Measuring Muslim Lifestyle Using a Halal Scale

Abstract

The background and motivation of the research presented in this article is the obligation of Public Theology to do justice to young Muslim refugees as a minority group in German society regarding the role of religiosity in the way they are coping with life. In the research process, the authors became increasingly aware that most instruments to measure religiosity have a Western and/or Protestant bias in that they are more interested in religious attitude than in religious practice and/or religious lifestyle, which is very important for Muslim religiosity. Therefore, this article focuses on the distinction between halal and haram as indicators of religious practice according to Muslim benchmarks. Both the concept and the operationalization of a two-dimensional instrument of living a halal life are described. The instrument distinguishes between the individual importance of halal goods (food, medicine, cosmetics) and services (doctors) and their availability in the local environment. Each of the two dimensions comprises four items. Construct validity is shown by confirmatory factor analysis (CFI_robust = 0.934, TLI_robust = 0.902, RMSEA_robust = 0.114 [0.073; 0.156]) of a sample of N = 155 Muslim adolescents who have fled to Germany from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. External validity is tested by analyzing the correlation of the measurement instrument developed by the authors with the Centrality of Religiosity Scale. The presented halal instrument offers an approach to Muslim lifestyle that meets the orthopractic character of this religion. At the same time, it addresses the consequential dimension of religion within quantitative research.

1. Introduction

1.1. Empirical Research on Muslim Religiosity as a Matter of Public Theology

This article reports one characteristic aspect within an empirical research project that surveys the significance of young Muslim refugees’ religiosity in the way they are coping with life and in their integration in Germany. The project and the reported research can be located at the intersection of three major theoretical perspectives of Public Theology, namely (a) a liberationist perspective, (b) an interreligious perspective and (c) a postcolonial perspective. Methodologically, there is still a “lack of attention to the role that empirical research plays in the construction of public theological discourse” (Cartledge 2016, p. 146); this article provides one example of how empirical methods can be meaningfully related to Public Theology perspectives. Our basic understanding of Public Theology is linked to the broad and diverse discourse in the context of the Global Network of Public Theology (GNPT), with an emphasis on the intention to bring in religious traditions and motivations to serve the common good of all, including people from other religions and those with no religious affiliation.

(a) From the start, Public Theology has especially focused on the marginalized, suppressed or disempowered, especially in what Duncan Forrester called the liberationist approaches of Public Theology (Forrester 2000, pp. 118–25). Heinrich Bedford-Strohm has conceptualized his own Public Theology in the German context as “Liberation Theology for a Democratic Society“ (Bedford-Strohm 2018). In his role as Chairman of the Protestant Churches of Germany, he actively engaged in rescuing refugees and drawing attention to their human rights (Bedford-Strohm 2022), as has Pope Francis with several official statements and symbolic actions. It has repeatedly been pointed out that, although Christian engagement for refugees is primarily motivated by the love of neighbor, Christian solidarity with refugees is additionally enhanced by the central role of the motif of the stranger and the refugee for the self-understanding of both Judaism and Christianity (Exod. 22:20; Lev. 19:34; Deut. 26:5; Ps. 39:13; Matt. 2:13–15), including the Christian belief that all of us are migrants on this earth. In this vein, as Christian theologians, we initiated our research project with the aim to reduce prejudice, generalized suspicion and discrimination against refugees because of their Muslim religiosity by empirically analyzing the factual, largely positive role the refugees’ religiosity plays in the way they are coping with life and integration. We thus also want to promote the refugees’ right to freedom of religion and belief.

(b) As a result of his comprehensive analysis of Public Theology literature, Pirner (2022) stated that interreligious perspectives have so far not constituted “an essential component in doing public theology”, as William Storrar had demanded, looking back at the New York terrorist attacks of 2001 (Storrar 2009, p. 246). To be sure, Public Theology does reflect inter-faith encounters and is interested in the daily experience of non-Christians (Kim 2007; Lewis 2015; Wabel 2019). However, in such studies, other religions and the experiences of adherents of non-Christian religions are often addressed within a Christian theological framework. Reflections on Public Theology within non-Christian traditions such as Islam are rather scarce (Hosen 2012; Pirner 2022; Pirner et al. 2018; Qurtuby 2013). Especially in the face of societal globalization, the question of how the experiences of non-Christian believers can be adequately captured is also becoming increasingly important for Public Theology. Even among those publications that Pirner (2022) presented and categorized as substantially including interreligious thinking, there are hardly any that promote the religious rights of non-Christian minorities. In this respect, our research addresses a deficit of Public Theology.

