"To criticize the religion and Muslims is not Islamophobia; a critical attitude towards religion must be accepted"

Tariq Ramadan specialises in lulling gullible Western liberals into a false sense of security.

He will say something tomorrow which totally contradicts this statement.

Logic has never been the strong point of Islamists.

His ultimate goal is to replace Western democracy with a Sharia system similar to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Don’t have any illusions about him.

As a test of how seriously he means this statement just ask yourself this; do you think he will campaign against the OIC initiative to have criticism of Sharia banned at the UN?

Odysseus:

I have no illusions. Do I think he will oppose the OIC's attempts to criminalize "Islamophobia"? No, I do not. However, will I quote him in my own attempts to counter this initiative? Certainly. After all, if even Tariq Ramadan says this, whatever his intentions, then it can be used to challenge those who look upon him favorably.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Does he have a choice?

the rest of his ilk still believes they can 'strike terror in the hearts of the infidels' or achieve it by outbreeding (they're not doing badly) but make no mistake, Ramadan may sound conciliant, but a reformer he is not, anything but!

He is probably making these noises in the hope that the Islamophobia conferences and interfaith dialogues sponsored by the Saudis will shut us all up.

Things don't look good...

Speaking of Ramadan, I was intrigued by the discussion having to do with Ramadan and the battle of Badr. I think that battle was a watershed event in Islam as it marked Muhammed's fortuitous discovery of a way to link his religious message with illicit gain, thereby allowing "believers" to feel morally justified about robbing people. The spoils of a holy war go down easier than the spoils of an ordinary war.
I think Badr would make a great movie. It should be set in the old west, and feature a crazy preacher who hears voices. He has a small following, leaves his town with his flock and stumbles upon the lucrative idea of linking his message with larceny after he vengefully orders a train full of bullion robbed from his old town.
It would be a tale of vengeance, banditry, sex and violence, manipulated by an evil cult leader. Kind of like "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly", only better. Muhammed as a cult version of Jesse James!

I think the muslims where very surprised at most of americas reaction after 911 they thought we would cower so they cannot basically attack us frontally so they must attack from behind this guys just another example of this no muslim unless majority confront anyone unless of course there in europe who cower to them.

Jew dog I dont think child welfare would let the neccaey amount of children on theset for a mohammad movie especially the well love parts of it by the way does nambla support islam

Excuse me need a new key board neccessary

Tariq is slick, but Tarek is slicker.
That was an interesting read...

Excuse me need a new key board neccessary

Posted by: spcbat

Yeah, I know what you mean. My keyboard contains the remnants of a thousand lunches, and many dinners.
They can be cleaned, but maybe a new one is in order...

duh swami was thinking lighter fluid and a match lol

duh swami was thinking lighter fluid and a match lol

duh swami was thinking lighter fluid and a match lol

Posted by: spcbat

Good idea, do that and let me know how it turned out. I was thinking about gasoline but a friend advised me not to do that...

He's simply recognizing how things are going, and adjusting his coney-pitch accordingly, like the good Madison Avenue man he is, with a single client: Islam. After all, he doesn't want to lose the account, and he knows that the target audience is no longer responding, as it once did, to the previous less nuanced campaign. They've become less susceptible to the hard sell. Time for something that, superficially, will be a little different.

If you listen attentively, however, you will still detect, under the blague, the serpent's steady hiss.

He is probably making these noises in the hope that the Islamophobia conferences and interfaith dialogues sponsored by the Saudis will shut us all up.

Things don't look good...
Sheik yer mami l things dont look good for muslim appologists, thats why mr.ramadan is singing a different tune here. everyone knows, even some dumb WEsterners realize that the sowdi's have no place among civilized people and deserve no respect, they need to clean their own house before they attempt to
do interfaith garbage .

He is probably making these noises in the hope that the Islamophobia conferences and interfaith dialogues sponsored by the Saudis will shut us all up.

Things don't look good...
Sheik yer'mami, things dont look good for muslim appologists, thats why mr.ramadan is singing a different tune here. everyone knows, even some dumb WEsterners realize that the sowdi's have no place among civilized people and deserve no respect, they need to clean their own house before they attempt to
do interfaith garbage .

Tariq Ramadan = Jihad's Anesthesiologist.

sorry for my double post, l tried to correct an error and it did not prevent the first one to go get out. l tend to type too fast, sort of shoot first then ask questions after.

