To rectify this obvious violation of the principle of secularity, a group of Italian parliamentary deputies – Santelli (Forza Italia), Santanché (Alleanza Nazionale) e Fouad Allam (Margherita) – has proposed a cross-party bill stating that ‘objections cannot be made to a civil marriage ceremony in Italy between an Italian citizen and a foreign national other than those contained within Italian law’. In order to combat the problem of polygamy (as a consequence of marriages contracted outside of Italy), and to protect the fundamental rights of Muslim women, the proposal also stipulates two further articles concerning false declarations of civil status and the obligatory application of Italian laws on marriage.

“The issue of inter-religious marriages is just one expression of a much broader problem – that of the relationship between law and culture”, explains the deputy Khaled Fouad Allam, Algerian by birth, one of the authors of the bill and of a number of works including L’Islam globale (Rizzoli 2002), Lettera a un kamikaze (Rizzoli, 2004, available in translation in a number of languages) and La solitudine dell’Occidente (Rizzoli, 2005). We interviewed him a few hours after the passing of the government’s security package and the dramatic incident of the the woman raped and murdered by a Roumanian man in Rome. “We are going through a difficult time in which security has become a fundamental element of political management” says Allam. “But the real problem that our modern democracy poses is that of maintaining a balance between the need for security and the fact that human rights must nevertheless be upheld. One must not dominate the other, but rather the two have to go hand in hand together.”

Your parliamentary bill aims to remedy an obvious violation of the principle of state secularity. What exactly does it propose? And within what timescale? And what are the potential obstacles?

Let’s clarify immediately that the problem does not stem from Italian law, but from the fact that in the scenario of a marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man, the latter is required to convert to the Islamic faith if he is of another religion. The written permission is proof of such a conversion. And because Islamic countries often refuse to issue such documents, there then begins a dispute between two different legislations – that of Italy and that of the Muslim country. This is why we propose an article which states that if the permission is not released within a certain amount of time, it will be treated as if issued and so the judicial dispute will be irrelevant and only Italian law will apply. With regards to the timescale, the bill will be examined by the Giustizia della Camera commission and will then be debated in the chamber, but there is absolutely no definitive calendar.

You also aim to put a stop to the phenomenon of polygamy, which, as with forced conversion, always discriminates against Muslim women.

Yes, we need to sort things out in this area, because many Muslim men are already married in their countries of origin. It’s a problem that we share with other countries, such as France, for example. At any rate, the problem is limited: polygamy remains difficult to practise in Islamic countries, because there are certain necessary conditions which often render it impossible. There are also two countries in which it is illegal – Turkey and Tunisia. Morocco, in turn, is also moving towards abolition, because it is in the process of reforming its legislation concerning personal rights.

Let’s come back to mixed marriages. The sociologist Saraceno, in this dossier, warns that this type of union can create less symmetrical relationships. What do you feel about this? Is it a phenomenon that we should encourage, as a vehicle of integration, or not?

From the outside we often see mixed couples almost as fighting tooth and nail, in a permanent state of war. But that’s not how it is. As diasporas slowly change the territorial geography of the world, interethnic and inter-religious marriages will become a central, and not marginal, element of the fabric of our society. Our societies are also developing thanks to these unions.

The controversy concerning the legislation that governs marriages between people of different religions is one symptom of more general problem – that of finding a way of ensuring a peaceful coexistence between our liberal legislation and the family law of people coming from countries which have legislation deeply influenced by religion.

Of course, it’s obvious that this question raises the broader issue of the relationship between law and culture: a great dilemma of our time, not only in Italy but in all European countries where there is a significant Muslim diaspora. Up to what point can we allow this struggle between law and culture? And how can we get out of this bottleneck, out of this too close relationship between the control of a cultural asset and a law which is unable to free itself from this asset, impeding the evolution and compatibility between different judicial systems? These are theoretical problems which nevertheless have serious psychological repercussions, because these are precisely the reason that marriages suffer crises, or cannot be celebrated. And the consequences of a divorce between a Muslim and non-Muslim, for example, have a serious impact on the upbringing of the children, on inheritance rights, and so on. So it is a complex issue, which supposes acts which will bring about many problems in the countries of origin. And yet they absolutely must be undertaken.

So do you think that out of universalism on the one hand and muliticulturalism on the other, it’s better to lean towards the first?

Our situation is similar to that of Germany in the early 19th century when Napoleon arrived and, thanks to his civil code, transformed German society, which at that time was still quite feudal. In other words, our multi-ethnic society needs a law which will be, in a sense, an expression of a European standard, able to bring together the different national legislations – because there is a risk of judicial conflicts which then become political, and ultimately cultural. So it seems clear to me that the diasporas that are forming throughout the world have need of a judicial apparatus to accompany the changes, which will be able to break the bond between law and culture, when this is not the expression of a universal standard, but rather of local traditions that hinder the harmonisation of judicial systems. We ought to admit, nevertheless, that this task is made easier by what I consider to be the sociological condition of the immigrant, that is, the fact that his or hers is a diluted identity; after a number of years, although an immigrant may continue to dream about the homeland, they are longer the same, having entered into contact with cultures which have changed them profoundly. And this, I would say, is an anthropological law.

All the same, the centre-left doesn’t seem to have such clear ideas concerning the importance of universalism. Amato’s recent statements concerning the wearing of the veil confirm this, don’t they?

The veil is only a secondary symptom of a greater problem; and besides, Amato was certainly not talking about the burka, but about the hijab – the scarf which covers the hair and doesn’t create any security issues in our cities. At any rate, it is evident that in our multi-cultural society not everything can be accepted. Arab art and literature, which express universalistic elements, are one thing, but polygamy, and with it all the elements of serious discrimination which flies in the face of the history of modernity and female emancipation, is another. The task which immigration policies, coming into contact with these cultural spheres, must address is distinguishing between tradition and law. And politics ought not be driven by political correctness, as in the United States, but ought rather to rethink its models with the aim of achieving a better harmonisation between differences and searching for areas of compatibility to facilitate social cohabitation. The great political problem present in these legislative controversies, in Italy just as in the rest of Europe, is that of maintaining social cohesion within the cultural diversity which characterises modern democratic societies.

What model of secularity do you have in mind? A French-style secularity, or something closer to what we might call ‘post-secularity’?

I have always thought that the French models are flawed because they are an inverted expression of the way French, but also British, society has treated its colonies. I’m thinking specifically of Algeria and India. In the latter case, for example, the British government let the Indian community continue to live as it always had done, preventing any communication between British and Indian culture. This lack of exchange is the same consequence of the opposite policy of assimilation. I believe, all the same, that we need to abandon extremes and leave behind this abstract universalism, looking instead for a more careful and balanced dosage between the two cultures – in this there is always something positive. The aim of this process is an integration which includes the sharing of values based on equality and freedom. These are the fundamental paradigms of Western democracy, and any kind of multi-culturalism must be based on these two values, otherwise it runs the risk of becoming a hierarchical society, with different casts, or ghettos within a single country or city that are unable to communicate with each other. The path is certainly long.

Translation by Liz Longden