Multiculturalism and Islam in Europe

Author(s): Shireen M. Mazari

Source: Policy Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 1, Special Isse: MIDDLE EAST (January - June 2010),
pp. 91-101
Published by: Pluto Journals
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42909256
Accessed: 23-07-2016 14:17 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Pluto Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Policy Perspectives

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Multiculturalism
and Islam in Europe*
Shireen M. Mazarí *

Abstract

[Intolerance of Islam and Muslims' way of life has been on the rise in various European
countries particularly during last few years. The phenomenon has been witnessed
repeatedly in the form of written, verbal and even physical assaults. The grave nature of
the situation poses a serious challenge to multicultural outlook of Europe and raises
solemn trepidations for Muslims. It also is not a good omen for much needed global
harmony, and the role that Europe seeks to play in this connection - Ed]

What is multiculturalism? Clearly it is the opposite of assimilation and refers

to the existence of several cultural or ethnic groups within a society, all
functioning within their diversity and reflecting a heterogeneous society. In
Europe, multiculturalism has to be seen at two levels: the private and daily
life existence of citizens; and, two, public opinion and institutional decision-
making bodies such as parliaments, municipalities, public administrations
and so on.

At the first level multiculturalism has in fact become a part of the

daily life of most European states and cannot really be reversed - but this
daily life has become more difficult in terms of different ethno-cultural
groups leading their own lives within their cultural traditions because of the
issues arising at the second level - that of public opinion and institutional
decision-making bodies.

Europe, especially since 9/11, is now seeing its multicultural divide

only in a uni-dimensional construct - that of religion and specifically Islam.
Here there has begun to be a growing unacceptability of the Islamic identity
with the historic ghost of the crusades having been revived.

The reductionist approach to the diversity of cultures in Europe is

obscuring the diversity within Muslim migrant communities themselves -
which range from African to Asian and within these two groupings also
there are vast differences - for example between South Asians, Arabs and
Southeast Asian Muslims. Also, even within the same Islamic communities,
there are sectarian divides and ritualistic differences arising from cultural
influences.

Unfortunately this reductionist approach has a fallout on the Muslim

communities of Europe who then react and move themselves into voluntary

Updated version of paper presented in roundtable, "Multiculturalism and Islam in

Europe: The Case of Norway" jointly organized by the Institute of Policy Studies,
Islamabad and Pakistan Norway Association, September 07, 2009.
Dr. Shireen M. Mazari is former Director General, Institute of Strategic Studies,
Islamabad and presently Editor, daily The Nation.
[91]

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Policy Perspectives

ghetto-isation, not just in physical terms - where groups retreat into small
closed communities which tend to be far more fundamentalist than would
have otherwise been the case - but also in psychological terms where their
Muslim identity overpowers their overall rich cultural heritage.

Because issues which should have remained in the private domain

have infiltrated the public domain, they have become symbols of
intolerance or unacceptable diversity with European states moving towards
policies of assimilation and rejecting symbols of religious diversity such as
the veil or hijab. In reaction, Muslims are coming to see these as symbols
of defiance and reassertion of their identity.

Ironically, in most European societies where women wore the

headscarf not only to go to church but often as a mere item of dress, it now
has come to represent a rejection of "citizenship" if worn on a Muslim head!
The French, who earlier used to proudly display the diversity of French
citizens, now, have narrowed the French identity to a rejection of the
headscarf. At present, there is a strong resistance to burqa in France. The
parliament is about to legislate a ban on burqa while the French president
has made it clear that it is not welcome on the territory of his country1.

A result of such micro level public interventions in private lives has

set in motion a vicious circle where the more the restrictions on Islamic
identity in the public and legislative space, the more the minority groups of
Muslims close ranks to live in closed communities practicing a more
orthodox and fundamentalist Islam.

What makes reconciliation amongst the differing cultural and

religious groups in Europe so difficult is the European insistence that
European states have a secular identity, there is a growing sense that
somehow the Muslims living there are at the very least, unable to accept
the secular identity of Europe; and, in the worse case scenario, are actually
seeking to destroy the secular ideal and the "freedoms" associated with this
ideal.

The European dialectic is premised partly on a serious

misperception that Europe has traditionally had of itself - that it is
inherently secular. Under the false garb of "secularism", accommodation of
"the other" is being denied. False because the fact of the matter is that
Europe has always had an underlying Christian identity and, as religion has
come to increasingly occupy centre stage in mainstream international
politics - be it in Asia or Europe this Christian ethos of many European
states is becoming more overt.2

1 Michelle Goldberg, Burqa Politics in France, 2009.

2 Secularism refers to a belief "that the state - morals, education etc. snouia ue
independent of religion" [Chambers English Dictionary). Yet, in most Western states
this is not the case - Christian values pervade their legal and moral belief systems
even at the level of the state. At a very basic level, all Western states claiming to be
secular - be they Northern European or North American - believe this claim when
they only declare Christian holidays as national holidays. Even though people of other
beliefs can claim their religious holidays, these are seen as special concessions
whereas the Christian holidays are for the whole nation or country. Beyond this, the
92

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Multiculturalism and Islam in Europe

However, part of the problem also arises as a consequence of the

socio-economic problems of the migrant communities which are aggravated
by the strong religious identity of Islam that some of these communities
hold. As the religious identity becomes a major factor in the social
dynamics of Western states, a growing lack of accommodation of the other
becomes more marked. While Muslim Europeans are seeking a more
assertive religious identity, the non-Muslim majorities in Europe are moving
towards denying their Muslim citizens even the basics of this identity.

In addition, post-9/11, the whole issue of terrorism has become

enmeshed within a falsely-created religious framework of "Islamic
fundamentalism" or "Islamic extremism", but the fault lines were drawn
much earlier. As Sandra Mackey wrote, in 1996:

degree of "secularism" really varies from state to state and religious prejudices at the
state level come to the fore every time traditional norms are challenged. Many
northern European countries consistently show their Christian credentials in the
manner in which the law is applied to other religions - especially the Muslims. For
instance, in Norway, every adult has a church tax deducted from his income by the
state unless he gives a declaration stating he does not belong to the church; and in
Germany a tax deduction can be claimed against payment made to one's church but
not to one's mosque. Take the case of Britain. Their Queen is the head of the Church
of England and for an heir to the British throne marrying even a member of another
Christian sect is a road fraught with difficulties, iet alone marrying into another faith.
More ominous is the fact that the British Blasphemy Law (it still exists) deals only
with Christianity. In other words, you may blaspheme all you want against Islam -
the law will not apply. Given that there is an increasing Muslim British population,
one would have assumed that the British legal system would have begun to treat all
its citizens equally. As for France, the whole controversy surrounding the scarf issue
revealed the religious bias of the French State. Somehow French "secularism" was
not threatened by Christian schoolgirls wearing crucifixes around their necks, but
when Muslim schoolgirls wore scarves on their heads, the state's educational system
felt itself threatened! Now the French are mulling a total ban on Burqa, non
compliance to which will mean a 750 euro fine. Prejudicial revelations like these show
that it is the European psyche that is still so heavily burdened with the legacy of the
Crusades that it now finds Islam an easy substitute-threat with the demise of
Communism. As for Eastern Europe, their whole struggle against Communism was
church-centered, so the aftermath has naturally seen persecution of the Muslims,
which reached new heights of barbarity in Serbia. While the persecution of whole
ethnic Muslim populations has gained new heights after the demise of the Soviet
Union, and the end of Communism in Eastern Europe, Muslims in Europe have had to
face systematic persecution at the hands of European governments for a while now.
For instance, the Greek State aided and abetted Greek Cypriots in their genocidal
policy of Enosis, which entailed the mass killings of Turkish Cypriots. The remains of
mass graves can be seen in what is now the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus. The
most recent reflection of this prejudice against Muslims and Islam has been reflected
in the US policy towards the Muslims taken prisoners in Afghanistan during the War
on Terrorism and kept confined in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Whereas international law
relating to war and prisoners of war was strictly followed even for the Nazis in the
Nuremberg Trials and presently in the trial of the Serbian leaders; for the
Guantanamo Bay prisoners no such laws are being accepted by the US government,
even at the micro level, when a criminal in the West happens to be a Muslim, this
becomes the central point to be emphasized - as if Islam is responsible for his
criminal bent. Yet, if a Christian commits a crime, the religious factor is left out - as
was reflected in the murders of two Dutch nationals, the right wing leader Pim
Fortuyn and film maker Van Gogh. For further details, please see Shireen Mazari,
Terrorism: A Consequence of Globalization? 2002.
93

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Policy Perspectives

"The very term 'Islamic fundamentalism' was given

common coinage at the zenith of the Iranian revolution.
Since then it has grabbed and held an American public
emotionally scarred by military casualties and civilian
hostages in Lebanon; violence inflicted against Westerners
by Islamic militants in Algeria and Egypt; fear engendered
by the shadowy group that detonated a bomb in New York's
World Trade Center; and anger roused by the endless
slogans of Islamic zealots that damn the West. Regardless
of the range of grievances and geography of militant
Islamic groups, the American mind sees the Islamic
Republic of Iran as the fount of Islamic extremism.3"

All these factors have led to the creation of a bizarre dialectic of

"Islam versus the rest" whereby there are definitely areas of misperception
and conflict - both at the intellectual and realpolitik levels. Although the
world may not necessarily be on a collision course between "Muslims and
the rest," yet the space for moderates and for accommodation on both
sides of the divide between Muslim and non-Muslim is shrinking.

