"The battle against the Islamic veil is only the beginning of open war against the fundamentalists, whose outcome will depend on our ability to disqualify them from public institutions, including school. If we lose this round, Islam will emerge stronger and more assertive. "
( My life against the Koran - A woman testifying against the Islamists , Djemila Benhabib, VLB éditeur, 2009, p. 78).
For the international press coverage devoted to Jihad and militant Islam, which will be published following this section in the coming weeks, we wanted to get out of the usual Manichean straitjacket of confrontation "Jihad vs. McWorld , which tends to dominate the debate on Islam in Western societies, and we also wanted to demonstrate that the problem posed by Islam, for Islam ideology, therefore, that whether or not violent in nature, not limited to an opposition, real or supposed, between two civilizations, but is in fact a universal problem.
So we wanted to make a tour of various topical civilizational fault lines on which Islam ideologically opposed, with violence or not, other beliefs and philosophies, whether Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or atheist. It is therefore, not to demonize Islam as a religion as personal belief, as individual spiritual journey as a mystic, but rather to highlight the universal threat posed by political manipulation and / or military of this religion for all free thinkers, atheists, believers, as well as for the followers of other religions and beliefs of this planet.
We will not deal, in our press review, the issue of intra-Muslim conflict, nor that of major international issues of the moment, Afghan, Pakistani, Iranian or Iraqi, or very briefly, about a Details of these situations which, in total, each worth more than a sacroiliac joint. We also refused to give us a body count of these conflicts, like an official press which seems to have raised these calculations to the level of morbid substitute for deep and permanent geopolitical analysis that should be the standard in the quality press, as was already the case, there are now more than twenty years, before the imposition the reign of the "politically correct" and info " people" and "proximity".
Islam is to Christianity, one of the two major religions proselytes of our universe. Admittedly, my retort is, but should nevertheless make many distinctions between Islam and Christianity. We doubt not, I reply, but we will not, however, we engage in this debate because this is not the purpose of this press release. Suffice it to note that it is necessary to distinguish religions proselytes, first, that Islam is by far the most active today, religions rooted , on the other hand, who do no (or little) the conversion, such as Judaism and Hinduism. In this very schematic picture of the universal religious landscape, Buddhism has a special place. Although a universal, just as Islam and Christianity, Buddhism does not practice aggressive proselytizing, from the standpoint of Buddhist doctrine, it would also make sense. We exclude these remarks obviously sectarian countless more or less marginal.
So now we have to specifically designate Islam as a religion of universal and therefore as a proselytizing religion, which seeks to convert and extend to non-Muslims, are we entitled to consider the Islam as a religion fundamentally expansionist? Of course. Islam, or if you prefer Islamism, that is to say, the ideological form of Islam today evidence of expansionism as Christianity once did - and still today in some form elsewhere - in colonial times, for example, where the process of evangelization of the heathen polytheists in Europe. This is an undeniable historical reality.
In every religion, it must nevertheless distinguish two fundamental aspects: the spiritual and philosophical dimension. And Islam is no exception. The first is a personal reflection on the place of human beings in the universe, about death, about life, about the why of existence, is located on a metaphysical plane and corresponds to a personal and self governed exclusively by the private sphere. The second, by cons, located clearly on a physical, material, and is not intended to approach the individual spiritual but political control, the temporal power, domination and enslavement of others, the global expansionism, the penetration of the public sphere, a priori open to all, by a single religious form presented as the sole holder of the Supreme Truth.
In Islam the term jihad in the West we associate now exclusively, but partly incorrectly to the concept of "holy war" to distinguish these two approaches, individually or expansionist religion. Originally, the word jihad actually means "effort" and even more accurately "self-effort." According to Muhammad himself, the true "warrior" who is fighting to book himself and his own through to an improvement in the way of God is al-Jihad al-Akbar , c that is to say the "Great War" introspective. But the fact remains that today, this approach is arduous jihad largely obscured by al-Jihad al -Asghar , war in the literal sense of the term, coupled with an avowed intention of proselytizing or unacknowledged, that is to say "holy war": it is obviously easier to feel good and claim to be superior in condemning and trying to enslave others than to engage in a profound criticism of his innermost being. It goes without saying that in the context of this press release, we use the term jihad and "Jihadism" in their acceptance militaristic, political and petty, and not that of an inner spiritual journey worthwhile. (Info.it: Dictionary of Muslim symbols , Malek Chebel, Albin Michel, 1995 140).
The West makes the mistake of wanting to distinguish a "moderate Islam" of a "radical Islam", when it should distinguish Islam spiritual oriented strictly personal and introspective, that of al-Jihad al -Akbar, an Islamic ideological proselytizing and dominating that of al-Jihad al -Asghar , serving the public, political, social and temporal too. It may seem "moderate" and work actively towards a company wholly governed by Islamic law, just as one can be "radical" in practice, for example, severe asceticism strictly individual and based on the precepts of the Koran. The term "Islamism" should not be used to refer to "radical Islam", a term vague and imprecise, but ideological Islam in all its forms, even apparently moderate, which, encroaching on the area of public sphere is, in the context of the separation of temporal and spiritual powers, obviously not compatible with the Western tradition.
In this regard, I would also like to indulge in a small digression. Recently, during an evening, we were a few to mention the risk of drift towards totalitarianism may come from any political power and any ideology. I said that democracy did not escape the danger of this kind of drift and we could even see in "group think" in the "politically correct", the premise of a certain totalitarian drift. It replied that it could be because in our democracies nothing could be compared to the violence that characterized the totalitarian communist and Nazi, for example. This confuses the means and purpose. What characterizes totalitarianism is not violence, it is only a means and not an end in itself, but the will to control minds. The totalitarian regime who successfully win without violence would be no less totalitarian. And we must remember that in our fight against Islamism, What characterizes it is not the physical or verbal abuse but his desire to win without sharing, including the appearance of moderation and dialogue.
After making an initial distinction between religions proselytes and religions rooted , and after distinguishing what in religion, and in this case in the Islamic religion is the spiritual approach individual Islamic and what is temporal Islamist proselytizing, we now face several different forms of Islam ideology. In terms of Islam caliphates , it means the willingness of Islamist universal expansion and, specifically, the Islamist project of establishing a "universal caliphate." By the terms of jihadist Islam we designate the excesses of militarism and Islamic terrorists. In terms of political Islam denotes, of course, actions Islamists to seize political power, which is not compatible, we repeat, with the Western rule of separation of temporal and spiritual powers . By the terms of the militant Islam means the Islamist desire to encroach on the public sphere, not only from a political standpoint, but also by using economic, financial, social, associative, culture.
So it's not for us to call the crusade against Islam as a spiritual choice freely made - and we insist on these terms which obviously excludes any form of arbitrary imposition of a religious individual, man or woman, living on the floor of West, and that whatever its origin - and as individual religious approach, but to reject and fight Islamism as a political ideology proselyte.
In this regard, note that the Islamists have succeeded in subtly, by now common terms of "Islamophobic" and "Islamophobia," to create confusion between the notions of xenophobia anti-Muslim - we can not talk about "racism" in the case of a religious affiliation - and criticism of Islam as a political ideology: while rejecting Islam as ideological and religious truth would be an undeniable "Islamophobic" who hates all Muslims. This shotgun approach is also widely propagated by certain political and social circles, particularly rooted to the left of the political spectrum and demonstrating high level of a foolish candor "islamolâtre," it does nothing for a better understanding of Islamic spirituality, but by doing cons clear the bed of Islamic proselytizing. Must specify in their policy choices, these people, throughout history, have never ceased to be wrong?
From the point of view of the right to freedom of expression prevalent in the West, any religion, especially when it argued in an illegitimate way to a social and political role, is obviously open to criticism. It is therefore not to stigmatize or condemn those who wish to criticize Islam, much less to accept that they are. Clearly, what is said, written and drawn about, for example, the Catholic Church must also be said, written and drawn about Islam. If this bothers some freedom of speech, faith, we strongly advise them to go in search of heaven to them warmer. If anti-Muslim xenophobia, that is to say the release of a person solely because of his religious affiliation - dare I say, to designate use of the neologism "muslimophobie? - Is obviously wrong, anti-Islamism, it is to say, the ideological rejection of Islam, is perfectly legitimate in a democratic context. The concept of "Islamophobia" which establishes a dangerous confusion between these two concepts must itself by cons, be absolutely abandoned.
We are not fighting the Muslim peoples, or the Islamic spiritual journey, but a political ideology, Islamism, absolutely incompatible with Western notions of separation of temporal and spiritual powers, and with freedom of expression dearly acquired during struggles through the centuries, other cons obscurantism. And it goes without saying that we are in solidarity with other peoples, other cultures, other civilizations and Muslims themselves, as well as Muslims who have made the choice to turn away from Islam, engaged in that battle. That is what we are trying to express in this press release.
Eric Timmermans
An information relaying, a forthcoming paper to publish exclusively on Criticus? Feel free to send me news and forums at the following address: criticusleblog@gmail.com .
To support Criticus:
Your donations will be fully spent on Criticus of advertising space on Google AdWords and Facebook. I promise.
0 comments:
Post a Comment