Renowned French anthropologist Florence Bergeaud Blackler discusses the expansion of Islam and Muslim Brotherhood in Europe, Islamic Caliphate, and halal & hijab push in western democracies, in an interview with The New Indian Editor-in-Chief Aarti Tikoo.
Blackler specializes in Islamic normativity, and has written two books – The Halal Market or The Invention of a Tradition and Frérisme or Brotherism (yet to be translated into English). Her research focuses on Salafi indoctrination, halal ecosystems, and the particular form of Islamism that emerged in the 1960s in Europe and other western liberal democracies. Her works also revolve around the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in promoting a more radical version of Islam and pushing the traditional schools of Islam to the corner, in order to lead all Muslims towards the Caliphate.
This is the second part of the two part interview. Edited excerpts:
Aarti Tikoo: Critics may say ordinary Muslims are demonized by academics who write about Islamism or halal economy. Some even compare the situation of Muslims today to the situation of Jews before the Second World War. They were demonized, their economy targeted, and they eventually suffered genocide. How can one give credit to such arguments?
Florence Bergeaud Blackler: This comparison is outrageous and minimizes the Holocaust. It seeks to turn victimization into political power. I repeat over and over again that Brotherism is only one interpretation of Islam.
The issue is that being a Muslim without abiding by these norms becomes more and more difficult, because the Muslim Brotherhood has been ensuring its hegemonic position for 40 years. They are dominant in Islamic institutions and have discredited the religion the children had traditionally inherited from their parents. Today it is difficult to even think about Islam without halal or hijab coming to mind. The process of reform and assimilation was stopped 30 years ago. Muslim Brothers never wanted to work on the text (the Quran), but instead they worked on the context: how to adapt Europe to Islam.
Tikoo: Is it possible for Muslims to go back in time and choose other ways to practice their religion?
Blackler: It is possible but more and more difficult, because Muslims who do so are often intimidated, accused of being traitors or even rejected from their families. They would bring problems upon themselves if they don’t eat halal, for instance. The task incumbent upon us is to fully understand Brotherism in order to deconstruct what it has done. This would offer Muslims a possibility of assimilation.
Tikoo: Some young Muslims refer to the nasty past of Western colonial powers, and argue it is now time for payback.
Blackler: Some of these youth are the descendants of colonized people (or even sometimes of families who participated in colonization), they are not directly affected by this system. They turn it into an endless political resource, because, in this case, the spirit of revenge knows no bounds.
Unfortunately, some Europeans agree with them, feeling guilty and hating themselves. We must categorically reject this blackmail and this abhorrent propensity to guilt.
Tikoo: Is Europe the only playing field for this Brotherism, or does it have networks across the world?
Blackler: Brotherism avoids direct political confrontation. That is why Europe is an ideal ground for their tactics of soft-power and soft-law. The reason behind that is the European Union (EU) regulation in sectors like market, security or immigration. This regulation lacks a proper head. Its liberal policies are inconsistent and fail to acknowledge the proselytism of religious minorities. Naturally, Islamists don’t stop at Europe but I think they count on Europe and its money to train the elites who can then influence the rest of the world.
Tikoo: Would you say the EU holds France back from its own culture and hinders any attempt to assimilate immigrants? Do you see a population segment rising that would put an end to this guilt-trip and demand assimilation?
Blackler: The European Union is definitely an impediment to assimilation because of its immigration policies. More than this, it also subsidizes associations which claim to fight racism and Islamophobia. They spend their time blaming European countries for colonization and ‘systemic racism’, but offer no solutions. They are, in fact, more interested in creating a problem before offering to solve it with the money they demand. These funds run into millions of euros and also grant legitimacy to these associations. A population segment is fed up with this bad management by the EU.
Tikoo: India also has to deal with Islamism.
Blackler: It has come to my notice that the situation in India is in a way similar: Islamists are powerful and rely on secularism too. Political Islam is nowadays often defended by secularists. It seems to me that as soon as you claim a Hindu cultural heritage or refer to the primacy of territory, you end up being accused of Islamophobia in the name of ‘peaceful coexistence’.
Tikoo: The Left seems to be quite apologetic towards Islamism. Any criticism of associations working on the societal level is deemed Islamophobic. How can one explain this convergence between the Left and Islamism?
Blackler: It does not concern the whole Left. On the far Left, some indeed see Muslims as a substitute proletariat and as the best allies to fight capitalism and neoliberalism. They think they can use Islamists as instruments, failing to realize they are themselves being used. In the end, they will lose at this game, like what happened in Iran after the Islamic revolution.
Tikoo: You are facing death threats and you are presently living under police protection. How hard is it for an academic to write on these subjects, in a context of deeply polarized public debate and cancel culture?
Blackler: This protection is necessary for me to be able to keep doing my work and share it publicly. I shouldn’t let myself be intimidated. I have received death threats but also have faced attacks and harassment from my own colleagues. As I mentioned, universities were targeted from the beginning, in keeping with a strategy Islamists call ‘Islamization of knowledge’. They try to impose the idea that Islam could only be thought and understood from an Islamic perspective.
It is an advantage for some academics who align with this idea and work towards delegitimizing other researchers. I would say the most painful thing for me is to be left so isolated. Fortunately, I was able to meet with other European scholars who are facing similar issues. But we are very few to be able to continue the work without being attacked on the ground of utterly fallacious arguments to which we cannot respond. There were simultaneous attacks this year which suggest a will to eradicate any criticism of Islamism in academia.