The gentle tone of the conversation which began last Saturday under the benevolent gaze of Alain Finkielkraut is reassuring. Hallelujah, now it is possible to peacefully discuss the different ways of “thinking about Islam, between contemporary concerns, historical heritage and issues of modernity”as the summary clearly indicates to us on the presentation page of the show Replicasbroadcast every Saturday on France Culture.
A courteous dialogue between the essayist Ferghane Azihari and the Islamologist Ghaleb Bencheikh around two readings of Islam – the differences of which are not obvious when it comes to identifying the faults common to the different worlds claiming this belief.
The essayist understands the fears aroused by the Muslim world when the Islamologist recognizes that“A fear of Islam – and unreasonable fears in some cases – is justified”. The first explains them by “the number of tyrannical regimes that make it up, the inequality between men and women, the fate of minorities, unbelievers and the violence that runs through it”the second by “a sequence of terror, of horror, of barbarity which was brought down in the name of this religious tradition by criminals, extremists, the enlightened, the exaltedâ€. And when Ferghane Azihari notes that – like most Muslim countries – Afghanistan is not overwhelmed by the excesses of feminism, any more than Algeria is by visa requests, Ghaleb Bencheikh explains that after “a civilizational apogee”, which is not obvious to its interlocutor, Islam has gone through a period of stagnation and regression, followed by a crisis from which it has still not emerged.
Shared observations
An urban conversation which opposes Azihari’s uncompromising criticism on the subject of an ideology incapable of reforming itself and Bencheikh’s desire to attribute part of the criticism addressed to societies claiming to be Islamic to the contexts and contingencies of history in which they evolve.
It’s simple, we would almost end up wondering why the Islamologist takes no risk in sharing part of the essayist’s findings and putting another into perspective when Ferghane Azihari finds himself massively threatened, designated as “Islamophobic” on the networks, treated as “native informant” in the broadcast of even Ghaleb Bencheikh, who did not hesitate to throw him under the bus reserved for apostates, joining Taslima Nasreen and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Why would Azihari deserve to be described as a “Service puppet who comes to spew his hatred of Muslims to eat from the bowl of the extreme right” by the Insoumis deputy Thomas Portes? Why must The World dedicates a long and hollow paper to disqualify the essayist’s career without putting forward the slightest serious argument about his book?
Why should Azihari risk his life for expressing his point of view, when a critic sharing such a substantial part of his criticism would enjoy his full right to think?
Disqualification and threats
Quite simply because, as curious as it may seem, in a world where it is possible to change gender or mobile plan, renouncing one’s religion is both dangerous and suspect when it comes to Islam. You can praise the benefits of communism and homeopathy or denounce the “dangers” of vaccination, but considering Islam as an ideology responsible for some of the horrors affecting Muslim worlds is only possible at the cost of seeing yourself disqualified and threatened.
Even if no one could find in this documented and sincere dialogue – any more than in Azihari’s latest book – the slightest element that he would not have the right to cite or which could be assimilated to racism.
