What are the largest Muslim-majority neighborhoods in European cities?

1. Uneven evidence: City aggregates dominate the record, not neighborhood rankings

The strongest common fact across the analyses is that most sources provide city‑level Muslim population percentages rather than reliable, comparable neighborhood counts, so claims about “largest Muslim‑majority neighborhoods” are often extrapolations from broader data. Multiple entries emphasise that country and city estimates—France at roughly 10–20% nationally in one account, and specific cities like Paris and Marseille with large Muslim populations—are available, but granular, up‑to‑date neighborhood censuses are generally absent from the materials ^{[5] [3]}. Where neighborhood names appear, they are typically cited by name in journalistic or NGO reports as places with high Muslim concentration, not as part of a systematic statistical ranking ^{[1] [2]}. This gap makes direct comparisons between cities and neighborhoods inherently uncertain and sensitive to differing definitions of boundaries and measurement years ^[6].

2. Recurring neighborhood names: What keeps appearing across reports

A consistent pattern across the documents is that a small set of neighborhoods and districts recur in references to high Muslim concentrations: Saint‑Denis and Aubervilliers (suburbs of Paris), parts of Marseille and northern Paris suburbs, Brussels districts such as Molenbeek and Schaerbeek, Malmö’s Rosengård, Berlin’s Kreuzberg and London’s Tower Hamlets. These locations are repeatedly named in syntheses and compiled lists as having some of the highest local Muslim presences within their cities, even when exact percentages differ or lack central verification ^{[2] [4]}. The repetition of these place names across NGO reports and aggregated lists suggests a shared recognition of local demographic concentration, but not a consensus on ranking or precise magnitude because the underlying datasets and dates vary between entries ^{[1] [7]}.

3. France emerges as the most frequently cited national context for neighborhood concentrations

Among the materials, France features prominently for neighborhood‑level concentrations—several analyses cite specific suburbs with very high estimated Muslim shares (Saint‑Denis and Aubervilliers cited around ~44% in one compilation, Aulnay‑sous‑Bois and Colombes with substantial shares). That emphasis reflects both France’s large Muslim population in absolute terms and frequent reporting on Parisian suburbs, but it also mirrors the availability of local studies and NGO reports that focus on French municipalities ^{[2] [8]}. The prominence of French neighborhoods in these lists must be read alongside the acknowledged methodological caveat: French data on religion is legally and politically sensitive, and estimates often rely on proxy indicators such as place of birth or nationality, which complicates direct interpretation ^[8].

4. Divergent scopes and possible agendas in coverage: NGOs, media and compiled lists

The sources mix NGO research, media syntheses and aggregated lists; each has different aims and potential emphases. For example, an Open Society Foundations report referenced captures snapshots of community experiences in selected neighborhoods across multiple cities and is aimed at policy and rights analysis rather than producing exhaustive demographic rankings ^[1]. Aggregated lists and wiki compilations tend to highlight well‑known examples—Molenbeek, Rosengård, Kreuzberg—because they are familiar in public discourse; this selection bias amplifies certain neighborhoods in public memory even if comparable neighborhoods elsewhere are under‑reported ^{[9] [4]}. Recognising these differing scopes explains why repeated neighborhood mentions do not equate to comprehensive, standardized ranking.

5. What the evidence supports and where researchers should look next

Given the materials reviewed, the defensible conclusion is that several European neighborhoods are repeatedly cited for high Muslim concentration, but no single authoritative ranked list exists in these sources. Researchers seeking definitive neighborhood rankings need access to recent, localized census or administrative data with consistent geographic definitions; absent that, synthesis must rely on repeated mentions across credible NGO, municipal and academic studies as proxies for concentration ^{[1] [3]}. Policymakers and journalists should treat repeated neighborhood mentions as indicative rather than definitive, and explicitly note methodological limits when comparing across countries and cities ^{[2] [6]}.