Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan Page 16

  Matahed Shabestari, an Iranian intellectual, was right in saying that Mohammed was a more or less feminist leader. "He did away with some of the flagrant injustices that penalized women within the limits of the idea of justice that existed at the time."I7 Unfortunately, the seventh century in which the Prophet lived was a long way from meeting the standards that today we consider to be a minimum in terms of human dignity, with the result that the meagre accomplishments due to the Koran remain locked into the patriarchal context in which the Prophet made his appearance. Sura IV, entitled "Women," thus reads: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has given them more strength than the other. . . "18 As sacred texts, the Koran and the Surma rigidified the traditions that they did not condemn; thus dozens of practices now considered barbaric, such as corporal punishment, the killing of apostates, or the ban on Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men, were given the stamp of legitimacy for centuries to come. This marks the limits of Tariq Ramadari s fundamentalist reformism. He no doubt defends an Islam that is less archaic than the Islam of the Taliban, but his reform does not go beyond the progress accomplished during the time of the Prophet. He is in favor of ridding Islam of certain discriminatory practices, but not to the extent of challenging the patriarchal principles of the seventh century: "We are not told: `Be Muslim in this twentieth century as were the Muslims in the seventh century.' Rather: 'In this twentieth century be respectful of and faithful to the principles of the seventh century."'19

  When "contextualizing" does not mean "actualizing"

  So as to render his faith dynamic and alive, a liberal reformist is ready to adopt his religious practice in accordance with his times. Applying the principle of choura (consultation) and ijma (consensus), Ghaleb Bencheikh, for instance, is clearly in favor of bringing up to date, and even rescinding, certain verses of the Koran if they run counter to human dignity as understood today. Tariq Ramadan by no means shares this approach, which he considers to be a betrayal, even a denial, of Islam. He says he wants to situate the teachings of the Prophet in their context; but for him "contextualizing" never means "actualizing." He speaks of "principles that are eternal" but also of "the relativity of intelligence and their understanding."zo The ambiguity of such a position provides the preacher with ample room for maneuvering. In practice, he leaves it to the liberals to implement the real reforms, while treating them as "Occidentalized" behind their backs. For himself, he will forgo insisting on the strict application of certain principles only if he can thereby avoid accusations of archaism. Unlike the literalist Salafists, the Salafist reformers claim the right either to contextualize or to maintain the literal interpretation of Islamic principle in accordance with their political objectives. But this relative freedom never allows for reinterpreting a principle set down in the Koran.

  Apostasy as a test

  Islam decrees death for a Muslim who renounces his faith. It is in the name of this principle that all the dictatorial regimes based on the sharia have persecuted their political opponents or secular Muslims. In Egypt, for example, Nassr Abu Zeid and Ibtihal Younes were forced to divorce because Abu Zeid had been accused of "apostasy." In 2oor, Nawal el-Saadawi, an Egyptian fem inist, was likewise arrested and prosecuted for the same offense. The Ramadan brothers never miss an occasion to castigate the Egyptian government for not respecting human rights. However, in cases of this sort, one never hears a squeak from them. How can Tariq Ramadan claim to be fairly tolerant and open-minded if he does not fight for the right of a man or woman born into a Muslim family to choose to be Muslim or not? The liberal Muslims do, referring to two verses of the Koran: the verse that bans proselytizing and the verse that proclaims "No compulsion in religion." On this basis, they refuse to accept such practices. Tariq Ramadan is never as explicit, despite the constant pressure coming from his friends on the Left. He did finally concede the right to change one's religion, but in a half-hearted way, in the course of an interview, and on one condition: "My point of view, a minority point of view in historical terms but justified in religious terms ... is to recognize the right, but to ask of those who change their religion what one asks of all human beings: Change your soul and your conscience, but do not insult or cause prejudice to those whom you leave behind. Wherever you go, whoever it is you forsake, leave them in a noble and dignified manner. "'2

