mosque dispute in Germany

[verte76]

the whole article is reproduced due to registration requirements.
On Muslim holidays, hundreds of faithful hoping to pray at the Ditib Mosque in Cologne, Germany must spread their prayer rugs in a nearby parking lot and follow the service from afar on loudspeakers. The mosque only holds 600 people.
Yet plans to replace the flat-roofed storefront mosque with a new house of worship, complete with a dome and two 54-meter-tall (177-feet-tall) minarets, have triggered an angry response from right-wing groups and, most recently, Cologne's Roman Catholic archbishop.

Mehmet Orman, 43, a Turkish immigrant who prays every night at Ditib Mosque—ignoring its broken windows and worn-out prayer rugs—hopes construction can begin as scheduled by the end of the year.

"There are 2.7 million Turks in Germany; of course we need a big, representative mosque in this country," Orman said.

Construction of traditional mosques in Germany and elsewhere in Europe has often involved such handwringing. Mosques have faced similar opposition in France, the scene of riots in largely Muslim suburbs in 2005, as well as Britain, the recent target of a new wave of Islamic terrorism.

But the Ditib Mosque project holds particular significance in Cologne, which has such a prominent Catholic heritage that Pope Benedict XVI has dubbed it the "Rome of the North.”

Last month, dozens of right-wing extremists from all over Germany, Austria and Belgium demonstrated against the construction of the Cologne mosque, claiming that the building would "fortify the Muslims' claim to power in Christian Europe," in the words of Manfred Rouhs, the demonstration's organizer.

Rouhs heads the right-wing Pro Cologne movement, which has collected 18,000 signatures from local citizens against the disputed mosque. The mosque would be located in a vivid immigrant neighborhood filled with Turkish teahouses, kebab restaurants and gold jewelry stores.

It is not only the extremist fringe that is upset, however. Opposition to the mosque has also built up in the center of the German society.

Joachim Meisner, the archbishop of Cologne, said in a widely publicized interview on the radio station Deutschlandfunk that the construction of the mosque would make him "feel unwell" and that the "immigration of Muslims has created a breach in our German, European culture."

Mehmet Yildirim, the director of Ditib, a Turkish-Islamic umbrella group for 700 German mosques, called the objections of the mosque's opponents "racist and insulting."

"We shouldn't have to justify that we need a house for prayer in Germany," Yildirim, 56, said in an interview at Ditib's headquarters in Cologne.

Yet Meisner's words count a lot in Cologne, which is one of Germany's most devoutly Roman Catholic cities and is known worldwide for its twelve Romanesque churches and its 750-year-old cathedral with two 157-meter (515-feet) landmark steeples.

The dispute further escalated when Ralph Giordano, a prominent German writer and Jewish Holocaust survivor, also opposed the mosque's construction and declared the integration of Muslim immigrants in Germany a failure. Germans and Muslim immigrants were living in parallel societies, he claimed.

"I don't want to meet burqas and chadors on German streets, nor do I want to hear the call of the muezzin from towering minarets," Giordano, 84, wrote in a commentary for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily newspaper.

In reaction, Giordano said he has received six phone calls of death threats from Turks.

With a size of 4,500 square meters (48,440 square feet), the future mosque would be one of the biggest in Germany. It would accommodate up to 2,000 worshippers and house an Islamic library, facilities for cultural events and several stores. The construction would cost between $20 and $40 million and mostly be financed by private donations.

Approximately 3.3 million Muslims live in Germany, of which 70 percent are originally from Turkey.

While the city has not yet issued the final building permit, many city council members are in favor of the controversial construction, said Marlis Bredehorst, Cologne's official on integration issues.

"It is important that the Muslims here have dignified houses of prayer—they are part of our society," Bredehorst said. "Two hundred years ago, the Protestants had to pray secretively in Catholic Cologne. That is something we can't imagine anymore today."

 

[deep]

We have the left, the right and center uniting.

I don't have a politically correct response.

It is easy to feel intolerance towards Muslims.

 

[whiteflag]

There is a bit more to the story than meets the eye, so I have read.

One, the design is meant to be monumental, particularly the minarets. I can't vouch for the claim, but word is that these minarets would be taller and more dominating of the skyline than the churches in town. Possibly a dominating or triumphal gesture that is not necessary or called for.

Second, these giant mosques, funded by "private" donations, are mostly funded by the Saudis or like minded groups with billions to throw around. In prior cases, the library that they mention in the story, has subsequently been stocked with Islamist or Wahhabi teaching materials. Further, after putting the community in the debt of their wealthy benefactors, then they get a say over the preaching roster. New imam moves in, at first as an equal to the original imam. Then comes the power play and, bingo, a brand new mega Wahhabi mosque in the heart of Cologne.

