Brixton Mosque, Tariq Ramadan and HT

Good article about/interview with Tariq Ramadan in today's Independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article301486.ece

I know I will sound like the "Wahhabite" Salafi on this one but whether you are pro-terror or anti-terror deviance is deviance. This guy walks and talks like the duck in question.

BTW YUSUF SMITH, I wish you would stop using the term Wahhabi. Please stop!

From your American sister.

The Independent on Tariq Ramadan, "And why he was last year named by Time magazine as one of the world's 100 most important innovators of the 21st century."

I couldnt have said it better myself. This is just too rich. Dont let the Saudi Salafis get a hold of this.

Assalaamu alaikum,

Yusuf, can you define "Islamist"? The meaning seems to have changed over the years, and probably from one place to another, too. I used to think it just meant Muslims who were trying to practice, because the "liberal" Muslims used to say, "You can't say that Muslims want such-and-such, because we're Muslims too, and we do't agree". So a Muslim who actually tried to live according to Islam was an "Islamist". Then it seemed to be a political thing... and now it seems to mean some kind of extremist or even "terrorist".

As for the two articles writte by the HT member in the Guardian, the one about Shabina Begum just seems like a normal piece, of the kind that they were probably hoping to get from a young Muslim guy. I wouldn't have thought it had anything to do with HT. (Not that I'm a supporter of theirs either.)

My definition of Islamist is "anyone who thinks that the Sharia should be the law of the land in Muslim-majority countries".

If that includes 99.9% of Muslims, what good is the meaning of the word "Islamist", George? In that case it simply reminds me of the word "Mohammadan".

I do use the word 'Islamist', but do so as a thinly veiled form of criticsm against Muslims who would seek to reduce Islam, as a religion, a history, a heritage and civilisation to a set of political objectives whose sole aim is not salvational or humanitarian, but liquidating all opponents of "The Islamic State" (which, incidentally, is embodied by their own small faction).

I always suspected that the proportion of actively pro-Sharia Muslims was more than the 10% quoted by Daniel Pipes et al (his definition of 'Islamist' is more or less the same as mine), but 99.9% seems a bit far fetched. I'd expect 70% to be a good ballpark number.

Is Pipes merely deluded (underestimating the support for Sharia), or is he a malevolent liar (attempting to conceal genocidal intentions by claiming only a small percentage of the world's Muslim population are his enemies)?

The exclusivist ultra-extremists that thabet describes (like Gama'a al-Islamiyya, GIA, al-Takfir wal-Hijra etc) are better described as "takfiris" - it's much more unambiguous. Just like when discussing women's dress "veil" is ambiguous while "niqab" is not.

George Carty,

I will assume that you are George as well. I am not at all convinced that these takfiris having a blueprint for the future aside from the Quran being the Constitution of the Islamic state. To take a term from thier ideological forefather Sayyid Qutb. WHo exactly do they want as Caliph of the State. Who will be our Emirul Muminoon? Certainly not Bin Laden, he is just a poster boy. Perhaps some illiterate Pakistanis or Indonesians see Bin Laden as a formidiable religious scholar but to most Muslims, especially to Saudis, he is not.

It seems like the takfiris reject every top religious scholar in the Kingdom as stooges for the government. I am not sure they even had respect for Shaik Bin Baz (hafidullah.)

And why are you using Pipes opinions as a barometer of who is who in the Muslim world? If you read Yusuf's piece you would have noticed that the Salafis from Birmingham a "...sect influenced by the Saudi scholar Rabi’ ibn Hadi al-Madkhali..." would like Islamic law practiced in Muslims lands. They even go a step further for Muslims leaving in Darul Kafur by stating that all Muslims shouldnt settle in Darul kafr because of thier obligaion to hijrah.

However, here are some of the criticisms of Ramadan made by Pipes, France, Sweden and French autorities:

Why Revoke Tariq Ramadan's U.S. Visa?
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
August 27, 2004

It's not every day that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security revokes a visa issued to a Swiss-national scholar scheduled to teach at one of America's premier universities. But this has just happened, and it's a good thing too.

The Swiss scholar is Tariq Ramadan. He is Islamist royalty – his maternal grandfather, Hasan al-Banna, founded the Muslim Brotherhood, probably the single most powerful Islamist institution of the twentieth century, in Egypt in 1928. Tariq is a Swiss citizen because his father, Sa‘id Ramadan, also a leading Islamist, fled from Egypt in 1954 following a crackdown on the brotherhood. Sa‘id reached Geneva in 1958, where Tariq was born in 1962.

Thanks to his pedigree and his talents, Tariq has emerged as a significant force in his own right. Symbolic of this, Time magazine in April named him one of the world's top hundred scientists and thinkers. And so, when Notre Dame University went looking for a Henry R. Luce professor of religion, conflict and peacebuilding, it unsurprisingly settled on Mr. Ramadan.

Its offer was made and accepted by the beginning of 2004; a work visa followed in February. Mr. Ramadan bought a house, found schools for his four children, and dispatched his personal effects to South Bend, Indiana. He was supposed to start teaching a few days ago.

But on July 28, just nine days before the Ramadans were to leave for America, Mr. Ramadan was informed that the Department of Homeland Security had revoked his work visa. A DHS spokesman, Russ Knocke, later explained this had been done in accord with a law that denies entry to aliens who have used a "position of prominence within any country to endorse or espouse terrorist activity." The revocation, Mr. Knocke added, was based on "public safety or national security interests."

Of course, Mr. Ramadan dismisses the revocation as "unjustified" and due to "political pressure." He even blames me for the DHS decision.

What's up? The DHS knows much more than I do, but it is not talking. A review of the press, however, gives an idea of what the problem is. Here are some reasons why Mr. Ramadan might have been kept out:

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.
Then there is the intriguing possibility, reported by Olivier Guitta, that Osama bin Laden studied with Tariq's father in Geneva, suggesting that the future terrorist and the future scholar might have known each other.

Ramadan denies all ties to terrorism, but the pattern is clear. As Lee Smith writes in The American Prospect, he is a cold-blooded Islamist whose "cry of death to the West is a quieter and gentler jihad, but it's still jihad."

These reasons explain why Americans should thank DHS for keeping Tariq Ramadan out of America.

But the story is not over: the State Department has in effect encouraged Ramadan to reapply for a different type of visa, making the recent developments probably just round one of a drawn-out match.

_____________

For more on Ramadan, see the excellent articles on him by Fouad Ajami and Stephen Schwartz, as well as weblog entries of mine,"Tariq Ramadan, the Chicago Tribune, and Me" and "Tariq Ramadan Exposed".

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2043

In regard to the salafi qutbi's attitude towards Bin Baz I believe they made Takfir on him.

This was Abdullah Faisal's belief as stated in "The Devil's deception of the Saudi Salafis".

I believe Ayman al-Zawahiri made the initial proclaimation of takfir against him.

"...quoted by Daniel Pipes..."

With all due respect, Pipes is a nobody. He appears to be of the thinking that if you're a Muslim who prays, and visibly adopts traditional Muslim attire, and voices concern over "Muslim political issues", you're a threat to Western Civilisation™. My use of 99.9% was merely by way of example, although any Muslim who even remotely practices his/her faith must live by shari'ah, then this might not be far off.

As for "takfiris", yes these exist, but not all people who make Islam a political slogan are takfiris. HT, given all their recent publicity, come to mind. The Jamaat-e-Islami are another group I can think of.

Whatever Ramadan's "deviances" (allow me not to comment), citing Pipes as a source of "criticism" against Ramadan is akin to citing "criticisms" of the Catholicism made by Ian Paisley.

Thabet,

Well he is a source of criticism for Ramadan, but as you probably read alot of it is suspicion and, like bro. Yusuf said, of having the wrong ancestry. Consider Ibn Abdul Wahhab's (hafidullah) critics were both his brother and his father. Pipes criticism go beyound who is a Islamist and isnt. He has in fact stated that he prefers the secular non practicing Muslim above all. This ayat from the Quran comes to mind:

Surah Al Baqarah 217

"They ask you concerning fighting in the Sacred Months (i.e. 1st, 7th, 11th and 12th months of the Islamic calendar). Say, "Fighting therein is a great (transgression) but a greater (transgression) with Allah is to prevent mankind from following the Way of Allah, to disbelieve in Him, to prevent access to Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah), and to drive out its inhabitants, and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion (Islamic Monotheism) if they can. And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever."

When he isnt pushing the agenda of Zionism and Muslim bashing he is commenting on the hygiene of Arabs. Here in 1990 he states in the National Reveiw, "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene.... All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most."

Perhaps this may be the same reasoning behind the Arab rejection of a Jewish state. Just kidding but really this guy is a trip.

>> My definition of Islamist is “anyone who thinks that the Sharia should be the law of the land in Muslim-majority countries”.

-- My definition of Islamist is “anyone who thinks that the Sharia should be the law of the land in Muslim-majority countries”. --

Assalaamu alaikum,

I think this is a good standard definition - although not that everyone who uses it will mean that.

And although it seems logical that every Muslim would be an "Islamist" (using this definition), in reality, it's certainly not 99.9%. I don't know how many... somewhere between Daniel Pipes' estimate and Thabet's.

Yusuf Smith's simplistic of our mosque in Brixton is absolutely inncorrect and is just as innaccurate as Robert Mendick's article in the Eevening Standard.

As a result, the Brixton Mosque is in no need of Smith's simplistic 'analysis' of afairs regarding our masjid in Brixton. I refer readers to a rebuttal of Mendick's article in the Evening Standard that is available online at www.salafimanhaj.com

AbdulHaq ibn Kofi ibn Kwesi Addae ibn Kwaku al-Ashanti

can't see why I shouldn't restate what I wrote before:
asSalaam ‘aleykum wa RahmatuLlah;
Peace be upon those who accept Guidance:

dear brother AbdulRahman and sister bintkhayr:

I love you both, and while I certainly incline towards the “critical of salafi” side, I love Shaykh Hamza, his diplomacy and statement (paraphrased from two weeks ago): “I don’t like those who criticize ibn Taymiyya, he was a great scholar. like all scholars, he made mistakes, but he should be shown respect. if only his students, or those who claim to follow his path, would show respect to others or at least not harass them - which they don’t - we should treat them as brothers and sisters in this deen”.

I have no love lost for the "fitna, harb, wa qarn ush-Shaytan min an-Najd"... and let no-one be confused as to their identity. [‘He who preaches bigotry is not one of us. And not being one of us, he may go ahead and fight in the cause of bigotry. He who dies for such a cause is not one of us either.’ HADITH OF ABU DAWUD On the Authority of Jubayr Ibn Mut’im : http://hadeeth.blogspot.com]

Nonetheless, this is not the time for salafi/ sufi [or wahabi vs. Traditional Islam] slander & mutual enmity, though there certainly needs to be forceful condemnation of wahabi/ “salafi/ takfiri” extremist theology/rhetoric, and the connections of those above with terrorism/ extremist violence - my blog has entries on that, and I have my own experiences in Saudi to relate to.

None the less, abdurRahmans’ point about why we should condemn the attacks as “anti-Islamic” and bintkhayr’s (and many, many “Salafis”) evident sincerity both argue against slandering each other or getting into heated arguments in comment boxes of blogs, don’t we have enough of that already?

as to bintkhayr’s comment: “Why do your disdain the purification of ibadah, and manhaj? I consider myself a Salafi, wa Allahualim. Only Allah knows my affair but why do your reject Muslims purging thier manhaj of acts that will destroy them? What is with the anti salafi campaign, we InshaAllah are the good guys or at the very least we know the good way.” - I think it’s takfir and the extremist rhetoric “lanaat Allah ala Nasara wa Yahud!” that I hear shouted from mosques here (and at me, even though I’m a muslim who happens to be white and from the West, I can’t get my salaams answered and have to endure people asking me “are you a muslim?” when I salaam them (sometimes after prayer!), as well as interrogating me with “Where are you from? Baladi, Agenci?”)… those attitudes, bought for with Saudi oil money and reinforced by Wahabi/”Salafi purification of the deen & manhaj” theology, as well as ignorance, bigotry, and idiocy are precisely what is destroying us.

as the hadith [Sahih] states: “You have inherited two [ugly, bad habits] things from the time of Jahilliyah: pride in ancestry and mutual enmity.”

as well as: ‘He who preaches bigotry is not one of us. And not being one of us, he may go ahead and fight in the cause of bigotry. He who dies for such a cause is not one of us either.’ HADITH OF ABU DAWUD On the Authority of Jubayr Ibn Mut’im : http://hadeeth.blogspot.com

may Allah bless and guide us all
asSalaam ‘aleykum wa RahmatuLlah;
Dawud