Tariq Ramadan Fighting for U.S. Visa, Under Fire in Netherlands

Tariq Ramadan's bid to gain a visa to come to the United States received a new hearing today before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. In 2004, Notre Dame University offered a job to the grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, but the Bush administration refused to grant him entry.

A contribution from Ramadan to an alleged Hamas front was part of the administration's justification. A judge's 2007 order upholding that decision is the subject of today's argument.

Meanwhile, a group of U.S. academics and civil libertarians is lobbying the Obama administration to reverse course. They wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano protesting what they called "ideological exclusion" of Ramadan and others, saying it "compromises the vitality of academic and political debate in the United States at a time when that debate is exceptionally important."

But in the Netherlands, where Ramadan lives, Rotterdam city officials are reportedly investigating statements he has made that are considered anti-gay and anti-woman.

Gay Krant magazine has excerpts from recordings of Ramadan in which he calls homosexuality "a disturbance, a faulty functioning and an imbalance" and said women should not attract attention based on their looks. "On the street, thus says the law, women must keep their eyes fixed on the pavement."

Ramadan acts as an integration advisor to Rotterdam officials.

New York Police Muslim Chaplain's Darker Side

NYPD Muslim Chaplain Khalid Latif has received lavish praise from the press, and even from a part of the US government. However, closer examination raises some disturbing questions.

The Christian Science Monitor's March 19, 2009 article "When NYPD wears a Muslim topi," comes close to sanctifying Latif. The Imam, as the CSM describes him, is seeking to "to help develop a particularly American form of Islam - one fully integrated into the social fabric of the United States." The thoughtful Latif wonders, "And now it's like, how do you mesh together this seeming dichotomy of Islam and the West?" and then looks at himself, bearded in a police uniform and concludes, "that's not a dichotomy, it's a reality."

Going even further, on September 18, 2008 the State Department's America.gov, part of the Department's Public Diplomacy thrust, had headlined, "Imam Khalid Latif Builds Communities of Faith and Diversity," which presents a Latif "deeply committed to interfaith dialogue and community service as integral parts of what it means to be Muslim in a modern, multicultural world." The State Department subsequently reprinted the article in what it described as "the richly illustrated book Being Muslim in America."

A more pertinent question concerns his commitment to free speech. Latif is also Chaplain of the Islamic Center of New York University. In March 2006, an NYU student group organized a panel discussion about the controversial Danish Muhammad cartoons and intended to display the cartoons themselves. Latif was a key figure in the resulting protests. He urged students and others to send e-mails to NYU's administration to protest the display, writing: As Latif wrote in the email:

"The student group is planning on displaying the cartoons at the event and we have been meeting with the university and its administration to ensure that they will not." [Emphasis added]

Latif shared a letter he sent to NYU President Johan Sexton, a message which can only be described as threatening. He wrote:

(T)he potential of what might happen after they (the cartoons) are shown is something else that should be considered and not taken lightly.

(T)he repercussions that would take place outside of the university setting are potentially huge. All over the world Muslims have been coming together over this issue and in New York they would not hesitate in doing the same thing…. NYU has facilities all over the world and Muslims also live all over the world. At that point in time no one will be thinking about the objectivist club that is an OSA organization made up of ten or twenty students. Rather, at that time all people will be thinking about is New York University and the decision it made…" [Emphasis added]

The event took place, without the cartoons shown.

The Islamic Center held a teach-in which senior NYU officials attended, and the student group caved in and decided not to display the cartoons. In his thank letter to President Sexton, Latif wrote, presumably with a straight face, "You helped to teach them (NYU Muslim student) the importance of being proactive, rather then reactive."

So Latif helped quash an open debate and free exchange of ideas, even those which some might find offensive, on a university campus – the one place where such exchanges are supposed to be embraced. One wonders just how "fully integrated into the social fabric of the United States" is Latif?

A Journalist's Chilling Call for Competition

When investigative reporters get onto a hot story ahead of the pack, they normally do everything they can to maintain their exclusive hold. So San Antonio Express reporter Todd Bensman's alarm-ringing article about Iranian infiltration of Nicaragua, published by Pajamas Media, merits attention due to its rare cry for more reporters to join him.

Bensman went to the Central American country in late 2007 and found that Daniel Ortega's return to power created an opportunity the Iranians leapt at. To his dismay, however, no one picked up the story:

"What I found should have been enough to pique the imagination of other reporters, more investigation, or even just some shallow coverage. But to date, there has been nothing more about Iran in Nicaragua, while there's still plenty about Iran in distant Venezuela. The Iranians must be thrilled to operate in such a blackout."