This has happened so many times in so many places. It is rarely so simple as building a proper new mosque.

My guess is that a slightly more low key structure, minus the mega minarets would probably serve just as well as a proper house of prayer. Its the way that these things usually go that has people worried.

PS, a case could be made that these structures are made so big so that they will attract immigration in higher numbers. In others words, another aspect is a takeover of European towns by numbers by the radicals with the infinitely deep pockets.

 

[whiteflag]

Final thought.

There is a great power in numbers. There is no theological reason why mosques need to be huge or that thousands upon thousands of Muslims must worship in one awesome super mega-plex. But the sight of such overwhelming numbers can be both intimidating to some and overwhelmingly impressive to others. Its another effective tactic in the radicals arsenal.

But then I have to wonder why the moderates don't simply break off into smaller groups and build smaller more intimate mosques with their own funds rather than waiting for the Saudis to come and build them a better building? My great-grandparents were Ukrainian immigrants with nothing but the clothes on their backs when they came to America. They did without nice new clothes and even new homes (They lived in company housing at first) while they scraped their pennies together for their church buildings in order to see that they were built first.

If dirt poor Ukrainian peasants could do it on their own in an often hostile environment, why must Muslim immigrants take money from radicals to do the same?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Cardinal Meisner is not "in the center of the German society". He is a very controverse and conservative person and pretty much in line with the Pope.

The Pro-Köln party makes me sick, but as long as they do nothing illegal we have to live with them.

Overall, there is support for the building of the mosque.
But the building of mosques is always part of some disputes. While churches get closed due to lack of churchgoers, and synagogues get built with much support (rightly so), it's still some mixed feelings about mosques getting built. I think this will change with more mosques over the next years.

The mosque gets financed by the city of Cologne, maybe some federal money, donations and membership fees of the ditip, the Turkey-Islamic Union.
This union is responsible for the mosque and not a radical organization.

Ten per cent of Cologne's population, or about 100,000 people, are muslim.

Cologne doesn't have many high buildings, so 55 meters might be above some roofs. But it's not too much of a monstrosity. Also, it's still up to debate whether the minarettes will be that high, or smaller.

 

[yolland]

The mosque gets financed by the city of Cologne, maybe some federal money, donations and membership fees of the ditip, the Turkey-Islamic Union.

Is the public funding because DITIB is in the KRM now, or were they always eligible for public funding? I remember reading an article last spring about the formation of the KRM, which stated that one of the hopes the member organizations had in forming it was that they might become eligible for subsidization, like German churches are.

these giant mosques, funded by "private" donations, are mostly funded by the Saudis or like minded groups with billions to throw around. In prior cases, the library that they mention in the story, has subsequently been stocked with Islamist or Wahhabi teaching materials. Further, after putting the community in the debt of their wealthy benefactors, then they get a say over the preaching roster. New imam moves in, at first as an equal to the original imam. Then comes the power play and, bingo, a brand new mega Wahhabi mosque in the heart of Cologne.

Do you have data to back up that "mostly" claim for Germany? There is one Muslim organization in Germany, the largely Arab Muslim ZMD, which has been suspected of having financial ties to the (Saudi) Muslim World League; I'm not personally aware of any others. DITIB's funding, other than membership fees, comes from the Turkish government's Presidency of Religious Affairs (which also supplies its imams)--hardly a Wahhabi organization.

I take it you don't like American megachurches either?

 

[A_Wanderer]

It's the freaking Temple of Nod, I must destroy it.

 

[Vincent Vega]

The mayor of Cologne has promised to partly fund the building of the mosque.

I tried to find some more information about the financing of the mosque, but with no luck.
I don't think that it is directly related to the founding of the KRM. Churches and Synagogues get funded as well, so I think there should be some money from the Government available.
Cologne itself provides some of the funding after all parties agreed to support the mosque.

I will try to find some more information on that.

Some more things: The buildings in the area are around 70 metres high, which is 20 metres above the minarettes. There's also the television tower which is 260 metres high.

The prayer rooms are built for 2,000 people. That's rather moderate a size. Ehrenfeld, the part where the mosque gets built, has about 10,000 muslims.

We have some muslim schools and organisations getting funded by, or collecting money for radical groups. However, most of these groups or schools have been closed.
And the procedure you described, with the funding from Saudis, is not that common. I don't say it doesn't exist, but the quantifier "mostly" is false.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The mayor of Cologne has promised to partly fund the building of the mosque.

Now that is sickening, unless he is talking about his own personal money.

 

[whiteflag]

The original article said private funding. There was no word of public funding at all. Not one word. That is very often a kind of euphemism for "Saudi funding"

I did not make the qualifier "mostly" for Germany. You read that in. I was meaning worldwide and there is documentation in the mainstream media. One was in Dublin. In which a new larger mosque was soon taken over by its benefactors and the moderate imam tossed out. It is happening more and more in Europe. There is trouble with a planned mega mosque in London. In Rome, there either is one already or else it is also in the planning stages. Whatsmore, this sort of scheme has been the modus operandi for years in the ME and in Asia. In my own home town, a Muslim friend told me that she doesnt like to go to the mosque anymore because the radical party is getting strong and aggressive and is taking over the mosque.

I dont say these things without some foundation that has already happened enough times to be noted by Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

And I think you also missed my qualifiers of "mega" as in "mostly" qualifying "mega" And the words "possibly" as a theory as to why some people would be worried. Good and tolerant people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike are worried about radicals because there has been enough documented cases for that to be a valid concern.

Or has it become a case where anything even slightly critical of even some Muslims is out of bounds?

 

[whiteflag]

Yolland,

No I don't. But everyone there still does their own thing. There is no sea of bodies all doing the same thing in the same way. The unity of motion of thousands of Muslims at prayer has a different psychological effect and has been cited by many as an overwhelming and impressive religious experience of 'human unity" realized. I was describing this psychological effect, not just masses of people in one place getting their groove on to praise music. The mega mosque effect has an alternate and valid explanation other than the often gushing praise that is given to it by some. I don't find it impressive for this reason any more than I find it impressive when a faith healer gets a crowd all worked up for an hour and then smacks some unsuspecting person in the head with their "annointed hand". Of course the person has an impressive religious experience from that. In all these cases, mega mosque, mega church and faith healer, there is some manipulation of the senses going on albiet in different forms. Most people will not realize it unless it is pointed out to them.

I believe that most Muslims are unaware of this but I am sure that the radicals are quite aware of this effect. Hence their fondness for mega mosques.

From personal experience and personal opinion, I believe the Christian religion suffers in its mega form. This was a faith born in tiny house churches and is really at its best in small intimate settings. It is a religion that makes much of the body or family of believers being like a family in practice as well and this I feel is most certainly lost in a church one could get lost in! I prefer to know most, if not all, of my "family" members by name. Call me quirky.

Some mega churches work to compensate for this with what are called small groups but the fact remains that most people in one church do not know one another resulting in the family "home" resembling a hotel or conference center, where one's group is just one of many, more than its being like a single family residence.

By this I mean no offense to the members of mega-churches. If another person has no problem with these settings then that is their choice and I leave them to it. For me, a nice mid-sized church happens to be best. There is plenty of room for personal preferences to differ in this regard within the faith.

 

[yolland]

Or has it become a case where anything even slightly critical of even some Muslims is out of bounds?

Seems to me it's the other way round here: has it become a case where any story involving the construction of a large mosque occasions the invoking of spectres like "a brand new mega Wahhabi mosque in the heart of Cologne"? (Which was why I assumed you were intentionally attributing the "mostly funded by..." scenario to Germany.) The organization building this mosque is well-known to the German government; they have 700 mosques there already, and there's no mystery as to where their international funding comes from, where their imams come from, or who their imams 'answer to'. In fact, those concerns don't appear to me to be the ones the opponents of this mosque are raising, anyhow--rather the more familiar theme of Muslims having no place in "our German, European culture" with their foreign ways of dress and worship, etc. The issue at hand isn't whether large, radicalized mosques with shady international financial backing exist in general; obviously they do (though whether they're "mostly" that, in general, is another question). It's rather the controversy surrounding this one particular proposed mosque to serve this one particular Muslim community.

The original article said private funding. There was no word of public funding at all. Not one word.

Actually it said "mostly" financed by private donations, which necessarily implies some public ones, I suppose. Though I didn't notice that the first time through myself.

No I don't. But everyone there still does their own thing. There is no sea of bodies all doing the same thing in the same way. The unity of motion of thousands of Muslims at prayer has a different psychological effect and has been cited by many as an overwhelming and impressive religious experience of 'human unity" realized. I was describing this psychological effect, not just masses of people in one place getting their groove on to praise music. The mega mosque effect has an alternate and valid explanation other than the often gushing praise that is given to it by some. I don't find it impressive for this reason any more than I find it impressive when a faith healer gets a crowd all worked up for an hour and then smacks some unsuspecting person in the head with their "annointed hand". Of course the person has an impressive religious experience from that. In all these cases, mega mosque, mega church and faith healer, there is some manipulation of the senses going on albiet in different forms. Most people will not realize it unless it is pointed out to them.

I can understand a personal distaste for mass-scale organized worship; I've attended tiny-through-to-smallish synagogues my whole life and strongly prefer that. I don't see this "unity of motion" effect as being unique to Islam though, nor is it what strikes me personally as being the most notable psychological effect of mass-scale services. I've never been to a contemporary-style megachurch, and am unsure quite what to picture when you describe 'everyone doing their own thing'; I have, though, observed worship services at the second-largest mosque in India, and also at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome (which to me were equally 'foreign' experiences). 'Unity of motion of thousands at prayer' was certainly something I noticed in both settings, but actually what struck me most about the 'psychological' experience was what it must feel like to have such a palpable reminder how large your religious community really is (not that either of those even begin to hint at the total, of course, but compared to your standard neighborhood mosque or church...). I have to imagine I'd find the same effect at a megachurch though, or a very large synagogue for that matter. So yes, it may foster a very specific kind of sense of community, but I doubt whether it makes attendees easier to "manipulate" than a smaller setting in any intrinsic way.

 

[LJT]

Do Mosques have to be built in a certain style? Can a Mosque not be built to match the aesthetic of the area it is built in?

People might have less issue if it didn't seem so out of place?

 

[verte76]

Wahhabbi mosque? Most Turks are not Wahhabi. They are laid-back, tolerant Muslims. In fact, several anti-Wahhabist books have been published in Istanbul.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Now that is sickening, unless he is talking about his own personal money.

It was a decision by all the parties, not him himself. And it is backed by the public.

I know you think differently, but as an atheist we have to accept that other people are religious, and to religion their belongs a church, synagogue, mosque or whatever.

If this was a church or synagogue there would be funding from the city as well.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Do Mosques have to be built in a certain style? Can a Mosque not be built to match the aesthetic of the area it is built in?

People might have less issue if it didn't seem so out of place?

http://www.koelnarchitektur.de/pages/de/home/aktuell/1440.htm

On the right you can see the first three of five designs. I think the second one was a proposal to find an architecture that resembles other contemporary, western style buildings with certain aspects of a mosque. Here in Berlin you could see many buildings with a similar style, that are anything from museums to schools.

Some of the people living nearby had some very practical concerns: They are afraid of some traffic chaos, especially on Fridays. Others are worried about radical Islamists coming there. It's all kinds of concerns, but there have been "information evenings" and many people have found that their concerns are unfounded.

Again, Cologne has 100,000 Muslims. You can't serve them with many small mosques. A large mosque is the best solution. Also, the building will be used for many other things than just prayer and it will be a center for information, gathering, support and to invite non-Muslims to take some fear from that religion.
The smaller "mosques" in the city, which is buildings that are used as mosques, sometimes very shabby, will remain. So, the Muslims that more feel like you about large prayers will rather go there for their service.

The ditib is controlled by the Turkish government which has no interest in a radicalisation. It's an organisation representing many Turkish Muslims and is well respected.

I know of radical organisations funding or "planting" their Imams, and there is probably some radical Muslim in every larger city. One of the guys trying to plant bombs in trains near Cologne lived and studied in Kiel, a city with 200,000 inhabitants in the north of Germany.

But even worldwide I'm not comfortable with saying "mostly". First you would have to look at how many mosques have been built in recent years, and how many of those are now facing the problem of a radicalisation.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It was a decision by all the parties, not him himself. And it is backed by the public.

I know you think differently, but as an atheist we have to accept that other people are religious, and to religion their belongs a church, synagogue, mosque or whatever.

If this was a church or synagogue there would be funding from the city as well.

All equally as wrong, it wouldn't matter if I was a Christian, Muslim or Zen Buddhist the notion that the state has no role persecuting or promoting religion is something that America deserves appreciation for and something that is lacking in many other supposedly progressive western nations (Australia definitely included).

Having taxpayers money go towards building religious centres is something that should have gone away with sodomy laws and prayers in schools.

 

[Ormus]

Cardinal Meisner is not "in the center of the German society". He is a very controverse and conservative person and pretty much in line with the Pope.

Who here is all that surprised that the Catholic Church is allied with far-right extremists? This only accents my point in the "modernity" thread.

