BF2S Forums New York Mosque

JohnG@lt wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Haven't read every post so sorry if this has already been discussed, but a Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed in 9-11 is not being allowed to rebuild by the Port Authority - talk about a double standard.

The Port Authority only owns the ground that the Twin Towers stood on. There's nothing stopping the church from building next door.

Harmor wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Haven't read every post so sorry if this has already been discussed, but a Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed in 9-11 is not being allowed to rebuild by the Port Authority - talk about a double standard.

The Port Authority only owns the ground that the Twin Towers stood on. There's nothing stopping the church from building next door.

My understanding is that they are still being denied a permit.

Reciprocity wrote:

lowing wrote:

whether or not you "give a shit" is hardly the cenyter of this controversy. try sticking to the historical evidence regarding such actions by Islam, and argue there is nothing there.

Historically, they built mosques where they physically conquered, as christians built Churches where they conquered.  So, I as again; what did they conquer in New York City?

lowing wrote:

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1496/mosques-on-sacred-sites-of-defeated-enemies

Proponents like to cite the namesake of the Cordoba House complex as evidence of its goal of tolerance and pluralism, referring to the relative tolerant attitude of Muslim Spain to its Jewish and Christian minorities. Those proponents, however, should recall that the Great Mosque, or Mezquita, of Cordoba was itself a Visigoth Church that was converted and rebuilt as a mosque following Muslim conquest in 784, lasting nearly 500 years before it was recaptured and converted back into a Catholic cathedral.

Notice how carefully he's phrased his claim to give the impression that during the medieval conquest of Spain the Muslims charged into Cordoba and declared it the capital of a new Muslim empire, and in order to add insult to injury seized control of a Christian church and built the biggest mosque they could, right there in front of the Christians they'd just conquered, a big Muslim middle finger in the heart of medieval Christendom.  Essentially, they've done it before, they'll do it again, right there at Ground Zero, if all good Christians don't band together to stop them.

The problem is, in order to give that impression of immediacy, Newt elides three hundred years of Christian and Muslim history.  Three hundred years. The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712.  The Christian church that was later transformed into the Great Mosque of Cordoba apparently** continued hosting Christian worship for at least a generation after that.  Work on the Mosque didn't actually begin until seventy-odd years later in 784, and the mosque only became "the world's third-largest" late in the tenth century, after a series of expansions by much later rulers, probably around 987 or so.

Then there's the matter of the two odd verbs in Newt's summation of Cordoba's history: "transformed" and "symbolized".  Surely, a mosque as great as The Great Mosque of Cordoba has symbolized a lot of things to a lot of people over the years. But Muslim historians writing about the Great Mosque don't point to it as a symbol of Muslim triumph over Christians; rather, they treat it primarily as a symbol of Muslim victory over other Muslims.

Keep in mind that when ground was broken on the Great Mosque, the vast majority of the men who had been personally responsible for conquering the Iberian peninsula were long dead and most of their sons were dead, too.  Sure, a few extremely ancient grey beards might have been present as very, young men, and a few older men might have been able to talk about what their fathers had done during the Conquest, but Muslim control of Spain was simply a fact of life for them, not something they felt they had to justify to the Christians.

The mosque was indeed begun in the wake of a Muslim conquest--just not the conquest of the Christians.  Rather, it was ordered built by the Umayyad emir Abd-ar-Ramman I, probably in part to commemorate his successful conquest of Cordoba in the 750's, fought against other Muslim chieftains loyal to the rival Abbasid Caliphate, and his successful repulsion of subsequent Abbasid attempts to dislodge him by force throughout the 760's.***  This is, incidentally, probably why the Great Mosque--unlike almost every other Mosque in the Muslim world--is built facing south. Usually, Mosques are built facing Mecca, as Muslims are meant to pray towards the holy city.  But the Great Mosque is oriented as if it were actually built in Damascus, the original capital of the Umayyads and the city from which abd-ar-Ramman had had to flee in exile when it was conquered by the Abbasids.  Damascus is north of Mecca, while Cordoba is much further west.  By pointing his Mosque south, Abd-ar-Ramman I was telling his Muslim rivals, "This exile to Iberia is a temporary thing; you may hold Damascus for now, but in the eyes of our god, my family still controls it."

Still, the Muslims did "transform" a Christian church, didn't they?  Possibly, but only in a very qualified sense. Most standard histories of Cordoba will note that the Great Mosque is built on the site of the Basilica of St Vincent, Martyr, a Visigothic church that was itself built on the ruins of a Roman pagan temple.  And archaeological work has confirmed that the present site of the Mosque did at one time belong to some sort of Christian church.  There's no indication that the present-day structure included any elements from that church, though, and exactly when it was razed and under what circumstances is unclear.

Muslim historians of the late tenth century tell that Abd-ar-Ramman bought the church from the Christian congregation after sharing it with them for fifty years "following the example of Abu Ubayda and Khalid, according to the judgement of Caliph Umar in partitioning Christian churches like that of Damascus and other [cities] that were taken of peaceful accord".****  The Christians, we're told, took their money and relocated their church to the outskirts of Cordoba.  Now obviously, these are Muslim historians writing two-to-three-hundred years after the events they describe, so we must always take their accounts with a grain of salt (as we would with any historian's work, Muslim or not) and consider the political motivations responsible for their histories.

Last edited by Macbeth (2010-08-24 23:40:14)

Beduin wrote:

Police: Cab Driver Stabbed By Passenger Who Asked “Are You Muslim?”

As of late Tuesday, no charges had been filed.
Both the driver and the passenger were taken to Bellevue Hospital.
By: NY1 News
A city cab driver is in the hospital after being stabbed by a passenger who allegedly asked if he was Muslim, police tell NY1.
Investigators with the New York City Police Department say it all began Monday night when a 21-year-old man hailed a cab at 24th Street and Second Avenue in Manhattan.
Police say the passenger asked the driver, “Are you Muslim?” When the driver said yes the passenger pulled a knife and slashed him in the throat, arm and lip.
The 43-year-old driver was able to lock the passenger in the back of the cab and call 911.

Source

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Beduin wrote:

Source

What a fucking prick. I bet that guy isn't even from NYC.

Who gives a shit?  Or why do you expect compassion/sympathy from this crowd when none has been afforded to the thousands of 911 victims?  My AMW deleted empty care cup was spot on.

Macbeth wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1496/mosques-on-sacred-sites-of-defeated-enemies

From your link

Proponents like to cite the namesake of the Cordoba House complex as evidence of its goal of tolerance and pluralism, referring to the relative tolerant attitude of Muslim Spain to its Jewish and Christian minorities. Those proponents, however, should recall that the Great Mosque, or Mezquita, of Cordoba was itself a Visigoth Church that was converted and rebuilt as a mosque following Muslim conquest in 784, lasting nearly 500 years before it was recaptured and converted back into a Catholic cathedral.

From an article from a graduate student studying medieval history. He took offense to Newt Gingrich using the Cordoba Mosque as an example of Muslim conquest.

Notice how carefully he's phrased his claim to give the impression that during the medieval conquest of Spain the Muslims charged into Cordoba and declared it the capital of a new Muslim empire, and in order to add insult to injury seized control of a Christian church and built the biggest mosque they could, right there in front of the Christians they'd just conquered, a big Muslim middle finger in the heart of medieval Christendom.  Essentially, they've done it before, they'll do it again, right there at Ground Zero, if all good Christians don't band together to stop them.

The problem is, in order to give that impression of immediacy, Newt elides three hundred years of Christian and Muslim history.  Three hundred years. The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712.  The Christian church that was later transformed into the Great Mosque of Cordoba apparently** continued hosting Christian worship for at least a generation after that.  Work on the Mosque didn't actually begin until seventy-odd years later in 784, and the mosque only became "the world's third-largest" late in the tenth century, after a series of expansions by much later rulers, probably around 987 or so.

Then there's the matter of the two odd verbs in Newt's summation of Cordoba's history: "transformed" and "symbolized".  Surely, a mosque as great as The Great Mosque of Cordoba has symbolized a lot of things to a lot of people over the years. But Muslim historians writing about the Great Mosque don't point to it as a symbol of Muslim triumph over Christians; rather, they treat it primarily as a symbol of Muslim victory over other Muslims.

