Tariq Ramadan allowed to enter USA?

I hope this is a set-up, but probably not. Maybe we should just let every Muslim pig come in here and do what they want.

Then perhaps this country can revert back to the days of Earp and Holliday, and take care of these mental midgets the way we should've in the first place, with violence.

Our Government, with regard to issues like this, is a joke.

The State Department is a Muslim fifth column -- they have been seriously compromised in thinking and in deed. It's amazing that one branch of government can trump the other in this manner.

Where can we write and whom can we call to voice our displeasure with this turn of events?

epg, I'm with you, but I'm afraid it'll do no good..

Our Government, with regard to issues like this, is a joke.

The Bush regime is a joke, Kerry could be even worse, he is an unknown quantity, better the devil we know than the devil we don't.

All Americans should vote for Ralph Nader, I didn't realise it at first, but he is an Arab-American with Lebanese parents. This would send a positive message to the Middle East and that would damage extremist propanganda that all Americans hate and want to kill Arabs, if an Arab-American is president then that assumption will be thrown out of the window, plus Nader is the only candidate who stands for a non-biased Middle East policy.

Another thing, many people here I presume supported the war on Iraq, why? Did you all not know that Saddam Hussein and Baathism was a moderate, secular and socialist regime, opposed to Islamic extremism? The same goes for Syria. Saddam even allowed Tariq Aziz, a Christian, to serve in his government. If anything the Iraq war has created more Islamic extremism, which is what you people don't want, or is it?

Another meaningless post from the goose-stepping "karl". Can't he find an islamic deathcult site to take his gibberish to ?

LOVE LIFE - HATE ISLAMOFASCISTS !!

Karl, I have to agree with you on your last comment. Getting rid of the secular state of Iraq under Saddam was bizarre in the extreme.

Voltaire, I have long thought that the whole point of these wars is to radicalize the Muslim world and increase Islamic extremism, because there are some sick and insane people in this world who have wet dreams about a WWIII against the Islamic world. (like many braindead morons who post comments here)

I believe these wars are fought by the masses for the benefits of elites, these elites seek control by weakening nation states through constant war and offering peace and an end to war by proposing increased powers for the UN and other world bodies. Increased global control will lead to a global tax, global gun control, global policing, global currency, global population database and snooping, encouraging population and capital flow to the wasting of national, racial, cultural and religious loyalities. One thing to keep in mind that those who want World Government, are those creating the problems to justify it.

The actions of elites may seem bizarre on the surface, but there is method in their madness, namely the enslavement of humanity.

Karl - The elites that you talk about are the petrobillionaires that have decided to take over the world using any means possible. They will use demographics or buy their way in as they have been doing through the funding of mosques, universities, charities, etc. The West must not allow them to set up here as they are also manipulating our laws and institutions. Sorry to tell you that it may come to war as there may be no other way to stop these people. We just can't roll over and accept dhimmitude without a fight.

Karl,
Saddam Hussein was a Baathist and was a moderate, secular and socialist regime, opposed to Islamic extremism. He was also a ruthless dictator of the worst kind. He personally murdered people including those whose crime was to disagree with him. He is responsible for mass murder of his own citizens. He attacked his neighbours. He pillaged the riches of his country to build expensive and elaborate palaces for himself while his citizens lived in poverty. Is this what you are defending?

People, can't you see where the troll "kkkarl" is going with this. This is the babble of neo-nazis - "one world government", "global elites" It's the same drivel nazis have been coming out with for years. Just wait for the bit about who controls these world elites (and the banks and the media).."kkkarl" has already ranted about the Jews controlling things. I think we should all ignore the wanna-be "black-shirt" and let him stew in his anti-jewish venom. He hasn't made one post attacking the jihad or dhimmitude. Get over it "kkkarl", your guys lost in 1945...

ALL nations have had there share of evil dictators. The USA had Abraham Lincoln, should we British people have invaded America, to liberate the Confederate States of America from the tyrannical federal government of USA? Abraham Lincoln was an enemy of the US constitution, the great experiment in liberty known as the USA, ended when the Yankee imperialists declared war on the seccessionist southern states, in violation of the US constitution (The third bloodiest war in history after WWI and WWII). Using your logic, Britain should have invaded, liberated the Confederacy and captured Lincoln, put him on trial for war crimes and executed him. The USA and the Confederacy were like Iraq and Kuwait, there is no difference. America is still under the tyrannical rule by Washington and has denied states rights to the states like the Republic of Texas. Bush is an unelected dictator, the real heroes in America are not those tragic victims coming back from Iraq in body bags, but those freedom fighters like Timothy McVeigh and Randy Weaver who resisted the imperialist and fascist occupation government in Washington, like the Arab freedom fighters resist US and Israel's insurgency in the Middle East.

