Pakistan has rightly termed the public referendum in Switzerland banning minarets in the country as „unhelpful” to the cause of promoting inter-faith harmony and tolerance. Though it may express the popular will in Switzerland, the decision to ban the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is a source of profound concern for people in the Muslim world.
The results of this referendum in Switzerland have sparked anger in the Muslim world with religious groups in Pakistan attacking the referendum as „extreme Islamophobia.” Mr. Maskuri Abdillah, the head of Indonesia’s largest Muslim group, Nahdlatul Ulama, said that the vote reflected „a hatred of Swiss people against Muslim communities”. The Egyptian government’s official interpreter of Islamic law, Mufti Ali Gomaa, denounced the minaret ban as an „insult” to Muslims and „an attack on freedom of beliefs”. These views reflect the feelings on the results of referendum across the Muslim World.
However, it is heartening to know that The Council of Europe has pointed out that the ban violates fundamental human rights protected by international treaties, specifically the European Convention on Human Rights. Even European countries like Germany, Sweden, France, and Austria have issued statements of concern, condemnation, and criticism over the referendum.
Huma Yusuf, a columnist of a Pakistani Newspaper, writes, “BIGOTED, xenophobic, reactionary, alarmist, radical, hateful, rabid: these words are more commonly used to describe extremist Muslims. But since 57.5 percent of the Swiss public voted to ban the building of any new minarets in their country, the tables have turned, and the world is wondering, who’s the radical one now?”
Referendum supporters have argued that the minaret ban was an effort to improve integration and fight extremism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sociologist and urban theorist Henri Lefebvre has argued that “monumental space offer[s] each member of a society an image of that membership, an image of his or her social visage. It thus constitute[s] a collective mirror more faithful than any personal one”. In other words, monuments mirror societies and thus help communities develop consensus and craft collective identities.
At the same time, people in Pakistan and other Muslim countries must also consider the criticism and shock of European media on the decision by Swiss voters to ban the building of minarets. For example, The Der Standard daily described the vote as the „ugly face of direct democracy”, while the Die Presse newspaper said Swiss voters had done a „disservice” to their country.
Ms. Huma concludes her article: “If Europe wants Muslims to integrate, let them have their minarets. Let them literally see themselves as part of the European landscape and know that their belonging has been concretised. Isn’t it more important that Muslims in Switzerland identify with a local articulation of their faith—whether through practice or architecture—rather than yearn for an idealised Islam that flourishes in faraway places? Without any outward acknowledgment of the fact that there are Muslims in Europe, they will feel more marginalised and socially overlooked—anything but integrated.
“In the event that the ban is overturned, the Muslim world should not rest on its laurels. Across Europe, defenders of the minaret ban have put forth the argument that Christian symbols and structures are unwelcome in Islamic countries and, therefore, that European Muslims deserve no courtesies. It is certainly true that the Muslim world’s record on tolerance and pluralism is shoddy and, in Pakistan, the hypocrisy of groups such as the Jamaat-i-Islami protesting the minaret ban is apparent. In this context, the Swiss referendum should serve as a reminder in the Muslim world, too, that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
