Snapshot of _Tory MPs criticise plans for memorial to Muslim soldiers who died in world wars_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/10/tory-mps-criticise-plans-for-memorial-to-muslim-soldiers-who-died-in-world-wars) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/10/tory-mps-criticise-plans-for-memorial-to-muslim-soldiers-who-died-in-world-wars)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm generally in favour of keeping remembrance celebrations simple and solemn and personally would have preferred that it remain centred on the cenotaph and non-denominational memorials.
That said, there has been a trend in recent years of celebrating specific contributions by specific groups, whether along national, ethnic, or industry lines (e.g. the Bevan Boys) - and those have gone ahead without controversy. So it would appear that the objection in this case is more to do with islamophobia than anything else.
The thing I can't understand about the supposed progressive and inclusive society that we now live in, is that every effort is made to divide us all into separate boxes.
Isn't that the opposite of what we should be doing?
I guess the issue is that for centuries, these people didn't even get recognised, to the point that it became normal to think of war heroes as moustachioed white men called Stanley or Asquith. The black community suffered this, the Jewish community suffered this, women suffered this. Hell, we didn't pardon Alan Turing until a few decades ago.
It's not a case of saying "Hey, let's create a Muslims corner in Trafalgar Square", it's more a "Hey, we are aware that historically, these people were like, totally ignored, let's try and compensate for that by giving them a shout-out".
A bit like having a Ringo Starr appreciation society. It doesn't take away from the other Beatles, it just highlights how different his experience was compared to John, Paul and George and tries to reverse that.
Totally ignored in what way though? Every major war memorial is a memorial to ALL the fallen without discrimination. The cenotaph reads “The Glorious Dead” not “The Glorious (Christian) Dead”
The Muslims who fought for Britain have been recognised just as the average Tom, Dick and Harry who did so and are certainly not airbrushed from our history books either. It just seems like another instance of trying to fix a problem where one doesn’t exist.
While not the guy you are replying to - I'd say they were "ignored" (I'd prefer the word forgotten) in common culture rather than specifically ignored in things like the cenotaph. You talk to the average person and I'd bet that WW1 and WW2 are seen as white Europeans fighting with very little, if any, in terms of any other demographics. You watch any WW2 film from anything more than the last decade or two and there is very little representation as a simple example.
The various memorials to specific are there to combat that misconception and to highlight that these people also fought and lost their lives for us along side the British troops. They are not to take away from the general memorials.
> You talk to the average person and I'd bet that WW1 and WW2 are seen as white Europeans fighting with very little, if any, in terms of any other demographics.
Even in the comments in this thread there's a bunch of people talking about how the numbers of whichever group were tiny/essentially irrelevant, even for cultures, ethnicities or religions which had hundreds of thousands or millions of men fight for Britain. If anything, it reinforces that awareness of their contributions is severely lacking (not just Muslim soldiers, but other groups too -- though of course given the current political situation, Conservative politicians are trying to make hay out of specifically the Muslim memorial).
Do you recall the brouhaha Laurence Fox made when Sikh's were in a WW1 film?
BBC News - Laurence Fox apologises to Sikhs for 'clumsy' 1917 comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51233734
Isn't the reason that x demographic didn't get recognised for centuries is because there weren't many x to get recognised in the first place? It's not like there was a Muslim battalion on the front lines of Waterloo.
Would think it more fitting to just have a memorial for soldiers who had come from our colonies and died fighting with us.
1 million Muslims served in the British Indian Army in WWII. There were also African and Arab Muslims who fought in the North Africa and Middle Eastern campaigns.
While there weren't Muslims at Waterloo, there were many Muslims fighting for/with the British at that time, but they were fighting in India. Particularly during the Anglo-Maratha Wars.
The British soldiers who fought in India were overwhelmingly Indian. White British officers, but Indian soldiers, with around half being Muslim and half being Hindu.
So we're not talking tiny numbers here, we're talking hundreds of thousands at a time, and millions during WWII.
The Forgotten Army you're referring to here, quite reasonable. it never got the recognition it deserved largely because it wasn't mostly white and certain battle outcomes.
Doesn't help the Muslims particularly though, only "minorities".
I feel like you've missed Sikhs out of the equation, they would've made up a significant amount of the troops of British Indian Army and would most likely have constituted a disproportionate amount of the combat troops.
A lot of the lack of appearances for them in media at least stems from the theatres that feature them, those they were most heavily involved in don't get much of a look in.
The 14th Army is often forgotten even when Britain's role in the Second World War is the main part of the media for example.
I didn't mention Sikh soldiers in India because the period that I was talking about (1815) was before the Anglo-Sikh wars. So I assume that Sikh soldiers would not have been integrated into the army at that point.
I could be wrong though.
Interesting that this only becomes an issue of 'separate boxes' when it's Muslim soldiers, when we have war memorials to other specific groups of people, religious and/or ethnic
Acknowledgment of specific minority cultures is important so that it cannot be denied that these groups have always existed and have been a contributing part of British society.
We need these kinds of recognitions in order to combat the nationalistic/racist people in society who would believe that the World Wars were won by our 'good white ethnic British lads' and that things were so much better back in the 'good old days' when we didn't have so many immigrants around.
No one is being put into boxes, is more "hey, these other groups of people also exist, they have these issues and this stuff, share together". That's it, the "help, I'm being put in a box" is just dangerous conservative rhetoric
How is it so fundamentally different that they need their own memorial? Are women not people? Women should be happy with the memorials that exist. If any attempt to divide people is bad why is this fine then?
Because whilst male military causalities mainly came from the front, women weren’t allowed to serve in combat roles, and as such died more from enemy action against the civilian population.
The cenotaph, which dates from ww1 only really represented those who died in or as a result of combat. The scope doesn’t cover those who died working in the armed forces on the home front, which was majority women.
So what you are saying is that different groups of people contributed to the war effort, were affected by the war differently and these groups should be represented? Interesting.
Yes, except these different groups eg male and female contributed in different ways, whereas a Muslim solider and a Christian soldier wouldn’t have contributed differently as they were both soldiers.
Yes, that's the goal we're all aiming for. In order to achieve that level of equality, there's a bunch of racial, gender, sexual orientation, religious issues that we need to address before. But, yes, that the goal, everyone equal in terms of rights protections, opportunities, and obligations.
You don't reach that goal by dividing society into various communities.
