Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan (33 page)

Ramadan begins by condemning political and legislative colonization-a
process that is still under way, since the term includes any "influence" exercised by a Western country on a Muslim nation. Even today, several decades
after decolonization, Tariq Ramadan considers that colonization continues
to exist, so long as the constitutions and the laws of Muslim countries have
not been entirely purged of any Western influence. "If I [the colonizer] depart
from you, but leave in your keeping the rules and regulations of my everyday life, I am still in your house."27 Ramadan not only complains of the judicial confusion created by the former presence of Western regimes in certain
countries. As a way of eliminating this colonial past, he rejects any provisions
that recall in any manner whatsoever a "Western' conception of law. "Some
Muslim countries today are turning to the French, Swiss and German constitutions to find inspiration for their own laws."28 Which he finds shocking.

Iftomorrow Morocco or Algeria were to adopt measures granting a greater
degree of secularization, in particular with regard to their family codes,
Ramadan would surely consider it a symptom of a "Western conception of
the law" and therefore a form of colonization. In his eyes, every judicial step
towards modernity represents colonial intrusion. When Jacques Neirynck
asked him whether Tunisia and Turkey could serve as "models for a future
Islam," he replied "absolutely not" and added: "The laws that are applied in those countries are remnants of the colonial epoch.'29 Disingenuousness
has here given way to the rewriting of history. During the colonial period,
the occupying nations rarely modified the habits of the occupied countries.
They maintained most traditional provisions in the name of that cultural dif-
ferentialism so dear to Ramadan. The secularization that the preacher condemns is the result not of colonization, but of the decisions taken by the governments of countries that became independent, such as that of Bourgiba in
Tunisia. Turkish secularization is even less the result of colonization, in that
it has never been colonized! At the head of the Ottoman Empire for several
centuries, Turkey has always been a colonizing country, rather than a colonized
country. However, the fact that Ataturk decreed secularization makes him, in
Ramadan s eyes, a henchman in the service of the West. And this "colonization' will last as long as all the Muslim constitutions have not been purged of
secularism, rationalism and any reference to the Declaration of the Rights of
Man in favor of what, if not the sharia?

Ramadan constantly shifts from a legitimate condemnation of political colonialism to the denunciation of any sort of cultural "influence" as a form of
colonization. This shift results in an essentialist and even xenophobic conception of cultural exchange. It is here that his repeated calls for "an alternative Islamic culture" reveal their fundamentalism. Moreover, he often evokes
his resistance to "cultural colonization' as a pillar of the Salafist reformist tradition from Afghani's time up to al-Banna. Yesterday the aim was to resist
Christian missionaries; today he cites television as the peak of "cultural colonization': "It's cultural colonization that's the worst thing, and today it
reaches into our living rooms with television." 30 Then come McDonald's,
Coca-Cola, and Hollywood films: "Hollywood, it's not a film production center, it's an industry and an industry that conveys an ideology. ,3' And, once
again, he gives the example of Titanic, which he makes fun of in an anti-capitalist vein, reminding us that the film grossed more than Mauritania's total
GDP. "The money spent on producing this film," he wrote, "is the equivalent of one year's GDP for Mauritania. It upsets me when I go to Yemen and I see the schoolbooks of totally destitute children decorated with photos of
DiCaprio! It's not healthy. Do I have the right to say so without being considered a barbarian Islamist?"32 Ramadan would in no way resemble a "barbarian Islamist" if he were content to denounce the globalization of culture as a
Hollywood-like machine eliminating diversity. Unfortunately, we know that
this is only, so to speak, the tip of the iceberg of his discourse, since, in his
cassettes on Islamic culture, he warns against certain films-not just in the
name of resistance to globalization, but in the name of morality, the decline
ofwhich he regards as part of a Western process endangering Islamic values.
On the subject of the Spice Girls, he even speaks of a "cultural invasion' akin
to idolatry.33 To his way of thinking, it is not a question of preserving cultural
diversity, but of closing down the cultural frontiers so as to keep the Muslim
world-including the Muslim community in Europe-sealed off from all
Western influences that are not in conformity with Islamic principles!

