Harry's Place

Deobandi is Wahaabi by another name – simply the local version in South West Asia – and Wahaabis as we know are militant in their religion. Wahaabis don’t allow a single Jew to live freely in Arabia. They don’t allow Christians to have churches or practise their religion freely and yet they expect to be allowed to build triumphalist mosques all over Europe.

I think we should definitely not allow a mega mosque, full stop. How we achieve that is a secondary matter.

I see were building up more wood on the funeral pyre.

If enough people want to follow this religion, including women who enjoy being locked up or accompanied and inside bags when in public, then wouldn’t the freedoms that we cherish be served, ironically, by permitting places of worship to be provided?

What field said.

j.r. -
No, they wouldn’t. We don’t allow husbands to beat their wives to a pulp in this country, even if the wives say it’s OK.

“If enough people want to follow this religion, including women who enjoy being locked up or accompanied and inside bags when in public, then wouldn’t the freedoms that we cherish be served, ironically, by permitting places of worship to be provided?”

And if we all covered everything in petrol then arsonists would have an easier time as well.

“No, they wouldn’t. We don’t allow husbands to beat their wives to a pulp in this country, even if the wives say it’s OK.”

What has beating wives got to do with building a place of worship, on land that they’ve bought?

Christian People’s Alliance???

isn’t the one lesson to be learnt from the swp’s “anti-imperialist” embrace of islamism that the enemy of your enemy doesn’t need to be your friend…

the CPA stands for blasphemy laws, non-equality for same-sex households etc. – i’m not saying they’re evil fundamentalists… they seem to be relatively moderate (but then: so is the governing AKP in Turkey…): basically what they’re saying is that laws should be made based mainly on Christian traditions, as the UK (they say) is a Christian country because about 70% of the population, when asked their religious identity say “Christian” – well: you better try to get them to church on Sunday… (here we’re below 10%)

even so: given their demonisation of secularists and humanists, it’s pretty weird that they seem to be begging for progressive secular support

(not saying building a giant mosque is a good idea… or a giant church for that matter – only don’t want to find our folk similarly compromised by closing ranks on a demo with the Christian religious right as the remnants of the Leninist left are by closing ranks with the Islamic religious right…)

again: they seem to be a bunch of kind and nice people and not at all extreme, but statements like this give me the creeps:

“If God has sovereign sway over all of life, then all human power (or responsibility) is derived from God and is partial and limited. States, nations and rulers are subject to God, receive their authority within God’s ordinance and are accountable to God for their exercise of responsibility”
http://www.cpaparty.org.uk/resources/EA_Faith_and_Nation_03.doc

in my book – “states, nations and rulers” should be subject to the democratic will of those they govern and reglement and bound by the obligation to respect subjects’ human rights

… to clarify:
“not saying building a giant mosque is a good idea… or a giant church for that matter – ” doesn’t of course mean i oppose medium sized mosques or churches… even tho i’d not necessarily go there…

also think there should be more public space set aside for non-worshipping..

What should society should do to counterbalance the prosletisation that is being carried out by Deobandi, and for that matter cults such as scientology? Whether this mosque goes up is fairly irrelevant in regard to whether vulnerable people can be protected from cults which we believe interfere with their freedom and well-being.

Can I ask why those who are not religious don’t attempt to persuade religious people – particularly those who entertain very extreme religious views – to change their minds?

I know that most people think it is rude to talk about religion. They think it is possibly racist to try persuade members of a religious cultural group to change their religion – just look at the reaction to Jews for Jesus, who seem perfectly inoffensive to me.

However, religious people engaged in missionary work have no such inhibition.

For that matter, shouldn’t Christian groups put their time and effort into trying to convert Muslims to Christianity?

“shouldn’t Christian groups put their time and effort into trying to convert Muslims to Christianity?

well, of course they should – there is a religious obligation to do so

problem for the atheist: though i’m pretty sure i’m right and there is not god (so: “relax!”), that also means that there’s nobody out there to tell me to convince others he/she/it doesn’t exist…
also: there isn’t necessarily an ethical driver – atheists can be as bad as religious fanatics … and there’s no evidence that atheism makes you happier than religion does (but i’d strongly contest that it is the other way round)

what we should strongly advocate (in alliance with religious people who share this view) is that we need to keep our public institutions secular (not religious, but also not anti-religious) so that, in their private lives, people can follow whatever belief or non-belief they think right. that doesn’t even mean that i don’t want people do politics on the basis of religious values – only in order to communicate it in the public sphere they should legitimise their demands in secular ways (it’s in their own interest as, after all, the non-religious vote may not be a majority across the democratic world, but it is a significant minority everywhere)

what we should strongly advocate (in alliance with religious people who share this view) is that we need to keep our public institutions secular (not religious, but also not anti-religious) so that, in their private lives, people can follow whatever belief or non-belief they think right.

