 |
|
| page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|
MISHAL HUSAIN: Let me put to you, then, the view that we had from the Muslim Imam in the film. The more you attack headscarves, he said, the more headscarves you will have. What do you think of that?
FAWAZ GERGES: Absolutely. I think you're going to see tens of thousands of Muslim girls and women wearing the veil in the next few months and next few years. And this is why I tend to subscribe to the idea that the decision itself could produce the opposite results from the intended consequences. It could Islamasize French society or the Muslim community further. It could fuel political Islam and supply more ammunition to conservative Muslims in France who would like the community not to be fully integrated into mainstream French society.
MISHAL HUSAIN: Which would be exactly the opposite of the aims that are behind the law?
FAWAZ GERGES: This is the paradox. The irony is that if history serves as a guide, some of the great political decisions basically have produced the opposite results from the intended consequences. And this is why -- when you deal with this highly cultural, volatile subject ... ideological -- why not deal with the root causes of the alienation and estrangement and marginalization of the Muslim community in France. Because if you do that, if you help the community to be fully integrated in socio-economic terms, I don't think the veil itself is an issue. It's a tiny superficial issue in the end.
MISHAL HUSAIN: Our film shows a whole variety of opinions about the veil from Muslims, from the French government. What do you think is going to actually happen now on the first day, for instance, that the ban on veil comes into effect in schools? What is going to happen?
FAWAZ GERGES: What's likely to happen is a major collision, a major confrontation between students and school officials. I am not really very worried about this particular collision or confrontation because I think France is very viable democracy. And so far, fortunately, the debate is being challenged through institutional means. Let's hope that this particular debate remains channeled and institutionalized through the French political system and does not go underground. This is really where the danger lies.
MISHAL HUSAIN: And yet clearly feelings have run very high over this. We've just had one French politician talk about the possibility of civil war. That's the kind of language we're hearing associated with this issue.
FAWAZ GERGES: Well absolutely. I think what this particular decision has done is to add a highly dangerous cultural factor into the current volatile political situation. And as you know culture is a very dangerous thing, especially given the current situation -- the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq ... the perception by many Muslims in Europe and in the world that there is a systematic onslaught and campaign against Islamic Muslims. And yes, I believe that the implications are not just vital in France; that the reverberations of the decision and the aftermaths go beyond France, [to] Europe and the world as well.
MISHAL HUSAIN: Given that context would the French government have been best to leave this issue alone for the moment? To leave the veil as something in the realm of the personal rather than the political?
FAWAZ GERGES: Initially, I was a little sympathetic to the official French point of view. I mean the idea of empowering Muslim girls and women -- this is a wonderful idea -- and this is basically the rhetoric of the official position. But the more I talked to Muslims, the more I talk to Arabs and Muslims in France and the world, the more I think and reflect on the decision, I fear that the decision could have the opposite results from the intended consequences. Several points here: how about the personal choice freedoms of Muslim girls and women? Let's ask them what they want. I mean this violates their personal choice. Secondly, let's remember here that the Muslim community in France now feels besieged ... on the defensive ... being attacked. I think even now liberal Muslims feel that they are being profiled. I think this basically not only violates the freedoms, the personal choices of Muslim girls and women, but also it deepens the sense of alienation and powerlessness on the part of many Muslims in France.
MISHAL HUSAIN: But on the question of personal choice the French government would say that perhaps that issue is only partially relevant because they would feel that some of these girls are being forced to wear the headscarf by fathers, by brothers, by their communities.
FAWAZ GERGES: That's why, initially, I felt a little sympathetic. I felt that somehow there could be some bullying, some peer pressure, and that some girls and women tend to be pressured by their elders, male elders, brothers, and fathers. But I think the issue is much bigger than that. I think, as I said, the debate over the ban on the veil goes beyond the question of the veil itself. It seems to me that the French political class is trying to basically dismantle political Islam and the rising influence of conservative Muslims over the French Muslim community. And I think banning the veil is not the answer. And let's remember that the veil is not the only decision. There are other steps taken by the French government. The French government in the last few months has expelled several radical preachers to their countries of origin because of their radicalism and because, according to the French government, they are violating the freedoms of Muslims in France. And also the French government is trying to create its own version of official Islam by sponsoring moderate Muslim groups. So in this particular sense let's not lose sight of the bigger issue. The bigger issue, in the eyes of the French political class, is the easternization and ghettoization of the Muslim community in France. And I think going after this highly volatile and dangerous, culturally loaded, issue has the potential to explode. I mean in France and outside France.
MISHAL HUSAIN: Would you accept the argument though that this isn't an outright ban on the veil. That this is a restriction on the wearing of the veil in school at a crucial point in the development of young people, and in an environment where the French tradition is very much that every one should be equal?
