archived page

Lecture by the President at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies

Oxford, 13.11.2008  |  speech

Alert  To view this content, JavaScript must be enabled, and you need the latest version of the Adobe Flash Player.

Download the free Flash Player now!

Adobe Flash Player



The President of the Republic of Slovenia, Dr Danilo Türk, visited the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, where he delivered a lecture entitled "Europe and Islam: Coexistence or Integration?”


Europe and Islam: Coexistence or Integration?
Oxford, 13 November 2008


President Türk at his lecture at the University of Oxford entitled "Europe and Islam: Coexistence or Integration?” (FA BOBO)Dr Ferhan Nizami,

I wish to thank you for your presentation and kind invitation to speak on the important issue of the relationship between Islam and Europe.

This issue, the subject of my lecture, can be considered from many perspectives, and my presentation will focus on two of them. First I would like to comment on several general issues of understanding Islam from a European perspective. In the second part, I will examine possibilities of shaping a policy of coexistence and integration, which is necessary in present-day Europe where the Islamic communities that have emerged during recent migrations now live.

1. A view from Europe

a. Islam is a global phenomenon. When measured by the numbers of new believers and its geographical spread, Islam, with its 1,5 billion believers in all regions of the World is probably the most successful religion today. It contains a number of ancient and rich cultures/ civilizations.

In Europe, Islam is not historically new. Its early period, which started in the 8th Century in the Iberian peninsula and was characterized by a variety of both peaceful and violent interactions with Christianity, ended with the Christian reconquest and expulsion. The current situation is nevertheless new in many ways. The existing Muslim communities in Europe have established themselves as a result of migration in the past decades and this has given rise to a variety of questions related to coexistence with these communities and their integration with the wider societies of immigration.

b. Islam is involved in an epic struggle within itself. The question of adjustment of religion to the requirements of modernity and democracy is a matter of different interpretations within Islam and anxieties outside Islam.

However, it is necessary to realize that outside forces can do little if anything to influence the developments within the Islamic world. In fact, their contribution is best made in the form of non-interference. The worst outsiders can do is to interfere militarily.

c. Islam has produced extremism and violence. This has to be recognized. Historically, all religions, in particular the “three religions of the book” have produced violence at one point or another. Dealing with this phenomenon in a rational and politically productive manner has never been easy. Two pitfalls need to be avoided:

(i) demonization of the other, in our case demonization of Islam and
(ii) exaggeration in political correctness by suggesting that since no religion teaches violence, all the incidences of religious incitement to violence represent abuse of religion.

An honest and open discussion of the difficult issue of incitement to violence can probably take place only on the basis of a civic, i.e. “non-religious conceptual platform”.

d. Migration is a major source of concern for Europe. Historically, Europe has not been open to mass immigration. Its acceptance of immigrants has been linked to specific political situations (acceptance of political refugees, essentially, in small numbers) and to economic needs at the time of rapid growth. Today Europe is acting with regard to immigrants out of anxiety rather than on the basis of a carefully designed and rational policy. This exacerbates the fears from the danger of Islamic extremism.

e. Each country and society is specific. It is necessary to think about the specific experience before making any generalizations. This applies to Islamic societies and to countries with an important Islamic element as well.

2. Diversity and transition: The cases Indonesia and Bosnia

It might be useful to take a quick look into two specific – and very different - situations of ethnic and religious diversity and their respective models of coexistence of Islamic and non-Islamic elements at the time of major transition. I chose to use

(a) a non - European example of success and

(b) a European example of hitherto unsuccessful transition.

a. The development in Indonesia since 1998 in the last decade demonstrates the magnitude of challenge and the magnitude of change accomplished in a relatively short period of time.

Indonesia is an important example which demonstrates how a very large and very complex country with a strong, in certain respects dominant, Islamic element can manage transition and adjust to the requirements of modernity and democracy. (modernization does not necessarily mean westernization)

b. When President Suharto stepped down in 1998 and named Yusuf Habibie as his successor, the prevailing expectation was that the transition will end with a military rule by General Wiranto or another general. However, the subsequent events took a very different course:

- Self-determination for East Timor, under Habibie, has shaken the Indonesian society.