The case of the blasphemous cartoons has been the most glaring
example of the dialectics between so-called "freedom" and accommodation
of "the other" - so-called freedom because in reality the publication of the
cartoons contravened the constitutional and criminal laws of the states
where they were published - revealing agendas of hate and prevalence of
deep-rooted intolerance and polarization in the developed or "free" world.
As if it was not enough for this well-orchestrated act of hatred to be
committed once, the blasphemous cartoons have recently been printed
again in Norwegian paper Aftenposten on January 08, 2010.

One can point to a number of laws that exist in the various

European states and that should have been applied against the publishers
of the blasphemous cartoons. In fact, there were two main aspects of the
issue of the blasphemous cartoons: one, whether their publication can be
challenged legally and two, whether it merely reflects a knowledge-deficit in
the West regarding Islam?

The EU position was to detract from the first by focusing on the

second and calling for a dialogue with the Muslim World. While there is
nothing wrong with dialogue per se the fact of the matter was that the
publications contravened the laws of the European states where they
appeared.

European laws relating to "Freedom of Expression"

On the cartoons' issue, the press in all those European states that have
ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

3 Mackey, The Iranians: Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation, 384.

94

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Multiculturalism and Islam in Europe

Fundamental Freedoms, is guilty of contravening this Convention. While

guaranteeing Freedom of Expression, Article 10 of this Convention states:

1: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This

right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive
and impart information and ideas without interference by
public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article
shall not prevent States from
requiring the licensing of broadcasting television or cinema
enterprises.

2: The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it

duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such
formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
society, in the interests of national security, territorial
integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the
protection or rights of others...

In addition, countries like Denmark have made this Convention an

intrinsic part of their national laws. So, when the Prime Minister of Denmark
declared that he could not do anything against-the paper, Jyllands-Posten,
that began the controversy, this clearly was a false statement because the
European Human Rights Convention was ratified by Denmark in 1953 and is
an integral part of the Danish Constitution. In fact, before ratification the
Danish government made certain changes in Danish law so that it was in
consonance with the Convention. Hence, the government should have sued
the paper for breaking the law of the land.

As for countries like France and Norway, their constitutions also

limit freedom of expression. For instance, the preamble to the French
Constitution states that:

The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to

the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty
as defined by the Declaration of 1789, ....

Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,

which is a key document of the French Revolution approved by the National
Assembly of France on August 26, 1789 states:

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the

most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may,
accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall
be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be
defined by law.

And France is party to the European Convention also.

The Norwegian Constitution, in Article 100, declares:

95

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Policy Perspectives

"There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be

punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he
has caused to be printed or published, unless he will fully
and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to
disobedience to the laws, contempt of religion, morality or
the constitutional powers or resistance to their orders or
has made false and defamatory accusations against
anyone."

German law is also very clear in this regard. Section 166 titled as
Insulting of Faiths, Religious Societies and Organizations Dedicated to a
Philosophy of Life under Chapter Eleven of German Penal Code titled as
"Crimes Which Relate to Religion and Philosophy of Life" says that:

(1) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings

(Section llsub-section (3)) insults the content of others'
religious faith or faith related to a philosophy of life in a
manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall
be punished with imprisonment for not more than three
years or a fine.

(2) Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings

(Section 11 subsection (3)) insults a church, other religious
society, or organization dedicated to a philosophy of life
located in Germany, or their institutions or customs in a
manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall
be similarly puríished.

Similarly, Section 167 titled as Disturbing the Practice of Religion,

plainly spells out that:

(I) Whoever:

1. Intentionally and in a gross manner disturbs a religious

service or an act of a religious service of a church or other
religious society located in Germany; or

2, Commits insulting mischief at a place dedicated to the

religious services of such a religious society, shall be
punished with imprisonment for not more than three years
or a fine.

(II) Corresponding celebrations of an organization

dedicated to a philosophy of life located in Germany shall
be the equivalent of religious services.

As for blasphemy laws, many countries have them and only

blasphemy laws are exclusively in defence of Christianity. But within the
EU, European law takes precedence over national law.

