Initially written in response to “Sheikh” Imran Hussein's call on French Muslims to “emigrate” following the Charlie Hebdoattack
Retranslated from French by Jenny Bright from TlaxcalaSections : Introduction
Muslims in France: oppressed and persecuted?
Is France “our” country?
“Over there”, shall we be “at home” and safe?
Which countries are really “Muslim”?
Emigration in the time of the Prophet (saas)
A “strategic retreat”?
Islam and the clash of civilizations
Russia vs the Empire
What is Islamic eschatology?
Is France becoming totalitarian?
The place of Muslims in France
The teachings of Islam
Conclusion
This open letter is the response of a French Muslim to the call for emigration launched by “Sheikh” Imran Hussein to the Muslims of France following the attack against Charlie Hebdo. A first version of this letter was sent to him privately on January 25th, and has not received any significant response – except for a condescending evasion and a referral to a new, yet more thunderous call of furious madness, which has fortunately not been relayed (it is quoted at the end of this letter). It is now published as an open letter, in an enriched and structured version meant for easier reading and understanding, but it retains the same content as the letter that was addressed to Imran Hussein via email. It is not so much to get a response from him that we publish this letter – because he is clearly not open to dialogue but engaged in mere fanatical and frantic preaching – but for the benefit of French and international audiences.
Imran Hussein is sometimes presented as an Islamic scholar specialising in “eschatology” and keeping an enlightened eye on international news, analysing it in the light of theological sources. Without challenging the interest of some of his analyses, it can be asserted that anybody with even a little Islamic knowledge can say with certainty that the legitimacy, authority and seriousness of his exegetical and theological works are null and that his analyses contradict many of the fundamental teachings of Islam. This open letter is a first draft, a first step in an effort to demonstrate it to all those who are not convinced of this by merely listening to his ramblings. It will be followed by other writings more targeted and synthetic and by the translation of a recent religious discourse by Sayed Hassan Nasrallah devoted to authentic Islamic eschatology in its relation to international news and to the end of times. In this speech, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah criticised in particular, relying on evidence which all schools of Islam and any rational person are unanimous on, the dangers represented by preachers who claim to know the future, which Imran Hussein is a perfect example of (Arabic speakers can see it right nowhere and here).
This call to hijra or “emigration”, launched at the French Muslims because of their situation in France and that current events may foreshadow according to him, is absolutely senseless, outrageous and irresponsible and frankly grotesque – and that is obvious, whether one bases himself on rational, moral or religious criteria – to the point that such an individual should not even receive the slightest consideration, let alone motivate a long response effort which will necessarily consist of a tedious rosary of truisms. But the French context being what it is – with the daily political and media stigmatization of Muslims, with prominent extreme right voices promoting their forced “remigration” –, Imran Hussein being regarded by some as an authority, and his first call having unfortunately been echoed by several alternative news sites without the required warnings and caveats (due to lightness, carelessness or ignorance, or, as it has sometimes been feared, in a brown- navy blue political agenda), which allowed him to exceed 200 000 views (all sources combined), without having provoked a formal and public response to our knowledge, this endeavour may not be useless.
In conclusion, I stress the fact that I do not pretend to speak on the behalf of all the Muslims of France: I myself have suffered too much from hearing voices lacking any legitimacy (self-appointed or nominated from above and / or from outside our community for purposes of control, infantilization and even humiliation) speaking on my behalf utter nonsense and even infamy. I do not claim that all of the French Muslim community adheres to the substance and form of all the points made below, but I am convinced that my analysis conforms much more to common sense, to moral and positive law, to the laws of God, to the reality of the situation in France and in the world and to the feeling of the vast majority of French Muslims than are the bogus rantings of Imran Hussein.
Introduction
Greetings of Peace (As-salamu 'alaykoum)
I wanted to express my deepest indignation about your video calling on French Muslims – especially those with foreign roots – to migrate towards “their” country, and to ask you to clarify the background of your thinking and provide valid evidence and arguments to support your views. As a Muslim, French-Algerian (born and having lived in France, and with dual nationality), as a man of principles, committed to morality and the law, and with the Grace of God, as a person gifted with reason and discernment, I cannot but be deeply shocked by just about everything you say. With all due respect to an elder, whose benevolence can be postulated, and if I am allowed to speak my mind, I consider your exhortations contrary to common sense, ethics and fairness and opposite to the fundamental teachings of the Holy Quran and our Prophet Muhammad (saas) as I understand them. And what is more, irresponsible in this context.
I will do my best to justify my point of view in the most clear, the strongest and most respectful manner, hoping that I can elicit a reasoned response to my objections.
Muslims in France: oppressed and persecuted?
You began by describing life in France for Muslims as impossible. According to you, the situation is such that we have now only one alternative: either we repudiate our identity, keep our heads down and lose our dignity, or we leave, emigrate.
I do not agree with your analysis of the situation. Indeed, there is clearly a political and media offensive against Islam and Muslims – and this throughout the whole West, however, not just in France: the first time I heard these insane exhortations to Emigration was from a Salafi Imam (Palestinian moreover) from Miami in 2008, during the presidential elections, about what John McCain said about Obama. And before that, Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X had advocated it among US blacks, but fortunately, the great Malcolm X radically changed his perspective when he gained access to true Islam and its universal message – but you apparently want us to regress a century. Certainly, we are despised, degraded, trampled, etc., it is the truth, but it happens especially in the media, in politics, etc., so in other spheres than the everyday. In day-to-day life, the difficulties are not so great. We live in real life, not on TV, and anyway, many are deserting the mainstream media in favour of the Internet: the example of the success of Dieudonné is sufficient to show that millions of people – not only Muslims, far from it – could not care less for the political and media propaganda. Of course, we sometimes experience what one might clearly call prejudice, racism, Islamophobia in our daily lives, and perhaps even more so when we have a ‘higher’ social position, these attacks become more vivid and palpable – but then again we are better equipped to defend ourselves. But the ignorant, the sheep and the spiteful are not of an aggressive temper and easily calmed when they dare to exceed the limits, especially since the character and the “native” culture of the Arab-Muslims is far from having dissipated, and we are generally proud people, sensitive to honour and dignity, and therefore not willing to let people trample on us – in the authentic tradition, updated, of French panache.
Thus, contrary to what you claim, our beard is not a problem anymore than the veil of our sisters, wives and daughters, at least no problem that we cannot overcome – because the secularist opprobrium towards the veil, unique in the world, that we are subjected to in France, is actually a real problem, but failing to lift it (which can be done), we have already been able to overcome this obstacle which does not constitute a major impediment. It is not as if we were a marginal minority: we are millions, and we are a visible community, sometimes dominant in certain geographical areas and neighbourhoods, and coexisting with millions of non-Muslims who have nothing against us, on the contrary. It is not as if we could not live as we wish to, we can absolutely do that. For the record, even in higher education, it has happened several times that overzealous University Teachers be punished by their superiors – even booed by their students – for making derogatory remarks about veiled women. One can see veiled women even in the biggest schools in Paris, from Henri IV to the Ecole Normale Supérieure. And you may even be surprised to know that some time ago, when I was there myself, there was a French teacher of Arabic origin at Paris IV Sorbonne University (a highly symbolic place) who wore the veil in her very classes, for at least an entire school year, and I am not aware of the fact that she was worried, though, of course, many teeth must have ground.