- A turbulent, but eventually successful democratic change developed under President Abdurrahman Wahid (1999 - 2001). The regional unrest in Aceh, Irian Jaya and Maluku was contained and managed.

- A period of uncertainty during the presidency of Megawati Sukarnoputri (2001-2004).

- A decent election in 2004, when the current president Yudhoyono, at the time the Government coordinator on security won. The natural disaster of the end 2004 (Tsunami) added to the sense of national unity and helped resolving the most burning ethnic issue, in Aceh. The economic situation improved and the constitutional order is holding.

- What did not happen: The fears regarding (i) military rule (ii) ethnic chaos and disintegration or (iii) the rise of Islamic fundamentalism did not materialize. In the conditions of Indonesia this has to be seen as a success. The importance of constitutional principles, in particular the principles of panch shila , must not be underestimated. Indonesia has constitutionally recognized ethnic, religious and political pluralism and has gradually given real meaning to these principles. As a result, it has managed its transition successfully.

- Indonesia has managed its transition from within. It can be argued that its success is not yet irreversible, that it has been brought about at a price of heavy damage to the environment and that human rights issues remain serious. But the level of success achieved so far still commands respect.

b. Developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1991offer a very different picture.

Obviously, the situation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is fundamentally different. But Bosnia too, faced the challenge of transition from authoritarian rule to a democratic and modern society. Historically, it had a legacy of coexistence between Christians, Muslims and Jews which ought to be an advantage. And it is placed in Europe which was, when the process of transition started, seen as a layer of protection against the worst case scenarios. Nevertheless, a worst case scenario is precisely what happened.

Disintegration of the former SFR Yugoslavia in 1991-1992 was driven by ethnic nationalism, in particular by the Serb nationalism and the vision of "Greater Serbia" which could only be realized on the ruins of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This created a special existential context in which:

- Preservation of Bosnia and Herzegovina remained by military means became essential for the preservation of the very existence of Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

- The use of military force by Bosnian Serbs (assisted by Serbia and the JNA) who rejected the results of the 1992 referendum on the future status of BH resulted in a large scale conflict (1992 - 1995) and in a heavy toll on the civilian population, in particular on the Bosnian Muslims.

- The Dayton peace agreement stopped the war and created a constitutional system based on two entities (the Serb republic and the federation of Bosnian Muslims and Croats). The earlier administrative structure was abolished while the new system proved to be difficult to manage.

- At present Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to suffer from the ethnic and religious divisions. Ethnic parties still dominate the political scene. The ethnic and religious identities are more pronounced than ever before and radical elements, including radical Islam, have found favourable conditions for their development in the situation.

- These developments have made the much needed constitutional reforms extremely difficult and have complicated the movement of Bosnia and Herzegovina towards the EU membership.

c. It is paradoxical that in a more developed European context it proved impossible to manage transition after the ending of the socialist system in a peaceful manner, while a much more complex situation in Indonesia succeeded, albeit with local armed conflicts which never developed into a full scale war.

For Europe this is particularly troubling because Bosnia and Herzegovina had represented a relatively successful model of integration of Muslim and non-Muslim elements of society. Thus, Europe has deprived itself of a singularly important example of integration, something it might strongly need in the future.

3. Europe and Islam: what kind of legacy has history left us?

During its long history, Europe has accumulated diverse experience in the management of coexistence of various languages, cultures, religions and other human identities. In its long history, Europe has always been a place of diversity. Unlike in some other regions of the world melting-pot theories never worked here. People have had to live together in diversity and manage their differences.

The record which has thus emerged is mixed and has changed over time. In some parts of Europe there were periods when different cultures, religions and civilizations coexisted peacefully. A good and well known example is the medieval Iberian peninsula which flourished as a result of interaction of Christian, Jewish and Muslim cultural and religious traditions. However, that situation came to an end by the expulsion of the Jews and, later, Moriscos.

The historical contribution of the early medieval period of the Iberian peninsula was twofold. First, it was expressed in science and philosophy and contributed to the intellectual search, which has gradually defined the European identity. Second, it has offered a model of social and political coexistence between Christians, Muslims and Jews, which is worth remembering today.

However, today, the practical value of this early model of coexistence is extremely limited. The crusades of the subsequent periods have redefined the relationship between Christianity and Islam and have produced a lasting legacy the consequences of which are still alive today.

At the political level, Europe organized itself as a system of nation states. The defining moment in Europe came about in the 16th and 17th centuries, following the wars of religion. The treaties of Westphalia of 1648 established the principle of territorial sovereignty as the basic organizing principle of Europe. The entire subsequent political development has revolved around that principle. Nation states necessarily tend to become culturally and linguistically homogenous and they produce minorities.

Territorial sovereignty could not do justice to all ethnic and religious groups. The emergence of the phenomenon of religious, ethnic and linguistic minorities was a necessary consequence. With time, the phenomenon of minorities has become ever more diverse. Religion, initially the most important agent of identity, was later joined by linguistic and ethno-cultural factors. Historically, the prevailing concept of minorities in Europe has developed on the basis of their indigenous character – they have been closely related to the territories in which they live. In the 19th and 20th centuries they have been described as national minorities and, in many cases, considered as an international problem.

The system of nation states with the protection of minorities has been a Christian system. Until the end of World War I, the protected minorities were Christian minorities, including those living in the Ottoman Empire. In the period between the two World Wars a system of protection of minorities was created which addressed the fate of Muslim populations in several European countries as well. But it was of short duration and did not establish a workable pattern of coexistence of Muslim minorities within the larger Christian populations in European countries.

After World War II the previous system of protection of minorities was abolished. Some international treaties continued to apply and were of relevance to indigenous Muslim minorities. The Treaty of Lausanne and its provisions relevant to the Muslim minority in Greece is a case in point. On the other hand, Socialist Yugoslavia, a multiethnic state without a single ethnic majority offered another model. The Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina were recognized as an »ethno-nation«. The structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina was developed in a manner which enabled coexistence, representation and common future to all ethnic and religious communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was a promising model albeit not ideal: it functioned in a system of authoritarian rule and was destroyed in the war which erupted following the disintegration of that system.

More recently another problem emerged. Migrations have produced large immigrant communities, in particular in the more affluent parts of Europe. Many of these immigrant communities are Muslim. Legal instruments designed for national or other indigenous minorities which, one has to admit, are neither many nor very effective, have proven insufficient for the management of the new needs created by new immigrant populations. In the absence of internationally agreed legal standards, the policies related to these communities vary – in accordance with domestic political circumstances, economic opportunities and cultural prejudice.

In short, the historical legacy of Europe doesn't provide the policy makers with appropriate tools for adequate action today. The policy objectives such as the choice between integration or coexistence can be defined with the necessary understanding of the political sensitivity but do not enjoy a clear guidance emanating from the historical experience.

So, how should European policy-makers proceed? Is there a common conceptual platform for policy making in matters of management of ethnic diversity? Do human rights represent an appropriate framework for the setting of policy objectives and for policy making? This is a question worth asking for two reasons:

(a) Human rights have become the fundamental legal concept in Europe, underpinning both the constitutional systems of European states and the normative arrangements at the European regional level, such as the Council of Europe, the EU and OSCE.

(b) Human rights are defined as universal. If that is the case, they should provide a framework for management of relations between different cultural and religious traditions. This should include management of coexistence or integration of Muslim communities in Europe.

4. Human rights: An Appropriate Framework?

In my opinion, the answer to this question is – yes, provided that a sufficiently nuanced interpretation of human rights is accepted.

Today, the narrative of human rights is no longer simple. It is not only a narrative of the individual vis-à-vis the state or a narrative of universal – and very abstract values. It has to include the relationship of the individual within a variety of social groups and universality in its proper context.

