A “Religious Scholar”?
VisitÂ Jihad Watch
Chicago Tribune reporter Manya Brachear has kindly written to me to alert me to this article. In her email to me she invited Jihad Watch readers to comment at herÂ Tribune blog on this story, so have at it â€” why shouldn’t News Real readers join in the fun as well? Note her identification of Tariq Ramadan as a “religious scholar” in her parting question below. “Chicago welcomes once-banned Muslim scholar,” by Manya Brachear in theÂ Chicago Tribune’s Seeker blog, April 5:
[…] Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Chicago chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, said he wasted no time inviting Ramadan to speak when the scholar’s rights to enter the U.S. were restored in January. He had last spoken with Ramadan in December when both of them spoke at the Parliament for the World’s Religions in Melbourne, Australia. Ramadan now has a 10-year visa.”We are all about reconciling Islam and the West,” Rehab said. “We challenge those who attempt to drive a wedge between Muslim and being American. That’s really the life cause of Tariq Ramadan as an academic and philosopher and media personality. He often says that he’s culturally Western, nationally Swiss, ethnically Egyptian and religiously Muslim. For him and for us as well, there is no inherent schism between being Muslim and being American.”…
Rehab said Ramadan’s visa was originally yanked by a “paranoid” Bush administration. He said Ramadan was, and still is, one of the most popular Muslim voices in the world. He is grateful that the Obama administration realized the absurdity of barring an intellectual to speak in the U.S.
But author Robert Spencer says that popularity is dangerous. In interviews, he has criticized Clinton for making an exception to U.S. law that prohibits supports of terrorist groups from entering the country. Spencer said Ramadan should still be barred for donating money to a group that funds Hamas.
Spencer contends that the scholar has the same goals as Osama bin Ladenâ€“to impose Shariah law in the West. While Ramadan paints himself as a moderate intellectual, Spencer said, he is actually a “stealth jihadist.”
What do you think? Is allowing a religious scholar to speak in the U.S. dangerous or democratic?
A “religious scholar”? Is that really all that Tariq Ramadan is? Ramadan is the grandson of Hasan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood â€” an international Islamic supremacist organization that is dedicated, in its own words (according to an internal Brotherhood document captured in a raid of the Holy Land Foundation), to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.” While he has alluded vaguely to disagreements with his grandfather, he has also lionized him, and has never repudiated the Brotherhood’s program.
The Trib article may give the impression that I am the originator of any suspicion of Ramadan’s reformist bona fides. In fact, that is not the case. French journalist Caroline Fourest, who has published a book-length study of Ramadan’s sly duplicity,Â Brother Tariq, concludes that this much-lionized putative Muslim Martin Luther is actually anything but a reformer: in reality, Ramadan is “remaining scrupulously faithful to the strategy mapped out by his grandfather, a strategy of advance stage by stage” toward the imposition of Islamic law in the West.
Ramadan, she explains, in his public lectures and writings invests words like “law” and “democracy” with subtle and carefully crafted new definitions, permitting him to engage in “an apparently inoffensive discourse while remaining faithful to an eminently Islamist message and without having to lie overtly â€” at least not in his eyes.” Ramadan, she said, “may have an influence on young Islamists and constitute a factor of incitement that could lead them to join the partisans of violence.”
Ramadan was barred from the country by the Bush Administration not for disagreeing with the Iraq war, as Brave Ahmed Rehab suggests here and as even the Obama Administration has irresponsibly claimed, but forÂ contributing to an Islamic charity that funded Hamas. Ramadan has alsoÂ recently been in the paid employ of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Why “controversial?” Tariq Ramadan is an Islamo-propagandist, what’s “controversial” Â about that?
An ignorant, stupid description. A little research here on this blog and you know everything you need to know about the grandson of Hassan al Banna and his agenda.
A controversial Muslim scholar previously banned from entering the U.S. because of alleged (Not ‘alleged’, he sent money to Hamas/ed) terrorism links is to speak Sunday in Livonia about jihad. (look out for that “inner struggle”, or better: take a laxative instead!)
