Islamic Institutions in Europe between Integration and Foreign Influence: Who Shapes the Religious Discourse?

Islamic Institutions in Europe between Integration and Foreign Influence: Who Shapes the Religious Discourse?
Between the Ashura Procession in Copenhagen and Foreign Funding Networks

On Friday, 26 June 2026, the streets of the Norrebro district in Copenhagen witnessed a massive Ashura procession[1] commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussein[2], with nearly eighteen thousand participants. What stood out was that the organisers imposed a complete separation between women and men[3], with men, children, and people with disabilities walking at the front, followed by women in a separate row.
Viewed through the lens of equality values prevailing in Western Europe, this practice constitutes a form of gender segregation in the public sphere. It recalls similar patterns found in systems that treat women in a degrading manner and impose strict restrictions on their presence in public space and their civil rights, such as the Iranian regime[4], which enforces compulsory dress codes and curtails women s rights to movement, work, and public participation; and the Saudi system, which continues to enshrine male guardianship in various forms despite the partial reforms announced; as well as territories under the control of extremist religious movements that treat women as perpetual minors, such as the Taliban movement in Afghanistan, which has barred women from education, work, and movement without a male escort; and the Houthi group in Yemen, which imposes various comparable restrictions.
More significantly, such practices in European public space raise serious questions about the trajectory of parallel communities operating outside the shared legal and value frameworks of their host states. The incident sparked widespread reactions in Denmark. Right-wing parties linked it to what they call "national values", a debate that resurfaces across many European capitals whenever a comparable issue arises, in Belgium, France, Germany, and Sweden alike.
Yet these same right-wing forces rarely limit themselves to criticising a specific discriminatory practice. They routinely exploit such occasions to advocate for legislation that goes far beyond the requirements of equality and collides directly with international human rights covenants, such as restricting freedom of worship altogether, or imposing discriminatory restrictions on migration and asylum based on religion or origin. Such demands violate freedom of belief and the right to asylum as guaranteed by international agreements, and they draw no distinction between addressing a specific discriminatory act and punishing an entire religious community.
The issue here is not one of agreeing with the right, nor of borrowing its rhetoric. It is an entirely independent matter of principle. Gender segregation in the public sphere of a European democratic state, one in which women have achieved a significant degree of equality, contradicts left-wing values, feminist movements, international human rights covenants, and the principle of full equality between women and men, an equality that progressive, left-wing, and feminist movements in Europe have wrested through generations of struggle.
To clarify the argument: if a right-wing movement organised a demonstration and separated white participants from Black and brown ones, would that not be outright racial discrimination worthy of unequivocal condemnation? The same logic applies to gender-based segregation in the public sphere. Freedom of expression and the practice of religious rites are protected, yet they reach their limits when they become publicly organised discrimination on the streets.
The irony is that such practices ultimately serve the political agenda of the racist right in Europe, which exploits them to divert the social struggle away from a class conflict over equitable distribution of wealth, equality, and social justice, and toward an identity- and value-based confrontation between "European civilisation" and "Islam".
This framing serves the interests of the right far more than it serves the inhabitants of those countries, of whatever religion or belief, or workers, both manual and intellectual, in general. It diverts attention from the issues raised by the left and progressive forces and channels it into a cultural conflict that the right can easily weaponise electorally.
What is most dangerous, however, is that these practices cast a long shadow over all communities originating from majority-Muslim countries, whether they are practising believers who regularly observe their religious rites, non-believers, or secularists who outright reject this religious orientation altogether. Millions of migrants who have integrated into their European societies and contributed to building them find themselves caught up in campaigns of suspicion and targeting that spare no one.
Here we see what can be described as an objective de facto alliance between the religious right within migrant and refugee communities on one hand, and the racist right in Europe on the other. Both sides find a common interest in obstructing integration: the former seeks to preserve a closed religious identity and dependence on external reference points, while the latter wants to keep migrants outside the civil framework in order to exploit their presence as an electoral card. In both cases, the victim is the silent majority of migrants who want full integration, participation, and civil life.
It is not enough, however, to stop there. We must go deeper into the phenomenon and raise the fundamental question: who is building the Islamic religious discourse and orientation in Europe? Denmark here is a model for a broader phenomenon.
From this standpoint, what is needed is not mere criticism. What is required is the adoption of practical policies that include banning gender segregation in the public sphere, ensuring transparency in religious funding, training imams locally, and tying any official support or recognition to respect for equality and the law, policies applicable in any European country, not only in Denmark.
Who Shapes the Islamic Religious Discourse in Europe?
Speaking from a left-wing position, I hold that a complete separation between religion and nationalism on the one hand, and the state on the other, is a fundamental condition for building a modern socialist democratic society grounded in the principle of equal citizenship, where all citizens are equal in rights and duties regardless of religion, nationality, gender, or social background. This principle may form the basis of the social contract in most European democracies, albeit with different expressions.
Several European countries, Denmark foremost among them, adopt a model that largely neutralises religion from the state, treating religion as an individual and communal matter organised within a civil and legal framework, without any direct role in shaping public policy or governance institutions. This does not mean a complete separation of religion from state; no European country has reached that point. It means regulating that relationship through clear civil and legal frameworks.
In this context, the historic Christian churches, whether Lutheran in the Scandinavian countries or Catholic and Protestant in the rest of Europe, are subject to formal legal frameworks and institutional regulation and oversight within the state, ensuring their broad conformity with general laws and the civil rights system, and positioning them as religious institutions that operate within the civil public sphere rather than above it. Denmark, with its national church, represents a clear model of this regulated relationship between religion and state.
By contrast, a significant portion of Islamic religious institutions in several European countries has remained less integrated into this framework, with continued broad dependence on funding and influence from abroad, particularly from countries such as Turkey[5], Qatar[6], Saudi Arabia[7], and Iran[8], through various governmental or quasi-governmental religious institutions and bodies.
A prominent example in Denmark is the Imam Ali Mosque in Copenhagen[9], which the Danish newspaper Berlingske exposed through secret documents proving that millions of kroner were transferred to it from Iranian entities via the Iranian embassy, while researchers at the University of Copenhagen confirmed that the Iranian regime stands behind the mosque s construction and management, and that the head of its association is officially appointed by the Supreme Leader. It is worth noting that this pattern is not confined to Denmark: Germany closed the Imam Ali Mosque in Hamburg in 2024 for its ties to Iran s Revolutionary Guard; Swedish authorities are investigating mosques linked to Turkish networks; and France and Belgium have documented Saudi and Qatari funding of a number of their religious institutions.
All of this produces an unequal degree of neutralisation across religions and religious institutions in relation to their host states, resulting in varying levels of autonomy and integration across the continent s religious public sphere.
This does not mean that all Islamic institutions receive foreign funding. The point is that this phenomenon exists in a number of institutions and has sparked broad political debate in more than one European country, with Denmark among the most prominent examples. It is also worth noting that European policies themselves, such as integration laws, discriminatory systems, investment in civic education, and racist currents, also play a role in shaping religious discourse within the continent, albeit in less direct ways.
In recent years, the debate over foreign funding s influence on religious discourse has intensified across European capitals. In Denmark specifically, parliament passed legislation in 2021 aimed at limiting certain forms of foreign funding for religious institutions[10], as part of a broader debate on integration, transparency, and foreign political influence. France and Austria have moved in comparable legislative directions. Nevertheless, the practical implementation of these laws remains limited in most receiving countries, meaning that the influence of cross-border funding and organisational networks continues to varying degrees.
Part One: Foreign Funding Is Not a Neutral Matter
Any religious institution that influences people s consciousness, manages financial resources, and participates in shaping social life cannot be treated as a space isolated from politics and society. Foreign funding is therefore not merely a technical or administrative question. It is a question tied to the nature of the discourse produced within European societies and the forces that contribute to shaping it.
Over recent decades, entities and institutions linked to foreign states have contributed to funding a number of mosques and Islamic institutions across the European continent, from Denmark and Germany to France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom. Some of these states hold clear political and religious agendas and seek to expand their cultural and social influence through religious institutions and their affiliated associations. In many cases, the funding is inseparable from intellectual and political direction.
This reality creates tension within host countries. On the one hand, these states are grounded in civil and democratic foundations with relatively clear principles of equality. On the other, a portion of Islamic religious institutions continues to operate under intellectual and organisational influences from totalitarian, conservative countries and political environments fundamentally different from those values.
This influence does not stop at financial funding; it extends to religious reference points, imam training networks, and cross-border organisational ties that link mosques in Denmark with others in Germany or France within the same organisational network.
The problem is not religiosity itself, nor Muslims right to organise religiously. It lies in the absence of an independent local framework in each European country that ensures funding transparency and the independence of religious institutions from foreign political influences.
The continuation of this situation also places Muslims themselves in a position of dependence on external reference points, rather than developing religious institutions that emerge from their own reality within their European communities. It is worth noting that within these communities there are initiatives, individuals, and institutions working to develop an independent religious discourse more in line with the values of democracy and equality, yet their presence remains limited in the face of the weight of externally funded traditional institutions, making support for them a necessity rather than an option.
For this reason, it becomes essential to engage with religious institutions according to unified civil standards, grounded in transparency, accountability, respect for the law, and human rights.
Part Two: Denmark as a Model — How Can a State Regulate Its Relationship with Religion?
The Danish experience, despite the state s class character and the historical ties of the national Christian church to the capitalist power structure, demonstrates that a state is capable of regulating its relationship with religious institutions without infringing on religious freedom or the autonomy of belief, an experience that could serve as a reference point for other European countries facing the same challenge. The Danish church is subject to clear laws; its funding is public; and its work takes place within a civil framework aligned with fundamental rights. It has also undergone a long process of development that has brought it closer to the values of democracy, human rights, and equality.
The question that imposes itself at the European level: why has a comparable framework not been developed for Islamic institutions across the continent?
The intent is not control over religion. It is the construction of a transparent civil framework that regulates the work of religious institutions as part of the public sphere. Any institution that manages funds and influences people s lives must be subject to transparency, accountability, and the prohibition of incitement to hatred or discrimination, regardless of which country it operates in. These standards must apply to everyone without exception, since the question concerns the nature of the public sphere, not any specific religion.
A fundamental principled point cannot be overlooked here: most Muslims in European countries are full citizens who pay taxes and contribute to building their societies. Accordingly, the state is obligated under the principle of citizenship and equality not to exclude their religious institutions from public support if it supports the institutions of other faiths. The criterion is not religion; it is full compliance with standards of transparency, equality, and independence from any foreign political funding.
A local Islamic institution that meets these conditions deserves the same support as national churches, not because it is Islamic, but because its citizens deserve modern religious institutions rooted in their society and funded by their taxes.
European countries, Denmark foremost among them, therefore bear a responsibility to support the construction and funding of independent local Islamic religious institutions, reduce dependence on foreign funding, and encourage reform initiatives aligned with the values of democratic citizenship and equality. This is not a favour from the state; it is an obligation imposed by the principle of equality between citizens.
Part Three: Training Imams in Europe Is a Social Necessity
An imam s role does not stop at prayer and preaching. It extends to family matters, child-rearing, young people s relationship with society, attitudes toward women, and engagement with those who are different. Training imams within any European country is therefore a social, cultural, and political question bound up with integration. The reality is that many Islamic institutions across the European continent, including in Denmark, rely on imams who come from abroad or were trained in religious and political contexts fundamentally different from the European environment, making the question of local training all the more pressing.
This training must be grounded in an understanding of the host society and respect for local law and the constitution, and on the recognition that the legal framework governs the public sphere and that belief is a personal matter. It must also be rooted in a culture of human rights and equality, where equality between women and men is a fundamental, non-negotiable principle and any discourse that justifies discrimination contradicts these values. Pluralism must be promoted and religious or national discrimination rejected, since European societies are broadly built on coexistence across multiple backgrounds.
The contrast thereby becomes clear between an imam trained within Europe through accredited educational institutions aligned with society s values and laws, and one trained in different political and religious contexts. The former is integrated into the local legal and cultural reality; the latter may transmit conceptions that are out of step with the society in which he lives.
Part Four: Religious Reform Is a European Historical Process
Religious reform is not a historical exception. The European experience has undergone profound transformations that reshaped the relationship between religion and state[11] in more than one country, gradually consolidating the values of citizenship, equality, and human rights across the continent.
In the Islamic context[12] as well, reformist and critical currents have emerged that sought to reread the religious text and connect it to contemporary reality[13], including within Europe itself, yet they have remained limited due to weak support in the face of the strength of externally funded traditional institutions.
The question here is not a conflict with religion. It is, rather, a rejection of any monopoly over its interpretation. Opening the field to multiple readings and supporting reform initiatives in any European country contributes to building a religious discourse more in tune with modern society.
Leaving this field unaddressed, on the other hand, means that the influence of external forces in shaping part of social life within host countries continues, as does the weakness of Islamic religious institutions autonomy from Denmark to France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
In this context, the separation of religion from state remains a gradual process tied to the development of each European society and the choices of its people. Until that full separation is achieved, the standards of transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights remain the necessary framework within which all religious institutions, without exception, should operate in every European country, requiring clear rules that regulate the religious sphere in accordance with democratic values, equality, and modern civil rights.
Part Five: The European Left and Islam — The Necessity of a Secular Position
The European left, including its Danish counterpart, faces a genuine predicament when it comes to political Islam and religious institutions with foreign funding. On the one hand, the left descends from an intellectual tradition that rejects discrimination and defends minority rights.
On the other, those same principles demand a clear position on any discourse that entrenches hierarchy between the sexes, promotes educational programmes that contradict citizenship values, treats sexual diversity with contempt, calls for punishments incompatible with human rights, or keeps communities under the guardianship of external reference points far removed from the principle of separating religion from the state.
This tension pushes a portion of the left in more than one European country to defer its position or settle for an overly cautious approach, out of fear of being accused of adopting the racist right s rhetoric. Yet excessive caution here does not serve the principles of equality and secularism on which the European left was historically built. When gender separation is organised on the streets of Copenhagen, or in any other European city, in the name of religious ritual, it is not enough for the left to refer the matter to freedom of worship or freedom of expression. The issue runs deeper: it concerns who holds the tools to build religious and social consciousness within immigrant communities across the continent.
A consistent left-wing position does not mean adopting the racist right s rhetoric. It means taking on a deeply rooted secular critique that simultaneously rejects discrimination based on sex, religion, and race; supports the independence of religious institutions from the interference of foreign states; demands that European states support and rebuild Islamic institutions according to contemporary civil values; and stands beside those Muslims who, within their own communities, call for reform and equality. These are the European left s natural allies, not the forces that reproduce patriarchal religious authority in the heart of the continent, whether in Copenhagen or in any other European capital.
Part Six: What Does All This Mean in Practice at the European Level?
Europe today faces a clear choice, and Denmark exemplifies it: either to continue with current policies and the contradictions they produce, or to build a new model grounded in neutralising all religions from the state and severing dependence on religious states that use religious institutions as a tool to extend their influence across the continent. This model is not a general slogan. It is a package of practical measures that any European country can adopt.
The first is a clear legal prohibition on gender segregation at any public or licensed event, in line with the prohibition on racial segregation. There is no justification for exempting gender segregation on grounds of religious rites, whether in Copenhagen, Paris, or Berlin.
The second is restricting foreign support and requiring any religious institution that receives foreign funding, governmental or quasi-governmental, to publicly disclose its source and amount, in line with the disclosure mechanisms used for party funding. Transparency here is a basic condition for society s trust, not a restriction on religious freedom.
The third is tying any government support or licence to clear civil standards: explicit acceptance of gender equality, rejection of discriminatory discourse, and independence in the appointment of imams from any foreign authority.
The fourth is supporting and funding religious institutions on the basis of equality, and investing in local institutes for training imams within each European country, rather than leaving this vacuum to foreign networks, as many European states have historically done with the training of Christian clergy.
The European left cannot afford to rest on principled positions alone. It must openly adopt these demands in every country, and distinguish between defending Muslims right to practise their religion and remaining silent about practices that entrench discrimination and keep communities under the guardianship of foreign reference points. Silence protects no one. It simply cedes the ground to the racist right on one side, and to the conservatively funded external institutions on the other, from Denmark to the rest of Europe.

Sources
Press Coverage
1. Ashura procession in Copenhagen – TV2 Kosmopol
https://www.tv2kosmopol.dk/koebenhavn/nu-gar-tusindvis-sorgemarch-pa-norrebro-i-kobenhavn-4ea23
2. Imam Hussein – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husayn_ibn_Ali
3. Gender separation in the procession – TV2 Kosmopol
https://www.tv2kosmopol.dk/koebenhavn/konsopdelt-optog-gennem-kobenhavn-er-forkasteligt-mener-politiker-b7ead
9. Imam Ali Mosque in Copenhagen and its ties to Iran – TV2 Kosmopol
https://www.tv2kosmopol.dk/koebenhavn/forbindelse-mellem-koebenhavnsk-moske-og-iran-paavist
Human Rights Reports
4. Amnesty International on the suppression of women s rights in Iran
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/03/iran-authorities-target-womens-rights-activists-with-arbitrary-arrest-flogging-and-death-penalty/
Religious Funding and Specialist Media Coverage
5. Turkish funding of mosques in Denmark – Gatestone Institute
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11400/turkey-denmark-mosques
6. Qatari funding of the Grand Mosque in Denmark
https://middle-east-online.com/en/danish-politicians-slam-qatar%E2%80%99s-control-grand-mosque
7. European Parliament report on Saudi funding
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2020-0087_EN.html
8. Iran International on Iranian religious funding
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202508161375
Legislation and Official Documents
10. Danish law prohibiting foreign donations to religious institutions
https://www.lovguiden.dk/loven/lov-om-forbud-mod-modtagelse-af-donationer-fra-visse-fysiske-og-juridiske-personer/1
Academic Sources
11. Academic study on religion-state relations in Europe – MDPI
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/9/5/144
12. The reformist tradition in Islam – Institute of Ismaili Studies
https://www.iis.ac.uk/scholarly-contributions/islams-reformist-tradition
13. Islamic reformist currents – Oxford academic volume
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/43158/chapter-abstract/362193978?redirectedFrom=fulltext


Source:
https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/islamic-institutions-in-europe-between-integration-and-foreign-influence-who-shapes-the-religious-discourse

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1