Legal regulation too has to be sensitive to this evolution. Naturally, there are certain normative prescriptions which have become firmly established and relate to the relationship between the individual and the state. The right to freedom of expression is a case in point. This right has to be respected by all, including the state. However, it has limits defined by the prohibition of hate speech. The state has an obligation to prohibit and, if necessary punish, incitement to hatred and violence. Obviously, here the state has to take into account a variety of fine points of both law and the facts. But the basic rules have become clearly established.

On the other hand, the definition of the status of the individual within a variety of social groups (such as religious communities, ethnic or linguistic groups etc) offers a less clear picture. Human rights are, in essence, rights of individuals, they have to be. But no individual lives in a vacuum, everybody belongs to a variety of social groups and has “the right to belong” to a group in which he or she realizes a considerable proportion of human rights and human dignity. Human being is, as Aristotle explained, a social being and that has a bearing upon the realization of human rights.

The existing international legal regulation on human rights suffers from a weakness in dealing with the collective aspect. Norms related to self-determination of peoples, to the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and the rights of indigenous peoples cover only a part of the entire scene. The texture of international regulation remains less developed in matters such as domestic violence or traditional practices affecting women and girls, or the relationship between the individual and the traditional authority within an ethnic or religious group or an immigrant community. The prescriptions embodied in the international and national standards remain relatively abstract, while the descriptive element in the legal regulation should benefit from further evolution which should bring into the picture the sociological and anthropological findings related to groups such as religious and immigrant communities. In short, there is a scope and a reason for further, more detailed legal regulation, related to the situation of the individual within his or her social group. That regulation can take place by statute or through jurisprudence.

The other requirement, i.e. the contextualization of universality of human rights also requires further work. Today, the debate on universality of human rights no longer includes an outright rejection of the idea of universality. Rather, it suggests the need to recognize a “margin of appreciation” in the implementation of human rights standards, so that the specifics of a particular culture and socio-economic and political environment can be taken into account. However, a note of caution has to be voiced here. Contextualization has its limits, it cannot be extended to the point of negation of universality. The concept of the “margin of appreciation” cannot be interpreted as an escape clause which allows total departure from the basic prescription of human rights. Hence the reservations to international treaties which stipulate prevalence of religious law (allowing, for example, discrimination against women) over the human rights standard cannot be accepted.

In fact, the contextualization of universality of human rights and the application of the concept of the “margin of appreciation” can only work if a sense of hierarchy is retained: in the case of conflict between a human rights norm and customs of a particular culture or precepts of religion, the former has to prevail.

In the actual reality, these issues are quite complex. Social groups, including religious communities are not homogenous. They normally include difference of opinion and dissent, including on issues of the interpretation of cultural or religious tradition. When a person belonging to a particular group deviates from the group’s culture and loyalty, his or her individual human rights (such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to freedom of expression and the freedom of movement) has to prevail over the prescription of the group’s culture or tradition.

Ideally, conflicts of views on matters such as these should be resolved in a deliberative and democratic process. But this will not always be possible. Other means have to be available, including the intervention of the competent state authority. In short, human rights provide a broad conceptual and legal framework for addressing the issues of coexistence and integration of specific social groups, including religious communities, within a wider society. But that framework is not sufficient, it doesn’t automatically produce solutions. Policy making is always necessary.

5. Coexistence and integration: some policy issues

Policy making in the field of human rights requires careful use of two sets of tools: legal standards and socio-economic indicators. A discussion on the effectiveness of implementation of human rights shows that when clear and specific legal standards are available it is easier to judge the level of actual achievement compared to legal prescription. For, example, the implementation of highly developed rights of fair trial can be assessed on the basis of court statistics and legal literature. On the other hand, in areas where human rights standards are more general and abstract, such as for example the right to an adequate standard of physical and mental health, progress can be measured only by the use of social indicators which help measuring the progress made.

In the area of immigration the use of socio-economic indicators has been already accepted and is widely used. An example of successful use of this methodology is offered by the Migrant Integration Policy Index which was developed as part of a research project initiated by the British Council about five years ago. The project was concluded in 2007 with a study which uses over 140 policy indicators and has achieved a remarkable level of methodological sophistication. The study offers a picture of the situation of immigrants in 28 European countries and allows for a comparison between different situations.

The choice of policy areas surveyed is wide and representative: labour market access, family reunion, long-term residence, political participation, access to nationality and anti-discrimination. These are the policy areas vital to migrants. Governments and other can now compare each of the policy areas as well as their overall performance. For example, a country which shows openness with regard to access to labour market and family reunion, while at the same time relying on a restrictive attitude towards political participation and access to citizenship would demonstrate a conservative policy making and persisting reservations towards the full integration of immigrants into the society in which they now live. From such a “diagnosis” onward a serious policy discussion can proceed.

One of the policy areas surveyed relates to anti-discrimination, an area which is both particularly close to human rights and difficult to handle in practice. In reality no two situations are exactly the same. Non-discrimination therefore necessarily involves a degree of reasonable differentiation which characterizes both policy making itself and the judgement about its adequacy. But for an immigrant or a person belonging to a different religion, a particular differentiation (for example with regard to the availability of certain jobs or quality education) can appear more discriminatory than reasonable.

Policies designed to address these issues have to include a variety of ingredients which have to be put together in an appropriate combination, depending on the circumstances of the country in question. However, some of these ingredients have been empirically proven as having a more general field of application. They include:

- Minority led business which provide employment while the government policy can optimize the beneficial economic and social effects by proper regulation, by training programmes and by general support for entrepreneurship.
- Upward mobility resulting from economic success provides a basis for a systematic policy of anti-discrimination. Education is the key to success of such a policy. Access to quality education, including university education represents a critical contribution to the establishment of the real equality of opportunity for immigrants or other minority groups and for their integration in the wider society.
- Success in education and employment contributes to self-respect and pride of one’s own identity. Highly successful professionals can make an effective claim for respect of their identity such as their dietary requirements and the need for a modified regime of work in the period of Ramadan.
- A wise policy of anti-discrimination will make success visible – in the media and in particular on TV. This is important to enable the understanding within the general public that diversity and integration are compatible and that non-discrimination is a civic virtue. Nothing succeeds like success. And nothing looks better on TV than success of those who started on the margins. The best example has been provided by Mr. Barack Hussein Obama throughout the period of the last four years.

Here, another note of caution is in order. Success stories are only part of the public debate. Immigrants and, in particular Muslim communities are often used as scapegoats in public debates. Such practices reveal prejudice which requires serious public response. On the other hand, it is also important to avoid the trap of treating ordinary social problems affecting immigrants or Muslim communities as failure of integration. Careful delineation between critique and prejudice or between ordinary problems and failure of policy is hard to achieve, in particular in the media which favour simplistic explanations. Therefore an extra effort is called for in such situations.

For these reasons efforts need to be invested in a tolerant and, if need be, protracted discussion which alone can contribute to the necessary understanding. Again, a deliberative and democratic dialogue is the best way to proceed.

In conclusion

As my remarks tried to explain I do not see the solution to the question of integration of Muslim communities in Europe in any of the imaginable grand designs. Europe has not inherited workable models of integration from the past and has recently, in Bosnia, demonstrated its inability to preserve a potentially useful model of integration of moderate Islam with the European, Christianity based mainstream. The dialogue among religions and “civilizations” as well as the general political discussion on the future of Islamic element in Europe also do not offer specific solutions. It appears more promising to focus on the conceptual and legal framework for integration which is provided by the existing body of universally accepted human rights and to look, with a sense for detail, into the methodologies which can improve the quality of policy making with regard to immigration. Given that Muslim communities in Europe emanate mainly from the recent migration this seems to be the most promising path to take.
© 2008 Office of the President of the Republic  |  Legal information and Authors  |  Site map  site map