We still can and do raise our heads, and keep our beliefs and principles while leading a normal, healthy, fulfilling life, and with access, more and more, to all honourable spheres of social and professional life (because we do not lament to see ourselves prohibited access to certain doors that those who are attached to their convictions and dignity do not aspire to cross). Our mosques are full on Friday and even too full, new mosques flourishing all over France, in the most remote places. Are these signs of a dying, choked, threatened religious life? Certainly not, on the contrary. Yes, we Muslims in France do feel that we are attacked, but we are not powerless as you claim, we do not feel or weak or vulnerable neither disoriented nor lost and even less beset by discouragement or despair. We go on and we remain firmly committed to our principles, and if need be, we will go even further in asserting our identity and claims, with the strict respect for others that our religion requires, so as to be fully accepted wherever we wish, and not be subjected to any form of discrimination. Thanks to the education that our parents gave us and education that we received during our schooling and our studies, and that we have acquired ourselves, thanks to all the opportunities available to us here in France, we have become more aware and more educated than our parents, more learned and more active including in our religion itself (as shown by the very widespread hijab),we have accessed higher functions and positions, and we are increasingly active in our society. Moreover, in all likelihood, God willing, our children will go further still, never denying or forgetting that our principles and traditions are essential and inseparable from our identity.
That was about your analysis of the situation.
Is France “our” country?
You assert that France is not our country. Although we were born here, we were raised here, we have built all our lives here and we feel at home, etc., you deny us the right to say that we are here at home, that France is indeed “our” country. I really do not understand how anyone can legitimately declare such things with such self-assurance. How can we address millions of people and throw at each of them: “The land on which you were born, where you grew up and lived and that you inherited from your father, this house you've built and in which you live with your family, where your children were born and where they grow up, this city and this country you love, your neighbours, everything to which you are attached by both material and immaterial links, all this is not yours. You are not at home. Do you want to know where your true home is? It is a place with which you perhaps have no affiliation with, a place where you might never have been, which you perhaps do not even speak the language, for which you may not even feel a thing, but it's your one and only home, so go back there now.” What is this nonsense? Are we Zionist settlers, or descendants of settlers, to deserve such outrages? What authority, what basis could legitimately afford to make such radical verdicts? These are issues of a legal, moral and factual basis, which cannot be determined by any person or body other than those directly concerned, and in a very strict framework, except by abuse and violation of the most fundamental rights – such as Zionists did in 1948 when they expelled the Arabs by force of arms, claiming that they were not at home and showing off their 2000 years old falsified title deed.
I precise that I do not specifically express myself for my own case. It happens that I feel quite at home in Algeria, and also I have lived in several Arab countries for some time, and even in other countries where I could enjoy a great material comfort (much more than in France) and where I felt quite at home. Along with French, I master English, Arabic and other languages, and I can feel totally at ease in many places. And I can even admit that several years ago, I actually felt that my place was not in France but elsewhere, in an Arab and Muslim country, and that is why I have travelled and tried to settle here or there, but it never lasted more than a year. Each time a compelling reason brought me back to France, as if Allah kept repeating incessantly: “Stop trying to escape your responsibilities, your place is in France, your duty is in France”. In addition, like Victor Hugo, I discovered abroad how attached I was to my country. But I precise that I in no way consider such personal feelings and experiences as universal arguments admissible per se, and I only put them forward to give more weight to my argument and show that contrary to what you claim, that it is certainly not necessarily a need of a material nature that keeps us in France but considerations of a higher order: this is where we need to be, and we cannot be “home” anywhere else.
“Over there”, shall we be “at home” and safe?
I really cannot understand how you can crush the infinity of particular cases and condense them into a single proclamation: “All of you, millions of existences, go home – that is, the home of your ancestors which, as I have decreed, is your home.” What of those who have no connection with their “home”? What if there is no specific location, or if there are several, in different countries, how to choose between them - not to mention the French natives converted to Islam? How to leave, where to go? Where to live? And if we could not find a place, if we could not “integrate” ourselves, adapt to very different lifestyles? What if we do not find welcome, nor housing, nor work, nor assistance, nor welfare, whether material, moral or spiritual? And it is indeed very likely that we will not even be able to feed our families because we are talking about Third World countries where unemployment is considerable, there is glaring poverty, and problems difficult to overcome even for the locals, who are better equipped to do this and who are struggling to live properly. Moreover, they often receive assistance from their families across the Mediterranean – and they would be deprived of this if we joined them. And they certainly would consider us, and with far more legitimacy than the French extreme right can do, as foreign invaders come to eat their bread that was not even enough to feed them.
What to say indeed of the very country where we should in your opinion go, the society that we will find, as if millions of people with a very different mindset and habits could be welcomed like this, without clashes, especially in our fragile countries that would only be more destabilized by these human tidal waves? Do you not see that this fanciful fantasy (for thank God, you are promoting something absolutely senseless and impossible) is a recipe for generating chaos and destruction, both individually, with the millions of lives that you want to uproot and crush, and at national and societal levels? What you advocate completely contradicts morality, justice, reason and religion. To order in such a way, indiscriminately, millions of people to give up their lives, their homes and migrate into the unknown when they could just stay where they are and continue to live as they please and even improve their lives and those of their fellow citizens (and I speak of course of all the conditions of an authentic life, from the material to the spiritual), is simply absurd. Even more, since when we are at home, it is easier to defend ourselves when faced with adversity, because we are on familiar ground: we know our society, its customs, its laws, we have our dear ones, a community, etc., so many landmarks that greatly facilitate existence and the struggle. What about all the unknown problems we will inevitably face in “our” new country, with all the disadvantages of a newcomer, alone, inexperienced and helpless? Is it not precisely for this reason that our religion enjoins us particularly to express kindness and charity towards travellers and foreigners, because they are among the more helpless?
It is not an acceptable argument to say that because at such a place, we find such and such a problem, then we should flee, migrate, because situations change, from security to insecurity and vice versa, from tolerance to intolerance and vice versa (cf. Syria, Libya, etc.), from irreligion to faith and vice versa (Communist USSR to Orthodox Russia, Iran of the Shah to the Islamic Republic, etc.). Someone who would have fled from Algeria in 1990 for Libya would today do the opposite. So are we supposed, we Muslims, to become like the Bedouins of old and live like nomads moving from one place to another, fleeing the problems as they arise, or live in isolation as you recommend, withdrawing into the bush like hermits or Mormons? Are these the teachings of Islam? Flee the company of your peers and live alone in the woods like savages? Live only with Muslims, and if you were born in the wrong place (or if the situation has changed, which cannot fail to happen eventually wherever you go), pack your bags and leave the place? Move each time a problem occurs, instead of courageously confronting and resolving it? Flee from the battlefield, as if there was only one place on the face of the Earth where the descendants of Adam will not be tested in their lives and in their faith? God created us precisely for this, to test our faith and endurance. And the whole earth belongs to Him, and has been created and populated for this purpose. Even in Syria and Iraq, where men are cut into pieces by the greatest danger ever known by Islam to date, namely the terror of the Islamic State, and have the option (when they have it) between converting to a barbaric ritual that has nothing to do with Islam or be slaughtered and see their wives and their children taken captives, all we could say is that emigration is authorised, and certainly not that it is obligatory. And those who remain to fight should be encouraged and praised, even if those fleeing for their lives in front of a real, concrete and not far away and fantasized danger need not be condemned. As for saying that the analogy is not valid because Iraq, unlike France, is a land of Islam (if we consider that a Land of Islam is an Land inhabited by Muslims, which is not a sufficient condition to me), I would respond that the whole earth belongs to Allah, and He has promised its entire inheritance to the righteous and pious of His servants before the End Times. And certainly not by sudden invasions and conquests as Bush claimed to “spread” democracy, but with the coming of the Mahdi and Messiah (as) who will unify the ranks of all people of goodwill who are beginning to join forces and to meet on the local, national and international level .
Which countries are really “Muslim”?
