Should we celebrate Jeremy Corbyn’s victory? The radical left speak of an “earthquake”. For others, however, it is a political suicide. In fact it all depends how one views Jeremy Corbyn. From a purely economic angle, shared by most newspapers, his victory is encouraging and shows that in England there is still a left which can defend the welfare state. The new Labour Party leader is firmly opposed to austerity policies. He is even calling for renationalization of energy and the railways. After so many years of deregulation and privations under Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair it is refreshing.
Corbyn’s election can be seen as the death of Blairism, the sign that after Syriza and Podemos it is possible to dream of a Great Britain which is not only obsessed with scuppering political Europe, but on the contrary favours a real European recovery policy. If such were the case it would indeed be heartening. But this victory is misleading.
The election of Jeremy Corbyn will not be the death of Blairism, but will plunge the left in England into a very long coma, for with him as Labour leader, as soon as the public becomes aware of his policies, the Conservatives are sure to remain in Downing Street for many long years.
Support for victims of…. anti-terrorism
The Conservatives are already looking forward to confronting him given his accumulation of questionable positions over the years, and we are not referring here to his economic position. Corbyn’s alternative and ambitious economic policy, which does not have the favour of many English people, merits a debate and being defended. No, we are referring here to his positions on international policy, freedom of expression and terrorism, subjects which are sometimes minimized by political commentators, but which are in no way minor subjects.
For example, certain associations are concerned by Corbyn’s frequentations in conspiracy theory and anti Semitic circles, those he calls his “friends”: leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah, with whom he has the “pleasure and honour” of addressing meetings.
Corbyn’s entourage defends him by explaining that he was unaware of the negationist convictions of two of his friends and that anyway he refers to everyone as “his friends”. Yet the fact remains that Corbyn has offices with his friends at Finsbury Mosque (“a wonderful community asset” according to Corbyn), one of the most radical mosques in Europe and which the Muslim Brotherhood took over from the jihadists.
He also supports CAGE, an association founded by Islamists not, as incredible as it seems, to support victims of terrorism but victims of anti-terrorism! A question of priority.
The “inclusive” left alongside the extremists
Still on the subject of questionable positions, Corbyn is always happy to give interviews on Iranian TV and Russia Today, the propaganda channel of the Russian regime, which is his favourite channel. He even described it as the most “objective” channel in the audiovisual landscape. Which speaks volumes for his vision of the world.
In 2006 he demonstrated against the publication of the drawings of Mahomet, alongside English fundamentalists, compared to whom our Islamists look like protesters from the 60s and 70s. Apart from that he was really and truly sorry about what happened on January 7.
To summarize, his rebellious streak and elementary anti Americanism make Jeremy Corbyn a pure product of the radical left which flirts with the worst extremists in the world.
His priority is not so much to reduce inequality as to promote an “inclusive” multiculturalist policy, a seductive expression which can be translated as the Anglo-Saxon communitarian model, which encourages competition between communities for fundamentalist derogations, to the detriment of gender equality and secularism.
It is alarming that such unsavoury positions did not scupper his chance to be elected leader of Labour. But one thing is certain, they will be dragged up and seen by the British public at the next general elections as fatal for the country.
Jeremy Corbyn will never convince a broad public
If the Labour left wanted to remain in opposition, they could not have made a better choice. For some of their sympathizers it doesn’t really matter. For someone who is a leftist through and through and not a progressive, the objective is not to convince a majority to sign up for progress but to be right, standing alone against the world. This way they remain pure.
In this respect those who defend an alliance between the radical left and the fundamentalists and tyrants of the world can rest assured. Until they can demonstrate their ability to propose an economic alternative and rid themselves of their indulgence, blindness even, towards fundamentalists and dictators there is no risk they will dirty their hands by governing the country.
In spite of the crisis and all they could have going for them the radical left will never attract the democratic left. During the past decade, marked by the risk of terrorist attacks, all the radical left has done is contribute to the progression of the far right. They have absolutely no influence on the future of Europe, except as a fear factor.
Tariq Ramadan vehemently denies that his grandfather had anything to do with the ever-increasing recourse to violence in the name of Islam. In his eyes, Hassan al-Banna is “by no means the ‘father’ of that ‘modern Islamism’ characterized by violent demonstrations and simplistic, obtuse anti-Western prejudice”.[1] Listening to him, one tends to forget that al-Banna founded a movement that intended to raise high the flag of Islam by whatever means, even if this meant “death on the road to God”: “Despite the portrait given of him by the British colonizers (who, in Egypt and elsewhere, have always accused their opponents of the worst violence and the most horrible crimes) al-Banna never killed anyone, nor arranged for a political assassination,” declared Ramadan in L’Islam en questions[2] – even at the cost of escalating from revisionism to negationism.
Hassan al-Banna was quite explicit in his praise for the armed jihad that he considered to be the highest form of courage. In 1940 he described for the benefit of the Muslim Brotherhood what holy war entailed: “What I mean by holy war (jihad) is the duty that must be obeyed until the day of resurrection and which God’s messenger sets down in these words [….] The first stage in the sacred war is to expel evil from one’s own heart; the highest stage is armed combat in the service of God. The intermediate stages are waging war with one’s voice, one’s pen and one’s hand, and by words of truth addressed to unjust authorities.”[3] This glorification of armed combat as the supreme degree of the jihad was not a vain formula. In the months that followed, the Brotherhood decided to create a secret armed section, the Special Organization. [[See page xx]] Its mission was to prepare a selected number of militants for armed resistance. Tariq Ramadan does not deny the fact, but he describes it as a way of preparing for self-defence, an understandable concern when they were up against the British who might well decide “to physically eliminate their opponents” – or in case “they refused, after repeated urgings, to leave the country”.[4] The truth of the matter is that the Special Organization was primarily engaged in sending militants to fight in Palestine. Even before the creation of Israel in 1947 the Brotherhood sent armed squads to track down the Jewish immigrants. Tariq Ramadan takes pride in recounting these events: “Al-Banna provided assistance to the Palestinians by sending them an advisor and a specialist in military training, raising funds to buy weapons, and setting up training camps that he ran jointly with members of the Special Organization. Volunteers came to Palestine in groups to support the resistance.”[5] Later on, another armed group in Palestine was to claim close links to the Brotherhood… Hamas. Its very existence suffices to refute the idea that the Brotherhood’s ideology has nothing violent or fanatic about it. But Ramadan takes pains to explain that in Palestine violence has nothing violent about it since it is legitimate: “ Hassan al-Banna was opposed to violence and approved of the use of arms only in Palestine as a way of resisting Zionist colonialism.”[6]
Tariq Ramadan was well aware of the fact that his grandfather called for a jihad, but he vindicated him by explaining that the call was strictly limlited to situations of “legitimate defence” or “resistance in the face of injustice”.[7] Two criteria that are highly subjective. On this basis violence was legitimate when it was a question of facing up to Nasser, just as it was in opposing British occupation. Or just as it will be every time that any obstacle threatens to block the Muslim Brotherhood’s quest for domination. Ramadan is brazen enough to claim that the association has never been responsible for acts of violence. Yet in March 1948, for example, a judge was assassinated for having condemned a Muslim Brother. And on the 28th of December of the same year, before al-Banna’s death, the Brotherhood claimed responsibility for the assassination of the Prime Minister Nuqrachi Pacha![8] These deaths could not have occurred without the Guide’s knowledge.
Hassan al-Banna had on occasion barred activists that were in too much of a hurry to go into action, as he did in 1938-1939, not because he repudiated the idea of an armed jihad, but because he found that the time was not ripe. During this period his movement was gaining ground among the people. He was intent on consolidating his political influence, and therefore sought legitimacy. If the Brotherhood were to be condemned for illegal acts, for assassinations or for setting off riots, it would disrupt the evolution of his campaign. In 1948 the Brotherhood went too far; another assassination tipped the scales and the organization was dissolved by military decree. On the 15th of November a demonstration organized by the Brotherhood to honour their “martyrs” degenerated into a riot in which two British officers were killed in their jeep. Those in charge often lost control of the young activists that they had fanaticised. Despite what Tariq Ramadan has said, the organization that his grandfather created was bound to produce fundamentalists who – when it appeared that indoctrination alone would not suffice – would be tempted, sooner or later, to take up arms in order to achieve their objectives. However, the fact that violence was a last resort is considered by Hassan al-Banna’s grandson to be proof of great moderation in their choice of tactics. He turns the cool and calculated radicalism of his grandfather into something more spiritual. By way of example he cites one of al-Banna’s speeches in which the latter tells his followers to carefully weigh the pros and cons of using force, but to take responsibility for whatever course is deemed necessary. “The Muslim Brotherhood will use force only as a last resort, when there is no other choice, and when they are convinced that they have achieved total faith and union. And if they must employ force, they will be dignified and sincere, they will give advance notice and wait for a reply; only then will they advance with nobility and pride, prepared to bear the consequences of their decision with confidence and calm.”[9] In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood has no intention of calling for an armed revolution, but they will be forced to do so if they don’t get their own way. This it what Tariq Ramadan, fascinated by his grandfather’s rhetorical astuteness, calls the Muslim Brotherhood’s “farsightedness”.
[1] Tariq Ramadan, Aux sources du renouveau musulman, op. cit., p. 29.
[2] Alain Gresh, Tariq Ramadan, L’Islam en questions, op. cit., p. 34.
[3] Olivier Carré, Michel Seurat, Les Frères musulmans, op. cit., p. 44.
[4] Tariq Ramadan, Aux sources du renouveau musulman,op. cit., p. 356.
The Muslim Brotherhood began organizing when, in March 1928, six companions, fired with enthusiasm by al-Banna’s preaching, sought him out to ask him to launch a political campaign in the name of Islam: “We have listened to your message, we are aware of where we stand, we are committed, but we do not know what practical steps to take to reinforce Islam and bring betterment to Muslims.”[1] The Guide will at last have the opportunity to demonstrate his gift for organization. He began by a piece of advice that would provide the Muslim Brotherhood with the means to survive the obstacles that repression was to bring – and to counter its critics: the cult of the informal. “One of his companions asked: ‘By what name shall we be called?’ And al-Banna replied: ‘None of that; leave aside appearances and officialdom. Let the principle and priority of our union be thought, morality and action. We are brothers in the service of Islam, so we are the Muslim Brotherhood.’”[2] A judicious piece of advice…. al-Banna had understood that a movement that could not be pinned down would be indestructible. In giving his movement a name that was both a title and an expression currently employed in Arabic, in which believers often address each other as “brother”, he created a means of identification that was discrete. From its birth on, the Brotherhood was both an official movement and a school of thought which one could claim to belong to, or deny being part of, according to circumstances. On the other hand the watchword was clear and unambiguous: “Our motto will forever be: God is our objective. God’s messenger is our guide. The Koran is our constitution. Struggle is our path. Death on the road that leads to God is our ultimate desire.”[3]
In other words it was never al-Banna’s intention to advocate a rationalist, secular Islam, but on the contrary to organize a movement capable of putting pressure on Egypt, and then on the rest of the world, to adopt a fundamentalist social order destructive of freedom. As proof, one has only to read the political and social program drawn up by al-Banna in 1936, a program entitled “Fifty Demands”, which was the Muslim Brotherhood’s manifesto for “concrete reform”. The manifesto spelled out in detail the steps to be taken to establish legislation, and subsequently a social, political and economic system based on the sharia. Throughout the manifesto it is said that individual liberties must yield to dictatorship by divine right. As to method, the Brotherhood intended to “go beyond political differences and direct the energies of the ‘umma’ [the worldwide community of Muslims] towards one sole aim”: the attainment of a political Islam. The organization defined its objectives as “reforming the laws in conformity with Islamic legislation, particularly as regards the definition of offences and the punishments for crimes”,[4] and spreading “the spirit of Islam throughout all the branches of government so that all citizens consider it their duty to put Islamic precepts into effect”. In the meantime, in their everyday dealings, the Brothers intended “to initiate respect for morality among the people and make everyone aware of the regulations set down by the law”, which meant that “the punishments for violations of the code of morality should be strictly applied”. This objective, which was central to the program, involved several provisions, namely “eradicating prostitution”, “treating fornication whatever the circumstances as a serious crime punishable by law”, but also “forbidding coeducation”, “considering all private contact between members of the opposite sex as a punishable crime”, “closing down dance halls and other Centers of debauch as well as outlawing dancing and any form of physical contact between a man and a woman”. And that’s only a brief résumé of the contents.
The manifesto was for many years available only in Arabic until the journal Islam de France decided to publish it in French so as to enlighten all those who, misled by the angelic presentation of the text given by Tariq Ramadan, were ignorant of the basically fundamentalist and reactionary nature of the Muslim Brotherhood. The publication of this program, which proved to be quite different from the version that Ramadan had spread among the anti-globalisation leftists, was by no means welcomed by al-Banna’s grandson. Michel Renard, one of the founders of Islam de France, recalls having been the target of the latter’s anger: “It’s then that I realized that he practiced double speak: you can’t believe in a secular society and in Hassan al-Banna at the same time.”[5] This affront to the founder’s dignity resulted in the closing down of the journal. Al-Bouraq, the house that published the journal, but also publishes Tariq Ramadan, all of a sudden cancelled its contract after the publication of the issue in question, bringing to a close one of the most stimulating editorial initiatives devoted to Islam in France.
For Tariq Ramadan it is essential that the movement that inspired him be seen in terms of his own particular perspective. For someone who is aware of the harm done by the Muslim Brotherhood’s fundamentalism – and I am referring not only to the violence but to the fanaticism that Tariq Ramadan considers as wholly legitimate – it is frightening to hear him explain to European Muslims that the “extremely critical remarks” made concerning his grandfather are to be accounted for by the fact that his “national liberation movement” was a thorn in the side of Westerners.[6] He points to the fact that the Anglo-Saxon press presented the movement in 1936 in favourable terms, until the day when the Muslim Brotherhood stood up against “the Zionist presence in Palestine”: “It is quite clear that once it became evident that there was popular support for the Brotherhood’s stance, they began to cast suspicions on Hassan al-Banna’s activities, to spread rumours about him, and disparage the movement as a whole.”[7] A way of implying that all the criticisms made of al-Banna and the Brotherhood were the result of a campaign of lies designed to protect the Zionist interests. In fact, what we can conclude from all of this is that Time magazine – which was to designate Ramadan as one of “the leading lights” in the year 2000 – was even at this early stage not particularly perspicacious….
It is true that during al-Banna’s time, the British government and King Farouk thought they could make use of the Muslim Brotherhood as a counterweight to the Egyptian left and the Wafd. According to Olivier Carré and Michel Seurat, they even received a formal grant of 500 Egyptian pounds from the Suez Canal Company, a building permit for a first meeting place, as well as a mosque under their control. These findings emerged in researching the first bulletins published by the Brotherhood in which al-Banna attempted to explain things to his companions. According to Carré and Seurat: “Banna, who would subsequently deny the gifts from the Canal Company, began by trying to justify what he had done in the eyes of his companions, who expressed their indignation, and took leave of him.”[8] Subsequently, al-Banna would simply state that he had never received any such gifts. A Muslim Brother then is free to lie or change what he has said, if it serves his purpose. At any rate, that’s one aspect of the Muslim Brotherhood’s past that Tariq Ramadan is by no means eager to remember when speaking to an anti-globalist audience – or even to an audience of Islamists that he wants to convince of the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had always, from the very beginning, been a movement of resistance against colonialism. The Muslim Brotherhood did in fact take part in the putsch organized by the army officers that liberated Egypt from the yoke of colonialism, but this liberation was only a phase dictated by the immediate context. Egyptian independence was never, for the Brotherhood, an end is itself, but a prelude to the setting up of an Islamic dictatorship.
