(http://www.csmonitor.com/)
from the December 05, 2009 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1205/p09s01-coop.html
Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion
The Swiss vote highlights the debate on Islam as a set of political and
collectivist ideas, not a rejection of Muslims.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Washington
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.
In their response to the presence of Islam in their midst, Europeans have
developed what one can discern as roughly two competing views. The first
view emphasizes accuracy. Is it accurate to equate political symbols like
those used by Communists and Nazis with a religious symbol like the minaret
and its accessories of crescent and star; the uniforms of the Third Reich
with the burqa and beards of current Islamists?
If it is accurate, then Islam, as a political movement, should be rejected
on the basis of its own bigotry. In this view, Muslims should not be
rejected as residents or citizens. The objection is to practices that are
justified in the name of Islam, like honor killings, jihad, the we-versus-they
perspective, the self-segregation. In short, Islamist supremacy.
The second view refuses to equate political symbols of various forms of
white fascism with the symbols of a religion. In this school of thought,
Islamic Scripture is compared to Christian and Jewish Scripture. Those who
reason from this perspective preach pragmatism. According to them, the key to
the assimilation of Muslims is dialogue. They are prepared to appease some
of the demands that Muslim minorities make in the hope that one day their
attachment to radical Scripture will wear off like that of Christian and
Jewish peoples.
These two contrasting perspectives correspond to two quite distinct groups
in Europe. The first are mainly the working class. The second are the
classes that George Orwell described as "indeterminate." Cosmopolitan in
outlook, they include diplomats, businesspeople, mainstream politicians, and
journalists. They are well versed in globalization and tend to focus on the
international image of their respective countries. With every conflict between
Islam and the West, they emphasize the possible backlash from Muslim
countries and how that will affect the image of their country.
By contrast, those who reject the ideas and practices of political Islam
are in touch with Muslims on a local level. They have been asked to accept
Muslim immigrants as neighbors, classmates, colleagues – they are what
Americans would refer to as Main Street. Here is the great paradox of today's
Europe: that the working class, who voted for generations for the left, now
find themselves voting for right-wing parties because they feel that the
social democratic parties are out of touch.
The pragmatists, most of whom are power holders, are partially right when
they insist that the integration of Muslims will take a very long time.
Their calls for dialogue are sensible. But as long as they do not engage
Muslims to make a choice between the values of the countries that they have
come
to and those of the countries they left, they will find themselves faced
with more surprises. And this is what the Swiss vote shows us. This is a
confrontation between local, working-class voters (and some middle-class
feminists) and Muslim immigrant newcomers who feel that they are entitled, not
only to practice their religion, but also to replace the local political
order with that of their own.
Look carefully at the reactions of the Swiss, EU and UN elites. The Swiss
government is embarrassed by the outcome of the vote. The Swedes, who are
currently chairing EU meetings, have condemned the Swiss vote as intolerant
and xenophobic. It is remarkable that the Swedish foreign minister, Carl
Bildt, said in public that the Swiss vote is a poor act of diplomacy. What he
overlooks is that this is a discussion of Islam as a domestic issue. It
has nothing to do with foreign policy.
The Swiss vote highlights the debate on Islam as a domestic issue in
Europe. That is, Islam as a set of political and collectivist ideas. Native
Europeans have been asked over and over again by their leaders to be tolerant
and accepting of Muslims. They have done that. And that can be measured a)
by the amount of taxpayer money that is invested in healthcare, housing,
education, and welfare for Muslims and b) the hundreds of thousands of Muslims
who are knocking on the doors of Europe to be admitted. If those people
who cry that Europe is intolerant are right, if there was, indeed, xenophobia
and a rejection of Muslims, then we would have observed the reverse. There
would have been an exodus of Muslims out of Europe.
There is indeed a wider international confrontation between Islam and the
West. The Iraq and Afghan wars are part of that, not to mention the ongoing
struggle between Israelis and Palestinians and the nuclear ambitions of
Iran. That confrontation should never be confused with the local problem of
absorbing those Muslims who have been permitted to become permanent
residents and citizens into European societies.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of "Infidel," is the Somali-born women's rights
advocate and former Dutch parliamentarian. Her forthcoming book is entitled
"Nomad."
© 2009 Global Viewpoint Network / Tribune Media Services. Hosted online by
The Christian Science Monitor.
_Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and
related links_ (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1205/p09s01-coop.html)
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
