ACLU: Don't Bar Terrorist Sympathizers

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

I'm not the one who proclaimed him "Not a terrorist or terror supporter". Those are your words. I asked you how you knew this and all we have gotten back since is your misdirected crap.

if you would take a moment to step out of your surreal world you could read the work of ramadan, the words of support from those who know and work with him, and those who desire for him to work for. those ALL support the position that ramadan does not support nor sympathize with terrorist.

you dismissed the very support saying "You state that his writings clearly show he is not a terrorist all while ignoring the fact that he could be." well, YOU "could be" too.....

Don't change the subject. Nice try though. He is trying to enter the United States to work. There are rules in place that require him meet certain criteria to work in the US....he has been unable to meet those criteria. Your misdirect attmepts are weak.

the only "criteria" that is preventing him from obtaining the visa is the feds using the patriot act.

it is your misdirections that are truly "weak"

You falsely make an assumption that a persons acts are easy to document. Another point is that you simply do not know what the governemnt has in pocket on this man. Just because it hasn't been released publically does not mean that there is not documented evidence of concern. You just fail to grasp basic topical material. Try to keep up please.

huh? a person has the RIGHT to address the evidence against them. basic jurisprudence. that is what a trial is all about.
but then you clearly don't need a trial or proof of evidence do you?

I once again challenge you to either show where I have ever said "guilty until proven innocent" or stfu. And please stop using quotation marks to imply that I said something that I have so clearly not. It exposes you as the weak fool you are. You are fooling noone with this nonsensical garbage. What is pretty basic is your lack of understanding. It is also very basic stuff to understand that you do get full access to materials related to national security. That this very elementary concept escapes you is typical.

you are the poster who said he "could be a terrorist" without any support, saying it is up to his supporters to prove his innocence of that accusatation. that is indeed "guilty until proven innocent".
failed attempt to wiggle out, but the facts are against you.

[Drbio]

There is no sense arguing with you. You are wrong. You've been exposed ad naseum and you will continue to ignore the most basic obvious fact.

It's really pathetic.

[FishForLunch]

It's not every day that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security revokes a visa issued to a Swiss-national scholar scheduled to teach at one of America's premier universities. But this has just happened, and it's a good thing too.

The Swiss scholar is Tariq Ramadan. He is Islamist royalty – his maternal grandfather, Hasan al-Banna, founded the Muslim Brotherhood, probably the single most powerful Islamist institution of the twentieth century, in Egypt in 1928. Tariq is a Swiss citizen because his father, Sa‘id Ramadan, also a leading Islamist, fled from Egypt in 1954 following a crackdown on the brotherhood. Sa‘id reached Geneva in 1958, where Tariq was born in 1962.

Thanks to his pedigree and his talents, Tariq has emerged as a significant force in his own right. Symbolic of this, Time magazine in April named him one of the world's top hundred scientists and thinkers. And so, when Notre Dame University went looking for a Henry R. Luce professor of religion, conflict and peacebuilding, it unsurprisingly settled on Mr. Ramadan.

Its offer was made and accepted by the beginning of 2004; a work visa followed in February. Mr. Ramadan bought a house, found schools for his four children, and dispatched his personal effects to South Bend, Indiana. He was supposed to start teaching a few days ago.

But on July 28, just nine days before the Ramadans were to leave for America, Mr. Ramadan was informed that the Department of Homeland Security had revoked his work visa. A DHS spokesman, Russ Knocke, later explained this had been done in accord with a law that denies entry to aliens who have used a "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity." The revocation, Mr. Knocke added, was based on "public safety or national security interests."

Of course, Mr. Ramadan dismisses the revocation as "unjustified" and due to "political pressure." He even blames me for the DHS decision.

What's up? The DHS knows much more than I do, but it is not talking. A review of the press, however, gives an idea of what the problem is. Here are some reasons why Mr. Ramadan might have been kept out:

He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the "future of Islam."
Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.
Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al-Qaeda activities, had "routine contacts" with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garzón) in 1999.
Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.
Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is "any certain proof" that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.
He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as "interventions," minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement.
And here are other reasons, dug up by Jean-Charles Brisard, a former French intelligence officer doing work for some of the 9/11 families, as reported in Le Parisien:

Intelligence agencies suspect that Mr. Ramadan (along with his brother Hani) coordinated a meeting at the Hôtel Penta in Geneva for Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of Al-Qaeda, and Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh, now in a Minnesota prison.
Mr. Ramadan's address appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank, an organization the State Department accuses of supporting Islamist terrorism.
Then there is the intriguing possibility, reported by Olivier Guitta, that Osama bin Laden studied with Tariq's father in Geneva, suggesting that the future terrorist and the future scholar might have known each other.

Ramadan denies all ties to terrorism, but the pattern is clear. As Lee Smith writes in The American Prospect, he is a cold-blooded Islamist whose "cry of death to the West is a quieter and gentler jihad, but it's still jihad."

These reasons explain why Americans should thank DHS for keeping Tariq Ramadan out of America.

But the story is not over: the State Department has in effect encouraged Ramadan to reapply for a different type of visa, making the recent developments probably just round one of a drawn-out match.

________

For more on Ramadan's visa revocation, see the excellent articles on him by Fouad Ajami and Stephen Schwartz.

In addition, I have written follow-up weblog entries about Ramadan at "Tariq Ramadan, the Chicago Tribune, and Me," "Tariq Ramadan Exposed," and "Tariq Ramadan Gives Up."

[Mavdog]

maybe they should call tony blair, he appointed ramadan to his government panel on islamic relations.
last time I checked, tony blair was an ally in the war on terrorism...

found this interview with ramadan at foreign affairs. insightful read. no support for terrorism, nor any sympathy for the violence they inflict.
--------------------------------------------
http://www.foreignpolicy.com

IN BOX: LITTLE THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW

November/December 2004 Who’s Afraid of Tariq Ramadan?
The U.S. government is so convinced that Tariq Ramadan is dangerous, it revoked the Muslim scholar’s visa to teach at the University of Notre Dame. Some in Europe think Ramadan is an anti-Semite who preaches moderation out of one side of his mouth and hate out of the other. Others, though, think he’s the man to reconcile Islam with modernity. So, who is right? Excerpts below:
FOREIGN POLICY: What do you think is more of a problem in Europe today: Islamophobia or Judeophobia?