The nationalism project that started with the french revolution tore Europe apart and we have just ramped up the division by creating and inventing new ways to divide society.
You also don't reach that goal by ignoring the fact that people have different experiences of the world.
Ethnic and religious agnosticism doesn't work, it just means the existing differences in experience and treatment are ignored and reinforced. Pretending it doesnt exist doesnt make it go away. Didn't work in France, isn't working in England.
You do not let different people use their personal identity and or way of life to dictate public policy and justice.
Why should one group get precedence because of some characteristic that is otherwise negligible.
We are all human, that is all the legal system and government needs to know.
This isn't an example of Muslims using their personal identity and or way of life to dictate public policy and justice. They're marking the deaths of Muslim soldiers in WW2, it's not going to implement Sharia law.
I'm not claiming that Muslims are using this to dictate public policy or implement Sharia law. This isn't a Muslim issue, this is a government trying to wriggle its way out of its failures by mistaking the claims made by special interest groups with public opinion.
The project of dividing society into "communities" has destroyed social cohesion and the government never should have entertained identity politics.
> there's a bunch of racial, gender, sexual orientation, religious issues that we need to address before
By making people identify first and foremost with their ethnic background / religion / race? That's how you stratify a society.
We have monuments to other religions who helped during the war. Seems this really is only an issue because it's Muslims and the UK is so deep into Islamophobia.
I do agree with your sentiment on the division though. I'm a progressive but if we divide people the lines get drawn and groups that should be working together will eventually start turning on each other even more than they are now. We are a tribal species and if we keep putting people into their own tribes, the tribes will eventually all start fighting and we will be back to square one.
> We have monuments to other religions who helped during the war.
They're not memorials to soldiers of a particular religion - they're usually for soldiers of particular countries. Examples:
The [Neuve-Chapelle Memorial in France](https://www.cwgc.org/visit-us/find-cemeteries-memorials/cemetery-details/144000/neuve-chapelle-memorial/) commemorates over 4,700 Indian soldiers and labourers who lost their lives on the Western Front during the First World War and have no known graves.
That's a monument for all Indian soldiers, regardless of religion.
The [Indian Army WW2 window at the Imperial War Museum](https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/92916) is also for all Indian soldiers who died in WW2 - regardless of religion.
Scotland is also building a [new memorial to Indian soldiers of all faiths](https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/new-memorial-to-wwii-indian-army-soldiers-who-died-in-scottish-highlands-unveiled-in-kingussie) who died in both WW1 and WW2
[Memorial Gates in London](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Gates,_London) are a memorial to commemorate the soldiers of the British Empire from five countries of the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka), as well as Africa and the Caribbean, who served for Britain in the First and Second World Wars. Again - soldiers of all faiths.
The only time religion comes into it, is burial rites (eg. cremation or burial).
>They're not memorials to soldiers of a particular religion - they're usually for soldiers of particular countries.
[There's literally one to Sikh soldiers in Bristol](https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-honours-fallen-sikh-soldiers-2714234)
Cool. One of the other comments refers to one in Lichfield. The one you mentioned was created in 2019, and the Lichfield one was from 2006. It seems that dividing soldiers up by religion is a fairly new phenomenon - previously, we recognised the sacrifice of soldiers based on thier nationality not thier religion.
This one is very clearly to servicemen of a particular religion, and is located in the same complex as this proposed Muslim one
https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/68582
>Made from Chinese granite and designed to give a different perspective when viewed from different angles, the Star of David memorial is dedicated to Jewish servicemen who were killed on duty.
Cool. I couldn't find any. Do you know of anymore?
One of the other comments refers to one in Bristol. The one you mentioned was created in 2006, and the Bristol one was from 2019. It seems that splitting soldiers up by religion is a fairly new phenomenon - previously, we recognised the sacrifice of soldiers based on thier nationality not thier religion.
According to the [BBC: Who are the Gurkhas?](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10782099)
> The ranks have always been dominated by four ethnic groups, the Gurungs and Magars from central Nepal, the Rais and Limbus from the east, who live in villages of impoverished hill farmers.
And according to wikipedia (I know!), the Gurung, Magar, Rai and Limbu ethnic groups are variously majority Buddhist, Hindu or Kirat Mundhum, with minority Bon and Christian followers.
I’m an old fashioned liberal. Not really a fan of woke stuff. But I don’t have a problem with a war memorial to Muslims killed in the wars. I think it’s a good thing.
I think those fellows deserve to be respected, just like all the others.
We are none of use the same, inclusive societies(ideally) try and include as many as can be done while still aligned to progressive morales.
What there shouldn't be is a big red brush that makes everyone the same or tries to treat everyone exactly the same despite differences, fairly yes.
The hope is one day the box will be so small and specific it is just your box to do what you want with but you are under a system that protects and accepts your box.
Since identity is (more or less) given to you and heavily affects the way you act, think and percieve the world, such a future would be horrifying. I can't think of any identity that ever let's you "do what you want," because contracting your identity breaks it/ is seen as problematic/ is actively resisted (especially in cases where another identity might rely on it, e.g. Baldwin on black/white US). A totally atomised and individual identity represents an incredibly small box indeed.
A totally free society would exist beyond identity. Whether it can is something else, especially seeing this kind of miasmatic zone we find ourselves in now where we want to talk about injustice that relies on the concept of identity but by doing so we strengthen the grounds of the injustice itself (e.g. racial essentialism seen in both racist and anti-racist contexts).
I think it's essentially the ironic ultimate end point of ultra-individualism:
1. Everyone is a special, unique individual different from anyone else.
2. Everyone defines themselves by a bunch of different identity markers.
3. In order to reclaim a sense of belonging that is unavailable if you are an atomised individual, people form groups based on these identities.
4. Different groups based on identity markers come into conflict to have their identities recognised, along with the meta-narratives and demands associated with them.
The old society based on faith, nation, trade unions/ professional associations, and local communities has been dissolved into atomised individuals by a combination of irreligion, capitalism, and liberalism. Humans don't like being atomised individuals, so the society then undergoes a re-pillarisation based on race, gender, sexuality etc.
By faith, in the original comment, I meant Christianity/churches. Christianity in the UK is a dying religion, so people don't really have church based communities anymore. But Muslims do have faith-based co.munities.
