5 ms·

Germany has a weird way of integrating its religious institutions: The state collects taxes for the churches. With muslim guestworkers arriving in the 50's it

Germany has a weird way of integrating its religious institutions: The state collects taxes for the churches. With muslim guestworkers arriving in the 50's it was clear that theses guests weren't staying for long and subsequently a) muslim religious institutions weren't (for a long time) included in this "state-collects-the-moneys"-Scheme and b) thus it was welcomed that they'd be financed and run by foreign institutions. In the result you typically have mosques that are either exclusive on grounds of ethnicity (eg the mosques run by the turkish state)* or inclusive on grounds of the interpretation of islam (sadly the Saudi funded radicalist ones are very inclusive). * since interpretation often is a cause of dispute within regions you can have more inclusive interpretations like the Alavites that are usually ethnically homogenic.

gerbal 10y ago
An Official Germany Islam like there is an Official German Lutheranism would be a great help in Germans feel safer with Muslims. I'm surprised the German Government has allowed German Islam to be effectively controlled by the Turkish Government for as long as it has. (Though I guess Turkey wasn't all that concerning until the Erogan era)
- woodpanel 10y ago
  Absolutely. But that includes the German National Concept incorporating Islam as on par with Christianity and Non-Religiousness. And since discussing "German National Concept" has been a taboo since 1945 (more or less) the developments in this regard are premature to say the least. That a foreign nation runs Churches in a sovereign state is really laughable. It's of course always a means of political influence and thus what Saudi Arabia and Turkey does is directly comparable to what the Catholic Church did until the "Papal States" were dissolved.
pluma 10y ago
Actually the reason they weren't included has more to do with them not having organized in a way that allows them to comply with the legal requirements to claim that status. There's actually an organized Muslim church in two states (Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat) that has managed to fulfil the requirements but they represent a minority sect (i.e. not Sunni or Shia -- approximately 35k members in all of Germany). There's nothing preventing e.g. Sunnis from forming such an organisation, really.
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  Wasn't this the group in Germany where a imam said that eating pork would make you predisposed to homosexuality? (I was born into an Ahmadi family, before any of you start throwing brickbats)
- woodpanel 10y ago
  Well if there's nothing preventing them, why do you believe it doesn't have happened? I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, it's precisely that they are often foreign run/influenced. If interpretations cause conflicts, these conflicts usually run along state lines (ie. Iran/Turkey). This plus language barriers (arabic vs. turkish vs. farsi etc.) create incentives to not be inclusive.
  - pluma 10y ago
    I believe your understanding is correct. That would explain why they don't work together in ways that would allow them to comply with the legal requirements for recognition (though there are large Muslim organisations that are often treated as a substitute). But I only said there wasn't anything from a legal perspective stopping them. If the various sects fail to cooperate with each other in ways that prevent them from fulfilling the requirements, that's on them, not on the government. It's not xenophobia, just old-school sectarian disputes. For example the Evangelical church (EKD) is a federation of mostly Lutheran and reformed/Calvinist churches and they managed to agree on enough points to organize beyond their sectarian boundaries. But there are of course a lot of Evangelical or "free" churches that are not part of the EKD (nor affiliated with the Catholic church) and they of course don't get the same status. The problem with understanding Muslim sectarianism in the West seems to be that we're so ignorant that we chalk about anything outrageous to religious differences with Christianity that we don't recognize basic distinctions like Islam vs Islamism, thinking any criticism of the latter would be a form of hostility to the former. We lump all "Muslims" together in one group (which some Muslim groups certainly know to use to their advantage) and then get confused when we find out they hate each other's guts (much like Protestants and Catholics have for a long time).

gerbal 10y ago

An Official Germany Islam like there is an Official German Lutheranism would be a great help in Germans feel safer with Muslims. I'm surprised the German Government has allowed German Islam to be effectively controlled by the Turkish Government for as long as it has. (Though I guess Turkey wasn't all that concerning until the Erogan era)

woodpanel 10y ago
Absolutely. But that includes the German National Concept incorporating Islam as on par with Christianity and Non-Religiousness. And since discussing "German National Concept" has been a taboo since 1945 (more or less) the developments in this regard are premature to say the least. That a foreign nation runs Churches in a sovereign state is really laughable. It's of course always a means of political influence and thus what Saudi Arabia and Turkey does is directly comparable to what the Catholic Church did until the "Papal States" were dissolved.

pluma 10y ago

Actually the reason they weren't included has more to do with them not having organized in a way that allows them to comply with the legal requirements to claim that status. There's actually an organized Muslim church in two states (Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat) that has managed to fulfil the requirements but they represent a minority sect (i.e. not Sunni or Shia -- approximately 35k members in all of Germany). There's nothing preventing e.g. Sunnis from forming such an organisation, really.

selimthegrim 10y ago
Wasn't this the group in Germany where a imam said that eating pork would make you predisposed to homosexuality? (I was born into an Ahmadi family, before any of you start throwing brickbats)
woodpanel 10y ago
Well if there's nothing preventing them, why do you believe it doesn't have happened? I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, it's precisely that they are often foreign run/influenced. If interpretations cause conflicts, these conflicts usually run along state lines (ie. Iran/Turkey). This plus language barriers (arabic vs. turkish vs. farsi etc.) create incentives to not be inclusive.
- pluma 10y ago
  I believe your understanding is correct. That would explain why they don't work together in ways that would allow them to comply with the legal requirements for recognition (though there are large Muslim organisations that are often treated as a substitute). But I only said there wasn't anything from a legal perspective stopping them. If the various sects fail to cooperate with each other in ways that prevent them from fulfilling the requirements, that's on them, not on the government. It's not xenophobia, just old-school sectarian disputes. For example the Evangelical church (EKD) is a federation of mostly Lutheran and reformed/Calvinist churches and they managed to agree on enough points to organize beyond their sectarian boundaries. But there are of course a lot of Evangelical or "free" churches that are not part of the EKD (nor affiliated with the Catholic church) and they of course don't get the same status. The problem with understanding Muslim sectarianism in the West seems to be that we're so ignorant that we chalk about anything outrageous to religious differences with Christianity that we don't recognize basic distinctions like Islam vs Islamism, thinking any criticism of the latter would be a form of hostility to the former. We lump all "Muslims" together in one group (which some Muslim groups certainly know to use to their advantage) and then get confused when we find out they hate each other's guts (much like Protestants and Catholics have for a long time).