In September, Palgrave Macmillan will release “Islamophobia and Securitization: Religion, Ethnicity and the Female Voice,” by Tania Saeed (Lahore University of Management Sciences). The publisher’s description follows:
This book explores everyday realities of young Muslim women in Britain, who are portrayed as antithetical to the British way of life in media and political discourse. The book captures how geo-political events, and national tragedies continue to implicate individuals and communities at the domestic and local level, communities that have no connection to such tragedies and events, other than being associated with a religio-ethnic identity. The author shows how Muslim women are caught within the spectrum of the vulnerable-fanatic, always perceived to be ‘at risk’ of being ‘radicalized’. Focusing on educated Muslim females, the book explores experiences of Islamophobia and securitization inside and outside educational institutions, and highlights individual and group acts of resistance through dialogue, with Muslim women challenging the metanarrative of insecurity and suspicion that plagues their everyday existence in Britain. Islamophobia and Securitization will be of interest to scholars and students researching Muslims in the West, in particular sociologists, anthropologists, and political scientists. It will also appeal to analysts and academics researching security and terrorism, race and racialization, as well as gender, immigration, and diaspora.
In June, Brepols Publishers will release “
Muslim law developed a clear legal cadre for dhimmīs, inferior but protected non-Muslim communities (in particular Jews and Christians) and Roman Canon law
decreed a similar status for Jewish and Muslim communities in Europe. Yet the theoretical hierarchies between faithful and infidel were constantly brought into question in the daily interactions between men and women of different faiths in streets, markets, bath-houses, law courts, etc. The twelve essays in this volume explore these tensions and attempts to resolve them. These contributions show law was used to attempt to erect boundaries between communities in order to regulate or restrict interaction between faithful and non-faithful—at at the same time how these boundaries were repeatedly transgressed and negotiated. These essays explore the possibilities and the limits of the use of legal sources for the social historian.
In May, Routledge will release “South Asian Islam and British Multiculturalism” by Amir Ali (Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India). The publisher’s description follows:
This book analyses South Asian Islam’s engagement with the West, and Britain in particular. It traces the roots of British multiculturalism to South Asia and the Deobandi school of Islam. The work shows how the pattern of interaction that initially emerged between the Deobandi Muslims and the colonial British state in late-19th century replicated itself in the British society in the second half of 20th century. The monograph reflects upon Islam’s ‘compatibility’ with liberal democracy as well as explores how it contributed to its origins in the Enlightenment ethos.
A nuanced, sensitive and topical study, this book will be essential to understanding the world in the light of contemporary world events—Paris 13/11 and Charlie Hebdo attacks, the Danish cartoon controversy, and the Trojan Horse incident in certain British schools as well as the much earlier Rushdie affair. It will be of great interest to researchers and scholars of political science, religion, political Islam, British and South Asian Studies, and history.
In January, Brill released “Annotated Legal Documents on Islam in Europe: Latvia,” edited by Edvins Danovskis (University of Latvia). The publisher’s description follows:
This volume of Annotated Legal Documents on Islam in Europe covers Latvia and consists of an annotated collection of legal documents affecting the status of Islam and Muslims. The legal texts are published in the original Latvian language while the annotations and supporting material are in English. By legal documents are meant the texts of legislation, including relevant secondary legislation, as well as significant court decisions. Each legal text is preceded by an introduction describing the historical, political and legal circumstances of its adoption, plus a short paragraph summarising its content. The focus of the collection is on the religious dimensions of being Muslim in Europe, i.e. on individuals’ access to practise their religious obligations and on the ability to organise and manifest their religious life.
Ofrit Liviatan (Harvard U.) has posted From Abortion to Islam: The Changing Function of Law in Europe’s Cultural Debates. The abstract follows.
The Article rethinks the law’s role in present-day European debates over Islam in light of its calming effects on the once fiercely-fought abortion reforms across Western Europe. Using examples from Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Britain, the Netherlands and Switzerland the article demonstrates that the role of the legal process in each of these culture-based debates diverged along its two social functions. Reflecting growing public anxieties, legal actions concerning Muslims typically focused on generating social and cultural change, foreclosing the likelihood of political compromises. In contrast, at the time of abortion reform legal measures acted as mechanisms of social and cultural order, contributing to the pacification of the fierce public controversies even as moral disagreements over abortion endured. Drawing on this comparison, the article suggests that Europe’s constitutional review processes present a compromise-building path to deliberate contemporary conflicts over Islam.
The Article proceeds in three parts. Part II and III analyze the legal developments in the context of Islam and abortion across Western Europe, revealing a contrasting dynamics in the roles of the legal process in each of these debates. Part IV assesses the effects of the legal process in each of the debates and rules out alternative explanations for this divergence. It argues that the factor of time or European secularization cannot account for the current intensity-difference in each of these debates. The article concludes by proposing a path to launch the currently absent constitutional conversation over Islamic-based tensions in Western Europe. Modeled on abortion reform, constitutional courts should reach beyond proportional balancing and dictate policy frameworks addressing both the roots of Muslim disadvantages and the anxieties of the European public.
