Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan (35 page)

His lack of enthusiasm in condemning Muslim extremism also emerged
in another interview he gave to the French news weekly Le Point the month
after the attacks of March II, 2004 in Madrid. This time it was as an expert
on Islam and the West that Tariq Ramadan was interviewed, and he declared
in professorial tones: "You will find no support worth mentioning, whether
in the French suburbs or in Muslim countries, for the interventions in New
York, Bali or Madrid. One must not confuse the resistance in Iraq or Palestine with pro-bin Laden operations."69 Tariq Ramadan is really a past master
in the art of euphemisms. Thus, the attacks by Hamas, or those launched by
Saddam Husseiri s partisans, including those that have killed civilians (Israelis and Iraqis!), are elevated to the rank of "resistance," not to be confused
with "pro-bin Laden operations." Even more serious, the pro-bin Laden operations are no longer referred to as "attacks" but as mere "interventions." The
term came as a shock to more than one attentive reader. It was all the more
revealing since Tariq Ramadan always chooses his words with great care. A
member of his thesis jury was shocked at his way of phrasing things. In Aux
sources du renouveau musulman [On the Origins ofthe Muslim Renaissance], the
preacher spoke ofthe murder ofAnwar Sadat by a Muslim Brother as an "exe-
cutiorf and not an "assassination." One of the distinguished professors on
the jury picked up on it, but the word remained unchanged.

The mildness with which Tariq Ramadan condemns terrorism when he
is speaking outside the Muslim community affords us a glimpse of what he
says within it. In his lectures, the objective is not to warn against this plague,
but rather to reprimand those who oppose the extremists-in particular the
media, which he accuses of caricaturing Islamism, insinuating at the same
time that these campaigns are related to the influence of intellectuals bent
on defending Israeli interests. Only a few days after 9/II, the preacher gave
a lecture in Venissieux organized by the Union of Young Muslims. Was he
going to take advantage of the occasion to make the young of this particu larly radical association aware of their responsibilities? A Lyon Mag journalist who attended the conference reported the following: "Whereas the young
Muslims spoke of nothing else but the attacks, Tariq never said a word about
them throughout his lecture. He waited until the very last minute to mention
the tragedy, insisting that there was no evidence implicating bin Laden. And
he added, in front of several hundred young Muslims, that if any state had an
interest in launching the attack, it was Israel."70

Manifestly, the idea of a Zionist conspiracy is a most handy way of cleansing
the blood that stains the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood in Algeria and
elsewhere. At other times, the attitude of Israel serves to justify recourse to
murder, including the murder of children and civilians. In an interview given
to the magazine Panorama of Milan, cited in the Courrier International edition of September 16 to 22, 2004, regarding an eight-year-old child, killed
because she would be a soldier when she grew up, Tariq Ramadan declared:
"In itself it's morally condemnable, but understandable given the context,"
since "the international community has delivered the Palestinians into the
hands of their oppressors." In general, he stands by the positions taken by
Hamas, whose fatwa authorizing suicide attacks comes from Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He makes a point of presenting the Islamist terrorist movement as a
model of legitimate resistance. In Questioning Islam, flanked by Alain Gresh,
he vigorously defended the military branch representing the Muslim Brothers in Palestine: All those who have been there can testify to the fact that
the labels `obtuse fundamentalists' and `extremists' that they have foisted on
Hamas in no way correspond to reality; the majority of the leaders are in
favor of dialogue and have never spoken of `driving the Jews into the sea. "'71
Despite which, they have taken to blowing them up from time to time ...
Tariq Ramadan added a few lines afterwards: "I have spoken of the illegitimacy of attacking civilians, but have the hypocrisy and the cynicism of the
American government-and the Arab government as well-left the Palestinians any choice?"

Tariq Ramadan was a latecomer as a pro-Palestinian supporter. In Geneva, where there was a very active pro-Palestinian network, no one remembered
having seen him. "It was never his cause," one of the activists of the movement confided to me, preferring to remain anonymous. In fact, his position
on Palestine only emerged when Hamas began to play a role in the conflict.
Like the Hamas that he defends, he was critical both of Yasser Arafat and of
the peace process. As for the rest, most of what we know of his position on
Palestine comes from the snatches of conversation that figure in his book
of interviews with Alain Gresh. There he explains that, since advocating the
destruction of Israel was not tenable, he had come round to the solution of a
single state governed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims:

In the end, a single state will have to be established .... This state should grant
everyone-Jew and Christian, Muslim and humanist-an equal status as citizen
and the right for his religion to be respected both in daily life and in the holy places.
It is difficult to define the exact nature of this state. We have to proceed by stages,
beginning by analyzing the existing structures, both Israeli and Palestinian, and
studying in detail the reality of the discriminations written into the law. In the end,
with the increase in the Israeli, Arab, and non-Jewish population we will have to
question, in Claude Kleiri s phrase, "the Jewish character of the state of Israel." 72

Appearances notwithstanding, this proposal for a single state, in which everyone would be accepted, bears no resemblance whatsoever to the secular, but
at the same time utopian, proposal made by the PLO in the 1970s. Ramadan
proposes not destroying the state of Israel, but replacing it with a single state,
whose Jewish nature would soon be ... "questioned." That is to say, called
into question. And how? By stages? But of course-by stages, as always. The
first stage: proclamation of a state in which Jews, Christians, and Muslims
are declared equal. A splendid idea, which would, in effect, provide a way of
ending the discrimination from which Palestinians and Arab Israelis suffer.
The problem is that, with Ramadan, this egalitarian state is only a first step.
He has already admitted as much. With the increase in the population that is
`Arab and non-Jewish"-meaning Muslim-it will be necessary to take stock
of the situation and redefine the nature of this state. "Difficult to define the
exact nature of this state," he tells us. Difficult, at any rate, to express it pub licly before reaching that stage. The Muslim Brotherhood is already dreaming of restoring the caliphate, in which Jews and Christians would be classed
as dhimmis.73 There is no reason to believe that Ramadan does not share this
dream.

Does that mean he is anti-Semitic? Not in the European sense. Ramadan is
faithful to the Koran. The Jews, who can be allies of the Muslims, are "protected" and fully accepted. "They are in right guidance," says the Koran.74
Ramadan agrees. He has nothing against Jews-if they lend him their support. The others, however, immediately become his worst enemies. In the
Koran, the Jews who refuse to support Islam are doubly cursed, described
as "lost souls" that God has transformed into apes and swine, "obstinate
in their rebellion," deserving nothing but hatred: `Amongst them we have
stirred up enmity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. ,75 The ambiguity of the Koran, torn between two extremes in its treatment of the Jews, is
also that of Ramadan, always ready to denounce attacks on Jews, especially
religious Jews, but at the same time imagining a Jewish conspiracy around
every corner. In 2002, Ramadan and his followers condemned the acts of
violence perpetrated against Jewish places of worship. It is the least one
could expect on the part of a monotheist, hoping that inter-religion dialogue
will lead all monotheists to make common cause against atheistic materialism. In this regard, Ramadan has never been a Judeophobe. He is quite
ready to sign petitions for peace between Palestinians and Israelis, along
with other intellectuals. But none of this really indicates whether he is antiSemitic. Whenever one tries to get to the bottom of his feelings about Jews
as a people, he emphasizes the fact of having come to the defense of Jews
as members of the Jewish faith. As if the absence of Judeophobia signified
absence of anti-Semitism. This ambiguity has its advantages. In particular,
it divides the Left, split between those who think that Ramadan is anti-Semitic and those who believe the accusation to be unfounded-an opportunity for the preacher to see who are his real collaborators and who are more
reticent.

Has Tariq Ramadan even once stopped to think compassionately of all those
intellectuals, artists, men, women, and children murdered in the name of
Allah in Algeria? No. In the glossary that was published as an annex to the
French edition of Etre musulman europeen [To Be a European Muslim], after
the Nouvel Observateur ended up refusing it, here is all he has to say about the
Islamic Salvation Front:

The leaders of the political wing of the Front are a mixed bag. Voices are raised that
are constructive and reasonable, but they vie with others that are far more reactionary, more aggressive, and more obtuse. Early on, the Islamic Salvation Front
piled blunder on blunder and made political mistake after political mistake, and its
responsibility for the present state of Algeria is considerable. One must, however,
remember that the electoral process was cut short, and no error of a political nature
can justify the terrifying repression unleashed against them.76

This sentence is the ultimate in political cant, fit to be recorded in the
annals of Islamist rhetoric. It would be a laughing matter ifthe result were not
to play down the fact of so many deaths. Every word is weighed, and weighed
again, but the net effect is finally quite clear. Tariq Ramadan reproaches the
Islamic Salvation Front above all for having committed "blunders," in other
words for not having respected the rhythm that was part of Hassan al-Banna's method of establishing an Islamic regime without encountering resis-
tance-"blunders" that could not justify the "terrible repression' of which
they were the victims. This double standard is appalling, coming as it does
from a man who was in contact with the Front's leaders. He does, in fact, say
that he pointed out to them how wrong they were to use every means to prevent women from working ... Did he really not have anything more to say to
them? It would appear not.

Fromthe same glossary, this is what he had to say about the Armed Islamic
Groups (GIA): "The Armed Groups are to be condemned outright. Yet, at the
same time, it is clear that these groups are infiltrated. Perhaps one day we will know more about the double game played by certain high-ups in the military
who stuff their pockets while the bodies of so many Algerians are drained of
their blood." But who is draining these bodies of their blood? Who is massacring entire villages? The army? That is what Islamists like Tariq Ramadan
and his brother are insinuating. It is possible that the Algerian army did try
to infiltrate some GIA cells to arrest or even liquidate the jihadists, in particular when Zeitouni was in command of the GIA-a leader so bloodthirsty that
he succeeded in creating havoc within the organization itself. It is probable
that the security forces tried to stir up rivalries within the GIA to put an end to
their deadly hold on Algeria. But is it enough to assert that the Islamists were
manipulated by the army for them to be forgiven the blood on their hands?
This revisionism, combined with conspiracy paranoia, is unfortunately not
that uncommon among the militant anti-colonialists, bent at all costs on casting the Islamists in the role of victims. It is even more chilling when it comes
from one of the descendants of Hassan al-Banna, trained in the school of
Qutb, and in contact with the "oppressed" in question.

Once again, if Tariq Ramadan is willing to talk in these terms publicly,
imagine what he teaches within the movement! In his lectures, each time
he takes up the question of Algeria, Ramadan laments the death of the Islamists, but not the democrats' dead. "It's not only intellectuals that have been
killed in Algeria, intellectuals who think in Western terms; the entire political class of committed Muslim intellectuals has been decimated." 77 In other
words, Tariq Ramadan treats as equivalent the radical militants ready to kill to
take power and the men and women fighting to maintain freedom who have
been assassinated simply because they dared denounce the Islamists' violence. Sorry, he does not treat them as equivalent ... He considers it abominable that Islamists have gone to their death because they wanted to establish an Islamic dictatorship, but remains coldly indifferent to the murders
and threats of death that have been visited on those Algerian intellectuals
who have resisted Islamism. Moreover, he refuses to consider as "intellectuals" Algerian women such as Khalida Messaoudi who have opposed Islamism: "One day it will come out that she has been subsidized, aided and supported by the regime in power." 78 Tariq Ramadan was hostile to Messaoudi not because she accepted support from the Algerian government for her
campaign in defense of Algerian women; he was hostile to her because she
fought against the Islamists of the Islamic Salvation Front.

When speaking within the movement, Ramadan denounces the "smear
campaign' aimed at Ibn Taymiyya, the man that all the Islamists look up
to, including the extremists; the man whom Ramadan recommends and
whom he defends as having "a method and an approach intellectually well
founded."79 Taymiyya's approach is so well founded that it is invoked by the
Islamists who have gone in for murder, in particular the GIA members who
assassinated seven Trappist monks in Tibehirine in 1996. To be sure, Tariq
Ramadan does not approve of this sort of thing, but it is the death of Islamist fighters that he regrets the most: "The assassination of the monks is
an abhorrence that we condemn in the same way and with the same intensity that we condemn the murder of all those intellectuals of whom nothing
is said and who are killed because of their faith. "10 The statement just goes to
show how quickly the condemnation of the GIA is passed over. It serves as a
pretext for immediately lamenting the loss of the militants of the Islamic Salvation Front and the GIA, whom Ramadan treats as "intellectuals," in order
the better to denigrate those intellectuals "ofwhom the press does speak" and
who have been killed because they resisted the Islamists. Ramadan speaks of
these murders, in particular the murder of the monks, as being "a dishonor
for the GIA," but he adds that the assassinations only go to prove "the inability of the Algerian government to ensure internal security. 1'81 But ensure
internal security against whom?