  Once again, this declaration is designed to reassure "the outside world." It comes in reply to a question in the context of an interview; it is couched in such a manner that the speaker does not appear to be a fundamentalist and is thus left free to continue with his charm offensive. In other circumstances, Ramadan is in no hurry to wage war on this disgraceful custom-current in all Muslim countries-in which the ulemas, often associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, separate couples or kill individuals for apostasy. It is simply not a subject of much interest to him within the Muslim community, where his energy goes into discrediting the liberal reformers. This was made painfully dear to Leila Babes, who felt quite isolated when she tried, over the years, to talk to scholars close to the Muslim Brotherhood (such as Tareq Oubrou from UOIF), hoping to convince them to encourage this reform: "Tariq Ramadan does state that Muslims have the right to practice their religion or not. But for him, those who reject the laws founded on texts that are unequivocal `have abandoned religion,' since they are no longer Muslim." Leila Babes, however, adds: "The right to change one's belief, like the right to have a different opinion, is considered as the equivalent of apostasy."" To say nothing of the fact that the apostate is requested to leave Islam "with nobility and dignity," without causing prejudice to Muslims-whom Tariq Ramadan insists on equating with the Islamists. This is an important point. Most Islamists condemn "apostates" not because they have ceased to be practicing Muslims, but because they turn against Islamism or because they contribute to the "desacralization" of Islam by advocating a critical view, both historical and secular. Tariq Ramadan is well aware of the fact, since he was apprenticed to the network that led the campaign in England against Salman Rushdie. He did not agree with the fatwa declared by Khomeini in Iran-the jihadists most virulently opposed to Rushdie, like Omar Bakri, were incensed to see a Shiite leader steal the show. But Ramadan did, like them, condemn The Satanic Verses and did approve the campaign against Rushdie. He spoke of the book as "a stupid and disgraceful provocation." But, as we have seen, Tariq asks Muslims to renounce Islam "with nobility and dignity," otherwise they are to be considered apostates. And that, according to the theologians that counsel him, can mean death. His stand is not all that courageous.

  Polygamy: yes-mixed marriages: no

  Tariq Ramadan has not been of much help in fighting against the patriarchal customs contained in the Koran. He has nothing to say against polygamy, even if he does point out that the Prophet authorized it only in periods when marriages were scarce, and provided the existing wives agreed (a first wife can refuse this in the marriage contract) and that the husband was prepared to treat his wives equitably: "Polygamy is permitted in Islam, up to four wives," wrote Ramadan in Peut-on vivre avec l'Islam [Can One Live with Islam?], in an edition revised and corrected in 2004, "but it comes with explicit conditions attached." 23 On this question, as on others, his opinion does not differ from that of his brother Hani, whose book La femme en Islam [Women in Islam] created a scandal. But the most blatantly scandalous stand taken by Tariq Ramadan is, without doubt, his position on mixed marriages. Given that Islam is a religion bent on expansion, a male Muslim can marry a non-Muslim woman, but never the other way round. It is in the name of this principle that the majority of "crimes of honor" are committed, including in the heart of Europe. In 1993, in Colmar, a young girl succumbed after several torture sessions conducted by her mother, her brothers and her uncles-all because of her liaison with a non-Muslim. On November 5, 2oo1, Latifa, a Franco-Moroccan student, suffered a similar fate in Nice. Her father stabbed her with a knife because she was about to marry a non-Muslim. What did the leader of the European Muslims do
about these injustices? Did he take up arms against the ban on mixed marriages? Absolutely not. In theory, the European Fatwa Council, for which Tariq Ramadan wrote a preface for the first compendium of religious edicts, issued an opinion authorizing mixed marriages. This fatwa is always prominently displayed by the Union of Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF) to show how adaptable their fundamentalism can sometimes be. It remains to be seen whether the authorization is respected in practice. In the course of a conference given in Chambon-Feugerolles, Tariq Ramadan appeared very embarrassed when asked whether the Koran banned mixed marriages. He would not answer until he was forced to reply when the question was asked for the third time. "It's true, the Koran forbids a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man. Which means that every time you let one of your sisters, one of your friends, or a woman of your family marry a non-Muslim, it means she has left the community." And he concluded: A loss for the community is a loss to the umma. '24

  Ramadan never risks distancing himselffrom the seventh century. Above all, if it is a question of discouraging habits that run counter to the dawa, the expansion of the Muslim faith, which is his primary mission. He himself, who married a former Catholic, is the first to approve of a man capable of winning the heart of a non-Muslim and thus converting her. But he remains inflexible in the opposite case. In his books, he urges that everything be done "upstream' so as to avoid mixed marriages: "It is better to curb passions at the start, rather than be faced by catastrophe after several years."25 His prognosis was very pessimistic: "Sometimes mixed couples survive like others, but very often it goes tragically wrong." A husband can always convert to Islam, but there again Ramadan is most skeptical: "What can appear as a solution `for today' is almost sure to produce problems `for tomorrow.' A conversion that does not commit both heart and mind is null and void. One can try to fool oneself, but one cannot fool the Creator, and tomorrow the couple's agonizing separation will teach the lovers they once were that an authentic act of faith must, of necessity, be sincere. The only act of faith worthy of a human being."26 Decidedly, freedom to love is not really a priority for this man of the faith, obsessed with proselytizing.

  As for corporal punishment ...

  Tariq Ramadan s lack of determination when confronted by barbarity is particularly evident when it comes to corporal punishment. The Koran specifically recommends that women who are not obedient be beaten: 'As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty or ill-conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and lastly beat them lightly; but if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance."27 Once again, what is most shocking is not that this practice should have existed in the seventh century, but that the twenty-first-century fundamentalist preachers should refuse to challenge it. A liberal reformer has no difficulty whatsoever in considering it outdated. At the time, the Prophet recommended that the wife's punishment be administered with a stick cut from an arak, the equivalent of a cinnamon stick. In other words, he was suggesting that the husbands of his time control their temper and show restraint in dealing with their wives. A Salafist literalist does not see it that way. In April 2004, in the course of a wide-ranging investigation into the rise of Islamism in the Lyon suburbs, the magazine Lyon Mag published an interview with a Salafist imam, Abdelkader Bouziane, in which he declared that the Koran authorized a husband to beat his wife if she was unfaithful. The affair provoked an uproar; the imam was expelled (though he was allowed to return to France). In condemning this expulsion, the UOIF and its training institute for imams claimed it stood as a bulwark against these Salafist imams ... while forgetting to specify that the Union was itself reformist, but also Salafist! The theologian who advises the Union imams, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is the first to say that, according to the Koran, beating one's wife is legitimate. Here is what he recommends for young Muslims living in Europe in Le licite et l'illicite [The Lawful and the Unlawful], a book available in all shops associated with the Muslim Brotherhood:

  When a husband detects in his wife signs of pride or insubordination, it is up to him to rectify the situation by all possible means, beginning with well chosen words, convincing arguments, and wise advice. If this method bring no results, he is to shun her in bed so as to awaken her feminine instincts and thus persuade her to obey him, so that their relations once again become tranquil. Ifthis proves to be useless, he must punish her, using his hand, but not hitting her too hard and avoiding blows to the face.z8

