Americans Must Denounce U.S. Killings in Syria, Iraq

Tariq Ramadan talking:

I think it’s important to understand that, yes, it’s increasing and we have people going very far and very quickly. These are cells that are informal in a way. And anybody can do and can launch an attack on civilians. It happened in France. It happened in Barcelona. It happened before in the UK. So, we have this happening now, also it happened in Finland. We have these happening now in Europe. And of course, we need more security. We need to condemn, as Muslims, what is happening. And it is right to say that this cannot be accepted and has to be condemned. And I kept on saying to Muslims, we can’t say that they are not Muslims and we can’t say that this has nothing to do with Islam. We have to take a position and to say that these people are Muslims. We are there saying that they are Muslims, and some of them are quoting verses of the Quran. So, we have to take a stand. So, this is one thing that we have to do, and we have to condemn. What was done by Muslims in Barcelona — and not only in Barcelona, because it happened in many other countries. Here is demonstrating and saying, “not in our name.” It happened also in the states, by the way, with some of the things that were done by Muslims by saying “it’s not us.”

The problem, as you said it, it’s not covered a lot by the media. It’s as if there is a narrative that is imposed onto us, which means, yes, we know that these people are radicals or violent extremists, as we told them. And we are talking of a lot about radicalization, even though, by the way, if we go to figures and facts, we understand that many of these young people were not even practicing Muslims two weeks or three weeks or one month before what they did. So, we have to be very cautious when we speak about radicalization. Because the notion of radicalization means that, in fact, they were practicing Muslim and step-by-step they became radicalized, which is not, in fact, the case for the great majority of these people.

So, the narrative that is imposed onto us is to say, we have a problem with violent extremists. But, at the same time, Muslims are not vocal. They are not condemning another. For the last 15 years — it started in 2001 in the States — I have been asked, “oh, you have to condemn, you don’t condemn enough.” And so, look, when are you going to listen to the great majority of the scholars, the consensus among the Muslims that this is to be condemned by Muslims, and it’s not something that we are condoning and something that we can’t accept. So, the voices are not heard. And my point here is something which is connected to the story that you had before. The narrative that is imposed onto us is in the name of this war on terror, it’s, yes the violent extremists, the Muslims and the violent extremists are the problem, but Islam, per se, is a problem to the point, that when, for example, we go to Syria and we go to Iraq and we are targeting Daesh and say we are targeting the violent extremists and these people, at the same time, the innocent people within the city in Raqqa, for example, are not so much important because at the end of the day, they are also part of the big picture that we are making Islam is a problem and the civilian Muslims are the problem. I think that this is very, very dangerous. Because, the narrative that is behind the whole story that we have now in the Middle East as well as in the United States of America or in Europe today are very dangerous because it’s as if it normalize a way of treating people in a way which is discrimination, racist, and targeting, and stigmatizing a portion of the European citizens. Because, at the end of the day, Muslims are American citizens, European citizens, Western citizens.

All the facts and figures — and we’ve been working with the European Muslim network I’m chairing in Brussels. We have been even seeing some, and had some testimonies coming from people who were going to leave, or who left and came back on their way from Turkey. And what they are saying, it’s true, they are very young, by the way, it’s not only men, but it’s also women that are now much more involved. Some of them are going there, not very much involved in terrorist attacks, but they are involved in the — they are attracted by the same way. We are going to support the Muslims who are targeted in Syria and we are going to free the country and support the so-called Islamic state. If you look at the facts and the figures and even the stories behind, you can see that the great majority of them are not practicing Muslims. And very often, completely disconnected from the Muslim organizations on the ground. And some of the — 80 percent of them have not more than six weeks of practicing their religion. And even some of them are not practicing Islam the day before.

So, we have — we need to understand here that there is something which has to do with instrumentalization, attraction to something being a hero, which is not the religious attraction, it’s something that has also to do with the perception of the world where the feeling is frustration, discrimination, and the feeling of being victims in the narrative that we have today in the West as Muslims. And we need to get this right. We can’t disconnect the narrative that we are imposing and the consequences. It doesn’t mean that we are not condemning, but we need to understand that the great majority of the reasons behind the whole thing has nothing to do with a religious framework or religious reference. It’s much more a political — and a wrong political understanding connected to frustration on the ground when it comes to the image of being a Muslim in the West today. The image of — some of them are very well educated, but at one point, in many countries in Europe, whatever you do, it’s never enough. Why? Because the narrative about stigmatizing Islam and being mistrusting the Muslims is something that is there.

