Laiq Ahmed Atif, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat Malta, Ta' Xbiex
Respecting religious feelings and freedom
Freedom is a prerogative of all living things, man being no exception. Liberty is the most cherished fruit of life.
Man is the epitome of liberty which is ingrained in him. His very texture is woven with the yarn of liberty.
And man enjoys at most, his freedom of faith, because every human being has this right to choose and practise a religion of his own choice. All the main religions of the world believe in freedom of faith. The Holy Quran makes it absolutely clear that "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:257). As long as that principle is adhered to, harmony, love and peace will be maintained in the society.
Yet, amazingly, we find all man-made institutions shaped to work against the liberty of man in the final analysis. A careful study of the history of progressive growth of traditions, customs and legislation is sufficient to prove this assertion.
Over the last few years, we have seen a considerable amount of adverse reaction to the wearing or display of religious symbols. The recent days have witnessed two more of this series as banning Christian crucifixes and minarets of Muslim mosques. Traditionally the main purpose of a minaret has been to provide a vantage point for the Muslim call to prayer.
The call to prayer can be compared to the ringing of bells from a church tower because both signify the time for worship. However, out of respect for the local indigenous population, in most Ahmadi mosques in the Western countries this does not occur and the call to prayer is instead performed from inside the mosque to minimise disturbance to non-Muslims.
Nonetheless, the minaret continues to play a role as a key architectural feature of the Islamic faith. In all Ahmadi mosques the true Islamic principles of love, peace and tolerance are continually exhorted and practised.
How can the religious symbols be a means of offence, when they are only the symbols of respect and love towards religion and God?
Practising the faith of one's own choice is a fundamental human right and we cannot exclude the wearing or display of religious symbols from this fundamental human right.
And just because a symbol is shown somewhere in the modern age does not mean that someone is compelled to adopt that religion, or to accept the views represented by that symbol.
Respecting religious symbols of all the faiths and respecting sentiments of the people of different religions will lead to international peace. And according to the Islamic teachings, Ahmadiyya Community is always committed to show great respect to all the religions, their founders, symbols and holy places.
Therefore, if peace is to be established, we will have to respect the sentiments of each other and safeguard the rights of society. It is easy to spread hatred but very difficult to sow the seeds of love.
Modern man can find the whole world before him at the touch of a button while seated on his sofa in his drawing room. Were all the efforts to achieve that nearness of a global village aimed at kindling the fire of hatred or were they to witness the evergreen fruit-bearing trees of love and sympathy for mankind? Everyone will certainly agree that our goal should be to acquire and promote love.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
45 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Bill Khan
Dec 27th 2009, 01:54
@Dr. Francis Saliba, history is full of bizarre happenings and conspiracies.
But i do agree that we to let it be .
All the very best to you.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 26th 2009, 15:36
@BillKahn
Please forgive my decision not to continue participating in any more bizarre bigotry that attributes the creation of the madrases to Brzezinsky in Virginia to instruct Muslim suicide bombers how to blow up the Twin Towers. Salaam Aleikom.
Bill Khan
Dec 26th 2009, 14:06
@r. Francis Saliba, quite baffled as to which countries the hindus are being sluaghetered! Perhaps the Tamils in Sri Lanka who carried out suicide bombings to full. Which countries other than the three, are the people of the Dar al harb suffering the attrocities across the globe? Perhaps you have more information to share?
Quoting from John Pilger book, ' In Pakistan , mujahideen training camps were run by the CIA and British MI6, with british SAS training furtuer al -Qaida and the Talibans fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. 'This continued long after the soviet army had waithdrawn in1989'. The people of both Pakistan and Afganistan know that the mentioned two countries are behind the talibans and the mayhem caused by them aided by the India Israeli nexus.
Could you please specify which countries hindus and other dar al harb are being sluaghtered across the globe? Also what is you opinion of the fact that more than 55% of Americans believe the twin tower tragedy was actually and inside job.
Your information on the matter would enlighten the less fortunate in the way of intelligence.
