Nobody is to be blamed except the short-sightedness of the majority as well as its lack of will to unite and find a solution
French President Emmanuel Macron must have had the best intentions in mind when he proposed to pass a legislation to defend the secular values of the country. The Christians see the proposed law as a welcome anti-separatist drive which is long overdue. As the President has said, “Secularism is the cement of a united France.” Many others would agree with him. The Americans are proud of the wall of separation that their Constitution has built between religion and the State. But hardly any Muslim can see eye to eye with this view.
The reason is that Islam does not approve of religion being separate from the State or, for that matter, distinguish between any aspect of life and religion. Prophet Muhammad was also the ruler of Hejaz (Mecca and Medina area). He was simultaneously a trader, soldier and a family man. So were his representatives or Caliphs; the last of whom was at once the head of Sunni Islam and the Sultan of Turkey. There was and is no gulf between the spiritual and the material. Islam is a comprehensive prescription of life and does not permit any compartmentalisation. This is unlike the Bible, which expounded early in the Old Testament that give unto Caesar what is his and keep for God what is his.
The Reformation, which was led by Martin Luther and John Calvin in the 16th century, was possible only because it was consistent with what was ordained in the Christian holy book. No Pope, then or later, stood in its path with any degree of determination. In fact, the first separation in Christianity took place early in the fourth century when Emperor Constantine moved from Rome and encouraged the formation of the Orthodox Eastern Church, based in now what is Istanbul. His mother Helena had the Church built at Nazareth in dedication to Roman Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. Hagia Sophia was built by the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian in 537, which has recently been reconverted into a mosque by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey.
The Eastern Church does not accept the belief in the Trinity of Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. It confines its theology to the first two whereas the Roman Catholics have full faith in the Trinity. In other words, the two Churches, the Roman and the Eastern differed on a canonical principle. Islam, on the other hand, has not permitted any difference of belief on a canonical basis. The Sunnis and the Shias split on the question of who should be allowed to be the Caliph. The latter felt that he should belong to the bloodline of Prophet Muhammad whereas the former believed that he could be anyone from the Quraish tribe. The Shias fell because Imam Hussayn, the grandson of the Prophet, was denied his rightful succession to his father Hazrat Ali, who was a nephew of Muhammad.
What is being emphasised here is that there is a gulf between Islam and Christianity, which Muslims are unable to bridge with secularism. A wall is being built between religion and the State. India has had a similar experience. In order to avoid Partition in 1947, Mahatma Gandhi went to the extent of inviting Mohammed Ali Jinnah to be the Prime Minister of an undivided India with full discretion. But even that failed to bring about a reconciliation. This was notwithstanding the Muslims having lived in India since the early 13th century. Until the British began to capture power in India since 1757, Muslims ruled the greater parts of the sub-continent as sultans, nawabs or badshahs. Muslims do not enjoy democracy and secularism as these contradict the Quran, which does not prescribe anything like the Biblical recommendation of God and Caesar being given their separate roles on earth.
Sharia or the Islamic law originates from the Quran and is, therefore, indispensable to Muslims. How can a truly secular country have two different laws being followed by different communities? In India, we have the extraordinary situation of polygamy or even bigamy being prohibited since 1955. Yet the Muslim men can have up to four spouses. Our Constitution, in its Preamble, calls India secular but that is a different matter.
Islamic theology recommends that Muslims should ideally reside in a Darul Islam or land of Islam. India or rather the Mughal empire was a Darul Islam until the reign of Bahadur Shah Zafar (1857-58). When the Queen of England took over from the East India Company, it became Darul Harb or land of conflict. The Muslim endeavour should be to reconvert it back into Darul Islam; if that is not possible, Muslims should undertake hijrat or migration to a country which is a Darul Islam. In 1920, as a result of a feared failure of the Khilafat movement, half a million Indian Muslims set off for Afghanistan. While some 20,000 odd remained there, the rest were deported by the Kabul Government.
The root of the present trouble in France may be in the failure of President Erdogan to help Turkey join the European Union. Had he succeeded, Turkish people could have moved to wherever they chose, and the dream of Eurabia could have been achieved. On the rebound, Erdogan turned towards dreaming about a Caliphate. Until 1924, the Sultan of Turkey was the Caliph of all Sunni Muslims. Mustafa Kemal Pasha abolished the institution and exiled him. Nevertheless, Erdogan, evidently, is unable to take his eyes off Europe and has encouraged a significant number of available men of any nationality to infiltrate France to kill and terrorise Christian Frenchmen. Little wonder then that President Macron has ordered several hundred imams to leave France.
The killer of the schoolteacher, Samuel Paty, was an illegal immigrant and the recent killers at Nice were also similar infiltrators. Legalised Muslim settlers in France would be opposed to the killing as a pathway to Eurabia. They would prefer the quiet strategy of big families and encouraging more immigration from say, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. The French welfare rules are such that a family of five or six children can sustain a middle-class life without anyone having to work. The Government introduced such liberal rules in order to encourage larger White families but they are being constructively used by the settlers who live in Benelux or the thousands of apartments in tall buildings around cities.
This tale of France is not a new one. India went through a somewhat similar experience which resulted in the birth of Pakistan. Nobody is to be blamed except the short-sightedness of the majority as well as its lack of will to unite in order to find a solution.
(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author. Views expressed are personal)
