BROTHER TARIQ: THE DOUBLESPEAK OF TARIQ RAMADAN,
by Caroline Fourest
Encounter Books, January 2008
Review by Andrew Stallybrass
THE THESIS IS SIMPLY STATED, and is not wholly implausible: Tariq Ramadan, the charming, articulate and convincingly mediatique grandson of the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, is really a "Trojan horse." He talks genially and smilingly of moderation and an Islam compatible with Western, democratic values, but he really promotes a fundamentalist brand of Islamism that is close to the most extreme and violent forms. Our fears are then stoked by the fact that Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Sudanese government, and even the Iranian regime are reputed to have had links with the Muslim Brotherhood. "His approach, seemingly moderate, succeeds in attracting more or less modern Muslims that he will gradually initiate into radicalism, and then fundamentalism, the environment that produces future terrorists," says journalist Caroline Fourest, in her book newly translated from the French.
Fourest offers her skills for the necessary "decoding of his message." But her book is a wearying wade through innuendo, condemnation by smear through tenuous links, and quotes removed from their context. "Tariq Ramadan can often claim that he is attacked on account of his family background or the people he is in contact with, rather than for what he says," Fourest says, yet this is exactly what she does for much of her book.
In writing about matters of faith and belief, it is hard to be neutral, and Fourest is not. Denis MacShane, a British Labour Member of Parliament, who graces the book with a foreword, notes, "Unlike Caroline Fourest, who is a devoutly militant atheist, I respect religious belief." As do I, so perhaps I should declare my colors: I am a Reformed variety of Christian, but active in interfaith dialogue. And I confess that I rather doubt whether a "devoutly militant atheist" is capable of providing us with a fair and rounded picture of a militant Muslim. I should further confess that I know Tariq and his brother Hani. At a conference that I organized a few years ago, I asked two imams present what their evaluation of Tariq was, in private and separately. They were in surprising and contradictory agreement. The harder-line imam called him "a dangerous reformer," the other told me, "I hope that I don't shock you if I say that I think that he may be the Martin Luther of Islam."
Again and again, Fourest condemns Ramadan for not being a Muslim liberal or a cultural Muslim, for not promoting and preaching "a progressive, enlightened Islam." Fourest quotes Ramadan as wanting to avoid "the creation of a second-rate Islam, an Islam without Islam"--and the implication is that this is exactly what she, the author, wants. She appears to criticize Ramadan for advocating "a form of progress that takes place within the framework of the sacred." But Ramadan is not, and has never pretended to be anything other than a fervent Muslim who, like many believers of other faiths as well, wants his faith to permeate society. The obsession with a privatized faith locked safely and discretely in the personal domain is a minority modern European obsession.
On Fourest's partial and selective quoting, Ramadan seems to have much in common with many evangelical Christians and indeed Catholics. Ramadan, like many believers of other faiths, is against euthanasia, abortion, divorce, and doesn't approve of homosexuality or premarital sex.
Fourest talks with approval of "modern, liberal, rationalist and secular Islam." But these are all labels that Ramadan has never sought. It is not easy to stick our simple labels on him, but he claims to respect the rules of the European democratic system, and shows no signs of seeking to impose his views other than by argument. He is more open to reason and more reasonable than some of my evangelical friends!
For example, in a recent article "Manifesto for a new 'We'" (the full version is available at www.tariqramadan.com), Ramadan says that "Millions of Muslims are, in fact, already proving every day that 'religious integration' is an accomplished fact, that they are indeed at home in the Western countries whose tastes, culture, and psychology they have made their own." But in the face of legitimate fears, Western Muslims must "develop a critical discourse that rejects the victim's stance, one that criticizes instead radical, literal, and/or cultural readings of the sources. In the name of the guiding principles of Islam, they must take a stand against, for instance, the use and misuse of their religion to justify terrorism, domestic violence, or forced marriage."
Of course, perhaps all this is just another example of the Ramadan doublespeak. But isn't it just possible that he actually means what he says?
Fourest's accusations of doublespeak are never easy to disprove, since any intelligent communicator tries to tailor his message for his audience--and there is nothing necessarily suspicious, underhanded or dishonest in this. It is simply a matter of using language, idioms, and images that one's audience can understand. A nuclear physicist talks differently to fellow physicists than he does to the general public. MacShane notes, fairly, "Ramadan has had to act as the link between so many different worlds. Perhaps he is simply asked to do too much, or to say and do things he simply cannot say or do."
Tariq and Hani Ramadan can indeed both be criticized for suggesting that divine law is above the law of men. But the twentieth century gave us many examples of the iniquitous laws of men. The Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War reminded us of the limits to obedience to the laws of the Nazi state. Our conscience is, and must remain, a final arbiter of right and wrong. And for the believer, ideas of what is right and wrong will naturally be rooted in their faith.
"Britain gladly welcomed jihadists," Fourest claims, with a relentless coloring of her spectacles. This is how she describes then U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair's inclusion of Ramadan in an advisory committee on Muslim extremism, which was total folly for her, sheer blindness. Is it not also possible that Blair was better informed than her? The same applies to the prestigious post that Ramadan was offered at Notre Dame University in the United States. Fourest approves of the revocation of his visa two weeks before the Ramadan family's departure for the United States--the Ramadans' Geneva home was already emptied and their belongings were on the high seas. There was no possibility for an appeal of the decision, or any public explanation.
Throughout, there is a tiring shrillness of tone. Fourest is shouting at us. Former U.K. Prime Minister, Dame Margaret Thatcher, "the iron lady," is guilty of "transforming England into a nerve center of Isalmism." Fourest implies that Ramadan falsely claims to be an imam or a theologian, when "he has no degree from A1-Azhar University." But Islam has little by way of standardized training for imams. Different European countries are now considering requiring some such standard training, and there is much to be said for it--but it is foreign to traditional Islam. Any local community can appoint its own imam without referring to any outside authority. Fourest shows little understanding of the actual workings of Islam and its fundamentally unstructured nature. As a left-wing Frenchwoman, she doubtless places herself light years away from the Bush administration. But her obsession with structures and hierarchies strangely mirrors America's inability to come to terms with Al-Qaeda not as a Western, capitalist enterprise, run from the top down, but as an unstructured current of small groups sharing a common thinking.
Factual errors abound. The Geneva Islamic Center (where Hani Ramadan is director) is not, as Fourest says "just a stone's throw from the United Nations" but the other side of town, and in any case, so what? She repeats the ludicrous affirmation that "whatever happens, demography is on the side of the Muslims; a thousand years from now and Europe will be Muslim." This argument is more usually promoted by the racist right wing, and it totally ignores the fact that most Europeans of Muslim faith, or European residents from countries of Muslim culture, do not practice their faith, and that many "Muslims" are for better or for worse rapidly secularised by the surrounding culture: surely a fact that Fourest could be expected to rejoice in? Hafid Ouardiri is not the "rector of the Geneva Mosque" but was its spokesman, and he is not and never has been "close to the Wahhabite Saudis." Nasr Abu Zeid and Ibtihal Younes were not forced to divorce because of his apostasy, but had to leave Egypt for the Netherlands to avoid being compelled to divorce.
Fourest repeatedly quotes unnamed secret service sources that have their doubts about the Ramadans. The Ramadan brothers "have even been suspected of inciting hatred or acts of terrorism." And "there was good reason to believe that the Geneva Islamic Center--of which Tariq Ramadan is still an administrator--served as a European stopping-off point for militants of the FIS and even the GIA" (two of the violent Algerian Islamic movements). "The Ramadan brothers ... have quite frequently been suspected of maintaining cordial relations with Islamists involved in terrorist activities." "Do we really need to show that the Center is a meeting place for militant terrorists ... is it not enough to demonstrate that it is unquestionably the hub of Islamism in Europe?" According to Fourest, "it is undeniable that the Geneva Center is spreading a radical and dangerous Islam"--but this is exactly what the Ramadans deny. The simple fact is that there is absolutely no proof that she can offer, and none has ever been presented in a court of law. A founding value of our system is that people are innocent until proved guilty. Her worst accusations are based on such suspicions, not on facts or proof.
Fourest implies that it is somewhat regrettable that the police "are not empowered to lock up preachers just because they preach fundamentalism." But she nowhere discusses the difficult and delicate challenge facing our liberal democracies: the trade-off between long-fought-for traditions of freedom and the new fear of terrorism and the longing for security. The Ramadans may well be under surveillance, given the fears that they arouse--the Swiss secret service, at least, has covered itself in ridicule, recruiting an unstable ex-criminal to infiltrate the Geneva Islamic Center, who then converted to Islam, and publicly apologised to Hani Ramadan for the harm that he tried to do. He alleged that his handlers tried to get him to plant incriminating documents amongst Hani Ramadan's papers.
If Tariq Ramadan remains silent, he gives credit to Fourest's accusations, and if he denies such claims, his "denials are too vehement to be credible." This is trial by relentless innuendo. Ramadan allows for conversions from Islam, condemns capital and corporal punishments--but according to Fourest, only under pressure from his critics. Tails I win, heads you lose! He is presented both as a brilliant propagandist and as something of a failure. It's rather hard to see how he can be both! At the time of their father's death, the Geneva Islamic Center, she claims, had "twenty dues-paying members and a public of roughly 500." Are they really such a serious threat to the peace of the world?
Fourest concludes her book: "Like his father, Tariq has understood that the future of Islamism is to be played out in the West." It may well be that the future of Islam as a whole will be greatly influenced by the way it comes to be played out in the West, by Muslims who have learned to live their faith to the full, but as a minority, among other minorities, indeed where we are all members of minorities. Certainly that is my hope. My knowledge of the man and his work lead me to believe that Tariq Ramadan may have an important role to play in this evolution, which itself is vitally important for the twenty-first century. The two imams that I spoke with, as well as Tony Blair, seem to think so too. I'm not alone in trusting the man and his motives. Books like this will do little to help this necessary evolution. Islam, and the Ramadans, needs to be confronted with a vigorous debate of ideas. But the debate and discussion can and should be honest. If Islam is to evolve, it needs friends. This interaction is indispensable, and democrats should have faith that European Muslims will recognize and embrace the best of Europe while also making valuable contributions to repairing the worst.
Review by Andrew Stallybrass
Andrew Stallybrass lives in Geneva, Switzerland. Managing Director of Caux Books, he is also an independent writer and journalist. He is a Vice-President of the Geneva Inter-Faith Platform as representative of the Reformed Church.