Jewdog, you're brilliant. Like 'The Magnificent Seven,' but more relevant. It could be called 'The Pedophilic, the Genocidal, and the Smelly.'

SPCBat, don't you think that going Michael Bolton ('Office Space' Michael Bolton) would be more fun than burning your keyboard? I did that with a horrible HP printer I had, actually the 7th one because they kept breaking and they kept sending me more broken ones or unbroken ones which died within a couple of weeks. It was incredibly satisfying. I didn't have a baseball bat so I used a hammer and my combat boots. Thank God for Lexmark.

Robert

Maybe you would like to make a new thread about this especially, as those involved have played a big role in translating much of your work into Indonesian

Mulai hari ini tanggal 19 Nov 2008, admins/moderators menutup forum ini demi terciptanya keharmonisan beragama di Indonesia. Forum ini adalah milik dan dikelola oleh http://www.faithfreedom.org, Dr. Ali Sina. Dengan ini admins/moderators tidak lagi terlibat dalam bentuk apapun dalam forum ini, dan meminta maaf bila kehadiran forum ini telah meresahkan masyarakat Indonesia.

In other words

In the interests of inter-religious harmony in Indonesia the forum has been closed

Faithfreedom, run by Ali Sina, has nine non English language versions, including an Indonesian one, or did until today.

The site has been shut down by its operators after it attracted the attention of various political and religious authorities in Indonesia, such as the Clerics’ Council/Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) and the Justice Party/Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS).

Ikhwan Syam of MUI asked the Department of Communications to take action against the site, while President of PKS Tifatul Sembiring said the PKS may stage public demonstrations

Currently the home page of this site contains a message explaining that in the interests of inter-religious harmony in Indonesia the forum has been closed:

Specifically, the main complaint against indonesia.faithfreedom.org is that it hosted two comic strips, entitled “Muhammad and Zainab” and “Muhammad and Hafsa”, in colloquial Indonesian language, which portray the prophet Muhammad in terms likely to be highly offensive to most Muslims, including in sexual poses.

"I know from reliable document that the idea (est. of the Muslim Brotherhood - Eastview) was mainly a British idea (that was fully supported by King Fouad I of Egypt) who both came to the conclusion that after all minority parties failed to eliminate the overwhelming majority of the Wafd party that was leading the national movement in Egypt since 1919 anti the British occupation and the unlimited authority of the King - that only the use of Islam will work. This was the beginning of a march of mistakes in each of which a party throughout that the religious card will help against a third-party ! (the biggest replication of this danger theory took place when the American joined hands with the Saudis in the late 1970's and throughout the 1980's in creating the phenomenon of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan !! which was the beginning of the march of terror that lead to 9/11 catastrophe in NY."
Statement by Tarek Heggy, from the linked article.

Well, isn't that just swell? Yet another example of our tendency to mimic the British, even when doing so is disastrous. Clearly we need to be more discriminating in choosing which foreign policy precedents to follow. Heggy seems like a decent chap, and he is clearly on our side. It is refreshing to see someone with a knowledge of history willing to take on TR.

Slightly OT, but relevant to ongoing developments in WDC: does it concern anyone that BHO's cabinet is shaping up to be dominated by the Ivy League? The buzz about this is that these are mostly Clinton retreads, but my larger concern is that this good old boy's network will have a tendency to push a Leftist, East coast multicultural agenda that includes courting favor with the Saudis and turning a blind eye toward Islamic aggression. What do readers think?

"Imagine all the people"

How would you like to have a phobia about every religion but your own.

That is precisely what the fundamental Muslim deals with, particularly in the Middle East.
They have Zionistophobia,or Judaphobia,Christianiphobia,Hinduphobia,Buddhaphobia,Confucianphobia,and well you get the picture.

And of course never mind the never ending battles among all the tribes of Islam of which there are at least 28 of them, the majors of course being Sunni,Sheite,Sufi,Waahahis.

That is enough to produce an inordinant amount of paranoia, and neurotic behavior. Now couple that with the Prophet Mohammeds call too Jihad against all who are non Muslim and walla you have a very explosive cocktail that has continued to brew for hundreds of years throughout the world.

The rest of us with the exception of the never ending drum beat of the antisemitism against a tiny little onclave of people are mostly burdened with Islamophobia.

