Final Messenger is Mohammed'? How many Korans – your holiest of holiest - were burned in the attacks of Sunni Muslims at Shiite mosques?
  
  I never witnessed a mass movement of Muslims opposing these cruel, bestial insults of the Prophet. And you suggest that the cartoonists wanted to address the issue of freedom of speech? No. They addressed the limitation of the freedom of speech by Islamo-fascists.

• TR - Now it is a power struggle. Who will have the final word? Who is right? Who will have the upper hand? What do we want, to polarize our world or build bridges?

• LdW - No, this is not a power struggle. Again: you sound reasonable but in the meantime you are raising a smoke screen.
  
  Let me tell you what this is about. This is about mental sanity: blowing up people in the name of the Prophet is a terrible crime – making a cartoon of the Prophet in the mood and intention of Islamo-fascists in order to ridicule them, is a worthy and humane deed.
  
  And you ask: should we build bridges? Yes, we do. With people who can participate in the values of liberty, freedom, equality. If they are religious bigots, I prefer to stay on my island.

• TR - Look, let's have a true debate about the future of our society. Muslims have to understand there is free speech in Europe, and that is that. On the other side, there needs to be an understanding that sensitive issues must be addressed with wisdom and prudence, not provocation. Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean you have to do it. You have to understand the people around you. Do I go around insulting people just because I'm free to do it? No. It's called civic responsibility.

• LdW - Again – you paint with these words a screen of reason. But there is something else behind the screen. I'll explain it to you.
  
  I don't want your debate, and I strongly oppose a so-called 'true' debate. Why? If we are going to debate the progress of Western societies, I am not terribly interested in your Prophet, nor in Allah, nor in the message of the Koran, nor in your religious tradition, although I can watch for hours tv-broadcasts of the Hajj and although I am reading daily in the Koran and although I became a student of your religious tradition.
  
  Let me put it differently: I am not willing to discuss the core values of my society in a 'true debate' if the result should be the acceptance of certain values of your or any other religious tradition. Don't misunderstand me: I do respect your religious beliefs, but I don't want our societies to be more sensible to your beliefs than to other beliefs. My society should be neutral to belief.
  
  Another matter: the factual reality of the countries where your religion is the state religion is painful. Illiteracy, tyranny, the suppression of women, anti-Semitism, tribal moralities – these countries are in deep moral, cultural and economic crises. Criticize the disgusting cartoons being published there.
  
  I do agree with your words about personal responsibilities. I want us to take them. It is a civic responsibility for Muslim immigrants in Europe to raise their children to become responsible citizens. Let's talk about the amazing opportunities of life in the free West. Let's talk about how Muslims can be an integral part of it. Not primarily as Muslims, because your beliefs don't have a higher value than any other religion in this part of the world.
  
  In the West, you are equal to Christians or Hindu's or Sun Worshippers - this is the core rule in the West. I personally may find certain beliefs offensive or ridiculous – but my qualifications are of no importance at all, and this is something essential you truly must understand: in our society, as a Muslim you have no other position than a position next to infidels, polytheists, totem-worshippers, or any other believer in whatever deity.
  
  It doesn't matter whether you believe in one God or in thousands of Gods. It doesn't matter if you believe in the Final Messenger or in the Messenger who is still on His way. You must respect the religious liberties of other people as much as they are required to respect your beliefs, and as an individual citizen you are free to become a sane, thinking and loving individual. Yes, let us talk about enriching our societies with the talents and creativity of your women, who hold so much promise to the Islamic nations and to us.
  
  If you want to discuss the problems holding Muslims down in Western societies, I am with you. But don't expect a special treatment because you believe in the Final Messenger. In the West, we believe in human dignity because of the inner values of humanity. We make laws based upon reason. And if you believe in a God who represents Love, as Pope Benedict XVI does, and Who loves any human being, your tenderness and forgiveness will help us accept the final truth of our mortality. I am an agnost, but I admit I was moved by the first sentence of the Pope's first Encyclical Letter, a biblical quote: 'God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him' ( 1 Jn 4:10).
  
  So: do the right thing and explain this to your fellow Muslims.

Om Lenin te parafraseren " de Westerlingen zullen de koord aanreiken waarmee we ze zullen ophangen."

[van Maerlant]

Tiens... Ik had op z'n minst verwacht in de titel 'schuld van nva' te lezen.

[jan hyoens]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door van Maerlant

Tiens... Ik had op z'n minst verwacht in de titel 'schuld van nva' te lezen.

last van paranoia?