Perhaps they would have been better served highlighting the difference between the religious tolerance of Europe and the general intolerance in much of the Muslim world. It is all the more interesting, considering that 70% of the Muslims mentioned in this article are Turkish, whereas Turkey has been suppressing the remnants of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

But no, I guess it is easier to be a hypocrite, demanding that the Muslim world open itself up to Christianity on one hand and then preach that Europe is Christian and has no place for Muslims on the other hand. Don't think that the Muslim world doesn't notice this.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last time.

 

[Vincent Vega]

In Germany, church members are paying a church tax to the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax
There is some discussion about this as contradicting the dichotomy of church and state.
I would support an abolishment of the church tax because through tax deduction the government loses more than €3 billion annually in taxes, and because it's contradicting with secualrism, but to some minor extent.

However, we don't let the church have any influence on our political decisions whatsoever. They don't hold any power over political decisions.

Most of the federal money and the church tax itself come from the Weimar Republic and have been integrated into the Federal Republic in 1948.
There are voices to get rid of any of these payments or subsidies to the church, mostly because of secularity. But there are several reasons why I don't think that there will anything happen in the near future. Among other reasons it is lazyness because it would mean some extensive work by the government, and the majority of the population is still in church, although for many it's more a passive membership.
There is also some historical reasons for government payments towards the church, but it's disputable because today it's not really understood why we should still be in debt with the churches. But that's too much to write here, and I'm by no means an expert in that field.

Public buildings such as churches are partly funded by federal money, and it is argued that although all politics has to be independent from religion, the government sees some responsibilty in supporting religious groups and sects that are accepted by the state to ensure diversity, and they say, otherwise religious people would be disadvantaged as they would have to finance the churches entirely.

In Germany the taxpayer isn't whining about any single Euro that goes to finance something they don't agree on. Be it retirement payments, or public health care, or religion, solidarity generally trumps the philosophy, that my hard earned cash should only benefit what I agree on.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Who here is all that surprised that the Catholic Church is allied with far-right extremists? This only accents my point in the "modernity" thread.

He has voiced similar views, but I think Meisner will do anything to not side with Pro-Köln or any of the other far-right parties or to ally with them.

I find it hilarious how Pro-Köln welcomed Ralph Giordano for his comments on the mosque, because in the end he is a Jew, which shows how those groups contradict themselves when it comes to populism.
On the one hand, they are against the mosque and the "Islamisation" and "Multicultisation" of Germany. On the other hand, the "classic bogeyman" for these idiots is the Jews.

In another case, the NPD, a nationwide far-right party, joined some Muslim radicals on a conference where they discussed how to destroy the state of Israel and go against the Jews living in Germany.

 

[verte76]

Who here is all that surprised that the Catholic Church is allied with far-right extremists? This only accents my point in the "modernity" thread.

Witness Opus Dei. They're far right extremists. That's what made this whole thing sound like the "Syllabus of Errors" to me.

 

[whiteflag]

I was using the word Wahabbi as a figure of speech. A synonym for radical or extremist. Its not unheard of to do so. Dont get so nit picky. Besides, Wahabbis have been quite successful in making inroads regardless of how tolerant the original culture of the community. So again, a Wahhabi infiltration would not be unheard of. I think it was a valid use of the word in my theoretical scenario since they are most often the culprits behind such takeovers.

No I didnt notice that "mostly" was used in the original article before the words "private funding" either. But I wasn't insisting anyway that the article was more correct than the later post which offered more details. I was just noting what I thought I had read. In other words the article did not offer details beyond the private designation. The word "private" has taken on some negative connotations in this context. For instance, it has been the case in the past where the true source of such private funding was not publically disclosed until the advent of a problem.

My original post was to try and demonstrate why a moderate and tolerant person might have a legitimate concern about such a building proposal. I don't like the idea of such people being lumped in with far right extremists which I have seen happen many times before. It was just an attempt to inject that type of a voice into the discussion. I believe that reasonable people can have valid concerns about issues such as these in that the threat of a growing radicalism happens to come as part of the whole package in these times. It is so intertwined with the greater community and at the moment, the greater community hasnt found a way to sort it all out yet. While that situation remains true, there are going to be justifiable concerns.

As for the far right being involved in this, I have to say that I have not one shred of sympathy for their ugly views. It is unfortunate that extremists on either side cloud or stigmatize what could be, should be and must be freely and publically discussed in a civil manner.

