Muslims can have your body exhumed now!

11314151719

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Or, you know, not their error. From your own link:




    So you have decided who you want to be right and who you want to be wrong.

    I have not, because there is no evidence either way. Presumably you have non-evidence based grounds for making your decision.


    Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. Just as christians and Jews are sometimes buried in designated single-religion areas and sometimes they are not.

    Nowhere does it state that this particular cemetery has designated single religion areas.
    http://burbage.leicestershireparishcouncils.org/burbage-cemetery.html
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nowhere does it state that this particular cemetery has designated single religion areas.
    http://burbage.leicestershireparishcouncils.org/burbage-cemetery.html

    Trust me, I have read every word of both their leaflets. Possibly however, many of their clients have read none. It is perfectly normal to make a telephone enquiry, or to visit a cemetery and enquire in person, which is obviously what is meant by "the conversation from 2011 in which they apparently allocated that area as a Muslim burial place ".
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Khans will have paperwork from the cemetery/council, let them show where it was presented to them that it was a Muslim only section of the cemetery? They don't have anything in writing obviously otherwise they'd have mentioned it. If this 'detail' was so important to them, don't you think they should have got it in writing? Probably because the council never made any such promise or declaration, they ASSUMED it.
    Trust me, I have read every word of both their leaflets. Possibly however, many of their clients have read none. It is perfectly normal to make a telephone enquiry, or to visit a cemetery and enquire in person, which is obviously what is meant by "the conversation from 2011 in which they apparently allocated that area as a Muslim burial place ".

    Well if they did just as you suggest, and failed to read any leaflets, then the post above by chipbuttie, in particular the bit in bold, is looking more and more probable.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    blueblade wrote: »
    Well if they did just as you suggest, and failed to read any leaflets, then the post above by chipbuttie, in particular the bit in bold, is looking more and more probable.

    How does chipbuttie's post shed any light on what the Khans were told whoever they arranged the burial with?

    As a matter of fact, there is weakish circumstantial evidence in favour of the Khans.

    1. The cemetery unequivocally denied that the Smiths had ever been asked to move their father, but did not deny that the Khans had been led to believe that Mr Khan was in an area set aside for Muslims.

    2. Mr Khan was obviously buried in a separate area of the cemetery that remained unused, apart from his grave, for the following three years, which suggests that it was not offered to other families until the Smiths came along with their quite specific request.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Trust me, I have read every word of both their leaflets. Possibly however, many of their clients have read none. It is perfectly normal to make a telephone enquiry, or to visit a cemetery and enquire in person, which is obviously what is meant by "the conversation from 2011 in which they apparently allocated that area as a Muslim burial place ".

    No, I wouldn't trust you. And I've read it all too, which is why I say NOWHERE DOES IT STATE THAT THERE ARE SEPARATE RELIGIOUS AREAS.
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How does chipbuttie's post shed any light on what the Khans were told whoever they arranged the burial with?

    As a matter of fact, there is weakish circumstantial evidence in favour of the Khans.

    1. The cemetery unequivocally denied that the Smiths had ever been asked to move their father, but did not deny that the Khans had been led to believe that Mr Khan was in an area set aside for Muslims.

    2. Mr Khan was obviously buried in a separate area of the cemetery that remained unused, apart from his grave, for the following three years, which suggests that it was not offered to other families until the Smiths came along with their quite specific request.

    Highly, highly tenuous :p

    In reality, I'd say you are clutching at straws. The facts show that nowhere does it state the cemetery is anything other than multi denominational, and on unconsecrated ground. I can't imagine anybody but a complete idiot not sussing that out right at the get go, especially as all the information is available on line.

    I don't accept that the Khan's were in any way misled, as all the information was at their fingertips, nor have any documents been produced which support the Khan's assertions.
  • Speak-SoftlySpeak-Softly Posts: 24,737
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How does chipbuttie's post shed any light on what the Khans were told whoever they arranged the burial with?

    As a matter of fact, there is weakish circumstantial evidence in favour of the Khans.

    1. The cemetery unequivocally denied that the Smiths had ever been asked to move their father, but did not deny that the Khans had been led to believe that Mr Khan was in an area set aside for Muslims.

    2. Mr Khan was obviously buried in a separate area of the cemetery that remained unused, apart from his grave, for the following three years, which suggests that it was not offered to other families until the Smiths came along with their quite specific request.

