Tariq Ramadan
This story came to my attention yesterday, but it hasn't become a top news story in the usual national news outlets... (though I did hear it on NPR)
Tariq Ramadan: What does America have to fear from me?
So this guy, Tariq Ramadan, is a prominent muslim scholar who was hired as a tenured professor of Religion, Conflict and Peace-Building at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. Over the years, Tariq Ramadan has lived as something of an outcast, rejected by many in the Muslim community for being too Western in his thinking, and rejected by many Westerners for being a Muslim with possible ties to Islamic extremists. All the while, however, he has maintained scholarly prominence, named as an influential religious innovator by Time Magazine. A few weeks before he was to begin teaching at Notre Dame (and after he had already uprooted his family and moved all his belongings to South Bend), the US government revoked his visa, based on the recommendations of the Department of Homeland Security. This was done based on federal law that denies visas to those who use a "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity".
The uproar about this guy is that he has been labeled an anti-semite for criticizing the Israeli state and those governments which support it so blindly. He also has familial and reputed personal ties to Islamic extremists. Throughout all this, he has maintained that the body of his lifetime's worth of writings show that he is no terrorist, but a man who wants only peace.
There are many in the media who point out that the suspicion is justified, based on "clear evidence" of his track record. In his own defense, Ramadan claims that all this "proof" is simply the same allegations brought up by one media source and then quoted by another. I looked at one such allegation, that he calls terrorist attacks in New York, Bali, and Madrid "interventions" in this article, thus minimizing the situation:
The fact that it is in French made me suspicious. Babelfish gave me this:
The translation is not so clear, but the gist I get is that he says that terrorism is not supported by the majority of Muslim society, and that there is only negligible support for it within the Muslim community at large. I think that anyone who cites this as evidence (like this dude) is clearly doing his best to twist his words to make them fit his world view.
There is also this "proof" based on the fact that he denied that Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks:
or...
In case you didn't notice, the date on this article is September 25, 2001, 6 days after the attacks. The rest of the interview clearly shows that Ramadan condemns the attacks and all terrorist activity. But I suppose that not everyone wants to get the whole story before they jump to conclusions.
Having pointed out some flaws in the "case" for Ramadan being a terrorist-sympathizer, allow me to say that I do not personally believe that a man should be labeled a terrorist for thinking the way he wants to think. Ramadan has been an outspoken supporter of Islam, and I respect him for his conviction. I also respect the fact that he believes that the way in which Islam will take over the world is not through some bloody jihad of bombs and death, but a sort of "intellectual jihad" through which people will see the virtues of the religion.
I think that the evidence against Ramadan is weak. This is just the latest in a series of embarassments which stem from our lovely "war on terror." How can you fight terror when all you do is frighten people by suppressing free thought? I figure W and his cohorts read this and thought it was a history book.
Tariq Ramadan: What does America have to fear from me?
So this guy, Tariq Ramadan, is a prominent muslim scholar who was hired as a tenured professor of Religion, Conflict and Peace-Building at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame. Over the years, Tariq Ramadan has lived as something of an outcast, rejected by many in the Muslim community for being too Western in his thinking, and rejected by many Westerners for being a Muslim with possible ties to Islamic extremists. All the while, however, he has maintained scholarly prominence, named as an influential religious innovator by Time Magazine. A few weeks before he was to begin teaching at Notre Dame (and after he had already uprooted his family and moved all his belongings to South Bend), the US government revoked his visa, based on the recommendations of the Department of Homeland Security. This was done based on federal law that denies visas to those who use a "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity".
The uproar about this guy is that he has been labeled an anti-semite for criticizing the Israeli state and those governments which support it so blindly. He also has familial and reputed personal ties to Islamic extremists. Throughout all this, he has maintained that the body of his lifetime's worth of writings show that he is no terrorist, but a man who wants only peace.
There are many in the media who point out that the suspicion is justified, based on "clear evidence" of his track record. In his own defense, Ramadan claims that all this "proof" is simply the same allegations brought up by one media source and then quoted by another. I looked at one such allegation, that he calls terrorist attacks in New York, Bali, and Madrid "interventions" in this article, thus minimizing the situation:
Des banlieues françaises aux sociétés musulmanes, vous ne trouverez pas de soutiens, sauf infimes, aux interventions de New York, Bali ou Madrid. On ne peut pas confondre les résistances irakienne ou palestinienne avec les actions pro-Ben Laden.
The fact that it is in French made me suspicious. Babelfish gave me this:
Suburbs fran?ses with the Moslem soci?s, you will not find supports, except negligible, with the interventions of New York, Bali or Madrid. One cannot confuse the r?stances Iraqi or Palestinian with the actions pro-Ben Laden.
The translation is not so clear, but the gist I get is that he says that terrorism is not supported by the majority of Muslim society, and that there is only negligible support for it within the Muslim community at large. I think that anyone who cites this as evidence (like this dude) is clearly doing his best to twist his words to make them fit his world view.
There is also this "proof" based on the fact that he denied that Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks:
Jusqu’à maintenant, les enquêteurs n’ont pas apporté de preuves définitives et claires de sa culpabilité. La probabilité est grande, mais quelques questions demeurent sans réponse
or...
Until now, the investigators did not bring a final and clear evidence of its culpability. The probability is large, but some questions remain unanswered
In case you didn't notice, the date on this article is September 25, 2001, 6 days after the attacks. The rest of the interview clearly shows that Ramadan condemns the attacks and all terrorist activity. But I suppose that not everyone wants to get the whole story before they jump to conclusions.
Having pointed out some flaws in the "case" for Ramadan being a terrorist-sympathizer, allow me to say that I do not personally believe that a man should be labeled a terrorist for thinking the way he wants to think. Ramadan has been an outspoken supporter of Islam, and I respect him for his conviction. I also respect the fact that he believes that the way in which Islam will take over the world is not through some bloody jihad of bombs and death, but a sort of "intellectual jihad" through which people will see the virtues of the religion.
I think that the evidence against Ramadan is weak. This is just the latest in a series of embarassments which stem from our lovely "war on terror." How can you fight terror when all you do is frighten people by suppressing free thought? I figure W and his cohorts read this and thought it was a history book.
