Sometimes seen as an Islamic
scholar, a theologian or even a preacher, Tariq Ramadan is first and foremost a
philosopher who intends to connect political and religious matters. Annoying
for some, a pioneer for others, everyone has an opinion about him. He is the
author of books such as Islam and the Arab Awakening (2011) and What
is a Western/Muslim Individual Today (2015).
Tariq Ramadan talks to Middle East
Eye about terrorism, political Islam and what is going on in the Middle East
and in France, where he recently applied for citizenship:
MEE: Does terrorism as we
know it today bring up the issue of the interpretation and reform of Islam or
is it only a social matter? In other words, according to this ongoing debate
between Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel, does it mean that we are seeing the
“Islamisation of radicalism” (Roy) or “is Islam becoming more radicalised”?
Tariq Ramadan: I do believe that none of them is a hundred percent
right. We need to acknowledge that there is a real issue with how the Scriptures
are being interpreted. Whenever I am told that terrorists are not Muslim, I
systematically reply that they actually are, and they cannot be marginalised,
the same way they are marginalising other Muslim people. Scriptures are quoted
even though their interpretations are twisted. In the face of misinterpretation
the only way out would be using another interpretation of the Scriptures.
Moreover, those young ones who want to
try military jihad are facing a triple issue. First of all, they are missing the point when it comes to
understanding what there is at stake from a political viewpoint. How come so many of
them are going to Syria and so few to Palestine, even though, when it comes to
symbolism, Palestine definitively wins.
Then, it is essential to understand
that it is not a religious matter. Among the UK
Task Force, set up after the London bombing in 2005, it had been observed that
92 percent (now 87 percent according to the statistics) of the people who were
leaving for jihad, became “radicalised” or I would rather say “extremely
violent,” within six months. When they are planning the attacks, they are
living a very sketchy life. However, saying that
all of them have social difficulties would be untrue. Some of them feel humiliated, others frustrated. Sometimes, we
would have extreme psychologically fragile cases. In the US, some of them got
enrolled because they were in debt or threatened.
Finally, let’s not forget about the recruiters behind their screens. Those ones are quite skillful and
well-supported financially. We came across the testimony of two young girls who
explained to us how those recruiters take the time to exploit any psychological
fragility they might spot in the future recruits. For instance, one of those
young girls’ best friend from growing up got killed in Syria. Then, she was
talked into going to Syria herself, so she could restore her late best friend’s
dignity. This death laid the groundwork for her religious belief.
MEE: Is there an issue with
the use of the word “Islamism”, since it covers up a wide range of meanings,
from being applied to Ennahda, the Tunisian political party, to describing the
takfiri movement?
TR: Yes, things need to be properly named. Political confusion starts with terminology confusion. Islamism implies some sort of political and social plan
for Muslim people. In that classification, we find different categories.
Legalist ones, traditional ones and revolutionary ones. Some of them are
revolutionary but are non-violent, others are extremely violent. There are also
the ones we call the literalists, like the Egyptian party Hizb al-Nour that
used to be against democracy and now is getting into the political game.
Saying that the origin of the
Islamic State (IS) is within the Muslim Brotherhood organisation only
strengthens IS. This is what the Israeli government asserts when claiming that
Hamas and IS are the exact same thing. By saying so, the historical resistance
[against the Israeli occupation] is viewed as unlawful, called extremism and
terrorism.
MEE: How are European
Muslims supposed to answer all the questions those attacks have brought
forward? Are they supposed to say sorry, as they are urged to do, or should
they dissociate themselves clearly through getting even more politically
involved?
TR: If we agree to say that those terrorists are indeed
Muslim, I have no problem whatsoever to condemn their actions. I won’t
apologise though, or justify my point of view. Condemning is essential in order
to start a constructive discussion, in order to introduce an “and” that leads
to reflection: “I condemn those actions and …’.
You cannot limit the debate to
being solely in favour or against. It should be more complex. When you condemn, you need to understand what led to it. In general, if it is our responsibility to condemn
terrorist actions after they had happened, we have an even greater
responsibility beforehand to make sure they won’t happen. When Manuel Valls
says there’s nothing to understand because “understanding is justifying,” he
echoes back to Georges W Bush’s
logic in 2001. When François Hollande says “they are attacking us because of
who we are,” what does it say about victims in Mali, Baghdad, Ivory Coast or
Turkey?
MEE: What does IS truly
stand for? Is it only threatening our safety?
TR: Do you really think this organisation has settled in
Iraq and Syria by chance? Those organisations, al-Qaeda being the first one,
have all settled in areas full of mining and oil resources or in geostrategic
zones. They settled in Afghanistan which underground is filled with oil and
lithium. North Mali is filled with mining resources (uranium).
Moreover, it is essential to question the impact and role of some
international players that create or let those organisations settle there.
Thus, IS has played a major role in helping Bashar al-Assad to reposition Syria
on the international scene. Now, it is
almost impossible to come up with a solution that would exclude him. The
political game appears to be very cynical indeed. (IS扮演救援者的角色)
Then, the fact that this
organisation is called the Islamic State reveals something even deeper. In
fact, it implies that every single Islamist party in Egypt, Iraq or Tunisia are
not really representing Islam and Muslim people. Nowadays, political Islam is going through a crisis, however this
crisis is necessary, for it will lead to a changing way of thinking. In order to make it out of this dead-end, reviewing
political Islam becomes mandatory.
Muslim societies must leave behind
these dual aspects: secularism/Islamism. During the Arab Spring in 2011, I had
been thinking that what was happening was the sign of the loss of political
meaning for Arab societies. This is actually what has happened …
MEE: Precisely how do you
assess the political landscape in the Middle East since the 2011 Arab Spring?
For instance in Egypt, how does President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s politics
differ from Mubarak’s?
TR: In my opinion, we had qualified those actions as
“revolutionary” too quickly. Back then, I was cautiously optimistic. I reckoned we were dwelling too much on
political issues and didn’t take into consideration what was at stake
economically. For instance, we can affirm that
what happened in Egypt was an internal military coup d’etat. The corrupted
governance of Mubarak and his son Gamal became an issue. Moreover, he had
started to negotiate more openly with China and India.
Then more broadly, a destabilised
Middle East in pursuit of security means that the US has found its way back in.
When it comes to economic relationships, China and India are doing a far better
job. Shaking up this whole region means that Israel needs the US for its safety
and military camps are “flourishing” everywhere in the Middle East. It has been
said that Obama is less interested in the Middle East. I don’t think so. This
mess has been created and maintained. Maybe the US
is pretending to be less interested, however, it allows them to take their
power back when it comes to security.
MEE: How can we justify
people’s different reactions regarding the victims of terrorism in Paris and
Brussels versus the victims in Baghdad or Beirut?
TR: Globalisation means indeed everything is global but there
are still very specific centres of power, especially when it comes to media and
news. Those media hubs are located in the
“North,” so the media’s exposure and how events are going to be covered will
definitely differ from whether or not those attacks are happening in the
“North” or not. Misinformation about some attacks
is going to affect how emotionally involved the audience is going to get. In
the end, an emotional ranking is artificially created when it comes to
casualties.
When terrorism is directly aiming
at Western countries, it is automatically and abnormally enlarged in order to
instill emotions and fear. However, when attacks happen in the Middle East, is
it conveniently downplayed and less talked about. Unless they would benefit
more from a heavy coverage. (媒體的力量)
MEE: You just gave a
conference in Bordeaux; Alain Juppe, mayor of Bordeaux and probably running for
president in 2017, said he was against it. He brought forward the usual
argument that “you are talking out of both sides of your mouth”. What do those
controversies around you say about France?
TR: This is old news indeed, using the same tricks. A topic
can be distorted. It is like using a smoke screen, the same thing for an
individual. The topic here is Islam. If French
politicians are no longer talking about Islam, they know they will have to talk
about something else, which brings the spotlight on their inefficiency. They will have to talk about domestic social and
economic issues and they will have to justify their foreign policy, which is
obviously something they need to avoid at all costs.
Saying that I am talking out of
both sides of my mouth just proves my very point. Politicians would bypass real
social issues by referring to my grandfather, who founded the Muslim
Brotherhood, or to my brother, currently chairman of the Islamic Centre in
Geneva.
I can't help but notice that those
feuds from French politicians against me would suddenly reappear before
elections. I am portrayed as a dangerous individual who can be fought thanks to
their ideas. In my opinion, those manoeuvres are serious political mistakes.
How can someone like Alain Juppé still claim I haven’t condemned the Paris and
Brussels attacks, when I actually have. What I am saying is crystal clear.
Those politicians need to finally understand
that the votes of French Muslim people are as important as anybody else. In
2012, those French Muslim people voted massively for Francois Hollande against
Nicolas Sarkozy. With the results of elections getting even tighter, those
votes can make the difference. I am obviously not in favour of a “community
electorate,” however, pressure is so great on them that I can easily understand
how it can affect their votes.
MEE: You did claim before
the Paris attacks that there is no racism or Islamophobia in France, it is only
fear. Do you still believe that?
TR: Yes I do. I think that political parties are fuelling
this fear in order to create divisions. The more we bring up fear, the more we
neglect real political issues. Political debate in
France is crumbling since every single issue is brought to Islam now. By doing
so, fear is created which can lead to racism. However, we can overcome that fear through trust.
Part of the French political class
is realising that there is are large number of Muslim people coming from the
ghettos who want to make themselves heard, politically, especially about
foreign policy issues. Its electoral weight can bring back to the forefront the
Palestinian issue.
MEE: What made you apply for
French citizenship last February?
TR: For the past 25 years, I have refused to apply for it. I
had no intention to cover my tracks since I am not a politician and I do not
represent anybody. However, I have noticed I have always been put aside.
Moreover, lately we have talked about revoking French citizenship for some
individuals. Therefore, I have decided to apply for citizenship, which in a way
points out the contradictions of this bill that states the forfeiture of French
citizenship exclusively to individuals holding dual nationalities. Through this
application, I put myself in the midst of the French political debate and
discredit everything that might be said against me about this matter.
Nevertheless, I have no political
agenda whatsoever, even though some might think the contrary.
This interview was
translated from MEE French:
沒有留言:
張貼留言