View Full Version : Two Banned Muslim Scholars Cleared For U.S. Entry
Two Banned Muslim Scholars Cleared For U.S. Entry
AP, 20 Jan 2010
The State Department has cleared the way for the return to the United States of two prominent Muslim scholars once accused of having ties to terrorism, a spokesman said Wednesday.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has signed orders enabling the re-entry of professors Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University in England and Adam Habib of the University of Johannesburg in South Africa once they obtain required admittance documents, department spokesman Darby Holladay said.
Clinton "has chosen to exercise her exemption authority for the benefit of Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib," Holladay said. "We'll let that action speak for itself."
In a prepared statement, Holladay noted the change in U.S. posture since both professors, who are frequently invited to the United States to lecture, were denied admittance after making statements counter to U.S. foreign policy.
"Both the president and the secretary of state have made it clear that the U.S. government is pursuing a new relationship with Muslim communities based on mutual interest and mutual respect," Holladay said.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued in recent years to challenge the exclusion of the professors. It said the State Department's action means the scholars will now get visas within weeks of requesting them.
The orders are "long overdue and tremendously important," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project.
Habib, a well-known South African scholar who has criticized the war in Iraq, was denied a visa by the U.S. government in a letter saying he "engaged in a terrorist activity," an accusation Habib has vigorously denied.
The ACLU of Massachusetts sued in 2007, challenging Habib's exclusion on behalf of the American Sociological Association, the American Association of University Professors, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights.
Ramadan, 47, had his U.S. visa revoked in 2004 as he was about to move to Indiana to take a tenured teaching job at the University of Notre Dame. He has spoken at Harvard and Stanford universities and elsewhere.
Later, his visa applications were denied on the grounds that he had donated $1,336 to a charity that gave money to Hamas, an Islamic militant group that has been designated a terrorist
organization by the U.S. Ramadan has said he has no connections to terrorism, opposes Islamic extremism and promotes peaceful solutions.
Ramadan said in a statement issued by PEN American Center, a human rights group, that he was "very pleased with the decision to end my exclusion from the United States after almost six years."
He said he was looking forward to visiting the United States soon, and PEN said it planned to organize a forum in New York where he could speak.
In an ACLU statement, Habib said he was thrilled, calling it a victory both personal and "for democracy around the world."
Habib, 44, lived in the United States from 1993-95 while earning a doctorate in political science from the City University of New York. He said he had been excluded since October 2006, when he was questioned by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials about his political views and was asked whether he belonged to or supported any terrorist organizations.
In a 2007 interview with The Associated Press, Habib called the U.S. approach to the Iraq war a disaster. He also said: I'm confident that I can't be linked to things like terrorism. That is not what my politics is about."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122772814
Tariq Ramadan - Aside from his donations to a Hamas wasn’t his grandfather, Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood? :confused:
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/255
Warrior-Mentor
01-26-2010, 08:24
Tariq Ramadan - Aside from his donations to a Hamas wasn’t his grandfather, Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood? :confused:
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/255
Nothing to see here...move along [stupid] dhimmi...
Nothing to see here...move along [stupid] dhimmi...
In that case….well, we may as well open the door to Anwar Al-'Awlaki :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onuEStqTk20&feature=player_embedded#
Warrior-Mentor
01-26-2010, 08:50
But figure the odds this family gets the same treatment:
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/23/death-for-being-a-christian
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091119/girl-appeals-to-obama-to-help-ex-muslim-father/index.html
Team Sergeant
01-26-2010, 09:20
Two Banned Muslim Scholars Cleared For U.S. Entry
AP, 20 Jan 2010
The State Department has cleared the way for the return to the United States of two prominent Muslim scholars once accused of having ties to terrorism, a spokesman said Wednesday.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has signed orders enabling the re-entry of professors Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University in England and Adam Habib of the University of Johannesburg in South Africa once they obtain required admittance documents, department spokesman Darby Holladay said.
Clinton "has chosen to exercise her exemption authority for the benefit of Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib," Holladay said. "We'll let that action speak for itself."
In a prepared statement, Holladay noted the change in U.S. posture since both professors, who are frequently invited to the United States to lecture, were denied admittance after making statements counter to U.S. foreign policy.
"Both the president and the secretary of state have made it clear that the U.S. government is pursuing a new relationship with Muslim communities based on mutual interest and mutual respect," Holladay said.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued in recent years to challenge the exclusion of the professors. It said the State Department's action means the scholars will now get visas within weeks of requesting them.
The orders are "long overdue and tremendously important," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project.
Habib, a well-known South African scholar who has criticized the war in Iraq, was denied a visa by the U.S. government in a letter saying he "engaged in a terrorist activity," an accusation Habib has vigorously denied.
The ACLU of Massachusetts sued in 2007, challenging Habib's exclusion on behalf of the American Sociological Association, the American Association of University Professors, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights.
Ramadan, 47, had his U.S. visa revoked in 2004 as he was about to move to Indiana to take a tenured teaching job at the University of Notre Dame. He has spoken at Harvard and Stanford universities and elsewhere.
Later, his visa applications were denied on the grounds that he had donated $1,336 to a charity that gave money to Hamas, an Islamic militant group that has been designated a terrorist
organization by the U.S. Ramadan has said he has no connections to terrorism, opposes Islamic extremism and promotes peaceful solutions.
