Jump to content

Talk:Finsbury Park Mosque

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

homepage doesn't seem to work for me. does anyone know whether the the link is up to date? 77.103.178.162 (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Err, there's no attempt to contextualise the Mosque post-Hamza here. Will try to update when I get time. 147.188.27.65 9 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

history

[edit]

I wouldn't describe the mosque as comparable with something you would find in instanbul, but I'd like to know who designed it, who commissioned it, who got contracted to build it, etc. This article is rather short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.21.34 (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Have found a BBC article which says the mosque opened in 1988 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4639074.stm). But Time says it was founded in 1990 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901030203-411394,00.html). Which to believe?!

--131.111.247.135 (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream Muslims

[edit]

How does one define "mainstream"? What constitutes a "mainstream Muslim"? What are their beliefs in comparison to "non mainstream" Muslims? Do their beliefs represent a true interpretation of Islam? The phrase seems subjective; clarification and comment would be welcomed. Foreignshore (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Foreignshore[reply]

Coordinate error

[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—78.149.203.115 (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North London Central Mosque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the mosque

[edit]

Is it the North London Central Mosque or Finsbury Park Mosque? The title of the article is the former, the name in the first line of the article is the latter. It can't be both officially. Cls14 (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 4 January 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The heavy focus on links to terrorism-related and Islamophobia-related pages seems to provide an anti-Muslim bias to the page. Thoughts?


North London Central Mosque → Finsbury Park Mosque – This is what it is most commonly called and, when Google last happened by, this was also what was printed on the sign outside. GregKaye 16:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Visible Quality Mark" award

[edit]

This looks potentially interesting, and I am in two minds whether it should be added or not. The local paper describes it as a "prestigious national award", but if so one might expect it to have been more widely reported, so there is some doubt in my mind whether the "Community Matters" organisation or its awards are really all that well known. Does anyone have a view, and/or can find additional sources? Thanks. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Arabiya UNDUE?

[edit]

The Al-Arabiya story seems UNDUE to me at the moment. I did a google search and found only two[1][2] independent sources on the topic (not including Al-Arabiya, which is obviously not independent). I'm removing it for now, as it seems WP:UNDUE to include this in the article.VR talk 08:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've instead summarized this incident and the other ones. There's really no need to go into detail regarding these incidents.VR talk 08:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On some of them - I actually think more detail can be provided. The Al-Arabiya one is probably not deserving of more than what is mentioned. The 3 attacks against the mosque (threatening letters following charlie hebdo, the arson attack in late 2015, and the pork throwing) - were major incidents covered by the international press. I don't think we should expand too much on the Charlie Hebdo connection (but it should be mentioned) - but the two other attacks against the mosque probably should be expanded (I entered them in with sources - but I didn't go about providing more in-depth information that was in there). It is also probably possible to tie in Corbyn a bit more, and his invitation (not accepted) to Trump to come and visit this mosque (which received coverage). I don't think that the mosque being attacked is something that casts negative light on the mosque (in its present management) - this is notable information. This place has a history between 2005 and 2017 - and it should be filled in.Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just think there is more to the mosque than all the violence surrounding it. I have found lots of information of mosque's interfaith activities on social media. I'm now trying to locate reliable sources for that.VR talk 08:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately (besides Trump/Corbyn - see below) - all of that is less notable - the attention of WP:RS has been on the violence (though in that context the reformation of the mosque is mentioned as well). There are also some google-scholar mentions of the post-2005 period - you might have luck there with sources for reformation activities.Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corbyn Trump invite?

[edit]

@Vice regent: - should we put this in? It seems to be a recurring invite throughout the presidential campaign and even post election.... December 2016 [3] August 2016 [4], January 2016 [5] December 2015 [6].Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have no objections to including it briefly, but don't feel strongly for including it either. Corbyn is definitely worth mentioning in this article as he is their local MP. I'm not sure about the Trump part. Seems like everything is about Trump these days. What do others think?VR talk 09:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Corbyn got a headline (x4 times at least) for dangling the mosque in front of Trump's Muslim banning eyes.Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source?

