« Geldof Get Off!! | Main | GLOBAL WARMING IS GOOD FOR YOU! »

June 17, 2005

Comments

Hugh Green

DV,

Is your objection that a religious grouping should not be allowed to campaign against such developments? Or is there something particularly objectionable about the fact that, in this case, Muslims are doing so?

For example, do you have a similar objection to Christian groups campaigning against (say) Sunday trading laws or lapdancing clubs?

Why does the UK Muslim population need to be 'appeased'? Should we infer that the UK Muslim population is threatening war? Is there any reliable evidence for this?

Felix Qiuigley

Hugh you write:

'Should we infer that the UK Muslim population is threatening war? Is there any reliable evidence for this?'

The issue is not being Muslim, the issue is being Islamic Fundamentalist.

The aim of the Islamic Fundamentalist is to conquer the world and to have Sharia Rule in all of the world. Hence the Twin Towers, hence Madrid, hence Hamas!

What is Sharia Law, you may ask, and I would refer you to the picture of an unfortunate Iranian woman being buried in preparation for stoning to death, which David published 3 weeks or so ago.

That is the issue. Are you being provocativrely dense?

Steve

The key point in the Glasgow story was the Muslim objection on the grounds that the area in question had a high Muslim population. In other words, they see it as their turf. Similar situations have arisen where Muslims have objected to advertising hoardings depicting scantily clad women, sited near to mosques. The objection to the bronze statue of a pig in a park in Derby is another example.

Islam is territorial in a way that no other religion is. Demanding that certain parts of our cities live by a different set of rules, so as not to offend Muslims, is an example of an instinctive grab for territory.

I don't know of any other religion that does this.

Hugh Green

Felix,

The issue is not being Muslim, the issue is being Islamic Fundamentalist.

The aim of the Islamic Fundamentalist is to conquer the world and to have Sharia Rule in all of the world. Hence the Twin Towers, hence Madrid, hence Hamas!

Is objecting to outdoor drinking an Islamic Fundamentalist activity? To what extent do you think it is reasonable to establish a direct link between the Twin Towers and local objections to outdoor drinking in Glasgow?

What is Sharia Law, you may ask, and I would refer you to the picture of an unfortunate Iranian woman being buried in preparation for stoning to death, which David published 3 weeks or so ago.

Has any indication been given that the restaurant owner would be stoned to death if the license were approved? If not, why is this relevant to a matter of licensing laws in Glasgow?

That is the issue. Are you being provocatively dense?

On the contrary, I think the issue is a fear of Muslims. If I am being provocatively dense, it is certainly not my intention!

Islam is territorial in a way that no other religion is.

Have you been to Belfast or Derry lately?

Demanding that certain parts of our cities live by a different set of rules, so as not to offend Muslims, is an example of an instinctive grab for territory.

Is it really your view that Muslims act 'instinctively' on these matters?

Sean Fear


The point is that most of the UK is free from the sort of religious divisions that disfigure Belfast. Islamic fundamentalists wish to create those sorts of divisions in other parts of the UK.

beano; EverythingUlster.com

I think you're taking this way out of proportion with the whole islamic fudnamentalists marking out territory thing.

At the same time, I think the complainants are taking their "we don't like drinking so nobody's allowed to do it" stance too far too. It bares an disturbingly striking resemblence to DUP/Free Presbyterian attitudes!

Steve

You are right "instinctive" is the wrong word. It is more a shared cultural assumption.

I think that the divisions in Belfast are as much ethnic or cultural as religious. Christianity doesn't demand temporal conquest, in the way that Islam does. "The Kingdom of God" is an abstract spiritual term - it doesn't mean literally go out and conquer a kingdom. The Dar al-Islam means the area ruled by Islam. There is no distinction between the spiritual kingdom and the temporal.

Hugh Green

Sean Fear

Islamic fundamentalists wish to create those sorts of divisions in other parts of the UK.

Can the people raising the objections be reasonably called 'Islamic fundamentalists'?

Hugh Green

Steve,

I think that the divisions in Belfast are as much ethnic or cultural as religious.

Certainly, the situation it is more than just the result of differing religious beliefs and practices. But the division is along religious lines.

Christianity doesn't demand temporal conquest, in the way that Islam does.

Surely that depends on how you interpret the teachings of Christianity (and Islam)?

Temporal and geographical considerations are certainly important: no-one would seriously contend that Ian Paisley's 20th Century Ulster-based interpretation of the teachings of Christianity is somehow the same as that of St John of God in 16th Century Spain, yet similar claims are made about Islam.

"The Kingdom of God" is an abstract spiritual term - it doesn't mean literally go out and conquer a kingdom. The Dar al-Islam means the area ruled by Islam. There is no distinction between the spiritual kingdom and the temporal.

"The Kingdom of God" can mean lots of different things in lots of different places. What the 'Kingdom of God' means to me is certainly not the same as what it meant for Richard the Lionheart. How can the meaning of 'Dar-al-Islam' remain fixed over centuries, under vastly different sets of social and economic circumstances?

FOOTIE

If the local Muslims don't like it they should f**k off to el-ballygobackwards or wherever they come from.

James

How can the meaning of 'Dar-al-Islam' remain fixed over centuries, under vastly different sets of social and economic circumstances?

By lack of Reformation (or even Counter-Reformation), maybe? Also by the insistence of the only "true" word of God being written down in Classical Arabic, for interpretation by a select few?

Certainly many of the societies in the Islamic world still have medieval social structures which could help maintain the theological meanings of jihad. (The spriritual jihad which was first espoused by Sufis is not exactly in the vanguard of modern Muslim thought, and when the Islamic Revolution comes, the Sufis and the Ismailis will be the first up against the wall...)

Emily

While we're at it, let's ban the public consumption of coffee, since it might offend Mormons who don't drink caffeine.

David Vance

Now you're talking Emily! See, once you cross over onto thee dark side life becomes so much easier....

The comments to this entry are closed.