Nakhleh said not long ago, “political Islam is not a threat.” So obviously we must do nothing to impede its advance. “Muslim former CIA official details struggles,” by Susan Zalkind for the Daily Free Press, April 8 (thanks to CJK):
Nakhleh spoke Tuesday at the Castle Tuesday evening to promote his book, “A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America’s Relations with the Muslim World.”
“We need to understand the Muslim world much better,” Nakhleh said. “It is a matter of national security.”
Where?
The CIA, on the other hand, made the distinction “between terrorism and the larger Islamic community,” he said.
But of course, that isn’t what he meant at all. By saying that in contrast to the Bush Administration, the CIA made the distinction “between terrorism and the larger Islamic community,” Nakhleh is implying that efforts to impede the jihad in the United States -- efforts that led to the thwarting of the Fort Dix plot, the JFK airport plot, the Sears Tower plot, and so many others -- unfairly targeted the Muslim community, and thus must be scrapped. Better we be sitting ducks for the jihadists than that we be politically incorrect, eh?
As it turns out, the only intelligence in existence against the scholar was newspaper clippings in his file, “but because it was an intelligence file, it had some sort of aura,” Nakhleh said.
In Brother Tariq Caroline Fourest examines Ramadan’s positions and actions in immense detail, and concludes that he is “remaining scrupulously faithful to the strategy mapped out by his grandfather, a strategy of advance stage by stage” toward the imposition of Sharia in the West. Ramadan’s grandfather, of course, was Hasan Al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the group dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”
Of course, it couldn’t have anything to do with any core beliefs or assumptions in the Islamic world. It is solely the fault of American policies. The idea that one should fight against Jews and Christians simply because they are Jews and Christians (cf. Qur’an 9:29) -- why, that couldn’t possibly have anything to do with negative attitudes toward the West among Muslims?
Yes. If we call terrorism, or Islamic jihad, by another name, it will go away.
Wait a minute. Is he saying that the U.S. should ally with those who oppose our values but support our policies? Wouldn’t such alliances only be alliances of convenience that would just postpone the inevitable clash of values, and make it worse when it does inevitably come?
“We need to engage Islamic organizations,” Nakhleh said.
BU international relations professor Augustus Norton said he enjoyed listening to Nakhleh, who has a “reputation for being someone who is very courageous and outspoken.”
“I thought the idea that was the most interesting was the idea of creating an Islamic university here in the U.S.,” Norton said.
“I was pleasantly surprised that he talked about engaging the American-Muslim community,” Ali said.
University Professors postgraduate student Alex Zito said Nakhleh was a “breath of fresh air.”
“Especially after coming from the past regime that was so afraid of Islam, just to hear someone say that it is ok to form a relationship with Islam,” Zito said.
“You get these shows that are like, ‘Why won’t Islam agree with democracy?’ and that passes as discourse,” Zito said. “So to hear this guy not even bother to address that, but to talk about building a relationship instead was really refreshing.”
Nakhleh told The Daily Free Press that it is important not to confuse the totalitarianism in Islamic countries with the religion of Islam.
“It is not that Islam is inimical to democracy,” Nakhleh said. “It is that Islamic dictators are inimical to democracy.”
