acrossthepond

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.

i agree; it is ironic the way the islamofacists have so many allies in liberal western society. if i was a new yorker, i'd have strong feelings about a mosque being built so close to the site of the world's biggest ever terrorist atrocity. clearly they're not all terrorists. but shouldn't moderate muslims be a bit more clued up as to the reaction this move would surely trigger? This is a good way to hammer home the point I was making earlier. Yes, moderate muslims definitely should be more clued up as to the reaction that would follow. But no, New Yorkers - and I am one now, for better or worse - should not have reservations about a "mosque" built "so close" to the WTC site. The real issue to be addressed here is that they - and most of America's right wingers - do have those reservations. That's the problem that needs fixing, because that's intolerance.

I think you will find there are quite a few 'wings' around the world that are more intolerant currently than the GOP. I wouldn't question that the US right-wing contains a worrying amount of bigotry and the rest of it but I would much rather live under their rule than that of the Ayatollah or Kim Jong Il or any number of theocratic and totalitarian despots that linger around the globe. Although the U.S. constitution has been violated more than I care to mention, the first amendment is still adhered to with reasonable vigour and I would wager that you have greater freedom of expression in certain states than in England at present. Gimmicky name, trolling posts, complete strawman arguments and false comparisons - did he say that the GOP is more intolerant than totalitarians? No? So why'd you make the comparison? Who might you be?

My earlier comment was sarcastic. Safety wink next time. I would not agree with the idea of building a mosque "near" or even "at" Ground Zero could possibly be "insensitive." A mosque is meant to be a house of God, where people are equal and at brotherhood. How could that be insensitive? (And, as previously mentioned, "mosque" isn't even really what this proposed structure is.) I do agree to some extent that it was a terrible idea, however, and if I were in charge of building mosques I would not have chosen the location in question. It was just all too easy for unscrupulous people who want to make political hay out of their racism to jump on the idea. Now they have nationwide media platforms from which to spout their hatred and lies and considering the general level of ignorance in the United States, they will have much more success in undermining what the Cordoba Group is attempting to do than if they had never chosen a location. So, ironically, the choice to build an inter-faith community centre has led to poorer inter-faith relations. If they had chosen a spot five blocks away, nobody would have batted an eye. I question who they hired as their PR people. America is not short of Muslim councils and pan-faith organizations who could have advised the Cordoba Group, correctly, to stay away from that area. It is an injustice that the ignorance of some people prevents Muslims from being able to build their centres wherever they like in a "free country", but the greater injustice will turn out to be the number of people turned against us by the flagrant lies and negative spin put on this by the right-wing media. It should never have been proposed.

Give it 30 years and nobody will even care about us. It'll be Sinophobia. Instead of anyone with brown skin it'll be anyone with epicanthic folds. I'll wait.