Master of doublespeak
In an endorsement of Obama entitled "A hope named Obama" in the Bangkok Post, November 1 (thanks to Weasel Zippers), Tariq Ramadan says this:
[...] Since September 2001, the Bush regime has been obsessed by the ''global war on terror'' and the conflict with the "axis of evil." But over time, Americans have awakened to the emptiness of these bellicose and arrogant slogans. [...]
This is fascinating on many levels. For one thing, it reminds me of the furious reception I got from many Muslim students on university campuses these past three weeks: they insisted that I was exaggerating the jihad threat (one man at ETSU stated twice that jihadists had not wrought nearly as much damage in the world as "the Bush doctrine"), and that my doing so was a sign that I was hateful, bigoted, etc.
Of course, what if there really is a jihad threat? Then what would the effect be if large numbers of people were convinced that to think there was a jihad threat, or a "war on terror," was bigoted and hateful, or "bellicose and arrogant"? Of course, they would let their guard down, and the jihadists would be able to take advantage of their lack of readiness.
I'm not saying that everyone who says there is no jihad threat, or that it is wildly exaggerated, are actually trying to advance the jihadist agenda. But is Tariq Ramadan trying to do so? In Brother Tariq Caroline Fourest examines Ramadan's positions and actions in immense detail, and concludes that he is "remaining scrupulously faithful to the strategy mapped out by his grandfather, a strategy of advance stage by stage" toward the imposition of Sharia in the West. Ramadan's grandfather, of course, was Hasan Al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within."
In the course of this work, says Fourest, Ramadan "disarms those who are wary of Islamism."
On the most fundamental level, Colin Powell has laid out the terms of reference: Barack Obama is not a Muslim; he is black and Christian. But, in the final analysis, what if he were a Muslim? What is wrong with being ''African-American'' or ''Muslim'' in today's America?
To bring "African-American" into this is simply to obscure the issue and try to make it out to be a racial one, which it is not. The problem with being "African-American" in today's America? None. Black Americans have full equality of rights and equal access, as they should have. The problem with being "Muslim" is not quite the same thing. Colin Powell and Ramadan are trying to portray suspicion of Muslim groups in America as a matter of irrational prejudice. They completely ignore, of course, the Sharia imperative, the stealth jihad, the efforts to bring Islamic law "stage by stage" into the West. And so they aren't even calling upon Muslims in America to renounce and work against this effort -- to do so would be "Islamophobic."
Yes, I see that as a problem.
While it now appears that the US can live with the election of a black American, indications are that a new, virulent anti-Muslim racism has arisen in the wake of the events of September 2001....
What is the evidence, Mr. Ramadan? CAIR's trumped-up hate crimes report? The hoax "hate crimes" in Illinois and Ohio?
Of course, trying to portray Muslims as victims is a key element of the strategy to deflect attention away from the jihad. Ramadan is in this hewing close to the game plan that Caroline Fourest so capably exposes in her book.
There is a clear attempt by Muslim organizations to racialize Islam so that words like "racist" will stick when they cry Islamophobia.
If anyone visiting this blog has any doubt about what Mr Spencer is saying, then they should visit some of the websites of the "true believers".
On the site below an apparently "moderate" Muslim has an issue with a "true believer" (Anwar Al-Awlaki) saying that the Muslims should not vote.
The original statement by Al-awlaki (who grew up here in the US) as well as the comments are telling:
http://muslimcowboys.com/2008/11/02/anwar-al-awlaki-stick-to-the-audio-lectures/
"Of course, trying to portray Muslims as victims is a key element of the strategy to deflect attention away from the jihad. Ramadan is in this hewing close to the game plan that Caroline Fourest so capably exposes in her book."
Too bad our spineless political leaders won't listen to her but will keep listening to people like him and Dinesh D'Souza instead.
liberals enjoy trying to help the victims to stay in power, and from their actions they are liberals first.
Arrogant? Bellicose?
He needs to study his Qur'an, for even better examples than "the war on terror". You know, all that neck smiting, amputating, stoning, throwing homosexuals from high walls or pushing walls down on them, etc.
He needs to look at Saudis for arrogance, for forbidding any other churches than mosques to be built in Arabia.
For bellicosity, he should look to Anjem Choudry (Choudary?). With "Brother" Anjem, no one else can get a word in, edgewise.
Abscedere,
I suppose Tariq Ramadan knows his Quran very well. What he needs to learn is to stop lying (but that will never happen, will it?)
In the foreword to Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christopher Hitchens points out that Mr Ramadan says that applying the death penalty against those who leave Islam is "unimplementable."
Yeah, UNIMPLEMENTABLE. He doesn't condemn it, nor does he say it's barbaric and wrong.
And there are still legions of dhimmis that claim that he's a moderate, or a voice for that myth called moderate Islam.
War on terror?
I guess War on crime was also bellicose.
President Bush didn't call for a fight against Islamic Terror (which he should have!). He used a generic term, which could have been applied to the IRA and to Timothy McVeigh and many others who are light years away from Islam.
What's with the Muslim objection?
Does it hit too close to home?
Truth hurts.
The article by Ramadan appeared in the Bangkok Post. Was it on the same page as, or a different page from, the latest report from the south of Thailand, where Muslims, apparently not having heard the glad news that the "terror" in the Bush Administration's "war on terror" has been greatly exaggerated, continue to decapitate Buddhist monks, teachers, and farmers, and where possible even killing the last remaining Buddhists in a village so as to make it Buddhistrein, on the way to victory over those "racist" Buddhists who, just like the "racist" Hindus of Assam (who welcomed into their midst Muslim "refugees" from Bangladesh, and for their pains are being killed by those "refugees") who were rewarded with Jihad attacks this past weekend.
A great deal of evidence, all over the world, mounts up steadily, of attacks by Muslims, that are fully in accord with the texts and tenets of Islam, and then there is not only the incessant violence, against Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, that the hissing explanation of the slithering Tariq Ramadan does not dare to take account of, but Tariq Ramadan will not deal, ever with the other weapons or instruments of Jihad: the deployment of the Money Weapon (nearly 100 billion dollars from Saudi Arabia alone has been spent to spread Islam), campaigns of Da'wa, and of course demographc conquest (Houari Boumedienne, in 1974 at the U.N.: "we will conquer Europe through the wombs of our women" is only the most easily-retrievable of such statements, because he was the head of a government, and not merely a local imam, saying the same thing).
Nor will one ever hear Tariq Ramadan deal with the actual teachings of Islam, what is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira. This he cannot and will not do, except to offer that little list (you can pick it up at any mosque during Outreach Night -- or two -- of a dozen or so anodyne or heart-warming and entirely misleading quotes, the same ones that are always offered up by Muslim propagandists(2.256, 5.32 without 5.33, etc.) while 98% of the Qur'an, and 100% of the Hadith, are carefully left out, and the doctrine of abrogation, of course, is never mentioned.
Both Barrie Hussein and Colin Powell are liars: they deny that Barry was a muslin when he was a child.
And Barrie is Robin Hood: he will rob (that is what a socialist is , is a robber) from the rich and give (after enriching himself and his band of not merry in fact humourless men) to the poor.
He will redistribute (rob) from you to others.
If Robin Hood also hated England (America), he would be Barrie Obama.
Aint we lucky America?
Now go out and vote.
The politics of aggrievement is similar in Black Marxist Liberation Theology and from the Muslims.
We owe them because either we are rich, do not believe as they do, or breath.
Both have an ill placed sentiment of entitlement, of being owed.
Both try to guilt or intimidate us into accepting their view of the world.
"Nuts" to them.
This site is supposed to be about Islam, and not intended to be a clearing-house for opinions on the economic policies of candidates or any other matter not directly related to that subject. To turn it into a clearing-house for opinions about the economic policies of candidates -- unless there is some clear relation between those policies and Islam or the instruments of Jihad (e.g., one can mention a candidate's energy policies, and how they would, or would not, likely reduce the use of oil, because that is about the sources of the Money Weapon). One should try to refrain from yielding to the temptation to mention other matters that merely distract, confuse, or at times even antagonize, visitors.
I would agree with Ramadan the 'war on terror' is an empty slogan, but I wouldn't agree with much else he said. For example : "virulent anti-Muslim racism has arisen". Yes violence against Muslims seemed to spike after the attacks in 2001, but it has gone down. Jews or Blacks have a much greater chance of being attacked than Muslims in the US even after 2001.
Yes violence against Muslims seemed to spike after the attacks in 2001, but it has gone down. Jews or Blacks have a much greater chance of being attacked than Muslims in the US even after 2001.
Posted by: Jerry M at November 3, 2008 10:39 AM
I would also challenge that assertion Jerry. Can you provide any statistics?
Not a single Muslim has been attacked or killed in the Western, advanced world as "revenge" for 2001. Muslims, however, have all over that same Western world, in the United States, in Canada, in Belgium, in France, in Great Britain, attacked, and murdered (and even tortured to death in one particularly gruesome case in Paris), Jews and, much less frequently, Christians (as in the Muslim-occupied areas of England and Scotland). In Muslim-ruled lands, Muslims have attacked and murdered Christians and Hindus and Buddhists. And though there are now so few Jews left in Muslim lands that it would be difficult to find potential victims of Muslim hatred, some Muslims were equal to the task when visitors presented them with the occasion -- as the decapitations of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan and Michael Berg in Iraq demonsrate.
"bellicose and arrogant slogans"
Compared to the non-bellicose and non-arrogant slogans from the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and the like.........
The problem isn't Tariq Ramadan but his thousands if not tens of thousands of liberal supporters here in the U.S. both in academia and religion who see and portray him as a moderate Muslim and who influence many other people through their positions.
Go to interfaith conferences that includes Islam and you'll find Tariq Ramadan's name coming up, listen to the Sufis(especially the ones who converted) and you hear them talk about Tariq in glowing terms.
In short Tariq Ramadan is almost as well known among leftists as is Noam Chomsky and Hugo Chavez.
While it now appears that the US can live with the election of a black American, indications are that a new, virulent anti-Muslim racism has arisen in the wake of the events of September 2001....
'A new, virulent anti-Muslim 'racism'...'
What was the old one?
These people really like to play the 'race card'...
Racist referrers only have credibility among each other...
to Awake:
Just go here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#hate
You will find all the stats you need.
To awake again.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/table_01.htm
Just compare the number of anti-Jewish and anti-Black incidents to anti Muslim.
JerryM,
Thanks. I did not see any noticable increase from the comparative 1999 and 2002 correlation however, with the exception that "hate crimes" themselves were elevated across the board in 2002. The biggest increase in 2002 considered as anti-Muslim was the crime of intimidation.
I am wary of hate crimes of intimidation, especially in light of the ruses committed recently in Dayton and Elmhurst by Muslims. That is all part of the stealth jihad in my estimation.
There was not a single hate-crime of murder reported in 2002. You would think that at least one would have occurred to support your hypothesis, no?
The 2007 comparative statistics appear elevated for Muslims, but once again, those are reported cases. The extent of the crime is undetermined so pardon me if I am altogether unconvinced for the same reasons I previously stated.
Nothing like pretty words to cover an ugly intent.
Parents and children spend countless thousands learning the Art.
Obama is offering career opportunities upon their Graduation.