It's all the more urgent in that, on the one hand, forces hostile to Islam are constantly at work, mobilizing women in this area; and on the other hand, the women called "secular," the atheists and the Marxists, are active night and day within Muslim countries trying to cut the community off from the true reality of their religion, propagating concepts that are foreign to Islam and combating the true preachers of Islam that are calling for reform, revival and renaissance.38
Like Mawdudi, Ramadan believes that the revolution cannot succeed with men alone, and he has welcomed women into the ranks of Islamism: "In all the countries I have visited, the number of women in almost all the Muslim movements quadrupled."39 And he cited the example of Pakistan, where "the mobilization of women is even greater than that of men." But rest assured, these women are closely supervised: "The people in charge tell you that women have taken things in hand; they are intelligently trained and instructed in religion."40 Phew! One might be tempted to think that their taking part in the revolution would liberate them. But not at all. Women are asked to do their bit without ever forgetting that they are women; they will be relegated to the status that men have assigned them once the objectives have been met. Their participation will in no way serve to liberate them, but only to help reconstruct a society in which masculine domination is reinforced.
In a series of cassettes devoted to "The Muslim woman and her duty to participate," Tariq Ramadan made a point of defining the limits of women s participation. He determined the sort of militant activities that are compatible with women s natural capacities and their duty to remain chaste.41 According to him, women are, by nature, equipped to act in three areas: solidarity, education and culture. By solidarity, he means in particular the fight against prostitution: "Dont be the judges of these lost women, but act as their sisters and help them."42 To save these women from a life of debauchery, he advises reaching out to them through activities "that will have them understand the meaning of faith." The important thing is "to communicate with these young girls who have lost their way, which is not possible for the Brothers." But the mission that Tariq Ramadan considers a priority concerns "the social education and schooling of these young girls, but also their Islamic education."
The idea that women are to be educated so as to take part in Islamic reform is by no means new. The leading theorist ofthe question is none other than Hassan al-Banna. Tariq Ramadan never misses an opportunity to pay homage to him when urging women to go to school so as to be more effective militants: "I come from a family in which my grandfather, every time he set up a school for men, provided one for women as well .... It was an obsession with him. You cant create an Islamic society with only half of the population. ,43 As early as 1944, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood had, in effect, constituted a feminine branch: the Muslim Sisters. Their mission? "Fight against unwelcome initiatives, absurdities, lies, false ideas and bad `' habits that circulate among women," influenced, of course, by the West.4 In theory, Tariq Ramadan advocates an Islamic feminism that is neither traditionalist nor seen as a way of countering the Occident. In practice, his feminism is exactly the same as Hassan al-Banna's. Ramadan, moreover, explains that "colonization permitted and proposed models of women's behavior that in no way corresponded to Islamic principles." 45 Today it is no longer a question of combating political colonization, but cultural colonization, Tariq Ramadan's mania: "In our society, there has developed a feminine discourse that borrows ideas from outside our sphere of reference; you can see young women who have become lax in their behavior and their faith, and in their relation to God." And he warns: "Woe betide those who speak the language of liberation, but who shut themselves away, forgetting God.""
Equal rights, but not an equal nature-so no equal jobs
Tariq Ramadan is willing to admit that men and women are equal "in the eyes of God," but not at the social level. Yet when listening to him quote this magnificent hadith issued by the Prophet, one could well believe they were: "He who treats his daughter no differently from his son will go to paradise." Unfortunately, the equality holds true only until puberty, at which point women's education must be adapted to their "capacities" and to the complementary role that Ramadan intends them to play in social and political life. Ramadan is quite prepared actively to support women who demand "equal pay for equal work," since the slogan is, after all, in line with the Koran; but he does not agree that women should have access to all types of employment, nor that they should succeed professionally in certain areas; in brief, he is not in favor of their having "equal jobs." 'Allowing women to work does not mean opening up all types of work to them," the preacher has warned in his lectures.' The most important thing is not to choose a type of work that runs counter to their natural inclination, that is to say the chastity that is required of them: As to working, women have a right: that they should not have to provide for their livelihood. But this does not mean that work is forbidden. Women have this right, but in accordance with their capabilities and their aptitude to play a role in society; if the rules are, as for men, rules that respect individual decency, then it is perfectly possible for a woman to take part in social life and acquire a civic education."48 Later, Tariq Ramadan insists on defining a woman s "work" more as "social commitments" or "participation." In reality he thinks ofwomen s work outside the home as a fill-in job, preferably a mere social occupation; something in the way of a service that a woman can render the community in accordance with her "capabilities."
This type of discourse comes strikingly close to that of the Catholic fundamentalists. They, too, have nothing against women working, but consider that a woman's natural disposition suits her almost "hormonally" for charity or social work; in any case, suits her for social activities that are but an extension of her role in the family. To be sure, they do not openly say that they want to keep women in subaltern jobs as assistants; they prefer to present it as a way of orienting women in accordance with their natural inclinations. This subterfuge, which is pure sexism, is also one of the classic tactics of National Front anti-feminist rhetoric. Claudie Lesselier in L'extreme droite et lesfemmes [Women and the Radical Right] puts it this way: "The statements of doctrine and the `worldview' to be found in the theoretical and cultural magazines of the extreme Right invariably begin by recalling a few fundamental principles: nature (and on occasion divine law) has assigned different functions to men and women that are hierarchical and/or complementary."49 Tariq Ramadan does the same when he distinguishes between employments that are fit for women and those that are not: "There are many areas in which women can be active, including medicine, social work, community work, or community service. We are not going to go to the lengths you sometimes see in Western society and say that, in order to prove they are liberated, women must become masons or truck drivers [the audience laughs]. For us, that makes no sense. We're not going to be so stupid as to say: prove you're liberated, be a truck driver, drive a truck, whore [sic] you'll show that .... Take a job in the areas for which you are fitted, which belong to you, once you have found the right balance in your family life. "'o
I shall not dwell on Ramadan s use of the word "whore," which came up suddenly when he was talking of women in men s jobs, when he is never vulgar in his lectures; nor on his choice ofthe metaphor "truck driver," traditionally used to caricature lesbians. Tariq Ramadan s audience knew very well what he thought of women who took jobs without regard to their "nature" and their obligation to act with "modesty." It is in the name of those two requisites that Saudi Arabia encourages men and women to receive different educations. Article 15 of Royal Policy stipulates: "The state is responsible for the education of girls and for providing them, as far as possible, with the means to satisfy the needs of all those of school age, so that they will have access to those disciplines that correspond to their natural aptitudes." Despite the obvious handicap of their "natural aptitudes," and despite the many barriers created by the government, women nonetheless represent 55 percent of the nations university graduat
es.51 Unfortunately this rate of success is not reflected in the job market because of provisions that prevent them from occupying positions that would not be in keeping with their duty to act "modestly"-that is to say, any employment that might bring them into oneto-one contact with men.52 Thus, those women who do manage to engage in a profession do so in a closed-off environment, or one reserved for women only: banks and universities that cater to women, health care and teaching exclusively for women and young girls, etc. In theory, Tariq Ramadan, like all the Muslim Brothers who have held a grudge against Saudi Arabia since the Gulf War, denounces this treatment of women, their segregation and the ban on women driving a car as "malfunctions" characteristic of Saudi society. He even goes so far as to speak of "men s behavior that is nothing short of perverse."" Yet it is important to understand that these criticisms are not aimed at sexual segregation per se, since Saudi Arabia is close to the model advocated by the preacher ever since he was in Switzerland. Hassan al-Banna himself considered it indispensable "to revise the educational methods for young girls" so as "to distinguish between such methods and those appropriate for boys at all levels of schooling."54
Tariq Ramadan is, indeed, highly critical of the situation of women in Saudi Arabia, but only as a prelude to his approbation of women's status in another country that he considers to be a model of its kind: Iran! "Iranian society today is, compared to other Muslim societies, the most advanced as concerns the promotion of women," he explained, in all seriousness, in one of his recorded lectures.55 He returned to the issue in his book of inter views with Neirynck, republished in 2004: "It must be said that Iran is, without doubt, one of the Muslim countries that has done the most, over the last twenty years, in terms of advancing women's rights."5G Sure of himself, and without ever encountering opposition, Ramadan insists on presenting Iran as the country "in the vanguard" when it comes to women's rights in the Muslim world, way ahead of Saudi Arabia (agreed) and Egypt (possibly), but also far ahead of Tunisia! Which is nothing but out-and-out propaganda, for Tunisia is widely considered to have the most progressive Family Code in the Muslim world, so far as womeris rights are concerned, thanks to its secular institutions. But that is the nub of the problem. Tariq Ramadan does not think in terms of equality, and he is not in the least bothered by the segregation that prevails in Iran. He forgets to explain that, if Iran has made tremendous progress, it is because it had such a long way to go. And even if Iranian women have begun appearing in the public domain, this has taken place under a sexist, segregated dictatorship that denies them access to certain professions (as, for example, sitting as a judge) in the name of decency and respect for their "nature."
"No liberation detrimental to the family"
Tariq Ramadan encourages women to take part in the Islamic renaissance, but their participation is always subject to their remaining good mothers and faithful wives. It is what he calls "balancing one's commitments"; that is to say, the family is the number one priority for women: "No liberation for women if it's detrimental to the family."57 This is a demand that he also makes of men, but there is no secret as to who is to be sacrificed first. As he puts it: "The family is the core of social organization and the core of the Muslim community. We consider it to be the fundamental ingredient."58 The fact of considering the family as the basic element of social organization is not in itself reactionary. It only becomes reactionary when the concept of the family is reduced to a traditional, hetero-patriarchal definition, in which the family stands as a citadel besieged by modernism and threatened both by the redistribution of male and female roles due to feminism and by the development of new parental models. And it is to counter this evolution, which is part of progress and modernity, that Ramadan calls for the defense of the "traditional" family. "We will take up the struggle; we will be resistance fighters; we intend to spread the idea of what is called the traditional family."59 And he provides the definition: "What we want is a daddy, a mummy, and children that establish just that sort of harmony. There's nothing worse than singleparent families. There's nothing gloomier than people who try to bring up their children alone." Unlike strict Catholicism, Islam allows for divorce, but Ramadan makes a point of citing this hadith: "Of all the things permitted by God, it is the most detestable!"60 And he adds: "When you see that, in some Western societies, two marriages in three end in divorce, it's terrifying!"
The defense of the family is a war waged as if civilization were at stake. Tariq Ramadan asserts that "in all Western countries, the origins of catastrophe and breakdown are not in the economy, drugs or delinquency, but at the level of the family."61 Which does not keep him from subsequently linking the decline of the family with juvenile delinquency and drugs, as would any Christian activist of the extreme Right.62 In 1988, the magazine Itineraires, a Christian political fundamentalist publication, sent out this call to women: "Make of your families mini-fortresses or, even better, houses of prayer and of charity, that will stand up to the assaults of the world and its malevolence."" Tariq Ramadan employs the same mystical, melodramatic tone when urging women to protect their families against the evils that hover over them: "The enemy is invisible, just as the devil is invisible; but the enemy is tangible, just as the devil is tangible and real."64 The preacher is all the more tempted to treat the family as a citadel under siege because he himself grew up in a family in exile, in a family that considered itself beset by adversity. It is almost as ifhe were bequeathing his own family fears to his Muslim followers when he declared, in emotional tones: "The family, yes the family! I care about it and all ofus care about it, and we will fight for it; it's a battle; it's the personal jihad of every one of us."G5
"A man who has faith and a woman who has faith"
In a cassette on "Married life in Islam," Tariq Ramadan gives us his definition of the ideal couple: A Muslim couple must be made up of a man who has faith and a woman who has faith."66 The statement can be taken in two ways: either as a means of encouraging religious practice, or as a refusal to countenance mixed marriages, since it is a common faith that unites the couple. Tariq Ramadan promises women a peaceful home if they submit to God and conform to the family model proposed by Islam: "I promise that you will transform your household if you first transform your own self-if you display to your husband, to your children, to your entourage, to your relatives, that faith has made of you a being who ascends and not one content with mere appearances."67 Advice that should be taken as encouragement to behave with decency, which means wearing a headscarf, and, above all, not seeking professional recognition that could be prejudicial to home and husband. Under the pretext of offering women a "balanced" family model, it is meri s interests that Ramadan has in mind: "We want wives that are pious. The best thing that can be granted a man is a pious wife. And the best thing that can be granted a woman is to be pious."68 A statement punctuated by cries of `Allah Akbar!" that rose from the Ivory Coast audience listening to his speech.
Within the family, consisting of a man offaith and a woman offaith, Ramadan insists on the maternal role: "The heart of the family, it's the mother. ,61 He often repeats the two hadiths that reveal with what emotion Mohammed, who was an orphan, evoked the image of the mother. The first reads "paradise is at the feet of one's mother." The second gives Mohammed's reply to someone who asks ofhim: "To whom do I owe respect?" And the reply: "Your mother, your mother, your mother, and then your father." This way of honoring the mother, while it is tenderhearted, obviously has nothing very feminist about it. It belongs to the classic patriarchal repertoire, by which women are given an almost domineering role within the household, so that they forget all that is denied them in the outside world. Shortly after having recalled these two admirable hadiths, Tariq Ramadan sets things straight: "One has heard it said that women must be obedient to men, and it's an excuse to do just about anything! But a woman is to obey a man only if he is a model Muslim."70 Let us be clear what he means. The statement can appear positive, in that Tariq Ramadan is coming to the defense of women confr
onted by potentially violent husbands, but it also reminds us that this compassion for women is worlds apart from accepting the principle of equality between the sexes; it argues for a relation of complementarity, in which the woman obeys the man if the man obeys God. It can bring to mind what St. Paul said: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man.,7 'Tariq Ramadan is of the same opinion when he says he wants to see "paternal authority" within the family reaffirmed.72 "Islam proposes a setting that fosters a global conception of human beings, of men, women, and the family. Two principles are vital: the first affirms the equality of men and women in the eyes of God; the second affirms their complementarity within society. In terms of this conception, it is the husband that is responsible for managing the household, but the mother's role is central. ,71 On the face of it, the aim is to reassure the father and have him participate more actively,but obviously the statement's primary effect is to reactivate the good old patriarchal reflexes.
"One thing that we hold fast to, even today in our contemporary societies, where people have lost their bearings, is that there exists in Islam the conviction that a man is responsible for his household in financial terms and is responsible for guiding it."74 It is on the basis of this conception of the couple that fatwa number 32, published by the European Fatwa Council with a preface by Tariq Ramadan, authorized husbands to act like domestic tyrants: "The husband has the right to forbid his wife to visit certain women, Muslim or not, if he fears that it will be prejudicial or harmful to his wife, his children or his marital life."75 Tariq Ramadan can repeat as often as he likes that "being responsible isit being a dictator," but it is clear that, even if he is in favor of dialogue and exchange between the couple, he is defending a particularly patriarchal and reactionary model.
Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan Page 19
