Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan

by Caroline Fourest

  Le Progres is good at describing the unsettling effect that Hani Ramadan s ambiguity is capable of producing. It speaks of "a brilliant intellectual, an inspired prophet, a shrewd politician practiced in the art of dodging ques tions and captivating people's souls."68 This same type of description will, in turn, be applied to Tariq Ramadan himself, but only after a certain time. How is this time lag to be explained? No doubt it is because Hani Ramadan has none of his young brother's charisma. And less patience. Since he is in contact almost exclusively with an Islamist public, he tends to forget himself and lose track of the distinction between what one can say on the "outside" and what can be said within the community but not in public. Tariq, on the other hand, is on permanent assignment to the outside world. Which means he has the time to fine-tune his presentation for different audiences. For instance, Hani Ramadan sees no reason not to say frankly what he thinks of homosexuals. But Tariq, who is in close contact with the political Left, knows better than to broach the subject. He reassures the respectable circles he frequents by recounting his efforts to keep young Muslims from wanting to stone homosexuals, while omitting to recount that he encourages them to think of homosexuality as deviant for Islam. Aside from this, it is a mistake to think that the two brothers do not share exactly the same view of Islam and of society. They are not in conflict nor even on bad terms. They continue to appear together frequently. They intended to take part together, on May i, 2004, in a day of boycott of Israeli products, where the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood was expected.69 Moreover, why would the audience for the Union of Young Muslims or for the Tawhid publishing house continue to consider the two brothers as models if they were in contradiction? If Tariq really had a moderating influence on young people, why would they continue to idolize Hani? The answer is that their approaches are not different but complementary. Hani Ramadan admits as much himself: "Tariq and I are complementary. We are like two sides of the same coin. We know perfectly well what we are doing and where we are going." 7°

  A martyr and his supporters

  For the last fifteen years, Tariq Ramadan has always managed to get by through claiming that he is a victim of "Islamophobia." It was in those terms that he accounted for the wave of unfavorable articles that proliferated in the Swiss press in the early 199os. "In six months my reputation has been turned upside down: after having been a model for Geneva's efforts to promote solidarity, I have become a bogeyman. In 199o, Geneva journalists elected me as one of the ten Genevans of the year in recognition of my work with young people in a program designed to foster solidarity. A few months later, I had become suspect, deceitful, and dangerous, for I had dared to present myself as a Muslim." 7' Tariq Ramadan has a lot of nerve. Defended body and soul by some on the Left and by some newspapers, he came under criticism not because he was active as a Muslim-that had already been the case-but because the opinions he expressed in publicwere increasingly intolerant. Such was the campaign he launched in 1993 to prevent Voltaire's play on Mohammed from being performed, on the pretext that it could discredit Islam in a fragile international context. The play was to be given as part of the tercentenary of Voltaire's birth, organized by the federal government and the city of Geneva. It is true that the international context was at the time strained, as it has been for the last fifteen years, but the play belongs in the classic repertory of Voltaire's works and it makes fun of fanaticism. At the time, its critical perspective on religion would have been a healthy thing. Herve Loichemol, the director, called it censorship, but no one listened to him. Ramadan tossed back at him his right of free expression and free creation in an open letter published by the press: "In this case, my dear sir, your right to say whatever you please is an assault on the sensitive sphere of intimacy. You call it 'censorship,' I call it tactfulness. "71 Coming from a Christian preacher, such a stand would no doubt have caused an uproar. But coming from Tariq Ramadan, it was met with understanding-to the extent that the subsidy for the play was finally cancelled. In particular, this was thanks to the intervention of two friends of Ramadan: the socialist Jean Ziegler and his wife Erica Deuber- Pauli, at the time directress of cultural affairs for the city of Geneva.

  Three years later, Tariq Ramadan was at the center of another furore, this time sparked off by his own writings, namely his book Les musulmans dans la laicite [Muslims in a Secular Society], in which he explained that "School biology courses can include teachings that run counter to Islamic principles."73 He did not suggest that students skip the course, but rather urged Muslim parents to indoctrinate them with a "creationism' more in accordance with Islamic teaching, but the text nonetheless was sufficient to attract the attention ofhis colleagues in the Saussure school. In December 1995, one ofthem, Serge Flueler, left a polite note in his mailbox asking Tariq Ramadan to reassure him: "Dear Tariq, I read with interest your book Les musulmans dans la laicite.... So as to avoid a sterile, dialectic confrontation, I would appreciate it if you would reveal to us what teachings are in question and let me know what is of concern to you. My thanks in advance for your explanations." It was no more than a note between colleagues, a natural reflex and, above all, most cordial. But Tariq Ramadan did not reply. Since there was no word of explanation, a number of teachers decided to hold a meeting. The minutes of the meeting posed a question: "In terms of deontology, it would perhaps be useful to know if it is morally acceptable to teach in a school while disparaging what is taught in a program given by other colleagues." The teachers wanted, above all, to reaffirm the principle of the separation of Church and state, which meant that "no religious group can interfere in our courses." This time Tariq Ramadan was obliged to reply. He produced a lengthy letter in which he expressed his surprise at the manner in which his colleagues had brought up the question, spoke of quotations that were misrepresented, and affirmed the following: "My position consists of inciting young Muslims to participate and understand these issues, while at the same time remaining aware of the replies that are furnished by their religious teaching." And he stipulated, "it is the same thing for history and philosophy." His colleagues had little reason to be reassured, but it was Tariq Ramadan who claimed to be upset: "Your attitude disturbs me: you criticize me for being close-minded, yet your interpretation is itself tendentious. You decide that dialogue is not possible before even attempting it ... you're making groundless accusations against me." It is Ramadan s standard reply. Every time he is criticized, he speaks of "quotes out of context," of "groundless accusations based on mere suppositions," sometimes implying that his opponents are prompted by "Islamophobia" or even Zionism. In this case, it was not necessary to go this far. He was content to speak of "petty rumors," "facile amalgams," and "dangerous suspicions" so as to make others feel guilty, a technique that had often workedand did so this time as well. The press that looked into the affair was of two minds, but the school's headmaster, jean-Jacques Forney, saw no reason to be upset: "There's not the sort of tension that justifies manning the barricades." Whereas the creationist theories advocated by the Christian fundamentalists did indeed alarm Forney, he considered Ramadan's remarks not worth getting excited about: "The book tries to give a true explanation of our Western concepts; if anything, it encourages integration."74

  There is no room here to calculate the number of times that this form of naivete, encouraged by cultural relativism, has protected Tariq Ramadan. This "martyrdom' strategy worked perfectly during the furore sparked off by his opinion piece attacking the "communitarian intellectuals. "75 At a time when anti-Semitism was on the rise in France, the preacher caused an outcry by accusing a list of intellectuals, described as "Jews," of insidiously serving the interests of Israel because of their origin. The article immediately caused an uproar that spread to the pages ofthe leading newspapers, tending to demonize Tariq Ramadan, but also to make of him a media figure. In retrospect, one can well wonder whether it was a mistake or a deliberate provocation that came at just the right moment for him to reassume leadership of the French Muslims and, in th
e process, count up his supporters on the Left. Among progressives and anti-globalists, many militants were tired of being "suspected of anti-Semitism' every time they criticized Israel. Ramadan was well aware of this potential and, thanks to the outcry, succeeded in putting together an impressive group of allies on the eve of his participation in the European Social Forum, held in Paris on November 12 to 15, 2003. The martyr strategy also helped him bounce back after his disastrous television performance face to face with Nicolas Sarkozy.

  too Minutes to Make Your Case

  On November 20, 2003, watched by nearly six million viewers, the French Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, challenged Tariq Ramadan to an eagerly awaited face-to-face encounter. He condemned Ramadan's piece on the "intellectual Jews" as "a moral failure": "When one writes one thinks with one's head and not with one's race. Your article was not just a blunder; it was a moral failure. Because Jews are not like people from Auvergne or Parisians. There was the Holocaust." Ramadan replied that he had always condemned anti-Semitic attacks, and in particular the fire that had destroyed a Jewish secondary school in Grigny, a Paris suburb. But he did not see what was wrong in characterizing intellectuals by their religion: "They call me a Muslim intellectual; I wrote about Jewish intellectuals. I don't see any harm in that." His replies became decidedly more muddled when Nicolas Sarkozy attacked his brother. "Your brother Hani published a piece in which he justified the stoning to death of adulterous women. It's monstrous. Only someone out of his mind could say a thing like that!" At that point, in front of millions of stupefied Frenchmen, Ramadan failed to utter the sentence that could have saved him, something along the lines of "I condemn stoning" or "I dorit agree with my brother." Instead, he preferred to stop the clock by calling for a moratorium: "I'm in favor of a moratorium so that they stop applying these sorts of punishments in the Muslim world. What's important is for people's way of thinking to evolve. What is needed is a pedagogical approach." The audience was stunned. A moratorium? What does that mean? We're in 2003!" exclaimed the minister. He unsettled Tariq Ramadan for good by alluding to his preface to Zaynab al-Ghazali's book. The reference was totally incomprehensible to the general public, but everyone saw Tariq Ramadan turn white on a live program and understood that he had indeed something to hide. But no one knew exactly what.

  The next day the press was unanimous in its praise of Sarkozy's knockout. The left-leaning Liberation trumpeted: "Sarkozy clobbers Ramadan's double talk." It seemed as if the preacher was permanently sidelined. But that was to forget the workings of celebrity, the public's curiosity, and, above all, Tariq Ramadan's way of working. He bounced back as always, sending off to Liberation a riposte, in which he offered a point by point analysis: "For the last month, hardly a day goes by without an article critical of me appearing in the press. Up to now I have had neither the time nor the desire to reply to this avalanche of comments, the answers to which are already to be found in my articles and books. "76 And indeed, he had never taken the time to reply to the accusation of "double talk" that had been clearly directed at him over the preceding fifteen years. The reply that he provided for Liberation also side stepped the issues. Ramadan objected: "When it came time to expose me for the benefit of an audience of six million, he [Sarkozy] had nothing in hand as proof of my double talk, except my brother's statement and the remarks made by a woman in a book for which I wrote the preface. You must admit it's next to nothing; it's high time for the French to take note." As to the question of stoning that he had not convincingly condemned: "My position is clear and bears repeating here: I have said and written that, for me, stoning is something that can never be applied." The moratorium was a pedagogical tactic to allow for an evolution of opinion in the Muslim world where, Ramadan claimed, his position was in the minority. The subtleties of this remark will become apparent in Part 11.

  The French Council of the Muslim Faith and Nicolas Sarkozy

  There was a background to the settling of scores between Tariq Ramadan and Nicolas Sarkozy in the television program loo Minutes to Make Your Case. The preacher had given the Minister of the Interior a hard time when the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) was being set up. After 9/II, political leaders and a number of French intellectuals thought it a matter of urgency to create a council that could provide a structure and, more importantly, provide institutions for French Islamism so as to isolate it, in particular, from the Algerian, Moroccan,and Saudi Arabian influences that plagued it. The project had been brewing for some time, but Nicolas Sarkozy's predecessors had not carried it through, lest, in so doing, they should grant the Union of Islamic Organizations of France a certain legitimacy to the detriment of the secular Muslims of the Paris Mosque.

  The first elections to the council, held in April 2003, marked the rising power of the UOIF, which was now on an even standing with the Paris Mosque. As if it was not enough to have set a place at high table for the association with the closest ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Sarkozy decided to celebrate the event by attending the annual UOIF congress held in Le Bourget on April 19, 2003. On arrival, he received an ovation from an audience in which the women (wearing headscarves) were seated on one side and the men on the other. The atmosphere got a bit chillier when Sarkozy reminded his listeners that French law required identity card photos to be taken bareheaded. He was booed by the militants, even though they were under tight surveillance. The scene was immediately broadcast on all French TV stations, and this rekindled the debate on the banning ofthe headscarf in schools.

  The UOIF, which had wanted to reopen the debate, had reason to be pleased. But Tariq Ramadan remained skeptical. Not that he was against launching the headscarf debate; on the contrary he was most amenable to it, but the timing was not to his liking. Ever since 1997, he had been working within the Islam and Secularism commission to win acceptance for the idea of negotiating a redefinition of secularism. The commission had first been attached to the Education League before being sponsored by the Human Rights League. A few more years of effort and the proposal would come from the political Left and not from the UOIF itself, giving it a far greater chance of success. The Le Bourget provocation, however, ran the risk of alerting the secular, anti-fundamentalist Left. Tariq Ramadan was, in addition, hostile to the French government's having any say regarding French Islamism. It should not be forgetten that his grandfather had been assassinated after negotiating with the Egyptian government, and that the Muslim Brotherhood was decapitated after the failure of the negotiations with Nasser. Even if he knew that times had changed, he saw the establishment of a French Islamism under the aegis of the French state in the same light. No doubt state interference would have been less painful to accept if he had been chosen to be part of the CFCM. Instead of which, the increasing influence of the UOIF within this organization diminished his personal power. He was extremely reticent and expressed his objections in articles published in Le Monde, in which he criticized, in particular, the "breakneck speed" enforced by the Minister of the Interior and the rush to wind things up with the risk of failing to respect "the autonomy of religion guaranteed in a secular state." 77 The dispute between the two men was to explode publicly in ioo Minutes to Make Your Case. Nicolas Sarkozy, after granting the UOIF a legitimate place within the CFCM, then unmasked Tariq Ramadan's double talk on prime time. As for the preacher himself, he seized the occasion to challenge the Minister of the Interior to make the French Council of the Muslim Faith "independent." He had lost a battle, but refused to lose the war.

  More discreetly, Tariq Ramadan sent "a message to the Muslims of France" in the form of an audiocassette, distributed by the Islamist bookshops, in which he revealed the reasons for his anger.78 He adopted the tone of a warlord making use of a clandestine radio frequency to transmit his final instructions. The recording, obviously made shortly after the Le Bourget affair, was put out by the Ligue Nationale des Musulmans de France (National League of French Muslims).Tariq Ramadan was furious: "I'm angry at my own community, I'm not angr
y at Nicolas Sarkozy." He berated those who had replied to Sarkozy's provocation, which was foreseeable, by provoking him in return. "Dear Brothers and Sisters, you are no longer children, we lack maturity," he said, before exhorting French Muslims to exhibit more "discernment." Ramadan reminded his followers that the essential thing was a dawa, far more silent but far more efficacious. He cautioned them: "Don't be zealots in your Islamic activities ... our work has several different dimensions." His directives were clear: "Do not abandon the suburbs on the pretext that you belong to the university ... because if you don't take things in hand, no one will!" but "I find that the field work is being abandoned." He congratulated "the Brothers and Sisters who are dependable," who had been coming to listen to him for years and who represented "the true strength of this community": "Here in Rosny [a Paris suburb] and throughout the region, I know that the people here will not necessarily be reliable and hang on, but I can tell you one thing: if in the neighborhood there are five or fifteen people who stand out, who are patient, and who set high standards for themselves, who work together at an overall project, that's how we'll change things."