Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ron Radosh

One wonders whether an American university would agree to host a speech by Hani Ramadan, using the argument that it is proper to engage with Islamists in the hope that it will show the American Muslim community that we allow even its most extreme representatives to speak on an American campus. I hope, of course, that such a situation never arises.  I do recall, however, that when the former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came to the United States to address the UN, he was invited by the president of Columbia University to present his views to the campus in a major speech.

It is clear, wherever one stands on the issue of whether or not Islam itself as a religion is to blame for the views of its exponents like Ramadan, that most Muslim spokesmen seem to be Islamists of the radical variety. That is why critics like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are regularly condemned and not allowed to speak at some campuses, and why she must constantly have bodyguards to protect her from attack.  When they suspended her appearance, the Brandeis administration was saying in effect: A critic of Islam cannot be allowed to make her case at a liberal arts university, since students cannot be afforded the chance to hear her critique of Sharia, the oppression by Islamic states against women, and her general views on the state of Islam as a religion. After all, the danger exists that some students might actually come to agree with what she says.

I argue that the university’s leaders in so doing have shown their contempt not only for Hirsi Ali, but for the students at their own university whom they do not trust to be able to make conclusions on their own. They have, indeed, violated the very basic tenets of academic freedom and the purpose of a liberal university itself.

And I suspect, not without good reason, that if someone proposed that Hani Ramadan or Tariq Ramadan be brought to the campus, they would allow him to proceed and make whatever speech he wanted. After all, to impose a ban, they would most likely argue, would make them guilty of “Islamaphobia.”

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Although Islam does have some "religious trappings", it can logically only be classified as a totalitarian system in a category with Communism/Marxism and Fascism/Nazism; and with it's shariah, without which Islam would not even be Islam, it is even more totalitarian. To instead classify Islam as a religion, as some would do, in a category with Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, is logically quite absurd. The "religion" of the Aztecs, with it's human sacrifice would surly be banned in the United States. Islam practices human sacrifice on a far greater scale than did the Aztecs, so the case to ban it outright from America is even more compelling. Slavery is now, and has been for a century and a half, illegal in the United States. and Islam enslaves far more women than the Confederate States enslaved Blacks, so here too the case to ban it outright from America is also even more compelling.

Abraham Lincoln once asked, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The answer, of course, is four, as calling a tail a leg does not make it one. And calling Islam a religion does not make it one either. Islam is a totalitarian system created by a mass murdering, mass torturing, mass enslaving, lying, thieving, misogynist, rapist of little girls, psychopath and has not one redeeming feature. Islam is a disgrace to mankind and an abomination on womankind. It is the Plague.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
In medieval times, people created fairy tales and magical creatures to make sense of their world. One of the most endearing is the unicorn, a horse with a single horn that symbolized purity and wholesomeness. In our modern times, people in Europe and the United States consider themselves more sophisticated and rational than people from the Middle Ages, but we still create myths, albeit more subtle ones.

Daily we hear reports of violent acts committed by Islamic terrorists on every inhabited continent. We try to wish it away with the myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’, telling ourselves the Islamic agenda has been’ hijacked’ by a tiny minority of 'islamists’ and that soon the huge, silent, 'moderate majority' of Muslims will take charge and change things. However, post 9/11 very few Muslims have condemned terrorist actions. We are still waiting for 'moderates' to stand and deliver, identifying and removing 'extremist thugs' from their mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of searching for unicorns.

Any "Moderate" Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No "moderate" can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the things Mohammed himself did. The Qur’an not only condones but commands violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom some call 'moderates' are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Any 'Moderates' will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be 'moderates' in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
What the hell is an "Islamist"? Was Mohammad, the founder of Islam an "Islamist"? NO, he was a Muslim. "Islamist" is an uber-PC word used to try to absolve Muslims. The same is true of "Islamism" which is meant and used to try to absolve Islam.

"He [that would be Muslim, not "Islamist", Muhammad, the founder of Islam, not "Islamism" and all Muslim's "Perfect Man"] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion [that would be Islam, the "religion" practiced by Muslims, not "Islamism", not "Radical Islam", not 'Islamists" not "Islamofascism", not "Hijacked Islam", but ISLAM!, ISLAM!, ISLAM], against all the rest of mankind." (John Quincy Adams)

Turkish PM Erdogan, "These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Col. Allen West: “This is not a perversion, They are doing EXACTLY what the Koran says. Until you get principled leadership in the United States of America that is willing to say that, we will continue to chase our tail, because we will never clearly define who the enemy is”.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (23)
All Comments   (23)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞­۩ஜ
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
www.jobscs.com

۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞­۩ஜ
LET’S HAVE A PRODUCTIVE 2014
CLICK THE LINK FOR MORE INFORMATION
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think a distinction needs to be made between a university allowing a controversial speaker to address an audience -- where better for such an event? -- and bestowing an honorary degree on a controversial figure. Ms. Ali has every right to criticize, call for reform, or even repudiate the religion in which she was raised. Whether the university should give her an honorary degree is a different matter. Of course she has the right to speak. But does the university have to endorse her speech by honoring her? That is the only issue.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
News Flash: All documentary makers about the Crusades are taken to court because they assert that the Christian Crusaders were motivated by Medieval Christianity. Calumny! The Crusaders may, indeed, have called themselves "Christian", but most Christians at the time remained home and, well, were peaceful, viz. moderate enough. Therefore, the fact that participating Crusaders carried out crusades, some quite bloody, is in no way to be seen as a reflection of the "true" Christianity of the time.

My "news flash" is obviously phoney. But it follows the same logic that asserts that statemments made against brutal deeds done in the name of Allah and Allah's religion, Islam, are two separate entities such that the "radicals" in no way reflective of "Islam" (an sich) with the correlative prohibition of considering said connection. Rita Beuer wrote a couple of year ago a small book in Germany with the title "In the Name of Allah. Christian Persecution". She showed that every -- yes EVERY -- country with a Muslim majority evinces persecution of Christian. She refrained from drawing any conclusion (a smart thing to do here in Germany). Why? Is it not allowed to ask if the religion, in whose explicit name brutual deeds are carried out is not, perhaps, the source for inspiration, justification and direction of the bad deed doers? Scholars such as Raymond Ibrahim and Robert Spencer have dedicated scholarship and debates with detractors to show that the "religion" of Allah does indeed include theologically the grounds for the evil doers. I suggest reading Emmet Scott's "Mohammed & Charlemagne Revisted". Scott shows upon the evidence that Islam-doers were from the beginning violent and that the supremacy over the world demanded was a direct deriviative of Islam the religion. Scott considers Islam to be the one and only religion where perpetual war is demanded.

In the name of TRUTH: Are critics of "radical (islamic) extremists" no longer allowed to examine the "in-the-Name-of-Allah" source of the radicals and, if the evidence is such, to conclude that there is a generative connection?

What to do with "moderate" Muslisms? Certainly Barry Rubin thought they might be the solution. But, what is a "moderate" Muslim? Historical Islam does not demand that every Muslim turn to violence, only enough. If "moderate" means that a radical theological change of fundamental depth has taken place in the minds of many self-designated Muslims, now deemed "moderate" by non-Muslims, then we have de facto a new religion!!! Great! Let me speculate. There is a relation between a southrn Baptist and a medieval Pope or Byzantium theocrat, but quite tenuous and one that demands that fundamental changes have taken place. It appears to me that "moderate" Muslims have the onerous two-fold calling to identify and to justify their "moderation", i.e., 1. to criticize endlessly the radicals for their deeds and 2. with the force, analogously, of an "ex communication", i.e., to LOUDLY announce and formally cast out. Baptists and Catholics today offer no examples of a blood thirsty radical "wings", but those self-named "Muislims" do evince moderation and radicality . Indeed, I have not yet read any Muslim calling himself a "Moderate Muslim", let alone much protest of barbarities. This article has left me in more confusion than in enlightenment. I feel that the pursuit of truth is coming up too short. And the failure of American universities to make place for various clamants to truth is a betrayal.

30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
The real problem of islam is that it's leaders and teachers are unwilling to engage in anything like factual debate because they have no reason to believe they are supported by facts and logic and don't want to take any chances. It's a faith without much faith.

A Catholic will seek out a logical discussion because he has confidence that logic will lead to the right place. A Muslim...not so much.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Some Muslim groups enthusiastically embrace born Jews who spew a form of self-hatred that borders on anti-Semitism, while some Jewish groups sponsor born Muslims who have repudiated Islam and have made a career of exposing their former faith. In each case the message is the same: the only authentic representative of the faith community is one who repudiates its commitments and beliefs."

I actually agree that is somewhat problematic and can get out of hand. One should have the confidence in the worth of an idea itself rather than holding up something and saying "Look what I got!"

As is usual with the politically correct, they couldn't find a binding principle one can live by with both hands if it was tattooed on their stomach. Somehow the fact the most influential Islamic country in the Middle East - Egypt - has a law banning its 10 million Christians and 45 million women from the presidency escapes them.

