Our Multi Million Pound Mosque

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by no1cares, Mar 30, 2007.

  1. Yes or

  2. No


Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Makes you wonder just WTF is going on sometimes.

    Time to paint some crossed keys on the panzers and then go and "consult" with these guys?
  2. Remember not to "tresspass" on their land or you will be wearing a burka and writing letters to your beloved government as soon as you can say pirates ahoy
  3. Where's the money coming from and who said that he could spend it?
  4. From the Council Tax and Lottery Fund - where else? Ken doesn't actually write a cheque on his own account does he?

    The only report on the London News was that the original size for 70,000 worshippers has been reduced - no actual figures as to what yet.
  5. Factual errors in the above article:

    1. The HQ of the Tablighi movement is in South Asia, not in Dewsbury. The group has an Islamic centre in Dewsbury, which is open to the public - and clearly some of the 7/7 terrorists used it, as it was one of their local facilities.

    2. French intelligence may have described it as the "antechamber of fundamentalism" (whatever that means), but the movement has never advocated violent jihad.

    3. The movement may be fundamentalist but they have been banned from Saudi Arabia, so it is incorrect to say they adhere to the same Wahhabi beliefs as the Saudi royal family. The Saudis regard the Tablighis as heretics since they treat the teachings of their founder with too much reverence, rather than sticking to the Quran and the Sunna.

    Given that the author has made these basic errors (and I'm not an expert!), it casts doubt on the rest of her article.

    The planners will most likely let the mosque go ahead but it will be much reduced in size - will probably stop at Phase 1 with space for 10,000.

    Storm in a teacup. On the one hand, a bunch of slightly nutty but basically harmless Islamic missionaries; on the other, tabloid journalists => result= media frenzy.
  6. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    From the article linked above:

    "Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, said: "The corporation has already said that the new mosque will make West Ham a 'cultural and religious destination'. "

    To some of us, West Ham (or at least the Upton Park part, only just in West Ham really) already is a cultural destination. To some, it probably counts as a religious one.
  7. If you're going to comment, No1cares, then get your facts right.

    This mosque is to be paid for by the Tablighi movement itself, not the taxpayer.

    Where did you get this idea from?
  8. Definitely a place of martyrdom - they get crucified every time they come out :D
  9. Yep, every time you walk past you can hear several thousand shouts of "Jezzus Fcuking Christ.."
  10. Is it only open to bigots in London, or can bigots from other parts of the country join in - seeing as the mosque isn't going to cost them anything. How many times is this going to be dragged up.

    I did a quick search on the supposed edifice, first of all on the Beeb website where I found an article on the plans for the Olympic buildings there was no mention of a mosque being included in the plans.

    Sooo. I did a general search on Google. Found this on the mosque - where it gave this nugget on the planning permission


    And finally from the Mute article I went (via a link there) To The Times where it turns out that 2500 MUSLIMS have signed a petition against the building - 2500 signatures in 10 days, a powerful weapon against the building ever getting planning permission.

    By the way, nowhere in either article does it mention Red Ken - a scoop for the Daily Hate or just another lie

  11. I do hope we can have your personal assurances on that one. Will the 'movement' - and I use that term very loosely - pay for all of the additional infrastructure costs? Let's hope so, eh?

    Rather than building new, perhaps we can get them to refurbish a cathedral or two, as they seem to be falling into disuse...
  12. Well done Sven - the voice of diversity comes to the fors again.

    Regarding Ken, he has appeared sveral times on London Tonight (ITV) and BBC South expressing his support for the mosque and sees 'no problem' with it.

    As for Newham they gave their permission ages ago but then as the Olympics mess started to spread, the organisers suddenly realised that the largest proposed mosque outside of the ME would be on land bordering, or even including that sought by the Olympics.

    Also, if you checked back on the original thread of the mosque you would have noted that properties in the area for the proposed mosque are going up as more muslims seek to buy to be near their place of worship. It was the concentration or possible ghettoisation if you like that would result that sparked the opposition from the locals.

    Whilst the building itself will be paid for by the members of the organisation, who will be responsible for the surrounding infrastructure, roads, transport etc? THAT comes under Ken.

    Also, the fact that nothing appears on the BBC website about it says a lot.
    If it doesn't meet with the current NU-Speak of the board and the managers then it doesn't exist.
  13. Pulled it out my arrse.

  14. No bigotry here I don't give a tiny little sh1t whether they are building a Mosque/cinema/cowshed it is the way in which the yes/no is decided that seems wrong.

    If this unelected, which means unaccountable, committee decides to let it go ahead then that's it, no arguing or appeal allowed. On the other hand if they decide against then the builders can appeal to the Government who I assume could override the committee if the proper PC buttons have been pushed.

    Just seems wrong to me.