The mosque as a bridge into society? : a qualitative case study on the immigrants’ perspective on the role of the mosque in integration

(1)

Graduate School of Social Sciences MSc Sociology: Migration and Ethnic Studies

The mosque as a bridge into society?

A qualitative case study on the immigrants’ perspective on the role of the mosque in

integration

Carmen Roebersen, 11779543 Supervisor: Dr. Adeola Enigbokan Second reader: Dr. Pamela Prickett

Date: June 25, 2018 Words: 23.998

(2)

2

Abstract

Previous studies on immigrant integration were predominantly based on statistical integration. The present research aims to a further understanding of immigrant integration through the immigrants’ perspective. By using qualitative research methods, observations and interviews, these perspectives have been examined. This empirical study of first and second generation migrants in the Ulu mosque in Lombok shows how placemaking activities help by creating a sense of community, a sense of belonging and access to markers and means. It details three salient components, namely, place existence and aesthetics, interior place design, and place activities, and also how these helped to form and sustain the Muslim community. This study argues that the Ulu mosque is beneficial and indispensable in the integration process and bridges the gap between native Dutch and Muslims. The results are presented as means for future research and policy implications.

(3)

3

1 A case study about a unique mosque

1.0 The Ulu mosque: a unique mosque in the Netherlands?

“It is a place of unity, we are all different, but in the mosque we are one [..]in the mosque people don’t judge you based on nationality, because religion stands above nationality. Religion doesn’t know colour or race” (Mounir, Dutch-Turk, 26).

With this statement Mounir addresses the desire of the Ulu mosque to function as an overarching religious and socio-cultural place in Utrecht. After the opening of the new mosque in 2015 newspaper articles arose with titles such as, “a mosque for the whole

neighbourhood” and “Ulu mosque bucked with prayer area ‘for everyone’” (Huisman, 2013:

Hoekstra, 2015). The openness and welcoming attitude of the board of the Ulu mosque creates among its visitors a representation of the diversity that graces multicultural Lombok, where over 40 different nationalities live (Brandpunt, 2017). The prospective imam of the Ulu mosque explained that the goal and duty of the originally Turkish mosque is to deal with the diversity in the neighbourhood, and that their divers visitors, from Moroccans to Syrians, are all welcome (O., personal communication, February 26, 2018).

By providing a multi-functional building which has religious and sociocultural functions this building obtained additional meaning that goes beyond religious meaning. Placemaking activities transit this building into a meaningful place (Mackenzie, n.d.). This is done by for example practising prayers in Arabic and in Dutch. Furthermore, it is manifested in providing teaching rooms for learning new languages such as Dutch and Arabic and in providing conference rooms1. In addition, the board of the Ulu mosque organizes markets and dinners for the whole neighbourhood to involve neighbours. On the ground floor of the mosque a restaurant, called “the ‘kebab factory’” is situated. According to the prospective imam this restaurant is meant to function as a meeting place for the neighbourhood.

There are different reasons behind these inclusive activities of the mosque. As mentioned before diversity of the neighbourhood is a reason. Other reasons are the aim to pursue the will of the Prophet, and to counter the negative stereotypes on Muslims by providing native Dutch insight into Islam. Where sociologists Edwards, Christerson and Emerson (2013) argued that religion is capable of producing social inequality, this mosque seems to aim for equality and contradicts the idea of religion producing inequality.

1

(6)

6 Another remarkable aspect of the mosque is its existence in general. When visiting Lombok, the Ulu mosque, literally translated as “big mosque”, does not remain unnoticed. Next to its size, the location nearby central station contribute to its visibility. Despite the postmodern architecture which is reflected in the use of brick and glass, the mosque remains recognizable as a mosque with its enormous minarets and with its dome. The five storeys high mosque stands out against the three storeys high living houses surrounding the mosque. Overall, the visibility, location, multi-functionality, and transparency of the Ulu mosque and the inclusive approach of the board of the Ulu mosque, makes the Ulu mosque unique in the Netherlands according to philosopher and religious scholars Landman and Wessels (2005).

1.1 The Ulu mosque and the contradicting discourse within Dutch society

“Many mosque associations have been the victim of threats, violence and hatred. Despite these awful incidents the Islamic Association in the Netherlands maintains and claims her proactive role in society; she has continued unabated to be a valuable contribution to Dutch society for the purpose of cohesion and peace.” (ISN, 2017)2

The ‘bridge’ mentioned in the title on the front page of this report assumes that there is a ‘gap’. This gap is manifested in the idea that Islam differs from the ‘Dutch’ culture. Native Dutch perceive Islam as less civilized and as a threat to ‘their’ Dutch way of life (Smeekes, Verkuyten & Poppe, 2011). These perceptions of native Dutch have far-reaching consequences for Muslims and Islam such as the statement of ISN (2017) shows. Muslims and mosques are usually not desired in neighbourhoods. For Muslims this means that instead of being tolerated, they have to conquer their place in society (Sunier, 2009). Muslims feel often misunderstood and not accepted in Dutch society, which results in Muslims who feel they do not belong in the Netherlands (Ahmad & Szpara, 2003; Slootman & Duyvendak, 2015). These perspectives on the position of Muslims in Dutch society illustrate the gap between native Dutch and Muslims.

The position of Muslims is also reflected in the less visible and marginal spaces in which mosques are located, which contribute to maintaining the feeling of not being recognized by the native Dutch population (Tamimi Arab, 2013). Marginalization of Islam is

2_{This quote comes from the annual report of 2017 of the overarching Islamic association in the Netherlands,}

Diyanet where the Ulu mosque is part of. It is stated in the context of the occupation of the ISN Tehvit Mosque in Venlo. Retrieved from http://isndiyanet.nl/isn-jaarverslag/isn-verslag-activiteiten-2017/

(7)

7 usually a result of the dominant anti-Islamic sentiments in the political and public discourses in the Netherlands, which comes close to Islamophobia. Despite the marginal position in which most mosques find themselves, it is asserted that the aesthetics of mosques are important in understanding the political, social and cultural position of Islam in society. These aesthetics can be beneficial in the process of integration and creating a sense of belonging (Tamimi Arab, 2013: Landman & Wessels, 2006).

The scientific discourse in Europe also focuses on the negative aspects of Islam, by perceiving Islam as barrier to immigrant integration (Van Tubergen, 2007; Korteweg & Yurdakul, 2009; Ager & Strang, 2010; Vliegenthart, 2007). Contradicting the European discourse, spiritual spaces are in scientific literature in the United States described as social service hubs (Ley, 2008). These social service hubs contribute to integration by providing information and, social and economic assistance, according to sociologist Hirschman (2004). Furthermore, spiritual places are known for fostering a sense of community and a sense of belonging. Thus despite the continuous pressure of host societies in Europe, on integration of immigrants into mainstream society (Arango, 1998), the focus in scientific literature remains on structural integration.

