 Testing the fragility of Marianne “Marianne is the embodiment of the French Republic. Marianne represents the permanent values that found her citizens’ attachment to the Republic: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". In four provocative chapters we shall see if the fragile Western values embodied by Marianne risk fragmenting in continuing clashes with a radical Islamism. 1. A war of words setting the stage 2. Mocking Islam on pain of death 3. Why provoke? 4. “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet” A war of words setting the stage On 2 September the Charlie Hebdo magazine republished the Muhammad cartoons that had led to the terror attack on the magazine in January 2015. The cartoons were republished on the opening day of the trial against the 14 people accused of helping the two Muslim brothers in their January 2015 attack on the magazine. Here and there small glimpses of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons accompany media reports about the republication, but only fleetingly. No one seemingly wanting to stick their necks out, with good reason as we shall see 25 September Paris, more than words A man and woman were attacked and injured by a man wielding some sort of meat cleaver near the former offices of Charlie Hebdo. The injured were employees of French TV documentary film company Premieres Lignes, and just out for a cigarette break. The assailant, a Pakistan born teenager, and a number of others were quickly arrested and the incident was seen as a terrorist attack. 2 October at Les Mureaux, the main act The French President Emanuel Macron enters the stage in the main act that led to a rising swell of anger among Muslims. In a remarkable speech Macron criticising Islam: “Islam is a religion that is in crisis today all over the world, … including in countries where Islam is the majority religion.” A crisis due to tensions between religious fundamentalism and political projects, that is leading to growing radicalization. “A crisis of Islam everywhere that is plagued by these radical forms, by these radical manifestations and by a yearning for a reinvented jihad, which means the destruction of the other.” It is a radicalization that has been influenced and furthered by Wahhabism, Salafism, and the Muslim Brotherhood: “They carried messages of rupture, a political project, a radicalism in the negation for example of equality between women and men, and by external funding, by indoctrination from outside…This reality affects us, strikes us. It’s grown in recent years. It needs to be named.” His speech really brought forth the ire of Muslim leaders and activists, with strongly worded attacks on the French president and defenders of Islam. Erdogan criticised Macron for being disrespectful in his criticism of Islam: ““Macron's recent remarks claiming Islam is in crisis are not simply disrespectful, they are clear provocations. Have we ever said Christianity, Judaism should be restructured? Who are you to propose a restructuring of Islam? … We expect him (Macron) to act like a responsible statesman rather than a colonialist governor.” (dailysabah.com). Erdogan also claimed that European politicians were exploiting and anti-Muslim sentiment to conceal their own failures. Targeting the Muslim community has become a “tool” for them. Religious institutions like the Egyptian sunny Muslim institution Al-Azhar were also quick to denounce Macron’s speech for being racist and spreading hate speech, which “destroy all joint efforts by religious figures to eliminate racism and bullying against religions” (ahram.org.eg). Interim general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Ibrahim Mounir, made thinly veiled threats in letter to Macron (here in what may be a bad translation). “We wish to inform to you, to the French people and to all the peoples of the world that the thought of the brotherhood of the Muslim Brothers, which emanates from the religion to which its followers are attached has always known how to overcome the blunders of certain regimes, which deliberately work to push them to denounce their religion, and which use illegal and inhuman excesses to distort the religion. And everyone follows and knows these excesses” (global-watch-analys.com). Excesses presumably including unwanted criticism of Islam and cartoons regarded as blasphemous by Muslims. Yasser Louati, a French Muslim activist, tweeted: “The repression of Muslims has been a threat, now it is a promise. In a one-hour speech #Macron buried #laicite, emboldened the far right, anti-Muslim leftists and threatened the lives of Muslim students by calling for drastic limits on home schooling despite a global pandemic.” While this may seem to be only a war of words between an articulate French President restating and emphasizing some of the essential principles of the laïcité of French state, and some prominent leaders and institutions seeing themselves as defenders of Islam, it also makes explicit the deep struggle between Western secularism and an Islam making demands incompatible with these Western values. This war of words was soon to be followed by bloody aggressions in the shape of terror attacks carried out in the name of a radical Islam. Mocking Islam on pain of death The beheading of a teacher On Friday 16 October the French teacher, Samuel Paty, was attacked and beheaded by a knife wielding 18-year old Chechen, Abdullakh Anzorov, who had been staying in France for more than a decade. The attacker apparently posted a photo of the severed head on Twitter with message saying that the execution was the punishment for belittling the Prophet, before being shot and killed by police shortly after the murder of Paty. Samuel Paty had been receiving complaints and threats since he had showed some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in