An article in Al-Arabiya describes the attempts by Tariq Ramadan’s lawyers to attack the credibility of the two women in France who, so far, have publicly accused him of violent sexual assaults, including rape:
Lawyers of Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan are fighting to save their client from prosecution over criminal rape and assault charges by two women. Their legal modus operandi seems to be to sow doubts about the testimony of the women, especially the woman given the pseudonym of ‘Christelle’ and whose identity is protected.
The judge of liberty and detention (JLD), however, was not convinced to release Ramadan on Tuesday (February 6), according to Le Monde.
The scholar, who is an Oxford professor on leave of absence since the case came out in the open, and a British resident with Swiss and Egyptian passports, remains in jail. The legal scrutiny will continue under three judges because of the complexity of the case.
The court file maintains that this detention of the prime accused will help relieve pressure on witnesses. Ramadan and his circle of relatives and followers, have tremendous clout. Investigators feel that his being behind the bars will convince others who have undergone similar experience to come forward, in the wake of the rape complaints filed by Henda Ayari and “Christelle”.
The death threats that both Ayari and “Christelle” have received from some in the vast network of Ramadan’s defenders certainly support the French judges’ belief that he should stay behind bars. If allowed to remain free, he would be in a better position to whip up those supporters to threaten both his present accusers and others who might be afraid to come forward with their own accusations unless Ramadan remains behind bars.
Ramadan’s lawyers will focus on challenging the three-month probe by the judicial police and attempt to sow doubt on the two complainants.
Also, even before appealing their client’s detention, the lawyers asked the Minister of Justice to refer to the Inspectorate General of Justice (IGJ), claiming that procedural errors were damaging to Ramadan.
The main point of contention, according to a report in Le Parisien, was regarding a reservation for a London-Lyon flight ticket, which proves that on October 9, 2009, the day “Christelle” claims to have been raped, Ramadan did not land at the Lyon-Saint Exupéry airport at 6:35 pm. This document produced by the defense before Christmas was not made available to the investigators until February 1, the day before Ramadan was indicted.
Since it is admitted that Ramadan was indeed in Lyon to address a meeting that very evening (a meeting that was supposed to have begun at 8:30 p.m. but to which Ramadan arrived late by at least a half-hour), and he admits to having met with “Christelle” at the hotel, if he did not land at the Lyon airport on the flight from London landing at 6:35, then what flight did he take, and when did he land? His lawyers do not say. If his plane landed earlier than 6:35, this would have given him even more time to spend with “Christelle” at the Hilton hotel, and to have assaulted her, before arriving curiously late to the very gathering where he was the main speaker. If there were proof of his arrival on a flight that landed later than 6:35 p.m., his lawyers would certainly have produced it. But they have not done so.
Will that be enough of an alibi and punch holes into the testimony by “Christelle” who has been rather unsure about when the alleged attack happened, having reportedly told investigators: “In the afternoon,” “it was still daylight.”
If the accused Ramadan had landed at 6:35 pm, Tariq Ramadan could have reached the Hilton hotel in the center of Lyon, at best [sic] after 7:30 p.m.
The French term for “afternoon” is “l’apres-midi.” But they are not quite identical. In France, that term normally applies to a period that extends later than the American “afternoon.” Sunset marks the end of l’apres-midi” and the beginning of “le soir.” “Christelle” might well have gone early to the hotel to wait for Ramadan when it was “still daylight.” In Lyon on October 9, 2009, sunset was at 7:06. If she arrived before then, once inside the hotel “Christelle” would been sitting in the lobby, and in her excited anticipation of meeting the Great Man, might have confusedly thought that outside “it was still daylight.”
As Ramadan has admitted, she met him in the lobby when he arrived, where he has said they talked for half an hour, and, according to him, that was all. He denies ever having taken her to his room. According to “Christelle,” they talked in the lobby for ten minutes, but he then insisted that they go to his room to continue the conversation because, he claimed, he had been recognized by a “Maghrebin” working behind the reception desk.
She then testified that because of her disability — she used crutches — she took the elevator. Ramadan did not join her, but took the stairs. Why? He must not have wanted to be seen going with her to his room. He denies all of this, but the detail of his taking the stairs instead of the elevator has the ring of truth.
