- Human RightsIslamic Issues
- December 3, 2009
- 39 minutes read
The 61st Universal Human Rights Anniversary under the Swiss “abolishment” of Minarets building in Mosques
The 61st Universal Human Rights Anniversary coincides with the Swiss referendum for the abolishment of Minarets and building of Mosques. There is immense resentment among Muslims, and non Muslims, Human Rights defenders and the public opinion.
Switzerland is renowned as the human rights country where the human rights conventions and texts were born. Basically the Geneva Convention called for the freedom of religious right and this referendum is a conflict in itself.
After 61 years of calling for defense and the practice of human rights values all over the world, Switzerland has issued the decision for a pejorative and non coexisting oriented practice against a particular community namely the Muslims where it concretely amended the constitution with 57,5% “approval” votes taken on 29 November, 2009 for banning minarets. A launched campaign for a forced referendum based on collecting 100,000 signatures from voters started on May 1st, 2007 insisted on by a group of right-wing politicians mainly from the Swiss People’s Party and the Federal Democratic Union, the former presently being the largest party in the Swiss parliament .
Switzerland has a population of 8 million, of which around 400,000 people practice Islam. Islam is the second most popular religion there. According to studies there are only 4 minarets in the country.
The banning of minarets shows that these introducers of the referendum plans to promote more than just the banning of minarets
How can a distinguished country like Switzerland which is known as a country of ”peace and stability" based on its non involvement in other country’s disappointingly initiates the calling for such delicate restriction on the level of Muslims religious freedom : attacking religious freedom practice.
A mosque has always been built with a minaret so why is it that they call for its banning. Whether in Switzerland or in any other place in the world, it is the legitimate right to choose one’s religion promoting religious freedom right.
Blame is strongly made to Swiss citizens who voted for such “mantrap” where they are called to review their position and by having accepted to “insult” Muslims this easily gives further negative opportunities to extremists to destroy the distinguished image that Switzerland was benefiting from towards Muslims all over the world. Moreover the liberated minds in this world who truly consider that religious freedom is a red line are obviously shocked by the banning of the minarets.
One of the unjust “day and night running” against Muslims and Islam in the world is the Dutch extremist right wing anti-Islamist Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders who works for the division among people and wherever Muslims exist. Wilders utilizes his tools as a “law” while war waged against religion is itself an infringement of the law and all the nations too as causing inhuman treatments, reinforcing hatred and conflicts.
Why now specifically on the 61st anniversary of the Human Rights declaration instead of promoting and encouraging integration of Muslims in Switzerland and in other countries, is their dangerous conflict encouraging stronger gaps between non-Muslims and Muslims.
Several human rights organization and associations claimed that the Swiss referendum violated freedom of religion as a discrimination on racial and religious affiliation.
In such context, we refer to the basic content of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Does it mean that such banning carried out in Switzerland is to be prototyped in other non Muslim countries? Never will Muslims tell the non Muslims that they will ban any part of their churches according to our Islamic religion in addition to the commitment of the international human rights conventions, we are respecting the others’ religious practices’ right.
How to concretely and fully respect these international law materials then?
Allah who created us differently showed us the right path and left us free: to believe or not to believe and did not force us and we also do not force non-Muslims to become Muslims.
Prejudice began with the offending caricatures in Denmark and by working on satanic caricatures as a bigoted attempt to defame our Sacred prophet Mohamed (PBUH) and Islam in general and in other countries too then appeared Geert Wilders with his disastrous film attacking our Prophet and Islam called “Fitna” all of them under the same ill pretence of freedom of expression.
Not so strange to see the same extremist right wing Dutch parliament representative expressing to the media his delight re this minarets banning in Switzerland.
Thus, any attacking campaign against Islam and Muslims announces in itself a pre-planned and harmful goal as illustrated
We from this approximate figure of 57.5% Swiss voices what follows:
That half of people in Swiss society are nowadays against freedom of religion right which is dangerous in a country known for freedoms and one needs to have an idea about the nature of the voters. The 2nd half, making some equilibrium for coexistence with Muslims as community and as Swiss citizens, they refused “banning minarets” did their duty and they deserve our respect.
Deduction: such minarets prohibition showed how the Swiss society has already been divided and that occurred under wrong, provoking and indirect hatred non- stop campaigns and if they do not review such dangerous action as disappointment expressions only are not sufficient, there will be heavier future “banning” against Muslims.
Ill-treating Muslims and restricting their freedoms can in no way be a solution for coexistence based on tolerance as you can never insult any one and say that you don’t mean to do harm to him or that you want to find a way to preserve your country or any other interests. It is not by attacking Muslims that you can have a greater number of Christians or a lower number of Muslims; this is nonsense as against humanity and reason.
but also all those who rejected such vote are to seriously work for its cancelling as causing hatred and instability in Swiss society and towards relationships with the Muslim Nation as a whole and avoid its expansion in other countries.
Just remember that minarets banning in Switzerland:
is not freedom of expression or fear from Muslims but illegal hatred campaigns against Muslims dignity whose objective is to achieve the campaigners political goal; working on such catastrophe to raise detestation between Muslims and non Muslims in the country and outside it. They exploit citizens fear in order to strengthen disgust feelings against foreigners and among their tools is the dangerous extremist misleading accusative inciting posters and various medias such as the one showing the minaret as a rocket engraved on the Swiss map?! ; incredible incoherence, we know that the rocket is used for legitimate resistance and self defense in Palestine and Gaza towards only one place Israel due to colonization and Zionists latest genocides and war crimes in besieged Gaza territory; the phosphoric holocaust and that still their rights are not recuperated from the international official institutions yet. The rockets have nothing to do with Switzerland especially that the rule says: “compare what is comparable” things are to be considered in their true contexts.
But supporters of the “banning” of minarets say they have no intention of preventing Muslims from practicing their faith and that they have nothing against Muslims why then having over expressed hatred towards them in your campaigns to increase voting voices?. This is what we call making prejudice “without leaving a trace” the answer is “then why don’t you leave them in peace?” It starts this way and ends up with more exclusion towards Muslims…
Resentment positions:
"I think Swiss Muslims will be angry and bitter over this," said Reinhard Schulze, professor of Islamic Studies at Berne University. "And we know that anger and bitterness among a community can lead to radicalization, even to militancy." Swiss move to ban minarets / By Imogen Foulkes/ BBC News, Berne/Last Updated: Monday, 28 May 2007, 09:03 GMT 10:03 UK.
—-
(*)Amnesty International said the minaret ban is a "violation of religious freedom, incompatible with the conventions signed by Switzerland."
(** )The Swiss Green party said it was contemplating lodging a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for violation of religious freedoms as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
(*) and (**) : GLOBAN NATION/Switzerland votes to ban new minarets/ By Hui-Min Neo/
Agence France-Presse First Posted 12:23:00 11/30/2009.
