The Swiss vote highlights the debate on Islam as a set of political and collectivist ideas, not a rejection of Muslims
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."
![](javascript:fotovenster("http://images2-telegraaf.nl/multimedia/archive/00447/efteling_jpg_447358d.jpg","Langnek%20Efteling%20","null%20",200,133);)
And now: heeeeeeeeeeere's...uh...![](javascript:fotovenster("http://images2-telegraaf.nl/multimedia/archive/00675/minaretverbod4545_j_675605d.jpg","De%20campagneposter%20tegen%20de%20minaretten%20van%20de%20Zwitserse%20Volkspartij.%20","AFP%20",200,133);)
![](javascript:fotovenster("http://images2-telegraaf.nl/multimedia/archive/00131/boerkini-maniahoog_131869d.jpg","%20","null%20",200,186);)
Wilders bedreigt alleen de Haagse mores
Recent Comments