Nestle. The United Nations. Rolex. Secure Banking. Toblerone. Yodeling. William Tell. Cowbells. Neutrality. Rousseau. Alpine Skiing. Heidi.
These are a few of the things -- mostly pretty -- that come to mind when you say "Switzerland."
But now thanks to a recent popular vote on a controversial referendum, things like "intolerance," "paranoia," and "limitations on freedom of religion" have joined the merry list.
In case you have not heard already, 57% of Swiss voters approved a proposal Sunday to ban mosque minarets in a nationwide referendum sponsored by the Swiss People's Party (SVP), a right-wing group long known for its anti-immigration campaigns. A complacent Swiss government subsequently stated that it will "respect the decision" of the people and will affect the ban on all new minarets in the country.
The SVP flooded the tiny landlocked Alpine state with posters in which minarets appeared as missiles rising from the Swiss flag. They told voters that "the minaret is a sign of political power and demand, comparable with whole-body covering by the burqa, tolerance of forced marriage and genital mutilation of girls." This is not true of course.
Most Muslims accept the minaret as an architectural conduit for the call to prayer, but most do not seek political power, subscribe to the burqa, tolerate forced marriages, or accept genital mutilation of girls. Forced marriages and female circumcision happen mostly in poor, uneducated parts of the world and have no foundation in Islam. The burqa is worn by less than 1% of Muslim women. How these three things are "comparable" with a minaret must be Switzerland's dirty little secret because I cannot figure it out.
Yet by casting the minaret, a mainstream symbol of normative Islam, as some kind of Trojan horse bearing the Achilles heel that will vanquish Swiss political and cultural hegemony, the SVP seems to have petrified people into a knee-jerk acceptance of a draconian ban that amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
While the ban has dismayed Muslims, it should also embarrass Switzerland whose polished image will likely take a major beating. The Swiss logic here is as arbitrary and nonsensical as if Dubai were to ban skyscrapers because they "represent American corporate greed which is partially to blame for the misguided war in Iraq." Imagine the scornful reaction around the world then.
Personally, I have vacationed in Switzerland many times. I have taken the famed glacier express from St. Moritz in the West to Zermatt in the East, climbed the Matterhorn in the Alps, enjoyed promenades in the Boulevards of Geneva, and walked among the rooftops of Zurich and Neuchatel. I found the Swiss to be generally pleasant (though somewhat aloof). It is beyond me why such a beautiful country would choose to take a turn for the ugly. Swiss Muslim Professor Tariq Ramadan says it is fear. Perhaps, but it is more than that. It is also cluelessness. Fear is not always such a bad thing; the Swiss had every right to fear the Nazis. But to ban an architectural form that scares you is a thing of prehistoric naiveté. Worse still, to be ignorant of what a minaret truly symbolizes -- to the tune of some 57% of voters -- signals that the wrong people are talking and a clueless majority are listening and following.
The minaret has been around, appropriated in the unique architectural traditions of every culture, for 14 centuries. Sure there are minarets that surround the Taliban, but minarets also surrounded the scholars, philosophers and scientists of Baghdad, Damascus, Tashkent, Seville, Toledo, and Cordoba whose body of work helped jumpstart Europe out of its dark age and into its renaissance. They surrounded and still surround the students of the oldest surviving university in the world, Al-Azhar of Cairo. They dot the skylines of cities from Casablanca to Brunei, and Istanbul to the Zanzibar, calling their peaceful residents only to God-consciousness. They adorn the four corners of what is widely considered to be the most beautiful man-made structure on earth, the Taj Mahal of India.
The shortsightedness of the anti-minaret campaign is fueled by more than fear. It is fueled by hate.
For as long as most people living today have been around, Europe has enjoyed a stint as a tolerant, liberal hub of multiculturalism, personal freedoms, and all-around prosperity. But suffer from historical amnesia at your own risk, for history has a ruthless tendency to repeat itself. Before we get too comfortable and fully let our guard down, we may do well to remember that it was not so long ago that the tame territory of delectable delights, chocolate, wine, and cheese was engulfed by fascist ideologies that were anything but. Indeed, it was only as recent as two generations ago that those nations, who today fancy themselves as the defenders of freedoms around the world, were the purveyors of extreme brands of racism, uber-nationalism, and imperialism that launched the world into two destructive global wars and history's most egregious genocide.
