Saturday, 2nd May 2009
Muslims gather in prayer along Sliema front
The Sliema front doubled as a place of worship for Muslims yesterday. Photo: Jason Borg.
About 50 Muslim men took their prayer rugs to the Sliema front yesterday after the planning authority sealed off their place of worship. The Muslims said the Malta Environment and Planning Authority had locked them out of their flat in Sliema where they used to pray, so they decided to take their cause outside.
"We are not here to protest or threaten violence but to express our fundamental human right to gather in prayer," Bader Zina, one of the leaders, said. According to Mepa, a number of complaints had been received by neighbours and the flat did not have a licence to be used as a place of worship.
The Muslims, many of whom Maltese, were dressed in traditional clothing. They had a permit and police protection and said this might become a regular appointment until their flat was reopened.
This behaviour did not go down well with a group of Maltese onlookers who warned that if this happened again "there will be trouble".
"Malta is a Catholic country. They have no right to come here and pray in front of us. I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own home but not here," one Maltese woman said.
"We've had enough. If you were to do the same in their country they would stone you. I can't understand how they could have been given a permit for this, including police presence and all!" her husband added, visibly disturbed by what he saw.
"They should go to a mosque. That is where they belong. Or in some hole somewhere. But not here where I get my children to eat and have a good time. I would have had no problem if they were Catholics praying... in Malta we are all Catholics so it's not a problem, but not them. Even the tourists were disgusted," he claimed, as his teenage son nodded in agreement.
The owner of a nearby kiosk said she had no problem with them and some were her friends and clients. But she acknowledged that their presence lost her a lot of business yesterday. She said they should be allowed to remain in their flat where they would not be disturbing anyone.
Another man said the praying did not disturb him and it was less noisy than he would have thought. "I don't see what the problem is. These are Maltese people with a different religion. Why shouldn't they be allowed to pray quietly outdoors if we can have noisy feasts and drunken brawls?"
Mr Zina said they did not want to anger anyone: "All we want to do is praise God".
He said that besides the Sliema flat, another in Buġibba had also been locked up by Mepa simply because it was used by Muslims to gather in prayer. The residents of the flats had to seek alternative accommodation.
"Since when do you need a licence to pray? I don't see anyone closing down other prayer groups. And, anyway, I would rather have a group of Catholics singing praise to God next to my house than a bar," Mr Zina said.
He explained that Muslims prayed five times a day and it was preferable to do so in groups. He did not sense a negative reaction from the Maltese in the area, except for one woman who insisted on walking her dog in front of them. When she tried it the second time, she was stopped by the police.
He said it was sad to see some Maltese Catholics who feared or were intolerant towards Muslims and efforts should be made to encourage tolerance and integration.
Although he condemned any type of violence or revenge, he said that if people were discriminated against and hurt, it would become impossible to control a backlash.
RSS
Comments
However, whenever anyone examines your position, it quickly becomes clear that it's about as substantial as a chocolate fireguard.
(Cont ..)
This purely imaginary "discrimination" Muslims like you cry and bleat about is simply a figment of the paranoid Islamic imagination. Yet you feel this is sufficient basis to threaten people. Anything to get your own way. It's pathetic, you're like a bunch of little children who need to be taught how to behave.
Well it just won't wash. I keep asking you about the way Muslims threaten people, and despite your attempts to talk about something else - anything else - I've kept asking you to see how you deal with it. And at the end of the day, you've thrown in the towel.
You don't want to admit that Islam is backward, or that Islam has a strain of misogyny running through it that poisons everything it touches. But the facts speak for themselves.
Imagine a white British non-Muslim person, in fact, let's imagine a group of white, British, non-Muslim women went right down to this bunch of male Muslims one sunny afternoon and told them that this discrimination talk had to stop! It's all rubbish, and no one wants to hear it! Imagine that. Would we see an "uncontrollable backlash"?
And please address the distinction I drew between the actual discrimination practiced by this group of Muslims every time they gather, and the purely imaginary discrimination they use as a basis to threaten people.
And try to address my original point, which was that in W. Montgomery Watt's biography of Mohammad, he argues that for a Muslim, prayer is not a solitary religious exercise, it is an active political statement.
My emotional condition is not only unknown to you, it is irrelevant.
If you want no more talk about discrimination, I suggest you go down to one of these prayer meetings and say so to the leader of those Muslims.
Tell me, what would happen if a white person went down to Sliema and told those Muslims that he'd had enough of their talk about discrimination, and that they should just stop going on about it? What would happen? Would we see an "uncontrollable backlash?"
Maybe you just want non-Muslims to stop talking about how Muslims discriminate against women? At the same time, it's A-okay for Muslims (male Muslims, obviously) to cry and complain about some undefined thing they refer to as "discrimination" which consists of we know not what, which has not even happened, but which might, just possibly, occur at some time in the future, and to threaten people on that basis. I see ... you're revealing quite a lot about the Muslim mindset.
Who wants to see your fellow believers all over the waterfront at Sliema again?
I don't.
@ Kenneth Duthie
Please calm down and inform me what’s the issue in question and what do you suggest? Somewhere I pointed out that, unless you provide an answer why the RCC never headed by a female or/and why God should have a son not a daughter, any talks about discrimination should be sidelined.
-----------------------------------------
The Papal roots of discrimination.
Specifically, in the fifteenth century, two Papal Bulls set the stage for European domination of the New World and Africa. Romanus Pontifex, issued by Pope Nicholas V to King Alfonso V of Portugal in 1452, declared war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioned and promoted the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories. Inter Caetera, issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1493 to the King and Queen of Spain following the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the island he called Hispaniola, officially established Christian dominion over the New World. It called for the subjugation of the native inhabitants and their territories, and divided all newly discovered or yet-to-be discovered lands into two - giving Spain rights of conquest and dominion over one side of the globe and Portugal over the other.
Mr. Muscat is doing what we've seen many of his fellow religionists do in recent years. He thinks that anyone pointing to actual events that have occurred is "creating unnecessary tension." Not the events themselves. They give Mr. Muscat no trouble at all. Westerners are simply expected to deny them.
The Islamic narrative which non-Muslims are supposed to accept is based on a denial of reality. This is demanded of us!
I'm afraid not, Mr. Muscat. The leader of your little group cries about discrimination, while he and his friends themselves discriminate against half the human race. He makes veiled threats in order to get what he wants, showing how he thinks adults should act within a democratic society. No. It's about time people like him, and you, realised that irrational, childish, threatening behaviour carried out in the name of Islam just doesn't work.
What is actually the problem? Is it about what Mr. Badr said or it is about what he did? If it’s the former, I would like to ask, should it be by default being a Muslim, or called Badr to be discriminated and hurt? Shall we get back ward to inquisition ear? Should we exclude others with different beliefs? Should we call for a crusader?.
Mr. Badr said: ‘… if people were discriminated against and hurt, it would become impossible to control a backlash.” Please take note of the word (IF).
If you or others see what’s being done by Mr. Badr is a great disgust and a threat to Catholic religion, tourism, culture or whatever you come up with, please be informed that Mr. Badr and all this group were just praying exactly the same way Jesus did. Was Jesus a threat? If Christians don’t pray the way Jesus did, here one should ask, are Christians more correct than Jesus?
Google per se is not the issue. It’s the brain behind what’s being published in internet. If the latter express ideas that powerful organizations want express here lays the danger.
There is of course nothing of that nature to be said.
Anyone can use a search engine to find out what has happened to Kurt Westergaard and Robert Redeker. This assertion is obviously true. The question is: so what? From that assertion, one can draw no conclusions, one way or the other, about my knowledge of the Islamic faith.
Your comment is a very poor and obvious attempt to disguise your own inability to acknowledge the threatening language used by the leader of this group of Muslims in Sliema - and of the actual threats made against many other Europeans in recent years.
Let's see: people rioting over a page of cartoons published in Denmark; riots, legal threats and outright murder - now veiled threats made by this fellow in Sliema - any sane and rational person can see perfectly well where any "unnecessary tension" comes from.
And just so you know; I deliberately used your own type of logic in my concluding remark, so that you could have the opportunity to argue against it. Given that you have used this line of "reasoning" so often in the comments in this newspaper, it's about time you wised up a little, and quit doing so.
Mr. Kenneth Duthie
Dear sir,
You are a repeat and so do I.
Why do you deliberately answer cheese while you are specifically asked about vegetables?
I remember asking you somewhere the following two questions:
As yet I haven’t received an answer.
What the Bible says on how women should pray?
Why we never had a female to head the RCC?
I tell you mate; the whole issue is very simple. One must first ask: Do I need a religion? Do I need a salvation or guidance in my life? Is the Quran divine? If the answer is yes, I just ask the peoples of knowledge about this religion (for example, the Imam in the Mosque). If I am not interested, I could Google and denigrate the religion or its followers as mush as I can. However this doesn’t not harm the religion per se but creates un-necessary tension.
‘Failure to answer this question will render all your comments on this matter null and void, I'm afraid.” By the way this were my words for your Google and search comments.
While discriminating against half the human race with every all-male prayer meeting he holds, this fine fellow warns all us benighted unbelievers that if he or his fellow (male) Muslims are ever discriminated against, there will be an uncontrollable backlash.
Once again Mr. Muscat - what do you make of this fellow's comment?
Failure to answer this question will render all your comments on this matter null and void, I'm afraid.
Here again Mr. Kenneth Duthie googles and comment!
‘We all remember the Danish cartoons, we can all use Google and see what has happened to Kurt Westergaard, to the philosophy lecturer Robert Redeker, …..t?’
We must first distinguish between USA-IRAN political relation, Osama Ben Laden and what the Quran says.
No-single verse in Quran says any innocent person should be killed. We always have to differentiate between the faith and the followers of the faith do, and this in my opinion should apply on all faiths. If someone in Iran issues FATWA to kill X in USA-here we should not blame the law but the culprit.
I tell you; the whole issue is very simple. One must first ask: Do I need a religion? Do I need a salvation or guidance in my life? Is the Quran divine? If the answer is yes, I just ask the peoples of knowledge about this religion (the Imam in the Mosque). If I am not interested, I could Google and denigration the religion or its followers as mush as I can. However this doesn’t not harm the religion per se but creates un-necessary tension.
@Alexander Azzopardi - tell that to all the African Muslims from the French ex-colonies who were dragged to France to rebuild it after both world wars, to fight as child soldiers in their wars, creating apartheid and depleting their human and natural resources in their home country etc. etc. Their descendants are more French than SarkoZy will ever be in a 100 lives.
We all remember the Danish cartoons, we can all use Google and see what has happened to Kurt Westergaard, to the philosophy lecturer Robert Redeker, to Michel Houellebecq, to Oriana Fallaci, to Salman Rushdie, to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to Ilan Halimi, and Theo van Gogh. So here's an unanswered question to you: What do you make of Mr. Zina's comment?
And again: if you have something to say about Islamic prayer then go ahead and say it. I'll read your post. But it's not my job to write it for you.
Joe Xuereb (to A. Muscat) - "No red herrings please!"
‘It is also inherently discriminatory: just look at that picture. Do you see any women there?
I guess, until one fine day the RCC is headed by a female or a black Pope we should side line any debate about discrimination.
IF there is a God there is only one it is fair to assume. The Pope states the obvious. It is a manipulation of course. You both (Christian and Muslims) worship the same deity. So why are you fighting. But have been fighting and will continue to until one of the two makes way for the other. This means that in theory there is but the one God. In practice, given this situation, there are two. Anybody who does not see this is in serious denial. It is a pity that it takes an atheist to see the situation without having to grind any axe. I am afraid that even (?) after the Pontiffs pleas, the stalemate persists.
No one is better than Jesus and no woman enjoy higher status than Mary. So says the Quran.
Those two facts have been well recognized and digested 1400 years ago by ALL Muslims.
Back to the unanswered question:
Do Christians pray the way Jesus did? If yes tell me how and if no tell me why?
YES Muslims pray the exact way Jesus did:
." Matthew 26:39: "And he (Jesus) went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
Luke 22:44 "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground
Mark 14:32-Luke 3:21-Luke 6:12
Have you ever seen a Christian "fall on his face" and pray to God as Abraham, Mouse, Jesus, Muhammad, and all Muslims do?
Why is this? Was Jesus a Muslim? Are Christians holier or more correct than Jesus?
I hope you provide me with an answer. Thank you
*sigh*
Taken from a speech given by Pope Benedict just a few weeks ago in Amman:
"Today I wish to refer to a task which … I firmly believe Christians and Muslims can embrace… That task is the challenge to cultivate for the good, in the context of faith and truth, the vast potential of human reason… As believers in the one God, we know that human reason is itself God’s gift and that it soars to its highest plane when suffused with the light of God’s truth."
Note his referral to Christians and Muslims as "believers in the one God".
I'm an atheist, so couldn't give two hoots about the mumbo-jumbo on either side of the fence, but please stick to the facts. Your highest priest, the pope himself, says that both religions believe in the same god. Kuntent?
@ Kenneth Duthie.
At the moment I will not argue how Muslims exalt Jesus. I would also refrain to ask why God need to have a son not a daughter, but could you at least prove (By quoting Biblical texts) that Jesus in the ONLY begotten son of god? Thank you
So what? Manchester United fans exalt Christiano Ronaldo, but that doesn't mean they believe he is the Son of God.
Biex tghaddi mil Belt, sa Birkirkara tista tiehu 2 rotti... Il bypass l antik, jew mill wied.... izda it 2 iwassluk birkirkara, jekk inti drajt tghaddi mil bypass... ha ssiba difficli tuza l wied, allura ma tuzahx, u l istess meta inti drajt tuza l wied. Bniedem jidra b dak li jitghallem, u juza dak li jaf, biex jasal fej jista. Imma sa fl ahhar, tiehu liem triq tiehu, Birkirkara ha tasal.
(ovvjament metafora tapplika ma li ghedt)
Of course Islam is not democratic. Neither is Chrisitanity. By definition, any "revealed" religion that believes in a personal God, cannot be democratic. "God's orders", so to speak, cannot be disputed.
The problem is how to discern who "God" really "speaks to". I say it is nobody. The rest who do not agree with me will continue arguing that theirs is the "true revealed religion" until humans become an extinct species (unless we destroy the world before that).
Some people have taken the line that in a democratic society we should behave differently, and if one unpacks this argument, one finds the unspoken assertion that Islam is not democratic. It is also inherently discriminatory: just look at that picture. Do you see any women there?
nisrani int xbin :) ezatt kif ghallimna Kristu =)
anke wied il-ghajn bankina hemm.. u l-Marsa..
"Fejn hemm tnejn jew tlieta migburin f'ismi, hemm inkun fostom", ma narax ghala andek tamel hekk.
"Malta is a Catholic country. They have no right to come here and pray in front of us. I don't care what they do in the privacy of their own home but not here," one Maltese woman said -
but we all have a right for choice!!
You say the Christians (more specifically, Matlese Catholics) and Muslims worship the same God. Prove it.
You say the worship and the same and therefore can worship together. Right. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of the God is in the prayer session (the mutual praying).
Muslim prayer segregates. This will continue to be so as long as praying is done in a prostrate position. Mixed congregation could never allow this. For obvious reasons. So this ritualistic medieval prostration has to stop. In the west at least, we are in 2009AD.
A Catholic congregation worships differently. No prostration certainly. Women very much in evidence. Hopefully respecting a dress-code. A token gesture towards Islam/Judaism probably. And Marylike. Your revered Mary. Now there is tokenism.
So you see A. Muscat. You may pay lip-service till doomsday. I, an atheist (a gay, happy one with no agendas) view the matter freee of cobwebs. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There are at least two Gods. But we can pray together you suggest? Obviously not. And very importantly, are you going to adopt OUR style of worship? No red herrings please!
@ Stephen Farrugia
Very good Idea, I will be the first in line. I am pretty sure Muslims will love and encourage that too as they exalt both Jesus and Mary. Muslims exalt and love Jesus so much that they pray exactly the same way Jesus did.
Mhux qed nara megaphone fir-ritratt, imma iva, jekk trid torganizza prayer meeting fejn il-Moskea, gib permess mill-pulizija u ma nahsibx li xi hadd joggezzjona. Min jaf, forsi xi darba norganizza prayer meeting tal-Pastafarians.
