Quote:
Originally Posted by dlish
jetee once you read the arguments for the ban you will relaise that its not about neighbourhood visual compliance.
these days, minarets arent used as often as before because technology has taken over with the call to prayer. whereas before it required someone to go up there and make the call, these days there are automated calls to prayer on loudspeakers atop of minarets.
that being said they are still used by some mosques.
under islamic jurispudence, with or without a minaret, the call to prayer needs to be made though and is an obligation on the mosque or congregation before the start of the prayer
|
Yeah, I understand that now. I still don't see the need for the amendment, but to be pragmatic, minarets do not need to be used by mosques either, as you pointed out as well. They were constructed as a decoration/tower of attention, but they don't seem to be essential in any nation/area where Islam is practiced.
If you don't need either of the two things, why seek to inhibit them anyway? I still see this as a "land/property-based" discussion because my mind can't wrap it around any other way; xenophobia, not ready to go there, but if one was just to read the overview and synopsis of what is being called at stake here, it is easy enough to suppose.
In my opinion, this should be one of those "just let it stand" topics. If there are minarets in Switzerland, do they demolish them? Or is this a ban on the construction of any new ones?