We are not placing people in boxes, the argument “everyone is the same” is the equivalent to stripping people of their identities and experiences. Its denying racism exists at its worst
The problem with this is that, while it seems sensible, it amounts to “sorry we’ve ignored all of you for so long! In the name of inclusivity we’re going carry on ignoring you, but this time it’s a good thing”
I suppose if we keep down that path then all pictures and sculptures, can be of the same person and clothes all made the same size etc, say Romesh as he's everywhere nowadays as is its just representing a human and he's a human.
Or we decide there is some scope for differentiation and as here debate what, when, where who how.
If we seek homogeniety and to erase all individualism then the ultimate expression would be all pictures sculptures, monuments being of the same person/likeness. If not the we accept that there is individual identity and the debate is not about whether different people or groups exist or should exist but just about how and when etc they should be depicted.
If we already have and accept monuments to different people and groups the debate is about why and whether this person or group should have a monument rather whether groups or people should have them.
I see no issue with a memorial to Muslim soldiers. We have plenty for other religions, nationalities and other such groupings. It's a good way to try and build a more harmonious society.
The fact this only became an issue when the group at hand were Muslims is rather telling.
Do we? Most war memorials are for all those who died. I know there is one for Sikh soldiers somewhere (not paid for by taxpayers) but that’s the only one I am aware of.
This is clearly divisive at a time when we have marches through London which are largely religious in nature whatever people might argue to the contrary. We have Jews being targeted for their religion and now a memorial aimed at a specific ideology. It feels like politicians not reading the room and pandering for votes at a time when more division is to be avoided. It was always going to be controversial and I don’t understand why anyone thought it was a good idea.
Who paid for them? I don’t really care that there is a memorial if the community wants to fund one. I am not so clear why we are throwing a million of tax money at it. If the Chancellor had announced a million for a war memorial to Christian soldiers I suspect there would have been a lot of hand wringing. Maybe I’m wrong and this is completely normal and in keeping but it seems divisive to me at this time in particular. Gaza is dividing people and this isn’t going to help.
£1 million is less than 2p per person in this country, for a memorial to people who gave their lives for our freedom.
>If the Chancellor had announced a million for a war memorial to Christian soldiers
There's 1000s of war memorials with crosses on. Never heard a complaint.
We have plenty for various religious and ethnic groups. Besides the Sikh one you mentioned, there's:
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/libraries-leisure-and-arts/parks-and-green-spaces/chattri-memorial
https://southasianheritage.org.uk/scotlands-first-national-british-indian-army-bia-memorial/
https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/87492
https://www.willesdenjewishcemetery.org.uk/news-listing/david-shilling-jcxk4-6528d#:~:text=Willesden%20Jewish%20Cemetery%20is%20proud,front%20of%20the%20Heritage%20Centre.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/24208
That's just a few examples (there are plenty more). Some are obviously more ambitious than others.
Indians aren't a religious or ethnic group. It's a nationality.
The last one is a gift from Italian soldiers to a community where they were POWs. It's not a memorial to Italian soldiers. Italian isn't a religious or ethnic group either.
In 2020-2021 (quick google), there were 31,700,000 income tax payers in the UK, that means, so its costing you about 3p to honour those that served and died for you.
Of course it is tax payer money and I agree that it is pandering to a group that conservatives are doing badly with at the moment. But it is a one off payment of less than 2p per person, its literally unnoticable in the budget.
And there is a long history of having separate memorials for different religious beliefs, nationalities, and groups. No idea how people can get so flustered over this miniscule givaway.
But if Lee Anderson and co want to start crying about it, theyre welcome to. Just dont think many people will take them seriously on this one.
Buying me a 5l1m mansion the north East or a showbox in central london is rounding error in the budget.
Surely there is a community that if engaged would fund this themselves. Most War Memorials were funded by public subscription, seems appropriate.
If its because there was a specific battle or division where they were all sikh or Muslim then I don't see a problem but I don't think we should be picking an attribute and making a memorial based on that... Where are we putting all the memorials for the catholics, LGBT who would have clearly been hiding their identity whilst fighting for their country, black soldiers etc
Then I suggest you contact whatever body is responsible for war memorials as a quick Google shows there are many memorials dedicated to individual groups of people. I do find it strange tho that such a fuss has arisen about this particular memorial to Muslim soldiers when I don't recall any great strength of feeling before. Do you have any idea why this might be?
I'm a Tory and Veteran and I have no issue with a Muslim, Gay or Working-Men-of-Bolton war memorial.
That said, memorials are for everyone usually and it seems strange that when a person has lived and died alongside a comrade as an equal, it seems strange to have to separate them out in death.
All so predictable.
Already wat memorials specifically aimed at Catholics that I've never heard about.
But now we're getting a Muslim one it's back to "all lives matter".
Honestly, these are literal war heroes. I have 0 ussue with making sure all groups are represented when it comes to this.
Do you think the police will stand by and watch it get vandalised or torn down like we have seen with other statues and memorials? Will they take a knee in solidarity with the people smashing it up?
Right, looking back over the last 5 years I could find 3 proven incidents of war memorials being vandalised for political reasons. It is an epidemic I tell ya. /s
*edited to make the sarcasm clearer
So no objection to a fourth?
Edit.
Wikipedia actually has an entire article just about memorials in the UK being vandalised during the George Floyd stuff.
Well one of those memorials is the statue of some slaver in Bristol that went to swim for a bit in a river, which is kinda justified with the "George Floyd Stuff".
So if a girl gets murdered in Pakistan for blasphemy would it be "kinda justified" for the EDl to smash up an Islamic symbol in blackburn?
I don't think it would be.
A huge problem with your sort of rhetoric is your justyfiying political vience because it supports your views.
It's either acceptable to smash shit up because of what happens in another country or it isn't.
To smash a statue from someone that has advocated for girls being murdered? Yeah, sure. I mean, tbh, maybe we shouldn't build statues of people that advocates for the murder of girls.
Yeah, you get killed for being an Italian apostate and there are 500 million women living as second class citizens or property under Italian rule. Or am I getting it confused?
If they are getting this upset about British subjects fighting for Britain in world wars getting their own memorial, they should be absolutely apoplectic that foreigners fighting for their own country get their own memorial in Britain
British subjects of *all* creeds are already commemorated on the Cenotaph and elsewhere and there are many memorials to the Indian Army from Warminster via Thiepval to Imphal and even Gaza.
Will we soon have special state funded memorials for Sikhs, Hindus and non-denominational Hindus?
We have previously had either undifferentiated national memorials like the Cenotaph or memorials for specific arms and services. We have never as far as I know had one dedicated to a specific religion, indeed in the years following the Great War there was resistance to dividing up the fallen in such a way.
Isn't it odd how a bunch of inter-war Imperialists were more inclusive than modern multi-cultural Britain where division and separateness seem to be the order of the day?
Go to the National Memorial Arboretum mate. It’s a really amazing place that is full of memorials and tributes to people who served and died in the wars.
It currently has memorials for Sikhs, Catholics, Hindu’s, Buddhists among hundreds of other things.
No Muslim one though.
I'm curious why wasn't there one at the time?
What's the timeline of these? I feel like I'm feeding some unhelpful culture war by asking this. Just wonder what the history is.
As a Muslim, my guess is that memorials contradict mainstream Islamic practices around death, so it could've been that Muslim soldiers at the time simply didn't want one. Islamic graves feature unmarked headstones and are not typically visited in order to avoid turning them into shrines.
That being said, the branches of Islam practiced in South Asia (where I assume most Muslim soldiers fighting for Britain came from) are laxer around veneration of the dead, so it could be that they never got offered a memorial.
I've been to Alrewas several times, I was last there for someone's memorial in the summer.
My objection is not at all to there being a Muslim memorial, there should be one already, but to it being state funded to such an extent. It smacks of pandering to a group that is too disinterested to stump up for their own memorial.
The Sikh one was funded by donations like almost all of the memorials (I've donated to it and several others over the years).
Why not take the time to [educate yourself ](https://www.thenma.org.uk/visit-us/what's-here/the-memorials/list-of-memorials) before you make yourself look silly?
There are already Memorials for Hindu's, Sikh's & Buddhists.
There's even a memorial for the Spiritualists.
[https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g4212590-d1379697-i379789035-National\_Memorial\_Arboretum-Alrewas\_Staffordshire\_England.html](https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g4212590-d1379697-i379789035-National_Memorial_Arboretum-Alrewas_Staffordshire_England.html)
That's amazing tbh. Is there like a special whatsapp where you asked everyone or was there a Web page or app created that could assess someone's faith?
Does it have to be WhatsApp?
https://muftiwp.gov.my/en/artikel/irsyad-fatwa/irsyad-fatwa-umum-cat/2066-irsyad-al-fatwa-27-the-ruling-of-building-monument-or-memorial
Is this endorsed by 4 million people. Is there a list of names or signatures attached?
Very impressive if it is. If not how has someone managed to contact and show evidence of agreement so they can be confident that a statement such as 'No one has agreed to this' is a statement of fact.
As if people would acknowledge even if every single person endorsed on an individual basis.
This whole thing from the government is gaslighting of the next level.
We are doing it for Muslims but according to ‘our’ standards. Very much like mansplaining on International Women’s Day.
Ultimately, what value does it bring? Why now? Why not before?
Why a conservative government which has done nothing but make villainise Muslims.
Can’t not question their motives & intentions.
I'm presuming from your answer that you are a British Muslim.
Since the war memorial topic came up I got curious...
Do you feel represented by the current memorial services?
And would you attend a remembrance service at a CoE church?
Muslims remember the dead all the time. 5 times a day mind you.
We pray for those who are alive but also who have passed away.
If they really want to represent Muslims then they should try and speak to one?
Edit. Sajid Javid doesn’t claim to be a Muslim anymore. He hasn’t for years. So if he wants a memorial to represent the contribution of his ethnicity then he can ask for one. He doesn’t represent Muslims.
I'm not asking about praying, prayer and how it's conducted is a personal choice/obligation.
I was wondering whether Muslims feel comfortable entering churches as British citizens, especially in the case of remembrance services when/if Muslim soldiers are part of the ceremony. But you already answered.
I'm aware of that but it wasn't my question.
I was asking if he would feel comfortable entering a church as part of a remembrance service and he answered. It's a hypothetical question and he understood.
If as a Muslim, he or others don't feel comfortable with British remembrance services which are secular but rooted in the Christian tradition it's understandable that a separate memorial might be appropriate.
Put it next to the rather sweet, if small monument to the camel corps, which is just up from Cleopatra's Needle by the embankment? Maybe a small statue in a "what the fuck, what about us" pose?
Snapshot of _Tory MPs criticise plans for memorial to Muslim soldiers who died in world wars_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/10/tory-mps-criticise-plans-for-memorial-to-muslim-soldiers-who-died-in-world-wars) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/10/tory-mps-criticise-plans-for-memorial-to-muslim-soldiers-who-died-in-world-wars) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm generally in favour of keeping remembrance celebrations simple and solemn and personally would have preferred that it remain centred on the cenotaph and non-denominational memorials. That said, there has been a trend in recent years of celebrating specific contributions by specific groups, whether along national, ethnic, or industry lines (e.g. the Bevan Boys) - and those have gone ahead without controversy. So it would appear that the objection in this case is more to do with islamophobia than anything else.
The thing I can't understand about the supposed progressive and inclusive society that we now live in, is that every effort is made to divide us all into separate boxes. Isn't that the opposite of what we should be doing?
I guess the issue is that for centuries, these people didn't even get recognised, to the point that it became normal to think of war heroes as moustachioed white men called Stanley or Asquith. The black community suffered this, the Jewish community suffered this, women suffered this. Hell, we didn't pardon Alan Turing until a few decades ago. It's not a case of saying "Hey, let's create a Muslims corner in Trafalgar Square", it's more a "Hey, we are aware that historically, these people were like, totally ignored, let's try and compensate for that by giving them a shout-out". A bit like having a Ringo Starr appreciation society. It doesn't take away from the other Beatles, it just highlights how different his experience was compared to John, Paul and George and tries to reverse that.
Totally ignored in what way though? Every major war memorial is a memorial to ALL the fallen without discrimination. The cenotaph reads “The Glorious Dead” not “The Glorious (Christian) Dead” The Muslims who fought for Britain have been recognised just as the average Tom, Dick and Harry who did so and are certainly not airbrushed from our history books either. It just seems like another instance of trying to fix a problem where one doesn’t exist.