 

[whiteflag]

But even worldwide I'm not comfortable with saying "mostly". First you would have to look at how many mosques have been built in recent years, and how many of those are now facing the problem of a radicalisation

I believe that I made it clear that I was talking about large to very large mosques. (I would also add to this number some of the smaller national type or showplace type mosques. The case in Dublin involves a small national showplace type.) Of the total that have been built worldwide in recent years, I would have to think that these would be a small part of that number as such large structures would be beyond the means of most. Thats where the mostly comes in. In recent years, whereever there has been grand plans for a new mosque, more often than not, as in "most" of the time, a great part of the funding can be traced back (as it is often very cleverly concealed) to a radical group of some type which is swimming in money usually from oil but sometimes also from charitable donations. In fact a charity group front is not unusual in either case.

I think it is well documented how successful such radical infiltration has been even in traditionally moderate societies. I think it has been successful enough to justify the use of the word "mostly". The success of such efforts at radicalization has been the story, the major new trend among all Muslim populations worldwide in recent years. This includes the Turks BTW.

While those won over by these efforts may still be a minority of these populations (in the Turkish case a very small but still growing one), the recent upsurge in the activity of these groups could be reasonably said to account for a greater proportion of recent building projects worldwide. After all, the moderates already have their mosques, don't they? Often these are of the more traditional, more intimate neighborhood types. Its the radicals that seem to be the most interested in huge, modern and impressive building projects. Whatsmore, they too often find some Muslim "charity" that is more than willing to fund the project.

 

[whiteflag]

Oops! Obviously havent mastered the finer points of posting here.

Now I see the quote button. But how to italicize? Hmmmm...

 

[whiteflag]

Yolland,

By everyone "doing their own thing" I mean what many call being moved by the Spirit ie dancing or other movement as the individual feels moved to do so. Its individualistic so the effect is to give a more chaotic impression.

I wasn't going to put a finer point on my comments but since you addressed them, I would like to do so now.

I think that all corporate worship, in some sense, is designed to manipulate the worshipper through the senses. I agree with you on that. However I don't agree that means that all forms of worship are equally manipulative. I think the various forms differ as to degree and kind.

Take your example of the seeming similarity between a large congregation of Muslims in India and a large Catholic congregation in St Peters. Then we'll also consider the mega-church with its individualistic yet massive character a bit more.

In the mosque, there is very little to modify or moderate the mass unified movements. No physical barriers. The movements are quite broad and so visually more impressive. In the Catholic Church, there are pews which modifies broad movements like kneeling and other congregation wide motions and gestures are in general more subtle, such as making the sign of the Cross. Just think of thousands of people dropping to the floor in an instant vs the Catholic worship you witnessed to see what I mean. There is a difference in degree.

Also, there is a difference in kind. I can't speak as an expert in Islamic worship but my understanding of public prayer is that it is very regimented and quite brief. Everyone says or thinks the same words at the same time and makes the same motions while doing it. A sermon occurs at some point and its over. I know, because I am Catholic, that Catholic worship is designed to enhance a contemplative form of worship. Movement is limited, at times optional and opportunities for private prayer are built in. There is a rhythm to it that becomes second nature. Many people speak of switching effortlessly between private prayer and corporate prayer as it goes along (the parts where this is possible of course. ) This practice is facilitated by that memorized rhythm.

This is not to demonstrate any kind of superiority but just to give an idea on what some of the differences are. I think it can be reasonably said that the Muslim form of worship is more naturally and more assertively designed to impress visually and
to create maximum overload to that sense to give assistence to the claim that Islam perfectly unifies the human race and erases divisions etc. There are those then that have caught onto this and take it to its furthest extremes ie mega mosques. Catholic worship seeks more to visually inpress in a different way, to move the individual worshipper more closely into the quiet dark depths of the divine. This is not to say that there is no attempt to impress with numbers or with grand gestures. Only to say that the emphasis or focus is different, that it is less concerned with outward unity and more concerned with effecting an inward unity by moving the whole group, as individuals, in this manner, to one inner contemplative space.

The mega-church seeks first to visually impress with numbers. I think this is the primary effect as often the architecture is designed to show numbers off to best effect. Many are basically amphitheaters in a bowl stadium shape. The goal of this visual impression, the loud music etc is to effect a safe, easy means to an ecstatic we-are-part-of-a-great-"one" sort of state like a rock concert does. So, the individualistic dancing, arm waving etc. I am sure there are those who would disagree with me on this but this is the definite impression that I get.

As I have already indicated, my personal preference is for that combination of personal contemplation and corporate worship, absent the grand imposing scale of a St Peters, that I find in my mid-sized Catholic congregation. I find there an ideal balance of unity and individuality. I love singing the hymns with gusto with my parish family and I appreciate the opportunities to be alone with God in a heightened state not always so easy to get to on my own.