Ramadan said in a statement issued by PEN American Center, a human rights group, that he was "very pleased with the decision to end my exclusion from the United States after almost six years."
He said he was looking forward to visiting the United States soon, and PEN said it planned to organize a forum in New York where he could speak.
In an ACLU statement, Habib said he was thrilled, calling it a victory both personal and "for democracy around the world."
Habib, 44, lived in the United States from 1993-95 while earning a doctorate in political science from the City University of New York. He said he had been excluded since October 2006, when he was questioned by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials about his political views and was asked whether he belonged to or supported any terrorist organizations.
In a 2007 interview with The Associated Press, Habib called the U.S. approach to the Iraq war a disaster. He also said: I'm confident that I can't be linked to things like terrorism. That is not what my politics is about."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122772814
I think it's wonderful to see a non-US citizen arguing the rights of "NON-US CITIZENS" for the United States of America.
No hidden agenda there I'm sure.
I'm done "protecting" stupid Americans..... when the shooting starts I'll be sitting back having a beer watching those that put the "socialists" in power fighting for their lives.
AngelsSix
01-26-2010, 17:12
I'm done "protecting" stupid Americans..... when the shooting starts I'll be sitting back having a beer watching those that put the "socialists" in power fighting for their lives.
That makes two of us!!
greenberetTFS
01-26-2010, 17:35
Well,that makes 3 of us............ :mad: I see us going down hill and I don't see any reason to think differently.....:mad: F**k the ACLU,Obama and Hillary Clinton too.......:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Ret10Echo
01-26-2010, 18:57
I'm done "protecting" stupid Americans..... when the shooting starts I'll be sitting back having a beer watching those that put the "socialists" in power fighting for their lives.
--Rant ON--
And while you are doing that our elected officials will be hanging out in some hidey-hole, drinking bottled water and sitting in the sauna while the country crumbles around us.
Because "they" live in such an insulated and isolated world, none of this appears to be a problem. They'll just assign a staffer to deal with that.
Pretty amazing to watch this unfold like one of those really bad "Alien Visitor" movies. Yeah, you know how that ends.
And it isn't some man-scaped wuss in an Armani zoot suite that fixes the "problem". Hope these losers figure out that plot ending about the time they are turned into pink spray by the guy next to them in a homicide vest.
--Rant off--
R10
"Both the president and the secretary of state have made it clear that the U.S. government is pursuing a new relationship with Muslim communities based on mutual interest and mutual respect," Holladay said.
Maybe Hillary's offered him a job making policy for the Department of Homeland Security.
Respect? ....right.... my big ole hairy butt
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/06/video-obamas-islam-us-and-and-islam-are-not-exclusive-based-on-mutual-respect-the-dignity-of-all-hum.html
Warrior-Mentor
01-27-2010, 09:29
Opening the Door to a Stealth Jihadist
by Robert Spencer
01/27/2010
Five years after being barred from the U.S. for making charitable contributions to a group that sent those contributions to the jihad terror group Hamas, internationally renowned Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan, often mislabeled “the Muslim Martin Luther,” is allowed to enter the country again. The turnabout comes not because Ramadan has been cleared of these charges, but because Secretary of State Clinton has, in the words of State spokesman Darby Holladay, “chosen to exercise her exemption authority for the benefit of Tariq Ramadan.”
Holladay disingenuously suggested that the Bush Administration had barred Ramadan from the country because of his opposition to the Iraq War, but no “exemption authority” would have been needed to overturn a ban that had been put in place for that reason. Clinton was exempting Ramadan from prohibitions on supporters of terror groups entering the country.
Ironically, days after the Obama State Department announced the exemption for Ramadan, a Detroit-area Muslim named Mohamad Mustapha Ali Masfaka was arrested at the border while attempting to cross from Canada back into the United States.
His crime?
Lying to the FBI and immigration officials about his work with the Holy Land Foundation, formerly the largest Islamic charity in the United States, which has now been shut down for funneling charitable contributions to Hamas.
So what is the difference between Tariq Ramadan and Mohamad Mustapha Ali Masfaka?
They have both allegedly been disingenuous about their ties to a Hamas charity, and yet Ramadan is free to enter the United States and Masfaka is under arrest. So what unique and compelling benefit does Tariq Ramadan bring to the U.S. that would move Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to bend their own anti-terror rules and make this exemption for him?
The answer, of course, is that Tariq Ramadan is internationally famous as a voice of Islamic moderation -- and a vocal critic of the Bush Administration’s Middle East policies, which the Obama Administration very much wants to subject to public criticism. Mohamad Mustapha Ali Masfaka, in contrast, toils in relative obscurity and offers the Obama Administration no such political fringe benefits.
Ramadan represents the kind of Muslim who should respond most favorably to Obama’s recurring pleas for a new relationship based on mutual respect: urbane, sophisticated, Westernized, closely identified with Islamic moderation and reform.