The organizers of the Lyon conference “Living together, Islamophobia and Palestine” where 700 people were attending his lecture, had told the police that the scholar was late and had arrived “around 9 pm” which would have left him free time.”
If he had reached the Hilton Hotel, where he was staying and where the conference was being held, at 7:30 p.m., what explains his arriving late to his own lecture? What could possibly have gone on between 7:30 and “about 9 p.m.,” which is when the organizers of the Lyon conference, his ardent admirers, claim he arrived to give his lecture? The vagueness of “about 9 p.m.” might be expansive enough to include an arrival by Ramadan at, say, 9:15, or possibly even later. And Ramadan’s followers understand that the later he arrived, the more credible “Christelle’s” version of events, so that “about 9 p.m.” may have been their way of suggesting he appeared earlier than he did.
So Ramadan’s alibi about the timing of his flight turns out to be rather flimsy. The magistrates, however, have sent requisitions for checking the time of his arrival in Lyon.
Ramadan denied raping or having sexual intercourse with “Christelle.”
His accuser on the other hand gave proof regarding a groin scar on Ramadan and also many SMS [text messages] from Tariq Ramadan’s number, including the crucial one on October 10 at 19:29 – the day after the alleged assault – saying sorry for the violence, and also asking: “Do you want more? Not disappointed?”
As to that groin scar which “Christelle” remembered seeing, how do Ramadan’s defenders explain that? I found online that some of Ramadan’s supporters now claim that a camera could have been installed in one of Ramadan’s many hotel rooms (he gives lectures all over Europe), and have filmed him as he walked about naked in the room, and the scar on his groin could have been picked up in the video. Then “Christelle,” who supposedly was part of a plot to bring down the “leading Muslim scholar,” was provided this information to include in her testimony incriminating Ramadan.
How do Ramadan’s lawyers explain the many text messages sent to “Christelle” from Ramadan’s number, and especially the text message sent on October 10 at 10:29, the day after the alleged assault, in which he says he is “sorry for the violence” — the violence he claims never happened — and asking, in quite a different tone, “Do you want more? Not disappointed?” This is the voice of a boasting sexual predator. What else could such words possibly be referring to if not the violent sex of the day before?
“Christelle” said that she had at the time narrated her experience to her friends and presented messages establishing the fact. Her friends in turn had expressed their shock during their replies.”
The messages she sent almost eight years ago, in October 2009, telling her friends about Ramadan’s assault, and their shocked replies, had been preserved by her and were presented to the court. Can Ramadan’s lawyers explain those messages away?
She also presented medical certificates from a few days after the fateful meeting in Lyon with Ramadan.
How do Ramadan’s defenders explain what the doctors who examined “Christelle” in October 2009 found as evidence of a violent sexual assault on her? Are they, too, to be dismissed as part of a vast plot, that supposedly began almost nine years ago, designed to destroy the reputation of this “great Muslim thinker,” this “prominent theologian,” “this eminent Oxford professor,” one of “the world’s leading Islamic thinkers,” this “profound scholar,” this “great reformer of Islam” — these and many more over-the-top descriptions of Ramadan are to be found online, but everything you need to know about the quality of the great Muslim thinker’s thought is here.
But having taken place nine years ago, will these be clinching evidence for the judges, is the moot [sic] question. Or is it just her word against the reputed scholar’s?
No, it is not “just her word” against that of “a reputed scholar.”
It is a fact that “Christelle” was in the Hilton Hotel in Lyon on October 9, 2009, in order to meet, for the first time, and on his invitation, Tariq Ramadan in the lobby. He has admitted that much himself, claiming that they spoke for about “half an hour,” but denying any visit to his hotel room. However, unfortunately for Ramadan and his lawyers, we are not being asked to believe “her word” alone, but also to consider all the corroborating evidence, including the many messages from Ramadan to her after his assault, but also including the long exchanges they had even before they met, with Ramadan discussing religious matters, but also including his flirtatious remarks. In addition there were all the messages “Christelle” sent to her friends describing the attack soon after it occurred. All these messages have been preserved by “Christelle” and support her version of events.
“Christelle” offered as a key bit of evidence to support her accusation the message Ramadan sent on October 10, which made light of, while pretending to apologize for, his savage behavior (“sorry for the violence”) and also asked, amazingly, what she thought of his sexual performance (“Do you want more? Not disappointed?”). She also kept other messages he sent to her, including those describing his “sadness” at her failure to answer his messages, in which he describes how much he enjoyed himself with her, and his dismay that apparently she did not feel the same. He even finds her behavior “ugly” (“moche”) — he appears to think he’s the one who has been wronged. Under a suave exterior, Ramadan’s messages show a monster who is morally unhinged. “Christelle’’s lawyers presented, too, the messages she sent to friends about the assault within days of it occurring, and the shocked replies she received back. Finally, there is, the report of the doctors who examined her a few days after the violent assault she had endured. All that evidence is far more than “just her word.”
As for that “reputed scholar,” Ramadan has long been known to French authorities for leading an astonishingly dissolute life, even as he went around France and Europe discussing, among his main topics, Islamic “ethics and morality.” Bernard Godard, the “Mr. Islam” of the French Ministry of the Interior, described what the French government had long known about Ramadan: “That he had many mistresses, that he consulted sites [sites where sexual encounters could be arranged, or pornography could be viewed], that girls were brought to the hotel at the end of his lectures, that he invited them to undress, that some resisted and that he could become violent and aggressive, yes, but I have never heard of rapes, I am stunned.” This admission by a French official is appalling both for what it tells us about Ramadan, a sex-addict and king of the hypocrites, and about French officialdom, cynical beyond belief.
“Christelle” remembered that Ramadan suggested, after ten minutes of talk in the lobby, that they go up to his room because, being the famous figure he was, he felt sure he had been recognized. But why, if he were only going to discuss aspects of Islam with her, would he have been made uneasy? He travels all over talking about Islam; that’s his profitable business. He’d hardly mind if he were to be recognized while doing that. But he would mind if he had something else in mind — if the reason for going to his room was not to conduct a deep conversation on Islamic ethics but because he wanted sex, wanted it right then, to put him in a good mood to give his lecture, whether that sex was freely offered (and just imagine how many girls and women have succumbed to the siren song of this suave ithyphallic monster) or brutally forced.
The details “Christelle” offered made sense. She remembered that she took the elevator, given her disability — she uses crutches — but Ramadan, instead of joining her, took the stairs. Why didn’t he go in the elevator with her? Clearly he did not want to be seen accompanying her to his room. He could race up the stairs, get to his room, wait inside, and as soon as she appeared at his door, quickly usher her in. And then, if you believe her version (“he became a monster,” etc.) and not his (“she was never in my room”), he could have spent close to 90 minutes having his brutal way with her, and still manage to make it downstairs to deliver his lecture, being late for his 700 adoring fans by a half-hour (“about 9 p.m”).
Meanwhile “Christelle” was left in a state of shock, confused, and afraid of possible reprisals by Ramadan or his followers. Did she leave the room when he left? Did Ramadan instruct her to wait in the lobby and promised he would “explain everything” after his lecture? Did she remain in order to confront him, only to be lured back to the room to be assaulted again? Did she simply leave the hotel, still in that state of shock, afraid to report Ramadan to the police, but by the next day not afraid to text-message her friends about him? We still haven’t had any reports about this in the French press.
What we can be certain about is that Tariq Ramadan continues to flatly deny raping her, denies any sexual contact with her, denies ever having gone to his room with her.
And we also know about his text messages the next day, and then the day after that, from a report in Le Parisien:
Le premier SMS est daté du 10 octobre 2009 à 19h29 : « J’ai senti ta gêne… désolé pour ma « violence ». J’ai aimé… Tu veux encore ? Pas déçue ? ». « Ce silence dit quoi ??? », relance l’interlocuteur enregistré sous le nom « TAriq Ramadan » à 21h53. A 23h09 nouveau message : « Tu n’as pas aimé… Je suis désolé Christelle. Désolé ». Le dernier SMS aurait été rédigé le lendemain, le 11 octobre à 9h24 : « J’ai attendu tte (NDLR : toute) la journée un message hier pour lire enfin des reproches et une déception… Que veux tu que je rajoute à ça… Ça me peine et c’est moche ».
In English, this reads as follows:
The first text message was dated October 10,2009 at 7:29: “I sensed your distress…sorry for my ‘violence.’ I loved it…Do you want some more? Not disappointed?” “What does this silence mean?’” arrives at 9:53 from someone registered as “Tariq Ramadan”: “You didn’t like it….I’m sorry, Christelle. I’m really sorry” is sent at 11:09 from the same “Tariq Ramadan.” The final text message came the next day, October 11 at 9:24: “I waited all day yesterday for a message, only to read at the end of your reproaches, your disappointment. What more can I add? It pains me and it’s ugly.’”
Are these the messages you send to someone with whom you only discussed religion in a hotel lobby for a half-hour? Or are these the messages of someone trying to make light of his monstrous behavior, to show the depth of his feeling for his recipient, even to play the confused lover who thought she would enjoy the same kind of “violence” (Ramadan carefully put the word inside quotation marks to suggest that it wasn’t real violence but a kind of play-acting), and is saddened to discover she didn’t share his feelings, and that she now finds fault with him — him, Tariq Ramadan! — and no wonder it pains him, no wonder he finds her distress so distressing to him, so painful, so ugly. But Ramadan knows that “Christelle” is not the victim. He knows that he is the real victim — at best of a monumental misunderstanding and, at worst, of a deliberate plot to destroy his reputation.
Let us, as a concluding mental exercise, try to be as morally obtuse as Tariq Ramadan, and his Open-Letter defenders, just to see how long we can stand it:
Try to see it from their point of view, try to understand how tender-hearted Tariq Ramadan really is. His text messages from October 2009 show a man in anguish, unable to make “Christelle” understand how much he cared for her, how good she had made him feel, and how sorry he was that she for some reason did not enjoy their encounter as he had. It is he who was let down, he who waited in vain for some sign — a text message, an email, a phone call, anything — of affection from her, it was he who innocently hoped she would remember their “tender and romantic night” together, only to be disappointed at every turn.
But that was not even the worst of it. Now, after so many years of silence, he discovers that “Christelle” has reappeared, and publicly made these grotesque charges against him. It’s not her fault, Ramadan knows. She is being manipulated by dark forces she does not understand, and that are using her — and not only her! — to sully his reputation, all because of a supposed single encounter that just possibly occurred nine years ago and that, in any case, is remembered quite differently by the two participants. And thus his enemies, who have never bested him in debate, have been baying for his blood, and think they have now found a way to bring down “the world’s leading Muslim intellectual.” Of course, what could be more absurd than charges of rape being made against Tariq Ramadan, surely one of the most alluring figures, in every sense, in public life today?
Tariq Ramadan has spent his life trying to reconcile Islam and the West, to teach young Muslims living in Europe to engage in reforming not Islam, which he argues needs no reformation, but their own understanding of the faith. He knew that this would not be easy, but he also knew it had to be done, and that as a devout Muslim born and raised in the heart of Europe, and understanding both the Islamic mentality and civilization, and the mentality and civilization of Europe, he was uniquely qualified for the task. He made the difficult decision to remain in the West, to bring up his children in the West, to teach the young Muslims in Europe today to hew to the straight path of peace and tolerance, and above all, despite everything, not to lose faith in the West’s sense of fairness and justice. Has he been too trusting? Too much the scholar at his books, the lecturer at his podium, insufficiently worldly, insufficiently aware of the elaborate plots being hatched against him by those who have no other way to bring him down? Has he perhaps been too convinced that Europe’s “fairness and justice” would prevail? Let us hope his trust was not misplaced. For if even Tariq Ramadan, that eloquent defender of his faith, but also the learned promoter of reconciliation between the West and Islam, who bravely defies the enantiomorphic extremists on both sides — the Bin Ladens and the Robert Spencers — can be treated so unjustly, based on the doubtful testimony of an unstable woman, an admitted depressive (“Christelle” does not deny having made a suicide attempt), who has even been unwilling to make her charges under her own name, what hope is there for young and disaffected Muslim men in the suburbs to find justice?
