Switzerland set to ba Islamic Minarets

[Furrowed Brow]

Switerzland have just voted and exit polls suggest that they have voted for a ban on the building of islamic minarets.

BBC link

One reason for the proposed ban given is that Sharia law is incompatible with Swiss Democracy.

Is this correct? Or are the Swiss guilty of descrimination?

[TrueReligion]

No, but the fact that you think the ban is racist indicates that if something goes against Islam, it is racist. Non-native peoples should not treat the ban as racist.

Also, as stated previously, when groups of a religion proclaim to destroy Europe unless it converts to Islam - it probably gives people a bad impression of Muslims, and people may think that Muslims seek to take over Europe - hence why there are more barriers to Islam in Europe, such as this minaret ban in Switzerland.

This last statement is just your assumption, not a bse of BAN on Minaret, dont forget Islam was major part of Europe 1 time, until crusaders.
But ofcourse, just making BAN on Minaret did'nt justify this statement, beside your assumption, any more likely explanation you can give for the BAN, which is given by commitee? because till now no proper justification is given.

I've already provided quotes from the committee on their reason for the ban, and you still ask me for evidence/explanations. We've already discussed the points raised by the committee, I see no reason to repeat that part of the discussion.

In fact, the point I raised doesn't even require "evidence" - it should be self evident.
Here's why:
If you see large groups of Muslims protesting to kill Europeans and bring a second holocaust, you're not going to have a good opinion of them are you? So, rather than have an outright ban on Muslim buildings, banning one construction is a way of the people voicing their opposition to the trend that is going on. Of course, this is only my opinion, but if I gave you quotes from the committee earlier, and they were only the opinion of the committee.
However, in a democracy opinions matter.

Keep aside your comments, its not part of our discussion or this post.

For comittee remarks, I told already, that these remarks does;nt justify ban of Minaret, every neutral person will say its only religious discriminition, nothing else, which you dont want to accept.
Further you also know that the majority of people who voted are christians, so that is also a point, that christians in enemity with Muslims, dont want any Muslim identity, this is also another case of religious discriminition.

Only point which we are proving here, by the action of Swiss commitee, that its only religious discrimition, no other reason behind that,

[TrueReligion]

From Post 86:

About the BAN on Minaret, as its proven that its more a arab symbol of building, the main part of worshiping place is Masjid (Mosque), which is not BAN.

Folks who don't live in Arab countries are less likely to appreciate Arab inspired architecture. To say this is discrimination doesn't accurately reflect that folks can be proud of their own culture, and seek to have it as the predominant architecture.

Is this reason given by the comittee for ban of Minaret? can you confirm please? or its just your comments?

Now till now no one here could prove clearly what is the real reason of BAN of Minaret, all are giving their own assumptions, but all assumptions are relating it to terrorism, which is surprised, as Ive seen all the posts of persons replying here, that they have very limited knowledge of Islam.

When one's only connection to Islam is daily reports of terrorism, it's not surprising they'd think in such a fashion.

Can you prove for this? or its only a funny and childish remark?
Also, same remarks can be used by Muslims to others as well, with proof ofcourse

But, I would only like to ask all of you, whoever wants to give reason, what was the cause of this label which was put on Muslims "Terrorism"?

This only started after 9/11. and before this, I never heard about this label, did any1 of you heard this much?

You don't get out much, do you? Terrorism has occurred before and after 9/11.

No proper justified remark, ignored ofcourse

For 9/11 issue, I can give several arguments and explanations, what is the reality of that, but I know you people will not be convinced, as all of you believe your own media rather than truth and wats hapening in rest of the world.

I reject any notion that flying planes full of innocents into buildings full of innocents is justified. I would admit to the notion that "all's fair in love and war", but consider such to be the act of cowards and criminals. Had they flown into the White House (sans innocents) I'd have a different opinion, considering it a legitimate act of war.

How we can uncouple religious terrorists from their religion is beyond my comprehension.

Any proof of people in that plane? Any proof who was flying the plane? or making your claim from cnn or US-Govt only?

Waiting for any good reply now, and please, make this debate neutral and healthy, bringing flamable remarks, will just prolong this debate, and bring more hatred among every1, which is not a reason we all are here.

I really do 'preciate the sentiment here.

IMO, Islam has a terrible reputation, and more discussion between the various parties could lead to a better understanding. I agree my perspective is influenced by what news reaches me, and so any time we can hear from those outside the mainstream I think we can gather better, fuller information.

My main point is that folks are comfortable within their own cultures. This includes those Arabs that live in other cultures, and their legitimate desire to build according to their own culture. To say objections to such are racially/religiously motivated misses the mark, but can be a factor.

Would an Arab city be happy if some African culture came in and started building grass huts* in the center of downtown? I think not, and for legitimate reasons, biased only by an appreciation for one's own culture. *NOT that this is a sole attribute of African cultures, but an admittance that some do live in grass huts and are rightly proud of their own way of life.

Its not a justified answer here, that the people of 1 culture, should not make in other place,
I would accept your this remarks, if Switzerland Govt. BAN every other religion architecture in the country, which include China, Japan, India etc etc, but did it happen? so why only for Muslims?

[VermilionUK]

Any proof of people in that plane? Any proof who was flying the plane? or making your claim from cnn or US-Govt only?

I think it would be best to leave conspiracy theories out of this.
What next, the Illuminati taking over the world?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 96:

Folks who don't live in Arab countries are less likely to appreciate Arab inspired architecture. To say this is discrimination doesn't accurately reflect that folks can be proud of their own culture, and seek to have it as the predominant architecture.

Is this reason given by the comittee for ban of Minaret? can you confirm please? or its just your comments?

It's presented as a reasoned, logical statement. Of course I can't speak for the committe, but I can try my best to point out how or why their decisions may come about. If the committee declared such as "No Muslim icons because we hate Muslims", I'd stand with you in protest.

When one's only connection to Islam is daily reports of terrorism, it's not surprising they'd think in such a fashion.

Can you prove for this? or its only a funny and childish remark?
Also, same remarks can be used by Muslims to others as well, with proof ofcourse

Reason and logic. And I agree, Muslims who're presented a daily stream of negativity against others are likely to think negatively of others. As I mentioned later in that post, this is one reason I think it is important, and I 'preciate your being here - so we get a different perspective. My personal opinion is that us discussing this issue in polite terms (even if some of it is inflammatory) shows that both sides of an issue can disagree, but that by trying to understand one another we come to a better understanding of what is important to either side. On that note I commend you for not lashing out at talk of Muslim extremists, but considering my perspective as otherwise legitimate.

You make a sound case against this ban. For one, you show the minaret is important to the people, and not so much the religion. I agree if you say, "This ban is wrong because the minaret is important to Arabs (and even Muslims)", but I'd disagree if you say, "This ban is solely racial / religious discrimination".

>on the 9/11 attacks<

Any proof of people in that plane? Any proof who was flying the plane? or making your claim from cnn or US-Govt only?

Oh please. There's the list of passengers, phone calls from the plane, and the fact that many folks reported their loved ones being on these planes, but not arriving at their destinations.

Your point about how I got my information is somewhat valid, but I think you're really just speaking in probabilities, and not understanding my point. The news / government gave me - if me only - reason to think there were Arab Muslims responsible. Regardless of whether this is accurate or not, here I am. So, I (if wrongly) have a fear of Arab Muslims (really just the extremists), and so I might object to what I consider Arab Muslims' influence on my life / architecture. Again - right or wrong - "perception is reality". All my information - right or wrong - informs my decision making.

It's not about the veracity of one's information so much as it is what conclusions they draw and how they act.

For the record, I don't see the minaret as a problem, but I also don't think banning them is such a clear-cut example of racial / religious discrimination. Based on the above - right or wrong, if I see the minaret as a symbol of something I abhor (religious extremism), I can hate that symbol and still respect the many people who respect that symbol, but don't commit violent acts.

...Would an Arab city be happy if some African culture came in and started building grass huts* in the center of downtown?...

Its not a justified answer here, that the people of 1 culture, should not make in other place,

I agree, and thank you for pointing that out. My intent is to show that such bans may be about one's culture / architecture, and not an out and out example of racial/religious discrimination. I hate rap music. Hate it. Will not let it be played in my house. Do I hate black folks? (Work with me here, we all know a lot of black folks - among others - love the rap music, and God love 'em for it)

Here we gotta consider - A large Arab Muslim population moves in. Their architecture is different, and folks can consider the architecture separate from the Arab, from the Muslim, and separate from the Arab Muslim. They might see a minaret as an "invasion" of architecture moreso than an "invasion" of Arabs, Muslims, etc.

You are perfectly correct in pointing out the potential for this being a racial / religious discrimination issue. This point we should include in possible reasons behind such bans, but we can't say this is the only reason.

I would accept your this remarks, if Switzerland Govt. BAN every other religion architecture in the country, which include China, Japan, India etc etc, but did it happen? so why only for Muslims?

I lack the information necessary for an informed response here. What stats can we use to compare objections to say Pagoda architecture to these minarets? I would agree that allowing say a cross on top of buildings, but not a Muslim icon is such discrimination. But you yourself have said the minaret is not a religious symbol, but a symbol of one culture's architecture.

