Outrageous: Hosting Tariq Ramadan to Fight ‘Intellectual Exclusionism’
Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and a contentious figure in recent years, was in Ottawa last week at the invitation of the College of the Humanities and the Carleton Centre for the Study of Islam. His talk was titled “Identity and Engagement: Western Muslims and the Public Sphere.”
On April 7, a panel discussion was held at New York’s Cooper Union. It was organized by PEN American Center, the ACLU, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), and Slate magazine. This was Ramadan’s first public appearance in the United States since 2004. At that time, Ramadan — who had been offered a position at Notre Dame University as chair of the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies — saw his visa revoked by the Department of Homeland Security, testing the balance between liberty and national security in a country still in the throes of a long war against terror.
PEN’s press release read:
The ACLU and the AAUP won a Supreme Court case against this instance of intellectual exclusionism to allow Ramadan.
But Ramadan was not only barred from entering the U.S. — he has also been denied visas many times from France and Belgium.
Ramadan, a pillar in the Arab-Islamic world, is a master of hyperbole. Paul Berman, a journalist who teaches at New York University and the author of studies on totalitarian ideology, is one of the only American scholars who not only understands Ramadan’s ancestral legacy of raging Islamic imperialism but his modus operandi as a spin doctor for religionist crusaders. In a recent essay, Berman offers this most insightful analysis:
Ramadan comes across as reasoned and moderate, but his reformist image is compromised by his admiration of and abiding attachment to extremist Muslim ideologues, including his father and grandfather. The problem lies in the terrible fact that Ramadan’s personal milieu — his grandfather, his family history, his family contacts, his intellectual tradition — is precisely the milieu that bears the principal responsibility for generating the modern theoretical justification for religious suicide.
In 2005, my father Siamak Pourzand — an Iranian journalist and political prisoner — was made a PEN honorary member. At the time, I was in touch with Larry Siems, PEN PEN American Center’s Freedom to Write program director, regarding my father’s case. PEN had published a few press releases regarding my father’s imprisonment as a gesture, though it never did anything on the scale that imprisoned writers in countries like Iran deserve.
So when I read that Ramadan was being given pomp and circumstance by the very same organization, I was repulsed — though not surprised. I wrote an email to the contact person whose name was on the press release, only to get a rather flippant response a couple of hours later by the very Larry Siems with whom I had been in touch several years ago:
We are committed to freedom of expression and opposed to attempts to censor or suppress voices. We were involved in challenging the exclusion of Professor Ramadan from the U.S. because it is an example of a kind of “censorship at the border” that our government has attempted to impose from time to time. As Americans, we believe we have a right to do what the citizens of countries throughout Europe can do: hear Professor Ramadan speak for himself and challenge his ideas face to face. I would note that by banning Professor Ramadan from traveling to the U.S., our government was in fact behaving like the Iranian government, which has barred him from speaking in Iran.
I found Mr. Siems’s comparison of the U.S. not giving the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood a visa to enter the U.S. to the behavior of the regime in Iran outrageous and crass beyond words.
Ms. Zand-Bonazzi,
I sympathize with your despair on this. But I think one of the great impediments that people like yourself sometimes place in your own path is an unwilling to see that many of these moral highbrows – ACLU, PEN and others of their ilk, long ago sacrificed their moral integrity onto the alter of their own egos and self-admiration. As they bestow honor on Ramadan, they are patting themselves on the back. It is completely consistent with the kind of people they are and what they believe.
Steve,
I am not the one with an “impediment”; the ones who are are people who in this country still think that these self-congratulatory lot are somehow the moral authority. If you deny that Americans exist who like to emotionally invest in these organizations then I suggest you take a better look at the level of whacked out pseudo-elitism that exists in this society. This is a society that ought to know better but when people become complaisant then they give their reins of their minds over to these organizations, not wanting to do any of the heavy lifting themselves. My impediment is willful ignorance.
This is just another episode of the “life and works” of the CHIMERA, the unholy alliance of marxist subversives and islamic supremacists: they both hate Freedom, therefore they both hate the West and they maneuver together to weaken America, that has been the bastion and the defense of Freedom.
Let the CHIMERA puppets talk.
We need to work at rolling back the CHIMERA regime that is being built in America, and the more they talk, the more the American People will be able to distinguish their friends from their enemies.
you say “…Mr. Obama is a perfect reflection of the mood of today’s America.” I hope and pray you are wrong about this. Obama may indeed be the reflection of the wacky Left, but I have to believe that most Americans do NOT agree with this administration’s odious foreign policy.
the odd thing is that all these intellectuals support these dictatorial regimes who would KILL THEM IF THEY LIVED THERE. do the feminists not know that women are subjugated, sold into the slavery of forced marriage, beaten if they don’t wear the veil? do the gay activists not know that Iran executes homosexuals? it boggles the mind.
I know it’s a bit off topic but, doesn’t Mr. Berman’s description of Ramadan bear a startling similarity to one that could be made of Barak Obama? Changing some terms of course, like, Marxist for Muslim and religeous for economic.
And Steve, do not confuse outrage with despair. Your choice of words are rather poor.
Dear Banafsheh:
I agree with your outrage. I felt it when I read PEN’s Larry Siems remark about “censorship at the border.” What about censorship “within” the border! Where was PEN when Yale Press censored publishing the Danish cartoons in a book about the Danish cartoons? This was an outrageous example, among many others, of how America is being censored by Islamists and yet PEN remains silent. They didn’t file lawsuits or do a media blitz in defense of our freedom of speech and expression as they did for Ramadan. Why? Because people like Larry Siems are what Lenin called “useful idiots.” What angers me is that these people think they’re so smart!
For instance, Siems said that Ramadan was banned in Iran. Ramadan was interviewed on public radio the day he spoke at Cooper Union, and he said he was banned in six “Muslim-majority countries” — but Iran was not among them. And the reason he is broadcasting his Iranian TV show from London now is because Rotterdam fired him as their Muslim “integration” advisor, saying he lost credibility because of his close association with Iran. See report here: http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2332245.ece/Rotterdam_fires_Tariq_Ramadan_over_Iranian_TV_show
Clearly Siems, in regard to Ramadan, has no idea what he’s talking about which is usually the case with “useful idiots.”
Thank you, Banafsheh, for giving me the opportunity to vent my outrage. It apparently has been simmering since last Thursday night after I attended Ramadan’s love fest at Cooper Union. If it hadn’t been for George Packer, the entire evening would have been a totally surreal experience.
By the way, what happened with your father? How is he doing now?
Many blessings,
Gloria
Do you see what happens when you elect a muslim “rock star” president? Suddenly there’s domestic strife on all fronts; a muslim specialty. The last election ran for over two years and America was so blind it would’nt have mattered if it had gone on for ten; the result probably would have been the same. Elections have consequences; if america survives to have another election; this time, for Gods’ sake pay attention.
I have to admit I had never heard of Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi before this. So I did a quick lookup on the web. She seems like the sort of person any good liberal would love. Why anyone here cares about what she says amazes me.
However, giving consideration to only what she writes here, I can say, there seems to be even less reason to care what she has to say. No where in that article do I see anything that actually shows reason to shut Tariq Ramadan out of the US. Her comment,
“I found Mr. Siems’s comparison of the U.S. not giving the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood a visa to enter the U.S. to the behavior of the regime in Iran
outrageous and crass beyond words.”
Shows she has little appreciation or understanding of how things are in America, even under conservative principles, and most certainly not under libertarian beliefs. The fact that he is the grandson of someone who did evil is not reason to ban him, and to suggest it is betrays her ignorance of American ways. Remember, Stalin’s daughter sought and found refuge in America. If her father was not reason to reject her no one’s ancestry is.
If there is anything meaningful in her commentary it is buried in the meaningless. She needs to make her case clearly, and not expect his father and grandfather to be held against him.
Oh, and I wonder if she sees the appeal her commentary has to the prejudices of her readers, or cares.
Bob how about a quick look up you on the web,perhaps and I agree with Amy on one thing,you have personally attacked Banafsheh,after a “quick look” which subsequently leaves your own deconstruction open to reply.
For starters Banafsheh did not say Ramadan should be banned from entry because of his grandfather was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood but that the comparison between “a visa to enter the U.S. to the behavior of the regime in Iran outrageous and crass beyond words.”
Please, Banafsheh is a corageous and
Bob, I agree with Amy on one thing,you have personally attacked Banafsheh and in a spurious and unjustified manner .
For starters Banafsheh did not say Ramadan should be banned from entry because his grandfather was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood but that the comparison between “a visa to enter the U.S. to the behavior of the regime in Iran outrageous and crass beyond words.”
So your entire premise and subsequent venting fails from the very beginning.Next time I would suggest a long look Bob and at Tariq Ramadan .A man who has lied on record and then denied it more than once http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1329.
A man who has become adept at douplespeak and avoids condemning the more medieval aspects of the Koran and seeks to bring Sharia law and a Muslim caliphate to the world by stealth .A man who has worked for the Iranian regime http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/08/18/82227.html.
Keep looking and the list of contradictions and outright lies Ramadan has made are too numerous to mention here but to not question such a mouthpiece and forked tongue of extremist Islamic thinking such as Tariq Ramadan and instead attack an extraordinarily,brave and resilient voice such as Banafsheh is beyond me.
Banafsheh is a beacon of light shining onto the murky hell-hole that Iran has become .A woman who seeks to highlight the plight of the millions of Iranians who suffer under a brutal and oppressive regime.That someone such as she attracts derision from someone who after a “quick look” and the failure to even read the article properly,that,that truly is “meaningless”.
I might have mentioned these points with a little less personal attack, but +1 to Bob from District 9′s point.
There is always a war we can have against ideas and ways of life. There is no proof that Ramadan has intentionally and directly harmed American citizens or our institutions. As has been said, understanding an idea can sometimes be the best argument against it.
Bob & 8.P.Ami, you both speak like the most perfect cultural imperialists. Good on you for being so willing to extend some thought to how people from other cultures see things. Evidently the only point of view that counts is the American one. Keep it up.
Would you care to clue me in on how your culture defines cultural imperialist? It seems to have different meaning in yours then in mine, otherwise I have a hard time figuring out how you might apply that word to my comments. This is the US. An ideal United States would not feel itself threatened by words and ideas, no matter how one disagrees with their truth or motives. Actions are another thing entirely. If my faith that the country I am a citizen of, and in which I live, should be a place where the free market of ideas aught to remain open is a form of imperialism then it seems you have discovered an unprecedented use of that word. Try finding anywhere in my three sentences where I suggested how another culture aught to behave. If you do, then I’ll stand corrected and admit to being some bizzaro version of a cultural imperialist.
Bob, I agree with Amy on one thing,you have personally attacked Banafsheh and in a spurious and unjustified manner .
For starters Banafsheh did not say Ramadan should be banned from entry because his grandfather was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood but that the comparison between “a visa to enter the U.S. to the behavior of the regime in Iran outrageous and crass beyond words.”
So your entire premise and subsequent venting fails from the very beginning.Next time I would suggest a long look Bob and at Tariq Ramadan .A man who has lied on record and then denied it more than once http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1329 .
A man who has become adept at douplespeak and avoids condemning the more medieval aspects of the Koran and seeks to bring Sharia law and a Muslim caliphate to the world by stealth .A man who has worked for the Iranian regime http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/08/18/82227.html .
Keep looking and the list of contradictions and outright lies Ramadan has made are too numerous to mention here but to not question such a mouthpiece and forked tongue of extremist Islamic thinking such as Tariq Ramadan and instead attack an extraordinarily,brave and resilient voice such as Banafsheh is beyond me.
Banafsheh is a beacon of light shining onto the murky hell-hole that Iran has become .A woman who seeks to highlight the plight of the millions of Iranians who suffer under a brutal and oppressive regime.That someone such as she attracts derision from someone who after a “quick look” and the failure to even read the article properly,that,that truly is “meaningless”.
Thank you Banafsheh for mentioning the sorry state of our immigration policy towards despotic regimes on the one hand, and the desperate people who flee them on the other.
P Ami’s post above consists of three sentences that suggests she hasn’t yet graduated kindergarten. As for the first I would suggest that there are indeed malevolent ideas that we must war against if we want our own ideas of freedom and democracy to survive. As for her second assertion that “there is no proof…”, Ramadan is a spokesman for one of the most dangerous regimes in the world today, for whose many attempts to damage our interests and the interests of other free nations there is abundant proof. As for “understanding an idea”, if all we want to do is argue, that is fine; but when malevolent ideas are translated into action, peaceful people must defend themselves, and that defense should include shutting down the front men for despotic regimes. Otherwise, real people get hurt.
I’ll have you know I have my kindergarten diploma as the centerpiece of a wall in my study.
Lets ask some questions. Is Russia dangerous? What about China? Do spokesmen for those countries come to speak in the US? Is the US dangerous? Do we have spokespeople in other free countries? Are we at war with Iran? How many Americans has Ramadan killed? How many Americans, or our allies, has be damaged. I am an ardent Zionist and disagree with Ramadan’s take on Israel’s actions. I personally think that Israel aught to pack up all the Arabs living in Israel (which includes the old city of Jerusalem), Judea, Samaria and Gaza and drop them off in Jordan. Honestly, I think this is the only way for peace between the two people. Literally, I think it the only way there will ever be a secure Israel. Does that mean that anyone who argues otherwise is dangerous to Israel? Sure, considering my view, this stands to reason and yet, they are words and beliefs. Actions are dangerous. Words, ideas and beliefs are abstractions. You fight them with other abstractions, not bans.
P. Ami, since you are an ardent Zionist you should know that the primary weapon the Arabs have against Israel is propaganda — lies, big lies, and bigger lies. I won’t go into the long list of lies which began to be propagated against Israel in the 1960s by Arafat and continue to this very day because I’m sure you are aware of them.
But the lies enlisted the left against Israel. The left is replete with people who think other people will like them better if they say they “feel sorry” for the underdog. The lies even enlisted the diaspora Jews who, after the 6-day war, began to say that Israel was too militaristic. Never occurred to them that no military, no Israel.
As Palestinians became the darlings of the left, the media, movie stars and TV talking heads, it gave them the impetus to introduce suicide bombings as a new weapon against Israel. And it worked, their friends said Israel was to blame for the suicide bombings because of the “occupation.” Now, there was even more reason to feel sorry for the Palestinians.
My point, words ARE dangerous. And you can look to other incidents where words ended up killing people, check out the Rwanda radio broadcasts for starters.
As for Ramadan, you need to learn about stealth jihad to understand why so many people oppose him.
In keeping with the kindergarten theme, to say “sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me,” sounds reasonable, but it’s not borne out by reality.
Thank you Banafsheh for mentioning the sorry state of our immigration policy towards despotic regimes on the one hand, and the desperate people who flee them on the other.
P Ami’s post above consists of three sentences that suggests she hasn’t yet graduated kindergarten. As for the first I would suggest that there are indeed malevolent ideas that we must war against if we want our own ideas of freedom and democracy to survive. As for her second assertion that “there is no proof…”, Ramadan is a spokesman for one of the most dangerous regimes in the world today, for whose many attempts to damage our interests and the interests of other free nations there is abundant proof. As for “understanding an idea”, if all we want to do is argue, that is fine; but when malevolent ideas are translated into action, peaceful people must defend themselves, and that defense should include shutting down the front men for despotic regimes. Otherwise, real people get hurt.
Great article, Banafsheh clearly exposed the double-standart and the gullibility of “Human-Rights” groups by enabling Islamist professor to get into the states within the framework of “Intellectual Exclusionism”.
The very same western ideas which brought Shah down and installed Khomeini are still around. USA foreign policy changes regimes all over the world on daily basis. Iran is just “another mistake” done by western financial circles. UK and USA heavily supported (if not created) Muslim Brotherhood when they needed them. All this is shameless and all of you people are barking under wrong tree…