Islam is widely considered Europe's fastest growing religion, with immigration and above average birth rates leading to a rapid increase in the Muslim population. There has been much debate about solving the problem of "Europe's angry young Muslims." Since the terrorist bombings of London and Madrid, many fear that the anger and frustration of the new generation of young, alienated Muslims may grow into a new homegrown crop of radicalists. In the past year we have seen fierce protests throughout Europe over caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad, Berlin's Deutsche Oper's rendition of Mozart's opera, newspaper essays, veils and school customs. This begs the question whether such growth of the Muslim faith in Europe is compatible with Western European values? Or is Europe on the verge of a clash of civilizations?
Stephanie Giry says that assimilation of the Muslim population in France is possible and indicative for the rest of Europe. Thus, a so-called clash of civilizations is avoidable. Whether or not the necessary steps will be taken is entirely another question. "These events are evidence that the immigration and integration policies of several European countries have failed," writes Stephanie Giry in France and Its Muslims. While Giry maintains that the question of homegrown terrorism is a serious one, it obscures the fact that the vast majority of Europe's 15-20 million Muslims have nothing to do with radical Islam and are struggling hard to fit in, not opt out.
Muslims desire to assimilate has sometimes been met with a form of discrimination fueled by nativism and a deep distrust of Islam that has made it more difficult for them to find homes and jobs. But what has turned such vexing problems into crushing burdens is the economic stagnation that has afflicted the whole country and defied reform for three decades. The greater problem is that the debate over how to ease these difficulties is now ideologically polarized, having been hijacked by public intellectuals and politicians out of touch with the country's realities. The front-runners of France's 2007 presidential and parliamentary elections seem more interested in using the issue of Muslim integration for their own electoral ends. Some have resorted to scaremongering about security and immigration and have conflated those issues with Muslim integration (sound familiar?).
Despite fears that Muslims would display less than complete loyalty to French values, Muslims have largely acted as independent citizens, keeping their religious beliefs in line with French republicanism. To the extent that they constitute a distinct community, it is only in the eyes of politicians angling for an edge or of those who stigmatize them for religion or countries of origin. If discrimination continues to go unaddressed, there is real danger that French Muslims might get used to being treated as though their religious and ethnic identity was decisive and then start resorting to a kind of defensive identity politics. Such a result would be a self inflicted one for France and an unnecessary one.
France could find a way to both expect and facilitate the full incorporation of French Muslims into national life while respecting both traditional French values and a modern Muslim identity. [In order to do this, the author suggests a bit of public education to demystify Islam, as well as abandoning inflated republican rhetoric].
Giry's article is an insightful look into the successes and failures of Muslim integration into French society with important implications of future integration in Europe as a whole. While I agree with her analysis that it is the political and intellectual elite who so often manipulate the Muslim population, as well as other minorities, for their own political purposes, I think the solution is much more complex than public education and abandoning republican rhetoric. Really, it is the whole of French society that needs to create avenues for reform in the private and public sectors. It is the minds and attitudes of the French people that need to change.
In A Clash of Civilizations in Europe, Patrick Sabatier takes an interesting view on the division between Islam and European secularism. He states, these controversies in Europe over the past few years move beyond the usual xenophobic and anti-immigration concerns of the far right about the perceived intolerance, aggressiveness and even incompatibility of Islam with European core values. They also feed a dangerous strain of "Islamophobia" throughout Europe. Patrick argues, however, that this result is a toxic byproduct of a globalized [and perhaps irresponsible] media system.
Instant information and misinformation, through satellite TV and the internet, tend to obscure complex issues, feed on widespread ignorance on both sides and pour oil on long-simmering fires of historical resentment, economic frustration and political conflict. The large and fast discrimination of extremist minority views on isolated events whip up collective passions, making a dialogue based on tolerance and rational criticism more difficult. To that extent, it might be argued that globalization plays in the hand of the Islamists who preach jihad against the West, and those who dream of Europe walling itself against Islam.
Conflicts between a fundamentalist version of Islam and European societies based on secularism, liberal democracy, individual rights and non-discrimination of the sexes reawaken in European minds ancient fears, steeped in centuries of wars and invasions - all the more so since the phenomenon takes place under the persistent threat of Islamic terrorism.
Muslim furor is often staged for media consumption by small groups of extremists while the vast majority of Muslims remain indifferent. Over 70 percent of Muslims in Europe, according to a 2005 European wide study, describe themselves as hostile to Islamists. Most practice a peaceful, more tolerant brand of Islam. But a daily diet of violent news, images, and threats hides to European eyes the extreme diversity of Islam and its deep divisions along sectarian, ethnic, or theological lines. The silence of tolerant Muslims ends up making militant Islam the only message of Muhammad heard by Europeans, the very aim of proponents of jihad and xenophobes.
The dire prediction of Andre Malraux, made half a century ago, might one day become true. "The political unification of Europe would require a common enemy," said the author and Gaullist minister of culture in 1956. "But the only possible enemy would be Islam."
Many had hoped that Turkey's inclusion into the EU would evidence Europe's acceptance of Islam and perhaps ease integration measures indirectly. However, poor relationships between Turkey and the EU / US reflect a growing concern over Turkey's inclusion into Europe. In Troubles Ahead, The Economist reports that a rupture between Turkey and the EU could have effects both within and beyond the borders of Europe. It would certainly confirm suspicions across the Islamic world that the union is Christian club. The trigger for the most recent derailment is Cyprus, which joined the EU as a divided island in 2004. The EU insists that Turkey must honor its pledge to open its port to Greek-Cypriot ships and aircraft. Turkey retorts that part of the deal was to end the economic isolation of the Turkish-Cypriots. If the row is not settled by the year's end, talks on Turkey's EU membership are likely to be suspended. It looks unlikely that Turkey's inclusion will in any way ease the tension between Islam and Europe any time soon, which is just fine for some among the European community who have not made it easy for Turkey to accede to Europe's command. (See French law making it a crime to deny Turkey perpetrated a genocide against Armenians in 1915-17).
Nonetheless, if Europe is to avoid future tension, they will have to rise to the challenge to better integrate the Muslim population. By mid-century, at least one in five Europeans will be Muslim. Such a change, unlike other waves of immigration, calls for defining a Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilization. The West must decide how its law and values will shape and be shaped by Islam. Evan Osnos of the Chicago Tribune reminds us that it is from the Paris suburbs 25 years ago, Shiite Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini planned a revolution that ultimately overthrew the Shah of Iran and, in turn, helped inspire a global Islamic revival. Could another such plan devised in Berlin, Paris or Amsterdam by disenfranchised European Muslims be used to start a revolution within the boundaries of Europe? Europeans certainly hope not.
Perhaps the answer for better Muslim integration lies in the writings of Tariq Ramadan, a controversial Swiss born philosopher, who advocates using the political process, instead of violence, to win Muslim rights and recognition across Europe. While this tactic is preferable, the problem is getting the Muslims to the polls. As Giry points out in her article, 23 percent are not registered to vote, in comparison with only 7 percent of the French population at large. "Perhaps French Muslims votes less because they do not recognize themselves in the political class. Only two out of 908 members of the French parliament are Muslim and they were only elected in 2004. Many worry that this void in the political system could be filled by violence or religious radicalism. Indeed, analysts suggest that Islamist organizations (albeit nonviolent) that preach strict scriptural adherence, personal ethics, and withdrawal from Western societies, have made headway in Muslim-dominated banlieues.
The bottom line is that while the more moderate version of Islam being developed in Europe may very well be compatible with Western values, the continued feeling of exclusion by Muslims living there has emerged as a central issue in the struggle to integrate Islam and Europe. "Whether its Turks in Germany, Indonesians in the Netherlands or Pakistanis in Britain, polls show that Muslims feel they live in a parallel world within Europe," says Osnos. He goes on, "For ethnic Europeans, the Muslim migration amounts to a world upended: The continent that for centuries exported its people, culture and religion to the Third World is now being shaped by its former colonies." So how do the Europeans bring Muslims into European society without changing the foundations of secular democracy?" It's a difficult balance to strike.
The Economist even reported in June 2006 that many Muslims find it easier to be American than to feel European (though I raised my eyebrow when I read this, it appears somewhat true, at least up until June 2006). Daniel Fried, the State Department's top official for European affairs, stated that "Europeans are still too inclined to see Muslims as "unwanted foreigners. In facing a challenge like Muslim immigration, exclusionary nationalism will not help."
"Yet the ironic thing is that for Europe's angriest Muslims, their host countries gravest sins lie precisely in their alignment with America. So the suggestion that America may have something to teach Europe about Muslim integration looks rather odd. Nonetheless, whatever the defect in Muslim eyes of American foreign policy, the US has a substantial Muslim population which on the whole seems pretty comfortable there, and has produced some of the world's best Islamist thinkers. When America scolds Europe for its "exclusionary nationalism" it is partly because they feel that their country has been more successful at embracing a variety of religions, including Islam."
Some Muslims would disagree as polls show a rising percentage of Americans have a negative view on Islam. But freedom to practice and preach Islam is protected by the American justice system. The Economist suggests that if America is indeed better at absorbing our Muslims, it may be only a matter of luck. The majority of Muslim Americans are either upwardly mobile migrants from southern Asia or Iran or black American converts who lack links to Islam's heartland. On the other hand, European cities contain an exceptionally volatile Muslim under-class which is poor, alienated and intertwined (by family ties) with the hungriest and angriest parts of the Muslim world.
But perhaps it's not luck at all. "The difference between America and Europe in dealing with Islam reaches down to some basic questions of principle, such as the limits of free speech and free behavior. America's political culture places huge importance on the right to religious difference, including the right to displays of faith which other might consider eccentric. So America is open to religious arguments in a way that Europe is not."
One merit of the American system is that, even when hard questions arise about the trade off between freedom of speech and security, there is a robust legal culture which enables people to fight back if their rights are infringed. Though this view seems a bit less optimistic then it did in June, as the President and Congress think it justified nowadays to usurp the power of the judiciary. Nonetheless, the writer of the Economist article thinks that American free-speech culture may better foster a debate on Islam than European political correctness.
Europe is indeed at a crossroads and which direction they will take remains unclear. One thing is certain, if better attempts are not made by European governments and European society to integrate the large and growing Muslim populations, a violent and true clash of civilizations could be imminent.
Passport's "Fortress Europe" (http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/2016), along with your argument above, bode ill for the 21st century.
Posted by: Christopher Cassidy | October 21, 2006 at 02:21 AM
An incisive analysis with helpful links to well-written material. And I think the differences discussed here between the U.S. and Europe are telling, as Europeans might learn a bit from the U.S. on this score (of course there are any number of things the U.S. might learn from Europeans, but that involves other matters).
For what it's worth, I believe much hinges on the economies of the European countries, thus, for instance, if unemployment rates can be driven back down and many Muslim immigrants can find decent jobs, the 'clash of civilizations' rhetoric will lose much of its suasive power.
In any case, it is interesting to consider, with Richard Bulliet, that 'If the Muslim societies of the Middle East and North Africa, and the Christian societies of Western Europe and America, are conceived as belonging to the same civilization, then conflicts between the two constituent elements of that single civilization would automatically take on an internecine character, analogous historically to past conflicts between Catholicism and Protestantism. Whatever the level of hostility between parties in conflict, the presumption of a common heritage would prevent their being conceived of as different civilizations, and consequently make it easier to imagine their eventual reconciliation. Russia "rejoining" Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union affords a comparison. Blood is thicker than holy water.'
Bulliet makes the provocative point that Western critics of Islam persistently and rather accusingly propose 'civilizational litmus tests' (re: gender equality, human rights, secularism, etc.) that are 'conceived in willful denial of the appalling failure of most Western societies, as recently as a hundred years ago, to live up to the same standards, [and] intended as rhetorical devices for finding Islam wanting....' This is not to deny the importance of such topics, as Nema Milaninia's posts below remind us, but it does obscure, for instance, how much Islam has contributed to European culture, conspicuously evidenced in the influence of Islamic philosophy and theology on medieval Catholicism, in particular, on the work of Aquinas (indeed, the cherished Greek logos cited by the Pope in his recent controversial address that became wedded to Christian faith, seeped into Christianity by way of Islam, as early Christians had rejected (the pagan) Greek philosophers).
In short, Bulliet's thesis is that, 'as a whole, and in historical perspective, the Islamo-Christian world has much more binding it together than forcing it apart. *The past and future of the West cannot be fully comprehended without appreciation of the twinned relationship it has had with Islam over some fourteen centuries. The same is true of the Islamic world.*
So, if I may, readers interested in the topic treated here might want to look at Bulliet's The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | October 21, 2006 at 06:26 PM
I wrote a post about this on my blog which I thought is worth sharing some parts of it since it touches upon your points.
There is an undeniable growth of Islamophobia around the world. The fact is that there is clearly evidence of growing demonization of Muslims. A quick search on wikipedia alone reveals the following facts.
In 2006, a YouGov poll conducted in the UK found that 53% of people polled feel threatened by the religion of Islam (in contrast with fundamentalist Islamists). Only 16% of those polled believe “practically all British Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who deplore terrorist acts as much as anyone else.”
Islamophobia is even higher in the US. A 2006 Gallup survey of American public opinion found that “many Americans harbor strong bias against U.S. Muslims.” The numbers are not only stark, but disturbing:
1. 22% say they would not like to have a Muslim as a neighbor.
2. 34% believe U.S. Muslims support al-Qaeda.
3. 49% believe U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States.
4. 39% advocate that U.S. Muslims should carry special ID
We often forget, but as Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, warns us; even the current row over the Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad are less about tenets on Islam which prohibit such depictions, but more about the Islamophic ideologies which led to those depictions.
What I see is not a question about whether Islam is compatible with the West. There's so question that all persons are compatible with each other. Rather the issue is whether Muslims are todays Japanese, Jews, and Chinese. The fact is that people both in Europe and in America want to view Muslims as the "other." The arguements about incompatibility is simply a cover for what is inherently a racist, bigoted belief. In turn that has causes the Muslim world to view the West similarly as the "other." Thus, prejudice and bigotry has beget even more of the same. Right now we should be looking at incompatibilities. We should be looking at the fact that these arguments stem from religious prejudices.
Posted by: Nema | October 23, 2006 at 02:46 PM
Nema,
I realize this is incidental to your point above, but reference to 'tenets on Islam which prohibit such depictions [of the Prophet Muhammad]' is out of place because wrong: there are no such tenets in Islam, and Muhammad has frequently been depicted throughout the history of Islamic art.
All good wishes,
Patrick
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | October 23, 2006 at 04:25 PM
Yuck. The row continues: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8096860
Posted by: Christopher Cassidy | October 26, 2006 at 02:00 PM
Patrick,
There are clear tenets within the sources of Islam which discourage the depiction of people, let alone the Prophet Muhammad.
To this day there are orthodox Muslims scholars and Sufis who refuse to have their pictures taken, let alone someon depicting them through other mediums in art.
The old adage, "the eyes are the windows into the soul" is of significance - It is considered unlawful to paint people and persons because the pagan arabs and the christians venerated such depictions of their holy peronalities and in turn worshipped them - leading to idolatry - something which strikes at the very root of Islam.
It is in this background that depiction of the Prophet, and indeed other Islamic or non-islamic personalities, is seen of as being against the tenets of Islam - in essence it is against the fundamental foundation of Islam - to not associate any partners in God's divinity.
Even some Shi'a sects who rever Imam 'Ali (the cousin of the prophet) depict him and other members of his family, as well as depicting the awaited Imam (who is said to be in occultation). Such sects are regarded by the orhtodox muslims as deviating from the essence of the Unity and absolute divinity of God - not associating any partners with God.
To say that Islamic art has depicted the prophet throughout the ages is slightly erroneous. Much of these depictions came about through the new sects within Islam - who are seen of as less strict in their practice - such as some Sufi sects who were known for their intoxicating habits, etc. Most Sufis nowadays are much stricter than these liberals that came about in Iran and the middle east and were a bye-product of colonialisation and conversion to Islam of people who were unfamiliar with certain aspects of the faith and thus merged their traditions with Islam, creating a deviation from the original.
Notably, such depictions of the prophet came about in Iran and afghanistan, as well as turkey - all areas in which Islam was preached and former pagans entered Islam.
Yours sincerely,
Siraj Khan
Posted by: Sirajul Haq Khan | October 30, 2006 at 04:36 PM