Obama administration upholds ban on Muslim scholar
26 March 2009 by Stardust
The ACLU has championed the case of Swiss Muslim Tariq Ramadan, an Oxford University professor and a vocal critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, who has been barred first by the Bush Administration from entering the United States on the grounds national security concerns, and that decision has now been upheld by the Obama administration.
I am undecided as to where I stand on this issue when looking at it from a national security viewpoint. While I was expecting a clean break from the Bush administration’s failed policies, Obama still clings certain policies from the previous administration, as we have discussed here a few times concerning Bush’s faith-based programs that Obama plans to continue, as well as policies involving our national security.
Obama lawyer sticks to ban on Muslim scholar
NEW YORK (Reuters) – A lawyer arguing on behalf of the Obama administration on Tuesday echoed Bush administration policies to back a decision to deny one of Europe’s leading Muslim intellectuals entry to the United States.
Assistant U.S. Attorney David Jones told a U.S. federal appeals court panel that they should uphold a decision to bar Swiss Muslim Tariq Ramadan, an Oxford University professor and a vocal critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, from entering the United States.
Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, had hoped Tuesday’s arguments would see a reversal of Bush administration policies that they argue exclude foreign scholars from visiting the United States due to their political beliefs.
“Consular decisions are not subject to litigation,” Jones told the three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, broadly arguing the courts have no power to examine visa denials. The ACLU argued against a judge’s ruling in late 2007 that upheld Ramadan’s ban.
Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan al-Banna, an Islamist thinker and activist who in 1928 founded the Muslim Brotherhood, which opposed secular and Western ideas.
The ACLU has championed Ramadan’s case as part of a larger pattern of scholars and writers being excluded due to unwarranted or unspecified U.S. national security grounds.
*snip*
The ACLU argued the government was using the provision more broadly to deny entry to people whose political views they did not approve of.
My immediate reaction, while remembering what happened on September 11, 2001, is to say fuck this terrorist sympathizer and America hater. On the other hand, is it right to ban people from coming here simply because of their political viewpoints? Is this a dangerous anti-American instigator who should be kept out of this country for security reasons, or should he be allowed a visa to enter and exercise his freedom of speech?
26 March 2009, on 4:22 pm
I think that US policy instigating the invasion of Iraq was wrong and deserving of criticism, as was the supportive role played by the US’s poodle, the UK, but unsurprisingly both legislations are keen to suppress any such criticism. Is that alone grounds for barring Tariq Ramadan from the US? No.
However, I do not consider that Ramadan is a decent man worthy of my respect, since despite him being presented a a Muslim moderate who supports a less offensive interpretation of the Qu’ran, he has refuse to condemn the lapidation of women who commit adultery and other atrocities committed to men and women in the name of Islam. Is that grounds for barring him from the US (or the UK, for that matter)? Again, no.
So, why should he be kept out? Because the heart of his message is always a religious one – and a particularly Muslim one at that – with all that means for the continuing subjugation of women by men (so long as they are Muslim men). He also wants to see religion, especially Islam, given greater credibility and say in the running of our Western lifestyles and that is something I am deeply opposed to, for I believe that religion, any religion, should have no part in the running of a modern society with pretensions to being civilised
Frankly, I think that the US is showing more sense than the UK in keeping this creep from landing on your shores. I wish only that the UK had done the same all those years ago.
He’s a poisonous toad, IMHO.
26 March 2009, on 5:09 pm
I was just wondering, does freedom of speech in the United States Constitution apply only to US citizens? I’m guessing it must apply to anyone standing on US soil, hence the purpose of Guantanamo Bay. One can understand the US government needing the means to bar certain people from entering the country but this may be overreacting a bit. Now if the person associates with known criminals, they may be justified. In this case the person appears to be your typical religious wackaloon with delusions of theocratic paradise (for males that is). So right or wrong, I’m not shedding any tears over this decision even though civil rights should apply to everyone regardless of their opinions. Hopefully they are not setting any undesirable precedents.
