It is really tragic, in my mind, to see the world of intellectual scholarship damaged by the "War on Terror." In a recent court case, the U.S. Government's decision to revoke Professor Tariq Said Ramadan's visa, thereby barring him from accepting a position at Notre Dame University, was upheld.
Ramadan, a Muslim Swiss professor of Islamic Studies, is a controversial character -- his statements on what he perceives as "human rights violations" on the part of the Israeli state have brought him under suspicion of anti-semitism, and he has been vocally critical of the Iraq invasion -- but the revocation had nothing to do with any of these positions. His visa was revoked because he gave money, over a period ending in 2002, to two Swiss charities set up to aid Palestinians. The U.S. declared the charities "terrorist funding organizations" in 2003, a year after Ramadan quit donating to them. This is the sole reason (at least the sole stated reason) for denying him the visa; the government mentioned that he "should reasonably have known" that the organizations funded terrorists. Ramadan pointed out that it would have been hard for him to have known before the government itself did, and I have to admit he has a point there.
Now, the ironic thing is that Ramadan has been speaking out his whole career about Euro-Muslim identity and the urgent need for Muslims to use non-violence, give up the death penalty, and respect the laws of whatever nation they reside in. He encourages them to respect the freedom of religion they are given in the West and not worry that Westerners drink alcohol or tolerate pre-marital sex, since none of this is forced on any Muslim. He strongly condemned the 9/11 attacks, called for punishment to be wreaked on the perpatrators, and has specifically spoken out against suicide bombing. Goodness, he even said that Muslim anger at Pope Benedict XVI's (in)famous speech was disproportionate and made Muslims look bad.
So this leaves, in my view, three things to object to:
1. The official reason -- Ramadan did not anticipate, by at least one full year, the U.S.'s discovery that two charities he gave a thousand bucks to subsequently gave some money to Hamas;
2. The fact that Ramadan opposes U.S. foreign policy, indicating a desire to admit only those scholars deemed ideologically sound by the oh-so-scholarly Bush administration;
or 3. His last name is Ramadan, and we know that is some scary thing that terrorists celebrate. If he would just change that name to something nice, like "Wolfowitz" or "Mukasey" . . . . . .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I do think it's pretty absurd to deny someone a professorship on account of a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument like that. It's not like he joined an organization that the government later discovered supported terrorism.
Mom mentioned that this makes a good argument for smaller government--a more local governmental structure could have applied logic to the case at hand rather than makind a blanket rule that ends up being unjust. :-)
Things like this always remind me of Lewis's assesment that sins always come in pairs of extremes. On the one hand, we have knee-jerk cases like Ramadan's, and on the other we have deliberate attempts to turn a blind eye to the real Islamic threats.
I agree, also, that this is strong argument in favor of smaller government. It seems that the larger grows the government, the duller grow its wits and the hammier grow its fists.
*assessment, I meant to say, of course.
Post a Comment