An open letter is now circulating, in English, French, and Arabic, in support of Tariq Ramadan, who has been under investigation for nearly five months, and has just been charged in Paris with raping two Muslim women. It is a remarkable letter, obtuse and indecent, and deserves to be better known. So far, 27,000 of his admirers have signed it.
Tariq Ramadan: Full Support
This open letter expresses our full support for Professor Tariq Ramadan. It also explains the reasons that underlie it.
Over and above the presumption of innocence to which Tariq Ramadan, like everyone else, is entitled, we support him because such a stance is dictated by our religious and/or ethical principles.
It is unthinkable that we withdraw our esteem and our confidence following accusations that are highly questionable at best.
Why should Muslims not “withdraw” their “esteem” for, and “confidence” in, Ramadan, given the many charges, by eight women (not all of them as yet made public), against him? Are we never to have or express an opinion about someone accused of a crime until a court finally decides? And is even that the end of the matter? How many people think, despite the verdict of the court, that O.J. Simpson was indeed guilty of killing two people?
Ramadan may be “innocent until proven guilty” in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, there is no need for such a presumption. We are entitled to voice our opinions, as long as they are sufficiently grounded in the evidence available so far. It is up to us to present the evidence in our possession to support those opinions.
What justifies the signers of this petition calling the accusations “highly questionable at best”? The accusers were, and remain, Muslims. They were not out to “get Islam.” Far from it, they were self-described admirers of Ramadan as a “Muslim intellectual” who was especially interested in Islamic “ethics and morality.” Indeed, it is only because they were such admirers that they accepted his invitation to “continue their discussion” in his hotel room, which is where, they testified, he suddenly turned before their eyes into a sexual predator, capable of great violence, blackmail, even physical threats to their children. They identified a small scar on Ramadan’s groin that they could only have known about had he lowered or removed his pants. There is not the slightest suggestion that these accusers knew each other, and the similarity of the details in their stories tends to confirm their truth.
In the light of the principle of universal justice, such an attitude would be profoundly unjust and by its very nature, must be rejected.
We express our support for Professor Ramadan because we, like most people, have seen that the accusations leveled against him are now being treated by a section of the French political and media establishment as guilty verdicts.
So the “support” for Ramadan — Professor Ramadan — is based not on exculpatory evidence, but on a desire to defend him, Islam’s champion, at all costs. It’s not the contents, or the plausibility, or the evidence in support, of the accusations made against Ramadan that matter to the open letter’s signatories. They see themselves, instead, as offering “balance.” If some “section of the French political and media establishment” treat the “accusations” as “guilty verdicts” (not a single example is adduced in support of this charge), then it is up to his supporters to do the opposite, to dismiss those accusations altogether, simply because of how they are being used in a supposed campaign to blacken the name of Tariq Ramadan. And thus the signatories even characterize those who have the moral decency to take the accusations seriously as merely forming part of a plot, decades old, to “demonize” Tariq Ramadan. At least in this open letter they refrained from mentioning, as some of Ramadan’s supporters have been doing online, a “Zionist plot.”
The same accusations are part of an ongoing campaign that has attempted to demonize him ever since the beginning of his involvement as an intellectual and an activist in the early 1990s.
We are here being asked to believe that these accusations — in Paris, all the accusations came from Muslim women — are part of a “campaign to demonize him.” While not named, “Zionist plotters” have previously been mentioned online by Ramadan’s supporters. Perhaps they deemed the charge too blatantly antisemitic to include in their “open letter.”
Professor Ramadan and his ideas have never left people indifferent. But instead of confronting him in open debate, his ideological and political opponents have unfailingly used the most underhanded methods to discredit him as a Muslim intellectual and to discredit his thought. This is why we—who see Tariq Ramadan’s struggle as our own—here reiterate our outright rejection of attempts to vilify him. These attempts will in no way lessen our respect for him nor the pertinence of his ideas in our eyes.
How have his “ideological and political opponents…unfailingly used the most underhanded methods to discredit him as a Muslim intellectual”? What “underhanded methods” are those? Many of his opponents, in and out of debate, have included examples of the taqiyya he practices. One well-known example came up in his debate with Nicholas Sarkozy, when Ramadan was repeatedly asked to denounce the stoning to death of adulterers. He repeatedly slithered away from doing so, suggesting only that there be a temporary moratorium on the practice, while the matter continued to be debated. Thus did Ramadan manage to suggest his own opposition to stoning to death for adulterers, when in fact he was insistent in not ending the practice of stoning for adultery. He did not say, during that debate, as he might so easily have, that “it is my personal hope that the debate among Muslims will lead to the practice being done way with.”
Was it “underhanded’ of Paul Berman to discuss Ramadan’s invocation of “Islamic biology” — meaning his defense of Islam’s rejection of evolution? Isn’t that a legitimate topic? When Brian Lehrer tried to get Ramadan to discuss “Islamic biology” on a talk show, Ramadan instantly changed the subject, a tactic he frequently uses. For examples of this changing-the-subject technique, simply search for “Tariq Ramadan debate” at YouTube, and view any number of examples of Ramadan quickly “changing the subject” so as not to have to discuss aspects of Islam that he knows non-Muslims find disturbing.
