The Belgian case and the role played by the State
A conversation with Hossam Shaker 31 July 2008

What do you think of the recent elections held for French Muslims and the creation of the French Council for the Muslim Faith (CFCM)?

I believe that the French experience is certainly the most important and also the most problematic, at least within the European Union. In Europe, France is the country with the most Muslim citizens, and it is also a country that has always had its own system for dealing with minorities. However, although France is traditionally against the activities of EU lobbies and prefers to address the individual citizen, France also promoted the creation of a Council for the Muslim Faith which now represents most French Islamic organisations.

Among the criticisms made to the CFCM there is also that of having used undemocratic methods. Furthermore, the French State is said to interfere indirectly so as to influence its initiatives. What is your opinion?

I believe that the CFCM was the result of researching what was achievable after 15 years of expectations and immobility. It is strange that this idea came from Sarkozy, who greatly wished the project to succeed, seating around one table the most important Muslim associations in France with all their diversities, and following the serious conflicts of the past. Obviously it would have been best to create this Council through common work, shared between the State and the Islamic communities, but this is not always possible, especially as far as Muslims are concerned in France, where there is a very large, varied and divided community with different ethnic and cultural origins. What matters in this case is that the State will know when to stop and not interfere with the role played by the Islamic associations.

Have there been occasions on which this balance was not achieved?

Belgium represents an exemplary case of aggressive interference in the affairs of the Islamic community. What happened was that, after the democratic election of Muslim representatives to the Belgium Council of Muslims, the Minister of the Interior ordered a number of democratically elected leaders to be expelled from the Board of Directors, because he did not approve of their approach and some of their ideas. The greatest problem was the amenability shown by other Islamic organisations, which, with their silent approval, legitimised a dangerous precedent. If one chooses the democratic way, then the State must be the first to be coherent with its own teachings, otherwise it marks the beginning of a crisis. In fact at the moment, in Belgium relations between the State and Muslims are at a total standstill.

What are the consequences of all this, especially among Muslims?

The main issue is that, like all groups with particular ethnic characteristic, Muslims quite rightly expect these Councils to represent their interests and their expectations. Serious interferences such as happened in Belgium, seriously undermine the credibility of some organisations in the eyes of their coreligionists, and this results in a dangerous sense of bewilderment regards to the real representatives of Muslims. This happens above all when countries use these Councils to pass laws or rules that are increasingly restrictive for Muslims and do so with the indirect approval of some leaders.

Could you provide an example?

France is a sufficiently clear example. A few weeks after the CFCM was instated, the government began to study a new law against the Islamic veil and the Islamic organisations were unable to find the strength and the courage to oppose this proposal. Hence they were used as legitimising elements for a law obviously going against Muslim women’s right to wear the veil in public places. In many cases some governments do not acknowledge and allow the individual communities to freely express their concern and defend their rights. Communities are continuously reduced to having to justify themselves and state their innocence. This atmosphere is conditioned by the self-censorship imposed by some Muslim leaders, in exchange for greater official acknowledgement. The greatest fear is that space available for claiming rights and for opposing the many forms of discrimination will be handed over to other Islamic organisations, with obvious extremist orientations and provocative methods.

Translation by Francesca Simmons

SUPPORT OUR WORK

 

Please consider giving a tax-free donation to Reset this year

Any amount will help show your support for our activities

In Europe and elsewhere
(Reset DOC)


In the US
(Reset Dialogues)


x