“They have nothing to do with [Islamic] principles because our principles are clear: that the one who is leading should be chosen by people who are followers or citizens.”
When was this ever the case, in the history of the caliphates? Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were chosen over furious opposition from the party of Ali, the shiat Ali, which became the Shi’ites. Abu Bakr appointed Umar to succeed him over objections from other Muslim leaders. When Ali finally did become caliph, he faced open rebellion and warred with a faction led by Aisha, Muhammad’s widowed child bride. The Abbasids violently supplanted the Umayyads in 750. And on and on. The caliphate was always a might-makes-right proposition; numerous caliphs were assassinated, often by people from rival factions, and the whole history of the caliphate is marked by violent jockeying for power. Ramadan is — as is his wont — retailing smooth deceptions for a Western audience, not actual facts.
His opposition to the Islamic State, however, is doubtless real, even though it doesn’t come from his vaunted Islamic moderation, which is nothing but a cynical smoke-and-mirrors act. Ramadan is, after all, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and his grandfather founded it with the goal of restoring the caliphate. So the Islamic State’s caliphate is a rival to the one the Muslim Brotherhood hoped (and still hopes) to set up.
“Tariq Ramadan: ‘ISIL is not Islamic,'” Al Jazeera, October 11, 2014:
An ‘Islamic Caliphate’, a ‘Caliph’ – terms that now in headlines across the globe, mostly thanks to one extremist group, The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).
As ISIL captures territory declaring their caliphate, minorities have fled and journalists have been beheaded.
Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL, has called on Muslims to take up arms, and thousands of fighters from around the world have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight for the self-declared caliphate.
They are distorting the whole message. So we have to respond to this by saying … what you are doing, killing innocent people, implementing so-called ‘Sharia’ or the so-called ‘Islamic State’, this is against everything that is coming from Islam.
The group’s actions are causing a backlash among Muslims who see ISIL – also known as Daesh – in contrast to their religion and past caliphates famed for tolerance.
More than 120 Muslim scholars have released a letter where they call ISIL un-Islamic and argue that the group is incorrectly using scripture to support its cause.
“They [ISIL] are distorting the whole message. So we have to respond to this by saying … what you are doing, killing innocent people, implementing so-called ‘Sharia’ or the so-called ‘Islamic State’, this is against everything that is coming from Islam,” says Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Islamic scholar.
“It is not a caliphate,” Ramadan says about ISIL. “It is just people playing with politics referring to religious sources. And this is why [as] Muslim scholars, Muslim intellectuals, we have to be quite clear about this. We have to speak the truth and be quite clear about the fact that if they are not representing what are the Islamic principles, many of the dictators today are not representing Islam either.
“They have nothing to do with [Islamic] principles because our principles are clear: that the one who is leading should be chosen by people who are followers or citizens. So many countries who are dealing with the West are not as bad as Daesh (ISIL) today, but they are bad,” he adds.
Ramadan concedes that those who speak for the mainstream understanding of Islam face a challenge for the hearts and minds of Muslims.
“The main problems of Muslims are coming from the Muslims; from Muslim-majority countries,” he says. “And then when we start to be critical and say we are going to speak out against all the dictators, then some of the scholars who responded to Daesh today and are speaking about the so-called Islamic State, saying this is wrong in Islam, they are the same scholars that are supporting dictators.”…
Tradewinds says
The usual “War is deception” from Muslims. Al -Taqiyya at it’s finest.
Jovial Joe says
In many ways the history of Islamic caliphates simply parallels that of the royal dynasties of the West which likewise ascended to power through war and violence and certainly not by the will of the people or consent. It was not until the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 that power was first devolved to the nobles, ultimately leading to the establishment of parliamentary democracy. Such an institution will obviously never be established within Islam which models itself on the dictatorial power of Allah, which in truth is merely a subterfuge which masked the dictatorial aspirations of the very earthly Muhammad (or whoever it was that invented that fictional character).
Sam says
Can anyone show where this religion of peace is?
Tradewinds says
It’s not a religion of peace. It’s an ideology of war and conquest.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Let’s face it: Moslems are great liars. They’re great at it because they’re *pathological* liars, they believe their own delusion. In this sense, Moslem spokespersons are of the same ilk as Prez Barack Hussein, natural and highly effective liars.
But all Barack was trying to do was throw an election to be able to finalize America’s conversion to socialism. The Moslem liar’s job is as big as his goal: the lies are running a little thin and they approach their goal over taking over the world.
tpellow says
Islamic State has as much to do with Islam as T. Ramadan has.
DRHazard says
Tariq: “It is just people playing with politics referring to religious sources.”
That’s pretty much the definition of Shariah. To Tariq’s credit it’s probably near impossible to be an Islamic apologist and not trip over yourself now and then.
Ray Caruso says
Taqiyya Ramadan, professional liar, strikes again.
Isabella says
I cannot stand Ramadan. I cannot believe people pay to hear this deception piece.
voegelinian says
“Brother Tariq” Ramadan is enormously popular among Muslims in Europe and the UK — he regularly speaks to crowds at sold-out standing-room-only lectures in various places, mostly Muslims — mostly young Muslims (often young Muslimas line up to have him autograph his books and/or cassettes; though by now he must have kept pace with the technology of social media).
Back in 2011, I took the time and trouble to translate some excerpts of a book by the French journalist Caroline Fourest who has taken it upon herself to expose this Muslim snake:
The Fourest for the trees: a translation of Caroline Fourest on Tariq Ramadan
tpellow says
For T. Ramadan: activity of the Islamic, Islamic State:-
“Captured by ISIS and sold into slavery:
15-year-old Yazidi girl tells of her horrific ordeal at hands of jihadists after escaping to Turkey.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789316/captured-isis-sold-slavery-15-year-old-yazidi-girl-tells-horrific-ordeal-hands-jihadists-escaping-turkey.html#ixzz3FreOFUhV
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Michael Copeland says
“Tell the infidels in public we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on.”
Tariq Ramadan
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6377-tariq-ramadan-respect
“Using deception to mask intended goals”
Is a stated aim in the Muslim Brotherhood plan.
It’s quite unaffected by Western opinion polls,
And is something we need to get wise to as soon as we can.
Tradewinds says
I detest this lying Muslim as much as I detest another lying Muslim, Reza Ass-lan.
Jade says
Reza is one of the more detestable Muslim liars.
SpiritOf1683 says
The West can well do without lying scumbags like Tariq Ramadan. He belongs in Pakistan.
nacazo says
That’s Tariq’s objection?????!!!!!
That al-baghdadi was not duly elected? Aw shucks, had he been elected then beheadings, rapes and everything else would be a-ok with old Tariq.
Kenny says
Islamic State “is not Islamic”. Really? On that basis then, if something looks like shit, smells like shit and is as unpleasant as shit, does that mean it’s not shit after all? Or is Tariq Ramadan just a twat?
IQ al Rassooli says
Dear Mr Ramadan
It is obvious that you have forgotten what President Abraham Lincoln said “One can deceive ALL the people SOME of the time; SOME of the people ALL the time BUT not ALL the people ALL the time”
Humanity, thanks to internet and now to ISIS is at the third stage!
In a nutshell Mr Ramadan: Muhammad, his Quran, his Sunna, Sharia and ALL his Fundamentalist followers (including yourself) are: Hate mongering Warmongering, Misogynist, Duplicitous, Intolerant, Disloyal, Racist, Hypocritical, Vile and hence utterly Ungodly.
Last but not least, it is by Divine Will (Qidra Ilahiyyah) that the very Hadiths that explain to the followers of Muhammad his Quran & Sunna, are the very ones that Discredit Muhammad as a prophet and the alleged divine origin of his Quran proving beyond a shadow or even a reasonable doubt that Allah the god of Islam is most definitely NOT the same as the God of Jesus Moses & Abraham!
Islam is NOT an Abrahamic religion.
Islam is a CULT belief system; the CULT of Muhammad
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Bezelel says
I am in awe at the multitudes who misunderstand islame. It makes me wonder if anyone is doing it right? Who can say? Don’t they have any quality control or can any one with enough psychotic tendencies start a mosk?
nacazo says
The use of the word muslim is an undeserved nod to what Arabic calls followers of islam. if we were to use regular coventions we should do what we do to followers of other ideologies. communism-> communist therefore islam-> islamist. wait if you follow islam you are an islamist…of course not islamists are terorist but the ideology allows (some would say commands) islamists to be terrorists…. but not all islamists follow the ideology to the letter.
Aardvark says
I agree that the word ‘muslim’ has no place in any English speech or writing. It is a misleading Arabic word, intended to baffle the non-mohamedans. But I prefer to follow the convention used in the past by such great men as Sir Winston Churchill, and call them ‘mohammedans’.
These people are called ‘mohammedans’, because they are followers of Mohammed, just as Christians follow Christ and Buddhists follow the Buddha.
It is also a good word to use for several other reasons:
1. It (and variations like ‘mohametan’) is the traditional word used in English.
2. It reminds both speaker and audience of Mohammed, and what a vile, despicable individual he was.
3. Mohammedans, for reasons known only to themselves, seem to object to the word!
R Cole says
Hirsi Ali told Tariq Ramadan – in a debate – you are very good looking – Muslims will follow your new form of Islam. He is trying g to make it so that they don’t have to fight – but the problem is in Islam – the sword is an option. And this point brings us back to reality.
And forces us to revisit Islam’s earliest practise – possibly even before there were factions.
In this respect Isis must be an Islamic State – with all the legitimacy as any other which preceded it.
At least in part it is forcing some Muslims to do soul searching. The tendency to blame so-called ‘Islamophobia’ is like a little mouse compared with the elephant in the room – that is Islam today.
Yet with all the confusion of the Islamic world and Islam – Muslims wanted Islamic rule for the world. And perhaps what Muslims fear the most – with all their stories of peaceable coexistence – is that ISIS is saying to them – that this is how you get it. This is how Islamic states are made.
Muslims bragged that they could have it all – religious-political-social all wrapped up in one – and that if we adopted Islam – just integrated it – to start with – that we can have its bliss too.
Thank goodness – for the event of the Arab Spring – because it saw that edifice collapse – before our eyes.
:: ::
Islam stands accused
Bin Laden came in the name of Islam to attack – he first invited us to Islam/ warned us /then carried out his threat. But instead of Muslims being the focus of the retaliation – it was Islam that came under fire.
Western politicians purposely purport propaganda to hold the religion up/ at least the image of it – supposedly to safeguard the dignity of those who practise it.
While we believe dignity is inalienable, Muslims might hold dignity is a product of Islam – in which all mankind will one day emulate.
And as it was – in all the peaceable Islamic empires/ kingdoms non-Muslims never enjoyed the dignity of equality.
It has been pointed out numerous times – Muslims are the most common victims of Islamic attacks – as their proximity allows – them to become the default infidel.
:: ::
Really good article in Reuters: Saudi Arabia’s clerics condemn IS but preach intolerance
* Which translates into ‘they are not innocent’. And to kill them would not be like ‘killing the whole of mankind.’
I can understand – how in the original Islamic text there was no variant camps in Islam and that is why Muslims can scuff at the early House of Saudi clerics /the al-Wahhabs – because of the influence of the religious cleansing doctrine they introduced into modern Islam – however it is clear from Islam’s history and as Robert points out – there has always been these wars for the Caliphate – and Islamic wars for power or purity preceded Wahhabism. [Take for ex. the puritanical war of the Berbers that established Marrakesh and helped solidify Islam in North West Africa.]
What I’m afraid of is that we are going to war for this.
Okay! ISIS does Arabia!!
Might explain Obama’s hesitancy.
pumbar says
“These beans are not Heinz”!
http://s27.postimg.org/6wrm8e46b/ramadan.jpg
Maxx says
Don’t buy it. If you read and quote from the Qur’an, pray 5 times a day facing Mecca, uphold the 5 pillars of Islam and participate in the beheading of infidels in keeping with the sunna, you just might be authentically Islamic.
Using his logic, you could argue that the Crusaders were not Christian. Conflict solved.