The Turkish author of the Hürriyet article on President Macron, that I began to discuss in an article yesterday, continues:
Macron made his comments ahead of France’s municipal elections, and according to some international news outlets, the message was intended to elicit support from right-wing voters.
But if we are to put aside the electoral timing of the statement, let’s not forget that France is home to Europe’s largest Muslim community (estimated at around 6 million, or 8 percent of the population) and the issue of living in harmony is not going to go away.
Right-wing voters are unlikely to be mollified by the mild suggestions of Macron – to ban foreign imams, as well as teachers of language (Arabic, Turkish) and Islamic “culture” in order to promote a severing of links with the home countries of French Muslims, in order to better create that “Islam of France” he keeps talking about but never quite explains. He has expressed the hope that such moves will make Muslims more likely to accept and follow French customs, as handshaking between men and women, He expects that removing these “foreign” influences will make Muslim students more willing to accept female teachers, and Muslim patients more willing to accept female doctors. He remains, despite his outward self-assurance , still uncertain about Islam, and the degree and kind of threat it represents. He still thinks a “solution” can be found, but there hasn’t been a “solution” to Muslim aggression against non-Muslims discovered in the last 1,400 years. That is something he cannot allow himself to think about – it is too upsetting.
The important point is to what degree France’s approach to the issue is healthy and whether the strategy will pave the way to the desired outcome.
At 2,000, France has the largest contingent of foreign fighters in Syria. As far as I know, there are a handful of Turkish-origin, French citizens among them. The crime levels among Turkish communities in France are lower than those of other migrant communities.
That Muslims in France have supplied the greatest number of foreign fighters in Syria – I assume the author is referring to those fighting for the Islamic State – points to the severity of the problem of “radicalization” and “separatism” that Macron hopes to solve. “Radicalization” is discussed by Macron as if it rests on a misinterpretation of Islam, but in truth, Muslims who have been “radicalized” are simply those who are prepared to put their beliefs into practice. All Muslims are taught to wage violent Jihad against the Infidels; most Muslims ignore this command; those who take it to heart, and act upon it, are the ones who join the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Al Shebaab, Boko Haram, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, and many other groups and groupuscules. It’s not a different set of beliefs – it’s the same Qur’an — but a different way to translate those beliefs into practice.
Now that the Maghreb countries will stop sending teachers and imams, will this help get rid of the causes of their frustrations?
The “frustrations” the Turkish author of this piece is referring to are those of Muslims in France who are at the bottom of the economic ladder, who are often unemployed or engaged only in menial jobs. We are being asked to believe that it is economic deprivation that explains the “frustrations” of Muslims who, as a response, what to separate from the larger society, which they regard with hostility and hate, and some even resort to terrorism. This is a false diagnosis. Many Muslims in France are not “frustrated” by being unemployed; they are glad to remain on the generous dole of the French state. They are eager to receive all the benefits that a generous welfare state provides, and not have to do a lick of work to be eligible. They receive free or highly subsidized housing, free medical care far more advanced than anything that was available in their countries of origin, free education, unemployment benefits, family allowances, and more. Many of them appear in no hurry to find gainful employment. Why should they, when they can do so well, receive so much, when unemployed? How many Muslims in France are trying desperately to find work, and how many are finding that with the benefits they receive, they can supplement their income with petty crime – burglaries, robberies, car-jacking and, especially, drug dealing – and do quite nicely.
The “frustration” of Muslims in France is prompted by the realization that Unbelievers still dominate, when by rights Muslims should be in charge. It is infuriating to have to observe French laws and customs, when it is the French who should be modifying their behavior to meet Muslim demands. Non-Muslims on top, Muslims on the bottom is simply not acceptable; such an order of things goes against the Qur’an, goes against Allah,goes against everything that Muslims are taughrt from an early age. One more time: the Qur’an insists that Muslims are the best of peoples and non-Muslims “the worst of created beings.” This topsy-turvy world of France, where the Unbelievers are in control over Believers! — they pass the laws, rule the roost, set the tone, lord it over Muslims – of course that is “frustrating” for Muslims.
Do the youngsters from African countries radicalize because of the preaching of imams or because of the same frustrations that push “native” French youth toward right-wing extremists, as argued by Professor Ayhan Kara? His research reveals that Muslims’ anger does not stem from their religious difference but from exactly the same reasons that anger other youngsters, such as economic difficulties, unemployment, the feeling of marginalization and the like.
It is unsurprising that Professor Ayhan Kara, a Muslim Turk, would insist that there is no real difference in the “frustration” of Muslim and non-Muslim youth. He wishes to minimize, or even dispense with altogether, the effect of Islamic teaching on the behavior and attitudes of Muslims. He wants us to believe that “Muslim anger” does not stem “from their religious difference” with the majority Unbelievers, but to economic difficulties.
This is the same specious argument we have heard ever since 9/11 – that poverty is the cause of Muslim terrorism. It won’t wash. Osama bin Laden was the multi-millionaire son of a billionaire father. His second in command, Ayman Al Zawahiri, is a doctor, from one of the most prominent families in Egypt; his great-uncle was Azzam Pasha, the first, Secretary-General of the Arab League. Of the 19 terrorists who took part in the 9/11 attacks, 15 were well-heeled Saudis and two were well-heeled Emiratis. Of the remaining two, Ziad Jarrah came from a wealthy Sunni family in Lebanon, while Mohammad Atta came from a wealthy family in Egypt None of the hijackers were economically deprived; all of them were from wealthy backgrounds. It was not economic frustration that motivated them, but the teachings to be found in the Islamic texts, Qur’an and Hadith. If they were “frustrated” it was only that they felt the American Infidels had to be put in their place. Many other terrorists, too, have turned out to be well-off. The underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was the son of a banker, one of richest men in Nigeria. The Intel engineer “Mike” Hawash earned $300,000 a year. Major Nidal Hasan had his entire medical education paid for by the U.S. military, and was earning $90,000 a year which would triple once he left the service. Aafia Siddiqui had received scholarships from both Brandeis and MIT. She was an upper-middle-class Pakistani who, had she returned to Pakistan with two such prestigious degrees, would have been set for life.
In “Ending the Myth of the Poor Terrorist,” Claude Berrebi and Owen Engel take note of studies by researchers in Europe and America, who have investigated the backgrounds of thousands of terrorists, and whose data shows that Muslim terrorists are, on average, “wealthier and better educated than the median level in their respective societies.”
Berrebi and Engel continue: “But going back to Sept. 11, 2001, when 19 radical Islamic terrorists from al-Qaida hijacked four commuter planes and attacked the United States, a false consensus began to form among American politicians and experts scrambling to confront this new threat, that linked terrorism to poverty, ignorance, and hopelessness. In 2002, President George W. Bush declared that America “fights against poverty because hope is an answer to terror.” His secretary of state, Gen. Colin Powell, agreed. “The root cause of terrorism does come from situations where there is poverty, where there is ignorance.” The Bush administration’s perceptions about terrorist roots was soon echoed by rival American politicians and around the world.” Indeed, Muslims are keen to spread the notion that “poverty” and “unemployment” are the cause of the “frustration” that leads some Muslims to terrorism. This claim has had two effects. The first is that it persuades some in Western countries that they should give ever more economic support to Muslims living in their countries and more foreign aid directly to Muslim countries, as a way to diminish the threat of Islamic terrorism. It brings in more money. Second, it gets Islam off the hook. Western attention turns away from studying the ideology of Islam, which is the real source of Muslim terrorism, to focus on economic distress.
It is obviously unacceptable for teachers and imams to teach and preach in a way that would fuel France’s fear of “separatism.” One hopes that France can provide clear evidence to that effect when it comes to teachers and imams sent from Turkey.
The difficulty arises from the challenge of defining what amounts to “separatism.” For Macron, for instance, “a man unwilling to shake the hand of a woman” is “separatism.” Even Muslims can agree or disagree with that conviction. At the end of the day, religion is a highly sensitive issue and there could be additional complexities when it becomes a matter of a bilateral agreement between countries.
It might be easier for France to impose an agreement on its former colonies, but it is still noteworthy that it has not reached an agreement with Turkey, the only secular country which is benefiting from the program Macron wants to end.
Turkey under Erdogan is no longer the “secular country” it once was. The imams and teachers that Turkey had been sending to France, and who will no longer be permitted to preach or teach or even come to France, are vetted by the Turkish government. That government, under Erdogan, has been steadily re-islamizing the country; it appears it is refusing to come to an agreement – “it [France] has not reached an agreement with Turkey.” But in the end the French can simply refuse to allow the Turkish clerics in, and also can expel those already in France. It is difficult to see how Erdogan can have his way, especially since the three Maghreb states – Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia – have submitted to Macron’s demand to stop sending their imams to France. Erdogan is only further antagonizing Macron and the French. What can he do, after all, to make Macron change his mind? He has already “weaponized” the Syrian refugees whom he has now let loose on Europe, but Greece and Bulgaria have reinforced their frontiers with Turkey to keep out those immigrants; that “weapon,” once unsheathed, cannot again be used to threaten.
Then again, maybe we should not be so surprised to see that there have been problems given that Turkey’s Religious Affairs authority, the Diyanet, has become one of the most controversial institutions in the country over the past few years. The Diyanet’s approach toward women, as well as its head’s statements, have also irked and sparked reaction from the secular segments in Turkey. Turkey and France might find it hard to reach an agreement on such a sensitive topic. But finding a common ground could be easier if Macron avoided instrumentalizing anti-Turkey sentiment for his personal political gain – and if Turkey were to avoid interpreting the strategy as an effort to assimilate Muslims.
Whatever criticism one has of Macron for his miscomprehension of the ideology of Islam, he has not been “instrumentalizing anti-Turkey sentiment” for “personal political gain.” Macron has objected to Turkey sending warships to intervene in Libya, because he thinks all foreign powers should stay out of the country during its civil war. He sparred with Erdogan in 2019 at a NATO meeting over the definition of “terrorism,” which is how Erdogan wanted the alliance to describe the activities of the Kurds in Syria. Erdogan was enraged when Macron met with Syrian Kurds. Macron has real differences with Erdogan over policy; he has soberly expressed those disagreements and not been whipping up “anti-Turkey sentiment” as this Turkish writer claims.In fact, it is Erdogan who for the last decade has been whipping up anti-European sentiment in Turkey, demanding admission into the E.U., and suggesting the country is being kept out because of anti-Islam bigotry.
Jayell says
‘The islam of France’? Surely there is no islam ‘of’ France, because there is nothing ‘French’ about islam. Maybe there is islam ‘in’ France, just as there can be pollution or contamination in anything, but to try to infer that France in any owes its character to anything even vaguely islamic is plain outrageous.
mortimer says
Jayell raises an excellent point: what can ever be ‘French’ about Islam?
For Muslims, the very name FRANK (a Crusader from France) is anathema. How can OPPOSITES be paired together??? A Jewish Nazi, a Black KKK, a square circle? Oil and water do mix if you put a lot of energy and agitation into it, but eventually they separate on their own again.
Will the Muslims exchange the turban for a beret, will they drink red wine with their meals or will they eat charcuterie made from pork, will they be able to accept the liberated French women as equals?
FRANKS and ISLAM? Muslims just won’t buy that one. To a Muslim that sounds like ‘Crusader + Islam’, an obvious, irreconcilable opposition in their minds.
FYI says
“For muslims,the very name FRANK is anathema”
Well don’t tell Frank Anderson {who posts here at JW} that for God’s sake.
Ray Jarman says
Mortimer, What about the Hasidic Jews (especially in places like New York), the Sikhs, the Chinese, Vietnamese and other ethnic and religious groups that have attempted and for the large part have succeeded? While retaining their basic values and dress, these people have become part of the mosaic that has enriched the cultures where they thrive? There have been subcultures in most western countries and seldom has friction led to sedition. Why cannot those who follow the teachings of Muhammad blend into the fabric of other societies? My answer is as Bill Clinton said about the economy, “It is the Qur’an Stupid?” Until Macron and other (especially Merkel and Trudeau) elected officials in our western nations become cognizant of the danger of those who follow the words of the un-holy Qur’an, the frequent riots and mayhem will continue to grow in frequency and intensity.
gravenimage says
Ray, these other people don’t follow creeds that demand the violent conquest of unbelievers.
Michael Copeland says
“Us versus them”
Tariq Ramadan
Stieve says
Macron is such a pussy (sorry for the profanity) that all he seems to really care about is that France not look like the laughingstock it has become.
Appearances are most important to liberal retards.
France should not LOOK like it is being overrun by islamist scum. When riots break out, even if caused by muslims, it should “look” like France on TV. Not be France, just not look like savages who beat wives in dirty pajamas rioting.
Same with the banning of some overt “religious” garb. If women are running around wearing bedsheets, well that does not look right. Ban wearing the cloth sacks. It does not matter about domestic violence, since that happens at home, and nobody can see that.
This also explains his new fervor to “address” islam. Gotta look like he is doing something, preferably something exactly opposite of appeasing an invading force which is islamifying France and Europe.
Appearances trump all!
mortimer says
The Turkish author of the Hürriyet article is wrong about the ‘largest Muslim population in Europe’. The largest of Muslim population is actually in regions of Russia west of the Ural Mountain Range which is Europe. All of Russia has as many as 16 million Muslims including all ‘cultural Muslims’ who are Muslim in name only (MINO).
