Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[BeAChooser]

Actually, Abd ar-Rahman bought the former Visigothic church that he built the Great Mosque of Cordoba on. As in, paid money to the owners for the property. 100,000 dinars, in fact.

When the Muslims first took over the region in 711, the church wasn't purchased but the building was still divided into two equal parts … one part for Muslims and one part for Christians. I seriously doubt that was something the Christians wanted to do . It wasn't until 784 that the entire church was razed and the new Mosque was built.

Do you know what the term "expropriate" means, ANTPogo?

http://www.answers.com/topic/expropriate "To deprive of possession: expropriated the property owners who lived in the path of the new highway."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expropriation "the act of expropriating or the state of being expropriated; specifically : the action of the state in taking or modifying the property rights of an individual in the exercise of its sovereignty"

In expropriation, the owner of the property is given no choice as to whether to give up the property. It's a FORCED exchange of title. Now in those situations, the state SOMETIMES *buys* the property at what the state considers fair value. But that's often less than the true value. In any case, it's still a FORCED *sale* … because its an "expropriation".

The website you linked states (in not very good English) this:

http://www.artencordoba.co.uk/MOSQUE-CATHEDRAL/Mosque-Cathedral-Cordoba-Basilica-Saint-Vicente.html

Some storys of Ibn Idari (XIII - XIV Century) and to the -Maggari (XVII Century) tell that the Muslims, after their occupation, adopted the same position of the Mosque is Damascus (Syria) in the past.

This means that they expropriated to the christians half of the churches they had.

Ibn Idari tells that it situated in the "Medina of Cordoba" and its name was "Sant Binyant" or the same things, San Vicente"

This source states

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ahman&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

In written sources, Muslim historians make mention of "expropriation of half the church for Muslim works." Once the number of Muslims in the city of Cordoba increased, half of the church was no longer sufficient space to house all those who came to day prayers. … snip … It was not until the ascent of Abd a-Raismm I … snip … that the situation was alleviated. He proposed buying the church … snip … but they did not agree to the deal until he allowed them to rebuild the churches outside the city that the Muslims had demolished.

We learn two things from that. That half the Church Of St Vincent was originally expropriated (seemingly without recompense) and the other half was later bought in large part by allowing Christians to rebuild churches that the Muslims had previously destroyed. What a deal.

Reinhart Dozy's book "Spanish Islam: A History of the Muslims in Spain" states that (http://www.getreligion.org/?p=41532 ):

All the churches in that city had been destroyed except the cathedral, dedicated to S. Vincent, but the possession of this fane had been guaranteed to the Christians by treaty. For several years the treaty was observed; but when the population of Cordoba was increased by the arrival of Syrian Arabs, the mosques did not provide sufficient accommodation for the new-comers, and the Syrians considered that it would be well for them to adopt the plan which had been carried out at Damascus, Emesa, and other towns in their own country, of appropriating half of the cathedral and using it as a mosque. The 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 for a hundred thousand dinars, but obtained permission to rebuild the churches which had been destroyed. ‘Abd-er-Rahman on this occasion acted equitably, but such was not always the case …

Other treaties were modified, or abrogated, quite arbitrarily, so that in the ninth century scarcely any traces of them remained. Further, the Moslem divines taught that the Government ought to manifest its zeal for religion by raising the assessment of the tribute exacted from the Christians, and so many extraordinary imposts were levied upon them that in the ninth century the Christians in many cities, including Cordova, were ruined or impoverished (on one occasion, a special contributon of 100,000 dinars was levied on the Cordovan Christians). In other words, that happened in Spain which happened in every other country conquered by the Arabs; their rule, at first mild and humane, degenerated into intolerable despotism.

And by the way, nearly half of all churches and chapels in Spain were destroyed by the Muslims, with many of the clergy and nuns killed in the process. So don't try and give folks the idea that Muslims were going around Spain treating Christians fairly.

And regardless of how the land for the Great Mosque of Cordoba was obtained, it was still built to commemorate the conquest of Christian Spain by Muslims. It was a thumb in the eyes of Christians, not a symbol of common purpose and unity between Muslims, Christians and Jews. If that had been their intent, they'd have left much of the structure in the hands of Christians and maybe even given some to the Jews.

 

[BeAChooser]

Half the cathedrals in southern Spain are built on top of former mosques. If you climb to the top of the bell tower in the Catedral de Sevilla you can tell exactly where the minaret was lopped off and the bell tower put in.

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

The builders of the cathedral decided in July 1401 to build a new temple, as the ancient Muslim mosque was in bad shape after the 1356 earthquake. … snip …

It turns out that much of the original mosque collapsed in 1356. So rebuilding it as a church in a Christian city isn't all that surprising. However, in 1248, when the Christians re-conquered Seville, the mosque became a cathedral. So it seems that the religious tolerance practiced by Muslims on Christian in al-Andalus was returned.

And by the way, do you know why a minaret was added to the original mosque in the first place? To commemorate a Muslim attack on the Christian stronghold of Santarem in 1184.

 

[Biscuit]

Because of what Abd ar-Rahman I did in the 7th century it is offensive for a muslim community center to be built 2 blocks from where the twin towers stood. Yea that makes sense.

This has to be the most pathetic attack on the community center yet.

 

[Cleon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seville_CathedralSo it seems that the religious tolerance practiced by Muslims on Christian in al-Andalus was returned.

Christians and Jews did much better in Al-Andalus than Jews and Muslims did when the Christians came back in.

So whatever point you think you're making is...Well, wrong.

 

[BeAChooser]

Christians and Jews did much better in Al-Andalus than Jews and Muslims did when the Christians came back in.

I didn't suggest otherwise. But Christianity underwent a reformation in the 1500s. The Muslims have yet to undergo their reformation. Which is one reason why Christian dominated countries are now a lot more tolerant than Muslim controlled countries. Perhaps Islam should undergo reformation before it attempts to build Mosques near the site of their latest "victory"?

 

[A'isha]

Do you know what the term "expropriate" means, ANTPogo?

Yes, it means that as the ruler of Cordoba at the time, er-Rahman could have just taken the entire cathedral over without paying for the property or giving anything back to the Christians. He chose not to do that, instead doing something that no Christian ruler had done in Muslim territory.

We learn two things from that. That half the Church Of St Vincent was originally expropriated (seemingly without recompense) and the other half was later bought in large part by allowing Christians to rebuild churches that the Muslims had previously destroyed. What a deal.

For 784 AD, it was, actually.

And by the way, nearly half of all churches and chapels in Spain were destroyed by the Muslims, with many of the clergy and nuns killed in the process. So don't try and give folks the idea that Muslims were going around Spain treating Christians fairly.

Again, for 784, that was remarkably fair and even-handed. This was the same period where, in Christian Europe, Charlemagne was forcibly converting the pagan Saxons (in 785, for example, after years of war over Charlemagne's conversion-by-the-sword policy, the Saxon leader Widukind finally surrendered and agreed to become Christian if Charlemagne agreed that no bodily harm would come to him).

As your own citation notes, Dozy also said

In some respects the Arab conquest was even a benefit to Spain; for it brought about an important social revolution, and put an end to many evils under which the country had groaned for centuries.

And while that page quotes Dozy as saying:

Religion, for instance, was free, but the Church was not: she was on the contrary subjected to shameful and grievous servitude.

The rest of the passage makes it clear that the institution of the Catholic Church was affected, but not the Christian worshippers. The right of summoning Councils and appointing Bishops, for instance, was taken from the Church and given over to the Muslim rulers. But they still appointed Bishops and summoned Councils (the latter containing, Dozy notes, not just Christians, but Muslims and Jews, making them far more interfaith than any Church-summoned Council since...well, ever).

 

[Cleon]

But Christianity underwent a reformation in the 1500s. The Muslims have yet to undergo their reformation. Which is one reason why Christian dominated countries are now a lot more tolerant than Muslim controlled countries. Perhaps Islam should undergo reformation before it attempts to build Mosques near the site of their latest "victory"?

Well, this is stupid for a number of reasons.

The Protestant Reformation had nothing to do with tolerance.
"Islam" is not a monolithic entity.
"Islam" does not build mosques.
"Islam" doesn't claim 9/11 as a "victory."
The entire notion of Park51 as a "victory" symbol is completely at odds with reality.

 

[A'isha]

So it seems that the religious tolerance practiced by Muslims on Christian in al-Andalus was returned.

Really, now?

Can you, BAC, please tell us how many Christian churches and worshippers, and Jewish synagogues and worshippers, there were in the area during Muslim domination, and how many Muslim mosques and worshippers and Jewish synagogues and worshippers there were in the same are after the Reconquista?

 

[Brainster]

yes. those of us who stand up against intolerance and bigotry directed against Muslim-Americans, are the real haters here.

Good, you are making progress. Acknowledging your hatred is a first step.

those of us who want the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to be respected without regard to religion or stereotypes, are the true haters here.

You are no first amendment absolutist. Remember when I asked you if you'd oppose the mosque if it was being built by a radical wahabbist as a tribute to Osama, you said yes, you would oppose it then. So stop hiding behind the fig leaves.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yes, it means that as the ruler of Cordoba at the time, er-Rahman could have just taken the entire cathedral over without paying for the property or giving anything back to the Christians.

