Repression, Anpassung, Neuorientierung: Islamische Bildung im sowjetischen und post- sowjetischen Raum

How did Islam survive in the Soviet Union, and how did it develop since 1991? In four case studies and four longitudinal surveys, senior specialists from the area and two German junior scholars discuss the transformations of Islam in Tatarstan, Azerbaijan, Daghestan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Several chapters analyze the Bolsheviks’ attack on Islam since the 1920s. Altay Göyüşov and Il’nur Minnullin demonstrate how the Soviets first attempted to draw some groups of Muslim scholars and intellectuals to their side, in Azerbaijan and Tatarstan, respectively. In the early 1930s collectivization and outright state terror made a complete end to the Islamic infrastructure, including mosques and pious foundations, Muslim village courts (as shown by Vladimir Bobrovnikov for Dagestan), Islamic educational institutions (as documented by Aširbek Muminov for Uzbekistan), as well as the Muslim press (analyzed by Dilyara Usmanova for Tatarstan); also Sufi brotherhoods became a main target of violent repression (Šamil‘ Šixaliev, for Dagestan). Repression was followed by the establishment of a modus vivendi between state and religion in the post-war period (Muminov, Bobrovnikov, Šixaliev), and by the instrumentalization of religion for patriotic purposes in the post-Soviet Caucasus and Central Asia (Christine Hunner-Kreisel, Manja Stephan, both based on fieldwork). By the early 2000s Islam was almost everywhere back under full state control; the leading role of the state for defining „good“ and „bad“ Islam is largely taken for granted. While similar forms of state pressure in all regions thus allow us to draw an overall picture of how Islamic traditions were repressed and reanimated, the „archival revolution“ of the early 1990s provides fascinating insights into the specific developments in the individual regions, and into the adaptation strategies of the Muslim scholars and intellectuals on the spot. Still, the Soviet heritage is still very palpable; also the attempts to leapfrog the Soviet period and to link up again with the individual local Islamic traditions from before 1917, and even the negation of the Soviet experience in the form of embracing Islamic trends from abroad, are often still couched in largely Soviet mental frameworks.

Swiss Shock: Minaret Rejection, European Values, and the Challenge of Tolerant neutrality

In 2009 Switzerland, for long an apparent beacon of European toleration and neutrality, voted to ban the erection of minarets. Internal religious matters are normally dealt with at the regional or local level – not at the level of the Swiss national parliament, although the state does seek to ensure good order and peaceful relations between different faith communities. Indeed, the freedom of these communities to believe and function publicly is enshrined in law. However, as a matter of national policy, now constitutionally embedded, one religious group, the Muslim group, is not permitted to build their distinctive religious edifice, the minaret. Switzerland may have joined the rest of Europe with respect to engaging the challenge of Islamic presence to European identity and values, but the rejection of a symbol of the presence of one faith – in this case, Islamic – by a society that is otherwise predominantly secular, pluralist, and of Christian heritage, poses significant concerns. How and why did this happen? What are the implications? This paper will discuss some of the issues involved, concluding the ban is by no means irreversible. Tolerant neutrality may yet again be a leitmotif of Swiss culture and not just of foreign policy.

Islam and the Legal Enforcement of Morality

Over sixty years ago, British high court judge Patrick Devlin and legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart fought out a famous debate over the legal enforcement of morality, which was generated by the question whether homosexuality should be legalized or not. Jurists agree that this debate was won by Hart, also evidenced in the fact that the state has since been retreating from its previous role of moral watchdog. I argue in this paper that the two most conflicted and essentially unresolved issues in the integration of Islam, the regulation of the female body and of free speech, have reopened this debate anew, pushing the liberal state toward the legal regulation of morality, thus potentially putting at risk its liberalness. I use the Hart-Devlin debate as a template for comparing and contrasting the Muslim quest for restricting free speech with the host-society quest for restricting the Islamic veil. Accordingly, there is a double threat to liberalism, which this paper brings into view in tandem, one originating from Islam and another from a hypertrophied defense of liberalism.

Islamophobia as Reactive Co-Radicalization

Since 9/11, 2001, a new form of religious extremism has arguably emerged, one which paradoxically portrays itself as a counter to another perceived extremism regarded as a real and imminent threat. Within North America and Western Europe, as elsewhere, there is an upsurge of various forms of reactionary rhetoric and opposition expressed towards Islam and Muslims. An increase in extremist behaviour, even violence, is appearing from quarters opposed to, or varyingly fearful of, Islamic extremism if not Islam or Muslims. Islamophobia, as a manifestation of fear of an exclusionary Islam, manifests as exclusionary or negatively reactive behaviours with Muslims and Islam as the target. This article explores the idea that Islamophobia can be regarded as a manifestation of religious extremism and, further, that such extremism is construable as “reactive co-radicalization.” It focuses on two European cases – the 2009 Swiss ban on the building of minarets and the 2011 Norwegian massacre carried out by Anders Breivik – as examples of this “reactive co-radicalization.” This term, I suggest, is an apt denominator for the exclusionary reaction to the rising presence of Islam within otherwise secular, albeit nominally Christian, Western European and North American societies, among others.

Reactive Co-Radicalization: Religious Extremism as Mutual Dicontent

Extremist rhetoric and behaviour, including violence, emanating from those fearing and opposed to Islamic extremism—and typically generalising that to Islam or Muslims—is undeniable. Equally, there is evidence of Muslim rhetoric that fires up fears of a threatening West and antipathy to religious ‘others’ as damned infidels, including Christians and Jews who are otherwise regarded as co-religionists—as ‘peoples of the Book’. Mutual discontent and antipathy abound. On the one hand, Islamic extremism provokes a reactionary extremism from parts, at least, of the non-Muslim world; on the other hand, Muslim extremism appears often in response to the perception of an aggressive and impositional colonising non-Muslim world. ‘Reactive Co-Radicalization’, I suggest, names this mutual rejection and exclusionary circle currently evident, in particular, with respect to many Muslim and non-Muslim communities. This article discusses reactive co-radicalization as a hermeneutical perspective on religious extremism with particular reference to two European cases.

Veil: Mirror of Identity

The Islamic headscarf has become the subject of heated legal and political debate. France and Germany have legislated against it, and even the UK, long a champion of multiculturalism, has recently restricted the veil proper. Ever since home-grown Islamic terrorism struck Europe, these debates have become even more prominent, impassioned and wide-ranging, with vital global importance. In this concise and beautifully written introduction to the politics of the veil in modern societies, Christian Joppke examines why a piece of clothing could have led to such controversy. He dissects the multiple meanings of the Islamic headscarf, and explores its links with the global rise of Islam, Muslim integration, and the retreat from multiculturalism. He argues that the headscarf functions as a mirror of identity, but one in which national and liberal identities overlap, exposing the paradox that while it may be an affront to liberal values, its suppression is equally illiberal.