From The Sunday Times today:


Giant mosque for 40,000 may be built at London Olympics

A MASSIVE mosque that will hold 40,000 worshippers is being proposed beside the Olympic complex in London to be opened in time for the 2012 Games.

The project’s backers hope the mosque and its surrounding buildings would hold a total of 70,000 people, only 10,000 fewer than the Olympic stadium.
Its futuristic design features wind turbines instead of the traditional minarets, while a translucent latticed roof would replace the domes seen on most mosques. The complex is designed to become the “Muslim quarter” for the Games, acting as a hub for Islamic competitors and spectators.

“It will be something never seen before in this country. It is a mosque for the future as part of the British landscape,” said Abdul Khalique, a senior member of Tablighi Jamaat, a worldwide Islamic missionary group that is proposing the mosque as its new UK headquarters.

Tablighi Jamaat has come under scrutiny from western security agencies since 9/11. Two years ago, according to The New York Times, a senior FBI anti-terrorism official claimed it was a recruiting ground for Al-Qaeda. British police investigated a report that Mohammad Sidique Khan, leader of the July 7 London bombers, had attended its present headquarters in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. In August, Bavaria expelled three members of the organisation on the grounds that it promoted Islamic extremism.

Defenders of Tablighi Jamaat say that it is not political and confines itself to humanitarian work. It was founded in India under the British Raj and has many members in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The east London complex would have by far the largest capacity of any religious building in Britain. The biggest at present is the Baitul Futuh in Morden, Surrey, which holds about 10,000 worshippers. Liverpool’s Anglican cathedral, the largest Christian place of worship, has a capacity of 3,000.

The new building will be called the London Markaz (Arabic for centre) and will be built in place of an existing mosque on a 10-acre site 500 yards from the Olympic development.

The three-storey mosque will be designed to accommodate more than 40,000 worshippers. Its sweeping roof is intended to evoke tented cities.
The complex would include a garden, school, library and accommodation for visiting worshippers.

Islamic calligraphy would cover the walls and ceilings, the washing areas would have cascading water to mimic a stream, and the complex’s buildings would be adapted to allow extra worshippers during festivals such as Eid, accommodating a further 30,000 visitors.

Ali Mangera, the London and Barcelona-based architect who is designing the mosque, said: “People in this country build mosques with fake domes and plastic minarets to look like the mosques back home. Islam has traditionally been at the forefront of technology and change. The Markaz will reflect this. It will be more than a mosque. The whole idea behind it is to break down barriers.”

Mangera has previously worked with leading British architects including Zaha Hadid, designer of the Cardiff opera house. Mangera and Tablighi Jamaat are in negotiations with Newham council, the Greater London Authority and the Thames Gateway Development Corporation for planning permission.

Sunil Sahadevan, a planning officer at Newham council, said: “We are working towards the mosque application with the organisers and discussions are ongoing. The application will be finalised over the next year.”

It is estimated that the project would cost more than £100m and donations are being sought from Britain and abroad.

yet another example of the islamic fanaticism. whether that's a good or bad thing, you be the judge.

This would be controversial.

It's size would be main problem not the location. 40,000 capacity? seems somewhat excessive, a 10,000 capacity mosque would be a huge project to start with. It's doesn't matter how far multiculturalism has come or how much you believe in it, I can't see many (virtually none) non muslims backing this.

An ideal location to train the next wave of young BRITISH Muslim militants!

And only a stones throw from the Olympics!

An ideal location to train the next wave of young BRITISH Muslim militants!

And only a stones throw from the Olympics!


I'm in favour of this, I have no problems with mosques and in a way quite like the architecture.

As long as they are not funded by the Saudi form of Islam I'm cool with it.

Re the suicide bombers and militants from Leeds who turned themselves into human fireworks. It has been proven some of them didn't even go to mosques, they were in fact indoctronated at local informal clubs who organised events and activities such as swimming days, before they went on a swim they would all watch a video on Muslims being abused. They act in the same way as Christian extremists, they are based on the slow drip drip form of indoctrination.

It is these informal clubs we need to go after not the Mosques or the Imans.

I'm in favour of this, I have no problems with mosques and in a way quite like the architecture.

As long as they are not funded by the Saudi form of Islam I'm cool with it.

Re the suicide bombers and militants from Leeds who turned themselves into human fireworks. It has been proven some of them didn't even go to mosques, they were in fact indoctronated at local informal clubs who organised events and activities such as swimming days, before they went on a swim they would all watch a video on Muslims being abused. They act in the same way as Christian extremists, they are based on the slow drip drip form of indoctrination.

It is these informal clubs we need to go after not the Mosques or the Imans.

Zim!

You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong?

But did'nt Hook and his followers worship at the Finsbury Park Mosque?!

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38250000/jpg/_38250387_muslimsoutsidemosque300.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2252361.stm&h=180&w=300&sz=14&tbnid=wffjXxiWs6AJ:&tbnh=66&tbnw=111&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfinsbury%2Bpark%2Bmosque%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

You were saying? ^^


I rest my case!

Zim!

You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong?

But did'nt Hook and his followers worship at the Finsbury Park Mosque?!

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38250000/jpg/_38250387_muslimsoutsidemosque300.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2252361.stm&h=180&w=300&sz=14&tbnid=wffjXxiWs6AJ:&tbnh=66&tbnw=111&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfinsbury%2Bpark%2Bmosque%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

You were saying? ^^


I rest my case!

I agree Islam and mosques in the wrong hands are very dangerous places, which is why I was saying if it is funded from the form of Islam preeched in Saudi Arabia than this is not good.

I had a quick look at this piece about Finsbury Park Mosque:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finsbury_Park_mosque

Notice at the bottom it says that since 2003, mainstream muslims have taken over and attendances have trebbled, which is very encouraging as regards the thoughts of our Islamic citizens.

do you reckon the arabs would let christians build a 40,000 capacity church in the middle-east?

yet another example of certain muslims demanding "tolerance", while at the same time refusing to be tolerant themselves? you be the judge. ;)

I agree Islam and mosques in the wrong hands are very dangerous places, which is why I was saying if it is funded from the form of Islam preeched in Saudi Arabia than this is not good.

I had a quick look at this piece about Finsbury Park Mosque:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finsbury_Park_mosque

Notice at the bottom it says that since 2003, mainstream muslims have taken over and attendances have trebbled, which is very encouraging as regards the thoughts of our Islamic citizens.

Why did'nt the Imams, Muslim leaders, along with mainstream Muslim Community remove these extremists from their mosque?

Why was it left to the UK authorities to do this?

do you reckon the arabs would let christians build a 40,000 capacity church in the middle-east?

yet another example of certain muslims demanding "tolerance", while at the same time refusing to be tolerant themselves? you be the judge. ;)

In alot of countries no, however, in places like Morocco, Bahrain and Jordan, there are guaranteed political and economic rights to Jews and Christians. Even Iraq under Saddam Hussain was a secular nation and had a strong christian community (sadly that is under seige at the moment, but that is another story).

Sadly the jews have long since fled Jordan, however there are a number of churches in Jordan.

The most famous is found on the hill of Nebo where Moses is said to preech:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/lusaka/jordan20church20mt20nebo.jpg

If ever you are in Amman, there is also an English-Language Parish

http://www.wfu.edu/~horton/amman/jesuit.jpg


My advice is if we are to win the war against the Islamic fascists then we best make friends with the moderat Muslims and infiltrate the extremist ones.

Why did'nt the Imams, Muslim leaders, along with mainstream Muslim Community remove these extremists from their mosque?

Why was it left to the UK authorities to do this?

I think they tried but these people intimidated and infiltrated, but you are right more should have been done to stop them from taking over.

How do they justify the capacity? 40,000 is huge... why?

How do they justify the capacity? 40,000 is huge... why?

It's probably due to demand.

A bit like the shri swaminarayan mandir in London, which is the biggest Hindhu temple outside of India.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/lusaka/shri_swaminarayan_mandir_neasden_da.jpg

If it's anything like this, then it will only increase London's impressive credentials as the international of cities:

maybe i'm wrong but plans like this just seem to underline the dangerous levels of fanaticism that seem to be embedded in certain, prominent forms of islamic life.

it's all very well building a mosque and creating an islamic community willing to respect and intergrate with the local english way of life, but a 40,000 capacity building of worship!? that's a self-contained ghetto, and a very bloody intimidating one at that.

it's all a little bit worrying. moderate islam? i'm still not convinced...

Sheikh seeking to 'terminate' Jews honoured
Awarded 'Islamic Personality of the Year' at international event (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47041)

In alot of countries no, however, in places like Morocco, Bahrain and Jordan, there are guaranteed political and economic rights to Jews and Christians. Even Iraq under Saddam Hussain was a secular nation and had a strong christian community (sadly that is under seige at the moment, but that is another story).

Sadly the jews have long since fled Jordan, however there are a number of churches in Jordan.

The most famous is found on the hill of Nebo where Moses is said to preech:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/lusaka/jordan20church20mt20nebo.jpg

If ever you are in Amman, there is also an English-Language Parish

http://www.wfu.edu/~horton/amman/jesuit.jpg


My advice is if we are to win the war against the Islamic fascists then we best make friends with the moderat Muslims and infiltrate the extremist ones.
Yes many muslim counties have laws protecting the rights of religous minorites but they are certainly not allowed to recruit muslims to their faiths and find it extremely difficult to build new churches. Apostacy(I think is the correct term) often ends in death for those who renounce Islam.

On the other hand a large mosque in Stratford would make sense considering the local Bangledeshi population. Such a large mosque though may raise planning issues and would disturb the local plan for Stratford city.

With all due respect, there are issues between western culture and islam which need to be resolved before it should grow any further.

Question!

How would a mainly Muslim community feel/react if a 40,000 seater Christian church was planned in their area?

One guess!

Question!

How would a mainly Muslim community feel/react if a 40,000 seater Christian church was planned in their area?

One guess!

see post #8 ;)

it seems a little bit insensitive of british muslims to be seeking to build a mosque of such unnecessarily unprecedented proportions, a mosque which'll only end up housing a massive, almost completely inpenetrable islamic community, in a time like this when the need for muslims to demonstrate moderation and transparency is of the upmost importance.

Thing is, the islamic society of western Europe desperately needs to start talking to non-muslims, who in light of recent events have come to mistrust them even more than they did after 9/11. But as long as the islamic society postpones this necessary discussion by unleashing the PC guard dog on those who try to start it, all advances of the religion within the country seem to be along the lines of "We don't care about what you think of foreign elements spreading in your country and whether you like it or not, take it or leave it.", and people feeling bossed around by foreign minorities in their own country do not create a very friendly atmosphere for future debates on the issue.

So, as long as islam keeps spreading while at the same time pretty much refusing all and any discussion on the terrorism issue and the growing extremism among islamic youth, it only increases the price they will pay when the bubble bursts.

The minority have now become the majority in some aspects!

Bloody hell, I don't have a problem with mosques (they've just finished one down the road from me) but 40,000 seems a little excessive doesn't it? Are there any renderings of this yet either?

This mosque is to be built on a site by West Ham station, there already exists a small dilapidated collection of buildings on the site and you can see it as you pass on the District Line between it and the Greenway.

It's right at the top of the road, and I have witnessed several Islamophobic attacks in the area including a violent one. There has been talk of extending the mosque before, and each time it hasn't happened due to a lack of good transport links (no direct road accessor link from West Ham) and the fact that house prices would pretty much fall overnight in the area, which desperately needs investment. Whether or not the Olympics would balance this out or not remains to be seen.

I don't think I'd be too bothered about the mosque being built, if it was of high quality and an iconic design. But I really doubt it will happen, as it would cause too much of a controversy amongst locals to be honest.

I saw this one at the 40 under 40 exhibition at the V&A earlier this year. Looks good.

http://www.myaa-arq.com/

I'll let someone else post the flash images

I like it, but I just feel the area can't handle the number expected to congregate in the area on a weekly basis.

It actually looks good i dont see the problem with it.

I don't like it, after all that defending I did as well ;)

Seriously though I thought we were going to get something traditional, as seen in Spain where some of the best ornate mosques in the world are to be found or with that ex church now mosque in Istanbul.

That design looks crap.

I had something like this in mind:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Ac.sultanahmed1.jpg

taint no mosque Zim. it's a museum.

taint no mosque Zim. it's a museum.

Too true Awayo, but it's a classical piece of architecture that if built here as mosque would look superb.

It reminds me of a cross between the Royal Pavilian in Brighton and something in Starwars :)

i get uneasy with having such a large place of worship. full stop. 40000people is over ten times the capacity of lincoln cathedral. itll never happen though

Something like the Hagia Sofia with the towering minarets, would be pretty sweet, especially considering we have the largest Sikh and Hindu temples outside India that are both class, I do not see why muslims - whom serve this country to a great degree shouldn't have something to admire without having to go to the Middle East. In all it might lead to less ignorance, a more cohesive society, less segregation and a greater area.

Question!

How would a mainly Muslim community feel/react if a 40,000 seater Christian church was planned in their area?

One guess!

That's an incredibly ill-informed, fatuous comment - I can think of a number of mainly Muslim countries where the building of a large Christian cathedral would probably cause less local controversy than there will probably be surrounding this project...

Blimy, the whole terror thing really is changing people in this country. I'm sure 10 years ago this proposal would have been recieved much more warmly. Would the Regents Park mosque not be built if proposed today?

I support this proposal. I think the designs look very promising. They are clearly not by someone proposing world domination, rather quiet contemplation. I'm doubtful this will get the necessary financing, but good luck to them.

I recomend everyone here to take a visit to a mosque. I went to the Regents Park one, just to have a look. One of the worshipers welcomed me and gave me a few pointers. These places are full of priests akin to those you would find in a Miss Marple mystery and nothing like the preachers of hate the Mail tells us are taking over our land.

Terrorism's obviously played a part, but from my own view this should not be allowed. Forcing religion on a community? How's that allowed?

It's not like having a couple dozen chruchgoers block the road on a Sunday. This is 40,000 people converging on an area, essentially turning the area into a religious region.

