A declaration of European Muslims

It's not very often that I read something by Mustafa Ceric and am left feeling as though his message was incomplete or not completely expressed.

I agree with the foundation he's provided but the actual declaration itself seems lacking in my point. He is a very simple man and he tends to give advice that appears irrelevent on the surface.

There's a famous story about a couple in Sarajevo who went to see him about their marital problems. Perhaps it's not true, who knows - but it does express very well his methods. The couple shared their problems and asked for his blessing in getting a divorce.

He told them first they had to try something, and if afterwards they still wanted a divorce, then he would personally ensure they got one. He talked for a while about what he thought the problems were - the wife expecting too much, the husband being careless with her emotions, and so on.

He told the wife to drink her coffee with two sugar cubes between her teeth; to buy something (a toy) for a child in her neighborhood at least once a day for a week; to turn her wedding pictures in the house around so only the backs were visible.

He told the husband to eat his meals one thing at a time and to stop for a cigarette between every portion (For example: Eat the potatoes, smoke. Eat the carrots, smoke. Eat the meat, smoke); to walk downtown every day and take a look at the shops, find something he thinks his wife would like - not buy it, just find it; to never go to bed before his wife.

Although the advice sounds irrelevent and pointless, the couple nevertheless reignited all the passion they ever had and more.

So this declaration could very well be one of these sorts of things he's famous for.

The ideas behind it I couldn't agree more with. The most important thing he said, to me, is that we shouldn't do this because people hate us, but because it's the right thing to do. He admits there are some who will hate us no matter what we do, and we can't worry about that. This is something I believe as well. You should always do for yourself, be a good person for yourself.

Having introduced their commitments to the European Union, the European Muslims have the right to express their expectations in the Declaration such as: the institutionalization of Islam in Europe;

What does he mean by 'institutionalisation'? On any meaning I'm used to, no religion should be 'institutionalised'. Certainly if you 'institutionalse' one you have to 'institutionalise' them all, no matter what the word means.

Islam has no right to expect any special treatment within the state, any more than Christianity should have.

the economic development of the Muslim Community so that it may have full spiritual and cultural freedom and independence; the development of Islamic schools capable of educating European-born Muslims for the new challenges of European society;

As long as (a) no-one, including Muslims, is forced to attend them and (b) they are not State-aided. Again, there should be no special provision for islam especially.

the political freedom that will enable European Muslims to have their legitimate representatives in European state parliaments; �

If that means ensuring that Muslims are elected then it would be wrong. It would above all be wrong if Muslims were given some special right to that effect.

Religion should not be recognised in any political institutions.

a relaxation of European migration policy which has become very restrictive towards Muslims recently; opening the way for Muslim law to be recognized;

Again a no-no, if by 'recognised' he means 'enforced'. Religion should have no relevance at all to the legal system.

Allow Muslim law to be 'recognised' and once more you have to allow every religion to be so recognised.

and most importantly the protection of European Muslims from islamophobia, ethnic cleansing, genocide and the like.

As long as Muslims (or anyone else) demands special treatment because of their religious beliefs the problems we have will stay with us.

As an instance, where ritual killing, as in Judaism, conflicts with the laws laid down for the humane treatment of animals, such ritual killing must be punished appropriately.

 

The Grand Mullah, at least in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is elected. In fact, Mustafa Ceric came within just a few votes of losing re-election last year. I believe any Muslim is allowed to vote but I've never really heard of regular citizens casting a ballot, typically it remains a decision of the country's other Imams.

EDIT: Probably because he is also the Grand Mullah of Slovenia, Croatia, and Serbia and Montenegro. That's way too many Muslims to vote.

By instatutionalizing Islam, I believe he means something he's said for a long time: That there has to be some sort of heirarchy in Islam, as exists in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A "greatest among equals" approach as they use in the Orthodox Church. There has to be connection between mosques and you can't have every religious institution in the country pulling in a different direction.

About Islamic schools - I'm sure Mustafa Ceric would love it if Muslim students were forced to attend them, he's been pushing for that in Bosnia and Herzegovina for a while - but he'll never get it here, and certainly not in Western Europe. He's just frustrated that Islamic schools in the West teach only Islam, and everything else is given a heavily Islamic perspective - which is fine - but Islamic schools here tend to teach Islam and everything else, including other faiths, tolerance, socialism, etc.

I think he does mean ensureing Muslims get elected. I also think in Western Europe it wouldn't make sense. However, allowing Islamic groups to have some sort of official lobby, some official council that deals in a more visible, open way with politicians in countries like France might do well.

He is calling for a recognition of Muslim law but only among those who seek it. Marriages in Bosnia are civil, legally. If you get married anywhere but city hall, it's not legally recognized - he's been pushing to change that, with the full support of Christian and Jewish groups as well. Divorce courts are more unofficially religious. There are very few municipal officials who will stamp the papers without first having confirmation you went to coinciling with your religious leaders. He wants religious laws to be an option for religious people which, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, sounds great - but he doesn't really understand that sharia law is not implemented everywhere as it would be here. He's very much an optimist and a seeing-good-in-others person and he can't even imagine what fundamentalists in the West would use sharia law to do to women, etc.

Edited by Mila

Institutionalising Islam in the sense of establishing a hierarchy within it is purely an internal Islamic matter. It does seem to me however to run counter to Islamic tradition in general, which is much closer to Judaism and Protestant Christianity than it is to the hierarchical Catholic churches.

In most of the West there are two kinds of marriage, civil and religious. Usually that means you have to have two ceremonies, with the civil one being the one that qualifies you as legally married. You can have any kinf of religious marriage you like, all equally irrelevant to the legal system.

(An exception is the UK with an established Church, where the Anglican priest is authorised as a civil registrar as well. I think in the US ministers of religion are also often authorised as civil registrars as well.) 

If you have a religious marriage, you can also have any kind of religious divorce you like, but it won't get you out of the civil marriage. Also, a civil divorce doesn't of course release you from any religious vows you may have made.

I can't see anything wrong with that. You can follow any kind of religious law you like, sharia or otherwise, as long as if, in doing that, you break the civil law, you are punished for it. Religious belief is not an excuse for crime, any more than following orders is.