Yes, I agree entirely.

Part of the weakness of secularism, is that it is often promoted hand in hand with anti-religious sentiment.

Now, I’m pretty anti religious at times – although I’m mostly positive to religion. I don’t think that people should be inhibited from criticising religion at all.

However, the mocking of religious belief as part of the case for secularism, undermines the argument.

Field:
I think we should definitely not allow a mega mosque, full stop. How we achieve that is a secondary matter.

Cunt.

MatzVar:
also think there should be more public space set aside for non-worshipping.

Isn’t almost all public space already set aside for purposes other than worshipping? Or do you want designated worship-free zones? There are certain street corners near certain railway stations that would certainly benefit from that.

David T:
Can I ask why those who are not religious don’t attempt to persuade religious people – particularly those who entertain very extreme religious views – to change their minds?

Some of us do – I have a lengthy trail of ruined friendships to prove it.

Can I ask why those who are not religious don’t attempt to persuade religious people – particularly those who entertain very extreme religious views – to change their minds?

We do – its called the educational system.

Unfortunately, some people are immune to mere reason and facts. The situation that gives rise to these types of people – brainwashing and indoctrination from an early age – must be stopped. As Dawkins says, religious instruction IS child abuse. Religious officials are as evil as paedophiles. Worse even.

In this case, it is quite simple: NO to a mega-mosque, or a mega-church or whatever. Build something more useful – like a crackhouse.

I would urge caution in being seduced by the CPA’s line on the proposed erection. I think they are preoccuppied with a symbolic act that is really just a play in the grand old game of “I’m the king of the castle” that has driven the building programmes of the main world-domination cults for a few thousand years. I don’t think the government will tackle the pernicious influence of religious groups because they want their vote, and because the government is still chosen by a “fidei defensor”, which makes the whole thing a bit embarrassing.

“Isn’t almost all public space already set aside for purposes other than worshipping?”

though i wasn’t being entirely serious about this: well, not in the same way that churches are (they are set aside for worship, full stop – not for “waiting for the train and worshipping”) – wouldn’t it make sense to have some sort of philosophical meeting houses, secular zones etc. where you can be sure you’re among non-believers in the same way you can be sure in a church to be among (mostly) Christians…?

then again: presumably i’d not be going there – just as i wasn’t seen around churches when i still was a Catholic way back in the stone ages…

Nothing stopping you going into a church for moments of quiet reflection, even if you don’t believe.

I don’t want this fundamentalist cult having a huge public space all to itself. We’ve all seen, with undercover mosque, the kind of scummy racism and homophobia that gets preached when Islamist groups insinuate themselves into soi-disant moderate Islamic mosques, so what the hell kind of vile rubbish would get an airing in this Islamist cult’s mega-mosque?

I’m not thrilled by the prospect of a Mega-mosque – but I wouldn’t be thrilled by the prospect of a Mega-church either. Every religion is, by nature, against individual freedom and democracy. However, people coming out of a church after a sunday sermon don’t rush to the nearest explosive belts shop, so 1-0 for christians so far.

When will the british politicians understand that multiculturalism is like poison – inoffensive only in very small doses.

I don’t konw anything about this cult, maybe this will help:
http://www.tariqjamil.org/articles/nonmuslims/index.php?display=tablighi_jamaat

on consideration: i take the railway station

just found a purpose in life: get benches into railwaystation!

i’ll let you know once i’ve found a handy acronym for my new campaign

Sounds awful, but I don’t live in that part of the world so I (hopefully) won’t have to gaze on it.

But as bright and clear symbol of narrow thinking, the repression of women and gays, hatred for others, the imposition of tyrannical and outdated laws and dark age prejudices, I suppose it serves a purpose.

MatzVar:
wouldn’t it make sense to have some sort of philosophical meeting houses, secular zones etc. where you can be sure you’re among non-believers in the same way you can be sure in a church to be among (mostly) Christians…?

No, no, no. The whole point is that we, as non-believers, don’t need special places to go. We don’t need spaces equivalent to Churches or Mosques or Synagogues, because we aren’t a bunch of loons and freaks who need to shut ourselves away for regular periods of collective hysteria.

Pisa:
I’m not thrilled by the prospect of a Mega-mosque – but I wouldn’t be thrilled by the prospect of a Mega-church either. Every religion is, by nature, against individual freedom and democracy. However, people coming out of a church after a sunday sermon don’t rush to the nearest explosive belts shop, so 1-0 for christians so far.

Absolutely. But I can’t help wondering, since people coming out of a mosque on… whatever day it is they come out of mosques, obviously do rush to the nearest explosive belts shop, why aren’t more of them blowing up? Even with an astronomically high rate of explosive belt failure, shouldn’t there be at least a couple of hundred going off around London every… it’s Saturday, isn’t it?

we aren’t a bunch of loons and freaks

A mission statement!

Can I ask why those who are not religious don’t attempt to persuade religious people – particularly those who entertain very extreme religious views – to change their minds?

Can I ask why you make such unwarranted assumptions? I have been doing exactly that for 45 years.

What has beating wives got to do with building a place of worship, on land that they’ve bought?

Read the post from field and the one from j.r. about ‘women who enjoy being locked up’.

Gregg – for the Inexistent’s sake: it’s Friday

(Saturdays is synagogues, churches, as you will know, is sundays, railwaystations will be Wednesdays)

“If enough people want to follow this religion, including women who enjoy being locked up or accompanied and inside bags when in public, then wouldn’t the freedoms that we cherish be served, ironically, by permitting places of worship to be provided?” – jr.

I have been following this story for a while. The planned building was shown in model form on television some months ago. I cannot recall seeing anything which looked less like a religious building excepting certain Evangelical ‘cathedrals’ in the USA, and certainly unike any Mosque I have seen previously.

I believe the building is only tangentially a religious building and will in the medium to long term become an organisational focus for Islamic political thought to be entrenched, developed and expanded in the UK. The mosque’s proposers acknowledge this in describing its planned uses, one of which will be a school “for boys”. Girls will receive their education elsewhere? In effect this Grand Mosque will become the National Islamic Assembly of Great Britain, with ‘cabinets’ and ‘policies’ (fatwas) to match.

Now, you ask, what is wrong with that?

Given the path of global jihad on which international Islamism has embarked, I would say just about everything. I have long been convinced that there can be no co-habitation between political radical Islam and Modernism – and to be fair, the Islamists I have heard speaking to these points make this plain also. Islam and Modernism (the latter is a difficult set of ideas which to summarise simply or briefly here) are completely incompatible as any serious examination of either will quickly demonstrate, despite modish admiration for Islamic architecture or ‘thought’. Islam is not alone in this dissension from historic developments in western civilisation; the Christian People’s Alliance sounds as if it too would object to many of the reforms which have made such a marked change in lives of many in the west since the beginning of the last century, not least women. (If I am incorrect on this last point perhaps someone from the CPA will put me right.)

We should not be confused about the issues raised by the construction of this building. If people wish to subject themselves to say, the rule of the BNP, are we then simply to congratulate them on their democratic choice and watch as the democratic choices of others are destroyed in whole and detail? I think not.

I strongly oppose the establishment of a pseudo-government of any complexion or character within the UK. Such a ‘government will generate a separation and division in society which can only be imagined at this juncture but a overview of the recent history of a number of countries around the world will furnish examples. I believe the Grand Mosque will be an instrument in formenting division, not social cohesion and some of the impacts of that division – fundamental and intractable – are already with us.

This is a piss-poor post. I’m afraid the fellow doesn’t make the case for the vetoing of this monstrosity at all.

There is one very important reason not to have a 12,000 (I thought it was 40,000???) capacity mosque at Abbey Mills: there are already at least 5 mosques within a mile of the site anyway.

It is frankly ludicrous to argue that Jamaat at-Tableegh have links to terrorist organisations or propagate that perfect example of a drivel construct, the extremist Muslim: you could argue that most, if not all Islamic organisations have at some time had members or had links to terrorism and an ‘extremist’ ideology. This is not confined to the Tableeghis, so why bring it up.

The real reason, and I for one would not be at all happy if it went ahead, that this man should not get any support is that he has clearly brought whatever he thinks the Tableeghis will bring on himself, or at least contributed to it:

Should we allow TJ to build this prestigious national platform? Despite their recent (Indigo-tutored) protestations of inclusivity and openness, their anti-social ideology is hostile to the values of our multi-cultural capital and incompatible with 21st century Britain.

Multicultural London is bollocks: if it were such a lovely place to live rather than the series of ethnic cantons that it has become, native Brits wouldn’t be fleeing inner London in their droves. Being able to see a super masjid from the top of Barking Rd. isn’t the problem, it’s the ridiculous self-serving utopian ideas of people like Allan Craig that are.

Christian Peoples Alliance Group??

Seriously, What the f**k?!

“Surely London cannot offer a high-profile platform to dangerous nonsense like this”.

For London read HP…

David T:

What has beating wives got to do with building a place of worship, on land that they’ve bought?

Well it’s part of the mainstream belief of the political religious group that wants to do the building of the Mega Mosque. Sort of like expelling ‘darkies’ from Blighty, is part of the BNP’s. Your bend-over backwards liberalism is blinding you to this very simple truth.

One has to be rather asleep to think this is not a venture to further promulgate Islam in the UK and that Islam is not intrinsically imperialist, medieval and anathema to liberal democracy. That mainstream Islam – especially this sect – is not a political movement with perfidious goals that cut directly against the grain of a tolerant pluralist liberal democracy …rather different to all other major contemporary religions. That the influence of this mega Mosque, is not going to be divisive, malign even treasonous.

To my mind tolerating the intolerance that is part of the DNA of Fascism of which Islam is part, takes one beyond classical liberalism into the realm of addled brain death wishism.

Mel’s barking mad, but she does have a point on this one.

Rather deny planning permission. And whilst about it, ban foreign funding of Islamic institutions in the UK.

Obviously the intent is to declare the entire Olympics haram about a week before their opening. Cause mass riots in the streets, arson and generally applied threats of death upon the Israeli team members, etc etc. London 2012 will be a replay of Munich 1972 if you let it.

“The real reason, and I for one would not be at all happy if it went ahead, that this man should not get any support is that he has clearly brought whatever he thinks the Tableeghis will bring on himself, or at least contributed to it:” – Dirk Benedict.

Is this available in English?

‘For that matter, shouldn’t Christian groups put their time and effort into trying to convert Muslims to Christianity?’

Isn’t this the nub of the matter, David? TJ are a highly successful missionary organisation bent on Islamic expansion and revival. In the 19th century Christian missionaries did just that – and earned the undying rancour of Muslim communities ever since, who regarded it as cultural imperialism. The Left, it seems, agrees with them, so that nowadays it is conventional to damn Christian missionary efforts as imperialistic.

So if that’s wrong – isn’t Islamic imperialism and aggressive evangelising like this equally wrong?

A 12,000 strong Islamic HQ bang in the middle of London is OTT. A more scaled down, softly-softly da’wa effort might be acceptable, but the sheer scale and ambition of this project is not a recipe for social and cultural harmony.

That’s the real issue here – scale.

“The real reason, and I for one would not be at all happy if it went ahead, that this man should not get any support is that he has clearly brought whatever he thinks the Tableeghis will bring on himself, or at least contributed to it:” – Dirk Benedict.

Is this available in English?

I wouldn’t be at all happy with the project if it went ahead, but this man should not get any support because he has clearly brought it on himself.

What makes me think that this man hasn’t lived in Newham all his life?

; )

the one from j.r. about ‘women who enjoy being locked up’.

Are women who enjoy being locked up, the crux of the matter? In which case, can I suggest a giant BDSM club, as a compromise between the CPA and TJ?

I would oppose a development on this scale whatever the nature of the religion.

I agree with the rest of your argument but this:

A 12,000 strong Islamic HQ bang in the middle of London is OTT.

…is not factually correct. It won’t be in the ‘middle’ of London and the fact that they’ll do the site up is actually a bit of a boon (it’s a sh*thole).

That Allan Craig is a Christian nutter!

He is the Christian version of a wahabbi.

Mega-mosque aside, it’s interesting how people can making sweeping and very negative generalisations about Christians and Christianity, without anyone calling for nuance or demanding people make important distinctions. Christianity is like an old pair of bloomers; one sixce fits all.

Yet when it comes to discussion of Islam we all fall over each other in a mad scramble to see who can come up with the most nuanced and subtle distinctions.

The hypocrisy isn’t just ‘appalling’, it is something that prevents us some seeing Islam and this latest manifestation of Islam’s supremacy for what it is.

This Mega-mosque isn’t a religious building in the way we understand ‘religious building’; it is a chateau-fort from which will be disseminated vile hate-filled bile, all of it inspired by Islam’s core texts, and aimed mostly at London’s youths in an effort to transform them into warriors of allah.

Do HP readers based in the UK still not understand what kind of aggression and sinister threat this structure represents? This is tantamount to a declaration of war.

But remember, Allan Craig is THE religous nutter…even though His religion, as opposed to Islam, in centered on a very clear distinction between the temporal and divine.

What I expect to see on this thread are comments, articulate, well-written and utterly worthless comments resulting from decades and decades of anti-Christian conditioning.

And I fully expect the mosque to be built because a significant portion of Britian’s elites, just like all western elites, are corrupt and on ‘The Payroll’.

“I wouldn’t be at all happy with the project if it went ahead, but this man should not get any support because he has clearly brought it on himself.” – Dirk Benedict.

Thank you, Dirk. “it” being …?

I’d like to add that if the Tableeghis came out and said that they support Christian men marrying Muslim women and that Sylheti families who threaten to kill their daughters and future son-in-laws are outside the fold of Islam, then I’d probably support the development. The Tableeghis I’ve met were not predisposed to want to kill infidels…they were actually intelligent, knowledgeable Muslims who evidently make model citizens.

Thank you, Dirk. “it” being …?

A resumptive pronoun; ‘the project’; the proposed mega-mosque…

“A 12,000 strong Islamic HQ bang in the middle of London is OTT.
…is not factually correct. It won’t be in the ‘middle’ of London and the fact that they’ll do the site up is actually a bit of a boon (it’s a sh*thole).” – Dirk Benedict. (Dirk, this is not personal but everyone else, it seems, is down the pub…)

It is someway more of being in centre of London than where I am, but I take your point.

Sometimes I am asked to re-consder an objection I may have to a scheme by an appeal asking me to ‘consider the employment it will bring’. I am afraid I find all such arguments special pleading. What if instead of a Grand Mosque this was a more modest HQ of, say the BNP? I thought so. No, this will not do. Purpose, not pre-existing site dereliction or potential for urban renewal nor scale come into this question at all in my view.

After careful investigation of the project, and if there will no harm to anyone, I think the mosque project should be allowed. Contrary to what people think ,TJ are not extremists and the deoband seminary actually released a fatwa condemning all acts of terrorism. I will also like to clarify one more thing; beating wives is not allowed in Islam. all women must be treated with respect and you could see that in most islamic countries, women are treated quite well and not regarded as ‘property’.

I will also like to clarify one more thing; beating wives is not allowed in Islam. all women must be treated with respect and you could see that in most islamic countries, women are treated quite well and not regarded as ‘property’.

I’m pretty sure you’re a straw man, but in case you’re not what you’re saying doesn’t gel with either the Qur’an itself, Muhammadan tradition, classical hermeneutics or many contemporary commentators…no offence.

I agree as far as the Tableegis are concerned. Would you, Faizan, support Christian (or non-Muslim) men marrying Muslim women?

(Dirk, this is not personal but everyone else, it seems, is down the pub…)

It is someway more of being in centre of London than where I am, but I take your point.

Not to worry, I’ve got one on ice. I don’t live in Newham, but my home base is a couple of miles down the road so I guess it’s closer to Central London from my perspective if I’m honest – Abbey Mills is hardly a ‘happenin’ place as it is…a nice park and some tasteful architecture wouldn’t go amiss. I draw the line at the adhan though…

Unless Alan Craig is blind, he’ll have noticed large parts of his ‘turf’ resemble Maulvi Bazaar or Mogadishu anyway, whatever possessed the man the speak out now?

After careful investigation of the project, and if there will no harm to anyone, I think the mosque project should be allowed. Contrary to what people think ,TJ are not extremists and the deoband seminary actually released a fatwa condemning all acts of terrorism. I will also like to clarify one more thing; beating wives is not allowed in Islam. all women must be treated with respect and you could see that in most islamic countries, women are treated quite well and not regarded as ‘property’.

Oh for fuck’s sakes!

The probleme with that little pack of lies is this; the ranks of ex-Muslims who are willing to talk are growing every day.

And your condemnation of all acts of terrorism is but a cheap, sleazy way of calling Israel and Jews terrorists.

Take you mega-mosque, your prophet, your koran, your death-cult, your filthy virgins, and your Bronze Age idiocy and piss off southeastwards.

We’ve been watching endless demstrations of Islamofascist hatred for the past two weeks, you brain-dead mohamedean.

And as if there already isn’t enough.

http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_headline=madonna-targeted-by-muslim-fanatics-over-israel-s-attack-on-gaza&method=full&objectid=21032190&siteid=93463-name_page.html

Surely London cannot offer a high-profile platform to dangerous nonsense like this.

You call it nonsense but its no more nonsense that the other ridiculous stories we tolerate and often promulgate through schools – that a man was crucified and resurrected (Jesus) after raising the dead (Lazarus), that a God would ask a man to sacrifice his son and then go ‘just kidding’ or any of the other fairy stories we call religion. I can’t help but laugh as lefties accommodate theocratic nonsense out of some kind of plea to ‘multiculturalism’. Marx must be spinning in his grave!

Slightly OT, the government responded to a petition against sharia law – http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17960. I’m not sure if they are skirting round the issue of the sharia tribunals with this response – as I’m not a lawyer I don’t know whether this is contradicted by the reported use of a sharia tribunal in an inheritance case:

Nor, for example, could someone expect a civil court, in reaching a decision on a contractual case under English or Scottish law, to apply the principles of Shari’a law.

propagate that perfect example of a drivel construct, the extremist Muslim

Drivel indeed. Extremist Muslims are – e.g. – the ones known euphemistically as ’suicide bombers’. Maybe that’s not extreme enough for you. It is for me, thanks for asking.

Gregg (I think) made fun of the idea of exploding belts. Yeah, very droll, old boy. Since plenty of mosques in this country are hotbeds of not just racist, sexist and homophobic hate preachers but also those who extol the idea of dying and taking any number of kuffars with you, I find this levity in very poor taste and it completely misses the mark.

its no more nonsense that the other ridiculous stories we tolerate and often promulgate through schools – that a man was crucified and resurrected

Remind us of the last time Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Hindus exploded bombs on buses anywhere in the world.

Do HP readers based in the UK still not understand what kind of aggression and sinister threat this structure represents?

Some of us do.
You are right: the supposed ‘elites’ are corrupt. Our government is corrupt, and treasonous. A large number of people in high places would rather take the 30 pieces of silver, than defend their country’s civilisation.
A civilised man plants a tree that will bear fruit in 50 years, for his descendants. A traitorous scum prefers the silver now, and screw his grandchildren.

Some info on the deobandis is here and here. It seems that the Deobandis are tight with the Taliban.

I would accept a mega mosque in London when there are mega churches in Saudia and Iran.

That is, if anybody is interested in my opinion.

I’ll wait until there are mega-synagogues and sikh and hindu temples.

“I ask why those who are not religious don’t attempt to persuade religious people – particularly those who entertain very extreme religious views – to change their minds?

For that matter, shouldn’t Christian groups put their time and effort into trying to convert Muslims to Christianity?”

Mr Ben has been saying this for some time. Certainly the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to have no interest in converting Muslims to Christianity – quite the opposite in fact – although John Sentamu at York seems to be an honourable exception he seems to be in the minority.

I wonder what would happen if “hardline” Christians started visiting mosques and handing out leaflets and attempting to convert the local Muslims to Christianity. Do you think they would get arrested? Come to that do the Jehovah Witnesses ever doorstep in Muslim areas?

Councillor Craig,

Poor man. If only you focused your efforts on helping the people of london to do good, your views may be listened to.

Whilst you may have caught the ear of a few opportunistic journalists at one point, you lies have caused you to alienate yourself from the mainstream media and now you resort to blogs and websites which you and your handful of supporters have setup.

The TJ means no harm to the people of England. It wants its members to be law abiding citizens of the UK, to pay its taxes and to be good Muslims.

It would seem that your concern is actually the fact that attendance in the churches is dwindling and nobody is ready to listen to your message. It would benefit you if you learnt from TJ. Focus on spreading the true message to your community and learn to respect your neighbour.

The TJ means no harm to the people of England. It wants its members to be law abiding citizens of the UK, to pay its taxes and to be good Muslims.

You obviously don’t know many ex-Muslims, and in fact would be loathe to talk to any for fear your fragile ‘faith’ becomes untethered.

And it’s not just ex-Muslims, but also moderate, modernizing Muslims who want to give TJ the heave-ho.

The TJ are dusgusting, hate-filled theocrats whose stinking outfit should be banned in the UK the way one would ban a group of loony, scumbag nazis.

TJ nutbars aim to be good citizens and ‘good’ Muslims in the same vein as the 7/7 bombers.

Some of us do.
You are right: the supposed ‘elites’ are corrupt. Our government is corrupt, and treasonous. A large number of people in high places would rather take the 30 pieces of silver, than defend their country’s civilisation.

Yep, and that indeed has been the process for at least the past 30 years. You know, those ex-politician ‘consultants’ who advocate for the interests of outfits like T.J. and various Saudi ‘princes’, and those in the financial sector, one treasonous little hand on their bank-book, the other on their weenies, who push for sharia-compliant financial “products”.

And then, of course, there are the ‘academics’.

It’s a sickening spectacle.

Righteous is talking nonsense. The writer may or may not be a Christian, but I am an atheist and so are many others. I couldn’t give a flying monkey about church attendance. What I and many others object to is a further encroachment by an anti-democratic, vicious stone-age cult into my country.

The model referred to by one poster above covers the whole site and the chances of that getting Planning Permission are nil.

There never has been a proposal for a “mega-mosque” at West Ham and the allegation that there is is all part of the fevered imaginations of Alan Craig and Andrea Minichiello Williams.

There is an important test of just how sectarian and horrible the UK Christian Right are. What do they have to say about the notion that Jews, Christians and Muslims are all children of Abraham? Christian Voice go to some lengths to expound differences between Christian and Muslim conceptions of God. The others, including the Barnabas Foundation, Christian People’s Alliance and the Lawyers Christian Fellowship, are entirely silent.

If you think Alan Craig is obsessive, try meeting Stephen Green.

It seems that a lot of people people here are strong secularists who have problems not only with the mosque but also Alan Craig, because they are both religious.

We are clearly moving to a more polarized society where Secularism, Christianity and Islam as growing in strength. We also know that all three ideologies have various shades of meaning with in them. Can a society maintain freedom for all these groups when their fundamentals principles are clearly at odds? Who would run a society most fairly? We need to publicly debate this issues with respect to each other. No one is neutral or objective we all have an ideology. We need to start of honestly, when looking at issues such as the mosque. Alan is straight up and says he’s Christian.

If we look at Alan’s argument he doesn’t quote the bible, or use God as an authority. He is appealing partly to our reason, but mainly to our shared believes about the dignity of women which most Christians and Secularist agree on.

The mosque is a bad idea. Not because religion should be kept out of public life as some think (This is shockingly illiberal). But because TJ are damaging in what they teach, and the harm they will do to social cohesion. We must judge any group by both their teaching and their actions – not on pre conceived ideas about them. TJ’s track record is not a good one. Most Christians, liberal Muslims and secularists want to live in a society that treats all people with respect and equality. We differ on a lot because our staring points and aims are different, but with something like the mosque once it has been fully investigated it should be a no brainer for all of us.

BTW

I was amused by the comment “Every religion is, by nature, against individual freedom and democracy” yes all religions by their very nature have a higher authority than us, and we are responsible to a God. This does restrict freedoms freedom to kill, freedom to steal, etc. But doesn’t secularism also challenge freedoms such as the freedom to publicly practice religion?

As for democracy did you know that in the front of the Wycliffe Bible was written the follow words “government for the people, of the people by the people” the dates of the bible was about 1384. I’m not sure you can say all religion opposes democracy! I would argue that Christianity had more influence on modern democracy than the short lived Athenian democracy. It is unlikely that modern secular democracies could have arisen without it’s Christian roots. Furthermore most secularists loosely borrow their morality for Christianity, as secularism can not produce a morality of it’s own. I think this frames the debate.

Tablighi Jamaat may well be a peaceful organisation, BUT the mindset they incalcate in their members is not that different to that of the Taliban. I don’t think it takes a lot to shift someone from one to the other. When I see how many of the people in all the terror trials that we’ve had were connected to Tablighi Jamaat, perhaps the time has come to think about banning it.

OK. we can make this a specific election issue, at a National Level, so people will have a voice and a choice. Dream on Comstock! We need to link our Muslims with a specific commitment to free religious belief world wide, including in Mecca and Medina.

What is emerging from this thread is recogition that Christians, secularists and muslims local to Newham share concerns about the proposed mega-mosque. Alan Craig is able to raise these concerns because he has a democratic mandate to do so – over 30% of the electorate gave a vote to the Christian Peoples Alliance in the south of Newham at the last local elections – and because of his integrity as a local servant of the community.

Some posts have attacked Alan rather than his views. He and his family have lived in the borough for 25 years. (read more here:
http://www.newham.cpaparty.org.uk/?page=your_councillors&id=1088) and his actions have always spoken louder than his words – including campaigns against Labour’s plans to replace Queens market by an Asda, the Excel Arms Fair, the doubling of flights at City Airport, Labour’s replacement in Canning Town of homes for local people by yuppie flats, the threat to local GPs through the introduction of polyclinics and the reality that the Olympics is delivering few jobs for Newham people.

These are actions which reflect the CPA’s stance as a mainstream Christian Democratic party – and nothing to do with the religious right. They perhaps also explain why local muslims vote CPA at elections and have taken their own stance against the mosque through their own petitions and public statements.

“TJ’s track record is not a good one”

“Tablighi Jamaat may well be a peaceful organisation, BUT the mindset they incalcate in their members is not that different to that of the Taliban”

“And it’s not just ex-Muslims, but also moderate, modernizing Muslims who want to give TJ the heave-ho”

What a load of rubbish. Where are you all sourcing these facts from. If your reading list is the Sun, the Star and blogs like these, then you are basing your comments on baseless and incorrect facts.

TJ and many groups like it have proven to be a positive asset to Britain and its hard working members have become the backbone of this country.

There are many bigger problems that this country faces, which include areas such as Healthcare, Education & Crime and there are countless members of the TJ who are excellent doctors, teachers and Police Officers who serve this country well and deserve to be respected.

Stop wasting your time on a non issue!

j.r.

Thanks for pointing this out. Yes they are being disingenuous, see the differing wording for civil and criminal matters.

No government will allow anyone or group to usurp the criminal law and justice system per se. What is very clear and I have been following this along with other lawyers is that this gov. is quite happy to sacrifice Muslim women, by allowing pre decided supposedly ‘voluntary’ agreements, brokered by Muslim male powerbrokers, to be then incorporated into civil law by being rubber stamped by the British civil courts. That is covering divorce and other family issues. That’s not so important to this gov.

You recognise the idea… so many commentators say on these sites…and politicians in public… I suppose meaning to be really ‘reasonable” – let religion stay in the private sphere not the public sphere and this gov. goes along with that fine.

But private/civil means who you can be married to, who controls the money, how easy it is to abuse you and what chance you have escaping from abuse, whether crime against family members will be prosecuted, where your children live, who they are taught to obey, who supports them financially, where and if they get schooling etc.

See One Law for All campaign.
j.r.

http://www.onelawforall.org

It’s a great idea. Get ‘em all together in one place, then, …

I don’t have a problem with anybody’s faith. I have previously posted “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars’ and unto God that which is God’s” as advocating separation of faith and state. I think Richard Dawkins is needlessly rude to believers.

I have a problem with the national leader of the CPA’s way of presenting his arguments, which I find obsessive, together with his readiness to accuse others of acting in bad faith. Having read the post at 6:55 above, I now have the same problem with David Campanale. For example, the majority of Newham’s single-handed GPs will have retired before Polyclinics arrive.

Alan Craig has been photographed at the annual meeting of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship. It was LCF that organised for him to speak at the House of Commons. He was a Committee member of the Christian Congress for Traditional Values until its website went down followingthe embarassment of “Bishop” Michael Reid of Brentwood.

There’s more.

Righteous Brit: you are right in saying that none of us have sourced evidence for our objections (you are also included in that). I’ve done a fair amount of reading to come to my conclusions. I don’t mind digging around and finding stuff which persuaded me but I don’t have time today. Not sourcing is lazy and inexcusable. This article that I found very persuasive. And probably covers the quotes made:
http://www.meforum.org/article/686 it is well supported.

As for the specific quotes. When I said “TJ’s track record is not a good one” its in reference to some of the integration issues in Dewsbury which have also been fuelled by the far right.

“Tablighi Jamaat may well be a peaceful organisation, BUT the mindset they incalcate in their members is not that different to that of the Taliban”

I didn’t quote this but, it’s not an outrageous claim as TJ and Taliban are both Deobandis. There is a lot of material on this.

“And it’s not just ex-Muslims, but also moderate, modernizing Muslims who want to give TJ the heave-ho”

Dr T Hargey wrote a very strong letter to the Times condemning them.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article3634739.ece there are also local petitions of Muslims that I read about and Ed Husain has condemned it but i can’t source them right now.

Planning Permission is for buildings and sites. Any of the posters on this thread, the Cardinal Archbisop of Westminster and the Chief Rabbi could submit identical applications and should expect to have them considered fair and square.

And who could forget that Alan Craig was quoted in the “Newham Recorder”
20th June 2001 “Unless there are safety or other technical objections the Muslim community should be allowed to build the mosque at West Ham” and
27th February 2002 “I argued publicly that the council should give the go-ahead to the West Ham mosque.”

Mrs Ben @ 12 January 2009, 5:45 pm

“Come to that do the Jehovah Witnesses ever doorstep in Muslim areas?”

They do. There’s a specifically Muslim door sticker for telling them to go away.

Mega Mosque No Thanks