The meaning of words and sentences as used may sound contradictory...but that depends on the context in which they are used. Quoting out of context won't do in rational debate.
Cont...
Of course, regarding your "hawwadni ha nifhmek" comment, I don't expect people who do not habitually read works of philosophy and ethics to understand me with ease. But I am patient enough to explain at lenght, making it fairly easy for nearly anyone to understand.
Regarding my analogy, since you have not commented again on it, I take it you understood this time that it makes perfect sense.
OK...let's examine both versions:
1). People do not have the right to be offended by prayer.
2). People who get offended by prayer have no right not to be offended.
3). People who get offended by public prayers have no right to stop the cause of this offence.
Regarding (1), this is similar to saying "people do not have the right to hate children". Of course, they could well hate children, but they do not do so by right (in the philosophical sense), but out of freedom of thought. A "right" in the philosophical sense when referring to an opinion is an opinion which is justified through rational reasons.
Regarding (2), this refers to the practical every-day use of the term "right". In essence, it means that irrational people who, despite having no rational reason to feel that way, still get offended, have no claim for protection from being offended.
Of course, (3) is the logical outcome of both (1) and (2).
Cont...
"There is a difference between "those who do not tolerate prayer are idiots who have no right to be offended" and saying that "idiots have no right to be offended". Since for you that difference is important (although I think that's not the point), I withdrew my claim that you said (or implied) the 2nd statement and substitute it with the 1st.
I think you should consider how contradictory you sounded yesterday when you said "...people do not have the right to be offended by [public prayers]" and in your following post you said: "people who get offended by [public prayers]...have no right NOT to be offended". Note that you repeated both versions more than once in the past weeks. So which one is it, they have no right to be offended or they have no right NOT to be offended? Hawwadni ha nifhmek! I think you could have spared us a lot of time, and avoided all misunderstandings by saying:
People who get offended by public prayers have no right to stop the cause of this offence.
Cont...
Regarding your analogy reply, the issue was not the idiocy, but the irrationality of being offended by prayer. So it is your analogy that is irrelevant. After all, not all idiots are offended by prayer.
To paraphrase my original comment, what I said was that "idiots who do not tolerate prayer have no right to be offended".
Therefore, your analogy is way off the mark, since although it is true that both statements (that Del Piero plays in Brazil and that all Juventus players play in Brazil) are wrong, it is not equally untrue to say (1) that some idiots do not tolerate prayer and (2) that all idiots do not tolerate prayer.
In my case, (2) is obviously incorrect, while (1) is a matter of opinion, held by most people who tolerate prayer.
"If it was logical not to ban this muslim event even though it offended many/some people, then it wasn't logical to ban someone from wearing a priest costume in a carnival even though it offended some/many people".
So we're in complete agreement on this point, even though one must concede that wearing a Christ (or priest) costume in Carnival is a far cry from simply praying, don't you think?
Regarding insults, what I actually said was that "while all kinds of insults hurt (like insults to dead relatives, for instance), usually such insults are made at the spur of the moment, and unlike racial slurs, they do not involve deeply entrenched prejudice".
Mine was not a deeply entrenched prejudice in your regard. Mine was a mistaken assumption due to your being very ambiguous in your post.
Cont...
"If you can't tell the difference..." I always knew the difference but that is not the point. Since you used a 'football' analogy, I will use a similar one to show you the point. The point is that the difference between saying: 'Del Piero plays in Brazil' and 'ALL Juventus players play in Brazil' is irrelevant because the point is that BOTH statmenets are incorrect.
My answer to your question is neither 1 nor 2. My answer is number 1.5. That is: If it was logical not to ban this muslim event even though it offended many/some people, then it wasn't logical to ban someone from wearing a priest costume in a carnival even though it offended some/many people.
At this point I would like to remind you that on 25/11/08 you told me that insults based on prejudice are, according to you, worst than the others:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20081119/andrew-borg-cardona/minister-yours-is-no-disgrace
There is a difference between "those who do not tolerate prayer are idiots who have no right to be offended" and saying that "idiots have no right to be offended". The difference is the same as between saying "Molinaro who is a Juventus player is not very good" and saying "Juventus players are not very good".
If you can't tell the difference, I'm wasting my time. Goodbye and have a nice day.
My point was that even if Turkey becomes a member of the EU, we won't expect a huge exodus from Turkey into Malta. I rather believe they'd choose Britain or some other country where there would be more opportunities.
Consider this: Mainly, the immigrants (legal or otherwise) who ever come to Malta are either retired Europeans, or else Africans who end up in Malta clearly not out of choice (they'd rather be in Italy or some other EU country.
It is precisely Malta's smallness that would not attract many Turks.
Nobody really expected an exodus from the well off and relatively well off countries of the EU to Malta. One tenth of 1% of 80 million poorer than us Muslim Turks is 80,000. Nothing against the Turks really. It's the different culture and malta's smallness that worries people.
I suppose Enoch Powell was scaremongering the British people in the sixties. Go now to England and have a look for yourself.
And by the way, there is a huge difference between misjudging someone about something he fails to comment on (until pressed to), and intentionally misrepresenting someone on something he fully explains in detail. In the first case, it is misjudgement; in the second, dishonesty.
Cont...
That said, you have no right to misrepresent what I said by taking bits that I wrote and use them out of context. I NEVER said that people with low intelligence don't have a right to feel offended. What I actually wrote is that "people who get offended by people publicly praying to God...have no right not to be offended". It is only you who twisted my words to imply that I said that people with low intelligence have no right to be offended. But I guess some people will resort to dishonest means to score points. It is THIS that I find truly childish.
And, as if to prove I'm right, you misrepresent me yet again in the same comment, by taking out of context a comment I posted earlier, and omitting the important part. When I eposed someone's spelling (not grammatical) error elsewhere, what I wrote is: "By the way, before trying to ridicule a Maltese person, you should make sure that you spell your own language well". In that context, my remark was justified. Before someone tries to ridicule, one must ensure that he/she is beyond ridicule him/herself.
Now (after more than a week, and only after I pressed you) I know what your original question intended to suggest. There was no need for you to repeat yourself. I consider this settled. I also fully explained why you needed to elaborate on your original comment, so I also do not need to repeat myself.
I still do not believe that my saying that people do not have the right to be offended by something inoffensive is arrogant and patronising. But still, if you want to insist...I will be no better or worse for it. Your opinion about me does not affect me a bit.
Cont...
"calling someone intolerant is a far cry from calling someone arrogant and patronising (like you called me). But I will forgive you for calling me so (even though you did not apologise), just as you have forgiven me for misjudging you on one point (even though I did not apologise). I hope this satisfies you...I actually find it very childish, this "say sorry" bit..."
I didn't apologise for calling you 'arrogant' and 'patronising' because I based my 'description' on facts, not assumptions. I did not jump to conclusions like you did. You said that people with low intelligence don't have a right to feel offended. But then you told me that yours was a mistake, because what you said is not what you meant to say and then rephrased your statement to include your original "omission". I, as a consequence, withdrew my 'description'. Regarding the "sorry bit", it's good to know that, unlike me, you find it "childish" to apologise. What I find "childish" and a "fatile" mistake(1), is when someone has the habit of exposing his interlocutor's grammatical errors with the hope to score some points for his arguments.
1)http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090310/letters/the-angry-maltese-motorist-2
My original question had the intention to suggest the readers to ask themselves: if it is logical to ban a behaviour that offends the religious sentiments of many people, like what happened to those that wore a priest costume in a carnival, then shouldn't it too be logical to ban this muslim's Sliema front gathering since it offended many people? But if all this is logical, then it is also logical to ban the crucifix from classrooms or to ban people from saying 'Happy Christmas' or to ban someone from displaying a non-black baby Jesus if this offends some people. Hence, my question was there to (hopefully) stimulate people to conclude that these type of laws are illogical and that we should be cautious about similar future laws that would lead to the opening of a Pandora's box.
Since my original comment could have different interpretations, I don't pretend you to believe the one I gave you, but I pretended you to check that your interpretation was the correct one before you resorted to insults.
By the way, I feel I must elaborate on your original comment/question regarding the Nadur carnival and this prayer meeting.
You asked: "At the Nadur carnival, people were sent to prison for offending the religious (christian) feelings of the Maltese. So the question is, is it or is it not a crime to offend the religious feelings of so many people?"
The implication of your question is the following: Since in the Nadur incident, the law was interpreted in a way that made the "perpetrator" who "offended so many people" liable to criminal charges and subsequent (suspended) sentence, your question would imply that by the same token, the same should be applied in this case.
This means one of two things: Either your question was intended to pressure the prohibition of such Muslim prayer meetings, or else, as you explained after I pressured you, that you were only fuelling the debate. I take your word for it that your intention was the latter. However, you would do well to realise that we do not play games with people's lives and liberties.
If there's a fire, you extinguish it with water, and not add fuel to the flames.
I judged you on the basis of a misunderstanding. However, your reluctance in proclaiming yourself clearly on the issue of Islamophobia (which you persist in doing) makes my (mis)judgement understandable.
In fact it took you a whole week (after I pressed you) to describe the Islamophobes as "intolerant" and their comments "excessive" (which is a term meaning that they do have a point, but are going too far).
You will also find that calling someone intolerant is a far cry from calling someone arrogant and patronising (like you called me). But I will forgive you for calling me so (even though you did not apologise), just as you have forgiven me for misjudging you on one point (even though I did not apologise). I hope this satisfies you...I actually find it very childish, this "say sorry" bit...I would think that recognition of one's mistake would suffice...but anyway.
Regarding my "inquisition" comment, it was obviously an exaggeration. I doubt that I will find one sane person who would actually relish the inquisition. So I obviously did not mean that you would literally relish torture. I am confident that you did not actually believe I literally meant so.
"...after judging you (wrongly or not...it would help if you pronounce yourself on the Islamophobia here)..."
Yes you judged me on the basis of no proofs. You told me "You'd love the inquisition." Do you really think I would "love" to have a beer, and some popcorns, while watching a person being burned alive or tortured to death just because of its beliefs? Regarding my pronunciation, I already told you that I would defend a muslim's right to express his belief even if this hurts the feelings of many people. I already told you that many in this blog showed intolerance and had and excessive reaction. But EVEN IF I had not "pronounce[d]" myself, you should have considered me innocent until proven guilty, and NOT insulting me until I prove that I'm innocent.
But even though you insist in not wanting to admit your mistake or apologize, I forgive you nonetheless.
Regarding my assumptions, the first was a question (whether Muslims should be arrested for praying), which was reasonable, since you compared the event to the Nadur carnival issue. Regarding the second (which was the only assumption), I did not assume you are a Christian fundamentalist, but I did assume you have an anti-Muslim agenda. Perhaps you don't, but I cannot be sure, particularly because you still fail to criticise the Islamophobia evident here. Regarding the "inquisition" thing, I thought we cleared that misunderstanding.
Regarding telling you that "we should be careful not only about what we say, but also on what we fail to say" after judging you (wrongly or not...it would help if you pronounce yourself on the Islamophobia here), you fail to see a fundamental difference in the two cases, as I shall explain.
In my assumptions about, and questions to you, I pronounce myself in the knowledge that you have the opportunity to reply and explain yourself. In your case, your failure to be clear and unbiased could result in the formation or sanctioning of opinions that could result in injustice being made to people who do not even visit this website.
fully agree!!
the idea is " he who have the power makes the way for others "
unfortunatley our Gonzi Is not sarkosy !!!
There's nothing wrong in assuming this or that as long as one does not act on those assumptions as if they were proven facts. Unfortunately, this is exactly what you did. You wrote "Are you implying that Muslims should be arrested just because they publicly pray to God? You'd love the inquisition. Tough...this is 2009...get off your time-machine. "
So first you assumed that I'm a religious fundamentalist and asked me: "Are you implying that Muslims should be arrested just because they publicly pray to God?" and then, without even waiting for me to answer your question so as to either confirm or deny your assumptions, in your following sentence you prejudiciously uttered: "You'd love the inquisition" and "get off your time-machine." and ended your comment with a final insult: "Get a life." And now you have the face to tell me "we should be careful not only about what we say, but also on what we fail to say." Had I been in your shoes, I would have first putted aside my ego and then admitted the mistake.
Has the whole of Europe emigrated to Malta on the day we became members of the EU? Stop scare-mongering and get real.
"They may assume whatever they want. No problem. As long as they don't hurl to me insults or allegations based on those assumptions".
Oh, but here's the problem. If they assume you are taking the side of the fundamentalist Cahtolics against the moderate Muslims, it is not you who may suffer as a consequence...it is the moderate Muslims. That is why we should be careful not only about what we say, but also on what we fail to say.
If you oppose any kind of public prayer, at least you are being consistent. I would still disagree with you, but at least, unlike many commenting here, you wouldn't be a hypocrite.
It is IRRELEVANT what would be done to a Christian/hindu/buddhist etc.. who prays in public in a non-democratic country like Saudi. Are these the countries we should be comparing ourselves to? We are either a free country or not. If we're intolerant then we're no better than Saudi, the very country we're claiming not to want to be.
Please everyone remember that Christians also have the tendency to be provocative... It is a multi-factioned religion, with the various factions being intolerant towards the others (catholic/protestant etc.) The West had no small part in antagonising Islam and other religions towards us over the centuries with the crusades, conquistadors, colonisers and the likes..
Now that we've "matured" as a race and enjoy freedom, do we really want to go back to those attitudes?
Or is it time to realise that the world is indeed shrinking and becoming inevitably more ethnically homogeneous in the process?
As Christians we should not fear Islam, but teach these people, by example, to be tolerant to us like we learned to be tolerant to them.
“Regarding exhibitionism how was this activity "exhibitionist", and what was so offensive about it (except, of course, to the religious bigots)?”
As far as I am concerned religion, prayer and worship are a private matter and should not be flaunted around. Congregations belong in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples etc. not on public pavements. Moreover religions (AND POLITICS FOR THAT MATTER) should be practiced in an environmentally healthy and sustainable manner. That is why I have always been generally against most lavish festas, bandalori decorations, festa poles obstructing and damaging pavements, fireworks, petards and grand religious processions (except I must admit the humble Christmas eve procession and carol singing so long as no loudspeakers are used). AND against public political mass meetings, carcades etc. (which I compare to the tactics used by the Nazis) apart from considering them uncivil, a waste of fuel and a pollution generation exercise.
I guess you would define me as a Roman Catholic and Environmental bigot but I consider myself socially and environmentally aware and responsible.
"..you give the impression that the other is right."
They may assume whatever they want. No problem. As long as they don't hurl to me insults or allegations based on those assumptions.
"I omitted the word "moral" before "rights". I considered it implied..."
Rights means legal rights unless otherwise specified, hence your ommission made a whole world of a difference. But anyhow I now consider this case cleared and closed.
"Do you...see people who would deny legal public prayer to Muslims, as arrogant and patronising?"
In my opinion, the word "intollerant" would be the most appropriate in your mentioned case. I think that the reaction of many commenters here was excessive. The reason seems to be that what really worried and irritated them wasn't this ACTUAL public prayer gathering BUT what they fear this might turn into in the FUTURE. For example; multiculturalism, fundamentalism, political correctness, socio-political and religious clashes, a shift in our national identity and in the worst scenario.. terrorism. Now, to be fair with them, they also mentioned some interesting points like:
Are they protesting because Mepa applied the law?
Why they don't use their mosque which was built for that specific purpose?
Was such a prominent place chosen for exhibition purposes?
Is the Sliema front the right place for frequent mass gatherings? Will this have an impact on tourism?
Does the "backlash" comment inspire our tollerence or our fears?
Will muslim values and culture make Malta a better place for our children? (think about the muslim's perception of women, gays, democracy and the distinction between state and religion)
By the same reasoning, should we not tolerate the Chinese immigrants because of their stance in Tibet?
What hypocrisy!... Most Maltese migrants into North America, being dark and Catholic (i.e. not protestant) are pretty much looked down upon as "ethnics"... pretty much in the same way that Mexicans are in the US. (hmmm... pot calling kettle black maybe?)
After all the freedom we've fought for over the past few decades, are we sure we want to remove freedom of any kind?
