Archangel

Monsignor Harry J. Byrne, JCD * * * Comment/contact:larchstar@aol.com

My Photo
Name:
Location: 3103 Arlington Avenue,, Bronx, NY 10463, United States

August 13, 2010

MOSQUES AS SYMBOLS OF MUSLIM VICTORY

My last post opposed the mosque at Ground Zero because building bridges between neighbors, aside from law, does not begin by irritating your neighbors. But Islam is more than a religion. It is a form of government that aims at the committment of all its citizens to Islam, giving non-believers even less than a second-class citizenship and places them under Muslim rule of law, the shariah. When the devotees of Islam succeed in conquering a non-believing constituency, a monument is built as a symbol of its victory. When Muslim armies in 614 defeated the Jews in Jerusalem, a mosque was built on the site of the sacred Jewish temple. Today as Temple Mount, ruled by a Muslim entity, it is a symbol of that ancient Muslim victory.

In 711, a Muslim army from North Africa conquered a large part of Spain and established an Emirate in Cordoba. As a monument to its conquest, the cathedral was demolished and a mosque was constructed on the site. Cordova became a renowned center of Muslim art, architecture, and culture generally. Bernard Lewis, a scholar of Islamic history, wrote that had Islam offered equality to non-believers,"it would have been a theological as well as a logical absurdity". Christians and Jews were "dimmis", Arabic for "the peoples under protection of Islam". Dimmis were subject to a special tax, legal discrimination, and other indignities. A child born of a mixed marriage had to be raised as Muslim. The bishop of Cordova, obviously a realist, urged his people to tolerate their second-class status. Nevertheless, between 851 and 859 forty-nine Christians were decapitated for offenses against Islam. Christian education centers and monasteries were subjected to a process of closures. Cordova and its mosque were symbols of Muslim victory. To our amazement, the proposed Ground Zero Muslim Center was named the Cordova House. A monument built, not on the ruins of a cathedral, but on the ruins of the Twin Towers, a kind of modern-day cathedral? Why did Muslim extremist Hamas, yesterday, voice its satisfaction with the mosque site? Could they see the mosque, so near Ground Zero, as a happy reminder of a Muslim victory? . Perhaps the founders belatedly thought of this. Last week, they scrapped the Cordova name, replacing it with "Park 51", the street address.

It is argued, correctly, that Christians have their own history of bloody intolerance, the Inquisition and the Crusades, as examples. The difference lies in the evolving progress in the West in technocracy, education, tolerance, and democracy, whereas, according to Lewis' book "What Went Wrong", the Muslim world simply did not build on its earlier splendor and simply did not move ahead. For example, no European nation practices the death penalty while Muslim nations still do. Newspapers bring news of Muslim nations amputating the hands of thieves, the stoning to death of adulterous women, death in some places for conversion, and other offenses under extreme provisions of shariah law. And there are examples that once Muslims take over, as recently as in Northern Nigeria, the shariah is put in place. When nations are under Muslim rule, as eg Suadi Arabia, Jordan, Indonesia, Afganistan, and Iraq, the shariah rules. Christian and Jewish worship is forbidden. In Muslim Spain, various dynasties ruled in different parts, with varying degrees of tolerance. Modern Muslim nations, too, are characterized by varying degrees of tolerance. After 9/11, we are quite aware of the impact of extreme Muslim jihadists on New York and on the entire nation. And we are aware of the peace-loving Muslims, who are our neighbors. We welcome them - merchants, livery services, professionals of all kinds.

Given this wide spectrum of Muslim belief, political action,peaceful neighborliness, charitable activity, and also violence expressed in the name of their God, it is appropriate to ask our new neighbors to declare what precisely distinguishes them from their extreme co-religionists. The Koran limits a husband's beating of his wife to the point of bloodshed. In our society, domestic violence is a crime. Will the mosque founders and allies specifically reject this provision of the Koran? And also the specific provisions providing for a muiltiplicity of wives, death for non-believers, blasphemers, and women adulterors? How do our newcomers feel about the text in the Koran that authorized the fatwa - death penalty - against Simon Rushdie for what he wrote and the Danish cartoonist for his insulting drawings? These are harsh questions but they require specific answers. But they are justified by past history and current events! By the experience of mosques in England as a source of jihadists. A casual general affirmation that the present worshippers are peace-loving
is simply insufficient. The basic texts are at issue here.

