![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
( Read more... )I fully recognise that sometimes Muslims ought to protest against other Muslims. The obvious example is the protests by the British Muslims For Secular Democracy and Muslims4UK in opposition to the extremist group Islam4UK (which is a spin-off group from Al Muhajiroun). However, the Ahmadi's are simply asking for a place of worship in a disused building. By objecting to their request for a place to worship simply because they don't agree with Ahmadi beliefs, they are opening the floodgates for the right-wing bastards currently expressing the same sentiment towards Islam as a whole. There are measures being taken in both Jordan and Egypt to undermine Shias and Ismailis. Not only is that kind of bigotry not acceptable, but in the UK where Sunni Islam does not have the same priveledged position that kind of sentiment is liable to backfire badly. Religious groups often fear heretics more than non-believers and it seems that despite the message of unity one would hope the Hajj to teach, this is still true in Islam.Freedom of worship for Ahmadis
Inayat Bunglawala
Tuesday 8 December 2009
Here we go again. The Wolverhampton Express and Star reports that an "application to build a mosque" has been refused by a town council, this time Walsall council. The proposal to convert an empty town warehouse into a place of worship was rejected by planning officers on the grounds of it being an "unsuitable location" and that it would cause "traffic congestion". In addition, more than 800 complaints were received from local residents.
But wait – what's this? Those doing the complaining appeared to be mainly Muslims. A photograph in a local paper shows Muslims demonstrating against the plans and holding up placards saying "Listen to police advice" and "No more congestion". What's going on? The news report quotes a local Muslim as saying "There are enough places of worship in the area." Another added: "We are happy the right decision has been made. It would have been a public nuisance and is a relief." What's going on?
Well, it turns out that the planning application had been submitted by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association UK. The Ahmadis derive their name from the 19th century Indian figure Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who claimed to be the incarnation of the promised Messiah. Jesus – according to the Ahmadis – survived the crucifixion and went to live in India to administer to the lost tribes of Israel. The overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims rejected Ghulam Ahmad's claims and to this day his followers, the Ahmadis, are regarded as being non-Muslims by a consensus of Islamic scholars across the world because their beliefs contradict the Islamic teaching on the finality of Muhammad's prophethood. The Ahmadis themselves, of course, see it differently.
This is my previous extra-long confused post, re-cut to make more sense and be FAR more readable:
Baroness Warsi and the National Secular Society
The BHA recently criticised comments by two prominent political figures: Tony Blair (for whom I feel no explanation is required) and Baroness Warsi (whose comments can be found here). Baroness Warsi is a Muslim politician in the Conservative party.
The National Secular Society quoted Baroness Warsi's description of "state multiculturalism" where she defines it as follows:
Both are united against "state multiculturalism" - whatever the hell that is.
So where did the term 'state multiculturalism' come from?
( Read more... )
Problems with the Conservatives' critique of 'state multiculturalism'
( Read more... )What should the National Secular Society have praised Baroness Warsi for saying?
( Read more... )
Baroness Warsi's absurd examples of persecution. (The bit the National Secular Society were absolutely right about.)
( Read more... )
Baroness Warsi and the National Secular Society
The BHA recently criticised comments by two prominent political figures: Tony Blair (for whom I feel no explanation is required) and Baroness Warsi (whose comments can be found here). Baroness Warsi is a Muslim politician in the Conservative party.
The National Secular Society quoted Baroness Warsi's description of "state multiculturalism" where she defines it as follows:
"Firstly, when we as Conservatives talk about multiculturalism we are not talking about the building of temples, or synagogues or mosques in any neighbourhood. For us that is religious pluralism and it is a defining British characteristic that began with the non-conformists.The National Secular Society then respond by saying:
"For me, state multiculturalism, as I like to define it is forcing Britain’s diverse communities to still define themselves as different, patronisingly special and tempting them to compete against each other for public funds."
"We have been saying this for the past ten years. So far so good."Sorry, but no it's not bloody good! Why the hell shouldn't religious groups compete for public funds just like everyone else? It's actually in this criticism of "state multiculturalism" that Baroness Warsi's criticism of secularism is most clear and obvious. She doesn't think that religious groups should compete against each other along with all the other stances vying for public attention. Instead she thinks religions should be granted priveledges by default.
Both are united against "state multiculturalism" - whatever the hell that is.
So where did the term 'state multiculturalism' come from?
( Read more... )
Problems with the Conservatives' critique of 'state multiculturalism'
( Read more... )What should the National Secular Society have praised Baroness Warsi for saying?
( Read more... )
Baroness Warsi's absurd examples of persecution. (The bit the National Secular Society were absolutely right about.)
( Read more... )
Tags:
Considering a number of articles here.
First an article by Khaled Diab entitled "The Muslim Faithless" considers Salman Rushdie's novel 'The Satanic Verses' 18 years later than its original release. It also considers the outrages over the Danish cartoons which puts it about 2 years overdue for that too. Nevertheless Diab makes a good point about the kind of mentality behind the protests by Muslims against both Rushdie's book and the Danish cartoons:
"But, like other examples of book burnings - and cartoon rage - throughout history, the fury had little to do with Rushdie or his book, since none of the angry mobs have ever actually read it. It is a reaction to western hegemony, socio-economic stagnation, poverty, dictatorship and the slow death of the modern Muslim secular dream."
First an article by Khaled Diab entitled "The Muslim Faithless" considers Salman Rushdie's novel 'The Satanic Verses' 18 years later than its original release. It also considers the outrages over the Danish cartoons which puts it about 2 years overdue for that too. Nevertheless Diab makes a good point about the kind of mentality behind the protests by Muslims against both Rushdie's book and the Danish cartoons:
"But, like other examples of book burnings - and cartoon rage - throughout history, the fury had little to do with Rushdie or his book, since none of the angry mobs have ever actually read it. It is a reaction to western hegemony, socio-economic stagnation, poverty, dictatorship and the slow death of the modern Muslim secular dream."
( Read more... )