Tariq Ramadan plays on the neo-colonial complex so as to rewrite history
without being disavowed. Muslim colonization and the active participation
of Arab countries in the slave trade are never brought up; it is the West that
is made to bear the full burden of guilt. Another subject that Ramadan harps
on continually is the neglect of Islam s contribution to the Renaissance. He
is right to remind us that Andalusia was a region of extraordinary intellectual
vitality, where Arab intellectuals played an active role in developing what is
now our common cultural heritage. But why accept the idea of mixing only
when it goes in one direction? And why do these influences not lead him to
conclude that the myth of the Occident is just about as absurd and racist as
the myth of the Orient, seeing as the two myths encompass the same thinkers and the same traditions of thought in entities that are neither separate
nor clearly defined?

Take the case of Averroes. Here we have an Arab philosopher, born in
Spain, to whom all the rationalists said to be "Western" lay claim. Yet this
claim infuriates Tariq Ramadan, who denounces it as "a colonial intellectual
takeover bid for Averroes." 34 He refuses to consider him a rationalist, but rather as someone who made use of reason to remain faithful to his fundamental principles. Yet he has just explained to us that Averroes was a thinker
who had taken part in the Renaissance, which was characterized by the emancipation of art and philosophy from religious doctrine ... And, above all, he
forgets to remind us that Averroes was persecuted for his ideas by the Islamic
fundamentalists of his time!

This way of rehabilitating the contribution of Arab thinkers to Western
traditions, while at the same time refusing to recognize that they were rationalists persecuted by the fundamentalists, proves to what extent Ramadan
manipulates history to serve his political ends. The essential thing is to exercise control over the critical perspective, in the name of multiculturalism,
so as to distinguish correctly between exchange and colonization. Ramadan
sets himself up as the one to judge what is to be regarded as resistance and
what is to be seen as collaboration vis-a-vis "Westernization," always to be
equated with colonization: "Since not everything is bad in the other camp,
and not everything is good, the intelligent thing is to determine what to resist
and what to accept.,3 5 He is not awkward to the point of denying that Muslim
societies are faced with huge problems. "It's a black picture, no doubt about
it," he conceded on the subject of the degree of poverty, the rapid population
growth, and the illiteracy characteristic ofthe countries in question. But what
does he propose as a solution? Nothing in any way reminiscent of the West.
He is opposed, for instance, to family planning-a Western conspiracy to
force Southern countries to produce fewer children. Exactly the line taken by
the Vatican to incite the nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to vote against the family-planning programs proposed by the UN!

Another aspect of Ramadari s exposition aims to show that the economy has
become "a truly worldwide form of colonialism." Here again, it is not a question of condemning the exploitation of the South by the North as a form of
domination-but rather as a form of Westernization. Ramadan is right to
condemn the misuse made of international institutions such as the World
Bank and the IMF. He remarks that the process, which began after the Sec and World War, coincided with the decline of political colonialism, as if this
were a substitute, or at least a successor, to colonialism. It is unquestionably
the case that these institutions, alongside the constraints due to debt, do create a situation whereby the North dictates the policies of nations of the South.
But are we to equate political colonialism-established by an army of occupation-with a balance of power that is economic in nature?

If it is a question of resisting domination, then equating the two is counterproductive: it denies the violence of a military occupation and does not
really help us understand how to resist the new forms of domination: unilateral globalization and subservience by debt. Never mind, since what counts
for Ramadan is to link, by whatever means, economic imperialism and the
extension of human rights: "Human rights are the pretext for economic policies that cannot be presented as such." ,36 Once again, this opinion may well
be shared by all those who are fed up seeing the American government drape
itself in the cloak ofhumanitarianism every time it acts to defend its financial
and oil interests, particularly in Iraq. But Tariq Ramadan has more than Iraq
in mind. As it happens, his alternative economic model is none other than
that of Hassan al-Tourabi's Sudan. And it is frankly embarrassing to see Tariq
Ramadan attempt to head off any criticism ofthat country's failure to respect
human rights on the grounds that Sudan has challenged the dominant economic model.

