agenda, fact or analysis?

Submitted by daniel (France), Dec 4, 2006 at 20:20

I don't believe I suggested that all contributors to this column with first-hand experience support Dr. Pipes' analysis. From what I can gather, as evidenced in my previous comments, there's a fairly even split between those who wholeheartedly endorse it (Johnson, Jo M) and those who discredit it (Standhope, Murphy), though in all honesty I must admit Messrs. Standhope's and Murphy's comments are better substantiated.

I myself have some direct knowledge (see "caveat"), as I happen to live just a few streets from one of the Zones on the list (which I honestly don't mind walking to on my way to work), my wife also taught in another for several years. My own personal experience, which I don't consider to be adequate when placed along lengthier statistical studies, leads me to believe that Dr. Pipes' portrayal, while somewhat alarmist, is not altogether ill-founded.

To support my point of view (that there are indeed lawless "sensitive" zones in France, where the French state exercises only limited control), which I readily admit is nothing more than a layman's educated opinion, I have provided links to recent articles in the French press. I don't know what studies you base your own comments on, but I would be sincerely interested in taking account of them as well.

On the whole I would agree with quite a few of your previous comments, here are a few reactions (i.e. mainly disagreement or qualification) to the latest series :

>>Lack of religious observance rather than religious fundamentalism would also typify the people who live in these places.

I'm afraid my own personal contacts would suggest to me that most are caught somewhere in the middle, neither radical fundamentalists nor total apostates, merely sympathizers with a personal distaste for sectarian violence but willing to excuse certain forms more easily than others. Again, if you have hard facts to indicate otherwise, I'm open to be proven wrong.

>>However, if there is one big difference with the US, It is not in the number of Moslems in the respective populations, but in the scale of the problem itself.

It seems to me that the proportion of Mulims and the scale of the problem are both major differences compared to the US.

>>In relation to every single indicator mentioned above, (and adding in illegitimacy, violent homicide, and rape), the US is in a completely different and worse league.

I'll trust you on this one. Not having spent enough years in the US to have any first-hand experience, all I really know is what I read in the papers. I've driven through some squalid areas around Buffalo or Philadelphia while in the States, I can't say they were that much worse than what I'm accustomed to around Paris, but I'm not aware of the statistical indicators that you refer to.

>> One thing is also clear. ZUS are very certainly policed. The most frequent complaints relate not to the absence of policing, but to the alleged over-policing of the poorer suburbs of large French cities - and the often over-enthusiasm of the police in the use of firearms.

This isn't actually all that clear. A frequent tactic in some "sensitive" zones is to call in the police (or even the Fire Department), on reports of car burnings or a break-in, in order to ambush them. In some cases the "complaints" that you allude to are a reflection of the fact that police officers are seldom present in some of the worst areas, so that whenever they are forced to intervene their operations take on a commando-type aspect, and are experienced as such by residents. I remember learning during last year's riots that the ratio of police to inhabitants is some 2 (or even 3?) times higher in Paris proper than in the suburbs, where the needs are of course much greater. Unless I'm completely uninformed, firearm use or abuse by police is not at all as much of a problem with French police as in the US, although there was one such incident recently between a police officer and neo-fascist football fans after the PSG-Tel Aviv game. The investigation is still ongoing, so it's too soon to say if this was a case of legitimate defense or not.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3242,36-838488,0.html?xtor=RSS-3208

>>In fact, the one common denominator connecting most of the very few French citizens who have become involved with Al Qaeda and the like is that they became radicalized abroad - usually in the UK.

You're probably right on this one. The UK is undoubtedly a hotbed of Islamic radicalization in Europe.

>>One interesting and quirky statistic: families of Observant Catholics, Observant Moslems, and Orthodox Jews in France all display similar birth-rates which are significantly higher than their apostate co-religionists.

Right again (although I still don't know where you get your statistics, or what "quirky" number you are referring to). When one considers that the proportion of the religiously observant among "Muslims" appears to be higher than the percentage of observant Catholics (albeit this is a higher percentage among a minority group), and the overall Jewish population is even lower, this tends to distort the birthrate you referred to in a previous post, which at approximately 1.9,

>>see : http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/chifcle_fiche.asp?ref_id=CMPTEF02215&tab_id=37

although well above the pan-European average, remains significantly below the ~2.1 birthrate necessary to maintain demographic stability. In addition, the average age of observant Catholics (at any Mass in any Catholic parish I've ever had the pleasure to attend) seems well above reproductive age.

I don't have any reliable statistics to back this up since official inventories of religious practice are unfortunately illegal in France. There are various estimations out there, depending on who you want to believe, so it would be nice to have some standardized numbers to go by in order to know exactly what we're talking about. Here's what "Wikipédia" has to say about the question :

La population musulmane est maintenant estimée par le ministère de l'Intérieur entre 5 et 6 millions au sein d'une population métropolitaine d'environ 63 millions d'habitants. 1,5 million d'entre eux seraient de nationalité française. Il ne s'agit cependant que d'une estimation, puisque le recensement des fidèles d'une religion est interdit par la loi française depuis une loi de 1872. Beaucoup de sociologues pensent que ce nombre ne reflète pas la réalité, et comptent plutôt une population de 8 millions de musulmans sur le territoire français (comparés aux 12 à 20 millions dans l'Union européenne). (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_en_France)

As I've already pointed out, among the 4 to 8 million "Muslims" in France there are quite a few immigrants of North African origin who may or may not identify with or practice the Islamic religion, let alone subscribe to any sort of totalitarian ideology.

Most observers would agree that French "Muslims" are generally more observant than French "Catholics", but this is difficult to quantify for the aforementioned reasons. Given that the INSEE evaluates regular religious practice in the general population at approximately 11.7% (14% for women, 9.4% for men), all religions included

>>see : http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/chifcle_fiche.asp?ref_id=NATCCF05502&tab_id=452

and if Le Figaro is correct that religious practice among "Catholics" is approximately 8%

>>see : http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20060605.FIG000000149_l_inexorable_erosion_de_l_europe_catholique.html

this would put the average for "Muslims" at about 45%, if we assume that the French population is approximately 90% "Catholic" and 10% "Muslim" (.08×.90+.45×.10=11.7).

This calculation is slightly off of course, since it doesn't account for other minorities such as Buddhists, Jews, Orthodox Christians etc., but since agnostics and atheists of all origins are already factored into the INSEE statistics, is must be somewhat realistic. Taking the higher INSEE estimate of 20% occasional religious practice in the general population would only increase the theoretical percentage of observant "Muslims", unless a higher figure can be found for "Catholics". This is nothing but informed mathematical guesswork, but it's the best I can do until such a time as French law allows official religious statistics to be determined. It doesn't tell us why in the INSEE study whatever "Muslims" were surveyed chose to identify themselves as such, or what brand of "Islam" they follow. It does tend to support your statement that "most French Muslims are apostate" or that "lack of religious observance rather than religious fundamentalism would also typify the people who live in these places" but only by a ratio of 55% to 45%.

At any rate, the higher birthrate in France is an encouraging, albeit all too recent, development, regardless of what ethnic origin our new compatriots are from. Although they will certainly have some future significance, birthrate statistics aren't actually very useful in commenting on current ideological trends. Birthrate statistics are interesting, but how do you account for schoolchildren, born in France, with jus soli French citizenship, who continue to identify themselves as "Algerian", "Moroccan" or "Turkish" ? This doesn't tell us anything about their religious practice, but it does suggest an identity crisis among populations typically, if inaccurately, identified as "Muslims". The real question is not what ethnic or religious background newcomers and their progeny are from, but the means by which the French republic specifically endeavors to integrate them, which in my own experience has been essentially nil. The idea of effectively providing French language and citizenship classes to new immigrants was only introduced about 2-3 years ago (if I recall correctly, such projects have been around for a long time but were never put into practice with sufficient funding).

To return to the subject of Dr. Pipes' analysis, or mischaracterization as some would have it, I am willing to believe, based on my own experience and acquaintance with current events, that there are connections between :

1/ absence of integration and economic discrimination

2/ rejection of French identity and institutions

3/ identification with foreign cultures

4/ identification with Islamic ideology

5/ lawlessness

6/ poverty

To repeat what I've already stated elsewhere, I tend to believe that lawlessness, poverty and cultural isolation together create an environment in which Islamist ideology can flourish, and in some cases Islamist ideology may reciprocally promote lawlessness. Whether or not anarchy or lawlessness in areas with sizeable "Muslim" populations is synonymous with or preliminary to the establishment of "Dar al-Islam" within France is not a question I can answer in a satisfactory manner. Rather than seeking to advance any "agenda", I await Dr. Pipes' longer analysis of the subject.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".