Okay — let’s stop the farce right here. Even as a joke, it soon becomes unbearable. But Tariq Ramadan and his two million Facebook friends, and 200,000 followers on Twitter, take this kind of thing very seriously. For this paladin of Islam, the “world’s foremost Islamic scholar,” must be protected at all costs. For his supporters, he is not just innocent until proven guilty; he remains innocent, the victim of a plot, even if declared guilty in an Infidel court, by Infidel judges, applying Infidel standards of proof. For a sample of what his followers allow themselves to believe, see the open letter of “Full Support For Tariq Ramadan” here. So far, not even 30,000 people have signed this preposterous document. It’s pleasant to think that Tariq Ramadan was expecting a good many more.
Phil Copson says
Tariq Ramadan: “Will It Stand Up In Court ?” (extended version)
Sir! – Now that Mr Ramadan has stepped down from his Chair – (hopefully he removed his shoes 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 easily-portable Folding-Chair of Logical Positivism, and I’m generally free on Tuesdays.
AGENDA (not Left-wing, trans-agenda, or agenda-benda.)
9.00 am: Introduction – I shall start my course gently, taking my new students in easy stages through the famous 19th Century German-Jewish philosophers Hegel, Schlegel, and Bagel before embarking at 10.00 am upon the first of a series of short, informative lectures covering topics such as 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 Popular Culture – (“Bridge Over Troubled Roger Waters”/ “A Sarsour Full of Secrets” / Fawlty Towers: “The Kippah and the Corpse” / “Un-zipper De Doo-Dah” / “Who Put Their Dong In The Ramadan-a-Ding-Dong” etc).
11.30 am: To develop their critical faculties, students will then be invited to evaluate Professor Ramadan’s famous contention that: “It is up to every one of us to find the extraordinary that lies hidden in the trousers of the all-too ordinary Presidents in our daily lives.” (copyright: Clinton Cards 1995)
At mid-day we will have a working-lunch in which students will discuss “Bacon – Has He Still Got A Role?”, before moving on to examine the Pope’s call for reconciliation – (“Building Bridges With Your Enemies: A New Perspective From The Burma Railway”) – before I finally judge them ready to 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, my class will then be ready to resolve 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 so-called “Palestinians” will be represented by definitely-called “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”.)
At 1.30 pm there will be a press-call in which the opposing captains (Daryl Harb/G.Hardy) offer their opinions on the likelihood of ultimate victory; ie – the overthrow of the much-hated Naz Shah by religious non-fundamentalist the Reverend J.C.Flannel – with Palestinian leader Gaffer Marrowfat (deceased) clad in black shorts and contrasting brightly-coloured Gaza strip, stating: “We certainly won’t be taking any prisoners – there’s no room, for one thing…”
2.00 pm: The teams take to the water, and set-off upon hearing the celebrity starter – (famed “Swallows and Amazon Books” author Arthur Ransome-Money) – make the traditional cry of “Stand-by to repel NoBorders!”. The teams then indicate their acceptance of the challenge with the wearisomely traditional response of “I keel you – I keel you!”
3.30 pm: While the surviving team members recover their breath, exchange prisoners etc, spectators and students alike will be entertained by the choir of Nosebleed College, Oxford singing a medley of hits including “The Muslim Brotherhood Of Man” / “Losing My Religion” / “Spare Me The Cutter” / “If You Tolerate This – Your Children Will Be Next” / “The Mississippi-Hippy Sheikh” / “Tunnel of Love” (interrupted version) / “Dead Males In The Sunset” etc,
5.00 pm: All repair to restored Elizabethan playhouse “The Global Warming” to see The Royal Sheepshank Company perform “The Lefty Professor” – a hilarious romp in which Professor Al Gore and His Fake Algore-Rhythms use George Osborne’s Brexit Treasury Forecast to prove that the surface temperature of Tariq Ramadan’s trousers has increased by a whopping 20 degrees since taking up a new position in the bushes outside Cheltenham Ladies’ College.
(Dean of Studies, Proctologists Orifice etc (surely: “Proctor’s Office” ? – Ed): “Oh, no – they haven’t!” Audience: “Oh, yes – they have!” “Your career’s behind you” etc)
7.30 pm: A rousing performance by the local Gilbert O’Sullivan HumDrum Society of “The Pirates of State Penitentiary”.
9.00 pm: New production of the world-famous un-arousing Oily Tart operetta “The Sarsourer’s Apprentice”.
