At the expese of rate payers

[Hellyon]

Ken Livingstone is planning on spending �100 million of rate payers money on a mega mosque in London that will be bigger than St Paul's cathedral.
I have no objections to mosques at all but I do think spending �100 million of ratepayers money ( when churches have to fund their own building and repair) extraordinary. Setting aside the fact that based on previous big builds like Wembley, Millenium Dome and Olympic village all seem to end up cost double the estimate the final bill could be �200 million.
It's only going to cause a lot of bad feeling at a partcicularly sensitive time.
Surely the money would be better spent on hospitals, community centres etc?

Read more here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml? xml=/opinion/2006/09/25/do2502.xml

Any one who wants to sign the petition iagainst it t's here
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ScrapMegaMosque/

[funnygirl]

A friend emailed me the petition link last week.
I then forwarded it on to my colleagues and boy some of the remarks I got!!
Most could not see anything wrong, saying why should not the muslims have a church!!!
I sat there open mouthed and wondered whether to report my colleagues to MI5!!

[jno]

where's it say anything about ratepayers' money? That link (a year old) says the Saudis are paying. Have you got another link?

[whiffey]

I think that to be planning new mosques at the moment, especially of this magnitude, is insensitive to say the least, and should be strenuously opposed, irrespective of who is paying.

[Hellyon]

I know what you mean funnygirl, I have no objection to mosques but I would object to this amount of ratepayers money being spent on any new religeous building as by it's nature it is exclusive.

[Octavius]

The current St Pauls Cathedral was completed in around 1710 at a cost of �1,500,000. Comparatively - today that would be about �160m.

The cost of the building was funded by a tax on coal.

[IggyB]

the article you gave doesn't mention that rate payers will foot the bill - it implies the funds are being found independently and mostly from saudi arabia, this being the case i can't see anything particularly wrong with it.

[raysparx1]

I don't think it should be allowed anyway, the mosque at regents park is big enough, what the hell is going on in Britain, we might as well let them all do what they want,it will be built wether we want it to or not, I am sick and tired of hearing about muslims,

[Hellyon]

Someone forwarded it on to me with the petition saying there was an article in last Sunday's Telegraph but I must admit I can't find it. When I goggled it it came up with the link that I gave.
If it's funded independantly I have no objection to it at all

[Hellyon]

googled even

Hi Ray! Mwah, Hellion

[xhxmxsx]

i dont understand why they need to build such a large one considering there is already one at whitechapel , if they want to build another 'megamosque' let them do it elsewhere, not in london

[mrrobbo15]

no....keep it in london.....please

[raysparx1]

Hello helli, hope you are well, long time no speak, again, take care xx

[whiffey]

I think they should build it in Islamabad to replace or complement the one that is likely severely damaged by now. Sign of things to come here.

[raysparx1]

No point whiffey they will all be living here soon.

[jno]

if Saudi ratepayers (of whom I am proud not to be one) are paying, I can't see any objection. If it is to be paid for by London ratepayers, no way - councils have no business putting up religious buildings. But I just don't think that is actually happening; somebody somewhere has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. (Not you, I've heard this claim about ratepayer involvement before.)

[jno]

if Saudi ratepayers (of whom I am proud not to be one) are paying, no doubt voluntarily, I can't see any objection. If it is to be paid for by London ratepayers, no way - councils have no business putting up religious buildings.

[Octavius]

Is the issue here that this is�.
a) a mosque in London,
b) that it is a very large mosque (40,0000 � 70,000 cc depending who you believe), or
c) that there is a misunderstanding over the potential funding of the project?

Zakat requires that Muslims give a minimum of 2.5 per cent of their income to charitable causes, after their annual income reaches a minimum level. This tax can be given to the mosque through a standing order, or directly to the poor and needy � most often during the holy month of Ramadan.

The Business and Economics Committee of the Muslim Council of Britain estimates that about 90 per cent of the funding for mosques and other religious activities comes from the local community. There is no doubt that any funding shortfall will be breeched either through personal or overseas donations, or via government/public body grants as would any church repairs, or even repairs to places like Buckingham Palace (extra �1m per year) and the recent major cleaning project at St Paul�s (�11m).

So what is it you object to exactly?

Incidentally the project hasn�t got planning permission yet (expected autumn 2007 although the extent of the mosque is likely to be scaled down). Muslims living near the site, in West Ham, have raised more than 3,000 signatures on a petition calling for the project to be halted. They want any new mosque to draw in all strands of Islam � not just one alleged fundamental branch.

[Diamond_Dog]

If the mosque is being built independently, then it may be a company. If this company is called mosque.co it may be a front for Russian insurgents.

What are worse muslims or communists? That is the question that needs to be addressed.

[jake-the-peg]

I think we need a competition to the wildest made up story we can come up with invoving moslems and Ken Livingstone that we can sucessfull pass off as true on this site.

I'll start - Red Ken is offering moslems immunity from the congestion charge because the photos taken of drivers cannot be identified because of veils and beards.

Your turn

[whiffey]

jake, try again, that one sounds true.