Pharaonic Temple found inside Luxor Mosque

They found it by coincidence while doing repairs to the Mosque, and and it dates all the way back to RamsesII. The question now is, will they try to excevate the temple, by which destroying the Mosque? Would the Town people let them do that? Can a muslim accept the rmeoval of a mosque because a pharaonic temple- that has false idols and made for the glory of pharaonic gods- was built underneath it? Which would be more important? Which has the priority here? And how old is that Mosque anyway?

And does anybody see any parallels or afteraffects to this decision to the debate surrounding another Mosque built over a temple, in a tiny town called Jerusalem? 

Just wondering… 

0 comment on Pharaonic Temple found inside Luxor Mosque

  1. raafat
    October 8, 2007 at 7:57 am

    it happend in Egypt so if the government wants to remove the whole country for something, they will do. so removing a mosque means nothing to them and no one can open his/her mouth
    Welcome to Mubark’s Days

    Reply
  2. Andrew Brehm
    October 8, 2007 at 8:43 am

    The temple in Jerusalem was of course not build for an idol.

    Reply
  3. Nomad
    October 8, 2007 at 9:03 am

    if tourism is the deal for earning money in your country, they’ll find a way ; so they did in Paris for many ruins, it just needs to set the price

    Reply
  4. Roman Kalik
    October 8, 2007 at 10:18 am

    The Waqf in Jerusalem have a solution: Say that no Temple existed on the site, and destroy priceless relics of said Temple as the Mosque is extended downwards into the mountain, and the ruins within. Islam rules supreme, the end.

    Reply
  5. i luv egypt
    October 8, 2007 at 11:24 am

    i say remove da mousque and renew it or replace it in another place. Even tho im muslim, ide say da mosque had to be fixed n e ways so might as well replace it next to it and enhance it. idrab 3asfooreen bi 7agar. plus pay like 100$ for every family in da areas dey wud b cool wid it i guess

    Reply
  6. Adam B.
    October 8, 2007 at 11:53 am

    Generally, if you find an old building beneath a new building and the former is worth preserving, I’d say remove the youngest of the buildings and re-erect it, somewhere close by if possible (and neccesary). This of course assumes that removing the newer building is not a monumental task like, say, removing the Peters Church in Rome of the Hagia Sofia in Istanbul.

    Reply
  7. John Cunningham
    October 8, 2007 at 5:22 pm

    Amr Gharbeia, mosque 800 years(?), Ramses 3250 years(?). I’m going with Ramses.

    Reply
  8. Adam B.
    October 8, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    7. Amr Gharbeia:

    So, you look at the ancient ruins and decide whether they are in such a condition s to be worth the effort. If they are, you take a look at the mosque and decide whether it’s in a state that allows a move. If this is the case, you have a choice: 1 – dismantle the mosque and re-erect it at the nearest convenient site, thus gaining yet another historical site for your country while preserving your mosque, or 2 – do nothing.

    It’s really not such a big deal, but the non-islamic world will certainly be the poorer if the temple is not unearthed…

    Reply
  9. Amr Gharbeia
    October 8, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    John and Adam, all I said the mosque is 800 years old. Don’t trip too much on facts.

    Reply
  10. John Cunningham
    October 8, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    Amr, and I’ll I’m saying is get the mosque off of Ramses. How’s that for a trip?

    Reply
  11. Amir
    October 8, 2007 at 7:19 pm

    John Cunningham,

    No need to be so defensive and hostile. Amr was just answering a question posed earlier about how old the mosque is. Instead of being constructive like Adam B. you seem to be taking a hostile and ridiculous tone. Don’t get off at me for being Muslim or defending the mosque for that reason, save that argument, because i’m not and I wouldn’t care if its destroyed. Is it me or is your tone of hostility which probably extends to intolerance in other issues parallel to those who you are precisely criticizing, albiet using a different ideology?

    Reply
  12. Nomad
    October 8, 2007 at 7:59 pm

    why is it not possible to keep the both ?

    if it happens you visit the new museum of the Louvre in Paris you’ll discover in the underneath levels that they show off in a special hall the bases of the first Louvre castel

    Reply
  13. Abu Kufr
    October 8, 2007 at 11:59 pm

    “why is it not possible to keep the both ?”

    Because non-Muslims are typically not allowed in Mosques, and Muslims don’t care about Jahiliyah.

    Reply
  14. AF
    October 9, 2007 at 12:09 am

    the comparison with Jerusalem is silly at best.

