Criminalize salafism and ban organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood
In the ideological struggle against promoters of Islamist totalitarianism the international community, and in particular major democracies, have displayed their incoherence and cruel lack of courage.
For many years now, in spite of the howls of outrage, I have been calling for the criminalization of the Salafist ideology, as well as purely and simply for the banning of organizations which draw their inspiration from the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood. This double objective should be one for all democrats who believe in secularism and aspire to live at ease in a society where violence and terrorism are banned. This double objective would also preserve order of the Republic and guarantee the compatibility of Islam with the Republic. It must be made quite clear that if today in some respects Islam poses a problem it is because it is being taken over by two nihilistic ideologies, i.e. the Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood ideologies. In other words, although the majority of Muslims are peaceful and aspire to a quiet life, the visible and active associations, currents and organizations are dominated by these two ideologies.
The criminalization of Salafism and banning of organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood are justified by arguments based on three objective reasons.
First the political level. These two ideologies, as we see every day, represent a threat for social cohesion. They divide and segment society, including by the use of violence. Although the actions of Salafists can be observed every day, the unavowed aims of the Muslim Brotherhood need to be decoded. But whatever their approach, their aim is to provoke the breakdown of social ties. As proof of their harmfulness we need only observe their actions and behaviour in so called Muslim countries where they often the create disorder and chaos, even when confronting despicable regimes.
Second the ideological level. These two Sunni currents (the same could be said for the Shiite fundamentalists) are totalitarian ideologies – in many ways fascist – incompatible with the letter and spirit of the democratic corpus which they are trying to annihilate and reduce to ashes. An objective and critical study of Salafist or Muslim Brotherhood texts lead to the following observation. Whether the Islamist group goes by the name of Hamas (Muslim Brotherhood) in Gaza or Daech (Salafists) in Raqqa, whether the enemy bears the name of Israel, America or France, the barbaric treatment they inflict on their own fellow believers suffices to illustrate the fascist and nihilistic character of these ideologies.
Lastly the legal level. These two ideologies are crimogenic. At the very least, wherever they are strongly represented, they are a threat to public security. And from this viewpoint it would be naïve to think that the violent character of Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood only manifests itself in terrorist acts. Violence is consubstantial to both ideologies. Violence against religious, spiritual, sexual, philosophical minorities. Verbal and written violence, physical violence, but also violence through humiliation, behaviour, and lastly violence through the demonization, excommunication or rejection of real or perceived “difference”. Both ideologies are openly or covertly anti Semitic, homophobic, misogynous, promoting violence and hate in the texts and speeches of most of their representatives.
Some people are sceptical about this. Some noble minds might think we are excessive, extreme and intolerant. I am prepared to accept such criticism on condition that they explain how we should deal with the dogmas which structure these two ideologies.
Do we at least know what they think of the society that we defend?
A few reminders:
Regarding democracy, the Muslim Brotherhood has always rejected this value, whether through the voice of their founder Hassan el Banna or through prominent figures of the movement such as Sayed Qutb or Al Maududi in Pakistan. They all consider that sovereignty must belong to God and not the people. The Islamists consider that all the laws required to rule society exist within the Islamic corpus through the Kuran and the Sunna (the tradition of the Prophet). The few “evolutions” consented by the Brotherhood accepted the idea of a sort of democracy controlled by and subject to religious law, the Sharia. For the fundamentalist Brotherhood Islamic legislation takes precedence over the laws “invented by man” and is non negotiable. If in doubt, one only needs to read or re-read the Brotherhood’s slogan: “God is our objective. The Prophet Mahomet is our leader. The Kuran is our law. The jihad is our way”. As for the Salafists, they are more explicit, but at least they have the merit of being less hypocritical than the Muslim Brotherhood and do not try to dissimulate. They clearly and unreservedly reject democracy.
One of their current spiritual leaders, the Jordanian Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, wrote in the years 2000 a text entitled “Democracy is a religion” in which he qualified democracy as a “religion different from the religion of Allah”. He described it as a “new religion of infidels whose members are either legislating lords or followers who worship them”.
Another ideologist, Shaikh Muqbil, a Yemeni trained in Saudi Arabia, declared in one of his sermons “Democracy is a miscreance. We do not need democracy. What does it involve? That people are given the opportunity to govern themselves, that is to say without the Book (Kuran) and without Sunna (the tradition of the Prophet) Democracy votes in favour of pornography; in some infidel countries they voted to allow a man to marry another man. Democracy is despicable. It treats the pious and the perverse equally”. We can’t be any clearer.
