Bullitt County residents applaud rejection of cemetery planRarely has a simple 10-acre tract of land so united a community.

But the staunch opposition to a proposed Islamic cemetery near the eastern edge of Mount Washington wasn't as uncomplicated as it appeared.

Strongly voiced objections on religious grounds were numerous at a recent meeting of the county board of adjustments, but they were hardly the only reasons residents on and around Hubbard Lane wanted to stop the plan.

Residents said they were concerned about:

• Increased traffic on Hubbard Lane.

• Possible vandalism of the cemetery from those who oppose Islam's presence in Bullitt.

• Kids having to ride their bikes past a cemetery when there are no other cemeteries in the immediate area.

• Groundwater safety and other environmental issues.

The board by a 5-1 vote rejected the conditional-use change from "agricultural" in the unincorporated area of Bullitt County. The sale to the St. Matthews-based Louisville Islamic Center was contingent upon the change.

The Islamic center last week decided not to appeal and will look for cemetery land elsewhere.

"The overwhelming sentiment of the crowd was a little bit disheartening," said Ozair Sharif, a Louisville attorney and board member of the Islamic center.

Romona Stout recalled moving onto Hubbard Lane 42 years ago when it was just a gravel road. "You cannot hardly pass with two cars, it is a lane. To have a cemetery in a residential neighborhood, it bothers me. I don't have nothing against the Islamic religion, it's not that. It's not."

But for others, it clearly was.

"Why would you want to go where you're not wanted?" asked Len Hardy Sr., who was admonished at the podium for turning around and talking to Islamic center representatives and not zoning board members. "Seems to be, you're looking for a dumping ground, and I don't like it."

Sharon Foley of Oak Creek Drive told the board, "Our country was founded on Christian principles. Thousands and thousands of American men and women for their freedom of religion."

She lives with her 90-year-old father, who served in the Marines. She called the proposed Islamic cemetery a slap in his face, "given the incidents of the past 11 years," she said, referring to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Courier-Journal, 27 February 2013

View the Original article

The English Defence League (EDL), an extremist far-right pressure group, has announced that they are planning a march in Cambridge. The anti-Islamic group will gather on the 23rd February, following their controversial march in July 2011.

In response, the Cambridge branch of Unite Against Fascism (CUAF), a national anti-fascist campaigning organisation, has called for a "massive" counter march. PhD student Owen Holland, whose previous political history saw him suspended for one term by the University after interrupting a talk by Universities Minister David Willets, has come out in support of the UAF's counter-demonstration. "When the English Defence League tried to march in Cambridge in July 2011, they were vastly outnumbered." He calls for "the people of Cambridge" to "come together to show that racist ideas and organisations do not have coherent solutions to resolve the present crisis".

His pledge of support has been echoed by other political figures in and around Cambridge. Richard Howitt MEP called for "all the decent people of Cambridge to attend this counter demonstration to show their opposition to racism". Richard Rose, the coordinator of UAF in Cambridge, explained "the racists seek only to spread hatred, scapegoating and division; whatever problems people face in their lives, the EDL will only make them worse".

Academics and activists have also organized an anti-fascist teach-in on Sunday the 17th of February in King's College. Dr. Martin Ruehl, a Fellow at Trinity Hall who specializes in fascist ideology, will speak at the event along with other UAF activists. This comes as academic interest in the study of far right ideology grows; the University of Newcastle has recently established a new centre "for the study of the far-right".

The 2011 EDL march in Cambridge provoked much controversy and overt policing, largely due to the group’s radical stance on Islam. Stephen Lennon, a leading member of the EDL, in a recent interview with Jeremy Paxman, explained that the EDL exist to prevent the spread of Islamism across Britain. He said: "there are one-hundred sharia law courts operating in this country...sharia law is incompatible with western democracy." When asked if the EDL would allow a Muslim to join their group Lennon responded, "of course they could".

Yet in discussing the problems of gang culture, drug chains and "pimping", Lennon argued that "it's an Islamic problem … none of the other communities are spreading it … are we going to pretend that Muslim groups are not out there purposely trying to target our youth and pimping 'em?". Lennon has now been jailed for trying to enter the United States on a false passport.

Fred Cotterill, a Cambridge undergraduate planning to take part on the march, said: "The EDL march has no place in Cambridge." Fred added that "Patriotism is not something to be ashamed of – I am proud to be British – and it should be reclaimed from the racists as it was during the Olympics".

Varsity, 23 January 2013

View the Original article

When a local Islamic organization hired Bernardsville architect Daniel Lincoln to design a new mosque, he set out to create a building that would serve its purpose as a house of worship and fit into the colonial and bucolic character of this township's Liberty Corner.

