There is an outcry going on in Oxford, UK, at the moment over Muslim plans to broadcast a loudspeaker call to prayer from a city centre mosque. A spokesman for the Central Mosque said that Muslim’s have the right to summon worshippers. They want to issue two minute calls, three times a day.
From what I have read, the opponents appear to be objecting to the move on three grounds.
First, it is argued that such sounds and calls are intrinsically un-English. Dr Mark Huckster said: “I have lived in the Middle East and a prayer call has a very different feel to church bells and I personally found the noise extremely unpleasant, rather disturbing and very alien to the western mindset.”
I would have hoped that the majority of the residents in this prestigious university city would have had a greater sense of history than their objection displays. What are English sounds and traditions? Presumably the Barrow people objected to the noises and traditions of the Celts, the Celts objected to those of the Anglo-Saxons, the Anglo-Saxons objected to those of the Scandinavians, and then they all objected to the French. Which particular part of all that is English?
If is argued that Muslim calls to prayer would be foreign to recent English culture, such a view shows a nostaligic clinging to the past, and a refusal to come to terms with the reality of modern Britain. Many of the English citizens of, say, Bradford or Leicester, would feel that a Muslim call to prayer was more English than the sound of church bells. I can understand the emotional difficulty that some in Oxford may have in coming to terms with a new reality, but to try and dress that up as a serious and reasoned argument about Englishness just won’t do.
Secondly, it is argued that if the proposals go ahead, the area will be turned into a Muslim ghetto. This one genuinely puzzles me. I just cannot see the supposed relationship between loudspeaker calls to prayer, and an increase in Muslims moving into a particular area. I have never heard of practising Christians moving house just to be closer to church bells. If, and it is a big ‘if’, there is any likelihood in increased ghettoization of the area, it is surely more likely to be due to the presence of the mosque rather than the calls to prayer. And even here, the argument is weak. I have yet to hear of particular areas being taken over by fundamentalist Christians, just because there is an evangelical church nearby.
Thirdly, it is argued that because Christians are not allowed to sound church bells in Muslim countries, Muslims should not be allowed to summon to prayer in Britain. But, as the cliché says, two wrongs don’t make a right, and the only way of breaking conflict is for one partner to perform a magnanimous gesture. Allowing such calls to prayer may help an argument by adding some moral authority.
It seems to me that on grounds of religious equality, the Muslims have a strong case to be allowed to summon worshippers. However, if you wanted to object, there are much better arguments than the ones cited above.
First, there is the argument about discrepancy. I am not sure of the frequency of church bell ringing, but I feel sure that it is less than three times a day. The Oxford citizens may have a case for trying to limit the frequency of the calls.
Secondly, and related to the above, there may be an argument about noise pollution. The volume, frequency, timing, and duration of the calls may need to be limited so as not to cause unreasonable distress.
Thirdly, why do places of worship have to call the faithful to prayer anyway, whether it be via bells or a recorded message over a loudspeaker? I can understand how the practice grew up in societies that didn’t have means of measuring time. But there seems to be no point when most people have at least one time piece and probably one alarm mechanism.
In addition to the pragmatic objection, there are also theological and philosophical objections. If I were god, I would prefer that people prayed and worshipped out of a desire to do so, rather than being trained like Pavlovian dogs to do so in response to sounds. Calling people, rather than allowing them to be responsible for their own religion, encourages the worst kind of religious practice.
And why should should a religious minority be allowed to continue to disturb the peace for the atheistic / agnostic / secularist / humanist majority? Being religious does not give Muslims any special rights, and while they are a minority, their wishes should not prevail if the majority object.
Unfortunately, the matter seems to be being pursued in a confrontational manner. When will people learn that the best way to achieve something is to get together with all interested parties and talk it through?
According to this, the Muslims claim they have a “right” to issue a call to prayer. The subject of rights is very thorny and I wouldn’t think it is particularly helpful to pursue “rights” here. We all have rights but these rights often conflict with one another. For example, the good citizens of Oxford have the “right” to picket the mosque if they wish but it is hard to see how this would help anybody.
The cited arguments against the call to prayer seem to me shallow and tendentious. If that’s the best the objectors can do then they have a very weak case.
The problem, I think, is the separateness of the Muslim and non-Muslim communities. There is no communication between the Muslims and the surrounding community so, inevitably, a wish to make a particular noise or flourish a particular visible sign will be seen as a nuisance or even an act of aggression.
The old joke about someone asked the way and replying “Well, if I were going there, I wouldn’t start from here” applies to this case. They needed to have started building bridges between the two communities long before this to create understanding. In the absence of such understanding, there is little hope of reaching an agreement. The authorities will no doubt impose a solution, meaning that one side will “win” and one side will “lose” (or maybe both sides will “lose”), perpetrating bad feeling into the foreseeable future.
I really hate to be negative, but I can’t help seeing this as an instance of Islamic aggression. Muslim immigrants to your country are not taking over with guns and violence, but they seem bent on taking incremental steps toward making Britain a semi-Islamic culture. The Muslims in Britain appear to expect your society to bend over backwards and make all sorts of concessions to them. Meanwhile, they seem unwilling to make concessions to the culture to which they’ve emigrated (to reap economic and other benefits, no doubt) and seek to excuse their intransigence on the basis of religious freedom. I’m speaking as an American outsider, so I recognize that there are lots of details I don’t know about British life. Nevertheless, I find stories like this disturbing as I believe there are larger issues at play than those that present themselves on the surface.
Chaplain:
A very large proportion of Muslims in Britain were born here. They are not immigrants, but I do not think that should make any difference any way. Regarding this request as aggression seems to me to me to be an unnecessarily hostile response.
I agree with ST that the arguments presented are shallow.
I used to live in Oxford and before that I lived very close to a church with bells.
ATM is absolutely right that nobody needs to be called to prayer. Announcing the times may have had some validity in the time of Mohammed, but not now. Church bells and the Muezzin’s call are both forms of advertising. In our society advertising is regulated so as not to be too intrusive or inappropriate. Noise pollution is a very good reason for regulation in the use of church bells and Muslim prayer calls.
Frequency is also a legitimate issue. The church near me had bell practice for two hours on Tuesday evening. It was horrible and very intrusive. I was greatly angered by the difficulty in getting my baby daughter to sleep in the presence of that din. Otherwise, they rang for short periods on Sunday and for weddings. Not too much of an issue, but irritating to me.
Muslims have a five times a day obligation to pray. If they can forego calling the faithful for two sessions, (presumably because they think they wouldn’t get away with it at the unsocial hours involved) they can do without it for the other three. There is also reasonable concern that if approval is given to the three times a day call, there will be a subsequent pressure for all five sessions to be called.
One of the most striking things about Oxford, apart from the very great beauty of the architecture to which a large contribution is made by the dreaming spires of the Christian buildings (with bells!), is the amazing noise of the horrible traffic congestion. I doubt that many people would hear the Muezzin unless it was very loud indeed.
Everybody should talk to resolve the matter, but not resort to awful rubbish about un-Englishness, ghettoisation, or ‘you won’t let us so we wont let you’ or any other infantile nonsense.
the chaplain: Interesting perspective. There are certainly those in this country who see that in the long-term, there is a real chance that Muslim culture will become much more dominant in Britain. There are three reasons for this: 1) increasing numbers and the political inability to seriously regulate immigration; 2) intrinsic militancy in the faith itself; 3) the inability of a liberal culture to stand up to that militancy. The journalist Oriana Fallaci cites the words of a Muslim cleric at an interfaith meeting in Turkey: Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our Islamic laws, we will conquer you.
My own views is that now there are many second generation Muslims (i.e. those born in Britain), it is difficult to deny them expression that is given to other UK faiths. However, as argued above, there may be a case for limiting that in some way, and there is certainly a case to be made for abandoning both calls to prayer and church bells in a secular society.
Yes, the last point does it for me. You have argued all the points very well both for and against. However, I am against.
ABSOLUTELY NO WAY NOT, do I ever want to see this in Oxford. They have their Mosques which was contraversional enough. Let that be it.
We simply can not allow ourselves to become minority citizens. I am not in any way racisit and you know my views on religious tolerance but this is going to far.
Oxford is not Jerusalem or Baghdad, or Istanbul.
Oxford is Oxford: of city colleges, May balls, and church bells. It is the place of Wren-Sheldonian ceiling, Bodelain Library and Christ Church. In horror would I walk down its cobbled streets and hear something so not Oxford.
Sorry, If I sound pompous but I shall be finding out how this goes as far as getting this practice accepted, and I shall let you know on here the outcome.
This is political correctness just gone mad. Where would it stop? Would Cambridge be next?
I suppose we could just all ship out of Britain and let the Muslims just take over. There might be some little island somewhere where us stowaway Christian English could live in peace.
With this government in place it will only be a matter of time. No wonder more people are leaving these shores than coming in. I don’t blame them.
I would just like to make another point, the Chaplain is dead on, I am right behind her on this. Could not have put it better, having just read what she has to say.
But onethoughtfulwoman, you seem to be implying that the Muslims are not English. The vast majority of them are. Some traditional ‘English’ people have also converted to the Muslim faith. (I personally know two.) English culture is changing and comprises many faiths and ethnicities. Surely you can’t preserve and idealised view of what Englishness is if the country and culture has been radically changing for the past 50 years. You may not like the change, but it already has a significant history.
I personally think that ringing bells are calling to prayer are unacceptable in a secular society, but if you allow one to a religious minority, there is a case for considering allowing the other religious minority to have equal treatment. Best to get them both banned.
I think the solution of not allowing either calls or bells would probably be the most equitable solution. Secularism does not equal atheism, it simply allows room for diverse populations to build on their common ground and keep their private lives (religious or otherwise) private.
I wonder if Muslims do want to be English, no offence here meant to many who do, but what do we have here?
Own language, schools, Mosques etc, etc. If they want to be English Fine. I have no problem with them having their own faith, but just try to embrace more of our English customs. That is why we have so much intolerance and isolation. We have to move the goal posts all the way, why don’t they just try to move a little in our direction.
They want to live in Britain but in reality they want their Muslim cities to be overhere too. They don’t want to embrace our heritage, just slowly erode it until there is nothing left. They preach death to us in their mosques while claiming state benefits. They plot to kill us right under our noses.
I know many Muslims are peaceful, British citizens and want to be part of this country fully. I welcome such people: Many do not. They want their own ways and that is not democracy and free harmony of people’s beliefs and cultures in so called Multi-cultural Britian. What a joke that is.
As for all the bells and prayers banned. That is a atheist view who would like to see Britain become a faithless society. That is not free will or speach either. I don’t want to see a secular society here. I want to see faith being expressed- moderatly is the word I would use here and in keeping with other faiths, cultural history and traditions.
Let Oxford have its peace.
onethoughtfulwoman:
1) To me, you still seem to be implying that a lot of Muslims who were born here and who practise their faith and traditions are not English. To me it feels like your definition of what English is is too narrow and needs to expand to include English Muslim traditions. If they are English, they have as much right to express their faith in this country as the next person. You can argue for Christianity, and they can argue for Islam. Historically, Christianity may have had a monopoly, but that hasn’t been the case for years now. Some people from Oxford may want to re-assert that monopoly, but two words spring to mind - King Canute!
2) You write: As for all the bells and prayers banned. That is a atheist view who would like to see Britain become a faithless society. But Britain is already a secular society. Why should a few from a tiny religious minority (Christianity) have the right to disturb the peace of the majority in this way?
I don’t think I am being too narrow and where have I said they can not express their faith?
Perhaps, I am out of touch but I would not have said that Christians were now in a tiny minority. Besides, Christians don’t disturb any ones peace. Ok, yes there are bells but you would admit as a securalist you appreciate religious objects, even if you don’t believe in what these art and religious icons stand for. You visit art and look at religious works; so as far as bells are concerned, that is just another outward symbol of religious history and part of architecture.
I know the bells peel out in Rome all the time and you are “in love” with the place. Nothing wrong with that then hey!
[...] mean even though This is England happens to be my favorite Clash song - This is NOT England. Although, come to think of it even [...]
Your post touches upon an issue that is common with religions, that tradition becomes lost in a framework of traditionalism. Church bells which predate the wide use of time pieces by the general population were used to indicate that a worship service was at hand. As you noted, the mosque call to prayer has a similar purpose. Soon other explanations of the holy and righteous are added and overlaid.
As time progresses the religious activity/ritual that was designed for a specific practical purpose continues takes on a life of its own. Though the purpose is no longer necessary orthodox teachers indoctrinate their followers into believing that if the activity is at the heart of being faithful. Hence the practical tradition has become endearing traditionalism that must be carried forward legalistically or else suffer the wrath of their divinity.
I lived in Oxford 35 years ago when there was discussion about the introduction of some of its first mosques. Incidentally there were no cobbled streets even then. I don’t know where that came from. Oxford is a modern city with traffic packed, tarmac roads.
At that time the mosques were not purpose built, they were generally converted private houses. Some people had legitimate objections due to their concern about disturbance to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes by the level of activity at a mosque in a residential area. This was particularly understandable where the building was terraced.
Sadly, racists and bigots of different types involved themselves in the debates. This soured them and made communication between the different communities more difficult. Thousands of Muslims live in Oxford and they are entitled to have places of worship and for the administration of their religion. I cannot see how this could possibly be controversial.
The suggestion that mosques should only exist in places where Islam is the predominant religion is intolerant and frankly rather frightening. To have a world so separated would be very dangerous as well as unpleasant.
I try to resist banning anything, but things do have to be regulated for us all to live together with some degree of comfort and the ability to exercise our own choices. The Muslim call to prayer is mostly played by a recording these days rather than being sung out personally by a muezzin. That adoption of modern technology could easily be extended to sending text messages to the faithful if they really want an alarm call. It is not acceptable that those who do not want it should have their peace disturbed by relgious advertising. That is a relic not only of an age when individuals did not have watches, but also of a time when religious observance and orthodoxy were imposed rather than being matters of free choice. That is no longer acceptable.
Malpoet:
I agree that Muslims should have their places of worship wherever they live. I didn’t realize that the construction of mosques in Oxford was such a controversial event. That is sad and it gives some additional context for me in understanding this particular issue.
It appears that you and I both hold the position that publicly broadcast calls to worship, via recordings, church bells, etc., is not appropriate in a society that houses believers from a range of religious traditions. This strikes me as simple civic courtesy.
To Malpoet,
Just to clarify the cobbled street-I know a minor point. I was imagining when I wrote this of one area I had been down(the street name escapes me that has a form of cobbled paving-not a street exactly). I was a bit of the point there, just got carried away. You are right Oxford is full of one way rds, pedastrian access and tarmac. And yes, very traffic filled.
I don’t have a strong point to make, just a personal observation…
“Oxford is not Jerusalem or Baghdad, or Istanbul.”
Well neither is Cape Town, where I grew up, and the regular muezzin calls near my home were a beautiful, peaceful sound that frequently brightened my atheistic days… I agree that perhaps in a secular society all religions should be practiced in private and their chiming bells or eerily beautiful singing should be silenced, but there is something to be said for accepting cultural differences and enjoying the plethora of sounds and images that prevail. There is a lot to be enjoyed!
“Ok, yes there are bells but you would admit as a securalist you appreciate religious objects, even if you don’t believe in what these art and religious icons stand for. You visit art and look at religious works; so as far as bells are concerned, that is just another outward symbol of religious history and part of architecture.”
As are the muezzin calls??
Got a bit more info today on this subject from seeing my folks, who live in Oxford, which may interest readers and commenters here.
Apparently, the mosque in question is the one in Cowley, that is on the outskirts of Oxford. I know the area well. The mosque stands on the site of the old hospital.
It is regarded as a exquisitely beautiful building by many locals. Cowley has a larger ethnic minority population. It is not right in the heart of the city.
Whilst intially there was opposition to the building of the mosque, most now appear to accept this beautiful building.
The opposition of the calling to prayer is one of noise pollution. It is considerd that the noise would be heard some distance and this is the focus of the opposition.
There is also a islamic building, not yet completed in the city itself, a lack of funding has halted development to completion at this stage. This is also regarded as a very fine piece of architecture.
Just out of interest, I asked where I had got the notion of Oxford having cobbled streets, having remembered nearly ringing my ankles on some. The street in question was Merton street.
I hope this information is of interest to anyone wishing to comment on what I have learnt today.
[...] January 10, 2008 by athinkingman I confess I have never been to Oxford, and have no personal interest in the city. However, I find myself writing about it for the fourth time in the past few months. It certainly seems to be hitting the news recently (see here and here and here). [...]