FIGAROVOX / TRIBUNE - Céline Pina reacts following the tribune published in Le Monde this morning by "indignant imams" who said that there is no anti-Semitism in Islam. According to her, this forum paradoxically underlines the embarrassment of the Muslim leaders before the sacred texts of their religion.
Former local elected, Céline Pina is essayist and activist. In 2015, she denounced Pontoise's "Muslim Woman" show and recently published Guilty silence (Kero Publishing, 2016). With Fatiha Boutjalhat, she is the founder of Viv (r) e la République, a secular and republican citizen movement calling to fight against all totalitarianisms and to promote the indispensable universality of our republican values.
Following a tribune signed by 300 personalities denouncing the violence of a new anti-Semitism in France, linked to the development of Islamism, thirty imams wanted to react and declare themselves ready to put themselves at the service of their country. If on paper the initiative is attractive, to read the text closely and to examine the context, one can feel a certain discomfort.
Because what makes these thirty men react is less the explosion of anti-Semitism, than the fact that this tribune of the 300 dares to recall the hatred of the Jew inscribed in certain verses of the Koran and dares to say that one should already accept to confront this reality to hope to change things.
I understand that for a believer, it is difficult to admit that a text, even if sacred, does not hold an immanent and absolute truth. Thus, when we talk about Islamist terrorism, which justifies its massacres in the name of religion and the Koran, we mean the traditional: "it has nothing to do with Islam". But we can find these same reactions when we talk about the gulag and dictatorships that flourished in the East with some members of the PC: "not true communism", or the ravages of the Inquisition with some Catholics convinced: "a diversion of the Christian message ". It is normal that we want to defend what we love, even at the expense of the real, but the best way to change the game is rarely to be blind to the realities, always to look at them for better combat.
This is what this text refuses to do. Written in reaction to the platform of 300, the first issue he evacuated is at the heart of this forum, it is that of anti-Semitism. By mixing terrorism and anti-Semitism, he deliberately ignores the "why" of this new anti-Semitism. Indeed, terrorism puts everyone on an equal footing and eliminates what the podium points out: when 1% of the French population is victim of half of the racist acts, the chance is not in question . This is clearly a targeting. When the profile of the aggressors is homogenized too, doubt is no longer allowed. To persecute the Jews is to affirm a form of power and domination. It becomes identity in certain territories through the mythification of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in the pro-Palestinian demonstrations that "Deaths to the Jews" were launched in the heart of Paris. As at the same time, on the whole of the French population, the Jewish community does not cease reinforcing its good image, it is clear that it is not the traditional anti-Semitism related to the extreme right and to a certain catholicism which is reborn, but indeed a new anti-Semitism, which adds the anti-Zionist alibi to the archaic clichés.
This existence of a strong Arab-Muslim cultural antisemitism is not a legend, it is measured in recent studies like that of Anne Muxel and Olivier Galland for example and denounced by sociologists like Smaïn Lâacher. But this background of sauce is thickened by the propaganda of a political Islam and Wahhabi fundamentalism: the explosion of this new anti-Semitism in France is not the result of chance but the result of a religious and political work on the ground, from conditioning to hatred.
But here, mixing terrorism and anti-Semitism not only makes it impossible to face one's own responsibilities, reminding everyone that security is everyone's business, but it is also a clever way to victimize oneself and to be absolved. even mosque networks are one of the bases for the ideological conquest of Islamists. This is never said. To read the text of the imams, one is radicalized only on the internet. It's wrong. Thus, the reference to terrorism aims, in this context, to evacuate the question of the origin of this new anti-Semitism and the religious and political soil in which it grows. A breeding ground that the Muslim brothers maintain with a particularly green hand. When the first effect of the response of these 30 imams to the forum of the 300 is to evacuate the question of the new anti-Semitism, we can say that it works!
Other phrases can make leap: returning to the violence that has struck our country, these imams write: "All silence on our part would now be complicit and therefore culpable, even if until now it was only a dumbness of amazement". Since 2012? Let. After all in 2012, everyone did not understand. But since 2015? This is a particularly long time of amazement all the same. On this point, let us plead clumsiness. Regardless of the time devoted to awareness, one must know how to do the grace of the past and have only requirements for the future when one wants to gather. But there are several things in dissonance.
We feel very quickly that the purpose of this text is less to position itself on the issue of anti-Semitism, quickly erased, than to protect the Qur'anic text. The idea that there are calls in the Quran itself for the murder of Jews is denied. It would be "Incredible violenceAnd would suggest that "Islam is genetically opposed to the West" and "The Muslim can only be pacifist if he moves away from religion". Let's start by putting a little reason in there. What is incredibly violent is the anti-Semitic murders committed against children and a teacher at the Ozar Atorah school, those of Ilan Halimi, Sarah Halimi and lately Mireille Knoll, these are the massacres we are facing since 2015, it is the fact that some cities in the Paris region see the French of Jewish faith forced to flee because they are persecuted (to the point that we called this phenomenon the Inner Alya), it is the impossibility to educate Jewish children at the school of the Republic in certain territories. There, indeed, happens facts of an incredible violence.
On the other hand, in the reaction of these imams, one finds this absolute refusal to accept the criticism and the interpellation on the contents of a text. To the point that they come to write lies: the platform of the 300 never says that Islam is genetically opposed to the West or that a good Muslim is someone who would deny his religion, he asks that the content sacred text can be debated. Because without debate on the text, no one can evolve in his report to the text.
If Christians have changed their relationship to the text and their sacred book, it is because debates have taken place. To fight against antisemitism within it, the Church mobilized and took a clear stand. The argument of context or recontextualization brandished by these imams to close any discussion before even starting is not far from the hogwash. The Quran, like any sacred text, is not read by theologians, many will seek the justification for their violence. Understanding the context is not within the reach of the first comer ... Especially since said text, if it is conceived as uncreated, erases any context. The word of God is the truth, not that of the moment, an immanent truth, a part of eternity. So even and especially if in the end the text is not changed, it is only by accepting the discussion on this point that these imams will actually show that the Qur'an is not uncreated and will actually change the relationship to text. But their epidermal reaction shows a visceral refusal to let the question even be asked.
Finally, there is at the heart of this text written by imams something that questions and worries. The heart of the text is this sentence of the prophet of Islam: "The Muslim who harms the life of an innocent person living in peace with Muslims will never feel the taste of paradise". So as not to be legitimate to murder, you have to "To be innocent" and "Live in peace with the Muslims". Already the definition of innocence opens up a vast field of interpretation. Are you an innocent person if you are a free and independent woman for example? Are we still innocent if we change our religion or become an atheist? The question may legitimately arise. Then periphrasis indicates that only the attitude toward other Muslims is taken into account. And would not other believers or unbelievers count? And what is the definition of "live in peace?" Our political choice of equality between women and men would not be a provocation that undermines this peace? And what to say when intellectuals are called blasphemers because they are indignant at the upsurge of anti-Semitic acts and murders? Often, when the questions are simple, the addition of details serves the purpose and limits the scope of the text, or even suspicion of the real intentions pursued. All things considered, I prefer the simplicity of the command of the Old Testament "you will not kill" or simply the philosophical idea that a society is based on the prohibition of murder.
And when in conclusion, what is proposed is more relying on religion to better fight against its excesses, we remain speechless. Against political Islam and fanaticism, we are offered more religion. To wonder if this injunction is not equivalent to wanting to extinguish a fire by throwing dead wood in it ... But after all, these men are imams, from their point of view it follows a certain logic and their proposal is not not necessarily insincere. But for our nation, it would be better for the reconquest of the lost territories to be done by reaffirming equality and republican freedom, rather than being entrusted to a network of mosques whose true objectives can be doubted. Let us remember that the Muslim brothers were the first to have invested the juicy market of de-radicalization, but rather in a perspective of re-Islamization that did not say its name. Remember the experience Dounia Bouzar, who called for deradicalization based on religion. We remember especially the dull cost of its actions, but not its results: and for good reason ...
Finally, we hardly know who these signatory imams, some names like Iqioussen arouse distrust, Tareq Oubrou is itself very controversial and among the mosques cited, all are not models to follow. Other aspects of the phenomenon are less reassuring: the outraged reactions of the CFCM-type Muslim authorities, led today by a close associate of Erdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey. An Erdogan who created a branch of his party in France and set up candidates for the last legislative elections on our territory, explicitly demanding charria among others. Basically, the only thing that makes them react in a clear and explicit way is only the evocation of the Qur'an. The bloodshed and the violence observed are better supported. This undermines the credibility of the whole.
The attempt at victimization, as well as the stated willingness, behind the posted display of these 30 imams, to provoke the rejection of the tribune of the 300, is similarly damaging to the membership sought by these imams. It is obvious that we must fight together to confront the Islamist threat that dismantles our society, but not with mosque leaders, most of whom belong to the network of Muslim brothers. A detail that is not one.
This text reminds me of another text, the "Declaration of Intent Concerning the Rights and Obligations of the Faithful of the Muslim Faith". It was signed in 2000 by all Muslim organizations, but only after all mention of the right to change religion was withdrawn. This brought a blow to freedom of conscience, while being presented as proof of acceptance of the laws of the Republic. Since things have not changed much: there is far too much ambiguity today in the text of these imams and too much opportunism in its output so that we can judge this appropriate response, given the violence of anti-Semitism denounced. "Another effort, gentlemen imams."
- Antisemitism: the Koran at the heart of the controversy
- Hakim El Karoui / Xavier Lemoine: "Can Islam be French?"
- Islam and Republic: Deciphering Macron's speech at the CFCM
- Céline Pina: "The pact with Islam could turn into a pact with Islamists"