PRESENTER: There was another matter discussed during the week, one that you must have seen. That was the subject of the ban on minarets in Switzerland. Minarets, or the building of new minarets, have been banned. To what extent do you think this impacts on freedom of ideas or freedom of belief?

ADNAN OKTAR: It is clear of course. People should be free to build churches as they wish, or synagogues or mosques. And they can erect minarets. But if these are regarded as dangerous or if there is any legal objection, then that is a different matter. If that infringes people’s right, then that is different. But apart from that, they should be very free. And this ban will have adverse effect. But this was a significant event very much stimulating the global dominion of Islam.

PRESENTER: So are you saying people are afraid?

ADNAN OKTAR: Not fear, but it has produced a tension and excitement in Muslims because it has shown the attitude to religion of the people there, their attitude toward Islam. It is felt that they harbor an anger toward Islam. In that case, what is the duty of Muslims? To spread Islam quickly, to approach people with love and affection, and to use a more moderate language that will make people like Islam more. We have taken that message on board. That is the message given by Almighty Allah. But I also think they seem to regret it a bit. I get the impression they will overturn the decision.

TARKAN YAVAŞ: They also sought help from Turkey to resolve the issue. Because, as you have said, they have become really uneasy. Meetings have taken place on the subject at foreign minister level.

ADNAN OKTAR: Yes, the fact that Islam is a well-loved religion and spreading fast is making people uneasy. But it is very important that Muslims eliminate that worry because it needs to be emphasized excellent that Islam equals love, affection, compassion and forgiveness. It would be very wrong to equate Islam with violence, that would be a sin, unlawful and very unpleasant. Because Islam and the Qur’an are the antidote to violence. Islam is a system that resolves violence. It is terrible corruption and very dangerous to portray it as the source of violence. 

PRESENTER: Switzerland has placed a ban on the building of new mosques. Switzerland has not said that existing mosques should be pulled down. And this was a referendum. The public were asked and the ban on minarets was confirmed. Do you think that Switzerland acted according to the national will or according to a legal dimension? Because if it acted out of the legal dimension that is wrong, because there is freedom of religion and conscience, and if it acted out of the national will, then there has been a referendum and that has been agreed. Which was it in your view, the national will or the law?

ADNAN OKTAR: But there is also an unconscious national will. What if people were to be asked in Turkey whether churches should be done away with? Or let’s not say Turkey but some other country. Would it still be acceptable if 90% of people said yes? No, it would be very wrong. And those who did this have done wrong. For one thing, first of all it was inappropriate to put it to a referendum. I mean it is unacceptable to stir people up, provide brief information and misdirection and then ask them what they think, forcing a negative outcome. Of course very strange things may come out of that. Imagine that a similar referendum had been held in Islamic countries. Very strange outcomes might emerge, and it might have consequences that would eliminate people’s love for one another, affection, tolerance and friendship. And they have established a very dangerous model, because we regard them as well-educated and well-informed people. But they have offered a crude attitue. They have behaved in a very childish and primitive manner, and they must put it right at once.

PRESENTER: So they should not have gone along with the national will, and it should have had an entirely legal dimension?

ADNAN OKTAR: The thing should have been based on reason and logic and international law. It should have been based on humanitarian law, the peace law of the whole world. For example, no Hitler can now stand up and say, “I am in power now through the national will, and the matter is over with.” I mean, there is an international law. Even if they brought a psychopath to power the world would never accept it. The world would have to unite to neutralize such psychopathic behavior.

PRESENTER: What attitude do you think Turkey will or should adopt now?

ADNAN OKTAR: Turkey has in any case adopted a good approach. Let the Turks withdraw their money and invest it in Turkish banks, it said. That is the real panic in Switzerland; nothing else will have much impact on them. They are terrified the money will go. They did not count this possibility. They are thinking a bit naively, aren’t they? If you throw something at a window, the glass will break. It also has an impact. It won’t just bounce off it. Something will definitely happen. The reaction has broken the glass, and the glass has falled on top of their heads.  They are now terrified about their money, wondering how to save it. This is very ugly. Every part of what they did is very ugly. They must put an end to this ignorance at once.

PRESENTER: Do you think people will heed this call by the government, will investors pull their money out?

ADNAN OKTAR: Of course. They have already begun. That is why they are in a panic. 

PRESENTER: Do you think this will create a problem in international relations?

ADNAN OKTAR: Turkey is a mature country, a mature nation. It is sensible and will not react impulsively. It has a maturity coming from the Ottoman Empire, an experience of state. We cannot therefore expect inexperienced or weak actions from Turkey.

TARKAN YAVAŞ: This event has at the same time caused Christians and Muslims in Switzerland to draw closer together. Following it, a priest from Elizabeth’s Church in Basel and a Turkish imam prayed together by reading passages from the Injil and the Qur’an.

ADNAN OKTAR: Christians are aware of the danger, because it could be minarets today and church bells tomorrow, couldn’t it? Then it could be synagogues. There will be a chain of events, one after the other. They have felt the danger right from the outset and want to stop it, because this action will not remain aimed against Muslims alone, as far as I can see. Because they may say, “Now we do not want to hear church bells.” Isn’t that so? “Churches make us uneasy,” they may say. Whereas we should respect all ideas and beliefs.