In fact, Holladay explained the exemption for Ramadan in terms that specifically recalled Obama’s repeated appeals: “Both the president and the secretary of state have made it clear that the US government is pursuing a new relationship with Muslim communities based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”
However, there are cracks in Ramadan’s façade that should have raised eyebrows even in Obama’s State Department. Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood -- an international Islamic supremacist organization that is dedicated, in its own words (according to an internal Brotherhood document captured in a raid of the Holy Land Foundation), to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”
French journalist Caroline Fourest, who has published a book-length study of Ramadan’s sly duplicity, Brother Tariq, concludes that this much-lionized putative Muslim Martin Luther is actually anything but a reformer: in reality, Ramadan is “remaining scrupulously faithful to the strategy mapped out by his grandfather, a strategy of advance stage by stage” toward the imposition of Islamic law in the West.
Ramadan, she explains, in his public lectures and writings invests words like “law” and “democracy” with subtle and carefully crafted new definitions, permitting him to engage in “an apparently inoffensive discourse while remaining faithful to an eminently Islamist message and without having to lie overtly -- at least not in his eyes.” Ramadan, she said, “may have an influence on young Islamists and constitute a factor of incitement that could lead them to join the partisans of violence.”
In light of Ramadan’s smooth duplicity, his new welcome into the U.S. is a fitting symbol for the entire catastrophe of the Obama Administration’s policy toward the Middle East and Islamic terror. Obama reaches out to the Islamic world, assuming that his overtures will be welcomed by voices of reason and restraint. But in making this appeal, Obama drastically underestimates the jihad threat and mistakes all too many enemies for friends. And so now he also underestimates and misevaluates Tariq Ramadan, with consequences that no one can foretell at this point, but which are not likely to be positive.
Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)", "The Truth About Muhammad," "Stealth Jihad," and most recently "The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran" (all from Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).
SOURCE:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35342
In light of Ramadan’s smooth duplicity, his new welcome into the U.S. is a fitting symbol for the entire catastrophe of the Obama Administration’s policy toward the Middle East and Islamic terror.
In the video below, Ayaan Hirsi Ali confounds Christiane Amanpour who prostitutes the Palestinian cause and Tariq Ramadan, an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood - IMO, Islam is not compatible with other European religions, as well as democracy, and it is inherently political..
The Taqiyaa is strong in Ramadan…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9BF0IpgpV4
Let us not forget Ramadan’s creed:
"Allah is our objective, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, Jihad is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations”
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/muslimbrotherhood.html
:munchin
Ayaan Hirsi Ali Bitch Slaps Christiane Amawhore ...IMO, this comment says more about your misogyny than it does about Ms. Amanpour or her work.
FWIW, the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, the 'owner' of the Jewish Virtual Library, is a member of the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC). The ICC supported the Daniel Pearl Foundation last year (source is here (http://www.israelcc.org/about/updates/Daniel_Pearl_Music_Days.htm)). FWIW, Ms. Amanpour is one of the honorary members of the board of directors for the Daniel Pearl Foundation. Other honorary members of that board include Rabbi Harold Schulweiss, Paul Steiger, and Elie Wiesel.
IMO, this comment says more about your misogyny than it does about Ms. Amanpour or her work.
IMO, Christiane Amanpour is a leading example of biased mainstream media journalism and she acts as a propagandist towards the Palestinian position.
How do you come to the conclusion that I possess hatred towards women?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of my heroes…Amanpour is NOT…
Warrior-Mentor
02-05-2010, 18:59
IMO, this comment says more about your misogyny than it does about Ms. Amanpour or her work.
Although he used the term "bitch," context [and the urban dictionary] would make this a gender non-specific usage. :D
HowardCohodas
02-05-2010, 19:56
IMO, this comment says more about your misogyny than it does about Ms. Amanpour or her work.
I was so hoping this forum could stay clear of the P.C. police. :(
How do you come to the conclusion that I possess hatred towards women?
Because rather than saying this:IMO, Christiane Amanpour is a leading example of biased mainstream media journalism and she acts as a propagandist towards the Palestinian position.You say:Bitch Slaps Christiane Amawhore The message is quite clear. A professional educated woman has a different view than you. You articulate your umbrage by calling her a whore and by engaging in a display of fantasized violence in which she gets "bitch slapped."
In my opinion, your views of Islam and of Muslims are controversial enough without the tone you bring to many of your posts on this BB and most of your posts elsewhere.
In my reading of your posts, your argument that GWOT is a 'clash of civilizations' is situated within comparisons between the moral foundations of Islam and those of Christianity on the other. Because you change gears so often and so easily, the tension between the values you profess to defend and the words you type raise questions. Among the questions that come to mind is: Do you want to 'preach to the choir' or do you want people with differing views to engage the intellectual substance of your arguments?
My $0.02.
Team Sergeant
02-05-2010, 20:19
Although he used the term "bitch," context [and the urban dictionary] would make this a gender non-specific usage. :D
My guess is that Sigaba is too old to realize that. And it would damage his argument if in fact he took that into consideration. ;)
Misogyny, good word, I had to go and look it up, is there one for a dislike of snotty old historians?:munchin
Warrior-Mentor
02-05-2010, 20:27
...your argument that GWOT is a 'clash of civilizations' is situated within comparisons between the moral foundations of Islam and those of Christianity on the other.
There is no comparison.
There are no moral foundations of islam.
To quote Wafa Sultan "Mohammed left no moral legacy."
