Un trait d’union franco-suisse: L’ Assemblée nationale, la burqa et les minarets suisses.

Contrairement à ce qu’affirme l’AFP citée dans ce billet, il ne s’agit pas d’un référendum, mais d’une initiative populaire.

Vive la démocratie, au moins c’est direct…

Le même week-end, le peuple devra voter une autre initiative: l’interdiction d’exporter des armes. Or, le logo pour la qualité suisse, c’est encore une arbalète et l’arbalète, c’est l’ancêtre du fusil d’assaut. Non, mais…

On a tous des problème d’identité. Une vraie crise. Endémique en plus!

Pour ce qui est de la défense de “Lafâme”, voir cet excellent billet de Mademoiselle (pour la France) et cet autre billet fort intéressant (pour la Suisse): Interdire les minarets, ou comment promouvoir les droits des femmes.

On vit une époque formidable. Le problème c’est qu’on en a pris l’habitude. Depuis le temps que les réactionnaires s’ingénient à se soutenir parmi.

Il y a beaucoup de pensées qui s’agitent dans ma tête. Des réactions. Vaines et qui vont dans le sens de la haine. Alors, écoute plutôt…

Ouvre, mais ouvre la fenêtre…

Tiens, un petit billet politique, ça faisait longtemps.

Le 29 novembre, les Suisses sont appelés à donner leur avis sur plusieurs sujets. Les deux que je vais aborder ici sont des initiatives populaires : L’une, du GSSA, proposant d’interdire aux industries suisses de l’armement d’exporter des armes. L’autre, initiée et soutenue principalement par l’UDC, visant à interdire la construction de minarets en Suisse.

Que d’interdictions !

Ceux qui me connaissent savent ce que je vais voter, ou plutôt ce que j’ai déjà voté puisque je vote par correspondance depuis la France (et j’ai même mis cette votation à profit pour essayer le vote électronique pour la première fois).

Je suis pour une interdiction d’exporter des armes. En indécrottable pacifiste et idéaliste que je suis, je suis intimement persuadé que plus d’armes amènent plus de conflits et toutes les bonnes pratiques et intentions invoquées par les opposants de cette initiative ne changeront rien à la réalité telle que je la perçoit : les mines ne servent pas à assurer la paix. Celle-ci ne se fait pas par les armes mais s’installe quand toutes les parties en conflit déposent les fusils et entament le dialogue.

D’aucuns invoqueront aussi l’argument économique pour s’opposer à cette initiative, arguant que prendre cette direction mènera à une baisse de la production et donc des besoins en personnel, ce qui mettra maintes personnes au chômage. J’entends cet argument et j’ai sur ce sujet la même position que j’avais eue face aux grèves des buralistes français quand l’interdiction (encore une…) de fumer dans les restaurants et débits de boisson fut mise en place : l’industrie du tabac et plus encore celle de l’armement sont des marchandes de mort. Point. Mettre ces industries à mal met des gens au chômage. Cela ne tue personne. Si vous arrivez à invoquer les pertes d’emplois et les financières comme raisons valables à un maintien du statu quo, grand bien vous fasse. De mon côté, je ne peux m’y résoudre.

Concernant maintenant l’initiative visant à interdire la construction des minarets, je ne peux qu’y être opposé. Je balayerai de suite l’argument selon lequel certains pays musulmans refusant la construction de lieux de cultes chrétiens sur leur sol, nous devrions leur rendre la pareille. La loi du Talion, elle me file la nausée ! Elle pue la stupidité et le sang : la stupidité quand elle implique deux mômes dans une cour d’école, et le sang dans les conflits d’”adultes”, notamment inter-religieux. Je sais que l’initiative ne veux pas interdire la construction de mosquées, mais qui voudrait d’une église sans clocher ?

J’ai lu dans un article récent que les courants qui connaissent la plus forte augmentation de fidèles dans le christianisme et l’islam sont respectivement l’œcuménisme et le soufisme, qui prônent tous deux une plus grande ouverture et un plus grand respect de l’autre. J’espère sincèrement que le résultat du vote vérifiera cet assertion.

Minarets versus war materiel export.

Islamic leaders in parts of Switzerland yesterday opened up the doors of their Masjids as an open invitation to non-Muslims, and not for the purposes of da’wah. Instead, they sought to counter prejudices towards Islam ahead of a highly controversial vote at the end of this month. The ballot to be held on November 29th, as an initiative of the country’s majority Swiss People’s Party, seeks a constitutional ban on Mosque minarets, which are seen by some as symbols of Islamic political authority. The whole sordid business following on from a now (in)famous and well documented dispute that erupted in some previously unheard of commune back in 2005.

Accounting for some 5% of the population, approximately 400,000 Swiss people identify themselves as Muslims, but of the 200 or so mosques in Switzerland a mere four – yes, that’s four, 4, one above three, one below five, no more, no less – have a minaret. Such political might must surely be crushed! How long before the ‘Muslim Verboten’ signs start to appear? Swiss efficiency being what it is, maybe those seeking a minaret ban should consider stockpiling Zyklon B in readiness . . . .

Je n’arrive pas à choisir entre l’islam DE France et l’indépendantisme imaginaire
(Mosquée 0 – Maldon 1)

Le duc Eudes qui, en trente ans, a fait de l’Aquitaine un royaume indépendant a quelque mal à freiner les razzias que mènent les arabes auxquels il a pourtant flanqué une sévère peignée à Toulouse quelques années plus tôt.. Il vient à son tour d’endosser un sérieux revers sur la Dordogne de la part des musulmans et ne voit plus comme solution que d’appeler à son aide son ennemi, le franc, Charles qui est précisément lui même -d’un soudard l’autre- en train de son côté, de piller le Poitou …. Le choc décisif a lieu en 732, le 25 octobre près de Poitiers. Avec la mort de l’émir Abd el Rhâman, c’est un rude coup qui est porté à l’ expansion musulmane, ce dont on peut se réjouir … mais il faudra encore que les arabes soient chassés de Narbonne près de trente plus tard et la prise de Barcelone en 801 pour que le coup d’arrêt soit porté aux menaces d’invasion. Même si, très bientôt, le premier monument qu’on verra en arrivant à Poitiers en venant de Paris sera la mosquée et son minaret de 22 mètres… En revanche, Charles peut sur le champ savourer son triomphe à usage interne : il vient de gagner son surnom de “Martel” en même temps qu’il élimine son plus dangereux rival et surtout, qu’il met fin au rêve aquitain d’indépendance…ce qu’on peut être en droit de regretter …

————————————————————————————————————————

I think there’s something missing on my career program.

Central Asia.

We’ve got 4 classes on years 1, 2, and 3 about Hebrew history, literature, religion…And not one single one about…say, Afganistan. 

We only get to see tiny bits of it on Persia, India, Islam..there’s a Armenian Culture class, why not an Afgan Culture class?

I once bought a book, quite simple and not special at all, about Asian mythologies. The Afganistan chapter had only 1 page and a half, and honestly, it didn’t said much. Such a pity.  I think i’d have to search on my own for things like these..

I mean, when i saw that documentary on tv ( i believe it was on NatGeo,but i’m not sure..) about the Minaret of Jam..that place is beautiful, even if the structure itself was a result of  Islam on the region.

Maybe i’m falling in love with almost deserted mountains and extremely difficult to reach places? *laughs*

There are places in this world where values still mean something.

Le jeu qui fait scandale en Suisse…

Cliquez sur l’image pour accéder au jeu

(Audrey) We saw two bold claims made by Delhi-wallas yesterday. The first was proclaimed on a small sticker on the back of a car. It’s quite small, but can you read it?

That’s right, it says ‘competent’… if true, it’s a breath of fresh air amongst Delhi drivers.

The second bold claim we encountered is a bit older: the Qutb Minar, a stone tower around 240 feet in height that was begun in the late 12th and completed in the late 14th century. It’s a well known landmark in Delhi and a world heritage site.

The minar is quite impressive, particularly for its early date, but also a bit baffling when one tries to think about why a series of Muslim rulers in Delhi built it. The minar took a lot of time, money, and resources, so it must have been important, but how precisely? You can sound the Islamic call to prayer from the top, sure, but one hardly needs such an imposing structure for that purpose. It’s often described as a victory tower, celebrating successful military ventures, but why a minar? Was it meant to be an Islamic symbol in particular? The Arabic calligraphy around it would seem to point in that direction. But the Delhi Sultans who built it intended to rule India, which was overwhelmingly not Muslim. Many questions remain unanswered about this great monument, but one thing is certain—it’s a bold statement.

One way to get to the core of the minar’s purpose is to ask: Who did the sultans build it to impress? It’s often not explicitly said, but one certain answer is men (a precious few female rulers aside, the world was controlled by men in those days). Even today, long after the times of kings and their particular ways of showing power have passed, the Qutb Minar seems to speak to men in a way that it doesn’t to women. Exhibit A: We’re at the Qutb Minar no more than 5 minutes and Thane, normally not exactly Mr. Picture-taker, figures out the correct angle to get this shot, making him seem almost as tall as the minar.

And Thane’s not the first to be really into the minar. When the Brits came to India during colonial times, they apparently added on to the top of the tower, which before them had been finished for hundreds of years. Their addition was later removed because it’s incongruous with the rest of the design and now stands relegated to a corner of the complex.

Quality work there on the part of the colonialists. In this case it seems not so much a bold claim, but a rejected one.

One of the last masterpieces of classical Ottoman architecture, it is popularly known as the Blue Mosque, for the blue tiles on its inside walls.

The grave of Gárdonyi Géza

Last Saturday I went with a few fellow CEU students to Eger, a city east north east of Budapest. One cannot visit Eger without getting to know the name of Dobó István (Stephen Dobo). He was the leader of the defenders of Eger castle against the Ottoman Turks in 1552. It was quite a story. About 2000 defenders held the castle against 80,000 soldiers. I’m not sure whether this is a testament to the tenacity of the peasants defending their homeland, the value of fortications, or the difficulty of waging a long-term foreign campaign, but it’s amazing nonetheless.
The seige was made famous by Gárdonyi Géza when he wrote Egri Csillagok the most famous Hungarian novel. He is buried inside the castle, and even the little children know the words on his headstone: „Csak a teste!” which means “Only his body” implying that his spirit is gone.

Cannon and related implements

The castle provides a good spot for viewing the rest of the city. Unfortunately, I don’t have any pictures of the castle from outside since my camera ran out of batteries before I could take any, but here are some photos taken from the castle walls including this lovely festive looking flag.

Hungarian flag

There is something I love about churches with statues on top. I wish I had been able to take a picture close up.

A church in Eger with neat statues on top

In front of this church is Dobó István Square

For some reason this seems extremely European. And very pretty as well.

Cute stream running through Eger

Outside the castle is the northernmost Turkish minaret in the world. That’s right, the Turks returned 44 years later and conquered Eger and occupied it for 91 years. You’ll notice on the top is a crescent moon, and on top of that a cross. The cross was placed there after the Turks left, though why it wasn’t destroyed outright I don’t know.

Turkish Minaret from Eger Castle

Looking up at the minaret

You can also climb up the spiral staircase inside the tower. If I recall correctly, there are 97 stair. They are definitely not OSHA approved. They are very steep and extremely narrow. It’s quite cramped and if I puffed out my chest I could touch the center column and the side of the tower with my elbows. I think it would be very difficult to fall down the stairs for that reason (though I did not test this hypothesis).

What Turkish pigeons must see

What else? I ate some gulyas (GOO yash a.k.a. goulash) and ice cream; saw bees hanging out at a fountain (I’m not sure what they were doing there); rode a train; looked at some paintings, torture implements and artifacts; restrained myself from going to the weaponry museum where you get to try on a helmet because nobody else wanted to go and I can go with Rachel when she gets here; and pretty much had a grand old time.

Ordet “fobi” är ytterst fånigt att använda men då alla som motsätter sig Islam kallas för islamofober kan väl alla som har något emot kristendomen, judendomen eller rent generellt andra religioner eller ateister kallas för “fobister”. Fobi är som bekant en irrationell rädsla för vissa saker, personer m.m. Att man inte gillar totalitära ideologier så som Islam, som är klädd till en religion, har ingenting med fobi att göra.

Efter en undersökning i Turkiet har man kommit fram till att:

• 57% inte vill bo nära en ateist.
• 42% vill inte bo nära en person som bekänner sig till judendomen.
• 35% vill inte bo nära en person som bekänner sig till kristendomen.
• 18% vill inte bo nära en invandrare överhuvudtaget.
• 57% vill inte att det finns ickemuslimer som arbetar åt turkiska säkerhetstjänsten.
• 55% vill inte att ickemuslimer arbetar inom rättsväsendet.
• Nästan hälften av turkarna uppger att de inte tror att judarna är lojala mot turkiska staten.

Schweiz, vars direkt demokrati jag personligen näst in till dyrkar, kommer att rösta om minaret förbud 20:e november. Om det blir ett ja till förbud skulle det inte under några omständigheter kunna klassas som ett intrång mot religionsfriheten i Schweiz. Ingen har förbjudits att utöva Islam, endast symbolen för det totalitära i Islam har förbjudits. Sidan som förespråkar ett förbud använder sig av väldigt talande bilder.

Här i Brandbergen kommer det troligtvis byggas en 24 meter hög minaret precis vid centrum om inte överklagan mot bygget kan stoppa det. Jag har fått verifierat att pengarna till Moskén och dess minaret kommer från Saudiarabien. Landet där wahhabismen flödar och statlig television förespråkar mord på judar m.m. Är det verkligen något vi i Sverige vill ha? Hur mycket kan man få säga i “religionens namn” innan det blir brottsligt? Som det ser ut i dag kan man i Sverige anstifta till mord i religionens namn då Justitiekansler Göran Lambertz har sagt att det är “ok” att anstifta till mord på judar p.g.a. pågående och historiska konflikten i Israel mot så kallade “palestinierna”.

Följande finns med på kassetterna och cd-skivorna:

”Domens dag skall inte komma förrän muslimerna kämpar mot judarna. Muslimerna skall döda dem och judarna skall gömma sig bakom stenar och träd. Stenarna och träden skall säga: Åh, muslim, det är en jude bakom mig. Kom och döda honom.”

GoV GoV JK

There was something in the USAToday story I wasn’t fully grasping:

By Stephen Brown, Religion News Service
GENEVA — The Swiss Council of Religions, which includes Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders, has issued a statement rejecting a call for a nationwide ban on the construction of minarets at mosques. Some Swiss groups want to ban minarets out of fear of Europe’s growing Muslim population.

“For the members of a religious community, religious buildings are not only places to gather but also a symbol of their faith and an expression of their reverence for God. For many Muslims, therefore, mosques need to have minarets,” the council said in a 5-page statement issued Wednesday.

“The prohibition of minarets would injure these people in their dignity and their basic right to practice their religion,” the council warned.

The move to ban the construction of minarets was submitted in July 2008 with just under 115,000 signatures, and will be decided in a national referendum on Nov. 29.

If passed, the measure would amend the country’s Federal Constitution to include a new article stating that, “The construction of minarets is prohibited.”

…”Everyone has the right in this country to live their faith visibly, freely and in a community within the framework of the public order,” it [the Council of Religions] stated. “This also includes the construction of places of worship that are typical for their respective religions.”

~~read the entire article, with reader comments, here.

So I e-mailed someone who lives there, who I’ll let remain anonymous.   This provides more backstory, the section in italics (added) really holds the key:

Right now it’s not illegal to build a minaret. However, like trying to build anything in Switzerland, there’s a TON of red tape!  There are already 4 or 5. However there is one political party that collected over 100,000 signatures against building them, enough to send it to a referendum.

Their argument is that minarets are not mentioned at all in the Koran, and that they are more a political symbol of conquest than they are of religious freedom. They also question why these people have fled places where they are not allowed to practice their religion, so why didn’t they go somewhere that is mostly Muslim, instead of coming to Switzerland? In Switzerland there are only two recognized religions, Christianity (Protestant and Catholic) and Jewish, other religions have the freedom to practice and the meet, but they are not recognized by the state.

They are also concerned about Muslims asking for changes in other areas, like what is taught at school. Bible reading used to be normal in Swiss schools, since it is considered a Christian country, but the Muslims are fighting it, and now it has all but disappeared. I guess the idea is, they chose to be here knowing it was predominantly Protestant (the church is state run), it’s not fair that they want to change it now to suit them. I’m not saying I agree with all of that, but that’s the stance of the party that is fighting against the building of the minarets.

Not to mention that a sunrise call to worship would never get past the noise laws here; or the architectural laws for that matter…they are REALLY picky about the style you build here…we were afraid they wouldn’t accept the siding on our house!

So what happens when people of faith groups which are foreign to a particular piece of geography decide to move there?   Do they do so with the express intention of changing the religious climate there?   Increasing tolerance?   Warming the local population up to greater cultural and political influence and involvement?

Obviously the question that forms the title of this post is moot in some respects.   It’s possible that some people of other faith groups move into areas specifically because they are dominated by Christians.

But that brings us to something else altogether:

How is this different from the Christian Missionary movement?   Do we not also go into countries which are dominated by other faiths to proclaim the message of Christianity?   Do we not erect places of worship in those countries with our symbol (the cross) clearly visible on the exterior of these buildings?   Do we not seek to build bridges into the larger community so that these people have a day-to-day, living, breathing experience of what Christ-followers look like?

We tend to see this issue from our Christian point of view, forgetting that whatever freedoms apply to us have to apply to all.   But obviously here there is another factor at work, to which I added italics in the second quotation — “they are more a political symbol of conquest than they are of religious freedom.” One campaign initiator (watch the video link below) believes the desire to build minarets is a desire to “change the social order.”

But who decides this?

And does a referendum somewhat defeat the purpose?   Will voters grasp the larger issues or will they simply maintain the status quo?

You can almost feel the tension here on the other side of the Atlantic.

Pictures:

Upper:  This is the picture that accompanied the USAToday story, juxtaposing the minaret with a Protestant church steeple.   From this angle, neither seems much different than the other.
Lower:  This picture shows minarets towering over a local skyline.   Are voters picturing the upper picture or the lower one?

Learn more:

Our contact in Switzerland recommended this website, where we found this video story.

C’est à partir de ces trois questions qui ont fait récemment débat que l’Observatoire des religions en Suisse, le Groupe de recherche sur l’islam en Suisse et le comité “Religion et société” de la Société suisse de sociologie mettent en place une journée d’études sur la place de l’islam et des musulmans dans la société suisse. Ce sera le vendredi 30 octobre, à Lausanne; les infos sont ici.