ajiss Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism: Changing Patterns of Secularism in Europe Peter O’Brien Abstract Modern secularism, as theorized by such prominent liberal philosophers as John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, prescribes that the state should treat all religions equally on the condition that they and their adherents relinquish their theocratic aspirations and recognize the political sovereignty and superiority of man-made law. Convinced that the secular bargain undermines the moral virtue of society and its members, a small, fragmented, but nev- ertheless conspicuous number of Islamists in Europe prefer to ob- serve Islamic law in all walks of life, private and public. Alarmed by Islamists and informed by Orientalist readings of Islam, an in- creasingly vehement and vociferous contingent of Islamophobes avers that Islam is inherently incompatible with democracy and urges European governments to treat neither Islam nor Muslims equally, but rather suspiciously as real or potential threats to the wellbeing of European societies. In contrast, advocates of Euro- Islam insist that Islam can be reformed, like Christianity, to meet the requirements of modern secularism. This article contends that elements of all three of these vying ideological positions have found their way into policymaking targeting Muslims in several European lands. The resulting inconsistency and contradiction – what I call policy “messiness” – corroborate the process of “mu- tual fragilization” theorized by Charles Taylor, in which actors facing radical value pluralism develop solicitude regarding their Peter O’Brien is professor of political science at Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas. He is the author of European Perceptions of Islam and America from Saladin to George W. Bush: Europe’s Fragile Ego Uncovered (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) as well as numerous articles on Islam in Europe. ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 59 own principles as well as greater tolerance for ambivalence. The latter, in particular, creates what Homi Bhabha terms a “third space” from which actors confronting cultural pluralism can freely and constructively explore cross-fertilizations and hybrid combi- nations with the potential to yield yet unimagined approaches and solutions to the problems of “super-diversity.” I identify just such a creative hybridity among a younger generation of European Muslims whom many observers dub “post-Islamists.” Introduction Intensified efforts since 9/11 to incorporate Muslims and Islam into the Euro- pean secular order have generated considerable resistance and controversy. Though church-state relations institutionally vary from one European land to the next, they supposedly converge normatively around a liberal understanding of secularism.1 Liberal secularism prescribes that believers depoliticize their religious convictions in exchange for equal treatment before the law. Depoliti- cization does not have to mean that religious persons and beliefs disappear from politics altogether. After all, Christian political parties, pressure groups, politicians, and activists abound in Europe. However, liberal secularism does demand that religions and their adherents jettison theocratic aspirations and recognize the political sovereignty and superiority of secular (that is, man- made, ideally democratic) law and government that treat all faiths and all cit- izens equally.2 This minimal requirement is what John Rawls means by an “overlapping consensus” despite “the fact of a plurality of reasonable yet incompatible com- prehensive doctrines – the fact of reasonable pluralism.”3 Jürgen Habermas similarly theorizes “a consensus on the process of legitimate legislation and exercise of power” by a “citizenry [that] can no longer be bound together by a substantive consensus of values.”4 A small, fragmented, but nevertheless conspicuous number of Islamists in Europe reject this requirement, though not always for the same reasons or in the same manner.5 Contending that west- ern secularism has shown itself to be spiritually vapid and ruinous, they prefer to observe Islamic law in all walks of life, private and public. At the same time, an increasingly vehement and vociferous contingent of Islamophobes avers that Islam is inherently incompatible with liberal secular democracy and urges European governments to treat neither Islam nor Mus- lims equally, but rather suspiciously as real or potential threats to the wellbeing of European societies.6 Expressed differently, while liberalism in theory as- pires to eliminate prejudice, Islamism endorses prejudice in favor of Islam and Islamophobia urges prejudice against Islam. Long considered politically 60 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 60 taboo in post-Holocaust Europe, prejudice based on (anti-)religious conviction is back in vogue and spawning intensified value pluralism regarding the proper place of religion in politics.7 Religious and ideological diversity can and does produce discord; how- ever, it can also occasion “mutual fragilization.” Charles Taylor invented this term in his A Secular Age to describe “certainly one of the main features of the world of 2000, in contrast to that of 1500.”8 The Canadian philosopher has in mind a widespread softening of individual convictions in the face of a heightened awareness of opposing views. We live in a condition where we cannot help but be aware that there are a number of different construals, views which intelligent, reasonably unde- luded people, of good will, can and do disagree on. We cannot help looking over our shoulder from time to time, looking sideways, living our faith also in condition and uncertainty.9 In an atmosphere of radical moral pluralism – what Zygmunt Bauman has termed a “heterophilic age,”10 Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens, and Scott Lash “reflexive modernization”11 – humans become bombarded with clashing normative outlooks. As Jock Young cleverly puts it, “the deviant other is everywhere” but “everyone is a potential deviant.”12 Although exposure to radical moral pluralism leads some to harden their views, most “fragilize,” that is, they develop conscious or unconscious solicitude regarding the moral stances they prefer. While fragilization can be unsettling and bewildering, it can also create what Taylor calls a “neutral zone”13 and Homi Bhabha terms a “third space,”14 from which actors confronting cultural pluralism can freely and constructively explore cross-fertilizations and hybrid combinations with the potential to yield yet unimagined approaches and solutions to the problems of “super-diversity.”15 This article seeks to document mutual fragilization at the level of ideology and policy. As regards the first, I draw attention to political actors who borrow and combine ideas from normative worldviews that, from a purely philosoph- ical perspective, supposedly collide and exclude one another. As regards the latter, I point to policy “messiness,” the tendency to tolerate and enact policies whose intents and consequences run at cross purposes.16 Both types of frag- ilization manifest new patterns of European secularism – actually secularisms – in which the prospect of and perhaps even the need for an “overlapping con- sensus” are abating. Two preliminary caveats are in order. Since my primary objective here is to reveal changing and overlapping patterns of secularism sanctioned by Eu- O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 61 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 61 ropean governments, or what I call policy messiness, I deliberately foreground normative positions that wind up informing and influencing policymakers. Just as the latter are hardly perfectly informed, so too are my depictions less than perfectly comprehensive. The persons and positions that I categorize under the (also less than perfect) labels “Islamophobia,” “Euro-Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Post-Islamism” are, of course, far more complex in reality than it is possible to render here in these limited pages. I forewarn readers. Mine is an analysis of policy by a political scientist and not the kind of “thick description” of com- munities and cultures commonly offered by anthropologists.17 Furthermore, even as a policy analyst I do not for a moment want to imply that normative pluralism alone shapes policymaking. Analysts have identified a range of non-normative factors that influence immigration policy, among them demographics,18 health of the economy,19 political opportunity structures,20 international crises,21 media salience,22 level of government,23 courts,24 institutional and legal heritage,25 political access,26 asymmetry of available resources,27 ethnic origin,28 type of political actor such as (oppor- tunistic, ideological) elected officials versus (pragmatic, problem-solving) administrators,29 cross-national learning,30 and administrative rationality or “governmentality.”31 That noted, several studies document the considerable influence of normative arguments and expectations on immigration policy- making.32 These and other studies of normative frames and schemas have tended to exaggerate the degree and extent of normative consensus in any given land, making French policy out to be, for instance, uniformly republi- can, German policy ethno-nationalist, and British and Dutch policy multi- culturalist.33 By contrast, the concept of fragilization enables us to unpack the normative dimension in such a way as to reveal its polyvalent, dynamic, that is, messy character. Euro-Islam Most European governments have since 9/11 adopted a two-pronged approach to homeland security: (1) increase police efforts and powers to detect, thwart, arrest, and convict terrorists and their enablers; and (2) more vigorously en- courage the integration of Muslims into society so as to lessen their sense of alienation and presumed susceptibility to political extremism. The latter has entailed the pledge to combat the rampant Islamophobic discrimination that numerous studies have documented in most European lands.34 Prodded by the European Union’s Race Directive of 2000, whose Article Seven denounces discrimination based on religion, member states have established such anti- 62 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 62 discrimination agencies as the Commission for Equality and Human Rights in the United Kingdom (2004), the Haute Authorité de Lutte contre la Dis- criminations et pour l’Egalité in France (2005, since 2011 Défenseur des Droits), and Die Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes in Germany (2006). Going a step farther, most European governments have sought to counterbal- ance inherited institutional favoritism by establishing formal, high-profile re- lations with Islam that seek to parallel and (eventually) emulate those already in place between the state and Christianity (and often Judaism). While some states, such as Austria, Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands, had close ties with Islamic representatives long before 9/11, others deliberately moved to form them thereafter. Thus did France found the Conseil Français du Culte Musulman in 2003, Britain the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board in 2005, and Germany the Deutsche Islam Konferenz in 2006. The following official mission statement of Italy’s Consulta per l’Islam Italiano, set up in 2005, is typical. It is to be a consultative body of the Interior Ministry that conducts research which formulates positions and proposals for the purpose of encouraging institu- tional dialogue with the Islamic communities in order to identify the most adequate solutions for a harmonious inclusion of Islam within the national community with respect to the laws of the Italian Republic.35 These and other efforts to embrace Muslims have been endorsed at the highest levels of government. As early as 1993, French interior minister Charles Pasqua posited: “It is no longer enough to talk of Islam in France. There has to be a French Islam. The French Republic is ready for this.”36 In 2009 in an ed- itorial in Le Monde (9 December), French president Nicolas Sarkozy voiced his desire to “put the Muslim religion on an equal footing with all other great religions.” German interior minister Wolfgang Schäuble has also maintained that his society and government must endeavor to transform the “Muslims in Germany” into “German Muslims.”37 Tony Blair first visited a mosque at the outset of Ramadan in 1999, Her Majesty ordered a prayer room built at Wind- sor Castle for her lone Muslim servant in 2004, and Prince Charles has voiced his wish to be crowned “Defender of Faiths” rather than “Defender of the Faith.” Pope Benedict XVI twice invited members of the Consulta per l’Islam Italiano for ecumenical dialogues in 2007 and 2008. The desired end of such outreach is “Euro-Islam,” a neologism as telling as it is popular. It is telling because Euro-Islam is not only conceived of as an Islam befitting life in Europe, but also as a Europeanized Islam, that is, an Islam that has been subjected to similar self-scrutiny and self-reform as the O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 63 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 63 Christian denominations are alleged to have undergone in the modern age (even if with formidable resistance at times, such as within Roman Catholi- cism prior to Vatican II).38 Advocates of Euro-Islam, such reformists as Naser Khader (Denmark), Baroness Kishwer Falkner (UK), Malek Cheleb (France), and Bassam Tibi (Germany), tend to start from the assumption that over the centuries the conventional practice of Islam in the sending countries has taken on myriad cultural and ethnic accretions that are not integral to the pristine faith. As envisaged by its proponents, Euro-Islam would relinquish, for ex- ample, any theocratic ambitions and embrace democracy. It would tolerate all other creeds, including atheism, and recognize the right of each individual to choose or craft his or her own faith. Freedom of religion further means that the prohibition of apostasy would have to be excised from Islamic doctrine. Furthermore, Euro-Islam would purge from conventional Islamic practice all precepts and rituals that offend modern democratic sensibilities, such as the subordination of women to men or eye-for-eye justice. Likewise, this “en- lightened Islam [which] is compatible with world civilization, with Europe, and with the spirit of the Republic”39 would systematically disavow Qur’anic interpretations of nature belied by modern science and underscore the many passages in congruence with current science. Most importantly, it would entail subjecting the Qur’an to the same kind of rational scrutiny applied in biblical criticism since the nineteenth century. The sacred text would be read not as the inerrant and literal word of God, but as the words of specific men formu- lated in specific times – indeed, times very different from our own. French reformer Bassam Tahhan writes: “The tradition regards the Koran as one- dimensional and fixed. This approach is not rationalist. To be a rationalist is to accept that each era, with its [particular] methods and discoveries, presents its own reading of the Koran, and this is the way it will be until the end of days.”40 Once European Muslims are made to understand that there exists no real alternative to interpreting the Qur’an, it is believed that they will become more comfortable with customizing the creed to better jibe with modern ra- tionalism, including democracy and pluralism. An Islam based on independ- ent judgment (ijtihŒd) rather than on slavish obedience to authority, claim the proponents of Euro-Islam, is not only compatible with the Qur’an but likelier to survive and thrive in a culture, such as Europe’s, that celebrates free choice.41 Euro-Islam represents, then, a largely depoliticized Islam that seeks to reinforce and accommodate rather than question or disrupt the per- ceived European secular order. The self-acknowledged Habermasian and Euro-Muslim Tibi summarizes: 64 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 64 By acknowledging cultural and religious pluralism, Euro-Islam would give up the claim of Islamic dominance. Thus defined, Euro-Islam would be com- patible with liberal democracy, individual human rights, and the require- ments of a civil society. It would also contrast sharply with the com- munitarian politics that result in ghettoization. To be sure, the politics of Euro-Islam would not allow complete assimilation of Muslims. Yet it could enable the adoption of forms of civil society leading to an enlightened, open- minded Islamic identity compatible with European civic culture.42 Mainstream European politicians officially pronounce that they will have no truck with any Islam except Euro-Islam. Indeed, they often opportunisti- cally exploit relations with Islam to spotlight their unequivocally democratic credentials. For instance, a then-still interior minister Sarkozy said of the Conseil Français du Culte Musulman in 2003: “It is precisely because we recognize the right of Islam to sit at the table of the republic that we will not accept any deviation. Any prayer leader whose views run contrary to the val- ues of the republic will be expelled.”43 Tony Blair, while averring that the only sure strategy for defeating Islamist extremism was to embrace Islam, nonetheless emphatically added: “There has to be a shared acceptance that some things we believe in and we do together: obedience to certain values like democracy, rule of law, equality between men and women ...This com- mon space cannot be left to chance or individual decsion. It has to be accepted as mandatory.”44 And in an unmistakable allusion to Muslims, Angela Merkel insisted that “anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots.”45 Indeed, at one meeting of the German Islam Conference, the Muslim participants were asked to strike from their Qur’ans verses at odds with gender equality as a show of sincere commitment to democracy.46 Islamophobia Such hardline stances manifest fragilization toward Islamophobic prejudice. They hold Islam in greater suspicion and therefore to a higher standard than Christianity or Judaism. It is hard to imagine, for instance, a European politi- cian (save perhaps a communist) seeking to score popularity points by de- manding that Christian clerics strike passages from their holy scripture. Invitees to such state-sponsored “dialogues” often include, in addition to imams, Muslim apostates and even atheists who have in one way or another made a name for themselves by telling of the oppression they suffered as “Muslims,” that is, as “insider experts” of a sort.47 As some indignant Muslim O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 65 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 65 clerics who took part in the first German Islam Conference in 2006 sardon- ically complained regarding the invitees, the rough counterpart would be inviting “the Pope and pop star Madonna” to a purportedly serious meeting regarding relations between the state and the Roman Catholic Church.48 Indeed, it has been practicing, as opposed to lapsed, Muslims who have frequently been expelled from such commissions (typically on suspicion of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood).49 The (Bernard) Stasi Commission convened by Jacques Chirac in 2003, which recommended the ban on veils in French schools that became law in 2004, excluded testimony from veiled women on grounds that their views could not be trusted as their own.50 Bans of various kinds of Islamic clothing (not to mention mosques and minarets) exist or are being considered in many other European lands.51 Equally prejudiced against or suspicious of Islam in particular are the nu- merous integration and civics courses and loyalty pledges that, for all intents and purposes, only Muslims are required to take in order to obtain citizenship or a visa. The Dutch course introduced in 1998, which has served as something of a model for the various types of loyalty tests that have subsequently sprung up in many European lands, subjects “students” to footage of gay men kissing and topless women sunbathing to teach and test the appropriate response, which, needless to say, is toleration rather than indignation.52 Nor should we overlook the fact that racial and ethnic profiling of Muslims by police has pro- liferated across Europe, as have deport-first-prove-later measures for dealing with suspected criminals of Muslim heritage.53 Sadly, the preoccupation with Muslims may have contributed to the free reign exploited by “Christian” ter- rorists such as Norway’s Anders Behring Breivik or Germany’s National So- cialist Underground Zwickau Cell. The extra scrutiny is necessary, claim Islamophobes, because Islam is in- herently antidemocratic and expansionist. European Islamophobia tends to manifest itself in two often overlapping, but nonetheless distinguishable strands. Mostly from the progressive Left stem concerns that the large pres- ence of Muslims imperils the slow but steady progress of Reason and Democ- racy in Europe since the Enlightenment against the benighted forces of obscurantism and tyranny. The Qur’an is said to preach theocracy – “the dic- tatorship of the mullahs”54 – and commands of its followers “submission” to divine law (Shari‘ah) rather than self-determination through democracy. Par- ticularly threatened are the most recent achievements of the ongoing Enlight- enment project, such as equal rights for women and homosexuals. Islam treats the former as virtual slaves whose place in heaven can be secured only through obsequious obedience to men; the latter as base sinners whose destiny is eter- 66 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 66 nal damnation. Typical of this common essentializing trope is Thierry Chervel’s lament, versions of which could be quoted from any number of a chorus of prominent Islam-naysayers such as André Glucksmann, Emmanuell Todd, Fadela Amara, Herman Philipse, Alice Schwarzer, Necla Kelek, Ralph Giordano, and Farrukh Dhondy: In the confrontation with Islamism, the Left has abandoned its principles. In the past it stood for cutting the ties to convention and tradition, but in the case of Islam it reinstates them in the name of multiculturalism. It is proud to have fought for women's rights, but in Islam it tolerates head scarves, arranged marriages, and wife-beating. It once stood for equal rights, now it preaches a right to difference – and thus different rights. It proclaims freedom of speech, but when it comes to Islam it coughs in embarrassment. It once supported gay rights, but now keeps silent about Islam’s taboo on homosex- uality. The West’s long-due process of self-relativisation at the end of the colonial era, which was promoted by postmodernist and structuralist ideas, has led to cultural relativism and the loss of standards.55 So convinced of Islam’s inherent inclination toward dictatorship is promi- nent French intellectual Bernhard Henri Lévy that he refuses to refer to Is- lamists with anything but the neologism “fascislamist.” Former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer prefers “the new totalitarianism.”56 It seems an obvious conclusion that “one cannot consider Islam a religion among oth- ers, a religion that might have a right to exist under the big roof of European tolerance.”57 From the right side of the political spectrum, one more often encounters grave concern regarding the purported adulteration of Europe’s “Judeo- Christian character.” Large-scale postwar immigration combined with higher birth rates among Muslims is said to have occasioned the “Islamization” of Europe to a point where natives feel like “strangers in their own country.”58 While soberer observers raise concerns about the dilution of the ethnic and linguistic homogeneity or “social glue” that any society supposedly requires to function well,59 other more alarmist Cassandras discern an Islamic conspir- acy to transform Europe into “Eurabia” using Muslim migrants as the foot sol- diers. Thus wrote Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci in her second bestselling diatribe against Islam, The Force of Reason: “Europe becomes more and more a province of Islam, a colony of Islam. In each of our cities lies a second city: a Muslim city, a city run by the Koran. A stage in the Islamic expansionism.”60 Indeed, purporting to expose such a plot has become one of the surest ways since 9/11 to catapult oneself onto the bestseller list.61 Like Fallaci’s, the O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 67 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 67 paranoid arguments typically contend that Islam harbors a built-in urge toward militant expansionism that stems back to its very founder, Muhammad, who established an Islamic theocracy in Makkah with the sword. Following the Prophet’s lead, subsequent Islamic empires are said to have all deployed mil- itary might to spread the faith, including into Europe during the Middle Ages. Islamists and jihadists will not stop until they have conquered Europe as their stepping stone to subduing the entire West. Tolerating their presence represents Europe’s twentieth-century counterpart to Munich of 1938.62 Both left and right Islamophobia draw from and reinforce (neo)Orientalist discourse. Edward Said, of course, penned the classic study of Orientalism as a discourse that not only stigmatized the Orient but also legitimized its dom- ination by western powers. The discourse, created and conveyed by an inter- locking network of artists, experts, administrators, journalists, and politicians, represents Islam as a monolithic and static religion and culture; indeed, an en- tire civilization that resists not only change but, in particular, rational persua- sion. The discourse is furthermore reductionist and essentialist in that it portrays all Muslims as fully determined by an all-encompassing Islamic ethos. Orientalism thereby denies Muslims the free agency and reason to adapt, alter, or reject their faith. This supposition, moreover, conveniently dismisses Muslims’ self-repre- sentation as the nonsensical utterances of persons intellectually imprisoned by a benighted creed and culture. In the Orientalist discourse, Muslims are represented rather than heard, suspected rather than trusted, and governed rather than empowered. Finally, by creating the proverbial “Negative Other,” the discourse self-servingly projects a positive counter-image of the West and westerners as utterly “other” and therefore superior to unenlightened Orientals. “The Orient,” writes Said, “has helped to define Europe (or the West) as its contrasting image, idea, personality, experience … European culture gained its strength and identity by setting itself off against the Orient as a sort of sur- rogate and even underground self.”63 There now exists a plethora of studies documenting both the prevalence and sway of this type of neo-Orientalist discourse in European politics and media.64 Justin Gest’s assessment is representative: Interpretations of Islam that portray it as irreducible, impenetrable, undif- ferentiated and immune to processes of change have long obscured the com- plexities of the historical experience of Muslims across different societies. Today, these perceptions persist, overlooking the complicated process of ac- culturation and mutual adaptation by Muslims and institutions of Western Europe. They ignore Islam’s plasticity and diversity, and instead allow ex- 68 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 68 aggerated misimages – stemming from exotica or invented in a narrow his- torical context and augmented by selective episodic details – to constitute Muslim history and tradition. And by considering Islam as an undifferenti- ated whole, essentialist discourse is able to broad-brush Muslims as a threat to the equally undifferentiated “good” societies of the West.65 The power of Islamophobia lies in transforming prejudice into prudence. The “Muslims” that vast numbers of non-Muslim Europeans “know” are for the most part virtual or fully “mediatized”66; and these fictionalized Muslims are indeed sinister and threatening, for their imputed Islamic piety makes them immutably anti-democratic, regressive, misogynistic, militaristic, and, most worrisomely, irrational.67 Small wonder, then, that the 2011 Pew Global Atti- tudes Survey found that 36% of those polled in Britain and France, 55% in Ger- many, and 63% in Spain have an “unfavorable” attitude toward Muslims in general.68 European Muslims have become the victim (before but even more so after 9/11) of what Stanley Cohen has diagnosed as “moral panic.” Moral panic obtains when opportunistic political agents manage to stigmatize a tar- geted group in such a way that its purported moral deviance becomes convinc- ingly portrayed as an existential threat to society as a whole.69 Furthermore, moral panic is all the likelier in the “risk society” of late modernity, where per- sons become more preoccupied with potential than with actual dangers.70 Moral panic feeds off exaggeration as much as distortion. Needless to say, neither European secularism nor Christianity lies imperiled, at least not from Muslims. Theocratic parties and politicians remain rare and largely unelec- table. The schools, both private and public, overwhelmingly teach and social- ize pupils in the core secularist tenet that democratic law is supreme. Indeed, studies reveal that the vast majority of European Muslims lead typically “sec- ular” lifestyles that for the most part relegate religious belief and practice to the private sphere.71 At the same time, European lands remain fully saturated in Christian lore, ritual, and symbolism, from hourly ringing church bells to crucifixes in classrooms to religious-oriented holidays, all of which Muslims must suffer. The (Gregorian) calendar itself is of Christian origin! Laborde labels such favoritism “soft rules,” a mostly unorchestrated, un- official, and yet pervasive favoring of Christian norms, expectations, and presuppositions as “normal,” and Muslim ones as “abnormal.”72 And yet, much Christian favoritism is deliberately state-sponsored. Take the case of private but nonetheless state-subsidized religious schools. Germany has thou- sands of Christian schools compared to two Islamic schools; the Netherlands has 5,000 compared to 50; Britain has 7,000 compared to seven (despite the fact that more Muslims weekly attend mosque than Anglicans weekly attend O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 69 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 69 church).73 Even in laïque France, roughly one-fifth of French pupils attend religious (mostly Christian) schools, 85 percent of whose costs are covered by the state.74 In contrast, only a few dozen Muslim pupils attend a handful of Muslim schools.75 As Grace Davie incisively observes, “in European so- ciety, the religious playing field is not level, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future.”76 Not a single European country currently comes close to fulfilling Rainer Bauböck’s elegant vision of genuine secular neu- trality and fairness: the state can live up to its obligation of equal concern and respect for all cit- izens by, on the one hand, extending whatever historical privileges the dom- inant religion has enjoyed to the minority congregations and, on the other hand, abolishing those that involuntarily subject non-believers to some re- ligious authority.77 Islamism and Europobia Both secular and Christian favoritism roil Islamists. I employ the admittedly imperfect term “Islamism” loosely and broadly to envelop the beliefs of all those who strive toward a society in which Islamic precepts and laws – typi- cally understood as those enunciated in the Qur’an and Sunnah – predominate. Among those I label “Islamists,” the general idea tends to prevail that God revealed through Prophet Muhammad (and by some accounts certain subse- quent hadiths as well) sufficient guidelines for leading a morally upstanding life as an individual and as a community for all times and places. One saying attributed to Muhammad, for example, that is oft-recited by Islamists observes: “The best people are those living in my generation, then those coming after them, and then those coming after.”78 Islamists tend to see Islam as integral rather than antithetical to modern life and believe that the latter needs to conform to the former rather than vice versa. Due to limited space, I gloss over the significant differences in strategy for achieving the Islamist goal – differences ranging from pietist personal con- version stressed by such groups as Tablighi Jamaat and Jamaat un Nur, to non- violent political action practiced by the Muslim Brotherhood and its European affiliate the Union of Islamic Organizations in Europe, to violent jihadi mili- tant organizations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, Supporters of Shariah, and Groupe Islamique Armé.79 In the context of this article, it makes sense to lump these differing groups and beliefs together under a single category because they, like Christian and Jewish fundamentalists (who, by the way, outnumber Is- lamists in Europe), pose a challenge to the secular European state’s demand, 70 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 70 in theory at least, that all its citizens eschew theocracy and submit to man- made law. For Islamists, resisting European-style secularism means far more than simply maintaining a particular identity; it is about defending their access to eternal salvation. They resolutely believe that the majority of European Chris- tian and Jewish denominations have made a tragic mistake with grave conse- quences for all of humanity in submitting to the conditions of western secularism. By subordinating themselves to man-made law, they have forfeited the role of moral leadership, thereby opening the way for unbuttoned hedo- nism to become the ersatz religion for the masses, and left morally unguided and unchecked an economic and political elite that has ravaged the globe and its peoples through their wanton pursuit of this-worldly profit and power. Sec- ularism, for Islamists, is synonymous with the triumph of sin over morality, evil over good. They resolve to resist it, which they believe they do best by endeavoring to live by Islamic precepts as much as possible in all aspects of their lives. One Copenhagen imam, for example, averred in 2004 that “secu- larism is a disgusting form of oppression…No Muslim can accept secularism, freedom, and democracy. It is for Allah alone to legislate how our society shall be regulated. Muslims wish and long for Allah’s law to replace the law of man.”80 A zealous cybernaut at oumma.com, likewise, announces: “Laws made by men are made for them and therefore are always unjust, only Quranic law is good because it is impartial.”81 Though anecdotal to be sure, such individual utterances nevertheless do broadly reflect the tenet of the Muslim Brotherhood that “The Qur’an is our constitution.” Indeed, these very words fell from the lips of the leader of the Union of Islamic Organizations in France during an interview, although he later denied saying them.82 This theocratic philosophy was profoundly inspired by Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones, still a widely read and praised book among Is- lamists, in which the venerated martyr denounces all man-made laws as the product of ignorance (jāhil¥yah) and calls upon his brethren to defy, depose, and replace them with Islamic law wherever possible.83 The organization Hizb ut-Tahrir, for example, claims that “Islam is a complete way of life that pro- vides guidance for man in all aspects of life. It is not defined in contradistinc- tion to other ideologies or religions, but by being the truth revealed by the creator of man, life and the universe.”84 Islamists tend to practice “inverted othering.” This concept parallels what others identify as a “duplication” or “mirror” effect, whereby marginalized Muslims recast the stigma of themselves as Europe’s negative Other to pro- duce an equally reductionist counter-stereotype in which the West and west- O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 71 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 71 erners appear evil and Islam and “true” Muslims appear good.85 Inverted oth- ering also reveals fragilization. From postcolonial and postmodern studies, Islamist activists shrewdly borrow influential readings of the West in late modernity and customize them to undergird their Islamist agenda. The con- ventional image of Islamists as proverbial ostriches with their heads sunk deep in the sand of a medieval worldview misses the mark. I concur with Olivier Roy, who contends that Islamist activists are best understood as fully inte- grated into a single global political discourse whose successful ideas and tac- tics they keenly study and dexterously employ.86 Islamists, for instance, deftly exploit the postmodern argument that Mus- lims are Europe’s latest Other, the newest group Europeans love to hate. As in- timated above, this postmodern argument that interprets Muslims as something akin to Europe’s new Jews, whose stigmatized popular image reinforces Eu- ropean superciliousness, has become a staple of European migration studies, particularly on the Left.87 Like postmodernists, Islamists contend that the stig- matization of Muslims is not merely hypocritical, a double standard, but rather constitutive of European identity itself. Postmodernists, of course, offer up a wide variety of reasons, ranging from sublimated impulses and needs à la Sig- mund Freud to simple force of habit, for why westerners engage in negative othering. Islamists, by contrast, contend that westerners stigmatize Muslims because they have nothing to be proud of in their own civilization, having com- pletely befouled it through rampant turpitude. Rotterdam-based imam Khalil el-Moumni, for example, declares that “Western civilization is a civilization without morals,” while the Islamic Party of Britain contends that “there is noth- ing in Western societies that remotely resembles good behaviour.”88 According to the Muslim Parliament UK, Europe is “beginning to develop disorders of the mind, body and soul as a direct consequence of unmitigated secularism.”89 Thankfully, claims Kalim Siddiqui, Islam “possesses moral pre- cepts such as collective responsibility and moderation that liberate man from western-like materialism, egoism and money-grabbing corruption and over- riding selfish individualism of the West.”90 Westerners are said not to want to face this disturbing fact. The Swedish journal Salaam charges: “The ones who are behind this negative propaganda hate the message that Islam has brought, i.e. that all men are equal before Allah and that the best of us is the most de- vout.” They aim to “make Islam look like a weird, horrible and strange faith so that no one ever should come to think of taking an interest in or convert to that faith.”91 A second trope commonly employed by Islamists contends that Europe and Europeans have long been – and remain – bent on subjugating Muslims. 72 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 72 With arguments unmistakably reminiscent of postcolonial luminaries from Frantz Fanon to Said, Islamists contend that the West has long harbored and often realized (neo)imperialist designs on the Orient. From the Crusades through the colonialism of the “White Man’s Burden” to the current “war on terror,” this urge to dominate Muslims has purportedly figured prominently in the western psyche. Needless to say, the United States and Israel lead the “Crusaders and Zionists” of today; however, Europe incurs vitriolic recrimi- nation for supporting this ongoing injustice and subjugation.92 For example, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing of 2013, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain posted on its website: the context behind political violence, where Muslims are involved, is often casually ignored… Just in the past decade, in a highly charged post 9-11 world, the USA and its allies have committed numerous heinous crimes against Muslims. Whether one looks at the Guantanamo Bay, the deaths of Iraqis on false pretences (sic), the systematic destruction of Afghanistan since 2002, the drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, the attack and intervention in Mali, overt support for Israel’s crimes in Palestine, tacit support for India’s crimes in Kashmir, silence and complicity over Russian thuggery in the North Caucasus, the backing of vicious dictators in the Mus- lim world or the tacit support for Bashar Al-Assad in Syria until recently, one will see genuine causes for grief, anger and emotion.93 Within Europe, Europeans are said to perpetuate the imperialist tradition and mindset through a combined demonization and domination of Muslims that marginalize and exploit them as second-class citizens. Britain’s Islam- channel, for instance, advertises itself as the “Voice of the Voiceless, Voice of the Oppressed.” Siddiqui charges that “post-Christian secular society,” includ- ing “the British Government,” seeks “to destroy our values,” while Abdul Wahid (chairman, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain) claims “the government’s long-term objective is to manufacture a compliant, subdued, secular Muslim community in Britain.”94 Such remarks are unmistakably informed by the postcolonial in- terpretation of immigration in Europe that discerns an ongoing attitude of “coloniality,” that is, “a logic of governmentality that not only supports spe- cific forms of historical colonialism but continues to structure a planetary hi- erarchy in terms of a distinction between West and the non-West … beyond the formal institutionalization of colonialism.”95 By stressing Islamists’ fragilization toward postmodern and postcolonial analysis, I do not mean to dismiss their capacity for independent thought. I seek instead to proffer an interpretation of “multiculturalism” that reads it as O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 73 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 73 an outgrowth of mutual fragilization rather than creeping Islamization. Policies of official or “de facto multiculturalism”96 have doubtless opened up spaces across Europe in which Islamists can preach and practice their anti-western and anti-secular worldview. Scores of studies document the existence of transnational enclaves in which migrants live by norms and values that are significantly different from the majority population.97 These are not exclu- sively Islamist enclaves, but Islamists do figure prominently in many of them, in which they carve out what some have called “protection zones”98 or do- mains of “Islamic ambiance.”99 However, two caveats need to be interjected here immediately. First, such Islamist zones of de facto autonomy represent tiny islands in a surrounding sea of both irreligious and Christian favoritism of the kinds discussed above. Second, and more importantly, Islamist “apartism”100 does not reflect anything remotely resembling the Islamization of the policymaking process itself. Eu- ropean governments continue to be staffed by precious few elected or ap- pointed Muslims with enough influence to shape policy and even fewer seeking to legitimize multicultural measures with reference to theocratic pas- sages in the Qur’an or hadiths. Rather, through fragilizing exposure to widely circulated postmodern and postcolonial ideas, many non-Muslim officials have come to doubt the morality or the feasibility of insisting that Muslims conform to European secular norms and values. I am not suggesting that postmodernists and postcolonialists have usurped positions of power, though this presumably has occurred in some places. Far likelier is that officials who generally prefer what we are calling “liberal sec- ular values” consider plausible the postmodern nihilist notion that those same values are historically and culturally contingent rather than universal and, par- ticularly in relation to some Muslims, imposed rather than desired.101 The re- sulting solicitude generates sympathy, conscious or unconscious, for the core multicultural tenet that migrants should not have to relinquish their particular culture as a condition of migrating to European lands. In my reading, then, multiculturalism does indeed represent a certain softening toward Islamism, but not toward those elements that stem directly from Islamic doctrine per se, but rather toward those elements that Islamists, being insightful observers of current political discourse, have shrewdly, if not disingenuously, adopted from postmodern discourse precisely because they do cast doubt on liberal secular assimilationism. We can broadly distinguish between two types of multiculturalist policies: direct and indirect support of Islamist organizations. Since the 1970s, Euro- pean governments at various levels have regularly funded a variety of immi- 74 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 74 grant organizations dedicated to nurturing and preserving immigrants’ lan- guage and culture in the receiving country. Thus public monies have flowed to hundreds of Islamic organizations to erect mosques, establish community centers, found female support groups, fund private or public Islamic education, provide imams to undertake pastoral work with prisoners or patients, operate public access radio or television stations, or open sports clubs.102 Typically such multiculturalist funding has been provided with minimal strings attached. Officials identify a small number of prominent community leaders to decide how to distribute and spend public funds. These “elders” of sorts may pay lip service to liberal democratic values, but in reality are left to run their organi- zations with virtually no governmental oversight.103 It is important to note that such support for multicultural measures has persisted and expanded over the past three decades not merely in countries with an official multicultural policy, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Bel- gium, or Britain, but in practically every European nation.104 Sometimes, multicultural policies were rationalized to the public under the rubric of “rein- tegration,” that is, preparing migrants to return to their homelands when, in fact, officials knew few planned to do so.105 More often, those officials tasked with dealing with immigrants implemented multicultural measures under- neath the political and media radar.106 Thus did the erstwhile Italian prime minister Guilio Andreotti explain: “All the mosques the Saudis have built around the world became elements of propaganda. I am not naïve. But the important thing is to try to have a relationship with them.”107 The Multiculuralism Policy Index at Queens University finds that despite the great deal of recent political rhetoric denouncing multiculturalism as “failed,” multiculturalist policies in fact increased not only from 1980 to 2000, but also from 2000 to 2010 across Europe and “more than offset” the high- profile rescinding of such policies in places like the Netherlands since 9/11.108 Moreover, much research shows that Islamists, employing their legendary so- cial organizing skills, have proven adept at penetrating immigrant organiza- tions and steering them to support an Islamist agenda. Many of them spew Europhobic rhetoric, discourage or forbid their members to interact with “Eu- ropeans,” preach the superiority of Islamic to secular law, and instruct adher- ents to follow the former even if it means transgressing the latter. There is, of course, much Islamophobic fear-mongering and sensationalism in reporting that exposes such organizations, but it would nevertheless be naïve to think that state funding is not reaching Islamists.109 Second, indirect support for Islamism in Europe occurs through the tol- eration of Islamist organizations and mosques that have no relationship with O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 75 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 75 the government. All European constitutions guarantee religious freedom. As a result, Islamist organizations find far more congenial grounds for organizing than they do in most sending countries, whose governments often repress them (especially before the Arab Spring) – a reason why so many Islamist exiles from Ruhollah Khomeini to Necmettin Erbakan to Ali Sadreddin al- Bayanouni took or take safe haven in Europe and organize their efforts from there. They are, by and large, left free to organize as they wish and to raise money from all manner of sources, such as the Muslim World League bank- rolled by Saudi Arabia.110 As mentioned in the introduction, modern European secularism implicitly demands that religious organizations eschew theocracy as a condition for ex- ercising religious freedom. However, many Islamist groups quite openly es- pouse it.111 To be sure, their strivings are often directed toward establishing Islamic regimes in the sending countries. However, their efforts can and do apply to European soil. Naturally, there are extreme voices like Omar Bakri, who prophesizes imminent victory in Europe when “the black flag of Islam flies over Downing Street.”112 But the lion’s share of Islamist