The Vibe Debate: Minarets – divisive and provocative, or innocuous religious symbol?

(c) hoyasmeg

Last Sunday, Swiss voters supported a referendum proposing to ban the building of minarets, distinctive spires that stick out of the tops of Mosques. They were perceived as threatening, and a symbol of the ‘Islamification’ of Switzerland. The vote was forced by the largest party in the Swiss parliament, the Swiss People’s Party, against the wishes of the ruling coalition, having gained 100,000 signatures – the required figure for a referendum to be called. Switzerland though, is home to just four minarets, and given their largely symbolic value, this has lead to criticism. So this week, The Vibe puts two of its writers against eachother, to debate this highly contentious and sensitive issue.

Are the minarets an unnecessary symbol of a pan-Islamic attempt to bring in Sharia Law, and is it therefore necessary that they are banned? Or is this just one huge over reaction, provocative and unnecessary, born out of an irrational fear of Islam? Simon Stiel is back from debating the future of British education, to attack the Swiss, and he tackles Duncan Craig, standing his ground for the defence of the referendum…

Simon Stiel: A completely cuckoo action 

Switzerland has usually been quite a free-spirited country. Internationally, they were not a member of the UN until 2003 and at present still not a member of the EU. Domestically, Switzerland is a federal state, containing 26 cantons with wide ranging powers. Public space for heroin in a Zurich park and gun ownership played a role into frightening the Germans into abandoning their plan for invading during the Second World War. However, this weekend witnessed the adoption of a nasty and muddled policy about minarets.

It is muddled because it completely misunderstands what it means to be secular. Secularism calls for the separation of religion from civic authority, not its suppression. You only need to glance at the landscape of the United States which has served as an inspiration for secularists since its foundation. No prayer in state schools, no state funded faith schools, no established state religion. Nevertheless its landscape is filled with churches, from the humblest wooden ones in rural areas to the unfinished St. John the Divine Cathedral in New York. In the case of Switzerland, there are only four minarets and most applications to build them don’t get granted. How that status quo is a “prelude to the introduction of Sharia” as Ulrich Schluer of the People’s Party put it, is beyond me. Why now, when minarets have been an accepted distinctive part of mosques, simply another pulpit?

It is nasty because it is telling a minority that their cherished property, is to be regarded as pernicious to the mainstream society and to be banned. Most Swiss Muslims are descended from those who fled Bosnia a decade ago. It was during a war when their holy places where defiled and destroyed by tanks and troops. This vote is ugly and should be challenged. Secular secularists should get their signatures written.

Duncan Craig : Democracy has spoken

The debate into the recent Swiss referendum has been blown out of all proportion.  First, let us remind ourselves of the basic facts.  The Swiss People’s Party, in conjunction with other supporters, publicly supported a ban on the building of any future Minarets in Switzerland.  As a result of much support, a referendum was called.

Then let us recall the definition of a Minaret:

A distinctive architectural feature, usually a slender tower or turret connected with an Islamic mosque.

So, a minaret is not a mosque, and therefore not a Muslim place of worship.  Instead it is an iconic symbol of Islam. The result? Muslims are free to worship and follow their religion; but not permitted to build towers as an accessory to mosques.

Thirdly, let us remember that the Swiss government did not endorse this policy, but in tune with the fundamentals of democracy, (which hopefully the majority of people and nations support) put the question to the Swiss public.  It was, therefore, the Swiss public who decided that they were not in favour of the construction of Minarets in their country. This is a result of democracy and free speech, and regardless of the outcome this must be applauded.  If the Swiss government were to override this referendum, then democracy would be disregarded as an irrelevance.  You either have democracy or you don’t; whatever people might think of the consequences, it is far better than the other options!

This debate has now turned into a furore and is now in danger of being completely irrationalised.  Whilst perusing a BBC News article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6676271.stm) on this subject, I was both shocked and appalled to discover the statement from Reinhard Schulze, the Professor of Islamic Studies at Berne University, which to be frank, more or less amounts to a threat.

“I think Swiss Muslims will be angry and bitter over this, and we know that anger and bitterness among a community can lead to radicalisation, even to militancy.”

