Indeed, Muslims in London, Paris, and Berlin and the general public in each European nation surveyed are widely divided on the need to remove the veil as a condition for integration. While 61 percent of the French public defines integration as necessitating the removal of the headscarf, only 14 percent of Paris Muslims agree. Similarly, 55 percent of the British public sees the face veil as a barrier for integration, but only 13 percent of London Muslims concur. The majority of the British, French, and German public believes minorities must be more flexible about their religious customs to blend in, while the majority of Muslims in each capital say it is the majority that must be more accommodating.

How do leaders move their diverse societies past this gridlock? To make any transformation, leaders must fundamentally reexamine what constitutes a healthy society. The strength of vibrant democracies comes not from citizen conformity, but from cooperation and abundance of perspectives. Leaders must therefore refocus the markers of integration away from symbols that divide to issues that unite. Exaggerated emphasis on outward conformity actually masks a great deal of common ground between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe—ground that can be leveraged to promote greater national unity and cooperation between communities, moving Europe beyond the integration impasse.

Integration, defined less in terms of visible conformity and more in terms of shared goals, may allow minority group members to feel more like full citizens, despite differences from the majority. Focusing away from the absence of difference as a marker for belonging, this new view may also help the majority see ethnic and religious minorities as full members of mainstream society—promoting greater national unity. Accommodating differences can actually promote greater cohesion by fostering an authentic sense of national identity for all citizens. When governments force a choice between national and religious identities, it has the opposite effect of integration. It instead denigrates people of any strongly-held faith as second class citizens. The evidence shows that individuals who are not forced to choose between their country and their creed can fully embrace both.

This phenomenon may be at play in Great Britain. The evidence suggests that the nation’s “multiculturalism” policy, which some believe promotes disloyalty among minorities, may actually promote greater national unity through diversity. Britain’s unique approach is reflected in the public’s tolerance of most religious symbols, including the Muslim headscarf. Far from being disloyal, however, London Muslims are the most likely out of any group to identify strongly with their country. In addition, they are the most insistent on celebrating national holidays as a condition for integration and significantly more likely than Parisian Muslims to see volunteering to serve the public as necessary for full cohesion. Muslims in London are also more likely than any other surveyed population to have confidence in institutions such as the judicial system and the national government. At the same time, they are the most likely to identify strongly with their religion. Indeed, they are faithful to both Westminster and the Qur’an. Britain is a shining example of the national cohesion that can be achieved by rethinking integration.

Moving Forward

Defining social cohesion as greater conformity results in painful compromise—the more one side gains, the more the other side must give up. Such concessions create resentment, not results. On the other hand, looking at greater cohesion in terms of greater citizen involvement naturally brings about additive benefits—the more one side gains, the more the other side also gains. Though Muslims in three European capitals and the general public in their respective countries disagree on issues of personal morality and some religious symbols, they enjoy strong agreement on mainstream issues such as employment, voting, and volunteering. This harmony signifies that religious differences do not inhibit mutual cooperation for the greater good. Concentrating on issues of agreement transforms societal diversity from an issue of annoyance to a demonstration of tolerance.

Those who oppose multiculturalism may see it as the subversion of national identity and call for the opposite extreme. By placing national loyalty and religious fidelity in direct competition, they force Muslims to make a false choice between Islam and integration. Instead, to progress toward greater community integration, leaders must radically revise the way they think and talk about cohesion. It must be measured by examining different communities’ shared commitments to the betterment of the whole, not by judging the extent to which groups conform on a superficial plane. Cohesion must be promoted as a way to fully utilize every individual citizen’s potential, not simply as a means of reducing security risks. Strong majorities in Great Britain, France and Germany—Muslims and the wider public alike—agree that people from minority groups enrich the cultural lives of their countries. Only small minorities say people with different religious practices threaten their ways of life. Policy makers would do well to listen to the wisdom of the people.