Search

n the middle of the twentieth century, when the European Union (EU) started to take shape, numerous European colonies – many with a significant Muslim population – gained independence. These two moments in history need to be read in relation to each other when thinking about “Islam in Europe”. This paper engages in such a relational reading and shifts the analytical focus from “Islam” to “Europe”, exploring the ways “EUrope” manifests itself in the city of Brussels. By combining a spatialized analysis of the European Quarter with the conceptual lens of the “palimpsest”, I seek to offer a spatiotemporal framing that renders visible the material remains of imperial formations within the fabric of “EUrope”. The paper further explores how these often unmarked layers configure EU-space as “white” and Christian, and impact the ways Muslim bodies navigate within the EU-fabric and create counterspaces.

This first chapter serves as the reader’s initial orientation to the general layout of the present work. It begins by thematizing the ineffable dynamism and complexity of the term religion as signifier. Contrary to the long-reigning secularization thesis, this single term remains deeply entrenched in a broad spectrum of discursive frameworks, traversing both popular social imaginaries as well as academic disciplinary divides. Amid this constant state of flux, one can only say with certainty that religion is here to stay. In spite of this complexity, the present edition proposes a way forward, offering a cross-section of some of these fascinating developments via an introductory interview and four thematically-organized sections; Part I: Religion, Gender, Body and Aesthetics – Stagnation or Change in the Authority over Religious Knowledge Production, Part II: Religion, Economics and Development – Interaction of Discursive Spheres; Part III: Theological and Religious Knwoledge Production: Overcoming the Dichotomy between Inside and Outside Perspective(s) on Religion; and IV: Religion, Politics, Power – Decentered Analyses.

Brain death criteria is acknowledged by 80 countries worldwide as the death of a human being. Such acknowledgement has not gone without critical perspectives being voiced. Philosopher Hans Jonas (1903–1993), for example, who criticizes the brain death criteria as the modern version of the old mind-body dualism, names it today’s brain-body dualism.