Saturday, 9th May 2009
Should there be more mosques in Malta?
I am sure that many would be baffled if not scandalised that I, a Catholic priest, is making that question. Let me tell you what triggered it.
At the end of last, and this week timesofmalta.com published two stories about a group of Muslims - most of them Maltese - who, after obtaining police permission, organised a prayer session on the pavement of part of the Sliema Front. They felt that they had to resort to this act after MEPA informed them that the place they were using as a mosque was licensed to be used only as a place of residence and not as a place of worship.
I do not want to get I involved in the issue between MEPA and the Muslim community. Maltese Muslims like Maltese Catholics have to adhere to Maltese laws. If the law says that a residence cannot be used as a place of worship then what can one do but follow the law? From what was made public so far ,the problems that Muslims faced are not due to some hidden hand trying to discriminate against them. Many a parish priest would also tell you that while building churches or parish centres he had problems with MEPA. More than that, most Maltese had problems with MEPA!
Even if we get the argument of discrimination out of the way, the subject is still open for scrutiny. I will discuss some aspects in my piece on The Sunday Times May 10. Other aspects I will discuss here. In both pieces, I am using the arguments put forward by one of the Catholic church's most prominent prelates, Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, Archbishop of Milan.
Should the Catholic community care about the problem of Maltese - and non-Maltese - Muslims regarding accessibility and use of places of worship?
Cardinal Tettamanzi thinks that the Catholic community in Milan should care about the problem. If this holds good for Milan should it not also hold good for Malta? In a speech that the eminent Cardinal delivered last December, he said that Milan needs more places of worship, especially for the Muslims. People belonging to faiths other than Christianity need them even more urgently, especially Islam, said the Cardinal. Such freshness of thought is absent from the mentality of other lesser lights than Tettamanzi!
The right for freedom of religion includes the right to own places of worship. That right is not denied in Malta (though it is denied in practice and/or in theory in some Muslims states) but Catholics should be worried if the followers of any other religion are having practical problems to exercise that right.
Should not Maltese Catholics feel offended that right in front of everyone a group of Muslims obstructed the public pavement - with the permission of the police - to hold their praying session?
The comments that were posted on timesofmalta.com show that several felt offended. Some comments showed anger, disgust and indignation. I read such comments with great attention however I cannot understand how the sight of people praying should be considered as offensive or deplorable by people of another faith. Some of the comments expressed showed religious intolerance and bigotry.
If in the opinion of some people 'Islam scorns other religions and their followers ... it is fanatical, exploits its faith for twisted or criminal ends, and enslaves its women' why should we be tolerant towards it and its followers?
Cardinal Terramanzi recognises this statement as "a common accusation". However, he continues saying that only by talking with Muslims will people discover if the common perceptions are true or true for everyone. Isolated, serious incidents caused by individuals must not push people into accusing all Muslims of the same crimes or to looking upon them with suspicion, says the Cardinal.
Tettamanzi urges all and one to abandon prejudices and stereotypes and begin open and objective dialogue with people of other religions, including Islam. Only through dialogue, he says, can people ascertain whether their fears, suspicions or doubts are justified or not. He also said that we need cultural initiatives that promote reflection, not provocation that only creates dead-end debates and sensationalism. True and fruitful dialogue with people who are different is currently a real emergency everywhere.
The Koran in Maltese
When towards the end of the 1990s the then Provincial of the Franciscans, (If I remember correctly if was Fr Robert Agius) and Fr Edmond Theuma approached me to publish an annotated translation of the Koran I gladly accepted. At that time, I was Chairman of the Media Centre and RTK. Fr Theuma is an expert in Islam and in the Maltese language. His translation was very good. The notes he added to the text were enlightening. I looked at the initiative as a way of dialoguing with the Muslim community in our country. It was a cultural and religious initiative that was intentioned to promote reflection.
We had technical problems when we tried to transfer the translated text from the computer of Fr Theuma to our computers. Since the project was taking longer than we had planned we decided to publish a press release informing the public of the project. All hell (or was it heaven?) broke loose. We - the Media Centre and the Franciscan Conventuals - were "asked" to halt the project. A discussion ensued in several for a including the Church. Part of it was a very healthy discussion. However, there were aspects which were not so healthy. Some hinted that "they" (the Muslims) could blow us up if we publish the Koran in Maltese as they would be insulted by an annotated translation. Stereotypes were bandied around. Some opined that a translation of the Koran published by the Church's Media Centre and a religious order would endanger the Catholic faith in our country.
The Koran was eventually published by the Conventuals after the Media Centre delivered the books bound and ready for sale. Neither the Media Centre nor any building or any religious community was blown up. Neither did we experience a wave of conversions to Islam because of this translation!
The only time in recent years that we experienced an attack on the property of a religious order was just a few years ago. A number of cars owned by the Jesuit community were burnt. I don't think that anyone blames the Muslims for that.
PS. It is up to the Muslim community to decide whether or not they need to build or open more mosques in Malta. However like Cardinal Tettamanzi I believe that the Catholic community should be concerned if the Muslims or any other religious community cannot get the places of worship they need.
RSS
Comments
You have summed up the difference between yourself and myself. You claim that life is a solo journey and that you are accustomed to that. Mine (through choice of my own) is not solo, and THAT i am comfortably accustomed to (to be say the least). If it is Muslim to be intolerant, it is Christian or (let's not bring religion into this part) western to be tolerant. Extreme Muslims abhor the west precisely for being too tollerant, so should we act in the same manner and not tolerate them? And after that, will we move laterally and start not tolerating other minority groups (it easy to arrive at the latter, there are so many of them). What the west stands for today is a sword that cuts from both edges, and although i prefer to embrace this belief, i need to accept that there are certain sacrifices that i have to make. At times, yes, it is admittedly extremely difficult but not impossible and at the end much more rewarding.
K.A. Your struggle, whichever way it's struggling, is your concerned. I am neither offended and much less worried. I fought my fight and won - and growing. I speak of my experience. You may read or merely scan my opinions. What you do with stuff alien to you is your business entirely. Having said what I said I just move on along my road less travelled . Life is a solo journey. I am reconciled to that. You could too with a bit of humility and a minaret or two (don't forget, that is the matter in hand). Otherwise you could take a breather and defend what you hold dear. Being intolerant is permissible. If being tolerant spells the dilution and ultimately the destruction of that which you hold dear. Think laterally, think long-term. Do really not give a hoot about the destruction of our Christian heritage, all in a matter of hours, and as a result of the whim of some mullah. Do you care or do you not care? Answer on a postage-stamp.
NB Please before you pass any judgements kindly read all the posts, I appreciate the fact that time is limited, so if you'd like to sum up my views and for your convinience, if I may refer you to the post of 5days 20hours ago:
"With the barrage of political correctness, apparently it matters whether it is Miss, Mrs or Ms but I really and honestly do not care, however I am not Mr :) Here's my final comment on the subject. You threw the ball in my court I simply returned it each time! Teaching cannot always be fact based, looking back history tells us that what seemed as a fact yesterday is challenged today, and may be proven otherwise tomorrow! Religion, Science and reason try their best (or worst) until then I prefer not to underestimate, generalize or put all people under one umbrella. I avoid assuming that no one else but I, knows what I know, or do not understand what they are not familiar with….I seek to learn something from others and value them for who they are: human beings, whether or not they conform to my beliefs, culture, behaviour, race etc."
Thank you
Hopefully more like you: reasonable in your reasoning, and respect others' opinions.
@Joe Xuereb
Why need contacts?would you like to join one? :)
What does an atheist sound like?
You know what ??? I have to thank you Mr Xuereb! Because thanks to you should I ever doubt the existance of God..I just need to remember your comments and what an atheist sounds like, and immediately shake off that thought! :)
Meaning, you are saying a lot and saying nothing. Leaving the proliferation of mosques to 'leaders' because you are not a Muslim (implying......) because your chosen subject is investigating fish in the dirt. And clamouring for tolerance of multi-culturalism. And now you come full circle declaring yourself concerned for the conservation of Christian heritage. The circle I am afraid is dented in several places along its circuitous, fortuitous journey.
Allow me to rephrase "we are born free thinkers" with
"we would like to think that we are born freethinkers"
as soon as a child recognises himself, and his 'other' is conditioned by society/social order call it whatever you like, whichever way inclined that is..hence difference in cultures/ideologies/religions.. child matures, is besieged by various indoctrinations, absorbs and filters. Issa the crux of the issue is how the respective society influences him/her, and how he/she reacts and how strong a character he/she is to differentiate/reintegrate. Primitives (the word feels rather derogatory imma for cognitive purposes it suffices) also have indoctrination, totems or some natural phenomenon, still have rites/rituals. If a child is left to fend for his/her own in the wild, instinct kicks in, I'm sure you heard of the feral children and their difficulty of reintegration.
Anyway I too would not like for my country to be smashed at a mullah's whim at any second, however not at the expense of discriminating other Maltese citizens. You (ironically enough) and Malta have the Christian Knights' holy war and the Catholic church, to thank, for bequeathing us the artistic heritage we enjoy.
Good day:)
Ms Abela. We are all born free-thinkers. The toxicity starts soon afterwords with baptism and idolatrous pageants. Mr. Abela. Partner may be good enough for heterosexual people. As a homosexual with pedigree, in deference to my readers, I shun equiivocality. I will not have anyone speculate on my dost. How you describe your bedfellow - if they exist - is your business. You could not begin to understand in a million years where I'm coming from.
Iiii ara...so you resort to indocrination too!!?? ...oh I see now! Qed nifhem ahjar, thanks for your clarification..'you taught him to be a free thinker' hmmm.. ehhhh Mr Xuereb I think you should edit ere you submit..lapsus nahseb din :) However I have not figured something out yet, perhaps you can INDOCTRINATE (but if you prefer.. teach is a good substitute) me....as to which is the favourite aversion? God? (filkas which one please Alla or Allah)?Catholicism? priests? heterosexuals?? Muslims? (ooops meant non Maltese Muslims)?all the above??
Respect that is earned is far more effective than that which is enforced! not very good advertising for freethinkers tsk tsk . Besides freethinkers have likewise been indoctrinated by some means or other and are likewise anesthetised by their logos-centrism or self centerdness or own beliefs and faiths . No one was born a Freethinker or a Catholic!
Our (not mine and yours ta..collective our) identity, character and opinion (to mention a few adjectives to the persona) are continually being shaped and altered due to our encounters with or without anesthesia. We just filter differently that's all! One CHOOSES to LEARN, but one CANNOT ENFORCE TEACHING (beyond the legal school age obviously).
Kenneth A., aren't you rather assuming that my Muslim lover (I hate that demeaning word but hey! homosexuals fall in love too) and myself are living in tolerant Malta? Which is besides the point in any case. My Muslim dost (in our culture, that means a very special, very dear, very bosom friend with 'benefits') is a practising Muslim. But a free-thinker. I taught him. Do YOU (both) want to learn?
You have tried patronizing a number of people posting comments and without fail not managed to realize this. You accuse me (and anyone who dares declare any kind of belief in God) of being scarred fish drawing mumbo-jumbo indoctrinized individuals, and you're so far from the truth with such accusations. You try to put words into my mouth by stating:
"But then, in intellectualising mode, you would say 'but we all worship the same god'
I have criticised the church when i felt it was wrong and necessary to do so without blinking an eyelid. Do not even try to judge anyone as you have no right and clearly more so the ability to do so. I cannot understand the whole point of your post. Are you actually against tolerance?? Thank God (or the sun, moon OR nothingness if you prefer) that "indoctrinized mumbo jumbo" Malta is tolerant as otherwise, your Muslim partner would be persecuted & probably (unfortunately) be seeking refuge somewhere else. I have explained the reason for my post. Can YOU enlighten us with yours?
Do you not realise that what you see as extending the hand of kindness is mere appearement by any other name. Miss-saba' jiehu l-id comes to mind. Heed it. So much of what you hold dear is at stake. But then, in intellectualising mode, you would say 'but we all worship the same god'. At which point I'll have to rest my case.
At the end of the day, what exactly (as in a few words) was the point of your five-part comment? Intellectualising a tinderbox is never an option.
The hard part comes about to remove the bad and egoistic emotions from within me and apply the more solid and liberating but so difficult truths. If you still do not know how to approach this difficult matter your first step should be to at least showing decency and respect to fellow bloggers and refrain from senseless labelling and inconsiderate attitude as that sincerely does not do any justice to anyone. Having a strong opinion does not warrant disrespect to anyone be he/she catholic, wo/man of cloth, muslim, homosexual, whatever (no particular order has been used!)
Do we realise that every time we are in any way destructive, we are causing irreparable damage? It is like hammering nails in a piece of wood. You can take out the nail, but the wood is scarred for life.
I have heard many arguments against the church for this that and the other. this has been happening since Christ himself walked this earth, so am sure it will not change. BUT little criticism have I heard of his teachings. What's wrong with sharing a fish with someone who doesn’t have anything to eat? What's wrong with scribbling fish signs in the dust telling the people that were about to stone the prostitute, to throw the stone only if they are without sin? What's wrong with the message to love thy neighbour as you love thyself? What's wrong with saying blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God? What's wrong with saying forgive those who persecute you and bless all those who curse you. The messages get a bit tougher and tougher as one proceeds from one to the other. From a “mere” tolerance to actually loving my enemy. Can ANYONE deny that these teachings apply to all humanity, not just Christians? What am I to do? The relevance of it all is to distinguish between what is good and what is bad. Hatred and intolerance are easy ones to decide upon.
Multi-cultured societies have always been present in practically ALL ages and whatever anyone says there is nothing that can stop this. In recent history with the advent of communication/transportation becoming so accessible, this has been accelerated, possibly the reason why we are flabbergasted as we are still trying to cope with this reality. Do not try to stop the unstoppable as it is a lost battle. The sooner we realise this the sooner we can do something about it.
Tolerance is a BIG word. So big that we have all seen the so many negative comments being thrown around, clearly showing that we do not even tolerate ourselves. I have also seen different meanings being attributed to the word, one for the west and one for presumably the Muslim world. A brother and sister have issues between them clearly showing that tolerance is a virtue, mainly due to the fact that our animal instinct always tries to take over. Ahseb u ara when we are talking about such huge differences in culture, upbringing, habitat, education etc. What so, I hear you say, is the solution? The solution is to acknowledge that these different emotions exist within us and try to effectively control these same emotions by applying reason. Yes I feel very awkward every time I hear on the news that another boatload of illegal immigrants has arrived. The awkwardness is due to the mixed emotions contained within me ie the fact that I am NOT racist, but am aware that they can effect my way of living and more so my children’s. But I must fight these natural emotions and apply reason.
2) Someone said it is not them or us it is we. And so true is this statement. By nature I believe myself to be and actively try to be a tolerant person yet certain things DO bother me. But am I right to be bothered or is it what I hear around me and what I have been accustomed to which makes me so? Haven’t we all heard or seen some Christian group evangelizing in our streets? What was our reaction then? We either stayed to listen or moved away if it did not interest us. So why may I ask, should a group of Muslims bother me for doing precisely the same thing? Yes, I admit that I am uncomfortable with the situation but the argument is should I be? Of course not. I have no right to be uncomfortable, and if I am so, it is MY problem to deal with, not theirs.
1) In some Muslim countries it's true that women are not treated well &are considered as Nth class citizens (free to chose a number to your liking ). Does this mean that we should do the same? People who criticize Muslim countries freely state that in their country we would not be allowed many things, thus we should not allow them this freedom. So are we actually preaching different levels of freedom here? We who claim to be the best and advanced at everything chose to “go back a few hundred years” (please note quotes) to make sure that there is equal footing. Very interesting (Not! :)). So instead of trying to demonstrate to these countries that tolerance could work and that it is the ONLY way forward, our argument is to show them that we are tolerant between us but not with Muslims. As to whether there should be more mosques or not, this can only be answered by the people requesting them not me. If they feel the need for this, they need to apply for permits & nobody should restrict their right to do so unless there are valid development reasons against same.
Punto e bast.
Firstly, I have a lot of respect for the Salvation Army, it is one of the most giving Christian Organisations. Having said that, they too have bad apples, and the only reason I mentioned them, was because you brought them up. The Salvation Army, unlike the Catholic Church, report to the police and help in the prosecution of individual members that commit paedophilia to be brought to justice. On the other hand, the Catholic Church would shift a priest from parish to parish to avoid scandal. Your example of how “state sponsored institutional child abuse was endemic in Atheist-run former Communist countries” does not hold any water, as it could have been run by any Catholic religious order, and would have had the same number of child abuse cases.
I did say that paedophilia was “CATHOLIC TERRORISM”. I never labelled all Catholic priests as paedophiles because a number of them are. That would have been labelling, untrue and unfair on the majority of Catholic priests.
Likewise we should not be labelling all Muslims are terrorists, or all Atheists as people without ethics.
Human nature is intrinsically good, you get bad apples in every culture, country and religion.
