Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan (29 page)

Apparently the five pillars of Islam that are to do with matters of faith are not
enough for Ramadan, who added a further four pillars (all of them political)
as non-negotiable constituents of Muslim identity:32

i. Faith: "living our spirituality and practicing our religion in full"

2. Comprehension: "learning our religion'

3. Education: "being able to inform and educate our children in the message"

4. Action: "being able to act in the name of our faith."

In appearance, this proposition seems harmless. It shocked none of those
readers who saw him as a modern, secular Muslim. No doubt they would
have been more intrigued had they also heard the cassette version of this
presentation on Muslim identity, in which Tariq Ramadan stated: "If a society denies me one of these four features, I will resist it, I will fight it."33
Enough to make one want to reread more closely these famous four pillars that are supposed to determine Muslim identity, and which are to
be respected if a war against the Muslim community as a whole is to be
avoided.

The first problem concerning this definition is that it eliminates any
possibility of a Muslim living his faith in a private and individual fashion,
for a good Muslim must commit himself in the name of Islam. This conception of Islam, which is, of necessity, collective, and thus communitarian,
is not in itself shocking. It only becomes so in the hands of radical Muslims. All Islamists advocate a communitarian form of faith, which has the
advantage of providing them with low-level recruits. In Algeria, the Islamic
Salvation Front began by urging Muslims to pray collectively and not in
their homes, even on days other than Friday; it subsequently began using
these outside prayer meetings to deliver a far more political message. In
Ramadan s case as well, "being able to act in the name of our faith" quickly
becomes a political issue: "You cannot tell me that, in order to be a good
Frenchman, I must remain a spiritual being who does not act in society."34
Acting in society means acting politically. Harmless enough, except that
it implies resisting a state that does not allow proselytizing-especially in
school and in some public places, above all when the third pillar of Muslim
identity stipulates that one must be able to "inform and educate our children in the message."

Such a statement, coming from a preacher from the Muslim Brotherhood,
a movement that has prospered by using Islamic education as a means of
propaganda, has far-reaching consequences. It is about the idea that there
are Muslim children and not simply children of Muslims, so that any interference in the education given to these children is taken as an infringement
of their Muslim identity. This concern with educating one's children without any intrusion on the part of the Republic is not only the result of exile,
it is also an obsession common to all fundamentalists. All of them dream
of raising their children safe from the influence of the modern world; all of
them, starting with the fundamentalists of the American religious Right,
are determined to maintain segregation and the teaching of creationism in
their private fundamentalist universities. Tariq Ramadan himself is not an
advocate of a separate educational system for Muslims. Not that he looks
down on the idea, but he fears that providing a uniquely Muslim education would not produce militants adept at Islamizing their milieu. As he
explained on one of his cassettes: An Islamic education cannot do without instruction in the Koran and the tradition of the Prophet (peace and
blessings on his name), but neither can it do without instruction concerning the immediate environment in which we live and in which we must be
active."35 It is important to remember that Ramadan is an Islamist charged
with dawa in Europe. If you lose sight of his objective, namely to train as
many Muslims as possible-wherever they might be-as agents of Islam,
it becomes impossible to understand why there is always such a huge difference between the extreme rigour of his Islam and the very open-minded
way in which he goes about spreading it. He encourages Muslims to enter
the state schools, where they will learn to know their milieu and to influence their comrades, rather than having them educated apart from society
in private schools. That is why he has no trouble replying to reporters who
ask him if he urges the faithful to boycott certain classes: "The situation
is clear; they must attend because it's the law. It's not open to discussion, we're not going to begin tampering with school schedules," he declared in
Le Monde des Debats.36

