Sun 29 Nov 2009
Swiss voters, at least those who bothered to show up at the polls, today voted to deny any future building of minarets in their country. As reported on Al-Jazeera:
Of those who cast votes in Sunday’s poll, 57.5 per cent approved the ban, while only four cantons out of 26 rejected the proposals.
The result paves the way for a constitutional amendment to be made.
“The Federal Council [government] respects this decision. Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted,” the government, which had opposed the ban, said in a statement.
The minaret is, of course, a symbol, but a rather unusual choice. In one sense it is like saying that MacDonalds cannot have a high sign (as is the case in some municipalities) but they can serve all the hamburgers they want. Thus, this ban is not on building mosques, nor does it prevent Muslims from praying in mosques. Since minarets long ago ceased to have functional value, apart from perhaps holding a loud speaker, the minaret is indeed symbolic.
But why the minaret? I suspect that this is a very Christian response, not unlike the centuries old designation of Islam as Mohammedanism. Since Church steeples are so emblematic in Christianity, it must be assumed that the minaret holds a similar position for Muslims. There is nothing in the Quran or traditions that mandates a minaret; just as Jesus never told his followers to build steeples. A minaret is also a visible difference for a building that may look “Middle Eastern” but otherwise would not stand out as much. So the vote does not really prevent Muslims from worship, but it does send a message. This message is an Islamophobic domino theory response, since the real issue is not about architecture (or any misguided birds who may occasionally fly into a minaret) but about assimilation. News reports indicate that the fears behind the vote (which was not exactly a landslide) are more about women in hijab, application of sharia law and, of course, fear of extremist terrorism. Ironically, most of the Muslims in Switzerland are from European contexts like the former Yugoslavia, not from areas where they are likely to be violent.
Over and over again the refrain is that Muslims do not fit into Swiss lifestyle. This is not the first time such ultra nationalist sensibilities have surfaced. The neutrality of Switzerland in world War II may have saved their country from Nazi invasion, but the price for that was official denial of entry to Jews fleeing the holocaust. The fact that Swiss banks facilitated Nazi accounts with the wealth stolen from German Jews is not to be denied. The point is not that Switzerland is a racist country, at least not any more racist than other European nations when it comes to certain kinds of others. The irony is that Swiss Muslims are not the holocaust denyers in the Iranian government, nor the Taliban militants battling in Swat, but individuals who on the whole have assimilated quite well into the cantons.
So this ban is really a slap in the face of Swiss Muslims and a bitter pill for Muslims the world over. A slap is not the same as brutal beating; it is not abuse in that metaphorical sense. But it is clearly intended as a message that Muslims are not deemed Swiss enough, as though Swiss culture can only accommodate certain kinds of worldviews. But I suspect this slap will be more damaging to Switzerland than to Swiss Muslims, who can still build mosques. The image of Switzerland has taken a beating.
Daniel Martin Varisco
November 29th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I think you’re right that it is a symbolic slap.. and it seems odd for a modern democracy to ban something that has only symbolic value. It also puts me in mind of medieval Cairo where Christians could have churches but not compete in the symbolic economy of the city.. with a presence on the skyline. As you note the minaret was a development within the history of Islam and not there from the start, but in medieval times it took a high level of symbolic value and helped to proclaim a place as city under Islamic rule. For all the freedom offered to Christians and Jews, a place like Cairo was always an Islamic city because of this symbolic priority. Similarly, this ruling makes the modern democracy appear to be establishing a similar code: yes, you can be here, but our corporation dominated culture will be the official symbolic culture.
I’m still trying to get the facts about this and then get my mind around it, but your discussion I think hits important points..
November 29th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Apparently there are only four minarets in all of Switzerland. One is Petit Saconnex, in Geneva, with a minaret since 1978. Voters in Petit Saconnex rejected the anti-minaret referendum by over 61%.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Of course, the minaret referendum is only a test to see how much this neo-Nazi movement (which is now very much globalised, trans-European and with some clear US connections, which are well known by all of us here in Tabsir) can dare. Next move? a referendum asking the ban of the Qur’an. If such a referendum might pass in Switzerland (where the referendum is a way to change constitutional law) would sanction the end of freedom of religion and with it of liberal democracy. Indeed, the real target is not Islam or Muslims (this is the methodology and the scapegoat) but the end of democracy as we know today and the return of a new version of . LNazi Christian Arianism
November 30th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Thanks. What I find interesting is how involved feminist groups were in the referendum campaign. It was framed as an issue on women’s rights, but let me as you this: how are the rights of women helped by banning minarets?
At FreeRadicals (http://www.icsr.info/blog/Banning-minarets-in-Switzerland-is-counterproductive) they had this to say, which I thought was interesting:
“One of the authors of the bill claims that the minaret ‘is a political symbol against integration; a symbol more of segregation, and first of all, a symbol to try to introduce Sharia law parallel to Swiss rights.’ While there are various Islamist movements actively pursuing both grassroots and top-down strategies to institute aspects of Islamic law in the West, minarets on mosques have nothing to do with this. The ban will only serve as further hindrance to integration and strengthen the influence of the Islamist narrative, accomplishing the exact opposite of what it was intended for.”
April 12th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Look! it is a magnificent building and residence layout from Design and style (Cayman) Ltd. I’m affectionate towards of architectural design and style like this, it seems incredibly interesting! You have to fully understand what the architectural pattern is. And it would seem Architect making these models are licensed professionals, I do not know what exactly is the expense, lol! However, I want to obtain initiatives on the way to produce straightforward styles. I’m aspiring to be a brilliant architectural designer.