Whether we look at the situation before and after the events of September 11, it is clear that for a significantly long period of time, interest in Islam in the West has been, for better or for worse, staggering. You cannot really conceive of going through a single day in your life anymore without seeing Islam somewhere in the spotlight. In the media, it is probably impossible, even if we limit ourselves simply to printed media in the United Kingdom, to find a day where there is not some sort of focus on Islam.

The connections and links between the West and Islam — these two monolithic forces, one crusading for the good of mankind (or, from another perspective, being crushed from within), and the other, a barbaric "Green Threat" that has come to replace the "Red Threat" (communism) — are the subjects of many a book (Amazon.com alone carries almost 9,000 titles). Publishers, newspaper editors, and media pundits know that these books attract audiences. What Went Wrong?, Radical Islam's War Against America, Prophet of Doom, Militant Islam Reaches America, Where Civilizations Collide: The titles vary, but they share a few characteristics. The first is that Islam is to be feared, and the second is that it is to be feared as something foreign.

But the discussion has taken a bit of an interesting twist in recent years. It used to be about the West and Islam; about something "out there," not "in here." When people in the "West" said "Islam," they did not mean their neighbors; they meant the outer frontier. When Muslims said the "West," they did not mean something that they recognized as familiar; they meant an alien environment. That has changed. There are still more of the fear-mongering titles, but there are now other titles such as The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization.³ It is now no longer even remotely justifiable to speak of Islam as something "out there," nor is the "Yin" of "West" disparate from the "Yang" of "Islam." Both are connected to each and exist, in different ways, within each other — the Burda of Busairi is recited in the heart of London, and Macintosh iMacs are being used in Makkah.

Both types of interactions are of great consequence and should be properly understood, but it is the phenomenon of Islam in the "West" that attracts more attention at the moment. In the "West" (the quotation marks remain until the author understands what precisely what we are "west" of, and where the mythical qutb, or pole of geography seems to exist), Islam exists, not simply as an extension of some sort of Arabian or Pakistani interloping cultural imperialism, but as a living reality that is challenging what it means to be a Briton, a Frenchman, a German — a European in all shapes and forms that identity expresses itself in. That challenge is not taken lightly, and it needs to be taken seriously for what is at stake is the future of Europe as Europeans know it.

No longer can we take seriously the idea that a Briton is only an Anglo-Saxon Anglican, or the French is only a Catholic Caucasian. (And thank goodness for that; both were always rather absurd ideas; just ask the Protestants in France, the Catholics in Britain, and the Jews all over Europe.) The basis of society in all these societies of Europe is being questioned; the place of laicite in France, multiculturalism in Britain, the roots of citizenship in Germany; these are all issues that are directly confronted by the existence of a population that cannot simply resign itself to accepting that the headscarf must be taken off for its own good. That to succeed in society, you must consider yourself as an ethnicity and have no recourse to your religious principles, and that race is a defining factor of citizenship.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Just as societies in the "West" appear to be challenged on a variety of levels by the growing Muslim presence,⁴ so are Western Muslim communities being tested by the situations they find themselves in. By and large, these tests are the same challenges facing all Muslims around the world:

1. The ramifications of living as a Muslim in a world ravaged by modernity⁵

2. The recognition of legitimate orthopraxy and orthodoxy in a world where extremism⁶ has taken root beyond the radical fringe

3. The reconstitution of Islamic identity for Muslims, where Bani Islam (a neo-nationalism based on religiously-inspired affinity) and tribalism of a universal faith are deemed worthy.

For the Muslims of Europe expressly, there are two specific and distinct issues that are directly relevant to their surviving and thriving in Europe. Beyond these issues, and according to different contexts within Europe, there may be more subissues and other factors as well, but these two issues are fundamental and apply to all European Muslims. What is interesting to note is that both of these issues were identified centuries ago, albeit under different terms:

1. Islamophobia. The first matter is rather infamous now.⁷ Recognized by the United Nations⁸ as a reality the world over (and in Europe specifically), Islamophobia has been confirmed as a problem by a plethora of studies. It cannot be ignored, and it will remain to be a factor in the survival and the thriving of Muslim communities as long as it exists.

2. Integral to European Societies: Integralization. Islamophobia is, by and large, an occurrence visited upon Muslims by non-Muslims. While it may be a distinct phenomenon, independent of any Muslim creation, Muslim communities possess the ability to significantly decrease its impact. It remains, however, a taboo to seriously engage Muslim communities in that debate, even if many scholars and intellectuals are in favor of it.

The answer is not as easy as assimilation or integration, which both have already received meanings in the English language, particularly in the context of multiculturalist debates and discussions, and are not essentially positive courses of action to pursue. I have struggled to find a word that encompassed what I think may escape the harms of the above, but will also incorporate their benefits. Localization does not quite accomplish the task, and acculturalization does not exist in the vocabulary. But the basic principle of the approach, whereby one becomes integral to and embedded in one's society, has been recognized as a matter of course in Islam, for the prophets invariably began their invitation with the words, "O my people" and were sent as members of those peoples. For who better to deliver the message than one of their own, who knew their ways inside and out, even if he chose not to partake of them? Who better to deliver the message than one who could speak not only in their language, but also use their idioms and expressions?

Scholars have already looked at the latter challenge of "integralization" in Islamic jurisprudence, whether in the modern context or the medieval context. Ibn Taymiyah, for example, mentions a strong encouragement for the Muslims living in non-Muslim lands to observe the outward adaat (customs) of the non-Muslims, while ensuring that the Muslims not commit any haram⁹ (forbidden) actions in so doing (and herein lies the limits of any Islamic "assimilation" exercise).

Ibn Taymiyah mentions two goals behind his advice of what is basically integralization, namely the preservation of the Muslim's life, and the bearing of witness to Islam. In our own context, we might say that the preservation of a Muslim's life relates to Islamophobia; extreme Islamophobia can, indeed, lead to death. As for the spreading of the invitation, such a challenge always exists and is no less so obvious in a society where Islamophobia is so widespread. The limits are not lost on Ibn Taymiyah, who warns the Muslim from committing any forbidden action in this respect; but beyond that?

The reasoning behind this is aptly given by the principle expanded upon by Imam An-Nawawi, who in his commentary on Sahih Muslim,¹⁰ mentions that one of the principles of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) is to consider the consequences and benefits of actions before doing them. This goes to the point that one should leave aside a mandub (recommended)¹¹ action if the performance of a mandub might bring about a non-beneficial outcome. An-Nawawi, however, notes that this reason does not apply to actions that are fard (obligatory);¹² they remain fard, and while there may be certain ways in which they are performed that are more advisable than others, they must be performed nonetheless.

This is obviously a very brief overview of the basic details of fiqh, but the essence of it is clear: For their own benefit, Muslims are advised by the Shari`ah to assimilate to the non-Muslim society within the limits laid down by the Shari`ah.

The reasons behind this advice (safety and the effective bearing of testimony to Islam) are tied together through another part of fiqh. They both represent the key contextual factors that need to be taken into account when an ancient noun is brought into Muslim discourse: the duty of hijrah, or "flight from one's place."

The idea of hijrah is fundamental to Muslim history. It is the Hijrah of the last and final prophet of Islam from Makkah to Yathrib (later renamed Madinat an-Nabi [the city of the Prophet]) that marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar; such was the significance of the first hijrah to the first Muslim community. After many years of severe persecution, and scouting distant lands such as Abyssinia (a non-Muslim country ruled by a Christian king), the Muslims emigrated to a place free of persecution, where they could practice Islam without fear of destruction.

Nowadays, hijrah still plays a role in the mentality of some Muslims, who believe that it remains a duty for Muslims to migrate from a land ruled by non-Muslims and non-Muslim government, to a land ruled by Muslims in an Islamic regime. As there is no "real Islamic state" in existence at the moment, the duty is simply in abeyance. But there is no point in getting comfortable in these lands of disbelief and obscenity, they believe; they do not belong here, and they should leave to a place where they can practice their deen (religion, for lack of a better word) freely.

Legal discussions of the past question whether the duty of hijrah was primarily about Muslim rule or Muslim laws, however (although for many classical scholars, it was indeed a factor). During the Makkan period when Muslims were persecuted, there was a hijrah to Abyssinia, a non-Muslim country, which was voluntary. However, when the discrimination in Makkah became persecution and remaining there would have meant unacceptable compromise, the Hijrah to Madinah became obligatory for those who could migrate (Eickelman 30).¹³ The Hijrah was thus linked to freedom of worship, but also to the strengthening of the Muslim community, which in that historical context meant strengthening the new city-state of Madinah.

Scholars of Islam in the classical period thus interpreted the principle of hijrah in different ways. Al-Busti insisted that the hijrah was meant to strengthen the Muslim community in its early days, and would become required only when the community was in such a situation. Ibn Khaldun went further and said that the hijrah had ceased to be an obligation after the death of the Prophet, while Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalani took a more "middle of the road" view and said that the hijrah was no longer required after Makkah was conquered.¹⁴ Other scholars held that the hadith concerns a hijrah that was incumbent upon the Companions of the Prophet and that the abrogation does not extend to later generations.

Ibn Al-`Arabi divided the hijrah into six situations, three of which would involve compulsory migration, and three of which would involve recommended migration. Hijrah, in this perspective, would be obligatory for Muslims in lands of unbelief or heresy, injustice, or where lawlessness prevailed; while it was recommended in cases of physical persecution, disease, and financial insecurity.<sup>15</sup> Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami, the leading Shafi`i jurist of his time, believed that the operational norm was for a Muslim not to make hijrah as long as persecution was not in force. If he were able to practice the deen, then the land would become dar al-Islam [lands where Muslims can freely reside and practice their religion], for himself and for other Muslims. For such a person, hijrah might be permissible, but only if it did not result in the land reverting back to being dar al-harb [lands where Muslim cannot practice their religion freely], in which case, it would be forbidden for him to leave.¹⁶

If we consider the modern period, the reality for most (if not all) of us in the "West" is that there is no widespread persecution on the level of that suffered by the first community of Muslims in Makkah. On the contrary, generally speaking there exists freedom of religion in all European countries. This freedom is not absolute and it is not perfect, but there are not any pogroms or any kind of maltreatment of a level that would oblige hijrah. There might be other reasons that would make it recommended; the many Muslims who travel in charitable organizations abroad to help those members of humanity who require their assistance can see that migrations may be necessary even without a khalifah [caliph].