Dudley Mosque And Islamic Cathedrals For Equality

Comments

View comments: 38 to 8 - 7 to 1
1. 38 DUDLEY MAN says:
   April 4th, 2010 at 12:59 pm

   I’m born and bred in Dudley, and us residents of Dudley DO NOT WANT THIS MOSQUE!! We were given a choice of if you want it say yes and if you don’t say no, Majority said NO, but Council have ignored us once again!! IT’S SOMEBODY IN DUDLEY COUNCIL WHO WANTS THIS TO BE BUILT OTHERWISE THEY COULD EASILY STOP IT FROM BEING BUILT!! Dudley is a way too small town for this, this should be built in Birmingham not Dudley!!

   SAY NO TO THE MOSQUE IN DUDLEY, WE DO NOT WANT THIS MOSQUE BUILT!!

2. 37 yampster says:
   July 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

   Planning permission granted. Opposition petition gathers 184 signatures in just 2 days

   http://www.stourbridgenews.co.uk/news/4470780.Residents__enraged__at_council_over_mosque_approval/?ref=mc

3. 36 pounce_uk says:
   January 14th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

   Wild4u thank you for your reply to my missive. In a nutshell it encapsulates how the faithful edit out anything that doesn’t subscribe to their view of the world. “Not a Muslims”
   Yup funny that. Whenever anybody does anything wrong according to the rules of the west byt according to the rules of the Koran. That old adage is brought out in which to rescue the good name of the faith.
   I must admit I do like how you try to promote this view that the reasons that men and women enter through separate doors is because they the pray in different areas. Really and why can’t they use the same door. I mean even in the main mosque in Birmingham women have to enter through separate door. Sorry to inform you but in the UK that is deemed sexist and had no right to see the light of day.
   Islam (And I am a Muslim) is a male oriented religion which treats women as second class citizens . Yes my views go against that of the holy Koran. But if we wish to remain in the west as equals then we have to conform. You may not like, Abu Hamza may not like it. But hey Muslims love the benefits of living in the west, so if we can adapt to live with non-Muslims (Against the ways of the Koran) when they are paying us why can’t we adapt in which to give our females a more equal footing in life.
   I mean how many females cover up for their faith. Ask them and they say it is because of my devotion to my faith. Yet men are deemed more pious than women yet they can wear what they like. Oh look there’s that ‘h’ word.

4. 35 magnetite says:
   September 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 am

   Good night, God bless, sweet dreams chenier (and to all – this is how I say goodnight to both my kiddles BTW), tomorrow WILL be a brighter day. Ignore my long-range view (and cynicism/pragmatism/defeatism); it’s transitory anyway. Don’t listen to me…as I’ve said over and over again…I talk bollocks most of the time…

   (confused but hopeful smiley face made from punctation marks)

5. 34 chenier says:
   September 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 am

   Magnetite,

   It’s late and I would like to reply in detail tomorrow, when I’ve had the chance to check my investments, sorry, get a better appreciation of the ongoing crisis, and how it will impact.

   One thing which is not getting much media coverage is that it may not be global at all; it may be our part of the globe is comprehensively f*cked, and this is part of the transfer of power from our world to theirs.

   I think I’ll go and listen to the Doors:

   ‘When the musics over’

   which is marginally (geddit?) more cheerful than:

   ‘The End’

   Good night…

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbI5K0AzNHI

6. 33 magnetite says:
   September 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 am

   When we are left in tatters by our broken economies, chenier, we (maybe not all of us, but the fearful majority) will turn to God; as we all do when all else fails – and the God they/we turn to will be defined by the situation in which we live now. The situation in which we live now is frightening and terrible – and so therefore will our God be…and our worship and following of him will follow suit. So…our descendants will, maybe, in ten generations time be able to look back on this time, this now, with hindsight and understanding – but that won’t stop the horror we will suffer very soon (in historical terms)…starting with the asylum seekers and the pikies and the disabled – then extending to the burning at the stake of single women with a cat; or the punishment of anyone who remembers that aspirin can be made from tree bark.

   I hope we can recover from this financial turmoil, because globalisation means a necessary global fall…and we have come too far (renaissance, rights of man, emancipation of women, etc) to lose everything…but maybe, just maybe, that is how the Aztecs, the Chaldees, even maybe the Hyperboreans (or Pangeans) felt.

   I sincerely hope not, though. The alternative is unthinkable…

   [hic! Welcome to the world of Serious Stu(magnetite)...no wonder I joke/drink all the time]

7. 32 chenier says:
   September 21st, 2008 at 11:37 pm

   Well, Magnetite, at the moment we are experiencing a crisis generated by possibly the most damaging fundamentalism of them all; the belief that in some mysterious fashion, as Roger Cohen put it in the Herald Tribune:

   ‘government is dumb and the markets are smart and risk is nonexistent’

   If the financial markets carry on melting down then we are f*cked.

   Admittedly, we are probably f*cked anyway, even if the most financial power in recorded history is given to one man without any backstop at all.

   People rant about Muslim fundamentalism whilst simultaneously ensuring that just about the only players left with money are the sovereign funds.

   And many, if not all, sovereign funds derive from places with lots of minarets….

8. 31 magnetite says:
   September 21st, 2008 at 11:11 pm

   Maybe it’s because Mosques need minarets from which to call the faithful to prayer – which, of necessity, must be quite high. Even so, the shadow of St. Paul’s (for instance and in comparison) falls long in winter sunlight.

   Islam. Christianity, Judaism – even Buddhism – is not the threat. It is the fundamentalists of all, including Christianity (though not, in all likelihood Buddhism), which are the danger; and those fundamentalists are growing in power in the shadow of fear cast by the governments and the media…and our own knee-jerk reactions.

   Fear not – for we may become what we fear…and by then it is too late – for us, and our children and our children’s children.

9. 30 chenier says:
   September 21st, 2008 at 10:46 pm

   I really don’t know the answer, unless it is that Buddhists are generally perceived as peaceful people who live and let live.

   I personally would find difficult to work up much aggression in the vicinity of a statue of the Buddha, which I think is a good thing.

   But we are almost all capable of acts of aggression; perhaps we need to remember that when defending our human rights. We are not, in some mysterious way, immune to human frailty…

10. 29 Marie Nicholas says:
    September 21st, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    Chenier,

    I agree with your post completely. What can happen in a civilised country in a few years’time is appalling.

    Any religious fanatism threatens the peace and well being of the citizens. We have to be careful about that. In France it took us centuries to get rid of the influence of the bigots on public life, and we managed to do it to the satisfaction of everyone. I don’t want religious people to rule my life, and I must say, I am much more suspicious about Islam than about buddhism, though there is a great number of buddhists in our country, most of them Asians.

    How is it that the building of a buddhist temple doesn’t arise protest from the people?

11. 28 chenier says:
    September 21st, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    Marie Nicholas

    The Nazis only attempted to hide their crimes when it dawned upon them that they were going to lose; the most scaring thing about the ‘Final Solution’ was that is was based upon science.

    Germany was not a barbaric and backward country; some of the finest scientists of the day were involved in devising the ‘Final Solution’.

    That is an aspect of Social Darwinism which is resolutely ignored because it makes us feel extremely uncomfortable to acknowledge that civilised, cultured people could not only do such things, but claim that science proved that they were right to do such things.

    I don’t know anything about the eugenicists in France but here in England, and in the US there were plenty of people who were intent upon improving the ‘Race’ from at least the Boer War onwards; during the Great War, for the first time in recorded history, generals actually boasted about how many of their own soldiers were killed.

    Up until then generals who got their men killed wastefully were pilloried but Social Darwinism had such a grip that they said that it was the survival of the fittest, and a thoroughly good thing. As lunatic beliefs go that is probably an award winner, but to this day politicians recite the mantra of thinner, leaner, fitter as if it had some meaning.

    The Germans believed that science justified what they did; Islamic fanatics today believe that religion justifies what they seek to do.

    My father was a Japanese prisoner of war; a slave on the Death Railway. The Japanese believed that they were a superior race, and thus entitled to enslave inferiors; science proved it, as far as they were concerned.

    The State of Virginia issued a formal apology a few years back for its eugenics programme; in all, 30 states in the USA conducted sterilisation programmes – in Virginia’s case until 1979.

    Virginia thought that science proved that they were right, as well.

    Human beings are very good at finding justifications for what they want to do, whether it is science or religion.

    I spent too many years evacuating buildings for yet another bomb threat from the IRA, or a splinter IRA, or a Real IRA, to regard Islamic bombs as different in some way to other people’s bombs; bombs kill people.

    I’m against anyone who seeks to subvert the common good, and I don’t care what their label is, whether they are mad mullahs or rabid rabbis or neo-fundamentalist Darwinians is a matter of total indifference to me….

12. 27 Marie Nicholas says:
    September 21st, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    Chenier,

    Each religion is different, and the extremism of the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, has nothing to do with the extremism of the Islamists, at least in our century. Think that the video of the execution of the American journalist, who was executed in Pakistan with a label on his chest saying he was a Jew (I can’t remember his name), was sold in the mosquées. Even the nazis hid their crimes. Examine the laws in the countries which are under the rule of Islam. As a woman, I am do not want Islam to expand to the extent that it will become the main religion in my country.

13. 26 chenier says:
    September 21st, 2008 at 6:59 pm

    The history of England provides all too many examples of bloodshed by members of opposing religious groups to allow us to comfortably assume that we have nothing to fear; having learned that lesson the hard way it would be foolish to assume that it cannot happen here, and it cannot happen now.

    On the other hand, Islam is not alone in having extremists who wish to force others to live as they want them to live; sexual discrimination is alive, well, and flourishing in other religions….

14. 25 Marie Nicholas says:
    September 21st, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    The problem with Islam is that some Islamic authorities refuses what in France we call “laïcité”, whereas Christian religions, either Protestant or Catholic, accept it, Jewish religion accepts it too and so do the Buddhists .

    “Laïcité” means that state and church are separate. Religion is a private matter, and shouldn’t influence the laws of the country. This is the opposite to how Islam sees politics and society. In Islamic countries religious people rule the country, the law and justice. So we know that where a religious Islamic center settles, it threatens our idea of democracy in the long term. I understand Pounce_UK very well. In some towns in France, the practising Moslems managed to get the mayor to organise days in the public swimming-pools for women alone. When they do that, the Mayors are proud not to be racist, and they think they integrate Moslems. But they are sexist. They don’t realise how they despair many women of Moslem origin, who hope to get more rights in our countries, and who find themselves discriminated by so-called democratic countries. All women are insulted by such behaviours. in France, it cost many lives to achieve “laïcité” throughout our history. It is something which we don’t want to give away. But it has to be said that Islam can be a threat to laïcité.

    Strangely enough, it wasn’t so years ago. There was a moderate, tolerant, humanist, Islam which is sometimes stifled by a more extremist one nowadays. I think such an issue has to be understood and settled before Islam is allowed to develop in a non Islamic country. As long as our authorities will be blind to the real aims of some religious people, they will frighten the populations. If they play the rule of democracy, as many of them wish, they should be able to practice their religion.

15. 24 Rasputin says:
    September 21st, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    How many churches are allowed in Saudi, clue, four letters starts with Z and ends with O.

16. 23 jo says:
    September 21st, 2008 at 5:53 pm

    mosque 4 lyf

17. 22 jo says:
    September 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    moque 4 lyf

18. 21 jo says:
    September 21st, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    yes to da mousque tere should be a mousque look at dat place were the mosque is gonna be it is rubbish let dem build a mosue mousque 4 lyf there is gonna be 1

19. 20 Wild4u says:
    August 3rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm

    Pounce uk. you really are a fool. The separate doors is because men and women go to different areas to pray. If you were a born Muslim as you state, you would know this. What the hell has it to do with equality. Secondly, a Muslim name does not make you a Muslim. You have to be practicing Islam to be a Muslim – that is one who submits…. all you submit to is the Sun Newspaper and the rest of the Media.

20. 19 Help Intergration??? says:
    August 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    This is a real shame and painful to see that regardless of the population of dudley. 20,000 should have had some weight behind it….The DMA say this is going to help intergration I would love to see how they propose to do this. I have already seen repsonses to articles in the dudley post of them being racist for even daring to talk about the subject….

    All this does is speed up my application to get the hell out of the this politically correcdt nightmare of a country….How someone from Bristol can make a judgement on Dudley is beyond belief. I would love to hear David Cameron or Gordon Brown on why immigration out of the county has gone up! Everywhere I turn people have had enough…

    Dudley people are some of the most tolerant people, but bloody minded people are taking this too far…

21. 18 jungle says:
    July 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm

    dairy says: “people are afraid of being overrun by a foreign culture – nothing racist about that”

    The thing that is racist is not really the fear of being “overrun”, but the insistance on believing that we are being “overrun” when we are clearly not. The alleged “overrunners” make up a couple of % of the population, have less money and power than any other minority group, and are the subject of daily unopposed attacks by the national tabloid press. They have no unified political agenda, being split between numerous nationalities, political and religious groups, and to top it all they don’t even make up a majority of immigrants.

    There is no threat of being “overrun” by Muslims. The idea that we’re being “overrun” is being pushed in order to justify hostility to Muslims that exists for other reasons, mostly old-fashioned xenophobia.

22. 17 dairy says:
    July 23rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    what it boils down to is that people are afraid of being overrun by a foreign culture – nothing racist about that, just a statement of fact.

23. 16 saddayfor dudley says:
    July 23rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    aff – exactly my point…because someone dares to object to something you want we’re all ‘racist dudley bnp loving’….’Islamaphobia’….. you’re the type of person we are all bored of hearing. Same old ranting and raving of a child stamping its feet when it doesn’t get what it wants.

    It’s also got nothing to do with people going or not going to church (whichever faith) – it’s about a building (using Yampster’s definition) judged by Dudley Council Planning Department as not meeting local planning rules by being too prominent for and not inkeeping with Dudley and its surroundings.

    Yampster is that the best response you can muster to my factual comments? You obviously miss why planning and similar legislation was introduced – it’s there to protect out traditions, history, heritage.. not to have it invaded.

    The solution is simple – tone down the scale of your proposal and then everyone, and not just the few will be reasonably happy.

24. 15 yampster says:
    July 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    If everyone objected to buildings being in keeping with history and tradition, the good people of Dudley would still be throwing stones at the Welsh from their hilltop

25. 14 aff says:
    July 23rd, 2008 at 3:15 am

    racist dudley bnp loving ..its not our fault no one goes to church anymore ,if they did you too could build churches to your hearts content,end of the day we brought the land all from the local muslim community.we are gonnas pay to build it ,so whats the hatred for??end if the day its a house of god like sikh gurdawaras,hindu temples.synogogues and churches.have you seen the magnificent sikh temple in handsworth,it can bee seen for miles around and also st martins church is huge .just stop all this islamapobia ,its getting a bit boring.

26. 13 saddayfordudley says:
    July 23rd, 2008 at 2:48 am

    Before I express my own views in response to some of the above comments, I must stress that firstly, I’m not a racist, bigot, or any other word all too frequently thrown around by certain people when someone questions their views, actions, desires, or whatever. I’m certainly not a member of BNP or other extremist party either.

    Secondly, in respect of the mosque, I know very little except that it is at the centre of many Dudley townspeople’s frustration and anger, including my own. And no, I wasn’t party to signing ‘the petition’ against the Mosque, and don’t necessarily object to one being built. I believe people of every faith has the right to attend their own place of worship.

    Thirdly, I’m of Christian faith, just a ‘normal’ bloke, born and bred in Dudley, a place which hasn’t changed that much (and I prefer to keep it that way) during my 40+ years on this planet. I’m proud to be a Dudley born and bred, living within the boundaries of all its history and tradition. When I look across its skyline, day or night, I grew up with all that I see….a castle, zoo, ‘Top’ Church, etc, a reassuring reminder of what I am part of.

    Recently and thankfully, Dudley lost Eve Hill flats, one of it’s less attractive prominent features and I for one certainly hope a Mosque doesn’t replace it (especially in it’s present size and shape). I strongly believe such a place has no right to be a predominant feature of Dudley’s skyline. It represents nothing about Dudley’s history or tradition, and therefore is not be entitled to prominence. I was very relieved when Dudley Council Planning refused the proposal, protecting this belief.

    As far as the 22,000 signatories are concerned, there are most probably racists, bigots, or other lowlife amongst them. But as far as I am concerned, the overriding objection to the Mosque has nothing to do with being against the Muslims, being a racist or bigot like some shallow-minded idiot remarked. Incidentally, this is a tedious, common ploy practiced by ethnics who don’t get their way, and that’s not being racist, it’s a fact. I have many Muslim friends who agree the ‘race card’ is brandished far to readily to strike fear into opponents, with the aim of getting results.

    Under current local planning legislation, it’s obvious that the Council had little or no alternative but to refuse this application. Such legislation is the same for everyone (supposedly), in that it applies to many other proposals put forward, household extensions and alike, and where applications are refused for reasons of prominence; not being in-keeping with surrounding buildings and area, etc.

    So the story continues, an appeal against the decision is lodged, then low and behold, along comes a ‘little’ planning inspectorate bloke (an ignorant outsider), who knows nothing about Dudley, it’s traditions and history, a place in which I live, not him, and overrules the decision. In doing so, he ignores local planning legislation, and the objections of some 22,000 townspeople who are against the proposal. His decision is based on what exactly? I bet if his view of his place of residence were to be ‘blighted’ in some way, he wouldn’t dream of overturning the decision. This simply reeks of blinkered political cowardice (in other words, fear of upsetting the Muslim faith in the current climate), and nothing more. And to top it all off, I have read that we, the council taxpayer, have to pay in excess of £100,000 for this poor excuse – absolutely reeks and is utterly disgraceful!

    And so to respond to one of the commentators above – Yampster; you are obviously in favour of the Mosque but you got your figures wrong my friend – the population figure you quote is for the Dudley borough, and not Dudley itself. Most of the borough population won’t be affected by the proposal (apart from fronting the bill). The town of Dudley is the afflicted area, which has a population of around 60,000 (albeit and being honest, it’s been a while since I checked this figure – but it’s there or there about).

    Yamster, you also refer to it as a just a building; not so, it is a symbol of faith, just like a church – it represents something in other words. But churches have been a prominent feature of most cities, towns and villages in England for millenniums, if not centuries. Can you say the same about any mosque in this country?

    So what’s happens now – Dudley Council’s planning department have to wait for the detailed ‘full’ planning application to be submitted, then deal with it accordingly, applying the same local planning legislation, and reach a decision. In its present form, the mosque should again be refused, on the grounds of being too prominent, not in-keeping with surrounding buildings and area, etc. Then another appeal will be lodged? The same ignorant coward will leave his big house in the country, come to Dudley, generate a large bill for us to pay, and overturn the decision again. Farcical!

    If that does happen, I’m going to apply for planning approval to erect a great big extension on my home, and when it’s refused for being too prominent, and not in-keeping with the surrounding buildings and area, I’ll accuse everyone of being racist bigots amongst other things, appeal against the decision, and seeing as how he now knows so much about the area, ask for that same inspectorate bloke to come back here and deal with my appeal, and yet, low and behold, do you think he’ll overturn my refusal – not a chance!!!!

    So then I’ll sue the Council and him under every Discriminations Act going on the grounds of being discriminatory against me for refusing my application after granting someone else’s prominent and not in-keeping ‘building’. Hey here’s hoping!

    And finally, is it true that Dudley Council taxpayers are paying towards or for the entire mosque? If it is, that in itself is an absolute disgrace and I for one, like many others I suspect, will be refusing to pay the portion of my bill attributed to it. As far as I’m aware the Church of England pays for its own new churches, and that’s the way it should be. Cake and eat it comes to mind!!

27. 12 yampster says:
    July 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    283,ooo but who’s counting

28. 11 yampster says:
    July 22nd, 2008 at 8:06 pm

    Any fule kno

    That the population of Dudley is 305,000.

    That’s 183,000 who did not object to the building of the Mosque

29. 10 Anorak says:
    July 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    It’s a mosque – a new building that people will use on a rubbish bit of land.

30. 9 Pounce_uk says:
    July 22nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    Nice article. But the author leaves out a few salient points:

    1) The people have voted and still got over-ruled.

    2) Yes there are Churchs in Islamic countries. But everyone restricts the building of them. For example the old Ottoman countries (Med basin) still stick to an old ruling which forbids the building of new churchs without a permit. (which mosques don’t need) Even a small task as reparing a door requires a letter to be sent to the government in which to get permission. There lies the reason why so many churchs are in a very bad state of disrepair.

    4) In Turkey once the congragation goes below a certain number, the church is closed down,taken over by the government and sold off.

    5) Churchs in Northern Cyprus have been closed down and turned into Museums.

    6) The reason for the mineret isn’t to allow a call to prayer. It was built so that Muslim buildings are always taller than Christian ones.

    7) Here is a picture taken of the front of the East London Mosque. Have a look at how many doors it has. One for men and one for women. So much for sexual equality in the UK.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/East_London_Mosque_Front_View.jpg

    Before anybody cals me a racist and a rabble rouser. I was born a muslim with a muslim name.

31. 8 chenier says:
    July 22nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Sound thinking, Yampster; I for one do not propose to be a Christian missionary in Dudley.

    I suspect that the Express is worried that its few remaining readers are likely to be in the graveyard pretty soon, what with the inexorable march of time, and wishes to ensure that there are some Christian graveyards in which its readers can carry on being outraged to their heart’s content…

    M and A

    Seances! should prove interesting…can you imagine Tunbridge Wells cemetries?

View comments: 38 to 8 - 7 to 1