Given the burden of Europe's recent past, it is astonishing to note how readily Switzerland, itself a long-time haven of neutrality even during World War II (not exactly a great thing when you consider that human beings were being huddled into gas chambers North, West, and East), could teeter at the precipice of an eerily familiar abyss wherein citizens of a hapless religious minority are demonized and their rights freely limited.
Sadly Switzerland's minaret vote is not the only troubling omen facing Europeans today.
While the winds of fascism are not exactly sweeping over Europe as I write, a few unwelcome breezes seem to be intensifying and cannot be ignored. The other Semites, Muslims, are in the eye of the storm this time around -- Jews having borne the brunt of the last tempest. For Europe, "Never Again" seems to be a slogan for one religious minority at a time.
Let me be clear, the situation of Muslims in Europe today cannot be analogized to that of Jews 70 years ago. But those familiar with European history know that the zenith of 20th Century anti-Semitism was not born overnight. It evolved over time eventually reaching grotesque proportions. At first, a vanguard of voices claiming unique insight and expertise on Jewish affairs sought to "wake society up" to "know" and "confront" the nature of the threat festering in their midst. This involved columnists, preachers, politicians, and yes cartoonists. Jews were caste as the other, foreign implants who can never be fully European regardless of whether or not they were citizens working and living side by side with everyone else. Their religion was judged as too exotic, too sinister, an anti-European ideology that could not be trusted. Their history was recast into a carefully crafted narrative of perpetual anti-Christian mischief. At first, their religious rights were curbed, and then they were rendered second class citizens. Things quickly dwindled thereafter.
Today, I cannot help but wonder: had it not been for Germany's tolerance of the demonization of Jews in the early decades when it then seemed mundane and uneventful, would a crime as outlandish as the "final solution" ever have found the mass acceptance that it did further down the line?
Worth mentioning is that despite the lessons learned from the Holocaust, Europe's only indigenous Muslim minority could not itself escape genocide a few decades later -- the first and only genocide to occur on European soil since World War II.
So what about today's breezes of intolerance whisking through the continent?
In the United Kingdom, the far-right British Nationalist Party (BNP), a splinter group of the Whites-only British National Front (BNF) is experiencing a new surge. The far-right Dutch Party for Freedom, whose leader Geert Wilders advocates banning the Quran and curbing Muslim religious freedom, placed second in a recent election in the Netherlands. In France and Austria, far-right political groups spouting anti-Muslim rhetoric are also gaining ground. The SVP, the group behind the minaret ban and a poster campaign depicting white sheep kicking black sheep out of Switzerland, is now Switzerland's biggest political party. Reports show that racism is on the rise in Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe. Astroturf groups that openly call for the demonization for Muslims such as ACT! for America, SANE, SIOA, and SIOE are becoming a dime a dozen. Vandalism of Muslim cemeteries and mosques and hate crimes are happening more frequently. In Germany, a Hijab-wearing woman was stabbed to death in front of her three-year-old child while seeking justice in a German court against the perpetrator who had hurled racist slurs at her in a public playground a few days earlier. Stephan Kramer, General Secretary of the Central Council of Jews in Germany subsequently deplored the "largely unchecked hate propaganda against Muslims." Throughout Europe, anti-Muslim rhetoric expressed in editorials, columns, campaign ads, hate blogs, and political cartoons is on the rise.
European leaders and intellectuals are rightly concerned about Muslim extremism and radicalization, but what are they doing to fight anti-Muslim extremism and radicalization? Is it even duly acknowledged?
Cynics often deflect attention by pointing out human rights abuses in the Middle East or Asia. The West is right to call out abuses of freedoms in the Muslim-majority world, but it is wrong to pursue a campaign of reciprocity that betrays its own principles as a response. Western Intellectuals are wrong to turn a blind eye to such a farce when it occurs.
The Swiss referendum raises an important question about the great conundrum of democracy: if a majority of voters opt for dictatorship, is the result a democracy or a dictatorship?
The answer lies in a simple concept: the constitution. The constitutions of democratic nations enshrine the principles of freedom and democracy and act as the final say on what future action can and cannot be done. A vote that betrays those principles is a vote that ought not to take place. In other words, a referendum that seeks to curb religious freedoms presumably protected by Swiss high law is itself unconstitutional and should not have been allowed in the first place.
Should the West choose to remain reactionary in how it deals with Muslim extremism -- real or perceived -- then it unwisely relinquishes its fate to the hands of terrorists who know that it would only then take a few more attacks to sink Western societies into self-defeating frenzy. Make no mistake about it, merely inflicting explosions that tear down towers of steel and glass is not terrorism's ultimate goal or greatest threat, being a catalyst for Western self-implosion is. While the West needs to remain vigilant against physical threats, it needs to know that its greatest weapon against ultimate defeat is holding steadfastly unto its principles of democracy, freedoms and equal citizenship.
Protecting and strengthening those traditions, integrating minorities as equals in society, and working academically to fight extremism, both Muslim and anti-Muslim, is our best assurance for future security and prosperity. Failing to do so spells the beginning of the end.
Follow Ahmed Rehab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Ahmed_Rehab
There's one point you make I would like to enlarge upon. You state, "Swiss Muslims who are well integrated into society and are Europeans must be feeling left out in the cold."
Muslim is religious identification, not ethnic. Many of former Yugoslavians who benefited from socialist upbringing couldn't care less about their ancestral religion. They care a lot more about their social benefits, jobs and integration into a fairly conservative Swiss community. This is a challenging process. In Sweden and Austria it hasn't been easy either.
But fundamentalist Muslim leaders are preoccupied in gaining political and financial control of people ( this true for any religion).
Most of the time mullahs have little ( if any ) concern with the needs and desires of ordinary people.
I like how you mentioned the Taj Mahal - I thought the same thing; this "minarets are symbols of political demands" spiel is quite laughable!
I also noticed something interesting that parallels with the European Jewish experience: for centuries Jewish synagogues were restricted in terms of both height and decoration by Christian authorities. I wrote a blog post about this:
http://durkadurkistan.blogspot.com/2009/12/swiss-minaret-affair-whats-going-on-in.html
Lemme know what you think :)
In no way shape or form is it unique to Europeans or Muslims.
And if Swiss voters decide that certain aspect of religious architecture is visually unappealing to them then so be it. Whether for cultural or historic reasons. Or simply because they consider it a visual blight.
The fewer new religious structures build,. the better for all involved.
Cultural context.
Reality: "...The trend of individuals shooting up their teammates and colleagues as the result of disgruntlement on the job * (see postal offices and schools) is an American trend, not an Islamic trend.
It happens in America more than anywhere else. So the question then becomes;” Why isn't this viewed in the same narrative, rather than in the narrative of ”Jihad?”
Ahmed Rehab in an interview immediately following Major Hassan's killing spree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAQTn-B_mwU&feature=player_embedded#
Unqualified condemnation this is not. By any stretch of imagination.
I absolutely condemned this vile act without qualification or condition. The comment you posted says nothing about condemnation or lack thereof, but is a logical point responding to an entirely different issue, which is the tendency of some to caste this act as "Islamic." The point was if it's a question of trends, such an act could just as well be called "American" given the phenomenon of "going postal" that exists in this country no less than it could be called "Islamic." The point references that the motivation of this individual could be disgruntlement with life as much as it can be religious extremism.
The willful ignorance of dishonest people like you whose only motivation is to drive a wedge between Muslims and others by decontextualizing their words and perverting their intent is an old trick in the book practiced by many an Islamophobe.
I disagree.
Qualification---"the act of modifying or changing the strength of some idea."
the evident deflection of the discussion to disgruntled postal workers, high school students fits the classic definition of "qualification" rather preciselly
With a few steps evident towards obfuscation .
Excellent post. I look forward to reading about your views regarding the lack of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Palestine and other countries of the Arab Muslim world, which has all but cleansed itself of its indigenous Jewish population and is well on it its way of doing the same to its indigenous Christian population. The minaret ban seems stupid and rooted in irrational fear of Muslims, but at least the practice of Islam is not prohibited and Muslims have not been driven out of Switzerland or had their homes and personal property confiscated, etc. like the Jews of Libya to use but one example.
PS: I do believe however that this referendum will be overruled by a constitutional court
PS2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNkZVsLIwQo&feature=player_embedded :)
I don't remember the Swiss wailing about the difficulties of different "cultures" when the cultures involved were different Europeans - Italian, German and French.
I think they are racist. I don't see why people find that so shocking, or try to dispute it. Most people in the world are racist. Why should rich, complacent Switzerland be any different?
Yep and then there was:Theo Van Gogh, 7/7, Madrid, open Jihad demonstrations in European capitals, 9/11, Scotland, burqa riots, cartoon riots, attacks on European politicians and thinkers who dare to dispute the sanctity of Sharia. The list of outrages is ever so long and growing and European citizens decided to do something about. Even if it is symbolic.
Think about it.
Denying this reality will not help us to work together, defeat militant fundamentalism and achieve greater harmony. This is our mutual goal. Isn't it?
I do pray that your voice be heard, so that Muslims around the world can enjoy peace. As a Jew, I realize we are distant cousins. Also, I believe that once Muslim communities become more integrated, these issues will disappear. In the US in the early 1900s 'Help Wanted' Ads discriminated against the Irish Catholics. In the course of every wave of immigration, there was resistance, integration then peace. G-d bless :)
The passage of this moratorium on Mosques with minarets was probably a good starting point for Swiss citizens to have more open dialog on the topic of living together harmoniously in the future. Sometimes growing tensions to be addressed directly. We'll see how it plays out, but I think Bosnian Muslim immigrants and Swiss people are still on track for a nicely integrated society.
Some important reason for that disparity.
1.U.S. is country of immigrants. Europeans ( esp. smaller countries like Austria, Schweiz. Norway etc) are simply not used to it. These countries received a kind of a shock treatment. This created significant cultural and political instability and tension. Especially vis-à-vis immigrants who come from religiously aggressive societies.
Example-- Far less tension with significant Chinese immigrant community in France. Or Vietnamese in Czech and U.K.
2. American lacks social support provided by Europeans. Hard work and rudimentary language skills are required for survival in U.S.
In contrast, in Europe many second- generation ( !) immigrants from certain countries with less strong educational ethos do not develop proficiency in the language of the countries of birth! This creates permanent segregation and disharmony.
Less welfare, more work opportunities may be the solution. Permanent welfare should be reserved primarily for elderly and incapacitated.
I also don't mind more extravagant Islamic temples in European capitals such as London, Paris, and Amsterdam. But the emphasis is on quality, not quantity or size. Actually some existing temples should probably be demolished by the Muslim congregation themselves and rebuilt with more quality. I feel the same way about many Churches. Then replace the Imam or Preacher. We have dirty low class Christian temples here in the United States. I want to see the Westboro Baptist Church defrocked and demolished.
Good temples make for wiser, more observant followers. Numerous and hastily constructed temples make for ignorant followers. On the flip side, I'd like to see more temples, more permanently and beautifully constructed temples for Coptic Christians, Arab Christians, any remaining Zoroastrians in places like Egypt and Iraq.
Competition between groups on matters which are supposed to be about reverence for life and virtuous living seems like an oxymoron. I'm just trying to have ideas which get beyond the presumption that we're already in disagreement before the topic is discussed.
My idea on the minaret ban was "why not contradict them and see how it goes". I was happy it was passed, and yet I'm not personally attached to maintaining that moratorium as a kind of defensive position that has to be maintained.
Oh, but we do.
On the other hand, I don't want Christians and Muslims to begin commiserating too much because a union of the two faiths would be most unholy.
Anyway, I've heard way too much belligerent saber rattling from both Muslim and Christian leaders. I'm mostly un-moved by your words. Furthermore, I don't look to any particular Muslim leader for representation of Islam. I have my own opinions about who represents your religion best.
I am similarly impatient with fundamentalist Christian missionaries as I am with fundamentalist Muslim political activists. The problem, Mr. Rehab, is that Christianity and Islam are really big, and they grow really fast. People who are neither Christian nor Muslim are getting tired of being crowded out by politicized Christianity and Islam.
The phenomenon is driven by broadcast media. We're seeing televised and radio broadcast Christian Evangelism, appealing to the lowest common denominator. We're also seeing televised and radio broadcast Islamic "Evangelism" appealing to the lowest common denominator.
You wrote: "Protecting and strengthening those traditions, integrating minorities as equals in society, and working academically to fight extremism, both Muslim and anti-Muslim, is our best assurance for future security and prosperity. Failing to do so spells the beginning of the end."
America is for the people of the world. Europe is for old Europeans and new European immigrants from colonies. Some European countries never had colonies in Islamic countries, so the relationship between Islamic immigrants in those European countries does not come with the same entitlements as the former subjects to their colony's imperial capital city.
Also, speaking in general terms, Muslims have shown through international solidarity that they are not the same as other types of immigrants, they tend to carry with them a political agenda, a "Trojan Horse" of global Islamization, no less obnoxious than Fundamentalist Christian missionaries.
To talk about "the beginning of the end" sounds like saber-rattling to me. I am not afraid of "the beginning of the end" because I have confidence in people's understanding of interconnectedness, that we can be tolerant of each other even when we have boundaries.