Could we go to the United Nations Human Right Commission (UNHRC) and ask them to suppress criticizm of of all the religions that I noted above? -- I'M thinking not!

Eastview, you have to bear in mind how typically Muhammedan Heggy's statement is. Even when they're semi-sane, Muslims and even many ex-Muslims continue to live in an alternate reality (the APU). Even Ali Sina is guilty of this. There is always someone to blame. Muslims are always victims of someone else, even when they, as a people, choose to Islamize. Iranians, even the more Westernized, non-Muslim ones, blame Britain for the Revolution. They claim that Khomeini was a British puppet. Heggy blames the British for Egypt's choice to Islamize itself, when in reality, any semblance of civilization or nationalism in Egypt comes directly from the British and the French, who greatly improved every single land they ever colonized. Egypt became, well, Egypt again when the British left. Mubarak, Nasser, and Sadat all did everything they could to stave off Islamization. It was the Egyptian people's choice to Islamize. It is not the fault of the British, of Egyptian dictators, of the Wahhabis, or of anyone but the Egyptians. They did it to themselves because they are evil barbarians. Don't feed their insane delusions that Muslims have ever been the victims of anyone but Muslims. They simply never have. Reasonable, decent, thinking, moral, ethical, civilized, evolved, outbred hold themselves and others accoutable for their own actions. That's what makes us superior. We take responsibility for ourselves. We should force others to do the same, particularly the most, evil, decadent, intolerable people in this world, who are who they are because they chose to be so. The whole point of Objectivism is to be duped into buying into the victim rhetoric of predators.

“Reason destroys fear; egoism destroys guilt. More precisely: reason does not permit man to feel metaphysically helpless; egoism does not permit man to accept unearned guilt or to regard himself as a sacrificial animal.”
-Leonard Peikoff, 'The Ominous Parallels'

Don't be a dhimmi relativist and buy into any Muslim's victim rhetoric. You're too intelligent. If Muslims do have anyone to blame, it's us for letting them off the hook, for not holding them accountable for their own actions, for being relativistic, and for justifying and tolerating them, their evil, and their barbarity.

I grew up in the Middle East in the 1950s and 1960s and remember well how the Arabs looked up at the west with admiration to their life style and a desire to follow their example. Doctors and other professionals who had their education in Europe or America were ‘westernized’ to some degree and were respected in their societies and were considered good examples to follow. On the other hand, the word ‘ikhwanji’, which means a member of the Muslim brotherhood or an Islamist, was a dirty word associated with backward thinking. The applicants for the ‘sharia’ colleges were those with the least marks in the high schools. I remember that the sharia colleges used to have a high proportion of disabled and blind students, who stood no chance of making it to the other universities, which sadly reflected the social and moral injustice in the Arab society. The vast majority of the students in the sharia college in Damascus rejected the traditional Islamic dress and opted for an ordinary western style look. Even the Al Azhar University, which was the undisputed leader in Islamic education, was transformed to teach modern sciences like Medicine, chemistry and physics to both sexes. Only a minority of the teaching staff and a handful of the male students had beards and even fewer girls wore headscarves, and that was in Al Azhar!

The traditional hostility to secularism among the Middle Eastern Arabs started to wane as more and more Arabs were happy to copy the western model, not because they loved the west but because they admired their achievements. Muslims outside the Arab World, lead by Turkey which used to be for centuries the centre of the Islamic khilafa, were also moving towards secularism. Islam didn’t seem to have a chance and there were indications that it would remain confined to the mosques.
...
The fortunes of Islam changed completely in the 1970s when the west opened its gates to the Islamists. The influx of Muslims to the west, and the generous welcome and support they received had only one equal in the history of Mankind, which happened in the year 622 AD. That was the year when Mohammed and his companions emigrated from Mecca to Yathrib. The Arabs of Mecca, called Quraysh, knew Mohammed well because he was one of them. The Quraysh treated Mohammed with the contempt he deserved; they isolated him as they would do with any mad person. On the other hand the Aws and Khazraj, who were the Arabs of Yathrib, made him welcome and sheltered him. It didn’t take Mohammed long to take over his host city from its accommodating inhabitants, change its name and enforce his sharia law on what has become an Islamic state. There were a handful of people in Yathrib who tried to stop the madness, like Ibn Ibu salul, but nobody would listen to them. The word Islamophobia was not invented yet so they were branded as munafikeen. This is exactly what happened to Mohammed’s followers in the last forty years, who also were disliked by their own people, but were sheltered and made welcome in the west. My only worry with this comparison is that the Aws and Khazraj ceased to exist after their excessive generosity.