Is the ban on minarets a discrimination against a culture or style of architecture? Perhaps. Is it a clear example of racial / religious discrimination? I don't think so.

[TrueReligion]

Any proof of people in that plane? Any proof who was flying the plane? or making your claim from cnn or US-Govt only?

I think it would be best to leave conspiracy theories out of this.
What next, the Illuminati taking over the world?

As you say Sir

[TrueReligion]

From Post 96:

Folks who don't live in Arab countries are less likely to appreciate Arab inspired architecture. To say this is discrimination doesn't accurately reflect that folks can be proud of their own culture, and seek to have it as the predominant architecture.

Is this reason given by the comittee for ban of Minaret? can you confirm please? or its just your comments?

It's presented as a reasoned, logical statement. Of course I can't speak for the committe, but I can try my best to point out how or why their decisions may come about. If the committee declared such as "No Muslim icons because we hate Muslims", I'd stand with you in protest.

Friend, already this post have gone very far beyond topic, so please if you can just stuck to comitee remarks.

When one's only connection to Islam is daily reports of terrorism, it's not surprising they'd think in such a fashion.

Can you prove for this? or its only a funny and childish remark?
Also, same remarks can be used by Muslims to others as well, with proof ofcourse

Reason and logic. And I agree, Muslims who're presented a daily stream of negativity against others are likely to think negatively of others. As I mentioned later in that post, this is one reason I think it is important, and I 'preciate your being here - so we get a different perspective. My personal opinion is that us discussing this issue in polite terms (even if some of it is inflammatory) shows that both sides of an issue can disagree, but that by trying to understand one another we come to a better understanding of what is important to either side. On that note I commend you for not lashing out at talk of Muslim extremists, but considering my perspective as otherwise legitimate.

You make a sound case against this ban. For one, you show the minaret is important to the people, and not so much the religion. I agree if you say, "This ban is wrong because the minaret is important to Arabs (and even Muslims)", but I'd disagree if you say, "This ban is solely racial / religious discrimination".

What I said is, for the remarks VUK, "that the BAN is due to pollitical power taking over Switzerland,"
So you consider it logical or acceptable? ofcourse its not true and can;t be true, and what Minaret has do to with this remarks?
Hope you uunderstand my point, I do accept that my englishis not good enough like you people, as its not my native language, but I do try best to deliver my expressions

>on the 9/11 attacks<

Any proof of people in that plane? Any proof who was flying the plane? or making your claim from cnn or US-Govt only?

Oh please. There's the list of passengers, phone calls from the plane, and the fact that many folks reported their loved ones being on these planes, but not arriving at their destinations.

Your point about how I got my information is somewhat valid, but I think you're really just speaking in probabilities, and not understanding my point. The news / government gave me - if me only - reason to think there were Arab Muslims responsible. Regardless of whether this is accurate or not, here I am. So, I (if wrongly) have a fear of Arab Muslims (really just the extremists), and so I might object to what I consider Arab Muslims' influence on my life / architecture. Again - right or wrong - "perception is reality". All my information - right or wrong - informs my decision making.

For Plane controversy, as VUK said, lets leave it, as its very controversial issue, so I will just leave it without making any comment.
For your fear of arabs, I would recommend you to travel to any Arab country, UAE, QATAR, BAHRAIN, KUWAIT, etc etc, and see yourself whats the reality.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 043AAEyKCq


It's not about the veracity of one's information so much as it is what conclusions they draw and how they act.

For the record, I don't see the minaret as a problem, but I also don't think banning them is such a clear-cut example of racial / religious discrimination. Based on the above - right or wrong, if I see the minaret as a symbol of something I abhor (religious extremism), I can hate that symbol and still respect the many people who respect that symbol, but don't commit violent acts.

...Would an Arab city be happy if some African culture came in and started building grass huts* in the center of downtown?...

Its not a justified answer here, that the people of 1 culture, should not make in other place,

I agree, and thank you for pointing that out. My intent is to show that such bans may be about one's culture / architecture, and not an out and out example of racial/religious discrimination. I hate rap music. Hate it. Will not let it be played in my house. Do I hate black folks? (Work with me here, we all know a lot of black folks - among others - love the rap music, and God love 'em for it)

Here we gotta consider - A large Arab Muslim population moves in. Their architecture is different, and folks can consider the architecture separate from the Arab, from the Muslim, and separate from the Arab Muslim. They might see a minaret as an "invasion" of architecture moreso than an "invasion" of Arabs, Muslims, etc.

You are perfectly correct in pointing out the potential for this being a racial / religious discrimination issue. This point we should include in possible reasons behind such bans, but we can't say this is the only reason.

This is what I;am trying to point out ther users till now, that no justified answer is given by any1 for the BAN of Minaret, so ofcourse 1 can only think of discriminition in religion. If it say that its against the architecture of Switzerland, or due to some enviroment issue, that is justified and accepted, no one will object, right?

I would accept your this remarks, if Switzerland Govt. BAN every other religion architecture in the country, which include China, Japan, India etc etc, but did it happen? so why only for Muslims?

I lack the information necessary for an informed response here. What stats can we use to compare objections to say Pagoda architecture to these minarets? I would agree that allowing say a cross on top of buildings, but not a Muslim icon is such discrimination. But you yourself have said the minaret is not a religious symbol, but a symbol of one culture's architecture.

Is the ban on minarets a discrimination against a culture or style of architecture? Perhaps. Is it a clear example of racial / religious discrimination? I don't think so.

As I said above, the explanation given by VUK, that the reason of BAN is the religious political power to takeover Switzerland is the reason, so this is not true in anyway.
Another reason shown, that the majority of people who vote were christians, so does;nt it show 1 sided aprroach towards Islam?

Swiss ban on minarets is pure discrimination (LA-TIMES)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi ... 6123.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world ... swiss.html
The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss Peoples Party, or S.V.P., and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

[JoeyKnothead]

Swiss ban on minarets is pure discrimination (LA-TIMES)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi ... 6123.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world ... swiss.html
The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss Peoples Party, or S.V.P., and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

Point noted. From your second reference:

that the minaret ban was not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the justice minister, said the result reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies.

If not a rejection of the culture - which I've argued can be valid, then the second statement must surely be true.

I hate to admit my bigotry, but when so many atrocious acts are committed in the name of Islam, I just can't help but fear all who espouse its goals.

It goes back to the public relations and "perception is reality" issue. If so many atrocious acts weren't being committed in the name of Islam, there'd be less reason to fear its more moderate voices and icons.

I struggle with the notion that the violent extremists should no be representative, but I also can't deny my "gut feelings" regarding folks whose religion has them blowing up innocent men, women and children.

[TrueReligion]

Swiss ban on minarets is pure discrimination (LA-TIMES)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi ... 6123.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world ... swiss.html
The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss Peoples Party, or S.V.P., and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

Point noted. From your second reference:

that the minaret ban was not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the justice minister, said the result reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies.

If not a rejection of the culture - which I've argued can be valid, then the second statement must surely be true.

I hate to admit my bigotry, but when so many atrocious acts are committed in the name of Islam, I just can't help but fear all who espouse its goals.

It goes back to the public relations and "perception is reality" issue. If so many atrocious acts weren't being committed in the name of Islam, there'd be less reason to fear its more moderate voices and icons.

I struggle with the notion that the violent extremists should no be representative, but I also can't deny my "gut feelings" regarding folks whose religion has them blowing up innocent men, women and children.

See, the point of blowing of people cannot be justified for the ban of Minaret, as nowhere does the comitee mention this part.

Also the majority of muslims living in Switzerland, the settled one are from Turkey, and Bosinia etc, which are far different from living of muslims from rest of the world, for example dressing and way of life etc etc.

Other point, In India, since many years christians are being targeted specially, and churches burnt up, and many other fierce torture is given to christians in India, but anything BAN for Hindus in Switzerland as well?

[JoeyKnothead]

See, the point of blowing of people cannot be justified for the ban of Minaret, as nowhere does the comitee mention this part.

Also the majority of muslims living in Switzerland, the settled one are from Turkey, and Bosinia etc, which are far different from living of muslims from rest of the world, for example dressing and way of life etc etc.

Other point, In India, since many years christians are being targeted specially, and churches burnt up, and many other fierce torture is given to christians in India, but anything BAN for Hindus in Switzerland as well?

Very good points. Your take is certainly valid, and one wonders why the fear of one group - legitimate or not - and not another. Looking strictly at the committee, I don't think they could (being politicians or equivalent) express their full thoughts, but you'd be correct in trying to get that committee to "come clean".

Just to square myself with the OP, I'd say you present a compelling case that this ban is not justifiable under the conditions presented by the committee.

I think it's safe to say the perception of Hindus within Switzerland is far different than the perception of Muslims. Even I don't fear the Hindus, but I could use more information regarding these attacks on Christians.

I really don't want my posts here to be seen as Muslim bashing, but as one man's perspective, presented as honestly and openly as possible.

[TrueReligion]

Thanks for understanding my points and giving neutral and positive remarks.