Matthieu Baudin says
Yes, Russian Federation I think is about 12% Muslim. And Bulgaria also would have a higher percentage Muslim population than France, though more assimilated than in either Russia or France.
gravenimage says
I think he means the Native European nation with the largest population of Muslims–that would indeed be France, which is around 8% Muslim. (Although it may be even worse unofficially)
Walter Sieruk says
The French President may be justifiably concerned about the rise of “Islam in France” nevertheless one reason for the advancement of Islam this country a reason that he is naturally unaware of and blind to. Likewise a reason that he has no control over.
Which is there are so many Muslims in France is not only because Muslim immigration in the French nation, a great as that factor is, one reason overlooked is the France ,along with many other so called “Christian nations” , has many churches that have useless minsters who don’t know or preach the Bible. As a few good Christian pastors call it “spiritually dead churches.” There with so many churches very unfaithful to Bible preaching to awful thing are occurring.
First, because of the spiritually void and empty value of those unbiblical churches, many French people are leaving false spiritually dead “Christianity “to join the “House of Islam” to obtain a feeling of a meaning in life.
Second, with no actual Bible bases churches around to act as a bulwark and pillar to stand against the advancement, insidious influence and powers of Islam.
To explain this in another way, an author of an article had truly observed “Religious fervor has declined in the West.” That is true concerning the “Christian West.” For much of “Christianity” of Europe is just an empty shell that had ago gone apostate. The tragic and sad reality is the Islam is gaining converts in Europe, even among Europeans, is because many of them in the churches of Europe have minister who are no good because they no longer know, understand or preach the Bible .Therefore many of the native people of Europe know in apostate “Christianity”which is void of any actual value or worth.
With this explained its best to define Islam and once defined contrast Islam with Bible.
Of the many ways Islam may be described, one of them is that a religion of denial. Meaning that Islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God. As in the Son of God Who is God the Father. Furthermore, Islam denies the Jesus is God the Son. In addition, Islam denies that Jesus is God. Before going over these three denials of Islam it first should the stated the Bible instructs the way to tell if a prophet or religious teacher is really from and of God or not is do the teachings and doctrines of that prophet of teacher really fit in accord what is found in the Bible ? For if that prophet or teachers and teachers doctrines that are in contradiction to the Bible then that prophet is a false prophet and that religious teacher is a false teacher and thus in doctrinal error and darkness.
Likewise if a religion had teachings and doctrines that are in contradiction that is religion is in error also part of the world of darkness and is therefore a false religion. As the Bible instructs in Isaiah 8:20. “To the law of the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” [K.J.V.] With this clearly stated, three things should be known.
First, that Islam denial that Jesus is the Son of God is in great contradiction to the teaching of the Bible . Which reveals the Jesus is the Son of God? As seen in ,for example Matthew 3:16,17. 16:15,16. Luke 1:35. John 3:16-18, 36. First John 2:22,23. 4:14,15. 5:12,13. Second, that Islam denies that Jesus is God the Son is in strong contradiction to the Bible. As found in Hebrews 1:6-8. With emphasis on verse 8. Third, Islam’s denial that Jesus is God is in great contrast to the doctrine and teaching of the Bible. That Jesus is God may be found in ,for example, John 1:1;3. Colossians 1:15-17. 2:9. Romans 9:5
Second , to further discover that the Bible teachings that Jesus is God all a person has to do is to compare the Old Testament with New Testament to see that Jesus is God. As in comparing Isaiah 45:22,23. with Philippians 2:5-11. Also by comparing Psalm 89:8,9. with Mathew 8:23-27. will reveal that Jesus is God. Likewise, by comparing Psalm 62:5-7 . with First Corinthians 10:4. shows the Deity of Jesus. Even by comparing the News Testament books together will show that Jesus is God. As in comparing Romans 14:12. with John 5:22. will show Jesus to be God. The list can go on but this should be enough, for all who are willing to see the truth, that Jesus is, indeed, the Son of God. That Jesus is God the Son and that Jesus is God.