    Reply
  15. John Cunningham
    October 9, 2007 at 3:20 am

    Abu Kufr, they say that ten percent of the former caliphate is extremely intolerant and would not even allow Ramses into the mosque. Past experiences indicate they would do to Ramses the same thing they did to Buddha in Afghanistan. Looking at it from 2007 I’d say that Ramses has contributed more to Egypt than anything since.

    Reply
  16. anonymous
    October 9, 2007 at 4:15 am

    I agree with #15. Monkey how do even come to a connection in that strange and wandering mind of yours between a long destroyed temple of King David and still intact ancient Egyptian ruins of Ramses. Why does your mind always head towards comparisons with the joooooooooz? Absolute nonsense.

    If there is money to be made and pubicity to be had by Zahi hawass dude, they will probably move the mosque. But shit, why don’t they get all of the stolen artifacts found in British, French, German and other museums back. Hmmmm. Easier to move a mosque. Then you only have to send the anti-riot police to deal with the locals.

    Reply
  17. Fady
    October 9, 2007 at 4:42 am

    They already don’t care for al-Aqsa mosque which is threatened on a daily bases by a bunch of self-righteous criminals. So I don’t think they’ll care much about this house of worship. I don’t think the people of Luxor will stay silent about that, however.

    Reply
  18. Gary
    October 9, 2007 at 5:54 am

    Anonymous (#17)–actually the comparison is silly because the Temple in Jerusalem represents the heritage of a living civilization whose most revered religious site was deliberately built over , whereas the Pharaonic temple, while likely a stunning example of a glorious ancient civilization, nonetheless is a remnant of a dead civilization, language and culture which has no current religious adherents whatsoever.

    Reply
  19. Roman Kalik
    October 9, 2007 at 6:28 am

    Anonymous, have you ever visited the Old City in Jerusalem? The Temple Mount is a paradise for archaeologists, and in what little parts the Jews were allowed to unearth (as the Waqf retained control of al-Aqsa and anything below it) we have already found far more than we had ever expected to find in the Western Wall Caverns. The Temple Mount is mostly hollow, with some chambers collapsed, looted etc. Some British explorer went in there ages ago, and apparently looted the place.

    Even the rubble of the Waqf’s construction there is priceless, but they do not care. Nor do they seem to realize that their construction destabilizes the Mount.

    Reply
  20. Don Cox
    October 9, 2007 at 7:47 am

    “a long destroyed temple of King David”

    Isn’t the Temple Mount the site of Herod’s Temple? I understood that the site of the original Temple was uncertain (and likely to remain so if excavation is prevented).

    I agree that the mosque was deliberately built over the Temple site to cause problems. New religions do this all over – many Christian churches in Britain are built over the sites of previous pagan or druid temples. Very likely King David’s temple was built over a temple to Baal.

    Reply
  21. Roman Kalik
    October 9, 2007 at 8:27 am

    It wasn’t David’s Temple, by the way, but rather Solomon’s. David merely set the plans in motion, but the son built the Temple proper. Also, I doubt the Temple was built over a previous site of worship, as that part of the city simply didn’t exist at the time when the city was conquered. There *was* (even long after the conquest of the city) a very famous site in a valley nearby, mind, where Moloch was worshipped. The area later became a burial ground, and there are still findings of the baby sacrifices if you dig deep enough…

    The Second Temple is better attributed to Cyrus the Great, as he was the one who allowed its rebuilding. The second was built directly over the ruins of the first, as a mere 70 years did not erode the ruins, which were also stood on what was then a central part of the city, the Temple Mount.

    Herod’s contribution was decoration (very expensive decoration) and the supporting walls of the Mount, of which the Western Wall is what remains visible of the support walls. That both Temples stood on the Mount is certain, but what is uncertain is where and how the structure was situated there, which is why Jews are forbidden by the Rabbis to go there, lest we desecrate the place where the Holiest of Holies stood.

    Reply
  22. Roman Kalik
    October 9, 2007 at 8:38 am

    Don Cox, the only place in Jerusalem where there were no archaeological digs is the Temple Mount, and various small religious sites. By elimination, if you take the estimated size of both Temples into consideration, you have but one place left. Plus, you have the old Main Street (that is now under the city.

    Reply
  23. John Cunningham
    October 9, 2007 at 8:55 am

    19, Gary, “dead civilization, language, culture”. All those ancient continuously running for at least 7000 year old Mediterranean civilizations, Egyptian, Turkish, Greek and Roman, didn’t all of a sudden stop existing, start, as if someone flipped a switch, speaking another language. What you hear today is very similar to what you heard yesterday. Only us English speakers make it up as we go along.

