Content uploaded by Alexander-Kenneth Nagel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alexander-Kenneth Nagel on Jul 31, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
©- , |: ./_
Precarious Companionship
Discourses of Adversity and Commonality in Jewish- Muslim Dialogue
Initiatives in Germany
Alexander- Kenneth Nagel and Dekel Peretz
1 Introduction
“Jewish community leaves Council of Religions”, reported the Jüdische
Allgemeine (04.08.2014), a German- speaking Jewish newspaper. The Jewish
community in Frankfurt had decided to leave the Council after internal con-
icts about antisemitic statements by Muslim representatives. The former
president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Dieter Graumann, blamed
Muslim associations for their idleness in response to antisemitism; while the
Central Council had always spoken on behalf of Muslims in Germany, now
Muslims supposedly failed to show their solidarity with Jews. Even though the
Jewish community re- joined the Council of Religions three years later, the inci-
dent points to the fragility of organized interreligious relations in general and
the ambivalence of Jewish- Muslim relations in particular.
Muslims and Jews are an integral part of interreligious activism in Germany;
in fact, the neologism ‘trialogue’ has emerged to denote the usual ‘Abrahamic’
conguration of interreligious encounter (Schweitzer 2019). A common
denominator in this triangular setting is the prominence (not to say hegem-
ony) of Christian actors and contents vis- à- vis Jews and Muslims as religious
minorities. The relationship between Christians and Muslims is often based
on a notion of diference and a certain impetus of integration. In contrast, the
relationship between Christians and Jews is often marked by a notion of unity,
which takes form under the rubric of shared Judeo- Christian roots and may be
associated with a paternal form of religious inclusivism.
The third relationship in this triangle, i.e. between Jews and Muslims, is
afected by the diferent relationships to majority Christian society and the
state as well as other factors. In theological terms, they share a stricter notion
of monotheism as compared to Christians; in global political terms, local
All translations from German are by the authors.
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Jewish- Muslim encounter takes place in the shadow of the Middle East con-
ict as well as radical Islamic terror attacks in Europe; in domestic political
terms, they pursue similar interests, i.e. regarding circumcision and halal or
kosher butchering.
In this article, we explore how this multi- layered setting shapes Jewish-
Muslim relations within interreligious initiatives in Germany. In our under-
standing, interreligious activities are organized events of encounter between
adherents of at least two religious traditions which are based on a program-
matic notion of religious diference (Nagel 2019, 112). Interreligious initiatives
are institutional collectives which plan and carry out these events. Our focus on
organized encounters promises insights into the institutional logic of Jewish-
Muslim interaction. In the following, we will briey embed our approach in
the state of Germany- based research on interreligious dialogue and touch on
debates about Muslim antisemitism and Jewish- Muslim relations. In section
two, we will elaborate on our methods and research design, and use sections
three and four to discuss discourses of adversity and commonality between
Jews and Muslims in two diferent dialogue settings in some more detail. In
section ve, we provide a comparative discussion and conclusion.
Scholarly debates on interreligious dialogue have long fallen under the pur-
view of systematic or practical theology, whereas in recent years we have seen
the emergence of a new strand of discussion from the vantage points of soci-
ology and social anthropology. In the theological branch of the debate, earlier
contributions explored the religious content and foundations of interreligious
understanding or aimed at a more comprehensive theology of religions with-
out focusing specically on Jewish- Muslim relations (Hick 2002; Knitter et al.
2013). Recently, a special issue on Muslim- Jewish dialogue was published. The
editors suggest that the marginal nature of Jewish- Muslim dialogue is rooted
in “political interests” rather than “religious diferences.” (Riemer et al. 2016, 8).
Another recent anthology collects a wide range of historical analyses on
“the contributions of Jews and Muslims to the history of Europe” (Aslan and
Rausch 2019, v). The authors explore the myth of interreligious conviviality in
Al- Andalus and its implications for Jewish- Muslim relations in contemporary
Europe. One essay critically refers to the notion of ‘trialogue’ as some “well
intended and positive idea of including the three religions at the same time –
Judaism, Christianity and Islam – [which] is more an image, a symbol or an ideal
than a practical reality” (Schweitzer 2019, 216). Another essay addresses the
hegemonic foundations of European discourses on the “integration” of Jewish
and Muslim minorities in a similar deconstructive vein (Bodenheimer 2019).
Apart from the research on Jewish- Muslim relations in the framework
of interreligious dialogue, social scientists have addressed the complex
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
-
relationship between Jews and Muslims. Some authors scrutinize the function
of Muslim antisemitism in terms of community and German nation building
(Dantschke 2010). Others focus on how Jewish- Muslim encounters on the local
level challenge national narratives (Becker 2019). The superdiversity (Vertovec
2007) of Jews and Muslims in Germany comes to light in works focusing on sub-
groups such as Israelis and Palestinians (Atshan and Galor 2020). This super-
diversity is also highlighted in works on the function of memorial culture and
Holocaust commemoration in competition or empathy with the victimhood
of other groups. For example, refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan per-
ceive the Holocaust as giving them a universal language to express their own
sufering (Arnold and König 2018). In contrast, Palestinians feel that German
memorial culture does not leave space for their own victimhood (Atshan and
Galor 2020, 22– 24).
The possibility of a shared minority consciousness and experience with pol-
itics of social inclusion and exclusion is expressed in the research of Yurdakul
and Bodemann on how Turkish immigrants relate to Jews as a prototypical
minority to claim group rights. They note that “Turkish leaders in Germany use
the German Jewish trope to establish associational ties, organize campaigns
against antisemitism and racism, and make claims to German state authori-
ties” (Yurdakul und Bodemann 2006). In another contribution, Yurdakul uses
debates on circumcision to showcase how diferent (legal, medical and media)
discourses work together in stigmatizing and criminalizing Jews and Muslims
as religious and ethnic minorities. She suggests “to critically look at how social
actors of minority groups challenge the existing socio- legal discourses through
their religious practices and bodily performances” (Yurdakul 2016, S. 84).
As our research will show, these challenges are not reserved to the religious
domain. They should be perceived within a broader contemporary discussion
questioning the seemingly natural distinction between Germans and migrants
in a ‘postmigrant society,’ in which migration stands for a broad spectrum of
diversity issues, and question of identity, belonging and representation are
tenaciously renegotiated. (Yildiz 2018; Foroutan 2018).
For our own approach, each strand of the interdisciplinary state of research
on Jewish- Muslim relations ofers an important facet: Social scientic debates
on interreligious dialogue point to the power asymmetries and pitfalls of rep-
resentation, which shape organized interreligious encounter. It translates into
the question: “who speaks on behalf of whom?” Another important aspect is
the ceremonial nature of interreligious dialogue, which raises the question
“who is put on stage for which audience?” Finally, debates on Jewish- Muslim
conict and companionship underline the ambivalence of their relationship,
which may be articulated in discourses of adversity as well as commonality.
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
In the following, we set out to analyse these discourses in two diferent
spheres of interreligious dialogue. The rst sphere is local dialogue initiatives
in the Ruhr area, based on a rationale of ‘trialogue’ or ‘world religions.’ The
metropolitan area Rhine Ruhr is one of the biggest urban agglomerations in
Continental Europe and marked by a high degree of religious diversity (Hero
et al. 2008). The second sphere is translocal dialogue activities in which sup-
posedly only Muslims and Jews are involved. Our sample reects two diferent
time periods: 2012 when the circumcision debate was prominent, and 2020
when dialogue as many other spheres of life had moved on to digital platforms
due to the Covid- 19 pandemic.
2 Methods and Data
In this article, we rely on two case studies to analyse how Jewish- Muslim rela-
tions are being framed in organized interreligious dialogue initiatives. In doing
so, we put particular emphasis on the discourses of adversity and commonality
that can be observed and the tropes that are being used to transgress or high-
light interreligious boundaries.
In the rst case we focus on local interreligious dialogue initiatives in the
Ruhr area. The dialogue initiatives in our sample organize a variety of interre-
ligious activities including roundtables, peace prayers, neighbourhood meet-
ings or bigger events (see Nagel 2012 for a systematic comparison). While all
these activities are built on the idea of creating tolerance and trust through
interreligious understanding, they difer as to their guiding notion of religious
diversity. For instance, neighbourhood meetings address all religious groups
in a given area and hence exhibit a higher degree of intrareligious diver-
sity whereas classical dialogue formats usually involve a distinct pattern of
‘Abrahamic’ or ‘world religious’ representation. Typically, the activities involve
an elderly educated middle- class audience and an academic or ecclesiastical
pattern of social interaction, e.g. panels, talks, moderated discussion or a joint
ritual performance based on a clear protocol.
Data gathering for the rst case mainly took place in the years 2011 and
2012. The database consists of 27 semi- structured interviews with religious
representatives who were engaged in local interreligious activism. The inter-
views were conducted in diferent large and middle- sized towns in the Ruhr
area including Bochum, Bottrop, Dortmund, Duisburg, Gelsenkirchen, Hamm,
Marl, Recklinghausen, Unna and Witten. The interview guidelines focused on
a) the scope of activities in which a community was involved, b) the moti-
vation for interreligious participation and c) the relationship between the
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
-
diferent religious communities. The relationship between Muslims and Jews
was not part of the guidelines; nevertheless, many actors deliberately ofered
comments and reections in this regard. On the one hand, this general obser-
vation reects the relevance of Jewish- Muslim relations in the wider interre-
ligious network; on the other hand, it was a result of the circumcision debate,
which reached a climax in 2012.
In the second case study, we focus on digital encounters and the rep-
resentation of dialogue specically between Jews and Muslims. These did
not aim to bring together local communities, but rather target multipliers
such as students, professionals, or intellectuals. They were designed as ideal
examples, encouraging local communities to initiate Jewish- Muslim dia-
logue. The underlying assumption in providing guidance by example is that
encounters between Jews and Muslims are rare and conicted thus requiring
careful navigation and moderation. A further anomaly that seems to call for
special guidance is the supposed exclusion of the Christian majority from the
conversation.
These digital dialogue formats were originally designed as panel discussions
taking place in diferent cities in Germany organised by three diferent initia-
tives, which were all confronted at an early stage with the restrictions of the
Covid- 19 pandemic on travel and public gatherings. In accordance with global
trends, they quickly adopted digital formats – mainly video- conferences on
social media. They retained the panel discussion format while the audience
became more anonymous and translocal. The initiative Schalom Aleikum
was started by the Central Council of Jews in Germany with support from the
federal government but without an ocial institutional Muslim partner. The
name of the program is a hybridization of the Hebrew and Arabic greeting
“peace be with you” implying a cultural anity between Jews and Muslims.
The second initiative is called Karov- Qareeb – Jewish- Muslim Think Tank
using the respective Hebrew and Arabic words for proximity. It is a spin of by
the Jewish and Muslim academic scholarship funds ( and Avicenna) from
the interfaith student encounter and exchange program Dialogperspektiven.
The last initiative, called Days of Jewish- Muslim Core Culture, was a series of
events curated by the Maxim Gorki Theater in Berlin, known for promoting
matters of diversity.
We think of our comparative approach as a ‘Most Diferent Systems’ research
design (see Anckar 2008) as both cases are forms of organized interreligious
encounter, but difer in a lot of other dimensions, such as their time period,
localization, religious scope, audience and the dominant pattern of interac-
tion (see table 4.1). In such a design, we would expect diferent expressions of
the ambivalence of the Jewish- Muslim relationship with regard to the forms
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
and proportion of discourses of adversity and commonality and the tropes or
myths of diference and unity which they draw on.
In terms of data analysis, we relate to a tradition of discourse analysis, rooted
in the Sociology of Knowledge (Keller 2011). In doing so, we analyse both the
content structure and the narrative performance of our data to identify rel-
evant tropes and strands of discourse on the relationship between Jews and
Muslims in Germany. Following up on the initial critical remarks on ‘trialogue’
as a specic framework for organized interreligious encounter, we also care-
fully look at the conguration between various speakers and audiences. Our
analysis of interreligious discourses on Jewish- Muslim relations departs from
the contrast between discourses of adversity and discourses of commonality. It
is important to note here that we deliberately use this dichotomist distinction
as a heuristic tool to elucidate various discursive strands and tropes.
3 Jewish- Muslim Relations in Local Interreligious Dialogue
3.1 Case Study Settings
The rst case is Jewish- Muslim relations as part of local interreligious activities
in the Ruhr area. These activities are single (or a series of) events, which bring
together adherents of diferent religious traditions in a format of discussion
. Case studies: comparative overview
Local interreligious
dialogue
Digital Jewish- Muslim
dialogue
Time period 2011/ 12; circumcision
debate
2020/ 21; Covid- 19 pandemic
Localization Localized, city or district
level; in- person
Translocal, digital
Religious scope ‘Abrahamic’, ‘world
religious’
Jewish- Muslim
Audience/
participants
Elderly educated middle
class
Invisible online audience,
intellectual elite,
professional groups
Pattern of
interaction
Academic or
ecclesiastical
Academic, ecclesiastical,
diversity politics
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
-
and exchange or mutual religious practice. Classic formats of interreligious
dialogue usually involve a panel discussion by representatives of religious
communities on dogmatic (sin, the relation between man and the divine)
or ethical questions (care for elderly people, gender roles). In contrast, other
activities, such as peace prayers and neighbourhood meetings, seek to create
strong symbols of interreligious conviviality through joint religious practice
or local festivals. Regardless of the format and the guiding notion of religious
diversity (‘Abrahamic’ or ‘world religions’), Jewish and Muslim participants are
an integral part of the interreligious setting.
At the same time, they face similar organizational challenges: whereas
the Christian mainline churches have professionalized their interreligious
engagement by appointing regional commissioners, local Jewish and Muslim
communities often lack the resources and the critical mass to participate in
interreligious activities on eye level. In addition, both communities spend
many of their resources to cope with issues relating to the migration back-
ground of their members (Kiesel 2007). Today, most of the members of Jewish
communities in Germany have immigrated from former Soviet states where
they were highly restricted in practicing their religion. Consequently, Jewish
communities have been busy supporting not only the structural and social
integration of their members, but also their religious education. Likewise,
Muslim communities are not only places of worship, but also welfare organi-
zations (Halm und Sauer 2015). In the data for the rst case, several interview
partners note the absence of Jewish actors and argue that the Holocaust has
destroyed all forms of Jewish community life in Germany, which now needs to
be reorganized from scratch. The discourse on Muslim actors is not so much
about absence, but about reliability and qualication. Some of our interlocu-
tors express their regret about the uctuation of Muslim dialogue partners or
their lack of German language skills.
In sum, both Jewish and Muslim communities are expected to participate
in interreligious activities based on a rationale of ‘Abrahamic’ or ‘world reli-
gious’ completeness. It seems that Jewish communities often respond to the
dissonance between expectation and capacities by not sending a represent-
ative at all whereas Muslim communities feel a stronger urge to participate
in order to counter anti- Muslim resentment (Rückamp 2021). In some cases,
these external expectations are channelled through local political or adminis-
trative authorities who are involved in interreligious initiatives. In our sample,
state actors, such as the mayor, urban planners, police and integration ocers,
took part in several activities. Their role ranged from passive involvement over
technical assistance to active forms of mediation and networking. In some
cases, they even arranged their own interreligious events, such as a reception
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
in the town hall or the initiation of a new interreligious roundtable in a mul-
ticultural district. Regardless of their degree of intervention, the presence of
these actors constitutes a public stage for interreligious activism, which also
shapes the ambivalent relationship between Jews and Muslims as we show in
the following subsection.
3.2 Discourses of Adversity
In our data, we identied three main strands of adversity discourse: dialogue
under the shadow of the Palestinian- Israeli conict, Muslim antisemitism
and a distinction between diferent stages of Jewish- Muslim encounter.
Similar to the initial example of the Council of Religions in Frankfurt, many
of our interlocutors pointed to the Palestinian- Israeli conlict as a major chal-
lenge for Jewish- Muslim encounter in Germany. A Jewish spokesperson illus-
trates how global conicts overshadow the outreach activities of the local
synagogue:
Last year, we ofered guided tours and then there were people who
said: ‘but there are these conicts between Israel and Palestine. What
is the stance of your community to that and what do the members of
your community think?’ … And then I say: ‘The people who live here in
Germany are German Jews. Even when they have immigrated, they do
not come from Israel and if they did come from Israel then they had a
reason. You cannot blame the people here for what is happening in the
world.’
The statement is based on a clear distinction between Jews in Germany and
Israel. In the opinion of our interview partner, “German Jews” should not be
held responsible for what happens in Israel. Some have no attachment at
all, and others even left the country in protest against Israeli politics. This
approach is provincial in the sense that it seeks to ‘purify’ encounter by dis-
entangling the local and global relevance structure of being Jewish. A similar
strategy of purication relies on the demarcation of the ‘political nature’ of the
Palestinian- Israeli conict in contrast to the ‘religious nature’ of local encoun-
ter (Nagel 2019; Riemer et al. 2016). In a similar vein, another Jewish represent-
ative holds that he would not usually put the transnational connections on
display. “We are a German Jewish community, not some outpost of Israel,” he
claims. However, the fact that he decided to celebrate the 60th anniversary of
Israel in a prominent setting, apparently upon an initiative of the local mayor,
demonstrates the uidity of discourses in accommodating contrasting expec-
tations within the ‘trialogue’ framework.
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
-
Outside of the Jewish spectrum, Muslim representatives in our sample
did not address the Palestinian- Israeli conict at all whereas Christian inter-
view partners were very vocal and concerned about it. One Protestant pastor
referred to an information event of the wider church district on the “Israel-
Palestine conict.” On the one hand, he rejects the claim to boycott goods from
Israel, on the other hand, he warns against “misjudging the Arab problem and
ignoring the Palestinians’ cry of distress [Notschrei].”
While the rst strand of adversity discourse navigates the boundary
between the local and the global as well as political and religious grounds of
conicts, a second strand is concerned with Muslim antisemitism in Germany.
Our interlocutors report several instances of what they perceive to be Muslim
resentments against Jews. A Jewish representative reects on the role of
national diferences as he observes that North African mosque communities
were more likely to take the Jewish side in contrast to Turkish communities,
which organized solidarity events for Palestine. He attributes the diferences
to a stronger role of Turkish nationalism, which paves the way for imported
antisemitism.
A Muslim representative of a local interreligious women council provides
an interesting vignette of an Iftar (breaking the fast) event. A mosque commu-
nity had extended a broad invitation for a joint Iftar. After a rumour had spread
that a Jewish lady was participating, some of the Muslim women refused to sit
and eat with her. Our interlocutor points out how her husband, a member of
the community board, resolved the situation by ofering an explanation for the
dismissive behaviour: “What can I say? These are elderly people with a migra-
tion background who cannot read and write – not educated. These are simple
people.” The vignette illustrates how Muslim antisemitism may play out in a
context of dialogue and commensality even in a community that is used to
navigating interreligious settings. In contrast to the previous example, it refers
to sociocultural factors, such as a lack of education, to explain antisemitic
behaviour.
A third strand of adversity discourse is concerned with the relevance of
Muslim antisemitism on diferent stages of Jewish- Muslim encounter. In this
regard, a Jewish representative noted: “particularly within the Muslim com-
munity there are groups with which we would not sit at one table.… Which
does not mean that there is no informal conversation, but I cannot ocially sit
at on table with people who are antisemites.” The statement establishes a dis-
tinction between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ contexts of organized Jewish- Muslim
encounter and underlines that interreligious activism has a frontstage as well
as a backstage. Religious communities are aware of that and consider it as part
of their impression management in the urban environment. The involvement
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
of public authorities enhances the visibility of interreligious activism and
therefore may entail a more restrictive denition of boundaries.
3.3 Discourses of Commonality
In contrast to adversity discourse, discourses of commonality did not feature
as strongly in our sample, which is surprising given the dialogical setting and
the emphasis of a shared minority experience in the literature. Roughly, we
could distinguish three strands of commonality discourse: common causes,
common experiences, and theological reections on conviviality.
Commonality through common causes refers to shared interests in terms
of circumcision and ritual butchering. The director of an urban multicultural
centre brings up the notion of a “Jewish- Muslim alliance on the local as well as
on the federal level” since “as far as circumcision is concerned, they sit in the
same boat.” Another vignette sheds light on the implications of this alliance in
everyday life: all kindergartens in a city in the central Ruhr had adopted a ‘no
pork’ policy which led to a debate in the local Muslim community about dif-
ferent suppliers of halal meat. Some suggested avoiding a specic shop “since
the owner is a Jew and you cannot eat that. And then I said: you know what?
If he is Jewish, then you should only buy in his shop! They have 163 laws for
ritual butchering while Muslims have three.” Our interview partner evokes a
sense of common interest to counter and overlay antisemitic resentments. In
doing so, she pulls up a theological argument implying that the Jewish dietary
rules are stricter than Islamic. Day- care too seems to be an important domain
of Jewish- Muslim companionship. A Jewish spokesperson explains that the
establishment of a Jewish kindergarten opens up new opportunities for inter-
religious dialogue: “We are a Jewish kindergarten with Christian, Jewish and
Muslim children, but our staf as well is Christian, Jewish and Muslim; you will
only nd that here!”
A second strand refers to a common minority experience which Jews and
Muslims share beyond concrete political interests. In the words of a spokes-
person of a local Jewish community which organizes youth camps to empower
adolescents to embrace their religious identity: “It is not always easy to become
a Jew, or a minority, in a class where you are the only Jew or Muslim and the
rest are Christian or neutral. And you are religious [gläubig] and it is not always
easy.” The statement indicates the structural similarity between the minority
experience of Jewish and Muslim youth and subsumes it under the rubric of
‘religious’ vs. ‘non- religious’.
In a similar vein, a Muslim interview partner reects on historical parallels
between Jews and Muslims in Germany: “When I look at the Weimar Republic,
when I look at the media of that time, I realize that what they used to write
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
-
about Jews back then, they now write about Islam, Muslims”. The quotation is
embedded in wider concerns about right- wing populism and xenophobia in
Germany; in fact, the interlocutor decided to relocate to Turkey shortly after
the interview. Unlike the rst example, the trope of ‘Muslims as the Jews of
today’ conveys a sense of commonality that is based on a notion of historical
analogy rather than actual similarity. This may also afect the internal congu-
ration of Jewish- Muslim relations: in the rst case, Jews and Muslims are actors
on eye- level whereas in the second case Muslims may consider themselves in
need of symbolic protection and advocacy from the Jewish side.
A third strand of commonality discourse is rooted in theological relections
on interreligious conviviality. For instance, a Muslim representative in our sam-
ple refers to the notion of Jews and Christians as “People of the Book” [ahl al-
kitāb]. She evokes the concept as a theological instance of religious tolerance,
which creates a common ground for encounter between Jews and Muslims. In
a similar vein, a Christian representative points to the Jewish background of
Christianity: “Jesus was a Jew, Paul was a Jew, all the apostles, Maria, Josef, all
Jews, of course. Did you think they were Christian or what? Afterwards they
were Christians.” The statement stands as an exemple for a strategy to establish
commonality by recourse to common roots. At the same time, it underlines the
challenges of a possessive inclusivism as it suggests that Judaism had somehow
been ‘resolved’ by Christianity.
4 Jewish- Muslim Relations in Social Media
4.1 Case Study Settings
In our rst case study we investigated discourses of commonality and adver-
sity in local interreligious activities. Now we examine what happens when
interreligious dialogue changes in two main respects: focus on direct dialogue
between Jews and Muslims and transition into a digital space and social media.
The focus on direct dialogue between Jews and Muslims in Germany seems
to have started after the time span covered in our rst case study. However,
further research is necessary to determine the development of Jewish- Muslim
dialogue and the involvement of grassroots initiatives, religious institutions,
and policy makers in this process.
The main impetus for the transition into the digital space was the Covid-
19 global pandemic that began in Europe in early 2020 expediting digitaliza-
tion of all spheres of social and commercial life. Some interreligious dialogue
groups transplanted their encounters to video conferencing services such as
Zoom, thus retaining the feeling of a safe space for communal encounters
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
while allowing for some translocal participation and cooperation. These meet-
ings were however not recorded and presented on social media and thus not
our main focus.
Instead, we spotlighted three initiatives with a strong presence on social
media during the pandemic. For the most part, they presented a panel discus-
sion recorded through video conferencing services (or a hybrid of in person
and video chatting). These were live streamed and saved on online platforms
such as Facebook and YouTube. The privacy and safe space to engage with cul-
tural and religious diference ofered in local dialogue formats is replaced by
(theoretically) perpetual exposure of the panelists and the few in the audi-
ence who ask questions and make comments on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
and other social media platforms. In exchange, the outreach of such events
is a multifold compared with in- person events reaching thousands of view-
ers on social media (viewing duration and audience composition is however
unknown).
One aspect that all these initiatives share is that they are all supported by
public funds. Therefore, the question of their linkage to public policy empha-
sized at the outset and expounded upon in our rst case study is relevant here
as well. Another commonality is the presentation of these initiatives as radical
and innovative and of those partaking in it as a vanguard or pioneers. In their
videos, they call upon the public to emulate their dialogue formats and provide
guidelines to that end in publications (de Boor et al. 2020, 101– 121).
4.2 Discourses of Adversity
Two of the main discourses of adversity discussed in the rst case study in a
general interfaith dialogue setting are also present in direct Jewish- Muslim dia-
logue presented on social media. The adversity discourses are the Palestinian-
Israeli conict, Muslim antisemitism and competitive victimhood. However,
once the dialogue supposedly ceases to be a ‘trialogue,’ the emphasis shifts
from the adversity and conict we observed in our rst case study to common-
ality and harmony. To demonstrate this process, we will draw on diferent strat-
egies of blurring boundaries surfacing through ‘incidents of embarrassment’
(Nagel 2019), which threaten the symbolic goal of the Jewish- Muslim dialogue
on the publicly exposed stage of social media.
The Palestinian- Israeli conict seemed to lurk beneath the surface of
the conversations but was hardly articulated. When it came up it was trans-
formed into potential for commonality. For example, Muslim protagonists
implemented a strategy of ‘trivialization’ in accounts of their travels to Israel.
Adversity was introduced into the conversation as warnings from their social
surroundings and their own inhibitions against the trip. However, the panelists
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
-
restored harmony by emphasizing how during the visit they discovered many
cultural similarities between Israel and their native countries. Further, a Jewish
panelist noted that even the Middle East is changing. Now that more Arab
countries are making peace with Israel in the so- called Abrahamic Accords, he
is hopeful that Berlin’s alleged conviviality between Jews and Muslims will pre-
vail in the Middle East, too. He thus made use of the strategy of ‘purication’
by emphasizing that the conict between Jews and Muslims was not innate or
religious but was rooted in politics.
The connection between criticism of Israeli politics and antisemitism was
also a part of the second strand of adversity: Muslim antisemitism. However,
attempts at harmonization were also salient here. From the start, Muslim anti-
semitism was not glossed over but specically addressed. Some of the Muslim
speakers selected for the virtual panels were engaged in combating antisemi-
tism in their own communities and related their experience. Fighting antisem-
itism and anti- Muslim racism was presented as the main goal of Jewish- Muslim
dialogue. This goal includes antisemitism among Muslims, anti- Muslim racism
among Jews and both in majority society (Christians).
The comparison between the two prejudices was the only issue of conten-
tion in an otherwise meticulously staged harmony. It occurred when a Jewish
panelist argued that the two prejudices should not be put on equal level, not
only because of their theoretical diferences, but because many Jews have
painfully experienced Muslim antisemitism. The other panelists implemented
a strategy of ‘polarization’ in their reaction to this ‘incident of embarrass-
ment.’ They emphasized the threat from the far right and the prevalence of
antisemitism and anti- Muslim racism in mainstream German society. Further,
other expressions of prejudice in German majority society such as sexism and
homophobia were also addressed by panelists. This enables the expansion of
Jewish- Muslim dialogue to other marginalized communities as a basis for a
new dialogue critical of Christian hegemony and open to participants from
communities outside the religious sphere, i.e. transcending the ‘Abrahamic’ or
‘world religious.’
The third discourse of adversity is competitive victimhood. Jewish- Muslim
dialogue is not held in a vacuum. Policy makers and representatives of the
(Christian) majority society are involved in setting the agenda and framework
of the conversation and occasionally as moderators or panelists. Additionally,
the majority society remains the deliberate and maybe even main audience
of these conversations addressing questions to the panelists through social
media channels. But even without direct intervention, the marginalizing per-
ceptions of the majority society and its media are omnipresent in their shap-
ing of the discourse between Jews and Muslims. In that sense, dialogue is never
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
really a dialogue but always a ‘trialogue.’ Jews and Muslims recount diferent
experiences of Othering in everyday life and through the media and engage in
comparison even when not always explicit. Some diferences are connected
to visibility – religious Muslim women versus Jewish men being the most eas-
ily recognizable. Others refer to discrimination history making or rejecting
comparisons between past discrimination culminating in the Holocaust and
present- day discrimination, as discussed in the discourse of common minority
experience in our rst case study. To mitigate competitive victimhood a strat-
egy of ‘polarization’ is implemented. Self- denition vis- à- vis majority society
is often portrayed as succumbing to divide and rule politics that are detrimen-
tal to both minorities. Instead, they should redene inclusion and exclusion
together through solidarity and closing ranks to achieve the common goal of a
pluralistic society in Germany.
4.3 Discourses of Commonality
In contrast to our rst case study, in which interfaith dialogue was heavy on
discourses of adversity, discourses of commonality prevailed in direct Jewish-
Muslim dialogue. We could distinguish three strands of commonality dis-
course: common causes, common minority experiences and diversity as a
counterpoint to identity. Although the rst two are similar in structure to the
rst case study, they are quite diferent in content.
Common causes remained an important strand in discourses of commonal-
ity. However, the focus was less on religious commonalities – unless a Christian
moderator was involved in the conversation. The most salient causes were not
connected to religious freedom but to increasing visibility and awareness in
German society. The conversations were strongly afected by the right- wing,
antisemitic and racist attacks that occurred in various German cities in the
years 2019 and 2020, as well as the storming of the German parliament build-
ing by right- wing radical groups during a demonstration against Covid- 19
regulations. Participants often emphasized that the dividing lines in German
society were not religious or ethnic (depending how they referred to being
Jewish or Muslim) but between those that respect the values of the constitu-
tion and those that do not and are therefore a danger to democracy. In accord-
ance, participants called for a shift in the emphasis of Jewish- Muslim dialogue
from common grounds to common goals. This means abandoning the empha-
sis on overlapping commonalities in otherwise distinct identities, because
this form of identity discourse dialectically strengthens the consciousness of
an unbridgeable ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Instead they plead for coalition- building for
two main goals: the strengthening of democracy and increasing visibility of
diversity.
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
-
Direct Jewish- Muslim dialogue presented on social media platforms also
ofers a diferent take on the common minority experiences recounted in our
rst case study. Participants seek to overcome competitive victimhood as well
as the overarching narrative of animosity between Jews and Muslims that
called for direct conversation between these two groups in the rst place. Jews
try to counter the narrative of animosity through anecdotes of contemporary
solidarity and conviviality in everyday encounters with Muslim neighbors.
Muslims on the other hand emphasize the role of the media in shaping the
narrative and the self- denition of their own communities in reaction. The
participants jointly challenge the construction and separation of minorities,
which they feel are imposed upon them by the majority society.
Returning to the strategies of boundary blurring we noticed how the partic-
ipants adopted a strategy of ‘accommodation,’ i.e. the development of a lingua
franca to express a common minority experience. For example, the President
of the Central Council of Jews in Germany ofered to speak about discrimi-
nation on behalf of Muslims expecting an attentive ear from the majority
society due to the trauma of the Holocaust. Yet, when Muslim claims of being
the new Jews, based on the very same comparison, came up in a conversation
they were dismissed as harmful competitive victimhood. This demonstrates
that the shared minority (and not interreligious) lingua franca is not generally
accessible and is prone to accusations of cultural appropriation.
Another example of this lingua franca is the satiric and somewhat apolo-
getic attempt to represent Jewishness and especially the stereotype of the
wandering Jew as a model of diasporic accommodation for other minorities
to emulate. In the words of Daniel Kahn in his song “The Jew in You” about
‘universal diaspora’ featured in a dialogue video:
Well, the Jewishness concerning us should not be misconstrued. Blood
and land are things with which it doesn’t have to do. Religion is a matter
most irrelevant here too. So let’s try to look at this anew. To nd a category
underneath the ones we knew. A mercurial identity for people who are
strewn in countries far and wide; who haven’t got a home and view; who
drag around like shackles all the roots from which they grew.
The goal of the common minority language is resistance against the precepts
of integration and its constructed ideal of a homogenous German society.
„Das Beste Abendmahl. Aus der Bubble in die Charts!“ 2 October, 2020. Maxim Gorki Theater
YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/ watch?v= ryoYFoRhLSk.
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Participants in Jewish- Muslim dialogue are making a case for intensifying tol-
erance of diference in German society. They view diversity not as a source of
conict but as a contribution to the pluralism that is the foundation and, a few
of them even argue, the safety net of democracy.
This leads us to third strand of commonality discourse which is diversity
as a counterpoint to identity. Some panelists express their unease with the
dialogue construct, in which they were participating. They are aware of the
superdiversity of their own communities which they could never represent in
its entirety, as well as of shifts in external attributions of their identity as they
move between contexts, e.g. deemed Germans in Turkey or Russians in Israel.
In general, they plead for a more liberal approach underscoring the complex-
ity and dynamics of the individual. The construct of a one- dimensional iden-
tity is widely questioned and together with the idea of Leitkultur, core culture,
regarded as a reluctance to accept complex, multi- dimensional identities
prevalent in Germany. This is manifested in perceptions of Jews and Muslims
as immigrants even if they were born in Germany; in incomprehension that
one person could have emotional attachments to more than one country; or
in inconceivability that a transgender Muslim does not disparage Islam but
rather harbors religious sentiment and supports veiling practices. Dialogue
participants perceive themselves as co- creators of a ‘postmigrant society’
and therefore demand that their perspectives and biographies be recognized
within the national narrative.
5 Discussion and Conclusion
In this article we examined Jewish- Muslim dialogue in two diferent settings.
The rst case study focused on encounters that took place in person as a part
of a broader interfaith dialogue in the years 2011/ 12. In the second case study
we analyzed encounters framed as Jewish- Muslim featured on social media in
the years 2020/ 21. The focal point of our inquiry were the discourses of adver-
sity and commonality shaping these conversations and the narratives of difer-
ence and unity they produce.
There were three major diferences in the settings of the case studies: a time
gap in which political and social shifts occurred; ‘trialogue’ versus dialogue
framing; ephemerality versus continuous on- line presence of the encounters.
While for the most part, the discourses of adversity and commonality were
similar in both case studies, we noted both a shift in the characteristics of some
of the discourses as well as a shift of emphasis from adversity in the rst case
study to commonality in the second one. In our perspective, these shifts are
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
-
associated with three broader trends of interreligious and intercultural dia-
logue, namely popularization, politization, harmonization.
In our understanding, popularization refers to the capacity of dialogue
events to share experiences of mutual learning with a wider and more diverse
audience. Whereas classical dialogue formats are quite hermetic in the sense
that they could not reach out beyond their core participants, the increasing
mediatization of dialogue bears potential for attracting new audiences. These
new dialogue participants are younger and more self- condent in their feel-
ings of belonging to Germany and do not shy away from confrontation with the
majority society. In addition, humor is introduced into the dialogue turning
the customarily earnest afair into a lively occasion, without diminishing from
the perceived gravity of the occasion. On the contrary, it imbues Jewish- Muslim
dialogue with potential for far- reaching, utopian political ramications and
relevancy beyond Jewish and Muslim communities.
In our notion, politization refers to the capacity and utilization of dialogue
events to achieve political aims. These can be generic, e.g. general social cohe-
sion, as well as specic as in bridging an alleged Jewish- Muslim divide in
Germany. The national context in Germany has changed dramatically in the
time span between our two case studies. The rise of right- wing radicalism as
well as recent lethal antisemitic and racist attacks in Germany have become
salient in the conversation. The political expediency of Jewish- Muslim dia-
logue in combating prejudice was underscored not only by the participants but
also by federal policymakers encouraging and funding these programs. Since
personal encounters on a large scale are almost impossible due to the numer-
ical disparity between Jews and Muslims, let alone between these minorities
and majority society, encounters on social media are imbued with an impor-
tant propagandistic mission.
The main political theme expressed in social media dialogue is increasing
the visibility and acceptance of diversity in German society and politics. In
that sense, the shift from discourses of adversity to discourses of common-
ality reect a shift from reinforcing and blurring identities to seeking com-
mon causes for political coalitions along the lines of Foroutan’s ‘postmigrant
alliances’ (Foroutan 2018, 23). There is less of a need to negotiate theological
and other cultural diferences nding its expression in discourses of adversity.
However, the corresponding increased emphasis on discourses of common-
ality is not a recognition of similarities but an expression that diferences do
not need to be reconciled or smoothened. It is a demonstration of tolerance
aimed at the majority society propagating that if Jews and Muslims can put
their adversities aside, so could all others.
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Both popularization and politization may translate into a comprehensive
harmonization of dialogical interaction, i.e. an inclination to perform har-
monic encounter on a public stage in order to create an image of pluralism
and conviviality. Panelists are vetted and selected by the organizers. Unlike in-
person events, audience questions presented to the panelists through social
media platforms can be ltered. One of the initiatives we examined designed
their framework to defuse a potentially explosive conversation by targeting
professional groups with other shared interests to talk about. In addition to the
staged nature of the dialogues in our second case study, the fact that they were
recorded and made accessible to a broader audience might have inhibited free
expression and limited the potential to articulate adversity in comparison to
the dialogue formats in our rst case study, which were more private, open and
unexpected.
New forms of Jewish- Muslim dialogue are widely perceived by participants
as a joint stance vis- à- vis the majority society and not as a confrontation deter-
mined by external political conicts. Both Jews and Muslims express a feeling
of exhaustion from being under constant observation; of their intimate and
private spheres being politicized; of everything they do being interpreted as
Jewish or Muslim; of being forced to always represent. They express a wish to
bond in solidarity and to escape the discourse of victimhood altogether, which
they perceive as pitting them against each other. Stripped of seclusion in their
intimacy they prefer to accentuate diferences on their own terms.
In this regard, Jewish- Muslim dialogue seeks to challenge not only political
extremism but the general political discourse in Germany. It is a dialogue within
a ‘trialogue’ striving to change the complete equation by publicly shifting per-
ceptions of the relationship within their shared side of the triangle from a dis-
course of adversity to a discourse of commonality. It challenges the integration
precept’s focus on majority- minority relationships in the Leitkultur political dis-
course. Instead, it designates acceptance of democratic values as the main crite-
ria for integration. This redenition of the foundation of social cohesion would
reshue the seemingly natural borderline between Germans and migrants
marginalizing extremists, regardless of their ethnic or religious backgrounds,
instead. Further, Jewish- Muslim dialogue is a meta- dialogue as it challenges the
dialogue format itself. Participants yearned for the result of dialogue to be the
self- abolition of orchestrated encounter. It would become superuous as an
instrument of diversity governance in a tolerant pluralistic Germany.
As desirable as this utopian perspective for natural conviviality beyond the
xed boundary arrangements of interreligious or intercultural dialogue may
be, it is doubtful if the venture of abolishing dialogue through dialogue could
succeed. Like all other institutions, dialogue initiatives tend to persist. As both
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
-
cases studies show, public funding may create an additional incentive for self-
perpetuation and reinforce processes of boundary- drawing and oligarchiza-
tion. Hence, in our understanding, the reform of interreligious dialogue should
not seek to solve all problems of diversity governance in superdiverse societies
at once. Instead, it should view Jewish- Muslim dialogue as a laboratory to test
new forms and frameworks of dialogical interaction. This may include a more
biographical orientation which opens up spaces for narratives of individual
self- denition of religiosity, ethnicity and belonging beyond the diplomatic
scheme of ‘trialogue.’ Furthermore, newfound diversication of media and
dialogue initiators ofers a chance to address and engage a wider audience for
interreligious, intercultural and political topics bringing in their specic inter-
ests and aesthetic preferences.
References
Anckar, Carsten. 2008. On the Applicability of the Most Similar Systems Design and
the Most Diferent Systems Design in Comparative Research. International Journal
of Social Research Methodology 11(5): 389– 401.
Arnold, Sina; König, Jana. 2018. “‘The whole world owns the Holocaust’: Geschichtspolitik
in der postmigrantischen Gesellschaft am Beispiel der Erinnerung an den Holocaust
unter Geüchteten.” Pp. 173– 190 in Postmigrantische Perspektiven. Ordnungssysteme,
Repräsentationen, Kritik, edited by Naika Foroutan, Juliana Karakayali and Riem
Spielhaus. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag.
Atshan, Sa’ed; Galor, Katharina. 2020. The Moral Triangle. Germans, Israelis, Palestinians.
Durham; London: Duke University Press.
Aslan, Ednan; Rausch, Margaret. 2019. Jewish- Muslim Relations. Historical and
Contemporary Interactions and Exchanges. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
Becker, Elisabeth. 2019. “Commitment without Borders: Jewish- Muslim Relations and
the Making of a Cosmopolitan Habitus in Berlin.” Pp. 201– 218 in Annual Review of
the Sociology of Religion, vol. 10 Interreligious Dialogue, edited by Giuseppe Giordan
und Andrew P. Lynch. Leiden: .
Bodenheimer, Alfred. 2019. “‘Integration’ – Reections on a European Concept of
Minority Politics from a European- Jewish Perspective.” Pp. 247– 255 in Jewish-
Muslim Relations. Historical and Contemporary Interactions and Exchanges, edited
by Ednan Aslan, Margaret Rausch. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.
Dantschke, Claudia. 2010. “Feindbild Juden. Zur Funktionalität der antisemi-
tischen Gemeinschaftsideologie in muslimisch geprägten Milieus.” Pp. 139– 146 in
Konstellationen des Antisemitismus, edited by Wolfram Stender, Guido Follert and
Mihri Özdogan. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
De Boor, Rachel; Frank, Jo; Ouertani, Sonya; Tosuner, Hakan, eds. 2020. “Und endlich
konnten wir reden …”: Eine Handreichung zu jüdisch- muslimischem Dialog in der
Praxis. Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag Herder.
Foroutan, Naika. 2018. “Die postmigrantische Perspektive: Aushandlungsprozesse in
pluralen Gesellschaften.” Pp. 15– 27 in Postmigrantische Visionen. Erfahrungen –
Ideen – Relexionen, edited by Marc Hill and Erol Yıldız. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
Halm, Dirk; Sauer, Martina. 2015. Soziale Dienstleistungen der in der Deutschen Islam
Konferenz vertretenen religiösen Dachverbände und ihrer Gemeinden. Online verfüg-
bar unter https:// www.deuts che- islam- konfer enz.de/ Sha redD ocs/ Anla gen/ DE/ Erg
ebni sse- Empfe hlun gen/ sozi ale- diens tlei stun gen- gemein den.pdf.
Hero, Markus; Krech, Volkhard; Zander, Helmut. 2008. Religiöse Vielfalt in Nordrhein-
Westfalen. Empirische Befunde und Perspektiven der Globalisierung vor Ort.
Paderborn: F. Schöningh.
Hick, John. 2002. Problems of religious pluralism. Repr. Houndmills: Palgrave,
Macmillan.
Keller, Reiner. 2011. Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse. Grundlegung eines
Forschungsprogramms. 3rd ed., Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Kiesel, Doron. 2007. “Integrationsmuster jüdischer Zuwanderer aus der ehemaligen
Sowjetunion in Deutschland” Bildung und Erziehung 60: 329– 340.
Knitter, Paul F.; Netland, Harold A.; Stewart, Robert B. 2013. Can Only One Religion be
True? Paul Knitter and Harold Netland in Dialogue. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Konyali, Ali; Haddad, Laura; Pott, Andreas. 2019. “Pacifying Muslims in Germany’s ‘City
of Peace’: interreligious dialogue as a tool of governance in Osnabrück.” Religion,
State and Society 47(4– 5): 440– 455.
Nagel, Alexander- Kenneth. 2012. “Vernetzte Vielfalt: Religionskontakt in interreligiösen
Aktivitäten.” Pp. 241– 268 in Diesseits der Parallelgesellschaft, edited by Alexander-
Kenneth Nagel. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
Nagel, Alexander- Kenneth. 2019. “Enacting Diversity: Boundary Work and Performative
Dynamics in Interreligious Activities.” Pp. 111– 127 in Annual Review of the Sociology
of Religion, vol. 10 Interreligious Dialogue, edited by Giuseppe Giordan und Andrew
P. Lynch. Leiden: .
Riemer, Nathanael; Sanci, Kadir; Szulc, Michal, ed.. 2016. Muslimisch- Jüdischer Dialog.
Muslim- Jewish Dialogue. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam (PaRDeS, Heft 22).
Rückamp, Veronika. 2021. Alltag in der Moschee. Eine Feldforschung jenseits von
Integrationsfragen. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
Schweitzer, Friedrich. 2019. “The Meaning of Jewish- Muslim Relations in Europe for
Christian Education: Potentials and Limitations of a Three- Way Conversation.”
Pp. 215– 229 in Jewish- Muslim Relations. Historical and Contemporary Interactions
and Exchanges, edited by Ednan Aslan, Margaret Rausch. Wiesbaden: Springer
Fachmedien.
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
-
Vertovec, Steven. 2007. “Super- diversity and its implications.” Ethnic and Racial Studies
30(6): 1024– 1054.
Yildiz, Erol. 2018. “Ideen zum Postmigrantischen.” Pp. 19– 34 in Postmigrantische
Perspektiven. Ordnungssysteme, Repräsentationen, Kritik, edited by Naika Foroutan,
Juliana Karakayali and Riem Spielhaus. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Verlag.
Yurdakul, Gökçe. 2016. “Jews, Muslims and the Ritual Male Circumcision
Debate: Religious Diversity and Social Inclusion in Germany.” 4(2): 77– 86.
Yurdakul, Gökçe; Bodemann, Y. Michal. 2006. “‘We Don’t Want To Be the Jews of
Tomorrow’: Jews and Turks in Germany after 9/ 11.” German Politics and Society
24(2): 44– 67.
Alexander-Kenneth Nagel und Dekel Peretz - 9789004514331
Heruntergeladen von Brill.com 07/31/2024 10:53:58AM
via Open Access. This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms
of the CC BY 4.0 license. Open Access Funding provided by Max Planck
Society.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
