Israel moves to mute mosques' call to prayer over loudspeakers

[dexterm]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I hear they have smartphones for sale in Jerusalem.

So where can you get the best place to shop for smartphones in Jerusalem.
Dude, that was lame. Surprised you even tried that. 

Perhaps the resident majority Muslim Palestinian population in East Jerusalem prefer the muezzin's call to prayer than a smartphone.

 

How about doing them the courtesy of actually asking them?

[Thorgal]

I hear they have smartphones for sale in Jerusalem.
So where can you get the best place to shop for smartphones in Jerusalem.
Dude, that was lame. Surprised you even tried that. 

Get a grip.
Not every Israel related topic is about people arguing for or against the existence of Israel in the first place. 
 
THIS topic is about something very specific.
A law about muting religious based loudspeakers.
Not the entire history of Israel.
 
Clear enough? 

The call for prayer includes Koranic verses according to clear Koranic instructions.

The adhan recites the Takbir (God is great) followed by the Shahada (There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God).

This statement of faith, called the Kalimah, is the first of the Five Pillars of Islam.

The "app" surrogate can never be an equivalent to the "Adhan".

Since the creation of the state of Israel, many Muslim neighbourhoods have been demolished, like the Moroccan pilgrim quarter in Jerusalem close to the Wailing Wall.

OP refers to another of such provocative measures of Israeli occupation clearly related to latest Muslim denomination of the UNESCO in some important parts in Jerusalem.

Taking the religious identity away works never.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[derator01]

Ok, enough. Let's get back to the topic and respect other members.

[Morch]

As posted on previous related topics, there are two issues here. As for the matter supposedly addressed by the suggested bill, fair enough. Anyone who lived near a mosque can appreciate that. The problem is that this legitimate issue comes hand in hand with an anti-Muslim motivation motivation, and therefore looses some of its force.

 

There could have been other ways to deal with the situation. There are several places in Israel were such issues were resolved locally, and in a peaceful manner, through mediation without resorting to legal means (a couple of examples: voluntary lowering of volume, shared investment in a net of smaller decentralized speakers). But granted, such initiatives are harder to achieve, whereas fighting over this legislation serves politicians and zealots on both sides. This, subsequently,  makes it more difficult for moderate elements to sort things in reasonable ways.

 

In terms of "noise pollution", there is no competition. There is no daily equivalent call for prayer for Jews along these lines. What the Orthodox Jews were about, with regard to supporting/not supporting the bill relates to a siren sounded Friday and Saturday evenings in their neighborhoods, to signify the beginning and end of the Sabbath. While not as early or obtrusive as the Muslim call for prayer, their political representatives worried that if the bill was to be challenged by the Supreme Court, it would judge that this too must go. Hence the delayed associated with the bill and amendments made.

 

This, IMO, would have been a better angle to tackle the issue - leave it a local or municipal decision, with the addition of clearer guidelines.

 

Granted, every topic relating to Israel will be seen by the usual suspects to air their agenda. Regardless of such, the suggested bill is first and foremost directed at environs within Israel. East Jerusalem does not have to be a major flashpoint, seeing as the Al-Aqsa Mosque is intentionally exempt, and as Israeli law enforcement in East Jerusalem is patchy at best when it comes to civic issues. That said, there is little chance the aforementioned politicians and zealots of both sides will make the most of it anyway.

 

[transam]

They managed pretty well for centuries without the high tech stuff...They all turned up to do their thing...

Imagine what they would say if I did my rendition of ZZ Tops "She's got legs" at 5am.

 

[Morch]

49 minutes ago, transam said:

They managed pretty well for centuries without the high tech stuff...They all turned up to do their thing...

Imagine what they would say if I did my rendition of ZZ Tops "She's got legs" at 5am.

 

 

That'd probably have a unifying effect...

[Scott]

3 hours ago, transam said:

They managed pretty well for centuries without the high tech stuff...They all turned up to do their thing...

Imagine what they would say if I did my rendition of ZZ Tops "She's got legs" at 5am.

 

We are straying off topic, but if you did it in Iran, you might have a problem.   If you did it in Patpong or Nana, you might have less of a problem -- that depends on how well you did it.  

 

I spent years in the ME and a year in Bosnia.   In the ME the Mosques were a ways away, so it was audible, but not particularly loud.   The early morning one woke me for about a week and after that I was able to sleep through it.   In Bosnia I was close to a Mosque, so it was loud.   It took me about 2 weeks to get used to the early morning call to prayer, and after that I sort of woke, but fell right back to sleep.  

 

Nonetheless, I think we live in a day and age where noise pollution is a problem and I would have no trouble with regulating all unnecessary noise.   Whether it is a Karoke bar or the call to prayer, at least regulate the decibel level.  

[Thorgal]

Admissible noise limit in Israel is 85 dB. Like in most other countries.

http://www.sviva.gov.il/English/Legislation/Pages/PollutionAndNuisances.aspx

Puting one loudspeaker of 82 dB is OK. Adding a second loudspeaker resulting in a total of 85 dB is still OK.

Noise criteria depends on the Imam and his community. Some of them will make the call inside in dense populated areas, while others will opt to turn the noise button to the maximum.

Many mosques were active since the creation of Israel in 1948. Why complaining now is rather doubtful if you consider the long history of religious intimidation in Jerusalem and beyond.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

@Thorgal

 

It isn't a new issue at all. Been on and off for years. If it's more of a "thing" nowadays its probably due to increased building and urbanization, plus public awareness. One issue that was cited is quite correct - there is some existing legislation, but not nearly enough enforcement. As someone mentioned above, things sometimes turn into a competition between different mosques, different villages, etc. to the annoyance of general public (no, not just Jews). And despite attempts to make Jerusalem the focal point of this topic, the bill relates to all of Israel.

 

 

 

 

[Thorgal]

[mention=171721]Thorgal[/mention]

 

It isn't a new issue at all. Been on and off for years. If it's more of a "thing" nowadays its probably due to increased building and urbanization, plus public awareness. One issue that was cited is quite correct - there is some existing legislation, but not nearly enough enforcement. As someone mentioned above, things sometimes turn into a competition between different mosques, different villages, etc. to the annoyance of general public (no, not just Jews). And despite attempts to make Jerusalem the focal point of this topic, the bill relates to all of Israel.

 

Well I see it different.

First we had the forced evictions and demolitions, and now we have the continuation in a form of systematic elimination of typical Middle Eastern and religious characterisation of the region. Jerusalem is just a part of it, but it's a delicate part in Palestine.

You talk in terms of an appearance of competition of noise units while I point the real facts of religious domination and continued process of colonisation.

At least we can agree that we both disagree...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Thorgal said:

Well I see it different.

First we had the forced evictions and demolitions, and now we have the continuation in a form of systematic elimination of typical Middle Eastern and religious characterisation of the region. Jerusalem is just a part of it, but it's a delicate part in Palestine.

You talk in terms of an appearance of competition of noise units while I point the real facts of religious domination and continued process of colonisation.

At least we can agree that we both disagree...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

You see anything connected to Israel "different". No surprises there.

There was no mention of "noise units" in my post (rather, something which appeared in yours). What your "point" to are not "real facts" but your own biased interpretation of events.

 

Obviously, not much indignation from the usual suspects when such issues appear elsewhere:

 

Indonesia bids to muffle noisy mosques

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/25/indonesia-bids-to-muffle-noisy-mosques

 

Muslim leaders welcome high court order on loudspeakers

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Muslim-leaders-welcome-high-court-order-on-loudspeakers/articleshow/39515042.cms

 

Nigerian city of Lagos shuts 'noisy' churches and mosques

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36673985

 

Cairo to use computerised call to prayer after complaints over tuneless muezzin

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/7944575/Cairo-to-use-computerised-call-to-prayer-after-complaints-over-tuneless-muezzin.html

 

Cairo dilemma over prayer calls

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4485521.stm

 

Saudi cracks down on blaring mosque speakers

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/04/25/71421.html

 

Residents can complain about loud mosque call to prayers, Islamic Affairs department says

http://www.thenational.ae/uae/environment/residents-can-complain-about-loud-mosque-call-to-prayers-islamic-affairs-department-says

 

Mosques to mute external speakers during prayers

http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/757636

[Jingthing]

Yep, the old double standard of indignation. If any other nation does it, especially an Islamic majority nations, whatever. What me worry.

 

BUT -- If Israel does it, the one nation in the world with a Jewish majority, no you di'int! I'm almost embarrassed for the people flinging this kind of hypocrisy. It's just too obvious. 

[thaibeachlovers]

At last something I can agree with.

They didn't have loudspeakers 1500 years ago, so they have no "right" to demand that they can use them now. It's not like people don't have alarm clocks to wake them for morning prayer.

[transam]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

At last something I can agree with.

They didn't have loudspeakers 1500 years ago, so they have no "right" to demand that they can use them now. It's not like people don't have alarm clocks to wake them for morning prayer.

But remember, these folk think YOU and I must do their stuff with NO question...

[Thorgal]

  You see anything connected to Israel "different". No surprises there.

There was no mention of "noise units" in my post (rather, something which appeared in yours). What your "point" to are not "real facts" but your own biased interpretation of events.

 

Obviously, not much indignation from the usual suspects when such issues appear elsewhere:

 

Indonesia bids to muffle noisy mosques

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/25/indonesia-bids-to-muffle-noisy-mosques

 

Muslim leaders welcome high court order on loudspeakers

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Muslim-leaders-welcome-high-court-order-on-loudspeakers/articleshow/39515042.cms

 

Nigerian city of Lagos shuts 'noisy' churches and mosques

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36673985

 

Cairo to use computerised call to prayer after complaints over tuneless muezzin

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/7944575/Cairo-to-use-computerised-call-to-prayer-after-complaints-over-tuneless-muezzin.html

 

Cairo dilemma over prayer calls

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4485521.stm

 

Saudi cracks down on blaring mosque speakers

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/04/25/71421.html

 

Residents can complain about loud mosque call to prayers, Islamic Affairs department says

http://www.thenational.ae/uae/environment/residents-can-complain-about-loud-mosque-call-to-prayers-islamic-affairs-department-says

 

Mosques to mute external speakers during prayers

http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/757636

You've given links/examples of noise complaints from Muslims and the legal implementations from Muslims to other Muslims.

OP is about law regulation originating from Jewish parliament votes in the Israeli Knesset in order to challenge religious freedom of Muslim population in Israel.

Arab lawmakers in the Knesset expressed their concerns and tore the new lawpapers. Some of them were kicked out of the room.

To pass, the laws still require two more readings in Israel's parliament.

Latest UNESCO classification of Muslim culture and religious heritage was received as a provocation to the Jewish extremists. Now they want to silence them...

The law would also apply to mosques in annexed East-Jerusalem as well as across Israel, but not to the highly sensitive al-Aqsa mosque compound. Another ambiguity from the same culprits defining Holier noises.

No noise limitation now during Purim, isn't it ? Or the Shofar ? Ready to pay 2.700 USD when you make too many noise ???

Those facts above are relevant to understand the OP and they are actually on topic. Your links didn't mention these relevant facts, and look like, once again, in another attempt to a fallacy of false comparison...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, transam said:

But remember, these folk think YOU and I must do their stuff with NO question...

They think that because western authorities have shirked their responsibilities when it comes to Muslims, allowing them to have whatever they want. Look at the debate over face covering dress, which isn't even Islamic ( it's cultural ).

At last, one government seems to be saying "enough". Well done Israel on this one.

Edited March 14, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Thorgal said:

You've given links/examples of noise complaints from Muslims and the legal implementations from Muslims to other Muslims.

OP is about law regulation originating from Jewish parliament votes in the Israeli Knesset in order to challenge religious freedom of Muslim population in Israel.

Arab lawmakers in the Knesset expressed their concerns and tore the new lawpapers. Some of them were kicked out of the room.

To pass, the laws still require two more readings in Israel's parliament.

Latest UNESCO classification of Muslim culture and religious heritage was received as a provocation to the Jewish extremists. Now they want to silence them...

The law would also apply to mosques in annexed East-Jerusalem as well as across Israel, but not to the highly sensitive al-Aqsa mosque compound. Another ambiguity from the same culprits defining Holier noises.

No noise limitation now during Purim, isn't it ? Or the Shofar ? Ready to pay 2.700 USD when you make too many noise ???

Those facts above are relevant to understand the OP and they are actually on topic. Your links didn't mention these relevant facts, and look like, once again, in another attempt to a fallacy of false comparison...

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

Not all of the links provided refer to Muslims complaints (for example, the Lagos and Mumbai reports). But even if these were not included, one would have to assume that you consider only Muslim as possessing the right to determine what modern day elements of their religious practices constitute a public nuisance.

 

As posted earlier in the topic, that some of the motivation behind this bill is aimed at aggravating Israel's Muslim minority, does not mean that the issue addressed lacks merit. Granted, it could have been dealt with in better, more agreeable ways, or by using existing laws and regulations (although, things being what they are, such an effort would probably come under similar attacks, regardless).

 

The religious freedom of Muslims in Israel is not denied or significantly curtailed by this bill. Setting limits to the volume in which the call for prayer can be broadcast does not prohibit the call for prayer nor prevents worshipers from praying. The Israeli Arab law makers responses are expected (kinda amusing in a way, considering about half aren't practicing or even Muslim). Creating a scene at the parliament is nothing new, and always good for a headline.

 

The recent UNESCO resolution, which was the subject of a couple of previous topics, received criticism from both the UN secretary general and UNESCO's chief as well. Those supporting it, are pretty much on the same level as those right wing Israeli politicians who sponsored the current bill. 

 

The law, if it passes, would apply also to Jerusalem. How strictly it will be enforced is a different matter. Israeli civic management of East Jerusalem being patchy at best. Al-Aqsa being exempt on the grounds of the location not defined as residential area, is bogus. The only reason for this exemption is to avoid an even greater backlash and possible conflagration. More pragmatic than ambiguous.

 

You, and others, may bring imaginary parallels with regard to noise pollution related to both religions. The truth is that these aren't real. There is no equivalent public call for prayer broadcast five times a day when it comes to Judaism. The bits referred to relate to specific holidays, and even then, do not quite match speakers hanging from most minarets.

 

So once again, not so much "facts" in your post, as a biased interpretation.

 

[Thorgal]

 

Not all of the links provided refer to Muslims complaints (for example, the Lagos and Mumbai reports). But even if these were not included, one would have to assume that you consider only Muslim as possessing the right to determine what modern day elements of their religious practices constitute a public nuisance.

 

As posted earlier in the topic, that some of the motivation behind this bill is aimed at aggravating Israel's Muslim minority, does not mean that the issue addressed lacks merit. Granted, it could have been dealt with in better, more agreeable ways, or by using existing laws and regulations (although, things being what they are, such an effort would probably come under similar attacks, regardless).

 

The religious freedom of Muslims in Israel is not denied or significantly curtailed by this bill. Setting limits to the volume in which the call for prayer can be broadcast does not prohibit the call for prayer nor prevents worshipers from praying. The Israeli Arab law makers responses are expected (kinda amusing in a way, considering about half aren't practicing or even Muslim). Creating a scene at the parliament is nothing new, and always good for a headline.

 

The recent UNESCO resolution, which was the subject of a couple of previous topics, received criticism from both the UN secretary general and UNESCO's chief as well. Those supporting it, are pretty much on the same level as those right wing Israeli politicians who sponsored the current bill. 

 

The law, if it passes, would apply also to Jerusalem. How strictly it will be enforced is a different matter. Israeli civic management of East Jerusalem being patchy at best. Al-Aqsa being exempt on the grounds of the location not defined as residential area, is bogus. The only reason for this exemption is to avoid an even greater backlash and possible conflagration. More pragmatic than ambiguous.

 

You, and others, may bring imaginary parallels with regard to noise pollution related to both religions. The truth is that these aren't real. There is no equivalent public call for prayer broadcast five times a day when it comes to Judaism. The bits referred to relate to specific holidays, and even then, do not quite match speakers hanging from most minarets.

 

So once again, not so much "facts" in your post, as a biased interpretation.

 

More hasbara drivel.

The new law was instigated by extremist Jewish settlers from Jerusalem in the media end of last year.

The Israeli banned immediately 3 mosques in Jerusalem for the dawn prayers.

Adnan Al-Husseiny, PA-governor of Jerusalem said : that the Israeli settlers are not annoyed by the noise, but by the call to prayer as a reminder of Palestinian presence in Jerusalem...

Israeli PM Netanyahu (Likud) vowed to take action and proposed the new law of OP.

This to explain the origins of the conflict, not mentioned in OP.

No need of further derogation to Lagos or Mumbai. Nice try.

I've no problem to listen to this type of Zionist indoctrination. But you can't make that I will accept them.

Cheers !

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[transam]

English church bells ring a little after we finished our bacon, eggs and toast on a Sunday, around 9am...Very pleasant....

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

More hasbara drivel.

The new law was instigated by extremist Jewish settlers from Jerusalem in the media end of last year.

The Israeli banned immediately 3 mosques in Jerusalem for the dawn prayers.

Adnan Al-Husseiny, PA-governor of Jerusalem said : that the Israeli settlers are not annoyed by the noise, but by the call to prayer as a reminder of Palestinian presence in Jerusalem...

Israeli PM Netanyahu (Likud) vowed to take action and proposed the new law of OP.

This to explain the origins of the conflict, not mentioned in OP.

No need of further derogation to Lagos or Mumbai. Nice try.

I've no problem to listen to this type of Zionist indoctrination. But you can't make that I will accept them.

Cheers !

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

A whole lot of snippets, which do not add up to a coherent argument.

That a Palestinian official (with extra vested interest) opines something does not make it true by default. How does referencing his words, and Netanyahu's support for the bill amounts to "explain the origins of the conflict" is unclear. What is obvious, though, is that no discussion is possible without the usual suspects having to rehash a whole lot of one-sided pseudo-historical accounts, before even addressing the issue at hand.

 

There were ample examples cited above as to how this is not just an Israeli "thing". Brushing then away is just deflection.

 

And no real expectations that you will "accept" anything, particularly nothing reasonable or balanced.

 

[bobmac10]

One fact that cannot be ignored is that prior to electrical amplification of sound, the call to prayer was only as loud as a human voice could go.

This changed when amplified public address systems were installed in mosques.

The call to prayers is now much louder.

I stay sometimes in a muslim village in Bali and there are four mosques within a kilometer of each other, all quite small but all have very loud speakers. The din when they are all going together is quite unbelievable, I pity the locals, they appear powerless to have it turned down, the imams seem to have total control over how loud they are (and how long the call to prayer is) which goes on some days for up to 40 minutes.

Contrast that with a mosque in Chiang Mai city which has only a man-powered call to prayer which lasts about 3 minutes!

[weejun]

On 13.3.2017 at 9:13 PM, Thorgal said:

OP is about law regulation originating from Jewish parliament votes in the Israeli Knesset in order to challenge religious freedom of Muslim population in Israel.

How are the religious freedoms of Muslims challenged by them not being able to blast noise into other people's ears? They can still do everything including calling to prayer, just not with too much noise.

Edited March 14, 2017 by weejun

[Rhys]

Now that would be something... bring that same energy for the village PA at 0600 as well to Thailand.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Rhys

[Scott]

I stayed for a short time near a mosque where the call to prayer was done by voice without amplification.  It was audible, but not ear splitting and not altogether unpleasant.   The human touch adds a dimension to things we don't get all that often these days.  

[dexterm]

18 hours ago, Morch said:

 

A whole lot of snippets, which do not add up to a coherent argument.

That a Palestinian official (with extra vested interest) opines something does not make it true by default. How does referencing his words, and Netanyahu's support for the bill amounts to "explain the origins of the conflict" is unclear. What is obvious, though, is that no discussion is possible without the usual suspects having to rehash a whole lot of one-sided pseudo-historical accounts, before even addressing the issue at hand.

 

There were ample examples cited above as to how this is not just an Israeli "thing". Brushing then away is just deflection.

 

And no real expectations that you will "accept" anything, particularly nothing reasonable or balanced.

 

Oh but this particular instance of racism is indeed an Israeli "thing"

 

from the OP...
'"This is a social-minded law that aims to protect citizens' sleep, without, God-forbid, harming anyone's religious faith," legislator Motti Yogev, one of the bill's sponsors.'

Yogev is a member of the extreme right wing Jewish Home Party, lives in an illegal West Bank Settlement and has called for its annexation, and recently join illegal settlers resisting the evacuation of Amona.

Do you honestly think he is primarily concerned about people's sleep?

 

'Haneen Zoabi, another lawmaker, observed that the legislation was not about “the noise in [Israeli Jews’] ears but the noise in their minds”.'

http://mondoweiss.net/2016/11/between-israels-muezzin/

 

The call to prayer is a constant reminder to Israelis that they may have occupied the land, but that Palestinians are still there and form the majority religion.

 

This is just another example of memoricide, as the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe calls it.

Edited March 15, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

@dexterm

 

I have stated both on this topic and the previous ones, that IMO the proposed bill is a mistake, and that things could be handled by applying existing laws or mediation. Also, I did not ignore the motivations relating to the political leanings of those sponsoring the bill, but asserted that, regardless, there is also a legitimate complaint.

 

If your argument rests on political affiliation, then there is no particular reason to treat Zoabi words as having more merit than Yogev's. Notably, you did not bother mention of her opinions, ideology and related activities.

 

One amusing aspect of this issue being raised is seeing the likes of Zoabi and yourself, championing religious causes over civic ones. A bit of a contradiction there, but guess if it's the service of Israel bashing, it's all good, eh?

 

The call to prayer isn't banned. Broadcasting it at a loud volume and at an unreasonable hour may be. Somehow that's acceptable in other countries, even Muslim ones, but not in this case.

[Naam]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

I stayed for a short time near a mosque where the call to prayer was done by voice without amplification.  It was audible, but not ear splitting and not altogether unpleasant.   The human touch adds a dimension to things we don't get all that often these days.  

having spent most of my working life in the Middle East i was later missing the familiar prayer calls especially the morning call which often meant "finish your coffee, chew a few more dates and get ready to drive to the office or the site!"

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Rhys said:

Now that would be something... bring that same energy for the village PA at 0600 as well to Thailand.

In my wife's village the monks chanting was amplified and broadcast all around the village. Till I got used to it was woken up very early every day.

[weejun]

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

The call to prayer is a constant reminder to Israelis that they may have occupied the land, but that Palestinians are still there and form the majority religion.

 

This is just another example of memoricide, as the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe calls it.

Apart from Pappe being a fraud who creates fake quotes and steals other people's work, the call to prayer is still there. It just isn't blasted into peoples ears at ungodly hours. Why are you people pretending that they are banning the call to prayer?