Tariq Ramadan: I think that both are problematic. I think that, yes, we have Judeophobia, and this is unacceptable and we have to condemn it. To tell you the truth, beyond discussing and comparing Islamophobia and Judeophobia, there is a new wave of racism arising in many European societies. And I think we don’t have to put a hierarchy between this and that. All racism is unacceptable. Some Muslims today feel they are targeted because they are Muslims or Arabs, and this is the case. But it is dangerous to speak in that way. Especially in Europe now, there is a competition: Are the Arabs or Muslims more targeted than the Jews? I think that all together, if really we are citizens—and it’s exactly the same in the United States—all kinds of racism are wrong. If we see acts of anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, we should condemn them not simply as Jews or Muslims. As citizens, we have to condemn all these cases.

FP: Would you like to see Europe become a Muslim-majority continent?

TR: No. Not at all. For me, the most important challenge is for everyone to remain who he or she wants to be. The challenge today is to make Muslims understand [that] you don’t have to be less Muslim to be more European. You can be both. And this is also what I am saying to the converts…. Remain European. Do not Arabize yourself, or Turkishize yourself, or Pakistanize yourself! Remain who you are. The pluralistic society I want is a society where anyone can chose what he or she wants to be and [remain] faithful to his or her principles. So for me the point is not to Islamize Europe. The only thing I want is for Muslims in Europe and America to be able to remain who they want to be and to live with others.…I don’t want to spread my religion. I just want to share with people, knowing that when I encounter the other, he or she helps me to be more of who I want to be. The dialogue between the other and me is the richness I want to keep.

FP: Do you think there is a special role for Arabs within Islam?

TR: No! I am telling the Muslims and the Arab Muslims to be careful. The Arabic language is the language of Islam. But the Arab culture is not the culture of Islam. I am saying this to the Western Muslims and also the Asians. I visited Indonesia last year, and sat with the Majelis Ulama, which is the council of scholars. And there, among the 30 scholars, were seven women; and this is not happening in the Arab world…. The Arabs should learn from others, because this is the best way of facing new challenges. And in the near future, the Western Muslims are going to send new answers to the Arab world.

FP: You’ve said that you believe that Israel has the right to exist. Do you hope that one day, Israel will become part of a broader Middle Eastern common market? Is that the solution?

TR: My point is that Israel is here. I hope beyond that. I want [Israel] to be an open society where there is equal citizenship for all people. This is what I am advocating, and in that way, of course, it will be part of an open market. It will be part of the reality of the region. But my hope is not just for Israel. I want Egypt, Jordan, and other countries to promote the same universal values…. In every country it shouldn’t be [that] if you are a Muslim or Jew, you have more rights than others. Let us be consistent. When I say there are second-class citizens in Israel, I can say exactly the same for Egypt…. And I’m saying it for Saudi Arabia, where there are not even citizens who are not Muslims.

FP: You’ve criticized some French intellectuals for abandoning their universal principles in favor of an almost unconditional support of Israel. Would you make the same criticism of Jewish-American intellectuals and politicians?

TR: I don’t know. I don’t know them. My point was not to criticize people just to criticize them.… I was not only speaking about Jewish intellectuals. I knew some of them were not Jewish before [I criticized them]. But one of them, [Pierre-André] Taguieff, said…[that] 3 million Muslims—this is the figure he had of Muslims in France—are 3 million potential extremists. And I said, be careful when you say this. [Alain] Finkielkraut says that the new anti-Semitism in France is mainly coming from Arabs and Muslims. So the way they are now targeting a specific community is to have a sectarian way of dealing with our common challenges. So let us come to universality and avoid dealing or indulging in this perception of reality. This was one part of my criticism. And this is why the article was called “Critiques From the New Sectarian Scholars.” And I didn’t put “Jewish” here because I knew that some were not.

The second point is that when we speak about oppression throughout the world, all the oppressed people should hear you saying that you protect them. So my point was that you are keeping silent—the majority of you—about the Palestinian reality. So please say something about this. You can speak about Chechnya, Kosovo, Iraq, but the point is that you are forgetting the oppression in Palestine. Let us be consistent .…When I criticize Saudi Arabia, I’m not Islamophobic. And when I criticize Israel, I’m not anti-Semitic. This is the central point for me. I said in the article that the future belongs to the people…from the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and agnostic traditions [who] will be able to go beyond their belongings and to speak in terms of common universal values and denounce oppression.

FP: How do you feel when Islam is used to justify terrorism?

TR: Horrified. But responsible. When the Luxor terrorist attack took place [in Egypt] eight years ago, long before 9/11, I wrote a letter from a Swiss Muslim to his fellow citizens saying that this is not acceptable…. We have to condemn this as Muslims and as human beings. And we have to do whatever possible within Islamic communities to spread better understanding about who we are and what we can do to deal with other people. We can have a legitimate resistance to oppression, but the means should be legitimate. Terrorism, which kills innocent people, is not Islamically acceptable. Within Islam there is an accepted diversity—you can be a literalist, a Sufi mystic, or a reformist, so long as you don’t say others are less Muslim than others—and we must never say that terrorism or violence is part of this accepted diversity.

FP: Why do you think there are so many intellectuals in Europe and the United States that seem to bear an animus against you?

TR: I don’t think that there are that many in the United States, to be honest. In France, it’s sometimes just a personal situation. But I think mainly it’s that I’m coming with a new discourse. I’m saying to Muslims, remain you who are. Part of it is the way I articulate it—advocating independence, critical thinking, and freedom of speech. In France today, the history of the Algerian colonization is not forgotten. When you have an Arab face and you speak French like the French do, and you say, “I am a Muslim,” there is a great deal of suspicion. I am just a symbol of what’s coming, which is a new generation of Muslim leaders, men and women, able to speak English as you are speaking English, French as they do in France. They are European, they are American, and they are going to speak for themselves.

FP: One argument that has become very popular in Washington is Bernard Lewis’s thesis that Muslim rage is a product of their failure to keep up with the West and come to terms with modernity. What’s your opinion of that?

TR: I think there is a great deal of mistrust, and sometimes hatred toward the West. But it’s not only coming from an intrinsic dynamic of Islam or the Muslim world. It’s also coming from a perceived policy, which is not for all the people but mainly to protect American or Western interests. And there is one point which is essential, and this is a pity, because I am saying to the Muslims, Be careful. The Middle East is not the cause of our problem; it’s the consequence.… But the perception is very emotional, very sensitive. The idea that whatever is the stand of the Palestinians, the only [U.S.] support is for the Israelis. So this unilateral impartial support of Israel is perceived emotionally [by Muslims] as, “Okay, your way to deal with Muslims and Arabs is just to protect our interests and to support your allies.”

