Close this search box.

Minaret Law Presented by Yisrael Beitenu MKs

A bill was presented in Knesset recently dubbed the Minaret Bill, addressing the unacceptably loud noise levels emanating from mosques, which customarily use loudspeakers. The bill cites that the abuse of loudspeakers results in nuisance to thousands of residents around the country five times daily.

While the media was quick to label the bill “discriminatory”, it appears it is gaining support among lawmakers. In the Shuafat area of the capital for example, the loudspeakers of the main mosque were targeted by area residents on a number of occasions due to the noise levels which are disturbing to citizens, the daily HaMevaser reports.

Neighbors living adjacent to the main Shuafat mosque have called on mosque officials to “lower the volume”, explaining that they are bothered numerous times daily as a result of the volume. The same holds true in many other areas, where residents awaken to the wining sound of the loudspeakers and residents complain small children are regularly prevented from falling asleep as a result of evening prayers over the loudspeakers.

(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)

9 Responses

  1. This is a slippery slope. First they regulate noise from mosques and the next step will be to restrict noise from shuls in secular neighborhoods on Purim and simchas torah. A makom kadosh to muslims should be treated the same as a shul and there should be a very high hurdle imposed before any restrictions are imposed on their mode of tefilliah, even if it might annoy a few yidden.

  2. We Jews don’t need to know every time the Arabs have their tiflah services. It is way too loud and bothers nearby residents.
    Perhaps this bill will show the Arabs that we the Jews are the baal habiyet in Israel.

  3. “Makom kadosh”?! You have the chutpzah to call a mekom tum’ah with such a name?! And you call their tiflah “tefilliah” (sic)?! That is apikorsus. The halacha is that Benei Noach have no right to invent their own religions, and if we have it in our power we must prevent them from doing so. אין מניחין אותן לחדש דת

    Your entire premise is flawed; why should a JEWISH state treat mosques and shuls the same?

  4. Gadolhadorah, do you live in Eretz Yisroel? If you do, you must live somewhere that is very far from these mosques.

    In places like Shuafat, Ramot, Kiryat Sefer, Beitar, which are very close, the Arabs have been known to turn the volume up to ridiculously high levels. There was a period of time that, where I live, the one in the middle of the night – around 3-4 in the morning – was so loud it literally sounded like it was in our backyard. My kids were waking up every night, crying.

    In Beitar I know that at one point it was so outrageous that the mayor at the time told the army to inform the Arab village that if they didn’t cut it out, he would place loudspeakers along the dividing fence and play MBD or Fried at top volume. (No joke.)

    They lowered it.

  5. The article implies that the call will not become illegal; only the decibel level of loudspeakers will be regulated. This will not affect our shuls, as we have no loudspeakers. As for the Eruv Shabbos music: it would have to be in the acceptable decibel range, or receive a “heter” because it’s only once a week, as opposed to Muslim 35 times a week!

  6. There is no comparison between the noise of the mosques FIVE TIMES every day, including the middle of the night, and noise on a day or two of the year.
    Unless, of course, one is anti-semitic!

  7. Excuse me, Gadolhadorah, twice a year is not the same as 5 times a day! I know I can’t say such a terrible thing as this happens to be OUR country! We’re not stopping them from praying 5 times a day, they can just lower the volume on those loudspeakers. What about discriminating against all the Jews that have to listen to that horrible noise? (It sounds like scratching on a blackboard!)

  8. Gee…can you imagine the outcry of antisemitism if people moved to quash Simcha Beis Hashuavah celebrations. There needs to be more sensitivity than isexhibited here to the need to accommodate religious activity…unless of course if you think that principle applies only to Goyim accommodating us.

Leave a Reply

Popular Posts