Plan to build $84 million Super Mosque in Dublin Ireland.

irishconvert

Fromthetrees wrote: »

irishconvert, feel free to correct me here but didn't Mohammed take a child bride during his lifetime

That is disputed, many scholars believe Aisha was 16 at the time of marriage. In Islam you cannot marry a girl unless she can give consent, and a child is not capable of giving consent as they have not reached the age of reason. So it would be an illegal marriage.

Fromthetrees wrote: »

and isn't the testimony of a woman worth half that of a man.

I believe that is true but it is not an area I have looked into in any detail.

irishconvert

old hippy wrote: »

There's a lot of lies, bigotry and prejudice floating about when it comes to certain religions, sure.

Btw, have you ever lived, worked or visited the UK?

He won't answer that one. Come on, tell us the answer. You have never been to the UK, have you?

Bannasidhe

Originally Posted by MrD012


the pro-mosque side tend to be libertarians , people who believe that everyone is allowed to express their freedoms even if it offends others .

Well that's a first. No one has ever mistaken me for a Libertarian before :eek:.
(bluewolf - you reading this??? Seems I've crossed over to your side and I didn't even know it.)

Usually on this forum Libertarians accuse me of being to the left of Joe Higgins - which is equally incorrect.

Like Benny I am neither pro- mosque or anti-mosque. I am anti sweeping negative statements being made about a diverse group of people and believe that just as I have a right to my (lack of) religious beliefs- equally religious folk have a right to their beliefs. Neither I nor they have the right to impose our beliefs on the other.

I also believe religious belief should not be allowed to dictate civil legislation.

If that is 'Libertarian' than colour me blue, it will make a nice change from Pinko lefty.

wes

jmayo wrote: »

Well you hardly expect them to announce the exact name of a possible inside source.
Or maybe you do. :rolleyes:

And do seriously expect someone or somebody to admit they are answering to someone who has been denied entry to countries due to his espousal of hatred and violence ?

It was a private cable that was leaked, so yes I would expect them to name there sources, in that instance. The fact that they don't name them in there own cables, makes me question the whole thing.

jmayo wrote: »

No matter how you try and spin it that there are no links between people who are seen as pro violence by other western governments (i.e. Britain, France) and the islamic centre in Clonskeagh, you can't change the facts that there are some links.

I never said there were no links, but seeing as we have gone from some links to him basically running the place, its certainly fair to question that.

Also, if the US really had a problem with him, why not have words with there ally Qatar?

jmayo wrote: »

The very fact that this guy has visited the centre, has been part of an organisation that has links to the centre is not up for discussion.

The only things that are up for discussion is how involved is the imman in the centre and does he answer to Qaradawi.

That what I was talking about, the claims that he is running it. The claims are based on a single US cable citing unnamed sources.

jmayo wrote: »

Either way there are serious questions there and you glossing over this is typical burying ones head in the sand.

I think when people go from him having links, to him running the show on the basis of unnamed source, then we have left the realm of serious questions, and going into conspiracy territory.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW Al-Qaradawi has interesting opinions on wife beating, rape, female circumcision, homosexuals to name but a few.
All opinions that would be in direct opposition to our freedoms in this country.
Oh and he is no fan of even fellow muslims, calling shias heretics.

Qaradawi is certainly dodgy character, but do you have any proof of his involvement in the newly proposed Mosque? Is he building it? Will he be running it? Will he have anything to do with it? If your going to use this guy as a reason to be against the Mosque, then whats his involvement in the new Mosque?

BTW, do we apply these same rules to others as well, for example we have seen quite a few US politicans make rather nasty comments in regards to rape etc, should we then question US companies setting up in Ireland as well? Where do we draw the line with this? What level of links are needed?

old hippy

MrD012 wrote: »

but its not a hunch , its factually proven that in the UK there are major problems when Islamic culture meets Western culture , lets be clear about one thing , I have no hatred whatsoever for any muslim , but I love Ireland and Irish Society and do not want to see the same happen here that has happened in the UK[/QUOTE]

Where has it been "factually proven"?

What, exactly, has happened in the UK & when did it happen?

Have you ever visited the UK - where and for how long?

old hippy

MrD012 wrote: »

I doubt it , there are 3 million muslims living in the UK , you know 3 or 4 . Hardly representative of the overall picture .

Have you ever been to the UK?

old hippy

MrD012 wrote: »

and if you read through some of the linked articles in previous posts you will have your examples

Hardly representative of the overall picture .

skD13

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, well I strongly disagree with his view on FGM, as do all Muslims I know at least. As for his comment on suicide bombing, the BBC article says

Directly quoting Al Qaradawi

So he is referring to people who are using suicide bombing to defend themselves from attacks as they have no other means. They can't compete with fighter jets dropping bombs from the sky and bombing them back to the stone age.

Do you see or agree with his point of view in any way?

It is double standards to condem him and disassociate with him for what he said if you don't also do the same to the other side who are attacking and killing civillians in Pakistan.

Thanks irishconvert. I disagree with his point of view. I don't think he should be condoning suicide bombings at all. If someone is pushed to it because it is their last resort, it still shouldn't be condoned or lauded or legitimized. He would be better off lamenting that it came to that. Because it is a sad state of affairs that any human be degraded to a point where they feel they must do such a thing. It certainly should not be called a weapon given by God. That IMO is an incendiary statement that may spurn other would be bombers into some crazed notion of martyrdom. And I would also condemn the other side for the killing of civilians in Palestine (you wrote Pakistan, I assume you meant Palestine?).

But back to my initial question, you say you disagree with FGM as do your Muslim compatriots. Because of his view on this and indeed the very fact that he was refused a visa into the UK and France, do you (and other Muslims) find it embarrassing/frustrating/whatever that he is associated with a large Islamic centre in a western country (here in Clonskeagh) and this raises questions and suspicions for Muslims. Would you prefer if this guy was not associated with Clonskeagh via the ECFR. It must make your life more difficult having to deflect questions on the likes of him as you wish to live peacefully as a Muslim and practice your religion as your own business.

Because you see, now there is a chance for a mosque to be built to benefit Mulims all over North Dublin and beyond, but the naysayers can drag this stuff and cause perfectly reasonable blokes like myself to be concerned about it.

And I have stated before I do not object to this development, I fell Muslims have as much a right to worship as anyone else. And I am of no religion. I officially left the one I was born into some time back.

RandomName2

JustinDee wrote: »

Great, we're back in 1940s Ireland again, only Jews are now replaced by Muslims as the object of irrational mistrust.

Err... no.

1940s Ireland was a Catholic Ireland for a Catholic people.

I'm secular and believe that individuals should pursue any belief they want; just not create distinct communities within Ireland.

irishconvert wrote:

Discrimination against women is NOT allowed in Islam.

This sentence is silly in the extreme.

Discrimination against women is not allowed in any religion, yet is persecuted all the time in the name of said religions. The more extreme the adoption of a religion the more frequent certain characteristics emerge concerning restriction on sports and games, persecution of women, restriction of free speech, xenophobia, strict observance of customs concerning certain foodstuffs or avoidance of particular activities on certain days of the week. The particulars vary from religion to religion and the manner in which people follow their faith.

It would have been unheard of of someone putting out washing in Ireland on a Sunday 50 years ago, in Afghanistan under the Taliban football was banned, until recently at least in Saudi Arabia women could not go out without a male escort.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

[...]is not accurate. It may explain the motivations of certain suicide bombers individually but as a whole it is just another tactic that insurgent groups use. The PKK are a Marxist group and they have used it, the Tamil Tigers were (predominantly at least) Hindu and they have also used it - both separatist groups and neither religiously orientated [...]

I don't believe that someone who is a separatist will deliberately commit suicide in the name of his cause without there being a religious motivation. I had already pointed out the PKK and Tamils (albeit not actually naming them) - although the PKK are a damn odd lot because most of the Kurd separatists are Sunnis but their organisation is nominally Marxist; I'd have to do a good bit more research into this weirdness to comment with confidence but I would suspect that it could have something to do with Turkey's secular constitution coupled with close proximity to the (now gone) Iron Curtain.

The question to a certain extent is 'are there good religions and bad religions?' - in my view Christianity, Islam and Judaism are very similar in scope and vision; they stem from the same source and their doctrinal distinctions have relatively little bearing on the manner in which their respective followers lead their lives. Did Cromwell ban Christmas because he was a Christian? (He felt the celebration cheapened the spiritual meaning of Christ's birth, or whatever) Technically yes, but in practice it was because he was a bit of a nut-job. In general the manner in which people follow their faith is dependent far more on the cultural morés of their country rather than their religion - Ireland is almost just as Catholic today as it was 70 years ago - but there is nevertheless a world of difference between the two.

The truth is that a great many countries which are Muslim do not share Western views (I by no means believe that they should be forced to - in fact attempts to coerce countries to think the way you do can have a detrimental effect). A consequence of this is a great divergence in the way that the respective cultures think - it would be an anathema to anyone in this country the idea of stoning to death a mentally handicapped minor on the suspicion that they may have desecrated a Bible for instance.

philologos

It would be anathema in Christianity to kill someone for desecrating a Bible also. Actually Christianity is quite Biblically focused. The reason why Christians lead their lives in X or Y way can be pointed to the Bible at least in most churches I've been to. Some denominations put more trust in human authority and ritual than Jesus and that is to be lamented.

In short I disagree with your conclusion.

Nodin

MrD012 wrote: »

I just want to make a quick point .

the pro-mosque side tend to be libertarians ,

...

Ahahahaha. Yeah.

Randomname wrote:

What else would it be for?...

The muslims we have here. You've no evidence whatsoever then, I take it.

Frank Grimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't believe that someone who is a separatist will deliberately commit suicide in the name of his cause without there being a religious motivation.

The evidence would seem to suggest otherwise; why would a Marxist be motivated by religion to do something? I know it could be argued that they have been socialised into a culture of martyrdom or whatever which relates ultimately to religion, but that does not appear to be the case for many of the individuals. I have read a lot of interviews with families of female suicide bombers in Chechnya for example, and primarily their motivations were either revenge for husbands/family members who were killed or revenge for other acts committed by Russian troops.

This is the same in many of the other cases; I can't find the transcript I read before right now but Al Jazeera have an excerpt from the statement Sana'a Mehaidli made before carrying out a suicide attack in Lebanon she says:

I am very comfortable with carrying out this operation. I choose to do this because I am fulfilling my duty towards my land and my people

I know she mentions praying for her soul in this too but the motivations are clearly nationalistic here.

If you just don't believe that someone will do this for reasons other than religious ones fine, but again it would appear not to be the case.

I had already pointed out the PKK and Tamils (albeit not actually naming them) - although the PKK are a damn odd lot because most of the Kurd separatists are Sunnis but their organisation is nominally Marxist; I'd have to do a good bit more research into this weirdness to comment with confidence but I would suspect that it could have something to do with Turkey's secular constitution coupled with close proximity to the (now gone) Iron Curtain.

I assume you think it's odd because they are Marxists? If that's the case, refer to the various Palestinian/Lebanese leftist organisations. There are probably more in other countries, but Marxisim/Socialism/Communism in Muslim majority states is not something I have little interest in so I can't really comment.

Bannasidhe

RandomName2 wrote: »

Err... no.

1940s Ireland was a Catholic Ireland for a Catholic people.

Reeaaaallly?

Did anyone tell our first President that?

Indeed, if this description of Douglas Hyde's inauguration in 1938 is any indication there were quite a few non-Catholics in 'Catholic Ireland' besides the man whose role as President made him the very personification of the State itself:

In the morning [Dr Hyde] attended a service in St. Patrick's Cathedral presided over by the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Gregg. Mr. de Valera and his Ministerial colleagues attended a solemn Votive Mass in the Pro-Cathedral, and there were services in the principal Presbyterian and Methodist churches, as well as in the synagogue. Dr. Hyde was installed formally in Dublin Castle, where the seals of office were handed over by the Chief Justice. Some 200 persons were present, including the heads of the Judiciary and the chief dignitaries of the Churches. After the ceremony President Hyde drove in procession through the beflagged streets. The procession halted for two minutes outside the General Post Office to pay homage to the memory of the men who fell in the Easter Week rebellion of 1916. Large crowds lined the streets from the Castle to the Vice-Regal Lodge and the President was welcomed with bursts of cheering. He wore morning dress, but Mr. de Valera and Mr. Sean T. O'Kelly, who followed Dr. Hyde in the next motor-car, wore black clothes with felt hats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hyde#President_of_Ireland

JustinDee

RandomName2 wrote: »

Err... no.

1940s Ireland was a Catholic Ireland for a Catholic people

The mistrust and endless resistance to taking in Jewish refugees was based on hearsay, prejudice and preconceived notions on them regarding religious, political and educational 'fears'. The same as tarring an entire demograph of Muslims with the one extremist brush.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm secular and believe that individuals should pursue any belief they want; just not create distinct communities within Ireland

I don't give a stuff if you're a Scientologist. Believe it or not, "communities" are already within Ireland, based on religion, ethnicity, income, profession etc. Its nobody else's fault but your own if you can't engage, tolerate or even give ordinary people a flipping chance to live a normal life.

RandomName2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Reeaaaallly?

Did anyone tell our first President that?

Indeed, if this description of Douglas Hyde's inauguration in 1938 is any indication there were quite a few non-Catholics in 'Catholic Ireland' besides the man whose role as President made him the very personification of the State itself:

Yes we've had a couple of Protestants in that empty post. I don't think it would have really mattered whether anybody told Douglas Hyde that or not. Eire (I think that was the country's name at the time) felt they owed Douglas Hyde a debt due to his attempts to promote soft cultural nationalism which in turn promoted Ireland's aspirations for independence. Ultimately, of course, his attempts were for him a failure with him efforts being subsumed by radicals.

JustinDee wrote: »

The mistrust and endless resistance to taking in Jewish refugees was based on hearsay, prejudice and preconceived notions on them regarding religious, political and educational 'fears'. The same as tarring an entire demograph of Muslims with the one extremist brush.

That is quite true.

JustinDee wrote: »

I don't give a stuff if you're a Scientologist. Believe it or not, "communities" are already within Ireland, based on religion, ethnicity, income, profession etc. Its nobody else's fault but your own if you can't engage, tolerate or even give ordinary people a flipping chance to live a normal life.

I don't think you understand the distinction between private pusuit and formal communities.

The largest community in Ireland has traditionally been Protestantism (both Church of Ireland and Presbyterianism). Their culture was so strong it ended up in most of them splitting from Ireland altogether.

Conflicting cultures has been the mainstay of European history - but at least the Treaty of Westphalia produced some sort of rational equilibrium vis-a-vis religion at least (ethnic struggles were yet to emerge as distinct causus belli, and were to produce two World Wars among other happy events).

The thread isn't talking about Islam or Muslims per se. It is talking about the development of a super-mosque. If you are not able to divorce private faith from formal cultural partitions I don't think you can debate the point.

For what it's worth I don't get the intolerance of Scientologists. People think they have a get-out clause by saying 'It's not a religion, it's a cult'. That, surely, is a matter of opinion. Whilst Scientology likes producing distinct communities and engaging in unpleasant social practices, I get the impression that a lot of people have little tolerance for the entire belief system in of itself.

irishconvert

RandomName2 wrote: »

it would be an anathema to anyone in this country the idea of stoning to death a mentally handicapped minor on the suspicion that they may have desecrated a Bible for instance.

*Sigh*, must you cherry pick the most extreme injustice you can find? It would be anathema for any right-thinking person in any country regardless of their religion.

RandomName2

Frank Grimes wrote: »

The evidence would seem to suggest otherwise; why would a Marxist be motivated by religion to do something?

It is slightly complicated by the fact that certain Marxist organisations promote a cult-of-personality that borders on religious fanaticism. I am not sure if North Koreans see The Leader as a God in mortal form, but I don't doubt that they would be prepared to lay down their lives for him (moreso Kim Jong Il than.. what's his name... Sung?... the recent death and transition has taken a bit of the shine off of the position).

In the same way that it is no surprise that after the Nuremburg Trials that many Nazis' last words were "for the fuhrer" and the like - but even Nazi Germany wasn't quite mad enough to produce suicide bombers; although a plan for such did actually exist.

As for Marxism in the middle east - many of the governments tend to be militaristic and socialist; even though their people are not. Indeed, socialist aspirations are tapped in a bid to draw the strength of religious communities - generally with little success. I do not know if the presence of marxist"ist" governments has in itself promoted the growth of counter-organisations which have called themselves 'Marxist'. Lebanon would of course be additionally complicated by three different religions being present in almost equal quantity - though again I doubt if "Marxism" could actually produce something that would really act as an umbrella movement in such a situation.

RandomName2

irishconvert wrote: »

*Sigh*, must you cherry pick the most extreme injustice you can find? It would be anathema for any right-thinking person in any country regardless of their religion.

It's not cherry picking! :pac: I chose that because it is not only an extreme example from our point of view; it is representative of the people in that part of Pakistan. The girl in question was not sentenced to death - because the courts do not share the same view as the community from which the girl comes from. There are numerous cases of blasphemy every year in Pakistan - which the courts must thread carefully around for fear of retribution from the people. Indeed, the arrest of the girl in question was partially in an attempt to protect her. It is the same sort of reason why you can simultaneously have a government that is allied with America whilst the country itself harboured America's single greatest enemy.

Having said that though about Ireland today, it would not have been unheard of of people being boycotted in this country on the basis of their religion 60 years ago.

irishconvert

skD13 wrote: »

Thanks irishconvert. I disagree with his point of view. I don't think he should be condoning suicide bombings at all. If someone is pushed to it because it is their last resort, it still shouldn't be condoned or lauded or legitimized. He would be better off lamenting that it came to that. Because it is a sad state of affairs that any human be degraded to a point where they feel they must do such a thing. It certainly should not be called a weapon given by God. That IMO is an incendiary statement that may spurn other would be bombers into some crazed notion of martyrdom. And I would also condemn the other side for the killing of civilians in Palestine (you wrote Pakistan, I assume you meant Palestine?).

Fair point, I agree he shouldn't encourage or glorify it. However I do understand how some people are driven to do such extreme things. And yes, I did mean Palestine, thanks for correction.

skD13 wrote: »

But back to my initial question, you say you disagree with FGM as do your Muslim compatriots. Because of his view on this and indeed the very fact that he was refused a visa into the UK and France, do you (and other Muslims) find it embarrassing/frustrating/whatever that he is associated with a large Islamic centre in a western country (here in Clonskeagh) and this raises questions and suspicions for Muslims. Would you prefer if this guy was not associated with Clonskeagh via the ECFR. It must make your life more difficult having to deflect questions on the likes of him as you wish to live peacefully as a Muslim and practice your religion as your own business.

I am still not sure what role he plays in the mosque bit I certainly would not be happy with a man who endorses FGM playing any kind of leadership role or representing the mosque.

skD13 wrote: »

Because you see, now there is a chance for a mosque to be built to benefit Mulims all over North Dublin and beyond, but the naysayers can drag this stuff and cause perfectly reasonable blokes like myself to be concerned about it.

Yes, that is the objective of people like MRD012, to create fear, distrust and divisiveness between people in order to disguise that xenophobic ways.

Frank Grimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

It is slightly complicated by the fact that certain Marxist organisations promote a cult-of-personality that borders on religious fanaticism.

Some but not all, and even in the cases of those that do e.g. PKK or the Tamil Tigers for an non-Marxist example this does not mean that people are motivated solely for this reason - again most evidence I've seen suggests otherwise.

I do not know if the presence of marxist"ist" governments has in itself promoted the growth of counter-organisations which have called themselves 'Marxist'. Lebanon would of course be additionally complicated by three different religions being present in almost equal quantity - though again I doubt if "Marxism" could actually produce something that would really act as an umbrella movement in such a situation

It doesn't really matter why they arose, nor the religious demographics in Lebanon, the point is that there were Marxist/Communist/Socialist groups and individuals carrying out attacks for reasons based around resistance to an occupying force i.e. nationalism and not religion.

skD13

irishconvert wrote: »

I am still not sure what role he plays in the mosque bit I certainly would not be happy with a man who endorses FGM playing any kind of leadership role or representing the mosque.
.

Cheers. That he is connected, seems certain. What influence or role he really plays is not so.

It is a pity that such connections exist because at a time when Islam is under so much scrutiny in the west it must make it difficult for the likes of yourself to speak in defense of your religion.

I accept extreme views exist in all walks of society. But I also think that the majority of any social grouping, be it religious or otherwise, is for the most part moderate. I think this is natural. So despite all the fear that is being thrown around about Islam and I still think human nature strives for balance and equilibrium and most people just want to get on with their lives. By that rational I think the majority of people attending this center, if it goes ahead, will be good people.

Unfortunately, there will be a barrel of objections against this and their arguments will be bolstered by being able to verify that the likes of Al-Qaradawi is president of an organization based out of the Clonskeagh center.

jmayo

wes wrote: »

It was a private cable that was leaked, so yes I would expect them to name there sources, in that instance. The fact that they don't name them in there own cables, makes me question the whole thing.

It is afaik a criminal offense in the US to divulge a CIA operative and I would bet even in private cables between US embassies and state department, etc that names are not used.

wes wrote: »

I never said there were no links, but seeing as we have gone from some links to him basically running the place, its certainly fair to question that.

I nor anyone else has said that he ran the place.
What has been said is that the imman in the centre may be answerable to him.
That could mean anything from he takes his guidnace from him on religious teachings, that he follows his mindset or that he actually take orders from him on the day to day running of the centre.

wes wrote: »

Also, if the US really had a problem with him, why not have words with there ally Qatar?

And various countries that are allies of Britain had problems with getting their hands on Abu Hamza.
So go figure.

wes wrote: »

That what I was talking about, the claims that he is running it. The claims are based on a single US cable citing unnamed sources.

I think when people go from him having links, to him running the show on the basis of unnamed source, then we have left the realm of serious questions, and going into conspiracy territory.

Qaradawi is certainly dodgy character, but do you have any proof of his involvement in the newly proposed Mosque? Is he building it? Will he be running it? Will he have anything to do with it? If your going to use this guy as a reason to be against the Mosque, then whats his involvement in the new Mosque?

I don't know if he is involved with the new mosque or not.
My issue is that the existing mosques have been found to be linked with questionable characters.
And yes he is linked after all with the research group that are based there.

Maybe we could go all conspiracy theory and allude to the fact that even al qaeda had plans to convert the disgruntled Irish and this is just the start.

wes wrote: »

BTW, do we apply these same rules to others as well, for example we have seen quite a few US politicans make rather nasty comments in regards to rape etc, should we then question US companies setting up in Ireland as well? Where do we draw the line with this? What level of links are needed?

Oh FFS.
Are any of the US companies inviting these same backward narrowminded politicans over to preach their brand of hatred to the staff of the company in Ireland ?
Are these companies even inviting them to preach to their US employees ?
I doubt it so less of the BS arguments.

On the other hand Irish mosques have had people in them, and due to their positions, probably teaching who have been found by other countries to be practitioners of preaching hatred.
What about the Moroccan wanted in connection with Casablanca bombings ?

So please less of your strawman arguments trying to drag in some moronic usually southern states right wing republican American politican into this discussion.

And yes there are right wing bigotted christians, but are they tolerated in coming to this country to teach their brand of hatred ?
How many christian churches would invite them ?
Yet if someone questions a muslim establishment on such matters we are dismissed.

walshb

There seems to be an impasse here. Why not wait until the mosque gets built, assuming it's given the go ahead, and see how it affects the local community? Reopen the thread then?:)

wes

jmayo wrote: »

It is afaik a criminal offense in the US to divulge a CIA operative and I would bet even in private cables between US embassies and state department, etc that names are not used.

There is no indication that they were CIA operativeS from the cable. We have no way to verify if it was reliable inteligence, or someone opinion or anything else.

jmayo wrote: »

I nor anyone else has said that he ran the place.
What has been said is that the imman in the centre may be answerable to him.
That could mean anything from he takes his guidnace from him on religious teachings, that he follows his mindset or that he actually take orders from him on the day to day running of the centre.

So we are back to being vague speculation then. There is no proof one way or another what power he may or may not have. If we are going to condemn people, on such a basis, I would expect something substantial.

jmayo wrote: »

And various countries that are allies of Britain had problems with getting their hands on Abu Hamza.
So go figure.

I would imagine they would have an easier time with Qatar, but I don't think the US want Qaradawi for any crime.

jmayo wrote: »

I don't know if he is involved with the new mosque or not.
My issue is that the existing mosques have been found to be linked with questionable characters.
And yes he is linked after all with the research group that are based there.

So why are you bringing him up? The thread is about the new Mosque. Again, I am seeing a huge problem with the relevance of a lot of stuff being brought up, as they more often than not seem to have very little to do with the topic at hand.

jmayo wrote: »

Maybe we could go all conspiracy theory and allude to the fact that even al qaeda had plans to convert the disgruntled Irish and this is just the start.

Again, I fail to see the relavance.

jmayo wrote: »

Oh FFS.
Are any of the US companies inviting these same backward narrowminded politicans over to preach their brand of hatred to the staff of the company in Ireland ?
Are these companies even inviting them to preach to their US employees ?
I doubt it so less of the BS arguments.

You said yourself above, you have no idea if Qaradawi is involved with the new Mosque. So how is what your saying any less BS, then what I brought up. I agree, what I said irrelevant bs, but then so is a lot of what your saying. You have no idea if Qaradawi is involved with this Mosque, and yet you bring him up.

Also, we have no idea what if anything Qaradawi said when he came over here, none of the links provided information anything he may or may not have said here. So, again there both as relevant as one another.

jmayo wrote: »

On the other hand Irish mosques have had people in them, and due to their positions, probably teaching who have been found by other countries to be practitioners of preaching hatred.
What about the Moroccan wanted in connection with Casablanca bombings ?

Again, what does this have to do with the new Mosque, exactly? We have no idea who is even behind it, and yet you seem to be tarring them with one thing or another.

Also, in regards to the Moroccan, was he wanted for that, when he was here? If he was, why didn't the Irish government arrest him and hand him over to the Moroccans? Secondly, if he wasn't wanted for that at time, how exactly can this be held against anyone?

jmayo wrote: »

So please less of your strawman arguments trying to drag in some moronic usually southern states right wing republican American politican into this discussion.

Its not more a straw man than what you have brought up. We have very little information one way or another, and yet your happy to trot out all sort of stuff, regardless of whether is has anything to do with the new Mosque.

jmayo wrote: »

And yes there are right wing bigotted christians, but are they tolerated in coming to this country to teach their brand of hatred ?
How many christian churches would invite them ?
Yet if someone questions a muslim establishment on such matters we are dismissed.

Again, care to link anything you brought up, to the new Mosque? We know very little about the new Mosque, so what exactly are you basing these question on exactly?

Shea O'Meara

philologos wrote: »

This is about a civil rights issue. It's not about whether or not you happen to think God is a figment of peoples imagination (without good reason).

Boards.ie has an atheism and agnosticism forum that might be suited to your needs.

The point is you cannot and should not put restrictions on people because you question their belief system or at least the bastardised version portrayed by those outside of it.

The laws of the land are there for all so unless you're a politician, member of the judiciary or connected financier, all people from all walks must obey the same rules, so the worries about opening the doors to various crimes is nonsense.

JustinDee

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't think you understand the distinction between private pusuit and formal communities

It doesn't suit your point, so you differentiate. I don't, simply because when generalisms are being applied from posters like yourself and conversation steers to the extremist element, I can tell the kind of mindset that I'm dealing with.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The largest community in Ireland has traditionally been Protestantism (both Church of Ireland and Presbyterianism). Their culture was so strong it ended up in most of them splitting from Ireland altogether.

Conflicting cultures has been the mainstay of European history - but at least the Treaty of Westphalia produced some sort of rational equilibrium vis-a-vis religion at least (ethnic struggles were yet to emerge as distinct causus belli, and were to produce two World Wars among other happy events)

Utter waffle. Straight out of the Michael Burleigh Book of Pro-Agendaic Nonsense.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The thread isn't talking about Islam or Muslims per se. It is talking about the development of a super-mosque. If you are not able to divorce private faith from formal cultural partitions I don't think you can debate the point

Rubbish. It is about Muslims as a demography and no two ways about it. "Suicide bombers"?? Yes, right . . . just the mosque and not the demograph associated with it.

RandomName2 wrote: »

For what it's worth I don't get the intolerance of Scientologists. People think they have a get-out clause by saying 'It's not a religion, it's a cult'. That, surely, is a matter of opinion. Whilst Scientology likes producing distinct communities and engaging in unpleasant social practices, I get the impression that a lot of people have little tolerance for the entire belief system in of itself.

I'm sure there's a forum for this somewhere else on boards.
Enjoy it.

RandomName2

JustinDee wrote: »

It doesn't suit your point, so you differentiate. I don't, simply because when generalisms are being applied from posters like yourself and conversation steers to the extremist element, I can tell the kind of mindset that I'm dealing with.

Utter waffle. Straight out of the Michael Burleigh Book of Pro-Agendaic Nonsense.

Okay you concede that you aren't able to debate the point. That's fine. I am not sure if I've ever read Michael Burleigh, but apparently he's a historian, so I can see where your distaste would come in.

JustinDee wrote: »

Rubbish. It is about Muslims as a demography and no two ways about it.

Naturally the 40,000 hypothetical Muslims and the hypothetical supermosque would not be mutually exclusive, but you aren't getting the nuanced distinction between religious tolerance and promotion of cultural alienation...

JustinDee wrote: »

I'm sure there's a forum for this somewhere else on boards.
Enjoy it.

I'm assuming you also share an irrational prejudice against people of the Scientologist faith. I think that people should be Scientologists if they want to be and shouldn't in any way tarred due to their.. odd beliefs. I wouldn't be too keen on a Church of Scientology setting up shop next door to me however.

DAINGNE

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A 34 classroom school just for Muslims?

Seems like a recipe for disaster. Having almost an entire generation's worth of a group of people learn and grow up completely separated from the rest of society is a surefire way to brew up problems.

It will follow the National Schools Curriculum and be headed by qualified teachers, I don't really see the handicap or the threat you're trying to highlight? Can you elaborate?

skD13

wes wrote: »

So why are you bringing him up? The thread is about the new Mosque.

Hi Wes, hope you and jmayo don't mind if I butt in . I think it is perfectly acceptable to bring Al Qaradawi into the conversation. Jmayo is pointing out that an organisation headquartered in the Clonskeagh cultural centre has as its president a man who could not gain entry to the UK and France because of his extremist views.

People researching this new development have little in the way of a measurable yardstick on how it might operate except for a similar operation at the other side of the city. It seems reasonable to me that people would use events at the Clonskeagh centre to speculate on what the centre in Clongriffin may be like. It is probably the closest comparison we can realistically make. Are mosques and the way they are run in the same country that different? I imagine the people running this new development maybe attend Clonskeagh from time to time. Some of the directors of the company behind it (I downloaded the articles from the CRO) have addresses on the southside. Or I accept that maybe I am just ignorant of mosque management .

There are very positives things to report about Clonskeagh... a fun multi-cultural day, a nice restaurant etc. These are ways people in favour of the new Clongriffin mosque could promote its benefits to the wider non-Muslim community. But there is also a cloud over it because of this shady individual who has verifiable links to the centre. See here http://www.euro-muslim.com/en_u_foundation_details.aspx?news_id=343

Myself and irishconvert had a perfectly reasonable discussion on the man up the thread there and we concluded that neither of us like the cut of at least some of his jib. Maybe you should take a closer look. He certainly seems like a cause for concern to me. I certainly don't think he is irrelevant in the Clongriffin mosque discussion based on the reasons I have outlined.

wes

skD13 wrote: »

Myself and irishconvert had a perfectly reasonable discussion on the man up the thread there and we concluded that neither of us like the cut of at least some of his jib. Maybe you should take a closer look. He certainly seems like a cause for concern to me. I certainly don't think he is irrelevant in the Clongriffin mosque discussion based on the reasons I have outlined.

As I said earlier, he is certainly dodgy, and he should be removed from his position imho.

I do think if fair to ask the question of what relevance he has for the new Mosque. I would say he has no relevance, due to the fact we have very little information on the new Mosque. Also, it isn't just Qardawi, people have been bringing up, but rather a lot of random stuff from the UK, including stuff that has no relevane at all for Ireland, due to our differing laws etc. There was stuff about immigration, the Saudi's. It seems to me that a everything and the kitchen sink approach is being used. I find this stuff questionable on the basis, that we know so little, and seeming throw as many accusations as possible and hope something stick approach, we have seen so far in this thread.

As for Mosque management, it could be the same people as Clonskeagh or a completely different set. The problem, is that we have no idea either way.

Mosques tend to loosely affliated with each other to the best of my knowledge. However, a loose affliation doesn't really amount to much, in regards to how it is run.

JustinDee

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay you concede that you aren't able to debate the point. That's fine. I am not sure if I've ever read Michael Burleigh, but apparently he's a historian, so I can see where your distaste would come in

I'm not saying you're quoting him. I'm saying that your line is akin to something he would say and that subjectivity litters your posting on the matter of this mosque (eg. this isn't muslims or Islam "per se" then going on to the usual tar-brush involving suicide bombers ... ).

RandomName2 wrote: »

Naturally the 40,000 hypothetical Muslims and the hypothetical supermosque would not be mutually exclusive, but you aren't getting the nuanced distinction between religious tolerance and promotion of cultural alienation...

There is nothing 'nuanced' in your posting. You are giving yourself far too much unfounded credit in this respect.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm assuming you also share an irrational prejudice against people of the Scientologist faith. I think that people should be Scientologists if they want to be and shouldn't in any way tarred due to their.. odd beliefs. I wouldn't be too keen on a Church of Scientology setting up shop next door to me however.

Again, don't assume. I brought them up as they this year's buzzword pariahs amongst the Daily Mail and Telegraph readership obssessed with Tom Cruise's divorce. That's all. Like I said, I couldn't give a stuff what the person 'is', they are still part of a community or communities. As suggested, maybe try another relevant forum on the subject of Scientology.

skD13

wes wrote: »

As I said earlier, he is certainly dodgy, and he should be removed from his position imho.

I do think if fair to ask the question of what relevance he has for the new Mosque. I would say he has no relevance, due to the fact we have very little information on the new Mosque. Also, it isn't just Qardawi, people have been bringing up, but rather a lot of random stuff from the UK, including stuff that has no relevane at all for Ireland, due to our differing laws etc. There was stuff about immigration, the Saudi's. It seems to me that a everything and the kitchen sink approach is being used. I find this stuff questionable on the basis, that we know so little, and seeming throw as many accusations as possible and hope something stick approach, we have seen so far in this thread.

As for Mosque management, it could be the same people as Clonskeagh or a completely different set. The problem, is that we have no idea either way.

Mosques tend to loosely affliated with each other to the best of my knowledge. However, a loose affliation doesn't really amount to much, in regards to how it is run.

True, he may have nothing whatsoever to do with it. But a mainstream institution (the largest) of Islam in this country has a connection with a reported hardline cleric. It is only fair to ask the question, will the new centre have connections to any such individuals? You would like to think that mosques/cultural centre here in Ireland would be exclusively for the benefit of Irish Muslims with no need to court this kind of individual.

Islam is not massively represented in this country and many Irish people have little or no exposure to the religion or to Irish Muslims. But what Irish people do see is extremists on the TV and angry men getting all hot an bothered over some silly YouTube video (although the real reasons for the protests run deeper I admit). Then you have Homeland which started again last Tuesday and that probably doesn't help matters either :rolleyes:.

But hence, Irish people are probably a little suspicious of Islam. So it would be easier to accept the growth of the religion if official centres like Clonskeagh were not flirting with extremist clerics. That's all I'm saying here with the most open of minds. I think it is a fair point of discovery.

Anyway, hopefully the new centre will have nothing to do with the likes of Al Qaradawi and be a positive addition to the city's cultural landscape.

wes

skD13 wrote: »

True, he may have nothing whatsoever to do with it. But a mainstream institution (the largest) of Islam in this country has a connection with a reported hardline cleric. It is only fair to ask the question, will the new centre have connections to any such individuals? You would like to think that mosques/cultural centre here in Ireland would be exclusively for the benefit of Irish Muslims with no need to court this kind of individual.

Islam is not massively represented in this country and many Irish people have little or no exposure to the religion or to Irish Muslims. But what Irish people do see is extremists on the TV and angry men getting all hot an bothered over some silly YouTube video (although the real reasons for the protests run deeper I admit). Then you have Homeland which started again last Tuesday and that probably doesn't help matters either :rolleyes:.

But hence, Irish people are probably a little suspicious of Islam. So it would be easier to accept the growth of the religion if official centres like Clonskeagh were not flirting with extremist clerics. That's all I'm saying here with the most open of minds. I think it is a fair point of discovery.

Anyway, hopefully the new centre will have nothing to do with the likes of Al Qaradawi and be a positive addition to the city's cultural landscape.

I don't disagree with you, its just that if you look at the thread, Qardawi, seems to just be the latest in a long line of stuff people have brought up. Most of the stuff, having 0 to do with Ireland, and hence why I have questioned this. I would like to hear more information about the Mosque before coming to any kind of conclusion.

I agree that any links with Qaradawi, should be severed, as he is (the more I read about him), a really dodgy character.

Benny_Cake

Joe 90 wrote: »

Very good social welfare benefits?

Not so according to MrD012. Muslim immigrants will flock to Ireland because of a mosque just off the M50. And not just any old mosque - a super-mosque!

SeanW

DAINGNE wrote: »

It will follow the National Schools Curriculum and be headed by qualified teachers, I don't really see the handicap or the threat you're trying to highlight? Can you elaborate?

Will the school teach through one of Irelands national languages (English/Irish) or Arabic?

I ask because in the U.K. where the Saudis are heavily involved in Islamic "education" the schools teach through arabaic and their textbooks teach children things like how to do Sharia compliant amputations, teach children that "All religions other than Islam are worthless" and other central tenets of Wahabbism.

I suggest you view the documentary "Undercover Mosque" to see what passes for normal in day-to-day Islamic education and preaching in some parts. Much of it linked to Saudi Arabia.

I have no issue with this mosque and school being built if it's just going to be normal people who just happen to pray 5 times a day. My concern would be with Saudi/Wahabbist involvement, which IMHO should be a concern to any sane person.

DAINGNE

Aiel wrote: »

I agree with the point made about how is there religious equality if i'll be killed while trying to build a Christian church in any one of 40 or 50 Muslum cities in Asia or Africa yet they can build a mosque anywhere they want?
By all means they can build a Mosque here but i feel only if they allowed me build my church in Islamabad etc.

There isn't democracry let alone religious equality in most countries in the middle east but there is in this country & I pride myself in supporting that.

Let that community build their Mosque here just like we built out churches in a hostile North America during the 19th centuary

DAINGNE

SeanW wrote: »

]Will the school teach through one of Irelands national languages (English/Irish) or Arabic?

I ask because in the U.K. where the Saudis are heavily involved in Islamic "education" the schools teach through arabaic and their textbooks teach children things like how to do Sharia compliant amputations, teach children that "All religions other than Islam are worthless" and other central tenets of Wahabbism.

I suggest you view the documentary "Undercover Mosque" to see what passes for normal in day-to-day Islamic education and preaching in some parts. Much of it linked to Saudi Arabia.

I have no issue with this mosque and school being built if it's just going to be normal people who just happen to pray 5 times a day. My concern would be with Saudi/Wahabbist involvement, which IMHO should be a concern to any sane person.

Ive never seen that documentary but once the school teaches by a suitable curriculum like the other two Muslim schools in Dublin then I have zero objections to it.

RandomName2

JustinDee wrote: »

I'm not saying you're quoting him. I'm saying that your line is akin to something he would say and that subjectivity litters your posting on the matter of this mosque (eg. this isn't muslims or Islam "per se" then going on to the usual tar-brush involving suicide bombers ... ).

I didn't think you were, but since I don't have anything of his to hand I cannot agree or disagree whether what he rights is subjective.

I've said that I am myself subjective - and I outlined in advance why. I believe that there is significant evidence to support the theory that there are greater possibility of tensions between Islamic communities in the West than with other religions. But on the whole I don't think it's a terribly good idea to build any massive religious building in north Dublin - Christian ones would be quite frankly superlative whilst that of a minority religion fosters social division (quite fundamentally - most communities have traditionally used places of worship or civic buildings to form their identity; and as this would be at odds with the local community it would erect walls, as it were, rather than build bridges).

But I have to admit that I've conflated two very different issues (the concept of the creation of a massive civic building for a minority religion and the specific religion in question), which has irreparably muddled my argument.

Suicide bombing is neither here nor there in reality - it is a non-issue in the West. This isn't Baghdad. Suicide bombing that has been conducted in the West in recent years has been orchestrated and carried out by Muslim extremists, but you can count the number of incidents on what.. one hand for an entire sub-continent? And that's excluding terrorism in general in the West where the vast majority of offences have been caused by Christian nationalist extremist groups or individuals. I was using it as a sloppy example because it is more convenient than running through the countries in which over 1.5 billion members of the religion reside - predominantly in Ante-Sahara Africa, the middle East, the horn of Africa, Indonesia, and that part of Asia (the term of which escapes me) that encompasses Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) which is full of quite frankly full of basket case countries which veer between authoritarian military juntas and theocracies. There are a small handful of counterexamples but they are fairly thin on the ground.

This sort of situation is not inherent to Islam of course - there was a time in history when Islam was far more scientifically and culturally productive on the whole than the backward Christian West; it helped pave the way for Ottoman expansion for many centuries whilst Christendom tore itself asunder (the Kingdom of France was the first Christian nation to make the leap and actually ally with the Ottomans, much to the horror of its neighbours).

Of course one has to wait to see how the Arab Spring will resolve itself, which it is, oddly enough, too early to read how it will ultimately pan out.

JustinDee wrote: »

There is nothing 'nuanced' in your posting. You are giving yourself far too much unfounded credit in this respect.

I didn't say my posting was nuanced, merely the distinction.

JustinDee wrote: »

Again, don't assume. I brought them up as they this year's buzzword pariahs amongst the Daily Mail and Telegraph readership obssessed with Tom Cruise's divorce. That's all. Like I said, I couldn't give a stuff what the person 'is', they are still part of a community or communities. As suggested, maybe try another relevant forum on the subject of Scientology.

Fair enough

SeanW

DAINGNE wrote: »

Ive never seen that documentary but once the school teaches by a suitable curriculum like the other two Muslim schools in Dublin then I have zero objections to it.

Then I suggest you do. We are not at war with Islam, nor should we be, but its clear that Wahabbism is fighting a cold war against us.

Hence my concern about Saudi involvement.

MrD012

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Not so according to MrD012. Muslim immigrants will flock to Ireland because of a mosque just off the M50. And not just any old mosque - a super-mosque!

where did I say that ? again please quote me or admit I never said that .

It is only natural that if you set up facilites for a particular cultural background they will be attracted to it , otherwise what would the point be .

if they are attracted to the area from their existing locations within Ireland , why would the same not be true for outside of Ireland .

why do holiday resorts bother building Hotels and swimming pools etc ?

Nodin

MrD012 wrote: »

where did I say that ? again please quote me or admit I never said that .

It is only natural that if you set up facilites for a particular cultural background they will be attracted to it , otherwise what would the point be .

if they are attracted to the area from their existing locations within Ireland , why would the same not be true for outside of Ireland .

why do holiday resorts bother building Hotels and swimming pools etc ?

And again, complete nonsense. There's no equivalance at all.

And for the second time - as most muslim populations are outside the EU and must apply, they can't just walk in.

walshb

There are plenty plenty plenty Muslims in the EU, holding passports from EU countries.

philologos

MrD012 wrote: »

where did I say that ? again please quote me or admit I never said that .

It is only natural that if you set up facilites for a particular cultural background they will be attracted to it , otherwise what would the point be .

if they are attracted to the area from their existing locations within Ireland , why would the same not be true for outside of Ireland .

why do holiday resorts bother building Hotels and swimming pools etc ?

Religion != cultural background. One can be any ethnicity and be a Muslim. Culture also varies greatly in the Islamic world. Malaysia for example is very different to Saudi Arabia.

If a church is built, they would surely hope that people would come along, but the very fact that you have a church doesn't mean there's going to be a mass immigration from Christian nations. Likewise with atheist groups, or Hindu temples.

Your views on Islam aren't well informed to say the least.

Benny_Cake

MrD012 wrote: »

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Not so according to MrD012. Muslim immigrants will flock to Ireland because of a mosque just off the M50. And not just any old mosque - a super-mosque!

where did I say that ? again please quote me or admit I never said that .

It is only natural that if you set up facilites for a particular cultural background they will be attracted to it , otherwise what would the point be .

if they are attracted to the area from their existing locations within Ireland , why would the same not be true for outside of Ireland .

why do holiday resorts bother building Hotels and swimming pools etc ?

I wasn't having a personalised pop at you - you have repeatedly associated the building of this mosque with increased immigration by Muslims into Ireland. In fact you've just done it again in that post! I highly doubt that Muslims will flock from other parts of Dublin to Clongriffen because a mosque gets built there, never mind Istanbul, Cairo, or Jakarta. You seem to be ignoring the fact that we already have quite a few mosques in Ireland and a sizable Muslim community, many born and bred here. I'm not seeing huge problems, are you?

MadsL

MrD012 wrote: »

can the pro mosque side show me one report that details the benefits of Islam to western society ?

The fact that your post doesn't read 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
is one benefit that the Arab world gave to westerners. A zero is a mighty useful thing.

Nodin

walshb wrote: »

There are plenty plenty plenty Muslims in the EU, holding passports from EU countries.

They're hardly going to flock from Britain, France and Germany because of a mosque.

sceptre

MrD012 wrote: »

It is only natural that if you set up facilites for a particular cultural background they will be attracted to it , otherwise what would the point be .

if they are attracted to the area from their existing locations within Ireland , why would the same not be true for outside of Ireland

We haven't exactly seen Catholics flocking to the country from across Europe over the past 90 years. It's not as though they're setting up Dublin as the fourth holy city of Islam. Field Of Dreams it ain't.

RandomName2

philologos wrote: »

Religion != cultural background. One can be any ethnicity and be a Muslim. Culture also varies greatly in the Islamic world. Malaysia for example is very different to Saudi Arabia.

Religion may != cultural background but is nevertheless ∈ cultural background

philologos wrote: »

If a church is built, they would surely hope that people would come along, but the very fact that you have a church doesn't mean there's going to be a mass immigration from Christian nations. Likewise with atheist groups, or Hindu temples.

Your views on Islam aren't well informed to say the least.

On the opposite end of the argument: is anybody actually claiming that there are currently 40,000 Muslims in the catchment area of this proposed mosque? If there isn't, it does beg the question - why build it?

Cork boy 55

It is far too small a project for projected Muslim population growth figures in the 26 counties, I really am sick of the lack of long term infrastructure planning in this country.


Ireland
Estimated 1990 Muslim Population 15,000 0.4%
Estimated 2010 Muslim Population 43,000 0.9%
Projected 2030 Muslim Population* 125,000 2.2%



* These figures are projections. The projections presented in this report are the medium figures in a range of three scenarios – high, medium and low – generated from models commonly used by demographers around the world to forecast changes in population size and composition. . For more details, see the Full Report and Methodology.)
http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/

irishconvert

MrD012 wrote: »

where did I say that ? again please quote me or admit I never said that .

It is only natural that if you set up facilites for a particular cultural background they will be attracted to it , otherwise what would the point be .

if they are attracted to the area from their existing locations within Ireland , why would the same not be true for outside of Ireland .

why do holiday resorts bother building Hotels and swimming pools etc ?

Oh yes, I hear they are building a super pub in Dubai. How many Irish people do you think will move there because of it???! :rolleyes: