Tariq Ramadan Interview After 9/11: My Brief Remark and Anecdote

Tariq Ramadan

(Image from Islam Online [9/5/03])

A recent comment by Michael B. on a previous post caught my attention and directed me to Transatlantic Intelligencer, a site maintained by John Rosenthal, whose observations on Tariq Ramadan gave me still more reason to be suspicious of Ramadan's putative moderation.

Rosenthal also links to an interview ("Attentats aux USA: Ben Laden, coupable idéal?"), conducted by Nicolas Geinoz for the 9/22/2001 edition of the Swiss newspaper La Gruyère (which I used to read back in my Fribourg days), in which Tariq Ramadan acknowledges that Bin Laden probably was responsible for the 9/11 attacks but allows for some doubt.

Geinoz presses Ramadan on this point (in French, but see also my English translation):

Pourtant, ce ne serait pas la première fois que des extrémistes musulmans commettent un attentat...

Nevertheless, this would not be the first time that Moslem extremists have made an attack...

To which Ramadan quickly responds:

Bien sûr que non, mais en l'occurrence il faut aussi se demander «à qui profite le crime». Aucune cause arabe ou islamique ne tirera profit de ces événements, au contraire: les peuples et tous les musulmans vont en pâtir. Quant à ceux que l’on a identifiés comme les auteurs, ils buvaient, sortaient en boîte et ne pratiquaient pas. Curieux extrémistes religieux. Je m’interroge: Ben Laden n'est peut-être qu'un épouvantail utile comme l'est Saddam Hussein. La représentation diabolique que l'on en fait sert peut-être d'autres desseins géostratégiques, économiques ou politiques. Il ne faut rien simplifier.

Of course not, but in fact, it is also necessary to ask, "Who profits from this crime." No Arab or Islamic cause will benefit from these events. On the contrary: the people and all the Muslims will suffer from it. As for those identified as the ones who carried out this attack, they drank, went to nightclubs, and were not observant Muslims. Curious religious extremists. I ask myself: Is Bin Laden not perhaps a useful bugbear, like Saddam Hussein? Indeed, demonizing him is perhaps useful for other geostrategic, economic, or political motives. One should not oversimplify anything.

In these remarks, as Rosenthal points out, "Ramadan went so far as to insinuate that the United States government itself -- or perhaps Israel? -- could have been the guilty party."

Although I find absurd the notion that the United States or Israel might have planned and carried out 9/11, this view seems rather widespread outside of the United States. In fact, only two weeks ago, one of my students wanted to write his semester essay on the events of 9/11 and argue for the thesis that the U.S. government had carried out the attack. I told him bluntly, "If you write that, you'll fail because the thesis is utterly wrong."

I then relented a bit, telling him, "Look, if you want to write on that and argue that the U.S. attacked itself, then go ahead, but you'll have to write a very, very persuasive essay with lots of logical argumentation and plenty of supporting facts because I am convinced that this view is totally wrong."

He decided to write that the U.S. had used propaganda about 9/11 after the attack in order to pursue its geopolitical aims.

I told him that this would be a more advisable approach.