The Future of Europe in Islam

This piece was initially going to discuss what turned out to be a very interesting event. I’ll still do this at some point in the near future, but in the mean time I feel obliged to respond to an incredibly uninformed post on the Infidel Bloggers Alliance. Given their treatment of Ali Eteraz I can’t say I’m surprised, but their audacity is worthy of a response.

Let’s start with the Editrix's primary contention, that because the discussion organised by the Muslim Youth Helpline was titled ‘The Future of Europe in Islam’, it indicated the expansionist, probably Islamo-fascist nature of the debate. Interestingly when I saw the title on a printout I thought it was a typo. Not because I thought it was overly fascistic, but because the future of Islam in Europe sounds like a more natural title. Of course I was wrong. The cleverly chosen title was intended to reverse the usual defensiveness and negativity surrounding Islam in Europe. As the chair Dr Hisham Hellyer of the University of Warwick pointed out, it was meant to encourage the panelists to look at how Europe and European Muslims could contribute to the development of Islam, and conversely how Muslim culture could benefit Europe. Although the Infidels will find this hard to believe, it succeeded.

Now, even if we leave aside the actual content of the discussion, did the IBA have reason to be concerned with the way in which the discussion was framed? My answer is an emphatic no. Islam is a religion and not a state (which our friends at Hizb ul Tahrir don’t seem to understand). Therefore, the future of Europe in Islam is clearly describing the role that a continent and its political and social culture will play in the development of a religion. Its not as if the debate was, ‘The Future of Europe inside the Global Muslim Caliphate’. If it was then even I’d be a little worried. That would be something like ‘The Future of the US in Iraq’, except unfortunately that situation already exists.

So the next thing which the Editrix found offensive was the fact that Professor Tariq Ramadan was supposed to be speaking. Apparently he is the glamorous face of terror or some such nonsense. Now this doesn’t prove anything, but to give some indication of how misjudged this perception is, I’ve seen people put to Professor Ramadan that he isn’t even a Muslim. It’s not definitive, but I do think its telling. Considering that several of the IBA consider Ali Eteraz to be an Islamo-facist, such internal criticism of Muslims doesn’t seem to really matter to them.

What Professor Ramadan is, is an articulate and very well educated reformist Muslim scholar, who agrees with democratic institutions, but doesn’t see the secularisation of society as the end point of human progression. In this way he isn’t much different to conservative commentators in America who worry about the replacement of traditional (not necessarily religious) values with the supposed blindness of toleration. The difference is that conservative Americans are constrained to a large extent by the rights provided to individuals by the constitution. Therefore although they may criticise permissiveness, they can’t force people to behave in the way in which they would like. For people like Prof Ramadan, they have to first overcome some of the restrictive practises involved in their society before they can engage in such debates.

Finally, its probably worth pointing out that Prof Ramadan didn’t even speak at the event. Due to circumstances beyond his control (maybe he saw the IBA website?), he couldn’t attend. Puts it all in perspective.