That's from a great article by Mumin Salih in AIM.

No Muslim is innocent. No Muslim is a victim of anything but Islam and as long as they cling to it or even tolerate it they should receive zero - ZERO - sympathy or support from us. Furthermore, you should never believe a word they tell you. Heggy has an agenda, just like Ramadan.

Correction: The whole point of Objectivism is to NOT be duped into buying into the victim rhetoric of predators.

Im sure he was misquoted.

Here is the fuller Tariq Ramadan (T.R.) quote from WindsofChange:

T.R. "To criticize the religion and Muslims is not Islamophobia; a critical attitude towards religion must be accepted. But to criticize someone or discriminate against them only because they are Muslim-this is what we can call Islamophobia, this is a kind of racism."

Regarding Ramadan's two sentences (in my previous post)

-Ramadan here is speaking in one language to two audiences, namely, the subpopulation of Westerners who believe that religions are fair game for criticism, and the majority of Muslims who believe that criticism (in the Western sense) toward Islam and Muslims should be restricted severely or prohibited altogether.

-Ramadan does not define criticism or "critical attitude". He does not give the boundaries of what he regards as acceptable criticism (in the Western sense) of Islam and Muslims in particular. He does not draw a line between criticism of “the religion and Muslims” (which he claims to accept) and criticizing someone “only because they are Muslim” (which he rejects). Yet, criticism of Muslim beliefs is, by definition, criticism of Muslims because it is by virtue of holding such beliefs that they are Muslims. The two sentences of Ramadan above, taken together, do not suggest that he is recommending that criticism be permitted outside the boundaries of what is allowed, by implication, by the Islamist definitions of Islamophobia.

-Ramadan does not say here that non-Muslims should express publicly their criticism (in the Western sense) toward Islam and Muslims.

-Ramadan does not say here that non-Muslims in Muslim-majority Islamic countries should publicly express criticism (in the Western sense) of Islam and Muslims. Nor does he say what this policy should be if or when a non-Muslim country becomes Muslim-majority.

-Ramadan does not say what he means by religion. Toward which religions should a “critical attitude” be accepted? Sunni and Shia? Islamic and non-Islamic? Monotheistic and polytheistic?

Actually I thought this was just a piece of Sunday morning humour from Mr Spencer.

It is always fascinating to dig the dirt on Taraq Ramadan.

Do you know……..

Western intelligence agencies such as MI5 are convinced he is the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe.

Among other things, this would mean that he is almost certainly linked to groups that massacred about 70,000 civilians in Algeria in the 1990s.

He was a personal friend of the mullah who organised the 1993 attempt to blow up the WTC.

An Eygptian secret-serviceman assigned by the Mubarak Government to keep an eye on him in Geneva was murdered in very mysterious circumstances. The murder was never solved but who is the finger of blame pointing to? Well Ramadan certainly had the motivation.

Tariq Ramadan is linked to “The Project,” The well-known Muslim Brotherhood plan for taking over the West by immigration and infiltration. The author of “The Project” is thought to be Said Ramadan, his close relative.

Although he claims to be ”westernized” he has made return trips to Egypt, where it is thought he has held meetings with members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Despite all this, Tony Blair appointed him one of his key advisors on “moderate Islam,” and the Archbishop of Canterbury likes to quote from his “reformist” books!

""To criticize the religion and Muslims is not Islamophobia; a critical attitude towards religion must be accepted"

-- depends on what "to criticize" means. We all know that "peace" and "innocent" don't mean the same thing to Muslims as they do to us. I think Tariq has something different in his mind when he says "criticize" and "critical attitude" than what we are accustomed to.

Or heck, he could just be plain lying through his teeth.

With his second sentence, Ramadan negates the contents of his first: a stone-hurler at a stoning is behaving 'only' as a Muslim.... but we mustn't islamaphobe him -- his two sentences make no sense when put together -- as usual, his forked tongue is in full wag.