In any case... since this has actually been deemed a newsworthy article... i'll just say this: If we are going to start doing something about "religious" practices disturbing the public peace, please please PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE everyone, let's start with the petards!!!
Any and all outdoor activities will cause inconvenience to some, in some degree or other. This should be balanced against basic freedoms such as that of holding such activities. Of course, any outdoor activity that gathers crowds should be regulated and any excesses (for instance, of noise) should be prohibited. Otherwise, we should learn to live with people holding different beliefs/entertainment.
If you take another look at the picture, you will see that the pavement was not completely blocked. There was plenty of room for passers-by to walk. So again, no road safety issues here. The only safety issue conceivable is that of drivers taking their eyes off the road to look at these Muslims...but then again, should we ban beautiful women from the sidewalk just to avoid traffic accidents caused by male perverts?
Regarding exhibitionism, how was this activity "exhibitionist", and what was so offensive about it (except, of course, to the religious bigots)?
RE: Their way or the high way. wat exactly do u think yr "get out of our country comment constitutes", you're a disgrace to your Religion. Catholicism preaches tolerance and respect not bigotry and racism or have you never bothered to read the Bible which you seem to hold in such high regard
I assume MEPA had valid reasons for the flat's closure and until these people can remedy this situation by finding an appropriately licensed place in which to pray, and in so far as they do so in accordance with the laws of our Country then there is no axe to grind
To those who claim that this is a sight that their children should not see, hearing their parents blaspheme and spout racist nonsense (at the very least) is obviously a much better example than a peaceful muslim prayer meeting.
Iran: Students wearing ties risk not graduating
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/CultureAndMedia/?id=1.0.2391894144
Catholic nun says police stood idly by as she was raped
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2008/10/26/2003427004
Protestants and Catholics arrested in Saudi Arabia
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_05062saudi.shtml
Saudi authorities arrested five foreigners for possessing bibles
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/125304.stm
Brittish Woman employee loses right to wear a cross at her work place
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6165368.stm
Iran shuts 'Western' barber shops for offering Western hairstyles
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6960959.stm
Religious police in Saudi Arabia arrest American mother for having coffee with a man
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3321637.ece
Mecca, the Centre of the Earth, Theory and Practice
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7359258.stm
“Take another look at the picture. ….”
Hogging a pavement (whether by a sanctioned protest or a hawker) ALWAYS compromises road safety because people will be forced to step off the pavement or even cross to the other side of the road. One can safely avoid going to certain beaches (if certain types of exhibitionism such as nudity offends one for example) but the same does not apply for roads and pavements since most of us need to do shopping, errands and walk/drive to work.
Kindly note that the rest of my post was intended as an answer to the bloggers who implied that we should even be prepared to tolerate public Muslim (loudhailer) call to prayer as practiced in Saudi Arabia just because for years we have been forced to put up with all the loud chaos that those who claim to practice Christian Doctrine locally have chosen to inflict on us. Please read also my post of 5 days ago
I agree that most “festas in Malta are complete with rowdy, excessive noise, exhibitionism and obstruction of public spaces, roads and traffic", but ought one to export such things and make an exhibition of uncivil Maltese behaviour abroad too?
I think we have tolerated such things in Malta much more than enough and we ought to keep in mind that tolerance of what is not right is a weakness not a virtue. It is in fact our overtolerance of so many things that are wrong that has reduced our society to the present absurd state.
Fine, I omitted the word "moral" before "rights". I considered it implied since the context referred to people who are opposed to the prayer meeting even though it was legal. But at least we agree on this point.
As for consistency in calling me patronising and arrogant (although now you would probably think otherwise, or do you?), and not calling so those who would deny legal prayer to Muslims, you have evaded the question by saying that the others did not address questions to you.
Well, let me put it this way. Suppose there is a quarrel between two people, and you only criticise one of them. Even though you might think both are wrong, by your one-sided criticism, you give the impression that the other is right.
In any case, you say that the others did not pose questions or allegations directly to you. Well, let me pose a direct question (although I already alluded to the question even though I did not put it in question form:
Do you, or do you not, see people who would deny legal public prayer to Muslims, as arrogant and patronising? A yes or no answer will do.
"no one has the moral right to be offended by prayer, although they'd obviously have the legal right...Or is this patronising and arrogant too?" No, that's much better. Although I still think you jumped the gun when you prejudicially told me "Get a life."
"At least be consistent" Inconsistency is to act differently in similar cases whereas I acted differently in different circumstances. You addressed your allegations directly to me whereas the others did not, hence I felt only morally obliged to reply to you and not the others.
You ask: "What if these praying people were actually reciting the following part of the Quran: "fight and slay the Pagans [INFIDELS] wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Quran 9:5)? Would you still think they had the right to pray along the Sliema front?".
My reply is that the same should be done to any Christian prayer group that recites the following:
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them".
Leviticus 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death".
The last one would actually solve Malta's overpopulation problem. I could go on and on, but this is sufficient. Of course, you won't hear any of this during Sunday Mass.
I would like to add that both peaceful Christians and peaceful Muslims are selective in which parts of the Bible/Koran they choose to guide them in their life.
Geez...You have some serious issues to work through
Why is it imprudent to conduct a prayer meeting outside (with a permit)? Please explain.
You're welcome. This "flat used as place of worship" is a complex thing which requires the knowledge of several details before forming an opinion. There could well have been a very valid reason. However, I find complaints about the "outside prayer meeting" to be baseless nit-picking from people with an anti-muslim agenda.
I distinguish between the two issues (the indoor and outdoor thing). Unfortunately some people don't. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you are not such a person (who fails to distinguish between the two) particularly now that it has been pointed out that they had a permit for the outside prayer meeting.
Much clearer now. Thanks.
Since you did not mince words, and chose to call me arrogant and patronising, would you be so kind as to reply to the following questions which I posed yesterday? The questions were:
Do you still think I am arrogant and patronizing when I say that no one has the right to be offended by prayer and that it is idiotic to be offended by prayer?
Do I have the right to be offended by your wearing of trousers?
If the answer to both questions is yes, how do you suggest that my (or their, in the case of the people offended by prayer) right be protected?
And don't tell me a compromise is that people would pray inside. What if a significant number of people is also offended by this?
Clear unequivocal answers please.
“..From Malta Culture Website- The statue of IL-BAMBINA…” If all this really happened as reported i.e. complete with rowdy, excessive noise, exhibitionism and obstruction of public spaces, roads and traffic - then it must have been a showcase of “Maltese hamallagni” at its very worse and therefore an act of treason against the Maltese tourism industry (apart from an insult to real religion and Jesus’s Mother as regularly happens in Malta - whether intentionally or not – during certain “external religious feasts”). No wonder that we are getting fewer tourists from the UK!
@ bernard galea i think that al religions are phatetic cause they cause so many trouble for some believe in some god that might not exsist :/
"So tell me...do you still think I am arrogant and patronizing when I say that no one has the right to be offended by prayer and that it is idiotic to be offended by prayer?
I am still convinced that it is arrogant and patronizing to say "no one has the right to be offended by prayer". No one may/can dictate who have a right to feel offended and for what reason. Keep in mind that an offence is a feeling and no one, not even ourselves can decide what to feel or not feel.
"Do I have the right to be offended by your wearing of trousers?" Yes sure. You have the right to feel whatever feelings but you don't have the right to impose your feelings on others. Hence, you have the right to feel offended or not by my trousers and I have the right to wear those trousers whether it offends your feelings or not.
Regarding your reply to Ronnie Micallef, please note that every festa in Malta is "complete with rowdy, excessive noise, exhibitionism and obstruction of public spaces, roads and traffic", not just the "Bambina" one.
Of course, I never complain, because I am a tolerant person (it is only for a few days), and because they would have the necessary permits.
Take another look at the picture. I don't see much obstruction going on. I see much worse in Christian festas. And what do you mean by "road safety feature"? They're on the pavement, as far as I can see. As for exhibitionism, I think in a few weeks time you will see much more exhibitionism further down from where they are facing.
I know that the fact that the prayer meeting was officially sanctioned does not make it necessarily right. However, you failed to give one justified reason why it is wrong.
As for this prayer meeting causing "environmental harm and sound/air pollution", do you actually mean what you are saying? Can you describe in what way they are causing environmental harm and sound/air pollution?
You also say that church bell ringing should be controlled with regards to "decibel rating". I can't imagine these people pictured here being louder than "controlled bells" or bands playing in festas (try controlling their "decibels").
Fair enough. So now you tell me (and I have no reason to doubt you) that "(your) intention was to stimulate a debate regarding whether it makes sense or not to legally ban events or behaviour that may cause religious offence and where this might lead to, like for example the removal of crosses from classrooms etc".
My view on the removal of crosses is that it is silly political correctness gone terribly wrong. I am an atheist but will never ask for the removal of the crucifix in the office I share with Christians.
Now, would you be so kind as to give your opinion on all this? Do you believe that these Muslims should not be allowed to pray along the Sliema front?
I have already answered your question more than 2 days ago. But just in case you missed it, here I go again:
"I am not suggesting that MEPA reverse its decision, since like you, I don't have the full details of the case. But why would a reversal of a decision by MEPA necessarily make it in contempt of law? All that my point 3 said is that they are praying outside only because they were evicted (which by implication means that they would return inside if they were to be allowed) This is no opinion...this is fact".
So no, I am not "accusing" MEPA of closing down the flat. That MEPA closed down the flat is a fact that MEPA will not deny. I won't even deny that MEPA acted according to the law, since I don't have the facts, so I cannot say that they did not.
My point is simple. If you are thrown out, you end up out. If you are taken in, you end up in. Simple.
“..From Malta Culture Website- The statue of IL-BAMBINA…” If all this really happened as reported i.e. complete with rowdy, excessive noise, exhibitionism and obstruction of public spaces, roads and traffic - then it must have been a showcase of “Maltese hamallagni” at its very worse and therefore an act of treason against the Maltese tourism industry (apart from an insult to real religion and Jesus’s Mother as regularly happens in Malta - whether intentionally or not – during certain “external religious feasts”). No wonder that we are getting fewer tourists from the UK!
It should not have been allowed just like cranes and hawkers should not be allowed to obstruct roads, streets, passageways and pavements at whim.
The “fundamental human right to gather in prayer” should not be an excuse to create obstruction, nuisance, environmental harm and sound/air pollution etc. and in a civilized democratic country, this ought to be applied to all religions including the constitutionally recognized Roman Catechism. Thus Church bell ringing and public loudspeaker broadcasting of rosary reciting, mass service etc. should be strictly controlled with regard to decibel rating as well as time of day. Even the most religious fanatics should be made to respect those who value quiet surroundings or merely need to sleep through certain daylight hours in preparation for a night shift. Petards and fireworks should be banned altogether and that includes the much publicized Valletta Fireworks Festival.
"you did suggest that this prayer meeting is somehow comparable to the Nadur carnival incident, when it is clearly not."
I simply stated TWO FACTS i.e. 1) happenings at Nadur caused religious offense to a significant number of people which led to prison sentences and 2) happenings at Sliema front, again, caused religious offence to a significant number of people. And then I asked a provocative question i.e. whether it is illegal or not to offend the religious feelings of a number of people. Note that I refrained from expressing any opinion/judgements.
My intention was to stimulate a debate regarding whether it makes sense or not to legally ban events or behaviour that may cause religious offence and where this might lead to, like for example the removal of crosses from classrooms etc. But I am sorry to say, what my question stimulated was only prejudice and insults.
3. All it takes for them to stop praying outside ... is for their flat to be re-opened.
Re-opened by whom? Are you not here accusing MEPA of closing down the flat, even though MEPA have closed down the flat in accordance with law?
You might also wish to explain what you find wrong in the following:
"People who get offended by people publicly praying to God are...I'm sorry, there's no milder word for it...fundamentalist idiots. Such idiotic people have no right not to be offended, since they, in themselves, are offensive to decent and intelligent human beings", from which you selectively only reproduced "Such idiotic people have no right to be offended" before calling me arrogant and patronizing, and misrepresenting what I said (by claiming that I said they do not have rights).
So tell me...do you still think I am arrogant and patronizing when I say that no one has the right to be offended by prayer and that it is idiotic to be offended by prayer? Do I have the right to be offended by your wearing of trousers? If the answer to both questions is yes, how do you suggest that my (or their, in the case of the people offended by prayer) right be protected? And don't tell me a compromise is that people would pray inside. What if a significant number of people is also offended by this?
Clear unequivocal answers please.
In your analogy of this prayer meeting and the Nadur incident, you asked whether offending the religious sentiments of a significant number of people. This could only mean one of two things:
1. That you believe this prayer meeting should not have been allowed.
or
2. That the person/s dressing as Christ or priests should not have been arrested.
It would help avoid misunderstanding if you are not so ambiguous in your posts.
So which one is it? 1 or 2?
Since in your quote an impression could be had that I ever claimed that "(I) would suppress (a hypothetical Muslim's) belief so as not to hurt others", this was my reply to your post in that Blog:
"That's not what I meant by causing harm (whether Jesus is God or Muhammad a prophet). No, I wouldn't suppress those beliefs, which in any case are just faith-based beliefs, in themselves harmless, and cannot be proven or disproven. If I suffer when someone says 'I believe Jesus is God' or 'I believe Jesus is no God', that is his problem. But if the religious belief is, for instance, that all infidels or people of other religions should be killed, preferably by suicide bombing (to give you a true example), then yes, we not only have a right, but an active duty to suppress that belief".
My question does not already contain the answer, because a right could either be a legal or a moral right. In any case, legal rights are not granted by society. They are granted by governments.
I did not jump the gun, because you did suggest that this prayer meeting is somehow comparable to the Nadur carnival incident, when it is clearly not. What you wrote elsewhere is besides the point. I was only commenting on what you have written and suggested here.
You're welcome. Thanks for joining in.
"Do Muslims who obtain a permit have the right to pray at the Sliema front?"
Your question already contains the answer. Since a "right" is in a way, a permission granted by society, then, the fact that society granted them a permit means that yes they have a right to pray at the Sliema front. Although I personally don't think that that is the ideal place for religious gatherings.
The intention behind the question I asked was to make people reflect on the absurdity of such laws. As proof, let me quote what I told YOU KENNETH on 3-10-08: "a muslim might say: 'We believe that Jesus was a mere mortal and not the son of God'. This may hurt the feelings of many christians and so I guess you would suppress his belief so as not to hurt others. I instead would defend his 'right' to express his beliefs and suggest to the others to accept the idea that others may not only have different skin colours but also different opinions/beliefs. We shall respect diversity in all its forms." -http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20080925/andrew-borg-cardona/yes-indeed
You jumped the gun, Kenneth.
THANK YOU, finally someone who has the time and effort to individually repudiate the utter tripe (as well as racist garbage) spewed on these comment boards by some.
@Jes O Malley I think it is disgusting that our churches have 'holy water' that hundreds of people dip their fingers into on their way into mass. It's just not 'prudent'.
@ David Seychell "Offending the religious sentiments" is an airy-fairy phrase which means absolutely nothing in terms of legality. If legal systems relied on such criteria it would be a crime to suggest that someone was overweight, or to imply that someone is ugly.
I am 100% Maltese but an agnostic. Would the people on this board suggest that I be stripped of my passport and nationality because I do not conform to the religious beliefs of the majority? Setting aside the fact that Malta is a signatory of the European Convention for Human Rights (as well as innumerable other international conventions reinforcing freedom of conscience and belief), it would seem that many on this board are braying for a Catholic theocracy without having thought it through.
Why was this gathering not prudent? Were they offending Christ or something? Ah yes, I suppose you mean it was imprudent because it could provoke violence from the fundamentalists. We're so used to hearing of Muslim fundamentalists that we tend to forget that there are fundamentalists of the Christian type as well.
But wait...oh, they took of their shoes! Now that is imprudent (with all the rubbish that the Maltese leave scattered about, they could easily have stepped on a rusty nail or something - so yes, I suppose it WAS imprudent).
Yours is not a simple question, since it depends on the cause of offense. While it might be illegal to cause offence by insulting a saint during a religious procession, it is not illegal to cause offence by praying to a different God, or the same God with a different name, even if this causes offence to the intolerant fundamentalists.
Would you stop wearing trousers if I said it offended me?
Not all causes of offence are rational and justified, and so, not all causes of offence are prohibited by law. That is why prayer to a different God (or to the same God with a different name) is not illegal, even if it causes offence to the intolerant.
Please note that being a part of a significant number of people does not necessarily make you right. I would recommend the book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles Mackay.
Your question was loaded with suggestions, comparing prayer to the Nadur incident, so I was not prejudiced. But just in case, let me ask you a direct question:
Do Muslims who obtain a permit have the right to pray at the Sliema front?
Thanks. Comments such as yours bring me hope, where others lead me to despair. I honestly hope that most of the comments here do not actually reflect the views of most Christians in Malta.
@ Lawrence Calleja:
Culture is never fixed. It is subjective to the individuals that compose it. I also can't see how "Muslims" are taking over Europe. The last time I checked, the only predominantly Muslim country that has applied for EU membership has not even been accepted yet.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union
By the way, I am interested in your interpretation of the video, if you care to share. When someone posts a link to a video without commenting where he disagrees with the video, it is usually assumed that the person endorses the video's whole message. If, on the otherhand, the video is "subject to interpretation" (meaning that various conflicting messages can be taken from it), it is not such a good video after all, is it?
"...this is serious but this is happening because Europe became a secularist...".
As opposed to a theocracy with sharia law or the Christian equivalent? Isn't this a good thing?
"...and many times also an ateistic continent".
Europe an atheist continent? If only that were so. We would have less people fighting because the other worships the "wrong God", or worships God with his shoes off.
"Churches, and not only Catholics are becoming empty so that Cathedrals now are used not for worship but as Museums or Discos in some cases".
I see. So should we perhaps make going to church compulsory?
"...no Christians in there land have freedom of worship but at the same time in europe they are free to do whatever they want...I don't see my self as being racist but facts are facts...we must be aware of these attitude and draw a line to it".
And where do you propose we draw the line? Do you suggest you do the same as that which you criticise? Jesus would be proud.
L unika haga li dejjqitni, missom marru jghamluha quddiem il mepa
In Sliema today a group of fifty Nanniet gathered to catch up with one
another and get out of the house a little. Mary Muscat, their leader,
said "we don't want to upset anyone, we simply want to meet our
friends and exercise our fundamental right to talk about Bondiplus."
Passers by however were visibly agitated. One woman near the scene
said, "There's going to be trouble if this carries on."
"They should go home," said another man, "or to some hole somewhere,
but not out here where I get my children to eat. It's disgusting, even
the tourists are disgusted. Malta is a country with an average age of
32.5. People this old and saggy shouldn't be allowed here."
A spokesman for Flimkien Fl-injoranza said that this was not a case
of ageist hatred, but a case of Nanniet violating MEPA rules by
gathering in large numbers without a permit. "Why is it that no one
stops pensioners breaking the law in our country? People have to
understand that these Nanniet are actually an invasion force.
Soon our government will be forced to subsidize bingo and ban
music produced after 1957."
I just asked a simple question, is it illegal or not to offend the religious feelings of a significant number of Maltese people? And from this alone you quickly concluded that I am a religion fundamentalist operating a time-machine with the intention to deny rights to muslims. I never expressed any judgements or opinions here. I just asked a question. So please, next time try to fight your urge of firing PREJUDICIOUS and completely baseless accusations.
This video clip is subject to interpretation and not just what the author's message says. The real problem highlighted in this clip is that European culture is being lost due to the immigration of Muslims. It seems that the only part that was of interest to you was the "reproducing" part. If we Europeans think it's best that the average reproduction rate is that below the norm, I do not see any reason why Muslims should continue to take over of Europe. After all they are coming to Europe for their own personal good and not to help the Europeans.
Most of us are Christians simply because our parents are, and we are brought up that way- face it. Despite this being stupid, it is not dangerous as such, but when we threaten other religions, then we're only being arrogant.
"Obtaining all the relevant information is my obligation as much as it is yours".
No its not. Otherwise we would have to spend every day at the MEPA offices to check on the regularity or otherwise of all homes in Malta. Obtaining the relevant information is only the duty of someone who chooses to accuse someone of an irregularity, and this should be done before the accusation.
Otherwise, we are entitled to let the authorities (MEPA, the police, etc) do their jobs.
@ Ernest Vella: Europe an atheist continent? And do you expect us to take you seriously?
@ d. borg:
Shoes and carpets are not litter. Carpets are actually a good means to keep the floor underneath clean, as every household that owns carpets knows. As for shoes, what's the difference between wearing a shoe and putting a shoe on the floor (except dirtying your socks)? Shoes and carpets would only have been litter if they were not collected afterwards. I don't believe they weren't.
And speaking of nice (with regards to people taking off their shoes), I don't think the litter and noise in Maltese Catholic festas is nice, but I tolerate them.
When we pray, even outside we don't litter the street with shoes and carpets. I don't think it's nice for someone to take of his shoes (especially when it's hot) let alone a group off 50 people. I still say they should go to a Mosque.
Europe must wake up before it will be too late...islam truly is a big religion but we can understand the reasons why....no Christians in there land have freedom of worship but at the same time in europe they are free to do whatever they want....because as they say "it is our right"....I don't see my self as being racist but facts are facts...we must be aware of these attitude and draw a line to it
Obtaining all the relevant information is my obligation as much as it is yours.
Did you even spare a few seconds to read the message from the person who posted that video? Let me reproduce (pun intended...you'll see what I mean in a few seconds) it for you: "Islam will overwhelm Christendom unless Christians recognize the demographic realities, begin reproducing again, and share the gospel with Muslims".
Do you support that author's message suggesting that Christians should start having as much sex as possible, so that they have as much children as possible?
I don't think its in your interest to spread other people's fundamentalist political propaganda.
J. Fenech
I quote:
Gaddafi said..
"There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. the 50+ million Muslims [Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades"..
Gaddafi also said –only when the Jews and Christians persuade Israel to accept a two states solutions and give back to the Palestinians a sustainable state to live in, then he will consider helping Europe with illegal immigrants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
You say that "There is a mosque...which they can use as much as they like. FULLSTOP!!!".
So what should we say to any Catholic who prays outside? Should we also tell them "there are hundreds of churches which you could use as much as you like. FULLSTOP?"
I think not. Praying is not illegal.
"Come on Kenneth, tell us who else doesn't have the same rights (according to your dictate): people with low intelligence and who else? The non-atheist?"
That's my whole point, dear David...that everyone should have the same rights, which you would deny to Muslims. This applies to people of all religions or none. By the way, there is no such thing as a non-atheist. I believe you meant theist or deist.
But of course, this does not mean that one has the right to be offended by something that should not cause offence. And again, this applies equally to everyone. If one is offended by prayer, tough...look the other way. Would you stop wearing trousers if I said it offended me? I hope you get my point.
If you have any information showing that something illegal was taking place in the flat, then it would show that MEPA's decision is to be supported. Care to share?
@ malcolm azzopardi:
What I meant was books, not newspaper articles. In any case, I did take a quick glance at the article you directed me to. I stopped reading as soon as I understood that the article has nothing to do with a peaceful prayer meeting for which a permit was obtained. I also fail to see any fires and policemen in riot gear in the Sliema picture above. Have you any relevant article that might interest me?
Regarding the coming and going of people, I wonder how some flats in Gzira (I'm sure you know what I mean), were not evicted then. I don't suppose they have a permit. But I guess Muslim prayer is worse than prostitution to some people.
Regarding the Mosque built by the Maltese (against payment, I suppose), it is not these people that I call intolerant. I only call intolerant those people who do not tolerate peaceful public prayer.
"2) In a residential block you need a Mepa permit to use a flat as an office because of the coming & going of people. In the Muslims case, they also needed a permit because the flat wasn't being used for residential purposes only. "
What about Catholic prayer meetings? What about catholic processions, loudspeakers, fireworks etc etc.? Do you know how many Maltese residential flats are being used for catholic prayer purposes? And I mean gathering people from outside of their residence to pray, not family praying. Of course you don't.
The Nadur events offended the religious feelings of numerous persons and judging by the public reaction one may say that in this case too many maltese persons felt offended but there's a difference between the twe events. In the Nadur case, the bishop asked for the law to be applied while this time the bishop said nothing.
1) You are suggesting that poeple read and learn. Did you read the article on corriere della sera of which I posted the web address ?
2) In a residential block you need a Mepa permit to use a flat as an office because of the coming & going of people. In the Muslims case, they also needed a permit because the flat wasn't being used for residential purposes only.
There is a mosque built by the Maltese(who somebody calls intolerant) which they can use as much as they like. FULLSTOP!!!
My business is MEPA's decision to close the flat in question in accordance with law. You are also not in a position to state whether I have full details about the case.
You are right of course, the Allah of the Muslim faith is not the same as that of the Judeo-Christian faiths.
The idea that our God and theirs are the same one is a deceptive fable.
I am not suggesting that MEPA reverse its decision, since like you, I don't have the full details of the case. But why would a reversal of a decision by MEPA necessarily make it in contempt of law? All that my point 3 said is that they are praying outside only because they were evicted (which by implication means that they would return inside if they were to be allowed) This is no opinion...this is fact.
I happen to agree with you that "Where the law is concerned, it is everyone's business". But since public worship is not illegal, and particularly since they had a permit to conduct their prayer meeting along the Sliema front, it shouldn't be your business. That's what I'm saying.
"Such idiotic people have no right to be offended"
How arrogant and patronizing of you Kenneth! So now it is Mr Kenneth Cassar , the ONE who decides for all of us when and which individuals have a right to feel offended or not. Incredible! Come on Kenneth, tell us who else doesn't have the same rights (according to your dictate): people with low intelligence and who else? The non-atheist?
"There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. the 50+ million Muslims [Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades"..
@ John Meli
would only comment on the last bit of your comment please.
You said ‘God, who send his son to save us.’
Here I would like to ask, first (and I repeat myself ) why it was a son not a daughter? Second, to save us from what? Probably you would answer by saying from original sin? Right? If so, I would say original sin is not mentioned in the Bible, same goes for the word trinity, could you prove the opposite please? Take you time. Thank you.
Yet, the Quran teaches that Allah is the author of evil: Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He who deceives them. And when they stand up for As-Salat (the prayer), they stand with laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember Allah hut little. S.4:142 Hilali - Khan.
Not only does Allah guide people astray, but also has created men specifically for hell. To make matters worse, he even ordains the evil one commits as we have already seen in S. 17:16 and further clarified by this Muslim tradition: In Abu Huraira it is reported as Allah's Apostleas saying “Verify Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must commit (or there would be no escape from it). Sahih Muslim. #6421,6422. So to imagine that Allah causes adultery is not only horrendous but disqualifies him from being the God of Moses.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm
I have nothing against muslim,buddhist,hindus etc but other countries are suffering from multiculturalism. Please read the article from the link below
http://www.corriere.it/esteri/09_maggio_05/salom_malmo_ghetto_ribelle_6798593c-3938-11de-ab3d-00144f02aabc.shtml
Where the law is concerned, it is everyone's business. Let me reproduce your point Nr3:
3. All it takes for them to stop praying outside and make happy those who cannot stand listening to people pray to God, is for their flat to be re-opened.
Are you suggesting that MEPA should reverse its decision and risk being in contempt of law?
Regarding how many in the picture look Maltese, I won't even attempt a guess, since it is irrelevant in any case. However, I can tell the difference between "many" and "all", even though I cannot ascertain whether describing the Maltese in the picture as "many" is correct.
Regarding "sets shop", I know what it means. I was only being sarcastic (as an alternative to being offensive). And yes, I guess that if a group of men with birds in cages decide to "take part of the promenade" and stay there for a while, and do it repeatedly, they would have every right to do so, provided they are not breaking any laws.
Is this enough wisdom for you? Or do you expect me to waste time on counting heads, when this is of no consequence at all.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090505/world-news/man-stoned-to-death-in-iran
And then they have the cheek to speak of human rights?
Ghandom il post tahhom... JUZAWH!
Issa qed inhalluhom jikru post pubbliku, jinzaw iz-zarbun u jilaqu l-art! xjonqos?
When one 'sets shop' its only figuratively speaking. As an example, lets say a group of men with finches in their tiny cages decide to take part of the promenade and stay there for a while, and do it repeatedly. Hope you now understood and looking forward to your wisdom in identifying the many Maltese in that picture.
-- George B. Shaw
Multiculturalism is really nice on paper, but unfortunately it does not always work.
I agree with Emma Xerri and I would like to add a few more examples:
1) Conflicts between Greeks and Turkish in the island of Cyprus
2) Conflicts between Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine
3) Tensions in the US between Americans and non-Americanised illegal immigrants
4) Persecution of Jews in the middle ages
5) Persecution of Gypsies in Europe throughout the last centuries
... etc...
The only way that multiculturalism can work is by restricting the freedom of the majority: this is what happened in, for example, the UK thanks to "political correctness".
If you had to study and truly understand ALL the world religions, you would still be a long way from being able to describe God, the divine, Spirit, the unseen, call It whatever you like.
So if your neighbour experinces God in a different way from yours, be happy to accept that and share your views together. Be curious to know how God is revealed to others. No violence, prejudice or any wrongdoing can be associated to God. If Muslim countries would not accept a Christian public prayer meeting, then they are in the wrong and we should not follow such behaviour.
We should be the bigger men, take the higher road, and happily accept any other faith. I hope the world's future holds less violence, less prejudice and more dialogue and understanding.
Thanks
"It is secularism, and not a rival religion, that is behind the removal of crucifixes from classrooms".
Actually, that is a gross misconception. I am an avowed secularist and atheist. However, I have no problem with having crucifixes in classrooms. I actually have one in my office (which I share with two Christians.
It is "political correctness" gone terribly wrong that makes a minority wish to remove religious symbols so as not to "cause offense", which is nonsense in my opinion. I see it as no different than finding fault in this public display of faith because of some perceived "offence", whatever that is.
Islam, the so called religion of peace is in reality a Socio- Political cult with no separation of religion and State. Its stated aim is world domination in the name of Allah. So it is different to all other religions this very important aspect.
And one of the key weapons in achieving this dominance is through sheer population growth. This is done through immigration (legal and illegal) to hitherto non-Muslim lands and through birthrates which outstrip all others (the average Muslim family has over 8 children as opposed to 1.3 for most non-Muslims).
Once they a population advantage is achieved, Islam will demand to impose its rules on the rest of society. It will deny the rights to freedom of worship and conscience it so vehemently demands while it is still a minority it the West. Islam denies equal rights and treatment to women, gays and non-believers. Proof of this can be seen in practice in such nations as Saudi Arabia, Iran and most of the Islamic Republics.
Except, multi-culturalism is only good for Western Secular nations.
You can see how well multi-culturalism works.
What happened to the millions of Hindus? Mostly they were forced to convert, and many fled the country.
What happened to the Christian population of Lebanon?
What happened to the Christian population of Turkey? And the Coptic population of Egypt?
What happened to the Hindus of Bengladesh?
What happened to the Bahia of Iran?
And I could go on and on and on.
There is no such thing as multiculturalism where Islam is concerned.
The violence in the Old Testament is mostly caused by wars and disputes spanning many centuries and form part of the history of the Hebrews. However, in the "Pentateuch" you will find the seeds of the ethical teachings which in time became the foundation of Judeo-Christian morality, including the treatment of strangers or neighbours as yourself, and sets the rules on humane treatment of slaves and animals as well as a day of rest for all, including beast of burden, which we now all know as the "weekend", the Jubilee when all debts are to be forgiven and all slaves to be set free, etc. This is quiet advance considering the barbarous age these were written in.
Again I reiterate, Christianity does not advocate violence in its core scriptures the way that Islam does. The Christian Reformation was not initiated by secularists, but by people who were still Christians but could see the error of their ways, and snatched temporal power away from corrupt Church institutions. Even the Catholic Church was able to an extent to re-evaluate its behaviour and issue apologies for its past mistakes.
That will never happen with Islam.
The fact that a group of people, after having validly obtained a permit in consonance with the H.R provisions mentioned, were praying in public on the Sliema front, did not in any way commit a criminal offence. Prohibting Muslim public prayer, irrespective of how irritating one may find it, would have been discriminatory in our case.
On another note however, one is similarly free to harbour any thoughts that he may have regarding the practice of another's religion and is granted the liberty, within reason, to express those thoughts. And as Voltaire would have it, I would die defending all these rights, whether I agreed or not with the individual protesting them.
The R.C. Church enjoys these rights as well and it will, I am sure, exercise these rights as it deems fit.
"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Quran 9:5).
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Quran 9:29).
"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).
....and always also in the name of god.
And even if, God forbid, it is true that we are not allowed to do so in such countries, why is that a valid reason to not allow them to do so here? Isn't this a case of running after he who jumps off a cliff? Shouldn't we be proud that we can allow for such diversity? This is what freedom is all about...not only being able to vote for whichever party one likes, or being able to purchase whatever one demands, but also being able to pray how and when one likes. No, but here in 2009 AD Malta- a member of the European Union with all its rights for freedoms- a group of religious individuals (who have already been deprived of prayer in their own individual residence) are a burden on and a danger to everyone's Saturday stroll along a certain promenade. Can you imagine if you were made to refrain from praying to your statue and candles at your own home because you do not have a permit???
Do you not know that these human beings were being deprived of a basic human right- that is freedom of worship?! This human right is protected at the highest level, by our Constitution. No one would have said anything if these people were Catholics, but being Muslims they are instantly smeared with a torrent of fundamentalist ignorant bile. Why can we not accept that other people may have different religious beliefs to ours? Who said Christianity is better than any other religion? What is this, a religion league?? Most people are only Christians because they are brought up so (evidently, since it is only logical that you can only fully appreciate a religion after you have looked into others, which clearly is not the case in Malta). Why then must we be appalled by the peaceful expression of another ?religion?
To all those who are saying that we Maltese don't practice our Religion cos we're racist..........please go for a holiday in a Muslim country, and take a priest with you. Practice a mass in the middle of a public place, and I'm sure the authorities and the locals will fill you with flowers and kind words.
This is what our government is. This is what the EU is. Our forefathers fought to win Malta against the Muslims (Turks) and we're just handing it to them on a plate. Such a perfect situation!
As others have stated before me, I say that this was nothing but an act of defiance. There are undertones of threat in this muslim's words. What he is really saying is 'we will get our way, whether you like it or not.'
I am a liberal thinking person and generally I believe in 'live and let live'. However, I cannot help but realise that if muslims had their way, the basic human rights of every woman living under the muslim yoke would vanish and we would all be transported into the dark world of the middle ages when women had no free will.
I, for one, would rather die than live under a muslim regime.
Often heard. There's only one God. In theory. Theory falls apart when religion is seen as identity. People fight to protect, shore up identity. They will fight another religious God-lead identity if it is perceived as threatening. If there was only one God, he/she whatever would bless both identities and they would live in peace. But this has never happened nor will it ever. the much vaunted single deity in theory is in fact at least a multi-faceted one, fickle and inconsistent to a fault, in practice.
The film Religulous as recommended by Ian Chetcuti should be compulsory viewing for people of ALL religions. Take the narrative on board and finally there will be peace on earth to all men of good will. Until this happens, peace will never be on the menu.
I note that people under siege shore up their previously weak defences. It is a reaction to fear. Some even go the whole way and adopt the dictum 'if you cannot beat them, join them'.
To the observant with head nowhere near a hole in the sand this is glaringly obvious. All others could venture a peep.
This is provocation, pure and simple.
and for '..in Malta we are all Catholics so it's not a problem, but not them..' is just plain ignorant.
I dont consider mself a catholic first of all (nor muslim), and I have to put up with noisy street processions a few times a year. So what is a couple of people praying minding their own business not doing any1 harm? To be honest, rather this than having streets full of catholics forcing religion down our throats.
People like those mentioned in the article are just hypocrites.
1. We as catholics are infidels to the muslim community.
2. Muslim countries do not tolerate catholics in general, so why should we ?
It was actully John Howard who said that. Kevin Rudd is letting illegal Immigrants in left right and centre. They chose the strand to make a point. respect these people and there religion, whether thay are illegal or not they are not asking you to stop beliveing in your god. they have a right to pray. we must promote tolerance people! and for all those who are saying catholics should try saying the rosary in islamic countries....you should be proud that your nation is more educated and its citizens have more freedom!
@ A Attard: You say "Don't be surprised if the next thing they will do will be to accuse the Maltese of religious persecution". Considering many of the comments below, they would be correct.
@ Pierre Attard: You object to "Muslim countries" for being "intolerant of other religions", and then suggest that we should do the same as them!
@ Mary Ann Borg: This is not about "opining shop". This is about freedom of worship, which is guaranteed by our constitution. Also, the Times did not suggest that the men were Maltese. It only suggested that many of the men were Maltese. You should read more carefully before commenting.
If you just consider religions Islam is the fastest growing religion vs Christianity which is in sharp decline. Demographics are changing rapidly but seems as usual there are people on this island who still believe that its in another zone detached from the whole world. See this very good informative 7 minute video and conclude this by yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
"At the Nadur carnival, people were sent to prison for offending the religious (christian) feelings of the Maltese. So the question is, is it or is it not a crime to offend the religious feelings of so many people?"
Interesting. I have two replies for you:
1. Are you implying that Muslims should be arrested just because they publicly pray to God? You'd love the inquisition. Tough...this is 2009...get off your time-machine.
2. People who get offended by people publicly praying to God are...I'm sorry, there's no milder word for it...fundamentalist idiots. Such idiotic people have no right not to be offended, since they, in themselves, are offensive to decent and intelligent human beings.
Get a life.
Criss Camilleri: Everyone is free to believe what they wish. The limits on the practise of beliefs, religious or otherwise, are set by the need to safeguard the rights of others. Incidentally, what do Comunists (sic) do when they 'gather in a group to practise their believes?
Albert Spiteri
They DID have a permit.
lgalea
Once again you have proved that you must enter politics into everything, and not in a constructively critical manner. Dublin Convention or no Dublin Convention, we still had the Geneva to abide by. The Dublin Convention merely builds on the Geneva Convention. or do you propose we turn into Libya? Also besides this, was it not Mintoff who waived visas for Libyans (Muslims) entering the country?
I was always thought to lead by example. What is being said here... really makes one wonder of the xenophobia and intollerance of the Maltese. Is this not akin to a fundamentalist Catholic country?
We may not be officially a fundamentalist Catholic country, but the way some comments are being expressed, just goes to show... that we are still of such irk!
They were not letting off fireworks, causing mayhem and blocking traffic.
They were not partying all over the island just because they graduated, won a football cup, an election, came second in the Eurovision or returning drunk from a 'xalata'.
What really upset us? Is it perhaps that we were shamed ?
When do we ever make the sign of the cross in public, at work - or at home, for that matter ?
We could have just followed their example and joined them.
Today's world needs every prayer it can get !
Whether the flat will be re-opened for the purpose intended by Mr Zina is arguable. This unless MEPA did not act in accordance with residential law. Are you prepared to take issue with MEPA in regard to your point Nr 3?
@ Bader Zina
My apologies for my previous message. I meant Mr Zina not Mr Riza.
Malta not being a secular country is something that will surely not benefit us and that is why Malta is a Catholic country as stated in the Constitution. That alone, already says that all the laws of Malta must be as morally acceptable as possible (regardless of whatever religion is chosen).
Now, I'm surprised with the hate evident in many of the commentators here. It's pure hate without any reasonable justification.
I'd also like to point something out: If any other country, whatever country, does something wrong we mustn't stoop down to that countries level. If a country doesn't tolerate another religion, and that's wrong, then we, who are supposedly civilized and educated, don't start crying like small children, "They do that so I can do it too."
In the same way, if a country is trying to shun any sort of religion, which is wrong too, then for goodness sake, don't even think that "Oh, let's be European and remove symbols from public places," is even close to being good for our country (any country).
Therefore, if you think you are being reasonable, think about how you would feel if i decided to ban all of YOUR outdoor religious activities, and then come and speak to me.
interesting to watch
We call them "Holy Trinity" because they are three in one. How it's so, we will know when Jesus Christ returns back to judge the living and the dead. As to why what you said "Here I see Discrimination isn’t?" Who are we to discriminate or to comment as to what God, the Father does?
One thing for sure, we had not be alive in those days, but in Malta 95% believe in God and what he has done. Although only 65% or more are practising catholics still we believe in one God, who send his son to save us.
@ G.Micallef
‘Christians believe in God (Alla) = God as revealed by His Son Jesus Christ.’
Why wasn’t it a Son not a daughter? Here I see Discrimination isn’t? Or we should edit the Bible to read God's child to be neutral ?
FYI:
The Quran states:
42:41 Yet indeed, as for any who defend themselves after having been wronged - no blame whatever attaches to them.
There is only One God and I believe in the God of Jesus Christ and as revealed by Jesus Christ.
Muslims believe in God revealed by Muhamed.
Also just be aware the the Bible is made of 2 main sections: The Old Testament and the New Testament. The New Testament supersedes the Old Testament and the New Testament preaches ONLY LOVE and FORGIVENESS in ALL INSTANCES. Jesus Himself says that He came to make the Law, the Torah, Perfect.
Also please remember that the Bible at times portrays a vengeful God who would punish the Egyptians after holding the Jews as prisoners.
If Bader Zina's interest was to praise God, then he should have selected another appropriate location for his prayers - and not one of the most prominent promenades on the island. His intentions were otherwise and its very unlikely that he did not want to anger anyone.
As Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd said...
“ We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us. This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'. If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.”
In examining this it's essential since our objective is to discover the true nature of God, a process whose outcome entails eternal consequences as regards to man's future destiny in the afterlife. After all, if Allah is the God of Abraham then Jews and Christians are wrong for not embracing Islam. But if Allah is not Yahweh, then Muslims are not worshiping the same God only with a different name.
The reason why we have to compare Allah to Yahweh as opposed to contrasting Yahweh to the quranic portrait of Allah, using the Quran as the standard, is due to the fact that it is Islam that claims to worship the same God of the Holy Bible. Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the Muslims to defend this contention since they believe Allah is Yahweh. (1/2).
These verses not only are violent, but have been used historically by Christians to condone everything from the wholesale slaughter of "natives" or "heretics", enslavement of others, and all kinds of brutality. For much of Christianity's history, Christians were involved in one war after another, often with other Christians, often over the interpretation of the scriptures.
Christianity has not managed to reform itself. Europe forcibly reformed it by snatching away its sceptres of secular power. The reform you're referring to did not take place until state and church were separated, and the church was not too keen to let go.
Upon reaching the nuns’ chapel, the High Commissioner concluded with a speech of thanksgiving to all those present for their steadfastness in bringing a scene of Malta into central London.
No comment.
"Chris Farrugia (2 hours, 33 minutes ago)
Sometimes.... I just wonder and think... Are we a secular nation or not?
The intolerance makes one wonder... What's the difference between a fundamentalist catholic country and a fundamentalist muslim country?"
First of all Malta is not officially a secular country. Secondly, essentially there is no difference between a fundamentalist Catholic Country and a Fundamentalist Muslim Country... BUT fundamentalist Catholic countries no longer exist. For the purpose of making sense out of your question, did you mean to ask: "What is the difference between Malta and a fundamentalist Muslim country?"
To that I would suggest the following: get a one-way ticket to Iran, gather some 10 people and parade in some main square with the Holy Bible in one hand and a crucifix in the other. If you live to tell the tale please blog back on this commentary. I'd very much look forward to a reply!
And dear Mr Malcolm Seychell, seeing that you believe that "Prayers should not be held in streets, but at the mosque or a church", I wonder...don't you ever pray outside? Ah, but its because they are Muslims...right? Interesting.
And please, can't you even read? Let me quote for you: "They had a permit and police protection and said this might become a regular appointment until their flat was reopened".
So:
1. Yes, they had a permit.
2. They had police protection.
3. All it takes for them to stop praying outside and make happy those who cannot stand listening to people pray to God, is for their flat to be re-opened.
But, having said this, perhaps most would rather watch half-naked tourists strolling Sliema, than watch Muslim men pray.
"Chris Farrugia (2 hours, 33 minutes ago)
Sometimes.... I just wonder and think... Are we a secular nation or not?
The intolerance makes one wonder... What's the difference between a fundamentalist catholic country and a fundamentalist muslim country?"
First of all Malta is not officially a secular country. Secondly, essentially there is no difference between a fundamentalist Catholic Country and a Fundamentalist Muslim Country... BUT fundamentalist Catholic countries no longer exist. For the purpose of making sense out of your question, did you mean to ask: "What is the difference between Malta and a fundamentalist Muslim country?"
To that I would suggest the following: get a one-way ticket to Iran, gather some 10 people and parade in some main square with the Holy Bible in one hand and a crucifix in the other. If you live to tell the tale please blog back on this commentary. I'd very much look forward to a reply!
So you are a Chistian and so monotheist. So you also believe that there exist 2 Gods? One for Muslims and another for Christians?!
And no, the Koran does not preach revenge. If you believe so, please explain to us where did you get this information from?
Also please remember that the Bible at times portrays a vengeful God who would punish the Egyptians after holding the Jews as prisoners.
If a licence is needed for a place of residence to be used as a place of worship, then so be it - whatever your religion.
As London is not, by any stretch of the imagination, Catholic, can we now look forward to an end to the yearly, officially-sanctioned parading of the Bambina by the Maltese community through the streets of Soho ? Or is that 'culture' ?
They might well have different beliefs (eg Sunni, Shia). Or it may be that Paola is to far away (how would you like it if you had to travel across the island to go to church?).
FACT: They live in Malta, legally.
FACT: The constitution allows them (as does the UN Charter) to practice their religion freely and publically.
FACT: They had the appropriate permits for the event.
FACT: They caused nobody harm while doing it (not even the ever so impressionable children...)
The fear of the conservatives and the fundamentalist catholics, and the racists who posted on here is that the number of muslims will grow and they will take over Malta....well....(a) its an illigical thought, and (b) if the population dynamics change in that way in few decades, SO WHAT?. The catholics are afriad that their religion will become a minority ...well..it already is, and in Malta the more educated and the richer people become, the more will leave religion. And the racists...well, to them any platform would do to try to instill fear of and hatred for anyone who is different, in the minds to the gullable great unwashed.
There is nowhere in the Christian Bible analogues to the instructions found in the Koran to strike at unbelievers wherever you find them.
Christ’s teachings in the New Testament abjure violence and enjoin the love of neighbour. The Sermon on the Mount, the 'turn the other cheek' injunction and Jesus challenging the crowd for 'him that is without sin to cast the first stone' at the stoning of the adulteress (a horrendous execution still practiced in Muslim countries), are such examples.
While there has been violence in the history of Christianity, it is not condoned and encouraged in its scriptures. And Christianity has managed to reform itself.
In Islam, however, violence t is entrenched in the Koran. And since the Koran is the word of Allah, for all men and for all time, it is immutable. Islam therefore cam never be reformed.
Proof of Islam's inherent violent nature can be seen by the fact that all over the world Muslims are engaged in war and violence against their neighbours. Somehow, they cannot get along with any other religion, be it Hindus, Buddhists, Jews or Christians. Islam's bloody borders are well explained in Samuel Huntington's book "Clash of Civilizations".
In Dubai we Christians travel long distances to attend Mass at one of the very few churches that have been allowed to operate. In most Moslem countries the situation is even worse. Let these ingrates bask in the glory of living in a democratic and secular state by all means, but let us not fall in the usual trap of acting holier than thou on such matters - Malta is a Christian state, if they do not like it they can pick one of the many Moslem countries and settle there, After all that is the retort that Christians in said countries can expect to get.
Malta....Grow Up!!!
A reasonably large gathering of people are not allowed to use a public space for a specific purpose. This is the reason why permits, issued by the relevant authorities, exist.
The definition should be clear. Public spaces are designated by the State for the common enjoyment of the general public.
As a small boy, one of my joys was to play Fiera at exactly the same spot where Mr Riza and his companions are standing. Fiera is not a common enjoyment, and the organisers would have required a permit. Mr Riza is not, and should not, be the exception to the rule, even if he were a Roman Catholic in the religious Republic of Malta whose official religion is RC.
In the case of a private residence, upon construction, the residence is designated by the State as place of abode for nominated people who will live regularly in that residence. A non-resident group of people gathering at that residence for a specific activity do not qualify for "usufruct" under civil law.
The intolerance makes one wonder... What's the difference between a fundamentalist catholic country and a fundamentalist muslim country?
Can I ask all those who find nothing wrong about what happened on the Sliema promenade, why these Muslims don't go and pray at their mosque in Paola? They have a place of worship unlike Christians that live in Saudia Arabia, They should make use of it. Muslims expect respect that's ok HOWEVER When are they going to start respecting women? When women are going to have the liberty to dress as they like and not being brainwashed to think that they are just hiding their modesty. Islam needs to reform itself before expecting others to accept it. How is it that in modern age this religion is still the cause of bloodshed. Their religion is stuck in the middle ages.
Regarding certain comments about our feasts, well for one I am no festa lover but from today reading certain comments will make look at them in a different light. Feast are part of our culture like it or not, its time that our culture and identity to be defended.
I take it you are the wife and your husband is muslim.
May I ask you a question ? What if the roles were reversed and you were muslim and your husband was catholic? Can a Christian man marry a muslim women without becoming muslim himself?
What happens if a muslim decides to convert to another religion?
Will it be safe to return to his family?
Can a woman testify in court and is her testimony the same as a man's?
I ask to see how tolerant and democratic islam is.
I am not holding my breath for an answer.
As for these worshipers, I'm surprised they were given a permit for such a gathering. Can anyone imagine organizing a procession with the Holy Cross or the statue of the Virgin Mary in a Muslim country?
I happen to live in Swieqi and have no problem whatsoever if I will be seeing Muslims praying in the streeets. As I said before - this is no difference to people with rosary beads in their hands, 21 year old trying to make me join the saints of whoever or the pucizzjoni of Easter/festi so on and so forth.
I agree with Noel Zarb. Why do we hate these people so much when we cannot even say that we are true catholics? Whats the percentage of maltese that swear? Go to mass NOT for the sake of going and being seen by neighbours?
Most of us, Im sure, go to mass just for the sake to be seen. So his neighbours do not say that he doesnt go. Others just go for the sake of going. So this is all a bunch of religious hypocrisy as far as I know.
Then there are the arguments of "they should go to a mosque". There is only one in Malta. Could you people imagine the outrage if these people would want to build ANOTHER MOSQUE?
I think they know what they are doing. They were disturbing no one. Leave them in peace.
Its always quieter and less rowdy then one of our village festas were you see people fighting for their patron, drinking, swearing and loads of trash in the streets. . . .
SO LONG AS WE CAN DO THE SAME IN "MUSLIM" COUNTRIES
They HAD a pertmit.
Yet another epitome of catholic arrogance and and disgraceful behaviour despite their own teaching.
Catholics have feasts outdoors (and sometimes quite of a blashphemous nature)...then why shouldn't muslims do a relatively queit religious performance?
Just by way of clarification:-
Muslims believe in Allah = God as revealed the Muslim Prophet Muhamed and this is black on white in the Quran.
Christians believe in God (Alla) = God as revealed by His Son Jesus Christ.
Therefore we don't believe in the same Revelation. Also Christianity is the only Monotheistic Religion (from the three existing ones) which preaches and practices FORGIVENESS and not Revenge!!!
How can you call yourself a Christian when you preach eye for an eye? ;-)
@ Jeffrey Tabone, Robert Callus, Renald Galea. Soren Dimech, C Attard and other who posted similar comments.... people like you make me proud to be Maltese. Thanks
Malta IS NOT Catholic. She might have been right in saying that in Malta there is a majority of Catholics but her statement is wrong. I was born and bred in Malta, baptised as Catholic, but I am not Catholic now (neither Muslim).
About their "rights", she should check the UN Declaration and EU Convention on Human Rights that carry the same paragraph in regard to freedom of religion.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."
"All religious rites/prayers should be held in a private place, including catholic processions and the like. The only reason I see for public religious events is pure exhibitionism and as a result tend to divide a nation."
best comment so far. Public exposure of religious activties like festas are just a meagre pagan way of adoring some form of statue or saint. Religious worship should occur behind closed doors where they belong and no religion should impose its worship practice on other passers by - christians, muslims, buddhist or whatever. This applies on a 360 degree radius, whereby diehard christians want to impose their views on others e.g. divorce.
We should not tolerate anybody obstructing streets or pavements anymore than we should tolerate “religious” or “romantic”/sexual exhibitionism. (In my opinion ostentatious/congregational religious worship and heavy petting should only take place behind closed doors in churches/synagoes/mosques/temples/ and private locations respectively)
We should NOT tolerate Moslems noisily calling worshippers to prayer anymore than we should tolerate frivolous use of car horns, loud radios, petards, church clocks such as the Millennium Senglea one, public loudspeakers broadcasting carols/song/prayers/adverts/political gatherings etc (i.e. any type of noise pollution)
Introduce rigid decency, environmental and health and safety laws and do away with nonsense such as this “gathering”
There is a time and place for everything and the Maltese Islands should become LESS tolerant of some things. “Tradition”, “Culture” and “religious freedom” arguments and pseudo reasoning should not be allowed to continue to deteriorate the Maltese Islands
As for Christians sharing the same "message", consider the American televangelists, the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and Jehovah's witnesses, not to mention countless groups which were destroyed for being "heretics" - that is because their message was different from the one that the strongest group preached - such as Montanism, Arianism, Gnosticism, Marcionites.
There have been greater differences between different groups calling themselves Christian, than there is between Islam and Christianity.
Every religion needs to be treated with respect. This public manifestation is not likely to have enhanced the respect towards Islam by those who do not believe in it. It appears to be more in the form of a political statement about the need to find an alternative place where this group of people might wish to profess their faith.
One may assume that MEPA had its reasons for its actions. So it might be more appropriate for this group of people to find another suitable premises and seek the appropriate permits.
The term Islam means peace, so any references to violence, revenge and backlash are not appropriate. One expects religious leaders to be more careful on how they frame their discourse.
The times of the Ottoman rulers who converted Christian churches and cathedrals into mosques 500 years ago, as was the case in Nicosia, Cyprus, and several other places, are hopefully things of the past.
http://www.whatson-northcyprus.com/interest/nicosia/north_nicosia/selimiye_mosque.htm
But basic human needs such as security, identity and recognition, have to be satisfied if we wish to reduce or resolve conflicts. Religion is closely associated with identity.
I think that we should see the Muslims as an example, they were kicked out of their place of worship yet they still prayed.
Malta is full of Catholic churches yet we are facing an increasing problem of people not going to mass for their very own reasons.
So let us not pass as the ultimate Catholic Nation with saints walking on the streets, and even worse, let us not use Religion as a means to be racist.
As much as Islam is in the Saudia Arabia.
So, those with the rosary bead have every right to be in the Sliema Front. On the other hand, for such as the above manifestations there are the Mosques.
Of course no one should disrespect or ridicule other religions. And there must be freedom of worship. But not as the above gathering, if at all lawful.
It does not matter what symbols Roman Catholics use and its validity, It is their choice.
And it is also their choice to display them where they see fit, with no complaints from any other faiths in Malta.
No one ever complained about the quarter moon symbol used in the Turkish cemetery in Marsa.
Sura 22.9....as for the unbelievers for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skins shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.
Sura 47.4 ..When you meet the unbelivers, strike off their heads, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.
Is this what Mr.Zina means by backlash?? Good luck, my friends
Intolerance within fundamentalist Muslim nations towards the practice of Christianity is no reason for Malta to discriminate in like fashion. Two wrongs do not constitute a right. The likening of a mosque to a “hole somewhere” in which to hold Islamic worship services is an insult with connotations of religious, racial, cultural implications. The irrational backlash so evident in the expression of many in opposition to the prayer meeting, reflects a rigid mindset which bodes ill for Malta’s image abroad. Sensitivity is a two edged proposition by which to promote human interaction.
Do you really want to compare Malta to Iran? Do you really want Malta to behave in the same way? Do you want Malta to be a Fundementalist Christian Country!!!
We are a democratic country, as far as i can see they are using the right we all have to protest in peace as well as pray. Whether the argument they are putting forward is valid is a totally different question. Wether i agree with them is also. But i sure as well will defend the right of every citizen to protest within the confines of the Law. Which as far as i can read. is what they did!!!
It is well known that the first symbol of Christianity was that of a fish. On sacramental cups, seals, and lamps the Holy Spirit was symbolized by a dove and Christ by a fish (perhaps because at the time, fish was one of the elements of the sacred meal) or by a shepherd carrying a sheep on his shoulders (from Luke 15:3-7). The cross was not adopted until long after the departure of Jesus. One of the main reasons for this was the fact that he who dies on the cross is considered cursed by God (Galatians 3:13).
The cross was well recognized as a religious symbol very long before the advent of Jesus. It was adored in India as the symbol of the Hindu god Agni, the 'light of the world'. It was placed in the hands of Siva, Brahma, Vishnu, Krishna. The cross was also well known among the Buddhists from ancient times.
The Bible says Jesus was crucified on a tree not a cross.
(Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29, Gal 3:13, 1Pe 2:24).
Reminder: EU constitution is God-lees. So, Crosses are removed not upon immigrants demands.
They should have found another apartment regardless,
till that one too was shut down and they could do this till they find themselves in the vicinity of the Corradino mosque, and then do this in their mosque like they should have done so in the first place, once they had their fill of playing games.
Nobody is buying this charade.
Note: This is what happened in Berlin on 22nd April 2009.
Personal Opinion: I would not like my daughter not to wear a Burka. However if it is her wish I would still accept her in my family.
What would happen to these worshippers............?
Any other comments would be superfluous................
Read the article again - this all happened as the apartment they were using got locked up. So no, they cannot use another apartment.
This is no different to seeing people on the Sliema front with rosary beads in their hands.....
If they needed a permit to hold prayers outside or to hold a protest or for both- the competent authorities should proceed to take action against the organisers; who might have provoked some part of the population!
Ubelievable, what next, will they protest against the Cruficix, and its removal, since it offends their faith.
If they want to pray, then they should revert to their mosque in corradino, the official place of muslim worship, and they can pray all day as well, while leave squares for recreational purposes and relaxation.
Malta is a catholic country, with a christian faith, and the holy cross is our symbol, and will remain affixed on our walls, in our homes, offices and public buildings.
All Muslims in Malta chose to come to catholic Malta, we did not request them to do so, they should not offend our beliefs by encroaching our open spaces but assimiliate and do their prayings in their official places of worship. No one is above the Law.
Agree with you 100 + 1 %
Good one.
To all these peoples that like to parallels.
Will you welcome and accept some BLACK,ARAB CHRISTIANS to live in Malta? I think you know the answer. so we should stop being hypocritical please.
I am really disappointed that some have opined and didn’t not even read the article, or could also be an English language problem?
This event was guarded and licensed by police permission. Anf these peoples are legally staying in Malta. Why not blame the police or the government for letting them here?
Known fact, none of the Muslim countries boosted themselves as human rights leader, or freedom guards. But here we do. Now we have to walk the way we talk. Or is it just a bla bla?
Are we more tolerant, better, civilized, supremacist or whatever you like to name it?
Are we showing any difference from Iran or Saudi Arabia? Equally bad indeed.
If you don’t like Muslims don’t mingle with them. If you don’t like Muslim countries, simply don’t go there, and ask the government to declare Malta Muslim-free.
For these same people, Maltese Muslims should not be allowed to worship their god in their own country.
Ahfrilhom Mulej ghax ma jafux x'inhuma jghidu.
Dear Deluded
I too am an atheist, however my friends you are woefully ignorant of Islam and its tenets. Islam makes no separation between “church and State’ in fact the only legitimate state in Islam is a theocracy based on the Koran the Hadith and Sharia Law. Islam clearly prescribes severe punishment for apostates/atheists. Islam is not a live and let live religion vide Sura of the Sword:
"9:5 When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful."
Islam’s theological position regarding the use of violence to further its domain does not rest upon one verse or passage, but on the entire Quran, other Islamic source materials, and Muhammad’s actions and lifestyle.
Ironically Western Secularists would be the first to perish once Muslims form a majority. As Professor of European thought at LSE. John Grey clearly states in his books. Islam sees population as a weapon by which they can hoist the ‘West by its own petard’.
So too can there be diverse beliefs. To be free is to allow other to be free too. It is high time to seriously look into article 2 of the Maltese constitution. For it clearly empowers one group of poeple to hold some sort of moral justification for threatening and causing harm to other who do not hold or share the same beliefs.
It is the kind of article that fundementalists feed from, of which we can see the outcome in various countries that unfortunatly are not secular. Of which even in Malta, certain hypocracies take place due to its undue influence.
Freedom for all. Amend Article 2
There is no need to hold a 'prayer' meetng in public areas, I am sure they could have all met in some apartment to pray.
It says to me, this our place now. And what's more, we have the backing of the EU and the Maltese Government. Anyone who dares open their mouths will be labeled a 'racist', never mind that Islam is not a race but an despotic ideology.
Lol, waht a bunch of childish ideas.
I am Maltese, I am not christian, I am not muslim, i am not Hindu, I am not Buddish, I do not believe in horace, the sun god ra, or thor and his mighty hammer. I subscribe to no religeon. Yet unlike many of the people on here, (who subscribe to a particular religeon, one which if i am not mistaken professes "Do unto others as you would have unto you" - or something to that effect, i have no problem with people wanting to pray, if they so choose to, especially if they underwent all necesary lawfull permissions for this to take place. I never shouted or or threatened the many christians who hold processions, or go around trying to force their views on me as i sipped a cool beer in Paceville or when they knowcked on my door, asking me if i had found jesus and other such nonsense.
A country cannot have a religeon. its people can, and just like there are diverse opinions in a democratic society, so too...
Part 2
If an insignificant few is able to harm Malta, then imagine if these few became the many!
To all those who are trying to condone these “few”, please do not let anybody influence you and hoodwink you, by quoting that this is just a mere question of freedom of worship, because if they want to worship there are other more adaptable places rather than right in the heart of Malta’s tourism!
It is POLITICAL PROVOCATION!
../..
Part 1
The gathering of a group of Muslim men in the heart of Malta’s tourism, precisely on the Sliema front, is NOT an ordinary prayer meeting but a sheer sign of POLITICAL PROVOCATION!
The authorities concerned should see to this immediately and one really wonders if the Police were actually aware of this situation, as I have my doubts if this “Political” gathering was ever authorised!
Do we really think that if these types of happenings were to be on regular basis, in areas popular with tourism, would not have effect on our tourist industry, in a negative way?
Tourists come to Malta for specific reasons and if they want to appreciate such “gatherings” there are specific places for this, such as Mecca etc… to go to!
The tourism industry is a very fragile industry and in these hard times of a world recession, it definitely is NOT what Malta requires.
Malta, open your eyes and see where we are heading for!
../continued…
@ Ramon Casha,
The same One True God cannot have different messages for different religions.
Christians of all denominations have the one and same message from the One and Only Judea-Christian God, irrespective of the different interpretations attributed to this Message!
However the “Allah” of Islam is NOT the same GOD of the Judea-Christian faiths, because the message of Allah in most cases goes diametrically opposite to those of the One and True GOD!
../..
" Malta is a Catholic country....." "one Maltese woman said".....MA MI FACCIA IL PIACERE.......
I believe that this one Maltese woman goes to mass every week!!!!!!!!!!
Just let everyone be.......Malta is also a democratic country!!!!!!!!!!!
XI DWEJJAQ!!!!
Have you been to Safi or Marsa lately to know that these are a regular occurence??
I don't intend to be racist, however, people often use their minoritarian position to lobby for whatever unreasonable cause they please, and expect exemption precisely on the grounds that they are in a minority. If their apartment was unlawfully used, it's heartening to see MEPA do its work properly at last. However, if the Muslims want to be treated equally, they must behave like everyone else, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and the like, and follow the proper legal procedures to obtain what they need. This kind of show is not the way to go about it.
And by the way Mr Zina, threatening of a "backlash" was not a good idea. It certainly doesn't get you that apartment, if that's what you really want that is.
In Roman Catholic Malta, a Roman Catholic Parish Priest has to apply for a Police permit before hand to have any type of procession say like the one of Our Lady of Sorrows. So why do these people, from what ever other religion, non-Maltese, non-EU citizens, pretend to be above the law? WHY?
Why does the Police Commissioner allow these things to happen? Had it been done by a Maltese, the police force would have come down on him with all the pressure possible.
Apart from the religious side of the matter, gathering in ten or more people without a permit is also prohibited by the criminal law. So again, why Mr Police Commissioner don't you uphold the law?
Maybe not everyone saw the video of Ghaddafi preaching that he dreams of a total Muslim Europe and these maybe small matters in Malta are just the stepping stone. Next time they would request that we change the constitution.
What is Mr Zina saying 'impossible to control a backlash? what is this ? a threat?
On the other hand, they are peaceful and not doing harm to anyone.
Muslim encroachment, on the other hand, has NOTHING to do with that!! It is NOT part of our culture and let me assure you, dawn mis-seba' jiehdu l-id!
But not in public places or as large gatherings in a private residence. It is the duty of respective councilors to ensure that these type of gatherings do not occur (whether Muslim or Catholic) in order to protect the common enjoyment of the public and of nearby residents.
The Muslims on Malta will need to build more mosques. They have only built one (to the best of my knowledge) at Paola. This mosque is too plain looking for my liking, and they surrounded this mosque with a high wall as if they spite us.
There are some architecturally exquisite mosques around the world. The Arabs, during the revival of astronomy, built on Malta the most beautiful medina. Why not the most beautiful mosque, and provide at least some limited access to the general public for appreciation? What are they waiting for? All they want to do is collect themselves into a knot and score political points.
Having said that, what this group of muslims is doing is perfectly acceptable. I know a couple of Maltese people (white skinned, if that matters to some); who are muslims, pacifists and perfectly agreeable people.
Although I find public displays of worship distasteful to an extent, it is clearly a choice of those involved and not up to me or anyone else to judge them. If they want to enjoy the beautiful atmosphere on the Sliema front while at the same time worshipping God, let them!
I'm personally much more worried about the numerous pious churchgoers who are the first ones to condemn these people.
what was it that Jesus said about throwing the first stone??
Like you I feel ashamed some Maltese people have shown blatant ignorance apart from racism and respect for the law (freedom of worshiip). However, even though I'm agnostic myself, fair's fair - no such hatred or stupidity has come out from the Maltese Catholic church.
Quite the opposite, the church has been consistent in defending the dignity of every human being.
What Mr Zina has said describes perfectly the doctrine. The authorities should not play political correctness here, They have the duty to protect (yes protect!) our values. We have our Roman Catholic religion enshrined in the Constitution! Here it is:
LVIII.1974.4.
2. (1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
(2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church
have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and
which are wrong.
(3) Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith
shall be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory education.
The Maltese are not intolerant to other religions if they are practiced in their own appropriate places. But yes we are intollerant to those who want to IMPOSE with THREATS their religion showing complete lack of respect to your host country, its values and religion. For Mr Zina to threaten the Maltese with backlash because we do not like Sliema to be turned into the epicenter of a Muslim backlash has exposed the very modus operandi of the Muslims.
Yes this was a protest, but it is a protest gone wrong!
A backlash? Are we being threatened? The authorities should ask for explanations here. We need to know the real intentions of these people.
Let these people pray. I am no religious fanatic myself, but I respect each and every religion equally - every person has a right to believe what they will, be it in Jesus Christ, Mohammed, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
How is praying 'disgusting'? So aren't the open air 'healing sessions' held with a lot of pomp and glamour also 'disgusting'? Respect other people, respect other cultures, and LET THEM PRAY. It is words such as yours which spark conflicts, major conflicts which cannot be easily resolved - and do not mix this issue with anything to do with illegal migration or anything of the sort. this is pure religion - and everyone has the right to worship their own god. How DARE you accuse someone of being 'disgusting' for that?
Today, I am ashamed to be Maltese.
What's the shame...if they have a permit they can pray wherever they want....as every faith do with a permit.....there is also a Mosque in Rahal Gdid were they can go. Lets not be racist but neither be too much easy go or we will end that in few years the crucifix will be taken away from us.
Respect others must be our motto but also not reject ourselves must be....in the name of freedom also grave shameful acts were done ex. in France were a cross was seen as an insult...if someone is insulted close his eyes.
What annoys me is the fact that in Malta, its perfectly acceptable for Catholics to force their religion onto random strangers on the street.
I often get verbally harassed by members of prayer groups/Church organisations just for saying ''No,I'm not interested.'' One of these persons actually called me Satanist just because I said 'No.'.. That is pure ignorance.
At least the Muslims weren't trying to make you buy useless over priced magazines or Icon's from pushy clipboard carrying Roaches.
And they weren't shouting, screaming,fog-horning,drunken,sweaty,vulgar,insulting, swearing, beer swilling idiots like most of the people who attend the feasts we have.
And what do they mean by "there will be trouble".? Risky comment coming from some bench warmer.
If Christians worship the same god, shouldn't there be one Christianity? And shouldn't its message have remained the same throughout the ages? Even among one group - Catholics - there are different views, not to mention views which changed drastically along its history.
Contrary to common belief, and to what you seem to be implying, Turkey is not a Muslim country. Turkey is a secular state with no official religion. This following the Atatürk's constitutional reforms in 1924. Unlike in some of the Islamic Republics, everyone in Turkey is free to practice whatever religious beliefs they want to uphold, although this understandably within the local rules and regulations that apply equally to everyone.
I am glad you mentioned Turkey. I happen to have always had a fondness for Turkey since my early school days reading Maltese history texts. I do not know why -- something in the blood I guess.
I am aware that the Turkish government is due to open an embassy in Malta (if I am not mistaken) over the coming months. I am hopeful for excellent relations between Malta and Turkey over the coming months and years. I also hope that the Turkish government would take an interest in the upcoming refurbishment of St Elmo. There is inevitably a close historical connection between Turkey and this particular fort. Cheers.
Where did these rich Middle Eastern countries get their money in the first place?
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its repressive fundamentalist regime are the creation of corporations like Standard Oil who together with the US government made a pact with the Saud family to create this undemocratic kingdom in exchange for access to their oil.
Western technology extracts and refines the oil and the West is the prime consumer/market. The Saudis are paid handsomely for it. But for an accident of geography and corporate greed, they would still be Bedouins tending their flocks, instead of exporting their brand of Islam - Wahhabism, and funding pro-Islamic lobbies around the world.
I am no fan of the Catholic Church, but the Crusades were a direct response to the Islamic expansion which threatened to take over all of Europe until they were stopped by Charles Martel at Tours in 731 and again at the Siege of Vienna in 1683.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
So to have a particular citizen stating that in Malta " we are all Catholics" is an insult within itself even if I hold catholic beliefs! .
Also, in the article there is a comment stating, "if a Catholic was to do so in an Arabic country he/she would get stoned "... Then why don't we claim to be a closed society as Arabic countries are usually known worldwide and criticized for such extreme positions (we are acting on the same grounds…. and not as a liberal European State)?
First of all the Balluta church architecture is very beautiful & not imposing. Our religion is part of our culture. Tourists also come to Malta to see the beautiful churches not to see mosques. We were tolerant enough to build the a mosque but unfortunately when you're too good it's definitely not good.
I have nothing against any other religion but I think everybody should stay in his place. When I go to a Muslim country ,I respect their culture. So please STOP SELLING THIS STORY OF DEMOCRACY because in a few years we're going to regret it and it will be USELESS CRYING & COMPLAINING. Do you want to end up like the UK where they wanted to introduce SHARIA LAW???!!!!
I see no problem for muslims to be LEGALLY in Malta, but PLEASE RESPECT OUR CULTURE and go to pray as much as you like in the mosque!!!
@ H Gatt
We are close, yet far.
It should be worked out (globally) on a very simple equation, how many mosques are there to cater for the amount of Muslims lives in Europe against how many Churches in Muslims countries that caters for Christians.
-Your reasoning about the Vatican and Mecca its from our perspective and does, or should not necessarily be the what how Muslims view it.
All this helped me to help students from Africa belonging to different religeons by giving them extra lessons during my free time and sometimes inviting them to my home not house for dinner. That is why God gave us common sense, to follow local laws and respect the laws of others and never to dictate or moreover to be dictated to.
Islam is recognised by the Roman Catholic church as another religion. It IS a recognised RELIGION.. not a sect, or anything else but a religion. We believe in the same God, but we call him God, they call him Allah. Bottom message is the same... approach is different.
TOLERANCE and COMPASSION are words that go hand in hand with the catholic religion!!
So to have a particular citizen stating that in Malta " we are all Catholics" is an insult within itself even if I hold catholic beliefs! .
Also, in the article there is a comment stating, "if a Catholic was to do so in an Arabic country he/she would get stoned "... Then why don't we claim to be a closed society as Arabic countries are usually known worldwide and criticized for such extreme positions (we are acting on the same grounds…. and not as a liberal European State)?
@ EP Muscat,
How can the God of the Judea-Christian and of Islam be the same?
If They are the same, then Their message should be the same!
Is it?
../..
You’re correct re the fact that there are more churches in Islamic countries than mosques in Christian ones. There’s a very simple reason for that, mainly since most Islamic countries, particularly in the middle-east and northern Africa, were originally Christian and therefore they have their own small indigenous Christian population. On the other hand, the migration of Moslems to Christian countries is a more recent occurrence.
On the other hand, there’s no way one can compare the Vatican to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a country while the Vatican is the smallest state in the world comprising of a basilica, main square and a few buildings. There is however a mosque in Rome, the city that hosts the Vatican State.
Mr. Joe Grima
You are close to what I have been thinking.
It was reported last week in this news papers that, Israel Minister Mr. Lieberman favors redrawing Israel's border to exclude most of the country's Arab population.
I think Libya is using Malta to pressure the EU. So the latter press Israel to accept a two state solution, ends occupation so the Palestinians will eventually regain their long-lost country. Only then Libya would stop the influx of illegal immigrants to Europe.
Please have a look at my comment here:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090418/opinion/is-it-a-case-of-human-pawns
If you know this man is a danger please make sure you go to the police with the necessary details. Do not keep it to yourself. Tell everyone about it.
And may also want to think about join malta's right wing party AN. They need guys like you.
"For once in my life, I will side with the immigrants." - but who said they were immegrants!?!
Is our problem Islam presence or Christianity’s absence?
Church goers are decreasing all over Christian countries including Malta. This is the real dilemma of the Vatican. A divine solution does not see to be available for this issue.
But somehow our Christianity morals wake-up when Muslims are discussed!
My understanding is that. For Muslims, Saudi Arabia is equivalent to our Vatican. Christians would fully and freely practice their religion inside a Church in Saudi Arabia’ soil, only when Muslims have a Mosque inside the Vatican’ soil.
Not on country- by- country base. Number of Churches inside Muslims world all over the globe, more than Mosques inside Christian’s countries all over the globe. Unless we tend to edit, or make self-history, facts speak for themselves
But they are not. In Malta the constitution is unequivocal on the separation of Church and State. This is the reason why these worshipers should be inside a mosque, same as Catholic worshipers should be inside a church, and not in a public place which is under the jurisdiction of the State.
The Papal roots of racism’ Doctrine.
Specifically, in the fifteenth century, two Papal Bulls set the stage for European domination of the New World and Africa. Romanus Pontifex, issued by Pope Nicholas V to King Alfonso V of Portugal in 1452, declared war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioned and promoted the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories. Inter Caetera, issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1493 to the King and Queen of Spain following the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the island he called Hispaniola, officially established Christian dominion over the New World. It called for the subjugation of the native inhabitants and their territories, and divided all newly discovered or yet-to-be
discovered lands into two - giving Spain rights of conquest and dominion over one side of the globe and Portugal over the other.
Do any of the Muslims countries boost up themselves as human rights guards? No. But the EU does. Now let us see if the EU walk the way the talk. A real test.
Reminder: Smart City investment is from a Muslim country not Europe. Watch our comment before we are branded as racist.
History has shown us that Christianity can be quite brutal when church and state are one and the same.
The level of tolerance.. or lack of it.. on this island continues to amaze me! And you say you are Christians! God teaches love and tolerance, and you are nowhere close to that! You should be ashamed!
It never ceases to amaze me how much hatred religion instigates. The sooner we all learn to stop believing in these fairy tales the sooner we won't have this reason to argue and the better the world will be.
And unlike some have stated, this has nothing to do with cultural respect. They are NOT imposing their beliefs on ours, but simply practicing theirs in a public place.
At this stage the Maltese should make sure to direct their anger and dissatisfaction with the current situation to those who are really responsible. These people are only following their own customs, and once they are here in Malta, I support their right to do so fully. It is our leaders who should not have let them become naturalised Maltese in the first place. If you let a snake in your house, don't blame the snake when it bites you. It is the Maltese Government, together with liberal fools who are to blame, not these people.
Was Jesus a Muslim?
These Muslims peoples were just praying the way Jesus did.
." Matthew 26:39: "And he (Jesus) went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."
Luke 22:44 "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground
Mark 14:32-Luke 3:21-Luke 6:12
All Muslims pray the way Jesus did. Have you ever seen a Christian "fall on his face" and pray to God as Abraham, Mose, Jesus, Muhammad, and all Muslims do? Why?
In our constitution we state that the Catholic doctrine is the religion of the state. As if religion is enforceable and not a way of life and belief.
Can you get more regressive and more simple minded than this in a european country?
One cannot establish any type of building for any type of purpose whenever one wills, in what manner one wills and wherever one wills. There are administrative laws to be respected and laws need to be respected by all and sundry, equally. That includes these fellow Muslims.
Rightly, you cannot build a Church in like manner, not even in this country with an article 2 to its Constitution which is quite demonstrative of the religious identity and heritage of our forefathers. By the way, to the usual "fundamental rights" patrol, there is none of it here. Stop reading sensationalist material and interpreting "fundamental rights" according to your agenda or ignorance about the matter. If there was a breach, Mr. Zina should bring forth a court case rather than speak around in a manner which attacks our social stability, rule of law and makes us think twice about whether our country is truly so.
By the way, what happened to the Mosque in Corradino? Pray there?
You chose to support a cause which has the potential to bring the European civilization to its knees. A cause which is in the long run contrary to your own interests.
From this picture, you are clearly not facing Mecca. According to my calculation, you are facing the Black Sea.
You and your congregation have every right to practice your religion and one considers this manifestation hopefully as a gesture of protest against MEPA. However the Mosque in Corradino Paola is your place of worship and not the Sliema front or any Sliema flat. When MEPA refuses any of us Maltese our development or change of use permits none of us go to protest at the Sliema front. Furthermore if the following statement truely came from your lips then the Maltese have a reason to raise an eyebrow to ask you "What backlash" ?????
Quote
"Although he condemned any type of violence or revenge, he said that if people were discriminated against and hurt, it would become impossible to control a backlash."
Catholics here do it often - Our lady of sorrows, good friday etc etc.
The ignorance and intolerance that exist here never cease to amaze me. Please do not use the 'Catholic Malta' song - most comments below are anything but Christian. Veru pajjiz tal-biki u tal-misthija.
This is not about religion, it's about respecting local culture and public places. No other religion would squat a place for worship.
Here you're talking about democracy. Now, name ONE single democratic Muslic nation..! Try very hard!
Try and practice your fundamental rights in Muslim countires and you'll see what happens..you'll get shot, attacked or put in prison. Remember that as a woman you can't even wear short sleeves in most of these countries!!! Go and try and claim your rights wearing a tee-shirt and tell us about your experiences after! So easy to talk...
If they wanted to pray in public, they could have chosen many outdoor places.
The fact they chose one of the most public and high profile places in Malta turns the prayer into a provocation.
And it ends with the veiled threat of a "backlash".
Need I say more?
I think the problem really lies on this simple and irrefutable fact:
In those countries where Islam reighs supreme, no other religion is tolerated, let alone in public !
