Silver Tongued Islamist Interviewed On Finnish TV…….

Swiss born Islamist professor, Tariq Ramadan, was given ample time to try assuage any doubts about his role as an arbitrator between the Islamic community and Europe. As Yoda would say; “smooth talker he was“, but he didn’t pass the BS test for Islamist intellectuals passing themselves off as modernists, he talked a good game though.

Asked about his views on terrorist violence done in the name of Islam, the Islamist professor (grandson of Hasan al-Banna, founder of the most influential international Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood) cleverly denounces it outright, calling it “entirely unislamic” (an entirely untrue claim) and then targets Christianity and the US as being equally to blame for ‘terrorist violence’ (another disengenuous claim); Tariq: ….”just look what the US is doing in Iraq“….

There is of course a world of difference in getting rid of a ruthless tyrant, (didn’t hear Tariq Ramadan lambasting Saddam’s vicious rule while he reigned) and murderous terrorists bent on restoring their version of utopia no matter what the cost.

When confronted with a poll that showed 15% of Muslims living in the UK support terrorist violence against civilians, Ramadan condemns their views, but then explains it away with the following; Tariq: “ …….their views must be understood within the context of their perspectives, how they view Iraq, Palestine ect…….”

Using his twisted logic, the German National Socialists should be understood or sympathized with, due to their perspectives of how they were victimized by the Allied Powers during WWI, or on how they perceived Jews in general…….

Tariq Ramadan is trickster and a con-man for the Muslim Brotherhood, whose aim is to try and get the West to swallow an Islamist agenda. In his answer to the question about his own personal controversy, ties to violent groups ect., he answers nothing, feigning innocence and victim hood. Tariq:where is the evidence, people reviewing my record on the ground find nothing in the charges.

VICTIMHOOD; he continues: “Being a Muslim is controversial, Islam is controversial, so therefore when I give my message, I am told what the Jews were told in the 30’s…..we don’t trust you”

Nice try ‘slicko’, but it doesn’t wash. Jews in the 30’s did nothing to earn the suspicion of their neighbors, for centuries they have had to endure bigotry and violence solely because of who they were, the convenient minority to place all of the world’s ills upon. The Muslim world on the other hand, has not made their voices well enough to be heard by the rest of society that an intolerant version of Islam will not be tolerated. That any terrorist violence against ANYONE, including Jews/Israelis, is totally unacceptable. The repeated story of collusion between Muslim communites and terrorists has done little to reduce non-Muslim fears about Islam.

As for Tariq Ramadan’s claim of innocence to charges of his own collusion with terrorism (my case in point), here is a brief summory By Dr.Daniel Pipes of his activities:
He has praised the brutal Islamist policies of the Sudanese politician Hassan Al-Turabi. Mr. Turabi in turn called Mr. Ramadan the “future of Islam.”
Mr. Ramadan was banned from entering France in 1996 on suspicion of having links with an Algerian Islamist who had recently initiated a terrorist campaign in Paris.

Ahmed Brahim, an Algerian indicted for Al-Qaeda activities, had “routine contacts” with Mr. Ramadan, according to a Spanish judge (Baltasar Garzón) in 1999.

Djamel Beghal, leader of a group accused of planning to attack the American embassy in Paris, stated in his 2001 trial that he had studied with Mr. Ramadan.

Along with nearly all Islamists, Mr. Ramadan has denied that there is “any certain proof” that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.

He publicly refers to the Islamist atrocities of 9/11, Bali, and Madrid as “interventions,” minimizing them to the point of near-endorsement.

And here are other reasons, dug up by Jean-Charles Brisard, a former French intelligence officer doing work for some of the 9/11 families, as reported in Le Parisien:

Intelligence agencies suspect that Mr. Ramadan (along with his brother Hani) coordinated a meeting at the Hôtel Penta in Geneva for Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy head of Al-Qaeda, and Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh, now in a Minnesota prison. Mr. Ramadan’s address appears in a register of Al Taqwa Bank, an organization the State Department accuses of supporting Islamist terrorism. More here about Tariq Ramadan. KGS

Video of interview is still available here, but not for long. Click first line and view from midway on.

2 Responses

  1. “(didn’t hear Tariq Ramadan lambasting Saddam’s vicious rule while he reigned)” – had you even heard of Tariq Ramadam then? At the time a rather insignificant Swiss academic? I’d have to check but I think he was quite critical of Saddam for his human rights abuses etc. presumably particularly to politically active Muslims.

    “Using his twisted logic, the German National Socialists should be understood or sympathized with” – that’s a pretty poor rhetorical tool KGS, he didn’t say sympathise, he said according to your transcription: “understood”. I understand why the Atlantic Slave trade took place, does that make pro-slavery? He doesn’t explain away, he explains and this seems a rather huge difference that you either don’t get or choose to ignore and you’re a smart guy so I suspect the latter. A pyschiatrist can perhaps understand what makes a psychopath kill, does that mean he explains away the crime? That is plainly ridiculous. There is no twisted logic, unless there was something damning you left out of your transcription. Rather it seems that you are twisting his words.

