Minarets Are Political Not Religious Symbols

A week ago nearly fifty-eight percent of the Swiss electorate defied the wishes of their government, their parliament, and voted to ban future construction of minarets. The vote was open, transparent, and in keeping with the long standing democratic practices of the multi-lingual, multi-religious federated republic.

Not surprisingly the solid nitrogenous waste product landed on the air impeller. Not simply in Muslim states ranging from Algeria to Malaysia but within the multi-cultural, ever-so-sensitive-and-tolerant elites of the US and Western Europe.

The Iranian foreign minister made dark and unspecified warnings of "consequences" to his Swiss counterpart. Not to be outdone, a leading Muslim cleric in Egypt, the Grand Mufti Ali Goma, declared the ban of new construction minarets constituted "an attempt to insult the feelings of the Muslim community in and outside Switzerland."

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, joined the chorus of condemnation. This bureaucrat, who seems never to be bothered by such bagatelles as the prohibition against the construction of any church or synagogue, or, for that matter, Buddhist temple, extant in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim states, weighed in with a statement deploring the Swiss voters' action.

In the US the denunciations from the political Left were every bit as robust as those emanating from the Muslim press overseas. In the HuffPost Cameron Sinclair characterized the Swiss exercise in vox populi, vox dei as "misguided at best, at worst downright racism." (Emphasis in original.) Ironically Mr Sinclair also states, "architecture is political."

How right he is! Architecture is political--and never more so than in the case of minarets. As much or more than the steeples on Christian churches, the towering minaret is today what it was centuries ago--a symbol of Muslim political presence. And, a visible sign of Muslim political domination.

Although typically described as being necessary for the summons to prayers which issues from mosques worldwide five times a day, the minaret was not only a late comer to Muslim religious practice it was also a product of the successful wars of conquest waged by Muslim armies following the death of Mohammad. The minaret was not a convenient elevated platform for the muezzin's summons. No. It was the phallic symbol of conquest, of the subjugation of the non-Muslim population.

Arguably, the spires crowning the cathedrals of Europe were designed to point to heaven or to summon the aspirations of the believers to the highest, most noble callings. This explanation has been given over the generations by historians and others seeking to explain the significance of the steeple which has so long been a visual signature of Christian communities. True or not a more fundamental reality exists: The steeple was never intended to be a mark of conquest or of subjugation.

The minaret is a different beast all together. Before Islam exploded out of the Arabian Peninsula carried on the scimitars of legions of highly motivated believers, the mosque was unadorned. No minarets were to be seen (nor have any foundations for such been excavated in recent years.) It was only after Islam came, saw, conquered new territory, new people, that the minaret came into existence. Even so, the progress from the low slung mosque to the towering minaret equipped version was slow and spotty.

Indeed, the historical and archaeological record points to an interesting correlation. Minarets proliferated most in those areas where the battles of conquest were most hard won and where the Muslims constituted a distinct minority, a thin ruling crust over a large and restive population of infidels. The minaret like the assorted regulations covering the second class folks of the Christian and Jewish communities was intended to impress, overawe, to remind all the non-Muslim "people of the book" of their humiliated position in the new Islamic order.

Yes, Mr Sinclair, architecture is political. In this case the politics were those of dominance and submission, of rulership and being ruled, of giving the orders and taking them. The minaret was the tallest building admissible. No church could surpass it just as no Christian, no Jew could speak to a Muslim while on horseback while the Muslim could sit on his animal and glare down at the inferior non-Muslim.

There is no justification for the minaret today. The hoary justification that its lofty heights were necessary so that the faithful would hear the calls to prayer has been set aside by the use of sound amplification systems. The minaret has only one utility--as a symbol of Muslim presence.

The Swiss vote expressed the desire, perhaps the need, to reclaim the skyline as Swiss, as European. There was no explicit threat to the practice of Islam, to the building of new mosques. There is not even an implicit threat to either. Nor does the vote indicate a desire let alone a need on the part of the Swiss hoi polloi to limit the rights of Muslims in any way let alone force the Muslims to return to Kosovo and other places of origin.

The Swiss merely said by their vote that they wanted their skyline, their traditional skyline. At worst it may be alleged that the Swiss are more comfortable with their traditional skyline as they are with their cultural and social traditions. It may be alleged that the Swiss "feelings" have been, if not insulted, at least discomfited by the intrusion of the alien minaret.

This means quite simply that the Swiss people as distinguished from their government, parliament, and the elite of Europe generally are like most people most everywhere--happiest, most comfortable, most at home as it were with the cultural and social traditions and features long known and accepted, even loved. It is ironic that the multi-cultural crew cannot or will not recognize this and accept it.

The multi-culti crowd with its celebration of "cultural relativism" holds that all cultures, all manifestations of cultural features are equally valid. They accept that it is OK for Muslims to have cultural features such as Shariah mandated punishments, the veiling of women, and the use of minarets. Why is it impossible for the high priests of multi-culti political correctness to accept that the Swiss hoi polloi to have their own shibboleths including a skyline free of minarets?

Well, the answer to that is simple. The vote reflected the views, the desires, and, yes, the fears of the common herd. This fact is enough in and of itself to outrage the self-defined "elites" of both Europe and the US. The basis of the outrage is equally simple: The damn fool lesser folks did not heed the "guidance" of their "betters" in the Swiss parliament and government.

That attitude can be understood, if not forgiven. It is, after all, no fun to be a member of the self-elected elite if the man and woman in the street can ignore your "guidance" and demands with impunity.

The Swiss electorate made two political statements in their vote. The first was the reclamation of their skyline--Islam is not dominant here! The second was equally blunt albeit implicit: The elite can take a hike.

Right on, Switzers!

Lurching Through The Swamp(s)

The first swamp is, no surprise here, Afghanistan. The early reports (they're all over the web, no real need for links) have it that President Obama, after only three months of study and palaver, and distractions over the "credibility" of Karzai's election, has finally opted for the least worst course of action. This means that another 34,000 US troops will hit the ground over and above the 22,000 already tabbed by the President for service there.

If the early reports are right (and the Geek hopes they are), the mission of the new increment will be against the Taliban strongholds in the Kandahar and Helmand areas. The goal will be the suppression of the Islamist jihadists both soft and hard core. The intent is the creation of an area which is quiet enough for the Afghan national forces to take over and the Afghan government (if any) to provide essential services and establish both functional and existential legitimacy.

By implication at least, the US military is officially out of the nation-building game. If correct, that is a move that is long overdue. While there is much a military force can and should do to provide assistance to local civilians, the top job is restoring sufficient quiet that purely civilian efforts can build a nation--from the base on up to the pinnacle. To date, the building efforts have been in the reverse and thus doomed to fail.

President Obama is to be congratulated for having listened to such advisors as SecDef Gates rather than those such as Vice President Biden--or even National Security Advisor Jones, who was apparently overly traumatized by his service as a junior combat leader in Vietnam to take a fully mature view of the ways in which the effort in Afghanistan differ from the debacle in Vietnam.

The strict focus on suppressing Taliban as an effective combat force coupled with an eye to the exit emphasizes the difference between the approach currently and belatedly underway in Afghanistan and the long delayed and poorly executed "Vietnamization" exercise during the Nixon administration. Now, if Congress does not play the spoiler role it had during the Vietnam endgame, there is a chance the US and its allies will achieve the minimum necessary strategic goal of "not losing."

In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, "not-losing" is the best that can be hoped for in the real world. As the Korean War paradigm shows, "not-losing" is not really fully satisfying but it is enough. It works imperfectly but it works.

The Iranian swamp has grown both deeper and more murky with the mullahs' men announcing that the country would construct another ten enrichment centers while Russia indicated it would not stand in the way of any new sanctions consensus. In a way both announcements merit a mere "well, la-de-dah and humma-humma."

The threat from Tehran to proliferate centrifuges at an awesome rate of knots was a completely expectable response to the IAEA Board of Governors smiting the regime on the hand for its previous actions in that area. If the Iranian regime expected any other action such as a mea culpa from the body for having ever suspected the mullahs of any motives other than the most lofty and humanitarian, they must have been sampling too much of the cargo surreptitiously brought across the border from Afghanistan.

The Russian protestations of solidarity with the sanction oriented West is nice and might have a symbolic value but is nullified in actual effect by the probable blockage from the Chinese. The Gnomes of Beijing have too much invested in Iran and too much need for its oil to move to support sanctions. This means there is no real consensus for the Russians to join or to block. They can, in effect, put the caviar on both sides of their cracker.

Another ship has been sunk in the pirate swamp of Somalia. This time the jolly raiders of the region snatched a tanker bound from Saudi Arabia to the US with about twenty megabucks of cargo on board. Nine men in a skiff took over the thirty man crew of the VLCC without any mention of a struggle, resistance, or the arrival of the naval cavalry.

With the ending of the monsoon which flattened the seas north of the Seychelles, the pirates have been out in full and effective force while the large multi-national naval presence has driven their boats around with little effective impact on the piracy business. As usual many of the MSM (look them up yourself, it isn't hard to find the usual suspects) characterized the pirates as "unemployed fishermen." This is akin to calling the thugs of Al Capone's Chicago Outfit, "unemployed beer delivermen."

There are few effective ways of draining the Somali pirate swamp. And, worse from the soft and sentimental Western perspective, all the ways which would have any effect whatsoever involve both violence and the potential of "innocent" lives being snuffed out.

Unless and until two actions are taken, the pirate swamp will continue to suck in hapless victims. The two actions are easy to describe and easy to take--if political will exists. The first is to require convoying of all vessels transiting the dangerous waters. This could be enforced by the insurance industry--but only if the navies involved drafted and implemented a convoy system.

The second action is to use lethal force. Both security details onboard ships and the naval vessels should have "shoot to kill" authority. Period. Yes, mistakes might be made. "Hold harmless" clauses must therefore exist to immunize ship owners, crews, and security details from either civil or criminal liability.

