The Legal and Cultural Clash Between Muslim Migrants From the Mena Region and European Countries
Yara Halabi, Research Assistant at The Arab Institute for Women, Lebanese American University
In 2015, the influx of perceivably Muslim refugees and migrants from the MENA region to Europe reached an all-time high, leading to strong media coverage and political debates socially and in parliament. According to the EU, successful integration is the key to prosperous and well-connected European societies. Integration, in this context, does not mean abandoning their culture. If anything, they may bring it with them, which in theory is welcomed in liberal nations. However, in some instances, clashes occur where the cultural practices of migrants violate the laws of European nations in their multicultural societies. One key point to consider is that the rule of law is expected to be adhered to by migrants and otherwise. If an Arab Muslim migrant’s cultural practice does violate national laws, then they may be subjected to intervention.
Italy has been witnessing a steady increase in migrant Muslims over the last decades. Yet, Islam is viewed as an exceptional case since practicing Muslim migrants may live a different lifestyle than Italians. A study conducted by Conti (2016) found opposing reactions to building a mosque in two cities in Italy. When the religious community in Bologna sought to build a mosque, the migrant’s relationship with locals was weak for several reasons. First, Muslims were residing on the city’s outskirts, so building a place of worship in the center was perceived as somewhat of an ‘invasion’. Second, there was heavy anti-Islamic rhetoric by local Catholic preachers, especially post-9/11. Third, first-generation Islamic leadership in Bologna did not encourage social integration and was relatively closed off. The local Italian authority saw Islam as an alien actor with potentially bad intentions due to decision-making based on ideological beliefs. Building a mosque shifted from a local request around constructing a place of worship to a national debate on critiquing religion. The decision-makers believed it clashed with Italian culture, such as their democratic values. On the other side, the Muslim leadership interpreted religious freedom as a community-based right, not a universal one—a belief that was viewed as an exploitative way to demand a mosque. In Florance, a diverse group of actors of intellectuals, politicians, and religious leaders came together to participate in a discussion about the request to build a local Mosque. The participatory process made the migrant Islamic community a legitimate local actor. Both sides adopted the same framework of pragmatism and adherence to universal rights as well as factoring in constitutional law, and each side saw the other as an equal decision-maker rather than an opponent. Furthermore, taking into consideration the legal approach with Article 8(2) of the Italian Constitution has enabled the integration of the new actors in Florance who were exercising their rights. After construction, the Muslim’s place of worship was not called the ‘Mosque of Muslims’ but the ‘City Mosque’. In both cases, it was about Muslim migrants becoming a permanent community and living among Italians in shared public spaces. The distinct difference remains in how multiculturalism is perceived, where both sides must be open and understand each other’s lifestyle as opposed to living closed off and isolated leading to misunderstandings and stereotypes. One outcome led to further hostility while the other led to a stronger local community.
Meanwhile in the north of Italy lies Germany, one of the most inviting countries for well over a million refugees seeking a better life. The nation is no stranger to multiculturalism with its progressive society, given its implementation of integration programs, including language classes, children’s programs, health care, and many more. What took Germany by surprise was the number of child brides and underage marriages. The legal dimension of marriage is derived from the German Civil Code and Constitution, whereby marriage may only be valid if it is entered before a registrar, and any religious practice in which most migrants take part makes no legal impact, according to Sections 1310 et seq. of the BGB and the first sentence of Section 11, paragraph 2 of the Civil Status Act. The article also states that the couple should be of legal age and can be refused if the criterion is not fulfilled based on the second sentence of that section. As minors are still developing individuals, the German state believes that it is their responsibility to protect them from harm and any circumstances in which they are the weaker party. As individuals, they should have the freedom to marry when they reach the age of majority. From an institutional perspective, Terre Des Femmes, a German non-profit organization committed to human rights for girls and women, wrote the following statement on their official website, “Religious or traditional marriages are also not allowed if you are not yet 18 years old. If your family is planning your marriage or engagement and invites guests for this event, this breaks the law …” Educating girls is part of ensuring that they are aware of their rights on German territory. Any girl under the threat of becoming a child bride would assimilate by abiding by the law. If parents do not abide, then there will be intervention on behalf of the German state. This issue was not a part of the mainstream political and social conversation since it is a national cultural practice. Therefore, Germany does intervene with Muslim migrant’s cultural practice of child marriage under a legal framework.
Looking to the west of Germany, the UK is home to over 3.8 million Muslims, making Shariah the unofficial law of the nation’s largest minority, as religious law is spiritually binding for Muslims and is believed to supersede national law. Muslim marriage in the UK has become a contentious topic where a clash of culture and law only occurs under certain circumstances, so it comes as a surprise to many Muslims that their marriage or “Nikah” is not automatically legally valid in the UK unless it is done in a registered building. If a couple chooses to perform the Nikah in an unregistered building, then they must go through the additional civil ceremony in a registered building. The study conducted by Myriam Francios with True Vision Aire in 2017 surveyed Muslim women regarding their marriage ceremony, and the results varied. First, 78% of women prefer to have their marriage legally recognized under national law. Only 60% were bound by Nikah, with 28% unaware that their marriage is not legal. This essentially means that 72% were aware of the lack of recognition for their marriage under English law. Lastly, more than two-thirds of the women in this group did not plan to register in the future. Vora (2020) found a gender-based reason for marrying without a civil ceremony. Even though consent is needed from both parties for the Nikah to take place according to Shariah law, it is common for women to be forced into it. They are unable to remedy the situation in English courts, so they seek help from the Shariah Council for a religious divorce. This may come with little financial remedy and may have an unequal distribution of assets. Other reasons for being forced into marriage include young couples not being able to date or have relationships because it is culturally frowned upon, leading them to prefer to ‘test run’ the marriage by having a religious ceremony. Lastly, because migrants of the same religion have become UK citizens, they believe that legal processes and necessities no longer matter. As seen, the UK does intervene in Muslim migrants’ marital affairs if they choose to be under English law, which provides more protection than Shariah law and offers a more equitable distribution of assets. English law is not actively pursuing unregistered marriages so legal consequences for migrant men are easily avoidable. There have been calls for amendments to the law in England and Wales by the Independent Review in 2018 but they have yet to pass.
The cultural practices of Muslim migrants will continue to be a topic of discussion in European governments as numbers continue to increase, especially since Muslims have become a sizable portion of European culture, economy, and society. So far, Germany has had the most ideal approach towards assimilating and integrating Muslim migrants from the MENA region and continues to tackle barriers between them while accepting their cultural differences. European countries should use it as a model, as there seems to be less friction between migrants and the host country in comparison to the remainder of Europe. Simultaneously, with continuous questions on how much leniency should be given to migrant cultures, using the law is not confined to a single purpose. Legal intervention can either be used to confirm that the cultural practice is acceptable or deem it a violation of the law. Thus, there’s this tension where Muslim migrants will either accept that their cultural practice is a violation of the law and assimilate or face consequences, in turn further fueling the political debates of whether they should be allowed into the country in the first place.