Jewish Israelis oppose a Swiss-style ban on mosque minarets in the country, with opposition to the restriction highest among right-wing and haredi Jews, according to a poll conducted in late December and early January.
The respondents opposed such a measure by 43 percent to 28%, with 29% undecided.
Five hundred Israeli Jews were questioned by Jerusalem-based KEEVOON Research, for the US-based Foundation for Ethnic Understanding.
In November, a 57.5% majority of Swiss voters approved a referendum outlawing the construction of minarets, though the construction of mosques remains legal.
According to Mitchell Barak, director of KEEVOON, the new poll found that opposition to a minaret ban is strongest among religious and right-leaning Jews.
Respondents who considered themselves "national-religious" opposed such a ban by 72% to 16%, with 55% saying they were "strongly opposed". The ultra-Orthodox opposed the measure by 53% to 21%, with declining opposition among secular (42% to 29%) and "traditional" (36% to 31%) Jews.
The survey demonstrated that "when it comes to freedom of religion, Israelis are apparently much more tolerant than their Swiss counterparts," according to Rabbi Marc Schneier, president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding.
"There is a definite correlation between religious observance and tolerance towards Islam... The fact that less than one-third of all Israelis support banning minarets indicates that from the Israeli point of view, there is room for respectful coexistence between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs when it is based on religion and not politics."
Analysis of the results according to political affiliation showed a similar tendency among politically conservative Israeli Jews to support the Muslim position on the issue.
Thus, voters for the far-right National Union party opposed a Swiss-style measure by 92%, with 65% "strongly opposed" and just 8% expressing support.
Similarly, voters for right-wing Israel Beiteinu opposed a ban by 64% to 36%, and those who voted for Habayit Hayehudi, the successor to the National Religious Party, opposed it by 54% to 20%.
Among haredim, opposition was similarly high, with 68% of United Torah Judaism voters and 55% of Shas voters saying they would oppose aminaret ban, compared to 22% and 20%, respectively, who would support it.
Voters for left-wing Meretz also expressed strong opposition, with 66% saying they would vote against a ban.
It was in the three parties in the political center that opposition to a minaret ban was weakest. Labor, Kadima and Likud voters' opposition to such a ban was just 43%, 42% and 41%, respectively. In the case of the Likud, the number of voters supporting the measure was equal (41%) to the number opposing it, while Labor and Kadima voters' support for a ban was at 27% and 31%, respectively.
ISTANBUL:In response to a Swiss vote banning the construction of new mosque minarets, a group of Muslims this month went into a church building in eastern Turkey and threatened to kill a priest unless he tore down its bell tower, according to an advocacy group.
Three Muslims on Dec. 4 entered the Meryem Ana Church, a Syriac Orthodox church in Diyarbakir, and confronted the Rev. Yusuf Akbulut. They told him that unless the bell tower was destroyed in one week, they would kill him.
“If Switzerland is demolishing our minarets, we will demolish your bell towers too,” one of the men told Akbulut.
The threats came in reaction to a Nov. 29 referendum in Switzerland in which 57 percent voted in favor of banning the construction of new minarets in the country. Swiss lawmakers must now change the national constitution to reflect the referendum, a process that should take more than a year.
The Swiss ban, widely viewed around the world as a breach of religious freedom, is likely to face legal challenges in Switzerland and in the European Court of Human Rights.
There are roughly 150 mosques in Switzerland, four with minarets. Two more minarets are planned. The call to prayer traditional in Muslim-majority countries is not conducted from any of the minarets. Fikri Aygur, vice president of the European Syriac Union, said that Akbulut has contacted police but has otherwise remained defiant in the face of the threats.
“He has contacted the police, and they gave him guards,” he said. “I talked with him two days ago, and he said, ‘It is my job to protect the church, so I will stand here and leave it in God’s hands.’”
Meryem Ana is more than 250 years old and is one of a handful of churches that serve the Syriac community in Turkey. Also known as Syrian Orthodox, the Syriacs are an ethnic and religious minority in Turkey and were one of the first groups of people to accept Christianity. They speak Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, a language spoken by Christ. Diyarbakir is located in eastern Turkey, about 60 miles from the Syrian border.
At press time the tower was standing and the priest was safe, said Jerry Mattix, youth pastor at the Diyarbakir Evangelical Church, which is located across a street from Meryem Ana Church.
Mattix said that threats against Christians in Diyarbakir are nothing out of the ordinary. Mattix commonly receives threats, both in the mail and posted on the church’s Internet site, he said.
“We’re kind of used to that,” Mattix said. He added that he has received no threats over the minaret situation but added, “I wouldn’t be surprised if we do.”
Mattix said the people making threats in the area are Muslim radicals with ties to Hezbollah “who like to flex their muscles.”
“We are a major target out here, and we are aware of that,” Mattix said. “But the local police are taking great strides to protect us.”
Mattix said he also has “divine confidence” in God’s protection.
The European Syriac Union’s Aygur said that Christians in Turkey often serve as scapegoats for inflamed local Muslims who want to lash out at Europeans.
“When they [Europeans] take actions against the Muslims, the Syriacs get persecuted by the fanatical Muslims there,” he said.
The threats against the church were part of a public outcry in Turkey that included newspaper editorials characterizing the Swiss decision as “Islamophobia.” One Turkish government official called upon Muslims to divest their money from Swiss bank accounts. He invited them to place their money in the Turkish banking system.
