Suomessa ja etenkin pääkaupunkiseudulla asuu paljon maahanmuuttajia. Suuri osa näistä uusista tulijoista on eri kieliä puhuvia ja eri kulttuureja edustavia muslimeita. Suomen perustuslaissa, 2 luvun 6 §:ssä lukee: ”Ihmiset ovat yhdenvertaisia lain edessä. Ketään ei saa ilman hyväksyttävää perustetta asettaa eri asemaan sukupuolen, iän, alkuperän, kielen, uskonnon, vakaumuksen, mielipiteen, terveydentilan, vammaisuuden tai muun henkilöön liittyvän syyn perusteella.”
Tähän vedoten olen sitä mieltä, että Helsingin on tärkeää näyttää edistävänsä perusoikeuksia ja yhdenvertaisuutta. Suvaitsevuuden ja tasavertaisuuden vuoksi olisi tärkeää, että Helsingin ja samalla koko Suomen muslimeilla olisi yhtä hyvät mahdollisuudet harjoittaa uskontoaan kuin muidenkin uskontokuntien edustajilla.
Suomessa asuu noin 40 000 muslimia, joista suurin osa asuu pääkaupunkiseudulla ja varsinkin Itä-Helsingin alueella.
Tällä hetkellä moskeijat ja rukoushuoneet ovat hyvin pieniä ja sijaitsevat usein kerrostalojen kellareissa tai ostoskeskuksissa, joissa ne ovat melkein aina paikallisten pubien kyljessä. Valitettavasti historia on todistanut, että tilanteet joissa moskeijasta ja lähiöbaarista purkautuu ihmisiä ulos samaan aikaan voivat olla hyvin tulen arkoja. Perjantai on islamilainen pyhäpäivä, jolloin muslimit kokoontuvat rukoilemaan moskeijoihin. Tuolloin kymmenien ihmisten kerääntyminen asuintalojen alakertaan häiritsee ymmärrettävästi asukkaita.
Kysymys on erityisen ajankohtainen juuri nyt, sillä islamilainen paastokuukausi ramadan alkaa heinäkuun puolenvälin jälkeen. Ramadanin aikana muslimit paastoavat joka päivä auringon noususta auringon laskuun. Kuukauden viimeisen päivän jälkeen alkaa kolmipäiväinen eid-juhla, jolloin perheet ja ystävät viettävät aikaa yhdessä. Juhlan ensimmäisenä päivänä muslimeilla on tapana perinteisesti kerääntyä rukoilemaan yhdessä. Tilaisuuden järjestämistä varten on yleensä vuosittain varattu jokin iso halli, mutta esimerkiksi viime vuonna tilan järjestäminen ei onnistunut. Kaupungin olisi pystyttävä takaamaan asukkailleen mahdollisuus uskonnonharjoitukseen, koska kyseessä on tuhansille helsinkiläisille tärkeä asia.
Tällä hetkellä ihmisillä ei ole paljon tietoa siitä, mitä moskeijoissa tapahtuu. Mielestäni moskeijan toiminnan pitäisi olla avointa kaikille kuntalaisille, myös ei-muslimeille. On tärkeää, että kaikki tietävät, mitä omassa kotikaupungissa tapahtuu, oli se sitten minkä tahansa uskontokunnan parissa. Kaupungin antamalle tontille rakennetun moskeijan pitäisi palvella tässäkin suhteessa kaikkia helsinkiläisiä. Siellä voitaisiin järjestää avointen ovien päiviä, jolloin kuka tahansa pääsisi tutustumaan moskeijan toimintaan.
Moskeijat eivät ole pelkkiä rukoushuoneita. Hengellisen tuen lisäksi niissä tehdään arvokasta sosiaalityötä perheiden ja yksilöiden parissa. Esimerkiksi riidoissa olevilla aviopareilla on mahdollisuus saada moskeijassa terapiaa ja sovitteluapua, ja juuri maahan tulleita muslimeita opastetaan uuden kotimaansa tavoille.
Sopiva paikka moskeijalle olisi esimerkiksi Puotilan ja Itäkeskuksen välissä olevan Prisman viereinen tyhjä tontti, jolla on aiemmin ollut bensa-asema. Tontti on sen verran suuri, että sillä olisi moskeijan lisäksi tilaa myös esimerkiksi pienille kahviloille ja kaupoille.
