US: Tariq Ramadan allowed entry

Ramadan believes that Islam can infiltrate and conquer the West by initially peaceful means, continuing immigration, and the “duty for Muslims … to take Islam from the periphery of European culture to the centre,” to cite from an interview in the New Statesman. The warrant here is clearly Koran 9:33 in which Allah sends forth his apostle “to make the true faith supreme over all religions” — a mandate which may be dissembled but cannot be go unheeded. Ramadan coquettishly advances toward his goal of disarming resistance via the rhetoric of ethical harmony and doctrinal alignment between the various faith communities. He even goes so far as to refer to Islamic philosophers like Avicenna, Averroes, and Ibn Khaldun as “European Muslim thinkers … who … confidently [accepted] their European identity” — a proposition as staggering as it is absurd. A cursory perusal of Robert Spencer’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, a kind of Islam for Dhimmis, would quickly torpedo Ramadan’s strange notion of cultural, religious, and jurisprudential consonance. (In her last book, The Force of Reason, Oriana Fallaci also calls attention to the new and concomitant Islamic “design based on gradual penetration rather than brutal and sudden aggression.”)

It is in this light that we should place Ramadan’s agitating in Western Muslims and The Future of Islam for unimpeded immigration: “Policies proposed to combat immigration are dreadful and assume that the ‘clandestine immigrant’ is a liar, a thief, even a bandit.” But why stop there? Such policies might also correctly assume that the “clandestine immigrant” is a misfit, a parasite, even a terrorist, as several Western nations are now beginning to learn. It is perhaps not without significance that Ramadan’s father Said, notwithstanding having received political asylum in Geneva, used the pages of his journal El Mouslimoun to promote ideological warfare against the West. In this regard, the son, playing the role of the “good cop,” is far more sophisticated than the father in the prosecution of their common goal, and Western academics have fallen for this tactical combover. It would be more appropriate to ask why Hassan al-Turabi, the Sudanese host of Osama bin Laden, proclaimed Tariq Ramadan “the future of Islam” and why, for that matter, Ramadan continues to sit on the board of the Saudi-funded Geneva Islamic Center, which is directed by his brother Hari and which, according to reports, has come under suspicion by the Swiss Secret Service for connections to terrorist organizations and banks.

But there are moments when the mask drops. Ramadan wants Muslims who live in the West, as he writes in Western Muslims, to “become assured as people who know what they hold (a universal message)” and to bring into Western education “the overall philosophy of the Islamic message,” blithely claiming that “there is in fact no confusion between the restraining authority of the religious and the civic independence of the individual, between the realm of dogma and that of reason.” Islam, he continues, “is a Western religion in the full sense of the word” and that what should “be called into question” is not Islam in itself or the violence it is said to engender but “the immigration policies of Western countries and their social and urban policies,” which give “rise to vexatious, discriminatory, and unjust administrative measures.”

…As Paul Berman says in an important New Republic essay, “Who’s Afraid of Tariq Ramadan,” “Ramadan invokes civil libertarian arguments in order to defend the autonomy of his reconstructed Muslim community.” And indeed, “the anti-globalist rhetoric of his left-wing allies” has proven brilliantly effective as well. Thomas Haidon, a member of the Qur’anist reform movement, goes even further, describing Ramadan as a “false moderate”; false moderates, he continues, are “no better than al-Qaeda terrorists” and perhaps “far more dangerous.” Ramadan, however, is only following the counsels of his mentor, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood (founded by Ramadan’s maternal grandfather Hassan al-Banna), who maintains that the Islamic reconquest of Europe will be achieved by “preaching and ideology.” Qaradawi and Ramadan appear to be well on the way toward realizing their program, not only in Europe but here in North America.

via Pajamas Media » Tariq Ramadan: A Viper in Our Midst (Thanks to Hillary Clinton).

Read it all.

If you understand French, these videos are really interesting (via).

a) Firstly, Sarkozy discusses with Ramadan about his brother’s call for the stoning of adulterers and Ramadan’s own defense of the women’s obligation of being veiled.

c) Secondly, an interesting interview with Caroline Fourest, the author of “Brother Tariq”, a book about the true ideas of Mr.Ramadan:

She considers that while Tariq Ramadan has been presented as a libertarian reformer of Islam and Time Magazine has named him “an spiritual light”, he is really an integrist reformer:

1. there is a difference between “fundamentalism” (refers to having an archaic view of religion but only for oneself, so it is just a personal affair) and “integrism” (refers to someone who wants to spread his archaic view of religion and to impose it on others). Ms. Fourest regards Ramadan as an integrist, who is not fighting against globalisation (despite his leftist friends) but rather the westernization of the world in the name of a xenophobic integrist and political Islam.
2. Ramadan doesn’t want to reform Islam for modernising it, then, but to return it to the archaic Islam and combats by all means the moderates/libertarians. That is, he really has adopted the Muslim Brotherhood core principles.

Among other things he has supported the women’s obligation to wear the veil, the prohibition of the marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men and the right of the husband to beat his wife. He is intelligent: he knows that the defense of the wife beating can erode his image of reformer so he just quotes what other clerics say. For example, the “moderate” Al-Qaradawi.

He has also defended a moratorium on the stoning of adulterers in Europe in a cassette, while claiming that Islamic countries have been the real champions of women’s rights.

To sum it up, he is not an scholar, nor an imam nor a cleric nor a theologian. He is a preacher whose da’wa (call) is to spread political Islam througout Europe. Ms. Fourest explains that North African countries don’t let the Muslim Brotherhood exist and the organization and its members are extremely repressed. So Ramadan and other members from the Muslim Brotherhood come to Europe to recruit, to publicize their collaborators (such as Al-Qaradawi) and to obtain support to afterwards return to those countries as a free movement.

NYT reports (with some romantic pro-Ramadan vision about his one-hour stay with the immigration officers… 🙄 ):

The government cited a provision of the Patriot Act that allows the barring of foreigners who “use a position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity.” Officials eventually pointed to Mr. Ramadan’s donations of about $1,300 from 1998 to 2002 to a Swiss-based charity that the Treasury Department later categorized as a terrorist organization because it gave money to Hamas, the militant Palestinian group.

Ramadan claimed he didn’t know of those activities.So:

His lawyers argued that the exclusion was an illegal form of censorship, motivated by the professor’s political views and criticism of American policy.

Last year, a federal appeals court in Manhattan reversed a lower court ruling that had upheld the exclusion, and in January, Mrs. Clinton signed the order effectively lifting it.

Lastly, Judicial Watch has a very interesting post on the subject:

In documents obtained by the FBI during the raid of a terrorist front group in Texas, Muslim Brotherhood lists its “strategic goal” in the U.S. as “grand jihad,” by “eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within and sabotaging their miserable house…” Ramadan has faithfully supported the group’s mission—his grandfather’s—of imposing Islamic law in the west.

So is really Hillary Clinton fighting for women’s rights and representing the US in this case?