The meaning which immigrants themselves allocate to religion should not be overlooked. Religion remains a big part of the identity of migrants after arriving in their country of destination and religion remains an important social force in society (Strang & Ager, 2010: Edwards, Christerson & Emerson, 2013). This, in combination with the growing number of Islamic immigrants and the growing number of mosque visits, demonstrates that religion and Islam remains important in the Netherlands (NOS, 2017).

In the case of the Ulu mosque, the board of the mosque aims for closing the gap, by providing meeting places, opening up for all ethnicities and including the neighbourhood in their activities. In combination with the aesthetics and visibility, the Ulu mosque suggests to contradict the discourse on Islam as barrier to integration. By clarifying the perspective of the immigrants’ on religion and on their integration this research aims to contribute to new insights into religion and integration. Therefore the research question will be:

How does the Ulu mosque contribute to the integration process of first and second generation migrants in terms of belonging, community building and access to markers and means?

(8)

8 The political and public discourses which lead to the idea of Islam being a barrier to immigrant integration are reflected in the aesthetics of the mosque. Anti-Islamic sentiments in the politic discourse and struggles over power lead to marginalized spaces and sometimes even to the prohibition of mosques, according to professor in religious studies Tamimi Arab (2013). However, the existence of a spiritual place is important in creating a sense of community. Furthermore the aesthetics and visibility of a mosque can provide a sense of belonging. This research will contribute to extending literature on placemaking, aesthetics and immigrant religion by focusing on the role of the Ulu mosque in creating a meaningful place by examining the next sub-question:

• How does the Ulu mosque creates a meaningful place and thereby contribute to the integration process of first and second generation migrants in terms of belonging, community building and access to markers and means?

The Ulu mosque offers more than spaces for religious practices, they offer meeting rooms, teaching rooms, a cafeteria and so on. Thus, next to serving as a religious places, it also functions as community centre. As discussed before religious places are known for their function as social service hub. Communities are created at places where social capital, advices and practical services are shared to assist each other during periods of settlement (Ley, 2008). These community building processes reinforce belonging and reinforce distribution of information between people about housing, economic, and educational opportunities and hereby fostering the integration process instead of hampering it. To assemble a complete picture of placemaking activities the interior place design will be examined:

• How does the place design of the Ulu mosque contribute to the integration process of first and second generation migrants in terms of belonging, community building and access to markers and means?

The aim of examining this research is to contribute to the debate about immigrant integration and religion. It contributes to existing literature by applying qualitative research methods instead of quantitative research methods. Most research on integration in the European context is done on structural integration3, by utilizing quantitative research methods. This study goes beyond this, by using qualitative research methods and a different perspective on integration. Integration will not be measured as structural integration, but as integration in

3

Structural integration is more ‘functional’ focusing on how immigrants are incorporated into societal structures (Erdap & Oeppen, 2013). The focus in structural integration is on: How well is ‘their’ educational attainment? ‘Their’ language acquisition? And do ‘they’ lag behind on the labour market? Within this literature, they focus on how many times people visit the mosque and if this correlates with their outcomes on the labour market and educational attainment.

(9)

9 terms of belonging, community building and access to markers and means. Integration will be perceived from the immigrants perspective and as a two-way process. This study will demonstrate the value of talking with people, instead of talking about people. By applying qualitative research methods, this study extends existing literature by perceiving integration through the perspective of the subject of investigation and by focusing on placemaking, belonging and community building.

1.2 Context

This section illustrates why different outcomes of religion on integration can be found and in which context this is occurring. Further, the background of Lombok is described, to understand the context in which the Ulu mosque is located (Dey, 2001). First, the history of Lombok is discussed. Described will be how Lombok became multicultural and if it always has been the multicultural dream4 citizens call it now. Secondly, it delineates the current situation and explores who exactly lives in this multicultural neighbourhood. It describes exceptional neighbourhood in which the mosque is located.

1.2.0 Religiosity: barrier or bridge?

Immigrant religiosity in studies in the United States is often experienced as beneficial for integration into society instead of a barrier, according to sociologists Foner and Alba (2008). Mosques in the United States function as “mobilization vehicles and schools of civic

participation” (Jamal, 2005). Hirschman (2004) states that the three R’s of immigrants

religious communities, namely resources, refuge and respect, can be beneficial for integration. Religious participation offers a refuge in creating belonging and participation in times of loss. Mosques provide a place where migrants experience respectability, in contrast to what migrants experience in society. Furthermore, spiritual places offer services, such as providing information about jobs, education, housing and health (Hirschman, 2004).

Studies executed in Europe find the opposite. Here, religion is suggested to be problematic, dividing society and to be a barrier to integration (Foner & Alba, 2008). The focus in the public discourse is mostly on strong boundaries, between ‘us’ versus ‘them’, between the ‘native Dutch’ and the ‘Muslims’ or ‘Western values’ versus ‘Islamic values’ (Korteweg & Yurdakul, 2009). The secularized state contributes to that, by making the

4_{The multicultural dream entails the idea of "(celebrate) hybridity, impurity, intermingling, the transformation}

that comes from new and unexpected combinations of human beings, cultures, ideas, politics, movies, songs" (Joppke, 1996. p.488)

(10)

10 contrast between religious and non-religious even sharper (Van Tubergen, 2007). Anthropologist Cesari (2004, P.176) states: “The higher degree of secularization in Europe

means that forms of social and cultural activity based on religious principles are frequently seen as illegitimate”. This is especially applicable to Islam, which norms and values are

perceived as contradictory to those of a secularized state. The negative connotation Islam has is reflected in the desired integration of Muslims; their norms and values have to change to be perceived as integrated.

These different discourses can be understood by knowing the context they occur in. Firstly, the composition of migrants. In Europe Muslims are a relatively large disadvantaged minority group, because of its labour migration background. In the United States the Muslim population is a relative small immigrant group and positively selected, thus mainly high skilled professionals. Secondly, the Netherlands in one of the most secularized countries of the world. Or as sociologist Casanova (2003, P.19) stated: “Americans think that they are

supposed to be religious, while Europeans think that they are supposed to be irreligious.”.

This results in perceiving norms and values of Islam as clashing with those of the secularized state. Thirdly, important in understanding the differences is the historical legacy of church-state relations. The early separation of church-state and church in the United States produced a wide diversity of religions, or a ‘religious marketplace’, while in Europe the state churches remained (Brooks Holifield, 2014).

1.2.1 The multicultural nightmare in Lombok

Lombok (see Figure 1) has not always

been the multicultural dream it is nowadays. The lack of integration discussed in different debates was also applicable to the situation in Lombok in the 1980’s. Immigrants were not integrated and major conflicts arose between the different ethnic groups living in the neighbourhood. Especially the opening of the Ulu mosque located in a living house

in 1979 caused a lot of conflict and

Figure 1. Buurt (neighbourhood) 75 indicates the location of Lombok in Utrecht. Source: Alleato (2011).

(11)

inconvenience (Meder & Dibbits 1999). The municipality tried to improve integration with a top-down approach, but this failed. The native Dutch in Lombok felt that they were neglected and that immigrants could do anything without complying to the rules. This was based on the argument that the municipality was afraid to get accused of discrimination, which eventually this led to more conflict (Wouters, 1985). It was not that migrants did not want to integrate, some of them wanted to learn the Dutch language. However, learning Dutch was not in line with the rules for labour migrants and the consequence was that they got fired (Zuithof, 2003).

During the 1960’s labour migrants settled in Lombok because it was closely located to industry areas. Therefore the first labour migrants who came from Morocco and Turkey settled in Lombok (Dibbits & Meder, 1999). Assuming that this was only temporary, they were placed in guest houses. However, it turned out that these labour migrants stayed longer and family reunification came up. Because of the long waiting lists for rental properties, owner-occupied properties in Lombok were popular among labour migrants. Unfortunately due to the recession in 1970’s many labour migrants became unemployed, which caused Lombok to be a dilapidated neighbourhood and perceived by people living in Utrecht as the

Kasbah (Meder & Dibbits, 1999)5.

1.2.2

The multicultural dream in Lombok

Nowadays Utrecht is a city with a relative positive attitudes towards minorities (Connor, 2009). Lombok is still a multicultural neighbourhood with in 2018 only 57.5% of the population being native Dutch and 12.9% of other western nationalities (Gemeente Utrecht, 2018). The three biggest immigrant groups represented in Lombok consist of 10.9% of Moroccan descent, 8.9% of Turkish descent, 2.9% of Surinamese descent and 6.8% consist of citizens with another non-Western immigrant background. This neighbourhood with over 40 different nationalities is, by its own citizens, called the multicultural dream.

For many people it is a well-considered choice to live in Lombok, people want to be part of a ‘multicultural dream’ such as Lombok. Because of this well-considered choice to live here, these people dare to take the lead in the neighbourhood, which results in active newcomers. These newcomers come up with many new initiatives, which are financed by the

5_{Kasbah is a term of abuse, a negative association with foreigners and decay of the neighbourhood used by}

people living in Utrecht, which entails a picture about how people perceived Lombok and migrants living in Lombok in these days.

(12)

12 budget they receive from the municipality (Zuithof, 2003; De Groot & Van Laar, 2012). This active civic participation is unique for a multicultural neighbourhood such as Lombok.

These ideas vary from elderly who want to play bingo to Turkish-Dutch girls who want homework support (Zuithof, 2003). Sociologist Beate Volker (in Zuithof, 2003), confirms that binding among residents of Lombok is an important factor in these outcomes (Zuithof, 2003). The responsibility and self-reliance can be explained by their own well-considered choice to live in Lombok. Binding within communities is known for more willingness to participate in events and activities and lessens the criminality rates, and if there is criminality citizens are willing to intervene (Zuithof, 2003).

For example in 1993 the Turkish-Dutch youth caused a lot of nuisance in Lombok (De Groot & Van Laar, 2012). The board of the Ulu mosque was aware of this, they took responsibility and came up with the idea to create a Ulu youth centre, which was funded by the municipality. This placemaking activity solved the problem of nuisance and provided a place for the youth where they can get homework support and attend multiple workshops such as job application training.

1.3 Theoretical Framework

1.3.0

Integration: what is it?

Integration is a widely discussed topic, however, the meaning of the concept and what it includes changes throughout the years and remains vague (Schinkel, 2008). Most research focuses on structural integration of immigrants, where religion usually is seen as barrier to integration. However, argued is that integration should not be seen as solely the responsibility of immigrants. Integration can also be perceived as a two-way process where both immigrants and native Dutch should contribute to integration outcomes (Fleischmann, 2016).

Remarkable is, is that when focusing on ‘their’ [immigrants] integration outcomes, the migrants’ perspective is not included. Therefore, this research will focus on the by immigrants experienced integration. It will explore the meaning of the mosque and its community for the people in the context of rising resistance towards Islam and towards the construction of mosques.

The focus will be on how integration is perceived in terms of a sense of belonging and a sense of community (Duyvendak, 2011). Furthermore it will focus on integration in terms of access to markers and means. With this is meant that the mosque functions as social service hub and provides access to housing, health, education, employment or to social connections

(13)

13 and facilitators such as language, cultural knowledge and safety and stability, according to psychologists Ager and Strang (2008). Thus, integration will be perceived through the immigrants’ perspective and includes in the present study: 1) belonging, 2) community building, and 3) access to markers and means.

1.3.1 Existence & Aesthetics: Development of mosques in the Netherlands

To understand the position of mosques in

society nowadays, the development of mosques will be highlighted in this paragraph. The small number of mosques6 kept on being stable throughout the years, however the number of ‘Schuilmoskeeën’ decreased7. The small and stable number of mosques is remarkable when being aware of the increasing number of weekly mosque visits (see Figure 2 and 3).

The development of visible mosques started during the 1970’s when the Dutch government allotted a minor contribution to organize prayer areas for Muslims (Landman & Wessels, 2005). With the little money they had, they were able to rent a small store, garage, or old school building. Over the years the number of Muslims increased and Muslim communities organized themselves better, which resulted in one national organization.

6_{Compared to the number of Catholic churches}

(1.500) and Protestant churches (2.000) there is relatively a small amount of mosques (500) in the Netherlands.

7 _{Translated as ‘Shelther Mosques’. Which is the}

name for mosques who were hidden in old school building or vacant stores and located in deprived neighbourhoods (Roose, 2009).

Figure 2. Turkish 1st and 2nd generation migrants who visit the mosque weekly

(14)

Figure 3. Moroccan 1st and 2nd generation migrants who visit the mosque weekly During the 1990’s the Muslim

communities advocated for bigger mosques,

however municipalities and local committees opposed this request. This resulted for example in rejection of the construction plans of the Aya Sofya mosque in Amsterdam-West (Landman & Wessels, 2005). The mosque was only allowed if they built a smaller mosque which only functioned as mosque for Muslims within that area. This struggle concerning the construction of the mosque is not an exception. Many mosques have to adapt their plans to meet the plans of the municipalities, these plans are often based on anti-Islamic sentiments. The policy discourse, which sees the visibility of Islam in public spaces as a major problem, is acted upon (Landman & Wessels, 2005: Maussen, 2004). A mosque is seen as depreciation of the environment and not experienced as being aesthetic, therefore mosques are often placed in marginal spaces and not presented in public spaces (Kuppinger, 2008). If the mosque does not match with the desired spatial requirements of the authorities, which often base their opinion on anti-Islamic sentiments, the authorities use their position as tool to negatively impact mosque projects. These spaces are by authorities seen as not having a social meaning, but as spaces which can be used to expand their social position (Donley, 1987). Or as political scientist Maussen (2004, P.2.) stated in the case of Rotterdam: “Policy discourses on mosque

establishment in Rotterdam in this period shows how socio-economic inequalities and cultural biases get produced, reproduced and contested as key actors ascribe various meanings to the presence of Muslim communities in the city.”.

