Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan (14 page)

Yet at times democracy will turn against those who exploit it so aggressively. In Switzerland, where Hani Ramadan teaches, his opinion piece on
the "sharia misunderstood" sparked a scandal. Le Courrier informed Hani
Ramadan that it would no longer publish his pieces "whatever the subject. ,62
The editor-in-chief published his correspondence, some of it quite harsh,
with the Muslim Brotherhood's European representative. In one ofhis letters
Hani Ramadan spoke of "an absolutely stupefying exclusivist dogmatism'
and concluded with a menace: "Man is worthy only in so far as he submits
to God. Perhaps it is not only me, a Muslim, that you are betraying by defying divine law. God will pass judgment." In the meantime, it was the Geneva
State Council that was to pass judgment. After investigating the question, the
members of the council decided unanimously that "Mr. Ramadan has violated the obligation of loyalty and the duty of confidentiality that apply to all
public servants." He was suspended from his post as teacher of French for
the Golette Orientation Program. In the end, the decision was annulled by
the conciliation commission, but the State Council stuck to its guns. They
had taken the political decision to get rid of Hani Ramadan and were prepared to pay damages rather than have him return to teaching.

Throughout the affair, Tariq Ramadan had interceded in the press on
behalf of his elder brother, in particular in the columns of the newspaper Le
Courrier (which still publishes contributions by Tariq): "I dorft agree with
what he said, but I am against preventing him from expressing his views on
the pretext that, outside his employment context, he supposedly violated the
`duty of confidentiality,' a duty for which there is no clear definition. They
make use of their authority to attack an easy target, a public servant who is
said to be a model teacher, in order to prove to the world that they can stand
up for their values. "63

Tariq Ramadan is constantly being called upon to make it clear that he is different from his brother. He is obliged to do so if he intends to continue his dawa in the outside world without being unmasked, applying the Muslim
Brotherhood's time-tested principle of keeping those sections most in the
public eye separate from the more radical ones. That is why he makes a point
of stating that he is out of tune with his brother: "The truth of the matter is
that, for the last fifteen years, we have followed separate paths. I respect him
for his intellectual integrity, but I don't agree with his way of thinking." 64

This assertion comes as something of a surprise, if one takes the time to
compare the speeches and articles of the two brothers over the past fifteen
years. In reality, Tariq Ramadan plays with words and takes advantage of the
ignorance of the general public. He does indeed have some differences of
opinion with his elder brother, in particular as to whether or not (and how)
to re-examine corporal punishment and its application, but their disagreements are minimal and occur within the framework of an ideology that is in
itself integrist (political-fundamentalist). They have the same guiding principles and the same objectives. It is only the style that can, on occasion, differfor purely tactical reasons. Tariq has to be acceptable to the general public if
he is to continue being invited to appear on television. On the other hand,
Hani, as director of the Geneva Islamic Center, has nothing to lose; he says
what he thinks clearly and without beating around the bush. That does not
mean that he never imitates his brother and never tries to be tactful. Ifyou listen closely, you can even recognize some of the rhetorical subterfuges used
by Tariq. Like him, he says he respects the law and the need to be modem: "I
belong in this country as a citizen who respects its laws and accepts the ingredients of modernity." 65 He also claims the right to be integrated, while simply
campaigning for a form of secularism that is more "open." He also reminds
us that Islamic law stipulates that a woman cannot be married without her
consent, nor be forced to wear the headscarf. He also defends the return to
modesty and the wearing of the headscarf as "Islamic feminism."66 And he
condemns violence and the attacks of 9/II: "The Muslim religion, a religion
of peace, cannot give birth to such acts." 67

Le Progres is good at describing the unsettling effect that Hani Ramadan s ambiguity is capable of producing. It speaks of "a brilliant intellectual,
an inspired prophet, a shrewd politician practiced in the art of dodging ques tions and captivating people's souls."68 This same type of description will,
in turn, be applied to Tariq Ramadan himself, but only after a certain time.
How is this time lag to be explained? No doubt it is because Hani Ramadan
has none of his young brother's charisma. And less patience. Since he is in
contact almost exclusively with an Islamist public, he tends to forget himself
and lose track of the distinction between what one can say on the "outside"
and what can be said within the community but not in public. Tariq, on the
other hand, is on permanent assignment to the outside world. Which means
he has the time to fine-tune his presentation for different audiences. For
instance, Hani Ramadan sees no reason not to say frankly what he thinks of
homosexuals. But Tariq, who is in close contact with the political Left, knows
better than to broach the subject. He reassures the respectable circles he frequents by recounting his efforts to keep young Muslims from wanting to
stone homosexuals, while omitting to recount that he encourages them to
think of homosexuality as deviant for Islam. Aside from this, it is a mistake
to think that the two brothers do not share exactly the same view of Islam
and of society. They are not in conflict nor even on bad terms. They continue
to appear together frequently. They intended to take part together, on May i,
2004, in a day of boycott of Israeli products, where the leader of the Syrian
Muslim Brotherhood was expected.69 Moreover, why would the audience for
the Union of Young Muslims or for the Tawhid publishing house continue
to consider the two brothers as models if they were in contradiction? If Tariq
really had a moderating influence on young people, why would they continue to idolize Hani? The answer is that their approaches are not different
but complementary. Hani Ramadan admits as much himself: "Tariq and I are
complementary. We are like two sides of the same coin. We know perfectly
well what we are doing and where we are going." 7°

For the last fifteen years, Tariq Ramadan has always managed to get by
through claiming that he is a victim of "Islamophobia." It was in those terms
that he accounted for the wave of unfavorable articles that proliferated in the
Swiss press in the early 199os. "In six months my reputation has been turned upside down: after having been a model for Geneva's efforts to promote solidarity, I have become a bogeyman. In 199o, Geneva journalists elected me
as one of the ten Genevans of the year in recognition of my work with young
people in a program designed to foster solidarity. A few months later, I had
become suspect, deceitful, and dangerous, for I had dared to present myself
as a Muslim." 7' Tariq Ramadan has a lot of nerve. Defended body and soul
by some on the Left and by some newspapers, he came under criticism not
because he was active as a Muslim-that had already been the case-but
because the opinions he expressed in publicwere increasingly intolerant. Such
was the campaign he launched in 1993 to prevent Voltaire's play on Mohammed from being performed, on the pretext that it could discredit Islam in a
fragile international context. The play was to be given as part of the tercentenary of Voltaire's birth, organized by the federal government and the city of
Geneva. It is true that the international context was at the time strained, as
it has been for the last fifteen years, but the play belongs in the classic repertory of Voltaire's works and it makes fun of fanaticism. At the time, its critical
perspective on religion would have been a healthy thing. Herve Loichemol,
the director, called it censorship, but no one listened to him. Ramadan tossed
back at him his right of free expression and free creation in an open letter
published by the press: "In this case, my dear sir, your right to say whatever
you please is an assault on the sensitive sphere of intimacy. You call it 'censorship,' I call it tactfulness. "71 Coming from a Christian preacher, such a
stand would no doubt have caused an uproar. But coming from Tariq Ramadan, it was met with understanding-to the extent that the subsidy for the
play was finally cancelled. In particular, this was thanks to the intervention of
two friends of Ramadan: the socialist Jean Ziegler and his wife Erica Deuber-
Pauli, at the time directress of cultural affairs for the city of Geneva.

