As far as Muslim countries are concerned, he is in favor of establishing law based on the sharia-something he dare not say openly in France. Aziz Mouride, a Moroccan journalist, attended several of his lectures in France and in Morocco. He was struck by Ramadan's way of applying two different standards: "I was astonished to hear him say things in Morocco that he would never dare say in Switzerland or in France. For example, for him the law must conform to the Koran whenever the text is explicit. Wine is explicitly forbidden in the Koran, therefore it should be forbidden by the law and that's an end to it.,, 64 Are we to conclude that that is what he dreams of for Europe? Nothing would indicate the contrary. In 2004, Tariq Ramadan took an active part in drawing up the list of Muslim candidates for the European elections, in collaboration with the Muslim Council of Britain, an association of radical British Muslims. It is rumored that he might, one day, be the standard bearer of a sort of Muslim European party. One day, perhaps, when the time is right. In the meantime, his priority is to train a generation of Western Muslims capable of putting into practice his hopes for the future.
Savior of the suburbs or false prophet?
In 2001, Dounia Bouzar-then with the Department of Supervision of Minors-published a book in which she presented Muslim preachers such as Tariq Ramadan as "a new kind of social worker" on whom one could count to enrol the young of the French suburbs and put them on the right track." The title, L'Islam des banlieues [Islam in the Suburbs] was designed as a counterpoint to another work, Les banlieues de l'Islam [Islam's Suburbs], in which Gilles Kepel described how Islamist groups close to the Muslim Brothers or the Tabligh took advantage ofthe exclusion and racism from which the young suffered to Islamize the suburbs, with the result that a number of youngsters considered themselves more Muslim than French. Dounia Bouzar-who had already published a book entitled Lune voilee, l'autre pas [One Wears the Veil, the Other Doesn't] with one of Ramadan's students-set out to convince us ofthe opposite.66 This was explained in the blurb: "Becoming religious, far from being `a return to fundamental principles' turns out to be a factor that favors integration, opening the way for these youngsters to live in harmony both with their parents and with Western society." And she adds: "This is particularly true for young girls of North African descent; they can, from now on, assume their identity as resolutely modern Frenchwomen."
All one can say is that the activists of Ni Putes Ni Soumises (literally, Neither Whores nor Submissive67), defending the rights of the women in the suburbs, do not share this optimism. For Fadela Amara, the president of this association that campaigns against sexist violence, it is undeniable that the deterioration in relations between boys and girls in the suburban housing developments coincided with the arrival of Islamist preachers, such as Tariq and Hani Ramadan:
In the 19gos, there appeared a fundamentalist Islamist movement, derived from the Muslim Brotherhood, with a very negative interpretation of the Koran and, as if by chance, a very negative interpretation of the status of women in the sacred texts. In France, in particular, these reactionaries, known as "basement imams," developed a political interpretation that fostered closed minds and male chauvinism."68
Silem, a Ni Putes Ni Soumises militant, confirmed the impact of this male chauvinism on the suburban housing estates: "In the i98os, there were mixed marriages and sexuality was treated in far less intolerant terms. There was a sense of life. Today, there is nothing left in these neighborhoods: no sense of life, no love, nothing but prohibitions." Leila Babes speaks even of "real social control" since the day the preachers began arriving and making a place for themselves on the estates.69 How could sociologists have given the impression that Tariq Ramadan and those like him were "a new kind of social worker" on whom the government could rely to help the young Muslims to combine their faith with their citizenship?
The 19gos marked a real turning point in intellectual and political thinking about integration in France. Short ofideas as to how to reduce delinquency in the poorer neighborhoods, where violence was rife, a number of political figures-men and women, from the Left and the political Right-were ready to believe that the Muslim preachers could restore order and peace where they themselves had failed ... even if it meant favoring fundamentalism. They were like Margaret Thatcher, who had shown herself keen to leave the responsibility for developing social links to the religious, even if that meant transforming England into a nerve center of Islamism. Just as in the suburbs of the Bronx, where charismatic Christian churches have replaced some shop fronts with churches, so certain cities have taken the risk of entrusting the maintenance of a viable social environment to preachers such as the Ramadan brothers. Even the representatives of the Socialist Party have given up the anti-racist struggle in favor of a policy of patronizing religious leaders. Nadia Amiri, a consultant for the French Ministry of Equal Opportunities, who has always fought both racism and fundamentalism, while at the same time being highly critical of the political parties, well remembers the change that came about in the 19gos: 'All of a sudden it was enough to add the word `Muslim to the name of an association to benefit from a subsidy. ,70 Ten years later, the results are alarming. In the short term, certain delinquents rediscovered "the straight and narrow path," thanks to an Islam that was drip fed into the suburbs like a dose of tranquillizer. But coming to grips with reality will be a painful experience. Many of the young no longer listen to the blaring of rap, loud enough to upset passers-by. They burn fewer cars. .. But Sohane, a young girl from Vitry-sur-Seine, was burnt alive because she was considered too "free."71 Everywhere, in the wake of the Muslim Brotherhood, anger and revolt are transformed into a hatred-more silent, but more deadly; hatred against women, against France, against the West ... And, contrary to what Tariq Ramadan would have those on the outside believe, he himself is largely responsible. For proof, just observe the groups that have developed under his influence. In practice, fascination with Tariq Ramadan almost always entails a turn towards a radical, intolerant Islam.
The Ramadan generation
The young Muslims that have come under Tariq Ramadans influence- Abdelaziz Chaambi, Farid Abdelkrim, Amina Mensour, Siham Andalouci, Fouad Imarraine, Ali Rhani, Saida Kada, etc-are immediately recognizable. Theywearwell-trimmed beards orthe Islamicheadscarf, butthey appear open and affable, particularly with journalists. They refer to figures well known to the general public, and give the impression of being part of a process of evolution and change. But if one digs deeper, one finds they are radicals with steelplated rhetoric. Farid Abdelkrim, one of the leaders of the Young Muslims of France, belongs to this "Ramadan generation." He has written a book, Na'al Bou la France?! [Cursed Be France?!], which is a precis ofthe lectures given by his model. In terms that are sometimes difficult to understand, he invites young Muslims to take part in society, the better to influence the course of "Mother Democracy" by campaigning for the headscarf, against bikinis in the swimming pools and making fun of the film Titanic, as well as recommending Thierry Meyssan s L'effroyable imposture-a book that claimed 9/11 was an American plot-and glorifying al-Banna.'Z As forAbdelaziz Chaambi of the Union ofYoung Muslims, he warns us: "We are prepared to participate in politics and the economy, but without being bleached of our beliefs.""
It is certainly possible that some youngsters with strong characters will end up slipping out of Ramadan's hands, like the rapper Abd al-Malik (who refused to sacrifice his artistic and spiritual inspiration to the integrist Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood). On the Internet forums, such as oumma.com, where the pro-Ramadans surf, it is not unusual to hear messages from followers fed up with listening to him produce unctuous speeches for the outside world, while talking like a warrior chief, authoritarian and paternalist, for the benefit of those inside:
It would be a good idea for Tariq Ramadan to quit the French public scene and leave us to manage for ourselves. It's true that he helped us during the first ten years to get rid of our complexes when speaking in public. I don't want to talk him down or start a polemic, but I find
that Tariq is authoritarian and sometimes a bit too pleased with himself. I've been listening to his speeches and lectures for the last ten years and maash'allah [thanks be to God] he did help me acquire maturity in my approach to religion. However I have difficulty listening to his speeches nowadays; he always says the same thing and I've noticed that he always wants to be right and he's quick to be hard on his brothers, whereas on TV he seeks consensus."
Despite these early signs of disaffection, Tariq Ramadan continues to fascinate an impressive number of the young who lack the maturity to be selective. He cultivates the image of a preacher for the disinherited, a sort of worker-priest, especially when he recounts how he took things in hand after one of his students, a certain Thierry, took an overdose. In the style of the charismatic sects, he cultivated the myth of a drug addict cured thanks to cas settes of the Koran and faith. In reality, he himself admits that he has little effect on young dropouts. He appeals, for the most part, to middle-class students and young graduates: "I'm good for the middle," he says jokingly75-a quip that is intended to absolve him of his fundamentalist impact. As if the middle classes, which have furnished the greater part of the suicide bombers over the last few years, were not capable of producing radicals. In fact, this confession is appalling; far from saving the young from drugs or delinquency through Islam, Tariq Ramadan introduces youngsters with a promising future to a form of Islamism that they would never have paid any attention to if it had come from a narrow-minded, grotesque Islamist. The moral of the story: he transforms youngsters-who have all that it takes to reconcile their faith, their origins, and their citizenship-into intolerant and communitarian-minded fundamentalists. Instead of encouraging these youngsters to succeed despite the racist obstacles in their path, he takes them down a dead-end street: a hardline Islam, source of tension, confrontation and professional handicaps in the future-such as for the women who give up being schoolteachers to wear the Islamic headscarf.
It is the same for boys who rush headlong into the dawa. The escape into Islam undoubtedly provides them with a renewed sense of their identity, but at the risk of turning them into veritable tyrants for their family and relatives-first, in regard to their sisters who become their wards. But also in relation to their parents, whom they start lecturing on Islam and citizenship, with a certain disdain for the older generation that sought to be "integrated." Wherever the Brothers' Islam takes hold, the Islam of their Fathers crumbles, and with it the peace-loving, popular tradition of Islamic culture. The result is that the Islamic identity to which they lay claim is no longer a source of enrichment and diversity for all, but a source of conflict and tension, even within the family. One day in Lyon, after I had given a lecture on secularism versus fundamentalism, in the course of which I had mentioned Tariq Ramadan s influence, a mother sought me out to talk of her son. A first-class athlete who earned an excellent living, he began swearing by Tariq Ramadan, and then suddenly locked himself up in an extremely intolerant form of Islam: "Since then, it's difficult for us to communicate. My son has always been an intellectual. Now he only reads books published by Tawhid. He used to enjoy rap, but he doesn't listen to it anymore. It's hard on me to see my son close up like this. I love him still, but I no longer recognize him."
Islamism, in particularTariq Ramadan s brand of Islamism, operates like a sect. He cuts individuals off from their milieu, the better to manipulate them. That is what Father Christian Delorme came finally to understand. As a priest, he was known for his commitment to combating racial discrimination. For many years he was close to the Lyon Union of Young Muslimswhich Dounia Bouzar, in all seriousness, presented as a dynamic association "working to introduce more spirituality into a secular society" [sic]. For a while, he considered the Lyon Union of Young Muslims to be the equivalent of the Jeunesse ouvriere chretienne (Christian Youth Worker Movement). After having defended Tariq Ramadan against all those who had their doubts, he confesses today that he was naive regarding the influence this sort of preacher has on the young:
I came to understand that they were dangerous when I saw that they cut the ties between the young and their families, explaining that their parents did not practice the true Islam; that they were not on the right path. I also understood that they wormed their way into institutions, taking advantage of secularism, using the rhetoric of secularism, but using it only as a means; for basically they were against integration, and the identity they sought was that of a community of Muslims, living autonomously in the Republic, like a potent countervailing power.76
He reached these conclusions on the basis of his experience in the field, where tensions mounted wherever Tariq Ramadan had a following: "In Lyon, where the Union of Young Muslims wields considerable influence, ghettoization is on the increase. Which is to be expected, since boys are set against girls, and Muslims against non-Muslims. On the contrary, in the suburbs that have resisted the Islamists, such as in Vaulx-en-Velin, the segregation is less evident. All the social workers say the same thing.""