In February, the Edinburgh University Press will publish Muslim Political Participation in Europe edited by Jorgen Nielsen (University of Copenhagen). The publisher’s description follows.
Analyses European Muslim communities’ developing involvement in their political environment and related Muslim and public debates
Muslims are making themselves noticed in the political process of Europe. But what is happening behind the sensational headlines? Jørgen Nielsen looks at the processes and realities, from voting patterns in local and national assemblies to the tensions between ethnic, political and religious identities.
These developments drive internal Muslim debates including whether Muslims should take part in the democratic process at all, and rivalries over who should represent Muslims. They also inspire sharp discussion in Europe: how should European states view the increasingly active role of Muslims in the public space? Does it signal integration or separation?
Sally Pei (Yale University Law School) has posted Unveiling Inequality: Burqa Bans and Nondiscrimination Jurisprudence at the European Court of Human Rights. The abstract follows.
Over the past decade, Europe has been the site of strident debates over integration and Islam. One major pole of controversy is the trend toward enacting legislation to prohibit Islamic veils from public places. Laws banning face coverings, already in force in France and Belgium, are under consideration in a number of European countries, including the Netherlands, Italy, and Switzerland. The laws raise fundamental questions about what it means to be French, Belgian, Dutch, or indeed European. But the bans are of special interest for another reason: They provide a likely testing ground for the nascent nondiscrimination jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”), and a potential opportunity to bolster legal safeguards against discrimination at the regional level.
The laws might seem to invite an obvious challenge on the grounds that they deny the right to religious freedom guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention. But previous cases addressing restrictions on religious dress have sharply narrowed that avenue for redress. This Comment argues, however, that Article 14 nondiscrimination claims can fill that void. The Court’s Article 14 jurisprudence has long been criticized for its limited scope and application, but a recent line of cases in the education context evinces the emergence of a new doctrinal approach to discrimination. Properly applied and reinforced, that case law could mature into a general analytical framework for addressing the claims likely to arise from anti-burqa legislation and other discriminatory measures.
This December, Ashgate Publishing will publish Islam and Political-Cultural Europe edited by W. Cole Durham Jr. (BYU – J. Reuben Clark Law School), David M. Kirkham (BYU – J. Reuben Clark Law School), and Tore Lindholm (University of Oslo, Norway). The publisher’s description follows.
Islam and Political-Cultural Europe identifies the sometimes confusing and often contentious new challenges that arise in daily life and institutions as Islam settles deeper into Europe. Critiquing past and recent assimilation efforts in the fields of education, finance, and security, the contributors offer prospective solutions to diverse contemporary problems. Exploring the interactions of Muslim, Christian and secular cultures in the context of highly pluralized contemporary European societies, this book offers a valuable tool for those within and outside Europe seeking to understand the far-reaching implications of combining cultures, the struggles of the Muslim-Christian-secular transition, and the progress which the future promises.
This story reports that the Obama Administration has issued a statement questioning the “judgment” of the magazine Charlie Hebdo in publishing insulting pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (discussed by Mark immediately below). The Administration — through its “porte-parole” Jay Carney — was careful to distinguish the issue of the magazine’s constitutional “right” to publish the pictures and its judgment in doing so because the Administration “know[s] that these images will be very shocking for many people,” and “might provoke violent reactions.”
The reaction of the Administration reminds me very much of the controversy over the construction of the so-called September 11 mosque in New York City. I recall distinctly that the position of some at the time was that though there was and surely should be no legal barrier to the use of particular property vaguely proximate to the site of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center, it would be unwise, or evince a lack of good judgment, for the rights-holders to exercise their rights. I recall the cute statement, made somewhere by someone, that it is “not a question of rights, but a question of what is right.” I also remember that the President came out at first quite strongly in support of the mosque and cultural center (as did Mayor Michael Bloomberg), but then backed off a bit when the issue was put not in terms of rights, but of judgment: ““I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” the President said. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”
How about it readers? Are the situations formally identical (with the exception that the President has commented negatively on the wisdom of publishing the cartoons, while he declined to do so with respect to the Ground Zero mosque)? If so, are there nevertheless other salient differences between them? Are there categorical differences, for example, between the wisdom of exercising a speech right and the wisdom of exercising the freedom of religion?
Edited by Hakan Yilmaz (Bogaziçi University, Turkey) and Çagla E. Aykaç, here is a book of essays presenting a series of case studies and more theoretical reflections on the condition of Muslim integration in Europe: Perceptions of Islam in Europe: Culture, Identity, and the Muslim ‘Other’ (Palgrave Macmillan 2012). The publisher’s description follows.
For centuries, the Islamic world has been represented as the ‘other’ within European identity constructions — an ‘other’ perceived to be increasingly at odds with European forms of modernity and culture. With the perceived gap between Islam and Europe widening, leading scholars in this work come together to provide genuine and realistic analyses about perceptions of Islam in the West. The book bridges these analyses with in-depth case studies from Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Turkey and other parts of the European Union. This study goes beyond the usual dichotomies of “clashes of civilizations” and “cultural conflict” to try to understand the numerous, diverse and multifaceted ways — some conflictual, some peaceful — in which cultural exchanges have taken place historically, and which continue to take place, between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds.