A dangersome rift has always existed between French and Muslim communities, but recent attacks by both sides regarding religious oppression and politics have further frayed the fabric of things. Stereotyped and racist pasts cloud the possibility for both groups to live in harmony. In this situation, the issue lies intertwined between both religion and bigotry—but who is the culprit?
The conflict that started it all was France’s opinion on freedom of religion. In 1905, France became a secular state, meaning the state takes neutral stances in matters of religion, sporting neither support nor hate for religion or irreligion. A secular state promises to treat all its citizens equally regardless of what religion they choose. According to the Constitution of 1958, “France is an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic, guaranteeing that all citizens regardless of their origin, race or religion are treated as equals before the law and respecting all religious beliefs”. Essentially, this means no matter what choice of religion the French pursue, they will receive equal human respect.
Unfortunately, that is not the case today. As per the law, the French government cannot regulate or prohibit religious activity unless it harms the public. Running with this law, wearing a hijab or burqa in public does not harm anybody, yet the government chooses to outlaw it.
Segregation and alienation of Muslims are rooted in the separation of French, and Islamic cultures and were indirectly enhanced by Christianity in the 18th century. A majority of the French viewed Muslims as ‘too attached’ to their religion and, therefore, unable to truly connect with French culture.
The French also hinge on a popular belief that Islam is oppressive; nevertheless, this does not grant them the right to publicly spread hatred and violence amongst the Islamic community. A secular state should not intervene in one’s practice of religion, yet France continues to disrespect the Muslim community.
If we compare this to Christianity, there is a drastic comparison between the two that simply stems from racism. Christians refer to a religious text—the Holy Bible—and believe in praying as an act of harmony, just like Muslims. They abstain from sexual acts before marriage and some also opt to wear a headdress to remain modest. A plethora of parallels can be drawn between the two religions, yet the French choose only to reprimand Muslims. Whether or not one perceives this as oppression, they have no right to physically and systemically oppress a religion when no harm is being done.
In 2004, France banned the wearing of headscarves in public and private schools. They also forbid the burkini—swimwear designed for Muslim women to remain modest. Unfortunately, the controversial prohibition was supported by former Prime Minister Manuel Valls. In 2004 France, islamophobia was no longer just an opinion but a political stance.
The oppression continued through 2011 when France banned face coverings for Muslim women. This came around the same time when The French Collective Against Islamophobia reported an ‘explosion’ of physical attacks against women wearing the niqab (face coverings). Since 9/11, and even before then, the mainstream and political media constantly criticize Muslims’ religious attire, cultural food, and ‘inability’ to integrate with French culture.
French media does not hesitate to constantly label Muslims as terrorists and Islam as ‘dangerous’. Ever since the banning of face coverings, mosques have also been relentlessly vandalized with crude and disrespectful drawings and words such as the swastika. Issues like labor discrimination, systemic racism, and racial profiling against Muslims are prominent yet are given no light; perhaps all of this is because the French government itself is promoting such behavior as acceptable. The government is, in fact, the face of all this islamophobia, inevitably pervading its citizens with the same hate. When confronted as to why they spread these beliefs, they claim it is to ‘protect free speech’. But at what cost will this ‘free speech’ be achieved, and why do the French have free speech, but the Muslims do not? France is not protecting free speech; they are using it as a scapegoat for their islamophobia.
Despite it all, France has had to deal with a significant amount of terrorist attacks relative to other European countries. The attacks usually involve suicide bombers with malicious intent, with one of the most tragic terrorist cases happening in 2015.
From 7-9 January 2015, terrorist attacks sprung in various areas of France, though primarily focused in Paris. The first and perhaps most lethal attack took place at the office of Charlie Hebdo. The Charlie Hebdo is a magazine company focused on publishing satirical content featuring religion, politics, and mostly left-wing ideals. In 2006, the company published a reprinted controversial cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad that former French President Jacques Chirac called an ‘overt provocation’. Drawing the Prophet in any form is considered a sin and severely disrespectful toward the Muslim community. While this does not justify the attacks, there was no need to publish something with extreme offense to a sacred community. In that event, the terrorists took twelve lives and injured eleven others.
On 13 November 2015 in Paris, three Muslim suicide bombers struck outside a football stadium and in restaurants, killing 130 and injuring 416 more. More recently, on the 16th of October, French middle school teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded by an Islamic terrorist after showing his students the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Current French President Emmanuel Macron described this as “a typical Islamist terrorist attack”, and that “our compatriot was killed for teaching children freedom of speech”. Paty may have been teaching about free speech, but what was the underlying point of the cartoon? Again, free speech can be taught without blatantly disrespecting other communities. Paty and many others could have used any other image or example to exhibit free speech, but instead chose to offend the Muslim community. This does not justify his death at all, but his intentions were clear.
Every attack made by the Islamic terrorists was done in retaliation for something the French did. The attacks are non-justifiable, even if what the Muslims want is a safe space to practice their religion and to bear no harm. Islam is a beautiful and peaceful religion that was dismally perverted by cynical Middle Eastern governments. These government parties used religion to manipulate and indoctrinate innocent men and women into dying and killing for their own gain. Since then, they have not been taught differently. Of course, they have every right to be infuriated at terrorists and the damage they have done, but what they cannot do is racially stereotype every Muslim for wanting a better life and commit unjustifiable acts of racism.
After all, an eye for an eye only makes the world go blind.