Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan (30 page)

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 ghettoization 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."

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.

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."

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.