Plans to convert an old, disused city-centre warehouse into a mosque for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Walsall were rejected after more than 800 complaints were received.
A man protesting the mosque development plans was jubilant:
“It is a victory for the people, there are enough places of worship in the area. There was not a single person who supported it.
Something like that should be to serve the community but none of the local residents were going to benefit from it. It is great that common sense has prevailed.”
Another man couldn’t contain his joy:
“We are happy the right decision has been made. It would have been a public nusiance and is a relief.”
Surely these comments could not have been made by anyone other than the Islamophobic bigots from the BNP, SIOE or the EDL? Actually, they were not.
The quoted comments were by Zia-ul-Haq and the imam of the nearby Aisha Mosque, Imam Saeed, respectively. Both of whom are Muslims opposed to the Ahmadiyya mosque. Like them, most of the protestors opposed to the plans for the new mosque were local Muslims.
Khurshid Ahmad: Swiss Rolls No Longer Halal Shocker
When the Swiss put the question of building minarets to a referendum, the outcry at the result of this instance of active democracy turned into an international sensation. The Swiss were rightly criticised for their overtly reactionary decision. The Dawn newspaper in Pakistan called the referendum an act of “extreme Islamophobia”. Khurshid Ahmad, vice president of Jamaat-e-Islami, said the action of the Swiss was “an effort to provoke Muslims and prompt a clash between Islam and the West”. As if the Jamaat-e-Islami ever needed a pretext to prompt a clash between Islam and the West.
Opposed to the public nuisance of an Ahmadiyya mosque
Muslim protestors who opposed the proposed Ahmadiyya mosque in Walsall countered the plans on the grounds that it would cause “congestion”. And members of the Walsall Council committee seemed only too willing to hear their pleas. Scores of Muslims cheered in the council’s packed public chamber when the decision to ban the Ahmadiyya mosque was announced:
Members of the development control committee refused the scheme on a number of grounds including it being in an unsuitable location and would cause traffic congestion.
Had this been a Sunni mosque, this incident would have been seized by Bunglawala and friends and projected as a mini-Switzerland playing out in the “Islamophobic” badlands of Walsall. The Daily Mail would have been hard pressed disguising it’s glee at the chance of another photo-opportunity of angry Muslims. And it would have been entered as another serious provocation of Islamophobia by Bob Pitt at the pitifully sectarian Islamophobia-Watch.
But when it’s an Ahmaddiyya Mosque being refused planning permission, we have none of that. Instead we have images of happy Muslim community members, and cheers, jubilation and relief all round.
So to answer the question posed in the title: When is banning a mosque not Islamophobic?
Answer: When it’s an example of majoritarian Muslim sectarianism against an Islamic religious minority.
Update: David T adds to the cross post of this article at Harry’s Place:
Inayat Bunglawala has also taken up cudgels in defence of the persecuted Ahmadi community in an outspoken CiF post:
The Ahmadis have faced persecution in Pakistan and other parts of the world for their beliefs. And at a time when far-right groups in the UK are becoming increasingly emboldened and are openly demonstrating – as we saw in Nottingham at the weekend – against Muslims, not to mention the Swiss decision last weekend, it is crucial that British Muslims work with other faith groups in wider society to uphold the freedom of religion and not unwittingly assist those who seek to undermine it.
Rather than demonstrating against Ahmadi plans to build a place of worship, British Muslims could do better by learning from the organisational skills of the Ahmadi community and the commitment and dedication shown by their members towards financially supporting the growth of their community.
Well said Inayat!
This is a welcome step forward for Inayat. Back in July, Inayat’s iEngage website was scathing about the Ahmadi’s letters of congratulation to all the successful Euro MEP candidates: including the BNP’s Andrew Glans:
It appears that Andrew Brons (pictured with Nick Griffin), a member of the racist British National Party who along with Griffin was elected as an MEP in the June 4th elections has received a letter of congratulations from a self-described ‘Muslim’ group. Can you guess which one?
A week after the BNP leader Nick Griffin said that ‘Islam is a cancer’ in an interview with Channel 4 News, a post on Andrew Brons’s website announces his receipt of a letter congratulating him on his victory from President of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat in Sheffield, Mr Mohsin Abbas Rizwi.
Readers will not be surprised that the Ahmadiyya are unanimously regarded as a non-Muslim sect by all the main Islamic schools of thought across the world.
Therefore, to see Inayat is now defending this small group against sectarian bigotry is strongly to be applauded.
If Inayat continues at this rate, his politics and ours will have coalesced. We look forward to the day he joins Harry’s Place or The Spittoon as one of our bloggers.
33 Comments
Thankfully it’s still Britain so none of this;
Islamic Authority in Malaysia Bans Moderate Muslim Mosque
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may012009/malaysia_problems_5-1-09.php
Ahmadiyya Mosque Demolished by Mullahs in Indonesia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie9I8ru1Gtg
In a similar vein…
… WELL DONE BUNGLE!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/08/ahmadi-mosque-walsall-protests
I expect Bungle will be joining either HP or The Spittoon in the not-too-distant future.
A guest post at least!
Please read my blog read how islam will win the
clash of civilization.
http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
No thanks Kope, your obviously as brain dead as the EDL. Why do Muslims demand freedoms which they themselves do not afford to others? Such Hyprocrisy.
what on earth is bungles’ strategy nowadays? what with the imbroglio over the al-muhajigoonsquad demo, piece in the jc and now this, i am quite confused. but then, maybe that’s the idea. perhaps we need a piece on this.
b’shalom
bananabrain
I have this suspicion (or perhaps feverish hope) that what we are seeing in the kaleidoscopic range of views emanating from al-Bungles is a reflection of the end for Islamism, of however a polite an order, across the world – and most happily, in the Muslim-majority countries themselves.
From Iran to (now) Sudan, the people are rejecting in their tens of thousands the religious bigots, the faux-pious bullies, the “beards of terror”.
There is change in the air, and Bungles is setting his sails accordingly.
The old Chinese proverb, the favourite supposedly of Zhou Enlai, comes to mind:
“The wind in the tower is the herald of the coming storm.”
“…..Readers will not be surprised that the Ahmadiyya are unanimously regarded as a non-Muslim sect by all the main Islamic schools of thought across the world….”
Good thing about Ahmadiyya Muslims is that they do not qualify for the government’s The Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Fund like rest of the proper Muslims.
In the juxtaposition of a) anti-religious prejudice from those outside a given religious collectivity, and b) anti-heterodoxical activities from those within it, one should bear in mind that both movements are a manifestation of prejudice. If, therefore, somebody objects to one of these movements on the basis of prejudice then it would be inconsistent of them to support the other, on the basis of reductio ad absurdum. Therein lies the kernel of the conundrum posed in the title of this article.
Calling to account mainstream muslims who prevent the building of sectarian mosques whilst demanding the right to build their own is one very topical application of the above principle. Another application could be to show that it is inconsistent for people who support the building of Ahmediyyah mosques to also support the banning of minarets.
However, such demonstrations of logic would be academic and largely innefectual since most people are generally ruled by prejudice far more than logic.
Abu Yusuf
I am intrigued by your appeal to logic. You write:
In the juxtaposition of a) anti-religious prejudice from those outside a given religious collectivity, and b) anti-heterodoxical activities from those within it, one should bear in mind that both movements are a manifestation of prejudice.
That, of course, is an opinion, not a fact; however, it is one with which I would agree.
However:
Hardly. Prejudice is, by definition, irrational and inconsistent. It would be quite unreasonable to expect the prejudiced to be reasonable, rational, or even coherent in any collection of their opinions.
Nor is this a proper grasp of reductio ad absurdum, as this is a method of proving the necessary truth of a statement (by showing that for it to be otherwise would lead to a contradiction within its premises).
Equally, firstly, both arguments are opinions, not statements (that is, they are not assertions of truth, but of opinion); secondly , both are contingencies (they might have been otherwise) – neither are the order of sentences of verifiable truth-function from which a conclusion of the force required your “therefore” would want to deliver.
It gets worse. Next we get a confusion of contraries (as opinions) for contradiction (of statements of fact):
These sentences are not contradictory, although they are plausibly contraries:
against
These are intuitively not contradictory. I can object to the one person (or group) conducting themselves in a certain manner; whilst, at one and the same time, giving let – indeed support – another conducting themselves in exactly that manner.
You see, it is the grounds, justifications for these contrary arguments that require uncovering, Abu Yusuf, not supposed contradiction (which has a precise meaning in logic, incidentally). Certainly what is not in order is to make the elementary mistake of confusing opinion with logical truths, nor contrary with contradictory.
The inadequacy of this line of argument has already been demonstrated.
Plausibly so. What is for certain is that your very post is a great example of exactly such prejudice, in point of fact.
Abu Faris,
Excuse me. It seems I’m not very good at writing, as people often fail to understand my posts. I then have spend time writing lenghthy posts clarifying my initial misunderstood post. A pattern emerges. Thank you for taking the time to read anyway.
1. “anti-religious prejudice” is a prejudice : fact.
2. “anti-heterodoxical activities” are prejudicial: fact.
I can’t see how this can be otherwise. (See the definition of “prejudice”
3. Your “hardly” betrays a misunderstanding of my point. (My fault, sorry).
4. “Prejudice is, by definition, irrational and inconsistent.” : Correct.
5. My point was that if somebody objects to one manifestation of prejudice, they should object to all manifestations of prejudice, otherwise they themselves are exhibiting prejudice and, by the logic which they themselves appeal to, they are contradicting themselves.
6. Whether or not a person who has a prejudice can be expected to “be reasonable, rational, or even coherent in any collection of their opinions” is a judgement call and, more importantly, not the issue here.
7. On the contrary, you did not properly grasp my argument. (Again, I accept the blame). Also, reductio ad absurdam is a method which is used to to refute a proposition, NOT to prove that is “necessarily correct” as you assert. The method leads to the refutation of a proposition by showing that it leads to a logically absurd or self-contradictory position. This is precisely what I tried to do in my post.
8. To summarise: If somebody holds that an action A is wrong by appealing to the argument that it is based on a prejudice, then they should also agree that an action B is wrong if that too is based on a prejudice. If they do not do so, then they are in a logically inconsistent position. Then, by the principle of reductio ad absurdam, (ie, because their position is logically insonsistent), then their proposition is wrong, ie., it has been refuted.
See points 1 and 2 above.
9. A complete misconstrual of my point. (Sigh. I must be very bad at this. Maybe I should just stop).
10. I was not making any assertions about either the contradictoriness or contrariness of the statements “Calling to account mainstream muslims who prevent the building of sectarian mosques” and “demanding the right to build their own [mosque].” That was not my point at all.
11. My point is based on the two prejudices mentioned in points 1 and 2 above.
12. If a muslim claims that only orthodox mosques should be allowed to be built (and not sectarian ones such as Ahmdediyyah) then it could be argued that they are being prejudicial.
13. NOW, Consider the muslim who claims that the banning of minarets is wrong because it is based on prejudice. Clearly it is incnosistent of the same Muslim NOT TO AGREE that the banning of Ahmediyyah mosques is also wrong. (I believe this is what the original article was referring to).
14. Please understand: I am not defending the muslims who banned Ahmediyyah mosques. My personal position is that anybody should be allowed to worship God (or not) in any way they choose. I believe in the assertion that a wise Muslim once made: “There are as many paths to God as there are human souls”. (To which another wise soul added: “or even human breaths”).
I have nothing to say in response to this, since – as I have already said – It has nothing to do with my original argument.
No it has not. Rather, I’ve been misunderstood again. Let me try to explain:
15. Point 12 and 13 can be said to be an application of the principle mentioned in point 8.
Now, consider that in the following 2 points I am transposing points 12 and 13 to a different domain
16. The banning of minarets is based on prejudice. This is not a value-judgement on the Swiss. I’m not saying its good or bad, but simply stating a fact. I’m afraid you’ll have to agree if you consider the definition of “prejudice”, and also consider that ONLY minarets were banned and not, for example, church steeples, hindu stupas or non-denominational high-rise buildings.
17. Now, consider a person who claims that the banning of Ahmediyyah mosques is wrong because it is based on prejudice. Clearly, it is inconsistent of the same person NOT TO AGREE that the banning of minarets is also wrong, (This is another application of the principle mentioned in point 8).
I would be the first to admit that I, like anyone else, am not far from prejuduce. But I’m flattered that you think my post is a great example of anything.
18. What I meant to say is that, even if someone read the points I have made above (and even assuming that they have understood them), it will be very unlikely to make them shift their position away from an logically inconsistent one to a one which, though logically consistent, would be bland and which, moreover, would deprive them of any sense of group-belonging.
(If fear I may have to write another length post to explain the last statement).
Damn right! Although back home handling public nuisance is much easier;
Good damn secular societies, always making things difficult.
So, to cut to the chase, Abu Yusif, you:
(1) admit that your use of “logic” was entirely “naive”;
(ii) You meant absolutely nothing that you originally posted.
Just so we are clear.
No, Abu Faris. To be clear:
Those are the conclusions you want to draw. If that makes you happy, so be it.
I’m aware that most of your fellow contributors to Spittoon are not so openly obtuse and unnecessarily belligerent, and they will clearly see that:
i. My use of logic did not change from the first post to the second
ii. I meant exactly the same thing in both posts.
iii. What I’m trying to say is actually very simple
I am being neither obtuse, nor belligerent.
You have been caught misapplying a systematic form of argumentation (logic) and then attempting to recant the same.
You are now being disingenuous and playing hurt when no offence has been done, other than to disagree with you and point out that you do not have a clue of what you write.
As it happens, I am a logician. You, clearly, are not.
Abu Faris,
Contrary to what you may think, the only thing which changed between my first post and the second was my wording, and consequently your understanding. The points I were making were exactly the same.
You’re right, I’m not a “logician” and I don’t claim to be one. Logic is tool. I don’t claim to be a “hooverologist” either, but I keep my house clean.
By the way, how does one earn the title of “logician” these days? Do you need to learn about, for example, “reductio ad absurdum”, because of your definition of it was hopelessly wrong.
[I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but c'est la vie.]
Actually, my explanation of reductio ad absurdum was not hopelessly wrong. I suggest you take a look at the use of RA in logical exercises.
For example, you might find it enlightening to look at the way Saul Kripke exploited RA to deliver verification proofs of normal modal logical axioms, for example. The approach is to show that if the axiom were false it would lead to a contradiction amongst its propositional variables. That is, of course, exactly my point – and would suggest that Saul Kriple, comme moi, is also mistaken in his understanding of RA. Mais, tant pis, Abu Yusuf has spoken.
One gets the title by studying the subject at degree and post graduate level. I was unaware one could qualify in Hoover technology; however, given that one may take courses in “Golf Studies”, or “Byzantine Studies and Wood Technology” (my favourite – it actually exists) at a” University of Polytechnic” these days, nothing would surprise me.
Actually, it is a common enough method to discover the validity of any sentence in a propositional logic.
Consider the conditional if p (is true) then p (is true) then p (is true). This is a trivial tautology, as I hope you understand and agree; but it serves as a demonstration of the method of RA.
We can write this as p then [p then p]. {apologies, I cannot seem to access a more convenient means of expressing “if… then” graphically}
The validity of this can be tested by RA (in other words, RA is a method, as I commented):
Let us assume that the statement is false, where V is the truth-value of the sentence:
(i) V (p then [p then p]) = 0
You should know the truth table of a conditional statement. It will only be false if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. Thus we can derive from (i) the following:
(ii) V (p) = 1 – this is the antecedent.
(iii) V (p then p) = 0 – this is the consequent.
Look at the consequent. Again, by application of the known truth table for conditionality, we arrive at the result that (iii)’s antecedent must be true and its consequent must be false. But this means
(iv) V (p) = 1; and V (p) = 0.
Thus the value of the propositional variable, p, is simultaneously both true and false. This is, of course, impossible – indeed absurd.
Thus, the statement is a tautology. It is true and cannot be otherwise.
This is a validity proof by RA.
Thanks for your attention.
For a normal modal logic (including deontic logics, incidentally), one would want to follow Kripke’s levering of possible worlds semantics, to allow for the non-truth functionality of the modal operators. RA is then applicable (usually via Kripke-like diagrams) to test the validity of modal sentences.
My particular favourite is the largely unexplored, incomplete system KHLem{0} (following Cresswell and Hughes labels for systems of normal modal logics). I can tell you its frames are connected.
Deontic logics are generally built on the axiom D (again Cresswell and Hughes) – with, of course, the axiom of normal systems, K.
What I would suggest, Abu Yusuf, is that you try it on with someone else; as it must be crystal clear by now, I do actually know of what I write.
Now I have work to do untangling the mess other students leave in their wake. Goodbye.
Abu Faris,
Thanks for the information.
To be honest, I’m not surprised your students are in a tangled mess if you’re trying to teach them Reductio ad Absurdam from it’s slightly more advanced applications instead of from first principles, and if you’re telling them that to think Reductio ad Absurdam is a method to refute a proposition is “not a proper grasp” of it. Quod absit.
When all else fails, play stupid.
Fine, MS. See you.
No, Abu Yusuf. I think you will find that this use of RA (as exemplified in the post above, here http://www.spittoon.org/archives/4076/comment-page-1#comment-14680) is basic, indeed Logic 101. The fact that you do not know this, or believe it to be too complex speaks volumes for your grasp of formal logic.
I suppose it comes from dealing with joint honours “anthropology and psychology” (or such like) bods… *sigh* to borrow your deeply patronising tone… I suppose I should have known.
Now, do crawl away before you make an even bigger tit of yourself.
Abu Faris: “[Reductio ad Absurdam] is a method of proving the necessary truth of a statement”.
I’m surprised that you are insisting on this. As an expert in logic, you should know that Reductio ad Absurdam is primarily a form of refutation (not proof) that works by showing the the necessarily contradictory or absurd consequences of a given premise. Even the latin terms translate to “reduction to absurdity”.
It is very likely that you are, as you keep trying to prove, more intelligent me. Which only makes your pyrotechnic display of logical misunderstanding all the more confusing.
But in any case, all this has little to do with with my original comment. But I suppose a postgraduate degree in philosophy does not preclude one from barking up the wrong tree.
Abu Yusuf,
I am really not very interested in continuing this argument with you. I have demonstrated repeatedly why your position is mistaken. You continue to illustrate your total disregard for common sense. In the end, you are reduced to ramping series of ad hominem attacks. That speaks volumes. I would stick to your last – you know, that thing Socrates suggested was the essence of justice.
Goodbye.
Abu Faris,
This all started by you raising an objection to my comment and I responded by trying to show that your understanding of my comment was incorrect, and by accepting blame for the lack of clarity in my wording. You may choose to see this as an ad hominem attack but no offence was intended, so chillax. On the other hand, it was you who accused me, after my insistence that you still have not understood my comment, of being a “big tit” and I can only assume that this was intended as an insult (though personally I have always failed to see how comparison with highly sought after female organs constitutes an insult).
Be that as it may, far from “repeatedly demonstrating that my position is incorrect”, the truth of the matter is that you have only demonstrated that my position is actually enirely correct, as I shall explain:
I defined R.A. as a way to refute a proposition by showing that it necessarily leads to a logically inconsistent position. You objected by saying this was an “improper grasp” of R.A., which you defined as “a method of proving the necessary truth of a statement”. In a subsequent post you went on to show that a statement can be proved true by first negating it (“let us assume that the statement is false”) and then by showing that the negated statement necessarily leads to a logically inconsistent or absurd position, whereby the original statement is proved to be a tautology, ie., it cannot but be true. To which I responded that you are wrong to maintain that this is an exclusive definition of R.A. and that it is not opposed to mine, but is actually only an application of it. (Ie., negate the original statement and then apply my version of R.A.).
I could go into notational first order predicate calculus to describe this exchange, but – with respect – I think that would be out of place here.
Instead, I’ll stick to the point of the original article and explain it in those terms:
I said that it is logically inconsisent (and by my version R.A., incorrect) of a person to maintain the two following positions at the same time: i) that an action A is wrong only because it is prejudicial, and ii) another action B, which is also prejuducial, is correct.
In other words, a person is wrong to say that it is okay to ban Ahmeddiyya mosques and not okay to ban minarets, if their sole objection to the banning of minarets is that it is an act of prejudice, since the banning of Ahmediyya mosques is also a prejudicial act. And, for exactly the same reasons, a person is logically wrong to say that it is okay to ban minarets but not okay to ban Ahmediyya mosque.
This conclusion is straightfoward enough, but you said that it was incorrect (or to be precise, you said I do not have a clue of what I write) because of your objection that my understanding of R.A. is wrong.
Now, since your version of R.A. is the same as mine only with a negation appended to the front, it’s a trivial matter to prove the exact same conclusion using your version of R.A. by:
i. first starting with the conclusion itself, ie, “A person cannot maintain both of the following at the same time: i) Muslims are wrong to ban Ahmediyya mosques because its an act of prejudice, and ii) the Swiss are correct to ban minarets even though its an act of prejudice”
ii. and then negating the conclusion: “A person can maintain both of the following at the same time: i) Muslims are wrong to ban Ahmediyya mosques because its an act of prejudice, and ii) the Swiss are correct to ban minarets even though its an act of prejudice”
iii. By showing that the negation of my conclusion is internally logically inconsistent (ie., an act of prejudice cannot be both correct and incorrect), my conclusion is proved to be correct.
QED
If it makes you feel any better, I’m not “trying it on” or trying to “attack” you, but just trying to explain my (not particularly earth-shattering) comment in the face of your questions – degrees and qualifications notwithstanding.
Go and do some work, will you, MS? – you are a patronising, tiring enough twat in real life.
In the UK we have freedom of worship so every group is allowed to practice according to their religous beliefs.
Thank you for your time, Mr Abu “Your Ad Hominem Attacks Speak Volumes, You Twat” Faris. It’s been.. predictable.
For the record, I’m not M.S. (whoever he is).
If you say so, Abu Yusuf.
Glad to see you back. Got any other half-baked, barely understood concepts in formal logic you would care to share?
Hahaha. No I don’t have any “half-baked, barely understood concepts in formal logic” to share. I’ll leave that to you.
And the last word goes to…
Do you have anything of any value whatsoever to contribute to this or any other thread, Abu Yusuf? Or is your intention just to derail discussions and prove to yourself how chuffin’ clever you are?
Boring.
I commend this thread to you:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/4267
Obviously, a bit of self-publicity.