Abstract

International human rights groups have repeatedly failed to acknowledge the dangers of fundamentalism.
Karima Bennoune is an Algerian-American lawyer who teaches international law at the University of California, Davis. She is a brave woman. She writes using her real name, travels to dangerous parts of the world and champions men and women who resist fundamentalists.
Bennoune grew up in Algeria amid a struggle of secularists against Islamic fundamentalism. Her father, Mahfoud Bennoune, was an outspoken secularist, a professor at the University of Algiers who faced death threats in the 1990s. She studied at the University of Michigan’s law school, and was a delegate at the NGO forum at the world conference on women in Beijing in 1995. She has been a legal adviser at Amnesty International in London and has published widely in legal journals, newspapers and magazines. She was also an election observer in North Africa following the Arab spring.
Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here begins with a dramatic account of an Islamist mob harassing Bennoune and her father outside their house in June 1993. In the book, Bennoune talks to more than 300 people in 30 countries, who, she says, are “doing today what my father did back then” to build international support for those confronted with fundamentalism. Salil Tripathi spoke with her during a recent trip to London to launch her book.
Above: Karima Bennoune
Credit: Florence Low
He found that 18 people had been killed – journalists, workers, neighbours. Nearly 60 were injured. Some of the offices were devastated. Journalists were pulling their colleagues from the rubble. Omar gathered the journalists who were unscathed. It was 3pm. He asked: “Who wants to get the paper out?” And they stayed. They worked in the smoky ruins of the Press House, where their colleagues had been killed in a gruesome way. What they did was ferociously brave journalism. They did a compendium issue of all the newspapers in one. A copy of that compendium is one of my most precious possessions. I remember one of the articles, by Ghania Oukazi, who asked: “Pen against Kalashnikov – is there a more unequal struggle?” And she wrote: “What is certain is that the pen will not stop.”
In the countries where the niqab is worn it is actually a political shackle that is imposed from above
During my research I encountered this time and again. People just kept writing, refusing to be intimidated. Unfortunately, the Rushdie affair is not an anomaly. It represents a much broader attack on freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom of movement.
What’s difficult is to find a space to be heard. While I respect those who have left Islam, like Ayan Hirsi Ali – and she should be able to write as she wants to – there are different Islams and different practices. The liberal Islam of my grandfather is what I am fond of. My book can’t be accepted by the right, because it is opposed to them, but it is also critical of the left and the human rights movement. I am trying to find another way of talking about this, drawing from the language of the people on the ground. We have seen that the West knows only two sets of responses. On the right, in some quarters, you see anti-Muslim rhetoric – all Muslims are fundamentalists. This is not only offensive, but also wrong. And then on the left, you have a set of responses that are too politically correct to be considered responses at all. Those are flawed and unhelpful positions. I’m looking for another kind of response.
Local human rights organisations understood exactly what was going on. But in the 1990s, international groups did not understand the threat the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism poses: it is very dangerous for human rights, for women, for free thinkers, for minorities. And the international human rights movement has failed to understand this for a long time. It has also defined the fundamentalist project as “cultural”, so that the things that the fundamentalists impose – such as the niqab – are defended as cultural practices. But in the countries where the niqab is worn it is actually a political shackle that is imposed from above.
A: Yes, I was personally deeply upset that human rights groups were failing the victims. Jihadi armed groups were committing mass rapes in Algeria, but major international human rights groups were not producing reports on this. And this went on: the way Amnesty International treated Gita Sahgal, despite her dedicated work; the way Amnesty International USA invited Moazzam Begg [the former British prisoner in Guantanamo Bay] to give a keynote address. Begg was rightly defended when he was tortured, but he ran a radical bookshop. [In 2010, Saghal was suspended from Amnesty International after she complained about the group’s links to Begg and the email was leaked.] And then there was the case of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), on whose board I sat, which took on a pro bono case to defend Anwar al Awlaki, who had issued death threats to prominent people around the world. He was not a detainee being defended. He was advocating that people should be killed. Why did human rights groups not speak out against that? On Awlaki versus Barack Obama we – the CCR – were on Awlaki’s side. At that time, seeing Gita’s courage in taking on Amnesty, I realised I too had to speak out.