When he was in Nicaragua nearly 18 months ago, Bensman saw plenty of signs the Iranians were moving in and taking advantage, but he couldn't get any of them to talk. What he didn't see were signs of progress on a series of promised economic development projects at Nicaraguan ports Iran pledged to finance. The prospect of an expanding Iranian operation so close to the U.S. – to "sow mayhem … from the diplomatic cover provided by embassies" - justifies his concern. He reminds readers of the 1994 Hezbollah attack on an Argentinean Jewish center:

"I also discovered that suspected Iranian Revolutionary Guard operatives had been moving in and out of the country in unusual ways that assured secrecy. For instance, I was given ministry of migration documents that show a senior Nicaraguan minister had allowed 21 Iranian men to enter without passport processing. This was exactly the kind of activity that preceded the Argentina bombings in 1992 and 1994. It's the same kind of secretive movement going on in and out of Venezuela that gives current and former American counterterrorism officials — and Jewish communities in the region — the cold sweats."

Nicaragua has little to offer Iran in resources or exports, Bensman writes, concluding there are few good reasons for the expanding Iranian presence. This is worth reading in its entirety. Click here to see Bensman's column and here to see his original report from Nicaragua.

Don't Believe Us. But Don't Ignore the Record

In the wake of the FBI's decision to cut off outreach meetings with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the D.C.-based advocacy group announced a new board chairman. He is Larry Shaw, a North Carolina state senator and, by most accounts, a nice guy.

But as David J. Rusin points out, new leadership doesn't erase CAIR's troubling history as part of a Hamas-support network in the U.S. Rusin was put off by a Fayetteville Observer editorial praising Shaw and mocking any insinuation CAIR poses any problem. It calls out Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson by name:

"At times, Emerson seems to be hinting at criminal activity; yet through all these years of exposure there seem to have been no indictments of CAIR. Isn't that where incriminating evidence logically leads?

At other times he seems merely to be informing CAIR of what it must do if it wants people to accept it for what it says it is: an organization formed to promote understanding of Islam. His conditions include breaking the annoying habit of defending itself against his attacks."

Rusin makes plenty of fine points in rebuttal, noting the FBI, case agent in the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) terror finance trial called CAIR a front group, that prosecutors placed it on a list of unindicted co-conspirators and said CAIR was "affiliated with Hamas" in a separate brief.

It is important to remember that jurors convicted the HLF defendants on 108 counts last November. Those are fairly tangible examples of CAIR's problem, which Rusin said the Observer ignored:

"In the pièce de résistance, the Observer mocks the notion that CAIR is 'Hamas' kinder, gentler face': If so, 'it's been too surreptitious by half. Hamas' message of hate could have been delivered more clearly and more forcefully by almost anyone who tried.' Not only does this feeble argument neglect the radical statements that senior CAIR officials have let slip on occasion, but it betrays a shocking ignorance of the purpose and tactics of stealth jihad.

With the Fayetteville Observer writing editorials like this, does CAIR still need a PR staff?"

It's fine for the Observer to be skeptical of the boss' claims. But there's no indication anyone at the paper tried to read any of the documents themselves. And that's unacceptable in writing an editorial so dismissive.

You don't even have to accept our copies of the exhibits. Here is the Dallas federal court web page listing all the HLF exhibits. Search "Philly" and read the transcripts for yourselves. You'll see CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad refer to "Samah," a silly code for the group they wish to help (hint for editorial writers: read it backward!). Other transcripts show them openly discussing ways to mislead Americans about their objectives.

Inquiring minds might want answers about how CAIR found itself listed on a meeting agenda for the "Palestine Committee" – the U.S.-based Hamas support network. Or, how CAIR's two founders, including current Executive Director Nihad Awad, found themselves on this internal telephone list of the "Palestine Committee" alongside Hamas Deputy Political leader Mousa Abu Marzook, Hamas Gaza spokesman Ahmad Yousef and others.

You have a local figure assuming control of an organization whose founders plotted ways to deceive you. Why wouldn't you want to challenge him about that?

Not So Fast

An Associated Press report indicates that troublesome passages have been removed from textbooks used at the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia.

Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom goes all Reagan on the report: "At this point," she writes in the National Review Online, "forget trust; we must verify."

 

Past reviews found passages considered to be extreme and intolerant, including religious justifications for killing an apostate or an adulterer.

 

Those who gave the books a seal of approval work for, or were paid by, the school, Shea writes.  Ali Al-Ahmed, a Saudi government critic who has followed the textbook controversy, described "some small improvements in tone" but that the emphasis on the rigid Wahhabi interpretation of Islam hasn't changed.

 

It's more than the issue of one school, Shea writes. While the Academy has 1,000 students, the textbooks are the same as those used in Saudi Arabia:

"Readers may recall ["Teaching Terror"] that the Saudi curriculum has been blamed — including by a growing number of Saudi commentators — for helping to form the ideology underlying such jihadi terrorists as Osama bin Laden, the 11 Saudi members of the 9/11 hijacking team, the Saudi Gitmo detainees (who formed the largest contingent there, after persons from Afghanistan), the Saudi suicide bombers in Iraq (who formed the largest such foreign contingent), the Pakistani Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba and its network of radical schools that trained the Mumbai terrorists  ["Tread Softly"], and even a former valedictorian of the Saudi Academy itself, to name but a few."

Ahmed and Shea are conducting their own textbook review, which they promise later this spring. 

Continue to full text of posting...

Alms for Arms – The Mosque as a Weapons Store

A new report from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center shows how terrorists' use of mosques as a storing house for weapons and other activity is on the rise.

The 38-page report includes photographic evidence of weapons being stored under pulpits and elsewhere in mosques during December and January's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. It notes that Israeli troops fighting Hizballah in Lebanon, U.S. troops fighting terrorists in Iraq and even Palestinian Authority officials in the West Bank have encountered similar practices.

"The cynical and deliberate use of religious institutions for military purposes is a violation of the laws of armed conflict and may turn them into legitimate targets for military attack. In certain instances putting the mosques to such use is considered the war crime of using civilians as human shields."

Since taking over Gaza in 2007, Hamas has used mosques to recruit terrorists, as meeting places and even as rocket and mortar launching sites, all with the imprimatur of influential Muslim thinkers:

"Senior Islamic clerics, both Sunni and Shi'ite (particularly the Sunni sheikh Yussuf Qardawi and the Shi'ite Ayatollah Khamenei), repeatedly claim that making such use of the mosques for jihad objectives is legitimate according to Islamic point of view. They also encourage their use for spreading jihad ideology and terrorism (muqawamah, i.e., "resistance") against the enemies of Islam. Their religious views are based on the Islamic oral traditions (hadiths) which say that the prophet Muhammad himself used a mosque for military and political purposes, beyond the classic use of the mosque as house of worship." [Emphasis original]

The report is useful in demonstrating how mosques are being used by terrorists and extremists to foment more violence and extremism, and in showing how opposing military leaders must confront the challenges presented by holy places being used to store weapons caches.

Recognizing Crazy When You See It

Britain's decision to establish contacts with the political arm of the terrorist group Hizballah is generating criticism from U.S. officials and some scorn from one popular Arab media outlet.

On Friday, a senior State Department official said the U.S. did not distinguish between political and militant wings of a terrorist group like Hizballah. The administration has indicated a willingness to meet with leaders of terror-sponsoring states like Iran and Syria, however. The official argued that a government is more inclined to respond to talks because "they have the interests of states and may respond to interaction."

That concept drew outright scorn from Al Sharq al Awsat, a progressive London-based Arabic daily, which mocked Britain's overture to Hizballah and talk that the U.S. might seek to engage elements of the Taliban by wondering if overtures to Al Qaeda were next:

"This is not sarcasm. It seems that the West understands 'opening up' in a different way. After they ignited our region with battles in response to the terrorist radicalism that was led by Al-Qa'ida in the 11 September events, the West seems to have recklessly decided to deal with extremism and radicals. After George W. Bush committed the mistake of dealing with every issue with confrontation and arms, the West now wants to deal with all its problems with extremism and extremists by calling for leniency and openness. The West has forgotten that excessive leniency is a fatal mistake that is no less dangerous than a hard-line attitude. But it must be said at this point that the successful US experiment with the tribal councils or Al-Sahwat in Iraq seems to have deepened the concept of openness toward the enemy but in a wrong manner."

Meanwhile, Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah gave a speech Friday slamming the door on any potential U.S. overture:

"It's impossible that we would recognize Israel. Only the cowards recognize it. Whoever doesn't wish to fight should at least not recognize Israel. As long as there is such a terrorist and aggressive entity, we will never be able to renounce the resistance. The resistance is our life, our glory, our sacredness and our honor."

If Hizballah did want a dialogue with the U.S., Nasrallah said, it would be under terms imposed by his organization.

Glad he cleared that up.

Concentrated Blame for Freeman

Charles Freeman's withdrawal from consideration to lead the National Intelligence Council (NIC) has plenty of tongues clucking in Washington, not the least of which is Freeman's.

Critics expressed concern about Freeman's suitability for the intelligence job and pointed to a series of past statements and associations that they argued should give the administration pause. Among them, his criticism of Israel, his ties to the Saudi Arabian government (where he used to serve as U.S. ambassador) and his statements about China's handling of the 1989 Tiananman Square protests ("a monument to overly cautious behavior on the part of the leadership, not as an example of rash action").

Leaders of the Tiananman Square protests wrote to President Obama to "to convey our intense dismay" at Freeman's selection.

In a statement published by the Wall Street Journal, Freeman said he was victimized by an "effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility." Leading that campaign? The Israel lobby, Freeman said.