My guess is that Sigaba is too old to realize that. And it would damage his argument if in fact he took that into consideration. ;)
Misogyny, good word, I had to go and look it up, is there one for a dislike of snotty old historians?:munchinWhile I'm old enough to remember the contributions of Too $hort to American hip-hop, I'm not quite that old. (Then again, the music young folks listen to these days, their baggy pants, their fascination with the word "like," and their endless twittering keep me from enjoying the early bird specials.)Entire postIf one were to stipulate that Islam has no moral foundation, does that mean we should not observe our own standards when engaging in meaningful debate over critically important topics?
Ok, everyone bitch slap themselves as penance and get on with the discussion....or for you WW2 guys Jap slap each other...you know, sneak attack...or for the WW1 dead guys Bosch slap or Hun slap....whatever
Warrior-Mentor
02-06-2010, 07:50
If one were to stipulate that Islam has no moral foundation, does that mean we should not observe our own standards when engaging in meaningful debate over critically important topics?
"Our own standards": I feel like you in asking "where can I find a copy of those standards?"
"meaningful debate": Absolutely.
Guess I give the benefit of the doubt to can't be serious all the time because I too have a penchant for occasional snarky remark to punctuate some points. "Worship Satan if you like, just keep that shit to yourself." comes to mind. T-Rock was more in the comedic vein.
This is an internet forum, not a college classroom. Although a very serious topic, is there a risk of taking ourselves too seriously?
In my opinion, your views of Islam and of Muslims are controversial enough without the tone you bring to many of your posts on this BB and most of your posts elsewhere.
Thanks Sigaba! I’m honored you’ve deemed my posts elsewhere worthy of your pursuit :D
Are they controversial because they don’t fall in line with your views?
I hope with you scholarly background, you can discern and distinguish my views between Islam as opposed to my view towards the Muslim - but I don’t doubt - although Islam isn’t a race, you’ll be labeling me a racist in no time…
FWIW, I’ve been trying to put together the enigma of Islam since a fellow Hoo Yah brother was shot in the head and thrown to the tarmac in Beirut - yet to this day, Islamic doctrine remains unchanged.
Christiane Amanpour has distinguished herself in many areas, particularly with her biased war reporting (1991-Operation Desert Storm, Israel - 01,06,08,09, “The Illegal Occupation”, “Torture”, etc).
I’ll try and adjust my tone and be a little more respectful to those I perceive as anti-American and anti-Semitic in the future, although I make no bones about it, I stand with Israel and do not apologize for my views in support of them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmtxgVepzMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZprVPKi-W6s&annotation_id=annotation_252323&feature=iv
IMHO, Amanpour is no different than Jane Fonda….but that’s just me…I’ll be more careful in the future of how I write in jest…
In my reading of your posts, your argument that GWOT is a 'clash of civilizations' is situated within comparisons between the moral foundations of Islam and those of Christianity on the other.
No, just pointing out the distinct differences between the doctrines of both Islam vs. Christianity which are the antithesis of one another, and that the perception by pure Islam, really matters not if you happen to be the “people of the book” or a pagan, but I do know for a fact, this woman is on to something. How would you define the GWOT - wherever pure Islam contacts western civilization and the modernized world?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciOGS6r97oE
On to the original topic (sorry for the Hijack)
Do you Sigaba, as a learned historic scholar, think we should welcome Muslim Brotherhood operatives into our country with open arms, and allow them to teach in our Universities, after being fired elsewhere for supporting our enemies, and praying for the destruction of Israel through Jihad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onuEStqTk20
It is fascinating to observe Tariq Ramadan work the system, having knowledge of the well grounded doctrine of Islam [Taqiyaa], which presents a range of ethical dilemmas.
Below is a debate between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Tariq Ramadan if you so desire:
(Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtO5Zo9grz4
(Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXR10XSFrVY
(Part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsP5sm7-94c
Warrior-Mentor
02-06-2010, 14:49
It is fascinating to observe Tariq Ramadan work the system, having knowledge of the well grounded doctrine of Islam [Taqiyaa], which presents a range of ethical dilemmas.
Below is a debate between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Tariq Ramadan if you so desire:
(Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtO5Zo9grz4
(Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXR10XSFrVY
(Part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsP5sm7-94c
Thanks for the debate video. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of my heros. What a powerful personal story.
Digressing, what do you mean it creates "ethical dilemmas"?
Islamic dualism prevents any ethical dilemmas.
The islamic binary world view with two different ways for treating people strictly based on their religious preference.
The two Qur'ans (Mecca and Medina).
The two Mohammeds (Mecca and Medina).
The two classes of people (Muslim and Kafir).
And lest we forget, the two forms of jihad (97% violent war against the Kafir, 3% "inner struggle" - per the hadiths of Bukhari)
It goes on and on...
So when they say "islam is a religion of peace" you're only getting less than half the story, because islam is also a religion of war.
Digressing, what do you mean it creates "ethical dilemmas"?
My bad Sir for the confusion, my thoughts don't flow very well through the keyboard :D
I meant the ethical dilemma created for us, not those engaging in Taqiyaa.
