Islamic group to build mosque adjacent to ground zero

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the ban on not being allowed the depiction of Prophets, eh.

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.

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.

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.

The fact is, Muslim armies were pushed back to Africa and the Balkans, and that is where the borders of Islamic dominance remained.

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.

In Brunei it was the installation of a Muslim Sultan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Brunei

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.

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.

Quite true, but the religion was spread via political dominance as a result of conquest.

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.

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.

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.