Welcome to my research, musings, and rants about the recent Switzerland constitutional ban on minaret construction. As a 2010 Percival and Naomi Goodman Fellow, I am trying to get a grasp on the issues that led to the popular vote for the ban and as well as looking at larger issues of Islamic culture in Western society. Here is an excerpt from my project proposal so you can have an idea of where I am coming from:
The recent ban on minaret construction in Switzerland has propelled an ideo-theological argument directly into the realm of architecture. The translation of a religious-based non-Western architectural typology into Western society is not just one more example of globalization. In our post-9/11 world, these translations are seen increasingly as threats to the very core of Western civilization and its value systems. Given Switzerland’s reputation as a liberal, progressive country, the Swiss ban highlights the growing tensions between the Western world and Islam in what could be labeled a new type of Cold War; a seeming threat from within, hiding behind a veil of religious tolerance.
What is the power of an architectural symbol? Who and what give an architectural object the ability to communicate this power? The Egerkinger Committee, the organization behind the popular initiative to ban minaret construction, writes, “The construction of a minaret has no religious meaning. Neither in the Qur’an, nor in any other holy scripture of Islam is the minaret expressly mentioned at any rate. The minaret is far more a symbol of religious-political power claim…” Not only does the committee subvert the architectural language of Islamic architecture for their own goals, they also infer the minaret is to be understood as a symbol of religious-political power that is at odds with the very foundations of Swiss society.
A series of posters designed for the Swiss People’s Party in favor of the constitutional ban highlight the proponent’s transliteration of Islamic architecture into an anxiety-laden, fear inducing symbol. Minarets emerge from the Swiss flag in an allusion to Islamic extremism and weapons of terrorism. The minaret becomes the embodiment of a political power claim. It asserts Islam in a visual metaphor that matches the committee’s claim and works as propaganda to incite ethnic and religious divides.
This project will uncover the seemingly simple: the development of the minaret typology across various Islamic nations through the centuries. What was the original function of the minaret and what symbolic function did it serve? The Egerkinger committee argues that the minaret “expresses the will to impose a politco-religious regime with the motto, ‘We’re here and we are here to stay.’” Their statements put the architectural meaning of the minaret in question. The project will explore the shifting socio-political meanings embedded within the minaret as a symbol of Islam and its more recent incarnation as a marker of something other in the Western worldview. What is the cause for the minaret being the target rather than the mosque itself?
The basic fact that freedom of religious expression is being denied cannot be ignored. Thus, the project’s goal will be to encourage reform within the country by helping people rethink their position on the ban. Freedom of religion and its expression as a basic tenet of human rights will be the underlying topic of all work produced in the hope that the discussions created will aid in overturning this directed attack at Muslims in Switzerland.
Leave your comment