You have probably never heard of Dhimmitude, but you may be familiar with its cousin—Islamification. When the Swiss voted to ban the construction of minarets in their country, a common rallying cry of the ban’s supporters was “Stop Islamification.” Yet this term was used incorrectly. Islamification refers to the process of society’s conversion to Islam. Given the cosmopolitan nature of Swiss society, it is unlikely that it is the type of nation that would legally interfere with anyone’s conversion to any religion. Thus, the minaret ban does not symbolize religious intolerance.

Instead, it symbolizes the Swiss’ concern for protecting their culture and political system.  The rallying cry that ought to have been used is “Stop Dhimmitude.” Dhimmitude refers to an attitude of appeasement towards Islamic requests, eventually leading to a state in which non-Muslims are subjects of Sharia law (a legal system in which nearly every facet of daily life is governed by the teachings of the Quran). The Swiss have their own history, their own heritage, their own traditions. They have every right to protect that cultural identity. For this reason, and for more to be explained, their banning of minarets was perfectly warranted.

Before you label me a raging Islamophobe, let me explain dhimmitude more clearly. The interesting thing about dhimmitude is that the concessions made to Muslim communities often concern peripheral issues that in no way prevent Muslims from practicing Islam. For example, in Singapore, McDonald’s omitted a pig character from its Happy Meal toys so as not to offend Muslim customers.  An elementary school in England changed the name of its annual play from “The Three Little Pigs” to “The Three Little Puppies” so as to not offend Muslim students and parents. Ironically, in both of these situations, the Muslim community was indifferent.  In the case of McDonald’s, numerous Muslim teachers and scholars said they saw nothing wrong with the pig toys.  In the case of the school play in England, a prominent Islamic leader (and many others) called the move “bizarre.”

Minarets, too, are a peripheral issue for Muslims. Although minarets call Muslims to prayer, the lack of a minaret will not inhibit a Muslim from praying five times a day (one of the Five Pillars of Islam). Thus, minarets are nonessential (in reality, they merely represent an architectural feature of historic Islamic culture).  With the Muslim population of Europe booming, many Swiss anticipated that hundreds of minarets would soon dot their nation’s landscape—standing in stark contrast to its chalet-filled mountainsides and traditional alpine architecture.  By banning minarets, the Swiss were not being close-minded Islamophobes; they were merely trying to protect their cultural identity (of which minarets are not a part).

Ironically, it could be argued that what the Swiss have done is actually the opposite of Islamophobia. In reality, acquiescing to every Muslim request (dhimmitude) is driven by fear. McDonald’s in Singapore, the three little puppies—concessions like these are not driven out of a sincere desire to respect differences. They’re driven by the fear that if you don’t, some fundamentalist out in Yemen will get angry and decide to teach you a lesson. If you think that’s false, you’re kidding yourself.

By refusing to pander to that fear, the Swiss took a stand against dhimmitude and acknowledged the Swiss-Muslim community for what it truly is: a group of kind, even-tempered people who are just happy to be there. Minarets or not.

Kristi is a senior studying political science with an Arabic minor.