Current Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

The Armenian Soviet Socialist Republics and Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republics were Russian states within USSR. The present center of Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict is the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh which was an autonomous oblast (Russian for administrative unit) within the borders of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. After the Soviet Union disintegration Armenia and Azerbaijan were recognized as independent countries and Nagorno-Karabakh, legally became part of the Azerbaijan sovereign territory. Hence international law recognises Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijan’s sovereign territory – and the presence of Armenian military forces as occupation. After the dissolution of USSR, Armenia attacked and occupied the region, like India occupied Kashmir after British withdrawal in 1947. Azerbaijan has the right, under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, to act in self-defence.[1]  Interestingly the OSCE Minsk group, created in 1992 to resolve the conflict, co-chaired by US, Russia & France, has failed so far for the last 3 decades. Russia is a traditional ally of Armenians in this conflict, has a military base there and is a provider of weapons to them but also supplies weapons to Azerbaijan. As for France, with its Islamophobic President, has outrightly criticized Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan against illegal Armenian occupation. In order to understand the background of this conflict and why Russia backs Armenia and Turkey backs Azerbaijan, also a Turk nation, we need to delve into the history. 








​












​Historical Relations Between Turks & Armenians

The Armenians encountered the Muslim Turks when Seljuks defeated Byzantine Empire in 1071 CE in Battle of Malzikert, where Armenians fought alongside their Byzantine Lords. After the capture of their Kingdom by Seljuk Turks, one of the princes escaped to Cicilia, the Southern Anatolia (now Turkey) and established their Kingdom of Cicilia which became a strong ally of the European Crusaders. Under the Ottomans, the Armenians lived peacefully with the Turks for several centuries. After conquest of Istanbul (Constantinople) in the 15th century, Mehmed Al Fatih (r. 1444–46; 1451–81) established the office of the Patriarch for the Armenian Apostolic Church, the traditional church of the Armenians. The men holding that office asserted their spiritual authority over all the Armenians living in the empire. The Armenian Patriarch was authorized to manage internal working of their community such as administering the schools, clergy, family law, and even taxes for them. Under Ottomans they enjoyed the status of a Millet i.e. Religious Community, which gave them a sense of shared identity as it linked them with all Armenians living under the empire. The Armenian merchants thrived in 17th and 18th centuries and established communities in most of the cities of the Middle East and in places as far away as India, East Asia, and Europe. A large majority of the Armenians lived as peasant farmers in the mountain valleys of the eastern Ottoman Anatolia (modern Turkey) and in the western part of Safavid Empire in Iran. The Armenians lived in harmony with the Turks till the end of 18th century, when the Great power of Europe - France, Britain, Russia, Austria, began challenging the Ottoman Sovereignty.[2]

Armenian Resettlement - Russian Geopolitical Strategy

In the 16th century Russia emerged as a political power and one of their imperial ambitions was to control the Caucuses.  As a result of two wars with Persia (1804-1813, 1826-1828) and one with the Ottomans (1828-1829) Russia conquered the territory of South Caucasus which includes modern day Azerbaijan (then a Turkic Muslim Khanate). To maintain their control over the conquered territories, a project for resettlement of Christian communities was decided. The project came in to full swing with the aim to reduce and counterbalance the high Muslim population, whose loyalty as a conquered people will always be more with Caliph in Istanbul or the Persian Rulers rather than St. Petersburg. Thousands of Armenian families, settled in Ottoman and Persian empires, were brought in, with mediation of Russian Armenian and Orthodox Churches, through incentives and with high hopes of an independent state. An Armenian Oblast (state) was created in modern Armenia with its current capital at Yerevan. In the Russo-Ottoman war of 1828, thousands of Ottoman Armenians fought alongside Russia against their own state with the hope of having their own in the Russian occupied Ottoman territories. However, after the Treaty of Edirne (also called Treaty of Adrianople), this remained unfulfilled after Russia withdrew under the condition that Ottomans would allow Armenian resettlement to South Caucasus, hence Russia continued working on its own demographic change plan.[3]


The Tanzimat Era

In order to be at par with the European impact, the Ottomans decided to introduce reforms in the 18th century called Tanzimat i.e. based on European model that would modernize the empire. In Ottoman history, the Tanzimat period refers to a time of Westernizing reforms from 1839 until 1876. It was a movement toward a European-style governing structure through the establishment of councils and ministries. The era was divided in to two periods: First Tanzimat period (1839–56) and the Second Tanzimat period (1856–76). Both were undertaken during the rule of Sultan Abdul Majid (r. 1839–61), strong advocate of European system and lifestyle. The reforms granted equality before the law to all Ottoman subjects regardless of religion or ethnicity giving extraordinary privileges to non-Muslims. Many of the reforms happened under significant political and diplomatic pressure of European powers. Somehow the ruling Ottoman circle started to believe that modernization through Western norms was the only viable model for success in the 19th century.[4] But it is also true that a major aim of these reforms must have been to maintain loyalty of the millions of Christian subjects of the empire, who were being exploited by Great powers for geopolitical reasons. 

Rise of Armenian Nationalism

In the late 18th century Armenians took advantage of the new imperial regulations governing millets (non-Muslim religious communities) in the Tanzimat period and introduced a national constitution for the Armenians in 1863. The constitution provided that the Armenian Patriarch was the chief executive of the millet but that he was to be elected by a general assembly, composed of both laymen and clergy. Armenian merchants and bankers, known as amiras, began to use their wealth to buy influence among Ottoman officials to place those sympathetic to their interests in the post of Armenian Patriarch. Further limiting his powers, the assembly could impeach the patriarch. The constitution also separated the spiritual affairs of the community from the temporal matters.[5] Such reforms gradually minimized the patriarch’s influence over the Armenians, who held a special relationship with Ottoman rulership on behalf of the community for past 400 years. A nationalist and radical leadership became more influential among Armenians that gradually increased the wedge between Armenians & Ottomans which eventually led towards Armenian rebellions and bloodshed between their community and the Ottoman State. Some historians have seen this trend in local governance (initiated by Tanzimat Reforms) among the various religious communities including Armenians as contributing to the rise of nationalist sentiments. The children of the Armenians began educating separately from Muslims and primarily in the language of their community. They rejected Arabic and Turkish which their parents and ancestors spoke. They were also taught the separate history of their community and its culture. It is this separate education that many believe inspired the millets to see themselves as separate peoples.

The Hunchak & Dashnaks - The Nationalists Extremist Organizations

Justin A. McCarthy, an American demographer, professor of history at the University of Louisville, and an expert of late Ottoman History, says that the Turks and the Armenians have lived together for 800 years, with Armenians being Ottoman subjects for 400 years, and should never have become enemies to each other as they are today. His historical analysis is very important to keep in view, especially to comprehend the current regional conflict in the Caucasus between Armenia (military ally of Russia) and Azerbaijan (a Turkish nation and ally of Turkey).

In 1876, Russia invaded the empire with the specific goal of seizing the six provinces or “Six Vilayets” in the Eastern Anatolia of Ottoman Empire, where majority Armenians were concentrated. The six vilayets were Van, Erzurum, Mamuretülaziz, Bitlis, Diyarbekir and Sivas. 17% of their population was Armenian but majority 78% was still Muslims. After their failure to capture the Eastern Anatolian territory resulted in the Treaty of 1878, which raised the “Armenian Question” i.e. Russians and other European powers, Britain & France, demanding increased autonomy or independence for Armenians. McCarthy informs that it was not until the Russian Armenians began exporting their Marxist inspired nationalist ideology to local Christian Armenians of Eastern Anatolia that resulted in their armed struggle and militancy against the Ottoman state. The political and militant support for this nationalist mindset came from 2 parties, namely the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party, called the Hunchaks, founded in Geneva, Switzerland in 1887 by Russian Armenian students. The second was the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, called the Dashnaks, founded in Tiflis, Russian Empire, in 1890. Both parties carried the ambition to carve the six provinces out of Eastern Anatolia for their future Armenian state. These groups saw their opportunity after Ottomans lost Serbia, Bosnia, Romania, Greece, and Bulgaria because of European interventions.

Hijacking Ottoman Armenians by Assassinations & Threats

However, the majority Armenians were not in favor of any radical ideology and did not wish the breakup of Ottoman empire, they wanted to continue living in the empire but with increased political autonomy and participation. Hence the only way to finally destroy the traditional loyalty of the Armenians to the Istanbul based Apostolic Church and the Ottoman State was to somehow bring the clergy and the influential merchant class under their control, which doing so would allow to spread their ideology among the community. To achieve their ambition, they committed assassinations of the influential clergy and merchants, and spread terror into their hearts that forced them into acceptance of their radical thought. Assassinations of famous merchants such as Bedros Kapamaciyan, the Mayor of Van, Armarak, the kaymakam of Gevash, Isahag Zhamharian, and others. The assassinations of Church leaders and clergy such as Armenian bishop of Van, Boghos, the attempt on Armenian Patriarch in Istanbul, Malachia Ormanian, and murder of Arsen, the priest of Akhtamar Church in Van, by Ishkhan, a Dashnak terrorist. This was in addition to the murders of loyal and brave Armenian police officers, one Armenian Chief of Police and Armenian advisors to the government. The aim of these revolutionaries was to turn the peaceful and co-existing Ottoman Armenians into rebels and this could only be achieved by committing terrorist activities against the state which would cause authorities to crack down on Armenians. The Ottoman reaction to Armenian provocations were reported by European newspaper as oppression against their subjects. The propaganda caused the European consuls to intervene on behalf of the arrested Armenian rebels and demand pardons from the Ottoman state. Such as pardoning killers of Sultan Abdul Hamid, the rebels of Zeytun, the Dashnak rebels that occupied Ottoman Bank, the Russian consul pressure to stop trial of Dashnak rebels etc.[6]

Armenian Rebellions Before World War I

This radical mindset that spread among the Ottoman Armenians became the key for Russia during World War 1 to defeat Ottomans in the East Anatolia, where majority of Armenians were concentrated. As per unbiased historians, the war broke out in April 1915 but the Armenians were already planning several months before to desert the Ottomans in case of their defeat from Russia and also assist Russians in their attacks, which happened as planned. A massive armed rebellion was started long before the war broke out. Guerilla attacks of Dashnaks against Ottomans were taking place throughout the Eastern Anatolia, during 1914. It was after a series of attacks and rebellions and killing of hundreds of innocent Turk and Kurd Muslims, an Armenian effort to ethnically cleanse local Muslims from their territories. All of this paved the way for successful Russian invasion of East Anatolia in 1917. As a result, Ottomans ordered the deportation of Armenians (May 26-30, 1915) to Southern Anatolia or other parts of the empire. The Armenians claim that these deportations were a plan to commit Armenian genocide that led to deaths of 1.5 million Armenians, which has also been compared by some in the West and media with Jewish holocaust. This, however, is disputed as per Turkey, whose archive information claims that a total of 3 million people died between 1912 – 1922 which included Jews, Turks, Kurds and an estimated 300,000 – 600,000 Armenians. With the expansion of Russia into Crimea, Caucuses and Balkans, and loss of former Ottoman territories, resulted in persecution, displacement and eventual death of hundreds of thousands of Muslims from those territories, which is widely ignored when Armenian deaths during the same period are mentioned.[7]

Historian Analysis on Armenian Deaths

Renown author and Historian Bernard Lewis denies the Armenian genocide claim and says that there is no authentic evidence that proves that Ottomans pre-planned a systematic genocide. He does, however, accept that Turks adopted ferocious methods to repel the terrorist attacks of the Armenian revolutionaries which led towards deaths of thousands at the hands of irregular Ottoman forces, local Turks and Kurdish villagers. But this was all a retaliation to the stab in back by Armenians for past several years and their collaboration with Russians. He claims that it would be absurd to compare Armenian deaths with Jewish holocaust because the Jews never committed a rebellion backed by foreign powers, against Nazi Germany yet majority of them were not spared. While Armenians in other parts of the empire where there were no rebellions were spared, the ones serving in the Ottoman state and forces were spared, and not all deportees were killed, many were spared. These exemptions did not occur in Jewish holocaust.[8] Another renown British historian Norman Stone, states that Armenians in Izmir, Istanbul, Aleppo were spared is a major evidence against so called Armenian genocide. Many Armenian deaths were also due to starvation, diseases, poor weather conditions during deportations. Stone also claims that its well documented that many Armenians lost their lives at the hands of the Ottoman officers in charge of deportation, but not to forget that the Turks themselves tried more than 1,300 men for the crimes in 1916, convicted many and executed several. Hence, none of this squares with systematic genocide theory.[9] The main question would be, how many Russians and Armenians who killed Turks and Muslims were tried and convicted? None!

After lower house of the French parliament, passed a law defining the denial of an Armenian genocide as a crime, the lower house of the German parliament in 2016 also approved a non-binding resolution recognizing Armenian claims of "genocide". President Erdogan invited European politicians and international community, to jointly open the archives to settle the question about Armenian killings during 1915. "If available, you can also open your archives. Come and let us make a decision." Ankara has repeatedly proposed the creation of a joint commission of historians from Turkey and Armenia along with international experts to tackle the issue. It is an unfortunate reality that the Turkish Government has never received a positive response for all those invitations. It is because of this lack of response to Turkish proposals that Erdogan added "I know in my heart that the main point is not Armenians. They are just being manipulated. The Armenian issue is just blackmail against Turkey around the world. I want to let the world know: like it or not, we will never accept the 'genocide' accusation,"[10]

References:

[1] What is behind the Nagorno-Karabakh flare-up? And how can it be resolved? Al Jazeera News, Opinion, Robert M Cutler, 19 Oct 2020 https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/10/19/what-is-behind-the-nagorno-karabakh-flare-up/
[2] Encyclopedia of The Ottoman Empire, Gabor Agoston and Bruce Masters, Armenia, pg. 51, Armenian Apostolic Church, pg. 53
[3] THE RUSSIAN-SOVIET RESETTLEMENT POLICIES AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
FOR ETHNO-TERRITORIAL CONFLICTS IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS, By Farid Shafiyev, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario - https://curve.carleton.ca/system/files/etd/6f8fbd09-0bcb-4428-859e-42138ed25844/etd_pdf/cca6fb951143a6d272e32959b6d0a049/shafiyev-therussiansovietresettlementpoliciesandtheir.pdf 
[4] Agoston & Masters, Tanzimat pg. 553
[5] Agoston & Masters, Armenian Apostolic Church pg. 54
[6] Armenian-Turkish Conflict, Speech given by Dr. Justin McCarthy at the Turkish Grand National Assembly March 24, 2005 http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/Armenia/justin.html
[7] What happened in 1915 in eastern Anatolia? TRT World, Nov 9, 2019, Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oGXENYEztM
[8] Summary Rebuttal of the Armenian Genocide Claim, National Press Club in Washington, DC 3/25/2002, C-SPAN, Bernard Lewis, Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. https://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/08/1900-video-prof-bernard-lewis-no.html
[9] Historian Norman Stone in the Chicago Tribune, Number 27 |October 17, 2007 "ARMENIAN STORY HAS ANOTHER SIDE" https://www.tc-america.org/issues-information/tca-issue-papers/armenian-story-has-another-side-301.htm
[10] Armenian issue exploited to blackmail Turkey, President Erdogan says, Daily Sabah, Istanbul, June 4, 2016, https://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2016/06/04/armenian-issue-exploited-to-blackmail-turkey-president-erdogan-says

​


In the latest speech the current French President Emmanuel Macron claims “Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today, we are not just seeing this in our country."[1] He vows to help this religion by building an “Islam of Enlightenment” because apparently the current Islam threatens the secularism and its values that are the fabric of the French society. “Enlightenment” is a reference to Enlightenment Period of Europe’s modern history whence began the separation of Church & State. The French President’s speech in which he claims to “reorganize Islam” and fight “radical Islam” is not something new coming out of France. Since Colonial era there has existed a trend among French regimes to target Islam and Muslims.

​1. The first question, however would be that, is France’s past and present regimes really  secular as they claimed to be, or is it more of a love and hate relationship between Secularism and Religion for political benefits?

2. The second question, is Islam really in crises as stated by a non-Muslim, secular, French President, or is it another anti-Islamic attempt like those from Colonial era for political gains or to hide its own failures?

Secularism In Disguise

To answer the first question, in August 2001, the Taliban government of Afghanistan arrested some “relief workers” and among their “relief supplies” were thousands of CDs, videos, audiotapes, and Bibles in local Dari and Farsi languages. These missionaries broke the law that prohibited exploiting the sufferings of the people and evangelizing in the name of aid work. In addition to that they claimed that the literature was for their personal use, despite none of them spoke Dari or Farsi. The Taliban put them under trial in the court of law. Among the governments that rushed to the aid of these missionaries (“aid workers” as dubbed by the Western media) were Germany, Australia, US & “fiercely & rigidly” secular French government. This despite the fact that none of the missionaries were French![2]
What's more important to note is that French President’s so called efforts to save secular values and strengthen separatism (i.e. separation of church & state) lie exposed in France’s education system. Virtually all schools in France are not state schools i.e. secular, a misconception that may be found among those reading and those outside of France. Over 80% of school pupils are in state schools, but a substantial (and growing) minority of almost 20% attend private schools - far more, for instance, than in the United Kingdom or the USA. These private schools are essentially (about 90%) catholic schools, in which there is religious instruction in the curriculum, they get to select their own teachers and they are highly subsidized by the French Government.[3] It seems like there is a backdoor French policy towards other religions like Catholicism which is why they are not “in crises” but for some reason Islam is.

The Hijab Ban

This biased attitude towards Islam is because practicing Muslims are not willing to compromise their beliefs as good colonial subjects. For Muslims Allah ﷻ and His Messenger Muhammad ﷺ comes first, and this can be observed by the fact that religious symbols such as Christian crosses & Jewish skull caps were never a threat to the French secular society until Islamic hijab came in to the scene. The French society, heavily influenced by media propaganda, views the hijab and the veil as a symbol of oppression against women. Public opinion polls indicated about 70 percent of the French were in favor of the hijab ban. Hence it was not difficult for French parliament to pass the law, with overwhelming majority (494 votes in favor & 36 opposing) in banning religious symbols such as Christian crosses, Jewish caps and hijab from government and education institutions.[4] Its important to note that prior to this ban, the subject of heated debate in France and broadly throughout Western Europe was mainly hijab and veil as opposed to symbols of other religions. Even after the ban the mainstream European media kept public focus by reporting on the topic as “A law banning Islamic headscarves and other religious symbols”.[5] Everything else was considered as “other religious symbols” because Jewish and Christian reaction to the law was non-existent, crosses are not obligatory in Christianity and there were no protests over Jewish cap ban, but hijab (and veil) obligatory in Islam. Muslims filed cases, protested and expressed concern in whatever way possible against this breach of basic right of religious freedom (violating Article 1 of French constitution that demands respect for al faiths). These protests caused further backlashes and ignited debates from different segments of French society, arguing that somehow a piece of cloth is against French values. 

The French Islamophobia

The French Colonial studies expert, Neil MacMaster claims that the roots of Islamophobia in France go back to World War 1 time when Algerians, Moroccans, were allowed to travel to France as subjects because their lands were French colonies. Their presence on French soil was already being used by media propaganda to generate fear in to hearts and minds of French public. The media portrayed these North African Muslims as primitive savages, rapists, criminals, transmitters of venereal disease & tuberculosis.[6]
After occupation of Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco for almost hundred years (1830 - 1962) and killing millions, the French were finally defeated in the War of Independence (1954 - 1962).[7] They decided to withdraw from North Arica but sowed the seeds of large scale immigration from Algeria considered necessary at that time because France badly needed manpower for rebuilding the country after World War 2. In 1970s and 1980s these immigrants began to bring their families and as they settled they demanded basic rights to create Islamic spaces for their communities such as masajids, schools, cemeteries, halal food, time and space for prayer, etc. As they did the campaign of demonizing them increased in the French society. For instance in 1981 - 1982 an anonymous forged letter was widely circulated in Dreux where the extremist National Front would score a decisive victory a year later. The forged letter was supposedly written by an Algerian to a friend in Algeria:

“My Dear Mustapha. By the grace of the all-powerful Allah we have become lords and masters of Paris…Come quickly, we expect you in large numbers, since Mitterand has promised that we shall soon get the right to vote. We kicked the French out of Algeria; why shouldn’t we do the same here?”[8]

Islamophobic content published by French intelligentsia also contributes to indoctrinate the French society. For instance, in 1994, the Middle East Forum, an anti-Islam think tank published an article of Michel Gurfinkiel, renown French conservative journalist and public intellectual. Michel argues Islamization will eventually take over the country because of following “threats” from French Muslims: more practicing like fasting & praying, places of worships and attendance is increasing, birth rate is high - 3 to 4 times higher than local women, Muslim voting power, their unity under central Muslim leadership.[9] His myths are demolished by a report from Brookings Institute on “Unrest in France, November 2005”: There are about 5 million Muslims in France. According to 1999 census & survey, 3.7 million Muslims out of total, 66% identify themselves as Muslims and 20% as having no religion at all. The 66% also have a very low attendance at mosques. The fertility rate among French women is 1.94 children born per woman (2005.) Without immigrant women, this figure would drop only by 0.05 children born per woman. Roughly half of the 5 million Muslims living in France today are not citizens. Many are under 18 years of age or recent immigrants, which means they cannot vote. The term “Muslim Community” in France is also misleading because there are huge differences among community members based on country of their origin, social background, political orientation and ideology, and the branch of Islam. The myth of "Muslim leadership" is also incorrect because Muslims in France have no central authority.[10]

Post-industrialization & Discrimination

After 1970s, the post-industrialization period in France brought the low skilled labor jobs for majority of these North African immigrants to an end. Other industries boomed and these immigrants lacked technological and special skills for professional jobs. Settled in low-cost public housing development projects with increased unemployment, they became more marginalized in the society. Their private spaces became the ghettoes. With Islamophobia and the “threat” of Islam in the minds of general French public, the children of these immigrants, the second and third generation French citizens also felt marginalized due to their North African roots and non-European identity, and have continued to do so in 21st century. Discrimination being a major factor of high unemployment rates among them coupled with bad government policies, racial profiling by police, ghettoization, all together, fueled the series of riots in France through 1990s and then a wave of them from 2005 and onwards. Deceptive as always, the French media put the blame on religion for their problems, they reported “Islamic fundamentalism” as primary factor for the isolation and violence in these neighborhoods, which is far from truth. French politicians buy in to this nonsense for obvious political reasons.

Hence the French President’s efforts to reintegrate the French Muslims by declaring “Islam in crises” doesn’t help the situation, it actually takes away the attention from the main issues of the French Muslims. It attempts to hide the failure of the French governments own contradictions in their approach to resolve issues. As Dr. Hamed Benseddik, professor of Decolonial Studies, puts it very accurately: “Modern France and Colonial France haven’t really changed. It continues to struggle with the failed integration and assimilation of Muslims, largely due to its own internal contradictions. How does a country that allegedly stands for liberty, equality and fraternity reconcile itself with internal racist undercurrents that deny the liberty of religion, generate inequality, and regard Arabs and Muslims as second-class citizens?”[11]


References:
​
[1] Macron Rolls Out Vision to Reorganize Islam in France, Bloomberg, By Ania Nussbaum, October 2, 2020, Macron Rolls Out Vision to Reorganize Islam in France
[2] Taliban haul 'exhausted' aid workers before court, The Guardian, Luke Harding, South Asia correspondent Sun 9 Sep 2001 18.32 EDT Taliban haul 'exhausted' aid workers before court - Aid Workers Unharmed but Witnessed Beatings - First Things First: For Inquiring Minds and Yearning Hearts, Secularism In France, Khalid Baig, Open Mind Press (July 14, 2004)
[3] About-France.com, A Guide To France, Education in France - Primary & Secondary Schools, The French Education system - schools and secondary education. About-France.com.
[4] France backs school head scarf ban, CNN, From CNN Paris Correspondent Jim Bittermann, Tuesday, February 10, 2004 Posted: 8:32 PM EST, France backs school head scarf ban
[5] French scarf ban comes into force, BBC News, Thursday, 2 September, 2004, French scarf ban comes into force & European court rules workplace headscarf ban is legal
[6] MacMaster, “Islamophobia in France and the Algerian Problem”, in The Ne Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy, Emran Qureshi and Michael A Sells, eds. , (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), 291. The New Crusades
[7]“https://www.youtube.com/embed/EOUDRBc0HhI (https://www.youtube.com/embed/EOUDRBc0HhI)"
[8] Islamophobia in France and the "Algerian Problem". / MacMaster, Neil. The New Crusades. Constructing the Muslim Enemy. ed. / Emran Qureshi; Michael A. Sells, eds. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), p. 288-313. The New Crusades
[9] Islam in France: The French Way of Life Is in Danger by Michel Gurfinkiel, Middle East Forum, Middle East Quarterly, March 1997, pp. 19-29, Islam in France: The French Way of Life Is in Danger
[10] UNREST IN FRANCE, NOVEMBER 2005: IMMIGRATION, ISLAM AND THE CHALLENGE OF INTEGRATION, The Brookings Institution, Justin Vaisse Presentation to Congressional Staff, January 10 and 12, 2006, Washington, DC https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/vaisse20060112-1.pdf
[11] France’s ‘Muslim’ problem and the unspoken racism at its heart, TRT World, ADAM BENSAID 19 FEB 2020, France’s ‘Muslim’ problem and the unspoken racism at its heart