No, that is not what expropriate means. When the government, for example, condemns a house to build a freeway and pays the owner for the house, they expropriate that house. Expropriation is a matter of whether the owner has a choice, not whether the owner is paid or not.

The rest of the passage makes it clear that the institution of the Catholic Church was affected, but not the Christian worshippers.

Well if that's the standard you wish to use, then clearly Muslims do not need this new Mosque to worship their religion.

 

[Thunder]

Remember when I asked you if you'd oppose the mosque if it was being built by a radical wahabbist as a tribute to Osama, you said yes, you would oppose it then.

such a mosque would likely have some terrorist connections, which would make it illegal to be built.

there is nothing against the Constitution about opposing our enemies. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

but if you are law abiding, and have no criminal connections, the Constitution is your friend.

to date, the only unsavery connections the Cordoba folks have, is to a co-owner of Fox News.

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

 

[A'isha]

No, that is not what expropriate means. When the government, for example, condemns a house to build a freeway and pays the owner for the house, they expropriate that house. Expropriation is a matter of whether the owner has a choice, not whether the owner is paid or not.

Yes. And as I said, er-Rahman could have taken the whole Cathedral without paying a single dime (or the historically-appropriate equivalent). He instead both paid for the property and agreed to let churches be rebuilt around the city when he didn't have to at all.

Why do you think he did all that when he didn't have to, BAC? Was he just dumb that way?

Well if that's the standard you wish to use, then clearly Muslims do not need this new Mosque to worship their religion.

And if the modern American First Amendment guarantees and the policies and laws of medieval Muslim Spain were at all comparable in that regard, you might have a sliver of a point.

Since they don't, you once again are talking complete and utter nonsense.

 

[BeAChooser]

The Protestant Reformation had nothing to do with tolerance.

WRONG. It had everything to do with tolerance. Religious tolerance had to be learned and that's what the reformation eventually led to ... have you not heard of the Edict of Nantes in 1598?

 

[Thunder]

Martin Luther. Protestant Reformer. on the Jews:

"First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.

Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.

Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.

Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more.."

Jan Huss. Bohemian Protestant Reformer. Gave Jews the option of converting to Christianity, or being burned at the stake.

John Calvin. Protestant reformer:

" Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone."

Tolerance my butt.

http://www.yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm

 

[Cleon]

WRONG. It had everything to do with tolerance. Religious tolerance had to be learned and that's what the reformation eventually led to ... have you not heard of the Edict of Nantes in 1598?

This is nonsensical.

The Edict was not the cause or underlying basis of the reformation, and came at the end in order to keep Protestants and Catholics - for a short period, anyway - from killing each other. And this leads you to conclude that the Reformation was all about tolerance?

This is a derail, and I'm just going to stop commenting on the subject - it's yet another issue where your estimation of your expertise is inversely proportional to your actual expertise.

 

[hgc]

This is nonsensical.

The Edict was not the cause or underlying basis of the reformation, and came at the end in order to keep Protestants and Catholics - for a short period, anyway - from killing each other. And this leads you to conclude that the Reformation was all about tolerance?

This is a derail, and I'm just going to stop commenting on the subject - it's yet another issue where your estimation of your expertise is inversely proportional to your actual expertise.

Right? I've been gobsmacked reading this nonsense from BaC about how Christian reformation was about tolerance. You don't have to know much at all about European history to know that various Protestant regimes were just as viciously repressive to non-adherents as the ones affiliated with the RCC.

Of course there were times and places where some pluralism was allowed, most notably Amsterdam, where many Iberian Jews found refuge and found a small degree of freedom.

Real pluralism in Europe came about after the replacement of theocracy with something akin to secular rule.

 

[funk de fino]

It's amazing how much twisted nonsesne the bigots have to post here rather than man up and admit their faults.

If there is one thing worse than a bigot it's a cowardly lying bigot.

I'll ask this again:- What if it was a group of Saudi business men who were planning to build a Gold Souk? Would the opponents still be bumping their gums?

 

[The Painter]

I've changed my position on the mosque. I say we give them the top 10 floors of the new tower being built.

 

[Thunder]

I've changed my position on the mosque. I say we give them the top 10 floors of the new tower being built.

that's not very nice.

what is soo evil about them that you wish the building is hit by a plane and the Cordoba folks die in a collapse?

 

[Cicero]

As far as I know, no mosque is going to be built at Ground Zero. Do you have a source for this claim?

Did you hear about American Airlines Flight 11 that crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower, and then United Airlines Flight 175 which hit the South Tower on September 11, 2001?

Pieces of the landing gear from United Airlines Flight 175 crashed through the roof of the then Burlington Coat Factory 45 Park Place New York City NY.

Now just for your edification, the former Burlington Coat Factory location is where the owners wish to build their Ground Zero mosque.