Not long ago there was a survey out that exposed the ignorance among politicians, diplomats, and counterterrorism officials who couldn't distinguish the difference between Sunni and Shia. Although I can't lay my fingers on the survey, the below link expresses its sentiments:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/02/the_quiz_top_us.html
What does that say for the diplomats and politicians who are unaware of the doctrine and are negotiating things on our countries behalf ?
Taqiyaa creates an ethical dilemma among those who are aware of the doctrine, yet go ahead and negotiate agreements and deals thinking a handshake and a smile are enough to dismantle allah's unchanging tradition.
How does one distinguish which Muslims are engaging in Taqiyaa vs those who are not. Do we treat all Muslims as if they are engaing in Taqiyaa?
"Our own standards": I feel like you in asking "where can I find a copy of those standards?"Well, I am of the understanding that the standards you set for yourself are as follow.Some laws may change. Virtues do not.
"The idea of virtue goes back to antiquity, and it varied in the course of time. The ancient virtues were not the Christian virtues , and they were not the Victorian virtues. But what was common to all these virtues, to the very idea of virtue, was a fixed moral standard - a standard by which all people at all times and under all circumstances would be judged. Today we have abandoned that idea of virtue and have adopted instead what we now call "values." Value is a subjective, relativistic term; any individual, group or society may chose to value whatever they like. One cannot say of virtues what one can say of values, that anyone's virtues are as good as anyone else's, or that everyone has a right to his own virtues. This shift from virtues to values represents the true moral revolution of our time."
Call me old fashioned, I still believe in virtues as something to strive for and judged against.How does one square the preceding comment and its denunciation of "moral relativism" with "snarky" remarks such as the ones described below?:confused:Guess I give the benefit of the doubt to can't be serious all the time because I too have a penchant for occasional snarky remark to punctuate some points. "Worship Satan if you like, just keep that shit to yourself." comes to mind. T-Rock was more in the comedic vein. In regards to the Satan worship comment, I do not agree that such a comment directed at a Catholic is merely a "snarky" remark.This is an internet forum, not a college classroom. Although a very serious topic, is there a risk of taking ourselves too seriously?IMO, because this is the internet and because this topic is the fifth or sixth most hotly debated subject on this forum, I think the need for prudence may be greater than it would be in a closed setting like a classroom.Are they controversial because they don’t fall in line with your views?Your views are controversial regardless of what I do or do not think of them--the responses you have received from others establishes that point.I hope with you scholarly background, you can discern and distinguish my views between Islam as opposed to my view towards the Muslim - but I don’t doubt - although Islam isn’t a race, you’ll be labeling me a racist in no time…IMO, this statement sounds a lot like the statement, "Hate Islam, love the Muslim."
Bluntly, I do not think that statement is sustainable intellectually. YMMV.I’ll try and adjust my tone and be a little more respectful to those I perceive as anti-American and anti-Semitic in the future, although I make no bones about it, I stand with Israel and do not apologize for my views in support of them.I would think that an American would stand with the United States, regardless of one's views towards the state of Israel.
And are you aware there are many Muslims who are Semites?IMHO, Amanpour is no different than Jane Fonda….but that’s just me…I’ll be more careful in the future of how I write in jest…If Ms. Amanpour is anti-Semitic (as you appear to define that word), what explains her continued association with the Daniel Pearl Foundation and that foundation's association with the ICC?
Are there established anti-defamation groups (other than bloggers) that have taken her to task for her reporting?
As for equating Ms. Amanpour with Ms. Fonda, I think that is a bit of a reach. Ms. Amanpour is a British national, not an American citizen. Precisely how has Ms. Amanpour's journalism undermined her country's ability to participate in GWOT?
No, just pointing out the distinct differences between the doctrines of both Islam vs. Christianity which are the antithesis of one another, and that the perception by pure Islam, really matters not if you happen to be the “people of the book” or a pagan, but I do know for a fact, this woman is on to something. How would you define the GWOT - wherever pure Islam contacts western civilization and the modernized world?Which doctrines? One of my objections to your line of reasoning is that you repeatedly lump all iterations of Islam into a monolith and that you do the same with Christianity. In regards to the latter, both European and American history testify to the fact that Christians do not see themselves this way.
In regards to "pure" Islam, just what do you mean? How does one talk about "pure" Islam without talking about the influence of Mesopotamian civilization? (My point is that I do not agree with the proposition that one can take anything, least of all a religion, and examine it without also talking about that thing's numerous contexts.)
My definition of GWOT is a war against all groups who use or conspire to use terrorism to overthrow the intertwined concepts of the modern sovereign state and of international relations that were codified in 1648. Do you Sigaba, as a learned historic scholar, think we should welcome Muslim Brotherhood operatives into our country with open arms, and allow them to teach in our Universities, after being fired elsewhere for supporting our enemies, and praying for the destruction of Israel through Jihad?America either has freedom of speech or it does not. Is prayer now an act of war against the United States?
Has the United States of America declared the Muslim Brotherhood a criminal organization? ("Should" is a different question.)
Do you not trust your fellow citizens to determine for themselves what to believe?
Your views are controversial regardless of what I do or do not think of them--the responses you have received from others establishes that point.
When someone lacks the ability to see how these current day terrorists are not in violation of the tenets of their faith, simply baffles my mind.