En kannata kunnan verorahojen käyttämistä moskeijan rakentamiseen, vaan mielestäni Suomen muslimit voisivat itse lähteä keräämään rahaa tai etsimään yksityistä rahoitusta sitä varten.
Suvaitsevuuden nimissä hienon kotikaupunkimme on mielestäni osoitettava paikka moskeijan rakentamista varten. Helsingin on kohdeltava monikulttuurisuuttaan rikkautena ja osoittaa pystyvänsä muuttamaan sanat myös teoiksi
Alkuperäisen blogikirjoituksen voi lukea tästä.
Tämä blogikirjoitus julkaistiin Migrant Talesissä luvalla.
Well the biggest group of immigrants are russians. Im okay with a mosque, but as Abdirahim wrote, no municipality/state aid shouldnt be used for it. I dont believe it should be used for any other temples either.
He is riding with “Helsinki must show its multicultural and tolerant”. I dont like this as an argument to show something must absolutely be done. Neither i think that we must prove we are tolerant and multicultural.
Jssk
Abdirahim Hussein Mohamed is a Centre Party activist and a member of the City of Helsinki Advisory Board for Immigration and Integration Affairs. His perception, as expressed in the last paragraph above, is that lack of tolerance and unwillingness to acknowledge cultural diversity are obstacles to securing a site for this particular construction project.
A superficial review of the comments that this article has gathered on Uusi Suomi suggests that he may be right. Much of the opposition expressed in those comments is rather obviously based on religious intolerance.
It seems to me that the question of constructing a purpose-built mosque is in many ways comparable to the question of constructing a purpose-built stadium for some sport that is a minority interest in Finland, such as lacrosse, cricket or even football in the not-too-distant past. Much the same objections can be raised about whether the architecture (floodlighting pylons etc.) is “culturally compatible” with the surroundings, whether associated phenomena of crowd and tannoy noise, potential supporter misbehaviour and disruption of local transport facilities are within acceptable limits, and whether the sport itself is a good social influence on young people (conduct of players as public figures, corruption of organisers).
These issues ought to be ordinary aspects of urban planning. It is the perception of Abdirahim Hussein Mohamed that other factors (lack of tolerance and acknowledgement of cultural diversity) have also come into play specifically in relation to a construction project that has far greater and longer-sustained direct public support, for example, than Finnair Stadium ever had (Jokerit FC: 1999-2003, Finnair Stadium completed in 2000).
Lets see, what if they dont want “cultural diversity”? I understand some see this as an expansion of islam. I dont. A mosque or any temple doesnt matter, unless its funded by munincipality/state or saudis, their motives are known too well. But i dont think that will happen here.
A sports stadium for example is different and its not about cultural compability at all.
If there is no real “acknowledgement of cultural diversity”, its stupid to decide to built the mosque on the basis of “showing how diverse we are”. Its just a culiss and hypocrisy then. And i dont think it will increase the “acknowledgement of diversity”.
Jssk
In the sense that some of those commenters might “not want” your atheism, your homosexuality or your taste in entertainment, for example, and oppose your application for planning permission, child adoption or leasing of a concert venue on that basis?
Cultural diversity merely reflects the collective reality that “people are different”. A person who “does not want” cultural diversity is simply antisocial at best and sociopathic at worst.
How is it different? We are talking about the standards that govern planning permission and land use. Do the floodlighting pylons of Lahti Stadium spoil the scenery? How do the residents of Urheilukatu in Helsinki view the prospect of thousands of noisy football fans in the street on match days? Football was not invented in Finland, so what makes it “culturally compatible”, other than the fact that people in Finland have chosen to play the game and watch it?
This misrepresents the point that Abdirahim Hussein Mohamed is making. There is evident political opposition to assigning a construction site for this purpose, despite the obvious level of sectional interest (a community of at least 30,000 people) and the practical advantages of doing so. That opposition is based on racial and religious bigotry alone, and not on the normal standards that govern applications for planning permission.
There is nothing in this article to suggest that processing an application for a construction site according to normal standards would be any kind of “demonstration of policy”. The City of Helsinki merely has a strongly represented sectional interest that is seeking to construct specialised facilities for pursuing that interest. The comparison with an application to build a football stadium is most apt. Indeed Finnair Stadium was built with a far lower degree of public support.
