On October 2, before a distinguished audience of ministers, politicians, officials and prominent citizens, French President Emmanuel Macron, delivered an hour-long address in the town of Les Mureaux, about 40 km from Paris.
Titled, 바카라Fight against Separatism바카라, the speech coincided with the trial in the town of those accused of perpetrating the 바카라Charlie Hebdo바카라 murders in January 2015. This was an attack by two Muslim extremists on the offices of the newspaper that had published derogatory cartoons of Prophet Mohammed. Twelve persons were killed in the attacks and several were injured.
This attack had been followed by extremist assaults in Paris in November that year in which 130 persons were killed, and then the Bastille Day attack in Nice in July 2016, when an individual in a 19-tonne truck had mowed through hundreds of revellers and killed about 80 of them. Since March 2012, France had experienced 36 serious or very serious attacks by Muslim extremists in which nearly 300 French citizens have been killed. Besides this, between 2014-16, about 1600 French Muslims had joined the ranks of the Islamic State in Syria. Macron, after assuming the presidency in May 2017, had committed himself to ending the scourge of Islamic violence.
In a speech in February 2018, Macron had spoken of creating an 바카라Islam of France바카라 바카라 an Islam that would be anchored in national values of secularism and cleanse the faith in France of the influence of radical expressions that had, in his view and that of most observers, had led to the gruesome attacks on innocent French persons in the name of the Islam. His speech on 2 October was the fulfilment of this commitment.
Macron바카라s speech of 2 October
At the outset, Macron celebrated France바카라s laicite 바카라 its secular order, based on a law of 1905, that firmly enjoins separation of church and state which, by removing faith from the public sphere, has fostered national unity. While the speech was supposed to deal with 바카라separatism바카라, it only referred to Muslim 바카라separatism바카라 바카라 Muslims, numbering about six million, are the largest minority in France and constitute about nine percent of the total population. They are more than the other three minorities 바카라 Protestants, Jews and Buddhists 바카라 combined.
Muslim 바카라separatism바카라 was described by the president as a 바카라political-religious project바카라 that deviated from the values of the Republic and sought the creation of a 바카라counter-society바카라 through the rejection of national principles relating to 바카라gender equality and human dignity바카라. Wedded to the ideology of radical Islamism, the project바카라s adherents, through terrorism, sought to create a parallel order in the state and finally take over the country completely. They would thus deprive the nation the rights provided by laicite 바카라 바카라freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and the right to blaspheme바카라.
Macron accepted that some of the 바카라separatism바카라 was due to the failure of state order that had led to ghettoization, creating a 바카라concentration of abject poverty바카라, poor educational facilities and obstruction to social mobility. Since the Republic had failed to fulfil its responsibilities in crucial areas, many of the marginalised had been allured by Islamic organisations that had provided welfare services, including education, teaching of Arabic, sports and care for the elderly.
Macron also agreed that France바카라s colonial past had left behind unresolved issues that continued to foment discord between different sections of the French community and raised problems in shaping a cohesive national identity. He pointed out that the separatism engendered by the colonial legacy had been strengthened by 바카라taboos we ourselves have maintained바카라, possibly an oblique reference to the racism that informs most encounters between France바카라s white community and its Muslim compatriots.
The rest of the speech was about radicalisation and the need to combat it firmly, using the full coercive force of the state. As part of his long-term plan to confront and eradicate extremism, the president set out five pillars:
one, more strict laws and more effective responses to threats from extremist violence;
two, better monitoring of associations to identify those that preach separatism;
three, ensuring that schools conform to the secular norms of the Republic, and ending private home-education that cultivates radical beliefs;
four, forging an 바카라Enlightenment Islam바카라, ie, an Islam that is compatible with Enlightenment values, so that the faith 바카라structures itself바카라 to become a partner of the Republic, particularly in the acceptance of France바카라s core principle of laicite, and,
five, making citizens fear the Republic through tough laws and rules and also love France by inculcating in them the sense that it will 바카라enable everyone to build their own lives바카라.
The most controversial remark in this long harangue was that 바카라Islam is a religion that is currently experiencing a crisis all over the world 바카라 this crisis is linked to tensions between forms of fundamentalism [which is] leading to a very strong hardening바카라.
The fallout
The speech provoked widespread criticism from prominent Muslim leaders and street demonstrations. However, what encouraged public agitations was the news that a school teacher, Samuel Paty, had shown the old cartoons caricaturing Prophet Mohammed to his students during a discussion relating to free speech and expression. This led a young Chechen to publicly behead the teacher on October 16.
At the Paty memorial at the Sorbonne on October 21, Macron followed up his earlier remarks with a second speech. He contrasted the intolerance and violence of Islamic terrorists with the cherished values of the Republic, values that had been upheld by Paty as a teacher as he had pursued his duty to 바카라make Republicans바카라. He condemned the extremists as pursuing a 바카라conspiracy of folly, lies, conflation, hatred of the other, hatred of what we are deep down바카라.
Macron then completed his address on a high note, declaring: 바카라We will defend the freedom that you [Paty] taught so well 바카라 We will not disavow the cartoons, the drawings, even if others recoil.바카라 He concluded that education in France will 바카라increase understanding of our nation, our values and our Europe. We will continue to fight for freedom 바카라 because in France the Enlightenment will never grow dim.바카라
Macron바카라s speech of October 21, which seemed to be condoning the caricatures about the prophet, unleashed a storm of protest from Muslim leaders and public demonstrations: in Bangladesh, 50,000 people took to the streets to condemn Macron. Turkish President Erdogan described Macron as 바카라mentally ill바카라 and called for a boycott of French products. Malaysia바카라s former prime minister Mahathir Mohammed thought the French president바카라s attitude 바카라very primitive바카라.
The Saudi foreign ministry condemned the offensive cartoons and asserted that intellectual and cultural freedom had to be a 바카라beacon of respect, tolerance and peace바카라 and should reject acts and practices that 바카라generate hatred, violence and extremism바카라 and undermine co-existence.
Public support for Macron came from the UAE: its minister of state for foreign affairs, Anwar Gargash, criticised the 바카라politics바카라 fomenting the furore and blamed Erdogan for manipulating 바카라a religious issue for political purposes바카라 to promote his interest to 바카라become the leader of Sunni Islam바카라. He also noted that Macron was opposing Turkey바카라s ambitions to dominate the Mediterranean.
The atmosphere in France and some parts of Europe got further heated with two more heinous attacks. On October 29, a Tunisian migrant, Brahim Aouissaaoui, stabbed three people to death at a church in Nice. He had arrived in France only a month earlier, thus suggesting that he had already been radicalised.
Soon after this, on November 2, a 20-year old resident of Austria who was of Macedonian origin, with an earlier record of support for the Islamic State, randomly shot at late-night guests in restaurants in Vienna; he killed four persons and injured 23. He had been arrested earlier and jailed in April 2019 for trying to join the ISIS in Syria.
Thus, the Nice and Vienna attacks, coming so soon after Macron바카라s two speeches, have generated a robust discussion in France, Europe and other parts of the world about the president바카라s insistence on untrammelled free expression, his upholding of laicite, and his understanding and prescription about the challenges that France faces from Islamic extremism.
Other Responses
The rightwing in France has usually portrayed Macron as soft on terror: the mayor of Nice has called for a war on terror, while another politician has declared that 바카라France is no longer free! 바카라 We must annihilate the Islamists.바카라 From the far right Marine Le Pen congratulated Macron for accepting her view of Islamism as the enemy, but then doing nothing to combat it.
Several commentators have been sharply critical of Macron on different counts. Not surprisingly, Arab origin writers have been particularly strident in their comments. Khalid Hajji, in Middle East Eye, said Macron lacked 바카라clarity and discernment바카라 in picking up a fight with 바카라Islam바카라, when the real issue is how to balance respect for faith with the right of free expression. Nabila Ramadani wrote in The Independent that Macron had aligned himself with Europe바카라s hardcore racists who viewed Muslims as 바카라backward, moronic and 바카라 most terrifyingly of all 바카라 irrevocably savage바카라.
Amira Abo el Fetouh pointed out that Macron바카라s campaign against Muslims was 바카라the product of racism rooted deep within French psyche바카라; thus, the present-day crisis was not about Islam but 바카라French values바카라. Ramzy Baroud said the 바카라true culprits바카라 in the ongoing contentions were Macron바카라s failures to handle popular dissatisfaction with his rule; hence the diversion into targeting France바카라s 바카라most marginalised and impoverished French Arab and African communities in the name of fighting for the 바카라values바카라 of the Republic against 바카라Islamic terrorism바카라.바카라
Macron also has his defenders. John Lichfield has written in Politico that to describe Macron as the culprit is 바카라dishonest and dangerous바카라, given that France has suffered the most in Europe from Islamic terrorism. Nick Ottens has said in Atlantic Sentinel that Macron is 바카라the most liberal president France has had since the 1970s바카라; in the face of the severest provocations from extremist violence, he has been remarkably restrained and that his approach to the problem of radicalisation should be viewed not piecemeal but as a composite package.
The Israeli writer, Tsilla Hershko, writing in The Algemeiner, believes the anti-France demonstrations 바카라reflect the ongoing civilisational war between Western democracies and the non-democratic Muslim states바카라, and insisted that clear restrictions be enforced 바카라on anti-Republican sentiment and violent incitement within the country바카라.
Perhaps surprised by the spread and ferocity of the criticisms directed at him, at the end of October, Macron initiated some damage-control: in an interview with Al Jazeera, he said that he understood the feelings of Muslims who were shocked by the prophet바카라s cartoons, but clarified that 바카라radical Islam바카라 was the common enemy of all, particularly Muslims. He said the anger against him was the result of 바카라lies and distortions바카라 that had led people to believe that the cartoons had been created by the state and that he supported them. At the same time, he said he would support in France 바카라the freedom to speak, to write, to think, to draw바카라.
Macron and Islam
The ongoing debate inspired by Macron바카라s speeches is now being shaped in stark terms: free expression, as exemplified by laicite, versus 바카라Islam바카라. Both concepts offer no scope for nuance or prospects of mutual understanding and accommodation; the outcome of this confrontation is even being viewed as crucial for the survival of the Republic.
In the following paragraphs, we will examine, one, Macron바카라s diagnosis and prescriptions in relation to the problem of 바카라Islam바카라, and, two, the issue of free expression that is seen as central to laicite.
The main problem with Macron바카라s message is that his diagnosis of the problem is flawed in several respects.
Throughout his speech Macron conflates Islam the faith with Muslims the people, suggesting there is one uniform faith and one uniform set of believers. To compound this folly, he then goes on to conflate Islam the faith with 바카라Islamism바카라 (the political expression of the faith) and radical Islam, suggesting that all three are identical concepts. The conclusion that flows from these two crucial errors is that Islam the faith is projected as the fountainhead of the violence that is linked to the entire global Muslim community.
Thus, Macron says: 바카라Islam is a religion that is currently experiencing a crisis all over the world바카라. He describes this 바카라crisis바카라 as being 바카라linked to tensions between different forms of fundamentalism바카라 that has led to a 바카라very strong hardening바카라 in the faith across the world. To compound his confusions relating to 바카라Islam바카라, Macron recalls the Tunisia of 30 years ago, when 바카라the situation was radically different in the way religion was applied바카라. Here, Macron appears to be recalling nostalgically when Tunisia was ruled by a tyranny, albeit one that had close ties with France and ruthlessly suppressed all expressions of the Muslim faith.
He also fails to note that present-day Tunisia is a functioning democracy, upholding human rights and gender equality for all citizens, and allowing all parties, including an Islamist party, Ennahda, to participate in elections and seek power. In fact, the Islamist party has played a major role in shaping Tunisia바카라s democratic constitution.
In the same vein, Macron then expresses his concerns about 바카라Islamism바카라 and refers to three expressions that he believes are sources of modern-day radicalisation 바카라 Wahhabism, Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood. They are all viewed as encouraging separatism, radicalism and denying gender equality, and penetrating the 바카라heart바카라 of France through indoctrination.
Macron should have better-tutored in Islamism. Yes, there is a 바카라Salafist바카라 trend in political Islam 바카라 the desire to reform a state order on the basis of Islamic principles. These principles are obtained from the beliefs and practices of pristine Islam, the faith of the first three generations of Muslims. This effort of deriving political norms and principles from early Islam has three expressions today: Wahhabiyya; the Muslim Brotherhood movement, founded in Egypt in 1928, and Jihad.
Wahhabiyya is a reform movement from 18th century Najd (central Arabia) that today informs state order in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Essentially it is quietist, in that state authority vests in the ruler, who is responsible for the security and welfare of his people, who owe him loyalty and obedience. Wahhabiyya in itself does not recommend violence, nor are its adherents inherently violent. Again, the manifestations of this belief-system in Saudi Arabia and Qatar show how much diversity this doctrine is capable of in practice.
The Muslim Brotherhood espouses political activism: it is a grassroots movement, whose intellectuals over the last 40 years have attempted to draw from pristine Islam the principles that would accommodate the norms and institutions of parliamentary democracy. During the early period of the Arab Spring, Brotherhood members participated in democratic elections and formed governments in Egypt and Tunisia and helped to promulgate democratic constitutions in both countries.
The Brotherhood government in Egypt was violently overthrown in a coup d바카라etat in 2013. The principal concern of the armed forces and their Gulf Arab supporters was that this democratic initiative would be successful and emerge as a model for other countries in West Asia that were (and still are) under authoritarian rule. In Tunisia, however, the constitution remains in place, free elections continue to be held, and the Islamist Ennahda continues to be a central role-player in domestic politics.
Radicalism in Islam
The only expression of political Islam that accepts violence as an instrument to achieve an 바카라Islamic바카라 state is jihad, referred to by scholars as 바카라Salafi-Jihadism바카라. Its proponents also draw the doctrinal justifications for their violence from their understanding of the same texts and commentaries that have influenced Wahhabiyya and the Brotherhood. Modern research has shown that most jihadis are radicalised not so much by Islamist ideology as by considerations of revenge for the repression, humiliation and injustice they suffer; hence, Macron바카라s focus on 바카라Islam바카라 as the source of radicalisation is quite misplaced.
It will thus be seen that 바카라political Islam바카라 is an ideological construct that is quite distinct from the faith that eschews politics and confines itself to setting out prescriptions relating to worship and personal conduct and morality. On the same lines, the term 바카라Islam바카라 cannot be applied to the faith as well as its believers 바카라 both are extraordinarily diverse in terms of belief and practice.
It would be useful for western leaders and scholars to recall that modern-day jihad is the product neither of the faith nor of some of its followers: it has its roots in a state-sponsored project 바카라 put together by the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan 바카라 to opportunistically use 바카라Islam바카라 to support a political and military enterprise, the confrontation against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, referred to as a 바카라global jihad바카라. At that time, 바카라Islam바카라 바카라 the faith and the Muslim people 바카라 were viewed as 바카라natural allies바카라 of the West against godless communism.
The doctrinal support for jihad is certainly drawn by its intellectuals (not its rank and file) from the doctrines of Islam, but these are the personal understandings of the intellectuals concerned of the texts they refer to, understandings that are not backed in any instance by mainstream scholarship.
There is an ongoing debate in France on whether radicalisation is being driven by 바카라Islam바카라 (the faith) or socio-economic factors. The academic divide here is quite deep. A well-known sociologist, Olivier Galland, has asserted that radicalisation is the effect of Islam rather than social factors like poverty. He is backed by the distinguished scholar of political Islam, Gilles Kepel, who has warned that Europe risks a civil war because of the setting up of 바카라radical Islamic parallel societies바카라 and that Muslims tended to identify only with their local neighbourhoods and with their faith.
This view is challenged by the findings of a poll among French Muslims early this year that showed that 81 percent had a positive view of French secularism, and 77 percent said they had no difficulty in practising their faith. Besides this, 90 percent said they loved France, while 82 percent said they were proud to be French. However, 44 percent said they were not well-regarded by the rest of society; this number went up to 61 percent among the poorer community. These figures show that, rather than 바카라separatism바카라 that Macron emphasised in his speech, the problem for Muslims in France is that of alienation.
Contradicting the views of Galland and Kepel, several commentators have focused on the alienation and marginalisation of large numbers of Muslims from mainstream France. Shireen Hunter, writing in November 2015, just after the attacks in Paris, had highlighted socio-economic deprivation, particularly poverty, inadequate education, unemployment, and entrenched discrimination as contributing to the sense of exclusion and propelling some Muslim youth towards radicalisation. Olivier Roy, an authority on political Islam, told a parliamentary committee that most Muslims make an effort to integrate into French culture, but they often 바카라don바카라t get a payback in return, they don바카라t have the benefit of recognition바카라.
Macron in his speech did attempt to present a balanced picture by mentioning the socio-economic aspects that have caused the 바카라ghettoization바카라 of a large number of Muslims and denied them essential services that have encouraged their sense of exclusion from the state order. However, he failed to expand on this and present clear and effective measures to correct the situation.
Entirely missing from his presentation was any reference to the over 1000 instances of Islamophobic attacks that took place in France in 2019; these included: 68 physical attacks; 22 cases of vandalism of sacred shrines, and numerous instances of hate speech, incitement to racial hatred, and defamation. Observers have also pointed out that in 2018 Macron refused to implement ambitious housing projects in France바카라s suburban ghettos that he had himself advocated earlier and commissioned a report.
바카라Enlightenment Islam바카라
The far-reaching 바카라reform바카라 of Islam to make it 바카라compatible with Enlightenment values바카라 was at the heart of Macron바카라s message. Like most political terms in popular use, 바카라Enlightenment바카라 has come to describe loosely all that is best about Western culture. Thus, the Enlightenment gave humankind rationality, egalitarianism and universal values that came to be realised and institutionalised in human rights, democratic order, gender equality, the scientific and industrial revolutions, and backing for free enterprise. This places Western nations in the vanguard of present-day human societies, and makes them the natural leaders of contemporary world order 바카라 geopolitically, economically and civilisationally. In the context of reforming Islam, however, the reference to Enlightenment was ill-advised.
Given the contributions of Rousseau, Voltaire and French intellectuals to the Enlightenment, France asserts frequently its claim to be a principal shaper of modernity. This of course camouflages the fact that the Enlightenment is a 바카라collective바카라 concept that blurs important details: thus, most of its protagonists, including Voltaire, believed in God. In politics, none of them sought a democratic order, while few of them supported universal education. Most had little interest in social equality.
But there are two aspects of the Enlightenment that concern Islam and Muslims: one, the deep animosity of Enlightenment figures for Islam and Muslims, and, two, that no Enlightenment values or institutions were ever implemented in the Muslim (or other) colonies.
Voltaire (1694-1778) described Muslims as 바카라the greatest curse on earth바카라; it is not enough to humiliate them, he said, 바카라they should be destroyed바카라. The French scholar, Chateaubriand (1768-1848) saw Islam as a 바카라cult that was civilisation바카라s enemy, systematically favourable to ignorance, to despotism, to slavery바카라. Ernest Renan (1823-92), a great scholar of Semitic history, failed to distinguish between Jews and Arabs, but saw both of them 바카라as an incomplete race, by virtue of its simplicity [which has] never been able to achieve maturity바카라.
Even the great exponent of democratic values, Alexis de Toqueville (1805-59) supported two separate laws in Africa 바카라 one for the French, the other for the natives. He condoned French barbarism in the colonies as 바카라regrettable necessities바카라 and firmly denied he was revolted by the atrocities.
French colonialists in North Africa reflected the racist arrogance of their intellectuals at home. In Algeria, in the early period of conquest, no Enlightenment values were apparent in French conduct: entire tribes were massacred, rewards were offered for the ears of slain Arabs, while heads were carried home as trophies. Not surprisingly, Macron바카라s reference to 바카라Enlightenment Islam바카라 was received with derision, given the lived experience of day-to-day racism that draws from the treasure-trove of colonial history.
Free expression and laicite
Macron바카라s commitment to free expression is mentioned forcefully in both his October 2 and October 21 speeches. He sees this freedom as central to laicite and the core value of the Republic. He also sees this freedom being threatened by Islamic violence, given that it brings issues of religious faith into the public domain and, in the name of that faith, seeks to abridge the freedoms enshrined in laicite.
In Macron바카라s view, there can be no compromise on this point: in his emotional oration at the Paty memorial, he specifically refused to disavow 바카라the cartoons, the drawings, even if others recoil바카라. Later, in his Al Jazeera interview, despite public opprobrium, the furthest he would go was to 바카라understand바카라 the anger of the Muslims, but still refused to give up on the cartoons.
Though the law enforcing laicite in France was passed in 1905, it is in connection with the increased presence and visibility of the country바카라s Muslim population that we see concerns relating to its norms. Thus, a law of 2004 banned the public display of symbols of one바카라s faith; in 2010, wearing the veil in public was banned, while in 2010 all religious garb was banned as well.
The issue of the cartoons of the prophet has been with us since the Charlie Hebdo violence of January 2015 and has retained its resonance largely due to the French insistence that their commitment to laicite does not provide for any compromise. Arab-origin commentators in France, on the other hand, see the issue through the prism of entrenched racism in France and the associated hostility to Islam and its prophet. Thus, Amel Boubekeur, a specialist in French Islam, sees the cartoons issue as the 바카라hyper-politicisation of Islam in France바카라, while Rim-Sarah Alouane, a scholar of religious freedom, believes that laicite is being 바카라weaponised바카라 to silence Muslim voices, not just those of the radicals.
Other observers are bewildered by what they see as French obduracy on the subject. Free expression, they point out, must necessarily be circumscribed by social responsibility. Graham Fuller says that prudence and wisdom are important considerations while exercising free speech. They point out that restrictions on free expression are well-established in France: denial of the Holocaust, questioning the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, or calling for a ban on Israeli products are all punishable under the law. In fact, Macron has said publicly that in his view both anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are crimes, quite a strange position to take by one who condones cartoons that are offensive to over a billion people.
There is a further irony in Macron바카라s position: his pursuit of 바카라Enlightenment Islam바카라 calls for robust state intervention in matters relating to the Muslim faith 바카라 training of imams, funding of state-sponsored Islamic organisations, expanding the teaching of Arabic in schools, and making France a global centre for the study of Muslim civilisations.
Politics at Play
Macron바카라s speeches have provided no healing touch in a country reeling from the pandemic and the attendant economic challenges. They have in fact exacerbated the alienation of French Muslims by accusing them of separatism, identifying their faith as the source of violence, accusing the community collectively of being a threat to the unity of the nation, while displaying no respect for their religious sentiments and scant understanding of the sources of their alienation.
In Macron바카라s challenge to Islam, the Muslim is 바카라reduced to his religion바카라, as an imam in Bordeaux has noted. Backing this view, Khalid Hajji has pointed out that 바카라a criminal or a terrorist is not only the product of Islamic culture, but also of the French republic바카라. Again, in upholding the values of laicite, the president makes no distinction between being conservative and being radical, and actually suggests that seeking a traditional life-style is the first step to radical violence.
Thus, it would appear that France바카라s hundred-year commitment to laicite is mortally threatened by matters relating to women바카라s clothing, or whether 50,000 students (out of 12 million school children) get home-schooling, or restricting the publication of the cartoons that are offensive not just to French Muslims but to Muslims the world over. It is this aggressive intolerance on the part of the president that has led to Muslim violence rather than any tenets of their faith.
What is undeniable is that Macron바카라s positions enjoy considerable support among the white community in France, leading several commentators to suggest that the two speeches might have been motivated by political considerations. There is much merit in this view. As Malia Bouattia puts it in Middle East Eye, 바카라going after Muslims바카라 is the oldest trick in the rightwing book.
The present is a difficult period for France. The president is accused of not handling the pandemic effectively. The infections have re-surfaced, leading to a fresh and rather unpopular lockdown. There are also public concerns that a fresh upsurge could strain medical facilities to their full capacity.
The gilets jaunes (바카라yellow vests바카라) movement, consisting of street demonstrators complaining about the economy since November 2018 lost its tempo due to the pandemic and is poised to make a comeback. The movement, largely from smaller provincial cities, was a protest against austerity and major economic reforms the president has been advocating since the early part of his presidency. Unable to appease the protestors, Macron could see himself challenged by the populist approach from the hard right, such as Marine Le Pen.
With local elections due next year and presidential elections in 2022, Macron is under pressure to regain the aura that surrounded his leadership three years ago and secure his re-election.
He is seeking it in this deliberate collision with 바카라Islam바카라. The consequences are unlikely to be good either for him or France.
(The author, a former diplomat, holds the Ram Sathe Chair for International Studies, Symbiosis International University, Pune.)
