In all of the reports in France, and abroad, great stress has been placed on the fact that these seven (who should be hanged) were from the "poor immigrant" neighborhood of the 19th Arrondissement. Even the judge in the case referred to this fact. And the same fact -- their impoverished background, blah blah blah -- kept being mentioned. The reason is clear: there is an attempt to pretend that the problem here is not the teachings of Islam, but poverty. But there have been studies devoted to analyzing the backgrounds of thousands of Muslims involved in terrorism, and the conclusion is otherwise: that most of those involved in terrorism are better educated and better off than the average Muslim.

It may be true that in this case the seven hell-bent on Jihad in Iraq were poor (although, given the free education, free medical care, and subsidised or free housing that the French provide, the very word "poor" has to be understood as something other than what that word can mean  in more dickensian societies), but that is not the point.

There are others, non-Muslims, both French and representatives of other immigrant groups, who are just as poor or poorer. And there are other Muslims, such as most of the 19 who took part in the 9/11/2001 attacks, who were middle-class, and still other Muslims -- the names Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri come swimmingly to mind -- who were from very rich, or very well-connnected (Al-Zawahiri's great-uncle was Azzam Pasha, who in 1948 was the head of the Arab League) families.

So "poverty" is not an explanation and that "19th Arrondissement" stuff may comfort some, even as it misleads. "Poverty" is neither sufficient (Islam is required), nor necessary (see Bin Laden, see Al-Zawahiri, see Mohammed Atta, see see see).

More than fifty million Frenchmen have been consistently wrong about the meaning, and menace, of Islam. A few million have been right. May their numbers increase.