May i wish you a very happy christmas peace and health for 2010.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 26th 2009, 11:08
@BillKahn
If you believe your analysis of world events then it is not surprising that you believe in a heavenly reward for merciless suicidal bombers who kill hundreds of innocent men, women and children. The readers of these comments are not so gullible!
Jihad against Hindu Dar al Harb is being practiced today with the mass slaughter of innocent victims. It is immaterial whether the slaughter is carried out by any one suicidal bomber or by mobs on the rampage. These mob rampages take place in both directions with Christians caught in the middle. These suicide attacks are carried out all over the globe and not only in the three countries mentioned - wherever Islam tries to impose its religion and to acquire the associated political power. They are indiscriminate, slaughtering innocent victims en masse irrespective of their religion. Political power is the name of the game.
The USA would have assisted Afghanistan to repel the Russian invasion – the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But it is utterly ridiculous to pretend that it was Brzezinsky who created the Madrasas and the global suicidal terrorist activity including the blowing up of the Twin Towers.
Please respect our intelligence.
Bill Khan
Dec 26th 2009, 01:26
@Dr. Francis Saliba, hardly any da al hab has been the victim of a suicide atacks in the recent past.But thousands of mulsims have perished, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Many believe these attacks to be remote controlled, the works of the US Black water agency.
Also more than 55% of the US public believes the twin tower tragedy was an inside job. Others believe the British and saudi intelligence agnces were responisble for it (ref: EIR , jeff Steinberg). Don't have he book right now but could provide the exact words used by Brezezinsky on the creation and funding of Madrasaas for training of recruits. According to recent London Evening Standard report, most Afghans believe the talibans re funded trained and armed by the British and the US to maintain a state of chaos to help justify the presence of the NATO troops in afghanistan.
In my previous mail i suggested the accepted attrocities being commited against the children of Europe and America, be it Abortion , children for sale fr sex, general abuse of children through family breakdown, is more abhorent and cruel than any sharia law.
Bill Khan
Dec 26th 2009, 01:01
@Dr.Francis Saliba, Brzezinsky bok currently not wth m, but i will provide the exact wrds used by him with respect to the creation and fnding of the Madrasaas for inculcating the recruits and make them ready for attacks.
The suicide devot muslims have in the recent past been killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children and not he non-muslims (Dar al harb). Most suicide attacks are happening in akistan and Afghanistan and Iraq. In Pakistan many believe these attacks not to be suicidal but remote controlled and the US Black water organisation is believed to behind the attacks. Accoding to London eveneing Standard report, most afghans believe the Talibans are funded, rained and armed by the Britsh and the US to maintain a chaotic state f affairs to justify the presence of the NATO forces in the area. More tahn 55% of the American
pubic believe the twin tower tagey was an inside job. One cener believe it t be the work of the British and saudi intelligence working together (ref: EIR, Jeff steinberg).
It will be interesting to know how many Dar Al Harbs have been the victims of Suicide attacks and how many muslims past one year.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 25th 2009, 09:12
@Bill Kahn
No person can consider himself a devout Christian who does not practice the love of God and the love of neighbour – including enemies - as preached by Christ.
No adult male person can consider himself a devout Moslem unless he obeys the Koran and unless he wages vigorous war (Jihad) against all non-moslems dar al harb, killing them unless they convert to Islam and unless he subjugates by force of arms everyone else to Moslem law.
That is the unbridgeable gulf that separates Christians like me from Moslems like you . That situation will persist unless and until moderate Moslems succeed in promoting a more merciful application of the Holy Koran than that advanced today by mainline Islam. That desirable situation is unlikely to materialize as long as suicidal mass murderers of innocent people are promised a heavenly reward for their atrocities.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 24th 2009, 22:32
@BillKahn
Please do not ask me to believe that the madrasahs religious schools (who have been in existence for hundreds of years) were the brainchild of Mr Brezenzinsky or that the madrasahs in Virginia USA were the recruiting grounds for the suicide terrorists who blew up the Twin Towers or who are indiscriminately blowing up their fellow Muslims, Christians and Hindus all over the globe. Today it is only Islam that wages Jihad against all non-Muslims and it does not need the excuse of the everlasting Middle East turmoil to give vent to violent and indiscriminate terrorist acts against innocent men, women and children. The simple fact of being a non-Moslem dar al harb who does not accept forcible conversion and subjugation to Islam’s political rule is all that is necessary to justify execution by any devout Muslim. Do not expect anyone outside of Islam to “begin to respect and to celebrate that tradition” or the abhorrently cruel and discriminatory punishments of the Sharia law.
Bill Khan
Dec 24th 2009, 21:33
@Dr. Francis Saliba, i think you completely missed the point. The madrasaas were actually created for the completion of the project, the brain child of Mr. brezezinsky. More than 100,000 youngsters were recruited by the CIA from different muslims countries, then sent to madrasaas, and conditioned by a certain paid up mullahs and then sent to fight soviet troops and other terrorist activities. Those recruited from the US were trained at a CIA base in Virginia. Essentially all paid for and trained and brainwashed, courtesy the CIA and the ISI.
The Turks were a very powerful force at a point in history. They played havoc, as did the Romans before them and the Scithians, the persians, the british and now the combined christian empire of the Allied NATO. Powerful peope have always crushed any opposition. Nothing new. Today millions of Palestinians have been forced out of their homes. Those remaining are bombed and their people put under seige for years by an agressor supported by the christian countries of US, UK and France and Italy. Again nothing new. Has been done before and will continue untill people like you and i begin to respect and celebrate each others' tradions
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 24th 2009, 17:07
@BillKahn
Please show some respect for the intelligence of your readers. It was the Ottoman Turks who spread like a swarm of locusts out of their small enclave in Asia and who overran a Christian North Africa and southern Europe, invading the Christian Byzantine Balkans up to the gates of Catholic Vienna and across the Strait of Gibraltar into Catholic Spain. It was these Ottoman Turks who waged an aggressive war of conquest against Christians driving them out of their ancient homes and subjugating them to Moslem rule in accordance with their Koranic obligation to wage a Jihad against the dar al harb (non-Moslem) world. By your own reasoning the Christians had every right to try and push them back where they came from thus preventing traditional Christian countries from being forcibly subjected 100% to Islam
Thank you for confirming that the suicidal fundamentalists terrorizing the whole world are being recruited from the Madrassas religious schools of Islam. That effectively disposes of your claim that Islam preaches peace. Your allegation that the Mujahideens put their services at the disposal of the USA “devil” when expedient for them only makes them look unprincipled as well as murderous.
Bill Khan
Dec 24th 2009, 15:11
@Dr. Francis Saliba, the religion of islam definitely needed to be a bt more vigorous considering the son of God was crucified and many more prophets also put to death by the non-believers. The Quran dos specify that thos who fight you and trn you out of your home and displace you, you fight hem with full vigour to over come them and those who die in the processs will be martyred. If one accepts you say then today whole of India and spain would be 100% muslim, not to mention the hole of easten Europe under the domination f the Ottomans for a consideable number of centuries.
regarding the recruitment of the suicide zealots, pehaps you wuld be advised to read biography of Zibignew Brezeznisky (the former US seceatary f statae) how the religious Madrasas were created with the cooperation f the CIA and the ISI to fght the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That the first lot was actually recruited from a certain mosque in New York. Brezeznky wanted mre than 100,000 such recruits to later go in to the Soviet Repubics to destabilise the Soviets. The recruits then were called Mujahideens and looked up to.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 24th 2009, 03:49
@BillKahn.
I deny that: “All religions teach peace”. It is not a question of Moslems “not turning the other cheek” – it is much worse than that. The Koran imposes a duty on all Moslem adult able-bodied males to execute all non-Moslems (kafir) and to subject Christians and Jews (people of the book) to Moslem political rule by force of arms. That is the official interpretation of the Koran in mainline Islam. The homicidal suicide bombers who indiscriminately slaughter innocent women and children of all faiths, even other Muslims, are actually recruited from Islamic religious schools. They are not categorically condemned by their Islamic teachers but instead they are encouraged in their murderous activities by the promise of an immediate heavenly reward if they die committing their atrocities.
You will not find anything like that in the official teaching of Christianity. The massacres that you attribute falsely to Christianity are carried out by rogue elements in defiance of the official teaching of Christianity and they are not promised any heavenly reward for the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents.
That is the huge difference between Christianity and Islam as practiced in the world of today.
Bill Khan
Dec 23rd 2009, 19:52
@Dr. Francis Saliba, i do agree islam teaches not to turn the other cheek when attacked. hence its political nature. But even in such situations, it does not permit taking of innocent lives in particular of women and children.
Despite christian teachings, the entire populations of Aboriginese, the maoris and the Red Indians have been killed off. Motre than 50 million, including 6 million Jews killed in two world wars in Europe. 500,000 iraqi children killed due to sanctions levied by Christian America and Britain. Thousands killed and crippled in Hiroshima and Nagasaaki. Thousands of Vietnamese crippled and killed due to use of 'Agent Orange' by christian America. The hindus have manged to kill 80,000 kashmiri muslims in the past 18 years.
Now compare this total with all the attrocities carried out by the muslims suicidal or otherwise. The twin tower total was 2600 for a population of 300 million Americans.
Now compare that with 1800 palestinian women and children butchered at the hands of christian phalanges militia acting on behalf of the iisraelis. From the total palestinian population of 4 million.
All religions teach peace.
The killers belong to no religion. They belong to the devil.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 23rd 2009, 09:51
@MuscatAlbert
When you have no answer to my comment please please do not sidetrack into the irrelevant side issues and please stick to the subject matter of the discussion (Respect for religious feeling and freedoms) . Respect for religion is absolutely unrelated to a war of conquest inflicted by Japan on the USA, the resulting legitimacy of self-defense and the need to cut short the atrocities being committed by the Japanese forces in their freshly occupied territories. Similarly Jihad against the "infidels" existed for centuries before the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the problems of the Jewish exodus can never justify the Muslim-Hindu atrocities being committed now in the Far East.
Delve more deeply into history and you will discover the answers to the irrelevant questions you address to me. I will not allow you to distract me into unrelated side issues. I do not defend wars but I grudgingly admit that sometimes a defensive war is forced on a reluctant country with its inevitable cruelties. Islam’s declared objective of expanding its abhorrent political rule by force of arms on everybody else does not come into that category.
Muscat. A lbertt
Dec 23rd 2009, 06:44
@ Dr Francis Saliba
‘For many centuries Christians have not practiced any mass slaughter of innocent civilians as Muslims still do now on a daily basis, e.g. the 9/11 massacres in the USA, and of Hindus and Christians in sub-Saharan Africa or the Far East.’
Well, I read your media-based comments and I would like to ask two questions please:
Question number one
Where the Americans civilized and or justified in killing the thousands Japanese by the nuclear bomb where the innocent people of Japan were killed while the hundreds of millions suffering till now?? !!
Question number twos: Isn’t the UK is the chief quandary of Palestinian’s occupation by letting immigrants Jews (that have been killed by Hitler who was not a Muslim or a Palestinian) squatter Palestinians territory? Where the Israeli army civilized and or justified in turning Gaza from a big prison into an abattoir last year?
This actually is what i see as the condition for Terrorism
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 22nd 2009, 22:38
@BillKahn
Christian countries have laws in place making it illegal to sell children for sex or for arranged child marriages. The Catholic Church does not approve abortion. This is common knowledge.
Christian Churches do not condone the killing of people because they belong to other religions under any circumstance (except actual self defence). When massacres happen it is not due due to any official teaching of Christian Churches but to racial and tribal animosities.
