[The message below was written by Marieme Hélie-Lucas, long time coordinator of the European Bureau of Women Living Under Muslim Laws, and was originally posted to the Women in Black (WIB) international list and reposted to ISLAMAAR, the discussion group on Islam of the American Academy of Religion, on September 6, 2007. Following her commentary is a response by Mohammed Fadel, who is on the faculty of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. Both are commenting on the call by David Horowitz for an Islamo-fascism Awareness Week in October, posted upon earlier on Tabsir.]

Dear friends in WIB,
In response to the mail alerting us about this event against ‘islamo fascism’ led by conservative forces, I think there is a need for clarification from us, who lived under ‘islamo fascism’ :

First of all, let me say that the term ‘islamo fascism’ has been initially coined by Algerian people struggling for democracy, against armed fundamentalist forces decimating people in our country, then later operating in Europe, where a number of us had taken refuge. For us, it has never been equated to Islam, but it points at fundamentalists only : i.e. at political forces working under the cover of religion in order to gain political power and to impose a theocracy ( The Law – singular – of God, unchangeable, a-historical, interpreted by self appointed old men) over democracy ( i.e. the laws – plural – voted by the people and changeable by the will of the people).

For fundamentalists indeed are ideologically close to fascism/nazism. Of course one cannot equate Muslim fundamentalism to fascism because those phenomena happened in different times and history. However, there are similarities that should ring a bell to our ears : just like fascists, Muslim fundamentalists believe not in a superior race but in a superior creed, like nazis they believe that non believers or ‘kofr’ are ‘untermensch’ ( some of them even used this very term !) that should be physically eliminated ( and please please please remember that it is’ Muslims’ who do not adhere with their version of Islam that are first targeted by Muslim fundamentalists and are their first victims); like fascists they believe in a mythical past ( whether the Ancient Rome of the Golden Age of Islam) that justifies their superiority ; like fascists they are pro-capitalists; like fascists they put women in their place ( church, kitchen and cradle); etc… This is why we called them ‘islamo fascists’.

The fact that this term has now been recuperated by the Right and even the Far Right, in order to express plain racism against supposedly ‘Muslim’ people is terrible and should of course be combatted. However we have seen over and over again in Europe well meaning people siding – de facto – with fundamentalists, in the name of defence of ‘Muslims’ or of ‘Islam’, and walking hand in hand with them in demonstrations. I therefore urge you to carefully plan how you are going to oppose the ‘awareness week on islamo fascism,’ in ways that will support the democratic forces and women within Muslim countries, and NOT reinforce the fundamentalist fascist forces. Please remember that fundamentalist forces are those who slaughter women everywhere in Muslim countries and communities, those who promote war not peace. You cannot support them in the name of anti racism and human rights without signing our own death penalty at the same time.

If you demonstrate, as I hope you will, please – SUPPORT democratic anti fundamentalist forces in our countries, do not let fundamentalist forces manipulate you in the name of human rights. – Make a clear cut difference between 1. migrants from Muslim countries, 2.Muslim believers ( who are the only ones who should be called ‘Muslims’), 3. Islam, and 4. fundamentalists: these are different categories that
cannot be intermingled without playing into fundamentalists’ game, and against women.

I take this opportunity to let all of you know how hurt and angry I was when a statement was discussed at the end of the WIB meeting in Valencia, that, in its first paragraph, supported Hamas as the legitimate winner of the ‘democratic’ elections of 2006. It is one thing to say that western governments used a supposedly antifundamentalist stance to play their own game in the Middle Eats. It is one thing to say that Palestinian people have a right to self determination. But, as a women’s organization, it is another thing to support Hamas. As women against war, it is another thing to equate a democratic process with democracy and ignore the consequences on women…

Let me explain my point : ‘democracy’ has to meanings. 1. It describes a process of political representation through the vote of all citizens, and 2, it also represents an ideal of justice, equity and equality . So far
parliamentary democracy ( i.e. the vote of all the people) is better, more just, more representative of the people, than monarchy ( the rule of one leader), or oligarchy ( the rule of a selected group), etc… But we should not confuse the means – elections – with the aim – a just society. Yes, elections are generally the imperfect but best way to come closer to a more just society – however sometimes the people make a very wrong choice that denies justice to a part of the people : one should remember that Hitler was legally elected . Despite the fact that the rule of electoral process had been respected, his reign in Germany cannot be counted as a phase of democracy i.e. more just society – definitely not for Jews, Gypsies, gays, disabled people, communists and political opponents in general. One of us in Valencia was a Palestinian lesbian citizen of Israel : you cannot pretend to ignore the fact that, had she lived under Hamas’ rule, she would not have been with us, nor would have she been alive. To me, very clearly, signing a statement in favor of Hamas was signing her death penalty in the name of the rights of the Palestinian people, which we all stand for. How could WIB do that ? How could WIB agree to a hierarchy of rights in which people’s rights, minority rights, religious rights, cultural rights, etc… supercede women’s rights? in which women’s rights are subsumed to all these other rights?

We, women, have to invent ways to defend basic human rights and democracy, to combat racism and discrimination, without trading the rights and often the lives of our sisters in doing so. It is a complex task, no doubt. But i do hope that WIB will face the challenge. The opposition to this event in the USA that confuses a whole population of migrant descent with Muslim fundamentalists would be a good opportunity to design ways to face the challenge. Thanks in advance to all of those who will at least make the attempt !

All the best to all of you

marieme helie lucas

[Below is the response by Mohammed Fadel.]

Thank you for forwarding this. The statement, however, does not seem to get us very far. It does not inform us, for example, how one is to distinguish between a “believing” Muslim and a “fundamentalist” Muslim when many (especially on the extreme right and the extreme left) accuse observant Muslims – because of their observance of historically orthodox Islamic norms – of being “fundamentalists,” even in circumstances when they are simply exercising plain vanilla civil rights.
It is my general impression (although I am happy to be corrected) that Women Living under Muslim Laws falls into the same category of those who claim to distinguish between “believing” Muslims and “fundamentalists,” but in fact end up making no such distinction in practice. As a result, such dichotomies reinforce the implication that outward manifestations of Islam, e.g. wearing a head-scarf in the case of woman, growing a beard in the case of a man, or observing daily prayers, especially in a mosque, are prima facie evidence of fundamentalism or are themselves manifestations of fundamentalism, and therefore can be legitimately regulated and even suppressed by political authorities.

Moreover, accepting the political rights of religiously-based groups within a constitutional framework does not constitute “support” or “endorsement” of that group’s political agenda, merely recognition of their political membership in that society. That is surely what WIB meant when it recognized Hamas as the legitimate victor in Palestinian elections. Presumably, in any society in which ordinary “believing” Muslims exist, one would expect that the expectations of such citizens would influence political outcomes. Yet, this statement seems to posit the existence of good “believing” Muslims whose convictions are politically irrelevant in contrast to evil fundamentalists who conspire to seek political power. It is this very dichotomy, however, which is precisely at the heart of the Islamo-fascist movement, hence her reticence in opposing Horowitz and his ilk.

In Western democracies (at least outside of France), no such dichotomy is assumed to apply to followers of other religions, even though adherents of other religions often also make demands for political recognition that go well beyond any accommodations Muslims in the west have sought. Instead, the general approach of the law to these claims is to assess the particular claims made by individual citizens in their capacity as citizens and not as members of a religious group, and determine whether those claims can be constitutionally accommodated. In other words, we do not attempt to condemn the religious right as “Christo-fascists” and on that basis exclude them from the political process. Instead, we have a political and judicial system that operates to ensure (or tries to, sometimes more or less successfully) to limit political claims of religious groups to areas that are constitutionally permissible. There is no reason why precisely the same approach cannot be used with Muslim groups in the West. That, however, means recognizing their full rights to religious freedom on an equal basis as other groups, something that David Horowitz (and perhaps Muslims Living under Muslim Laws) are unwilling to tolerate, albeit for different reasons. Both seem to agree on the need to suppress public manifestations of Islam, and to that extent, they share many of the views on Islam and Muslims, although groups such as Muslims Living under Muslim Law would not use the explicitly hateful speech of sites such as Jihad Watch. It is not surprising that they use the similar rhetoric in describing the dangers of shari’a, as exhibited recently by the debate in Canada regarding use of Islamic law in the arbitration of family law disputes. Indeed, Daniel Pipes rejoiced in the outcome of that debate.

So, forgive me if I am a little skeptical of their attempt to distance themselves from Horowitz et al. One must simply accept that part of living in a democratic and pluralist society means accepting that others will live their lives in ways that are disagreeable, sometimes profoundly so. That, in itself, however, is not grounds to demonize those others, or apply to them standards other than those which apply to all other citizens.

Best regards,

Mohammad Fadel
Assistant Professor of Law
University of Toronto Faculty of Law