As for the faith itself, are all predominantly Muslim countries really Muslim? Is Islam, in its authenticity, occupying an important place there, from the political to the social spheres? Are there not roads to ruin there, as dangerous as here (or worse, because we are not prepared for them)? And ways of salvation just as safe in France or safer yet, because I have seen many “Western” people more pious and more knowledgeable in Islam than many people among their “Eastern” brothers, who are more exposed to ignorance, obscurantism and blindness – thank God, Muslims of the Islamic State are only marginally Western? In some “Muslim” countries, it is dangerous to belong to some schools of Islam and even to utter any word of truth. In Saudi Arabia, for example, where one can easily be arrested, imprisoned, tortured and maimed for little, or in places where the Salafi and Wahhabi ideologies are very much alive like in Algeria, one may be exposed to rigorism and even to fanaticism, which are totally alien to Islam. Not to mention Libya, Syria or Iraq, where you simply risk having your throat slit, or what is happening in
Bahrain . Our religion, I think, is certainly not the mere formalism and set of external rituals advocated by the “Salafi” and other legalistic literalists who limit themselves to the bark and deny the sap, but above all a system of values that must be embodied in everyday life, and that gives a fundamental place to justice, law, tolerance, knowledge and resistance to oppression. Have you forgotten the famous words of Muhammad Abduh (“I went to the West and saw Islam, but no Muslims; I got back to the East and saw Muslims, but not Islam.”) and its teachings? In this regard, the least we can say is that designating the political regimes and societies that are closest to authentic Islam is not straightforward, and in many ways ranging from social to political, I consider that France would win not only over Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, but even over countries like Egypt.
Our home is here, our livelihoods are here, our rights and our duties are here, it is here that we belong and can have a role to play, a message to transmit. God made us grow up here and gave us the tools to act in this context, in this society, our knowledge and capabilities have been developed in this specific context. If we leave, all will lose much of its value, and may even be a handicap in the new context we would find ourselves in. While we have the ability to do many things here, if we leave, we will become unable to do much, either for ourselves and for our narrow or wider community, for France or for the destination country.
Emigration in the time of the Prophet (saas)
You admonish us to emigrate, presenting this to us as a mandatory sunnah of the Prophet (saas), and reminding us that even living in the West, we are bound to follow it, clearly implying that not doing so would be a disobedience on our part, a denial of the tenets of our Prophet (saas). But again, I believe that the alternative you present categorically is false and abusive, both from the point of view of the facts and from the standpoint of the practices, teachings and injunctions of the Prophet (saas) as they are recognised by all Muslims.
It is true that the Prophet Muhammad (saas) initially suggested to (and certainly not ordered) a small group of persecuted followers to make hijra to Abyssinia, to preserve their faith and even their lives, which were directly threatened by the Quraysh of Mecca against who they had no means to defend themselves. They were indeed among the most vulnerable social groups, not only suffering bullying and abuse, but even torture that could lead to death, as in the famous example of 'Ammar b.Yasir and his parents. But the Prophet (saas) only raised the suggestion five years after the proclamation of Islam, so after five years of terrible persecution incomparable with what we can see or imagine in France (in the near or distant future), and only for a very small group (less than 20 people who were followed the next year by about 80, making a hundred in total), the majority of Muslims having remained in Mecca with the Prophet (saas).Moreover, he did not send them to adventure into the unknown, but to Negus of Ethiopia, a generous and just Christian whom he had full confidence in and knew that he would welcome the emigrants well – and who would become a valuable ally of the Muslims. Therefore, there is absolutely no possible analogy between the emigration to Abyssinia and what you invite us to.
Similarly for the main migration to Medina which marks the beginning of the Islamic calendar, which took place 13 years after the beginning of the proclamation of Islam, that is 13 years of unspeakable suffering for Muslims – ostracism, economic blockade leading to famine, torture, murder, etc. Yet never was an order to “escape” given, nor even recommended. At most, it was permissible or even suggested to some particularly vulnerable and minority groups. It is only when a delegation from Medina pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saas) and Islam was implanted there, after the second oath of allegiance at Aqaba, that he began to suggest to Muslims to go there in small groups, not so much for their own protection as for the edification of the first Muslim society that was obviously a necessity in these times when Islam was extremely fragile. And it is only when the Quraysh decided to collectively attempt on the life of the Prophet (saas) that he himself emigrated, and that most Muslims found themselves in Medina with him.
The Prophet (saas) had a direct revelation from God, and therefore spoke and recommended with certainty and not on the mere basis of predictions due to analyses that may well not have the authority and the necessary soundness and could be completely refuted and contradicted – not to say that they are completely extravagant. Secondly and more importantly, he had the responsibility to safeguard Islam, which was threatened with extinction, by founding a safe home where Islam and Muslims could live in peace, security, and build a true community – which they could not do anywhere on the face of the Earth back then.
Thus, whether towards Abyssinia or Medina, emigration was only for a limited time, it was at the suggestion of the Messenger of Allah (saas) who received divine revelation, and above all, it was never an obligation, even if under these conditions, it was natural that the place of new converts to Islam was to be at the sides of their Prophet (saas) in an authentic Islam haven which needed to be constructed from the foundations. The Prophet (saas) was infallibly told by God what was coming and so had the authority to direct, but despite this, he only suggested and invited and certainly did not order, and he never uttered the slightest word of contempt or condemnation about Muslims who, for various reasons, remained in Mecca (and have also contributed, at their level, to the advent of Islam). And he did not invite Muslims to leave security for danger and the unknown (or deprivation and / or death insured) as you do with the Muslims of France, but to flee a danger to greater security – If indeed they felt in danger – and to join him with a solid guarantee of security and prosperity, that of God and His Prophet (saas), to work towards the building of the first Muslim society in history. The Prophet (saas) had guarantee of a safe refuge in Medina, and had made all the arrangements, during more than one year, to ensure that Muslims would be welcomed, they would be installed with dignity and a livelihood provided for them, and yet God had made emigration mandatory only for him because spreading the message of Islam was his responsibility. The Prophet (saas) was extremely concerned with the material and psychological well-being of people, and he never allowed himself to launch such a messy appeal of “every man for himself” that could destabilise and frighten the Muslims, who were limited in number, so what about your current appeal to millions of people, that wants to have the sounding of the horns of the Last Judgment? Where could they find such a refuge? For what purpose, what would be their mission today? Regardless of the angle at which we consider it, your call appears to me to be utter nonsense.
Emigration is not an impromptu and thoughtless departure towards adventure and danger. On the contrary, it is a carefully thought out project prepared by each individual, in conditions that are not ours, at least not in the overall way you are promoting, and which would require a situation in which a direct and concrete danger weigh on our lives and our faith – not to say the sustainability of the Muslim faith itself – and the existence of a safe place to hide. You suggest that we would have a duty to leave on pain of contravening the injunctions of our religion, when in fact it is rather the emigration that you prescribe which would be the true disobedience. Not to mention the fact that an innocent does not flee because he is in the right, and he will not give in to his enemies or give them what they illegitimately desire without resistance. Only the guilty and cowards flee danger – and only fools flee without reason.
A “strategic retreat”?
You say quite rightly that the emigration of Muhammad (saas) was by no means an act of cowardice, and you remind that we, the followers of Muhammad (saas), do not submit to oppression, are not cowards and do not run away from adversities or battlefields, whatsoever. And that is why you strive to present this sudden and massive emigration not as a new exodus (this time for Ishmael’s children), but as a necessary measure facing an extremely powerful enemy decided on eradicating us. You claim that if, God forbid, we listened to you and emigrated, it would not be a cowardly and disgraceful flight from the battlefield, an abdication in the face of adversity, that our principles do not allow us, but simply a kind of “strategic retreat” before coming back stronger and victorious. With all the respect I owe you, this analysis seems to me absurd and shocking.
Thus, the fact of emigrating to abandon our home, our work, our friends, our whole life, to flee the scene not faced with a known and present hazard, as the Islamic state in Syria or Iraq, but faced with a confused and distant danger, would not be a stupid and ignominious flight but a sensible and courageous act? For whatever the danger, which is real, no doubt, but infinitely smaller and less imminent than what you say, why not wait for it? Why not stay here and try to prevent it, then to confront it if it has to materialize anyway? Why not even consider struggling, resisting, fighting? Are we sheep, or calves? No, we are not cowards nor fools, and regardless of the dangers that arise, we will face them and we will defend ourselves with all our strength. Our parents and grandparents have left their country to come here and settle here, they earned their life the hard way and endured many difficulties in order to offer us an honourable situation, they worked on the reconstruction of France and built our houses, and we should give it all up, give all their efforts up as vain, flee away and start again from naught simply because of the vague rumbling of thunder afar? We should rush into the unknown where so many difficulties lie ahead, predictable and concealed, against which we would be completely helpless? While whatever happens in France, we know very well the ground from having been born there, having lived and help shape it, so that it will be much easier to stand here and preserve our principles and dignity, regardless of the danger? Is it not an oppression, and even an absurdity to impose this flight on us? And God knows we are not weak, or alone, or poor and that coexistence is far from being impossible as you suggest. We are not only strong, but we will be alongside the hundreds of thousands of French non-Muslims who are attached to the law, have no prejudices, and understand the pernicious logic of the clash of civilizations that people have attempted to impose in France to distract it from the real issues (political, economic and social), and to which it has everything to lose.
Moreover, what would we actually do, in Algeria and elsewhere, for all these years? Because it is about returning stronger, but how? How to properly prepare for the “fight against the oppressor”? When and how should we return? How long will our exile last? Will redemption be for us, for our children, their great-grandchildren? What to do? It is unacceptable to be so allusive faced with such important questions, which should, to listen to you, turn entire lives upside down. Are you suggesting that we return, for example, to Algeria for a decade, to follow some proper training for a few years in order to be able to come back and “invade” France and submit the oppressor of yesteryear? Is it realistic, reasonable, or is it not rather an absurd fantasy? And why the military presentation of the situation, as if there was a war between Islam and France, and that our role was to remake the Crusades? Our religion, well before the great Robespierre , formally prohibited any war of aggression or conquest (“And if thy Lord had willed, all the men populating the Earth would have, without exception, embraced his faith. Is it up to you then to force men to become believers?”- Quran, X, 99; “No compulsion in religion” - Quran, II, 252), and no examples of offensive war can be found in the Sunnah of the Prophet (saas). If we had been subjected to the torture, murder, blockades and expropriations that Muslims of Mecca suffered, it could have been legitimate to take our due by force, but if we decide to part on our own and leave spontaneously, what will be our grievance? What will be our justification? Our religion forbids us to be both oppressor and oppressed, but you have obviously decided that we are going to break every interdiction.
Anyone who voluntarily abandons his situation, his rights and his property without a formidable danger, real and present having constrained him, will have no legitimacy to claim them, neither in this world nor in the other. If we leave France to settle elsewhere, be it for a few years or decades, France will no longer our country and our demands will not be legitimate because what is much more easily conceivable in a future not too distant is a tightening of the rules on nationality: questioning the birth right (jus soli), the automatic transmission of nationality to children, imposing a necessary presence in France x months each year, etc. Listening to you, we would then put ourselves in the same situation of the Palestinians who left their homes in 1948, fleeing war for a very short time, they thought, but who never returned and were dispossessed of everything, finding themselves, to date, refugees all over the world. Do you want us to become the stateless of tomorrow? New wandering Jews? By our own fault, without being subjected by force and without making the slightest show of resistance, while the troops of the Pharaohs of today are not after us, or even constituted – at least at the national level? It's truly insane.
Islam and the clash of civilizations
It seems irresponsible, especially in this context, to give credit to the theory of the “clash of civilizations” advocated and shaped entirely by the US imperialists, Zionists, and racists and extremists on all sides. You give an “Islamic” caution to these hateful and incendiary speeches, challenged by our religion, according to which the coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims, between French “by extension” and “indigenous” French would not be possible. Now, thanks to you, these racists can invoke the guarantee of a “Muslim authority”, calling precisely for what they call, that is to say “remigration” involving deprivation of citizenship and deportation, voluntary or forced. They argue loudly that Islam has no place in France, and that Muslims cannot live together in peace with the rest of the French. And you add your voice to theirs, while our religion does not advocate segregation and antagonism but peace, coexistence, harmony, understanding and tolerance, and, of course, dignity and self-defence – because like Malcolm X, we do not turn the other cheek and are able to defend ourselves by all means necessary. I regret to tell you, but you are, whether you realise it or not, the perfect recruit for Islamophobic , anti-Arab and anti-immigration ‘identitarians’, and they chant your praises all day long in their discussion forums. You are a blessing to them, and you come right on cue, allowing them to be even bolder in their attacks against Islam and Muslims and their rejection of a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural France.
A war is declared not against Islam as such, but, in general, against all authentic beliefs, traditions, values and freedoms, against all that can cause individuals, communities and nations to be strong and awake, to unite and shake off the yoke of oppression. The barbaric and obscurantist Islam of Saudi Arabia is not an enemy of the West, on the contrary, it is its main ally, as it only teaches ignorance and submission. Muslims should not worry just about being Muslims, but only in proportion to their degree of awakening, resistance and activism, like any other citizen, although today, Islam is actually presented as a prime target because of its values and its ability for cohesion. This offensive is currently taking place globally, and France could become a front line in this political, ideological and cultural war – and sometimes military. And as the US and Israel are its International spearhead, as well as rags like Charlie Hebdo were its diligent soldiers, as well as the hyenaMarine Le Pen and her party hold high the banner of that cause, your words are now used as a guarantee in this offensive, hence, I apologize, this long letter of protest. You bring the voice of a “Muslim scholar” to this arena of the “clash of civilizations”, repeating what our enemies say, namely that coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims in France is impossible.
Are we not, before God as before men, responsible not only for our intentions, but also for our approach, for the way we transmit our message, for our rigour, our humility, and the foreseeable consequences of our words and our actions? Should we not be careful not to give ammunition to our enemies, not to allow them to use to their advantage our statements and actions, and be careful not to lead astray people whose entire lives could be broken if they tried to apply these exhortations to reckless emigration? It seems to me that you are careless or ignorant in the face of these realities.
Russia vs the Empire
You do not bring the smallest scrap of evidence to support your unrealistic predictions, except for a paralogism, namely the reference to American imperialism and Russia which stands up against its hegemony. Even if this geopolitical analysis was relevant – and I agree with it to a great extent – it would have no consequence upon the alleged validity of your main message about the situation of Muslims in France and your exhortations to emigration. If you push people to suicide by arguing that the sun rises in the East, the fact that the latter proposition is undeniably true gives no weight to the exhortation you have drawn from it, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the initial observation. The American Empire is indeed determined to impose its hegemony over the world and to crush all resistance, especially that of Russia and China, which are its main opponents (but we could also cite the whole of BRICS, Iran, Syria, Latin America, etc.). Certainly, the American Empire is criminal and aims at domination over the planet, and it's ready to crush anyone who stands in the way, without the least consideration of moral or humanitarian issues. But in what is this empire more ruthless than those who have gone before, or those who are likely to follow? Every tyrant, every Empire, since Adam (as), has never shied away from any massacre, or any kind of atrocity to satisfy its hegemonic desires. The fact that the imperialists are barbarians is a truism (which Che Guevara already denounced in eloquent terms), and presenting the degree of cruelty of the current Empire as unprecedented is an unfounded argument, because it has always been so (Romans, Crusaders, Mongols ...).To claim that we are in the worst place at the worst time, in order to push us to flee like rats – and please excuse me, but I do not see how I could put it another way – is nothing but a free extrapolation, a dramatic effect stripped of all reality. Perhaps it would be better for us to be in Tripoli or Benghazi? In Baghdad, Mosul, or Kobane? In Raqqa, in Deir al-Zurr or in Homs? In the Donbass, in Slavyansk, in Mariupol? I would even say that what Muslims suffered in the early days of Islam by the hands of Quraysh is much worse than anything that the French State and Westerners can and could ever make us suffer (of course, I speak of the treatment which can be inflicted within a country to its own citizens, simply because of their faith, not of deadly wars that they can carry out outside their borders for many other reasons). What is actually different today is the scale of the confrontation (political, media, cultural and military), the power of destruction and the risk of nuclear war, but it would be ludicrous to think that we could escape such an Armageddon. On the contrary, we have seen in Iraq, Libya and Syria that it is precisely in « our » countries that there is a high risk of death and destruction on a massive scale, whether by conventional or unconventional armies and weapons. Therefore, even in the highly unlikely case of an open war against Islam and Muslims, we would be way safer in France than in « our » countries where we would make ourselves a prime target for genocidal war criminals whose principles have not changed much since Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, the very fact that Russia has precisely the willingness and ability to stand up to US imperialism leads in my view to exactly opposite conclusions from the ones you have drawn, which might explain why you haven't established any link between the two parts of your discourse. The fact that Russia can victoriously resist the Empire, the Russia who is defending international law and the diversity of the world, the Russia who has come to the aid of Syria (and perhaps thus prevented a world war) as it helped the innocents of Donbass, which certainly considers Islam and Muslims as allies, constitutes a factor whichshould rather convince us to stay in France and be more visible, to be more and more active and revendicative. For just as Muslims have truly integrated with Russia despite the storms provoked by the West in Chechnya, as ilustrated by the example of Kadyrov, we will be able to ‘integrate’" genuinely (and not ‘disintegrate’ in the French style) throughout the multipolar and multicultural world of tomorrow, wherever we are. The ‘Axis of Evil’ – that created from scratch the clash of civilizations – is collapsing, its vassals (including France) irrevocably will follow, and the emerging forces are attached to thetraditional values promoted by Vladimir Putin, as Muslims are, so we'll be triumphant wherever we are if, as you say (and as I believe and hope for), the Christian Eastern Empire was to be proclaimed victor of the war that the West imposed on it. Thus, given the state of forces present, whether nationally or internationally, it is virtually impossible that a project like the one you envision in France could succeed. If we were to actually replay the thirties with Muslims in the role of scapegoats, and a general conflagration between the West and the East, I argue, with certainty, and just like you, that the West can't win, neither inside nor outside. None of the unthinkable concentration camp or genocidal measures which you warn us against could be successful in the face of millions of citizens who are not willing to let it happen, also considering every other category of people who would rise up against this project. Whether from the inside or outside, current conditions are much different than those of the 1930s, when fascism was on the rise and was victorious everywhere. Today, imperialism and its avatar, political or religious extremism, which the Neo-Nazis in Ukraine or the Islamic State in the Middle East are expansions of, are in decline.
Under no circumstances will it be the struggle of Muslims against non-Muslims, but the struggle of those who are attachedto their identity and dignity, to their nation, their sovereignty and traditional values, to a multi-ethnic society and a multipolar world governed by international law on one side, against the Empire's vassals on the other. Like all wars that preceded it, it will not be a struggle with ethnic and religious dividing lines, but with divisions that are political, economic and social. People can be trusted to flee when on the verge of being defeated and annihilated, but certainly not when they have the wind in their sails and their enemies are in decline. No one has a knife at the throat, and even where this is the case in Syria and Iraq, which can not happen here, those who stay to fight fall as patriots and martyrs, or will be victorious, because the final victory is certain.
What is Islamic eschatology?
Your definition of eschatology only englobes its very minor part, which is the signs of the End of this world, without mention of man’s ultimate destination and the issues of Heaven and Hell, which should be our main concerns. But even in this aspect, it is unfortunate that you do not even take the trouble to clarify the nature of the perceived threat to us – what we can expect in your opinion, how, when and why it will happen – or to provide admissible evidence. We have no description of your oracular omens which are neither supported, nor justified, leaving just an Apocalyptic atmosphere hovering to inspire fear and even terror, because only the Armageddon could justify such a call of “run for your lives and every man for himself ». But thank God, we are reasonable people and we believe no one just from their word, especially when their word consists of if not fanatical exhortations, radical to say the least. Rather, we will follow the Qur'anic injunction: “Say: Produce your proof if you are truthful.” (Qur'an, XXVII, 64).
You make the hijra mandatory without the required authority, without the conditions being met – whether at the place of departure or the destination. This seems to me to be absolutely outrageous, and I would ask you, since you have not done it, to kindly indicate your sources. Because you speak as if drawing your information from an exact science, or an infallible, divine authority – and again, even the Prophets would certainly not comport themselves as you do – while it is only analyses and interpretations of yours which are highly questionable, even if you happen to advance Prophetic traditions and Qur'anic verses which you interpret at your leisure, your opinion being, as a matter of fact, rather unique in the Musim community. What you present as the ultimate battle between Gog and Magog is only an interpretation of your own, and which is not widespread in the community of Islamic scholars, most of whom believe that Gog and Magog were Mongols who devastated Baghdad in 1258 (an event which bear much more comparison to the Armageddon that we can now see and predict) and the end of the world might as well be in 50, 500 or 5000 years, or even much more. What recognized Islamic authority shares your views and accepts your verdict? The UN? So where do you get your information concerning the coming end of times, or the concentration policy which is to be imminently implemented in France against us? Did you get it from some arcane place, such as a soothsayer, or from the stars? This is not even an exaggeration on my part, because you revealed in a recent conference where you predicted an imminent nuclear war [1], which would take place in less than 5 years, that you had seen in your dreams – and you present it as a divine revelation to convey to humanity, and as absolutely indisputable, which would be funny: the pseudonym of one of your main French translators, Jean Rigolencore [“I’m still laughing at it”], explicitly suggests that it is only a matter of joke, a vast deception. The power to make such predictions assumes that you have: 1 / the faculty to have prophetic dreams (which is not in itself impossible); 2 / the ability to interpret them accurately, which, according to the teachings of Islam, is a power reserved to certain divine Messengers, as shown by the example of the Prophet Yusuf (as) interpreting the famous dream of the Pharaoh, which everyone knew was prescient, but nobody but him had been able to interpret precisely. Is it not proof of levity and blindness, if not a foolish arrogance to adorn yourself with the most eminent prerogatives of the Prophets (saas)? I will answer with these verses of Sura 53, aptly titled The Star: “But they have no real knowledge. They follow only their own conjecture, and conjecture has no control over the truth.” (Qur'an, LIII, 28). These issues of divination of the future and the end of time are things that are part of the unseen (al ghayb), which are known only to Allah, and which He reveals only partially to some of His Prophets (as): "[It is He] who knows the unseen. He does not reveal it to anyone, except for those whom He has chosen as a messenger" (Qur'an LXXII 26-27). The Prophet Muhammad (saas) himself said that knowledge of what would happen in the future was one of the keys of the unseen known only to God, whether a matter of tomorrow's events or the end of time, the details of which he himself ignored. "Say: 'I will not tell you that I possess the treasures of Allah, nor do I know the unseen, and I'm not saying that I am an angel. I only follow what is revealed to me." (Quran, VI, 50). How can you ignore so blatantly these Qur'anic verses and the authentic traditions and be so adamant in your predictions? If you know enough Arabic, I urge you to listen to this conference by Sayed Hassan Nasrallah (firstand second parts), where he speaks very precisely of the ways and limits of what we can, as Muslims, know of the future, especially about the end times, with reference to various interpretations that arise about current events. Sayed Hassan Nasrallah evokes the responsibility of people of knowledge and their duty of care and humility in order not to mislead people or to themselves wander from the truth. The American Empire is in decline and will eventually collapse (may God make it happen in our lifetime!), taking with it its ‘values’ (all of which are listed on the stock exchange), its satellites and its vassals. It will not lead the world anymore, not from Washington nor from Paris, nor Jerusalem, contrary to what you have presented as an admitted truth which could only convince the ignorant, Israel being doomed to disappear just like French Algeria. Their influence is being weakened, not strengthened, and their golden age is long gone. In 1995, the United States could devastate Eastern Europe via NATO, but in 2013, they had to bend pitifully to Russia on the Syrian issue and are currently being defeated in Ukraine. In 1967, Israel was able to crush five Arab countries in six days, but in 2000and 2006 , they experienced a rout against the Lebanese Islamic Resistance, and finally, they were defeated in Gaza itself. The heroes of these victories against Israel, who have fought on the ground for decades (Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Gaza) are reasonable and lucid people, they have an experience and insight that you have not, and are therefore much more qualified than you to talk about the situation, which they do not describe in other words, that Israel is in its phase of decline and destined to soon disappear, and certainly not destined for world domination. Even renowned Western intellectuals speak of the ‘ultimate destruction’ of Israel as a fact that is most likely inevitable. Religious authorities like Sayed Ali Khamenei, Ayatollah, or even Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Hojatolislam,are furthermore Islamic scholars at the forefront. Yet when they talk about future geopolitical developments and eschatology, they do it with much more humility than you, recalling the basic precautions to take when offering political analysis or interpreting prophetic traditions and Koranic verses pertaining to the end of time. But despite their authority, they have never expressed themselves with complacency and conceit, and they have never expressed contempt for your peers. I beg you not to talk down about people who are certainly better scholars and hold more legitimacy than you.
Is France becoming totalitarian?
We are not blind, and are fully aware of the severity of the current situation, as we are aware that things will certainly get worse, along with the economic crisis and the scheduled decline of Europe, which will be conducive to many an excess which before was inconceivable. We are already seeing this with dictatorial legal proceedings against freedom of expression, even to an Orwellian extent, with children 8 years old not spared the risk of a charge of advocating terrorism. Anyone can be arbitrarily subjected to an abuse of process, and even to prison sentences, like this cartoon which gained a 16 year old high schoolstudent a conviction. And many of us have spoken publicly about the case and have expressed dissenting opinions vis-à-vis the political and media howling & bleating, without giving in to this campaign of intimidation, and thus becoming subject to prosecution. But is that a reason to flee? Aren't such violations of rights to be found in the majority of countries that restrict personal liberties as much as possible? All political regimes, except genuinely democratic governments which are few and far between, do the same with any opponent, any dissenting voice that can be a danger to their rule. Actually, it's true of most of the countries of the East and West – and especially all the countries where you want to send us to, claiming that they are ‘our’ only and true countries. There, all citizens must keep their silence on issues deemed to be sensitive. If anyone tries to partake of a dissident speech in the cradle of Islam, Saudi Arabia, then he will see what will happen to him – he may be imprisoned, tortured and executed, as is the case in Bahrain. They would imprison us on the sole basis of acts of worship recommended by all schools of Islam, but which are forbidden by Wahhabism. They forbid every word of truth, and are, in my opinion, the greatest enemies of Islam, much worse than the United States or Israel, as the most dangerous enemies are always the enemy within, the fifth column. And of course, from one place to another, the ‘taboo’ topics may change (here in France, it is all which concerns Israel, as in many other places, although to an unparalleled degree) but can be summarized in the idea of any ‘anti-system’ speech, regardless of the system because our principles and our religion always oppose any ‘system’, whatever it is, the system defining itself as the reign of an oppressive oligarchy that denies the legitimate interests of the majority of people. Yes, they want to silence us, to ‘convert’ us and our children to their unique way of thinking of moral degradation and subjugation, make us into sheep, but we will follow the example of our Prophet Muhammad (saas), and we will resist, wearing high and proudly our sound and healthy values against their decadent ‘values’. And whatever you say, we are not under Saddam Hussein, they will not physically take us or our loved ones, nor imprison us en masse in concentration or re-education camps, or in a new Gulag, certainly not in a near or distant future, at least not at the mere national level. Because if a concentration camp project such as the one you suggest happened (a foolish assumption), they would come and find us where we are. They will not kill us, or torture our families before our eyes – even the United States do not do that on their own territory, though they do in other countries, including the Arab vassal states, so you are literally asking us to put ourselves at the mercy of our enemies. Here in France, we are still in a state of law, although they are trying to crop it back little by little, and actually manage occasionally to do unfair and unthinkable things, it is still much more difficult to violate human rights (and therefore the values of Islam) in France than in ‘our’ countries, where often there is not even the appearance of a state of law. The worst that they can do to us, and then only for some of us, as a French concentration camp system is not possible, is that we will be imprisoned for a few months or years after unfair procedures, and there, to paraphrase the Prophet Yusuf (as), I refute the discourse of your fellows with these words: ‘Oh my God! Prison seems more desirable to me than what they invite me to, and if you do not protect me from their plans, I'll give in and be among the ignorant.’ (Quran, XII, 33). It is only cowards and criminals who flee and, in this context, the ignorant, those who can not perform their duties, their responsibilities and even objectively assess the reality of the situation and foreseeable risks.
The idea that we would have the choice between fleeing now, while there is still time, or see ourselves forbidden from leaving the territory and subjected to imprisonment on a massive scale – that is to say, to express it in words, a policy of eradication – contradicts all factual and rational data. Certainly, individuals like Le Pen or Aymeric Chauprade present things in this apocalyptic way, invoking, after Bush, a war between Islam and the West, saying that even French citizens like me have to give up one of their nationalities and/or make a choice between ‘diluting’ their faith and leaving France – good luck to them with achieving one or the other, either willingly or by force! But on the one hand they are not in power, and secondly, even if they get into power (a possibility we can not exclude), and even if they were foolish enough to try to implement their campaign program and thus violate the Constitution and international law, they would meet fierce resistance from many sectors of the population and many international actors. It is highly doubtful that they will still try, because in all likelihood they would prove themselves to be like all the other parties when they come to power, really only changing their own lives and those of their relatives, and not hastening to keep ignoble populist promises made to an electorate that is often gullible, pathetically ignorant and/or abjectly dishonourable. But let's give credit to this surreal apocalyptic vision and admit the unthinkable, that they succeed, well, the worst that could happen would be deportation of these people, exactly what they and you want and advocate (which makes me think that you might be a Muslim for Judenräte, those Jews who collaborated with the Nazis for the greatest misfortune of the Jews of Europe, and in the best interests of the building of Israel). There is no reason to rush, even in the context of your extravagant and unrealistic predictions. Unrealistic because all this could happen only after a civil war, and probably several international wars, the ‘host countries’ having the right and even the duty to refuse such an influx of refugees which would seriously destabilise their societies, that they will without a doubt refuse. France could only get out of such a mess ravaged and drained, and the fact that this evidence is silenced upon highlights the degree of ignorance and blindness of neo-fascists who vote for the extreme right in believing that this will rid them of their fellow citizens of foreign origin and restore prosperity to France, as if the two issues were linked, and as if there could be a winner in a civil war that would devastate the country permanently. Only the unconscious – or enemies – may wish such developments to pass. In the real world, mass deprivations of nationality will be very difficult to implement in an abusive manner by any government, whichever one it is, but it is a possibility that changes nothing in the context of your fantasies: instead of leaving, let us await to be expelled after opposing them with any resistance which we are capable of. At least our honour and duty – and common sense – will be safe. Yes, the French government – like any government in such circumstances – will take advantage of the situation to pass unjust laws, restrict freedoms, arrest innocents, imprison without cause, deprive citizens of their nationality, but it will remain on a limited scale, and it will not succeed in silencing dissent, on the contrary. Yes, we see that they are trying to scare us, get us used to a military presence, etc., but this is only the desperate attempt of the most despised government in the history of France to regain a semblance of legitimacy to strengthen its ‘influence’, weakened and already falling apart, that is its façade of respectability and legitimacy in the domestic area, and, internationally, the imperial world system of domination that usurps the name of democracy. Flee now, when victory is near? Certainly not. We are neither cowardly, nor servile, nor stupid. We have come so far, and we will see the end and play an active role in the outcome.
The place of Muslims in France
Your call is clearly in the wake of the manipulations that followed the attack against Charlie Hebdo, regardless of the facts, which is playing the game of said manipulators and prevents us from asking the real questions. Should we really feel guilty because of the Charlie Hebdo events? Feel responsible, even indirectly, because we have a link with terrorism because of our religion, as is said by ignoble idiots who would certainly have been the fiercest of the anti-Dreyfuswhen the French fashion was to defame the Jews? Do we have to be overzealous, put ourselves at the forefront of protesters chanting ‘Je suis Charlie’ as do millions of sheep and control agents? If we must actually feel guilty, it's as French people, not as Muslims, because our religion is clear on terrorism , while our government is one of the main supporters and apologists of terrorism, from Libya to Syria – not to mention Israel – and is the vassal of thegreatest terrorist power in the world. It is not the victims but the perpetrators who should lower their head, apologize or go into exile. We did not need to protest with Charlie and terrorists against terrorism, primarily because we are opposed to all that is Charlie, as are all worthy and lucid men, and then because we are consistent and that as Arabs and Muslims, weare the first victims of Wahhabi terrorism, created and armed by the West. Wehave denounced it for years, we were accused of supporting war crimes in Syria by those who glorify the Al-Nusra Front acts of terrorism, and who today claim to have changed their tune and to fight the Islamic State with us – but we are not fooled . We have every reason to keep our heads high because what is happening confirms our analyses and predictions, that he who sows the wind reaps the storm. And we will continue to proudly support the truly global anti-terror alliance – Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, etc. It would be absurd to flee France, our country, to other continents where we could do nothing but wait there, arms crossed, until justice reigns in the world. Should we passively wait for the arrival of the Mahdi and Messiah (as) instead of preparing the ground for them by our actions and striving to be worthy enough to be a part of their community? I'd much rather stay where I am and take action to fight for the greater good of my family, my community and my compatriots, whether believers or not, because I sincerely believe that populations of immigrant origin can play an important role in the recovery of France and contribute to freeing it from its political and moral decay, to change its direction and reconnect it with genuine sovereignty. Arab-Muslim populations have remained attached to their identity, traditions and dignity, so many essential things that France and the French are being denied by economic, political and cultural globalization and US imperialism, and they can help France to reconnect with its roots and so place it in the ‘righteous’ camp, which defends the independence of Nations, international law, traditional values and multiculturalism, and which will triumph with the Grace of God. If the Mahdi is to come back with Jesus, the Messiah (as), is it not to unite Muslims, Christians and all free andhonourable men of this world, under the banner of truth and justice? Were we not united, even in France, with our brothers and fellow citizens of all faiths, in the fight against gay marriage? This is not the last battle that we will fight together. As our enemies become more offensive, the more we will be united, because we need each other, and we have much to do.
Today, Greece and Spain are the model of what awaits us, not only with regard to austerity policies that governments will try to impose on us, with the main target being the most vulnerable segments of the population (regardless of their ethnic and religious affiliation, and whether or not they are Charlie) as well as the hope of the emergence of new political forces through popular and patriotic resistance movements that are sure to emerge, opposing Brussels and Washington, and which we, as Muslims and, more to the point, as French, will fill the ranks in the interest of all. Islam is just the scapegoat, as there is always a scapegoat in times of crisis to distract from and hide the real problems, but it only works for a time, and in the end it is the poorest who pay, who find themselves the only victims. For it is not only Islam that is attacked, but freedoms, social rights, sovereignty and traditional values, and it is the majority of French people who will be the victims of the oppressive economic and social policies of tomorrow.
Many of us have realized that the real issues are not religious or civilizational, but economic and social – and anyway, it's not something new, as these issues have punctuated the history of France since 1789: the people and their legitimate claims have been diverted from their real enemies – the banks – to inland fictitious enemies (the Church, the Jews...) or external enemies (Robespierre denounced this already in 1792, as did Jules Vallès in 1883 about Tonkin). And every time they woke up, the said people were executed by firing squad, from 17 July 1791 to 28 May 1871. How to abandon our friends, allies and compatriots in this situation, those who have nowhere to go (assuming we have some place to go, which is not the case at all)? It would be a shameful flight, a shameful abandonment by any individual who respects himself, and every Muslim. And what's more, it would be unwise, because there is nothing unique in the stigmatization of Islam today. Every age, every place has had its ‘scapegoat’ its ‘Jew’, its ‘Arab’. At the end of the nineteenth century, a great writer like Emile Zola was described by Jacques Bainville in extremely racist terms because of his foreign origins : ‘this half-Italian, quarter-Greek, three or four times Métis, is it not a fine specimen of humanity’. Zola has indeed aroused implacable hatreds, but he resisted bravely, in France and abroad when he was actually forced into exile. But has he not finished at the Pantheon, exalted for his pen and his defense of Dreyfus [2], revealing himself to be more ‘French’ than the French by his commitment to the eternal values of freedom, truth and justice? And one could multiply examples, but there is too much to say for me to do more than scratch the surface of the matter, at least in the context of this writing. Let's just say in conclusion that most anti-immigrant statements denouncing the Islamization of France and Europe, the ‘great replacement’ are nothing more than ignorance and denial of an inescapable reality, often reflecting a gross misunderstanding of the history of France and the world in general, which is a permanent mixing of peoples and cultures. It is virtually a natural law. Those so much concerned by ‘National Identity’ should perhaps ask not to be called the ‘French’ because after all, the Franks were originally a Germanic people who settled in Gaul. And they certainly should return to the original Gallic religion, because the Judeo-Christian heritage is of Semitic origin. This rejection of the other and of the evolution of society is nonsense, an aberration, that which is rejected one day later becoming a fully accepted standard. It's only a matter of time, patience and effort, as there is no incompatibility between the values of (authentic) Islam and those of (authentic) France, on the contrary. Certainly, we reject the extremist secularism ‘in the French style’, which has been, since the Encyclopédistes [3], 1789 and Jules Ferry, an open offensive against the historical identity of France (‘the eldest daughter of the Church’) and against religion[4], but we would accommodate ourselves perfectly with the principle of secularism in itself, as we accommodate any scheme that would guarantee the freedom of belief and worship. As for the fantasy of the Islamization of France and Europe, and the advent of an Islamic government, anyone who knows the basic principles of Islam knows that only massive public support can allow that a true Islamic state be proclaimed, not 50.1% of the votes cast as alleged false pseudo-democratic standards in force in the West, but more than 80% of the votes of all voters, as in Iran in 1979 when the Islamic Republic was demanded by more than 90% of the population. The example of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a predominantly Muslim country divided between Sunnis and Shiites, with a Christian minority, clearly illustrates this: the formidable military power that Israel had been humiliated by twice would be quite able to take power in Lebanon if it wished, but the requirements of Islam would make such a move an unpardonable sin, and there is no question for them to erect an Islamic state, not in the near future nor in the distant future, but simply to help towards the stability and cohesion of the multi-confessional state. We are not a fifth column, we do not work against France but with it, with an authentic France, that of Joan of Arc against Charles VII, that of Rousseauagainst Voltaire and the Encyclopédistes, of Robespierre against Danton and Thermidorians, of the Commune against Versailles, of Lamartineand Hugo against Cavaignac, of Jules Vallès against Jules Ferry, of Jaurès against Solages and Poincaré, of de Gaulle against Pétain and against all stateless traitors that preceded and followed at the head of France. If we have to be oppressed and defeated as they were, then it will be an honour. But we will do everything we can to awaken their memory and legacy which has been trampled upon, and take up again their torch, alongside all those who lead a similar battle in France and the whole world, by all means necessary. And in spite of what Frontists, Zemmour and others like Houellebecq may think, if this France is victorious, the France to which we are proud to belong and for which we are ready to fight, in our case, its streets, schools and public places will proudly wear these names, which we honour both as French and as Muslims. The teachings of Islam
Finally, I would like to say something about the way you express yourself and convey your ideas. Without necessarily questioning your kindness and honesty, it could be argued that when one attempts to dictate to people what they should do with their very existence, ordering them to upset all their lives and to pack in the direction of the unknown, which is rather a drastic action, maybe we should not be quite so categorical, paternalistic and condescending. And all the more since I have tried to show that what you force on people is more than the Prophet (saas) himself had ever imposed on anyone, let alone in such proportions and conditions. I would like to say that we are able to disagree with you, remain in France and even in Paris (as I do), not because we are in love with these terrestrial lives or sold our religion for material gain (which is doubly wrong – come and live in Paris and see – and is an insulting presumption), but, on the contrary, because we consider with much more legitimacy that reason, justice, responsibility and even religion demand of us that we stay where we are and act here. Or rather that we continue to act, because we are not submissive and passive as you claim, we walk head high, and we certainly will not give in gracefully to the wishes of those who appoint us as enemies while they could not get anything from us through intimidation, nor by power, especially as it would amount to a denial of all universal human principles and all divine laws. We may be reasonable, attached to our principles and religion, lucid about what is happening around us (and which is certainly not trivial) and still be in total opposition with you. Your arrogance, your contempt and your sarcastic laughter could not be more unwelcome, and have nothing to do with the teachings of Islam.
We have a responsibility to ensure our image, the image that we give as Muslims, especially in these times when great efforts are made to describe us as lunatic, narrow-minded, reactionary and unsociable people, who cannot coexist with anyone, not even themselves (because the Islamic State primarily kills Muslims). Yes, we can coexist with others anywhere, we can work towards the common good with our fellow citizens in the West, even in France, although the country has a special history in terms of the oppression of religion. But just as Christians have managed to survive and preserve their beliefs and traditions despite the storms that they have been through, we will also manage to do it and we will benefit from their help and experience. We must know that we have many friends in France and around the world, in the West as in the East, and we must be careful not to fall into the traps of the enemy. And in the end, after weighing all the factors and having made our decision, we must rely on God Almighty and Exalted who never abandons those who trust in Him, and Who is sufficient Relief against all hostile coalitions, formidable though they may be.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we, the Muslims of France, are fully aware and awake faced with what is happening. We are not indifferent, or careless, or passive, nor intimidated, or scared, or submissive. We must indeed become more and more present and active, but it is not appropriate to describe us as helpless, unable to see what our duties are and how to honour them. Many of us have been taking initiatives for a long time, and we will be more invested, and increasingly well organized in order to face current and future challenges with strength, confidence, insight and serenity. And we are not alone, many people are already considering us as individuals and compatriots, and don't try and return us to our condition of Arabs and/or Muslims. We have with us and will have all people of goodwill, be they Muslim, Christian or otherwise, all beliefs – and non-beliefs – and all categories of the population working and who will continue to work with us in the interest of France and the majority of its citizens, for a better world.
We Muslims in France can take our lives in hand, and while we welcome gladly any benevolent consulting of anyone, and are grateful for any help respectfully offered, we categorically reject paternalism, we allow no one to take us up or to dictate our behaviour, and in the end we have and exercise the right to make our own decisions, because nobody knows our situation better than us. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in France – and the world – has never heard of you and would consider your exhortations to emigration if not with disdain, at least with amusement, and with good reason. Your audience, marginal, is mostly non-Muslim, made up of people who could be in good faith and are seduced by some of your geopolitical analyses, but are ignorant of Islam and grant you credit that you do not deserve – not to mention those who exploit your speech with a specific agenda. I sincerely hope that your reputation will not grow, however, because we do not need such foolish and inflammatory speeches. But whatever it is, it will be our responsibility to expose and refute publicly any and all usurper manipulator for what they are, and we will do it God willing.
In advance, I thank you for your attention and interest.
May God guide us and strengthens us on the right path.
Assalaamu 'alaikum! Native French Muslims also have an obligation to follow the Sunnah of Hijrah from places of grave insecurity to freedom, to person and to faith, to places where a Muslim can recover security of person and faith, and freedom to respond appropriately to oppression and evil.
Muslims of North African origin now resident in France, regardless of whether or not they were born in France, should not only make Hijrah out of France back to North Africa, and seek refuge in the remote Moroccan, Algerian and Tunisian countryside, but they should also reach out to assist their native French brothers and sisters in Islam to also make that Hijrah. This is also a Sunnah.
There may be little time left before the French Government is FORCED to place a ban on such Hijrah out of France. All that they have to do is to block your departure by Air or by Sea by declaring that your name is on a No-Fly/Leave List.
Those who cannot, for whatever reason, leave France, should leave the cities of France and seek security of person and of faith in the remote French countryside.
Those who insist on remaining in cities such as Paris have the right to do so and we do not offer any criticism of them. However it would be quite wicked of such people if they were to attempt to prevent those who wish to make Hijrah out of France or out of the French cities.
with love,
Imran N. Hosein
[1] See here from 50.03: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjV6j1T3iy8 ‘The Malhama is the nuclear war that is coming. We know it's coming, because our Prophet prophesied it. I was thinking that perhaps it might be 5 or 10 years away, but then I had a dream I shared it with you: I was in Iran for a conference in September and the dream occurred twice in the same night. I normally do not share my dreams with the public. No! But I did on this occasion because I believe that this dream was sent to me so that I should convey it to others. I saw a nuclear war. I saw nuclear missiles being shot into the sky. Twice in the same night. And then I saw Pakistan was a part of it because those who want to keep on ruling the world so that they can deliver the rule of the world to the state of Israel can not allow the Islamic world to have nuclear weapons!"
[2]Arousing the indignation of a Leon Daudet, who denounced the ‘supreme disgrace’ that constituted this honour to a ‘great Metic protector of the Jewish traitor.’
[4]‘Kings always conspire to murder humanity: if they can no longer disfigure Divinity by superstition, to associate it with their crimes, they try to banish it from the earth to reign alone on it with crime.’ Robespierre, Second Speech for the feast of the Supreme Being , June 8, 1794.
