This is an interview with Soheib Bencheikh, a candidate for President in France. The election is this month, April, 2007. Here is Monsieur Bencheikh's website: Présidentielle 2007 Soheib Bencheikh Candidat
(This is an introductory paragraph for the article; it is in italics in the original.)
Islam is in the midst of rapid growth in France. However, the rise of the puritan and ideological Islam has been specific concern there. Dr. Soheib Bencheikh, the former mufti of Marseille who established French Institute for Islamic Science, said that Islamic dearabization is necessary in order to fit better into French culture during his 10 days visit in Indonesia to Novriantoni from Liberal Islamic Network, Saturday (25/11/2006).
Yes, yes, yes! Kick Saudzilla out and send him back to Riyadh!
I am glad that Indonesia is the first Muslim country that applied democracy and the principle of secular state. This climate will provide every group the opportunity to express their selves. Unfortunately, there are psycho-linguistic barriers for accepting secularism in Indonesia and many other Muslim countries. Psychological barriers exist because secularism originated from the West, and some people are skeptical upon western things. Linguistic barrier happens due to the semantic problem in translating secularism into our languages.
It should read "This climate will provide every group the opportunity to express themselves." That's okay; my English isn't perfect either. It's the thought that counts! :)
To me, secularism is not a complicated philosophy. In France, laicite is nor religion neither ideology. This is a simple idea about administrative neutrality in managing relation between state and religion. Once state declares itself as a secular state, it must give every citizen freedom to accept religion or not. In a more concrete way, secularism is separation between state and religious affair. It benefits both religion and state.
I believe we have an amendment to our Constitution that says something about that, too.
Every religion will be under the protection of state, which is neutral, rational, and susceptible to critique, because it is not a part of sacred institution. Every party in the secular state can be criticized, evaluated, reformed, and even substituted by parties that may be able to lead and prove that they are capable of doing better things.
Protection from extermination, dhimmification... but not from criticism. I like that idea.
State institution becomes neutral, profane, have no divine mandate or sacred values as the claim of every religion. State is liberated from dogmatism. Besides, religion will be free from political intrigues in order to gain the power. This is the fact in countries where secularism has established.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it is free from political intrigues. We are, after all, only human.
In countries such as Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and other Arab countries, you will find the fact they are not bright and there is no hope for an overhaul. The task of these states seems on one thing, that is safeguarding the sacredness of religion and the power of authority. They only want to preserve the conservative and backward religiosity and utilize it to maintain their power.
Well, actually, that's pretty much what any government does: preserve its own power.
I must say that people who raise their voice on the importance of separation between religion and state were sincere in their religiosity. I have particular reason to advocate secularism. As a Muslim, I can practice Islam proudly in France under the authority of secular state. If only the French politic is up to the procedure of democracy which sometimes side with the power of majority (Catholic majority in case of French, ed), definitely we would not be free living there.
Actually, I see what he's saying, but I'm not so sure I agree. Centuries ago, a Catholic majority may not have permitted open practice of Islam. Today, however, there is a great deal of tolerance of Islam among Catholics, and among most other Christian groups. In fact, I think there is too much tolerance -- some things coming from the Islamic world should not be tolerated.
But, still, I appreciate that he advocates secularism, and I wholeheartedly support that.
It’s a big lie to say that secularism will marginalize religion from every aspect of life. Secularism is simply about administration of the state therefore it will not be easily influenced by cheap religious sentiments. In the west, it is up to you to embrace a religion or not. One’s obedience or disobedience is a private matter between him or her and god. It is different with what happens in the Arab countries, the secular as well as the theocratic ones.
In Saudi Arabia or Algeria, I feel that the inquisitional institution is surrounding me. Hence, my prayer, my worship, my life and death is no more for God. Everything I do, I do it for the institution that spies my move and observance. Everything we do is not for God, but for maintaining the authority’s stability or positive image before public.
And, he's exactly right -- the modern Inquisition is not in the Catholic world, it is in the Islamic world! And, the Saudis, etc., aren't really doing it for Allah as much as they are doing it for themselves.
There's a great deal of power and money at stake, especially in places like Saudi Arabia.
Actually, a clash of civilization does not exist in reality. What happens everywhere is clash between open groups (munfatihin) and closed ones (munghaliq). There is no clash between West and East. We must remember that the first who condemned against the American invasion upon Iraq was the belated Pope John II, while the first who closed his eyes about this tragedy was Sheikh al-Azhar.
The most persistent opponent against the war was France and Germany that bear the consequence up to now. Meanwhile, the facilitator of the invasion and provider of the military base for the US was the Arab countries. Hence, clash between civilizations is a mere imagination of America and it proves that throughout its vicious actions in many parts of the world.
He's against the war in Iraq; he supports Western condemnation of the war, and Arab facilitation of it. These remarks could just as easily be spoken by a "slick" Khawarij. However, the context of this man's remarks make me think he is sincere, while the Khawarij would just be trying to divide up his enemies.