organizations works less flamboyantly, but nevertheless assiduously, to increase step by step and person by person the number of believers who value Islamic over secular law. They aspire, often successfully, to carve out “zones of exclusion.”113 Within these areas of “self-imposed apartheid,” ranging in size from the four walls of a flat or mosque to entire neighborhoods, “Islamic” law prevails, in- cluding when it transgresses secular law (for instance, polygamy or coerced confinement). Here, those who violate the Shari‘ah rather than state law are the ones punished or harassed.114 Islamist organizations tend to spurn cooperation with western govern- ments. Indeed, they warn their adherents against “Westoxification” (Gharb- zadegi), Iranian Jalal al-e Ahmad’s widely influential concept that any contact with westerners is kufr (impious) and, as such, can initiate a contagion that leads the pious Muslim into sin and, worse, into apostasy. The Europhobes quote the Prophet as having warned: “Beware of who [sic] you keep as your friends, for you will take the Deen [religion] of your friends.”115 Islamist organizations often thwart the efforts of European governments to reach out to Muslims. In Germany, Spain, Britain, and France, Islamist as- sociations have refused or withdrawn support for the high-profile national councils alluded to above.116 Within European Muslim communities, where Islamist organizations are often well organized and well respected, such dis- approbation tends to undermine the legitimacy of governmental efforts. Pro- grams sponsored by European governments are viewed with suspicion as 76 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 76 potentially repressive and, more often than not, simply avoided or ignored. The proportion of Islamic organizations that eschew contact with European governments is estimated at between one-fourth and one-third.117 As Roy per- spicaciously observes, so long as “Muslim identity is tinged with a strongly anti-imperialist hue,” enthusiastic support from a European government can often “amount to giving them [the sponsored Muslim organizations] the kiss of death.”118 I do not highlight Islamism with the intention of fueling the flames of Is- lamophobic hysteria. I seek instead to underscore the complex, polyvalent na- ture of European secularism. In theory, European secular states are supposed to be neutral toward religion. In reality, despite important institutional differ- ences,119 they simultaneously preach the supremacy of secular law that treats all believers and non-believers equally, oversee extensive Christian (and some- times Jewish) favoritism, endeavor to combat discrimination against Muslims, reach out to Euro-Muslims, and support or tolerate Islamists who thwart efforts to strengthen Euro-Islam. In this vein, it is interesting to note Veit Bader’s ob- servation in his major study of European secularism: States are not monolithic. Aims and strategies vary, and the legislative, ju- dicial and executive branches often follow contradictory policies. The dif- ferentiation only increases when comparing federal, state and local levels. Every state thus shows a variety of partly inconsistent institutional arrange- ments; and actual policies diverge from legal norms.120 In reality, most European governments do not practice secularism, rather secularisms – a complex, dynamic intermingling and over-layering of policies whose intent and consequences often run deeply at odds with one another.121 Such policy messiness reflects widening mutual fragilization, whereby policy- makers and citizens alike become increasingly accustomed to, if not neces- sarily comfortable with, the co-existence of rival outlooks and approaches to religion in contemporary life and society. As mutual fragilization expands, both the prospect of and perhaps need for an “overlapping consensus,” let alone coherent policy, dwindle. Post-Islamism Make no mistake. Mutual fragilization can prompt mutual demonization but it need not, as the example of post-Islamism attests. As conscious or unconscious apprehension regarding the persuasiveness of one’s preferred outlook intensi- fies, the temptation to demonize one’s perceived adversaries can strengthen. If O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 77 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 77 the arguments for one’s position seem less able to persuade adversaries on the basis of merit alone, then assailing one’s opponents can present itself as an in- creasingly tempting strategy. Demonization can prove highly alluring, for it distracts attention away from one’s own vulnerabilities, exaggerates the foes’ shortcomings, and often garners considerable attention. As political actors follow the lead of media producers who know that bad news sells better than good news, the politics of immigration in Europe has in- creasingly degenerated into a politics of slighting, fear-mongering, and scape- goating.122 Indeed, the hate promoters tend not only to prey but also to depend on one another. Thus Islamophobes’ outlandish distortions of Islam and Mus- lims become the Europhobes’ evidence that the entire West is evil and sadistic, and vice versa. The opposing camps become locked in a self-referencing and self-reinforcing war of manipulated words and images that becomes virtually hermetically sealed off from other more nuanced discussion and analysis.123 Rather than flee from fragilization into essentialist and binary stereotypes, post-Islamists embrace its ambivalence as an opportunity to discover new in- sights. The latter unpredictably emerge through the hybrid combination of worldviews presumed to be mutually exclusive: liberalism and Islamism. I apply the less-than-perfect label “post-Islamists”124 to refer to a younger gen- eration of activists keen to re-shape Islamism to make it less Europhobic, and thereby more effective, in Europe.125 While their critique of many aspects of modern western societies is unmistakably informed by the thought of earlier Islamists, such as Qutb or Abul A‘la Maududi, post-Islamists eschew the wholesale rejection of western society associated with both the Islamist pio- neers as well as their contemporary orthodox adherents. “I don’t deny my Muslim roots,” claims Tariq Ramadan, “but I don’t vilify Europe either.”126 The proponents of this newer idiom of Islamism tend to reside in Europe, to stem from the middle class, and to be highly and mostly western educated.127 They tend to adopt and become comfortable with many of the styles and rhythms of modern western life regarding, for instance, education, profession- alism, consumerism, and individualism.128 That said, they operate in a fully “transnational religious discourse”129 that is profoundly in touch with and deeply colored by prominent reformist thinkers in the Middle East, such as Abdolkarim Soroush, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, Rachid al-Ghannouchi, and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. These mavericks in Europe are at once cooperating and contesting for leadership with an older, more strictly anti-western guard in such Islamist associations as the Union of Islamic Organisations in Europe (OIOE), Islamische Gemeinde Milli Görüş (IGMG), or the UK Islamic Mis- sion. They publish their ideas in journals and magazines such as Q-News, The 78 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 78 Muslim News, La Medina, and Die Islamische Zeitung or on websites such as Islam21.net, oumma.com, and huda.de.130 In contrast to Euro-Muslims, post-Islamists resist a wholesale endorse- ment of the modern West. To be sure, the latter recognize and value certain aspects of western society, chief among them democratic rights and liberties, particularly religious freedom. Thus does Ramadan remind his readers that it is precisely the separation of church and state that can “protect the total inde- pendence of Muslims in France.”131 The erstwhile leader of IGMG, Mehmet Erbakan, contends that European Muslims live in far superior conditions for freely exercising their religion than do the 90 percent of their fellow Muslims in the so-called “Islamic world,” where authoritarian regimes have tradition- ally quashed religious freedom. Such authoritarian rule, even when done in the name of Islamic law, he maintains “is not a fulfillment of God’s will rather its perversion.”132 Tunisian exile (until 2011) al-Ghannouchi famously changed Europe’s designation from the conventional dŒr al-úarb (abode of war) to dŒr al-IslŒm (abode of Islam).133 Ramadan endorsed this re-categorization, but augmented it to dŒr al-shahŒdah (abode of testimony).134 The Swiss activist and grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna implores European Mus- lims to take advantage of the great opportunities and rights available there – to abandon their “Pakistani, Turkish, or Arab ‘ghettos’” (both “social and in- tellectual”) and “integrate themselves into European culture”135 – and thereby craft a “more self-critical” Islam136 as well as a model of “Islamic citizenship” that will stand as an example (testimony) to the rest of the Islamic world to emulate in the twenty-first century.137 Post-Islamists simply do not discern the incompatibility between Islam and “western” values postulated by Islamophobes and Europhobic Islamists alike. The Union of Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF), the IGMG, and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), despite their Islamist links, pub- licly proclaim their fidelity to the constitution of France, Germany, and Britain respectively.138 MCB, for example, officially “encourag[es] individual Mus- lims and Muslim organisations to play a full and participatory role in public life.”139 Granted, European constitutions permit some things, such as usury and alcohol consumption, that Islam forbids. However, the critical point is that none of the constitutions obliges Muslims to engage in such activities.140 Hassan Safoui (media manager, UOIF) sees, for instance, no reason why per- sons of different “beliefs or references” cannot “agree on shared values” that build a “mutual ethics between Islam and the West to fight social diseases in the European communities.”141 O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 79 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 79 As intimated in the previous quotation, post-Islamists discern grave short- comings in European societies. Moreover, they believe themselves to be par- ticularly well situated both to recognize and remedy such profound problems. This more critical predisposition distinguishes them from advocates of Euro- Islam, who, generally speaking, interpret the achievements of western society since the Enlightenment as progressive and exemplary. In the eyes of post- Islamists, Muslims, as victims of European imperialism, are well suited to ex- pose the darker side of European “greatness.” They possess firsthand experience with the injustice and inequality that go hand in hand with Euro- pean prosperity and power not only in the Third World, from where most Eu- ropean Muslims hail, but also in Europe itself, where they are exploited and discriminated against.142 Muslims can also help to correct the lopsided inter- pretation proffered by Eurocentrism, which views western civilization as the lone font of the world’s greatest and lasting achievements. Ramadan chastises this supercilious combination of ignorance and arrogance with which Euro- centric secularists dismiss all but their own ideas: Convinced that they are progressive, they give themselves the arbitrary right to proclaim the definitively reactionary nature of religions … In the end, only a handful of “Muslims-who-think-like-us” are accepted, while the oth- ers are denied the possibility of being genuinely progressive fighters armed with their own set of values. By doing this, the dialogue with Islam is trans- formed into an interactive monologue which massages “our ideological cer- tainties” just as Huntington wanted to ensure “our strategic interests.”143 Proud, educated, outspoken Muslims can shed light not only on the great accomplishments of Islamic civilization, but on the latters’ profound contri- bution to so-called “western civilization” itself.144 A genuinely open dialogue that includes Muslims and Islam as part of Europe’s past and present, one that undermines rather than