UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Constructing mosques : the governance of Islam in France and the Netherlands Maussen, M.J.M. Publication date 2009 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Maussen, M. J. M. (2009). Constructing mosques : the governance of Islam in France and the Netherlands. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:30 Sep 2021 CHAPTER 8 Citizenship, Islam and mosques in the Nederlands 8.1. Introduction Over the past years the image of the Netherlands abroad has changed from that of a guiding nation in the domain of immigrant integration policies to that of a country facing a deep crisis due to the failure of its multicultural policies. Social scientists argue that the Netherlands was a prime example of a country implementing multiculturalism, and that it now provides a first- class illustration of the disastrous effects of “granting group rights” to immigrants and allowing Muslims to set up “an Islamic pillar”.452 Others have argued that these critics misrepresent the actual progress of integration and that they far too easily suggest that continued problems with immigrant integration are the direct outcome of erroneous policy choices. In addition, so they ar- gue, it is very doubtful whether in reality the Dutch ever implemented multicultural policies.453 This chapter makes a contribution to this debate by analysing policies of accommodation of Islam in the Netherlands since the early 1980s. It explores the ways Dutch integration poli- cies and institutionalised church-state relations have structured public policies. The chapter in particular focuses on municipal public policy discussions around mosque creation in Rotterdam. This city has been at the forefront of discussions on immigrant integration and Islam in the Netherlands. Of special relevance is to see whether, and if so how and why, policy responses to mosque creation changed over time. In addition, the various institutional arrangements that were drawn upon in the local context are discussed. Finally, the chapter aims to generate pos- sible explanations for the radical shifts in Dutch policy discussions over the past 8 years that have puzzled many outside observers. 8.2. Ethnic Minorities Policy and mosque creation in Rotterdam In the 1980s Dutch immigrant integration policies started off on the premise that the Netherlands were now “de facto a country of immigration”.454 Ethnic Minorities Policies were based on dis- 452. See notably Statham et al. 2005; Koopmans et al. 2005 and Snider and Hagendoorn 2007 for this kind of image of Dutch policy approaches and its consequences. 453. See Commission Blok 2004; Vink 2007; and Duyvendak and Scholten (2009). 454. The development of immigrant integration policies began with reports by the Advisory Committee on Minorities Research (ACOM) (Minorities Research Advice, 1979) and by the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) (Ethnic Minorities, Penninx 1979). Both reports called upon the government to acknowledge that labour migrants and post-colonial immigrants were settling permanently in the Netherlands and that measures should be developed to prevent these groups becoming strongly disadvantaged minorities. Ethnic Minorities policies were further developed in the Draft Minorities Bill (1981) and the Minorities Bill (1983). In the early 1980s Chapter 8 – Citizenship, Islam and mosques in the Nederlands 191 tinctions between cultural minority groups, which would make it possible to attune policies to the specific circumstances of each group.455 This approach was driven by the twin ideals of equal opportunities and respect for cultural differences. A flourishing multicultural society could develop if immigrants would be enabled to participate fully and equally in society and if discriminatory talk and behaviour were not permitted.456 National and local advisory councils were set up that would allow a new generation of ethnic elites to replace the self-appointed Dutch fiduciaries who had represented migrants in the 1960s and 1970s. The slogan “integration with retention of cultural identity” became the motto of Minorities Policy.457 Emerging ethnic elites rapidly picked up this slogan to argue that successful integration did not require cultural assimilation and to justify their attempts to create community based institutions. Ethnic Minority Policy had a structural similarity to the foundational ideas of pillari- sation. The legacy of the pillar-system, as a way of handling diversity, seemed of particular relevance for the religious dimension of integration. In 1982 this idea was developed by Klop, a member of the scientific bureau of the Christian Democrat Party (CDA), in an article entitled Islam in the Netherlands: Fear of a new pillar? According to him, Dutch history had shown that a certain level of isolation could be beneficial in the early stages of collective emancipa- tion. At first, members of minority groups would be preoccupied with their own community, but later they would participate more in the central spheres of society (Klop 1982: 528). Another a central Minorities Policy Directorate was created within the Ministry of Home Affairs. See Entzinger 1984 and Penninx 1988 for early studies on the development of policy responses with regard to immigration in the Netherlands. For a recent discussion see the report by the Commission Blok 2004 and Scholten 2008. 455. Minorities Policy distinguished between ethnic minorities (Turks, Moroccans, Yugoslavs, South-Europeans, Surinamese and Moluccans) and native underprivileged groups (caravan dwellers). Dutch policies were seen as paradigmatic for a pluralist approach by leading experts such as Entzinger 1984; and Castles 1995. In the late 1970s research on immigrant groups in the Netherlands was dominated by cultural anthropologists who had been influenced by more relativistic social theory paradigms and who argued that that a certain level of engaging with immigrant cultures was necessary in order to understand group-specific needs. These scientists played an important role in the formation of Minorities Policy (Scholten 2008: 113ff.). 456. This view of the integration process was strongly indebted to the theories and categories developed in pioneering Dutch academic studies. See Penninx 1988; Penninx and Vermeulen (eds) 2000. See Scholten 2008: 97ff. on the relationships between policy development and social scientific research and on the role of the Advisory Committee on Minorities Research (ACOM) and the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) thereby. Minorities Policies also developed in tandem with a commitment to combat discrimination. Several policy measures were illustrative of a pluralist approach to immigrant integration. Dutch legislation was scrutinised as early as 1983 to see whether it contained elements of discrimination on the basis of nationality, race and religion (Beune and Hessels 1983). Existing programs for education in migrants’ native languages and culture were continued and new intercultural education programs were set up. The revision of the nationality law in 1986 made it easier for immigrants to become Dutch citizens. A National Advisory and Consultation Body (Landelijk Overleg en Inspraak Orgaan) for minority organizations was set up in 1985 and in 1985 active and passive voting rights for alien residents in local elections were introduced (See Penninx 2005). 457. Already in the late 1970s policy advisors had questioned the idea that immigrants could, in actual fact, preserve and hold on to their cultural identity. The Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) had argued in 1979 that the slogan diverted attention away from the need for integration and adaptation. The council had argued that permanent immigrants could only successfully participate in Dutch society if there was a mutual adaptation of majorities and minorities, if immigrants respected the law and if the achievements of Dutch culture were protected (Scholten 2008: 104ff.; Minorities Bill 1983: 38-42). In 1985 a municipal memorandum in Rotterdam was even more outspoken and insisted that migrants should learn the Dutch language, show a willingness to adapt to the host society and should not “hold on too much to their own ‘identity’” (GR 1985: 14-16). 192 Constructing Mosques important lesson to be taken from the Dutch experience of pillarisation, was to see religion as “a force affecting all aspects of societal life”. Klop also thought that religion would remain impor- tant for immigrants and their offspring, whereas national and ethnic differences would slowly fade out. Therefore there were reasons to expect the forming of a kind of Dutch Islam that would eventually