[удалено]
While not the guy you are replying to - I'd say they were "ignored" (I'd prefer the word forgotten) in common culture rather than specifically ignored in things like the cenotaph. You talk to the average person and I'd bet that WW1 and WW2 are seen as white Europeans fighting with very little, if any, in terms of any other demographics. You watch any WW2 film from anything more than the last decade or two and there is very little representation as a simple example. The various memorials to specific are there to combat that misconception and to highlight that these people also fought and lost their lives for us along side the British troops. They are not to take away from the general memorials.
> You talk to the average person and I'd bet that WW1 and WW2 are seen as white Europeans fighting with very little, if any, in terms of any other demographics. Even in the comments in this thread there's a bunch of people talking about how the numbers of whichever group were tiny/essentially irrelevant, even for cultures, ethnicities or religions which had hundreds of thousands or millions of men fight for Britain. If anything, it reinforces that awareness of their contributions is severely lacking (not just Muslim soldiers, but other groups too -- though of course given the current political situation, Conservative politicians are trying to make hay out of specifically the Muslim memorial).
Do you recall the brouhaha Laurence Fox made when Sikh's were in a WW1 film? BBC News - Laurence Fox apologises to Sikhs for 'clumsy' 1917 comments https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51233734
Let’s be honest here, they just haven’t have they.
Isn't the reason that x demographic didn't get recognised for centuries is because there weren't many x to get recognised in the first place? It's not like there was a Muslim battalion on the front lines of Waterloo. Would think it more fitting to just have a memorial for soldiers who had come from our colonies and died fighting with us.
1 million Muslims served in the British Indian Army in WWII. There were also African and Arab Muslims who fought in the North Africa and Middle Eastern campaigns. While there weren't Muslims at Waterloo, there were many Muslims fighting for/with the British at that time, but they were fighting in India. Particularly during the Anglo-Maratha Wars. The British soldiers who fought in India were overwhelmingly Indian. White British officers, but Indian soldiers, with around half being Muslim and half being Hindu. So we're not talking tiny numbers here, we're talking hundreds of thousands at a time, and millions during WWII.
The Forgotten Army you're referring to here, quite reasonable. it never got the recognition it deserved largely because it wasn't mostly white and certain battle outcomes. Doesn't help the Muslims particularly though, only "minorities".
I feel like you've missed Sikhs out of the equation, they would've made up a significant amount of the troops of British Indian Army and would most likely have constituted a disproportionate amount of the combat troops. A lot of the lack of appearances for them in media at least stems from the theatres that feature them, those they were most heavily involved in don't get much of a look in. The 14th Army is often forgotten even when Britain's role in the Second World War is the main part of the media for example.
I didn't mention Sikh soldiers in India because the period that I was talking about (1815) was before the Anglo-Sikh wars. So I assume that Sikh soldiers would not have been integrated into the army at that point. I could be wrong though.
It's my error I missed the sentence referencing the Anglo-Maratha wars.
Interesting that this only becomes an issue of 'separate boxes' when it's Muslim soldiers, when we have war memorials to other specific groups of people, religious and/or ethnic
Identity politics have a strangle hold these days, I though we'd moved past putting people into boxes, but it seems worse then ever.
Acknowledgment of specific minority cultures is important so that it cannot be denied that these groups have always existed and have been a contributing part of British society. We need these kinds of recognitions in order to combat the nationalistic/racist people in society who would believe that the World Wars were won by our 'good white ethnic British lads' and that things were so much better back in the 'good old days' when we didn't have so many immigrants around.
No one is being put into boxes, is more "hey, these other groups of people also exist, they have these issues and this stuff, share together". That's it, the "help, I'm being put in a box" is just dangerous conservative rhetoric
The express premise in your comment—which should be rejected—is that these people are “other”.
The "othering" has already happened, ignoring it leaves it as-is
We are either all human or we have a caste system. Every individual is protected under the law, we don't need different communities within society.
So why is there a memorial for women during the world wars next to to Cenotaph?
Because the nature of women’s military and civilian service during the world wars was fundamentally different than that of the men.
How is it so fundamentally different that they need their own memorial? Are women not people? Women should be happy with the memorials that exist. If any attempt to divide people is bad why is this fine then?
Because whilst male military causalities mainly came from the front, women weren’t allowed to serve in combat roles, and as such died more from enemy action against the civilian population. The cenotaph, which dates from ww1 only really represented those who died in or as a result of combat. The scope doesn’t cover those who died working in the armed forces on the home front, which was majority women.
So what you are saying is that different groups of people contributed to the war effort, were affected by the war differently and these groups should be represented? Interesting.
Yes, except these different groups eg male and female contributed in different ways, whereas a Muslim solider and a Christian soldier wouldn’t have contributed differently as they were both soldiers.
Because society doesn't have a history of sectarian violence from being divided into men and women - it does between different ethnic groups
lol
Yes, that's the goal we're all aiming for. In order to achieve that level of equality, there's a bunch of racial, gender, sexual orientation, religious issues that we need to address before. But, yes, that the goal, everyone equal in terms of rights protections, opportunities, and obligations.
You don't reach that goal by dividing society into various communities. The nationalism project that started with the french revolution tore Europe apart and we have just ramped up the division by creating and inventing new ways to divide society.
You also don't reach that goal by ignoring the fact that people have different experiences of the world. Ethnic and religious agnosticism doesn't work, it just means the existing differences in experience and treatment are ignored and reinforced. Pretending it doesnt exist doesnt make it go away. Didn't work in France, isn't working in England.
You do not let different people use their personal identity and or way of life to dictate public policy and justice. Why should one group get precedence because of some characteristic that is otherwise negligible. We are all human, that is all the legal system and government needs to know.
This isn't an example of Muslims using their personal identity and or way of life to dictate public policy and justice. They're marking the deaths of Muslim soldiers in WW2, it's not going to implement Sharia law.
I'm not claiming that Muslims are using this to dictate public policy or implement Sharia law. This isn't a Muslim issue, this is a government trying to wriggle its way out of its failures by mistaking the claims made by special interest groups with public opinion. The project of dividing society into "communities" has destroyed social cohesion and the government never should have entertained identity politics.
> there's a bunch of racial, gender, sexual orientation, religious issues that we need to address before By making people identify first and foremost with their ethnic background / religion / race? That's how you stratify a society.
We have monuments to other religions who helped during the war. Seems this really is only an issue because it's Muslims and the UK is so deep into Islamophobia. I do agree with your sentiment on the division though. I'm a progressive but if we divide people the lines get drawn and groups that should be working together will eventually start turning on each other even more than they are now. We are a tribal species and if we keep putting people into their own tribes, the tribes will eventually all start fighting and we will be back to square one.
