Minarets and the Conditions of Umar
Dec 9, 2009
Gabriel Said Reynolds
[Editor's Note: This is the third entry in a three-part series on the Swiss minaret ban. Read the first entry here and the second here.]
The Qur’an includes Jews and Christians among the “People of the Book,” among those to whom God has revealed something of divine truth in past times. Yet Islamic tradition insists that the Jews and Christians corrupted that revelation, and laments their failure to recognize the final revelation given to Muhammad. Therefore in the ideal vision for society articulated by Islamic jurisprudence Jews and Christians are to be tolerated only by virtue of a certain contract (or dhimma) that makes them subject to a set of conditions (for which reason they are often called dhimmis). These conditions were often attributed to the caliph Umar II, who ruled the Umayyad Empire from Damascus in the early eighth century, and hence called the “Conditions of Umar.”
According to the “Conditions of Umar” Jews and Christians are to wear a distinguishing item of clothing (in a color identifying their particular religious denomination); they are forbidden to wear fine clothing, ride horses, bear arms, own a Qur’an, insult Islam, construct new churches, or build houses higher than those of Muslims. These conditions, it might be noted, address largely symbolic matters. They are not meant to annihilate Jews and Christians, as is sometimes suggested. Instead the conditions of Umar are meant to insure that Jews and Christians in no way interrupt the dominant order of Islamic society, an order shaped by the divinely reveal edicts of Islamic law.
By the new law in Switzerland Muslims can still build new mosques and they can still build tall houses, but they cannot put tall minarets, or any minaret at all, on their mosques. Now the minarets that already exist in Switzerland no longer perform the function for which they were designed. There is no broadcast of the call to prayer in Switzerland, and even if there were, a minaret would hardly be necessary. These days the call to prayer is broadcast by loudspeakers, not by a muezzin who climbs to the top of the minaret. So the issue is largely symbolic.
In recent years the Vatican has raised the question of Muslim-Christian relations in terms of reciprocity. It has demanded that Christians in the Islamic world enjoy the same liberties already enjoyed by Muslims in Europe. The legal prohibition of minarets in Switzerland might be thought of as an example of reciprocity in light of the “Conditions of Umar,” but this is certainly not the sort of reciprocity the Vatican has in mind. Not surprisingly, the Swiss bishops are opposed to this law. But both supporters and opponents of the law might be surprised to discover that it has a precedent in, of all places, Islamic tradition.
Gabriel Said Reynolds is the Tisch Family Associate Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.
Comments:
12.9.2009 | 9:42am
Camilo says:
The various arguments in this series reafirms my confidence in atheism and view of religions as the root of most evil.
12.9.2009 | 10:02am
Joel Clarke Gibbons says:
I understand the position of the Catholic Church in this, because theChurch is very conscious of the call on all Christians to be peace makers, and the action of the Swiss people is probably not going to promote peace. There is no reason that I know of, however, in Christian doctrine that would deny the Swiss people the right to make this choice.
Peace making -- if we were to extend that concept to abject submission -- is not an unqualified good, nor is it always demanded. The author of this article has stated the issue very cogently. Europe is experiencing an invasion of Islamic immigration that will change the European way of life drastically. The people have the right to defend their way of life, just as all peoples have that right. In light of what happened in Kosovo, this conflict is not going to be resolved soon no matter how sincerely the Church and some Muslim leaders work for peace.
Peace making -- if we were to extend that concept to abject submission -- is not an unqualified good, nor is it always demanded. The author of this article has stated the issue very cogently. Europe is experiencing an invasion of Islamic immigration that will change the European way of life drastically. The people have the right to defend their way of life, just as all peoples have that right. In light of what happened in Kosovo, this conflict is not going to be resolved soon no matter how sincerely the Church and some Muslim leaders work for peace.
12.9.2009 | 10:30am
Peter G says:
Dear Camilo,
You are insightful. By the way, how do you define evil, and why are these various arguments reaffirming for your atheistic faith? Do you often read First Things? Thanks.
You are insightful. By the way, how do you define evil, and why are these various arguments reaffirming for your atheistic faith? Do you often read First Things? Thanks.
12.9.2009 | 10:56am
PaulR says:
Reciprocity would be allowing churches to be built in Saudi Arabia or Turkey.
12.9.2009 | 11:39am
Camilo says:
Peter G, It's a slow day at work. I was drawn to these articles by the contretemps between David Goldman and Ross Douthat. That led me into a maelstrom of links to pieces on the issue of integration of Muslims in Europe, etc. My thought on evil is that the faith of true believers, zealotry lead to intolerance, hypocracy, deceit, dehumanization, tyranny and murder, of the soul if not the body. Witness Cardinal Egan. I don't see that the arguments are intended to create enlightment, just rationalization. I am glad to hear that the bishops in Switzerland are progressive. Certainly there has been much change in attitudes of many Christians. But we see how that has fostered a fierce backlash among the conservatives.
12.9.2009 | 12:01pm
Kirstin says:
Dear Church of the East member,
I appreciate your reply and understand your viewpoint. To this extent, I agree: we do have a mandate from above to be honest and truthful, and to be morally as consistent as possible. However, as a conservative Christian, I am not, to begin with, in agreement, with the notion that classical liberalism (not current so-called liberal political theory and practice) includes any kind of demand for total freedom across borders or for total freedom of cultural differences in a given political enclosure. The citizens of various nations, especially under the principle of democracy, ought to be free to decide to what degree they will allow cultures other than their own to encroach. And those (such as representatives of the Catholic Church) who remonstrate with the Swiss about their decision, and claim it (or imply it) a response to fear ought to look in the mirror and ask themselves if fear isn't the exact reason they are making this criticism. The Swiss do not have to relinquish their culture just so Catholics and Protestants (among others) can press their own aims to live in Islamic or other non-Christian countries. The fact is that most non-Christian countries already are far less hospitable to Christians than "Christian" or "post-Christian" countries are to them. The Swiss are holding to their God-given identity and have every right and even responsibility to do that. It is, I'll repeat, a laudable and, in this politically "correct" Western world -- brave! choice on their part.
