International: Women from migrant descent vs Muslim fundamentalists in Europe and North America: struggles and unexpected new obstacles

This is also the way they proceeded in our countries. For they do know that patriarchy is universal and that western governments , like our own governments, will be happy and relieved to trade women's' rights for keeping social unrest at bay.

Indeed the Canadian government decided to outlaw religious arbitration, indeed women won a battle, an important one. But they have not won the war. There are two lessons that we can learn from this encounter:

On the one hand, despite the large mobilization of Canadian women, the voices of those who supported Muslim religious arbitration - in the name of equity between all religions, regardless of the probable content of such an arbitration, regardless of which forces were pushing for it - were well heard and well received by the political authorities. Indeed there was a need to take a principled decision for all religions, and indeed discrimination against the sole religion of Islam was indecent and unacceptable. The infamous Marion Boyd's report testifies to this attitude, which prevails even among some currents of feminism. However, human rights advocates and feminists that defended equal rights between 'communities', should also have defended equal rights between men and women and should have questioned the potential discrimination against women that was most likely to take place under such arbitration - not only in the "Muslim" community but in other communities too. I think that it is an established fact that it is only when international pressure through an international campaign of letter writing and demonstrations took place that national protest of concerned Canadian women was given some consideration. That among the protesters were women from Muslim countries who knew what they were talking about for having suffered under such religious laws certainly had some influence too. The Canadian government was shamed publicly for its eagerness to sacrifice women's rights on the altar of community rights and it knew that this sacrifice will not pass unnoticed from the international community. We women have to recognize that, more and more so, our national struggles need to be backed internationally if we want to have a chance to succeed.

On the other hand, it is clear to me that the battle will go on and that Muslim fundamentalists in Canada will both - challenge the decision of the Canadian government, legally and otherwise, nationally and internationally,mobilizing part of the Left and of the human rights movement, using human rights concepts, human rights law and international treaties, - and devise other demands and strategies to pursue and enhance their political agenda.

For this demand in Canada, already tested in Europe, happens in a global political context of the rise of Right and Extreme Right political forces in the world today, within which one should place religious Rights of various creeds, Muslim fundamentalism being one of them.

Muslim fundamentalism is NOT a religious movement, as it pretends to be. I can state that in my country as well as in many others, fundamentalists are totally ignorant of religion and hardly willing to reflect and learn about it. When confronted to progressive religious interpretations and interpreters, they show disinterest, disregard and no inclination to debate. They use religion to legitimize their political ambitions.

Muslim fundamentalism is a political movement of an Extreme Right nature, that seeks political power, either directly or indirectly, depending on countries: It is a coalition that ranges from hard core conservatives to fascists.

For them, Islam is both a religion and a political system that should govern the land.

It is also a transnational political movement that makes it different from most other religious Rights that also use religion for political purposes, but are more geographically located.

At this stage, it is important to make a clear cut distinction between Islam, Muslims and fundamentalists.

Islam is a religion, a philosophy, an ideology; it pertains to the realm of ideas, hence, like other ideas, never on earth will we see it realized and concretized. Muslims are the very real people who claim that they are followers of these ideas; they are spread on all continents, a vast majority being located in Asia, then in Africa, and finally a minority being located in the Middle East where they originated from, with now a growing diaspora everywhere and especially in Europe and North America.

Fundamentalists are a political Right and Extreme Right force that present themselves as Muslims and use Islam as a cover for their political work.

I am here discussing neither of Islam, which I leave to theologians to debate upon, nor of Muslims as believers of a faith. Whether what they do and don't do is or is not Islamic will not be discussed here: we are in the domain of sociology and politics. I will discuss 'Muslims' exclusively in so far as they intersect with Fundamentalists, as defined above.

'Religious' demands which have been made in Europe and North America to give visibility and specificity to 'Muslims' have all been done under the control of fundamentalists, with an exclusive focus on control of women.

In France, Muslim fundamentalists demanded for instance: the end of co-educational schools, separate swimming pools for men and women, or different days for men's and women's use, entirely female wards in public hospitals including all female personnel ( doctors and nurses, helpers and cleaners) for female patients - while France is now short of doctors, whether males or females... - , a different curriculum for girls in state schools that includes a banning of sports, music, graphic arts, biology ( for, like Christian fundamentalists in the US, they refuse Darwinism and want creationism to be taught - at least to girls!), and of course they demanded the 'right to veil' for girls under age that was much talked over in the world...

It is important to note that fundamentalists already succeeded in some French cities in obtaining from Mayors and other local authorities sex segregation in swimming pools, that they have had similar success in the UK. In the UK, they also succeeded in having a different curriculum for girls in Muslim schools despite the fact that those can be funded by the state.

Demands for separate religious laws in family matters have been made in most European countries and are close to be met in the UK, while decisions are pending elsewhere. This is not a new strategy. Already some thirty years ago, the Dutch Parliament debated whether or not to allow female genital mutilation, on the soil of the Netherlands, for the 'concerned sections of the population'... in the name of cultural rights.