It would also be of great use if the UN would create another one of those special courts of which it is so fond to deal with pirates captured on the job. The current ad hoc ways of dealing with pirates are both unworkable and unjust. Even better would be an acknowledgement by the UN that ever since Julius Caesar cleared the Mediterranean Sea of pirates, members of that sub species of brigand have been the common enemy of mankind whenever and wherever they have done their dirty deeds.

The final swamp du jour is that of Islam in Western Europe. The Swiss in a referendum have banned by a 57.5 percent margin the construction of minarets. The Swiss government was against the idea. The UN has (of course) deplored the vote's result. And, (again no shock) most published Arab and Muslim opinion is dead against it as well.

While the elites of Europe bemoan this lack of cross cultural sensitivity, the hoi polloi have voted for keeping their little part of Europe, well, European. It is hard if not impossible to accuse the Swiss of prejudice or racism given the way in which their tidy nation has allowed for complete sectarian peace for over five hundred years, but the accusations will--and are--being made nonetheless.

The Muslim press of the Mideast has made the charge that the Swiss and, therefore, by implication all Europeans are practicing a double standard in that they uphold the freedom of speech but oppose cultural items such as minarets and burquas. Of course, the difference between the two matters is palpable.

Then there is the unpleasant and equally uncommented upon reality that Muslim states prohibit the construction of churches, or other non-Muslim religious structures. They fail to note that the Swiss have not banned the building or use of mosques, merely towering minarets. Likewise the critics fail to note all the Muslim countries including some which purport to be democracies prohibit even the use of public buildings for purposes of worship.

The double standard swamp seems to be located more in the Mideast than in Europe. Not that this ground truth will inhibit the same countries from seeking to limit global freedom of expression in the name of protecting religion from criticism.

There it is. One more day of mucking about in the mud of the world, trying to keep one's head above the cloying waters. Will tomorrow be any different? Any better? Any more filled with firm ground and dry boots? Not in this lifetime, bucko.

The Towers Of Switzerland

The Geek has to admit he has never been comfortable when visiting Switzerland. The place is just too darn neat and orderly. He always had the sneaking suspicion that should he drop a gold bar on the street in Geneva he would return to find it not only guarded by a cop, but the cop would be ready to give a ticket for littering.

Now the Swiss government has given the Geek another reason not to spend his (nearly valueless) dollars in this land of peace, prosperity and utterly rapacious bankers. The Federal Government has shown itself to be comprised of spineless yokels bereft of both reason and a trust in the Swiss population.

Uh, kind of harsh, aren't you, Geek?

No. Not at all.

The Swiss Federals have come out against the right wing SVP sponsored referendum to ban minarets in the country. There are roughly 350,000 Muslims in a population of over seven and a half million. Most of these come from Turkey and former Yugoslavia.

Of the ninety mosques in Switzerland only two have minarets with a third planning to build one. None are used for the five times a day call to prayers.

The Swiss foreign minister threw an immediate hissy fit declaring that the referendum, if passed, would lead to a security risk by provoking Muslim anger. See this the following site: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4304838.ece.

The spokesman for the curiously named Swiss Association of Muslims for Secularism called the proposed referendum an attack on Islam and a violation of the Swiss Constitution. Well! I'll be, exclaims the Geek.

The minaret is not a requirement in Islam. There are plenty of mosques without this adornment. Eighty-seven in Switzerland alone. The first minarets didn't appear until nearly a hundred years after the death of Mohammad.

They came about because in the days before electronic amplification there was a need for height if the call to prayer was to be heard throughout the village. No problem with that. Form follows function as in so many architectural innovations.

Later as the Muslim overlordship was extended and the concept of dhimmi status was put into practice, the minaret changed its function. Rather, to err on the side of accuracy, it added an additional function--the physical demonstration to Christians and Jews of Muslim supremacy.

The SVP was historically accurate when it described the minaret as being a symbol of political status and authority. That's what it started as. And that is what it still is, particularly in multi-religious societies such as Switzerland.

The minaret controversy is not limited to Switzerland. In Germany both right wing parties and the Catholic church are exercised over the proposal to build a set of 160 foot tall minarets at the new Cologne mosque. The minarets would be taller by some feet than the spires of the famed Koln Dom.

Sweden, France, Italy, Austria and Slovania have also seen citizen protests against the building of minarets. The political elites in each of these countries have done the same as the Swiss government--run for the hills of multi-cultural celebration and hidden in the tall timbers of don't-provoke-the-Muslims-they-have-bombs.

It is in the nature of political elites to distrust the hoi polloi of their countries. (Think of the recent Irish rejection of the new EU constitution.) It is in the nature of today's political elites whether in Europe or the US to embrace the totems of globalism and the fetishes of multi-culuralism. It is also in their nature to deprecate as being in the great unwashed and unenlightened those citizens who do not slavishly agree.

Minarets are fine in the Mideast. Fine in Turkey. The Geek has seen them in their natural habitat as being one with the rest of the physical society. Likewise he has seen the onion domes of Russia and Eastern Europe. They look fit and proper there.

But, a towering phallic symbol in a Swiss village? Give me a break! Sez the Geek.

And, he adds, show me how to join up with the SVP