Tariq Ramadan, new favorite of the left

Since it was announced that Professor Tariq Ramadan, a so—called moderate Muslim scholar, had his visa revoked on the advice of the Department of Homeland Security, an outpouring of outraged reactions rained down.

Ramadan was supposed to start teaching at Notre Dame in September. If you did not know at all about this individual, you would think that we live in a paranoid racist country or shall I say the favorite word of Ramadan 'Islamophobe'?

The mainstream media has given lots of coverage to Mr. Ramadan's case but unfortunately just by presenting his own version of the facts.

Ramadan wrote two long columns in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune; this latter paper has been on the forefront of the defense of that 'man of peace.' The Washington Post also published a mind—boggling commentary comparing Ramadan to Martin Luther King, which I refuted fact by fact in the American Thinker. Unfortunately and not surprisingly, each one of these newspapers refused to publish even a very shortened version of my piece. So much for objectivity from these 'respectable' papers, which obviously consider that their agenda is more important than the truth.

If it weren't for Daniel Pipes, the renowned Middle East expert, Americans would have no choice but to believe that Ramadan has a moderate view of Islam.

Interestingly enough, here is an excerpt of the editorial of the Chicago Tribune on August 31, 2004:

'Even if he did endorse terrorism, expressing such an opinion doesn't pose the sort of danger that the Department of Homeland Security should worry about. It's not illegal, after all, for Americans to express sympathy for al Qaeda——or the Irish Republican Army or any other violent extremists. Only when such opinions veer into outright incitement to violence does law enforcement intervene.'

So this is how far the media will go to defend Ramadan: even if he's an al Qaeda supporter but does not incite violence he should be admitted in the country. But as I have shown, lots of European secret services and numerous terrorism experts consider Ramadan as a menace because of his influence and probable indirect incitement to violence.

In addition to his liberal media fans, Ramadan's supporters are all over the world of academia; petitions are being signed, mostly by professors such as Noam Chomsky who have showed their abject hatred of our country and of Israel, that is, their two Satans. Is that a coincidence?


Also and more revealing of the charm of that Muslim preacher, www.oumma.com — the website of the UOIF (the main French Muslim organization linked to the Muslim Brotherhood) — reported that Tariq Ramadan was invited to speak in New York on September 27 by ex—President Clinton and in Florida from November 19 to 21 by ex—Secretary of Defense (under Clinton) William Cohen.

It is not clear if these invitations came after the decision of the State Department. If they did, in that case then Clinton and Cohen have a lot of explaining to do.
 
In a statement on oumma.com, which he often uses as his conduit to freely express his views, Ramadan explains why he thinks his visa was revoked. It is largely due to pressure from lobbies that he did not name, but one knows exactly what Ramadan is implying: it is the Jews, whether French or American. Who else?

He also goes on by accusing, without mentioning him by name, Daniel Pipes of orchestrating a witch hunt by listing the names of professors who are totally biased towards the Palestinian cause and blatantly anti—Israel. For Ramadan, his case is the example of the denial of basic civil rights along with freedom of speech, and it shows that the US is not ready to listen to arguments from his critics. This is music to the ears of Leftists intellectuals.

Ramadan finishes by saying he applied for a new visa and that justice must prevail. It is also vital for him that his Muslim brothers face no suspicions or scrutiny. But it is a paradox that in his ten—minute allocution he also plays the victim.

Tariq Ramadan has received a lot of free publicity and exposure thanks mostly to the liberal intelligentsia. He has not become a household name yet but if he unfortunately ever makes it to our shores, his aura would have greatly risen...

But it is quite reassuring that our Department of Homeland Security had done its homework and is able to read between the lines of this smooth double—talker.

Since it was announced that Professor Tariq Ramadan, a so—called moderate Muslim scholar, had his visa revoked on the advice of the Department of Homeland Security, an outpouring of outraged reactions rained down.

Ramadan was supposed to start teaching at Notre Dame in September. If you did not know at all about this individual, you would think that we live in a paranoid racist country or shall I say the favorite word of Ramadan 'Islamophobe'?

The mainstream media has given lots of coverage to Mr. Ramadan's case but unfortunately just by presenting his own version of the facts.

Ramadan wrote two long columns in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune; this latter paper has been on the forefront of the defense of that 'man of peace.' The Washington Post also published a mind—boggling commentary comparing Ramadan to Martin Luther King, which I refuted fact by fact in the American Thinker. Unfortunately and not surprisingly, each one of these newspapers refused to publish even a very shortened version of my piece. So much for objectivity from these 'respectable' papers, which obviously consider that their agenda is more important than the truth.

If it weren't for Daniel Pipes, the renowned Middle East expert, Americans would have no choice but to believe that Ramadan has a moderate view of Islam.

Interestingly enough, here is an excerpt of the editorial of the Chicago Tribune on August 31, 2004:

'Even if he did endorse terrorism, expressing such an opinion doesn't pose the sort of danger that the Department of Homeland Security should worry about. It's not illegal, after all, for Americans to express sympathy for al Qaeda——or the Irish Republican Army or any other violent extremists. Only when such opinions veer into outright incitement to violence does law enforcement intervene.'

So this is how far the media will go to defend Ramadan: even if he's an al Qaeda supporter but does not incite violence he should be admitted in the country. But as I have shown, lots of European secret services and numerous terrorism experts consider Ramadan as a menace because of his influence and probable indirect incitement to violence.

In addition to his liberal media fans, Ramadan's supporters are all over the world of academia; petitions are being signed, mostly by professors such as Noam Chomsky who have showed their abject hatred of our country and of Israel, that is, their two Satans. Is that a coincidence?


Also and more revealing of the charm of that Muslim preacher, www.oumma.com — the website of the UOIF (the main French Muslim organization linked to the Muslim Brotherhood) — reported that Tariq Ramadan was invited to speak in New York on September 27 by ex—President Clinton and in Florida from November 19 to 21 by ex—Secretary of Defense (under Clinton) William Cohen.

It is not clear if these invitations came after the decision of the State Department. If they did, in that case then Clinton and Cohen have a lot of explaining to do.
 
In a statement on oumma.com, which he often uses as his conduit to freely express his views, Ramadan explains why he thinks his visa was revoked. It is largely due to pressure from lobbies that he did not name, but one knows exactly what Ramadan is implying: it is the Jews, whether French or American. Who else?

He also goes on by accusing, without mentioning him by name, Daniel Pipes of orchestrating a witch hunt by listing the names of professors who are totally biased towards the Palestinian cause and blatantly anti—Israel. For Ramadan, his case is the example of the denial of basic civil rights along with freedom of speech, and it shows that the US is not ready to listen to arguments from his critics. This is music to the ears of Leftists intellectuals.

Ramadan finishes by saying he applied for a new visa and that justice must prevail. It is also vital for him that his Muslim brothers face no suspicions or scrutiny. But it is a paradox that in his ten—minute allocution he also plays the victim.

Tariq Ramadan has received a lot of free publicity and exposure thanks mostly to the liberal intelligentsia. He has not become a household name yet but if he unfortunately ever makes it to our shores, his aura would have greatly risen...

But it is quite reassuring that our Department of Homeland Security had done its homework and is able to read between the lines of this smooth double—talker.