One more post on Newt and the NYC mosque
Overview
The last statements in Newt's essay I will expose as a steaming pile concern the name "Cordoba House." These statements are hypocritical, misinformed, and simply wrong.
Newt's fifth set of bullshit statements
Here's what Newt had to say about the name "Cordoba House:"
Hello, pot. Meet kettle.
I guess Newt would consider me ignorant. Well, to some extent, that was an accurate assessment last week. Like Newt, I also have a degree in history, but my college studies focused on American, Greek, Roman, and Russian history. In the years since, I have done some study in areas of Muslim history, but that dealt largely with the Crusades. I really did not know much about the history of Cordoba.
I have now done some research about Cordoba, which necessarily required me to do research into related topics. Thus, I am at worst much less ignorant now than I was last week. I will say that my research and my writing in this post are in no way definitive or conclusive or necessarily accurate. However, based on what I found and what Newt wrote--and did not write--in his diatribe, there is a greater than zero chance that Newt is the ignorant one.
So let's take another look at Newt's statements in light of some history.
Conquering army replaced church with a mosque
It is true that an invading Muslim army captured the city of Cordoba (also known as Cordova) shortly after invading Spain in 711. Newt makes it sound like as soon as the Muslims took Cordoba, they converted the Christian church and soon made it the third largest mosque in the world.
That is not what happened.
According to this source, when Cordoba fell to the Muslims, "One of the conditions of the surrender of the city was that the Christians should be allowed to retain the exclusive use of their churches. The Moors, however, took possession of half the church of San Vicente[.]" Thereafter, the two faiths shared the building. Then in 785, the Muslim ruler of Cordoba, Abd-er-Rahman, bought the half of the property belonging to the Christians. It was soon after that construction of the Great Mosque of Cordoba began. [NOTE: Every source I found on the internet said that the Muslims purchased the property in or around 785.] The Christians then rebuilt their church on the outskirts of the city. [NOTE: The source for the rebuilding is a travel brochure, so make of that what you will.]
So the information I have found shows that the church was not destroyed when the Muslims took over Cordoba, Muslims shared the building with Christians until 785, then paid the Christians money for their half of the building, and allowed the Christians to build another church.
Construction on the mosque began in 786, but it took almost 200 more years before construction and expansion of the mosque was completed. So the mosque did not become the third largest in the world quickly.
All of this negates the impression given by Newt that the evil invaders came in, immediately desecrated a Christian site, and then destroyed it and replaced it with a huge mosque.
But why would Newt--the man with multiple history degrees--leave out all this history? He left it out (assuming he knew it at all) because it would run counter to his obvious objective of portraying Cordoba, and thus Park 51, as an example of religious intolerance. What a douchebag.
Another reason Newt did not mention all this history is that it counters his claim that Cordoba is a symbol of Islamic conquest and thus the name "Cordoba House" is an insult. That discussion is next...
Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest and triumphalism
Once again Newt ignores history. Not only that, but he provides no history to support his bold claims. And that's because the actual history puts a big dent in his claims.
A caliphate's leader is the caliph. One definition of "caliph" is "the title of the successors of Mohammed as rulers of the Islamic world[.]" There could be only one caliph. Some of the rulers that were below the caliph on the organizational chart were emirs. Emirs would be similar to provincial governors in the Roman empire. From 711 to 929, Muslim Spain was an emirate, not a cliphate, meaning that until 929, the rulers of Spain were emirs, not caliphs.
The Umayyad caliphate came to an end in 750 when the Abbasids drove the Umayyads out of the Middle East and moved the capital to Baghdad. Only one member of the Umayyad Dynasty, Abd-er-Rahman, escaped this coup. He eventually went to Muslim-controlled Spain, known as al-Andalus, and in 756 he became the emir of al-Andalus and made Cordoba his capital. So began the Umayyad dynasty that would rule al-Andalus for almost 300 years.