[willem1940NLD]

Ik herinner mij zo gauw de namen niet meer, maar zowel in België als in Nederland hebben we elk al minstens 1 autochtoon van zulk niveau.

[PollyCorrect]

Ik schaam me plaatsvervangend voor de Erasmus Universiteit.

[willem1940NLD]

Universiteit Gent doet alsof zij ontpartijdig/informatief staat ... zie wel overal de nieuw-bedachte eurabiaanse vlag ....
http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/CIE/index.htm

[PollyCorrect]

Oh vreselijk! die Eurabiaanse vlag!

[liberalist_NL]

Ik zie die islamisering echt niet 1,2,3 gebeuren. Wat bedoelt hij eigenlijk precies met islamisering? Het vergroten van het aantal aanhangers van de Islam in Europa? Of het vergroten van de macht van de Islam? Misschien een combinatie?

[baseballpolitieker]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door liberalist_NL

Ik zie die islamisering echt niet 1,2,3 gebeuren. Wat bedoelt hij eigenlijk precies met islamisering? Het vergroten van het aantal aanhangers van de Islam in Europa? Of het vergroten van de macht van de Islam? Misschien een combinatie?

Voor zover ik weet is op dit moment de islam de machtigste godsdient ter wereld. Hoe zij de mensen onderdrukken en uitbuiten! Zij manipuleren heel de westerse wereld uitgezonderd die éne in het witte huis die toch nog een beetje zen verstand kan gebruiken.

[liberalist_NL]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door baseballpolitieker

Voor zover ik weet is op dit moment de islam de machtigste godsdient ter wereld. Hoe zij de mensen onderdrukken en uitbuiten! Zij manipuleren heel de westerse wereld uitgezonderd die éne in het witte huis die toch nog een beetje zen verstand kan gebruiken.

Ik denk dat je het eerder over de islamitische politiek hebt. Ik ken een heleboel moslims, ik vind het aardige, vredelievende mensen die niets tegen mij hebben. In Nederland is zo'n beetje 80% van de moslims tevreden met de rechtstaat en zou er niks aan willen veranderen. Zo imperialistisch vind ik ze niet. Het zijn de extremisten zoals de Iraniërs waar we ons zorgen om moeten maken.

[Sjaax]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door jan hyoens

De rector magnificus van de EUR nodigt Ramadan uit om colleges te geven en een bijdrage te leveren aan de opzet van een universiteitsbrede minor over burgerschap en identiteit. Ook zal hij een rol spelen in het onderzoek op het gebied van integratie en multiculturaliteit dat aan de betrokken faculteiten wordt verricht.'

Verliest men hier de proportie niet een beetje uit het oog? Wat maakt één islamitsche hoogleraar uit? Er zijn in Nederland en België wel hele universiteiten die Katholiek zijn. Je hebt de Katholieke Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, de Katholieke Universiteit Tilburg, de Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, de Katholieke Universiteit Brussel. Deze katholieke missionarissen kunnen ongestoord hun gang gaan. Ik ben blij dat de Erasmus Universiteit een symbolische bijdrage, niet meer dan dat met 1 hoogleraar, aan een ander geluid levert.

[willem1940NLD]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Sjaax

Verliest men hier de proportie niet een beetje uit het oog? Wat maakt één islamitsche hoogleraar uit? Er zijn in Nederland en België wel hele universiteiten die Katholiek zijn. Je hebt de Katholieke Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, de Katholieke Universiteit Tilburg, de Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, de Katholieke Universiteit Brussel. Deze katholieke missionarissen kunnen ongestoord hun gang gaan. Ik ben blij dat de Erasmus Universiteit een symbolische bijdrage, niet meer dan dat met 1 hoogleraar, aan een ander geluid levert.

Die roomsen enzo prediken tenminste sinds omstreeks de Verlichting weinig of geen doodmakerij meer.

[baseballpolitieker]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door liberalist_NL

Ik denk dat je het eerder over de islamitische politiek hebt. Ik ken een heleboel moslims, ik vind het aardige, vredelievende mensen die niets tegen mij hebben. In Nederland is zo'n beetje 80% van de moslims tevreden met de rechtstaat en zou er niks aan willen veranderen. Zo imperialistisch vind ik ze niet.

Het probleem is dat die grote meerderheid de kleine extremistische minderheid zeker ook niet ontmoedigt om hun daden te stoppen! De moslims beschouwen zich als één grote groep en daar zit het probleem!