This example shows that, despite their proclaimed objectives, the Muslim fundamentalists' insistence on strict religious obedience is less an attempt to follow in Mohammed's footsteps than a means to oppose and resist Western values. Their rhetoric varies according to the context and the immediate needs. Khomeini-when it was not a question of building an Islamic state, but, on the contrary, of enlisting the support of women who could help him take power from the Shah-declared: "There is absolutely no difference between men and women." And he added: `According to Islam, women must wear the headscarf, but are not obliged to wear the chador. A woman can choose any kind of clothing to serve as a veil."9 During this period, the future ayatollah even promised women education, freedom to travel, and the right to take part in economic activities-promises that he lost no time in breaking once his theocratic dictatorship was established. Less than one month after coming to power, on March 7, 1979, Khomeini adopted the slogan "a veil or a crack on the skull." As for his successor, Khatami, even though he promised change, he never revised the policy. On the contrary, his two counselors, Massoumeh Ebtekar and Zahra Chodja'i, reaffirmed that the chador was "the superior form of national dress for Iranian women."
What did Ramadan, the great "reformer," do when faced with this crude and sexist exploitation of the veil? He did nothing to influence the use made of the veil in Iran; quite the reverse, for Iran was a model when it came to "promoting women.i10 We return later to this subject. On the other hand, in all that he has written, and in all his conferences, he savagely attacks the Muslim moderates who try to oppose what Leila Babes calls "the doxa of the veil," that is to say, a dogmatic conception in the service of political ambitions, rather than respect for the original intention of the Koran." He berates the liberal reformers who are faithful to the spirit, and not the letter, of this Koranic precept. The liberal Muslims interpret the two verses that deal with the veil as expressing the desire to protect women from "offense." In keeping with this intention, they encourage everything that can protect a woman and promote her integration into society. From this perspective, whereas, in the context of seventh-century Arabia, the veil served as a shield and a sign of discretion, in the context of twenty-first century Europe it has the opposite effect: not only is it openly provocative, but it can be a social handicap that, far from protecting women, renders them more vulnerable. Soheib Bencheikh, the Marseille mufti, puts it this way: "Paradoxically, today what protects young women s personality and promises them a future is schooling. It is by learning that women can defend themselves from offense to their femininity and their dignity. Today, the veil for Muslim women in France is the school-secular, compulsory, and free. 1112
This is not at all how Tariq Ramadan sees things. Even if he claims to be interpreting the spirit of the Koran and not the letter, he reads these verses literally and considers that a worthy Muslim woman must wear a headscarf that covers her hair: `According to scholars ... it's an obligation in Islam."" To be sure, he immediately adds: "The headscarf is an obligation, but it cannot be forced on someone."14 Here we touch on the very heart of Ramadans rhetoric, a subtle blend of "voluntary coercion." He knows perfectly well how, in order not to antagonize young European Muslim women, to speak of the headscarf as an object of pride and not of submission. There is no question of forcing it on them, but rather of making them understand on their own how much freer they will feel by willingly adopting this symbol of submission to Islam. "The veil is an act of faith," but "it took fifteen years [after the coming of the Prophet] to have women understand it as such," he explained.'-' Taking this as an example, Tariq Ramadan claims to respect women who make the effort to similarly "discover their way." Even if, of course, there is no question of their getting lost in transit. In terms of "discovering their way," it would be more accurate to speak of finding the way mapped out for them. For if Ramadan speaks of respecting the "stages of faith," then the wearing of the headscarf stands as the final stage for all women who aspire to be good Muslims. "There are women who have gone the whole way and who wear the headscarf. It's a good thing. Next to this there are, to be sure, women who are still seeking their way .... They cant be forced to wear it, but there is one thing on which we must all agree if we want to create a real Muslim community-one thing that is a necessity for all of us-and that is decency." 16 In a word, a Muslim is not forced to wear the headscarf right away, but a good Muslim must be chaste. And the height of chastity is the wearing of the headscarf. How many of his sisters would turn down the chance of appearing as the ideal Muslim in the eyes of Tariq Ramadan? Certainly not those who have a hand in running the Muslim associations influenced by the preacher, all ofwhom end up wearing the Islamic headscarf.
Rallying around the Islamic headscarf
In the last fifteen years, the preacher has persuaded many young girls to wear the Islamic headscarf-a concrete illustration of the profoundly conservative influence he wields. Whereas the 1989 cases in France concerned young girls forced to wear the headscarf because of family pressure, recent cases have had to do with young girls firmly determined to wear the headscarf in the face of their family's disapproval.
The immigrant women of the first generation wore the headscarf in the traditional manner. Their daughters, because they had been to school and were in contact with secular society, wanted to be free of these traditions. The third generation-totally integrated and, for the most part, culturally assimilated-suddenly took to wearing the headscarf as a reproof to their mothers, even if they did not always understand its religious significance, but saw it rather as a symbol of pride in a newly discovered identity. The October 14, 2003 edition of Le Monde published a long report on young girls who wore the headscarf "from choice." Included was a particularly lively exchange between Leila, sixteen years old, and her mother of Moroccan origin. The latter simply could not understand why her daughter insisted on wearing such a cumbersome headpiece at her young age: "You're not the sort of girl to be pushed around. You're not submissive." Leila's reply: "I am submissive to God." The exchange tells us a lot about the family quarrels set off by those who take advantage of the generation gap to encourage young girls to wear the headscarf despite their parents' advice. It so happens that Leila had been attending the UOIF mosque in La Courneuve. She had thus been fed sermons encouraging the abandonment of tradition for the Ramadan brothers' version of Salafist reformism. Her father, Algerian by birth, was so upset at this radical turn of events that he threatened to throw out any headscarves he could lay his hands on! As for Leila, she just kept repeating over and over again that it was "her choice," In reality, even if they are determined, these young girls have not always taken the time to study the matter or to think it over before making a choice that will be decisive in the formation of their identity as a woman. In the same article, we are introduced to Nadia, whose parents are active supporters of the UOIF. At the age of seventeen, she had just been expelled from the Saint-Ouen lycee, where she was a student in the "economics and society" program, for having refused to remove her headscarf as was required by school rules. For her, wearing the headscarf was a religious duty, and therefore non-negotiable. However, when the reporter asked her on what verses of the Koran she based her decision, the young girl was embarrassed. She searched in her room, returned with Hani Ramadan s books and Tariq Ramadans cassettes, then tried to find the right verses in the Koran, but without success. Never mind, it's written there, "she's sure of that." Later on, she wants to be a schoolteacher but only if she can keep on wearing her head scarf. Meanwhile, she would rather take correspondence courses or go to a private school than take the headscarf off and return to the lycee. Tariq Ramadan would not be the one to dissuade her.
One of the fifty demands in the program of the Muslim Brotherhood is that it is necessary "to combat all forms of provocative or ostentatious behavior and to summon women, in particular teachers, schoolgirls, students, doctors, etc., to behave respectfully."17 Tariq Ramadan is in full agreement. Whereas the fight against forced marriage
is not one of his priorities, this issue certainly is. In one of his cassettes on the "duty of women to participate," he warmly encourages women not to be intimidated, to wear the headscarf, and to go to court if this right is denied them: "It's also necessary to call on the law and on our rights, so that we're taken seriously in those terms." "' He added that it is out of the question to give way in the face of difficulty, or through fear ofhaving "problems with colleagues" or "at school." Paying tribute to the young girls who had demonstrated "the courage it takes," he asked the Muslim community to support them: "They need to have the community behind them." In this regard, the Geneva Islamic Center worked hard to encourage Swiss schoolmistresses to come to class wearing the headscarf and to target regulations forbidding teachers to display their religious preferences in class. Whenever a case concerning the Islamic headscarf makes headlines, Tariq Ramadan and his brother are not far off. In his role as spokesman for the outside world, the preacher makes a point of explaining to Muslims how to justify their decision, so as to bring about change, have the headscarf worn more and more frequently, and then have it finally accepted: "The more we make ourselves known, the more women with their hyab make their appearance in society and in debates, explaining their approach, explaining who they are ... the more the mentality will evolve and the more things will change.""
On this point, there is one thing Tariq Ramadan understands: a woman who stands up in favor of the Islamic headscarf is far more credible than a man. He knows full well that his vision of society, patriarchal and religious in nature, could not take hold unless it is backed by women: "We are not regarded as credible when we speak for women ...... he explained to his fol- lowers.20 Hence the idea of "developing a discourse" to be produced for and by women: "I promise that when a woman speaks, when she is understood, when she says: `Listen to me, the headscarf I wear, it's not forced on me by my father, it's not forced on me by my husband, it's a requirement of my faith, and an act of my heart. I ask all of you who look at me to consider me as a human being and not simply as a body; to see that I am made for God and not for your eyes ...' Well, when women speak this way, I promise you they will have an effect on a great many women, for there are a great many women in the West and elsewhere that suffer from having become objects ...."21 That should be sufficient to convince husbands that it's worth letting their wives speak to journalists. Acting as the benevolent elder brother, Tariq Ramadan induces women to speak in moving terms: "You are witness to a totally new way of speaking: be human beings who will become beings in the eyes ofhim who accompanies them." He suggests that they put things this way: "I don't want to be looked at any old way. I order you, I require you, I command you to respect what is in my heart. That is the message of women for the future."22
One can catch a glimpse of the future that Tariq Ramadan envisages for women by taking a look at the way his acolytes are treated. Malika is more or less his "second in command." He taught her everything she knows, and she follows him everywhere, carrying his personal belongings and his briefcase. Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux remembers having known her during the period she was with Tariq Ramadan at the Education League. She was struck by Malika's evolution, by the way she become more and more discreet, even self-effacing: "In the beginning she would often intervene. Then she came wearing a headscarf, then two headscarves, and then three. In the end, she made a habit of sitting at the back of the room and no longer taking the floor. One day I asked her what had become of her plan to be a teacher. She replied: `I let it drop. With the headscarf they would never hire me. -23 No matter. . . Like other disciples of Tariq Ramadan, she can always serve as one of the preacher's spokeswomen. Or be like Asma Lamrabet, who published a book, Musulmane tout simplement [A Muslim Woman, No More, No Less], that urged women to discover "Islamic feminism."24 The contents were "cut and pasted" from Tariq Ramadan's lectures.