Keep in mind that when ground was broken on the Great Mosque, the vast majority of the men who had been personally responsible for conquering the Iberian peninsula were long dead and most of their sons were dead, too.  Sure, a few extremely ancient grey beards might have been present as very, young men, and a few older men might have been able to talk about what their fathers had done during the Conquest, but Muslim control of Spain was simply a fact of life for them, not something they felt they had to justify to the Christians.

The mosque was indeed begun in the wake of a Muslim conquest--just not the conquest of the Christians.  Rather, it was ordered built by the Umayyad emir Abd-ar-Ramman I, probably in part to commemorate his successful conquest of Cordoba in the 750's, fought against other Muslim chieftains loyal to the rival Abbasid Caliphate, and his successful repulsion of subsequent Abbasid attempts to dislodge him by force throughout the 760's.***  This is, incidentally, probably why the Great Mosque--unlike almost every other Mosque in the Muslim world--is built facing south. Usually, Mosques are built facing Mecca, as Muslims are meant to pray towards the holy city.  But the Great Mosque is oriented as if it were actually built in Damascus, the original capital of the Umayyads and the city from which abd-ar-Ramman had had to flee in exile when it was conquered by the Abbasids.  Damascus is north of Mecca, while Cordoba is much further west.  By pointing his Mosque south, Abd-ar-Ramman I was telling his Muslim rivals, "This exile to Iberia is a temporary thing; you may hold Damascus for now, but in the eyes of our god, my family still controls it."

Still, the Muslims did "transform" a Christian church, didn't they?  Possibly, but only in a very qualified sense. Most standard histories of Cordoba will note that the Great Mosque is built on the site of the Basilica of St Vincent, Martyr, a Visigothic church that was itself built on the ruins of a Roman pagan temple.  And archaeological work has confirmed that the present site of the Mosque did at one time belong to some sort of Christian church.  There's no indication that the present-day structure included any elements from that church, though, and exactly when it was razed and under what circumstances is unclear.

Muslim historians of the late tenth century tell that Abd-ar-Ramman bought the church from the Christian congregation after sharing it with them for fifty years "following the example of Abu Ubayda and Khalid, according to the judgement of Caliph Umar in partitioning Christian churches like that of Damascus and other [cities] that were taken of peaceful accord".****  The Christians, we're told, took their money and relocated their church to the outskirts of Cordoba.  Now obviously, these are Muslim historians writing two-to-three-hundred years after the events they describe, so we must always take their accounts with a grain of salt (as we would with any historian's work, Muslim or not) and consider the political motivations responsible for their histories.

http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08 … story.html
There is more to it than just that but I just highlighted the important parts. It's an interesting read. So basically it's a myopic view of Muslim history to point out that they built Mosque in places they controlled.

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Who gives a shit?  Or why do you expect compassion/sympathy from this crowd when none has been afforded to the thousands of 911 victims?  My AMW deleted empty care cup was spot on.

You do realize that after 9/11 there were mass protests against the acts of Al Qaeda all over the muslim world as well?

You do realize that after 9/11 there were mass celebrations condoning the acts of Al Qaeda all over the Muslim world as well................right?

Surgeons wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

You do realize that after 9/11 there were mass protests against the acts of Al Qaeda all over the muslim world as well?

You do realize that after 9/11 there were mass celebrations condoning the acts of Al Qaeda all over the Muslim world as well................right?

Which obviously makes it ok to stab muslims just because of their faith.

lowing wrote:

Surgeons wrote:

lowing wrote:

You do realize that after 9/11 there were mass celebrations condoning the acts of Al Qaeda all over the Muslim world as well................right?

Which obviously makes it ok to stab muslims just because of their faith.

did not address anyone being stabbed. I addressed the dismissal given toward the emotion 9/11 has caused, and the re-opening of that wound by building a symbol of that attack on its site. Protests have been largely civil.

IN CONTRAST!!!!


here is what happens when some Muslims get together and decide they do not want a church in their neighborhood.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105087

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla … rches.html


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06376353.htm