The Barbarizing Mission of France made Muslims’ Integration Impossible

Analyzing the reasons of the Muslims’ impossibility to integrate in Europe, in four lengthy articles (entitled ‘Integration of Muslims means Disintegration of Europe’, ‘Reasons making Muslim Integration in Europe Impossible’, ‘The Impossibility of Muslims’ Integration in Europe’ and ‘Islamic Terrorism: A European Creation Monster Impossible to Integrate’), we received an unbelievably great number of letters, full of varied points, and urgent demands for suggestions. We do not intend to accept the urgency of suggestions. Never did an urgently demanded suggestion and solution end up in a positive way.

Reflection matters far more than the urgently demanded, found and implemented (assuming it is so) solution; what most of the readers who do not feel safe in their homes in Europe (which is certainly very bad) seem not to imagine is the historical perspective of every political act. Because urgently sought after, a ‘solution’ risks becoming part of the problem (especially if this is not viewed through a perspective of centuries). However, at the terminus of this series of articles, we will come up with a certain number of solutions.

Yet, a real solution risks at times being viewed as non-solution, particularly if the moral dimension of a crisis (that is superficially viewed as political problem) is not plainly perceived by many. For anyone anytime anywhere, it is comprehensively wrong to think that Punishment can be ….. avoided. This is an illusion.

We will now proceed in the description of further reasons that triggered the current situation with the impossibility of the Muslims’ integration in Europe as definite and irreversible result.

Point 14 – Cataclysmically Ruinous Provocation of Social Divides in the colonized lands of the Ottoman Empire

This is the immediate and inevitable consequence of Point 13, namely the provocation of reaction among the, uneducated and unable for sophisticated thinking, Wahhabist sheikhs. These sheikhs were gradually invaded by envy and hatred against the West, and thought possible to travel there, attest the technological changes, ‘transplant’ the technological set up back in their countries, while assuming a sort of religious, educational, cultural, behavioural Puritanism, and sticking to what they erroneously thought as islamically correct (which was of course wrong).

During that time, further social – behavioural developments were triggered by the Western elites that had found a way to cohabitate first in Alexandria and Algiers, and then in Beirut, Aden, Khartoum and Damascus (over the span of 120 years: 1798 – 1918).

Among the immediate collaborators of the French, the British and the Italians in Alexandria (to focalize on the earlier model), some indigenous people of either Muslim or Christian background, who had no other possibly better choice than the collaboration (in guise of servitude), started thinking ‘differently’ and consequently behaving ‘differently’.

This social – behavoural difference was very precise: they imitated the ‘Westerners’ or ‘Europeans’. The change occurred in many levels, and in many cases it was sheer, thoughtless mimicking. When there was some sort of thought involved, the motive was sheer material interest; in most of the cases, the mimicking was laced with personal feeling of inferiority the only remedy for which would be this very mimicking. Very simple and very complex issues were dealt with similar attitude.

The imitation started with the dress code, involved the overall lifestyle, and reached the level of the education of the children within a family. Having been dressed in Frankish (Franji) clothes, having gone (on a rare occasion - as he could not afford more often) to a European style hotel’s restaurant, the pater familias, who was the assistant / interpreter of a European businessman, started thinking how his son would study in the French or the British primary and secondary school. This would mark a distinct superiority between his son and those of his relatives, friends, and neighbors; and this would please that person whose vanity was sufficiently manipulated by the European intruders who counted on this sort of people.

With the Christians massively imitating the Westerners, and expecting help in vain, and the Muslims divided into three main categories, the local societies started being disintegrated:

a) people who imitated the Europeans in everything, believing that they did not need to stick to their old religious, social, behavioural and cultural traditions,

b) people who imitated the Europeans in the social level of daily life, clothes, socializing habits, nutrition, sports, educational syllabus, but at the same time, they insisted on following their traditional religious, cultural and social prescriptions, where they found this was important for their identity to be demarcated, and

c) people who either were socially very low and economically too meager to imitate the Europeans or rejected the idea of imitation whatsoever, considering it as a humiliation of their Islamic identity

Christians can be encountered in the first two categories, whereas few Muslims belonged to the first category. Despite their different reactions and behavioural attitudes, people in the last two categories hated, envied and at the same time felt a severe complex of inferiority towards the West.

Group b – the theoretical inaptitude of the intellectually inconsistent

This was completely misunderstood by the Europeans, and the misunderstanding comes down to our times, as European and American statesmen, diplomats and businessmen idiotically consider every Arabic speaking interlocutor, who appears in perfect Western look (jacket, tie, polished shoes, well shaved, sunglasses, and eau de Cologne), as …. Westernized!

The aforementioned divide is the least studied subject in Western universities’ faculties and departments; it generated social and political clashes, in which the two frontal groups were b and c. The overall outcome of this social divide can be described as follows:

Group b insisted on imitating the West; but as these people had to demonstrate (within their society) that they were true Muslims, the imitation remained nominal and superficial. Even worse, pulled to confrontation with Group c that reproached this imitation to them, Group b people never considered a reappraisal, reassessment and reconsideration of their inclination to imitate the Westerners, whom they hated, - let alone the Westerners’ ideals and principles.

At the same time, in order to prove to themselves that, contrarily to accusations by Group c, they stuck to their perception of Muslim ideals and principles, which was multilevel erroneous, they never questioned deeply and widely the interpretation of Islam as carried out and publicized by Group c, engulfing themselves into an intellectual and ideological impasse. They never rejected Islam’s presentation by Group c people and sheikhs as wrong; simply they retorted ceaselessly that they acted according to the same principles, and that simply their acts were misinterpreted by Group c people and sheikhs.

Because of this, they could not stand critically either on the subject of the theoretical foundations of the culture and the system they tried to keep imitating or with respect to the ideological – intellectual basis of their opponents’ system that they said they accepted.

Group c – the unstoppable force of barbarization and social – behavioural deterioration

Group c anytime anywhere outnumbered Group b. They were the ‘oppressed’ majority, and they represented the most uncompromised elements of the Wahhabists and the Islamists. They viewed in Group b the hypocrites accused by Prophet Muhammad 1200 earlier, as they could not understand that you cannot compare two different elements selected out of two different environments. They scrutinized every verse of the Coran and every line of the Hadith to pick up what they believed was a refutation of the cohabitation with, and the imitation of, the Westerners, as attempted by Group b.

As they consisted in the bulk of the local populations, they were the premier target of the colonial frame. The continuation of the imitation – as perpetrated by groups a and b – irritated them terribly, as it was anticipated by the colonials. Group c people and sheikhs perceived it as betrayal, and to react they would have two alternatives: either to attack and eliminate (which was not easy because the colonials had established their puppets of local administrators and viceroys with their military and security apparatus) or to escalate their own unconditional beliefs and behavioural attitudes.

This was the quintessence of the colonial game; by engulfing the illiterate masses and their uneducated sheikhs to further and further escalation - as reaction to developments triggered and novelties diffused by the Europeans and accepted by groups a and b -, the colonials pushed the majority of the local populations to an impossible and unreal platform that could not cause anything else except deceit and defeat. The unprecedented escalations covered the quasi-totality of these sheikhs’ and their followers’ beliefs and behavioural attitudes.

Anything from the ‘Islamic’ veil to excision, prohibition of alcohol and premarital sex, is rather relevant to the obstinacy, obduracy and inflexibility (resulting from escalated reactions) than related to theology, hermeneutics, and philosophical – theological – ideological analysis.

First, these uneducated sheikhs did not have the means to reach an intellectual and scholarly level allowing them to pertinently understand their own philosophy, culture, history, religion and civilization, and make correct judgments thereupon.

Second these sheikhs, manipulated through colonial scheme tactics similar to iterated prisoner’s dilemma, were led to escalated reactions – something that was out of their mental capacities to possibly detect and avoid.

This demonstrates perfectly well that barbarizing them was the real mission of France, and the colonial academia, diplomats and political elite that intentionally interfered in these societies, and provoked the disastrous divide only to drive the majority of these populations to irrevocable barbarism.

It is therefore impossible for the French and the Europeans, who do not denounce this colonial game, to possibly integrate those, who they first alienated – in so indescribably immoral way.

Note
The Alchemist (1853) – this painting by Sir William Fettes Douglas illustrates only too well the immoral and criminal deeds of the Colonial French and English in the illegally detached and occupied territories of the Ottoman Empire; now with the Muslims in Europe impossible to integrate, the descendents of the colonial gangsters may soon have an illuminating inward view of the greatness of their inanity. But why should the entire Europe be punished for the Anglo-French deeds?