 A group of 30 Mauritanian Muslim leaders have issued a religious edict banning female genital mutilation in the West African country. Cheikh Ould Zein, head of the Forum of Islamic Thought, says the scholars believe the Koran does not endorse cutting young girls' genitals to limit their sexual activity as women. He said Monday that the leaders also agreed to preach against the practice at their mosques. The process, also called female circumcision, is common in parts of Africa and involves the surgical removal of the clitoris or other genital parts.
The procedure is often performed by women with little or no medical training. It can eliminate pleasure for women during sex and cause lasting pain and complications in childbirth. FoxNews
 The battle which began in Egypt in December over a ban on the niqab in universities continues, with female students opposing the measure by Higher Education Minister Hani Helal alternating defeat and victory.
As it had done on January 3 for 55 petitioners, on Saturday in Cairo the State Council Administrative Court once again sided with the ministry against the appeal filed by 17 students, though on Friday the Mansoura (Nile Delta) court instead sided with that by 42 others.
The Egyptian daily Al Masri Al Yom reported that the Mansoura judges issued their sentence on the basis of Article 2 of the Constitution, which establishes Islam as the state religion and Sharia (Islamic law) as the main source of laws.
They added that neither the Koran nor the Sunna state in any explicit manner the need not to cover hands and face. Therefore, the use of the niqab, in their opinion, is not prohibited. They noted that a ban on it is therefore incompatible with the personal freedoms guaranteed in other Articles of the Constitution. It is a sentence that seems to give weight to the thesis expressed by Egyptian intellectual Nasr Abu Zayd, who said that if the debate has now shifted to the niqab, it is because the hijab - the veil covering only women's hair - is "a religious order" now taken for granted.
In his opinion, this is in part the direct responsibility of the Al Azhar University - the highest Sunni religious authority - despite the fact that the Grand Imam Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi has said that the niqab does not come into play as concerns religion, prohibiting it in schools linked to the institution.
On the other hand, Abu Zayd has also asked, "why is individual freedom only spoken of in terms of the niqab? I am prepared to stand up for it as such in Europe, where human rights are guaranteed and forcing a girl to get married - to take an example - is a crime.
But here in Egypt it is a different situation."
 LONDON - Britain will outlaw an Islamist group that provoked anger with a plan to march through a town where British troops killed in Afghanistan are honored, the interior minister announced Tuesday. After a media outcry and criticism from politicians, the group Islam4UK dropped plans to march through the town of Wootton Bassett in southern England, saying it had successfully highlighted the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan. Home Secretary Alan Johnson said the ban aimed to help prevent terrorism. It will take effect Thursday and make it a criminal offence to be a member of Islam4UK, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. "I have today laid an order which will proscribe Al Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, and a number of the other names the organization goes by," Johnson said in a statement. "Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly." Johnson said the organization was already banned under two other names -- Al Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect -- and militant groups should not be able to circumvent proscription simply by changing their names. Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week denounced the group's plan to march through Wootton Bassett, where mourners regularly line the streets as coffins of British soldiers flown back from Afghanistan pass through on their way from a nearby air base. The government is keen to show it is tough on Islamist radicals after a Nigerian who had studied in London tried to blow up a plane flying into the United States on December 25. With a general election looming in the coming months, ministers do not want voters to see Britain as a haven for extremists. The leader of Islam4UK, Anjem Choudary, told BBC radio the ban would not prevent him from continuing his campaigns. "We won't be using those names and those platforms which have been proscribed, but I can't stop being a Muslim, I can't stop propagating Islam, I can't stop praying, I can't stop calling for the sharia," he said. "That is something which I must do, and ultimately I will pay whatever price I need to for my belief." Islam4UK has links to Islamist militant leader Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has been banned from entering Britain. Peter Neumann, director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King's College in London, said Islam4UK had only 50 to 100 full members, although the group attracted much bigger crowds at its events. "Islam4UK is very much a group that seeks publicity, that wants to be in the public eye, that provokes people in this country, and as a result gets onto the front page of the Daily Mail," Neumann said, referring to a popular newspaper. "That's why the home secretary felt compelled to react." Neumann described the group as a "conveyor belt" toward violent activities, citing evidence that numerous members had gone on to militant training camps in Afghanistan, where they had fought alongside the Taliban. Choudary denied that any member of his group had ever been involved in violence and denounced the ban as a breach of freedom of expression. Reuters 
 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. The margin of error was 4.5%. JPost
