On French “Muslims” and apostates….
A few years ago I told Randall Parker that I was reluctant to really tackle “Islam” because I didn’t know enough. I know I post here and there (a lot) on the topic, but mostly they are not thematic or interconnected, just random drive-by jottings strewn across the public-web-space. Of late I’ve realized I will never know enough (that is, to my satisfaction), certainly I know very little Islamic history, theology and overall thought compared to someone like Thebit, but I know a lot of non-Islamic history that I find Muslims who are fluent in their own traditions tend to be blind to (you can generalize this about most people steeped in their own culture). So in the near future I’ll write in a more precise and unequivocal fashion and present a series of posts that have a sequential form (last minute spare-time binge of reading though!). Since I’ve already admitted that I’m not particularly educated on the topic (I am compared to the median…but that’s saying very little)1 I invite informed criticisms of the details of my posts. I say informed because superficial reflections are going to just muddy the waters instead of sharpening the progression of thought.
In any case, I will leave you with a little data from Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out
…In 1995 the French daily Liberation conducted a thorough survey. Here are some of its findings:
Thirty percent of those men born in France and both of whose parents were born in Algeria declared themselves to be without any religion. This percentage is higher than the national average: 27 percent of all Frenchmen describes as without any religion. Sixty percent of those men born in France with only one parent born in Algeria declared themselves to be without religion, more than double the national average! The figures for women remain almost unchanged: 30 percent born in France and both of whose parents were born in Algeria said they were without religion. This precentage is even higher than the national average: 20 percent of all Frenchwomen say they are without religion. Fifty-eight percent of women with one parent born in Algeria said they were without any religion, almost three times the national average.6
The notation is: Immigration Supplement, La Libération, Paris, March 22, 1995, p. 5. For context you can check out the France entry over at adherents.com, but this is a good gauge of French religious attitudes:
In contrast, 85 percent of French object to clergy activism – the strongest opposition of any nation surveyed. France has strict curbs on public religious expression and, according to the poll, 19 percent are atheists. South Korea is the only other nation [surveyed] with that high a percentage of nonbelievers….
Please note that in France there has been a strong association between anti-clericalism, the proletariat and underclass for over a century, with religion (that is, Roman Catholicism) to some extent being a practice of the middle class. The relative secularism of French of North African ancestry and their simultaenous economic deprivation need not be surprising. I would also not put too much stock in the figures for those with one Algerian parent, as one who would outmarry (both Root French and Algerian) is less likely to have traditionalist religious sensibilities. On the number converting to Catholicism:
…In the year 2000, 2,503 adults were baptized, of which 9 percent were of Muslim origin; thus, 225 Muslims apostasized in France alone in 2000.19
The notation is “Les Pentes Croisees du bapteme,” Le Figaro, Paris, APril 12, 2000, p. 9. There are various estimates for the number of conversions to Islam, but I saw a quote from a French government official (a minister of some type) last year of “4,000 native French per year” converting to Islam (there are reports that there are 30,000-50,000 converts in all of France, so 4,000 seems like a highbound estimate). Since only ~10% of France’s population is Muslim origin (I’m using an estimate at the high end), the rescaled ratio of Muslim → Christian : Christian → Muslim (the religious identities seen in cultural, not confessional terms, in terms of origin) is about 1:2. Of course, since there are many more Christians in absolute terms, the Muslim conversions to Roman Catholicism can almost be ignored. But I highlight Roman Catholicism for a reason: it is possible that there are many more conversions to evangelical Protestant sects among non-religious Muslims than to Roman Catholicism. And unfortunately as my post Profile of Salafi jihadists highlights, North African Islamist radicals are often drawn from the non-religious youth of the Diaspora.
Finally, I want to end with an observation. In the section of the book titled “Testimonies of born Muslims: Murtadd Fitri,” here are the countries of origin (or in one case, parental origin) of the apostates:
Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Far East (the author says he was born in a “Buddhist nation,” likely Thailand I think), Turkey, Pakistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Morocco, Pakistan, Malaysia, Tunisia and India. 6 from Pakistan, 3 from Iran and 3 from Bangladesh. Since the editor is of Pakistani origin the slant is probably a partial reflection of his own social networks, nevertheless, it is sad to see that only two Arabs are on the list since Arabs are, no matter what non-Arabs protest (ie; Mahathir Mohammed’s boast a few years back that Southeast Asia was going to move forward and be the face of 21st century Islam), the preeminent nation of the Muslim religion.2
Update: Muslims or people of Muslim origin might be 70% of the prisoners in France.
1 – There are some technical scientific-genetical questions I’m pursuing and exploring that will prevent me, due to time constraints, from ever being fluent enough in Islamic thought to really be totally unself-conscious about commenting.
2 – Certainly Islam is a universalist faith, but my personal experience at mosques was that Arabs always had a certain confident self-assurance that went with knowing they had nothing to prove, they were all The Natural when it came to the worship of Allah, the very language they spoke was the language of heaven (Punjabis would joke that Pashtun was the language of hell).
A series of posts in a sequential form about Islam and Muslims from the perspective of a westerner?
I don’t want to discourage you from pursuing a project of personal interest, but is there really much new to say about this topic from this perspective?
Sepoy at Chapati mystery has a good post up looking at terrorist narratives from the perspective of a historian. Perhaps you could look at terrorism from a GNXP/race realist/HBD perspective? Is there anything to be gained from that exercise? Or is it too much vanity to expect to able to say something new on the most bloviated topic of the decade?
I am waiting for someone to bring up the Musharraf is a dictator/ Pakistan is the center of terrorism/ Pakistan needs to be nuked angle to this piece by Razib.
That someone I suspect (gasp!) might be an Indian or a person of Indian origin.
Ikram,
Is that an old post at Chapati Mystery ?
i will check out the CM post. i wasn’t going to hit it from the perspective of a historian, per se. i don’t see the HBD angle since terrorism is multiracial from what i can gather.
I am waiting for someone to bring up the Musharraf is a dictator/ Pakistan is the center of terrorism/ Pakistan needs to be nuked angle to this piece by Razib.
That someone I suspect (gasp!) might be an Indian or a person of Indian origin.
and thanks for your commitment to maintaining the thread amity. this is exactly the sort of bait that will send this thread into mutually-assured-flaming. unlike indians who don’t like pakistan, you don’t have any biases or axes to grind, right?
in the future such comments are going to be deleted on these threads. i’ll leave it there as an example.
… i wasn’t going to hit it from the perspective of a historian, per se.
You could always do ‘historical parallels’ — anarchists, the IWW and international syndicalist terrorism, the idea of the One Big Union and its relation to the idea of the Caliphate! What do the workers want?
But it’s all just history games. Fun, but I’m not sure its really enlightening.
i don’t see the HBD angle since terrorism is multiracial from what i can gather.
No, I suppose not. Funny, despite all the voluminous verbiage on it, not only do I not really understand anti-western terrorism[1], I can’t think of any angle that would help me understand it better. I’m befuddled about my befuddlement.
Anyway, I look forward to your posts.
[1] Not to be confused with Kashmiri or Palestinian terrorism, which is conventionally comphrehensible.
But it’s all just history games. Fun, but I’m not sure its really enlightening.
well, i won’t fixate on history. i am going to try and bring some of the cognitive anthropology, evolutionary psychology (less of this actually than the others) and sociology of religion i’m familiar with. history (at least macrohistory) can frame the problem, but i don’t think it can give us solid answers or directions.
and of course, a western perspective is relevant. i suspect that no matter what, the west, by its nature will swallow islam and redigest them to be more appropriate for consumption. but there are many paths to get there, and the normative questions need to be more clearly fleshed out.
and yes, i am look at possible parallels to anarchist terrorism, i think that might be a good model.
Razib,
From my perspective, the Jihadists of today are merely copying and extending the pattern of terror developed and perfected by the IRA of the 1970/80′s – nothing new here.
In fact the IRA is known to be an exporter of terror training, both tactics, methodology and possibly material, and is known to have trained Arab terrorists long before Bin Laden was on the scene.
The only difference is you substitute the US as the Great Satan rather than the UK, and Communism rather than Islamism.
Ikram wrote:
not only do I not really understand anti-western terrorism[1], I can’t think of any angle that would help me understand it better.
The way I understand it, Jihadists, despite their references to Islamist ideology, are usually from a more secular background and merely neo-Luddites, who, having been educated in science and technology – often in a foriegn Western culture – and often coming from an upper-class background, find them out of place and out of time in their world. But of course once trained as an engineer, one can never look at the world with naive incredulity again, nor can one really believe such ramblings as the Koran. So, in a sense, becomming an engineer has robbed them of their spititual and cultural roots, and cleaved them from their fellow countrymen.
I think it is this feeling of aloneness, this isolation, combined with a probably nerdy personality type to begin with, which drives these loners to come together as a group and then to destroy the evil, which they feel is destroying them.
Not sure if I’m making my point clear, but hope you get the gist of what I’m saying – which is that they are really battling their own personal demons, and particularly their Schizoid thinking, in the guise of saving their countrymen.
in the future such comments are going to be deleted on these threads. i’ll leave it there as an example.