FP: Would you prefer that the Israelis not build their security fence?

TR: Of course…. It’s against all that we are speaking about. What does it mean? You know, we are all happy in Europe that the Berlin Wall was destroyed and we are [one] people.… What do I want for the future of Israel and the Muslims and the Arabs? It’s to live together. It’s to promote the society where we are equal citizens. Then we live together. What does it mean, this wall? It means that you are not me and this is just a symbol of two fears living together, not two people…. The best way to protect the Israelis is to understand that the Palestinians have rights and we have to respect them.… I condemn all the suicide bombings…. But I can understand that in this context, something is happening here [that] is explainable…. But explainable doesn’t mean justifiable…. When exactly did this start?… It was in [19]94. For more than 50 years, these people were just trying to resist. It means that after we started this Oslo peace process, three years later they felt there is no hope. So when there is no hope they are just acting as people without hope. And the best way to come back to a kind of hope for the Palestinians is not to build the wall—it’s exactly the opposite—it’s to give them hope again.

FP: How do you think the Palestinians should resist?

TR: It’s really difficult. In my view, it’s a legitimate resistance, but they have to use legitimate means to do that.…a kind of determined nonviolent and primarily organized resistance.… The only way for us to hope for a legitimate resistance with legitimate means is for us to speak up in their name. But to keep quiet here and say, “Okay, stop this,” is not going to work, because for them, [this violence is] the only way for them to be heard at the international level. So let us speak out, be heard in their name in order for them to stop. Because this should stop now. An international network of nonviolent people speaking in the name of the oppressed Palestinians is needed.

FP: Should a Muslim girl who doesn’t want to wear the veil do so if her parents insist on it?

TR: No. It’s an act of faith, and I’m saying to the parents, don’t force your girls to wear the hijab [headscarf]…. No one should be forced to wear it, and no one should be forced to take it off.

FP: Which head of state in any Arab country comes kind of closest to your idea of what a leader should be?

TR: No one.

FP: Fouad Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, argues that you think it is acceptable to lie to non-Muslims about your true intentions. How do you react to that?

TR: You know, this is exactly the opposite [of what] I have been saying for the last 18 years to Muslims and non-Muslims. I’m always saying, “Just please have one word in the mosque, one word, and when you go out of the mosque, [stick with that] one word.” When he says that I lie, let him come with evidence…. It’s just allegations repeated and repeated…. Fouad Ajami is coming with very, very old French criticism, without evidences and just spreading suspicion about me because I am the grandson of [Muslim Brotherhood founder] Hassan al-Banna.

FP: Why do you think so many Arabs and Muslims, even in Europe, still believe that the Israelis or the Americans were in some way behind the 9/11 attack?

TR: These conspiracy theories are the way Muslims are avoiding attacking the issue and facing up to their responsibility to be self-critical and to build. It’s just a way to be passive, to think that we can blame the other, and say, Okay, the West hates Muslims, and that’s it.

[Drbio]

So Fish provides a nice article that gives insight into the denial and you immediately ignore it, blowing past it and then posting a excerpt attempting to support your weak opinion? Typical mavdog yet again. When will the mavdog insanity stop? It's so predicatable now.

[FishForLunch]

Why do we need muslim scholars anyway, so that we can learn how Sharia is really good for us.

[dude1394]

Well if he says so, guess he's right and homeland security is wrong. ?

If he wants to appeal then do it. But the ACLU again is wrong in that the guvment doesn't have the right to do this, they do and should. It actually IS up to Ramadan to prove he's not dangerous, not the other way around, sorry, just the cost of admission.

[Drbio]

[Predicted Mavdog post]

dude- you are wrong because I say so. You are a terrorist and can't prove you are not. The government does not have the right to prevent this man from working for Notre Dame. Notre Dame has the God given RIGHT to hire whom they please. The aclu rules. Bush is at fault for breaking the law. This is a Bush issue because I say so and because he individually called to prevent Rammy from entering the US. This man has the RIGHT to work in the US.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

So Fish provides a nice article that gives insight into the denial and you immediately ignore it, blowing past it and then posting a excerpt attempting to support your weak opinion? Typical mavdog yet again. When will the mavdog insanity stop? It's so predicatable now.

yeah what's up with providing an interview (with the person the thread is all about of all things!) in one of the most prestigious publications around, foreign affairs?

after all, there's this opinion piece in someones blog! rely on the actual words of a person when there's innuendo and accusations by others to hang your hat on on? fuhgetaboutit!

now it's clear where all your inaccurate bs comes from...

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - Do these things from Fish's post not bother you?

He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the "future of Islam."

Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.

Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al-Qaeda activities, had "routine contacts" with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garzón) in 1999.

Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.

Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is "any certain proof" that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.

He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as "interventions," minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement.

And here are other reasons, dug up by Jean-Charles Brisard, a former French intelligence officer doing work for some of the 9/11 families, as reported in Le Parisien:

Intelligence agencies suspect that Mr. Ramadan (along with his brother Hani) coordinated a meeting at the Hôtel Penta in Geneva for Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of Al-Qaeda, and Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh, now in a Minnesota prison.

Mr. Ramadan's address appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank, an organization the State Department accuses of supporting Islamist terrorism.

Then there is the intriguing possibility, reported by Olivier Guitta, that Osama bin Laden studied with Tariq's father in Geneva, suggesting that the future terrorist and the future scholar might have known each other.

Although the Department of Homeland Security has not stated the specific basis for its decision, after reading the above I take great comfort in knowing that they revoked his visa.

EDIT: BTW, thanks for posting the interview with Ramadan, but seriously, what do you expect him to say? He's not going to admit it if he's a terrorist sympathizer or supporter.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Mavdog - Do these things from Fish's post not bother you?

Although the Department of Homeland Security has not stated the specific basis for its decision, after reading the above I take great comfort in knowing that they revoked his visa.

EDIT: BTW, thanks for posting the interview with Ramadan, but seriously, what do you expect him to say? He's not going to admit it if he's a terrorist sympathizer or supporter.

imo it's important to see what the person says themselves in response to direct questions. foreign affairs is not going to be a tool for ramadan, or a mouthpiece to further his goals. they're too sophisticated for that.

there are some questions that DO need to be asked, and the interviewer does just that. yet if one looks at the list of alleged "smoking gun" items pipes (the blogger who wrote the piece) lists some are clear innuendo and others are misstatements (from what I've read of ramadan's writings).

the dhs SHOULD lay out its reasoning for denying the visa. otherwise they have attacked his credibility with him not having the opportunity to defend himself. our constitution is clear that everyone accused may face their accuser, that should be the case for everyone whether they are a citizen or not. it's a basic right.

would he admit to being a supporter and or sympathizer? it's not a clear cut yes or no. if he is trying to appeal to those who are in the terrorist orbit, yes he would be supportive in his public statements, otherwise he wouldn't have their support. by his voicing condemnation of those who incite violence, and actually calling for the integration of muslims into western society, he is taking a clear position contrary to their philosophy.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

imo it's important to see what the person says themselves in response to direct questions. foreign affairs is not going to be a tool for ramadan, or a mouthpiece to further his goals. they're too sophisticated for that.

