Newt on the Cordoba House

I agree with Newt, but it's not a mosque at all. Amir Taheri points out that the design has nothing to do with a traditional Muslim house of worship. Rather it is a rabat - a fort.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/islam_center_eerie_echo_of_ancient_iRTMW6TprkULnaA1Nqi9xM

#1 NJSoldier on 2010-09-21 11:41 (Reply)

Without commenting on individual historical points raised here, I am heartened to see that increasing numbers of Americans are begiining to realise that Islam is at war with Freedom. My Egyptian Muslim friend is very certain that the Ground Zero Mosque is very much intended as a victory memorial to the Islamics who murdered so many. He firmly believes that the Koran in Arabic he read as a child is a very different book than the one most Jihadists are taught. He tells me that, as the Romans, said "all translators are traitors".
Stand firm America. The West and Freedom are under attack.

#1.1 thehawkreturns on 2010-09-23 05:00 (Reply)

Let's get over ourselves.

There are several layers and degrees of fanaticism. We see it here in the US, with our religious fanatics who want to impose their will on the rest of us via politics, too.

I'm a "religious" person insofar as I believe in God, and believe in the basic JudeoChristian ethics which underpin our Western culture. To be honest, these same ethics go a long way in the Muslim culture - if anyone took the time to really review the religion itself.

There are some anomalies, but none are overwhelming. Most are a result of misunderstandings. Contradictions in writings in the Koran (as if none exist in the Bible!!), or misinterpretations of said writings (because we in the West NEVER misread the Bible).

The Jihadists are one thing. An Islamic mosque or cultural center (many synagogues double as cultural centers, so let's be honest - it's a mosque), is perfectly acceptable LEGALLY.

The question isn't one of rolling over to Islamic fundamentalism - it's upholding the Constitutional right to free speech and freedom of religion.

BUT THAT'S NOT ALL. The REAL question at hand is sensitivity. Several Islamic leaders have stated they want to be careful and not offend sensibilities since they realize how touchy the situation is, and as an interfaith outreach, this is a KEY component.

Well....now we have a discussion point upon which WE, as Americans, can sit down and negotiate. There is NO QUESTION that some people will have their noses bent out of shape. I didn't lose any friends or family on 9/11, but for those who did, a poll of their feelings would be well considered.....and if they result in a "move the mosque" sentiment - then negotiations should begin to move it to a more suitably acceptable place for all involved.

Any discussion beyond these points is ludicrous. Newt's letter mentioning Cordoba is absurd because it ignores several salient points:
1. Islamic Cordoba, and the period to which he refers, was a period of great growth in education, religious tolerance, wealth and science. It was, if you will, something of a golden age for Islamists - the period of Al Andalus - which they often refer to as a period of great pride. Some use it as the zenith of Islamic growth, a period which they want to get back to via force. Others use it within the context of pride - a religion that WAS openly tolerant and worked with the people.
2. The Cordoba mosque was reverted BACK to a church when the Catholic Kings took over. The infighting of the Islamic rulers made for a particularly difficult reign. While it benefited the citizens in terms of freedom, it also benefited the Catholic opposition which sought to oust the Muslims - and did. Subsequently leading to (ahem) the SPANISH INQUISITION. Yes, there is great pride in this period, I'm sure - equal pride to that of Al-Andalus.

Now, as a Catholic (yes, I'm Catholic), I am appalled when I read of the Inquisition. It's sad that religions fall to such depths. And one can make a case that the same depths have been reached by the Islamic fundamentalists. Not only is it a case, it is the truth.

But painting all Muslims with this brush is unfair. Even during the Inquisition, NOT ALL Catholics were brutal. It's like saying all Germans during WWII were Nazis. This simply isn't the case.

So let's get off our high horse and start talking sense.

#2 Rick on 2010-09-21 12:11 (Reply)

Rick,

Your multicultural PC talking points have all been thoroughly refuted.

Islamic Cordoba was a period of oppression and dhimmitude for non-Muslims living there. There was no tolerance - Christians and Jews were treated as second class citizens in every way - including having their cathedral turned in to a mosque.

Christians were granted protection if they paid a jizya - a tax signifying their subjection - otherwise they could be murdered or enslaved. Failure to pay could lead to confiscation of property or enslavement of your children - for the enjoyment of Muslim men.

The goal, obviously, was to make life for non-Muslims unpleasant enough for large numbers to convert. This is how the large Christian populations of North Africa gradually disappeared.

Cordoba itself was a base for raids farther north in a failed effort to further spread Islam by force. Far more Christians and Jews died at the hands of Muslims than were killed by the Inquisition.

#2.1 NJSoldier on 2010-09-21 13:41 (Reply)

Actually, your version of events is not entirely correct.
It's a fairly biased view of events.

I have traveled in Spain, particularly Andalusia. The history of the region is still rich in its Moorish history. A history that is replete with stories of tolerance from that era. I spent quite a bit of time in Toledo and Granada - and I'd have to say that your stories don't mesh with the many stories which are told while you are there.

I'm not saying the Muslims didn't use the area to launch raids into the Christian north - they did. But they, too, were under attack from the Christians. It was a matter of both expansion having run its race AND the need to defend themselves. Using Cordoba as that base, however, would've been odd. Considering the Moors also controlled Toledo - much further north. The stories of Muslim tolerance in Toledo far outnumber those of Granada.

But while the stories of some non-Muslims being killed or enslaved exist, this remains open to debate. Overwhelmingly, it's clear that the Muslims were fairly tolerant of others in their region - ASSUMING they were not working for the enemy AND they adhered to the laws and taxation of the land (gee...sounds like the US today, hm?)

