Thursday, August 12, 2010

Andrei Mischief making Mosque

I wasn't going to blog on this nonsense because I didn't want to play the game as defined by the proposers of Cordoba House, a deliberately provocative name for a deliberately provocative project.

If you want my opinion the authorities in New York have played this exactly right. They have given the go ahead to build this monstrosity - it has sailed through the permission process.

But I don't believe it will ever be built and I am fairly sure those who have given the go ahead don't either. $100,000,000 is not exactly chump change.

The whole thing is just mischief making, a poke designed to stir up the reaction it has.

But if it is built it will stand in rebuke of its builders and their religion for ever more, a hundred million dollar white elephant. A reminder to everyone how the builders co-religionists in the name of their religion murdered 3000 innocent people going about their daily business .

A testament to banal evil.

32 comment(s):

Doughnut said...

I don't understand why you think this is a provocative name- it's a reference to religious tolerance and coexistence:

Lucia Maria said...


You do know that the Muslims invaded and held Spain for hundreds of years until they were forcibly expelled around 1500?

Anonymous said...

You have to love religious tolerance via conquest by the sword.


If this mosque is built, then I would like to see a gay bar open next door.
Well, tolerance works both ways, doesn't it?

There is talk of such a bar actually happening, but funny how the left see its promoters as being anti-Islamic, accusing them of bigotry, while trashing gay rights ( a supposed lefty cause) in the name of the imperialist ideology they bow down to (islam).

Seán said...

I see Kiwiblog has just posted on the matter and I left the following comment: Kiwiblog comment

In it I linked to this article from The Economist: Lexington: Build that Mosque.

Those opposing construction are only pushing Muslims further away. Their attitude is counter-productive, and quite frankly, childish.

KG said...

"Those opposing construction are only pushing Muslims further away. Their attitude is counter-productive, and quite frankly, childish."

Frankly, those who refuse to see the historical pattern of islamic conquests, who refuse to acknowledge that the central tenet of islam is defeat and enslavement of "infidels" in order to establish the caliphate are not only childish but dangerously naive.
The proposed mosque is a triumphalist statement by the very ideology which murdered 3000 people at the site next door.
Go view a video clip of people (some of them already burning) jumping to their deaths that day before you accuse opponents of this obscenity of being "childish".
And do try to get a grip on the difference between a murderous ideology and a benign religion, eh?

Bearhunter said...

I always find it interesting that those who are most vocal in their opposition to Islam and who like to point to the spread of Islam through southern Europe as an example of the pernicious evil of that faith/culture seem entirely comfortable with the English (later British) tendency to roll up on a foreign shore and simply take over.

KG said...

Aaah, right--another fool. So, the sins (real and imagined) of imperial Britain in the past mean that it's somehow wrong to oppose a modern-day ideology aimed at conquest?
A British massacre (say)in Calcutta in 1804 requires us to turn a blind eye to 3000 dead in the WTC, to schoolgirls blinded in acid attacks by the Taliban, to schoolteachers in Asia being beheaded, to Beslan, to schoolkids being locked inside a burning building, to...the list is almost endless.
And where is your evidence that those who oppose this filth are "entirely comfortable" with the negative side of colonialism?

Bearhunter said...

KG, you miss my point. Lucia raised the ghost of Islam's invasion of Spain. I merely pointed out that England (and later Britain) also have a history (history being the operative word) of invading other countries, yet there is no hysterical reaction to that. I simply wonder why. And no, I don't imagine for a moment that historical atrocities perpetrated by one entity should mean we forgive or forget present-day atrocities carried out by other entities.

My point was that in the race to condemn Islam for its myriad faults, we often overlook the faults in those who are more culturally coherent with ourselves.

Diamond Mair said...

Seán, do you even BOTHER to read your drivel before you hit "post"? You're in Madrid, right? Tell us all about how March 11, 2004 was there - 191 dead, was it? Or perhaps you were in London on July 7, 2005? What was it, 53 MURDERED and 700 injured? Perhaps you were in Bali in 2002? How about Mumbai in 2006 or 2008? Did you know anyone killed or injured in any of the {miniscule} list I've provided?

There's a Chevron gas station in this little one-horse town where I live, who's management at the time of 9/11 CELEBRATED, by burning American flags.

We were living in Mexico when 9/11 happened - we couldn't return to our OWN country for FOUR DAYS - "pushing Muslims away"? You're damn right!

Semper Fi' the rest of you

Anonymous said...

Once again the adherents of one religion grasp any straw they can to beat the adherents of another religion. And there, sitting on the sidelines, a rational and thoughtful man has the better perspective.

The dispute over the construction of an Islamic center at "Ground Zero" in Lower Manhattan has now sunk to a level of stupidity that really does shame the memory and the victims of that terrible day in September 2001. One might think that a mosque or madrassa was being proposed in the place of the fallen towers themselves or atop the atomized ingredients of what was once a mass grave. (In point of fact, the best we have been able to do with the actual site, after almost a decade, is to create a huge, noisy, and dirty pit with almost no visible architectural progress. Perhaps resentment at the relative speed of the proposed Cordoba House is a subconscious by-product of embarrassment at this local and national disgrace.)

No matter what you think of the man himself, he does have a clear eyed perception, the benefit, I suppose, of not having his vision clouded by religion.

Lucia Maria said...

Bearhunter, there is no "hysterical reaction" to Britain invading other countries because for starters, it's just not happening right now. Britain did not finance suicide nutters to fly planes into the Twin Towers in NY and then finance the building of the largest statue of Queen Victoria there just to see how far they could go.

Let's stay with reality here.

Lucia Maria said...


Obviously you and the guy you quote don't get it - but the Muslims certainly do and I bet they are just laughing their heads off over this.

It is just so inappropriate to build a giant mosque at ground zero that the people who allowed it should be ashamed and embarrassed. Not anyone else.

GunRights4US said...

I never cease to be amazed at the deep seated ignorance of most starry-eyed liberals when it comes to Islam. They have this fundamental misconception that if we play fair with them, the jihadists will realize what nice people we are and just leave us alone. Nothing could be further from the truth.

History has shown Islam to be a tyrannical political system based on conquest and subjugation. Time and again it has been demonstrated that deception is at the core of Islamic “diplomacy”, and its ultimate lie is how it masquerades as a religion. Islamic mullahs teach that to lie to the non-believer in furtherance of Islamic principals is not only acceptable, but even desirable.

If history’s lessons aren’t enough, even a cursory glance around the world should be enough to reveal to all but the most dedicated Islamic apologists the blood-soaked modus operandi of Islam. Virtually everywhere on this planet where muslims live alongside “infidels” there is slaughter and atrocity. One must truly be determined to reject reality when it comes seeing the truth about the followers of Allah (I spit upon his name).

It is as if the West is determined to lie down before our ravisher, bare our naked throat, and hold out the knife in an invitation to do a Daniel Pearl on us.

Don’t respond to me with any form of the “two wrongs make a right argument” either. Don’t tell me how Christianity murdered people during the crusades. Sure they did. And it was wrong (except where it was done in an attempt to push back against muslim encroachments – you DO know the crusades were generally in response to Islamic imperialism don’t you?) But the fact remains that no wrong of the past can be rectified in any way by a wrong committed today. That is a bankrupt canard, and any attempt to go there reveals nothing so much as the depth of the adherent’s intellectual dishonesty.

If this abomination they seek to build at the site of the WTC was really about healing, then the outrage it has spawned should be enough to convince the muslims that only hate and discontent can result from their choice of locations. But the fact that they fully intend to go forward with the project – despite a host of alternative locations being available – should be proof enough of their nefarious intentions.

Seán said...

KG, Diamond Mair - I can't see how you can equate regular law-abiding US citizen Muslims with the historical and contemporary horrendous actions of a few.

DM - yes I am aware of the Madrid bombings but why would I judge all Muslims, let alone the group in NY by the actions of those terrorists? I certainly don't judge all Catholics by the actions of those who tarnish the Church's name through evil actions. Why generalise so blatantly?

David Farrar implies this mosque construction is provocative and insensitive yet supports the provocative and insensitive billboard mocking Joseph and Mary

I munted the link to that piece from The Ecomonist. Here I try again: Lexington: Build that mosque

Seán said...

Lucyna, you said "Britain did not finance suicide nutters to fly planes into the Twin Towers in NY and then finance the building of the largest statue of Queen Victoria there just to see how far they could go."

True of course, but they did orchestrate a few massacres of their own, including several in the 20th century. And I don't judge all Britons by these previous actions, just like I don't judge all Muslims by the events of invasion into Spain or even 9/11. Why would I?

WAKE UP said...

Hey,Doughnut, Sean, Bearhunter, leftrightout, here's a simple question: why are Muslims migrating in their thousands to the West, instead of staying in their own countries and building mosques there?

(Actually, I don't expect you to answer that honestly).

Seán said...

WAKE UP - what has that got to do with the price of fish?

People migrate to other countries for all sorts of reasons. We know many predominantly Muslim countries are poor when compared to the West but not sure what this has to do with the "issue" of the construction of a mosque in NY.

Bearhunter said...

"...there is no "hysterical reaction" to Britain invading other countries because for starters, it's just not happening right now. Britain did not finance suicide nutters to fly planes into the Twin Towers in NY and then finance the building of the largest statue of Queen Victoria there just to see how far they could go."

Well, where exactly are Islamic armies invading right now? You were the one who brought up the Moorish invasion of Spain that ended more than 500 years ago, not me.

Lucia Maria said...

Er, Bearhunter, it was relevant. The name of the proposed new mosque directly references Cordoba, the capital of the Caliphate in Spain during the Islamic occupation of Spain. The new mosque is to be called "Cordoba House". If anything, those that want to build the mosque brought it up way before this conversation occurred. We're just connecting the dots.

Lucia Maria said...


Read this:

No institution has spent more time trying to bring Islam toward the modern world's tradition of civil liberties—that is, the world as we've known it for about 250 years—than the Vatican. On behalf of tolerance in the Middle Eastern countries, the Vatican has set up active directorates, sent envoys and held endless symposia on behalf of "understanding" and "dialogue."

In 1995, the Saudis and others, with the Vatican's support, opened a large, beautiful mosque in Rome. The expectation was that the Saudis would loosen their restrictions on Christian practice. Despite some one million immigrant Christian workers there, the Saudis have done nothing.

Frustrated by the repeated failure of Islamic leaders to match promises with practice, Pope Benedict added to the Vatican's strategy of accommodation a one-word policy, which the tolerance advocates here should adopt: "reciprocity."


This is not about judging all Muslims, it's about what is appropriate in a zone that killed a great number of people. To build a giant mosque there is very bad taste. To add the name "Cordoba" is more than bad taste, it's deliberately provocative, it's like daring the people of NY to do something to stop it and then laughing at their impotence.

There is no humility from these people and no reciprocity. There have been enough mosques built in the West, lets see some churches built in Moslem lands. How about a massive Cathedral next to the Dome of the Rock. That'll be a good start.

Diamond Mair said...

When the "regular law-abiding US citizen Muslims" condemn, unequivocally & VOCALLY, the demands of the radicals to impose Sharia/female genital mutilation/burqas/niqabs/execution of homosexuals/subjugation of women/threats of 'fatwa' for PERCEIVED insults, et al, ad nauseum, and joins the rest of the world "with all it's sham, drudgery & broken dreams" in the 21st century, and gets OVER themselves as "victims" - yes, they contributed to astronomy, the sciences, mathematics - over 1,000 years ago - what have they done for the rest of the world lately, other than to try to make everyone else as miserable & repressed as they are?

You go 'head on & try singing 'Kumbayah' with'em - I'll keep my distance, thank you very much, just as I would from a potentially rabid animal .................

Semper Fi'

Seán said...

Lucyna - "these people"?? "This is not about judging all Muslims"?? You have fallen into the same trap as Newt Grigrich as the abovelinked Ecomonist article explains "That makes it impossible to excuse the mean spirit and scrambled logic of his [Gingrich's] assertion that “there should be no mosque near ground zero so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia”. Come again? Why hold the rights of Americans who happen to be Muslim hostage to the policy of a foreign country that happens also to be Muslim? To Mr Gingrich, it seems, an American Muslim is a Muslim first and an American second. Al-Qaeda would doubtless concur.”"

I empathise with your quote about the Vatican's efforts but fail to see what it has to do with building a mosque in NY. Do you advocate stooping to the same level as the authorities in Saudi Arabia? You say it is not about judging all Muslims but in fact that is exactly what you are doing.

Back to Kiwiblog, "tvb" in this comment uses stronger language than I choose but his message is on song: tvb on Kiwiblog.

Seán said...

"what have they done for the rest of the world lately"...oh dear, DM, your line of argument is heading south quickly. Sort of like me asking: "What have YOU done for the rest of the world lately?"

Bearhunter said...

So naming a building after a place that was once the centre of a colony controversial? Should the British govt rename all the Bombay Streets in Britain? Bloemfontein Road? Ranelagh? I don't see it as deliberately controversial.

Seán said...

And on "Cordoba" I note these points from the same article:

"Ms Palin called on “peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the “ground-zero mosque” because it would “stab” American hearts. But why should it? Cordoba House is not being built by al-Qaeda. To the contrary, it is the brainchild of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a well-meaning American cleric who has spent years trying to promote interfaith understanding, not an apostle of religious war like Osama bin Laden. He is modelling his project on New York’s 92nd Street Y, a Jewish community centre that reaches out to other religions."


"Mr Gingrich also objects to the centre’s name. Imam Feisal says he chose “Cordoba” in recollection of a time when the rest of Europe had sunk into the Dark Ages but Muslims, Jews and Christians created an oasis of art, culture and science. Mr Gingrich sees only a “deliberate insult”, a reminder of a period when Muslim conquerors ruled Spain. Like Mr bin Laden, Mr Gingrich is apparently still relitigating the victories and defeats of religious wars fought in Europe and the Middle East centuries ago. He should rejoin the modern world, before he does real harm."

Anonymous said...

A further quote from the article I cited above -

Where to start with this part-pathetic and part-sinister appeal to demagogy? To begin with, it borrows straight from the playbook of Muslim cultural blackmail. Claim that something is "offensive," and it is as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument.


I notice that even the choice of the name Cordoba has offended some Christian opponents of the scheme. This wonderful city in Andalusia, after the Muslim conquest of southern Spain, was indeed one of the centers of the lost Islamic caliphate that today's jihadists have sworn in blood to restore. And after the Catholic reconquista, it was also one of the places purged of all Arab and Jewish influence by the founders of the Inquisition. But in the interval between these two imperialisms it was also the site of an astonishing cultural synthesis, best associated with the names of Averroes ibn-Rushd and Moses Maimonides. (The finest recent book on the subject is María Rosa Menocal's The Ornament of the World.) Here was a flourishing of philosophy and medicine and architecture that saw, among other things, the recovery of the works of Aristotle. We need not automatically assume the good faith of those who have borrowed this noble name for a project in lower Manhattan. One would want assurances, also, about the transparency of its funding and the content of its educational programs. But the way to respond to such overtures is by critical scrutiny and engagement, not cheap appeals to parochialism, victimology, and unreason.

Although his body is sufferring the ravages of cancer, his mind's eye is as sharp as ever.

Lucia Maria said...

You know guys, I get the concept that it should not matter that a giant mosque is going to be built on the site of 9/11, that it should not matter that they want to open it on September 11, that it should not matter that it's named after a major conquered Christian city in the past - all of that should not matter.

And yet it does. Alot. To a great number of people.

Given that it does matter to a great number of people, given that it gives incredible offence, even though theoretically it shouldn't, wouldn't it therefore make sense if the intent is not to offend, if the intent to built it there is a good one - that the group who want to build it would name it something different and build it somewhere else???

That they are so determined to build it there speaks volumes, and you can't see that, if this isn't just deliberate obtuseness on your part, then I give up. I can't argue with those who refuse to see another point of view.

KG said...

Bearhunter: "Well, where exactly are Islamic armies invading right now?"

'Dec 3, 2009 ... The pro-Islamist Erdogan said: “The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army.”

Clear enough?

WebWrat said...

Doughnut, Sean, Bearhunter, leftrightout, you are criminally stupid.

It makes me sick to think you live in the same society as I.

Diamond Mair said...

Seán, to answer your rather snide question - what I have not done is align myself with any group that advocates the wholesale slaughter of those who don't believe as I do.

As ONE person, I have faithfully served my country, first in the USMC, second as a federal civilian employee, and third as a U.S. Naval Reservist {active duty during Desert Shield/Desert Storm, thank you very much} - 18 years total - have you done as much for YOUR nation? When in the Marines, we were asked to 'make welcome' Iranian & Kuwaiti fellow students - the Kuwaitis were GREAT, the Iranians, not so much {this was when the Shah was still in power} - the Iranians wouldn't even SPEAK to me, because I was a mere woman .................... so, you can blather on about "acceptance/acquiescence/dhimmitude, but I have DONE my part to try to make things better - I REFUSE to submit myself to being kicked over & over again.

Semper Fi'

Seán said...

DM - Since you asked, for the record I have never worked in the public sector (I think this is what you refer to as a "federal civilian employee") and I intend to keep it that way.

And while your services to your country are admirable it really doesn't add anything to this argument. You are still generalising.

Lucyna - your comment at 6:10 PM, August 13, 2010 is probably the closest I have seen to something valid from that side of the argument - that despite all that has been said - some people are still offended. Of course, for me, this is not enough to be intolerant and trample on private property laws, but it is a fact nonetheless.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.