Sisters in the service of the Brothers' Islam
Even the most reactionary and anti-feminist movements have always needed women to campaign against ... women. In the United States, a fundamentalist Christian movement, named the Promise Keepers, openly calls for a return to masculine domination; and yet it is not made up solely of men. The activists' wives have been granted the right to organize a "women s commission' to help their husbands re-establish masculine domination in the name of Christianity. Anti-feminist movements have always worked this way. The Islamist movements are no exception. Even an Islamist as radical as Mawdudi, the father of Pakistani fundamentalism, when he saw a war of independence looming, preached that women should be taught to fight alongside men.25 He did, however, stipulate that they were to be sent back to their proper place (i.e., taking care of the household) once the war was won. By so doing, he demonstrated the respect for women that supposedly distinguishes Islamic civilization from the West: "The difference between us and the Occident is that Occidental civilization gives women rights only if they become likenesses of men and take on men's duties. Islamic civilization honors and respects women by permitting them to remain women."26
It is almost laughable when you consider that the fundamentalist Christian groups in the West say almost the same thing. For example, the militant anti-abortion groups also claim they are defending the right of women to rediscover their "true nature"-that is to say maternity-in the name of a pro-life feminism that is resolutely anti-feminist.27 This way of disguising anti-feminism as a means by which women can adopt a feminism that respects "women's nature" is a classic tactic, invoked whenever a totalitarian or fundamentalist movement wants to put a stop to women s liberation. And this is exactly the direction that Tariq Ramadan's "Islamic feminism' takes. His argument comes down to promoting an "Islamic femininity" which, he asserts, is founded on "the dignity and the autonomy of the feminine being, equal [to men] in law and complementary in nature."28 "Which certainly doesn t mean that, to be a liberated woman, one must of necessity resemble the Western model of liberation. ,29 Womens liberation in the West is clearly seen as a model to reject. And then he adds: "We must introduce a new model of feminine presence; a presence that is in her very being and not her appearance; in her intelligence and not her charm."
This way of presenting European or American feminism as simply a feminism of charm does have one thing in its favor: it is a change from that other anti-feminist discourse that berates feminists for being prudes because they campaign against the treatment ofwomen as sexual objects! Taking the opposite tack, Tariq Ramadan attacks feminism as a movement working for looser moral standards, in the domain of sexuality in particular. That is what he objects to, but he cannot be open about it. Instead, he prefers to caricature the Women's Liberation Movement the better to discredit it: "We are not about to get involved in the sort of thing that has happened in European countries, where women have become feminists in opposition to men, and where some of them refuse even to greet a man because he is the enemy. We don t want to have anything to do with that approach."" One can find the same caricature, almost to the letter, ten years earlier in a speech by Soraya Djebbour, a teacher active in the womens commission of the National Front, who also wanted women to rediscover the virtues of masculine domination.' Yet one must admit that Tariq Ramadan is far more gifted than the French extreme Right when it comes to passing off his anti-feminism as feminism. Nobody in France takes seriously the "feminist pro-life" movement or the "feminism' of the National Front that purports to help women accede to dignity and maternity. On the other hand, the European press regards as credible the groups close to Tariq Ramadan that claim they want to defend the right of women to wear the headscarf and behave with propriety in the name of "Islamic feminism," little realizing that this feminism is to be used as a weapon against feminists, including those coming from a Muslim culture who have been treated as "Westernized" if they campaign for true equality between men and women. Tariq Ramadan makes no secret of the fact. He berates Taslima Nasreen32 for her "simplistic, totally Occidentalized rhetoric." 33 On the other hand, just consider the women that Tariq R
amadan cites as models: Zaynab al-Ghazali or his mother, Wafa al-Banna. In terms of feminism, Ramadan's objective is to have women take part in the Islamic renaissance alongside men: "We must build together an Islamic society, a society of morality, oftrue beings and spirituality."34
This feminist element is all the more precious in that it promotes an antifeminist agenda in the heart of Europe, at a time when observers reproach Islamists for their sexism. As Ramadan explained to the faithful: "There are lots of people who will listen when it is a Muslim woman because it is a Muslim woman speaking, many more so than if it were a man. And this is part of our influence here in Europe ."3s It is from this perspective, and this perspective only, that one should interpret his obsession with educating women: because Islamic education is the only way to turn them into effective Islamic militants. On his courses, education is always linked to being effective as an activist. "We need women who are cultivated, who read widely, who understand things. We want women who can say `I know what's happening to the men and women of such and such a country. -3' The point of learning is not to become free and autonomous, but to join the rank and file in the service of the Islamist cause: "You should be human beings who remind us of our spirituality, who guide the community and take part in its reform." ,37 It was with this idea in mind that the European Fatwa Council-in a book with a preface written by Tariq Ramadan-advised husbands to encourage their wives to attend "Islamic seminars":
Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan Page 18