Fact is your view of events exists within some history books, but if you have spent time in Spain, then you would have heard quite a different history.

"My" history is not incorrect or inaccurate. Like yours, perhaps, it is imprecise. But that is all you can hope for after 500 years during which you and I have between that era and ours.

In any era of violence and opposition, "histories" become replete with non-events designed to demonize the opposition. We hear of them all the time here in the US regarding Muslims simply because SO MANY Americans believe this is a war against Islam.
In the case of Spanish history, you have many years of Catholic impressions of Islamic rule to sift through. A review of Islamic control of the Holy Lands shows as much tolerance for non-Muslim citizens as Moorish Spain.

Again, this isn't to say atrocities didn't occur. But they were not the norm, and did not adhere to the rule of law during that period. Unlike, say, the Inquisition, when the rule of law WAS designed to promote torture of non-believers.

Given the choice, as a Catholic, to support the Inquisition or live "uncomfortably" (as you put it) under Muslim rule - I'd opt for the uncomfortable life, thank you very much. Luckily, I didn't have to make that choice. Seems I may have to here in the US, though.

#2.1.1 Rick on 2010-09-21 14:50 (Reply)

Again, this isn't to say atrocities didn't occur. But they were not the norm, and did not adhere to the rule of law during that period. Unlike, say, the Inquisition, when the rule of law WAS designed to promote torture of non-believers.

When the Muslims massacred 4000 jews in 1066 in Granada in about a day's time, compared to an estimated 3,000-5,000 killed over 220 years of the Inquisition, your statement about "rule of law" is absurd. [links at #2.2 Gringo on 2010-09-21 17:02]

Especially when your knowledge of Muslim law in Medieval Spain is most likely not your strongest point- nor is it mine. IOW, you are talking out of your hat when you talk about "rule of law." Where is your documentation for it?

#2.1.1.1 Gringo on 2010-09-21 20:15 (Reply)

Not that Wikipedia is "all that", but for these purposes, it's as good a starting point as any.

By and large, history indicates a large amount of coexistence between faiths took place, particularly to the point that a "Golden Era" existed for the Jews under Muslim rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Andalus

Again, as I mentioned elsewhere, some dispute this. But history is rife with disagreements about what happened....if you've visited Spain, perhaps less dispute exists....

#2.1.2 Rick on 2010-09-21 14:57 (Reply)

If you are so fond of the wonderful mythical "tolerance" of Islamic ruled Europe, you need only stay there and wait a decade or two. Enjoy. I'll do the live free or die thing over here.

#2.1.2.1 NJSoldier on 2010-09-21 15:54 (Reply)

That's both an uninformed and intolerant response.

1. I never said Islam today is tolerant, in general. I was commenting on the past, which Newt alluded to in an incorrect manner. The fact is, Islam in some countries today is very intolerant. This cannot be denied, nor would I ever deny it.

2. I didn't say I was "fond" of Islamic tolerance. I said if I had to choose between persecuting people who don't believe what I believe, or living in a state where I was "uncomfortable" being different. I'd opt to be "uncomfortable". I ALSO pointed out that THANKFULLY I don't have to make that choice....but at the behavior and commentary that I see in the US today, I MAY have to.

How great is it to "Live Free Or Die" if your "living free" approves of an intolerant attitude which, more or less, persecutes others or makes them feel "uncomfortable"?

I can see how far this conversation would go....because you didn't read what I posted. I know this because you didn't respond to it. You simply responded to what you PERCEIVED as an affront to your sensibilities, such as they are.

You have every right to believe the history you believe. You have every right to proclaim it as "true". But I, as an American, will defend the Constitutional rights of even those people with whom I have a disagreement, particularly against people who CLAIM to want to live free, but have no problem persecuting those they don't want to enjoy the same freedoms.

At least of the people I support the rights of do indeed turn out to be hypocrites and turncoats - I know I did the right thing. Until that point, they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

In the meantime, Mr. Live Free or Die, you might want to review my original post. I don't support the "mosque" being built. But I use rather rational and logical reasons to make my case.

This reasoning can, and should, be used to help move it. I only hope it is. The hate-mongering going on around it is absurd.

#2.1.2.1.1 Rick on 2010-09-21 16:50 (Reply)

Rick, there is no benefit in doubt.

One of me wifes use to say what yall have written about doubt but she could never answer affirmatively any benefit, there in.

How about, taking a stab at it.

#2.1.2.1.1.1 Leag on 2010-09-21 18:04 (Reply)

I am violently intolerant of anyone who would restrict my freedom be they fascist, communist, or Islamic. I could not care less what God they worship or how they do it. But use as an excuse to kill us, or destroy my way of life - not going to happen. And they are trying to do just that.

#2.1.2.1.1.2 NJSoldier on 2010-09-21 22:05 (Reply)

You want hate mongering?

"Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."
- Sura 9:29 of the Qur'an

�Islam isn�t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qu�ran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.�
�Omar Ahmed CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations) Founding Chairman

#2.1.2.1.1.3 NJSoldier on 2010-09-21 22:38 (Reply)

Now, as a Catholic (yes, I'm Catholic), I am appalled when I read of the Inquisition. It's sad that religions fall to such depths. And one can make a case that the same depths have been reached by the Islamic fundamentalists. Not only is it a case, it is the truth.
According to Wikipedia, the death toll for the Spanish Inquisition was an estimated 3,000-5000 from 1480 to 1700.
To put that in perspective, here is a passage from From Reinhart Dozy�s Spanish Islam: A History of the Muslims in Spain. page 653

QUOTE:

The Granadans then proceeded to massacre the other Jews and plunder their dwellings, about four thousand falling victims to their fanatical hatred (December 30,1066).