That does not mean that he will not do his utmost to limit the school's
influence as far as possible. Nor will he allow the school program to take
precedence over Muslim principles, in particular with regard to sports and
biology. Muslim children are not to boycott biology classes; they are to assert
their disagreement by questioning, criticizing and finally refusing to accept
the theory of evolution on the basis of their "complementary" Islamic education-in this case thanks to the "complementary" courses, at which they
learn that men are not descended from apes but were created by God. This
is spelled out in a footnote to Muslims in a Secular Society: "School biology courses can include teachings that run counter to Islamic principles.
Moreover, the same is true of history and philosophy courses. This does
not mean that students should be excused from attending classes. It is preferable by far to provide these youngsters with supplementary instruction
that teaches them Islarns replies to the problems that arise. That will be a
true source of enrichment."37 As far as enrichment is concerned, this recommendation is an outright invitation to propaganda and to the refusal
of dialogue, all the more disturbing in that it is applicable not only to biology, but also to history, philosophy and physical education. It is made even
more explicit in the published proceedings of the symposium "Muslims
in French-speaking countries," edited under the direction of Tariq Ramadan in 2001. Among the strategies recommended by the steering committee that he headed, it is said that "education is a domain in which the tactics employed must be extremely rigorous." The French-speaking Muslims
were urged to "keep watch over scholastic programs and prevent the transmission of values not in accord with our principles"; to "set up a framework in which the official program would be combined with Islamic education (whether admitted as such or not)"; and finally, to "gain a footing
within the state schools by profiting from the students' free time to give
complementary religious instruction."38 Ramadari s supporters could, for
instance, find material for their "complementary instruction" in the work
published by Tawhid, L'homme descent-il du singe? Un point de vue musulman sur la theorie de l'evolution [Is Man Descended from the Apes? A Muslim View of
the Theory of Evolution], which argues for creationism and denies evolution.

For his followers understand perfectly well what is meant by this directive, even if it is discreetly given in a footnote. It sometimes happens that,
despite the precautions he takes, Tariq Ramadari's instructions come to the
attention of the public at large. It is this passage in particular that alerted
the teachers of the college where he taught, in particular his biology colleagues. But he sidestepped the issue by arguing that the suspicion was
misplaced (see Chapter 2). On occasion, he also avoids this (for him) awkward subject by simply lying outright. In December 2003, in the midst of
a heated debate with Jean-Francois Kahn on the TV program Cultures et
dependences, he could find no way out when Kahn asked him point blank
whether he belonged to the group of Muslim theologians who accepted
evolution theory. That day, as was often the case when on TV, Ramadan preferred to agree, rather than express his true convictions in front of the general public.

On his cassettes, not only does he advocate complementary instruction
as an antidote to the theory of evolution, but Ramadan quite explicitly encourages girls not to take part in certain sports: "Women are forbidden to engage
in sports in which their bodies are disclosed to men."39 Is it any surprise,
then, that young girls refuse to take part in some sports, in particular swimming? Ramadan himselftakes it for granted. In his eyes, it is up to the secular
institutions to be reformed or to develop Islamic activities. And, once again,
he refers to his model, Iran, where Rafsanjani has organized Islamic sports
for women! This conception of education is alarming when it comes from a
preacher; but it is terrifying in the case of a schoolteacher. The time has come
to take stock of the consequences of the growing influence of a preacher-professor like Tariq Ramadan over young Muslims.

In the testimony given to the Stasi Commission (a government-appointed
commission that, in 2003, held extensive hearings on the status of secularism
in the French state school system) and in the ensuing debate on the meaning
of secularism, many teachers spoke of the increasing difficulties they were
encountering when it came to studying the Holocaust or evolution.

All French Islamists who have the slightest sense of strategy claim to respect
the principle of secularism. Amar Lasfar, rector of the Lille Mosque and an
activist in the Union of Islamic Organizations of France (the association that
encourages young girls to go to school wearing the Islamic headscarf), made
a point of affirming: "I am a thousand percent for secularism, because secularism means tolerance, and what I want is tolerance."4° However Soheib
Bencheikh, the mufti of Marseille, is not entirely convinced that these declarations from the staff of the UOIF are sincere: "They speak of dialogue only
when they run into trouble with the laws of the Republic concerning secularism. I myself have heard Amar Lasfar say in a meeting of young people that
`Islam and secularism will never see eye to eye."'41 Another example is that of
Yamin Makri ofthe Tawhid bookshop. When questioned by the press, he said
he was someone who fought for secularism: "Secularism is today the best
guarantee for protecting our community," he declared in 2001.42 He gave this
interview only a few days after the Union of Young Muslims, closely associated with the Tawhid bookshop, organized a meeting in honor of Hani Ramadan, the sworn enemy of "secular torturers." And what about that other leading light of the UOIF and the Tawhid bookshop? What does Tariq Ramadan
have to say? The same thing, of course. He is, perhaps, not i,ooo percent in
favor, like Lasfar; but he is at least loo percent: "Five years ago I was only 99
percent in favor of the French version of secularism. Today, I think that Islam
is totally compatible with the separation of Church and state."43 Tariq Ramadan is not telling the truth. One year after this interview of January 2003,
he was still not loo percent in favor of secularism, since he declared: "The
Islamic headscarf cannot as such be banned from school."44

Tariq Ramadan is also accomplished at lying by omission. Whathe forgets
to say is that he is loo percent in favor ofhis own interpretation of secularism.
Let us look at what he was saying on his cassettes when he was only 99 percent
in agreement with secularism-especially on the cassettes where the Muslims under his guidance are introduced to the concept of secularism. What are theytold? That secularism is a remnant ofcolonialism, a model that they must
get around in order to remain good Muslims! "The model of secularism that
has made European societies what they are and that they have even forced on
their colonies ... well, as forus, we must select in that model what will allowus
to remain faithful to our founding principles."45 It is not a question of selecting from the religious principles those that can be made compatible with
secularism, but the reverse. Moreover, Tariq Ramadan is adamant: Muslims
must be actively engaged in the campaign to have secularism develop in such
a way that it coincides with their fundamentalist vision of a political Islam:
"The state cannot fail to pay attention when the people change, so we must
change the people," he explained on his cassette "Islam and secularism."46 On
this score, he is even more radical than certain UOIF theologians; at any rate,
more radical than the most moderate ofthem, Tareq Oubrou.

The Union of Islamic Organizations of France pays only the scantest
attention to what Tareq Oubrou has to say, but it is more than willing for
him to be its press spokesman, so as to give the impression of being moderate and respectful of secularism. Tareq Oubrou defends the idea of a "minority sharia" that is totally compatible with the secular principle. Unfortunately for civil peace, Tareq Oubrou enjoys far less success among French
Islamists than does Tariq Ramadan, who is totally opposed to this proposal.
The two men have often had occasion to present their differing points of
view, in particular on the courses held in Lyon for the Young Muslims close
to UOIF. One of these courses provided the material for a cassette entitled
"Islam d'Europe: entre religion minoritaire et message universel" ["European Islam: Between minority religion and universal message"].47 Listening
to it, you realize to what extent Tareq Oubrou serves as a foil for Tariq Ramadan. Oubrou is a man of learning, well versed in the science of Islam, a true
scholar. His language is on a par with the loftiness of his thought: full of jargon, highly specialized, practically incomprehensible. After several minutes
of tedious verbosity, Tariq Ramadan had no difficulty in recapturing the audience's attention and making short work of Oubrou's proposal, even though
the proposal in question was both theologically and politically reasonable, the
idea being to think of the West as "a land of the secular," for which the sharia must be revised in accordance with its minority status. For Ramadan, Europe
is not a "land of the secular" but, on the contrary, "a land to bear witness"
(dar el-shahada)-in other words, a land suitable for proselytizing. He abhors
the idea of a sharia that would grant certain rights to a minority. Politely but
firmly, after having agreed with Oubrou as to the origins of the problem, he
dismisses out of hand the political consequences that Oubrou draws, refusing to accept "rights granted to a minority that would be the rights of the
dominated." 48 The minority status "is only a stage and we must go beyond,"
he explained, sending a thrill through the young audience in attendance.