On the other hand, when devout Moslems carry out their habitual suicidal terrorist atrocities, murdering indiscriminately hundreds of innocent civilians, they are not violating the principles of their religion. They do so at the instigation of their religious leaders inciting their followers to carry out the Koranic duty of all able-bodied adult male Muslims to kill dar al harb non-Moslems (men women and children) if they are kafirs (pagans e.g. Hindus) unless they accept an irreversible forcible conversion to Islam. “People of the book” - ahl al kitab (Christians and Jews) - are magnanimously spared execution or forcible conversion to Islam but only if they pay “jizja” tax and if they must submit to an ultimate universal Muslim political rule.
Bill Khan
Dec 22nd 2009, 20:48
@Dr. Francis Saliba, barbarity committed in any one's name is abhorant and as civilised people we must all condemn it. Killing innocent men, women and children does not fall under the term of Jihad according to the Quran. One cannot blame all the christians or the bible for the massacres of palestinian men women and children at Sabira and Chatila in lebonon by Christian Phalanges. Nor can we blame all the hindus and their holy book the Geeta for setting fire to a train killing hundreds of travellers bound for pakistan or for the massacre of 7000 muslims in the state of Gujarat in which many politicians too were implicated.
Sharia law indeed is harsh and not fit for the 21st. century. And we civilised people must oppose it. But Doctor, how do you view what is going on in the 21st. century where children are being sold off for sex some as young as just 9 months old. Which law is in place to protect these innocent children? Also could sharia law be as bad as allowing the murder of the un-born child by his/her mother in supposedly the safest of all places.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 22nd 2009, 15:09
@AlbertMuscat.
I do not “justify conquering lands and murdering civilians” carried out many centuries ago “in the name of Jesus”. Just as strongly, I do not justify any murderous conquest when it is done in the name of Mahomet with official justification as a Koranic “Jihad”. That is precisely what the Ottoman Turks did by invading Palestine, the North African littoral and the Christian countries bordering the southern shores of the Mediterranean as far as Vienna and Spain. I am no “Prof” but I know my history and my English. I did not call anyone “barbaric” – I called barbaric the nauseatingly cruel official Sharia punishments in conformity with modern civilized world standards.
For many centuries Christians have not practiced any mass slaughter of innocent civilians as Muslims still do now on a daily basis, e.g. the 9/11 massacres in the USA, and of Hindus and Christians in sub-Saharan Africa or the Far East. They carry out these massacres at the instigation of their religious leaders with the promise of an immediate heavenly reward for their “martyrdom”. Do not quote selectively isolated excerpts from the Koran – just read the newspapers and discover what is actually being done in practice
Muscat. A lbertt
Dec 22nd 2009, 01:44
@ Dr Francis Saliba
9/11 , The ‘Barbaric’ Islam, Bush and his wars for Oil.
{The Quran clearly says…God doesn’t permit killing civilians and condemn those who initiate wars. If a war is a must (self-defense) ... do not burn a plant, nor cut a tree, nor kill an older man, a young child, or a woman... nor monastery dwellers...}
Islam thus prohibits the killing of civilians even during war (even though ‘modern’ governments allow it to themselves).
Needless to say, if armies at war are so prohibited, the killing of innocent civilians by other parties (such as the Twin Towers tragedy) is a much greater crime.
When the principles of a religion are violated by any of its members (such as by Hitler or the Twin Towers terrorists, etc...), it is wrong to attack that religion because of the actions that specifically violate its principles.
People doing those false accusations must realize that they are part of a circle of blinding hatred, sharing that feature with those violators themselves.
Did we ever read any reference to Hitler’s religion when Hitler is mention? A media expert could provide an answer!
Muscat. A lbertt
Dec 22nd 2009, 00:16
@ Dr Francis Saliba
Can you justify conquering lands and murdering civilians when it was done in the name of Jesus during the crusades? What the difference Prof.? Weren't the crusaders barbaric too?
I ask again: What comes first recognition or rights? a specific answer please.
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 21st 2009, 20:52
@MuscatAlbert. It is not a question of what comes first “recognition” or “right”. It is a question of doing unto others what you expect others to do unto you. Whole Christian countries (not individual Christians) recognize religious freedom and tolerate the practice of Islam (apart from barbarous punishments that are illegal for everybody in any modern civilised Christian state). The1.7 million Muslims you mention "recognize" Christians but only as infidels on whom to wage Jihad – and that is what they are doing all the time. Don’t you read the news?
Muscat. A lbertt
Dec 20th 2009, 18:05
@ Dr Francis Saliba
What comes first recognition or rights?
As far as it goes the 1.7 Billion of Muslim population (from the highest Islamic cleric downward recognize Christianity and accept Jesus). Is there a single Christian does the same toward Islam?
victor pulis
Dec 20th 2009, 14:16
@ J Meli
you did not answer any of my questions. I repeat:
Can a muslim woman marry a Christian man?
Can a muslim convert to another religion without fear for his/her life?
Are honour killings permitted in islam?
Dr Francis Saliba
Dec 19th 2009, 07:05
@Laiq Atif
How about advocating some equivalent reciprocal respect for the religious feelings and freedoms of Christians in Islamic states? We would be most pleasantly surprised if ever we Christians are afforded the religious freedom that is taken for granted by the Muslims in our own country!
carmelo aquilina
Dec 19th 2009, 00:06
@ Ms Vella et al
The Swiss referendum was to ban minarets not mosques.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland
It may well be overturned by the European Court of HUman Rights which forbids discimination based on religion
albert muscatt
Dec 18th 2009, 23:49
What would have been the reaction if a Muslim Country‘s referendum ban a thing of another religion? Will we still call this democracy? Or intolerance to other religions?
Joe Xuereb
Dec 18th 2009, 22:57
It is said, 'see Naples, and die'. And I add, 'see Istanbul, and die'. The skyline along the Golden Horn viewed from the other side but still on European terra firma (Beyoglu), or from the Asian side, is breathtaking. The mosques are grand inside and out. Equal and possibly better than anything in Christendom. I love them absolutely. The thing is, I am an atheist (or secularist, whichever way the Cowies of this miserable earth would label me). So freely I can say I love too our skyline with baroque cupolas crowning my serene countryside, at dusk. Wonderful! But a Sulemaniye Mosque on MY skyline - no way Yusuf! The two cultures are incompatible, introducing a very different God can never work. Besides, I was given to understand that Muslims are supposed to practise their contradictory beliefs - Sunni, Shia, whatever - in a place most conducive to do so. So definitely not Malta. Most definitely not. And Mr. Atif, please take your tongue out of your cheek. Thank you.
The building of churches in Muslim countries is an irrelevance. Which Muslim country has hundreds of thousands of Christian with more going there every single day? Quite!
J. MELI
Dec 18th 2009, 22:44
@Victor Pulis: Please note that when a Christian/Catholic women married a Muslim man they have to register their marriage in their mosque, they have to sign some papers written in Arabic and one of the agreement that the catholic persons signs is that she is renown sing the Christian faith to that of Islam. If one goes to talks on this subject, this fact was reviled.
Good to hear from someone who had this experience?
Brian Farrugia
Dec 18th 2009, 21:56
God does not dwell in hand made temples
Acts 17:24-25
Pure and simple
Pule' Carmel
Dec 18th 2009, 21:45
Due to circumstances, and natural conditions, nature produced different evolved animals in different countries. In Isolated Australia, the Kangaroo and the Kaola evolved over the years to fit that country. With religions it is just the same. With lack of good communications, different religions evolved in different countries due to the different mentality of the leaders and the population at the time.
A kangaroo would not live comfortable in the North pole and a polar bear would not live comfortable in Australia, for the environment is totaly different.
The fact that communications and human travel have been made it easier for people to go to each other's country, does not mean that their mentality would fit the new country they travel to. One mentality does not fit in another so easily and forcing one's tradition on the others would surely cause friction. A Religion fits a particular Mentality and that is it. Some mentalities need to grow over a very long time to acept other mentalities found in different countries. It is the law of nature and no Bible or Quran would break that law. Forcing nature to change is like training a wild animal to fit a circus
Gerry Cowie
Dec 18th 2009, 20:19
Religious symbols are only offensive when somebody who is against religion decides that is the case. They make this decision entirely off their own backs and put a spin on things to suit their own personal agenda.
