Managing transnational Islam : Muslims and the state in Western Europe 1
Managing transnational Islam : Muslims and the state in Western Europe 1
复制标题
管理跨国伊斯兰教：穆斯林与西欧国家 1
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Laurence
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Laurence
当代学者对欧洲伊斯兰教的描述倾向于描绘两种极端的景象之一：地上的天堂或手提篮子里的地狱。在悲观的版本中，外交政策分析和学术文献罕见地一致认为，宗教间对话或穆斯林融合的机会微乎其微。这些描述见证了顽固的世俗国家与雄心勃勃的原教旨主义宗教之间的对决，后者的追随者旨在将欧洲大陆转变为“欧拉比亚”（Ye 'or 2005; Ferguson 2004; Savage 2004）。为了证明他们的悲观情绪是正确的，这些作者引用了伊斯兰教没有等级制度的本质，以及不可能为欧洲的穆斯林社区建立合法的代表——或者“一个电话号码”（r<s:1> mond 1999; Warner and Wenner 2002）。这些学者强调，使这一困难更加复杂的是，欧洲19世纪的国家-教会制度的不足，在这个新的、灵活的宗教挑战者面前，这些制度在危机到危机之间跌跌撞撞（Fetzer and Soper 2005; Shore 2004）。另一方面，乐观的声音来自后民族主义理论家的阵营，以及与穆斯林世界的监管者和金融家分离的改革“欧洲-伊斯兰”的支持者（Soysal 1994）。但两位作者的乐观分别建立在两个令人生畏的假设之上：“东道国”国家机构对移民融合的重要性正在下降；以及“派遣”国放弃对穆斯林侨民的宗教影响（AlSayyad and Castells 2002）。在它们首次被阐述的十年后，这两种情况都没有出现。令人惊讶的是，很少有研究（而且几乎没有英文研究）系统地比较不同国家的内政部是如何使用的
Contemporary scholarly accounts of Islam in Europe have tended to portray one of two extreme visions: heaven on earth or hell in a hand basket. In the pessimistic version, foreign policy analyses and the scholarly literature are in rare concurrence about the meager chances for either inter-religious dialog or Muslim integration. These accounts bear witness to a showdown between intransigently secular states and an ambitious, fundamentalist religion whose followers aim to transform the continent into “Eurabia” (Ye’or 2005; Ferguson 2004; Savage 2004). To justify their gloom, these authors cite Islam’s un-hierarchical nature and the impossibility of establishing legitimate representatives – or “one phone number” – for Muslim communities in Europe (Rémond 1999; Warner and Wenner 2002). Compounding this difficulty, these scholars emphasize, is the inadequacy of Europe’s nineteenth-century state-church institutions, which stumble from crisis to crisis with this new and agile religious challenger (Fetzer and Soper 2005; Shore 2004). The optimistic voices, on the other hand, come from the camps of post-nationalist theorists and from proponents of a reformed “Euro-Islam” that is divorced from overseers and financiers in the Muslim world (Soysal 1994). But those authors’ cheerfulness is founded, respectively, on two formidable hypotheses: the diminishing importance of “host” state institutions for immigrant integration; and the “sending” states’ renunciation of religious influence over the Muslim Diaspora (AlSayyad and Castells 2002). A decade after they were first expounded, neither of these scenarios is in view. Surprisingly, few studies (and virtually none in English) systematically compare how different national interior ministries have used