| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Amir Taheri points out some, but by no means all or even the most important of the problems with the ongoing and ever-quixotic French project to build a French Islam, shorn, presumably, of un-French elements incompatible with French secularism. From Arab News via the Daily Times of Pakistan, with thanks to Anja:
Nicholas Sarkozy is a man in a hurry. France’s Interior Minister knows that he has less than five years in which to gain enough stature to seek the presidency after the incumbent, Jacques Chirac retires. Not surprisingly, whatever Sarkozy has done since he moved to Place Bueavais, the Parisian headquarters of the Interior Ministry has been marked by that timetable.Thus, it is in a great hurry that Sarkozy wants to create what he describes as “ a French church of Islam.” Initially launched in the early 1980s, the project has been taken up, and dropped, by six successive ministers from both left and right. In 1987, one such minister, Charles Pasqua, described Islam as France’s “No. 1 problem.” The project aims at creating an officially recognized authority capable of representing France’s Muslims. Similar authorities exist for Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christian communities as well as Jews. The so-called “French church of Islam” would decide who should attend official functions, and who should be consulted on matters of faith as far as the Muslim community is concerned.
Back in the 1980s this writer was invited by Pasqua to offer a view on the project. The response given at that time was that the proposed project would either prove impossible to apply or, if applied, could divide the Muslim community in France, and encourage radical fundamentalists.
There is no reason to hold a different view today.
Sarkozy, like his predecessors, fails to understand the specific nature of Islam as a religion.
Almost all of France’s Catholics, Protestant and Orthodox inhabitants are citizens of the French Republic who have grown up in a culture based on a separation of church and state. They are distinguished from other French citizens only by faith.
France’s Jewish community is also distinct because Judaism encompasses religious, ethnic, and, to some extent, cultural identities. More importantly, the Jews have no ambition of converting others to their faith.
Islam is different. To start with, only half of the estimated 5.2 million Muslims who live in France are French citizens. And even many of those who do have French citizenship insist on keeping their previous Islamic nationality. (That is especially the case with the North Africans.) Clear ethnic, linguistic and cultural identities mark out most of France’s Muslims from the rest of society.
More importantly, the Muslims who live in France are divided into countless religious faiths and persuasions. There are, of course, all the usual Sunni and Shiite variations. But there are also numerous Sufi movements, especially among those of Turkish and Kurdish background. According to recent studies, France’s Muslims come from 53 different countries, speak 21 different languages, and represent numerous Asian, Middle Eastern, African and European cultures.
All these groups and movements would deeply resent any attempt by the French government to impose a single authority on them.
Taheri gets all the way to the most important point and then doesn't make it. He correctly pointed out that "almost all of France’s Catholics, Protestant and Orthodox inhabitants are citizens of the French Republic who have grown up in a culture based on a separation of church and state." And he was also correct in saying that "Islam is different." But he doesn't explain why Islam is different; it isn't so much because it lacks organizational unity, which is the theme he expands upon here. Rather, it is because it is NOT a culture based on a separation of mosque and state.
Islam has always had a political character, and that — not racism, or underclass resentment, or anything else — is why it is France's Number One Problem. The French have allowed millions of people to enter their country who do not accept its basic premises. Now, either those people must abandon their view, or those premises must change. Which one do you think is more likely to happen?
Posted by Robert at September 9, 2004 5:24 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Islam has always had a political character, and that — not racism, or underclass resentment, or anything else — is why it is France's Number One Problem.
Yes, France has a problem that is spreading throughout the world. Thus, the political character of Islam is also the World's Number One Problem!
Posted by: epg![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 9, 2004 7:22 PM
it remains to be seen how far the west will succumb to islam.
western leaders pander to moslems encouraging them all the more!
at September 9, 2004 7:45 PM
So they want to establish an Islamic millet within the French Republic. This is a reprise of the Ottoman Empire.
It may be time to horde as much fine French wine and pork chops as one can obtain. One thing that I won't miss about Paris under the neo-Ottomans is the stench in the summer heat of the dog feces. Of course the museums will all be empty, the opera houses will be torn down, the cinemas will all be closed, the Metro will probably not run at all due to no maintenance (no spare parts available anyway since there will be no industrial output), the cathedrals will all be mosques a la Hagia Sophia, brasseries and cafes will all be converted to men-only hubbly bubbly shops, the finest haute couture will be hijabs and tent-like burkas in black or black, head chopping will return to Place de la Concorde. Come to think of it, I'll probably not be visiting at all, so maybe I won't miss anything.
Posted by: Hulegu Khan at September 9, 2004 8:39 PM
Sorry to have misjudged Sarkozy -- if he has been misjudged. The article, and the posts that follow, naturally raise a question: what is a cult, what a religion, and what a political program spatchcocked onto a few rituals of worship? Can anyone define a "religion"? Is it merely some belief-system that has a sufficient number of adherents so we do not dare call it anything else, and in calling it a religion, accord it a respect that it may not deserve?
Were those who followed Bob Jones of Koolaid fame, or David Koresh, members of a religion? No? Why not? What distinguishes a cult from a religion? Could it be that once you are in a cult, you simply cannot get out, you are stuck. Is it the absence of the free exercise of conscience, to enter or exit at will a community of belief, that separates a cult from a religion? Is it the fact that people are brainwashed from early childhood, that might make something more like a cult than like a religion, or is it the circumambient society that fills the believers with constant fear, and deprives them of the right even to be taught the rudiments of other faiths, or about the whole subject of comparative religion, or permitted to investigate such matters on their own.
