Isn’t that exactly the point? There is a geographic Europe which is much larger and more diverse than NATO Europe, the EU, or Christian Europe like to admit.
What is the point about that? Nobody is worried about "geographic Europe", people care about actual Europe, not some technical term.
If someone is worried that Arab Muslims, or for that matter Arab Christians, will not assimilate into European culture and are incompatible with European values, how is it even remotely relevant that there is a tiny federal subject in what is technically European Russia where there's a lot of Muslims?
Only someone entirely unfamiliar with Europe would think this makes any difference. If you want to talk about Islam, focus instead on Bosnia, in the heart of Europe. While definitely not without their issues, comparing Bosniaks and Assyrians show that culture is more relevant than religion when it comes to integration.
I happen to be Orthodox, and having lived in Russia I can say that the answer varies depending on context. Most of the time Europe is the "other". European standard means high quality, "My brother works in Europe", a "European car" etc. Even when contrasting Russia with very exotic cultures most people wouldn't see Russia as part of Europe, they just say "Japan is different from Russia", not "from Europe". And I'm not sure it's a very meaningful question either.
What is clear is that there are very few cases where people would consider Kazan European. I haven't been there, but I highly doubt they feel very European, in any sense. And there are exactly 0 cases where anyone ever would find it _representative_ of "Europe", and that is what we are discussing here.
It simply doesn't make sense to say "There are Muslims in Kazan and that is technically Europe so anyone objecting to Arab Muslims in Munich is wrong". That's just a silly argument.
I've also lived in Jordan and I can tell you that Muslims there don't feel any particular connection with those in Kazan. Circassians may perhaps feel differently, I don't know.
Physical geography defines practical transportation links. But political geography also limits or forbids movement. Much of Russia's reactionary violence in Georgia, Ukraine, etc. is generated by fear that a thick "European" border will sever "Russian" regions from their own Moscow-centered physical-political network.
Religious geography has a similar influence as a legacy of history and empire.
And so, the distinctions between geographic Europe, EU Europe, Nato Europe, and Catholic/Protestant Europe are extremely relevant.
Three of those definitions more or less overlap, and one doesn't. You can see which one, can't you?
Which, in the interest of not fucking up language more than it already is, IMO shows that the definition that sticks out should be aligned -- or rather, newfangled BS as it is, re -aligned! -- with the other ones.
For those who didn't get what I'm talking about: The current "geographical definition of Europe" is a weird recent ("early-PC-era"?) invention. When I went to school, I learned in Geography that the highest mountain in Europe is Mont Blanc; nowadays, many sources claim it's Mt Elbrus. Yeah, and Turkey and Israel compete in the Eurovision Song Contest... Fricking Australia does! Just because you call something European doesn't actually make it European.
It sort of makes sense culturally and historically to define Europe as the part that falls in the sphere of influence of the Catholic Church and its protestant spinoffs. After all, Ukraine is not thought to mean 'borderland' for nothing.
I still prefer the geographic definition, but this is a close second.
I just think the conventional definition of Europe makes sense. Narrower definitions are too ephemeral for my taste, with countries constantly being absorbed into and breaking out of empires as they wax and wane, whereas the Ural mountains aren't going anywhere soon.
That said, to address the point that started the discussion, I think it's just silly to use "there exists some Muslim country somewhere else" as some kind of gotcha against German critics of Islam. The Ottomans were milling around Vienna for a long time, that's a whole lot closer than either Bosnia or Kazan.
