|
|
Politics and Religion
Islam
Joint Seminar on Christianity and Islam
EPP-ED Group in the European Parliament and EPP Group in the Council of Europe
26 - 27 September 2002
European Parliament, Strasbourg
Faith in democracy
The impact of religion on civil society
Roberto Giorgis, EPP-ED Group
(Civil society, religious institutions, cultural associations)
The EPP Group in the Council of Europe and the EPP-ED Group in the European Parliament held their first joint seminar in Strasbourg on 26 and 27September 2002, on the subject of Christianity and Islam. There were over 80participants, including Members, experts in Islamic-Christian relations and representatives of NGOs and churches. The seminar considered the relationship between Islam and democracy.
According to His Grace, Bishop Emmanuel Adamakis, there were several reasons why relations between 'Muslims and Europe are complicated'. First of all, he thought, it was a question of geography: the Arab peninsula brought the Arab world into contact with the Christian world, and with time these contacts grew, thanks to the proximity of the Mediterranean, a focus of commerce, trade, encounters and conquests. The sea and the adjacent countries offered many natural outlets when living conditions were felt to be insufficient if not deficient at home, as the history of centuries of migration had made very clear.
These migratory flows were, however, rather like airstreams, with each one more or less returning to its point of departure. As from the 1960s, in the wake of decolonisation, Muslims entered Europe in considerably greater numbers.
This was bound to give rise to problems and serious tension on both sides.
Professor Tariq Ramadan pointed out that 'against all expectations the second, third and even fourth generation of Muslims in Europe has made its presence felt. This frightens Europeans: they fear change (to their identity, culture and even to the European project) while at the same time they fear losing their roots'. He suggested that we are facing a confluence of these two fears, which are in fact identical. On the one hand Europeans fear that their Christian identity is changing, if not disappearing, while on the other hand there is their fear of Muslims who have come to Europe and who also face inevitable change. There is only one thing left for them to do: to rediscover and rebuild their identity. He asked how the European institutions could help them in their endeavour to rediscover their roots.
Some speakers said it was not a question of a 'clash of civilisations', as the writer SamuelH.Huntington called it. Islam and Christianity would have to define themselves in simplistic terms, as two monoliths, for this kind of clash to occur. The reality was not that simple. Professor Maurice Borrmans asked: 'When a Muslim speaks, in whose name is he speaking?' He continued: 'No individual Muslim can say all there is to say about Islam'. That, he thought, was another major problem.
A first step would be for us to learn to know one another by being strict and very honest with ourselves. When a European meets a Muslim he may feel he does not know him or his world, and vice versa. With the exception of specialists in the subject and scholars, we live in very separate worlds. He believed we must not forget that what makes up our sense of identity is our relationships, but also our culture, our deeply ingrained myths, our religion, everything that helps us to identify ourselves and diversify as a group and as individuals. Europeans must get to know Islam in its many varieties, get to know men and women who have customs, rites and traditions that differ from ours. Similarly, Muslims must get to know our culture and our Judaeo-Christian traditions.
As far as we are concerned, the process of 'getting to know' means becoming aware of the difference that exists between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. Speakers came back to this question on several occasions. In their view, our European history has taught us, not without difficulties, setbacks and tribulations, to distinguish between Christianity and Christian fundamentalism. Despite or because of the heavy toll of wars, especially wars of religion, we have been forced to learn about dialogue and reconciliation. It has taken us a long time to apply what Jesus says in the Gospel according to StMatthew, 22:21: 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's', i.e. to learn to distinguish between state and religion. Setting limits did not mean favouring one at the price of the other. Setting limits did, however, help people rediscover their identity and rethink their relations. In this way we had learned that religion and the state form part of two different logics, yet they are not contradictory because both serve human beings. It had taken a long time for Europeans to understand that faith and modernity can go hand in hand, that democracy is not the enemy of religion, that inherent in the principle of citizenship is the principle of tolerance and the protection of minorities, without reverting to an anonymous multiculturalism that risks being used as a pretext for creating ghettos instead of promoting genuine integration.
The legal system under which we live allows for real tolerance and therefore for everyone to express their own ideas, convictions and beliefs. According to the speakers, life in Europe can also become an opportunity for Muslims, first of all for themselves and then for their countries of origin, despite the pain of being far from home. Muslims who live away from their country of origin also can and must choose a personal faith that is compatible with the reality of the situation in which they are living.
During the debate, one speaker stated that 'Islam is a non-political religion'. Whether or not this is the case remains an open question. Other speakers felt that the policy and reforms some Muslim countries are pursuing exploit Islam. It is clear, they said, that some politicians use Islam as a means of government. This is certainly not democratic. As Europeans we believe in democracy and the democratic process. Democracy engenders democracy. Many Muslims who come to Europe are faced for the first time with a state that respects individual and collective freedoms. This inevitably gives rise to some problems and excesses. They also have to learn a different kind of relationship with, for example, the ruling class. If our wealth can also become their wealth, this could benefit their countries of origin too. Hence the Institutions have a decisive role to play, by being more courageous in their diplomatic relations with countries in which Europeans and, in particular, Christians live and where they are often marginalised and suffer all kinds of discrimination.
Muslims call for recognition of their religion and their belief in the name of human rights, with all that this implies in each individual's community and personal life. They are right to do so. However, the Institutions must also make demands and call for changes to some aspects of Muslim religious practice that conflict with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (for example, a Muslim woman is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim without requiring that he convert to Islam. Nor is a Muslim allowed to convert to another religion). Recognition also implies genuine representation of men and women, based on rank-and-file support. So far at least, what has been achieved in Europe in this respect leaves something to be desired.
Another extremely important question that was raised was the selection and training of Imams, who are likely to become increasingly important not only as spiritual guides at prayer time but also as teachers and as religious counsellors in hospitals, prisons, barracks, etc. Here too, the Institutions can use their influence by requiring a certain level of training and a more than superficial knowledge of the host country's language, of national and European history, of the Christian religion and other religions practised in the host country, and of humanist thought. This can be achieved only if these men and women receive real training in Europe, for otherwise they will find it very difficult to help the rank and file to integrate in the right and proper way. A number of speakers emphasised the risk of Islamic fundamentalists coming to Europe and preaching hatred and separatism here.
I believe we can be satisfied with this first meeting, which will be followed by many others, thanks to the high level of the debates and the quality of the speakers. It would, therefore, be a pity if this first attempt at dialogue stopped short at one meeting.
New facts can be added to the file day by day. For example, we are facing growing expressions of violence here in Europe and throughout the world; perhaps we could devote a seminar to this issue and seek ways of controlling the violence. In my view, the next meeting should carefully target the main topics of debate by looking at them from two clearly distinct angles: first from a 'philosophical and intellectual' point of view, so as to grasp and understand the issues properly, and then from a 'technical and practical' point of view, to analyse what is being done and what should and could be done.
* * * * *
I have drawn up a non-exhaustive list of important topics, focusing on the following main points:
commitment towards mutual recognition
the need for freedom of choice in certain contexts in which religious belief is expressed
recognition of the importance of human rights in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
recognition of the fact that we systematically avoid areas where poverty is concentrated in certain specific districts and regions
the creation of officially recognised bodies to conduct the dialogue between representatives of different religions
fighting terrorism by creating a legal system that is based on democracy and solidarity, is aware of the problem that poverty produces ignorance and vice versa and is also aware that this vicious circle is giving rise to increasingly serious problems.
|
|
|
Printer friendly - 
Send page by e-mail - 
Back to Top
