Here is MICHELLE MALKIN’S recent post and appearance on Fox & Friends this morning:
Another day, another left-wing rush to Fox-bashing, right-wing demonizing judgment…
As you may have heard, a Muslim cabbie was stabbed in a terrible incident in NYC today.
The reportedly drunk perpetrator worked/volunteered for a liberal interfaith film company and there is zero evidence that he is a Fox News fan, Glenn Beck listener, Republican voter, or conservative blog reader.
No matter. The left-wing media couldn’t wait to indict the Right.
They cannot help themselves. Wasn’t it just a few hours ago that I blogged about another act of Democrat vandalism falsely blamed on the the Tea Party? Why yes, yes it was.
But like I said just a few hours ago and like I’ll certainly have to say again and again and again in the future: Being a Tea Party-bashing liberal means never having to say you’re sorry for smearing conservative dissent.
Michelle Malkin and FOX & Friends discuss the medias proclivity to jump to conclusions in trying to blame the right… when in fact it is usually the left who is to blame.
This person who stabbed the New York cabbie was first reported to be a “right winger.” However, more-and-more information on this attacker that should have the book thrown at him is coming out. And he is anything but a “rightie.”
A horrible story that should hopefully finally get the Left to take a position… rather than suing Arizona over stopping this crime from coming across their border.
Mexican marines discovered the 72 bodies—58 men and 14 women —on Tuesday after the lone survivor of the massacre, a wounded migrant from Ecuador, stumbled into a Navy checkpoint the previous day and told of being shot on Monday at a nearby ranch, Mexican officials said on Wednesday.
When the marines went to investigate, they were met with a hail of gunfire from cartel gunmen holed up at the ranch, which sits 90 miles from the U.S. border. One marine and three alleged gunmen died during a two-hour battle, which ended when the gunmen fled in a fleet of SUVs, leaving behind a cache of weapons.
The Ecuadorean migrant told investigators that his captors identified themselves as members of the Zetas drug gang, said Vice Adm. Jose Luis Vergara, a spokesman for the Mexican navy.
“This illustrates that organized crime has no limits or moral qualms about what they are prepared to do,” Alejandro Poire, head of the government’s national-security council, told a news conference.
The incident highlights the extent to which Mexican drug gangs, which used to focus exclusively on ferrying narcotics such as cocaine to the U.S., have diversified into other lucrative criminal activities such as human smuggling and extortion.
At the going rate of $5,000 to $7,000 charged by smugglers to cross the U.S. border, the 72 people represented about $500,000 to the drug gang, said Alberto Islas, a Mexico City-based security consultant. The gang may have simply killed the migrants after they refused to give them more money than they had already given them, he said.
Mexican officials said they didn’t know why the migrants—believed to be from El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador and Brazil—were killed. Mexican newspapers, citing an unnamed federal official, speculated that the migrants were killed for either refusing to give the drug gang more money to cross the border, or for declining to join the gang’s criminal activities as drug couriers, gunmen or prostitutes….
Here is a response to a conversation elsewhere. I originally was going to post this in multiple pieces on FaceBook, but it would have been too many posts. I post it here only because my comments section here at RPT and my response here are not limited to certain amounts of spaces or words. Enjoy, although as usual, I am long-winded. I should be a professor!
Sean, no one was lost at the Burlington Coat Factory (where the COMMUNITY CENTER, not “mosque” will be based). If we are to follow your logic, I guess no Catholic churches should be located within a few blocks of daycare centers, no? Anyway, I am a New Yorker and I also realize polls can be made to indicate almost anything. Most of the people I know think it is more important to hold up sacred tenants of our constitution than to cave in to very misguided xenophobia. There have been a LOT of people bussed in to protest and the anti-Islamic rhetoric is very damaging.
Thanks Nora for hopping into this conversation. This can be an emotional topic, so know that even though I cannot see your facial expressions, hear concern, humor, or consternation in your tone — I afford you the best of intentions. I do wish to, however, point out some mistakes in your thinking. I may take a post or two to do so as I respect where you are coming from… so bear with me. FIRST POINT, there will be a mosque in the community center. In fact, it will be the top two floors and be tall enough to view the site of the Twin-Towers. That’s number one.
NUMBER TWO, I wish to discuss this issue of molestation by priests that you intimated about.
