tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post3857279498409316330..comments2024-01-05T01:21:21.702-08:00Comments on <center>SPECULUM CRITICUM TRADITIONIS</center>: Terrorist liberals, or, The Smudge of Ambiguityskholiasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-77246847393512519692010-05-08T15:50:15.136-07:002010-05-08T15:50:15.136-07:00Anti-Semitism is of course a whole special six-pac...Anti-Semitism is of course a whole special six-pack of worms, and warrants a post in & of itself. <br /><br />Harman is very interested in the Islamic metaphysical tradition, which at least once upon a time showed a great deal of interest in apodicticity. Of course the continuity between the great figures like Ibn Sina or the Ikhwan al Safa and 20th or 21st c. figures as different as Qutb, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, & Ramadan himself, is, let us say, uneven. <br /><br />I think if Ramadan were to be dissimulating it could be either for merely venal (personal) reasons-- ambition, self-promotion, etc-- or for deep-seated ideological reasons. My impression is that the critiques of Berman, Fourest, et al, tend to blur these, contnent to paint the worst picture they can. Which suggests to me that they are more motivated by the effect they are aiming to create than a serious analysis. <br /><br />The impression I have of Ramadan is of a serious man who is genuinely wrestling with the very difficult problem to finding a home in the modern world for a tradition that is in many ways deeply at odds with it. Ambiguity is inherent in this project, arising as soon as we reject a simple dichotomy between meliorism and apologism. This is, after all, the question of human freedom.skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-51106883507932201422010-05-08T12:45:20.787-07:002010-05-08T12:45:20.787-07:00Part of what tunes up the illative sense is a prof...Part of what tunes up the illative sense is a profound commitment to truth. When a thinker offers us a blatant fallacy of distribution viz. anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic and lets it be understood as 'all anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic' then I consider him a mere controversialist. It's worse if he doesn't get the fallacy involved. <br /><br />Is Ramadan crafty? How would it benefit him? The muslim world* (under advisement) has no great interest in the apodeictic at present (open to correction). I don't know if Harman (at Cairo?) has let slip any information on this. Post colonials tend to be very sensitive about criticism. It can do more harm than good even though a little self-flagellation will divert the modern European who is meliorist to the core.<br /><br />'Everything is passing save His face'.(Koran 28:88) Does Ramadan believe this? If he does then it will inform his thinking and wisdom will issue which will not be congruent with his convenience.ombhurbhuvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789523088428270027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-1614815649092157332010-05-08T09:34:10.048-07:002010-05-08T09:34:10.048-07:00Surely it is defensible to claim that anti-Zionism...Surely it is defensible to claim that anti-Zionism has an anti-Semitic version, which may be very widespread in some quarters. (I think it is even possible to support Israel's "right to exist" and be anti-Semitic). However, that is a far cry from saying that it is inherently anti-Semitic. As is (or ought to be) well-known, the desirability of a Jewish state was far from a foregone conclusion among the European Jewish community in the '20s and '30s, and even after WWII. So some anti-Zionism may have roots in anti-Semitism, but unless we want to have recourse to the old chestnut of the self-hating Jew, it can't be so easily dismissed. <br /><br />As to territory-marking (and I think it's not just birds...) this is what is so reprehensible about the "intellectual" scene (and why ambiguity is not well-tolerated, since a boundary needs to be well-marked). If all we are doing is staking our claims (and I agree this is what far too much of the "smack-downs" reduce to), no real encounter ever takes place. Ramadan's discourse at least invites it. Is he just playing a crafty game? The insidious thing about the attacks on him is that they make this question unavoidable just by virtue of their constant reiteration. If you don't at least wonder about Ramadan's motives, you're in danger of being just a naive dupe. If you even want to think about him, you have to give a nod (and more than a nod) to his detractors and all their innuendo. But of course such innuendo is just another form of territory-marking. And we know what we use to mark territory.skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-63708195492170394262010-05-08T08:22:17.090-07:002010-05-08T08:22:17.090-07:00Paul Berman brought it up so let's look at him...Paul Berman brought it up so let's look at him first. He is the one that claimed that Anti-Zionism had its roots in anti-Semitism. That leaves a lot of born Israelis in an untenable position! Both him and Ramadan are doing what avian nature is now at - making nests for themselves and marking their territories. Don't play scrabble with Berman.ombhurbhuvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07789523088428270027noreply@blogger.com