Though there is a tendency to approach Islam in Europe as a homogenous block regardless of the level (local, national or supranational) and despite its fragmentation, the pictures differ across European countries though common dynamics stand out. Still, the national context remains the most relevant to approach the specificities of the different Muslim communities across the continent, the environment in which they evolve and the potential for ethnic mobilization.

Ethnic mobilization refers to ethnic collective action (Chai 1996, 282). It is the “process by which a group organizes along ethnic lines in pursuit of collective political ends” (Nagel & Olzak 1982, 127). The factors affecting the potential for mobilization can be subsumed into two: the political opportunity structure and the resources of the group. Diverse typologies can be found in the literature but these two elements always stand out.

The influence of the environment in general is often acknowledged through the political opportunity structure which conditions the possibility of accessing governmental spheres, a decisive factor (Smith 2000, 89: Ireland 1994: Kooopmans & Statham1999). Kyriacou's particular focus is on institutions conceived as constraints because they represent costs to the individuals’ expression of preferences (Kyriacou 2005). Institutional opportunity structures can be defined as “state policies and legal frameworks relating to citizenship, cultural difference, and church-state relations” (Statham & Tillie 2016, 182). The receptiveness of decision-makers, the availability of access points, and the institutional motivations of actors are the three criteria grounding the combination of material and symbolic resources that constitute the nature of the political opportunity structure (Geddes 2000, 635). In a nutshell, the political opportunity structure influences the possibilities of collective action (Gianni & Giugni 2014, 107). Indeed, it is easier for an ethnic group to stand as a legitimate political actor in a context where questions related to them (immigration, discrimination, socio-economic issues) are on the public agenda and are debated in the public space rather than in a system that looks for a depoliticization of these questions (Crowley 1993). The model of immigration and citizenship adopted by the country is thus a fundamental element in this regard. In her comparison of political representation in France, Denmark, and Canada, Karen Bird shows the importance of the political opportunity structure and how it is shaped by the interaction of three factors – citizenship regimes, institutional features, and interest constellations – defined differently in each country (Bird 2005).