fbpx
 
 

 

How Zemmour is right about Islam(ism)



Hamid Zanaz (*)

I love my parents too much, who gave me a fantastic name, to defend Zemmour’s ban on non-Catholic names. But, if the truth is on his side, on certain issues, I will not hesitate to point it out.
Anyway, one can disagree with him on many political, historical, sociological and philosophical issues… But to say that he knows neither Islam nor Islamism, nor the tumultuous relationship between the two is a joke that nobody laughs at today, except for the ignorant of the Islamic thing and the thurifers of all sides

Dissociating Islam from its “ism” has become a French national sport. According to the dominant doxa, the problem is not Islam, but only Islamic extremists! Fortunately, facts are always ahead of the political culture that the Islamo-leftists, the decolonialists, the “wokists” want to impose on us: the quiet serenity of cows watching trains go by.

Islamic fundamentalism could not have seduced so many Muslims in the West so quickly if it did not have a certain familiarity with the background of Islam. Yet the manipulators, the naive and above all the ignorant keep repeating that fundamentalism is one thing, Islam another. To mention the simple connection between this religion and its fundamentalism is labelled today as a racist aggression against Muslims. Islamophobia, according to the favourite expression of the “wokist” army hidden in the majority of editorial offices, especially those subsidised by French taxpayers’ money.

Islamism, in all its components, is the new fascism that threatens civilisation and world security. Instead of shouting at Zemmour, the only legitimate question that French intellectuals and politicians should be asking today, if they want to be honest with themselves, is this: “What should we do to give our society back its peaceful secularism, to recover the lost territories of French culture?”

Much has been written about Islam in France, but few books have posed its real problem, i.e. its relationship with its extremism. This intrinsic relationship is the great unthought before which the elite of this country hides its face. What are the reasons for this? In my opinion, they are of two kinds: born Muslims or ethnic Muslims, believers or not, do not dare to confront the community, because the community is very attached (formally) as a whole to the Islamic religion. They are therefore afraid of betraying something rooted in them. As for the Westerners, out of caution or fear of being accused of racism, neo-colonialism or Islamophobia, they remain silent or acquiesce. Academics, writers, journalists and essayists, whether born Muslim or not, prefer their career plans to the truth and its consequences. They also fear Islamophobia lawsuits, because it is easy to legally disguise criticism of Islam as hatred against Muslims. Just look at the number of complaints against Eric Zemmour. The Islamists are determined to turn any criticism of Islam into an attack on Muslims. As if criticizing Nazism was criticizing the Germans!

Islamism is not the product of poverty. Its deep roots are not socio-economic, even if many specialists, out of an excess of optimism, assure us that fundamentalism does not exist and that there are only social problems. As a result, Islamist motivations are quickly reduced to peripheral causes such as misery, humiliation, frustration and other subterfuges… However, even if everything were fine, fundamentalism would still exist, because it is generated by an illusion and not by any kind of despair.

It is not a mere deviation from the Islamic religion, as some commentators like to repeat, it is its heart. Fundamentalism is a scourge, and to persist in seeing it as a simple curable disease of Islam is to make what is not really sick. Before being a political programme, fundamentalism is a state of mind whose effect is felt in everyday life in any Muslim-majority territory.

According to the majority of Muslims, Sharia law remains valid ad vitam æternam, all the time and everywhere, regardless of time and circumstances. This is underlined by the famous trinity of the three Ds: Dine, Dounia, Dawla (Religion, Life, State). In this sense, Islam is, according to all its followers (and not only those of them who are Islamists), a politics, a morality and a legislature.

The liberal environment assaults the majority of Muslims. And they fight back in various ways. Since they cannot change their religion, they try to change the environment, to adapt the world to their religion, refusing to be polluted by the charms of modern society, which is seen as perverse and materialistic, even if they benefit from it.

In this, Zemmour is right: Islam is not only a religion, but an ideological system that regulates behaviour. The Koran is the source of this system. To hope to obtain any separation between the clergy and the state, it would be necessary to go through a “de-Islamisation”. And that is where the problem lies! For Islam is a religion without a central authority. Who could, therefore, have the legitimacy to rework the Koranic text or reinterpret it to adapt it to the present world?

Tariq Ramadan, who is very much listened to by Muslims in France, summed up the whole problem of Islam in Europe: “I accept the laws of a country as long as its laws do not force me to do something against my religion”! This is how the famous “right to be different” is gradually being perverted into a “difference in rights” as soon as the circumstances become favourable.

With Islam, the collision between the ethnic self and the republican superego is inevitable. Between Islam and the Republic, it is not a friendly match, but an ontological conflict. The religious “we” always crushes the secular “I”.

In truth, in saying this, Zemmour is not discovering America: these questions have long been posed in books that have not found major publishing houses in France and are ignored by the media dominated by Islamo-leftist ideology. This noxious press deceives the secular vigilance of Westerners and confirms Muslims in their dogmatic slumber.

Freedom of expression is not only the power to say what you think, it is also accepting to have to put up with, or even be shocked by, what Zemmour or any other thinker critical of Islam says.

It is perhaps time that journalists and other politicians in France became aware that the challenges that Islam poses to our societies today can no longer be reduced to the oriental cakes generously offered by the Arab World Institute in Paris or to the warm and reassuring smiles of the rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris. And even less so to soft-soap, sprinkled with Taqqiya Muslim brothers, of the “Muslims of France”!