a class about the freedom of speech. According to some sources, Paty had showed two cartoons to his students, one of which purporting to portray Muhammad naked with his genitals exposed, although accounts differ on precisely what was presented. The attacker did not know Samuel Paty, but was apparently goaded into doing something to avenge the Prophet by a Muslim parent of one of Paty’s students and by a video published by a local mosque complaining loudly about the teacher. The French reaction to the beheading President Emmanuel Macron said that the incident was "a typical Islamist terrorist attack", and that "our compatriot was killed for teaching children freedom of speech". In a later tribute to the teacher he said Samuel Paty was killed “Because he represented the Republic that rules each day in the classroom, the freedom that is transmitted and perpetuated in schools. Samuel Paty was killed because Islamists want our future, and they know that with quiet heroes such as him they can never have it. They divide the 'loyal' from the 'non-believers'. Samuel Paty knew only citizens. They feed off of ignorance. They cultivate hate of others. He wanted, always, to see the face and discover the riches of difference. Samuel Paty was the victim of a macabre conspiracy of idiocy, of lies, of jumbled ideas, of hate of others, hate of who we are, deeply and existentially. Macron vowed not to “renounce caricatures, drawings, even if others move backwards. We will offer all the opportunity that the Republic must to our young people, without discriminating against anyone.” The Minister of the Interior, Gerald Darmanin, was also quick to respond. On TV he announced that he wanted to "send a message" not giving "not a minute's respite for the enemies of Republic.” He announced expulsions of radicalized Islamists, the dissolution of certain Muslim associations and the closure of some mosques. He wanted to expel 231 illegal aliens being under surveillance because they were suspected of radicalization. He had already asked the prefect of Seine-Saint-Denis to close the Pantin mosque for six months for having shared on its Facebook page a video denouncing Samuel Paty's course and the showing of the cartoons purported to show Muhammad. The Minister of the Interior also announced on Twitter that several associations would be dissolved, mentioning the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) and the humanitarian association Baraka City. "We must stop being naive and see the truth in the face: there is no possible accommodation with radical Islamism. Any compromise is a compromise" (francetvinfo.fr). He also announced that authorities would carry out vigilant daily checks on association and people suspected of links with the Islamist movement. In his eagerness to eradicate Islamism he has been criticized for going too far when “expressing the view that the existence of halal food sections in stores encourages Muslims to isolate from the rest of French society.” Rising swell of anger in Muslim countries The harsh sounding French reaction to the killing of Samuel Paty were condemned by leaders in Muslim countries. Again Erdogan, self-declared defender of Islam, was among the first to react to what he called to French hostility towards Islam. At Justice and Development Party (AK Party) congress he yelled: “What is Macron’s problem with Islam and Muslims? … What can be said to a head of state that treats millions of members of a religious minority in his country this way? First of all, (he needs) mental check, … "There will be elections (in France) ... We will see your (Macron's) fate. I don't think he has a long way to go. Why? He has not achieved anything for France and he should do for himself." (dailysabah.com). There were calls for a boycott of French Goods. After Macron later had payed tribute to Samuel Paty, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan took to Twitter accusing Macron of encouraging blasphemous cartoons. “Sadly, President Macron has chosen to deliberately provoke Muslims, including his own citizens, through encouraging the display of blasphemous cartoons targeting Islam & our Prophet PBUH,” (reuters.com) In a letter addressed to heads of state in Muslim countries Imran Khan voiced strong criticism of Western countries’ treatment of Muslims. “[I]n Europe mosques are being closed, Muslim women are being denied their right to wear clothing of their choice in the public domain even as nuns and priests continue to display their religious clothing and covert and overt discrimination is widespread against Muslims living in these countries… The recent statements at the leadership level and incidents of desecration of the Holy Quran are a reflection of this increasing Islamophobia that is spreading in European countries where sizeable Muslim populations reside. In this environment, it is incumbent on us as leaders of the Muslim world to collectively take the lead in breaking this cycle of hate and extremism, which nurtures violence and even death. It is time to reach out to “the other” and end cycles of violence bred of ignorance and hate.” To break the cycle of hatred and extremism Imran Khan urged leaders of Muslim countries to raise their voice “and explain to the leadership of the non-Muslim, especially western states, the deep-seated reverence and love all Muslims feel for their divine book, the Holy Quran, and for our Prophet PBUH … We must explain to the Western world that value systems differ for different social and religious and ethnic groups in the world.” Imran Khan argues that just as Holocaust denials are not allowed in many countries, the Western world should pay a similar respect to Muslims and their pain and hurt when “we see attacks on our faith and our beloved Prophet PBUH through mockery, ridicule and even abuse.” Thus, somehow equating the Holocaust denials with the drawing of Mohammad cartoons, and arguing for strict measures against such blasphemy. The president of Indonesia Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, expressed a similar sentiment when condemning statements on Islam made by the French President: “Freedom of expression should not be exercised in ways that tarnish the honor, sanctity and sacredness of religious values and symbols” (The Jakarta Post) Angry condemnations were also coming from more extreme leaders like the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyron and Sayyed Nasrallah in Lebanon On Instagram Kadyron accused Macron of “forcing people into terrorism, pushing people towards it, not leaving them any choice, creating the conditions for the growth of extremism in young people’s heads … You can boldly call yourself the leader and inspiration of terrorism in your country.” (aljazeera.com) Sayyed Nasrallah called the French cartoons an aggression and likened Macron’s stance to a declaration of war. In a televised speech he wowed that “No Muslim in this world can accept insulting his prophet” These and similar expressions of condemnation, anger and the voicing of threats by leaders of Muslim nations and movements, contributed to the rising swell of anger in easily stirred Muslim populations, with tens of thousands of Muslims protesters especially in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Palestine, calling for boycott of French produce, while burning French flags and tramping upon French symbols. Almost like the uproar following the original publishing of cartoons of the Prophet by a Danish Newspaper in 2005. Mocking Islam on pain of death On Thursday 29 October a young radicalized Muslim from Tunis carried out what may have seemed to him to be the righteous bloody punishment on anonymous members of the people who had mocked and attacked Islam. In the knife attack in a Church in Nice he killed two women and a man. A 60-year old woman was apparently almost beheaded. Only a few days later the next atrocious act in the name of Islam was committed on a Monday evening in Vienna. Again, a young man took upon himself to punish anonymous and innocent people that to a deranged and radicalized mind might seem to represent the Western societies denigrating Islam. The terrorist with double nationality from North Macedonia and Austria went on a rampage armed with a Kalashnikov, a pistol and a long knife, killing four and injuring at least a twelve more, before being hunted down and shot. He may or may not have had supporters, but he certainly seems to have received a kind of implicit support from all the angry voices attacking France and the West for denigrating Islam and the Prophet. He may have acted alone but in the conviction that he was carried along by a sea of anger among Muslims It is difficult not to see the angry official condemnation of France by Muslim leaders and the more or less spontaneous waves of protest of tens of thousands in Muslim countries as a gigantic swell of support and popular legitimation of Islamist radicalism and of the atrocious acts of terror committed by young men in the name of Islam. Putting the lie to the repeated notion by Western leaders and media that these terrible actions have “nothing to do with Islam. For how long can they keep up this charade, when seeing how Muslim leaders and populations react, and terror attacks by young men encouraged by such voices and protests continuing. On 28 October Charlie Hebdo published a carton ridiculing as Erdogan a drunken lecherous man lifting the skirt of a woman, further raising tensions. After the attack in a Nice Church Malaysia’s former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad used a blog post to criticise France, pouring fuel on the fire of Muslim protests: ”Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past. But by and large the Muslims have not applied the ‘eye for an eye’ law. Muslims don’t. The French shouldn’t. Instead the French should teach their people to respect other people’s feelings.” Directed towards Macron he wrote: Since you have blamed all Muslims and the Muslims’ religion for what was done by one angry person, the Muslims have a right to punish the French.” The Muslim view of terror in the name in of Islam Shortly before the trial against the surviving perpetrators of the 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo, the magazine published the result of a survey carried out by Ifop. Separate surveys were carried out for the French population in general and for the Muslim population. To the question “When you think of the perpetrators of the January 2015 attack against the journalists of Charlie Hebdo, what is your reaction?” Ifop found this distribution of reactions from the survey of Muslims (Ifop):  72 % of the Muslim respondents condemned the actions of perpetrators totally. Among the almost one fifth that did not, 5% did not condemn the perpetrators, 13% were indifferent, while 10% condemned them but shared some of their motivation. The survey indicates that fairly large part the Muslim population do not condemn the radical Islamists, who commit terror attacks in reaction to what they regard as denigration and mocking of Islam and the Prophet. Similar views are found in an ICCT (International Centre for Counter-Terrorism) research paper. “When translating (generally low) percentages of sympathy and support for al Qaeda and so-called Islamic State in various countries into actual population figures, it emerges that there is a sizeable radical milieu in both Muslim-majority countries and Western Muslim diasporas, held together by the world wide web of the internet. While large majorities of Muslims in most countries have no love for jihadist extremists, there are more than enough breeding grounds for terrorism.” (ICCT research paper). Dissenting Muslim voices In France Imam Hassen Chalghoumi, from a mosque in the largely Muslim suburb of Drancy had long promoted interfaith dialogue, and after the murder of Samuel Paty he raised his voice in an interview on TV that contrasted sharply with the angry voices of other Muslim leaders: "We are all Samuel Paty. He is a martyr of freedom. His assassin is a criminal terrorist who has nothing to do with faith and humanity. He was manipulated by videos and individuals who are also controlled by hatred. I congratulate and stand by the Minister of the Interior. It was a fatwa, yes! Our authorities and legal system need to understand that a fatwa is not just a murder threat or a call to murder. It is also a discourse of hatred, the discourse of the Islamist propaganda… This teacher was beheaded in the name of our religion. I apologize to his family” His open dissent of course makes him a target for radical Muslims. In a talk with The Time magazine he pointed to his two bodyguards and said: “Without protection, I would have been dead long ago.” After his interview he has received thousands of threats. Another lone voice was heard in a statement by Indian Muslims for Secular Democracy (IMSD) quoted in The Citizen on 30 October: “We are here to condemn in unequivocal terms, no ifs and buts, not only the man responsible for this barbaric act but all those who had any role in the instigation of the crime as also all those who seek to justify it. We are here not just to condemn the slaying of Mr Paty, but also to demand the abolishing of apostasy and banishing of blasphemy anywhere and everywhere across the world.” (thecitizen.in). Why provoke? Timid, automated virtue signaling by Western leaders President Trump in a Tweet: “Our hearts are with the people of France. America stands with our oldest Ally in this fight. These Radical Islamic terrorist attacks must stop immediately”. Bundeskanzler Merkel let her speaker Steffen Seibert announce that Samuel Paty had stood for the values of France, Germany and our common Europe. And that “The federal government is on its side against Islamist violence and against hatred in any form. Our condolences go out to the family of the murdered. “ In a similar vein, other leaders expressed their horror, resolve and condolence in automated virtue-signaling responses after the Nice killings In a message from the Pope “His Holiness Pope Francis joins in prayer with the suffering of the families and shares their grief.” The list continues, even Muslim countries published such automated responses. The Foreign Ministry of Saudi Arabia tweeted “utter rejection of such extremist acts that are inconsistent with all religions, human beliefs and common sense.” The Turkish Foreign Ministry added insult to injury by announcing “Turkey is in solidarity with French people as a nation who also lost her citizens to terrorism.” Apparently not a feeling shared by their President. Prime Minster Boris was “appalled to hear the news from Nice this morning of a barbaric attack at the Notre-Dame Basilica, … Our thoughts are with the victims and their families, and the UK stands steadfastly with France against terror and intolerance.” European Union president Ursula von der Leyen took to Twitter expressing “the odious and brutal attack that has just taken place in Nice and I am with France with all my heart … My thoughts are with the victims of this hateful act. All of Europe is in solidarity with France. We will remain united and determined in the face of barbarity and fanaticism” Prime Minster Mark Rutte of the Netherlands said that France was “not alone in the battle against extremism.” Although, looking at the often repeated and automated responses to terror in the name of Islam that does not seem to be followed by any real action, one may actually realize that France is quite alone in their battle. Other leaders and countries do not want to follow Macron in a battle against Radical Islamism. No doubt for fear of having to deal with a surge of Muslim protests and a renewed risk of terror committed in the name of defending Islam. Self-limiting freedom of expression: Why provoke? On 29 October Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada like so many others tweeted “Our thoughts are with the loved ones of the victims. We stand in solidarity with the French people against violence and denounce these unjustifiable acts, which have no place in our society.” Later he qualified what he had tweeted by saying that freedom of expression was not without limit: “In a pluralistic, diverse and respectful society like ours, we must be aware of the impact of our words, of our actions on others, particularly these communities and populations who still experience enormous discrimination.” (thepostmillennial.com). While some voices have criticised Trudeau for qualifying his condemnations of the attacks in France, similar views of the West being in some way responsible for the terror attacks seem to run like an undercurrent in parts of society. In Denmark the Chairman of Danish Association of School Heads, Claus Hjortdal, rhetorically asked “Should we ensure a cartoonist's freedom of expression in primary school? Is that our job? Can freedom of expression be explained in other ways without offending anyone? … If you know in advance that you are abusing some parents and offend students, then you have failed in primary school. Our job is not to provoke anyone to leave class. The teacher's teaching is a direct failure if three students leave the class because they refuse to hear what he is saying.” Many may find his excuse for not showing the cartoons abhorrent, but the chairman may actually have expressed what a quite a large quiet segment of the population is murmuring among themselves “Why provoke?” Although the true explanation for such views may be the fear of the reprisals that might follow, metered out by radical followers of Islam. This leads to the idea that Samuel Paty was somehow responsible for his own beheading. Why did he have to show cartoons that he must have known would provoke Muslim students and their relatives? While the argument for not showing cartoons that are as blasphemous by Muslims might preserve a kind of uneasy peace in the class, it surely also means that the value of freedom of expression is frying around the edges. Such an attitude may give up much more than the right to show provocative cartoons in class, it may become the first step in a series that will undermine the fragile values underpinning Western societies. Values fought and died for by generations before us. Should we allow that to happen in our misguided deference to one religious group people’s very thin-skinned sensitivities, or for fear of the terror reprisals if we don’t? The real culprit – Western secularism? President Macron’s 2 October speech on an Islam in crisis and his wow to defend French secularism by presenting a bill in the Council of Ministers which would aim to strengthen secularism and consolidate republican principle, has been criticised by Muslim as stigmatizing French Muslims. A very strict concept of laïcité will drive a wedge between France and its large Muslim population and lead to an Us against Them view of Muslims in France. Nagib Azergui, founder of the Union of French Muslim Democrats political party, has argued that Macron’s proposal was “making a direct link between Muslims, terrorism and radicalisation.” (Al Jazeera) One hundred prominent Muslims also published a letter criticising Macron: “Stop stigmatising Muslim women, whether they wear a headscarf or not, whose clothing choices have become a subject of national debate … Stop the escalation of empty political and media debates. Stop the indictment of any speaker, Muslim or not, who does not subscribe to the racist speeches that have become omnipresent on our screens.” (Al Jazeera). Chems-Eddine Hafiz, the rector of Paris’s Grand Mosque argued that the French should blame themselves for the radicalization among Muslims: “In the long run, certain populations become autonomous, freeing themselves from the laws of the Republic to live according to standards that they have concocted for themselves or that extremist and communalist circles have shaped for them.” In an article in Politico by Farhad Khosrokhavar is director of studies at EHHS, the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales talked of the dangerous French religion of secularism. He argues that reason that France has seen so many terror attacks in the name of Islam is “France’s extreme form of secularism and its adherence to blasphemy, which fueled radicalism within a marginalized minority.” French laïcité and the French state representing it, is the real culprit, not the majority of Muslim subjected to its views and demands. The result: “a nefarious cycle: provocation, counter-provocation and a society’s descent into hell. With the radicalization of French secularism, the number of jihadist attacks in the country has multiplied … French laity claim to be fighting for freedom of expression. In doing so, innocent people die, Muslims around the world reject French values and boycott the country’s products, and French Muslims face restrictions on their freedom of expression in the name of thwarting Islamist propaganda.” Khosrokhavar’s article was later withdrawn from the Politico’s website. Other Western media have published similar views. An article in the New Times argues that after the terror attacks that Muslims wonder about their place in France: “Central to France’s convoluted relationship with its Muslim citizens is the authorities’ vow to defend those who publish caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, as part of its strict laws on secularism that allow blasphemy. But many Muslims, from shoppers at the open-air market of Ivry-sur-Seine to the president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, have stated their unease with the cartoons, arguing that there should be limits to offense when it comes to religious beliefs.” The Muslims interviewed for article also mention other examples where they clash with the strict France views, like the banning of the veil, halal and other religious practices. Throughout the article one gets the impression that French laïcité and Macron are the real culprits, that stigmatize Muslims and contribute to a climate that leads to radicalizations among Muslims. Somehow the Muslims are not at fault, France and Macron is. “Is France Fueling Muslim Terrorism by Trying to Prevent It?” another article in the New York Times asks and it is not alone in questioning Macron’s reaction to the Islamist attacks. Similar views have found their way into a Financial Times column. The criticism prompted a reaction from Macron. On 4 November a letter from Macron was published in the Financial Times. An evidently furious Macron made it clear that France wasn’t fighting Islam as a religion, but only Islamism and Islamists. “I will not allow anybody to claim that France, or its government, is fostering racism against Muslims. France — we are attacked for this — is as secular for Muslims as for Christians, Jews, Buddhists and all believers. The neutrality of the state, which never intervenes in religious affairs, is a guarantee of freedom of worship. Our law enforcement forces protect mosques, churches and synagogues alike.” (FT). Later Macron even called the New York Times to complain about the articles criticising France for fuelling racism. According to an article published on 15 November he said: “So when I see, in that context, several newspapers which I believe are from countries that share our values — journalists who write in a country that is the heir to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution — when I see them legitimizing this violence, and saying that the heart of the problem is that France is racist and Islamophobic, then I say the founding principles have been lost.” “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet” Self-segregation of Muslims in the West Repeatedly, studies can demonstrate that Muslims have views that distance them from the rest of the population. The UK study "What British Muslims Really Think" has demonstrated this distance. Excerpts from extensive face-to-face interviews show e.g. that 52% of the UK's 3 million Muslims believe that homosexuality should be banned. 39% that the wife should always obey the man and the whole "18 per cent sympathize with people who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet; 4 per cent - that equates to about 100,000 Muslims - have 'sympathy for people who take part in suicide bombing to fight injustice. " (Spectator). In September 2019 Ifop carried out a survey of the opinions of Muslims in France for Jean-Jaurès Foundation and the newspaper Le Point. Although the survey only asked questions in relation to limited number of issues in relation to Islam versus French secularism it indicates a marked degree of self-segregation of Muslims in France. Compared with an earlier survey from 2011 the recent survey shows “a greater religious rigor and moral conservatism among some young people of Muslim culture, especially men, compared to the rest of their age group.” Examples: In 2011 60% of all Muslims supported the burqa ban while 33% thought it was bad. The recent 2019 survey showed that 59% of the Muslims surveyed now say that the ban is bad, while 31% support the ban. For Mosque attendance picture emerges of stricter adherence to Islam and its practices. (Ifop.com). Muslim mosque attendance growing.  A comparison of mosque attendance for the age group 18-24 years show that in 2011 23% indicated regular attendance, in 2019 mosque attendance among this age group had risen to 40%. More generally 41% of the survey participants indicated that Islamic practices ought to be aligned and adapted to secularism at least in certain areas, but with 37% almost as many had the opposite opinion, arguing that French secularism must be adapted and adjusted on certain points to be compatible with the practice of Islam. 49% of the age group under 25 years had this view. On questions related to the application of Sharia 27% saw Sharia law as standing above French law, but 65% of the respondents argued that French law ought to prevail. In 2019 68% of the respondents said that girls should be able to wear headscarves in colleges and high schools, while 54% wanted to able to express their religious identity in the workplace, and almost as many argued that the workplace should comply with religious obligations of their employees. Answers to various assertions about Islam in France (Ifop.com):  The survey shows that some Muslims in France tend to perceive educational institutions as hostile. “As a result, the survey data show a strong mobilization around the right to express one's religion more widely in school premises.” (jean-Jaures.org). Perhaps somewhat surprising given that strong views of religion and secularism, a large majority of 70% of the Muslim respondents said secularism represented “a chance for them to live their religion more freely” (Somag News). In Germany Muslims organisations have raised similar demands for society to be more accommodating in relation to Islam. To assure a dignified Islamic way of life in midst of society the Central Council of Muslims in Germany (Zentralrad der Muslime in Deutschland) have called for • introduction of Islamic religious instruction into the school system, to be provided in German, • establishment of academic professorships for the university education of teachers of Islam and imams, • permission of the building of mosques in down-town areas, • authorization of the public call to prayer, reinforced by loud-speakers, • respect by schools and administrations for the Islamic dress code, • co-option of Muslims into the existing media control bodies, • implementation of the right to slaughter according to the Islamic ritual as decided, in 2001, by the Federal Constitutional Court, • recruiting Muslim imams into the chaplain ́s corps of the armed forces, • Muslim religious assistance in hospitals and social institutions, • official protection of the two Muslim religious holidays, • providing cemeteries, or sections thereof, for Islamic burial. The surveys and views presented here indicate major aspects of the Muslim self-segregation. They make demands on our societies that must appear alien, unusual and even offensive to Western values and cultural beliefs, and they demand space for religious beliefs that many will consider regressive. Muslim self-segregation creating potential for conflicts In "The idea of public reason", the political philosopher John Rawls asks an important question: "How is it possible for citizens of faith to be wholehearted members of a democratic society who endorse society's intrinsic political ideals and values and do not simply acquiesce in the balance of political and social forces? Expressed more sharply: How is it possible – or is it – for those of faith, as well as the nonreligious (secular), to endorse a constitutional regime even when their comprehensive doctrines may not prosper under it, and indeed may decline? We reformulate the question and ask: Is it possible for believing Muslims to wholeheartedly support the policies and ideals and values of a Western society, when these ideals and values appear to be in stark contrast to their beliefs? Based on our review, the answer seems to be that there is no wholehearted support. On the contrary, there seems to be an intensified tendency to assert one's own religiously founded values and ideologies in demands and external manifestations. Professor Tariq Modood from the University of Bristol draws attention to what it is specifically about: "... minority religions have come to have a significant - even if contested - public presence ... Public campaigns for inclusion and equality, conflicts over faith schools, women's dress and gender more generally, not to mention all the issues to do with the 'war on terrorism' and Islamist radicalism, has made religion much more politically prominent and in public affairs generally "(Tariq Modood). Muslims have thus become "highly visible minorities" and extremely visible in the media for many concrete reasons: • Religious fundamentalism that goes against Western values • Visual markings of difference with manifest religious and cultural markings • Exploitation of Western conventions and rights to demand fulfillment of religiously justified requirements • Self-segregation - the formation of "nations within nations." • Terrorism in the name of religion The consequences can be seen for instance in the UK: "British society is increasingly dividing along ethnic lines - with segregation in schools, neighborhoods and workplaces – that risks fuelling prejudice" (The Guardian). There is segregation in the residential areas, segregation in the workplace, and there is segregation in the schools. It promotes "prejudice, intolerance, mistrust in communities." Admittedly, these are ethnic divides, but it must be assumed that the dividing line is largely a dividing line between Muslims and non-Muslims. We would therefore argue that this is a mainly matter of Muslim self-segregation, of Muslim societies turning away from the society in which they live, with reference to the "comprehensive doctrines of their religion," which are contrary to Western values. . This is where we may find the view that Muslim communities may act as "nations within nations" and the reason why the view of Muslims in the majority population is often negative. That Muslims have a bad press "schlechte Presse" is thus not due to exaggerated prejudices, but to their own marked self-segregration, that contradicts the attitudes and values that appear self-evident in Western societies. After the murder of Samuel Paty Ifop carried out a survey for Cnews and Sud Radio in the attempt to gauge the French populations view of the terrorist threat and the fight against radical Islamism When asked to assess the terrorist threat “89% of those questioned consider the terrorist threat to be high, 38% even very high.“ The view of the French population to the threat to secularism coming from Islam in various areas is seen the table below. Respondents were asked the question: “Do you or do you not agree with each of the following statements?" (Ifop).”´  A majority of 87% agreed with the statement that secularism was now in danger in France. Almost as many, 79%, agreed with the statement that that Islamism had declared war on France and the Republique. 78% also agreed with the statement justifying that teachers show cartoons or made fun of religion in order illustrate freedom of expression, but only 24% thought that teachers were sufficiently supported in case of conflicts in their class. Kowtowing to religious demands or defending fundamental Western values? What do we do when we realise that relatively large part of the declared Muslim population in the West simply rejects large parts of the values and attitudes that constitute prerequisites for the societies in which they live? What are we going when we realise that a large section of the Muslim population have demands that would conflict with norms and values that modern Western societies have regarded as self-evident and with deep tacit convictions that underpin Western societies. Finally what are we going to do when it becomes evident that radical reactions to the denigration and mockery of Islam and the Prophet, cannot be seen only as isolated acts by lone madmen totally rejected by Muslims in general, but instead have to realise that radical reactions are seen as justified by a fairly large segment of Muslims in the West and elsewhere? Finally realising that mocking Islam may be on pain of death for more or less anonymous random victims in the West. With John Rawls we may ask “Can we have stability in “a democratic society where citizens accepts as political (moral) principles the substantive constitutional clauses that ensure religious, political and civil liberties, when their allegiance to these constitutional principles is so limited that none is willing to see his or her religious or nonreligious doctrine losing ground in influence and numbers, and such citizens are prepared to resist or to disobey laws that they think undermine their positions.” (John Rawls Constitutionalism and Democracy). Answers to Muslim self-self-segregation? With different excuses from the official side, ie. politicians, authorities and decisionmakers, one has accepted the self-chosen segregation of Muslims and sought to conform to it. But that hardly helps to narrow the gap, instead it has rather increased resistance among the rest of a population increasingly annoyed that many decisionmakers seem to bend over backwards to accommodate Muslim demands on society by insisting that integration go both ways. In the meaning that existing attitudes and values must adapt to Muslim demands. Tolerance is required, understood in the sense: "The ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with." But what does tolerance of a religious fundamentalism, defined as attitudes "that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture mean?” The answer, unfortunately, is indulgence and a gutless "political correctness" that tends to obscure the underlying conflict. There is often talk of entering into dialogue with fundamentalists, but it is an enterprise doomed to fail. If tolerance is part of a dialogue with fundamentalism, it is doomed to lose in advance, because compromise will always have be closest to the more fundamental point of view. Something history should have taught us. Instead it is secular society that must make fundamental demands. By insisting that religious freedom is essentially an individual freedom, an inner freedom. Not a freedom for a fundamentalist religion to manifest faith in a string of demands on the rest of society. Demands to restrict freedom of expression, for instance in literature and cartoons, demands for blasphemy laws, demands for the maintenance of a patriarchal order, demands for sharia, demands for ritual slaughter and circumcision, demands for the maintenance of inequality between the sexes and demands for the right to discriminate, by e.g. not giving a hand to women, demands for dressing or rather wrapping women in veils and burqas, demands for prayer rooms and prayer breaks at work and other impossible demands. In short, all the areas where we today experience conflicts with the bearers of a Muslim fundamentalism. What do we do, however, if the religious ideology is contrary to the general order of society, our basis of society, our laws, our hard-fought values, e.g. about gender equality, our legal norms, our culture, our manners, our mutual relations, our freedom to have our own opinions and express them, our reason, our critique of religion, etc.? Will we give up large parts of our beliefs to avoid conflict, or will we reject the religious demands? We might illustrate the problem by recalling a simple piece of children's toy, an old - fashioned hammer board. With a small wooden hammer a child would try to hammer wooden blocks with different shapes, triangular, square and round, through a board with a selection of holes, each of which only fits one type of the wooden blocks. One has to imagine how an as yet ignorant child tries to hammer a square block through a triangular hole. Of course, it will not succeed, at most you can imagine that the child smashes the board, as the block probably is more solid. Is the attempt to accept all possible and impossible demands of a fundamentalist religious ideology not as hopelessly naive as the attempt to knock the square block through the triangular hole. If it is to succeed, it will shatter our own culture. Therefore, we must insist that a fundamentalist religion conforms to the all the fundamental values of our society and culture, plus all the parts we may have forgotten but suddenly realize are under attack. We must therefore fight an attempt by a Muslim religious ideology to change society in a regressive direction. Just as we have sought to combat other ideologies that could potentially undermine values and social order, like fascist and communist ideologies. It is the secular society that must make demands on the immigrants and citizens who are the bearers of fundamentalist religion. Requirements that we might formulate as a set of general demands somewhat like these: • Do not allow religious practices that are generally forbidden to everyone else • Do not allow anyone to fail to do what is generally required of everyone else • Do not in the name of religion give permission to forbid what is generally allowed • Do not allow a religion to demand what is generally voluntary • Do not allow inequality in the name of religion Etc. Such restrictions on external manifestations of a fundamentalist religion may result in a long-term potential for conflict. Here and in many other cases, however, the secular state must never give up its fundamental values and rights simply to avoid conflicts with a radical Islam. But does the West show a united will to defend its fragile but all important values and social order, or will the pusillanimous and self-accusing attitude we have seen in the reaction to the attacks, result in the splintering and crumbling of the values represented by the Marianne embodying values of the French Republic? oAddendum 20 November 2020
From le Parisien 18 November 2020 In a Meeting at the Elysee representatives of CFCM [Conseil français du culte musulman] have apparently presented Macron with a project for National Council of Imams (CNI) to oversee and authorize Imams in France. According to the Le Parisien Emmanuel Macron has welcomed the project but he also has demands “It's historic, we welcome at the Elysee. We have been talking about it for decades”. In this project, the future imams will have to submit to a code of ethics drawn up by the CNI but also to a "charter of respect for republican values". This last text must be finalized in the next fifteen days. It will be written by the CFCM [Conseil français du culte musulman] ... in conjunction with the Ministry of the Interior, which keeps a close watch.” This is also meant to includes a refusal of all political Islam and all foreign interference. “Two principles will be inscribed in black and white: the rejection of any political Islam and any foreign interference" From Le Figaro 19 November 2020 "Macron gives CFCM [Conseil français du culte musulman] 15 days to agree on a "charter of republican values" The fifteen-day deadline set by the head of state owes nothing to chance. It will be just before the presentation in the Council of Ministers of the law on separatism finally placed on the word of "strengthening the values of the Republic." Communiqué from CFCM See also Communiqué from CFCM dated 19 November: "Le Président de la République prend acte de l’avancement du projet de création du Conseil National des Imams." |