The preacher has repeated several times that he condemns the "absence
of political liberties" in Sudan .37 However, Jean-Yves Chaperon, a reporter
for Luxembourg's RTL radio and television network, remembers having
encountered Tariq Ramadan, "who was well disposed towards Tourabi and
his regime" in 1993, on the occasion of the high mass organized by the
"Pope of Islamism' in Khartoum.38 On his return, Ramadan gave several
interviews saying how much of a "moderate" Tourabi was.39 And why would
he be critical of his host, seeing as how Tourabi had nothing but words of
praise for him! In truth, even if Ramadan has, on occasion, expressed his
reservations concerning the lack of public freedom in Sudan, these criti cisms have been few and far between, compared to the number of times
he has come to the defense of Tourabi and his policies. He has explained,
in particular, that the countries "that take a moderate and open-minded
view of the West are, as concerns respect for human rights in the political
sphere, in a worse situation and less respectful of the elementary rights of
man' than Sudan.40 According to him, if Sudan is on the blacklist of international institutions, it is not because of its violations of human rights, but
because it is a threat to American interests: `American propaganda sets the
tone and people talk nonsense about this country."41 Ramadan cites as a
model of resistance to globalization the fact that Sudan opted out of the
international monetary system in order to develop its own alternative economic model. In general, he looks on economic development as a Western mystification designed to reinforce Western domination, whereas "religion is a factor of true development."42 The Muslims should thus create
"an alternative economy," independent of the world's economic machinery. "What Muslims of any country have to understand is that they have to
develop financial independence and political independence."43 But how is
it going to be possible to develop a separatist Islamic economy in a world
in which the economy is global? While approving of Sudan quitting the
international monetary system, Tariq Ramadan argues for a return to an
economy based on raw materials and micro-credit. In fact, what he is advocating is self-sufficiency, in line with his "anti-mixture" phobia in international relations. Here again, he is at cross purposes with the anti-globalists.
Tariq Ramadan does not want to block globalization so as to replace it with
some "other globalization," but to put an end to all exchanges. That is, he
advocates not to restore a certain balance in North-South relations, but to
allow Muslim countries once again to institute economies that conform to
Islamic rules.

Such a world would not be totally negative, just as not all is totally negative in Sudan. In the name of respecting divine revelation, long-term projects
might well see the light of day. There would be less pollution and more agriculture. Unfortunately, it would not represent negotiated progress towards
collective well-being, but rather a step backwards, dictated by a totalitarian religious purism. Loans would not be turned down because of the risk of
debt accumulation, but because the Koran forbids them, as Tariq Ramadan
explains: "The revealed word ofthe Koran is explicit: he who engages in speculation or loans money for interest is at war with the Transcendent."44 AlBanna also proposed an economic reform based on three priorities: agrarian reform, the banning of usury, and the elimination of income tax (to be
replaced by the law on the giving of alms). It should be understood that this
alternative economy is a regressive process, inseparable from social and
political regression. In "Islam and the West" Ramadan offers us a foretaste:
"There exists not one society in majority Muslim, nor one Muslim region,
that has not made it abundantly clear that a social and political project cannot
afford to dispense with Muslim principles."45

Tariq Ramadan agrees with Samuel Huntington: "He makes it dear that
Muslim civilization is in the process of creating within itself forces of resistance, forces that will resist Westernization. ,46 He concurs with Huntington's analysis, which considers Islam to be a possible alternative: "It's a side
thesis, but at the same time a capital one that he introduces."47 Adopting
Huntingtons binary approach to the issues of civilization, he insists that
"the reaffirmation of our identity in religious as well as cultural terms" is
"one of the elements that will enable us to redefine North-South relations."
More to the point, it is via this reaffirmation that resistance will develop:
"The affirmation of Muslim principles can produce resistance to the dominant structures."48 It is what he calls the "possible alternative offered by the
`Islamic revival."' He took pleasure in announcing as an "extremely heartening development" the fact that the Islamism inaugurated by his grandfather was gaining ground: "For the last fifty years, although no one foresaw it,
there has not been a single society in majority Muslim, nor a single minority Muslim community, that has not been living the revival of its faith."49
This revival, and the menace it represents for Western interests, is enough
to explain, according to him, the demonization of Islamism: "There's no
doubt that it is on that account today that demonization and `diabolization' have become so widespread in the West." Thus resistance to fundamentalism is a "demonization" designed to protect Western interests.