Tariq Ramadan-Audio Lectures/RIS-The Muslim Spiritual Identity

[Miriam1]

Hello All,

 

Just stumbled across these great audio lectures, I have re-listened to two lectures that I have attended myself last dec.

 

The links are below. Let me know what you guys think about his lecutre on the Muslim Identity..

 

I found this interesting myself always.."it is no longer a question of intregration..but one of contribution"

 

And please, we aren't here to discuss the man himself..what he did or said someother time..but these specific lectures or anyother that on the list that discuss the Muslim Identity in the West. Inshallah khair there will be a meaningful discussion

 

http://www.tariqramadan.com/article.php3?id_article=926

 

Ps. click on the MP3 Image, it will download itself, will take 2 short minutes.

[Khayr]

Salams,

 

Sis, why don't you post us the coles notes version of the talk and give it to us in point form, according to your understanding.

 

Tariq Ramadan is French Intellectual first and everything else second (including Muslim)

[Miriam1]

^ Isn't that being a bit lazy brother?

 

The point of the topic, as I stated so clearly is to discuss the specific lecture. If you aren't going to take the time to listen to it. Do not post without sense.

 

Ps. Mods, I guess I made a mistake, this should be in the Islam Section, kindly move it.

 

Thanks

[N.O.R.F]

Sometimes its good to have such discussions in general for maximum exposure. Will listen when everyone has left the office.

[A.J. Timacadeh]

Tariq Ramadan is a grade suck up. He betrays his religion to suck up to the westerners to make himself look like a ''moderate'' muslim as they call him.

 

he put a beautiful muslim to shame

[A.J. Timacadeh]

sorry folks, last line shour read 'he put a beautiful muslim name to shame'

[Miriam1]

^ right that last correction was so necessary...the first two sentences didnt really relay your disgust..

[Taliban]

From Wikipedia*:

 

"He advocates a reinterpretation of Islamic texts"

 

and this part:

 

"Ramadan has voiced his opposition to all forms of capital punishment but believes the Muslim world itself should remove the laws that allow the practice, rather than have the Western world impose its will on it."

 

So, Ramadan wants to abolish capital punishment by means of reinterpretation of Islamic texts? Like *BOB said once, if a Muslim is praised by the West, there must be some monkey business going between them.

 

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan

[Miriam1]

I never thought "intelligent" people trusted wikipedia..how about conducting real research?

[Taliban]

Originally posted by Hayam:

I never thought "intelligent" people trusted wikipedia..how about conducting real research?

I think Wikipedia is OK as a preliminary source of knowledge or information. You suggested conducting real research; how?

[A.J. Timacadeh]

Hayam, are you voicing support for tariq?

 

because the consencus among most muslims i know is that he is a tratior of our religion and therefore dont deserve no sympathy

 

if you are just being objective then i suppose that is fair enough

[Viking]

A.J & Taliban,

Why don't you guys go and read Tariq Ramadan's article on hudud before you throw about accusations? All he said was that hudud be suspended since there was no Islamic country that was ready to implement it. The leaders are corrupt and their govts could not guarantee justice to its citizens. A good example is the Somali lads who were beheaded in Saudi Arabia, a corrupt monarchy. Do you guys think Saudi Arabia is implementing hudud correctly?

 

Here's the article that has caused so much fuss.

[Ameen]

Viking, I understand that those two lads in Arabia may have (or may have not) experienced injustice by receiving the punishment, however, to delay or put aside for the meantime, one of the commandments of Allah, the Most-Great, should NEVER been done. Even if there is no legit Muslims country in the world today, could you really stand in front of Allah on the Last Day and say, "Ya Rabb, in my time, there were corrupt leaders and no (legit) Muslim country therefore a man amongst us subjected that we put Your commandment to the side, have mercy on us for You are indeed the Most Merciful”…could you really say that? No, you wont be able to.

 

I don’t understand why so many people get confused by examples such as this. Many examples within the Seerah of the Prophet (saw), there were examples of the Mushrikeen trying to compromise with the Prophet (saw) in matters that have to do with religion such as the time the Muskriks came to the Prophet (saw) and asked him “worship our Gods for one day and we shall worship your God for one day” and so on and so forth. But Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (saw), never compromised with them in matters of religion because it is not him whom the religion nor the World belongs to but to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and earth. Remember when Allah said or the verse came down regarding this event, “…if we had not kept you (of Muhammad) firm, you would have nearly incline to them but a bit” so the scholars of Islam have said regarding this ayaat that inclining to the Kafirs a bit is a means of defeat. So many examples I can give you from the top of my head but the point is, I have read and visited Tairk Ramadan’s site and I have also read a few articles of his and once, I remember, I read an article of his and he (subhan’Allah) was bashing the scholars of Islam for the fatwas in which they give and he called them, “selfish means of expression” (Allah knows best) but it is not my job to bash him but I leave the matter to Allah to decide however, many students of knowledge have said, “STAY AWAY FROM HIM” and Allah knows best.

