Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan Read online

  He began his lecture by saying that he wanted to put an end to the atmosphere of suspicion in public places and the child-like fear of looking at a woman; however, he was adamant in warning against "lustful looks": "In this community, there are some who are not sufficiently reserved in their way of looking around them."I°9 As an example, he mentioned young boys whose behavior was not beyond reproach during a party organized on a Saturday evening in a community hall. As always, this obsession with decency quickly became a call for separation of the sexes. Of course, he has nothing against a woman and a man talking together in public, but he considers it immoral for an unmarried woman and an unmarried man to be alone in the same room. He would even prefer them not to shake hands, unless it is really necessary so as not to appear too much of an extremist. "Try to avoid it when you can; but if someone stretches out their hand, then shake hands." He also spearheaded a vigorous campaign for separate swimming pools for men and women, as indicated by the anger he voiced in the course of his lecture on the "Major sins" delivered in Reunion. "Today, the swimming pools in Reunion are not Islamic! Certain men go there anyway, saying But I know how to protect what needs to be protected'; but what do you look at while at the swimming pool? You can't go there because you will be looking at things you shouldn't be seeing! Because you go there, and inevitably it attracts you! So we have to provide for places where it's healthy, where there will be swimming pools that are in accord with our ethical principles."II°

  Therein lies the danger to society that a fundamentalist as prudish as Tariq Ramadan represents. If he were content to apply his restrictions to himself alone, he alone would bear the burden of these constraints, born of an extremely archaic vision of spirituality. Unfortunately, his project is not for one individual, but for a community, and even for society as a whole, with the resulting disruption of every aspect of social life. His preaching is directly responsible for the increasing number of Islamic headscarves that are appearing all over France, in particular among third-generation North African immigrants. Following his advice, an increasing number of young girls, instead of choosing to attend private schools, try to have the state schools accept the wearing of the headscarf, putting pressure on the girls of North African descent who still refuse to do so. More than 1,500 cases were registered in 2003, 150 of them serious, that is to say, accompanied by attempts to proselytize and the refusal to attend certain courses. Since many teachers were at a loss as to how to handle the problem, the French government appointed a commission to look into the situation. During a public debate that lasted for months, France discovered just how bad things were: hospital emergency wards, where women refused to be treated by male doctors in the name of "decency"; female students refusing to take oral exams with male teachers; young girls no longer attending gym classes. Let's not forget the demands for separate hours for men and women in the municipal swimming pools that dot the (secular) landscape. In Lille, the mayor (Martine Aubry) finally gave in. Until the mayor changed her mind in the wake of secularist protestations, the South Lille swimming pool was reserved for women; the personnel were all women; and curtains protected them from the outside world. Other city halls have refused to give in to this blackmail, invoking the principle of secularity, but it is obvious that the pressure is growing stronger. The countervailing secular powers have never been so close to giving way. While they have been most effective in dealing with Catholic fundamentalism acting in the name of moral standards, they tend to lose their willingness to fight when religious minorities ask for special treatment in the name of respecting cultural difference, even if it is the same secular principle that is at stake.

  Chapters

  Muslim and Citizen, but Muslim First!

  Triq Ramadan has impressed many political and media observers by playing the role of the person who will show European Muslims how to find a satisfactory balance between their Muslim identity and their identity as citizens. That is what one might be led to think on going through some of his writings, such as Les musulmans dans la laicite [Muslims in a Secular Society] (1994), Etre musulman europeen [To Be a European Muslim] (1999), or Les musulmans d'Occident et l'avenir de l'Islam [Western Muslims and the Future of Islam] (2003). These three books say more or less the same thing, but the fact that they appeared at intervals several years apart was an advantage, for it provided their author with the opportunity to reappear in public debate on a regular basis in order to spread his message-a message, however, that was ambiguous and difficult to interpret. Here and there, one can find in his writings certain passages that suggest that Ramadan has succeeded in defining a proud and militant Islam that allows European Muslims to find a balance between their religious and civic identities. But he does not make it clear whether this is a sign of progress for Islam, or for society as a whole: "We, in the Muslim community, are experiencing a genuine silent revolution in the Occident. More and more young people are becoming involved, searching for the means to live in harmony with their faith, while at the same time taking part in the societies that are now theirs. French, English and American Muslims-women, as well as men-are constructing a 'Muslim personality' that will come as a surprise to a great many of their fellow citizens."'

  But just what sort of surprise does he have in mind? Even a close reading does not really tell us. For the most part, journalists and intellectuals prefer to give him the benefit ofthe doubt. Each ofTariq Ramadan s books is greeted as the work that will finally mark the emergence of a generation of Muslims that will enjoy full citizenship, thanks to an Islam that is determinedly dynamic and modern. That is also what certain Swiss journalists thought-until the day they attended the Congress of the Muslim Men and Women of Switzerland ... How can one explain this discrepancy between the praiseworthy aims announced by the preacher and the concrete impact of his words on the Muslims who listen to him? Once again, the key is to be found in his numerous cassettes, which together outline a conception of citizenship that can enlighten us as to what the "surprise" foreseen by Tariq Ramadan will turn out to be.

  Obey the Constitution ... except when it goes against an Islamic principle!

  In theory, even on his cassettes, Ramadan sees no contradiction between the fact of being Muslim and French, or Muslim and Swiss, etc. He encourages his fellow Muslims to say they are "Muslim Frenchmen," just as readily as "French Muslims," without fearing that they are thus being traitors to their identity. This equanimity in regard to terminology could lead one to conclude that there is a form of equality, or equilibrium, between the two identities, the religious and the civic. In reality, ifTariq Ramadan does not want to make an issue out of word order, it is because he considers that religion and citizenship belong to two totally different spheres. In a footnote to his book Muslims in a Secular Society, he specifies: "The distinction that is made much of between being first a Muslim or first a Frenchman is, to our way of thinking, a false issue, for the two affiliations are of a different nature and a different order. Being a Muslim means embodying a certain conception of life, a sense of the meaning of life and of death; being a Frenchman means playing one's role as a citizen of a nation."' Already, in this book, one sees foreshadowed the idea that the two affiliations are not comparable, and that one is superior to the other: the tension is between, on the one hand "the meaning of life and of death," and, on the other, a role that one plays as "a citizen of a nation." However, the use of the term "citizen' gives the impression that Tariq Ramadan takes this latter affiliation seriously. This is by no means the case on his cassettes, where the fact of being French no longer entails acting as a citizen, but simply refers to "geographical circumstances."3 He takes it even further: "Geography cannot take precedence over my life or the meaning I give to my life." If someone asks a French Muslim to say if he is more of a Muslim or more of a Frenchman, here is the reply he suggests: "Muslim, it's a conception of life, it's the meaning of my life, and the meaning of my death." And he adds: "My conception of life is beyond everything."' For him, putting these two identiti
es on the same level is like confusing "the sea with a swimming pool." French citizenship is the swimming pool, while Islam is the engulfing, all-encompassing sea, "beyond everything."

  This way of setting the divine law above the law of men is characteristic of fundamentalists. Tariq Ramadan is aware of the fact, and intends us to be reassured: "My conception of life tells me that, wherever I am, I must respect the social norms."5 He does not see this as "a contradiction, but as a clarification." When it comes to clarification, this added proviso only makes his conception of citizenship more opaque. The message is so ambiguous that one can make anything one wants of it. A reader who is generally well disposed towards him will retain the fact that Tariq Ramadan calls for respect for the law, particularly since, in his books, he emphasizes this aspect: A Muslim, whether simply a resident or a citizen, must think of himself as bound by a moral and social contract to the country in which he is living. In other words, it is up to him to obey the law."' Someone more critical of Ramadan, or one of the faithful, will pay attention, above all, to the other half of his message, in which he urges Muslims to consider their religious affiliation as "beyond everything," all the more since, in his lectures, it is this other aspect that he emphasizes.

  The ambiguity of such a stance comes to light in the cassette "Vivre en Occident" ["Living in the West"]. At the outset, he appears to be harping on the same theme as in his books: As a resident of this country and a citizen, I respect the Constitution. It's an Islamic principle." But then a crucial clarification gives this statement of intention a radically different sense. He stipulates that the Constitution and the laws are to be obeyed once "everything in this country-in social, cultural, economic and legal terms-that is not contrary to Islamic principles ... becomes Islamic."' This added provision is obviously essential. Up to this point, one might well have thought that the civic and the religious were compatible, without, as yet, being certain which side would win in case of conflict. Tariq Ramadan's reply is clear: a Muslim respects the country's laws, so long as they do not contradict Islamic principles. And on the same cassette he drives the point home: "Whatever in the culture in which we live is not in contradiction with Islam, we accept." Which eliminates the rest.

  This view of things has practical consequences. In the name of this conception, Hani Ramadan urged young French Muslims not to serve in the French army if France was at war with Muslims, such as the Taliban, for example. Tariq Ramadan also advocated conscientious objection: "In cases in which two unjust principles clash, conscientious objection is the wise course and the one to be preferred. A Muslim citizen of an Occidental country must be mature in his analysis and determine what is at stake in his choice: alone, before God, with his conscience, and after having consulted the relevant legal authorities."8 The footnote to this sentence refers to the debates between Islamic "scholars" concerning the participation of American Muslims in the war in Afghanistan. Ramadan simply notes that certain scholars authorized taking part, in the name of loyalty to one's country, while others refused to do so. The preacher encouraged Muslims to decide in all conscience: if they held that the war was a just one, then let them take part! If not, then let them refuse. He, himself, had his own opinion on the subject, and regretted the fact that the American Muslims did not denounce the war as illegitimate: "Citizens of the Muslim faith were obliged to prove their patriotism and their allegiance to the extent that even pausing to question the legitimacy ofbomb- ing Afghanistan was itself considered condemnable."

  Integration equals assimilation

  One aspect that most fascinates people about Tariq Ramadan is that he gives the impression of having at last found a third way between assimilation and withdrawal into communitarianism in a society that no longer wants to have to choose between the two alternatives. Until recently, integration seemed to represent a middle ground. Today, preachers such as Tariq Ramadan take advantage of the disappointment engendered by the failures of integration to shift the terms of the debate in such a way that "integration" becomes the equivalent of "assimilation."

  In a lecture entitled "Notre identity face au contexte: assimilation, integration ou contribution?" ["Our identity and its context: Assimilation, integration or participation?"] his proposal is as follows: "We agree to integration, but it is up to us to determine the contents." And what are these contents? "I accept the law, provided it does not force me to do something in contradiction with my religion."9 In other words: "If, to be a good citizen, you must be a bad Muslim, the answer is no."10 This declaration would not raise any problems if Tariq Ramadan stood for a modern, enlightened Islam. But we know this is not the case. As it is, his way of treating Islam as superior to everything, laws included, means that he is as dangerous a reactionary as is a fundamentalist Christian who considers the Bible as infinitely superior to the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Moreover, Ramadan comes close to treating the Declaration-at any rate the concept of citizenship that it implies-as an instrument in the hands of "secularists" and "Zionists" conspiring against Muslims:

  No declaration of the rights of man can, at any point, require of a person that he give up part of himself in order to become a citizen! You will notice, moreover, that this idea is the interpretation given by certain atheist, secularist, or Zionist ideologues who, it turns out, want to determine for themselves the nature of Muslim identity, a definition that it is up to us to contest."

  The conspiracy in question no doubt referred to the Islamic headscarf, without which Tariq Ramadan considers a Muslim woman to have sacrificed a part of herself: "If by integration is meant: `Be a Muslim, but change your clothing,' then it's no. ,12 This intransigence concerning one ofthe issues that divides archaic Islam from modern Islam is only a start, building up to a conception of citizenship according to which integrated Muslims are labelled "assimilated." In a conference on "Muslim identity," Tariq Ramadan alluded in thinly veiled terms to the rector of the Paris Mosque, whom he described as the very prototype of the assimilated Muslim. He warned against taking an open-minded approach, the equivalent of denying one's identity: "You are so open-minded that you are no longer anything at all; seeking assimilation, you no longer take pride in what you are, because you are afraid of being judged for what you are." He ended by explaining that "giving in on principles" is the sign of "fear" and "weakness." He is outspoken in his refusal to allow Islam to "become a form of relativism within relativism," 13 in the name of what he calls "developing a clear-cut sense of our identity as Muslims" so as to avoid being "dissolved" in Occidental societies."14

  Resist being dissolved in Western culture

  This way of considering citizenship as simply "a geographical accident," while defending Muslim identity as a besieged fortress that Western influences threaten to overwhelm, is no doubt due, in part, to his family history. Just recall his claim to have had as many as six nationalities. In his eyes, a passport is nothing but a scrap of paper, in no way comparable to the radical Muslim identity that welded his family together. He himself described the Geneva Islamic Center as an institution designed to furnish Muslims living in Europe with the means to "preserve their identity and not enter into the process of assimilation."'-' The little boy who preferred, after a soccer match, to take a shower fully clothed in front ofhis team mates grew up within a clan that regarded the outside world as a permanent threat. Thinking back on his experience as a child brought up in exile, traumatized by the fear of being assimilated, one can understand why, despite appearances, Ramadan promulgates a hermetically sealed Islam that transforms his disciples into eternal exiles within their own countries.

  Haunted by the fears inherited from his father and marked by his grandfather's obsessive concerns, Tariq Ramadan abhors the idea that young Muslims living in the West should succumb to cultural influences that might turn them away from fundamental Islamism. His grandfather wanted to "close the dance halls," "control the theater and the cinema," "screen the plays to be staged and sent on tour," and "control the broadcasting of popular songs
by a strict selection process." Astounding as it may seem, his grandson-a century later and in the very heart of Europe-takes exactly the same position when he advocates "an alternative Islamic culture," designed as a substitute for non-Islamic influences.

  To be sure, it is not in these terms that Ramadan will present things. As usual, he takes pains to set up a framework in which his proposals will appear to occupy the center ground. He begins, in particular, by reminding us that "scholars" categorically forbid music, film, and photography in the name of Islam. One might expect that a man who purports to be a reformer, helping Muslims live in harmony with their times, would seize the occasion to criticize such extremists. Not at all. On the contrary, he asks European Muslims to respect them and not treat them as "fundamentalists"!'6 In convincing European Muslims that such a stance deserves respect, he succeeds in radicalizing them, so that he himself can then appear as a moderating influence, arguing for the acceptance of certain cultural traits, so long as they are not in opposition to Islamic moral standards. "There's no reason to reject everything that Victor Hugo has done," he is fond of repeating. With exemplary open-mindedness, Tariq Ramadan even criticizes Islamic libraries that have refused any work by the author of Les Miserables: "Everything of his has been thrown out, but why? Because we approach this society in a state of fear. We have lost confidence in our own principles. Islam has universal principles; we should be more confident."17 Note that the acceptance of certain works considered to be part of "Occidental culture" is not based on qualities such as open-mindedness or tolerance, but is in the name ofthe overwhelming superiority of Islamic universal values-values that must be thoroughly digested before one reads non-Islamic writings without running the risk of contamination. And provided, of course, that they have been pre-selected. "French literature is one of the richest in the world. It is not to be rejected out of hand," he explained. And then, by way of precautionary instructions for use, he added: "One has to choose, to select; and the community must take part in the process.""