For God's sake, ban Karl - he's clearly a Nazi.

Geoff

For God's sake, ban Karl - he's clearly a Nazi.

Geoff

You can ban me but you can't ban the truth. Censorship and name-calling is an admission of defeat. Thank you for admitting I am right. I am always right.

Scroll, scroll, scroll...

Karl has just spoken up in favor of slavery. Abraham Lincoln, indeed.
I know, SonOfWalker, I'm having a hard time of it. Between Karl and his new best friend, KJ...

Are you saying there was no slavery in Kuwait? when America "liberated" Kuwait from Iraq. In Kuwait Islam is stricter than Iraq and theoretically allows slavery under Sharia law, which is what you hate-mongers have been criticizing.

And the slaves fought for the Confederacy also, in fact they were treated a lot better in the South than the North.

Notre Dame and Scott Appleby must be very proud of themselves, for bravely standing up for Tariq Ramadan, and what they no doubt see as purely a matter of unfettered free speech, the “dialogue of civilizations,” and so on and so forth. One wonders if they recall the well-known lines of Mr. Justice Jackson, that the Constitution “is not a suicide pact.” Scott Appleby would do well to get the Library of America volume devoted to Oliver Wendell Holmes; he might also consult “Freedom of the Mind in History” by Henry Lea, the historian of the Inquisition. The notion that a master of taqiyya, that is a master at presenting, in duplicitous fashion, the case for Islam, at a time when half the Western world seems determined not to look at what is staring it in the face, not to study the easily-obtainable canonical texts of Islam, nor the main commentators upon those texts, nor do anything other than the most cursory research – consisting usually of “consulting” such “experts” as John Esposito, Michael Sells, and others who for years have been involved in the rankest apologetics (for reasons that deserve to be analyzed, and pondered)—into the history of Muslim conquests, and of Muslim treatement of non-Muslims.

It is not crazy, it is not absurd, it is prudent and sensible, to wish to keep Tariq Ramadan from obtaining the kind of platform which, had the presentable and to some, entirely plausible Mr. Goebbels had it available to him, would possibly have helped to keep America out of the war. This is not a minor matter here, of suppressing some socialist, some anarchist distributing his pamphlets by throwing them out the window. In an age of celebritydom, an age where people like to attitudinize rather than to think – and what better to strike an attitude about than that of “bravely defending” the principle of free speech, and to “let the marketplace of ideas decide.” No, the matter is too grave, and the ability of Tariq Ramadan – who is well aware of his mediagenic powers – to appeal to all sorts of people who are just dying to believe in his message, and full of hatred not for those who would not permit them or their kind to exist for one minute in any Muslim-run polity, but for those, such as John Aschcroft, or Pat Robertson, whose muscular Christianity so offends them – which is strange, considering that American history up to World War I, at least, was made by people almost all of whom subscribed to precisely that kind of Christianity. And the general tenor of public life, in 19th-century America, and of public schooling, was so far above that which we now see all around us, that one wonders just what it is about such Christian beliefs some find so hard to accept, or to tolerate. Islam, on the other hand – well, if you seek its monument, look around – look at Muslim countries now, and look at what happened to the indigenous non-Muslims wherever Islam spread. Is Muslim Turkey superior in its civilization to Byzantium? What would Mesopotamia and Syria now look like if Islam had not conquered? Zoroastrian Persia? What if the Muslims had never conquered, and destroyed so much of, Indian civilization? Who wishes to bet his future on a wonderful new “Euro-Islamic” identity that is the kind of thing that the Gilles Kepels of this world, aided by a smile and an approving nod from Tariq Ramadan, are fond of predicting? In what would it consist?

And will those members of the Notre Dame faculty who have their considerable doubts about all this kindly take a look, for a start, at the entry on "taqiyya" in the Encyclopedia of Islam -- or even better, simply google the words "taqiyya" and "kitman." Then, someone pleace read "Ramadan Dévoilé."

Anyone wishing to interview Ramadan should insist on some straight answers to liminal questions. To help out, not the hopeless Deborah Sontags of this world, but those who want to take the matters at hand seriously, the following brief list of questions is offered, in the true spirit of a “Dialogue of Civilisations.” If questions such as the following are not asked, then of course the whole business of inviting Ramadan here becomes a farce, a dialogue of the deaf, the providing of a platform only for Muslim propaganda. And surely we do not want that, do we?