 A Massachusetts college has modified a controversial security policy after criticism it infringed on the religious rights of students, a school official said Friday. The policy originally banned any head covering that obscured the student's face while engaged in student activities. The Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences e-mailed students about the initial changes this week, saying, "Any head covering that obscures a student's face may not be worn, either on campus or at clinical sites, except when required for medical reasons." School officials said the policy was intended to ensure that all students would be identifiable "for reasons of safety and security." But on Thursday, the policy was changed to include an exception "for medical and/or religious reasons." The original policy had prompted questions and concerns among Muslim students and organizations, particularly because it meant Muslim women at the college could no longer wear the niqab, or face veil. The college -- with campuses in Boston and Worcester, Massachusetts, as well as Manchester, New Hampshire -- stated that the initial modification was "based on a constructive dialogue with our extended community, and an intensive review of safety and security measures with advisors." College spokesman Michael Ratty said, "We will achieve our objective of campus security while allowing for a medical and/or religious accommodation. As always, our primary concern is the security and safety of all our students, faculty and staff." Ratty stressed that Muslims were involved in the original policy decision saying, "Prior to implementation, the college discussed it with several officials within the Muslim community." Muslim students had mixed reactions to the original ban. Aisha Bajwa, president of the Muslim Students Association at the college, called the unmodified policy "unjustified and unconstitutional." Bajwa, who does not wear the niqab, said that having to wear student IDs at all times keeps students safe. Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, thinks the policy targeted Muslim students and filed a third-party complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Writing to the commission, the Council invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating based on religion. Hooper acknowledged that the college's policy focuses on students but said it will inevitably target Muslim employees in the future. After the complaint, George Humphrey, the vice president for College Relations, e-mailed Hooper, announcing the new policy. "We have reviewed our ID policy and made an accommodation for religious reasons," the e-mail said. "Thank you for your input on this matter." Hooper then stated, "We are pleased that the religious rights of all students and staff will now be protected. This is a victory for religious freedom and tolerance." Ratty said, "The complaint was not the sole reason for the reversal but rather an ongoing discussion this week with our community." Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, supported the original policy. Though Pipes acknowledged the larger cultural debate, he said the college is focusing on security. "I have documented dozens and dozens of cases about criminality and terrorism that have been abetted by burqas and niqabs," he said. "It is sensible to ban these, and there are a number of these bans in institutions such as banks or jewelry stores." With increasing concern about terrorist attacks, religious practices will have to be weighed against security, Pipes said. "In Turkey, the hijab has been banned from government offices, so this is not something that is just an American concern," he added. CNN
 By Eeyore 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) With thanks to Vlad Tepes
 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. ( more) Source: SwissInfo (English)
 The eminent historian Andrew Roberts has said that the British government had a de facto ban in place on state visits by Queen Elizabeth II to Israel. "The true reason of course, is that the FO [Foreign Office] has a ban on official royal visits to Israel, which is even more powerful for its being unwritten and unacknowledged.
As an act of delegitimization of Israel, this effective boycott is quite as serious as other similar acts, such as the academic boycott, and is the direct fault of the FO Arabists. It is, therefore, no coincidence that although the queen has made over 250 official overseas visits to 129 different countries during her reign, neither she nor one single member of the British royal family has ever been to Israel on an official visit,” Roberts told a gala dinner in London.
The historian’s work includes biographies of former British prime ministers Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain, as well as Hitler and Roosevelt.
Roberts said that Britain had been at best "a fair-weather friend" to Israel, and even though Queen Elizabeth’s mother-in-law, Princess Alice of Greece, had been recognized as a Righteous Among the Nations for sheltering a Jewish family in her Athens home during the Holocaust, and is buried on the Mount of Olives, Prince Philip had not been allowed to visit his mother’s grave until 1994 – "and then only on a private visit."
"Perhaps her majesty hasn't been on the throne long enough, at 57 years, for the Foreign Office to get round to allowing her to visit one of the only democracies in the Middle East. At least she could be certain of a warm welcome in Israel, unlike in Morocco, where she was kept waiting by the king for three hours in 90-degree heat, or at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Uganda the time before last, where they hadn't even finished building her hotel,” Roberts remarked.
 Muslim men who force their wives to wear the full Islamic veil should not be granted French citizenship, Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said Thursday.
Wading into the debate over whether to ban the burqa, Alliot-Marie said the government would await the recommendations of a parliamentary panel considering possible legislation to bar Muslim women from wearing the full veil.