26 March 2009, on 6:31 pm
My point of view is pretty simple. If someone goes around your neighborhood and tells all your neighbors that you’re a terrible person, and when they get to your door they ask to come in for dinner, are you going to let them?
If the guy is critical of our invasion in Iraq (or any specific policy or action), fine, but I get the idea that he’s critical of the U.S. in general.
26 March 2009, on 7:44 pm
I agree to keep him out. I respect freedom of all forms except when that freedom could possibly be used against me. Ramadan has no rights in the US and so far as curtailing his freedom? No such thing has been done to him. He has been denied the priviledge of entry nothing more. He can still speak openly in his European home.
He is still Muslim. They say moderate but that is meaningless. He is a muslim who agrees with the Quran and it’s laws. Women? Keep your eyes down and don’t you dare call attention to yourself. I wonder if he would agree to give women, homosexuals, and Christians the same rights of freedom of speech to go to Saudi Arabia. He could accompany them. He could tell how he as a moderate Muslim has come to accept them. Hmmm what do you think would happen?
I’m also curious. What does it mean to be an intellectual Muslim? Caould we also say Intellectual fundamentalist ?
26 March 2009, on 10:42 pm
I agree with Old Git & Jimmer,
Having followed, like many of you, the evolving stories of the subsequent nasty (insane?) consequences in the UK, and other places like Denmark regarding “ordinary” Muslim immigrants, letting some high profile…ummm…so-called “intellectual” type active promulgator of the TOTALLY anti-democratic Q’uran into the US, seems, at this point…
even WISE!
“We don’t need no (any more) stinking Theocrats!”…?
We’ve ALREADY got enough of the homegrown Muslim and Xtian Dominionist variety.
RE Old Git’s description: “He’s a poisonous toad”.
What!…Even without any remote proximity to the toad…instead of a ’song’…
“I feel a wart coming on”?
[Key of C major?]
27 March 2009, on 1:56 am
That is my understanding.
I’m sure a lot of it has to do with any associations he might be keeping with the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization his own grandfather founded.
27 March 2009, on 6:23 am
I see no real difference between the views of Mr Ramadan and the average American fundamentalist – if anything, he’s far more moderate. I’ve heard worse from people with prime-time radio slots.
If you want to keep him out simply because he doesn’t subscribe to the mythology of the US as the Greatest, Free-est nation in the world, that’s up to you, but it reminds me of the Soviet Union. I don’t subscribe to any of that bullshit either – would you deny me a visa on that basis? Or does it just apply to Muslims?
I don’t believe for an instant that Mr Ramadan himself poses any kind of threat, unless you’re the sort of person who feels threatened by the existence of people who don’t agree with you.
Freedom of speech isn’t worth a damn if you’re not willing to extend it to your enemies. You don’t like his views? Fine – dispute them. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
27 March 2009, on 12:33 pm
A muslim intellectual? Oxymoron!!!! This schmuck doesnt stand for freedom, he stands for oppression. While there are some thigns the liberal european nations have right (health care, investing in wind energy), this issue they have flat wrong.
27 March 2009, on 1:54 pm
I don’t believe for an instant that Mr Ramadan himself poses any kind of threat
All depends on how one defines ‘threat’. Personally, I think that anyone who promulgates toleration for a vile religion which endorses the subjugation of women, barbaric and inhumane punishments, and exhorts its adherents to commit mass murder in its name (and earn the respect of fellow adherents for doing so, not to mention rewards in ‘Paradise’ for the same), does pose a threat to any society which considers itself to be civilised. Furthermore, not only does Ramadan pose a threat to the commonweal in general, but he poses a personal threat to critics of his vile religion like me, since we risk being murdered by some of his brethren simply because we dare to dispute what Islam stands for and for refusing to show respect to that paedophiliac and megalomaniac monster called Muhammad.
As for Ramadan’s rights to ‘freedom of speech’, I accord him more of that than he does me, since not only can I be butchered by any Muslim for criticising Islam and Muhammad, but I run the risk of being prosecuted under our domestic law for daring to excoriate his vile religion.