I think you're being naive if you believe that Ramadan can be trusted to be honest about his true intentions or beliefs.

there are some questions that DO need to be asked, and the interviewer does just that. yet if one looks at the list of alleged "smoking gun" items pipes (the blogger who wrote the piece) lists some are clear innuendo and others are misstatements (from what I've read of ramadan's writings).

Pipes also indicated that he spoke face-to-face with a senior DHS official who told him that "the evidence we have is damning."

the dhs SHOULD lay out its reasoning for denying the visa. otherwise they have attacked his credibility with him not having the opportunity to defend himself. our constitution is clear that everyone accused may face their accuser, that should be the case for everyone whether they are a citizen or not. it's a basic right.

Wrong.

I'll quote from William West, a retired special supervisory agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service:

"These procedures are not court proceedings within the United States. The aliens are entitled to no "due process." They are entitled to no "rights" whatsoever. They are not being detained nor are they being deprived of life or liberty or property; they are simply being denied admission into our country. The same as any of us refusing to open our door to a stranger ... it is our right to keep our door shut. They benefit solely from whatever privilege the USG decides to bestow upon them, period."

would he admit to being a supporter and or sympathizer? it's not a clear cut yes or no. if he is trying to appeal to those who are in the terrorist orbit, yes he would be supportive in his public statements, otherwise he wouldn't have their support. by his voicing condemnation of those who incite violence, and actually calling for the integration of muslims into western society, he is taking a clear position contrary to their philosophy.

I still think you're being naive. The Islamists call it "taqiyya" -- double speaking to fool the unbelievers.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I think you're being naive if you believe that Ramadan can be trusted to be honest about his true intentions or beliefs.

likewise, I think you're being overly paranoid to believe that he would be deceitful of his true beliefs and hide his true feelings just to what? get a teaching position? he already has one!

Pipes also indicated that he spoke face-to-face with a senior DHS official who told him that "the evidence we have is damning."

then just show the "evidence". it's damn absurd that a "senior dhs official" would reveal the evidence to someone like pipes but not with anybody else, especially the accused.

Wrong.

I'll quote from William West, a retired special supervisory agent with the Immigration and Naturalization Service:

"These procedures are not court proceedings within the United States. The aliens are entitled to no "due process." They are entitled to no "rights" whatsoever. They are not being detained nor are they being deprived of life or liberty or property; they are simply being denied admission into our country. The same as any of us refusing to open our door to a stranger ... it is our right to keep our door shut. They benefit solely from whatever privilege the USG decides to bestow upon them, period."

in this case, he is being deprived, EVERYBODY, whether a citizen or not, has basic rights that should be observed. the right to face one's accuser was so important it is in the original bill of rights, correct?

the analogy to the "open our door" is not valid imo. they are not being asked into our home, they are being allowed to enter our country. there are many people who are allowed to enter the country that I wouldn't want to let in my home, and they should still be allowed to enter the country.

ther are many people in our country I wouldn't open my door to either, but that's another issue...

I still think you're being naive. The Islamists call it "taqiyya" -- double speaking to fool the unbelievers.

there are non-muslims who deceive, that trait isn't unique to them. the words of ramadan are clear in its message. that message does not endorse terrorism, does not endorse seperation of muslims from non-believers, and in fact says just the opposite.

imo ramadan is a target of discrimination and the buden of his ancestor (grandfather).

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

likewise, I think you're being overly paranoid to believe that he would be deceitful of his true beliefs and hide his true feelings just to what? get a teaching position? he already has one!

Wow. You have missed the entire point. Do you think they're keeping him out of the country because they don't want him TEACHING????

then just show the "evidence". it's damn absurd that a "senior dhs official" would reveal the evidence to someone like pipes but not with anybody else, especially the accused.

They're not obliged to show the evidence, and they didn't reveal the evidence to Pipes. They only told him that it was damning.

in this case, he is being deprived, EVERYBODY, whether a citizen or not, has basic rights that should be observed. the right to face one's accuser was so important it is in the original bill of rights, correct?

You're either being obtuse or not paying attention. He's not being accused of anything. He's being denied access to the country. It is a privilege for an alien to enter the United States -- not a right.

there are non-muslims who deceive, that trait isn't unique to them. the words of ramadan are clear in its message. that message does not endorse terrorism, does not endorse seperation of muslims from non-believers, and in fact says just the opposite.

imo ramadan is a target of discrimination and the buden of his ancestor (grandfather).

Fine, that's your opinion. My opinion is, "Thank God that the DHS looks out for the safety of Americans and not the 'rights' of aliens whom it believes are terrorist supporters or sympathizers."

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Wow. You have missed the entire point. Do you think they're keeping him out of the country because they don't want him TEACHING????

why do you feel he is being kept out?
is he a potential terrorist who will blow up something? do you think he has secret messages that he will give to undercover hidden terrorists? will he incite people here to become terrorist themselves when they aren't currently?
all way out there imo.
they have prevented his entry because he is critical of the bush administration's actions in iraq imo.

They're not obliged to show the evidence, and they didn't reveal the evidence to Pipes. They only told him that it was damning.

so they will discuss it with pipes, they will characterize it to pipes, but they won't discuss it with him or those who support him? ridiculous.

if it was so "damning" they should show their cards.

You're either being obtuse or not paying attention. He's not being accused of anything. He's being denied access to the country. It is a privilege for an alien to enter the United States -- not a right.

your position is the denial of entry based on the provisions of the patriot act isn't "accusing" him of being a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer?
that is obtuse!
without question the denial is an accusation in of itself.
the entry is not what I am calling a "right", the ability to face one's accusers is the right I am referencing.

do you disagree that in any matter of the state an individual has the right to face one's accusers?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

why do you feel he is being kept out?
is he a potential terrorist who will blow up something? do you think he has secret messages that he will give to undercover hidden terrorists? will he incite people here to become terrorist themselves when they aren't currently?
all way out there imo.
they have prevented his entry because he is critical of the bush administration's actions in iraq imo.