10.30 pm: And finally – our fantastic self-arousing bonus feature: “Tariq Ramadan – The Musical!”
(Composer: Sir Les Patter-Song)
Singing (all):
“He was the Very Model of a Modern Moderate Mus-a-lim
Appearing on the telly and wherever he could muscle-in
A famous Univers-it-ee,
Thought he would spread Divers-it-ee –
But now there’s many muslim countries who won’t let the slimy bugger in!
———–
Now after class – his time he’d pass – on Titian and Titania
His wily words – although absurd – disguised his trouser-mania
But he soon became tempestuous,
Young ladies cried: “Please rescue us! –
Oh, how I wish I my underwear were weapons-grade titanium…!”
————-
He invented silly things to say – because it was his polic-ee
So bad they made you blush to think – of their appalling quality-ee
But he will find repentance,
When he’s handed down a sentence –
Of bread-and-cheese – enormous fleas – and twenty years in solitary-ee….!”
(Rapturous applause, cries of “You’re in for it now, you randy foreign git!” etc.)
Closing number: “Go Now” – The Mahmoudy Blues
Encore: “We Gotta Get Outta This Place” – The Koranimals
(Live broadcast: Radio Oxford on 95.2 FGM)
12.00 pm. Having successfully 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 ever since, and it has never let me down.
Daryl Harb
Feb.2018
Reviews:
“A complete comic tour de france” – Lance Armstrong
“Tour de force, you idiot!” – Frances de la Tour de France
“Daryl Harb has an over-active imagination and an under-active thyroid” – Bournemouth General
Hospital
“They say that everyone has a book in them somewhere; whereabouts Mr Harb found this one, I simply dread to think.” – Joyce Grenfell
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Thank you, Prof. Dar yl-Harb, for this interesting curriculum.
Phil Copson says
Dear Mr Spahn and others,
we are pleased to advise you that our publisher – well-known BBC interviewer Mr Jeremy Caxton – has now obtained permission under The Indecent Secrets Act to release several items previously with-held from the minutes. We trust that they will allow readers to form a realistic opinion regarding some of Mr Ramadan’s erstwhile associates:
4.45 pm: Winners speech: The piss-artist-formerly-known-as-the-“Teflon-Don” modestly tells the adoring crowd – (Mr Rogan Josh) – that: “Being a track-athlete is very much like being a sexual-athlete – nobody remembers who came second; or at least – not if they know what’s good for them.”
(Refreshments available in local hostelry “The Oxford Strangler” where mine host – retired supply-teacher Mr Rogan Josh – curries favour by supplying visiting athletes, college lecherers etc with a “Help-Yourself” room-service menu of Swiss rolls followed by on-line tarts and fresh crumpet.)
10.15 pm. Musical Interlude. Famed international lothario Sir Michael Jagger pays tribute to one of his early sexual – (surely “musical” ? Ed.) -heroes, Blind Lemon Ramadan, in a barely-alive performance of his famous ’69 position – (surely – “hit record” ? Ed.) – “Midnight Ramadan” – inspired by the notorious exploits of the famed “Oxford Strangler”.
“Way-owl – you heard about the Oxford-Strangler ?
(dum dum dum dum)
Ever’body says he’s got to go…..”
11.45: International chess: French Grand Master Jean-Loot Godard (42) constructs the “Ramadan Defence” involving several bishops, an Arabian Prince, Kings College Cambridge, and a sack of pawn. Qatari Vizir expired. Especially note M’sieur Godard’s brazen Gulf War-era “shock-and-whore” ploy:
”I was shocked – shocked! – to find out that sh*gging was going-on in here…” he forcefully explained to our court reporter Miss Melissa Forethawte (42-24-36) before adding “ Is that one mine ? Oh, thank you very much….”
(match result to be confirmed pending an appeal on the grounds of “single-cell anaemia”)
Richard says
Brilliant – thank you!
mortimer says
Fine post, Phil… but you forgot quote these CHOICE Islamic quotes:
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 230:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
as above (229).
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:
I asked ‘Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. ”
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:
Narrated ‘Amr bin Maimun:
I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that ‘Aisha had said, “I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah’s Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:
Narrated ‘Aisha:
I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.
Phil Copson says
“I say, old chap – steady on!” OK – additional sanitised “G & S” style verse as especially commissioned by the Clinton Foundation garment…..
“So proud he was – and loud he was – to show off his intelligence,
As Shakespeare meant – our ears we leant – to tales of his malevolence
For although it seems excessive,
It appears he got aggressive –
And not even MacBeth’s Lady can now wash away the evidence…..”
Buraq says
Two dead accusers would end the case. Or two accusers threatened with violence that seems so real and inescapable, they will withdraw the charges. That’s this clown’s only way out!
Robin says
Kicking a man when he is down is undignified. Dr Ramadan has worked tirelessly as an esteemed professor at the distinguished University of Oxford, speaking generously of the religion of peace, is widely admired by millions, and very actively loves women. Due respect is owed to such a person, especially when he has been cruelly incarcerated on a feeble basis of Islamophobic hate assertions. I call for Dr Ramadan’s earliest possible release, so that he can be shoved off the white ciiffs of Dover where he belongs.
CRUSADER says
Creepy.
Won’t be staying in a Ramada hotel ever again, just because of the word association.
Robin says
Not sure many Ramada hotels would want someone called Crusader in their midst anyway.
Ren says
I always knew there is something wrong with Tariq Ramadan… Now I know: he’s a hypocrite.
Gjallarhornet says
Ramadan just proves it – once again and for the millionth time: islam is all hollow, there is no core, no substance. Pierce the shell, and it is all hollow. Islam lives on outward aggression, by blaming everybody else, for everything. Poke it, meaning strike back, and it crumbles.
I wonder … how many of the worlds muslims secretly want to leave or harbor great doubts in their souls, but are too afraid to say anything, with good reason. Once it safe to leave, many people will do so.
Michael Copeland says
“If they had gotten rid of the punishment [death] for apostasy Islam would not exist today.”
Yusuf al Qaradawi
dumbledoresasrmy says
You wrote – “…Ramadan just proves it – once again and for the millionth time: islam is all hollow, there is no core, no substance. Pierce the shell, and it is all hollow….”.
Interestingly, back in the 19th century a very erudite American abolitionist named James Freeman Clarke also called Islam ‘hollow”. He wrote a series of essays on the world’s major religions – “Ten Great Religions” (‘great’ I think indicating not *necessarily* moral eminence but simply that they had wide currency, had been around for a long time, and had had significant impact – for good *or* ill – on human affairs). One chapter discusses Islam – “Mohammed and Islam”. And in that chapter he says – I quote – “‘The religion of Islam is an outward form, a hard shell of authority, hollow at heart. It constantly tends to the two antagonistic but related vices of luxury and cruelty.”
Note that – “an outward form, a hard shell of authority, hollow at heart.”
And… note too “the two antagonistic but related vices of luxury and cruelty”. WHAT have we just found out about Tariq Ramadan’s character and habits? Luxury (in the old Medieval sense of ‘lussuria’, which included sexual depravity) and cruelty. Oh, Tariq Ramadan is Islamic through and through.
Even his given name, Ramadan, points us back to the much ballyhooed so-called ‘fast’ of Ramadan… during which mohammedans parade about with a great show of self-denial and piety during the daylight hours, then abandon themselves (if they have the means) to unrestrained gluttony during the hours of *darkness*.
StellaSaidSo says
‘Muslim intellectual…’
This is an oxymoron. It is not possible to believe in the putrid nonsense that is Islam, and have any credible claim to superior intellectual function. Ramadan was always a pretender. If it weren’t for his famous lineage, he might never have been taken seriously in the Islamic world. And if it weren’t for his personal charisma and relentless self-promotion, he would have attracted far less attention in the West.
Nobody in Europe is the slightest bit surprised at Ramadan’s denouement. It was only ever a matter of time. The Europeans – and especially the French – have known for years that the Emperor had no clothes. There is a delicious irony in the fact that Ramadan’s downfall was occasioned by revelations about his behaviour while trouserless.
It was the Left in the US and the UK who largely maintained Ramadan’s flagging reputation. Had it not been for the Oxford gig, he might have concluded his career as he began it, as a teacher in an obscure high school in Switzerland.
No doubt Tariq Ramadan is grateful for the signatures on the much-quoted ‘letter of support’. But he would be bitterly disappointed at the absence of any prominent names. It must be galling to know that, without the thousands of impressionable Maghrebi youths from the banlieues, all with facebook accounts and chips on their shoulders, you would have no support at all.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
==QUOTE==
Bernard Godard, the “Mr. Islam” of the French Ministry of the Interior, described what the French government had long known about Ramadan: “That he had many mistresses, that he consulted sites [sites where sexual encounters could be arranged, or pornography could be viewed], that girls were brought to the hotel at the end of his lectures, that he invited them to undress, that some resisted and that he could become violent and aggressive, yes, but I have never heard of rapes, I am stunned.”
==UNQUOTE==
Thank you to the annotator for explaining what “consulted sites” means in this context. He did not offer consultation services to these websites, but visited them for non-consultations services they offered.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
… he appears to think he’s the one who has been wronged.
Islam is a sexy ‘”religion” and the Holy Ko-Ran is one very sexy book. The well named Tariq Ramadan must be one heck of an Islamic scholar, much like the also well named Caliph al-Baghdadi. These are hot men, so watch out.
jewdog says
Just be thankful for fracking, since it has lessened the world’s dependence on Muslim oil. Without it, I can easily imagine a well-placed phone call by a Qatari or Saudi mogul to some craven French bureaucrat demanding Ramadan’s release. It may still happen.
StellaSaidSo says
Neither the Qataris nor the Saudis will ‘demand Ramadan’s release’. He has been banned from entering both countries.
CRUSADER says
Tariq Ramadan speaks in this video, making excuses for the Koran….
————————————————————————————
DISCOVERY: Oldest Quran Found Has Little Similarity To Modern Version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_vq9_Wipic
Like the bible, and to apparently an even greater extent, the Qur’an of today cannot be claimed to be a true version of the oldest Qur’an in the world discovered in 1972, written in 705-715 AD, and available to researchers in 1979. There are TREMENDOUS differences, an excellent example of one being an original text of “72 grapes” being changed to the infamous “72 virgins” awaiting the faithful in the afterlife hundreds of years later.
The standard histories of Muhammad and the early development of Islam are based on Islamic literature that dates to the ninth and tenth centuries–some two centuries or more after the death of Muhammad in 632. Islamic literary sources do not exist for the seventh and eighth centuries, when, according to tradition, Muhammad and his immediate followers lived. All that is preserved from this time period are a few commemorative building inscriptions and assorted coins.
As the researchers meticulously show, the name “Muhammad” first appears on coins in Syria bearing Christian iconography. In this context the name is used as an honorific meaning “revered” or “praiseworthy” and can only refer to Jesus Christ, as Christianity was the predominant religion of the area at this time. This same reference exists in the building inscription of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, built by the caliph `Abd al-Malik.
The implication of these and other findings here presented is that the early Arab rulers adhered to a sect of Christianity. Indeed, evidence from the Koran, finalized at a much later time, shows that its central theological tenets were influenced by a pre-Nicean, Syrian Christianity. Linguistic analysis also indicates that Aramaic, the common language throughout the Near East for many centuries and the language of Syrian Christianity, significantly influenced the Arabic script and vocabulary used in the Koran. Finally, it was not until the end of the eighth and ninth centuries that Islam formed as a separate religion, and the Quran underwent a period of historical development of at least 200 years.
In other words, even should one believe the Qur’an as written by Mohammad is a sacred text, the Qur’an of today is a substantially different book, unqualified to be called the true Qur’an or even a reasonable facsimile. Thus contemporary Islam is complete bullshit based on the false and inaccurate Qur’an in current use by Muslims. Muslims leaders, of course, reject the physical and irrefutable evidence and facts presented.
DISCOVERY: Oldest Quran Found Has Little Similarity To Modern Version
Phil Copson says
“The question, m’lud – hinges upon whether my client Mr Ramadanadingdong arrived in France at 11.15 in the morning as he states, or at 18.35 in the late afternoon as the plaintiff alleges – a conumdrum inasmuchaswhichashereinafterheretofore – may perhaps be best summed-up in that fine old English expression, as being “Mr Ramadan’s bone of contention”…..