Do we dare be European Muslims?

Page 22
Q-News, Issue 362
April 2005

It is now no longer justifiable to speak of Islam as something foreign - the yin of ‘west’ is no longer disparate from the yang of Islam. Both are connected to each and exist, in different ways, within each other - the burda is recited in the heart of London, and iMacs are being used in Makkah. In the first of a two part essay, H. A. Hellyer, presents a way forward for European Islam - consistent with its classical heritage and compatible with modernity.

‘The hatred of Islam and Muslims is endemic on the European psyche; endemic even if at times it becomes an epidemic. We are living through such an epidemic now.’ Yaqub Zaki

‘A country that accepts migrants, however conspicuously economic their primary motives, has the right to expect that they engage in some form of cultural migration as well.’ Abdal Hakim Murad

‘The West is expectant with Islam’. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi

Islam in the ‘West’ …or Islam of the ‘West’?

Whether we look at the situation before the events of the 11th September 2001 or since, it is clear that for a significantly long period of time, interest in Islam in the ‘West’ has been, for better or for worse, staggering. Today, you cannot really conceive of going through a day without seeing Islam somewhere in the media spotlight.

The connections and links between the ‘West’ and Islam, these two monolithic forces, one crusading for the good of mankind and the other, a barbaric “Green Threat” that has come to replace the “Red Threat” are the subjects of many a book (Amazon.com alone carries almost 9000 titles), and publishers, newspaper editors and media pundits know that they attract audiences: What Went Wrong?, Radical Islam’s War Against America, Prophet of Doom, Militant Islam Reaches America, Where Civilizations Collide. The titles vary, but they share a few characteristics. The first is that Islam is to be feared, and the second is that it is to be feared as something foreign.

But the discussion has taken a bit of an interesting twist in recent years. It used to be about the ‘West’ and Islam - about something ‘out there’, not ‘in here’. When people in the ‘West’ said Islam, they did not mean their neighbours. When Muslims said the ‘West’, they did not mean something that they recognised as familiar; they meant an alien environment. That has changed. It is now no longer even remotely justifiable to speak of Islam as something “out there”, nor is the ‘Yin’ of ‘West’ disparate from the ‘Yang’ of Islam. Both are connected to each and exist, in different ways, within each other - the Burda of Busairi is recited in the heart of London, and Apple iMacs are being used in Makkah.

Both types of interactions are of great consequence, and should be properly understood, but it is the phenomenon of Islam in the ‘West’ that attracts more attention at the moment. In the ‘West’ (the quotation marks remain until the author understands what precisely what we are ‘West’ of, and where the mythical qutb/pole of geography seems to exist), Islam exists, not simply as an extension of some sort of Arabian or Pakistani interloping cultural imperialism, but as a living reality that is challenging what it means to be a Briton, a Frenchman, a German, even a European, in all shapes and forms that identity expresses itself. That challenge needs to be taken seriously for what it is at stake is the future of Europe, as Europeans know it.

No longer can we take seriously the idea that the Briton is only an Anglo-Saxon Anglican, or the French only a Catholic Caucasian (and thank goodness for that; both were always rather absurd ideas; just ask the Protestants in France, the Catholics in Britain and the Jews all over Europe). The basis of society in all these societies of Europe is being questioned: the place of laicite in France, multiculturalism in Britain, the roots of citizenship in Germany. These are all issues, which are directly confronted by the existence of a population that cannot simply resign itself to accepting that the headscarf must be taken off for its own good. That to succeed in society, you must consider yourself an ethnicity and have no recourse to your religious principles. And that race is a defining factor of citizenship.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.


Issues and tests

Just as societies in the ‘West’ appear to be challenged on a variety of levels by the growing Muslim presence, so are ‘Western’ Muslim communities being tested by the situations they find themselves in. By and large, these tests are the same challenges facing all Muslims around the world: the ramifications of living as a Muslim in a world ravaged by modernity; the recognition of legitimate orthopraxy and orthodoxy in a world where extremism has taken root beyond the radical fringe; and the reconstitution of Islamic identity for Muslims, where ‘Bani Islam’ (a neo-nationalism based on religiously-inspired affinity) and tribalism of a universal faith is deemed worthy.

For the Muslims of Europe expressly, there are two specific and distinct issues that are directly relevant to their surviving and thriving in Europe. Beyond these issues, and according to different contexts within Europe, there may be more sub-issues and other factors as well, but these two issues are fundamental and apply to all European Muslims. What is interesting to note is that both of these issues were identified centuries ago, albeit under different terms:

1. The first matter is now rather infamous: Islamophobia. Recognised by the United Nations as a reality the world over (and in Europe specifically), Islamophobia has been confirmed as a problem by a plethora of studies. It cannot be ignored, and it will remain to be a factor in the survival and the thriving of Muslim communities as long as it exists.

2. Islamophobia is, by and large, an occurrence visited upon Muslims by non-Muslims. Whilst it may be a distinct phenomenon, independent of any Muslim creation, Muslim communities possess the ability to significantly decrease its impact. It remains, however, a taboo to seriously engage Muslim communities in that debate, even if many scholars and intellectuals are in favour of it.

The answer is not as easy as assimilation or integration, which both have already received meanings in the English language, particularly in the context of multiculturalism debates and discussions, and are not essentially positive courses of action to pursue. I struggled to find a word that encompassed what I think might escape the harms of the above but incorporate their benefits.  Localisation does not quite accomplish the task, and “acculturalisation” does not exist.  But the basic principle of the approach, whereby one becomes integral to and embedded in one’s society, has been recognised as a matter of course in Islam, for the prophets invariably began their invitation with the words “O, my people…” and were sent as members of those peoples. For whom better to deliver the message than one of their own, who knew their ways, inside and out, even if he chose not to partake in them? Who better to deliver the message than one who could speak not only in their language, but using their idioms, and expressions?


Integralisation and its support in fiqh

Scholars have already looked at the latter challenge of integralisation in Islamic law, whether in the medieval or the modern context. Ibn Taymiyya, for example, mentions a strong encouragement for the Muslims living in non-Muslim lands to observe the outward customs of the non-Muslims, whilst ensuring that the Muslim not commit any forbidden actions in so doing and herein lies the limits of any Islamic assimilation exercise.

Ibn Taymiyya mentions two goals behind his advice of what is basically integralisation: the preservation of the Muslim’s life, and the bearing of witness to Islam. In our own context, we might say that the preservation of the Muslim’s life relates to Islamophobia; extreme Islamophobia can, indeed, lead to violence. As for the spreading of the invitation - such a challenge always exists, and is no less so obvious in a society where Islamophobia is so widespread. The limits are not lost on Ibn Taymiyya, who warns the Muslim from committing any forbidden action in this respect, but beyond that?

The reasoning behind this is aptly given by the principle expanded upon by Imam Nawawi, who in his commentary on Sahih Muslim, mentions that one of the principles of fiqh is to consider the consequences and benefits of actions before doing them. This goes to the point that one should leave aside a recommended action if the performance it might bring about a non-beneficial outcome. The Imam, however, notes that this reason does not apply to actions that are obligatory; they remain obligatory, and whilst there may be certain ways in which they are performed that are more advisable than others, they must be performed, nonetheless.

For their own benefit, Muslims are advised by the shariah to assimilate to the non-Muslim society within the limits laid down by the sacred law.


Responding to the challenges through fiqh

The reasons behind this advice - safety and the effective bearing of testimony to Islam -are tied together through another part of fiqh. They both represent the key contextual factors that need to be taken into account when an ancient noun is brought into Muslim discourse: the duty of hijrah, or literally “flight from one’s place”.

The idea of hijrah is fundamental to Muslim history. It is the hijrah of the last Prophet from Mecca to Yathrib (later renamed Madinah an-Nabi, City of the Prophet) that marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. After many years of severe persecution, and scouting distant lands such as Abyssinia (a non-Muslim country ruled by a Christian king), the Muslims emigrated to safety and to a place free of persecution, where they could practise Islam without fear of annihilation.

Nowadays, hijrah still plays a role in the mentality of some Muslims, who believe that it remains a duty for Muslims to migrate from a land ruled by non-Muslims and non-Muslim government, to a land ruled by Muslims in an Islamic regime. As there is no “real Islamic state” in existence at the moment, the duty is simply in abeyance. But there is no point in getting comfortable in these lands of disbelief and obscenity. They believe that they do not belong here, and they should leave to a place where they can practise their religion freely.

Legal discussions of the past question whether the duty of hijrah was primarily about Muslim rule or Muslim laws. During the Makkan period when Muslims were persecuted, there was a hijrah to Abyssinia, a non-Muslim country, which was voluntary. However, when the discrimination became persecution and to remain would have meant unacceptable compromise, the hijrah to Medina was obligatory for those who could migrate . The hijrah was thus linked to freedom of worship, but also to the strengthening of the Muslim community, which in that historical context meant strengthening the new city-state of Madinah.

Scholars of Islam in the classical period thus interpreted the principle of hijrah in different ways. Al-Busti insisted that the hijrah was meant to strengthen the Muslim community in its early days, and would become required only when the community was in such a situation. Ibn Khaldun went further and said that the hijrah had ceased to be an obligation after the death of the Prophet, whilst Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani took a more middle of the road view and said that the hijrah was no longer required after Makkah was conquered.

Ibn al-Arabi divided the situations of hijrah into six, three of which would involve compulsory migration, and three of which would involve recommended migration. Hijrah, in this perspective, would be obligatory from lands of unbelief or heresy, injustice or where lawfulness prevailed, whilst recommended where there was physical persecution, disease and financial insecurity. Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, the leading Shafi’i jurist of his time, believed that the operational norm was for a Muslim not to make hijrah, as long as persecution was not in force. If he were able to practise his faith, then the land would become Dar al-Islam, for himself and for other Muslims. For such a person, hijrah might be permissible, but only if it did not result in the land reverting back to being Dar al-Harb, in which case, it would be forbidden for him to leave.

If we consider the modern period, the reality for most of us in the ‘West’ (if not all) is that there is no widespread persecution on the level of that suffered by the first community of Muslims in Makkah. On the contrary, generally speaking, there exists freedom of religion in all European countries; it is not absolute and it is not perfect, but there is also not a pogrom, and it is not maltreatment of a level that would oblige a hijrah. There might be other reasons that would make it recommended: the many Muslims who travel in charitable organisations abroad to help those members of humanity who require their assistance can see that migrations may be necessary even without a khalifah.