« Aryan Supremacy Reigns Supreme in Switzerland | Main | AKP Is Not Islamist, But Somewhat Muslimist »
December 8, 2009
Are Minarets 'Our Bayonets?'
[Originally published in Hurriyet Daily News]
The recent Swiss ban on minarets has the bad potential of being a watershed event in terms of Western-Muslim relations. Therefore, there is a lot to say about it.
First, the ban is clearly a violation of religious freedom. It would be a violation of religious freedom, too, if crosses were banned from church roofs or Magen Davids from those of synagogues. That's why the whole affair is simply a "disgrace," as a recent New York Times editorial aptly defined it.
Second, the fact that this was done in a democratic way - through a referendum - is not a justification. Democracy is not the highest political value: higher ones are freedom, human rights and justice. Democracy is valuable only when it operates within these norms. Otherwise, Jim Crow laws in the United States, which democratically established racial discrimination until 1965, would have been legitimate, too. They were not.
Bad example is no example
Third, the fact that most contemporary Muslim societies have much worse records of religious freedom is also not a justification. Yes, Switzerland is still a beacon of liberty compared to, say, the all-tyrannical Saudi Arabia, where no sanctuaries except mosques are allowed. Yes, even Turkey has a lot to be ashamed of, such as keeping the Halki Seminary unjustly and immorally closed. But Europe was supposedly a good place where such disgraces did not exist, a place that Muslim nations could be called on to take as an example.
I have personally made this case to Muslim audiences in different parts of the globe. "Would you like it," I used to ask, "if restrictions were put on Islam in the West?" Now the same question makes less sense.
Fourth, the role of racism and xenophobia in the making of this ban cannot be dismissed. The far-right Swiss People's Party, the main champion of the campaign, indeed does not hide this. One of its posters shows three white sheep kicking a black one out of Switzerland for the sake of "security." When this came out, Swiss Jewish groups said the symbolism of the poster, and its use of color, was "frighteningly reminiscent of Nazi propaganda." (So, why was it a big problem for some when the same fact was pointed out in this column? We have such racists in Turkey that we bash all the time. Why should the racists of Switzerland - or Austria, or anywhere else - be immune?)
Fifth, Swiss society as a whole, of course, cannot be held responsible. To begin with, more than 40 percent of the voters said "no" - something commendable. Some Swiss officials, intellectuals and religious leaders also did a good job raising their voices against the ban. Moreover, those who said "yes," a 57.5 percent majority, cannot all be racists. Most of them seem to have been acting out of fear rather than an ideological bias.
That fear of Islam, as I noted in my previous piece, is a big part of the issue. Moreover, it has some understandable sources. Islamism, which is a combination of Islam and modern totalitarianism, is certainly a fearsome ideology - just like any other totalitarianism. The violent offshoot of Islamism, i.e., jihadism, is much worse, for it targets innocent people to achieve its utopia. Westerners are more than justified in their concern about these two "ism"s. But they also need to understand two crucial facts:
First, not all Muslims are Islamists. The latter, in fact, is a small minority.
Second, while Islamism gets fed by cherry-picking militant themes in classic Islamic sources, it gets its real fuel from the idea that Islam is under attack and that Muslims are subject to humiliation.
The Erdoğan rhetoric
To illustrate the latter point, let's look at the famous line by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan that the Swiss People's Party picked upon: "The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army."
These words actually belong not to Erdoğan but Ziya Gökalp, the godfather of Turkish nationalism. The latter was in fact a mild and sophisticated thinker who argued for, among other things, reforms in Islamic law and Westernization. His exceptional minarets-are-bayonets line is from a heroic poem he wrote in 1912, in the midst of the Balkan War, during which not just the Ottoman military but also its civilian population were suffering very heavy losses. It was, in other words, a time of a sense of being besieged.
And when Erdoğan recited these lines in an emotional speech in 1997, Turkey was passing through one of its regular military coups, during which religious conservatives were being humiliated and threatened by the generals. It was another time of a sense of being besieged. No wonder that Erdoğan himself got imprisoned soon after.
To put it differently, what made some Turkish Muslims see the minarets as "bayonets" were the threats they faced. Otherwise, everybody knows that the minarets are only the symbol, and the source, of the call "to prayer, to salvation."
Here is the lesson to take away: One of the effective ways to fight Islamism is to convince the Muslims that the modern world respects and accepts their religious values, rather insulting or banning them.
Yet the Swiss vote, alas, did the exact opposite.
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at December 8, 2009 11:58 AM
But according to all the sources I have seen, the Minaret stanza is not present in Ziya Gökalp's poem.
The first stanza reads:
Holding my rifle in my hand, keeping my faith in my heart I wish two things: The faith and the homeland My home is the army, my sovereign is the Sultan Strengthen my Sultan, Almighty Give him long life, Almighty Our journey is our victory, the end is martrydom..
The poem Erdogan recited went as follows:
The minarets are our bayonets; the domes are our helmets Mosques are our barracks, the believers are soldiers This holy army guards my religion Almighty Our journey is our destiny, the end is martyrdom.
After this beginning, the rest of the poem was kept true to the original, except the stanza that praised the army which was taken out altogether.
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2003-10-16-senyener-en.html
Posted by: Taken at December 8, 2009 6:14 PM
MA: "But Europe was supposedly a good place where such disgraces did not exist, a place that Muslim nations could be called on to take as an example."
I'm not sure if high minded laws in Europe that have been enacted in the name of 'freedom and equality' are truly reflective of grass roots opinion today.
The prevalence of PC thinking in the media, universities etc is attacked by detractors as a sort of prevailing orthodoxy of correctness - an elitist conceit. Many Europeans are reluctant to oppose PC thinking publicly for fear of being labeled a sexist, racist, Islamophobe or other unflattering label. However it would be a mistake to presume that silence indicates agreement. Quite the contrary. In fact in the UK for example grass roots attitudes toward Islam that you might encounter in the local pub or club often comes close to the type of racist rhetoric that comes from the far right British National Party.
The bigoted, narrow minded European of the old "blood and soil" era is still very much alive and kicking and is increasingly emerging from the shadows. This is precisely where the danger lies. The Swiss vote unfortunately emboldens these xenophobes and gives reactionaries 'permission' to adopt attitudes and opinions that they may have been reluctant to express five years ago.
MA: "... not all Muslims are Islamists. The latter, in fact, is a small minority."
This of course is true. The difficulty is one of perception. There appears to be a widespread belief among many westerners that Muslims 'play a double game' i.e. present a moderate face in the media while holding to less inclusive views behind the scenes. So it's an issue of trust and misinformation that stems to a large degree from degrees of separation.
The average European has never been in a Muslim home and most probably don't have a Muslim in their circle of friends. Without a human perspective it is much easier to demonize a segment of society as 'the other'... alien and intimidating. With the stoking of fears and paranoia by right-wing groups, these anti-Muslim suspicions may deepen and lead to more madness and overreaction - which is why it is important to counter the increasingly virulent propaganda of the European far right.
Posted by: Hadji_Asvatz_Troov at December 8, 2009 10:29 PM
Well said! This article is an excellent example of nuanced and balanced journalistic writing.
Posted by: fatima visram at December 9, 2009 7:11 AM
As always, it is a pleasure to read your column, even if I have to do it from America due to injustice suffered in Turkey :-) I agree with you in every way and yet I will still make the "appalling" suggestion that the attitude demonstrated in the Swiss vote is the only thing that may help oppressive Middle Eastern countries enter the global world of the 21st century. How? It is very simple. Decades of experiencing the freedoms of the West have done almost nothing to change the fossilized views of Middle Eastern peoples towards the gayrimüslim people of the world. After living in Turkey for almost 12 years, I have come to favor the principle of reciprocity (karşılıklılık). In other words, maybe the best way to affect real change and not just get lip service and platitudes from the Middle East is to "give them a taste of their own medicine". I know that this could descend into "an eye of an eye, tooth for a tooth" conflict but in my mind the West has exhausted its options. For example, let's close and seize every Saudi mosque in America (apparently 75% of all mosques in America are funded by the Saudi government) and tell them that as soon as they allow Buddhist temples for the thousands of poor Thai and Vietnamese workers they exploit in the basest manner and allow religious freedom in general then we will allow their citizens to resume their worship here in the West.
Some people are unconvinced by logic and reason, more forceful sanctions are required to get them to acquiesce. Turkey applies the principle of reciprocity very effectively and it does not hurt their relations with anyone as far as I can tell. After all, who can complain about "fair play".
Yes, the Swiss referendum is wrong but it may be the "right" way to have people wake up to their own prejudice and hypocrisy. No Muslim in any country I know of could claim that their country affords (even after the referendum) even half of the religious freedom that will still be enjoyed by Muslim in Switzerland. It is a shame that the referendum was so symbolic and lacked substance. A more pointed law embodying the "reciprocity" I have described above would have done much more good.
Posted by: Robert Johnson at December 14, 2009 11:55 PM
Robert Johnson,
Why are you so sorry about your comments? The principle of "eye for an eye" is perfectly compatible with the allegedly "peaceful" and "tolerant" teachings of Islam. You are thinking way too much like a Westerner. Shame on you!
The Swiss referendum reminded me of another one we almost have in Ankara. The Mayor of Ankara (AKP of course) suggested that we should vote whether or not there should be "red zones" out of where alcohol consumption (and sales) would be prohibited. This referendum, he claimed, was perfectly democratic. The motto was "let the public decide democratically". I have full confidence that this law would have been accepted if the referendum was carried out. That is the AKP mentality in Turkey. We still think democracy is and should be what the majority wants.
Now, imagine the almost impossible for a moment; that we have an increasing non-Muslim population in Turkey, and are facing an increasing number of churches. This assumption already sounds impossible but lets assume so for the sake of argument. Do you think Turkey would not hold a similar referendum to that of Switzerland in the name of democracy?
Unlike Mr. Akyol, I would like to offer a diffeent lesson to take away: The Western world does not have an obligation to convince Muslims for anything. The Muslim world should revisit their values for there apparently something is wrong with them (and believe me they all know what they are). I will give you a hint: they must, for example, respect their own believers, women in particular, to request respect from others. The mainstream Islamic teachings have a hard time grasping the non-linear (and mostly positive) correlation between the amount of clothing and the sexual urge. Two approaches solve this problem, however. Education and banning. The path to a respectful co-existence requires the adoption of the former.
Posted by: cingoz at December 23, 2009 6:17 AM
Muslims should not adopt Enlightenment values simply because of the model of any European country. Muslims should adopt Enlightenment values because they believe that tolerance, liberty and freedom are valuable ends in themselves.
The example of Switzerland is irrelevant.
In any case, Muslims have a long, long way to go before they can lecture the nations of Christendom on liberty. Muslims have demonstrated by their ridiculous violence and mayhem over a cartoon that even such a simple concept as a journalist's right to the freedom of speech is far beyond them.
Posted by: Ray Voss at January 5, 2010 5:17 AM