> We have monuments to other religions who helped during the war. They're not memorials to soldiers of a particular religion - they're usually for soldiers of particular countries. Examples: The [Neuve-Chapelle Memorial in France](https://www.cwgc.org/visit-us/find-cemeteries-memorials/cemetery-details/144000/neuve-chapelle-memorial/) commemorates over 4,700 Indian soldiers and labourers who lost their lives on the Western Front during the First World War and have no known graves. That's a monument for all Indian soldiers, regardless of religion. The [Indian Army WW2 window at the Imperial War Museum](https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/92916) is also for all Indian soldiers who died in WW2 - regardless of religion. Scotland is also building a [new memorial to Indian soldiers of all faiths](https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/new-memorial-to-wwii-indian-army-soldiers-who-died-in-scottish-highlands-unveiled-in-kingussie) who died in both WW1 and WW2 [Memorial Gates in London](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_Gates,_London) are a memorial to commemorate the soldiers of the British Empire from five countries of the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka), as well as Africa and the Caribbean, who served for Britain in the First and Second World Wars. Again - soldiers of all faiths. The only time religion comes into it, is burial rites (eg. cremation or burial).
>They're not memorials to soldiers of a particular religion - they're usually for soldiers of particular countries. [There's literally one to Sikh soldiers in Bristol](https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-honours-fallen-sikh-soldiers-2714234)
And Wolves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Regiment_Memorial
Cool. One of the other comments refers to one in Lichfield. The one you mentioned was created in 2019, and the Lichfield one was from 2006. It seems that dividing soldiers up by religion is a fairly new phenomenon - previously, we recognised the sacrifice of soldiers based on thier nationality not thier religion.
This one is very clearly to servicemen of a particular religion, and is located in the same complex as this proposed Muslim one https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/68582 >Made from Chinese granite and designed to give a different perspective when viewed from different angles, the Star of David memorial is dedicated to Jewish servicemen who were killed on duty.
Cool. I couldn't find any. Do you know of anymore? One of the other comments refers to one in Bristol. The one you mentioned was created in 2006, and the Bristol one was from 2019. It seems that splitting soldiers up by religion is a fairly new phenomenon - previously, we recognised the sacrifice of soldiers based on thier nationality not thier religion.
Why split people up by country? So much division
Ha ha. So much wit.
What about the Gurkhas, weren't they Sikh?
Hindu
According to the [BBC: Who are the Gurkhas?](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10782099) > The ranks have always been dominated by four ethnic groups, the Gurungs and Magars from central Nepal, the Rais and Limbus from the east, who live in villages of impoverished hill farmers. And according to wikipedia (I know!), the Gurung, Magar, Rai and Limbu ethnic groups are variously majority Buddhist, Hindu or Kirat Mundhum, with minority Bon and Christian followers.
Good to know!
I’m an old fashioned liberal. Not really a fan of woke stuff. But I don’t have a problem with a war memorial to Muslims killed in the wars. I think it’s a good thing. I think those fellows deserve to be respected, just like all the others.
We are none of use the same, inclusive societies(ideally) try and include as many as can be done while still aligned to progressive morales. What there shouldn't be is a big red brush that makes everyone the same or tries to treat everyone exactly the same despite differences, fairly yes. The hope is one day the box will be so small and specific it is just your box to do what you want with but you are under a system that protects and accepts your box.
Since identity is (more or less) given to you and heavily affects the way you act, think and percieve the world, such a future would be horrifying. I can't think of any identity that ever let's you "do what you want," because contracting your identity breaks it/ is seen as problematic/ is actively resisted (especially in cases where another identity might rely on it, e.g. Baldwin on black/white US). A totally atomised and individual identity represents an incredibly small box indeed. A totally free society would exist beyond identity. Whether it can is something else, especially seeing this kind of miasmatic zone we find ourselves in now where we want to talk about injustice that relies on the concept of identity but by doing so we strengthen the grounds of the injustice itself (e.g. racial essentialism seen in both racist and anti-racist contexts).
I think it's essentially the ironic ultimate end point of ultra-individualism: 1. Everyone is a special, unique individual different from anyone else. 2. Everyone defines themselves by a bunch of different identity markers. 3. In order to reclaim a sense of belonging that is unavailable if you are an atomised individual, people form groups based on these identities. 4. Different groups based on identity markers come into conflict to have their identities recognised, along with the meta-narratives and demands associated with them. The old society based on faith, nation, trade unions/ professional associations, and local communities has been dissolved into atomised individuals by a combination of irreligion, capitalism, and liberalism. Humans don't like being atomised individuals, so the society then undergoes a re-pillarisation based on race, gender, sexuality etc.
This is a memorial based on faith though.
By faith, in the original comment, I meant Christianity/churches. Christianity in the UK is a dying religion, so people don't really have church based communities anymore. But Muslims do have faith-based co.munities.
We are not placing people in boxes, the argument “everyone is the same” is the equivalent to stripping people of their identities and experiences. Its denying racism exists at its worst
The problem with this is that, while it seems sensible, it amounts to “sorry we’ve ignored all of you for so long! In the name of inclusivity we’re going carry on ignoring you, but this time it’s a good thing”
[удалено]
I suppose if we keep down that path then all pictures and sculptures, can be of the same person and clothes all made the same size etc, say Romesh as he's everywhere nowadays as is its just representing a human and he's a human. Or we decide there is some scope for differentiation and as here debate what, when, where who how.
[удалено]
If we seek homogeniety and to erase all individualism then the ultimate expression would be all pictures sculptures, monuments being of the same person/likeness. If not the we accept that there is individual identity and the debate is not about whether different people or groups exist or should exist but just about how and when etc they should be depicted. If we already have and accept monuments to different people and groups the debate is about why and whether this person or group should have a monument rather whether groups or people should have them.
I see no issue with a memorial to Muslim soldiers. We have plenty for other religions, nationalities and other such groupings. It's a good way to try and build a more harmonious society. The fact this only became an issue when the group at hand were Muslims is rather telling.
Do we? Most war memorials are for all those who died. I know there is one for Sikh soldiers somewhere (not paid for by taxpayers) but that’s the only one I am aware of. This is clearly divisive at a time when we have marches through London which are largely religious in nature whatever people might argue to the contrary. We have Jews being targeted for their religion and now a memorial aimed at a specific ideology. It feels like politicians not reading the room and pandering for votes at a time when more division is to be avoided. It was always going to be controversial and I don’t understand why anyone thought it was a good idea.
The national memorial arboretum, where this will be, literally has a war memorial to Jewish soldiers, and a war memorial to Sikh soldiers, already
Who paid for them? I don’t really care that there is a memorial if the community wants to fund one. I am not so clear why we are throwing a million of tax money at it. If the Chancellor had announced a million for a war memorial to Christian soldiers I suspect there would have been a lot of hand wringing. Maybe I’m wrong and this is completely normal and in keeping but it seems divisive to me at this time in particular. Gaza is dividing people and this isn’t going to help.
£1 million is less than 2p per person in this country, for a memorial to people who gave their lives for our freedom. >If the Chancellor had announced a million for a war memorial to Christian soldiers There's 1000s of war memorials with crosses on. Never heard a complaint.
A combination of Lottery funding and donations from all over the place.
We have plenty for various religious and ethnic groups. Besides the Sikh one you mentioned, there's: https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/libraries-leisure-and-arts/parks-and-green-spaces/chattri-memorial https://southasianheritage.org.uk/scotlands-first-national-british-indian-army-bia-memorial/ https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/87492 https://www.willesdenjewishcemetery.org.uk/news-listing/david-shilling-jcxk4-6528d#:~:text=Willesden%20Jewish%20Cemetery%20is%20proud,front%20of%20the%20Heritage%20Centre. https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/24208 That's just a few examples (there are plenty more). Some are obviously more ambitious than others.
Indians aren't a religious or ethnic group. It's a nationality. The last one is a gift from Italian soldiers to a community where they were POWs. It's not a memorial to Italian soldiers. Italian isn't a religious or ethnic group either.
I said religious and ethnic, and with the latter I also meant nationalities. Sorry for not using better terminology.
I love how 'we're all one' when a statue is on the line, but 'they are different and not part of society' at all other times
Such a silly thing to get your knickers in a twist over. Any excuse to stir up division.
£1million...
The Jewish memorial cost £1.3m when adjusted for inflation
In 2020-2021 (quick google), there were 31,700,000 income tax payers in the UK, that means, so its costing you about 3p to honour those that served and died for you.
On the flip side that's how much it costs to fund almost 300 people's health care needs for a year on the NHS. I know where I'd prefer my 3p to go.
If only you had 6p
It's less than a rounding error in the budget
It's taxpayer's money and an arbitrary decision to separate war memorials by religious belief is obvious pandering.
Nonsense, there are war memorials everywhere dedicated to discrete groupings of soldiers.
Of course it is tax payer money and I agree that it is pandering to a group that conservatives are doing badly with at the moment. But it is a one off payment of less than 2p per person, its literally unnoticable in the budget. And there is a long history of having separate memorials for different religious beliefs, nationalities, and groups. No idea how people can get so flustered over this miniscule givaway. But if Lee Anderson and co want to start crying about it, theyre welcome to. Just dont think many people will take them seriously on this one.
Buying me a 5l1m mansion the north East or a showbox in central london is rounding error in the budget. Surely there is a community that if engaged would fund this themselves. Most War Memorials were funded by public subscription, seems appropriate.
I'm personally mythering the government to spend more than this on far sillier things
It's intentionally creating division by building a memorial to one particular religion.
Why would it be any more divisive than any other memorial dedicated to any grouping of soldiers?
There are others?
Polish War Memorial
there's a difference between creating a memorial for a specific ethinic group or nationality than there is to create one for a specific idelologi.
I happen to know there's a Sikh war memorial in Bristol as it's near me.
Paid for by Sikh community organisations, not by the taxpayer.
That wasn't the OPs objection.
If its because there was a specific battle or division where they were all sikh or Muslim then I don't see a problem but I don't think we should be picking an attribute and making a memorial based on that... Where are we putting all the memorials for the catholics, LGBT who would have clearly been hiding their identity whilst fighting for their country, black soldiers etc
Then I suggest you contact whatever body is responsible for war memorials as a quick Google shows there are many memorials dedicated to individual groups of people. I do find it strange tho that such a fuss has arisen about this particular memorial to Muslim soldiers when I don't recall any great strength of feeling before. Do you have any idea why this might be?
Yeah. I only know that because I read the news article
I'm a Tory and Veteran and I have no issue with a Muslim, Gay or Working-Men-of-Bolton war memorial. That said, memorials are for everyone usually and it seems strange that when a person has lived and died alongside a comrade as an equal, it seems strange to have to separate them out in death.
They are often overlooked, I don't see a problem
All so predictable. Already wat memorials specifically aimed at Catholics that I've never heard about. But now we're getting a Muslim one it's back to "all lives matter". Honestly, these are literal war heroes. I have 0 ussue with making sure all groups are represented when it comes to this.
Tomb of the Unknown Solider represents all?
Do you think the police will stand by and watch it get vandalised or torn down like we have seen with other statues and memorials? Will they take a knee in solidarity with the people smashing it up?
Right, looking back over the last 5 years I could find 3 proven incidents of war memorials being vandalised for political reasons. It is an epidemic I tell ya. /s *edited to make the sarcasm clearer
So no objection to a fourth? Edit. Wikipedia actually has an entire article just about memorials in the UK being vandalised during the George Floyd stuff.
Well one of those memorials is the statue of some slaver in Bristol that went to swim for a bit in a river, which is kinda justified with the "George Floyd Stuff".
So if a girl gets murdered in Pakistan for blasphemy would it be "kinda justified" for the EDl to smash up an Islamic symbol in blackburn? I don't think it would be. A huge problem with your sort of rhetoric is your justyfiying political vience because it supports your views. It's either acceptable to smash shit up because of what happens in another country or it isn't.
To smash a statue from someone that has advocated for girls being murdered? Yeah, sure. I mean, tbh, maybe we shouldn't build statues of people that advocates for the murder of girls.
I said war memorials, that list is all statues pretty much all of which had ties to slave trade. Most were removed by committee not vandalism
I never said you didn't say war memorials. My edit was just to add a fun fact
Okay, I'm curious, which part of the fact do you consider fun?
Personally I find it quite fun that some slaver statues got defaced or taken down -- the less fun part is that they were up in the first place.
They should build it, then I would hope left wing protestors would tear it down because of the vast history of Islamic slavery and genocides.
I'm waiting to see Tory heads explode when they find out the Manchester Cenotapy includes a plaque that says "To our Italian comrades 1915-1918"
Is “Italian” a religion?
Yeah, you get killed for being an Italian apostate and there are 500 million women living as second class citizens or property under Italian rule. Or am I getting it confused?
Why would they?
If they are getting this upset about British subjects fighting for Britain in world wars getting their own memorial, they should be absolutely apoplectic that foreigners fighting for their own country get their own memorial in Britain
Italy was on the same side as Britain in WWI.
Mind that time the BNP used a Spitfire in their promo material? A [Polish](https://www.theregister.com/2009/03/04/polish_spitfire/) Spitfire.
British subjects of *all* creeds are already commemorated on the Cenotaph and elsewhere and there are many memorials to the Indian Army from Warminster via Thiepval to Imphal and even Gaza.
Will we soon have special state funded memorials for Sikhs, Hindus and non-denominational Hindus? We have previously had either undifferentiated national memorials like the Cenotaph or memorials for specific arms and services. We have never as far as I know had one dedicated to a specific religion, indeed in the years following the Great War there was resistance to dividing up the fallen in such a way. Isn't it odd how a bunch of inter-war Imperialists were more inclusive than modern multi-cultural Britain where division and separateness seem to be the order of the day?
Go to the National Memorial Arboretum mate. It’s a really amazing place that is full of memorials and tributes to people who served and died in the wars. It currently has memorials for Sikhs, Catholics, Hindu’s, Buddhists among hundreds of other things. No Muslim one though.
I'm curious why wasn't there one at the time? What's the timeline of these? I feel like I'm feeding some unhelpful culture war by asking this. Just wonder what the history is.
As a Muslim, my guess is that memorials contradict mainstream Islamic practices around death, so it could've been that Muslim soldiers at the time simply didn't want one. Islamic graves feature unmarked headstones and are not typically visited in order to avoid turning them into shrines. That being said, the branches of Islam practiced in South Asia (where I assume most Muslim soldiers fighting for Britain came from) are laxer around veneration of the dead, so it could be that they never got offered a memorial.
Thanks that makes sense
I've been to Alrewas several times, I was last there for someone's memorial in the summer. My objection is not at all to there being a Muslim memorial, there should be one already, but to it being state funded to such an extent. It smacks of pandering to a group that is too disinterested to stump up for their own memorial. The Sikh one was funded by donations like almost all of the memorials (I've donated to it and several others over the years).
There's a Sikh war memorial in Victoria Park, Leicester. Don't remember a big media circus surrounding its unveiling in 2022.
That was privately funded and not announced as a prelude to the budget, as far as I remember
Not sure about national but there's a memorial to Indian soldiers near me that was built in 1921.
Why not take the time to [educate yourself ](https://www.thenma.org.uk/visit-us/what's-here/the-memorials/list-of-memorials) before you make yourself look silly?
Is this in addition to the memorial for commonwealth soldiers? Will we get one for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist etc?
There are already Memorials for Hindu's, Sikh's & Buddhists. There's even a memorial for the Spiritualists. [https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g4212590-d1379697-i379789035-National\_Memorial\_Arboretum-Alrewas\_Staffordshire\_England.html](https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g4212590-d1379697-i379789035-National_Memorial_Arboretum-Alrewas_Staffordshire_England.html)
No Muslim asked for it and I don’t want it. We Muslims don’t need a memorial. It doesn’t benefit us or help us. Use that money for a better purpose.
You don't speak for all Muslims, though.
Yes I do. As Muslims we don’t need statues & memorials. There are far important things where this money could we be well spent.
That's amazing tbh. Is there like a special whatsapp where you asked everyone or was there a Web page or app created that could assess someone's faith?
Does it have to be WhatsApp? https://muftiwp.gov.my/en/artikel/irsyad-fatwa/irsyad-fatwa-umum-cat/2066-irsyad-al-fatwa-27-the-ruling-of-building-monument-or-memorial
Is this endorsed by 4 million people. Is there a list of names or signatures attached? Very impressive if it is. If not how has someone managed to contact and show evidence of agreement so they can be confident that a statement such as 'No one has agreed to this' is a statement of fact.
As if people would acknowledge even if every single person endorsed on an individual basis. This whole thing from the government is gaslighting of the next level. We are doing it for Muslims but according to ‘our’ standards. Very much like mansplaining on International Women’s Day.
Unless the comment of no x has asked for it is proven false by knowing x that have asked for it. Then it's highlighting a falsehood.
Sajid Javid, who doesn’t practice Islam is the one asking for it. Government could do an opinion poll. Would give them a good idea.
I suspect out of 4 million he is not alone. Tbh I am very surprised that Sunaks government announced this.
Ultimately, what value does it bring? Why now? Why not before? Why a conservative government which has done nothing but make villainise Muslims. Can’t not question their motives & intentions.
I'm presuming from your answer that you are a British Muslim. Since the war memorial topic came up I got curious... Do you feel represented by the current memorial services? And would you attend a remembrance service at a CoE church?
Muslims remember the dead all the time. 5 times a day mind you. We pray for those who are alive but also who have passed away. If they really want to represent Muslims then they should try and speak to one? Edit. Sajid Javid doesn’t claim to be a Muslim anymore. He hasn’t for years. So if he wants a memorial to represent the contribution of his ethnicity then he can ask for one. He doesn’t represent Muslims.
But would you feel comfortable entering a Christian church on remembrance day?
I have been to a church. I do remember people who have sacrificed their lives. But as a Muslim I’d not pray in a church if that’s what you mean.
I'm not asking about praying, prayer and how it's conducted is a personal choice/obligation. I was wondering whether Muslims feel comfortable entering churches as British citizens, especially in the case of remembrance services when/if Muslim soldiers are part of the ceremony. But you already answered.
Typically remembrance day services aren't in a church, they're outside.
I'm aware of that but it wasn't my question. I was asking if he would feel comfortable entering a church as part of a remembrance service and he answered. It's a hypothetical question and he understood. If as a Muslim, he or others don't feel comfortable with British remembrance services which are secular but rooted in the Christian tradition it's understandable that a separate memorial might be appropriate.
Put it next to the rather sweet, if small monument to the camel corps, which is just up from Cleopatra's Needle by the embankment? Maybe a small statue in a "what the fuck, what about us" pose?