( Shared by Azeem Farooki)
“Over-definition of norms makes it possible to legitimize attitudes that may be legally licit, but do not respect Islamic ethics in matters of behavior”
“We are coming to the end of a historic cycle the likes of which Islamic civilization has experienced many times before. Scholars and thinkers of the new generations will emerge to carry out the fundamental reform as to the way of reading the sacred texts in a spirit of renewal, faith and courage. Women and men who embody a reform of consciences that resists the dehumanization of their spiritual being, who refuse to accept the world as it is, and who commit themselves to reform in their hearts and societies, not by adapting to what they have become, but by transforming them and leading them to what they must become, in freedom, dignity and peace.”
Click below to read full article:
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/contemporary-islamic-conscience-in-crisis-1.1165490
Posted by F.Sheikh
can anyone tell me in plain english what mr. tariq ramadan has tried to say in this very lengthy article that even an english major may have difficulty understanding. “scholars, and thinkers of the new generation……in a spirit of renewal, faith and courage”. what the heck does that mean practically? why can’t these people come up with 5 or 10 things we need to do with specifics?
Mr. Tariq Ramadan is considered one of the modern Islamic scholar, but he wrote this essay in convoluted paragraphs without being very explicit, and what rules and regulations he is talking about. In my opinion he is trying to make these points.
1- He writes ” Can the 1,000-year Islamic civilization make an original contribution to the concert of cultures and civilizations?”.
I think he is saying that we are in crisis to make ” ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS’ to present cultures and civilization. We are presenting the same old thought.
2- As Irfan and others were discussing before, rituals has become defining aspect of Muslim lives which has no connection to daily lives. And Mr. Ramad is saying that these rituals( rules regulations) has become the ultimate goal also and not the Goal of creating a modern just society and consider these rituals( rules regulations) just one of the means and not the end.Below is a convoluted paragraph where he is basically saying that the means and ends has been reversed.He writes;
“The most visible, the most serious signs of the crisis of the contemporary Islamic conscience can be found in the inversion of means and ends, and in the reversal of the order of the essential and the secondary. Inversion and reversal best describe the crisis that afflicts virtually every aspect of human activity, up to and including Islam’s spiritual message.”
He writes:
“like a person at prayer who focuses his entire attention on the ritual movements of his body while forgetting to turn his heart upwards”
‘We find the same inversion when we examine the question of Islamic rules and regulations (the licit and the illicit, halal and haram) in today’s world. Whether a question of personal practice or social regulation’
.
“the idea of the victim who must so surround himself with rules, regulations and interdiction that he ultimately denatures the very meaning of Islam’s teachings’
In the last paragraph he is hoping the the young generation will contribute original thoughts to change the thinking rather than adopting to the old rules.
I hope I have not made the things even more confusing.
Fayyaz
i think i got the gist of what mr. ramadan was saying the very first time; it could have been expressed in one sentence: that muslim thinking needs to change. but that most of us know and even talk about in our weekend social get togethers; nothing earth shattering about that statement. i expect something more concrete and specific from a writer of his status.
something simple like how do we convince ALL muslims that it is not ok to kill a girl b/c she decides to go to school. even though most of us would support that idea, how do we convince the fanatic, violent but very vocal minority that believes otherwise?. because of the majority’s relative silence on this and other important issues, that minority gets to “represent” muslims and give us the bad publicity. why wasn’t there more of an outrage and a call for justice over the attempted murder of malala? why was she not offered medical treatment in a muslim majority country, some of whom have sophisticated medical care, and why was she not offered asylum in a muslim majority country?
is it b/c we are afraid of that violent minority? or is it b/c some of us are secretly sympathetic to them? or do we just don’t care? if it is any one of the above, we need to change on those if any of our “modern thinking” is to bring about real change.
Comment by Madhumita Dey
Shoeb Amin!
Right on the dot. Rational and logical.
Madhumita Dey
I think that is the dilemma. The modern Islamic Scholars who can make some diffidence, talk in generality and are afraid to be explicit and unambiguous.
Fayyaz
I agree, Tariq Ramadan is “usually ” easy to read and a pleasure to listen. But I thought the theme was interesting in that it was already being discussed by Irfan and others, which is a good sign and a compliment to TF.
It would be helpful if Azeem Farooki would have described some important points in this article by Tariq Ramadan.
What points in this article impressed Azeem Farooki that he is sharing it with Thinkers Forum USA?
Thinkers Forum USA claim to be a place for thinkers. Without analysis thinking is just a futile activity.
I have read this article. If Tariq Ramadan is a thinker who represent Muslims, then Muslims are heading for a very difficult time.
It is thinkers responsibility to analyze a situation and then come up with the solution/strategy. No analysis, no solution.
Can Azeem Farooki explain in simple words what Tariq Ramadan is saying in this article.
Just stating the problem is not analysis.
Most thinking Muslims are aware of the problem.
What are are the causes which brought Muslims to this situation?
If the the real causes of a problem are not identified, no solution is possible.
Marwan
Conflated reasoning in religion often leads to ambiguity rather than clarity.
I speak for myself.
This comment is too aphoristic for me.
Nietzsche defined “Aphoristic Expression” as plodding on the top of the hills.
Aphoristic expressions are normally pregnant with complex thoughts with least amounts of words used.
I can feel the intensity of the comment but intellectually I do not feel the grip of it.
‘Conflated reasoning’ may need some elaboration with its basic definition.
Is it applicable to every religion or some specific religion/s?
‘Conflated reasoning’ implies that that there are other forms of reasoning. If yes what are those?
In this comment that are four major concepts.
(1) Reasoning
(2) Religion
(3) Ambiguity
(4) Clarity
#3 and #4 are the ultimate goals. They require simple dictionary meanings.
#1 and #2 are relatively complex concepts.
#1 Reasoning is a process and a means to achieve the goal of clarity.
We may need a definition of ‘Reasoning’.