It’s not a magic formula

ICD: where does it start and end? Which actors are involved? Is culture a channel or the object of dialogue If secular institutions do not do religion, how can they engage in interfaith work through ICD? Despite this, many EU policymakers now see ICD as the magic formula to engage with Muslim communities within and beyond Europe, with four main factors driving this interest in ICD and Islam.Internally, there is concern about the implications of the growing number of Muslims in Europe for the future of its social, cultural, economic, legal and political fabric. On the external front, the EU’s approach towards countries with a predominantly Muslim population is sometimes unclear. In particular, it is caught in a dilemma over whether – and to what extent – it should engage in political dialogue with Islamist political actors. Turkey’s bid for EU membership also poses a number of questions about the impact this might have on Europe’s identity and, possibly, the role of religion in the public sphere. Finally, the various attacks carried out across the world by terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam have created a general atmosphere of suspicion towards Muslims, particularly over the last six years. EU Member States are determined to promote social cohesion and prevent discrimination, including against Muslims.ICD can be useful, but is not a panacea. It has meaning and effect only if it does not remain a dry formula, and is accompanied by a number of practical initiatives (especially in the social sector) which are not just specifically focused on Islam or on cultural events. Indeed, concentrating solely on Muslims could pose a double risk: that Muslims may become even more isolated if they are singled out all the time for exclusive projects; and that the overall social fabric could be damaged if other minority and non-Muslim communities are not involved. It is also important to avoid ICD becoming a sterile public relations exercise. The EU has reinterpreted the concept in an original way and needs to be faithful to this interpretation to bring about change and promote trust between individuals and communities as well as institutions. If the Union wants to develop strategies for a productive interaction with Europe’s Muslim population, it should engage first and foremost with the variety of voices and institutions of those who are European citizens. It is a basic principle of international law that the rights and duties of citizens are domestic issues, rather than foreign policy questions, and should be regulated by sovereign European states and EU institutions. However, given that a sizeable proportion of Muslims living in Europe are still citizens of Muslim countries and given that the EU has bilateral relations with these countries, communication with them and with such institutions as the OIC should not be neglected either.Multilevel dialogue with all groups of Muslims living in Europe should be encouraged. Hence, the creation of formal Muslim institutions, sponsored by EU governments seeking to bring together all these voices and channel their concerns and claims more effectively, should not be considered the only way forward. They are only welcome if it is made clear that these are not representative bodies but just tentative forms of consultation. Furthermore, any attempt to organise these initiatives around the idea of promoting moderate Islam should be avoided. This would risk deepening existing divisions between different versions of Islam, and creating artificial forms of leadership and hierarchies that do not exist in the tradition and history of Islam