[ad_1]
Unfortunately what is happening in France, and now in Vienna. Nothing justifies killing. Our societies are responsible and there is no need to claim innocence or bury your head in the sand. Islam and Muslims disagree, they are Muslims. Of course, the massacre of political Islamist terrorists alone does not raise objections, because Muslims daily make many provocative scenes in the West. As if they were spreading out on the sidewalks and roads to say the Friday prayers, and shouting “God is great” to the passengers of a public bus, as if they were pointing a gun … !!
Tackling the subject is not about looking for the specifics of Islam as a religion to explain what is going on. Religious extremism is not related to faith or religion, but to human beings and their policies and practices which are attributed to religions.
The latest provocations have been the demand of some Muslims in Canada to cancel the supply of pork to schools in their area !! Refraining from it is not enough for them, rather they want to impose their prohibitions on everyone! They are the ones who “swear” to accept their emigration in order to obtain a decent life far from the countries which have persecuted them, noting that they take an oath to respect the Constitution of Canada, on condition of accepting the values of society to the point of joining the army to defend it if the need arises. However, Canada does not face them the French way, nor does Germany, England and others.
Bringing up the subject is not about looking for the specifics of Islam as a religion to explain what is happening. Religious extremism is not related to faith or religion, but to people and their policies and practices which are attributed to religions. Strict religious discourse is a reading of religious texts in crisis phase and their extreme interpretation. Monotheistic religions have different positions towards activism and violence. Christianity is one of the most tolerant religions. Nonetheless, a group of Christians were able to wage religious wars on his behalf in times of crisis, creating an extremist and abolitionist face. This happens whenever one party is mistaken that they own the right and uses it to wipe out the other in blood. The Islamic religion declares that it seeks to attack others only with the right. In other words, to respond only to aggression. But the problem lies in the multiple interpretation of the meaning of this right.
It is understood that terrorism in its contemporary form began with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, following Soviet military intervention to eliminate the Taliban. This “Islamic movement” was formed from two Islamic currents that had existed since the beginning of the 20th century (Wahhabism and the ideas of Qutb and Al-Banna, meaning the Brotherhood now allied with Iran), and was encouraged by America and its Arab allies to confront Soviet atheism. It coincided with the Iranian revolution.
Khomeini issued a fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie.
Our societies have provided fertile ground and an ideological pillar that the West has tapped with its wings from the start.
On the other hand, the West has provided facilities for the movements, leaders and associations of political Islam, and has protected the activities of their members, from Khomeini to Ahmed Atta, the perpetrator of the Twin Towers bombings. September 11, 2001, by supporting the symbols of the Muslim Brotherhood movement under the slogan of human rights, while democracies sometimes neglect Secular and democratic opposition to despotic regimes is at home. It is only recently that Western countries have realized that despotic regimes are using Western laws and the Western media system to market themselves and implement their agendas. Germany put Hezbollah on the terrorism list, while France refused.
France has been exposed more recently than others to attacks by jihadists who massacre and kill. Society tends to blame Islam and Muslims. Why does this not also concern the policy of France, a former colonial country, and its activities in a number of North African countries until its confrontation with Turkey or its presence in Lebanon !? Isn’t that attributed to Hezbollah the Islamic demonstrators with its black flags and its threat to seize Macron on the road to the airport?
Why should the behavior of a few terrorists, who are administered by the organs and systems of political Islam, threaten to mark the millions of peaceful Muslims who coexist in peace, work and obey the laws? Do we have to dress, eat and believe like the French to accept them?
The response to secularism, to totalitarian jihad, was the new secular radicalism, which the French thinker of Iranian origin Farhad Khosrokhavar called neo-secularism. Many agree to call it the new civil religion, with its rituals, priesthood and innovation.
Here emerges the particularity of French society towards its acceptance of another different. Bruno Etienne believes that there is a cultural disconnection in France which does not reveal the history of the multiple facets of France, in favor of national integration imposed by the Republic with the consent and participation of most of the social representatives . It resulted in the eradication of peripheral cultures and addressed cultural difference in the question: How can you be a citizen of a state of rights in solidarity with your brothers or your exclusive group? Answer: Move out of primary solidarity towards the unity of national solidarity, which would make each citizen share the same political culture.
This logic has led to the issue of equality being the path to similarity among citizens by establishing a unified language that education and compulsory schooling provide. However, the exodus of Muslims and former colonialists was not taken into account, so the apparent spread of Muslims and Islam, as a phenomenon of resignation to stay in France, led to this reaction. . I touched on this in a previous article.
The response to secularism, to totalitarian jihad, has been the new secular radicalism, which the French thinker of Iranian origin Farhad Khosrokhavar called neo-secularism. Many agree to call it the new civil religion, with its rituals, priesthood and innovation. The revolution that took place transformed secularism from the principle of state management according to a social vision based on the acceptance of religions alongside atheism in a context of mutual respect. To become neither this nor that. He was no longer satisfied with the neutrality of the state, but rather wanted the religious neutrality of society, and it was no longer enough not to display religious badges among state employees, but rather to achieve the students of the public school and the women who work in its institutions. The question turned into sacred instructions to respond primarily to Islam. Thus, secularism has acquired a new meaning which conflicts with its role of preserving the state outside the religious sphere. It turned into a holy war against the jihadists. She is committed to defending these vulgar cartoons disseminated, within the framework of secular laws that have become central. The more new laws are put in place to suppress Muslims, the more they will feel offended.
In the face of all this, Lebanon and the Lebanese, in their divisions, their fragmentation and the collapse of their country, may not seem qualified to advise anyone. But despite our lack of all the components of a state that protects its citizens or its sovereignty, we have a unique advantage that seems the only effective in stemming the adversities that lead some, from time to time, to impose their agenda of outside, in order to force them from within to attract us to violence or threaten it. And each time, only a return to the coexistence that unites the Lebanese, with all their components and sects, protects us. It is a daily practice that covers all aspects of life so that they can live in peace together. How to do?
We all know that when a Lebanese meets another Lebanese, he may not wear any signs indicating his religious affiliation, he starts by asking about the name, and if the name has no meaning in turn, he asks about the nickname, and also if it’s not indicative, it asks where you are from? Is your parent so-and-so?
Some may think that these questions are evidence of intolerance. But it’s not. This is proof that your interlocutor wants to know your religious identity so as not to “deceive” in front of you by mentioning what offends your belief and offends you. It is a kind of self-censorship aimed at moderation. Coexistence is meant to avoid offending or insulting the other. We developed it hundreds of years ago.
We live together and celebrate together on religious and social occasions and holidays, and we observe our holiness. Places of worship are open to everyone. It is not love that is required, but rather mutual respect and acceptance of the different other as he is. In Switzerland too, the Germans and the French do not like them, but they coexist peacefully in a spirit of citizenship and equality, and they trust the laws and those who apply them.
In the absence of true citizenship in Lebanon, the Lebanese individual, alone, practices his coexistence with others, in peace and war, since the founding of Greater Lebanon. Perhaps the French should learn from our experience, in the politeness and respect for the beliefs and holiness of the other. But that supposes the acceptance of its right to exist by its difference.
In passing, the publisher Arnaud Mansouri mentions that freedom of expression is a fundamental right in France, but insult and defamation are a crime. Why the desperation in defense of indecency and insults?
Source link