27 March 2009, on 2:58 pm
Personally, I think that anyone who promulgates toleration for a vile religion which endorses the subjugation of women, barbaric and inhumane punishments, and exhorts its adherents to commit mass murder in its name (and earn the respect of fellow adherents for doing so, not to mention rewards in ‘Paradise’ for the same), does pose a threat to any society which considers itself to be civilised.
People like this are dangerous because via their rhetoric they can stir up violent uprising against others. Just look at Hitler as an example of what one man’s rhetoric can do.
27 March 2009, on 4:38 pm
Wow…In rereading my previous comment; pardon me if I make a necessary correction…yeah…my bad?
Actually, it probably needs a total rewrite; but, instead…I’ll leave well enough alone.
[What a difference one little word can make! in this case...the word "not"; which, by its omission completely changed the original intent.]
The offending sentence SHOULD read:
“…NOT letting some high profile…ummm…so-called “intellectual” type active promulgator of the TOTALLY anti-democratic Q’uran into the US, seems, at this point…
even WISE!
I feel so much better now.
[Not really.]
27 March 2009, on 10:43 pm
With greenhouse gases choking our planet to death, these “scholars” should be finding other ways to spread their messages and “wisdom” than by flying all around the world in carbon emitting jets. There’s no need for him to come to America. YouTube is free and likely doesn’t have nearly the carbon footprint, even after you calculate the electricity to run computers.
If you think banning Tariq Ramadan is unwise, our immigration minister in Canada has banned a British member of parliament, George Galloway, from entering Canada because he has supported Palestinians and this makes him a “terrorist threat”. Mr Galloway has been to Canada on a number of occasions in recent years, but apparently he’s a security risk now.
Whether these types of bans have any significant effect on the threat of terrorism or security is questionable. I think the best way to draw attention to someone’s message and offer free publicity is to ban the speaker. Not really that clever an idea.
When the OC Transpo banned some atheist bus ads in Ottawa, here in Canada, there was a lot of media coverage that gave the slogan, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life,” a lot of free coverage. Eventually the city councillors voted to allow the ads to run because lawyers were able to convince them that there was a freedom of speech issue involved that could lead to a lawsuit. I’m sure the amount of media coverage the ban provided for the campaign was worth thousands of dollars.
Bans are “ban-daid” solutions, sort of like putting a latex strip on a severed arm.
28 March 2009, on 2:53 pm
To take this a step further, I think it’s appropriate to infer that one who is deeply immersed in his culture, actually practices the tenets of said culture. This tells me that at some point in this guy’s life, he has, by our definition, abused a female. This makes him a criminal in my view. Do we knowingly allow criminals into our country?
28 March 2009, on 3:18 pm
Whether these types of bans have any significant effect on the threat of terrorism or security is questionable. I think the best way to draw attention to someone’s message and offer free publicity is to ban the speaker. Not really that clever an idea.
Indeed I have some respect for that sentiment, but here’s a recent example of a UK ban on a piece of human ordure and a religious madman to boot that I for one was quite happy to endorse.
Which brings us back to so-called ‘freedom of speech’. Why do religious shitheads think that it is okay for them to spout their unjustified beliefs as if they were fact but that those of us who do not share their delusional views are required to show them a respect that they do not deserve?
Next, I’ll be told that I’ve got to show respect to paedophiles (Hiya Muhammad), mass-murderers (Hiya Muhammad) , Adolph Schicklgruber, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, and other madmen and monsters as to do otherwise will hurt their sensitivities.
As for ‘Gorgeous’ George Galloway (the soubriquet he likes to be known by), in the UK we’ve been trying to export him to the (former) colonies for years! In the olden days it was known as transportation (and I’m almost old enough to remember it).