In part, the threats also may reflect a larger and well-established pattern of anti-Christian attitudes in Turkey. A recent study conducted by two professors at Sabanci University found that 59 percent of those surveyed said non-Muslims either “should not” or “absolutely should not” be allowed to hold open meetings where they can discuss their ideas.
The survey also found that almost 40 percent of the population of Turkey said they had “very negative” or “negative” views of Christians. In Turkey, Christians are often seen as agents of outside forces bent on dividing the country.
This is not the first time Akbulut has faced persecution. Along with a constant string of threats and harassment, he was tried and acquitted in 2000 for saying to the press that Syriacs were “massacred” along with Armenians in 1915 killings.
In Midyat, also in eastern Turkey, someone recently dug a tunnel under the outlying buildings of a Syriac church in hopes of undermining the support of the structure.
At the Mor Gabriel Monastery, also near Midyat, there is a legal battle over the lands surrounding the monastery. Founded in 397 A.D., Mor Gabriel is arguably the oldest monastery in use today. It is believed local Muslim leaders took the monastery to court in an attempt to seize lands from the church. The monastery has prevailed in all but one case, which is still underway.
“These and similar problems that are threatening the very existence of the remaining Syriacs in Turkey have reached a very serious and worrying level,” Aygur stated in a press release. “Especially, whenever there is a problem about Islam in the European countries, the Syriacs’ existence in Turkey is threatened with such pressures and aggressions.”
The recent Swiss vote to ban minarets was seen by many as a further indication that European populations are waking up to the threat of Europe’s Islamization and the need to stop the trend.
If so, the European Union—the centralized bureaucracy that, as documented in Bat Ye’or’s important book Eurabia, went “over the heads” of European publics to meld the European and Arab/Muslim civilizations in the first place—still hasn’t caught up and remains locked in a pro-Arab/Muslim disposition.
At least, the EU’s stance on Jerusalem would suggest so. Last week the new EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, “came down hard on the Israeli government” in her maiden speech to the European Parliament and said:
“East Jerusalem is occupied territory together with the West Bank. The EU is opposed to the destruction of homes, the eviction of Arab residents and the construction of the separation barrier.”
Her words prompted Israel’s deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon to reply:
“Just as the Romans did not succeed in cutting off Jerusalem from Israel, so too will diplomats from the UN and the EU be unsuccessful as well.”
Ashton, previously the EU’s trade commissioner and expected to be given considerable authority as a new sort of EU foreign minister, also called Israel’s recently launched ten-month moratorium on settlement construction a “first step”—representing, as the EUobservercomments, “a cooler tone than EU foreign ministers who last week took ‘positive note’ of the move.”
The EUobserver also pointed out that the speech was
“significant for what it left out: Ms Ashton did not say that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, that it faces a security threat from Palestinian ‘terrorists’ or that Palestinians should immediately return to formal peace talks—the classic tenets of Israeli supporters.”
Ashton’s statements also come hard on the heels of an EU-Israel spat over Jerusalem in which the EU explicitly called for East Jerusalem to become the capital of a Palestinian state. That demand was later only partially toned-down under intense Israeli objections.
In other words, even at a time when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly accepted the call for a Palestinian state and enraged part of his right-wing base with the settlement moratorium, the EU keeps reflexively embracing Arab/Muslim positions.
As always, the EU’s stance on Jerusalem ignores several facts.
Jerusalem was unified under Israeli sovereignty in 1967, after nineteen years in which Jordan illegally occupied the city and finally used it to attack Israel despite being implored by Israel to keep out of the fighting.
Under Israeli rule, Muslims and all other groups (except Jews—on the Temple Mount itself) have enjoyed full freedom of worship—a stark contrast to the nineteen years of Jordanian rule when Jews and Christians were denied access to Jerusalem’s holy places and Jewish synagogues and gravestones were destroyed and desecrated.
Muslims already have full control over Mecca, Medina, and countless sacred locales and shrines throughout the vast Muslim world, and their demand for Palestinian sovereignty in Jerusalem and the redivision of Israel’s capital can reasonably be regarded as excessive – especially when, as noted, Israel gives Muslims full access to their Jerusalem shrines and full rights in the city.
Indeed, Jerusalem is full of minarets, and any visitor to its Old City or its Arab neighborhoods can attest to the vibrancy of Muslim religious life there. The EU should be more concerned with Islamization on the continent than with taking harsh stances against Israel as it struggles to survive and to find the right mix of accommodation and steadfastness in an Arab/Muslim environment hostile its very existence.
But for the EU, after decades of forsaking its Judeo-Christian roots for pro-Arabism, that may be too much to expect. Even if European populations are starting to grasp the consequences of this civilizational self-abnegation, Europe’s Brussels-based bureaucracy remains willfully ignorant of the stakes.
The Lockerbie bomber had £1.8m ($2.9 million USD) in a Swiss bank account when he was convicted eight years ago, it has been revealed.
The Crown Office, Scotland’s equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service, has confirmed it refused to grant bail to Abdel Baset al-Megrahi as recently as November last year because of concerns he might try to gain access to the money.
The existence of such a large sum in a personal account casts doubt on claims by the Libyan government that Megrahi was a low-ranking airline worker.
The disclosure also raises further questions about the wisdom of the Scottish government in releasing the bomber, who has terminal prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds in August.
Sources close to Megrahi’s defense team said they were aware of the bank account and had several explanations prepared ahead of his trial in the Netherlands in 2000.
First, thank you to Proud Kafir who sent me this excellent interview. But secondly, I am really sick and tired of European media referring to this man and his party, as well as Geert Wilders and frankly anyone who stands in the way of Islamic fascism as “far right wing”.
This man like Geert is clearly a classical liberal. Someone who wants to defend women’s rights as people. Someone who believes that all should be equal before a secular and rational law, for which there is machinery in place where it can be amended as needs be. Machinery such as for example, the direct democracy that was used to create the minaret ban.
Banning a minaret is not racist as minarets are not a race. Muslims are not a race for that matter. Islam is a political philosophy of violent global conquest. A minaret is a symbol of that conquest. It should be banned along with political Islam.
Two weeks after voters approved a ban on minaret construction, the rightwing Swiss People’s Party deputy Oskar Freysinger gives his reading of events.
In French-speaking Switzerland Freysinger became the voice of the yes side. He recently defended the minaret ban, accepted by 57.5 per cent of voters on November 29, in a debate on the Arab television channel al-Jazeera.
Freysinger rejects outright the argument that the yes vote stemmed from fear and ignorance and he deplores the fact that people have used the result to attack direct democracy.
swissinfo.ch: The anti-minaret vote has provoked a huge amount of comment and criticism both in Switzerland and abroad. What struck you most from what has been said and written on this subject?
Oskar Freysinger: What stays with me, is that the focus slipped very quickly from minarets to direct democracy. Two camps emerged: the elite who said that direct democracy was anti-democratic and against human rights, which is a total paradox, and the defenders of popular rights, who, while recognising that it is not ideal, nonetheless think that the system is the best possible, because it allows people to feel involved and to have an outlet of expression.
In Europe, people envy us. I’ve received a huge number of emails from France and elsewhere. People regret that they do not have the instruments to allow them to express their will. In fact Switzerland, at the heart of Europe, has just given an incredible lesson in civic spirit, against the politically correct, against the elites, against the media and against the monumental pressure of uniform thought. That could give ideas to the people who surround us, and that is feared by the European intelligentsia.
swissinfo.ch: But are the people truly always right? Can they not also make mistakes?
O.F.: Let’s say it’s like the dogma of papal infallibility: the pope is always right in questions of faith, not in the absolute. The people are always right because the system makes them right. Determining who is right and wrong is always complex.
As a politician I have lost plenty of votes with the electorate. You have to accept it and deal with the situation, even if that is extremely difficult, as with the free movement of people [between the EU and Switzerland] today.
swissinfo.ch: A lot has been said about this being a vote based on fear. What is your take on that?
O.F.: Based on the thousands of messages and reactions I received, I can detect the tendencies. Throughout the campaign, it was not fear that dominated but a cool reflection, relatively specific and neutral in tone about what Islam is and its doctrinal incompatibility with our state based on law. On this subject I also received some information that was useful to me during the debate. It is not therefore a purely irrational and ill-informed vote, as has often been said.
As for the yes voters, some of them are proponents of self-determination who believe that our identity should be protected during this time of open borders which make it impossible to regulate migration flows. There was also the yes vote of the Catholics who did not follow their leaders, as well as a yes vote by women. Many of them told me that they never vote for the People’s Party, but that on this subject, they felt the threat of a particularly patriarchal religion.
swissinfo.ch: Several recommendations have been made, the creation of a constitutional court, a new article on tolerance, in a effort to ”correct” this vote. What do you think of that?
O.F.: The decision of the people acts as law. If we want to change this article in a few years’ time because Islam no longer presents a problem, the people alone will be able to modify the situation. Replacing the vote by an article that covers everything, which would have the disadvantage of penalising all religions would be superfluous because tolerance is already enshrined in the Constitution and Swiss laws.
As for a constitutional court, it is a system imaginable in a country where the parliament alone determines the laws. But in Switzerland the people are sovereign. Introducing a system like that would go back to muzzling the people. In any case, what makes lawyers better able to distinguish what is for the best or worst for the citizens?
swissinfo.ch: What would you say to those who reproach you for having taken the risk, with this initiative, of destabilising the peaceful integration of Muslims in Switzerland, most of whom are non-practising, and making them turn inwards to their community?
O.F.: This complaint does not hold up. I distinguish three categories among Muslims. The non-practising, who, by definition, are free from religion and therefore indifferent to the presence or not of a minaret or even a mosque. The there are those who live the religion as a personal choice and a private affair. These are the ones who pay today for the damage inflicted by the third category, that is those who do not accept that civil law should be placed above religious dogma. Financed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, this fringe, the most demanding, also bears a responsibility in this vote.
swissinfo.ch: The day after the yes vote, several extreme right parties in Europe welcomed your initiative. What are your ideological affinities and differences with these movements?
O.F.: I’ve heard this confusion with the extreme right and fascism for a long time. But the differences are substantial. The first is that the People’s Party defends democracy and the state of law absolutely without restriction. Another difference, we do not believe you should reject the other simply because he is different, that is racism and xenophobia.
On the contrary, the behaviour of a person who comes to Switzerland is not irrelevant. What gets us branded as racists is that we attack the dysfunctional behaviour imported through immigration. But it is the behaviour that we denounce, and not the colour of the skin or where the person comes from.
Carole Wälti, swissinfo.ch (translated by Clare O’Dea)
An appeal against the decision by Swiss voters to ban the construction of minarets has been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
It was lodged on Tuesday afternoon, said Pierre de Preux, a lawyer acting for Hafid Ouardiri, the former spokesman of the Geneva mosque.
Ouardiri wants the Strasbourg court to rule that the ban is incompatible with the European human rights convention.
De Preux told the AP news agency that a letter had been sent to the federal government and to all the members of the Council of Europe to inform them of this step.
Following similar requests in Germany and Belgium, a Swedish mosque is now talking about broadcasting a call to prayer.
There are already mosques in Europe with a muezzin call: most only for Friday afternoon prayers, though some do have a muezzin call five times a day.
Though the sudden flurry of stories about mosques making such requests might be due to increased media attention, it does seem like it's a trend, a sort of Muslim response to the minaret ban referendum.
In Switzerland, in any case, as part of the push against the referendum, President Hans-Rudolf Merz promised that the muezzin call will not soundin Switzerland. While various polls show that some European countries support the right of Muslims to minarets, I doubt the same holds true for the muezzin.
According to the news report, the mosque is starting by requesting permission for a Friday call to prayer, but hopes that in the future they'll be able to have one every day.
The mosque Fittja near Stockholm wants to introduce a call to prayer outdoors before the Friday prayers. This is the first time in Sweden that an Islamic association is asking for such permission.
Today the call to prayer before every prayer is done inside the mosque. But in the future the Islamic association of Botkyrka wants the Friday prayers to start with a call to prayer from the minaret of the mosque.
"For us Muslims it's important to call to prayer, it's a big part of our culture," says Ismail Okur, chairman of the Islamic association of Botkyrka.
In Albysjön in Fittja there is one of several mosques in the Stockholm area. When the ABC show visited the mosque during midday prayers, there were about 30 people there who came to pray. But on Fridays, up to 1,000 people come to Friday prayers.
Nusret Bucic, a worshipper at the mosque, says that if they won't get permission, they'll accept it. "We can't complain about people, but must comply with the Swedish rules. But naturally it would be good with a proper call to prayer."
In a recent Sifo survey conducted for SVT, 51% of the people in the Stockholm area said they thought minarets should be allowed. 23% thought they should be banned, and 25% had no opinion.
"I think they should adapt to the culture to which they come, and therefore I don't think a call to prayer outside is very good," says Birgit Lorvik, a local resident.
Once the request is formally submitted it would be dealt with by the municipality, a process which could take a long time.
The alderman college of Beringen (Belgium) will decide this week on the issue of loudspeakers for the Fatih mosque.
The Fatih mosque asked the city to allow them to call the faithful to prayer. They want to hang loudspeakers outside the mosque so that the muezzin - which calls the faithful to prayer - will also be heard out in the streets.
The Fatih mosque in Beringen is one of the few Belgian mosques with a minaret.
Mosque chairman Yilmaz Centurk would only confirm yesterday that the request was made. Selahattin Koçak (SP.A), alderman in Beringen: "I hope that we can make a collegial decision with a full alderman college already this week. Until then I will make no comment, although I think that you can guess my point of view."
Beringen's mayro Marcel Mondelaers (CD&V) was not available for comment yesterday, but according to party member Anne Cuypers, second alderman of Beringen, the CD&V hasn't yet taken a stand. "We're first asking the advice of all instances, such as the environmental service and the police regulations relating to sound pollution, and should also look at how often they want to do the call'. According to Cuypers the Muslim association is not part of the request to call to prayer five times a day.
"A loudspeaker? that's just too far," says Open VLD councillor Jan Vanhamel. "I suspect that the Muslim community is looking for sensation and simply wants to see with this proposal how the politicians would respond."
His colleague from Vlaams Belang, Bert Schoofs, says the request is a sign of radicalization. "If the Turkish community wants to promote the faith in this way, they'll get yet even more isolated. It's a provocation and if the city executive approves this, I'll provoke back by demanding the demolition of the minarets."
Despite the fuss in Beringen, the Fatih mosque request is not a first. In Genk the muezzin has been calling in public for prayer for much longer. "They are naturally subject to the same laws about noise levels as church bells," says mayor Jef Gabriëls (CD&V). "The mosques call to prayer five times a day, but in the morning they do it very quietly. That is really only symbolic. In cooperation with the city the Muslims are thinking about an SMS call."
At the CGKR (Center for Equal Opportunities and the Fight Against Racism) they hope that Beringen will approve the request. "The tolling of bells is the same expression of religion and the constitution says that there's freedom of religion," says chairman Jozef De Witte. "I hope that the city council will think twice, because a ban on a muezzin also means that we curtail our own freedoms.
The Union of Mosques did not join on the request. "The call is part of the prayer, but is usually done in Flanders in side. It's certainly not on the agenda to sound it high on the minaret. That would wake people up and is certainly not a priority.
I think that the news about Beringen is causing so much commotion due to the Swiss minaret ban. Because the Muslims are themselves aware of the annoyance that this could cause."
There may be a consequence to a couple of important events. 1. The large scale refusal of Muslim immigrants to integrate into western traditions and values, and perhaps a lack of volume on the part of those who have, and the Swiss referendum of late, which ban the building of new minarets.
Itself a sort of goofy law as constitutional amendments go, but one which certainly showed the rest of Europe that some sort of fight against Islamic cultural imperialism is possible.
While the law against the minaret is clearly a totem, (pun fully intended) the sentiment is real. I could not help but notice that in all the straw polls done around Europe immediately after the Swiss Referendum, all the nations polled came out much more strongly than Switzerland in favor of a similar ban. This makes me wonder if the Swiss vote had not been tampered with in some way to give a result more likely to allow the minarets.
After all, it was 57% against in Switzerland, a country famous for its tolerance and all the straw polls showed something more like 80% and more in favour of a similar ban in Germany, France, Spain and so on. Here is a short interview with a man who is a mayor of a small town in Northern France.
Nearly three quarters of Germans fear the spread of Islam, according to a survey released on Friday.
A poll by Infratest dimap for public broadcaster ARD showed a third [36%] of those asked expressed great concern that Islam was growing too quickly in Germany.
Thirty-nine percent were still worried about Islam’s impact on society, but to a lesser degree. Only 22 percent said they had no problem with the religion.
A separate survey for daily Berliner Morgenpost and broadcaster RBB showed, however, that a majority in the German capital did not support banning the construction of mosques with minarets as Switzerland did following a recent referendum on the issue.
The Swiss ban on mosque-top minarets on the ground of its being a symbol of political domination of Islam, an instrument incompatible with the secular Swiss society with strict separation between religion and state, has attracted widespread condemnations worldwide.
Most of all, Switzerland is poised to be brought before the European or the U.N. Commission of Human Rights because the ban, if enforced, would constitute a violation of religious freedom of Muslims.
Does the minaret ban constitute a violation of Muslims’ religious freedom? It may constitute such a violation, but only to a small measure, as their freedom of worship, including the freedom to build mosques, is not tampered with.
The Minaret, religiously, is not a major component of Islam.
On the flipside, the Swiss ban may represent a backlash against the widespread Muslim violation of religious freedom -- even the right to life -- of non-Muslims.
While the world has engaged in the intense condemnation of the Swiss minaret ban as a violation of Muslims’ religious freedom, hundreds, probably thousands, of non-Muslims across the Muslim world have been suffering intimidation and violence, even death, for simply being non-Muslim or trying to observe their religious rituals and rights in the most peaceful and submissive manner.
Over the past weeks, while the Swiss minaret ban hysteria was going on, a 3,000-strong hysterical Muslim mob engaged in rioting in Egypt, attacking Christians and their businesses -- a frequent occurrence.
That is, it is hypocrisy from a Western point of view. As far as the Saudis are concerned, Islam is the truth, its truth is self-evident, and therefore the Swiss are obligated to accommodate it in a way that the Saudis are not obligated to accommodate non-Muslim religious observance.
"Saudi Arabia calls to boycott Swiss over minaret ban," by Roee Nahmias for Ynet News, December 8 (thanks to Fjordman):
A number of religious figures in Saudi Arabia called to boycott Switzerland and withdraw all Muslim deposits from bank accounts in the country in protest against the Swiss referendum that banned building new minarets.
The UAE-based newspaper al-Bayan reported that religious moderator Khaled al-Shamrani called for afar-reaching boycott on all good and products originating in Switzerland.
He also called upon Muslims to avoid traveling to the country. Religious figure Ahmed al-Hassan called wealthy Muslims to withdraw their deposits from Swiss banks.
Swiss magazine Die Weltwoche reports on an a study of Swiss imams.
Switzerland has about 200 mosques, but nobody really knows what is preached in them.
Neither does the government, who investigated the issue. The study was presented to the parliamentary security committee. The media asked for it to be published, but the government classified it as confidential.
The Federal Council says that it's not being published since it doesn't include anything which hasn't been dealt with in the media before.
The 17 page study "Islamist Imams", is dated from Jan. 29, 2008. It apparently contains several controversial findings.
The study begins by saying that most Muslims can practice their faith while following the constitution. Religion is rarely the main reason for integration problems.
A minority of imams, however, preach radically, in a way which prevents the integration of Muslims. At least 8 imams in a dozen mosques preach a radical interpretation of Islam. These mosques are located in the cantons of Geneva, Neuenburg (2), Vaud (2), Valais, Bern, Basel (2), Lucerne and Zurich (2). These mosques are mostly Arab mosques, and seven of the eight imams are North Africans. This corresponds to the known pattern that most of the Islamist activists in Switzerland are Arabs.
It's possible that these eight imams are just the tip of the iceberg, since there is a shortage of data and resources. The report says that it isn't possible to know how many imams carry on extremist and violent propaganda, or in how many mosques such an Islamist vision is being preached. The reason is legal barriers for intelligence gathering and lack of specific studies.
The report notes that the DAP, the Swiss Security Service, has no concrete information about preaching ongoing in the 200 Swiss mosques. There is only one exception: an imam in the Canton of Bern (apparently in Biel), who 'voluntarily' handed in to the authorities eight of his sermons made in 2000 to 2004.
The imam, who preaches a Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, supports suicide attacks in the occupied areas of the Muslim world. He also says regularly that Jihadists in these regions should be encouraged and asked his flock for financial support for Jihadists.
According to the report, the sermons were usually explosive. He preached about the eternal irreconcilability between the Christian 'crusaders' and the Muslims. The imam told his listeners that violent Jihad against non-Muslims could also be practiced in the West, once converts to Islam will achieve a critical mass.
Quoting the Koran, the imam taught that Muslims were called for violence against Christians and Jews to get them to submit to Islamic domination.
The Muslims were urged not to submit to a non-Islamic secular order. It was necessary to champion violent Jihad in order to establish an Islamic state in the Arab world and to re-establish the Caliphate. The preacher called specifically for violent Jihad against the Crusaders in the Arab world, particularly in Iraq. The moderate Muslims were branded the 'worst enemies of Islam'.