The author of “The Project” is thought to be Said Ramadan, his close relative.

His father, to be exact.

jdamn, my remark about slavishly following the British was partly tongue in cheek, and partly to comment on a pathetic inferiority complex many Americans still suffer with regard to things European. We know we're all just a bunch of red neck rubes over here in the Colonies. Some of us just get irritated when we're reminded of it. ;-)

"Doublespeak" ...that describes Tariq the best. Ramadan is a dangerous radical who is in fact attempting to Islamize modernity, as he is not at all interested in modernizing Islam.

Gotcha, Eastview. I just get defensive on behalf of the Brits, and I wish more Brits had a stronger sense of nationalism. They brought greatness everywhere they went. I'm not defending colonialism, but it was the British who helped the Hindus in India learn about their former "jahiliya" greatness and who brought civilization to Egypt. Apparently it was wasted on the Egyptians. And I don't think that many Americans feel inferior to Brits. I thank God every day that America was founded by British Protestants. I don't think that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the greatest inventions in all of history, could have been developed by anyone else. There wouldn't even be a modern Israel if it weren't for the Brits. I just think of them as our extended family across the pond. They made me feel that welcome when I visited London 5 years ago, too.

Besides, I've embraced my redneckitude. Americans, Brits, and Australians are nobody's inferior.

jdamn; I'll second that.

"I'm not defending colonialism, but..."

Why not defend Colonialism?

Why not defend Colonialism?

Because it's outdated. We contributed what we could, made our mistakes, and moved on.

Because it's outdated. We contributed what we could, made our mistakes, and moved on.
Posted by: Henrik,

it seems that guilt still plays a big part in Britt society, and thats why all you have all this back bending to help out to poor paks, same goes to Amer.
white guilts, and Cdn's First NAtiongs guilts, so much blah blah over the injuries from the past and not enough of lets move one to the futur and create opportunity for all, but then you Amer. now have Barry coming in office, and God help us all.

Colonialism is bad because it hinges upon the idea that Western nations have the right to occupy and run other nations. Plus we have to go there and kill a bunch of people in order to take over. So it's bad in principle because the basic idea is that our civilization is so much better than theirs, which it is of course. It's also bad in practice because some people, the Somalis, the Egyptians, and the Muslim Indians (many of whom are now Paki and Bangladeshi) simply cannot be civilized. Plus, I don't know how profitable it would be to take over any 3rd-world country these days. We would be overextended were we to do so, not that any of our nations have the surpluses necessary to undertake anything like that right now. Imagine if we had colonized Iraq, though. Then it might have been worth it if we could have gotten in on that oil. Plus, they would actually sustain themselves as long as we remained, so al of our efforts wouldn't have been wasted (but only so long as we remain there). Italy didn't make any money off of Libya and they had tons of oil. They ended up in the red over it. Basically, they've so run their nations into the ground that they're simply unworthy of being colonized. Even if we took over Saudi Arabia it would cost more to take it over and rebuild it than we would ever stand to make off all that oil, which will only last another 15 years, thank God.

The reverse, which is what we're doing today -- allowing the 3rd World to colonize us -- is more tactless and far less sensical. Europe would have never rebuilt after WWII if they had been taking in millions of Muslims. America was a much greater world power back when it was full of Americans, and our immigrants were from East Asia and Europe, had a strong work ethic, and weren't here to parasitize us. They worked hard, paid taxes, respected our laws, and didn't cost us $250,000 a head in insurance, surveillance, national security, social services, and corrections. They actually CONTRIBUTED to our livelihood as a nation. They were from countries in the top 50 in the HDI, i.e., their emigrants were worth it.

The best is approach is neither colonialism nor being colonized.

Colonialism is bad because it hinges upon the idea that Western nations have the right to occupy and run other nations.

Well, that's the leftist spin on things. Was true for colonies by Belgium, Germany and a few late-comers.

Originally, though, colonies developed organically from European traders traveling to make a business. Setting up trade stations was a sensible first step, and as circumstances developed, implementing some orderly and useful items from Europe, such as railroads and legal systems, made sense. Those were built often at significant expense and is still of lasting value to the former colonies.

I'll defend the bulk of colonianism any day. Some, like Belgian Congo, were rotten to the core - but many, probably most, were organic and useful. Their time has gone, but their legacy is, in my opinion, widely positive.