A day�s work for the Muslims versus two hundred years for the Spanish Inquisition. (Yes, Christians did similar stuff in Medieval Spain, but the point is still that by comparison, the Inquisition doesn't look as bad as we have been led to believe. As there hasn't been a Catholic in my family tree for 400 years +, I have no need to shill for the Church.)

Overwhelmingly, it's clear that the Muslims were fairly tolerant of others in their region - ASSUMING they were not working for the enemy AND they adhered to the laws and taxation of the land.
See the above passage.

2. The Cordoba mosque was reverted BACK to a church when the Catholic Kings took over.
Pajamas Media has an interesting article on The Cordoba House and the Myth of Cordoban �Ecumenism�. It quotes a passage from Reinhart Dozy�s book on the Muslims in Spain. It points out that according to a treaty the Muslims had signed, it should never have been a mosque in the first place. It only became a mosque because the Muslims broke the terms of the treaty they had signed. Sound familiar to students of Islamic history?

QUOTE:

All the churches in that city (Cordoba)had been destroyed except the cathedral, dedicated to Saint Vincent, but the possession of this fane (church or temple) had been guaranteed by treaty. For several years the treaty was observed; but when the population of Cordova was increased by the arrival of Syrian Arabs (i.e., Muslims), the mosques did not provide sufficient accommodation for the newcomers, and the Syrians considered it would be well for them to adopt the plan which had been carried out at Damascus, Emesa (Homs), and other towns in their own country, of appropriating half of the cathedral and using it as a mosque. The (Muslim) Government having approved of the scheme, the Christians were compelled to hand over half of the edifice. This was clearly an act of spoliation, as well as an infraction of the treaty. Some years later, Abd-er Rahman I requested the Christians to sell him the other half. This they firmly refused to do, pointing out that if they did so they would not possess a single place of worship. Abd-er Rahman, however, insisted, and a bargain was struck by which the Christians ceded their cathedral.

Those tolerant Muslims who destroy all the other churches in the city and then take over the remaining church by piecemeal, breaking the terms of the treaty they signed. SOOOO TOLERANT, oh yeah!

While you are researching, why don't you look up in Dozy's book about the Renegades, converts to Islam.

#2.2 Gringo on 2010-09-21 17:02 (Reply)

I didn't say these acts never happened.

I find it amusing that people pick and choose the portions of a discussion which they want to refute, believe it speaks for the ENTIRE discussion, and then use it as a hammer, when a surgical instrument is more useful.

I merely pointed out that the Cordoba "Mosque" is, once again, a cathedral. In other words, turnabout is fair play - they made it a mosque, and when they were removed, it became a cathedral again. I'm not sure what you read into it, but Newt seems to think (or at least implies) that it was a cathedral that was turned into a mosque and remains such - which isn't the case at all. He cited only a portion of the history in order to "make his case".

Just as you did.

I'm not saying, nor did I say, the Muslims in Andalusia were perfect. But, by and large, their history there is full of great stories of tolerance during a period in which such behavior was less common throughout the rest of Europe.

By the way, the massacre in Granada was the result of what may have been subterfuge on the part of Joseph, the vizier. It has been noted that he was working against the ruler, and if this is indeed the case, it offers a reason (although there is never a GOOD reason for this kind of behavior) for the massacre. As I pointed out, usually the people were left alone if they obeyed the laws and paid the taxes.
Should a spy or traitor be detected, the laws were unlikely to apply.

Based on some of the people I've read, regarding Islam....I'd be hard pressed to say the same thing can't happen in the US. Certainly less likely than in, say Iran or Saudi Arabia to one of us....that I'd give you. But there is alot of misunderstanding taking place regarding the relationships between Islam and the West.

Most of it is driven by Islamic fundamentalist misuse of the Koran and Wahabbist extremism. But Western ignorance plays a role, too.

#2.2.1 Rick on 2010-09-21 17:21 (Reply)

He (Newt) cited only a portion of the history in order to "make his case".Just as you did.
Pot,meet kettle.

I didn't say these acts never happened.
Very interesting that while you state that Newt �cited only a portion of the history,� you didn�t cite those acts either.

I'm not saying, nor did I say, the Muslims in Andalusia were perfect. But, by and large, their history there is full of great stories of tolerance during a period in which such behavior was less common throughout the rest of Europe.

The The Cordoba House and the Myth of Cordoban �Ecumenism� article I previously cited has something to say on the matter.
For example, the contemporary scholar J.M. Safran discusses an early codification of the rules of the marketplace (where Muslims and non-Muslims would be most likely to interact) written by al-Kinani (d. 901), a student of the Cordovan jurist Ibn Habib (d. 853) � �known as the scholar of Spain par excellence,� who was also one of the most ardent proponents of Maliki doctrine in Muslim Spain:

QUOTE:

Theproblem arises of �the Jew or Christian who is discovered trying to blend with the Muslims by not wearing the riq? [cloth patch, which might be required to have an emblem of an ape for a Jew, or a pig for a Christian] or zunn?r [belt].� Kinani�s insistence that Jews and Christians wear the distinguishing piece of cloth or belt required of them is an instance of a legally defined sartorial differentiation being reconfirmed. � His insistence may have had as much to do with concerns for ritual purity and food prohibitions as for the visible representation of social and political hierarchy, and it reinforced limits of intercommunal relations.

Let us hear about tolerant Muslim Spain and its treatment of philosophers and others less enlightened.

