Identity of the Muslim Minority

First, this relates to the topic of trans-generational trauma already mentioned in the overview of opinions section. Indeed, as a result of a difficult past, the Muslim minority has a sort of divided identity. On the one hand, their ancestors have lived in this region for centuries so they feel attached to the land of Western Thrace and on the other hand, in the rest of Greece their fellow Muslims were forced to leave and recreate themselves in their new home country (Turkey) from 1923 (See Historical background for more details). Thus, the Muslim community finds itself stuck in the middle, allowed to stay in their birth land but obliged to adapt to the new system and reconfiguration of the country. From then on the Greek government impinged on their rights and their identity became more and more problematic in terms of which nation they identify the most with. As a result, it is not surprising that in terms of history, the Muslims minority’s identification remains enigmatic and leads to some of them preferring to identify with Turkey.

In one of the European Commission’s Workshop on Citizenship and social change in Europe as a part of the ‘Dialogue between peoples and cultures: actors in the dialogue’ programme, Professor Bichara Khader expressed an interesting opinion that might help the confused Greek Orthodox community to come to terms with the community’s identification.

“The reaffirmation of identity is undoubtedly a form of cultural resistance of Muslims. But it does not necessarily imply the rejection of the other, especially the West. On the contrary, it must aim more at valuing its own heritage, enriched by the positive contributions of other cultures, and negotiating a new relationship with Europe, based on mutual respect.” (2004, 86).

Indeed, when questioned, many of the Muslim participants, like Umit Halil Ibrah and Amet Omer expressed that being part of both cultures made them feel proud and unique in their heritage. Thus, one can identify both as Greek and Turkish at the same time.

Other participants from the minority mentioned that the Orthodox community’s inability to perceive them as Greek because of their belief in Islam was one of the factors that pushed them even further away from identifying as Greeks and as a result preferring to identify as Turkish. In other words, ‘the more you will deny my Greek identity, the more I will define myself as Turkish’. Therefore, it seems essential to reiterate that Greekness should not uniquely be based on religious affiliation as explained in the Religion part. Indeed, Greeks in general should be able to find elements of their culture that connects both the Orthodox and the Muslim community without going through religion. For example according to Anastasia, both communities of Komotini value strong family ties and humanism. This can be a starting point to find similarities between the Muslims and Orthodox identities of Komotini.

Indeed, here is advice from the European Council in regards to recognition of identity:

‘The traditional view on identity is based on monolithic solutions: one State, one identity, (one culture, one region). We have to think in multiple identities, we have to realise that one citizen’s identity is constituted of different elements, by linkages to different communities. This creates networks, which give a structure to society.’ (2004, 179)

Hence, here reasons for the Muslim community to identify as Turkish were presented. Nonetheless there are most probably other reasons that were not mentioned here. However to conclude, the identity of the Muslim community is highly influenced by their history but on the one hand their identification with Turkey doesn’t necessarily mean a denial of their Greek identity and on the other in order for the minority to feel comfortable with their Greek identity one shouldn’t restrict identification to religious terms.