28 March 2009, on 3:21 pm
^^ Sorry (again) folks, but my supposedly embedded link doesn’t work, so here’s the full address: http://nilsacrificiumintellectus.blogspot.com/2009/02/another-abominable-preacher-or-preacher.html
28 March 2009, on 3:27 pm
Hi cry4turtles,
Be it known that Ramadan’s brother supports the lapidation of women and that Tariq has refused point-blank to condemn him for his atrocious views – apparently they are justified as being the ‘word of “god””. I think Tarig and Hani should be stoned to death just for having those views. But, hey, this guy is presented as a ‘moderate’ Muslim – as much an oxymoron as the descriptor ‘intellectual Muslim’ (and I don’t care how many effing degrees you do have Tariq!!!).
28 March 2009, on 10:07 pm
I don’t know that much about Tariq Ramadan. One of the criticisms I have read about him is that he presents a more moderate face when speaking to Westerners but when he is addressing a Muslim audience he is more fundamentalist.
Honestly though, I fail to see how the guy is a national security threat, unless someone can present evidence that he is actually aiding and abbetting movements engaged in terrorist acts against us. I say let him come in, and let him be exposed to the criticism of his views that other commenters have echoed above.
29 March 2009, on 10:47 pm
I might consider the allowing of this “scholar” into the US, if…I repeat…IF…it’s made VERY clear that he’s fair game for criticism by more rational people…like us atheists…f’rnstance.
Personally, I have no respect for so-called religious “scholars”, who are nothing more, IMO, than totally brainwashed pseudo-intellectuals who have their heads buried knee deep in various religious, scriptural fantasies; capitalizing on the endless further expounding on already ridiculous notions.
Come to think of it; I’d, personally, have WAY more respect for some “scholar” of good ole “Mad” magazines.
You know…the “What!…me worry?” tradition?
Or…is it…”Potrzebie”?
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potrzebie
30 March 2009, on 3:43 am
Chuck,
Your comment has left me truly furshlugginered.
PS: I am that scholar of Mad Magazines whom you seek.
Which reminds me, I knew a guy who was awarded a PhD from Trinity College Dublin for his thesis: ‘Why did Stephen Dedalus pick his nose?’
30 March 2009, on 4:26 am
Whilst on the subject of banning unwelcome visitors from one’s shores, here’s an example of the UK banning a Dutch MP who exposes the truth about Islam.
30 March 2009, on 11:52 am
^ TOG…RE your:
“Which reminds me, I knew a guy who was awarded a PhD from Trinity College Dublin for his thesis: ‘Why did Stephen Dedalus pick his nose?’”
And was the conclusion of his thesis, perchance:
“Because the usual blowing…(in a handkerchief or tissue, of course)…just NEVER seems to loosen those damn, fucking, hard to get at, stubborn, often partially dried, boogers.
There’s just nothing like a finger, when diligently applied, to accomplish the annoying…and rather oh-so common…task.
PLUS…for SOME folks (not yours truly, of course!); as a bonus…
nibbling on the results makes such a pleasant reward!
This shtick actually reminds me…
I kind of lost track of whether Mad magazine is still being published. I’m sure, if it is, that it’s a whole different generation of writers, etc. in charge. William Gaines(?), the original publisher, for one, died in 1992 (at 70!).
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Gaines
By the way, I have the whole marvelous set of retrospective…”Totally Mad”… CD-Rs that was published back in 1999. I can only imagine what the original Mad crew would be doing with the LITERAL mad shit regarding the outrageous insanity that your interesting and enlightening links, and several of GifS’ recent Posts highlight.
And thanks, indeed, for linking to your, always great, personal Posts.
I watched that Geert Wilders video link. Shocking, indeed! Incidentally, I had seen “Fitna” quite a while back. Actually, I think it was an Acharya S email that alerted me to it.
It’s really outrageous that the US media pays no serious attention at all to such REALLY important issues such as that.
Bottom-line…the Economy, etc. aside…”it ain’t gonna mean shit”, if our MOST precious freedoms get stomped into the dust by all the outrageously stupid, unfettered, ruthless, religious psychopaths.
Religions ALREADY get what amounts to a totally “free pass” from criticism…at least to my notice…on virtually ALL the major media; certainly, in the US broadcast versions.
The World seems to have ignored…certainly has not learned…the terrible lessons of history; particularly of the 20th Century. And I think we all know that there are those, currently, trying to rewrite history in order to cover up their own, all too complicit, even somewhat comparable…personal madness.
31 March 2009, on 5:45 am
I disagreed with that too.
1 April 2009, on 7:41 pm
Sorry guys, the vast majority of you couldn’t be more wrong.
America was founded on the free exchange of ideas, right and wrong, good and bad. The idea being that good ideas will always win out over bad. Unless this guy represents an imminent danger to citizens of the US then he should be allowed in.
Anyone disagreeing with this is either not American or un-American. Or not secure in their own views and values. I am from the UK and would dearly love a constitution, especially one that enshrines the first amendment that Americans seem to take for granted.
Atheists, of all people, should be willing to have all views open, available, discussed and critiqued. The best argument against Hitler (not a reducto as hitler argument!) is not the actions of the Nazis, it is his book, Mein Kampf, which is risible if you ever read any of it. The guy should have been laughed out of town, not elected by the people.
2 April 2009, on 4:15 am
America was founded on the free exchange of ideas, right and wrong, good and bad.
Tell that to the native inhabitants.
Atheists, of all people, should be willing to have all views open, available, discussed and critiqued.
“Of all people”, eh? Why do you seek to impose such restrictions on atheists and imply a relaxation of them for non-atheists?
2 April 2009, on 12:02 pm
^^ keddaw…
“Atheists, of all people, should be willing to have all views open, available, discussed and critiqued.”
And you’re…an atheist?…or what?
As an older atheist, myself, I not only agree with that statement; but in my long experience, it’s very common that atheists…totally UNLIKE theists…DO live up to that. We’re even open to changing our minds on practically anything, I’d say.
As to your…
“The best argument against Hitler (not a reducto as hitler argument!) is not the actions of the Nazis…”
“NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE NAZIS”???
Say what?
Are you another holocaust denier, perhaps?
Just wondering, were you actually alive during the time of the Second World War?…as both TOG, and myself were. I was just a baby, born in Dec., 1939, but I remember much from the Post War era, regarding the revelation of horrors that went on in Germany. And, today, we have WAY more information on what REALLY went on under the Nazi insanity; ala actual survivor accounts, films, countless books, etc.
“…it is his book, Mein Kampf, which is risible if you ever read any of it…”
I don’t think any of us atheists…who ARE aware…of the insanity of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” don’t see it as SOMEWHAT laughable in its totally self-absorbed and egotistical blindness of existential reality.
BUT…
at the same time, we recognize the obvious, and proven, enormous danger of that book, given the economic circumstances that existed in Germany at the time, and the need that the German people had for finding a handy…already setup by religion…scapegoat; i.e…”Juden” (the Jews)!
The concept of scapegoat, itself, actually COMES from the Bible; and if it weren’t for the already anti-Semitic Christian believers, all too willing to be led by the admitted and never denied (or excommunicated), indeed, lifetime Catholic…Hitler, his Right Wing Nazi agenda would, most likely, never have taken off.
By the way; Austin Cline, whom I’ve mentioned on other occasions, has many great articles on that subject. You might check his archives out:
http://atheism.about.com/sitesearch.htm?terms=Nazi%20Germany&SUName=atheism&TopNode=99
Yes…
“The guy should have been laughed out of town, not elected by the people.”
But, religion…specifically, indoctrinated Christianity…laid the foundation for duping the German people into blindly…and enthusiastically…following the totally insane asshole…Hitler.
It’s no mystery to us atheists, that…
We must ALL remember, and never forget, TRUE History; and never let any bullshit re-writers…of which there seem to be many, today (albeit, coming out of the woodwork)…with their various insane agendas, dupe Humanity into repeating the STILL ever present, potential insanity of various forms of Fascism.
“Can you say…Christian Dominionism?…Islamic Fascism?…yada, yada?”
That’s one of the PRIME reasons (I’m reminding myself) for the actual existence of THIS Site!
The REAL, albeit poisoning danger for World, has ALWAYS been, and continues to be…
RELIGION!