To want to unify the Islam of France is a dangerous utopia: all Islams are not compatible with the values ​​of the Republic.

Emmanuel Macron's intention to reorganize the Muslim cult in France is commendable. The assessment of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) is onlya finding of failure : denial of human rights, lack of legitimacy in the eyes of many Muslims in France, recurring ambiguities, opacity, links with the Muslim Brotherhood, « hallalisation of spirits "... I fear, however, that our president will take the problem in reverse: the question today is not so much to organize the dialogue with Islam, as to know with which Islam it is desirable and possible to dialogue .

Unified Islam does not exist

In France as elsewhere, There's no a but of the Islams. And it would be catastrophic to try to make of all the Moslems of France a unique religious community: this is exactly what the thuriféraires of the political Islam, they are Salafists, Wahhabites, followers of the Islamic State, wish Al Qaeda or Muslim Brotherhood. For them, solidarity between "brothers and sisters in religion" is more important than anything, and that is how good people end up turning a blind eye to the presence of terrorists among them, and have many scruples to condemn them.

We must, on the contrary, fight relentlessly against all those who would like membership of the Ummah to take precedence over personal convictions, and fight any form of identity assignment, that it aims to unite Muslims. in a secessionist counter-society, to reject them en bloc, or to accept them without distinction. Want to treat in the same way Rachid Benzine and Rachid Habou Houdeyfa (the imam of Brest who taught children that music is the work of the devil) makes absolutely no sense, despite their common name. To imagine that Abdennour Bidar and Henda Ayari would have the same representative to the public authorities as Tariq Ramadan and Houria Bouteldja is an absurdity and an insult.

A "united France Islam" would probably be Islamist

In addition, it is very likely that a "unified French Islam" would be dominated today (in influence if not in number) by Salafism, that of Wahhabis or that of the Muslim Brotherhood, one and the other declared enemies of our civilization. Within this hypothetical entity, it is once again humanist Muslims developing a critical thought towards dogmas and texts that would be silenced, whereas it is from them and from them alone that may be born an Islam that is not a threat. Not to mention that they usually speak as individuals, and probably do not want any community representative to speak on their behalf and in their place. Let's be careful that the voice of a Leila Babes is not overwhelmed by the conspiracy delusions of hundreds of Mennel !

Read also: Reform of Islam: The Passive of an Illusion

Nor should anything be expected from a supposed "true Islam". Just as "real communism" has always been a disaster, "real Islam" as we observe nowadays, where Muslims are in the majority, is rather sinister, whether in the countries of old Islamic tradition or in the lost territories of the Republic. The Koran itself contains passages that are, to say the least, problematic from the moment they are taken to the first degree - which, alas, is perhaps the spirit in which they were written.

Which islams in France?

The hope is therefore rather to be found on the side of a revival of Islam, carried by popular aspirations as well as by intellectuals, the luminous courage of MyStealthyFreedom in Iran to the remarkable works of Yadh Ben Achour in Tunisia, passing by by the republican commitment of Amine El Khatmi in France. For, good or bad, the currents that cross Islam far exceed the borders of nations.

Of course, the question of financing mosques must be asked, and quickly resolved. But, I insist, it will be useless if we do not ask ourselves first of all what islams we want to allow to build mosques on our soil, and to which we must prohibit it!

All islams are not compatible with France

Because it is useless to hide the face: no lasting peaceful coexistence is possible between human rights and sharia law. The primary objective of the state must therefore be to distinguish and separate the Muslim communities that adhere to the first, those who want to promote the second. The goal is not to negotiate a precarious balance with representatives of supposedly majority currents, but to work for a lasting harmony with truly humanistic Muslims, no matter what proportion of believers recognize themselves in them.

Some will object that this "sorting" operated between the Islams, those who would be allowed and those who would be banned, would be an attack on the freedom of conscience. To these I will answer on the one hand that there is already, since France has laws against the sectarian excesses, and on the other hand that the freedom of conscience is not affected by it, since the distinction does not not about beliefs, but about behaviors and political agendas.