(c) However, although we developed our research in exchange with Muslim colleagues and employed Muslim interviewers, it was only during the research process that we realized that the concepts of religion and religiosity that we used had a Christian majority bias. This insight resonates with und supports postcolonial critique within and without Public Theology discourse. Within Public Theology, postcolonial voices have criticized the mostly Western and Christian concept of “theology” (e.g., Chung 2016; Maluleke 2011, 2021). At a more general level—mainly in the fields of religious studies and sociology—criticism has been voiced against the predominantly Western concept of “religion” or “religious” and corresponding empirical instruments that often do not do justice to non-Christian phenomena. On the one hand, it is noted that most of the available empirical instruments have a Protestant Christian bias (Ağilkaya-Şahin et al. 2015; Cutting and Walsh 2008; Lazar 2020). On the other hand, the question is raised whether theoretical concepts such as secularization and individualization adequately capture the dynamics in non-Christian religions and cultures (Dover et al. 2007; Ghorbani et al. 2018; Lazar 2004). Focusing on empirical research on Muslim religiosity, El-Menouar (El-Menouar 2014, pp. 54–57) identifies five characteristic problems, namely (i) conceptualizing multi-faceted Muslim religiosity as a one-dimensional construct, (ii) translating Christian instruments into Islamic terminology without taking the theological context into account, (iii) interpreting the results of Muslim religiosity within a Christian framework, (iv) using indicators that go beyond religiosity and (v) using statistical routines that do not meet the recent state of the art. Interestingly, only the fifth problem is a purely methodological problem, while the other four problems address issues of a theological nature.

1.2. Doing Justice to Muslim Religiosity as an Obligation of Public Theology

These theological issues are of special interest because Muslim religiosity differs in at least three aspects from the generic Western model of religion, which has a profound Christian bias (Höllinger and Makula 2021; Masuzawa 2005). First, Islam is not institutionalized compared to corporate institutions such as “churches” or “religious communities”. Interestingly, studies on the individualization of Islam exclusively deal with the integration of both Muslim individuals and Muslim communities into Western societies (Cesari et al. 2014; Duderija and Rane 2019). This does not mean that Islam does not have organizations or institutions of its own that mediate in spiritual affairs (Robinson 2004; Whyte 2024). The Arabic term “ummah”, however, which can be translated as “spiritual community”, rather refers to mutual support among believers who share common religious beliefs than to a well-defined body in terms of membership and structure (Mandaville 2006). Sometimes, this community has been associated with some local community but more often with the global community of all Muslims (Manzooruddin 1975). The ummah represents those who believe in God who has revealed Himself in the Quran. This ummah is pluriform in itself, and the conceptualization of Muslim religiosity should respect this pluriformity. Consequently, attempts to measure “Muslim religiosity” with the aim to distinguish between “highly religious” and “less religious” adherents appears to be deeply questionable.

Second, and especially relevant for our research, although there are currents in Islam that emphasize the right beliefs, Islam is often regarded as an orthopractic religion (Denny 1989; El-Menouar 2014; Ruthven 2012)—a term which is also applied to e.g., Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Christianity. In orthopractic religions, the main focus is on adequate religious practice and a religious lifestyle rather than adequate belief, because acting according to religious norms and morals is believed to express as well as stimulate a corresponding belief. Of course, the distinction between orthopractic and orthodox religions is first of all a theoretical one to orient research (Ghaneabassiri 2013). Nonetheless, in the case of Islam, it strikes at the heart of Muslim religiosity. For example, four of the five pillars of Islam are of a practical nature, namely fasting during Ramadan, giving zakat, the daily prayer (salat) and the pilgrimage to Mecca (hadj). Also, there are many norms that steer everyday life, such as not drinking alcohol and not eating pork. Therefore, conceptualizing Muslim religiosity from an orthopractic perspective seems to meet the inner dynamics of this religious tradition.

Third, as a consequence of the orthopractic character of Islamic religiosity, the cultural context and in particular the availability structures that are necessary to practice one’s religiosity gain increased importance. To be sure, availability structures also become relevant for Christian religious practice as soon as Christianity is no longer in a majority situation. For instance, measuring Christian religiosity by the frequency of church service attendance—as is often done in standard measurement instruments such as the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (Huber and Huber 2012)—presupposes that appropriate churches are available within easy reach. This indicates that such an item has been created in a Christian majority context and that it will probably not work in a Christian minority context. Similarly, to just adapt this item to a Muslim sample by asking about the frequency of Friday Prayer attendance will not work in a Muslim minority context such as Germany, where in many parts of the country suitable mosques may not be available. It is also questionable because in Islam the obligation to attend Friday Prayers is primarily attributed to men. When it comes to other religious practices in orthopractic religions, such as certain dietary or clothing regulations, availability structures will also play an important role. It should be remembered that the possibility to practice one’s religion according to its characteristic regulations is a human rights issue. The right to freedom of religion and belief explicitly includes everyone’s “freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance” (Art. 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Recent scales to measure Muslim religiosity address at least partly the orthopractic aspect of Islam. For example, the Ok-Religious-Attitude-Scale-Islam (ORASI) (Ok 2016) lists two items directly related to practice (“I try to put my religion into practice in my life” and “I check that I am living my life in line with religious values”) and two items referring to such practice (“I feel moved when I listen to religious chanting/reciting such as Ezan, prayer or Qur’anic verses” and “I really enjoy taking part in religious activities”), although this scale is about attitude. In El-Menouar’s instrument, the orthopractic dimension of Muslim religiosity represents the consequential dimension of Glock’s model of religiosity (El-Menouar 2014). This dimension is operationalized by six items: (i) not drinking alcohol, (ii) eating halal meat, (iii) avoiding shaking hands with the opposite sex, (iv) sex segregation at weddings and other celebrations, (v) not listening to music, and (vi) charitable donations (zakat). El-Menouar’s instrument can, however, also serve as an example of the problems that may arise when the attempt is to measure “the” orthopractic dimension of Muslim religiosity; to varying degrees all six items are disputed as to their importance and their binding nature among differing Muslim denominations, communities and groups.

Yet, the Islamic discourse, which deals with a lifestyle according to religious principles by way of the distinction between haram and halal, seems to be of widely shared significance for Muslims (Qaraḍāwī 2011; Shinohe 2019). Both terms are of a juridical nature and refer to a set of rules and life principles that indicate what is allowed according to Islamic law (halal) and what is not allowed (haram). These rules and principles are not restricted only to eating and drinking but address a Muslim’s entire life. There are, for example, also discussions on halal banking (Rahman 2015), halal tourism (Echchabi et al. 2022), and halal media (Lövheim and Axner 2011). Moreover, the distinction between halal and haram not only focuses on the product but also on the process by which the product is made (Ali and Suleiman 2018). In the case of halal meat, for example, the method of slaughtering is as important as the type of meat. Finally, the distinction between halal and haram is fluid (Allievi 2006). Although both terms are of a juridical nature, their meaning is shifting according to time, to cultural context, to living conditions, and also to individual attitude. The Quranic verses and the hadiths to which those rules and principles refer have to be interpreted according to the relevant times and environments as well as to the relevant regulations of Sharia law. Therefore, the distinction between halal and haram is not a fixed one; it remains open to different interpretations by different Muslim denominations, communities and groups.

In consequence, the Islamic discourse on halal and haram seems to offer a suitable reference to conceptualize and operationalize the orthopractic dynamics of Muslim religiosity. This discourse should offer an answer to the call for empirical instruments that do justice to the orthopractic character of Muslim religiosity. It solves El-Menouar’s problems (ii) and (iv) as it uses authentic Islamic terminology and is clearly related to religious norms and motives. Thus, developing and using an empirical instrument for measuring a halal-haram-oriented Muslim lifestyle also seems to have the potential to avoid the abovementioned shortcomings of interreligious Public Theology and to address the postcolonial criticism.

2. Designing an Instrument Measuring Muslim Lifestyle

To take this step according to the standards of empirical research requires an empirical instrument that has been designed within the discourse on halal and haram. In this section we first report the state of the art on how this discourse is reflected in existing instruments and then proceed to the design of the Nuremberg–Siegen Instrument on Halal Lifestyle.

2.1. The Assessment of Halal and Haram in Existing Instruments

In the last decade, several journals on halal research have been launched, such as Halal: Journal of Halal Research (https://jh-per.halal.ac.ir/?lang=en, accessed on 5 August 2024) in 2018 as well as the International Journal of Halal Research (http://ijhalal.org/index.php/hr, accessed on 5 August 2024) and the Malaysian Journal of Halal Research (https://sciendo.com/de/journal/MJHR, accessed on 5 August 2024) in 2019. These launches indicate rising academic attention to this topic, predominantly in Islamic majority countries. The journals comprise articles from various scientific disciplines such as medicine, chemistry and educational sciences. The most powerful strand of research, however, is that on the halal industry within economics. A recent meta-study identifies a tremendous increase of relevant papers in this academic field since 2010 (Zaki et al. 2023, p. 197). The most prominent research topics are consumer behavior, Islamic branding, Islamic marketing, halal supply chains, halal certification, and halal tourism (Putera and Rakhel 2023). From a conceptual perspective, within this thematic spectrum, research on the consumption of halal meat (Ahmed 2008; Alam and Sayuti 2011; Bonne et al. 2007; Bonne and Verbeke 2008; Sherwani et al. 2018; Vermeir and Verbeke 2006) is of particular interest because it offers important insights for designing an instrument to measure individual access to the discourse on halal and haram.

According to a recent meta-study by Mostafa (Mostafa 2020), there are four characteristic thematic clusters within this strand of research, namely (i) a focus on halal food consumer behavior and attitudes from a psychological perspective, (ii) a focus on halal food production, control and safety, (iii) a focus on Sharia-compliance issues and (iv) a focus on halal food policy issues. Often these studies are conceptualized according to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), resulting in exhaustive approaches to halal meat. In the study of (Sherwani et al. 2018, p. 871), for example, attitude toward halal meat was assessed (“Halal meat is important to me“) as well as motivation to comply (“People who are important to me think I should eat halal meat”), perceived control (“How much control do you feel you have over eating halal meat?”), perceived availability (“There is a lot of choice of halal food products in Germany”), habit (“Eating halal meat is something that I do without reasoning”), moral obligation (“I would feel guilty if I did not purchase halal meat“) and behavioral intention (“How many times do you intend to eat halal meat in the next seven days?”). The first insight therefore is that economic research on halal meat offers a distinct spectrum of how to act according to the norms and principles of the discourse on halal and haram. Additionally, it provides relevant studies with tested items.

Another characteristic is that these studies do not specify what halal meat actually is. Instead of giving clear descriptions of such meat, the term “halal” itself is used in the item wording to qualify the meat. In consequence, the respondents are called to fill in their individual understanding of this term with regard to meat. This form of operationalization avoids the problem that the meaning of what is halal is answered differently in different Muslim traditions. It addresses the varying distinctions between halal and haram. Therefore, it does not reproduce stereotypes of what is halal and what is haram. The second insight therefore is that using the term “halal”, instead of qualifying what could be halal, meets the fluid distinction of what is halal and what is haram.

The sociological instruments on Muslim religiosity do not add much to these insights (Nabi et al. 2023). Many instruments—such as “The Attitudes Toward Islam Scale” (Sahin and Francis 2002), the “The Muslim-Christian Religious Orientation Scales” (Ghorbani et al. 2002) and the “Knowledge-Practice Measure of Islamic Religiosity” (Alghorani 2008)—do not refer to issues that are clearly related to the discourse on halal and haram. Of course, specific items of these instruments may be discussed according to the halal–haram distinction, too. However, on the one hand, the authors of these instruments do not refer to this discourse when introducing these items and, on the other hand, one may discuss these items also without referring to haram and halal. For example, (Mahudin et al. 2016, p. 114) conceptualize their “Religiosity Scale” within the framework of the Ḥadīth Jibril, one of the most important collections of oral traditions of Sunni Islam, by discerning the three dimensions of (1) the bodily action or human activity (islam), (2) the mind or understanding of God (iman) and (3) the spirit or actualization of virtue and goodness (ihsan), but they do not refer to the concept of halal in operationalizing the level of bodily action and human activity. The link of these instruments to the discourse on halal and haram is—at best—random rather than deliberate and planned.

Also, there are some items with implicit references to this discourse on halal and haram in more recent scales. The “Religiosity of Islam Scale”, for example, has one item on drinking alcohol (“I drink alcohol”) (Jana-Masri and Priester 2007). The “Islamic Behavioral Religiosity Scale” comprises 30 items, with one item representing an inverse item that might refer to a halal lifestyle motivated by religious reasons (“Although I am a religious person‚ I refuse to let religious considerations influence my everyday life”) (Ji and Ibrahim 2007). The “Muslim Daily Religiosity Assessment Scale” lists some morally negative behaviors (“use intoxicants like alcohol, whether drinking, selling, etc.”, “swear falsely in the name of God”, “waste resources, e.g., food, money, etc.”) that are tackled within the halal discourse without explicitly referring to it (Olufadi 2017). Finally, the religiosity scale of Mohd Dali et al. (2019) comprises two items with indirect reference to the halal discourse (“My religious beliefs influence which service providers I use”, “My whole approach to life is based on my religion”), but also one with an explicit reference (“I always keep myself away from earning through haram [prohibited] means such as interest from conventional banking”). This scale, however, was developed within the context of economic sciences and not in the sociology of religion. In Germany, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (“Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge”, BAMF) conducted empirical surveys about the life of Muslims in Germany; in its section on “religious practice”, one single-item question on the “observance of religious food and drink regulations” was integrated (for the most recent study, see Pfündel et al. 2021, p. 90).

In summary, it can be stated that the existing sociological measures of Muslim religiosity address the discourse on halal and haram more or less implicitly. Some of those instruments comprise items that refer to behavior that could be motivated by religious reasons. Instruments that originate in economics, by contrast, do address this discourse exhaustively by using different approaches. Furthermore, they avoid stereotypical attributions by using the terms “halal” and “haram”. Very rarely, the availability of halal products or services is included in the research instruments. Also, most of these studies address only the consumption of food, as far as everyday behavior is concerned. In addition, they use single items to assess the issue of halal and haram. Economic studies do not provide any scales on this topic.

2.2. The Nuremberg–Siegen Instrument on Halal Lifestyle (NSIHL)

In reaction to the gaps in previous halal research, the project team at Nuremberg and Siegen developed their own instrument with the goal to offer adolescent refugees who came to Germany from Islamic countries—namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria—a measure of Muslim lifestyle. The research context was an important stimulus for the development of this instrument. First, these refugees were brought up in an Islamic majority culture. It is very likely that they are confronted with a Western understanding of religion and of being religious for the first time when they arrive in Europe. Therefore, the question of an appropriate measure of religiosity that takes account of the largely orthopractic character of Islam is of special relevance in this context. Second, this orthopractic dimension of Islam is deeply rooted in the culture of the refugees’ home countries. Previous research shows that in Islamic majority countries all of life revolves around the distinction between halal and haram and that Islamic culture as well as public and private institutions offer the corresponding availability structures for halal products and services. What the refugees could take for granted in their home countries is likely to become a problem in everyday life in the Western host country, namely a halal-oriented lifestyle. In this situation a measure of the halal lifestyle is necessary that is more complex than the single-item measures of economic research.

As indicated in the previous sections, the distinction between halal and haram concerns not only the question of what kind of meat is allowed to be eaten but multiple areas of Muslim life. A halal lifestyle can be defined as an individual’s way to live their daily life according to halal principles, including their behavior, habits, activities and interests (Kamariah et al. 2018, p. 446). Such principles determine the production and consumption of food, beverages, cosmetics, fashion, medicine, travel, hospitality, finance and even electronic devices. Given the situation of adolescent refugees, the Nuremberg and Siegen project team decided to measure the relevance of a halal lifestyle by looking at products and services in daily life. Other material aspects such as tourism or finance would have little effect on the living conditions of adolescent refugees in Germany. These considerations led to the following four aspects of a halal lifestyle: food, cosmetics, medicine and doctors. Everybody has to eat and drink as well as take care of their physical well-being in terms of both hygiene and health. Thus, the four chosen aspects of a halal lifestyle represent elementary affordances of daily life for all people. They are suitable indicators of a halal lifestyle. As in economic research, the halal character of these aspects has not been explicitly described in detail but is indicated by the term “halal” itself (“halal food”, “halal medicine” and “products for personal care that comply with halal rules”) or by a general description (“a doctor who is aware of the rules of Islam”).

Furthermore, the Nuremberg–Siegen instrument (NSIHL) takes care of the particular situation of refugees by discerning two dimensions of a halal lifestyle. First, such a lifestyle is a question of the individual’s will. As mentioned above, although all the major Islamic schools of law—with reference to the Qur’an and hadith traditions—require Muslims to live according to halal principles, and although these principles are regarded as binding in Islamic countries, their obligatory nature may be viewed differently among different denominations, communities, groups and individual believers, especially in non-Islamic countries. For instance, the above-mentioned BAMF study found that about 69% of the Muslims in Germany observe “religious food and drink regulations” (but about 13% only do this to a certain extent) (Pfündel et al. 2021, p. 90). Thus, it seems that there is some variance among Muslims concerning the observance of halal rules, at least in a Western country such as Germany. Consequently, a halal lifestyle is first of all an issue of individual choice and of the importance assigned to it. Therefore, the first dimension of the Nuremberg–Siegen instrument is about the importance of the four chosen aspects of a halal lifestyle for individuals.

Second, unlike in Islamic societies, in Western societies the availability of halal products is not guaranteed. Refugees in particular, who are not able to decide themselves where they live and normally do not have much money, might face challenges in buying halal products or finding halal services. This applies, despite the fact that, in parallel with the growing Muslim population in Germany, the number of shops that offer halal products has increased, online trackers of halal products (such as https://www.mustakshif.com/public/list-of-products/list-of-Halal-Products-in-Germany, accessed on 5 August 2024) provide information about the German market, and more and more online traders (such as https://www.kamar-halal.de/en/, accessed on 5 August 2024) help to overcome physical distances. In consequence, the second dimension of the Nuremberg–Siegen instrument is about the availability of the four chosen aspects of a halal lifestyle. It indicates to what extent the respondents are able to put their wish to live a halal lifestyle into practice.

In consequence of our discussion in Section 1.2 we deliberately refrained from including a set of questions on the frequency of using halal products or services. As we have argued above, the frequency of public religious practices cannot serve as an indicator of religiosity in a situation where the availability structures that make these religious practices possible are not guaranteed. We contend that the personal dimension of a halal lifestyle can be better captured by asking about its importance for the individual. The results from this scale will show how significant this aspect is for the respondents’ Muslim lifestyle. Furthermore, a comparison of the importance of a halal lifestyle for the respondents with the perceived availability of halal products and services can indicate the extent to which the young Muslims can practice their religiosity in this area—or the extent to which the practice of their religiosity is impeded. Although we thus constructed the two halal scales as representing two separate variables, it remained an open question whether they would also correlate with each other. Theoretically, three possible reasons for such correlations can be imagined. First, if halal is important for a person, they may be more attentive to halal products and services offered in their neighborhood. Second, the very presence of halal products and services as perceived by the young Muslims may prompt them to attach more importance to them. Third, the availability of halal products and services will probably enhance a halal lifestyle among other Muslims around them and may consequently also influence them to consider it as important for their religiosity.

These conceptual decisions bring about the instrument (see

Table 1. The items of the Nuremberg–Siegen Instrument on Halal Lifestyle (NSIHL).

Dimension of individual importance   How important is it for you to eat halal food?   How important is it for you to have access to halal medicine?   How important is it for you to have access to a doctor/psychologist/psychotherapist who is aware of the rules of Islam when treating you?   How important is it for you to get products for personal care that comply with halal rules? Dimension of availability   I have the opportunity to buy halal food.   I have access to halal medicine.   I have access to a doctor/psychologist/psychotherapist who is aware of the rules of Islam when treating me.   I have the opportunity to get products for personal care that comply with halal rules.

).

The participants could respond to each of these items on a five-point Likert-type scale. On the dimension of individual importance, the categories are 1 = unimportant; 2 = less important; 3 = to some extent important; 4 = rather important; 5 = very important. The categories on the dimension of availability are 1 = does not apply at all; 2 = does not quite apply; 3 = applies to some extent; 4 = largely applies; 5 = completely applies.

In sum, the Nuremberg–Siegen Instrument on Halal Lifestyle (NSIHL) comprises eight items of daily halal life that represent the dimensions of both individual importance and availability. As such, it represents an economical measure of the orthopractic dimension of Muslim life, which addresses the challenges of Muslim refugees’ efforts to lead a life according to the Islamic principles of halal.

3. Method

The NSIHL was validated within a study on the role of religiosity of adolescent and young adult refugees for coping with living in Germany. In this section, we describe the sample of this study, the data collection and the methods of data analysis.

3.1. Sample

The sample is part of a longitudinal study with three waves of data collection. The population of the study consists of those refugees who are aged between 16 and 26 years and who have a postal address in the federal regions of Bavaria, Hesse, North-Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony. From this population, a stratified sample was drawn according to the categories of (i) religious affiliation, (ii) country of origin, (iii) sex and (iv) time spent in Germany. Sampling took three steps. First, addresses were provided by the registration offices of the previously listed regions. Second, possible participants were contacted by post and invited to register for the study via the internet. Third, local refugee aid associations and organizations were asked to supplement the sample. All in all, 7521 letters and 1176 reminders were sent out. As a result of this, 572 participants registered, 285 of whom participated in the first wave of the study. For further details of the sampling process, see https://osf.io/rdhku, accessed on 5 August 2024.

The NSIHL was applied in the second wave (n = 130) of the study and—due to adaptive testing—in the third wave (n = 25) to those participants who had not taken part in the second wave. In both waves, the young refugees who were invited to answer the questionnaire were those who had already participated in the first wave. Consequently, the sample of the participants who completed the halal instrument comprises N = 1551 Muslim participants. They are between 16 and 25 years old (m = 21.06, sd = 2.86) and come from Syria (n = 118), Afghanistan (n = 19) and Iraq (n = 18). The average time of stay in Germany is m = 5.85 years (sd = 2.33), with a range of 11 to 108 months (n_missing = 30). In consequence, all participants had at least some time to adjust to the living conditions in Germany. Of this sample, n = 62 participants are female and n = 93 are male.

3.2. Data Collection

In the project, all the data were collected using CASI and CAPI questionnaires online. To overcome problems with language, the participants could choose between questionnaires in German, English, Arabic, Kurmanji and Farsi. Participants had the opportunity to receive assistance in their preferred language by specially trained interviewers via video-conferencing tools, telephone, messenger or e-mail.

The data collection of the second survey period lasted from 23 January until 27 February 2023, and that of the third survey period from 16 October until 6 November 2023. As an incentive, participants were offered a voucher worth EUR 20 (third wave: EUR 40), if they participated within the first week (push-to-web strategy) and EUR 10 (third wave: EUR 25) after that period. Where possible, care was taken to ensure that the participants were contacted by the same interviewers with whom they had already had contact in the first wave of the survey. The average time taken to complete the questionnaire for the complete wave was 12 (20) min. For further details, see https://osf.io/rdhku, accessed on 5 August 2024.

3.3. Data Analysis2

All the analyses were performed with R (version 4.4.1) using the package “lavaan” (Rosseel 2012, version 0.6.18). The analysis on item and manifest scale level was done using descriptive statistics, calculating the mean and standard deviation as well as the skewness and kurtosis, to have some indication of the distribution of the answers.

For all latent analyses, maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) was applied to correct for deviations from normal distribution (skewness range: −4.11 to 0.20, excessive kurtosis range: −1.10 to 19.75, Brown and Little 2015, p. 346). Missing values for the core variables of the NSIHL (eight items) as well as for the CRS-5 (five items, see below) occurred in 37.4% of cases (with 10 missing values per variable on average, min = 2; max = 24) and were estimated model-based, using Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML). The scaling of latent variables as well as the latent means was done via effects-coding identification (Little et al. 2006).

To determine construct validity, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted.

External validity was checked by two measures. First, the scales of the halal instrument were correlated with Muslim adolescents’ religiosity (Pearson’s r). Religiosity was assessed by the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS) (Huber and Huber 2012). It was chosen because it measures religiosity, even in its five-item short form (CRS-5), as more comprehensive alternative instruments do (Riegel 2020) and is available in a version for Muslim respondents. We assume a positive correlation of CRS-5 with the dimension “importance” and a much lower correlation of CRS-5 with the dimension “availability” due to obvious reasons. Second, the halal scales were tested for sex-specific effects, using the unstandardized solution of confirmatory factor analysis. The effect size of latent mean differences was determined by Hedges’ g, and for latent correlations by Pearson’s r. The dimension “importance” should prove to measure a dimension of the participants’ religiosity by showing sex differences similar to CRS-5. The dimension “availability” should not be sensitive to such differences.

4. Results

Descriptive statistics indicate that all four aspects of a halal lifestyle are rather important to the respondents, but that there are some challenges to realize such a lifestyle due to the limited availability of medical services (see

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

	n	m	sd	min	max	skew	kurt	se
Dimension: Individual Importance
Food	153	4.35	1.06	1	5	−1.65	1.87	0.09
Medicine	146	3.86	1.36	1	5	−0.87	−0.61	0.11
Doctors/Psychologists	140	3.42	1.39	1	5	−0.42	−1.10	0.12
Cosmetics	148	3.48	1.37	1	5	−0.43	−1.09	0.11
Scale	146	3.78	1.14	1	5	−0.68	−0.66	0.09
Dimension: Availability
Food	148	4.17	0.89	1	5	−1.08	1.08	0.07
Medicine	137	3.77	1.15	1	5	−0.94	0.21	0.10
Doctors/Psychologists	131	2.69	1.28	1	5	0.20	−1.01	0.11
Cosmetics	135	3.36	1.36	1	5	−0.39	−1.07	0.12
Scale	136	3.52	0.89	1	5	−0.39	−0.24	0.08

Notes. Scale scores based in each case on at least 75% of answered items per case; kurt = excessive kurtosis.

). The most important issue of living a halal lifestyle seems to be halal food (m = 4.10), while halal cosmetics (m = 3.29) and medical services that comply with halal rules (m = 3.23) are important only to some extent. The availability of the goods is also rather high (3.33 < m < 4.14). Only medical services that observe halal rules are somewhat hard to find (m = 2.67). None of the eight indicators is normally distributed in the statistical sense.

