http://www.e-prism.org/images/tariqfinal291203.doc

If you don’t like downloading .doc files or don’t have Microsoft word, you can read the google cache html translation of the paper.

I’m not sure how long google links are good for so I’ll give you a title and a link:
Some Notes on Arabic Terminology as a Link Between Tariq Ramadan and Sheikh Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Founder of the Doctrine of “Muslim Minority Jurisprudence” (Fiqh al-Aqaliyyat al-Muslimah) By SHAMMAI FISHMAN*

gettoes

I believe I just managed to beat Dan Quayle at his own game.

One qualification about Ramadan’s use of the word “interventions”, however. First, in the context of the interview Ramadan’s quote had to do not with his own assessment, but with his discussion of perceptions prevalent in the public at large. But in that context, though I’m sure my French isn’t as good as yours, it sound to my ears that he use the word ironically, precisely because it is not the usual usage. I note that Ramadan’s interview is the only record Google has for the phrase “interventions de New York”, while the phrase “intervention terroriste” is mainly used to describe American actions.

Q: What are the effects of this “paternalism” [of the West towards the Muslim world]?

A: The power and domination come from the North. The US, at the international level, and Israel, at the local level, are perceived as dominating countries. And Muslims see themselves as resisting this domination. This is what the current elite in Iraq repeat at will. And, after September 11, the North is resisting an informal power called al-Qaeda. In short, in both camps today, there is a feeling of being in a state of resistance. And to resist in the name of God is more easily considered to be legitimate. What we have here are two simplistic notions [deux simplismes] that are in confrontation.

Q: To the point of legitimatizing terrorism?

A: From the French banlieues [the code word for "Arab gettoes"] to Muslim societies, you would not find support, except quite minute, for the interventions of New York, Bali or Madrid. One cannot conflate Iraqi or Palestinian resistance with pro-Bin Laden actions.

Everyone can decide for themselves whether this is a bit too much cultural relativism for their tastes or just enough.

See also Abu Aaardvark for an interesting exchange with Lee Smith about his American Prospect article.

Congratulations on this short article, it’s a very nice piece of (nearly-)scientific work. Checking, analysing and verifying facts is sometimes a long and tedious task that requires knowledge at the limit of the mainstream. You did a very good job at showing the lies behind this article, what may open the mind of those that can accept right and accurate arguments with honesty. I salute your open-mindedness for not taking sides and choosing the right words regarding believers, especially muslims.

Keep up the good work.

I have stayed in Ramadan hotels on several occasions, and can confirm that they provide examplary service at a very economical price. In the past, I’ve recommended them to several of my friends.

I just feel that needed to be said.

Yours,

Brother Vaughan.

I’ve read Lee Smith in Slate and have never known whether or not he actually has the authority to assert what he does. He often simply states a point of view as if it were fact. Nothing wrong with stating an honest opinion, though.

To exxaggerate, Smith is generally opposed to engaging or discussing anyhing with any practicing Muslim political figure. You can read him for yourself to see if there is a counter-example — I haven’t seen one.

Daniel Pipes, however, is in my opinion almost pure ideologue. I think there is an argument that says that people who equivocate (for want of a better word) about the murders of 9/11 should not be allowed into the country. I disagree with that argument, and find it shallow and shameful. His appointment to the US peace institute was inappropriate, and indicates the partisan, irrational cronyism that American culture has descended into with the absense of the big Soviet bogeyman. People are, obviously, free to disagree about this.

I’m curious, though, about the level of invective in the replies to this article. Reasonable replies question the analysis of Lee Smith, whom I think not very good but not at all the same as Pipes; question certain issues (I find it not a huge yet an interesting point that he said either “actions” or “interventions” or “events”); and the issue of whether Al-Turabi is a bad man or a mostly bad man. These are all legitimate criticisms of the article.

However, the other stuff — who cares about style? No matter the argument, anyone who goes to the trouble of informing you about their biases before presenting a researched argument — even a poor one — is doing you a favor. Mr. Martens has done me a favor despite the tone of the writing and the weakness of certain points. Thanks. Good stuff.

DSW