[Khayr]

Just something that caught my eye on his website:

 

Q : The French banned headscarves in schools. But they also banned crucifixes. The ban is on overt religious symbols of all kinds. Surely Muslims should respect France’s tradition of laicite, according to which all religious beliefs should be put aside in public places. Do you have any sympathy with that sort of strong French left-wing secular tradition?

 

 

 

 

 

A : In theory you are right. But the practice of laicite dates back to a law of 1905. If a law already exists, why a new law in 2004? This is because crucifixes were accepted under the old law. The new law was passed because of France’s Muslim presence. The reality is that France’s secular tradition is being adapted to target a specific group. French society is going through something of an identity crisis.

I have told all French girls that, if they have to make a choice between going to school and wearing the headscarf, they must choose school. Just go.

This is the law. But at the same time, being a democrat means that you continue to discuss the merits of the law and call for change.

Secular Education comes first, then Obedience to Allah comes second :rolleyes:

 

Q : You say that any woman ought to be able to wear a headscarf if she wants to. Would you also agree that a country such as Iran ought to allow any woman not to wear a headscarf?

 

 

 

 

 

A :

To force a woman to wear a headscarf is against Islamic principles and human rights. That’s it.

Whats the purpose of Shariah and the Quran then?

 

Tariq Ramadan or shall I call you Jacques Raul (I'm sure he would be more comfortable with the later French name), is it the hukmal Jahilliyah that you advocate for over Shariah?

 

Q : Parts of the Koran are clear about accepting other people of the book, the Jews and Christians. But other parts are pretty intolerant of anybody who is, say a polytheist, and by implication anybody who is an atheist. You have said that the acceptance of Jews and Christians should now be extended to others too.

 

 

 

 

 

A : In the Koran we have very strong verses against polytheists and, in some situations against Jews or Christians. But, again, we have to put things into context. We have to ask: why was it so in this particular situation? Was it because the Prophet was resisting oppression? Remember that the Prophet himself had connections with polytheists all his life. When he had to flee Mecca for Medina, he was guided by a polytheist. The emissary of peace he sent from Medina back to Mecca was a polytheist. His close uncle, [Abu Talib who had raised him as a child] chose not to become a Muslim, but the Prophet never said: "I’m going to kill you because you are a polytheist."

So here we have freedom of speech and freedom of conscience for a close member of his family who decided that he did not want to become a Muslim.

:eek:

 

So is Tariq saying that it is your 'Freedom' to choose not to become a muslim (if you are of a muslim family and raised as a muslim)?

 

 

 

Q : What about apostasy? What happens if you are born and educated a Muslim but then say: I have now decided that Islam is not for me. Would you accept that someone born into a Muslim family has a right to say that they no longer believe, and that families and communities must respect that?

 

 

 

 

 

A : I have been criticised about this in many countries. My view is the same as that of Sufyan Al-Thawri, an 8th-century scholar of Islam, who argued that the Koran does not prescribe death for someone because he or she is changing religion. Neither did the Prophet himself ever perform such an act. Many around the Prophet changed religions. But he never did anything against them. There was an early Muslim, Ubaydallah ibn Jahsh, who went with the first emigrants from Mecca to Abyssinia. He converted to Christianity and stayed, but remained close to Muslims. He divorced his wife, but he was not killed.

 

 

It is different for someone who becomes a Muslim during a war with the purpose of betraying Muslims. They are committing treason. This is why the context is so important because the Prophet never killed anyone because he changed religion. From the very beginning,

Muslim scholars understood this. Islam does not prevent someone from changing religion because you feel that this is not right for you, or if you are not happy. There are two records of the Prophet saying that someone changing religion should be killed. But both sources are weak.

:eek: The most explicit one-"He who changes his religion, kill him"-was not accepted as being authentic by Imam Muslim, [one of the top six biographers of the life of the Prophet].

Source

 

This is just a snib bit.

 

There is so much more and his article on the hudood ordiance stems from his view that the Quran is a 'Historical Text' and not 'Timeless Scripture' that is transhistorical and transgeographical .

 

There are umptin errors in this 'media personality's' talks and writings.

 

He is very much anti-traditional and pro-Islamic Reform.

[Fabregas]

Quote:Secular Education comes first, then Obedience to Allah comes second

 

So what? You live in a western society were you indulge in riba and constant unislamic taxes! Some of these taxes probably go to fund wars against Muslims. In fact if you really obeyed your lord, you would have migrated from the West!That is, if you live in the West!