Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan (32 page)

Tariq Ramadan has often set his European or Anglo-Saxon interlocutors at
ease by insisting that he warns Muslims against the temptation of defining
their identity in opposition to the West and Western values. In reality, what
he means is that, for him, Islamic civilization is so superior to Western civilization that he finds it unbearable that Islam should envisage defining itself
in terms of a reaction to the West, instead of relying on its own principles and
its own values. He does, in effect, warn his followers against the temptation
of "demonizing" the West: "Even if the whole world were to caricature Islam,
God has not granted us the right to caricature the other side, nor to ridicule
their history or the stands they take."5 Rather than "the other side," it would
be more accurate to say "our adversaries." For if Ramadan makes a point of
not caricaturing the various values that the West (according to him) represent, it is simply in order to reject them one by one.

Several of his lectures are devoted to the theme of "Islam and the West."
In many regards, his perspective is close to that of the author of The Clash of
Civilizations, beginning with the unshakeable belief that at stake is civilization itself, and that there exist very different civilizations. 'A civilization takes
the form of a system of values, a system of principles which all derive from
particular traits."' So what, according to Tariq Ramadan, are the "traits" that
supposedly define the West? He speaks of a triptych-"individualism, rationalism and modernism'-that make ofthe West a civilization turned towards
secularism, individual liberty and progress. On the face of it, this description
is not intended as negative, but simply descriptive: As yet, nothing in what
I have said points to a negative characteristic. ,7 However, these traits soon turn out to be excesses that are to be combated; for Ramadan then lapses
into an uninhibited apocalyptic description of the decadence of the West, on
a level with the tirades of fundamentalist Christians. Dominique Avron, an
assistant professor of history at the University of Montpellier-III, analyzed
the situation with great perspicacity in an article for Nunc: "Tariq Ramadan
hesitates between the image of a West in the throes of disillusion and a decadent West, even though he claims that he is unwilling to go as far as Serge
Latouche, who published variations on Spengler's theme of the decline of the
West."8 But in fact Tariq Ramadan does quite frequently cite Latouche, who
is also his friend, in his lectures. The specter of decadence is out and abroad.
And for him, that is good news: the West's decadence foretells the renewal of
Islam. Which will take place with the help of all men of good will, including
Westerners. For Tariq Ramadan is not sectarian. He defends a dualistic view
of the world, but he is ready to make common cause with anyone prepared
to fight alongside him. To the extent that his "clash" is not really the clash of
Islam with the West, but that of fundamentalism with secularism.

First accusation against the West: excessive secularization. After having
defined secularization objectively as "a process whereby the public sphere
is freed of the influence and authority of religion," he warns against what
he describes as "the negation of religion' that results when secularization
is pushed too far: "Excessiveness has turned something positive into something negative. We have freed ourselves from religion, and finally, by taking
it too far, have come to deny the reality of religion in the education we give
to our children and the people."9 This view is common to many of the supporters of an "open secularism," but it is quite a different matter coming
from a preacher who is such a fundamentalist and so politically-minded, and
in whose eyes the ideal society is one marked by "reference to God and his
revelation." 10 He berates, as well, "the promotion ofthe individual that culminates in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man." This same extremism has led to a form of individualism that he equates with selfishness: "The
process that has granted autonomy to individuals has, when overdone, pro duced individualism." Or again, "promoting the individual is a good thing,
but lapsing into individualism is dangerous." Here we have an adroit way
of condemning individual liberties and the right to free choice. Permissiveness and individualism are also the accusations that Christian fundamentalists launch against the right to abortion, denounced as egoism. Ramadan displays the same bitterness. It is not expressed in a wholesale condemnation of
freedom of choice that would be counterproductive (although he is adamant
in defending freedom of choice when it comes to the wearing of the Islamic
headscarf); rather, he tends to present individualism in caricatural terms as
libertarian excess: "Liberty, which means the freedom to make one's own
choices, has taken on such importance that, when pushed to the extreme, it
results in people losing their bearings. It becomes moral permissiveness.""

"Who can question the validity of modernity?" Tariq Ramadan declared in
the introduction to his book on the Confrontation of Civilizations." It sounds
reassuring. Until one discovers that it is, in effect, a confession-for it is the
very question that Ramadan himself has dared to introduce. As always, he
has recourse to a slight shift of meaning, whereby the rejection of modernity
will turn out to be a middle-of-the-road solution. Here he makes a point of
distinguishing between "modernity" and "modernism' so as to berate Western modernism as excessive and to propose in its place a counter-model:
Islamic modernity. Whereas modernity simply means living in one's epoch
and immediate environment, modernism means advocating a progressivism that implies liberty and a secularism considered to be incompatible with
Islamic modernity. Jacques Jomier, a Dominican priest and expert on Islam,
summed up the preacher's position in one cogent sentence: "It is not a question for him of modernizing Islam, but of Islamizing modernity."13 Ramadan
is willing to be modern, provided that he can use the advantages of modernity
to combat modernism, which he equates with Westernization.