He's proud of the result. The 4,252-square-foot building with white siding and a gray roof could be mistaken for a large home. Remove the crescents, and the two 35-foot minarets could pass for chimneys.

But many of the people who would be neighbors of this mosque aren't as appreciative.

"When they look at this building, all they see are the letters M-O-S-Q-U-E," said Lincoln, who also is president of the Historical Society of the Somerset Hills.

MyCentralJersey.com, 13 January 2013

View the Original article

The Arab Spring, as it is now globally called, from its inception represented a strong desire of the people to reclaim for themselves the political system by improving the Constitution. Whether it was Tunisia, Libya or Egypt or the different factions in the political arena itself, the focus of everyone’s demands was projected onto the process of Constitution-writing. It is this major departure from previous upheavals in the Middle East that makes Arab Spring a very special moment in Middle-Eastern history. And by placing emphasis on the current exercise of Constitution-drafting as an exercise of realizing the society’s expectations, we give the movement the dignity it deserves.

It is not surprising that in an age of globalization, the majority of the viewers of the Arab Spring on media channels are not from Middle-East. These viewers are mostly from countries with an established tradition of liberalism and democracy who watch daily the comparison of the nascent Egyptian Constituent Assembly with the robust institutions that have developed in their own countries. This is clearly a fallacy, for how can a new democracy, either in its vision or implementation, compare to democracies that have been established, if not less, then atleast for half a century. Most importantly, this is not how the Egyptians themselves look at the whole process which culminated in the referendum. They do not have in their mind the German Constitution, the Indian Constitution and even less, the American Constitution (the present German and Indian Constitutions are about 60 years old whereas the American one is over 200 years old). They remember what the arbitrary and corrupt regime established under their previous Constitution, that is, the 1971 Constitution, when they engage in debate to shape the new one. And in order to truly appreciate the significance of the entire movement, we must look at the Constitution that was ousted.

The Constitution of 1971 also envisaged a democratic system, guaranteed fundamental rights and declared the Sharia as principal source of legislation. However, the constitutional provisions were sold out by the laws that were enacted by the executive with the help of a rubber-stamp legislature.

The Fundamental Rights (such as freedom of speech and liberty) were qualified by phrases like “according to the law”, whose vagueness created room for the regime to completely deny these protections through the enactment of rigid laws. The entire constitution was an act of skullduggery with all the major rights and provisions being subordinated to laws and thus subverting the very idea of a society having a constitution.

The year 2007 saw Mubarak attempting to become democratic by offering to democratize the society. But why was Mubarak of all people democratizing the society? And if Mubarak democratized the society, then what is happening since the last two years? Besides a slew of amendments, the key amendment was Article 76, which was a 709 word article whose sole purpose was to engineer one of Mubarak’s sons to the Presidency by creating a very high technical requirement in terms of support of officials and registered parties to contest elections. This article also served the purpose of preventing any Muslim Brotherhood member or any other person who could put a serious challenge to the regime from contesting the elections.

It is these reasons that made people wary of the regime and the 1971 Constitution. And it is these actions that have become the background against which the Egyptians are judging their new Constitution.

The next entry will continue the discussion, dealing with role of religion, civilian-military affairs and the nature of State institutions in 1971 Constitution.

References:

http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/Egypt%20Constitution.pdf

http://muslim-academy.com/egypts-new-constitution-writing-the-beginning/

 

About the author

VasantAgnihotri

I am a student of law in Calcutta, India, and I am interested in history, politics and philosophy. I do not hold any religious beliefs but I respect the beliefs of others. I am much interested in the Islamic religion, and the history and politics of the Islamic world.

View the Original article

Egyptians continue to participate in demonstrations against President Mohamed Morsi’s decisions, and some politicians said that he can not remain in his position anymore, after the Muslim Brotherhood members attacked the protesters in front of the presidential palace, while the president remained silent. Islamists are still asking their supporters to go out in demonstrations to show the world that Morsi’s decisions are meeting the people’s consent, but it became obvious that Morsi’s supporters are only those who are members in Islamic movements or parties. Egyptians are still in Tahrir square for the 23^rd day, hoping to change reality, knowing that the vote on the new constitution will start tomorrow morning.

These young men in Tahrir square worked hard to force President Morsi to cancel the referendum or delay it, and to re-form a committee that should contain members from all parties and groups to write a new constitution. Some of the people in Tahrir square insist that Morsi should step down like President Mubarak, as they believe that he is responsible for the death of their colleagues in front of Ittehadeya palace, when the Muslim Brotherhood members attacked the peaceful protesters and removed their tents, besides using guns to force them to leave the area. Such violence resulted in eight dead bodies and more than 700 injuries.

