“LONDON (Reuters Life!) – A battle of faiths is being waged in the ancient English city of Oxford, where some people are bitterly opposed to Muslim plans to broadcast the call to prayer over the fabled dreaming spires.” — from this news article
The noisy call to prayer is an act of dominance and aggression. The louder it is, the better. Mosques were always supposed to be built in high ground, or in the most imposing spot, towering over churches and synagogues, in the lands first conquered by Islam. Those aggressive skyward thrusting minarets were symbols of power, of dominance. And the same thing continued wherever Islam went.
Some fail to understand that the placement of mosques, the size of mosques, the significance of minarets, and those calls or cries, now electronically amplified, are all part of a single system. That system is one by which the mosque is not merely or mainly a place of worship, but a place of community gathering. It is a political and social center. It is even — in the Muslim lands — a place for shows of support or defiance against the government (the naming of the rulers in the khutba being a sign of loyalty, and the omission of those names a sign of disaffection), of plots and schemes. It is even — as we see even here and there in Europe — a place to store weapons, explosives, false papers in false ceilings — and a place from which to fire on Infidels (see Iraq, see all of Iraq).
A mosque is NOT a Muslim “church.” It is a Muslim “church” and a Muslim “community center” and a Muslim “armory” and a Muslim “army recruiting center” and a Muslim everything. The easy, and comforting, belief in the West that it is merely a “house of worship” is something that Infidels must disabuse themselves of — and they can best do this by reading, perhaps starting with Snouck Hurgronje and other great Orientalists, on the subject of “the mosque.”
The muezzins wail may, for some, be most picturesque — part of the landscape in North Africa and the Middle East. In the Lands of the Infidels, it would be an intolerable display of triumphalism. If Oxford allows the call to prayer between 6 a.m. (but not earlier) and 10 p.m. (but not later), what will this do to the sleep patterns, and peace of mind, of all the non-Muslims who, presumably, still live in Oxford? If it is allowed, the very fact that it will disturb Infidels will not disturb Muslims, but will be triumphantly taken — as each little victory is taken — as a sign that the barriers to the spread and dominance of Islam are being dismantled. Some are being dismantled by a display of sweetness-and-light, some by a display of something quite different — but the goal remains the same. Each new victory swells the hearts of Muslims, and causes, here and there, among the pool of Infidels who are psychically vulnerable to the appeals of the well-financed, non-stop campaigns of Da’wa (Every Man Is His Own Missionary in Islam), more to see it as the coming thing.
One may look at what happened in Granada. There, the Spanish government, thinking to do the grand thing, allowed a mosque to be built. It was built, on the highest ridge in the city. It now overlooks a nunnery. And the nuns have been complaining ever since that the noise from that mosque has permanently disrupted their own existence, their own necessary quiet, as the Call to Prayer (and indeed, other noises) suppress any possibility of contemplation.
And after the muezzin’s call, will the slitting of the throats of sheep at Eid al-Fitr, which one can see on the streets in certain quarters of France, now also be permitted? The throat-slitting ritual is part of a “religious” celebration; the sheep would be killed anyway, in the slaughterhouse; what conceivable harm could it do?
One hopes that the best lawyers in the land will take on the Muslim groups in Oxford, pro bono. One hopes that on every occasion, they will also in the U.S. confront the Saudi-funded Muslim groups around the country that are pressing for every advantage, every aggressive push in all the areas of American life. Whatever other cases those charitable-minded lawyers may wish to take, those attempting to limit the aggressive march of Islamic Sharia should take precedence. For these are not really pro bono matters at all, but matters of civilizational life and death, as yet imperfectly understood.