I realize that I have gone on just a bit so I won't say anymore. But feel free to reply. I may have said enough on the subject but I look forward to anything that you might have to add.

 

[verte76]

There's no evidence that the Saudis are funding this. They fund just about all of the Wahhabi mosques, which are very unlike the Turkish mosques built in Germany. There are many anti-Wahhabist books published in Istanbul.

 

[whiteflag]

verte76,

I didn't say that they are. I am not talking about the funding for this mosque.

Whatsmore, I fail to see how "many anti-Wahhabi books" means that there is no cause for concern from any Turks. As if this was somehow proof that the Turks are immune to radical Islam.

The truth is that no, let me repeat, no Muslim country or culture is immune to this radicalism. In every such culture and country, the Islamist threat is growing. If the traditions of centuries can't keep it out or keep it down, what is a few books gonna do? The Wahabbis are succeeding in cultures that have never known it before, where it is alien to the native tradition.

What do you call those radicals who killed those Christian missionaries? Were they figments of imagination because there are so many anti-radical books published in Instanbul? Do the books keep radicals away somehow? What about other instances of hate crimes against minority Christians in Turkey? The several cases of beating deaths for converts following their consciences? What about the very strong attempts to restore the veil in public institutions? What about the Turks voting for a conservative religious party to lead them?

In others words, no one, not even the Turks are "safe" I doesnt matter how many people march or publish. One after the other, the moderates are under seige everywhere. In the US, in Europe, in Turkey, Bosnia and on and on. Lets not pretend that for one group this is somehow not a possibility.

 

[yolland]

My original post was to try and demonstrate why a moderate and tolerant person might have a legitimate concern about such a building proposal. I don't like the idea of such people being lumped in with far right extremists which I have seen happen many times before. It was just an attempt to inject that type of a voice into the discussion. I believe that reasonable people can have valid concerns about issues such as these in that the threat of a growing radicalism happens to come as part of the whole package in these times.

I do appreciate your point, and can accept that the reality simply is that a 'hypothetical average' Westerner would likely feel more anxiety over the news that a mosque (large or not) will be constructed in their neighborhood than they would over the news that a church will be. This doesn't mean, though, that my reaction to hearing such anxieties voiced is simply to nod sympathetically and not question the assumptions underlying that anxiety. Allowing visceral-fear-type responses to the increasing visibility of a local religious minority to run unchecked is disastrous for interreligious dialogue and, not incidentally, social integration as well (and therefore itself dangerous). Furthermore, in a case such as the present one, there's simply no excuse for not doing the small amount of research it would take to realize that DITIB is not an extremist organization.

Of the total that have been built worldwide in recent years, I would have to think that these would be a small part of that number as such large structures would be beyond the means of most. Thats where the mostly comes in. In recent years, whereever there has been grand plans for a new mosque, more often than not, as in "most" of the time, a great part of the funding can be traced back (as it is often very cleverly concealed) to a radical group of some type which is swimming in money usually from oil but sometimes also from charitable donations. In fact a charity group front is not unusual in either case.

I think arguing this point is probably a lost cause, since neither you nor I--nor, most likely, anyone else--have the hard data needed to quantify it. In 2004 (8/19) the Washington Post estimated the number of Saudi-funded mosques (or more correctly, mosques constructed with the help of Saudi money since 1975), worldwide, to be about 1500. I have no idea what a rough estimate of the total number of mosques constructed worldwide since 1975 might look like (China alone, which of course isn't a majority-Muslim country, is estimated to presently have 35,000 mosques, for what little that stat might be worth). Nor do I have any idea how many newer mosques in either category would be considered "large", as in over ____ square feet; nor how many might be considered "radical" according to ____'s definition.

As far as Wahhabist-bankrolled mosques being a historically unprecedented phenomenon, yes, that one's pretty much a no-brainer, since the confluence of circumstances leading to it didn't come together until the late 20th century...the House of Saud's military alliance with Wahhabist tribes and their subsequent joint conquests across the Arabian peninsula; the Treaty of Jedda granting Saudi independence from the UK; the discovery of oil and subsequent economic boom; and the fears generated by real or perceived threats like Nasser's pan-Arabism, the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the siege of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. It's unquestionably a real phenomenon, and Western intelligence officials continue to debate how much the Saudi government has really done to clamp down on radicals since the '5/12' Riyadh bombings; but, at any rate, that doesn't address questions as to the scale of the 'trend', nor, more importantly, as to what an appropriate response from "the greater community" ought to consist of.