Religion is a choice, not a legality. People should not be forced to put up with this.

But when the majority of those living in the area are muslim, then surely there isn't such a problem. This mosque is simply a case of consolidating their beliefs into a central place like it has been done with the sikh and hindu faiths in London. The fact that its replacing a current site mosque only goes to show that this isn't some sort of crazy idea, although a Hagia Sofia design would be most welcome in London - imagine something like that in London!

If we get all jittery about British born people riding off to Pakistan for some spiritual enlightenment then we need to allow some sort of pride to grow at home, instead of half-run down community centres next to shabby parts of town acting as places of worship let people celebrate with architecture! This urban space looks fantastic in the concept drawings and will be a fine addition to the many layers of London which dont forget already boasts the largest Hindu temple outside of India! Any community that feels themselves empowered to celebrate their inclusion in our society (and architecture is a powerful measure of this) we should be encouraging it.

I know muslim people from this area of London and they dont see the Britain of village pubs, WWII, grand gothic architecture, shakespeare and the swinging 60s they see multi-lane by-passes, kebab shops, tatty train stations with drunks outside, Sarajevo style tower blocks with a bleaker horizon. We are competing with the modernity of Dubai and the spiritual assurance of their fantasy mother land.

A Mosque is a completely different concept to a cathedral, it is more or less a space where you worship be it outdoors or indoors. The larger mosques have mainly outdoor spaces to hold the worshippers so to compare sizes is irrelevent. Also group prayer is much more of a practised discipline in the muslim community than the christian one so a larger space is required if it is to be a focal point of a large community. So I dont know why anyone would be concerned about its capacity to hold a group of curled up people in very close proximity to one another, so the article comparing it to the stadium is also ridiculous!

London already lost out to Canada when a rich arab moved his plans to build a large islamic cultural centre and museum because of political fighting and money squabbles. London lost something that isnt very easy to get in this age of profit margins and office space and is poorer because of it.

I sort of agree with Zims concern about it not looking 'classic' as I feel that the Hindu Neasden temple really worked well because it replicated the architectural forms of classic India. What this created was an 'attraction' similar to the medieval cathedrals in the UK where by people not of the religion it represents actively and freely chose to visit the place. Having seen the proposal it looks like it might pull it off by using modern contemporary architecture instead but it is a bit more risky. I think that this is where the Regents Park mosque failed in that it caught an uneasy compromise between modern and classic architecture and that it was almost too apologetic (possibly parlty due to its location) for being a place of worship, like many of our new churches and civil structures, becoming almost invisible, hidden and therefore private and enclosed.

Terrorism's obviously played a part, but from my own view this should not be allowed. Forcing religion on a community? How's that allowed?

It's not like having a couple dozen chruchgoers block the road on a Sunday. This is 40,000 people converging on an area, essentially turning the area into a religious region.

Religion is a choice, not a legality. People should not be forced to put up with this.It's largely an industrial area. Looking at the plans I can't see how 40,000 people will be on the site other than at a once a year main event. There just isn't enough building.

It's largely an industrial area.

Not really, it's mainly residential, especially towards West Ham and Abbey Lane.

How much noise is one of these likely to create? Especially since some of it is outside.

Zim!

You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong?

But did'nt Hook and his followers worship at the Finsbury Park Mosque?!

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38250000/jpg/_38250387_muslimsoutsidemosque300.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2252361.stm&h=180&w=300&sz=14&tbnid=wffjXxiWs6AJ:&tbnh=66&tbnw=111&hl=en&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfinsbury%2Bpark%2Bmosque%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

You were saying? ^^


I rest my case!

He was banned from the mosque but continued to gather a very small congregation outside which neither the police nor mosque authorities could do much about.

Not really, it's mainly residential, especially towards West Ham and Abbey Lane.

How much noise is one of these likely to create? Especially since some of it is outside.

But isnt that what a City is meant to be? A bit of life, the exotic, the danger of something unknown? East London needs a bit of a stir

Well looking at the renders I don't like it at all. I agree with Zim here (for once) and would like to see something more traditional and magnificent. Make it like that and scale it down a bit and I'd be fully in favour.

Sorry, didn't see the part about the Bangladeshi locals etc.

Doesn't it worry anybody though? I don't give a monkeys what religion they are, it's the fact that a 40,000 capacity centre of religion could be built somewhere in this country. Now seeing as there's a rise in religious tits claiming it's wrong to doubt their views, I just see it as a very dangerous precident. Having something like this could lead to anybody having a bad opinion of religion to be chastised for being a non-believer.

I don't know. I just don't like how so much "power" is being given to religion these days. Nothing can be proved, we live in a scientific society so having something like this could be dangerous. Look at how America embraced all that evangelist bollocks, with 100,000 people turning up for mass. Since televangelists, we've definitely seen a rise in religious stupidity from the states. And now religion has infiltrated American politics.

I really don't want the same thing happening here.

But isnt that what a City is meant to be? A bit of life, the exotic, the danger of something unknown?

Not when it's at the end of my road and likely to wake me up every morning, thank you very much.

Well looking at the renders I don't like it at all. I agree with Zim here (for once) and would like to see something more traditional and magnificent. Make it like that and scale it down a bit and I'd be fully in favour.

cheeky sod ;)

Sorry, didn't see the part about the Bangladeshi locals etc.

Doesn't it worry anybody though? I don't give a monkeys what religion they are, it's the fact that a 40,000 capacity centre of religion could be built somewhere in this country. Now seeing as there's a rise in religious tits claiming it's wrong to doubt their views, I just see it as a very dangerous precident. Having something like this could lead to anybody having a bad opinion of religion to be chastised for being a non-believer.

I don't know. I just don't like how so much "power" is being given to religion these days. Nothing can be proved, we live in a scientific society so having something like this could be dangerous. Look at how America embraced all that evangelist bollocks, with 100,000 people turning up for mass. Since televangelists, we've definitely seen a rise in religious stupidity from the states. And now religion has infiltrated American politics.

I really don't want the same thing happening here.

I agree with what you are saying dgnr8, I'm not a great fan of religion (although I do believe in god) but I think like Potto said if we build something that people of all faiths and no faiths want to go to because it is a stunning building then it could help break down people's misconceptions with Islam.

FUUUCCCKKK OOOOOFFFFFFF

FUUUCCCKKK OOOOOFFFFFFF

Could a mod please ban this poor excuse of human existance.

Has anyone seen the new Madina Mosque they are building in Cardiff? A great building by looks of it!

http://www.madinamosque.org.uk/madinamosque.asp?n=homepage.htm

To me 40,000 seems a little excessive and I'm not too keen on the design, it doesn't look very Islamic. I didn't know about the Cardiff one Cariad.

It is like a cross between Liebeskind and Hadid only more roundy.

wow lovely mosque...love those designs

Some images of the proposed International Islamic Centre:

http://www.myaa-arq.com/adminsite/images/1115312762.jpg

http://www.myaa-arq.com/adminsite/images/1115312709.jpg

http://www.myaa-arq.com/adminsite/images/1115312731.jpg

http://www.myaa-arq.com/adminsite/images/1115312688.jpg

http://www.myaa-arq.com/adminsite/images/1115312777.jpg

http://www.myaa-arq.com/adminsite/images/1115312793.jpg
(…would make a killer IMAX screen, eh?)

http://www.myaa-arq.com/adminsite/images/1115312807.jpg

Thanks UK for the Mosque... hope the hatred do not increase :P

Terrible design :puke:

Decent design in many ways, but I don't like the colour and it's such a huge site it will close of the Lea to people in the local estates, surely the opposite of what we want to be doing.

I'd rather have something a lot smaller, with more parkland along the river.

And a brown roof?

I think that looks great, aesthetically.

Has anyone seen the new Madina Mosque they are building in Cardiff? A great building by looks of it!

http://www.madinamosque.org.uk/madinamosque.asp?n=homepage.htm

Now that's more like it! I would love to see something similar to that built in this area. I really dislike the current design proposal.

Now that's more like it! I would love to see something similar to that built in this area. I really dislike the current design proposal.

Totally agree, now if they were building something like that, something that captures the beauty of traditional mosque designs, then I would be up for it as I think it would be something that would enrich London, the proposed design though is horrible.

And a brown roof?

Isnt it copper? I think this could become an architectural gem

there's nothing finer than sitting in my living room on a lazy sunday summer evening and hearing the sound of church bells in the air....ah, bliss. that's the stuff dreams are made of.

My only concern would be that it is entirely funded within this country, the funding of mosques by the Saudi Arabian Government has given rise to extremism across Europe - and instead of funding expensive foreign building projects they should concern themselves with modernising their country.

My only concern would be that it is entirely funded within this country, the funding of mosques by the Saudi Arabian Government has given rise to extremism across Europe - and instead of funding expensive foreign building projects they should concern themselves with modernising their country.

Thats why I think it is vital that homegrown pride, is nutured and funded. At the moment the Saudi school of thought holds all the strings

I hope it never happens as it's just another case of Islamists trying to show the West that Islam is superior to all other faiths/ideologies. It will probably be funded by the Saudis or others from that area and is blatant hypocracy. In the Middle East for example (in Egypt), were ever there is a Church built, a Mosque has been built over the road to be far bigger and more imposing than the rival religion, with the call to prayer blasting out of it. If it happens here it will be more pandering to Islamic triumphalism and intolerance. :bash:

^You can tell that you come from Liverpool.

You can tell that you come from Liverpool.

Hahahaha You couldn't make you up :tyty: :baeh3:

Not silencing descent by making an absurd comment about where i'm from and crying racism are you by chance? :)

My thoughts are if that Mosque gets built I fully expect a 40,000 capacity cathedral, Jewish Synagogue, Sikh temple, Hindu temple and every other religion just to be fair eh? Or even better what about a mixed super structure accommodating all the main religions in one building with seperate parts? So we can all feel multicultural?

:horse:

you are being the ignorant child, comparing capacities of incomparable structures. A 40,000 capacity cathedral?! Haha A mosque is just a floor space where people can pray so all you need is a large square with a defining perimeter. The Hindus built the largest temple outside of India and it has contributed to the richness of London. I would like to see a decent Sikh temple built too. Life isnt just about shopping and eating

The only thing is that the Hindu temples in London are very proactive in encouraging people to visit them who aren't Hindu. Any religious building of this proposed sized would have to be as much or more open to all which most of the large mosques, even though some have tried, arent yet...

you are being the ignorant child, comparing capacities of incomparable structures. A 40,000 capacity cathedral?! Haha A mosque is just a floor space where people can pray so all you need is a large square with a defining perimeter. The Hindus built the largest temple outside of India and it has contributed to the richness of London. I would like to see a decent Sikh temple built too. Life isnt just about shopping and eating

When it comes to Islam one can never be ignorant about the Quran and Hadiths :cheers:

Britain along with France and Canada will become the first official Islamic western nations. This stinks and the UK people just sit back and think its honky dory!
This is a declaration that Islam is becoming a major authority on a country that has drifted from its Judeo-Christian heritage and gone down the pan ever since.

Thanks UK for the Mosque... hope the hatred do not increase :P

Islam will never change. Its commands its brainwashed followers to kill the Saturday people and the Sunday people, its an evil political trojan horse with desire for world dominion. Work out who its on about!

Where are Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar or Charles Martel when you need them eh? :)

Britain along with France and Canada will become the first official Islamic western nations. This stinks and the UK people just sit back and think its honky dory!
This is a declaration that Islam is becoming a major authority on a country that has drifted from its Judeo-Christian heritage and gone down the pan ever since.

There are more profound influences that have shaped the UK and indeed from that the entire world than its 'Judeo-Christian heritage' the enlightenment period for example is a direct counter movement to the concept of religion and has shaped this country and the world for 300 years until this day and will continue, so I really wouldnt worry about Islam!

Islam will never change. Its commands its brainwashed followers to kill the Saturday people and the Sunday people, its an evil political trojan horse with desire for world dominion. Work out who its on about!
aw stop it I'm coming over all mushy!
:grouphug: :kiss: :hug:

I love it.

Britain along with France and Canada will become the first official Islamic western nations. This stinks and the UK people just sit back and think its honky dory!
This is a declaration that Islam is becoming a major authority on a country that has drifted from its Judeo-Christian heritage and gone down the pan ever since.Just out of interest - what qualifications do you have above GCSE's and have you actually met muslims and been in a mosque?

Islam is not about world domination - that is only the philosophy of crack pots like bin Laden and remember the world isn't clean from christian or other faith terrorist groups....a certain IRA have caused more deaths, economic damage and psychological corruption than al-Qaeda ever have and they use the guise of being Catholic to further their aims. I don't see you criticising for Westminster Cathedral to be levelled - oh thats because its okay to kill if you're Catholic....but not if your Muslim!

Also there is no way islam is going to come to dominate Britain and there are so many reasons that its crazy - there simply aren't enough muslims to form a majority (something like 5% of the population - of a variety of origins are muslim) and the vast majority (ie 99.9% of those muslims) are peaceful, tolerant and law abiding. The same can be said for the vast majority of other communities and religions around the world. The worst thing to assume is that all muslims or arabs are terrorists and the bad guys - because if that was the approach that we all took, we'd be looking at WW3 and most of us would most likely be dead or recovering from global devastation.

Personally as long as the islamic community respect other faiths and people in this country, they could build the world's largest mosque for all I care! Also note though that this is what makes us different from places like Saudi Arabia: we are tolerant of other faiths and other people and as long as other people respect these beliefs in our country then we shall forever be better off that those that do not.

I don't quite see the point Lostboy made about Saudi Arabia using its funds to help building a mosque - if its their money, they can spend it as long as it is sensible and for the good of the general public. Not building this mosque in one form or another for what is a strong community could also look bad for community relations - especially as the largest Sikh and Hindu Temple outside India are already in London and were completed in the last few years - a mosque to unify this strong community is only a logical step. The tax payer should also help to show that this isn't just some muslim-only project, but a project for London and Britain.

I would though have liked this to be designed in the traditional sense, and even though the two following examples have had modern updates they are amazing.... imagine something like this with 100m tall minarets - a centre to trully understand islam!




