Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan Read online

  On his cassettes, not only does he advocate complementary instruction as an antidote to the theory of evolution, but Ramadan quite explicitly encourages girls not to take part in certain sports: "Women are forbidden to engage in sports in which their bodies are disclosed to men."39 Is it any surprise, then, that young girls refuse to take part in some sports, in particular swimming? Ramadan himselftakes it for granted. In his eyes, it is up to the secular institutions to be reformed or to develop Islamic activities. And, once again, he refers to his model, Iran, where Rafsanjani has organized Islamic sports for women! This conception of education is alarming when it comes from a preacher; but it is terrifying in the case of a schoolteacher. The time has come to take stock of the consequences of the growing influence of a preacher-professor like Tariq Ramadan over young Muslims.

  In the testimony given to the Stasi Commission (a government-appointed commission that, in 2003, held extensive hearings on the status of secularism in the French state school system) and in the ensuing debate on the meaning of secularism, many teachers spoke of the increasing difficulties they were encountering when it came to studying the Holocaust or evolution.

  100 percent in favor of secularism?

  All French Islamists who have the slightest sense of strategy claim to respect the principle of secularism. Amar Lasfar, rector of the Lille Mosque and an activist in the Union of Islamic Organizations of France (the association that encourages young girls to go to school wearing the Islamic headscarf), made a point of affirming: "I am a thousand percent for secularism, because secularism means tolerance, and what I want is tolerance."4° However Soheib Bencheikh, the mufti of Marseille, is not entirely convinced that these declarations from the staff of the UOIF are sincere: "They speak of dialogue only when they run into trouble with the laws of the Republic concerning secularism. I myself have heard Amar Lasfar say in a meeting of young people that `Islam and secularism will never see eye to eye."'41 Another example is that of Yamin Makri ofthe Tawhid bookshop. When questioned by the press, he said he was someone who fought for secularism: "Secularism is today the best guarantee for protecting our community," he declared in 2001.42 He gave this interview only a few days after the Union of Young Muslims, closely associated with the Tawhid bookshop, organized a meeting in honor of Hani Ramadan, the sworn enemy of "secular torturers." And what about that other leading light of the UOIF and the Tawhid bookshop? What does Tariq Ramadan have to say? The same thing, of course. He is, perhaps, not i,ooo percent in favor, like Lasfar; but he is at least loo percent: "Five years ago I was only 99 percent in favor of the French version of secularism. Today, I think that Islam is totally compatible with the separation of Church and state."43 Tariq Ramadan is not telling the truth. One year after this interview of January 2003, he was still not loo percent in favor of secularism, since he declared: "The Islamic headscarf cannot as such be banned from school."44

  Tariq Ramadan is also accomplished at lying by omission. Whathe forgets to say is that he is loo percent in favor ofhis own interpretation of secularism. Let us look at what he was saying on his cassettes when he was only 99 percent in agreement with secularism-especially on the cassettes where the Muslims under his guidance are introduced to the concept of secularism. What are theytold? That secularism is a remnant ofcolonialism, a model that they must get around in order to remain good Muslims! "The model of secularism that has made European societies what they are and that they have even forced on their colonies ... well, as forus, we must select in that model what will allowus to remain faithful to our founding principles."45 It is not a question of selecting from the religious principles those that can be made compatible with secularism, but the reverse. Moreover, Tariq Ramadan is adamant: Muslims must be actively engaged in the campaign to have secularism develop in such a way that it coincides with their fundamentalist vision of a political Islam: "The state cannot fail to pay attention when the people change, so we must change the people," he explained on his cassette "Islam and secularism."46 On this score, he is even more radical than certain UOIF theologians; at any rate, more radical than the most moderate ofthem, Tareq Oubrou.

  The Union of Islamic Organizations of France pays only the scantest attention to what Tareq Oubrou has to say, but it is more than willing for him to be its press spokesman, so as to give the impression of being moderate and respectful of secularism. Tareq Oubrou defends the idea of a "minority sharia" that is totally compatible with the secular principle. Unfortunately for civil peace, Tareq Oubrou enjoys far less success among French Islamists than does Tariq Ramadan, who is totally opposed to this proposal. The two men have often had occasion to present their differing points of view, in particular on the courses held in Lyon for the Young Muslims close to UOIF. One of these courses provided the material for a cassette entitled "Islam d'Europe: entre religion minoritaire et message universel" ["European Islam: Between minority religion and universal message"].47 Listening to it, you realize to what extent Tareq Oubrou serves as a foil for Tariq Ramadan. Oubrou is a man of learning, well versed in the science of Islam, a true scholar. His language is on a par with the loftiness of his thought: full of jargon, highly specialized, practically incomprehensible. After several minutes of tedious verbosity, Tariq Ramadan had no difficulty in recapturing the audience's attention and making short work of Oubrou's proposal, even though the proposal in question was both theologically and politically reasonable, the idea being to think of the West as "a land of the secular," for which the sharia must be revised in accordance with its minority status. For Ramadan, Europe is not a "land of the secular" but, on the contrary, "a land to bear witness" (dar el-shahada)-in other words, a land suitable for proselytizing. He abhors the idea of a sharia that would grant certain rights to a minority. Politely but firmly, after having agreed with Oubrou as to the origins of the problem, he dismisses out of hand the political consequences that Oubrou draws, refusing to accept "rights granted to a minority that would be the rights of the dominated." 48 The minority status "is only a stage and we must go beyond," he explained, sending a thrill through the young audience in attendance.

  Communitarian but not separatist

  Tariq Ramadan denies advocating a communitarian Islam: "The concept of community that we defend is diametrically opposed to the communitarian idea. ,49 Once again, he is playing with words. Just as he deliberately confuses "Salafisni' with "literalism' so as not to be accused of Salafism, so he equates "communitarianism' with "separatism' so as not to be accused of communitarianism. However, Tariq Ramadan is, indeed, a communitarian, even if he is not a separatist. He always begins his preaching on Muslim identity by condemning the communitarian withdrawal of Muslims: "The Muslims will get what they deserve ... basically it's up to them to make a move ... unless they have decided to remain forever marginalized by society as passive victims."50 Talking this way is guaranteed to shake up the Muslim community. No words are too brutal to decry the "ghetto mentality, the sloth, the infantilism, and the victimization that drag this community down."51 His words communicate a renewed sense of dynamism, an incentive to pride and action. They quite naturally appeal to those who would see in him the one to galvanize a generation of children of immigrants into seizing hold of their citizenship. An impression that is often corroborated by youngsters he has trained when they talk to journalists. Abdelaziz Chaambi is there to explain that Tariq Ramadan helped the youngsters of Lyon break out of their communitarianism: "We came to realize that withdrawal into the community was a bad idea for everyone. ,-12 It is a fact that, a few years ago, the Union of Young Muslims was on the threshold of separatism. At that time, the association attracted only hardliners. Today, it is a dynamic organization, capable of attracting a far larger public, and less atypical. But is this good news?

  One would be tempted to think so on reading, or skimming, a book such as Muslims in a Secular Society, in which Tariq Ramadan urges Muslims not to remain aloof from society, but to take part:

  The process of intellectual and physical ghettoiza
tion runs counter to the spirit of Islam. Living one's life in a community setting to strengthen oneself morally is one thing; living apart from the surrounding society is another. On the legal and political level, Muslim men and women must see themselves as individuals, exercising in all conscience their rights and fulfilling their duties as citizens; and this implies knowing the law, participating in the social, political and economic dynamics of the society in which they live, and playing their role to the full.5;

  One can only welcome the fact that Tariq Ramadan has given impetus to European Muslims, some ofwhom are victims of economic, social, and racial exclusion. But where is he taking them? Not on the road to secularism.

