elpais.com
Far-Right Attacks on European Quran Research Project
A 9.8 million euro European Research Council project studying the Quran's influence in Europe is facing attacks from French politicians and media, who accuse it of promoting Islamism, despite its purely academic nature, raising concerns about academic freedom and the influence of far-right narratives.
- How does the controversy surrounding the "European Quran" project reflect broader political and ideological trends in Europe?
- The controversy highlights a broader trend of the European far-right targeting academia, using accusations of "Islamophilia" to discredit research deemed unfavorable to their narratives. This tactic, amplified by conservative media, creates an intimidating environment for researchers and threatens future projects exploring similar topics. The project's historical focus on the Quran's intellectual impact is dismissed by critics who haven't engaged with the research itself.
- What are the immediate consequences of the attacks on the "European Quran" project for academic freedom and research funding in Europe?
- A 9.8 million euro European Research Council-funded project, "The European Quran," studying the Quran's dissemination in Europe, is facing attacks from French politicians and media outlets. Accusations include Islamic proselytism and links to extremist groups, prompting researchers to denounce an assault on academic freedom. The project, nearing completion, involves 45 researchers and has produced 11 published volumes.
- What are the long-term implications of this controversy for scholarly research on religion and its intersections with European history and identity?
- The attacks on "The European Quran" project portend a chilling effect on academic freedom, impacting future research funding and potentially deterring scholars from engaging in potentially controversial topics. The incident exposes the far-right's strategy to weaponize accusations against research perceived as contradicting their ideology, thereby shaping public discourse. This strategy's success could lead to a climate of self-censorship within academia.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article's framing emphasizes the attacks and criticisms against the research project, placing them prominently in the narrative. The headline and early paragraphs highlight the controversy and accusations, setting a negative tone and potentially influencing reader perception before presenting the project's defense. The use of emotionally charged language such as "attack," "intimidation," and "demential" further reinforces this negative framing.
Language Bias
The article uses strong, emotionally charged language, such as "attack," "intimidation," "demential," and "islamofobia," which are loaded terms that convey a negative and potentially biased perspective. While some of this language is attributed to those criticizing the project, its inclusion in the narrative reinforces this perspective. More neutral language, such as "criticism," "concerns," and "controversy," would present a more balanced portrayal of the situation.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the criticisms and attacks against the European Quran project, giving less attention to the project's actual research and methodology. While the project's aims are mentioned, a more in-depth explanation of its scholarly contributions and the evidence supporting its conclusions would provide a more balanced perspective. The lack of detailed information about the project's research process could mislead readers into accepting the criticisms uncritically.
False Dichotomy
The narrative presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as a choice between supporting the project and being against "European values." This simplification ignores the possibility of supporting academic freedom while also having concerns about potential misuse of funding or interpretations of the research. The critics' arguments are presented as a monolithic opposition to the project, without exploring the nuances of differing viewpoints or motivations within those critical of the project.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights an attack on academic freedom and freedom of expression, which are essential for peaceful and just societies. The intimidation and defamation faced by researchers due to the politically motivated criticism of their project directly undermines these principles. The actions of politicians and media outlets actively create an environment of fear and censorship, hindering open inquiry and academic discourse.