Tariq Ramadan, a professor at Oxford University who is grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, is set to deliver a lecture titled “Jihad Within Young Hearts: Toward a Positive Engagement.”
He’s considered one of the top Muslim intellectuals in the world, but has stoked complaints from critics.Â More>>
My goodness! If this snake oil salesman is “one of the top Muslim intellectuals in the world” Â what’s the rest good for?
New Yorker reporter George Packer tries to find truffles in nowhere land:
Hearing him talk for an hour and a half, you realized what he is and isn’t. He is not a philosopher, or an original thinker. He has been cast in that role by recent historical crises and his own ambitionâ€”the role of someone whom large numbers of people turn to for insight on a vast range of issues, from the Islamic texts to globalization, from unemployment in France to women’s rights. What he has to say about most subjects is garden-variety European leftism. When questions of Islam and Muslims join the debate, his stance is that of a reconciler: he wants to make it possible for young Muslims to affirm their religious faith as an identity while fully participating as citizens of secular democracies. That’s his main project, an important one, and it’s where he is at his best: as a kind of preacher to confused, questing young Muslims who want to know how to live, where they fit in. And because American Muslims are not a large and disenfranchised and angry minority in this country, I don’t think this calling leaves him with very much to say to audiences here. An American Tariq Ramadan would likelier be talking to groups of young blacks or Hispanics.
Sorry George, mate: Â The bus left the station and you missed it! Read more:Â newyorker.com
Wanted: A calm, credible voice to soothe Americans’ fear of Islam
Propagandists Needed: The Muslim Public Affairs Council is seeking “high-energy candidates” for a “communications coordinator”, a better description would be “Taqiyya Doctor”
Perhaps we should sent them the bones of Dr Goebbles….? More>>
Hugh Fitzgerald on Tariq Ramadan
by Hugh Fitzgerald
December 23, 2004
Last thoughts onÂ the man who might have been a professor at Notre Dame from Jihad Watch Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald:
Several things have happened to Tariq Ramadan that have made him extremely eager to move to the United States. Essentially, in Europe, for him, the jig is up. Too many people have been studying his connections, his speeches, the contents of his books, described by NPR as “scholarship” but, in reality, he is no Muslim scholar (Bassam Tibi is a Muslim scholar), but a full-time propagandist for Da’wa.These include:
1) the appearance of Ramadan on a television show with Nicolas Sarkozy, who demolished every one of Ramadan’s well-worn attempts to practice taqiyya/kitman, to turn aside any discussion of his support for “my grandfather” Hassan al-Banna (who used to whip up Cairene crowds, which crowds would then express their enthusiasm, as they did on November 2, 1945, by attacking Coptic and Jewish shops, and murdering Copts and Jews — something about his grandfather that Ramadan has never condemned or mentioned, just as he has never uttered a syllable against the persecution of the Copts in Egypt, nor of the persecution of any non-Muslims anywhere in the Muslim world).
Sarkozy’s steely performance destroyed Ramadan, who has never before had to face any real interviewer — the same way, on NPR the other day, he had only the gush and mush of Jack (“McCarran Act! McCarran Act!) Beatty and the sympathetic Gail Harris, both of whom were worrying about what this “great Islamic scholar” would do now, and what is family would do, since he had been denied admittance to the United States — as well as Jay Tolson, apparently a recent recruit to the ranks of Ramadan groupies, who would not tolerate anyone invoking such words as “taqiyya” and “kitman,” and who stood, stoutly and ignorantly, by his man — and his main man is Ramadan.
2) the careful study of Caroline Fourest, “Frere Tariq,” which is the main book on offer even in provincial towns in Brittany, according to an informant, and which sets out all sorts of Ramadan’s prevarications, omissions, and outright lies — one by one by one. It is a book from which, like the encounter with Sarkozy, Ramadan will not recover, and has no reply. He will simply hope the book is not translated into English, and that the clear-headed at Notre Dame — that leaves out Scott Appleby in particular, who “knows” all about Tariq Ramadan, and does not wish to be confused with fact after fact after dismal fact — never read it. Ditto with Esposito at Georgetown, who doesn’t want to have James V. Schall (terrifying thought: Esposito has to mix it up with James V. Schall before the Georgetown University trustees, who may be getting calls to sever their now most-embarrassing institutional connection with the Arab-financed Center of Muslim Apologetics that provides Esposito with his handsome returns of the day).
3) the emission by the Franco-Arab journalist Mohamed Sarfaoui (whom Google), which the Union of Muslim Associations tried to prevent from being broadcast on France-2 on December 2 (the broadcast went on anyway) by threatening Sarfaoui himself. They were not subtle: they said that such a broadcast against “Frere Tariq” would be tantamount to apostasy — and while we are not saying more, you know what can happen to apostates.
The broadcast needs to be seen in this country as well, with subtitles, so that the Notre Dame administration, trustees, and interested faculty can read the book (“Frere Tariq”) and see the movie, or movielet, about this sinister figure.
4) the connections with assorted terrorists — a meeting with Al-Zawahiri, and similar sinister socializing that has been documented by Daniel Pipes — whom Ramadan kept referring to on NPR, as if the only thing he had to worry about was the charge that he had met with known terrorists, and not his whole propaganda operation. For obvious reasons, the French and American governments cannot go into in any detail about that operation (nor explain how they know what they know, in order to satisfy Mesa Nostra or the Scott Applebys of this world). But these connections also have not gone away, nor been forgotten.
5) Ramadan has a few select rhetorical tricks, but behind those tricks is this reality:
He wants to see the islamization of Europe. He thinks that Europeans suffer from a “spiritual emptiness” and that they are ripe for wonderful Islam. He has said that “the West is in decline, and the Arab-Islamic world is on the road to renewal” — yet that “renewal,” he believes, will take place when Islam conqueres, through his kind of Da’wa. His Da’wa, of course, is far more cunning, with far more roses than guns, than the Da’wa of Qaradawi, or of Sheikh Tantawi, and of course than the threats of Bin Laden, Zarqawi, et al.
But the goal of Ramadan is the goal of Bin Laden and indeed of all Believers: the victory of dar al-Islam over dar al-Harb, the removal of all obstacles in the dar al-Harb to the spread of Islam, and the subjugation of all non-Muslims — who will be subjugated, as they have always been subjugated over 1350 years of Muslim conquest (with not a single exception anywhere) and, as dhimmis (where not killed or converted outright), subject to a permanent status of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity.
Keep that in mind. But until you have read — as Beatty and Gail Harris clearly had not — at least a few of Ramadan’s books (worthless in any literary or historical sense, but instructive as lines of propoaganda), even if you have to brush up your parley-voo, and Fourest’s “Frere Tariq,” and seen Sarkozy’s debate, and Sarfaoui’s program, you simply cannot defend Ramadan out of ignorance or some dreamy interfaith idea (the Scott Appleby approach to life, where all religions “want the same thing” and they are “all the same” and everything is the same of a sameness).
Ramadan is kaput as a propagandist among the Infidels. No one takes him seriously. His job in Geneva had come to an end. He was desperate to find innocent Infidels elsewhere — and to start over where they would not, he felt, know him as well as the French and Swiss had come to know him.
But guess what? Some of us know French, and can read, and can even watch French television. Tariq, you should have thought of that before angling for the Joan Kroc Center. And Scott Appleby, you should have asked yourself whether or not a good many other people might not take lying-down your feelgood approach to matters that, in the end, involve our own security, and the survival of a relatively tolerant, bemused, curious, and interesting civilization, which Tariq Ramadan’s belief-system undercuts and threatens at every turn. One hopes, but does not expect, that you will learn some lesson.
And why not offer instituional care and feeding, at this point, to some refugee Copt or Maronite scholars, who can from their perch at Notre Dame inform the American public about how non-Muslims are treated? Habib Malik? Walid Phares? Or perhaps offer a platform for those who were born into Islam, but are viewed as “defectors” from it and in danger of their lives? How about inviting Azam Kamguian to teach about Islam and Women? Reza Afshari, to set up a Center on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Shari’a? What about Ali Sina? Ibn Warraq?
Cat got your tongue?