To even make this suggestion is fundamentally wrong and in part excuses the entire extremist culture.  Everyone throughout the world experiences anger and bitterness, yet if everyone used it as an excuse for radicalisation and militancy, the world would be in a horrific state.  There is no way that a public referendum in a democratic nation should incite extremist behaviour, whatever the outcome.  We, as humans have a responsibility to act rationally and engage in debate, if and when a decision does not go according to plan.  The Swiss have made their decision, and in no way do they deserve to live in fear of the consequences.  If one disagrees, then it is better to discuss the issue, no other alternative is acceptable.

The Debate

Simon Stiel

What has been “blown out of all proportion” is the reason the referendum was held in the first place. If Duncan believes humans “have a responsibility to act rationally” then it is astonishing that the People’s Party and their supporters regarded the mere existence of four minarets as a public menace.

The minaret is a cherished part of Muslim property, and is used by Muslims to differentiate themselves from other faiths. It has the same status as the spire of a church or the torah scrolls for a synagogue. The same goes for clothing. As my US example pointed out, a secular state doesn’t involve itself in building or subsidising those things, but it doesn’t prohibit them. Most Swiss Muslims pray in small rooms and no rational explanation has been provided about why they shouldn’t be allowed the choice of displaying pride in their faith in public.

Duncan Craig

‘Free-spirited’ is a term which defines Switzerland perfectly, a nation that does not conform to political correctness, welcomes free speech, and is prepared to listen to the views of the voter; something that everyone in Britain has been crying out for.  Democracy is not something that should be ignored when it suits.  Politicians act on behalf of the voter, and the Swiss voter voted for a ban on the further construction of minarets.  It is a great credit to the Swiss Government and their legal system that the general public continue to have the opportunity to express their views within the political framework. 

Simon Stiel

The assertion that this is about the “Swiss public” choosing is disingenuous. The campaign enjoyed the support of the biggest party in the Assembly and 47% didn’t vote. Referendums can involve the biggest and well-funded groups being able to drown out their opponents. It also brought in unrelated issues; one poster displayed a burqa and supporters talked about forced marriages and Sharia law. Referendums can threaten what we also hold dear in a free society; pluralism and the rule of law. Indeed, dictatorships have used them to legitimise themselves; the general will against a minority. We musn’t abandon our critical faculties and applaud referendums “regardless of the outcome.”

Duncan Craig

With regards to the specifics of the vote, what exactly does the Swiss vote against the Minaret mean for religious freedom in Switzerland?  Granted, Minarets are not permitted to be constructed as an attachment to a mosque, but is this a problem?  Laws on religious freedom have not changed; all religions are free to worship in peace and can erect places of worship without challenge.  Surely, religious freedom is about being able to worship your God in peace.  Whether this is in a stunning piece of architectural genius, or in a plain brick building, is it not still an ability to worship in peace nonetheless? 

Simon Stiel

This is not about granting special privileges; it’s about allowing freedom to express one’s faith in Switzerland. There are Catholic and Protestant churches proudly showing their spires and, more recently, other faiths have built new buildings without the attention and hyperbole there is now. There are 3 Sikh Gurdwaras for the tiny Sikh community. It will be difficult for Swiss Muslims to escape the conclusion that they are regarded as an “other” in Swiss society and they alone are to be coerced.

No extremist behaviour should be tolerated and there should be discussion. This referendum simplifies and distorts understanding of issues surrounding the Swiss Muslims; about integration and the discrimination that they face. Direct democracy has become a fad in recent years for British politicians and pundits; this is a case study showing why representative democracy exists and why there’s life in it yet. 

Duncan Craig

Switzerland is not historically an Islamic nation, and therefore has the right to maintain its current traditions.  That is not nasty, or ugly, but simply just tradition.  In reality, many nations in the world would be opposed to the construction of certain buildings which alter the look of their historical and natural landscape.  That is the consequence of planning laws and regulation.  Switzerland is not North Korea, China or Saudi Arabia; it is in fact a pro-democracy European state. 

So, Simon and Duncan have had their say, now it’s your turn. Do you agree with Simon? Is this a provocative attack on Islam, over an innocent expression of religious freedom? Or is Duncan right, that democracy is something that can’t be disregarded when we don’t like it, and is it fair to say that the minarets serve only a symbolic purpose?