Yeah, that's it. They're denying him access to the country because he's a critic.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

They don't have to tell us why they're keeping him out of the country. You've heard of classified information, right?

so they will discuss it with pipes, they will characterize it to pipes, but they won't discuss it with him or those who support him? ridiculous.

In your opinion. They don't owe Ramadan anything.

if it was so "damning" they should show their cards.

You really are being naive. Do you realize that the information that they have may well involve sources which could be in mortal danger if the information were made public?

It's classified information, and they have no obligation to Ramadan. At all. Until you acknowledge that, we can't really have a meaningful discussion.

your position is the denial of entry based on the provisions of the patriot act isn't "accusing" him of being a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer?
that is obtuse!
without question the denial is an accusation in of itself.
the entry is not what I am calling a "right", the ability to face one's accusers is the right I am referencing.

I said they aren't accusing him of anything in the sense that he hasn't been charged with a crime. Obviously, they are saying that his entry is being denied under the "ideological" justification in the Patriot Act. So what? Do you care more about his ability to defend his reputation than about the safety of American citizens? That's what you seem to be saying.

Do you disagree that in any matter of the state an individual has the right to face one's accusers?

Matter of the state? What the heck are you talking about?

I'll say it again: The "right to face one's accusers" is a concept of criminal law. The man hasn't been charged with a crime.

[Mavdog]

kg, it seems that your defense of ramadan's exclusion is based on national security.

what? this is not a combatant. this is not a radical. he has been included in tony blair's panel on islamic relations.

would tony blair compromise his country's security? I don't believe he would. do you?

explain how the government's release of the basis of its decision on ramadan would endanger an american. any american. the knowledge of how the decision on ramadan was arrived at, and the potential entry of ramadan (unless you take the position he is a potential terrorist) is not contrary to the safety of americans. they are NOT at odds.

your position is that ramadan hasn't "been charged with any crime", yet the application of the patriot act IS a charge. he is being classified as a terrorist supporter, which would in itself be a crime.

[FishForLunch]

Mavdog you really belive that the Koran does not have the following and Islamists do not follow it.

"Taqiyya" and "Hunda"?

Homeland Security is trying to protect the country from people who are trying to harm this country, even support for what we determine to be terrorism is bad for the country. Why the hell should we have to prove that a person is gulity. He is the one who wants to enter this country so it is up to him to refute charges, that how it was when I immigrated to this country, why is Ramadan so special?

[Drbio]

Onceagain...mavdog commits to outlandish crap by stating this man is not "a combatant" and "not a radical" without one shred of evidence to support it. Pure speculative typical mavdog bullcrap.

Man...closeminded crap is all we get from him anymore. kg was right....he just doesn't get it.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

kg, it seems that your defense of ramadan's exclusion is based on national security.

Well, duh!

what? this is not a combatant.

Zacharias Moussaoui wasn't either. Neither was Mohammed Atta.

The problem with your approach is that it is reactive, not proactive.

If we wait to define someone as a "combatant", people have probably already died.

You don't have to be a "combatant" to be a terrorist supporter or sympathizer.

this is not a radical.

In YOUR opinion. The more informed opinion of the DHS differs completely.

he has been included in tony blair's panel on islamic relations.

So what? If you and Tony Blair buy the taqiyya, it doesn't mean the United States is obliged to do the same.

would tony blair compromise his country's security? I don't believe he would. do you?

Probably not knowingly.

explain how the government's release of the basis of its decision on ramadan would endanger an american. any american. the knowledge of how the decision on ramadan was arrived at, and the potential entry of ramadan (unless you take the position he is a potential terrorist) is not contrary to the safety of americans. they are NOT at odds.

I've already explained it. I'm not going to do it again.

your position is that ramadan hasn't "been charged with any crime", yet the application of the patriot act IS a charge. he is being classified as a terrorist supporter, which would in itself be a crime.

So which jail would he spend time in if he's convicted?



Here's the bottom line, and it's really sad but true: You have more distrust for our government than you do for a guy like Ramadan.

That is such a 1970's mentality.

[Mavdog]

you are incorrect kg, atta and moussaoui were reported to have both spent time at camps in afganistan, they were "combatants" before they arrived in america.

is dhs "more informed"? or are they not informed? that question has never been resolved, and that is the main point of the criticism of the decision to not allow ramadan into america.

there has been no explanation of how ramadan would or could endanger any american should he be allowed to enter america. there are no reports of him having endangered anybody in switzerland or england, where he has previously lived.

do I "distrust" our government? no, yet I am wary of our government misusing its power. I am an advocate of limitations on government as it relates to individual rights. while it should be diligent and proactive in protecting us, we should be also be diligent and proactive in not allowing those duties to be abusive.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you are incorrect kg, atta and moussaoui were reported to have both spent time at camps in afganistan, they were "combatants" before they arrived in america.

We weren't at war wtih Afghanistan before 9/11. Also, Ramadan is reported to have ties to al Qaeda and bin Laden.

The point is, your attempt to draw a distinction regarding "combatants" is irrelevant, because he wasn't denied entry to the country for being a "combatant."

is dhs "more informed"? or are they not informed? that question has never been resolved, and that is the main point of the criticism of the decision to not allow ramadan into america.

Yes, I'd say they are more informed than you are, unless you have some intelligence connections you haven't told us about. Also, they don't bear any burden of proof. They don't have to explain the basis of their decision.

there has been no explanation of how ramadan would or could endanger any american should he be allowed to enter america. there are no reports of him having endangered anybody in switzerland or england, where he has previously lived.

I'll say it again: You are so naive. You'd rather wait until the guy has "endangered" somebody before declaring him dangerous.

Thank goodness you aren't in charge of the DHS.

do I "distrust" our government? no, yet I am wary of our government misusing its power. I am an advocate of limitations on government as it relates to individual rights. while it should be diligent and proactive in protecting us, we should be also be diligent and proactive in not allowing those duties to be abusive.

This is where you aren't willing or able intellectually to draw the necessary distinction.

Ramadan DOESN'T HAVE a right to enter this country. He is NOT a United States citizen, and he has NO RIGHT to due process.

You are on the wrong side of this issue. Period.

[Five-ofan]

Do I know the guy is a terrorist or a terrorist sympathyzer? Nope i have no clue but apparently the DHS does and that is good enough for me. The problem i see with mavdogs arguments are that the guy isnt a us citizen and he isnt in the US thus the bill of rights doesnt apply to him. Also along those lines, why is the AMERICAN civil liberties Union involved in this?? No Americans civil liberties are being infringed upon, yes that includes ND and their students. The ACLU should be worried about other things.

[kg_veteran]

Also along those lines, why is the AMERICAN civil liberties Union involved in this?? No Americans civil liberties are being infringed upon, yes that includes ND and their students. The ACLU should be worried about other things.

Great point.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Do I know the guy is a terrorist or a terrorist sympathyzer? Nope i have no clue but apparently the DHS does and that is good enough for me. The problem i see with mavdogs arguments are that the guy isnt a us citizen and he isnt in the US thus the bill of rights doesnt apply to him. Also along those lines, why is the AMERICAN civil liberties Union involved in this?? No Americans civil liberties are being infringed upon, yes that includes ND and their students. The ACLU should be worried about other things.

Thank you for a refreshingly sound post....

[dude1394]

The ACLU is involved because they want to kill the patriot act just like Harry Reid and the democrats.

Harry Reid at the patriot act signing



Harry Reid now:

After Reid successfully prevented the Patriot Act’s renewal late last week the Senator attended a Democrat political rally and proudly declared, “We killed the Patriot Act.”

Let me paraphrase the democrat position:

"I was FOR the patriot act before I was against it".

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

We weren't at war wtih Afghanistan before 9/11. Also, Ramadan is reported to have ties to al Qaeda and bin Laden.

the fatwa by bin laden was issued in what? 1994? our war with the islamic terrorists began then.

accusations, innuendo, all of which have no substantiation. let's hear the truth rather than suggestion that may just prove to be fabrication.

this is man of ideas of philosophy and intellect.

The point is, your attempt to draw a distinction regarding "combatants" is irrelevant, because he wasn't denied entry to the country for being a "combatant."

no, imo he was denied entry for voicing his opinion. the basis for denial should be based on a true security risk, not based on what this appears to be- oppositon to the person's heritage.

Yes, I'd say they are more informed than you are, unless you have some intelligence connections you haven't told us about. Also, they don't bear any burden of proof. They don't have to explain the basis of their decision.

we will find that out when the lawsuit progresses theough the court system. I'm expecting we will find that there is no real threat, and there is no security issue.

I'll say it again: You are so naive. You'd rather wait until the guy has "endangered" somebody before declaring him dangerous.

Thank goodness you aren't in charge of the DHS.

ah, so you advocate preventive detention. let's just declare a person "dangerous" and voila! we're all safe...except that we're not safe at all, in fact we would all be at risk.

This is where you aren't willing or able intellectually to draw the necessary distinction.

Ramadan DOESN'T HAVE a right to enter this country. He is NOT a United States citizen, and he has NO RIGHT to due process.

You are on the wrong side of this issue. Period.

he has the "right" to know what accusations have led to his denial, as do those citizens who have been denied the opportunity to openly and freely discuss the issues he is involved with.

as I said, the courts will decide just who is on the "wrong side".

[Drbio]

This has gotten embarrassing. The sad part is obvious.

[dude1394]

ACLU is on the wrong side here. The side of letting suspected terrorists into the country because it's somehow their "right".

[Mavdog]

dude, you just gave support to what i've been saying. ramadan is now labeled a "suspected terrorist" as a consequence of the dhs denial.

[Drbio]

Wrong again. Just because you say it ad naseum doesn't mean he has been denied for being a suspected terrorist. That information has not been (nor should it be) officically released. This is another case of pure speculation.


Now if you are speaking of public perception, that might be a reasonable assumption. But, as a great man once said....if you associate yourself with questionable people (as he clearly has) then you will be questionable yourself.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the fatwa by bin laden was issued in what? 1994? our war with the islamic terrorists began then.

Huh? You just don't get it. The standard is NOT whether the guy is a "combatant" (which is a term you arbitrarily chose and have yet to define). The standard is whether the guy has "endorsed or espoused terrorist activities" and whether the DHS views him as a threat to public safety or the national security.

accusations, innuendo, all of which have no substantiation.

Honestly, how in the hell do YOU know? You know I like you Mavdog, but your know-it-all act is really wearing thin with me.

let's hear the truth rather than suggestion that may just prove to be fabrication.

Obviously you didn't hear it the first 15 times I said it. The evidence against Ramadan is most likely classified, and the government has no obligation to show it to him.

this is man of ideas of philosophy and intellect.

Who also apparently endorses or espouses terrorist activities.

Again, you're more concerned about Ramadan being treated "fairly" (as you define it) than national security. For some strange reason, you think that the government has to explain itself in order to protect us from foreigners whom it perceives to be a threat.

I just don't think you take the threat of terrorism on our soil very seriously.

no, imo he was denied entry for voicing his opinion. the basis for denial should be based on a true security risk, not based on what this appears to be- oppositon to the person's heritage.

I understand that's your opinion. It has no basis in fact, but it is your opinion. BTW, earlier you said it was because he opposes Bush and the war in Iraq. Now you say it is because of his heritage. You can't even keep the talking points you got from the ACLU straight.

we will find that out when the lawsuit progresses theough the court system. I'm expecting we will find that there is no real threat, and there is no security issue.

The lawsuit will be thrown out, and the statute will be upheld as constitutional.

The ACLU is in the wrong on this issue, and so are you.

If there were no real threat, and there were no real security issue, why did Ramadan suddenly drop his attempts to enter the country in December of 2004, despite the encouragement of the State Department to reapply?

Like Pipes said, the evidence against the guy is damning. Believe that.

ah, so you advocate preventive detention.

I know you're getting desperate to try and save face in this argument, but don't put words in my mouth. This issue has NEVER been about detention of anybody, and I'm not going to dignify that comment with a response.

let's just declare a person "dangerous" and voila! we're all safe...except that we're not safe at all, in fact we would all be at risk.

Huh? What in the world are you talking about?

he has the "right" to know what accusations have led to his denial

NO, HE DOESN'T. Do you think that if you just repeat that falsehood ad nauseum that eventually I'll agree with you?

as do those citizens who have been denied the opportunity to openly and freely discuss the issues he is involved with.

See above.

as I said, the courts will decide just who is on the "wrong side".

Yeah, I guess we'll see. As I mentioned above, it is rather telling that Ramadan dropped all attempts to obtain a visa in December 2004. You may not admit it, but even Ramadan knows they have the goods on him.

[Drbio]

I'm still waiting for mavdog to enlighten us on how this foreign national has the "right" to work here.

[Five-ofan]

Mavdog I respect that you are so firm in your beliefs but you are wrong on this issue. If he was an american citizen that was being denied re-entry then yes due process would apply but he isnt so it doesnt. The government can (and has) prevent people that they fear may be a threat from entering the us without producing the evidence and making it known to the public.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

I'm still waiting for mavdog to enlighten us on how this foreign national has the "right" to work here.

I don't know, you tell us.

the point that I made is the employer has the right to hire who they want.

pretty weak attempt to put words in other's mouth.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Huh? You just don't get it. The standard is NOT whether the guy is a "combatant" (which is a term you arbitrarily chose and have yet to define). The standard is whether the guy has "endorsed or espoused terrorist activities" and whether the DHS views him as a threat to public safety or the national security.

the term "combatant" was introduced with the accusation that he was seen by you as a security threat.

Honestly, how in the hell do YOU know? You know I like you Mavdog, but your know-it-all act is really wearing thin with me.

I've taken the time to rea his works, his comments, what others say about him. so far that is more than anything anybody else seems to have done, so yes it does seem I "know" more. have you taken the time to do the same?
the regurgitation of the "talking points" from the blog is wearing thin on me...

Obviously you didn't hear it the first 15 times I said it. The evidence against Ramadan is most likely classified, and the government has no obligation to show it to him.

is this some of the "know it all" that you practice? as I've said 15 times, this is a public figure, make the evidence public.

Again, you're more concerned about Ramadan being treated "fairly" (as you define it) than national security. For some strange reason, you think that the government has to explain itself in order to protect us from foreigners whom it perceives to be a threat.

I just don't think you take the threat of terrorism on our soil very seriously.

no, the fair treatment of ramadan is not clearly connected to maintaining our national security.
this is not a person who has incited violence in his past, and has specifically denounced violence.

understand that's your opinion. It has no basis in fact, but it is your opinion. BTW, earlier you said it was because he opposes Bush and the war in Iraq. Now you say it is because of his heritage. You can't even keep the talking points you got from the ACLU straight.

heritage is the person's history.

The lawsuit will be thrown out, and the statute will be upheld as constitutional.

The ACLU is in the wrong on this issue, and so are you.

time will tell. I believe the dame about your position on this issue.

If there were no real threat, and there were no real security issue, why did Ramadan suddenly drop his attempts to enter the country in December of 2004, despite the encouragement of the State Department to reapply?

Like Pipes said, the evidence against the guy is damning. Believe that.

ah, so it's OK for you to presume a knowledge of his inner decisions and conclude his is culpable, yet when I make such a statement I am a "know it all". very inconsistent kg...

I know you're getting desperate to try and save face in this argument, but don't put words in my mouth. This issue has NEVER been about detention of anybody, and I'm not going to dignify that comment with a response.

put "words in your mouth"? you said You'd rather wait until the guy has "endangered" somebody before declaring him dangerous. is that advocating a preemptive approach?

Yeah, I guess we'll see. As I mentioned above, it is rather telling that Ramadan dropped all attempts to obtain a visa in December 2004. You may not admit it, but even Ramadan knows they have the goods on him.

some more of that hidden knowledge kg?
physician, heal thyself....

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the term "combatant" was introduced with the accusation that he was seen by you as a security threat.

Who introduced it? I didn't.

I've taken the time to rea his works, his comments, what others say about him. so far that is more than anything anybody else seems to have done, so yes it does seem I "know" more. have you taken the time to do the same?
the regurgitation of the "talking points" from the blog is wearing thin on me...

I'm confused. How does that allow you to KNOW whether the man has ties to al Qaeda or bin Laden?

is this some of the "know it all" that you practice? as I've said 15 times, this is a public figure, make the evidence public.

I'm not being a know-it-all, just stating the law. There is no obligation to show him anything.

no, the fair treatment of ramadan is not clearly connected to maintaining our national security.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You state as fact what you cannot possibly KNOW. If you say, "in my opinion...", that's fine. We can disagree and have different opinions. But let's not pretend your opinion is fact.

this is not a person who has incited violence in his past, and has specifically denounced violence.

To your knowledge, he hasn't. I understand that.

ah, so it's OK for you to presume a knowledge of his inner decisions and conclude his is culpable, yet when I make such a statement I am a "know it all". very inconsistent kg...

I am speculating as to why he dropped his attempts to enter the country. That's true. But if you're looking at what we do know (the government denied him entry based on the Patriot Act as discussed ad nauseum, Ramadan dropped attempts to enter the country within a few months), it is reasonable to assume that Ramadan didn't really want to give the government the impetus to expose what it had found out about him.

put "words in your mouth"? you said You'd rather wait until the guy has "endangered" somebody before declaring him dangerous. is that advocating a preemptive approach?

It's not advocating detention of Ramadan, which was never discussed in this thread until you brought it up.

Just so it's clear, I do not advocate detaining Ramadan. (I'm not sure how that would even be accomplished, since we'd have to kidnap him from Switzerland or France or somesuch.)

[FishForLunch]

Here is another double talker like Ramadan
-------------------------------------------------

Danish TV Exposes Imam links, claims
from CounterTerrorism Blog
Last Friday the CT Blog revealed how a delegation of Danish Muslims, led by Copenhagen imam Abu Laban, toured the Middle East in December and showed fabricated cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in a very offensive fashion, even though the pictures had never appeared on Jyllands Posten.
Actually, the letter referenced below states that the cartoons were received privately in a response to their original protest. If true, that undercuts CT Blog's assertion that the Danish muslim delegation lied. However, the origin of those cartoons is at present unknown, one way or the other. While deeply offensive, if they were not published they should not have been linked to the newspaper controversy.
The controversy has now exploded in Denmark. Friday night Danish public television, DR, ran two interesting stories about Abu Laban, the man who organized the delegation's trip to the Middle East. While the first profiled him, showing his extensive links to the Egyptian group Gamaa Islamiya, the second showed his double-talk. Abu Laban, in fact, was first shown speaking on Danish television condemning the boycott of Danish good (in English), then shown interviewed on al Jazeera, cheerfully commenting on the effectiveness of the boycott (in Arabic). To see the stories go to DR's website, click on TV Avisen on the right and select the news broadcast from Friday, Feb. 3, at 9 PM (starts at minute 23).

Moreover, Andy Cochran has just made available to me the English translation of the Arabic letter that the Danish Muslim delegation presented during their tour of the Middle East. To see the document, irrefutable proof of the delgation's intent to create animosity, click here: Download danish_letter.pdf http://counterterror.typepad.com/the...ish_letter.pdf

[Mavdog]

Ramadan writes an opninion piece for the Guardian regarding the cartoons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cartoon conflicts
To describe the clash over the Danish depictions of the prophet as one between freedom and dogma will only fan the flames, says Tariq Ramadan

Tariq Ramadan
Monday February 6, 2006

Guardian Unlimited

In Copenhagen last October, as demonstrations provoked by the Danish satirical cartoons about Islam were starting, a reporter from the newspaper that published them told me how intensely the editorial staff had debated whether to go ahead, how uncomfortable many of them had been about the whole issue and, at the same time, how surprised they had been by the strong reaction from Muslims and the Arab embassies. At the time, however, the tension seemed likely to remain within Danish borders.
To Danish Muslims denouncing this as an instance of racism - a provocation capitalised upon by the ever expanding far right in the country - my advice was to avoid reacting emotionally, to try to explain quietly why these cartoons were offensive and neither to demonstrate nor to risk activating mass movements that could prove impossible to master. At the time, a resolution seemed to be at hand.

One might ask, then, why it is that three months later, some find it in their interests to pour fuel on the fire of a controversy, with tragic and potentially uncontrollable consequences? A few Danish Muslims visited Middle Eastern countries and ramped up the resentment: governments in the region, only too happy to prove their attachment to Islam - to bolster their Islamic legitimacy in the eyes of the public - took advantage of this piece of good fortune and presented themselves as champions of a great cause. On the other side, the controversy was just what some politicians, intellectuals and journalists needed to paint themselves as champions of the equally great struggle for freedom of expression and as resistance fighters against religious obscurantism in the name of western values.

We are facing an incredible simplification, a gross polarisation: apparently a clash of civilisations, a confrontation between principles, with defenders, in one corner, of inalienable freedom of speech and, in the other, of the inviolable sacred sphere. Presented in such terms, the debate has unfortunately become a battle of wills, and the question becomes: who will win? Muslims, wanting apologies, threaten to attack European interests, even to attack people; western governments, intellectuals and journalists refuse to bend under threats, and certain media outlets have added to the controversy by republishing the cartoons. Most people around the world, observing these excesses, are perplexed: what sort of madness is this, they ask?

It is critical we find a way out of this infernal circle and demand from those stoking this fire that they stop their polemics at once and create a space for serious, open, indepth debate and peaceful dialogue. This is not the predicted clash of civilisations. This affair does not symbolise the confrontation between the principles of Enlightenment and those of religion. Absolutely not. What is at stake at the heart of this sad story is whether or not the duelling sides have the capacity to be free, rational (whether believers or atheists) and, at the same time, reasonable.

The fracture is not between the west and Islam but between those who, in both worlds, are able to assert who they are and what they stand for with calm - in the name of faith or reason, or both - and those driven by exclusive certainties, blind passions, reductive perceptions of the other and a liking for hasty conclusions. The latter character traits are shared equally by some intellectuals, religious scholars, journalists and ordinary people on both sides. Facing the dangerous consequences these attitudes entail, it is urgent we launch a general call for wisdom.

In Islam, representations of all prophets are strictly forbidden. It is both a matter of the fundamental respect due to them and a principle of faith requiring that, in order to avoid any idolatrous temptations, God and the prophets never be represented. Hence, to represent a prophet is a grave transgression. If, moreover, one adds the clumsy confusions, insults and denigration that Muslims perceived in the Danish cartoons, one can understand the nature of the shock expressed by large segments of Muslim communities around the world (and not only by practising Muslims or the radicals). To these people, the cartoons were too much: it was good and important for them to express their indignation and to be heard.

At the same time, it was necessary for Muslims to bear in mind that, for the past three centuries, western societies - unlike Muslim-majority countries - have grown accustomed to critical, ironical - even derisive - treatment of religious symbols, among them the pope, Jesus Christ and even God. Even though Muslims do not share such an attitude, it is imperative they learn to keep an intellectual distance when faced with such provocations and not to let themselves be driven by zeal and fervour, which can only lead to undesirable ends.

In the case of these cartoons - as clumsy as they are idiotic and malicious - it would have been, and it would remain, preferable if Muslims expressed their values and grievances to the public at large without clamour, better if they paused until such a time as calm was possible. Instead, what is welling up today within some Muslim communities is as unproductive as it is insane: the obsessive demands for apologies, boycotting of European products and threats of violent reprisals are excesses that must be rejected and condemned.

However, it is just as excessive and irresponsible to invoke the "right to freedom of expression" - the right to say anything, in any way, against anybody. Freedom of expression is not absolute. Countries have laws that define the framework for exercising this right and which, for instance, condemn racist language. There are also specific rules pertaining to the cultures, traditions and collective psychologies in the respective societies that regulate the relationship between individuals and the diversity of cultures and religions.

Racial or religious insults are not addressed in the same way in the various western societies: within a generally similar legal framework, each nation has its own history and sensitivities; wisdom requires acknowledging and respecting this reality. The reality is also that the Muslim presence within western societies has changed their collective sensitivity. Instead of being obsessed with laws and rights - approaching a tyrannical right to say anything - would it not be more prudent to call upon citizens to exercise their right to freedom of expression responsibly and to take into account the diverse sensitivities that compose our pluralistic contemporary societies?

This is not a matter of additional laws restraining the scope of free speech; it is simply one of calling upon everybody's conscience to exercise that right with an eye on the rights of others. It is more about nurturing a sense of civic responsibility than about imposing legislation: Muslim citizens are not asking for more censorship but for more respect. One cannot impose mutual respect by means of legislation; rather one teaches it in the name of a free, responsible and reasonable common citizenship.

We are at a crossroads. The time has come for women and men who reject this dangerous division of people into two worlds to start building bridges based on common values. They must assert the inalienable right to freedom of expression and, at the same time, demand measured exercise of it. We need to promote an open, self-critical approach, to repudiate exclusive truths and narrow-minded, binary visions of the world.

We are in dire need of mutual trust. The crises provoked by these cartoons shows us how, out of "seemingly nothing", two universes of reference can become deaf to each other and be seduced by defining themselves against each other - with the worst possible consequences. Disasters threaten that extremists on both sides would not fail to use for their own agendas. If people who cherish freedom, who know the importance of mutual respect and are aware of the imperative necessity to establish a constructive and critical debate, if these people are not ready to speak out, to be more committed and visible, then we can expect sad, painful tomorrows. The choice is ours.

[FishForLunch]

Sounds like another whiny liberal. Blah Blah Blah