Less than a week after last week's bombings in London, it appears that Tariq Ramadan is visiting the UK to address young Muslims at the Islamic Cultural Centre near Regent's Park. The right-wing press have taken exception to this, claiming that he supports suicide bombings in Palestine.
The invitation this time has come not from a university, but from the London Metropolitan Police, which as of this writing is sticking by its decision to invite him. The present commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Ian Blair, is widely accused by factions of the press of being a hidebound political correctivist and of "hanging out to dry" (the words have been repeated over and over again) four of his officers "falsely accused" of being racist (by, among other things, "mispronouncing" the word Shi'ites as Shitties). What he actually did, according to Melanie Phillips, was to seek to overturn a disciplinary panel's decision to take no further action after finding them guilty.
The present controversy over Tariq Ramadan has been kicked up by the Sun, whose headline today screams that he has been banned in the US and France, but welcomed here. The paper's website labels him an "Islamic militant", and coming so soon after the bombings, the alarm and distress this will cause is massively out of proportion to what is actually happening. Tariq Ramadan is not even accused of violent action, or the incitement thereof. All he brings is ideas, and despite having a young Muslim woman on its staff, the Sun has little confidence in the intelligence of Muslim youth - the terrorists are well-educated Muslim youth, and he wants to lecture to ... well-educated Muslim youth. Yep, all the brothers need is to hear some ideas, and they just can't resist the urge to go and bomb.
The chief arguments against Tariq Ramadan is that he is "linked with Islamic extremism" and that he has been banned from entering the US and France. There has been a substantial article on A Fistful of Euros examining the attitudes of Daniel Pipes and his arguments for not allowing him to enter the US last year. In particular, the reason why he was briefly banned from France is spelled out:
Next [Pipes alleges]: 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. Pipes has the year wrong. It was 1995. I was in France on business at the time. The Algerian FIS was leaving bombs on French railway tracks, and Charles Pasqua, the interior minister, closed the borders and set up inspections and paperwork checks at all entry points to France. This is allowed by EU law in cases of national emergency. Pasqua forbade a great many people from entering France at the time. All manner of Muslims - almost anyone with a connection to terrorism, no matter how faint - was forbidden from entering the country. PasquaâÂÂs emergency powers enabled him to do so without having to show any evidence or cause. Ramadan is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna. That is a connection to terrorism, enough to put him on a hastily constructed, evidence-free list of people temporarily blocked from entering France. It is not, however, a sign of culpability or risk. That is the nature of emergency power, under French law and generally elsewhere: It is arbitrary, but temporary. When the emergency had passed, no evidence to pursue Ramadan or continue to prevent him from entering was put forward.
As Ian Blair points out in the above-linked BBC article, he is no longer banned from France, so why ban him from entering the UK?
The other argument is that he supposedly supports suicide bombings. The Times, owned by the same Rupert Murdoch who owns the Scum, offers this rather suspicious quote in an article in today's edition:
Professor Ramadan has previously justified suicide bombings. Asked by one Italian magazine if the killing of civilians was morally right, he replied: âÂÂIn Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, there is a situation of oppression, repression and dictatorship. It is legitimate for Muslims to resist fascism that kills the innocent.âÂÂ
The Italian magazine is not named, and I'm sure the reader will detect a certain disconnect between the quote and what comes before it. You will notice that it does not mention suicide bombings, only violent resistance against "fascism". Why could the Times' writer not find a quote that directly mentions suicide bombings or "martyrdom operations"? But a substantial proportion of the Arab public, particularly in Egypt, sympathises with the suicide bombers. Some Islamic scholars reject it as a tactic because of the suicide element, and no doubt most would reply in the negative if asked, "do you approve of Palestinians' deliberately killing pregnant women and children?", but the idea of violent restance to Israel is not rejected outright by any Muslim authority. (And no, "Shaikh Abdul-Hadi Palazzi" does not count.)
Like the Islamic scholars who defend suicide bombings in certain circumstances, Ramadan condemns the kind of terrorism which does deliberately target innocent and non-hostile people of whatever religion - including the recent bombings in London. Previous controversies about Arab hostility to Jews have included rants about apes and pigs - none of that from Dr Ramadan.