I appreciate your reply and understand your viewpoint. To this extent, I agree: we do have a mandate from above to be honest and truthful, and to be morally as consistent as possible. However, as a conservative Christian, I am not, to begin with, in agreement, with the notion that classical liberalism (not current so-called liberal political theory and practice) includes any kind of demand for total freedom across borders or for total freedom of cultural differences in a given political enclosure. The citizens of various nations, especially under the principle of democracy, ought to be free to decide to what degree they will allow cultures other than their own to encroach. And those (such as representatives of the Catholic Church) who remonstrate with the Swiss about their decision, and claim it (or imply it) a response to fear ought to look in the mirror and ask themselves if fear isn't the exact reason they are making this criticism. The Swiss do not have to relinquish their culture just so Catholics and Protestants (among others) can press their own aims to live in Islamic or other non-Christian countries. The fact is that most non-Christian countries already are far less hospitable to Christians than "Christian" or "post-Christian" countries are to them. The Swiss are holding to their God-given identity and have every right and even responsibility to do that. It is, I'll repeat, a laudable and, in this politically "correct" Western world -- brave! choice on their part.
12.9.2009 | 12:09pm
Charles Cassil says:
Peter G. and Camilo: I have read this journal for many years, and really enjoy it. The writing is virtually always first-rate, and provides a fascinating view of thinking that is very often utterly alien to mine. Perhaps the greatest difference between my thinking and that of the writers in this journal is standards of evidence, and the label I would accept for myself is "secular," not "atheist." "Because I say something is true," or "because someone with an imposing title and/or lots of education and/or lots of followers says something is true," or "because many people have believed something is true for a very long time" (tradition), or "because it makes me feel warm all over to believe something is true," is not evidence of that thing being true.
Perhaps as good a description of evil as any is very simple--behavior that would be the direct opposite of following the golden rule--doing unto others what I would not have them unto me.
Perhaps as good a description of evil as any is very simple--behavior that would be the direct opposite of following the golden rule--doing unto others what I would not have them unto me.
12.9.2009 | 3:50pm
Fr. Tim Moyle says:
Should our approach be marked by a reciprocity which levels us at the lowest common denominator, or should we be speaking to the greater angels within our respective communities and call Islam to find the same theological understandings that have brought western civilization to our understanding of liberty of thought and belief?
To play a "tit-for-tat" game of restrictions will only lead us down a path of cultural conflict which will menace our future for generations.
We need to stand up for our rights - yes. We need to be free to believe and free to live in a manner that respects our beliefs - this is the essence of our western civilization. If we could find our way from the dark days of Christendom to our state today, both theologically and culturally, then we can be of aid to Muslims in walking the same journey within their own faith tradition.
Fr. Tim Moyle
To play a "tit-for-tat" game of restrictions will only lead us down a path of cultural conflict which will menace our future for generations.
We need to stand up for our rights - yes. We need to be free to believe and free to live in a manner that respects our beliefs - this is the essence of our western civilization. If we could find our way from the dark days of Christendom to our state today, both theologically and culturally, then we can be of aid to Muslims in walking the same journey within their own faith tradition.
Fr. Tim Moyle
12.9.2009 | 9:39pm
Joe says:
"...Call Islam to find the same theological understandings that have brought western civilization to our understanding of liberty of thought and belief?"
Lunacy.
Lunacy.
12.9.2009 | 10:04pm
Mr. Chips says:
This is not a religious issue. It is a cultural issue.
You cannot legislate culture. Culture is. The secularization of Europe has led to a situation where the average European likes the "culture of Christianity" but expects others to maintain it for him. Similar to parks and libraries, he/she likes like seeing the churches and the people going to church on his way to a day of shopping but is certainly not going to participate or contribute to that culture in a meaningful way.
The problem is that he/she, being a consumer of these cultural icons, has to take what is available and that is changing into something he/she does not want.
Governments, the key provider for the secular man cannot really help since culture cannot be legislated. State building codes are not going to change peoples habits or ways of acting or thinking.
Christians, Jews and Muslims are creators and maintainers of culture individually and as a group. Their culture stems from themselves independent of, and in spite of, the government.
The lesson here is, be an active participant in/creator of your culture or you will have to take what you get.
You cannot legislate culture. Culture is. The secularization of Europe has led to a situation where the average European likes the "culture of Christianity" but expects others to maintain it for him. Similar to parks and libraries, he/she likes like seeing the churches and the people going to church on his way to a day of shopping but is certainly not going to participate or contribute to that culture in a meaningful way.
The problem is that he/she, being a consumer of these cultural icons, has to take what is available and that is changing into something he/she does not want.
Governments, the key provider for the secular man cannot really help since culture cannot be legislated. State building codes are not going to change peoples habits or ways of acting or thinking.
Christians, Jews and Muslims are creators and maintainers of culture individually and as a group. Their culture stems from themselves independent of, and in spite of, the government.
The lesson here is, be an active participant in/creator of your culture or you will have to take what you get.
12.9.2009 | 11:30pm
Charles Cassil says:
Fr. Moyle: Many thanks for the great post. How did Christondom find its way from its dark days to our state today? Did it have outside aid, or was it dependent upon/would only accept, efforts from elements within Christondom, broadly defined? If so, might Islam also have to find its way by similar means?
12.10.2009 | 4:09am
Ars Artium says:
Pope Benedict XVI once wrote that one well-intentioned approach within the Church "left God with nothing to do". Flannery O'Connor wrote of "The Church of Jesus Christ without Jesus Christ". Although it is to be expected the contributors to this comment blog who are not believers would and should offer a secular perspective, this approach seems that of the believers as well. Do we think that God has abandoned us or that he does not act, if asked, to guide our thoughts and actions? Church leaders at the time of Christendom were indeed disabused of their political ambitions, their intrigues, their sins from within the Body of Christ, the Church. Luther, a devout believer inspired by God, wanted to purify the Church. This process is ongoing through every generation. It was present in Old Testament times as well within Judaism as it is today in that living faith. God is the source of goodness and guidance through the Holy Spirit. He also chastises severely when that is needed.
12.10.2009 | 6:22am
norman ravitch says:
While throughout its history Islam has shown less violent bigotry towards Jews and Christians than Christians have shown towards Jews and Muslims, the fact remains that Islam believes that the people of the book have serious shortcomings. The Koran attacks the "monks" and "rabbis" repeatedly for distorting God's real revelation to mankind. This is the basis of Islamic disdain towards non-Muslim monotheists; it is the basis for current attacks on western sites and individuals. In short, Islam is not really very tolerant. and it shows, unlike Christianity, little sign of moderating or changing. I agree that there should be some reciprocity between Islam and Christians before Europeans and Americans offer Muslims acceptance.
12.10.2009 | 7:37am
Bernard Wills says:
Mr. Cassil (above) makes a number of observations on the question of truth that are as eminently plausible as they are (in fact) untrue...the tenor of his comments is that tradition, authority, and sentiment are not by themselves criteria of truth and who would argue? However, a criterion of truth is not the same thing as a motive of belief or trust. I have no idea whether doctors 'know' that the H1N1 vaccine is safe; however, not owning a lab, I have little choice but to trust them on the matter or, if I am sceptical, trust the word of some expert opposed to them. Tradition is a sort of trust in the collective wisdom of the human race which I must resort to because it is simply impossible to test every belief. In the moral realm, feelings of revulsion are often far more important than reasoned arguments in determining our moral stance to the world; most of us are not Kant or Aquinas!
I raise these points because Mr. Cassil's views are typical of a certain sort of secularist rhetoric yet have been decisively undermined by the work of (among others) Polanyi, who demonstrated that feeling, authority and tradition are all intrinsic components of scientific progress.
I raise these points because Mr. Cassil's views are typical of a certain sort of secularist rhetoric yet have been decisively undermined by the work of (among others) Polanyi, who demonstrated that feeling, authority and tradition are all intrinsic components of scientific progress.
12.10.2009 | 8:58am
Fr. Tim Moyle says:
Joe,
What qualifies as "lunacy" in what I posted? Do you believe that this is a faith development that is beyond Muslims? If you do, then you have an unusual understanding of history. If you have time, explain please what you meant with your pithy response to my post.
Thanks.
Fr. Tim
What qualifies as "lunacy" in what I posted? Do you believe that this is a faith development that is beyond Muslims? If you do, then you have an unusual understanding of history. If you have time, explain please what you meant with your pithy response to my post.
Thanks.
Fr. Tim
12.10.2009 | 9:11am
Fr. Tim Moyle says:
Charles: The church was forced to move from Christendom (when the full power of the church and state were one) by societal developments outside of itself. The Enlightenment brought values to culture that framed the separation of these powers into two distinct bodies. In this it is unique from Judaism and Islamic faiths. Jacques Brauge writes on this subject in his recent book on the origins of Divine Law.
Muslims will come to their own methodology and theology to accomplish the same task as they confront cultures that will not permit the reunification of these two powers under one umbrella.
What I am arguing is that we (Christians) were able to see our way to a theology that allows for the (more or less peaceful) co-existence with civil power. We learned lessons from the exercise that can be shared with Muslim theologians who are facing this same issue today. After all, we are both monotheistic religions which have had to deal with the relationship between divine obligations and earthly contingencies.
This is what Pope Benedict is trying to do with his overtures to the Muslim community.
Fr. Tim
Muslims will come to their own methodology and theology to accomplish the same task as they confront cultures that will not permit the reunification of these two powers under one umbrella.
What I am arguing is that we (Christians) were able to see our way to a theology that allows for the (more or less peaceful) co-existence with civil power. We learned lessons from the exercise that can be shared with Muslim theologians who are facing this same issue today. After all, we are both monotheistic religions which have had to deal with the relationship between divine obligations and earthly contingencies.
This is what Pope Benedict is trying to do with his overtures to the Muslim community.
Fr. Tim
12.10.2009 | 9:11am
Donald Todd says:
I was reading about Islam and its position on dhimmis, which I had read about before in other contexts, and found someone writing disparagingly about religion and his preference for atheism in the responses to the article.
I remember reading about the official atheism of the Soviet Union;
about the manufactured starvation of the Ukraine with about 10 million victims;
of the Gulag Archipelago with its millions upon millions of victims including atheists (orthodox atheists killing heterodox atheists in a fit of atheistic purity, what a novel idea);
about the starvation exacted on the elderly of China by Mao Zedong since the agricultural revolution led to terrible shortages of food (which was common in atheist countries);
and other related events associated with atheist control over human beings including a wall with minefields, and well-manned and weaponed guard towers intended to keep people from leaving the atheist paradise;
of boats filled with people trying to get out of the Cuban wonderland and risking all that they have in that effort.
By all appearances Camilo has been on a mental vacation and missed the last century. Any arguments about the benefits to humanity of atheism and its leading practioners have been thoroughly examined and found untrue. No benefits at all unless a virtually universal and mutually shared misery is a benefit.
There are those who insist that if "they" had been in charge, this would not have happened. However how could "they" then control those whose thoughts and hearts were turned toward the transcendent, or even merely to subsistence for themselves and their children?
"They" would end up with the same gulags (easily checked in the history of the last century).
"They" would end up with the walls, minefields and guard towers,
"they" would end up with the refugees fleeing "their" atheist paradise/s,
"they" would end up with denial and provide justification for the walls and the starvation and the executions
all the while proclaiming "their" atheistic beneficience toward mankind because if atheism is true, there is no good reason not to grind your neighbors and enemies into the ground - except when "you" need them to protect "you." (See the Great Patriotic War)
I've read a lot of different authors from the Russias and the Cubas and found that those atheist paradises offered the same quality of fast or slow destruction to their citizens. It is not a road I would care to walk, even if Camilo were in charge.
I don't like dhimmitude but I like atheism even less. Atheism has a worse track record toward real human beings than does Islam. Much much worse.
I remember reading about the official atheism of the Soviet Union;
about the manufactured starvation of the Ukraine with about 10 million victims;
of the Gulag Archipelago with its millions upon millions of victims including atheists (orthodox atheists killing heterodox atheists in a fit of atheistic purity, what a novel idea);
about the starvation exacted on the elderly of China by Mao Zedong since the agricultural revolution led to terrible shortages of food (which was common in atheist countries);
and other related events associated with atheist control over human beings including a wall with minefields, and well-manned and weaponed guard towers intended to keep people from leaving the atheist paradise;
of boats filled with people trying to get out of the Cuban wonderland and risking all that they have in that effort.
By all appearances Camilo has been on a mental vacation and missed the last century. Any arguments about the benefits to humanity of atheism and its leading practioners have been thoroughly examined and found untrue. No benefits at all unless a virtually universal and mutually shared misery is a benefit.
There are those who insist that if "they" had been in charge, this would not have happened. However how could "they" then control those whose thoughts and hearts were turned toward the transcendent, or even merely to subsistence for themselves and their children?
"They" would end up with the same gulags (easily checked in the history of the last century).
"They" would end up with the walls, minefields and guard towers,
"they" would end up with the refugees fleeing "their" atheist paradise/s,
"they" would end up with denial and provide justification for the walls and the starvation and the executions
all the while proclaiming "their" atheistic beneficience toward mankind because if atheism is true, there is no good reason not to grind your neighbors and enemies into the ground - except when "you" need them to protect "you." (See the Great Patriotic War)
I've read a lot of different authors from the Russias and the Cubas and found that those atheist paradises offered the same quality of fast or slow destruction to their citizens. It is not a road I would care to walk, even if Camilo were in charge.
I don't like dhimmitude but I like atheism even less. Atheism has a worse track record toward real human beings than does Islam. Much much worse.
12.10.2009 | 9:47am
Martin Gomez says:
Re Norman ravitch's statement: "While throughout its history Islam has shown less violent bigotry towards Jews and Christians than Christians have shown towards Jews and Muslims". How can you make such a sweeping statement? If Christianity was so bigoted against the Jews, why are there so many of them today in Christian countries and very few in Islamic countries? Perhaps when the order of the day is "Kill the infidel!" you don't need much bigotry.
12.10.2009 | 10:35am
Charles Cassil says:
Mr. Wills: Many thanks for your elegant and eloquent response to my post. I really appreciate your engaging my thinking and offering us yours. I might have added that the first-rate writing I treasure in this journal includes responses such as yours to blogs, responses to blogs, etc.
Trust in the collective wisdom of the human race certainly can be useful and even necessary. I think it was Chesterfield who said something like "I cannot so much as cross a room without prejudices." I would argue that a vast portion of collective "wisdom" has been shown to be wrong, and that immeasureable suffering has been caused by determined efforts to maintain comfort zones, economic advantages, etc. in the face of compellling evidence that long-held beliefs were simply spun out of thin air. Just one example that comes to mind was the belief that many maladies are the result of an imbalance in the four humors, and that bleeding would restore the balance. How convenient that reducing the amount of blood, which was the only thing doctors could do, was just what was needed! After the doctor's "help" the patient was still sick, and anemic as well.
I am glad you mention Polanyi. His argument that aesthetics is the only advantage of the heliocentric model of the solar system over the geocentric model of the universe leaves me scratching my head in wonder. As one trained in physical science he must know the great advantage of the heliocentric model is ease of calculation. The heliocentric model and Kepler's Law make calculation of the positions of the planets child's play compared to the efforts required using the geocentric model, with its bewildering thicket of ellipsoids, reversals, etc.
Again, thanks for the elegance and eloquence of you response. Socrates spoke of the pleasures of contemplation and conversation. Intelligent, thoughtful, civil discourse is just above air in my hiearchy of needs, so I am in your debt.
Trust in the collective wisdom of the human race certainly can be useful and even necessary. I think it was Chesterfield who said something like "I cannot so much as cross a room without prejudices." I would argue that a vast portion of collective "wisdom" has been shown to be wrong, and that immeasureable suffering has been caused by determined efforts to maintain comfort zones, economic advantages, etc. in the face of compellling evidence that long-held beliefs were simply spun out of thin air. Just one example that comes to mind was the belief that many maladies are the result of an imbalance in the four humors, and that bleeding would restore the balance. How convenient that reducing the amount of blood, which was the only thing doctors could do, was just what was needed! After the doctor's "help" the patient was still sick, and anemic as well.
I am glad you mention Polanyi. His argument that aesthetics is the only advantage of the heliocentric model of the solar system over the geocentric model of the universe leaves me scratching my head in wonder. As one trained in physical science he must know the great advantage of the heliocentric model is ease of calculation. The heliocentric model and Kepler's Law make calculation of the positions of the planets child's play compared to the efforts required using the geocentric model, with its bewildering thicket of ellipsoids, reversals, etc.
Again, thanks for the elegance and eloquence of you response. Socrates spoke of the pleasures of contemplation and conversation. Intelligent, thoughtful, civil discourse is just above air in my hiearchy of needs, so I am in your debt.
12.10.2009 | 12:16pm
Peter G says:
Sorry Camilo not good enough. Did the Swiss who voted for the minaret ban do so because they are strong Christians? Isn’t it just as likely that they believe as you do that the root of most evil is religion? Is a better believer a weaker believer in every area, or just in religion? Why are Bishops who do not support the minaret ban praised as progressive? Are they less true believers than those who support the ban? Again, how does all of this strengthen your Atheism? Are all religions equal? Your remark about the conservative backlash speaks volumes that you may not intend to say… Though your second response was better than your first comment, I still find your position confusing. Respectfully, etc. (Charles –Truth? What is truth? :) )
12.10.2009 | 12:16pm
Keith Töpfer says:
The ban sounds wholly appropriate to my ears. "Sauce for the goose, etc." if you will.
12.10.2009 | 2:21pm
Charles says:
It may very well be a religious issue for Muslims and a cultural issue for the others but regardless the real issue to me is that have human rights. That is basis on which it will ultimately be settled in Swiss Supreme court or at the UN. What if the Minarets were part of a building any building, a home or a cultural centre? Does anyone seriously believe that they would have been banned unless they were in conflict with zoning or some other bylaws? In fact initially the locals had opposed the construction of Minarets on those very grounds but when the case was ultimately settled the Swiss Supreme Court approved the construction of the Mosque with Minarets in tact.
The extraordinary referendum by the nationalist Swiss People's Party had labeled minarets as symbols of rising Muslim political power that could one day transform Switzerland into an Islamic nation. In its campaign for the ban Swiss People's Party had cleverly used picture of a women wearing Burka to exploit distaste for Burka most people have and the hostile reaction it generates. The Minarets were shown as Missiles against the Swiss.
The article states that “There is no broadcast of the call to prayer in Switzerland, and even if there were, a minaret would hardly be necessary. These days the call to prayer is broadcast by loudspeakers, not by a muezzin who climbs to the top of the minaret. So the issue is largely symbolic.” There seems to be some contradiction here, the fact is that the call to prayer is not broadcasted by loudspeakers as it violates local noise by-laws, and that they simply can’t do. The issue is far from settled legally.