The National Salvation Front asked Egyptians to vote with “NO” on the new constitution, because it guarantees having a new dictator and a society with no rights or freedom. The new constitution does not prohibit the work of children under 15 years old, as it allows a child’s family to let him work as long as this won’t affect his studies, which is something no one can measure.

The new constitution also gives the president the right to appoint the Supreme Lawyer of the people, in addition to appointing the judges of the Constitutional Court, which is the highest judicial authority in Egypt. Such rights given to the president makes Egyptians believe that the judicial system will be following the regime and it will not be independent to save the rights of the people.

On the other side, the Islamists say that this new constitution is giving Egyptians more rights and freedom, even more than any other constitution in the world. They are now preparing to gather people from all over Egypt to go to the voting centers and vote “YES” for the new constitution.

Tahrir square still full of angry people, and this is a sign that they won’t leave until the change they want is taking place. Some of the people in Tahrir square died, while others were badly injured, and this is forcing the protesters not to leave their place until the change they want is happening.

About the author

View the Original article

More than 4000 people have signed a petition against a controversial plan to convert a disused bank into a mosque ahead of a meeting next week to decide its future.

Councillors will decide on Monday whether the bank chambers in Green Lane can be developed into a mosque. Worcester Park resident Jacki Chillman appealed to others who do not want the plans to go ahead to make sure they make their presence felt at the meeting.

She said the plan would bring in traffic the area cannot handle, is not necessary, does not have enough parking and will not be widely used by the local community and thinks councillors on the development control committee should knock back the long-running application when they meet to consider it on Monday, December 3.

Miss Chillman said: "It's mainly because of the traffic congestion it will cause. People are opposed to this, there have been hundreds of objections and people have signed petitions – councillors need to act on behalf of the majority of people.

"The parking is terrible, the majority of the people who will use it are not from the Worcester Park area. The applicant says it will enhance the community – but that's only for a specific group of people.

"I'd have the same complaints if it was a nightclub or a nursery because the area cannot handle the traffic. That building would be suitable for a solicitor's office or something like that – not something which will have so many people coming to it."

Plans to convert the building into a mosque have been around since 2009 when it was bought but the planning application was only submitted this year.

The council has received more than 100 representations in support of the mosque on the grounds there is need for it in the community, it will bring customers to nearby shops and businesses, it will reduce traffic to the Kingston mosque and it will make good use of the building.

The meeting will happen at Cheam High School, Chatsworth Road, Cheam from 7.30pm on Monday, December 3 and is open to the public.

Surrey Comet, 2 December 2012

As is usually the case with mosque planning applications, the claim that opposition is based solely on concerns about traffic and parking cannot disguise the fact that many anti-mosque campaigners have very different motives.

Some of them make no attempt to hide this. "We all seem to be expressing our opposition largely based upon parking and traffic congestion", one objector recently complained on the Worcester Park Blog. "Am I the only person concerned that this will lead to the devaluation of property, closing of businesses and the islamification of the area?"

Another comment reads: "There are more than enough Mosque's in England Would a Church be allowed to be built in a Muslim country? I think its a disgrace to even think about building a Mosque in Worcester Park."

The Worcester Park Blog's Facebook event page, Public Meeting: Worcester Park mosque planning application decision, features even more extreme statements. Here are some examples:

"There are already 6 Muslims centres within 5 miles of here and a HUGE mosque 2/3 miles down the road there's no need whatsoever for them to build another one!!! The only reason they are allowed to build them anywhere is cos local authorities live in fear of being branded racist for saying no!!! Last time I checked the history and heritage of this once great nation I don't remember reading anything about Allah!!!!"

"next the high street will be full of there shops and our house prices will drop 30%, and we all have to move our kids out the schools because there forced to learn about allah"

"Got the kingston mosque right near me. They take the piss. Think they own the place."

"can these fuckers not afford to get a fuckin bus to morden???? drop me out you sandal wearing shit cunts!!!"

"If they want a mosque tell them to fuk of to there own country. We wouldn't be allowed to build a church in there country so tell them fukin talibans to fuk of home."

Another Facebook page, Ban the Worcester Park, Green Lane Mosque, includes a photo of a popular far-right poppy badge carrying the slogan "Try burning this" and features a post calling for Abu Qatada to be tortured or killed.

The National Front has demonstrated against the mosque, with veteran Nazi Richard Edmonds condeming the proposed development as "the thin edge of the alien wedge Enoch Powell warned us against". 

And a popular far-right Facebook page has just posted an appeal to its supporters to attend tomorrow evening's planning committee meeting. Predictably, this has provoked the usual stream of violent abuse, with comments calling for the building to be burned down or blown up and for worshippers to be killed.

So I think it would be fair to conclude that objections to the Worcester park mosque are not restricted to worries about traffic congestion and parking space.

View the Original article

'We Are Bristol' march against EDLLabour's Bristol mayor candidate Marvin Rees has been accused by a rival politician of being "naïve and weak" in his handling of the run-up to Saturday's EDL march and counter-protests.

Mr Rees was also branded as "easily led" in the statement released today on behalf of Lib Dem councillor Gary Hopkins. But the mayoral candidate has hit back – saying he is "disappointed" by the move.

Mr Hopkins' statement notes that Mr Rees and other Bristol Labour politicians appeared on Unite Against Fascism (UAF) leaflets before the counter-protests on Saturday, and that violent clashes had broken out between counter-EDL protesters and the police.

The councillor, who is in charge of community safety in his council role, said: "The Labour Party were well aware that there was likely to be street violence but still persisted in supporting direct counter-demonstration and, it is reported, speaking at the rally.

"Labour councillor Mike Wollacott faces calls to step down from his position of responsibility on the council after he tried to put pressure on the council leader to speak on behalf of UAF and then ignored police attempts to bring order by encouraging a potentially dangerous assembly in a provocative place. Does Mr Rees support Councillor Wollacott or not?

"This was totally irresponsible. Marvin Rees has shown himself to be weak, easily led and – if he didn't realise violent disturbances might follow – naïve, as well."

Mr Wollacott told ThisisBristol that the calls for his resignation after he had asked the council leader to speak at the demonstration made it a "disappointing day for democracy" .

Mr Rees reacted to Mr Hopkins by saying it was "simply not good enough to abdicate responsibility" when it came to the issue of the EDL march, and that Bristol needed "change and leadership".

He said: "Let's remember the most important thing here is standing up against the dangerous and divisive politics the EDL represent. At the same time, it goes without saying that under no circumstances would I support violent protest.

"I'm disappointed in Gary and the Liberal Democrat press office. The challenges thrown up by the EDL march are just too important to Bristol's future to be used for Party posturing, yet that is what the Liberal Democrats are doing with them. Their press release lacks insight, understanding and accuracy."

Mr Hopkins also criticised Bristol Labour MP Kerry McCarthy for letting herself be reported calling for a ban of the EDL march, which he said was “wholly irresponsible”.

“She has some explaining to do,” he said. “Was she deliberately stirring up passion and anger for political gain or was she genuinely so ignorant of the facts that she thought a ban was possible?”

Kerry McCarthy replied: "Yet again Cllr Hopkins and the Liberal Democrats have taken a cowardly and unprincipled position which has been characteristic of their time in office.

"I am, of course, opposed to all violence and that is why Cllr Wollacott and I were in frequent contact with Pride, UAF and the police to ensure these groups were talking to each other and working together.

"It is a disgrace that the Lib Dems failed to take leadership. They have focused all their energy on attacking those standing against division and violence, while failing to speak out against the disruption the EDL brought to Bristol."

Bristol Post, 19 July 2012

View the Original article

The mosque in Torrejón de Ardoz doesn't look much like a mosque. It occupies the ground floor of a drab block of flats near the main square in this town of 120,000 inhabitants just east of Madrid. But for the last decade and a half, it has been the only place of worship for Muslims here.

"This mosque is too small for us and we need a new site that is bigger and more apt for our needs," says Farid Bahoudi, the spokesman for Torrejón's Islamic community, pointing to the old building. He says there are now about 10,000 Muslims in the town, mostly from north Africa.

But local Muslims' attempts to find a more suitable site for their mosque have sparked a dispute that has pitted politicians on the far right against activists from the radical left and highlighted the issue of race relations in crisis-ridden Spain.

"We've tried to overcome ignorance to show people the truth about who we are and show them the reality of Islam and the reality of coexistence," says Bahoudi. "But instead of wanting to integrate with us, the locals here would rather we moved elsewhere."

In February of this year, the municipality gave permission for the new, bigger mosque to be built on a site near the centre of town, where two empty houses stand in a small side street. The local Muslims immediately bought the land, for nearly €500,000, with donations from members of their community.

"How would you like it if two or three hundred 'Moors' came wandering in and out of your street to pray each day?" says one man who lives on the same street as the proposed site for the new mosque and who prefers not to give his name.

About 2,000 locals who feel a similar way have put their signatures to a petition against the new mosque project.

On June 27th, apparently prompted by this swell of resistance, the municipal authorities performed a U-turn, approving a proposal that changed the planned site for the new mosque to an industrial park outside Torrejón.

Farid Bahoudi and the Islamic community are deeply upset at the decision, which they feel will marginalise the town's Muslims. Like many other Muslims here, Bahoudi is Spanish, having grown up in Ceuta in north Africa, a city that belongs to Spain.

Torrejón's dispute has taken on a national tinge in recent days, with the intervention of a far-right politician from Catalonia, several hundred miles to the northeast. Josep Anglada, leader of the Platform for Catalonia anti-immigration party, visited Torrejón at the end of June, and staged a rally against the mosque and the "Islamisation" of Spain.

"We don't want any mosques in Torrejón or anywhere else in Spain," he said. "The mosque will bring degradation, violence, hate and fanaticism."

According to Leandro Ortega, a young leftist activist who took part in a counter-rally against intolerance and Anglada's meddling in Torrejón, the politician is a "fascist".

Irish Times, 10 July 2012

View the Original article

A campaign to allow Muslim women football players to wear headscarves was boosted on Friday when the chairman of FIFA's medical committee said he has withdrawn his opposition.

The change of medical opinion from Michel D'Hooghe was a key step before FIFA's law-making body could approve two scarf designs when it meets in Zurich next week. "The problems I had (with scarves) were medical, and I don't have those problems anymore," D'Hooghe told The Associated Press.

The panel, known as IFAB, asked in March for further medical advice on whether new designs were safe for women players to wear. Headscarves were banned from FIFA competitions for safety reasons in 2007.

Last month, D'Hooghe said his committee's tests suggested scarves "represented a danger" to players who could sustain head and neck injuries, or overheat.

That drew an angry response from his FIFA executive committee colleague, Prince Ali of Jordan, who has led a year-long campaign seeking respect for Islamic cultural tradition, and creating more opportunities for women to play, by overturning the ban. Prince Ali said he was "quite shocked," and produced medical research which challenged FIFA's position.

On Friday, D'Hooghe said he would no longer object to the designs after "more discussions" in recent weeks. "There is no risk of strangulation. I was asked for a medical opinion, and the discussions I had were purely medical," said the Belgian doctor, who did not elaborate on what swayed his opinion.

IFAB could accept one or both designs -- one from the Netherlands, which uses quick-release velcro fasteners, and a Canadian scarf fixed with light magnets.

However, D'Hooghe cautioned that the scarves must still abide by football's rules regarding players' equipment. "Those aspects are the uniformity of players' equipment and the idea of religious and political statements," D'Hooghe said. "That is a discussion for other people."

Law 4 of football states that "basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal statements."

Still, Prince Ali's campaign has been backed by the United Nations, the Nobel Prize Committee and the global players' union, FIFPro.

The IFAB panel which will decide the issue next Thursday includes the four British football associations, which have one vote each, and FIFA which has a four-vote bloc. Six votes are needed to change a rule.

Associated Press, 29 June 2012

View the Original article

More than 50 Muslim and non-Muslim civic and religious groups asked leading senators on Thursday (April 12) to rescind the appointment of an outspoken Muslim activist, Zuhdi Jasser, to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Jasser, a Navy-trained physician, is decrying the effort – and others to oust him from the independent watchdog panel – as a "smear tactic."

A separate online petition that began circulating last week, also asking for his ouster, has garnered more than 2,000 signatures.

"Their letter is patently dishonest, deceptive, and continues their unprofessional unbridled smear campaign against anyone who chooses to take on Islamic reform against Islamist ideologies and groups regardless of whether we are observant traditional Muslims," Jasser wrote in an email to Religion News Service.

The signatories to the letter, sent to three key senators, argue that Jasser's rhetoric and activism contribute to a culture that treats Muslims as suspects, and that he would subvert the work of the bipartisan commission, which advises federal officials on the status of religious freedom abroad.

"His consistent support for measures that threaten and diminish religious freedoms within the United States demonstrates his deplorable lack of understanding of and commitment to religious freedom and undermines the USCIRF’s express purpose," they wrote.

They cite Jasser's effort to prevent the construction of an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, his support for the New York Police Department’s spying on Muslim institutions, and his defense of anti-Shariah laws, which most Muslim civil rights groups say unfairly paint Muslims as anti-American.

Religion News Service, 12 April 2012

See also "64-member coalition opposes new religious freedom appointee", CAIR press release, 12 April 2012

View the Original article