The other salient fact is that Islam itself is demonstrably a movement that cares not one fig for principle. It is an intolerant and supremacist self-advocate to the core. Islamic cant reminds me of the aliens in Peter Hamilton's SF novel which won't be happy til all other life is scoured clean from the galaxy. In 2014, the idea of a Christian president of Egypt is as ridiculous as having a Swedish catholic national for one.

There is little doubt other religions have acted so in the past but that is the point: it's in the past and Islam has not kept up. I can at least understand Jews creating a Jewish country out of a sense of survival, but for others in the region to do so is naked supremacy, since their survival either in terms of their religion or their lives has never been in doubt. What has happened to the Kurds in Turkey is a thing the PC studiously ignore.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
The lack of trust by universities that their students will reach the 'right conclusions' shows that academia has regressed to scholasticism - which following Aristotle slavishly insisted that a canon ball described an arc of a perfect circle. The poor navvies - that would be you and me - who had to actually aim the cannon had to politely ignore the well educated young gentlemen put in charge because of their superior education. In the new scholasticism social theory, largely founded on Marx, has taken the place of Aristotle's Physics when it comes to making our offspring fit to succeed us. Such control mechanisms are self defeating. The young will succeed us in any case and hopefully have the sense to do what needs to be done.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Anyone who expects what passes for "academia" today to allow criticism of either itself or its most closely held shibboleths is surely deranged. The cloistered halls of Brandeis, Harvard, UC Berkeley, et al, are about as closed to differences of opinion as the Vatican circa 1300.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually our Church in the 13th century welcomed and debated the merits of Aristotle. You have to go further back to about 1000AD to find a point where ecclesiastic authorities were as intolerant as today's universities. Right point but still too generous to today's academia.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
It is interesting that Brandeis not only objects to Ayaan's critique of Islam but suggests that a priori it must be excluded from consideration. If one believes her critique only applies to a certain variant of Islam, the one she knows best in Somalia, one only has to say that. The hysteria and witch hunt atmosphere is the opposite one would expect from a liberal arts institution.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment

Mohammed is recorded as dying, on or about, 632 AD. And what followed was not an "under siege" mentality. Wars for enrichment followed.
Islam had its own agenda long before the Crusades. If peaceful -- what were Muslim armies doing in Europe 300 years before the Crusades? And hundred of years thereafter?
Seventy-seven years after Mohammed's death, in 711 AD -- some 300 years prior to the first Crusade -- it was Muslim military forces who crossed the Straits of Gibraltar from North Africa into Spain and in less than a decade crossed the Pyrenees.
In 732 AD , the Muslim forces under the command of Abd-er- rahman, were decisively defeated by Charles Martel and the Franks at the Battle of Poitiers [Tours].
Nine hundred years later, in September 1683 AD -- Ottoman Empire Muslim armies led by the Turkish commander Grand Vizier Kara Mustapha were at the gates of Vienna.
They were defeated by a combination of Austrian, German, and Polish armies.
Second the world needs to understand that Islam was not spread by sandal shod mendicant mullahs preaching from the Koran but by mounted scimitar wielding jihadists. If peace was Mohammed's message -- a subtle proposition at best -- his adherents missed the point then and miss it now.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Although Islam does have some "religious trappings", it can logically only be classified as a totalitarian system in a category with Communism/Marxism and Fascism/Nazism; and with it's shariah, without which Islam would not even be Islam, it is even more totalitarian. To instead classify Islam as a religion, as some would do, in a category with Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, is logically quite absurd. The "religion" of the Aztecs, with it's human sacrifice would surly be banned in the United States. Islam practices human sacrifice on a far greater scale than did the Aztecs, so the case to ban it outright from America is even more compelling. Slavery is now, and has been for a century and a half, illegal in the United States. and Islam enslaves far more women than the Confederate States enslaved Blacks, so here too the case to ban it outright from America is also even more compelling.

Abraham Lincoln once asked, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" The answer, of course, is four, as calling a tail a leg does not make it one. And calling Islam a religion does not make it one either. Islam is a totalitarian system created by a mass murdering, mass torturing, mass enslaving, lying, thieving, misogynist, rapist of little girls, psychopath and has not one redeeming feature. Islam is a disgrace to mankind and an abomination on womankind. It is the Plague.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think you are trying to say that Islam is a cult,it is.
IT needs to be treated as such.
We can reclassify it as a religion as soon as the dreaded Jews, Catholics, Protestants and Hindus start genital mutilation of their women, cutting off heads of people they don't like and making women wear tents.
Until then its a cult.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All