QUOTE:

Moreover, what Maimonides escaped in the 12th century � disguised as a Muslim � was nothing less than a full-blown Muslim Inquisition under the Muslim Almohads.
The jihad depredations of the Almohads (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on both the Jewish and Christian populations in Spain and North Africa. This devastation � massacre, captivity, and forced conversion � was described by the Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud and the poet Abraham Ibn Ezra. Suspicious of the sincerity of the Jewish converts to Islam, Muslim �inquisitors� (antedating their Christian Spanish counterparts by three centuries) removed the children from such families, placing them in the care of Muslim educators.
Ibn Aqnin (1150-1220), a renowned philosopher and commentator born in Barcelona, also fled the Almohad persecutions with his family. He escaped, like Maimonides, to Fez. Living there as a crypto-Jew, he met Maimonides, and recorded his own poignant writings about the sufferings of the Jews under Almohad rule.
Ibn Aqnin wrote during the reign of Abu Yusuf al-Mansur (r. 1184-1199), four decades after the onset of the Almohad persecutions in 1140. Thus the Jews forcibly converted to Islam were already third-generation Muslims. Despite this, al-Mansur continued to impose restrictions upon them, which Ibn Aqnin chronicles.

No doubt there was intolerance in Medieval Chistendom. But as an indication that the gap was not as large as you might claim, consider the following question. Who had the greater influence: Averroes on Christendom, or St. Thomas Aquinas on Islam? Averroes ended up in exile. So tolerant, that golden age of Islam.

Most of it is driven by Islamic fundamentalist misuse of the Koran and Wahabbist extremism. But Western ignorance plays a role, too.
I cite sources, you do not. Yet I am one of the ignorant ones. Interesting.

By the way, the massacre in Granada was the result of what may have been subterfuge on the part of Joseph, the vizier.
That is not what Dozy said. The Muslims done it for the ducats, said Dozy. You cite no source. I do. [Go to the link for Dozy's book above.] Who is the ignorant one?
The Cordoba House and the Myth of Cordoban �Ecumenism� article I previously cited has something to say on the matter.

QUOTE:

Notwithstanding Professor Bodman�s allusion, Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) was hardly just a Muslim �poet,� nor was he a paragon of ecumenism.
He was a viciously anti-Semitic Muslim theologian whose inflammatory writings helped incite the massive pogrom against the Jews of Granada which killed 4000, destroying the entire community in 1066. And Averroes � despite his �philosophical studies� � was also a traditionally bigoted Maliki jurist who rendered strong anti-infidel Sharia rulings and endorsed classical jihadism for the very same Almohads who eventually turned upon him.

Golden Age and tolerance, not as much as you are trying to tell us.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with what Pope Benedict says about Islam. I have, yet I am one of the ignorant ones. If you HAD familiarized yourself with what the Pope has said about Islam, I doubt you would have written what you did.

I merely pointed out that the Cordoba "Mosque" is, once again, a cathedral. In other words, turnabout is fair play - they made it a mosque, and when they were removed, it became a cathedral again. I'm not sure what you read into it.
What part of the following passage do you not understand?

QUOTE:

Those tolerant Muslims who destroy all the other churches in the city and then take over the remaining church by piecemeal, breaking the terms of the treaty they signed. SOOOO TOLERANT, oh yeah!

What part of that passage do you not understand? After all, you were telling us about how Muslim Spain was a tolerant golden age, doncha' know?

But history is rife with disagreements about what happened...if you've visited Spain, perhaps less dispute exists.
Sorry, tourism doesn�t equate with knowledge, especially when it is about events 700 years ago. There aren�t exactly eyewitnesses around, doncha� know.
Quiz�s hayas viajado por Andaluc�a, pero he tomado un cursillo de la Historia de Espa�a. Todav�a tengo el libro- en Castellano. He ido mas all� de �tolerencia de los Musulmanes en Espa�a.� Ya sab�a de eso hace mucho tiempo. Hay mas del cuento. Nos tratan como si fueras el sabio y somos los ignorantes. No es as�. Te lo juro.

#2.2.1.1 Gringo on 2010-09-21 21:15 (Reply)

There are wonderful stories about pre-colonial American Indians living peacefully in harmony with nature. Those stories are also bullshit.

#2.2.1.2 NJSoldier on 2010-09-21 22:21 (Reply)

QUOTE:

I'm not saying, nor did I say, the Muslims in Andalusia were perfect. But, by and large, their history there is full of great stories of tolerance during a period in which such behavior was less common throughout the rest of Europe.

You have odd ideas about what "tolerance" means.

If I'm straight and I call a homosexual a pole smoker, I'm an intolerant ass.

If I'm a muslim and I only beat a jew and not kill him, I'm tolerant.

QUOTE:

There are some anomalies, but none are overwhelming. Most are a result of misunderstandings. Contradictions in writings in the Koran (as if none exist in the Bible!!), or misinterpretations of said writings (because we in the West NEVER misread the Bible).

The difference is that most religious Christians (meaning those who go to church and study their religious text) know that the bible is the word of God written down by Men. The Koran, when in Arabic is the UNFILTERED CREATION OF ALLAH. Meaning that there ARE no contradictions. Man can still misunderstand, but the Koran is, to a devout muslim, perfect.

Muslims aren't in it for a nicer house, a nifty lawn and more gold in the Mosque. Muslims are in it to kill you and convert your women.

There is no God named Allah, and Mohammad was a pedophile.

From Dar Al Harb, which is wherever I happen to be.

