Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan (18 page)

Al-Qaeda is only a brief episode and an expedient instrument in the century-old
existence of the Muslim Brotherhood. The true danger is in the expansion of the
Brotherhood, an increase in its audience. The wolf knows how to disguise itself as a
sheep. Tariq Ramadan, for instance, is not part ofAl-Qaeda but of the Brotherhood.
If one were to clearly denounce the power and the strategy of the Brotherhood, those
who spread its influence and recruit in its name would be forced to give an account
of themselves rather than showing off on TV or in international forums.'°9

Concerning Ramadan's double talk, the 2001 report of the Belgian Permanent Committee for the Control of Intelligence Services is no less severe:
"State security also reported that the moderate speeches that Tariq Ramadan
gives in public do not always correspond to the remarks made in confidential
Islamic settings, where he is far more critical of Western society." A number
of individual cases can serve as confirmation.

Djamel Beghal, a Lyon Islamist arrested for terrorist activities, declared to
Judge Jean-Louis Brugiere: "In 1994 I took courses given by Tariq Ramadan,
who is an Egyptian with Swiss nationality belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood." Tariq Ramadan dismissed this sworn statement with a wave of his
hand: "It's impossible. I only began those courses in 1997!""' The explanation is a bit too succinct. In reality he had given lectures-considered by
the associations that invited him to be training seminars-since 1994. They
took on a more official character in 1997, but they existed well before. It is,
therefore, possible and even probable that Djamel Beghal did attend, as he
affirms, Ramadan's lecture-conferences. Moreover why would he lie? It does
not mean that Tariq Ramadan himself urged Djamel Beghal to become a terrorist. One can simply register the fact that his influence does not have the
moderating effect that he makes so much of when with journalists.

In the autumn of 2004 Tariq Ramadan was scheduled to be "in charge of
the study program devoted to religions, conflicts and the establishment of peace" for the Joan B. Kroc Institute that is part of Notre Dame University.
A magnificent university, founded in 1842 by a priest of the Congregation of
the Holy Cross, equipped with a basilica, numerous chapels, two liturgical
choirs, departments of theological studies, and a program of Catholic education by satellite. The man who recruited him, Scott Appleby, has written
for several books on religious fundamentalism, such as The Fundamentalist
Project," and was perfectly well informed ofthe polemics set off in France by
the preacher. "It's precisely because he was at the heart of these polemics in
Europe that we wanted him here," he declared to the magazine Lyon Mag.112
Officially, his decision to bring Tariq Ramadan to the United States was in
keeping with the Kroc Center's policy. In the beginning, the idea was to foster
dialogue between Americans and communists, but since the fall of the Berlin Wall the Center has focused rather on Muslims, with the objective of finding "non-violent solutions to conflict." How did a specialist in fundamentalism come to think of Tariq Ramadan for such an assignment? Appleby
claims to have listened to Tariq Ramadari s tape recordings. He admits that
Ramadan is a skilled speaker, but refuses to consider him an Islamist: "He
knows perfectly well that if it was proven that he was an Islamist he would
no longer be welcome."113 This is false; the proof is there. And yet the director of the institute defended him: "Tariq Ramadan is neither an extremist nor
anti-Semitic." As regards the struggle against secularism in the West, Tariq
Ramadan is on the right side in the American's eyes. Although he is antifun-
damentalist, Appleby supports the Islamo-Christian alliance against secularism. In an article published in Foreign Policy, he suggests that the next pope
forge a sort of alliance with Islam. Compared to what he describes as a "new
and aggressive secularization," he presents Islam as "the great world religion that is both the Church s main rival for adherents and its potential ally
against a purely materialistic concept of human development. "114 From this
perspective, Tariq Ramadan most certainly has a lot to teach American Catholics. But from a security perspective, on the other hand, the United States
had no need whatever of someone like Tariq Ramadan. On July 28, 2004,
the Department for Homeland Security decided to revoke his visa-a blow
for the preacher, whose image in Europe suffered, except in England, where Tariq Ramadan surprisingly bounced back, thanks to relations between the
Muslim Brotherhood and some members of the Labor Party. The Mayor of
London, Ken Livingstone, is very close to the Muslim Brotherhood's most listened-to theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. On July 12, 2004, the two men fell
into each other's arms at a meeting of the pro-hijab association (an organization "to put pressure on European parliaments" to accept the Islamic headscarf). The meeting was set up by the English branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, thanks to the patronage of the mayor-and was attended by Tariq
Ramadan. The Swiss preacher has been much in demand in England ever
since the government decided to counter the influence of the Salafist jihadists by promoting leaders representing a fundamentalist Islam, officially
non-terrorist, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Only a few days after the
attacks of July 7 and July 21, 2005, Tariq Ramadan was invited by the London
police to give a lecture on Islam. In autumn of 2005-stupefaction: he was
being considered for membership on the government's working group for
"Preventing Extremism Together" - set up to advise Tony Blair on how to
"combat Islamic extremism." It was taken as a joke. But the Prime Minister
stood fast and defended his choice. And the left-wing press backed him up, all
the more so since the foremost attacks on Tariq Ramadan came from the Sun
and were thus considered "Islamophobic." Yet Ramadan's presence on this
working group is alarming. The group's first proposal was to abolish commemoration ofthe Holocaust Memorial Day, on the basis that it was "wounding" to Muslims. Iqbal Sacranie, a Muslim Brotherhood member ofthe Muslim Council of Britain, who was knighted by the Queen in 2005 for "services
to the Muslim community," explained that he had always boycotted Holocaust Memorial Day because it was "offensive to Muslims." For Tony Blair's
working group, this day of commemoration did not do sufficient justice to
the atrocities suffered by Muslims, and thus gave the impression that "Western lives were of greater value than non-Western lives." The committee proposed replacing it with a national Genocide Day that would marl, the genocide of the Palestinians, the Bosnians, and the Chechens. Another member
of the group, Ahmad Thomson of the Association of Muslim Lawyers, took
advantage of his appointment to furnish the press with his version of the war in Iraq: "Tony Blair decided to wage war on Iraq after coming under the
influence of a `sinister' group of Jews and Freemasons."115 In 1994, he wrote
a book claiming that the European and American governments were controlled by Jews and Freemasons, that the Holocaust was "a big lie," and that
the Jews were not a pure race.

How can one explain Tony Blair's decision to set up an advisory committee on "Islamic extremism," in whichthe Muslim Brotherhood and their propaganda are given a starring role? The decision would appear to confirm that,
within the British government, there are some who are toying with the idea of
making a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood: a stop to terrorism in exchange
for concessions that reinforce their position in the community. This hypothesis is by no means far-fetched. After having served for years as a haven for
the most virulent jihadists, Britain has been obliged, since 9/ii-and even
more so since 7/7-to re-examine its legendary tolerance of Islamists, without, however, subjecting its communitarian (and vote-catching) approach to
similar scrutiny. Over the last few months, mosques that were under Salafist
influence have been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical movement but one that is prepared to give voting instructions and that is considered more "controllable" by the British authorities-but wrongly so. As in
the case of Nicolas Sarkozy in France, who also chose to institutionalize the
Muslim Brotherhood, backing a fundamentalist movement in order to combat terrorism could well prove not only counterproductive, but dangerous.
The Salafist jihadists are far too radical to be restrained by the political Muslim Brotherhood, whom they despise for their "softness" and consider to be
"innovative." The Salafists can only be rendered harmless through thorough
intelligence work, and by politicians who do not feed the fires of religious
identity, which is exactly what the government is doing by choosing to entrust
the future of the Muslim community to the Muslim Brotherhood-an organization that has always known how to take advantage of a state's failures in
order to pursue its goal of conquest. As we shall see, Tariq Ramadan is counting on the Islamization of the European Muslim communities to fulfil the
dreams of his father and grandfather. Yet he still needs to ponder the advice
of Hassan al-Banna, who recommended advancing stealthily, step by step. The loss of his post at Notre Dame University and the ban on his working in
the United States were obstacles in Ramadan's path. By accepting the position of "visiting research fellow" (that is to say, without pay) at the prestigious
St. Antony's College, Oxford, and thanks to his being officially appointed
by the British government to a working group on "Preventing Extremism
Together." Tariq Ramadan can hope to re-establish his legitimacy. And, after
all, he might well hope that the United States will lift its ban on his working
there ... That is, unless decisionmakers, the press, and all those who believe
in Tariq Ramadan's good faith finally take the time not just to read him and
listen to him, but also to decode his message.

