5 years ago, on 13 November 2015, the French capital Paris was struck by a series of three coordinated Islamist terrorist attacks. The perpetrators attacked the national stadium the Stade de France, the crowded streets of Paris, and most devastatingly, at the Bataclan theatre, killing over a hundred. This came less than a year after a spate of similar attacks, most famously on the offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, in reprisal against cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad published by the satirists. 5 years on, France was hit again. On 16 October 2020, a teacher in Paris, Samuel Paty, was beheaded, by a young Chechen-born terrorist. On 29 October, in the Riviera city of Nice, a Tunisian man stabbed three people to death in a Roman Catholic basilica. All attacks carried out in the name of Islam, and France has arguably suffered more Islamist terror attacks than any country in the Western world. More than Germany, more than Spain, more than the UK. Prima facie, it is not difficult to see why - France is considered the cultural heart of Western and European civilisation, birthplace of the Enlightenment and ideas like liberalism, secularism and liberty. An attack on France is more than just an attack, but a symbolic stab to all these values, which are the antithesis to radical Islam.
But this time in 2020, the reaction was very different from 5 years ago. In 2015, the world mourned together with France, flying the tricolor as an act of solidarity. Not in 2020. The French President, Emmanuel Macron had delivered a speech following these attacks where he denounced the attacks and the Islamic extremist ideologies than fuelled them, calling out “radical Islamic separatism” as a threat to the France’s national values and social unity, and claiming that Islam is “in crisis” and “in need of reform”. In contrast to 2015, the world’s response to these events was anything but solidarity with a beleaguered France. Rather, it was outright hostile both from the Anglophone-dominated international media, as well as from the Muslim world, targeted against Macron individually and France as a nation. From the international media, particularly from the United States, there were headlines such as “the dangerous French religion of secularism” by Politico, “Instead of fighting systemic racism, France wants to reform Islam” by the Washington Post, while the New York Times accused Macron of alienating French Muslims. Much worse from the Muslim world, where Macron’s speech was condemned by many governments, particularly from Turkey and Pakistan. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan even personally attacked Macron, claiming he was in need of mental health treatment, and launched a boycott of French goods. Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad even made the egregious remark saying that Muslims have the right to kill millions of French people.
The reaction to the events in France should ring many alarm bells. For one, there has been a lot of talk about fake news of late, but why no mention to this? It is quite apparent that events have been misrepresented and lost in translation, that somehow Macron’s call for calm and making his case for the protection of French values of laïcité, equality and liberalism, suddenly becomes painted as Macron’s “fight against Islam”. I have discussed before how the media’s motivations lay more in catching the attention of readers rather than telling the truth, and this is a prime example of it. It is terrifying really, to see how the reactions while most not condoning the violence in any way, have portrayed Macron’s words (which were not at all vituperative) as more condemned than the acts of violence themselves, and that somehow the violence is attributed to the policies of the French state, rather than the extremists. Why are people not outraged at this? Above all this, where are France’s friends? Did Angela Merkel at any point join her French counterpart in condemning the pattern of violence followed by the exhortation of the extremists from the Turkish and Pakistani leaders? No - she remained silent, as though the protection of the principles of the French Republic are of no interest to Germany. The British Prime Minister has also remained silent. The principles France is defending may be subtly different from those of the UK, but at the most fundamental level they are shared.
If this is not already obvious enough, let me explain why freedom of expression is of immense importance, and violence is never an acceptable response, regardless of how much one can be shocked or offended by something one sees. The freedom of expression, or free speech to put it simply, is an ineluctable product of the traditions of the Enlightenment, which began in France but its values are being enjoyed throughout the Western world and beyond, and while many take it for granted, events like this reveal its fragility and vulnerability and hence it is the duty of all citizens to protect. It is one thing to be shocked at something one sees or hears, or even deeply offended, and one can react to that through peaceful civil protest or more gracefully, using intellectual prowess and the art of debate, but violence is never a justified answer. As President Macron himself said, he understands the feelings of Muslims who feel hurt by the caricatures of their prophet, but it is not possible to downplay or condone the violence in any way just because of some sensitivities, as it would set a terrible precedent that would be akin to appeasement that compromises French national sovereignty. Yes, Islam and Prophet Muhammd do get caricatured, but so do the Roman Catholic and Jewish religions, as well as a multitude of political and social figures, which has been a long tradition in France since the 19th century. A very important freedom, because compared to other countries, in France caricatures of foreign leaders are drawn, but not in their own countries, because certain regimes are known for the suppression of free speech and even kill and arrest their journalists. Respect for Muslims should be genuine respect, the kind of respect that allows for humour and differences. Admittedly, sometimes certain forms of expressions, namely hate speech that fuel racism, have to be regulated, a case often made to censor caricatures and criticism of Islam. But Islam is a religion, a set of beliefs, not a race, which is biological. Beliefs are like one’s philosophy or ideology - they are fluid and do not warrant protection from critique. And I thought that constitution-worshipping Americans would have known better. But no, Politico called French secularism, better known as laïcité, a religion! The British often ridicule Americans for their bad English, but whoever wrote that piece brought it to a whole new level. By its very definition, secularism is the principle of separating religion from the political sphere, so it obviously isn’t a religion itself. And I certainly have not seen anyone slaughtered in the name of laïcité.
