Is Islam right for Ireland?

ArthurDayne

malinheader wrote: »

I was on about the report from Sweden.

Responded to the wrong comment -- meant to hit reply to the guy linking to the news story about the Moroccan boys having sex with a donkey . . .

SnakePlissken

Captain Obvious wrote: »

we'll have to disagree on that.

Disagree on what? The video you posted clearly shows an assault on a police officer by one of the Muslims protesting against Tommy Robinson, pretending not to see what is clear to all, only proves your user name as deeply ironic.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

How many Muslims in Europe think homosexuality / blasphemy should be punishable by death?

Perhaps not punishable by death, but it is indeed a sad indictment that more than half of all British Muslims believe those pesky gays should be locked in a cell because... well, gay people are just icky aren't they? And these are British Muslims lest we forget.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/index.html

Homophobia is disgusting, and I will never back down from calling it out where I see it. And yet those who are blind and naive will call these criticisms of Islam as racism instead of contributing any intelligence or substance to perhaps the most important debate of the 21st century.

ArthurDayne

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Perhaps not punishable by death, but it is indeed a sad indictment that more than half of all British Muslims believe those pesky gays should be locked in a cell because... well, gay people are just icky aren't they? And these are British Muslims lest we forget.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/index.html

Homophobia is disgusting, and I will never back down from calling it out where I see it. And yet those who are blind and naive will call these criticisms of Islam as racism instead of contributing any intelligence or substance to perhaps the most important debate of the 21st century.

I applaud the tentative climbdown from sensationalism and a move towards a more solid base of debate (finally). Hopefully this can now be sustained without cries of obfuscation and links to articles from The Sun about donkey-raping Moroccans.

So, as you say, there is a homophobia problem among the Muslim community. I have never denied this. I have no reason to question the figures presented by that poll but, if we presume its accurate -- then half of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, and half do not. It is once again further evidence that there is a diversity of views among Muslim people and further evidence that it is absurd to generalise the opinions of Muslims. I also think it would be interesting to know the age breakdown for responses on that question as it may provide a good indication of the trend of views in the next generation of British Muslims.

But let us also look at comparators. The USA is, clearly a free country. Gallup polls however (link below) suggest that 60% of Americans are in favour of homosexuality being legal, with 35% against and 5% unsure. So you are talking about up to 40% of Americans who would, if it were put to them, vote in favour of banning homosexuality. Not a majority sure, but it's not a million miles off the 52%. The Ottoman Empire legalised homosexuality in 1858, and its successor Turkey maintained that legal status when it was formed. Ireland did not see fit to legalise homosexuality until 1993. The BBC Social Attitudes Survey in 2016 found that 64% of British people thought being gay was not wrong at all -- which was an increase from 34% in 2000 (i.e. only 34% of British people thought being gay was not wrong at all at the start of the 21st century!).

So homophobia is a global problem and is not the preserve of Muslims -- and our liberal attitudes towards it in the 'West' are not exactly long-standing. But going back to British Muslims and the homophobia problem in that particular community; the way to deal with it is not to say "You are a Muslim and therefore you are invariably homophobic". The way to deal with it is to fight the same intellectual fight against the bile of Islam as we did against the bile of Christianity -- not to generalise and lazily denigrate the opinions of individual Muslims themselves anymore so than we would say that Catholic conservatism in Ireland was representative of the views of all Irish Catholics.

Is there a breakdown by age-group on that survey you posted? It would be interesting to see if there is any disparity between the age groups on attitudes to homosexuality.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/8413/six-americans-say-homosexual-relations-should-recognized-legal.aspx

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40743946

Captain Obvious

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Disagree on what? The video you posted clearly shows an assault on a police officer by one of the Muslims protesting against Tommy Robinson, pretending not to see what is clear to all, only proves your user name as deeply ironic.

Nowhere in that video do I see a Muslim punching the head off a policeman. Which one are you talking about?

donegaLroad

I have been watching some interviews on youtube, with people who have left Islam. There is a support group in the USA called ex Muslims founded by the girl in this clip, Sarah Haider. Many of the ex muslim interviews on youtube are of younger people who have lived in Western society.

I would imagine that it would be extremely difficult, if not almost impossible for a woman to leave Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_N3QltrWY

Captain Obvious

donegaLroad wrote: »

I have been watching some interviews on youtube, with people who have left Islam. There is a support group in the USA called ex Muslims founded by the girl in this clip, Sarah Haider. Many of the ex muslim interviews on youtube are of younger people who have lived in Western society.

I would imagine that it would be extremely difficult, if not almost impossible for a woman to leave Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_N3QltrWY

It will be completely impossible if they are denied entry to western countries because of their religion or nationality as many call for.

Gravelly

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It will be completely impossible if they are denied entry to western countries because of their religion or nationality as many call for.

:D:D

"Muslim extremists would all be secular atheists if only we opened our borders"

:D:D

Captain Obvious

Gravelly wrote: »

:D:D

"Muslim extremists would all be secular atheists if only we opened our borders"

:D:D

"Muslim countries are so bad they won't let you change religion. We shouldn't let people from these countries in until they have changed their religion".

Gravelly

Captain Obvious wrote: »

"Muslim countries are so bad they won't let you change religion. We shouldn't let people from these countries in until they have changed their religion".

"Muslim countries are bad - now I wonder why that could possibly be, because it obviously can't have anything to do with islam"

ArthurDayne

Gravelly wrote: »

:D:D

"Muslim extremists would all be secular atheists if only we opened our borders"

:D:D

Gravelly -- it must be wonderful to live in a bubble of self-assurance where you read someone's comment and then respond to it based on a loose interpretation of what it says rather than what it clearly explicitly says.

donegaLroad

Gravelly wrote: »

Also, is there a reason you seem to feel you need to rush in to defend the captain any time someone responds to him? He seems well able to speak for himself.

Maybe its a bit like Christianity, where there 3 people in one god... the father, the son and the holy spirit... they are all the same person, and we as mere mortals, are never meant to fully undetstand it.

Captain Obvious

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Gravelly -- it must be wonderful to live in a bubble of self-assurance where you read someone's comment and then respond to it based on a loose interpretation of what it says rather than what it clearly explicitly says.

It's pretty much the standard playbook since the alt righters started following Trump in the latter half of 2016.

Captain Obvious

donegaLroad wrote: »

Maybe its a bit like Christianity, where there 3 people in one god... the father, the son and the holy spirit... they are all the same person, and we as mere mortals, are never meant to fully undetstand it.

Yes I feel narrow mindedness is a common theme here.

Gravelly

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's pretty much the standard playbook since the alt righters started following Trump in the latter half of 2016.

Yes, everyone who wants a sensible immigration strategy is an "alt right" Trump supporter :rolleyes:

Trump must have a huge following in Canada, Australia, Japan etc. etc.

Captain Obvious

Gravelly wrote: »

Yes, everyone who wants a sensible immigration strategy is an "alt right" Trump supporter :rolleyes:

Trump must have a huge following in Canada, Australia, Japan etc. etc.

Not one person here has argued against a sensible immigration policy.

Gravelly

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not one person here has argued against a sensible immigration policy.

Brilliant - now we've got progress - so what, in your opinion, would a sensible immigration policy look like? (considering you and your fellow travellers seem to think all immigrants are the same).

ArthurDayne

Gravelly wrote: »

Brilliant - now we've got progress - so what, in your opinion, would a sensible immigration policy look like? (considering you and your fellow travellers seem to think all immigrants are the same).

So far the Irish immigration system as it stands, on the caveat that perfection is impossible, has served the country well. You're the one who is critical of the immigration system -- so it's a question for you. Which specific bits of Ireland's current immigration policy would you change? If you want to talk about refugees, then obviously that is an entirely different process to immigration, but feel free to also point out what you would change about Ireland's asylum rules and why. At least then, as you are someone who clearly thinks the system needs change, we will all be clear on your vision of how the system needs to change.

Gravelly

ArthurDayne wrote: »

So far the Irish immigration system as it stands, on the caveat that perfection is impossible, has served the country well. You're the one who is critical of the immigration system -- so it's a question for you. Which specific bits of Ireland's current immigration policy would you change? If you want to talk about refugees, then obviously that is an entirely different process to immigration, but feel free to also point out what you would change about Ireland's asylum rules and why. At least then, as you are someone who clearly thinks the system needs, we will all be clear on your vision of how the system needs to change.

Simple;

A points based system for all non-EU immigrants. Only immigrants who have skills we need to be allowed in. All immigrants to undergo a full background check - criminal convictions or extreme political or religious history means no entry. Any immigrant convicted of a serious crime to be deported upon completing sentence. No social welfare until a 2 year work record has been completed.