1. Do you believe there is any occasion when stoning to death of adulteresses should not be condemned?

2. Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6, and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. That was in the seventh century. Do you regard Muhammad’s behavior as any justification for child-brides in the 21st century?

3. Muhammad ordered the assassination of people who opposed him, and even of people whom he believed had mocked him. Do you think this behavior is appropriate or a model for today?

4. Muslims believe that Islam should cover the globe, that dar al-Islam should increase in size until it has swallowed up the dar al-Harb. Do you agree that it is desirable for the entire world to accept Islam?

5. You have written that Western man, in what you regard as his anomie, decadence, and spiritual longing, is ripe for “reversion” to Islam. You have further written that Europe is the “future of Islam.” How do you see the spread of Islam within Europe proceeding?

6. Do you think that the possibilities for the spread of Islam in the United States are equally enticing as those in Europe?

7. In what ways do you distinguish your ultimate aims from those of your grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood?

8. You tried, for a short while, to live in Egypt but apparently found life in Europe more congenial and fruitful. What were the things about Europe – or for that matter the United States – that you find so much more appealing as a place in which to live and raise your children?

9. Are any of the things which make Europe, and America, more appealing to you in fact, perhaps for you a paradox, the product of non-Islamic ways of thought and activity?

10. Do you believe that women are fully equal, in all respects, to men, and do you oppose the requirement, anywhere, that women wear the hijab?

11. Here is a statement from the Ayatollah Khomeini. Do you think that this statement, from a leading Shi’a theologian, misstates Islamic theology, and is simply one man’s view, or do you think that it correctly expresses a view that can be easily derived from a reading of Qur’an and the hadith contained, for example, in the “sahih” collections of Bukhari and Muslim:

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.

But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world….Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies[. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we sould surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Porphet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Do you think that this statement, from a leading Shi’a theologian, misstates Islamic theology, and is simply one man’s view, or do you think that it correctly expresses a view that can be easily derived from a reading of Qur’an and the hadith contained, for example, in the “sahih” collections of Bukhari and Muslim.

12. Do you agree that freedom of conscience is to be upheld at all costs, so that those who in dar al-Islam, or in dar al-Harb, who wish to change their religion, for another religion, or for no religion at all, should be protected by the full force of the state, and no punishment or retribution of any kind should be visited upon them?

13. Would you agree that if the non-Muslims in the southern Sudan, 1.8 million of whom have died at the hands of the northern Muslims, wish to secede from the Sudan and form an independent state, they should be allowed to do so?

14. Do you agree that the Muslim ban on statues unless they have been defaced or vandalized – as described for example in Al-Qaradawi’s well-known guide to what is Halal and what is Haram, simply reflects a view from the 7th century Arabia and should be jettisoned, so that public statuary, in museums and in public squares, should be safe from possible attack?

15. Do you agree that the traditional Muslim prohibition of any paintings of human beings, should similarly be ended, especially since Muslims in Europe are likely to encounter a great many of these in the museums, and naturally people are worried about the possible fate of the great art of the West?

16. Do you believe that the Jewish people are entitled to a state of their own, and do you support the existence of the state of Israel?

17. Do you think that there should be a constant effort by all articulate Muslims to undo the traditional treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, including all of those fiscal, legal, political, and social disabilities which together make up the institution of dhimmitude? Do you think that Muslim authorities should copy the apologies made by, for example, the Vatican, and apologize to the non-Muslims for the treatment they have received over the past 1400 years?

18. Do you think that the Armenian genocide reflected ethnic hatred by Turks against Armenians, or do you think that it reflected a Jihad mentality of both Turks and Kurds, carried out against the “giavour”?

19. Do you think it was wrong for the Egyptian pilots to take part in the Biafran War on the side of the northern Muslims, and to bomb Ibo villages where hundreds of thousands died?

20. What do you think should be done to make up for the thousands of churches that have been destroyed in Indonesia since 2003?

21. Do you think a statement by Muslim authorities demanding that Muslims in Bangladesh cease to murder Hindus, and Christians, would be useful and appropriate?

22. Do you agree that the very best way for Infidels to learn about Islam is to read, thoroughly, the text of the Qur’an, along with notes as to such things as the doctrine of abrogation (naskh) so that they will know which verses are still given force? Do you agree that the worst way would be to read a bowdlerized version such as Michael Sells’ “Approaching the Qur’an”?

