Doc's Talk: "To criticize the religion and Muslims is not Islamophobia; a critical attitude towards religion must be accepted"

Monday, November 24, 2008

"To criticize the religion and Muslims is not Islamophobia; a critical attitude towards religion must be accepted"

Who said that?

Was it...Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Wafa Sultan? Nonie Darwish? Brigitte Gabriel? Daniel Pipes? Steve Emerson? Andrew Bostom? Gregory Davis? Serge Trifkovic? Mark Gabriel? William J. Federer? Walid Shoebat?

Was it...Raymond Ibrahim?

Was it...Robert Spencer?

Nope. None of them.

Give up? It was...are you ready?

Tariq Ramadan, according to this report by Valentina Colombo (thanks to B.). If you don't know who Tariq Ramadan is, see here.

Thanks, Mr. Ramadan!

Valentina Colombo.
“I am fully ready to have a public debate with Tariq Ramadan to make it patently clear that the man does not know 1% of what a world-class scholar must know.” The challenge comes from an another Tarek, the Egyptian intellectual Tarek Heggy. When you tell Heggy about the expansion of Islamic extremism in Europe, but most of all when you pronounce Ramadan’s name he flies into a rage. He wonders why Europe keeps on listening to people like him and why many European intellectuals and politicians consider him the best Islamic intellectual. This is the reason why I asked Heggy to comment some quotes from Ramadan’s speeches, books and videos. Here you find the result that should teach us something very important: we cannot trust Tariq while we should trust Tarek!

Tariq Ramadan: “For years I have heard people saying: "Be careful with Tariq Ramadan because he has one message in French; and a different one for when he speaks Arabic in the suburbs." Go and try to speak Arabic in the suburbs of France and you won’t have an audience because they don’t know Arabic”.

Tarek Heggy: Like a number of Muslim Brothers, Mr. Ramadan has two messages : one for the non-Arabic speaking audience (such as his views about the physical punishments) and different messages in Arabic. The difference between the spirit of these messages is enormous ... one would realize the dangers of this phenomenon only if equipped with good command of Arabic and good knowledge of Sharia. The only way to reveal this "academic lie" is by directing certain question to Mr. Ramadan and his peers such as : a) what do think of the Khilafah system? b) how you describe the so-called martyrs-operations? c) is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a model that you approve? d) can we establish in the 21st century an international law and a legal system based on Shari'a ? e) what do think of the status of women in the Islamic jurisprudence and in the Muslim societies ? f) what would be the status of non-Muslims in an Islamic state ? g) can a non-Muslim be the head of the state in Egypt - where your parents came from ? h) what is your overall judgement on the western-Civilization and its value system ? .... I personally would love to have a public debate with Mr. Ramadan to enable the civilized societies people to see what is under the external coats of this gentleman and his peers and to show them how incomplete (and deformed) his/their intellectual formations are.

T.R. To Ernesto Ferrero, director of Turin Book Fair, in 2008 with Israel guest of honor: “This is where we deeply disagree: to choose the State of Israel while you know what was, and still is, happening in the occupied territories - and just after the international community, almost unanimously, condemned the Gaza’s blockage - is neither wise nor fair towards the Palestinian and their dignity. I am sorry to repeat, you took a wrong and an unwise decision.[...] A call for a boycott was launched before I was asked about it and I simply decided to support this call not to attend. It seemed to me it was a question of conscience and dignity.

T.H. Mr. Ramadan, what is the relationship between all what you have said about the sufferings of the Palestinian people and a book-fair in Italy ? and apart from this book-fair boycott (BTW, did the Arab boycott ever yielded any significant fruits ?!) ... what are your views concerning the Israeli/Arab conflict : do you favor the route of Anwar al-Sadat, i.e. a political settlement to the conflict via civilized negotiations and therefore you accept that as the Palestinians have the right to have their own state, Israel has an equal right to exist ? .. or you favor "The Military solution" that Hamas and Hezbollah advocate ?... and what is your description to the suicide attacks committed by Palestinians against Israeli civilians?

T.R. “Muhammad married a Jewish woman and he even protected Jewish tribes”.

T.H. This is partially correct. The Prophet took a Jewish lady who was, by our modern terminology, a Pow as a wife. Though I read all the main Sira books, I have not come across the so called "protection rendered to some Jewish tribes" - we shall be grateful to Mr. Ramadan if he could guide us (!!) to the sources that he depended on, in due course.