Is Political Islam a danger? France has definitely felt it, and it is not just the terror attacks and the words of men like Erdoğan and Mahathir. Erdoğan, who increasingly sees Macron as his bête noire, has called for a boycott of French goods, asking all Turks and even Muslims outside of Turkey’s borders to raise up to his call. And frighteningly enough, they are answering his call. From Turkey to Pakistan to Egypt, French goods are getting purged from supermarket shelves. It is really a cause for concern, because first of all, this is a boycott based on falsehoods and misunderstandings, where many Muslims erroneously believe that Macron is launching a crusade against Islam, burning French flags and pictures of Macron on the streets. Secondly, the way Islam is employed as a political weapon that you don’t see it being the case in any other religion. If Macron asked the whole Catholic world to boycott Turkey, he would be dismissed as a joke. But when it is Erdoğan and Muslims, it works because Islam as it is today is for the most part, not a apolitical religion, but entrenched in the politics of so many nations. The way in which Political Islam is so easily mobilised by leaders like Erdoğan and Imran Khan should scare the bejesus out of us. American and Muslim media sources like to claim Macron’s moves are mere rhetoric for political gains, but why not look at the governments not just of Turkey and Pakistan, but many other Muslim nations, which are able to deploy Islam as a political weapon, in this case in Erdoğan’s fight against Macron, which has been happening since Macron sought to counter Turkish aggression against Greece. From the perspective of secular France, as well as the rest of the free world that holds dear values from the Enlightenment tradition, Macron is not wrong to claim that Islam is in crisis and in need of reform, in order to become compatible with these values, as politically incorrect as it sounds, it is good that this leader does not shy away from the elephant in the room. He is right to say that Islam has been distorted in a way to be emploted by extremists - which has a history to it. I am not a theologian, but as it stands today, one would be naive to call Islam a “religion of peace”. I understand that Islam is a broad religion, with a wide variety of sects and movements within it, but in the recent decades, especially since the 1970s, the more extreme and intolerant sects have been flourishing and dominating, in line with a global religious revival movement in that period. In no small part attributed to the rise of Saudi Arabia as a wealthy petroleum-producing state, which has allowed it to export Wahhabism, the Mujahideen, and madrasas far beyond its borders. All these developments have created a form of Islam that lacks compatability with Western secular values, which becomes a domestic social issue. 74% of French Muslims under 25 say that Islamic values take precedence over French and European values, and these are young people who most likely have been born and raised in France. Macron is therefore not at all wrong to point out the issues of ‘radical Islamic separatism” and “ghettoisation”, which is indeed a danger to cohesion.
All things considered, the world needs to better understand distinctions and semantics in the numerous terms we see in the discourse of this subject - words like secularism, free speech, racism, discrimination, Islamophobia, etcetera. I know that journalists are not philosophers and may not know the difference between “A is a cause of B” and “Blame A for B” (if one tries to investigate why France has been a target of so many Islamist attacks), but it does not absolve them of the responsibility of providing accurate information, rather than allowing them to spread falsehoods and misunderstandings with impunity. Similarly to my previous post on overpopulation, this is also a subject where the taboo on discourse should be broken, and people should stop using the history of colonialism as a scapegoat to avoid talking about present realities. While I applaud Macron’s strong stance on this issue to defend Enlightenment values, against violence and extremism of all kinds, instead of taking the route of appeasement a more pusillanimous leader would have taken, this article is not meant to put to French state on a pedestal, and I clearly do recognise deficiencies in their government policies (which Macron’s bill seeks to improve) that stymie effective integration of French Muslims. And for the Muslims all over the world, the onus is also on them to not just blindly take offence at conversations that touch the subject of religion, or following the words of some man in Ankara who aspires to be caliph. As the UAE’s foreign minister Anwar Gargash put it well, “Muslims have to listen carefully to what Macron said in his speech. He doesn’t want to isolate Muslims in the West, and he is totally right. The French state has the right to search for ways to achieve this in parallel with combating extremism and societal closure.”
コメント