So we cannot justify it, but we need to understand. And I keep on repeating to try to explain is not to justify. To try to explain is to try to understand what is happening. It comes with your question. And I would say here that the governments — and the answer coming from the governments — the only answer we have now is targeting them and coming with security policy. It’s as if the narrative is not there. It’s as if today when it comes, for example, to the Black Life Matters and the black — the situation of the black people in the United States of America. You just look at what they are doing and you say it’s a security matter, and you don’t understand there is a very old narrative there making or connecting the black people to insecurity and violence. And then you justify the whole policy of discrimination in the name of the narrative you created. That is exactly what is happening with Muslims. So, this is why it is connected in a way what we are saying about the Middle East today, what we are saying about Western Muslims today is connected to violence, mistrust.

So, if you are an American Muslim citizen or a European Muslim citizen and you look at the picture, you look what is said about you in this society, it’s negative. It’s that you are suspected. You are not to be trusted. And you’re not bringing anything good within society. So, at the end, if you look at the way, for example, all what you are saying, what Donatella was telling us about what is happening in Raqqa, it’s as if the life of these people, the innocent people, the civilians who are trying to flee the bombarding of the coalition are targeting them self. It is as if the civilians have no value. So, if you are citizens here, we don’t have a value here. They don’t have a value there. I’m going to save my life by being a hero over there.

So, of course, once again, we condemn this. But we want to come with the big picture and to say, yes, not in my name, violence, but please, as an American citizen, tell your government, not in our name what you’re doing in Iraq, what you are doing in Syria. Not in our name, the fact that you are dividing the Middle East and you are supporting, for example, Israel, and letting now the Palestinians being killed. Not in our name.

So, as much as we are expecting from Muslims to say “not in our name,” let us come together as Western citizens and say, “not in our name what you are doing.” And what is said, the report of Amnesty International is just showing how unacceptable is the American policy in the region by targeting people, boats, where civilians are trying to flee and we accept this and we don’t speak about it? It’s not covered by the mainstream media? We need Democracy Now! to come say, look, this is something serious here? We are also to be blame in the way we are dealing with this — with the issue.

– of the almost 35,000 people killed in terrorist attacks last year, only 238 were in Western Europe while almost 20,000 people died from terrorist attacks in the Middle East and in the surrounding region.

That’s exactly what is happening. Our coverage of our dead has nothing do with the coverage of the people who are dying over there. It’s as if we don’t care. There is something — as I told you, in the name of this war on terror, we have been — we are — a narrative is imposed onto us that our people are more innocent than their civilians. Their civilians are not so innocent. You know why? Because at the end of the day, they are still Muslims, or living in a Muslim majority country, or in the Middle East.

So connecting this to the big picture, it’s as if they’re not as innocent as we are. While our governments in the West, the United States of America and the European governments, are now dealing with the situation in a way which is unacceptable against the Geneva conventions, against all the laws of war, all of the agreements that we have international resolutions that we have. We are not respecting this and we are imposing a narrative that their killing it’s to be normalized because we are dealing with a violent extremists. And the media are not helping us in this. It’s just the marginal media that are covering by saying, look, if you look at figures, who are the victims? Do you want the Muslims to go in the street and to say, “not in our name,” because the people were killed in Barcelona? What about the Syrian people? What about the Iraqi people? What about Yemen now? What about this ally of the West? We are selling them billions — weapons for billions, and they are paying. Saudi Arabia. And they are killing innocent people in Yemen. We don’t care. It’s nothing. It’s as if it’s nothing, that their civilians are not to be valued. That’s just unacceptable. And it gives the perception, in the Middle East and within our societies in the West, that the life of the Muslims or the life of the suspected Muslims, civilian Muslims, or the innocent Muslims has less value than our lives.

So — and by the way, let us also be clear, we need to condemn, but we also need to try to get these people — I’m not so happy by the fact that every time it happens, we’re killing the people. We don’t know who they are, what happened exactly. We kill them. And I was in Africa with people telling us, I don’t understand the logic of the way we are dealing with terrorists because we keep on trying to kill them and that’s it. We don’t want to catch them and to understand what is happening.

So, there is something which is not acceptable even in the way we are dealing with people who — yes, there are terrorists and we have to get with more security and to catch them. But, let us try to understand how we’re going to deal with this and not being happy only because we kill them and that is what we want. I would say that the media coverage now, it’s nurturing this narrative that was coming from the — starting in 2001 with this war on terror, normalizing something which is, we can do whatever we want in the Middle East, or accepting even to target civilians there because, at the end, they are part of the problem. And part of the problem, if the civilians are part of the problem, what we mean and what we get out of this is that the narrative is saying, it’s not only the violent extremists, that are problematic, it’s islam, per se, it’s the Muslims are problematic.

And I would say here that if we don’t address this issue, if we are not serious about this, if we don’t ask the journalists to respect the minimum of the common principles, which is treat all citizens, all innocent people the same way here in the states or in Europe as well as in the Middle East — if you don’t start with this, it means that you have a double standard, that you are nurturing a sense of frustration for the victims. And at the end, they are not going to accept this without reacting to it. So we can’t condemn the reaction. Let us condemn the reasons why things like this are also happening.

AMY GOODMAN: Kushner also met with the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt Wednesday, following the U.S. decision to withhold some military funding to Egypt amidst Egypt’s deteriorating human rights conditions. Despite withholding some funding, the U.S. continues to give massive military aid to Egypt. Amnesty International said, “Humvees, small arms, and tear gas provided by the U.S. are used to oppress critics of the Egyptian government and facilitate serious human rights violations like extra-judicial [executions],” unquote. The White House refused to say exactly where Jared Kushner is going on this Middle East trip, though they’re saying he’s trying to jumpstart the Middle East peace process. We do know he met with the Jordanian King Abdullah in Amman, the emir of Qatar in Doha, and that today, on Thursday, he’s slated to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is under criminal investigation, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Professor Tariq Ramadan, can you talk about what the Trump administration is calling a renewed effort for a peace process?

TARIQ RAMADAN: Look, let us be clear on that. That’s a joke. It’s not going to happen, and it didn’t happen before. Even under the Obama administration, there was no peace process, and it’s not happening. Even under the Obama administration, what we had is, twice, over summer, the destruction of Gaza and thousands of civilians being killed. And it’s as if that’s normal, and we have to accept this.

The problem is that even when we were talking about, you know, the “revolutions” and the Arab Spring, we need to get the right picture. We are obsessed with the political equation here, talking about democracy, and even Bush told us in 2003, “We want to democratize the Middle East.” That’s not—this is not what is happening. What is happening, and even with the last visit of, you know, the son-in-law of the president, is mainly to deal with market and economy and geostrategy. It has nothing to do with solving the political problem, trying to get peace with—between Israel and Palestine. That’s not the main focus here. The main focus, and this is why we were obsessed with the political equation, speaking about democracy, not getting that, in fact, the Arab Spring was the big opportunity to open the market. And which market are we talking about? We are talking here about selling weapons. We are talking about arms selling in the region. Billions of U.S. dollars have been, you know, spent by Gulf states, for example, just with the crisis that we had between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Both countries bought, for billions, hundreds billions of dollars of weapons, from Saudi Arabia, and the same on the Qatari side. So, you divide the region, and you sell weapons to both. And not only to both, you sell weapons, knowing, for example, in Saudi Arabia, that it’s going to be used against civilians, in a way which has nothing to do with respecting international law. Exactly the same when it comes to Egypt. Egypt is using U.S. weapons in order to torture people, to target civilians and to have a state which is clearly a dictatorship. And even the Obama administration refused to speak about the coup d’état, because, in fact, this would have stopped the opportunity for the U.S. government to support financially and militarily the Egyptian regime. So we have to get the right picture.

The hidden story behind all these discussions about peace process, let us do, is to sell weapons, or to buy weapons from Israel, because the only undisputed discussion that we have here is Israel. Israel can kill innocent people in Gaza, kill civilians, torture people. We don’t ask. We don’t have the right to ask even. And we sell the weapons. On the other side, what is happening is we speak about democratizing the Middle East. In fact, the Middle East now, it’s completely unsettled. Even with the killing of the civilians in Syria and in Iraq, Russia and the United States of America are making money out of it. That’s the reality of it. It has nothing to do with democracy. It has nothing to do with respecting civil—civilians and rights of the people, or even the Palestinians. We don’t care. The point is that sell money, make—sell weapons, make money and let them kill one another. At the end of the day, the business is running.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Professor Ramadan, on the question of arms sales, of course, these are justified internally in these countries to whom Britain and the U.S. and Russia are selling weapons, by saying, well, they have to buy these weapons, because they are fighting internal threats from terrorists, from ISIS in Syria and elsewhere, to the Taliban in Pakistan. So, your response to that?

TARIQ RAMADAN: No, no, I think it’s the simplistic, you know, narrative that was sold by the dictators. We had Sadat and, after—before this—after this, Mubarak, and, after, el-Sisi, who are—they are saying, “You know what? You better deal with us, as dictators, than with them, as crazy people, violent extremists. So let us deal with them.” So we sell weapons in order for the government to torture them and to deal with them in the domestic side and also in the regional side.

What is the point of us supporting Saudi Arabia killing innocent people in Yemen? Is this something which is acceptable? Don’t they have—you know, and what have we done in Syria, until and for the first five years, when it was still possible to deal with the situation? We don’t care, as we had the situation in Raqqa now is just revealing the whole narrative, the whole way we are dealing. We are targeting civilians. We don’t care. So, it has nothing to do with supporting, you know, legitimate governments dealing with terrorists. We are supporting dictators. We are supporting regimes who don’t care about their people.

But we do this not in the name of human rights. We don’t do this in the name of democracy. If we were caring about democracy, let us start with the Gulf states. Let us start with Saudi Arabia. We don’t care. We don’t care about the status of women in the regions. We don’t care. What we care is, how are we going to protect the geostrategic interests, to protect the security of Israel and to sell weapons and make money in the region. That’s the reality of it. And if this was to help the countries to go towards more democracy and a democratization process, we should start by not supporting dictators, not supporting el-Sisi. In less than 20 minutes, in under Sisi regimes, in Egypt, 1,200 people were sentenced to death, because they are against the government. And we are supporting this? Is this the way we are dealing with human rights? So, it’s human rights for us, and whatever—it’s acceptable to sell weapons to these dictators? That’s not acceptable.

And as much—I said it, and I repeat this—we want people to take to the street and to say, “Not in our name, as Muslims,” let us come as Americans, let us come as Europeans, and say to our governments, “Not in our name. You are making money while the people are being killed. We are making money bombarding Syria, and when the people are trying to come to Europe as migrants and refugees, we criminalize them, and we let them die in the Mediterranean Sea. Is this right? Is this the way we deal with human rights? I can’t accept this. So, I would go with the—in Barcelona, where the Muslims say, “Not in my name,” and I will go with all the Western people saying, “Not in our name,” because you speak about democracy, and you care about money.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Professor Ramadan, you’ve talked about the fact that the U.S. and Britain and Russia are making money off arms sales to Syria, among other countries. But are you suggesting that it’s actually in the interests of these countries—

TARIQ RAMADAN: And you can add France.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: —and France—that it’s actually in the interests of these countries—France, Britain, the U.S. and Russia—

TARIQ RAMADAN: Yeah.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: —to continue the war in Syria and the total dismemberment of Iraq, only because they are making money off these arms sales?

TARIQ RAMADAN: Not only, but they are taking advantage of the situation. Yes, I’m not suggesting; I am saying it clearly: They are making money out of this situation. The complete and settled situation in the Middle East, it’s a big political disaster, and it’s an open market to sell weapons and to make money, for the time being, and, at the same times, not—for us not to be focusing on a very central conflict, which has to do with Palestine and Israel, while, at the time I’m talking to you, Israel is buying weapons and selling technology to the States, to European countries and even to Arab countries in the region. They are making money while they are still colonizing Palestine. We are talking about the two-state solution. It’s over. So, when we are told today that there is somebody going from—coming from the States, the son-in-law of the president coming to start speaking again about the peace process, it’s a joke. So I’m not suggesting; I’m saying it clearly: There is a great interest in people fighting one another in the region. The destabilized Middle East is a big market for the Russians, for the Europeans and, of course, for the U.S., for many reasons. And, once again, we have to be clear about this.

But you know what I’m saying is not new. This is an old story. If only we were—and I’m always saying this to, you know, Arabs and people in the Middle East. You have to study what happened in Latin America. This is not a new policy. This is known. It’s known the way that we are pushing people to fight one another, and we are making money and selling weapons to both. In the story between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, this is exactly what happened over the last three months.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Ramadan, but one of the main criticisms of Arab states, so far as the Israel-Palestine conflict is concerned, is that they actually bear a lot of responsibility for, minimally, Palestinian refugees, and they, themselves, turn Palestinians away from their own countries, while constantly criticizing Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.

TARIQ RAMADAN: Oh, I’m very happy that you’re asking this question, and this is a critical question. And you’re right. And this has to be said, as well. I’m very critical towards the Western policies. I’m critical, of course, of the Israeli policy. But the first to be blamed are the Arab countries—are the Arab governments. In fact, they don’t even care about Palestinians. They let them down, and they don’t want to have problems with them. The policy or the decisions coming from Egypt, for example, towards the Palestinians, it’s just outrageous. It’s not even acceptable. But all the countries, the Gulf states, towards Palestine and Jordan, and even all the other countries, they don’t care. So, in fact, we are very often told, “You know what? The problem in the Middle East is, the reason for all what is happening is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.” And I would say, no, that’s just revealing a deeper problem that we have with the Arab countries and the Muslim-majority countries in the region. They are the first to be blamed. We cannot accept this, and we have to be very critical.

So, I’m not saying, because I’m criticizing the U.S. government or the European governments, that we have to keep quiet on the Gulf states or the Arab countries. They have—and they are the first responsible for what is happening now with the Palestinians. They are, even now. You know, look at the Emirates. The Emirates are dealing with Israel. They are dealing with Israel, and they have an agreement with Israel. And exactly the same with Egypt. So, who are we going to blame? Am I going to let the people to say something about the Palestinians, saying they are lost, in what is happening now, and, even in Syria, they are lost? Who should be blamed for that? The first, it’s Bashar al-Assad is a dictator. And what happened also in Libya, and what happened—and what happened in Iraq, and all these governments that we have now are not doing the job. So we need something coming from the Middle East. We need more voices within the civil societies in the Middle East being able to address the issue and to be courageous enough to say no to the Arab policies in the region, “Not in our name,” as well. And let us create something, that could be voices coming from the West, voices coming from the Middle East, saying this, that we are going to blame the Arab governments, but also the Western governments and all the people who are betraying the basic principles we believe in. And this is something that we have to do together.

Everything is connected, by the way, and this is why I’m very happy, in your program, that you are connecting all the things together, because it could be wrong just to look at one picture, one situation, and not to connect it to the whole big picture that we are facing. What is happening in the Middle East has to do with what is happening today when it comes to violent extremism. And even, I would say, that anything that has to do with discrimination, it’s also coming out of this big and great narrative that is imposed onto us, normalizing the way we are targeting some people and saving the life of others. It has to do with Arabs. It has to do with Muslims. It has to do with black people. It’s exactly the same logic. Let us understand this, because this is why we can come together and say no to these policies coming from the Arab world, as well as from the West.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Ramadan, as we speak, Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, is making the rounds of the Middle East in an effort to resume the so-called peace process. On Tuesday, he was in Saudi Arabia meeting with his personal friend, Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince, who’s in charge of the destruction, the bombing campaign, of Yemen. The next day in Yemen, a U.S.-backed, Saudi-led airstrike north of Sana’a killed at least 41 people when it struck a hotel. President Trump, his first foreign trip as president of the United States, was to—in a break with all tradition—Saudi Arabia, though visiting Saudi Arabia on the part of a president wasn’t a break with tradition. President Obama visited Saudi Arabia a number of times. Can you assess the Trump administration at this point? Your assessment of President Trump, when you look at him from across the pond, from afar, in the Middle East, and here at home in the U.S.?

TARIQ RAMADAN: I think there are two things. When it comes to what you are saying about Saudi Arabia, once again, they don’t care about democracy. They don’t care about human rights. They don’t—they care about interest in the region. And now, bin Salman is clearly an ally. The Saudis and the Saudi government was, of course, before an ally of the U.S. policy in the region. Now it’s quite clear: sell the weapons and try to get an understanding of how we are going to deal with the Saudi government, supporting and protecting the interests, other U.S. interests, in the region. That’s all what Trump is doing. But, by the way, let me be clear: It was exactly the same with Obama and exactly the same way with Bush before. So, it’s a continuous. Whatever is that government or the president, it’s always the same.

Now, let me say something about this. I am a Western Muslim, and I’m trying to get a deeper understanding of Islam in helping us to live as Muslims in our societies today, in democratic society. Who are we supporting in Saudi Arabia? The Salafi. And the Salafi might not be violent, but they are supporting an interpretation of Islam which is us versus them, very literalist, very, very narrow-minded. They don’t want us to deal. And they want us to think that the West is the enemy. So, you are supporting a government that is just protecting your interests, but at the same time is promoting an ideology which is completely based on us versus them. So, are you supporting a version or an interpretation of Islam which is exactly the opposite of what you are asking the Muslims to say at the same time? It’s a contradiction in term. What is this? So, how could you support this? How could you support a government saying there is no democracy in Islam, women cannot drive? It’s just a very literalist understanding of Islam. And they are killing people. They are imposing a way of understanding sharia which is only based on punishing the victims. And the victims are poor people and women in the country, not the princes, not the kings, just the poor people. And this is what Trump is doing now, following in the footsteps of all the policy that we had coming from the U.S. And then, at the same time, domestically, what he said—be clear on this, the narrative, what—it was not by accident that Trump said about Muslims, “We want to ban Muslims and Muslims coming from Muslim-majority countries.” In fact, the connection between violent extremism and Muslim and Muslim being a problem is exactly the same narrative.

And I would say that what he said about Charleston, it’s exactly the same. At one point, we need to get it clear. The whole narrative about black people in the United States of America, it’s normalizing a state of structural racism. And we say, “All we target, you know, are the people who are dealing with drugs and criminals.” But at the same time, we are creating suspicions towards black people and suspicions towards the Muslims and suspicions toward the Latinos. So there is something here where it’s not new. This is a very old story. But we need to get it from within and to understand that the question is not about only the facts. The question has to do with the narrative that is imposed and this political discourse that we have. And what is done by the Trump administration in the Middle East is exactly the opposite of what we should promote when it comes to human rights and the right interpretation of Islam, the open interpretation of Islam. We are serious about Islam, but Islam, it’s an open religion dealing with common principles that we have. It’s not the literalist version and interpretation coming from the Salafis, supported by the United States of America. If you want to give a bad image of Islam, support the Saudi, support the Gulf states. And this is what the United States and the European countries are doing together.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Ramadan, you were banned from the United States for six years. Are you allowed in the United States under President Trump?

TARIQ RAMADAN: So far, I am. I was there a few months ago, two or three months ago. And I will be coming back. I have a new book coming, an introduction to Islam, where I’m talking about all these things in the book to come, so I will have a visit in September. We’ll see. So far, so good. It’s OK. And I hope it’s not going to, but, you know, at the end, if I am banned from the United States because of what I’m saying now, it’s just revealing the state of affairs within the country. It’s worrying.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Professor Ramadan, can you go from, well, your own ban here in the U.S., and how it affected you, to, well, jump forward to President Trump and the Muslim ban, in this case, a ban on immigrants coming in from six majority-Muslim countries?

TARIQ RAMADAN: Yes. I think my situation was solved in 2010, and that’s fine. I can come, and I am privileged in a way, because I didn’t have to go through all these problems that you have with Muslims coming from the six Muslim-majority countries.

We need to get, once again, the big picture. At the beginning, it was nine countries, and it sent—even the fact that we are talking about a Muslim ban is just—once again, it’s making Islam the problem and the Muslim-majority countries and to target some of—some of these countries were not targeted, of course, because they are allies. So, when you are supporting the Salafi, you—but still you have money. At the end of the day, the countries with which we are trading and making money, they are not to be banned. And we are putting some suspicion on others. So it’s all political, and it’s using Islam as a way of spreading around a very bad and negative perception of Islam. So I think that this is pure discrimination, stigmatization. It is very dangerous. And the rationale and the narrative and all what Trump has been saying during the campaign, before he was president, and afterward is just nurturing the sense that we are not only talking about the violent extremists as a problem, we are talking about Islam and the Muslim-majority countries as a problem. And he’s ready to deal with governments, he’s ready to deal with dictators, as long as their interests are protected.

But what it gives as an impression within the States and at the domestic—and it opens, in a way, a way for racists and white supremacists, in a way and another, because some of them are connecting black people, Muslims, Arabs, Latinos, strangers, foreigners. All this is all the same at the end of the day. The white supremacists are picturing the whole thing in that way: us versus them. And Trump is nurturing this sense of division within the society. And this is very dangerous. And it’s not only dangerous for Muslims. The Muslim ban is not dangerous for Muslims. It’s dangerous for the unity of the American society. It’s the very essence of a society based on diversity and migrations, and taking its strength from—or getting its strength from this diversity. He is putting this at risk, with this political discourse that we have today.

And we need to stand up and to come together. And I’m—you know, what is coming from the feminist discourse about intersectionality, we need to look at this, because at one point all this is connected. And the struggle of American Muslims is the same as black America, is the same as women being stigmatized. At one point, behind this, there is a narrative which is very problematic. And Islam today is part of this, at the domestic level as well as at the international level.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, Professor Ramadan, one of the things that you mentioned is that, of course, even when this Muslim ban was first enunciated, it did not include allies of the U.S., most notably, Saudi Arabia. And you’ve talked about how Saudi Arabia propagates a very particular form of Islam, the Salafi tradition, and its effects on the region. Can you talk about what this strain of a very strict interpretation of Islam suggests and also the way in which the Saudi regime and many other regimes in the in the Arab world and Muslim world treat their minorities, in particular, the Shia community?

TARIQ RAMADAN: Yeah, that’s very important. I would say, if we want to summarize three main features of the Salafi, the first one is literalism, is that there is no room for interpretation, no way to deal with contemporary issues—a very, very backward interpretation of Islam when it comes to societies, when it comes to democracy, when it comes to human rights, when it comes even to punishment. And the way they are understanding sharia, it’s a very narrow understanding, which means we punish first, and we reform after, which is completely wrong. This is a very dangerous interpretation. So we have this, within and among Muslims, even among the Sunni, this perception that it’s us versus them, we have the only right interpretation of Islam, and all the others are alienated Muslims and even not Muslim. For some of the people who are supporting Saudi Arabia, I’m not even a Muslim. I am not even a Muslim. I am a kafir murtad. ”Murtad” means apostate. And ”kafir” means an infidel. So, my blood is considered as lawful by some of the scholars who are supporting the Saudi regime, which, you know, I am banned from Saudi Arabia for things that I have been saying about the country and the government. So this is within, among the Muslims, is this is the only right interpretation, all the others are wrong.

And then, add to this the fact that they are now nurturing this narrative that Islam is about the Sunni, and the Shia are no longer Muslim, so they are the enemy. And the point is that this is not only the discussion between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It’s everywhere within the narrative that we have. It’s the most dangerous people for the Muslims, meaning the Sunni, are the Shia. And the way they are targeting it is, in fact, by targeting them, explaining their policies towards the Shia at the international level based on these people are not really Muslims, and they are dangerous, because they are distorting Islam from within, to the point that you come with the way they are dealing with minorities within the country. You remember when we were talking about the Arab Spring, the people who were very happy with what was happening in Tunisia, what was happening in Egypt. And we were silent about what was going—what was happening in Bahrain. And in Bahrain, what we got coming from the coverage, even from Al Jazeera in Qatar, was, “Oh, these people are Shia, and they are against the Sunni government.” How come you are saying this? How come you can justify the fact that you are killing people protesting against a regime and dictatorship, just by saying that they are Shia? So, it’s legitimized: It’s right to kill Shia people, because they are Shia. And look at what is happening in Yemen. It’s exactly the same narrative. It’s exactly the same rationale that we have here.

So, yes, this is—this ideology is based on this. It’s based on literalists, based on internal divisions, being the only right interpretation of Islam and targeting the Shia. Add to this that they are telling us that we should not be involved in politics. So, if you go to the street in Saudi Arabia and to say that’s a corrupt government, the mufti is going to tell you, “Oh, no, this is un-Islamic.” So, this is also what they were saying in Egypt. It’s un-Islamic to take to the street, because this is wrong from an Islamic perspective. So, once again, it’s a very, very smart way of instrumentalizing religion to support the worst dictatorships in the world.

And who is supporting these people? For the sake of what? Who is supporting them? All the European governments and all—and the United States of America. Why? Because for two reasons. It’s, yes, for money, because they have money, and they have oil, and they have gas. That’s one thing. But it’s more cynical than that even, that their interpretation of Islam is very interesting for political reason, at the domestic level and at the international level. You support these people, and, in fact, they are very much more welcome in the West than I am. So, I am told, “Be open. Promote citizenship.” But when you come to this, you are suspected. But when you come with a very literalist way of dealing with Islam, you are welcome. Why? Because there is an ideological game. In fact, what is expected from Muslims is perceived within the society as dangerous, if we speak about citizenship, equal rights, human rights, and we are ready for it. And I’m ready for it. I’m ready to be critical towards the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia and others, even Iran. I went there, and I said, “Your policy, I cannot support.” We are ready for that. But it’s very strange and cynical that even our governments look at us as dangerous, to be banned from the United States of America, as I was banned from France for almost a year. Why? Why are you banning us when we say things that you don’t like? So, at the end of the day, you like what their version of Islam, or do you want us to be serious about being Muslim and, at the same time, being democrats.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Ramadan, very quickly, I wanted to get your response to President Trump’s speech on Monday, where he talked about increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by something like 4,000. And he also—well, let me play the clip.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I have already lifted restrictions the previous administration placed on our war fighters that prevented the secretary of defense and our commanders in the field from fully and swiftly waging battle against the enemy. Micromanagement from Washington, D.C., does not win battles. They are won in the field. They’re drawing upon the judgment and expertise of wartime commanders and front-line soldiers acting in real time with real authority and with a clear mission to defeat the enemy. That’s why we will also expand authority for American armed forces to target the terrorist and criminal networks that sow violence and chaos throughout Afghanistan. These killers need to know they have nowhere to hide, that no place is beyond the reach of American might and American arms. Retribution will be fast and powerful, as we lift restrictions and expand authorities in the field. We are already seeing dramatic results in the campaign to defeat ISIS, including the liberation of Mosul in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: We only have a minute, Professor Ramadan. Your response to President Trump?

TARIQ RAMADAN: Yeah. No, I think that, once again, we are talking about the liberation of Mosul, and we are talking about, you know, supporting the Afghani people. We never supported the Afghani people for their own sake, but because, once again, it’s a geostrategic area, and there is gas, and there is uranium, and there is lithium in the region. And that’s once again why we want to remain there and to support. It’s for economic reasons, not for democracy. It’s exactly the same in Syria, so we are talking about liberation. But, once again, let us come to what you said at the beginning of the program. Facts and figures are showing that we don’t care about killing civilians, and Arab civilians have less values as American civilians in the Trump’s narrative. And that’s unacceptable.
____

Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University, author of a number of influential books on Islam and the West. He was banned from the United States under the Bush administration for six years, was supposed to teach at Notre Dame, but became a professor at Oxford University instead.