Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan (24 page)

Even the most reactionary and anti-feminist movements have always needed
women to campaign against ... women. In the United States, a fundamentalist Christian movement, named the Promise Keepers, openly calls for a
return to masculine domination; and yet it is not made up solely of men.
The activists' wives have been granted the right to organize a "women s commission' to help their husbands re-establish masculine domination in the
name of Christianity. Anti-feminist movements have always worked this
way. The Islamist movements are no exception. Even an Islamist as radical as Mawdudi, the father of Pakistani fundamentalism, when he saw a war
of independence looming, preached that women should be taught to fight
alongside men.25 He did, however, stipulate that they were to be sent back to
their proper place (i.e., taking care of the household) once the war was won.
By so doing, he demonstrated the respect for women that supposedly distinguishes Islamic civilization from the West: "The difference between us and
the Occident is that Occidental civilization gives women rights only if they
become likenesses of men and take on men's duties. Islamic civilization honors and respects women by permitting them to remain women."26

It is almost laughable when you consider that the fundamentalist Christian groups in the West say almost the same thing. For example, the militant anti-abortion groups also claim they are defending the right of women
to rediscover their "true nature"-that is to say maternity-in the name of
a pro-life feminism that is resolutely anti-feminist.27 This way of disguising anti-feminism as a means by which women can adopt a feminism that
respects "women's nature" is a classic tactic, invoked whenever a totalitarian
or fundamentalist movement wants to put a stop to women s liberation. And
this is exactly the direction that Tariq Ramadan's "Islamic feminism' takes.
His argument comes down to promoting an "Islamic femininity" which, he
asserts, is founded on "the dignity and the autonomy of the feminine being,
equal [to men] in law and complementary in nature."28 "Which certainly
doesn t mean that, to be a liberated woman, one must of necessity resemble the Western model of liberation. ,29 Womens liberation in the West is clearly
seen as a model to reject. And then he adds: "We must introduce a new model
of feminine presence; a presence that is in her very being and not her appearance; in her intelligence and not her charm."

This way of presenting European or American feminism as simply a feminism of charm does have one thing in its favor: it is a change from that other
anti-feminist discourse that berates feminists for being prudes because they
campaign against the treatment ofwomen as sexual objects! Taking the opposite tack, Tariq Ramadan attacks feminism as a movement working for looser
moral standards, in the domain of sexuality in particular. That is what he
objects to, but he cannot be open about it. Instead, he prefers to caricature the
Women's Liberation Movement the better to discredit it: "We are not about
to get involved in the sort of thing that has happened in European countries,
where women have become feminists in opposition to men, and where some
of them refuse even to greet a man because he is the enemy. We don t want to
have anything to do with that approach."" One can find the same caricature,
almost to the letter, ten years earlier in a speech by Soraya Djebbour, a teacher
active in the womens commission of the National Front, who also wanted
women to rediscover the virtues of masculine domination.' Yet one must
admit that Tariq Ramadan is far more gifted than the French extreme Right
when it comes to passing off his anti-feminism as feminism. Nobody in
France takes seriously the "feminist pro-life" movement or the "feminism' of
the National Front that purports to help women accede to dignity and maternity. On the other hand, the European press regards as credible the groups
close to Tariq Ramadan that claim they want to defend the right of women to
wear the headscarf and behave with propriety in the name of "Islamic feminism," little realizing that this feminism is to be used as a weapon against
feminists, including those coming from a Muslim culture who have been
treated as "Westernized" if they campaign for true equality between men
and women. Tariq Ramadan makes no secret of the fact. He berates Taslima
Nasreen32 for her "simplistic, totally Occidentalized rhetoric." 33 On the other
hand, just consider the women that Tariq Ramadan cites as models: Zaynab
al-Ghazali or his mother, Wafa al-Banna. In terms of feminism, Ramadan's objective is to have women take part in the Islamic renaissance alongside
men: "We must build together an Islamic society, a society of morality, oftrue
beings and spirituality."34

This feminist element is all the more precious in that it promotes an antifeminist agenda in the heart of Europe, at a time when observers reproach
Islamists for their sexism. As Ramadan explained to the faithful: "There are
lots of people who will listen when it is a Muslim woman because it is a Muslim woman speaking, many more so than if it were a man. And this is part
of our influence here in Europe ."3s It is from this perspective, and this perspective only, that one should interpret his obsession with educating women:
because Islamic education is the only way to turn them into effective Islamic
militants. On his courses, education is always linked to being effective as an
activist. "We need women who are cultivated, who read widely, who understand things. We want women who can say `I know what's happening to the
men and women of such and such a country. -3' The point of learning is not
to become free and autonomous, but to join the rank and file in the service of
the Islamist cause: "You should be human beings who remind us of our spirituality, who guide the community and take part in its reform." ,37 It was with
this idea in mind that the European Fatwa Council-in a book with a preface written by Tariq Ramadan-advised husbands to encourage their wives
to attend "Islamic seminars":

It's all the more urgent in that, on the one hand, forces hostile to Islam are constantly at work, mobilizing women in this area; and on the other hand, the women
called "secular," the atheists and the Marxists, are active night and day within Muslim countries trying to cut the community off from the true reality of their religion,
propagating concepts that are foreign to Islam and combating the true preachers of
Islam that are calling for reform, revival and renaissance.38

Like Mawdudi, Ramadan believes that the revolution cannot succeed
with men alone, and he has welcomed women into the ranks of Islamism:
"In all the countries I have visited, the number of women in almost all the
Muslim movements quadrupled."39 And he cited the example of Pakistan,
where "the mobilization of women is even greater than that of men." But rest assured, these women are closely supervised: "The people in charge tell
you that women have taken things in hand; they are intelligently trained and
instructed in religion."40 Phew! One might be tempted to think that their
taking part in the revolution would liberate them. But not at all. Women are
asked to do their bit without ever forgetting that they are women; they will be
relegated to the status that men have assigned them once the objectives have
been met. Their participation will in no way serve to liberate them, but only
to help reconstruct a society in which masculine domination is reinforced.

In a series of cassettes devoted to "The Muslim woman and her duty to
participate," Tariq Ramadan made a point of defining the limits of women s
participation. He determined the sort of militant activities that are compatible with women s natural capacities and their duty to remain chaste.41
According to him, women are, by nature, equipped to act in three areas:
solidarity, education and culture. By solidarity, he means in particular the
fight against prostitution: "Dont be the judges of these lost women, but
act as their sisters and help them."42 To save these women from a life of
debauchery, he advises reaching out to them through activities "that will
have them understand the meaning of faith." The important thing is "to
communicate with these young girls who have lost their way, which is not
possible for the Brothers." But the mission that Tariq Ramadan considers a
priority concerns "the social education and schooling of these young girls,
but also their Islamic education."

The idea that women are to be educated so as to take part in Islamic
reform is by no means new. The leading theorist ofthe question is none other
than Hassan al-Banna. Tariq Ramadan never misses an opportunity to pay
homage to him when urging women to go to school so as to be more effective militants: "I come from a family in which my grandfather, every time
he set up a school for men, provided one for women as well .... It was an
obsession with him. You cant create an Islamic society with only half of the
population. ,43 As early as 1944, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood had,
in effect, constituted a feminine branch: the Muslim Sisters. Their mission?
"Fight against unwelcome initiatives, absurdities, lies, false ideas and bad
`'
habits that circulate among women," influenced, of course, by the West.4 In theory, Tariq Ramadan advocates an Islamic feminism that is neither traditionalist nor seen as a way of countering the Occident. In practice, his feminism is exactly the same as Hassan al-Banna's. Ramadan, moreover, explains
that "colonization permitted and proposed models of women's behavior that
in no way corresponded to Islamic principles." 45 Today it is no longer a question of combating political colonization, but cultural colonization, Tariq
Ramadan's mania: "In our society, there has developed a feminine discourse
that borrows ideas from outside our sphere of reference; you can see young
women who have become lax in their behavior and their faith, and in their
relation to God." And he warns: "Woe betide those who speak the language of
liberation, but who shut themselves away, forgetting God.""