Let us examine for a minute the most debated question of the so-called Islamic veil in France. On the one hand, it cannot be separated from the above mentioned other demands that are made by Muslim fundamentalists. On the other hand, it has been wrongly constructed into an exclusive attack on Muslim freedom of religion. (For a defence of French secularism by a progressive Muslim theologian, see: Soheib Bencheikh: 'Marianne et le Prophète - l'Islam dans la France Laïque" , Grasset, Paris, 1998. Bencheikh rightly argues that secularism and the law of separation between religion and the state is precisely what guarantees him the right to freely practice his religion in France).

But merely we need to clarify as often as possible a concept that is so decried as well as so little known outside France. It is often equated with equal tolerance, by the State, to all religions. To me, this could hardly be seen as secularism, especially if one refers to the UK ( where the queen is both Head of State and Head of the Anglican church), or to Germany ( where the Landers collect religious taxes for financing the various churches, as part of general taxes), or to the U.S. ( where one testifies in court by swearing on the Bible), or to Canada ( where mention to God is made in the Charter of Rights).... No doubt that this should spark confusion regarding what France means by secularism !

Since the beginning of the XX° century, France adopted a law on secularism, by which the State totally steps out of religious matters: hence, the State will not interfere in, nor fund, any religion, and the institutions of the Republic will reflect this ideological stand. Religion and State are now separate.

Quoting Henri Pena Ruiz, renown French philosopher and specialist of secularism, in a recent article : "The 9 December 1905 act opens on two indivisible articles, grouped under the heading, "Title 1. Principles".

"Section 1: the Republic shall ensure freedom of conscience. It shall guarantee free participation in religious worship, subject only to the restrictions laid down hereinafter in the interest of public order.

Section 2: the Republic may not recognise, pay stipends to or subsidise any religious denomination. Consequently, from 1 January in the year following promulgation of this Act all expenditure relating to participation in worship shall be removed from State, region and municipality budgets."

Hence grouped under the same heading, the two first articles of the law are obviously inseparable and are clearly referred to as principles. Religious freedom is but one version of the freedom of conscience (article 1) and is viewed only as a particular illustration of the freedom. Having to coexist with the freedom of choosing to be an atheist or an agnostic, the freedom of opting for a religion obviously belongs to a more general category which is the only one mentioned by the law. Insisting on "religious freedom" is in fact preserving the privilege of a spiritual option when the law henceforth rejects all privileges. This is why section 1 is inseparable from section 2 which stipulates that the Republic does not recognise any religious denomination. This strictly means that it has passed from recognising certain denominations (before 1905, Catholicism, Lutheran and Reformed Protestantism and Judaism) to renouncing all recognition. It is not passing from recognition of some to recognition of all, as a multireligious or communitarist interpretation would have it, but from a selective recognition to a strict non-recognition. This principle of non-recognition is to be understood in its legal sense as confirms the fact that no stipend or direct subsidy may be paid to any church by the State. It does not entail, of course, that the social existence of different denominations or that the atheistic or agnostic forms of conviction are ignored. Equality of all is a key issue for such legal provision as it is likely to remind one that the State is only concerned with the general good. The 1905 Act does not just stipulate that all churches are henceforth legally equal. It extends this equality to all spiritual choices, whether religious or not, by dispossessing the Churches of any public law status. Assigning religions to the private sphere entails a radical secularization of the State. It henceforth declares itself incompetent in matters of spiritual options, and has not therefore to arbitrate between beliefs nor to let them encroach on the public sphere to shape common norms. .../... As to the essential principle of the respect of religious neutrality, section 28 of the 1905 Act stipulates :"It is henceforth forbidden to build or affix any religious sign or emblem on public monuments or on any place whatever, with the exception of religious buildings, burial places in cemeteries, funeral monuments as well as museums or exhibitions."".

This is the logic behind forbidding any sign of political or religious affiliation in the schools of the Republic and in public administration, when the civil servant is in contact with the public in his/her professional capacity of representing the Republic in France. I grew up under this law in colonized Algeria, and despite the discriminatory colonial context, Christians were no more allowed to wear crosses inside the premises of state schools, than were Jews allowed to wear a kippa or Muslims to wear a veil. While all these signs were allowed, in the name of freedom of conscience, as soon as one had gone beyond the door step, outside locations that both belonged and represented the Republic. Children were there as citizens and freed from representing a 'community'.

This law clearly represents a challenge between two fundamentally opposed visions of society: citizenship by choice vs communities by birth. Pena Ruiz discusses it as follows:

"The secular recasting of the state, initiated in France with the acts of 1881 and 1886, then the Act of separation of Church and State of 9 December, 1905, corresponds to some sort of evidence enclosed in the very etymology of the word: the Res Publica addresses everybody, believers, atheists and agnostics alike and cannot therefore favor anybody. What pertains to some cannot be imposed to all or even privileged : the unity of a population is then based on the fundamental correlation between freedom of conscience and the equality of the rights of all men, whatever their spiritual choices. The French word for secularity, laïcité, is derived from the Greek word laos meaning population and therefore refers to a principle of union of the population grounded on values, or requirements, ensuring that nobody will be the victim of pressures on his conscience, or of discriminations because of their spiritual choices.

In that sense, secularity is akin to universalism, which is the essence of the republic. But it could not occur spontaneously. There had to be a movement to emancipate the current law from any submission to some specific religious persuasion. Hence, the republic is neither atheistic nor religious: it no longer arbitrates between beliefs but arbitrates between actions and is devoted only to the general interest. .../...This evolution puts an end to the confusion between the temporal and the spiritual, and in a way liberates them from the corruptions it inflicted to both.

At the same time, the ethical liberty of the private sphere is guaranteed. No conception of what the good life is can monopolize law or illegitimately extend the normative function of the law beyond the interest of the community of citizens. The law tends to evolve from prescription to proscription. .../... The respect of the private sphere, as independent from the public sphere, maintains the state in the limits required to preserve the autonomy of each person from supervision, whether of one's life ethics or religious choices. The effect is to protect man's inner life from any intrusion of the state, which emancipates religious as well as atheist spirituality. Kant argued that the paternalist figure of the prince trying to dictate to his subjects how to be happy was the worst type of covert despotism: making men childish in this way proves in fact that they are considered as neither free and autonomous, nor lucid. (cf. theory and practice). And who is to decide of it but a self-proclaimed authority which stands purposely apart from the people it dominates? The republic is not made up of subjects - in the sense that they are not subjected to anyone or anything - but of citizens who, as Rousseau pointed out, are both the authors of the laws and those who must obey them. The two meanings, both active and passive, of the word subject become reciprocal in a democratic sovereignty, which is the collective form of political autonomy: it is in this case the people themselves that promulgate their own law and must obey it. Such an autonomy, with all its variety of forms for the individual as well as for society, raises the individual to the status of a subject of rights while setting the people up as the sovereign authority.

The type of union formed on that model cannot be interpreted in terms of communities, for it would mean that the people has a right over its members just as the king had a right over his subjects, that is to say, according to a unilateral domination instead of a reciprocal sovereignty belonging to each and to all." ( Henri Pena Ruiz: " Secularity and the Republic: A secular recasting of the state : principles and foundations". - this article can be found on the WLUML website)

It is indeed the success of Muslim fundamentalists, thanks to the growing ideology of multiculturalism, leading to communalism, that such a wonderful and respectful law on secularism is now labelled, the world over, 'the law against the veil', and that it is considered discriminatory against Muslims ! It follows suit that the demand for the 'right to veil' for girls under 16, in secular French schools, was a straight forward attack on the very principles of the Republic and a step towards reintroducing religion as a way to govern that is at the roots of the fundamentalist agenda to impose theocracy. We will discuss later the enforced identity that 'communities' may represent, vs secular citizenship.

It is because of such wide spread, deliberate and coordinated entryist policies in Europe and North America that i can say with some certitude that Canadian women have won a battle but not the war and that they should be ready for further battles against Muslim fundamentalists.

2. Reactions

Let us now examine the reactions of the various social actors to fundamentalists demands in Europe and North America.

And let us first note that these demands always concern primarily women through their position within the family. Therefore it is always family laws that are claimed first as the preferential symbol of Islamic identity. Other specificities of so-called Muslim Laws, such as for instance the Huddud laws ( the laws concerning punishment) that condemn thieves to the amputation of limbs and adulterers to be stoned to death have not yet been proposed or demanded as legitimate symbols of Islamic identity in Europe and North America. Although we may be getting there: at the time of the heated discussion on the veil in state schools, a fundamentalist preacher who manages to pass off both as an intellectual and as a theologian, and as a 'moderate Islamist' (this terminology will be discussed later), Tariq Ramadan, refused to condemn publicly the stoning to death of adulterers during an interview on French TV; the most he could envisage was ' a moratorium'.... Governments, we already mentioned, are preoccupied with keeping 'communities' at peace with each other and with itself and fully prepared to trade women's rights, unless a strong social movement force them to reconsider their position. This is the reason why the wise entry point of fundamentalists in their policy of de-secularization of the State, are measures that affect primarily women.

Then why is it that women from the Muslim community sometimes find it so difficult to take a clear cut position regarding fundamentalists demands vs women human rights? We cannot ignore here the double bind in which they are caught. Religiously minded or not, they see, just as we all do, the growing racism, discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation that so-called Muslims face, and more so after 9-11. As members of this community, they too face these difficulties, as well as being sensitive to what their male folks face. They face all this both for themselves and for their community. When they stand up in defence of their women human rights, they are immediately labelled traitors. Traitors to their community, to their family, to their culture, to their religion, - but also, and not less excruciating, traitors to the oppressed of the world, to the revolution, etc... For those of us who are atheists and come from social movements, condemnation comes additionally from a larger and larger section of the Left and of human rights organizations in which we still recognize ourselves that gives precedence to the defense of communities over the defence of women. For those of us who are religious, condemnation comes additionally from authorities of a faith that is dear to their heart. This is why we should collectively praise women from 'Muslim' descent who have allied in Canada, from the faith based Canadian Council of Muslim Women to the secular 'No sharia campaign', in a fruitful coalition. This is a very difficult situation indeed, but no different from that of battered women or incest survivors who stand up against their aggressors and denounce a husband, a father or a brother... they too are often seen as betraying their folks, and it is definitely equally hard on them. But those who take this courageous position should indeed be supported by other women in a careful and respectful way: I do not include as respectful support the totalizing and homogeneizing condemnation of "Islam" and of "Muslims" ( rather than of fundamentalists) by ethnocentric westerners who are convinced that they are ahead of civilization and a model for all. Support as well as criticism should clearly be politicized, on the basis of shared values rather than communities.

The growing ambiguity of main stream international human rights organizations, of a large section of the Left and even of a vocal current within feminists viz fundamentalists should be a matter of concern to many of us.

Some months ago when a group of us, from Muslim countries and communities, visited Montreal and Ottawa in support of the coalition against religious arbitration in Canada, i was struck with the way women from CCMW spoke up against the proposed legalization of arbitration, while some of the women who were obviously not from 'Muslim' descent worded their concerns carefully and somehow sheepishly. As if "Muslims" were under attack, rather than fundamentalists. Marion Boyd herself was considered a feminist till such time her report proved that she too was prepared to trade women's rights for the rights of minorities to oppress their women. This sends me back into memories of the time, in the seventies, when some feminists in Europe defended publicly female genital mutilation in the name of cultural rights of minorities... It took, in France for instance, the courage of women 'traitors' from communities where FGM is practiced to send perpetrators to jail ( unfortunately they were women, of course, - which added to the above listed reasons to condemn these fighters of girls and women's rights not to be sexually mutilated) to stop FGM to take place on French soil.

Similarly, human rights organizations have repeatedly taken wrong positions on question of rights of women. We raised issues around their exclusive focus on state responsibility for the past twenty years at least, pointing at the fact that non state actors ( among which fundamentalists) are increasingly important in inciting or fomenting wars and armed conflicts, imposing non chosen identities, curtailing of basic freedoms and women's rights; we claim that it is time to demand direct accountability from non state actors. Human rights stance is that the State should use due diligence to enforce human rights and control non state actors. But as soon as states attempt to do so, human rights organizations call upon them for infringing upon minority rights, cultural rights, religious rights, etc... There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this will happen again in Canada when Muslim fundamentalists will challenge in court (national and/or international ones) the government decision to refuse religious arbitration in family matters. Human rights organizations now have to be taken to task by feminists and to be confronted with their own contradictions.

Finally, we need to point at the alliances that are built between Muslim fundamentalists and various political forces of the Right and the extreme Right. One of course expects religious fundamentalists to support each other beyond religious difference. And of course that is the case: after the attack on French secularism on the question of veiling girls in state schools, known Jewish and Christian fundamentalist organizations took position in support of demands from 'Muslims', ignoring the outcry from the progressive scholars of Islam and many women from Muslim descent who went public in the media to defend French secularism. Feminists had their first taste of these unholy alliance during the Cairo World Conference on Population, where the Vatican and El Azhar University ( considered the highest religious authority) colluded in actions against freedom of contraception and abortion.

But even clearer is the approbation of Muslim fundamentalists by fascists political parties: Le Pen, as the Head of National Front in France, and Haider, as the Head of the Freedom Party in Austria, both spoke - and not just once - in support of the Islamic Salvation Front, i.e. first fundamentalist party in Algeria which among other things condemned to death , and often executed with the help of AIS, GIA, etc..., those they called 'unbelievers' on the ground that they did not share their views of religion. The logic behind such a support from openly racist organizations is that racists recognized difference - a notion that we will reexamine later. Le Pen also recently came public in support to Muslim fundamentalists who demanded the law on secularism to be reconsidered.

These alliances should point at the political nature of Muslim Fundamentalism. But other forces in society that should be the natural allies of the progressive and democratic opposition to the theocratic fundamentalist project, when they fail on us,we should realize to what extend they too find themselves in a double bind that needs to be undone, and we should free them from their biggest fear which is to be accused of Islamophobia and racism. In order to get out of this trap, this dead end, this cul-de-sac, we should revisit and challenge a number of concepts that are currently used, as if their meaning had reached a consensus.

3. Revisiting concepts

Far from it, these concepts are disputed political territories and the location of social struggles between diametrically opposite forces. They are also concepts that can easily be, and in fact are, manipulated.

I will first challenge the term Islamophobia. It is a success of fundamentalists' strategy that they have persuaded so many of the social forces that should be on our side in this struggle that being against their medieval views of religion can be equated to being against Islam. This is why, despite my personal secular options, i find it very useful to promote the work of progressive and feminist theologians - men and women - and their attempts to build the equivalent of a liberation theology in Islam, and to make respectful alliances with them. The more visible we make this trend, the more chances we have to break the monopoly over Islam that fundamentalists have managed to build for themselves, in today's world where religions have acquired a status of sanctity regardless of the politics they promote.

For we have to state that Islam, just like any other religion, is not homogeneous. Islam gives birth to various interpretations of the texts that founded it, from the most progressive to the most fundamentalists. The least one can say is that, at this moment in history, fundamentalism prevails and progressive interpreters, including feminists theologians, are in danger. Most men theologians have been threatened and often executed in our countries for their readings of the texts allowing, to various degrees, freedom for women, for non Muslims and for non believers. So far no women theologians have been murdered, but many are under threat.

Muslims - here understood as believers - are not homogenous either: among them, there are forces of progress, as well as the conservative people, the political forces that use religion as a cover for their political agenda, and plain fascists which all together constitute what is here referred to as fundamentalists. Fascists is the version of fundamentalism that terrorized Algeria without, yet, totally controlling the state, and is presently in power in some Muslim countries.

I am aware of the epistemological and methodological problems that arise from such a historical reference. I am not a historian and my choice of terminology will be challenged by any historian. I am also aware that i am using this concept more with reference to nazi Germany than to Italian fascism. However, i maintain that we are witnessing new forms of fascism and that Muslim fundamentalism is one of them.

Like fascists, Muslim fundamentalists of the brand we had in Algeria are abhorrent of democracy i.e. the law of the people that can be changed by the people, they promote theocracy i.e. the 'Law of God' ( their interpretation)of it, the divine law that cannot be changed, that is a-historical. Like fascists, they have god on their side. 'Gott mit uns', as was carved on the buckle of the belt of the SS.

May I quote from Ali Belhadj, the Number 2 of FIS ( Islamic Salvation Front), on the eve of the 1991 elections in Algeria : ' If we have the law of God, why should we have the law of the people? One should kill all these unbelievers.' In consistency with this statement, he also warned that, should FIS win these elections, there will be no more elections in Algeria.

Like fascists who believed in a superior race, Muslim fundamentalists believe in the superiority of Islam over any other religion and that allows them to dominate and have a right of life and death over those who do not share their creed.

Like fascists, they turn to a mythical past: it is not the Aryan race, nor the glorious past of Rome but it is the Golden Age of Islam. A 'return to' that justifies medieval practices, especially but not exclusively over women.

Like fascists, they condone the physical elimination of all opponents: not just political opponents but all those that they, like fascists, label infra humans, sub humans, 'untermensch'; those are the 'kofr' ( i.e. unbelievers in their eyes, apostates, blasphemous, etc...), but also gay people, Jews, communists, etc...). Let me say a word in remembrance of J.Senac, a famous Algerian gay poet that was assassinated in the mid seventies, because he was a gay artist; this assassination prefigured the numerous assassinations of artists in the nineties, by fundamentalists armed groups.

Like fascists, they are expansionists, they seek to convert the whole planet to their interpretation of Islam.

Like fascists who limited women's role to the domestic sphere of church, cradle and kitchen, Muslim fundamentalists seek 'separate development' for women - a concept that, under the name of apartheid, sparkled a world wide protest when it separated blacks from white, rather than men from women.

Like fascists, they are pro capitalists and social justice for Muslim fundamentalists can be dealt with through charity ( zakkat).

Considering their political stands, it is a mystery to me that such people could be supported by a fraction of the antiglobalization movement and by a fraction of the political parties of the Left, just because they oppose the state. Just like with human rights organizations, feminists need to address the contradictions within the Left. No denying that Islam bashing, racism, discrimination and Islamophobia do exist, one should be very careful in making the distinction between rejection of a religion per se or rejection of what people may do in the name of this religion. And one should stand for one's right to criticism of what people do do, without being intimidated by such labelling. For it comforts fundamentalists in their claim that they represent Islam and Muslims and whoever they like to force to be Muslims. This claim is not to be accepted.

The second term that i want to revisit with you is 'Sharia'. Sharia in Arabic means the way to God, the path to God: progressive scholars use the word in that sense. But for fundamentalists it means The Divine Law (one and only, as interpreted by them). When you hear about Sharia Law in Canada, be sure it is the fundamentalists' meaning that is referred to.

If neither Islam nor Muslims are homogenous, then so is the so-called 'Muslim law'. There is no such thing as Sharia -The Muslim Law ( singular); it is nowhere in existence in the world. There are Muslim Laws which are diverse and give very different space and options to women. The very existence of this diversity proves, if need be, that these laws are man made, not god given.

Diversity among Muslim laws stems from various elements that concur to inform and shape laws: i will cite four of these elements and give concrete examples.

