London MEGA Mosque o_O

Originally posted by samsamm9
A mosque, a temple or a church are houses of god, why so scared ?
Would you rather have built a massage parlor, a strip joint, a liquor store or a gun shop in your area ???
Or you're just scared at the idea of 10 000 brown men gathering together ?

Trying to play the race card again?

Islam condones pedophilia and wife beating.

• Muhammad had intercourse with his wife Aisha when she was 9 years old.

• The Koran also states that husbands are allowed to beat disobedient wives - wife beating is mainstream Islam.

• Muhammad himself punched Aisha in the chest for leaving the house without his permission. To be fair, she was older than 9 at the time.

All Muslims know these things. Muhammad led the 'perfect' life according to Muslims. He is to be emulated.

Muhammad had full sex with his 9 year old wife.

Narrated 'Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was 9 years old and she remained with him for 9 years (i.e. till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88

The Koran allows the beating of a disobedient wife.

Koran 4:34

Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

Koran 4:34

Muhammad struck his favorite wife Aisha in the chest for leaving the house without his permission.

Aisha narrates, "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain."

Hadith Muslim 4:2127

According to Muslims, Muhammad led the 'perfect' life.

I would prefer to not have 10,000 people worshiping next to me who think sex with a 9 year old and wife beating is acceptable behavior.

reply to post by ollncasino


You can cherrypick the bible the same way, are you also against their churches being built? To those that say "the new testament eliminated the old testament, they need to read the bible again. Jesus himself says the old testament is still as valid as the day it was written, and would be until the earth was no more.

Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [a]the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches [b]others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever [c]keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Many christians seem to think jesus was a liar or something, and the old testament means nothing anymore.

Leviticus 25:44-46
44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.
45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have [a]produced in your land; they also may become your possession.
46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your [b]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Condoning slavery, as long as they are not your countrymen

Numbers 31:7-18
7 So they made war against Midian, just as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. 8 They killed the kings of Midian along with the rest of their slain: Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. 9 The sons of Israel captured the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their cattle and all their flocks and all their goods they plundered. 10 Then they burned all their cities where they lived and all their camps with fire. 11 They took all the spoil and all the prey, both of man and of beast. 12 They brought the captives and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest and to the congregation of the sons of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan opposite Jericho.

13 Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the congregation went out to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. 15 And Moses said to them, “Have you [a]spared all the women? 16 Behold, these [b]caused the sons of Israel, through the [c]counsel of Balaam, to [d]trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man [e]intimately. 18 But all the [f]girls who have not known man [g]intimately, [h]spare for yourselves.

Murder everyone but the little girls, keep them for yourself.

I could go on and on. Do you feel as strongly against your catholic and christian neighbors, as you do the muslims? Would you object to them building a church to worship in?

reply to post by TKDRL


Thing is, I have yet to encounter a Christian/Jew/Hindu/Sikh who tried to make me follow their beliefs, nor do we have Church of England Vicars, Hindu priests or Jewish Rabbi's openly preaching inside mainstream places of worship that everyone else needs to be converted or killed.

When you do find me a CoE church that regularly invites an extremist to come and preach to the congregation, then you might have a point. Up until then, all you're doing is attempting to stifle genuine concern over the level of immigration and drive who would normally be quite decent folk into the hands of the right-wing, as they are the only people who will listen..

Understand this, the UK is probably one of the most tolerant societies in the world, however, we also have a core set of values and a way of life (despite what people might tell you, the British Isles have a lot of culture). We have no problem, on the whole, of people of whatever ilk coming here to live and prosper.

If, on the other hand, we have people coming here who's stated aim is conversion and implementing Sharia (such as this group who back the Mosque), that is totally at odds with the culture we have spent centuries building (and defending) and not only a risk to our own culture, but the protection we offer to other minority groups who, should the Salafists get their way, would very quickly find life getting rather horrible, as demonstrated everywhere else where Islam has become dominant.

It's all very funny that we get labelled as "xenophobes" by people who can't actually debate the topic properly, but you never see us complaining about the largest Hindu temple outside India in the UK, or the Sikh temples, or the various Black/African Churches or even the Jews, perhaps the worlds most discriminated against religious group.

Why?