FAWAZ GERGES: I see the logic of the argument. In fact, deep down, I sympathize with the idea. I tend to be suspicious of all veils, physical, political and social. Personally I would feel deeply saddened and hurt if my daughter were to wear a veil -- but that's not the issue. I think at the heart of the issue is the question of personal choice, the question of freedom, the question over expression of religious ideas and practices. And also the idea that this is a highly dangerous cultural factor that has implications in France and beyond France. And let's remember you have highly volatile situation in Europe and in the world. And you add this cultural element and then the situation becomes much more dangerous and much more loaded.
MISHAL HUSAIN: But wouldn't it be better in a modern European society to deal with these issues now rather than later on down the road where potentially they've exploded into a much bigger context?
FAWAZ GERGES: I think the debate is very healthy. I think the debate is very healthy because it seems to me that this is one of the major exercises whereby the Muslim community in France and Europe basically tries to assert itself -- tries to advance its ideas. But my fear here is that the intervention of the state -- using state power -- legislative, in order to ban the veil, in order to roll back political Islam, in order to weaken the influence of conservative and devout Muslims. Let's ask Muslim girls and women -- what do they want? Let's talk to them. Let's talk to the community. I think legislating by the state from top down has insidious implications. And this is why I fear that the decision itself, even though you might say the decision is well intentioned, even though you might say the decision is meant to empower Muslim girls and women, it could have the opposite results from its intended consequences on their lives eventually.
MISHAL HUSAIN: You see this from an outsider's perspective, of course, you are an American. Would you accept that perhaps in France because of that history of la•citˇ, of secularism, that that's at the very heart of the modern French state. There's a different set of issues in France, a different set of ideals that need to be cherished and protected.
FAWAZ GERGES: Absolutely. The French system differs dramatically from the American system. Even though the American system institutionalizes the separation between the sacred and the political it does not discriminate against the religious imagination. The French system does. And I think the decision itself to ban the veil shows the extent of the secular fundamentalist nature of the French republic. And we can talk about the merits that these systems ... it seems to me that the American system is much more encompassing. That the Muslim community in the United States has not encountered the same difficulties as its counterparts in France, in England, in Germany and other places. And this is a testament to the fact that the American system basically tolerates the overt expression of religious sentiments and differences. It's really this particular idea -- the idea that because America was established by people who basically escaped religious discrimination and persecution. And this is what really makes the American experience unique. And this is why America is very attractive to many Arabs and Muslims, because of their ability to exercise their religious sentiments and symbols. And here I want to really go beyond this particular debate and address the question of why they hate us so much. As you know, in the United States after 9-11 the big question was and is -- why do they hate us so much? I think this question is nonsensical because the overwhelming majority of Arabs and Muslims are deeply attracted to America and deeply attracted to the American idea. The American idea that respects and tolerates the overt expression of religious practices and sentiments. Why do they hate us so much? The question should be why do they hate American foreign policy so much? Not why do they hate Americans so much.
MISHAL HUSAIN: But if we compare the situation in France to America's Muslim community this is a community that has had its own significant difficulties since September 11th. Do you think that we could see the kind of polarization between Muslim and the mainstream, if you like, in the states that we see in France? Not now, maybe further down the line.
FAWAZ GERGES: I think this is a very important question. I think before 9-11 the Muslim community in the United States was experiencing an awakening. Many Muslims in America were able to climb the socio-economic ladder. And I think the community itself flexed its muscles in the 2000 presidential elections and many members of the community whom I talked to talked about a new era, a new growth, in 2000. I am deeply saddened and alarmed by the dramatic turn of events since after 9-11. I've talked to many Arabs and Muslims in the United States and they are terrified of the consequences. The Muslim community in the United States now feels besieged, on the defensive, and stereotyped. It feels profiled. Many Muslims in America now basically wonder: why are we being harassed? Why are we being profiled? Why do we ... are we being stopped at airport and searched? Why for example, the label of terrorism has been stamped on our foreheads for no other reason except that some Muslims committed hideous acts against their fellow Americans?
MISHAL HUSAIN: But does that context mean that Americans should look very close at the experience of countries like France, where clearly attitudes have become very entrenched? And we see that in the reactions to the issue of the veil.
FAWAZ GERGES: I think the leading politicians in the United States and institutions basically have criticized the French decision to ban the veil. THE NEW YORK TIMES, in a leading editorial made it very clear that decision itself was short-sighted. American politicians have said so. And this is a testament to the unique American experience; an experience that tolerates the overt expression of religious symbols and practices.
MISHAL HUSAIN: So it could never happen in the United States?
|
|
| page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
continue to next page  |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Fawaz Gerges, professor of International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence College
|
|
