Qatar church controversy: "Christians should be allowed to practice their faith but should do so in line with public morals without being given licenses to set up places of worship"

Having "places of worship for various religions is a fundamental human right guaranteed by Islam," former dean of the Shari`ah Faculty at Qatar University Abdul Hamid al-Ansari told Agence France Presse
that's a good one, is his nose growing. Last time I looked, the only right that is in the Koran for other religions to pay a poll tax and not be allowed to repair their churches, among other things

The $7 million Roman Catholic St. Mary's church will be inaugurated on March 15 by Vatican envoy Cardinal Ivan Dias.

7 million dollars eh, that a lot of money to build a bonfire, though they will wait until its full.

"Having 'places of worship for various religions is a fundamental human right guaranteed by Islam,' former dean of the Shari`ah Faculty at Qatar University Abdul Hamid al-Ansari told Agence France Presse (AFP) Saturday, February 16.

Ansari attributed the opposition to 'a fanatic culture resulting from religious teaching (stipulating) hatred for the other and from social norms that denied non-Muslims their rights on the basis of old political and security considerations that have become obsolete.'

Let's all welcome the presence of churches in Qatar... as a demonstration of Islamic tolerance and human brotherhood,' he said.'
-- from the article above

It is raison d'etat that explains this. It has not escaped notice, in the Muslim lands, especially where so many of the elites spend so much time in Europe, that there are now thousands of mosques all over Western Europe. And at the same time, they cannot have failed to notice that Westerners, Christians and Jews and those who have no religion but, like Oriana Fallaci, or like Pim Fortuyn, are vigilant about Islam, that the failure to permit even one church in the entire Arabian peninsula, though there are millions of Christian wage-slaves on whom the economies, and Arab overlords, depend in Saudi Arabia and in the sheikdoms.

That is why it was, no doubt, decided by some -- in order to stifle criticism ("See, we just built a church, and on land donated so generously by the Emir of Qatar -- so let's not here any more complaints about lack of reciprocity, shall we, from you Christians?")-- that Qatar would be just the place to build such a church or, put better, a place for collective prayer since it will not have crosses outside or most likely inside, will not be a full-fledged church.

Why Qatar? you ask.

Here's why. Muhammad said that no non-Muslims should be allowed to reside in the Jazirat al-Arab, the Arabian peninsula. Temporarily, workers are allowed, as are American servicemen -- regarded contemptuously by the Saudis as merely hired help, the help in question being physical protection from enemies foreign (Saddam Hussein) and domestic (those opposed to the rule of the Al-Saud). But if there is to be a church, let it be built off-shore, not right on the peninsula itself.

Here's why. Muhammad said that no non-Muslims should be allowed to reside in the Jazirat al-Arab, the Arabian peninsula. Temporarily, workers are allowed, as are American servicemen -- regarded contemptuously by the Saudis as merely hired help, the help in question being physical protection from enemies foreign (Saddam Hussein) and domestic (those opposed to the rule of the Al-Saud). But if there is to be a church, let it be built off-shore, not right on the peninsula itself.

The comments by Ansari, who is trying to make the Muslims of Qatar take a teeny-tiny step in the direction of semi-civilization, of course has to allude to certain things while being carefully always to offer Aesopian language.

Ansari is quoted as saying that:

"religious teaching (stipulating) hatred for the other and from social norms that denied non-Muslims their rights on the basis of old political and security considerations that have become obsolete.'"

He is attempting to convince Muslims that the hatred for non-Muslims inculcated in the immutable texts of Islam is in fact merely the reflection of historical circumstances, of "political and security considerations that have become obsolete." But this is, for a Muslim, an astounding claim. Islam is supposed to be outside history. The Qur'an is "uncreated" (it always was, it never "came into existence"), and immutable. For someone -- for Ansari -- to claim that Islam is within history, its texts, and the fixed meaning of those texts, are not outside of history but to be located, just like the Bible and the Talmud and the Gitas, within history, and his claim that such hatred toward non-Muslims merely reflects "old political and security considerations" that "have become obsolete" -- well, the idea amazes. Perhaps he will be able to convince other Muslims -- the intelligent, well-off, westernized ones who may sense that Islam itself, if it continues on its present course unchanged, threatens them, threatens their futures and that of their children,and somehow manage to put Islam back "into history." The same thing is being accomplished by those Western students of the Qur'an who are subjecting that text to what the Christian and Jewish texts were subjected to with the Higher Criticism. They are simply scholars, interested in the truth. People such as Abdul Hamid al-Ansari are trying, for non-scholarly reasons, to de-mystify the development of Islam, in the hopes, by placing its texts (and therefore its tenets) into their historical context, to provide a way for Muslims to get out of the straitjacket of seemingly immutable, and permanently dangerous, texts. One can wish the ansaris of this world well, as long as one does not for one minute count on such an effort, or ever fall for the mantra that "moderate Muslims are the solution." We can't wait 500 years, or 100 years, or fifty years, for more than a billion Muslims to re-interpret their religion, and the modern example of "moderate Muslims" attempting to tie down Islam -- the example of Kemalism -- is not comforting, given the Return to Islam in Turkey.

And let's be charitable about Ansari's other remark: "[l]et's all welcome the presence of churches in Qatar... as a demonstration of Islamic tolerance and human brotherhood" though as a statement can be taken in two ways -- "we in Islam practice tolerance and human brotherhood" and "we in Islam should show that we can practice, or demonstrate, tolerance and human brotherhood."

After all, only the first of these statements is false.

I am certain nobody would object if the Western nations used the same sort of rules in respect to the practice of Islam and the use of mosques here.

A mosque is not a church. It is a nexus of terrorism, Islamism, weapons and the invasion of kuffir nations.

Time to seize them and sell the properties to raise money for the counter-jihad.

Hugh,

There are several churches in the UAE.

Those churches in the U.A.E. -- are they new or old, are they in Dubai or elsewhere? Are they full-fledged churches, or are they merely meeting-houses for the faithful, who must conduct their services almost in secret, with no identifying marks on the outside, and scarcely any on the inside?

Qatar is not an island, Hugh. "The facts, Ma'm, just the facts."

skevin,

Yes, Qatar is a peninsula -- Hugh must have had the neighboring island-state of Bahrain in mind.

That pious Muslims abhor non-Muslim practice, not to mention presence, on the Arabian Peninsula, and that this church is mere tokenism, still holds.

"Qatar is not an island, Hugh."
-- from a posting above

I stand not only corrected, but utterly abashed and publicly humiliated. Yes, Qatar is on a peninsula, and a peninsula is not an island. Therefore my theory, that Qatar could be considered outside the Jazirat al-Arab, crumbles into dust. And "Cornelius" reminds me that this would not be the first church existing in the Arabian Peninsula, and that others exist in the U.A.E. I knew that there existed, outside of Saudi Arabia, a few very modest places, but I had always thought they were there from the time when the British kept the peace in what were called the "Trucial States" (where British ships kept the "truce" between constantly-warring tribes), and thus called many of the shots -- that is, were not built in a spirit of friendly accommodation to the faith of guest-workers. That was my way of distinguishing, to my own satisfaction, their existence from this new structure to be built on Qatar.

A peninsula or promontory or presqu'isle is not an isle. As they say in the British West Indies, when you ask someone if his little land is connected to the mainland, and he replies, echoing Donne, "no mon, is an island." Repeat that lesson 100 times to self. "Presqu'isle" as in "presque." Almost, but not quite. A geography lesson I will remember not to forget.

I have modified the paragraph in my initial posting above, the one that begins so confidently "Qatar is an island." But this is not meant to cover my tracks. My incorrect remark has been noted by a poster or two, and noted again by me as I put on the dunce cap and turned my face to the wall.

But I felt it important to correct the posting, so as not to possibly mislead others, who might possibly have been inclined to take my word for it rather than check to make sure I had it right. And in this case I had it wrong.

Humility becomes you, Hugh. For one who has eaten a lot of crow on these pages, it's nice to see manifestations of flesh and blood in others.

What still awes me, Hugh, is how you managed to take note of those far-more-important-than-their-size islets in the Straight of Hormuz!

I'm not sure that I'm ready to accept Hugh as a human being...

Just kidding!

"'No mon, is an island'"--except when it isn't. John Donne had it wrong. Hugh himself comprises an entire continent, a landmass of synapse-strewn gray matter far exceeding that of the average insular man. Coastal erosion will do that to you over the course of geologic time--in this case, it must be an initial consequence of global warming. (That's it--no more silly metaphors; I'm outta here.)

The creole version of John Donne, I meant.

Silly mixed-metaphor is a lame attempt at humor, not at giving offense.