Your view is not grounded in reality. These religious zealots who are perpetrating acts of violence in the name of Islam are simply following the commandments of their faith, as written in the Qur'an, codified by Shari'ah:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful"(Surah 9:5).
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html
o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2) when enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.
o4:17 There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim.
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728
What I find controversial, is how someone can defend and apologize for, the tenets of Islam's faith - as written in the Qur'an, codified by Shari'ah.
I would think that an American would stand with the United States, regardless of one's views towards the state of Israel.
With the Dar al-Harb being the coal mine, Israel is the canary for the rest of the free world...
When someone lacks the ability to see how these current day terrorists are not in violation of the tenets of their faith, simply baffles my mind.
Your view is not grounded in reality.T-Rock,
You've made it quite clear what you think of Muslims.
You are also again displaying your unfortunate habit of turning to badly constructed insults when people do not agree with you.
Are Islamic terrorists the only terrorists in the world today? What would happen to your formulation of GWOT if, Islamic groups come to the bargaining table while terrorist organizations that have no links to Islam start launching more and more attacks <<LINK (http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm)>>?
In my formulation, I would still have a sustainable argument for GWOT.What I find controversial, is how someone can defend and apologize for, the tenets of Islam's faith - as written in the Qur'an, codified by Shari'ah.And precisely who is this someone?With the Dar al-Harb being the coal mine, Israel is the canary for the rest of the free world...You present an interesting formulation. So citizens of Israel matter to you as a warning system, not as human beings with their own lives, hopes, dreams, and fears.
HowardCohodas
02-07-2010, 06:55
So citizens of Israel matter to you as a warning system, not as human beings with their own lives, hopes, dreams, and fears.
That is way below the belt for your intellectual gifts. :mad:
You've made it quite clear what you think of Muslims.
No Sigaba, I’ve made it quite clear what I think about a supremacist ideology that Islam teaches which aims to conquer and subjugate.
You are also again displaying your unfortunate habit of turning to badly constructed insults when people do not agree with you.
I’m glad you’re above it all, must be nice up there :rolleyes:
And precisely who is this someone?
Who do you think?
You present an interesting formulation. So citizens of Israel matter to you as a warning system, not as human beings with their own lives, hopes, dreams, and fears
Get real…you know as well as I do Both America and Israel are threatened by the poison of Islamic fascism. We face the same enemy.
Edited to add:
IMO, this statement sounds a lot like the statement, "Hate Islam, love the Muslim."
Bluntly, I do not think that statement is sustainable intellectually.
I have no trouble loving the German while having disdain for Mein Kampf at the same time.
The Islam of Medina was able to achieve in a few months what the Islam of Mecca could not do in 13 years.
Warrior-Mentor
02-08-2010, 07:01
SPENCER ON WHY TARIQ RAMADAN WAS BANNED FROM THE U.S. AND HIS SECRET AGENDA:
AUDIO LINK:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/spencer-on-savage-nation-talkin-tariq-ramadan.html
BOOK:
Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan by Caroline Fourest
www.amazon.com/Brother-Tariq-Doublespeak-Ramadan/dp/1594032157
.
Thanks for posting the link Sir. Out of curiosity, have you read Caroline Fourest’s book - would you recommend it?
http://www.amazon.com/Brother-Tariq-Doublespeak-Ramadan/dp/1594032157
Makes me wonder who’s advising Hillary…
Edited to add:
Book Review: Preying on Western Naivete
Caroline Fourest's Brother Tariq
by Jeff Breinholt
IPT News
March 2, 2008
Brother Tariq is divided into two parts. The first involves Ramadan's life, including how his father, Said Ramadan, escaped Egypt and ultimately settled in Geneva, where the Muslim Brotherhood tasked him with making political Islam palatable on the Continent. Tariq nearly failed to have his Ph.D. dissertation accepted, a development that required him to re-work it and convene a second jury. The thesis, "On the Origins of the Muslim Renaissance," was ultimately accepted, though without honors. Since then, the younger Ramadan has been the voice of political Islam in Western Europe, and involved in efforts to protect the rights of Muslim women to wear a veil in French society, which he couches in terms of civil rights rather than patriarchal oppression. He came into wide attention in the 1990s, when he led a campaign to stop the performance of (get this) a Voltaire play because it was offensive to Muslims. A Man of the Enlightenment he is not. If he ultimately succeeds in entering the U.S., we might expect more picket lines at controversial American theatrical performances. The American movie he most despises? It was "Titanic." Fourest does not seem to know why, beyond noting Ramadan thought Muslims who saw it might be encouraged to accept un-Islamic values.
The most significant contribution of Brother Tariq, however is the second half of the book, in which Fourest accepts the difficult challenge of analyzing his words. Despite the tedious task, she has done her homework, demonstrating that Ramadan has become adept at using terminology that seems to mean one thing to recipients while intending something entirely different. This seems to be Muslim Brotherhood tradecraft, and it takes advantage of the Western tendency to take people who speak calmly at their word rather than suspecting that something more sinister is at play. Whatever his academic failings, at this skill Tariq Ramadan has become a pro.