These are not idle questions. If Islam were always to be identified as a belief-system rather than as a religion (a word that evokes automatic respect in some people, though not in the freethinkers among us), it could make a difference to the clarity of one's perceptions.
Sarkozy should read -- he should read the French-language scholars of Islam. He should read the little book by Anne-Marie Delcambre. He should read the book book by Jean-Paul Charnay. He should read Bousquet, Fagnan, Levi-Provencal, Dufourcq, Abel, Vajda, and others. He should read, even or perhaps especially, Andre Servier's book on the psychology of Muslims -- a book admittedly full of quirks and statements that are impressionistic, but many have the distinct ring of piercing truth, however unpleasant that truth may be. (The book is also available in English, in a translation done in 1923 or so; I think it is called "The Psychology of the Mussulman.") He will soon realize that there is no solution, and that the first thing he should be doing is not spending time and money on a single vicious imam, the one in Venissieux who, with his several wifes and ten or so children all living on the French dole, preached violent jihad so successfully that his brother was caught involved in a murderous plot to kill French people.
If half of the Muslim population consists of non-citizens, why keep them in France at all, given the security threat? Why not at least, when the next attack comes, react in the most effective way, by wholesale removal of those non-citizens to their countries of origin. What is Algeria going to do in retaliation -- stop selling oil and natural gas, the only sources of income it has? What will Morocco do -- refuse to accept French teachers and French aid? Tunisia? There is nothing they can do, and the sooner that is grasped, the better.
And all French citizens should be required, in, or to receive government grants (including welfare), to swear loyalty to the French (Infidel) state, to the foundational documents of the French state (the Declaration of the Rights of Man should be most unpalatable to many Muslims), and that loyalty must expressly be declared "superior to all other loyalties." And any evidence of perjury will lead to a stripping of citizenship. Since Islam is based not on "dual loyalty," but on single loyalty, and that loyalty must be to the umma al-islamiyya, such oaths can be mechanisms for denying employment, government benefits, and even, in some cases, citizenship. Every conceivable weapon to protect the political and intellectual and moral understandings that are part of the French state and French society must be protected, and supported from all those whose belief-system not only keeps them from sincerely sharing such understandings, but requires them to actively oppose them.
There is nothing unseemly or unacceptable about this. It is called self-defense, or attempting to save your own civilization. And to those who deplore such an effort, one can only say
Cet animal est tres mechant.
Si on l'attaque, il se defend.
French, I think.
Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2004 12:03 AM
"If half of the Muslim population consists of non-citizens, why keep them in France at all, given the security threat? Why not at least, when the next attack comes, react in the most effective way, by wholesale removal of those non-citizens to their countries of origin. "
Hugh, I know this is wishful thinking on your part cause you know very well this ain't gonna happen.
Interesting though. Just the other evening I talked to a friend who is such a great Moore fan and anti Iraq war. After a few questions and answers, it turned out that her main reason for being so anti war, she said she felt so sorry for the soldiers that had died in Iraq and their families. She said they were sitting ducks in Iraq.
I told her that the war against Islam is totally different from other wars, since the muslims don't have the same understanding of/appreciation for humanity, in other words they are cruel.
Then she said in a very emotional voice: Then we should be just as cruel to them!
Wow!. And this is from a lady that is so ........ liberal. Guess this is just frustration from her part.
How I wish we could do that, but then I'd feel I'd make myself as low a creature as them.
Nothing is easy in the world. Sigh!
Posted by: jasmine at September 10, 2004 3:00 AM
"If half of the Muslim population consists of non-citizens, why keep them in France at all, given the security threat? Why not at least, when the next attack comes, react in the most effective way, by wholesale removal of those non-citizens to their countries of origin. "
Hugh, I know this is wishful thinking on your part cause you know very well this ain't gonna happen.
Interesting though. Just the other evening I talked to a friend who is such a great Moore fan and anti Iraq war. After a few questions and answers, it turned out that her main reason for being so anti war, she said she felt so sorry for the soldiers that had died in Iraq and their families. She said they were sitting ducks in Iraq.
I told her that the war against Islam is totally different from other wars, since the muslims don't have the same understanding of/appreciation for humanity, in other words they are cruel.
Then she said in a very emotional voice: Then we should be just as cruel to them!
Wow!. And this is from a lady that is so ........ liberal. Guess this is just frustration from her part.
How I wish we could do that, but then I'd feel I'd make myself as low a creature as them.
Nothing is easy in this world. Sigh!
Posted by: jasmine at September 10, 2004 3:02 AM
Posted by: jasmine at September 10, 2004 03:02 AM
"I told her that the war against Islam is totally different from other wars, since the muslims don't have the same understanding of/appreciation for humanity, in other words they are cruel. "
Are you serious? Different cultures might be cruel, but the religion of Islam is NOT! Islam advocates of peace, respect and humanity. Not only towards other muslims, but towards members of other religions as well.
After the religion comes the culture, that sometimes colors the religion - and the culture can be a reason for what you call cruelty, but never the religion. So try to see the difference between culture and religion, and you might get a better understanding.
Do you even know what Dhimmi means?
Posted by: sadaf at September 10, 2004 7:03 PM
sadaf,
You're kidding, right? Yeah, we know what "dhimmi" means, but why don't you tell us since we're just a misinformed bunch of ignorant infidels. I believe you came to the wrong place to engage in dissimulation, but go ahead and entertain us.
at September 11, 2004 8:02 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)