On April 5, President Sarkozy’s center-right party, the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), will launch a public debate on the place of religion (read: Islam) in France. The debate, which aims to explore how the practice of religions may be compatible with the rules of the secular republic and to address the “question” of Islam in France, has caused rifts within the party.
Adberrahmane Dahmane, Sarkozy’s diversity adviser, was sacked after openly criticizing the debate and calling on Muslim members of the UMP not to renew their party membership unless the debate was canceled.
This was very quickly followed by the action of Abdallah Zekri, head of the Grand Mosque of Paris and the French Council of the Muslim Faith, who tore up his membership card and urged all fellow Muslim UMP members to do the same.
Others in the party have argued that this move to the right is a ploy to gain populist appeal which will only lead to the stigmatization of France’s Muslims, as Sarkozy flounders in the polls behind Marine Le Pen, the charmingly deceptive new leader of the far right political party, the Front National.
In response to the criticisms, Sarkozy claims–with Zekri’s support–that the original purpose of the debate is misunderstood, and that it is really intended to protect French Muslims from “Islamic extremism.” Jean François Copé, the real object of Zekri and Dahmane’s anger and the man in charge of this debate, also claims that the debate will protect Muslims from practices emerging from “fundamentalism” which the Front National are using against them.
In an interview with the Guardian, Copé used several examples of what he considers to be “extreme behaviors led by fundamentalists who are using their religion for political ends,” such as street prayers, the niqab, women refusing to be treated by male doctors, and girls banned by their parents from mixed swimming sessions. His example of solutions to these extreme behaviors is the ban on the niqab, arguing that "if you meet a woman in a burqa, she can't reply to your smile. It's a denial of identity."
Fundamentalism exists in many forms, including Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, but these behaviors can also be indicators of factors other than the existence of violent extremism. When I see a group of people praying in the streets, I might not see the influence of fundamentalists but a group of people who need a place to pray because it has been notoriously hard for them to build a place of worship in their neighborhood. When I see a woman wearing a niqab, I might see a woman who is choosing to express her religion–and herself–through what she wears in the same way that a Sikh might wear a turban or a Jain monk might choose to wear unstitched white garments and bare feet. When I see women refusing to be treated by male doctors, I might see myself requesting to see a female doctor, as is my right as a woman seeking medical treatment. I do not see fundamentalism in these actions because I am not looking for fundamentalism, but rather because I am looking for the human.
While it might be true that the 1905 Laicite law needs to be reviewed to take account of the fact that Europe’s largest Muslim population is present in 21st-century France, the French political elite needs to make sure that this debate does not become, as Socialist Senator of Paris Bariza Khiari fears, a debate against Islam and against Muslim citizens of France. It needs to address the real threat of fundamentalism in France and that is the populist intolerance towards Muslims, Roma, and other minorities that has only increased under Sarkozy’s presidency.
7 Comments
For the purposes of informed debate on the role and need for faith understanding in equality and diversity matters, it would be useful to know more of the Sarkozy approach to Christians, Jews etc, and their perceptions of the planned public debate.
Hi Richard
I'm not too sure what Sarkozy's approach is to other faiths but he certainly isn't singling them out in quite the same way.
As for the other part of your question, representatives of the six largest religious communities in France (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist), who together form the Council of Religious Leaders in France, issued a statement last Wednesday questionning the need for the debate and cautioning against the misconceptions and stigmatisation that it might cause. They also questionned whether it is appropriate for a single political party to be the sole driver behind such a debate.
This statement was signed by the Cardinal André Vingt-Trois, president of the Bishop’s Conference of France, pastor Claude Baty, president of the Protestant Federation of France, the Metropolitan Emmanuel, president of the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France, the Chief Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) and Master Olivier Wang-Genh, president of the Buddhist Union of France.
The solidarity between the faiths appears to go beyond statements like this too, as the Jewish community in France has been increasingly vocal in voicing concerns about the growing stigmatisaion of Muslims and the rise in far right extremism.
Where ever we are in the world we have to struggle with the muslims, jewish and christians religious difference.
We will never make it if we not repsect each others difference.
The economie crises make people less tolerant, it´s not just France who got problem.............
The world are bleeding, will we be enough clever to stop this intolerance..............
thanks Maria
The population of a country may exclude any person or group for any reason. That's what having your own country means. That is why the population will fight if necessary to keep the country theirs.
Unfortunately, Ms. Irving is lying saying half of the truth. Yes, fundamentalism exists in every religion, but I can't recall Christian boy blowing up disco club...O well, it was Muslim boy. I can't recall Jewish man blowing up bus or cafe...O, it was Muslim man?! I can't say that crowd of Christian, Jewish, or Buddhists cut in pieces 3 unarmed men and joyfully raised their hands in blood. Do you recall? No. It was Muslim crowd. So for some reasons Mr. Irving prefers not to see patterns. Of course, I'd like to wonder - why is that so?
My next question for the author: when you write "When I see a woman wearing a niqab, I might see a woman who is choosing to express her religion..." why don't you think about other side of this: in the same woman you can see human being who has absolutely no choice. Let's say what if she doesn't want to wear it? Is she allowed? No. Why don't you see the human being who can be sold, beaten, tortured by male relatives? I am sure you don't want this life to yourself. Why do you see and write only about one side?
Speaking of country rules... There is very good saying that you should not come to someone's house with your own rules and laws. Now that works in one direction: if you come to Muslim country, you can't be in short skirt or shorts, you have to cover your head, don't drink alcohol. You can't bring Bible with you. In some countries Jews are not allowed to enter. Isn't this deeply wrong? If we go to Muslim world, we obey and respect the rule (even if we have to pray every day and need Bible). We obey their rules or we do not go. But what about opposite way? If Muslims are coming to the West country - do they obey our rules? No. Somebody demanded to obtain driver lic. being in hijab, somebody wants to live under sharia law here. Why? We have our laws which proved to be effective for us. We are welcoming tolerant people, we are open. But it would be deeply wrong if someone would consider it as weakness, if someone would try to abuse it. Islam is trying to use our system to conquer our countries and to establish sharia law everywhere. If you think it's joke, do your homework, meet people, especially normal Muslim many of whom are scared to death by their fellows.
Writes like Ms. Irving with their lies simply help radical Muslims and show to normal people that westerners are so easy to be fooled and that westerners help radicals. What average Muslim should do? He keeps his mouth shut, he is watching who will take over in this fight. Ms. Irving helps to radicalize those who are not yet radicalized. Average person always tend to stay with strong crowd. If we show that we can't defend our freedom, our rules, if we show weakness, millions of Muslims who are neutral now and watch, will move to radical side. If Ms. Irving hopes that she will escape and will not wear what Muslim woman wear now, if she believes that she won't be sold or beaten... well, may be it's one of the biggest mistakes in her life. Freedom must defend itself. I can't come to your house and tell you when and how to eat, what furniture to buy, what program to watch and what you have to think about. It's your house and your rules. Muslims have their own countries. I understand that they have rules, but let them live in their countries by their rules. What is wrong with this?
My advise to Ms. Irving: get in touch with Muslims such as Nonnie Darwish, Gabriel Bridgit, Walid Shoebat, some others. They were insiders. They know much better intentions of Islam.In one of my hot conversations on YouTube with one Muslim man he finally said:" How can I agree with you if part of my family lives in West Bank?" He was scared and could not tell what he really thinks even being under his nick name. And he lived in the US, not in Iran or OAE.
Why Ms. Irving having degree from Cambridge lost her ability to ask questions, to compare facts and to see different sides of the same story? I thought Cambridge is not bad school...
Add your voice