It is important to note that the Umayyads had become very unpopular among many Muslims. As you read what follows, keep in mind that it was the Umayyads who ruled when the Muslims conquered Spain and it was the Umayyads who subsequently ruled in Cordoba. A major reason for the dislike was that many felt the Umayyads were too secular. As stated in this discussion of the Umayyads on the website IslamiCity.com,
Today's Islamic radicals/extremists/fundamentalists probably wouldn't approve of these things done by the Umayyads.
The point of this discussion of the Umayyads is that radical/extremist/fundamentalist groups like Al Quaeda, the Taliban, the Wahhabis, and others would like dislike the Umayyads and what they did and how they did it. Since Cordoba was conquered and then ruled by the Umayyads, I have a problem seeing how today's Islamic radicals/extremists/fundamentalists would embrace Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.
And more history raises more reasons why Cordoba would not serve as such a symbol.
And once again, I point out that these circumstances would not meet the approval of today's Islamic radicals/extremists/fundamentalists, and that provides more support for my argument that they would not view Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.
NOTE: Life in Cordoba for non-Muslims apparently was not totally free. There were limitations and restrictions in addition to the tax mentioned above. See the next-to-last paragraph on page 4 of this paper.
The first of these is the orientation of the mosque of Cordoba. All mosques are supposed to be oriented on an east-west axis so that worshippers can always face Mecca when praying. However, this was not done with the mosque at Cordoba. From Medieval Iberia: an encyclopedia (p. 586):
In 929, the ruler of Spain, Abd al-Rahman III, declared himself caliph and established what was known as the caliphate of Cordoba. Why is that significant? Recall the earlier description of emirs and caliphs. There could be only one caliph for all of Islam. During the Umayyad rule of Spain, the caliphate was controlled by Abbasid Dynasty, located in Baghdad. As noted in Medieval Iberia: an encyclopedia (pp. 257-258), Abd al-Rahman III "thus server[ed] Muslim Spain, politically and religiously, from the rest of Islam." Stated differently, Abd al-Rahman III openly broke away from and defied the rest of Islam. Because of that, I really do not see how "every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest."
Conclusion
The historical facts and analysis presented above support a strong argument that Cordoba in not recognized by Muslims (be they Islamists or not) as an example and symbol of Muslim conquest and triumphalism. I would gladly respond to Newt's historical basis for his statement to the contrary, but he does not bother to include any such basis. Instead, as he usually does, he simply makes inflammatory statements and expects everyone to believe them because he's the almighty Newt.
The history that I found indicates that Cordoba was the opposite of what Newt expressly and impliedly claims. The history I found indicates that Cordoba was tolerant of other faiths, a relatively open society, and a great intellectual center of learning for Muslims and non-Muslims. Thus, history tends to show that Cordoba was not and is not now a symbol of Muslim conquest, oppression, or triumph. History also shows that initially naming the proposed Muslim community center and mosque in NYC "Cordoba House" was not and is not an insult to anyone except Islamic extremists.
Simply put, history shows that Newt is wrong.
The last statements in Newt's essay I will expose as a steaming pile concern the name "Cordoba House." These statements are hypocritical, misinformed, and simply wrong.
Newt's fifth set of bullshit statements
Here's what Newt had to say about the name "Cordoba House:"
The proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks - is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites. For example, most of them don’t understand that “Cordoba House” is a deliberately insulting term. It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.Newt wrote another rant about the NYC mosque, and I need to include a passage from that.
Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to "symbolize interfaith cooperation" when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.
The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque—“Cordoba House”—which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.We have lots of ground to cover, so buckle up, boys and girls.
Hello, pot. Meet kettle.
I guess Newt would consider me ignorant. Well, to some extent, that was an accurate assessment last week. Like Newt, I also have a degree in history, but my college studies focused on American, Greek, Roman, and Russian history. In the years since, I have done some study in areas of Muslim history, but that dealt largely with the Crusades. I really did not know much about the history of Cordoba.
I have now done some research about Cordoba, which necessarily required me to do research into related topics. Thus, I am at worst much less ignorant now than I was last week. I will say that my research and my writing in this post are in no way definitive or conclusive or necessarily accurate. However, based on what I found and what Newt wrote--and did not write--in his diatribe, there is a greater than zero chance that Newt is the ignorant one.
So let's take another look at Newt's statements in light of some history.
Conquering army replaced church with a mosque
It is true that an invading Muslim army captured the city of Cordoba (also known as Cordova) shortly after invading Spain in 711. Newt makes it sound like as soon as the Muslims took Cordoba, they converted the Christian church and soon made it the third largest mosque in the world.
That is not what happened.
According to this source, when Cordoba fell to the Muslims, "One of the conditions of the surrender of the city was that the Christians should be allowed to retain the exclusive use of their churches. The Moors, however, took possession of half the church of San Vicente[.]" Thereafter, the two faiths shared the building. Then in 785, the Muslim ruler of Cordoba, Abd-er-Rahman, bought the half of the property belonging to the Christians. It was soon after that construction of the Great Mosque of Cordoba began. [NOTE: Every source I found on the internet said that the Muslims purchased the property in or around 785.] The Christians then rebuilt their church on the outskirts of the city. [NOTE: The source for the rebuilding is a travel brochure, so make of that what you will.]
So the information I have found shows that the church was not destroyed when the Muslims took over Cordoba, Muslims shared the building with Christians until 785, then paid the Christians money for their half of the building, and allowed the Christians to build another church.
Construction on the mosque began in 786, but it took almost 200 more years before construction and expansion of the mosque was completed. So the mosque did not become the third largest in the world quickly.
All of this negates the impression given by Newt that the evil invaders came in, immediately desecrated a Christian site, and then destroyed it and replaced it with a huge mosque.
But why would Newt--the man with multiple history degrees--leave out all this history? He left it out (assuming he knew it at all) because it would run counter to his obvious objective of portraying Cordoba, and thus Park 51, as an example of religious intolerance. What a douchebag.
Another reason Newt did not mention all this history is that it counters his claim that Cordoba is a symbol of Islamic conquest and thus the name "Cordoba House" is an insult. That discussion is next...
Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest and triumphalism
Once again Newt ignores history. Not only that, but he provides no history to support his bold claims. And that's because the actual history puts a big dent in his claims.
- Some characteristics of Muslim rule under the Umayyad caliphate
A caliphate's leader is the caliph. One definition of "caliph" is "the title of the successors of Mohammed as rulers of the Islamic world[.]" There could be only one caliph. Some of the rulers that were below the caliph on the organizational chart were emirs. Emirs would be similar to provincial governors in the Roman empire. From 711 to 929, Muslim Spain was an emirate, not a cliphate, meaning that until 929, the rulers of Spain were emirs, not caliphs.
The Umayyad caliphate came to an end in 750 when the Abbasids drove the Umayyads out of the Middle East and moved the capital to Baghdad. Only one member of the Umayyad Dynasty, Abd-er-Rahman, escaped this coup. He eventually went to Muslim-controlled Spain, known as al-Andalus, and in 756 he became the emir of al-Andalus and made Cordoba his capital. So began the Umayyad dynasty that would rule al-Andalus for almost 300 years.
It is important to note that the Umayyads had become very unpopular among many Muslims. As you read what follows, keep in mind that it was the Umayyads who ruled when the Muslims conquered Spain and it was the Umayyads who subsequently ruled in Cordoba. A major reason for the dislike was that many felt the Umayyads were too secular. As stated in this discussion of the Umayyads on the website IslamiCity.com,
With the advent of the Umayyads, how ever, secular concerns and the problems inherent in the administration of what, by then, was a large empire began to dominate the attention of the caliphs, often at the expense of religious concerns - a development that disturbed many devout Muslims. This is not to say that religious values were ignored; on the contrary, they grew in strength for centuries. But they were not always at the forefront and from the time of Mu'awiyah the caliph's role as "Defender of the Faith" increasingly required him to devote attention to the purely secular concerns which dominate so much of every nation's history.This attention to the secular was described as follows in an online Encyclopedia of the Middle East:*******[T]he Umayyads, during the ninety years of their leadership, rarely shook off their empire's reputation as a mulk - that is, a worldly kingdom[.]