Jama Masjid, Delhi
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Jama_Masjid_Delhi_28-05-2005_pic2.jpg/800px-Jama_Masjid_Delhi_28-05-2005_pic2.jpg




Masjid al-Nabawi, Medina
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0b/Masjidnabawi.jpg/350px-Masjidnabawi.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/baghdadibomb/Al%20Masjid%20Al%20Nabawi%20Al%20Shareef/IMG_0389.jpg

http://www.sunna.info/souwar/data/media/1/ya_rasul.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/baghdadibomb/Al%20Masjid%20Al%20Nabawi%20Al%20Shareef/eskidis3.jpg

Islam will never change. Its commands its brainwashed followers to kill the Saturday people and the Sunday people, its an evil political trojan horse with desire for world dominion. Work out who its on about!

Please. Just shut the fuck up.

You are embarrassing.

Awesome project for London Olympics!:yes:

40.000 is not really all that big, its average capacity of any decent European football stadium...so, build it and they will come:)

Nick-Taylor you are either a non muslim who knows nothing about Islam, or, a muslim who knows a lot about Islam and is practicing taqiyya. :)

Islam is not about world domination - that is only the philosophy of crack pots like bin Laden

This is not what the Quran says. It states Muslims should fight until their religion rules supreme. As soon as Muslims had conquered Arabia, they attacked other nations. North Africa and Spain were conquered by Muslim armies. Muslim armies tried for centuries to conquer Europe. Islam mellowed somewhat after it could no longer expand through warfare. However, the scriptures and its early history are quite clear it was a violent imperialistic faith from the start.

and remember the world isn't clean from christian or other faith terrorist groups....a certain IRA have caused more deaths, economic damage and psychological corruption than al-Qaeda ever have and they use the guise of being Catholic to further their aims.

The IRA is a political movement. Not a Catholic one. Yes, most if not all of its members are Catholics or received a Catholic upbringing but they do not strive to turn Ireland, let alone the rest of the world, into a Catholic theocracy. What the IRA wants is that Northern Ireland becomes part of the Irish Republic. The majority of the population in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the UK. The IRA tried to terrorise them and moderate Republicans into submission. I disapprove both of their goal and their methods, but they cannot be compared with Al-Qaida which wishes to revive the Caliphate and global Jihad.

I don't see you criticising for Westminster Cathedral to be levelled - oh thats because its okay to kill if you're Catholic....but not if your Muslim!

What do you mean? What are you referring to?

Also there is no way islam is going to come to dominate Britain and there are so many reasons that its crazy - there simply aren't enough muslims to form a majority (something like 5% of the population - of a variety of origins are muslim)

When Emperor Constantine declared that Christianity had become the New State religion less than 5% of the population was Christian. Many people converted because belonging to the State religion meant they could be part of the power structure. Within decades most the Roman citizens had converted. It was then that the intolerant Romans started persecuting Pagans. The Mullahs when they seized power in Iran were a minority as well. A minority can seize power and subject the majority if they have an adequate militia, suffient weapons and the willingness to do whatever it takes to crush the opposition. They can also chose to bribe the complacent majority and terrorise the rest.

and the vast majority (ie 99.9% of those muslims) are peaceful, tolerant and law abiding.

Even in socalled moderate Muslim majority nations non-Muslims are discriminated. In Malaysia, non-Muslims are not considered citizens. In Turkey, you can be sentenced to a prison term if you are caught carrying more than one copy of the same non-Muslim scripture, because this is considered proof that you are prosletysing among Muslims. Many native Christians have left Turkey because they were persecuted by the local population while the government ignored their plight. Discrimination on the basis of ethnicity is common in every Muslim majority country as well. The Malay discriminate against the Chinese and the Turks discriminate Kurds and Greeks. In less moderate Muslim majority nations, discrimination and persecution are even more rife.

The same can be said for the vast majority of other communities and religions around the world.

Tell that to Christians and Hindus in Pakistan who are accused of blasphemy and killed on a whim if someone envies them. Tell that to ethnic Chinese and Christians in Indonesia who are killed by Muslim fundamentalists while the government refuses to do anything about it.

The worst thing to assume is that all muslims or arabs are terrorists and the bad guys

Of course I do not believe this. However, I am not willing to stick my head in the sand either. Muslim communities even in the West are far less tolerant than most other cultures and religions are. Honour killings in the West occur among Muslims and sometimes among Sikhs. They are unheard of among Westerners, Buddhists, Taoists and most other groups. Muslims are the only group that harass apostates in Western nations. Christians, Jews, Buddhists and other religious groups respect someone's decision to leave their religion and even if they do not, they do not resort to stalking and violence. There are no ex-Christians in the West who live in fear that Christians will hunt down and kill them. There are plenty of ex-Muslims who do live in this fear. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie are merely famous examples. There are thousands of ex-Muslims who even in the West dare not tell the truth. They move to another place and pretend they have always belonged to another religion or they keep pretending they are still Muslim to anyone they are not close to.

because if that was the approach that we all took, we'd be looking at WW3 and most of us would most likely be dead or recovering from global devastation.

I thought you said Muslims were peaceful? There will be no war unless Muslim ations and/or groups declare it through their actions. Democracies are extremely reluctant to enter into armed conflicts.

As long as we prevent more Muslim nations from building atomic weapons and the missiles needed to deliver them, Muslim nations cannot truly hurt us. If Iran acquired such weapons, its government might be mad enough to start such a conflict and the same is true for terrorist organisations should they acquire nuclear arms.

Personally as long as the islamic community respect other faiths and people in this country, they could build the world's largest mosque for all I care!

They do not respect the rights of apostates. Many of them do not respect the rights of Jews. Most antisemitic violence and vandalism in the West nowadays is perpetrated by Muslims. This bigotry and violence has been incleasing in the past few years.

Why should they be allowed to build large Mosques which are financed by Saudi Arabia where a non-Muslim may not even pray in the privacy of their own home? Muslim communities in the West should pay for their own Mosques.

Also note though that this is what makes us different from places like Saudi Arabia: we are tolerant of other faiths and other people and as long as other people respect these beliefs in our country then we shall forever be better off that those that do not.

Unless we allow intolerant nations to build Mosques and plant Imams that preach hate against us, which we do unfortunately. It was intolerant preachers that most likely incited the perpetrators of 7/7 to kill themselves and others.

I don't quite see the point Lostboy made about Saudi Arabia using its funds to help building a mosque - if its their money, they can spend it as long as it is sensible and for the good of the general public.

Would you feel the same if the KKK or the American Nazi Party financed by American millionaires built community centers and churches in Western Europe that preached hatred and incited to violence against those who disagreed?

Not building this mosque in one form or another for what is a strong community could also look bad for community relations - especially as the largest Sikh and Hindu Temple outside India are already in London and were completed in the last few years - a mosque to unify this strong community is only a logical step. The tax payer should also help to show that this isn't just some muslim-only project, but a project for London and Britain.

The State and religion should be seperate. Religious communities can raise money among their own followers, there is no reason to use tax money for this. In my opinion, all religions including Hinduism and Sikhism should only use money raised among the people that live in a given area to finance religious buildings in that area. I do not want foreign governments, companies and wealthy individuals to interfere with the internal affairs of Western democracies.

I would though have liked this to be designed in the traditional sense, and even though the two following examples have had modern updates they are amazing.... imagine something like this with 100m tall minarets - a centre to trully understand islam!

Are you a Muslim? Why should a building be tall? A tall building does not make people learn any faster. It serves to cause awe among the believers, but that is all it does. Why is a single tall building better than a dozen smaller buildings that can be built closer to peoples homes?

You are either foolishly PC or the words of a Muslim passing himself off as a non-Muslim Westerner.

Kind regards

Nick-Taylor you are either a non muslim who knows nothing about Islam, or, a muslim who knows a lot about Islam and is practicing taqiyya. :)

This is not what the Quran says. It states Muslims should fight until their religion rules supreme. As soon as Muslims had conquered Arabia, they attacked other nations. North Africa and Spain were conquered by Muslim armies. Muslim armies tried for centuries to conquer Europe. Islam mellowed somewhat after it could no longer expand through warfare. However, the scriptures and its early history are quite clear it was a violent imperialistic faith from the start.

The IRA is a political movement. Not a Catholic one. Yes, most if not all of its members are Catholics or received a Catholic upbringing but they do not strive to turn Ireland, let alone the rest of the world, into a Catholic theocracy. What the IRA wants is that Northern Ireland becomes part of the Irish Republic. The majority of the population in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the UK. The IRA tried to terrorise them and moderate Republicans into submission. I disapprove both of their goal and their methods, but they cannot be compared with Al-Qaida which wishes to revive the Caliphate and global Jihad.

What do you mean? What are you referring to?

When Emperor Constantine declared that Christianity had become the New State religion less than 5% of the population was Christian. Many people converted because belonging to the State religion meant they could be part of the power structure. Within decades most the Roman citizens had converted. It was then that the intolerant Romans started persecuting Pagans. The Mullahs when they seized power in Iran were a minority as well. A minority can seize power and subject the majority if they have an adequate militia, suffient weapons and the willingness to do whatever it takes to crush the opposition. They can also chose to bribe the complacent majority and terrorise the rest.

Even in socalled moderate Muslim majority nations non-Muslims are discriminated. In Malaysia, non-Muslims are not considered citizens. In Turkey, you can be sentenced to a prison term if you are caught carrying more than one copy of the same non-Muslim scripture, because this is considered proof that you are prosletysing among Muslims. Many native Christians have left Turkey because they were persecuted by the local population while the government ignored their plight. Discrimination on the basis of ethnicity is common in every Muslim majority country as well. The Malay discriminate against the Chinese and the Turks discriminate Kurds and Greeks. In less moderate Muslim majority nations, discrimination and persecution are even more rife.

Tell that to Christians and Hindus in Pakistan who are accused of blasphemy and killed on a whim if someone envies them. Tell that to ethnic Chinese and Christians in Indonesia who are killed by Muslim fundamentalists while the government refuses to do anything about it.

Of course I do not believe this. However, I am not willing to stick my head in the sand either. Muslim communities even in the West are far less tolerant than most other cultures and religions are. Honour killings in the West occur among Muslims and sometimes among Sikhs. They are unheard of among Westerners, Buddhists, Taoists and most other groups. Muslims are the only group that harass apostates in Western nations. Christians, Jews, Buddhists and other religious groups respect someone's decision to leave their religion and even if they do not, they do not resort to stalking and violence. There are no ex-Christians in the West who live in fear that Christians will hunt down and kill them. There are plenty of ex-Muslims who do live in this fear. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie are merely famous examples. There are thousands of ex-Muslims who even in the West dare not tell the truth. They move to another place and pretend they have always belonged to another religion or they keep pretending they are still Muslim to anyone they are not close to.

I thought you said Muslims were peaceful? There will be no war unless Muslim ations and/or groups declare it through their actions. Democracies are extremely reluctant to enter into armed conflicts.

As long as we prevent more Muslim nations from building atomic weapons and the missiles needed to deliver them, Muslim nations cannot truly hurt us. If Iran acquired such weapons, its government might be mad enough to start such a conflict and the same is true for terrorist organisations should they acquire nuclear arms.

They do not respect the rights of apostates. Many of them do not respect the rights of Jews. Most antisemitic violence and vandalism in the West nowadays is perpetrated by Muslims. This bigotry and violence has been incleasing in the past few years.

Why should they be allowed to build large Mosques which are financed by Saudi Arabia where a non-Muslim may not even pray in the privacy of their own home? Muslim communities in the West should pay for their own Mosques.

Unless we allow intolerant nations to build Mosques and plant Imams that preach hate against us, which we do unfortunately. It was intolerant preachers that most likely incited the perpetrators of 7/7 to kill themselves and others.

Would you feel the same if the KKK or the American Nazi Party financed by American millionaires built community centers and churches in Western Europe that preached hatred and incited to violence against those who disagreed?

The State and religion should be seperate. Religious communities can raise money among their own followers, there is no reason to use tax money for this. In my opinion, all religions including Hinduism and Sikhism should only use money raised among the people that live in a given area to finance religious buildings in that area. I do not want foreign governments, companies and wealthy individuals to interfere with the internal affairs of Western democracies.

Are you a Muslim? Why should a building be tall? A tall building does not make people learn any faster. It serves to cause awe among the believers, but that is all it does. Why is a single tall building better than a dozen smaller buildings that can be built closer to peoples homes?

You are either foolishly PC or the words of a Muslim passing himself off as a non-Muslim Westerner.

Kind regardsOh deary me....

I am a non-practicing Roman Catholic who has friends who are muslim, I've been to many muslim countries and have been in some mosques.

Do you not understand what all religions are about? Islam does not state that global conquest is right! It is only those like bin Laden & Co that misinterpret the writings for their own benefit. Also you seem to be forgetting something - all religions have been used as an excuse for war and you seem to forget that Christianity was exported around the world by the European imperialist powers. Thats not even mentioning things like the Crusades! Islamic, Christianity, Hinduism, etc... all have been used as excuses for war, to kill and to take.

The IRA is a political movement, but the trouble is religion based. Catholic or Protestant is what defines that conflict -I'm half Irish and have spent several years over there - I know the situation pretty well.

In reference to ForeverSalfordRed's comments.

Your comparison with Iran and Rome is flawed: one was an undeveloped country, the other a blinded people who followed the belief of their leader. Neither had a broad educated population which is the main procurement to democracy and not a dictatorship under Islam. You'd have to be shitting me if you actually believe somehow that Islam is going to take over this country! :laugh:

Racism and racialim is not a problem confined to muslim countries. Many people around the world are persecuted. Be them catholics, protestants, those of coloured origin, ideologicial background, origin, socio-economic status. Many developed countries could be viewed as highly anti-immigration (even if they were and continue to be built on immigration), yet the countries you name are far less developed. The US administration could also be seen as inherently racist, eg New Orleans post Katrina....but I don't see you making a connection here. Japan is meant to be one of the most developed countries in the world.... but it doesn't matter what religion, colour or country you come from - you are still seen as a problematic variable in Japanese society. Lets not even forget what Israel is doing - its practically become the bully that it was once bullied by: the Nazi's. There are already death camps, ghettos and security walls.... I can tell you haven't thought these points through.