“Instead of confronting him in open debate”? Actually a great many people have been eager to “confront him in open debate.” Among those who have engaged in very public — televised — debates with Tariq Ramadan are Nicholas Sarkozy, Ibn Warraq, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Murray, Maryam Namazie, Alain Finkielkraut, Alain Minc, Richard Dawkins, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. And while I know of no one who has tried to avoid debating Tariq Ramadan, it is Ramadan himself who has sometimes avoided debating an opponent he deemed too formidable. He backed out of a scheduled debate with Hitchens in 2007 (Hitchens did manage, finally, to arrange a debate with Ramadan in 2011). Most significantly, Ramadan has repeatedly ignored Robert Spencer’s challenge to join him in an “open debate,” a challenge that was first made to Ramadan back in May 2012, and that remains open, having been repeated since. Ramadan has never replied.
What “underhanded methods” have been used to discredit him as a Muslim intellectual? The main discrediting of Tariq Ramadan has been entirely of his own doing. Is it “underhanded” to quote back to the Janus-faced Ramadan contradictory statements that he has made on a topic, depending on whether the audience was Muslim or Western?
By far the greatest discrediting of Tariq Ramadan as a “Muslim intellectual” has come from Ramadan himself, who offers the following Deep Thoughts (helpfully compiled by Robert Spencer), which qualify him not as an “intellectual” at all but rather, as Spencer suggests, a writer of Hallmark-card sentiments.
Judge for yourself: (errors of punctuation, spacing, etc. are all in Ramadan’s original)
We must learn that our encounters like our separations are acts of initiation:we can love wht is and,in the end, know only hurt and suffering
Near to you or without you. Why do we love? Why do we break apart? Why, indeed?
To judge is to love. Suspending one’s judgement is a better way of loving …and to love, in spite of judgement,is truly to love.
Listen without passing judgement,or rather judge there is nothing on which to pass judgement.To judge is human,& to judge is to love
A character trait,a smile,an expression,a feeling,a wound, a silence or an absence:everything speaks to those who know how to listen.
It is up to every one of us to discover the extraordinary that lies hidden in the heart of the all too ordinary presences in our daily lives
Absence. Meaning. Life is flying, people are leaving. The heart is crying, the heart is smiling. Oh God, to learn to thank.Simply to thank !
Life is beautiful, life is sad. This life is not Life. To live is to love
To tell the people we love we love them, and to truly love them. With courage in the heart, tears in the eyes.
Reading these, you’d have to have a heart of stone not to weep tears of laughter. Can anyone put out this fluff and expect to be taken seriously? Yes, Tariq Ramadan can. Because he is taken seriously. He has two million Facebook friends. He has 200,000 people who follow him on Twitter. He’s “Europe’s leading Muslim intellectual” and don’t you forget it.
Finally, we feel it imperative to publicly express our support for Professor Ramadan, in the name of a cause that transcends his person.
Having attacked others for not withholding judgment, the authors of this open letter go right ahead and do the same, except they have concluded, without the slightest evidence, the very opposite: that he must be innocent, “in the name of a cause that transcends his person.”
And what “cause” is that? It must surely be the cause of Islam, of which Ramadan has been a tireless and slippery defender. The signers of this letter of support refuse to believe that his accusers, many of them Muslim, could possibly be anything other then members of a plot to “demonize” Ramadan. To attack Ramadan is, in their view, to attack all Muslims, to attack Islam itself.
The Open Letter continues:
In full solidarity with the efforts of those women who denounce the culture of rape that has festered in the heart of our societies, we cannot close our eyes to the risks inherent in the extreme solutions that some representatives of the feminist movement would have us accept.
To insist that police forces accept the word of presumptive victims and to demand that the legal system treat these individuals justly and with an open mind is one thing.
To treat their accusations as truth with no regard for their merit is something else entirely.
But that’s the whole point of the last four months — that the French system of criminal justice did not “treat their [the women who accused Ramadan] accusations as truth,” but took its time to investigate their likely truth or falsehood, and even now have not completed their inquiries.
To transform such accusations into public condemnations that destroy reputations, careers and the right of citizens to participate in religious and civic life is more than we can accept.
We call upon all intellectuals and activists (women in particular) of all political and religious persuasions to join a sincere and urgent debate on this vital question.
Pursued with rigor and courage, any form of collective involvement must take into account both the grievances of the presumed victims and the possibility of false or slanderous accusations.
The first accusation of sexual violence and rape by Tariq Ramadan was made in October 2017. It was made by a woman who is herself a Muslim, a former Salafist, who had been a great admirer of Ramadan herself, until — once she had entered his hotel room — he turned into a “monster” and, among other forced indecencies, raped her. Another women, also a Muslim, with “a disability in her legs,” then came forward to accuse Ramadan of rape as well. Two other women in Paris, who have not yet decided to make their identities public, are known to have accused Ramadan of sexual assaults as well. And then there are the four women in Geneva, not part of the French investigation, who have accused Ramadan of sexually molesting them when he was their teacher in a high school, and they were all underage, that is between 14 and 18. That testimony ought at least to have given signatories of the Open Letter pause.
Far from having their “accusations” treated as truth, his French accusers have had to undergo four months of waiting while the evidence was sifted, and only after all that, was he finally placed in custody on January 31, put under investigation on February 2, and then, on February 6, finally placed in jail, where he may be held in “provisional detention” for up to a year. Apparently the judge had taken into account the interests of his accusers, who might more easily have been subject to threats from Ramadan and his followers were he still free, and the concern as well that Ramadan might escape possible punishment, given his claque of loyal followers, by fleeing France.
The signers of the letter can hardly claim, after four months, there has been a rush to judgment. As for the merit of the accusations, if four women in Paris, none of whom knew each other, and all of whom were Muslims, came forward with similar stories of how they met Ramadan, then were lured to his hotel room, where they were similarly subject to his violent sexual behavior, that does not amount to an unfair campaign to “destroy” his reputation — any more than happens with anyone accused of any crime. What should have happened? Did Tariq Ramadan deserve to be uniquely favored, without his name ever being made public, unlike every other person accused of a crime? On what possible theory?
