Searching for Ramadan

Wednesday, 30th May 2007

This is the oddity about Tariq Ramadan--as his triumphs became ever greater, and his thinking came to be more widely known, no consensus whatsoever emerged regarding the nature of his philosophy or its meaning for France, or Europe, or the world.

I've just finished Paul Berman's much-publicised New Republic essay. It's extremely long, extremely dense, sometimes repetitive, and devotes an awful lot of energy to attacking the credentials of author Ian Buruma, accusing him of belittling the outspoken Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Buruma himself will no doubt reply in due course. Does Berman portray Ramadan as an Islamist fifth columnist? Not really. But he does point to enough inconsistencies to make you wonder whether the Swiss-born academic really is, as his supporters claim, the enlightened voice of Islam. A lot of his political ideas, in fact, sound pretty hackneyed: He thinks that Western-dominated globalization produces the poverty of the underdeveloped "south," the Muslim world included, and ought to be resisted. He is furious about Western assaults on the Muslim world, which in his eyes seem to be taking place no matter what the West happens to be doing or not doing--failing for such a long time to intervene in Bosnia, or choosing to intervene in Afghanistan (which strikes him as an American "retaliation against the people of Afghanistan")... Everything the United States does strikes him as something of a plot; but this is not unusual.
Along the way, Berman reproduces the transcript of Ramadan's notorious 2003 TV debate with Nicolas Sarkozy, then the French interior ministry. Asked point-blank whether women found guilty of adultery should be stoned to death, Ramadan refused to condemn Koranic law and called instead for a moratorium: Sarkozy: A moratorium.... Mr. Ramadan, are you serious?
Ramadan: Wait, let me finish.
Sarkozy: A moratorium, that is to say, we should, for a while, hold back from stoning women?
Ramadan: No, no, wait.... What does a moratorium mean? A moratorium would mean that we absolutely end the application of all of those penalties, in order to have a true debate. And my position is that if we arrive at a consensus among Muslims, it will necessarily end. But you cannot, you know, when you are in a community.... Today on television, I can please the French people who are watching by saying, "Me, my own position." But my own position doesn't count. What matters is to bring about an evolution in Muslim mentalities, Mr. Sarkozy. It's necessary that you understand....
Sarkozy: But, Mr. Ramadan....
Ramadan: Let me finish.
Sarkozy: Just one point. I understand you, but Muslims are human beings who live in 2003 in France, since we are speaking about the French community, and you have just said something particularly incredible, which is that the stoning of women, yes, the stoning is a bit shocking, but we should simply declare a moratorium, and then we are going to think about it in order to decide if it is good.... But that's monstrous--to stone a woman because she is an adulterer! It's necessary to condemn it!
Ramadan: Mr. Sarkozy, listen well to what I am saying. What I say, my own position, is that the law is not applicable--that's clear. But today, I speak to Muslims around the world and I take part, even in the United States, in the Muslim world.... You should have a pedagogical posture that makes people discuss things. You can decide all by yourself to be a progressive in the communities. That's too easy. Today my position is, that is to say, "We should stop."
Sarkozy: Mr. Ramadan, if it is regressive not to want to stone women, I avow that I am a regressive.
Interestingly enough, some observers, including the respected Islamic scholar, Olivier Roy thought Ramadan's position was the correct one to take. Curiouser and curiouser.

[Photo: AFP/Getty Images]