Mr Blair's Muslim advisers

[Adrian II]

Last Sunday The Times reported that advisers appointed by Tony Blair after the London bombings have proposed to him ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1775068,00.html) to scrap the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day because it is offensive to Muslims. Apparently, they want to replace it with a Genocide Day that would recognise the mass murder of Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya and Bosnia as well as people of other faiths. It seems that Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, is backing the proposal.

Now The Telegraph is reporting (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VQJ3IOZPCTONNQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2005/09/12/nthom12.xml) that another adviser of Blair, Mr Ahmad Thomson of the Association of Muslim Lawyers, thinks the Prime Minister has fallen victim to a ‘sinister group of Jews and Freemasons’. According to Mr Thomson, ‘pressure was put on Tony Blair before the invasion [of Iraq]. The way it works is that pressure is put on people to arrive at certain decisions. It is part of the Zionist plan and it is shaping events.’ The paper also reports that Mr Thomson wrote a book in 1994 in which he said Freemasons and Jews controlled the governments of Europe and America and described the claim that six million Jews died in the Holocaust as a ‘big lie’.

With these advisers, does Mr Blair need any terrorists at all?

[English assassin]

Alas, this is the same Sir Iqbal Sacranie, knighted because he was the acceptable face of moderate Islam, who said of Salman Rushdie that death was in many ways too easy for him.

Yes, we are in trouble.

[Geoffrey S]

Yeah, I caught these in the Telegraph.

Last Sunday The Times reported that advisers appointed by Tony Blair after the London bombings have proposed to him to scrap the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day because it is offensive to Muslims. Apparently, they want to replace it with a Genocide Day that would recognise the mass murder of Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya and Bosnia as well as people of other faiths. It seems that Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, is backing the proposal.

I can vaguely see some sort of logic to this. "The message of the Holocaust was ‘never again’, and for that message to have practical effect on the world community it has to be inclusive. We can never have double standards in terms of human life." Sounds okay to me, but these advisors blow any credibility out of the water by tying this proposal to some perceived anti-Muslim bias. I do however believe that there are many other cases of genocide which need to be publicly recognized, which could be achieved by a day (or preferably a week) dedicated to showing the various forms of genocide performed in the past and present; purely using such a proposal to bash Jews as these advisors are doing is most certainly not appropriate.

The statement by Thomson is clearly ludicrous. What a man like that is doing advising the prime minister is anyone's guess.

[Proletariat]

McCarthy piles on.


Meanwhile, the Guardian reported last week that the 7/7 attacks appear only to have strengthened the resolve of those in Blair's government hell-bent on a strategy of "engagement" with militant Islam — gripped by the delusion that such cross-pollination will eventually transform the jihadists rather than sustain the alarming transformation of England itself. Thus they are moving toward approval of a visa allowing the reentry of Shiekh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an influential Mulsim Brotherhood cleric (and a trustee of the Oxford University Center for Islamic Studies) who supports suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel, the stoning of homosexuals, wife-beating, female genital mutilation, and other charming aspects of the Islamist agenda.

It's a good thing the Brits are only "tackling" extremism. Who knows what they would do if they decided to start promoting it?

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200509120806.asp

[King Ragnar]

Gah Muslims trying to tell us British how to run or country, what a joke the government has turned into. It should only be British people allowed to have any say in how our country is run.

[Dâriûsh]

If this Iqbal Sacranie actually supported the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie, why then has he not been sacked? Such a man should certainly not hold such an important post.



Gah Muslims trying to tell us British how to run or country, what a joke the government has turned into. It should only be British people allowed to have any say in how our country is run. If they are citizens, are they not British too? Or does citizenship only apply to white Protestants?

[King Ragnar]

I am not relgious nor did i say anything about colour of skin, i just beleive it is wrong that they are trying to change our ways they are guest in my country and should respect everyone and thing and learn the way of our culture.

[GoreBag]

They're not guests. They're as British as you are.

[King Ragnar]

They're not guests. They're as British as you are.

Your joking right?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

NeonGod:
Other than holding citizenship (and thus being able to say you are "British"), does Britishness not imply certain cultural traits that are not automatically displayed by every Tom, Dick and Harry who aquires a passport?

[Adrian II]

If this Iqbal Sacranie actually supported the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie, why then has he not been sacked? Such a man should certainly not hold such an important post.More importantly, who does he represent? According to Rushdie, who is putting up a fine fight at the moment (he just has another great op-ed in The Times), Mr Sacranie is totally irrelevant in the bigger frame of British islam.

[Adrian II]

McCarthy piles on.It is a pity he calls Tariq Ramadan some ugly names mainly because on account of his father who was a co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has gone through changes, and so has Mr Ramadan. I have spoken to him on several occasions and he seemed quite OK to me.

As for his father, well, as John Kennedy used to say: 'We all have fathers, don't we?' And John Kennedy could know because he had one mother of a father. Eh wait... that can't be right...

Never mind... ~:cool:

Psst.. that Mr McCarthy himself doesn't happen to be the son of.. you know?...

[Dâriûsh]

More importantly, who does he represent? According to Rushdie, who is putting up a fine fight at the moment (he just has another great op-ed in The Times), Mr Sacranie is totally irrelevant in the bigger frame of British islam. He is chairman of the MCB. That means his words and actions still carry weight. And that is dangerous when he displays such an attitude towards free speech.

Maybe he uttered that nonsense to appease the Al-Muhajiroun. ~:rolleyes:

[Adrian II]

He is chairman of the MCB. That means his words and actions still carry weight. And that is dangerous when he displays such an attitude towards free speech.I know, but Rushdie would contend that the MCB does not really represent anyone either. Of course hate speech remains hate speech, even from the mouth of a (hypothetically) isolated Iqbal.

[GoreBag]

NeonGod:
Other than holding citizenship (and thus being able to say you are "British"), does Britishness not imply certain cultural traits that are not automatically displayed by every Tom, Dick and Harry who aquires a passport?

Passport? No. Being born and raised there? Yes.

[sharrukin]

His maternal grandfather, an Egyptian, is Hassan Al-Banna, who in 1929 founded the Muslim Brotherhood, the most important Islamist movement of the twentieth century. His father, an exile in Geneva, was one of its most active promoters. And his brother Hani – with whom Tariq denies having connections – directs, also in Geneva, an Islamic center accused of contact with the terrorist network of Al-Qaeda...

"I then came back to Geneva and completed a PhD in Arabic and Islamic Studies. The focus was on Islamic Reformism, with special reference to Hasan al-Banna. This formed the basis of my book, Aux Sources de Renouveau Musulman (To the Sources for Muslim Revival). That said, my first teacher was my father." Tariq Ramadan

His text was so unequivocally favorable to Hassan Al-Banna that the professors of the nearby university of Fribourg, refused to grant him a diploma. Tariq then had himself admitted to the university of Geneva, where a jury from the Faculty of Letters grantrd him a doctorate.

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." Hassan Al-Turabi hosted Osama bin Laden and was the mentor of Al-Qaeda’s strategist, the Egyptian Ayman Al-Zawahiri.

French counterintelligence officers had grown so suspicious of Hani and Tariq Ramadan's surreptitious links with the Brotherhood that both, being Swiss subjects, were refused visas to enter 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. As part of an investigation into an Al-Qaeda cell in Spain, he was named as one of the “usual contacts” for Ahmed Brahim, considered to be one of Al-Qaeda’s treasurers indicted in April 2002 by magistrate Garzon.

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 Tariq Ramadan. This took place in 1994 and Tariq Ramadan claimed that he didn't begin teaching until 1997 however;

- Péril islamiste? (with Alain Gresh) (Complexe, 1995)
- Islam, le face à face des civilisations, Quel projet pour quel modernité? (Les deux Rives, 1995, 2000)
- Les musulmans dans la laïcité, responsabilités et droits des musulmans dans les sociétés occidentales (Tawhid, 1994, 2001)

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.

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. Hani Ramadan, an Islamist theoretician who endorses stoning for adultery and considers AIDS to be a divine punishment from god. Paris daily Le Monde ("The Ill-Understood Sharia") Hani Ramadan stated that the stoning of adulterous women was fully justified "not only as a punishment, but as a purification." Tariq Ramadan was asked by France's minister of the interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, if he approved of his brother's stance. He suggested a “total and absolute moratorium, to give us the time to go back to our fundamental texts… and to determine precisely the necessary conditions”.

Mr. Ramadan's address appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank, an organization the State Department accuses of supporting Islamist terrorism.

Asked by the Italian magazine Panorama if the killing of civilians is right, Mr. Ramadan unambiguously responded that "In Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, there is a situation of oppression, repression and dictatorship. It is legitimate for Muslims to resist fascism that kills the innocent."

Ramadan wrote the magazine, alleging that it misquoted him. Unfortunately for Ramadan, the interview with him was taped. So he is clearly willing to lie when it suits his purposes.

“Taqiyya” is the religiously-sanctioned doctrine, with its origins in Shi’a Islam but now practiced by non-Shi’a as well, of deliberate dissimulation about religious matters that may be undertaken to protect Islam, and the Believers.

As an advisor he doesn't really seem like the wisest choice, and if he was Christian or Jewish, he wouldn't have a snowballs chance in Hades of being considered for such a post!

[Marcellus]

Passport? No. Being born and raised there? Yes.

Exactly. The idea that all British muslims are completely alien to our culture and are generally outsiders is quite simply absurd.

[Adrian II]

Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is "any certain proof" that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.Yes, I recognize all the usual nonsense about Ramadan. Bad research, paranoid conclusions.

I picked out this particular accusation because it has been used over and over in the U.S. on the authority of people like Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2043), who is fervently pro-Israel and therefore has an axe to grind with Ramadan.

His evidence that Ramadan denies Bin Laden's culpability for 9/11 consists of an interview given by Ramadan and published on 22 September, 2001. That was just over a week after the Twin Towers attack, a time when nobody could claim to know exactly what went on and western intelligence services, including the Americans, were groping for information.

Here is the original text as published by that magazine, the village paper La Gruyère. Shall we translate together, Sharrukin? Close your ears, children, for you are about to hear the hate-filled words of an islamist lunatic...


Ben Laden est-il bien le principal responsable des récentes attaques contre New York?

Tariq Ramadan: Jusqu’à maintenant, les enquêteurs n’ont pas apporté de preuves définitives et claires de sa culpabilité. La probabilité est grande, mais quelques questions demeurent sans réponse: la différence entre l’extrême sophistication en amont et le cumul des maladresses après l’attentat est impressionnante. Pourquoi laisser de pareilles traces et ne pas revendiquer ces attentats? Il y a encore trop d’incohérences pour que l’on puisse déjà désigner définitivement les coupables. Mais quels qu’ils soient, Ben Laden ou un autre, il faut qu’on les trouve et qu’on les juge.
Translation:

Is Bin Laden indeed the prime suspect of the recent attacks against New York?

Tariq Ramadan: Until now detectives have not brought definitive and clear evidence of his responsability. It is highly probable, but some questions remain unanswered: the contrast between the extreme sophistication before and the cumulation of blunders after the attack is impressive. Why leave such traces and yet not claim the attack? There are still too many incoherences for us to point conclusively at the perpetrators at this stage. But whoever they are, Bin Laden or someone else, it is necessary that they are found and put on trial.

[Navaros]

With these advisers, does Mr Blair need any terrorists at all?

the implication of your original post seems to be that Mr. Blair's "Muslim Advisers' should not actually be Koran-believing Muslims, but instead they should be yes-men who claim to be Muslim despite the fact that they do not care at all about what the Koran truly says.

i respect that for once there are Muslim Advisers who are not yes-men like that

of course Blair will probably just keep replacing them until he does get such yes-men. that's obviously his only purpose in having "Muslim Advisers". he does not care about Muslims. it's just a PR stunt.

[Adrian II]

the implication of your original post seems to be that Mr. Blair's "Muslim Advisers' should not actually be Koran-believing Muslims, but instead they should be yes-men who claim to be Muslim despite the fact that they do not care at all about what the Koran truly says.Tariq Ramadan is also a Blair adviser and a Quran scholar. The so-called Quran-believers that you are so fond of might take a leaf from Mr Ramadan's views on the Quran and anti-semitism:


To my regret, anti-Semitic utterances have been heard not only from frustrated and confused young Muslims, but also from certain Muslim intellectuals and imams, who in every crisis or political backsliding see the hand of the `Jewish lobby.' There is nothing in Islam that gives legitimization to Judeophobia, xenophobia and the rejection of any human being because of his religion or the group to which he belongs. Anti-Semitism has no justification in Islam, the message of which demands respect for the Jewish religion and spirit, which are considered a noble expression of the People of the Book.
[..]
The social and political forces in the Muslim communities must act to educate toward the delegitimization of elements of anti-Semitism. Leaders and imams have the responsibility to disseminate an unequivocal message about the profound connections between Islam and Judaism and Islam's recognition of Moses and the Torah. Despite what is happening today in Israel and Palestine, despite [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's policy, despite the feelings of anger and frustration - those responsible for all the Muslim political and social organizations must open a clear dialogue that distinguishes between criticism of Israel's policy, and anti-Semitic and Judeophobic statements and actions. This is lacking today and this is a great responsibility.

Source: Ramadan in 2002 in Haaretz (http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=168205)

[sharrukin]

Yes, I recognize all the usual nonsense about Ramadan. Bad research, paranoid conclusions.

I picked out this particular accusation because it has been used over and over in the U.S. on the authority of people like Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2043), who is fervently pro-Israel and therefore has an axe to grind with Ramadan.

It is not only the US who is saying these things but many French scholars and French intelligence agencies as well. His connections to extremist groups is entirely too close for him to be the best choice as an advisor to a head of state.

Why is in not possible to find an actual moderate muslim advisor? The definition of a moderate muslim seems to be one who doesn't actually carry out terrorist attacks. That seems to be part of a rather low opinion of muslims in general. There ARE moderate muslims and we do a disservice to them by pandering to more extreme groups.

This guy if he was an advisor to Bush and a Christian with a similar attitude would be just as unacceptable.

[Adrian II]

It is not only the US who is saying these things but many French scholars and French intelligence agencies as well. His connections to extremist groups is entirely too close for him to be the best choice as an advisor to a head of state.Scholars and intelligence agencies my foot. Here is Ramadan's point by point refutation (http://www.tariqramadan.com/article.php3?id_article=0068&lang=en).

Ramadan is the sort of person we need in this situation, one who can build bridges yet is not afraid to speak his mind.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hehe, a Genocide Day? Jewish Freemason conspiracies? Holocaust denials? And these are supposed to be moderate muslims?

After the attacks, why in the world would he let muslims influence him?~:confused:

[Adrian II]

Hehe, a Genocide Day? Jewish Freemason conspiracies? Holocaust denials? And these are supposed to be moderate muslims?

After the attacks, why in the world would he let muslims influence him? ~:confused:Remember that the selfsame Sacranie said in 1989 that 'death is too easy' for Salman Rushdie. But the shoe is on the other foot these days and Rushdie is on a roll. Has anybody read his new novel Shalimar the Clown yet? Read it. Anyway, as Rushdie wrote some weeks ago in a scorching op-ed (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050814/asp/opinion/story_5094974.asp) in The Telegraph: 'If Sir Iqbal Sacranie is the best Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem. The Sacranie case illustrates the weakness of the Blair government’s strategy of relying on traditional, but essentially orthodox, Muslims to help eradicate Islamist radicalism.'

[Beirut]

Panzer,

Your PM box is full, so I have to ask you here to edit your comment about Muslims, it does not comply with Org. rules.

Thank you.

[Proletariat]

Whoops, nevermind.

[Proletariat]

It is a pity he calls Tariq Ramadan some ugly names mainly because on account of his father who was a co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has gone through changes, and so has Mr Ramadan. I have spoken to him on several occasions and he seemed quite OK to me.


I don't know much about him, but I'm looking forward to you and sharrukin sorting it out.



As for his father, well, as John Kennedy used to say: 'We all have fathers, don't we?' And John Kennedy could know because he had one mother of a father. Eh wait... that can't be right...


How far does apple fall, again?



Psst.. that Mr McCarthy himself doesn't happen to be the son of.. you know?...

Touche! (But seriously, who knows. I was wondering in which way that would be brought up.)

[Strike For The South]

Wow what hiphopocrsy take out the holiday for the jews becuase its offensive but put ours in there becuase were represed :wall:

[Incongruous]

I think the message some people are trying to get across is.

If you come to live in Britain, you are expected to accept it's society and history. I believ that, if you were born in Britain you are British among all other titles, to not be so is slapping the rest of Britain in the face and saying "thanks for allowing me to grow up in your society and recieving this education, thanks for giving me a job. But well, I feel more Pakistani (or wherever their family derives from) than British so I am going to start to mouth off about what's wrong with Britain, how much it neglects minorities".
I'm sorry but this sort of thing deos not stand, the fact is that immigranst and first generation Brits should be bloody thankful they live in the country and are not at the monent being shot in soem god awfull third world nation.

I am not immigrant bashing (my mother has no British blood in her) but sometimes some of the things that are said annoy me.

[Devastatin Dave]

My, my, quite a bit of intolerance here, especially coming from our usual preachers of tolerance. My, my...

BTW Beirut, how much editing will be required for all the folks that continuosly slam Christians? Suprise, suprise, there is only one religion that is allowed to be criticised, but you can't touch the sacred cow (no offence to any Hindus) Islam. :dizzy2:

[Adrian II]

I'm sorry but this sort of thing does not stand, the fact is that immigranst and first generation Brits should be bloody thankful they live in the country and are not at the monent being shot in soem god awfull third world nation.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/features/people/images/thomson.jpg
Ahmad Thomson

"I was christened Martin, and I was brought up as a
Christian. My Muslim name was actually given to me by
the director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London. He
opened the Qur'an and he looked and he seemed a bit
surprised and he closed it and he opened it again, and
then he smiled and he said 'your name is Ahmed'."

[PanzerJaeger]

I havent been able to edit my posts in a long time.

Sad thing is.. i toned that remark way down.. :no:

Considering the fact that the British Government selected these guys as the "moderates" - the same guys that dont believe the holocaust happened - does make one question their mental abilities.. im not sayin, im just sayin.. :thinking:

[Beirut]

\

BTW Beirut, how much editing will be required for all the folks that continuosly slam Christians?
:dizzy2:

Perhaps quite a bit.

[BDC]

If you're born in Britain, you're British. So your opinion counts. Even if it is stupid.

Just look at the Daily Mail...

[Meneldil]

I don't hold Ramadan really high in my thought. Someone who claim he's Muslim before being French doesn't really help integration of young muslim people into a modern western-like society.

I mean, when you meet a foreigner, you wouldn't say 'I'm Christian. Oh, and yeah, I live somewhere in Europe. I think that's France or something like that'.

[Adrian II]

I don't hold Ramadan really high in my thought. Someone who claim he's Muslim before being French doesn't really help integration of young muslim people into a modern western-like society.You do not hold him very high because he is not first and foremost French? And for that reason alone you think he does not help integration?

Why would he want to be French? He is just an academic who has been invited to teach in France. And heck, even I feel more European than Dutch. Tariq Ramadan is first and foremost a European. I think his ideas about an Islamic renewal on European soil, as opposed to the backward litteralism preached in most Arab countries, are helpful. And he has a young intellectual following. In my eyes Ramadan deserves more respect than the ridiculous circus of the French Council of the Muslim Cult. Mr Boubakeur and his cronies do not represent anyone in any real sense; their so-called 'elections' were rigged from back to front. They look very much like Mr Sacranie & Co.

[Meneldil]

I don't care if he considers himself french, british, european or even chinese, but he already claimed (and more than once) that he was 'first and foremost' a muslim.

I really don't agree with this point of view. I'm not much of a nationalistic (sp?) man, and I also consider myself as an european, and I have a hard time understanding how being part of some religious sect is more important than being citizen of a given nation.
Furthermore, that claim (that he was first and foremost muslim) was recorded on a video tape intended to be bought by young french muslims. They already don't consider themselves french, and making that sort of claim won't help.

Now, I do not disagree with everything he said, but I consider some of his speech to be quite ambiguous.

[Watchman]

BTW Beirut, how much editing will be required for all the folks that continuosly slam Christians? Suprise, suprise, there is only one religion that is allowed to be criticised, but you can't touch the sacred cow (no offence to any Hindus) Islam.Well you know Dave, it might have something to do with the way how so many of us have grown up with first-hand experiences of Christianity. Many of us come from countries with honest-to-Dog state churches. We're sort of allowed to bad-mouth it, seeing as how whether we want it or not it's very much "our thing" - the "western" cultural sphere has been rabidly Christian for some one and half millenia now, so all of us who have grown up inside said culture-sphere are more or less intimately familiar with it.

I mean, I too had to listen to all those tedious morning prayers and the like in the annoyingly right-wing schools I had the ducious honor of completing my primary education in, quite regardless of whether I wanted it or not.
Granted, I *could* have waited outside too, but I may perhaps be excused for not being willing to go to all that trouble.

Since Christianity is so very much "our thing" we know rather well, we're thus qualified to criticize it to our hearts' content.

Islam, conversely, is for most of us someone else's religion which we ultimately don't know all that much about but which those someones in any case tend to take quite seriously (much the same way Westerners took Christianity as only about a century or so ago, really). That makes it a fair bit less acceptable to slam it with the same cheerful gusto as "our" faith. It's sort of like how it's okay to criticize one's own appereance, but starting on that of others gets pretty rude pretty fast... Moreover, Islam and its of-foreign adherents are already in the teeth of assorted racists, bigots, intolerant jerks and boorish conservatives, most often without any trace of justification.

That makes it sort of socially unacceptable to be too hard on it.

Tell you what, though. How about you sometime try to talk about, say, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism in the same tones you right-wingers usually discuss Islam with ? I'm pretty sure you'll get shot down with about the same alacrity, by pretty much the very same people, for pretty much the very same reasons...

I know I would.

[sharrukin]

The guy seems to have numerous connections with various terrorist individuals and organizations. Too many for your average professor.

He does not believe the secular West and Islamic East can co-exist and see's the west as dar al-dawa (house of invitation) a land to be converted.

Caroline Fourest regarding Tariq Ramadan in his cassette's.
It specifies indeed that it is necessary to respect the Constitution and the law as from the moment when "all that in this country, from a point of view social, cultural, economic and legal, is not opposed to an Islamic principle" Cassette de Tariq Ramadan, Vivre en Occident: les cinq fondements de notre présence, partie II, QA 40, Tawhid.

The response of Tariq Ramadan is clear: a Moslem respects the laws of a country as long as this framework is not opposed to an Islamic principle! Always in this cassette, it insists: "All that in the culture in which we live does not oppose to Islam, one can take it." Cassette de Tariq Ramadan, Vivre en Occident: les cinq fondements de notre présence, partie II, QA 40, Tawhid.

Caroline Fourest author of Frère Tariq (Brother Tariq) says "Ramadan est un chef de guerre" (“Ramadan is a war leader”)

"He radicalizes the Muslims under his influence by introducing them to the thought of Hassan al-Banna (this constitutes the introduction to his recorded seminars), then he brings them into contact with the present-day ideologues of the Muslim Brotherhood: Youssef al-Qaradhawi, one of the few Muslim theologians openly to approve suicide attacks, or Fayçal Mawlawi, who is not only a Muslim Brother, but also the principal chief of a Lebanese terrorist organization." Caroline Fourest

Sheikh Faisal Mawlawi is the the Secretary General of Al-Jama`ah al-Islamiyyah situated in Lebanon.

"I was struck by the extent to which the discourse of Tariq Ramadan is often just a repetition of the discourse that Banna had at the beginning of the 20th century in Egypt. He never criticizes his grandfather. On the contrary, he presents him as a model to be followed, a person beyond reproach, non-violent and unjustly criticized because of the "Zionist lobby"! This sends chills down one's spine when one knows the extent to which Banna was a fanatic, that he gave birth to a movement out of which the worst Jihadis (like Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number 2 man of Al-Qaeda) have emerged and that he wanted to establish a theocracy in every country having a single Muslim. Tariq Ramadan claims that he is not a Muslim Brother." Caroline Fourest

The Brotherhood is a secret society so those who are members obviously deny their involvement. This does not mean he is a member but he is certainly a candidate for membership.

In public literature, Ramadan writes “A Muslim resident or citizen of a country must observe the laws of the country where he is established.” However, in audio tapes he distributes within the Muslim community, he declares that a Muslim can only observe the laws of the country if they are not in principal in opposition to Islam.

The ideological model for bin Laden's chief lieutenant, the Egyptian doctor Ayman al-Zawahiri, was Said Ramadan's close Muslim Brotherhood colleague, Sayyid Qutb--considered one of the intellectual heroes, furthermore, of the Islamic Foundation, at Leicester, near London, where Tariq Ramadan spent a profitable "sabbatical year" in 1998, adding to his academic laurels by increasing his fluency in English.

And BTW Djamel Beghal (one of the guys arrested for plotting to bomb the US Embassy in Paris), the same guy Tariq Ramadan claims never to have met, was coincidentally living in Leicester in 1998. This is where Djamel Beghal also met his "spiritual leader" Abu Qutada. Beghal lived with his wife in Leicester, where he was close to Abu Hamza, a trusted associate of Abu Qutada. Beghal himself might have recruited the alleged 20th man, Zacarias Moussaui, as well as shoe bomber Richard Reid - not to mention Nizar Trabelsi, the former footballer later arrested in Belgium and connected to the plot to bomb the American embassy in Paris. Of course this is all coincidental except that Djamel Beghal claims to have links to Tariq Ramadan. Links that Tariq Ramadan denies.

Leicester's Islamic Foundation, was founded by Khurshid Ahmad, a senior figure in Jamaat-i-Islami. Jamaat-i-Islami activists in Pakistan have been involved in protests against images of women on advertisements in public places. The organizations founder, Maulana Maududi, was a fierce opponent of feminism who believed that women should be kept in purdah, secluded from male company. Operating in Kashmir and having strong links with the Jamaat-i-Islami is Hizbul Mujahideen. Its recruits are mainly from amongst the workers of the Jamaat's student wing, the Islami Jamiate Talaba.

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.”

Mr. Ramadan gave an interview in November 2003 to "Beur FM", France's communitarian radio station "for Muslims", and in which he openly identified himself with the rigorist "Salafist" current in Islam, claiming to be for a "salafist reformism". Only four months later at an UNESCO colloquium, when challenged by a prominent advocate of liberal Islam - of which Mme. Fourest is careful to point out there are many in France, but Mr. Ramadan is not one of them - Ramadan would protest: "I am not a Salafist! 'Salafi' means literalist and I am not a literalist."

Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) 39th Annual national convention in Washington, DC in 2002.
During a session on Islamic Jihad one panelist shouted, "We don't know how to stick to our principles. It's not time now to make excuses. We are not here to please the American people. Yes, Islam is a religion of peace, but Islam also has Jihad. It is wrong to say there is no violence in Islam; you are lying if you say that. In certain circumstances it is permitted." The panelist; Tariq Ramadan, professor of Philosophy and Islamic Studies

Tariq Ramadan on killing eight year old's

"I don't believe that an eight year old child is a soldier. These acts are condemnable; therefore one has to condemn them in themselves. But I say to the international community that they are contextually explicable, and not justifiable. What does this mean? It means that the international community today has placed the Palestinians in a situation where they are delivered political oppression, which explains (not justifying it) that at a certain point people say: we don't have arms, we don't have anything, and so we cannot do anything other than this. It is contextually explicable but morally condemnable."

-------------------------
Pipes notes that I 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.

Yes, I was indeed banned from entering France between November 1995 and April 1996, but a reason was never given for this ban, and it was later revealed to be a case of mistaken identity. I challenged the ban and won the case in 1996. Any assertion that this ban was for having "links with an Algerian Islamist" is baseless.

Well it is hardly surprising that the French intelligence agencies didn't trot out their sources at Tariq Ramadan's request.

And actually Tariq Ramadan says "A reason was never given for this ban, but we were later told it was a case of mistaken identity due to name resemblance with someone named "Tarek".

The names are used interchangeably so there is no case of mistaken identity here, but to be fair perhaps Tariq Ramadan isn't well versed in Arabic, and is unaware that the name TAREK is the anglicized form of TARIQ. Or perhaps this is just a cheap dodge.

The other possibility is the orchestrated protest campaign, which garnered 17,500 signatories --10,000 in France, 6,000 in Belgium, 1,500 in Switzerland--which was followed, just as inevitably, by the judgment of an administrative law court in Besancon, nullifying the Ministry of the Interior's interdiction.

Djamel Beghal, considered to be network leader, told the investigating magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière on October 1, 2001: “In 1994, I followed courses taught by Tarek Ramadan.”

Regarding the name; from a Muslim website The Muslim Association of Britain (MAB);
Hosted by London Mayor Ken Livingstone, the conference brought together 300 delegates, representing 102 British and international organizations as well as leading Muslim figures like Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and professor Tarek Ramadan.

From the Arabist Network (News and commentary from the Arab world by Arab world professionals) an article "On Tarek Ramadan"

Servizi-italiani.net - Arab press Sept-1 "British sources have disclosed that Her Majesty's government has chosen the Islamic intellectual of Egyptian origin, Tarek Ramadan, nephew of the founder of the Islamic Brotherhood Hassan al Banna, as advisor for the war on Islamic extremism in the United Kingdom. Tarek Ramadan, who has been banned from entering the United States is a Swiss citizen and lives in Geneva."

Of course if we are discussing Algerian Islamist's who might have initiated a terror campaign in Paris the Geneva Islamic Center comes to mind with links to the GIA (Armed Islamic Group). Tariq's older brother the lovable Hani Ramadan is the director of Geneva’s Islamic Center. Now Tariq has publically distanced himself from the center and his brother, claiming he is not involved with the Center. But that would not explain why he is still sitting on the Board of Directors. This may be why the French were less than enthused about Tariq paying a visit.
-----------------------------
Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al Qaeda activities, had "routine contacts" with me, according to a Spanish judge in 1999.

I was asked about contacts with this individual last year and I unequivocally denied ever meeting or speaking to him. This was investigated by Frederic Chambon, a reporter for the French daily newspaper Le Monde, who on Dec. 23, 2003, issued reports that Brahim’s daughter was able to confirm from her jailed father that he did not have contacts with me.

Wow, the daughter of an Al Qaeda operative gave him the thumbs up! Well who could ask for a better endorsement than that? Its not like the relatives of murderous Muslim fanatics might lie about things like this!

Ahmed Brahim phoned an official at the Tawhid bookstore in Lyon, which published Ramadan’s books. The conversation concerns the acquisition of blank audio cassettes and the invitation extended to young French citizens in Majorca to ‘work for the path of Allah.’

BTW his brother Hani Ramadan the radical brother, finances the publishing house Tawhid which publish's Tariq Ramadan’s books.
-------------------------
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 me.

When Djamel Beghal was first arrested in Dubai, he claimed that in 1994 he was attending my course and wrote my speeches. He changed his story when he was extradited to Paris and only claimed to have attended the course in 1994. That, too, was inaccurate since my courses did not start until 1997.

Djamel Beghal, considered to be network leader, told the investigating magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière on October 1, 2001: “In 1994, I followed courses taught by Tarek Ramadan.”

Now this may mean several things and Paris isn't mentioned. Taking one of Tariq Ramadan's audio cassette offerings may be what is meant. We would need the court transcripts to decide this as well as Tarek Ramadan's... excuse me Tariq Ramadan's movements for 1994.

During the mid-1990s, Tariq Ramadan established contact with a number of young Muslim admirers in Lyon, located conveniently close to Geneva, whose Tawhid (oneness of God) bookshop and publishing company from then on became the main distributor of his cassettes. Ramadan spent most of the 1990’s in France, preaching to the young Muslim community.
--------------------------------------------
My address, Pipes avers, appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank, an organization the State Department accuses of supporting Islamist terrorism.

In fact, neither my name nor my address appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank. I never met nor talked to its director.

Correct! The Ramadan FAMILY address appears in a register at the Al Taqwa bank as well as the Geneva Islamic Center (Tariq Ramadan being on the board of directors), but his personal name doesn't AFAIK, appear in the register. This is according to the lawyers of the World Trade Center victims.
-------------------------------
Is all this circumstantial? Well of course it is! How could it be otherwise.
Is this sufficient for reasonable people to say that this guy is carrying a lot of baggage with some very dubious connections? Without a doubt!
The French and American governments did not want this guy around for good reason.

It was a useful fiction to believe that there was a Chinese wall between the terrorists of the IRA and the leaders of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Provisional IRA. This may be exactly what we are looking at in regards to Tariq Ramadan.

Maybe he is in fact "The good son"...well in this family I suppose he would be the black sheep of the family if he was legitimate. His admiration for his grandfather and father, and the current connections to groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood (such as the UOIF from which he has now distanced himself) suggest he may be in fact "The good son". Meaning bad for us.

If an advisor to President Bush had these kind of blood connections to Mafia families there would be cause for concern. If he maintained the same kind of connections and associations with them that Tariq Ramadan does to the extremist elements of Islam, such an advisor would be lambasted by the critics as would any head of state that accepted him. If such an advisor had similar connections to Christian Fundamentalists and Militia groups, the reaction would be close to hysteria. However he is a Muslim, so he is called a moderate, and who knows perhaps it only looks bad and he is in fact what he claims to be. The point is that as an advisor he is totally unacceptable.

[Ser Clegane]

Islam, conversely, is for most of us someone else's religion which we ultimately don't know all that much about but which those someones in any case tend to take quite seriously (much the same way Westerners took Christianity as only about a century or so ago, really). That makes it a fair bit less acceptable to slam it with the same cheerful gusto as "our" faith. It's sort of like how it's okay to criticize one's own appereance, but starting on that of others gets pretty rude pretty fast... Moreover, Islam and its of-foreign adherents are already in the teeth of assorted racists, bigots, intolerant jerks and boorish conservatives, most often without any trace of justification.


I disagree - I do not think that any religion deserves "special treatment" on this board. Civilized critisism is allowed - be it on Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism.
Just "slamming" is not acceptable.

BTW, I noted that often Christians on this board are also subject to what you seem to call "bigots" or "intolerant jerks" without any trace of justification.

I suggest you keep the "slamming" and name-calling off this board.

[Watchman]

Eh, I was actually thinking about racists, bigots etc. in the "real world" - you should see some of the views people voice in the media about foreigners in general and Muslims in particular around here.

Although looking it over I can see it more or less seems to imply reference to people here too, which wasn't really the meaning.


BTW, I noted that often Christians on this board are also subject to what you seem to call "bigots" or "intolerant jerks" without any trace of justification.True enough. Boorish intolerance isn't something anyone has a monopoly on, and Christians receive their fair share of it.

[Devastatin Dave]

Eh, I was actually thinking about racists, bigots etc. in the "real world" - you should see some of the views people voice in the media about foreigners in general and Muslims in particular around here.

The real world where the only intolerant racist bigots are Christian and most likely white right?
~:handball:

[Devastatin Dave]

Tell you what, though. How about you sometime try to talk about, say, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism in the same tones you right-wingers usually discuss Islam with ? I'm pretty sure you'll get shot down with about the same alacrity, by pretty much the very same people, for pretty much the very same reasons...

I know I would.

Tell you what, I'll start with the Jews, Hindus, and Buddist when they start slamming planes into my country's buildings, beheading my fellow citizens, and when they demand that we either convert to Islam or suffer the sword. Now, again, I'm talking about the radical muslims, but to be far the "moderate" muslims have been way too silent while their brothers have declared all out war on the West and anyone else that believes in anything differently than them.

[Strike For The South]

Tell you what, I'll start with the Jews, Hindus, and Buddist when they start slamming planes into my country's buildings, beheading my fellow citizens, and when they demand that we either convert to Islam or suffer the sword. Now, again, I'm talking about the radical muslims, but to be far the "moderate" muslims have been way too silent while their brothers have declared all out war on the West and anyone else that believes in anything differently than them.

~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers: ~:cheers:

[AntiochusIII]

Tell you what, I'll start with the Jews, Hindus, and Buddist when they start slamming planes into my country's buildings, beheading my fellow citizens, and when they demand that we either convert to their respective religions or suffer the sword.Why would Buddhists, Jews, and Hindus wants everybody else they defeated converted to Islam?

Just to make sure. ~:)

[Adrian II]

The guy seems to have numerous connections with various terrorist individuals and organizations.There is a concerted effort to associate Tariq Ramadan with all sorts of extremist movements and individuals. This effort comes from leftist intellectuals and right-wing Muslims, both in France and elsewhere, who dont like his views and are disturbed by his popularity. If there is any proof I would be more than willing to look into it. I don't particularly share Mr Ramadan's views. But these claims about his terrorist contacts are all based on hearsay and your post is a case in point.
Wow, the daughter of an Al Qaeda operative gave him the thumbs up! Well who could ask for a better endorsement than that? Its not like the relatives of murderous Muslim fanatics might lie about things like this!Right. Why should we trust her testimony? But then, why do you propose that we trust the testimony of Jamel Beghal, who is equally an Al Qaeda operative? If we are not to trust Al Qaeda operatives as witnesses, then let us not introduce Al Qaeda operatives as witnesses through the backdoor.

Other accusations are based on twisting Tariq Ramadan's words. I already gave you a clear example with regard to Ramadan's interview of 22 September, 2001, on the attacks on the Twin Towers and Bin Laden's culpability. You have just provided us with another:

Tariq Ramadan on killing eight year olds

"I don't believe that an eight year old child is a soldier. These acts are condemnable; therefore one has to condemn them in themselves. But I say to the international community that they are contextually explicable, and not justifiable. What does this mean? It means that the international community today has placed the Palestinians in a situation where they are delivered political oppression, which explains (not justifying it) that at a certain point people say: we don't have arms, we don't have anything, and so we cannot do anything other than this. It is contextually explicable but morally condemnable."Well, what is wrong with this view? I subscribe to it 100%. I understand yet condemn Palestinian terror attacks. Are these words from Tariq supposed to prove that he 'supports' the killing of children? If this is the best you can do, you are doing your case a serious disservice.
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.”Now that really made me howl with laughter, indeed, I almost risked rolling onto the floor and losing my fundament as they say in America. You suppose that Boubakeur, of all people, can tell us who is the real fundamentalist?

Listen my friend. The shoddy, heavily manipulated elections of Mr Boubakeur's outfit, the French Council of the Muslim Cult, resulted in a disgusting victory for two reactionary Muslim groups. One of these is the UOIF -- the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France - which is known for its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and does get lots of financial support from Saudi Arabia. These are the forces of reaction that lie behind the radicalisation of Maghreb youth in France or Pakistani youth in Britain. Boubakeur is decidedly not one of the angels.

Of course these people want to discredit someone like Tariq Ramadan who visits Israel where he pleads for an end to the virulent anti-Semitism of traditional Muslims leaders and regimes. They are afraid of him. And so are the leftist French intellectuals like BHL and Glucksmann, who see that this rising star of an intellectual Islam is stealing their thunder and beating them at their own game.

As I said, I do not subscribe to most of Tariq Ramadan's views, I think he is inconsistent and that like so many modern-day islamic thinkers he is struggling with all sorts of issues with regard to his religion, his political affiliations, the position to be taken in various conflicts raging around us. But precisely for that reason I believe that if one needs advisers on issues and developments that turn British youth into islamist fanatics, he would certainly be among them.

[sharrukin]

There is a concerted effort to associate Tariq Ramadan with all sorts of extremist movements and individuals.

He is associated with radical groups but keeps his distance for obvious reasons.

Quote:
Tariq Ramadan on killing eight year olds

"I don't believe that an eight year old child is a soldier. These acts are condemnable; therefore one has to condemn them in themselves. But I say to the international community that they are contextually explicable, and not justifiable. What does this mean? It means that the international community today has placed the Palestinians in a situation where they are delivered political oppression, which explains (not justifying it) that at a certain point people say: we don't have arms, we don't have anything, and so we cannot do anything other than this. It is contextually explicable but morally condemnable."


Well, what is wrong with this view? I subscribe to it 100%. I understand yet condemn Palestinian terror attacks. Are these words from Tariq supposed to prove that he 'supports' the killing of children? If this is the best you can do, you are doing your case a serious disservice.

What is wrong with it is that blaming the oppressors for why they made the poor terrorists blow up little kids is nauseating. He is saying that Israel gave the Palestinians no real choice but to kill innocent people though of course he disapproves.

There is nothing understanable about killing eight year old children no matter how oppressed you think you are.



Listen my friend. The shoddy, heavily manipulated elections of Mr Boubakeur's outfit, the French Council of the Muslim Cult, resulted in a disgusting victory for two reactionary Muslim groups. One of these is the UOIF -- the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France - which is known for its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and does get lots of financial support from Saudi Arabia. These are the forces of reaction that lie behind the radicalisation of Maghreb youth in France or Pakistani youth in Britain. Boubakeur is decidedly not one of the angels.

Well the UOIF (Union des Organisations Islamiques de France) says it is a moderate group as well, and denies any links to Islamist ideology. Where have I heard that before? They to claim to have made a formal break with the Muslim Brotherhood. UOIF preachers and activists often cite Tariq Ramadan as their theological role model. Tariq Ramadan has a home and office in Saint-Denis, not far from the UOIF's headquarters in La Courneuve. Tariq Ramadan's prolific writings are found everywhere at the UOIF's annual congress. I simply do not see these two as being all that different and radical Muslims such as the UOIF seem to find Tariq Ramadan their sorta guy. That is cause for worry.



Of course these people want to discredit someone like Tariq Ramadan who visits Israel where he pleads for an end to the virulent anti-Semitism of traditional Muslims leaders and regimes.

And if anyone criticizes him he starts suggesting they are Jews, or "Communitarian Intellectuals" as he calls them.

"It is easy to see that their political positions respond to communitarian logics, as Jews or nationalists, as defenders of Israel."

IMO neither he nor the UOIF are what they claim to be.

[Papewaio]

He is associated with radical groups but keeps his distance for obvious reasons.

Quote:
Tariq Ramadan on killing eight year olds

"I don't believe that an eight year old child is a soldier. These acts are condemnable; therefore one has to condemn them in themselves. But I say to the international community that they are contextually explicable, and not justifiable. What does this mean? It means that the international community today has placed the Palestinians in a situation where they are delivered political oppression, which explains (not justifying it) that at a certain point people say: we don't have arms, we don't have anything, and so we cannot do anything other than this. It is contextually explicable but morally condemnable."


What is wrong with it is that blaming the oppressors for why they made the poor terrorists blow up little kids is nauseating. He is saying that Israel gave the Palestinians no real choice but to kill innocent people though of course he disapproves.


It is contextually explicable but morally condemnable.

That is the same as crimes of passion. Judges understand why a spouse will kill their spouse for cheating on them (contextually explicable) at the same time they find their actions wrong and sentence them for that (morally condemnable).

He is saying he understands the trigger points but disagrees with the reaction. Because as a human you can always choose your response to the environment. Too many of us choose a 'reflex/conditioned' reaction thinking that is all that is left to us.

[sharrukin]

It is contextually explicable but morally condemnable.

That is the same as crimes of passion. Judges understand why a spouse will kill their spouse for cheating on them (contextually explicable) at the same time they find their actions wrong and sentence them for that (morally condemnable).

He is saying he understands the trigger points but disagrees with the reaction. Because as a human you can always choose your response to the environment. Too many of us choose a 'reflex/conditioned' reaction thinking that is all that is left to us.

And when you spend weeks and months planning such murders do they still remain understandable given the context? I mean that these attacks are cold blooded acts of murder targeting the innocent and are not crimes of passion or reflex by any stretch.

To say that the Palestinian attacks against Israeli troops or infrastructure is understandable is one thing. Murdering women and children is a choice to do evil that they did not have to make, nor were they forced to make.

[Don Corleone]

I don't understand what the big deal is. I thought Europe hated Israel. Appointing a few advisors that stick it to the Israelis should be right up your alley, no?

Personally, if the British are dumb enough to let a few quasi-Al Queda guys have government roles, then you deserve what you're going to get in a year or two. Adrian's best defense so far is


Right. Why should we trust her testimony? But then, why do you propose that we trust the testimony of Jamel Beghal, who is equally an Al Qaeda operative? If we are not to trust Al Qaeda operatives as witnesses, then let us not introduce Al Qaeda operatives as witnesses through the backdoor.

My terrorist is more reliable then your terrorist?

God, it's time America retreated from world affairs again. Go ahead and screw you country up, just keep your foolish short sightedness out of ours.

[Incongruous]

Its what happens when you have an almost completely un-informed general populace, spinless Liberals trancing around London intulectual circles, feminised weirdos in government and a slimy cheese ball as a PM.

[Watchman]

The real world where the only intolerant racist bigots are Christian and most likely white right?
~:handball:
Heck no. Whoever gave you the idea ? I'm a firm believer in the equal right and capability of all human beings regardless of gender, skin color, religion, political affiliation or shoe size to be horrible narrow-minded little twerps. Myself included, although I do try to keep it down.

It's just that most of the ones *I* get to interact with tend to fulfill either or both of the categories you mentioned; but one doesn't need to follow the news particularly closely to be reassured their kindred spirits exist everywhere, or read history in particularly great detail to realize this has always been the case...

Case in point, our local Muslim minority, the Tatars, well settled and acclimated from around two hundred years back, despised their African co-religionist refugees from Somalia who arrived in the early Nineties with vehemence every bit the equal of the average Protestant Finn. Go fig.


Tell you what, I'll start with the Jews, Hindus, and Buddist when they start slamming planes into my country's buildings, beheading my fellow citizens, and when they demand that we either convert to Islam or suffer the sword.Right. Thank you for illustrating my point. Did it at any point occur to you that the aforementioned militants don't do said things because they're Muslims, but because they're militants ? They just scream "ALLAH AKBARRRR!!!!" (to exaggearte a fair bit) on the side because they happen to be both militants and Muslims at the same time.

As anyone even slightly familiar with North Ireland or the more radical Zionists of Israel will be able to tell you, militants of Christian or Judaic or whatever affiliation aren't a markedly more wholesome bunch. The worst atrocities of the Yugoslavian Succession Wars were committed by Eastern Orthodox Serbs (although the two other groups tried their best too...). And as I like to point out, there have been militant, crusading Buddhists waving sacred relics at the head of armies...


Now, again, I'm talking about the radical muslims, but to be far the "moderate" muslims have been way too silent while their brothers have declared all out war on the West and anyone else that believes in anything differently than them.Right. And what exactly are they *supposed* to do besides condemning the extremists in both general principles and specifically ? They're regular working Joes and Janes, ferchrissakes, and Islam is a very thoroughly "decentralized" institution. It has no central authorities able to issue decrees in any way binding to all muslims should they not themselves choose to accept them, and has not had for about one and half millenia now. A moderate imam may - and often does - refute the extremist views and the actions of the militants as little short of flat out direct offenses against the very foundations of the faith and the word of the Prophet, and be entirely correct - but so, as such, is the fiery-eyed firebrand militant imam preaching holy war. The followers of either will of course consider their particular take on the subject to be the correct one, but neither is as such objectively a more properly "Muslim" view.

The funny thing about all holy scriptures is that despite their claims of universal, fundamental Truth, they are in practice what their readers wish to make them out to be. The very same holy books are and have long been cited equally in the support of both the most hidebound reactionarism and the most enlightened progress. Where a reactionarist imam can quote a dozen suras against the equal rights of women, his progressivist colleague can with equal ease recite an equal number of ones which declare the exact opposite. Back in the day religious reactinaries were similarly all against female empowerement in the West, whereas their more liberal coreligionists drew upon the very same texts to support the movement.

And in the case you didn't know, the interpretation of the Qu'ran to practical purposes is an old and respected science (and comes in predictably diverse and conflicting schools) in the Islamic world...

***

Anyway, Dave here rather well illustrates what I figure to be the most important practical difference between Islam and Christianity in the discussions here (note that I stay away from the more existential conversations, so I can't say much about what role religion plays there - and neither is that particularly relevant here).

Christianity, by what I've seen, is most often brought into the discussion by Christians themselves, usually as an argument in contexts where IMHO in modern secularized and rational societies any religion has no business getting involved. Doubly so as most often it is used as a part of patently reactionary arguments. IMHO such attempts to figuratively speaking "quote scriptures at sceptical barbarians" pretty much deserve what they get, although as a rather unhappy and unnecessary side effect the hapless religion itself tends to get caught in the blast radius and get savagely criticized, often without much justification.

Plus both the critics and the proponents have a bad habit of operating under woefully inadequate knowledge of relevant historical facts; Catholicism in particular tends to suffer additionally from this effect.

Islam, on the contrary, has as far as I've ever seen never been initiated into serious arguments by its adherents themselves, but always by nigh invariably hostile outsiders. And almost without exception in contexts which have preciously little to do with the religion itself and very much with the vagaries of world politics and the vicissitudes of recent history. It doesn't help one bit that the knowledge base involved would rather often be limited to Rush Limbaugh, the public statements of the looney-fringe militants themselves, and similar esteemed and reliable authorities. Or that the "criticism" involved is all too often little short of "ZOMG its an evil cult of crazy bombmen and cutthroats!!11!". If I could spare the effort I'd track down and link that one "Why appeasement won't work in Middle East" thread we had some time ago to offer a bright shiny Specimen A of this phenomenom...

I can virtually quarantee that should someone go and issue similar statements about, say, the Catholic and Anglican (or whatever the Irish Protestants now exactly adhere to) churches based on the conduct of the Irish extremists for the past hundred-odd years, he'd get his nose bitten off just the same. Or Judaism based on bloody-handed ultras like the Haganah and the Stern Gang. Or the Maronite Christians of Lebanon based on the bloodbaths their militant extremists did in Palestinian refugee camps in the early Eighties. Or of Protestants and Catholic in general on the basis of the horrors of the Thirty Years' War. Or Eastern Orthodox Christians due to what the Serbs did. Or...

Well, you get the idea.

[Adrian II]

And if anyone criticizes him he starts suggesting they are Jews, or "Communitarian Intellectuals" as he calls them.Wrong again. If you really want other members to know what the issue is, I think we should explain a couple of things.

French Jewish intellectuals like Bernard-Henri Lévy (BHL), Glucksmann and Finkielkraut have often explored the theme of the territorial 'rootlessness' of their people over the past two thousand years. They have found this rootlessness to be an intellectual advantage, in the sense that being unwelcome and oppressed, as Jews, in most any country in the world has meant that Jewish intellectuals had all the more reason to develop a universalist outlook. If you do not feel at home in any particular country, you tend to see the whole wide world as your (intellectual) abode and mankind as your audience and jury.

This strain of thought has been particularly developed by BHL in Le testament de Dieu, a.k.a. The Testament of God. Its thesis is that politics must make room for ethics and for the integrity of the individual who can resist barbarism. This individual can not be found in classical Greek thought because there it is submerged in a general notion of humanity, one that does not recognise personal conscience and is in essence parochial and totalitarian. This individual can only be found in classical Judaism with its wager that there is some God or other who left a Law for mankind. 'Forget Athens, embrace Jerusalem.' This Law of classical Judaism says that we should not undertake any act that can not be universalised for all men. So let us have a philosophy that makes no elementary distinction between people by dividing them irreparably into classes, races, nationalities, religions, etcetera.

In L’ Idéologie française and La pureté dangereuse BHL criticised various forms of these 'separatist' ideologies. In L’ Idéologie française he contends that there is a generic French national ideology, stretching from left to right all along the 19th and 20th centuries, based on cryptofacism, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. La pureté dangereuse is a critique of religious fascism.

According to Tariq Ramadan, these Jewish French intellectuals have left or betrayed their universalist positions and chosen to defend particular, local little 'fascisms' instead. Finkielkraut was the first when during the civil war in ex-Yougoslavi he began defending the Kroatian regime of Tudzman, which was an extension of the old fascist regime during WWII (with some of the same personnel that had survived in exile during Tito). The second was BHL who became militantly pro-American after 2001 and defended all sorts of interventions around the world in the name of an armed universalism that turned out not to be universalist at all.

Tariq Ramadan criticises them for exchanging their universalist outlook for a communal one, and a Jewish one at that. Finkielkraut saw a repeat of Israel's history in Kroatia, BHL regards the U.S. as a larger Israel. In said pamphlet, Ramadan is posing as the present-day universalist, the 'uprooted' Muslim who has no abode, neither in the backward dictatorships of the Arab world nor in the godless western societies of Europe and the United States. It is his claim that he is the real universalist, not BHL and the others, that enraged these gentlemen to the boiling point.

[Adrian II]

I don't understand what the big deal is.Yes, and you make that very clear. The big deal is that I criticised Tony Blair's advisers bar Ramadan. Sharrukin accuses him on the basis of what some terrorist says, I counter that terrorists are not good witnesses. Glad we have cleared that up.
Go ahead and screw you country up, just keep your foolish short sightedness out of ours.Go ahead and rant against posts you fail to read or understand. Have you apologised to Barocca yet for callin him a liar?

Thought so. ~:handball:

[Shahed]

Last Sunday The Times reported that advisers appointed by Tony Blair after the London bombings have proposed to him ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1775068,00.html) to scrap the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day because it is offensive to Muslims. Apparently, they want to replace it with a Genocide Day that would recognise the mass murder of Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya and Bosnia as well as people of other faiths. It seems that Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, is backing the proposal.

Now The Telegraph is reporting (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VQJ3IOZPCTONNQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2005/09/12/nthom12.xml) that another adviser of Blair, Mr Ahmad Thomson of the Association of Muslim Lawyers, thinks the Prime Minister has fallen victim to a ‘sinister group of Jews and Freemasons’. According to Mr Thomson, ‘pressure was put on Tony Blair before the invasion [of Iraq]. The way it works is that pressure is put on people to arrive at certain decisions. It is part of the Zionist plan and it is shaping events.’ The paper also reports that Mr Thomson wrote a book in 1994 in which he said Freemasons and Jews controlled the governments of Europe and America and described the claim that six million Jews died in the Holocaust as a ‘big lie’.

With these advisers, does Mr Blair need any terrorists at all?

What's a "freemason" ? :dizzy2:

[Don Corleone]

Yes, and you make that very clear. The big deal is that I criticised Tony Blair's advisers bar Ramadan. Sharrukin accuses him on the basis of what some terrorist says, I counter that terrorists are not good witnesses. Glad we have cleared that up.Go ahead and rant against posts you fail to read or understand. Have you apologised to Barocca yet for callin him a liar?

Thought so. ~:handball:

I didn't call him a liar. He started a thread with a link to a site that claims that the United States staged the Pentagon bombing. Despite it's great scary soundtrack of sinister music and Hitler making speeches, it doesn't offer any new evidence that hasn't been refuted numerous times. I said the website was based on a damnable lie, and I refuse to apologize for that, because it is a lie. Just because Baroca claimed to be posting it out of so-called curiousity doesn't mean I have to ooh and aah about how enlightened such a theory is. But go back and reread my post. I never once called Baroca a liar.

By the way, that has exactly what to do with the current thread?

[Adrian II]

I didn't call him a liar.You said he was propagating lies because he hated the United States. That was nonsensical and offensive.
Edit
And this thread is not served either by remarks that Britain can go to hell and you don't care.

[Geoffrey S]

Now, again, I'm talking about the radical muslims, but to be far the "moderate" muslims have been way too silent while their brothers have declared all out war on the West and anyone else that believes in anything differently than them.
Pretty much the same reasoning can be applied to Christianity, can't it? Where was a general Christian condemnation of the situation in Northern Ireland, or in former Jugoslavia?

Go ahead and screw you country up, just keep your foolish short sightedness out of ours.
Hey, just as long as you realise that much of the world has the same feelings about America. Such isolationist policies help no-one.

What's a "freemason"?
For general information on freemasonry, try here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemason). For the linking to conspiracy theories, here (http://www.americanatheist.org/supplement/conspiracy.html).

[lancelot]

Last Sunday The Times reported that advisers appointed by Tony Blair after the London bombings have proposed to him ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1775068,00.html) to scrap the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day because it is offensive to Muslims. Apparently, they want to replace it with a Genocide Day that would recognise the mass murder of Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya and Bosnia as well as people of other faiths. It seems that Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, is backing the proposal.

Now The Telegraph is reporting (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VQJ3IOZPCTONNQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2005/09/12/nthom12.xml) that another adviser of Blair, Mr Ahmad Thomson of the Association of Muslim Lawyers, thinks the Prime Minister has fallen victim to a ‘sinister group of Jews and Freemasons’. According to Mr Thomson, ‘pressure was put on Tony Blair before the invasion [of Iraq]. The way it works is that pressure is put on people to arrive at certain decisions. It is part of the Zionist plan and it is shaping events.’ The paper also reports that Mr Thomson wrote a book in 1994 in which he said Freemasons and Jews controlled the governments of Europe and America and described the claim that six million Jews died in the Holocaust as a ‘big lie’.

With these advisers, does Mr Blair need any terrorists at all?

There is sooo much wrong with this (and by extension, the nation) that I dont know where to begin.

Firstly, Why does Blair specifically need 'muslim advisors' anyway? Short of trying to placate a possibly dangerous element of society...?

Advisors then propose scrapping memorial day because it is offensive to muslims?!? So let me get this clear. To recognise the suffering of a religious group other than muslims is an offence to muslims?

Wow, you can just feel the love cant you? What sheer hypocrisy on the part of practitioners of a supposed 'peaceful' religion.

Then let us question the fact that these advisors are even allowed to speak such garbage. If I suggested as much I would be locked up for being a neo-nazi!

So, then we get to holocaust denial and zionist plots....Zeig Heil mein Iman...

Its a shocking day when people of this level of obvious selfishness and religious intolerance are alowed to remain in this nation, let alone have the ear of our PM.

For shame Islam.

[sharrukin]

Tariq Ramadan criticises them for exchanging their universalist outlook for a communal one, and a Jewish one at that. Finkielkraut saw a repeat of Israel's history in Kroatia, BHL regards the U.S. as a larger Israel. In said pamphlet, Ramadan is posing as the present-day universalist, the 'uprooted' Muslim who has no abode, neither in the backward dictatorships of the Arab world nor in the godless western societies of Europe and the United States. It is his claim that he is the real universalist, not BHL and the others, that enraged these gentlemen to the boiling point.

So Jews are not allowed to come to the defence of Israel or take sides in other controversial issues which Tariq Ramadan takes exception to?
Tariq Ramadan doesn't restrict himself in this fashion regarding his advocacy for Islam, does he? His own narrow and parochial pursuit of religious issues in France clearly suggests that he does not.
This is nonsense as the universal ideals he speaks of are nothing he cares to follow himself.
So is this a rule that only applies to Jews?
Do Jews lose the the right to be considered legitimate intellectuals because they speak for their own community or for Israel?

Tariq Ramadan
"Jewish French intellectuals, who until then we had considered universal thinkers, started to develop analyses on the national and international front that were more and more biased toward the concerns of their community." Their interests "as Jews or as nationalists or as defenders of Israel" came before equality and justice, he added.

He is suggesting Jews have a 'secret agenda' behind their public opinions because of what they are. This is known as an 'Ad hominem' fallacy or more particularly a 'Circumstantial ad Hominem' fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

I don't support the Iraq War or President Bush but that does not mean that the ethnic identity of someone dictates whether they can or cannot take a position on such issues.

This is nothing but a personal attack on those who support positions he doesn't care for. He chooses not to refute their views but rather to attack them based on their Jewish identity.

[Adrian II]

Do Jews lose the the right to be considered legitimate intellectuals because they speak for their own community or for Israel? He is suggesting Jews have a 'secret agenda' behind their public opinions because of what they are.Can't you see this is exactly what you are doing to Tariq Ramadan? Most of you circumstantial 'proof' is not even that, it is mere circumstance. Yet you claim that Ramadan is a secretive, conniving jihadist.

When I quote Ramadan in Haaretz, I give you a link to the article. When I point to Ramadan's refutation, I give you a link to his refutation. Until now, all you have provided is hearsay without attributable sources.

Did you know that Gilles Kepel, arguably the best Middle East expert of France since the death of Maxime Rodinson, paints a damning portrait of Ramadan in his new book Fitna. Guerre au coeur de l'islam? Mind you, Kepel is a real scholar. At the end of Chapter VI Kepel describes Ramadan as a charlatan -- which I think is rather unfair -- but nowhere does he parrot the refuted rumours of Ramadan's so-called 'hidden terrorist connections'.

You consistently twist Ramadan's words as well. Here is that quote you gave us: 'Jewish French intellectuals, who until then we had considered universal thinkers, started to develop analyses on the national and international front that were more and more biased toward the concerns of their community.' What is wrong with that quote? Ramadan is not denying any Jew the right to his or her views, as you suggest. He disagrees with the intellectuals mentioned. He has every right to do so. Better still: he has a point.

The rot set in with Finkielkraut when he began to defend the Tudzman regime, some of whose generals and politicians were outright fascists and are presently in the dock in The Hague on an indicment for war crimes. BHL defended the Bosnian islamic leader Izetbegovic who, it now turns out, was supported by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and allowed Al Qaeda to train on his territory. That is strange company for universalist intellectuals, wouldn't you agree?

My main issue with Ramadan would be that he is also basically still a communal thinker, and that as such he is at risk of being swept along by the waves of religious obscurantism that wash across the world lately, particularly the Middle East, the subcontinent and the United States. He will have to make up his mind whether he wants to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

EDIT

I meant what I said above about evidence. I have researched this issue before I spoke to Ramadan. What can I say, I am a journalist... I found no substantial evidence, only a rumour campaign aimed at destroying his public persona so as to make sure nobody wil ever accept his man as a genuine intellectual. Re-reading my earlier posts in this thread I felt in the uncomfortable position of proving somebody's innocence. You know that it impossible. It is up to the prosecution to deliver the evidence. So if you can find real dirt on our man, Sharrukin, please put it out here. I am willing to listen because I want to be nodoby's fool, certainly not Ramadan's.

[Duke of Gloucester]

NeonGod:
Other than holding citizenship (and thus being able to say you are "British"), does Britishness not imply certain cultural traits that are not automatically displayed by every Tom, Dick and Harry who aquires a passport?

This might be a reasonable argument if you could say what they are and find 10 British people who would agree with you.


And when you spend weeks and months planning such murders do they still remain understandable given the context? I mean that these attacks are cold blooded acts of murder targeting the innocent and are not crimes of passion or reflex by any stretch.

He does not say they are right. He says he can explain why they happen. Saying you can explain something and you think they are right are not the same. In fact he explicitly condemns them. He does not blame any oppressors, he just says there is an explanation.


Now, again, I'm talking about the radical muslims, but to be far the "moderate" muslims have been way too silent while their brothers have declared all out war on the West and anyone else that believes in anything differently than them.

This is just an easy way of blaming a group for an extreme, minority of members. Moderate Moslems comments condeming violence simply won't be reported, or will be forgotten, or if they make any comment to along the lines of "this action is wrong but is in response to this particular situation" then they will be accused of supporting terrorist.


Pretty much the same reasoning can be applied to Christianity, can't it? Where was a general Christian condemnation of the situation in Northern Ireland, or in former Jugoslavia?

This is a great parallel. Aside from the fact that Northern Ireland is essentially an ethnic confict, Catholic and Protestant clergy regularly condemned violence and sectarianism. It illustrates perfectly what I am trying to say about moderate muslims.


He does not believe the secular West and Islamic East can co-exist and see's the west as dar al-dawa (house of invitation) a land to be converted.

I hope we are not going to comdemn any religion that seeks to evangelise. Surely Ramadan or anyone else is free to try to convert us to his religion and we are free to remain unconverted.



It was a useful fiction to believe that there was a Chinese wall between the terrorists of the IRA and the leaders of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Provisional IRA. This may be exactly what we are looking at in regards to Tariq Ramadan.


No one has ever claimed that the IRA and Sinn Fein are not intimately linked. The Chinese wall you speak of must exist in your mind only. Sinn Fein politicians might claim not to be terrorists themselves, and they might play down the influence they have on IRA policy, but they openly admit that the party is the political wing of the IRA. The case of Tariq Ramadan is by no means parallel.

And why should he respect laws that go against his religion? Shouldn't he condemn them and campaign to get them removed?

I think it is really important the Tony Blair listens to what British Moslems are saying. We need to try to understand why people feel able to kill themselves and many others. What, in their mind, justifies this? Are there genuine greivances that we can address and undermine the position of those who wish to exploit peopel who feel ill treated and alienated. Of course just because Tony Blair listens, it doesn't mean he has to agree. He is not going to abolish the Holocaust remembrance day, or say that the Holocaust did not happen, neither is he going to change the laws of Britain to make them more Islamic.

Of course it would be much simpler to condemn all Moslems, especially their leaders and we could even try to claim they were not really British (even if we can't explain what being British means if it doesn't mean being born and raised in Britain). Then we would not have to think carefully about really complicated issues and we could convicne ourselves we were fighting terrorism, when in reality we are feeding it. We might not be making things better, but we would be making ourselves feel better, so that would be OK, wouldn't it?

[sharrukin]

It is up to the prosecution to deliver the evidence. So if you can find real dirt on our man, Sharrukin, please put it out here. I am willing to listen because I want to be nodoby's fool, certainly not Ramadan's.

I am not looking for dirt on the guy! I simply do not trust him nor do I believe that he is what he claims to be. I cannot offer proof that he is in fact an ally, or member of the Muslim Brotherhood but the evidence does show that there are a lot of suspicious circumstances and coincidences involving this man. Other radicals see him in a favorable light and several terrorists say they were directly linked to him and others cite him as an inspiration.



The rot set in with Finkielkraut when he began to defend the Tudzman regime, some of whose generals and politicians were outright fascists and are presently in the dock in The Hague on an indicment for war crimes. BHL defended the Bosnian islamic leader Izetbegovic who, it now turns out, was supported by Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and allowed Al Qaeda to train on his territory. That is strange company for universalist intellectuals, wouldn't you agree?
Yes! And I would criticize him based on those things, NOT on his Jewish ancestry!

Strange company?
Youssef Nada and Ghaleb Himmat, were accused by Washington of using Nada Management Organization and their Bank al-Taqwa to support al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Tariq Ramadan and Hani Ramadan sit on the board of directors of the Islamic Center founded by the Muslim Brotherhood and this center is listed with the al-Taqwa bank. The al-Taqwa bank is implicated in funding al Qaeda and laundering their money. Ahmed Hubert, a Holocaust-denying Swiss citizen, converted to Islam by the Islamic Center, and a board member of the Bank, acknowledges that al Taqwa was donating money to the Center. Ahmed Huber has admitted to meeting Bin Laden followers in Beirut. Sa‘id Ramadan helped to fund the Islamic Center and he is a card carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Strange company?

Hasan al-Banna, founded the Muslim Brotherhood and is greatly admired by Tariq Ramadan and Tariq Ramadan has said that his father
Tariq Ramadan chose as the subject of his thesis, his grandfather, which was so favorable to this same Hasan al-Banna that you say he has no affinity for.
Strange company?

Hani Ramadan says they are “like two sides of the same coin.”
Djamel Beghal, a terrorist says Tariq Ramadan was an inspiration and claims closer contacts.
Abdessatar Dahmane a terrorist also had Tariq Ramadan as an inspiration
Ahmed Brahim, a terrorist is known to have contacted the Tawhid bookstore in Lyon, which publishes Tariq Ramadan’s books and is funded by Hani Ramadan the radical.
Strange company?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye;
and lo, the beam is in thine own eye?

[Dâriûsh]

...but he already claimed (and more than once) that he was 'first and foremost' a muslim.

I really don't agree with this point of view. I'm not much of a nationalistic (sp?) man, and I also consider myself as an european, and I have a hard time understanding how being part of some religious sect is more important than being citizen of a given nation. Because it is very important in Islam to be, first and foremost, a Muslim and a citizen of the Ummah.


...Now, again, I'm talking about the radical muslims, but to be far the "moderate" muslims have been way too silent while their brothers have declared all out war on the West and anyone else that believes in anything differently than them. Perhaps because they feel that ‘the west’ has declared all-out war on Islam.

[Adrian II]

I am not looking for dirt on the guy!I am. ~;)

But I have not found any. I think we have gone into the circumstantial evidence long enough for other members to make up their minds or do their own research. Except for one man: Beghal.
Djamel Beghal, a terrorist says Tariq Ramadan was an inspiration and claims closer contacts.As I said earlier, it is not very consistent to discard the testimony of terrorists if they support Ramadan's innocence, yet accept them if they confirm his guilt. Besides, Beghal has claimed and then retracted all sorts of things. Security services can separate the sense from among the nonsense by checking such claims and retractions against other information. We are not in that position.

But let us take a closer look at Beghal because what we know of his biography is extremely important in connection with Ramadan's role as a Blair adviser. Let me explain.

Beghal was a petty criminal of French-Algerian extraction. He did some time for several crimes before he 'rediscovered' Islam in 1994. He claims that this rediscovery was due to collaboration with Ramadan who he says was his 'teacher' at the time in Paris. This can not be true since Ramadan started living and teaching in Paris only in 1997. The French press has interpreted Beghal's words in another sense, namely that Beghal listened to some of the audio cassettes circulated by Ramadan, which were already solds in their thousands in those days, particularly in France.

The important thing to keep in mind is that Beghal was not born a terrorist; nobody is born a terrorist. Beghal became one. And he did not become a terrorist until 1997 when he was arrested together with some other French Algerians (and subsequently released) on suspicion of collaborating with the GIA. That was the first time he was 'tagged' by the French security services.

At the time of his alleged contact with Ramadan in 1994, Beghal was not a full-fledged islamist. He 'rediscovered' his religion, he says, thanks to Ramadan's teaching. Nowhere does it say that Ramadan tought him why or how to blow things up.

But the really important thing is that Beghal was a young man who had 'rediscovered' Islam after a criminal life, and we know from the biographies of terrorists that some of them went through this exact same experience. Even Jerome Courtallier, a Catholic Frenchman by birth who converted to Islam, led a similar life and went through similar changes as Beghal. After his conversion and his brief stint in French prison in 1997, Beghal went to London where he frequented the heavy-weights like Abu Qatada who indoctrinated him in the darker secrets of their jihad. Beghal initially claimed that he eventually met Bin Laden himself, but later retracted that statement, as he did so many other statements.

I contend that Ramadan is probably in a better position to understand the mind of young men such as Djamel Beghal and the changes they undergo that turn them into terrorists. Iqbal Sacranie does not. Boubakeur does not. All those stuffy old Islam interpreters are overtaken left and right by Tariq Ramadan: doctrinally, intellectually, socially, even in their style of dress!

That is precisely why it is important to listen to Ramadan, to question him, use his presence and intellect, and make sure, as Lyndon Baynes Johnson once said of Edgar J. Hoover, that he is inside the tent urinating out rather than outside the tent urinating in.

We need people like him if we want to engage in a meaningful dialogue with islamic intellectuals and their followers among the young Muslims of western countries. People who can lay bridges. Ramadan is vain enough to understand that this is his main role in European society. As he stated in the article I quoted above:


I take pride in my faith as a Muslim and the West as my home and birthplace and I make no apologies for taking a critical look at Islam and the West. In doing so I am being true to my faith and the ethics of my citizenship. Instead of mere theoretical criticism, I propose practical solutions to the challenges the world faces. I not only speak to ordinary citizens of many faiths, religious leaders and academics but also to politicians, world leaders and organizations.

Western Muslims can make a critical difference in the Muslim majority world. Becoming full, independent Western citizens, working with others to address social, economic and political problems, will allow Western Muslims to assume this role. However, that can only happen if their governments and other citizens do not cast doubt on their loyalty every time they criticize government policies. This critical and constructive loyalty of their Muslim citizens enriches Western societies, and it is the only way for Western Muslims to be credible in Arab and Islamic countries to assist in bringing about freedom and democracy.