Three years later, Tariq Ramadan was at the center of another furore, this
time sparked off by his own writings, namely his book Les musulmans dans la
laicite [Muslims in a Secular Society], in which he explained that "School biology courses can include teachings that run counter to Islamic principles."73
He did not suggest that students skip the course, but rather urged Muslim
parents to indoctrinate them with a "creationism' more in accordance with Islamic teaching, but the text nonetheless was sufficient to attract the attention ofhis colleagues in the Saussure school. In December 1995, one ofthem,
Serge Flueler, left a polite note in his mailbox asking Tariq Ramadan to reassure him: "Dear Tariq, I read with interest your book Les musulmans dans la
laicite.... So as to avoid a sterile, dialectic confrontation, I would appreciate
it if you would reveal to us what teachings are in question and let me know
what is of concern to you. My thanks in advance for your explanations." It was
no more than a note between colleagues, a natural reflex and, above all, most
cordial. But Tariq Ramadan did not reply. Since there was no word of explanation, a number of teachers decided to hold a meeting. The minutes of the
meeting posed a question: "In terms of deontology, it would perhaps be useful to know if it is morally acceptable to teach in a school while disparaging
what is taught in a program given by other colleagues." The teachers wanted,
above all, to reaffirm the principle of the separation of Church and state,
which meant that "no religious group can interfere in our courses." This time
Tariq Ramadan was obliged to reply. He produced a lengthy letter in which
he expressed his surprise at the manner in which his colleagues had brought
up the question, spoke of quotations that were misrepresented, and affirmed
the following: "My position consists of inciting young Muslims to participate
and understand these issues, while at the same time remaining aware of the
replies that are furnished by their religious teaching." And he stipulated, "it
is the same thing for history and philosophy." His colleagues had little reason to be reassured, but it was Tariq Ramadan who claimed to be upset: "Your
attitude disturbs me: you criticize me for being close-minded, yet your interpretation is itself tendentious. You decide that dialogue is not possible before
even attempting it ... you're making groundless accusations against me." It
is Ramadan s standard reply. Every time he is criticized, he speaks of "quotes
out of context," of "groundless accusations based on mere suppositions,"
sometimes implying that his opponents are prompted by "Islamophobia"
or even Zionism. In this case, it was not necessary to go this far. He was content to speak of "petty rumors," "facile amalgams," and "dangerous suspicions" so as to make others feel guilty, a technique that had often workedand did so this time as well. The press that looked into the affair was of two minds, but the school's headmaster, jean-Jacques Forney, saw no reason to be
upset: "There's not the sort of tension that justifies manning the barricades."
Whereas the creationist theories advocated by the Christian fundamentalists
did indeed alarm Forney, he considered Ramadan's remarks not worth getting excited about: "The book tries to give a true explanation of our Western
concepts; if anything, it encourages integration."74

There is no room here to calculate the number of times that this form
of naivete, encouraged by cultural relativism, has protected Tariq Ramadan.
This "martyrdom' strategy worked perfectly during the furore sparked off by
his opinion piece attacking the "communitarian intellectuals. "75 At a time
when anti-Semitism was on the rise in France, the preacher caused an outcry by accusing a list of intellectuals, described as "Jews," of insidiously serving the interests of Israel because of their origin. The article immediately
caused an uproar that spread to the pages ofthe leading newspapers, tending
to demonize Tariq Ramadan, but also to make of him a media figure. In retrospect, one can well wonder whether it was a mistake or a deliberate provocation that came at just the right moment for him to reassume leadership of
the French Muslims and, in the process, count up his supporters on the Left.
Among progressives and anti-globalists, many militants were tired of being
"suspected of anti-Semitism' every time they criticized Israel. Ramadan was
well aware of this potential and, thanks to the outcry, succeeded in putting
together an impressive group of allies on the eve of his participation in the
European Social Forum, held in Paris on November 12 to 15, 2003. The martyr strategy also helped him bounce back after his disastrous television performance face to face with Nicolas Sarkozy.

On November 20, 2003, watched by nearly six million viewers, the French
Minister of the Interior, Nicolas Sarkozy, challenged Tariq Ramadan to an
eagerly awaited face-to-face encounter. He condemned Ramadan's piece on
the "intellectual Jews" as "a moral failure": "When one writes one thinks with
one's head and not with one's race. Your article was not just a blunder; it was
a moral failure. Because Jews are not like people from Auvergne or Parisians. There was the Holocaust." Ramadan replied that he had always condemned
anti-Semitic attacks, and in particular the fire that had destroyed a Jewish secondary school in Grigny, a Paris suburb. But he did not see what was wrong
in characterizing intellectuals by their religion: "They call me a Muslim intellectual; I wrote about Jewish intellectuals. I don't see any harm in that." His
replies became decidedly more muddled when Nicolas Sarkozy attacked his
brother. "Your brother Hani published a piece in which he justified the stoning to death of adulterous women. It's monstrous. Only someone out of his
mind could say a thing like that!" At that point, in front of millions of stupefied Frenchmen, Ramadan failed to utter the sentence that could have saved
him, something along the lines of "I condemn stoning" or "I dorit agree with
my brother." Instead, he preferred to stop the clock by calling for a moratorium: "I'm in favor of a moratorium so that they stop applying these sorts
of punishments in the Muslim world. What's important is for people's way
of thinking to evolve. What is needed is a pedagogical approach." The audience was stunned. A moratorium? What does that mean? We're in 2003!"
exclaimed the minister. He unsettled Tariq Ramadan for good by alluding to
his preface to Zaynab al-Ghazali's book. The reference was totally incomprehensible to the general public, but everyone saw Tariq Ramadan turn white
on a live program and understood that he had indeed something to hide. But
no one knew exactly what.