I think it fair to say that the majority of people respect each others beliefs and therefore do not need to be told by secularist apologists from Australia what is and is not offensive.
The people of Malta do not, in my experience, have any difficulty with religious symbols.
William P Flynn should not be worried about "drowning in religion" in Malta since he lives in Australia. Should he decide to visit Malta he may keep his face lowered and not look at anything which he might consider "offensive".
Adrian Aquilina spins his usual yarn about religion being based on Greek stories! This is quite laughable given that he is insulting intelligence of the majority of the Maltese population by his suggestions. Not surprising perhaps from a clearly anti-religious person!
Organised religions in general exist without any particular difficulties. It is their members, who are human beings, that make the mistakes. Mistakes are not unique to religious people, even though secularists suggest otherwise!
Bill Khan
Dec 18th 2009, 20:04
@Louise Vella, the Swiss majority democratic decision is respected and should be respected. But whether in doing so the swiss are protecting their christian culture , tradition and history or simply showing their out right dislike of the muslim minority is open to debate.
One would have thought the swiss culture , tradition and history was making watches, chocolates and hiding monies (no matter whence it came from) of people from foreign countries.
In any case the muslims should refrain from constructing any more mosques in christian countries. The muslims can offer their prayers within the confines of their homes. They are allowed to do so anyway. They need to show rational tolerance to the local majority christians who are offended by the construction of more mosques and the sight of muslims praying on their streets. If peace is achieved in this way, both the christian and the muslims Gods will be pleased.
pat camilleri
Dec 18th 2009, 17:34
This is a Catholic country. Our culture is based on Catholic teachings.Anglicans have had churches here for years. Jews have lived and worshiped amongst us for years. They did it descreetly without demanding any concessions , such as laying down mats on main streets to pray.We do not want any more foreigners to dominate our skyline.It upsets the majority of the population on these islands. So if people are not happy with the way things are run here.... they can leave and go to other countries where they will perhaps feel more at home.Freedom to leave where one is not happy is man's perogative.
victor pulis
Dec 18th 2009, 17:34
I have some questions for Mr.Laiq Ahmed Atif. Can a muslim convert to another faith without fear for his/her life? Are honour killings permitted in islam? Can a muslim woman marry a christian man?
Chris Reiff
Dec 18th 2009, 16:22
"The Holy Quran makes it absolutely clear that "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:257)"
What is the punishment for apostacy?
adrian aquilina
Dec 18th 2009, 16:15
you can always tell a country governed by a religion as it is always far behind the bigger,open countries.religion is diversive,creates hate toward other religions and non believers and has caused war,genocide and while the church had the power the world went backwards.all for a person that noone has ever seen.the whole christian religion,and mostly the other 2 older religions that make the 3 main ones,are all based and direct copies of much older STORIES from greece and egypt.being,say,christian,has nothing to do with the religion but where you were born and grew up.christians,strangly,like wearing the symbol of death so its a good job there were no electric cahairs back then or thats what we would see around peoples necks and carried at feasts..keep your religion to yourself and then others wont need to comment,but here in malta religion is rammed down your throught and people think religious can comment on everyone else but noone can comment on their religion.well being religious does not make you special..does make you wonder why you dont have enough of your own mind to follow the path you want.the reason so many people are not religious is now we are cleverer and question things
k Leblanc
Dec 18th 2009, 14:06
Freedom of religion is one thing ...
Freedom of political agenda (Islam) is another thing ...
So YES ...
"How can the religious symbols be a means of offence, when they are only the symbols of respect and love towards religion and God?"
It can not only be offensive but dangerous. Go do your dawa some place else.
Joseph Meli
Dec 18th 2009, 13:58
William P.Flynn: I quite agree with what Mr. M. Debono replied to Mr. Flynn, and I add:- People like you are affraid of the crucifix and other symbils, so you are quite right, because that's the way the Maltese people have lived for the past hundred years that it is integrated in the real Maltese people's hearts and lives.
Since you do not believe you don't have it your way, so let us live our way as we like to live. So don't have any objection to our lives if you want to practice another sort of Freedom, and anyway,
I told you many times you are not original Maltese and you failed to reply many times and I can proof it any time. Live your life in Australia, we are not interested in your mode of life, but hands off our religion and that of our brothers in Malta the Muslims for they too have a right which is not being denied to them in our country.
E.Muscat
Dec 18th 2009, 13:33
The letter plus photo published today would never be published in any muslim country if it was showing a church or if the author was christian:that is the liberty you will not talk about,Mr.Atif!In fact if an organisation like yours but christian would try to establish itself in a muslim country it will immediately be banned and its members put in prison:that is islam's liberty.Liberty for the muslims,slavery for the infidels(which is everybody else!).
Go and practise your religion and lies somewhere else.We live in an age were not many things can be hidden for ever, anymore.
A.Schembri
Dec 18th 2009, 13:22
Is it true that out of respect to local indigenous population,the call to prayer is done inside the mosque to minemise disturbance?
M. Debono
Dec 18th 2009, 13:05
@ William Flynn
"There's way too much religion in Malta; it's drowning in it."
You know what, you are right, and that's the way Maltese people have lived for the past years.
Religion is integrated in most people's lives.
However if you don't like the way we live, we have no objection if you want to practice another Freedom - The Freedom of Movement.
William P Flynn
Dec 18th 2009, 12:06
"How can the religious symbols be a means of offence, when they are only the symbols of respect and love towards religion and God?"
They are offensive because they are..to someone or other; someplace, sometime; in some circumstance, mood or whatever. That is why they should be confined to the place of worship or in one's home.
All one needs to do is just look at the comments below to see that to religious persons, especially those fully absorbed and invested in their own religion, another religion's symbols are offensive, a threat and sometimes blasphemous.
Europe is being circumspect about mosques and minarets because they have just spent 500 years toning down one fundamentalist religion and don't want tro be saddled with another.
Having priest Mario with his regular Bible -bash is bad enough all we need is someone demanding equal time to bash us with the Quran.
There's way too much religion in Malta; it's drowning in it.
David Wirrich
Dec 18th 2009, 11:26
All that is very well, but why is it that most Muslim countries do not allow Christian churches at all, and when they do they are not allowed steeples, bells or any external display of the Cross? As for his religion being one of love, give me a break. Is that why some of his fellow Muslims blew to pieces two of our valiant soldiers yesterday in Afgahnistan, who were trying to shield and protect other Muslims from these so called Muslim men of relgion.
Let him and others of his ilk first put his money where his mouth is.
A. Falzon
Dec 18th 2009, 10:37
I have no problem with most of what is said in the above letter except when he said that
"All the main religions of the world believe in freedom of faith. The Holy Quran makes it absolutely clear that "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:257). As long as that principle is adhered to, harmony, love and peace will be maintained in the society." I lived 3 years in a moslem country where churches and places of worship for Christians were banned and nowhere to be found. What the Holy Quran says is one thing, what some moslem authorities practice is another.
louise vella
Dec 18th 2009, 10:10
I have no quarrel with all the poetry contained in this letter but I note the following sentence: “The recent days have witnessed two more of this series as banning Christian crucifixes and minarets of Muslim mosques".
The letter writer is not comparing like with like. The attempt to ban the crucifix from public places in Italy is obnoxious because the crucifix in the religion it represents is part of Italy’s history, culture and tradition. The decision taken by the Swiss electorate in a popular referendum to ban the construction of new mosques was precisely meant to defend the Christian history, culture and tradition of Switzerland. The four mosques already present in Switzerland will stay. More mosques are not needed in Switzerland.
All the tolerance preached by the letter writer is not shown in practice to Christians and Christian institutions (like churches) in most Arab and Muslim countries.