I'm not arguing that somehow islam is a good religion - no religion is good. The only reason Islam is given a bad name is because individuals use it to their will either to control countries or terrorise others. Muslims in India are persecuted and they could be seen to be heavily persecuted in the developed world.

I said the majority of muslims are peaceful....if they weren't we would already be having WW3. Yet why should we only be worried about Iran? The country most likely to launch an attack would be India, North Korea or the US - countries that have some of the longest range nuclear missiles in existance and especially in North Korea's example not afraid to push the button, yet these countries aren't muslim. Iran though is a problem - it is hardline, but most of it is all talk talk, it won't act because currently it doesn't have the capability and even if it did, it wouldn't.

Honour killings in the UK aren't religious specific, but more Asian orientated. I believe half of all honour killings are hindu related for example - we aren't calling the entire Hindu populace animals now are we?

Those individuals you name are hated for reasons and although you might not believe in the context they hate those individuals they hate them because it offends them. Nothing will come of it though.

It could be viewed that many developed nations don't fully recognise muslims. Isreal certainly doesn't and is probably the main reason for so much increased hatred in the world.

The view that it is logical to ban people from funding buildings elsewhere in the country because of their human rights record is absurd. I don't see the US which practically only got over segregation a few decades ago and is now locking up people without trial is just as bad should stop them building buildings elsewhere. The more you isolate, the less educated people become and the more hatred increases. Anyway if Saudi Arabia pays, then that means those muslims living in the west can spend their money in the local and national economy.

I was in London on 7/7 and the main reasons for those attacks were: Israel's actions in the Middle East, the problems in Iraq and alienation of the muslim community in Britain. Again: the more you isolate, the less tolerant people become and this means people actively get attracted towards radical preachers. The UK, US and other countries have their similar people - albeit with different backgrounds and motives, eg Ian Paisley, Pat Robinson, etc, Le Pen, etc...

Saudi Arabia is nothing like the KKK or the Nazi's - what a poor comparison to choose! if anything, Saudi Arabia is a less democratic and more segregated version of todays US. Saudi Arabia doesn't go on witchhunts like the KKK do, nor are there extermination squads or gas chambers like the Nazi's. Also the majority that would preach or pray would be normal sensible, tolerant people not the animals you seem to pointing them out to be. Its rhetoric like this that you feed the ammunition for radical immans to throw out to disillusioned teenagers - maybe that is what you want? Possibly you want a war as an excuse to wipe out all muslims - peaceful or not?

The religion and state in this country is not seperate though you fool! Also if you think its bad for us to not allow foreign competition, investment and companies to operate in the UK then where should it stop? Some could say Europe and the rest of the world is a threat - hell lets stop any people, any companies, any investment from any country coming into the UK. We could then seal our borders, mine our water borders and conduct a daily census to ensure everyone British is in Britain and only doing British things! Its situations like these that you are practically admitting to!

Minarets aren't the entire mosque you fool and a 100m minaret doesn't mean the mosque is going to be 30 storeys tall :laugh:

I believe in having minarets as they look nice, and also have a presence on the skyline, just like St Paul's and other religious buildings around the world have.

Your views of condemning an entire religion and its followers and to isolate countries such as Britain from foreign investment are poor motives - its people like yourself and ForeverSalfordRed that will galvanize support for radicalism in this country and only make the current situation much worse.

Yes indeedee oh deary deary me... :)

Do you not understand what all religions are about?

Do I understand what every last religion on this planet is about? Probably not and I strongly suspect you do not either. We are not discussing every last religion, though. We are discussing Islam.

Islam does not state that global conquest is right!

Yes, it does.
Koran 8:37 Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme.

You do know what reigns supreme means do you? Moreover, Islam accuses everyone including Jews and Christians of idolatry.

3:147 Their cry was only that they said: Our Lord! forgive us for our sins and wasted efforts, make our foothold sure, and give us victory over the disbelieving folk.

3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.

If you think I quote out of context, I dare you to read the entire Quran with an open mind and see for yourself. That entire book is full of hatefulness.

Once upon a time, I started reading the Quran expecting it to be full of profound truths and spiritual lessons. If anything I was biased in favour of this work before reading it. Reading the Quran, other Muslim scriptures and early Muslim history changed my mind about Islam.

It is only those like bin Laden & Co that misinterpret the writings for their own benefit.

What makes you so certain they misinterpet their religion? Intolerant ideologies exist. The Quran, the earliest biographical works on Muhammad and the Sahih Hadith reveal Islam and its founder as intolerant and imperialist. Read and find out.

Also you seem to be forgetting something - all religions have been used as an excuse for war and you seem to forget that Christianity was exported around the world by the European imperialist powers. Thats not even mentioning things like the Crusades! Islamic, Christianity, Hinduism, etc... all have been used as excuses for war, to kill and to take.

This is called a Tu Quoque fallacy
Yes, followers of other ideologies have also done bad things in the past. This excuses nothing.

I am not a member of any organised religion, by the way.

The IRA is a political movement, but the trouble is religion based. Catholic or Protestant is what defines that conflict -I'm half Irish and have spent several years over there - I know the situation pretty well.

I did not deny there was a religious element. The conflict itself is political and ethnic, however. The IRA has at no time declared a Crusade against Protestants. It is a conflict between those who consider themselves British and those who consider themselves Irish. The IRA's main objective was and is that they want the counties should join the Irish Republic which goes against the will of the majority of the people who live in Northern Ireland.

Also from 1916 onwards members of the IRA/IRB have been excommunicated from the church as their activies have been un-christian but you already knew that.

Racism and racialim is not a problem confined to muslim countries.

No it is not. It is, however, a fact that racial and religious intolerance is on the rise in Muslim majority countries and that, unlike Western nations, their governments are unwilling to grant their citizens equal rights regardless of sex, ethnicity or religious conviction. Governments of Muslim majority nations are also unwilling to enforce most of the few rights minorities do have and to protect those who are persecuted by members of the Muslim population.

Many people around the world are persecuted.

People are persecuted by totalitarian regimes. Every Muslim society is more or less totalitarian. Even Turkey and Malaysia which pretend they are are somewhat democratic, discriminate and persecute minorities.

Many developed countries could be viewed as highly anti-immigration (even if they were and continue to be built on immigration), yet the countries you name are far less developed.

This is a false analogy and irrelevant to boot.
There is a difference between nations that persecute their own population and nations that merely do not wish everyone who would like to settle in their country to do so.

By the way, the general population in Muslim nations would not like it if large groups of Non-muslims immigrated into their nations the way Muslims immigrate into Western nations. Al-Qaida declared war on the US because they felt that the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia defiled the land. Those troops had been invited by the government to defend the country against Iraq and those troops did not intend to settle in Saudie Arabia. Nevertheless, their Non-muslim presence was seen as a threat and sacriledge. Most Muslim majorty nations are extremly loathe to grant citizenships to foreign non-Muslims if they allow this at all.

Every country on this planet with a functional government has a selection process when it comes to immigrants.

Lets not even forget what Israel is doing - its practically become the bully that it was once bullied by: the Nazi's. There are already death camps, ghettos and security walls.... I can tell you haven't thought these points through.

There are no death camps in Israel. Arab Isrealis have more rights than Arabs in living in neighbouring states. The fact that you have the nerve to compare the Isrealis with Nazies reveals that you are at best deluded but most likely an Antisemite.

The Israelis built security walls and fences between themselves and the PA controlled areas because they were fed up with suicide attacks.

Even if other countries do unkind things this does not absolve Muslim nations of their intolerant policies. Islam is intolerant and that fact that other people are too, does not cancel out injustices perpetrated by Muslim authorities and organisations.

I'm not arguing that somehow islam is a good religion - no religion is good.

How do you know? I do not completely agree with Taoism, Buddhism, Wicca, Liberal Christianity and Liberal Judaism but I do like them and consider them benevolent.

The only reason Islam is given a bad name is because individuals use it to their will either to control countries or terrorise others.

And the inherent intolerance of their ideology does not inspire such actions? This is like stating that the intolerant teachings of Fascism have nothing to do with violent acts perpetrated by Fascists in the name of their ideology.

Most Muslims are peaceful. There are a number of reasons for this. Many Muslims are simply unaware of the intolerant teachings in their scriptures. Others are aware of the intolerant aspects of their ideology and willfully ignore them because their better nature prevails. Plenty Muslims are intolerant but are not willing act on the violent teachings found in the Quran and the Hadith because they do not wish to get in trouble with the authorities.

Muslims in India are persecuted and they could be seen to be heavily persecuted in the developed world.

What persecution are you referring to? Muslims have equal rights under the law. They can run for office and do anything else a Hindu, a Sikh or anyone else can. The Indian government has even banned the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie because they deemed it disrespectful towards Muslims. The Indian authorities do not persecute Muslims.

Yet why should we only be worried about Iran?

Iran wishes to wipe Israel off the map and had made threats against Europe. It is a totalitarian state that killed more than a 100.000 of its own civilians and you want them to have nuclear arms?

The country most likely to launch an attack would be India, North Korea or the US - countries that have some of the longest range nuclear missiles in existance and especially in North Korea's example not afraid to push the button, yet these countries aren't muslim. Iran though is a problem - it is hardline, but most of it is all talk talk, it won't act because currently it doesn't have the capability and even if it did, it wouldn't.

Why would Iran not? They are perfectly willing to kill their own people. Why not other people? They have financed and organised terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere. Why would they be unwilling to use nuclear arms either by firing missiles or issuing nuclear arms to terrorists?

Honour killings in the UK aren't religious specific, but more Asian orientated. I believe half of all honour killings are hindu related for example - we aren't calling the entire Hindu populace animals now are we?

I have not called anyone an animal.
You believe that half of all honour killings are Hindu? On what basis? The ones one reads about are mostly Muslim and in some cases Sikh.

Those individuals you name are hated for reasons and although you might not believe in the context they hate those individuals they hate them because it offends them. Nothing will come of it though.

This is not a clear sentence. What do you mean?

It could be viewed that many developed nations don't fully recognise muslims.

What do you mean "recognise Muslims"? Muslim citizens have equal rights. For instance, they have freedom of speech, freedom of religion and can run for office. They do not have such rights in most Muslim majority nations.

Israel certainly doesn't and is probably the main reason for so much increased hatred in the world.

There is freedom of religion in Israel. You are truly clueless about that country, are you not?

Anyway if Saudi Arabia pays, then that means those muslims living in the west can spend their money in the local and national economy.

I do not want Saudi Arabia to finance religious buildings or community centres anymore than I would want the Nazi party to do so. They incite and finance hatred and terrorism against non-Muslims.

I was in London on 7/7 and the main reasons for those attacks were: Israel's actions in the Middle East, the problems in Iraq and alienation of the muslim community in Britain.

How do you know? Did you interview the perpetrators before they blew themselves up?

These people were extremists who had been taught to hate non-Muslims. They feel it is OK to kill us indiscriminately.

Again: the more you isolate, the less tolerant people become and this means people actively get attracted towards radical preachers.

The bombers were not isolated. They had plenty of opportunities. Their families were baffled because these men had plenty of prospects.

If persecution and isolation solely drove people to do these things, how come Christians in Pakistan are not blowing themselves up? Could things like their faith and the awful reprisals the Pakistani government would take on their community perhaps explain the fact that they do not?

Saudi Arabia is nothing like the KKK or the Nazi's - what a poor comparison to choose!

They made themselves Judenrein in the 7th century and are proud of it too. The US is not allowed to post diplomats of Jewish decent in that nation. This includes people whose parents converted to another religion.

Saudi Arabia is a less democratic and more segregated version of todays US.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. It is not by any definition a democracy.

Saudi Arabia doesn't go on witchhunts like the KKK do, nor are there extermination squads or gas chambers like the Nazi's.

They do not need gaschambers. Their ancestors exterminated and expelled all the Jews for them. Saudi Arabia finances terrorism against Isreali citizens and the West. Their secret police tortures dissidents. They finance antisemitic and antiWestern propaganda worldwide.

Also the majority that would preach or pray would be normal sensible, tolerant people not the animals you seem to pointing them out to be.

You are the one who keeps calling them animals. I do not. I merely disagree with totalitarian ideologies.

Its rhetoric like this that you feed the ammunition for radical immans to throw out to disillusioned teenagers - maybe that is what you want? Possibly you want a war as an excuse to wipe out all muslims - peaceful or not?

You bring up wiping people out. I have no such desire. I find it interesting it seems to be one of the first things on your mind, though.

I feel radical Imams should be deported if they are not citizens. Those that incite violent crime should face steep prison sentences.

I merely wish that Western governments cease to allow totalitarian regimes to try and influence people who live in our nations with intolerant propaganda. I do not see why we should import bigotry.

The religion and state in this country is not seperate though you fool!

There is freedom of religion. In the UK, you do not have to be Anglican in order to run for office or be employed as a civil servant. However, I would prefer it if there was no state religion at all and the seperation of Church and State became as complete as it is in France and the US.

Why are you calling me names by the way?

Also if you think its bad for us to not allow foreign competition, investment and companies to operate in the UK then where should it stop?

This is about religious people financing their own religious buildings. This is about not allowing foreign governments and other organisations to finance hatred in our midst. I do not wish for foreign governments to interfere with our democratic system. They have no business financing religious organisations or political parties as far as I am concerned.

This something completely other than isolating ourselves from foreign trade, investors and technology. I never suggested anything of that kind. Did you misuderstand me or do you enjoy attacking Straw Men?

I believe in having minarets as they look nice, and also have a presence on the skyline, just like St Paul's and other religious buildings around the world have.

If the local Muslims want a Mosque to be part of the skyline let them pay for it themselves. If they are not willing to do so, it has no place there. The same goes for other religious communities and their respective buildings and community centres.