perpetuates binary stereotypes, can lead to a fuller if admittedly less self-congratulatory comprehension of Europeanness.145 Post-Islamists desire more, however, than being considered insiders rather than outsiders to Europe. They want to improve Europe; and they want to do so qua Muslims. They refuse to relegate their religion to the private sphere (like, say, a hobby) as the cost of fully participating in public life. Thus did the founding members of the Union des Jeunes Musulmans an- nounce in 1987 their goal to “live our spirituality in the open and not in a reclusive way in the private sphere.”146 IGMG maintains that “Islam is a so- cial and individual way of living, the influence of which certainly does not end at a mosque’s doorstep.”147 Likewise, MCB strives for “a multi-faith, 80 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 80 pluralist society with a conscious policy of recognizing that people’s cultural and faith identities are not merely a private matter but have public implica- tions.”148 Each organization echoes the words of al-Qaradawi, the influential leader of the London-based European Council for Fatwa and Research, who asserts: “No Muslim who believes that Islam is the word of God can conceive that this great religion will ever accept being a mere appendix to socialism or any other ideology.”149 In contrast to Islamophobia, Islamism, and Euro-Islam, each of which views Europe essentially as a finished product, post-Islamism sees it as a work in progress, indeed, one in need of considerable work and progress. For post- Islamists, Islam represents a wellspring of universal values such as the fun- damental equality of all humans before God, humility and respect for God’s creation (environment), individual responsibility and industry, but also sym- pathy, as well as aid and justice for the downtrodden and unfortunate, that if adapted and applied to modern life could greatly improve it.150 The spiritual, and thereby the ethical, dimension of life is said to be neglected by Europeans, who have become mesmerized by the admittedly impressive physical accom- plishments and comforts of modernization. “We do not want modernization without soul or values; we want ethical reform. We want to transform the world in the name of the justice and human dignity that, sadly, are often for- gotten in the current inhumane global (dis)order.”151 For Ramadan, national modern identity represents a jejune substitute for a genuinely religious identity. The former teaches humans “how” to exist but not, like Islam, “why” they exist. It leaves them lacking a deeper meaning and purpose with which to as- sess rather than merely accept the latest trends and fashions of modern life. It does no less than rob humanity of its proper and proportionate relationship to the rest of the universe by anthropomorphically and mistakenly placing man at the center of that universe.152 Post-Islamists do not pretend to have all the answers. They underscore dialogue. The UOIF’s commitment to open dialogue is typical of other organ- izations with post-Islamist leanings: “Diversity is inherent in human nature. The UOIF believes that dialogue is the best way to achieve mutual recognition among members of a common society. The UOIF opposes a rupturing dis- course based on the hatred and rejection of others…The only acceptable ap- proach to dealing with the emergence of problems of misunderstanding is dialogue, explanation and education.”153 Post-Islamists do not seek to Islamize Europe, but they do demand a prominent place for Islam at the dialogue table and therefore in public life. They also insist on the need to formulate through dialogue what Ramadan calls a “new ‘We.’”154 This is a new understanding O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 81 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 81 of what it means to be European that includes, rather than excludes, Islam; that views “Muslims – with their spirituality, ethics and creativity” – as a “con- tribution” rather than a threat. This will demand recognition that European societies have been changing, and the presence of Muslims has forced them to experience an even greater diversity of cultures. As a result, a European identity has evolved that is open, plural and constantly in motion, thanks to the cross-fertilisation between reclaimed cultures of origin and the European cultures that now include new (Muslim) citizens.155 Conclusion Social scientists tend to prefer order to messiness. They are wont to design models and typologies that endeavor to make sense of a complicated reality. In the comparative study of both immigration and secularism, the prevailing paradigm underscores national models and path dependency. As noted above, the French are said to follow a republican model of immigrant incorporation, the British a multicultural model, and the Germans an ethno-national model.156 As far as secularism is concerned, France purportedly practices strict separa- tion, Britain weak establishment, and Germany institutionalized neutrality.157 Despite admitted advantages, however, such modeling with the nation- state as the central unit of analysis has at least two drawbacks.158 By accen- tuating differences, it glosses over similarities across nation-states. As demonstrated above, most governments of Europe oversee multiple forms of secularism at once. Bias in favor of Christianity and against Islam exists every- where, attempts to encourage Euro-Islam can be found in most lands, and both Islamism and post-Islamism are Europe-wide phenomena. The nation-state model’s paradigm also exaggerates the extent of normative consensus within each nation-state. Yet in this article we have encountered vehement debate in each country regarding how best to incorporate Islam and Muslims – a debate, moreover, that tends to take on similar expressions from one country to the next. Islamophobes are no more confined to, say, France than Islamists are to the United Kingdom or the Netherlands. Furthermore, this pan-European discourse over the proper form secular- ism should take has a fragilizing effect. The diversity of avidly but plausibly defended stances weakens conviction and confidence. The resulting solicitude regarding one’s preferred stance occasions philosophically inconsistent but politically pragmatic combinations of vying points of view. Official sponsors of Euro-Islam nevertheless adopt an Islamophobic suspicion of Muslims. Eu- rophobic Islamists employ tropes stemming from postmodern analysis rooted 82 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 82 in Nietzschean nihilism. Post-Islamists combine approval with criticism of modern European life. Fragilization facilitates policy messiness as the prospect of and perhaps need for an overarching consensus fade. Once considered largely settled, secularism in Europe today represents a complex, contested, and protean sociopolitical phenomenon that, through ongoing transformation, is profoundly altering the way Europeans view and experience religion in the twenty-first century. Endnotes 1. Stephen Monsma and Christopher Soper, The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies (Lanham. MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009). 2. Veit Bader, Democracy or Secularism? Associational Governance of Religious Diversity (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007), 112. 3. John Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 133 and xvii; see 133-73 for thorough discussion of overlapping consensus. 4. Jürgen Habermas, “Anerkennungskämpfe in einem demokratischen Rechts- staat,” in Multikulturismus und die Politik der Anerkennung, ed. Charles Taylor (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1993), 179. 5. Jytte Klausen, The Cartoons That Shook the World (New Haven, CT: Yale Uni- versity Press, 2009), 3. 6. See, for example, Alice Schwarzer, ed. Die Gotteskrieger und die falsche Tol- eranz (Cologne: Kieperheuer & Witsch, 2002); Bat Ye’or, Eurabia: The Euro- Arab Axis (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson Press, 2005); Oriana Fallaci, The Force of Reason (New York: Rizzoli International, 2006); and Melanie Phillips, Londonistan (New York: Encounter Books, 2007). 7. Jürgen Habermas, “Religion in the Public Sphere,” European Journal of Phi- losophy 14, no. 1 (2006): 2; Grace Davie, “Pluralism, Tolerance, and Democ- racy: Theory and Practice in Europe,” in Democracy and the New Religious Pluralism, ed. Thomas Banchoff (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 238; and Nilüfer Göle, “Die sichtbare Präzens des Islam und die Grenzen der Öf- fentlichkeit,” in Islam in Sicht: Der Auftritt von Muslimen im öffentlichen Raum, eds. Nilüfer Göle and Ludwig Ammann (Bielefeld: transcript, 2004), 14. 8. Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 303-04. 9. Ibid., 11. 10. Zygmunt Bauman, “The Making and Unmaking of Strangers,” in Debating Cul- tural Hybridity, ed. Pnina Werbner and Tariq Modood (London: Zed, 1997), 88. 11. Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens, and Scott Lash, Reflexive Modernization: Pol- itics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order (Stanford, CA: Stan- ford University Press, 1994). O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 83 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 83 12. Jock Young, The Exclusive Society: Social Exclusion, Crime, and Difference in Late Modernity (London: Sage, 1999), 15. 13. Taylor, Secular, 351. 14. Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994); also see Martin Marty’s notion of “risking hospitality” in When Faiths Collide (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), 1. 15. Steven Vertovec, “Super-Diversity and Its Implications,” Racial and Ethnic Studies 30, no. 6 (2007): 1024-54. 16. I borrow but also augment this notion of policy messiness from Gary Freeman, “Immigrant Incorporation in Western Democracies,” International Migration Review 38, no. 146 (2004): 946. 17. Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973). 18. Nonna Mayer, Français qui votent Front National (Paris: Librairie-Ernest-Flam- marion, 1999). 19. C. J. Anderson, “Economics, Politics, and Foreigners: Populist Party Support in Denmark and Norway,” Electoral Studies 15, no. 4 (1994): 497-511. 20. Ruud Koopmans, Paul Statham, Marco Guigni, and Florence Passy, Contested Citizenship: Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Europe (Minneapolis: Uni- versity of Minnesota Press, 2005). 21. Daniel Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002). 22. Terri Givens and Adam Luedtke, “European Immigration Policies in Compara- tive Perspective: Issue Salience, Partisanship and Immigrant Rights,” Compar- ative European Politics 3, no. 1 (2005): 1-22. 23. Rafaela M. Dancygier, Immigration and Conflict in Europe (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2010). 24. Christian Joppke, “The Legal-Domestic Sources of Immigrant Rights: The United States, Germany, and the European Union,” Comparative Political Stud- ies 34, no. 4 (2001): 339-66. 25. William Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992). 26. Gary Freeman, “Modes of Immigration Politics in Liberal Democratic States,” International Migration Review 29, no. 4 (1995): 881-92. 27. Rogers Smith, Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999). 28. John Rex, Ethnic Minorities in the Modern Nation State (Houndmills/Basing- stoke, UK: Macmillan, 1996). 29. Martin A. Schain, The Politics of Immigration in France, Britain, and the United States (New York: Palgrave, 2008). 30. Jonathan Laurence, The Emancipation of Europe’s Muslims: The State’s Role in Minority Integration (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012), 19. 31. Elizabeth Cohen, Semi-Citizenship in Democratic Politics (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 116-25. 84 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 84 32. Paul Sniderman, Louk Hagendoorn, and M. Prior, “Predisposing Factors and Situational Triggers: Exclusionary Reactions to Immigrant Minorities,“ Ameri- can Political Science Review 98, no. 1 (2004): 35-49; Koopmans, et al., Con- tested, 182-209. 33. Adrian Favell, Philosophies of Integration (London: Macmillan, 1998); Joel Fetzer and Christopher Soper, Muslims and the State in Britain, France and Germany (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 34. Runnymede Trust Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, Islamo- phobia – a Challenge for Us All (London: Runnymede Trust, 1997); European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia (Vienna: EUMC, 2006); Open Society Institute, Muslims in Europe: A Report on 11 EU Cities (Budapest: Open Society Institute, 2010). 35. Quoted in Maurizia Russo Spena, “Muslims in Italy: Models of Integration and New Citizenship,” in Muslims in 21st Century Europe: Structural and Cultural Perspectives, ed. Anna Triandafyllidou (London: Routledge, 2010), 171. 36. Quoted in Martin Schain, “Minorities and Immigrant Incoproration in France: The State and the Dynamics of Multiculturalism,” in Multicultural Questions, eds. Christian Joppke and Steven Lukes (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 1999), 216. 37. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 27 September 2006. 38. Olivier Roy, Globalised Islam (London: Hurst, 2004), 29. 39. Malek Cheleb, Manifeste pour un Islam des lumières: 27 propositions pour faire bouger l’Islam (Paris: Hachette Littératures, 2004). 40. Quoted in Philip Jenkins, God’s Continent: Christianity, Islam, and Europe’s Religious Crisis (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007), 140. 41. Soheib Bencheikh, Marianne et le Prophète: L’Islam dans la France laïque (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1998). 42. Bassam Tibi, “Muslim Migrants in Europe: Between Euro-Islam and Ghettoiza- tion,” in Muslim Europe or Euro-Islam: Politics, Culture, and Citizenship in the Age of Globalization, eds. Nezar AlSayyad and Manuel Castells (New York: Lexington Books, 2002), 37-38. 43. Quoted in Marc H. Ross, Cultural Contestation in Ethnic Conflict (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 212. 44. Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, 9 November 2010. 45. Financial Post, 17 February, 2006. 46. Schirin Amir-Moazami, “Pitfalls of Consensus-Oriented Dialogue: The German Islam Conference (Deutsche Islam Konferenz),” Approaching Religion 1 (May 2011): 8. 47. Samira Bellil, Dans l’enfer des tournantes (Paris: Denoël, 2002); Fadela Amara, Breaking the Silence: French Women’s Voices form the Ghetto, tr. Helen Harden Chenut (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006). 48. Reported in Die Tageszeitung, 29 September 2006. O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 85 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 85 49. Bader, Democracy, 337-38; Valérie Amiraux, “Speaking as a Muslim: Avoiding Religion in French Public Space,” in Politics of Visibility: Young Muslims in Eu- ropean Public Spaces, ed. Gerdien Jonker and Valérie Amiraux (Bielefeld: tran- script, 2006), 39. 50. Christian Joppke, Veil: Mirror of Identity (Cambridge, MA: Polity, 2009), 47; Stasi Commission, Rapport au Président de la Republique (Paris: Commission de réflexion sur l’application du principe de laȉcité dans la république, 2003). 51. Amnesty International, Choice and Prejudice: Discrimination against Muslims in Europe (London: Amnesty International, 2012). 52. Elspeth Guild, Kees Groenendijk, and Sergio Carrera, eds. Illiberal Liberal States; Immigration, Citizenship and Integration in the EU (Farnham, UK: Ash- gate, 2009). 53. Tahir Abbas, “Introduction: Islamic Political Radicalism in Western Europe,” in Islamic Political Radicalism: A European Perspective, ed. Tahir Abbas (Ed- inburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 6; Open Society Institute, Ethnic Profiling in the European Union: Pervasive, Ineffective and Discriminatory (New York: Open Society Institute, 2009). 54. Mina Ahadi and Sina Vogt, Ich habe abgeschworen. Warum ich für die Freiheit und gegen den Islam kämpfe (Munich: Heyne, 2008), 21. 55. Der Tagesspiegel, 9 February 2009. 56. Lévy quoted in Isabelle Rigoni, “Access to Media for European Muslims,” in European Islam: Challenges for Public Policy and Society, ed. Samir Amghar, Amel Boubekeur, and Michael Emerson (Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2007), 109-10; Fischer’s remark came in a speech given at Princeton University on 19 November 2003 entitled “Europe and the Future of Transat- lantic Relations.” 57. Peter Michalzek, “Wohltemperiertes Weltbild: Das unauflösliche Paradox des Multikulturalismus,” Frankfurter Rundschau, 23 March 2007. 58. Pim Fortuyn, Tegen de islamisering van onze cultuur (Utrecht: A.W. Bruno, 1997). “Strangers” quotation stems from Eunoch Powell’s infamous “Rivers of Blood Speech,” Birmingham, 20 April 1968. 59. Dominique Schnapper, Community of Citizens: On the Modern Idea of Nation- ality, tr. S. Rosée (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998). Concern for ethnic ho- mogeneity is not confined to the political Right. See David Miller, Citizenship and National Identity (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2000). Likewise, Fortuyn was a strong voice against homophobia, as is Ayaan Hirsi Ali against misogyny: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam (New York: Free Press, 2008). 60. Oriana Fallaci, The Force of Reason (New York: Rizzoli International, 2006). 61. Phillips, Londonistan; Ye’or, Eurabia; René Marchand, La France en danger d’Islam: entre jihâd et Reconquista (Lausanne: Age d’Homme, 2003). 62. Mathias Döpfner, “Europa – Dein Name ist Feigheit,” Die Welt, 20 November 2004. 63. Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Basic Books, 1978), 1-3. 86 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 86 64. Elizabeth Poole, Reporting Islam: Media Representations of British Muslims (London: I.B. Taurus, 2002); Thomas Deltombe, L’islam imaginaire. La con- struction médiatique de l’islamophobie en France, 1975-2005 (Paris: La Dé- couverte, 2005); Laura Navarro, Contra el Islam. La visión deformada del mundo árabe en Occidente (Cordoba: Almuzara, 2008); and Thorsten Schnei- ders, ed. Islamfeindlichkeit: Wenn die Grenzen der Kritik verschwimmen (Wies- baden: VS Verlag fűr Sozialwissenschaften, 2010). 65. Justin Gest, Apart: Alienated and Engaged Muslims in the West (New York: Co- lumbia University Press, 2010), 56. 66. Thijl Sunier, “Islam in the Netherlands, Dutch Islam,” in Triandafyllidou, Mus- lims in 21st, 133. 67. Nathan Lean, The Islamophobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims (London: Pluto Press, 2012). 68. www.pewresearch.org. 69. Stanley Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers (New York: St. Martin’s, 1980), 9. 70. Ulrich Beck, Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity (London: Sage, 1992); on the application of Beck’s ideas to Muslim immigration in Europe, see Peter O’Brien, “Migration and Its Risks,” International Migration Review 30, no. 4 (1996): 1067-77. 71. Michèle Tribalat, De l’immigration à l’assimilation. Enquéte sur les popula- tions d’origine étrangère en France (Paris: La Decouverte, 1996); Ronald In- glehart and Pippa Norris, “Muslim Integration into Western Cultures: Between Origins and Destinations,” Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP09- 007 (Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, March 2009). 72. Cécile Laborde, Critical Republicanism: The Hijab Controversy and Political Philosophy (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008), 17; also Bader, Democracy, 153-56. 73. Monsma and Soper, Challenge, 196 (Germany), 59 (Netherlands), 151 (UK). Anglican-Muslim attendance from Peter Berger, “Pluralism, Protestantization, and the Voluntary Principle,” in Banchoff, Democracy, 20. 74. Jørgen Nielsen, Muslims in Western Europe (New York: Pinter Publishers, 1992), 21; Melanie Adrain, “A Common Life amidst Fragmentation: A Consid- eration of German and French Approaches to the Integration of Muslims” Jour- nal of Muslim Minority Affairs 31, no. 3 (2011): 422. 75. Olivier Roy, Secularism Confronts Islam, tr. George Holoch (New York: Co- lumbia University Press, 2007), 105. 76. Davie, “Pluralism,” 238. 77. Rainer Bauböck, “Cultural Minority Rights in Public Education: Religious and Language Instruction for Immigrant Communities in Western Europe,” in West European Immigration and Immigrant Policy in the New Century, ed. Anthony M. Messina (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002), 170. O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 87 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 87 78. Quoted in Robert S. Leiken, Europe’s Angry Muslims: The Revolt of the Second Generation (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), 66. 79. Jørgen Nielsen, “Transnational Islam and the Integration of Islam in Europe,” in Muslim Networks and Transnational Communities in and across Europe, ed. Stefano Allievi and Jørgen Nielsen (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 34-41; Roy, Secular- ism, 58-69; Leiken, Europe’s, 64-66; Nilüfer Göle, “Die sichtbare Präzens des Islam und die Grenzen der Öffentlichkeit,” in Islam in Sicht: Der Auftritt von Muslimen im öffentlichen Raum, ed. Nilüfer Göle and Ludwig Ammann (Biele- feld: transcript, 2004), 14. 80. Quoted in Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from within (New York: Broadway Books, 2006), 16. 81. Quoted in Giles Kepel, The War for Muslim Minds: Islam and the West (Cam- bridge, MS: Harvard University Press, 2004), 260. 82. Laurence, Emancipation, 72. 83. Sayyid Qutb, Milestones (Chicago: Kazi Publications, 2007), 1-2. 84. Quoted in Shahram Akbarzadeh and Joshua Roose, “Muslims, Multiculturalism, and the Question of the Silent Majority,” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 31, no. 3 (2011): 313. 85. Schirin Amir-Moazami and Armando Salvatore, “Gender, Generation, and the Reform of Tradition: From Muslim Majority Societies to Western Europe,” in Allievi and Nielsen, Muslim Networks, 68; Mark LeVine, “‘Human Nation- alisms’ versus ‘Inhuman Globalisms’: Cultural Economies of Globalisation and the Re-imagining of Muslim Identities in Europe and the Middle East,” in Allievi and Nielsen, Muslim Networks, 102; also see Werner Schiffauer, Nach dem Is- lamismus: Eine Ethnographie der Islamischen Gemeinschaft Milli Görüş (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 2010), 183. 86. Roy, Globalized Islam; also John Gray, Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Mod- ern (London: Faber and Faber, 2003). 87. Talal Asad, “Trying to Understand French Secularism,” in Political Theologies: Public Religions in a Post-Secular World, ed. Hent de Vries and Lawrence E. Sullivan (New York: Fordham University Press, 2006), 494-526; Schirin Amir- Moazami, Politisierte Religion. Der Kopftuchstreit in Deutschland und Frankre- ich (Bielefeld: transcript, 2007); Bryan Turner, “Orientalism and Otherness,” in Islam in the European Union: Transnationalism, Youth and the War on Terror, ed. Yunas Smad and Kasturi Sen (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007), 60-71; Katherine Pratt Ewing, Stolen Honor: Stigmatizing Muslim Men in Berlin (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008). 88. Quoted in Jenkins, God’s Continent, 188 and Marie Macey, “Islamic Political Radicalism in Britain: Muslim Men in Bradford,” in Islamic Political Radical- ism: A European Perspective, ed. Tahir Abbas (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007), 167. 89. Quoted in LeVine, “Human,” 103. 90. Giles Kepel, Allah in the West: Islamic Movements in America and Europe (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997), 142. 88 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 88 91. Quoted in Jonas Otterbeck, “Local Islamic Universalism: Analyses of an Islamic Journal in Sweden,” in Paroles d’Islam: Individus, societies et discours dans l’Islam européen contemprain, ed. Felice Dassetto (Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 2000), 261. 92. Quoted in Scientific Council for Government Policy, Dynamism in Islamic Ac- tivism. Reference Points for Democratization and Human Rights (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press, 2006), 119; also see Kepel, War, 289; Leiken, Europe’s, 232. 93. www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/boston-bombings (accessed 21 May 2013). 94. Quoted in Kepel, Allah, 143 and in Akbarzadeh and Roose, “Muslims,” 314. 95. Bobby S. Sayyid, “Contemporary Politics of Secularism,” in Secularism, Reli- gion and Multicultural Citizenship, ed. Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Tariq Modood (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 198-99. 96. Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska, “Integrating Immigrants in Liberal Na- tion-States: Policies and Practices,” in Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Im- migrants in Liberal Nation-States, ed. Christian Joppke and Ewa Moawska (New York: Palgrave, 2003), 19. 97. Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, Allochtonenbeleid.Rapporten aan de Regering, no. 36 (Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij, 1989); Haut Conseil à l’Intégration, Affaiblissement du lien social, enfermement dans les particularisms et intégration dans la cite (Paris: Documentation Française, 1997); Cantle Re- port, Community Cohesion (London: Government Printing Office, 2001); Emmanuel Brenner, ed., Les territoires perdus de la république (Paris: Mille et Une Nuits, 2002); Koopmans, et al., Contested; Paul M. Sniderman and Louk Hagendoorn, When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and Its Discontents in the Netherlands (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007); Thomas Faist, “Diversity – a New Mode of Incorporation?” Ethnic and Racial Studies 32, no. 1 (2009): 171-90. 98. Werner Schiffauer, Parallelgesellschaften. Wie viel Wertkonsens braucht unsere Gesellschaft? Für eine kluge Politik der Differenz (Bielefeld: transcript, 2008), 69. 99. John R. Bowen, Can Islam Be French? Pluralism and Pragmatism in a Secu- larist State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 105; also see Jean Pierre Obin, Les signes et manifestations d’appartenance religieuse dans les établissements scolaires (Paris: Ministère de l’education nationale, 2004); and Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, Annual Report of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Cologne: Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, 2005). 100. Gest, Apart, 49. 101. See Peter O’Brien, “Making (Normative) Sense of the Headscarf Debate in Europe,” German Politics and Society 27, no. 3 (2009): 50-76, which in ad- dition to postmodernism also analyzes a differentialist or particularist strand of European thought stretching back to Herder that too undermines liberal confidence. O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 89 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 89 102. James Hollifield, “Immigration and Integration in Western Europe: A Compar- ative Analysis,” in Immigration into Western Societies, ed. Emek Ucarer and Donald Puchala (London: Pinter, 1997), 53; R.D. Grillo, Pluralism and the Pol- itics of Difference (Oxford, NY: Clarendon Press, 1998); Schain, Politics, 107- 09; Jonas Otterbeck, “Sweden: Cooperation and Conflict,” in Triandafyllidou, Muslims in 21st, 105-07; Sunier, “Islam,” 123; Anna Triandafyllidou “Greece: The Challenge of Native and Immigrant Muslim Populations,” in Triandafylli- dou, Muslims in 21st, 202. 103. John Rex, Ethnic Minorities in the Modern Nation State (Houndmills/Bas- ingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 1996), 2; Christian Joppke, “Multiculturalism and Immigration: A Comparison of the United States, Germany, and Great Britain,” Theory and Society 25, no. 4 (1996): 440; Irka-Christin Mohr, Is- lamischer Religionsunterricht in Europe. Lehrtexte als Instrumente muslim- ischer Selbstverortung im Vergleich (Bielefeld: transcript, 2006), 268; Gest, Apart, 87-92. 104. Laurence, Emancipation, specifically 32, more generally 30-104. 105. Peter O’Brien, Beyond the Swastika (London: Routledge, 1996), 99-101; Schain, Politics, 92; Maarten Vink, “Dutch ‘Multiculturalism’ Beyond the Pillarisation Myth,” Political Studies Review 5 (2007): 340 and 345. 106. Joppke and Morawska, “Integrating,” 19; Virginie Guiraudon, “Different Na- tion, Same Nationhood: The Challenges of Immigration Policy,” in Changing France: The Politics That Markets Make, ed. Pepper Culpepper, Peter Hall, and Bruno Palier (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2006), 137-40; Schain, Politics, 281-82. 107. Quoted in Laurence, Emancipation, 54. 108. www.queenssu.ca/mcp/Findings.html (accessed 12 June, 2012). 109. Mohammad de Zeeuw, Islamistisch godsdienstlesmaterial in Nederland (Nieuwegein: IPC, 1998); Rachel Briggs, Catherine Fieschi, and Hannah Lownsbrough, Bringing it Home: Community-Based Approaches to Counter- Terrorism (London: Demos, 2006), 27; Mohr, Islamischer, 38; Gest, Apart, 121; Rauf Ceylan, Ethnische Kolonien: Entstehung, Funktion und Wandel am Bei- spiel türkischer Moscheen und Cafés (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag Sozialwissen- schaften, 2006), 249-51; Nermin Abadan-Unat, Turks in Europe: From Guest Worker to Transnational Citizen (New York: Berghahn, 2011), 128. 110. Giles Kepel, Allah in the West: Islamic Movements in America and Europe (Mes- tizo Spaces) (Paris: Broché, 1999), 152; Schiffauer, Islamismus, 213; Leiken, Europe’s, 87. 111. Kepel, Allah; Leiken, Europe’s; Nielsen, “Transnational;” Lorenzo Vidino, “The Muslim Brotherhood in Europe,” in The Muslim Brotherhood: The Organization and Policies of a Global Islamist Movement, ed. Barry Rubin (New York: Pal- grave, 2010), 106-16. 112. Quoted in Quintan Wiktorowicz, Radical Islam Rising: Muslim Extremism in the West (New York: Rowan and Littlefield, 2005), 9. 90 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 90 113. Riva Kastoryano, “French Secularism and Islam: France’s Headscarf Affair,” in Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship: A European Approach, ed. Tariq Modood, Anna Triandafyllidou, and Ricard Zapata-Barrero (London: Routledge, 2006), 66-67. 114. Kepel, War, 253; also Jenkins, God’s, 182 and 252; Roy, Globalised, 282-84. 115. Quoted in Wiktorowicz, Radical, 58. 116. For Germany, Amir-Moazami, “Pitfalls,” 10; for France, Carolyn M. Warner and Manfred W. Wenner, “Religion and the Political Organization of Muslims in Europe,” Perspectives on Politics 4, no. 3 (2006): 458; for Spain, Isabelle Rigoni, “Media and Muslims in Europe,” in Yearbook of Muslims in Europe, ed. Jørgen Nielsen (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 1:483; for Britain, Gest, Apart, 92; for elsewhere in Europe, Bernard Godard, “Official Recognition of Islam,” in Amghar, Boubekeur, and Emerson, European Islam, 183-203; and Sara Silvestri, “Public Policies towards Muslims and the Institutionalization of ‘Moderate Islam’ in Europe: Some Critical Reflections,” in Triandafyllidou, Muslims in 21st, 53 ; Laurence, Emancipation, 198-244. 117. Gema Martin Muñoz, Francisco Javier Garcia Castaño, Ana López Sla, and Rafael Crespo, Marroquies en España, Estudio sobre su integración (Madrid: Fundación Repsol, 2003), 119; Jytte Klausen, The Islamic Challenge (Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005), 87; and Otterbeck, “Sweden,” 107. 118. Roy, Secularism, 49; also Scientific Council, Dynamism, 202. 119. Monsma and Soper, Challenge. 120. Bader, Democracy, 53. 121. See Werner Schiffauer, Migration und kulturelle Differenz (Berlin: Büro der Aus- länderbeautragten des Senats, 2002), 15; Otterbeck, “Sweden,” 112; and Sunier, “Islam,” 125. 122. Sayyid, “Contemporary,” 186-99; European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Annual Report on ECRI’s Activities (Council of Europe: Strasbourg, 2011); Amnesty International, Choice; Schneiders, Islamfeindlichkeit; and Thorsten Schneiders, ed., Islamverherrlichung. Wenn die Kritik zum Tabu wird (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fűr Sozialwissenschaften, 2010). 123. LeVine, “Human,” 102; Amir-Moazami and Salvatore, “Gender,” 68; Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity (London: Verso, 2003). 124. Olivier Roy, “Le post-islamisme,” Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 85-86 (1998): 11-30; and Schiffauer, Islamismus. 125. Peter Mandaville, “Towards a Critical Islam: European Muslims and the Chang- ing Boundaries of Transnational Religious Discourse,” in Allievi and Nielsen, Muslim Networks, 134. 126. Quoted in Time, 11 December 2000. 127. Farhad Khosrokhavar, “The Muslim Brotherhood in France,” in Rubin, Muslim, 143-44; Ewing, Stolen, 79; Pnina Werbner, “The Making of Muslim Dissent: Hybridized Discourses, Lay Preachers and Radical Rhetoric among British Pak- O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 91 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 91 istanis,” American Ethnologist 23, no. 1 (1996): 115; Akbarzadeh and Roose, “Muslims,” 318. 128. Göle, “Die sichtbare,” 12-13. 129. Mandaville, “Towards,” 129. 130. Gerdien Jonker, “Islamic Television ‘Made in Berlin,’” in Dassetto, Paroles, 265-80; Peter Mandaville, “Information Technology and the Changing Bound- aries of European Islam,” in Dassetto, Paroles, 281-94; Amel Boubekeur, “Po- litical Islam in Europe,” in Amghar, Boubekeur, and Emerson, European Islam, 20-28. 131. Tariq Ramadan, To Be a European Muslim: A Study of Islamic Sources in the European Context (Leicester, UK: The Islamic Foundation, 1999), 18. 132. Quoted in Schiffauer, Islamismus, 258; also see 90-91. 133. Kepel, Allah, 152. 134. Ramadan, To Be, 150. 135. Tariq Ramadan, “Islam and Muslims in Europe: Change and Challenges,” in Political Islam: Context versus Ideology, ed. Khaled Hroub (London: SAQI, 2010), 259-60. 136. Ibid., 257. 137. Ramadan, To Be, 142-50. 138. For IGMG, see www.igmg.de/nachrichten/artikel/2007/11/25/formale-true-zur- verfassung-reicht-nicht-man-muss-sie-auch-leben-duerfen.html (accessed 9 July 2012); for UOIF, www.uoif-online.com/v3/spip.php?article19 (accessed 10 July 2012); Muslim Council of Britain, Code of Conduct and Governance Protocols, (London: Muslim Council of Britain, 2010), 4; in general, see Ramadan, To Be, 164. 139. See www.mcb.org.uk/aboutmcb.php (accessed 12 July 2012). 140. Ramadan, To Be, 171. 141. Quoted in Paris Vision News.com, 25 April 2011. 142. Ramadan, “Islam,” 262-63. 143. Tariq Ramadan, “Globalisation Critics Are Naȉve,” Qantara.de, 15 September, 2009, http://en.quantara.de/Globalisation-Critics-Are-Na%C3%AFve/9571c 9670i1p227/index.html (accessed 2 November 2011). 144. Nadia Fadil, “‘We Should Be Walking Qurans’: The Making of an Islamic Po- litical Subject,” in Jonker and Amiraux, Politics, 61. 145. Ramadan, “Islam,” 257-58. 146. Quoted in Bowen, Islam, 22. 147. www.igmg.de/gemeinschaft/wir-ueber-uns (accessed 10 July 2012). 148. Muslim Council of Britain, “Our Stand on Multiculturalism, Citizenship, Ex- tremism & Expectations from the Commission of Integration and Cohesion.” (January 2007) www.mcb.org.uk/downloads/MCB%20ReDoc%20Briefing%20 Paper%20 (accessed 5 May 2011). 149. Quoted in Ana Belén Soage, “Yusuf al-Qaradawi: The Muslim Brothers’ Fa- vorite Ideological Guide,” in Rubin, Muslim, 29. 92 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 30:3 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 92 150. This theme of the appropriateness of transcendental Islamic values for modern life figures prominently in the websites of organizations with post-Islamist lean- ings. See www.igmg.de; www.uoif-online.com; and www.mcb.org. 151. Tariq Ramadan, “The Way toward Radical Reform,” NewStatesman, 6 April 2006. Also see Jocelyn Cesari, “The Hybrid and Globalized Islam of Western Europe,” in Islam in the European Union: Transnationalism, Youth and the War on Terror, eds. Yunas Smad and Kasturi Sen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 117-18; Ewing, Stolen, 79. 152. Ramadan, To Be, 172 ; also see Rashid al-Ghannouchi, “Arab Secularism in the Maghreb,” in Islam and Secularism in the Middle East, eds. Azzam Tamimi and John L. Esposito (New York: New York University Press, 2000), 117. 153. www.uoif-online.com/v3/spip.php?article19 (accessed 10 July, 2012). 154. Ramadan, “Islam,” 262. 155. Ibid., 258-59. 156. Brubaker, Citizenship; Grete Brochmann and Tomas Hammar (eds.), Mecha- nisms of Immigration Control: A Comparative Analysis of European Regulation Policies (Oxford, NY: Berg, 1999); Koopmans, et al., Contested. 157. See Monsma and Soper, Challenge; Bader, Democracy; José Casanova, “Im- migration and the New Religious Pluralism: A European/United States Com- parison,” in Banchoff, Democracy, 59-84. 158. Christophe Betrossi and Willem Jan Duyvendak, “National Models of Immi- grant Integration: The Costs for Comparative Research,” Comparative European Politics 10 (2012): 237-47. O’Brien: Islamophobia, Euro-Islam, Islamism, and Post-Islamism 93 ajiss303-for hasan_ajiss 6/14/2013 3:38 AM Page 93