Third, the imams and mullahs as well as the other apologists for Islam will try to “explain’ this all away by making the claim that the Bible had been corrupted by Christians ,through time, and that’s way the Bible reads as it does. This claim, very much, underestimate the Power of God to protect and preserve His Word ,through time , and to keep in intact and away from the corruption of men. In conclusion, in light and information of the Bible in can be seen that Islam is a awful and terrible doctrinal error concerning it teaching about the Nature of Jesus and therefore Islam is part of the world of darkness. So Islam with its strong contradictions to the Bible is a false religion, Proverbs 14:12. So all dear Muslims are thus invited to leave the false religion of Islam and come the and receive the Jesus of the Bible who is the only way to heaven, John 14:6. and the True Light of the world. John 8:12.
To reply to the many apologists for Islam with their many claims to support Islam there’ the Christian site http://www.answering-islam.org
DHazard says
Equality, Liberty and Fraternity.
1. Equality. There is no such thing as equality in Islam.
2. Liberty. In Islam everyone is a slave, some more than others.
3. Fraternity. Islam tears apart the common bonds that all humans share.
gravenimage says
+1
Kepha says
Would Leftist Western politicians please shut up about traditional theistic communities (yes, I believe that socialism and other secular ideologies can also be called religions)?
Speaking as a Christian American, I know that my God doesn’t rise and fall with my country, Daily, politicians right and left try to either flatter or shame me with attempts to prove they know my religion better than I do myself, and I am more annoyed and disgusted rather than either flattered or shamed. While I fancy myself an American patriot, I have long been disgusted by right-wing attempts to wrap the cross with the flag; while concerned about my poorer neighbor, I am doubly disgusted by the Left’s attempts to wax “prophetic” even while demanding I bow down to every idol du jour.
My guess is that every Muslim in France who hears this kind of push by Macron is going to feel insulted, too–and were it not for Islam’s horrid record inspired by an equally horrid doctrine, the Muslims would have my sympathy in this one.
If Macron is so concerned about what Muslims are doing in France, maybe he should give some support to whatever Christian bodies in France still preach the Gospel and call for conversion.
Jule Bacal says
A problem is that most of the words in English do not at all mean the same thing in Arabic or any language of Islam. God for others is not who Allah is And they must believe God in any other religion is False. What they see as false Gods are not allowed, have no rights. Allah has a much different description to Islam than God in Christianity. The Laws of Allah are not the same laws of other religions. We say Freedom or liberation and mean something other than what they do. If they kill (other than another Muslim) it is not revenge but duty to Allah. When they define their words, we see the problems. But they are taught they must force all of us to define the same as them… we must all be one like Islam. The one God must be Allah. the word God is not allowed in translations. If someone says Allah is the one God…it has a very different meaning to nonMuslims, tho they say Allah is the god of Abraham, Noah & Adam. You cannot talk with them because every word holds subtle meanings, not what you mean in English. Revenge to us us can be duty to Allah, defending Islam for them.
gravenimage says
+1
gravenimage says
Macron Tries to Harden His Stance on an “Islam of France” (Part 2)
……………….
Yeah–good luck with that one. Too bad Muslims hate and want to destroy everything that France stands for.
Wilfred says
Every muslim first belongs to Islam & then to his country. The Quran has no ambiguity in this context. The Umma is the most supreme force & every other identity is secondary. The Quran clearly says that every non believer should either be converted to Islam or be killed. Every piece of land should be run by Sharia Law & the constitution of any country is irrelevant in this divine order.
jca reid says
Macron’s ‘new’ stance against Islam is like a freshly baked souffle’s stand against a hurricane. He wants the European people’s wiped out & subsumed under this degenerate morass! Once this is done, this Muslim mass WILL turn on the Whites Elite/Establishment to fulfill the Koranic verses of Muslims having sex slaves & booty. The Imams WILL have to hand them over. A pity the European Working classes won’t see it as they’d either be dead! To save Europe I can see the Generals stepping in to save their countries if they have a scintilla of Patriotism.
Giacomo Latta says
”Radicalization”
radical (Cambridge online dictionary) : believing or expressing the belief that there should be great or extreme social or political change
fundamental (idem) : forming the base, from which everything else develops
Do these slashers, rapists and throwers of acid, those who have been arrested for reasons other than petty theft, have a great change in Islam in mind? Do they wish to replace mentions in the koran of seizing Jews, Christians and other non-believers then slitting their throat with mentions of greeting the same with a warm welcome? Of course not. So they are hardly Islamic radicals. They are as fundamental as any other muslim when it comes to Islam.
Ah, but they are radicals when it comes to our way of life under democracy and the capitalist system? Again, hardly. They seek a total replacement of our way of life with a death-oriented, slavery-promoting, misogynist system that is all of the above even by 700 AD standards. They should be called ‘’eradicals’’ if such a word existed.