On asylum - only refugees with checkable backgrounds to be accepted. Only refugees who fulfil the "first safe country" criteria to be accepted. Only refugees from countries that actually need asylum to be accepted (i.e if you are from Nigeria and your village is "war torn" just move to another part of Nigeria). A strict balance on gender and age (roughly 50/50 male/female & young/old - not 95% single young men with no checkable criminal records) and a strong bias toward families. Any asylum seeker convicted of a crime to face immediate deportation (to avoid the usual rubbish with appeals, all asylum seekers to sign declaration to this effect).

But I suppose all this makes me a fascisttrumpsupportingaltrightracistislamophobe. Ah well, guess I'll just have to get over it

Strange that pretty much all of the above is perfectly acceptable as rules for company hires, but is "literally Hitler" when suggested for immigration.

ArthurDayne

Gravelly wrote: »

Simple;

A points based system for all non-EU immigrants. Only immigrants who have skills we need to be allowed in. All immigrants to undergo a full background check - criminal convictions or extreme political or religious history means no entry. Any immigrant convicted of a serious crime to be deported upon completing sentence. No social welfare until a 2 year work record has been completed.

On asylum - only refugees with checkable backgrounds to be accepted. Only refugees who fulfil the "first safe country" criteria to be accepted. Only refugees from countries that actually need asylum to be accepted (i.e if you are from Nigeria and your village is "war torn" just move to another part of Nigeria). A strict balance on gender and age (roughly 50/50 male/female & young/old - not 95% single young men with no checkable criminal records) and a strong bias toward families. Any asylum seeker convicted of a crime to face immediate deportation (to avoid the usual rubbish with appeals, all asylum seekers to sign declaration to this effect).

But I suppose all this makes me a fascisttrumpsupportingaltrightracistislamophobe. Ah well, guess I'll just have to get over it

Strange that pretty much all of the above is perfectly acceptable as rules for company hires, but is "literally Hitler" when suggested for immigration.

Now -- turning to your refugee suggestions. This is an extremely difficult area of international law and ethics but it should always be borne in mind that the day may come when any of war/natural disaster/persecution/epidemic sends Irish people fleeing abroad (as it has before). If humanity means anything at all, the international community does need to look out for eachother. We do also have international treaties to honour in this regard, such as the Geneva Convention and our obligations as a member of the EU. Anyway . . . on the nitty gritty :

- Checkable backgrounds - What is the current Irish position on this ? I'm not sure what the process is where a background check is unavailable. Could you fill me in please?

- First Safe Country - Isn't this the current situation? In any case, the rule has been criticised. When it came to the Syrian Crisis for example, it was clear that the rule meant that our EU partners and economic allies in Southern Europe were shouldering the bulk of the burden. We Irish have happily plugged ourselves into the global capitalist system and have reaped all the benefits. If Ireland wants to enjoy the luxuries of accepting the business, trade and resources of the international community, I don't think we can shirk our role in sharing the burden where we can for the challenges it faces.

- Necessity of asylum - There are already laws on the necessity of asylum. The judges aren't exactly bleeding hearts when it comes to this. In the European Court of Human Rights case N v United Kingdom, a Ugandan woman suffering from AIDS was deported from the UK back to Uganda despite the fact that she would not be able to access the treatment she needed to live. In essence, the Court sent her back to Uganda knowing quite well that they would be sending her to her death, but they held that even if it was not practically accessible for her, the treatment still existed in Uganda and therefore she could not claim asylum. That poor lady did indeed die. So if you think the European stance on asylum is 'snowflakey' -- think again.

Gender Balance - Sounds great in theory but I have absolutely no idea how you would enforce this in a humane way. This is because it is often the case that young men are in the better physical position to make the initial perilous journey and once they have gained asylum status, bring their families. To enforce a gender balance would put a potentially dangerous extra onus on the initial journey to be undertaken by women, possibly pregnant, along with their children. I just do not see how you could enforce this in a practical sense but I'm all ears if you have more detail on how you would do it.

Kivaro

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Great. Now let's take a look through these:

- Points-based system - Why does Ireland need this? Our immigration system as it stands is actually geared towards a skills-gap approach (see the Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015 Study which shows that Ireland actually has a relatively high level of 'highly educated' immigrants. I'm not sure what the value-add would be from introducing a points-based system when the current system is already attracting good talent.

- Background check - section 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 allows an immigration officer to refuse entry to Ireland where the person has a previous conviction, or if the officer has reason to believe that their presence in the State poses a threat to national security or is contrary to public policy. Immigration officers have full access to all international immigration watchlists and relevant Garda databases.

- Deportation for crime - this is already allowed under section 3 of the 1999 iteration of the Immigration Act or Regulation 20 of the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2006.

- Work record for 2 years before social welfare - To get social assistance in Ireland, you must have (a) a right of residence and (b) be habitually resident in Ireland (more info here : http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/social_assistance_payments/residency_requirements_for_social_assistance_in_ireland.html). In determining whether someone is habitually resident, the authorities examine : length/continuity of residence in Ireland, length/purpose of any absence from Ireland, nature and pattern of employment, your main centre of interest and your future intentions to live in Ireland as it appears on the evidence.

In essence, the current immigration system is not really all that different from the one you have described as your ideal. So I am struggling to determine why specifically you are so strongly opposed to it. I am not saying this makes you an Islamophobe Trumpist -- but I think you, like many others, perceive that we have some open border policy which lets any immigrant in. This is not the case.

Actually it is the case, because for many asylum seekers and non-EU economic migrants coming into the country illegally, they are not following the rules for the above to be applicable. For example with background checks, many migrants are using false documentation to gain entry and many asylum seekers are destroying their identification before they reach the Irish passport-check desk.

Also, we are constantly being told by people ignoring the reality of our porous borders that illegal migrants cannot get welfare, but we are seeing how Nigerians in particular are experts in getting social welfare and then free social housing within a short period of arriving into the country.

Most of us are aware how the border checks and balances should work and it looks decent enough on paper, but the reality is that the border controls are circumvented on a regular basis, and the Government are clueless on the levels of illegal immigration into this country.

Irish Praetorian

ArthurDayne wrote: »

- Points-based system - Why does Ireland need this? Our immigration system as it stands is actually geared towards a skills-gap approach (see the Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015 Study which shows that Ireland actually has a relatively high level of 'highly educated' immigrants. I'm not sure what the value-add would be from introducing a points-based system when the current system is already attracting good talent.

Just on this particular point, referring to the document you mentioned it outlines on page twelve that in all cases, the employment rate for third-country (read non-EU) nationals is lower than the averages for native and foreign born (that's local population and both EU and non-EU migrants respectively) in almost all cases. I'm left ever more gratified in my belief of a largely EU-favouring migration system.

Captain Obvious

Gravelly wrote: »

Brilliant - now we've got progress - so what, in your opinion, would a sensible immigration policy look like? (considering you and your fellow travellers seem to think all immigrants are the same).

First of all, we don't have "progress" because nobody has changed their position. All that's happened is that it's been pointed out to you that you are making arguments against phantom positions. Second, can you explain your traveller comment? I presume you mean the communist type and not the ethnic one. Third, since when did I claim all immigrants are the same? It's literally the opposite of what I've been saying. And finally, a sensible immigration policy is one which keeps criminal out, caters to humanitarian needs and benefits the economy in the long run.

Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Not one person here has argued against a sensible immigration policy.

In spite of the objections from yourself and others to any suggestions that the system should be changed... I've yet to see any sensible immigration policies being provided by you. Instead, it comes down to accepting the existing system, or dismissing everyone else's.

So, provide a sensible immigration policy.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

In spite of the objections from yourself and others to any suggestions that the system should be changed... I've yet to see any sensible immigration policies being provided by you. Instead, it comes down to accepting the existing system, or dismissing everyone else's.

So, provide a sensible immigration policy.

It's above your post

malinheader

Is there any information on how many have been refused entry or how many have been deported for committing a crime or being here illegally.Wasn't the man who stabbed the poor Japanese man found to be in the country illegally before the stabbing but was let go and told to apply for asylum.

Odhinn

malinheader wrote: »

Is there any information on how many have been refused entry or how many have been deported for committing a crime or being here illegally.Wasn't the man who stabbed the poor Japanese man found to be in the country illegally before the stabbing but was let go and told to apply for asylum.

28,000 in 8 years.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/people-refused-entry-to-ireland-denied-human-rights-report-says-1.3424580

malinheader

Odhinn wrote: »

28,000 in 8 years.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/people-refused-entry-to-ireland-denied-human-rights-report-says-1.3424580

So that's 10 people a day for the last eight years being held in prisons or gardai stations according to that.They wouldn't need to hold them to long.

ArthurDayne

Kivaro wrote: »

Actually it is the case, because for many asylum seekers and non-EU economic migrants coming into the country illegally, they are not following the rules for the above to be applicable. For example with background checks, many migrants are using false documentation to gain entry and many asylum seekers are destroying their identification before they reach the Irish passport-check desk.

Also, we are constantly being told by people ignoring the reality of our porous borders that illegal migrants cannot get welfare, but we are seeing how Nigerians in particular are experts in getting social welfare and then free social housing within a short period of arriving into the country.

Most of us are aware how the border checks and balances should work and it looks decent enough on paper, but the reality is that the border controls are circumvented on a regular basis, and the Government are clueless on the levels of illegal immigration into this country.

I note that you provide no sources for any of your statements above.

But if your opinions are accurate, show me the figures. How many migrants coming into the country are not following the rules? I have to stress --- I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your post, but you've said some pretty definitive things there and I would like to know which polls / studies / journals you are basing this opinion on. Once you give me the figures or sources for your assumptions, then we can debate them.

Give me the figures for Nigerians on social housing. Again -- once you give me these figures or studies, then we can debate them.

As for the Government being clueless on the levels of illegal immigration into this country, I invite you then to achieve what nobody in the developed world has achieved and design for us a perfect immigration system which beats the wrongdoers. It's not a one-line answer I grant you....but take your time....here is your opportunity to convince at least one leftie that you have the right answers when it comes to immigration. Tell me your views for how the immigration system can overcome the flaws which no immigration system in the developed world has yet overcome and we can debate them.

ArthurDayne

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Just on this particular point, referring to the document you mentioned it outlines on page twelve that in all cases, the employment rate for third-country (read non-EU) nationals is lower than the averages for native and foreign born (that's local population and both EU and non-EU migrants respectively) in almost all cases. I'm left ever more gratified in my belief of a largely EU-favouring migration system.

We have an EU-favouring migration system already. EU citizens enjoy the benefits of the EU free movement provisions, and non EU/EEA citizens do not. So that which you are 'ever more gratified in believing' is already the case.

A Pint of Goo

bubblypop wrote: »

Actually, suggesting that someone's nationality matters whether they are a criminal or not, sounds stupid to me.
A criminal is a criminal, doesn't matter where they are from.
I would suggest the personal abuse is because you know I am right.

You support the censorship because the reality shatters your world view that migration is always a good thing for European nations.

Even the Swedes now know that gang rape is almost exclusively committed by migrants. What good do you think comes out hiding the truth from Europeans?

I might have said this before but the reason I am so opposed to immigration is the attempted cover up of the mass sexual assaults in Germany.

Captain Obvious

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

attempted cover up of the mass sexual assaults in Germany.

This nonsense again.

thebull85

Captain Oblivious doesnt believe in cover ups, theres a suprise.

Captain Obvious

thebull85 wrote: »

Captain Oblivious doesnt believe in cover ups, theres a suprise.

Oh I believe in cover ups. I just find it nonsense that you think police usually report sexual assaults to the media.

dennispenn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

This nonsense again.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12090655/German-authorities-accused-of-migrant-attack-cover-up.html


http://www.thejournal.ie/german-police-rape-cover-up-2568779-Jan2016/#comments

Captain Obvious

dennispenn wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12090655/German-authorities-accused-of-migrant-attack-cover-up.html


http://www.thejournal.ie/german-police-rape-cover-up-2568779-Jan2016/#comments

I'd point you to my comment above, which is supported by your own link where it says they were simply told not to volunteer information but

Details should only be disclosed in response to direct questions from journalists.

Seems pretty standard for sexual assaults.

dennispenn

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'd point you to my comment above, which is supported by your own link where it says they were simply told not to volunteer information but





Seems pretty standard for sexual assaults.

You called the sexual assaults nonsense.

You're OK with that are you?

Captain Obvious

dennispenn wrote: »

You called the sexual assaults nonsense.

You're OK with that are you?

No, I quite clearly quoted the cover up part. If I had just meant the assaults I would have only quoted that part. I hope I've cleared that up for you.

K.Flyer

For anyone interested in facts and figures regarding the amount of people coming into Ireland getting pps numbers, social welfare age groups and nationality, there is plenty of reading HERE up to 2016.

Also an interesting article on illegal immigration and deportations in the Irish Examiner

thebull85

Damn right wing nut jobs..

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-44096595

Wheeliebin30

Multiculturalism is great lads wayyy!

Phoebas

malinheader wrote: »

Anyone who thinks this is ok has there head well and truely buried in the sand.

Where is that mosque in the video?

#fakenews

malinheader

Phoebas wrote: »

Where is that mosque in the video?

#fakenews

I don't know of the location BUT I do know one thing.
It says it all about some people when after watching the video that the location of the building is more of an issue than what what being preached.Elephant in the room. Worrying.

Mosques with nothing to do with Wahhabism are fine.

Anyone who tries to even apply for permission to build a Wahhabi mosque, or uses funds from Saudi Arabia to build it, should be deported.

10000maniacs

Phoebas wrote: »

Of course it matters.

I presume when you posted the video entitled 'Ireland's First Mega Mosque', alongside a link labelled 'Blanchardstown Mosque Link' you did so in the full knowledge that the mosque isn't in Ireland, but you were trying to fool people into believing that it was.

Do you think that mega mosque's funded by Qatar or Saudi Arabia would be acceptable for Dublin and if so, why?

Phoebas

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Of course anyone could see the video was more about the type of Islam that is going to be preached there and that is not a good thing to know.

How do you know what kind of Islam is going to be preached there? There is an existing mosque on the site and I've seen no reports of the kind of sermons in the video that was posted being given in the current mosque.

The guy behind the project seems a reasonably moderate kind of guy, despite his own personal tragedy.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/news/incredible-courage-of-doctor-who-lost-family-in-arson-attack-do-not-harm-anybody-and-respect-everyone-31386019.html

K.Flyer

The planning permissionn for the new mosque in Blanchardstown is being sought by Muhammad Taufiq Al Sattar who is a Dublin based Neurosurgeon. He lost all his family in a mistaken identity gang related arson attack on his home in the UK. and he wants to do it as a memorial to his late wife.
He has said that funding will be raised through his mosque in his home town of Leicester, Pakistan and Saudi.
There are several articles on-line about his proposal.

sjohn3454

I cant post links etc as im a new user but if you google Saudi Arabia + Mosque + Blanchardstown youll find an Article from last sept about that application planning request for a huge Mosque in Blanch.

I wasnt able to see any info about Qatar or wahabbi, altho did see an article on the Irish Times say it was partly funded by "hardliners" Saudi Arabia & Pakistan... (searched Wahhabi + mosque + ireland)

You should also google Ali Seliim + FGM. A leading figure in the Irish Muslim community who said its ok for girls to undergo FGM. He has since apologised, due to the public backlash, but the point is that if we are not careful then FGM, honor killings and acid attacks will become more prevalent in Ireland. Do we really want that kind of mentality in Ireland? Its a discussion the country should definitely have. Are the political parties addressing it ?

Phoebas

On the mosque that just got planning permission in Blanch, here's what al-Sattar says about funding.

The new purpose-built mosque will be financed from Dr al-Sattar’s family fund, his life savings, and donations from the Muslim community in Leicester.

He also has plans to fundraise among the medical community in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where he has worked as a neurosurgeon in the past.

So that seems a far cry from 'Qatar are building a Wahabbi Mosque', but I'm not surprised that there is confusion because people have been trying to link this mosque in Blanch with another on Clongriffin and another in Qatar.

sjohn3454

Phoebas wrote: »

On the mosque that just got planning permission in Blanch, here's what al-Sattar says about funding.



So that seems a far cry from 'Qatar are building a Wahabbi Mosque', but I'm not surprised that there is confusion because people have been trying to link this mosque in Blanch with another on Clongriffin and another in Qatar.

Aside from the Qatar point, do you have concerns over the Mosque being partly funded by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan though?? Neither of which are known for their open mindedness or excellent treatment of women. Different funders, same issues.

jmayo

Well yet another attack on Western European soil carried out by guy shouting ali's snackbar.
Now some will argue he wasn't from Syria, etc or that he was actually European as of Chechen origin, but really it is just semantics and arguing on the top of a pin.
Fact is he invoked the desert warlord as he hacked people to death.