Indeed, the term "Islam" most often covers not only a religion, in the Western sense of the term, but also a project of society aspiring to govern both the political organization and the daily lives of individuals, down to the smallest detail , stifling any individual thought and consciousness. If the belief in the strictly religious dimension of Islam is indeed the fundamental freedom of each, the promotion of the project of society is undeniably contrary to the values ​​of the West, whether it is understood in the Hellenistic sense, Judeo-Christian or secular (which, moreover, meet quite well in what they have best).

The responsibility of the state is to reject sharia

The role of the state is not to say if Islam without sharia is still Islam. The question is important but concerns historians, philosophers of religion and theologians. The State has the responsibility to proclaim firmly that sharia has absolutely no place in France, regardless of whether it seeks to dominate by force or influence cultural, political, media, regardless of whether it shows from the very beginning its true face or that it hides itself in smiling approximations while waiting to have the power to impose itself. His rejection must go beyond all divisions and reach consensus - unless of course to be accomplices, or to adhere to absolute relativism - another name for the resignation of intelligence and moral sense.

Freedom of thought and conscience - therefore right to apostasy and refusal of identity assignments; mixed in the public space; equal rights between men and women; the duty of any belief to consent to analysis and criticism - and therefore to blasphemy; acceptance of religious pluralism - including polytheism and non-Abrahamic religions; universalism rather than relativism; accountability and justice rather than victim competition; humanity and citizenship rather than racialism and communitarianism. All this is not, and must never be, negotiable.

Sharia and sunna oppose these principles. The Koranif you take it literally, you are opposed to these principles. The hadith and sīrah portray a prophet whose life opposes these principles. And yet Muslims are willing to adhere to these principles and to defend them, because their humanity is deeper than dogmas, and that the traditions of Islamic cultures are richer than the founding texts of Islam. It is with these Muslims, and only with them, that the State must discuss, whether they are from France, France, or abroad.

France must favor humanist Muslims

That the State begins by explaining these values, instead of pretending that France would be a geographical space without identity, and that it imposes on any cultural or cultural organization in France to defend them, and to really defend them, not use them. That the state is no longer afraid to face the CFCM or the Great Mosque of Paris, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Wahhabis, the Tabligh, the Milli Gorüs, and other purveyors of petro-dollars or ethno-religious votes. Let him remember that there can also be extremist and sectarian currents in other religionsbut that political Islam is today the only one to represent a real danger on our soil.

Read also: We must encourage the development of an "Enlightenment Islam"

May France become a haven for humanist Muslims of all nationalities who share our fundamental values, guaranteeing them security and freedom of expression, and promoting the dissemination of their work. That France supports exegesis, historico-critical analysis, the primacy given to free reflection on which is rather than compliance with texts that claim say what is. That it develops a teaching that is neither demonization nor shameless apology of Islam, but as factual presentation as possible (and we can thank the remarkable Souad Ayada for his lucidity and determination).

I take this opportunity to mention the works of philosophy of Islam of Souâd Ayada, which will be found in an excellent presentation right here. She has proposed a very interesting theological analysis of political Islam: "Islamic monotheism orders two approaches and more broadly, two incompatible metaphysics simultaneously inscribed in him : 1. the first, entirely subordinated to the recognition of a transcendence separatedstripped of all interference with the sensible and the multiple, inaccessible in essence and par excellence to the order of the human, can only produce an impoverished and truncated vision of the world, whose negative power would culminate in its legal repercussions. policies; 2. the second, on the contrary, would be careful to preserve the recognition of an intermediate dimension of sensitivity, by deploying the conception of a transcendence engaged, that is to say manifested in a sensitive mode, in the immanence of the world of creatures and which could only be grasped by an imaginative capacity raised to its visionary dimension. "

Then, and only then, will it be time to seek partners that are both legitimate in the eyes of humanist Muslims, in the diversity of their approaches and nuances, and credible to public authorities and non-Muslims. The state will not have to impose a predefined structure on them, but to assist them in creating what they consider appropriate and appropriate.

We will discover collectively that the organization of worship will no longer be a problem, and far from the ambiguities, impostures and manipulations of today, their word - irrigated by their faith and not dried up by dogmas - will strengthen our values and consolidate the republican pact, alongside many other religions and with respect for secularism.