Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan (20 page)

To convince his audience, he likes to say that he is detested by the extremists: "In the eyes of the fundamentalists, I am a traitor!" Without ever specifying who these "fundamentalists" might be. Yet, for him, the term can only
refer to the literalist jihadist Salafists, in other words to Al-Qaeda, Al-Muha- jiroun or Hizb ut-Tahrir; that is to say, to those in favor of immediately waging
holy war to establish a worldwide Islamic dictatorship. From this perspective,
he is indeed more moderate. But does this mean he stands for the modernization of Islam? Many people think so, forgetting that his "middle ground"
has often helped turn events in favor of the Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood, to the detriment of progressive Muslims.

Tariq Ramadan has scoured his imagination to find ways of protecting his
Salafist reformism from accusations of extremism, in particular by tailoring his rhetoric to fit the audience in question. When speaking to a "friendly"
audience, he is forthright in declaring the school of thought to which he
belongs, but he takes pains to avoid being too explicit about it when speaking
to a public that might disapprove. Interviewed by the community radio station Beur FM in November 2003, he admitted adhering to Salafist reformism: "There is the rationalist reformism and the Salafist school, in the sense
that the Salafist tries to remain faithful to basic principles. I belong to the latter; that is to say, there's a certain number of principles that are, for me, fundamental and that, as a Muslim, I refuse to betray."" It is impossible to be
more explicit. Ramadan is indeed a reformist, but a Salafist reformist, in the
fundamentalist tradition (the word salaf in Arabic means "our pious ancestors"). The term "reform' indicates his willingness to renew our understanding of Islam, but the adjective "Salafist" reveals in which direction this reinterpretation is to take us-namely backwards. Tariq Ramadan is prepared
to adopt this stance-except when speaking to the general public, when he
plays on words. On February 25, 2004, less than four months after his interview on Beur FM, he spoke quite a different language in a symposium organized by UNESCO. Painted into a corner by Ghaleb Bencheikh, known as a
representative of the liberal reformist school, Ramadan turned the audience
in his favor by claiming his opponent had falsely accused him: "I am not a
Salafist! `Salafi' means literalist. I am not a literalist." 12 The denial worked so
well that members of the audience took the floor to say how reassuring they
found it ...

In truth, this was a brilliant stroke of trickery. Here we have Tariq Ramadan caught red-handed indulging in doublespeak. Salaf refers to the basic
principles of Islam, not to literalism. And Ramadan is indeed a Salafist, even
if he is not a literalist. He does advise Muslims to be faithful to the spirit of the
text rather than to the precise wording-"what is absolute is not the letter, but
the spirit" 13-but nonetheless considers the precepts formulated in the seventh century, in a specific historical context, to be "in essence eternal truths."
Which means that his non-literalist Salafism is a way of refusing to modernize or rethink principles that date from the seventh century.

The Muslim Brotherhood understood early on that they could pass their fundamentalism off as a form of progress if they were to emphasize the fact
that their puritanism has rid Islam of some patriarchal traditions-traditions
that were not Islamic. Journalists who are not familiar with Islam are often
surprised to hear Tariq Ramadan condemn archaic, sexist practices, such as
female circumcision and forced marriage. If they have heard experts in the
field refer to him as a dangerous fundamentalist, they then assume they have
been lied to and that Ramadan is, in fact, a progressive Muslim. But there is
nothing progressive about his enterprise, even if he contests certain injustices inflicted on women. Tariq Ramadan is devoted to Salafist reformism. It
is just that the basic principles of Islam are less misogynous than one tends to
think. Even if the Koran dates from the seventh century and is taken literally,
it is less sexist than the majority of twenty-first century Islamist groups.

Coming seven centuries after Jesus and twenty centuries after Moses, the
Koran is the first monotheist text that does not view male domination as justified by original sin. An entire sura is devoted to women, basically in order
to grant them rights they did not up to then enjoy. The Koran grants women
the right to inherit half of what a man inherits-which marks considerable
progress at a time when women had no financial autonomy. The Koran also
forbids men from disinheriting the wives they repudiate: "But if you intend
to take one wife in place of another, even if you had given the latter a whole
treasure for a dowry, take not the least bit of it back; would you take it by slan der and a manifest wrong? "14 What is not generally known is that most of the
sexist practices ascribed to Islam are actually patriarchal traditions that many
Muslims refuse to reconsider, despite the more advanced views contained in
the Koran and the Sunna. Forced marriages, for instance, are in total contradiction to the teachings of the Prophet-who authorized a woman to refuse
to marry a man her father had chosen for her. The four schools of jurisprudence of Sunni Islam agree on this, basing their opinion on the following
hadith: "The widow has more rights over her marriage than her tutor, and
virgins cannot be married without their consent." The same intransigence
exists regarding female circumcision-in reality practiced out of respect for
patriarchal traditions, but said to be of religious origin. During his lifetime,
the Prophet attempted to calm the zeal of his fellow citizens. In particular, he
advised a woman whose vocation it was to practice circumcision not to cut too
deep into the clitoris since "it is better for the woman and affords the husband
greater pleasure." There was hardly anyone to listen to him ... Despite the
injunctions of the Koran-and even if it is against the law in many Muslim
countries-female circumcision continues to be practiced on some one million young girls in Egypt every year, as well as on millions of others in Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, and Sudan.,5

As a fundamentalist Muslim who claims to be modern, Ramadan is
opposed to these non-Islamic practices, but has never written a book devoted
to them. He is content to remind his public, in the course of a conference or
an interview, of the extent to which these practices sully Islarri s image and of
the fact that they are not to be attributed to religion. Very often, he does so to
defend Islam against any form of criticism. In 1998, when giving a lengthy
conference on "The Muslim woman' in Senegal, a country in which female
circumcision is widely practiced, he disposed ofthe problem in one sentence:
"Female circumcision is not Islamic."16 Full stop. Nor, as far as I am aware,
has he ever given a lecture on the subject in Sudan, where he has contacts at
the highest levels. Ramadan could take advantage of his status, of the prestige he enjoys in the eyes of Islamists worldwide, to devote all his energy to
a real modernization of Islam. He can sometimes be critical of the Muslim
community and of Muslim traditions, but at heart he remains deeply con servative. The liberal reformers wear themselves out waging this battle; they
dare to call for a real reform of the sexist practices stemming from tradition
or the Koran. But the Salafist reformers devote far less time to the subject.
This difference in the way the two schools invest their energy is no accident.
The modern-minded reformists consider it a priority to put an end to the
injustices committed in the name of their religion, whether sanctioned by
the Koran or not. The Salafist reformers, on the other hand, make strategic
use of the fight against non-Islamic customs to demonstrate that a return to
basic principles can mean progress, and to protect Islam from the criticism
of Westerners. Appearing as champions of anti-traditional reform is one of
their tactics for avoiding criticism, without, in fact, contributing to the evolution of Islam. Even if the status ofwomen could thereby be slightly improved
(circumcisions that cut less deep, fewer forced marriages), one must remember that these concessions are granted in the context of a broad-based return
to an archaic way of life, modeled on standards of morality established in the
seventh century, without any modernization of their basic principles.

Matahed Shabestari, an Iranian intellectual, was right in saying that
Mohammed was a more or less feminist leader. "He did away with some of
the flagrant injustices that penalized women within the limits of the idea of
justice that existed at the time."I7 Unfortunately, the seventh century in which
the Prophet lived was a long way from meeting the standards that today we
consider to be a minimum in terms of human dignity, with the result that
the meagre accomplishments due to the Koran remain locked into the patriarchal context in which the Prophet made his appearance. Sura IV, entitled
"Women," thus reads: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women
because Allah has given them more strength than the other. . . "18 As sacred
texts, the Koran and the Surma rigidified the traditions that they did not condemn; thus dozens of practices now considered barbaric, such as corporal
punishment, the killing of apostates, or the ban on Muslim women marrying
non-Muslim men, were given the stamp of legitimacy for centuries to come.
This marks the limits of Tariq Ramadari s fundamentalist reformism. He no
doubt defends an Islam that is less archaic than the Islam of the Taliban, but
his reform does not go beyond the progress accomplished during the time of the Prophet. He is in favor of ridding Islam of certain discriminatory practices, but not to the extent of challenging the patriarchal principles of the seventh century: "We are not told: `Be Muslim in this twentieth century as were
the Muslims in the seventh century.' Rather: 'In this twentieth century be
respectful of and faithful to the principles of the seventh century."'19

So as to render his faith dynamic and alive, a liberal reformist is ready to
adopt his religious practice in accordance with his times. Applying the principle of choura (consultation) and ijma (consensus), Ghaleb Bencheikh, for
instance, is clearly in favor of bringing up to date, and even rescinding, certain verses of the Koran if they run counter to human dignity as understood
today. Tariq Ramadan by no means shares this approach, which he considers to be a betrayal, even a denial, of Islam. He says he wants to situate the
teachings of the Prophet in their context; but for him "contextualizing" never
means "actualizing." He speaks of "principles that are eternal" but also of
"the relativity of intelligence and their understanding."zo The ambiguity of
such a position provides the preacher with ample room for maneuvering. In
practice, he leaves it to the liberals to implement the real reforms, while treating them as "Occidentalized" behind their backs. For himself, he will forgo
insisting on the strict application of certain principles only if he can thereby
avoid accusations of archaism. Unlike the literalist Salafists, the Salafist
reformers claim the right either to contextualize or to maintain the literal
interpretation of Islamic principle in accordance with their political objectives. But this relative freedom never allows for reinterpreting a principle set
down in the Koran.

Islam decrees death for a Muslim who renounces his faith. It is in the name
of this principle that all the dictatorial regimes based on the sharia have persecuted their political opponents or secular Muslims. In Egypt, for example,
Nassr Abu Zeid and Ibtihal Younes were forced to divorce because Abu Zeid
had been accused of "apostasy." In 2oor, Nawal el-Saadawi, an Egyptian fem inist, was likewise arrested and prosecuted for the same offense. The Ramadan brothers never miss an occasion to castigate the Egyptian government
for not respecting human rights. However, in cases of this sort, one never
hears a squeak from them. How can Tariq Ramadan claim to be fairly tolerant
and open-minded if he does not fight for the right of a man or woman born
into a Muslim family to choose to be Muslim or not? The liberal Muslims do,
referring to two verses of the Koran: the verse that bans proselytizing and the
verse that proclaims "No compulsion in religion." On this basis, they refuse
to accept such practices. Tariq Ramadan is never as explicit, despite the constant pressure coming from his friends on the Left. He did finally concede
the right to change one's religion, but in a half-hearted way, in the course of
an interview, and on one condition: "My point of view, a minority point of
view in historical terms but justified in religious terms ... is to recognize
the right, but to ask of those who change their religion what one asks of all
human beings: Change your soul and your conscience, but do not insult or
cause prejudice to those whom you leave behind. Wherever you go, whoever
it is you forsake, leave them in a noble and dignified manner. "'2

Once again, this declaration is designed to reassure "the outside world."
It comes in reply to a question in the context of an interview; it is couched in
such a manner that the speaker does not appear to be a fundamentalist and
is thus left free to continue with his charm offensive. In other circumstances,
Ramadan is in no hurry to wage war on this disgraceful custom-current in
all Muslim countries-in which the ulemas, often associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, separate couples or kill individuals for apostasy. It is simply not a subject of much interest to him within the Muslim community,
where his energy goes into discrediting the liberal reformers. This was made
painfully dear to Leila Babes, who felt quite isolated when she tried, over
the years, to talk to scholars close to the Muslim Brotherhood (such as Tareq
Oubrou from UOIF), hoping to convince them to encourage this reform:
"Tariq Ramadan does state that Muslims have the right to practice their religion or not. But for him, those who reject the laws founded on texts that are
unequivocal `have abandoned religion,' since they are no longer Muslim."
Leila Babes, however, adds: "The right to change one's belief, like the right to have a different opinion, is considered as the equivalent of apostasy."" To say
nothing of the fact that the apostate is requested to leave Islam "with nobility and dignity," without causing prejudice to Muslims-whom Tariq Ramadan insists on equating with the Islamists. This is an important point. Most
Islamists condemn "apostates" not because they have ceased to be practicing
Muslims, but because they turn against Islamism or because they contribute
to the "desacralization" of Islam by advocating a critical view, both historical
and secular. Tariq Ramadan is well aware of the fact, since he was apprenticed
to the network that led the campaign in England against Salman Rushdie.
He did not agree with the fatwa declared by Khomeini in Iran-the jihadists most virulently opposed to Rushdie, like Omar Bakri, were incensed to
see a Shiite leader steal the show. But Ramadan did, like them, condemn
The Satanic Verses and did approve the campaign against Rushdie. He spoke
of the book as "a stupid and disgraceful provocation." But, as we have seen,
Tariq asks Muslims to renounce Islam "with nobility and dignity," otherwise
they are to be considered apostates. And that, according to the theologians
that counsel him, can mean death. His stand is not all that courageous.