Dust may have settled since the Paris attacks of January 7-9, but the debate over freedom of expression goes on. In the aftermath of the horrific murders, one key issue remains: freedom of expression vs religious conservatism. The attacks were not the first time that extremists have taken innocent lives in the name of blasphemy. But is at odds with Western liberalism?

The objective of a dogmatic religion, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is primarily to bind a society in a moral fabric. When a religious thought or ideology attains the intellectual underpinning of binding a society through moral thread, it develops an authority to dictate a law over its ruled people. Any idea that rules over people naturally becomes political. A religion that rules over its believers behaves like a concept with a political motive of conquering another territory to expand its influence. As a political entity sees any other organization with the same motive as its threat, a dogmatic religion guards its sovereignty very fiercely vis-à-vis any other religious faction. Thus, religion is a political idea that does not like to be subjugated by any other rival thought and wants to conquer other territories as well.

The strength and resilience of religion is beyond imagination: Nation-states can rise and fall, but religion remains unaltered and unharmed with its perpetual existence. But modern societies are governed through a model of nation-state.

Especially in the West, this concept has matured with democracy. It does not mean that during the Middle Ages religion was not an influencing force in Western society. In fact, the significance of religion in the West continued to be vilified by many political and social movements. Western civilization became enriched by movements, revolutions and ideologies like Italian renaissance, French enlightenment and British Magna Carta. It took the West centuries to prepare a ground where an individual was considered the center of all imagination rather than the church.

If you analyze the political and economic history of Europe, it will lead you to think that two human geniuses, Karl Marx and Adam Smith, changed Western thought forever when it came to dealing with the influence of religion on the human mind. Marx unequivocally criticized religion as unaccountable authority interfering in society. Smith relied on individual power for wealth creation as opposed to a centralized state. In both ways, the logic of democracy coupled with socialism or capitalism convinced Westerners that, in order to lead a happy and meaningful life, one does not need to make an appointment with a priest to seek any divine intervention.

But, after all, the West is not the only part of the world. In Muslim-majority countries, Islam as a faith plays a huge role in society. Islam is probably the only religion that has the ability to resist democracy. What makes Islam so powerful is that it can stand as an antagonistic force vis-à-vis the idea of democracy, which rests on values like tolerance and freedom of expression.

© Shutterstock

Political Islam Refuses democracy

Historical analysis of Islam tells that Prophet Muhammad was not just a spiritual teacher, but also a ruler of his tribal community, which means he acted as a head of state as well. In Christianity, Jesus was only a preacher, while in Buddhism, Gautam Buddha was a teacher and philosopher enlightening society with the theory of “nothingness.” Not even that, if we look at Islamic history, we find that only in Islam the founder himself conquered territory and set out to convert neighboring communities. History tells that all that converting other communities into Islam was through sheer bloodshed, not peaceful preaching — particularly in northern India.

Observers that Islam sees itself as the only pure faith that exists. Anything that is not Islamic is considered impure. Not even that, it is the duty of Muslims to convert others of impure faith into Islam. From the early phase of its birth, Islam developed a unipolar, prejudiced view of seeing the world — in other words, you’re either with us or against us.

Although there are differences across the globe, Muslim countries often have an old habit of flirting with the theocratic nature of the state. On one hand, Saudi Arabia is the representative state of theocracy. On the other, there are several countries across the Middle East, North Africa and Asia where religion runs the show of power under the veil of farcical democracy or even so-called secularism.

In such states, the religious heads get the legitimate right to rule. Sharia, or Islamic law, becomes the pivot of all political and social institutions. As per sharia, it is Allah who is the supreme sovereign rather than the people. Whether in public or private, Islamic law encompasses all aspects of life: from politics and finance to health and hygiene.

So, a religious tradition of this nature will stand firmly antagonistic to democracy. After all, in democracy, the citizen is made the custodian of power, not any “divine” agency represented by a priest, rabbi or sheikh.

These two antagonistic ideas — democracy and Islam — have been in closer contact since the 20^th century. With mass immigration following due to a labor deficit, the staging ground of this became . The aim of multiculturalism tested the established value system of secularism of those developed democracies. Among other Western countries, France presents a curious example of democracy with non-reformist Islam.

Is France in a Conflict With Islam?

holds its democratic values of liberty, equality and fraternity close to its heart. But when it comes to the interaction of religion with society, the uniqueness of France appears evident from its European neighbors. France is not just any other country of western Europe when it comes to interaction with religion; it is not like where Catholicism plays an important role due to the pope, nor is it like where the Church of England enjoys an affiliation with the crown.

Since Enlightenment, French thinkers advocated for a total separation of state from church, which went on to form French secularism known as laïcité. In secular France, religion was considered an obstacle in building a modern society. Thus, faith was reduced to a personal matter. The French consider the quasi extinction of religion from their society as a symbol of the triumph of individualism and modernity.

Christianity was accommodated and pacified within French society over the years. The attribute for this assimilation goes to the intellectual enlightenment, industrialization and colonization. The politics of Christianity became mollified by the politics of European nationalism, socialism and capitalism.

But Islam, which traveled to France though the people of former colonies, could not create a place of peaceful cohabitation for three reasons. First, it came from foreign land external to Europe. Second, France’s rigid culture of secularism sees Islam under negative sheds. And third, whether people like it or not, the seed of France’s turbulent relations with Islam lies in its colonial past.

According to Michel Tribalat, a researcher at INED, people of North African (Maghreb) descent in France 82% of the Muslim population. That means the majority of French Muslims living in France are of Algerian origin.

French history is scarred with the Algerian War of 1954-62. The wounds of that infamous conflict may have healed, but the distrust and hatred still remain in the minds of French Algerians toward the state. In fact, despite living in France for many years, citizens of Algerian origin often identify themselves as Muslims first and then Algerian. The French identity does not offer any emotional connection to them.

Let’s remind ourselves that in the case of the Paris attacks, two out of the three terrorists were French citizens of Algerian origin. Relations between France and Algeria still remain strained. Surprisingly, not many efforts have been made to mend ties between the former colonizer and the colonized.

It is true that the presence of Islam challenges the fundamentals of democracy. This challenge could become a crisis as the Charlie Hebdo case shows. If French democracy wants to win, then it has to show flexibility, accommodation and inclusion of those who were left behind on the path of progress. French intellectuals should realize that the republican form of the state has failed to make France a truly multicultural society.

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a or you could choose to be a .

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: / /

The post Is Islam in Conflict With the West? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

’s renunciation of power ten years ago is still fresh in the minds of . Her rejection of the prime ministership, and her selection of a non-political, Oxford-educated yes-man in  to run , allowed her to invent an unconventional mode of exercising power. Singh acted as the official head of government for a decade, but Gandhi and her children held the actual reins of power. In India, the prime minister’s office has never been minimized to that degree. But after the election of Prime Minister , who is despised by Gandhi’s , a sense of tragedy has descended upon the traditional ruling class.

Modi represents a marked contrast to the family. He worked as a tea vendor and, as a politician, sidelined more senior officials to reach the top post. The Indian prime minister represents an unapologetic face of nationalism, coupled with a Western brand of market economics. On the other hand, the Gandhis embody elitism and privilege; they have never had to struggle for power (except when Gandhi pushed out  as the Congress Party leader in 1998). They stand for and a -style, centrally-planned economy. Therefore, Modi’s position as prime minister makes the Nehru-Gandhi clan feel very insecure.

On November 14, during a Congress Party conference celebrating the 125^th anniversary of ’s birth, Gandhi launched a scathing attack on Modi, accusing him of being the primary destroyer of ��������’s legacy. Such commemorative occasions are meant to unite India, but she chose to use it as an opportunity to bash her political opponent.

Why does Gandhi see fit to use Nehru as a political weapon against Modi? Does she actually believe the antiquated Nehruvian apparatus is relevant in modern India? Does Gandhi really have the right, as a poster child for dynastic politics, to claim ��������’s legacy as a ?

Why Nehru?

Gandhi stands at the most difficult crossroad of her political journey. The challenges she faces are quite clear, but the means to fight them are not. The difficulty of her task is compounded by the fact that things are hardly in her favor. In his second term in power, Prime Minister Singh’s government (controlled by Gandhi) was responsible for inflation, a rudderless economy and a directionless and national policy. The government proved to be the most spectacular wreck of and incompetence the country had ever seen. So, not only does the Congress Party lack the credibility to criticize the incumbent government, but the party’s attacks also lack teeth because Modi has a good record of growth and governance in his home state of . Now, no option is left for the Congress Party but to bring back the narrative around the old, dual ideology of secular and non-secular politics. The narrative of secularism is the most appealing idea to the average Indian because of the character of India’s founding as a democratic nation.

Sonia Gandhi / Flickr

As the longest serving leader of the oldest and largest national party, Nehru is the natural symbol of Indian secularism. The Oxbridge intellectuals of , who came of age under Nehru and , have kept him alive and relevant in the public consciousness.

The world changed. The ended and India embraced in 1991. It hardly made any difference to the Gandhi family or to Delhi intellectuals — both remained devoted to secularism. Through various government welfare projects, the Gandhis made sure that Nehru would always remain alive in the Indian mind. But as many great national heroes, his political ideas have become obsolete.

Political ideologies, even ones created by giants, come and go. Few today would accept ’s staunch support for  imperialism. The same is true of ’s ideas of French independence and “grandeur,” and ‘s extreme and idiosyncratic brand of . But this doesn’t mean the extraordinary gifts of historical giants to their respective countries are unappreciated. citizens remember the heroic acts of Gen. de Gaulle during the occupation, and Churchill has been consistently ranked as the greatest Briton. However, all these leaders were creations of their own time. As the years pass, the relevance of their political ideas fade.

Today, ��������’s economic and foreign policies have hardly any followers in his own party. , a celebrated author and former foreign minister under Congress, questioned ��������’s vision of foreign relations. Time has relegated ��������’s foreign and economic policy irrelevant. So, why do the Congress Party and Gandhi still seek to prop up an old dead legend?

Dynasty and Democracy

��������’s to democracy in India is to his lasting honor. However, it was his own daughter, Indira Gandhi, who buried his legacy. She launched dynastic politics by bringing her sons into the corridors of power. As renowned Indian historian Ramachandra Guha said: “Nehru had hardly any idea that his quiet, self-effacing daughter Indira would rise up to occupy his chair.” Being a democrat, he would have never allowed a single family to dominate public life in a country he had worked so hard to liberate. So, by continuing with Indira Gandhi’s dynastic politics, Sonia Gandhi has done a great disservice to ��������’s legacy.

The 2014 elections showed that Sonia Gandhi’s son, , has lost the game. So now, all hope lies with her daughter, . Congress loyalists and much of the Indian press see Vadra as a reincarnated Indira Gandhi who can save the ailing party. If she fails, it will put a final stop to the family’s generational rule. Her success or failure depends partly on how Modi governs and partly on whether today’s Indians allow themselves to be limited by the political relics of secularism and Fabian economics. The current era is crucial for Indian democracy because it will decide whether or not the Congress Party will also be discarded as a relic of the past.

*[A version of this article was originally published by .]

51�Թ� is a nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and educating global citizens about the critical issues of our time. Please to keep us going.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: ��/ ��/

The post Memo to Sonia Gandhi: Your Hypocrisy is Showing appeared first on 51�Թ�.