April 02, 2007
From Methodist Church to Mosque in Uneasy EnglandReligion
From the NYT, a story about how “one pristine town in some of Britain’s most untouched countryside” voted to allow an unused Methodist church to become a mosque (thanks, Ardy):
The narrow vote by the municipal authorities marked the end of a bitter struggle by the tiny Muslim population to establish a place of worship, one that will put a mosque in an imposing stone Methodist church that had been used as a factory since its congregation dwindled away 40 years ago…
Britain may continue to regard itself as a Christian nation. But practicing Muslims are likely to outnumber church-attending Christians in several decades, according to a recent survey by Christian Research, a group that specializes in documenting the status of Christianity in Britain.
The mosque will exist because of one “passionate young professional of Pakistani descent”, who sounds tolerant and moderate in the article:
“We’ve been trying to get a place of worship for 30 years,” said Sheraz Arshad, 31, the Muslim leader here, his voice rattling around the empty old Mount Zion Methodist Church that will house his mosque. “It’s fitting it is a church: it is visually symbolic, the coming together of religions.”
This town thought they were “safe”, they were actually proud of being Mosque-free…
With a population of 14,500, a Norman castle and an Anglican church established in 1122, Clitheroe is tucked away in Lancashire County in the north. People here liked to think they represented a last barrier to the mosques that had become features in surrounding industrial towns.
Arshad faced many hurdles before attaining his goal:
Often there was booing at council meetings, and, he said, cries of “Go home, Paki!”
The authorities’ official reasoning for the rejections was generally that a mosque would attract outsiders — a veiled reference to Muslims — to Clitheroe.
Letters to the local newspaper, The Clitheroe Advertiser and Times, warned that what had happened in Blackburn and Preston, two bigger nearby industrial towns with substantial Muslim populations, would happen to Clitheroe.
Arshad responded by doing something I wish more South Asians would do— he got involved in his community and by community, I mean the one beyond brown.
Mr. Arshad decided to get organized and demonstrate that he was a moderate Muslim who could take part in all the town’s affairs.
Do try and disregard the unfortunate name he chose for such a well-intentioned idea. Not that my puerile mind could… ;)
He formed an interfaith scout group — Beaver Scouts — that honored many religious occasions, including the Taoist and Jewish new years. He established the Medina Islamic Education Center as an interfaith group for adults, and persuaded the local council to allow the group to lead a key committee. He organized a series of lectures on global conflict that attracted important academics.
They anticipated and prepared for drama…
On Dec. 21, the night of the vote on the mosque, the council chambers overflowed with 150 people. The police were poised outside. The vote was 7 to 5 for the mosque; there was no violence…
The fact that Arshad was a local certainly helped:
The church’s demarcation as a place of worship in the town’s planning records helped carry the day, said Geoffrey Jackson, chief executive of Trinity Partnership, a social welfare agency, and a Methodist who backed Mr. Arshad.
So did Mr. Arshad’s demeanor. “He’s a top lad, with a Lancashire accent, born and bred here, and educated at Clitheroe Grammar,” Mr. Jackson said.
All’s not entirely well just yet:
But the fight is hardly over. Beneath the official vote lies a river of resentment among those who fear that the broader patterns in Britain will emerge here. In one sign of the tensions, some of the church’s windows have been smashed.
On Arshad’s ideas for his hard-won house of worship:
As for the new mosque, there will be no obvious changes to the church’s exterior, though the cross at the top will come down.
Women will be welcome to pray in the main prayer hall, “not in a cubby hole in the corner,” Mr. Arshad said.
“We don’t want a dome,” he said. “That looks pretty in Egypt and Turkey, but in a market town in England it looks like a big onion. There will be no external call to prayer. What matters is what goes on inside.”
anna on April 2, 2007 08:59 AM in Issues, News, Religion · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
I am really suprised about this vote,it is very good to see that some folks are opening up to give Muslims a place of
worship.
More importantly, that Muslims are willing to work within the system rather than against it - especially when facing overwhelming odds and stinging resentment.
I'm not at all surprised, britain is by far the most tolerant country in Europe. Try this in Scandinavia, Germany or France...
Yes, I think this man should be commended for the way he chose to follow this through.
I was a little surprised, after Jack Straw's comments about veiling and the suicide bombings on the tube, there's been so much polarization. From the article linked above:
This is great news.
On a (somewhat) related note, has anyone been watching Little Mosque on the Prairie (available on Youtube)? It could be a more tongue-in-cheek version of the above story.
The latent racism of the townspeople is disheartening. It's sad that Arshad had to show himself as a "liberal" muslim in order to gain the approval of the council. Makes one appreciate the US.
Now when will people be able to erect a church in Saudi Arabia? Oh my bad.
It's sad, but depressingly necessary, right? As unfortunate as it all is, it seems like what gets attention is the Wahhabist behavior, the potential for home-grown terrorist cells and other extremes. When the default for your community isn't moderate, it's not shocking that Arshad had to take pains to differentiate himself from what the town feared.
But aren't the majority of Muslims in the U.S. "moderates", whatever that means? There have been previous threads here where this was hashed out, but the Muslim community here seems to have little in common with their cousins in England. America's Muslims integrated themselves in their new culture more than England's did, and they are spread out vs. concentrated in a few places etc. Razib can break it down better than I can, hence my choice of handles.
american muslims are ethnically diverse.
they are closer to 1% of the population than 3%.
62% have a 4-year university degree or higher.
there are many differences.
The Hindu temple in Bristol is also an ex-church (I think). In fact the address for the temple is 163 Church road
Vikram- What are you implying? The Saudis object to churches for aesthetic, not theological reasons :-)
some scary stuff:
Of British Muslims aged 16-24, 37% would prefer to live under sharia in Britain, 37% would like to send their children to Islamic state schools and — most incredibly — 36% think Muslims converting to another religion should be punished by death. Young British Muslims who say they “admire organisations like Al-Qaeda, which are prepared to fight the West” amount to 13%. For British Muslims aged over 55, the figures are much lower, at 17%, 19%, 19% and 3% respectively.
there's a lot of alienation going on amongst young british muslims (overwhelmingly brown, majority pakistani in familial origin). here in the USA muslims are busy internalizing talking points about how their religion is about peace before they go back to studying for the MCAT. a lot of the fear in england has to be contextualized by 7-7.
p.s. the article that anna cites was sourced with a lot of 'data' by something called 'christian research.' i strongly suspect that they are scare mongering. i would bet there won't be more practicing muslims than christians in a generation in england.
The fact that that a former church has now been commissioned for use as a mosque is nothing short of amazing in my eyes. All involved, including the townspeople, should be proud of themselves for being so progressive.
Had this been a Hindu temple in India, imagine the politicians swooping down like vultures...
America's Muslims integrated themselves in their new culture more than England's did
one thing i have noticed that is that some muslims (generally native born) are 'protestantizing' the discourse of their faith. they don't do it consciously, but it is happening because they interact with the outside culture enough that those inputs are now reshaping their conception of their religion from what their parents taught them. for example, most sunni muslims accept a predestination as normative due to the omniscience of god. but i have read/talked to american muslims who reject this and appeal to a traditionally minority view which emphasizes individual choice and action. this is in keeping with the 'american way.' the problem with britain, from what i can tell, is that the muslims are creating (to a greater extent) their own insulated subculture and identifying with the world wide ummah more than their fellow citizens. they are evolving creates as well, their islam changes, but necessarily in a direction toward the mainstream.
Arshad responded by doing something I wish more South Asians would do— he got involved in his community and by community, I mean the one beyond brown.
Mr. Arshad decided to get organized and demonstrate that he was a moderate Muslim who could take part in all the town’s affairs.
Amen! The necessity is sad, but everything thereafter is inspiring. Plaudits for Mr. Arshad. That's exactly what we need more of. His persistence and struggle in the face of so much frustration is fabulous. I love his syncretic aesthetic. When people are willing to work so hard and think so hard about their house of prayer, it speaks volumes about how much the prayer actually matters to them. Next time I make it to the sceptr'd isle, Clitheroe may be high on my list of destinations.
Wonderful post to start the week off with, Anna!
I love his syncretic aesthetic. When people are willing to work so hard and think so hard about their house of prayer, it speaks volumes about how much the prayer actually matters to them.
the different aspects on their own would be laudable or praiseworthy (e.g., engaging in ecumenical activities, not wanting to disturb the local architecture), but taken together they suggest someone who knows that the future of islam in the UK isn't going to be simply transplanting saudi arabia into lancashire.*
* yes, i know that british muslims are south asian, but one trend for the youth has been a rejection of south asian cultural motifis for more "islamic" arabian ones.
The fact that that a former church has now been commissioned for use as a mosque is nothing short of amazing in my eyes.
This has much to do with the decline of Christianity in England - and Western Europe, as it does with "tolerance". There are no Methodists to fight for their Church anymore.
Yes, silly Hindus for having a historical memory of razed temples. Tell me, in a nation of 800 million Hindus is this hypothetical "mosque to be" in active use by worshippers ? The point is that this particular church in the UK was in disuse due to falling attendance, a macro trend throughout Europe. Furthermore this church is likely to be government property. Would your hypothetical Indian temple be owned by the govt. (as in the case of the church) or by a private temple trust ? If you are going to bait Hindus, try to do it intelligently
Pondatti
I'm just saying, if there is one country where it could happen it's britain, it wouldn't happen any where else in Europe, and certainly not in the ME or India. Are you surprised that there where some opposition? Of course there would be.
louiecypher
In your dreams that a hindu temple in india could ever be turned into a muslim prying ground. Hindu baiting or not, you know it aint gonna happend as long as you live. We are still contesting a temple ground that might have been a hindu temple a couple of centurys ago, as you may be aware of.
How about converting a mosque in Pakistan to a hindu temple. it's right that muslims demand tolerance but howabout showing some.
these comparisons with india are not necessary. muslims in india who want a worship place would not really need to turn a hindu temple into one. they would probably build one (and to that there may be opposition depending on where they want to build it and other factors). i don't know of too many unused hindu temples that are not probably part of the archaeological survey of india and thus historical monuments. christians and muslims in india today are not likely to want to worship in "idol-filled" hindu temples anyways. the architecture is just not suitable for their purposes and the temple would have to be totally demolished or drastically altered. so it's the land they may want, not the structure itself.
"In your dreams that a hindu temple in india could ever be turned into a muslim prying ground. Hindu baiting or not, you know it aint gonna happend as long as you live."
and how possible do you think it is for a mosque in india to be turned into a hindu worship place without opposition? (or a church for that matter?) and i'm not referring to the babri masjid here, which is a problem of the sort that plagues jerusalem where muslims and jews and christians fight over holy sites, or spain where muslims want the right to worship at the cordoba cathedral.
What's your point ? Ritam implied that the visceral reaction by Hindus is some Hindu specific pathology. Are you going to tell me that a mosque to temple conversion is something that happens without issue in majority Muslim countries? You choose to engage in self flagellation over this, don't expect the rest of us to join you & Ritam.
As an aside, I am not in favor of what happened in Babri Masjid. It's symptomatic of larger law & order issues in India. Simple minds tend to conflate any self indentification as a Hindu with Hindutva
and i'm not sure why hindus were singled out. try turning a church into a mosque or vice versa in india and see the reaction. or a buddhist temple into a church or a mosque or vice versa. again, india is a different society with its own dynamics and these simple comparisons don't work.
"How about converting a mosque in Pakistan to a hindu temple. it's right that muslims demand tolerance but howabout showing some."
again, unless the mosque was on a piece of land the hindus wanted, there's no need for them to convert a mosque. they woud probably just build a new one and may meet with opposition for a variety of reasons.
