The Switzerland Minaret Prohibition Christian Fanaticism and Idiocy
Dominic Asquith, British Ambassador to Egypt
The result of the Swiss referendum about whether those building mosques in Switzerland should be allowed to erect minarets has raised again the question in the minds of many whether this is "proof" of an inevitable conflict between the West and Islam. Those who want to emphasise the differences between Islam and western civilisation have jumped on the result to argue that there can be no coexistence. What has struck me, however, is how thoughtful, in many cases self-critical, the commentary has been in the media. This is important, because how Muslims react - whether in the West or in countries where there is a majority of Muslims - will influence the future relationship.
Fawzia al Ashmawy, the head of the Egyptian community in Switzerland and of the Euro-Muslim Institute, was clear in her advice to governments and religious establishments. "Don't interfere or exaggerate," she said. Muslims in Switzerland enjoyed their rights and wanted to be left to solve the problem without unhelpful demagogic statements. It was the price of living in a "genuine democracy". Muslims weren't being prevented from worshipping. H. A. Hellyer (a professor of law at the American University of Cairo and an associate fellow at Warwick University), who is an expert on Muslim communities in Europe, commented that Muslim populations in the West "are in the heart of modernity and understand it far better than their Eastern counterparts."
The Presidency of the European Union, the European Commission against Racism, the Vatican, Amnesty International have all criticised the referendum.
Alaa al Aswany understandably argued that, while the referendum might be the result of a democratic process, it nevertheless contravened human rights principles. Why in a democratic country did a majority of those who voted want to deny only to Muslims the right to build a visible symbol of their faith? Again understandably, he was worried about the reaction elsewhere in Europe, drawing attention to the apparent support of the French President for the referendum's result.
However, he went on to pose the key question: why did the Swiss vote as they did? His answer was that it reflected a fear of Islam in Swiss society and that Muslims were to a great extent responsible for that fear. "Some terrorist criminals, such as Usama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, have distorted the image of Islam in the minds of millions of westerners."
This was a theme developed by Mustafa Kamel el Sayed, who had spent ten years in Switzerland so can be assumed to understand the culture. "We must admit," he said, "that the conduct of some political Islam currents has contributed to portraying a negative picture of Islam." He listed as examples: bombings in Paris, Madrid and London; 40,000 women punished for wearing trousers in Sudan; depriving women of their civil rights in most Gulf countries.
However, it is not enough just to condemn the referendum result; we have to try and understand the reasons for it. Many have identified a "crisis of identity" there, as Europeans see their own traditions and culture having to make room for others'.
Almost four hundred years ago, the British poet Milton wrote of hypocrisy that it was "the only evil that walks invisible, except to God alone". One of the outcomes of this debate has been to expose some of the hypocrisy that exists in communities, in Europe and outside. Hypocrisy and the failure to apply standards consistently is the most prominent common feature of those who have adopted extreme views in this debate. Personally I believe it is the main barrier to understanding in what has been called the intercultural dialogue. We are all vulnerable to the accusation. It makes no sense to criticise intolerance in some majority Muslim countries of religious freedom, and then undermine those principles at home. But I also believe that hypocrisy is a fault less common in the young than the old. Which is why I agree with those who have argued that continuing that dialogue just between clerics and intellectuals on both sides, while necessary, is insufficient. We need to expand it by including a much greater variety of society.
I have given examples of some of the thoughtful comments I have read. All of them were from people who have first hand experience of a society outside the one they were born into. There needs to be a thoughtful response from Europe also. And there has been. The Presidency of the European Union, the European Commission against Racism, the Vatican, Amnesty International have all criticised the referendum.
However, it is not enough just to condemn the referendum result; we have to try and understand the reasons for it. Many have identified a "crisis of identity" there, as Europeans see their own traditions and culture having to make room for others'. In a recent opinion poll carried out by a French newspaper, 54% of French people think Islam is incompatible with their society. But the implications don't just affect those living in France. They affect us all. Assertion of rights by either party to a dispute requires extraordinary sensitivity. Maintaining the balance between respect for a culture you are entering and acceptance of those who come and make their lives in your society is a challenge that confronts each one of us every day - whether we are among those who move around the world to make a living, or those who remain in their country of birth throughout their life. The principle that must guide us is the title of this piece.
I can't pretend Britain is perfect in this respect, but it seems to be making progress. An opinion poll just published, which the Soros foundation has spent the past two years compiling, reports that 78% of British Muslims identified themselves as British, a figure which rose to 94% among those who were born in the UK. The equivalent figure for France was 49% and for Germany 23%.
