Information items: straight from the source

 

A lot of noise has been reverberating over the past few weeks around my various university and political appointments in Great Britain. There has been quite a whirlwind of talk, speculation, innuendo and approximations doubled up with disputed errors and half-truths.  

 

Although I do not have the time or the will to react to the various articles written in the media, I deem it necessary to clarify some points about the different aforementioned appointments. 

 

A double academic commitment

 

With respect to my professional engagements, I will be attached to two academic institutions starting this year. As it was announced in the media, I will soon begin my position as Visiting Fellow at Oxford University’s St Antony’s College in October. I will also be attached to the Lokahi Foundation in London as a Senior Research Fellow. My work there will focus on inter-religious, inter-cultural and inter-community relations and dialogue at the national and international levels. 

 

 

Dialoguing with the government and proposing initiatives

 

 

During the last ten years, I have visited Great Britain on numerous occasions to conduct academic research, deliver lectures and attend meetings with community groups, politicians, and officials through invitations by universities or other institutions. I have met on several occasions with members of the different political parties and government officials focusing on discussions around the British and European Muslim community and, more generally, about foreign policy with the government. 

 

I was recently contacted to be part of the task force that the British government created after the July terrorists’ attacks. Certain Muslim leaders initially criticized this working group, principally because the government had chosen (at the time of announcing the project) leaders who, they thought, were not very representative.  As well, the Home Minister appeared to be holding the Muslim community accountable for the terrorist attacks. 

 

The government appears to have taken into account and understood some of these criticisms and has subsequently used more measured wording.  This, in itself, is important to raise and a positive step in the right direction.  At a first glance, the Working Group is constituted of various personalities with very different opinions and backgrounds. A clear mandate has been established to work « together » against extremism and to determine the « respective responsibilities » the Muslim community and the government hold in the fight against radicalisation and extremism. 

 

Having heard about my nomination, some were satisfied with the choice of the government; some were afraid of manipulation or, worse, denounced treason on my part. It is necessary therefore to clarify some of these issues and to specify the objectives of this Working Group. 

 

 

The  Working Group :

 

 

1.  Is an ad-hoc committee of which the members are not civil servants nor paid.  They must submit an interim report by September 22 and will then continue to work together to propose recommendations for the long term. 

 

2. Will establish a list of priority recommendations important to undertake in the fight against the processes of radicalisation and extremism. Some of these recommendations will, of course, concern the Muslim community – reforms through the use of internal engagement and intra-community dialogue. Another series of recommendations will concern governmental policies with respect to multiculturalism as a whole, as well as, those in the social, urban and education areas.

 

3.  Without prejudging the results of the debates, it clearly appears that the members of this working group are all equipped with this spirit and want to engage in critical and constructive reflection.  This has nothing to do with supporting the politicies of the government on the national or international levels.   

 

4.  On a personal level, I have never refused to meet an elected official, a politician or an intellectual with the clear willingness to listen, exchange ideas, debate and indeed to take on the challenge of decentring oneself by confronting different view points. When bad faith is obvious, it is evident that debate is almost useless. In all circumstances, however, I have always chosen to privilege the encounter and debate with one clear ethical condition: I will not compromise my principles and my intellectual integrity. 

 

5.  While participating in this Working Group, I will remain faithful to my basic and oft- repeated positions that I can, without being exhaustive, summarize as follows:

 

• It appears imperative to work on terminology and the definitions of concepts – from a general standpoint as well as from the viewpoint of Islamic references:  What is radicalisation and extremism? How to differentiate a literalist, a traditionalist, a conservative from an extremist?  How to grasp the notion of « radicalisation » in the religious domain while differentiating it from a political position that is not always synonymous?  How to study and determine, by the same token, the joint term « religious extremist » and/or « political extremist »?  These terminological questions are not simple but clarifications to them are required. 

 

• Muslims must wake up and look at the reality facing them with a little self-analysis with regards to:

a) Islamic teachings that are propagated in the West and elsewhere;

b) Literalist, dogmatic, increasingly radical and cultural interpretations that are diffused in the Muslim community;

c) The image portrayed to their faithful about British or European society;

d) The binary mentality that they forge through the prism of the « us » vs. «them» mentality;

e) This « we » constantly reinforced on the notion of  « we, as a minority » and that prevents the Muslim citizen to psychologically attain a true understanding of the values and common good in their society. 

 

British Muslim citizens must honestly look at these realities and find solutions to reform them while they simultaneously labour against this temptation to isolate themselves within layers upon layers of intellectual, religious, cultural and social ghettos.  

 

• On the other side of the coin, it is urgent that political authorities become aware of their responsibility in addressing these questions, instead of holding on to a moral posture of the following type « it is unacceptable, it is necessary to condemn this terrorism! » And/or to create security responses with measures that, although they are more symbolic than effective, remain none the less disturbing. 

 

It is, of course, necessary to condemn the London attacks. When Tony Blair says that there is no correlation between these attacks and the intervention in Iraq, he is right – on a strictly ethical level, the invasion of the Iraq cannot justify the attacks and murder of innocent people. On the political level, however, he is wrong because it is evident that, as all the analysts have revealed, even those in the ministry one year before the attacks, understood that there does exist a relationship between British foreign policy and the frustrations and increasing radicalisation that has developed on the margins of the Muslim community.   

 

It is urgent to evaluate the British model of multiculturalism that seems responsible for speeches idealizing a patchwork of ethno-religious communities living side by side without knowing or communicating with each other. On the educational level, official programs must be launched to reflect the realities of the plural histories and memories that constitute the Great Britain of today while taking into account the cultures of origin experiences. The official system must give value to these heritages on pain of community responses ( private and faith-based schools perceived as the panacea) leading sometimes to an unfortunate auto-segregation and an identity crisis. On the political level, it is urgent to hear the grievances of citizens who encounter institutionalized discriminations that prevents them from attaining a full and effective citizenship. It is necessary also to hear these citizens when they demand just and coherent policies on the international scene while refusing to follow blindly U.S. policies, the unfair and illegal invasion of Iraq or the silence in the face of the oppression of the Palestinian and Chechen peoples.  

 

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the different British commitments on the international scene, whether one shares the same analysis, it is imperative that the government not introduce religion into the debate. What are needed are political responses to political questions. 

 

6. With regards to intellectual integrity, my participation in this Working Group will equally require a critical questioning of the security policies of the British government.  For over ten years, I have spoken up and expressed myself with respect to those, among the radical Muslim leaders, who called for hate and murders. They should have been reprimanded in the name of a legislation that, as it was, already offered means to stop them from spreading unlawful views. Nothing was done and now comes the announcement of a new series of laws that are not necessary to fight the drifts to which we find ourselves in but which are extremely worrisome in their erosion of the foundations of democracy, human rights and free speech. 

 

We seem to be taking on the « preachers of hate » but, in the end, all citizens will be impacted by measures that, in their application, stigmatize communities, institutionalize discrimination and allow unacceptable gaps with the respect to human rights. One cannot, in the interest of protecting a society, accept expelling men to countries where torture is exercised.  The European Union is justified in taking Great Britain to task for a policy which is unfounded  and will have serious political and human implications. It is for British and European citizens, all citizens without exception, to exercise their obligation of critical vigilance and to oppose all security and political policies that are discriminatory and inhuman.  The debate is far from being closed in Great Britain -on the contrary,  it is only beginning.   

 

It is within this frame of mind that I have become involved in this Working Group. I have perceived the risks as I have considered the opportunities with regards to advancing the reflection and debate on the challenges and the dangers to which our society faces. Any opportunity for dialogue, consultation and engagement should never be neglected by any responsible citizen as there is so much to work on together to master the difficult positions linked to the multiple crises in confidence that define our era and that we respectively live, somehow or other and to various degrees. 

 

 

Revenge? 

 

 

Journalists have asked me if I considered these university and political appointments as « a revenge » against the different campaigns that I underwent these last few years in France, where I was slandered and presented as a disguised supporter of terrorism, a notorious anti-Semite, a master of the double talk; not to mention the last-minute revocation of the visa I had obtained for the United States (in the name of a nebulous Patriot Act) and to which no explanation was given.

 

I know, as do  the American, French and Swiss Secret Service, that I have nothing to do with terrorism and that I have categorically been condemning this for years. My involvement on the task force, some weeks after the London attacks and after the additional  investigations by the British Secret Service, is an additional – and public – proof of this truth. Nevertheless, some have and will continue to spread allegations and lies on this subject… Let it be. As for me, I have  nothing to add: let the facts speak for themselves.   

 

With regards to my commitment as an intellectual and a Muslim, I once again note French deafness. Bothered, of course, by this announcement, certain journalists have gotten stuck in the mud with the whirlwind of convoluted analyses.  They mix the processes of intention and notorious untruths with an utter arrogance, especially with respect to those-British- wh- really-don’t-understan- anything.  It is a sad spectacle, really. 

 

On a more personal level, I have never had a feeling of “revenge”; I am just simply positive that it is necessary to continue explaining, repeating again and again and to collaborating with all women and men of goodwill because it is only together that we shall find resolutions in the numerous conflicts which threaten us. Those who, to move forward their ideological and/or electoral agenda, are willing to use every possible means to spread lies and slander, they are and will be held accountable for their actions.  I have nothing else to add to that. 

 

I remain increasingly convinced that more and more people will sooner or later come out of their deafness and understand the distorted intentions and transformed reality. Time will be needed but the younger generations are already much better and willing to listen and share than their elders. It is not about revenge, but simply about a necessity to follow a commitment by remaining faithful to my principles. I am convinced about the necessity for a deep and strict dialogue between civilizations and citizens. I write about it, I experiment with it and I shall continue to walk on this difficult path. As the expression goes, I know that one cannot make an animal drink that is not thirsty.  I also know,  that it is possible for understanding to return to those who are frightened or whose emotions have momentarily been made deaf. Perhaps a cure could be found without any miracles whatsoever for those who are so obsessed with the idea that they are  hearing a « double talk » that, in fact, they become affected by a strange  “double hearing”. This problem is reversible… with perseverance and time.