Now let us turn to the figure of the imam which has attracted much attention in Europe. The current debate over the issue of the super-imam in Germany (also in Switzerland1), where the number of imams is estimated at 2,000–2,700, and where the majority of imams are traditionalists (800 imams are employees of the Diyanet2), a situation that imposes conflicting expectations on imams. On the one hand, different actors expect imams to offer advice to families, to provide “moderate” preaching, to promote inter-religious dialogue and to help integrate Muslims.3 The figure of the super-imam is a fantasy of course, but continues to be the object of these various expectations even though the actors involved recognize the difficulty of training these kinds of imams, a field that is increasingly fraught with skepticism.4 On the other hand, the diverse Islamic communities of Europe expect imams to provide religious education and guidance to members of these communities in social and religious terms. However, these communities maintain strong religious and political links to their countries of origin and cannot imagine imams without “influence” or links to these countries. In any case, these communities do not expect the imam to help with integration or inter-religious dialogue. The trend in recent years in Germany shows a profound tension around the training of imams between more “cooperative” religious communities with the German state’s approach of “training super imams of openness”, (which remain a minority like Bosnian Muslims), at odds with dominant communities like the Turkish community which perceives in the Turkish imam appointed by the Diya net a figure of representation and reproduction of their religious and ethnic heritage.5