Saturday, November 25, 2006

More On Tariq Ramadan

(All emphases by Always On Watch)

In my previous post, "Time Magazine's Dhimmitude," I relied on information from FrontPageMagazine. I did so as a matter of convenience because a Google Search of "Tariq Ramadan" yields a multitute of hits. Probably the sources I'm using below won't be any more satisfactory to a leftist because, as Diana West editorialized,
The media love a martyr. And I don't mean "martyr" in the context of modern-day jihad. I mean the sort from our pre-Islamic consciousness, the long-suffering "victim" of "witch hunts" and moralizing of a singularly "right-wing" and "puritanical" kind. Such martyrdom never dims -- and I'm thinking, say, of Alger Hiss, or, on a different level, Bill Clinton. It beams on in perpetuity, alight with liberal pieties projected by a media culture that, in turn, basks in reflected martyrdom.

Tariq Ramadan, a Eurabian intellectual with a string of associates linked to terrorism, is becoming just such a media martyr.
Below is a bit more information about Tariq Ramadan, from Tariq Ramadan's editorial in the October 1, 2006 edition of the Washington Post:
What words do I utter and what views do I hold that are dangerous to American ears, so dangerous, in fact, that I should not be allowed to express them on U.S. soil?

I have called upon Western societies to be more open toward Muslims and to regard them as a source of richness, not just of violence or conflict. I have called upon Muslims in the West to reconcile and embrace both their Islamic and Western identities. I have called for the creation of a "New We" based on common citizenship within which Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Muslims and people with no religion can build a pluralistic society. And yes, I believe we all have a right to dissent, to criticize governments and protest undemocratic decisions. It is certainly legitimate for European Muslims and American Muslims to criticize their governments if they find them unjust -- and I will continue to do so.

At the same time, I do not stop short of criticizing regimes from Muslim countries. Indeed, the United States is not the only country that rejects me; I am also barred from Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and even my native Egypt.
Note that Mr. Ramadan doesn't say why he is s was banned from certain Islamic nations. According to the Washington Times,
Mr. Ramadan's activities do not stop in Europe. In 1995, when the Algerian Armed Islamist Movement (AIM) perpetrated several terrorist attacks in Paris, French Interior Minister Jean Louis Debre barred Mr. Ramadan at that time from France -- based on his links to AIM. Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and his native Egypt also bar Mr. Ramadan from crossing their boarders. He is denied entrance to those countries, not for supporting Hamas or because he carries peaceful messages. They keep him out because of his links to and influence on radical Muslim groups.

Regardless, Mr. Ramadan's popularity among the Europeans is growing fast....
The above link also includes the following information:
...On Dec. 8, 2005, the French prosecution of Chechen terror network chief Menad Benchellali revealed evidence of Mr. Ramadan's links to terrorists in Europe. Benchellali had traveled to Switzerland "one or two times in 2000, to attend conferences on Islam provided by Tariq Ramadan." Benchellali, who later planned chemical attacks in France "under the supervision of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi," was sentenced in June to 10 years in prison.

Earlier, in March 2005, Algerian al Qaeda member Djamel Beghal received 10 years in prison in Paris for participating in a foiled terror attack on the U.S. embassy there. Beghal testified in September 2001 that "his religious engagement started in 1994," when "he was in charge of writing the statements of Tariq Ramadan." That October, Beghal added that he had also taken "courses given by Tariq Ramadan."

Moreover, a 2001 Swiss intelligence memo said: "brothers Hani and Tariq Ramadan coordinated a meeting held in 1991 in Geneva attended by [al Qaeda leader] Ayman Al Zawahiri and Omar Abdel Rahman," the imprisoned planner of the 1993 World Trade Center attack.

Spanish Judge Balatasar Garzon, whose investigations into the terror activities of the Algerian Ahmed Brahim, rendered a 10-year prison sentence in April 2006, reported Ramadan's "routine contacts" with Brahim, the alleged financial chief of Al Qaeda in Europe and financier of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

Mr. Ramadan denies these charges. But according to French terrorism expert Jean-Charles Brisard, Mr. Ramadan also "denied being a director of the Geneva Islamic Center, a position he still holds, according to the official Swiss register of companies."
Again, from the Washington Times (a different article/commentary):

Tariq Ramadan is radioactive. Speak to any Christian in the Arab world, and "roadkill" is the nicest thing you'll hear about him. For the left -- especially the far left -- the grandson of the founder of the incendiary Muslim Brotherhood, the most important Islamist movement of the 20th century, is just in from a little stroll on the Sea of Galilee.

For France's influential Jewish intellectuals -- Bernard-Henri Levy, Andre Glucksmann, Bernard Kouchner -- Ramadan is a dangerously skillful anti-Semite....

Mr. Ramadan's apocalyptic, nihilistic vision appears to some as a scene-setter for the center-stage appearance of Osama bin Laden Superstar.

The author of a dozen books, Mr. Ramadan lets fly staccato-style, at the speed of an AK-47 on full automatic, quotations from Nietzsche, Heidegger and the Koran, to prove a central point: Decadent Europe will give way to an Islamized Europe.

The 21st century, he says, will see a second role reversal between Islam and the West: "The West will begin its new decline, and the Arab-Islamic world its renewal" and ascent to seven centuries of world domination after seven centuries of decline.

The fully European Islam, he predicts, presupposes a violent upheaval against the Western values Mr. Ramadan rejects. But he quickly cushions the supposition with hosannas to democracy and free expression. He is a past master of dissimulation and disinformation.

"To Be a European Muslim," published in 1999, was translated into 14 languages. The European Parliament consults him as an expert voice of reason in a cacophony of extremist epithets.

Criticism of this Islamist intellectual troubadour is quickly rejected as Islamophobia. Mr. Ramadan speaks the language of Europe's intellectual left. A frequent lecturer in U.S. universities, his brilliantly articulate perorations mesmerize his liberal fans. "Only Islam can achieve the synthesis between Christianity and humanism, and fill the spiritual void that afflicts the West." All good people are implicitly Muslims, he maintains, "because true humanism is founded in Koranic revelations."

"Today the Muslims who live in the West must unite themselves to the revolution of the anti-establishment groups from the moment when the neoliberal capitalist system becomes, for Islam, a theater of war," is another thunderclap that says "jihad" to his detractors and sweet reasonableness to his fans.

Marxism failed because it slavishly followed the dictates of a bunch of aging klutzes in Moscow, according to the Ramadan school. Islam, he says, can now bring forth a body of values that would form the embodiment of this universal vocation.

This, in turn, would replace the values of Western civilization. Islam-centric thinking thus replaces Eurocentric rearview mirror nostalgia for what was once a great civilization.

Muslim identity is the only true source of universality, proclaims Tariq Ramadan. "It will fill the spiritual void that afflicts the West." Music to some, but a hidden Islamist agenda to DHS. Some would say, not so well hidden.
From this source, quoting Tariq Ramadan:
"Only Islam can achieve the synthesis between Christianity and humanism, and fill the spiritual void that afflicts the West" ("Islam, le face à face des civilisations," Tawhid, 2001).

And again: "The Koran confirms, completes, and corrects the messages that preceded it" ("Les messages musulmans d´occident"). Some Christian personalities whose charitable works cannot be misconstrued - Mother Teresa, Sister Emanuelle, Abbé Pierre, Fr. Helder Camara - are exceptions who show only that all good people are implicitly Muslims, because true humanism is founded in Koranic revelation. Thus, both directly and through this humanism, the "Muslim City" can be founded upon the earth. "Today the Muslims who live in the West must unite themselves to the revolution of the antiestablishment groups from the moment when the neoliberal capitalist system becomes, for Islam, a theater of war..." ("Pouvoirs," 2003, n. 164).
The article below is cited in its entirety:
NS Profile - Tariq Ramadan Profile
Andrew Hussey
Monday 21st June 2004

Some call him ''the most dangerous man in Europe'', others ''the Martin Luther of Islam''. Just how sinister is he?

You will find the headquarters of Tariq Ramadan, described by some people as "the most dangerous man in Europe" and by others as Islam's Martin Luther, in Saint-Denis, the slightly battered and down-at-heel town at the end of the Paris Metro line, once known mainly for its glorious gothic basilica, the final resting place of Clovis, founder of the French nation. Ramadan is admired across the francophone Islamic world, from the ghettoes of Lyons and Marseilles to the souks of Morocco and the slums of Senegal. His pamphlets, books and speeches sell in their tens of thousands. He has put political Islam at the very top of the political agenda in France, challenging ministers over the banning of the hijab in French schools and defending the application of sharia law in Muslim areas. His confident, insolent manner in a televised debate last year with Nicolas Sarkozy, then minister of the interior, now finance minister and Jacques Chirac's most likely successor as president, made him an instant hero to radical Muslim youth in France. Time magazine named him as one of the hundred most important innovators of the 21st century. The anti-globalisation movement embraced him at the European Social Forum last autumn despite misgivings from some activists who saw him as a demagogue.

Ramadan, aged 41, was born in Switzerland to a family that had a tradition of Islamist political involvement. His maternal grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, was a founder in 1928 of the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the cornerstones of modern Islamist fundamentalism. His father, Said Ramadan, fled Gamal Abdel Nasser's crackdown on fundamentalist troublemakers in 1954 and founded an Islamic Centre in Geneva which Tariq's brother Hani still runs.

Although he studied French literature and philosophy as an undergraduate at the University of Geneva, Tariq Ramadan chose 19th-century reformist Islam as the subject of his doctoral thesis. Much to the chagrin of his supervisor - who later described him as a "pseudo-intellectual" and "vain opportunist" - the thesis ended up as a hagiography of his grandfather. He got his doctorate, but without the traditional congratulations of the judging panel. None the less, he teaches at a lycee in Geneva and holds a part-time position at the University of Fribourg.

Ramadan's academic career has always been secondary to his religious enthusiasms. In the early 1990s, he founded the Movement of Swiss Muslims, to bring Islam to Swiss and European youth. The European secret services - noting that, around the same time, Ramadan pursued further Islamic studies in Cairo - believe he was chosen to act as the Muslim Brotherhood's figurehead in Europe, an allegation he firmly denies. He also denies press allegations of links to terrorism in general and al-Qaeda in particular.

Ramadan's big idea (set out in his latest book, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, now published in English by Oxford University Press) is that Islam is an essential part of modernity. The opposition between western and non-western societies should be dissolved, he says, into a "European and American Islamic culture", which would allow Muslims to live in the west without any sense of contradiction.

But what does Ramadan mean by this? He talks constantly of respect for European tradition (by which he means Judaeo-Christian religious thinking) but rarely gives any positive examples of what he means in terms of art, music or literature (the poet Rimbaud is quoted, but only in a distorted and misleading fashion). His only advice to Muslims in the US is to commit themselves to "the spiritual life" and "radical resistance".

What is clear from Ramadan's writings is that, for young Muslims, integration into western society as it exists is not an option. He refers to the concept of tawhid, faith in the unity of God, which he sees as a universal value. It is the west that has to be integrated into this totality. In other words, he does not see Islam adapting to local conditions - as is the case with many more progressive Islamic thinkers such as Mohammed Taleb or Malek Chebel - but as an extension of the "house of Islam" into the land of the unbelievers. Muslims in Europe should not consider themselves a minority in alien territory but as leaders in the spiritual redemption of the west.

At his office in Saint-Denis, I put it to Ramadan that there is some justification in his critics seeing him as the enemy of a multicultural society. "It is important, I think, not to see Europe and Islam as two separate, monolithic terms," he says. "I am a Muslim and European, and the two identities do not always have to be in contradiction. I think multiculturalism is a way forward. But really, cultures are not separate beings. Islam is and always was a participant in the history of Europe. Unfortunately, many Europeans do not understand this either. And it is this lack of knowledge which creates suspicion and ultimately war."

So is he really arguing not for a "European Islam", but for an "Islamified Europe"? "These two words are another false opposition," he replies. "Islam has always been part of European history. It is wrong to think otherwise. But Islam in Europe is the same Islam as across the world. The duty for Muslims now is to take Islam from the periphery of European culture to the centre."

He goes on: "France is one of the most tense European countries from the point of view of cultural and religious conflict. That is why it is so important to bring Islam, which is universal, into debate here, a place where there is no coherent political belief."

Ramadan is equally clear about the need for intellectuals in the west to understand that Islam is not the exclusive property of medieval-minded fanatics, but, as he sees it, a living component of modernity in Europe and the rest of the world. Ramadan himself lays claim to legitimacy in such debates by stressing that he is a trained philosopher in the western tradition and that, from Friedrich Nietzsche to Jean Baudrillard, there are distinctly European influences on his thinking. He cites as key influences the French writer and film-maker Guy Debord (also a favourite thinker of many in the anti-globalisation movement) and his book The Society of the Spectacle (1967). "Debord saw that modernity in the west had reached the end of its uses for capitalism," says Ramadan. "My opinion, like that of Debord, is that in the west we are trapped in a society of spectacles, illusions. But we are obliged also to fight against false representations, false images of the world."

In France, Ramadan, despite his ubiquitous media presence, is personally still very much the object of fear and suspicion. He does not hold a French passport and was banned from entering France in 1995 by Charles Pasqua, then minister of the interior, on suspicion of having links with the Algerian terrorists who had launched a bombing campaign in Paris that year. More recently, leading intellectuals in France have charged him with spreading the crudest and most divisive form of anti-Semitism.

This came to a head in an article that Ramadan published on the internet in which he accused several leading Jewish intellectuals in France of "communitarian politics". By supporting the Anglo-American war in Iraq, he says, they were also supporting Israel. The names cited by Ramadan included secular thinkers such as Alain Finkielkraut and the humanitarian Bernard Kouchner. Ramadan also accused the writer Bernard-Henri Levy of "vilifying Pakistan" in his book Who Killed Daniel Pearl?, an emotive account of the American journalist's murder.

Most loaded of all was Ramadan's use of the term "communitarian politics" as a charge against the liberal intelligentsia. In French, it carries with it not only an attack on the intellectual integrity of individuals, but also a challenge to the fundamental principles of the Republic. Ramadan was, in other words, not only accusing Jewish intellectuals of Jewish self-interest but also, in an echo of the Dreyfus affair, of deliberately acting against the interests of the state. This is precisely why the level-headed and highly respected Kouchner called him "a most dangerous man". Ramadan's response to his critics is that he does not want to be drawn into "a discourse of hate". He adds that all Muslims must know how to rise above such predictable enemies. "There are certain insults which are unworthy and which we do not have to answer," he says.

The cafe in the elegant courtyard of the Grande Mosquee de Paris, in the heart of the Latin Quarter, is a long way from the grimy streets of Saint-Denis. It has always been a tolerant place and is at present a fashionable meeting place for young Parisian Muslims of both sexes. At the cafe tables, the jury is still out on Tariq Ramadan. "He pretends to be a moderate but anyone who has heard his speeches knows that he is a sympathiser with hardliners," says a well-dressed young woman in a disgusted tone of voice. The writer and academic Khalid Amine, who travels frequently between Morocco and Paris, offers a slightly different view. "Ramadan is important because he can speak to both sides - to moderate Muslims and to fundamentalists," he says. "But it remains to be seen what can emerge from this dialogue."

The consensus at the Grande Mosquee, which has always been at considerable remove from hardliners, is that Ramadan is no Martin Luther, but a propagandist for radical Islam. However, even his enemies agree that his message does contain one important insight: that the real conflict of the 21st century is not between east and west, or even rich and poor, but between ignorance and knowledge, sacred truth and lies.

This distinction is, as Ramadan sees it, the issue that defines the new wars of religion, from Iraq to the council estates of Paris. Most importantly, and most dangerously, as his support grows in France, Europe and even in the United States, Ramadan is beginning to feel sure that he is on the winning side.
Tariq Ramadan is the Islamic expert to whom Time Magazine turns and presents to its readers as the European voice of reformist Islam?


At 11/25/2006 9:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tariq Ramadan? A most charming man! Didn't he used to work in Hamelin?

At 11/25/2006 11:17 AM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

He does seem to be leading people down the "yellow brick road" or the primrose path! With no moral compass, lies do take control of mindsGood morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!


At 11/25/2006 11:47 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

I'm not sure you were successful,AOW.

Here is a list of the particulars against Tariq Ramadan from Daniel "Danny the Pimp" Pipes' site :

* 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.
Let's see, he had contact with a convicted terrorist and another was a student. Now I'm going out on a limb and say that Tamadan has had contact with a large number of muslims and that simply doesn't constitute guilt.

Ramadan denied bin Laden's involvement. That is completely inaccurate.
Ramadan made statements very shortly after the attack stating that the identity of the attackers and their superiors was unknown. He has not denied bin laden's involvement as the facts emerged. Pipes is a liar, but that isn't unusual. SWALLOW !!!!

Now the quote about "interventions" is troubling but Pipes links to a site in French and I can't tell what's lost in translation.

Pipes offers no supporting evidence about the context or actual utterance concerning Sudan.

Then we have a former member of French intelligence. A bit anecdotal, no? Maybe we have the French Bill Gertz making accusations equivalent to the lie that France was issuing passports to Hussein's high level advisors to get them into Syria.
What happened to Gertz? Maybe he wrote an authoritative book (thousands are out there) with this French guy.

Ramadan's name was on a banks register. Wow, that's simply too damning. Utterly ridiculous even for Daniel "Danny the Pimp" Pipes.

So what do we have? A couple of poorly documented "statements" and denial of a visa under suspicion. Was anything proven? Evidence presented that was even compelling if not definitive?

Now Mr. Ramadan is clearly a leftist and that puts people like Merry Widow in a dither because we leftists are actually interested in bettering the world rather than paying attention to conditions which favor the apocalypse but you have made a poor case against Ramadan. You are still open to the accusation that your opposition is based on anecdotes, hysteria and outright lies.

hat won't do.

At 11/25/2006 11:53 AM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

I'm curious to know if this is considered compelling evidence.

At 11/25/2006 3:59 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Now Mr. Ramadan is clearly a leftist and that puts people like Merry Widow in a dither because we leftists are actually interested in bettering the world...

The trouble, Ducky, is that leftists, like you, have a strange sense of what would make the world "better" - a wholesale extermination of all Jews like your leftist idol Hitler proposed, for example.

Leftists should spend some time living in reality instead of trying to pontificate about "better worlds" they saw during a hash pipe buzz.

At 11/25/2006 4:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who mentioned assasination?

At 11/25/2006 4:54 PM, Blogger Elmers Brother said...

Duhkkky, the left's idea of making the world better would make us worse off than a gerbil in a bath house....and you know that.

At 11/25/2006 5:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sounds to me as if Tariq Ramadan is capable of speaking from his mouth and his ass all at the same time.

Yet another concise example of why we should constantly be watching our six with these muslim militants. Look what happened to the Russians when they began to trust those Muslims that wanted to be their friends.

I refuse to offer ANY open dialogue with Muslims, period.

At 11/25/2006 6:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's interesting to note that Ramadan is an equal opportunity condemner. You'd think, given that the political left throughout the west are Islamofascism's greatest ally, that he'd be kissing up to them like his Muslim "activist" brethren do.

At 11/25/2006 7:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Speaking from the rear and his mouth at the same time is similar to Ducky the accolyte of class genocide and anti-history. Pipes, Bat Yeor nor any Randoids have any history of class genocide and treason against the USA. Ducky's preffered favorites Fannon, Chimanzee and Finkola all happen to be accolytes of class genocide. Ducky will also prove that he loves Jews by praising the Rosenbergs.

Ducky has yet to string together a coherent thought.

Excuse us Duncy, how do a colonial people with a history of slavery, Jim Crow, abduction of children, ethnocide and genocide become victims. Is this another example of Marxist anti-logic.

At 11/25/2006 7:59 PM, Blogger lilfeathers2000 said...

I got to this point "no religion can build a pluralistic society."

Code word for not being an American. This means you will embrace my religion and love it or die eventually. Nuff said Bar him and keep him out.

At 11/26/2006 3:32 AM, Blogger truepeers said...

With all due respect to the leftist poseur above, we need to remember that there is no serious alternative to some form of global free market capitalism if we are to feed anywhere near the present population of the world, let alone provide comforts. What Ramadan and our leftist represent is a resentment of the American-led global market system whose end would surely entail mass murder by war and starvation on a scale never seen before, not the kind of utopia of some final unity vaguely articulated by Ramadan's fantasy ideology.

In face of such evil, one really has to wonder if one day we will have to ignore the legal niceties encouraged by this blog's sidebar. Not yet, as civilization still rules, except at places like Time. In the meantime, we must prepare to fight a war for conversion against the growing alliance of the Western left and Islam. That subscription to Time is helping fund a call to mass murder. Shocking but time to wake up and realize that there are a lot in America who would welcome the presence of this destructive evil. We have a real battle on our hands.

At 11/26/2006 7:00 AM, Blogger nanc said...

"Muslim identity is the only true source of universality, proclaims Tariq Ramadan. "It will fill the spiritual void that afflicts the West." Music to some, but a hidden Islamist agenda to DHS. Some would say, not so well hidden."

no thank you - i have no spiritual void.

great work, aow - leave it to plucky to try and drag it down - he will serve well in dhimmitude.

At 11/26/2006 8:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

mr. ducky will never give a site credit for political "neutrality", AoW. I'm sure he believe Wikipedia to be a blatantly biased site as well...Tariq

At 11/26/2006 8:46 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Rarely are my sources acceptable to Duck. I rather imagine that none of his are acceptable to me. ;)

From that link you left:

Caroline Fourest analysed Tariq Ramadan's 15 books, 1,500 pages of interviews, and approximately 100 recordings, [10] and concludes "Ramadan is a war leader," and the "political heir of his grandfather," Hassan al-Banna, stating that his discourse is, "often just a repetition of the discourse that Banna had at the beginning of the 20th century in Egypt," and that he, "presents [al-Banna] as a model to be followed."

Somehow I never thought to look up Tariq Ramadan in Wikipedia. Turkey is a soporific, I guess, because I often go to Wikipedia for a quick overview.

At 11/26/2006 8:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt we have too much to worry about from Islam at the moment... the Arab Sunni's are going to be very busy near-term trying to "reform" the Persian Shi'a, ala Sadr City massacre...

I love the fact that the Left argues against ALL religions on the one hand (not scientific)... and then supports Islamicists like Ramadan who aim at filling the sectarian spiritual void has been left in the wake of their anti-religions policy. Marx is rolling in his mouldy grave and Nietzsche is loving it.

At 11/26/2006 9:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps it's time to start seriously challenging the dualistic Islamic worldview and begin supporting an alternative vision of Dar al-Amn to counter jihadi propoganda since the extremist sect justifications for jihad tend to lie outside of the Koran and the haddiths... even Mo had his own "non-dualistic" perceptions.

At 11/26/2006 9:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...but then again, it is curious that Ramadan and his fellow Egyptian "scholars" from the Al Azhar mosque (source of many jihadi's) tend to support this idea of further corrupting Islam as well...

At 11/26/2006 9:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...the Sunni scholars are not nearly as well organized as the Shi'a... no wonder the commies have made so much headway with them.

At 11/26/2006 11:16 AM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...


It seems to me that there is something distinctly Nietzschean about hallucinating a world that doesn't exist, and using that vision to criticize the world that actually does exist.

"The world would be a better place if it wasn't real."

At 11/26/2006 11:26 AM, Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

mr beamish put words to it that I could never have...EXACTLY!!!..thanks for sharing this AOW.

At 11/26/2006 11:30 AM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

I worded that badly. The Nietzschean observation comes from recognizing the left's "imagined world is better than the real world" nonsense for what it is.

At 11/26/2006 11:32 AM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

I'm something of an ontological optimist. We live in the best possible world right now, because our world exists.

At 11/26/2006 11:51 AM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

That said, the world can't be improved, only changed.

At 11/26/2006 11:54 AM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Who prefers the world be different that it is? What changes do they want? Would they be happy in a world they wouldn't want to change?

Farmer John really needs to be involved in this thread further... that's the change I'd make ;)

At 11/26/2006 12:01 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Imagine there's no John Lennons, writing insipid aphorisms...

At 11/26/2006 12:01 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

It isn't hard to do...

At 11/26/2006 12:03 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Nothing to squeal or cry for...

At 11/26/2006 12:03 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

And no cognitive dissonance too..

At 11/26/2006 12:06 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

Imagine all the people, living life in pieces

At 11/26/2006 12:07 PM, Blogger (((Thought Criminal))) said...

okay... FJ needs to do this free association thing, so I'll quiet myself for now.

At 11/26/2006 3:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, but I'm still way too full of turkey today to do any serious free associating... other than to drop in a little Plato from "Symposium":

And now, said Socrates, I will ask about Love:--Is Love of something or of nothing?

Of something, surely, he (Agathon) replied.

Keep in mind what this is, and tell me what I want to know--whether Love desires that of which love is.

Yes, surely.

And does he possess, or does he not possess, that which he loves and desires?

Probably not, I should say.

Nay, replied Socrates, I would have you consider whether 'necessarily' is not rather the word. The inference that he who desires something is in want of something, and that he who desires nothing is in want of nothing, is in my judgment, Agathon, absolutely and necessarily true. What do you think?

I agree with you, said Agathon.

Very good. Would he who is great, desire to be great, or he who is strong, desire to be strong?

That would be inconsistent with our previous admissions.

True. For he who is anything cannot want to be that which he is?

Very true.

And yet, added Socrates, if a man being strong desired to be strong, or being swift desired to be swift, or being healthy desired to be healthy, in that case he might be thought to desire something which he already has or is. I give the example in order that we may avoid misconception. For the possessors of these qualities, Agathon, must be supposed to have their respective advantages at the time, whether they choose or not; and who can desire that which he has? Therefore, when a person says, I am well and wish to be well, or I am rich and wish to be rich, and I desire simply to have what I have--to him we shall reply: 'You, my friend, having wealth and health and strength, want to have the continuance of them; for at this moment, whether you choose or no, you have them. And when you say, I desire that which I have and nothing else, is not your meaning that you want to have what you now have in the future?' He must agree with us--must he not?

He must, replied Agathon.

Then, said Socrates, he desires that what he has at present may be preserved to him in the future, which is equivalent to saying that he desires something which is non-existent to him, and which as yet he has not got:

Very true, he said.

Then he and every one who desires, desires that which he has not already, and which is future and not present, and which he has not, and is not, and of which he is in want;--these are the sort of things which love and desire seek?

Very true, he said.

At 11/26/2006 3:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Socrates speech (excerpt)...

'What then is Love?' I asked; 'Is he mortal?' 'No.' (replied Diotima) 'What then?' 'As in the former instance, he is neither mortal nor immortal, but in a mean between the two.' 'What is he, Diotima?' 'He is a great spirit (daimon), and like all spirits he is intermediate between the divine and the mortal.' 'And what,' I said, 'is his power?' 'He interprets,' she replied, 'between gods and men, conveying and taking across to the gods the prayers and sacrifices of men, and to men the commands and replies of the gods; he is the mediator who spans the chasm which divides them, and therefore in him all is bound together, and through him the arts of the prophet and the priest, their sacrifices and mysteries and charms, and all prophecy and incantation, find their way. For God mingles not with man; but through Love all the intercourse and converse of God with man, whether awake or asleep, is carried on. The wisdom which understands this is spiritual; all other wisdom, such as that of arts and handicrafts, is mean and vulgar.

At 11/26/2006 3:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and the Lefties are all materialists. They no nothing of love or things spiritual. Therefore, they know not themselves and can therefore never find Beauty, Happiness, or the Good. Yet they strive...

At 11/26/2006 3:56 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I'm still way too full of turkey today...

I must be too. I just got up from a nap of several hours. Well, Sunday is a day of rest.

Mr. Beamish,

Looks like while I was sleeping, you were singing a song. Hehehe.

At 11/26/2006 3:56 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I have some comments to catch up on here. Caffeine, please.

At 11/26/2006 4:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...for they ARE the discontents referred to in Freud's "Civilization and its' Discontents". The caged animals of Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals" who wish to unleash their animal instincts and salve their "bad consciences" through the cup of forgettfullness (ala Herber Marcuse) instead of learning to curb and control them...

The man who, from lack of external enemies and resistances and forcibly confined to the oppressive narrowness and punctiliousness of custom, impatiently lacerated, persecuted, gnawed at, assaulted, and maltreated himself; this animal that rubbed itself raw against the bars of its cage as one tried to "tame" it; this deprived creature, racked with homesickness for the wild, who had to turn himself into an adventure, a torture chamber, an uncertain and dangerous wilderness—this fool, this yearning and desperate prisoner became the inventor of the "bad conscience." But thus began the gravest and uncanniest illness, from which humanity has not yet recovered, man's suffering of man, of himself—the result of a forcible sundering from his animal past, as it were a leap and plunge into new surroundings and conditions of existence, a declaration of war against the old instincts upon which his strength, joy, and terribleness had rested hitherto.

Let us add at once that, on the other hand, the existence on earth of an animal soul turned against itself, taking sides against itself, was something so new, profound, unheard of, enigmatic, contradictory, and pregnant with a future that the aspect of the earth was essentially altered. Indeed, divine spectators were needed to do justice to the spectacle that thus began and the end of which is not yet in sight—a spectacle too subtle, too marvelous, too paradoxical to be played senselessly unobserved on some ludicrous planet! From now on, man is included among the most unexpected and exciting lucky throws in the dice game of Heraclitus' "great child," be he called Zeus or chance; he gives rise to an interest, a tension, a hope, almost a certainty, as if with him something were announcing and preparing itself, as if man were not a goal but only a way, an episode, a bridge, a great promise.

A man with spannungbogen... a bridge between two towers... a tightrope... A dangerous over-crossing and self-surpassing in search of immortality, fame, greatness... instead of taking the well worn path. Children. Family. Men w/disdain for the safe path. Men who recklessly unleash their hatred upon others, instead of upon themselves. Men who do not understand the true nature of love.

At 11/26/2006 4:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...they try and free themselves. They seek Freedom from law or custom. They seek small "h" happiness... the happiness that comes from the satisfaction of an animal's instincts, not the Capital "H" Happiness born of the repudiation and sublimation and loving satisfaction of these instincts in a human manner.

They claim to be humanists... but have no understanding of what Humanity entails.

At 11/26/2006 4:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How to create the culture necessary to tame the animal man or maintain the tamed animal man within the confines of a civilization once tamed.

All men look alike to me... as if the difference were something visible to a biologist.

At 11/26/2006 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry... I tend to go into rant mode every so often.

At 11/26/2006 9:45 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

there are a lot in America who would welcome the presence of this destructive evil.

Perhaps, in the end, it does all come down to resentment and jealousy. Did those two emotions motivate Cain to kill Abel? Maybe the story of Cain and Abel can serve as a metaphor for the 21st Century.

At 11/26/2006 10:07 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I love the fact that the Left argues against ALL religions on the one hand (not scientific)... and then supports Islamicists like Ramadan who aim at filling the sectarian spiritual void has been left in the wake of their anti-religions policy.

One thing about the Left....You can't count on consistency when it comes to that spiritual void: they deny the void but embrace Islam, which seeks to fill the void that doesn't exist.

My head hurts from trying to wrap my mind around that one.

At 11/26/2006 10:09 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I didn't use MIM, but the roundup there includes some of the materials I coincidentally used.

As to compelling evidence, we aren't compelled by the same evidence. No point in hashing that one out--it can't be hashed out.

At 11/26/2006 10:10 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Life Feathers,
"no religion can build a pluralistic society."

...This means you will embrace my religion and love it or die eventually.

Right. And Islam is more than a religion anyway. It's all-encompassing.

At 11/26/2006 10:11 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Don't apologize for your "rant." But it's late, so I'll have to come back later to read all of it.

At 11/26/2006 10:13 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I refuse to offer ANY open dialogue with Muslims, period.

Muslims refuse to have any open and forthright dialogue with infidels. "Be not friends with infidels," or something like that.

As to talking out of both sides, there is a long Islamic tradition of that. Tariq just ties a nice bow on his version--a bow which has made him the darling of the leftists in Europe.

At 11/26/2006 10:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unless Muslims accept some fundamental human rights for all people - Jews, Christians and all other infidels. there is no beginning to discussion. ONe must have some common ground on the idea of the human person - otherwise WHAT are we talking about?


Post a Comment

<< Home