Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Tweet

Crooked Timber has graciously linked and trackbacked my last post about Daniel Pipes’ intellectual vendetta against Tariq Ramadan, which culminated in the revocation of the latter’s U.S. visa to teach this fall at Notre Dame.

Several commenters to CT’s post have done a tremendous job completely eviscerating Pipes litany of Ramadan’s supposed “crimes” and intellectual dishonesty. But first, let’s list the substance of Ramadan’s “crimes” as quoted directly from Pipes’ post:

* 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.

Scott Martens proceeds to virtually destroy every major point in Pipes’ list of charges:

I note that the interview that Pipes links to where Ramadan denies that “there is ‘any certain proof’ that Bin Laden was behind 9/11” is dated 25 September 2001. If Pipes is going to be dishonest enough not to point out that Ramadan’s reluctance to assign blame to bin Laden was all of two weeks after 9/11, I see little reason to trust the sleazeball on anything else.

He claims Ramadan was denied entry into France in ‘96 and that Baltasar Garzón claims he had repeated contact with an Algerian terrorist. Funny thing, I can’t find any source for the first claim – it’s not that easy to refuse a Swiss citizen entry into France – and the second one is explicitly denied by Ramadan, repeatedly. The lack of follow-up charges, and the plausibility of Ramadan’s account, suggest that only Pipes and a few others with agendas are still pushing the claim.

Pipes repeats the claim made by Jean-Charles Brisard that Ramadan was under investigation by “various intelligence agencies” – but since none of those “intelligence agencies” have come forward, this smacks a bit of hearsay. The same person is the source of the charge that Ramadan is linked to Al Taqwa bank. Again, I can find charges – denied as well – that Al Taqwa bank may have donated some money to Ramadan’s centre in Geneva. Al Taqwa’s Geneva branch might – for any of a number of reasons – have names and addresses for local promonent Muslims on their mailing list.

And lastly, whatever else Pipes is no good at, he certainly isn’t a French translator. If his Arabic is as crappy as his French, I see no reason anyone should take him seriously about the Middle East. The sentence he is referring to – and links to, the dumbass – where he claims that Ramadan is “minimizing [the 9/11 attacks] to the point of near-endorsement” goes as follows:

Des banlieues françaises aux sociétés musulmanes, vous ne trouverez pas de soutiens, sauf infimes, aux interventions de New York, Bali ou Madrid. On ne peut pas confondre les résistances irakienne ou palestinienne avec les actions pro-Ben Laden.

“From French suburbs to Muslim society, you will find no support, except for some neglegible amount, to the actions in New York, Bali and Madrid. We cannot confuse Iraqi and Palestinian resistance with pro-bin Laden activities.”

“Intervention” is a relatively neutral word in French, but if you see a “near-endorsement” in the above sentences, please explain how. I guess Pipes assumes that if you actually know French, you’re already too far to the left for his pitch.

Pipes actually links to a Le Parisien article that makes different claims than Pipes. Ramadan is not suspected of ever having talked to this Algerian terrorist arrested in Spain. His name apparently came up — not as a co-conspirator but as a name mentionned in conversation — in two taped phone calls, one of them to his publisher in Lyon. One of the terrorists arrested in Spain claims to have taken one of Ramadan’s courses in 1994, but Ramadan points out that he didn’t teach in Paris until 1997.

I rest my case (or I should say that Paul Martens rests the case for me).

Tweet

The New York Times article announcing the revocation of Tariq Ramadan’s visa to teach at Notre Dame University mentions that Danlel Pipes played a role in the campaign to silence Ramadan (the story is linked in my post, Tariq Ramadan, Prominent Muslim Scholar Refused U.S. Visa). It seems that this right wing, ardently hawkish pro-Israeli ideologue has engaged in a long-standing vendetta against Ramadan. In his eyes, Ramadan represents the moderate “façade” of fundamentalist Islam and therefore is especially dangerous. Ramadan is some sort of two-faced Muslim monster who attempts to conceal his hateful, anti-Semitic views underneath a smiling and agreeable face.

So I googled his website and sure enough, he’s written a diatribe there (first printed in that neoconserative shmattah, the New York Sun) celebrating his success in denying Ramadan access to U.S. academia: Why Deny Tariq Ramadan’s U.S. Visa? If you read Pipes’ article you will see how the mind of a right-wing Jewish paranoiac works.

I think what Pipes really hates is that Ramadan is a moderate Muslim scholar who might add intellectual luster to the Muslim critique of Israel and its policies toward Palestinians.

I’ve written a riposte to Pipes as a comment on his site. But I wanted my own readers to read it as well so here it is:

I find Daniel Pipes’ logic in this post to be completely specious. He raises all sorts of suspicions about Tariq Ramadan’s views most of which are not based on hard evidence of any illegal activity. Everything he lists here as reasons that Ramadan is dangerous are not crimes in themselves.

The State Dept. based it’s revocation on a provision in law which calls for such action when dealing with espionage agents, terrorists or people they suspect might engage in terrorism while in this country.

NONE of the supposedly horrendous things Pipes lists here come even close to falling into this category. Pipes clearly hates Ramdan’s views & he’s entitled to do so. But you aren’t entitled to prevent someone from entering the U.S. merely because you think their VIEWS are bad or dangerous. You have to present evidence of REAL ACTIONS that post real physical danger to people. Ramadan doesn’t even come close to fitting into this category.

All that Daniel Pipes and the other co-conspirators in this case have done is diminish the level of dialogue within this country around the issue of Muslim-Jewish relations, stifle academic freedom and diminished civil liberties in this country. It is really a shameful vendetta.

And lest Pipes accuse me of being a Ramadan apologist, nothing could be farther from the truth. I’ve publicly testified to my reservations about some of his comments in my weblog. But my disagreements with him haven’t brought me anywhere near the point of saying that Ramadan is a dangerous person who should be vilified and silenced.

It is PIpes & his cohorts who are the dangers to free expression, not Ramadan. If he disagrees with Ramadan why doesn’t he debate him publicly? Why doesn’t he go to South Bend and confront him? That would be intellectually forthright and honest. Instead, he wishes to deny Ramadan the right to speak here in this country. I find such a position intelledtually dishonest and bankrupt.

Oh & Mr. Pipes–I’ve read yr. criteria for publishing comments. I’ll tell you upfront that while I view my comments here as “reasoned disagreement,” I am intellectually hostile to yours with every fiber of my being. Let’s see whether & how you publish mine.