Islam in Europe

UK government proposes Muslim theology board

Mr T — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:56:00 +02:00

The UK government is setting up a board of Muslim scholars to promote a peaceful form of British Islam but in the face of the local Muslim community’s scepticism the success of the initiative remains doubtful.

On 18 July Hazel Blears, the UK’s secretary of state for Communities and Local Government, announced the founding of a theology board of Muslim scholars and community leaders by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge “to lead thinking on Islam in a modern context”. The board is meant to discuss issues affecting British Muslims such as “what it means to be Muslim in the UK in the 21st century”, a Muslim’s loyalty to Britain and women’s rights in Islam. In order to disseminate its message the body is expected to organise seminars across the country to promote a peaceful vision of Islam and engage the wider Muslim community in the debate as well. The government-sponsored Muslim theology board is the latest measure of the UK government’s strategy to prevent violent extremism (PVE) in Great Britain, which was launched in response to the terrorist attacks on London’s public transport system on 7 July 2005. Implemented by the government Department for Communities, the PVE strategy’s goal is to complement the increase in security measures and the speeding-up of legal prosecution of terrorists and terrorist suspects, in order to win the “hearts and minds” of the 2 million strong Muslim population in the UK (ca. 3%), suspected to be at risk to turn into future terrorists. With the help of the PVE strategy Hazel Blears would like to "undermine the extremist ideology that says you must choose between being British and being Muslim." As part of the programme already 6 million pounds have been given to 200 community projects, citizenship education in mosques and leadership training for Muslim community leaders has been initiated. Furthermore, organisations like the National Muslim Women's Advisory Group and Young Muslims' Advisory Group have been asked to council the government on its actions towards the Muslim community. Over the next three years a further and impressive 45 million pounds has been promised to strengthen moderate Muslim community groups in their fight against extremist messages on the ground. The UK government’s determination to influence the Muslim community in its favour and to closely oversee these efforts is clear. Still, the launch of the theology board has been received favourably by some members of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). The official reaction of the council was largely hostile. In fact, given that the MCB is running a similar forum since 2006 it does seem quite unclear why the British government is now launching its own initiative. Not only could this duplication of efforts very well limit the legitimacy and reach of both bodies’ attempts to marginalise extremists. It could also make even more British Muslims critical of a government perceived to be “breathing down their neck” by setting up a body to influence their religious practise. It remains to be seen whether this latest measure of the PVE strategy will enhance the much desired integration of British Muslims or counteract it.

Happy Birthday Mosque-Radio

Mr T — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:54:00 +02:00

One year since the introduction of the feature broadcast “The Islamic Word” in the German Southwest Radio the broadcast has not yet found its footing. Even though the initial controversy around it has ebbed out, there is also no desire to make the programme more widely available.

By Ulrich Schwerin, translated by TM Stapf, 05/05/2008

One year since the launch of the “Islamic Word” at the regional German radio station Suedwestrundfunk it has become quiet around the programme. Nothing remains of the protests that broke loose in January of last year when the SWR radio station announced its plans to introduce an Islamic faith programme. The then-SWR director Peter Voß defended the programme as a contribution to integration. Local conservative party chairman Stephan Mappus on the other hand understood the proposal as a violation of public radio’s lawful mandate. Other conservative critics declared a Muslim programme to be inconsistent with the European-Christian traditions and feared it could be abused as platform for hate-preaching. The simultaneous declaration by national TV station ZDF to introduce an online “Friday Forum”, even urged conservative party secretary Markus Soeder to see the public broadcaster on its way to becoming a mosque-programme.

By now already the twelfth article of the “Islamic Word” crowns the website of the news-channel SWR-Contra, but the programme seems all but forgotten – and not only by the politicians. “The debate that preceded the launch of the first broadcast created a lot of attention in the beginning” says Reinhard Baumgarten, the programme’s director. However, since the high number of online viewers and the large amount of mail reactions during the initial months, interest has subsided in the meantime. According to Baumgarten, one reason for the declining demand is that the “Islamic Word’s” homepage is rather difficult to locate from the central-SWR website. Another reason could lie in the low publishing frequency of new articles. After all, the “Islamic Word” is published only three times a month so far.

No fear of controversial topics

Baumgarten right out rejects all allegations that the four-member-strong author-team is avoiding contemporary topics in its contributions. The former Egypt-correspondent claims that “we don’t avoid controversial questions at all.” He cites the contribution of Aiman Mazyek, General Secretary of Germany’s Central Muslim Council, under the title “Islam and Violence”. In fact there are quite a few more such daring articles to be found. For example, the dialogue-officer of the religious association Ditib, Bekir Alboga, talks about force in faith, Hilal Sezgin, a publicist from Frankfurt, dedicated an article to the Islamic image of women, and religion teacher Emina Corbo-Mesic looks at the educational vision of Islam.

Common points of critique about Islam are often the starting points for the authors. In many cases selective interpretations of the Quran are used to contradict the criticism. In his article on violence Aiman Mazyek for instances, quotes only those Suras that command the protection of people of other faiths, call for tolerance and reject violence. Those lines in the Quran urging the struggle against the infidels however, are over-looked. For Mr. Baumgarten, this kind of selective interpretation of scripture is not only admissible but in fact necessary.

A religious programme from Muslims for Muslims

“We have to get to the point that the Quran is read in a similar manner in which the Bible is read today” says Baumgarten. After all, the Bible does not only call for tolerance and love-thy-neighbour. “Not only the Quran, but also the Bible is marked by a line of blood. The Old Testament is a single slaughter.” Those passages however, have no influence on contemporary perspectives on the Bible anymore. The director rejects the idea that such a contemporary interpretation of the Quran would be impossible in Islam because the Quran as the word of Allah is beyond interpretation. “Also Islam is seeing a debate on whether the Quran is to be understood as the direct or the transmitted word of Allah.” He could even imagine future broadcasts to take this topic up.

Asked about ZDF’s “Friday Forum”, Reinhard Baumgarten discards a direct comparison as unfitting. After all, the online weekly “Friday Forum” is a much more ambitious project and much more well-financed. Further differences are that the “Friday Forum” is more of a information programme about Islam, while the “Islamic Word” understands itself as a Muslim religious programme. Also the “Friday Forum” discusses religious questions like the understanding of marriage, the charity law or the Islamic educational vision. However, next to members of the Muslim community its invited authors include doctors, lectures and film-directors to debate about political and social topics like “Muslims and Health” or “Homosexuality in Islam”.

Change in the programme-idea not planned

Baumgarten could imagine such a broadening of the topics covered also for the “Islamic Word.” So far however, no plans exist to change the concept behind the programme – even though Baumgarten admits that the current feature marks only a first and temporary symbolic step. By what that could be followed he does not explain. One option would be to increase the programme’s frequency to increase its exposure and allow quicker reactions to current events and debates. Another possibility would be to introduce an online forum where the debate sparked by the articles could be continued. The current, very limited budget does not allow for such moves. Also, Baumgarten explains, if more articles are to be written to realise a higher publication frequency, additional Muslim authors have to be found, and that is actually not at all easy.

"Schism" vs. "Fitna"

Mr T — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:52:00 +02:00

In response to Geert Wilders anti-Quran movie “Fitna”, several movies have been created displaying the bible as a work inciting violence which use the same methods as Wilders uses against Islam. However, their goal is not to inflame hatred against Christianity, but to reveal the manipulations affected by “Fitna”.

By Ulrich Schwerin, translated by TM Stapf, 16th of April, 2008-04-20

“This is what the Lord Almight says: Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them: Put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.” This call for annihilation from the Old Testament book of Samuel marks the beginning of the short film “Schism.” It juxtaposes some of the most blood-thirsty quotes from the bible with images of the American bombing raids on Iraq. Finally it culminates in the quote of Zitat George W. Bush’s call for a crusade against terror.

At first, Saudi blogger Raid Al-Saeed appears to present the bible as a handbook for war crimes in his six-minute short, available online since the beginning of April. However, the movie, which allegedly was put together by its 33-year old creator within 24 hours, is not a call for hatred. Instead, it is supposed to show how easy manipulation really is. Thus the movie concludes with the words, ‘it’s so easy to take parts of a holy book out of context in order to present it as a beastly writ.’

It’s crap. Admit. Just like Wilder’s movie.

This has not been the only online reaction to anti-Quran movie “Fitna” by the Dutch right-wing populist Geert Wilders. Searching for the title “Schism – The English Version” leads you to a nine-minute short, showing the graveyards of Srebrenica, crucifixion scenes during a Christian procession, a bomb attack on a funeral service in Northern Ireland and the field of corpses after the mass-suicide of a Christian sect in Guyana.

Also here the goal is not, to portray Christianity as a fanatical, bloodthirsty religion. The movie ends with the pledge not to take any offense. It denounces itself as ‘crap – just like Wilder’s movie.’ The movie took its maker 12 hours to create, Wilders took 3 months for his. A Sura from the Quran ends the movie: “If God willed, he would have made you one nation, but that may test you in what he has given you, so strive as in a race of good deeds.”

A trail of blood also exists in the Bible

In internet-forums the movies are met with rejection as illegitimate equation of the two faiths, as the portrayed acts of violence had no link with Christianity. On the other hand they are welcomed as well-done deconstruction of Wilder’s anti-Islamic agitation. In fact the movies demonstrate how easy it is to take sentences and pictures out of context, in order to create a connection that does not really exist. They also show however, that both the Bible and the Quran are marked by a trail of blood.

The Old Testament is full of murder, war and violence, and even the New Testament contains many a part that is consciously omitted from citation. Christianity has learned to ignore these calls for hate and violence. Should this not be the goal for Islam as well? Instead of constantly charging Muslims with the discriminatory and violent nature of the Quran, it would be a lot better, to support them in a more selective view of their holy book.

Each one his own parallel society

Common-Man-In-Europe — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:03:00 +01:00

Not only migrants seek to separate themselves from the rest of society, but this society itself is divided into numerous subcultures, each one living in its own world. Divided between discounter and delicates shop, the fight for existence and existentialism, the idea of a society united by one culture is only a construction.

There is presently a ghost passing through Europe: The ghost of parallel society. It is nourished by the fear that single groups might seek to separate themselves from the rest of society. By the fear that a separate culture with a distinct culture and language might form. By the fear that in districts like Kreuzberg, Barbès or Anderlecht the peaceful coexistence might change into hostility. But even though an ethnic and cultural segregation is no longer to be denied in many European cities and the problems this has for consequence become ever more obvious the question remains: Is not also the so called majority society in reality divided into dozens of different groups, each one living in its own distinct world?

No one has only one, but several sometimes contradictory identities. No one is only British (or Indian) and Christian (or Muslim) but also manager (or mechanic) and academic (or illiterate). What’s more, every one has a professional, a geographic and a political identity. By consequence each person belongs to different groups that - depending on the individual disposition – are of greater or lesser importance. This means that the idea of clearly defined religious or ethnic groups is only a construction. And what’s more, that the so called majority society is all but homogenous.

Not much in common

What does the successful consultant living in the fashionable city-centre have in common with the unemployed watchman from the rundown suburb? What is the link between the respected head physician living in a prosperous garden-estate and the single parent living on welfare in a neglected downtown district? They belong to the same society but live in different worlds. Studies show that in industrialized countries the gap between classes not only widens but becomes ever more permanent. In spite of public aid social mobility is ever more restricted because the education system helps rather stabilize than overcome inequality.

Not only living conditions but also the outlook on the world differs from one class to the other. Whereas the consultant is likely to originate from a family with a long academic tradition that permitted him to pass his childhood in ease and to suck up education with his mothers milk leaving him the freedom to pursue his personal and professional development, the watchman is probably from a proletarian family where day to day life was dominated by financial insecurity, a university education was quite out of the question and the personal horizon ended at the limit of the neighbourhood. Who is surprised if the one looks full of confidence on life, whereas the other’s perception of the world is marked by insecurity?

Careful to keep ones distance

These socio-economic differences are perpetuated in the cultural domain. Whereas the head physician spends her evenings reading the Guardian while listening to Bach, watching a Bergman film while drinking a glass of sherry or planning her next holiday trip to Marrakesh with her husband, the welfare recipient is sitting in front of her television watching a game-show or hanging around in the social-centre drinking a filter-coffee. A visit to the Mozart opera, the comedy by Molière or the exposition by Cezanne is not only unaffordable but also quite inconceivable to her. Just as inconceivable as it is to the head physician to go bowling in the local sports-centre or play poker in the pub next door.

Each class is careful to separate itself from its inferiors. Aesthetic distinctions signal a persons place in society. The banker in shirt and corduroy-trousers and the mechanic in training-suit and soccer-tricot live worlds apart – and that not only in terms of taste. Even if the social ascent is successful – the almost imperceptible distinctions in behaviour and style can not be acquired but only inherited. Even when the social upstart is no longer identifiable by his clothing he will still be identified by language and taste and therefore excluded.

The stranger in the house

And then there is the gap of generations. For many parents the foreigner is to be found in his own house. The search of the young for distinction from the generation of their parents has lead to the formation of numerous subcultures that to the outsider are not only impenetrable but also incomprehensible. The punk in his metal studded leather-jacket, the skin in his white laced army boots or the hip-hopper in his baggy trousers have not only in music and fashion their own rules and rituals. With a network of clubs, bars and centres they form a clearly distinct parallel world.

Considering the social, economic and cultural fragmentation of the population the idea of a homogenous society, united by a common culture and language, appears as an illusion. In spite of his different religion and origin the British factory-worker has more in common with his Indian colleague than with the company-manager, the university-professor or the department-director of his own nationality. So why has nobody yet thought of creating a project to integrate the detached elite or the disconnected proletariat? The question would only be into which of the other parallel societies one should integrate them.

The internet-mufti replies day and night

Common-Man-In-Europe — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:53:00 +02:00

On internet-forums such as ‘mufti says’, ‘ask imam’ or ‘fatwa online’ religious scholars answer questions on everything from ablution to Zionism. They reflect the difficulty of pious Muslims to find the right path in an ever changing world. But with their rigorous interpretation of Islam these forums hardly contribute to their integration in the West.

May a pious Muslim consume food, if he is not sure, that it has been prepared according to Islamic rules? May a Muslim place his money in a bank, even though he will thus violate the interdiction of usury contained in the Quran? And may a Muslim serve wine to his Christian guests, even though this goes against the prohibition of alcohol prescribed by Islam? These and many other questions are found on Islamic sites as muftisays.com, askimam.org or e-fatwa.org, on which religious scholars offer their council to the faithful.

In traditional Islamic societies they can turn to their Mullah if they have any questions on the rules and laws of Islam. But in modern societies, especially in European countries, where Muslims live far apart and isolated, the direct contact has often been lost. Furthermore, emigration to countries of non-islamic faith, where Muslims are but a minority among members of other religions, confronts them to totally new questions. Therefore there is a growing demand for internet-forums, on which scholars offer fatwas - religious judgements – on questions of Islamic law.

The variety of these forums reflects the entire spectrum of religious currents in Islam. Thus the British site muftisays.com lies in the responsibility of members of the religious school Darul Uloom in London, which belongs to the Indian Deobandi school of thought. The Saudi-Arabian e-fatwa.org on the other hand belongs to the Wahhabi school of thought and is directed by prominent scholars of the Saudi kingdom. The South-African page askimam.org finally has been created by the Mufti Ibrahim Desai of the Madrasah In’aamiyyah in Comperdown.

Questions on money, sex and religious practices

Many of the questions found on these sites turn around the correct use of money. As usury is forbidden by the Quran, but there are yet but few Islamic banks, many pious Muslims are in doubt what to do with their savings. A second set of questions is on the daily practice of Islam. As in the West the daily religious practices can no longer be followed as before, many Muslims are unsure where they may pray, how they should fast and whom they should give their donations to. The permissibility of food, cosmetic or medicine also poses many questions.

A third complex of questions is on sexuality. Here one not only finds questions on the rules concerning the daily contact with the other sex, but also discussions on the permissibility of marriage in spite of prior sexual intercourse, on masturbation during Ramadan or on sex during menstruation. A fourth set of questions finally turns on the correct conduct towards ‘infidels’. Is it permissible to buy from Hindus or Christians? Can one participate in celebrations as Divali or Christmas? And what shall one do, if one has fallen in love with someone of another religion?

No help for integration in a foreign society

In some of their answers – instead of simply quoting verses from the Quran – the scholars seem willing to find a pragmatic solution permitting the adaptation to the new context. But most replies speak of a rigid and inflexible interpretation of the scriptures: Listening to secular music, wearing trendy clothing or consuming ‘impure’ medicine is condemned as a sin. Contact with members of the other sex or of another religion is threatened with divine punishment - all clear evidence of the reactionary spirit that dominates these sites.

Yet this is hardly a surprise if one knows that the Indian Deobandi and the Saudi Wahhabi school of thought belong to the strictest interpretations of Islam. In spite of the modern medium employed by these forums one thing is clear: Adaptation or integration is neither wanted nor possible, if one follows the council offered on these forums. But those who turn to this kind of site probably are interested neither by one nor the other.

Aid workers of Islam

Common-Man-In-Europe — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:32:00 +02:00

Islamic humanitarian organisations have only come into the spotlight following September 11th when they were suspected of having lent their support to Al Qaida and other terror groups. But a closer look at this highly intransparent sector shows that reality is much more complex than it is often perceived.

After 09/11/2001 Islamic humanitarian organisation came into the focus of European and American security services as they were suspected of having served finance terrorism. In the United States in the months following the attacks most Islamic relief organisations were banned, their offices closed down and their accounts frozen. But many of these bans remained controversial as the accusations could often not be confirmed.

If the case of some organisations as the Al Kifah Refugee Center in New York, which in the 1980s had closely cooperated with Osama bin Laden to recruit volunteers for Afghanistan, left few doubts, in the case of the Global Relief Foundation (GRF) or the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA) contacts with terror groups could never be proven. Rabih Haddah, the director of GDF, for instance was expelled to Lebanon after 18 months in jail without having ever been put on trial.

Security services also took steps against several organisations in Europe. In summer 2002 the headquarters of the Al Aqsa Foundation in Germany were closed down under the accusation that the organisation had collected money for Hamas. But the ban stayed an exception in Europe. Many organisations as the Comité de Bienfaissance et de Secours aux Palestiniens in France or the Palestinian Relief and Development Fund in Great Britain were accused of having collaborated with Hamas but managed to escape a ban.

The difficulty was that Hamas - as other Islamist movements - was a political party and a military group, but also maintained a network of humanitarian institutions. On the one hand it was therefore unclear whether money donated for schools and hospitals – or at least officially destined for this purpose – would not be used for suicide attacks. On the other hand it was impossible to simply negate the humanitarian purpose of the charitable institutions of Hamas.

Even though in Europe most Islamic aid organisations escaped a ban they non the less faced increasing pressure from authorities to distance themselves from islamist movements, lay open their financial transactions and refrain from missionary activities. It can therefore be said that the attacks of 09/11 started or accelerated a process which led many organisations to distance themselves from their militant origins and to move closer to the western humanitarian model.

Most Islamic humanitarian organisations were founded in the 1980s to support the Jihad in Afghanistan. The financial and ideological mobilisation against soviet occupation was especially strong among Muslims in Europe, write Jérôme Bellion Jourdan and Jonathan Benthall in ‚The Charitable Crescent’ - a classic on the Islamic aid sector, in which they analyse its origins, evolution and aims.

Many organisations, which at the time were distributing aid in Afghanistan, understood their engagement as a contribution to the Jihad against the infidels. Therefore in the beginning humanitarian aid was often not clearly separated from military support. But as they were common allies in the fight against the soviets this did not keep Arab and European states from financing them. Only the end of the war in 1989 led to a rupture with the donors, which – now that they did not need their help any more – saw them as a potential danger.

Among the organisations founded in the 1980s are Muslim Aid (London) and Islamic Relief (Birmingham). They are today the most important Islamic aid organisations in Europe and their development is representative of the whole sector. Muslim Aid was founded by a group of Muslim dignitaries and for many years directed by Yusuf Islam, alias Cat Stevens. Muslim Aid is more conservative than Islamic Relief, which already in the 1990s began to distance itself from its militant origins.

There are several reasons for the progressive modernisation of Islamic Relief. First, the expansion of its activities – the organisation today has sections in ten states and projects in twenty countries – obliged the organisation to reform its internal structure and its working method. As projects became ever more complex it became necessary to replace the volunteers who had led the organisation in the beginning by professionals, whose attitude was less militant and more pragmatic.

Second, as Abdel Rahman Ghandour writes in his book ‚Jihad humanitaire’, the hope to find access to public funds led the organisation to adapt itself to the demands of the institutional donors. First contacts were made with western institutions and relief organisations, which up to then had been perceived less as a partner than as a threat. Today Islamic Relief and Muslim Aid are members of several western councils.

Third, public and political pressure after 09/11 led many organisations to realize that it would be necessary to distance themselves from islamist groups and give up their missionary activities so as to escape inquiries of the security services. Today Islamic Relief and Muslim Aid have moved a long way from their origins. Non-the less religion continues to play a central role for both of them. Inspite of their claim to help all those in need without regard to religion they only intervene in Muslim countries.

There still remains the suspicion that the Islamic aid sector has only adapted its discourse but not its practices. This accusation remains difficult to refute, but in its generality is clearly unfounded and unjust. As unreasonable as it would be to deny the involvement of Islamic relief organisations in terror and violence and to negate their role in the propagation of a radical form of Islam, as unjust it would be to doubt the sincerity of Muslims to help those in distress.

Welcome!

Common-Man-In-Europe — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:48:00 +02:00

The objective of this blog is to discuss questions linked to the subject of ‘Islam in Europe’. For centuries Islam has influenced European culture. Today Muslims are – in spite of all difficulties – one of Europe’s most important religious groups and a permanent part of European societies.

On this blog I will write of current debates and events from all over Europe. The focus is on the political, cultural and social integration of Muslim migrants. Possible subjects are political questions as the representation in the media or religious instruction at school, cultural questions as the position of women or the ideal of honour, as well as religious questions as the interpretability of the Koran or the interdiction of images in Islam.

On this blog you will find news, analysis, commentaries and if possible interviews and reports. The objective is not to give a neutral description of events, since there are other medias more suited to this purpose, but to give a critical interpretation. This blog wants to encourage an open debate on the questions discussed: Your commentaries, corrections and critic are therefore welcome! As far as possible I will reply to them.

Most texts will be in my mother tongue: German. But I will also write in French and English. Have fun!