NYT Refuses To Run Anti-Islam Ad

[East of Eden]

......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/

Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.

Anyone want to defend this?

[East of Eden]

Then you are misusing the term "free speech." That phrase comes from the 1A

But is not limited to the 1A. The 'free speech' movement on campuses in the '60s had nothing to do with Congress either.

I can accept there can be multiple connotations. However, if we use the term "free speech" in the context of "rights" then the implication is that it is a first amendment issue. If we use the word "attack" then the implication is that someone is trying to prevent a person from engaging in protected speech.


Again, neither of these is happening in this instance. Thus, the use of this term seems to me to be inappropriate, and appears to be an effort at making a victim where none really exists.

Her characterizations of the Park 51 project and the Imam promoting it were blatantly untruthful.

Cite, or are you just saying that because you disagree with her about the mosque location?

Since this is off-topic, I will not get into the details here. You may recall we went over this in another thread. The issue is not my disagreement with Ms. Gellar's objection to the location. Some of the issues were:

1) Portraying in her advertising that the structure would be literally at Ground Zero. That is not accurate.

The building proposed for the mosque site was damaged on 9/11, making it in many people's minds part of Ground Zero, even though it might not fit the technical use of the term.

The advertisement represented the mosque as directly on ground zero, not several blocks away. Whether or nto you consider buildings several blocks away to be part of GZ is not the only issue. Even if you have that opinion, the representation was still dishonest.

And the term Ground Zero is usually understood to be the area of total destruction. I doubt you would find any references using that term that were meant to apply to structures off the actual WTC site until after the Park 51 plans were under discussion. Thus, the "stretching" if you will of the term is almost surely motivated by Gellar and others against the project.

It isn't much of a stretch to think of a building damaged on 9/11 to be a part of Ground Zero. Would you be happier if opponents used another term?

Labeling it a "symbol" does not reduce the dishonesty. The "symbol" seemed clearly designed to inflame emotions against the project, and did so through dishonest representation of the project. Inventing her own "symbolic" representation and suggesting it as the reality is dishonest.

You're making a big deal over nothing here. Most of the opponents against the mosque were smart enough to know a big dome wasn't being planned.

But not all opinions are equally valid. Certainly she is welcome to her opinion. That does not negate that her opinions are based on, and that she justifices them, through dishonest and inaccurate statements.

Is there ANY evidence that anyone involved with the project had intentions of this being a "victory Mosque?"


No, niether Gellar nor anyone else was ever able to provide any evidence that this was the case. The "opinion" was based entirely on speculation and distortion. In fact, all evidence indicates the purpose was almost exactly the opposite of the representation offered by Gellar and others.

How can you know none of the world's Muslims would see it as a victory mosque like these? http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero ... al-dreams/

With the Muslim practice of taquiya, or lying to infidels, would we know?

I and many others thought it would have been inappropriate to build a mosque in a building damaged on 9/11, just as it would have been inappropriate to build a Shinto temple at Pearl Harbor.

The only evidence provided to show that the Imam was radical was also clearly based on distortion or denial of facts, plain and simple. One interview taken out of context, and one statement by the Imam on 9/11 which was absolutely factually true and very similar to statements made by a number of mainstream U.S. politicians.

The Iman has a lot of suspicious, unsavory contacts. See http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero ... al-dreams/

The very name 'Cordoba' is telling considering how Jews and Christians were abused during the Muslim occupation.

Certainly anyone is free to have opinions based on distortions and speculation, but those opinons do not deserve to be considered as credible or valid as opinions that are based on reality.

Again, both ads under discussion in this thread were inflammatory and, in my view, unfair. I don't know the record of the group producing the anti-Catholic ad. I do know the record of Gellar, and it is not a good one with respect to truthfulness or fairness. Someone with Gellar's record should not expect publications to be eager to provide her a platform for her propaganda.

Your nitpicking with her is interesting considering your consistent support of Obama, who has a whole trail of untruths behind him. I wish we had more brave women like Geller, who tells the truth about radical Islam, unlike the cowards in the MSM like the New York Times.

[Atrax Robustus]

@ East of Eden. I am becoming tired of this argument. Not because it is going no-where, but because you insist on avoiding providing responses to the initial questions I posed.

You have extracted sentences from my responses and used them as out of context quotes where you introduce red-herring arguments. Too often, you have avoided questions posed by asking tangential questions in response.

