acrossthepond

I will never agree with you on the bolded. I don't see how you can talk about freedom in one sentence and then say that symbols of religion should be banned in another. But that's an argument for another thread. You're talking about the complete removal of religion from public society. That's something that will not happen in our lifetimes (and something, of course, that I think should never happen.) I'm offering solutions in the short-term. You reject those, but offer something that you admit has "not a chance" of happening. This is more of the clash of civilisations mentality - "there's an irrevocable difference between us that can never be fixed, we're doomed to conflict until the end of time." That's no good. What if the Israelis and Palestinians one day decided, "there's an irrevocable difference between us, it can't be fixed, peace talks are useless, conflict is eternal, let's keep killing each other until one is dead"? I'm telling you this divide between our cultures is something that has developed over the last century. It is the result of short-term historical forces. And I believe that it can be fixed in the short term. It may be "naive", although I don't see how, but it's my belief and I think it's a much better one than to say that all is hopeless and there's no solution.

As I have said in other threads, the only way forward is to get to know each other better. People fear what they don't understand. I saw a poll recently - I will try to dig it up later - that said opposition to this mosque/community centre is lower among Americans who actually know individual Muslims. I just think that's naive. When two culture are diametrically opposed, there will always be conflict by definition. I mean, look at this board, with one or two notable exceptions, most people are reasonable and tolerant people, yet threads like this invariably cause a shit storm. I don't understand where you are getting the idea that our cultures are "diametrically opposed." Are we opposed because some idiot with a doctorate wrote a book called "The Clash of Civilisations"? Islamic and Western culture have influenced each other since the 7th century AD. Our histories, while not intertwined, have always had more than a nodding acquaintance. It is only in the last century or so that this notion of "us vs. them" has developed, and that is because of unfortunate factors on both sides. You see us as primitive. We see you as imperialist. Maybe both of us are right to an extent. But we have to put that aside. NJS brings up a brilliant point about the segregation of Muslim immigrants. From your perspective, you say "They keep to themselves. They don't want to integrate into our society. Why should we make the effort?" But we say "They don't approve of us or our culture. They don't want us to integrate into their society. Why should we make the effort?" Both sides must make the effort. This is why the minaret ban, the veil ban, the effort to stop this community centre are such damaging events and why they must be stopped. What message can these actions possibly send other than "we don't want you, stay out"? What effect will that have on people who came looking for a new future away from possibly restrictive lives in their home countries? It will make them think that it really is "us vs. them" and it will make them easy prey for people who want to recruit based on that mentality. But from our side, we have to realise that this is the 21st century and that it may be time to let go of some of the old ways and adapt to a new society. Sharia is a relic of the 7th century. I have never agreed with people who insist it must be implemented even in Muslim countries - have we learned nothing from the last 1300 or so years? It has to be abandoned. Women have to be given full and equal rights. The Prophet was a champion of women's rights in his own time and Islam vastly improved on their pre-Islamic status. But little has changed since his time. I don't think he would have wanted us to keep things the way they were, but to continue to strive to better our society. The best way for these changes to be made is more intermingling and more commonality. It's a lot harder to hate someone whose children you have watched grow up, with whom you take the bus to work, with whom you share bullshit NUFC rumours that someone texted you. We have to make the effort - but so do you. We have to learn about each other - did you know something like a third of American Christians don't even know that Islam is an Abrahamic religion and that we worship the same God? How can you take someone seriously who thinks you worship a 'false god' called Allah? We have to learn about each other, otherwise it really will be "us vs. them" forever.

Still no evidence that anything is actually happening, but I'm liking the sound of quotes saying we have agreed a deal instead of quotes saying we haven't as seems to be the norm with us. I still want to get him in. Then we'll just need a striker and we should be set.

The Cordoba Group have the best of intentions. Rushdie's intention was clearly to offend. That's the real difference. Your reference to 9/11 is irrelevant as nothing about a cultural centre being built should - for reasonable people - evoke memories of that event. Should we ban kebab stands for two blocks around Ground Zero because the Muslims who ran them bombed the WTC? Maybe we should erect a barrier that keeps out all Muslims from coming within two blocks of the site, since the sight of them might be 'insensitive.' Maybe you forget that Muslims were killed at the WTC as well. "Freedom of religion - just not in my backyard." Is that it? I utterly reject the idea that the construction of this cultural centre is 'insensitive.' Because people who called themselves Muslims killed people, we should ban them from building their houses of worship nearby? Because some Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we should ban sushi shops in Hawaii? Slippery slope time.

I agree. Isn't it interesting, the way this parallels the Rushdie issue? Rushdie did something that some of us found to be offensive and 'insensitive' to use your word. Muslims reacted negatively (and I'm not talking about the violence here, which is always unwarranted.) These Cordoba Group fellows are doing something that some people find to be offensive and insensitive. Those people reacted negatively. Why is it that we're 'getting our knickers in a twist about the most insignificant shit' but they're justified?

Quite a game. They looked good value for 2 goals, so fair play to them. Krul was brilliant as was LuaLua - didn't see anything convincing from Vuckic tbh. Good strikes in that game - both of theirs and R. Taylor/Lovenkrands for us.

As I have said in other threads, the only way forward is to get to know each other better. People fear what they don't understand. I saw a poll recently - I will try to dig it up later - that said opposition to this mosque/community centre is lower among Americans who actually know individual Muslims. "Segregation" will only confirm the feelings of "them against us" that I spoke about in an earlier post where I explained the origin of Islamism. We have to work together. And that's what's ironic about this blow-up - Muslims who are actually trying to work to improve community relations are facing backlash. That's the kind of thing that leads to young people saying "what's the use?" and turning to extremism.

The Muslim world comprises over a billion people. Don't give me this "large swathes" nonsense. There was a fatwa from Iran - Shi'a nutters. There were riots in the UK, participants mainly British Muslims of Pakistani heritage - don't get me started on Pakistan's brand of Islam. And many Muslim countries and countries containing significant Muslim minorities banned the book.

I don't know if I'm going to be able to adequately explain the nature of some of the obvious offenses that Rushdie presented in the book, but I'll give it a go. - In some of the "dream sequences" wherein are contained the most inflammatory material, the book tells a story of a "prophet" (who is apparently one of the book's main characters) who is named Mahound. That name harks back to the first interactions of European Christians and Muslims, where the Christians wrongly interpreted Islam as a religion wherein the Prophet is worshiped. "Mahound" is the name those Christians falsely gave the figure they believed to be the "God" of Islam. In fact, some medieval texts cited "Mahound" as one of the names of the devil. Giving the name Mahound to this prophet character, who is plainly meant to represent Muhammad (pbuh), is somewhat equivalent to having a character in a story who walks on water, changes water to wine, has 13 disciples and is called Lucifer. - The city where this prophet lives (which again is obviously meant to represent Mecca) is called Jahiliya. Jahiliya is an Arabic word that signifies the period of "ignorance" that existed in the Arabian Peninsula (including Mecca) before the advent of Islam. So by bestowing this name on his fictional Meccaesque city, he is trying to show that Mecca (even in the time of the Prophet) is still ignorant; in other words, he denies the revelations of the Qur'an. - There is a brothel in this city of Jahiliya where the prostitutes have the same name as the Prophet's wives. The wives are greatly esteemed in Islam. I'm sure I don't have to explain this one any further. - In another dream sequence there is an Indian girl who leads believers into the ocean and apparently gets them all drowned. This girl is called Aisha, who was the Prophet's most beloved wife. I could go on. Some of these may not make sense or be relevant to you, but I assure you that they are grievous insults and that Rushdie, as a Muslim and an educated man himself, could not have unintentionally included these inflammatory references. The dream sequences of the book seem to be deliberately set up in order to profane everything that is held holy in Islam. I can't see what perspective that could have come from, other than one intended to 'outrage.' *** Leazes, I'm not sure where the source of conflict here is. I've already said over and over again that I don't dispute that Rushdie or anyone else can write and publish whatever he wants. But what I am also saying is that he was clearly attempting to enrage people with his writing and that he shouldn't be surprised by what the result was - whether it was right or not (it wasn't.)

I don't think he even realises that is his point. He's just babbling on his Leazes cliches "they can't tell us what to say or think" "give me the gun and we'll see who the terrorist is" "the Shepherds were better." He's trying to take issue with the fact that I said Rushdie's intent was to outrage Muslims. Which it was.

why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. You've read it now? no. Then shut the fuck up. Have a nice day. I'll say what the fuck I like, which is the point. Bollocks to Islam, Allah.........they can all fuck off. Rattled yet, you sad old man?

why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. You've read it now? no. Then shut the fuck up. Have a nice day. EDIT: Just by the way, if you'd actually been reading anything I wrote, you would've seen that I said I defend Rushdie's right to publish whatever he wants. But don't let that stop you from trotting out the old "if they want to live by their own rules then stay in their own countries" line.

why be outraged ? Thats the problem. I'm sorry, but if they want to live by their own rules, then stay in their own backyards and don't bother telling us in the west what we can and can't say. You've read it now?

Saw rumours yesterday that Stoke were in for him. He played defender for Pompey in the PL if I'm not mistaken? Taylor out to be replaced by a shite Championship defender - you heard it here first.

I'll just interject and say that I do completely believe that Rushdie is the kind to outrage millions for fame. I have read the Satanic Verses and if I'm honest it is a load of shocking, inflammatory rubbish. I affirm his right to have it published, but I don't believe for a second that his intentions were anything but to rile up the people he claims as his co-religionists. He's truly getting away with murder (maybe a bad choice of words? ) to have that wummery-in-book-form called 'literature.' Oh and this fellow is never Fop. Fop would've resorted to smileys long ago.

Scored 5 in 12 in his first spell with them. Don't think he got any league goals in his second spell. We could do worse on a loan.

The depiction of the Prophet isn't "forbidden in the Qur'an." You want to check your facts, mate. @sniffer: "People like me?" And who might that be? It's good to know that you know me so well (or think you do), but I'd like to hear some specifics.

You figured out the quote function! Congratulations! I think you are playing the part more than adequately. Seriously though, I don't even have any idea what you are trying to say now and I don't think you do either. Are you trying to say that these protesters are racist - like the BNP - but like the BNP, should be given the right to say what they want to say? You're right. And what they have to say is racist - in this case, you might call it islamophobic? And there are people who are going to take advantage of that. Or is it that you're concerned that people on here are trying to say that these racist protesters should not have the right to repeat whatever drivel they want to, and that's because of the influence of "bleeding heart liberals" who throw around the word "Islamophobia" to curtail any legitimate discussion of Islam's failings? Hell, they can protest whatever they want - as long as they do it from outside the walls of the mosques that we have the right to build wherever we so please.

We will just have to disagree. I don't doubt their intentions for a moment - but as I have already said in this thread, the idea is a terrible one and should never have been proposed. But that said, it shouldn't matter. I'm certainly not taking the piss. Just to remind people who (cough) didn't read the thread, here are my thoughts: 1. It is wrong to say that somehow the presence of Ground Zero should preclude nearby mosque-building. Ground Zero is a terrorist site. The fact that it was attacked by people who claim to be Muslims should not cause the rest of us to be tarred with the same brush. As has been brought up already, the Pentagon was also a target of the 9/11 attacks and there is a mosque there. Where's the disconnect? 2. The response of ignorant Americans to the proposed community centre was extremely predictable, as was the conservative political machine's response to said response, and therefore the Cordoba Group should have had better advisers who would have told them that - even though it shouldn't - building their islamic community centre at the chosen location would inflame relations rather than improve them. 3. It should never have been proposed, but I defend wholeheartedly the right of Muslims or people of any faith to build their houses of God wheresoever they choose, and I completely reject the notion that it is somehow "insensitive" or "wrong" for a mosque to be built close to Ground Zero.

In this thread: sniffer, once again, has no fucking idea what he's talking about. It isn't a mosque and it isn't even near Ground Zero. Anything else you can be wrong about? Oh yes, the same ignorant assumption that these American protesters make: that Islam equates to terrorism. Let me guess - you're the silleekunt?

You should presume this forum has a "quote" feature too. It's a lot easier to use than the ignore feature. Your arguments are nothing but straw men. You say "horrific simpleton, show me where I argued against this ground zero mosque." Except I never said that you did. So your accusation against me is itself a straw man. Surprise! As far as I can tell from your drivel, you are attempting to defend the US right (saying specifically that they have not attempted to make political hay from these protests) and the rights of these protesters. Nobody in this thread has impugned the rights of people to protest against something they find unacceptable, so that point is irrelevant. You also repeatedly claim that the protests are actually rather small in nature. Is that why they're receiving such widespread media coverage? OK, if they don't really represent the will of the people of the United States, then why do right-wing politicians and talking heads keep referring to them? Maybe it's so that they can - oh yes - use the appearance of "widespread protest" to further their political agendas, which is what you have been arguing they are not doing. That is the islamophobia I have been talking about - the fact that the US right (which you apparently signed up to this board in order to defend) is using the irrational and ungrounded fear of ignorant people in order to gain political power. That's what you must be either too stupid or too willfully dense to see. So, again, which is it? You've already been utterly shown up for your "zoroastrianophobia" nonsense by the existence of the notion of anti-semitism, so let's just hoy that out the window. Same with your babble about the Prophet cartoons. What relevance do these two things have to one another? One was a set of cartoons that satirised Islam and wrongly provoked a violent response. Another is an example of people trying to use racism to block peaceful and community-minded Muslims from promoting inter-faith relations. You even concede that these protests "may be bigoted in nature" but then say you are "dubious of people who become incensed at" them. You're dubious of people who are bothered by bigotry? What does that say about you? Now seriously, fuck off. Take your main account as well.

Bring out your real account or fuck off tbh. As it is you're just a shit WUM. You ever going to post in the NUFC section by the way? Or is that for your real account only?

You will call it out when you see it. Great! But you must be one of the two things I mentioned in my last paragraph to not see it at work here as regards this 'mosque' - and on an institutional level as well. So which is it - stupid or willfully dense? By the way, I sincerely doubt you signed up to a Newcastle United forum with a name that indicates knowledge of one of its members just to get in on a little political banter. So maybe you'll come back under your real username if you want to continue this debate. I don't intend to try to argue with people who lack the conviction of their beliefs to the extent that they post under fake names so their views can't be tracked back to them. Worried about your image?

There is such a thing as what is being termed 'islamophobia.' That is the irrational fear of people based solely on the fact that they are Muslim. It is also known as racism. Maybe you've heard of it? It is not racist to be afraid/intolerant of people who practice FGM, incite violence against 'non-believers', and do violence themselves. But it is racist to be afraid/intolerant of people because some other people who claim to be their co-religionists do practice those things. It is not racist to want to stop this misnomer of a 'mosque' from being built because, say, it can be proven that they are being funded by Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia or because it can be proven that they are associated with Islamist groups from Yemen or Iran (neither of which, by the way, is the case.) But it is racist to want to stop this 'mosque' from being built because of the fear that they might do these things. Innocent until proven guilty, isn't that right? All of this is just common sense and to be honest people who can't tell the difference between a terrorist and an ordinary person who happens to share the same religion as the terrorist claims he does - and as I have covered exhaustively in certain other posts, the 'Islam' of the terrorists is not the Islam of Mahmoud Khan who runs your local curry takeaway - are either too stupid for their opinion to matter, or are willfully disregarding what they know to be true in order to pursue their own agendas. I wonder which you are.

I don't think Caicedo was that bad. Maybe I misremember? Haven't seen him in a while of course. SWP might come to us on loan but I doubt we'd inquire after him. CH bought Routledge, I doubt he'd supplant him half a season on.