Muslims In Europe: Germany, France And Great Britain
- From: "All praise is due to Allah Lord of the Worlds, the Owner of all of the creation" <almared_alarabi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:31:46 -0700
Muslims In Europe: Germany, France And Great Britain
By Jamshed Bokhari
Muslims in Europe live in increasingly difficult circumstances. Europe
has never been particularly fond of its Oriental neighbors or
residents of its former colonies. It may even be argued that European
colonialism was a response to former Islamic conquest and rule within
Europe, and that one of the motives guiding expansionist Europe was
retaliation over former masters. In order for Europe to advance, maybe
it had to conquer those who had conquered it in the first place.
However, if vengeance played any sort of role in Europe's
revitalization after the Dark Ages, and after its own internal
development, it seems as if that desire has yet to be satisfied. For
example, Serbia's policies and actions against both Bosnian Muslims
and Albanian Kosovars indicate that the vengeance aspect of European
development is more a current reality than fiction.
However, Serbian aggression is only an overt form of European
antipathy towards Islam. The much larger problem in terms of scale and
social magnitude is the hidden, covert manifestations of this
attitude. Although Muslim communities in Germany, France and Great
Britain do not encounter Serbian-style mass extermination or anything
close to it, they do experience a much more subtler form of
"Islamophobia." Although the phenomenon is not truly "subtle" in any
genuine sense, when compared with the outright physical slaughter of
Muslims committed by Serbian paramilitary and regular troops, one may
call what occurs in the rest of Europe "subtle."
The Big Three
For Great Britain and former West Germany, the primary motivation for
allowing immigration of non-native people was economic; ie, a need for
labor. Both of these countries were experiencing rapid industrial
growth in the years after World War II and well into the Cold War.
Domestic labor supply could not match the pace of industrial growth,
so the need for more labor was paramount. Great Britain's solution was
to turn to its former colonies, mainly South Asia, for its needed
supply.
The reasoning behind importing labor from former colonies was simple.
Former possessions and the people that resided therein had just
recently liberated themselves from official colonial status. Their
experiences during colonial rule had acculturated them to the British
social structure in such a way that they could more easily assimilate
and function within "proper" British society than labor imported from
other parts of the world, or from within continental Europe itself.
After all, by the time of independence in the subcontinent, Great
Britain had already become proficient at exporting South Asian labor
within the vast reaches of her colonial empire. The sun never set
without touching a South Asian. It did not take much more effort to
switch the market from other labor-scarce colonial regions to Great
Britain proper.
The former West Germany's rapid industrialization occurred within the
same period as Great Britain's. However, West Germany had more of a
competitive advantage in concentrating its economic growth towards non-
military industrialization. This was due, in large part, to the
victors of World War II not allowing Germany to maintain an effective
offensive military and splitting the state into zones of military
command among themselves. By doing this, they effectively allowed non-
communist Germany to concentrate its Gross National Product in non-
military growth, a great budgetary relief upon any economy.
However, along with this relief, Germany was physically divided, with
the West controlling roughly two-thirds of the territory and the
Soviet bloc controlling the remainder. In terms of domestic labor
manpower for the rapidly growing economy (free of military
expenditures), West Germany suffered from an extreme shortage. Unlike
Great Britain, Germany had not maintained a sizeable colonial empire,
so utilizing that resource was unavailable as an option. However,
Germany had continued to maintain relations with its former World War
I ally, the Turks (even though the formal state had changed
significantly from the Ottoman leaders they were allied with to the
state structure created by Ataturk).
In addition, since Germany did not have former colonies as a resource
for labor, they had to go into their continental backyard, East
Europe. West Germany could accomplish two goals with one immigration
policy, importing labor and playing the role of an international moral
center by accepting refugees escaping from then-Communist bloc
countries.
France, on the other hand, had a vast colonial realm at the end of
World War II. However, as opposed to Great Britain and West Germany,
France did not have as rapid of an industrialization plan. France
needed labor, but not at the same scale as either Great Britain or
West Germany. Like her faster growing economic neighbors, France also
initiated immigration policies designed to bring in people from her
colonies. But the reasoning driving these policies emanated more from
political exigencies than economic desires.
At the end of World War II, France, unlike Great Britain, steadfastly
and stubbornly desired to maintain her colonial possessions. Among her
possessions included the Levant (an area including Lebanon, Syria and
parts of Jordan and Iraq) and two regions, aware of France's
stubbornness, desired an end to French rule. Both Vietnam and Algeria
began to become more than France could handle.