    So Ramadam actually agrees with, for example, Michael Scheuer – former head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit and now a researcher for the Jamestown Foundation. Read “Through our Enemies Eyes” or “Imperial Hubris”, and Scheuer makes the same point again and again – ‘they’ are against for what we do, not what we are. In that sense he ‘understands’ just like Ramadan does, but he certainly doesn’t sympathise.

    “…dug up by Jean-Charles Brisard, a former French intelligence officer doing work…” As far as I have been able to ascertain JCB is not a former intelligence officer at all. He has also recently published formal apologies in leading international newspapers after courts in Switzerland and the UK found him guilty of libel for printing untruths in his book. See: https://lightfromthenorth.blogspot.com/2006/11/when-sorry-seems-to-be-most-expensive.html

    Considering how often you like to say that you support ‘moderate’ Muslims (although I don’t really know what moderate means), I find it interesting that you like to follow Pipes and co. in their anti-Ramadam jihad (ha ha). Do you really think that there will arise Moderate Muslim leaders who won’t be critical of the US “Interventions” in Muslim world – like Iraq? How would they have any credibility if they didn’t engage on the central issues of interest to politically active Muslims everywhere? Indeed it is the central issues of international affairs generally regardless of whether you have a faith or are (like me) a faithless heathen. I haven’t had time to sit down and read Ramadam’s books (have you by the way?). I suspect that if I did I could find weaknesses in them and arguments that I strongly disagree with (Gilles Kepel certainly has and I respect his work). But I disagree with lots of people and I don’t have to bring up their grandparents in the process.

    The US govt. have been forced to back down and apologise over the whole visa farce. They have dropped the reason down to him giving money to a charity that they themselve at the time had no problem with. Presumably they expected him (as a radical Islamist ideologue perhaps?) to know what they didn’t – that the charity gave money to armed groups – and therefore for him to proactively decide not to give the money!?! Is that not rather Kafkaesque? Meanwhile smart folks like Daniel Pipes, Olivier Guitta along convicted libellers like JCB keep promoting one or two statements, rumours, suggestions and supposed ‘links’ to terrorists as a some damning case against Ramadam. I really don’t get why they don’t use their obvious intellect and industry to instead engage Ramadam’s writings and criticise or refute them? If he is so dangerous, isn’t it rather obvious that in Ramadam’s numerous books this would be obvious?

  2. Hi Toby,
    Thanks for the reply. If T.Ramadan was as a vociferous anti-Saddam voice as you say, google is void of any such mention. Have you read any of his anti-Saddam articles ? Please pass it along if you come across any. I would be equally interested in his anti-Sharia articles as well.

    I don’t believe I was twisting Ramadan’s words, at least not intentionally. Ramadan’s understanding of the Muslim approval for religious motivated violence, is nothing more than veiled sympathy. Yours and my understanding of the slave trade however, does not seek to mitigate the wholesale horrendous nature of the enterprise, while Ramadan seeks at every turn to lessen the ramification of that 15%’s approval of outright murder.

    When it comes to moderates/moderation ect., I choose the term “modernist”. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said it best when she stated : “It’s urgent to criticize the teachings of Mohammad, who afterall was just a man”. A modernist is someone who chooses to belong to the 21st.century, who automatically deems a violation of an individuals human/civil rights outweighs any single interpretation of a holy religious book. Ramadan is a very clever individual who has learned to couch his arguments well, I leave the following link to an article by Fouad Ajami who pegs Ramadan firmly in spot. Ajami, IMHO is a modernist, TR is not.


    I am in solid disagreement with Scheuer, the bulk of the Islamic world (Islamic traditionalists) as well as the Islamists element are dissatisfied with the current state of Islam. They both desire to see a resurgence of the “Golden period”, with the minority (Islamists) willing to use any means of violence to achieve that goal. I do agree however that Scheuer does not sympathize with their goal., but nor does he seek to mitigate their crimes. Regardless of any or no respsonse from the West, the Islamist agenda seeks its eventual overthrow, no matter how “far fetched the scheme”.

    Thanks for gist on Brisard, I’ll be more carefull to include him as source material in the future. I just wish Noam Chomsky would be made to repudiate most of what he has written as well, since he has committed worse offences….repeatedly.

    As for Pipes, I support him pretty much all the way. He has himself been a detractor of the Bush enterprise in Iraq as well, and finds support from and gives support to moderate/modernist voices in the Muslim world. It’s a serious matter of finding true modernists to support, Ramadan on the other hand (IMHO) is a wolf in sheeps clothing, and vague ties or not to terrorist groups, will never get my approval. Read Ajami’s article to understand why his backgound/relatives are so important. The apple does not fall to far from the tree. KGS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.