So why should Tariq Ramadan's opinions about events in a different part of the world mean that he should be barred from this country? Because, as in the USA, people want to keep out people with opinions they don't like. Pipes stated this openly after Ramadan gave up his professorship at Notre Dame: the victory was not a perfect one, because "it depended on RamadanâÂÂs connections to terrorism; in the future, I hope that being an Islamist will in of itself â without necessarily having ties to violence â be grounds for keeping aliens out of the United States, much as being a communist was grounds for exclusion in an earlier era".
Besides, Tariq Ramadan is no hardliner; his positions on many issues unrelated to Palestine, Chechenia and so on are widely regarded as too liberal. (That article, incidentally, claims that Ramadan's comments to an Italian magazine on fascism were actually made to an Italian court!) He is not coming here to cause trouble; if he was, it's inconceivable that he would be allowed, much less invited, to come here. The UK has permitted people who are widely suspected of having blood on their hands, like Narendra Modi, to come to the UK and address audiences in, among other places, Wembley. If Modi is no threat to security, and not sufficiently offensive to merit refusal of entry, Tariq Ramadan certainly is not.
(Update: more on this from Thabet.)
Tariq who?
Who cares what he has said, is he upon the haqq, does he speak from his opinion or the bok and the Sunnah? These are teh questions Muslims be asking. Yusuf, I believe your name is, this isnt a battle or a schism between Muslims who dont really practice thier deen and Muslims who really practice their deen. It is between the straight path and the deviated path.
Did not the Messenger of Allah warn us about this?
Tariq who?
Who cares what he has said, is he upon the haqq, does he speak from his opinion or the bok and the Sunnah? These are teh questions Muslims be asking. Yusuf, I believe your name is, this isnt a battle or a schism between Muslims who dont really practice thier deen and Muslims who really practice their deen. It is between the straight path and the deviated path.
Did not the Messenger of Allah warn us about this?
Asalaamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu,
Brother Yusuf, I dont remember how I stumbled on your blog but I was impressed with your story of an ex hizbi by our noble brother Abu Uwais (ra). Anyway I am a sister from America and I wanted to know if you can introduce me to a sister who will be willing to become my pen pal. I prefer a sister that is between 17-30, so that we may have things in common. If there are any other brothers on this site with a sister or a wife that would be great.
Barakallahu feek..
Asalaamualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu,
Brother Yusuf, I dont remember how I stumbled on your blog but I was impressed with your story of an ex hizbi by our noble brother Abu Uwais (ra). Anyway I am a sister from America and I wanted to know if you can introduce me to a sister who will be willing to become my pen pal. I prefer a sister that is between 17-30, so that we may have things in common. If there are any other brothers on this site with a sister or a wife that would be great.
Barakallahu feek..
Salaam 'Alaikum
The dispute is not between Muslims who want him to come to the UK and Muslims who don't or Muslims who are "deviated" and those who aren't. The "dispute" is between fanatics in England who, like fanatics in the US, do not want any Islamic educator to come in and middle-of-the-road people who *do* want to hear from Muslim educators and thinkers.
Salaam 'Alaikum
The dispute is not between Muslims who want him to come to the UK and Muslims who don't or Muslims who are "deviated" and those who aren't. The "dispute" is between fanatics in England who, like fanatics in the US, do not want any Islamic educator to come in and middle-of-the-road people who *do* want to hear from Muslim educators and thinkers.
Umm Zaid,
Wa alaikum salaam wa rahmatullah Umm Zaid, ya uhkti, is there anyway we can exchange emails?
I am not a supporter of Tariq, I pray that his guidance is swift. I fear that he may be poisoning Muslims with his new age ratioanlism and critical thinking. Here I'm thinking we were just supposed to submit. Umm Zaid, the kafir have every right to bar who comes into thier country. They leaders have a responsibility to protect the citizens. It is the same in Darul Islam. We cant have double standards between us and Darul kufr. If they fear that he is a sercurity risk, make dua, until then I think Muslims should just mind thier behavior as everything we do is a dawah.