But the minister went on to say that "there are a certain number of basics on which we must stand firm."
"For instance, someone who would be seeking French citizenship and whose wife wears the full veil is someone who would not appear to be sharing the values of our country," she told LCI television.
"Therefore in a case like that one, we would reject his request," she said.
(more)
Source: Expatica (English)
Thanks to Islam in Europe
 by Paul BelienIn 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?”
 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. Phyllis Chesler
 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.
(more)
Source: ABS CBN (English)
Islam in Europe
 The leader of Switzerland’s centrist Christian Democrats (CVP) has apologised for calling for a ban on new Muslim and Jewish cemeteries, just days after Swiss voters approved a halt to building minarets. “I am sorry. I didn’t mean it like that,” CVP leader Christophe Darbellay told the tabloid Blick daily on Friday, adding: “It was about the principle that we all belong to the same Swiss society … but you can’t explain that in 15 seconds.” Darbellay provoked protests when he told local television earlier in the week that Switzerland should not allow the building of separate cemeteries for Jews or Muslims in future. The Conference of European Rabbis criticised his comments on Thursday and said the Swiss minaret ban will fuel xenophobia and risks making Jews the next target of religious intolerance.
“We don’t have a situation of the extreme right in Europe attacking Jews because they are content to attack Muslims,” Philip Carmel, the international relations director for the Conference of European Rabbis, told Reuters. “But the Swiss example is classic: it’s not just Muslims who are going to be targeted by the extreme right.” Darbellay has also proposed a ban on the Muslim burqa, or face veil. His comments are seen as a response to the rise of the populist Swiss People’s Party (SVP) which campaigned for the minaret ban. Read the whole story here. Reuters
 Iran warned Switzerland on Saturday of “consequences” over a referendum banning the building of new mosque minarets and urged Bern not to enforce the ban, the official IRNA news agency reported. The vote went “against the prestige of a country which claims to be an advocate of democracy and human rights,” Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told Swiss counterpart Micheline Calmy-Rey in a telephone call, quoted by IRNA. Mottaki said last week’s referendum would “damage Switzerland’s image as a pioneer of respecting human rights among Muslims’ public opinion.” “Values such as tolerance, dialogue and respecting others’ religions should never be put to referendum,” he argued, warning Switzerland of the “consequences” of anti-Islamic acts, IRNA reported. The foreign minister hoped the Bern government would soon “take necessary steps and find a constitutional way to prevent imposition of the ban.” IRNA said Switzerland’s ambassador in Tehran was summoned on Saturday before the foreign ministry, which protested against the minaret ban which was backed by more than 57% of voters who cast their ballot on November 29. Calmy-Rey said the referendum was carried out against the will of the Swiss government, which would “use all its means to support Muslims rights,” the IRNA report added. The referendum on a constitutional ban on minarets was proposed by a rightwing Swiss party and had not been expected to succeed. Besides the government, the ban was opposed by the bulk of Switzerland’s political parties as well as the economic establishment. It drew widespread criticism from the United Nations, Muslim states, fellow European countries and the Vatican. YNet
 Switzerland's ban on building minarets will fuel xenophobia and risks making Jews the next target of religious intolerance, according to European rabbis meeting in Moscow. The Conference of European Rabbis condemned the outcome of last Sunday's Swiss referendum in a resolution passed during their two-day meeting, international relations director Philip Carmel told Reuters on Thursday. "We don't have a situation of the extreme right in Europe attacking Jews because they are content to attack Muslims," he said. "But the Swiss example is classic: it's not just Muslims who are going to be targeted by the extreme right." Swiss voters approved a ban on building new minarets in a referendum, defying the government and parliament which had rejected the right-wing initiative as violating the Swiss constitution, freedom of religion and a cherished tradition of tolerance. Speaking after the conference ended, Carmel said any movement towards xenophobia or extreme nationalist sentiment was "bad for Jews", adding: "The growth of the far right legitimizes xenophobic opinion." The Conference, which represents over 800 rabbis in more than 40 countries, was concerned that Jews might be the next targets of a rise in right-wing sentiment aroused by the minaret ban, he said. Rabbis said they were delighted by the revival of Jewish life in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, where their faith was relentlessly persecuted, leading to an exodus of tens of thousands. They said the growth of Muslim extremism in Western Europe's capitals was making life difficult for Jewish communities there. Jonasan Abraham, a London rabbi, said it was "tragic to think that it's safer now to walk the streets of Moscow as a Jew than in many Western European capitals where you feel hostility". In some European cities, Jews were living under tight security at schools and synagogues because of the threat from Islamic fundamentalists, the rabbis said. "You can't talk about the Holocaust in certain classrooms because the Muslim children will stand and complain about why it is being discussed," Carmel said. The rabbis called for European governments to combat Muslim extremism by making a commitment not to engage in dialogue with fundamentalist organizations and their representatives. "Because of the lack of structure of umbrella Muslim groups, politicians have a tendency to prefer dialogue with those who seem to be the loudest but they are not necessarily representative," Carmel said. YNet
 The polls appear to have contradictory results, but I think the numbers actually match. The BVA poll shows 55% against a minaret ban and 45% supporting it. The Ifop poll shows 40% opposing a minaret ban, but 14% with no opinion, and 46% supporting it.