School counselors, dentists, Buddhist monks, foster parents, and the like — all have abused children. Men who are pedophiles look for positions of AUTHORITY OVER [*not yelling, emphasizing*] children that afford MOMENTS OF PRIVACY with these same children. Dentists do not violate children or women in the name of dentistry. Buddhists monks do not sodomize children in the name of Siddhartha. School counselors in the name of psychology, foster parents in the name of Dr. Spock, etc, … you get the point. Likewise, priests do not violate children in the name of Christ. (The many terrorist attacks are in the name of something… can you tell me what Nora?)
So I hope you can see that mentioning churches next to schools is a non-sequitur, I think we can agree that any church moving priests (Catholicism) or pastors (Protestantism) from one parish or church to another is a problem that has to be dealt with. Just like teachers who have the same issues levied towards them are moved from district-to-district (N.E.A.).
When asked if they “support or oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House,” New Yorkers said they oppose the facility, which is expected to cost $100 million, by a 63-27 percent margin. At the same time, by a 64-to-28 percent margin, New Yorkers say Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has the constitutional right to build it. A majority of every demographic group – by party, region, age, gender, political philosophy – agrees that there is a Constitutional right to proceed,” said Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg. “Even a majority of those who oppose building the mosque agree by a margin of 51-42 percent that they have the right to build it.”
These polls hit to what I and almost all conservatives have said, “yes they can build their Constitutionally, however, they should — if truly wanting to build bridges — build a bit further away.” Not a building where they found pieces of bodies from the plane and Tower of that first strike, as well as pieces of the plane. But the people of New York are making their choice… and if the elite in N.Y. continue on the road they are, in November many of these Democrats will be out. As is it looks as if we may take back the Senate AND House. So, keep it up Dems.
c) Xenophobia has nothing to do with this argument. Everyone I know of (Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, [insert name here]) is making the same argument almost all moderate Muslims are making. To wit I would hope you look into this phenomenon, that is Muslims that stand against this mosque (Even More Muslims Come Out Against This Mosque). I included some links in that post to previous posts highlighting Muslims speaking out against this Mosques location. They are well worth reading/listening to. Obviously these religious Muslims are not xenophobic. It is similar to the stories I heard thrown in my face about heterosexual crimes (homophobia) committed against gays. However, what is often overlooked (like all the news stories of dentists, school counselors, Buddhists monks, etc — it is in the medias blood to highlight the Catholic version of these crimes) is that there are crimes committed by homosexuals towards heterosexuals as well. see for instance this story I posted quite some time ago:
These stories have no bearing on the morality (morally right or wrong) of racism, Homophobia, Heterophobia, Islamophobia, or xenophobia. So posting a story about a Muslim being stabbed would be like me showing the many stories of successful and attempted honor killings of women in the name of Islam, in America. The underwear bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, the family that converted to Islam and was stockpiling 27,000 thousand rounds of ammunition to commit Jihad. However, all those have no bearing on our particular dilemma [sorta]. Posting a stabbing also shows that this mosque is not building bridges, like moderate Muslims say it isn’t. (In other words, you would be proving my position.)
UPDATE (ANOTHER VIDEO ADDED):
This story has changed and I wanted to make sure people coming to this post are aware of it. I will post the video here as well as the insight as I posted it elsewhere:
Very quickly, I just posted on this Cabbie incident. He was stabbed by a leftist [that backfired a bit, both by whom did the stabbing AND that this mosque is not building bridges but causing film students to attack]:
Michelle Malkin and FOX & Friends discuss the medias proclivity to jump to conclusions in trying to blame the right… when in fact it is usually the left who is to blame.
This person who stabbed the New York cabbie was first reported to be a “right winger.” However, more-and-more information on this attacker that should have the book thrown at him is coming out. And he is anything but a “rightie.”
d) I wanted to deal with a few outlying issues here that are not necessarily geared towards you Nora.
i. More and more info has come out about this Imam even since the last time I said “more and more information has come out about this Imam.” (See for instance: Fact and Common Sense vs. Bad History and Analogies) So knowing what is plainly laid out in this and other places, what is the reason they want this place when they have been offered tax breaks, discounts, and offers of other properties close by. According to Muslims who have come out against this property it is to look (literally) at the spot that these Twin Towers were attacked and brought down. That is fellow Muslims words, not mine.