  To judge Tariq Ramadans impact on young Muslims only in terms of dynamics and initiative is to lose sight of a key element: his objective. It is essential to understand that, when he urges his followers to become active citizens, he does not see it as a process of exchange. It is made clear that Muslims should become citizens in order to act on their environment, but there is no question ofthis environment or their citizenship acting on them. Ramadan proposes that everything that is Islamic should be integrated, but he campaigns as hard as he can for the community to remain sealed off from everything that is not Islamic: "I am prepared to integrate what is good in the name of universal values, but I will not be dissolved, I will not cede to relativism." And in the next sentence: "My philosophy is all-encompassing."" Exchange is, then, a one-way street: Muslims are asked not to allow themselves to be dissolved in Western societies, but to seize hold of their citizenship the better to Islamize their environment. It is in these terms that the name of his association, Presence Musulmane, is to be understood. The objectives ofthe organization, as stated, are: "i) to protect our faith and 2) to bear witness to our religion."

  Our contribution = Islamization

  Hassan al-Banna used to refer to the Muslim Brotherhood as a citizens' movement:

  Whoever thinks that the Muslim Brotherhood is irritated or disgusted by the concept of nation or the idea of citizenship is wrong. Muslims are the people who have the most genuine relations with their respective countries; among those that serve their country they are the ones whose service is the most serious-minded and the most respectful. You can then understand how fully they assume their citizenship and what a powerful role they intend for their community.

  He then added: "However, Muslims are different from others whose goal is simply citizenship, in that the basis of Muslim citizenship is their Islamic faith."ss Tariq Ramadan thinks of citizenship in the same terms. It is just one means among others to propagate Islam, rather than a bond tying one truly to a country. It is in these terms that one should understand what he calls the Muslim "contribution" that he presents as a third way between integration and assimilation. He is quite explicit in the manner in which he explains this concept to his followers: "We must play an active role in all areas open to us where we can move towards more Islam. "56

  Tariq Ramadan is no hothead intent on "commandeering power." He does not want to organize a putsch in France or Switzerland. He is well aware that it is neither the time nor the place for coups d'etat. His objective is the same as al-Banna's, but his methods, on the other hand, take account of the democratic Western context:

  Brothers and sisters should keep in mind that it isn't a question of when we are going to take power, that's not of interest to us. Our objective is to demonstrate to those in power that we are not mere instruments and that we have no intention of being treated as animals. And when those in power understand and take us into account, then we will be supportive.57

  The very fact that Tariq Ramadan finds it necessary to clarify matters in this way for his audience proves that he is in contact with Muslims for whom the eventuality of taking power is not totally out of the question. As for him, he simply refuses to be troubled by this perspective: "It's not a question of power, it's a question of society ... power is only a means."58 Ramadan is not thereby giving up the objective of Islamization. He is simply sticking to his grandfather's method, namely seeking first social conquest and then political conquest. His plan is both more subtle and more ambitious than a coup d'etat-and, above all, more realistic: "We must go from being a minority in terms of numbers to being an ethical majority."59 If his speech came with subtitles in English, you might think it was Jerry Falwell speaking, the founder of the Moral Majority in the United States. Here is a leader one would rather see as a separatist-at least then he couldn't be an influence in American politics!

  Tariq Ramadan would have us believe that his approach is progressive minded because he is not a terrorist. But the American Christians who do the most harm are not those who, in the name of God, kill abortion doctors, but those who, day after day, in the name of God and using legal means, roll back the laws guaranteeing individual liberties. Once the Protestant fundamentalists gave up the idea of living apart from "modern decadence," they became the most powerful lobby in America, second only to big oil. In Tariq Ramadan's case, the program consists of opting for a reformist stance, that is to say "build on the privileges we have won and change what stands in our way. '60 But what stands in the way of this fundamentalist Muslim? Exactly the same thing that stands in the way of the fundamentalist Protestants of the American Christian Right: everything that blocks the advent of a moralistic and theocratic society. For the fundamentalists of the American religious Right, this objective means giving priority to the fight against secularism, feminism, and homosexuality. For Tariq Ramadan, it entails giving priority to the fight against secularism, feminism and integration.

  Apart from differences in language and emphasis, they stand shoulder to shoulder in regard to social programs. Just as they are both ready to use all the resources of democracy to consolidate their hold on the political sphere. The American religious Right operates by distributing voting instructions via its networks, urging that pro-choice candidates be eliminated in favor of pro-life ones. Ramadan himself would have us believe that he has no desire to become a lobby: "The essential question is to decide whether the Muslim communities in Europe or the United States should organize as pressure groups and turn towards political lobbying .... The net conclusion of our analysis is that the answer to this question is no. ,61 However, the rest of the book takes exactly the opposite tack. Ramadan, in fact, makes a pretense of equating lobbying with separatism. He then denies intending to create a Muslim lobby by simply claiming that what he wants is a Muslim lobby that "acts for the common good of all." Once again, this objective would in no way be reprehensible if Tariq Ramadan stood for universal principles in the name of Islam, and not ultra-reactionary principles in the name of Islamism. As it is, his lobbying would be as harmful as that of the religious Right in the United States. He does not have the same kind of networks, but he does, nonetheless, give voting instructions, not in order to have Muslim candidates elected (the few Muslim candidates that do exist are often integrated and liberal) but to have those who serve Islamist interests elected: "It's not a question of choosing candidates that are members of "the community"; one can be Muslim and not be that honest."62 As a result, he does not call for the election of candidates on the basis of their religion or their ties to the community, but on the basis of what they are prepared to do for the Muslim community as Tariq Ramadan understands it-that is, for Islamism.

  No shortcuts

  Does this mean that, in the end, Tariq Ramadan s ambition is as politically oriented as that of his grandfather? That is the question that an increasing number of journalists are asking. Often quizzed as to his intentions, he has taught his followers how to dodge embarrassing questions:

  Some will ask you point blank: What is your objective? Is it to Islamize Europe? You want everyone to become Muslim? Is that what you want? When some Muslims are questioned in this manner, their replies are not entirely clear. It is not clear. Does it mean remaining Muslim and bearing witness or does it mean arriving on the scene as a conqueror?63

  Note that
Tariq Ramadan has still not answered the question; he prefers giving examples ofwhat not to say. He criticized the statements of certain British Islamist leaders, such as Sheikh Omar Bakri, as counterproductive. Bakri declared to the press that one day he would plant the Islamic flag at io Downing Street. "It was at 8 o'clock in the evening on BBC, and it terrified more than one viewer," Ramadan explained to his troops. Note that there is no question of criticizing the objective, only the method! Moreover, how could Tariq Ramadan object to wanting to fly the Islamic flag on high? This declaration by Omar Bakri, no doubt the most extreme jihadist Salafist in Europe, is but a repetition of the last point in the program of Ramadan s grandfather: "We intend, in the future, that the Islamic flag flutter on high in the wind once again in all those countries that have had the good fortune to harbor Islam at one time or another, countries in which the voice of the muezzins will reverberate in the takbirs and the tahlils." Omar Balcri has studied al-Banna. He was even a Muslim Brother in Syria. The real difference between a jihadist Salafist and a reformist Salafist like Tariq Ramadan is that the former is in more of a hurry than the latter. For Tariq Ramadan, given the European context, there is no question of going beyond the first three points-"the individual, the family and then society"-while the people have not changed. This difference of pace is essential to our understanding of why Balcri despises Tariq Ramadan s over-scrupulous side, and, vice versa, why Tariq Ramadan cannot abide those who, like Bakri, take shortcuts that risk endangering his gradualist approach. It upset his grandfather when certain Brothers thought they were advancing the cause by taking shortcuts. Tariq Ramadan is of the same opinion. He can appear exasperated by those who do not have the same keen sense of political rhythms. It is, in part, this difference in the way of timing the stages, rather than any disagreement on basics, that led to his falling out with the Union of Islamic Organizations of France at the time when the Council of the Muslim Faith was being set up. Which does not mean that Tariq Ramadan has given up on the idea ofhaving the West progress towards "more Islam."