An important point to note is that most of those who oppose minarets, oppose mosques as well.
It seems that it's not the minarets that people are really objecting to, but the mosques themselves.
Most of those who think they can decide what a house of prayer should look like also think they can can decide whether it should be built at all.
If the Swiss would have had a referendum on banning mosques, would they have gotten the same result?
Meanwhile, a survey in London shows that 75% want a ban on minarets. (h/t EuropeNews) and a poll in Sweden shows that about 25% want to ban minarets, 44% want to allow them and 30% are undecided.
A BVA poll for Canal+ shows that 54% think that a referendum on banning minarets would be a bad thing. 61% of right-wingers support the idea, compared with 31% among left-wingers.
If such a referendum was held, 55% of respondents would vote against the ban. Among the 45% who would vote for the ban, 51% are right-wingers, 32% are left-wingers. Among the respondents who said a referendum would be a good thing, 82% would vote to ban minarets. Asked whether Islam is more worrying than other religions, less worrying or just the same, 44% answered it was 'more worrying', 1% 'less worrying', and 55% that it's not more nor less worrying than other religions.
Among those who think Islam is more disturbing, 62% were right-wingers and 32% left-wingers. The pollsters note that putting these themes forward tend to crystallize the opinions of those who have a rather hostile attitude towards Islam.
According to an Ifop poll, 41% of respondents oppose building places of Muslim worship, compared to 22% in 2001.
If the Swiss weren't preoccupied with minarets, France would probably have ignored it. But once the subject was brought up, opinions have gotten inflamed.
About 46% of the French asked by Ifop favor their ban. Close to 40% accept them and 14% have no opinion. Jérôme Fourquet of Ifop says that the French are divided, but that there's never been as much tensions around Islam as now.
It's not only minarets that they're upset about. Just 19% of the French accept that a mosque should be built if the Muslims request it. It's the lowest ratio in the past twenty years. While the number of opponents has returned to the level of the 1980s. 41% oppose building mosques, 36% said they were indifferent and 4% have no opinion.
Jerome Fourquet says that at the time, the Front National emerged as well as SOS-Racisme and the big protests. In 1989, 38% of the French didn't want to see a mosque built next to them. In the following decades the rejection weakened. In 2001, even after the 9/11 attacks, the core of opposition remained at 22%, others having joined the camp of the indifferent (46%).
Jérôme Fourquet says that in 2009, with the return of tensions, public opinion radicalized on the place of Islam in France, and is strongly against its visibility. About 41% of the respondents now reject construction of mosques.
Ifop says that it's as if the twenty years of the right to be different and positive secularism advocated by Nicolas Sarkozy have only been talk on the surface, without getting a toehold in the country.
The president even thought to alter the 1905 law to permit public financing of the Muslim religion, while mayors were asked to get involved to order to get Islam to leave squalid places of worship.
However, this 'normalization' of Islam wished for by the government and the political elites turned against the tide of public opinion. The gap is particularly noticeable among the voters of Nicolas Sarkozy. 48% of them reject building mosques (13% support), and 55% are against minarets. 48% of Olivier Besancenot voters object to minarets. Compared to only 25% who oppose building mosques (28% support) and 34% who oppose minarets among voters of Ségolène Royal. 33% of François Bayrou voters want to ban minarets. 87% of Jean-Marie Le Pen voters oppose building mosques (3% support) and 79% oppose minarets.
Besides the liberal professions, the younger people and more elderly, everybody shows reluctance. The workers are most mobilized. 65% disagree with building mosques, followed by middle managements, craftsmen and merchants. Whether they live in the cities or in the countryside, the French are concerned. And particularly in the North-Est and the South-East. Ile-de-France is less tense.
On the Le Figaro internet site, 49,000 readers answered the question "should the construction of new minarets be banned in France?" with a majority of 73% favoring such a ban. In Germany, Der Spiegel got 78% opposition in answer to a similar question. Though immigration is more accepted in France than in other European countries, Ifop says that according to recent surveys, Islam is worrying. It's still perceived as a religion of conquest. "Its expansion and collective rites clash with the Catholic background of our society." The minarets, even without a muezzin, seems to be a "too loud" symbol of the Muslim presence in France.
Sources: Le Figaro , Le Monde (French), h/t Bivouac-ID Thanks to Islam in Europe
 This might be nitpicking, but as I've followed articles on the Swiss minaret ban, I've noticed the number of Muslims fluctuating.
Before the final results:
Muslims make up about 6 percent of Switzerland's 7.5 million people. Many Swiss Muslims are refugees from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. Fewer than 13 percent practice their religion, the government says, and Swiss mosques do not broadcast the call to prayer outside their buildings.
After the final results:
Supporters of the ban said the number of Muslims in Switzerland had grown sharply from 50,000 in 1980, but it is still only 4 percent of the 7.5 million population, many of whom don't practice. Western Europe has an estimated 14 million Muslims.
According to the AP, it took a day for a third of Swiss Muslims to disappear.
Either that, or the AP is using whichever demographics are more convenient to make the point ('Muslims are integral to Switzerland' vs. 'there's barely any Muslims around'). Thanks to Islam in Europe
 The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades…Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims.—Muammar Quadhafi From Amy Goodman’s Marxist slanted Democracy Now! program, comes a report out of Switzerland which describes how voters in that country have overwhelmingly approved a referendum banning the construction of minarets on Muslim places of worship. Goodman, describing the referendum as being an effort sponsored by “two right-wing parties,” gives Democracy Now!’s version of what transpired: Swiss voters have overwhelmingly approved a referendum banning the construction of minarets on Muslim places of worship. The referendum was sponsored by two right-wing parties. Switzerland is home to some 400,000 Muslims and has just four minarets. A campaign poster in support of the ban depicted a woman in a burqa in front of a row of minarets shaped like missiles. Oxford University professor Tariq Ramadan, who is a Swiss citizen, said “The Swiss majority are sending a clear message to their Muslim fellow citizens: we do not trust you and the best Muslim for us is the Muslim we cannot see.” Amnesty International said the vote to ban minarets violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights. There is so much to take issue with in Goodman’s report that a weighty tome could be written in response to that one paragraph. One could, for example, question the decision to solicit the opinion of Tariq Ramadan on the issue. Ramadan, you may recall, was the same individual who characterized the 9/11 attacks, the October 2002 Bali nightclub attack, and the March 2004 Madrid train bombings as “interventions,” rather than acts of terrorism. He has a deep-seated hatred of the West and Israel, is the founder of a Swiss Islamo-fascist organization called the “Movement of Swiss Muslims,” and has exhorted Muslim youth “to Islamize modernity rather than modernize Islam.” One could also question Goodman’s use of the specious argument put forth by Amnesty International, which characterizes the Swiss vote banning minarets as a “violation of religious freedom.” A curious argument coming from an organization that remains strangely silent on the issue of religious freedom in the Islamic world, where it is forbidden to build a church of any kind in countries such as Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (where Christians may not even set foot in many areas for fear of being executed). We will leave those questions for another time. It will prove much more interesting to have a look at two key points which Goodman completely fails to mention in her report: 1) The Swiss vote was democratic; and 2) The largest group of voters turning out to vote against the minarets was not “right-wing” xenophobes, but leftist, feminist women! In considering point number one, it is surprising that an organization that took pains to name itself “Democracy Now!” would leave that out of its report. The Swiss vote, however, was democratic. The fact that it produced a result different from that deemed politically correct is irrelevant. The second point is even more interesting: Post-election polls revealed that the Swiss would have rejected the ban were it not for feminist involvement: 39% of women were in favor of the ban, as opposed to 31% of men. Why is that? Radical feminists argued that the tower-like structures are “male power symbols” and reminders of Islam’s oppression of women. Socialist politicians were also fearful at the prospect of the minarets being built; one exclaiming that she felt that their construction would be “a signal of the state’s acceptance of the oppression of women.” But the issue seems to have struck a nerve in a broad specturm of Swiss women, and not just Socialists and radical feminists. Julia Werner, a housewife, put it this way: If we give them a minaret, they’ll have us all wearing burqas. Before you know it, we’ll have Sharia law and women being stoned to death in our streets. We won’t be Swiss any more. Predictably, the Muslim world is enraged over the vote, and if the furor over the Danish newspaper cartoons portraying Mohammed three years ago is anything to go by, the Swiss are in for a rough time. NewsReal Blog
 While the world waxes indignant over the Swiss minaret ban, it is useful to put things into perspective. In Egypt, Christians are persecuted. In Pakistan, construction of new churches is severely restricted. In Saudi Arabia, it isn't allowed at all. So why is a ban on minarets -- not on mosques -- so much more terrible than that? "Will Saudi Arabia allow construction of Cathedrals to challenge Swiss ban on minarets?," by Nazir Bhatti for the Pakistan Christian Post, December 1 reproduced as printed: Karachi: November 30, 2009. (PCP) Dr. Nazir S Bhatti, President of Pakistan Christian Congress PCC expressed surprise on statement of Pakistani representatives in UNHRC expressing concern on Swiss vote ban on construction of minarets on mosques and other Islamic institutions in Switzerland when construction of new Churches in Pakistan has to follow strict government guidelines which prohibits one furlong from existing mosque and use of loudspeakers. Nazir Bhatti said " Christ The King processions and other open rituals have been banned in public places from decades but not any Muslim human right activists have raised voice against government actions to damage true spirit of religious freedom in Pakistan but their protests in name of human right against Swiss government vote to ban minarets is index of substandard" In a statement released by PCC Central office here today also urged Saudi Arabia to allow construction of Churches in kingdom to challenge Swiss ban on minarets. "The Human Right activists around world shall raise voice to press upon Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries in Middle East to permit construction of Cathedrals and ensure religious freedom for Christian minorities" added Nazir S Bhatti... With thanks to JihadWatch
 It's been criticized as an expression of prejudice at odds with European values of tolerance. But in a referendum on November 29, Swiss voters approved a ban on the building of minarets.
And now populist parties in Denmark and the Netherlands say they want referendums, too.
The calls came from two parties known for their tough stances on immigration.
Geert Wilders, head of the Dutch Freedom Party, told the Dutch daily "Volkskrant" that his party "will call upon the government to make a similar referendum possible in the Netherlands."
And in Denmark, Danish People's Party head Pia Kjaersgaard welcomed the Swiss ban and said her party would also seek a similar vote.
Martin Henriksen, a deputy for the Danish People's Party, acknowledged that Denmark currently had no mosques with minarets. But he told RFE/RL that Muslim immigrants have to adapt to Danish society, not the other way around.
"There are plans in Copenhagen and other Danish cities to build grand mosques, and we oppose it in every way possible. And this could be another way to oppose it," Henriksen says.
"The reason why is because immigration that has taken place in Denmark up to 2001 when the Danish People's Party gained influence in the parliament has shown a lot of problems. We have seen in schools, public institutions and workplaces there are certain rules and standards forced in by some Muslims in Denmark. That is why we have to set our foot down."
The moves by the Dutch and Danish parties come amid a flurry of condemnation of Switzerland's ban from around Europe and far beyond.
Sweden's Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, whose country currently holds the rotating European Union Presidency, called it a sign of prejudice and possibly fear.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he was shocked and hoped the Swiss would reverse the decision.
The UN's expert on religious freedom, Asma Jahangir, said the ban amounted to an "undue restriction" on religious freedom and "clear discrimination" against Switzerland's Muslims.
The Vatican weighed in, too, saying it heightens the problems of cohabitation between religions
And the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the world's largest Islamic grouping, said it was an example of growing anti-Islamic incitement in Europe.
However eye-catching today's calls for copycat referendums are, though, it's not clear they would have much chance of success.
Switzerland's system of direct democracy allows for a referendum to be called if a proposal gets 100,000 signatures.
In Denmark, 60 votes are needed in the 179-seat parliament to call a referendum. The Danish People's Party only has 25.
In the Netherlands, the Freedom Party, with nine deputies, would appear to have an even slimmer chance of getting its way.
The Netherlands has held only one national referendum in the past 200 years -- the 2005 vote on the EU's proposed constitution.
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
A group of 30 Mauritanian Muslim leaders have issued a religious edict banning female genital mutilation in the West African country.
Posts
