The Gravediggers of the Republic (islamo-leftism: the unpublished survey) is a rich and knowledgeable book. It offers a dive into history, explains theories and practice and gives sharp observations of the changing secular society: France in the first place but applicable to many countries. Sifaoui considers islamo-leftism as a threat to free societies. Step by step he accompanies the reader through the arguments why.

In the introduction, Sifaoui writes that he was educated and formed with the values of the left. Those values are the reason why he resists political islam because of its totalitarian character. Therefor he is shocked to see the liaison of the left with political islam:
‘(...) ceux qui sont suppose être de mon camp idéologique, de ma famille politique, les défenseurs réputés de l’humanisme, de l’antiracisme universaliste, des grandes valeurs, en somme de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et enfin de la laïcité, deviennent les meilleurs alliés des islamistes. Une anomalie que je ne finis pas d’explorer.’ p. 24

The Gravediggers of the Republic has 3 chapters: the genesis of islamo-gauchisme, its foundations and its activists. Overall it is very interesting what Sifaoui has to tell but not always easy. Sifaoui uses very long sentences, so at the end of them you often have to go back to the beginning for interpretation. Cutting sentences in half would largely contribute to good readability. It is also a very French book. Context and most players are French. Often I thought, who is that then? Or I missed assumed knowledge about situations described. But I had to keep on reading as the book is so interesting.

Islam versus political islam
Sifaoui differentiates islam from political islam.
‘Je dis bien l’islam politique et non pas l’islam – ni les musulmans – puisqu’une religion réduite à sa stricte vocation, confinée dans la sphère privé, respectueuse des lois et des règles communes ne peut représenter un problème.’ p. 276
See also this video-fragment. Sifaoui states that the left is only interested in political, extreme islam, not in islam. For example the left supports less muslim women who do not wear veils than muslim women fighting to wear the veil in education and public offices.
‘Les << défenseurs des musulmans >> ou les << défenseurs des Maghrébins >> ne les défendent pas lorsqu’ils sont policiers, journalistes, chômeurs, ingénieurs, femmes émancipées, laïques, mais principalement quand ils sont islamistes. (...) Parfois ils se transformant même en menaces à leurs yeux’. p.364

Historical perspective
The Gravediggers of the Republic shows how intellectual discussions about islam were well possible in the 19th century when great Arab thinkers contributed to debates. Then Wahhabism (origins in Saudi-Arabia) introduced intolerance and dictatorship of political islam. Sifaoui describes the historical process als it evolved in the Arab world: reforms in the 19th century, opening up to modernism, then overruled by nationalism since 1920 until the ‘70’s, when political islam starts to grow. I ascertain this was similar in the Turkish world: the 19th century reform movement Tanzimat, the nationalist period that started with Atatürk from 1920, and upcoming political islam after the 3rd Military Coup in 1980.

Conquering the main discourse
Sifaoui sees how political islam infiltrates democratic countries. Education is a very important sector for them because islamism is a long-term project and education an effective weapon. Also organisations fighting racism and other social or political associations are seen and used as partners.
Three steps are central in the islamic-leftist discours: first victimisation of muslims, then diabolisation of France and the values of the secular French Republic, finally reversal of the values. Thus many terror attacks have been justified already by islamo-leftists. The left abandons its traditionally essential principles. such as secularism and the fight against anti-semitism and even considers them as bad now. So the left approaches the political islamist discours, but the reverse movement (islamists defending leftist themes like feminism) does not exist.
Sifaoui explains the connection of the left with political islam from the fight against capitalism. For the left, a man who works hard to give a good life to his family, who enjoys liberties like emancipation that capitalism brings, who is no longer forced to go to church, synagogue or mosque, that free man is serving the wrong system. He is an individualist and an ally of capitalism, thus an enemy.

How resilient are France and the West?
The Gravediggers of the Republic gives many examples for its assertions. The fight to have women wear a veil and antisemitism are main themes for political islam. The left joins the political islam here. They plead for the veil as a woman’s right. They turn the wish for liberation of the Palestinian People into a fight against Israel that also brings antisemitism. That is not new or recent. In France in 1982 the newspaper Libération published openly a readers’ letter appealing to ‘Arab brothers’ to make sure ‘no Jew would feel safe’.
Also in Libération, the French socialist politician Jospin does not condemn terrorism in Algeria as he thinks the government has to be more democratic. Jospin indicates he cannot choose sides, a stand that shocks Sifaoui. Born and raised in Algeria, Sifaoui grew up with the extremist terror of GIA (see also this blog). He thinks the West and certainly the left is underestimating the power, deepness and violence of political islam. The West is not really equipped to fight it, but France is doing better than most countries on the institutional level. Is it really? I’m not convinced yet. I’d love to read a book from Sifaoui’s hand that is not merely focussing on France but studying different Western-European countries.

(Assumed) imperialism and colonialism as drivers
As the left sees Arab countries through the glasses of imperialism, they refer actual developments like political islam to colonial history. They could not be more mistaken, Sifaoui says. Political islam goes back ages and is not an actual development. Its inspiration does not come from the outside (by imperialism and the like) but from the inside of muslim-majority societies. Sifaoui sees two streams of political islam: one is ideological (Muslim Brotherhood) and one is revolutionary and violent (Wahhabism/Salafism). Both have strong connections to the left. The left finds excuses for acts that they would not accept from other citizens. But they see muslims as victims of society, not as free humans who choose to kill the staff of Charlie and visitors in the Bataclan or decapitate Paty. So in the name of (left) egalitarism, unequal treatment is allowed and even a must.

Read it!
There are so many historical facts in this book that it is difficult to summarize and present them here. With over 400 pages of knowledge and insights, the book is rich. Particularly original is chapter 16 about the ‘islamic left’(‘la gauche islamique’). Sifaoui has a fabulous knowledge of the Arab and islamic world, apart from his French insights. I recommend you read The Gravediggers of the Republic if you’re interested in islamo-leftism.

Finally, 2 fragments that were new and insightful to me:

1. Fragment explaining that political islam is less about faith or theology and more about fighting the system:
‘Pour comprendre l’adhésion d’un certain nombre de musulmans à l’islamisme, il faut garder présent à l’esprit un fait important (...). Ce ne sont ni la piété des prêcheurs islamistes, ni leurs envolées théologico-lyriques qui séduisent les musulmans, mais plutôt l‘expression de la contestaton après l’échec des expériences réformistes et nationalistes. En d’autres termes, l‘islamisme, et peut-être a fortiori depuis la mort du communisme, apparaît comme une alternative idéologique de remise en question de regimes autoritaires. En Occident, il y a une autre raison, car la repartition des richesses est plus équitable et les droits mieux garantis: on va vers l’islam politique car il offre une identité, il propose une aventure héroissante si le candidat entre dans des logiques djihadistes, et permet, ou donne, l’impression, de recouvrer une dignité, d’appartenir à un groupe qui – à tout le moins en apparence, c’est souvent une posture – ne fait pas du consumérisme et du matérialisme ses seules préoccupations.’ p. 202-203

2, About the difference of secularism (‘laïcité) in the US and France:
‘C’est méconnaître que la << separation >> outre-Atlantique visait, dès le départ, à protéger les Églises de l’emprise de l’État. En France, c’est l’inverse. En verité, deux modèles de laïcité s’opposent: une première laïcité, celle des Américains, considère, en effet, qu’elle protège les croyances contre l’État, la seconde, la << laïcité à la francaise >>, comme on l’appelle, empêche les religions d’interférer dans le fonctionnement de l’État.’ p. 326-327

You may also like these French-Algerian authors:
Yasmina Khadra: wonderful Algerian author
Hôtel Saint George: I understood…