In principle, it is not that difficult to see that Tariq Ramadan speaks with two
voices: you have to read him and listen to him, and then you have to decipher
what he is saying. The trouble is that few newspaper reporters have the time or
the space required both to recount his career and to analyze his message. Journalists are, by their nature, drawn to the telling of events, and they prefer to adduce
biographical facts rather than dissect rhetoric, which means that Tariq Ramadan
can often claim that he is attacked on account of his family background or the
people he is in contact with, rather than for what he says. A few magazines have
made the effort-Islam de France and Nunc spring to mind. But their circulation
is such that they are no match for the media attention that Tariq Ramadan commands.' Until now, therefore, he has managed by challenging his interlocutors to
cite a single sentence of his that is in any way compromising. It is no simple matter; as a preacher he has worked hard, almost obsessively, at redefining his terminology, so that a very ordinary sentence can have different meanings according to
the context in which it is spoken. Complex and far-fetched though this may seem,
and contrary to what I thought when I wrote Tirs Croisse [Crossfire], this doublespeak does indeed exist. To dig it out, dissect it and demonstrate how it operates is
not something that can be done in a sentence or two. It is like the works of a Swiss
watch (no play on words intended!) that you have to dismantle wheel by wheel. All
of this takes time. This part of the book is, therefore, entirely devoted to analyzing
the content of Tariq Ramadari s public speeches, newspaper articles, books, and
recorded tapes, so as to put them in perspective and measure their impact.

Triq Ramadan claims to be a "reformer." The term touches on two commonly held notions-that of political reform pursued in a spirit of moderate
renewal, and the Protestant reformation. But these images are confusing to
those who have heard him spoken of as an Islamist. Tariq Ramadan is aware
of the fact and never misses an opportunity to insist on the term "reformer"
being used. Here is the definition that he gives of the word "reformer" in the
glossary published as an annex to the French edition of Etre musulman europeen [To be a European Muslim]: `According to traditional prophecy, a reformer
will appear in each century to renew the Muslims' understanding oftheir religion. It is this renewal-not a renewal ofthe texts themselves but a renewal of
their interpretation-that will give further impetus to Islamic teachings and
allow for their adaptation to the context ofthe time."' Recalling this prophetic
tradition is by no means irrelevant. Obviously, one is expected to think ofhim
in this connection. This messianism with a reformist touch works wonders
with American journalists. In zooo, Time magazine chose to name him as
one who would bring about a renewal of his religion, as an "innovator." Others have gone so far as to speak of Tariq Ramadan as "Islarns Martin Luther
King." Such prophecies may not go down so well in France, where skepticism in regard to religion is widely accepted. But in France, Tariq Ramadan
often compares his reformism to liberation theology, which clears him of any
suspicion of bigotry, even in the eyes of radical left militants who are, for the
most part, anti-clerical. He is seen as a thinker who will reform Islam, make
it more rational, modern and even more secular. This is an objective to which
Tariq Ramadan has never laid claim, but which he takes care not to repudi ate-just as he is careful not to inform the journalists who have not read his
books of the real history of the term "reform' in Islam. Let us fill in the background for him.

In Islam there exist two quite different reformist trends. The first is a liberal reformism that is intent on making Islam more progressive and openminded, more rational and modern-an Islam that is cultural rather than
political. The second is Salafist reformism that is turned towards the past,
towards an Islam based on founding principles, more archaic and more political. To understand what is at stake, one has to grasp the basic features of liberal reformism-contested by the Salafists: