Wow…you should do an ask the surviver of the Umayyad dynasty thread
What about the mosque that was build on Lord Ram’s (supposed) birthplace? That’s a fairly famous and controversial example.
I don’t know about that, hogarth. ISTM, in Ayodhya, (a) the mosque dated from the 16th Century, when (b) as mentioned everyone around the world (see: Mexico Cathedral vs. Aztec Great Temple) was doing this “take over the former rulers’ holy place to put up one of our own” thing, which I consider distinct from the alleged “[site-of-a-military-]victory mosque” practice, and © it was the modern-day Hindus who last decided to engage in that behavior after 400 years of holding a grudge.
IMO, a true NY “Victory Mosque” would be converting the NY Stock Exchange and St. Patrick’s to masjid use. Or building a spectacular grand mosque in the middle of Central Park. Not a mid-sized activity center in a downtown side street.
The Islamic Center planned to be built two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York was originally going to be called the Cordoba Center - this building is also sometimes referred to by its opponents as the “victory mosque”. The center is now going to be called “Park51”.
And the article linked to indicates that it is disputed as to whether it is on the site of an old temple at all, and in any event this was over 500 years ago back when every religion would have felt just fine converting another religion’s sacred high place to their own use. I’m utterly unconvinced that this is anything other than a slander against modern Islam.
I’m not that old :D.
Abd ar-Rahman I. It’s actually a pretty remarkable and rather Hollywood-friendly story ( granted I wouldn’t doubt it has been spiced up some by hagiographers ). About as classic as you can get, really - the script practically writes itself.
Personally, I suspect that the “respect” afforded to the Parthenon mostly amounted to respect for how sturdily it was built, that folks couldn’t figure out how to steal it or its building materials.
I assumed when I read the phrase “Victory Mosques” that it was a conservative fabrication. Then I applied the infallible test: “Would my mother and her rabidly right-wing ‘Anti-Truthers’ forward me numerous emails claiming this as a fact with no credible citations?”
Yep. I just hope that the label hasn’t entered the language like “Death Panels”.
1)Pure BS, the Cordoba Mosque was built on the site of a former Visigoth Church, there wasnt any cathedral there.
On the other hand, the actual Cordoba Cathedral was established by modifying the Cordoba Mosque. Charles V complained about Christians tampering with the design of the mosque and destroying its unique architecture.
It would be good to overcome natural lazyness and self righteousness before posting, and do at least some minimal fact checking.
I always consider it makes for better conversations.
- “I’ve heard another account of this (sorry, no cite). The Muslim conquerors destroyed all the churches in the city except the cathedral, promising they would let it stand. At a later date they changed their minds and decided they needed a new mosque”
The cite you’re looking for here is the “Great Book of things I pull out of my ass because it supports my natural bigotry, 2Ed”.
3)Yeah, Cordoba is definitely an offensive term, seeing as it’s considered by Muslims to be a high point in Muslim and Arab history for its cultural and religious tolerance (historians would have a more realistic vision of it being very tolerant, for its time). Darn Muslims, insulting us with propositions of religious tolerance and inter religions dialogue…
Lastly, it was actually forbidden to the Muslim conquerors to destroy or take over any religious buildings belonging to Dhimmis (Jerusalem being a good example, where they made a point of not tampering with the Holy Sepulchre Church, and contrary to what has been written in this thread, the Dome Mosque wasnt built on the Jerusalem Temple, but on its ruins.There wasnt any Jerusalem Temple at that time, and there hadnt been one for centuries)
Not that that rule was always followed but it’s not part of Muslim teachings to do so. Just like it’s not part of Christian teachings to massacre everyone in a city you conquer, yet that’s what the Crusaders did when they took Jerusalem…
That’s not entirely true - the Romans had built a temple to Jupiter there in 130 AD, which was replaced by a church two centuries later. However, the church had been destroyed by the (non-Muslim) Persions a few decades before the Arab conquest, and by the time a mosque was built there, the location was largely abandoned.
So since the name is highly important, and the name is inoffensive, the problem is solved? Great.
The Visigoth Church could have been a Cathedral, but it wasn’t. It was built on the site of a former Roman temple, too. That particular spot appears to have been “holy ground” since the area was settled; according to the information at the spot where they found Roman ruins during the last round of repairs, there were attempts to excavate further looking for more (pre?)Roman ruins but in the end it was considered that getting the Cathedral back up and running was more important than figuring out how long has the area been settled.
I thought they picked that name because it featured soft Corinthian leather.
1.) It’s not a mosque. There’s a worship space, but it also contains such horrifying terrorist training grounds as a basketball court and culinary school.
2.) It’s not at Ground Zero. It’s two blocks away from one corner of the Ground Zero area; it would be more accurately described as something like five or six blocks away.
3.) There is no line of sight between the proposed area and all of Ground Zero.
4.) The name Cordoba Center was chosen as a nod to a time of peaceful coexistence.
5.) As soon as the developers were made aware of the potential negative connotations, they announced that they would change the name to Park 51.
Most of this post was unashamedly ripped off from something by Keith Olbermann.
Further, the group has no money, no engineering firm, all they got is zoning approval. This whole thing might never happen. If it does happen, it will be years down the road.
Ever been to Cuzco, Peru? The Spaniards razed the Inca temple to erect their cathedral. Problem was, it was so well constructed they gave up before tearing out the foundation, choosing to just build on top of it instead. You can, today, go into the cathedral and see the Inca stonework foundation.
Or is that somehow different because they don’t refer to it as the ‘Victory’ cathedral?
Completely irrelevant to the question being asked by the OP.
Did you really not know that?
To the question, perhaps, but not to its context. Asking whether or not Muslims have historically engaged in a certain behavior, while ignoring whether other groups have done the same, can be suspect.
Suspect of what? I didn’t realize that posting a question in GQ was subject to requirements of ideological purity.
So if someone posts in GQ asking whether or not Black people like fried chicken and watermelon, we’re not allowed to discuss whether or not people who aren’t Black also like these things?