Due to the marginalized position of mosques, Muslims are kept away from the city’s dominant image and often situated in lower class neighbourhoods with less political influence (Kuppinger, 2008). However, representing Muslims in the city’s image is for them a step towards broader public recognition and equal participation. Especially when focusing on the process of integration, participation and acceptance the solution cannot be found in placing the mosque in invisible places such as hidden garages, old churches, school, offices or somewhere outside the city centre (Tamimi Arab, 2013).

Schinkel (In Ertoçu & Bugdaci, 2009) argues that the marginalization of mosques is not only a result of the policy discourse, but also of the public discourse which sees mosques as “breeding places for terrorists”. This discourse leads to a lot of commotion in a neighbourhood when the plans of constructing a new more visible mosque are revealed (Cañas, 2008) Therefore, mosques are often placed in places where they are surrounded by prisons, mental institutions, hospitals, cemeteries, asylum centres, highways and empty spaces, far away from the civilized world (Tamimi Arab, 2013). Or as Foucault (in Tamimi

(15)

15 Arab, 2013) would describe these spaces: “spaces outside society where otherness is

central”. However, Read (2012) states that these spaces are not just spaces. From the outside

buildings look like meaningless ‘dull’ buildings, but on the inside the place is by a lot of people experienced as a meaningful space. It facilitates values, it is a world “an sich”.

When, in the 1990’s the Muslims tried to advocate for their rights, their main argument was that they needed a space as well, because they did not want to feel “as strangers” any longer (Landman & Wessels, 2005). Such a place is of major importance because first and second generation migrants need a place where they feel connected to, for emotional support and finding a sense of belonging which is necessary for integration into society (Brettell, 2003). These mosques and especially the aesthetics and visibility can function as a facilitator in the feeling of belonging and therefore in integration.

Next to the visibility of the mosques, the role of the mosques in the Netherlands changed as well. The positive role of mosques in society is more and more recognized and seen in different cities throughout the Netherlands. A study done in a mosque in Rotterdam shows the importance of mosques for its users. Muslims looking for help are more likely to contact the mosque than contacting professional institutions. This is due to the fact that they feel more connected to the mosque and that the mosque is perceived as a lower threshold (Platform31, 2015).

In Lombok the Ulu mosque is opening up for everyone and tries to include Muslims and native Dutch in pursuing the will of the prophet. In the northern part of Utrecht something else is occurring. There, a mosque is accused of being too fundamentalist and raising children with aversion of Dutch society (Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau, 2015). Thus, mosques can have a lot of impact upon the perspectives of users and of the neighbourhood. Therefore it is important to get a grip on the impact of a mosque and how this impact can be used in a responsible way. Still, the whole picture of the role of mosques and what this exactly means for people who rely on help of mosques is unknown.

1.3.2 Placemaking at the mosque

Since the Ulu mosque is aiming for being a religious place and a socio-cultural place, many different placemaking activities take place. Theorists describe placemaking activities as a “space plus meaning” (Donofrio, 2010, p.152). The meaning of a place changes and evolves over time, since places are social constructions which can be interpreted and reinterpreted in different ways by different people. Placemaking activities are fostered by interactions

(16)

16 between people and places, but also by interactions between people (Saar & Palang, 2009). Sociologists Mazumdar and Mazumdar (2009) describe that the relationship between community and place is an important and powerful actor in placemaking activities which effectively shape the physical and social character of a certain place. Therefore this study will focus on the meaning of places, but also on the meaning of relations between people in these places.

Placemaking regarding Lombok is high on the agenda of the municipality of Utrecht (Gemeente Utrecht, 2017). Creating places where people attach symbolic value to, where they want to identify themselves with, and like to spend their time is what placemaking means for the municipality of Utrecht (Gemeente Utrecht, 2017). The Ulu mosque is a place where the relationship between place and community strengthens the identity of people. The mosque demonstrates beliefs and values of Muslims through its aesthetics (Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2009).

According to urban planners Markusen and Gadwa (2010) placemaking entails more than only interactions, it provides a place where new jobs and incomes are created. It creates a place where knowledge and ideas are produced and reproduced. For example when a spiritual place functions as a service hub, placemaking occurs through providing information and assistance during the integration process (Dyck, 2005). This is partly related to serving the liveability of places by placemaking activities. Liveability outcomes include heightened public safety, community identity, increased access to housing, jobs, incomes and knowledge and collaboration between civic and non-profit organizations (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010).

This study will examine the relationship between placemaking activities, through the aesthetics, visibility, community, use and existence of the mosque, and integration. The placemaking activities of the Ulu mosque are mainly based on their aim for inclusion and transparency. Their aim for including the whole neighbourhood and serving as a spiritual place ánd sociocultural place, has different outcomes for the experiences and meaning people attach to these placemaking activities. For example opening up for other religions creates placemaking by making space for a plurality of spiritual experiences. But the negotiations about the aesthetics of the mosque and the final result contribute to how the mosque is experienced and valued. The mosque provides spaces for meeting people and hereby providing an opportunity for community building, therefore this study will also focus on placemaking through interactions between people.

(17)

17

1.3.4 Belonging and community building

Placemaking practices are also known for fostering a sense of belonging (Benson, Jackson, 2012). This study argues that the existence of the mosque appears to be important in creating a sense of belonging. Religious historian Mayer (2007, p.8) declared: “the weekly visit to the

temple is like a mental return to the homeland” or “an expansion of the homeland to the hosting country”, which increases the feeling of belonging and feeling at home. Once

migrants enter the country of destination they often tend to become more religious, due to when arriving in a new country, one gets more aware of its own identity and identity is closely related to religion (Mayer, 2007).

Religious places tend to play an important role in this integration process in terms of belonging and feeling at home (Foner & Alba, 2008). These spiritual places offer people a feeling of home and provide comfort. It is a place where people can deal with death, suffering and loss of everything they left behind in the country of origin, such as families, friends and norms and values (Hirschman, 2004).

The feeling of loss experienced by migrants after leaving their home country, can lead to the practise of religious rituals and prayers in the native tongue. The use of the native language can provide emotional connection, mainly when shared with others. Ethnic religious practices can be incorporated in ceremonies, immigrants can worship in their own language, with their own rituals and music and share stories from their homeland, so this all can be passed on to the next generation.

