Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan

by Caroline Fourest

  If he really disapproved of the GIA, Ramadan would not be a friend of the only man to have dared declare in writing that the Tibehirine massacre was justified in terms of the Koran: Yahya Michot. In 1997, this Belgian convert to Islam came to prominence for having dug out afatwa of Ibn Taymiyya, dating from 1417, that proved the murder was justified on religious grounds. His booklet-Le statut des moines [Rules Pertaining to Monks]-was published under the name of Nasreddin Lebatelier, but Michot finally admitted to being the author. It is said there that, in cases of conflict, the killing of monks is permitted if they are in contact with other men (for they could keep Mus liras from pursuing their goals). On the other hand, it is illicit if the monks are within walls. The GIA assassins thus acted in perfect conformity with Ibn Taymiyya, since they murdered all the monks, except for one who had taken refuge in his cell. This led Michot to conclude that the monks should have heeded the order to leave the country issued by the GIA in 1993: "The drama could, no doubt, have been avoided with a bit of common sense, if the monks had agreed to `take a bit of a vacation in France."'az In brief, the man is far from respectable. Few non-jihadist reformers have agreed to be seen with him since. Tariq Ramadan, however, is still one of his friends. In March 2002, the preacher even wrote a preface to his latest book, a book published by Jeunesse sans Frontieres, the Islamist association of Montpellier for which Tariq Ramadan is an esteemed figure. Admittedly, the book does not deal with Tibehirine. It is entitled Musulman en Europa [Muslim in Europe], but Ramadan's moral support was an eloquent message for all the young Muslims who followed this affair. All the more so, in that Michot indicated in his bibliography that he had translated Ibn Taymiyya's fatwa. One might have expected that Ramadan would express some reservations over the positions taken by the author. Not at all. Ramadan recommended Yahya Michot as "a brother and a friend." He had nothing but praise for him, presenting him as "one of the few Muslim thinkers who know how appealing a generous sense of humor can be." Er ... But Ramadan does take care to leave himself a way out by adding the following sentence, meaningless in itself, but which he can always cite if necessary: "Many a time we were in disagreement, often we were at odds." But over what? The youngsters who read the book will never know. And as a result, they adopt as a model this "brother" recommended by Ramadan-this brother so humorous and so apropos. In the book, Michot describes Ibn Taymiyya as "our principal guide" and "one of the great Muslim scholars."83 He frequently cites Khomeini, refers to the modern jahiliyya (the pre-Islamic decadence), goes back over the Crusades once again to exonerate the Muslims of any guilt for the crimes committed in the name of Islam: "I would say straight out, even if it may appear shocking, that we Muslims can afford to kill a lot, to liquidate and massacre a lot, before reaching the degree of inhumanity that was the standard in the past for the ancestors of those who today accuse Islam of being a religion of violence."84 What a splendid model for European Muslim youth! And what a calling card for someone who claims to be an uncompromising agent of peace.

  The bait

  Unlike his brother, Tariq Ramadan does not have to call openly for a jihad to radicalize the Muslims that listen to him. His "open-minded" Islam is far more efficacious. His approach, seemingly moderate, succeeds in attracting the more or less modern Muslims that he will gradually initiate into radicalism, and then fundamentalism, the environment that produces future terrorists. How? By pretending to advocate a form of fraternity and tolerance that has the effect, above all, of making any moderate Muslim feel guilty in comparison to the extremists. Once their vigilance has been dismantled, he has only to put those he has thus outfitted in touch with the Brothers' network. A youngster lured by the "modern' language of Tariq Ramadan will begin by ceasing to look on fundamentalists with a critical eye. He will be convinced, from then on, that those who are hostile to the Islamists are Islamophobes. Having studied al-Banna's thought and his method, he will, from this point on, belong to a fraternity that stretches from the Union of Islamic Organizations of France to Hamas, via the Islamic Salvation Front and the GIA. He will absorb all that Tariq Ramadan has written, even the books he has prefaced. The girls will have as their model Zaynab al-Ghazali and the boys will eat up Yahya Michot. The religious authority will be Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brothers' theologian that Ramadan recommends, the man who approves of suicide attacks. Ramadan also recommends Mawlawi, the head of one of the principal Lebanese terrorist organizations. "Mawlawi is right to emphasize that, according to the majority of the ulemas, Muslims are bound by the decisions and the acts of an unjust leader or a dictator `so long as he does not commit a sin or act contrary to the teachings of Islam."'85 Even if Ramadan talks of using "legal means," remember that it is in the name of these legal means that Qutb yesterday and Mawlawi today call for a jihad against "apostate" tyrants. Given his influence, does it come as a surprise that Tariq Ramadan s name appears in the dossiers held on certain terrorists? Or that Djamel Beghal, the Lyon Islamist arrested for terrorist activities, had listened to his lectures without ever being dissuaded from waging a jihad? Does it come as a shock to learn that Malika, the wife of one of the two assassins of Massoud was a Ramadan fan-or that she approved of her husband's act?86 Does it come as surprise, finally, that Tariq Ramadan continues to be the star performer of the most hardline Muslim Brothers-in Algeria, in Yemen, in Syria-despite a press that still sometimes insists on presenting him as a reformer and a pacifier? The answer is simply that the press is mistaken: Tariq Ramadan is not an agent of peace but an agent of radicalization-all the more to be feared in that he is so difficult to pin down.

  Chapter 7

  The West as the Land of "Collaborations"

  Triq Ramadan knows full well that the future of Islam is to be played out not in the Orient but in the Occident. While Islamism has its work cut out for it in the Maghreb and the Machrek (the Middle East), because of government repression and the mobilization of civil society, the West, with its human rights provisions, offers a sanctuary from which to launch campaigns to swell the ranks and prepare for revenge. Ever since the failure in Algeria, this strategy has been the top priority of the Muslim Brotherhood. The fact that Yusuf al-Qaradawi turned down the official role of Supreme Guide, explaining that he would be more useful in Europe, speaks volumes for the fraternity's hope of initiating the Islamist awakening in Europe. As leader of the international branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Said Ramadan was the first to believe in this strategy. Of all his heirs, Tariq Ramadan is the most gifted. In the past fifteen years he has proved a remarkably effective agent in the service of this idea. He has ensured Islamic renewal by the dawa, while at the same time weakening the forces opposed to Islamism thanks to the contacts he has established with other religious leaders, with academia and, above all, with the anti-globalist, secular Left.

  The dawa not only functions by means of conversion or by radicalizing Western Muslims. In Tariq Ramadaris own words, it is a question of establishing "spheres of collaboration' with non-Muslims. The term is his. On his cassettes, he openly encourages his followers to form alliances: "I want you to understand that we are not alone in daring to challenge this Westernization that is without soul and without conscience .... The future hinges on being intelligent enough to grasp a dual approach: locate the spheres of resistance and develop the spheres of collaboration .... We cannot remain one against the many."1 One would, at first, think that Ramadan is calling on Muslims to become the allies of non-Muslims vis-a-vis globalization. Except that we know what Ramadan means by resisting Westernization: not some "other" globalization, but a Confrontation of Civilizations that will result in the triumph of Islam. Here is how it is explained on his cassettes:

  Look, I'm going to turn Huntingtoris proposal around. What did Huntington say? He said that the Occidental powers should seek out in the Muslim countries those who defend the West's ideology. That's to say, seek out the Muslims known as "secular" or the Muslims known as "liberal." You know: the Muslims without Islam! ... Well as for us, those with
whom we're going to cooperate, it's exactly the opposite. We're going to locate in the West-and collaborate with-all those who defend rights, justice, and human dignity. We're going to develop these bridges; we're going to be there in the center of academic and social dialogue. For there are lots of people who have negative opinions about Islam because they don't know it, but who will be ready once they do know it-once they are talked to in the right way-ready to defend, along with us, the rights of Muslims and more and more .... Believe me, this phenomenon is already under way. So we are against a philosophy of conflict, but we are for a philosophy of resistance within collaboration.'