The first reason that comes to mind in order to account for diversity in Muslim laws is of course the different interpretations of religious texts; but it is far from being the only one and we will see that other reasons can be as important or more.

Let me take the example of two neighboring countries in the Maghreb, both of Maleki ritual, having a common culture , a common language and a large common border with same family members on both sides. One, Algeria, allows polygyny ' in the name of Islam'; the other, Tunisia, forbids it 'in the name of Islam'. How come? The Algerian legislator used the verse of the Qu'ran that says that a man is allowed four wives and as many concubines as he can provide for; the Tunisian legislator used the other half of the verse that says that a man is allowed four wives, provided he can treat his wives perfectly equally. For the Tunisian legislator, a man can give the same amount of money to several women and the same dresses and the same house, etc... but beyond material goods he will not be able to give them equal affection; hence for the Tunisian legislator, this is a clear indication that the Qu'ran does not favor polygyny- the next step being to outlaw it.

Disregarding the reality of different approaches and different readings of religious prescriptions, that translate into very different situations and different rights for women, European countries do not hesitate to comfort the views of and side with fundamentalists, in the name of respect for "Muslims". Quoting from an article" Polygamy All Over the Place", by Paul Belien, in The Brussels Journal published on Thursday, November 17, 2005, we learn that:

"In Britain legislators have chosen to adopt a liberal approach, amending existing laws in an effort to accommodate the needs of the local Muslim population. Last year the Sunday Times reported that Muslim second wives will get a tax break: "The Inland Revenue is considering recognising polygamy for some religious groups for tax purposes. Officials have agreed to examine 'family friendly' representations from Muslims who take up to four wives under sharia, the laws derived from the Koran. Existing rules allow only one wife for inheritance tax purposes. The Revenue has been asked to relax this so that a husband's estate can be divided tax-free between several wives.".../...

"Only last week (November 11) the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten reported statements from Norway's Directorate of Immigration (UDI) that there are an increasing number of men with multiple wives in Norway. "The reason is married men travel to countries where polygamy is legal and then add a wife." Though polygamy is illegal in Norway, "this is something that Norwegian authorities cannot prevent," said UDI spokesman Karl Erik Sj¯holt. The question is whether the authorities should encourage it. The Islamic Cultural Center Norway (ICCN), an immigrant organisation subsidised by the Norwegian state, advises Muslims in Norway to take several wives because polygamy "is advantageous and ought to be practiced where conditions lend themselves to such practice.".../..."There are also hundreds of polygamous families in Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and other countries".

Alongside with religious interpretations, one can explain the differences from one "Muslim" law to another by looking at the fact that Islam absorbs local cultures. For instance, one will find casts among Muslims in India, although this is not seen in other parts of the Muslim world and is obviously inspired by the dominant Hindu culture. Similarly, FGM is practised by Christians, Muslims and Animists alike, as a cultural tradition, in some African countries (roughly speaking those within the sphere of influence of ancient Egypt), but rather unknown outside this geographical area.

Moreover, modern 'Muslim' states do not hesitate, when it is in the interest of patriarchy, to incorporate and codify into legislation that passes off as Muslim, not only pieces that pertain to local traditions but even colonial laws. For instance, at independence of Pakistan in 1947, Pakistani women found themselves totally deprived of all rights to inheritance. Muslim laws usually give women half of the share of their male relatives - but not less! Pakistani women soon found out that the legislator saw it fit to adopt Victorian legislation that deprived British women of all right to inheritance... At times of newly won independences and praise of nationalism, it is educative to see that patriarchy has no border and no nation.

However, the factor that in my views accounts for most differences in "Muslim laws" is the political use of religion. A crude example from Algeria:

At independence in 1962, after a bloody war of seven years against French colonialism that made two million victims, Algeria was progressively changing colonial laws into national ones. A group of men and women approached the then President Ahmed BenBella, asking for a swift change from the French law that still criminalized not only practice but even knowledge on contraception and abortion. BenBella objected that this would be against Islam. Not discouraged, the group went to the highest religious authorities, the High Islamic Council, which promptly delivered a fatwa, stating that contraception was indeed licit in Islam and that there could be large indications for abortion, including the physical and mental health of the mother. Quite an enlightened view at a time when large parts of Europe under Vatican's influence were still struggling to obtain less than that... However BenBella filed this fatwa right away and ignored it. His intention was obviously to use women's reproductive power to replenish the decimated population.

In the mid seventies, the population gross rate was 3.5 ( as high as Pakistan at the time and one of the highest in the world); women in procreative age had an average of 7.9 living children and the number of pregnancies was close to natural fecundity. As a result a mass of youth could not be accommodated in schools any longer and came unequipped on the labor market that could not absorb them . The new bourgeoisie, born out of the 'socialist' bureaucracy, was feeling the threat of this huge lumpen proletariat: in an attempt to protect their interests, they exhumed the fatwa issued in 1963 and women all of a sudden had access to contraception and abortion. The same religious opinion had been hidden then used to, cynically, serve different political interests and priorities at different moments in history, - both ignoring women's needs and rights.

All those are elements that constitute "Muslim laws" and explain their diversity. No one could be called 'Sharia' with more legitimacy than the other. By using the word 'Sharia', one is only supporting the erroneous views than fundamentalists try to propagate in order to legitimize their power over a whole community and their monopoly over a religion. I urge you not to use it any longer and to replace it by a plural - Muslim laws -that, while recognizing the religious common ground that nurtures laws just like Christianity nurtures laws in Europe and North America, takes into account the plurality of sources of the laws, thus acknowledging its man made character and challenging its God given nature.

An overview of this diversity will also point at the fact that, if none of the Muslim countries and communities have all good laws for women, many have some good laws for women: for instance, divorce by mutual consent ( hard won in some European countries and considered 'modern') exists in Algeria, Tunisia, Senegal, Malaysia, etc... ; financial settlements upon divorce that take into account the input of domestic work into family wealth and give equal rights to the ex-spouses over family property exist in Iran, Singapor, Malaysia, Central Asian Republics, etc...; spouses have equal rights and responsibilities in marriage in Turkey, Fidji, Indonesia,Tunisia, Lebanon, Central Asian Republics, etc...; the man is not the head of the family and obedience is thus not required from the wives in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India , etc...; polygyny is forbidden in Tunisia, Fidji, India, Gambia, Turkey, Lebanon, Central Asian republics, etc...; it is submitted to permission by legal authorities in Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Pakistan,, the Philippines, Singapor, etc... and to the authorization of the co - wives in Senegal, Cameroon, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, etc...; equal right to both parents in matters of custody and guardianship of children upon divorce are granted in Indonesia, Gambia, Senegal, Turkey, Tunisia, etc... and it is a judge that decides 'in the best interest of the child', not the father...

This is a far cry from the image of 'poor oppressed "Muslim" women' that is generally propagated. True enough, depending on the country/community, women can also be forcibly married, secluded, sexually mutilated, have no right over family property, or over children upon divorce, they can be unilaterally repudiated, etc... Like everywhere, the rights listed above are the outcome of long hard fought struggles by progressive social movements, including the women's movement, against reactionaries.

Not withstanding the fact that access to the law is a class issue, one could say that if feminists were to demand all these rights under so-called Muslim laws, women will be well off. Unfortunately, fundamentalist trend is exactly the opposite: not only do they pick and chose , regardless of the School of Thought that produced them, or of their geographical and cultural roots, all the bad religious interpretations and the bad cultural practices that are unfavorable to women; and they label them Islamic.

For example, the Maleki ritual in North Africa does not recognize the woman's coming of age: she is never an adult legally speaking and she needs a wali - a matrimonial tutor - to enter into a marriage contract; she has to be given in marriage by her wali. We witnessed an attempt to promote such practices in Pakistan. It was imported through the Algerian djihadis that were in contact with Pakistanis in Afghani training camps in Peshawar. Several cases came to our attention of adult Pakistani women wanting to marry of their own choice, who had to face murder or attempted murder from their fathers, who, despite the law of Pakistan that grant adult status to women, claimed in court a wali status towards their disobedient daughters for their defence.

Through the same channel of Algerian djihadis who learnt the practice from their Iranian instructors in Peshawar training camps, muta'a marriages ( temporary marriages) - which are specific to Shia Islam and unknown in Maleki Islam that is practised in Algeria - have been introduced in Algeria. In the nineties, Islamic Armed Groups raided villages, slaughtered men and children and kidnapped women into their camps, for domestic and sexual slavery - but they called it muta'a marriage and told the raped women, much to the horror of progressive imams, that this unilateral forced 'marriage' was perfectly Islamic.

Last example: about a decade ago, Sri Lankan women from the Muslim community alerted us to the attempt to introduce FGM in Sri Lanka, in the name of Islam. Women did not know exactly what it was, since the practice is not traditional in South Asia. It took flying women from the anti FGM movement in Gambia, Mali, etc..., loaded with statistical, medical, religious, graphic and video material, for them to discover and successfully combat the introduction, out of the blue, by fundamentalist groups, of unheard of FGM in Sri Lanka.

In the present political context of rise of fundamentalist Extreme Right, reference to Muslim Law - singular - or to 'Sharia', is sure criteria that practices that are unfavorable to women are being proposed, and a clear indication that women should scrutinize the proposal with the filter of women's rights and most probably have to mobilize against it.

Let us now also revisit the notions of religion and culture. For who defines religion, who defines culture and traditions? Who speaks for the 'community'?

On the one hand we should be careful with the concepts of tradition and modernity: tradition of today is but what was yesterday's modernity; and what is modernity today will be tradition tomorrow. Those are not fixed a-historical stages. Mores are in constant fluid evolution, including when there is a 'going back to our roots' as is the case at present, - and both tradition and modernity are transitory stages that are the location of many social struggles. When a demand is presented in the name of tradition, it is worth asking in which century is this very stage - neither earlier nor later? On the other hand one should also question who defines and represent culture or religion. It is generally self appointed old male religious leaders. This can, and should be, be challenged from various stand points:

Where are the women and why are we not entitled to define for ourselves religion and culture? Why are younger people not represented?