  This indicates just how minimal the differences between a literalist reading of the Koran and a reading that is simply fundamentalist can be. Tariq Ramadan also stands as a guardian against Salafism that is not reformist. He warns Muslim husbands not to succumb to the temptation of using the authorization to beat their wives as a pretext for making slaves of them: "Some men treat their wives' bodies in ways that are so offensive that I dare not speak of them here. They have heard it said that wives must obey their husbands as if they were their servants, and they treat their wife's body as if it belonged to them, that's not Islam."29 One can only be thankful to hear him profiting from his aura of prestige to provide this clarification for the benefit of his audience. Unfortunately, this does not mean that he is willing to condemn the verse authorizing the beating of wives. Moreover, it is not his job. Tariq Ramadan is not a theologian. The authority he refers to when speaking to Muslims is none other than Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In his books, Tariq Ramadan describes him as the scholar "who is accustomed to attending numerous meetings devoted to the problems of our modern life in order to elaborate appropriate Islamic solutions."3° He is the one to whom Tariq Ramadan's followers are directed, in order to learn what is lawful or not. In so doing, they will rapidly find it confirmed that beating one's wife is within the law.

  A moratorium to decide on the size of the stones?

  Furnishing a somewhat loose interpretation of the basic principles of Islam, so as to continue attracting the outside world, while at the same time shift ing responsibility to Islamist "scholars," who will anyway block whatever progressive ideas he expresses in a private capacity, is a classic Tariq Ramadan strategy. This hypocrisy finally came to light in the course of the television debate with French Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy (November 20, 2003), when he proposed a "moratorium' on stoning women to death as punishment for adultery.3' Even if it may appear well intentioned, this proposal represents a step backwards compared to the progress that the Koran itself had marked. Like Jesus before him ("He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"), Mohammed had intended to put an end to this disgraceful punishment. Aisha, his second wife, was falsely accused of adultery, and he did not want this kind of injustice to be repeated. The Koran proposes explicitly that stoning to death be replaced by a hundred lashes. Before any penalty can be carried out, four witnesses must swear that they were present on the occasion of the adultery.32 Which is obviously almost impossible. This provision was designed to render the punishment inapplicable. Mohammed himself was not content to decree a "moratorium': he stripped the archaic practice of its legitimacy! Thirteen centuries later, Tariq Ramadan was not so courageous.

  Shortly after his televised confrontation with Nicolas Sarkozy, Ramadan set forth in an opinion piece exactly what he meant by the establishment of a moratorium:

  My position is clear and bears repeating here: I have said and written that, for me, stoning is something that can never be applied .... I have vigorously condemned all practices (in particular in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria) concerning capital punishment and corporal punishment. Among the ulemas of the Muslim world, this is a minority opinion and most of them systematically refer, but without always being very clear about it, to "the conditions in which the punishments are to be applied." Confronted by this situation, I ask, therefore, for an absolute moratorium on all punishments, so as to allow the ulemas to hold a thoroughgoing debate on this issue (and discuss their interpretations); in the meantime, let a stop be put to the use of Islam to oppress the poor and women
. The objective here is clearly to open the way to abandoning these practices; but we will not succeed without an in-depth debate within the community.33

  And he added: "I address audiences throughout the Muslim world, and my aim is not limited to expressing my own personal condemnation (which is evident), but to bringing about a change in mentalities, which is why I spoke of a `pedagogical attitude.' I speak the same language in France, in Asia and in the Arab world."

  This statement of intent, which once again came in response to outside pressure, raises several problems. First of all, by limiting himself to the call for a moratorium, Tariq Ramadan, who is speaking from the point of view of European Muslims, gives the appalling impression that European Muslims are still debating whether or not to stone someone to death for adultery! Declaring that he cannot display more tolerance for fear of no longer being listened to proves that he prefers to remain credible in the eyes of I sla- mists, rather than to take the risk of offending them by adopting a firm stand for progress. This is why he will never be a moderating element, but rather a radicalizing one. One has difficulty imagining that Iranian political leaders are going to change their minds after discussing things with Tariq Ramadan ... On the other hand, considering it acceptable to debate the pros and cons of stoning certainly has an effect on European Muslims under his influence. Lila and Alma Levy (who are sisters) said they listened to cassettes by both Hani and Tariq Ramadan. Recently, they published a book in which they defended the right to stoning as a free choice.34