#2.2.1.3 William O. B'Livion on 2010-09-22 00:41 (Reply)

Gringo,

It is called "Al-taqiyya". Muslims are permitted to lie to infidels without consequence. Lie to their face, break contracts, and ignore treaties. The Israelis figured it long ago and only negotiate with the Palestinians to humor the U.S. They know Muslims promises to Jews are worthless.

I quickly learned in the Middle East not to trust them (I really liked Allen West's solution to the problem). The Christians of Cordoba learned the hard way.

#2.2.2 NJSoldier on 2010-09-21 22:47 (Reply)

Frankly, his opening line is just plain stupid. Hard to even get to the rest of his points, some of which may be valid or not.

#3 Bomber Girl on 2010-09-21 12:43 (Reply)

Here is Newt's opening statement:
There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.

Here is Bomber Girl's assessment:

QUOTE Frankly, his opening line is just plain stupid. :

The issue is reciprocity. Saudi Arabia does not permit churches, synagogues or temples of any non-Muslim faith in its country. At the same time, it funds the construction and staffing of mosques throughout the world. The imams it funds are Wahabis, perhaps the most intolerant Muslim sect.

If Saudi Arabia did not fund the worldwide propagation of its intolerant Wahabi sect worldwide to the tune of probably billions of dollars per year, I would not care if it didn't permit churches et al inside its borders. As is, we are assenting to Wahabi Imperialism by permitting Saudi Arabia to continue on its path.

#3.1 Gringo on 2010-09-21 15:20 (Reply)

If New Yorkers decided that a mosque/cultural center may or may not be built in New York, that is for them/us to say. Arguing about "reciprocity" with the Saudis is really beyond the point. We are a free country, unlike the Saudis. I would rather determine our own path.

#3.1.1 Bomber Girl on 2010-09-21 15:38 (Reply)

I too, could care less what the Saudis do. Been there - the cites gave me the creeps. You could literally feel the hostility and oppression.

The real problem nobody will admit - Islam and Freedom and incompatible. Opposites really. But we'll be PC and pretend it isn't so.

#3.1.1.1 NJSoldier on 2010-09-21 15:59 (Reply)

Funny. They used to say that about Catholics in the US, too.
We were supposedly "controlled" by Rome, therefore of questionable character and untrustworthy.

Interesting how times change with knowledge and understanding.

#3.1.1.1.1 Rick on 2010-09-21 17:23 (Reply)

Rick, I�m sure you enjoyed the time you spent in today�s free Spain, but to get the proper perspective on your willingness to live an uncomfortable life under moslem rule, you should perhaps spend a few years living in Saudi Arabia and then report back to us.

#3.1.1.1.1.1 Chazz on 2010-09-21 18:38 (Reply)

Any cartoonists hiding from Catholics?

For some reason, Muslim First Amendment Rights at Ground Zero are sacred.

The government couldn't be bothered, however, to protect Molly Norris' First Amendment Rights in the face of Muslim violence. Just shut-up and hide.

#3.1.1.1.1.2 NJSoldier on 2010-09-22 08:35 (Reply)

Arguing about "reciprocity" with the Saudis is really beyond the point. We are a free country, unlike the Saudis. I would rather determine our own path.
How free are we when the propagator of the Muhammed Cartoon Day has to go into hiding?

So you have no problem with Wahabi imperialism? Interesting, considering how women are treated in Saudi Arabia, that you have no objection to the Saudis propagating their misogyny and bigotry here in the US, and are indifferent to their maintaining their bigotry and misogyny in their homeland. Make no mistake about it, misogyny and bogotry are embedded into the Wahabi sect of Islam. The Wahabis are doing a major job of staffing the mosques in the US, which will only increase the likelihood of home-grown terrorists. You are indifferent to that? Issues like this means that some sort or reciprocity on the part of the Saudis is not as silly as you make it out to be.

I suggest you read some Wahabi sermons. memri.org has some translated into English.

If New Yorkers decided that a mosque/cultural center may or may not be built in New York, that is for them/us to say.
From a recent poll:

QUOTE:

A new poll finds New Yorkers are conflicted about the construction of a mosque near the World Trade Center site.
The New York Times survey released Friday shows 50 percent of respondents opposed to the project, 35 percent in favor and 15 percent undecided.
Meanwhile, 62 percent said people have the right to build an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero, while 28 percent said they don't.
The project is planned for a site two blocks from ground zero.

The governing elite apparently do not agree with the electorate. What about the Greek Orthodox chuurch destroyed on 9/11 that hasn�t been rebuilt yet? Yet they want to to fast-track GZM?

#3.1.1.2 Gringo on 2010-09-21 17:31 (Reply)

Gringo - to be free does not mean to be without risk, with regard to your point about the cartoonist in hiding. And I expressed a preference for the freedom of America, rather than living under a Saudi system. If you are going to make an argument, it is helpful to stick to what is said if you want a real discussion, and not how you would like to twist someone's words. I am for respect for women (and men) in all aspects of life, including under religious systems - which, by the way, one could extend to wishing the Catholic Church would admit women as priests.

And, being a New Yorker, I am well aware of the opinions of my town and do not need Newt to tell me what we should be doing.

#3.1.1.2.1 Bomber Girl on 2010-09-21 18:46 (Reply)

My message wasn't getting through, so I will rewrite the first part.

Arguing about "reciprocity" with the Saudis is really beyond the point. We are a free country, unlike the Saudis. I would rather determine our own path.

How free are we when the propagator of the Muhammed Cartoon Day has to go into hiding? That she had to go into hiding is an indication that the Islamists have had some success in diminishing freedom in this country. As the Saudis fund Wahabi mosques and imams in this country, they bear a fair amount of credit/responsibility in the diminishment of freedom in this country.

Those who are for freedom in this country need to stand up against Wahabi imperialism to some degree . Instead, you state that �Arguing about 'reciprocity' with the Saudis is really beyond the point� as if what the Saudis have done in this country by funding mosques and imams is a silly irrelevancy to the issue. On the contrary, it is central.

Make no mistake about it, misogyny and bigotry are embedded into the Wahabi sect of Islam. The Saudi Wahabis are doing a major job of staffing the mosques in the US, which will only increase the likelihood of the growth of bigotry, misogyny, and of home-grown terrorists. Issues like this means that some sort or reciprocity on the part of the Saudis is not as silly as you make it out to be.

You have not proven to me that Newt's first sentence is "stupid."

#3.1.1.2.1.1 Gringo on 2010-09-21 19:41 (Reply)

Newt sounds like the political wheeler-dealer that he is - but instead of trading political favors in Congress he's trading our way of FREE american living and our sovereignty. "We won't do this if you don't do that" maybe worked for him in Congress. So what do you want, the Saudis say fine, we'll build a church here - then the Saudis get to say where they want to build their mosques here, anytime they like? New Yorkers decide here: if they decide to tolerate it, it will happen, because of American (and New York) support of freedom, religious liberty and the like. And if other views prevail, that too will be our choice.

#3.1.1.2.1.1.1 Bomber Girl on 2010-09-21 19:59 (Reply)

Newt sounds like the political wheeler-dealer that he is - but instead of trading political favors in Congress he's trading our way of FREE american living and our sovereignty.
I have no idea what you are talking about.

So what do you want, the Saudis say fine, we'll build a church here - then the Saudis get to say where they want to build their mosques here, anytime they like?
Point one: the Saudis would never consent to it. Newt was making a rhetorical point.
Point two: Have you not noticed that the Saudis have already been building mosques in this country "anytime they like it," before Newt Gingrich uttered a word about the GZM?

New Yorkers decide here: if they decide to tolerate it, it will happen, because of American (and New York) support of freedom, religious liberty and the like. And if other views prevail, that too will be our choice.
So those who tolerate/support the GZM support "freedom, religious liberty, and the like." Does that mean that those who do not support GZM DO NOT support "freedom, religious liberty and the like?"

And if you don't like someone from outside of NYC commenting on Gorund Zero, like Newt Gingrich, then why do you not object to a Jersey City slum lord like Imam Rauf getting involved in NYC?

I had a similar reaction that Newt had when I read the CNN interview that Imam Rauf had with Soledad O'Brien.

QUOTE:

O�BRIEN: Then why is it hard to back up and say, and now that we�ve done it, let�s undo it, let�s just say we won�t. Let�s pick another spot that�s been offered?
RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation� risk?
RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides � you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side; it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa. We have to turn this around.

There are already about 80 mosques in NYC, and two within a mile and a half of Ground Zero. According to imam Rauf, moderate Christians and Jews are for the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero, so near that body remains and plane parts from 9/11 fell on the site. There are no churches, synagogues, or temples in Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that �moderate Muslims� support the construction of a church, synagogue or temple in Saudi Arabia?

I had that reaction over a week ago. Please critique.

#3.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Gringo on 2010-09-22 00:35 (Reply)

"Does this mean that �moderate Muslims� support the construction of a church, synagogue or temple in Saudi Arabia?

I had that reaction over a week ago. Please critique."

I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself. I live in a diverse, opinionated, multi-cultural/multi-faith (incl. atheists), freedom-loving city which became that way because of historical circumstance and, eventually, the realization that this is something the city itself takes pride in and cultivates.

The city was wounded by a terrorist attack and the healing has been slow - particularly since we don't even have our own memorial site finished yet which makes the proposed mosque even harder to swallow (although we cannot blame "oustiders" for our own slow pace). As the polls show, New Yorkers are understandably conflicted about it. But you (and Newt) seem stuck on the reciprocity issue.

Perhaps we should build a monument to New York in Saudi then.

(sorry, I'd write more but work calls and my NYC commute beckons).

#3.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Bomber Girl on 2010-09-22 07:07 (Reply)

You write that sanctimonious pile of shit and then say, "

#4 ccoffer on 2010-09-21 12:44 (Reply)

The first sentence is patently incorrect. America is special because it is different from other countries. One difference is that we value freedom to the point that we know we must be brave enough to allow others their freedom.

Don't get me wrong; I don't like the idea of the mosque any more than others but, if we are to stick to the principles on which this country is based then our government(s) cannot legally prohibit a mosque simply because it is a mosque.

#5 Michael R. Kesti on 2010-09-21 13:03 (Reply)

Howdy friends
Most public statements opposing the Cordoba Center start by acknowledging the lawful right of the property owners to put a mosque there. I doubt anyone is seriously disputing the legal question.
I would welcome the Cordoba Center, without demanding churches in Saudi Arabia, IF --
Ahmadinejad would quit saying he intends to destroy the US and our lackey Israel AND
It's been at least five or ten years since Islamists had tried to bomb or shoot Americans AND
If I believed the mosque's builders meant it as a reconciliation rather than a triumphalist monument.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for those conditions to happen. The mosque may get built at that spot as the triumphalist insult I think it is but I hope it won't be.

#6 Geoff Brown on 2010-09-21 14:15 (Reply)

Americans are taking fire from Muslims daily, Geoff.

Where's yall's head buried?

Mosques are traditionally arms caches for jiihadis and jummah prayers are time for group indoctrination in the politics of Islam.