The Brotherhood’s participation in the struggle for independence has in addition been considerably exaggerated by the movement’s propaganda. But even in the course of their attempts to falsify history, certain partisans of the Brotherhood revealed to what extent al-Banna was above all obsessed by the idea of re-instituting Islamic values. To that end he was prepared to negotiate with any government whatsoever. In 1946, for instance, he was in the thick of negotiations to obtain the right to publish a daily, and to acquire land on which to construct his propaganda Centers, when the Communists set off a massive wave of strikes in the Cairo textile industry in order to force the British to leave the country. The Communist “Committee to Liberate the Nation” asked al-Banna to send his troops to join in the general strike scheduled for February 21st, but al-Banna refused, because he did not want to jeopardize the ongoing negotiations, but also out of deep-rooted suspicion of the Communists. On the given day, a number Brothers disregarded instructions, and joined up anyway with the strikers. Bypassed by the rank and file, al-Banna finally consented to call for a strike on the following days, but refused to join in the collective movement, which then fell apart.[9] It was not until 1948 that al-Banna decided in earnest to organize joint demonstrations with the Communists against the British occupying forces. It was an alliance dictated by the circumstances – and one which did not last for long. In the same year (1948), al-Banna still included the Communists in the lengthy list of enemies who were conspiring against the Brothers : “World-wide Judaism, and international communism, the colonial powers, and the advocates of atheism and moral degeneracy – they all, from the very first day, considered the Brothers and their message as major obstacles.[10]
[1] Oliviers Carré, Michel Seurat, Les Frères musulmans, op. cit., p.11
[2] Quoted by Tariq Ramadan, Aux sources du renouveau musulmans, op. cit., p. 11.
[3] Hassan al-Banna, Epitre aux jeunes [Epistle to the Young].
[4] The quotes that follow are all taken from Hassan al-Banna, “Les cinquante demandes du programmes des Frères Musulmnas (1936) [The Fifty Demands of the Muslim Brotherhood Program of 1936], Islam de France, no. 8, October 2000.
[5] Interview with Michel Renard, 12 January 2004.
[6] Tariq Ramadan cassette, “Courants de la pensée musulmane contemporaine: Hassan al-Banna”.
[8] Olivier Carré, Michel Seurat, Les Frères musulmans, op. cit.,p. 18
[9] In Hassan al-Banna. Visions et Missions, Thameem Ushama, a Brotherhood historian, took offense at the idea that the “enemies” of the Brotherhood had used this episode to discredit them, but does not deny the facts.
[10] Hassan al-Banna, Al-qawl al-fasl [Last Words], 1948, et Al-Bayân [Declaration], 1948, two posthumous brochures quoted in R. SA’îd, Hassan…, p. 149. Commented in Olivier Carré, Michel Seurat, Le Fréres Musulmans, op. cit., p. 32.
A strange consensus has appeared, ranging from the anti-globalization movement to the UMP: the message is that the only way to favour integration is to integrate the fundamentalists… Clearly, Pierre Khalfa and Nicolas Sarkozy want to make more room for fundamentalists (but not for progressive Muslims), whether it is within the European Social Forum (ESF) or the CFCM (French Council of the Muslim Faith). And that is precisely the problem.
Nicolas Sarkozy had promised that fundamentalists would not be invited to sit at the table of the Republic. And yet that is what he has done with the forced union between secular Muslims and fundamentalist Muslims under the CFCM, even if it meant allowing the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France) and the FNMF (National Federation of Muslims of France) to become the representatives of Islam of France on an equal footing with the Paris Mosque: “I am convinced that when a “radical” is integrated into an official structure, he loses his radicality, because he enters into a dialogue”.
A bad gamble. Any dialogue with the fundamentalists always ends in their favour, and they know it. Pierre Khalfa arrived at the same conclusion. In the 11 November 2014 issue of Le Rebond he stated that integrating “political Islam” is a way of placing Islamic radicality at the service of the anti-globalization movement. And to prove his point and brush away possible reservations, he reminded us that political Christianism – associations like the CCFD (Catholic Committee Against Hunger),
Témoignage chrétien (Christian Witness) or Golias already had their place within this movement. So why not political Muslims? Indeed, there would be nothing shocking about this question if Khalfa also advocated integrating secular and progressive political Muslim movements comparable to the “left wing Catholics” he mentioned. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no equivalence between those he presents as ordinary “political Muslims” and the “liberation theology” or the Young Christian Workers.. On the contrary, they are fundamentalist Muslims at war against modern and progressive Islam.
Has he even read the UOIF propaganda of Tariq Ramadan, of Présence musulmane (Muslim Presence), of the CMF (Muslim Collective of France) and the UJM (Union of Young Muslims), the very associations he wants to make room for within the anti-globalization movement?
Well, I have. And the least that can be said is that I was not bowled over by their faith in progress, equality or secularism. True, the militants of UJM, Présence musulmane and Collectif des musulmans de France are very active in organizing anti-globalization forums, but they are nonetheless anti-feminist, homophobic, puritanical and reactionary. For them it is less a question of becoming an integral part of the anti-globalization movement than developing what Tariq Ramadan calls “spheres of collaboration”, i.e. alliances to move reactionary political Islam forward. “Collaboration does not mean marriage” he reminded his troops, who are terrified at the idea of becoming dissolved in the non Islamic Western culture. But one only has to read the texts of Présence musulmane or the Tawhid publications to realize that the risk is zero. The contempt of these groups towards progressive and secular Muslims – charmingly referred to by Tariq Ramadan as “Muslims without Islam” – has not changed one bit since they became “left wing activists”. This does not mean they are above trying to gain support from “the left” in their fight against progressive and modern Muslims.
Tawhid, which generally only publishes fundamentalist books, was quite happy to publish the book “Les Musulmans face à la mondialisation libérale” (Muslims in the face of liberal globalization) where the name of Pierre Khalfa at last appears alongside Tariq Ramadan. A fine endorsement and a great dialogue between the deaf, as contrary to what Khalfa had probably hoped, the Islamists formed by the Muslim Brotherhood will never change by being in contact with the anti-globalization movement. On the other hand, however, have you remarked how much the anti-racist and anti-globalization movement has changed since it was joined by the fundamentalists? Anti-Semitism is no longer frowned on, they no longer combat racism but “Islamophobia”. Today’s acclaimed feminists are those who wear the veil. The others, the ones fighting against fundamentalist sexism (Muslim or not) are accused of being “racist feminists”. Of all the round-table debates organized in collaboration with the recent FSE in London, the one which beat all the records was the debate on the “hijab and the right to choose”. During the debate France was described as being a racist dictatorship and Bernard Cassen, president of Attac, was booed for simply trying to defend secularism. It was even worse for secularists from the Arab-Muslim world; whenever they tried to address the meeting they were called to order by the fundamentalists!
No, it is not progressive political Islam which has found its place in the anti-globalization movement.. It is the “National Front” ideology of Islam that the anti-globalization movement has so complacently welcomed into its ranks. All in the name of their number one priority, i.e. against American imperialism and Sionism, at the risk of betraying the secular and progressive Muslims that the fundamentalists are fighting. What is the purpose of all this? How come the critical minds of certain progressives are clouded by this racist differentialism when they are confronted by Muslim fundamentalism? Yet they are masters of criticism when it comes to Christian fundamentalism… But most important, how can we imagine a better world if we join up with totalitarians?21
The division among us is as serious as the division caused by Stalinism. No one can just stare at the ceiling waiting for it to pass. The time has come to say no. No to collaborating with fundamentalism, wherever it comes from. For a fairer, freer, more equal and secular world.
FOUREST Caroline, journalist at magazine ProChoix magazine. Most recent publication: Brother Tariq : discourse, strategy et method of Tariq Ramadan, Grasset, 426 pp. 19,50 Euros.21
ikhwaninfowhoswhoen.data.blog 