his spiritualism, his mysticism, his personality, as well as his critical reflections on law, politics, society and pluralism, testify for me to his qualities of heart and mind. His commitment also is a continuing reason for my respect and admiration.” 9 What Ramadan neglected to mention in this loving ode to his grandfather was al-Banna’s unwavering “commitment” to violent jihad. As we’ll see shortly, al-Banna was a jihadist to his very core who longed for an Islamic caliphate—established by force, if necessary.
“You say al-Banna was against violence,” I pressed Ramadan. “But he did talk about jihad often and I don’t think he meant defensive jihad.”
“We have no proof of [al-Banna] asking anyone to act violently in Egypt,” Ramadan answered. “And the only thing he said and is written [approving violence] is in Palestine—against [Jewish paramilitary groups] and the people who were trying to colonize the country—[violence] was legitimate. But in Egypt, it was not.”
In other words, killing Jews who were resettling their ancient homeland, Israel, was a noble pursuit in al-Banna’s (and, presumably, Tariq’s) eyes. In fact, Ramadan’s father Said personally led the Brotherhood’s jihad against the fledgling state of Israel in 1948. Hatred for Jews runs in the family (which may explain Tariq Ramadan’s frequent attacks on “Jewish intellectuals”). 10
As for Ramadan’s suggestion that al-Banna opposed violence within Egypt, the facts laid out in this chapter scream otherwise. But Tariq Ramadan is not one to let facts get in the way of some good taqiyya.
Besides, to his relief, our thirty minutes were up and it was time for him to rush off to his next appointment. The scion of Muslim Brotherhood royalty is in high demand: there is a boundless supply of Islamists to rile and infidels to beguile. In Brother Tariq’s world, an alleged right-wing hater like me—bearing probing questions and Zionist inclinations—doesn’t deserve thirty seconds, let alone thirty minutes. After a cursory goodbye he was off, carrying eighty-four years of Muslim Brotherhood ideology in his bloodstream.
“What did you think? “ I asked my cameraman as we packed up.
“I don’t think he liked you very much,” he replied with a grin.
Perhaps better than anyone else alive today, Tariq Ramadan knows and fully grasps the violent legacy of his grandfather. He simply chooses to lie about it—and it works, time and time again. The reason he’s able to get away with it is simple. The vast majority of today’s Western leaders that Ramadan and other slick Islamist spokesmen spend their days hoodwinking flat-out ignore the first rule of war: know your enemy. If you don’t believe me, take a poll of both houses of the U.S. Congress and ask members a) Who Hassan al-Banna was and b) What Hassan al-Banna believed and you’ll mostly be greeted by blank stares as annoyed Hill staffers try to shoo you away. I’ve spent a decade in Washington, D.C., and interviewed dozens of lawmakers from states across the Republic. I’d estimate that out of the 535 members of Congress, maybe forty could pass the hypothetical al-Banna poll. In my experience, Democrats are the most egregiously uninformed, but most Republicans don’t know enough about our Islamist enemies either. Plus, both sides are crippled by political correctness and a refusal to link Islamic terrorism with the Islamist ideology that inspires it. Because that would require, heaven forbid, a serious examination of the Koran and hadiths—the texts the terrorists themselves cite, time and time again—and how they encourage violence. And we just can’t have that, because we all know that Islam is a religion of peace and beyond reproach.
In the House, some of the better informed members are Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, and Peter King. The Senate, on the other hand, is a wasteland. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are the Senate’s most vocal
“You say al-Banna was against violence,” I pressed Ramadan. “But he did talk about jihad often and I don’t think he meant defensive jihad.”
“We have no proof of [al-Banna] asking anyone to act violently in Egypt,” Ramadan answered. “And the only thing he said and is written [approving violence] is in Palestine—against [Jewish paramilitary groups] and the people who were trying to colonize the country—[violence] was legitimate. But in Egypt, it was not.”
In other words, killing Jews who were resettling their ancient homeland, Israel, was a noble pursuit in al-Banna’s (and, presumably, Tariq’s) eyes. In fact, Ramadan’s father Said personally led the Brotherhood’s jihad against the fledgling state of Israel in 1948. Hatred for Jews runs in the family (which may explain Tariq Ramadan’s frequent attacks on “Jewish intellectuals”). 10
As for Ramadan’s suggestion that al-Banna opposed violence within Egypt, the facts laid out in this chapter scream otherwise. But Tariq Ramadan is not one to let facts get in the way of some good taqiyya.
Besides, to his relief, our thirty minutes were up and it was time for him to rush off to his next appointment. The scion of Muslim Brotherhood royalty is in high demand: there is a boundless supply of Islamists to rile and infidels to beguile. In Brother Tariq’s world, an alleged right-wing hater like me—bearing probing questions and Zionist inclinations—doesn’t deserve thirty seconds, let alone thirty minutes. After a cursory goodbye he was off, carrying eighty-four years of Muslim Brotherhood ideology in his bloodstream.
“What did you think? “ I asked my cameraman as we packed up.
“I don’t think he liked you very much,” he replied with a grin.
Perhaps better than anyone else alive today, Tariq Ramadan knows and fully grasps the violent legacy of his grandfather. He simply chooses to lie about it—and it works, time and time again. The reason he’s able to get away with it is simple. The vast majority of today’s Western leaders that Ramadan and other slick Islamist spokesmen spend their days hoodwinking flat-out ignore the first rule of war: know your enemy. If you don’t believe me, take a poll of both houses of the U.S. Congress and ask members a) Who Hassan al-Banna was and b) What Hassan al-Banna believed and you’ll mostly be greeted by blank stares as annoyed Hill staffers try to shoo you away. I’ve spent a decade in Washington, D.C., and interviewed dozens of lawmakers from states across the Republic. I’d estimate that out of the 535 members of Congress, maybe forty could pass the hypothetical al-Banna poll. In my experience, Democrats are the most egregiously uninformed, but most Republicans don’t know enough about our Islamist enemies either. Plus, both sides are crippled by political correctness and a refusal to link Islamic terrorism with the Islamist ideology that inspires it. Because that would require, heaven forbid, a serious examination of the Koran and hadiths—the texts the terrorists themselves cite, time and time again—and how they encourage violence. And we just can’t have that, because we all know that Islam is a religion of peace and beyond reproach.
In the House, some of the better informed members are Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, and Peter King. The Senate, on the other hand, is a wasteland. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are the Senate’s most vocal
Similar Books
