(Interview with Rached Ghannouchi, al-Shira, October 1994)
The Arabic title reads: "Islamiyyu Tunis, ghayruhum fil Jazair" and hence the confusion.
Sheikh Ghannouchi along with three other Arab politicians were not granted visa to enter Lebanon and follow up on the October 1994 meeting between Arab Nationalists and Islamists which was previewed for January 10-12, 1995. The politicians included former Algerian prime minister and FLN leader Abdelhamid Mehri, Jordanian MP and ex-minister Ishak Farhan and exiled Moroccan opposition leader Mohamed Basri.
HIGHLIGHT: * The pragmatists ignored belief and the fact that we are a people with a just cause
* The Arabist/Islamist hiwar (dialogue) is a historical landmark
* In the opening of a liaison office with Israel the Tunisian people were not consulted
* The modernization of Tunisia meant a policy of containment and westernization
* I have no dispute with Turabi and I am the product of a generation he is its teacher
* In Tunisia there is no civil society ... we are crushed with state oppression
* The Arab state is a sultaniyyah (oppressive system of government) covered with empty slogans
* Our Ummah is the worst of nations when it comes to administering difference and the West overpowered us because of that
* There is no (organized) Church in Islam speaking in the name of Allah and this means freedom of choice
Rached Ghannouchi, head of the Tunisian Harakat an-Nahdah (Renaissance Movement), lives today in London on the condition that he does not go back to Tunis. He has good contacts with the Algerian Front Islamique du Salut (FIS) and its leaders in Algeria. He considers himself a student of Dr. Hassan Turabi who heads the National Islamic Front (NIF) in Sudan. Ghannouchi is a realist when dealing with the (hot) issues of the Ummah (World Muslim Community). He calls for a rejuvenation of Islamic thought and is against the use of terror (for political ends). Ash-Shiraa met him during the (Arab) Nationalist-Islamist summit held in Beirut between the tenth and twelfth of the current month. He answered our questions wholeheartedly.
Q. Rached Ghannouchi is a political refugee in London. What is your role in clarifying this concept of `Aqlanah (realism) you are calling for in these lands. Can you define this concept?
A. We do not deny man's relation with his environment. The human being is a living being and as such he is always in constant contact with the environment. `Aqlanah (or realism) means the Muslim should be in a perpetual dynamism with his reality and should give this reality a real value in his planning lest his work would be a futile task governed purely by the text. It is a necessary infusion so that planning becomes the fruit of a balance between the human value and the text on one hand and this human value and reality on the other. `Aqlanah is not new for us (in the Islamist Movement), we have adopted it since we decided to become politically active. This was in the late seventies and beginning eighties. It is a dynamically evolving concept in our movement. We do not claim that now we have a balance between the (holy) text and reality or that this balance reached a satisfying degree. It is with no doubt that we now have a better idea of our local and international reality and we are reading text with this reality in the background. We still do mistakes and our movement and numerous other Islamist movements have lots of negative aspects. (We do recognize this fact) since most of our action is still governed by texts rather than reality.
Q. How can we reach this balance you are talking about?
A. The prophet of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, stressed that knowledge can only be acquired through the act of learning. Knowledge emanates from two sources: Learning from reality through experimental sciences and learning by discovering the "sunan" or conditions that Allah put in the fabric of societies and this is the field of humanities: history, economy, philosophy, psychology, political science, law and the different fields designed to discover the laws (sunan) that govern reality and the behavior of people; the evolution of societies and their dynamics. It is true that these sciences are not exact and can only yield partial truths and relative results. However, they are of primary importance when it comes to planning. It does not matter whether this planning is Islamic or otherwise. It is a fact that the weight of these disciplines is limited when it comes to Islamist movements, for these movements give more weight to Shari`a disciplines on one hand and exact sciences such as medicine, engineering and all that is related on the other. For this reason you will find that, within the fold of these movements, the percentage of doctors, engineers and people specialized in Shari`a is higher than that of lawyers and economists.
Q. There is a section of our Arab and Islamic states which, succumbing to a certain reading of reality, accepted surrender to Western hegemony. This transcends all lines and includes people who base their reading on the holy text and Shari`a and others who base their reading on realpolitik. How can you prevent your movement from falling into this trap?
