« Back to the issue | Main | He sounds like Oswald Spengler »

Tariq's PoMo jargon

Look's like Tariq knows his PoMo (postmodernist) jargon well.  What the heck does "contextually explicable" mean anyway???

As Pipes pointed out in an article in September, Ramadan was interviewed by the Italian magazine Panorama and later claimed that the magazine "misquoted" him in the published interview.  The magazine, which recorded the interview, replied to this allegation as follows:

After the publication of the last issue with his interview, Ramadan sent this letter: "Panorama attributes me unacceptable sentences that I never pronounced and that would lead people to believe that ‘it is comprehensible to kill children.' Nothing can justify the killing of children and the innocent and these acts are in contradiction with the principles of Islam. My condemnation is clear."

The interview with Ramadan was recorded. Here is the full transcript of his answer to the question of whether it is right to kill children and Israeli civilians because they are considered soldiers.

I don't believe that an eight year old child is a soldier. These acts are condemnable; therefore one has to condemn them in themselves. But I say to the international community that they are contextually explicable, and not justifiable. What does this mean? It means that the international community today has placed the Palestinians in a situation where they are delivered political oppression, which explains (not justifying it) that at a certain point people say: we don't have arms, we don't have anything, and so we cannot do anything other than this. It is contextually explicable but morally condemnable.

Saying that killing Israeli children is "contextually explicable" is tantamount to a "clear condemnation"? Justifying that there is no choice but to kill is a "clear condemnation" of the culture of death? Is it a "clear" position to say that an Israeli eight year old child is not a soldier, but his parents who ride the bus and get blown-up are soldiers? Who then are the "innocent" in Ramadan's eyes? Why did he not reply to this question, as did Magdi Allam [a prominent Italian journalist of Egyptian Muslim origins], that "human life is sacred"?

Well, there's that darn "contextually explicable"!  Wow, maybe Tariq does have a lot to teach the U of Notre Dhimmi:

Angry Alumnus: Kevin White, why does Bill Deidrick's coaching stink???
AD Kevin White: Well, his coaching is contextually explicable . . .

Angry Residence Hall Rector: Hey! Why are you students breaking parietals!?!
Students: Well, the University's student codebook, du Lac, is constextually explicable . . .

What a load of hermeneutical nonsense.  How postmodern.  So Yasir Arafat has "no choice" but to send other people's children on suicide missions. What, nonviolent resistance won't work in the West Bank?!?  It's all contextually explicable!  And THIS is the kind of guy that the Kroc Institute wants teaching UND's students?

I'll leave the final word on this matter to Daniel Pipes:

It's case closed on the matter of both Ramadan's being moderate or truthful. He is neither one nor the other.

October 23, 2004 | Permalink


The comments to this entry are closed.