Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Sarkozy's Debate Targets Muslims

THE GUARDIAN: A week before the burqa ban, French Muslims find themselves accused of violating republican values

Claude Guéant, France's interior minister, was in typically conciliatory mood when he described the growing number of Muslims in his country as a "problem". Pointing to the fact that this community had grown from "very few" when the republic became a secular one in 1905, to 5-10 million today, Guéant highlighted the sight of many of them "praying in the street" as particularly undesirable. Guéant's government has chosen a period of unprecedented tension and volatility in the Arab world to launch a debate about the negative influence of Islam on French society. As his own pilots attack Libya with a ferocity so far not displayed by other coalition members, President Nicolas Sarkozy will settle down on Tuesday to watch the epic discussion unfold at a Paris hotel. Continue reading and comment » | Nabila Ramdani | Tuesday, April 05, 2011

My comment:

I have full sympathy for Sarkozy and for what he is trying to achieve. The man has courage indeed. That’s more than can be said for the wimps that govern us.

It must be remembered that France takes its secularism very seriously. They didn’t have a revolution for nothing! The revolution stood for liberté, egalité, and fraternité. Those three concepts are precisely what Islam does not stand for. Islam does not stand for liberty (unless one is talking about the liberty to worship Allah); Islam does not stand for equality (unless one is a member of the faith and referring to the equality of Muslim brothers and sisters); and Islam does not stand for farternity (unless one is talking of the fraternity of the ummah).

So it is very understandable that Sarkozy and his colleagues want to launch this debate on Islam, secularism, and la République. Were I to be he, I should wish to do the same; moreover, I wish that our politicians had the courage to stand up for what we believe in too. Alas, they are far too cowardly. – Mark


This comment also appears here