So here we have a very clear "Modus Vivendi" of how this "religion" actually acts when in absolute majority. As far as I know, we do not have any exceptions to this dreadful "religious bullying" in Islamic countries.
If one ponders and reflects at the absolute absence of "Religious Tolerace" in ALL Islamic countries, then I can safely state that our concern about these Muslims is justified.
It is not a question of "Live and let LIve ", because this has to be guaranteed both ways!
No one can deny that a "majority group" of Muslims simply do not adhere to this undoubtedly tolerant stance. On the other hand, we get these minority small group of Muslims that expect it from us. No doubt, taking advantage of our own democratic system.
Consequently, what many locals are afraid of, is that if the numbers of these Muslims grow, then we may face the same fate as ALL the other Islamic countries:
i.e. Either do as Islam says or else !!
Been there, done that. Easter mass in Istanbul, Turkey. The church was full, lit up, and most of the large congregation stopped to chat outside the church after the function. No rat holes, no flogging, no nothing, give it a break.
Now I expect to be told that Istanbul in Turkey is an exception, and that there are more extremist states. Regrettably extremism should come as no surprise seeing it appears to be thriving here in these responses.
To those who said that Malta is a catholic country: WRONG! It is a secular country. Deal with it!
To those who question whether there were any maltese citizens there on the basis of their skin colour: Your racism is showing. Some maltese are even darker than some arabs. reason? because the maltese people are THE SAME RACE as north africans and sicilians. Deal with it. if that makes you feel inferior: Good!
The muslims were just praying. In the same way catholics in Malta express their beliefs in the streets. In the same way as Hare Krishnas do too.
You make me sick
To those who point to certain muslim countries and say that practicing chistianity is not allwed there: Well...surely you belive that Malta, as a Europen Country, should be better than that? Or is it a case that you believe that anyone who is not catholic, say an atheist like me, should be killed?
Oh yeh..try to claim you fundamental rights in a Muslim country and see what happens! You'll be shot, hanged or maimed! These people invade everyone's culture and space. They always play the victim. I'm one of the millions of westerners who feel we've had enough of this constant blackmail.
And what's wrong with a mosque on tower road? isn't there an imposing church in ballutta, and another on the sliema front with imposing views of valletta (nazzarenu), and in between these at least another couple of churches that i know of. why should the practice of religious belief be the monopoly of the catholic church in a democratic republic? or is this a fundamentalist religious state after all?
But now because 50 people assembled to pray, with police permission some feel like this is some second 9/11
@Brian Maloret
If in the Muslim country you were, freedom of worship is not a right, good (bad) luck to them. Here we have a democracy, we have a right to practice (and not to practice) a religion. Unless we break the law, which is not the case here.
the four countries you mentioned as examples ie. Australia, Canada, the US and Britian are all predominantly Christian (so far) Now can you mention four muslim countries where freedom of worship is tolerated? It is precisely because Malta is a free country that Maltese are concerned for the future if these people ever find themselves in power.
Yes they have a right to pray but they can repair to their Mosque at Kordin .
How many Christian churches and Christians got done away with , in Muslim countries ?
WAKE UP MALTA AND SEE WHAT IS GOING ON BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. It's always good to practice the rights of man / woman but let nobody take the whole hand from the little finger .
As a matter of interest, can I a non- Muslim Maltese woman go to a Muslim country, wearing western clothes, on her own, (like we go out on our own here) and pray outside?
Will they let her do these things as she does in Malta?
After all the arguments are always that we Maltese have to bent backwards to let foreign cultures do as they please in our country. (it is not anymore when in Rome do as the Romans do)
In Islamic states the numbers of other faiths worship places are limited and the faithful travel long distances to attend services? What is the big deal to travel from Sliema to Paola?
You expressed my own sentiments in a nutshell. I find the overt racism and intolerance displayed in these comments to be absolutely sickening. As an athiest I respect all religions and their practices, but am able to decide for myself if I want to be party to one or the other, or not. I won't have 'belief' shoved down my throat, but I would never dream of forcing my own on others. These so-called Catholics would do well to get themselves a reality check, or at least stifle their crass ignorance and closed mindedness.
Freedom to practice one's religion is a fundamental human right
Is that right? I suggest that you visit a Muslim country and try to practice Christianity, whether indoors or out, in that country. When you have suffered a public flogging or spent time in a rat hole of a prison please come back and tell the Maltese people about your experience of fundamental human rights. Tolerance is a two way thing and thats not how Muslims like things to be and, believe me, I know. Carry on burying your head in the sand and then one day you will wake up and wish you hadn't..
For your information the PL cleans up after every activity. So your comments would apply to the PN.
As for local feasts, the local councils are seeing to it that the streets are cleared right after to occasion whatever it is.
May I ask some questions which have always remained unanswered whenever I asked? Can a Christian man marry a muslim women without becoming muslim himself?
What happens if a muslim decides to convert to another religion?
Will it be safe to return to his family?
We've had hordes of bible bashers invading Birzebuggia, Girgenti our airwaves.and so many other places. WHats the big deal? Better than having them in my flat!
I am totally against all types of religious fundamentalism however this is not the case here.
Just to cut a long story short, I'd wait till Winter to see if they're still at it....
On the other hand, Mr. Zina should refrain from mumbling threaths like 'Although he condemned any type of violence or revenge, he said that if people were discriminated against and hurt, it would become impossible to control a backlash.'
You can't preach integration and then resort to threats...Sorry Mr. ZIna, but you sound rather hypocritical.
Will the authorities be taking these threats seriously or will they wait until something very unpleasant happens?
We are now being threatened in our own country, if it is still our own that is.
In this instance 'religion' really has nothing to do with it. Civil law is what is involved. The apartment used as a mosque was closed down because it was contravening the law. Rightly so. The fact that it was a mosque has nothing to do with it - it could have been a brothel. If it was operating without the proper permit then the police were right in closing it down.
If the worshippers in question obtained a police permit to pray publicly at Ghar id-Dud then nobody should complain. If they didn't, then the police should have broken the gathering up because it contravenes the law, which clearly places limits on the number of persons that can gather in a group in a public space.
Let's keep emotion out of this for goodness sake!
I don't feel safe anymore in my country and have no faith in any leadership. They are weak, diverted and most of all, liers.
Of course, many Muslims are not themselves tolerant of other religions, but that doesn't mean that we have to be intolerant too.
Freedom to practice one's religion is a fundamental human right and we Maltese catholics can enjoy such freedom. So why shouldn't people of other religions? Of course it is possible to wear a cross in a predominantely muslim country. There are many but very few are intolerant to other religions. And if we don't tolerate other religions we would be just as bad. I hope the Catholic Church authorities will explain that showing such hatred towards other religions is not at all Catholic in nature.
Besides, stop assuming all illegal immigrants are muslims, many are Christians just like us. And whatever their religion, we who can live in our own country are surely better off so it is our duty to help out and show compassion.
Why are we being so accomodating to foreigners, including the order not to fly flags at half-mast on Good Friday?
We as citizens demand an explanation.
Bader Zina, do you expect people to allow you to turn a flat from a residential place to a place where a lot of people come in at all times of the day and night and cause a lot of noise?
If where you come from you have no laws we have ours here and you and your companions must either respect them or LEAVE. Remember that you are TOLERATED to be here because you have absolutely NO right to be here.
"Although he condemned any type of violence or revenge, he said that if people were discriminated against and hurt, it would become impossible to control a backlash."
So are you threatening us now Zina?
This is OUR country NOT yours.
Yes, agreed, there should be tolerance. Malta tolerated the building of a mosque where Muslims can pray and praise Allah, but please not in public places. Next we will have Buddhist, Hindus, Baha and who ever takes a fancy to meet and pry to his God in public. But this is a Catholic country and their meeting praying in public hurts my religious feeling. Muslims are the last people to speak about tolerance to other religions. Try to do what they did in Sliema in any Muslim country and you will be lynched.
They did have a police permit to take out their carpet, take over Sliema front and insult all who happened to be passing by. Wonder who issued such a permit.
Hope Mr. Micallef can remember the infamous unholy wars waged by the Nationalist Hypocrite Party and the Dishonest Maltese Clergy over the islamic threat in the 70's and 80's over Mintoff's friendly relationship with Arab countries. Of course, one doesn't need to go back to the 50's when Gonzi's led the (UN)HOLY brigade against the protestantization of our Maltese culture, values and religion.
I also wonder why super-Maltese catholics feel no need to come out crusading against the Islamic threat to our culture, religion and catholic way of life. I wonder what happened to the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's clergy brigades!
The dishonesty of all that smacks of NP, and all these Maltese hypocrites is definitely limitless. Who was it that called the Nationalist Party as the curse of Malta?
There is tolerance and then there is tolerance. Twenty five years ago when living in London with my ex-wife and children a Muslim family moved into the house next door to us. We had no problem with that and used to talk with them when we saw them. On day, the head of the family asked us if we minded if they had people to their house for prayers several times a week. As in was in the days before there were many mosques in the Uk we said we didn't mind. It started off with just a few people but eventually became a nightmare. Not only were we disturb by the constant noise from the property but we were constantly having to step over footwear which they left out side the property and went into prayer. There were times when I returned to my property and couldn't park my car because all spaces were taken by visitors to the house. All our complaints that our quality of life was being effected fell on deaf ears. Look what has happened in the UK since, Muslims seem to carte blanche in what they can do.
How long before the Mosta Dome becomes the Mosta Mosque?
What kind of ignorance is that? Our God, the God of the Christians is a Trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So let's see... they don't believe in the son and neither in the Holy Spirit. They also believe that Allah ordered war on all members of humanity who are not Muslim. Allah will burn in Hell all those who are not Muslim.
Is this the same God we Christians believe in?
OF COURSE NOT EP MUSCAT!!! Wake up and realise that their beliefs are different and what's more, threatening!
The words "veiled" and "threat" spring to mind.
I'm sorry but things are going too far here. They have a mosque in Paola to be used. I mean if they didn't have a mosqu I'd understand their point, but themosque is there. Are thy going to start building unofficial muslim places of worship wherever they please? It's saddening to read this article, it has stirred a lot of unhappy emotions.
I suggest all those who read this blog to click on this link and forward it around. It's about Muslim demographics in Europe, and an answer to all those who think that nothing is actually happening.
Malta is NOT a Catholic country, and "we" are not Catholics. The majority of people here are, but not all. Nor do all Catholics (I hope) subscribe to this intolerance and racism.
Finally, Chapter 4 of our constitution states that "All persons in Malta shall have full freedom of conscience and enjoy the free exercise of their respective mode of religious worship." Note that this is a right extended to "all persons", not just citizens.
Why must maltese identity consist of only one religion? one lifestyle? Is this the only way you can maintain confidence in your own identity? by being one undifferentiated mass?!
This country is only catholic when it comes to going to mass & parading catholicism. Practicing the teachings, evidently is a different story!
Muslims in Malta are some 3500 Arabs, less than 700 Turks and some 4000 African Muslims.
And a BACKLASH is already being mentioned!!! Ahseb u ara meta ikun hawn iktar minnhom dawn mela. i
And still, the West pretends that everything is fine....
Meta ha nitghallmu mill-izbajli ta' hadd iehor ?!?!
Mr. Zina threathening a backlash will get you nowhere. It will only trigger a bigger backlash from the Maltese.
if you want to pray in a tourist area; Go to a Muslim country. Go and annoy your tourists, not OURS.
How true you are, we are a country that has opened its eyes to what is happining around us.
You say that we have turned in to a country of nationalism people?? yes we are, we are fed up by the way, other, supposingly tolerent people come here and think that they own the place.
I tell you something my friend, have you ever been to a muslim country???? why not wear a CHRISTIAN cross and let it be seen, and then see what happens,,, some guy will come up to you and start insulting you and then a group of youths will start pushing you, then if you do not take it of,f they will beat the hell out of you.
I must say that i am afraid that my son will be brought up in this country and being thought to be TOLERANT to other cultures then go to another country, and be treated like a DOG just because he is white. So please my friend open your eyes.
Jesus was forgiving, respectful and tolerant. I choose to follow his teaching and to tread in his footsteps... people who do not tolerate other people just because they are different do not even deserve to be called Christians!!! Jesus's way is to lead by example not to force others in any violent way.
Mr Zina should suggest a better way of doing things properly an adequate place and with the proper compliance and approval of the Authorities.To apply tolerance towards those whom are given refuge, it would be good of them to show prudence towards there hosts.
That includes women.
Yet I see none in this photo.
Is this a prayer centre for men only?
What about Muslim women?
Are they catered for?
If not - why??
We are alrady being threatened by a backlash. the best is still to come.
This happens in all majority muslim countries, and it disturbs everyones rest, especially those who live near the mosques, who are not muslims.
This annoying fact is rarely mentioned by muslims, and at the start they do not do this, they stay quiet, but one thing leads to another and sooner or later all non muslims will be disturbed by the call to prayer - you can close your eyes but not your ears.
We should remember this is not one day a week daytime only church bells, this is every day 5 times a day with an unwelcome pre-dawn wake up call to all in the vicinity of a mosque.
If praying is their right, doing it so in the street is testing the waters and pushing it. if you know that 98% of the people around you are catholics and you're there going against social norms then you are testing thresholds.
What if you go to Riyadh or Afghan cities setup a Cross and congregate for prayers in a place which is strongly muslim?
Soon they will ask for more mosques because they are short then the numbers grow because of new muslims coming from other countries through illegal channels. We will have to face social problems which we never had before and your children will be the ones to pay. I can tell you here in Switzerland you are silenced on religious issues because everyone is wary that they offend the muslims, there are areas which you cannot go through because its highly jewish, other areas highly muslim and your presence there is not welcome. In belgium some alcohol shops had to close down & it started this way. Travel & see for yourselves..than you will understand the Domino effect of this..
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x5/ultralemony/MosqueOpenCentre.jpg
From what I saw yesterday and what I'm seeing in the photo, many of these people were foreigners, unless of course this photo was taken in Malta a couple of years from now, when half the country will be Muslim.
I'm sorry but the Maltese Constitution says categorically that Malta is a CATHOLIC country and those who practice another religion should not do so in such a public place because otherwise they would disturb public order.
I think the comments made by one onlooker should be analysed in greater depth. Imagine a group of Catholics had done so in the same country that these people were born....
No turning the other cheek here. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
But that is what their religion teaches and they are fully entitled to practice it.
THEY CAN GO TO THE KORDIN MOSQUE TO PRAY.
MALTESE CITIZENS OPEN YOUR EYES BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
THE EU HAS ALREADY DECIDED AGAINST CRUCIFIXES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS BEING SHOWN IN PUBLIC TO APPEASE THEM. WE ARE BEING INVADED BY THOUSANDS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BECAUSE OF THE EU DUBLIN II CONVENTION. LET'S GET OUT OF THE EU BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
"These muslims just walked up to Sliema front, laid down their carpets and started imposing their religion to all who happened to be in the area." Maybe you read a different artilce than the one above. Quoting the artilce "...They had a permit and police protection". So they did just as any other Maltese catholic organisation.
'In Malta we are all Catholics'
Sorry, I'm agnostic. My parents and grandparents are all Maltese and I was born here. Does having a different belief make me less Maltese, or a second class citizen
'If you were to do the same in their country they would stone you'
Which country, considering most were Maltese. It seems like there is this big country were all Muslims should live in which you can torture Catholics and eat babies. Even counties with a majority of Muslims are extremely different. Iran, Turkey and Somalia have a majority of Muslims but otherwise they have nothing similar
My argument is that when these countries (and religions), become tollerant we will do the same.
"We've had enough. If you were to do the same in their country they would stone you. I can't understand how they could have been given a permit for this, including police presence and all!" her husband added, visibly disturbed by what he saw.'
AND THESE CONSIDER THEMSELVES CATHOLIC?!!?! THEY NEED TO BRUSH UP ON THEIR BIBLE READING!!! ITS CALLED COMPASSION!!! SHAME ON YOU!!
''Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent. For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored.'' (1965:29)
Definately the above comments are discriminatory to say the least.
In addition these groups of believers were worshiping the same God of the Judeo Christian tradition.
''The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham;'' (Nostra Aetate, Second Vatican Council, 1965:3)
Prayers should not be held in streets, but at the mosque or a church