France, Extremism, and Islamists

This post is also available in: Español (Spanish)

[tie_index]First things first![/tie_index]

First things first!

I feel that before I talk about anything specific, I need to lay down some common ground to make it clear where I stand before getting into the details.

• An “Islamist” is not the same thing as a “Muslim”; An Islamist is someone who believes that Islam should go beyond being a personal belief and should govern our social and political lives as well. I don’t think any religion should govern our social and political lives, but nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that “Islamists” are all “terrorists” either.
• Under no circumstance, violence can be justified; When we discuss the reasons behind a violent act, we are not justifying violence, nor are we saying that it is “more acceptable” or “less tragic”.
• Like every post here, I’m sharing my personal opinion; I can be wrong and I would love to hear from everyone, especially those who have a different opinion than mine.

Overall, I don’t think Macron’s speech had any major problems from my personal perspective. I believe that most of the measures he presented made sense. What I would like to discuss here are two main questions;

[tie_index]Does terrorism have a religion?[/tie_index]

Does terrorism have a religion?

One of the main issues I see with Macron’s speech is how he singled out Islam and Islamists during the whole speech. The whole speech was about Islamists, Islamist radicals, and Islamist terrorism. Are other types of terrorism okay? I guess not. Are most of the terrorist attacks in France were conducted by Islamist radicals? Yes, most probably. Can we attribute that to the nature of religion itself? I personally don’t think so.

It is quite unfortunate when I see people – especially politicians – blaming religion for terrorist attacks. In my opinion, there is no text – religious or not – that can solely convince someone to kill and terrorize people. We have to look at the bigger picture. It makes no sense to talk about terrorism without talking about education, socio-economic conditions, politics, history, colonization, among other things. We need to remind ourselves, again and again, that correlation does not mean causation. The fact that most current terrorist attacks in France are by Islamist radicals, doesn’t mean that Islam is the reason. The same is true for any attack and any religion, not just Islam. Those terrorists do have more in common than just their religion. They are usually a minority, often refugees who were forced to leave their country, often living in a lower socio-economic state, and probably mentally unstable.

So when a country is introducing measures to fight domestic terrorism, they should focus on all those aspects. Focusing on Islamists and how “Islam is a religion in crisis” undermined the rest of Macron’s speech for most people. The media picking up this single line and using it as their headlines definitely didn’t help much either. Especially in times where people on social media read nothing but the headline and they don’t bother clicking on the article. The speech also helped stigmatize a big visible minority in France. A move that paves the road to more violence, not less. A fertile soil for radicals to operate. I wish Macron announced almost exactly the same measures while talking about extremism, terrorism, and separatism in general. It would have made a huge difference, in my opinion.

[tie_index]Is banning religious symbols part of Secularism?[/tie_index]

Is banning religious symbols part of Secularism?

Secularism is the separation of state and religion. Some would take a step further and say that it’s the separation of religion and public life. I find the second definition a little bizarre. How can we separate religion from public life while giving every individual the right to believe or not? And more importantly, why should we separate religion from public life anyway? And finally, what should we consider “a religion” or a “religious symbol”?

I believe that expressing one’s beliefs either verbally or through what they wear is part of freedom of expression, as long as they are not causing harm. I don’t see any benefit from preventing people from expressing what they believe and I see it as yet another reason that would help radicals play the victim card and might make it easier for them to recruit people who feel angry and discriminated against. We all have the right to believe or not, and to express it. For the government to intervene, we need a concrete justification where the harm is and why taking away someone’s freedom should be justified.

We shouldn’t fight extremism with extremism. This can and will backfire and make it worse, possibly much worse. Muslims will feel alienated and conservatives will quite possibly let kids go without a veil to school. But then because they feel threatened, they will make them wear it everywhere else. Or worse, force them to go to the mosque as a way to fight back against the government taking away what they see as part of their identity. They will probably pull their kids out of public schools and either homeschool them or look for a private school that aligns with their culture/beliefs. All of which will marginalize minorities even more and force them to create an isolated sub-culture. Which is something that has already happened in France and other parts of the world.

I feel those decisions (both in France and Quebec) are short-sighted and not based on any concrete studies or evidence. At least in Québec, they didn’t include children going to school too, and it only applies to public servants.