Muslim Tolerance - Not Even in Death

[RNReindeer]

Just picked this out from your drivel reindeer.....(eyes glazed over at the rest)

"First of all, a lot of faiths require that the deceased are buried amongst those of the same faith, wherever possible."

Then don't get buried in a multi faith cemetery.
Simples.

Can your tiny mind not envisage different areas of the cemetery for different faiths?
My God, it's like talking to a child.

".....(eyes glazed over at the rest)" concentration of a goldfish?
Easier than contemplating everything that you've written might have been wrong and biased?

 

[Micilin]

Just picked this out from your drivel reindeer.....(eyes glazed over at the rest)

"First of all, a lot of faiths require that the deceased are buried amongst those of the same faith, wherever possible."

Then don't get buried in a multi faith cemetery.
Simples.

Can your tiny mind not envisage different areas of the cemetery for different faiths?
My God, it's like talking to a child.

".....(eyes glazed over at the rest)" concentration of a goldfish?
Easier than contemplating everything that you've written might have been wrong and biased?

You've gone too far here. Not often I pull you up but you are being unfair , picking on concentration levels.

Research shows goldfish have better levels than popular belief!

 

[cajar]

Lets look at this issue carefully, and admittedly, a little reading between the lines, which might be considered conjecture.
First of all, a lot of faiths require that the deceased are buried amongst those of the same faith, wherever possible.

"As an Orthodox Jew, one would like to be in consecrated ground, with fellow Jewish people. There are some people who aren't as Orthodox but they are Jewish and they want to buried with the same sort of people. That's why we go for Jewish ground as opposed to multi-cultural ground," he said
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24209072[/QUOTE]

The graveyard would be able to comply fully with Sharia law which states Muslims are traditionally buried in their own section of land, next to others of the same faith.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aves-green-belt-land-sparks-fury.html[/QUOTE]

Secondly, we can assume that Parish Councils etc are fully aware of this, and especially those that operate and publicise themselves as multi-faith.

Thirdly, the article states that the council “cocked up”:

This was not our fault. It’s the council’s cock-up. Before we bought the plots I even asked if it would be a problem and was told it would be fine.
From the oiginal aticle

Fourthly, from the original article, the Parish Council contacted the Gypsy family on Monday, perhaps when they were aware of the preparation of the plot. The funeral wasn’t until Friday.
The article was written on Friday.
So, alternative arrangements could have been made.
Reading between the lines, I would suspect that the plots were mistakenly sold to the Gypsies, after some reassurance at some previous time was given to the Muslims that the area was reserved for Muslims, an attempt was made by the Parish council (buying back one of the plots for planting of a hedge, alternatives plots) but then a certain amount of intransigence was in evidence:

“The grave was already being dug and bricked out when we had a call last Monday at 5.45pm from Julie Perrin at the parish council asking us if we could move plots.
“We said no - we bought the land and it was too late to find another plot.
“We have no issues with the Muslim family. I think they were under the impression it was a Muslim plot but it isn’t. But they should have tolerance to us.”

So who is at fault? Clearly the Council made a mistake which they tried to correct. The Gypsies were intransigent because they had the plot that they wanted. The Muslims have behaved in accordance with their contract with the Council, and in accordance with their faith.

Yet again the title of the thread suggests it was all the fault of the Muslims.

Skillful exploration of the issues. But the fact remains, that this is racial/religious intolerance. It doesn't suddenly become palatable just because it's under the banner of religious beliefs.

 

[noseall]

Skillful exploration of the issues. But the fact remains, that this is racial/religious intolerance. It doesn't suddenly become palatable just because it's under the banner of religious beliefs.

I find the whole thread hilarious.

At any other given time, the likes of Norcs and his clan are showing their hatred for Gypsies yet here we are in a debate and they are actually garnering support for them.
Brilliant.

Why? We all know why.

Honestly you lot are pathetic.

 

[RNReindeer]

Lets look at this issue carefully, and admittedly, a little reading between the lines, which might be considered conjecture.
First of all, a lot of faiths require that the deceased are buried amongst those of the same faith, wherever possible.

"As an Orthodox Jew, one would like to be in consecrated ground, with fellow Jewish people. There are some people who aren't as Orthodox but they are Jewish and they want to buried with the same sort of people. That's why we go for Jewish ground as opposed to multi-cultural ground," he said
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24209072[/QUOTE]

The graveyard would be able to comply fully with Sharia law which states Muslims are traditionally buried in their own section of land, next to others of the same faith.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aves-green-belt-land-sparks-fury.html[/QUOTE]

Secondly, we can assume that Parish Councils etc are fully aware of this, and especially those that operate and publicise themselves as multi-faith.

Thirdly, the article states that the council “cocked up”:

This was not our fault. It’s the council’s cock-up. Before we bought the plots I even asked if it would be a problem and was told it would be fine.
From the oiginal aticle

Fourthly, from the original article, the Parish Council contacted the Gypsy family on Monday, perhaps when they were aware of the preparation of the plot. The funeral wasn’t until Friday.
The article was written on Friday.
So, alternative arrangements could have been made.
Reading between the lines, I would suspect that the plots were mistakenly sold to the Gypsies, after some reassurance at some previous time was given to the Muslims that the area was reserved for Muslims, an attempt was made by the Parish council (buying back one of the plots for planting of a hedge, alternatives plots) but then a certain amount of intransigence was in evidence:

“The grave was already being dug and bricked out when we had a call last Monday at 5.45pm from Julie Perrin at the parish council asking us if we could move plots.
“We said no - we bought the land and it was too late to find another plot.
“We have no issues with the Muslim family. I think they were under the impression it was a Muslim plot but it isn’t. But they should have tolerance to us.”

So who is at fault? Clearly the Council made a mistake which they tried to correct. The Gypsies were intransigent because they had the plot that they wanted. The Muslims have behaved in accordance with their contract with the Council, and in accordance with their faith.

Yet again the title of the thread suggests it was all the fault of the Muslims.

Skillful exploration of the issues. But the fact remains, that this is racial/religious intolerance. It doesn't suddenly become palatable just because it's under the banner of religious beliefs.

I'm not supporting intolerance, far from it.
But if a group of people have a contract with the council, for any reason, one would expect the council to honour that agreement.
Especially if/when the council promote a multi-faith cemetery then "cock-up" on the important criteria for that mult-faith cemetery.

Additionally, one can assume fom the article that the gypsy family suspected something was amiss because they contacted the council to check that it would be OK to use that plot. Unfortunately, the council said "yes", mistakenly.

So if any exhumation is required it is mostly the fault of the council, for their mistake, and partly the fault of the gypsy family for their intransigence.

Yet, despite the almost neutral stance of the article, some posters are quick to heap blame on the Muslims, who are the totally innocent party in this regrettable incident.

 

[RNReindeer]

Just picked this out from your drivel reindeer.....(eyes glazed over at the rest)

"First of all, a lot of faiths require that the deceased are buried amongst those of the same faith, wherever possible."

Then don't get buried in a multi faith cemetery.
Simples.

Can your tiny mind not envisage different areas of the cemetery for different faiths?
My God, it's like talking to a child.

".....(eyes glazed over at the rest)" concentration of a goldfish?
Easier than contemplating everything that you've written might have been wrong and biased?

You've gone too far here. Not often I pull you up but you are being unfair , picking on concentration levels.

Research shows goldfish have better levels than popular belief!

Sorry I micilin. I bow to your greater acquaintance with goldfish.

Are you now suggesting that goldfish have greater concentration levels than Nocon?
Or do you want to completly disassociate goldfish with the concentration span of nocon?

Please don't think I'm trying to put words into your mouth. I admire your eloquence and insight in these posts.

Perhaps we could conspire to put words into nocon's mouth, I'm confident we could do a better job than he does.

 

[Hugh Jaleak]

Burbage is not a large place by any token, although annexed now to Hinckley, the original Parish is probably somewhat smaller. Correspondingly, the cemetery isn't exactly huge either, and as is often the case in these smaller parish burial sites, space is not freely available to start dishing out selected areas to different faiths.

Normally grave purchase and plot allocation is done at Parish/Town level, so I would suspect it has been one or two people at the most involved with allocating the plots, and being a 'multi faith' cemetery I doubt much thought, (if any) was given at the time to who occupied the neighbouring plot. Given the fact only a few people are likely to be involved it surprises me that any prior arrangements were not taken into account before this plot was offered. Unless a certain plot is specifically purchased then usual practice is to work systematically to fill the available ground.

The Extraordinary meeting of the Parish Council isn't taking place until tomorrow evening, but I sincerely hope common sense prevails and the departed can rest in peace.

Exhumation of buried or cremated remains requires permission from the Ministry of Justice, and is a complicated process. Usually only carried out in extreme circumstances for obvious reasons.

 

[Newboy]

Ahh, Newboy,, yet another apologist......... Why do you think the parish council had an extraordinary meeting? More to the point, why do you think they barred the public and the press, from attending? Let's have your conjecture on this. ( I bet you have absolutely no idea (and will say so, or ask me what I and others think) )

EDIT,, You seem intolerant of those who view things differently from you (and very intolerant of those who view the RoP as a threat) I wonder why?

Again - try to get your facts right.

1. The meeting hasn't happened yet!

2. I would imagine that the press and public have been excluded to stop the inevitable circus that would result. (For the record the meeting should be public in my view)

I'm not sure why you think I'm intolerant of other views - good healthy debate is a very positive thing. I'm intolerant of bigots and conjecture based on assumptions with little factual support.

As far as I can see you bring little in the way of informed debate to this forum other than reactionary comment and another bigoted view and to join the small clique of other bigots.

My view of Islam (and other organised religions) is simple - a very small minority of people use religion as an excuse for violence and evil. Those people should be hunted down and prevented from harming other people.

The same principle should apply to any radical fringe from any religion or group - to condemn everybody for the actions of a few is a ludicrous and counter-productive approach.

I assume that you are happy to condemn the KKK as a radical branch of the Christianity. The Nationalist Protestants and the republican Catholics in Northern Ireland and all the other extremist groups who kill in the name of religion?

 

[LastMagicBean]

My view of Islam (and other organised religions) is simple - a very small minority of people use religion as an excuse for violence and evil.

Reckless naivety.

Marvelous.

 

[Newboy]

And your view is ?

 

[Norcon]

What kind of a nutter asks a bereaved family to shift graves in the middle of the funeral?
That's what the likes of weak pc minded jobworths like reindeer and his cronies would do.

When the racist muslims made the request to graveyard officials the simple answer was "no that's not possible".

 

[Newboy]

Yet again - the bigot only selects part of the post and chucks back an insult.

How about setting out your position clearly and then justifying it ?

 

[Norcon]

Yet again - the bigot only selects part of the post and chucks back an insult.

How about setting out your position clearly and then justifying it ?

The truth hurts bellboy.

 

[Newboy]

What kind of a nutter asks a bereaved family to shift graves in the middle of the funeral?

Yet again another bigot makes up a situation.

Show me where "in the middle of the funeral" anybody was asked to shift graves.

You simply make it up to suit your view.

 

[RNReindeer]

My view of Islam (and other organised religions) is simple - a very small minority of people use religion as an excuse for violence and evil.

Reckless naivety.

Marvelous.

Instead of inflammatory comments, perhaps LMB would like to present his estimate for the number of terrorists (Muslim or others) and compare those estimates with the number of people following any particular faith.
I suspect MI5, CIA, etc would be interested in his estimates, methodology, etc.

Of course, if there is no available evidence or figures on which LMB has rested his comments, perhaps he'll be good enough to retract those comments.