And if these accusations have damaged his reputation, so what? Should the accusations never have been made? What is unjust about the treatment of Ramadan by the French authorities so far?
One has the feeling that his loyal followers believe that his Muslim accusers have somehow let Ramadan, and Islam itself, down, by accusing this “leading Muslim intellectual” of such acts. Couldn’t those women have let it all drop, they must surely be thinking, instead of harming this paladin of Islam who deserves to be protected by other Muslims?
The signers of this letter live in a fantasy world. You can imagine how they view the whole Ramadan business. They believe that the enemies of Islam were constantly bested in debate by Ramadan (go to YouTube and judge for yourself who came out ahead) and had to find another way to neutralize him, by having him face trumped-up charges of sexual violence and rape. Of course such charges, in their view, were absurd. Why would Tariq Ramadan, handsome, charming, and suave, ever need to sexually assault anyone, when after every public appearance he no doubt has to be fighting off the girls off? No doubt Ramadan’s lawyers will be making the same argument.
And they have an explanation for everything. The reason that these women’s stories were so similar, his defenders will claim, is that they had been supplied by those manipulating them with essentially the same script, though containing just enough variation to allay any suspicions. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Alain Finkielkeraut and a dozen other islamophobes could not bring him down in argument — Ramadan’s complete command of the subject of Islam, his impeccable logic, his masterful deployment of all the arts of rhetoric (remember, they live in a fantasy world) proved too formidable. But his enemies obviously managed to find a handful of women who were willing — who knows how much they were offered? — to make outrageous accusations that Ramadan has denounced, but nonetheless, the Western media has pounced on those charges, and made a melodrama of them, and made it hard for Ramadan’s calm voice of reason to be heard over the islamophobic din. Henda Ayari’s own sister-in-law posted an unflattering description of her — surely that should be sufficient to completely vitiate the value of Ayari’s testimony against Ramadan, and those who want justice for Tariq Ramadan should demand that the other seven women who have made charges against him, charges suspiciously similar to those made by Ayari, should now be thoroughly investigated themselves. Who is really behind these accusations? And in the current cruel anti-Muslim climate, what justice can Ramadan at this point expect from the French judicial system?
The non-stop nonsense I’ve offered in the previous two paragraphs is an attempt to get inside the minds of those who, no matter what evidence is presented, are going to unswervingly support Tariq Ramadan, and who may even be among the 27,000 who so far have signed that Open Letter of unconditional support. If you are one of those who believes he is innocent even if “proven guilty” — well, I’m afraid you’re beyond all help, and I’m sorry. But perhaps you can take consolation from Europe’s — possibly the world’s — “leading Muslim intellectual,” Tariq Ramadan himself, and his words of wisdom:
Absence. Meaning. Life is flying, people are leaving. The heart is crying, the heart is smiling. Oh God, to learn to thank.Simply to thank!
RichardL says
If the French judge puts him in prison, that judge will need to change his identity.
I hope Ramadan gets life.
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.”
This was Tariq Ramadan’s advice to a muslim audience. His readiness to advise his listeners to lie will not stand his defence in good stead.
Hari Singh says
But in shariat there is no proof he raped them, you need witnesses. I fear the male relatives of these women will be murdered in honor killings.
So the shariat left is seeing with the eyes of Muhammad. And in shariat women are not to be believed they were raped unless there are four witnesses. Is this what women want?
Those who support Ramadan, the Abdul Lenins, are destroying women’s rights advocates in Muslim countries and siding with the murdering patriarchal, Misogynistic Mullahs, Qazis and Immams.
Garfield says
+1
Jaladhi says
Now he will be punished by infidel’s laws!! What an irony – he thought he could get by sharia laws since none of his victims could produce four male witnesses as required by sharia to prove the crime of rape!!
gravenimage says
Thanks for that information, Michael. It does not surprise.
Max Publius says
This letter is just a somewhat more sophisticated version of the now familiar scene of a low-grade jihadist in court telling a federal judge he won’t stand or respect a non-Islamic court. It’s Islamosupremacist haughtiness masquerading as an appeal to reason by someone who thinks reason is about being the better liar.
Salome says
Or, as has recently happened in the Supreme Court of Victoria, a judge refusing to allow into the Court a woman wearing a full face covering. The activists are already screaming that it’s a breach of her human rights.
Antonius Block says
I am often in agreement with your articles, but in this case I am not. The presumption of innocence and guarantee of due process under the law are fundamental rights that should be adhered to, even if you don’t happen to like the person accused or you disagree with his views.If the “west is best” it is precisely because we don’t sanction drumhead trials — at least in liberal democracies. There is sometimes a rush to agree with accusers, by conservatives, because the accused are democrats — or in this case a Muslim professor — but this is very short-sighted.
Ashley says
+1
I agree. Thank you for speaking out.
Garfield says
EIGHT accusers. Think about it. Reread the article and THINK harder. Do you really think this shifty fcuk is innocent? I don’t. All the accusers are Muslims, too!
StellaSaidSo says
That is not the point. Even the worst scoundrel is entitled to his day in court.
gravenimage says
Ashley and Stella, please reread the article. The civlized Hugh Fitzgerald is *not* trying to rob Taqiq Ramadan of his day in court.
StellaSaidSo says
I never suggested that he was, GI. You really must stop reading into posts things that aren’t there. My post in response to Garfield’s reads: ‘Even the worst scoundrel is entitled to his day in court’. Surely no reasonable person would disagree with this?
gravenimage says
Of course I don’t disagree with this, Stella–nor does Hugh Fitzgerald.
StellaSaidSo says
@ gravenimage
My post was not in response to Hugh Fitzgerald, GI. It was in response to Garfield. Again, you fail to take your own advice about reading carefully what others say.
gravenimage says
OK, Stella–if you say so–and you do. Sorry if I misread your post.
Jack Dawkins says
Where there’s smoke – there’s fire.
Phil Copson says
“Where there’s smoke – there’s fire.”
Do the words “No, there isn’t.” cover this remark ? Or do your cigarettes, toast, brake-linings etc all burst into flames ?
(Another equally stupid saying is “Oil and water don’t mix.” They can and do, otherwise we wouldn’t have salad-dressing, mayonnaise, emulsion paint etc.)
To get from the literal to the practical: What you are arguing for is pretty much the Sharia Law position that any woman accused of “adultery” is automatically guilty, any non-muslim accused of “blasphemy” * is automatically guilty, etc.
Nobody is “guilty” just because someone makes an accusation that others find convenient to accept.
There’s plenty of media-generated “smoke” about Donald Trump, Israel etc, but we’ve yet to be shown the fire.
* “blasphemy” – how does one “blaspheme” against Islam anyway ? What could you possibly make up about Mohammed and his war-manual that was worse than the truth ?
StellaSaidSo says
+1
I had intended a similar response, but got distracted. Thanks Phil, top job.
gravenimage says
Antonius Block wrote:
I am often in agreement with your articles, but in this case I am not. The presumption of innocence and guarantee of due process under the law are fundamental rights that should be adhered to, even if you don’t happen to like the person accused or you disagree with his views.If the “west is best” it is precisely because we don’t sanction drumhead trials — at least in liberal democracies…
………………………..
Your saying that this is what Hugh Fitzgerald is calling for is mistaken at best, and disingenuous at worst.
He is not talking about a court of law at all–*of course* the presumption of innocence holds there, as it well should.
He is decrying demands that we not be allowed to speak of any case in the public sphere. This is *not* barrred in free societies–in fact, barring it would be a crushing of our freedom of speech.
Muslim demands that Infidels not be allowed to say anything critical or even questioning about Muslims is Shari’ah law, not civilized Western jurisprudence.
Ray Jarman says
Graven, You are totally correct and maybe a little old fashion 19th century American western justice would suffice. You hold a trial and then you hang him.
gravenimage says
Ray, I’m actually saying that Hugh Fitzgerald is *not* calling for summary justice.
JW_Reader says
An open letter to Islamists:
GET LOST!
jewdog says
The highest virtue in Islam is loyalty to Islam, and Ramadan has fulfilled that principle. Rape, however, is way down on the scale, down with the lowly status of women; after all, it takes four male witnesses to prove rape in Sharia and those witnesses were not present in those hotel rooms. Under Sharia, Ramadan’s accusers should be punished.
I hope France is enjoying its cultural enrichment and diversity.
James says
Whether he is guilty or not, is for a properly-constituted court of law to decide. The alternative is mob rule. Regardless of who he is, what he is accused of, what he has said or done or supported, he is as entitled to a fair trial as anyone else. To forget this is to make law meaningless, a weapon of tribal hatreds. It is especially important to be scrupulously fair and impartial when there is every temptation not to be: anti-Muslim prejudice and bigotry are no better than the Muslim and pro-Muslim kinds.
StellaSaidSo says
Well said, James.
I have nursed a deep loathing for Tariq Ramadan since I first watched the Sarkozy interview on French television years ago, and there is nothing I would like more than to see such a devious, dangerous individual have his wings clipped. But the fact that Ramadan is a proven traitor to Western civilisation does not mean that he is a rapist. His guilt or innocence in relation to the charges he currently faces is a matter for the court to decide.
Ashley says
Thank you James and Stella…
This post really chapped my hide as I recently served jury duty. The judge had to request that our jury panel not “Google” the party involved.
How pathetic.
I did not “Google.” I did not discuss the case with my husband. I adhered to the letter of the law, abided by the rules, and rendered my verdict by the EVIDENCE tendered and not emotion or bias.
It sure isn’t easy. BUT IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO!
Garfield says
Nothining the article suggests not being fair or not allowing due process.
Just BECAUSE an individual is Muslim does not mean anyone needs to fall all over themselves virtue signalling about fairness. Defenders of free speech and freedoms are already all ABOUT fairness!!
StellaSaidSo says
Well done, Ashley, for sticking to the rules. Given the publicity surrounding some court cases, it is not hard to see why sequestration of juries may be considered necessary.
gravenimage says
You are correct, Garfield.
StellaSaidSo says
@ Garfield, gravenimage
Nobody in this exchange accused HF of being unfair or of disallowing due process. Furthermore, defending due process does not amount to idle ‘virtue signalling’. I think my 8:52pm makes my position perfectly clear. Some posters here appear to be of the view that if you’re not baying for Ramadan’s blood, you’re some kind of traitor to the anti-jihad cause. Nothing could be further from the truth.
` says
Stella, I have never said that defending due process is “virtue signalling”–in fact, I have always passionately upheld due process of law. It is something that distinguishes the civlized world from Shari’ah.
gravenimage says
Sorry, the above post is mine.
StellaSaidSo says
@ gravenimage
Note Garfield’s 10:01pm post, GI. You indicated agreement with it at 10:39pm. Perhaps you did not read it carefully enough?
Benedict says
Raised and nurtured by the spirituality of the canonical scriptures of Islam how could the “Deep Thoughts” of Ramadan possibly be any deeper or moving – except to convulsive laughter? Posing and parroting is after all at the heart of this miserable religion and one is often left with a sense of sadness and embarrassment after having succumbed to the temptation of criticizing it.
mortimer says
The message this open letter sends is CHILLING! Muslim women can count on the Muslim Brotherhood to support the PERPETRATORS in ALL cases of rape!
The direct descendant of one of the founders of the FASCIST Muslim Brotherhood is on trial and may as a result spend many years in jail. for his crimes.
This has got to hurt the Muslim Brotherhood’s perceived ‘esteem’ in the Muslim world.
The message to Muslim women could not be clearer! IF YOU (Muslim women) are raped by a Muslim LEADER, WE (the Muslim Brotherhood) will take the side of the Muslim leader and it will be HONOR KILLINGS FOR ALL THE WOMEN ACCUSERS.
The message this letter sends is clear and CHILLING!
al uzza bint-allaha says
yeah, especially the closing quote, that alone clarified all life related, fundamental, questions for me.
now I know everything.
Bahal says
This story reminds me of Tarun Tejpal of the Tehelka magazine, who also got charged with rape and sexual assault. The Indian Tehelka magazine was one of the worst magazines pandering to pro-Islamization politics around at that time.
Jaladhi says
Maybe Hallmark Cards should hire him for writing the jjingles! LOL…
DHazard says
About half the fake news from the left consists of a “rush to judgement”. They do it all the time and with much flimsier evidence. As usual these self-appointed protectors of Islam and it’s Westernized voices display how little they know of Islam, or will admit to knowing. For instance, nowhere in this letter of support for is there anything about what Shariah has to say about rape; like the part about needing 4 male witnesses, or how women who get pregnant from rape can be charged with adultery or fornication (and stoned), or how those same women will be shunned by their family, or how it’s OK with Allah to rape your slaves, But that would make them look to much like what they are – ignorant hypocrites.
Charlie Martel says
Is such a letter sub judice? Is it perverting the course of justice?
Ray Jarman says
Firstly is that this Ramadan is hardly an intellectual. An intellectual is one who has read many books of the world’s great philosophers from Socrates to Hegel and Ernst Mach. I doubt if this monster has ever read even Aristotle’s “Republic,” much less Nietzsche’s “The Will to Power,” which are basic to anyone claiming to be a religious or philosophical academic. Nietzsche provides a great definition of ilsam in which he wrote, “A sign of the lack of strength to posit for oneself, productively, a goal, a why, a faith.” He further stated, “It reaches its maximum of relative strength as a violent force of destruction–as active nihilism.” Is this not an accurate description of islam? Islam is the antitheses of academia as Freud so beautifully wrote and to paraphrase, “When a man first threw and insult at his advisory rather a stone, civilization began.”
Ramadan should be thrown into jail forever and if he is innocent, he could request a polygraph to be taken in an open environment. As is was mentioned, the ladies described a mark below his belt that only could have been seen with his trousers and underwear off sure adds to their credibility. Fortunately the French don’t require four males to witness a rape to make it so. I would like to see him put into an American prison with the general population where rapists are not treated so well and they receive due reciprocity.
kuriakose says
He thinks that being an islamic “scholar” qualifies him to be an intellectual.
Jack Dawkins says
Bullshit is bullshit. But the study of bullshit is scholarship.
StellaSaidSo says
I agree, Ray, that Tariq Ramadan ‘is hardly an intellectual’. However, as he wrote his MA thesis on Nietzche, I think we can assume that he has read ‘Will To Power’!
Ray Jarman says
I will take your word about an MA, but for someone who has read Nietzsche, who wrote with clarity, Ramadan seems unable to put a coherent sentence together. I would love to read his thesis for the degree.
StellaSaidSo says
‘I would love to read his thesis…’
You’re a braver man than I am, Ray Jarman!
I checked, it was actually a doctoral dissertation, titled ‘Nietzsche as a Historian of Philosophy’, written in French.
gravenimage says
One small point, Ray–that is Plato’s Republic.
I very much take your point, though–the oily Ramadan is no intellectual.
And Ramadan will have his day in court like everyone else in the free West.
StellaSaidSo says
‘…Ramadan will have his day in court…’
Indeed he will, GI. As I said earlier. As you well know.
Ray Jarman says
Graven, Thanks for the correction. Sometimes as I grow older my fingers and brain lose their connection.
gravenimage says
No big deal, Ray–I know what you meant. I’ve been commenting here since 2006, and have made my share of typos and other errors.
Always appreciate your posts.
Ray Jarman says
Graven, I have a question as you seem to know a lot about JW. I have been blocked on my primary computer from being able to open an article or to reply/read a comment in full. I am at a loss especially since I am able to access it from here and I have cleaned all URLs and most cookies but to no avail. I keep receiving a popup stating that the website is unavailable or invalid URL. Just wondering if you have any suggestions.
Ray Jarman says
Thanks Graven, I have been receiving JW for a long time but never read the comments until recently since most sites are full of complete idiots that can’t stay on the motif. I really appreciate yours and others like StellaSaidSo and LeftisruiningCanada comments as they are informative and seldom is foul language used.
Eric jones says
The letter in support of Ramadan has a note of distain and arrogance toward the accusations made against Ramadan. I am not wrong if I assert that those who sign the letter in support of Ramadan are elite intellectuals who regard Ramadan as an exotic person that they currently champion. The signers support Ramadan from the safety of their exclusive neighborhoods and their social status. Clearly they do not regard Ramadan as a threat to them and the females in their families.