The extraordinary referendum by the nationalist Swiss People's Party had labeled minarets as symbols of rising Muslim political power that could one day transform Switzerland into an Islamic nation. In its campaign for the ban Swiss People's Party had cleverly used picture of a women wearing Burka to exploit distaste for Burka most people have and the hostile reaction it generates. The Minarets were shown as Missiles against the Swiss.
The article states that “There is no broadcast of the call to prayer in Switzerland, and even if there were, a minaret would hardly be necessary. These days the call to prayer is broadcast by loudspeakers, not by a muezzin who climbs to the top of the minaret. So the issue is largely symbolic.” There seems to be some contradiction here, the fact is that the call to prayer is not broadcasted by loudspeakers as it violates local noise by-laws, and that they simply can’t do. The issue is far from settled legally.
12.10.2009 | 9:37pm
Dear Kirstin,
Thanks for carrying on the conversation from the previous blog in a polite and thoughtful way. Regarding the Swiss voters who voted against the Minarets, it may very well be the case that many of them do not regard the ideals of liberalism, openness, and tolerance as a value anyhow, in which case they are off the hook as far as the argument that I was making is concerned. (For those who missed it, I was arguing that anyone who champions liberalism, openness, and tolerance as an absolute value cannot uphold the propriety of the Swiss minaret ban without forgoing both logical and moral consistency.)
I happen to agree that there are times and situations when intolerance toward alien ideas is warranted. I am not certain that I would put minarets in Switzerland into that category, but I acknowledge that this is at least arguable. As an example of something that I would definitely put into that category, I would refer to all forms of academic higher criticism of the Bible, which practically all Christian Churches and denominations have permitted to make massive inroads into the fabric of their organizations, with the academy as its principal beachhead. The leaders of these churches and denominations have on the whole been remarkably tolerant for well over 100 years now of what is in fact nothing less than a deadly and poisonous apostasy rotting out the core of Christian faith from within.
In my mind, Pope St. Pius X was doing exactly the right thing when he tried to run proponents of these ideas out of the ranks of Catholic academia and clergy in the early 20th century. My deep wish would be for Pope Benedict to follow his predecessor's example, and thunder "anathema sit!" at all manifestations of higher criticism.
And by the way, though I hold St. Pius X in very high esteem, I am not a Catholic traditionalist. Materially, at least, I am a member of the Assyrian Church of the East - better known to many as the "Nestorian Church." I believe it is the True Church of Christ.
Thanks for carrying on the conversation from the previous blog in a polite and thoughtful way. Regarding the Swiss voters who voted against the Minarets, it may very well be the case that many of them do not regard the ideals of liberalism, openness, and tolerance as a value anyhow, in which case they are off the hook as far as the argument that I was making is concerned. (For those who missed it, I was arguing that anyone who champions liberalism, openness, and tolerance as an absolute value cannot uphold the propriety of the Swiss minaret ban without forgoing both logical and moral consistency.)
I happen to agree that there are times and situations when intolerance toward alien ideas is warranted. I am not certain that I would put minarets in Switzerland into that category, but I acknowledge that this is at least arguable. As an example of something that I would definitely put into that category, I would refer to all forms of academic higher criticism of the Bible, which practically all Christian Churches and denominations have permitted to make massive inroads into the fabric of their organizations, with the academy as its principal beachhead. The leaders of these churches and denominations have on the whole been remarkably tolerant for well over 100 years now of what is in fact nothing less than a deadly and poisonous apostasy rotting out the core of Christian faith from within.
In my mind, Pope St. Pius X was doing exactly the right thing when he tried to run proponents of these ideas out of the ranks of Catholic academia and clergy in the early 20th century. My deep wish would be for Pope Benedict to follow his predecessor's example, and thunder "anathema sit!" at all manifestations of higher criticism.
And by the way, though I hold St. Pius X in very high esteem, I am not a Catholic traditionalist. Materially, at least, I am a member of the Assyrian Church of the East - better known to many as the "Nestorian Church." I believe it is the True Church of Christ.
12.11.2009 | 6:08am
bernard wills says:
Well Mr. Cassil I believe you have no reason to scratch your head in wonder....What Polanyi, Kuhn and others have said is that the simplicity of use you point to was not a feature of Copernicus' original theory which was in some ways even more cumbersome than the Ptolemaic alternative. Thus, Heliocentrism came to be accepted before it had time to establish its superiority as a theory by a process of progressive refinement. Indeed, no theory comes into the world in perfected form so that things could hardly have happened any other way. Thus, aesthetic and indeed religious criteria (possibly connected with Hermeticism and Renaissance Platonism) probably did play a role in the dissemination of the Copernican theory....
As to your other point it even if were the case that most of our tacit or informal background knowledge were wrong (a thing it would a Herculean task to demonstrate for there is so much of it!) this would not effect the necessity of relying on it.....
I congratulate you however on attending to Polanyi's argument in the way you have....one of the things that puzzles and annoys me most about the latest crop of secular apologists is their apparent refusal to contemporary philosophy and historiography of science seriously
Think of it like whacking moles....foregrounding one bit of tacit knowledge (which in many cases can and should be done) always assumes some other tacit belief elsewhere that is not examined.....all our knowledge is structured in such a way that way are attending FROM something implicit TO something explicit
As to your other point it even if were the case that most of our tacit or informal background knowledge were wrong (a thing it would a Herculean task to demonstrate for there is so much of it!) this would not effect the necessity of relying on it.....
I congratulate you however on attending to Polanyi's argument in the way you have....one of the things that puzzles and annoys me most about the latest crop of secular apologists is their apparent refusal to contemporary philosophy and historiography of science seriously
Think of it like whacking moles....foregrounding one bit of tacit knowledge (which in many cases can and should be done) always assumes some other tacit belief elsewhere that is not examined.....all our knowledge is structured in such a way that way are attending FROM something implicit TO something explicit
12.11.2009 | 7:34am
norman ravitch says:
To Martin Gomez: everyone knows that the record of Islam towards Jews was much better than the record of Christendom. Why so many Jews in Europe and not in Muslim lands? Well, first Islam was more attractive, less offensive to Jews than Christianity and there was a good deal of conversion to Islam among Jews. The Jewish elimination from Arab lands was a result of anti-Zionism rather than religious oppression.
I am not claiming Islam is inherently more tolerant, only in a certain period of history.
I am not claiming Islam is inherently more tolerant, only in a certain period of history.
12.11.2009 | 8:24am
Camilo says:
Peter G. I would not speculate about the motives of the Swiss vogters or what they believe - and I would say that it is better to be a doubter than a believer of any strength. I concede your point about the Bishops. I don't know whether they are progressive, but it appears they recognize the danger of imposing one's beliefs on another through tyranny. It is just another turn of centures of tribalism. My atheism has a lower case 'a' and it could be influenced by empirical data, but that does not apply to the realm of faith.
Mutually respectful, Camilo
Mutually respectful, Camilo
12.11.2009 | 9:52am
Fred says:
Fr. Moyle,
I don't agree that your opinion is lunacy, I do, however, believe it is probably wrong. You are comparing apples and oranges. Islam is not Christianity and Middle Eastern (not the sole, but the greatest number of Islamic) cultures are not Western European. Church and state may once have been much more entwined in our culture than they are now, but except for places like England where the church was essentially absorbed by the state, they have never been one. Going back to Christ himself--Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is God's--there has been a tension between church and state. Look at the confiscation of church property by Henry V in England, the obvious criticism of Church figures approaching anti-clericalism in Chaucer, and the civil war between the Guelphs and the Guibellenes in Italy. Going back to Mohammed himself, Islam has no such tradition. It was always designed to be an all-encompassing way of life that makes no distinction between what is Allah's and what is the Caliph's. The Caliph's job is to enforce the law of Allah. Also, Western culture from the ancient Greeks has had a democratic vein, though Western societies have certainly not always been democracies. Middle Eastern cultures have a 10000 year tradition of brutal tyrants lording over supine populations. There are historians who maintain that the Enlightenment itself would not have been possible without Christianity. It's no coincidence that Descartes was trained by Jesuits, one of Leibniz's major concerns was theodicy, and Newton was a devout Christian. Nor is it a coincidence that Islam never produced an Enlightenment. It seems to me you are applying a uniquely Western view of evolution and progress to a religion and culture to which it simply does not apply.
I don't agree that your opinion is lunacy, I do, however, believe it is probably wrong. You are comparing apples and oranges. Islam is not Christianity and Middle Eastern (not the sole, but the greatest number of Islamic) cultures are not Western European. Church and state may once have been much more entwined in our culture than they are now, but except for places like England where the church was essentially absorbed by the state, they have never been one. Going back to Christ himself--Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is God's--there has been a tension between church and state. Look at the confiscation of church property by Henry V in England, the obvious criticism of Church figures approaching anti-clericalism in Chaucer, and the civil war between the Guelphs and the Guibellenes in Italy. Going back to Mohammed himself, Islam has no such tradition. It was always designed to be an all-encompassing way of life that makes no distinction between what is Allah's and what is the Caliph's. The Caliph's job is to enforce the law of Allah. Also, Western culture from the ancient Greeks has had a democratic vein, though Western societies have certainly not always been democracies. Middle Eastern cultures have a 10000 year tradition of brutal tyrants lording over supine populations. There are historians who maintain that the Enlightenment itself would not have been possible without Christianity. It's no coincidence that Descartes was trained by Jesuits, one of Leibniz's major concerns was theodicy, and Newton was a devout Christian. Nor is it a coincidence that Islam never produced an Enlightenment. It seems to me you are applying a uniquely Western view of evolution and progress to a religion and culture to which it simply does not apply.
12.11.2009 | 10:23am
Charles says:
I am not a regular here and came here clicking a link in NP where this article has appeared. I appreciate thoughtful and respectful debate but it seems to me that in being polite or some other reason two fundamental points have been missed. First, the constitutional amendment was an extraordinary step and I cannot think of any civilized country having gone to resort to amending constitution to overrule its courts to ban essentially what is a small piece of a building that is not that dissimilar to the Minarets or Minarets like at Taj Mahal in India. India that has suffered in hands of Islamic terrorists more than any other country during this century has shown great deal of maturity and civility to its Muslim minority than some European countries. There is no denial of the fact that some if not many of the teachings of Islam extremists are barbaric and offensive as well as some crimes committed by Muslims such as rape are significantly higher than the rest of the population. It would be not only being reasonable but mandatory to come hard on the offenders. It would be reasonable to strengthen security measure to keep the extremists out of the country. But the question is how banning Minarets helps accomplish any of that or integrate Muslim population in to the rest of the society. What is mind boggling is that virtually everyone realizes that the war against Islamic terrorists cannot be won on the battle field alone without winning hearts and mind of people. Is banning Maneates going to win hearts and minds of moderate Muslims or increase their sense of isolation and drive them to the radicals.
Some have expressed reluctance to judge the motives of Swiss government in banning Maneates, by ignoring and closing eyes on how the campaign banning the Minarets was carried out. It was simply obscene showing pictures of women dressed in Burkas in as terrorists and Minarets as Missiles against the Swiss population. There was nothing short of hysteria of fear praying on racism. Not to call spade a spade is either ignorance or forwardness especially for those who are quick to judge others. I have noticed that there is a real war going on against Islamic terrorists where the Swiss are conveniently absent as they were in the war or Nazis. I guess it is a Swiss thing!
Some have expressed reluctance to judge the motives of Swiss government in banning Maneates, by ignoring and closing eyes on how the campaign banning the Minarets was carried out. It was simply obscene showing pictures of women dressed in Burkas in as terrorists and Minarets as Missiles against the Swiss population. There was nothing short of hysteria of fear praying on racism. Not to call spade a spade is either ignorance or forwardness especially for those who are quick to judge others. I have noticed that there is a real war going on against Islamic terrorists where the Swiss are conveniently absent as they were in the war or Nazis. I guess it is a Swiss thing!
12.11.2009 | 10:51am
Fr. Tim Moyle says:
Fred: Judaism and Christianity both have made peace with the societal values that allows for religious pluralism. Both of these religions grew from the same fields that produced Islam. The changes that they made were necessitated by the existence of ideas and values within the common culture that was antithetical to a theology that demands faith values be inculcated in law with the power of the state.
What I am proposing is that the same conditions now exists which poses the same challenge to Islam. Islamic faith will not be be able to overwhelm western society - no matter the demographics of the issue - so if Islam is going to exist within western culture, it will have to find a theology which will permit it to harmoniously exist in a western environment.
How they accomplish this task may be unique to Islam - just as the solutions of Christians and Jews are different from each other. But Islam must find its' own answer to these questions... and it will. It will not have a choice in the face of today's secularist societies to force its will on others.
Fr. Tim
What I am proposing is that the same conditions now exists which poses the same challenge to Islam. Islamic faith will not be be able to overwhelm western society - no matter the demographics of the issue - so if Islam is going to exist within western culture, it will have to find a theology which will permit it to harmoniously exist in a western environment.
How they accomplish this task may be unique to Islam - just as the solutions of Christians and Jews are different from each other. But Islam must find its' own answer to these questions... and it will. It will not have a choice in the face of today's secularist societies to force its will on others.
Fr. Tim
12.11.2009 | 10:54am
Peter Leavitt says:
In .Clash of Civilizations Samuel Huntington made the point that the religion of Islam was founded by the only warrior among the world's major religions. He, also, remarked that of the major civilizations Islam has historically had the bloodiest borders.
At present we are dealing with a lethal group of Islamic Jihadis who wish to impose Sharia law on the world. Few "moderate" Muslims are capable of opposing this. The Swiss voters have given a salutary message, however symbolic, to ineffectual liberals and religious idealists that the West still has the balls to stand up for Judeo-Christian civilization, however much corrupted by the secular "liberals."
At present we are dealing with a lethal group of Islamic Jihadis who wish to impose Sharia law on the world. Few "moderate" Muslims are capable of opposing this. The Swiss voters have given a salutary message, however symbolic, to ineffectual liberals and religious idealists that the West still has the balls to stand up for Judeo-Christian civilization, however much corrupted by the secular "liberals."
12.11.2009 | 11:41am
Fred says:
Again, Fr. Tim, I respectfully disagree. The secular culture in which Jews and Christians found themselves in 17th and 18th century Europe was itself an outgrowth of Christianity in which Jews had been resident for millenia. Islam has produced no such outgrowth and I doubt ever will. Not only that, but as Mr. Leavitt points out, Islamic tradition is alien and antithetical to the European tradition. I pray you are right that Islam will never be able to overwhelm European secular culture. It certainly isn't right now, but demographics is a powerful force. So are the fanaticism of the jihadis and the acquiescence to that fanaticism of both more moderate Muslims and Western European liberal multiculturalists.
12.11.2009 | 2:59pm
Outlaw_CA says:
I would like to draw your attention to the statement of The American Anti-Defamation League also released a statement condemning the ban as a "populist political campaign of religious intolerance."
"This is not the first time a Swiss popular vote has been used to promote religious intolerance," the statement read.
"A century ago, a Swiss referendum banned Jewish ritual slaughter in an attempt to drive out its Jewish population," it said. "We share the ... concern that those who initiated the anti-minaret campaign could try to further erode religious freedom through similar means."
The executive director of the American Jewish Committee said the group stands "firmly against these rabble-rousing politics in the name of pluralism and democracy.”
"This is not the first time a Swiss popular vote has been used to promote religious intolerance," the statement read.
"A century ago, a Swiss referendum banned Jewish ritual slaughter in an attempt to drive out its Jewish population," it said. "We share the ... concern that those who initiated the anti-minaret campaign could try to further erode religious freedom through similar means."
The executive director of the American Jewish Committee said the group stands "firmly against these rabble-rousing politics in the name of pluralism and democracy.”
12.12.2009 | 8:27am
Natassia says:
I really don't understand how building minarets could ever be considered a "human right." Islam is evil. Its scriptures are evil, its doctrines are evil, its prophet was evil. If a group of people (ie the Swiss) wants to limit the influence of that evil in their neighborhoods, they are morally justified in doing so. Liberalism is suicidal for tolerant nations. Eventually an intolerant, oppressive group of people will take advantage of liberal "loopholes" and will take over. I commend the Swiss for their bravery in the face of violent Muslim hypocrisy that screams "Foul!" at the minaret ban when non-Muslims, homosexuals, women, and little girls are consistently persecuted in Islamic countries.
12.13.2009 | 6:25am
Lavaux says:
Switzerland is a thoroughly secularized society. They just gave constitutional rights to plants - yes, plants for goodness sake! - and climate change skeptics are held in lower esteem than Al Qaida. If the Swiss worship anything beyond their own immediate comfort, it's nature. Therefore, the minaret ban has nothing at all to do with Christianity or the Church, and it's wise of the Swiss bishops to oppose it because their steeples and bell towers could be next on the menu.
Like the rest of western Europe, the secularized Swiss society feels, and rightly so, under siege by Muslim immigrants who won't toe the line and who make more waves than bailing buckets. I've been an expat for 15 years, and the one absolutely necessary and indispensable lesson an expat must learn is to keep his head low, his eyes open, and do as the locals do (at least when they're looking). Miraculously, Muslim expats almost uniformly reject this lesson and spend their stay rubbing the locals the wrong way, and now they're going to have to pay the price. In this I have a great deal of sympathy for the Swiss, but I don't trust their tolerance for religious faith or believe that my prayer book is entirely safe from them.
Like the rest of western Europe, the secularized Swiss society feels, and rightly so, under siege by Muslim immigrants who won't toe the line and who make more waves than bailing buckets. I've been an expat for 15 years, and the one absolutely necessary and indispensable lesson an expat must learn is to keep his head low, his eyes open, and do as the locals do (at least when they're looking). Miraculously, Muslim expats almost uniformly reject this lesson and spend their stay rubbing the locals the wrong way, and now they're going to have to pay the price. In this I have a great deal of sympathy for the Swiss, but I don't trust their tolerance for religious faith or believe that my prayer book is entirely safe from them.
12.13.2009 | 11:03am
Fr. Tim Moyle says:
Fred: I believe that you are forgetting one important element in your argument. Yes, Islam was founded as a warrior religion, and yes as a faith they have not experienced the same forces as Christianity and Judaism. But now we are talking about how Islam is going to deal with a new environment as it moves into western countries. Now, I suspect for the first time it is going to have to confront societies that HAVE already dealt with the establishment of two separate loci of power (Church and State). Now it will have to see how it can flourish in an environment that is largely secular. Now it has to deal with the allure of materialistic cultures that are very effective in seducing people away from the tenets of faith.
In short, what Islam is confronting in Europe is something new and different from what it has had to deal with before. Do not sell the forces of secularism or materialistic capitalism short. These western phenomena have battled the Christian and Jewish faiths to to best a draw over the past 400 years in Europe (and perhaps the forces of faith are even losing this battle for the hearts and minds of western citizens - at least if religious practice and values are the terms of success and failure) and they will not permit Islam to easily (or I believe successfully) impose its values. Look at the fact that in Germany parents are now being sent to prison for removing their children from state sponsored sex education classes. Do you believe that such a society is going to be toppled by the Islamic faith?
These societal forces will be far more effective that any ban of minarets. I don't know if these societal forces will ultimately bring about a positive or negative future, put I'm quite certain that it won't be an Islamic one.
Fr. Tim
In short, what Islam is confronting in Europe is something new and different from what it has had to deal with before. Do not sell the forces of secularism or materialistic capitalism short. These western phenomena have battled the Christian and Jewish faiths to to best a draw over the past 400 years in Europe (and perhaps the forces of faith are even losing this battle for the hearts and minds of western citizens - at least if religious practice and values are the terms of success and failure) and they will not permit Islam to easily (or I believe successfully) impose its values. Look at the fact that in Germany parents are now being sent to prison for removing their children from state sponsored sex education classes. Do you believe that such a society is going to be toppled by the Islamic faith?
These societal forces will be far more effective that any ban of minarets. I don't know if these societal forces will ultimately bring about a positive or negative future, put I'm quite certain that it won't be an Islamic one.
Fr. Tim
12.13.2009 | 1:39pm
JP says:
Fr Tim,
"Muslims will come to their own methodology and theology to accomplish the same task as they confront cultures that will not permit the reunification of these two powers under one umbrella.
What I am arguing is that we (Christians) were able to see our way to a theology that allows for the (more or less peaceful) co-existence with civil power. We learned lessons from the exercise that can be shared with Muslim theologians who are facing this same issue today. After all, we are both monotheistic religions which have had to deal with the relationship between divine obligations and earthly contingencies.
This is what Pope Benedict is trying to do with his overtures to the Muslim community."
I'm not so sure the Imans want what you speak of. Most Europeans Catholics stopped listening to the Pope and thier religious leaders several decades ago. Most Catholic churches in Europe are empty save Holy Night and Easter. Culturally, Europeans are Post-Christian. Morally, both Europe and North America have evolved into some sort of secular barbarism. Abortions, artificial contraception, fornication, adultery, greed, and avarice are the foundations of our pop culture (We no longer have a high culture). Increasingly, the friction between secular authorities and Christian authorities has increased (at least in the US).
Tell me, why would any Muslims want any of that? It is quite the opposite. In places like London, Brimingham, Amsterdam and Brussels, Muslims are becoming the majority. And we shall see in up coming years how the ideals of secular tolerance survive in those localities. If anything, the children and grand children in those cities may just convert to the new majority religion. At least that religion promises an antidote to the empty, shallow life of modern pop-culture and impotent Christianity.
The problem with Europe in future years and decades is the demographic decline of the natives in proportion to its Islamic minorities. Perhaps there will be a Catholic revival in future years, and perhaps all will work out as our elites promise. Perhaps enough of the Muslim minority will become just as secular and decadent as thier Christian hosts, and radical jihadism will die out due to lack of interest. We can only hope. But looking to Islam's bloody borders (Thailand, the Philippines, Nigeria, and even China), this may be a fool's dream.
Don't get me wrong, I like what you write. And in a purely abstract point of view it all makes sense. It is too bad we don't live in an abstract reality.
"Muslims will come to their own methodology and theology to accomplish the same task as they confront cultures that will not permit the reunification of these two powers under one umbrella.
What I am arguing is that we (Christians) were able to see our way to a theology that allows for the (more or less peaceful) co-existence with civil power. We learned lessons from the exercise that can be shared with Muslim theologians who are facing this same issue today. After all, we are both monotheistic religions which have had to deal with the relationship between divine obligations and earthly contingencies.
This is what Pope Benedict is trying to do with his overtures to the Muslim community."
I'm not so sure the Imans want what you speak of. Most Europeans Catholics stopped listening to the Pope and thier religious leaders several decades ago. Most Catholic churches in Europe are empty save Holy Night and Easter. Culturally, Europeans are Post-Christian. Morally, both Europe and North America have evolved into some sort of secular barbarism. Abortions, artificial contraception, fornication, adultery, greed, and avarice are the foundations of our pop culture (We no longer have a high culture). Increasingly, the friction between secular authorities and Christian authorities has increased (at least in the US).
Tell me, why would any Muslims want any of that? It is quite the opposite. In places like London, Brimingham, Amsterdam and Brussels, Muslims are becoming the majority. And we shall see in up coming years how the ideals of secular tolerance survive in those localities. If anything, the children and grand children in those cities may just convert to the new majority religion. At least that religion promises an antidote to the empty, shallow life of modern pop-culture and impotent Christianity.
The problem with Europe in future years and decades is the demographic decline of the natives in proportion to its Islamic minorities. Perhaps there will be a Catholic revival in future years, and perhaps all will work out as our elites promise. Perhaps enough of the Muslim minority will become just as secular and decadent as thier Christian hosts, and radical jihadism will die out due to lack of interest. We can only hope. But looking to Islam's bloody borders (Thailand, the Philippines, Nigeria, and even China), this may be a fool's dream.
Don't get me wrong, I like what you write. And in a purely abstract point of view it all makes sense. It is too bad we don't live in an abstract reality.
For instance, not being able to bear arms means not being able to defend one's community when a janjaweed or other "non-official" mob, on whatever pretext comes storming into the Christian quarter after Friday prayers.
Not being able to ride a horse, until the age of cars started, was a truly crippling regulation for necessary travel, not to mention the military aspect.
Deliberate descrimination with employment, etc is enabled by these "symbolic" measures and practiced regularly throughout the Muslim world even today.