Why do Europeans perceive Islam as something foreign?

Is Islam a religion of one nation (or group of nations) – or it is addressed for every person and all peoples in the world?

Every human, who`d deeply studied out this question, will see, that it`s obvious – Islam as the worldwide religion was fulfilled by its over-nationality and opportunity to adapt for different cultures, infiltrating and accepting their particularities. Getting into different cultural conditions, Islam by centuries adopted in such way, that Muslim culture became native for these nations.

But how nowadays conditions in Europe are? And how Islam is presented for native Europeans? As something, that turned to them by its face and that could be accepted as future part of their cultural environment – or as something, that unbreakingly connected with alien nations, with their expansion, something, that demands to accept foreign culture, denying your own one? Unfortunately, the true answer is the second one.

This image of Islam, image of something struggling against Europeans, could have 3 varieties.

The first one is version of Islam as the religion of closed diaspora. In such communities religious studies, communication and sermons are done, using foreign languages. In truth, this is the most ineffective – and the least harmful, though – way of preaching Islam (establishing the Allah`s Word on the Earth) for native Europeans. At least, once met such closed society, European will start learning about Islam by himself, via Internet, and, if God wills, he or she will convert to Islam.

The second variety is version of Islam as the religion of open diaspora. In mosques and Islamic centers sermons and lessons can be heard both on foreign, or on national languages (but with strong foreign accent). But the dominating force in such centers is bunch of some exact diaspora members, who use language of theit new country not only for Islamic preaching, but also for establishing their own cultural hegemony. Using local language, these people see local culture as something incompatible with Islam, and try to remake locals, who converted to Islam.

Strategically, this version of Islam is the worst, cause many Europeans knew about Islam and accept it in such version. They, as result, either lose their own identity and culture, or fall out of Islam, if realize, that it is incompatible with their essence.

The third version is the way of extended and Europeanized diaspora. This way was born as an answer to unproductive two first doctrines, but unfortunately couldn’t create strong alternative to them. The plot of this variety is integration of migrants and native converts with aim to create multicultural Western Islamic identity.

Such communities are ideal for European convert or person, who is close for becoming a Muslim. Also, such community is ideal for youth foreign diaspora offspring, who, on the one hand, assimilated enough in local culture, but, on the other hand, feeling their cultural difference and trying to save it with Islam. Sometimes such “born” Muslims re-open Islam for themselves only in such communities – and it`s their good side.

But the main problem of these communities is in fact, that local native population perceive them as foreigners. Even if it isn`t said openly, people feel and see this situation in such way. The best cause – their identity is perceived as mixed one. I insist, that we`re speaking not about identity of children with mixed origin – we`re speaking about identity of whole community. People see, that these societies differs from`em not only by religion, as was with Muhammad and other Messengers, peace be upon them, who were Arabs from Arabs, Jews from Jews, etc. People see, that these are mixed groups – and it looks alike first Muslims, that preached to Islam within Arabs, were not Arabs with some exceptions, as Bilal or Salman Farisi, but only those Arabs, who mixed with Byzantines or Persians. And the question is “Could such preach be effective within Arab nation?”

It’s a pity, that some of these communities in past started as first Muslim groups within their own people. There were only a few exceptions, that weren’t bother whole perceiving. But, instead wide-spreading their Islamic preach, they had chosen easier way – finding wives from traditional Muslim nations and increasing in numbers due to migrants, not to Daw’ah. Vice developing native Muslim communities through adapting Islam to their culture, through positioning Muslim religion within their own peoples, they are trying to become centers of integration for foreigners. And, a a result, they`re perceived by their compatriots as integrated foreigners or as people, who`re integrated with foreigners.

So, when native European encounters with Islam in the West, he sees not his Muslim co-nationals, preaching him to the universal Muslim religion, comparable with his culture and identity – but only some foreigners, who oppose his traditional environment.

At the end it would be helpful to say, that all said here is not against immigration or Muslim immigrants in Europe. Will be immigration or won`t, saying truly, doesn’t depend on bunch of Muslim Europeans, and, obviously, in some states, locally, this question is already answered. The most interesting issue for us – perceiving Muslim converts by native Europeans within mass of Muslim immigrants. It`s important, cause if Europeans will see Islam inseparably connected with immigrants, a wall between Islam and Europeans will be unbreakable.

Only native Muslim’s communities can change this situation.

Editorial