The remarkable thing is that Ramadan is on record describing how those who fight for Muslim dominance need to interact with their prey in Western Europe. In Ramadan's words to his adherent, "You must know how to speak to those who don't come from the same background we do," and "You must attune your speech in accordance with the ear that is listening to you. It's essential, but to attune your speech to the ear that is listening, you must also know that ear's disposition." Ramadan has written, "In Islam, the whole conception of man is different … In fact, what is asked of reason is to show us the way of faith in our hearts, not explore its limits so as to extent our faith." You get the picture?
This strategy was on display in a recent essay by Ramadan in the New York Times Book Review, in which he argued that non-Muslims are incapable of understanding the Koran, which requires that reading be done through an attitude of faith ("the language of the heart," as opposed to the head). How convenient. This means that Western secularists have no business trying to understand Islam, since they are not equipped to be apologists for the more controversial aspects of Islamic doctrine, and we must instead outsource this task to faithful Muslims. Is this trick effective? One Christian Times reader commended the Ramadan essay, saying that it reminds him of how he views the Bible. This appreciative reader does not mention that neither the Bible nor the most extreme "mainstream" Christian activists go as far as the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual guide Yusuf Qaradawi, who claimed "There is no dialogue between the Jew and us except by the sword and rifle." Of course, Ramadan was wise enough not to mention his friend Qaradawi when writing for the New York Times, lest people be turned off by his associations.
Fourest concludes that Ramadan is not an agent of peace but an agent of radicalization – all the more feared because he is so difficult to pin down. It is clear that he is occasionally guilty of some outrageous lies. Ramadan claims that he won a slander trial against French writer Antoine Sfier, when in fact he lost. He claims that he has no functional connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, but this is laughable in light of his writings which consistently argue the Brotherhood worldview, and given his dissertation, devoted to explaining Brotherhood founder Hassan Al Banna, his maternal grandfather.
Some lies can be expected, and are necessary to pass the Muslim Brotherhood off as a political movement committed to democracy. What is perhaps more interesting than the dissembling is his choice of words designed to impact judgment.
Al Qaida's actions, for example, are not terrorist attacks, but rather "interventions." Anwar Sadat was not assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood, but instead "executed." Hamas suicide attacks qualify as "resistance." "Jihad" appears in the Muslim Brotherhood Manifesto, and they claim the term is entirely peaceful. This explanation fails to answer how this squares with the Manifesto's words that "dying in the cause of Allah is our highest mission." Peaceful indeed. Within days of 9/11, Ramadan seemed to throw in with the conspiracy theorists, noting that the U.S. and Israel had the most to gain by the attack.
It is no surprise that Ramadan is eager to pick up stakes and relocate to South Bend. As Fourest describes him, he views himself as somewhat a hit-and-run activist, whose effectiveness requires him to light a spark and then quickly leave town. He is no longer welcome in Egypt, or in France. Moving on to his next geographic location is a good way to avoid being tied down.
I must say that I am somewhat sanguine about the prospect of him coming to the U.S. In some ways, having Ramadan at Notre Dame may be a blessing, since - compared to Europe -we seem to have more commentators who are accustomed to the reality of politico-religious extremism and the reality that its practitioners actually act in accordance with their beliefs. Chances are, Ramadan will not get as much a free pass as he has received from our colleagues overseas, and it will be good theater. If he succeeds in getting here, you will not find me complaining, since Ramadan in the American heartland may be good for business. Still, I cringe somewhat at prospect of him interacting with the best Catholic American college students. It is not because they might be influenced to blow things up but rather because Ramadan might waste their time that could be better spent at football games.
Fourest is unique among people who have looked at Ramadan, as she has done it so carefully. What is her ultimate take? It comes near the very end of Brother Tariq:
When I began my inquiry, I had, as you can imagine, certain preconceptions about Tariq Ramadan. Having read a number of his books, I expected to be analyzing a form of discourse that was deceptive in its complexity but not necessarily duplicitous. I was convinced that the portrait I would gain would not be a progressive anti-globalist, but of a bigot and a moralist – though not especially a fundamentalist. I thought I would come across the Muslim Brotherhood, or at least their influence; but I still believed Ramadan when he claimed he was an independent thinker. I do not believe him any longer … Do we have here a providential man we can expect to modernize Islam and encourage dialogue between civilizations? The answer is no. And it is high time we put an ended to our naivete lest we become accomplices.
These are strong words, coming from a French feminist. Hopefully, some enlightened American scholars will accept Fourest's challenge, and engage Tariq Ramadan in some of the classic D's we have imported from France: "discourse" or "dialogue," or maybe a little "deconstruction."
Jeff Breinholt is Director of National Security Law at the International Assessment and Strategy Center (www.strategycenter.net). The views in this article are the author's own and do not reflect those of the Department of Justice.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/615/book-review-preying-on-western-naivete
IMO, Christiane Amanpour is a leading example of biased mainstream media journalism and she acts as a propagandist towards the Palestinian position.
How do you come to the conclusion that I possess hatred towards women?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of my heroes…Amanpour is NOT…
It takes a lot to offend me, as a woman, and a woman in uniform. Your use of the word whore to describe a woman you disagree with politically offends me. You can call me a bitch, because I know that I am one. Unless you have had intimate relations with me, you better not use a word that can describe me in that manner. If you have had sexual relations with Ms. Amanpour, then feel free to describe her as such. If you have not, then maybe you can come up with a better descriptive phrase.;)
There is not much that pisses off a professional woman more than to be called , or have another professional woman called a pejorative word that is reflective of their "easiness" when you have absolutely no basis for said opinion.;)
Team Sergeant
02-08-2010, 17:26
It takes a lot to offend me, as a woman, and a woman in uniform. Your use of the word whore to describe a woman you disagree with politically offends me. You can call me a bitch, because I know that I am one. Unless you have had intimate relations with me, you better not use a word that can describe me in that manner. If you have had sexual relations with Ms. Amanpour, then feel free to describe her as such. If you have not, then maybe you can come up with a better descriptive phrase.;)
There is not much that pisses off a professional woman more than to be called , or have another professional woman called a pejorative word that is reflective of their "easiness" when you have absolutely no basis for said opinion.;)
AF"chic" has a point.
T-Rock go and clean up your post and watch your mouth around the women!
TS
My apologies for offending you afchic, I will be more mindful in the future how my thoughts are conveyed over the internet.
In regards to "pure" Islam, just what do you mean?
Arabic: usul (from usul, the “fundamentals” ), is a term used to describe religious ideologies advocating a return to the fundamentals of Islam: the Qur’an and the Sunnah.
It’s not what I mean Sigaba, it’s what they mean:
http://www.qss.org/aboutus.html
http://www.pureislam.co.za/
http://thepureislam.wordpress.com/
http://www.islaam.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=53&Itemid=207
http://islam-quran-sunnah.blogspot.com/
http://www.todaysmuslimah.com/AReturntoQuran.html
Barred Muslim Scholar Tariq Ramadan Will Speak at Cooper Union
March 17, 2010 by Leela de Kretser
MANHATTAN — An Oxford University professor, who the U.S. refused a visa so he could teach at an Indiana university, will make his first public appearance in America to give a talk in the East Village.
Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim professor who was barred from visiting the country for six years under the Patriot Act, will take part in a panel dubbed "Secularism, Islam and Democracy: Muslims in Europe and the West" at the Cooper Union on April 8.
It is his first public appearance since he was prevented from taking a tenure position at the University of Notre Dame because the Department of Homeland Security revoked his visa.
Ramadan, a Swiss national who teaches in the Islamic Studies department at Oxford, was accused of donating $1,300 to a charity that funneled the money to Hamas.
Along with the American Civil Liberties Union, Ramadan sued the government, arguing he did not know the charity donated to Hamas. An appeals court ruled that the government did not have a sufficient legal basis to revoke his visa.
In January 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued an order that made it possible for him to travel to the U.S.
http://dnainfo.com/20100317/east-village/barred-muslim-scholar-tariq-ramadan-will-speak-at-cooper-union
Curious if Ayaan Hirsi Ali was invited to be on the panel :munchin
Interesting - Tarek Fatah calls out Tariq Ramadan and Western intelligentsia who embrace rabid Islamist Tariq Ramadan.
Video link below:
> http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/202153.php
Tariq is caught on tape calling for the colonisation of America, under Sharia:
Link & video > http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2011/08/tariq-ramadan-caught-on-tape-calling.html
:munchin
mark46th
08-13-2011, 10:39
What everyone needs to remember when dealing with Islam is that Islam does not consider it immoral to lie to a non-believer to get something.
Qur’an:9:5 - “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
What everyone needs to remember when dealing with Islam is that Islam does not consider it immoral to lie to a non-believer to get something.
Don't we define that stratagem as "disinformation"... :confused:
I think it goes back far beyond the appearance of Islam and is not merely practiced by Muslims today.
Richard :munchin
greenberetTFS
08-13-2011, 13:23
What everyone needs to remember when dealing with Islam is that Islam does not consider it immoral to lie to a non-believer to get something.
Qur’an:9:5 - “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
All this crap about Islam and the love relationship for the muslims "O" is pushing on America will hopefully come to an end when he and his entourage get kicked out next year........ :mad: I'm counting the days........:D
Big Teddy :munchin
mark46th
08-13-2011, 14:08
"Disinformation" toward the infidel is a basic tenent of Islam. Western society, outwardly anyway, frowns upon lying.
Western society, outwardly anyway, frowns upon lying.
Yep..."disinformation"...I've been lied to by a lot of people and it seems as if the odds are that one day I may even be lied to by a Muslim. ;)
Richard :munchin
Under the concept and doctrine of "Al-Takeyya," it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith, a far cry from what most westerners would think, do, and believe...
They define it as "Al-Takeyya," and since they are to - " Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers" - they are to lie to non-believers, since their god justifyies lying to anyone who disbelieves - infidels, pagans, jews, christians, etc....
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who took an oath and (later on) found another thing better than that, he should do that which is better, and expiate for the vow (broken by him).- Sahih Muslim 15:4054
When anyone amongst you takes an oath, but he finds (something) better than that he should expiate (the breaking of the oath), and do that which is better.- Sahih Muslim 15:4058
By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'- Sahih Bukhari 7:67:427
"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah."- Surah 3: 28
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Muhammad_the_Liar
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/
IIRC, vast segments of Western society also frown upon the concept of a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
IIRC, vast segments of Western society also frown upon the concept of a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
Observation and consistency - it goes back as far as "The Treaty of Hudaibiya" :D