A. `Aqlanah belies a great danger, that of surrender, because the thought process (or intellect) identifies reality: Our reality and others' realities. When our planning is subject to this (thought) exercise only, we are led (automatically) to surrender. We realize that our foes' powers are far higher than ours, and this will lead us to despair and to conclude that balance of power (is the only factor that) governs our planning. This is (exactly) what Arab governments (nowadays) have based themselves on: the `aqlaniyyah or pragmatism of the scholars of economy, political science, law, and sociology relying upon their knowledge of realpolitik and the current balance of power. This led (numerous of) them (naturally) to accept reality and try to save the minimum lest everything is lost. This is the logic of normalization which led (Yasser) Arafat and his team of planners and specialists (in the PLO) to walk on one foot in their planning, basing themselves (purely) on the logic of thought and the considerations of reality (Arabic text: on `aql and waqi`). They ignored balancing their options with the counterweight of belief (Iman). From a historical perspective, one can see that, in the great battles which Arabs and Muslims were engaged in and came out victorious since the dawn of Islam, the balance of power was never on their side. How did they become victorious, while they numbered a few and their means (and weapons) were archaic compared to those of the Roman and Persian empires? How could they change the world map in the span of one century? This cannot be solely explained with the tools of logic and intellect. It should also be explained with the language of belief. Logic says one plus one equals two. Religious doctrine implies that one plus Baraka (blessing) plus belief could add up to infinity. This means that if we, the Muslims of today, do not incorporate divine intervention in our planning, then we shall be led surely to surrender. (We have to remember) that in each and everyone of us we have the belief that Allah is the ultimate power; that He is the Almighty; that we are a people with a just (human) cause. These (basic) facts are absent from the minds of (Muslim) planners, people who were trained in secular modern schools. This truth is deeply inculcated in the hearts of the Muslim populace but is not part of the considerations of those (amongst) our planners that were trained to think purely in material terms. They led us to surrender for they did not incorporate divine intervention and the element of the unseen (al-Ghayb). (For them), the balance of power is now with the enemy and we must accept the status quo. This created a great upheaval. The prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, summarized this concept when he said (to the desert Arab who asked him whether to hitch his she-Camel or rely on Allah to protect it), "Hitch it and then rely on Allah to protect it," (Arabic: I`qilha wa tawakkal) meaning use whatever lawful means you have at hands. This is the 'aqlaniyyah or realism we are seeking. We do not rely solely on worldly means but incorporate reliance on Allah, praised be He. We do this in accordance with the saying, "any plan is doomed to failure unless Allah intervenes and helps." This is the secret of the Ummah of Islam and this is the greatest component that makes the Muslim intellect different from the (contemporary) Western and (old) Eastern mindset. There are cultures (or civilizations) which did not value intellect and there are other ones which relied solely on it. The Muslim civilization manifested itself in its distinctive capacity to incorporate the powers of the intellect and the energy of belief. Its contemporary failure and that of the Arab order which has a highly sophisticated intellectual lot, can be attributed to the disregard given to this energy of belief and its incorporation into planning. This phenomenon is (partially) due to borrowed secular curricula to which the contemporary Arab elite was subject; an elite that imported Western humanities but did not let it interact (naturally) and adapt harmoniously with the popular potential (makhzun) that is belief (Iman).
Q. What is your position with respect to the current onslaught on Islam with America trying to establish its New World Order?
A. In accordance with the framework I defined previously, that is with a believing mentality (sic.) we do perceive reality in its true face. However, we are not compelled to become prisoners of this reality. We do not confine ourselves to a simplistic equation of man vs. nature but add to it the parameter of Iman. If we are weak, we refuse being dragged into a losing battle, where the balance of power is not on our side. However, if we are forced into one, we have to stand firm, and use what we have as means, and rely (ultimately) on Allah, praised be He.
Q. You have good relations with the Islamic Movement in Algeria. Are you following its footsteps in your interaction with the Tunisian regime? Do you have a different view of the conflict?
A. The Islamic Movement in Algeria and in other (Muslim) lands is not one. It would be simplistic (if not naive) to talk of one trend (nahj), or one approach (manhaj) for change. In Algeria itself, there is more than one Islamic movement. There is more than one method for change. Different readings of text and reality yielded different Islamic movements. We, in Tunisia, have a different reality. Our (social) context is fundamentally different from that of our Algerian brothers . This is true starting with the mid-nineteenth century onward, when Tunisia embarked, with outside pressure, on its project to modernize the state; a project that meant a policy of containment and westernization. In short, Tunisia was the subject, more than any other Arab country, to a project of forceful westernization aiming, at the chore, to exclude Islam. This project did not target its socio-political aspects but aimed to uproot it. Tunisia is the only Arab country where a president could stand towards the end of the holy month of fasting, Ramadan, hold his cup and drink telling people to "give up the fast, for this will strengthen you on your enemies. That their enemy was backwardness, and in order to get rid of economic hardship they ought to give up the fast." This was in the sixties when all state workers and students living in dormitories were forced to break their fasts. It is the only country where its president took the Islamic hijab (veil) and tore it apart in a public meeting. In 1974, and in a public speech, he made a mockery of Paradise and Hell and declared that the holy Qur'an was "a book full of contradictions." Today, you will find in Tunisia a presidential decree forbidding women from wearing the hijab and forbidding the institutions of the state from dealing with a woman wearing it. This includes hospitals, where a woman, even if pregnant, would not be admitted unless she removed the Islamic garb. The state practices a religious persecution of its Muslim subjects. It closed thousands of mosques and put thousands of Islamists in its prisons subjecting them to horrendous conditions. When the Islamic Movement was first established in Tunisia, it was governed by the intellectual by-product of the Mashriqi Islamist heritage, stressing social issues and an Islahi (reformist) approach in society. Later on, the movement started to link with the realities of the Maghreb and tune its watch to harmonize with its circumstances. For this reason, the protagonist (of Islamist action) deemed that there were two axes that they needed to stress. The first was the axis of the identity; that is defending Islam as an identity and not as a state or shari'a (in this context shari'a is meant in the literal and not the legal sense i.e. a way of life) for Islam was targeted even in the domains of belief and pure religious practices (sha`air). The second axis was that of civil liberties. The Tunisian state is so centralized that it is impossible to find an independent organization, be it a philanthropic organization, a sports club, and let's not talk about parties or unions. What is termed civil society (al-Mujtama al-Madani) does not exist in Tunisia. The state governs the movement of the individual and that of society as whole. From this point of view, one can understand the importance of the struggle between the state and society in modern Tunisian history. This situation led our movement (naturally) to meet with other opposition currents in Tunisia, including the Communists, to defend the principle of civil liberty considering that we were all crushed by the state's torture machine. Q. Is this situation still stalled? A. Yes, of course. Our fundamental problem in Tunisia is the total hegemony of the state. President Bourguiba used to say "I am the state and I am the party." His caliph (successor) went beyond that by decreeing that the state is the sole "official speaker in the name of Islam". It is the "protector of the religion" and no one can claim that right. This meant that the state made it all its property both religion and society; (a holy inquisition of both).
Q. Are you against violence?
A. We are the victims of violence and we are against using it. However, before condemning the violence of the people, one has to condemn the reasons behind violence. It is in our view, that one cannot equate the violence of the victim with that of the aggressor. The aggressors in the Arab World today are not opposition groups. The aggressors are established states which are like foreigners to their peoples. It is childish to claim that the behavior of our rulers is a reflection and in obedience to the Western mentor. The West practices violence with prudence and thinking. In its view, violence can only generate a higher form of violence.
Q. It is rumored that you are opening channels with the Americans. Can you elaborate your views on this issue?
A. We are champions of hiwar within our Ummah and with others; between Islamists themselves; between Islamists and Nationalists and it is for this reason that I am here (in Lebanon) participating in this dialogue forum, and it is for this reason that I participated in the 1989 "Forum for Islamist-Nationalist Dialogue" (Nadwat al-Hiwar al-Qawmi ad-Dini, held in Cairo in 1989 subsequent to which Sheikh Ghannouchi was mistreated and forcefully evicted from Egypt). We call and work to establish dialogue between Islam and the West for the world now is but a small village and there is no reason to deny the others' existence. Otherwise we are all doomed to annihilation and the destruction of this world.
Q. Would a dialogue with the West yield positive results to the Ummah given the dismay that Islamist ranks and other movements are in? How would you stand to a unified West while you are in this dire situation?
A. We are not that divided, not at least as you described. We agree on many issues. There is no nation on earth in which there is agreement as in the Islamic Ummah. With all our sects and differences, we agree on the general tenets of Islam, the licit and the illicit (al-Halal wal-Haram), the pillars of Islam, the sources of legal texts, and the ways by which we distinguish the morally accepted from the immoral. All of these are agreed on. What gathers us is plenty and is not as you described. Also, our contenders are not as unified as you described.