The following excerpt from Blasphemy and Film censorship:

Submission to the European Court of Human Rights in Respect of Nigel

96

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Multiculturalism and Islam in Europe

Wingrove V. The United Kingdom gives a picture of the relevant laws of

some other European countries:

Finland: Section 10 titled as Breach of the Sanctity of Religion (563/1998)

A person who (I) publicly blasphemes against God or, for the
purpose of offending, publicly defames or desecrates what is otherwise held
to be sacred by a church or religious community, as referred to in the Act
on the Freedom of Religion (267/1998)

Austria: Under Section 188 of the Penal Code "disparaging religious

doctrines" is a criminal offence.

Germany: Section 166 of the Criminal Code forbids insults to a religion or

"Weltanschauung" (world outlook), publicly or by dissemination of
publications. For an insult to be punishable under this law "the manner and
content" of the insult must be such that an objective onlooker could
reasonably apprehend that the insult would disturb the peace of those who
share the insulted belief.

Moreover, to be convicted, an offender must intend or at least be

aware that his or her action constituted an offence. In applying Section 166
to a work of art, the freedom of art as guaranteed by Article 5(3) of the
Basic Law must be taken into account. Article 130(1) of the German
Criminal Code makes it an offence, punishable with imprisonment for
between three months and five years to incite hatred against segments of
the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or
to attack the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or
defaming segments of the population.

Under Article 130(2), it is an offence, punishable with imprisonment

for up to three years, for a person to disseminate, publicly display, post,
present (including presentation by radio), produce, obtain, supply, stock,
offer, announce, comménd, or undertake to import or export, or otherwise
make accessible, writings which incite hatred against segments of the
population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterized by
its folk customs, if the writings call for violent or arbitrary measures against
them, or assault the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously
maligning or defaming such a group or segments of the population.

The Netherlands: Blasphemy is a criminal offence under the Penal Code

Article 147 (introduction and subsection I Wetboek van Strefrecht), though
this provision only covers expressions concerning God, and not saints and
other revered religious figures ("godalaatering"). Further, the criminal
offence of blasphemy has been interpreted to require that the person who
makes the expression must have had the intention to be "scornful"
("smalend").

Spain: The crime of blasphemy was abolished in 1988. The Constitutional

Court has ruled that the right to freedom of expression, broadly protected
by Article 20 of the Constitution, can be subject to restrictions aimed both

97

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Policy Perspectives

at the protection of the rights of others or at the protection of other

constitutionally protected interests.

Ireland: Article 40 of the Constitution

6.1: The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following
rights, subject to public order and morality:

(i) The right of the citizens to express freely their

convictions and opinions. The education of public opinion
being, however, a matter of such grave import to the
common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that
organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the
cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression,
including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used
to undermine public order or morality or the authority of
the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter

is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

So these are the laws that put restrictions on the "freedom of

expression". The real issue, however, is the non implementation of these
laws to punish those responsible for breaking it by publishing the
blasphemous cartoons. Moreover, even the claims of freedom of expression
do not hold in the Jyllands-Posten case because it was not the cartoonists
who of their own volition got the idea to make cartoons against the Prophet
of Islam (PBUH). Instead, they were deliberately commissioned by the
Danish daily Jyllands-Posten. So, at best, it was induced expression rather
than free expression.

Incidentally, when a Danish group had produced a film on the "Sex

life of Jesus" portraying him as a gay, many countries, including the UK,
banned the showing of this film. Denmark did not protest. That Muslims
have been used at a target of hatred in countries like Denmark has been
clear for some time. The fowling incidents and developments can be cited in
this connection.

Beginning with their Queen, who, in April 2005, declared that Danes
should show their opposition to Islam4;

In July 2005, owner of a local transmission channel Radio Holger

stated that the only solution to get rid of Muslims was to drive them out of
Europe, if not to kill them. He was found guilty of racism and his
broadcasting license was revoked for three months with a warning5.

In September 2005 a member of the Danish Parliament, Ms. Louise

Frevert put hateful articles on her website which declared that young
Muslims, even if born in Denmark, had fundamentalist leanings which were

4 BBC. "Danish Queen Raps Radical Islam," April 25, 2005.

5 BBC, "Denmark Targets Extremist Media," August 17, 2005.
98

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Multiculturalism and Islam in Europe

incompatible with Danish society. According to her, "Our laws forbid us to

kill our enemies in public so the only remedy is to fill our prisons with these
criminals. Most efficient method would probably be to send Muslims to
Russian prisons for a fee of DKK 25 per day Another article on her
website compared Muslims with cancer cells that could be treated with
chemotherapy or surgically removed.

Also, in Autumn 2005, Denmark's Minister for Culture, Brian

Mikkelsen had to apologies for his statement on War against Muslims'
Culture in the Cannon Committee set up to create 84 Danish culture works.
He had reportedly said that Denmark's culture heritage would serve as a
tool to fight the influence of Muslim culture. His remarks jeopardized
Committee proceedings and several members threatened to resign in
protest.

Besides blasphemous caricatures, verbal as well as physical attacks

against Muslims, their faith and way of life have increased to an alarming
extent in recent years. Some of the unfortunate events of the recent past
suggest that Muslim women and dress code are particularly a target. Brutal
killing of an Egyptian woman, in broad day light and nowhere else but in
the courtroom, in Germany signals the extent of intolerance. A Muslim
woman in Belgium has recently been fined 200 Euros ($ 300) for wearing
Burqa6.

While Muslims in some of the European nations have faced

difficulties in building mosques, the recent referendum in Switzerland that
resulted in over 57 % of voters opposing the minarets is another worrisome
example. Switzerland is generally known for its neutrality when it comes to
issues and conflicts at global level. However, the way the whole campaign
for referendum was run, seeking the signatures of mandatory 1,00,000
citizens, and how some of the rightwing politicians and groups devoted time
to it, clearly shows that not only the religious liberties feel clearly
threatened, but it is also indicative of increased intolerance of Islam and
Muslims' way of life. There is no such ban on the minarets of Churches in
the country, or for that matter in any state of Europe.

It brings up the question as to why existing laws aimed at

safeguarding the liberties of religion and ways of life are not implemented.
After all, Austria strictly enforced its laws relating to denial of the holocaust
and punished British historian David Irving on that count7. And no one in
Europe raised the issue of freedom of expression to protest Irving's
incarceration for his views on the Holocaust. It would not be wrong to say
that the Western media played to the prejudices of the mainstream of their
societies in a most degenerate way. However, it is the states where the
cartoons were published which deliberately behaved in an irresponsible
fashion.

6 RIA Novosti, "Belgian Muslim Woman Fined for $ 300 for Wearing Burqa,"
December 10, 2009.
7 BBC, "Holocaust Denier Irving is Jailed," February 20, 2006.
99

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Policy Perspectives

Clearly, there is a dialectical relationship between what is popularly

referred to as "freedom" - primarily defined within the notion of freedom
from external restraint - and accommodation, because of this limited notion
of freedom. What is needed is mastery over one's inner life - overcoming
our internal fear of "the other" and anger towards "the other". Only this can
provide greater space for accommodation - which, in Swiss psychologist
Jean Piaget's construct refers to modification of internal representation in
order to accommodate a changing knowledge of reality. Accommodation
does not so much require a change in views as a voluntary compromise
with the other - that has not been brought about by violent or nonviolent
coercion. For the more powerful this is most difficult but essential.

That Islam is a religion of a large minority in almost all European

states needs to be recognized as a reality that will not go away. If the
threat of extremism is to be avoided then the marginalized Muslim
communities need to be brought into the mainstream especially the youth.
Countries such as Britain may want to shift all the blame of the London
bombings on to the links the youth had with Pakistan but the fact is that
they were British citizens already frustrated and marginalized.

It would not be wrong to say that post 9/11 developments across

the globe and the so called War on Terror has further increased the
difficulties faced by Muslim living in as well as travelling to the west. They
have particularly been targeted for any of the acts of violence on the
slightest suspicions. Now, citing the failed attempt to blow up an American
jet by an alleged Nigerian Al-Qaeda activist on the occasion of last
Christmas, citizens of certain countries have been subjected to pass
through highly disrespectful naked body scans - and 12 out of such
countries are Muslims. Such developments may not be seen in isolation, but
do signal a phenomenon of targeting.

No doubt such developments are widening the already existing gulf

between Muslims and the West, and mistrust is bound to rise, which by no
means is good omen for global peace and harmony and perceived role of
Europe/west in it.

The problem for Europe is that unless they are able to acknowledge
their continuing Christian ethos they cannot have a multiple level dialogue
with their minorities in order to bring them into the mainstream at all
levels: political, economic and religious. Yet, the future of Europe as either
a harmonious multicultural society or an imposed assimilation-centric
disparate society will depend on how the public and institutional levels
within European states accept the reality of its now multicultural society.

100

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Multiculturalism and Islam in Europe

Bibliography

Goldberg, Michelle. "Burqa Politics in France." The American Prospect June

24, 2009.

Mackey, Sandra. The Iranians: Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation. New
York: Plume Publishing, 1996.

Mazari, M. Shireen. " Terrorism : A Consequence of Globalization?" in,

Strategic Studies, Islamabad: Institute of Strategic Studies, Vol.
XXII, No. IV (Winter) 2002.

101

This content downloaded from 132.174.255.223 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 14:17:12 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms