On Thursday, 3 December 2009, the Mosaica Center convened a discussion panel on "The Integration of Muslim Immigrants in Europe and America". Following are the main discussion points of the event:
Dr. Aviad Hacohen, Chair of Mosaica, presented opening greetings, and stated that in his eyes, Islamophobia does not denote a single name but a general name for a wider phenomenon (including Judophobia, Christophobia, Antisemitism, zealotry, fanaticism or Fundamentalism), which shares common denominators, based on the past, on history, religion, culture, sociology, psychology, and some might even say – psychiatry. This phenomenon has many roots, which they may appear at times simultaneously with other phenomena. Hatred often stems from the roots of one's own upbringing, but may also stem from the lack of knowledge of the Other. This ignorance often results in the demonization of the Other, leading to the Other's de-humanization, and can be directed at Muslims, Christians, Jews, or any other peoples' member. We have seen expressions of this phenomenon in the French law on headcoverings, or the recent case of banning Mosque minarets in Switzerland. Ultimately, one of the lessons we must learn is that since this phenomenon is not about to disappear, we must endeavor to soften and reduce it by better acquaintance with the Other, through dialogue with the Other, amongst others, by convening events such as Mosaica's, which can contribute to such dialogue.
The panel discussion was chaired by Ms. Rana Fahoum, Principal of the Junior High A-Tur School for Girls in Abu Tour, East Jerusalem, and graduate of Mosaica programs.
Participating in the panel were: Dr. Raquel Ukeles, Golda Meir post-doctorate research fellow at the Hebrew University; Dr Nohad 'Ali, University of Haifa and the Western Galilee Academic College; and Dr. Uriya Shavit, research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, Tel Aviv University, and director of Programs in Democracy at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies.
The chair and panelists were convened for the discussion of a sensitive, complex and controversial topic.
This panel is held as a preliminary event to a future Mosaica event which will be held next month on “Islamophobia in Israel: Does it exist and does it influence the political processes?”
In her introduction to the subject of the integration of Muslim immigrants in Europe and America, Ms. Fahoum described the background, characterized by tension, hostility and suspicion by Europe towards the Muslim immigrants to Europe. Tension derived on one hand from security threats, and on the other, from the threat to European hegemony, which is enhanced following terrorist attacks, which only further entrenches the stereotypical, problematic image of Islam in the eyes of the West. The questions directed at the panelists during the event are highlighted below:
When did Muslims first immigrate to Europe and is there any connection between the Muslims in the various European countries?
Dr. Nohad ‘Ali presented the historical background and the circumstances which lead to the immigration of Muslims from the Islamic world, from the Middle East and particularly from the Arab countries to Europe and America. The Muslim immigration to Europe began in the late the 19th century, early 20th century, initially for economic reasons. The integration of the first newcomers within European society was not successful, and they remained on the periphery of the larger cities and society.
The second wave of immigration was very different in its nature and sociological characteristics. This wave was mostly academic, consisting of a large number of students arriving to study in European countries. The third immigration wave arrived in the 60s and 70s of the 20th century and consisted of immigrants fleeing political persecution in their homelands. The latter had a strong political awareness, with some immigrants connected to the Islamist religious revival movement. They headed the attempts to introduce changes within the receiving countries.
Is there a difference between the Muslim immigration to Europe and to America?
Dr. Rachel Ukeles responded that there were several differences between the Muslim community in the US and the communities in Europe. One difference being the relative diversity of the Muslim community in the US, consisting of three different groups:
Muslims who arrived from the Arab countries in the late 19th century, early 20th century, following political struggles in their homelands and for economic reasons. The second immigrant group hailed from south Asia – India, Bangladesh and Pakistan – arriving in the latter half of the 1960s. These immigrants came for academic reasons, to pursue their studies in the sciences and in engineering. The third group consists not of immigrants but of Afro-Americans who converted to Islam.
In contrast to the economic situation of the Muslims in Europe, the Muslims in the US have the same economic standing as the US Jews, and are counted among the middle class and upper-middle class. 59% of the Muslims in the US have an academic degree, and are considered an integrated and contributive element of society. This Muslim community is still perceived as small and of no threat to the US.
Defining the size of the Muslim community in the US is not a simple task, since the US government does not collect religious data in its census, and data can therefore only be collected through projections and assumptions. The most scientific polls indicate that the size of the Muslim community is similar to that of the Jewish one, 2% of the population. In contrast, the Muslim community in France and in Holland is 10% of the population.
Dr. Nohad ‘Ali stated that the type of regime and different characteristics of each European country have a direct influence on the Muslim communities' integration or segregation. The more the Muslim immigrants' aims are compatible with that of the regime, thus will the trend of integration within the receiving society be stronger. The regime of multicultural democracy is the most compatible.
Integration or segregation: Whose responsibility is it?
Dr. Shavit started by saying that there is no unified “Islam in Europe”, since the Muslims are split into many different communities, and divided into many religious, ethnic, national, and political groups. Muslim communities are not unified politically and do not perceive themselves as a single community. One cannot speak of states versus minorities, but rather political cultures versus minorities. England, for example, is a different case to France, and both are different from Holland in this respect.
Dr. Shavit divides the Muslims in the West according to their approach to Islam into three groups:
§ Muslims who view Islam as folklore, and live their lives more in the spirit of the Muslim culture than the Muslim religion.
§ Muslims for whom Islam has religious significance, on the one hand, and who keep some of the principles of Islamic laws, but who perceive themselves as blending into the general society and living according to the concept “Be a Muslim at home and a Westerner elsewhere”.
§ The smallest group: Muslims who wish to live wholly according to the principles of Islamic law, and aspire to Islamize Europe.
The responsibility for integration is derived from the Muslim's particular approach towards Islam.
Dr. Nohad ‘Ali stated that the main debate in Europe today among the Muslim and Western communities focuses on two extremes: Should Europe be Islamized or should Islam be Westernized.
The Western countries separate between religion and state. However, in Islam and Judaism, the religious law is expressed in all aspects of life and has a direct influence on the integration or segregation of religious minorities. This is the axis upon which lies the tension between Muslim immigrants and Europeans.
Dr. ‘Ali criticizes the above approach and claims that there are actually mid-way approaches, too.
Dr. Ukeles made a further observation regarding Dr. Shavit's third category, of Muslims who wish to live according to religious law, that it is actually divided into two sub-groups: Muslims who aspire to convert their surroundings to Islam, and those who do not. By ignoring the fact that there is a wide spectrum, and defining it entirely as problematic, we give in to stereotypes. It may be that the difference between the US and Europe lies in the different perception of secularism in the public space. American society is more tolerant of one's religiosity than is the case in Europe.
There is wide consensus that the group of Muslims living in Europe and the US who aspire to turn the Western countries into Islamic continents is a small but vocal group. Does the policy of the Western countries towards their Muslim communities have any connection to their policy towards the Middle East?
Dr. Nohad ‘Ali responded that the Muslim minority in Europe, as a distinct and separate ethnic group, generates debate around it, as do other different ethnic-religious-sociological groups.
Both in Europe and in the US, large groups take advantage of these ethnic groups to advance their own political agendas. European countries fear the import of problems from the Middle East to Europe, for example: tensions between the Jewish and Arab communities. Europe prefers to contend with such issues outside the continent.
Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of cooperation between the Jewish and Muslim communities, for example, in France, against the legislation of laws restricting religious attire and the bearing of religious symbols.
Is the shape and form of the xenophobia towards Islam unique to Islam as a political religion, or does it express common xenophobia?
Dr. Shavit claims that ever since World War II, Europe is haunted by two longstanding conclusions which are part and parcel of its political system, unrelated to Islam:
A conclusion related to education – one must not refrain from action against extremism which scorns democratic values and is alienated from the nation state – the third group mentioned above fits this description – it wishes to convert entire Europe to Islam and believes that such a day will come soon. The Europeans will not ignore such a group, even if it is small and supposedly marginal. The second conclusion claims that it is easy to move from mockery of a small religious minority to violent conduct. Some of the expressions voiced in Europe against Islam come under this heading. The case of the banning of minaret construction on mosques in Switzerland is a classic example of a racist decision, which is the product of extremist policy.
|
Is political Islam necessarily a threat to Western culture?
Dr. Ukeles: This question in fact touches upon the way in which non-Muslims perceive the Islamic religion, as one which does not discern between religion and politics. The legislative expression of this issue within the religion shows a fascinating development of laws concerning Muslims living in non-Muslim countries (Fiqh al-Aqalliyat). In the US, much energy is devoted to show that Muslims can indeed live in non-Muslim countries, join a democracy and even serve in its army. One must recall that this legislative issue is a controversial one, under ongoing debate within the Muslim world. There are sectors within the Muslim community, both in Europe and in the US, which emphasize the sensitivity of the subject and their need to justify their own positions. We are currently in the midst of this transitional period of development of the legislature in this field.
