Printable View
Look again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
The historical case is now. And you know just as well as I do that in the interpretation of the Islam there is a chronology where the latest always predates the former, so the peaceful Mohammed of Mecca is not the same person as the warlord of Medina. You know that.
@Andres, are we talking about a different mosque?
Yeah, because putting the number "51" in the name will get rid of the conspiracy theorists. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
The problem is that we then shouldn't defend the modern political use of "taqiyyah" as having existed within the Islamic world for centuries.Quote:
Look again.
The historical case is now.
I don't know exactly what you meant with your first statement. About the position of Muhammed; I cannot defend his sometimes illogical and inconsequential actions in any way, but what may be important to keep in mind is that Muslims do not revere Muhammed like (most) Christians revere Jesus as being (a part of) God or how Buddhists revere the Buddha.Quote:
And you know just as well as I do that in the interpretation of the Islam there is a chronology where the latest always predates the former, so the peaceful Mohammed of Mecca is not the same person as the warlord of Medina. You know that.
Muhammed is dead, however. He has been for quite some time.
It's simple, there is a hierarchy of importance, and that is it's chronology, the latter is always more important than the former depending on when it's said. So whatever what was said in Mecca, doesn't count for what is said in Medina.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I don't like the idea of a mosque near Ground Zero. Neither I, nor the government of NYC however, have a right to stop this project unless and until it can be demonstrated that this construction would create a "clear and present danger" to the population of NYC. Urinating on my sensibilities does not constitute such a danger. I am, however, very much of a mind with Don C on this one. While they may have the right to do this, I do not believe that they should do this -- or at least not yet. I do not and cannot completely subverty my emotional response to this issue -- as ACIN would have me do -- nor do I want to do so. My emotions are every bit as much a part of me as are my logical thoughts on an issue.
The larger concern, for me, is what to do with radical Islamists? Killing them is, at best, only a stop-gap answer, because the idea/set of interpretations that beget these fringers doesn't die with them.
Moreover, why are there so many of these fringers as a percentage of their faith group. one source I read suggested that as many as 15% of the followers of the prophet subscribe to the more radical versions such as Wahabism. What gives? I am well aware that Christianity too has its dangerous extremists -- see this note -- but they are a far smaller percentage and are marginalized as the fruitbats they are. Why is Islam not able to accomplish the same?
I would be far more sanguine if I had faith that THAT was the goal of this mosque's teachings. That would be a worthy project -- and would help us build a better future.
@Naysayers:
I'm quite possibly naive, but to me this Mosque is all about a community which wants to upgrade -and in addition build a little “interfaith” extension, whatever that may be- into their complex: they have already provided the reason why. They want it and it is their property and their money and by the constitution of the USA and the laws and values of NYC also their right. It is up to those who do *not* want it to provide reasons so compelling as to why not that it should overturn what is otherwise an unquestionable right in the USA and NYC in particular.
Such a powerful counter argument which explains your sentiment should be much stronger than “I find it in poor taste”. Or that it is maybe, if you do go by disputed and highly specific theological concepts really a big phallus. Or that it is if you look at history 500 years past or something similar. One reason why I think those why-nots are so flimsy is that an argument against such a right is in itself an argument against the codified beliefs of “freedom of religion”, “freedom of expression”, “freedom to do with your own property what the heck you want” and is pretty much incompatible with all of modern “Western” culture and thought, and that of the USA in particular. Arguments about complex theological concepts or taste or history are not at all that relevant, I think (and also somewhat devoid of real substance if you are going to make claims that Islam is inherently incompatible with Western society based on attributes that were/are part of same Western society for as long as there have been Westerners anyway).
That's understandable. But keep in mind that putting aside emotions when regarding a decision that affects not just you but many others is not in any sense removing a part of yourself but allowing yourself to integrate with and think as the larger whole so as to make the best decision for that entity. That is whom this particular issue challenges, the whole of the nation and not any individual person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I use my emotions every day when I am determining my own path toward success or failure, but I would never compromise others by injecting my pure individuality in a situation that deals with punishment or lenience toward other human beings. That's how you get activist judges who rewrite years of precedent in one ruling whether it be conservative or liberal, that's how you get internment camps created on the fear and prejudice of a single group of people simply because we are at war with their distant cousins.
I understand if you have been personally affected by 9/11. I don't know if I would be able to put aside emotion if I had the same experience as Don has. But that is why I said, there is too much emotion and ignorance in this issue for anyone to give a logical answer in the first place.
To me, being opposed to this makes about as much sense as being outraged over a Catholic hospital being built 2 blocks from a school. I mean, how dare they build a monument to child molestation on the very site of the place where we send our children to learn?
I find it a disturbing line of thinking. Imagine yourself a moderate American muslim and you're attending an overcrowded center in Tribeca and your organization wants to rehabilitate existing property for the use of your faith community. How do you react when you see people screaming that terrorists are building a monument celebrating 9/11 at Ground Zero?
What are you saying about the rank and file muslim Americans with statements like this? How well does this fit the meme peddled by anti-American terrorists of an America that hates Islam? People should know that I have no qualms about taking unpopular positions- but this is senseless. :no:
The problem with reasonable people is that they expect others to be reasonable as well, they can't imagine that someone is hostile towards them.
I disagree, if you are a reasonable person, you would understand that some people are unreasonable and like me would see where someone is coming from in terms of their hostility (AKA friend/family member died in 9/11).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If you mean that I am being unreasonable, nope didn't lose anyone and I get along perfectly fine with the muslims. Like most people, that's the problem. Things aren't always what they appear to be, what you want this mosque to be is a good example of that. Why isn't anyone asking the obvious question 'if they understand that it is sensitive and could harm relations, why build it there it is counterproductive'. Maybe that is not why it's being build?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I wasn't saying anything about you. I was just disagreeing on the ignorance of the "reasonable" man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I think that you have this a bit wrong, some Muslims certainly do revere Muhammed, they won't even have any images of him. On the other hand, Christians generally worship Jesus as interchangable with God. How Buddhists feel about the Buddha, I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Whether there should be a Mosque at Ground Zero, I think probably not. Ultimately, all Muslims seek to establish the House of Islam, so it is therefore in extremely bad taste for Muslims to build visable places of worship to help extend the House of Islam within sight of places where other Muslims have killed thousands in pursuit of the same goal. The fact that the two Islamic creeds have different methods doesn't change the fact they have the same objectives.
If Christian Fundamentalists detonated bombs to destroy the Dome of the Rock, no Anglican would try to build a Church within two blocks.
To be honest, the fact that it is forbidden to portray Muhammad (and certainly not just him, it's restricted to make images of any Prophet) is due to the fear that the image will become more important and thus people will fall into idolatry. It's comparable to the generally plain reformist churches. Here in the Netherlands, at least. As for his divine status; there is none. He was simply human, and that's it. He is not interchangable with God as Jesus is in most (!) Christian sects.Quote:
I think that you have this a bit wrong, some Muslims certainly do revere Muhammed, they won't even have any images of him. On the other hand, Christians generally worship Jesus as interchangable with God. How Buddhists feel about the Buddha, I have no idea.
Kinda depends on the school, fell into my own trap there, heh. The oldest surviving school, Theravada, regards Siddharta Gautama as simply being human, with no supreme abilities or stuff. The newer school, Mahayana, regards some Buddha's (especially Mahavairocana Buddha) as possessing powers akin to that of the Judeo-Christian God. Generally, the historical Buddha is just revered as teacher. A great (subjectively the best) teacher at that, but still human and all people can become that teacher.Quote:
How Buddhists feel about the Buddha, I have no idea.
I don't think that the concept of Dar-al-Islam is pursued by the great majority of Muslims nowadays. Perhaps some of the fringe lunatics still harken back to Ye Olde Days, but I've seen no such desire within the Muslim community. If I'm mistaken, we're at a great loss, but Dar-al-Islam relied on the concept of the Muslim world being more civilised than the other worlds (during its time, perhaps was justified), but don't forget that the Muslims never (repeatedly) tried to invade China or western Europe. Edward Gibbon suggests some sort of proto-Clash of Civilisations after which all of western Europe would have been converted to Islam, but it's something of an unrealistic image, and unsustainable at that one (to the invaders). The invasion of France was never a war of annexation, it was a major raid.Quote:
Ultimately, all Muslims seek to establish the House of Islam, so it is therefore in extremely bad taste for Muslims to build visable places of worship to help extend the House of Islam within sight of places where other Muslims have killed thousands in pursuit of the same goal. The fact that the two Islamic creeds have different methods doesn't change the fact they have the same objectives.
EDIT: You know, it's happening in South Korea right now. Religious violence is not restricted to Islam; both Christianity and Buddhism also have their problems, it depends on where you're looking.Quote:
If Christian Fundamentalists detonated bombs to destroy the Dome of the Rock, no Anglican would try to build a Church within two blocks.
[QUOTE=Hax;2531729]To be honest, the fact that it is forbidden to portray Muhammad (and certainly not just him, it's restricted to make images of any Prophet) is due to the fear that the image will become more important and thus people will fall into idolatry. It's comparable to the generally plain reformist churches. Here in the Netherlands, at least. As for his divine status; there is none. He was simply human, and that's it. He is not interchangable with God as Jesus is in most (!) Christian sects.[quote]
You are not understanding my use of language, "reverence", is not the same as "worship" in Christian thought. I said nothing about Muhammed having "divine" status but he is generally agreed to have divine sanction, he is seen as an effective conduit between Man and God for the passage of information. Jesus is a conduit for communion with God, he provides his followers effective direct access.
OK, not something I see as hugely relevant right now.Quote:
Kinda depends on the school, fell into my own trap there, heh. The oldest surviving school, Theravada, regards Siddharta Gautama as simply being human, with no supreme abilities or stuff. The newer school, Mahayana, regards some Buddha's (especially Mahavairocana Buddha) as possessing powers akin to that of the Judeo-Christian God. Generally, the historical Buddha is just revered as teacher. A great (subjectively the best) teacher at that, but still human and all people can become that teacher.
Uh-hum. Every part of the House of Islam is conquered land, the push up through Spain, and the push past Canstantinople into the Balkans gives the lie to what you say. The borders of the Islamic world are mostly geographical-military choke points, and in every case they have been pushed back from their previous frontiers by Christian Armies. Roland, Pepin the Fat, Carlos Magnus and El Cid dissagree with you.Quote:
I don't think that the concept of Dar-al-Islam is pursued by the great majority of Muslims nowadays. Perhaps some of the fringe lunatics still harken back to Ye Olde Days, but I've seen no such desire within the Muslim community. If I'm mistaken, we're at a great loss, but Dar-al-Islam relied on the concept of the Muslim world being more civilised than the other worlds (during its time, perhaps was justified), but don't forget that the Muslims never (repeatedly) tried to invade China or western Europe. Edward Gibbon suggests some sort of proto-Clash of Civilisations after which all of western Europe would have been converted to Islam, but it's something of an unrealistic image, and unsustainable at that one (to the invaders). The invasion of France was never a war of annexation, it was a major raid.
To suggest that the current Muslim world is the result of anything other than Sultan's loosing wars is historically inaccurate.
As far as I am concerned, religious violence in the name of Christ is not a Christian trait.... not everyone agrees with me. It remains an unfortunate truth that Islam is built on militaristic expansion and cultural supremacy. In a world where Islamic nations have neither the religion clearly struggles to articulate itself.
Yes, but this has nothing to do with the ban on not being allowed the depiction of Prophets, eh.Quote:
You are not understanding my use of language, "reverence", is not the same as "worship" in Christian thought. I said nothing about Muhammed having "divine" status but he is generally agreed to have divine sanction, he is seen as an effective conduit between Man and God for the passage of information. Jesus is a conduit for communion with God, he provides his followers effective direct access.
I don't think so. Perhaps history remains the same, but our interpretations of history are different. When Abd ar-Rahman invaded Gaul, he was not actually fighting on the orders of the Caliph in Damascus. I don't know whether he approved or disapproved of his actions, but the invasion of Gaul was not in the name of Islam nor was it sanctioned by the heir of Muhammad (= Caliph). It was simply a war of gathering war booty, not a war of spreading Islam into Europe.Quote:
The borders of the Islamic world are mostly geographical-military choke points, and in every case they have been pushed back from their previous frontiers by Christian Armies. Roland, Pepin the Fat, Carlos Magnus and El Cid dissagree with you.
To suggest that the current Muslim world is the result of anything other than Sultan's loosing wars is historically inaccurate.
Then I would like to hear, or read, rather, the explanation for the conversion of Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines. As far as I know, there were no Muslim armies ever even near the islands of Indonesia. Conquest by Muslim armies does not mean that the conquest was in the name of Islam. I find it hard to believe that the conquest of Constantinople was about Islam.Quote:
Uh-hum. Every part of the House of Islam is conquered land, the push up through Spain, and the push past Canstantinople into the Balkans gives the lie to what you say.
Also, what I would like to add, is that the conquest of Iran and Northern Africa by the Umayyads hardly was a war of mass conversion. There is little evidence of the Persians converting to Islam until at least the 11th century, half a milennia after the original conquest of Iran.
We might be dabbling too much in history now, though. This is what I said:
Quote:
I don't think that the concept of Dar-al-Islam is pursued by the great majority of Muslims nowadays.
I don't know whether your opinion is really relevant right now. Christians are destroying buildings and killing people in the name of God. Over the last century, people in Vietnam, South Korea and several African nations can tell you something about religious violence in the name of Christ. Even today, in the US army. Muslims and Buddhists are also destroying buildings and killing people in the name of their respective religions. What's the difference between Muslim/Jainist/Buddhist violence and Christian violence? Just because Islam was originally a militaristic religion, doesn't mean it will always be, or has always been. Christianity was founded as a religion that tried to propogate love; look what happened in the Medieval time. I'm not trying to pull another "but the Crusades!" argument on you, I'm just saying that the fact that a religion was originally founded with a certain intent, does not mean that this same intent remains the same over the centuries or milennia.Quote:
As far as I am concerned, religious violence in the name of Christ is not a Christian trait.... not everyone agrees with me. It remains an unfortunate truth that Islam is built on militaristic expansion and cultural supremacy. In a world where Islamic nations have neither the religion clearly struggles to articulate itself.
Not directly, but it has to do with how Muhammed's words and actions are interpreted today, while he may be "just a man" he is surely "first man" whne it comes to talking about God, or looking for an example to follow. Also, because he is "just" a man his example is less complex to follow than Christ's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Well, was it ever about spreading Islam as a religion? Even in Jerusalem the evidence is that conversion was slow, and the Crusaders could plausably claim to be liberators in the eleventh century. If the Reconquesta had failed Spain would be a Muslim country, and Muslims would have been free to continue to push north. Islam is as much a political as religious movement, and it has historically subjugated and then converted.Quote:
I don't think so. Perhaps history remains the same, but our interpretations of history are different. When Abd ar-Rahman invaded Gaul, he was not actually fighting on the orders of the Caliph in Damascus. I don't know whether he approved or disapproved of his actions, but the invasion of Gaul was not in the name of Islam nor was it sanctioned by the heir of Muhammad (= Caliph). It was simply a war of gathering war booty, not a war of spreading Islam into Europe.
The fact is, Muslim armies were pushed back to Africa and the Balkans, and that is where the borders of Islamic dominance remained.
In Brunei it was the installation of a Muslim Sultan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_BruneiQuote:
Then I would like to hear, or read, rather, the explanation for the conversion of Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines. As far as I know, there were no Muslim armies ever even near the islands of Indonesia. Conquest by Muslim armies does not mean that the conquest was in the name of Islam. I find it hard to believe that the conquest of Constantinople was about Islam.
Indonesia appears to have been a trade-motivated conversion, no doubt driven by local rulers wishing to gain favour with the Caliphate, rather like the cursed King John.
Quite true, but the religion was spread via political dominance as a result of conquest.Quote:
Also, what I would like to add, is that the conquest of Iran and Northern Africa by the Umayyads hardly was a war of mass conversion. There is little evidence of the Persians converting to Islam until at least the 11th century, half a milennia after the original conquest of Iran.
It is relevant, because Islam and Christianity are historical religions, they are always interpreted in light of their historical founders. It will always be builder/mystic vs diplomat/warrior.Quote:
We might be dabbling too much in history now, though. This is what I said:
I don't know whether your opinion is really relevant right now. Christians are destroying buildings and killing people in the name of God. Over the last century, people in Vietnam, South Korea and several African nations can tell you something about religious violence in the name of Christ. Even today, in the US army. Muslims and Buddhists are also destroying buildings and killing people in the name of their respective religions. What's the difference between Muslim/Jainist/Buddhist violence and Christian violence? Just because Islam was originally a militaristic religion, doesn't mean it will always be, or has always been. Christianity was founded as a religion that tried to propogate love; look what happened in the Medieval time. I'm not trying to pull another "but the Crusades!" argument on you, I'm just saying that the fact that a religion was originally founded with a certain intent, does not mean that this same intent remains the same over the centuries or milennia.
Also, my point: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-ideology.html
Edit: Cordoba is on that list, Quilliam believes they are broadly the same as militants.
@Hax, I don't know where the ban on depiction of Muhammed came from, it's not in the Qu'ran as far as I know. In mosques from before the sunni/shai'ti splitup he is often portraited.
The way I understand it, some hadiths prohibits the depiction of Mohammed to prevent idolatry and giving him reverence which would be due to Allah. I read in the God Delusion that the Wahhabist authorities plan to/have bulldozed the burial site of Mohamamd in order to prevent it becoming a site of worship to him. Such actions are in the spirit of the hadiths.
On the other hand, the funny thing about these Muslims protesting the depiction of Mohamamad in Danish cartoons etc is that they are commiting the same idolatry the hadiths aimed to prevent. While Muslims were not supposed to depict Mohammed to prevent worship/reverence of him, in superstitiously not allowing even non-Muslims to depict Mohammad in a non-religious manner, surely they are elevating Mohammad to the status of God himself?
While I'm arriving well too late to this party (which I should be gratefull for), i can't help but add my 2 cents.
While the rest of this thread seems to have focused on the simple question of "should such a mosque be allowed", I'm afraid i have to question much of the "historical" bolloxs quoted above. While there are as many versions of a past event as there are people, this one seems particularly out on a "Muslims are out to get us and anyone else" limb. Moreover, its appalingly ill-informed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
1. Al Aqsa, built over the temple of Soloman -maybe because the conquering Arab army wanted to ensure correct(from their point of view: Islamic) worship on a site as important to both Judaisim and Islam, in a city they now controlled? This practice, where new peoples revering similar deities, or even choosing to revere different ones in the same place, extends back in history beyond Greek and Roman times. Many Catholic churches in Southern Europe are built on the very sites of Roman temples, themselves built on the sites of pre-existing temples to local deities.
2. Hagia Sophia, the Ottomans greately revered the basilica and when the city finally fell, the Sultan forbade any sack of the building -indeed, the only reason we can still marvel at its beauty is because the Ottomans respected the building and its contents enought to preserve the Byzantine art!
3. Finally, and most eloquantly: "Cordoba evoques images of conquest". I find it hard to respond in a respectful manner to such a crude and woefully-informed pronouncement. If the Islamic conquest of Spain is the most resonant product of your mind from the equation "Cordoba+Mosque", then this is perhaps the best evidence of your "one sided" or chronicaly ill informed view. For most historians, the Islamic rule of Spain is viewed as an almost singular period of un-parralleled cooperation between the three major montheistic faiths (Judaisim, Christainity and Islam), resulting in a golden age of cultural and scientific progress. The works of aristotle and other greeks made it into European languages through Al andalus' melange of cultures, science and languages. Indeed, to many, the collapse of of Al-Andalus though internal monarchic/aristocratic intrigue and external presure from the comparatively brutish contemporary Chrisitan kingdoms of Spain is seen as a great tragedy.
Lastly, and I can't resist this now (despite earlier urges to talk about the 1st and 4th crusades) -the irony is too great, perhaps the most notorious historical example of triumphalist excess is infact located in Cordoba. After the city's conquest by Castille, a chappel was built in the very centre of what was (and remains -its a UNESCO site) one the worlds most remarkable buildings: the great mosque of Cordoba.
For many, "Cordoba" might be an exellent choice of a name for a mosque as it symobolises inter-cultural harmony and progress. If you are interested: http://www.iosminaret.org/vol-2/issu...ilizations.php
He is the perfect person, and nothing can do him justice. That cartoon affair is a missed chance on comedy by the way, let them sweat over it being a picture of a picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I'm just throwing this out there, but perhaps it can be comparable to how Christian would feel about, say... Paul the Apostle, perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
EDIT: Whoops, this is a very late post. Good points, everyone!
Yes, that may actually come quite close. Perhaps there are some differences, but the basics are pretty much the same.Quote:
I'm just throwing this out there, but perhaps it can be comparable to how Christian would feel about, say... Paul the Apostle, perhaps?
Yeah, I agree. The problem here is that it's being "marketed" (for lack of a better word) as a ground zero mosque. That brings in a bunch of stuff about the victims families and what kind of political statement is being made--it associates it with the cultural relativist approach to the taliban that some people take.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I don't think it is being marketed as such, I thought it was it was just Conservative Nutjobs going ape over the fact a Muslim prayerhouse wants to upgrade near Ground Zero?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
:mellow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Not quite, Paul is an extremely divisive character within Christian theology, viewed as everything from a True Saint to a Scysmatic and a Liar, despite the fact that his letters are universally recognised as brilliant (though some might also say insane).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Hagia Sophia still became a Mosque, and the Mosque on the Temple Mount was built over a Christian Church (former Roman Temple) after it was demolished by the invaders. The use of both was a sign a Muslim domination, whatever else it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
Sorry if this is too off topic, but threads do evolve, and the original matter seems to have run its course...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
But as for Paul, he is just an ordinary Christian, there is no spiritual hierarchy in Christianity.
As for his epistles etc, I wouldn't say they are insane, he seems very level headed compared to, say, John. Plus even though there is the whole controversy which divided the early church in Acts, ultimately Paul was seeking to remove divisions in the church, by making gospel more open to the Gentiles.
I don't dissagree, I was merely making the point that he is not a simple figure in Christianity, he is not even universally a agreed to be a (minor) prophet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
You're not allowed to do that when we debate on Christianity. :tongue2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla