I was at the public meeting in Newton Mearns last night where the proposal to build a long-awaited East Renfrewshire mosque was discussed by the local community council.
The Herald noted that over 500 people were in attendance, where normally there would be 20 for such a planning application. One local resident was quoted in today's Herald saying:
"Plans have been lodged for a huge floodlit building that would be more at home in Mecca than Newton Mearns. Obviously the local residents are up in arms about this."
Despite this, the opposers of the mosque claim that they would be against any sort of building on the site, and are not motivated by racism or Islamophobia. The meeting was kept rigidly on the topic of the planning application and people trying to explain what a mosque was were closed down by a hostile audience.
Speaking to Muslims in attendance afterwards, there was a feeling of intimidation from an almost baying crowd. Time after time, mosque opposers claimed they favoured the building of a mosque in the local authority area - just not in their back yard. They would have been as well saying that "We are in favour of Asians, just not in this country".
What was clear was that the opposition to the mosque were extremely organised, well informed and had completed meticulous research. The same was not coming forward from the group of men who have put forward the mosque proposal. Most Muslims at the meeting didn't even know it was taking place till a day or two beforehand. This will have to be rectified if the mosque development is to go ahead.
Nevertheless the arguments put forward were inconsistent and easily debunked. The site in question is a strip of grassland, and cherished greenbelt land according to the NIMBY crew. Some of this lot claimed that Muslims were offered a spot in Rouken Glen Park but refused it for being a couple of miles away. If this is about greenbelt, then what on earth is a park? If this is about greenbelt, then what is that forest land across the adjacent Capelrig Road? The opposer-in-chief from the stage at one point said that this was a leafy suburb and there shouldn't be any building here. Isn't this inconsistent with claimed support for a mosque elsewhere in this suburban area?
In fairness to him, he also said that the community council had unsuccessfully opposed all sorts of building developments in the local area through the years. It's true to say that there is never a lack of opposition to new developments of any kind. Hopefully they'll then be as unsuccessful in this campaign as they have been in many others.
UPDATE: Someone has brought to my attention an interesting point - who were these 500 people? There are only about 15 houses on the street in question, so if husband and wife from each were there, that's 30. I'd say 50 were Muslims. Who were the other 420? And why are they so bothered?
There should be no mosque. This is Europe and not Asia. The wishes of the native population are of more importance than those of a bunch of Third World immigrants. Europeans don't want Islam or Moslems in their countries. The Marxist revolution which allowed Moslems to enter the country has failed. The right wing parties are rising whilst the traditional parties collpase. Hitler went from unknown to Chancellor of Germany in 3 years. When the right rise, they rise very fast. Moslems would be wise to pack up and go home. Trying to throw their weight around will not get them anywhere. Labour and the other parties are not doing anything effective to stop the right wing rising and all they do is give them publicity. No political party is going to support Moslems and their position in Europe is becoming ever more precarious. Why stay where you are not wanted?
Posted by: naveen | 23 May 2006 at 08:53 PM
On the last point, I agree with you - why not stop posting here?
But as long as you stay, perhaps you can answer my specific repeated question to you: What are the BNP policies you disagree with?
And since you brought up your most famous Fuhrer, perhaps you can tell us if there's anything about Hitler's policies you disagree with?
Posted by: Sohaib | 23 May 2006 at 09:26 PM
Isn't Sohaib typical of a simple minded Third Worlder who cannot tolerate anyone who does not share his primitive views? He makes the point about Moslems not being able to tolerate freedom of speech. Debate is about various views and all should be listened to.
It is manifest that when provoked, Moslems fall into the trap every time.
Posted by: naveen | 24 May 2006 at 10:47 AM
Why don't you answer my questions, if you're so interested in debate?
Posted by: Sohaib | 24 May 2006 at 10:57 AM
And since you brought up your most famous Fuhrer, perhaps you can tell us if there's anything about Hitler's policies you disagree with?
My guess is that he thinks Hitler's only fault was that he chose the wrong victims (Jews, rather than Muslims).
I don't understand Naveen's perspective at all. One the one hand he argues that Western civilization is vastly superior to Islamic civilization, while on the other he claimes that a small minority of Muslim immigrants pose an existential threat to the West. Which is it? He can't have it both ways...
Posted by: George Carty | 24 May 2006 at 05:12 PM
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
Osama, once again "naveen" gets his garbage in first, and you've got four posts after which are in reply to him and nothing to do with the issue at hand. I had this trouble all the time with people posting half-truths and outright lies at my blog until I imposed moderation, with exceptions for TypeKey subscribers (and subscription is free). Most of the bigots have gone away since.
The issue at hand is a well-organised campaign to stop a mosque being built, being run by people who are pretending to be NIMBY types but, judging by their behaviour, appear to have something rather different behind it. Perhaps some investigators should be employed to find out who exactly is organising this.
Posted by: Yusuf Smith | 24 May 2006 at 06:22 PM
wait a minute, the opposers of the mosque are the native citizens. Third World aliens should respect the views of the natives. Their rights come before yours. And it is not your business to investigate this. Why not return to your own countries and have as many mosques as you like? What about the well orchestrated persecution of Christians in Pakistan? You are noticably silent on that. The more Moslems push for mosques, moslem schools and scout groups, the more they will antaganise the local population.... and the faster they will be chucked out!
Posted by: naveen | 24 May 2006 at 11:03 PM
Wait a minute, the opposers of the mosque are the native citizens. Their rights come before yours. And it is not your business to investigate this.
By that logic, America should be given back to the Indians, and Australia to the Aborigines.
Posted by: George Carty | 25 May 2006 at 04:43 PM
Can we not just all ignore the funny man? Giving him attention only makes him want more.
To be honest, from what I've heard of the mosque proposal, it'd probably be better if it didn't go ahead in its current form. There needs to be a proper structure behind it - at the moment, all we have is a building.
Posted by: Atif Rashid | 02 June 2006 at 01:02 AM
AOA
By the likes of certain postings it seems as though immiturity and backstabbing go hand in hand.
Whats all this about 'own country', 'views of the natives' and 'pack up and go home'.
I'd love to see you voice those oppinions face to face at one of the public meetings, or are you scared that you maybe 'shipped off' to an establishment near you... i actually think the muslim community would love to take you in and help you through whatever issues surround you!
love it or hate it but a lot of people, including myself, view ourselves as Scottish. we were born and brought up here, and have gone through all the Scottish systems to get to where we are now. I am an irn bru drinking, fish n chip munching, tartan wearing, footy supporting jolly but sometimes crabbit lass myself.
So technically if your telling me to build a mosque 'in my own country' Newton Mearns is that place!
Posted by: Okh Aye | 03 June 2006 at 02:22 PM
A S A.
Mosques, Churches, Synigogs, temples and so on are sacred to Muslims as they are places of worship, some time we need to have our place where we go and have some "free time" we all need to understand each other and for that we need to listen to each other and for listening we have to come closer.
It was St.Philiphs Bapthist Church who strongly supported the nice huge and beutiful building of Omar Mosque in Leicester when the public opposed it.
King Offa of 17th Century was the one who had his coin incraved with the "shahadah" saying that "there is no Diety but Allah and Muhammad is His messanger".
Well, Muslims believe that "every land is the land of God so it is our land for we all belong to Him",no one is going to take a land more than a couple of meters anyway (for his grave).and that is also not for sure. Jesus (pbuh) says "love your neighbor" so says Muhammad (pbuh).
Posted by: mmsah | 03 June 2006 at 04:16 PM
Hi,
This is the first time I’ve posted anything so please forgive me if something goes wrong.
I would like to make a couple of comments about the original article by Osama Saeed, well written it may have been, accurate it was not.
I was one of the 450, his number not mine, local residents that objected to the building of a mosque in this location. I make this statement "this location" for a very good reason. I support the building of a mosque but not on this land which is L1 and supposed to be protected under the local development plan. Any other parcel of land that does not have this protection is fine by me and WILL get my full support, even if it is in my back yard.
It was stated that any person who supported the mosque had a feeling of "intimidation" and was heckled by a "baying crowd". There was a degree of shouting down of 2 people that started to play the racist card to which I objected to strongly. Why is it that any person that has a different opinion or standpoint from a minority group they are obviously either racist, homophobic, anti-cemitic or anti-muslim.
You ask where do I live? Answer - less that 200 meters from the proposed mosque.
My question is, where do you live? It would be easy for you to try a witty answer to turn my question to a racist one but I mean how close to the proposed development do you live? I have to consider the impact on me and my family not the community. Yes, I'm being selfish, I don't care that's just how it is. You are not considering my feelings or opinions on this matter why should I condsider yours?
Convince me that this is good for my family and I will support you and the development.
Posted by: Bob Anderson | 29 June 2006 at 11:02 PM
Bob, thanks for your comments. I'm sure you'll agree that not every building in every neignbourhood is to the benefit of all the local residents. Some use the facilities, some don't.
The 400+ number of people at the meeting was from the Herald article, not concocted by me. Admittedly, I didn't do a head count, but it seems credible. Now, you may well live near the proposed site, but clearly all these people don't. Normally, there are 20 people at community council meetings about these kind of proposals. What motivated all these people for this one?
Posted by: Osama | 30 June 2006 at 12:16 AM