The way the non-Muslims perceive the subject: Europe is historically suspicious of religion, particularly in France. They feel more secure with a more secular environment. Therefore, those who wish to lead a religious life are deemed as a threat to secularism.
Dr. Nohad ‘Ali: More than a third of the Muslims worldwide, 400 million, live as a minority in non-Muslim regimes. Although the Arabic terminology of Millit refers to a minority of non-Muslims living within a Muslim society, Islamic legislature nowadays deals with those Muslims living under non-Muslim regimes. Different religious laws have developed in different European countries: Britain, Holland, France, Switzerland. There is a religious guideline to learn about accommodating oneself in these countries, not viewing them as immigration countries but as a permanent situation, a home.
European policies regarding minorities do have xenophobic expressions towards those who belong to other religions. Politically, one tends to see Europe as representing liberal, Western values. However, historically this continent has witnessed much bloodshed: the Holocaust, Algiers (over a million people murdered by Europeans), and more. We have in fact developed a Colonialist approach towards the immigrants. Europe's attitude towards the Muslims was characterized initially not by hatred but by condescension. The hatred only began in the 1960s, 1970s. The Europeans demand that the Other becomes Europeanized to raise its prestige in its own eyes. And while there are Islamic groups which adhere to dogmas that threaten the majority society, and the increase in Muslim population has begun to pose a threat to Europe, there is no unified policy towards Muslims, each regime forms its own policies, based on its own individual characteristics.
While the nature of each regime determines integration or segregation – what are the implications of the Swiss policy on other countries in Europe, and the US?
Dr. Shavit disagrees with Dr. ‘Ali's estimate of Muslims living in Europe. According to Dr. Shavit, 16 million Muslim lead peaceful lives in Western Europe. Is all political Islam problematic? All lslamic law is potentially problematic, as much as Jewish law for that matter: the community is less free to decide its own rules. The rules upheld are considered divine. Sheikh Qaradawi claims that religious laws take precedence over democracy. We are used to speaking in dichotomic terms – segregation vs. integration, religious law vs. democracy.
To illustrate, Dr. Shavit brought an example of the opening of a gym for Muslim women only, in Germany. Its rationale was the restriction Islam places on Muslim women on exposing their bodies – even before other women – between the navel and the knees (Awra).
Is this gym an expression of Islamic segregation in Europe or rather of integration? Sports have an important place in German culture. Thanks to this gym, the Muslim husbands permit their wives to leave the home for the benefit of exercise. However, it turned out that the women did not come to the gym necessarily for religious reasons, due to their Islamic identity, but rather due to their Turkish national identity, and this was an opportunity for them to gather socially, chat, swap recipes, etc.
Various areas of life, such as participation in elections, taking out a mortgage, burial, school education, and more, are intertwined, making the dichotomy difficult to interpret. The abandonment of one identity and the transition to another is a complex process which requires much tolerance on the part of the surroundings.
To what extent do the policies in these countries permit the minorities an expression of their identity, even if it differs to common Western practice?
Dr. Ukeles: This question refers to the extent to which the majority culture permits the minorities to be themselves or the extent to which it perceives the minorities' conduct as negating the majority culture. The Muslims in the US suffer from the majority's lack of knowledge/acquaintance with their culture. For example, if Muslim students wished to open a social clubhouse at their university, the sense of threat this would generate may be to such a degree that their plan would be abandoned, as occurred in the past with the opening of such a club by Jewish students, who also raised over-curiosity and special attention.
Dr. Nohad ‘Ali responded that he wished that the issue of integration/segregation could be summed up with the issue of opening a special gym for women. According to Dr. 'Ali, the victim always finds ways to outsmart his/her oppressor and to overcome hurdles. In a study Dr. ‘Ali is currently conducting on the hijab - a comparative study between Egypt and the West Bank on the significance of the use of the hijab – he found that some, while not all, women who wear it actually use the hijab as a means of liberation: release from the control of their man. As victims, they seek release from their oppression but some of them play the game dictated by the traditional male society, using the hijab as a tool for increased freedom of movement, greater chance for employment, for studies in college or university, or even merely to step out of the home.
Regarding Europe, one must differentiate between multiculturalism and the ideology of multiculturalism. For example, in Israel there is a reality of multiculturalism, but also the ideology which negates the Other. There is no clear solution to the issue of integrating the Other within society without their repression. When dealing with ideology, the uni-political structure enables the Other to realize their difference/multiculturalism as long as it does not threaten the social structure. The Islamic movement, for example, has replaced the local cultural center – the facilities provided within the mosque building include a gym, doctors' office, library, and prayer area. Thus the minority finds its own solutions to the hurdles placed before it by the majority society.
Concluding question: where are we headed?
Dr. Shavit: we need to ask to what extent should Muslims be themselves? Meaning, where is the line between acceptance of the differences and their rejection due to their contrast with the values of the general society?
Dr. Shavit claims that one can accept the Other as long as their divergence does not detract from the humanity of the individual or of others. It is irrational to reject the hijab, and Europe's obsession with it is unclear. But the Burka (which covers the entire face) can be said to be unacceptable since it negates the humanity of the woman.
A second condition is that any difference can be accepted which does not harm the humanity of the individual as long as it also does not question the sovereignty of the nation state by upholding a system which contradicts the laws of the nation state. It can largely be said that with these conditions Europe is sufficiently resilient to live with Islam.
Dr. ‘Ali: An American researcher, John Esposito, published a book titled “The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? Now, if we would make a simulation of Islamic reality in Europe according to that in the US, we would see that no threat exists. The Islamic groups have no real power with which to threaten the West. There are extremist groups on each side who create a tense atmosphere. The question is whether Europe wants to lead an oppressive fundamentalistic policy that represses the Other or a pluralistic policy.
At present, there are two countries with an advanced policy in this respect: Britain and Holland, which embraced the legitimacy of multiculturalism, and as result, moderate Islam became the strong minority group among the country's Muslims. In contrast, the attitude towards Turks in Europe is abysmal, only looking at their value as labor workers who can be dismissed once the work is done. Instead, these countries should be embracing these minorities.
Dr. Ukeles voiced optimism regarding the situation in the US: there are signs of a new intellectual phenomenon among the Muslim communities. In the last 10-15 years, Muslims, particularly women, have entered the academy and received PhDs in Islamic Studies or Islamic Law. There are modern religious Muslims, who are knowledgeable on Islam and are active within society and not only in the academia. The test will be when independent institutions for the study of Islam will be founded within the Muslim communities themselves. Today only one such institution exists and it is on a very small scale.
Dr. ‘Ali added in conclusion that in Europe a new phenomenon is developing: the trend of Euro-Islam, which holds that while one should not forget ones' roots from the old country, at the same time a culture should be forged which takes the new culture into account and becomes integrated within it.
* * * * * * * * * *
Bios of panelists (in Alphabetical order):
Dr Nohad 'Ali teaches at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and the Department of Multi Disciplinary Studies, at University of Haifa. He also teaches at the Western Galilee Academic College. Dr. 'Ali specializes, among others, in Religious Fundamentalism (Islamic and Jewish) and Arab-Jewish Relationships. He wrote his Ph.D (Haifa University) on “Religious Fundamentalism as an Ideology and a Practice: The Islamic Movement in Israel in Comparative Perspective”. Dr 'Ali is one of a very small group of Palestinian-Arabs from Israel who study the Jewish Society, especially the Religious and Ultra-Orthodox sectors.
Rana Fahoum, Principal of Junior High A-Tur School for Girls in Abu Tour, East Jerusalem. In 2003, under her tutelage, the school won an award from the Jerusalem Education Authority. Ms. Fahoum has an M.A. in Political Studies and Public Leadership (Tel Aviv University) and an M.A. in English Linguistics (Hebrew University). Board member and founder of “the Community of Learning Women”; board member of the Jerusalem Inter-Cultural Center. Recent graduate from the Mosaica Center's Facilitators Training Course in Inter-Religious Dialogue. Married and mother of two.
Dr. Uriya Shavit is a research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies and teaches Middle Eastern studies at Tel Aviv University. He serves as director of programs in democracy at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies. He published several books and articles on Arab discourses on democracy and on Muslimminorities in the West, most recently The New Imagined Community: Global Media and the Construction of National and Muslim Identities of Migrants (Brighton and Portland, 2009).
Dr. Raquel Ukeles specializes in Islamic law as a Golda Meir research fellow at the Hebrew University. She directs "Intellectual Encounters," a project to build a virtual library of major philosophical works from the medieval Islamic world and to foster international research and cooperation projects. Dr. Ukeles received her Ph.D. in Islamic and Jewish studies from Harvard University's program in Religion in 2006. She has studied in Egypt and Morocco, and was a Fulbright fellow in Israel. Her writings on Islam in America include The Evolving Muslim Community in America: The Impact of 9/11 and Locating the Silent Muslim Majority (2004) published by the Mosaica Center. 