Your views of condemning an entire religion and its followers

I condemn the ideology and those who wish to force it on others through violence. I never said I condemned all Muslims. That is your assumption.

and to isolate countries such as Britain from foreign investment are poor motives

You have misinterpreted my words. I do not wish to isololate Britian. I have nothing against foreign investment and trade.

I simply wish to put a stop to Saudi Arabia and other countries, organisations, and individuals that wish to incite violence and hate in the West. They can trade with us, but I do not want them to preach Jihad within our borders, thanks very much.

Kind regards

L11 Red. Just like to say I whole-heartedly agree with the vast bulk of your comments. Not overly sure I would like the UK to become like France though with it's secular agenda - however, as a practising born-again Christian you can probably appreciate my point.

I am like yourself in viewing the whole Palestinian/Israel situation through different eyes. Infact to be honest I don't even like the word Palestine - a relatively new word jumped on by the muslim majority to try and give them some legitamacy to the land. Just a shame that the vast majority of the nation don't spend at least a little time studying the basic history of this small piece of land. Always amazes me the amount of airtime this situation gets (although it doesn't surprise me) when there are often far worse situations taking place at the same time that get little TV airplay. Although, oneday Jesus Christ will come back to the earth for a second time and will rule and reign from Jerusalem.

Anyway, I won't waffle on. I love all folks, doesn't matter what colour of skin they are, or religious background they come from, and the Bible preaches peace, love and forgiveness - something that the Koran fails to do. However, most people are deluded about it's teaching and are happy to believe the imman and politicians soundbites we hear so often stating "Islam is Peaceful" etc etc ...as you have already stated the Koran and Hadiths are far from peaceful.

The only way people will gain true peace is through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (God in the flesh). Under Islam Jesus Christ is simply a prophet, under Christianity He is God. To all the forum readers "what are you going to do with Jesus?" He was either mad, the worlds greatest deceiver or He is who He says he is! Let me leave you with this - the Bible (Gods word) says in the book of John chapter 3 and verse 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" - the world believe in the Greek means "To trust in and Commit to" ..not some basic head knowledge of God but a personal relationship WITH God. We all have a choice....

but we are talking about a new and inspiring mosque here where people go for spiritual enlightenment and prayer and to meet other people. I think it is wrong to mix this with some sort of world wide domination conspiricy and middle eastern politics and worse still for people of other faiths to slag it off. People who practise Islam live in this country and like to continue their faith, if they want to celebrate this through architecture then we should all be over joyed.

I think we should be concentrating on this bit of the article....

The new building will be called the London Markaz (Arabic for centre) and will be built in place of an existing mosque on a 10-acre site 500 yards from the Olympic development.

The three-storey mosque will be designed to accommodate more than 40,000 worshippers. Its sweeping roof is intended to evoke tented cities.
The complex would include a garden, school, library and accommodation for visiting worshippers.

Islamic calligraphy would cover the walls and ceilings, the washing areas would have cascading water to mimic a stream, and the complex’s buildings would be adapted to allow extra worshippers during festivals such as Eid, accommodating a further 30,000 visitors.

Ali Mangera, the London and Barcelona-based architect who is designing the mosque, said: “People in this country build mosques with fake domes and plastic minarets to look like the mosques back home. Islam has traditionally been at the forefront of technology and change. The Markaz will reflect this. It will be more than a mosque. The whole idea behind it is to break down barriers.”

Mangera has previously worked with leading British architects including Zaha Hadid, designer of the Cardiff opera house. Mangera and Tablighi Jamaat are in negotiations with Newham council, the Greater London Authority and the Thames Gateway Development Corporation for planning permission.

Sunil Sahadevan, a planning officer at Newham council, said: “We are working towards the mosque application with the organisers and discussions are ongoing. The application will be finalised over the next year.”

It is estimated that the project would cost more than £100m and donations are being sought from Britain and abroad.


How can this not be exciting? I love the connection with Olympics it should fire the teams that dont usually dont have that much of a presence... a truely global event with a touch of the non-commercial for once

I doubt it will go ahead - road capacity in the area wouldn't support 70,000 worshippers descending on it. They couldn't all arrive by District line, afterall.

I doubt it will go ahead - road capacity in the area wouldn't support 70,000 worshippers descending on it. They couldn't all arrive by District line, afterall.
Park and ride :dunno:

I officially nominate L11_Red for the longest post ever placed on the UK forums! A bit more snappy please. For example "all religion is evil - booooo" or "unbelievers will burn in hell for eternity". :devil:

Pity it's not a Yogic Flyers temple as they could hover there. Health and Safety may have something to say about that though.

I'm with Potto, I still think is sounds great. It faces another bit of the derelict canal network which could result in a great boon for green corridors / cyclepaths etc. People are not so concerned with a football stadium that attracts a lot noisier worshipers every week. Oh hang on they bitch endlessly.

I doubt it will go ahead - road capacity in the area wouldn't support 70,000 worshippers descending on it. They couldn't all arrive by District line, afterall.

surely this part of Stratford will be one of the most 'connected' places in Europe?! Certainly that was the impression the olympic bid gave. That just leaves the local populace to contend with but I seriously doubt there will be 40'000 people descending every Friday, perhaps twice a year at the end of Ramadan? I dont think in reality it will stress the transport system

I officially nominate L11_Red for the longest post ever placed on the UK forums! A bit more snappy please. For example "all religion is evil - booooo" or "unbelievers will burn in hell for eternity".

I love a debate :)

Islam has traditionally been at the forefront of technology and change.

Still laughing at that one :lol:


Potto my good man :)

but we are talking about a new and inspiring mosque here where people go for spiritual enlightenment and prayer and to meet other people. I think it is wrong to mix this with some sort of world wide domination conspiricy and middle eastern politics and worse still for people of other faiths to slag it off. People who practise Islam live in this country and like to continue their faith, if they want to celebrate this through architecture then we should all be over joyed.

The question is whether it is British Muslims who are in fact celebrating their faith when it comes to this Mosque. Did British Muslims come up with this project? Did they pay for most of the project? Considering the costs involved this is highly unlikely.

If not for foreign initiatives and capital, most Mosques in the West would not have been built.

It is estimated that the project would cost more than £100m and donations are being sought from Britain and abroad.

Moreover, the Saudi authorities and wealthy Saudi citizens openly finance Mosques all over the world. The Saudi Salafists also openly train Imams and send them to countries all over the world to preach the extremely intolerant Saudi version of Islam. This is hardly a secret.

The three-storey mosque will be designed to accommodate more than 40,000 worshippers. Its sweeping roof is intended to evoke tented cities.

40,000 people? What purpose would worshipping in such large masses serve? Among other things, such a large crowd serves to intimidate others. It is a symbol planted in the Middle of London, one of the capitals of the West. Why is this Mosque not built in a large city in a Muslim majority country?

How can this not be exciting? I love the connection with Olympics it should fire the teams that dont usually dont have that much of a presence... a truely global event with a touch of the non-commercial for once

The Olympic games have more than a touch of the non-commercial. They were reinstated a century ago in order to promote peace and a sense of brotherhood throughout the world.

surely this part of Stratford will be one of the most 'connected' places in Europe?! Certainly that was the impression the olympic bid gave. That just leaves the local populace to contend with but I seriously doubt there will be 40'000 people descending every Friday, perhaps twice a year at the end of Ramadan? I dont think in reality it will stress the transport system

the original plans to extend the existing mosqu have always been turned down because the road capacity isn't there.

They submitted a plan to turn the end of my road into a roundabout that wound round a housing block, up to the level of West Ham station, over the Jubilee Line and down into the mosque. When it was pointed out this would effectively surround an entire housing block with a road, the planners shrugged their shoulders.

The mosque is not actually that close to the Olympic Park. It's on the Greenway that is connected to the Park from West Ham station, but still a very long walk from Stratford. In fact the closest station will be Abbey Road DLR when it's built, and that wouldn't be able to cope with the amount of worshippers. I'm also concerned about noise and increase in hate crime in the area. There's already an undercurrent in the area and I just feel this will explode if this expansion goes ahead.

Still laughing at that one :lol:

Well yes it has actually. Even someone with a keyboard and wikipedia is able to realise that.

In fact, that's the problem it's having. I'm not the expert, but I know that Islam raced ahead of itself in science and mathematics centuries ago - and it was only when it became more insular Christianity took over as 'the' progressive religion. Basically whereas Christianity moulded itself and 'updated' its teachings with the modern scientific age, Islam stayed behind, and that's the problem a lot of Muslims face in their beliefs vs the modern world.

In fact, that's the problem it's having. I'm not the expert, but I know that Islam raced ahead of itself in science and mathematics centuries ago - and it was only when it became more insular Christianity took over as 'the' progressive religion. Basically whereas Christianity moulded itself and 'updated' its teachings with the modern scientific age, Islam stayed behind, and that's the problem a lot of Muslims face in their beliefs vs the modern world.

At one time Muslim culture led the world in knowledge and prosperity. Now, in most respects, it lags far behind.

The expansion in trade, as well as the OPEN INTELLECTUAL ENVIRONMENT of early Islam, gave rise to the wealth of its civilization.

The Abbasid dynasty, which ruled from Baghdad from 750 to 1258, provided the peak of Islamic civilization. The Abbasid’s greatest achievements were in the area of philosophy, science and mathematics, in which they led the world. They studied, preserved and translated the Greek classics. The Muslim world is justifiably proud of its achievements in this regard. Muslim scholars provided major contributions to mathematics, algebra, trigonometry, chemistry, physics and medicine. This was a civilization that surpassed all others in its prosperity and achievement.

Much of the knowledge of the Greek philosophers was known to the Romans, including for example the teachings of Aristotle, who advocated reason and logic. While the Romans had a sophisticated financial sector, they showed little interest in mathematics. In 529 Christian Emperor Justinian closed down the Athenian schools of philosophy. What followed was the Dark Age in Europe, in which there was no progress for centuries and no practice of science or philosophy. The works of the ancient Greeks were lost to Europe. Meanwhile the teachings of the Greek philosophers were preserved in the East and were continued, enhanced and developed by Muslim philosophers.

Ibn Rushd (known in the West as Averroes), who lived in Muslim Spain in the twelfth century. He continued the philosophy of Aristotle. He wrote of the harmony of religion and philosophy. He believed the Quran contained the highest truth while maintaining that its words should not be taken literally. He proposed a dual method of expounding theology, one for the intellectuals and another for the masses in general. He believed that to the masses, one must speak of religion, but to the enlightened few one may disclose scientific truth. He was saddened by the fate of women in society, stating that no scope was allowed for the development of their talents, and that they seemed to be destined exclusively to childbirth and servility to their husbands. His writings did not please religious zealots and he was removed from his post as judge and physician to the ruler in Cordoba.

Subsequently in the Muslim world the teachings of Averroes were considered to be too rationalistic, and the religious orthodoxy was not further challenged by philosophers. This came to be known as the closing of the "gate of ijtihad" (independent thought). However in Christian Europe, Averroes’ teachings aroused much interest. The philosophy of the ancient Greeks was rediscovered via the Muslim world. Many centuries were spent trying to reconcile this philosophy with Christian belief. As the universities slowly obtained greater independence from the church, the writings of Aristotle and Averroes’ interpretations of them became a subject of debate. This created turmoil in the minds of many medieval European intellectuals but helped sow the seeds of the Renaissance and stimulate interest in scientific investigation.

Muslim scholars argue that Quran urges quest for knowledge of nature by observation, and this inspired the development of scientific method by Muslims. However in the 12th century when Muslim philosophers began to suggest that truth itself may be revealed by empirical observation as well as from the Quran, there was a religious crackdown, the gate of ijtihad was closed and scientific research largely ceased in the Muslim world. It was eventually pursued in Europe, but not without resistance from religious authorities there. The start or the 13th century saw the beginning of the relative decline of Islamic civilization. This decline was not caused by outside forces. It was not caused by a lack of dedication to Islam. It was caused by Islam itself. This is because rejection of science and scientific method was rejection of what was to later become the main driving force in industrial prosperity.

Scientific research in the Muslim world declined and the intellectual environment became inhospitable to the open and honest exchange of ideas. The craft guilds, which also existed in Europe, may have been more successful under Islam in preserving their monopolies, excluding competition and product improvement. Craftsmen were granted higher status than merchants, and were able to restrict the idea of free competition. There was a feeling in the Muslim world that improvement was unnecessary, except perhaps in the technology of warfare. Gradually all the advancements known to the Muslim world passed to Europe, where the knowledge was eventually utilized to greater effect.

In 1258 Baghdad fell to the invading Mongols and the empire collapsed. Soon however, three separate Islamic empires rose to replace it. Isfahan became the centre of an Iranian empire, Delhi was the centre of the Mughal empire and Constantinople, renamed Istanbul, was the centre of the Ottoman empire. Islam retained its military prowess for many centuries but it never regained its technological or economic supremacy.

The real problem has been avoided and ignored. Islam is the problem. It does not provide knowledge but rather suppresses the quest for knowledge. In doing so, it does not encourage prosperity but discourages it. It does not benefit society but harms it. Muslims desperately need to break out of the strait-jacket that Islam imposes upon them.

Modern prosperity, with all its improvement in welfare, has been delivered to humanity by science and technology. In the last two centuries especially, science has delivered better lives for people, longer lives, and for larger populations. The key to unlocking the source of these benefits was scientific method, the relentless search for truth though observation, theorizing and testing. It has been the historical role of all religions to attempt to suppress this quest for truth. Such a quest threatens the basis of all religions – the unquestioned "truth" of the sacred book. The first words of the Quran are "This book is not to be doubted". Why should God fear doubt? A prohibition of doubt is a virtual admission of untruth. All books should be doubted, especially if they attempt to suppress it. Doubt is the source of all knowledge. Only by the expression of doubt, and from that the the elimination of falsity, can truth be revealed. The Quran does not contain truth. It does not benefit Muslims to believe it. Neither does it define morality – it contradicts it.

In the 13th century the Muslim world, with its development of the culture of science, mathematics, physics, chemistry and medicine, led the world. This was despite Islam, not because of it. The Muslim world once possessed in its hands the keys to the future prosperity that technology could deliver. Not only that, but with the invention of double entry bookkeeping, it possessed in its hands the blueprint of the plans for the modern corporation. Because of Islam, because of the Quran, these keys were thrown away. Eventually, after several hundred years, Europe was able to absorb this knowledge and overthrow the dark constraint of its own religion to unlock the mysteries of science and discover the path to prosperity.

:)

I'll address your points at a later date as I am currently taking a few degree exams, but your above 'copy & paste' job is from this site (assumingly): http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/perkins30325.htm

That has got to be one of the most un-biased websites around and if anything its not an accurate reflection of Islam but the views of a few. Just like islamic fundamentalists are a minority....but what do you expect from a website that states: "Muslims, to the extent that they follow him [Muhammad], are terrorists. Those Muslims who are not terrorists are ignorant of Islam and are not good Muslims". I wouldn't touch a source like that for answers on religion with a barge pole or any similar other religion based site that was as apparently biased.

Yet what you seem to fail to acknowledge is the problems with all religions: none are good, none are above each other and that none operate for the good of humanity. I suspect that you are only here to create trouble or wish to fulfill some 'theory' of creating trouble just see friction between other people and quite frankly your thoughts have been proven wrong by British history for many hundreds of years due to the nature of a variety of faiths being absorbed into the country.

I'll address your points at a later date as I am currently taking a few degree exams, but your above 'copy & paste' job is from this site (assumingly): http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/perkins30325.htm

It certainly is as the man knows his stuff and puts it better than I ever could.

That has got to be one of the most un-biased websites around and if anything its not an accurate reflection of Islam but the views of a few.

What is the most un-biased site around in your opinion ?

What has got to be one of the most un-biased websites around and if anything its not an accurate reflection of Islam but the views of a few. Just like islamic fundamentalists are a minority....but what do you expect from a website that states: "Muslims, to the extent that they follow him [Muhammad], are terrorists. Those Muslims who are not terrorists are ignorant of Islam and are not good Muslims".

You know very little about who Muhammad was and what he did. Have you ever considered thoroughly studying Muhammad's life story as described in the earliest sources? Martin Lings has written an excellent book on the subject. There are also plenty of Muslim sites and academic sites that host online versions of the Quran and the Sahih Hadith collections.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
http://islam.about.com/od/hadithcollections/
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

If one were to copy the behaviour of Muhammad and his companions, one would be behaving like a terrorist. Muhammad was not a nice person to say the very least. He had poets assassinated who criticised him or praised his enemies. Muhammad raided, expelled and killed members of tribes that were not interested in converting to his ideology. Moreover, Muhammad and his army converted the inhabitants Mecca, Muhammad's city of birth, under pain of death. Islamic Scholars and Muslim historians do not contest these things happened. They wholeheartedly agree Muhammad did these things, because the earliest sources state he did these things. Islam started out as an intolerant faith and its core message is totalitarian.

You could retort that Christians and other religious groups have forced their religion on others as well in times past. However, Jesus and those who followed him during his lifetime did not force anyone to convert nor did they kill Jesus' critics. One was free to follow or disregard Jesus' teachings. The same is true for Buddhism and Taoism. Among the followers of these religions, there are certainly violent and cruel people, but these philosophies are not themselves violent and cruel, and neither were their founders.

I wouldn't touch a source like that for answers on religion with a barge pole or any similar other religion based site that was as apparently biased.

"Apparently" is the right word. You have not read any Muslim scriptures and early history and therefore you can neither refute nor agree with this conclusion. You lack the knowledge that would allow you to judge whether this statement is accurate or not and, more importantly, to understand why these people believe this is so.

Yet what you seem to fail to acknowledge is the problems with all religions: none are good, none are above each other and that none operate for the good of humanity.

Firstly, how do you know all religions are bad? You are ignorant about Islam and I sincerely doubt you have studied any other religious traditions in depth. You most likely have not even read a few books that explain the basics of certain major religions.

Secondly, your blanket statement about religion is obviously incorrect. It stems from both ignorance and extreme bias. For instance, would you say that a given Briths Sikh community is no better than the Aum Shinrikyo? The Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas on several lines of the Tokyo underground. These attacks killed twelve people and injured thousands. According to their teachings this was a benevolent act. Sikh doctrine does not approve of killing people in cold blood and certainly not in this manner.

Your statement that all religious ideologies are equally bad is obviously not a very well informed one.

I suspect that you are only here to create trouble or wish to fulfill some 'theory' of creating trouble just see friction between other people

You suspect incorrectly. Your statement reveals a lot about you, though. Why do you feel threatened by someone who merely disagrees with you on a number of issues that you do not seem to know that much about in the first place? I welcome opposing views. Well argued views that oppose one's own can be quite educational. I for one welcome interactions that could potentially broaden my mind or change my views.

and quite frankly your thoughts have been proven wrong by British history for many hundreds of years due to the nature of a variety of faiths being absorbed into the country.

Which thoughts are you referring to exactly? What exacly does British history prove in your opnion? How does it prove me wrong, pray tell?

A large number of faiths found their way to Britian in the past millenium but this process was anything but peaceful. British history is fraught with religious persecution and conflict. The Jews were massacred and expelled in the Middle Ages. For centuries, ethnic Jews could not settle in England unless they converted to Christianity first. Catholics used to be second class citizens. For centuries, a number of laws that discriminated against them were in force. Moreover, different Protestant groups were also perfectly willing to take up arms against each other. When Cromwell's son was deposed, quite some Puritans migrated to the Americans because they feared for their lives. Laws prohibiting Witchcraft were not abolished until the second half of the 20th century.

I am very much in favour of a complete separation of religion and state, because if anything British history shows that relgion and politics make a very unpleasant mix.

Kind regards,

Some could argue that Jesus was a terrorist as the Bible is propoganda depicting his 'acts'. You see this is another problem that you have failed to realise - most historical religious texts have been mis-interpreted, corrupted or changed at will to meet someone elses needs over the years. All religious texts are no more than best-sellers (although not necessarily sold). Personally I prefer Lord of the Rings.

While Islam started with Muhammad, christianity did not start out with Jesus, infact it only started as it began to be adopted by the Romans and they then used that to forcibly convert to this 'new religion'. Other empires afterwards imposed christianity upon those who would not wish it and I do recall a certain 'Crusades' of killling all muslims without a chance of conversion after invading their territory or once again do you fail to acknowledge that other religions aren't sugar coated.

I assume you are the one who has not done their work as aum shinrikyo is a fusion of buddhism and hinduism (and other) beliefs and last time I looked neither of those religions (unless the works were interpreted incorrectly by radicals) believed in going on killing rages just for the hell of it. So before you accuse me of not knowing my religions, don't go using examples which are based upon the beliefs of religions that don't preach hate - you're only contradicting yourself. Also you don't need a 'cruel' or 'good' leader for a religion to have more aspects that are horrific. If anything it is those that illustrate possible events (which may or may not have happened). Quite simply if Islam was a religion of war - we would be seeing a lot more crap happening than we are now which is mostly down to our own or neighbouring countries actions.

Also if you believed so strongly in those reports on islam, then surely that must be painting most muslims in a far hollier light than most other religions as if it is a religion of hate, murder and everything else bad and gory then the result of 99% not actually following this path is pretty successful. Would that not indicate enlightenness? :laugh:

I think it is funny that you accuse me of having a lack of knowledge of any religions, yet it is you who are quoting non-authoritarian sources and confusing the make up of your own examples! By the way I went to a RC school where studies on religion were a standard and this was for at least 5 years on a variety of aspects of many religions.

Of an interesting note, is that the two most prominent religious extremist groups in Britain that have 'teamed up' with the dreaded BNP are of Sikh and Hindu origin. This is simply because they share a common hatred for muslims. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (ironically an Arab proverb)!

I also remember from one of my lectures on geography and crime that those of Sikh background were the fastest growing minority being sent to jail for serious crimes since 1995 even though on average their socio-economic standing was by far not the worst of any group studied.

Every religion has its chaotic elements, but let us not forget that it was Tamil hindu's that 'perfected' to what we know as a suicide bomber. Infact I don't know one religion that doesn't have terrorist organisation linked to it.

Religion is a tool used by those who seek their own goals and for a minority this means using religion as an excuse for murder and other crimes. It is only when a society breaks away from religion that it trully flourishes.

Re-read my words - I never indicated as to how 'smooth' the absorbtion was, but that it has happened. Personally, I see nothing bad with multi-faith communities...its only when people use their faith as an excuse to persecute or commit crimes. Fact of the matter is - all faiths have bad individuals and none is better than the other.

Hello, salam!

I thought I'd stick my oar in to this interesting debate offering my perspective as a Muslim. As soon as I saw the topic title, the direction the thread would take was going to be predictable, and so it proved.

Firstly, regarding the topic, yes the mosque is overly large. However, the East london area has a huge Muslim community, with active worshipors numbering in the tens of thousands within a small radius (I have official National Census data from 2001).

I do not know London too well as I am from Leicester. However, extrapolating attendance from a community of 40-50,000 Muslims in this city it is very possibile for the "Olymic Mosque" capacity to be more than adequate for the "big days" - those being Friday's and the 2 festivals of "Eid". At other times throughout the week it would be largely empty.

Secondly, regarding the Tabligh Jamaat. I live in an area where Tabligh Jamaat ("TJ") activity is high. The mosques in Leicester are mostly affililiated with the TJ in some capacity. A little background - The TJ was formed in India at the time of the Raj to re-establish Islamic identity amongst Muslims in India at a time when it was being eroded by Hindu customs and culture. Ignorance about what constituted Islam and what did not was setting in within the Muslim population. TJ is a non-political organisation and has no authority to issue "fatwas" (edicts/religious laws). The closest comparison I can make is with the Christian "Alpha" course that has become popular. TJ is not a "terrorist breeding ground" nor is it being backed and financed by Saudis.

Thridly, I found L11_Red's statement regarding the Quran quite funny. The charge of Islam being a "hate filled religion" are being repeated at this moment in time, word for word, by Nick Griffin, the BNP leader in a court in Leeds. He too has used selected verses from the Quran to substantiate his claims. Regarding L11_Red's selected verses, I feel I had to have a closer inspection.



Koran 8:37 Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme.

You do know what reigns supreme means do you? Moreover, Islam accuses everyone including Jews and Christians of idolatry.


This verse (8:37) is incorrect. Please find the correct verse you are referring to before posting misinformation.


3:147 Their cry was only that they said: Our Lord! forgive us for our sins and wasted efforts, make our foothold sure, and give us victory over the disbelieving folk.

3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.


It is interesting to see you have ommited several intervening verses. Regardless, as an intelligent person, you too must realise the importance of the background and context of any story. If you read the previous verses you would know that this particular section refers to an early battle between the followers of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the tribe of Quraysh.

Cut a long story short, for the first time the Muslim's looked like they were about to beat their staunchest enemies - the tribes of Mecca, so some of the men eased off going against the prophet's pre-battle orders. This nearly resulted in the prophet p.b.u.h being killed and ther Muslims retreated. The verses above are in relation to this, where God is saying he will answer the men's prayers and grant them victory by casting fear into their enemy. In summary, this situation is in war time, the aggressors were the "disbelieving folk". George Bush said he would use "Shock and Awe" to strike fear into the enemy - and we all saw in live Technicolor what that meant.


If you think I quote out of context, I dare you to read the entire Quran with an open mind and see for yourself. That entire book is full of hatefulness.


Yes, you were right, they were quoted out of context. I have used the translations from here: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ (pickthall)

I am sorry if my post has come across as proselityzing, that was not my intention, but rather to add a Muslim man's perspective to some comments. Ta for your attention!

Mohammed

cheers, it is unfortunate (although like you said sadly inevitable giving the climate of the times) that the thread dived into a religon slanging match! What do you think about the architecture? How do you think this will be received by the younger generation compared to the older generation of muslims? Most new mosques, in say the middle east seem to run a long more tradional lines.... Im quite excited about the design and thought the architects comment about Islamic architecture traditionally pushing the boundaries quite astute.

Well yes it has actually. Even someone with a keyboard and wikipedia is able to realise that.

In fact, that's the problem it's having. I'm not the expert, but I know that Islam raced ahead of itself in science and mathematics centuries ago - and it was only when it became more insular Christianity took over as 'the' progressive religion. Basically whereas Christianity moulded itself and 'updated' its teachings with the modern scientific age, Islam stayed behind, and that's the problem a lot of Muslims face in their beliefs vs the modern world.

Sort of, I would however say that the enlightenment period rather than Christianity gave a kick up the arse in the West... the enlightenment period, where a period of endless questioning regardless of religious thought at the time, produced a flowering of scientific progress in the West which slowly moved the concept of religion onto a more abstract plane. Islam with it's founding of seeking knowledge was always heading down a similar route just that by the whims and chance of history it was not so definied and aggresive in its thrust during this period; thus resulting in the imbalance between scientific progress and therefore economic and military power.

Socially however, even in the late 19th century woman of stature in the West looked on with envy at women in the Islamic word because of their relative equality. The sad rise in fundamentalism in Islam can be directly attributed to Western imperial expansion (a reversal of the crusades if you like, see how christian fundamentalism flourished at this time) and more importantly the huge funding the fundamentalist movement received due to the value and lust for oil.

That has all happened now but as you can see everything could have been different... all history is and therefore where we are now is just a prodct of a chain of events where each step has infinite possibilites, there is no inherent alterior motive of 'history' just that we have the power to direct the future.

So now there needs to be a move towards a more consolidating and spiritual vision of all religions. Certainly we as humans should not be scared of people worshipping or practising a particular lifestyle, alert to religious political movements (including those from America too) yes, but to get it all mixed up and bundled as the same thing is a huge mistake.

First and foremost citizens in the Western World like Nick-Taylor are the only hope we have in assuring understanding and mutual respect between different religions. If we all thought and behaved like Nick we be in utopia<<.

Well to be honest, nobody knows what the future has in store for us, but I think what all western societies need to work on is poverty and class discrimination. The riots in France were not Islam related but Class related<.

I have grown up here in Toronto and honestly, I"m surprised from hearing some of the comments made on this thread, Do you folks not mingle with muslims??

Come on guys, Bin Laden and his homies are not 1.5 billion people worldwide.

First and foremost citizens in the Western World like Nick-Taylor are the only hope we have in assuring understanding and mutual respect between different religions. If we all thought and behaved like Nick we be in utopia<<.

Well to be honest, nobody knows what the future has in store for us, but I think what all western societies need to work on is poverty and class discrimination. The riots in France were not Islam related but Class related<.

I have grown up here in Toronto and honestly, I"m surprised from hearing some of the comments made on this thread, Do you folks not mingle with muslims??

Come on guys, Bin Laden and his homies are not 1.5 billion people worldwide.

But just how many of these 1.5 billion people support him to some degree at least.
Just how many muslims in the west support the overturn of democracy in favour of islamic states. To say its just a very tiny minority is probably wrong and add to that large numbers of passive supporters and it cant continue to be ignored.

Its hard to believe that a 40,000 mosque is not some kind of attempt to make a statement. All financed by very intolerant states.

Why do all western countries have these problems with muslims but not much with non-muslim immigrants.

I know and respect muslims but I must admit to becoming more and more sceptic about just what the future holds with increasing evidence of muslim intolerance and conviction of the superiority of their beliefs.
I think its wishful thinking to not believe that a significant minority more or less actively want to conquer the west.

But just how many of these 1.5 billion people support him to some degree at least.
Just how many muslims in the west support the overturn of democracy in favour of islamic states. To say its just a very tiny minority is probably wrong and add to that large numbers of passive supporters and it cant continue to be ignored.

Its hard to believe that a 40,000 mosque is not some kind of attempt to make a statement. All financed by very intolerant states.

Why do all western countries have these problems with muslims but not much with non-muslim immigrants.

I know and respect muslims but I must admit to becoming more and more sceptic about just what the future holds with increasing evidence of muslim intolerance and conviction of the superiority of their beliefs.
I think its wishful thinking to not believe that a significant minority more or less actively want to conquer the west.

Your just very paranoid my friend.

Your just very paranoid my friend.

or you are very naive.

If 1,000 muslims gather in my country for public meetings planning the overthrow of democracy, should I care?

This minority we all talk about is a lot larger than what is comfortable.
and certain current events in my country are forcing people to re-evaluate exactly what many muslims stand for. Sad but true.

..."assuring understanding and mutual respect between different religions"

..."I think what all western societies need to work on is poverty and class discrimination. The riots in France were not Islam related but Class related"

I have grown up here in Toronto and honestly, I"m surprised from hearing some of the comments made on this thread, Do you folks not mingle with muslims??

"Come on guys, Bin Laden and his homies are not 1.5 billion people worldwide"

"Your just very paranoid my friend"



And growing up in Toronto you seem to be ignorant to the history of the past century. The West has spent the last century pushing forward a socialist agenda. The old Islamic world is regressing and is further from tackling poverty than it has ever been, let alone helping with impending environmental issues.

The constant cry from unblemished muslims that "oh there are 1.5 billion of us and its only a minority tarnishing our image... so what you worring about?" Is an extreme case of burying-your-head-in-the-sand. No muslim can deny that there is a problem with the religion or more specifically a rather corrosive element that has spread unhindered to the core.

How can anyone not begin to unravel the problems of the moment, Bin Laden, islamist terrorism, muslim integration in the West and restricted civil liberties, poverty in the Islamic world and not look at the direction Islam is heading is beyond belief... Or I take it that you are not interested in these issues that has affected almost every corner of the plant?

There has been a movement in process over the course of the last 100 years that has reinterpretted vast texts, ignoring centuries of intellectual debate in favour of something that should not be tolerated in the modern world. This HAS happened and IS affecting large portions of the worlds peoples! The result, and the West is just as much to blame as anyone, is that we have something very ugly on our hands (along with all the other ugly things).

Of course the vast majority of muslims are pleasant decent people but there is also a darker side in the state of their chosen religion and of course it affects peoples interpretation of the world around them! I experience this myself when mingling with muslim friends and contacts as well as reading about it in literature or just giving a cursorary glance at world events. This is a direct result not of poverty but of there not being collective counter-movement to the inwinding of Islam as an intellectual and spiritual force which has been superseded by a "return-to-selected-roots feudal-pseudo political system" ideology.

This shouldnt really affect the idea of a mosque being built, I think it could be beneficial in the long term but you can not turn round and tell people there is nothing to worry about with Islam without acknowledging real problems and issues especially when there is no holistic counter-movement. Someone asked me why UK muslim leaders were being questioned on kidnappings in Iraq in the media and were expected to intervene... Of course they should go out and proactively protect the peaceful of their religion! And they did and no doubt it resulted in the kidnappers claim to be following god as unfounded.

I find an analogy of the situation we find ourselves in to the football holiganism of the 1980s. It represented the behaviour and attitudes of only a small number of the english population but the went abroad waving the English flag and used patriotism to fund their beliefs so of course the english were tarnished, what do people expect? So instead of sitting back telling everyone not to worry as there are lots of decent people in Tunbridge Wells we did something about it, and there was a huge counter movement that essentially quashed the problem.... Islam has yet to find its counter movement.

Hi Potto,

I thought the designs for the new mosque were very interesting. Many of my friends have been discussing for some time the need to design mosques with a more contemporary outlook, drawing on past history but also looking to the future. In my opinion this design is attempting to do that but I don't think it is the best possible design. Certainly interesting though.

Regarding Muslim's "burying their head's in the sand", I do not believe that is necessarily true. I live in the UK so experiences in Toronto may be different. I work very closely with many Muslim organisations and I can say wholeheartedly this is far from the case. The Muslim community as a "whole" does not exist. It too has many factions, and these factions to a large extent leaderless. Recently, much work has attempted to present a unified voice - for example with the MCB and the BMF. But these too suffer from the lack of hiearchical structure. There has been a huge effort to re-assure the UK public that Muslim's living among them are not the new enemy. But as we all know, it just takes a few words from a man with a hook to destroy months and years of work.

The Muslim community does acknowledge there are a few "rogue elements" that are a part of it. This is not a new phenonmenon, there always has been stretching from the time of the Prophet Mohammed p.b.u.h to "assasins" to "al-qaeda" today.

However, the majority of the Muslim community who have no such links or idealogies are required to excuse and apologise on these "rogue-elements" behalf. Apologies only go so far, and require action to make the apology sincere. This too has been happening for many years even before Islamic extremism was an over-sized headline in the Sun. To make-out that the Muslim Community is not doing anything is also a fallacy.

There are over a thousand mosques in the UK. This may scare some of you, to others it may confirm Britain's ever-changing populace. However, rest-assured, that mosques are far from bomb-factory producing centres of extremism. This could not be further from the truth.

Regarding the "direction" Islam is taking. Again this is a subjective statement being based on the actions of the few. Returning to the Hooliganism analogy, the few mindless pratts definitely did not represent the direction football fanaticism was taking. In much the same way, the actions by a few idiots does not represent the direction Islam is taking. Add to this Islam comes in diffferent flavours depending on who you talk to in the world, it is very hard to say there is a direction.

The re-interpretation of texts I believe you are referring to is "Wahabbism" or "Salafi". Certainly, these re-interpretations can be regarded as "strict" or in terms of sensationalism, "fundamentalist". However, this is not new. What is new is the link between "Al-Qaeda" and "Wahhabism". Salafi interpretations regarding matters of jurisprudence and Sharia do not agree with the views puported to be held by "Al-Qaeda" and others like them. This has been used to certain effect by many scholars, for example a scholar in Yemen who persuades many from continuing to join in with acts such as bombing purely through Islamic jurisprudence and Shariah.

As you might have guessed from this lengthy post, this thread has diverged into many topics covering all aspects of Islam and Muslims, ranging from Immigration of Muslims, threat of Muslims to UK citizens, Democracy and Muslim countries, Islam and modernity, Muslims and segregation etc etc. It's hard to comment on all of these subjects because I am a scholar of none.

However, much of what has been said on this thread has been subjective and opinionated, repeating claims made by certain red-topped newspapers and right-wing media. There is obviously a lot of ill-feeling regarding the Muslim community and Islam - at the end of the day, the thread started off as a comment on the design and size of a admittedly large masjid, but instead has turned into a full disection of the faith.

Hi, thanks for the input!

However, much of what has been said on this thread has been subjective and opinionated, repeating claims made by certain red-topped newspapers and right-wing media. There is obviously a lot of ill-feeling regarding the Muslim community and Islam - at the end of the day, the thread started off as a comment on the design and size of a admittedly large masjid, but instead has turned into a full disection of the faith.

Well that does tend to be what happens on all threads and topics here... and in most forums on most subjects to be honest. It is a hot topic after all. I shouldn't worry too much about that - the whole idea of a forum is that it's a place where people test out their opinions and through argument hone their view of the world - be it architecture, urbanism, politics or whatever.

All that makes it all the more important for a well considered counterpoint like yours to also be heard. Ignorance, even with good intentions, allows opinions to be led by the red-topped press as you say. I wouldn't say there was ill-feeling about the Muslim 'community' per se, maybe I'm wrong, but in the general lack of any honest analysis of the issues, of the sort your post attempted, people form their own conclusions from what sources they have - whoever's shouting loudest.

I thought your post was excellent.

Not sure about the designs for the mosque though.

That said, I also find Potto's football hooligan analogy interesting. You could even take it further and question whether what finally truly marginalised it was more a grass-roots distaste for it than any organised FA or government attempt (read MCB et al's attempt for a unified British Muslim mouthpiece).

Well that does tend to be what happens on all threads and topics here... and in most forums on most subjects to be honest. It is a hot topic after all. I shouldn't worry too much about that - the whole idea of a forum is that it's a place where people test out their opinions and through argument hone their view of the world - be it architecture, urbanism, politics or whatever.

I knew I was doing something wrong all that time! Cheers, fair point.

I wouldn't say there was ill-feeling about the Muslim 'community' per se, maybe I'm wrong,

That is what I think too, however sometimes I get the feeling there are many people holding back with what they are really thinking, which is why debates starting off about a mosque veer off into all sorts of socio-political-economic debates. It all makes for very interesting reading though!

I think football hooliganism was a feature of its time. There was unrest in the country in general considering the political climate of the time. The end of sorts to hooliganism seemed like a joint effort from the top (government, FA, other orgs) and from the fans. It was an interesting analogy to begin with though...

Bahh humbug i've been away for too long :)

FAO Mr Nick taylor :wave:

Some could argue that Jesus was a terrorist as the Bible is propaganda depicting his 'acts'. You see this is another problem that you have failed to realise - most historical religious texts have been misinterpreted, corrupted or changed at will to meet someone else's needs over the years. All religious texts are no more than best-sellers (although not necessarily sold). Personally I prefer Lord of the Rings.

Again you presume a lot of things about religion and my person.

How do you know most historical religious texts have been corrupted, by the way? When it comes to the canonical Gospels, the thousands of early manuscripts that have been preserved strongly suggest no significant changes have been made though the centuries. Mind you, this does not prove the story contained in them is true. However, it makes the Gospels the exception to your rule most historical religious texts have been corrupted and changed.

You like Tolkien's works. How nice. So do I.

I will ask you to treat both Jesus and Muhammad as fictional characters and read their respective stories as told in the earliest sources. Now tell me which protagonist is actually the most likeable? Please study both collections of stories carefully before making up your mind.

You called Jesus a terrorist. By what definition if I may ask? Jesus never terrorised anyone and never told any of his followers to do so. He did not incite violence either. He told his followers to not even call people names.

The worst things you could say about Jesus would probably refer to his actions in the temple. He chased the money changers out of the temple which is the only actual violent act attributed to him. This probably came down to destruction of property, disturbing the peace and inflicting minor bodily harm. One may disapprove of the fact that he threw the money changers out, but this in itself is not terrorism.

While Islam started with Muhammad, Christianity did not start out with Jesus,

This is your interpretation. Without Jesus' person there would have been no story, no message and no movement. Most people feel that Christianity started with Paul because his letters the ones that are deemed authentic that is, are the earliest Christian texts we have.

in fact it only started as it began to be adopted by the Romans and they then used that to forcibly convert to this 'new religion'.

Actually Christian Churches and sects had existed for quite some time before this happened. The First Council of Nicaea was in AD 325. Christianity became an approved religion but not the only legal one. Many people converted voluntarily during the decades that followed because Christianity had become the religion of the ruling elite. It was Theodosius I who decided to make Christianity the state religion.

Other empires afterwards imposed Christianity upon those who would not wish it and I do recall a certain 'Crusades' of killing all Muslims without a chance of conversion after invading their territory or once again do you fail to acknowledge that other religions aren't sugar coated.

Summing up certain violent parts of Christian history in a rather simplistic manner does not prove that Islam is not a violent intolerant faith. When Christians do awful things they are acting against Jesus Christ's message. Jesus told them to love their neighbour like themselves and to treat others like they would like to be treated.

You do not seem very to be knowledgeable about the Crusades and the history of Islam. Muslim armies attacked Christian lands during the reign of the second Caliph Uthman for no other reason than the fact that they could. The conquered the Middle East, North Africa and Spain within a few decades. Those were all Christian lands with the exception of the Persian Empire which was Zoroastrian. The Christian Empires did not like this but did not try to reconquer Jerusalem as long as pilgrims could visit the city unhindered. The Crusades were launched when pilgrims could no longer visit Jerusalem and were attacked, killed and enslaved while travelling though Muslim territories. The aim of these wars was not to kill and/or convert all Muslims but to conquer and keep Jerusalem and to protect the Byzantine Empire from Muslim aggression.

I assume you are the one who has not done their work as Aum Shinrikyo is a fusion of Buddhism and Hinduism (and other) beliefs and last time I looked neither of those religions (unless the works were interpreted incorrectly by radicals) believed in going on killing rages just for the hell of it. So before you accuse me of not knowing my religions, don't go using examples which are based upon the beliefs of religions that don't preach hate - you're only contradicting yourself.

I am not contradicting myself. The Aum sect was a new religious movement that had adopted ideas from other religions. It was a new ideology with a radical leadership. The radical leadership made the movement into what it was. Hinduism is not necessarily peaceful by the way. There are many Vedas and there are many strains and individuals that come up with vastly different conclusions. Hinduism does not regard its scriptures the way Abrahamic religions do.

Muhammad claimed to be the successor of Jesus and founded a new and different religion. The Sikh religion has adopted Hindu and Muslim ideas, but it is a separate religious tradition. The aum sect is like these religions in the sense that part of its content clearly stems from other faiths but that it nevertheless has its own distinct identity.

Also you don't need a 'cruel' or 'good' leader for a religion to have more aspects that are horrific.

Having a cruel leader certainly helps. Benevolent faiths like Buddhism and Christianity can certainly be perverted but totalitarian faiths are most likely to yield disastrous results.

If anything it is those that illustrate possible events (which may or may not have happened). Quite simply if Islam was a religion of war - we would be seeing a lot more crap happening than we are now which is mostly down to our own or neighbouring countries actions.

Islam was a religion of War until the Caliphate could expand no further. Islam mellowed as the possibilities to conquer more lands diminished. Eventually the Caliphate ceased to be. It took centuries to die. The reason there is not as much crap going on as you would expect is quite simply because Muslim nations lack the means and the technology. Muslim extremists have wreaked quite some havoc with the means they have so far.

Also if you believed so strongly in those reports on Islam, then surely that must be painting most Muslims in a far holier light than most other religions as if it is a religion of hate, murder and everything else bad and gory then the result of 99% not actually following this path is pretty successful. Would that not indicate enlightenness?

Plenty of Muslims are ignorant of the true teachings of the Quran. The have not read their scriptures or pick and chose from them. The problem is that Muslims who wish to take their religion seriously have to face that their religion is hateful.

Moreover, Muslim minorities in the West are by far the most intolerant groups. It is members of these groups that are most likely to perpetrate terrorism and other hate crimes. This has nothing to do with their minority status because other minorities such as Sikhs and Chinese Buddhists do not behave in this manner. Jews, gay men and young women do not fear youngsters from other minority groups but they certainly fear Muslims. This is a realistic fear based on experience rather than prejudice. You are most likely to be called names and even attacked by young Muslim men if you dare walk the streets in many large cities in Europe while you are clearly recognisable as a Jew or a Gay man. I have seen many an Orthodox Jewish man wear a baseball cap in stead of a head covering that would give him away as Jewish. Where do you think this fear comes from? Some of these people say their grandparents tell them things were more amiable in the 1930s.

I think it is funny that you accuse me of having a lack of knowledge of any religions, yet it is you who are quoting non-authoritarian sources and confusing the make up of your own examples! By the way I went to a RC school where studies on religion were a standard and this was for at least 5 years on a variety of aspects of many religions.

What non-authoritarian sources?
I do not accuse you of having a lack of knowledge. I am stating the obvious I am sorry to say. You have not read the Quran or any Muslim scriptures. I sincerely doubt you ever bothered to read any other scripture for that matter. You make sweeping generalisation like "all religions are equally bad " and "all religious texts are corrupted which you do not back up with any arguments or sources whatsoever. You do not know what the Crusades were about or pretend that you do not.

Of an interesting note, is that the two most prominent religious extremist groups in Britain that have 'teamed up' with the dreaded BNP are of Sikh and Hindu origin. This is simply because they share a common hatred for Muslims. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (ironically an Arab proverb)!

Hindus and Sikhs have been harassed by Muslims in Britain. They were persecuted in their ancestral homelands for centuries by Muslims. If Hindu and Sikh extremists have indeed entered into an alliance with the BNP this shows how scared they are. Have you ever asked yourself why these people fear Muslims so much?

I also remember from one of my lectures on geography and crime that those of Sikh background were the fastest growing minority being sent to jail for serious crimes since 1995 even though on average their socio-economic standing was by far not the worst of any group studied.

If this is true, this is indeed odd. Sikhs are the among the most well educated and affluent groups.

The Sikh faith is somewhat militant. They evolved from a mystical religion into an honourable warrior religion because they were persecuted by the Muslim authorities in India. Their penultimate Guru was tortured to death because he stood up for the freedom of religion of Hindus.

Every religion has its chaotic elements, but let us not forget that it was Tamil Hindu's that 'perfected' to what we know as a suicide bomber. In fact I don't know one religion that doesn't have terrorist organisation linked to it.

The Tamil Hindus are not using this tactic around the world. Tamils are not blowing themselves up in London, Madrid or New York. Muslims extremists are.

Muslim militants seem to have taken to suicide bombing like Americans to pizza. They may not have invented it, but they sure embraced it.

Religion is a tool used by those who seek their own goals and for a minority this means using religion as an excuse for murder and other crimes. It is only when a society breaks away from religion that it truly flourishes.

It is only when state and religion are separated that both can flourish.

Religion is used like a tool to incite violence and to inspire unconditional loyalty. However, some religions were intended for exactly this purpose whereas others were not. Islam served Muhammad's violent purposes. He used his claim that he was God's messenger to become a ruler and to gain wealth and power. Buddhism was intended help others find enlightenment. Siddharta Gautama renounced his privileged position in order to travel the world and gain insight in the human condition.

Re-read my words - I never indicated as to how 'smooth' the absorption was, but that it has happened. Personally, I see nothing bad with multi-faith communities...its only when people use their faith as an excuse to persecute or commit crimes. Fact of the matter is - all faiths have bad individuals and none is better than the other.

There is a difference between bad individuals and bad core messages. Content does matter. When it comes to intolerant ideologies, the hateful words and actions of their adherents are not a matter of bad luck. Would you say that the horrors that Fascist regimes produce have nothing to do with the core values of Fascism? I doubt you would. The horrors totalitarian regimes commit are an expression of their value system.

What is true for political ideologies is also true for religions.

Moseeds my good man :)

It is interesting to see you have omitted several intervening verses. Regardless, as an intelligent person, you too must realise the importance of the background and context of any story. If you read the previous verses you would know that this particular section refers to an early battle between the followers of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the tribe of Quraysh.

I will quote a larger portion if that is what you wish.
008.037
YUSUFALI: In order that Allah may separate the impure from the pure, put the impure, one on another, heap them together, and cast them into Hell. They will be the ones to have lost.
PICKTHAL: That Allah may separate the wicked from the good, The wicked will He place piece upon piece, and heap them all together, and consign them unto hell. Such verily are the losers.
SHAKIR: That Allah might separate the impure from the good, and put the impure, some of it upon the other, and pile it up together, then cast it into hell; these it is that are the losers.

008.038
YUSUFALI: Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).
PICKTHAL: Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning).
SHAKIR: Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed.

008.039
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html

Whether one interprets these verses as universal instructions to fight against anyone who does not wish to convert or a comment on certain battles between Muslims and Meccans, the fact remains that these are instructions to fight against those who do not wish to convert. Muslims attacked those who rejected Islam after Muhammad moved to Medina. Eventually the Meccans were converted under pain of death. This raises the question what kind of god wants people to convert under duress? Islam became the only legal religion in Arabia after Muhammad's death. All Jews, Christians and other monotheists who did not wish to convert were expelled.

The Meccans had taken umbrage at the fact that Muhammad insulted their Gods. They asked him repeatedly politely and impolitely to stop. Nevertheless, Muhammad preached in Mecca for a decade or so until he decided to leave. If I were to try to preach a different religion in Mecca nowadays I would not last ten minutes. The pagan Meccans were certainly more tolerant than the Muslims who live there now.

There have been Muslims through the ages who have understood the Quran to mean they must conquer everyone and everything. The Meccans may have insulted Muhammad. Perhaps all the Arab tribes did something to justify the fact that he and his followers eventually conquered Arabia. However, what had North Africa, Spain and the South of France done to deserve being attacked by conquering Muslims armies? They did not know about Islam until it attacked them. Considering this particular historical context can you blame non-Muslims if they consider these parts of the Quran as the inspiration for such violence?

As a non-Muslim I was quite shocked at the sheer hatred that expressed concerning Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims when reading the Quran. The Quran revels in describing tortures in Hell and insulting non-Muslims. I would not dream of writing in such terms about anyone.

Well to be honest, nobody knows what the future has in store for us, but I think what all western societies need to work on is poverty and class discrimination. The riots in France were not Islam related but Class related

It is a matter of both class and culture. Those neighbourhoods need a lot of work in terms of policing, proper schools and other measures.

All societies should to seek to end poverty and discrimination; not merely Western ones.

I have grown up here in Toronto and honestly, I'm surprised from hearing some of the comments made on this thread, Do you folks not mingle with Muslims??

I do mingle with Muslims. That is how I know most of them are kind people who are unaware of the hateful parts of their scriptures or ignore these aspects of their faith for whatever reason.

I was truly shocked to read what I read in the Quran and Hadith. I had expected better. I had honestly hoped that the moderates were right and that militant Muslims had misinterpreted their scriptures. However, after reading the Quran I have found that it is the other way round.

Kind regards

Hello all,


PICKTHAL: That Allah may separate the wicked from the good, The wicked will He place piece upon piece, and heap them all together, and consign them unto hell. Such verily are the losers.


This is the central tenet of the Abrahamic Faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Even Buddhism considers torment to those who do bad deeds by being re-incarnated as detestable beings (e.g. insects, animals etc - ask Glenn Hoddle :P). This verse can be found in all of these religious scriptures (i.e. Bible, Torah, etc).


PICKTHAL: Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them; but if they return (thereto) then the example of the men of old hath already gone (before them, for a warning).


The Quran time and time again instructs mankind to instill justice. This includes holding promises, adhering to contracts and treaties - with other men and of course with the Almighty. The example of old refers to the tribes who were destroyed by God because they broke their promise with God, for example Sodom and Gomorrah, the people of Aad etc etc.


008.039
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/008.qmt.html


This verse refers to the battle between the first converts to Islam and the Meccan (pagan) tribes, as described in previous posts. The Quran time and time again instructs mankind to instill justice in every walk of life and to protect thsoe being oppressed. How can this be then interpreted to go fight others? It clearly says fight oppression. In this case the Meccans came to Medina with a huge army to wipe out the first Muslims.


Whether one interprets these verses as universal instructions to fight against anyone who does not wish to convert or a comment on certain battles between Muslims and Meccans, the fact remains that these are instructions to fight against those who do not wish to convert.


That would require imaginative interpretations of the above verses to come to this conclusion - don't get me wrong, I am sure many "Muslims" have done that in the past and continue today to do that, but that is more of an indication of these peoples ignorance than the Quran instructing them to do so. And there lies the problem - Ignorance.


The Meccans had taken umbrage at the fact that Muhammad insulted their Gods. They asked him repeatedly politely and impolitely to stop. Nevertheless, Muhammad preached in Mecca for a decade or so until he decided to leave. If I were to try to preach a different religion in Mecca nowadays I would not last ten minutes. The pagan Meccans were certainly more tolerant than the Muslims who live there now.


I do not agree at all with that statement. The firt Muslims were tortured alive, buried alive, whipped, stoned, burned, tarred, boiled and eveything inbetween but their faith and resolve, subhanallah never wavered. They were given refuge by the tribes of Medina (who were mostly Jews).

I do agree with the fact that preaching another religion in Mecca would not be allowed. Mecca is literally just the Kabba (the small cube building all Muslims face when praying) and the surrounding Mosque. It is the most important site for Muslims. Therefore allowing another religion to be preached in a place sacred for Muslims would be a bit distracting from the pupose of the place.

Mutli-religious debates take place throughout the Arab countries. Coptic Christians and churches still exist across Arab lands. If the Muslim leaders throughout the centuries wanted to, they could have initiated mass genocides (nauzubillah) etc etc and completely removed them. But they didn't. In fact, reading about early Islamic Civilization, cross religious discussions were common and encouraged. You are right, Muslims today have become insular and backward looking when in fact the early examples were the opposite.


As a non-Muslim I was quite shocked at the sheer hatred that expressed concerning Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims when reading the Quran. The Quran revels in describing tortures in Hell and insulting non-Muslims. I would not dream of writing in such terms about anyone.


You are using hyperbole to express your opinions. The Quran does not express "Hatred" at Christian and Jewish people. As you have read the Quran, you too know the purpose of the Quran is not just to lay down guidance but also a statement for the Jews and Christians to "come back to the path of Abraham". In much the way that Moses came to guide the Children of Israel away from their disbelief, and in the same way that Jesus came to guide the Children of Israel (again) away from their errors ("guide the flock", as it were), Mohammed p.b.u.h came to guide (again) the Children of Israel and the rest of Mankind as well (hence the universal message of brotherhood expressed in the Quran).

As I said above, the central tenet of the Abrahamic faiths is to be of those that enter Heaven after we have died. The Torah, The Bible and The Quran all describe Hell as the place you don't want to be. The Quran warn the Christians and Jews to move away from their errors. It does not "revel" in it as you have described. The Quran describes Hell and the people's torment in their the way it will be. True, it doesn't beat around the bush about it, but then how can it?


I was truly shocked to read what I read in the Quran and Hadith. I had expected better. I had honestly hoped that the moderates were right and that militant Muslims had misinterpreted their scriptures. However, after reading the Quran I have found that it is the other way round.


Subhanallah, you have read the Quran. Ignorance is rife amongst Muslims, and this too is mentioned in Hadiths and the Quran as a sign of things to come. Ignorance amongst Muslims about their own religion is the root of the problems we are facing today. It is not only non-Muslims that are under threat from these people, but Muslims too, all over the Earth, in Muslim lands and non-Muslim lands.

The Quran is a guidance for those that want it. The opening few lines say this:


PICKTHAL: As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
PICKTHAL: Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.


This pretty much sums up the Quran - and it applies to Muslims and non-Muslims equally. Apologies for the long post again.