Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan (34 page)

The alternative to the Western model, the revival model that Tariq Ramadan dreams of, bears a striking resemblance to the American "awakenings,"
the name given to the four turning points in American history, when the
evangelists travelled throughout the country to rekindle the faith of their fellow citizens. Tariq Ramadan takes after them. He is a preacher seeking conversions. Moreover, he compares conversion to being "born again," the term
used by the fundamentalists to indicate that the rediscovery of faith is like
a second birth. Like the most mystic of Christians, he sometimes tells the
story of a brother who experienced revelation after a session of spiritualism
in which the Koran appeared in a vision, reducing the audience to tears. His
concern with proselytizing is such that he pleads for the converted to be "integrated" into the Muslim community.-50 He makes no secret of his determination to make of the West not his battlefield (dar el-harb) but his "land of
witnessing": dar el-shahada. Yet it is worth noting that translation of dar el-
shahada as "land of witnessing" is in itself a euphemism, for shahada is the
term used for conversion to Islam. The words "recall" or "witnessing" are,
in reality, employed so as to avoid use of another word that is far more accurate, but that provokes hostility: the word "proselytize." Not only has it negative connotations; it is, in theory, contrary to Islam. But Ramadan, despite his
denials, is incapable of abdicating. As for dawa, I don't translate it as 'preaching,' for to Christians ... preaching is proselytizing, and we know we don't
have the right to proselytize. We bear witness; we transmit the message and
Allah transforms people's hearts."` Let us not be fooled. This circumspection with regard to terminology is nothing but a show. Ramadan is a tireless
preacher, someone entirely devoted to converting as many people as possible
to his vision of Islam. This obsessive proselytizer counts openly on Europe's
"spiritual crisis," which he refers to as "the axis of the future," to make of
Islam a source of attraction.52 All his energy, all the effort he puts into finetuning his rhetoric and teaching Muslims how to talk to journalists-his network building and infiltration-they are his very life: "We bear the responsibility to remind men of the presence of God, and to act in such a way that our presence among them and with them will consist in itself of a reminder of
the Creator, of spirituality and of ethics."5" It is his most deeply rooted jihad:
enlarge, unify and reinforce the umma, such as the Muslim Brothers conceived of it: "Fraternity is a jihad. I am on a jihad for fraternity."54

The sense of being on a jihad explains why Tariq Ramadan never
stays put and never remains at the head of an organization for long. His
role is not to supervise an association in one country, but to labor in the
field throughout the Occident, so as to give birth to small groups that will
together enlarge the umma. What Ramadan is aiming at is not national
political reform, but a world cultural revolution. One thing he has understood: revolutions are no longer made by mass movements. Thanks to the
development of computer networks and the media, a handful of militants
who are determined and intelligent, if they occupy strategic posts throughout the planet, can change the face of the world: "Things don't change any
more because of the numbers involved, that's over with .... You don't need
a hundred per city, only ten!," he explained to his troops.55 In other words,
things are easier than they were during the time of Hassan al-Banna, who
had stockpiled a thousand rifles to change the course of Egypt's history.
For Ramadan's world, cultural revolution draws less on Maoism than on
the reformist Salafists who, he claims, had "understood before their time"
the degree to which cultural issues came before political ones.56 Like alBanna, Tariq Ramadan has a detailed plan in mind, made up of successive
stages: "Everything that is international is of interest to us; everything that
is national, as well; but our priority is the local."57 Which does not prevent
him from dreaming of an Islamist International, consisting of a multitude
of cells concentrating on local issues ... "Thousands of small-scale initiatives will add up to something big," he promised.58

The preacher has effectively played a major role in the rise of Islamism
at the local, national and international levels. Wherever he goes, his lectures
breathe new life into activist groups, setting them on the right course and
giving them a new dynamism, so that soon they will be taking over public
debate. In Brussels, for instance, here is how he addressed his followers at
a conference given in 1995: "I'll make a little pact with you and the organiz ers of this conference. Every one of you knows the situation in Brussels. Can
we agree that, in one year from now (insh'allah), we will meet here again to
see what you have been able to do in the meantime?"59 The preacher kept on
insisting. No question of letting the evening go by without producing something concrete: "Create fraternal ties among you, create learning centers for
yourselves, create a dynamics in Brussels." He explained to his followers that
this was necessary in order for his message to be credible in the eyes of journalists and not give the impression he was isolated: "Your silence will cast
doubt on my intentions .... Your surrender will cast doubt on what our
brothers are saying .... Wake up!" And he added: "It is time to speak. It is
time to talk Islam!"

One of Ramadans objectives is to globalize the Islamic awakening: "One of
the challenges faced by the resistance concerns what I call the phenomenon
of transnationality, the transnational reference to Islam. In all countries, the
United States as well, the Islamic fervor within Muslim communities is phenomenal." One sole drawback: "These phenomena are not necessarily coordinated. Our greatest problem is that we do not communicate enough with
the others. `0 Ramadan sees himself in this role of coordinator. He has been
working for years to get the groups in touch with one another, to have them
mobilize together. This objective explains why he warns against perpetuating the traditions that belong to the different Muslim cultures. It is not simply a question of protecting Islam from criticism by shifting the blame onto
traditional customs; it is also a way of breaking down the cultural barriers
between Muslims to facilitate their coming together in one single Islamist
International, even ifthis means standardization and thus the sacrifice of the
rich diversity ofthe Muslim world. It is one ofthe ironies ofhis anti-globalization: to defeat globalization, he is prepared to replace one form of globalization-Western-with another, Muslim, standardization. Fiammetta Venner
has an expression that sums up this way oftrying, at all costs, to weaken Muslim cultural diversity for the sake of a simplified, unified Islam: "Tariq Ramadan, he's Islarns McDonald's." 6" Even if he offers a warning not to "confuse the oneness of our identity with cultural standardization," that is exactly what
he is doing when he encourages Muslims to disregard geographical boundaries and consider themselves as Brothers in a single Islam, rid of its historical, local evolution: `And are not the questions that we ask of ourselves as
French Muslims the same as those asked in Indonesia? Is it the right thing to
do to keep dividing up the world geographically?"62

The desire to globalize Islam is not without consequence: it explains why
a European leader like Tariq Ramadan refuses explicitly to condemn stoning-out of fear of offending Nigeria, even if it thereby suggests that European Muslims are still debating whether or not they should stone someone
to death for adultery! In addition to weakening local cultures, the standardization sought by Ramadan always involves further radicalization of Muslims. After having awakened them, and connected them to the network, the
preacher spends his time and energy having them lose all critical sense vis-avis the Islamists, and-the flip side-having them learn to scorn liberal Muslims. All this in the name of Islamic fraternity! Woe betide anyone who treats
a brother or a sister "dressed according to the sunna ... as an extremist!"63
On the basis of a verse of the Koran, he strikes terror into any Muslim who
would take it into his head to suspect another Muslim of being a fundamentalist: "Speaking ill of one's brother is like eating one's own flesh. Do you
intend to eat the flesh of your brother once he is dead?," he asked in dramatic
tones of his dumbfounded audience. And what does he give as an example of criticism to be avoided? The rumors circulating that suggest Secours
Islamique, or Islamic Relief, is an Islamist organization that seeks to Islamize rather than just help. But according to Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim who
believes such rumors is a traitor to his community. "It has been said: the
Secours I slamique, there are questions about it. But have you checked into it?
Have you done your research? If you dorit know, keep it for yourself!"" And
what does he cite as the division that represents the supreme sin against the
community? The attack by the Muslims ofthe Northern Alliance under Commander Massoud on the Taliban!

Ramadan had people believe that he was close to Commander Massoud
during the war against the Soviets. However, he was forthright in his con demnation of the Northern Alliance once it went to war with the Taliban. On
December II, 1994, during a conference given for the Association des etudiants islamiques de France (Association of Islamic Students of France), a
founding member ofwhich was Hassan al-Tourabi, he expressed anger at the
idea of Massoud's Northern Alliance besieging Kabul:

Many of you were pleased and happy to see that, in the name of "There is no God
but God," the Afghan people rose up against their Russian oppressors. They fought
against oppression and defended themselves like true freedom fighters. But just
look at what a disaster it is today. Have you seen what is happening? The defense of
selfish interests has won out over the thought of God, and they have taken to killing each other. At the very moment that I am speaking to you, not one hour goes by
without a rocket falling on Kabul. Muslims suffering terrible violence at the hands
of other Muslims .... Is that not forgetting the very essence of our faith?65

Ramadan does not defend the same Islam as the Taliban, but he never
has really harsh words for these fundamentalists that he defines, at worst, as
adherents to a particularly traditionalist, even reactionary, interpretation of
Islam, especially as regards women; yet he asks European Muslims to respect
the sincerity of their ways.66 After this he drops his skepticism, granting them
a form of absolution in his haste to condemn foreign influences: "We are well
aware that the great powers know how to exploit sincerity for their own ends.
Today, behind the Taliban, there is the Pakistani secret service, there is Saudi
Arabia, and, behind them all, there is the United States, which considers
this ultra-closed society an obstacle to its geostrategic plans for the region. ,17
He is far more severe with regard to Saudi Wahhabism, which he finds catastrophic; but here again, his criticism serves essentially as a means of attacking American influence. In fact, Ramadan is never as hard on the fundamentalists as he is on their enemies. In general, the ban on speaking ill of other
Muslims means only not speaking ill of the Muslim Brotherhood, and in particular of him, who must be protected against the critics. On the other hand,
as we have seen, he reserves the right to "eat the flesh" of certain Muslims,
such as the modernist Muslims that he makes a habit of referring to as false
Muslims (when it is not "Islamophobes"). The call for fraternity is designed to stymie all criticism of fundamentalists. And the expected result is the radicalization of all Muslims who fall under his influence.

Tariq Ramadan has often claimed to be an outstanding agent of peace: "On
several occasions I have had the opportunity of speaking with government
authorities, and they were well informed in regard to the Islam that I advocate-an open-minded Islam that participates in society in a positive way," he
declared to Agence France-Presse at the time he was banned from entering
France. He does advocate "an open-minded Islarri'-but only for the benefit
of the outside world. And even then ...

Whenever he is asked-in particular by the press-he is, of course,
quick to condemn terrorism. As almost all Islamists do-when asked. They
will tell you they condemn terrorism, but approve of "resistance." If one listens closely, these are exactly the terms used by Tariq Ramadan. On October 3, 2oor, he published an opinion piece in Le Monde which began with
these words: "The condemnation of the attacks on the United States must
be unanimous." 68 A nice start. Unfortunately, this severity did not last long.
In the following sentences, Tariq Ramadan insinuated that there was no
proof that bin Laden or any Muslims had been behind 9/II: "Is it possible,
in the midst of this outpouring of unquestioned affirmations, to express the
slightest doubt? For, after all, there's reason to be upset if one compares the
incredible sophistication of the methods used to prepare and pull off such an
act-and the series of blunders committed afterwards that pointed to the bin
Laden connection." And he added: "The real question still needs to be asked:
who stands to profit by these attacks? No `Arab' or `Islamic' cause will derive
any advantage." The rest of the article is designed to show that the American
government undoubtedly profited from these attacks, seizing the opportunity to curtail public liberties and launch a crusade against the Muslim world.
Which led him to call on Muslims and non-Muslims to "resist" such an eventuality "together."

It is about the only time that Tariq Ramadan has taken pen in hand to
condemn terrorism. His declaration would be moving-and even the sec and part of his analysis would be acceptable-if it did not serve to imply that
the American government stood to gain from the 9/II attacks! That leaves a
sour aftertaste, coming as it does from an Islamist leader who claims to be an
agent of peace.