Self-rule in Vietnam, regardless of the nature of its present-day
government, was finally settled after France found it economically and
politically expensive to manage - and handed the problem over to the
United States.
Algeria, on the other hand, after the initiation of French rule in the
1800s and well into the 20th century, remained a much more complex
region. One major reason was that France had, through its own
policies, become so inseparably entrenched in Algeria that any effort
to depart would create enormous political difficulties both within
France and Algeria. One major reason exemplifying this entrenchment
was that the French considered Algeria a part of France. Nationals of
French ethnic and racial descent born in Algeria were considered full-
fledged French citizens with all the rights and privileges given to
any person born in France. However, indigenous Algerians, although
technically nationals of France, had severe limitations on their
rights and privileges, including the right to travel (especially to
France).
Although minor in the grand scale of occupation, such hypocrisy did
not go unnoticed. And when aggregated with other daily indignities,
conditions for independence increased. When France finally decided to
quit Algeria, the citizenship policies played a large role in
confusing who was really "French" and who was Algerian. Due to
France's own egotistical grand designs for a larger France and in
combination with the citizenship issues, Paris found it increasingly
difficult to differentiate between who were really French and who were
not. This dilemma, combined with the need to provide a haven for
native Algerians who had cooperated and were functionaries in France's
colonial state structure, resulted in bringing to France large numbers
of Algerians.
The Big Picture
In Great Britain and West Germany, Muslims, like other immigrants,
were brought in to do the dirty work. In France, the French political
desire to seem equitable towards its former colonies resulted in large
numbers of non-ethnic French nationals immigrating to the country.
Whatever the initial rationale for "inviting" these people to Europe
has largely disappeared. In its place has risen a backlash against
these "guests."
With Great Britain's current service-driven economy replacing the
industrial need for labor resulting in shortages of available jobs for
Anglo-Britons, Britons have been debating the need for its immigrant
workers and the non-productive elements they bring with them:
families. Now that West and East Germany have become one nation, and
Germany has to absorb and provide jobs for native Germans from the
former East Germany (their own people), similar debates as those in
Great Britain regarding immigrants initially brought for labor are
occurring. In France, where jobs were scarce to begin with when large
amounts of Algerians came to the country, the situation has only
become worse for Muslims residing there.
In all these states, popular movements have risen under nationalist
banners proclaiming that pure French, Britons and Germans be given
preferential treatment in hiring. They also call for minorities to be
excluded from any sort of participation in these societies. The
adherents of these movements, utilizing the racist fear of Islamic
terrorism, are asking that Muslims be limited in their advancement in
the society and restrictions placed on their religious practices,
norms and customs. Violent attacks targeting Turks in Germany and
popular movements in France endorsed by aging sex symbols exemplify
the current trend in these countries.
The problem could be manageable if it were limited to what some
European apologists call the "fringe elements" in their societies. But
it is not. Contrary to the opinion that these are isolated occurrences
committed by the refuse of their societies, the overt participation by
instruments of the states themselves contradict such claims. In Great
Britain, Germany and France, documented cases of police brutality
against Muslims exist, in some cases where outright murder is
committed. France has laws limiting the dress (yes, the dress!) of
Muslims. Germany's lackluster effort to crack down on extremist
nationalist organizations, even though laws exist to ban the
glorification or advocacy of its Nazi past, indicates that the German
state does not really desire to quell this aspect of their society.
These brief examples indicate not only outright state antagonism
towards Muslims, but also tacit approval of "fringe" nationalist
groups.
To put it bluntly, Muslims in Europe live in a climate of hate.
Brought in to fill a void in labor of these societies, Muslim
immigrants fruitfully participated in the economic growth of these
nations, helping them to become the powers that they are. Rather than
receiving acceptance or recognition within these societies for their
participation, Muslims are being rewarded with intolerance, hate and
violence. If these are the actions and policies of modern, developed
and civilized nations - as they vociferously and repeatedly boast
themselves to be - then Muslims should ask themselves if this is the
path one should follow over one that is straight. In the end, maybe
the very fact that Europe repeatedly reminds itself and others that
they are "modern, developed and civilized" is because they realize in
the depths of their conscious that they are not.
http://tinyurl.com/yt4lmy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: MUSLIM ANSWERS
- Next by Date: Re: Muslims In Europe: Germany, France And Great Britain
- Previous by thread: MUSLIM ANSWERS
- Next by thread: Re: Muslims In Europe: Germany, France And Great Britain
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