You should be aware that people in glass houses should never throw stones! Your impertinent question was met by another equlally as such. You asked if I teach my daughter about homosexuality and I asked you what will you teach your dependents, the least you could have done was to return the challenge, besides I'm pretty sure that homosexuality to a Catholic, fits less comfortably than tolerance/multiculturalism fits a homosexual freethinker.
Ma jimpurtax, I end with quotes from a familiar author i'm sure.
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
-- George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
-- George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945)
Good day to all:)
You choose not to label religions, yet you refer to paedophilia as "Catholic terrorism". The Catholic Church needs a huge clean up to make sure nothing like that ever happens again, but that horrific crime is not restricted to Catholics or any other community. Secular state institutions have also had huge child abuse scandals in many Non-Catholic countries, as have other religions throughout the world. State sponsored institutional child abuse was endemic in Atheist-run former Communist countries. Labelling such behaviour as the preserve of a particular group does not help the struggle to protect children.
I was unaware of any abuse cases against the Salvation Army, I only used the the name to contrast with the Mahdi Army, a terrorist group of death squads named after the Muslim Messiah. My point was to explain why people perceive a connection between Islam and terrorism in response to your simplistic analysis. I can assure you that in the UK, the IRA were never considered freedom fighters. The IRA were and still are called Catholic terrorists by many people, who think that the Irish troubles are religous in nature when they are in fact a secular nationalist struggle. If everyone in Northern Ireland turned Atheist tomorrow, what country would it belong to, UK or Ireland? Western media condemns Non-Muslims such as the IRA, ETA, the Tamil Tigers, and many others as terrorists. Muslim terrorists, however, are often idolised as freedom fighters by the Leftist Western media.
(to all, in case this gets through - never assume) for any mistakes. I do not edit. Content is everything.
"I hope that you teach your daughter to understand that there is such as thing as a very common social phenomenon called homosexuality."
If you re read my comments you will find a reply to the above question! Do you honestly conceive that any Catholic who is ready to advocate acceptence of Muslims is then going to discriminate against homosexuals?? Your freethinking Sir I'm afraid is enslaved in prejudice:)
Also you said and quote: "This is why people take on the responsibility of parenthood after all ." So by default does this mean that your parents failed to teach you to understand the phenomenon of (domestic) multiculturalism, or were you taught that aslong as done elsewhere or by a Maltese is accepted?Should this ergo not apply to other freedoms of expression including sexual preferences?
If I'm not mistaken you said your partner is Muslim and has children.. what will you teach them besides an absence of tolerance?
Also you said: "What if they are not citizens[...] here illegally"
Mela I was right in asking you point no5!? That is a different subject and 'irrelevant' to this blog (suitable over a coffee?). Careful eh...Imnot condoning illegal immigration.
good day:)
I have no excuse or tolerance for any terrorism coming from any quarter.
My argument was very clear, the IRA, (without getting into the argument of whether their fight was justified or not), were not labelled Catholic Terrorists. On the other hand any Muslim fighting for his rights is a Terrorist. Western media is very prompt to indiscriminately call all Non-Muslims freedom fighters and all Muslims terrorists.
Some of the members of the Salvation Army do a lot of good work, yet some members of the Salvation Army were charged and convicted of paedophilia. Please check the web pages of Law Firm Timothy D. Kosnoff, who keep filing new cases of child sexual abuse cases against the Salvation Army. These charges apply to other religious orders, the most notorious being the Christian Brothers. You state that “Catholic Terrorists don't exist because the Catholic faith and Christianity in general teaches against terrorism and violence in general” Paedophilia is CATHOLIC TERRORISM, and is alive and still being covered up the Catholic Church.
I choose not to label religions and I find it repulsive for bigoted Christians to label all the believers of Islam as terrorists.
What sincerely baffles me is that while MEPA has enforced planning law on an existing building (flat), this group of Muslims were using as a place of worship, you can still find no planning application mapped whatsoever on MEPA's Mapserver for the church in Żebbiegħ (Mġarr, Malta). One should note this is built on an area of archeological importance, designated by none other than MEPA itself : /. What's the position in this case? Is anyone at least bothering to sanction this building at some point?
(Would little appreciate a reply on the lines of 'two wrongs don't make a right' in this case, a massive church financed by local donations nearby an existing bigger church and a flat in the heart of Sliema don't even start to compare, the question only beckons the spirit of the law).
It's no coincidence at all - the Irish troubles have a very long history. Funnily enough the law banning successors to the English throne from marrying a Catholic or renounce the throne is still in force.
Could you then please enlighten (me) as to all the Muslims who denounce the Mullahs' way of teaching and all the organisations you so vehemently quote? Why is this? Because they're considered fake 'prophets', just as much Moses denounced worshipping of fake idols, another reason why the figure of Moses is a very strong patriarch/prophet in Islam.
Religion and politics are indeed a very bad mix, right wing 'christian' fundamentalists or those who tend to quote the bible literally a.k.a. creationists (oh the creeps...) - they're equally power-hungry and no better than the Taliban or any 'prophet' who 'interprets' the Koran as they please.
By your definition then, these 'christian communities' turn to the oil economy to justify their state-sponsored terrorism ... which in turn is used to justify the ideology of terrorist organisations. If you grant basic respect to humankind, war is murder not secular ideology.
I do not see any relevance in your quoting my comments out of context. Please note that I was not born yesterday and am not some teenager under the influence of a newly found charismatic faith (although I miss those times:)! ) I know exactly what the stakes of having muslims in our country are, but prefer tolerance over racism or discrimination. I respect the fact that other Maltese citizens may have different religious views and acknowledge that the law allows it. I will keep my own views thank you very much but I also respect those of others, it does not mean I conform to the teaching of Islam. I have a daughter rather than a 'sister' to think of, but I would rather teach her tolerance and respect towards people of different cultures/religion rather than hatred, condemnation egoism or fear of people who are different! And you call yourselves freethinkers! We cannot isolate ourselves or our dependnets from anyone, the next best thing is to educate ourselves and them! And please stop patronising me, as I said I am no teenager! You neither have to feel sad or worry about me, I require neither from you!
I you are, may I ask, do they not teach you to think at Uni so that an eventual degree obtained will be worth something? Or you could even change Course. When Sharia comes knocking, as a woman you'll need your wits about you. Maybe YOU are not concerned because your brand of endeavoured Christianity and Sharia overlap somewhat. But what about your sisters?
1. How long has the Paola Mosque been standing? around 30 years?
2. How has its presence affected the development of the freedom of expression (of any form as known to the West) in Malta?
3.Is Malta subject to Sharia law?
4.If there are 'x' number of Muslims on the island, do these Muslims pose the same threat you mention with or without an addittional Mosque?
5. So, is your concern related to the number of Muslims on the island, or the number of their places of worship?
Final note: we all know that Catholics were Christians before they became Catholics, hence the preeminence of Christ's teaching.
@Fr Joe and Catholics
I think that the question that every Maltese Catholic should be concerned with, more than whether or not another Mosque is a threat to Christianity/Catholicism is; how many more Catholics could and should be filling up the available Maltese churches.
The IRA were not labelled Catholic Terrorists because they weren't Catholic Terrorists. Their name is the "Irish Republican Army", not the "Catholic Crusader Army". It is a coincidence that most of their members were recruited from the Catholic community as a result of Anti-Catholic discrimination and bigotry.
Catholic Terrorists don't exist because the Catholic faith and Christianity in general teaches against terrorism and violence in general. Catholic/Christian communities have to turn to secular ideologies in order to take up violence.
You label United States Christians who wish to retain their faith as "right wing fundamentalists". Yet you excuse Muslim terrorists who massacre civilians.
The reason we label it Islamic terrorism is because Muslims have themselves:
Islamic Jihad
Armed Islamic Group
Islamic Salvation Front
Hezbollah (Party of God)
Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (Can you imagine a terrorist group called the St Johns Cathedral Martyrs Brigade)
The Mahdi Army (Compare with the Salvation Army a bunch of Protestant Christians who help the homeless)
One more thing, I respect other religions. However, I also respect my own.
I will happily have a coffee with Jessica, together with anyone else for that matter, irrespective of their religious (including atheists) or sexual orientation. However, discussing the feasibility of whether or not Malta should have more Mosques will definitely not be my chosen subject, since I am not a Muslim, I will leave that to the authorities to decide.
More of what Mr Xuereb?
The concern which many in Europe feel about this has already been felt years back with the Communist scare. Communist parties were tolerated (in our sense), but with the underlying concern that if they were to get the upperhand in an election they would change the rules of the game. And we saw this happen in numerous instances – Poland, East Germany, Albania, Roumania, Bulgaria… There were many ‘useful idiots’ (Lenin’s phrase) who toned down the threat and invoked Christian charity, forgiveness, brotherhood, toleration.
Are we now in the same predicament? Is the threat real, or just a figment of the imagination? Are those who tone it down ‘useful idiots’ or fifth columnists? Is religion a personal matter or a beachhead to conquest and empire?
Mss. Sharon Abela and Jessica Debattista. In Louis Cassar's letter of 15.05.09 'The real scandal in...' you'll find the juicy quotes as hereunder. Pass time usefully discussing the feasibility of more mosques or fewer. And moi peacefully perusing trade @ Cafe` Premier.
Your quote:'FATWA has no weight unless accepted by the community of recognized scholars'
Your quote: 'Fatwa well understood, this could be the best form of democacy for mankind'.
Your quote: 'what’s said in the divine Quran is the last, universal yet, un-corrupted words of God. Muslims also believes the Quran provide guidance for salvation, preserving a decent life and the Quran also acknowledge about the after death harsh penalty for disbelievers.
Muslims believe the Quran provide guidance from the Creator to Mankind'
Change of heart? I call it flexibility. Pushing out the boundaries. It is what it takes for one to 'grow'. I don't do ephemera. I do coffee. At Cafe` Premier. Where one picks up the tab. And some interesting snippets. On Sundays and lucky days. Some people are resourceful. Some only for analysis. Either way, they are interesting.
Why Mr. Xureb, Have you had a change of heart?
In a previous comment you had said that at Cafe Premier you would sit on your own and would not have anyone cramp your style, or yours theirs. :-))
May I say though that I am rather suspicious of anything deemed to be perfection and therefore not necessitating further development. Islamic art/architecture are sublime viewed with a jaded western eye over-exposed as it is to all kinds of art. That said, I have to say that one can have so much of geometric patterns. Especially surrounded by it during a lifetime. Numbs the mind I reckon. I could go on for hours at Cafe Premier. Here is neither the time nor the place.
I don't see why anyone should be scandalised. I, for one, think that's a very wise and open minded question for a catholic priest to ask.
F.Vasallo.
I never remember in religious knowledge being taught about islam, except for a 40 minutes overall for all non-catholic religions. No doubt many people felt offended by those muslims-in-sliema manifestation. These "offended" people were raised without having the minimal thought that they were not alone in the world, religion-wise at least.
Thank you for your lengthy comments on Islamic art.
You completely miss the point I am trying to make, and it has nothing to do with art.
Part 3
The conquered Byzantine provinces and the old Sassanian empire left a cultural and artistic heritage which was to affect the world of Islam for many a century; indeed so far as art was concerned, this dual heritage was fundamental, and its importance was only equaled at first by Semitic thought and rather later, by the role played by the non-figural style of the east. These divergent trends, unified by the universal adoption of the Arabic script became more than anything else the factor which made the art of the Islamic world into a distinctive style, the distribution of which coincided with the bounds of the faith.”
Having said that, to be sure, I am tempted to drift into the peaceful picture you paint of their interiors (though we are meant to focus on churches here and not their houses) but I also happily live with the Western culture of which I form part and, therefore, belongs to me. I would not be so sure if Muslims can adapt to the type of art that adorns our churches however. Hence, St John’s would not be an ideal place for joint worship.
Part 2
In the Islamic world, on the other hand, there was much greater uniformity, both with regard time and to space. In the first place the artists did not seek the new and unfamiliar in the way that the Renaissance artists did” - paving the way to all the different styles that were to follow with all the gore and extravagance to which you seem to find so much objection – “but rather remained attached to the model whose merit had been sanctioned by time and convention.
Because of these factors Islamic art has, at first glance, a certain degree of sameness for the Western eye.
The Islamic era is counted from the year AD 622, the date of Muhammad’s migration to Medina. Within little more than twenty years of that date Syria and Egypt had been wrested from the Byzantine Empire and Iraq and Persia from the Sassanian.
Continued….
They have no art displaying horrific hangings, gory beheadings, crucifixions oozing with blood, men in armour holding swords and shotguns, relics of fingers (not to mention other bodily parts), men and women beating themselves up with whips, bare-breasted women with a huge derriere and under-aged naked boys dressed as angels.”
Part 1
My! What have I set in motion here! How do I begin to argue the above without sounding pedantic?
However at the risk of boring your head off, some art historical background is called for here and I am referring to “Islamic art’ by David Talbot Rice.
“Islamic art is quite distinct from Christendom – Byzantine, Carolingian, Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance – were wholly different, and there was great diversity between the regions; indeed variety was the very essence of the art.
Continued…
@philip galea
My apologies Mr Sammut, I totally agree with your comments.
My comments re the Malta Constitution should have been addressed to Mr Galea.
Status of Religious Freedom
The Malta Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and other laws and policies contributed to the generally free practice of religion. The law at all levels protects this right in full against abuse either by government or private actors.
The Constitution establishes Roman Catholicism as the state religion and declares that the authorities of the Catholic Church have "the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong."
The Constitution also provides for "All persons in Malta" to "have full freedom of conscience and enjoy the free exercise of their respective mode of religious worship."
For fairness sake when quoting the constitution, please present the full picture, we would not like the embarrassment of anyone thinking that the constitution and the legal system in Malta does not have any respect for religious freedom.
Thank you for the irreverent remarks, I just hope that the other readers of my comments could see through my sarcasm which was in response to Mr Christopher Attard’s comments “ Let's give them St. John Co Cathedral for worship! U hallini Fr Joe”
.
I will take your advice though. I will not invite my new neighbours for a cup of tea as they might not like the decor in my “house”. I do neither like the way they dress nor their chanting anyhow.
On second thoughts, what if I visited? Perhaps it would be less offensive to me as they have no internal decor in their “house”, just beautiful arches adorned with geometrical patterns.
They have no art displaying horrific hangings, gory beheadings, crucifixions oozing with blood, men in armour holding swords and shotguns, relics of fingers (not to mention other bodily parts), men and women beating themselves up with whips, bare-breasted women with a huge derriere and under-aged naked boys dressed as angels.
The truth is, I will probably feel more comfortable in their “house” than in mine. The scaring part is I might find their “house” so peaceful, I might decide to move in.
If you want us to copy Milan, who not accept Maltese politicians of the like of Fini, Bossi who are adored in the region and who will obviously be outright against such 'fantasiste' projects? As you said "if this holds good for Milan should it not also hold good for Malta?"
When Norman Lowell, their local equivalent, tried to express himself, the Maltese government shut him up! Would you defend him?
Do you really not realise the problems Islam has brought in Europe? Don't you recognise the massive decline in European countries in these last 30/40 years due to the explosion of Islam?
Why are we so weak and why are feeling a necessity to give something to Africa: he owe them NOTHING. He haven't colonised the African continent unlike the French, the Italians, and the British!
Stop inflicting guilt to the nation! We do not have to build anything or give anything for anyone. They can pray at home. Who's not happy is free to go to his country.
This was 12 years ago in an RC school. Wonder if its still done.
Just a note on what you answered Mr Farrugia re Maltese women married to Moslems converting to Islam. I do not think anybody has ever bothered to collect statistics about this. What I know is that I met several primary school teachers who received requests from mothers married to Muslims asking them that their children be not photographed (class photo) near a statue of Our Lady or a Cross because their father would be very angry. I believe that Maltese women who marry Muslims (or men of any other religion) make a promise (or sign a decleration) that their offspring would be brought up as Catholics. Am I right? And if so is there any checking on this? Thanks and congrats for the blog.
Excuse me, what qualifies the Roman Catholic Church to decide which principles are right and which are wrong? Surely this is not borne out by its history. Were it to be judged on the same lines and by the same standards as some of the more notorious characters of the last century, the cross would have been a banned symbol long ago.
Mr.Falzon, Permit me a few irreverent remarks but which are meant in good faith and in the same spirit as I believe you made yours: Muslims would sit uneasy in a monument dedicated to the baptism of Christ; the profusion of Christian figurative art, to a religion that is not permitted to represent human beings but can only let its imagination play with patterns and forms, would rub them against the grain, and spreading their mats to kneel on mosaic sepulchral slabs of various illustrious Knights of St John of Jerusalem, soldier monks who had once sworn to fight the infidels, is not exactly conducive to their pious praying.
So let us not contemplate not even in jest/sarcasm the unthinkable!!!!
(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.
Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Constitution of Malta
A browse in Wickipedia makes interesting reading,....... While Germany has six mosques,in neighbouring Netherlands they have ten, while a large country like Norway they have two, But in the UK there are sixteen.
I havn't read all the post here, so forgive me if this subject has already been mentioned, but there seems to be a misaprehension that the Christain religion is banned in most Middle Eastern countries.... This is not quite true. .....Having worked in various parts, I can assure you that there is a Catholic church in Kuwait, There is or was also a church in Sharjah, Oman, Iraq, and there was even one in Yemen (Aden) I think that the only exception is Saudi.
Personally I think that the churches heirarchy should be concerned as to the amount of people drifting away from Catholicism as many are now adopting Islam or becoming members of the Jehovas Witness.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-16mosques_N.htm
.
"You have heard that it hath been said: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other [...]
"You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this?
This is not acceptable, and we must hold ground and for every Mosque is built in Europe another must be built in an Islamic Country...that would be a nice principle...a better world for all were respect truly reigns between faiths. I believein the Christian principle but is hard to accept it when others use it for there wicked hidden agendas.
You still do not get it even after Jessica clarified the 'irrelevant' bit. The problem was not the syntax but the address of your comment but anyway. No problem to err is human.... :)
The 'camel and the hump' was referring to other things in your previous commentary which in my opinion were likewise irrelevant to the subject, albeit not without validity in their own right... hence the idiom!
:)
Sadly, all this makes the' camel and his hump' rather irrelevant. And at Cafe Premier, I would sit on my own thank you. I would not have anyone cramp my style. Or me theirs.
Yes, Mr. Xuereb
I claim authorship of certain quotes you mention such as my thinking that certain details Sharon cared to mention were unnecessary in such a blog. Actually you prove me right for you seem to have misunderstood the gist of what Sharon was saying not because she is not conversant with the subject but because it is impossible to give a clear idea of a transitional period between Paganism and Christianity in a few hundred words. As you rightly say, a conversation such as Sharon and I had shared would have been ideal over a cup of coffee - two art lovers indulging themselves and trying, (let’s face it), to outdo each other on how knowledgeable they both are about the subject. I have no false qualms about admitting it. However, I don’t know if Sharon concedes it as well. I rather think she does.
Surely tolerance is but the most basic aspect of human relations. Did not your lord and master command you to Love your enemies, not put obstacles in their way. And when you do obstruct how can you justify your arrogant haughtiness as being in defence of "sound moral values", when you are only attempting to establish a pecking order that justifies your oppression of those you define as being lower down the ranks?
And yes the erection of any structure, civil or ecclesiastical is a civic matter. Any application to build such a structure has to be judged on its own merits with exclusive reference to building and environmental regulations and nothing else, especially without reference to religion and ecclesiastical authorities.
And why limit ourselves to inter religious tolerance? How about tolerance of minority groups, those for instance with a different sexual orientation or those who chose to adopt a different system of beliefs to others? How about tolerance of those who, basing themselves on fact rather than unsubstantiated opinion euphemistically called faith, consider it legitimate to terminate a pregnancy if the consequences of allowing the pregnancy to go to term are that much worse than termination?
1 .You said..."You said I don't recall how many times that 'this is irrelevant to this discussion'. Why say it? "
I never said such a thing! re read my comments..If I thought it were irrrelevant I would not have included it!
2. "And what is this nonsense about Christian worshippers discontinuing the use of pagan temples as they reminded them of 'the false gods?' "
This one neither!..... I said 'they grew out of favour due to pagan connotations'!
3. "Have no never heard that the Christian (or Islamic, or whatever) is but a scrap of a much order bale (it is all there on YouTube etc.). Which I'm afraid makes the blog and all it has generated a big irrelevance."
Can you clarify the above so I can reply?
And btw while we're on the subject of relevance...kieku l-gemel jara hotobtu jaqa u jmut zoptu..if you're not familiar with the saying or do not understand Maltese perhaps you can go to Premier I'm sure someone will explain it to you over a coffee:)
could do much worse than take a page from the tangential palace. Thanks Marlene.
God would be consulting right now with his lieutenants, Abraham, Jesus and Mohamed, as to which tectonic plates rub together or which meteorite to send towards earth to cause the most suitable punishment.
My sources tell me that the Masters of the great religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have given up and are advocating for total destruction.
Though now I'm risking going completely off tangent as to the original purpose of this blog - The Lutheran Church in Sweden and Finland leave their priests free to choose themselves if they want to bless a gay marriage or not. As regards the civil aspect I pay taxes to the state not the Curia, it is the state that has an inherent obligation to regulate all relationships in society equally without discrimination on the basis of religious belief not the other way round - Give to Caesar what's due. The church establishment in England protested against offering adoption services to homosexual couples and they lost.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7978495.stm
As for the God 'we worship', I think the patriarch element such as Abraham is more tangible in all 3 religions (Islam Judaism Christianity), truth is there is diversity in Islam as much as there is in Christianity or Judaism for geographical, political etc. reasons - some invented interest rates while others abhorred them : /
One last comment. Joe Borg's blog has 'appeasement' written all over it. Appeasement, in all situations, is very dangerous. It sets up a precedent that is impossible to retract. Agrigento and Constantine please note. You have a lot to answer for.
"Go on, help keep dismantling the few remaining remnants of Catholic Malta while appeasing the Muslim (intolerant) faith!"
Are you suggesting we fight their intolerance by showing our intolerance? I doubt that would lead to anything beneficial for anyone.
It is CARDINAL TETTAMANZI who said that more mosques should be build in Milan. So Mr Attard you have a cardinal and not a mere priest to argue the subject with
No hard feelings at all Sharon.:-))
Anzi!! Glad to have someone who shares my passion – ART.
no 'hard' feelings, not 'heart' feelings!..I'm not making any proposal :)
As daylight:) but you have to realiIze that you were the one who ended the post with:
"I wouldn’t have gone into so much unnecessary detail since I find it irrelevant for this discussion - a blog discussing Paleo Christian art would have been more apt.:-)) "
Naturally that triggered a response in me. I did not think that anyone had some sort of jurisdiction as to which information is relevant or not :)
In fairness and to your credit I elaborated for the sake of those who might be interested to read on, because from your previous comments on other blogs, I was well aware that you are very well informed on Art History:) And many a time make use of quotations which some might find that are at a tangent but for you and rightly so, are relevant.
ps regarding the 'in hiding' bit..actually I was referring to nowadays and for all. Shall we try to go to one of the extremist Arab countries and see if non muslims, esp. Christians in 2009 can worship out of hiding??
Anyways as long as there are no heart feelings I do not mind a little 'battibekk' :)
Part 2.
b. You also said in the same comment “I think every one deserves to be able to have a proper place of worship without having to do it in hiding……”
The fact that you mentioned “in hiding” means that you were basing your comment on when Christians were still persecuted. So obviously not to go out of context I only limited my comment to give an answer pertaining to that period.
In your subsequent comments you diverged and expanded into later periods when the Christians were becoming bolder, and the information you gave tallied with what I agreed with, so naturally I had to say that I was in agreement.
I hope I have made it clear enough.:-))
Part 1
I wanted to curtail the discussion since I thought it was not within the scope of this discussion. But if you want to carry it further I will oblige, of course.
a. You said “The Early Christians initially did not have anywhere to meet for worship so they used synagogues, catacombs and pagan temples until they established the basilicas as we know them today.”
I was not in agreement with you as regards catacombs or pagan temples being used as places of worship. Catacombs had their specific function – for burials and rites connected with the commemoration of martyrs. And pagan temples were not used by Early Christians as places of worship when they were still a persecuted sect. (Christians were terrified of being found out. Can you imagine them making use of a pagan temple for worship. That would have been a blasphemy as was a blasphemy depicting figural images which harked too much to pagan gods (according to the Mosaic ban) and that is why they made use of symbolisms)
Continued…
Some people just read the blogg, and they're given the false impression. What do you think Mr. Farrugia?
Go on, help keep dismantling the few remaining remnants of Catholic Malta while appeasing the Muslim (intolerant) faith! Prosit ghalik Joe Borg!
Is it true that according to Muslims (according to the Koran) it is a virtue 'li turi wicc b'iehor' to Christians? I am simply asking... but such is stated even by priests.
True, but by saying the quote below ..
"Sharon, I might be wrong, but I believe that the early Christians met for worship in meeting houses which had nothing to identify them from any other house next door, for they were a persecuted sect and they had to be very careful not to attract attention to themselves.
Pagan temples were tainted; they were shrines of idolatry and for this reason they could not be used by Christians."
.....I took it that you were not in agreement!..so I clarified, since I assumed that if you were in agreement you would have simply agreed or said nothing :) As you might have noticed my initail comment to Fr Joe was short and to the point.