Confirmatory factor analyses resulted in two factors that correspond to the conceptual distinction between the availability and individual importance of halal goods and services (see Figure 1). The factors explained 72% and 46%, respectively, of the variance in the items, and the constructs were measured with good to very good reliability (congeneric reliability = ϵ [0.77; 0.91]), suggesting convergent validity (Hair 2019, p. 619). Discriminant validity of the constructs was ensured; the factor loadings are all substantial, though somewhat nominally higher for the dimension of individual importance than for that of availability (see online materials at https://osf.io/uczs8, accessed on 5 August 2024, for details on validity). In sum, confirmatory factor analysis indicates the construct validity of the Nuremberg–Siegen Instrument on Halal Lifestyle.

For the first test of external validity, we analyzed the factor correlations of both scales of the halal instrument as well as the participants’ religiosity measured by the Centrality of Religiosity scale (CRS-5) in a single-group three-factor-model. Both latent correlations are as expected and differ statistically significantly from each other (r_difference = 0.25 [0.11]). The correlation between religiosity and the individual importance of a halal lifestyle is high (r = 0.78 [0.06]). Therefore, 61% of the variance within the answers on the importance of a halal lifestyle is explained by the respondents’ religiosity—and vice versa. The correlation between religiosity and the availability of halal goods and services is only moderate (r = 0.53 [0.10]). As expected, the importance scale represents the respondents’ religiosity to a great extent, whereas the availability scale shows a moderate relationship to it. The correlation between availability and importance in this model (r = 0.42 [0.11]) is by comparison the weakest among all three correlations and statistically significantly different from that of importance with CRS-5 (r_difference = −0.37 [0.10]) but not from availability with CRS-5 (r_difference = −0.12 [0.09]), which is a further indication of validity. Analyzing the relationship between the NSIHL scales and CRS-5 in a multi-group model with partial3 invariant factor variances yielded higher correlations for men than for women for both availability and importance scales with CRS-5. Although the differences for the relationship between the two halal scales as well as between availability and CRS-5 are substantial, these differences are not statistically significant, as the standard errors are enlarged in the subgroups due to the equality restrictions of the factor variances required for a comparison of unstandardized factor correlations between groups in combination with the small sample size. However, there is a clear tendency for the two correlations outlined to be stronger for men than for women (see https://osf.io/uczs8, accessed on 5 August 2024, for details).

As scalar invariances hold, the second test of external validity is the check of sex differences by comparing the unstandardized latent means of men and women within the respective multi-group three-factor model (factors: availability, importance, CRS-5) with scalar invariance restrictions. Regarding religiosity, female participants (m = 4.15) are much more religious than male ones (m = 3.69), which represents a weak to strong effect (Hedges’ g = 0.67 [CI: 0.34; 1.00]). This means that there is a 79% chance that, in a randomly selected pair of people, the religiosity of women is higher than that of men (common language effect size). Regarding the availability of halal goods and services, there is only a very small difference with a weak effect size (Δm = 0.20, Hedges’ g = 0.25 [CI: −0.07; 0.58]). Therefore, the perception of availability is virtually not affected by the participants’ sex. The importance of halal goods and services is more important to women than to men, with a weak to strong effect size (Δm = 0.62; Hedges’ g = 0.59 [CI: 0.26; 0.92]; common language effect size: 67%). The latter resembles the higher religiosity of women compared to that of men.

During the analyses of the three-factor model, it emerged that, according to the modification indices, the item relating to the importance of halal-compliant food should load better on the religiosity factor rather than on “importance” in both groups. This item would then have the highest factor loading in the CRS-5 factor. This result shows that the importance of halal-compliant food is an essential part of the religiosity of Muslim adolescents.

5. Discussion

In the following section, we will first discuss the empirical results, then relate them to the discourse on appropriate measurements of a Muslim lifestyle, delineate some possible consequences for Public Theology and finally address the limitations of this study.

The core of this article describes the development and validation of an empirical instrument to assess the orthopractic dynamics of Muslim religiosity. Including items on halal food, halal cosmetics, halal medicine and medical services that comply with halal rules, the instrument comprises four aspects of orthopraxy that are common in Muslims’ daily lives. In the instrument, these aspects are addressed according to two dimensions: individual importance and availability. The first dimension refers to the moral relevance of a halal lifestyle, and the second to the specific situation in Western countries that are culturally non-Muslim and therefore do not offer halal goods and services as a matter of course. Confirmatory factor analysis proves this theoretical distinction as realistic by resulting in two solid factors that each represent one dimension of the theoretical model. The Muslim participants also distinguish in their answers between individual importance of halal goods and services and availability. Further, the reliability of both dimensions indicates that the participants see each of the two dimensions as a cohesive whole. However, they assess the availability of the four aspects quite differently, for example, the four aspects form one solid empirical factor with good reliability. In consequence, the NSIHL seems to operationalize the theoretical examination of the discourse on halal and haram appropriately.

As to the orthopractic dimension of religiosity, whose importance for an appropriate understanding of the religion of Islam is underscored by the surveyed young Muslims, our results confirm the assumption that the actual religious practice is conditioned by two factors, namely individual decision and contextual availability. As the results show, the dimension of individual importance is highly positively correlated with Muslim religiosity and shows sex differences that are analogous to religiosity. Both sets of empirical results indicate that either approach to Muslim religiosity—multidimensional centrality according to CRS-5 and the NSIHL—probably measures a similar latent phenomenon. Consequently, the importance scale has proved to represent a dimension of Muslim religiosity. As expected, the availability scale is only moderately correlated with the CRS-5 and unlike religiosity there are marginal sex differences. Yet, there are significant correlations between the importance of halal and religiosity (r = 0.53), as there are between the importance and availability of halal (r = 0.41). This can be explained by our theoretical deliberation in Section 2.2 that the very presence and accessibility of halal products and services may prompt Muslims to attach more importance to them and make use of them, and making use of them may even further enhance their sense that they are important for Muslim religiosity. This finding clearly goes against the grain of standard Western concepts of religion, according to which beliefs manifest themselves in actions, representing the so-called consequential dimension of religiosity. In this logic—which is very much rooted in (Protestant) Christian theological thought—there is primacy of belief over practice. From an orthopractic perspective, however, there may be primacy of practice over belief (Denny 1989; Ruthven 2012)—or at least an interaction between the two. In the case of Islam, by living according to halal principles, the believer may develop a corresponding mindset. In terms of the instrument, availability could be regarded as a factor contributing to individual importance or even a precondition of this. The correlation between both empirical factors may reflect these dynamics. This means that inadequate availability of halal goods and services may significantly impede the religiosity of Muslims in culturally Christian and secular Western societies or force them to transform their religiosity from a primarily orthopractic into a more orthodox religiosity that emphasizes beliefs and attitudes. The empirical results could also reflect such an adjustment of Muslims to Western living conditions. More research in this regard is needed.

Given the high correlation between CRS-5 and the scale of individual importance of a halal lifestyle (r = 0.78), the question arises of whether the new instrument is a real step forward in the assessment of Muslim religiosity. In empirical terms, studies are needed that allow comparison of the results of both instruments. Such studies should be conducted in both culturally Western and culturally Islamic environments to overcome cultural bias. In theoretical terms, measures such as the CRS-5 offer a comprehensive approach to religiosity (Huber and Huber 2012). Nonetheless, they are based on a Christian model of religiosity, which has been criticized for not meeting the self-image of Islam (Ağilkaya-Şahin et al. 2015). Furthermore, our analyses clearly show that the Muslim version of the CRS-5 misses a central aspect of an orthopractic lifestyle. On the other hand, comprehensive instruments from a Muslim perspective, such as that of El-Menouar (El-Menouar 2014), are not yet fully developed. Alternative instruments focus on attitudes rather than on behavior (Ok 2016; Sahin and Francis 2002). It is a philosophical and theological question whether attitude or behavior is the more appropriate approach to Muslim religiosity. If one favors the latter, the NSIHL might be a suitable option.

From a Public Theology perspective, these results shed additional light on the tasks of fostering interreligious as well as inter-worldview dialogue and understanding. Promoting Muslim refugees’ right to freedom of religion and belief includes their right to practice their religion in their daily lives. Christians and secular citizens need to understand that for most Muslims a halal lifestyle is not just a cultural ‘add-on’ but an integral part of their religious practice and thus of their religiosity. It is necessary to overcome Christian bias toward Islamic religiosity and accept Islam as a more orthopractic type of religion—and thus an intrinsically more public religion than Christianity. In addition, Christian theologians may also be challenged to re-think their own traditions and present theological concepts regarding the relationship between belief and practice. Even in Protestant theology, there have been controversial debates about this issue, for instance, around the Neo-Barthian approach of George Lindbeck (Lindbeck 1984; see also Pirner 2018), which may deserve renewed attention.

Finally, the limitations of this study need to be discussed. First, the sample of this study is not representative. Although the participants were selected according to a sampling plan (for details, see https://osf.io/rdhku, accessed on 5 August 2024), we accepted every positive response from those who met the criteria of this plan. Therefore, this study is based on a select sample. As this study is the first step in the development of the instrument, this limitation should, in principle, not be relevant. Still, more validation studies of this instrument are needed to determine its psychometric properties. Second, the sample comprises adolescents that predominantly live with their families. One can question whether this age group is able to make autonomous decisions about their lifestyle. If they are not able to do so, the scale would reflect the lifestyle choices of their families more than those of the participants. In an orthopractic framework, however, that distinction is of minor relevance because its approach to life is collective rather than individualistic. In addition, the validation of the structure of the instrument does not depend on the nature of the participants’ responses to the items. Third, the chosen aspects of halal behavior were determined according to the living conditions of refugees. For example, halal tourism was not picked as an aspect because refugees in Germany have restricted travel options. Therefore, the NSIHL is not comprehensive in terms of a halal lifestyle. However, the question remains of whether it is reasonable to treat such an instrument as exemplary rather than as comprehensive. Fourth, the described instrument was designed by culturally Christian scholars. When developing the instrument, we intensively studied the Muslim discourse on halal and haram and, as mentioned above, discussed the instrument with some of our Muslim interviewers and the scientific advisory board of the project, in which Islamic expertise is represented. Nonetheless, the designers of the instrument are not Muslim themselves and have not been raised within an Islamic culture. The extent to which the NSIHL represents a Muslim self-image would therefore have to be discussed separately. Therefore, this article is also intended as an invitation to join this discussion.