This imam was also one of the organizers of the protest against the Danish Mohammed cartoons, which took place on Feb. 2006 in the Bundesplatz. About 600 people attended, almost all Arabs, and a few dozen Salafists, according to the report.
The hate preaching of the imams has an effect. A young Tunisian, who was radicalized under the influence of the imam, went to Syria in 2005 and then to Iraq to join the Jihad. In Iraq he joined the 'martyr's brigade', fighting for the local al-Qaeda. Apparently the Tunisian from the Bern mosque couldn't achieve his wish for an act of martyrdom, and he was killed by the coalition forces in April 2006.
In addition to the imam from Biel, the report mentions other examples of hate preachers. In the mosque of Kriens, a Libyan with a permanent residence permit incites his followers to violence. The report says that it's said that he calls the Swiss apes and infidel pigs and supports their extermination. While the report was being written the man was still active in calling for violence in occupied Muslim areas, whether perceived or real.
The information about the Kriens imam is based on 'hearsay'. Which indicates a basic problem for Swiss intelligence: by law their work ends at the door to the mosque. The Muslim mosques are considered private areas, and the intelligence services have their hands tied. They cannot tape the sermons, neither video nor audio. In order to know what is being taught in the mosques, the intelligence services need a person who is continuously in the mosque, who knows the language and who memorizes the sermons.
Once an imam is identified as a hate preacher, there are means to confront him, which are described in the report as 'adequate'. These only apply if the imam is officially registered in Switzerland. For 'unofficial' imams, who come to Switzerland for a limited amount of time and then move on, the available resources to confront them are 'limited'.
The report suggests several ways to deal with the phenomenon of Islamist imams. The Federal Office for Migration was commissioned to check the possibility by the end of 2008 of a Swiss university project to study the number, original and theological bent of official Swiss imams. The Justice Ministry was asked to submit proposals by mid-2009, on how to better control the entry of hate preachers. And the Ministry of Internal Affairs was asked to develop imam training following the example of other European countries.
When Weltwoche tried to check on whether these proposals were followed, they got the run-around.
An attempt to change the law and allow for intelligence gathering in the private space did not pass parliament.
In a recent referendum, a majority of the Swiss approved a ban on the construction of new minarets in their country.
Now activist European European judges may tell Switzerland to lift the ban.
The Swiss, however, might not be impressed. On November 29, a 57.5% majority of the Swiss voters, approved a ban on the construction of new minarets in their country.
The four existing minarets are allowed to remain, and the building of new mosques - Switzerland already has some 200 mosques - is also permitted, but the Swiss electorate does not want any new minarets towering over Swiss cities and villages.
The referendum result was not the answer the Swiss federal government in Bern wanted. The government had actively campaigned for a “No” in the Ban-the-Minaret referendum. Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey said she was “shocked and disappointed” by the outcome.
Turnout for the referendum was unusually high, with 53% of the electorate casting a vote and an overwhelming majority of 22 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons supporting the ban.
If Switzerland were part of the European Union (EU), the Swiss would no doubt be made to vote again until they give the answer their government wants.
That is what some self-declared “democrats” are, indeed, proposing. - “The Swiss will have to vote again,” Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the leader of the Green group in the EU Parliament told the Swiss newspaper Le Temps. - “But the Swiss people have spoken…,” Le Temps objected. - “So what?”
Nicolas Sarkozy stoked the debate over immigration today with a warning to Muslims to practise their religion discreetly or face rejection by moderate Islam in France.
The President voiced sympathy for Swiss voters who opted last week to ban minarets as he tried to reassert himself in a debate over national identity which he launched last month but that has since spiralled out of his control.
Over the past week, Mr Sarkozy had appeared to retreat from his original comments following a backlash over the way that they were being used against immigrants, particularly Muslims.
But in a column for Le Monde, Mr Sarkozy returned to his theme and said that the result of the Swiss referendum showed how important it was for France to define its identity.
"Instead of condemning the Swiss out of hand, we should try to understand what they meant to express and what so many people in Europe feel, including people in France," he wrote. "Nothing would be worse than denial."
Mr Sarkozy called for tolerance and underlined France's respect for all faiths, but his message was intended primarily to reassure those who are unhappy about what they see as a threatening Muslim presence in the country.
"Christians, Jews, Muslims, all believers regardless of their faith, must refrain from ostentation and provocation and ... practice their religion in humble discretion," Mr Sarkozy wrote.
Addressing himself to Muslims, he wrote that anything that could appear as a challenge to France's Christian heritage and republican values would "doom to failure" a moderate Islam in France.
The mainstream media continue to decry the Swiss referendum on minarets. To date, The New York Times has published one editorial and five additional articles on the subject, including one today.
Perhaps The Paper of Record views the 30% of the electorate who actually voted in Switzerland as traitors to their own multicultural, anti-racist, politically correct belief system.
The problem is that the Islamic world today does not share this hallowed belief system. Actually, it never did. Rather, it has destroyed or built over synagogues, churches, and temples, and denied that such infidel places of worship ever existed. Note the fevered Palestinian attempts to claim the Temple Mount, where once the ancient Jewish Temple stood, as really “Islamic.”
The Islamic world does not allow new synagogues or churches to be built.
Further: Muslim fundamentalists currently persecute, torture, and murder those Christians who dare remain in the Middle East, and they kidnap, forcibly convert, and “marry” their very young daughters.
It is time to demand—or at least to expect–reciprocity. Otherwise, we are really being racist in having one (higher) standard for Westerners and another (much lower) standard for the barbarians.
Granted: The West is not as barbaric and intolerant as the Islamic world; we do not willingly wish to become intolerant. Yet, tolerating the intolerant is unwise, or as the Jewish sages tell us: Being kind to the cruel results in cruelty to the kind.
Thus, if there can be no churches or synagogues built in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.—then why should the Swiss or the Europeans allow new, blockbuster size mosques, and sound-splitting loudspeakers emanating from minarets? According to Imam Kurdi, writing in the Arab News,
“And let’s not be hypocrites. If you held a referendum in a Muslim country asking whether the construction of new church steeples should be permitted, you are also likely to get an overwhelming no. So let us not brand this a Swiss phenomenon and let us also remember that it is not the majority of the Swiss population that supported the ban but the majority of those who voted, which if you do the maths comes to 30 percent of the population.” (Thanks to Esther for bringing this to my attention.)
Let me be clear. I am one of those westerners who has “dreamed East.” And, as a Jew, I have an undeniably dangerous but familial kinship with Arabs and Muslims. I find the Muslim call to prayer beautiful—but only if I refuse to understand that, as an infidel, an American citizen and patriot, a Jew, a woman, and a Zionist, that my place inside that mosque is that of a sub-human, fair-game target for hatred or worse.
Jews in exile from Arab and Muslim countries have launched a beautiful, haunted literature, one in which they manifest nostalgia for the places which endangered them and forced them to flee. Often, the danger is minimized, the customs romanticized. I am thinking of Andre Aciman, Roya Hakakian, and Lucette Lagnado.
I am in favor of interfaith gatherings. Peaceful voices are sweet to my ears and yet: telling the truth is far sweeter than lying. The truth is:
Mosque and minaret building in Europe probably represent a refusal to integrate; a refusal to separate mosque and state. Perhaps it also signifies an intention to one day vote in Shari’a law as the law of the European land. According to my colleague, Henrik R. Clausen, at Europe News:
“Minarets are built to ’stamp a site with Islamic character’, not for their religious signifiance. Actually, no building should in principle have any religious significance, for only Allah is to be worshipped, not stones, buildings and holy water. The reality, of course, is somewhat different. The core purpose of a minaret remains to mark the ownership, that this land is Islamic.”
Clausen points out that many Islamic minarets started out as church watchtowers.
Thus, the minaret (and what it symbolizes) is cause for concern.
France will not follow Switzerland's lead and ban the construction of minarets as long as the towers blend in with the surroundings, Prime Minister Francois Fillon said Friday.
"There are very few minarets in France and they must necessarily blend in with the urban and social environment, in a harmonious and reasonable manner," Fillon said in a speech delivered as part of France's national identity debate.
Switzerland's referendum vote to ban minarets reverberated in France, which is home to Europe's largest Muslim minority and is building big mosques in Marseille, Strasbourg and in Paris.
Fillon said the issue would be left to mayors to decide, based on urban planning regulations.
France's five million Muslims have fewer than 2,000 mosques or prayer houses, most of which are housed in small, modest halls, dubbed "basement mosques".
"I prefer mosques that are open, rather than dark basements," Fillon said.
"What we must fight is fundamentalism, but certainly not Muslims. We mustn't confuse everything."
The prime minister made the case that new mosques would allow a moderate Islam to emerge, one that is compatible with staunchly secular France.
"We must strive to develop a French Islam instead of having Islam imposed on France," he said.
Hypocrisy. That is, it is hypocrisy from a Western point of view. As far as these "scholars" are concerned, Islam is the truth, its truth is self-evident, and therefore the Swiss are obligated to accommodate it in a way that the Saudis are not obligated to accommodate non-Muslim religious observance.
"Saudi scholars slam Swiss minaret ban," by Abdul Rahman Shaheen for Gulf News, December 6
Riyadh: Several prominent Saudi Islamic scholars and preachers lambasted the recent Swiss referendum to impose ban on the construction of mosque minarets in the country
Speaking to Gulf News, they said that this is another evidence of the West's antagonism towards Islam and such moves detail the serious initiatives being undertaken for holding dialogue among followers of various religions in different parts of the world.
Shaikh Abdul Mohsen Al Shahri, an eminent scholar in Islamic jurisprudence, said that the Swiss referendum was part of a new hostile campaign unleashed against Islam and Muslims in the West.
"This is a clear evidence of the racial and religious segregation still prevails in the West, especially in a country, which boasts of an exemplary model of democratic ideals," he said adding that this serves as a severe blow to the so called secular image of Switzerland.
On his part, Shaikh Murshid Al Motairi, a noted Saudi preacher, underlined the need for launching a massive campaign to withdraw investments of Muslim countries from Swiss banks and halt going to Switzerland for holiday making.
Now you're talkin', al-Motairi!
More hypocrisy from the chief enemy of free speech in the world today, the OIC:
Meanwhile, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Prof. Ekmeliddin Ihsanoglu voiced disappointment and concern over the Swiss public referendum to ban building of minarets in the mosques in Switzerland.
The Secretary General of OIC, which groups 57 Muslim countries, qualified the ban as an unfortunate development that would tarnish the image of Switzerland as a country upholding respect for diversity, freedom of religion and human rights.
He described this as the latest example of growing anti-Islamic incitements in Europe by the extremist, anti-immigrant, xenophobic, racist, scare-mongering ultra-right politicians who reign over common sense, wisdom and universal values.
The Chief of OIC, which represents about 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, expressed his deep regret that at a time when the Muslim world and Muslim societies around the world have been engaged in a struggle to fight extremism, the Western societies are being hostage to extremists who exploit Islam as a scapegoat and a springboard to develop their own political agenda which in turn contributes to polarization and fragmentation in the societies.
He stated that this move also highlighted the need for promoting genuine dialogue at the grass-roots level to alleviate all misunderstandings and misinformation that lead to intolerance and misconceptions.
Therein lies the assumption that all acts of jihadist terrorism must be a response to some kind of provocation (real or imagined) from non-Muslims: after all, the apologists keep telling us "defensive" jihad is quite alright, caliph or no caliph.
The Fraggle-haired dictator also quips "I don't think anyone in the Muslim world will from now on authorise the construction of a church."
This is ironic, of course, since 1.) it's not like the Muslim world has welcomed churches or freedom of worship with open arms up to now, and 2.) restrictions on building non-Muslim houses of worship are enshrined in the Pact of Umar, which has provided a far-reaching precedent for oppressing non-Muslims in a variety of ways. For that matter, the minaret ban does not restrict worship or the construction of mosques.
TRIPOLI - LIBYAN leader Moamer Kadhafi said the Swiss referendum banning the building of new minarets was an invitation for Al-Qaeda to launch attacks in Europe, the official news agency JANA reported on Sunday.
'They pretend they are 'fighting Al-Qaeda and terrorism' whereas in fact they have just rendered it the greatest service,' he said, referring to Switzerland with disdain as 'the mafia of the world.'
'On November 29, more than 57 per cent of Swiss voters approved a rightwing motion to ban minarets on mosques, a decision that has sparked an international backlash and charges of intolerance.
''Al-Qaeda militants are now saying: 'We warned you that they were our enemies... Look at what they are doing in Europe. Come and join us for a jihad (holy war) against Europe,'' Kadhafi said.
'The Libyan leader, speaking at an academic ceremony on Saturday in Zliten, 160 kilometres (100 miles) east of Tripoli, said Muslim countries now had an argument not to allow the building of new churches. 'I don't think anyone in the Muslim world will from now on authorise the construction of a church,' Kadhafi said.
'He warned Switzerland of an economic fallout of a rift with the Muslim world. 'You must think of your interests. You need gas, ports, the sea, solar energy, investments,' Kadhafi said.
Investments: After all, things are going so swimmingly in Dubai.
The recent Swiss referendum that bans construction of minarets has caused controversy across the world.
There are two ways to interpret the vote. First, as a rejection of political Islam, not a rejection of Muslims.
In this sense it was a vote for tolerance and inclusion, which political Islam rejects.
Second, the vote was a revelation of the big gap between how the Swiss people and the Swiss elite judge political Islam.
In the battle of ideas, symbols are important.
What if the Swiss voters were asked in a referendum to ban the building of an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles as a symbol of the belief of a small minority? Or imagine a referendum on building towers topped with a hammer and sickle – another symbol dear to the hearts of a very small minority in Switzerland.
Political ideas have symbols: A swastika, a hammer and sickle, a minaret, a crescent with a star in the middle (usually on top of a minaret) all represent a collectivist political theory of supremacy by one group over all others.
On controversial issues, the Swiss listen to debate, read newspapers, and otherwise investigate when they make up their minds for a vote.
What Europeans are finding out about Islam as they investigate is that it is more than just a religion. Islam offers not only a spiritual framework for dealing with such human questions as birth, death, and what ought to come after this world; it prescribes a way of life.
Islam is an idea about how society should be organized: the individual's relationship to the state; that the relationship between men and women; rules for the interaction between believers and unbelievers; how to enforce such rules; and why a government under Islam is better than a government founded on other ideas.
These political ideas of Islam have their symbols: the minaret, the crescent; the head scarf, and the sword.
The minaret is a symbol of Islamist supremacy, a token of domination that came to symbolize Islamic conquest. It was introduced decades after the founding of Islam.
In Europe, as in other places in the world where Muslims settle, the places of worship are simple at first. All that a Muslim needs to fulfill the obligation of prayer is a compass to indicate the direction of Mecca, water for ablution, a clean prayer mat, and a way of telling the time so as to pray five times a day in the allocated period.
The construction of large mosques with extremely tall towers that cost millions of dollars to erect are considered only after the demography of Muslims becomes significant.
The mosque evolves from a prayer house to a political center.
Imams can then preach a message of self-segregation and a bold rejection of the ways of the non-Muslims.
Men and women are separated; gays, apostates and Jews are openly condemned; and believers organize around political goals that call for the introduction of forms of sharia (Islamic) law, starting with family law.
This is the trend we have seen in Europe, and also in other countries where Muslims have settled. None of those Western academics, diplomats, and politicians who condemn the Swiss vote to ban the minaret address, let alone dispute, these facts.
Note: majority of users who have posting privileges on MASH blog are not MASH members.
Comments are slightly moderated. MASH does not necessarily endorse every opinion posted on this blog.
Jewish Israelis oppose a Swiss-style ban on mosque minarets in the country, with opposition to the restriction highest among right-wing and haredi Jews, according to a poll conducted in late December and early January. 
Posts