True, supporters of Israel from Charles Schumer (D-NY) to former American-Israel Public Affairs Committee director Steve Rosen criticized the Freeman selection and worked to undermine it. But the criticism was far more widespread than Freeman and his allies care to acknowledge.

U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) wrote to President Obama, citing Freeman's work on an advisory board of the China National Offshore Oil Corp. The company, in which the Chinese government holds a significant stake, has a "substantial investment in Sudan's oil sector has served as the lifeline to the regime of President Omar al Bashir, recently indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity."

A dozen other congressmen and women wrote to the Inspector General in the office of the National Intelligence Director seeking a review of Freeman's ties to the Saudi government. The Saudis provided financial support to the Middle East Policy Council, which Freeman previously led. That review likely won't be completed now.

In his statement, Freeman insisted he was beholden to no government or interest. But, in a Journal column before the withdrawal, Brett Stephens expressed skepticism:

"Whatever the case, Mr. Freeman has been among the Kingdom's most devoted fans, going so far as to suggest that King Abdullah 'is very rapidly becoming Abdullah the Great.' No sycophancy there."

Washington Times reporter Eli Lake quoted Tom Malinowski, advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, criticizing the administration for failing to "weigh the message sent by choosing someone who has so consistently defended and worked for the clenched fists the president so eloquently challenged in his inaugural address."

Freeman had plenty of supporters and critics. Their motivations were quite varied.

Islamophobia's False Comparison

It's a word rarely uttered a decade ago. "Islamophobia" now is invoked to condemn prosecutions of alleged terror financiers and any manner of dispute between Muslims and government agencies or employers.

The idea seems to be to deflect attention from an issue or to equate discrimination against Muslims with racism and anti-Semitism. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) representing 57 Muslim nations, hopes to pass a resolution criminalizing perceived insults against Islam during next month's United Nations Conference on Racism in Geneva. Western states, including the U.S., Canada and Italy have decided to stay away.

Klaus Faber, a lawyer and former German state secretary, writes that accusations of Islamophobia criticism of Islam or Shariah law. In a column published by the Jerusalem Post, he quotes OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's alarming claim that "Islamophobia is reaching the level of the anti-Semitism of the 1930s."

Faber dismisses the claim as ridiculous, succinctly drawing a distinction between the two:

"Nobody wants to exterminate all Muslims or wipe out an Islamic country. Nobody blames all Muslims for every evil in the world. Just looking at what is written and published about Israel and Jews by Muslim institutions and in many Islamic countries highlights this fundamental difference. In Germany, this means police have to protect Jewish kindergardens [sic], schools, institutions and synagogues around the clock. In contrast, anti-Islamic terrorism is virtually non-existent in Europe."

Faber is a member of the Coordinating Council of German NGOs against Anti-Semitism. His comments stem from a recent debate in Germany over comparisons between hostility toward Muslims and toward Jews:

"There is anti-Muslim discrimination in Germany, and we need to combat it together with progressive Muslims, since a large majority of German Muslims favor democratic values and integration. But reactionary or conservative Muslim organizations are not suitable allies in the fight against anti-Semitism."

Efforts to equate Islamophobia with anti-Semitism are harmful, he said, not only because they fail to distinguish between false Jewish conspiracy theories with genuine acts of terrorism by Islamists, but they also obscure the rabid anti-Semitism flowering among OIC member nations.

Separate and Unequal Shariah Justice

For those who dismiss concerns about creeping Shariah law and the future of Democratic societies, check out Olivier Guitta's report on political and legal battles in Europe. In an Italian court, a family accused of beating and sequestering their daughter for being too "Western," saw their original criminal convictions overturned:

"In the first trial, the [mother, father and eldest brother] were sentenced for sequestration and bad treatment. The court acknowledged that the teenager was "brutally beaten up" for having "dated" a non-Muslim and in general for "living a life not conforming with the culture" of her family. But on appeal, the family was acquitted because the court deemed that the young woman was beaten up for "her own good." The Bologna public prosecutor's office then disputed the acquittal of the three accused parties, but the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed it and ruled in favor of the charged parties."

Thankfully, the rulings are drawing fire from all directions. Guitta cites a poignant rebuke from Souad Sbai, president of the Organization of Moroccan Women in Italy:

"It is a shame, this verdict is worthy of an Arab country where the Sharia would be in vigor. In the name of multiculturalism and respect of traditions, the judges apply two kinds of rules: one for the Italians and one for the immigrants. A Catholic father that would have acted this way would have been severely sentenced."

Guitta goes on to track other cases and gauge popular support for Shariah in other European nations. While there are places of fierce resistance, such as France, his depressing conclusion is that "Islamists, much to the detriment of the majority of Muslims in Europe seem to be making headway in Europe in pushing Sharia law into the judicial system."

Newer Postings   |   Older Postings