[edit]

I think this source contains good information. I'm not really sure of its appropriateness. Normally, I wouldn't use unedited information from WikiLeaks. But this has been published by the Telegraph. I'm going ahead and inserting the information. But if someone objects, we can remove it.VR talk 09:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this adds much - This is a far-left pro-Muslim minor American official Maura Connelly. You might as well put in Corbyn views regarding the mosque (and he's mentioned the mosque) at length - this would have more gravitas. Some of what is written is wrong or badly slanted - sure prayer attendance dropped when Abu-Hamza was holding prayers out in the street in front of the mosque following anti-terror raids..... But this was a very popular mosque in Abu-Hamza's heyday.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed the attendance number. But what about the eviction notices part? I think that's significant.VR talk 09:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bad source. The current trustees (from MAB) are also different from the previous trustees during Abu-Hamza's time. So you have the previous trustees passing information to the current ones which is then passed to a (possibly clueless) American visitor which is then leaked. So this is 4th hand information - gossip of gossip. I would favor removing this - and try to look for coverage of the eviction notices in coverage from the 2001-4 time period. If verifiable - it is important information.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, describing her as "far left pro-Muslim" or "clueless", as if she's an activist of some sort rather than a diplomat, is daft and a BLP smear to boot. Nor, even if it were relevant, have you presented any evidence for any of that. She was, apparently, a political officer in the US embassy in London at the time, and is now the ambassador to Lebanon. I agree though this is third-hand info, which is more of a problem. It might be OK if attributed to the trustees, as reported by her in a Wikileaks-released cable. N-HH talk/edits 10:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize - should've taken more care in my wording on this talk page. She is an Obama era appointee (since 2013 apparently out of a job - retired?), whose almost entire career has been in the Arab section of the state department (which generally, just as other sections, has a general slant - e.g. Regulatory capture), see - [7] (The Jerusalem consulate covers the Palestinian territories, not Israel). She has no particular credentials regarding Jihadism in the west - which is why I said what I said regarding possibly. In any event - this is a poor 3rd or 4th hand primary source.Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

al-Masri

[edit]

All we need in his section is a discussion of his relationship to the mosque and to make it clear about his relationship to terrorism. The bit I deleted was not about the mosque and readers can find it in his main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some of the later detail about his arrest, extradition etc can be lost, but the first bit of it does relate to the mosque and to the activities of others associated with him there, and seems relevant. That said, this and other sections of the page are all getting a bit scrappy, bullet-pointy/listy and repetitive in places. N-HH talk/edits 13:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted bits that were about the mosque - e.g. the celebration conference (I actually was edit-conflicted with your edit) that was held at the mosque. The current section is a bit too long regarding his actual conviction (in UK and US) - I will shorten that.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the mosque shut down?

[edit]

It seems there's two different narratives as to why the mosque shutdown in 2003. One is that it was shut down after the terror plot. But the other is that there had been a steady effort by the mosque trustees and the Charity Commission to legally put an end to Abu Hamza's activities. It appears to me that the anti-terror raid was just an opportunity but not the sole cause for the shutdown. Though, I could be wrong.VR talk 14:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is really a competing narrative here. He wasn't thrown out until a 150 man police raid came in, made arrests, confiscated weapons, and took away the keys - following significant pressure, including international pressure, against the use of the mosque as a terror hub. The degree of complicity or opposition of the former trustees (who to my understanding were replaced in 2005) is a rather moot point as they weren't in actual control and were replaced when the mosque was reopened.Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Book Source - at length for Abu Hamza and post Abu Hamza reformation

[edit]

@Vice regent: (and whomever else it may concern): You might want to look at this one: [8] (Countering Al Qaeda in London, published 2012, by Robert Lambert - pages - 79-155 - so 76 pages, of which a significant portion (chapter) is on reclaiming the mosque).Icewhiz (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That really helps. I'm not sure if the source is reliable, but it is certainly detailed.VR talk 14:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely zero input on reliability - I came across this sourcing other stuff (and thought it might be interesting developing your line here - I might look into it, might not - probably tomorrow if I do). But it certainly is relevant and detailed.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I put some stuff in the article from here - [9] - but you might want to take a look at it (+ references from it) - it is an excellent journal article on how the trustee change came about (includes a failed "restart" in August 2004 that we missed in the article - which led to the final installation of the MAB trustees).Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump

[edit]

There's quite a bit of press coverage about Trump's failure to tweet about this act of terrorism.[10] Doug Weller talk 18:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool intra-wiki stat on pre- 2017 attack terror relevance of mosque

[edit]

