The dean of the Paris Mosque defends the independence of the institution and its historical relations with Algeria

Shams Al-Din Hafeez, Dean of the Grand Mosque of Paris, confirmed that the mosque is historically and spiritually linked to Algeria, denying that it is a tool of political influence, and pointing out that the institution’s goal is to serve Muslims with all their communities in France.

He explained that the mosque was founded through a purely Algerian path, and that the Islamic Ahbas and Holy Places Association, which owns it, was founded in 1917 in Algeria and its laws were registered with the Algerian court.

Hafeez touched on Algeria’s funding of the mosque since 1982 and sending seconded imams, stressing that this funding is known and legally framed, and is no different from other countries’ funding of religious institutions in France.

He also stressed that all the deans of the mosque are Algerian, which reflects the nature of the institution as an extension of Algerian Islam in France.

The dean responded to the accusations by describing the mosque as an “instrument of influence,” stressing that Algeria possesses full diplomacy, and that the mosque only expresses enlightened and tolerant Algerian Islam.

He also expressed his desire to continue his mission despite his feeling of exhaustion, while affirming his rejection of any political exploitation of Islam, whatever its source.

Regarding the recent polls on Muslims in France, he criticized the way some questions were asked, stressing that their results showed the loyalty of young Muslims to France.

While the media focused on other aspects that serve extremist agendas. Rejecting any possible external interference in religious affairs,

Like what was rumored about Emirati funding, he called for waiting for the results of the official investigation before ruling.

He also pointed out the roots of the Algerian-French crisis in the issue of memory and colonialism, and considered that the draft law criminalizing colonialism is a step to confront a painful history without prejudice to future relations.

He criticized the MAC movement’s declaration of independence for the tribal region, describing it as a dangerous step despite its lack of seriousness, and calling for it to be taken seriously.