My civilization as an Arab-Muslim laid not on the obligatory of wearing headscarf, furthermore niqab and burqa. I had left shallow perception about standard of civilization based on artificial matters. I dream about civilization that preserves morality.
The Qu'ranic prescription to "draw their veils over their bosoms" was for Arab rural and nomadic women who were already veiled in early Islam but left their bosoms open. Hence, we must perceive that the verse commands Muslims to dress in a modest fashion. That is the universal value of the Quranic verses on veil.
Again, this doesn't sound too objectionable. These sound like the comments from a religious, socially conservative individual.
We have to advocate Islam as a religion that exists within every individual’s heart and we should not demand the state to keep the sustainability of our religion. The matter of obedience or disobedience is not the state’s responsibility. This must be our direct relation with god without human intervention. The Islamic development, which is apart from the state’s power, is important because there is no clerical system in Islam.
Again, he's advocating Islam as something separate from the political power structure. If they ever did that in Iran and Saudi Arabia, there are a great deal of religious police that would lose their jobs.
I am concerned about debate on this topic in Aljazeera television, moreover when British Muslims determined to hold a World Day of Veil (al-yaumul `alami lil hijab) which is a ineffective battle and stake for me. This religion is more than fourteen centuries old, but it still debates about what one should wear or not. I hardly imagine the Archangel Gabriel will come down to earth back and forth just to teach the Arabs and Muslims on how Muslims should dress, how long beard must be, and other trivial matters. Do not forget that the enemies of Prophet Muhammad were wearing bigger turban and maintaining longer beard than ours today.
That's pretty funny. I wonder if the Taliban know that?
Everywhere, those fundamentalist groups were minorities. However, the revival of Christian fundamentalists in western countries is understandable. They were narrow-minded, and they emerged out of the assumption that their democratic, secular, tolerant, and pluralist state has become a Trojan horse that potentially threats their comfortable lives. They already gave full freedom to Muslim migrants in their country, whom now regarded to disturb their existence. That is why those right wings emerged in Germany, Denmark, Holland and other European countries. But nothing to be worried about because they remain minorities.
Interesting. He draws a comparison between fundamentalist Christian and fundamentalist Islamic groups, but he seems to be admitting that the Islamic immigrants are causing problems. However, he seems optimistic about it because all those groups -- Christian and Muslim alike -- are minorities.
Am I reading this right?
In general, I am not worried about the future of Muslims in France. But I am worried about the prototype of Islam which most of French young Muslims adhered and developed nowadays. They waste their times by adhering particular understanding of Islam, which impede them for building better social relationship with their neighbors. They waste their time by discussing about the length of beard, the size of trouser etc.
They forget that prophet Muhammad had utilized the best things in his period just like us in the modern era. As a Muslim thinker, I had been mocked for not applying the Prophetic tradition (Sunna) of their version. “You’ve never paid any attention to the Prophetic tradition!” they protested. “How come?” I asked. “Your daily life style and mainly the way you dress do not reflect your concern about the Prophetic tradition.” My answer is this: I perceive that one of the Prophetic traditions is that he had never deviated (syadz) from the culture around him.
Heh-heh-heh. You tell 'em!
That was my experience of dealing with young extreme Muslims. Some dialogues ended at a deadlock, some others succeeded. Therefore, I suggested French decision makers to be wise in dealing with them. I explained that their attitude was not because of their deep understanding of Islam, but their shallow understanding. They were not immune from the virus of fanaticism. They invited fundamentalist Muslims to teach them about Islam and that is why they failed in building the positive social relation with French society and became marginalized.
There is something to what he says here. While many of these radicals know Islam very well -- every nasty nuance and detail, and can't get over any of the bad stuff -- many of those who get duped into blowing themselves up know very little about Islam.
As I point out in other posts on Stop Islamic Conquest, holy war is big business. Many of the jihadis who are used as suicide bombers are duped into doing it by promises of heavenly rewards for themselves and earthly rewards for their families.
Also, Islamic communities that take Saudi-trained and -funded preachers of Wahhabi hatred are susceptible to it in part because they haven't learned enough about their own religion to have their own firm views of it -- IMHO.
What was I saying over at the other blog? Islam became a vehicle for the Arabs to conquer an empire. The empire, though, became less Arab as it spread. So, the Saudis are spreading their own radical brand of Islam, Wahhabism, in a well-funded attempt to convert the Islamic world. If they succeed with their re-arabization of Islam, they inherit an empire.
Does this candidate for the Presidency of France seem to understand this and even agree? -- and to repudiate the arabization of the Islamic world?!
Yankee Doodle hit the nail right on the head!
Saudi Arabia might want to give some thought to whether they will succeed in re-arabizing Islam, or whether the world will de-arabize and deradicalize it. The world is a lot bigger than Saudzilla, and might decide not to de-arabize and deradicalize peacefully. Once again, I suggest Riyadh consider its options, and pay particular attention to its third option, before infidel and takfir armies overrun their corner of the desert.
It will be interesting to see how the election turns out in France.
No comments:
Post a Comment