In the mosque, there is very little to modify or moderate the mass unified movements. No physical barriers. The movements are quite broad and so visually more impressive. In the Catholic Church, there are pews which modifies broad movements like kneeling and other congregation wide motions and gestures are in general more subtle, such as making the sign of the Cross. Just think of thousands of people dropping to the floor in an instant vs the Catholic worship you witnessed to see what I mean. There is a difference in degree.

Also, there is a difference in kind. I can't speak as an expert in Islamic worship but my understanding of public prayer is that it is very regimented and quite brief. Everyone says or thinks the same words at the same time and makes the same motions while doing it. A sermon occurs at some point and its over. I know, because I am Catholic, that Catholic worship is designed to enhance a contemplative form of worship. Movement is limited, at times optional and opportunities for private prayer are built in. There is a rhythm to it that becomes second nature. Many people speak of switching effortlessly between private prayer and corporate prayer as it goes along (the parts where this is possible of course. ) This practice is facilitated by that memorized rhythm.

This is not to demonstrate any kind of superiority but just to give an idea on what some of the differences are. I think it can be reasonably said that the Muslim form of worship is more naturally and more assertively designed to impress visually and to create maximum overload to that sense to give assistence to the claim that Islam perfectly unifies the human race and erases divisions etc. There are those then that have caught onto this and take it to its furthest extremes ie mega mosques. Catholic worship seeks more to visually inpress in a different way, to move the individual worshipper more closely into the quiet dark depths of the divine. This is not to say that there is no attempt to impress with numbers or with grand gestures. Only to say that the emphasis or focus is different, that it is less concerned with outward unity and more concerned with effecting an inward unity by moving the whole group, as individuals, in this manner, to one inner contemplative space.

You write quite lyrically about your experience of your own worship tradition. But I really don't think that experience can be separated from the fact that you know it from the inside, and are thus aware of all kinds of nuances and interpretive possibilities to it that an 'outsider' wouldn't and couldn't see. I didn't personally find any of the Catholic services I've observed 'more subtle' than any of the Muslim services...but then, unfamiliar worship rituals seldom appear subtle (even if you have passable 'book knowledge' of them, as I did in both cases). In my own experience having brought 'guests' along on a few occasions, Jewish services also often appear "very regimented" and filled with 'strange motions' to visitors, with our prescribed sequences of required daily prayers, blessings and hymns in Hebrew in addition to readings and sermons; people bowing, swaying, sitting then standing in unison while reciting, etc. And to a point, I actually agree with that--having grown up in a small Southern town where all my friends were evangelicals of some sort or another, I've attended my share of such services as a guest, and they did indeed often seem quite loosely formatted to me (Catholic services have never struck me that way though, either as described or as observed). But I don't think whether or not an individual congregant reaches an "inner contemplative state" has much direct relationship to the particulars of how these services are structured. As you put it, simply having a "memorized rhythm" to follow, a familiar routine combined with familiar words which mean something profound to you, can itself facilitate contemplativeness. Just as the act of gathering together with others to pray--important to all three Abrahamic faiths--can occasion a heightened sense of wonderment at the gift of sharing a life in service to God with others.

I'm not trying to argue that there's some kind of universal human worship experience that transcends all formats--there's no way I could know if that's true. But if I wanted to try for a better understanding of what the experience of communal worship is like for Muslims, I'd start by asking some of them.

 

[whiteflag]

But if I wanted to try for a better understanding of what the experience of communal worship is like for Muslims, I'd start by asking some of them.

Yolland,

I will reply briefly to this comment. I was addressing my comments to how a worship service would appear to a first time observer not an expert as the role they play in gaining converts and expressing the values of that faith to one who doesnt know it. Yes, I did put a bit of personal testimony in there to clarify my point about the differences to be found between worship traditions. I'm sorry if I obscured my point by doing so. But in the main, I was talking about first-time impressions.

BTW, I have spoken with many Muslims throughout my life about their religion both online and in person and have read many personal accounts of conversions and desriptions of the faith written by Muslims. I won't go into the details of my investigations here but I think that i would still say that the actual experience is different as the goals and the theology are different. The same is true of all religions. The subtle differences in theology and in worship are reflected in the physical means of worship. Vice versa, the physical means is designed to allow for the acheivement of a certain desired state of mind and spirit. If it seems like I was implying that no higher state is achieved in Muslim corporate worship, then I didnt mean that. I just meant to describe some real physical differences and how these reflect different ideals or emphasis.