If this was an application for permission to build a clubhouse for the gay community, would you be speaking up for people who “don’t want” such diversity, or trying to argue that it is not the role of the City authorities to “show how diverse we are”? How would you feel about an objection to planning permission based on nothing more than the assertion that the gay community is “ungodly”?
The London Central Mosque is one that city’s finest attractions for residents and visitors. There is no respectable objection of principle to a corresponding place of worship for Moslems in Helsinki.
JusticeDemon´´The London Central Mosque is one that city’s finest attractions for residents and visitors. There is no respectable objection of principle to a corresponding place of worship for Moslems in Helsinki.´´
Thank you (JD) for enlightening this link because many people like to quarrel and they don’t give considerations to the evidences on the MT, but you try to convince them any way.
In fact, hussein’ss suggestions are very important that mosque should be built for muslims in helsinki because it is very bad when we see muslims praying outside in chilly weather which the temperature is -25°C or above. So the government should allocate a place to build a mosque.
Too bad some people try to make cultural diversity into “lets open all the borders”
I dont believe that any kinds of temples are that important.
Its not about cultural compatibility. I just dont think that state/munincipality should fund building places of worship. I think that mosque would have practical benefits.
Anyways, we shouldnt go the way UK for example did. Its a prime example of tolerast police state.
Jssk
Which people? State policy in Finland since the late 1990s has been officially characterised as “managed immigration and efficient integration” (Hallittu maahanmuutto ja tehokas kotoutuminen), which was also the title of the 1997 report of the Immigration and Refugee Policy Commission. Even a cursory glance at the Aliens Act indicates that immigration is managed through a system of licensing.
It is equally too bad that some people try to make freedom of speech into “let’s promote racial hatred”, but this is not State policy in any country that has ratified ECHR and CERD.
So you agree with Abdirahim Hussein Mohamed that the application for a construction site and associated planning permission should not be influenced by extraneous factors of religious and racial bigotry.
So again you agree with Abdirahim Hussein Mohamed, as he notes above:
Roughly translating: I don’t advocate use of local authority tax revenues for mosque construction, but instead I feel that the Moslems of Finland could set out to collect funds or seek private finance for this.
As I have observed in your case before, Jssk, how can you get across your message of prejudice when you are forced to agree on all points of detail?
This is now the second time you have used this word “tolerast”, which is not in the OED or otherwise in common usage. In a previous comment you referred to “the tolerast ideology” and Ricky responded to you as if you had meant to write “tolerant”. Your answer to this seemed to accept that you were indeed discussing “tolerance”.
However, I note that this is an unlikely typo and the idea of a “tolerant police state” is an obvious oxymoron, so I suspect that you are trying to translate some Hompanzee neologism here, possibly one coined by your convicted racist criminal Master. Selitysvelvollisuutesi on kuitenkin tältä osin ilmeinen.
Im aware of this, i dont Finland to go the way of Sweden, France or UK.
Yes
Let me give you a example of this. 10 year old is accused of hate speech because they he want to work in a group where everyone other than the english girl speaks urdu. This is the level where “tolerance” is taken in some countries. People are accused of hate speech because of opinions or criticism that may shock or make people react. Those are allowed as long as they dont ouright insult or agitate against ethnic/religious group.
My master? You obiviously coined this one yourself from Homma, Halla-aho is not my master. But i agree with him on many points and see him as a good canditate to support. Let the dogs bark, i dont mind
Jssk
You aren’t making much sense now. First you said:
Then when I challenged you to say which people you mean by this, and I pointed out that you are clearly not talking about Finnish state policy, you respond:
So if you were “aware of this”, why make the point in the first place?
And incidentally, those three countries also manage immigration using a licensing system.
Otherwise, we can now see that you agree entirely with Abdirahim Hussein Mohamed on the Helsinki mosque question. All of which rather gives the impression that you feel you must object, even though you don’t actually have any objection. This is a typical manifestation of prejudice. We have seen an excellent example of this on the other side of the Pond over the last couple of years:
And your explanation of “tolerast”?
This is incoherent as an explanation of your neologism, and it casts no light at all on our situation in Finland. Here is a thought-provoking definition of the value that you consider so evil:
the last picture resembles the golden rule
Hi Mikki and welcome to Migrant Tales.
I don’t get you comment: the last picture resembles the golden rule.
in Christianity
-Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
-And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
-‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ”