September 25, 2006
SEE, WE TOLD YOU THEY ARE ON THEIR LAST LEGS
The shadow cast by a mega-mosque (Philip Johnston, The Telegraph, September 25th, 2006)
When Abu Izzadeen, the firebrand Islamist militant, berated John Reid last week for "daring" to visit a Muslim area, the Home Secretary bridled, as did many others, at his suggestion that part of London was off limits for a British minister of the Crown.There was nowhere in this country from which anyone should be excluded, Mr Reid said; nowhere that could be called exclusively Muslim. He was speaking just a couple of Tube stops from West Ham, close to the site for the 2012 Olympic stadium, where a huge row is about to erupt over plans to construct a mosque. However, this is not any old mosque built to serve the local community. It will be the largest place of worship in Europe, a gigantic three-storey Islamic centre, with schools and other facilities, able to hold at least 40,000 worshippers and up to 70,000 if necessary.
It will be called the London Markaz and it is intended to be a significant Islamic landmark whose prominence and stature will be enhanced by its proximity to the Olympic site. When television viewers around the world see aerial views of the stadium during the opening ceremony in six years' time, the most prominent religious building in the camera shot will not be one of the city's iconic churches that have shaped the nation's history, such as St Paul's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey, but the mega-mosque.
Some days one fears that the real useful idiots in the West are not the moral relativists and multiculturalists on the left, but rather the smug conservatives who cite selective history and isolated passages from the Koran to prove Islam is on the verge of collapse and can’t possibly survive in a modern technological world.
Posted by Peter Burnet at September 25, 2006 8:08 PMPeter, you mention quoting passages from the Koran. This is interesting but brings up another point, and a bit off topic.
Do you, or anyone, know how many edited iterations of the Koran there are?
I've worked in the Mid-East and had an understanding there are 5 but don't know this as fact. Each is designated for a specific area or region. As an example the US has the mildest version, etc. I've often wondered about it but never heard it confirmed, or even discussed much for that matter.
If anyone ever goes to the Arab Emirates it's worth while to see that monsterous mosque outside of Abu Dhabi near the port of Musaffah. Just recently completed a year or two back. I heard the tag was in the Billions.
The religion certainly is not in decline in the Mid East.
Posted by: Tom Wall at September 25, 2006 9:25 PM
That's in interesting post when considered in the light of the A-380 posts. Can we take it that you believe claims of Airbus being on its last legs are likewise obviously silly?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 25, 2006 9:48 PMCertainly the best way to kill Islam in Europe would be to make it the state religion, as Airbus is a state company and Anglicanism a state religion.
That's why the Tocquevillian Pope Benedict is pushing the idea of the mustard seed Church.
Posted by: oj at September 25, 2006 9:50 PMto prove Islam is on the verge of collapse and can’t possibly survive in a modern technological world
Peter: How many people say that? Most conservatives seem to worry that it's not on the verge of collapse. Of course it can survive in a modern technological world . . . as long as other cultures create a modern technological world for them.
Tom: Some info on different Koran versions.
Certainly the best way to kill Islam in Europe would be to make it the state religion
OJ: Being a state religion in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc. hasn't seemed to inhibit it, so why would it have that effect in Europe?
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 25, 2006 10:48 PMIn Europe, it's the state that runs the state religion, while in Islam, the religion runs the state.
Sometimes the Muslim worship here goes too far.
"Smug conservatives" worse than MultiCulti relativists? You're kidding, right?
Here we have a still radicalizing religion attempting to cordon of parts of France and Britain for their own little Sharia states, and the MultiCulti idiots are putting up with it.
Id rather see the Constitution amended to exclude all of Islam from the US than allow one of these enclaves to develop in the US.
Whatever troubles you about smug conservatives, delivering the culture to secular humanism so as to soften it up Islam shouldn't be on your list.
Posted by: Bruno at September 26, 2006 1:24 AMBruno: Hear, hear.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 26, 2006 2:41 AMBruno:
I can't figure out how you got Muslim worship out of that. Are you sure you aren't at the point where anything less than extreme visceral Islamophobia constitutes Muslim worship? I assume you are completely opposed to Bush's approach to Iraq and the WOT?
Papaya:
Sure, there are lots, including several around here. I think it has become an article of faith, especially within the non-religious West, that technological superiority is all we need to keep them at bay and that very soon the scales will fall from the eyes of all one billion of them. They will then see how their faith has no place in the modern world, adopt our clever materialist ways and live happily ever after managing software companies, reading People and tracking Brad and Angelina.
The approach to women really slays me. We all profess to be enraged by the instrinsic misogyny and ready to charge off at a moment's notice to rescue these damsels in distress. Yet despite the widespread demands for reform among women throughout the Muslim world, I'm still waiting to hear from one non-marxist female reformer from that world that is pinning it all on Islam and calling on the sisters to chuck it. Bummer. It's as if the slaves all trundled back to the plantations after Appomottox and said that slavery was ok as long as they had better food and shorter hours.
You can hide behind your comfortable prejudices, but that faith is huge and growing (and attracting many converts)and folks like Orrin, Spengler and Benedict have a clearer idea of what is going on and where the challenge lies. But, umm, perhaps not necessarily in that order.
AOG:
If the A-380 has legs, that could be the source of its troubles. Seriously, what is so radical or crazy about the idea that a private commercial enterprise will eventually beat out a state run multinational conglomerate, even a well-funded one? Surely you will agree it isn't just about money and clever boffins.
Posted by: Peter B at September 26, 2006 5:44 AMPeter,
Not at all. I support Bush's approach, and I understand why he can't appear to be attacking the entire faith.
I note with approval the fact that he believes we are far enough along that he can use the word "Islamofascist."
I also chide many of my callers who believe that all Islam is a lost cause and that we just need to wall them off.
I cite this blog often, and am in general agreement with you and OJ on many points.
My point is simply that Muslim enclaves (ghettos) where 13th century minds foment violence globally and honor killings individually are simply unacceptable, and that there is no downside to saying so.
They can modernize, or be removed from our civilization.
Posted by: Bruno at September 26, 2006 9:41 AMMr. Burnet;
You completely missed my point. Your contention was that the construction of a massive artifact (this "mega-mosque") was a counter-proof to the claim that "Islam is on its last legs". My point was, why doesn't that apply equally well to Airbus and the A-380? Why doesn't that massive artifact disprove the "Airbus is on its last legs" thesis developed here as well as this "mega-mosque" disproves the "Islam is on its last legs" thesis?
Perhaps I should have used Angor Wat instead, but there are not nearly as many posts about that on this weblog. Such massive artifacts are as often a symptom of a waning culture as a waxing one.
With regard to your response to PapayaSF, isn't that OJ's position? Doesn't he write that the war is already over and we've won? How can you disdain it and then praise OJ for a clearer understanding?
P.S. The data I see indicates that Islam is growing far more demographically than by conversion. That data indicates that Christianity is the fastest growing religion by conversion, although it's a very murky subject rife with unreliable statistics.
Papaya:
It hasn't? Then why are they in such cultural, economic, and demographic decline?
Islam's future lies in places like Europe and America where it is distant from the state.
Posted by: oj at September 26, 2006 11:07 AMAOG:
People will use the mosque, for which there is a need. No one will use the super jumbo which came from the top down.
Don't know about Peter, but I don't think the mosque will fly very well and do think it will face similar opposition to that airports will face if they try landing the Euro whale.
As you've pointed out, the opne area where Europe could maintain this enormous boondoggle successfully is to convert the company to space exploration--which is the exclusive province of states.
No matter how much the media may gloss over Islamic atrocities, most people can't help but have a negative opinion of Islam.
I believe this mega mosque is an "in your face" statement to counteract that view and show the billions watching the Olympics what a fine presence Islam has and in what esteem they are held in the capital of the Anglosphere.
However, so many Moslems live in abject poverty, it won't be lost on television viewers that Islamic leaders have frivolously spent gazillions on buildings useful only for propaganda purposes instead of helping their co-religionists round the world.
Posted by: erp at September 26, 2006 12:14 PMspace exploration--which is the exclusive province of states.
Funny you should say this, oj, just when it's on the verge of no longer being true.
Posted by: Kirk Parker at September 26, 2006 12:55 PMOJ: I don't see any decline in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. quite yet. Their religion has them in a stranglehold as strong as ever, and they can do a lot of damage to the world in coming decades.
Peter, how can you glibly say I'm "hiding behind your comfortable prejudices"? Let's be polite here. Just because I disagree with and dislike Islam doesn't mean I'm prejudiced: I've formed an opinion over decades of reading. And it's certainly not "comfortable": like most Americans, I believe in freedom of religion and would rather not feel this way, but like Bruno, I find that feeling sorely challenged when a significant fraction of a huge religion wages war on me.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 26, 2006 1:19 PMPapaya:
Sorry, bad choice of word. The prejudice I was referring to was actually the confidence in our timeless superiority on the sole basis that we have daisycutters and better mousetraps and their culture is so flimsy. I call it a prejudice because people keep believing in it in the face of all contrary evidence. I wish I could ask them all how they explain the decline or conquest of any civilization.
Look, Israel just gave Hezbollah one heck of a bloody nose. The result? Hezbollah is the pin-up child of the entire Middle East and Israelis are reeling in a deep depression. How do you explain that? Canadian troops are out-killing the Taliban by about 200 to 1, but they keep a-comin' and we turn every death into a national crisis of conscience and resolve. I don't know how or when the chickens will come home to roost--maybe a long time--but the number of people who wind their merry way through life saying that it is all irrelevant (or even worse, a sign of our strength and cultural superiority)because we will prevail inevitably drives me nuts.
AOG:
I confess the analogy to Airbus escapes me completely. Are you suggesting the mosques are all for show and prestige and that there is really no demand for them?
isn't that OJ's position? Doesn't he write that the war is already over and we've won?
Oh well, you know Orrin. He thinks most of history's wars were over before anybody else even knew they had begun. I like him as a cultural philosopher. Didn't say I wanted him as my commander-in-chief.
Posted by: Peter B at September 26, 2006 2:09 PMAre you suggesting the mosques are all for show and prestige and that there is really no demand for them?No, I am suggesting that neither of us knows whether there is a demand for them. The phrasing of the article suggestions much more of a vanity project than a demand driven one, just like the A-380. The location, the style, etc., are quite reminiscent of big state "prestige" projects such as the A-380, much more so than organic reaction to worshipper demands. Note that there's not a word about that in the article or your original post, it is only now that you bring it up. You are presuming demand from the construction, which of course is precisely the propaganda mechanism of prestige projects and why I find the point of your original post ineffective. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but the "mega-mosque" provides no backing for your claim.
Mr. Judd;
Actually, I was pointing out the exact opposite, that NASA and state run space travel are just as doomed as state run airplane manufacturing and travel, because they are fundamentally no different than Airbus and the Shuttle just another A-380 variant. Just compare this to the International Space Station. Care to place a book wager on which one is operational first?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 26, 2006 4:09 PMExploration is always and only a function of the state, so it needn't and won't be efficient.
Airbus is trying to compete in a marketplace so it has to be, but can't.
Posted by: oj at September 26, 2006 4:52 PMAOG:
You actually need scientific proof that there are an awful lot of Muslims out there who take Islam seriously?
Posted by: Peter B at September 26, 2006 6:10 PMMr. Burnet;
No, but I fail to see the relevance of that.
To get back to the initial point, the building of the "mega-mosque" is no evidence one way or the other. If there being an "awful lot" of Muslims who take Islam seriously disproves the "last legs" thesis, then what is the point of bringing up the mosque? Conversely, if not, then how does the mosque change that? In either case, the mosque is irrelevant, which is my point.
Mr. Judd;
When private interests starting put up hotels, it seems more like a market to me. And there are all the examples of private exploration, such early aviation, the British Empire, or the National Geographic Society.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 26, 2006 6:42 PMYes, once the state establishes bases on other planets the hoteliers will come along. The private sector just won't pioneer.
Eurobus should convert to aerospace and the EU could fund the space exploration boondoggle.
Posted by: oj at September 26, 2006 6:59 PMMr. Judd;
The hoteliers are already setting up and they're not waiting for some government to set up a base.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 26, 2006 10:22 PMAh, yes, libertarians and their fever dreams of private space exploration--it's one of those tropes that makes it hard to take y'all seriously even when you have good points. It gives off an aura of AV club that's as miasmic as the stench of patchoulli at an Indigo Girls concert.
Posted by: oj at September 26, 2006 11:35 PMYour view is that the owner of of the Budget Suite Hotel chain is an AV geek who knows nothing about hotels?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 27, 2006 9:43 AMWhat hotel?
Posted by: oj at September 27, 2006 9:56 AMThe one the owner of Budget Suites has announced he's going to build. But I can see how that counts for little compare to your faith in NASA, the American version of Airbus. After all, NASA has been working on this without success for what, 35 years? That's the kind of experience that shows those libertarian AV geeks like Bigelow what's what.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 27, 2006 1:11 PMAh, an imaginary hotel on the moon. Par for the libertarian course.
Posted by: oj at September 27, 2006 1:30 PMNo more imaginary than NASA's. I am curious, though, on what evidence you call Bigelow a libertarian.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 27, 2006 4:46 PMWho's Bigelow? We're talking about you.
Posted by: oj at September 27, 2006 6:00 PMI'm not. I have been writing about Bigelow from the start of our exchange. Please try to keep up.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at September 28, 2006 12:40 AM