Q. I am speaking in political terms (not religious ones).
A. As to politics, the West in not unified and America, until now, could not lead the West. It is trying to deal with differences and resolve controversies, and there are certain issues where the West has no unified view of. There are also liberalist movements in the West who champion (the peoples) of the Third World and movements and centers of power that call for a new relation with Islam and the Islamic movement (as the heir of current regimes) and the candidate to rule the Islamic World in the (near) future. The West has to deal with this reality which is establishing itself on Earth. There are several states where the Islamic Movement is in power and others soon to be ruled by the Islamic Movement. The West, with its pragmatic mentality cannot deny this reality. It has interests in the Islamic World and cannot jeopardize them whether the Islamic World is governed by Islamists, Nationalists, or Regionalists. This is true on the other side. (The Islamists), as a people of ideology, realize that the West is a reality that needs to be dealt with, an existing power that needs to be faced. Then, we are supporters of the principle that "dialogue between Islam and the West should replace the logic of exclusion and the preparation for war."
Q. You say that you are not after power yet you claim that the Islamic Movement will be the real substitute of current regimes and for this the West has to deal with it. Can you resolve this apparent contradiction?
A. We are labeled as "extremists" by the power that be despite our humble and simple demands. This is rooted in the centralized nature of the Tunisian regime which still rules with the mentality of the "single party" since the creation of that party in the thirties. Now it is with the "terrorist" and "fundamentalist" labels that they describe us. These same labels were used before to describe our brethren in the nationalist movement particularly the Jamaah of Massoud Chebbi, and before against the unionists and particularly the Jamaah of Habib Achour, and in a third period against the champions of the leftist and communist trend.
Q. It is rumored that there is a dispute between you and your friend Dr. Hassan Turabi. What are the reasons and how do you explain his absence from this forum for which he was invited?
A. I did not know that there was a dispute, you are the first to point it out.
Q. Does this mean that there is no truth to the dispute between you two?
A. I do not say there are two people on Earth who do not differ, this is the nature Allah made people on.
Q. There is a difference in Ijtihad and opinion between you two?
A. Differences occur, but we did not talk about them in any newspaper, and they do not exist in reality. Dr. Turabi is the teacher of this generation.
Q. Is it then a "generation gap"?
A. From a theoretical standpoint, I would like to say that Islamic parties and thinkers are not copies of one another. Dr. Turabi is a "Mujaddid" (reformer) and he is the teacher of a generation of Islamists I am but one of them; this is in conjunction with the faithfulness of his intellect to established tradition (Fikr Usuli) and his realist, practical, approach. This does not mean that his Ijtihad and opinion about particular issues and instances are accepted by other Islamists, of whom I am but one. I am not a copy of others, and I do think that Turabi is the teacher of this generation of ours.
Q. Why was he absent from (this) forum (for Islamist-Nationalist dialogue)?
A. Reasons beyond his capabilities led to his absence. I read in the Lebanese and International Press that Lebanon could not guarantee his safety and for this reason he was absent. I do not know whether this is true or not.
Q. Do you agree with Turabi's position on the "Carlos Affair" ?
A. I do not know much about it except what the Sudanese said.
Q. What do you think of the Islamist-Nationalist Forum for Dialogue?
A. This is a great event. The fact that the Islamist and Nationalist currents moved from a period of mistrust and war to a new era marked by hiwar and the search for what is common is a historical event; a great one in this era marked by great (upheaval) and darkness. It is a shining point of light guiding this new epoch. If the Russians and Americans moved from (Cold) war to cooperation, and if Arab leaders went along with Israel away from war settling their differences and making joint programs, then why should the Islamist and Nationalist trends be fighting one another while both are targeted? If the intellect has a value for both, then they must meet, and they did, albeit late. However, we are hoping this (meetings) will result in success, realizing at least the fact that both are targeted with a (great) danger, and what they will have in common, once reached, will be far greater than that which separates both trends (now).
Q. What are (in your opinion) the greatest challenges to our Ummah?
A. The greatest challenges to our Ummah are not embodied in just a Zionist threat. The Zionist project wants to inherit our Ummah and inherit the West itself. It wants to lead the world. After (the natural shift of) the center of civilization from London to Washington, it wants to move it to Orshalim (Jerusalem) and destroy all other civilizational and religious projects we have today. Despite the weight of this challenge, I think that the biggest challenge facing this Ummah, an Ummah that has a great potential, the most important of which is the capability to die: Our Ummah enjoys martyrdom, and enjoys life through death and death for life. (I say that the greatest flaw) lies within. Our intellect, which is supposed to channel these potentials and create the right civilizing conditions and the (aspired for) renaissance, is very limited. Therefore, within this context, one can understand why the dynamism of our modern (Islamic) history is explosive in nature (sic.). Great energies are exhausted then these (efforts) dissipate then collapse; a (phenomenon) that is due to an inability to channel these energies towards development. Our greatest flaw is that our Ummah is the worst of nations when it comes to administering differences; difference that are small compared to that which we have in common. I would even go further and argue that this could be a remnant inherited from our Bedouin mentality. (Egyptian) Sheikh (Mohammed) Ghazali coined a term that I think is still a valid (accurate) description: al-Fiqh al-Badawi. Al-Fiqh al-Badawi (Bedouin jurisprudence) still believes that there are two gods: A god of good and a god of evil, and each one of us believes that he represents the god of good. The problem is even deeper. El is one in the high. What is on earth is multiple, even the ways through which we worship Allah are different. The problem is that each and everyone of us thinks that he represents Allah, and this is not correct. There is no (organized) Church in Islam speaking in the name of Allah and this means freedom of choice. Despite all this, the conception of (religious) exclusion, deprivation, and takfir (declaring someone an apostate) is very deep within all trends. Takfir is mark of all tendencies, however its modality differs from one movement to another. For some, it means deprivation from paradise (in the hereafter), for others (a foe) is labeled reactionary. For a third class it is called treachery. And everyone starts with the premise that only one current represents the (authentic) truth (al-Haq). The human condition is very complex. It is not for a simple logic (such as the one described above) to push different currents to debate. It is not for such a logic to find solutions to a fundamental problem: that of administering difference (and channeling it towards our benefit); this, despite the potentials for sacrifice and giving that this Ummah has, a potential unrivaled in other nations. The West overpowered us with its ability to administer its differences, which are far greater than ours, to the extent that today we hope we still have the Arab League and many of the weightless institutions we laughed at so much; that they kept the minimum web (which brought us together). I believe Western democracy is a new apparatus. If used, it will helps us bypass our (stalling) problems. This democracy which we rejected (because it came) to our lands on the backs of tanks has roots in our religion. (It is embodied) in the concept of Shura, which is after all the contract of Bay`ah (oath of allegiance). You can say that this is our commodity which was delivered back to us ( Ar. idiom), but we did not realize it. The second biggest challenge facing our Ummah is the challenge of the state. The state was conceived as an entity to organize different things; to create a motivating spirit within the Ummah; a motivation to work, to defend, to fight and to progress. But the state we inherited kept a colonial polity. No nation or people of ours which came under the dominion of colonialism, but has in its heart (and collective memory) the fact that "the sacrifices which were given to gain this independence were not worth it", and many are ashamed to say it. Many of our people, when comparing the freedom they enjoyed during colonialism and our current state of affairs, find that their freedoms were curtailed. This made all these sacrifices with no apparent value. How do we trust a state which became ferocious? How do recuperate a state that now owns us and we do not own it? What state is this? But what catastrophe is this? I congratulate the people of Lebanon who did not know such a state. May be this is due to their civic heritage. The freedoms that are guaranteed here are due to the diversity of their population, which some consider a misfortune but in fact is a blessing. Tunisia is an example of both homogeneity and completeness (of its structure). (There), the person in authority does not feel obligated to distribute power; while in Lebanon it is a prerequisite to stability. And if there are no social forces (which seek) a balance in a society, such society cannot be judged free. Our problem in the world lies in our archaic entities. Such entities restrain power to (a select few) and control of a certain number of institutions. This archaic structure was destroyed by modernity, which brought forth the end of classical institutions such as the mosque, Awqaf (religious endowments), tribalism. The individual, empty handed, stands to a fully-armored state. The structures which came with westernization or modernism like unions, associations are not able to stand as worthy opponent to the state. Therefore, the state has become the only (true) player in our midst. While it can (easily) be recognized that countries with (dominant) traditional institutions are far better when it comes to freedoms. I can site Yemen and Lebanon as examples. Our problem in the Arab World can be summarized in finding an answer to the following: How can we recuperate our state, and how to eliminate this conflict between state and society, a trait of most (Arab) societies. If you find an (Arab) state living in some stability, do not think it is due to the wisdom of the sultan, it is due to the patience of reformers. In some countries there is calm. It is not due to democracy , social justice and popular legitimacy. It is the result of numerous clashes for which different intellectual families, secular, nationalist, and islamist, paid dearly. After these deadly clashes, people realized that there are red lines which cannot be trespassed, and this is the case of some Maghreb countries. In our country, we wish we had a king who sets for us the red lines that should not be breached, and which revolve around his person and his authority; and beyond that one can criticize a minister or the party. But now, we do not know if we are dealing with a king or the head of a republic. A republic means that legitimacy lies with the people. But in the republic, in our country, we are no longer able to deal with them. (Nowadays), if you criticize a policeman or a person in authority then you are considered as if you touched the status of the state. The state has become an idol in the name of which everything is violated. Therefore, there should be resistance to a state which devoured civil society; this latter represents the closest modality to democracy identified as organized people's authority, and this absent today. The challenge of building a state starts with the recognition of our identity. The Ummah's identity is Arab and Islamic. The Arab state is a "sultaniyyah" (oppressive system of government) covered with empty slogans. We belittle modernity if we consider that such systems are modern (by any standards). In Western democracy there is rotation of power, and succession from one movement to another similar one, that is movement within the same cultural context. Therefore, there is no fundamental change in foreign policy when authority is transferred. Therefore, we have no hope of having a stable authority unless we agree on the cultural context, and here we see why it is primordial to recognize the identity of our (Muslim) people. The state should resolve the problem of identity first. Democracy is the second step. If we hesitate from facing this dilemma, then we are faced with two different (evils). One is a totalitarian state, the second is civil war. The Arab World is ripe for civil war. The third challenge is Zionism. This, considering that Zionism is a continuation of colonialism. The main battle today is with Zionism. It is mobilizing the West against us. In the past, it used the danger of Arab nationalism as a pretext for the mobilization of the West. Nowadays, and to keep the flow of foreign aid running, it must create a new enemy. And the enemy is Islam. I am of the opinion that Zionism was capable of intrenching itself and gearing the West in its fight against the Arab nation. With Islam, it wants to the West to side with it. What is needed is a firm stand to this challenge by mobilizing resistance and legitimating the possibility of dealing (with everybody). We have to encourage hiwar between Nationalists and Islamists, hiwar between Islam and Christianity, and hiwar between Islam and the West. Because in the West, there is a (considerable) intellectual force which understands that it is being dragged into a battle the end results of which are not to the West's benefit. Ours is a humanist program facing the Zionist design which wants to destroy humanist principles that are the basis of civilization.
Q. There is great debate surrounding the relation between Islam and Christianity. What is your opinion?
A. Our Muslim grandfathers stressed the fact that although the Nazarene are of the Christian creed, they are Muslims by culture, and their contribution towards the formation of Islamic civilization is well grounded. Moreover, historical texts prove that the Nazarene (change of thought) and Nazarene is a beautiful word which proves that Christianity belongs to this land. Christianity did not come from West, but was born in our land in Nazareth. I said concerning the Christians of Bani Taghlab, Islamic historical sources prove that their contribution was not only to civilization, but they had they share of (Islamic) conquest. This proves that Muslims did not fight the Christians but what they fought were the Franks, and the aggressors amongst the Byzantine. Islamic conquest were not to realize in such a short time had not been associated with the concept of justice and the universal creed that respects the symbols of Christianity. Our history is full of proud moments when it comes to the question of religious tolerance and interfaith debates. We used to find such debates in churches, mosques, and palaces. When never had recourse to the question of apostasy and death (for someone's beliefs). This has never occurred in our midst. Some (esoteric) Christian movements can be found only in our land, after fleeing the West and the persecution of larger denominations. The Eastern Church is important for us in our hiwar with the West. It is the best candidate to channel this hiwar and build steps in the right direction. In contrast, the Muslim minority in the West is seen as a threat to the West future existence by different agencies.