Through participation in spiritual practices, or other placemaking activities, a sense of belonging is created (Foner & Alba, 2008). This is not depending on the reason of migration, for both economic migrants and refugees religion is an important actor (Hischman, 2004). Thus, this mosque in Lombok with its enormous minarets may seem foreign, but do they not represent the integration of immigrants in society?

An important facilitator of belonging are communities which foster belonging by recognizing and acknowledging their interdependence (Block, 2009). Belonging to a community is being welcome, even if people are unfamiliar. Chavis and Wandersman (1990) embrace the idea of communities rising from social symbolic interactions which occur in a certain space, creating a meaningful place. These communities have to involve three components to be called community, namely: a networks of interpersonal ties outside the household which is capable of serving support and conviviality, using the same common locality, and sentiments of unity and activities. Block (2009) adds with his work on

(18)

18 communities that communities are based upon common needs and goals, shared lives, a certain culture and worldview, and collective actions, such as prayers.

The composition or establishment of a community is a dynamic and ever changing process, whereby meaning and identity formation are underlying actors in this process of community building (Brace, Bailey & Harvey, 2006). Composition of a community includes institutions, such as the board of the mosque, and individuals, such as people who make use of the mosque to be involved in the social process of creating a community. The mosque as a sacred place, offers the community a place where they can share their identity, where they can meet and come together for social and cultural purposes, which is also reflected in the purposes of the Ulu mosque (Kong, 2001). Especially during moments of external antagonism, such as the rise of islamophobia, sacred places serve as a place where the sense of community is enhanced through antagonism (Kong, 2001).

The focus of this research are communities that are established through making use of the same place, as happens through face-to-face interactions. These face-to-face interactions between community members are underlying in the creation of a community (Block, 2009). But also symbolic social interactions as for example making use of the same place can provoke moments of community. These community moments are places where integration occurs by combining or negotiating the connection between ‘here’ and ‘there’ (Lewis, 2010). Interactions between community members also create a sense of belonging by providing emotional, personal, instrumental and informational support (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). In terms of integration this will mean that the community will contribute to belonging by providing emotional and personal support during times of loss for migrants, but also by providing emotional support in times of prejudice and negative stereotypes. Communities can support instrumental opportunities, they can provide access to markers and means, as the mosque for example does by providing language courses (Ley, 2008).

The mosque makes the continuation of culture possible for immigrants. This provides security and a sense of belonging, and with the reproduction of cultural activities a moment of community is created (Lewis 2010). These feelings of security can even be created among migrants with different ethnic backgrounds. As long as they have a flexible approach on identity, and a shared identity, such as Islam, can be found (Block, 2009). The formation of a community can be stimulated in different ways. What is often known for immigrant communities, is that the similar way people dress, listening to the same music and speaking the same language are all factors that contribute to community building (Lewis, 2010).

(19)

19 The community sustains the existence of the mosque, because they want a place where they can practice their religion and where they can meet. However, the mosque also sustains the community, by providing a place where a sense of community is constructed (Kong, 2001). A tight community will be likely to make use of this mosque, and participate in divers and many activities provided by the mosque if this is in their collective interests to do so (Mitchell & Reid, 2001).

A sense of belonging will increase the opportunity of talking about safety, such as the consequences of Islamophobia, but will also increase the support for other topics, such as hospitality and generosity (Block, 2009). The mosque as a community gives shape to hospitality by opening up for other religions and to generosity by expecting nothing in return. As mentioned before, as long as it is in their collective interest, such as countering negative stereotypes, Muslims are more likely to participate in activities.

However, being part of a community is not only beneficial. Kong (2001) found during his research among an Asian community that the social control among the community was relatively high. This was by some members of the community experienced as a constraint instead of a benefit. Thus community can not only be seen as providing security and a tight community, but also as constraint. Nevertheless, the boundaries of what a Muslim community entails is not set but fluid (Block, 2009). Within a community different ideas can exist about what the community entails. These differences can be based on how someone practices Islam, but also on how the oppression of Muslims is experienced, since a stronger experience of oppression tends to results in stronger feelings of community.

1.4 Methodology

1.4.0 Research methods

The study consulted different qualitative research methods, such as, participant observations and semi-structured interviews, to derive an answer to the following research questions:

How does the Ulu mosque in Lombok contribute to integration of first and second generation migrants in terms of belonging, community building and access to markers and means?

• How does the Ulu mosque creates a meaningful place and thereby contribute to the integration process of first and second generation migrants in terms of belonging, community building and access to markers and means?

(20)

20 • How does the place design of the Ulu mosque contribute to the integration

process of first and second generation migrants in terms of belonging, community building and access to markers and means?

The applied methods are suitable when aiming at understanding the experiences, perceptions, meanings and values of the key-actors (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2011). These methods are all derived from the sociological discipline, and are useful for obtaining a nuanced insight in the world of the interviewees (Giddens & Sutton, 2010). These insights will be derived to unravel the placemaking activities and integration experienced by first and second generation immigrants. It is also used to discover (silent) norms and values and understand the context in which this research takes place. The statement of anthropologist Spradley (1979, in Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2009) was an challenging and interesting starting point in understanding the immigrants’ perspective:

“I want to understand the world from your point of view. I want to know what you know in the way you know it. I want to understand the meaning of your experience, to walk in your shoes, to feel things as you feel them, to explain things as you explain them. Will you become my teacher and help me understand?” (p. 34)

This paragraph will describe the used methods and how those methods relate to this study. The interviews and observations took place simultaneously, thus the order applied in this paragraph is random.

Participant observations are by anthropologist Schensul (1999, in Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2011) described as “the process of learning through exposure to or involvement in the

day-to-day or routine activities of participants in the research setting”. Observations in this

study are done in and around different areas of the mosque. The observed places, are the ‘kebab factory’, the women area, the markets, and the Commemoration Day on the 4th of May. In these areas of the mosque I observed how the use of places created meaning for people and contributed to belonging and community. From the end of March until the end of April, I visited the mosque and its markets on a regular basis. Four times a week I spent my days at the ‘kebab factory’, here I drunk tea, ate baklava with the elderly, joined the cheap breakfasts in the weekends, or prepared or worked out interviews. During this time, I visited every market organized by the Ulu mosque. I went to these places on different times and days. On weekdays, in the weekends, on Fridays and on special holidays such as Kingsday. I

(21)

21 enjoyed walking around through the divers public of the markets and the Kanaalstraat8 and approaching people to have a conversation about the mosque. These conversations were mainly with Muslims and native Dutch people who were visiting the market or the ‘kebab factory’. More exceptional were conversations with the vendors at the market stands or of the shops in the Kanaalstraat. Of these conversations, six led to an interview planned on another day, in these cases I told the respondents about my research.

During most observations I was part of the activities occurring. However, I did not wear a headscarf during my observations and interviews. In most observed situations the public was mixed, such as on most markets, in the ‘kebab factory’ and in the women area. There I was part of the activity, and the community was then perceived from the insiders perspective, an emic perspective. However, this was not always the case. During one of the markets I felt I stood out, because I was not wearing a headscarf. Questionable is thus, till what extent this situation can be seen as participant observation.

To understand and explore the experiences and perceptions on the role of the Ulu mosque in integration, interviews were conducted. In total, sixteen semi-structured interviews9 were conducted with people who make use of the mosque. The interviews were analysed and coded, partly based upon literature and partly on new insights derived from the interviews. This has resulted in a Codebook which can be found in Appendix B.

During the interviews I was multiple times confronted with the fact that I was perceived as an outsider. By stating “our community is tighter than yours”, respondents reflected on my position in the ‘other’ community, the native Dutch who see Muslims as terrorists. Thus, despite my attempt to ask transparent questions and not touch upon topics such as Islamophobia, terrorism or the term integration, my appearance had consequences for the answers. The context or situation where the interviews took place, was not perceived as transparent by the interviewees. These reactions clearly showed the perceived gap they tried to bridge through those interviews.

8_{Street across the mosque}

(22)

22

1.4.1 Selection of respondents

The present study will include both first and second generation immigrants. The selection of respondents followed from the outcomes of social and cultural psychologists Phalet and Ter Wal (2014). This study found that the negative image of Muslims held by native Dutch, is by first generation migrants experienced as barrier to belonging to Dutch society. First generation migrants of various ethnic backgrounds feel excluded and discriminated against. This is to a lesser extent applicable to the second generation migrants. Since first and second generation migrants experience the negative image of religion as barrier, both generations are included.

The respondents were approached in various ways. First, a friend of mine suggested two respondents who make use of the Ulu mosque. Via a roommate of mine and two Muslims colleagues, whom I also interviewed, I approached three other respondents. The prospective imam of the mosque also addressed two respondents. Thus, this research relied partly on the snowball effect, which includes the use of social networks within a community for approaching new respondents (Hennink, Hutter & Bailey, 2011). This method of sampling is suitable when aiming to reach a more hidden population group or a harder reachable population such as Muslims. However, this method also brings consequences along. It limits the research by only gathering respondents from the same social network. Therefore my visits to the ‘kebab factory’ and the market were used to recruit new respondents. Here I met six other respondents.

Despite the consequences of the snowball effect, it also has its benefits. I knew some respondents, or the respondents knew someone who knew me. This resulted in increased trust and respondents who felt more at ease, which made it easier to talk about sensitive topics, as for example ‘being homosexual in the Muslim community’.

The location of the interviews were depending on how I knew the respondents. Some interviews were held at my place or at a friend’s place, at the silent room at work or at the place of colleagues of mine. Respondents I knew through the ‘kebab factory’, were interviewed in the ‘kebab factory’.

1.4.2 Who are the respondents?

In total sixteen interviews were conducted. These people varied in gender, age, ethnic background and religious participation. The ages of the respondents vary between 19 till 52 years old. Seven women and nine men. Different nationalities have been included which

(23)

23 represent the diversity of the mosque users, to understand how people make different use of this place. Out of sixteen, fourteen interviews were conducted with first or second generation migrants who make use of the mosque for practicing religion and for sociocultural reasons. The other two interviewees are Dutch in a sense that they do not have a migration background. These two interviewees consist of a woman who was converted to Islam when she was in her mid-twenties and the chairman of the church. Despite that this study was aiming for including only first and second generation migrants, the woman was capable of clearly describing the differences of Dutch communities and the Muslim community due to perceiving herself as having been part of both communities. Because she contributed by comparing these communities from her own experiences, the choice was made to include this interview. The chairman of the Antonius church in Lombok who I approached by email, contributed to the study by providing insight in the placemaking practices of the board of the Ulu mosque in terms of collaboration and creating partnership with important actors in the neighbourhood.

The other fourteen respondents all had a migration background. This means that themselves or (one of) their parents came from another country than the Netherlands. The exact situation of the respondents will be specified throughout the text. Overall the respondents had roots in Turkey (7), Morocco (3), Egypt (1), Syria (1), Bosnia (1) and Pakistan (1).

The title of this research “the mosque as a bridge into society”, refers to the existing and experienced gap between first and second generation migrants and native Dutch. With using the term native Dutch in this study, referred is to people without a migration background, thus without parents or grandparent who were born abroad. In this study the term native Dutch will be used as the equivalent for non-Muslim, unless stated otherwise.

1.5 Overview

The next chapters will supply profound knowledge on why the existence of the mosque important is for Muslims, an overview of the meaning of the mosque can be found in Figure 4. In Chapter 2 it distinguishes different forms of belonging and describes how the existence, visibility and aesthetics of the mosque relate to these different forms of belonging. It illustrates the impact of the mosque physically being visible, being a community and being a community in interaction with society. Next to this, it shows that feeling at home and belonging are specific and depending on the context. Furthermore it provides insight in how

(24)

24 Figure 4. Placemaking components in the integration process in the Ulu mosque

placemaking activities such as the market create a sense of community and foster a two-way process of integration. Overall, it illustrates how the existence of the mosque creates a sense of community, a sense of belonging and fosters integration by providing a place here, which reminds migrants of being ‘there’.

Chapter 3 will describe the use of different places in the mosque. It illustrates how these places create meaning and contribute to community building. Multiple spaces within the mosque function as meeting places, were trust is created, and processes of community building and belonging occur. It describes how the community and network provide access to jobs, incomes, housing and health. But also how providing contact opportunities between non-Muslims and Muslims can foster understanding and belonging. It also demonstrates the paradox of the community and insight in the desirability of the community effects.

(25)

25

2 The existence of the mosque: A metaphor for Muslims and their

position in Dutch society

2.0 Introduction

During the interviews and observations I was confronted with the importance of the existence, the aesthetics, and visibility of the Ulu mosque. For many respondents this was contributing to a sense of community and a sense of belonging. At the same time the mosque illustrates how the notion of belonging seems to be a place specific and a dynamic process. The existence of the mosque also seems to be important in aiming for transparency and inclusion and its consequences.

Therefore, this chapter will firstly describe the importance of the existence of the Ulu mosque. Secondly, it will demonstrate how placemaking activities of the mosque contribute to a two-way process of integration by including native Dutch. And thirdly, the meaning of the existence of the mosque for Muslims will be examined.

2.1 A ‘visible’ mosque?

2.1.0 What is the problem of (non-)visibility?

For years mosques in the Netherlands were invisible. Mosques were settled in less visible places such as deprived neighbourhoods or hidden in vacant stores, garages or as the Ulu mosque, first in an empty living house and after that in an old bathing house (Crijnen, 2004). In the Netherlands, the public discourse is dominated by a resistant attitude towards mosques, native Dutch seem to be prejudiced against Muslims and strong anti-Islam feelings dominate (Landman & Wessels, 2005: Velasco González, Verkuyten, Weesie & Poppe, 2008). An underlying reason for those negative stereotypes can often be found in perceived symbolic threat, such as “mosques which take over the country” according to sociologist and anthropologist Kuppinger (2014). This results in mosques which are usually not welcome in neighbourhoods. Native Dutch who want to “put a halt on the construction of new mosques” is an often heard statement in the negative discourse on Islam. Mosques and Muslims are perceived as bad neighbours and the idea of Muslims who want to dominate Western civilization is not rare (Smeekes, Verkuyten, & Poppe, 2011). Since the recent Syrian refugee crisis, the resistant attitude towards Muslims even became stronger (Versteegh, 2015). At the

(26)

26 Figure 5. Previous location Ulu mosque. Source:

Alleato (2011).

same time, the visibility of mosques increased and led to more conflict about Islam and especially about the visibility of places of worship (Green, 2010).

An example of the resistant attitude towards Muslims and its consequences is shown on a YouTube video about the Westermosque in Amsterdam (Al Jazeera, 2015). During the construction of the mosque the board of the mosque received threats of non-Muslims who stated that: “after finishing the mosque we will set it on fire”. A board member of the Westermosque mentioned that this kind of criticism is the worst to hear, and that they do not take it lightly. According to him, this conflict leads to a situation where Muslims do not perceive themselves as Dutch, and Dutch do not perceive Muslims as being Dutch, which eventually will cause problems. For Muslims, this continuous struggle over being part of the dominant city image leads to feelings of not being recognized and not belonging in the Netherlands. However, a sense of belonging is indispensable in the process of integration (Landman & Wessels, 2005).

2.1.1 The visibility and aesthetics of the Ulu mosque: an exception or an

example?

Over the years mosques in the Netherlands became more and more visible, some even became enormous in size. Their huge minarets and domes symbolise Islamic culture, but these examples are still an exception. In Utrecht four out of ten mosques are nowadays visibly recognizable as a mosque (Alleato, 2011). Still, the Ulu mosque remains an exception, by contradicting the discourse on marginalization by its visibility and the absence of protest during its construction. Therefore, it is interesting and

(27)

27 Figure 7. Location Ulu mosque nearby central station

suggests to be a positive development that the opposite happened in the visible Ulu mosque, which is built without almost any commotion.

The visibility of the Ulu mosque changed throughout the years as can be seen in Figure 5 and Figure 6, which respectively show the “hidden” mosque and the “visible” mosque. Despite the recent minor shift towards visibility of mosques, the existence and especially the aesthetics and visibility can function as a facilitator in the feeling of belonging and

therefore in integration according to anthropologist Brettell 2003). This visibility does not only manifest itself in its aesthetics but also in its location (see Figure 7). But, visibility and location do not go hand in hand as can be seen in Figure 2. Despite the central location (see Figure 4), it was still not recognizable as a mosque. Nowadays the Ulu mosque is, because of its location next to the central station of Utrecht, the most centrally located mosque compared to other mosques in the Netherlands. This in combination with its visibility and recognizable aesthetics make the Ulu mosque an exceptional and unique mosque. The central location of the mosque contributes for Muslims to the feeling of belonging in the Netherlands, by delineating the idea of being part of the dominant city’s image (Maussen, 2004).

This visibility of the mosque is one of the strong elements of the mosque. It is not only visible in the Lombok neighbourhood, it is visible throughout the whole city. Even from my own apartment building at a height at about 30m, four kilometres to the north-east of the Ulu mosque, at night the blue-lighted minarets (see Figure 8) are clearly visible and striking against the skyline of Utrecht. The 44 meter high minarets, which are lighted at night, are important for the visibility of the mosque. These minarets also contribute, next to

(28)

It is quite unique that a such visible mosque as the Ulu mosque was allowed and accepted in a negative national atmosphere, where mosques are generally not wanted. Maussen (2004) describes that the urban renewal framework in Dutch cities has allowed for the improvement of mosques, but neglected the aspects of visibility. Despite this negative discourse the Ulu mosque was allowed to construct a new building, albeit under certain conditions.

It all started with the renewal plans of the municipality. Lombok a neighbourhood which is seen as open and multicultural needed a mosque which suited these characteristics. Regardless of the need, there were core conditions this mosque had to meet. The architecture of the mosque had to be transparent and had to display openness, the mosque itself should serve as a functional place. This mosque needed to serve as a bridge between Dutch society and the Muslim community by including non-religious people and providing events for everyone, which supports the insight into Islam and counters the negative stereotypes about Muslims. Thus, the function of the mosque is not only a space for sacred placemaking, involving religious practices and meaning, but also for community formation (Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2009).

The aesthetics of the mosque are focused on including the conditions of the municipality by using transparent materials and appearing as an open mosque with aiming at countering the negative stigma about Muslims (see Figure 9). During my conversations at the market non-religious and native Dutch described the mosque being:

“modern” and “overwhelming”, and

Figure 8. The at night blue lighted minarets of the Ulu mosque

Figure 9. Transparent materials used in the Ulu mosque

(29)

29 Figure 10. Decorations on the carpet in the prayer area

“beautiful” as well. These statements demonstrate that

we are not talking about a traditional colossal mosque with a lot of decoration, since they refer to the word “modern”. With the word modern they refer to the construction: “which is

made out of brick’” and the: “functionality of the mosque that goes beyond religion”. The

appearance of mosques which looks “Dutch” are often related to the notion of “modern” architecture (Roose, 2009). To construct a mosque with a “Dutch” appearance the use of bricks is in architecture an often used strategy, since it is a common architecture style in the Netherlands (Tamimi Arab, 2015). It is even argued that if a mosque appears to be “Dutch” it contributes to community building (Van Dijk 1999).

The mosque fits into its place by using the same red bricks as the surrounding houses, instead of the traditional white walls. The aesthetics of the Ulu mosque are a well thought out idea. Throughout the architecture of the mosque they tried to combine the traditional Islamic style of mosques with the Dutch culture and adapt it to what is accepted. Their aim was to create a place where the Turkish and Dutch culture comes together: A place which has meaning for Muslims and non-Muslims and contributes by connecting people.

The dome and minarets are the only aspects which make the mosque recognizable as a mosque. These minarets are transparent and made out of glass as a strategy to open up. A compromise is made on how often these minarets are used for the call for prayers, the mosque is allowed to do this two times a day instead of five times a day, so that people in the neighbourhood do not experience

“nuisance” as one of the interviewees explained. This reflects the negative discourse on Muslims. Native Dutch notice the presence of Islam/Muslims or the mosque, because the mosque stand out during their calls for prayers, these calls for prayers differ from the ‘norm’ in the Netherlands. Therefore the calls for prayer are considered as “a call for terrorists” (Velasco González et al. 2008).

An emerging idea is that the lights in the minarets should be used for the call for prayers, instead of sound (Tamimi Arab, 2013). However, the Muslim community in the Ulu mosque resisted this idea (Tamimi Arab, 2013). Nevertheless, the minarets do have other

(30)

30 practical functions, they are used as elevator for elderly people, which is a characteristic of a Poldermosque10 (Landman & Wessels, 2005).

Another strategy used for opening up, is one which is more often used by mosques, namely the use of matted glass for the second and third floor of the mosque. By doing this, the idea is given that no ‘mysterious, scary or terrorist’ activities happen on the other side of the wall. The use of matted glass is often applied as compromise by negotiations about aesthetics (Tamimi Arab, 2013).

On the inside of the mosque the connection between the Turkish and Dutch culture is a central aspect in the architecture. The decorations on the carpet in the prayer area are in the same style as other Turkish carpets, but this one consists of Tulips, which combines the Dutch and Turkish culture (see Figure 10).

2.2 The existence of the mosque: who belongs?

2.2.0 Introduction

Migration flows created throughout the years a diversity in population composition. This dynamic composition led to cities in which the dominant ethnic or racial group is missing, the so called majority-minority cities (Cameron, Epstein, O’Halloron, 1996). This raised the question if this majority-minority cities eventually would lead to normalization of differences and inclusion. Lombok might not be the perfect example of a majority-minority geography, since more than 50% of the population is perceived as native Dutch, however it is an example of a highly diverse neighbourhood. Furthermore, Lombok or specifically the Ulu mosque is capable of illustrating different forms of belonging. Sociologist Duyvendak (2011) addresses that creating a sense of belonging or a sense of feeling at home no longer can be seen as a struggle which only concerns migrants, but also native Dutch. In the context of changing neighbourhoods, and experiencing the threat of “mosques which take over the country”, it is also the native Dutch who experience a loss of feeling at home (Kuppinger, 2014).

This paragraph explores the role of the mosque within this debate. It will provide insight into the experiences of Muslims and native Dutch in spaces of the mosque. This paragraph will draw upon how the existence of the mosque can create community building

10 _{An often made division is between Poldermosques and Heimweemoskeeën (Homesick mosques). A}

Poldermosque is a mosque which is adapted to Dutch society, they are sober, functional and not always immediately recognizable as a mosque. “Homesick mosques” are traditional mosques, with high minarets, enormous domes and sumptuous decorations, which would remind people of “home” and therefore in the public discourse often linked to Islamization (Roose, 2009).

(31)

31 within the Muslim community, and between the Muslim community and the native Dutch. Furthermore, it illustrates different forms of belonging perceived by migrants.

2.2.1 The role of the Ulu mosque in community building and integration into

society

The board of the Ulu mosque takes a leading position in lessening the gap between native Dutch and Muslims. The aim of the board is to open up for other religions and non-religious people. This is defined by providing guided tours through the mosque, whereby everyone is welcome. Alper (Dutch-Turk, 52), who was born in the Netherlands as a son of a Turkish labour migrant, explained that: “some Dutch people are afraid and have criticism on the

mosque, because they do not fully understand what is going on in the mosque.”. Therefore,

guided tours are implemented as strategy to provide information about Islam. The mosque is used as a place where negative feelings towards Muslims can be countered and processes of community building can be stimulated (Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 2009).

Integration of the neighbourhood is done by organising dinners for the whole neighbourhood and multiple markets each year. The ground floor of the Ulu mosque functions as a cafeteria, which is used as meeting place and reminds people of home because of the shops on the ground floor of their building. Offering a place for various religions makes space for a plurality of religious experiences. Arranging the building in this way, turns this space into a translocal place, where it is on the one hand part of Lombok and Utrecht, and due to its size and height part of the high and modern buildings of the business area (Hall & Datta, 2010). On the other hand it fits perfectly into the street scene by being connected to a broader spatial geography. The mosque is situated at the end of a long shopping street with many Turkish and Moroccan low-budget fruit and vegetable shops, tea houses and traditional clothing stores.

These markets organized by the board of the Ulu mosque are organized for everyone. By doing this, they try to send a message of openness. Invitations are distributed through various channels. The monthly ‘neighbourhood message’ from the municipality mentions the upcoming events at the Ulu mosque such as the market. The Ulu mosque also mentions it on their own Facebook page and Twitter account and the invitations are distributed by mail in the neighbourhood. The latter is in Turkish and Dutch and clearly states that everyone is welcome. At the market itself, the Dutch signs with “Iedereen is Welkom” (everyone is welcome) are everywhere.

(32)

(33)

33 Figure 11. Easter market at the Ulu mosque

2.2.2 Who belongs to these markets?

Despite the willingness of the board of the Ulu mosque to be open, the Easter market (see Figure 11) was a spatial geography which was dominated by a specific group. Everywhere around me were people who looked Turkish or Moroccan. There were women who were wearing headscarves, long traditional dresses and sometimes a burka and there were men with beards who were wearing caftans and djellaba’s.

The age of the visitors was diverse, there were older men and women, but also families with little children. A diversity of products were sold on the market, such as toys, books and clothes. Despite that, the Turkish products dominated the market. The food which was sold was Turkish and the clothing was mainly traditional, the signs within the market tent, which presented what was sold at which stand, were in Arabic. The market was organized in a tent, this tent was set up in such a way that offered plenty of sitting opportunities. Everyone was talking to each other and greeted each other, people seem to know each other. For Muslims, this is a place where they feel at home, where they belong.

Despite that they feel at home, and the willingness of the board of the Ulu mosque to be open and inclusive, I did not feel like I belonged there. Where this market from the immigrants’ perspective might have been experienced as an open and inclusive market, I did not feel comfortable. From the moment I entered the terrain of the mosque, people stared at me and seemed curious about my appearance. I did not feel comfortable because I felt I stood out compared to other people making use of this place. I did not wear a headscarf as the other women, which might have led to perceiving me as one of the native Dutch who is prejudiced. I did not spoke the language most people in the tent spoke and had no clue what the signs inside the tent stated. Furthermore, I did not know anyone who was inside the tent, despite that everyone else in the tent seemed to know each other. The way people stared at me made me feel like an intruder. At this market I was looking for recognition in terms of similar clothing or language. Or as geographer Kong (2001) described it, I was looking for a ‘shared identity’, to feel a sense of belonging. I was looking for every small detail in which I could

The mosque as a bridge into society? : a qualitative case study on the immigrants’ perspective on the role of the mosque in integration