Some years ago I was driving around Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, with the editor of a magazine to which I sometimes contribute. On one block stood a Catholic church, a synagogue, and a mosque. My editor exclaimed that in his city, followers of the three great monotheistic religions were able to live in harmony with one another.
I understood his pride. Toronto boasts a similar religious diversity. A small Lutheran church I occasionally attend on College Street, for example, is in walking distance of a Buddhist temple, two synagogues (in Kensington Market, a traditional Jewish enclave) as well as several Christian churches of other denominations. Though Canada and Venezuela are for the most part at least nominally Christian nations, both have received immigrants from other religious traditions who have left their mark on their host societies. Thus a mosque like Toronto’s Masjid-El-Noor, complete with minaret (the tall slender tower attached to the mosque), does not look out-of-place in a major urban centre in a neo-Europe.
But perhaps not in Old Europe. At least that is what 57% OF Swiss citizens thought when in a referendum last month they voted in favour of a constitutional amendment that would ban the further construction of minarets in their country. The minaret, as mentioned above, is the tower attached to the mosque from which, in Islamic countries, the faithful are called to prayer.* Switzerland currently has four minarets. The amendment would not see them destroyed but would prohibit others to be built in future.
The amendment itself was spearheaded by the Swiss People’s Party, a right-wing group that made news a year ago by proposing that the families of immigrants who commit crimes be deported along with their offending member. The Party’s rationale for banning the minaret is that the structure symbolizes “political Islam and sharia law.” They emphasize the importance of guarding Switzerland against the alleged growing threat of Islamicization in Europe. In addition, they say, Muslims in the country would still be allowed to practise their religion and even to build new mosques (minus the minaret, of course).
The result of the referendum received widespread attention. On the one hand, it was praised by many conservatives, including several who openly stated “God bless the Swiss” (a somewhat ironic remark in that the Swiss aren’t especially religious). Some saw the decision as a kind of “tit for tat,” as the construction of churches is legally forbidden in a number of Islamic nations, such as Saudi Arabia. On the other side, the proposed ban was condemned as discriminatory and even racist. This criticism came not only from Muslims themselves but even from some Christian church leaders who viewed the ban as an infringement on religious freedom. Some Muslims furthermore pointed out what they believed was the injustice of the decision, noting that Serbian Orthodox churches and Sikh temples (called gurdwaras) are now being built on Swiss soil. Another frequent observation is that most of the Muslims in Switzerland do not hail from Islamic theocracies but from relatively secular places like Bosnia and thus hardly appear to be involved in any scheme to “Islamicize” their host country.
On a purely aesthetic level I can understand the ban. A minaret does seem somewhat incongruous in a landscape of chalets and church steeples. The Swiss may not be particularly observant judging by measures like church attendance, but they may hold a certain attachment to the religious traditions that form part of their history. And while neo-Europes like Canada and Venezuela have enjoyed their present-day Western culture for 500 years at most (the oldest Western city in the Americas, Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic, was founded in 1498), Switzerland’s roots go back centuries. So the Swiss may regard the minaret as a sort of intrusion on those traditions.
On the other hand, I can’t help seeing the Swiss People’s Party’s spectre of Islamicization as a cheap ploy for votes. The fact that most Muslims in Switzerland aren’t radicals and aren’t even native to countries where militant Islam holds sway confirms my feeling, as does the Party’s ad for the ban, a picture of missile-like minarets sprouting up from a Swiss flag fronted by a woman in a black veil Also, logically it strikes me a bit puzzling that if the Swiss People’s Party is so concerned about an Islamic takeover why don’t they ban mosques themselves, in which after all the dreaded Muslim teaching supposedly goes on, rather than just the minarets? I fail to understand what is so dangerous about the minaret per se.
Throughout this debate the issue of religious freedom frequently arises. It is true that Muslims will not be forbidden to practise their faith or even build new mosques. Yet the ban on the minaret, without any justification other than it supposedly represents Islamic power, does come across as arbitrary and authoritarian. Similarly, the argument that what Switzerland decided was right because Islamic nations do the same or worse isn’t very convincing. Call me ethnocentric, but I like to think that we in the West are above fighting intolerance with more intolerance. (It’s moreover doubtful whether the Muslims affected by the minaret ban are the same people who would proscribe the construction of Christian houses of worship in their own countries.) The West should in my view show a good example of religious tolerance to the rest of the world.
We should now address the question of Serbian Orthodox churches and Sikh temples being permitted on Swiss territory. To put it simply, these faiths don’t have the same implications in the West that Islam does. While there are few if any “native” Orthodox Christians in Switzerland, Eastern Orthodoxy is not much different from Catholicism or Protestantism (the main religions in Switzerland). More importantly, the Orthodox do not seem to harbour any particular animosity towards the West. Nor do most Sikhs. Despite its doctrinal distance from Christianity, Sikhism as a faith and Sikhs as individuals are not perceived as a threat to the West or Western culture. Islam, and by extension all Muslims, are. Undoubtedly the members of the Swiss People’s Party know this, hence their silence on gurdwaras and Orthodox churches.
I am sure that if a similar referendum had been held in Canada I would have voted to allow the minarets, even though I’m not Muslim myself and even though I’m uncomfortable with some of the ways Islam is practised today. I like to believe that if I lived in Switzerland I would do the same. But I’m not Swiss. I’m not part of a country with ingrained traditions going back at least a millennium, not mere generations.
However, in the end the Swiss are masters of their own nation, and I won’t challenge the decisions they make in democratically held referenda. The best way to reverse the results of this decision is by internal dialogue, not by rulings made from on high. Further discussions on the matter promise to be interesting.
* The “adhan,” or call to prayer, was not an issue here, as it was in Britain, given that in Switzerland the call only takes place within the confines of the mosque itself.
Sphere: Related Content
Hi,
I was interested when I heard about this in the news. At first I didn’t know that the tower element was called a minaret so I was trying to figure out what they were talking about. It became ridiculous to me once I found out what a minaret was.
No way in hell they should ban this. Its a piece of architecture, nothing more nothing less. There are churches in inner city areas of North American cities that are so broke they are in store fronts. Does that mean they are any less deep in their faith? Nope. So how would not allowing those Muslims that can afford to build a standard place of worship with all the elements stop them from worshiping on what ever level they are inclined to?
My point? If someone is gonna be extreme about their religious views, you can toss them into a mold filled basement with no lights and they will still practice in extreme ways.
The architecture of a building used to practice a belief system has little to do with the level of dedication, the level if interest, and the level of extremism of those practicing. So why go and disrespect this culture and tell them their buildings cannot be completed as designed? Thats crazy to me. Unless it was an unsafe building element prone to collapse that building inspectors would shut down, it should be allowed to be built.
Good article
B
Dear B,
Thank you for your response. Sorry to be delayed; I have been sick (and, I’ll admit) lazy! As I mentioned in the article, had this poll taken place in Canada I would have voted to allow the minaret. Howeever, I’m trying to see it from the perspective of (at least some) Swiss. As I mentioned, I can’t see the political point of banning the minarets if you don’t ban the whole mosque. On the other hand, on a purely aesthetic level, I can see how a minaret doesn’t “fit” in a landscape of church spires, chalets and ski gondolas. In the same way, Norway (my grandmother’s country of origin) has some stupendously beautiful Lutheran churches with high steeples. But I can see how they wouldn’t “fit” in for example a city like Bangkok, Thailand, which is located in a Buddhist majority country. I mention Bangkok because I remember looking at a book about it and seeing pictures of the city. It at first struck me as strange that there were no churches in the background (I’m sure there are a few churches in Bangkok, but they’re probably small because I doubt Christians form any more than 1% of Thailand’s population). So even though if I were Swiss I might have voted to permit the minarets, I am trying to understand the perspectives of those who did not.
Now just from my perspective as a Lutheran, sometimes I feel a bit “inferior” that we don’t have a big cathedral as the Catholic, Anglican and United Church downtown (on Church Street. But then I think of what you were just saying: that a group’s faith doesn’t depend on the size of their place of worship. And one day I’ll take my daughter to Norway so she can appreciate the beautiful Lutheran churches there purely on aesthetic grounds!
That was a terrific post but it isn’t really a religious issue – the minaret is more a symbol of what many Europeans increasingly see as Muslim immigrants setting up parallel societies within their own.
Far from becoming multicultural or at least, pluralist, I understand that some of the Muslim enclaves in the UK are pushing for separate law – a dangerous move. With some of the extreme Muslim leaders publicly ambivalent about terrorism – some even upholding it as a legitimate act of defending the faith – I fear that one day, they may precipitate an anti-Muslim European holocaust.
The Swiss minarets are only one small part of the problem.
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your response. I suppose that there should be a fine line between for example letting Muslim immigrants build minarets and letting them institute their religious law (sharia) in their host society. Here where I live (I’m Canadian) there was a debate over whether Muslims should be allowed to live under sharia law here. The Canadian authorities said no, even though the law’s proponents said it would only apply to proponents, not to non-Muslims. I think the Canadian government did the right thing.
Regarding the minarets, I suppose I just don’t see why building a minaret would represent Islamic supremacy while a mosque would not. From an aesthetic standpoint I can understand, especially in a country like Switzerland which has centuries of tradition (something Canada or other New World countries do not). But while I don’t necessarily advocate banning minarets (of course the Swiss are free to make their own decisions), I see how it is important to keep religious groups from imposing their strictures into law.
Actually, Andrew, I see from your site that you’re in Australia. Does Australia have a policy with regard to minarets? I would be interested to know.
Not as far as I know!
In Canada we have let them build mosques with minarets without any problem. But as I mention in the essay, I think it’s because Canada basically styles itself as a country open to all religions.