It is probably impossible to judge the Umayyad rule objectively because they had angered both the Ulema, the religious scholars who kept most of the records and made religious decisions, and the non-Arabs. Their story is told mostly through the voice of the Abbasids who overthrew them. They were despised for a long time by both by Sunni and Shia Muslims because they allegedly suppressed the Caliphate as a religious institution and ruled in effect as secular kings.So, the Umayyads were not as religious as many thought they should be, and many thought that the Umayyads in fact suppressed religious matters while paying too much attention to secular matters. Hmmm...Does that sound like rulers that would be favored by today's Islamic radicals/extremists/fundamentalists?
Today's Islamic radicals/extremists/fundamentalists probably wouldn't approve of these things done by the Umayyads.
Muawiyah (the first Umayyad caliph) cultivated the goodwill of Christian Syrians by recruiting them for the army at double pay, by appointing Christians to many high offices, and by appointing his son by his Christian wife as his successor. His sensitivity to human behavior accounted in great part for his political success.(emphasis added). I am not claiming that non-Muslims had total freedom or that life for them was perfect under Muslim rule, but the above excerpt shows that there was a degree of tolerance and freedom that I submit has not been and would not be allowed by "Newt's Islamists"--the people that are today's radicals/extremists/fundamentalists.*******In the administration of law, the Umayyads followed the traditions set by the Hellenistic monarchies and the Roman Empire. The conqueror's law--in this case Muslim law (sharia)-- applied only to those of the same faith or nationality as the conquerors. For non-Muslims, civil law was the law of their particular millet (separate religious community, also called milla); religious leaders administered the law of the millet. This system prevailed throughout Islam[.]
The point of this discussion of the Umayyads is that radical/extremist/fundamentalist groups like Al Quaeda, the Taliban, the Wahhabis, and others would like dislike the Umayyads and what they did and how they did it. Since Cordoba was conquered and then ruled by the Umayyads, I have a problem seeing how today's Islamic radicals/extremists/fundamentalists would embrace Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.
And more history raises more reasons why Cordoba would not serve as such a symbol.
- Conditions in Cordoba under Muslim rule
In his book titled, "Spain In The Modern World," James Cleuge explains the significance of Cordova in Medieval Europe:[NOTE: All the sources cited by Derhak are listed at the end of his paper.] And then there's this description of Cordoba:"For there was nothing like it, at that epoch, in the rest of Europe. The best minds in that continent looked to Spain for everything which most clearly differentiates a human being from a tiger." (Cleugh, 1953, p. 70)During the end of the first millennium, Cordova was the intellectual well from which European humanity came to drink. Students from France and England traveled there to sit at the feet of Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars, to learn philosophy, science and medicine (Digest, 1973, p. 622). In the great library of Cordova alone, there were some 600,000 manuscripts (Burke, 1978, p. 122).
This rich and sophisticated society took a tolerant view towards other faiths. Tolerance was unheard of in the rest of Europe. But in Moorish Spain, "thousands of Jews and Christians lived in peace and harmony with their Muslim overlords." (Burke, 1985, p. 38) The society had a literary rather than religious base. Economically their prosperity was unparalleled for centuries. The aristocracy promoted private land ownership and encouraged Jews in banking. There was little or no Muslim prostelyting. Instead, non-believers simply paid an extra tax!
"Their society had become too sophisticated to be fanatical. Christians and Moslems, with Jews as their intermediaries and interpreters, lived side by side and fought, not each other, but other mixed communities." (Cleugh, 1953, p. 71)
Nearing the end of the 1st Millennium, Cordoba was the intellectual center of Europe. Students from all over Europe came to be taught by Arab, Christian, and Jewish scholars in the great Library of Cordoba, which held over 600,000 manuscripts. The rich and complex society had a tolerant view of other faiths. Jews, Christians, and Muslims lived together in harmony, and the society had a literary base. Private land ownership was encouraged, as well as banking among Jews. Non-believers in the Muslim faith were simply levied a special tax.Instead of being the center of all Muslim oppression and intolerance--like Newt would have you believe--it turns out that Cordoba allowed multiple faiths and was a leading center of learning, not just for Muslims, but Jews and Christians as well. And Jews and Christians were allowed to own property. In short, the Umayyad rulers of Cordoba were similar to the Umayyads that once held the caliphate, and, for the times, Cordoba was a tolerant and open society.
And once again, I point out that these circumstances would not meet the approval of today's Islamic radicals/extremists/fundamentalists, and that provides more support for my argument that they would not view Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.
NOTE: Life in Cordoba for non-Muslims apparently was not totally free. There were limitations and restrictions in addition to the tax mentioned above. See the next-to-last paragraph on page 4 of this paper.
- Orientation of the mosque and declaration of a caliphate of Cordoba
The first of these is the orientation of the mosque of Cordoba. All mosques are supposed to be oriented on an east-west axis so that worshippers can always face Mecca when praying. However, this was not done with the mosque at Cordoba. From Medieval Iberia: an encyclopedia (p. 586):
The mosque’s orientation is incorrect, which is only partly explained by the orientation of the former church. Instead of facing Mecca (east), as would be expected, it faces south, adopting the orientation of the Umayyad mosque of Damascus; politicideological allegiances with the Umayyad and Syrian past, expressed in this manner, proved more important than correct direction of prayer.Stated differently, the north-south orientation of the mosque seems to have been intended as paying homage to Umayyad caliphate which was overthrown in part because of its moderate and tolerant ways. Also, it would seem to be a denial of the primacy of Mecca. Why would present-day Islamists then consider the Cordoba mosque as a symbol of triumph over Christianity and the West?
In 929, the ruler of Spain, Abd al-Rahman III, declared himself caliph and established what was known as the caliphate of Cordoba. Why is that significant? Recall the earlier description of emirs and caliphs. There could be only one caliph for all of Islam. During the Umayyad rule of Spain, the caliphate was controlled by Abbasid Dynasty, located in Baghdad. As noted in Medieval Iberia: an encyclopedia (pp. 257-258), Abd al-Rahman III "thus server[ed] Muslim Spain, politically and religiously, from the rest of Islam." Stated differently, Abd al-Rahman III openly broke away from and defied the rest of Islam. Because of that, I really do not see how "every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest."
Conclusion
The historical facts and analysis presented above support a strong argument that Cordoba in not recognized by Muslims (be they Islamists or not) as an example and symbol of Muslim conquest and triumphalism. I would gladly respond to Newt's historical basis for his statement to the contrary, but he does not bother to include any such basis. Instead, as he usually does, he simply makes inflammatory statements and expects everyone to believe them because he's the almighty Newt.
The history that I found indicates that Cordoba was the opposite of what Newt expressly and impliedly claims. The history I found indicates that Cordoba was tolerant of other faiths, a relatively open society, and a great intellectual center of learning for Muslims and non-Muslims. Thus, history tends to show that Cordoba was not and is not now a symbol of Muslim conquest, oppression, or triumph. History also shows that initially naming the proposed Muslim community center and mosque in NYC "Cordoba House" was not and is not an insult to anyone except Islamic extremists.
Simply put, history shows that Newt is wrong.
posted by WCharles @ 8/26/2010 01:45:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home