Pakistani businessman wants to convert historic convent into a Mosque

Rjd2

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Telegraph, you say......

Telegraph is ok, clearly a right wing POV, but its not the mail or Express, dismissing it no different than ignoring The Guardian tbh.

recedite

Golfproam wrote: »

The conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques occurred during the life of Muhammad and continued during subsequent Islamic conquests..

Its a triumphalist thing, but obviously they would want to make substantial changes to the building to complete the full islamic makeover.
Its a well established process. The Hagia Sophia was the first christian cathedral in the world, and it became one of the early conversions. As for the original parishioners, the Byzantines; they are all gone. Killed or converted, that was their choice. Fortunately the good people of Ballaghdereen today have more options.

In 1453, Constantinople was conquered by the Ottoman Empire under Mehmed the Conqueror, who ordered this main church of Orthodox Christianity converted into a mosque. Although some parts of the city of Constantinople were falling into disrepair, the cathedral was maintained with an amount of money set aside for this purpose. Nevertheless, the Christian cathedral made a strong impression on the new Ottoman rulers and they decided to convert it into a mosque. The bells, altar, iconostasis, and other relics were destroyed and the mosaics depicting Jesus, his Mother Mary, Christian saints and angels were also destroyed or plastered over. Islamic features—such as the mihrab, minbar, and four minarets—were added. It remained a mosque until 1931, when it was closed to the public for four years. It was re-opened in 1935 as a museum

Depp

end of the road wrote: »

good for you. i have no doubt though the review will conclude that there is no good reason for the conversion not to happen. that's even if it got off the ground in the first place (the courts don't recognise not liking muslims or brown people as grounds for a judicial review)

no the courts dont recognize ''not liking muslims or brown people'', and rightly so, but as much as you wish it was, that is not what this is, if you're going to insist on building strawmen I'd suggest you get better at it.

SnakePlissken

end of the road wrote: »

the courts don't recognise not liking brown people as grounds for a judicial review)

Yawn, you really have no intelligent basis for your argument, please persist in reducing this issue to a most infantile construct, with each post you only highlight your own ignorance.

Golfproam

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Yawn, you really have no intelligent basis for your argument, please persist in reducing this issue to a most infantile construct, with each post you only highlight your own ignorance.

I have given up reading him, he is making zero sense. I can listen to an opposing argument if it makes sense but End of the Road is nonsensical. Isn't there an ignore button somewhere. I need to put him on it. He is clogging up my screen.

Paleblood

AnGaelach wrote: »

I don't remember little girls in a Manchester concert being instrumental in Operation Desert Storm.

No more than little girls in Iraq being part of the Axis of Evil.

Depp

Paleblood wrote: »

No more than little girls in Iraq being part of the Axis of Evil.

Just to clarify not saying civilian casualties in Iraq were right but to compare civilian casualties in an actual war to the intentional suicide bombing of a concert full of civilians, most of which were little girls, is a highly dishonest argument.

Paleblood

Depp wrote: »

Just to clarify not saying civilian casualties in Iraq were right but to compare civilian casualties in an actual war to the intentional suicide bombing a concert full of civilians, most of which were little girls, is a highly dishonest argument.

If civilian families being 'lit up' by sophisticated multi-million dollar military equipment is more acceptable to you than a random bombing, well then that's your prerogative. I'm not going to compare the deaths of innocent people on a scale of tragedy. Indiscriminate aerial bombardment is, to me, as bad as an indiscriminate bombing. The exact demographics or indeed motivations of the people are not irrelevant, but they become incidental when the end product is what it is.

The term 'actual war' doesn't mean anything to me. The nuclear bombing of Japan was framed in those exact terms. Yet it was still an obscene and outrageous attack on humanity. Exactly like the bombing in Manchester. Exactly like Iraqi children dead, as George Galloway put it, before they even knew they were Iraqi children.

Go online and look for the video of the Iraqi father holding the remains of his daughter in his hands, a pool of mulshy flesh and tissue instead of a child. The people that say they are responding to that by blowing up pop concerts and shopping centres, why isn't theirs an actual war? Why are they an aberration?

Depp

Paleblood wrote: »

If civilian families being 'lit up' by sophisticated multi-million dollar military equipment is more acceptable to you than a random bombing, well then that's your prerogative. I'm not going to compare the deaths of innocent people on a scale of tragedy. Indiscriminate aerial bombardment is, to me, as bad as an indiscriminate bombing. The exact demographics or indeed motivations of the people are not irrelevant, but they become incidental when the end product is what it is.

The term 'actual war' doesn't mean anything to me. The nuclear bombing of Japan was framed in those exact terms. Yet it was still an obscene and outrageous attack on humanity. Exactly like the bombing in Manchester. Exactly like Iraqi children dead, as George Galloway put it, before they even knew they were Iraqi children.

Go online and look for the video of the Iraqi father holding the remains of his daughter in his hands, a pool of mulshy flesh and tissue instead of a child. The people that say they are responding to that by blowing up pop concerts and shopping centres, why isn't theirs an actual war? Why are they an aberration?

Look, by the looks of your post I probably agree with you about the iraq war, but the fact remains civilian casualties in war and a targeted terrorist attack are two very different things. As I've said, it being accidental doesnt make it right, but when its intentional its a lot worse. While it is horrible some of the things that happened in iraq, the fact remains your argument is still dishonest, you're trying to build a false equivalency and the fact you're doing it to try justify terrorist attacks that specifically target defenseless civilians and children at that, is quite frankly sickening.

Paleblood

Depp wrote: »

Look, by the looks of your post I probably agree with you about the iraq war, but the fact remains civilian casualties in war and a targeted terrorist attack are two very different things. As I've said, it being accidental doesnt make it right, but when its intentional its a lot worse. While it is horrible some of the things that happened in iraq, the fact remains your argument is still dishonest, you're trying to build a false equivalency and the fact you're doing it to try justify terrorist attacks that specifically target defenseless civilians and children at that, is quite frankly sickening.

I'm not trying to justify the Manchester attacks. The perpetrators of those murders are lower than animals and it's only a shame there's not a hell for them to burn in. By all means disagree with what I have to say, but I just want to make my feelings absolutely clear about these so-called martyrs.

I'm also not trying to create a false equivalency. An accident is, by definition, of different moral standing to an intentional act. I'm simply not satisfied with how easily people write off civilian deaths when they occur within an actual war. That's where the distinction often breaks down for me and the moral quality of the acts fall into a grey area. If you don't care about who you're killing, well then you don't care about who you're killing. If I walk into a bus stop and blow myself up, how much worse is that than firing indiscriminately at a van-load of people? I'm honestly not so sure.

Paleblood

Also, in relation to what your perceive to be my justification of terrorist attacks...

I'm interested in why this is happening. If these people say they are doing it because of Western interference in their region, because they are part of a holy war, well then why can't I take that at face value?

I remember reading Robert Fisk's account of his meetings with Osama Bin Laden, pre 9/11, and hearing of Bin Laden's justification for wanting the United States destroyed, for wanting Western interference in the region stopped.

The ancestral and spiritual home of these people was carved up and handed out like pizza after WW1, their motherland run by invaders. What on earth was the expected response? When Bush orchestrated a smoke and mirrors war, leaving, quite literally, millions of people dead, what did they think the response would be?

I'm interested in why this is happening. Surely the answer to that question forms part of how it's going to be brought to an end.

RustyNut

Depp wrote: »

Look, by the looks of your post I probably agree with you about the iraq war, but the fact remains civilian casualties in war and a targeted terrorist attack are two very different things. As I've said, it being accidental doesnt make it right, but when its intentional its a lot worse. While it is horrible some of the things that happened in iraq, the fact remains your argument is still dishonest, you're trying to build a false equivalency and the fact you're doing it to try justify terrorist attacks that specifically target defenseless civilians and children at that, is quite frankly sickening.

The war on Iraq was an act of terrorism by any measure and all the Iraqi people that were killed were murdered by terrorists whether they were Iraqi military, police, Baathists or kids at a concert. The "actual war" as you put it was an act of terror based on lies and deceit. Wmd's ready to go in 45 minutes. Wmd's that never existed as Hans Blix asserted before the invasion. A secret relationship between Sadam and Al-Queda, more lies.

In my opinion there is no moral difference between someone from Manchester strapping themselves into a jet and killing Iraqis with bombs because their "leaders" have told them that this is necessary to preserve their way of life and someone from abroad strapping on a bomb and killing Mancunian's because their "leaders" have told them that this is necessary to preserve their way of life.

Both equally reprehensible. No excuse for either.

Depp

Paleblood wrote: »

Also, in relation to what your perceive to be my justification of terrorist attacks...

I'm interested in why this is happening. If these people say they are doing it because of Western interference in their region, because they are part of a holy war, well then why can't I take that at face value?

I remember reading Robert Fisk's account of his meetings with Osama Bin Laden, pre 9/11, and hearing of Bin Laden's justification for wanting the United States destroyed, for wanting Western interference in the region stopped.

The ancestral and spiritual home of these people was carved up and handed out like pizza after WW1, their motherland run by invaders. What on earth was the expected response? When Bush orchestrated a smoke and mirrors war, leaving, quite literally, millions of people dead, what did they think the response would be?

I'm interested in why this is happening. Surely the answer to that question forms part of how it's going to be brought to an end.

Maybe I misunderstood your post but ''the brits did x, the terrorists are dead right'' is an argument we see all too often in these threads, and i find it to be disgusting, sincere apologies though if this was not your intention.

Also I agree western intervention in the middle east is a motivating factor you'd have to be an idiot to think it isnt, but its not as big a factor in my opinion as some make it out to be, while it has certainly has emboldened some of the subhuman scum that carry out these attacks, theres also a huge idealogical problem also at fault for this, especially with isis tied terrorists.

One thing that shows this is we were sold the narrative that once the uk/us pulled out of iraq it would stop, then when they pulled out, not only did it continue, it became significantly worse in the ensuing vacuum.

Paleblood

Depp wrote: »

Maybe I misunderstood your post but ''the brits did x, the terrorists are dead right'' is an argument we see all too often in these threads, and i find it to be disgusting, sincere apologies though if this was not your intention.

To be perfectly honest I don't know what my point is, or if I even have one. I'm rambling.

My initial comment was glib, I accept that. But it was in response to what I feel is a very Western/Euro-centric view of world affairs.

I understand why an attack in Manchester is such big news for us here in Ireland (I spent much of my childhood summers with my Granny in Whalley Range, the attack sickened me) but going by Sky News and Boards.ie you'd think nothing like that has ever happened before, when in fact I, as a 32 year old man, never remember a time when the news from the Middle East was anything other than death and destruction.

Somewhere in there lies the point I'm trying to make.

Zebra3

Depp wrote: »

Look, by the looks of your post I probably agree with you about the iraq war, but the fact remains civilian casualties in war and a targeted terrorist attack are two very different things. As I've said, it being accidental doesnt make it right, but when its intentional its a lot worse. While it is horrible some of the things that happened in iraq, the fact remains your argument is still dishonest, you're trying to build a false equivalency and the fact you're doing it to try justify terrorist attacks that specifically target defenseless civilians and children at that, is quite frankly sickening.

There is nothing accidental about civilian murders in aerial bombings. Those carrying out the violence know they are going to slaughter innocent people. But their victims are the unpeople. No follow up news stories on the families torn apart. No weepy, heart tugging concerts. Instead we get the glorification of the crimes of the invading armies and their small number of casualties being portrayed on our screens as the victims.

Orwell eat your heart out.

Boggy Turf

The irony for me is that Irish people will start returning to their "cultural" bull**** religion in order to segregate/distance itself from an equally bull**** religion.

When will the world grow up and abandon the makey-uppy supernatural nonsense we call religion? It's pure waste and backward.

Ronaldinho

Boggy Turf wrote: »

When will the world grow up and abandon the makey-uppy supernatural nonsense we call religion? It's pure waste and backward.

Says you.

It's disappointing to see so much bigotry on these forums these days.

I don't get why some people have so little acceptance or tolerance for others' spiritual \ religious beliefs. Live and let live.

Zebra3

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Says you.

It's disappointing to see so much bigotry on these forums these days.

I don't get why some people have so little acceptance or tolerance for others' spiritual \ religious beliefs. Live and let live.

Religion is nonsense.

The cults target kids because it's a lot tougher to get adults to fall for their crap.

Would you respect somebody who believes in fairies, goblins and leprechauns?

Boggy Turf

Ronaldinho wrote: »

It's disappointing to see so much bigotry on these forums these days.

I don't get why some people have so little acceptance or tolerance for others' spiritual \ religious beliefs. Live and let live.

It's disappointing to see so much delusion on these forums these days.

I cannot have tolerance for stuff that is clearly make-believe without a shred of proof which impacts society in a negative way. I get that people need it as a crutch or to provide some meaning to their existence but I consider those people weak and stupid.

Effects

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, sure it is
an old building which is no longer in use, which could probably be left to rot and eventually be demolished, being made into something else is simply a statement of intent to reuse a building for something else. there is no "symbolism" here.
if you are so worried about supposed "symbolism" maybe make this business man an offer to buy the building? if it's enough he may accept your offer.

I remember when that building closed down. I drive past it regularly and think it's a shame it's in the state it's in. But that's a sign of rural towns in Ireland. I'd love to see it repurposed.

Effects

Golfproam wrote: »

It is a matter of public policy to give planning permission. The people of the town have every right to object.

What grounds can they honestly object on?

Does the town need to maintain a certain level of disused and run down properties?

It's been a quiet town for a long time but the bypass in recent years has made it even worse.

rgossip30

Effects wrote: »

What grounds can they honestly object on?

Does the town need to maintain a certain level of disused and run down properties?

It's been a quiet town for a long time but the bypass in recent years has made it even worse.

I take it you never heard the 'call to prayer ' common in the middle east .

recedite

Future traffic management and parking provision on Friday afternoons.

Depp

recedite wrote: »

Future traffic management and parking provision on Friday afternoons.

Also the historical symbolism of conversion of a place of worship from one faith to another is a genuine argument, either you respect all religious faiths or none of them, if you're understanding and respectful to islam and its beliefs (which you should be towards any faith to an extent), but on the other hand you hold a bigoted view towards catholicism and its beliefs, the fact remains you're still a bigot

Depp

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Says you.

It's disappointing to see so much bigotry on these forums these days.

I don't get why some people have so little acceptance or tolerance for others' spiritual \ religious beliefs. Live and let live.

Agree with this, its very disappointing thats its just expected now aswel. The worst part is the hypocrisy, same people that admonish someone for saying anything about islam and screech out terms like racist and islamophobe but then go on to express extreme bigotry but its fine because christianity is fair game. Makes no sense!

Zebra3

Depp wrote: »

Also the historical symbolism of conversion of a place of worship from one faith to another is a genuine argument, either you respect all religious faiths or none of them, if you're understanding and respectful to islam and its beliefs (which you should be towards any faith to an extent), but on the other hand you hold a bigoted view towards catholicism and its beliefs, the fact remains you're still a bigot

Get over yourself. It was a building used by the peados in the Roman cult. They have no use for it any more. Some other sky fairy mob want to use it. The sun will still rise....

Depp

Zebra3 wrote: »

Get over yourself. It was a building used by the peados in the Roman cult. They have no use for it any more. Some other sky fairy mob want to use it. The sun will still rise....

so because of the horrendous actions of a few members all members of the catholic church are pedos then? and you see no difference between saying this and the racist prick waxing lyrical about how all muslims are terrorists? Sorry to break it to you but thats a prime example of bigotry, all well and good to not have a faith fair play but that doesnt make you any better or smarter than someone who does, the irony of you asking someone to get over themselves is brilliant

Zebra3

Depp wrote: »

so because of the horrendous actions of a few members all members of the catholic church are pedos then? and you see no difference between saying this and the racist prick waxing lyrical about how all muslims are terrorists? Sorry to break it to you but thats a prime example of bigotry, all well and good to not have a faith fair play but that doesnt make you any better or smarter than someone who does, the irony of you asking someone to get over themselves is brilliant

The rape of children and its cover up ran through the veins of the Roman church.

It might hurt people that I say that, but it's the truth, and sometimes the the truth hurts for those who prefer to live in a deluded parallel universe.

There has never been any demonstrations by memebers of the RC cult against members of paedophile rings retaining positions of power in Ireland. Those who directly carried out criminal acts against vulnerable young children have in some cases eventually paid the price, but those who facilitated and aided and abetted their crimes have tended to get away scot-free.

This is in direct comparison to marches by muslims who have disassociated themselves from acts of terror which some groups and individuals claim to have carried out on their behalf.

rgossip30

Zebra3 wrote: »

The rape of children and its cover up ran through the veins of the Roman church.

It might hurt people that I say that, but it's the truth, and sometimes the the truth hurts for those who prefer to live in a deluded parallel universe.

There has never been any demonstrations by memebers of the RC cult against members of paedophile rings retaining positions of power in Ireland. Those who directly carried out criminal acts against vulnerable young children have in some cases eventually paid the price, but those who facilitated and aided and abetted their crimes have tended to get away scot-free.

This is in direct comparison to marches by muslims who have disassociated themselves from acts of terror which some groups and individuals claim to have carried out on their behalf.

I take you would agree that Islam needs a reformation but that's unlikely .

Ken.

Mod- This has gone beyond the original topic and is now just a religion bashing thread. Locked