For the women that have been raped by this man may God heal them.
Eric
Ren says
Evil supports evil.
StellaSaidSo says
That supporters of Tariq Ramadan would compose such a letter should come as no surprise. It is entirely to be expected that the thousands of impressionable Maghrebi youths who frequent Ramadan’s HQ at Seine-St-Denis, for example, would rush to sign such a document. What would be surprising is the inclusion among the signatures of any prominent names.
Support for Tariq Ramadan in both the Muslim world and the West has been declining for years. He is barred from entering eight Muslim countries, was also barred from entering the US until 2009 when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, was fired from at least one Dutch university after his terrorist sympathies became apparent, has been soundly and repeatedly trounced in public debate with genuine intellectuals, has been the subject of numerous critical articles and books (Caroline Fourest’s and Paul Berman’s being notable among these), has long been deeply disliked and mistrusted throughout Western Europe (many French people refer to Ramadan as ‘le vipere’), and no prominent voice has spoken publicly in his defence since the rape allegations surfaced. Yet the myth of Ramadan’s immense popularity persists. C’est un mystere!
Ray Jarman says
Stella, I have a question concerning Seine-St-Denis. Don’t you think that France should either change the name or rid the suburb of the infestation? Unless I am mistaken, St. Denis is the patron saint of France. I thought that the name should have been changed back in the 1990s after driving through and could not find a Frenchman/Frenchwoman. Everyone appeared to have come from the dregs of Sub-Saharan Africa and the streets were beginning to take on the looks also; rubbish everywhere and no one was working. I don’t wish to seem racist but I always call it as I see it.
gravenimage says
Don’t change the name, Ray–take France back!
StellaSaidSo says
You are not racist, Ray, far from it. I agree entirely with everything you say. Seine-St-Denis is a tragedy.
Yes, Saint Denis is the patron Saint of France (he was the first bishop of Paris). Basilique de St Denis – which contains the tombs of countless French kings and queens, plus other royalty & nobility – is an island of civilisation, lost in a sea of appalling ignorance, filth, sloth, and sedition. Tourists still visit the basilica, but it is wise not to go alone.
I don’t think the name should be changed. But how do we remove the infestation? A lot of them are second and third generation, and they will not leave without protest. Reducing access to welfare would be a good start. Along with monitoring of mosques, and rigorous enforcement of the law. But our politicians, hungry for the Muslim vote, will do nothing to alienate their ‘constituencies’. What has happened in Seine-St-Denis is happening everywhere.
Phil Copson says
” Ramadan’s immense popularity persists. C’est un mystere!”
Tariq Ramadan is an easy name for Europeans to remember, is all, so the effect is to make you think he’s popular just because you can remember who he is. Not being called Mohammed/Mahmoud gave gave him a head-start in the recognition states. To Western ears, most Arab names are too similar to each other and too different from European names to be memorable, so tend to become blurred.
Barely anyone knows who Marion Morrison, Maurice Micklewhite, Archibald Leach, Harry Webb, Richard Starkey and Reg Dwight were/are, but John Wayne, Michael Caine, Cary Grant, Cliff Richard, Ringo Starr and Elton John have all stuck in the memory banks.
(Others were just born lucky – Cesar Romero, Elvis Presley and Mick Jagger couldn’t be improved upon.)
Phil Copson says
Whoops – “stakes” not “states”…..
StellaSaidSo says
You misquote me, Phil. I said ‘THE MYTH of Ramadan’s immense popularity persists’. Quite a different meaning altogether!
Yes, TR has a memorable name (indeed, W.C. Fields might well have described it as ‘a euphonious appellation’), which probably helped him considerably on his way up.
But the whole point of my posts to several threads here has been to explain that TR is no longer flavour of the month in Europe, and has not been for some time. The number of people on JW who ASSUME that the French are bending over backwards to save Ramadan’s sorry arse, is extraordinary. One poster even suggested that the French authorities are being paid by Qatar to go easy on him! The truth is, the Qataris have no time for Tariq Ramadan; they just pulled his funding at both Oxford and Doha, and banned him from entering the country. Why the hell would they want to pay anyone to protect him? The French have been aware for years that Ramadan is ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing’, and have denied him French citizenship because of his terrorist connections. Al Jazeera has accused France of ‘demonising’ Ramadan. I could go on, and have done so, on 4 threads. But, to no avail. According to JW posters, Ramadan is France’s darling, and France will do anything to protect him. Hence my comment at the end of my Feb 7th, 7:51pm post, from which you omitted the key words when quoting: The myth of Tariq Ramadan’s immense popularity persists.
Garfield says
In a more sane world Mr. Spencer’s articles would be in USA today and every major newspaper all across America and all over the mainstream media! . ?????
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: The Persecution of Tariq Ramadan
………………………….
“Persecution”–as if!
More:
Ramadan may be “innocent until proven guilty” in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, there is no need for such a presumption. We are entitled to voice our opinions, as long as they are sufficiently grounded in the evidence available so far. It is up to us to present the evidence in our possession to support those opinions.
………………………….
Yes–the idea that no one can discuss a case or form their own opinions is ludicrous. The public forum–or private space–is *not* the same as a court of law, as those who try to crush freedom of speech pretend.
More:
Finally, we feel it imperative to publicly express our support for Professor Ramadan, in the name of a cause that transcends his person.
………………………….
What “cause” would that be? That of furthering the imposition of Islam in the West? *Ugh*.
