French Catholics and Secularists

French Catholics (secularists or not) need to learn that France is not theirs to govern as they see fit and that it is not the exclusive property of French Gaulois Catholics. They must realize that what they consider the only legitimate French culture must change and assimilate itself to the long-resisted fact that France is also a Muslim country, that non-Gaulois, non-Christian, and non-European French citizens are part and parcel of the country�s identity. They are not �guests� living in the home of French Catholics and secularists, who are in turn not their �hosts.�

https://www.bostonreview.net/forum/france-after-charlie-hebdo/joseph-massad-response-france-after-charlie-hebdo-massad

abuayisha wrote: French Catholics (secularists or not) need to learn ...

How would this work out in a reciprocal situation, where Islamic culture was the established or majority one?

"Muslims in an Islamic majority country need to learn that it is not theirs to govern as they see fit and that it is not the exclusive property of Muslims. They must realize that what they consider the only legitimate Islamic culture must change and assimilate itself to the long-resisted fact that theirs is a multicultural, multicultural country and that non-Islamic citizens are part and parcel of the country�s identity. They are not �guests� living in the home of the Muslim majority, who are in turn not their �hosts.� "

Hmm.   I'm not sure I see it.
Egypt tries, and struggles, to offer equality to its Christian minority, this executed somewhat better by its legislators than by its ordinary citizens.
Elsewhere, does the demand for the right to build mosques in non-Islamic countries have reciprocation in respect for the right of other religions to build their buildings for assembly and worship in Islamic states or Islamic majority countries?

Chris

abuayisha wrote: An excellent example of tolerance would be Al-Andalus, Muslim Spain. Present day Muslim nation states, in my opinion, do not offer a good analogy because most, if not all, are client states of the west.

Yes, I agree there was an exceptional tolerant (though far from perfect) period in Moorish Spain.
How that peninsula came to be under Islamic control in the first place is more complex but essentially founded on invasion.

"Present day Muslim nation states, in my opinion, do not offer a good..." ...example?
But this is what we have to go by.

" ...because most, if not all, are client states of the west." Now as an excuse or reason I find that utterly unconvincing.
How would less-than-equal treatment of non-Muslims result from undue Western influence, even if it were present? The reverse should be expected, surely?

If anything I think any "relationship", where there is one to be found, is far more based on a situation found very clearly in Africa and especially in South America. "The West", here essentially the USA, (with Britain and France as minor "post colonial" players) found itself wanting as friends, and desiring to support, national governments of many different sorts (including the good, the bad and the ugly) which were naturally inclined, or could be persuaded to be anti-communist.
This in America's eyes was the big enemy, the big threat. Islam itself was no threat or issue.

Look to that first reason (and access to oil, second) for USA interest in the Middle east. Starting with Persia/Iran.
There, yes, Britain and America wanted a client state rather than admitting that a far looser and less authoritarian hand was needed, to fit the retreat from Empire and post-colonialism after WW2.
But, unable to tolerate Prime Minister Mosaddeegh, who wanted more of Iranian resources to be under Iranian control(possibly too much, too fast: if only compromise has been possible) they got their puppet or client state with the Shah of Iran. Much good that did them, or anyone, in the long run.
No client state there now!

Chris

abuayisha wrote: Emettman wrote: But this is what we have to go by. " ...because most, if not all, are client states of the west." Now as an excuse or reason I find that utterly unconvincing. Well for me it's a simple matter of power dynamics, and to compare, what some may argue to be empires, to client nation states, is in my estimation impractical.

I wasn't making out the larger stronger players to be in the inverse position. But in needing to keep (smaller) countries "onside", "friendly", compliant on particular points of policy, the big powers are actually markedly constrained by the necessity not to ruin friendship and cooperation. At the cost of turning massive blind eyes in some cases. "Yes, he's a brutal dictator who sends out death squads for his political opponents and builds palaces while his people starve, but he's anti-communist, and the next guy might not be."
So the "supported countries" learn of their relative immunity, and get to know how to jerk the chain of their "patrons" to get more aid. This more on the US side. Within the Soviet sphere it tended to work rather differently, and in more than one way.