Q. What about the Jewish faith?
A. Islam recognized all religions including Judaism. Islam does not generalize, saying for example that "this whole group is polytheist". It uses (grammatical) forms that imply probability (ihtimal) and particularity (tab`idh). And this is the form used when discussing the Jewish nation (in the Qur'an). There are good people, and there are Jewish groups who refuse the Zionist design, both in its general guidelines and in its details. We should know that no matter how we suffer because of Jewish plans we should not incriminate the whole nation. We should not incriminate the Jewish faith or the Jewish race. Zionism is not Jewish. It is a colonialist project. It is an atheist movement. The forefathers of the Zionist project were atheist. Judaism is persecuted. We have to understand very well that our fight is against aggression. We are a people, a nation, and we are an Ummah. We are not fighting another creed or another nation because of their creed, because of their beliefs. We are fighting to push aggression back. Allah despises aggressors, be they Muslims, Christians, Jews or atheists. Our enmity to a people should not lead us to (hasty) generalization. We should remain just and weight things with the correct measure.
Q. What about apostasy (riddah)?
A. Apostasy is not subject to Hudud (Islamic capital punishments). The (final) judgement on apostasy is in the hereafter. (The first Caliph of Islam) Abu Bakr, the trustworthy , when he fought the apostates, he fought them because their political rebellion against Islam. It was not because of their position on creed. Allah is the sole judge of the apostate.
Q. What are the (main) obstacles making the unification of the Islamic movement in Tunisia, as it is in the Maghreb, a difficult task?
A. The (Tunisian) Islamic movement is the most unified (Islamist) movement (in the Maghreb). Our centralized structure constitutes a balance to the centralized form of government, and the centralization of the ruling party. It is probably a reflection of this latter. It is unified because of the administrative and intellectual choices it made. This made it possible for us to expand and fructify our movement with a range of points of view and led us all to give more importance to the institution and less to the individual. For example, ten presidents led the movement (since its inception), although for the outsider, it seems only one person has assumed its leadership. This is for the presidency (of the movement). As for the organization, it was led by different generations of leaders. This was due to many reasons the most important of which was the trials of the days. Each time a leader is incarcerated, another one is elected. A full generation of leaders was formed through this process, and the structure of the organization became (the most important) element to preserve. It is the backbone of our movement. Mashyakhism (leadership by Sheikhs) became a thing of the past. In the Maghreb, I do not see that there is a crisis. Diversity within the Islamist trend is a positive phenomenon. Sometimes I wish we had in Tunisia more than one single Islamist movement working so that each completes the work of the other. (Sometimes I wish) that activism in the unions, between workers and students, and in the cultural and political arenas should not be done by a single movement, but that each, and independently, works to complete the efforts of the other serving a common strategy. Diversity was very fruitful in the case of Algeria. It was not a conspiracy that Abbassi Madani, Mahfoudh Nahnah and Ahmad Jab(allah) divided the tasks between their movements. The distribution of roles was not artificial but was in fact a harmonious work which benefited Islam through the different methodologies for change. Therefore, concerning Islamist movements in the Maghreb, I say: While it is bothersome for Islamists to see contradictions and disputes within their ranks, it is important to keep this diversity. Because if they unified (under a single banner or entity), then they become a dangerous force that will lead their enemies to destroy them. It is better if they remain considerable, separate forces serving Islam through different means and this will make their internal problems less.
Q. How are you going to deal with the opening of the liaison office between Tunis and Tel Aviv?
A. This decision was not taken with the consent of the Tunisian people. To devise general strategies and make important decisions one should not dismiss the opinion of the people in question. The proof for ignoring such an opinion can be found in the Tunisian press which, to this date, did not make a mention of it. In Tunisia, it is still blurry and no one knows the details. However, the International press gave a full account of this decision (and its implications). The least one can comment on this issue is that this is a trademark of authoritarian dictatorship, which takes away the right of the people (to make collective decisions) and treats them like a kid which is taught in accordance with his intellect. Some issues are treated as if they are beyond this kid's capability to comprehend. Its brain is not mature enough to be able to analyze and deduct.
Q. You summarized your position by discussing the polity of the state. What is the opinion (of the Islamist movement)?
A. The Islamic position does not change.
Q. How are you going to deal with this issue while the process of surrender (to Israel) is going very fast?
A. This issue concerns the Ummah. It is not an issue of Nahdah only.
Q. You are part of this Ummah.
A. The Ummah fights back in accordance with its available means.
Q. Was your movement on good terms with the leadership of the PLO in Tunis?
A. We had no relations with it.