Phil Copson says
Are Hugh and Robert being a little too hard on Ramadan’s philosophical whiffling ?
Surely he is correct when he says “It is up to every one of us to discover the extraordinary that lies hidden in the heart of the all too ordinary presences in our daily lives.”
Any time soon a French jury will be able to put philosophy into practice and discover the extraordinary sense of entitlement “hidden in the heart of the all too ordinary presence” of Tariq Ramadan.
StellaSaidSo says
Way too tough, Phil. (Brilliant post, btw)
Obviously they have never had the opportunity to discover, up close and personal, the extraordinary volume of sheer bollock-brained nonsense hidden in the head of the all too pretentious Tariq Ramadan.
Phil Copson says
Thank you SSS – I shall remember that compliment until the day I forget it…..
(“Wit”….”raconteur”….”comic genius”….. “renaissance-man….and “poet/philosopher” – these are just some of the things that nobody has ever said about me.)
It seemed a good opportunity to turn Ramadan’s own words back on him. My favourite example of “being hoist with your own petard.” is when 1960s UK Labour leader Harold Wilson tried to play the “class card” against the Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Hume.
“After 50 years of democratic advance, the whole process has ground to a halt with a 14th Earl!” he blustered.
“So far as the 14th Earl is concerned…” replied Sir Alec, cutting him down to size “Mr Wilson is, I suppose, when you come to think of it – the “14th Mr Wilson.””
Michael Copeland says
Here is Ramadan explaining Sharia in an interview with Erick Stakelbeck:
“You have another understanding of Sharia, and the understanding of Sharia is based on the human agency that is taking from the scriptural sources, the Koran and the prophetic tradition, to try to get the principles and the objectives, and say what our religion is all about, protecting the dignity of the human being, protecting their rights – men and women – and then if you have this understanding, and this is my position, this, look, Sharia is a way, it’s a path.”
https://libertygb.org.uk/news/tariq-ramadan-respect
StellaSaidSo says
+1
Politicianophobia says
All the worlds a stage–I sat on the jury of a violent rape case years ago. The Dr. mentioned he was so concerned about the choking marks on the woman’s neck, he thought she may never speak again and that is why he neglected to do a rape kit. The judge told the jury to forget about the rape kit remark. After I asked so many question in the jury room-notes to judge-he told me I should learn what the word technically means,no talk of rape kit is allowed. The guy was found guilty of assault -because choking was quite clear when one looked at the woman’s pictures. He had an expensive, well known lawyer, who trashed the woman and won the case. I was summon to sit on another jury years later and I said no I would go to jail rather than be on a jury, I told the judge I was technically not smart enough to sit on a jury. Money and power help. I think Tariq is guilty no matter how many books he has read. lol
StellaSaidSo says
Having done jury service myself, I well understand your reluctance to repeat the experience. It can be quite traumatic and exhausting. Hope they don’t bother you again!
Phil Copson says
“He had the best justice money can buy.” to borrow a quote from the O.J.Simpson case.
I did jury service on a case where a young man was charged with supplying cannabis to teenagers. He had a large amount of it hidden in his roof-space, weighing-scales, razor-blades etc, and much of it already cut-up into eighths and quarters and foil-wrapped ready for sale.
His ludicrous defence was that it was all for his own use, and that he was some kind of “yuppie” – (this was 1990) – who worked such incredibly long hours in a high-pressure job that he couldn’t get down the pub to relax and turned to soft drugs instead.
Nobody even questioned this obvious lie – he only worked as a humble buyer for British Steel -(coincidentally, one of my customers) – and plainly had an ordinary 9 to 5 job.
At first, there was general agreement that he was guilty, but it soon broke down into factions of self-important fools who wanted to show how relaxed they were about drugs, so wouldn’t find him guilty, people who were evidently too stupid to tie their own shoe-laces and hadn’t understood the evidence – (one woman was fixated on whether he was Italian or not – what that had to do with the price of fish, I never did find out…) – people who said that they’d vote whichever way the rest wanted, a foreman who gave up and read a book, and me.
It was good fun really – we went from 7 to 5 for “Guilty”, then 9 to 3 for “Not Guilty”, then 10 to 2, and finally 11 to 1. We went back into court 3 times for more instruction, and each time the little creep was more yellow and sick-looking.
By the end of the afternoon, they all hated me a lot more than they did the pusher, but I told them that he was plainly guilty and I wasn’t going to say any different no matter what. In the end the judge had to accept a majority verdict, and the kid and his blubbering girl-friend were on their way.
I couldn’t make the other 11 agree with me and protect local kids from him, but at least I made the little b*stard sweat for half a day, and it still cheers me up now….
StellaSaidSo says
Good effort, Phil! Sometimes our best is not enough, but there are satisfactions nevertheless!
gravenimage says
I know how you feel–the problem is that if good people reject jury duty, the only ones lefty will be idiots and scoundrels–and that will make things worse.
Phil Copson says
Sir! – Now that Mr Ramadan has stepped down from his Chair – (I hope he took his shoes off first…) as the “Oxford Professor of Applied Priapism”, it occurs to me that there may shortly be available a vacancy for a suitable candidate, and I naturally feel that the only really safe course of action would be if I were to take up the post.
I have to admit that I’m not altogether too enthused about using any chair that Mr Ramadan has recently vacated, but on the bright side, I understand that the work is light, I already have a bicycle and a worn corduroy jacket, can supply my own portable Folding-Chair of Logical Positivism, and I’m generally free on Tuesdays.
I shall start my course gently, taking my students in easy stages through the famous 19th Century German-Jewish philosophers Hegel, Schlegel, and Bagel, and then move onto a series of talks I’ve prepared on the 20th Century Feminist Movement – (“Hillary Clinton – The Woman Who Put The “Ninny” in Femininity”), Economics & Fisheries – (“President Roof-Felts “Nude Eel” of 1933”), and lastly, Popular Culture – (“Bridge Over Troubled Roger Waters”/ “Sarsour Full of Secrets” / “Who put their dong in the Ramadan-a-ding-dong” etc).
At lunch-time we shall have a sandwich course on Bacon, and then examine the Pope’s call for reconciliation – (“Building Bridges With Your Enemies: A New Perspective From The Burma Railway Company.”) and finally address the really Big Questions of Life, the Universe, and Everything, such as “Is there anybody out there?” (“No.”) and “Is there Intelligent Life in the Universe?” (“Not so as you’d notice.”).
Imbued with a new-found confidence in the Power of Reason, I shall then set my class the comparatively simple task of settling the “Palestinian Question”: This will be decided by a best-of-three rowing-match between two existing teams who appear to be tailor-made for the purpose: The Israeli team will be “Goldie” and the Palestinians will be represented by “Isis”. (Mr Abbas has asked to be excused from taking part on the grounds of age, corpulence, corruption, conniption etc, and I have agreed to accept this as a “Too Stout Solution”.)
Having sorted out all their little problems for them, my triumphant final lecture as the new Professor of Oxford Marmalade will cover the development of my own personal philosophy which I discovered many years ago written on the back of a match-box: “Keep in a dry place and away from children.” it read.
I have followed this advice diligently, and it has never let me down.
Daryl Harb Feb.2018
6woods says
Phil Copson – “Too Stout Solution”….too funny. Dying! Thanks for the comic relief!
StellaSaidSo says
Dear Professor Copson,
We regret to inform you that you are currently insufficiently qualified for the position at Oxford, recently vacated by Professor Rammitdammit, who was obliged to leave hastily due to a problem with his zipper.
The committee considers that, while your whiffle is of the highest standard, your tendency to communicate in proper sentences would severely impede your ability to baffle a credulous audience.
We suggest that you refer to Professor Copeland’s excellent post at 4:25pm above, for an example of Professor Rammitdammit’s superior prowess in the important art of baffle. We are confident that, with practice, you could become as adept as Professor Rammitdammit at stupefying into submission any bollock-brained liberal at 40 paces.
We encourage you to re-apply for the position in 6 months. In the meantime, keep your bicycle in good repair, and watch the BBC as much as possible
Yours etc,
…..
Phil Copson says
Thank you 6woods, SSS, and GI.
(“Mr Copson has a spontaneous wit – given time….” – Oscar Wilde.)
Some jokes are just waiting to be made – the fact that the second crews in the annual Oxford/Cambridge “University Boat Race” really are called “Goldie” and “Isis” is a gift.
(The river running through Oxford is called “The Isis”, the 1950s Morris “Isis” saloon car was built there etc)
If the musical jokes were a bit too obscure, well – everybody must know Simon & Garfunkels “Bridge Over Troubled Water” ? – “…troubled Roger Waters” is the unpleasant anti-Israel BDS campaigner who was a member of “Pink Floyd” many years ago. (They improved after he left), and “A Saucer (Sarsour) Full of Secrets” was an early Pink Floyd track.
(Don’t let Water’s views put you off “Pink Floyd”: the rest are/were a nice bunch of blokes: You run no risk of mistaking them for the Bournemouth Symphony getting behind the eight-ball on the “Bach Double”, but I seriously recommend that everybody has these three albums in their collection: “Dark Side Of The Moon” / “Wish You Were Here” / and “Division Bell”. Get on to eBay now – would I steer you wrong ? Then lie back, close your eyes and relax……)
The expression about the desirability of “Building bridges with your enemy” has always seemed crassly ill-judged to me, given the death-toll among the Burmese and Allied POWs when they were literally, rather than figuratively, forced to do this. Didn’t work out too well for them, did it?
Returning to Mr Ramadan’s zipper problem, SSS – I’m sure that it will all turn out to be one of those “cultural misunderstandings” that arise from time-to-time: I expect that like many a recently-arrived visitor he was attempting to familiarise himself with the culture of the host country through popular culture.
This busy college lecherer – I beg your pardon – “college lecturer”, I should say – doubtless settled down to watch a Disney movie and simply mistook the well-meant exhortation to “un-zipper de doo-dah” as an instruction……
StellaSaidSo says
“un-zipper de doo-dah”
LOL, there’s the big production number for ‘Tariq Ramadan: The Musical’ sorted!
Did you see the Charlie Hebdo cover? It’s hilarious. TR, showing off ‘the sixth pillar of Islam’.
On a more serious note, I would add that the phrase ‘building bridges with your enemy’ has never sat well with me, either. I went to school with the daughter of a survivor of the Burma Railway. I recall that he was badly scarred, and years after his ordeal he still suffered major health problems. He was only in his 40s when he died. The Japanese were vicious – as bad as the worst Mohammedans. But they cleaned up their act. I can’t see the Mohammedans doing that anytime soon.
Ray Jarman says
+1
Ray Jarman says
I second your opinion. I received a chuckle from this.
gravenimage says
Very funny, Phil!
Mockingjay says
– Tariq Ramadan sounds like a bloody new-age guru.
– Forementioned gurus are also notorious for sexually exploiting their following, so,
I guess it kinda all fits together nicely.
Phil Copson says
Surely the really important question here is “Will it stand up in Court ?”
6woods says
The defense will limp along.