The Fighting Islamists of Notre Dame
Thomas Ryan, at David Horowitz's Front Page Magazine, has published The Fighting Islamists of Notre Dame. It is a very damning article concerning the fools at the Kroc Institute. Of special note is Mr. Ryan's description of Scott Appleby going ga-ga over Brother Tariq:
In truth, Ramadan, like the late Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, is a “master of double talk,” relaying to Western ears an amicable message of unity between Western and Muslim peoples, but expressing his true feelings of Western hatred to his Muslim brethren. Upon offering Ramadan the position at the Institute, Director Appleby stated, “We find him invaluable because he takes the risk of talking to both worlds. If we are going to avoid a violent conflict with radical Muslims, we will do so by taking the risk of understanding their point of view, their criticisms of the West, and also having the authority to talk with them.”
One wonders how utterly stupid an "intellectual" can be. It brings to mind George Orwell's quote stating that no idea is so foolish as that at least one intellectual won't believe it.
Every time a scholar such as Samuel Huntington, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, or Bernard Lewis attempts to "understand" Islamists they are summarily dismissed by the likes of Appleby. Meanwhile, has-been discredited "intellectuals" such as John Esposito are lauded, despite the fact, as Martin Kramer has pointed out, that Esposito has been completely wrong in the past regarding his interpretations and analyses of Islamic fundamentalism. Esposito and his ilk are as bad as Michel Foucault, who continuted to support the Ayatollah Khomeini even when it was apparent that the man was a brutal totalist. And I'd like to see how Appleby proposes to "dialogue" with psychopaths who have an absolute worldview and who allow no dissenting opinions whatsoever.
Mr. Ryan's article is great. He also discusses the "academic convocation" in the fall of 2003 when all incoming freshmen were required to read Seyyed Hossein Nasr's The Heart of Islam. The article mentions a letter published in The Observer questioning the assignment of Nasr's book. The convocation ignored thinkers like Lewis; instead, according to Mr. Ryan:
Appleby justified this on the grounds that “The idea behind the summer reading requirement and academic convocation was not to provide even one percent of the knowledge of the Middle East that professors...provide in their courses – that would be impossible in so short an assignment. Rather, the goal was to demonstrate how scholars think about such issues.” Actual scholars, rather than activists like Appleby, would normally think about such controversial issues by presenting more than one side of the argument. But that is too much to expect from an ideological institute like Kroc.
Monk should be ashamed of the Kroc Institute - of course, he's on his way out, so perhaps Fr. Jenkins will do something.
Brother Tariq is NOT a victimThe American Thinker published Tariq Ramadan Is Not a Victim by Olivier Guitta in late December. It was a response to Brother Tariq's "Woe is me!" rant in the L.A. Times in which he blamed the PATRIOT Act and the erosion of "academic freedom" for his denial of entry into the USA (of course, let's see Brother Tariq's hearty endorsement of "academic freedom" when a scholar dares to question the authenticity of some passages of the Quran).
As Mr. Guitta points out - and this point has been made earlier in this blog:
Mr. Ramadan pretends he is being attacked because of his lineage. . . . . Most European Secret Service agencies and others, including Antoine Sfeir, the very knowledgeable editor of the French magazine specializing in the Middle East, Les Cahiers de L’Orient, are also convinced that, at the end of the 1980’s, the Muslim Brotherhood picked Tariq Ramadan to be their European representative. But most importantly, Ramadan’s view of the world is identical to that of the Muslim Brotherhood. He is a fervent supporter of his grandfather’s and father’s views, and constantly teaches their precepts to young Muslims. And that is why he is being pointed out and not simply because he is Al Banna’s grandson.Cry me a river, Brother Tariq. The problem isn't that he is being condemned for the sins of his fathers. The problem is that he is actively promoting the jihadist ideology of the organization his ancestors created. Brother Tariq attempts to have it both ways - disavowing his lineage when trying to appear as a teddy bear to Western elites, but using his grandfather as "street cred" in front of radical Muslims.
Speaking of the double-talk, as Mr. Guitta continues:
Lots of prominent moderate Muslims are also accusing Ramadan of double talk and hijacking Islam for a dangerous project. Most of his detractors are coincidentally Muslim. For instance, the head of the French Muslim Council and head of the Paris Mosque, Dalil Boubakeur, declared recently, “when one invites Tariq Ramadan, it is not to listen to what Allah and the angels said; Ramadan is the vehicle of fundamentalist Islam.”Hmmm. I doubt that the head of the French Muslim Council is a Neocon or a Joooo intend on discrediting poor Brother Tariq.
Mr. Guitta also mentions Caroline Fourest:
Ramadan pretends in his Los Angeles Times piece that none of his detractors have read his books or articles. But unfortunately for him, in the just released book Brother Tariq, Caroline Fourest, a French specialist on fundamentalism, methodically studied every single book he wrote, but even more importantly, his tapes, which are sold in the tens of thousands each year. She exposes Ramadan for what he is: a dangerous Islamist. Her conclusion is crystal clear: “Ramadan is a war leader.”Read it all. Thankfully somebody in the government had the courage to keep this dangerous man out of the USA.