Published On 5/13/2026
While the French authorities say that the draft “Anti-Islamic Infiltration” law aims to protect the values of the Republic and confront what they describe as “political Islam,” the text quickly turned into a divisive issue in France.
The irony, according to what was reported in French media coverage, is that the law presented by the French senator and former Minister of the Interior, Bruno Rutayo, found itself facing sharp criticism from the conservative human rights right and the political left alike, even if the motives of each party differed.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
The draft law is based on the hypothesis that the Muslim Brotherhood has been working for decades to reshape French society by infiltrating schools, associations, sports and religious spaces, with the aim of “imposing religious standards at the expense of the principles of the Republic.”
In its explanatory memorandum, the text describes political Islam as a “permanent and organized ideological threat” that does not necessarily rely on violence, but rather on a “systematic and covert infiltration process that seeks to undermine national cohesion,” according to the text of the proposed law.
The draft also includes a series of strict measures, including the creation of a new crime that punishes any attempt to “replace republican laws with religious or group standards,” expanding the powers to dissolve associations administratively, and granting the authorities the right to freeze funds and economic resources of bodies suspected of being linked to so-called “secessionism.”
But these measures opened the door to widespread criticism, even within conservative legal circles traditionally close to the French right.
In a collective article published by Le Figaro newspaper, a number of lawyers, judges, and jurists warned that the law, in its current form, “poses a grave danger to public freedoms.”
Criticism focused in particular on Article 6, which gives the administration the power to freeze the funds of individuals or associations “even in the absence of a criminal conviction from the court.”
Legalists affiliated with the French right: The danger does not lie in confronting political Islam per se, but rather in expanding the powers of the state in a way that may turn into a tool against any political or intellectual opposition in the future.
This movement, which can be described as the “institutional right,” believes that the danger does not lie in confronting political Islam per se, but rather in expanding the powers of the state in a way that may turn into a tool against any political or intellectual opposition in the future.
The signatories asked: “Is granting the administration such broad and ambiguous confiscation authority consistent with the rule of law that the government says it adheres to?”
They also warned that the law may turn into a “modern message of repression” that allows the “economic execution” of any opposition party, whether associations, media outlets, or political figures.
For them, democracy is not protected through financial and administrative sanctions, but rather through “freedom of expression and the competition of ideas,” stressing that “ideas that we do not like are not fought through economic exclusion, but through intellectual debate.”
Legalists affiliated with the French right: Democracy is not protected through financial and administrative sanctions, but through freedom of expression and the competition of ideas. Ideas that we do not like are not fought through economic exclusion, but through intellectual debate.
The most prominent signatories of this petition include Noelle Lenoir, former minister and well-known lawyer, Dominique de la Garandre, former head of the Paris Bar Association, Jean-Claude Magendie, former president of the Paris Court of Appeal, lawyer Gilles-William Goldenadel, former prosecutor General François Valeti, and Gregoire Bupinc, director of the European Center for Law and Justice.
On the other hand, the criticisms of the French left and the Media Part website came from a completely different angle. The left believes that the law is based on “portraying Muslims as an internal enemy,” and that it relies on “controversial” reports and studies to justify tightening the security and legislative grip.
A report in Media Part criticized the project’s reliance on a government report on the Muslim Brotherhood, which it described as “a confused mixture of previous works” that was “used politically before its publication.” The report also noted that the document itself acknowledges that “there is no recent evidence proving the desire of French Muslims to establish an Islamic state or to implement Sharia law in France.”
The investigation also questioned an Ifop study that was used to justify the law, considering that its questions were formulated in a way that suggested preconceived results, and that terms such as Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood were not precisely defined, which some social scientists described as the use of “loose terms.”
The criticism did not stop at the methodological aspect, but rather extended to the essence of the concept of “Islamic penetration” itself, as French Interior Minister Laurent Nunez admitted that it is “a difficult and very complex concept to define.”
The left believes that the text may open the door to targeting Muslims and religious associations in general, and not just extremist groups.
In this context, French Senator Ahmed Laoig says: “Enough is enough… too many bidding and too many showy laws,” while the head of the Environmental Bloc, Guillaume Gontar, accused the law of reflecting a “racist ideology” that portrays Muslims as people who “secretly infiltrate to destroy society.”
As for Senator Melanie Vogel, she said that the law is not limited to the Muslim Brotherhood, but may also affect “local associations that organize halal meals or Muslims who practice their rituals normally,” wondering why there are no similar laws against what she called “Christian penetration” into the public space.
Thus, the draft law finds itself trapped between two contradictory objections: a right that fears the state’s encroachment on individual freedoms and the freedom of political opposition, and a left that sees the text as a tool to expand legal Islamophobia and target Muslims socially.
Between these two positions, the law remains a symbol of a deeper French crisis related to how to reconcile protecting the republic and preserving public freedoms in a society that is becoming more polarized year after year.
