Open Society Institute EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program
Muslims in the EU - Cities Report Germany
Another exclusion of Muslims and their organisations takes place in the field of politics at both the national and the municipal level, when it comes to the necessity for a dialogue partner, whether to discuss the question of Islamic religious teaching in public schools or to find cooperating partners for integration programmes. Although Muslim organisations and umbrella organisations exist in abundance, they are almost always rejected as a possible partner, for several reasons. First, the organisations can never speak for all Muslims in Germany, due to not being organised at this national level. As a result, they also do not have the authority to make decisions for all Muslims. The same is, for example, the case with the Zentralrat der Juden (Jewish Central Council), which does not represent all Jews in Germany or all synagogues. This led to an internal fight between reform communities and the Orthodox-led Zentralrat in recent years. This is also the case for several, if not all, evangelic churches. Second, there are organisations, such as Milli Görus, that represent a large number of Turkish Muslims, but which are also rejected as a dialogue partner, due to them being watched by the Verfassungsschutz (see section I.8.2). However, although this has been done since the organisation was founded, a violation of the Constitution was never reported.111 Existing Muslim organisations and associations are excluded from policy-making and from speaking for the people whom they represent. Instead, the German Government chooses at will with whom to talk.112 On the other hand, a clear preference for the Diyanet113 has become apparent in recent years. The Diyanet refused to take part in any initiative by other Muslim umbrella organisation to unite under one big umbrella organisation. This could be seen at the first summit for integration in July 2006, hosted by Chancellor Angela Merkel. Here, hardly any representatives of Muslim organisations — such as Kenan Kolat from the Türkische Gemeinde Deutschland (Turkish Community Germany) and Bekir Alboga from DITIB — were invited. Schiffauer (2006) explains that the growing presence and self-consciousness of Muslims and their organisations, leading also to the claiming of rights and sometimes court verdicts in favour of Muslims, are generally highly irritating to the German public and politicians. As Muslims are not yet felt to be an integral part of society, their public claims are seen by many as an “abuse of our courts”. Schiffauer quotes Johannes Kandel from the Social Democratic think tank, FriedrichEbert-Stiftung: Muslim representatives should ask themselves what kind of practices could be considered offensive in a non-Muslim environment (e.g. the call to the prayer or ritual slaughter) and how a balance based on mutual respect could be achieved between Islamic cultural practices and the culture of majority society. They try, however, to put through their interpretation of Islam by means of the German courts (Kandel, nd: 6).
111
The case of the stigmatisation of Milli Görüs, and the role of the Verfassungsschutz in defining ‘good’ or ‘bad’ Muslim organisations by naming them as Islamists, are explained in further detail by Schiffauer (2004). 112 One recent example for this was the discussion around the preparations for the Islam Konferenz held on 27 September 2006 and the invitation policy. Only five representatives of umbrella organisations were invited, as opposed to nine individuals who in most cases never even claimed to represent any part whatsoever of the Muslim population of Germany. See also commentary, “Der Gipfel!” [“The Limit!”], by Irmgard Pinnyavailable, Dienstag, 26 September 2006, available at http://islam.de/6919.php (accessed 10 January 2007). 113 Diyanet is the same as the DITIB (Diyanet Isleri Türk Islam Birligi), the Turkish organisation with strong connections to the religious authority of Turkey and the organisation with the highest number of members in Germany.
58