Islam in Europe

There has recently been a lot of talk -- in the Czech Republic and around Europe -- about the rising flux of Islamic immigrants. Most of the public discourse revolves around the problems that arise when Muslim immigrants are reluctant to accept the cultural and civic expectations of their newly adopted nation. In the Czech Republic, the issue is not quite as pertinent, but in places like England, France and Holland, it is very real and serious. England has, I think, the most immigrants who are practitioners of Islam: Most of them coming from Pakistan. Great Britain as a whole has seen a rise in immigration since the 1970s, and now Muslims make up close to five percent of the total population. Most recently the nation of Switzerland passed a referendum banning the construction of Minarets; claiming that Minarets would "change the national identity of the Swiss people." In most main-stream European papers, and Czech ones, the issue is talked about as a problem of immigration: The newly-arrived immigrants do not make any concessions, nor do they attempt to conform to the society; therefore, creating cultural and often civic 'ghettos' that are part, yet separate from the culture at large. Obviously, this issue is complicated and goes way beneath the veneer of 'immigration and assimilation'.

Easily, it can be seen as an issue of race and cultural superiority, but I don't really want to get into that discussion, because on some level, that is inevitable: if the language, religion, art and laws are not respected by a minority group, racism and animosity are a sad, but very human reaction (not that this is OK and acceptable). In many of my conversations with Czechs about the issue, there are levels of race and prejudice involved, but I'm surprised to say that much of the European distaste and worry has more to do with civic engagement, rights and laws: there is the feeling that the state, not the racial "nation", but the 'Nation-State" --built and supported by governments-- is losing its power. This comes into clearer focus when Sharia law is used as a clear 'second-tier' form of justice, much like in England, where all domestic and some criminal disputes are not settled in the British courts, but in hidden Sharia courts in the backrooms of Muslim community centers.

In conversing with some of my friends about this issue, many of them were quite strong in their opinion that the Islamic immigrants should accept the laws and the culture of the state (not necessarily all the culture traits of the people). I found this rational and reasonable, but I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with this argument. For one, as a Christian, I take issue with the point that the State, or the nation should define my role as a human being, and that even my religion should be viewed in relation to my role as a Western citizen. I can see both sides of the equation: the animosity of having immigrants who don't seem interested in conforming, or even respecting the culture of the state; and the conflict that arises between people of faith and their obligations to their religion and their country. I guess this issue in America can look a little like the dilemma that affects the Amish when they choose not to join the military...

I really can't go much further in this post, because I am not educated or well-read enough to create any kind of firm statements about this topic. What I can do is tell you that this is a conversation and debate not just about immigration and race, but a conversation about the role of Western society, the enlightenment and religion/faith. It is this third aspect that has me yearning for a deeper discourse.

Two years ago, Rev. Rowan Williams (The highest ranking bishop in the Church of England) gave a lecture where he spoke specifically about law and its relation to people of faith. In this lecture, Williams alludes to some of the Sharia courts in England. Williams, who I respect and admire greatly, stated that the British state, in some respects, should accept aspects of Sharia law. Naturally, every single tabloid, and second-spot news station took the statement and demonized him vehemently; even calling for his removal from the Anglican Church. I've read the lecture and found it to be very dense and almost incomprehensible (it is an intellectual 'doozy'). But I encourage you to take a clear and focused look at it.

I would like to talk more about this, so feel free to message or 'skype' me--Dave Mesing:)

Here is the link to Rev. Williams' speech: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7233335.stm