ii. Many people do not ask themselves this simple question about the founding of religions. “What were the founders of the major religions like.” Asking questions about the nature of these religions and their founder is not racist, xenophobic, etc. So let’s do this. Here is a favorite quote of mine:
The nine founders among the eleven living religions in the world had characters which attracted many devoted followers during their own lifetime, and still larger numbers during the centuries of subsequent history. They were humble in certain respects, yet they were also confident of a great religious mission. Two of the nine, Mahavira and Buddha, were men so strongminded and self-reliant that, according to the records, they displayed no need of any divine help, though they both taught the inexorable cosmic law of Karma. They are not reported as having possessed any consciousness of a supreme personal deity. Yet they have been strangely deified by their followers. Indeed, they themselves have been worshipped, even with multitudinous idols.
All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. Confucius, late in life, confessed his own sense of shortcomings and his desire for further improvement in knowledge and character. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their practical policies under change of circumstances.
Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion. The most remarkable and valuable aspect of the personality of Jesus Christ is the comprehensiveness and universal availability of his character, as well as its own loftiness, consistency, and sinlessness.
Robert Hume, The World’s Living Religions (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 285-286.
So this is where I like to ask persons if they would want followers of Christ to be more Christ like and followers of Muhammad to be more Muhammad like? When Peter cut the Roman soldiers ear off, Jesus healed it. Muhammad order the cutting of and personally engaged in the slitting of [700-to-900] men, women, and children’s throats. Jesus broke Jewish tradition by allowing children into the inner circles to exemplify them in regards to faith. Muhammad married a six-year old and consummated the marriage when she was nine. Did you need more examples?
iii. Comparison of Scripture. Some quick facts. Scripture in Islamic tradition is prescriptive. In the Biblical sense it is descriptive. This simple comparison goes a long way to explain why most of the terrorists in the world today are Islamic. Another explanation for this phenomenon is that in the Islamic fundamentalist tradition, verses in their Scripture. I guess the best way to exemplify this is with this final posting in a debate where a Muslim was trying to explain his faith to others. However, I showed him I had an in-depth understanding of his view of his scripture. Here is my response which is cataloged at my site Discussing God:
Kursat,
You see, unlike the Bible, the Qu’ran abrogates its “verses” and depending on what time period they were written (and depending on if the Muslim community was weaker than it was later), these later verses take over in importance (replaced with something “better”) in application for the Muslim.
So, Kursat, is this Sura Meccan? More specifically, is it the fifth and sixth years of the Prophet’s Mission? There is even a period after this in Mecca. After this period was Medina, right?
For those who are not aware of this abrogation (stated in the Qu’ran) and are use to thinking of Scriptures in a “Western” manner, this Sura you gave sounds great. But if one understands the full implications of 2:106 and 16:101. Then this changes the ballgame a bit, doesn’t it Kursat?
Obviously Kursat didn’t return because he was not a moderate Muslim. Moderates look at the Qur’an as descriptive and they reject the idea that these verses in the Qur’an are placed in any chronological importance. THUS, the later verses about Jihad in Islamic fundamentalism DO NOT trump the one’s about peace. It is these types of moderates that are sounding the alarm over this Imam and placement of the mosque. It are these Muslims we should be supporting.
This is a FLASHBACKto August of 2010 to a Time Magazine article titled, “Is America Islamophobic?” Michael challenges Mr. Ratnesar on many points in the article/society. This is a VIMEO recovery and meant for an old post I titled: “Discussing Mosques and Men” (https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/discussing-mosques-and-men/)
You’re all racists, homophobes, sexists, Islamophobic, heterosexist, speciesist, paternalistic, hate-filled, bigoted, uncompassionate, war-loving, theocratic, gun-toting, flag-waving, patriotic jerks! With that said, could we now deal with the mosque issue using common sense and logic? (TOWNHALL)
Convicted rapist and former boxer Mike Tyson traveled through Europe aboard the Summerwind with Greene in 2005, and recently had to clarify that he did not do drugs while aboard the yacht. Though he did do drugs during the trip, in Amsterdam, just not he claims, on the boat.
In 2007, the Yacht broke the embargo by docking in Cuba. Greene claims it was for emergency maintenance, and he took the opportunity to visit Cuban synagogues. The St. Pete Timessays of the stop, “everybody talked about the vomit caked all over the sides from all the partying going on.”
Sharyn Peach, a Fort Lauderdale woman who used to work as a stewardess for Greene aboard the yacht, recently wrote of her time aboard for our sister paper: “Working on Greene’s 145-foot Choy Lee yacht was like being ‘locked’ in Studio 54 in its prime. It was nothing short of ‘Sex, Drugs, and Techno Music.’ Celebrities, ‘hired’ party girls, mayhem, and debauchery. I saw more tits and ass in one night on Jeff Greene’s Summerwind than I have for the past seven years on South Beach …The real partying started in Sag Harbor, New York. That’s when a deckhand and Mr. Greene would go to a place named the Sex Castle and come back with new women almost daily. …Shortly after that party, I found four lines of cocaine in Mr. Greene’s stateroom bathroom marble vanity.”
A 2009 account of Greene’s yacht habbit in The Greatest Trade Ever went like this: “Greene brought two Ukrainian strippers on board to make a cameo appearance and hired stewardesses from coastal towns to serve as his crew. Some doubled as massage therapists, which came in handy after a day of scuba diving, Jet Skiing or kayaking.”
Several former employees of the yacht describe Greene as just a horrible, horrible boss.
Big Peace (BREITBART) is highlighting some missed names and quotes in the mainstream media:
….Akbar Ahmed, Professor of Islamic Studies at American University in Washington, says he sympathizes with those who object to the mosque’s planned proximity to Ground Zero. “For most Americans, 9/11 remains as an open wound, and anything associated with Islam, even for Americans who want to understand Islam – to have an Islamic center with so much publicity is like rubbing salt in open wounds,” Ahmed told AP.
The current Miss USA, Rami Fakih, who is the first Arab-American to wear the crown and is a practicing Muslim, agrees with the critics. She told CBS Inside Edition, “It shouldn’t be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion.”
Zuhdi Jasser, President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told The Daily Caller that the Ground Zero mosque “is not a humble Islamic statement. A mosque such as this is actually a political structure that casts a shadow over a cemetery, over hallowed ground. 9/11 was the beginning of a kinetic war, it is not an opportunity for cultural exchange. It was the beginning of a conflict with those who want to destroy our way of life.” Jasser added, “I am in no way looking to infringe on First Amendment issues. I approach this as a Muslim that is dedicated to reform.”
Shi’ite Muslim Stephen Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, wrote an article called “A Muslim Case Against the Mosque” on his blog. In it, he argued that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s plan to build the Ground Zero center was not to promote reconciliation and understanding. Instead, says Schwartz, “the plan is obviously provocative and confrontational – and it’s hard to imagine that Rauf didn’t know that long before it became public.”
“That’s one big reason why American Muslims, like other Americans, should reject the project – particularly if they really want to adhere to traditional Islamic principles. I say that as a Muslim convert since 1997,” Schwartz wrote on August 3. “Traditional, moderate Islam teaches Muslims living in non-Muslim-majority societies to obey the laws and customs of the countries in which they reside. They must avoid conflict with their non-Muslim neighbors whenever possible.”
Schwartz isn’t for pushing the First Amendment to the point of antagonizing people – to him, the issue should be courtesy toward one’s neighbor. In this case, he seems to agree with non-Muslim conservative critics that the mosque near Ground Zero is insensitive to others.
Muslims from other countries are chiming in their support for the critics. “Building a mosque there will increase hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims in the West,” Gamal Awad, a professor at Cairo’s Al Azhar University, told the Los Angeles Times. “It will further connect Islam with a horrible event.”….
NewsBusters has a pieceexplaining that the Dems have all but abandoned the fiscal ship (if there ever were one to begin with):
…It has now been five days since Politico’s Ben Smith published a powerpoint presentation created by an amalgamation of powerful left wing interest groups, conceding that two of the central arguments for passing ObamaCare – that it will lower the deficit and will reduce health care costs – have failed.
For a group of organizations integral to the passage of the law, that was a stunning admission. And yet, the mainstream press is nearly silent on the issue. Searches on Nexis and Google News reveal no coverage from the major television networks, the cable news channels (with the exception of Fox), the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, NPR, PBS, or Newsweek. To their credit, Time Magazine and the Washington Post published a blog post each on the revelation.
Even while discussing ObamaCare and its potential effects on the deficit and health care costs, some media outlets managed to avoid any mention of a fact Democrats now seem to be conceding: “the White House’s first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed,” as Smith notes….
[….]
Byron York explains the significance of Herdon’s recommendations:
It’s a stunning about-face for a party that saw national health care as its signature accomplishment. “This is the first time we’ve seen from Democrats that they clearly understand they have a serious problem in terms of selling this legislation,” says Republican pollster David Winston.
The reluctance to defend Obamacare as a cost-cutter and deficit-reducer is particularly telling. Wasn’t that the No. 1 reason for passing the bill in the first place? “This legislation will … lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades,” President Obama said when he signed the bill into law on March 23. Now, Democrats are throwing that argument out the window…
The story might be even worse than that for Democrats. Everyone knows the public’s top issue is the economy. It has been since before Obama took office. So when the president and Democratic congressional leadership devoted a year to passing national health care, Republicans charged they were ignoring the public’s wishes. Now, when Democrats admit that Obamacare won’t cut costs or reduce deficits, they open themselves up to a more serious charge: they spent a year working on something that will actually cost jobs and make things worse.
The liberal interest group coalition’s recommendations speak volumes about the political and policy failures of the administration and the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership. And yet virtually all major media players are silent on the admission.
Like most political battles, the debate over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan is hampered by each side’s inability to recognize any legitimacy in the other’s positions.
Journalist Mary Jacoby explores this dynamic in a compelling essay on her site, MainJustice.com. The proposal’s defenders, she writes, fail to acknowledge that many American mosques are financed by foreign interests who meld a political agenda with their conservative religious beliefs, often squeezing out moderate Muslim voices.
Mainstream media outlets help perpetuate this dominance by ignoring the sullied histories of national Islamist groups who are treated as the voice of all American Muslims:
“If liberals would acknowledge the origins and nature of groups like the Islamic Society of North America, the International Institute of Islamic Thought and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, it would help diffuse the climate of intolerance that they deplore.
Conservatives wouldn’t be able to complain of a grand conspiracy of ignorance. And all Americans would become more sophisticated about distinguishing between Muslims who truly share values of religious freedom, and those who in some ways don’t – not to discriminate against anybody, but to more clearly define the debate.”
A recent CBS News poll found that 71 percent of respondents believe it is “not appropriate” to build the mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero, including a majority (57 percent) of Democrats. A Time poll found that 68 percent are following the issue “somewhat closely” or “very closely.”
When asked if they “support or oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House,” New Yorkers said they oppose the facility, which is expected to cost $100 million, by a 63-27 percent margin. At the same time, by a 64-to-28 percent margin, New Yorkers say Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has the constitutional right to build it.
“A majority of every demographic group – by party, region, age, gender, political philosophy – agrees that there is a Constitutional right to proceed,” said Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg. “Even a majority of those who oppose building the mosque agree by a margin of 51-42 percent that they have the right to build it.”
Flopping Aces posted a story (ultimately tracked to Atlas Shrugs) where hours of audio of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque Imam is showing his true colors:
The Mosque issue isn’t going away and it just got more interesting. Apparently Steve Emerson, Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism (a large storehouse of archival data and intelligence on Islamic and Middle Eastern terrorist groups), has unearthed hours of audio in which Imam Rauf sounds not so moderate after all. The audio hasn’t been released yet, nor the context, but from the sounds of it….the context won’t matter a whole lot:
Steve Emerson has unearthed 13 hours of audio tape of Imam Rauf. Emerson and his team of investigators has spent the past four weeks going through the newly found material. Rauf is a “radical extremist cleric who cloaks himself in sheep’s clothing.”
Among the shocking revelations Emerson’s team will reveal next week — they found Rauf:
Defending wahhabism – a puritanical version of Islam that governs Saudi Arabia
Calling for the elimination of Israel by claiming a one-nation state, meaning no more Jewish State.
Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project fact checks some of the positions in this radical audio, which some are positions the radical Left take as well. Audio of Emerson on the Bill Bennett show can be found here. Steve Emerson shows how Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf may have committed a felony. This is a growing story and my position that says this will bit the Dems in the ass is coming to fruition.
Daisy Khan, wife of Ground Zero Mosque developer Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, said on ABC News This Week that she’s worried about rampaging Islamophobia sweeping the United States.
“this is like a metastasized antisemitism… It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia. It’s hate of Muslims.”
Syndicated radio talk show host Tammy Bruce, a pro-defense libertarian and gay rights activist responded with “Little Daisy Whines” on her blog TammyBruce.com:
Daisy Khan doesn’t seem to understand is that perhaps this isn’t about Muslims at all, but about Americans protecting and defending a site that is now precious to us. The malignant Narcissism of these people is astounding and so encompassing they, like the Obama admin in fact, cannot see beyond their own self-obsession. Little Daisy is loathsome–we didn’t start this, they did. We didn’t choose the location, they did. And the gall to claim opposition to the GZ mosque is “metastasized antisemitism” is the same as our own government calling Tea Party Patriots Nazis, UnAmerican, and the Mob. They’re all the same. There’s only one group of people who were mass murdered on 911 and that was Americans, not Muslims. And there has been only one group continuing to implement mass murder since then–Muslims. And there is one country that still calls for the mass extinction of Jews in the world, and it’s a Muslim country.
Thursday during the 1 p.m. hour, CNN’s “Newsroom,” this exchange took place between CNN reporter Ali Velshi andTime Magazine’s deputy international editor Bobby Ghosh:
VELSHI: The name Cordoba- some people are associating it with Muslim rule and bloody battles, when, in fact, Cordoba was one of the finest times in relations between the major religions.
GHOSH: Exactly right- in interfaith discourse-
VELSHI: Yeah-
GHOSH: And the great mosque of Cordoba that people are talking about and that Newt Gingrich was talking about- the man who built it, the Muslim prince who built it, bought it from a Christian group- paid money for it and bought it from a Christian group. And there was not a lot of alarm and anger raised then.
[….]
Reinhart Dozy (1820-1883), the great Orientalist scholar and Islamophile (i.e., by any objective standard, notwithstanding Ghosh’s uncontrolled spraying of the ridiculous charge of “Islamophobia”), wrote a four-volume magnum opus (published in 1861 and translated into English by Francis Griffin Stokes in 1913), Histoire des Musselmans d’Espagne (A History of the Muslims in Spain). Pace Ghosh’s distorted reportage, here is Dozy’s historical account of the mid-8th century “conversion” of a Cordovan cathedral to a mosque:
All the churches in that city [Cordova] had been destroyed except the cathedral, dedicated to Saint Vincent, but the possession of this fane [church or temple] had been guaranteed by treaty. For several years the treaty was observed; but when the population of Cordova was increased by the arrival of Syrian Arabs [i.e., Muslims], the mosques did not provide sufficient accommodation for the newcomers, and the Syrians considered it would be well for them to adopt the plan which had been carried out at Damascus, Emesa [Homs], and other towns in their own country, of appropriating half of the cathedral and using it as a mosque. The [Muslim] Government having approved of the scheme, the Christians were compelled to hand over half of the edifice. This was clearly an act of spoliation, as well as an infraction of the treaty. Some years later, Abd-er Rahman I [i.e., the “Muslim prince” in Ghosh’s redacted narrative] requested the Christians to sell him the other half. This they firmly refused to do, pointing out that if they did so they would not possess a single place of worship. Abd-er Rahman, however, insisted, and a bargain was struck by which the Christians ceded their cathedral….
[….]
…the contemporary scholar J.M. Safran discusses an early codification of the rules of the marketplace (where Muslims and non-Muslims would be most likely to interact), written by al-Kinani (d. 901), a student of the Cordovan jurist Ibn Habib (d. 853), “…known as the scholar of Spain par excellence,” who was also one of the most ardent proponents of Maliki doctrine in Muslim Spain:
the problem arises of “the Jew or Christian who is discovered trying to belnd with the Muslims by not wearing the riqā [cloth patch, which might be required to have an emblem of an ape for a Jew, or a pig for a Christian] or zunnār [belt].” Kinani’s insistence that Jews and Christians wear the distinguishing piece of cloth or belt required of them is an instance of a legally defined sartorial differentiation being reconfirmed…His insistence may have had as much to do with concerns for ritual purity and food prohibitions as for the visible representation of social and political hierarchy, and it reinforced limits of intercommunal relations….