    Reply
  24. Abu Kufr
    October 9, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    “All those ancient continuously running for at least 7000 year old Mediterranean civilizations, Egyptian, Turkish, Greek and Roman, didn’t all of a sudden stop existing, start, as if someone flipped a switch, speaking another language.”

    Yes they did.

    When Othman’s armies strolled out of Arabia, they ended every great civilization they came into control of. If that was not true, why isn’t SM a Coptic Christian? His ancestors were. If it was not true, why is it that the walls of Al-Azhar are built with the facing stones of the Pyramids?

    Everything Islam touches, Islam destroys. Full stop.

    Reply
  25. Babs
    October 10, 2007 at 1:11 am

    Heh, if it wasn’t so serious, this discussion would really crack me up!
    So, what to do with an archeological site situated under an existing mosque? I would think that the prevailing wisdom in the Islamic world would be to destroy the archeological significance of the site. In the name of Allah, of course…
    Based on past events, like the bombing of the Buddhist images in Afghanistan, Allah holds much greater sway than any old thing one might turn up. After all, history started with Allah, did it not? The Temple Mount tells me that…

    Reply
  26. ziolinist
    October 10, 2007 at 4:22 am

    @ Q. 15 – Bottomline, Sandmonkey is ever so grateful and eternally indebted to Jewss for [recruiting him and acting like they care about him and] licking his wounds. Therfore he is a shit disturber just as Jews are.

    I agree that the temple was built over the G-DLY Jewish temple because Jews just have a tendency to get themselves slaughtered every 25 years ever since they were informed that they are a somewhat chosen people. It never fails ever since Pharoah and throughout history.

    Jews=EVIL if you dont submit to them and cry over their slaughtered dead. just as Al Qaida=Terrorism. Done deal

    Reply
  27. Twosret
    October 10, 2007 at 4:45 am

    I love it when Jews are giving their opinions on Egyptian Mosque and Pharoahs isn’t that lovely :)

    Reply
  28. Twosret
    October 10, 2007 at 4:47 am

    “Because non-Muslims are typically not allowed in Mosques, and Muslims don’t care about Jahiliyah.”

    Which Mosques doesn’t allow non-Muslims?

    Reply
  29. Twosret
    October 10, 2007 at 4:49 am

    Al-Aqsa Mosque is far more important than an 800 years old Mosque ya Amr isn’t it the first qebla for muslims?

    Reply
  30. Twosret
    October 10, 2007 at 4:51 am

    I’m loving this topic……let my brain wonder for a second here too so when an Indian American discover some ruins under the white house or the pentagon they can remove them both for the sake of the old folks.

    Bel Masry keda tezkom hamra :)

    LOL

    Reply
  31. John Cunningham
    October 10, 2007 at 8:18 am

    31. Twoset, only one I can comment on. Washington was built on a swamp. I doubt seriously Native Americans buried anyone there. “sake of the old folks”. There is a lot of effort to consult with local tribes whenever building is to be done near suspected Native American burial sites. And that’s the truth, we realize we screwed over them in creating the United States and have especially over the last 50 years done a lot to make up for the past. Come to the United States and visit Niagara Falls on the US side. They’d love your business.

    Reply
  32. Twosret
    October 10, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    John,

    Can you send me an invitation to the United States as I have never been there before LOL!

    Think deeper into my comment and you might understand that it was an example not fact. I would love to visit DC one day and see Washington :)

    Reply
  33. ziolinist
    October 10, 2007 at 10:37 pm

    Twosret, spoken like a true champion. Hamra it is indeed…

    Reply
  34. John Cunningham
    October 11, 2007 at 6:45 am

    33. Twoset, it sounded to me as though you were implying that we were insensitive to the indigenous people of the United States. It didn’t seem to me to be a comment that required “deep” thought. Sounded to me as though it was rather shallow, kind of like something that came from a swamp.

    Reply
  35. ziolinist
    October 11, 2007 at 10:07 am

    John Cunningham, ofcourse it sounded that way to you. You are an intrinsic part of a race that has an infallible propensity to get itself slaughtered time and time again, hmmmmm, I wonder why?

    What else would you say? Especially after turning the barrels of your guns on innocent children he hah a hahah haa.

    Reply
  36. John Cunningham
    October 11, 2007 at 5:44 pm

    36. “slaughtered time and time again”, pearls of wisdom from the paralell universe.

    Reply
  37. Twosret
    October 11, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    John,

    There is now “we” you are not all “America” and you don’t reflect ALL the American thoughts and opinions. You sound like an idiot thinking that because my name is a Pharaoh name I’m not American like you and my children are not American like yours (if you have any)

    That is what I call Shallow and it actually stinks like your narrow minded brain.

    Reply
  38. Twosret
    October 11, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    ** Correction**

    John,

    There is NO “we”

    Reply
  39. John Cunningham
    October 11, 2007 at 9:16 pm

    Twoset, let me guess, you’re what we call a jailhouse muslim. Now, I’ll be back later. Rush Limbaugh is at the Academy of Music here in Philadelphia tonight. I’ve been gripping my ticket in my presently nicotine stained hand for over a month. I have to catch a train. I thought I’d just check in to see if I got any hate mail before I headed for the door.

    Reply
  40. ziolinist
    October 12, 2007 at 3:09 am

    And you Cunningham are a jailhouse Jew, wooops even worse, a low class[Jew] zionist, who believe s in something nowhere existent in the Jewish doctorine and which is utterly criminal in International Law. Whoever denies the holocaust or even gives two craps about murderous land theives tryna use logic and persuasion to sugar coat tjeir dasterdly deeds seriously deserves the headache that ensues, whilst you be twiddling your thumbs and playing your violin and singing hyms of beloved Zion. Mwaahhahahhahaaa.Thats how I came up with the Awsome name Bleek and Ziolinist…VIOLIN/ZIONIST mwaaa waaa waaaa booo hooo…

    You and Kalik and the rest of your likes arent even worth any hate mail sir.

    Reply
  41. John Cunningham
    October 12, 2007 at 4:19 am

    Ziolinist, Check out a bottle of Bailey’s Irish Creme and you’ll find that Cunningham is from Tyrone County in Ireland. Now, I am a fourth generation Irish-American and third generation Polish-American. I am what I describe Jew Part 2, which is a different way of saying Catholic. At least that’s what I was raised. Went to the same Catholic school in a Philadelphia suburb during the fifties and sixties. Went around the world a few times in the military during the sixties and seventies. Got real good at killing psychos.

    I’m going to tell your parents when they get home what you’ve been saying to the adults.

    Reply
  42. ziolinist
    October 13, 2007 at 1:41 am

    Oh just brilliant is that all your clandestine aging ass could muster up amidst its super-nominal covert Zionist fervor….”I’m telling your Mommy?” Please pretty lame Pal.

    Like I said, anyone who even takes those who try and sugar coat death with logic and presuasion deserves the the headache that ensues.

    Reply
  43. Roman Kalik
    October 13, 2007 at 5:53 pm

    John, give up, man… With this guy, there’s simply nobody home. His entire world view is built on preconceptions and hate.

    Reply
  44. John Cunningham
    October 13, 2007 at 7:19 pm

    Roman Kalik, I know, here in the States they run amok among us also. The hollow cretins. To them the earth was manufactured the day they were hatched.

    Reply
  45. EGY-PETER
    October 14, 2007 at 3:25 am

    why dont you guys bend over for one another, you slum immigrants, zionist whatever the fucks…

    Reply
  46. Roman Kalik
    October 14, 2007 at 9:48 am

    Kid, get a life. Preferably away from other people.

    Reply
  47. ziolinist
    October 14, 2007 at 4:54 pm

    Translucent evil prevails…the mere fact that the likes of you Kalik and Cum ingham even check back here on a dead thread is proof of how you war mongors search to feed your pervasive fiendish socially immoral behavior. Super freak supremacists, closedminded white collar terrorists. Bla bla

    Reply
  48. John Cunningham
    October 14, 2007 at 9:45 pm

    Zionlinist, I can’t resist, “translucent evil prevails” because we check back. You’re checking back also, you fucking idiot. If you had any sense you’d let a dead thread die. What’s it going to be, goofy?

    Reply
  49. EGY-PETER
    October 14, 2007 at 9:55 pm

    Cum ingham-Kalik, dont cus at my buddy you pee-wee-pedophile-white collar gas chamber garlic breath neo-con Zionist spoof Goofs, you fucking retard murderous baby killers.

    Get your heads out of your asses and play your white collar terrorist rheatoric all you want. Bottomline, you guys fucked with the wrong race of non forgiving vengance bound heathens. G-d have mercy on your souls. You all shall never ever know peace. We swear on all your dead holocaust victims souls you dumb scanks.

    Reply
  50. Twosret
    October 17, 2007 at 4:37 am

    lol@jaihhouse muslim you are so far off but I will not respond to your nonsense

    Reply
  51. Canadian
    March 26, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    Just from an esthetic point of view, the mosques are so butt ugly. Get rid of them. Seriously. Your architecutre blows. Not worth saving. Go pray in a field. You had no right to invade that area and destroy one of the greatest civilizations this earth has seen.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>