23. Do you think that Infidels are sufficiently aware that in order to learn what Musliims themselves believe, it is important not to limit oneself to study of the Qur’an (with an intelligent guidebook), but to read a good many of the hadith in the recensions of the accepted, or authoritative compilers, such as Bukhari and Muslim?

24. Do you think that the biography of Muhammad should be carefully studied in order for Infidels to learn better what this “best of men” has to teach the world? In addition to the earlier biographers, what Western biographers would you recommend? Have you read the works of Tor Andrae? Of Noldeke? Of Henri Lammens? What do you think of Sir William Muir’s monumental biography, now available in reprint?

25. What do you think is the role of free and skeptical inquiry in the development of modern science? How do you explain the last thousand years, in which that science appeared in the West, despite Christian beliefs, but not in the Islamic world, where – after a few centuries, and the general disappearance of non-Muslim populations – even rudimentary science seemed no longer to be a subject of much interest?

26. What intellectual activities – music, art, and so on – interest you the most, outside of your philosophical studies in Islam?

27. Would you agree that any “dialogue of civilizations” should not be between Islam and the Christian, or Judeo-Christian, West alone, but should definitely include others, such as Hindus and Buddhists and Confucians and of course agnostics and atheists as well?

28. Do you think there are any real issues dividing Islam from the non-Islamic world, or is it simply a question of the non-Muslims failing to fully understand the tenets of Islam?

Thank you, Mr. Ramadan, very much for your time. Your answers, or failures to answer, will be studied, and no doubt will prove to be most instructive.

Hugh - Appropriate and good questions to ask ANY Muslim. I wish I had thought of them. Thank you.

Hugh has presented a very important list of questions. These are precisely the kinds of questions we should be asking of Ramadan, the Islamic Society of Boston, and every Muslim who wishes to visit or live in the United States.

A little factual accuracy is in order. State can issue a visa at any time. DHS can refuse to honor any visa. That's been the law for as long as any of us has been alive except that it used to be Immigration doing the processing which is now folded into DHS.

State can issue all the paperwork it wants. If they're going to step on DHS' toes, their visas aren't going to be honored and there are going to be a lot of return flights.

Good article about Tariq Ramadan. He's the slicker version of Jihadist scum.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3523

Our State Department will be our end. They are the enemy of our society and are helping to plant the seeds of it's destruction. Our intellectual elite will see that those seeds are well fertilyzed.

But you see, we aren't sophisticated enough to really know what we're talking about. We're just small minded bigots trying to prevent a brilliant Islamic scholar from enlighening, building bridges with our American youth.

Check out interview:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/13/1428249

You can contact R. Scott Appleby by email at

Robert.S.Appleby.3@nd.edu.

CGW et all are right. Although googling on Saxonwulf. Hugh got me nowhere, Karl is a neo-nazi.

Posted by Karl in response to another news item today.

'...what about the "freedom of expression" for those jailed in Europe for questioning the established "truths" about the Second World War?'

Spoken like a true fan of proven libeller David Irving or Ernst Zundel, if I've ever heard one.

Friends: If you're American (regardless of ethnic heritage) and concerned, take the Foreign Service exam next time it's offered. If you pass and serve, you'll have the chance to be eyes and ears on a visa line, and you can keep jerks like Tariq Ramadan out of the USA. State is no better than the people staffing it, and if it lacks people sufficiently awake to security threats, it will cave in to the slightest political pressure exerted from any quarter--even if it's only a sleazy immigration lawyer in a dirty, third-floor walkup office in Brooklyn and the case is simply about whether we're letting in an ordinary spouse or temporary worker or a two-bit hoodlum (not necessarily Muslim).

As for Tariq Ramadan, my guess is that if he continues to be the brians of jihad, and acts like another Sami al-Arian, he'll end up having long talks with both the FBI and a high-priced lawyer.

As for Scott Appleby, the _Fundamentalism Project_ he and Martin Marty edited back in the early 1990's is part of the problem: a "fundamentalist" is simply someone who takes his religion seriously, and whom the self-anointed "we" dislikes (even if it's simply over a theological doctrine or the shape of his nose).

Here some more questions to ask TARIQ RAMADAN 29.Should a muslim in the west be loyal to the country where he has citizenship or should his loyalty be to the ummah. 30.Should a muslim serving in the armed forces of a western country fight against fellow muslim.Where do you think his loyalty should go to the ummah or to the country he is serviceing. 31.A muslim law enforcement officer came upon a terrorist plot commited by muslims against non-muslims what should he do.

I think that Hugh's questions and many more like them when presented formally will mark the beginning of some very bad days for Mr. Ramadan and those who believe as he does. He will not achieve an overwhelming intellectual following in the United States.

In fact, he will be opposed intellectually at every point of contention between Islam and western culture. More importantly he will be opposed by Judeo-Christian values. There is no room in western culture for the backward ideas of Islam such as the subjugation of women. There is no room for the ancient ideology that is Islam.

What Mr. Ramadan ( and the likes of kkkarl ) view as western decadence is really the power of freedom that opposes Islam. Islam will not succeed. If they attempt to force their will on others who do not wish to be part of them, they will only foster war and violence. If Islam believes that they can win such a war then those who wage it will only lead the world to unnecessary misery. Freedom when challenged, will always rise up - and win.

waterdragon52:

You were just supposed to google "Saxonwulf". The "Hugh" was the beginning of the next sentence of my post.

10/8/04

Apparently, Tariq has been rejected again, this time in the UK.

Google alerted me this blog

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=803

(MWU!, Muslim Wake UP!) as Tariq was the subject of several entries regarding a recent "motion passed by the NUS-NEC demanding for the withdrawal of the respected Muslim academic and intellectual, Professor Tariq Ramadan from the forthcoming European Social Forum. "

"NUS (National Union of Students) is one of the largest student organisations in the world and represents the interests of around three million students in further and higher education throughout the United Kingdom. NUS provides research, representation, training and expert advice for individual students and students' unions."

"The National Executive Committee (NEC) is responsible for the everyday work of NUS, directing the work of the staff and acting on the policy set at National Conference."

The blog entries include one post by "UmmZakariya" (appears to be written by Tariq ). At the end of this post, UmmZakariya leaves a contact e-address that appears to be for Tariq.

Interesting to see the rest of the repsonses as well.

here is the post:

UmmZakariya
Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:36 am
Post subject: An oft-repeated 'truth'

The accusations made against me, leading to my US visa being revoked, are based on repetition not on facts Tariq Ramadan
Tuesday August 31, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1293952,00.html

In 20 years of studying and teaching philosophy, I have learned to appreciate the inherent difficulty in defining and recognising "the truth". Descartes put it simply: "A clear and distinct idea is true." Kant aptly added the need for "consistency". Over the years, I also learned that in the world of mass media, "truth" is not based on clarity, but on frequency. Repeated hypotheses or suspicions become truth; a three-time-repeated assumption imperceptibly becomes a fact. There is no need to check because "it is obvious"; after all, "it is being said everywhere".
I have been reminded of this lesson during the past few weeks, during which the US government granted me a visa to teach at the University of Notre Dame - only to revoke it at the last moment, without explanation. As a result, I can't start my job. I have also to alert former president Bill Clinton that I will be unable to attend the conferences to which he has invited me. I remain in Switzerland, hoping this mistake will be rectified, and reflecting on how I am constantly being told "the truth" about who I am: "You engage in double-talk, delivering a gentle message in French and English, and a radical, even extremist one in Arabic"; "You have links with extremists, you are an anti-semite"; "You despise women."

When I ask about the source of this information, the response is: this is well known, check the internet. A closer examination reveals that what we have is journalists or intellectuals repeating and reporting what others said yesterday with caveats. Strange truth indeed!

I have written 20 books and 700 articles; 170 audiotapes of my lectures are circulating. I ask my detractors: have you read or listened to any of this? Can you prove the "links" to terrorists? Have you read the articles where I call upon fellow Muslims to condemn radical views and acts of extremism? What about my statements, issued on September 13 2001, calling on Muslims to condemn the terrorist attacks and to acknowledge that some Muslims betray the Islamic message? What about the articles in which I condemn anti-semitism, criticising Muslims who do not differentiate between the political dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the unacceptable temptation to reject the Jews because they are Jews?

Are you familiar with my writing and lectures promoting women's rights and rejecting mistreatment and discrimination? Finally, are you acquainted with my extensive study of the Islamic scriptural sources and efforts to promote a new understanding, a way for Muslims to remain faithful to their principles and, at the same time, face the challenges of the contemporary world?

Very often, I encounter individuals, even academics, who are not familiar with my work but have formed a strong opinion of me. When their baseless allegations are refuted, their final argument is: "Well, aren't you the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood?" This is taken as proof of the accusations.