To understand the views of the Muslim Brotherhood on secularism we need only read Hassanel Banna or listen carefully to Tariq Ramadan, his grandson, who is also the media representative of his thoughts. The founder of the extremist Brotherhood declared: “Islam is faith and cult, homeland and citizenship, religion and State, spirituality and action, Book and sword…” This slogan is today taken up by Tariq Ramadan who summarizes it in one sentence: “Islam is all-encompassing”. Therefore, no separation between the temporal and the spiritual for the followers of this fundamentalist creed the advocates of which are adept at hiding behind their modern day language and business suits.
The same vision for the Salafists. An example of their position on secularism: a text written by an Algerian ideologist Mohamed Ferkous. He writes: “secularism is a fashionable ideology which aims to isolate the influence of religion on life”, and concludes: “religion and power are inseparable and have been since the very first day the Muslim society was founded.. Islam does not tolerate atheism and does not recognize the freedom to combat the religion of Allah and his precepts. He refuses that the principle of freedom allows religious education and moral values to be put aside”.
Also, if Salafism and the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood do not recognize two of the principal universal values, where do they stand on other principles? Women’s rights for example? On this subject one of the major figures of Salafism, Sheikh Otheimine, a leading reference of Saudi Wahhabism, recommends that “Muslim women can only leave their homes when authorized by their husband or guardian”. He even specifies quite seriously that “Women are free inside the home, they can go into all the rooms and do housework”. He also orders: “These women must fear Allah and reject corrupting Western propaganda!”
It would be a mistake to believe that the followers of the Muslim Brotherhood are far from sharing this vision. Very recently, in 2013, the Brotherhood announced in Egypt that giving too many rights to women and considering them equal to men would lead to “the total destruction of society”. If that were not enough to convince us, we need only read again the “advice” of Yusuf al-Qardawi, the spiritual leader of the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France), the predicators who defend the Brotherhood’s ideology in France, and all the associations which identify with this ideology. In his book “The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam” al-Qardawi states that a husband whose wife rebels against him may “beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive areas. This remedy is effective with some women, in special circumstances and as a last resort…”
I defy anyone who cares to, to tell me which article from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be respected by Salafism or by the Muslim Brotherhood ideology. Not a single one. There is not one single fundamental principle which is compatible with Islamist ideas, and that is the sad reality. And anything else that certain representatives – especially of the Muslim Brotherhood – might say is poppycock. At least the Salafists publicly acknowledge their rejection of modernity and universal values, as well as calling for breaking all ties with a society which is not governed by Salafist principles.
Commenting the dogma of “Alliance and Disavowal” Shaykh Fawzan, a Salafist leader, states that it is “forbidden to try to resemble non-believers, whether it is their customs, idols, dress or behaviour”. Even worse, he recommends that non-believers “are not to be aided”, nor “praised or defended” and “their culture or civilization must not be praised”. In other words, it is forbidden to say or write that democracy is a wonderful value. According to this ideologist that would annul Islam.
In light of this, at the very moment when a meeting at the Ministry of the Interior with the new “forum of dialogue with Islam of France” is due to begin, the above observations, which are far from showing the full picture, must be a wake up call for us to shake off our collective lethargy which we sink into whenever the subject of Islamism comes up. Confronted with this phenomenon we must elicit a firm response from republican and democratic principles, and it is possible to do this. Republicans must be steadfast in our defense of these principles, all the more so because it is the same lethargy, the same laxness, the same fear, the same complexes, the desire for social peace at the cost of all sorts of compromise (albeit for noble and praiseworthy reasons), that shady organizations like the UOIF have been able to predicate in favour of the veil or that small criminal groups have been able to indoctrinate the Merahs and Kouachis of our society.
Today we can no longer be content with declarations made in front of TV cameras, we can no longer tolerate these “representatives” of Islam of France – who are of no use whatsoever, except to awarded silly medals.
The government must impose far higher demands. It is intolerable that an association like UOIF for example is allowed to exploit republican naivety.
Before entering into a serious dialogue with so called religious organizations a prerequisite could be set, namely the signature of a charter whereby these organizations would undertake to denounce unconditionally all acts of violence in France and abroad in the name Islam, to reject all extremist interpretations which validate, explicitly or indirectly, terrorism and/or hate towards others, a strict respect of all the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular those concerning freedom of conscience, the freedom to believe or not to believe, to change religion or not to have any religion and, within the framework of the laws of the Republic, freedom of opinion, of expression and creation, as well as total adherence to republican values, in particular to the secular and democratic corpus and to women’s rights, to name just a few of these values.
Failure to respect this republican minimum would, including from a legal point of view, justify the criminalization of the Salafist ideology and the banning of organizations and associations promoting the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Mohamed Sifaoui
ikhwaninfowhoswhoen.data.blog 