The result of the Swiss referendum about whether those building mosques in Switzerland should be allowed to erect minarets has raised again the question in the minds of many whether this is "proof" of an inevitable conflict between the West and Islam. Those who want to emphasise the differences between Islam and western civilisation have jumped on the result to argue that there can be no coexistence. What has struck me, however, is how thoughtful, in many cases self-critical, the commentary has been in the media. This is important, because how Muslims react - whether in the West or in countries where there is a majority of Muslims - will influence the future relationship.
Fawzia al Ashmawy, the head of the Egyptian community in Switzerland and of the Euro-Muslim Institute, was clear in her advice to governments and religious establishments. "Don't interfere or exaggerate," she said. Muslims in Switzerland enjoyed their rights and wanted to be left to solve the problem without unhelpful demagogic statements. It was the price of living in a "genuine democracy". Muslims weren't being prevented from worshipping. H. A. Hellyer (a professor of law at the American University of Cairo and an associate fellow at Warwick University), who is an expert on Muslim communities in Europe, commented that Muslim populations in the West "are in the heart of modernity and understand it far better than their Eastern counterparts."
The Presidency of the European Union, the European Commission against Racism, the Vatican, Amnesty International have all criticised the referendum.
Alaa al Aswany understandably argued that, while the referendum might be the result of a democratic process, it nevertheless contravened human rights principles. Why in a democratic country did a majority of those who voted want to deny only to Muslims the right to build a visible symbol of their faith? Again understandably, he was worried about the reaction elsewhere in Europe, drawing attention to the apparent support of the French President for the referendum's result.
However, he went on to pose the key question: why did the Swiss vote as they did? His answer was that it reflected a fear of Islam in Swiss society and that Muslims were to a great extent responsible for that fear. "Some terrorist criminals, such as Usama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, have distorted the image of Islam in the minds of millions of westerners."
This was a theme developed by Mustafa Kamel el Sayed, who had spent ten years in Switzerland so can be assumed to understand the culture. "We must admit," he said, "that the conduct of some political Islam currents has contributed to portraying a negative picture of Islam." He listed as examples: bombings in Paris, Madrid and London; 40,000 women punished for wearing trousers in Sudan; depriving women of their civil rights in most Gulf countries.
However, it is not enough just to condemn the referendum result; we have to try and understand the reasons for it. Many have identified a "crisis of identity" there, as Europeans see their own traditions and culture having to make room for others'.
Almost four hundred years ago, the British poet Milton wrote of hypocrisy that it was "the only evil that walks invisible, except to God alone". One of the outcomes of this debate has been to expose some of the hypocrisy that exists in communities, in Europe and outside. Hypocrisy and the failure to apply standards consistently is the most prominent common feature of those who have adopted extreme views in this debate. Personally I believe it is the main barrier to understanding in what has been called the intercultural dialogue. We are all vulnerable to the accusation. It makes no sense to criticise intolerance in some majority Muslim countries of religious freedom, and then undermine those principles at home. But I also believe that hypocrisy is a fault less common in the young than the old. Which is why I agree with those who have argued that continuing that dialogue just between clerics and intellectuals on both sides, while necessary, is insufficient. We need to expand it by including a much greater variety of society.
I have given examples of some of the thoughtful comments I have read. All of them were from people who have first hand experience of a society outside the one they were born into. There needs to be a thoughtful response from Europe also. And there has been. The Presidency of the European Union, the European Commission against Racism, the Vatican, Amnesty International have all criticised the referendum.
However, it is not enough just to condemn the referendum result; we have to try and understand the reasons for it. Many have identified a "crisis of identity" there, as Europeans see their own traditions and culture having to make room for others'. In a recent opinion poll carried out by a French newspaper, 54% of French people think Islam is incompatible with their society. But the implications don't just affect those living in France. They affect us all. Assertion of rights by either party to a dispute requires extraordinary sensitivity. Maintaining the balance between respect for a culture you are entering and acceptance of those who come and make their lives in your society is a challenge that confronts each one of us every day - whether we are among those who move around the world to make a living, or those who remain in their country of birth throughout their life. The principle that must guide us is the title of this piece.
I can't pretend Britain is perfect in this respect, but it seems to be making progress. An opinion poll just published, which the Soros foundation has spent the past two years compiling, reports that 78% of British Muslims identified themselves as British, a figure which rose to 94% among those who were born in the UK. The equivalent figure for France was 49% and for Germany 23%.
Comments
Post a Comment