    Alternatively they allowed the burial there, in a part of the cemetery that was not used at that point because they were filling it up section by section (as happens in most cemeteries) because of the request for the orientation of the grave.

    And now the rest of the burials have caught up with that area.

    Just think of the trouble everybody could have saved had they initially told the Khans to take a flying leap.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    And now the rest of the burials have caught up with that area.
    They haven't 'caught up', the Smiths asked for a plot overlooking their home, which they said is an important part of their culture.

    And however often we look at the brochures, they will not reveal what the Khans were told in 2011.
    Just think of the trouble everybody could have saved had they initially told the Khans to take a flying leap.

    Ah, customer service, yes.
  • Speak-SoftlySpeak-Softly Posts: 24,737
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They haven't 'caught up', the Smiths asked for a plot overlooking their home, which they said is an important part of their culture.

    And however often we look at the brochures, they will not reveal what the Khans were told in 2011.



    Ah, customer service, yes.

    The dead can't complain.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They haven't 'caught up', the Smiths asked for a plot overlooking their home, which they said is an important part of their culture.

    And however often we look at the brochures, they will not reveal what the Khans were told in 2011.



    Ah, customer service, yes.

    It boils down to a 'he said - she said' situation neither can prove what their now three year old conversation was.

    The Khans cannot back up anything they claim with evidence in writing, which, if you think that this was so important to them, they would have. Whereas we can all go look at the cemetery website and see there is nothing about the segregation of religions.

    Of course this whole ridiculous farce (which would be funny if it were not so offensive) will probably result in the council bending over backwards to accommodate Muslim sensibilities in future and they will get a whole section all to themselves now, which kind of arguably equates to how many Muslims live their lives in Britain while alive, in segregation.
  • Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It boils down to a 'he said - she said' situation neither can prove what their now three year old conversation was.

    The Khans cannot back up anything they claim with evidence in writing, which, if you think that this was so important to them, they would have. Whereas we can all go look at the cemetery website and see there is nothing about the segregation of religions.

    Of course this whole ridiculous farce (which would be funny if it were not so offensive) will probably result in the council bending over backwards to accommodate Muslim sensibilities in future and they will get a whole section all to themselves now, which kind of arguably equates to how many Muslims live their lives in Britain while alive, in segregation.

    it does make you wonder how much they do integrate.
    i wish people would stop bending over backwards for muslims.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It boils down to a 'he said - she said' situation neither can prove what their now three year old conversation was.
    That seems to be the case, yes.
    Of course this whole ridiculous farce (which would be funny if it were not so offensive) will probably result in the council bending over backwards to accommodate Muslim sensibilities in future and they will get a whole section all to themselves now, which kind of arguably equates to how many Muslims live their lives in Britain while alive, in segregation.

    I don't think we need to pick out Muslims in this. There are any number of separate burial areas for Christians and Jews. As I pointed out earlier, one cemetery near this one has a separate Polish area. I have recently been in a cemetery (South east England) with a separate Irish area. Obviously some people like to feel that they are among those of their own cultural background.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That seems to be the case, yes.

    Yes. But the website backs the claim that there are no segregated areas and the Khans could have checked that out for themselves to double-check.

    I don't think we need to pick out Muslims in this. There are any number of separate burial areas for Christians and Jews. As I pointed out earlier, one cemetery near this one has a separate Polish area. I have recently been in a cemetery (South east England) with a separate Irish area. Obviously some people like to feel that they are among those of their own cultural background.

    That's right, they would choose. Which is why I personally wouldn't choose a multi-faith cemetery in the first place if I wanted to be buried with my 'own kind'.
  • sutiesutie Posts: 32,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Poseidon wrote: »
    What would happen if there was a minor earthquake and the buried person ended up facing south?



    There'd be marches against racist earthquakes, and a petition handed to Downing Street I imagine.
  • AshbourneAshbourne Posts: 3,036
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That seems to be the case, yes.



    I don't think we need to pick out Muslims in this. There are any number of separate burial areas for Christians and Jews. As I pointed out earlier, one cemetery near this one has a separate Polish area. I have recently been in a cemetery (South east England) with a separate Irish area. Obviously some people like to feel that they are among those of their own cultural background.

    Why not? They were the ones complaining.
  • Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ashbourne wrote: »
    Why not? They were the ones complaining.

    That is so true.
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ashbourne wrote: »
    Why not? They were the ones complaining.

    Indeed - in such circumstances they'd be the only ones complaining. I'd bet money that all the others would have more class and sensitivity at the time of someone else's death, than to object to someone of another faith being buried near their deceased relative, in a multi denominational cemetery.

    Evidently even before they complained, they still never checked the publicly available details, like anybody else would have done, such was their apparent sense of superiority and self importance.
  • Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    blueblade wrote: »
    Indeed - in such circumstances they'd be the only ones complaining. I'd bet money that all the others would have more class and sensitivity at the time of someone eles's death than to object to someone of another faith being buried near them in a multi denominational cemetery.

    Evidently even before they complained, they still never checked the publicly available details, like anybody else would have done, such was their apparent sense of superiority and self importance.

    if non muslims relatives complain about their loved one being buried next to a muslim you can bet the police get involved.
  • bluebladeblueblade Posts: 88,859
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    if non muslims relatives complain about their loved one being buried next to a muslim you can bet the police get involved.

    Actually that may not be an exaggeration - possible hate crime. It truly would not surprise me.

    Of course, the muslims can justify this by hiding behind their religious requirements.

    hate crimes
  • Steve_CardanasSteve_Cardanas Posts: 4,188
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    blueblade wrote: »
    Actually that may not be an exaggeration - possible hate crime. It truly would not surprise me.

    Of course, the muslims can justify this by hiding behind their religious requirements.

    Non muslims are always told that we should think about muslims sensibility but you never hear it the other way around muslims being told to think about non muslim sensibility.
  • aggsaggs Posts: 29,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    blueblade wrote: »
    Indeed - in such circumstances they'd be the only ones complaining. I'd bet money that all the others would have more class and sensitivity at the time of someone else's death, than to object to someone of another faith being buried near their deceased relative, in a multi denominational cemetery.

    Evidently even before they complained, they still never checked the publicly available details, like anybody else would have done, such was their apparent sense of superiority and self importance.

    To me, it just sounds like a grieving family got crossed wires - and that can happen whatever the religion.

    When the Khan family were looking to bury their deceased, they were mourning - and anyone who has had any dealings with the recently bereaved knows that sometimes things just don't go in right due to nobodies fault. For whatever reason they came away with the assumption that the area under dissussion would be designated for Muslim burials. Possibly the fact that in the intervening 3 years no one was buried there just added to that assumption.

    Where they within their rights to go to the Council and see if they were right, or had been working with duff info for 3 years? I'd say 'yes" to that. Everything else that happened is down to the Council (with extra heaping of coals onto fire bonus points for the first person who uttered the word 'exhumation'). If someone had just taken time to explain to the family the situation without involving the Smith family at all, then the non story withers away.
  • Red NovemberRed November Posts: 1,546
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    aggs wrote: »
    To me, it just sounds like a grieving family got crossed wires - and that can happen whatever the religion.

    When the Khan family were looking to bury their deceased, they were mourning - and anyone who has had any dealings with the recently bereaved knows that sometimes things just don't go in right due to nobodies fault. For whatever reason they came away with the assumption that the area under dissussion would be designated for Muslim burials. Possibly the fact that in the intervening 3 years no one was buried there just added to that assumption.

    Where they within their rights to go to the Council and see if they were right, or had been working with duff info for 3 years? I'd say 'yes" to that. Everything else that happened is down to the Council (with extra heaping of coals onto fire bonus points for the first person who uttered the word 'exhumation'). If someone had just taken time to explain to the family the situation without involving the Smith family at all, then the non story withers away.
    I would have thought the opposite. The lack of fellow muslims being buried in an area the family wrongfully assumed was a muslim-only area, should have had them asking questions well before the gypsy chap was about to be buried.

    Unless of course, they were the only muslims in the village.
  • Keiō LineKeiō Line Posts: 12,979
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    egghead1 wrote: »
    Fast forward several months ...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-3095541/Clarifications-corrections.html
    In common with other newspapers, an article of 11 February, ‘You’ll have to dig up your grandad...he’s not a Muslim’, reported that Burbage Parish Council was meeting to discuss if Mr Shadrack Smith’s body should be moved to an alternative cemetery plot. We are happy to make clear the council’s position that it has never discussed or considered an exhumation and we apologise for any misunderstanding.


    Well this thread was a waste of time then.
  • Misanthropy_83Misanthropy_83 Posts: 2,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    daily fail ha ha
  • stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Keiō Line wrote: »
    Fast forward several months ...
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-3095541/Clarifications-corrections.html




    Well this thread was a waste of time then.

    Why am I not at all surprised?
Sign In or Register to comment.