Because they don't preach intolerance, hatred, bigotry or espouse the overthrow of our liberal democracy in favour of an intolerant theocracy, which is exactly what we have seen in Mosques up and down the country, in our streets and on the internet.

If they wish to be taken seriously as the "religion" of peace, then they as a community need to start taking action. The stunning silence from them, however, when it comes to dealing with these extremists is rather telling and fuels the distrust and fear.

Originally posted by TKDRL

. Do you feel as strongly against your catholic and christian neighbors, as you do the muslims?

Nope.

Originally posted by TKDRL


Would you object to them building a church to worship in?

edit on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 04:12:26 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Nope.

reply to post by stumason

So, what you are really afraid of then, is that the muslims are like you? That they are going to do what european countries have done to countless other places and cultures? That they might overwhelm and outnumber you, then turn you into an arab colony and wipe your culture off the face of the earth? That would be some serious karma at work if it happens.

reply to post by TKDRL


So instead of coming back with an intelligent response and adult debate, we get all childish and start pointing fingers over things that happened centuries ago?

If we're going to play that game, however, the Arabs started the whole conquering, subjugating and forced conversion crap centuries before any of my ancestors got in on the act.

Anyhoo, this is simply about being able to integrate and live side by side.

Every other immigrant group that has come to the UK (and we've had black people since the 15th century) has managed to integrate and adopt our way of life, which is to be expected of anyone who moves to another land, while keeping hold of their own culture (and in many cases adding it to our own).

These extremist Salafists, on the other hand, seek total dominance and obedience to their way of life at the expense of our own. Add into that the very large scale immigration which has happened in the past 15 years, when we have finite space and not enough homes as it is, and it causes tension.

If you honestly expect me or anyone else to be happy with that, you're obviously barking mad. The fact you seem to be advocating some kind of neo-colonialism simply shows you to be exactly what you're trying to paint us as, just in reverse.

Why should we welcome, without end, other people into our country who do not share our values and, worse still, openly declare an intention to change our culture to suit their own outdated, primitive beliefs?

Originally posted by stumason

Every other immigrant group that has come to the UK (and we've had black people since the 15th century) has managed to integrate and adopt our way of life, which is to be expected of anyone who moves to another land, while keeping hold of their own culture (and in many cases adding it to our own).

Actually, try 11 hundred years earlier for successful integration.

York's richest Roman inhabitant

reply to post by Flavian


Well, yes... I was merely talking in the context of "modern England"..

If we go back to the Roman Era, we can see integration on an massive scale, with the Roman Army at its core. Britain had soldiers from all over the Empire, from as far away as the Caspian to the East and Africa to the South.

reply to post by stumason


Just pointing out the irony of your fear, given your country's history is all. Don't get your panties in a bundle. And no, I am nothing like that, I accept the europeans, africans and asians(and everyone else not native american) are not leaving here, nor would I expect them to leave now anyways. It is what it is.

I would not oppose a church, mosque, synogog, or any other house of worship being built here. I might not agree with their religions, but I will not stand in their way of having a place to practice their religion either.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by stumason

 

Just pointing out the irony of your fear, given your country's history is all.

Interesting how you chose to describe a purely rational and logical concern with the emotive description of 'fear'.

It isn't fear at all. It's perfectly sensible reaction.

reply to post by Sinny


So to address the original post it is my opinion that London already has enough mosques and surely it would be better to improve or build up those already existing to bring the Muslim community together rather than making another mosque that I believe will create a further divide among their community which could lead to more feeling isolated.

In relation to it being for men only, I, personally, from my own moral standpoint, think that that is abhorrent, however my understanding is that it is legal under the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 (see section 19 about employment of ministers, section 26 about places of education, section 34 about voluntary bodies).


reply to post by TKDRL


There is a difference about cherry picking and saying something completely out of context, perhaps if you read the passage from Matthew that you quoted a bit more you would realise that it then goes on to teach against murder, adultery, divorce, oaths in the name of God and retaliation, and then goes on to teach tolerance for enemies and to be charitable.

As far as the slavery goes my belief is that the teaching of The Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12 basically rules that out.

But a fantastic reply in that you've taken a well written, well referenced and straight forward post that accurately points out some flaws in the religion of Islam with being neither crude nor offensive by basically stating 'Yeah, but the Bible says this' and realistically addressing none of the points made. One person or group doing the wrong thing is not an excuse for others doing it.

reply to post by stumason


Sorry chief, just thought i'd give you a good example of quality integration. You know my views on this topic and you don't seem to share them - fair enough.

I quite like the idea of balance though, as suggested earlier. Build the worlds biggest bacon sandwich shop opposite, next to the world's biggest lap dancing bar.

reply to post by khimbar


Fear, concern, however you want to put it. It's just ironic is all.

Bottom line, I know many christians/catholics, none of them practice any of the barbaric nonesense in the bible. I know some jews, same with them. I also know some muslims, they do not beat their wives and kids, marry and screw 9 year olds, or any of the barbaric nonesense in their holy book. Does that clarify the point I was trying to make?

Originally posted by TKDRL
I would not oppose a church, mosque, synogog, or any other house of worship being built here. I might not agree with their religions, but I will not stand in their way of having a place to practice their religion either.

This would be where your understanding on the issue appears to break down.

It's not like they don't have Mosques, in fact even other Muslims groups oppose the plan and have called for consolidation of the many mosques, not building more.

They are also wanting to build it in an area without a major Islamic population and in opposition to the local people and council.

The mosque is also backed by a group with dubious connections to known extremist sects in Saudi Arabia.

This is not just "a mosque", it is an attempt by the extremists to place themselves in the mainstream with the countries largest Mosque, which will attract thousands and lead to even more Muslims following crazy beliefs.

Of course, all these points have already been raised in the thread. You either didn't read the thread or simply chose to ignore the pertinent information, neither of which is a good idea.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by khimbar

 

Fear, concern, however you want to put it. It's just ironic is all.

Bottom line, I know many christians/catholics, none of them practice any of the barbaric nonesense in the bible. I know some jews, same with them. I also know some muslims, they do not beat their wives and kids, marry and screw 9 year olds, or any of the barbaric nonesense in their holy book. Does that clarify the point I was trying to make?

No, all that clarifies is you know some people. Well done.

None of which means that the people of London don't have the right to actively oppose a mega mosque being built where one isn't needed nor wanted.

Ken Livingstone was apparently quite accurate when he said he wanted to make London a beacon of Islam.

reply to post by khimbar


Never said you didn't have the right to oppose it. I just don't understand it, and happen to disagree with the position for now. As I would not oppose someone their right to religious practice of their choice, I also would not spit on your right to freedom of speech and expression. I would fight for either if it came to that.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by khimbar

 

Never said you didn't have the right to oppose it. I just don't understand it, and happen to disagree with the position for now. As I would not oppose someone their right to religious practice of their choice, I also would not spit on your right to freedom of speech and expression. I would fight for either if it came to that.

No one is denying them religious practice though. There are, according to Google but I'm still verifying this, more mosques in London than any other European city outside of Turkey. There doesn't seem to be a need for another one.

If there were no mosques, or there were insufficient for the muslims there, I'd agree. If it was in a majority muslim area I'd agree. If most people in the area were for it, I'd agree.

But it isn't. And my own opinion is this mosque is wanted isn't because they're short of mosques in London, it's a political point being scored and literal staking a claim. Beacon of Islam.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

reply to post by TKDRL


You sir are talking complete rubbish, with no understanding of what you are talking about, and i was ready to educate you on the situation, but stumason has done a fine job already, and quite clearly you haven't read the thread or took in the information provided here.

The UK is without doubt one of the worlds most tolerant peoples, you only have to look at the diversity of cultures in our country to understand that.

Now for the last time, the Tablighi Jamaat is a religious political movement who make no secret of there intentions to try and make the world live under sharīʿah, we live in the 21st century now, we don't want these outdated racist ignorant people setting up shop in our capital.


If you and the other guy in this thread who are so supportive of this tablighi jamaat religious political movement, then go live in Saudi Arabia or Iran were they have sharīʿah, and lets see how long you last living with western freedoms you take for granted under them states.

reply to post by khimbar


wouldn't denying them from scoring political point, be denying them their right to free expression though? Or maybe I am not understanding what you mean by political point.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by khimbar

 

wouldn't denying them from scoring political point, be denying them their right to free expression though? Or maybe I am not understanding what you mean by political point.

Interesting point and one I'd not considered to be honest. Doesn't change my beliefs about the mosque but something to consider over a cup of tea.

I'll have a think on that!