Ok, fair enough.
the Jihadists of today are merely copying and extending the pattern of terror developed and perfected by the IRA of the 1970/80′s – nothing new here.
In fact the IRA is known to be an exporter of terror training, both tactics, methodology and possibly material, and is known to have trained Arab terrorists long before Bin Laden was on the scene.
i think the terrorism of fatah is a clear anlogy (extended) to the IRA. it was terrorism with a focused political purpose. the analogy with jihadism in the west breaks down because there really isn’t a political solution on the horizon. this is where anarchism comes in, as clearly anarchist radicals were trying to bring the whole system down, which, to be mild, was rather unrealistic. this is why focusing on dynamics of cliques and networks is important, the IRA and fatah can been be intelligible in the context of irish nationalism or arab/palestinian nationalism. jihadis, or anarchists, are post-nationalist and pure ideologues. the subset of axioms that intersect between anarchists and jihadis and the mainstream is far smaller than that which connections nationalist radicals with the mainstream.
Razib,
The IRA was and is transnational, in that Irish, British, American, Canadian and Australian citizens were members. I would also argue that by the very fact that they were willing to train Arab and South American terrorists, they were also post-nationalist – though I know many people would find this hard to stomach. They believe in the maxim, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I’m no expert on this, but do know they saw their terrorism as a class struggle against the bourgeoise, who happened to be British. In this they cast themselves as would be liberators of the masses ala the Bolsheviks.
I also think the IRA only ever had a hazy idea of where they were heading politically, and long ago broke down into anarchists. Today in the Irish Republic they are largely known for their criminality, rather than anything else. I suspect that this will be how the Jihadist end too, when their more usual sources of funding begin to dry up!
and yes, i am look at possible parallels to anarchist terrorism, i think that might be a good model.
I used to think that the chapter in Barbara Touchman’s book “The Proud Tower” entitled ‘The idea and the deed’ was a model. But there isn’t the same sepearation between Shehzad Tanveer and OBL that there was between Leon Czogolz and Anarchist theorists. It doesn’t quite work.
I’m finishing up “The Strange Death of Liberal England” and the syndicalist worker unrest from 1910-1914 seem a slightly better model. Syndicalism was an international workers movement (Wales, Seattle, Winnipeg) buttressed by French theory and opposed by accommodationist British Trade Union leaders. But I knwo little fo the period or the movement, and I doubt, in the end, it will prove any better a model than anarchism.
From my perspective, the Jihadists of today are merely copying and extending the pattern of terror developed and perfected by the IRA of the 1970/80′s – nothing new here.
Techniques, yes. But not motivations. The IRA’s desire for a united Ireland was, given the reality on the ground, stupid, but quite understandable. Shehzad Tanveer’s suicide-bombing is not explicable in the same way. Why’d he do it?
which is that they are really battling their own personal demons, and particularly their Schizoid thinking, in the guise of saving their countrymen.
That’s the same tack Sepoy is taking (looking at Columbine killers), and I don’t disagree. But I know a few obnoxious deracinated Hindu engineers with Hindutva tendencies, and they don’t blow themselves up in subways. Even restricting it to Muslims, your explanation would suggest a lot more terrorism than we actually see.
9-11 hijackers, Madrib bombers, Bali bombers were all hardcore Salafists. These 3 big attacks which were not related to any localized conflict but were a part of the Salafist Global Jihad.
Is there any evidence that the 3 Pakistani Brits were Salafists ? As I understand the mosque they frequented in Lahore was not a Salafist mosque.
95% of the Sunni religious schools in Pakistan are controlled by the Deobandis though they are only 10% of the population. I have not seen any evidence which would suggest that the Deobandis have adopted a global jihad salafist philosophy.
If the London bombers were not Salafists, this surely is a very troubling sign because it would suggest that even some Non Salafist Muslims have adopted the Salafist ideology of nihilism and random attacks on the West and its allies.
They still havnt apprehended the mastermind behind 7-7 so its still possible that the mastermind was a Salafist.
If not, then this would be the first indication that the violent Salafism is now gaining acceptance in Non Salafist cycles.
I have not seen any evidence which would suggest that the Deobandis have adopted a global jihad salafist philosophy.
the book i referenced earlier says that the salafist network has parasitized the tabligh network throughout south asia. the tablighees do not share their violent philosophy, but they can not really keep track of people who make cover stories and have no compunction of using their resources.
also, the differences between “deobandi” and “salafi” have to some extent been blurred by arab money from what i can gather. the deobandi tradition might have started out from a different root than salafism, but the two have converged in many ways, at least the deobandis who developed a close association with the arab afghans (i believe the taliban were an offshoot of the deobandi movement, someone can correct me).