Anyway there's no harm in giving a little extra historical information, especially when it shows that if we look deep in our roots we find overlapping religious beginnings whaterver our current religous belief is:)
Yes Sharon, very familiar with all that you said and in full agreement, though I wouldn’t have gone into so much unnecessary detail since I find it irrelevant for this discussion - a blog discussing Paleo Christian art would have been more apt.:-))
The catacombs were not just burial chambers. They also had rooms which were reserved for the last meal of farewell called refrigerium, where they would have had burial rites which naturally involve some praying. Regarding the temples, yes initially pagan temples were used (such as Agrigento) but these grew out of favour and as you said due to their pagan connotations, but Christians adopted the basilica type plan such as that of Dioclecium from the Romans, which meant the 'hall of the king' or emperor, a rectangle with colonnades on either side for aisles with an apse at the shorter side.
The first church San Giovanni in Laterano (founded by Constantine in 4AD) was in the Roman basilica plan, as this did not remind the Christians of the pagan gods. Gradually the basilica plan evolved into the Latin cross type.The baptism rites indeed as you said were not carried out in catacombs but took place in an adjacent building annexed to the basilica- the Baptistry, because un-baptised Christians were not allowed to enter the actual church prior to their baptism.
Mr Attard, sharing St John's Cathedral for a combined Muslim-Christian service, would be a tremendous act of goodwill on the part of the Catholic Church in Malta, all in the spirit of the Ecumenism, so fondly thought of in the mid--sixties.
It would show respect for other religions, an acceptance that "salvation" can take different roads, an acknowledgment of the same God, the God of Abraham.
A beautiful act of TOLERANCE, LOVE, COMAPSSION AND GOODWILL. After all isn't that what Christianity is all about?
I commend you on your suggestion, may the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta take up your suggestion.
I just realized that not all my original comment was entered for some reason!!
it was a 3 part reply and that is why I replied the way I did just now:)
I'll try to clarify....
However regarding the early churches as I already said..the first 'mother of all churches' ie St John Lateran was built on the basilica plan typology (but it does not survive in its original plan) ie based on a pagan temple, and so were the ones that followed such as those found in Ravenna, either on a centrally planned format or the basilica type.
I hope we are not entering into a contest between us here for all that you are quoting is very much familiar to me. It seems we have followed the same degree at University and also referred to the same text books. (probably even had the same lecturers) :-))
But just to bring to your attention. I expressly did not mention the synagogues for the same reason that you give.
Although you describe at some length the symbolism and iconography borrowed from Jewish and Pagan sources in the sculpture on sarcophagi, this does not mean that Christians also made use of pagan temples as places of worship. In fact when Christians could safely profess their faith and grew in numbers, the first churches could not be planned on the Pagan temple for the reason I gave in my earlier comment. It was the Basilica plan which was favoured and you most probably know the subsequent development of the church, which we are not going to go into here since it is beside the scope of this blog.
1.
You are wrong on some counts :)
You have to keep in mind that the Early Christians did not grow out of nothing, they were mostly Jews or pagans. When I said synagogues I did not mean the elaborate ones known to us today. The first record of E Christian activity is found in Syria - Dura Europos domus ecclesia (house church) which shows both Christian and Jewish influences. Initially the E Christians worshipped in hiding, and when around 150AD they were allowed to have their own cemeteries, extra moenia, outside Rome in Via Appia catacombs such as Domitilla & Pricilla have evidence of what their activity was in this early period, which included rituals as well as burial. The first years of Christianity is very much tied to paganism and some Hebrew influences, in fact they borrowed much of their iconography from Judaism and compared the teaching of the Old Testament with the new teaching of Christ in their depictions. In addition they also made use of many figures and painted motifs found in Roman pagan sculpture on sarcophagi, such as vines, peacocks, allegorical animals and the image of the good shepherd.
cont...
A largely liiberal West has gained much freedom for homosexuals. Are we supposed to relinquish these freedoms. And lest anyone get too complacent and not feel concerned because they are not gay, let them be warned that the curtailment (to put it mildly) of one freedom leads to another, and another, and another. In particular, women are not forgotten.
Need I say more? Except, I wonder what Joe Borg thinks of this very common social phenomenon. Of course we all know the RCC's stance on this as homosexuals are seen as outside the 'embrace of the Church'. I wonder if Joe Borg belong to that school of thought and seamlessly would accept Islam within the embrace of the RCC becasue, as said School say, we all worship the same God. Comment is awaited Joe Borg. No ifs. No buts.
I really think that you are playing for time, as in football. A very diplomatic priest, as has been previously said.
What a clever retort! :-))
I would like to see the research you based your question on before i see whether or not I do have an answer. Could you please direct me?
I do not agree that praying are carried outdoors at a prominent place in Sliema during busy hours as I would have not agreed to have a mass at City Gate at the busiest time of the week for example, but does it make so much difference in having a mosque instead of a church in a locality…. Why it was possible to have a mosque at Corradino but not at Sliema? The problem seems to be traditions that act as barriers.
Part 2.
Pagan temples were tainted; they were shrines of idolatry and for this reason they could not be used by Christians. Catacombs were used as burial places and Christians met there only to commemorate the anniversary of a martyr’s death, but they were not used as places where they met for worship or where they performed the rites of baptism. In any case Early Christian rituals were performed in hiding and very discreetly until the emperor Constantine gave official recognition to the Christian Church.
As regards Muslims living in Malta, they do not have to worship in hiding for they are definitely not persecuted, and as you say, “they deserve to be able to have a proper place of worship”, if the existing one does not suffice.
Part 1
Sharon, I might be wrong, but I believe that the early Christians met for worship in meeting houses which had nothing to identify them from any other house next door, for they were a persecuted sect and they had to be very careful not to attract attention to themselves.
Continued….
The problem is that it is wrong to stifle people, and that is exactly what, in my opinion, Muslims in general do.
@ Ms Marlene Vella - I would never enter into any personal attack unless I were out of my senses! The problem is that no, I am not basing myself on individuals in this matter. When a few years ago there was all that hullabaloo about the Mohammed's cartoons - was that a case of individuals? I think not. And the sharias? And the sentence still hanging over Salman Rushdie? And the way Muslim men treat women in general?
No, you're wrong: even with the ghonnella and all that, women WERE respected in Malta!
Every one keeps saying what if Christians go the the Muslim countries, (among other things said) will they be allowed to worship? This week I saw a poster on campus which really struck me. It said something like this: 'If we go by the dictum "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth", we'll all be blind and toothless' which I think it is very apt, because we're all the time wanting to do onto others what is done onto us,(ie inpattu fil -hazin) and that does not make any one better than the other, Christian or Muslim.
I think that if another Mosque is needed and it's building is well within the Maltese law requirements, I do not see why there should be a problem. It is not the first of its kind on our shores. The Early Christians initially did not have anywhere to meet for worship so they used synagogues, catacombs and pagan temples until they established the basilicas as we know them today. I think every one deserves to be able to have a proper place of worship without having to do it in hiding and more importantly without being scorned.
To take up your point, I am not in the slightest worried about him indoors. But I am worried about his wayward brothers and what they get up to after prayers. My fears would be allayed somewhat if they who choose to pray on public female summerwear fashion CATwalks would put their money where their mouth was and loudly - they're good at this - proclaim their disgust at what their wayward brothers are doing. If they are genuine, they'll pass muster
This is a common fallacy when people are speaking about the merits or otherwise of some people or culture (Note that I am not naming any specific culture here). In general people in favour of multi culturalism tend to argue from the single individual point of view (I have a muslim/jewish/sikh neighbour and he's so nice... etc.).
This individual experience, however, usually cannot be generalised onto the collective expression of the culture, however. You may find individual muslims/jews/sikhs charming, but that does not mean that you would be justified in moving towards multiculturalism, or that you would be happy in a multicultural society.
The Church has for centuries has brain washed us that the only path for "salvation" is through the "Roman Catholic Church". The uproar is the result of that teaching. Had more emphasis been put on tolerance, compassion and respect for others, including other religions, the reaction might have been very different.
In defence of Rome, in the past, some attempts have been made to narrow the gap between all religions, only to be undermined by the right wing Christian fundamentalists in the United States. The western media has a lot to answer for too, they go out of label any terrorism with Islam. In the 60's and 70's when the IRA terrorised London, no one labelled them Catholic Terrorists, and nor should anyone have. The agenda of the U.S. manipulated media has always been to emphasise on the difference, create more division and fear so they can justify their wars and politics.
What I said is very within the point because you were speaking about us in the West and how we perceive Muslim identity. You do not realise that you're basing your own conclusions on individuals too. General sweeping statements will get you nowhere as a human being. I in no way condone any form of repression, I rather condemn those who abet when it suits them (e.g. US vs Saudi Arabia). But if you allow me let me point out that these Islamic countries you refer to had an executive political role for women when women in Malta did not even have the right to vote or wore the Għonnella still (describe me the difference between a burqa and għonnella, quite honestly they're the same). You're also away that fundamentalism is also emerging in 'Christianity' (the inverted comma here is precisely my point). Also you'll probably find this interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8033060.stm
Why is it that when a Maltese Catholic marries a Muslim, it is nearly always (so I won't be categorical) the Catholic that relents and 'converts' to Islam?
While on the subject, do you people realise that it is ok for a Catholic to be 'converted' into any other religion, BUT THAT IF A MOSLEM IS FOUND TO HAVE ABANDONED HIS FAITH, he is condemned to death? Now, how is that for those pseudo-advocates for the freedom of expression?
People need to stop trying to stuff people into neat little boxes, we're not made to be labelled - especialy in this globalised world. An Arab for example need not be Eastern (France) or Muslim (Lebanon, Indonesia) and may live in a secular country (Turkey). There is no them and us, just we.
This whole Muslims praying on the sea front thing has been given way too much attention. There was no discrimination, they broke the law, it had nothing to do with the fact that they were Muslim. While I don't have any issue watching (insert any religion here) pray, I don't think
praying on a public promenade is very practical; either for them or for the rest of the public. It stops all people being able to enjoy what is a common area.
Couldnt the Muslim community have just carried out some research to see if more mosques were needed and then just taken it from there instead of all this calculated pr drama?
I read with great interest your article.
I believe in toleration because that is our culture. Muslims in Europe expect to be tolerated and so they are and so they should be. We know, however, that there are two distinct concepts of toleration. The first is the one we all are familiar with, where toleration stems from the belief in the equality of persons and in their inalienable rights. The other is that practiced by the strong towards the weak, where the former holds himself strong enough to ‘tolerate’ the minority but will crush them whenever they overstep the limit imposed. From even a cursory perusal of the history of Muslim colonisation it is evident that the latter is the Muslim concept of toleration. One must also remember that Islam did not pass through the renaissance and the enlightnment so that it is impossible for Muslims to separate religion and politics. I am not saying this is a good or a bad thing. I am saying only that that is how the Muslim mind works. Hence the problem has more facets to it than just a question of toleration because this has to work both ways..
Why don't you go and live in an Islamic country? Then, and only then, would you be speaking a different tune to the way you write now, about how you, as a woman, will be respected. I am sorry: try as you might to find ways to excuse their behaviour, there is a lot to say about Muslim traditions which do not fit in with modern times.
How can you not be impressed by negative aspects of Islam if it is so immersed in the traditions of old and narrow-minded? It is strange not to read any women's comments about the matter because, for starters, Muslim women are far from emancipated.
Anyway, this is beside my original point, mainly being that Muslims praying out in the open on Sliema seafront should not be repeated. We are asking for trouble. It is my opinion.
With regard to the Muslims on Sliema seafront, I stand by my opinion - it is a dangerous precedent and will leave repercussions if left unabated. Yes, the West is terrified of Islam and that's a fact.
Muslims at prayer - I have absolutely no problem about it. I am no stranger to the Mosque in Paola but that's exactly it: why not go to Paola? Why have to make a show of it?
People also mention very nice Muslims - of course there are!!!! That does not mean that as a religion, they are not fanatics and vengeful.
To all those who defend this protest-prayer, I ask a simple question again: what if we had to go and do the same thing in their own country? Would we get out of there alive?
NB. People here know that I am not a Catholic fanatic - far from it.
@C Busuttil: "We Maltese" disagree with you.
@Roy Cecil: I doubt that Saudis form a significant percentage of Muslims in Malta.
I cannot understand how the sight of a crucifix hanging on a public wall should be considered as offensive or deplorable by people of another faith - and yet it is...
Malta is a secular place and there is religious freedom. Everyone is entitled to practise his religious believes until they don't break the law. So if they abide to Maltese laws they are free to stay.
I have a close friend of mine (Maltese) who have converted to Islam a few years ago and contested the local councils election. He was interviewed by Fr Borg and to a quesiton about Sharia law becoming the Maltese law, he answered that yes he would strive hard that it would become so. This certainly do raise a few eyebrows.
Recently I read an article about a UK muslim dentist who refuses to treat female patients who are not wearing muslim clothing, whether they are muslims or not. This is a clear example of Muslim mentality.
With all due to respect!
We have a clear picture of what Muslims do in Europe. Let's take an example of what happened in England. If you give them a finger they will take your hand. What's next turning one of our unused old chapels into a mosque? Let's give them St. John Co Cathedral for worship!
U hallini Fr Joe
Franco Farrugia, C Busuttil - I live with a French Muslim and a Christian Orthodox, we share our food, our laughs, our joys and sadness and indeed our clothing tips if you're wondering if we're all clad in jihad chic style to scare the white people at airports, the muslim one indeed dresses to kill albeit with modesty :o). So please speak for yourselves if you're terrified of stereotypes because I live in the West too; and in the West Muslim Progressives are elected to parliaments *shock horror*. You should also note that Arabic has also prevailed over Latin in Maltese religious terms - Randan, Radd is-Salib, Qassis etc. funny isn't it?
Fr. Joe Borg,
By the same reasoning as Cardinal Tettamanzi, you approve that Muslims should have more mosques in Malta, if they so desire.
On the contrary you will “be concerned if the Muslims or any other religious community cannot get the places of worship they need”!
AJA.
.
We are bombarded with the negative aspect of other religions probably because we do not know enough about them. Christianity in its infancy was itself a misunderstood religion. Christianity was seen as a cannibalistic and incestuous religion because the Romans understood the ritual of the Eucharist as actually eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ, and the professing of brotherly love was taken as literal.
I wonder if Fr Joe Borg has ever been rudely woken up at 04.30 hrs in the morning by the calling for muslim prayers. Indeed, the residents of Paola and it's environ think very much differently than Cardinal Borg.
When Islam starts to act towards women in a human manner instead of considering them as camels, when ALL islam asks all humanity forgiveness for the millions who they have murdered in the name of their religion, when other religions can build places of worship in their countries, when marriages contracted by muslim parents are forbidden and all the medieval legacy this religion carries, maybe my outlook and those of others will change.
Until this happens, I want my country free from the influence of the catholic church and much more from islam.
Islam and modern society can't coexist, therefore one of us is too much on these islands
Did you forget that after the agreement in 1993 with the Holy See, the great majority of Church land was transferred to the Maltese government? Maltese muslims are taxpaying citizens of the Maltese State & not the Maltese Church. Thus it is the state which is morally obliged to provide them with a place where they can worship.
@ Fr Joe
I could not refrain from smiling reading that you quoted Tettamanzi on this matter. Perhaps you should have quoted Cardinal Biffi of Bologna who harbours different views. There is a joke about Tettamanzi that circulates in clerical quarters. His predecessor, Carlo-Maria Martini despite being much loved was unfortunate in witnessing a divided clergy in his own diocese. However, Tettamanzi managed to unite all priests & that is quite an achievement for Milan. Now traditionalist or reformists, conservative or liberal, left or right wingers are all unified in one front. They have become ALL against Tettamanzi.
I do not agree with Fr. Joe, to build more mosques in Malta.
What the Muslim community should do is purchase some of our Roman Catholic churches and turn them into Mosques, because the way we’re going this would be the more viable way. A perfect example is nearby Italy!
And with people like Fr. Joe, advocating this kind of philosophy, why bother to defend our Roman Catholic way?
And all this for POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, may I ask?
../..
AJA.
.
I want to know the truth. The truth, proverbially, offends so many clamour for the suppression of anything that MIGHT offend. That anything could indeed offend. It could be the truth. The truth offends. Full circle Joe Borg. Problem is, suppressing the truth, deprives the offense-shy of growth and dragging me down with them. Like not.
Once an individual chooses to follow a belief system, indeed he has no right to prevent others following their own. An atheist, in this respect, is in an unique position. He has reasoned choices. He can adopt the live and let live. Be suspicious of otherness. Proselytize. Or write comments in the Times that are only ever obliquely acknowledged like in this, today's blog. I wonder why?
Two wrongs don't make a right. They would not be tolerant (Been to egypt a couple of times)... but it doesn't mean we should not do the same.
This is basically an expression of a more multicultural society, fraut with xenophobia and fear. Shed the two latter sumbling blocks - it's the way the future's going to be anyway! TV, airplanes and the internet have made this possible, and the very technologies themselves are begging for a more multicultural society. So let us celebrate other cultures, not be terrified of them.
Although our constitution officially recognised Roman Catholicism as the reglion of Malta, subsequent articles allow the freedom of belief... and .... we cant really stop them! Why all this fuss? They're paying for the mosque.. so let them build it. But a block of apartments is not a suitable venue.
I'm sure you're aware of that type of humour that many times only priests & clerics understand or comprehend their full meaning. These jokes are heard usually in sacristies, curia corridors & similar spots where priests tend to be present more than in other places.
Perhaps then you'll appreciate this joke about Cardinal Tettamanzi's great achievement in Milan. His predecessor the Papabile Carlo Maria Martini, despite his charisma & magnetism he was very unfortunate in witnessing his priests diverging into two blocks - one favouring & the other strongly opposing his policies. Tettamanzi's greatest bravado was in overcoming this polarisation. Just few months after his installation ALL of Milan's priests, liberals or conservative, left or right-wingers, traditionalists or reformers etc... got united into ONE unified front. Now they are ALL AGAINST TETTAMANZI!
Bearing this in mind, I think that your article loses a lot of its persuasiveness. It would have better if you did not quote Tettamanzi at all.
David Muscat
If Maltese or other Muslims want to pray outdoors, there are many places to do it. Choosing a most prominent and high profile place to pray in a way that surprises (at least) or shocks (at most) the great majority of the people must have a motive in addition to just praying. As for the veiled threat of "a backlash" made by the Muslim cleric - I shall not comment on that because future-Cardinal Joe Borg forgot to mention it.
Muslims should have some introspection as a global community to come out with one voice to say we need freedom of worship and conduct themselves as a global community in that fashion. But what we see on the contrary is that Muslims in countries where they are a majority are ready to stone every one else and preach freedom of worship and oppression in countries where they are a minority. This should not be allowed.
if they need to build a mosque in Malta. Fair enough, let it be allowed to build a church and a temple in Saudi Arabia in return. quid pro quo ! If we don't understand this aspect of Muslim culture soon they will be like a virus spreading over Malta as the comment about humans by Agent smith in the movie matrix about humans :)
If Maltese or other Muslims want to pray outdoors, there are many places to do it. Choosing a most prominent and high profile place to pray in a way that surprises (at least) or shocks (at most) the great majority of the people must have a motive in addition to just praying. As for the veiled threat of "a backlash" made by the Muslim cleric - I shall not comment on that because future-Cardinal Joe Borg forgot to mention it.
There is already a protestant church.. why not a Mosque?
Finally I believe that in line with what Mr. Farrugia stated, the blog is corrected with the real version of facts regarding the publication.
Fr Joe ou have quoted Cardinal Tettamanz of Milan, but how about referring to a report in the Italian media, last year were a group of Muslim worshipers rented a garage in Jenner Str., Milan, and ended up hosting 4000 worshipers along the pavement, blocking the way for residents, commuters and shoppers, with the end result the Council provided a place for them in an unused stadium, were the result was because of police presence only one thousand attended for fear of finding out clandestines residing in Milan.
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/08_luglio_05/bossi_moschea_ac66d7f4-4a5b-11dd-9da4-00144f02aabc.shtml
If the our Church is really in favour of dialogue in this matter, then the parish churches that host a large number of Muslims should make available one of the many properties that it owns.
From my point of view it is not a matter of religion but it is a mater of normal peaceful citizens live in peace, hygiene and security in there own block of apartments whether in Sliema, St. Paul’s Bay or were ever they may be in Malta and Gozo.
It should be properly situated with it’s own main entrance and not in a block of apartments where the majority of the residents are not of the same religion. The residents are disturbed by there presence which occurs on more than four times a day and as early as 4.30 am on regular daily basis. We have experienced this in only 27metre Square sometimes there were over 100 men. This is not a case of only disturbance and insecurity, but also of health.
To be continued.
@ Franco Farrugia:
Why is this a dangerous precedent? I suppose that you, like me, have taken part in animal rights protests for which a permit had been obtained. Were these a dangerous precedent? Were not the numbers of those who attended these protests "ridiculous" (by which I guess you meant numerous)? I remember at least one protest that was organised on Homeless Animals Day at exactly the same place where this Muslim prayer meeting was held. Is the sea front a place where animal rights activists should congregate for their protests?
I am sure that you will agree that the answer to these questions is that a minor inconvenience must be tolerated in a democracy, as long as a permit is obtained. In both cases, it was.
As for the fact that the West is terrified of Muslims, the only way to change this is not by suppressing their freedom of congregation or worship, but by engaging in debate.
Would Muslims in their own countries be as tolerant? Many of them would not, but should we act like them?
Freedom of religious practice starts at home; two wrongs do not make a right. It is wrong for some people to assume that there are no Christian churches in Muslim countries, in Indonesia, the largest (by population) Muslim country on earth, there is a Christian church in every town and village. Christianity is practiced in the Middle East.
To each his own; some people pray to Father Christmas, others to The Tooth Fairy. I myself worship the SUN, at least I can see It and It gives me that warm fuzzy feeling.
The Muslims have a right to pray as many times as they require, however, they should not agitate waters by doing it blatantly in one of the most frequented areas both by locals as well as tourists when prayers ought to be said in a secluded area without any unnecessary distractions. Such a stance could be interpreted as a provocation and they should be prudent enough not to rouse the ire of the others.
Thanks for jogging my memory.
Mr. Farrugia, it has been reported in the article on The Times that a police permit had been given for both occasions. Quoting your own words in reply to your comment on public congregation: "I wonder, now, why you omitted these details. Perhaps you have your reasons."
Furthermore, you state that "The West is terrified of Muslims" and that they have violent tendencies. If so, then why are the Pope and President Barack Obama addressing Muslims and opening up to them? It is hardly likely to be out of sheer terror. I must disagree entirely with your second statement. I have met Muslims and not one of them was violent - and the most polite man I ever met was a Muslim.
Fine article, Fr. Borg.
I doubt it very much.
I believe that there should be as many places of worship as there is need. In our case, Malta's, one should first see how many Muslims there are before any further applicationis for mosques or places for Muslim worship, are approved.
The concluding words in your blog show lack of responsibility and lack of foresight at what may eventually happen in Malta and in Europe in the years to come.
Again, I wish to remind one and all that I never showed myself to be advocating the Roman Catholic religion as an established religion - I am against the principle of an 'established religion' per se. However, to strike a balance with an intolerant religion which still belongs to the Middle Ages, is tantamount to the State putting the metaphorical viper within its folds.
At the end of the day, wasn't it Christ himself who said that the best place of worship is the heart?
And again, what would have certain newspaper columnists have said if instead of Muslim worshipers we had some Christian group praying?
I am known, here, not to harbour much Roman Catholic ideals, especially when these impinge on free will. However, the seafront is not a place where Muslims congregate for their prayers.
As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, there is a low that governs congregating in public places in a ridiculous number. What about applying the law in this case?
Secondly, it is a known fact that the West are terrified of Muslims. The authorities worldwide have no idea how to set about when it comes to having anything to do with Muslims or indeed, Islam. And the reason is that, as we know, the reaction of Muslims to anything that pertains to their faith is one of sheer and absolute violence because they are far too sensitive about their religion.
The fact that Muslims have such violent tendencies keeps the authorities back from reacting as they should.
Would Muslims in their own countries be as tolerant?
I am afraid that either memory is failing you or for certain unknown reasons, you are not saying things as they were, in the case of Fr Edmund Theuma's Maltese-language Koran. These are not the facts as I came to know them at that time, and from the horse's mouth!
In fact, 'all hell broke loose' when the copies were already printed and stored. 'All hell broke loose' came also from the Archbishop's Curia, which you chose to leave out. In fact, the final agreement between the Archbishop's Curia and the Conventual Friary's Curia was to releae the copies but not with any details of where the copies were printed.
I wonder, now, why you omitted these details. Perhaps you have your reasons.
Or, perhaps, it is I who am not saying the truth. In which case, please correct me.
my problem isn't about how many mosques should be opened.
My problem is: When I was relaxing in Sliema, I was told to MAKE WAY for these people to worship. As far as I am concerned I have always payed taxes and I sincerely cannot understand why these people (a number of them were foreigners) should take priority.
Even the kiosk owner complained that the number of sales decreased when they were chanting or whatever they were doing.
p.s. Fr. Joe I would like to congratulate you for the blog entries you write weekly. They are brilliant.