As Winds readers almost certainly know, the Swiss voted in a referendum to ban the construction of new minarets in Switzerland. At present, only 4 of Switzerland's 150 mosques have minarets, and none are used for the call to prayer because of strict noise-pollution rules. Those minarets would be allowed to stay.
Rise of the Fjordmen? A little, yeah. The Minarets aren't required parts of a mosque, are seen as big "eff you!" raised finger of Islamic supremacism, and people reasonably don't want even the potential of some idiot yelling a public call to prayer of any sort at whatever hour of morning or day. Local noise regulations can be repealed, after all, by a local majority vote. Referenda cannot. Auto-dialers and opt-in cell phones, please!
Imam Hargey of Oxford has some sensible suggestions...
"Switzerland's referendum vote to ban minarets is needlessly xenophobic but it does not infringe the religious liberty of Swiss Muslims. Minarets remain emblematic of mosques in the Muslim heartlands but there is no theological reason why houses of worship in the West have to incorporate such towers.... European mosques should stop mindlessly mimicking Eastern design and create prayer halls that blend into the landscape.
Muslims who have settled in Switzerland (and elsewhere in Europe) should not confuse culture with creed.... They should practice a Swiss Islam that is rooted in the society in which they live.... When European Muslims unthinkingly endorse this warped [Wahabbi] theology by desiring medieval Sharia, defending honour killings, stoning to death, forced marriages, Muslim exceptionalism and a separatist society, they only invoke fear and exacerbate anti-Muslim sentiment. When Europe's Muslims extol such un-Koranic doctrines as the niqab (face veil), they exclude themselves from the mainstream.
Only when Muslim immigrants and converts in Europe reject the twisted ideology of a fundamentalist male clergy will the chief causes of anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe recede."
The Swiss Muslim community, whose reaction has been measured and restrained, would do well to take his advice, because this vote is not the end.
The minaret vote was about 57-58% for, and the organizations behind the referendum campaign are targeting burqas and forced marriages next. Which will resonate widely, and is good political tactics by the the Swiss People's Party.
The latter initiative may also upset any Jewish Hassidic communities in Switzerland, but really, after reading some of the stories within the Jewish community about that, I have zero sympathy. Cardinal principle: people must not be disposable as property, under any framework - it will always be abused. Tough new laws around forced marriages are a nearly surefire winner in Switzerland, and even attempting to oppose that proposal will raise a lot of eyebrows and concern levels.
Incidentally, a referendum to ban Swiss arms exports, held at the same time, went down in flames, with 68% against.
David Kopel over at Volokh Conspiracy has one of the more amazingly convoluted conspiracy theories as to the meaning of the vote.
It is, but the most significant line is the part about the importance of feminist support in getting the ban passed.
That source of hostility is an interesting watershed. Given feminism's strong "hate western civilization" and "value free multiculturalism" bent within its cadre, epitomized by idiotarian and leading Canadian feminist Sumera Thbani post-9/11 (her words in comment #23), strong reaction to real misogyny from a non-Western source that should be "licensed to kill" in tantamount to defection.
Nor is Switzerland isolated in this little wrinkle. Efforts in Ontario, Canada to allow "voluntary" Islamic religious courts for family law issues were shot down, and feminists became very involved on the anti side. Similar trends are beginning to be visible in Britain, where British feminists have begun criticizing Islamization.
It would seem that for some, there actually is a moral center of some sort that will not be superseded by central committee groupthink. If it grows, as it grows, it will become an interesting crack in the Islamic/Leftist alliance. And potentially, a strong source of legislative and referendum initiatives in several countries.
I've never understood why Kopel's theory is getting bashed so hard; it actually makes a lot of sense to me.
1) Swiss Gov't comes to accommodations with various Islamist groups for internal security reasons - do what you want here, but no attacks;
2) Islamist groups use Swiss facilities with increasing visibility;
3) Non-Islamist Muslim population grows;
4) Non-Muslim Swiss population (who are, like the French, stunningly racist by nature) is PO'ed at the government actions and at the increasing visibility of both the Islamist and benign Muslim populations and performs a gratuitous act of foot-stomping. Or, as Otter put it, "a really futile and stupid gesture..."
Marc
"Switzerland's referendum vote to ban minarets is needlessly xenophobic but it does not infringe the religious liberty of Swiss Muslims.
I... don't think that's true. Or if it's true, it's true only in a very narrow technical sense that it's an even more basic infringement of freedom of expression-- in this case, religious expression.
Imagine a law preventing the construction of cathedral steeples, not based on any architectural safety requirements, but simply based on what they are and what they mean. Most Islamic nations may have no rational grounds for complaint, here, considering their own laws, but that doesn't make it right.
I think it's not a good referendum but I agree with AL that it's a gesture of frustration by a populace with a dysfunctional ruling class who won't discuss the issue at all. If you won't allow legitimate debate and response, you'll get progressively worse responses.
Marcus,
So what if that catherdral steeples law did exist? The church near me has no such construction, and it's still very much a church. If it was, say, a predominantly Muslim country will a low-height architecture style, that would make perfect sense to me.
Respect your neighbours, conform to local standards and architecture in your institutions, be seen as local rather than as foreign shock troops, be upstanding people who do good in the community. That's the formula for coexistence, absent (non-existent in Switzerland) official government/ religious incitement to hate, and Imam Hargey gets that. It has worked in the USA for people like the Mormons, the Jews, heck, even the Hare Krishna - and is in the process of working for gays (absent the architecture bit, which doesn't apply).
It will work for Muslims, too, if they follow it.
Unfortunately Islam, for the most part, has poor to terrible coexistence skills, and deliberately flouts a number of these basics in many places. But that flouting is not intrinsic to Islam's commandments, as Imam Hargey points out, which means it's a choice. Choose better, live better.
Of course, in a predominantly Muslim country the odds are that you won't be allowed to build a church - or if you do, it will become a magnet for attacks and violence. THAT is infringement on religious liberty. Architectural restrictions aren't.
I'm surprised at your response, Joe, I thought you would have a different take.
I normally imagine most folks here would agree that government as a whole is here to protect us from harm, foreign and domestic, and that societal issues like how we dress, how we raise our children, how we build our homes (within safety limits) are none of their damn business.
Why minarets?
I can understand groups (like a homeowners association) wanting to stipulate minimums to preserve the quality of an area, giving people a choice whether to live there or not -- and giving residents a vote.
But HOA standards need to not be arbitrary.
And a minaret ban is absolutely arbitrary. This isn't aimed at quality standards, or safety, this is aimed at a group of people.
This is an entire goverment legislating an arbitrary limitation for ... what?
Not safety.
Not freedom.
Not justice.
If someone made an argument for a city-level 'skyline aesthetic law' that was generic, I think a decent argument can be made.
But this is absurd. I think this strikes similarly to bans on certain flags (Confederate, for example). We may not like what they represent, but then when have we ever argued that freedom is about having what we like vs being free?
Muslim immigrants in Europe are most definitely a significant problem, but this is most definitely not the solution.
So what if that catherdral steeples law did exist? The church near me has no such construction, and it's still very much a church.
Well, that would still be wrong. It would be wrong even if the law said, "There shall be no distinctive religious architectural motifs above thirty feet whatsoever," and I'm not even religious-- I'm an atheist.
The point is not whether the building is a mosque or a church, the point is freedom of expression.
Respect your neighbours, conform to local standards and architecture in your institutions, be seen as local rather than as foreign shock troops, be upstanding people who do good in the community. That's the formula for coexistence, absent (non-existent in Switzerland) official government/ religious incitement to hate, and Imam Hargey gets that. It has worked in the USA for people like the Mormons, the Jews, heck, even the Hare Krishna - and is in the process of working for gays (absent the architecture bit, which doesn't apply).
Funny, I always thought the point of living in a free society was holding a full share in all the rights of freedom-- including the right to actually be who you are, without skulking around and hiding it.
You may have one recipe for co-existence, but you haven't come up with a recipe for free co-existence.
Of course, in a predominantly Muslim country the odds are that you won't be allowed to build a church - or if you do, it will become a magnet for attacks and violence.
That would also be wrong. Muslim countries that prevent the open architecture of opposing ideas, whether because of their own immaturity, or the immaturity of their citizens, are just as much if not more in the wrong than the Swiss at this point.
THAT is infringement on religious liberty. Architectural restrictions aren't.
I hate to simply say, "Yes, they are," but... yes, they are. Architecture, as art, is a form of expression. Stifling the expression of one's religion is an infringement of religious liberty. I can't understand how it wouldn't be.
I think the Swiss are following some of their own historical dynamics that need to be accounted for.
I believe Switzerland was the last country racked by wars of religion btw/ protestants and catholics (1847). The 1848 Constitutional compromise that healed that wound created the current federal state in which each canton has broad powers to regulate religion. Almost all of the cantons have established religions (either catholic or swiss reformed), have public taxes to support religion, public funding of religious structures and religious instruction in school. Non-established religions can enjoy some of these benefits (there are Muslim classes in some cantons, and I believe synagogues built with public funding), but the bottom line is that this is nowhere near the "disestablishment of religion" experience that Americans know.
Increasingly the authority of the cantons is being challenged by either the Swiss government or the European Court of Human Rights. E.g, Local decisions overruled on whether muslim women should be exempted from clothing regulations (hijab) or girls should be exempt from physical education. The view that there are anti-female practices going on in the Swiss Muslim community appears widespread and supported at times by complaints from Muslims. Public discussion of these issues can be viewed as intolerant and censurable.
The Swiss government's veto of the local government's refusal to give a building permit for the minaret has trodden on deeply held views on Swiss federalism that are uniquely Swiss, but touch on other European concerns of diminished democracy and dissatisfaction with out-of-touch elites. Religious, government and business leaders opposed the referendum. Women in particular supported the referendum and Muslim treatment of women is part of the central narrative. I suspect the claim that the referendum is from the "right" was largely an attempt to get feminists and secularists to stay home.
I tried to follow the comments in various Swiss newspapers and came away with the view that the referendum supporters were conditionally tolerant. They believe the Swiss Muslims are not tolerant and therefore are not entitled to full tolerance in return. And by full tolerance, I mean that the minarets are not seen as essential to Muslim practices and therefore it's not entirely intolerant of Islam, particularly if as many appear to believe, the referendum will be reversed by the International court.
In short, a conflation of issues, some of which like anger over loss of local autonomy and national sovereignty, may not be directly related to Islam.
Perhaps a rise of the Fjordmen, but all the same it may be worth listen to what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to say: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1205/p09s01-coop.html