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.
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.