  The word "collaboration" is not without significance. For those who might have been tempted to think that this common resistance implied an exchange, Ramadan set the record straight: "Some people think that the opposite of conflict is marriage. No. The opposite of conflict, it's intelligent resistance and collaboration concerning what is just and honest; it's not a form of submission-we resist, and we collaborate on the intellectual level." 3 In other words, you must separate the sheep from the goats. Ramadan knows that he needs the Westerners, and even certain atheists, to conduct his jihad against "Westernization' and atheistic materialism-but he has no intention oflosing his soul in the process. It's clearly a question of a temporary alliance, until the great day dawns. On that day, the Left, and the non-Muslims in general, will, in any case, be so few in number that they will be no match for the Islamists bent on establishing an ideal society based on the sharia. Mean while, following what happened in Iran, Ramadan has understood that there is a vast store of potential allies, either conniving or naive, ready to support him if he knows how to handle them tactfully. Herein lies the reason for his double talk, conceived as a way of establishing political bridges.

  The strategic advantages of double talk

  Wafa al-Banna was certainly right to entrust her son, Tariq, with the job of preaching to the outside world. Never has an actor been better suited to his role. In the course ofthe last fifteen years, during which he has practiced speaking both to ultra-radical Islamist audiences and to ultra-skeptical audiences of secular activists, he has become a virtuoso of rhetorical and semantic undermining-an art that he has taught his followers, to whom he has explained the necessity of having "a strategy of communication' so as to establish "spheres of collaboration': "There are, in fact, an enormous number of people who are ready-intellectuals, thinkers, people with social obligations-people who would be ready to be partners in our resistance on one condition: that we develop our ability to communicate."4 In order to be more effective, he has urged Muslims to know their various audiences and adapt accordingly: "You must attune your speech in accordance with the ear that is listening to you. It's essential, but to attune your speech to the ear that is listening, you must also know that ear's disposition."-' With his usual shrewdness, he speaks of this adaptation process as "developing a form of discourse that clarifies so that we can communicate with our interlocutors.i6 Never mind "clarifying": this is more like duplicity, used in an attempt to deflect any suspicion.

  Tariq Ramadan edited-and for the most part wrote himself-a little treatise on "understanding, terminology and language" for the benefit of French-speaking Muslims. The first objective, we are told, is to "adopt a form of discourse that is faithful to our principles" while at the same time being "understood." One passage stipulates: "Being faithful to our principles is the priority. ,7 Published by Tawhid, this brochure constituted the proceeding of the International Symposium of French-speaking Muslims, held in Abidjan on August 4-6, zooo. Ramadan directed a workshop on the semantic modifications of the terms "rights, rationality, democracy and community." For each term, the booklet explains how the word is understood by Westerners and what problems it poses for Muslims, and proposes a "conceptual formulation" that amounts to a redefinition capable of confusing listeners.

  Here we find all the preacher's semantic tricks. The word "rationality," for example, is not the equivalent of a critical attitude born of the Enlightenment, but "an intellectual process leading to the rediscovery of faith." Just one example among many. In fact, for every key word that Ramadan knows will be sprung on him, he has developed a second definition-of which all those who have attended his courses or read his most confidential books are apprised. This makes it possible for him to speak in an apparently inoffensive manner, while remaining resolutely "orf his eminently Islamist message, and without openly lying-at least to his way of thinking. If one adds that Ramadan has redefined the word "secularisrri' as simply a context in which freedom of religious faith is guaranteed, and not as the separation between the religious and the political; that by "citizenship" he means a "geographical region' and not a country to which one is bound; and that he claims to be a reformer, while forgetting to specify that he is in favor of a fundamentalist reform-then you can see why so many people are wrong about him. On the outside, Ramadan appears as a rationalist reformer, advocating civic participation on the part of Muslims, and thus their acceptance of the laws of the Republic. Within the movement, his followers know full well that Ramadan is a fundamentalist preacher who counts on them to make use of their status as citizens to bend the laws "towards more Islam." And it is those on the inside that have got it right. They have at their disposal the "translation manual" that enables them to read between the lines of Ramadans official discourse, which is designed to appeal to an outside audience.

  Once again, the reliance on a doublespeak, internal and external, is not confined to Islamists alone. It is a tactic used by all sects and by all movements that wish to conceal their objectives. But Ramadan is a champion at this game, even modulating his tone ofvoice to fit the public he is addressing. On his audiocassettes, when speaking to a Muslim audience, his tone ofvoice is that of a full-fledged preacher, even scary at times. Almost all his sentences are laced with quotations from the Koran, and he never pronounces the name of the Prophet without adding the ritual benediction: "Peace and blessings on his name" in Arabic. When speaking at a public meeting or on TV, Ramadan keeps a low profile, speaks in a slightly timid, academic voice, hardly ever cites the Koran and, above all, carefully avoids mentioning the name of the Prophet, so as not to have to recite the obligatory benediction.

  In fifteen years, the "heir presumptive" has become an expert at defusing semantic landmines. All his expressions, all his euphemisms are carefully thought through and judiciously calculated, so as to overcome resistance and convert the skeptical. The rest of his strategy comes down to a shrewdly conceived program of infiltration, by which he convinces those on the Right as well as those on the Left; the most anti-religious as well as the most religious; Tony Blair as well as the anti-globalists ... And all to the one end that he will never admit: advance of the dawa-Islamization as the Muslim Brotherhood conceives it.

  Doublespeak on trial

  Some people have been onto Ramadan's doublespeak for awhile. Arab and/or Muslim journalists and intellectuals, for example, are not fooled. They are too well aware of his method to be taken in, and are impervious to accusations of "Islamophobia." Antoine Sfeir is one ofthem. Editor ofthe Cahiers de I'Orient, not only is he an expert on Islam with a perfect mastery of the subject, but he is also a Lebanese intellectual esteemed both in France and abroad. A Christian-one who is both Arab and pro-Palestinian-he is an ambassador of the Orient respected for his culture, his discernment, and his typically Levantine manners. He is one of the very first journalists to have warned ofTariq Ramadaris "double discourse." His vigilance was matched by that of Lyon Mag, an independent investigative journal based in Lyon that was well situated to observe the devastation sown by the preacher. In October 2001, one month after the 9/11 attacks, the journal braved the taboo and asked the question that everyone had tried to duck: "Should we be afraid of the Islamist networks in Lyon?"8 The result of the inquiry was devastating for Ramadan, whose ambiguities stood revealed. It was the first article that had really served to unmask him. It was also the first time that t
he preacher decided to go to court. But Lyon Mag did not back down. In January 2002, the editorial staff decided to substantiate their allegations by interviewing Antoine Sfeir, who confirmed what they had thought. Sfeir spoke of "a skilful orator," "a persuasive fundamentalist," "a specialist in doublespeak." He did not class Ramadan among the violent, but by no means minimized the danger he represented:

  I consider the non-violent to be the most dangerous, precisely because they appear inoffensive. The terrorists are hunted down. The non-violent appear reassuring. Sometimes they even succeed in putting an end to delinquency in certain neighborhoods. And this delights the police, who don't themselves have enough authority to impose order. To me, it's the Islamists that are most frightening .... All these movements that are actively opposed to integration, it's a real time bomb.

  The analysis could not be more accurate. It is therefore all the more embarrassing. And this time, for once, Ramadan could hardly accuse Antoine Sfeir of racism without making a fool of himself. And there was no question of intimidating Sfeir by leaving insulting messages on his answering machine or putting pressure on his superiors. So he went to court a second time. The two cases, the lawsuit against Lyon Mag and the suit against Sfeir, were combined into one. The verdict was tough on Ramadan. In the decision handed down on May 22, 2003, the Appeals Court of Lyon agreed that Sfeir was right to declare that the language employed by preachers such as Tariq Ramadan "can influence young Muslims and can serve as a factor inciting them to join up with those engaged in violent acts."