Chapter 6
Not a Clash but a Confrontation
Between Civilizations
Fr the last decade or so, Tariq Ramadan has been a permanent fixture at all the prestigious round tables on "the dialogue between civilizations" organized by international institutions, in particular in Europe and the EuroMediterranean region. For example, he was a member of the Advisory Committee on dialogue between people and cultures set up in 2003 by the European Commission at the request of Romano Prodi.' The professorship that he was to have taken up at Notre Dame University (in the United States) in autumn 2004 was to have been devoted to the study of "religion, conflict, and peacebuilding." No doubt Tariq Ramadan is a great connoisseur of religions and conflicts, but one might wonder what he could draw on to teach peace between civilizations ... For, contrary to what many observers have thought on reading his works, Tariq Ramadan shares some aspects of The Clash of Civilizations, a book he recommends to his followers, but one to be read from the Muslim perspective. The preacher agrees with Samuel Huntington that "the challenges of the future are civilization challenges."2 This favorable opinion might come as a surprise, seeing that Huntington's book has, above all, been used by the Pentagon hawks as proof that the West should wake up or it will lose the civilization war to Islam. All observers who were even slightly antiracist or who believed in peaceful international relations stepped in to condemn such a Manichean view. But Tariq Ramadan has nothing against Manichean ways of looking at things. He has taken it for granted that a war of civilizations will take place between Islam and the West, and he agrees with Huntington: "He [Huntington] has understood that Islam will be a bastion of resistance against Western hegemony."3 On second thoughts, it appears naive to have assumed, even for a moment, that Tariq Ramadan would be hostile to this vision of the Western world threatened by the awakening ofthe Muslim world ... Those who think they have found in him a champion of resistance to globalization and to the clash of civilizations are in for a further rude awakening. For, by way of alternative, Tariq Ramadan proposes nothing less than the globalization of Islam as the outcome of The Confrontation of Civilizations, the title of one of his books!'
Islam and the West
Tariq Ramadan has often set his European or Anglo-Saxon interlocutors at ease by insisting that he warns Muslims against the temptation of defining their identity in opposition to the West and Western values. In reality, what he means is that, for him, Islamic civilization is so superior to Western civilization that he finds it unbearable that Islam should envisage defining itself in terms of a reaction to the West, instead of relying on its own principles and its own values. He does, in effect, warn his followers against the temptation of "demonizing" the West: "Even if the whole world were to caricature Islam, God has not granted us the right to caricature the other side, nor to ridicule their history or the stands they take."5 Rather than "the other side," it would be more accurate to say "our adversaries." For if Ramadan makes a point of not caricaturing the various values
that the West (according to him) represent, it is simply in order to reject them one by one.
Several of his lectures are devoted to the theme of "Islam and the West." In many regards, his perspective is close to that of the author of The Clash of Civilizations, beginning with the unshakeable belief that at stake is civilization itself, and that there exist very different civilizations. 'A civilization takes the form of a system of values, a system of principles which all derive from particular traits."' So what, according to Tariq Ramadan, are the "traits" that supposedly define the West? He speaks of a triptych-"individualism, rationalism and modernism'-that make ofthe West a civilization turned towards secularism, individual liberty and progress. On the face of it, this description is not intended as negative, but simply descriptive: As yet, nothing in what I have said points to a negative characteristic. ,7 However, these traits soon turn out to be excesses that are to be combated; for Ramadan then lapses into an uninhibited apocalyptic description of the decadence of the West, on a level with the tirades of fundamentalist Christians. Dominique Avron, an assistant professor of history at the University of Montpellier-III, analyzed the situation with great perspicacity in an article for Nunc: "Tariq Ramadan hesitates between the image of a West in the throes of disillusion and a decadent West, even though he claims that he is unwilling to go as far as Serge Latouche, who published variations on Spengler's theme of the decline of the West."8 But in fact Tariq Ramadan does quite frequently cite Latouche, who is also his friend, in his lectures. The specter of decadence is out and abroad. And for him, that is good news: the West's decadence foretells the renewal of Islam. Which will take place with the help of all men of good will, including Westerners. For Tariq Ramadan is not sectarian. He defends a dualistic view of the world, but he is ready to make common cause with anyone prepared to fight alongside him. To the extent that his "clash" is not really the clash of Islam with the West, but that of fundamentalism with secularism.
Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan Page 24