I sympathise with your point, but as this guy was from Pakistan, it would be more fair to ask when they will erect a church in Pakistan, which, I'm sure you know is moot, since there are already many churches there.
Erecting a church in S.A. is more like putting a mosque in the Vatican. Another better comparison might be related to putting a church in Dubai since so many of its inhabitants are Europeans and presumably Christians.
but as this guy was from Pakistan, it would be more fair to ask when they will erect a church in Pakistan,
he wasn't from pakistan. his father was from pakistan. on the one hand, people want muslims to "go native" and assimilate to local cultural norms, but on the other you want them to account for the manifest barbarity which is normative in most muslim countries? look, when you label yourself a "muslim" you do call down to yourself an association with a worldwide group of people, most of whom are primitive and barbaric in their outlook. but, that doesn't mean that that's the sum totality of someone's being. as the article noted, he's a local.
...perhaps the thread would benefit from comparing apples with apples instead of apples with oranges? the comparison between apples and oranges is worthwhile, in other contexts. but there's a lot that can be said about the assimilation of muslims into the british scene of interest without having to bring hindu-muslim relations in brownland into it. i mean, articles like this would be more relevant to the diasporic community me thinks....
On reading this, I was immediately reminded of my own parents' experience in starting a mosque in our small upstate ny town. Before being able to raise the funds to purchase their own building, they worked in conjunction with an area church for use of their facilities for prayers on Fridays and social events when church actitivites were not in session. I never thought much of it at the time, but now, that easy acceptance of shared religious space and accomodation strikes me as pretty amazing.
I'm glad to see the individual in question in this article worked hard, within the system to achieve his goal of creating a mosque. I hope he continues to use that avenue as a means of encouraging others in his religious community to become more active in the community at large.
I was also reminded of one of the first Hindu temples in New Jersey, in Metuchen (the town adjacent to Edison, NJ), which was a huge part of my childhood.
Try this in Scandinavia, Germany or France...
Try this in the United States. In the last couple of years, it has become very difficult to build mosques in the US.
Erecting a church in S.A. is more like putting a mosque in the Vatican.
Well Mecca maybe and possibly Medina. Saudi Arabia is a little different from the Vatican.
Well Mecca maybe and possibly Medina. Saudi Arabia is a little different from the Vatican.
mebee like having a mosque in jerusalem? oh, oops!
Anna, once you pointed it out, I became incapable of disregarding it. He's accommodating and bridge building and all, and I guess what happens in rural England stays in rural England for now, but there will surely be mosques with proper domes there one day, just as there are 19th C Gothick churches with active congregations all over the Subcont. The NYTimes' use of "pristine" is bothersome, of course, esp. as there are de-consecrated churches in NYC and up and down the East Coast. I was once asked to decorate a former church with a Simpsons theme for Hallowe'en, and said vampires, yes, Simpsons no. I kinda wish more people would go to church, so maybe now they will go to a mosque instead if they are welcomed there.
The big problem in the US is actually not mosques but the unrestricted building of mega churches with health spas and book stores which pay no taxes. Silly laws by Congress have now made it very difficult to stop the construction of mega churches which are basically huge corporations no different from a Wal Mart Supercenter.
it is interesting, the juxtaposition of the "new british" vs an "old building". two cheers for mr. arshad's perseverance.
>..perhaps the thread would benefit from comparing apples with
>apples instead of apples with oranges?
Well, now that you mention it, you can!
when will brown folks show the same passion in fund raising for social work ? why did this guy not fight for converting this unused structure to a shelter for homeless ? why did the Patels not organize a fund raising in upstate NY to feed the poor ? I have this uncanny feeling that this one dimensional focus on religion spells doom for brown folks. Apropos to an earlier post where people were debating western (i.e. white) povs on India. How many of you think that apalling conditions of the majority of brown folks are as a result of(at least in parts) staunch religious beliefs ?
related, there's a mosque in jersey city that used to be a synagogue, still has the star of david in the windows too, i think. it makes me smile when i have it, it seems like a nice juxtaposition of two faiths that don't always tolerate being in the same space.
i don't know, it seems that a lot of religious groups (brown or otherwise) do a lot of charity work. when the tsunami hit south east asia, i heard of lot of the temples and mosques doing a whole lot of fundraising and shipping goods and organizing aid. why blame them for organizing on the basis of something that is important to them?
It's rather symbolic that where defunct churches were converted into shops previously (in the UK - see the cover of Steve Bruce's book God is Dead), or a nightclub (wasn't there one in Manhattan, in the village maybe?), they are now being recyled, as it were, for other religions?
Razib, the protestantisation is definitely noticeable among Muslims in the US but is IMO most remarkable in the phenomenon of televangelists like Amr Khaled.
Mam, the six-pointed star is used as a motif in mosques in India too, and you can see it on the facade of Humayun's Tomb in Delhi - never fails to make visiting Amrikis exclaim.
really? i've never seen it on mosques in jersey but perhaps i haven't really been looking. Do they usually display them prominently? The blue star is a main feature in the window decor. After a frustrating and exhaustive google, I can't find any pictures of the said mosque, maybe i'll walk by later and snap a picture.
dipesh
You are quite right. These horrible brown people are so busy with religion (unlike everyone else) that they cannot progress.
Also, have you noticed the disgusting messes they eat, er, with their hands? And the smell !! eeeeyooooh
louiecypher
I'm old enough to handle that all people don't agree with me. You don't want to join me in the self flagelattion, no problem really.
My country has a problem with tolerans, it doesn't mean that muslim countries are not less tolerant. I perfectly well know they are less tolernt, I had the displeasure of living with my parents in Oman when my father worked there. So whats my point? Oman sucks I certainly hope India won't become as intolerant as that.
Well, I expect the tensions will only increase in Britain as the % of Pakistanis in the pop rises.
Christianity is basically dead. Whereas, Islam is at the pinnacle of fanaticism. Just try to think of the last time you came across a Christian suicide bomber.
The Times london article linked by Razib in #29 is SHOCKING !!!!
I cant believe that British Muslims are getting paid to forcibly convert young un-suspecting non-muslim girls !!
I have no words to describe my shock at this .... My god people do anything in the name of religion.
The thing about Muslims, even though they don't make their presence discreet, they lack much political power. So I don't know why the native peoples of wherever feel so threatened.
Just try to think of the last time you came across a Christian suicide bomber.
both hezbollah (yes, you read that right) in lebanon* & the PFLP in palestine have used suicide bombers. are all the tamil tiger suicide bombers from hindu backgrounds? are none of them catholic? (yes, i know that the tigers are a anti-religious organization). i agree with the overall point about the association between suicide bombing and islam, but it isn't necessary nor deterministic.
source: Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape
Argh, nobody knows how to make me cranky like SM commenters. Playing the "nyah-nyah-nyah whose religion is more evil" game, when you could be having a constructive, creative conversation about organizing techniques, innovation and vibrancy in religion, architecture, community involvement, long-term crock-pot-style conflict resolution and harmonization, and who knows what else. Do you believe in God? Then pause for a minute and think, "ah-ha! This man has found a way to bring his community together in prayer, wresting it just a little freer from the parasites of hate and politics--and maybe good will come from this, for all of us." Unless the facts are mad different than what's presented, I find it hard to believe that Jesus, Sri Ram, or Allah--whichever of Them is in charge---would be terribly unhappy with this story. If you actually care about what God thinks, consider which would be more pleasing and more joy inducing reaction to a story about someone dedicated to peaceful prayer, from the pov of a Supremely Loving Creator---petty, snarky, disdainful pot-shots or fraternal encouragement and joy? If you don't believe in God, then consider taking a page from brother Razib and stick to the objective, unhateful sociological analysis. Those who love God do not need your chauvinistic championship.
No believing Hindu is going to magically forget about the destructon of our temples, okay? Try for just a minute to also remember that we are all human beings and that believing in and communing with a Compassionate Creator transcends the labels of birth or tradition. I mean, for crying out loud, would it hurt to be positive for just one post? Hmph.
--Cranky Saheli
I'm with you, Saheli.
And what's been going on lately with the commenting? Is SM getting so big that the quality of commenters must necessarily go down thanks to some kind of Gaussian bell-curve distribution of the audience and their facility with written English? Whatever happened to thoughtful ON-TOPIC discussion of the original post?
Egad. Back to lurking for me.
That would depend on whether one really feels this is a positive development...overall. I don't blame people for having reservations about this. This is symbolic of some fundamental changes taking place in the UK, and ANNA's heading of Uneasy England says it well. It makes me uncomfortable and I don't even live in the UK nor am I an Englishman. That being said I would agree that the way this was all accomplised WITHIN THE SYSTEM, by someone who by all appearances is moderate, is indeed a positive thing.
razib,
That is a good point you make. I should have been more clear (although it could have been deduced from the context). When did you see a non-Muslim suicide bomber turn to suicide bombing for the sake of religion alone? In the case of the LTTE, we are talking about extreme economic deprivation, coupled with fierce nationalism. The religious factor is miniscule. In the case of any Middle-Eastern suicide-bomber, however, there is that promise of 72 virgins in heaven. As well as a certain ingrained hostility towards Jews, who are perceived as anti-Muslim.
Slightly off on another tangent, what I see is the clash of two civilizations at work here; the West and Islam. Only, unlike in earlier times, the West is far more powerful, while the most the Muslims can do is to throw a rock or two at a Jewish tank. Especially the fact that the West possesses a nuclear arsenal. Despite all assurances of promised virgins and what not, just the prospect of a few nukes are enough to keep the radical sentiments of a certain section of Muslims in check. Of course, it is a very delicate balance, and one that could easily change, should Iran develop its own nukes, or the North Koreans decide to sell some to a rouge entity. The actual use of a nuke is another question; with both aggressor and victim possessing nukes, only mutual destruction is assured.
When did you see a non-Muslim suicide bomber turn to suicide bombing for the sake of religion alone?
if you read the book above (by robert pape) it might make you wonder about the "for the sake of the religion alone" part. i recommend you check it out if you are interested.
but, let me add: n the case of any Middle-Eastern suicide-bomber, however, there is that promise of 72 virgins in heaven. not for the ladies :-)
All I know, is that the Q'uran promises the Jihadis lots of goodies... I have read everything from the Gita to the Bible to Confucius to Buddhist sutras; there is no similar calling to the "followers" to go and attack those of different backgrounds. Whereas, in the Q'uran, such a command is given multiple times.
All I know, is that the Q'uran promises the Jihadis lots of goodies... I have read everything from the Gita to the Bible to Confucius to Buddhist sutras; there is no similar calling to the "followers" to go and attack those of different backgrounds. Whereas, in the Q'uran, such a command is given multiple times.
if you can say that about the bible then you haven't read it.
I am curious as to what interpretation of the Bible you have? I know the "Jesus" character tells the followers to convert the non-believers (no doubt the root cause of the present missionary disaster can be found here). However, he says to do it peacefully. You have to look at his character before forming a judgment, in one instance he says that if one cheek is slapped, turn the other. In contrast, the Prophet Muhammed was a rather violent fellow; the conquest of Jerusalem (which was his idea, and of which he was the leader) was extremely bloody. Not to mention, Muhammeds ideals must be questioned - marrying 8 yr old Aisha?
I thought we were discussing about a British Muslim converting a unused church into a mosque. When did this become about the merits of Islam? Why does anything dealing with Muslims turn into a discussion about suicide bombing or violence in Islam - especially when this post has nothing to do with it.
I am curious as to what interpretation of the Bible you have?
jesus.
e.g., Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. samuel 15:3. i can go for hours. is this news? you said you read the bible...but did you actually skim it?
Hello Rizab,
Do you realize, you quoted from the Old Testament (first five books of the Bible). As for the content matter of what you quoted itself, yes, to admonish the followers (in this case, the Jews) to go and "smite" Amalek is certainly violent. However, the admonishen is reserved for the people of Amalek. The modern day Jews have no pretensions about "smiting" Amalek. Whereas, the Q'uran clearly instructs the Jihadis as to how they should deal with "infidels" in any time and place. I hope you see my logic.
Excerpt K 5:033
Set 21, Count 54 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned [Pickthall and Yusuf Ali have "exiled" rather than "imprisoned"]
Excerpt K 9:029
Set 38, Count 101 Fight those who do not believe in Allah...nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Excerpt K 47:004
Set 69, Count 136 ...when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates...(as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah...
K 3:169
Set 11, Count 32 And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord [meaning they are enjoying their 72 virgins in heaven];
K 5:033
Set 21, Count 54 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned [Pickthall and Yusuf Ali have "exiled" rather than "imprisoned"]; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
Granted, certain behaviors in the above may not have been unique to Islam, when the Q'uran/Suras, were written (the Romans crucified too). However, civil society has evolved by leaps and bounds since then.
Al beruni
Ha ha..I love it when people try to spin a statement and add their own interpretations. WHERE DID I MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT EATING WITH HANDS ?? Actually, I am a bengali and have eaten with hands all my life. If you have any logical arguments post them.
Btw, did you notice how the temple trusts in India are overflowing with money. The Tirupati Balaji, Siddhivinayak etc, while there is not one traffic light in Mumbai without children begging. Why do you think that is the case ? Don't you think religion (especially what the majority follow here) encourages people to be selfish ? Donate a crore in a temple X and you will have a secure future. Bribe the gods. Does not matter if you are corrupt, just ensure that you do your pooja daily and everything will be ok. And oh, that is true for the other religion of brown folks as well. Pray five times and a day and YOU are guaranted a place in the heaven. Who cares what happens to those kuffirs as long as I am going to heaven.
Do you realize, you quoted from the Old Testament (first five books of the Bible).
no shit. have you also noticed that the hebrew bible is far more voluminous than the new testament?
The modern day Jews have no pretensions about "smiting" Amalek.
yes they do. jewish radicals regularly term the palestinians the children of amalek. haman in the book of esther was depicted as a descendant of amalek. the bigger point is that i am skeptical that the content of scriptural texts are that relevant to behavior.
1) psychological tests (see atran, in gods we trust) have suggested that inferences based on text are socially mediated, as opposed to genuine inferences.
2) most muslims have never read the koran. a) most muslims (80% don't speak arabic) b) the arabic in the koran is very archaic c) many muslims are not literate d) most people are stupid and don't read
rizab,
- Christianity is concerned with the New Testament, not the Old Testament. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus explictly rejects the Jews as the "Chosen People."
- Jews and Palestinians have similar descendants; both can be traced to some lineage of Abraham's. So if Jews attack Palestinians, they are attacking their own kin, albeit estranged kin.
- Its interesting you say most Muslims never read the Q'uran. However, that does not diminish the contents of the actual Q'uran itself.
Temple trusts which are doing well are providing their money's worth of 'divine experience' to the devotees. they're doin a great job, don't blame them; i want my Gods big, shiny and made of *real* gold, and i'm willing to pay 4 it.
mam
I am blaming them for encouraging an atmosphere where people have their priorities wrong. Take a look at this.
Here is an interesting line from the article
#47:S.Mittal wrote: "Christianity is basically dead. Whereas, Islam is at the pinnacle of fanaticism. Just try to think of the last time you came across a Christian suicide bomber."
So whats your point Mittal? That to give a proof of their faithfulness to their religion, Christians too have to become suicide bombers? Are you sick or what!!!
And regarding your post #59, 66, 69 etc..are you familiar with the proverbs, "Empty shells make the loudest sound" & "Little knowledge is dangerous". Well, if you havent, then I think you should. You really expect me to belive that BS that you've read everythign from the Bible to the Quoran to the Gita...well, if you had, you wouldnt be talking like an airhear anyway!
And whats with "Christianity is concerned with the New Testament, not the Old Testament" ? The Bible is divided into the Old and the New Testament, where the Old testament talks about the creation and then the call of the chosen people and then the propesy of the Christ. The New Testament is the culmination of that promise made in the Old Testament about the coming of the Messaiah.
Even in the Quoran, the geneology of Joseph of the Old Testament goes to say Joseph, son of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham. From Joseph, it falls to 14 generations untill Christ.
Muhammad's Jihad was the fight within one's self- to fight all evil thoughts and deceit so that one's heart is pure...Dont forget the era when he was born of where he was born. I may not consider him a saint, but he was a great reformer... Moroever, the Koran speaks good, it is only the hadith taht talks about various aspects of what a muslim should do....but the probelm with the Hadith and the Koran is that they were written several years after Mohammed died, which meant that it was learnt by professional learners...later as it started being written down, due to translation problems and of course as it happens in any oral depiction, and with political changes, lots of things in the Hadith were biased towards the desert (Arab) way of life......So what do you think, if a man cannot get water in the desert for four days, he will not say the namaz becasue he could not wahs his hands and legs?
Grow up Mittal....the good Lord said once "let the man who has not sinned cast the first stone. For with what you judge others, you shall be judged too"
Rizab,
Just for the record, the Old Testament is a complicatin of 45 books (as opposed to first five that mittal mentioned) and the New Testament has 27 books...It is true that the Old Testament was in fact a "testament" of an angry God, who used to bring doom to people after a certian period of time when they didnot listen to the prophets of their time....the most famous are the instances of Abraham, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Jonah....several of whom are metioned in the Koran too....
But at the same time God was good to his people too and sacing them from opressors and death...The Old Testament is part of the "Torah" or the "Law of Moses" and therefore the Jewish book is much bigger...
The difference between Jews and Christians was and is that the Jews are still waiting for the messiah, while Chrsitians are Christians becasue they belive that the messiah or Christ has come, lived, died, risen adn will come again on the last day of judgement.....- which is defined by the New Testament...which is why Christians relate themselves to the New Testament....For when Christ came he change the image of the angry God to "Loving Father"...thus renouncing any form of violence..
Most Christians may be ready to the idea that the same God that redeemed his chosen people, chose Muhammad to redeem the nomads of the unfriendly desert region of Arabia...but may not put him in the same categoy of the prophets that they adn the Jews share.....but then that of course is a very private choice....
There is a saying "those who live by the sword, die by the sword"....and maybe extremist muslims who take up violence look at Mohammed and say "well, he fought wars too, he used the sword too"....of course thats a very worn assumption, as unlike other figures like Christ or the Buddha, Muhammad had to save the life of those who believed that he was getting messeges from God and had turned away from paganism.....As you woul dbe knowing, Mecca as the centre of trade, and the market centre was where the idols were kept around which trading took place....when Muhammad said "do away with the idols" that mean that teh trade that the region depended on- the huge idols that invited trade- would have to be demolished... and that was too much to bear for the traders and sheiks..
Most problems that are plaguing muslims are based on political reasons as the clerics donot want to let go of the power thay hold over the people.... and the only way to do that is to put the fear of hell or excommunation.....whats worse is that muslims clerics in many countries are also politicians.....just as it was the case with early Christians.....christianity has elolved over 2000 years, Islam is comparitively new religion hence the chanign dynamics within itself....Maybe after a hundered years pass, or maybe even sooner, the tide will settle and reforms would have been complete....
with all due respect, wtf the fuck is with "rizab"??? my name has 5 letters. also, check out that loving god in the book of revelation, won't you?
That would depend on whether one really feels this is a positive development...overall. I don't blame people for having reservations about this. This is symbolic of some fundamental changes taking place in the UK, and ANNA's heading of Uneasy England says it well. It makes me uncomfortable and I don't even live in the UK nor am I an Englishman. That being said I would agree that the way this was all accomplised WITHIN THE SYSTEM, by someone who by all appearances is moderate, is indeed a positive thing.
But these people have reservations about everything on this topic. Every single freakin' thing.
I mean seriously, this thread makes me want to cry. I read Anna's post this morning, and the comment I left was sincere and from the bottom of my heart. I am a very religious Hindu. And this left me with a smile on my face. I could just sense this guys hard work, his dedication to community, to harmony---to real prayer. It's not about the politics. It's not about clannishness. It's not about war games. It's about communing with God. And I could actually feel that across the Atlantic and the continet and a totally different religion, and it was really, really nice. And then I come back, and people are just. so. petty.
So tell me, what story could they read about a Muslim community that they would find uplifting and positive that didn't consist of a) the Muslims getting killed or b) converting or c) them becoming atheists? I have no problem with people who want to be atheists becoming atheists--that's fabulous. The world needs more honest atheists and less fake religionists who would rather play power games and stroke their egos than strive for love and compassion. But I have a problem with an attitude that has no room for tolerance or compassion for some other option.
If we are compassionate human beings who desire a world filled with peace and harmony and free of slaughter and conflict, then we must envision a future where everyone has a scalable, sustainable, compatible, harmonious world view that's available to them. The Muslims of the world aren't going to all die. They aren't going to all convert. They aren't even all going to become atheists. So if honestly I want peace then I honestly have to want to cheer on their community's moderate future as sincerely as I cheer on my own moderate future. Otherwise I'm being a tribalist hypocrite. We can't all like the same thing (b/c otherwise there would be an oatmeal shortage)---so let's dream up a world in which as many communities as possible can each converge to their own most sustainable world view. They don't have to converge to my worldview. They just have to converge to a world view that can be compatiblewith mine (and vice versa) and many others.
I mean come on, yo, give peace a chance. . . .
#71: I apologise Razib for misspelling your name. What I want to know is what are you angry at? Are you angry because of my post?
God, Loving God, Angry God, prophets, angels, these are what you perceive them to be. I was just mentioning what Christ and all Christians believe God to be- that of a loving creator and father. If you dont like that perception of God, well, thats your choice!
The book of revelation was writtem by the apostle John as a testimony of what he saw in his visions. Moreover if you realy are so taken up by the Book of Revelation, then read it from the original source rather than gather info from Wikipedia out of all places :) And more so, there are many things that are not meant to be taken in a literal sense and have a meaning to them, and Church has been wise enought to realise that...
Compare this story
http://en.ccfc.ie/index.php?option=news&task=viewarticle&sid=169
with
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/world/europe/02britain.html?ex=1333166400&en=7f857fd0d41e4247&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
doesn't say much for the ''motherland'' does it?
You mean where people's priorities are not the same as yours, and therefore "wrong".
Someone smugly announces ''Christianity is basically dead'' and then someone else complains about too many megachurches and televangelists...Be that as it may, christianity is not about rituals and church attendance,but a daily relationship with Jesus where you try to glorify God with your living and lifestlye.
AggieG,
You're absolutely correct. I may not be going to church on a daily basis but that doesnt mean that I am not a Christian. Christianity is not at all based on rituals. A Christian is a person who believes in Christ and looks up to him not only as a guide but also as a friend.
Someone smugly announces ''Christianity is basically dead'' and then someone else complains about too many megachurches and televangelists
Is that me? I said it was in decline in Western Europe. I think that's fairly unassailable. Church attendance in the UK is less than 7%. Over 50% of British adults have not attended a religious service. A non-trivial proportion of Britons listed "jedi knight" as their religion. Clearly, this is a place where Christianity isn't taken very seriously, though its symbols and motifs are interwoven into the culture. There will likely be many, many abandoned Churches in the future.