If you wish to continue the discussion, then I would appreciate your application of some ethical practice in future posts.

And you're going to disagree, if you've already made up your mind to reject God.

The initial premise used in the explanation is flawed. Through slight of hand, laypersons are led to incorrectly assume that the multiple 'viable' explanations are fact - therefore they are happy to accept Bob's asserions that there are no contradictions.

Of course I disagee! If, however, any one of these 'viable' explanations were demonstrably true - then I believe that I am intellectually mature enough to reconsider the argument in that different light and revise my conclusions accordingly.

So that's the only thing stopping you from becoming a Christian, huh?

It's only one of the things that stop me from becoming a theist.

Tell me, what would you do if a muslim provided an irrefutable explanation that proved that the Qu'ran was inspired by divine revelation?

If it were irrefutable, yes. Do you have one?

[Case in point. This thread of our discussion focuses on my pointing out the logical flaw employed by apologetics that you cut and pasted in response to my questioning of the contradictions and inconsistencies of scripture. Other than stating that you think that my assessment is my opinion (answered below), you have directly avoided responding to the flaw that I pointed out to you.]

So you respond with an irrelevant sentence. . . . What would YOU do?

If I had been shown irrefutable proof - I would probably be a muslim. Because no such evidence has been presented by any of the 1000s of religions that man has created - I remain an atheist.

I don't know.

If you rule out that the Gospel events really happened, you need to come up with a coherent alternate theory of why they would say these things and go to their deaths to defend them, yet you don't know.

My conclusion at this point, is that the gospels are seperate attempts to record a story that was, until then, maintained as verbal tradition. The contradictions and inconsistencies are the result of inevitable variation of the same story - a chinese whispers problem followed by embellishment and interpretation of the text that would have occurred as the original text underwent multiple copying by multiple copyists.

We have fragments of the NT from 114 AD that are the same as today. The Dead Sea Scrolls show us that the OT hasn't changed, why would you assume the NT has without evidence? Wishful thinking?

[Case in point. You have blatantly broken my response, quoted both parts in isolation and then responded on a tangential argument that has nothing to do whatsoever with my response to you.]

No - I have pointed out that the method employed to explain away the contradictions by your cut and paste apologetics is fundamentally flawed.

Your opinion. I remember reading an article on this subject once where the author pointed out many historical events of the last 500 years where contemporary historians got details differently. By your reasoning, these events therefore never happened. As I said before, the Gospels are no different than other human testimony, agreement on the big picture, but minor differences on the small things, which are not necessarily contradictions.

[Case in point. You have avoided responding to the logical flaw of the apologetics arguments you cut and pasted in response to my original question regarding the contradictions and inconsistencies within your preferred scripture]

Comment. I don't hold opinions on what are facts. Please demonstrate that my conclusion regarding the logical flaw employed in your cut and pasted response is incorrect.

OK. So at least we've established that God wasn't the author. Thank you.

Huh?

[Case in point. Avoiding discussion on a point where you have contradicted yourself with staged confusion.] You asserted that your preferred version of scripture was written by jesus/god and then you specifically referred to human authors.

Want to cite some examples of these minor 'typos' from the Old Testament and comment on why they are irrelevant?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Morin/numerical.html

[Case in point. When called to support an assertion you have provided nothing other than a link to an apologetics page.]

. . . and what is your support that these 'typos' are irrelevant?

Cite? If you're referring to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 --- I believe the Apostle Paul was referring to the OT - the Gospels and NT hadn't been composed at the time would have made the statement.

No, I wasn't talking about II Tim. 3:16-17. In 1 Corinthians 14:37, Paul stated,

“If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.�

In Galatians 1:11-12, he also wrote,

“For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the Gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through revelation of Jesus Christ.�

Then in 1 Corinthians 2, Paul declared that what he taught was from God even to every word and that this was from the Spirit. In I Thessalonians 2:13 Paul says,

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."

Thank you for clarifying that. Perhaps you might describe why you believe that these verses support some assumption on the parts of the authors that their work would be included in a compiled form three centuries later?

Joseph Smith presented his writings as scripture and inspired by God - on what basis do you discredit his assertion but support the assertion ascribed to Paul?

Here is a good summary by an ex-Mormon:

http://www.exmormon.org/prophet.htm

His prophetic batting average was pretty lousy.