My response is: is one to be judged by another's words and deeds? Do one's morals and ethics descend from the vices or virtues of one's pedigree? Those focused on my genealogy ought to examine my intellectual pedigree, which, along with my grandfather and father, includes Descartes, Kant, and Nietzsche. They should examine the years I spent working with Dom Helder Camara, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, Abbot Pierre and countless ordinary South Americans, Asians, Africans, Europeans, Americans, Christians, Jews, agnostics and atheists. For 20 years, each has educated me, nour ished my soul, and strengthened my conviction.

Clarity and consistency are not enough: the quest for truth requires humility and effort. My experience of living with people of diverse religions and cultures taught me that one will never be at peace with the other if one is at war with oneself. This simple truth is the essence of my message to Muslims throughout the world: know who you are, who you want to be, and start talking and working with whom you are not. Find common values and build with fellow citizens a society based on diversity and equality. The very moment you understand that being a Muslim and being American or European are not mutually exclusive you enrich your society. Promote the universal principles of justice and freedom and leave the societies elsewhere to find their model of democracy based on their collective psychology and cultural heritage. Our collective success hinges on breaking out of our intellectual ghettos, collaborating beyond our narrow belongings, and fostering mutual trust - without which living together is nearly impossible.

My move to America and my post at Notre Dame were to enable me to share this message with the Muslim communities and fellow citizens. Is this a threatening contribution? Is it not a much needed and urgent message in America in the post-September 11 world?

· Tariq Ramadan has been appointed professor of religion, conflict and peacebuilding at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. His books include Western Muslims and the Future of Islam (OUP)

tariq.ramadan.us@cox.net

We touch sometimes on the borders of disillision with our federal governments' attempts to protect us from the harm of pressing violence and the long-term effects of fifth columnists; and if we don't take solid good advice to win positions within the federal government of our choice, i.e. if we don't work within the system to change it for the better; if we don't write letters to our congressmen in the hope of forcing some attention to our concerns; then what are we actually saying of ourselves? Two things come to mind: That we are content to chase rabbits like Karl until at the end of the day we're exhausted and have nothing to show for our efforts; or we're saying we don't have sufficient faith in the professionalism of our federal agencies and their highly-trained and determined agents to act on our behalf in our interests. If this, writing letters at this web-site, is what we do well and for right purpose in the war against those who kill for the sake of the umma, then our letters are good and useful for some reason other than protection of our nations and people: they beat the hell out of watching television and eating chocolate bon-bons. If however, we say we do not have faith that our letters to our congressmen will effect good results on our behalf; that the civil service exam is not likely to result in a growing cadre of the vanguard of those who would defeat the armies of darkness, as it were; and if we feel that writing letters here is not simply a great way to let off some steam while we sit back and let the professionals do their jobs for us, then we are setting ourselves in opposition to our elected and legitimate governments.

I do, as it so happens, have a great great deal to say about such things. And no, though my great and distant relative William strode a similar path though the course of history, I cannot condon all of his actions, nor can I advise us to follow his example. My prolix peramble and sharp point is merely to bring to our attention that when we suggest taking steps to commit acts of whatever nature against our enemies, we put ourselves in a state of dormant, or pre-extra-parliamentary opposition. It's a position we have to face clearly, given the nature of the consequences that could arise if one were to take it too seriously.

According to this piece, Ramadan accepts 'universal principles of justice and freedom', and that those principles must allow for a society based on 'diversity and equality' (how else can one make sense of this?). In that case, Ramadan must accept that Infidels (those who reject the Prophet, the Koran, and Islam), according to 'universal principles of justice', are entitled to 'equal rights' with Muslims. And not simply equal 'legal' rights but equal 'moral rights and privileges' because a society based on 'diversity and equality' flows from from 'universal principles'.

Ramadan also claims here that truth is in reality clear and consistent.

In that case, large portions of the Koran are clearly false and should be denounced as false, i.e. all those texts which reject the equal rights and moral status of Infidels (of course, if one accepted this the Koran would be rendered meaningless). And truth demands 'consistency', 'clarity', 'effort' and 'humility', so the advocate of this position has nothing less than a moral obligation to denounce these passages in the Koran immediately: one must do this or fall into the abyss of 'inconsistency' which is contrary to truth and universal principles.

epg said:

"The State Department is a Muslim fifth column. . ."

Yup.

Robert for President
Hugh for State