The present mosque dispute is not the first instance in our history where the surrender of a religious principle was required for welcome. The Territory of Utah, predominantly Mormon, sought entry into the United States on several occasions but in vain. Mormon religious belief in plural marriages was the sticking point. In 1862
the US Congress passed legislation banning bigamy. It was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1878, declaring that "religious duty was not a defense against crime". Mormon elders signed the 1890 Manifesto, officially disavowing plural marriages.In 1896, Utah was admitted as the forty-fifth state.

Many of us remain opposed to a mosque at Ground Zero. This is not a question of freedom of religion. The Muslims are free to build under our law. But sensitivity to twin-towers' victims and now to country wide voices, a sensitivity which has not yet characterized the mosque people, would suggest that bridge-building would be helped by using a different site. However it plays out, the mosque originators should disavow specifically how they differ in principle from other less peace-loving
co-religionists. Something similar to how the Mormons of Utah became US citizens.

12 Comments:

Blogger 孟謝謝謝凱謝謝謝謝 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Move the mosque. Period.
Yes, they have a right to worship as they please, but putting the mosque at Ground Zero is insensitive and inappropriate. Thanks for the post, Harry.

August 17, 2010 at 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The sensitivity of men to small matters, and their indifference to great ones, indicates a strange inversion."
- Blaise Pascal

http://www.picvault.info/images/537104704_Sensitivity_Ground-Zero-Mosque.jpg

August 18, 2010 at 2:29 AM  
Blogger 佳張張張張燕張張張張張 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 18, 2010 at 4:55 AM  
Blogger Jimmy Mac said...

It is not a mosque. It is not going to be AT Ground Zero. How far away from GZ will be acceptable? Are you going to be as observant and restrictive of the business that will be IN GZ? Will a "Hooters" be OK? A strip club? A "gentleman's club?" The bias and blatant anti-Islamism in this matter is masquerading as a cry against "insensitivity" and is disgustingly palpable!

August 18, 2010 at 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 19, 2010 at 12:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A symbol of victory, how much more of our country are we willing to give up? I don't think/actually I'm sure that we have not let the Nazi's build on our soil. I'm pretty sure they were called an enemy of the American people. Being involved in politics and teaching Political Science and the Constitution. This is not a religious issue, it is most definitely a legal issue. Let's face the facts; the only destroyed church (Greek Orthodox) isn't allowed to rebuild in their spot. Before anyone starts yelling at me about the money, do you know if they were going to pay it back or not? So be careful, if you look hard enough you will find your tax dollars are helping build this mosque, oh yes it has a center attached to it--great way to justify you and I paying for it.

August 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM  
Blogger 俊王王王王霖王王 said...

感覺很用心經營呢!鼓勵鼓勵............................................................

August 20, 2010 at 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How this blog facilitates hate:
http://www.alternet.org/story/147920/fallout_of_hate_is_spreading_across_america_from_9_11_site

August 21, 2010 at 12:43 PM  
Blogger 幸平平平平杰 said...

好看耶~一定每天有空給你支持..................................................

August 23, 2010 at 2:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am really torn on this issue. Certainly there is a legal right to build, but it does seem insensative. The building is several blocks away from ground zero. The history you record makes one pause, yet with our freedom of religion wouldn't we be denying our political heritage and sending a negative message to the muslim world?

August 23, 2010 at 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is not a question/issue of a "right to build." We all agree they have a right to build. But why do they specifically want to build on that location, when there is a mosque that is already built nearby. Why build another one? To me, it is clearly a symbol of victory. Thank you so much for the clear historical account!! Hopefully many more people will better understand this issue.

August 30, 2010 at 7:19 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home