“The Turkish Government wanted to use this mosque as a kind of soft power,” said Erkan Toguslu, an expert on Turkish affairs at Leuven university in Belgium. “Erdoğan’s aim is not so much religious as nationalist.”
President Erdogan and the Turkish Government are, however, no longer directly involved in the Strasbourg Mosque. The ultra-conservative Turkish movement behind the project, Milli Görüs, has been close to Erdogan at various periods in the past, but Ankara cut off funding for the Grande Mosquée after falling out with Milli Görüs in Turkey last year.
So a bizarre situation has arisen. Successive French governments and local administrations gave their enthusiastic blessing to the Big Mosque when it was linked to Erdogan; after Erdogan ended his involvement it became, according to interior minister Darmanin, a Turkish Trojan Horse — an example of “foreign meddling on our soil”.
When they lost access to funds from Ankara, the mosque’s promoters asked for money from a newly-elected Green and Socialist administration at Strasbourg town hall. Previous local administrations of Right and Left had offered money for the mosque but were turned down. The new Green mayor, Jeanne Barseghian, agreed in principal to make a € 3mcontribution – almost 10% of the total cost.
Although public funding of religious projects is illegal under France’s 1905 “secularity” law, Alsace was not part of France at the time, having been annexed by Germany after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870.
When Alsace returned to France in 1919, it preserved some of its own laws and characteristics, and to this days Alsatian trains run on the right-hand track, as they do in Germany, not on the left as they do in most of France. The German-speaking province also retains a Napoleonic-era right to public funding of religious projects.
There was therefore nothing illegal in the decision earlier this year of the Green mayor of Strasbourg to promise the funds – yet all hell let loose all the same.
Darmanin and other members of the government accused Ms Barseghian of being politically naïve. The far-Right accused her of surrendering to so-called islamogauchisme (an alleged unholy alliance between radical Islam and the Left).
She received death threats from the ultra-Right, and was also bitterly criticised by French-Armenians — of which is she one — for helping an association which refuses to recognise the post-1915 genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
The man who leads the organisation which is building the mosque says that Mayor Barseghian has been the victim of shameless political hypocrisy. “Almost every other local political party has offered to helps us in the past,” said Eyüp Sahin, head of the Milli Görüs federation in the eastern region of France. “She never promised anything beforehand. Now they are attacking her.”
Milli Görüs has now withdrawn its request for money from the Strasbourg city authorities and, as a result, Mr Sahin says that completion of the giant mosque will be delayed until 2024 or 2025.
“It has become impossible to deal with French politics and politicians,” he said. “If we seek to raise money abroad, we are attacked. When we seek local money, the sky falls in.
“When it suits them, we are French; when it doesn’t suit them, we are Turks. They demand integration. Well, we are integrated. My accent may not be French but it’s not Turkish either. It’s Alsatian.”
Mr Sahin protests a little too much, however. His organisation, Milli Görüs, is a powerful German-based movement which promotes a very conservative interpretation of Islam and seeks to preserve the Turkishness of the diaspora in Europe into the second, third and fourth generations.
Milli Görüs itself means “national dream”, and the nation that the title refers to is neither France nor Germany.
As part of President Macron’s drive to curb the growing extreme Islamist influence in France, more than a dozen Muslim organisations were asked to sign a charter earlier this year – the Charter for the Principles of French Islam — which rejects foreign influence and recognises the primacy of democracy and secular laws over sharia law. Only three refused, including Milli Görüs and another Turkish organisation even more closely associated with the Turkish state.
The balkanisation of France’s Muslim community into organisations linked directly or partly to countries of origin was once encouraged by French governments. It is now recognised as part of the problem. There already is, for instance, a big mosque in Strasbourg which is also called confusingly “La Grande Mosquée”, and which attracts worshippers from the local Maghrebin (North African) communities but not Franco-Turks.
Interior minister Mr Darmanin is threatening to dissolve Milli Görüs, as an organisation which refuses the supremacy of French law and is “tied to a foreign power”. Samim Akgönül, head of Turkish studies as Strasbourg university, says that Darmanin is missing the point and missing a trick.
Since Milli Görüs seems to have parted ways with Erdogan the French government should be finding ways, he says, to draw them into French life, not push them away.
“By refusing to consider these populations as part of French society, we are giving them up to Turkey. But in truth they are Strasbourgers,” Mr Akgönül said.
Another academic who knows Turkey well, but who asked not to be named, said that the Strasbourg Mosque row, far from curbing Erdogan’s power, was playing into his hands. “Erdogan uses France in the same way that the Johnson government does in Britain,” he said. “For both of them, stirring up anti-French feeling is a useful way of stirring up national feeling.”
President Macron’s drive to restrain extremist Islamist ideology in France was necessary and well-intentioned.
It was grotesquely misrepresented in some parts of the Muslim world – and by liberal media in the United States. Unfortunately, however, Macron has allowed his ambitious interior minister to muddle the issue with tough-man posturing – on the Strasbourg Mosque and other issues.
The big, and often misleading, row over the big mosque is part of a wider and dangerous polarisation of attitudes to Islam in France. The far-Right and even part of the traditional Right exploit Islamist excesses and exaggerate Islamist influence to disguise and promote more generalised Islamophobia. Meanwhile, part of the Left refuses to admit that violent, Islamist ideology is advancing — or even that it exists.
The Strasbourg row is confusing — far more than it needed to be — but that’s not surprising. As the 2022 elections approach, it has become increasingly impossible to speak rationally about Islam in France.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“France has a serious mosque problem. There are not enough of them to go around.”
Wow, this article starts off so badly and then it gets worse.
It’s entire starting premise is wrong. The proper starting point would acknowledge:
Instead, this article is nothing but victim blaming. Blame France. Blame laïcité. Blah blah blah.
Please bring back Liam Duffy because he understands the issues and understands France!
Your bullet points are valid but I don’t see them as a reason to deny people a place to worship. Extremists deny others freedom of religion and it seems that you are doing the same. Surely you want freedom from extremists rather than freedom from Muslims?
Denied a place to worship? Their project is not about having a place to worship. They plan to build the biggest mosque in Europe, bigger than the cathedral of their city. This is a supremacist political project and they are aligned with a foreign government.
When discussing Muslims, it is a terrible idea to start off with Islamic extremism.
My interest is in France not Muslims. My attention to extremism is entirely contingent on the current circumstances which have obliged me to learn far more about Islam than I ever wanted to know. With that said, where exactly should I start when discussing Islam or Muslims? And, if I should stray from these recommendations, what are the consequences? A fatwa? Please, do tell.
As a matter of interest, can anyone think of any country Muslims have gone where they have not rapidly become a serious problem?
There must be one country in world history where Muslims arrived and everything got better. I’m not a historian so perhaps that’s why I can’t think of one.
This may surprise, but I would nominate the US. The September 11 attacks were perpetrated by Muslims in the country by subterfuge with the intent to commit terrorism. There have certainly been terrorist attacks since that were perpetrated by Muslims living in the US–San Bernardino, the Boston Marathon bombing–but Muslims hardly have a corner on mass violence in the country. I live in Philadelphia and rarely walk downtown or take public transport without seeing Muslims, who can be identified only by dress. That means primarily women wearing some form of traditional attire. Many are black Americans who practice within the Nation of Islam and often dress very conservatively–hijab or even niqab for women along with black skullcaps and orange-tinted beards for men. Others are presumably immigrants and often wear more varied traditional clothing. It’s routine to see Muslim bus drivers, Muslim clerks in grocery stores or banks, Muslim mothers with children and strollers. When I taught at the city’s community college, I had many Muslim students, black Americans and immigrants. I have never seen any reaction on the part of anyone else, no odd looks, much less overt prejudice. The city has many mosques, mostly small, store-front houses of worship which are often thriving parts of their wider community. Of course there is anti-Islamic prejudice in the US, and that could generate Muslim anger and reaction, but the reality is more complex. A friend who used to work with refugees recently told me of seven Syrian families who had been resettled in Allentown, a small city in Pennsylvania, and were welcomed with open arms. As she commented, “This is the kind of news we don’t hear.” So did Muslims arrive and everything get better? Of course not. But did Muslims arrive and not rapidly become a serious problem? Yes. Most American Muslims are fully functioning, productive members of the society and practice their religion in peace.
Muslim population in the US is about 1%, in France it is about 10%. It is projected that Muslim population (as proportion of population overall) in the US will double every 25-30 years. Just give it time, you might face the same problems as France one day.
Sadly, no. I really wish that I could offer a positive example or some existing model that offers hope.
I didn’t find the author’s use of islamophobia very helpful or certainly accurate. It’s become a useless slur of a word.
I’m just listening to Douglas Murray’s “The Strange Death of Europe” again; and it is disturbing especially seeing such continuing ongoing problems of integration of Muslim values into Western society. It does seem like secular hubris has backfired assuming that the West had “outgrown” the need for religion and that the millions invited in would also do the same. Unlike other faiths that have managed to integrate smoothly, Islam does have a political foundation through its adherence to Sharia law and concepts of ‘Caliphate’.
The problem isn’t too few mosques; the problem is too many fanatics. And we are producing more fanatics than ever. We import foreign fanatics but we also create new fanatics amongst us. Douglas Murray understands this. Any honest person who has opened their eyes and seen the absolute state of Europe knows this. I work with young people and I see this problem getting much worse. The violence we are seeing is likely to intensify. Denialism won’t help. Liberal delusions are as dangerous as religious fanaticism. Lichfield, and this entire mindset, are part of the problem.
Couldn’t agree more.
The real issue is that France’s constitution on which its laws are derived is outdated. The forefathers of the Revolution never conceived a world where France would host millions of Muslims. France is witnessing the emergence of what can be best described as multi-civilizationism where different communities with radically different norms and ways of life coexist more or less peacefully on the same soil.
When I go to visit my father who lives in the working-class suburbs of Lyon, I am shocked by the number of veiled women who barely speak a word of French, yet have been granted residency thanks to criminally lax immigration laws. The ethnic replacement of the French proletariat – a process set in motion in the 1960s by the French captains of industry – is almost complete, at least in France’s large metropolises.
France is a victim of its own brand of universalism and its refusal to face an uncomfortable truth.
I say that as the son of a Tunisian immigrant who worked in North Africa, but the reason why France is struggling to culturally integrate Muslim communities is that Islam is simply not part of France’s DNA, it never was and never will. As we say in French: la greffe n’a pas pris (the graft did not take).
If France wants to avoid a destructive civil war, it will need to draft a new constitution based on a more exclusive definition of the Nation and what constitutes Frenchness.