Home / Press review / Archive / Magazine / Culture / Mosque-Building / Article

Islam in concrete. On the conflict surrounding the construction of a Friday mosque in Cologne-Ehrenfeld, by Necla Kelek

« back . 1 . 2

Mosques are men's houses.

Mosques are the places in which the vertical separation of a community into men and women manifests itself. Women are – with few exceptions – only tolerated in separate rooms.

A democracy, however, and above all our society, lives from the fact that men and women together carry responsibility in the public eye, have the same rights and are treated equally. The separation of the Muslim community into the men, who sit in the mosque, pray and conduct their business, and the women, who are banned to their residences, cannot be a model for integration. If there is a discussion about the construction of a mosque, the question must be asked as to which possibilities women have for equal participation and responsibility.

As long as the mosques do not encourage a life of equal partnership, but rather advance the archaic and patriarchal structures, these houses remain for me as being unacceptable. I do not understand those ambassadors and representatives from most parties who plead for tolerance for Muslims while at the same time allowing women to be discriminated against in this manner.

The cupola as a sign of conquest

Muslims often complain that they are forced to set up their prayer rooms in places of residence or in disused business units. This is by no means non-Muslim or discriminating. The prototype mosque was Muhammed's home in Medina: a courtyard with an open portico. It wasn't until Islam conquered Christian churches that the architecture of mosques began to change.

The cupola, as it now also decorates the Cologne design, was inspired by the form of the round tent. The fact that it has become so widespread is, however, thanks to the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire. By rededicating the gigantic cupola construction on the Byzantine Hagia Sofia in what was then called Constantinople, a Christian church became a prototype for the Turkish mosque. Minarets and cupolas became signs of Ottoman dominance – in Mecca, too. The architects' design for the Cologne mosque takes over this tradition as a gesture of conquest. An open cupola with a stylised globe does not display cosmopolitan thinking. What happens below it is decisive. One could interpret this cupola and minaret as being a hegemonic claim, just as Islam conquered the Christian Hagia Sofia, defining itself as the "seal" on the consummation of religion and reclaiming the rights to world domination. In any case, it is a part of Ottoman tradition and neither the outer shape nor the inner function target modernisation or integration. The architects have delivered what their conservative contractors requested: a political statement for Islam in concrete. This means that the request for the construction stands parallel to the discussion about head cloths.

Friday mosques in the cityscape are, like head cloths, a visible political statement. They represent the words: We are here, we are different and we have the right to be different. They certainly have this right, but they must also concede to being asked: What are you doing with this right, and what are you doing for this society? Or are you simply distancing yourselves from it?

The political intention behind building such a prestigious mosque in Cologne is painfully clear. Other mosque constructions should and will follow in other towns. With the Cologne example to strengthen them, the initiators will find things easier. In Duisburg, a similar Friday mosque is now being built. The Islamic organisations are pushing for public acceptance. They wish to be on a par with the churches. What better way to show this than with stones which cry "look, we too have such buildings, like you Christians and Jews”. This is nothing other than a manifestation and a proselytisation via stone and concrete.

Shameful politics

It is understandable that there has been resistance against such a political stance.
The Muslims in Germany have a large problem - that the credibility of their words and their actions lie too often too far apart. In the public eye, they appear to uphold the constitution, but what is thought and done in the communities is not revealed; there is no transparency.

I am ashamed of what Muslim representatives present in Germany in this manner. There are a lot of big social problems with the German language, in families, in education, in the question of equality for women, teenage crime, violence in families and integration. Urgent questions, which require Muslim commitment and money for their solution and which are needed more than a prestigious building as a display of strength. Every time these problems are addressed, it is said that these problems have nothing to do with Islam. But a religion which demands that all aspects of public and private life are to be composed from regulations, commandments and traditions cannot dodge the consequences of these demands at the first opportunity. In answer, one refers to the responsibilities for German society, and places demands on that society. One's own responsibility is denied. That is too transparent and annoys others. Where is the public campaign for donations made by Muslim organisations, which makes it possible for all Muslims to learn German? Where are the initiatives for infantile education, where are the campaigns for equal rights for women? Nowhere. One has money for architects, lawyers and concrete, one founds coordination councils and expects appreciation without wasting any thoughts on what Muslims could do for society, and why they should be grateful to this society. Religious freedom; for example, which is refused to Christians, Alevites and Arameans in Turkey and in other Muslim countries.

The number of sects and religious persuasions is very difficult to make out within the Muslim organisation, but they all rally against the Germans as one, practising the taqiyya, the art of disguise and concealment as to their true mindset against non-believers. The initiators of the Cologne mosque are representatives of the Turkish religious authorities. What the DITIB is presenting here in Germany is actually politics as an assignment from the Turkish government. It is not in the interests of the German Muslims who they represent.

The organisation should, therefore, not be surprised if the worry and mistrust about their behaviour grows, especially as they react sensitively to criticism and style themselves as the victims. This sentence by Max Frisch counts for our "Western” society: "Democracy means that one can interfere with one's own business". Islam is part of reality in Germany – and therefore, it is German society's business. Muslims must accept this, if others ask in which society they wish to live, and what they think of the values in German society.

« back . 1 . 2