Tariq Ramadan is willing to admit that men and women are equal "in the
eyes of God," but not at the social level. Yet when listening to him quote this
magnificent hadith issued by the Prophet, one could well believe they were:
"He who treats his daughter no differently from his son will go to paradise."
Unfortunately, the equality holds true only until puberty, at which point women's education must be adapted to their "capacities" and to the complementary role that Ramadan intends them to play in social and political life. Ramadan is quite prepared actively to support women who demand "equal pay for
equal work," since the slogan is, after all, in line with the Koran; but he does
not agree that women should have access to all types of employment, nor that
they should succeed professionally in certain areas; in brief, he is not in favor
of their having "equal jobs." 'Allowing women to work does not mean opening up all types of work to them," the preacher has warned in his lectures.'
The most important thing is not to choose a type of work that runs counter
to their natural inclination, that is to say the chastity that is required of them:
As to working, women have a right: that they should not have to provide
for their livelihood. But this does not mean that work is forbidden. Women
have this right, but in accordance with their capabilities and their aptitude to
play a role in society; if the rules are, as for men, rules that respect individual decency, then it is perfectly possible for a woman to take part in social life and acquire a civic education."48 Later, Tariq Ramadan insists on defining a
woman s "work" more as "social commitments" or "participation." In reality
he thinks ofwomen s work outside the home as a fill-in job, preferably a mere
social occupation; something in the way of a service that a woman can render
the community in accordance with her "capabilities."

This type of discourse comes strikingly close to that of the Catholic fundamentalists. They, too, have nothing against women working, but consider
that a woman's natural disposition suits her almost "hormonally" for charity
or social work; in any case, suits her for social activities that are but an extension of her role in the family. To be sure, they do not openly say that they want
to keep women in subaltern jobs as assistants; they prefer to present it as a
way of orienting women in accordance with their natural inclinations. This
subterfuge, which is pure sexism, is also one of the classic tactics of National
Front anti-feminist rhetoric. Claudie Lesselier in L'extreme droite et lesfemmes
[Women and the Radical Right] puts it this way: "The statements of doctrine
and the `worldview' to be found in the theoretical and cultural magazines of
the extreme Right invariably begin by recalling a few fundamental principles:
nature (and on occasion divine law) has assigned different functions to men
and women that are hierarchical and/or complementary."49 Tariq Ramadan
does the same when he distinguishes between employments that are fit for
women and those that are not: "There are many areas in which women can
be active, including medicine, social work, community work, or community
service. We are not going to go to the lengths you sometimes see in Western
society and say that, in order to prove they are liberated, women must become
masons or truck drivers [the audience laughs]. For us, that makes no sense.
We're not going to be so stupid as to say: prove you're liberated, be a truck
driver, drive a truck, whore [sic] you'll show that .... Take a job in the areas for
which you are fitted, which belong to you, once you have found the right balance in your family life. "'o

I shall not dwell on Ramadan s use of the word "whore," which came up
suddenly when he was talking of women in men s jobs, when he is never vulgar in his lectures; nor on his choice ofthe metaphor "truck driver," traditionally used to caricature lesbians. Tariq Ramadan s audience knew very well what he thought of women who took jobs without regard to their "nature"
and their obligation to act with "modesty." It is in the name of those two
requisites that Saudi Arabia encourages men and women to receive different educations. Article 15 of Royal Policy stipulates: "The state is responsible for the education of girls and for providing them, as far as possible, with
the means to satisfy the needs of all those of school age, so that they will
have access to those disciplines that correspond to their natural aptitudes."
Despite the obvious handicap of their "natural aptitudes," and despite the
many barriers created by the government, women nonetheless represent 55
percent of the nations university graduates.51 Unfortunately this rate of success is not reflected in the job market because of provisions that prevent them
from occupying positions that would not be in keeping with their duty to act
"modestly"-that is to say, any employment that might bring them into oneto-one contact with men.52 Thus, those women who do manage to engage in
a profession do so in a closed-off environment, or one reserved for women
only: banks and universities that cater to women, health care and teaching
exclusively for women and young girls, etc. In theory, Tariq Ramadan, like
all the Muslim Brothers who have held a grudge against Saudi Arabia since
the Gulf War, denounces this treatment of women, their segregation and the
ban on women driving a car as "malfunctions" characteristic of Saudi society. He even goes so far as to speak of "men s behavior that is nothing short
of perverse."" Yet it is important to understand that these criticisms are not
aimed at sexual segregation per se, since Saudi Arabia is close to the model
advocated by the preacher ever since he was in Switzerland. Hassan al-Banna
himself considered it indispensable "to revise the educational methods for
young girls" so as "to distinguish between such methods and those appropriate for boys at all levels of schooling."54