Technically speaking ( I should admit that I have just the "bookish" knowledge, not a practical one) there is not much of a difference between Christianity and Islam in the core beliefs. If you treat religions as "bunch of stories" people chose to believe in, Islam is the updated version of the same set of stories. Judaism is monotheism-Version-1.0, Christianity is Version 2.0 and Islam Version 3.0. Mohammad of Arabia claimed he is the last in the chain of prophets that includes the biblical prophets too. So exchanging places of worship should not be a big deal. They don't have idols anyways (except for maybe a few Christ and Mary ??).
Changing a monotheist place of worship to a Hindu place of worship or vice versa could require structural changes like installation / demolition of idols.
'The big problem in the US is actually not mosques but the unrestricted building of mega churches with health spas and book stores which pay no taxes. Silly laws by Congress have now made it very difficult to stop the construction of mega churches which are basically huge corporations no different from a Wal Mart Supercenter. '
AMFD-
Have you heard of Ole Anthony, in Dallas, TX? He's a renegade preacher I like to listen to. (Even though I'm an atheist, I like his politics and dark & dirty sense of humor.)
He's in agreement with you on all these major points.He also runs an investigation agency that specializes in rooting out corrupt/exploitive mega churches and religious leaders. He's the guy that helped bring down Rev. Robert Tilton.
I'm a believing Hindu, and I don't have a historical memory of razed temples. I refuse to get upset about the loss of a temple centuries before I was born. Yes, it is terrible when someone's place of worship is destroyed, but I don't have any emotional link to those historical temples. Probably some of my ancestors wouldn't have been allowed in them anyway.
It's absurd for Hindu Indians, a large majority in a large country, to develop a victim complex.
Excellent points. I agree with you. But I hope you will be met halfway.
Desishiksa, I don't want to appear to disagree with you all the time. In fact I do agree with probably a good 50% of your comments in general. But let's take your statement above. OK, if your ancestors would not have been allowed in, that's one reason not to care about destroyed temples. Also, at a certain point, history is history, and bygones are bygones. And more than anything else, destroyed temples indicate the weakness, disunity, and shortsightedness of the Indian people themselves. But I think two points have to be kept in mind...one is that those destroyed temples represented big parts of your cultural and artistic heritage (this applies even if you are an athiest) which has been taken from you. So in that sense you could have an emotional link to them. Furthermore, the temples were destroyed as part of an ideology WHICH STILL EXISTS. This doesn't take away from Saheli's excellent points about peace and finding common ground...but means you have to be aware of your history, feel connected to it, and be alert so that no one can do that to you again ('you' in a general sense).
"I am blaming them for encouraging an atmosphere where people have their priorities wrong. Take a look at this."
not sure about this temple, but the indian govt. controls many hindu temples, especially the ones that attract a lot of offerings, like the temple at Tirupati. so perhaps it's the government that's not getting its priorities straight, more than the temples. tirupati has a good record for its charitable work despite govt. attempts to fleece it once in awhile. if the govt. takes money from the temple and then misuses it, whose fault is it?
dipesh, yes cause one temple = all religious organizations of brownz everywhere?
the man in question seems to be a contributing member of the community and seems to be using his status to promote tolerance. so how, by your original comment, is he exactly "spelling doom for brown folks." let people contribute how they feel comfortable, not based on what you feel is more important.
Maybe I need to clarify my point a little. I agree with what you said but I also believe that the Babri Masjid is part of my cultural and artistic heritage as an Indian. It's not being Hindu that makes me care about temples being razed; it's being a human being. If the temples at Khajuraho, for example, were destroyed, of course I would be upset. But no more upset than I would be if Humayun's tomb or Fatehpur Sikri were destroyed, and those were built by Muslim rulers. What I am objecting to is the idea that Hindus are victims in India, and that we have a collective memory of slights against us as a religion. I refuse to be a part of that. And I guess I don't see it as what "they" did to "my" people, I see it as part of a collective history of the subcontinent that we all share.
A few thoughts, in order to improve the direction of this thread (and really, this blog). This is not aimed at anyone in particular, nor is this meant to show favoritism to certain regulars. SM is like your parents; we love all of you equally (but we are a little extra partial to the youngest, because they're sho cuuuute):
1) Razib's name is Razib. Not Rizab. Sloppy at best, petty at worst to do that to someone you're discussing something with- I'm sure you would want the same courtesy. You deserve it.
2) FYI- Razib knows more about Christianity (and ____, and ____ ) than anyone on this site, despite his handle. Please don't bore everyone else by trying to teach him basic things which he (and we) already know. ;)
3) I think (if you need examples) commenters Saheli, Desikshiksa, Amitabh, CoachDiesel and AMfD have the right ideas in terms of STAYING ON TOPIC. What does it mean to work within the system? To be a moderate Muslim in England? To recycle houses of worship or raze them? What about communities who tried to build mosques/churches/temples in this country? It would be great if we could steer everything that-a-way vs. every which way.
4) I realize that some of you are new, so for example, you may not know who certain people are, what they know OR how aggressively we at SM ban/delete/moderate. These things only come with time and its why a lot of our commenters lurk for quite a while before jumping in varsity swimming. I'm not saying that's what you must do, but I will say the more successful and respected members of this community have done just that. Thoughtful > thoughtless.
5) Unless you are eloquent (coughSahelicough) and only wax on extensively on the rare occasion when it's merited, please try to keep comments succinct. It keeps the thread easier to follow and improves the level of debate. If you find that you have so much to say that you can't follow this very important bit of blog etiquette, then that is a sign that YOU need your own soapbox; blogger, friendster et al offer free options for making your voice heard. We're not trying to censor you, we're just telling you to bring your "A" game and that means being concise and clear.
I'd really hate to close this thread, but I am the visionary and omniscient intern who can see around corners. ;) I can already sense where this is going and I'd hate for what is usually inevitable to occur.
Thanks for reading, for coming here and spoiling us with your presence and for allowing me to be an exception to the anti-very-long-comment rule. :) w00t gators!
I don't have any emotional link to those historical temples.
Alright fine, in my ire I made a sweeping statement that was too strong. I apologize. I do have an emotional tie to many razed temples because in my theology (and it's not an uncommon one at all), an installed Deity is always sacred, and having read about certain temples and then not being able to go see them is a little upsetting. What I do not do is visit those deeds of the ancestors on the heads of some people who may or may no be their descendants, and while it's important to me to preserve old temples (I don't like the phrase historical temples) it's also important to me to make sure they are actually prayed and worshipped in, not held up as mere tokens in a power-play.
I think we're mostly in politico-social agreement.
Amitabh, I'll be met anyway I can be. But half-way seems like a huge overestimate.
AMFD-
Have you heard of Ole Anthony, in Dallas, TX? He's a renegade preacher I like to listen to. (Even though I'm an atheist, I like his politics and dark & dirty sense of humor.)
No, I have not. I will look him up.
mam
I gave one example. Obvs. there are plenty others. When you make a point you illustrate that a few examples. The equation was entirely drawn by you.
You are getting two things mixed up here. First, I don't agree that building a mosque is the best way to promote tolerance. That building institutionalizes a belief system that divides the world into believers and non-believers and propagates a theory that just virtue of being born in a pagan belief system you are going to be burnt in imaginary hellfire. Not exactly my idea of tolerance. There are far better ways to promote tolerance. BUT, my original post was not addressing this issue at all. What could be "spelling doom for brown folks" is not this one incident but our individual greed fuelled by religious practices. Simple questions, why does he build this mosque ? He wants to secure a place in heaven. Why does one offer cash and jewels to the Hindu deities ? One wants to gain some tangible benefits. Why ganesh pooja ? Wealth. These things too me, reflect an unabashed emphasis on the individual self and not humanity as a whole. By encouraging such activities these religions have created a society, which is so self absorbed that it's completely oblivious of it's surrounding. Can you deny that we generally have an apathy towards the poor, towards the dalit, towards the underprivileged ? Because that prasad at the local temple will rid us of all guilt, will help us achieve all our material pleasures, but completely excludes our social responsibilities.
"but our individual greed fuelled by religious practices. "
religious practices are not the only thing that fuel greed. what about all our individual consumer purchases? can you honestly say that everything you have either bought or spent money on was worth it and not fuelled by a desire to gain some non-essential material pleasure just for the fun of it? be it clothes, car, computer, fancy cookware, overpriced "designer" coffees, movie tickets, tickets to sporting events to see highly overpaid athletes - how much of that could have instead been used for a better purpose? do you feel guilty when you have a good meal at a restaurant and realize that the amount your whole group spent on it could have sustained another family for probably weeks or months? why do we all strive for a better education or a higher-paying job? most people could live simply on a fraction of what they earn if they really put their mind to it. i would bet that most of us, no matter how high minded we are about making the world a better place, will end up spending far more (a disproportionate and probably unnecessary amount) on ourselves than we would ever do on others (not related to us).
You are right. That viewpoint requires a certain maturity and detachment. But it's hard to distance ourselves from something we still may feel is so close to our identity. When Deepa Mehta was in Delhi in the 1990s filming parts of the movie "Earth" (which was depicting events of Partition in 1947 Lahore), local Hindu/Muslim/Sikh bystanders would get inflammed just watching the actors do their thing, and Mehta almost had a communal riot break out on her hands, all because of a movie. I also see Indian history as a collective experience that shaped all of us and that we all share...but what makes me wary is the suspicion that the same mindset which caused so much destruction and havoc in the past, is still alive and well today in certain quarters, even if only among fringe groups.
Many Sikh Gurdwaras in the US and UK are old churches too. In fact, one just opened on New Year's Eve in Detroit, near here. I'm not sure whether there were any onjections from the local communities. I think it sends out a great ecumenical message- all organized religions need large spaces for their congregations, so any empty building built that purpose should work. It would be interesting to see if there were any issues from the other side: i.e. have there been any Muslims/Sikhs who objected to purchasing an empty church building to build a mosque/gurdwara?
It may be also that my viewpoint is a result of a concerted effort on the part of the Indian government to create a pan-Indian identity through subliminal advertising on Doordarshan--I'm not kidding--that was somewhat successful. I think it's also hard for people not to be emotional when they had family directly affected by events in the subcontinent's history--Partition, communal riots, war etc. I remember being particularly upset by the movie Earth so I can imagine it must have reopened some relatively fresh wounds for a lot of people. I don't blame people for being emotional about events that directly affected their lives/identity--it's just when other people start to exploit that emotion for political gain that things get dangerous.
I think this is great progress.
Why let a church get run down when another faith can put it to good use. I have seen an old synagogue in Bedfordshire be changed to an Islamic center...go figure.
I certainly feel it shows tolerance and disagree with comments that oppose these uses.
I hope this mosque promotes respect of all faiths and less Islamaphobia. I like hearing all the other stories of placs of worship of one faith being used by another.
Dear SM Intern,
1. Regarding Razib's name, it was an honest mistake, for which I apologised later!
2. I didnot know that "Razib knows more about Christianity (and ____, and ____ ) than anyone on this site"....I dont know what statistics you used to make that statement.
3. People were making half baked and absolutely ridiculous statements regarding both religions and quoting unnecessarily from scriptures to look down upon others- all I did was give the exact figures (no of books) and try to undo the religion-bashing that some had gotten into....Not trying to push something I know down someone else's throught...
No offense meant- none taken.
PS: maybe you should consider me in the category of "but we are a little extra partial to the youngest, because they're sho cuuuute).
Come on Asian folks sing it
Multi Culti karaven badala nahin mangave
Did anyone watch The War Within that's been airing on CNN for the past few days? Here's