Americans need give no support for any mosjid on US soil for Muhammadan's world vision is for the domination of the earth's peoples by Islam's devilah and the false prophet Muhammad.

Hell pines for Muslims and their dhimmi's, alike.

#6.1 Leag on 2010-09-21 16:35 (Reply)

Rick ... You've been suckered by the so-called 'intellectual elite' into shifting the ground on this argument about whether the Ground Zero Mosque should be built. You seem to say that our belief in free speech and religious freedom should be pre-eminent in this discussion.

No one is arguing that Muslims should not build mosques in our country, Rick. We have more than 2000 of them throughout our country already. The discussion is that this mosque should not be built in this place, on the doorstep of the World Trade Center, on soil which still contains some of the bones and flesh of more than 3000 innocent folks who worked in the Center, and in a location which most Americans consider sacred ground dedicated to their memory. It is thoughtless, inconsiderate and tasteless in the extreme for the Muslims planning this project to do so, especially when there is already a mosque within two blocks of their chosen site, and there are more than 2000 mosques in our country already. What the Ground Zero Mosque would be is a 'Gotcha' signal to Muslims around the world, reminding every practicing Muslim that Islam is powerful and will conquer the rest of the world with fire and sword -- and the usual beheadings and stonings to death, and attendant cruelties.

The forces of the West stopped the northward surge of Islam at Tours, France in 732 A.D.. Maybe we'll just have to do it again.

Marianne

#7 Marianne Matthews on 2010-09-21 15:02 (Reply)

"It is thoughtless, inconsiderate and tasteless in the extreme for the Muslims planning this project to do so {build here}"...

Agreed, especially considering the fact that these peace-loving, bridge-building, tolerance-demanding Muslims have no problem declaring that THEY require tolerance and accommodation for their "sensitivities" from us; yet they seem quite reluctant to afford US tolerance, or accommodation for OUR sensitivities, in return.

These peaceful, tolerant, bridge-building imams need to pull their heads out of their intransigent mind-set and look objectively at the big picture: If they want to win hearts and minds for Islam, they need to --voluntarily and with goodwill-- abandon plans for what many Americans see as a Victory Mosque located within the debris field of the attacks that Islamic extremists perpetrated upon our nation on 9-11-2001.

And, if these folks PERSIST in their demands to build their facility RIGHT THERE -- AT THE EDGE OF GROUND ZERO, a rational American might come to the conclusion that tolerance and understanding, sympathy to American sensitivities and bridge-building between "Abrahamic faiths" have nothing at all to do with what the building is, and why they want it built upon this exact spot.

#7.1 A_Nonny_Mouse on 2010-09-21 16:40 (Reply)

Take a glimpse into the evil of the Muhmmadan thralled mind.

Feisal Abdul Rauf says he must build at Park 51 for the protection of American's who'd be in "danger from the radicals in the Muslim world to our national security."

These bastards expect us to take them serious.

"If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse," Rauf told CNN. "The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.

"There is a certain anger here [in America], no doubt," he said later in the interview. "But if we don't do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world. If we don't do things correctly, this crisis could become much bigger than the Danish cartoon crisis [over images depicting the Prophet Mohammed], which resulted in attacks on Danish embassies in various parts of the Muslim world. And we have a much bigger footprint in the Muslim world."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ground-mosque-imam-project-ahead-interest-national-security/story?id=11589316

I liked the way President Bush use to say, "Bring it on."

It's time for a boot up the arse of Islamists from USA's big footprint.

The bastards need to go back where they came from.

#7.1.1 Leag on 2010-09-21 18:54 (Reply)

I have been "suckered" by nobody.

You, however, may have been. Why? Because, as I pointed out in another reply, I am opposed to the mosque being built on this site. It is as plain as the nose on your face if you read my original post.

The ONLY point I make is that the reasoning behind it should be logical and not invoke hatred, as Newt Gingrich tried.

We have many people here in the US who claim to be "tolerant" but when it comes to Islam, they would be more than happy to "return the favor for 9/11" upon ANY Muslim - regardless of whether they were jihadists or not. This is bad behavior, it's poor logic and it's improper in the extreme.

I agree with you on the reasons for NOT building the mosque on this site. But let's be honest about the reasons and not give the opposition more reasons to hate us.

As Winston Churchill said, "it is better to jaw-jaw than it is to war-war".
Churchill, like me, would stand down to no man - but knew better than most that there are diplomatic ways to solve a problem while remaining firm in one's convictions.

I don't want the mosque. But I wouldn't walk into the negotiations and proclaim "you're not getting a victory plaque here". That's a losing argument from the open. I've been in Sales for 25 years and I know a losing argument when I see it.

On the other hand, using their own logic against them creates an opening to force their hand. IF INDEED this is an intercultural outreach, then acquiescing to the sensibilities of those who had friends and family die at the site would be both reasonable and logical.
IF this isn't a point of discussion, then the ante can be raised....but too many people have entered this discussion with an "All In" open. Again - absurd in the extreme.

Defeating the opposition without violence always requires an understanding of what drives them, and undermining their discussion points. But backing them into a corner will always lead to violence, hatred, and retribution.

#7.2 Rick on 2010-09-21 17:01 (Reply)

Mosques? Mosques? Mosques? We don't need no stinkin mosques. If they build it, it can be brought down.

#8 Cilla Mitchell, Galveston Texas (Link) on 2010-09-21 16:31 (Reply)

Yall go girl!

Burn a koran for the peace of God's people.

#8.1 Leag on 2010-09-21 17:06 (Reply)

Newt is raising an argument that has no legs.

What the Saudis do in their country is their business but they need to be turned away at America's shores.

Newt shows himself an idiot but that 's expected.

One of the arguments meself has heard from folks on the Muhammadan side is the building proposed is not a masjid but a cultural center where Muhammadans will help folks from all religious persuasion come together for mutual understanding.

Now, in Islam the best of those who understand will demand submission from all to the Muhammad and his devilah by order of koran.

Me thinks Newt should get himself to jummah prayers and see how these barbarians behave in their own element.

Then he may get over his Saudi argument and resist the building Park51 Islamic cultural center for what it is, an aggressive anti-American political indoctrination center.

Best thing America can do for the Saudi's is to show that we may be intolerant of their evil irreligion, and proudly so, on free soil.

#9 Leag on 2010-09-21 17:02 (Reply)

Jack,

Most of your misunderstanding of Christians, and their Bible, come from your being Chatholic. You do not have the same beliefs as a Christian.

How dare I say this? Start with when you state that you are a " religious" person who believes in the "basic ethics".

It was Saint John who said, "you are either a child of God, or a child of the devil". Note the quote marks.

You can not be basically religious. You either are or are not.

Decide.

Jr

#10 Jack Reacher on 2010-09-21 18:22 (Reply)

I am a bad /naughty child of God.
I would like to see this Muslim problem solved the way John Pershing solved it in the Philippines in 1911.

#10.1 jappy on 2010-09-21 18:54 (Reply)

Jr me thinks, yall need to get yall's self saved and start reading an unabridged Bible.

Take yall's time and get know God 's family.

#10.2 Leag on 2010-09-21 19:33 (Reply)

The WTC site will probably remain as is, or be restored to rubble more likely, as a sign of submission to the Khaliphate.

#11 J.T. Wenting on 2010-09-21 22:53 (Reply)

Folks, this is a war memorial to the 19 ghazis who demolished the American temple to Capitalism. A war memorial in which will be heard "Allahu Akbar", from Ahmadinejad's lips in days to come, as they were heard from the hijackers in days past. Talk about the weak horse and the strong horse! Sheesh. I beg you to reconsider, Rick and Bomber Girl, et al.

Consider the words of our former president, John Quincy Adams:

"Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man�s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus"

Time for some clarity!

#12 DennisC on 2010-09-22 00:30 (Reply)

If the mosque is built, vandalism (or the security to prevent it) is going to be a major expense for a long, long time.

#13 John on 2010-09-22 08:01 (Reply)

If Muslims want to build a mosque or "not a mosque" and call it whatever they want, so what? What is everyone afraid of? This is still America, unless its been taken over by crybabies. If someone, anyone commits treason or some such crime, then by all means prosecute them. Otherwise, its none of our business. The whole controversy makes me ashamed of the stupidity and immaturity of Americans.

#14 Peter Pitchford on 2010-09-22 17:23 (Reply)

The whole controversy makes me ashamed of the stupidity and immaturity of Americans.
You therefore consider about 70% of the US to be stupid and immature. Your attitude shows why I am glad to have left the liberal fold.

I will repeat a question I previously asked.From a CNN interview with Imam Rauf.

QUOTE:

O�BRIEN: Then why is it hard to back up and say, and now that we�ve done it, let�s undo it, let�s just say we won�t. Let�s pick another spot that�s been offered?
RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation� risk?
RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides � you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side; it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa. We have to turn this around.

There are already about 80 mosques in NYC, and two within a mile and a half of Ground Zero. According to imam Rauf, moderate Christians and Jews are for the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero, so near that body remains and plane parts from 9/11 fell on the site. There are no churches, synagogues, or temples in Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that �moderate Muslims� support the construction of a church, synagogue or temple in Saudi Arabia?

#14.1 Gringo on 2010-09-22 17:52 (Reply)

"so near that body remains and plane parts from 9/11 fell on the site. " Again, so what? And what in the world does not having " churches, synagogues, or temples in Saudi Arabia" have to do with it? That seems like the most easily dismissed argument you could possibly make.

Yes, I think I do consider at least 70% of the US to be stupid and immature. That was my point. If it was just %30 I wouldn't feel so ashamed.

#15 Peter Pitchford on 2010-09-22 18:10 (Reply)

Let�s start breaking it down for you. In his CNN interview with Soledad O�Brien, Imam Rauf said the following:

QUOTE:

And those of us who are moderates on both sides � you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides.

I take it that you are one of those moderates. What is your opinion of that statement? Do you agree with it?

#15.1 Gringo on 2010-09-22 19:48 (Reply)

IF one spends any time with Muhammadans, one is acquainted with attitude that there are no moderate muslims.

Turkey's Priminister Erdogan expressed it well;

�These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that�s it.�

Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/09/turkeys-pm-erdogan-the-term-moderate-islam-is-ugly-and-offensive----islam-is-islam.html

That Raul Identifies himself as moderate is typical Muhammadan deception addressing people considered inferior.

Lying is an honorable Islamic virtue when in enemy territory and seeking to deceive.

It's basic Islamic strategy even young kids and Hussien0 know.

#15.1.1 Leag on 2010-09-23 13:29 (Reply)

Its just nonsense. Agree or disagree, you've bought into the premise that the whole idea of a "battle front" is somehow rational. There are idiots who are always battling, but they exist on both accounts, so there is no "front". So it is nonsense to say that the "battle front" is either between Muslims and non Muslims, or between moderates and radicals. Its a concept invented by arms dealers and cult leaders.

#16 Peter Pitchford on 2010-09-22 21:20 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, September 21. 2010

Newt on the Cordoba House