Obviously page views are spiking now (main WP reference). However - they also spiked markedly after each of the 3 events this year Pageviews Analysis 1/3-18/6 - you can tell there was a terror attack in the UK on a particular date just by looking at the pageviews on the mosque page (and there was no real (AFAIK) terror news this year, until the 19th of June, that related in any way to the mosque) - each of the 3 major British attacks shows up, particularly Westminster in March, but also London Bridge and Manchester.Icewhiz (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque creed - Salafi / Muslim Brotherhood

[edit]

I don't think it is presently Salafi according to the sources I see (though it definitely may have been under Abu-Hamza). From what I see, it seems to be linked to the UK branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is not Salafi, but is Islamist. The Muslim Brotherhood has been declared a terror organization by various, mainly Arab, countries. There have been some claims ([[11] [12] [13] - and a few more) regarding support for the destruction of Israel and UK responsiblity of ISIL. The Telegraph did print a retraction to some of these - but not all. Kozbar did seem to travel to Gaza or meet with Hamas leaders, [14] [15]. One of the trustees - Muhammad Sawalha - is a former Hamas (which is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood) military wing commander, who fled the West Bank as a wanted terrorist fugitive in 1990. In short - I think that placing Salafi as an affiliation would be wrong. Working in the Muslim Brotherhood might be warranted - but it depends just how much this is mosque related in contrast to individuals who are working in the mosque (Kozbar is referred to as the mosque boss / manager. Sawalha might be less significant day to day (beyond being a trustee)).Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And another trustee (according to [16] led the takeover in 2005 - not sure now) - Azzam Tamimi - who has in the past made statements justifying suicide bombing Azzam Tamimi#Martyrdom and suicide bombing (I actually got to this trying to see who the previous trustees were - wasn't looking for this).Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Islamist" describes politics more than religious creed.VR talk 08:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I didn't describe it as such in the article. I'm not sure how to describe MAB's religious school or the mosque's religious school (if it varies from MAB) - but if it is MAB (Muslim Brotherhood) - it is clearly not Salafi - they don't mix usually AFAIK. Someone was re-inserting that the mosque is Salafi based on a website which others stated as unreliable. If you have a clear source describing what the mosque is in terms of religious school of thought that would be great.Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly conceived? BLP.

[edit]

Come on guys, that's a weasel word and looks terrible with BzLO, let alone the next king of England . ZDoug Weller talk 17:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources place him as an early sponsor, initiating the project. How would you phrase this? As a definite? As some sources? I am not married to any particular syntax. Note that building the mosque, and installing Saudi affilated mgmt (which is where quite a bit of the money came) could be construed as leading to some degree of responsibility regarding future events, which is what led me to be careful here.Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest removing it at the moment until we can work this out. I've seen him called an inspiration, but can't recall where. I know the King of Saudia Araba donated something like !.3 million for it, in 1994 IIRC. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced (in article). See - [17] Prince Charles allegedly supported the project, after touring the shabby neighborhood in the early 1980s. According to the mosque's trustees, it is "widely known" that King Fahd of Saudi Arabia provided over €1 million to fund the construction, the total cost of which was estimated at €2.3 million.". Regarding the amount Fahd sunk in - there are conflicting sources on the cost of the project (as well as the 1988/1994 issue) - e.g. [18] here they say a total cost of 8 million (compared to 2.3 in Time) - different costs/dates may be due to scope of project (main building or whole complex). It is seems clear that Prince Charles was connected to the project beyond just showing up to cut a ribbon (and TIME Magazine is a WP:RS), the question is more of a matter of wording - maybe just say he was involved.Icewhiz (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History vs incidents

[edit]

I disagree with this revert and the edit after that. The history is for more generic things happening at the mosque. Singular incidents do not really affect what's happening in general. It also mistakenly gives the impression like the reformation ended in 2013 and that "incidents" ended in 2016. This, in spite of the fact that we have multiple high quality sources that say the mosque hasn't been involved in extremism dating post-2013.

In particular, Policy Exchange's allegations don't really have much to do with mosque's reformations efforts. The think tank admitted they "never sought to suggest that the literature cited in the Report was sold or distributed at the Mosque with the knowledge or consent of the Mosque’s trustees or staff." So its not at all clear how this literature has anything to do with the mosque leadership. I'm not sure if you know this, but mosques are open spaces that pretty much anyone from the public can enter. Secondly, while Policy does list controversial quotes from literature found, there's no real discussion on whether this implies extremism. (For example, one may study the views of Mawdudi and Al-Banna without necessarily agreeing with them). Plenty of religious texts contain pretty controversial passages.VR talk 08:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History is a string of incidents. Look at other articles - I don't see other articles splitting out incidents from history. You are attempting to have the history section end with "reformation" which seems to me like a possible POV push. Specifically the Policy Exchange's report is clearly connected to the reformation - both the allegation (not retracted) of sale of extremist literature on mosque grounds, and the subsequent effort by the mosque to sue Policy Exchange for libel. I know anyone (well, with some provisions) can enter a mosque. I've been in quite a few mosques. Policy Exchange attempted to show what was going inside at the time. I believe they were stating that some of the literature was highly inflammatory and used for inciting Jihad in a contemporary sense - but I didn't really get to the bottom or merits of Policy Exchange's claims (which are disputed - and noted so in the article!) - I was trying to describe this in as a disputed allegation that received non-negligible attention. This whole saga received SIGCOV - and thus is relevant. More coverage than just about any other aspect of the mosque 2007-2011 or there about.
I suggest we stick with established article structure - as seen in other relevant articles.
I also think the reformation can be described more in depth - it would be great if you added material! If you add relevant material, this may detract from the focus on negative events (which have received SIGCOV). The reformation did get some attention - e.g. the book reference I pointed out above.Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The stable version - [19] Is the one that contains history in section, without split-out to incidents. Placing Policy Exchange's report next to a group of hate crimes (and the World-Check suit the mosque won) - is not NPOV - it is taking a position. I've reverting to the stable structure. Please discuss here.Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I really don't see how one version is more "stable" than the other. Much of this article has been re-written in the past few days.
Secondly, you've introduced some unsourced and baseless implications. Namely, that the "reformation" ended in 2013. Where are you getting that from? If you have no basis for that year, then I suggest you self-revert, or I will revert your changes.
I didn't intend to imply anything - but rather give titles to the sections. I think reformation did end in the sense that the mosque is reformed (so as a process - it ended at some point - are they still undergoing reformation? The process itself probably ended a few years after the takeover - I don't know when - maybe even soon after). The year brackets 2006-2013 are rather arbitrary and badly defined - there is currently a hole in the year brackets. I'd be happy if you change this to other headings and/or suggest other groupings here for the post-2003 period. I'm not married to anything here - beyond this being in one history section.Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thirdly, there's a tonne of articles that separate "History" from "Incidents" (where the latter category is where terror attacks are listed): Champs-Élysées, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Notre-Dame de Paris etc.
Notre-Dame - doesn't have a history section, just notable events.
JFK airport - had a link to air accidents. Not a good example of an article type here.
Champs-Élysées - I don't think this is a good example. Mainly recurring events and the like with little connection to the place itself (e.g. Tour de France ending there every year. Bastille day. etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Policy Exchange: "I believe they were stating that some of the literature was highly inflammatory and used for inciting Jihad in a contemporary sense". No I don't see where they made any concrete claims that the literature was used for "inciting Jihad" in the UK. In any case, what does that have to do with the mosque management? Policy very specifically admitted that they have no evidence the literature was connected to them.VR talk 09:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They were making that claim - see the report and coverage of it - it is even cited (I believe I reffed that!) as an Islamophobic attack by some. This article is about the mosque and what is going on in and around it - not about the mosque management (you could perhaps create a separate article for that I suppose, don't think it is needed). The mosque is not the same as the mosque's management.Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding structure - I was following entries in List of cathedrals in England and Wales, particularly more modern ones (with a less long history) - I don't see them breaking out incidents. Some did break out things like "Burials" (list of notable people buried in the Cathedral).Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Brotherhood

[edit]

In the ‘2014-2016: Incidents’ section it says the mosque was temporarily closed due to “reported links to terrorism before 2005 as well as purported Muslim Brotherhood links of a current mosque trustee.”

The Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organization and is not banned in Britain. Mentioning the MB in the same line as “links to terrorism” gives the impression that it is a shady outfit that has links to terrorist activities. The referenced Guardian pieces state that after MI5 and MI6 investigated the MB no links to terrorism were found.

Given the widespread misconceptions about Islamic organizations, should this not be mentioned in the article? User2346 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Finsbury_Park_Mosque&oldid=1202010419"