T.R. “Today Europe is Dar al-shahada”

T.H. Saying that Europe today is dar al-shahada" confirms that the fellow (Ramadan) has a sick-nostalgia. This passion to use medieval terminology and concept is (in my views) a strong and patent sign of illusive mind, a mind that imagines that a certain era or period of history was a paradise : its heroes, language and concepts were "Angelic", and therefore aim at replicating. The term dar al-shahada represents this sick relationship with the past (or with a specific epoch): a sentiment that has now scientific bases whatsoever. More dangerously, it motivates young and semi-educated people who were raised in total isolation from the contemporary age to endeavor to replicate what cannot be (by any means) replicated. The term (also) could mean much detrimental meaning, as it could (linguistically) mean "The place for martyrdom" !!! Which would be (if so meant) quite dangerous.

T.R. To criticize the religion and Muslims is not Islamophobia; a critical attitude towards religion must be accepted. But to criticize someone or discriminate against them only because they are Muslim-this is what we can call Islamophobia, this is a kind of racism.

T.H. This is great Mr. Ramadan! But while we are aware of thousands of books that were written by Jewish scholars criticizing many Judaism related subjects and thousands of books that were written by Christian scholars criticizing many Christianity related subjects - please give me only ten titles of books written by Muslim scholars in which they criticized any Islam related subjects without being considered by most of the Muslim clergy as INFIDELS and asked for them to get killed if not by their governments, so be it by volunteers !!!!!!!!!!

T.R. “The worst that can happen to a democratic society is to see its citizens being transformed to passive victims paralyzed by fear. The proponents of the global clash of civilizations theory shall win if we accept to be individually colonized by emotional caricatures and suspicion towards people of other faiths and cultures”.

T.H. This is absolutely correct, but I guess that he will never dare to declare that the a major Arab/Islamic country that invested billion of dollars on spreading its own interpretation of Islam is the number one society that MUST be described by Ramadan's words (a society that its citizens are being for more than 80 years transformed systematically to passive victims paralyzed by fear) ... a society that established a peerless case of duality in all values and behaviors. A society that send its children each Friday to watch the authority representatives while whipping people, or cutting their hands and legs and/or stoning men or women to death !! Mr. Ramadan is requested to give us some examples of these societies that transform its citizens to passive victims paralyzed by fear!!!

T.R. “If a law already exists, why a new law in 2004? This is because crucifixes were accepted under the old law. The new law was passed because of France’s Muslim presence. The reality is that France’s secular tradition is being adapted to target a specific group. French society is going through something of an identity crisis. I have told all French girls that, if they have to make a choice between going to school and wearing the headscarf, they must choose school. Just go. This is the law. But at the same time, being a democrat means that you continue to discuss the merits of the law and call for change”.

T.H. Mr. Ramadan asks "why a new law in 2004 ?" ... the answer is patently clear : " because of the rapidly growing danger that nobody could neglect or ignore".

T.R. About Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab: “We cannot deny that his intervention in Arabia was often a kind of a war, but at the same time the reason of his enterprise were filled with a will of renewal”

T.H. I read everything Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab wrote (13 booklets) and read also all what has been written on this ruthless man and found him nothing but a very shallow man and simply and clearly a blood, destruction and killing advocate. Every expert in Islamic jurisprudence knows that while Ibn Hanbal represents the most conservative figure among the Sunni Jurisprudents, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim represent the extreme wing among the Hanbali sect followers and the ones who gave "the text" the largest role and minimized the role of the human mind. As a semi-educated and intellectually thin followers of this line Ibn Abd al-Wahhab reached an unprecedented level of conservatism, narrow-mindedness, hatred to all forms of OTHERS and rejection to modernity. Having read a great deal of what Ramadan has written, I have no doubt that he neither read (in full) Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim nor the 13 extremely shallow booklets of Ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Ramadan repeats (with a very little thinking) the Wahhabi claim that Abd al-Wahhab was calling for "Renewal". Abd al-Wahhab was calling for a litteral return to the year 632 AD (in all forms and respects). about the man that I consider to be the most brutal and ruthless blood, destruction, hatred, violence and killing advocate throughout the past 300 years.

T.R. “I have said that I am against the implementation of stoning, death penalties and corporal punishments. In Islamic-majority countries, this is a minority position. What we cannot deny is that these punishments are in the texts. What I am saying to Muslim scholars is that today’s conditions are different, so in this context you cannot implement these punishments. So we have to stop. This is the moratorium”.

T.H. The question Mr. Ramadan is not the implementation of the physical criminal/penal punishments. The question is simply as follows : if you do reject the Islamic criminal punishment - does this take you to the rest of the Sharia and therefore say the same i.e. as the physical punishment are not anymore suitable to what humanity has reached in the areas of modernity and sophistication, would it be acceptable to Mr. Ramadan to say the same about the other domains of the Sharia i.e. the civil law, marriage, commercial and international relations spheres which will automatically imply that the sharia in its entity has become not suitable to be applied (similar to its Jewish equivalent)?

Read it all:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/tarek_versus_tariq.php

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk