After Swiss Referendum on Minarets: Who is Radicalizing Whom?

On Sunday, 57 percent of Swiss people who took part in a referendum voted in favour of a ban on the construction of minarets. The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People's Party (SVP), the largest party in parliament. Reaction to the Swiss people's decision was immediate, with criticisms appearing in visual and written media all over the world.

From inside, Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey stated that Muslims in Switzerland now faced a restriction on their freedom to express their religion. She added: "The reality of our societies, in Europe and in the world (is that) every blow to the co-existence of different cultures and religions also endangers our security."

Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said: "Concerns [about Islamic fundamentalism] have to be taken seriously. However, a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies."

The head of the Swiss Green Party, Ueli Leuenberger, pledged to support appeals against the ban to the European Court of Human Rights.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called the ban a "deeply discriminatory, deeply divisive and a thoroughly unfortunate step for Switzerland to take." She added: "I have no hesitation at all in condemning the anti-foreigner scaremongering that has characterised political campaigns in a number of countries, including Switzerland, which helps produce results like this."

French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner called the ban "scandalous." Babacar Ba, a senior official of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, warned of an "upsurge in Islamophobia" in Europe. And the Vatican denounced the ban as an infringement of religious freedom.

Turkey is highly critical as well. Turkish President Abdullah Gul said: “This is a noteworthy example in terms of showing how animosity toward Islam, as we call it ‘Islamophobia,’ has been developing in the Western world. This is a disgrace for the Swiss.” Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan added: “What is the relationship of a mosque minaret with fundamentalism? That is an outdated, primitive understanding.”

Besides, Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.

After all, do you think that it was right to take the issue of constructing minarets to a referendum? Are minarets really a symbol of political Islam? If so, what makes minarets a symbol of a radical political goal?

What if "non-radical" Muslims in other countries start banning construction of bell towers of churches or banning the sound of bells coming from churches, thanks to the "democratic" decision of the Swiss people that, unfortunately, consolidates the very opposite perception- considering "the West" as "aggressive," "intolerant" and an "enemy of Islam?"

In the end, who is becoming radical?

Comments

[tega]

Please spare us the sanctimony, christians can't worship freely in saudi Arabia, Bahais are a no no in Iran, unless the muslim world are equally unhappy with the state of minorities in their back yard, they should spare all of us and just shut up.

Turkey can cry us a river, their government don't have any credibility when it comes to tolerance.

Saying all this, I don't agree with the ban; it does not accomplish was they actually want to accomplish, getting rid of radical muslims.

[Oliver]

@tega I see, so the repressive Wahabist regime of Saudi, and the Khomenist regime of Iran are now the benchmark for religious tolerance?

How does that work, then?

Were you never told that two wrongs don't make a right ?

[ange paris]

In switzerland they wanted to ban the symbol of this creeping " force " which scare all the western people; watching what has happened in the muslim world , they want to avoid spreading of the radicalism in their country !!

[Dave]

How would the Muslim world like it if we 'infidel' Westerners decided to ban the construction of mosques in Europe and North America? Hmmm?

[Dave]

Quoting -- "After all, do you think that it was right to take the issue of constructing minarets to a referendum? Are minarets really a symbol of political Islam? If so, what makes minarets a symbol of a radical political goal?"
********

I see it as the Swiss see it -- an attempt to re-define the cultural and political landscape of the West.

[Somebody]

I'm with Oliver. What makes the west great are freedoms such as the freedom of religion and assembly. Why should we want our governments to suck as much as the ones suffered by millions in the middle east? This us vs. them mentality is insane.

[Barry]

Dave

And let us not even think of discussing the subject matter of Apostasy within Islam - we could be here forever discussing the varying thoughts on that.

Barry

[Barry]

Somebody

You are right about the freedoms of the west - we do need to retain them, BUT our own tolerance allows intolerant people who hate the very concept of our freedoms and tolerance to take advantage of us. How we prevent this without destroying our own concepts, I don't know. But appeasing these people and laying down before them will not work!

Ask this man http://www.onejerusalem.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Mesbah-Yazdi.jpg what he thinks about western attitudes to freedom, tolerance and democracy.

Barry

[mangybear]

I've known and liked the Swiss for many years. Regarding your title question: could it be that Islamism and Jihadism have radicalised the Swiss?

In Holland (the first country with official tolerance) in the 18th century, Roman Catholics were allowed to build churches but only if they were discreet, not identifiable from the street, and had no towers. To this day, there is a fine example in The Hague: the Old Catholic Church. If churches can be built without towers, mosques can.

[Somebody]

Barry, I object to the notion that radical extremists are taking advantage of us because of our freedoms. Can you think of any examples of this actually happening? It sounds more like baseless scaremongering of the kind that got over 50% of a western liberal country to vote to ban a religiously symbolic architectural structure. Anyone who really supports western values and principles should be appalled by this sort of thing.

As for Mesbah-Yazdi, I'm familiar with his views and I don't find them particularly interesting (to put it ridiculously lightly) but I do believe people should be free to express even those views because that's what it means to value freedom of speech (and, ironically, to oppose Mesbah-Yazdi).

[Bill Davit]

"What if “non-radical” Muslims in other countries start banning construction of bell towers of churches or banning the sound of bells coming from churches, thanks to the “democratic” decision of the Swiss people that, unfortunately, consolidates the very opposite perception- considering “the West” as “aggressive,” “intolerant” and an “enemy of Islam?” “This is a noteworthy example in terms of showing how animosity toward Islam, as we call it ‘Islamophobia,’ has been developing in the Western world. This is a disgrace for the Swiss.”

My god what blatant hypocrisy. Other religions are outright banned or severly restricted in most Islamic states. Try getting a church built in many Islamic states--can't do it or it takes over ten years. Try doing missionary work--can't your either imprisoned or even killed. God forbid if a Muslim trys to leave Islam--can't because their is no true freedom of religions under Sharia. In Saudia Arabia and the Maldives you cannot even be a citizen unless your a Muslim. Instead of realizing this inequity the OIC would have us believe Islamophobia is the worlds worst problem. For perspective Compare the OIC report on Islamophobia with any number of human rights reports in Islamic states. You will notice harrasment followed by large financial settlement in the West vs. death/church torched/and the victim jailed in the Islamic world! Just imagine if we outright banned Dawa, building/repairing mosques, or open displays of faith in the West. Muslims would be aghast and rightly so. However what many Muslims simply ignore is the fact these are everyday realities in the Islamic world for religious minorities. For god's sake Pakistan still has the law of equivalents that states it takes 4 Christian males to equal the testimony of on male Muslim!!!!

While I am torn on the issue I see it for what it is. It is a voice that is saying we are tired of the hypocrisy of tolerating the intolerant. Just recently there was a huge uproar in Egypt over 800 American schools being built in Egypt. They of course use the same arguement the Swiss use but what is amazing is that they invoke "the threat to Islam" mantra despite religion not being part of the schools. The reality is many in the Islamic world are taught to resist anything from the west because it is viewed as a threat to their religion.

I would love one day for Muslims who gripe about this to see a "Christian" version of Sharia imposed on them. Then maybe they will understand the gross inequity many of the draconian edicts of Sharia that religious minorities are forced to live under in Islamic states. Sad to say but it is about time the Islamic world get a taste of its own medicine. Maybe then they will understand the hypocrisy of their ways and realize despite us "infidels" unbelief we are humans just like them. Two rights don't make a wrong but tolerance is not tolerating the intolerant as well. As noted by some of our Iranian friends look no further than the treatment of Bahais in Iran for prime example of this hypocrisy.

[Samuel]

I'm actually a lot less critical of the Swiss than most people despite this obvious ourageous ban.

For one thing the Swiss are the least imperialist western nation. When was the last time Switzerland invaded a Muslim country or bombed Mulims? In fact when was the last time Switzerland invaded anyone? The Swiss keep to themelves and never intervene abroad. If only the rest of the world were more like Switzerland it would be a great thing.

Secondly this type of act does nothing but enhance Muslim solidarity worldwide. Coupled with the fact that Islam is the world's fastes growing religion this is something to celebrate.

Today nearly one out of four human beings is a Muslim. In the not too distant future it will likely be closer to 33%.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/07/muslim.world.population/index.html

Nearly 1 in 4 people worldwide is Muslim, report says
Story Highlights
There are about 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, according to the report

Report by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Nearly 2 out of 3 of world's Muslims are in Asia, report says

Roughly 9 of 10 Muslims worldwide are Sunni, report says
By Richard Allen Greene
CNN
(CNN) -- Nearly one in four people worldwide is Muslim -- and they are not necessarily where you might think, according to an extensive new study that aims to map the global Muslim population.

India, a majority-Hindu country, has more Muslims than any country except for Indonesia and Pakistan, and more than twice as many as Egypt.

China has more Muslims than Syria.

Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon.

And Russia has more Muslims than Jordan and Libya put together.

Nearly two out of three of the world's Muslims are in Asia, stretching from Turkey to Indonesia.

The Middle East and north Africa, which together are home to about one in five of the world's Muslims, trail a very distant second.

There are about 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, according to the report, "Mapping the Global Muslim Population," by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. That represents about 23 percent of the total global population of 6.8 billion.

There are about 2.25 billion Christians, based on projections from the 2005 World Religions Database.

Brian Grim, the senior researcher on the Pew Forum project, was slightly surprised at the number of Muslims in the world, he told CNN.

"Overall, the number is higher than I expected," he said, noting that earlier estimates of the global Muslim population have ranged from 1 billion to 1.8 billion.

"There are these countries that we don't think of as Muslim at all, and yet they have very sizable numbers of Muslims," said Alan Cooperman, the associate director of research for the Pew Forum, naming India, Russia and China.

[pessimist]

There are alot of interesting comments. I liked Bill Davits':

<It is a voice that is saying we are tired of the hypocrisy of tolerating the intolerant.

I like that phrase. I think that because of 'politically correct ' taboos being imposed on society because of all sorts of stuff - leftist leanings, political strategies for social peace etc.. it's got under a lot of people's skins. This is so explosive simply because political parties in so many countries invest in this and it's a game..

I heard a few debates in France about this, in fact, what people don't realize is that this is a 'much a do about nothing' incident. Because it is a particular thing in Switzerland that not many people (in fance too) even know about. The architecture question is far more important for them, they have particular forms for even villages..

The population feeling was also influenced by the fact the Libya is holding some Suiss people imprisoned there.

Also that compared to France, who has several generations of muslim immigrants, (from ex colonial countries, ) Switzerland has recent immigrants from Boznia, (yugoslavia), and other countries that weren't actually born in Switzerland, so for the county in general it is a greater social upheaval.

I would also add that there is a serious misunderstanding in western citizen's understandings just as with the muslim population : that they simply don't know about what their 'other brothers and sisters' are living in all the other countries, they are not really informed no more that a simple baptist citizen in some small town in America..

[Barry]

Somebody

I do understand where you are coming from, we are basically on the same team - but you are far to the left of me ( I think?) - there is a famous quote which goes something along the lines of " I do not agree with what you say - but I will defend to the death your right to say it". A very liberal and progressive way of thinking (those terms can themselves have different meanings or connotations in different countries). I believe however it is potentially (at least) dangerous - and taken to the limit is definitely dangerous. For example, would people (knowing what they know now) apply that high principle to Hitler's pre-war rants?

You ask me for an example of how/where radical intolerant Islamists can or do take advantage of our western liberal democracies. Look up " Abu Qatada" - the radical Islamic preacher in the UK . Here is a very brief statement from one place " Radical preacher Abu Qatada, once called Osama bin Laden's "spiritual ambassador in Europe," was ordered on Tuesday to be released on bail in a court decision that dealt an embarrassing blow to the British government's anti-terror campaign."

Your own posting re Mesbah Yazdi's "right" to free speech is another example - Yazdi himself does not believe in the "right of free speech", nor in the principle of Democracy - yet you want to endow the benefits of those thing upon him???

I am happy though - that I am not Swiss. Because I did not have to vote on the matter under discussion re the Minarets. It is very difficult to make real decisions on difficult matters - eg to go to war. It is very easy to have idealistic principles. Even I have some of those - but I at least recognize my own weaknesses.

Barry

[Barry]

Samuel

There is no doubt that Islam is growing in terms of numbers. But so is overall world population growth. The total numbers of people on this planet has grown exponentially since around late 19th century. To the point where less than 50 years from now, there will be approx 10 BILLION. I am very happy that I won't be here!!! :)

Our planet and our species faces much bigger problems than we discuss here. There are some in the west (at least) who basically want to take our (now) accepted standards of living back to the 19th Century - to allegedly avoid catastrophe. As Islam is basically still entrenched in the Medieval Ages, it would possibly have an advantage when this happens.

Think about it - 50 years time - 10 Billion people - all rubbing up against one another, politically, culturally and religiously. Not enough food or water - not enough cultivatable land - oil running out (or are you a "Peak oil" denier). Billions of people seeking refuge somewhere. As I said, I for one am happy I will not be here .

Barry

[picard]

Anybody know who was behind this referendum in the first place?

I can imagine that if such a vote were held here in the US, by the time Murdoch media was done hyping the "threat" of the pious Muslim neighbor as inherently a "proto-terrorist," (e.g., the Daniel Pipes line) then it'd pass overwhelmingly here too.

Sad to say -- such is the state of "thinking" here in Faux-land, especially south of the Mason-Dixon.

By the way, about the Swiss, does anybody else hear an echo to 1527? -- back when Catholics, Lutherans, & Zwingli "reformists" (there's a term) alike were burning anabaptists at the stake and permanently "re-baptizing" their women..... Hmmmm. Plus ca change?

[Dave]

"Anybody know who was behind this referendum in the first place?"

*********

SVP -- Switzerland's largest political party. They got the 100,000 signatures needed for a vote.

You can't compare the banning of minarets to the horrors of 1527.

[Somebody]

Barry, I wasn't familiar with the "Abu Qatada" case (though I'd heard of others like him in London) but from a quick glance it seems his bail was revoked and he's pending deportation to Jordan where he has already been sentenced to life imprisonment in absentia. I don't really see who's been taken advantage of here. There's a big difference between good law enforcement that dismantles real terrorist networks and the suppression of free speech. I'm in favour of the former.

As for how to deal with hate speech, this is debatable and I find myself on the fence. In my home country of Canada we have laws against spreading hate propaganda. In the United States, which has one the of the strongest protections of free speech in the world, the only unlawful speech is that which is intended to and likely to lead to incite immediate lawlessness (like a riot). However, wherever you stand on this issue, there's no way you can argue that banning minarets is the least bit justifiable on these grounds.

[pessimist]

just a point too (i hope nobody else raised it), these minarets are not used for calling to prayer. There are already four in the country. They are just symbols, like church towers with no bells. This is something that I've seen has been misunderstood in some of the media comments. Another point is that one of the spokesmen for muslim group in France said on TV that he wished for architectural 'integration'. They don't have to copy oriental architecture, some other minorets are made of wood, brick, square etc, (as with the big mosque in Paris, built to thank the muslims after the 1st world war)

There are in effect two sides to this 'non story' but surely not those sides that folks like Amadinedjad are posturing, that simply (to my mind) is the horrible side of the 'non story'.. that is trying to whip up world opinion.

There is also the financial question, some commentaries are saying "yes let them take out their fortunes from the banks, maybe they should spend it on the poor in their own countries"...