Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan (21 page)

Tariq Ramadan has not been of much help in fighting against the patriarchal
customs contained in the Koran. He has nothing to say against polygamy,
even if he does point out that the Prophet authorized it only in periods when
marriages were scarce, and provided the existing wives agreed (a first wife can
refuse this in the marriage contract) and that the husband was prepared to
treat his wives equitably: "Polygamy is permitted in Islam, up to four wives,"
wrote Ramadan in Peut-on vivre avec l'Islam [Can One Live with Islam?], in an
edition revised and corrected in 2004, "but it comes with explicit conditions
attached." 23 On this question, as on others, his opinion does not differ from
that of his brother Hani, whose book La femme en Islam [Women in Islam] created a scandal. But the most blatantly scandalous stand taken by Tariq Ramadan is, without doubt, his position on mixed marriages. Given that Islam
is a religion bent on expansion, a male Muslim can marry a non-Muslim
woman, but never the other way round. It is in the name of this principle that the majority of "crimes of honor" are committed, including in the heart of
Europe. In 1993, in Colmar, a young girl succumbed after several torture sessions conducted by her mother, her brothers and her uncles-all because of
her liaison with a non-Muslim. On November 5, 2oo1, Latifa, a Franco-Moroccan student, suffered a similar fate in Nice. Her father stabbed her with
a knife because she was about to marry a non-Muslim. What did the leader
of the European Muslims do about these injustices? Did he take up arms
against the ban on mixed marriages? Absolutely not. In theory, the European
Fatwa Council, for which Tariq Ramadan wrote a preface for the first compendium of religious edicts, issued an opinion authorizing mixed marriages.
This fatwa is always prominently displayed by the Union of Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF) to show how adaptable their fundamentalism can
sometimes be. It remains to be seen whether the authorization is respected
in practice. In the course of a conference given in Chambon-Feugerolles,
Tariq Ramadan appeared very embarrassed when asked whether the Koran
banned mixed marriages. He would not answer until he was forced to reply
when the question was asked for the third time. "It's true, the Koran forbids
a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man. Which means that every
time you let one of your sisters, one of your friends, or a woman of your family marry a non-Muslim, it means she has left the community." And he concluded: A loss for the community is a loss to the umma. '24

Ramadan never risks distancing himselffrom the seventh century. Above
all, if it is a question of discouraging habits that run counter to the dawa, the
expansion of the Muslim faith, which is his primary mission. He himself,
who married a former Catholic, is the first to approve of a man capable of
winning the heart of a non-Muslim and thus converting her. But he remains
inflexible in the opposite case. In his books, he urges that everything be done
"upstream' so as to avoid mixed marriages: "It is better to curb passions at the
start, rather than be faced by catastrophe after several years."25 His prognosis was very pessimistic: "Sometimes mixed couples survive like others, but
very often it goes tragically wrong." A husband can always convert to Islam,
but there again Ramadan is most skeptical: "What can appear as a solution
`for today' is almost sure to produce problems `for tomorrow.' A conversion that does not commit both heart and mind is null and void. One can try to
fool oneself, but one cannot fool the Creator, and tomorrow the couple's agonizing separation will teach the lovers they once were that an authentic act of
faith must, of necessity, be sincere. The only act of faith worthy of a human
being."26 Decidedly, freedom to love is not really a priority for this man of the
faith, obsessed with proselytizing.

Tariq Ramadan s lack of determination when confronted by barbarity is
particularly evident when it comes to corporal punishment. The Koran specifically recommends that women who are not obedient be beaten: 'As to
those women on whose part you fear disloyalty or ill-conduct, admonish
them first, next refuse to share their beds, and lastly beat them lightly; but
if they return to obedience seek not against them means of annoyance."27
Once again, what is most shocking is not that this practice should have
existed in the seventh century, but that the twenty-first-century fundamentalist preachers should refuse to challenge it. A liberal reformer has no difficulty whatsoever in considering it outdated. At the time, the Prophet recommended that the wife's punishment be administered with a stick cut
from an arak, the equivalent of a cinnamon stick. In other words, he was
suggesting that the husbands of his time control their temper and show
restraint in dealing with their wives. A Salafist literalist does not see it that
way. In April 2004, in the course of a wide-ranging investigation into the
rise of Islamism in the Lyon suburbs, the magazine Lyon Mag published an
interview with a Salafist imam, Abdelkader Bouziane, in which he declared
that the Koran authorized a husband to beat his wife if she was unfaithful. The affair provoked an uproar; the imam was expelled (though he was
allowed to return to France). In condemning this expulsion, the UOIF
and its training institute for imams claimed it stood as a bulwark against
these Salafist imams ... while forgetting to specify that the Union was
itself reformist, but also Salafist! The theologian who advises the Union
imams, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is the first to say that, according to the Koran,
beating one's wife is legitimate. Here is what he recommends for young Muslims living in Europe in Le licite et l'illicite [The Lawful and the Unlawful], a book available in all shops associated with the Muslim Brotherhood:

When a husband detects in his wife signs of pride or insubordination, it is up to him
to rectify the situation by all possible means, beginning with well chosen words,
convincing arguments, and wise advice. If this method bring no results, he is to
shun her in bed so as to awaken her feminine instincts and thus persuade her to
obey him, so that their relations once again become tranquil. Ifthis proves to be useless, he must punish her, using his hand, but not hitting her too hard and avoiding
blows to the face.z8

This indicates just how minimal the differences between a literalist reading of the Koran and a reading that is simply fundamentalist can be. Tariq
Ramadan also stands as a guardian against Salafism that is not reformist.
He warns Muslim husbands not to succumb to the temptation of using
the authorization to beat their wives as a pretext for making slaves of them:
"Some men treat their wives' bodies in ways that are so offensive that I dare
not speak of them here. They have heard it said that wives must obey their
husbands as if they were their servants, and they treat their wife's body as if it
belonged to them, that's not Islam."29 One can only be thankful to hear him
profiting from his aura of prestige to provide this clarification for the benefit
of his audience. Unfortunately, this does not mean that he is willing to condemn the verse authorizing the beating of wives. Moreover, it is not his job.
Tariq Ramadan is not a theologian. The authority he refers to when speaking
to Muslims is none other than Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In his books, Tariq Ramadan describes him as the scholar "who is accustomed to attending numerous
meetings devoted to the problems of our modern life in order to elaborate
appropriate Islamic solutions."3° He is the one to whom Tariq Ramadan's followers are directed, in order to learn what is lawful or not. In so doing, they
will rapidly find it confirmed that beating one's wife is within the law.

Furnishing a somewhat loose interpretation of the basic principles of Islam,
so as to continue attracting the outside world, while at the same time shift ing responsibility to Islamist "scholars," who will anyway block whatever progressive ideas he expresses in a private capacity, is a classic Tariq Ramadan
strategy. This hypocrisy finally came to light in the course of the television
debate with French Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy (November 20,
2003), when he proposed a "moratorium' on stoning women to death as punishment for adultery.3' Even if it may appear well intentioned, this proposal
represents a step backwards compared to the progress that the Koran itself
had marked. Like Jesus before him ("He that is without sin among you, let
him first cast a stone at her"), Mohammed had intended to put an end to this
disgraceful punishment. Aisha, his second wife, was falsely accused of adultery, and he did not want this kind of injustice to be repeated. The Koran proposes explicitly that stoning to death be replaced by a hundred lashes. Before
any penalty can be carried out, four witnesses must swear that they were
present on the occasion of the adultery.32 Which is obviously almost impossible. This provision was designed to render the punishment inapplicable.
Mohammed himself was not content to decree a "moratorium': he stripped
the archaic practice of its legitimacy! Thirteen centuries later, Tariq Ramadan
was not so courageous.

Shortly after his televised confrontation with Nicolas Sarkozy, Ramadan
set forth in an opinion piece exactly what he meant by the establishment of a
moratorium:

My position is clear and bears repeating here: I have said and written that, for me,
stoning is something that can never be applied .... I have vigorously condemned
all practices (in particular in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria) concerning capital punishment and corporal punishment. Among the ulemas of the Muslim world, this is a
minority opinion and most of them systematically refer, but without always being
very clear about it, to "the conditions in which the punishments are to be applied."
Confronted by this situation, I ask, therefore, for an absolute moratorium on all
punishments, so as to allow the ulemas to hold a thoroughgoing debate on this
issue (and discuss their interpretations); in the meantime, let a stop be put to the
use of Islam to oppress the poor and women. The objective here is clearly to open
the way to abandoning these practices; but we will not succeed without an in-depth
debate within the community.33

And he added: "I address audiences throughout the Muslim world, and my
aim is not limited to expressing my own personal condemnation (which is
evident), but to bringing about a change in mentalities, which is why I spoke
of a `pedagogical attitude.' I speak the same language in France, in Asia and
in the Arab world."

This statement of intent, which once again came in response to outside
pressure, raises several problems. First of all, by limiting himself to the call
for a moratorium, Tariq Ramadan, who is speaking from the point of view
of European Muslims, gives the appalling impression that European Muslims are still debating whether or not to stone someone to death for adultery! Declaring that he cannot display more tolerance for fear of no longer
being listened to proves that he prefers to remain credible in the eyes of I sla-
mists, rather than to take the risk of offending them by adopting a firm stand
for progress. This is why he will never be a moderating element, but rather
a radicalizing one. One has difficulty imagining that Iranian political leaders are going to change their minds after discussing things with Tariq Ramadan ... On the other hand, considering it acceptable to debate the pros and
cons of stoning certainly has an effect on European Muslims under his influence. Lila and Alma Levy (who are sisters) said they listened to cassettes by
both Hani and Tariq Ramadan. Recently, they published a book in which they
defended the right to stoning as a free choice.34

Finally, one must understand what Tariq Ramadan means by "moratorium." He speaks of a consultation (choura) that is supposed to take place not
between citizens, but between scholars. But Tariq Ramadan only recognizes
as scholars those theologians close to the Muslim Brotherhood-that is to
say, political fundamentalists. That is really why his view is in the minority.
But is he in the minority among European Muslims? No. He is in the minority among Islamist scholars. So what does it mean to propose a moratorium
to be discussed among Islamist scholars, who are generally in favor of stoning, other than to propose a moratorium that can open the way to maintaining the practice? This is exactly what happened in Iran ... But that will not
distress Ramadan. In the revised and corrected edition of a book published
in 2004, he explained that, even if it was not applicable, corporal punish ment was there to recall "by way of teaching" that "fornication and adultery
are most serious matters in the eyes of God." 35

If he were simply a fundamentalist, Tariq Ramadan would hardly be more
than an archaic religious figure, a bit sectarian and reactionary. Unfortunately, he is the product of a movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, that has
always put politics ahead of religion. Obsessed as he is by the idea of influencing politics and society in the name of Islam, there is nothing that exasperates him more than believers who practice their religion only in the private sphere. His dawa, the mission that he considers his priority, propagates
a political Islam intent on becoming a model for society. In France and certain other European countries, this proselytizing is immediately perceived as
integrist (politically fundamentalist). Ramadan is well aware of the fact, and
encourages his followers not to state point-blank that Islam makes no distinction between religion and politics. Not that he considers such an approach
to be wrong; it is just that he finds it inept, which is not the same thing. In
order not to shock people, he advises practicing "communication strategy":
"You must know how to speak to those who don't come from the same background as we do."36 He explains that the subject is "sensitive," that Christians
might take it badly as submission to a dogma, whereas the fusion of politics
and religion should appear as something positive. He himself has recourse
to an ingenious approach.