Karim Selmaoui/European Press Photo Agency Tariq Ramadan at a news conference on March 4 in Morocco. A prominent Muslim academic barred from the United States for six years under the Patriot Act will speak at a panel at Cooper Union next month, his first public appearance since the restriction was lifted.
The scholar, Tariq Ramadan, will speak at “Secularism, Islam and Democracy: Muslims in Europe and the West,” presented on April 8 by the American Association for University Professors, the American Civil Liberties Union, PEN American Center and Slate.
Professor Ramadan, a Swiss national who teaches contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University and has written more than 20 books, was about to take a job as a tenured professor at the University of Notre Dame in 2004 when the Bush administration pulled his visa, eventually saying that it had done so because of evidence that Professor Ramadan had given $1,300 to a Swiss charity that funneled money to Hamas, the Palestinian militant group.
The professor sued to get his visa reinstated, saying that he had believed the charity had no connection to Hamas or to terrorist activities. Last July, a federal appeals court reversed a ruling that had allowed the government to bar him, and in January, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signed an order lifting the restriction, paving the way for the professor to reapply for a visa.
The panel, at Cooper Union’s Great Hall, will also include the journalist Ian Buruma; Dalia Mogahed, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies; and Joan Wallach Scott, a professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study and the author of “Politics of the Veil.” It will be moderated by Jacob Weisberg of Slate.
15 Comments
Would a arab country let Salam Rushdi (spelling?) have a talk at a university?
— lonResponse to #1 :Would a arab country let Salam Rushdi (spelling?) have a talk at a university?
— Darryl Scott————————————————–
Probably not. But so what? Do you want us to do the same, act like them?
Let him speak. That’s what makes this country great: Everyone has the right to publicly make an @ass of himself. The professor’s message will speak for itself.
-LL
— LIberty LoverUm, Liberty Lover, he had a tenured professor offer from Notre Dame, one of the most prominently Catholic universities in the U.S.. Wild guess: he’s a pretty mainstream scholar.
— JoeThat he is assumed by other readers to be what the Bush administration may have mistakenly branded him while ruining his career does not speak very well of our American values to let everyone speak for him or herself as innocent until proven guilty. He was not proven guilty and I hope will feel welcomed in the land of the brave and free.
— HeatherLiberty Lover,
Have you ever READ Tariq Ramadan’s work? Do you know what his message has been and continues to be? You are correct that it speaks for itself: he is a Muslim who has been working for decades to integrate – i.e. Westernize – his rich intellectual and religious tradition with developments in modern European and American philosophy. Of course, this is a project at home in Islamic tradition, given that we have the famous Baghdad House of Wisdom to thank for preserving and transmitting Aristotle, making developments in science and medicine, and laying the foundations for much of our mathematics, etc. But you probably don’t know anything about those things, do you?
What have you done lately to provide a constructive reorientation away from the fundamentalist impulses in your own society?
You are certainly correct about everyone’s right to publicly appear like hindquarters – a right you also clearly exercise.
ST
— STThis is the scholar who wouldn’t condemn the stoning of adulterers when Nicolas Sarkozy asked him about the subject in a 2003 TV debate. Ramadan merely called for a “moratorium” on the practice.
— Peter HeineggAnd he’s said that modern Muslim women should look to the wives (9? 11?) of Muhammad as their model. Brilliant.
On St. Patrick’s Day, let’s not forget that many of us Irish-Americans would not even be born if similar restrictions were in place when our people came here. England considered Irish Republicans terrorists, and the Irish-American community sent untold sums to the IRA over many decades. Moneys sent to groups believed to be Irish charities may have been used for such purposes, allowing the same groups to funnel other money to IRA or others committing acts of political violence. This would be “material support” in today’s newspeak. Furthermore, maybe this academic should not just be “tolerated” in the name of our holier-than-thou freedom of speech, but genuinely listened to. Perhaps he wants to try to explain how this government is legally financing terrorist regimes in the middle east, and that we as Americans can help stop it.
— mlDalia Mogahed opinions are probably not dissimilar to Tariq Ramadan’s. She has already stated that Shari’a is misunderstood. And Tariq Ramadan believes that Muslim ‘ethics’ should contribute to the making of EU laws. That laws should not be left to man alone.
In the US Americans tend to be concerned about security when it comes to Islam ~ but in Europe many are more concerned about the Shari’a or Islamic law.
What Muslims believe is that EU laws should include ‘aspects’ of or even the full Shari’a integrated into the laws of England, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, Malta….
What makes the news are the radicals waving signs saying Islam will Dominate / Freedom go to Hell.. But the real push for Shari’a is coming from Muslim intellects, clerics and leaders of Muslim organisations.
For example to leader of the Muslim Council of Britain makes no secret of his desire to have Shari’a law fully integrated into British law. [He even suggested the British try arranged marriages!!]
And what is making the whole of Europe upset ~ as the world has seen the rise of anti-Islamic parties and the Swiss minaret vote ~ is that politicians mainly on the Left to integrate Muslims think that Shari’a law should be introduced and that it is racist to criticize or challenge these Muslim demands.
Ramadan was charged with helping Muslims to integrate into Dutch society ~ but it became clear out of his 7 proposals of which only one was released that instead of integrating Muslims his proposals were aimed at restructuring the whole of Dutch society around Islam. Some called them dictatorial. They were meant to educate teachers, politicians, police over the best way to conduct themselves around Muslims.
The final straw came when he accepted a job with Iran’s Press TV shortly after last June’s disputed elections ~ while working for the Dutch state and university. And he was let go.
This has nothing to do with terrorism ~ per se ~ it has to do with the Muslim belief ~ that accepts that all nations should be made Islamic.
A top UK cleric – head of the Shari’a arbitration courts – suggested that amputations would help deal with youth crime ~ and that it was his Islamic duty to say so. In Malta a moderate Imam said that the hands of thieves should be cut off on live television. In Switzerland the former head of the Geneva mosque publicly justified stoning for adultery and that thieves hands be amputated.
In Holland an ‘integrated’ Muslim lawmaker suggested that Amsterdam be subdivided to create a new Muslim only state and Islam be taught in every state school. And the former Leftist Dutch Minister of Finance said that legally there was nothing that could legally stop Shari’a law in Holland if Muslims reached the majority and voted for it.
In Ireland Muslims just this week are calling for Shari’a law. And in Australia last week the same.
Where the US Constitution protects Americans from these religious laws ~ EU laws are more vulnerable ~ and for votes politicians are showing a willingness to side with Muslim demands against the freedoms [like religion and expression] they were elected to uphold ~ or so we thought! This is the primary source of the insecurity.
Like Dalia Mogahed says she is there to tell the President want Muslims want ~ Muslims want Shari’a.
— roxnI look forward to hearing him speak in America. He is a professional in his field.
— NickWell, when he says he is against Sharia law, then we can accept these posts. Meanwhile, he will talk around, but never state in english that killing non-muslims is mandated in the Koran. In Arabic, it’s another story.
Our President Barak Hussain Obama has brought change – an open door to change America. I for one say NO to sharia law. Never!
— I.M. KnotFooledBush kept him out and Hillary signed him in. Is it safe to assume that Ramadan is a Democrat first, Muslim second?
— Arshad Sherif, M.A., M.Ed.Be prepared to hear subtle, ambiguous and and fuzzy statements that leave the door open to interpretations acceptable to all his listeners. He is not straightforward and unambiguous. One gets the impression he has a hidden agenda. I heard him in Toronto last year. He talked about the “deeper meaning” of the Koran but never spelled it out.
— BEMuslims need to be stopped dead in their tracks. TYhey know they don’t have the military might to defeat and modern country, so they seek to subvert us from within. Invading countrys one peaceful muslim at a time, as if such a person really existed, till millions are an occuping force within our and european boarders is a ewa y to influence votes on issues and politicans to get muslim influence if not outright domination . Shari’a law, hand chopping, stoning, killing non muslims, refering to people in religous dogma as apes and pigs, wife beating, ownership of others in the name of protection -read women, are just of the ways that show this to be a backward vile and uneducated religon stemming from hundreds if not thousands of years of violence and impotency. They have a need to be in control of others in order to feel powerful. We need to form an unbreakable wall to prevent the seige of muslim hoards, other countries need to do the same. Muslims need to accept that countries and their citizens don’t want muslim influences. we are a Judeo-Christian society these are our influences if you don’t like it leave, no one forces you to stay. Muslim preachers and speakers need to be called out on their ambiguities of their speech and its content. Treasonous speech is prosecutable and so is insidious speech of muslims wheather said in private or in public, we will fall if we don’t stand up for our beliefs while allowing others to stand up for theirs.
— taxicab0I know more about Ramadan than you may suspect. But for the purposes of this article, only one thing is important.
Tariq Ramadan publicly favors the application of his own particular interpretation of Shari’a to civil law. He tries to tame his message by referring to Shari’a as “Islamic ethics,” but the message is really the same: That all nations and all civil governments should be converted to Islam, either overtly or through civil codification of Islamic law. That, to me, is enough to nullify the rest of his considerable accomplishments, and place him in the company of other similarly arrogant, self-appointed guardians of morality who seek to impose their religion upon the rest of society.
I find it interesting that he has so many defenders on this board, however. I wonder how many of these same commenters would rail against Jewish or Christian leaders if they advocated civil codification of their religious rules — even those tenets that do not directly mention the Almighty, analogous to what Ramadan refers to as “Muslim ethics.”
Would you be as supportive of, say, a Catholic theologian who believed that everyone, not just Catholics, should be required to abstain from meat on Fridays during Lent? Or would you take seriously a Pentecostal preacher who wanted to outlaw all alcoholic beverages, or a Southern Baptist preacher who wanted to ban all dancing? Do you support the efforts by the Texas Board of Education to force the teaching of “Intelligent Design” as part of the science curriculum? I doubt it.
Rather, I suspect that many of Ramadan’s defenders here rise up in indignation when a civil courthouse posts the ten commandments in its foyer, object when public school children sing Christmas songs that actually mention Christ, rail against Nativity scenes and Menorahs in public places, and favor removing the words, “Under God,” from the Pledge of Allegiance. “Separation of church and state!” they cry, fearing the slightest encroachment of religious values into secular life. That they support Tariq Ramadan, other than in terms of supporting his right to speak, is curious.
I place Tariq Ramadan in the same category as other self-righteous religious leaders who are not content to preach to their own flocks, but feel they have the right (presumably by virtue of divine mandate) to impose their beliefs on society at large. That Ramadan’s versions of Islam and Shari’a are somewhat tamer and more cerebral than most is irrelevant. He is still advocating civil codification of his interpretation of Islamic into civil law.
But again, I say let him speak. His message will speak for itself. In fact, I may even try to attend his lecture — but only if I am allowed to rise and ask pointed questions when he’s finished.
-LL
— Liberty Lover