What is Paul's batting average? There's some major strike-outs in the NT when it comes to prophecy and no matter how hard you squint your eyes or hold your head the apologists don't have valid answers other than "Well - we think it happened"; we're still waiting for jesus' 'imminent' return after all.

No dodge intended.

So why didn't you answer my question of what would it take for you to believe?

Let's face it, religions other than Christianity rely on the infallibility of their own scripture by employing the same logical flaw. What evidence would YOU need before YOU accepted that THEIR scripture was divinely inspired?

Fulfilling prophecy, performing miracles, and rising from the dead would be a good start.

[Case in point. Second example in this post of splitting a quote and avoidance. This time, you have disingenuously omitted my response in order to make it appear that I hadn't answered your question.]

Fulfilling prophecy, performing miracles, and rising from the dead would be a good start.

Interesting isn't it? I'm STILL an atheist because NO religion has provided evidence that meets YOUR standards.

If you're going to make comment - why not make it relevant?

You just made a similar comment. Why the double standard?

You may need to point out what the similar content was. I can't find it.

No games. You're capable of research and there's plenty of translations available on the web for anybody who wishes to exercise intellectual honesty and integrity. I'll give you a hint: read Chapter 30.

You made the claim about Sebeos, it's up to you to support it, not me. BTW, I did a Google search on Sebeos, and nothing came up, unlike Tacitus.

I raised Sebeos in response to your claim that the historicity of Mohammed is less well documented than that of Jesus. Josephus and Tacitus are good sources for Roman history. Sebeos has the same validity in Levantine historical studies. Even if you had followed one of the MANY links to Sebeos on the web - it doesn't surprise me one bit that you wouldn't bother to read it anyway. As I said in the OMITTED paragraph of my response - I suspect that your historical learnings are largely informed by apologetics websites anyway.

Unlike you, I will provide a valid response. On the bookshelf to my immediate left I have well thumbed copies of: Basic Christianity, The Cross of Christ and The Living Church: Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor. I don't limit my reading to sources that agree with my currrent understanding of a subject and I enjoy identifying and challenging my own personal biases.

Neither do I, or I wouldn't be participating in this forum.

To date I've seen no evidence of you doing anything other than apologetics and, based upon your interchanges with others on this forum, I see that confirmation bias (aka Morton's Demon) is very efficient in your case.

I didn't answer your question simply because it is a digression

It isn't a digression, and I'll ask it again: If you say Jesus perform miracles, would you become a Christian?

from the discussion regarding the academic analyses of the Testimonium Flavianum that you are basing your assertions on. So, to restate the request you have avoided - please cite those academic analyses.

I will quote John P. Meier, "The Testimonium: Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible", Bible Review, June 1991:

"Read the Testimonium without the italicized passages [the probable later insertions] and you will see that the flow of thought is clear. Josephus calls Jesus by the generic title "wise man" (sophos an'r, perhaps the Hebrew khakham). Josephus then proceeds to "unpack" that generic designation (wise man) with two of its main components in the Greco-Roman world: miracle working and effective teaching. This double display of "wisdom" wins Jesus a large following among both Jews and gentiles, and presumably - though no explicit reason is given - it is this huge success that moves the leading men to accuse Jesus before Pilate. Despite Jesus' shameful death on the cross, his earlier adherents do not give up their loyalty to him, and so (note that the transition is much better without the reference to the resurrection in the deleted passage) the tribe of Christians has not yet died out."

[Case in point. Splitting the comment to push your wagon on a tangential question].

This cut and paste supports what, exactly? Do you have any personal opinion on Meiers article - other that a C&P of an overview of what the Testimonium states? For example, does Meier have anything to say about the interesting possibility where, if the Testimonium is bodily removed from the manuscript, the flow of the text between the preceeding and following paragraphs is uniform - - - almost as if the Testimonium was inserted into the text? What about the lack of interest that Origen apparently showed in the Testimonium?

Digression again!

What you call a 'digression' I call trying to get a straight answer out of you.

The discussion was focussing on why Mohammed would quote the miracles of Jesus as they were 'revealed' in the Qu'ran. I hadn't denied that fact - but you're now attempting to make the mention of Jesus miracles in the Qu'ran some sort of point scoring exercise.

FWIW - do you know that the Qu'ran attributes miracles to Jesus that - for some reason - didn't make it into the bible?

The NT claims there were many acts of Jesus not recorded in the Bible.

[Case in point. Splitting the comment (yet again) and commenting out of context]

The reason your question is a digression is because you asked it in response to my comment that your understanding of the order of revelation of the Qu'ran was suspect.

In respect to the miracles of jesus in the Qu'ran . . . the muslims have far more wondrous acts attributed to him that the writers of the gospels ever dreamt of. Have you ever read the Qu'ran BTW?

Indeed! It would appear though, that I am open to considering the conclusions of those with whom I don't agree and, if they convince me that they are correct, I am also intellectually mature enough to change my position.

So people who don't come to your conclusions are just not 'intellectually mature'?

Did you even read my post? You obviousy had some difficulty comprehending what I wrote here.

[East of Eden]

@ East of Eden. I am becoming tired of this argument.

Finally something we agree on. Your refusal to answer my question of what would constitute valid evidence and would you become a Christian if you witnessed Jesus' miracles means we are done here.

[micatala]

Then you are misusing the term "free speech." That phrase comes from the 1A

But is not limited to the 1A. The 'free speech' movement on campuses in the '60s had nothing to do with Congress either.

I can accept there can be multiple connotations. However, if we use the term "free speech" in the context of "rights" then the implication is that it is a first amendment issue. If we use the word "attack" then the implication is that someone is trying to prevent a person from engaging in protected speech.


Again, neither of these is happening in this instance. Thus, the use of this term seems to me to be inappropriate, and appears to be an effort at making a victim where none really exists.

Her characterizations of the Park 51 project and the Imam promoting it were blatantly untruthful.

Cite, or are you just saying that because you disagree with her about the mosque location?

Since this is off-topic, I will not get into the details here. You may recall we went over this in another thread. The issue is not my disagreement with Ms. Gellar's objection to the location. Some of the issues were:

1) Portraying in her advertising that the structure would be literally at Ground Zero. That is not accurate.

The building proposed for the mosque site was damaged on 9/11, making it in many people's minds part of Ground Zero, even though it might not fit the technical use of the term.

The advertisement represented the mosque as directly on ground zero, not several blocks away. Whether or nto you consider buildings several blocks away to be part of GZ is not the only issue. Even if you have that opinion, the representation was still dishonest.

And the term Ground Zero is usually understood to be the area of total destruction. I doubt you would find any references using that term that were meant to apply to structures off the actual WTC site until after the Park 51 plans were under discussion. Thus, the "stretching" if you will of the term is almost surely motivated by Gellar and others against the project.

It isn't much of a stretch to think of a building damaged on 9/11 to be a part of Ground Zero. Would you be happier if opponents used another term?

Whether it is a 'stretch' or not is a matter of opinion. The point is the stretch seems to have only been made in order to mischaracterize the Park 51 project. Thus, the purpose of the 'stretch' made by Gellar was dishonest. I prefer people to be honest, fair, and accurate, not manipulative, biased, and dishonest.

Labeling it a "symbol" does not reduce the dishonesty. The "symbol" seemed clearly designed to inflame emotions against the project, and did so through dishonest representation of the project. Inventing her own "symbolic" representation and suggesting it as the reality is dishonest.

You're making a big deal over nothing here. Most of the opponents against the mosque were smart enough to know a big dome wasn't being planned.

Correction, Gellar and her allies are making a big deal out of nothing, and they have been doing it by being untruthful and unfair.

But not all opinions are equally valid. Certainly she is welcome to her opinion. That does not negate that her opinions are based on, and that she justifices them, through dishonest and inaccurate statements.

Is there ANY evidence that anyone involved with the project had intentions of this being a "victory Mosque?"


No, niether Gellar nor anyone else was ever able to provide any evidence that this was the case. The "opinion" was based entirely on speculation and distortion. In fact, all evidence indicates the purpose was almost exactly the opposite of the representation offered by Gellar and others.

How can you know none of the world's Muslims would see it as a victory mosque like these?

Nice dodge. First of all, this does nothing to provide evidence that the planners of the project had such an intention. Secondly, you deflect from that issue by bringing up what some other Muslims elsewhere might or might not think, again, without providing any evidence they do or don't.


However, wheter some Muslim somewhere would look at that as a victory Mosque is an irrelevant and fallaciour argument. Following that logic, we should oppose any project that someone somewhere might misinterpret in a negative or inaccurate way. That seems to me to be rather silly. Why should an Imam in New York promoting a project intended to build interfaith bridges have to answer for what someone who happens to be of his faith thinks who has an inaccurate understanding of the project?

The only evidence provided to show that the Imam was radical was also clearly based on distortion or denial of facts, plain and simple. One interview taken out of context, and one statement by the Imam on 9/11 which was absolutely factually true and very similar to statements made by a number of mainstream U.S. politicians.

The Iman has a lot of suspicious, unsavory contacts. See http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero ... al-dreams/

More fallacious smear tactics. A person is not their father. A person does not necessarily share all the beliefs of the country he came from. Following this line of reasoning, those people who have different beliefs or a different faith than their parents should automatically have their own statements and beliefs discounted based on what their parents said. Does that really make sense?

Certainly anyone is free to have opinions based on distortions and speculation, but those opinons do not deserve to be considered as credible or valid as opinions that are based on reality.

Again, both ads under discussion in this thread were inflammatory and, in my view, unfair. I don't know the record of the group producing the anti-Catholic ad. I do know the record of Gellar, and it is not a good one with respect to truthfulness or fairness. Someone with Gellar's record should not expect publications to be eager to provide her a platform for her propaganda.

Your nitpicking with her is interesting considering your consistent support of Obama, who has a whole trail of untruths behind him. I wish we had more brave women like Geller, who tells the truth about radical Islam, unlike the cowards in the MSM like the New York Times.

More deflection. Obama is irrelevant here. You are certainly free to consider the matter of small significance, but in that case, why make an issue out of the Mosque in the first place?

[Atrax Robustus]

@ East of Eden. I am becoming tired of this argument.

Finally something we agree on. Your refusal to answer my question of what would constitute valid evidence and would you become a Christian if you witnessed Jesus' miracles means we are done here.

QED

[East of Eden]

Then you are misusing the term "free speech." That phrase comes from the 1A

But is not limited to the 1A. The 'free speech' movement on campuses in the '60s had nothing to do with Congress either.

I can accept there can be multiple connotations. However, if we use the term "free speech" in the context of "rights" then the implication is that it is a first amendment issue. If we use the word "attack" then the implication is that someone is trying to prevent a person from engaging in protected speech.


Again, neither of these is happening in this instance. Thus, the use of this term seems to me to be inappropriate, and appears to be an effort at making a victim where none really exists.

Her characterizations of the Park 51 project and the Imam promoting it were blatantly untruthful.

Cite, or are you just saying that because you disagree with her about the mosque location?

Since this is off-topic, I will not get into the details here. You may recall we went over this in another thread. The issue is not my disagreement with Ms. Gellar's objection to the location. Some of the issues were:

1) Portraying in her advertising that the structure would be literally at Ground Zero. That is not accurate.

The building proposed for the mosque site was damaged on 9/11, making it in many people's minds part of Ground Zero, even though it might not fit the technical use of the term.

The advertisement represented the mosque as directly on ground zero, not several blocks away. Whether or nto you consider buildings several blocks away to be part of GZ is not the only issue. Even if you have that opinion, the representation was still dishonest.

And the term Ground Zero is usually understood to be the area of total destruction. I doubt you would find any references using that term that were meant to apply to structures off the actual WTC site until after the Park 51 plans were under discussion. Thus, the "stretching" if you will of the term is almost surely motivated by Gellar and others against the project.

It isn't much of a stretch to think of a building damaged on 9/11 to be a part of Ground Zero. Would you be happier if opponents used another term?

Whether it is a 'stretch' or not is a matter of opinion. The point is the stretch seems to have only been made in order to mischaracterize the Park 51 project. Thus, the purpose of the 'stretch' made by Gellar was dishonest. I prefer people to be honest, fair, and accurate, not manipulative, biased, and dishonest.

Labeling it a "symbol" does not reduce the dishonesty. The "symbol" seemed clearly designed to inflame emotions against the project, and did so through dishonest representation of the project. Inventing her own "symbolic" representation and suggesting it as the reality is dishonest.

You're making a big deal over nothing here. Most of the opponents against the mosque were smart enough to know a big dome wasn't being planned.

Correction, Gellar and her allies are making a big deal out of nothing, and they have been doing it by being untruthful and unfair.

But not all opinions are equally valid. Certainly she is welcome to her opinion. That does not negate that her opinions are based on, and that she justifices them, through dishonest and inaccurate statements.

Is there ANY evidence that anyone involved with the project had intentions of this being a "victory Mosque?"


No, niether Gellar nor anyone else was ever able to provide any evidence that this was the case. The "opinion" was based entirely on speculation and distortion. In fact, all evidence indicates the purpose was almost exactly the opposite of the representation offered by Gellar and others.

How can you know none of the world's Muslims would see it as a victory mosque like these?

Nice dodge. First of all, this does nothing to provide evidence that the planners of the project had such an intention. Secondly, you deflect from that issue by bringing up what some other Muslims elsewhere might or might not think, again, without providing any evidence they do or don't.


However, wheter some Muslim somewhere would look at that as a victory Mosque is an irrelevant and fallaciour argument. Following that logic, we should oppose any project that someone somewhere might misinterpret in a negative or inaccurate way. That seems to me to be rather silly. Why should an Imam in New York promoting a project intended to build interfaith bridges have to answer for what someone who happens to be of his faith thinks who has an inaccurate understanding of the project?

The only evidence provided to show that the Imam was radical was also clearly based on distortion or denial of facts, plain and simple. One interview taken out of context, and one statement by the Imam on 9/11 which was absolutely factually true and very similar to statements made by a number of mainstream U.S. politicians.

The Iman has a lot of suspicious, unsavory contacts. See http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero ... al-dreams/

More fallacious smear tactics. A person is not their father. A person does not necessarily share all the beliefs of the country he came from. Following this line of reasoning, those people who have different beliefs or a different faith than their parents should automatically have their own statements and beliefs discounted based on what their parents said. Does that really make sense?

Certainly anyone is free to have opinions based on distortions and speculation, but those opinons do not deserve to be considered as credible or valid as opinions that are based on reality.

Again, both ads under discussion in this thread were inflammatory and, in my view, unfair. I don't know the record of the group producing the anti-Catholic ad. I do know the record of Gellar, and it is not a good one with respect to truthfulness or fairness. Someone with Gellar's record should not expect publications to be eager to provide her a platform for her propaganda.

Your nitpicking with her is interesting considering your consistent support of Obama, who has a whole trail of untruths behind him. I wish we had more brave women like Geller, who tells the truth about radical Islam, unlike the cowards in the MSM like the New York Times.

More deflection. Obama is irrelevant here. You are certainly free to consider the matter of small significance, but in that case, why make an issue out of the Mosque in the first place?

I'll tell you what is dishonest, and what should raise a red flag in any open-minded person: The Iman's naming of his enterprise the Cordoba Institute. He is either lying about the gross mistreatment of 'infidels' during the Muslim occupation of Spain, or he approves of it. From my earlier link:

"Even the reputedly enlightened Abd al-Rahman III (912-961) brutalized the population. At the Cordoba palace alone, he owned 3,750 slaves on his death in 961. On July 26 in 920, a Pyrenean monk at San Juan de la Pena recorded a slaughter in Valdejunquera, southwest of Pamplona. In 920, a three month campaign culminated on July 25 with a siege of the Muez castle. All “combatants� were “put to the sword,� including over 500 “counts and knights.� While returning to Cordoba, general al-Nasir totally destroyed many other villages too. The poet Ibn Abd Rabbihi later wrote the invaders left Osma “like a blackened piece of charcoal.�

In 976 Almanzor or Al-Mansur (“the victorious�) took power. In 977 he campaigned with his general against Leon. Some 56 campaigns followed in Almanzor’s rule alone. In 985, he sacked Barcelona and the San Cugat del Valles monastery. In 987, he plundered Coimbra (now in Portugal). In 995, he imprisoned the count of Castile, and destroyed Carrion and Astorga. In 997 he attacked Santiago de Compostela. In 999 he destroyed Pamplona and in 1002 flattened Roija and San Millan de la Cogolla monastery. Almonzor raided Catalonia in 1003; Castile in 1004; Leon in 1005; and Aragon in 1006. Almanzor himself described all war on Christians as Jihad. Christian subjects said he was “seized by the Devil.�

In the 11th century, Morocco’s Almoravids crossed the Atlas mountains, conquered its plain and then conquered Spain — which they ruled from 1080 until Fernando liberated most of the peninsula in 1248. “[N]oting can stand in their way,� wrote the Muslim historian Ibn Kahldun of Almoravid religious and military fervor, “for their outlook is the same and the object they desire is common to all and is one for which they are prepared to die.� Thus in 1148 alone, the Almohads massacred 100,000 Jews in Fez, 120,000 Jews in Marrakesh and wrecked devastation and death throughout Spain, from Seville to Tortosa.

In 1148, Jewish physician and philosopher Maimonides fled Cordoba’s Almohad persecution with his family disguised as Muslims. He found asylum in Fatimid Egypt. Arabs and Muslims had “persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us,â€� he later wrote. “Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.â€� Maimonides’ 1172 Epistle to the [persecuted] Jews of Yemen that forced conversions they reported from Yemen, the Berbers had similarly forced upon Jews across the Maghreb and Spain. He described Mohammed as “the Madman,â€� despairing that the sole objective of his “invented … well known religion,” was “procuring rule and submission….â€�

[Wyvern]

I'll tell you what is dishonest, and what should raise a red flag in any open-minded person: The Iman's naming of his enterprise the Cordoba Institute. He is either lying about the gross mistreatment of 'infidels' during the Muslim occupation of Spain, or he approves of it.

If what you say about Cordoba and how muslims mean it is true then so are the claims made by muslims about the western use of the word crusade.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I'll tell you what is dishonest, and what should raise a red flag in any open-minded person: The Iman's naming of his enterprise the Cordoba Institute. He is either lying about the gross mistreatment of 'infidels' during the Muslim occupation of Spain, or he approves of it.

First, I would like to point out the obvious here: you have completely evaded micatala's post.

Second, the Muslim rule of Spain lasted some 700 years. Some treatment of the populace was good, some of it was bad. The name "Cordoba" was obviously chosen for the positive aspects, as the purpose of the initiative is for interfaith communication. To suggest that this means approving of persecution is an absurd and unevidenced attack on your part.

The name Cordoba was chosen to symbolize the time in history when Muslims, Jews and Christians lived together in peace and harmony and created a prosperous center of intellectual, spiritual, cultural and commercial life in the city of Cordoba in Southern Spain.

Cordoba Initiative is often asked about extremist interpretations of Islam, the conflict between the secular and religious traditions in the Muslim world, the lack of young Muslim leaders speaking out against violence and the role of women in modern Islam. The Cordoba Initiative tackles these and other tough issues in a practical way in order to break the cycle of fear, misunderstanding and mistrust that fuels extremism and radicalism around the world.

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/about/

...but I suppose you still think they're secretly evil Muslims because of the name they chose?

[JoeyKnothead]

On the Cordoba Initiative...

CURRENT INITIATIVES AT SIP

The project has given rise to the forthcoming Shariah Index Project book, which includes an extended scholastic deliberation on the nature of Islamic governance and the process of Islamic state indexing. In addition, the Cordoba Initiative will introduce the State of the Muslim World Annual Index. The Index will offer Muslim governments and citizens a measurement that shows how well their nations comply with Islamic legal benchmarks found to be fundamental to Islamic governance.

All I see is a group that strives - for better or worse - to set forth what constitutes an "Islamic State", and then they'll judge how good States are at being it.

To this paranoid individual, I see nothing about this group that provides me sufficient reason not to think they seek an essentially Islamic State across the globe.

My takeaway is that this is a tool for Islamists to say such as, "See, they're way better Islamists over yonder, so y'all gotta step up with the Islaming."

Where's this group's "You leave me the heck alone and I'll leave you the heck alone" index?

Say what you will about their policies, this group does nothing to alleviate my fears of a growing Islamic population, and the potential influence that population may have here where I sit.

I don't think it takes a rocket surgeon to realize that if only x% out of a Billion Islamists are the bad apples, then at 2 Billion of 'em, you've got twice the problems.

[micatala]

I'll tell you what is dishonest, and what should raise a red flag in any open-minded person: The Iman's naming of his enterprise the Cordoba Institute. He is either lying about the gross mistreatment of 'infidels' during the Muslim occupation of Spain, or he approves of it.

First, I would like to point out the obvious here: you have completely evaded micatala's post.

Second, the Muslim rule of Spain lasted some 700 years. Some treatment of the populace was good, some of it was bad. The name "Cordoba" was obviously chosen for the positive aspects, as the purpose of the initiative is for interfaith communication. To suggest that this means approving of persecution is an absurd and unevidenced attack on your part.

The name Cordoba was chosen to symbolize the time in history when Muslims, Jews and Christians lived together in peace and harmony and created a prosperous center of intellectual, spiritual, cultural and commercial life in the city of Cordoba in Southern Spain.

Cordoba Initiative is often asked about extremist interpretations of Islam, the conflict between the secular and religious traditions in the Muslim world, the lack of young Muslim leaders speaking out against violence and the role of women in modern Islam. The Cordoba Initiative tackles these and other tough issues in a practical way in order to break the cycle of fear, misunderstanding and mistrust that fuels extremism and radicalism around the world.

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/about/

...but I suppose you still think they're secretly evil Muslims because of the name they chose?

Thanks for the source.

Yes, the position being taken by Gellar and it seems East of Eden is that we should ignore what the Imam is actually saying, and assume without evidence that he is being dishonest.



I would like to address another part of the "Cordoba" issue raised by East of Eden.

In 1148, Jewish physician and philosopher Maimonides fled Cordoba’s Almohad persecution with his family disguised as Muslims. He found asylum in Fatimid Egypt. Arabs and Muslims had “persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us,â€� he later wrote. “Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they.â€� Maimonides’ 1172 Epistle to the [persecuted] Jews of Yemen that forced conversions they reported from Yemen, the Berbers had similarly forced upon Jews across the Maghreb and Spain. He described Mohammed as “the Madman,â€� despairing that the sole objective of his “invented … well known religion,” was “procuring rule and submission….â€�

I fully accept that some Muslim authorities practiced atrocities and persecution, including expulsions, of the Jews.


But Christians were doing the very same thing at the time as well.



Consider the "results" of the Disputation of Paris, held in 1240.

The terms of the disputation demanded that the four rabbis defend the Talmud against Donin's accusations that the Talmud was immoral, blasphemous, and spoke offensively of Jesus. Though the rabbis presented a defense of the Talmud, a commission of Christian theologians condemned the Talmud to be burned and on June 17, 1244. Twenty-four carriage loads of Jewish religious manuscripts were set on fire in the streets of Paris.

These hand copied scrolls would have represented thousands of years of labor.


A few years later, there was the Disputation of Barcelona.

The Disputation of Barcelona (July 20–24, 1263) was held at the royal palace of King James I of Aragon in the presence of the King, his court, and many prominent ecclesiastical dignitaries and knights, between Dominican Friar Pablo Christiani, a convert from Judaism to Christianity, and Rabbi Nachmanides (whose full name, Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman Gerondi, is often abbreviated as Ramban).

The disputation was organized by Raymond de Penyafort, the superior of Christiani and the confessor of King James. Christiani had been preaching to Jews of Provence. Relying upon the reserve his adversary would be forced to maintain through fear of wounding the feelings of the Christian dignitaries, Christiani assured the King that he could prove the truth of Christianity from the Talmud and other rabbinical writings. Nahmanides complied with the order of the King, but stipulated that complete freedom of speech should be granted.

Not exactly a fair fight. The end result of the debate was that Nahmanides was banished from Spain.


And these two events are among the milder persecutions of the Jews during this time.

During the High Middle Ages in Europe there was full-scale persecution in many places, with blood libels, expulsions, forced conversions and massacres. An underlying source of prejudice against Jews in Europe was religious. Jews were frequently massacred and exiled from various European countries. The persecution hit its first peak during the Crusades. In the First Crusade (1096) flourishing communities on the Rhine and the Danube were utterly destroyed; see German Crusade, 1096. In the Second Crusade (1147) the Jews in France were subject to frequent massacres. The Jews were also subjected to attacks by the Shepherds' Crusades of 1251 and 1320. The Crusades were followed by expulsions, including in, 1290, the banishing of all English Jews; in 1396, 100,000 Jews were expelled from France; and, in 1421 thousands were expelled from Austria. Many of the expelled Jews fled to Poland.[4]

As the Black Death epidemics devastated Europe in the mid-14th century, annihilating more than a half of the population, Jews were taken as scapegoats. Rumors spread that they caused the disease by deliberately poisoning wells. Hundreds of Jewish communities were destroyed by violence in the Black Death persecutions. Although Pope Clement VI tried to protect them by the July 6, 1348 papal bull and another 1348 bull, several months later, 900 Jews were burnt alive in Strasbourg, where the plague hadn't yet affected the city.[5]

Following East of Eden's logic, if someone names their coffee shop "Cafe Paree" or "Cafe Barcelona" we should understand that as a statement in support of anti-semitism and victory of Christianity over the Jews, regardless of the actual reason for the name given by the proprietor.