Why non elected men, self appointed, self proclaimed 'leaders', can be seen, accepted as representatives of the community - how can such an undemocratic process be blessed by democratic governments?

How can religious people alone represent a whole population: believers, atheists, agnostics alike?

This leads us to question the use of the word "Muslims" as encompassing a whole population . For these "Muslims" may not be Muslims. It is totally inadequate to brand with a religious label various migrants coming from Asia, Africa, Middle East... as if a religious affiliation was not a free spiritual personal choice. This is an insult to believers, to their commitment to their faith, - and it is an insult to free thinkers, to their freedom of conscience, to their integrity. Like everywhere in the world, there are atheists, free thinkers, agnostics or simply people who do not chose religion as the main marker of their identity, who think that faith and spirituality belong to the private domain - among these so called 'Muslims'. Not only is it a forced identity, it is also a single forced identity taking precedence over other concomitant identities such as nationality, gender, color, class, political affiliation, etc...

It is frightening to witness this curtailing of our freedom of thought which is symbolically taken away from us by the quasi general use of the label 'Muslim' to identify whole populations. Even more terrifying is the evocation of another historical stigmatization: that of of 'Jewish' people, for whom a religious label has been use to construct them into a supposed 'race', - an identity imposed on both believers and non believers of the Jewish faith...

"Muslims" themselves - believers and unbelievers -, together with antifascist forces of Europe and North America, should ponder about it.

This conceptual confusion comforts fundamentalists' claim to make us religious beings with or without our consent, it comforts racists in their homogeneization of the Other, and it also comforts in their position the religious leaders that are supposed to represent us all.

Since we are all 'Muslims', why challenge the representativity of the most 'Muslims' of us all, the most religious, the most vocal, the most different, in short, the most fundamentalists of us all. For if you look at who, actually, in practice, these 'representatives' are, you will never find either atheists of Muslim descent, or truly progressive theologians, as representatives of the "Muslims". Progressive voices among migrant of Muslim descent are made invisible. We, the feminists, the unionists, the Lefties, etc...we are not 'Other' enough, we are too similar, to be seen as legitimate.

For the last concept i want to discuss here is: difference, the 'right to difference'. Progressive people advocated tolerance vis a vis others, their mores, their culture, their differences. Feminists celebrated diversity between women. Human rights organisations spoke up for the rights of minorities.

It is now time for us, without renouncing these generous ideas, to realize that other forces are manipulating them too. These ideas are undoubtedly rooted into liberal ideology that considers all opinions, all 'cultures' should be equally respected, or at least tolerated. We need to stand against this a-political position. No, not all opinions should be respected, not all customs should be tolerated: the 'final solution', whether it was for Jews or is now for 'kofr', is not an opinion that can be tolerated; sexual mutilation of girls, stoning to death, veiling of minors are not cultural practices and traditions that can be tolerated.

We should never forget that difference has been the battle cry of segregationist Southern states in the US, and of tenants of apartheid in South Africa too: different, - therefore unequal; this is the underlying assumption. When the right to difference leads to the oppression of women, it should not be supported.

This right to difference has had major consequences: on the one hand, it has resulted in conflicts of rights that oppose minority or community rights to women's rights, with the corollary of instituting a hierarchy of rights in which women's rights come last; on the other hand, it has led to the confessionalisation of social problems, self appointed religious leaders taking position on social problems which have nothing to do with the supposed cultual expertise; and it has led to the privatisation of social problems, when defence of rights and justice lies in the hands of communities - Muslim defending Muslims, First Nations defending First Nations, etc..., as if it were not the task of all citizens to stand against injustice, discrimination and abuse, as if it were no more the Res Publica, the prerogative and duty of us all.

As a conclusion i would say that there is a need to give visibility to progressive forces among the migrants of Muslim descent and to give special attention to the non Muslims, to feminists, to unionists, etc... among them, in order to break the monopoly of fundamentalists over Islam and their domination over so-called "Muslims". There is a need to denounce the fake and forced homogenisation of a whole population.

This is a task for us, whether recent migrants or whether third, fourth generation in families of migrant descent. This is also a task for those who have nothing to do with Muslim countries and communities. By doing that, one will not 'aid' "poor oppressed 'Muslim' women"; one will simply and selfishly make the necessary alliances in order to prevent Extreme Right forces to step foot in Canada, for that will be to the detriment of all of us, whether 'Muslims' or not: this is the two way process of solidarity. For we are all in the same boat: the rights that women loose here will backlash on other women there; the rights that will have been protected here will enhance the chances of other women to gain similar rights.

Article written for the Muriel V. Roscoe Annual lecture given by Marieme Hélie-Lucas in November 2005.