He urges Muslims to distinguish carefully between "modernity" and
"the Western way of interpreting modernity,"14 while stipulating: "We will
never be modernist to the point of saying `be done with principles,' so essential are principles to set us on the right path."15 In another lecture on
"Islam and the West" he insisted: "We can live modernity, while remaining
faithful to our revelation."16 The declaration does not appear to say much,
unless one considers what it is that Tariq Ramadan includes in the expression "remaining faithful to our revelation." According to him, modernity
and progress must come to a halt when they contravene the principles
set down in the seventh century, and all attempts to adapt them entail an
excess of progressivism and modernism that betrays a Westernized conception of the world. One understands better what he's getting at when listening to his diatribe against "the way Westerners live their modernity."
What does he give as examples to avoid? The break-up of families, the fact
of accepting homosexuals as priests, and even androgyny, which, according
to him, is on the rise ... He criticizes, in particular, those who think that
the Catholic Church should keep up with the times by denying Sodom and
Gomorrah, "which brand homosexuality a curse."" He also condemns as
excesses typical of "modernism' the cult of leisure and the taste for distraction, by which one becomes "the slave of one's own freedom, the slave of
one's moral relativism, the slave of one's own pleasures."" An indication
of just how fundamentalist his conception of "Islamic modernity" really is.
However, a dose of anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist rhetoric is enough
for him to maintain ties with people on the Left: "By dint of giving preference to rationality, efficiency and productivity in the name of progress,
our societies are on the brink of disaster," he explains in his book The Confrontation of Civilizations." An anti-globalist reader might well take this as
an attack on ruthless capitalism. Yet it is not productivity at all costs that
Ramadan criticizes, but the evolution of the family: "Islamic principles are
in total contradiction to the process of which we have just spoken [the evolution of family patterns]. If modernity is to be achieved at this price, it is
obvious that the Koran and the Surma refuse point blank the realization of
this kind of modernism." Note that it is not only "modernism," but "modernization" that is in itself a problem.

Not only is Tariq Ramadan anti-modernist, but he is anti-progressive
as well. He is against any form of progress that is contrary to tradition and religion: "It is the autonomy that comes with progress that uproots the individual, confusing him by opening up all the possible choices that liberty
provides, leaving him with a future that has no memory of the past."20 Furthermore, he tells us: "Progress that is without roots is progress that knows
no limits; for it is roots that give it direction." And he has only to conclude
with a citation from Albert jacquard in order to explain how it is that philosophers-moreover Christian philosophers-have shown that "progress has reached the point where we have progress without conscience,
and without conscience we are left without landmarks. "21 This rhetoric is
one of the classics, also used by Christian fundamentalists campaigning
in the name of ethics against abortion, euthanasia, and scientific discoveries that challenge Judeo-Christian morality. Tariq Ramadan, who often uses
the term "ethics," also advocates a form of progress that takes place within
the framework of the sacred. He contrasts the "progress without conscience" typical of the West, with "the progress guided by revelation" that
characterized the splendor of Muslim civilization: "We cannot conceive of
progress that runs counter to revelation, only a progress that is guided by
revelation."22 He even speaks of "Islamic progress." As a matter of principle, he refuses to conceive of Islamic progress as a mere refusal of progress
as it is exists in the West. In concrete terms, his notion of "progress guided
by revelation" turns out to be the antithesis of Western modernism. Which
does not mean that Tariq Ramadan is not modern in the sense of refusing
all the advantages of modernity. One can be a fundamentalist and still be in
the vanguard of progress, especially if one makes use of technology to combat modernism.

As a preacher bent on proselytizing, Ramadan needs computers, the
Internet, and satellites to spread his faith. He cannot afford to do without
these assets, but claims that he refuses the ideology that comes with them.
In other words, he recommends being selective, so that exchange is consistently in one direction only: towards Islamization and never towards Westernization. "Computers are not of interest to us; they are capable of having us
lose our sense of morality and our ethical sense because of all the invitations
to moral perdition that accompany them."" On the other hand, he has noth ing against harnessing technology to the cause of the dawa: "Computers that
can spread our message more effectively, that can make our work more productive, that can increase our capacity to edify people-of course they are of
interest to us." Everyone will have understood what is meant by "edify"-the
spreading of Islarri s message through cyberspace.

Ramadan is not a separatist when it comes to methods, since he wants
to succeed in propelling the world towards "more Islam'; but this modernity in terms of method should not be confused with the end objectives,
which are clearly archaic. And yet ... At certain moments in the course of
his talk on "Islam and the West" he comes close to agreeing with his friend
Serge Latouche, who distrusts even the instruments of modernity, such as
computers or television. It is best expressed in Ramadan's own words:

Serge Latouche said one thing that had a great effect on me and that I haven't
stopped thinking about to find a solution. He said: "Dear Tariq, you re a dreamer. .
.." When, for instance, I said to him: "You have to select instruments and make use
of them," he replied: "It's not entirely true, I don't entirely agree with you, because
in the instrument itself there's already an ideology." And that, that made me stop
and think, really.

Ramadan is unsure whether or not he can use TV as a propaganda tool
without risking being contaminated by it: "One could use TV to be educational, and Latouche replied: `You're dreaming. With television, given the way
it's been set up, there's something about it that communicates the ideology of
those who invented it. And when we're up against that, when we watch international television or television by satellite, what's to be done?' ,21

The Taliban found the solution: they forbade it. As for the Iranian mullahs, they wage war against dissident Internet sites and satellites capable of
influencing Iranians from the outside. Even though he claims to be antimodernist, Tariq Ramadan is close to being simply anti-modernity. He says
he is seeking a way to adapt these tools to the reform that he proposes. But in
the end his opinion leaves no room for doubt: "Even if you are not in Europe,
these means of communication render you submissive to Western ways of
thinking."25 It's what he calls "colonialism via information."

For Tariq Ramadan, globalization is a front for a vast initiative to spread Western colonialism: "Globalization is another name for Westernization."26 He
then presents the ongoing colonialism as imperialism on several levels: judicial and political, but also economic, technical, informational and cultural.
Each of the conclusions he comes to could well be shared by a militant antiglobalist, sincerely devoted to resisting hegemony and the forces of standardization at work in the world, but only if one puts aside the fact that Ramadan s
criticisms are based not on a refusal of hegemony-which he approves of
when it is Islamic hegemony-but on hatred for the rationalist, progressive
and modernist project that Western influence represents.