BTW I am a sister.
Umm Zaid,
Wa alaikum salaam wa rahmatullah Umm Zaid, ya uhkti, is there anyway we can exchange emails?
I am not a supporter of Tariq, I pray that his guidance is swift. I fear that he may be poisoning Muslims with his new age ratioanlism and critical thinking. Here I'm thinking we were just supposed to submit. Umm Zaid, the kafir have every right to bar who comes into thier country. They leaders have a responsibility to protect the citizens. It is the same in Darul Islam. We cant have double standards between us and Darul kufr. If they fear that he is a sercurity risk, make dua, until then I think Muslims should just mind thier behavior as everything we do is a dawah.
BTW I am a sister.
I'm not a supporter of Tariq Ramadan either, especially after that whole "no to sharia" business. It was completely inapporpriate with all the orientalists writings out there and modernists groups.
There were other things Tariq Ramadan wrote that were troubling as well.
Sister Bikhair, if your looking to have correspondence with sisters, visit
http://www.jannah.org/board
Alhumdullilah there are many sisters there and they'll be happy to help you out. Another good site to visit is: http://talk.islamicnetwork.com/
I'm not a supporter of Tariq Ramadan either, especially after that whole "no to sharia" business. It was completely inapporpriate with all the orientalists writings out there and modernists groups.
There were other things Tariq Ramadan wrote that were troubling as well.
Sister Bikhair, if your looking to have correspondence with sisters, visit
http://www.jannah.org/board
Alhumdullilah there are many sisters there and they'll be happy to help you out. Another good site to visit is: http://talk.islamicnetwork.com/
Arshad,
Wa Jazakallahu Khairan. Actually I was looking for a sister who lived in the London area because I am doing some research on a university there. I didnt want to ask a brother because.. well you know how it is.
Shukran....
I did go to Islamicnetwork.com, InshaAllah I hope I get a reply soon.
Arshad,
Wa Jazakallahu Khairan. Actually I was looking for a sister who lived in the London area because I am doing some research on a university there. I didnt want to ask a brother because.. well you know how it is.
Shukran....
I did go to Islamicnetwork.com, InshaAllah I hope I get a reply soon.
If the likes of Qardawi and Ramadaan are considered 'extreme', where does that leave the rest of us? This should be a warning to all those people who think that people from outside the fold can somehow be the arbiters of what is or is not considered 'extreme' in Islam.
Atticus
If the likes of Qardawi and Ramadaan are considered 'extreme', where does that leave the rest of us? This should be a warning to all those people who think that people from outside the fold can somehow be the arbiters of what is or is not considered 'extreme' in Islam.
Atticus
indeed that is the question, what are extreme views?
I'll ask a question of you all, and be honest, try and reply,
I'd welcome your comments:
1. was the suicide bombing in London wrong? Yes or No?
2. is suicide bombing in Israel wrong?
3. are there any occasions when suicide bombings is acceptable?
indeed that is the question, what are extreme views?
I'll ask a question of you all, and be honest, try and reply,
I'd welcome your comments:
1. was the suicide bombing in London wrong? Yes or No?
2. is suicide bombing in Israel wrong?
3. are there any occasions when suicide bombings is acceptable?
Well I don't agree with suicide bombings but isn't the real issue here targeting civillians?
If you're going to blow up a train or bus packed with commuters I don't see what moral difference it makes whether you leave the bomb or kill yourself with everyone else.
Well I don't agree with suicide bombings but isn't the real issue here targeting civillians?
If you're going to blow up a train or bus packed with commuters I don't see what moral difference it makes whether you leave the bomb or kill yourself with everyone else.
It is haram to target civilians there are hadith that testify to that and there are ayat from the Quran stating that it is haram to fight those who havent fought you. I think for the most part British Muslims are leading fine lives in Britian.
It is haram to target civilians there are hadith that testify to that and there are ayat from the Quran stating that it is haram to fight those who havent fought you. I think for the most part British Muslims are leading fine lives in Britian.
I noticed that in replying to my questions people *avoided* answering the harder question "2. is suicide bombing in Israel wrong?"
why?
I noticed that in replying to my questions people *avoided* answering the harder question "2. is suicide bombing in Israel wrong?"
why?
There are two aspects to the issue. First, there is the issue of the act of suicide itself, which is forbidden in Islam. Some notable scholars have in fact declared suicide bombings to be entirely forbidden on this basis. Others, however, deal with the issue by drawing an analogy between what they would call martyrdom operations and wilfully going into a battle knowing there is little or no chance of returning alive. The second issue of course relates to who exactly you are targeting. The deliberate targeting of civilian non-combatants is forbidden in Islam and this is clear from the traditions of the Prophet (S.A.W) and the QurâÂÂan.
So, in answer to your questions:
1. was the suicide bombing in London wrong? Yes or No?
Yes. Innocent civilians were targeted, which is why Muslims in the UK and elsewhere have demonstrated little compunction in condemning the attack. The only contention is the supposed gap in the morality of 7/7 and the annihilation of Grozny, the flattening of Fallujeh, and the merciless incursion into Jenin. These and other such events are equally terrifying and indiscriminate and equally worthy of condemnation, but that doesnâÂÂt seem to register in some quarters. This is not an irrelevant response to the question, because the alternative is to accept that some lives are worth inherently more than others.
.
2. is suicide bombing in Israel wrong?
Not always. First of all, there is a war between israel and Palestine. Despite attempts at a peace process, there has never really been a lasting truce between the sides. So we are not talking about normal, peacetime societies here. The israelis would have the world believe that any attack initiated by the Palestinians is an act of terrorism, which simply is not the case. For Muslim scholars the issue is who exactly is a non-combatant. israelis are among the most militarised people on the planet, all men and women between the ages of 15-49 undergo compulsory military service. This, coupled with the fact that they actively enforce an occupation, causes a number of scholars to argue that they cannot be considered civilian non-combatants.
3. are there any occasions when suicide bombings is acceptable?
Yes. If suicide bombing is intentionally targeted towards combatants, then morally it is no different to any other means of delivering death and destruction to your enemy. As I have alluded to in my response to the previous questions, there are stark differences in the opinions of scholars on the whole issue of suicide bombings. Even those who deem it to be acceptable, stipulate some very precise conditions for its legitimacy.
There are two aspects to the issue. First, there is the issue of the act of suicide itself, which is forbidden in Islam. Some notable scholars have in fact declared suicide bombings to be entirely forbidden on this basis. Others, however, deal with the issue by drawing an analogy between what they would call martyrdom operations and wilfully going into a battle knowing there is little or no chance of returning alive. The second issue of course relates to who exactly you are targeting. The deliberate targeting of civilian non-combatants is forbidden in Islam and this is clear from the traditions of the Prophet (S.A.W) and the QurâÂÂan.
So, in answer to your questions:
1. was the suicide bombing in London wrong? Yes or No?
Yes. Innocent civilians were targeted, which is why Muslims in the UK and elsewhere have demonstrated little compunction in condemning the attack. The only contention is the supposed gap in the morality of 7/7 and the annihilation of Grozny, the flattening of Fallujeh, and the merciless incursion into Jenin. These and other such events are equally terrifying and indiscriminate and equally worthy of condemnation, but that doesnâÂÂt seem to register in some quarters. This is not an irrelevant response to the question, because the alternative is to accept that some lives are worth inherently more than others.
.
2. is suicide bombing in Israel wrong?
Not always. First of all, there is a war between israel and Palestine. Despite attempts at a peace process, there has never really been a lasting truce between the sides. So we are not talking about normal, peacetime societies here. The israelis would have the world believe that any attack initiated by the Palestinians is an act of terrorism, which simply is not the case. For Muslim scholars the issue is who exactly is a non-combatant. israelis are among the most militarised people on the planet, all men and women between the ages of 15-49 undergo compulsory military service. This, coupled with the fact that they actively enforce an occupation, causes a number of scholars to argue that they cannot be considered civilian non-combatants.
3. are there any occasions when suicide bombings is acceptable?
Yes. If suicide bombing is intentionally targeted towards combatants, then morally it is no different to any other means of delivering death and destruction to your enemy. As I have alluded to in my response to the previous questions, there are stark differences in the opinions of scholars on the whole issue of suicide bombings. Even those who deem it to be acceptable, stipulate some very precise conditions for its legitimacy.
Atticus,
Sorry dear. You are essentially arguing the the ends justify the means. Regardless of what ones intentions are if you take your own life, you are taking your own life. IT doesnt matter what it is in relation to. By that logic, you can say, well it is ok to drink alcohol if your intention isnt to get drunk or indulge in its taste but to cure or heal. You better get some daleel for what you are saying and stop using your own intellect.
Atticus dear, you are deviating.
Atticus,
Sorry dear. You are essentially arguing the the ends justify the means. Regardless of what ones intentions are if you take your own life, you are taking your own life. IT doesnt matter what it is in relation to. By that logic, you can say, well it is ok to drink alcohol if your intention isnt to get drunk or indulge in its taste but to cure or heal. You better get some daleel for what you are saying and stop using your own intellect.
Atticus dear, you are deviating.
TIme,
My question did answer your question because it was general. I didnt speak about the London bombings specifically now did I speak about Isreali bombings specifically? Suicide bombings and targeting civilains is just that no matter where it is.
I think you have an agenda.
TIme,
My question did answer your question because it was general. I didnt speak about the London bombings specifically now did I speak about Isreali bombings specifically? Suicide bombings and targeting civilains is just that no matter where it is.
I think you have an agenda.
atticus.
Thank you for an expansive reply.
So stepping through your answer, you agree that it was wrong for the suicide bombers to kill Londoners.
Yet when we come to Israelis there is a dual standard, from your answer it seems acceptable to kill Israelis, including civilians, when the circumstances demand it? [and I appreciate there is a conflict going on over there]
I look forward to your reply
So I will ask you a direct question: is it morally acceptable to blow up a bus load of **civilians** in the middle of Israel (excluding Gaza and the West Bank)??
atticus.
Thank you for an expansive reply.
So stepping through your answer, you agree that it was wrong for the suicide bombers to kill Londoners.
Yet when we come to Israelis there is a dual standard, from your answer it seems acceptable to kill Israelis, including civilians, when the circumstances demand it? [and I appreciate there is a conflict going on over there]
I look forward to your reply
So I will ask you a direct question: is it morally acceptable to blow up a bus load of **civilians** in the middle of Israel (excluding Gaza and the West Bank)??
bikhair,
sorry to be pedantic but I asked specific questions and therefore was looking for specific answers, but I can understand if people feel uncomfortable making parallels.
bikhair,
sorry to be pedantic but I asked specific questions and therefore was looking for specific answers, but I can understand if people feel uncomfortable making parallels.
sister bikhair you can find a lot of muslim sisters on Shaikh M.shareef site http://forums.almaghrib.org
sister bikhair you can find a lot of muslim sisters on Shaikh M.shareef site http://forums.almaghrib.org
July 18, 2005
The Guardian Unlimited
Polly Curtis, Education Correspondent
Hugh Muir, Correspondent
Dear Ms. Curtis and Mr. Muir,
This letter is in response to your articles published in the Guardian on July 12th, 2005, "Row Brewing over Muslim Academic's conference Call" and on July 13th, Muslim Scholar to Press on with lectures." As we have learned, this event The Middle Path conference on July 24th is being partly funded by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and the Metropolitan Police.
Your article was of particular interest to us as we, the Ottawa Police and our main partners, Muslim Presence/Présence Musulmane have been working with Dr. Ramadan since July 2001 to build bridges and create a positive dialogue in Ottawa, Canada.
Most recently in February 2005, Muslim Presence/Présence Musulmane Ottawa, in partnership with the Ottawa Police Service hosted the following event: Building Upon Our Shared Experiences Post 9-11: Strategies for Working With the Muslim Community with Dr. Tariq Ramadan as our keynote speaker.
This event provided an opportunity for over 200 people to raise questions and participate in a dialogue with Dr. Ramadan, Ottawa Police, service providers, policy makers and members of the Muslim community. It was geared towards those who accept the challenges of the "vivre-ensemble" and raised the fundamental questions of how Muslims can fully participate in the civic life of Canadian society while remaining faithful to their principles and how to how to face up to the ignorance and reject the clichés and prejudice that surround Islam.
In a press release associated with this event, Ottawa Police Deputy Chief stated "Our goal in co-sponsoring the event with Muslim Presence Ottawa has been to have dialogue, discussion, and promote respect for diversity. If we can discuss frankly, openly and honestly our challenges - it is clear that our city, our nation's capital, will continue to be a model for affirming and celebrating diversity in our people, our ideas and our experiences."
Based on our experience, we fully support Dr. Ramadan's participation in events such as the Middle Path Conference and believe that Dr. Ramadan will play an important role in contributing to lasting and demanding dialogue, respect for diversity and the expression of common values.
Sincerely,
David Pepper, Director of Community Development
Ottawa Police Service
Shelina Merani, Muslim Presence, Présence Musulmane
Ottawa
July 18, 2005
The Guardian Unlimited
Polly Curtis, Education Correspondent
Hugh Muir, Correspondent
Dear Ms. Curtis and Mr. Muir,
This letter is in response to your articles published in the Guardian on July 12th, 2005, "Row Brewing over Muslim Academic's conference Call" and on July 13th, Muslim Scholar to Press on with lectures." As we have learned, this event The Middle Path conference on July 24th is being partly funded by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and the Metropolitan Police.
Your article was of particular interest to us as we, the Ottawa Police and our main partners, Muslim Presence/Présence Musulmane have been working with Dr. Ramadan since July 2001 to build bridges and create a positive dialogue in Ottawa, Canada.
Most recently in February 2005, Muslim Presence/Présence Musulmane Ottawa, in partnership with the Ottawa Police Service hosted the following event: Building Upon Our Shared Experiences Post 9-11: Strategies for Working With the Muslim Community with Dr. Tariq Ramadan as our keynote speaker.
This event provided an opportunity for over 200 people to raise questions and participate in a dialogue with Dr. Ramadan, Ottawa Police, service providers, policy makers and members of the Muslim community. It was geared towards those who accept the challenges of the "vivre-ensemble" and raised the fundamental questions of how Muslims can fully participate in the civic life of Canadian society while remaining faithful to their principles and how to how to face up to the ignorance and reject the clichés and prejudice that surround Islam.
In a press release associated with this event, Ottawa Police Deputy Chief stated "Our goal in co-sponsoring the event with Muslim Presence Ottawa has been to have dialogue, discussion, and promote respect for diversity. If we can discuss frankly, openly and honestly our challenges - it is clear that our city, our nation's capital, will continue to be a model for affirming and celebrating diversity in our people, our ideas and our experiences."
Based on our experience, we fully support Dr. Ramadan's participation in events such as the Middle Path Conference and believe that Dr. Ramadan will play an important role in contributing to lasting and demanding dialogue, respect for diversity and the expression of common values.
Sincerely,
David Pepper, Director of Community Development
Ottawa Police Service
Shelina Merani, Muslim Presence, Présence Musulmane
Ottawa
[...] Scott Martens of A Fistful of Euros answered some of Pipes’ allegations in this entry last August. More coverage by Thabet of Under Progress here, and on my blog here. 3. Hizbut-Tahreer are an extremist, racist party and a conveyor belt for terrorism, and propaganda pieces for HT have appeared in the Guardian. [...]
[...] Scott Martens of A Fistful of Euros answered some of Pipes’ allegations in this entry last August. More coverage by Thabet of Under Progress here, and on my blog here. 3. Hizbut-Tahreer are an extremist, racist party and a conveyor belt for terrorism, and propaganda pieces for HT have appeared in the Guardian. [...]