forged in the European and American courts of jus-
tice. As a general rule, negotiation is suitable in all
aspects of family life. The recognition of individual
freedom and the taking into account of each party’s
best interest leads to compromises that change not
only the letter but also the spirit of the Islamic
norms, stripping them of the meanings they have in
Islamic societies. One example of this transforma-
tion, which sheds light on how a Muslim can be
“acclimatized” to the norms of Western law, con-
cerns the length of the commonly accepted period
of viduity. The traditional law on the required
amount of time that must elapse before remarriage
cannot be followed to the letter in European soci-
eties. Inheritance rules offer another example of the
way practices translated for the new context de-
monstrate flexibility. Once again, Islamic precepts
(two parts for each son compared to one part per
daughter) cannot always be strictly adhered to,
especially within those legal systems influenced by
Roman law (Roman law ensures that each descen-
dant is equally respected under the law). It is in
matters of repudiation that the changes are the
most profound, but also the most difficult to iden-
tify. Even though repudiation can still officially
take place in the eyes of the religious group, it may
have been unofficially initiated by the wife herself.
Moreover, repudiation is increasingly discussed by
both partners. The fact that man and wife may
respect traditional Islamic law cannot therefore
predetermine a situation of oppression or inequal-
ity within the marriage. The decline of polygamy
and negotiation in matters of repudiation are thus
the two main elements of transformation within
Muslim law within the context of democracy.Individual freedoms
undermined?
Finally, the risk often associated with the incor-
poration of Islam into Western society is that of a
breech of individual freedoms, especially for
women. The dilemma between individual freedom
and the rights of minorities (which has solidified
the opposition between liberals and communi-
tarists) often serves as a reference framework for
controversy. For the liberals, the highest of political
values resides in individual freedom; they thus
applaud the individual emancipation in all pre-
scribed and inherited statutes. On the contrary,
communitarists denounce the conception of the
autonomous individual as mere fiction, and em-
phasize the importance of social determinisms and
power relationships. Either the group is produced32 citizenship
by individual practices, or the individual is pro-
duced by group practices: such are the alternatives
that subtend the opposition between the two view-
points. However, concrete observation of ethnic
needs/demands, including those made in the name
of Islam, reveal that most groups attempt on a daily
basis to reconcile regard for individual freedom
with the acknowledgment of specific cultures. The
famous opposition between individual rights and
collective rights thus appears more of a theoretical
question than one based in social reality. What we
are witnessing is more of an attempt at integration
that also preserves religious, cultural, or ethnic dif-
ferences. The debate on forced marriages in the
British context illustrates the ethnic resistance to
the recognition of individual freedom that is cov-
ered by Islamic arguments and denounced by some
Muslims. The relevant question is thus how the
protection of specific subcultures can favor individ-
ual emancipation instead of stifling it.
As we have seen, acknowledgment of Islam’s
specific characteristics within Western societies
does not resemble, by far, a structured program for
recognition of a Muslim minority endowed with
special rights, but occurs in fragments within two
main sectors: organization of worship and family
life. The vast majority of Muslims have adapted to
this situation as is shown, for example, by the lack
of demand that Sharì≠a be applied. Moreover, these
same Muslims are engaged in a vast process of
theological and philosophical legitimization of
their condition as a minority. This could be experi-
enced as a limitation, but is, in fact, perceived as
emancipatory. On the other hand, whole sections of
Western societies consider inappropriate, even
scandalous, certain positions or requests which
could quite easily be met within the framework of
existing common law. This is, for example, the case
with the headscarf in the French secular context.
The ™ijàb worn in public schools is seen as a sign of
the oppression of the female while some Muslim
women claim that any law that bans it violates their
right to religious expression. This divergence be-
tween Muslims and non-Muslims is affecting the
process of recognition of Islam in secular European
societies.Bibliography
A. Alund and K.-U. Schierup, Paradoxes of multicultural-
ism. Essays on Swedish society, Aldershot, Hants.,
England 1991.
J. Cesari, When Islam and democracy meet. Muslims in
Europe and the United States, New York 2004.
N. Glazer, We are all multicultural now, Cambridge 1997.
M. Kenan, The perils of pluralism. A re-examination of