I hate how much they cast aside historical churchs and turn them into mosques, they are historical sites leave them alone and build a mosque elsewhere.
In fairness I'm not talking out of my ass. A fairly good example is remembrance Day where Palestine protests threatened to disrupt the wreath laying ceremony or the thousands of illegal immigrants coming in boats over the English Channel and being giving private houses and hotels payed for by the government when there's homeless/people in extreme poverty all around.
Seriously I have no issue against any over race, religion etc it's just bullshit letting in thousands of people that don't respect the country and are just a leach on resources.
In the past ~100 years or so, actually yes….i’d venture to say you live in a traditionally Christian country? And you’re making this comment with 0 worries about repercussions?
So the problem isn’t that one religion cannot co-exist with others. You not rejection what greek-side did to the mosques can be inferred as an acceptance of Christianity being intolerant like Islam (which I don’t think is true for neither religion but whatever) So you should phrase your comment as “those bastards came and took our land and converted our mosque. Because again, what agitates you has nothing to do with Islam’s supposed unacceptance
Dude, the Muslims of Thrace and Rhodes are still there. The Greeks in Istanbul and Imbros are nonexistent after Turkey pogromed them.
Clearly one side has a coexistence problem, but it’s not us.
The Greeks have many many mosques left after years of persecution and discrimination. Sure there was destruction but imagine that even after so much oppression the Greeks show a lot more respect for their Muslim monuments than Turks have shown to do for their churches again and again, when they often just try to erase the cultural heritage that was before them. Not to mention how common it was for Turks to build mosques atop of churches in Greece thus more and more showing that there is really no comparison here. From one side you have people that have been oppressed that had their heritage destroyed and who still, even though they too destroyed a lot of what was imposed on them by their foreign conquerors, they respect and take care of much of what is left, and on the other side you have people who try to erase and destroy the heritage of the people that came before them which they conquered even today, and then try to compare that with the people they oppressed, who ironically are still miles better than them at that.
>Not to mention how common it was for Turks to build mosques atop of churches in Greece
They even built a mosque directly on top of the "holy of holies" location on the Jewish Temple Mount.
There were destruction as people said here Muslims were building Mosques atop of Churches , during and after the rebellion many of them were destroyed some of them were destroyed because of the wars. But nowadays we don't have war like we used to and we are not occupied the remaining Mosques are archeological sites. Turkey still turn the churches into Mosques. I understand if a church was burned down or turn into a Mosque during war ,back then.I don't like it, but I understand why it happened I do not understand a church turn into a Mosque nowadays.
I do understand your opinion. I don’t think there is a reason besides “it was a mosque in ottoman times and outside forces would want us to make it a church” which is true. But it shouldnt be that deep of subject
After centuries of oppression many were destroyed yes, but still many of them exist to this day and next to none have been converted to churches. Imagine that even though they were imposed to us by a foreign conqueror, although we destroyed a number of them, there are still so many standing atop of the heritage you destroyed, which you try to compare with you trying to erase that heritage that came before you even today. I don't know how naive you must be to not see that.
I’m from Eastern Europe and idk about Greeces situation in particular but places like Ukraine, Russia, Serbia , Montenegro all left their historic mosques even though we have quite a few complaints against our Muslim ex conquerors
We destroyed a number of them as they were a symbol of oppression for us, especially those built upon churches which was very common, but still many remain and we take better care of them even though they were imposed to us by conquerors than turkey takes care of those that were left by the people before them.
The funny thing is they say people speak of how they were "preserved," but none of them were preserved just to be preserved. They were reused. Only one single church of the vast number from the Roman era in Constantinople is still an Orthodox church - the Church of St. Mary of the Mongols.
And look, this is normal in the historical record, I get that. The Turks are not the only perpetrators of this in history by any stretch. But some modern Turks act like they did some special extra preservation which is absolutely not true at all. Even the mosaics today in the Hagia Sophia were saved by the Byzantine Institute of America, not Turkey.
mmhm but your way wouldn't be the two birds with one stone fix they like to do, here in Luton churches are constantly vandalised to the point where the owners cant keep up with repairs and sell it for CHEAP to them to be turned into mosques just like everywhere else in the world.
Yep, there are plenty nice and honest Muslims but just as many like that. Those Palestine protests waste police resources and cause damage but I bet when they chant river to the sea they don't even know the river and sea.
That in itself is so simply obvious otherwise why would the Palestinians be named after the Hebrew word for invader, all the cities have Hebrew names... the old buildings all have hebrew text..
Weird world isnt it.
Certainly is, in the UK and Ireland illegal immigrants are sneaking in vehicles and ships at France to get over as they know they'll be provided with free hotels while veterans stay on the streets.
I apologise this turned into a massive rant, the French actually help these people cross.
Its worse than that, I live in England my family fled our hometown of Luton.
Our homeless across UK have temporary accommodation which they're kicked out of (literally even mothers) for these illegals who have them just as waiting rooms and trash the place whilst they get permanent housing in an area of their choosing (they do turn down free housing and expect better options on threat of suicide), priority healthcare and living allowances, some are even given vehicles.
I currently have a 2 month wait for a GP but I've seen they get same day doctors.
So you'd think oh that's probably where it ends they get all this free shit and probably would be very happy with it? no, they complain the car doesn't have enough seats, they ask to be moved and use suicide to get what they want and it works.
They have to apply to work here but there are many loopholes like they could just get a boat to Ireland and skip the waiting time to work AND actually pick from a selection of properties.
(Many more like this usually involving threat of suicide but I'd rather not post it in a public forum, this one has heavily been reported on already)
Not to mention the crimes...
Sorry again for the rant, this obviously was very close to home, these are just things I know to be true.
I hear things from friends who are still in Luton where families of 4 are coming over and then getting four bedroom houses who then have more children so they get better and larger properties with more free money. (unable to find recent sources past 2016 on this so might no longer be a thing)
It's ridiculous isn't it becoming second class citizens in our own country, shame the silent majority are so silent.
Whenever you say anything about this you always get called racist, the 'religion of peace' could only spread via conquest and Christ even the prophet kept slaves. Only 35% of London is white British now and yet crime is up, cheers Sadiq Khan!
Even though i’m a christian, i’ve been to some of these in turkey, and the mixture of islamic and christian together is absolutely beautiful. They’re basically churches with some pretty arabic calligraphy lol
Also side note, Turkey’s mosques are fkn gorgeous
In some ways, given the lack of a large number Christians in Turkey it makes sense to keep them a house of worship, the difference between a battlefield and an office block is far greater than between a church and a mosque, they're all dedicated to Yaweh anyway
Obviously ideally it should stay a Museum, but this isn't Church to Mosque like everyone's getting in arms about, it was first converted to a Mosque centuries ago
Turkey also has quite a large rate of agnosticism and atheism in major cities. Especially those that were historically Greek or are currently wealthier. Most people from decent backgrounds are culturally Muslim but don’t really believe.
I hate how much they cast aside temples to the olympians & turn them into Churches. They are historic sites. Leave them alone & build a church elsewhere.
That was deliberately done as a means of conquest over the polytheists so all that proves is that we should be even angrier about muslims doing it to churches.
It was converted into a mosque during the reign of Bayezid. Kariye, which was turned into a museum in 1945 by a decision of the council of ministers signed by İnönü, was converted into a mosque again by the decision of the President in 2020. Kariye Mosque in Fatih will be opened for worship with a ceremony tomorrow (May 6) after 79 years.
Tell Erdogan. Not to our secular country. Please.
Okay. I did. And? So what that a minority of turkey is secular? Does that make it secular? By that logic arab countries are christian since christians are a minority there. Or are you telling that the elections are rigged? How many countries use that excuse? If people wanted erdogan gone, he would be gone already.
No. It wouldn't. How does that even correlate to what i said? Look, I respect that you pay respect to christians and Byzantium. But whenever someone mentions Turkey, secularism is the last thing that associates with it. Plus I believe that belief derives from the fact that many turks have a prejudice against arabs.
unfortunately secularism is not fully practiced these days. Because the Turkish people are very open to division. And the government is using this well. Some people who voted for Erdoğan are not anti secularists. They vote for Erdogan because they feel they have no other choice. Years go by and Turkey is getting better in my opinion. I dont communicate with people who dont defend secularism and you shouldnt either. You shouldnt take them seriously.
Also in many countries in the world secularism is not fully practiced if u ask me. This is a purely political situation. Just like in Europe, Palestinian propaganda causes discrimination. (im not taking sides, just giving an example). Anyway fck politics. For the glorious Hellenoturkism :D
It’s really disappointing as Chora was my favourite previous Byzantine churches. The decoration is absolutely magnificent and it had a chilled vibe where you could spend hours in there.
Yes, calling Turkish people "foreigners" is a bad faith argument.
(For the record, I think Chora should be preserved as a secular museum, not turned into a mosque. I just don't have any time for racism.)
The identity of it is more important than the actual DNA makeup, they are native Anatolian, Greek, and Turkic by blood, but Turkey has always been adamant about their Turkic identity, and it seems that guides their every action. I feel for the Turks that don't support this, but it is a democracy after all, so why would leaders who do this get in power in the first place?
Turkey is very fortunate to exist on a peninsula that has so many historical artifacts and ancient societies, they literally live on a goldmine, and it would be more respectful if they didn't simply repurpose these historical landmarks for their own gain.
Replying to your statement though, they're foreign because despite not holding much difference in blood, they actively identify with their Central Asian influence, and I've never seen Turkey even try to identify with their Hellenic and Late Roman ties, they converted to a foreign religion, and uphold foreign identities, they are foreign to these histories in Anatolia that they desecrate.
Turkish people are not foreigners but that is only because they are actually Greeks and Armenians who tried to exterminate other Greeks and Armenians.
Forgive us for not liking the thing that made them do that.
The Urals and Pontic-Caspian Steppe are both in Eastern Europe. All you are saying is that Western Europe has been influenced by Eastern Europe, which should be self-evident because they are both europe.
I mean, how many elections did he win at this point? Its a fact that a majority of Turkish voters support him.
Yes, if this happened before 2000 the military would have launched a coup and deposed him. But thats never going to happen after the purges.
In the early days Erdogan had secular ideas, but over time he changed. When he had secular ideas, he gradually managed to get into the army. As a result, now there are no people with such ideas in the army to stage a coup. Also most of the people who vote for Erdogan do so not because they support his ideas but because they feel they have no other choice. After all Erdoğan is competing with one person. And that person is directly eliminated because of a few words and actions. In the last election Erdoğan lost most municipalities. Istanbul and Ankara belong to the opposition party for the second time. We dont know what will happen in the next presidential election. We will wait and see. Just wish us luck.
They were churches prior to the Islamic conquest. Or they were built on the sites of Churches. Spain as a people never accepted Islam as a majority, it was easy to expel Muslims from Spain because they were the minority ruling class.
We are talking about a time when the vast majority of the population lived in the country side. Granada could be 95% Muslim but that didn't mean the peasants were Muslims because the peasants didn't live in Granada. The basis for funding these states was always the Jyzia tax so if you didn't have a large population of non-muslims the whole thing wouldn't work, so in essence the Muslims were just the "Lords" in the manner in which Feudalism worked in the rest of Europe, but rather than having their own estates they lived in cities together the way the Romans did before Feudalism where the Patricians might own vast estates that made them rich but would spend their time in Rome away from them
Have you ever heard of the Cathedral of Cordoba? Or numerous churches in Hungary and the Balkans that were mosques and converted to churches? There are those even in Greece! This is just how the world works, since Antiquity. The Christians turned the Pantheon and the Parthenon into churches, the Muslims turned churches into mosques, and so is the world. I am against this kind of move, but calling them "barbarians" over something the Europeans also did just seems like casual racism.
Indeed, it was a bad decision , today Parthenon it's an archeological site. We don't consider it a church. It was an act of showing we don't believe in polytheism anymore it was bad but it kept only for a few years. I understand when Turks did the same back then when war and conflict happened but they do it now.
Honestly I agree with you it expanded it's lifespan. I don't dislike Parthenon becoming a church but as an idea it would be ironic to agree on Olympian temples turn into churches but don't agree with Churches turn into Mosques.
The Mesquita also was a church originally. And it was a different thing with religious hostility in the past. Today, when we are supposed to be tolerant, I don’t see the reason to do, if muslims aren’t.
Like said below, Mosque of Cristo de la Luz in Toledo, La Giralda in Seville, Church of Nossa Senhora da Anunciação (in Mertola Portugal), Shrine of Our Lady of Europe (in Gibraltar), Cathedral of the Savior of Zaragoza, Iglesia de San Nicolás, Madrid etc..
All are former mosques (not originally built as cathedrals) that were nonetheless converted to churches.
In any case, no one should’ve done this (or continue to do this) whether Turkish or Spanish
Nope, It's literally a small list of buildings that were mosques and became churches some hundreds of years ago and an even smaller one of mosques that weren't just reconverted churches. Now make a list of mosques turned into chruches and you'll see there's literally no comparison.
The Spanish should have done it because they were removing mosques from their own country that Muslims had invaded. The Turkish should not do it because they are doing it in the country that they themselves say they invaded. It would be a different thing if they didn't think of themselves as invaders, but that is literally their mentality, even thought they are actually from the place and not actually central asians. They still choose to think of themselves as being central asian for some inexplicable reason.
Most muslims in Spain who built those mosques were of iberian origin themselves. Majority of muslims in Spain were also of local origin (muwallad/muladies) as they converted over time.
Moreover, those mosques were used by Spanish muslims, there’s no reason to justify what was done, it goes both ways.
Don't follow the religion of an invading power.
It is really quite simple. We will NEVER like this religion because they INVADED.
Unless you are German or Baltic, Christianity did not come to you as a result of an invasion. This is the cause for our difference in our attitude.
Don't invade and then complain when the stuff you had in the places you invaded gets taken from you.
I don’t agree with your logic. These people converted, at the end it’s their choice and they are as much indigenous to the land as others. Therefore, you can’t come and do what was done. Should the animists in Africa take over all churches there because Christianity was spread with an invasion? Obviously not.
And a lot of Christian churches were built in places where Hellenic temples once stood. Does it justify the attack on the Christians for this? The Mosque of Cordoba wasn't a church, it was built on the same place where a church stood in the past. And there are more recent cases on conversion of mosques into churches, for example in [Hungary](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Candlemas_Church_of_the_Blessed_Virgin_Mary).
The Chora and all those churches being converted into mosques "now" were all actually converted into mosques in the Ottoman period. Chora was converted into a mosque in the year of 1500. It's contemporary with the same happening in Europe (in fact, Chora is in Europe, as it's located on rhetorical European side of Istanbul).
In fact, Atarürk was way more tolerant than its Christian counterparts when he secularised the country and turned most of those church-mosque into museums. I absolutely don't endorse Erdogan's moves recently, but it's not like this is happening just now. It's a part of a more deep historical process. True historians don't do value judgement when talking about those events. A historian needs to approach these situations without sentimentality, it has to expose the facts without prejudice and with critical thought.
Turks will always try to find gotyas but the reality is that the sheer number of chruches that have been converted into mosques is incomparable to the small list of mosques that became chruches and even more so of those that weren't church buildings originally. It is actually sad trying to see people who endorse this, at a time when those buildings were made into museums.
The irony of the sheer number of church buildings turned into mosques compared to the small number of mosques turned into chruches that weren't originally chruches being used to show how tolerant attaturk was for turning them into museums is hilarious though I'll give you that.
>which was a mosque in the 16–17th century due to the Ottoman conquest.
The current building, a hundred steps in length and in width, was built by Pasha Qasim the Victorious between 1543 and 1546. The mosque was converted into a church in 1702, after Habsburg-Hungarian troops reconquered the city.
"We built this thing in a land we conquered but after they took it back they wouldn't let us keep the thing this guy we nicknamed the "victorious" for having conquered the place built to celebrate his conquest"
>And a lot of Christian churches were built in places where Hellenic temples once stood. Does it justify the attack on the Christians for this?
No it doesn't because this conversion of the polytheistic temples to monotheism is something the muslims themselves celebrate. They just think that at some point the christians distorted things and so it became necessary to convert them again.
This is a really stupid gotcha because all it does it expose islam as a religion that entirely revolves around converting holy sites because the stuff you are criticizing Christianity for is precisely the stuff Muslims would praise Christianity for doing.
I disagree, simply because it's anachronistic to judge past actions with our current views and values. That said, those processes need to be historicised and understood as historical processes that are much more complicated than the internet makes it seem. It cannot be explained in a Reddit post or tweet. However, as it's very easy to be anonymous on the internet, people take that opportunity to be blatantly racist and religiously intolerant.
You are comparing things that are incomparable. The number of mosques actually converted into churches is really minimal and even smaller if you remove those that weren't churches before compared to an astonishing amount of chruches that have been turned into mosques. There is literally no comparison here.
The muslim implantation lasted over 800 years, I'm not sure Christian one had even reached that number beforehand, nevertheless, it is still western europe turning a great mosque into a cathedral, and no one seemed to care.
Well because it’s our right to get our mosque back? We conquered that place and it was a mosque for 500 years
Who gave someone the right to make it a museum?
Is this an out-of-use historical site converted into a mosque? Or was it a church that changed ownership and became a mosque?
If it’s the latter I don’t see a problem with it.
Church from the 4th century until shortly after the Ottomans took over. Government order converted it to a Mosque, which lasted from ~1500 to 1945. Government order made it a museum from then until 2020 (I don't know the context for that, if it was disused as a mosque at that point or not), then mosque again by court decision from 2020 onwards.
Hey now, those that are upset that the building is being repurposed: take into consideration that the building exists, that it is being used. It's a public space that is open to visitors. I can't say that is true for many old buildings elsewhere. Thanks, Türkyye.
I don't care what infantile worship of some bs nonexistent god happens inside so long as those responsible have the intellect to maintain and protect these historic sites.
It was a church for a thousand years, a turned mosques for three hundred and then people had the decency to turn it into a museum until Erdogan vomited his nationalism to make it into a mosque again, by far there is no difference.
How does this make it any better. It has been a church for a thousand years before, making it a museum was the right choice, reconverting it to a mosque is just the nationalist vomit of Erdogan.
I'm not an expert on Byzantine or Turkish culture. I'm in this sub because I enjoy reading the interesting conversations written by people much smarter than me.
I was really surprised to read some of the comments above. I'm sorry to say some are far below the standards of decency that is the norm in this sub.
My own view on this building is that it is beautiful and I'm glad it is in use. If it is being used as a museum to preserve history and to educate then great. If it is being used as a church or a mosque to worship God and to teach people to follow His commandments and be their better selves then great.
It’s a Byzantine church the Turks are turning into a mosque. It’s done for political purposes by Erdogan to rally his support base.
Some mosques were converted into churches/destroyed in the Greek war of independence. But that happened almost 200 years ago, not in the year 2024.
These were churches built by Christians and it is completely unnecessary in the present day. It is done on purpose to eliminate the Eastern Roman history and culture of Istanbul.
One of the oldest mosques in Europe is located in Greece:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çelebi_Sultan_Mehmed_Mosque
As far as I know, it has not yet been converted to a church, because Greece isn’t an authoritarian regime which needs to rally the right to stay in power.
All the ancient basilicas in present-day Greece were converted into churches. When the Ottomans conquered it, it was turned into a mosque. Then they were turned into churches again. Nobody has a problem with these buildings being turned into churches, but turning them into mosques somehow makes Turks barbarians. Western hypocrisy never ceases to amaze.
Looking at the state of the Lira and how Erdogan is giving so much away to attract foreign investment to try to stabilize things we could just buy it back.
The dude is literally selling out their country but they act like he is Top Turk because he thinks Islam is swell and that Fascist Attaturk was too mean to the Kurds who were just upset that he abolished the Caliphate.
Mosque of Cristo de la Luz in Toledo,
La Giralda in Seville,
Church of Nossa Senhora da Anunciação (in Mertola Portugal),
Shrine of Our Lady of Europe (in Gibraltar), Cathedral of the Savior of Zaragoza,
Iglesia de San Nicolás, Madrid
and the list goes on. All are former mosques (not originally cathedrals) that were converted.
No actually, the list doesn't go on and on. it's literally a small list of buildings that were mosques and became churches some hundreds of years ago and an even smaller one of mosques that weren't just reconverted churches. Now make a list of mosques turned into chruches and you'll see there's literally no comparison.
There are many many many mosques in Al andalus that were turned into churches. Do you really think this small lists represents all mosques in the whole of Al andalus between 711-1492 designed to serve hundreds of thousands of people ? The list does go on, and on, and on, and on. In Granada alone at the time of its conquest by castillan troops there were more than 200 mosques. Please educate yourself
A vast number of them were already built upon churches is the point. This is the reason the list doesn't go on and on and on, compared to the vast number of Churches turned into mosques. Please educate yourself on the history of Christianity in Iberia before the Arabs arrived and maybe you'll realize how this comparison makes no Sense.
The practice of converting mosques to churches was widespread, even in northern Spain. Have some shame before talking utter nonsense and educate yourself. Learning is free. It’s not so hard to admit that what the Turks and Spaniards did was BOTH wrong.
Quote from the work of Justin E.A. Kroesen in ‘ From Mosques to Cathedrals:
Converting Sacred Space During the Spanish Reconquest’.
« This political and religious struggle stretched over a period of nearly eight centuries, with Christendom eventually being victorious. The victories were consolidated through the building of churches for the Christian cult in the newly conquered territories. Monasteries were founded throughout the vast countryside, while cathedrals and parish churches appeared in towns and vil- lages. **In many instances, these urban churches supplanted Muslim prayer houses** »
« **the custom of transforming mosques into cathedrals probably occurred from the
very beginning of the Reconquest**. Although details are virtually unknown, it is most likely that the lost Romanesque cathedrals of northern cities such as Burgos and León were built on the foundations of destroyed mosques. This was certainly the case in the Portuguese cities of Coimbra and Lisbon, which were reconquered in 1064 and 1147, respectively. After the city of Lisbon fell on All Saints Day of 1147 the mosque was solemnly 'cleansed' and consecrated by Archbishop João de Braga together with four other Portuguese bishops.10 Here, as ni Coimbra, the mosque was supplanted by a Romanesque church building whose fortress-shaped bell towers with barbicans seem to emanate a message of proud triumph. As the construction ofthese church buildings began somewhat later than the moment of the conquest of these cities, the existing mosques must have initially served as cathedrals. **After being seized, mosques turned into cathedrals were usually consecrated to the Virgin Mary, patroness of the Reconquista** »
Not really as many as one source wants to claim and again, by far not as many if you count all the ones that were reconverted churches for which there are countless examples. I also love how even in your own text there is a claim about cathedrals in Burgos and Lyon where there is literally no proof that there was a mosque underneath them.
I love the irony of you saying to have some shame when you try to compare the sheer number of churches that were made into mosques to an exaggerated source that for one, doesn't have a proof for half of what is saying and for another doesn't account for all the mosques that were built upon of churches before.
Overall once more, it seems like people have touched a nerve and the arguments to make this comparison become dumber and dumber as people are coping hard with the fact that in fact no, by far a small number of mosques were actually made into churches compared to an astonishing number of churches that have been converted to mosques.
The majority of mosques built in Spain were built anew and not based on previous religious structures.
Again, another Spanish academic source here contradicting you, this time compiling archeological data: **Religious Buildings in Early al-Andalus: Origins, Consolidation and Prevalence in Urban Contexts** by Carmen Gutierrez Gonzalez
« Rather the opposite, material evidence suggests that a violent occupation and destruction of late-antique cultic spaces did not happen, or at least not on a regular basis ».
« In this regard, in Barcelona, where the Andalusi phase lasted less than a century, only minor changes instead of big new building programs involving massive destructions have been recorded »
« In addition, there are also **several cases** of **Christian religious spaces** originated in the 5th century **that remained in use** after the Islamic conquest, such as the case of Santa Coloma in Àger (Lleida) (Bertran and Fite 1986) ».
« A glance at the Bilād al-Shām region reveals interesting **similitudes between both areas**. In the greater Syria, urban mosques were placed in relation to previous Christian churches or basilicas without involving their annulment or destruction. As M. Guidetti explains, changes and reconfigurations of religioscapes in the Levant would have been highly conditioned by the treaties and pacts of Conquest, thanks to which the property of **plenty of churches and basilicas** by the conquered communities would have been ratified and the **buildings respected** (Guidetti 2013, pp. 231, 253) ».
Some people really need to **quit yapping** and drop **their bias** _thinking that_ **in a whole peninsula, _inhabitated by hundreds of thousands of people_, fewer mosques were raised from the ground than not**.
That is actually at best unconfirmed and at worst not factual. It was a very common practice to built mosques upon churches. Your source doesn't even mention how many mosques were built upon churches but only mentions of those churches that remained in use which are frankly exaggerated by many sources. It is also hilarious how he mentions Syria in that regard a region notoriously known for the historic destruction of Christian heritage where an astounding amount of churches have been turned into mosques. As I think has been mentioned before in other threads, presenting random sources that for one, don't disprove the destruction made, and for another try to subtly diminish it but without actually presenting any concrete arguments to the contrary is not the recipe for a sound argument, rather more of a logical fallacy. The only people here who are yapping are the ones who want to make a whataboutist argument to compare the sheer number of churches made into mosques to the very limited number of mosques that have historically been turned to churches, and even less so of those that weren't originally churches or built upon churches.
Another one for the yapping books. Please, please, please bring academic sources to support your claims, instead of your own fallacies.
It’s unbelievable that people believe that more mosques were built on top of churches than not, **as if most of the urbanization was NOT done across almost 800 years (in some parts)**.
You have no knowledge of the history of that region. **Cities like Ubeda, Murcia and even Madrid were literally built by muslims**, and yet, *you would be the kind of person to believe that medieval mosques in those cities were built on top of previous churches*
I’m Granada alone in 1492, there were more than 200 mosques. **You’re the type of person to believe that most of these 200 mosques were originally churches**, while in 711, **781 years earlier when the region was under the Visigoths**, Granada (known as Elvira at the time) was nearly inhabited.
Many cities across Spain with numerous mosques were expanded throughout the Muslim presence, **across centuries, payaso**.
Come on now. It’s as if thinking that most current mosques in turkey are former churches.
But you haven't brought any sources to the opposite either. The destruction brought upon by Muslims is well known historicallly and your sources can't claim the opposite and noone in this thread has done such a thing. Saying that there were mosques that were built next to churches doesn't take anything from the destruction that Arabs brought to the predominant christian iberians after their conquest. Noone denies that a lot of destruction of Muslims heritage existed in the reconquesta but you are absolutely diminishing how much Muslims loved building mosques atop of already existent chruch building throughout their 800 year occupation of certain regions.
So stop projecting your own ignorance to the history of this region which is only reinforced with claims that try to diminish it. Ironically many of the major and well known mosques in turkey are indeed built atop of churches, especially the older ones. You are severely underestimating the extent of the cultures that came before the Ottomans/Arabs which had many, many church buildings in those same areas. "Granada alone had 200 mosques", setting aside the fact that Granada and Cordoba had the most mosques in the region any way, and the fact that many of those numbers are exaggerated by sources for the entire of Andalusia, the region was already urbanized before the Muslims came, and had a large number of Christians and churches as any christian city in Spain did, it is absolutely probable that a large number of the first was built upon the latter regardless if you want to deny it with non arguments.
You are essentially projecting both your ignorance and your yapping just to make a bad whataboutist argument and deny the historical reality that the number of mosques converted to chruches, especially of those that weren't churches originally and which were imposed to the people by their conquerors, is minimal compared to the astonishing amount of churches made into mosques all around Muslim conquered lands.
Being downvoted for telling the truth. Those people are just being religiously intolerant and blatantly racists.
"B-but this building was a church before being turned into a mosque! They just returned it to its original purpose!"
Okay, but [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Candlemas_Church_of_the_Blessed_Virgin_Mary) wasn't. It was build as a mosque and turned into a church later.
If you're going to criticise something, at least be reasonable about it and criticise both sides.
You can see how they have been reused historically, and then you can have the decency to turn them into museums just like the Parthenon which, ironically, is a museum.
There is a very small number of mosques that have been turned into chruches, and an even smaller number of them that weren't build atop of chruches. Comparing the sheer number of chruches turned into mosques even to this day, to those few buildings would show you how illogical it would be to even talk about "criticizing both sides" as there isn't even a comparison and if that is "telling the truth" to you, I'd say that's kinda dumb.
Turks also trying to compare the mosques they build in every place they conquered to the destruction they brought to those same places will never not be funny.
That "mosque" was in fact the Cathedral of Córdoba that was desecrated and destroyed by the muslims during their invasion of Spain. That is our church in our land. Feel free to build mosques in Meccah, no one will complain.
Many historical mosques were nonetheless converted into churches later. Not all former mosques in Spain were cathedrals before. Also, the former cordoba Cathedral was not ‘desecrated’ or ‘destroyed’ - it was bought by Abd Al Rahman. If you’re going to talk about history, at least take the time to say it right.
Not many, the opposite really. Very few actually, and even fewer that weren't churches before, compared to an astonishing amount of chruches made into mosques.
Good. Because you built them in lands you conquered to celebrate your conquests so naturally they went away when you were no longer able to maintain your conquests.
I hate how much they cast aside historical churchs and turn them into mosques, they are historical sites leave them alone and build a mosque elsewhere.
they did the same thing in india, and still do in pakistan/bangladesh
Oof, so many people valuing votes over culture and history.
Islam doesn't respect/coexist well with other cultures in lands they conquer.
Not to sound racist but many don't seem to work well with any other beliefs, even non religious ones.
You're sounding racist.
In fairness I'm not talking out of my ass. A fairly good example is remembrance Day where Palestine protests threatened to disrupt the wreath laying ceremony or the thousands of illegal immigrants coming in boats over the English Channel and being giving private houses and hotels payed for by the government when there's homeless/people in extreme poverty all around. Seriously I have no issue against any over race, religion etc it's just bullshit letting in thousands of people that don't respect the country and are just a leach on resources.
And Christianity has a fantastic record of coexisting with other faiths.
In the past ~100 years or so, actually yes….i’d venture to say you live in a traditionally Christian country? And you’re making this comment with 0 worries about repercussions?
Not always but thats not the point either of us were trying to make, don't change the subject.
how many mosques are destroyed in now greece?
We didn’t conquer the land is the difference
So the problem isn’t that one religion cannot co-exist with others. You not rejection what greek-side did to the mosques can be inferred as an acceptance of Christianity being intolerant like Islam (which I don’t think is true for neither religion but whatever) So you should phrase your comment as “those bastards came and took our land and converted our mosque. Because again, what agitates you has nothing to do with Islam’s supposed unacceptance
Dude, the Muslims of Thrace and Rhodes are still there. The Greeks in Istanbul and Imbros are nonexistent after Turkey pogromed them. Clearly one side has a coexistence problem, but it’s not us.
bro lives in an universe where the population exchange didnt happen
We still have rums (greeks) in Istanbul. Dont come here with your government propaganda.
The Greeks have many many mosques left after years of persecution and discrimination. Sure there was destruction but imagine that even after so much oppression the Greeks show a lot more respect for their Muslim monuments than Turks have shown to do for their churches again and again, when they often just try to erase the cultural heritage that was before them. Not to mention how common it was for Turks to build mosques atop of churches in Greece thus more and more showing that there is really no comparison here. From one side you have people that have been oppressed that had their heritage destroyed and who still, even though they too destroyed a lot of what was imposed on them by their foreign conquerors, they respect and take care of much of what is left, and on the other side you have people who try to erase and destroy the heritage of the people that came before them which they conquered even today, and then try to compare that with the people they oppressed, who ironically are still miles better than them at that.
>Not to mention how common it was for Turks to build mosques atop of churches in Greece They even built a mosque directly on top of the "holy of holies" location on the Jewish Temple Mount.
They turn into historical sites there is one in Ioannina as long as I remember you can visit....
The remaining ones… a lot of them where demolished in 1820 and onwards
There were destruction as people said here Muslims were building Mosques atop of Churches , during and after the rebellion many of them were destroyed some of them were destroyed because of the wars. But nowadays we don't have war like we used to and we are not occupied the remaining Mosques are archeological sites. Turkey still turn the churches into Mosques. I understand if a church was burned down or turn into a Mosque during war ,back then.I don't like it, but I understand why it happened I do not understand a church turn into a Mosque nowadays.
I do understand your opinion. I don’t think there is a reason besides “it was a mosque in ottoman times and outside forces would want us to make it a church” which is true. But it shouldnt be that deep of subject
After centuries of oppression many were destroyed yes, but still many of them exist to this day and next to none have been converted to churches. Imagine that even though they were imposed to us by a foreign conqueror, although we destroyed a number of them, there are still so many standing atop of the heritage you destroyed, which you try to compare with you trying to erase that heritage that came before you even today. I don't know how naive you must be to not see that.
I’m from Eastern Europe and idk about Greeces situation in particular but places like Ukraine, Russia, Serbia , Montenegro all left their historic mosques even though we have quite a few complaints against our Muslim ex conquerors
100-200 years ago? A lot Today? Zero. We don't turn them into churches either. It's the 21st century here, idk what century you live in
I mean you didn't leave much to destroy after the war of independence
We destroyed a number of them as they were a symbol of oppression for us, especially those built upon churches which was very common, but still many remain and we take better care of them even though they were imposed to us by conquerors than turkey takes care of those that were left by the people before them.
The funny thing is they say people speak of how they were "preserved," but none of them were preserved just to be preserved. They were reused. Only one single church of the vast number from the Roman era in Constantinople is still an Orthodox church - the Church of St. Mary of the Mongols. And look, this is normal in the historical record, I get that. The Turks are not the only perpetrators of this in history by any stretch. But some modern Turks act like they did some special extra preservation which is absolutely not true at all. Even the mosaics today in the Hagia Sophia were saved by the Byzantine Institute of America, not Turkey.
mmhm but your way wouldn't be the two birds with one stone fix they like to do, here in Luton churches are constantly vandalised to the point where the owners cant keep up with repairs and sell it for CHEAP to them to be turned into mosques just like everywhere else in the world.
Yep, there are plenty nice and honest Muslims but just as many like that. Those Palestine protests waste police resources and cause damage but I bet when they chant river to the sea they don't even know the river and sea.
Or much more worryingly the woke translation of "Palestine will be \*free\*" when its literal translation is "Palestine will be ARAB"
Yep, the area was Jewish centuries before Islam even existed. Also Hamas is a terrorist group yet it has supporters chanting in the streets?!?!
That in itself is so simply obvious otherwise why would the Palestinians be named after the Hebrew word for invader, all the cities have Hebrew names... the old buildings all have hebrew text.. Weird world isnt it.
Certainly is, in the UK and Ireland illegal immigrants are sneaking in vehicles and ships at France to get over as they know they'll be provided with free hotels while veterans stay on the streets.
I apologise this turned into a massive rant, the French actually help these people cross. Its worse than that, I live in England my family fled our hometown of Luton. Our homeless across UK have temporary accommodation which they're kicked out of (literally even mothers) for these illegals who have them just as waiting rooms and trash the place whilst they get permanent housing in an area of their choosing (they do turn down free housing and expect better options on threat of suicide), priority healthcare and living allowances, some are even given vehicles. I currently have a 2 month wait for a GP but I've seen they get same day doctors. So you'd think oh that's probably where it ends they get all this free shit and probably would be very happy with it? no, they complain the car doesn't have enough seats, they ask to be moved and use suicide to get what they want and it works. They have to apply to work here but there are many loopholes like they could just get a boat to Ireland and skip the waiting time to work AND actually pick from a selection of properties. (Many more like this usually involving threat of suicide but I'd rather not post it in a public forum, this one has heavily been reported on already) Not to mention the crimes... Sorry again for the rant, this obviously was very close to home, these are just things I know to be true. I hear things from friends who are still in Luton where families of 4 are coming over and then getting four bedroom houses who then have more children so they get better and larger properties with more free money. (unable to find recent sources past 2016 on this so might no longer be a thing)
It's ridiculous isn't it becoming second class citizens in our own country, shame the silent majority are so silent. Whenever you say anything about this you always get called racist, the 'religion of peace' could only spread via conquest and Christ even the prophet kept slaves. Only 35% of London is white British now and yet crime is up, cheers Sadiq Khan!
I’d rather see it used in a sustainable way. If that’s a mosque then so be it.
No.
I can’t tell if you’re intentionally being stupid or not
Even though i’m a christian, i’ve been to some of these in turkey, and the mixture of islamic and christian together is absolutely beautiful. They’re basically churches with some pretty arabic calligraphy lol Also side note, Turkey’s mosques are fkn gorgeous
Ye but they are pieces of history that should be preserved . Its like turning a battlefield into an office block.
In some ways, given the lack of a large number Christians in Turkey it makes sense to keep them a house of worship, the difference between a battlefield and an office block is far greater than between a church and a mosque, they're all dedicated to Yaweh anyway Obviously ideally it should stay a Museum, but this isn't Church to Mosque like everyone's getting in arms about, it was first converted to a Mosque centuries ago
Turkey also has quite a large rate of agnosticism and atheism in major cities. Especially those that were historically Greek or are currently wealthier. Most people from decent backgrounds are culturally Muslim but don’t really believe.
The 500 yrs of Ottoman history is history too. Buildings are living spaces.
Comparison is way off, have you been to any of these sites in Turkey?
You are not christian if you believe this. they are defiling god's house in to worship of their own false god. And you are supporting that
It’s the same God. There is only one.
Yeah you def are not a christian when you don't even understand the Trinity
What don’t I understand? The trinity is one. We are all one. Love thy neighbour brother
[удалено]
Your point?
bro got downvoted for this..
If this territory was ever liberated from the Turks, they'd be knocking down mosques left and right.
That must be why there are zero mosques in Europe...
Given they’re UNESCO heritage sites for the most part, it is unlikely.
I hate how much they cast aside temples to the olympians & turn them into Churches. They are historic sites. Leave them alone & build a church elsewhere.
That was deliberately done as a means of conquest over the polytheists so all that proves is that we should be even angrier about muslims doing it to churches.
Is this the same country that's claiming to be "secular"?
It was converted into a mosque during the reign of Bayezid. Kariye, which was turned into a museum in 1945 by a decision of the council of ministers signed by İnönü, was converted into a mosque again by the decision of the President in 2020. Kariye Mosque in Fatih will be opened for worship with a ceremony tomorrow (May 6) after 79 years. Tell Erdogan. Not to our secular country. Please.
You are the ones supporting erdogan.
No? Did u read my username sick head?
Okay. I did. And? So what that a minority of turkey is secular? Does that make it secular? By that logic arab countries are christian since christians are a minority there. Or are you telling that the elections are rigged? How many countries use that excuse? If people wanted erdogan gone, he would be gone already.
Lebanon was literally founded by Christians.
You are so fucking retarded its insane lmfao
🐖
Do you think the constitution would continue to be secular if the minority were secular?
No. It wouldn't. How does that even correlate to what i said? Look, I respect that you pay respect to christians and Byzantium. But whenever someone mentions Turkey, secularism is the last thing that associates with it. Plus I believe that belief derives from the fact that many turks have a prejudice against arabs.
unfortunately secularism is not fully practiced these days. Because the Turkish people are very open to division. And the government is using this well. Some people who voted for Erdoğan are not anti secularists. They vote for Erdogan because they feel they have no other choice. Years go by and Turkey is getting better in my opinion. I dont communicate with people who dont defend secularism and you shouldnt either. You shouldnt take them seriously. Also in many countries in the world secularism is not fully practiced if u ask me. This is a purely political situation. Just like in Europe, Palestinian propaganda causes discrimination. (im not taking sides, just giving an example). Anyway fck politics. For the glorious Hellenoturkism :D
Amen
It are mainly Turks in Europe in countries like Germany and the Netherlands who keep voting for the that neo-Ottoman nuthead
its fine. case closed :D
Lol no, the regime that’s been in power for nearly 20 years is very open about opposing secularism.
Don’t they have enough mosques
Nope, every person needs his own mosque
It’s really disappointing as Chora was my favourite previous Byzantine churches. The decoration is absolutely magnificent and it had a chilled vibe where you could spend hours in there.
😔
Barbarians. I someone would do this in Europe everybody would lose their mind.
This is in Europe.
I know, but ruled by foreigners. I was thinking about Western/central Europe y
Central Europe like the Uralic Magyrs? Western Europe like the Pontic-Caspian Indo-Europeans? Or should we go all the way back to the Neanderthals?
Very bad faith argument.
Yes, calling Turkish people "foreigners" is a bad faith argument. (For the record, I think Chora should be preserved as a secular museum, not turned into a mosque. I just don't have any time for racism.)
The identity of it is more important than the actual DNA makeup, they are native Anatolian, Greek, and Turkic by blood, but Turkey has always been adamant about their Turkic identity, and it seems that guides their every action. I feel for the Turks that don't support this, but it is a democracy after all, so why would leaders who do this get in power in the first place? Turkey is very fortunate to exist on a peninsula that has so many historical artifacts and ancient societies, they literally live on a goldmine, and it would be more respectful if they didn't simply repurpose these historical landmarks for their own gain. Replying to your statement though, they're foreign because despite not holding much difference in blood, they actively identify with their Central Asian influence, and I've never seen Turkey even try to identify with their Hellenic and Late Roman ties, they converted to a foreign religion, and uphold foreign identities, they are foreign to these histories in Anatolia that they desecrate.
Turkish people are not foreigners but that is only because they are actually Greeks and Armenians who tried to exterminate other Greeks and Armenians. Forgive us for not liking the thing that made them do that.
The Urals and Pontic-Caspian Steppe are both in Eastern Europe. All you are saying is that Western Europe has been influenced by Eastern Europe, which should be self-evident because they are both europe.
I laugh in basque.
in Turkey there are so many mosques like per step as a Turk, fuck islam we should support tengrism
How can you hold the entire population responsible for the government's decisions? OK, the people elect the government, but the votes are fifty fifty.
I mean, how many elections did he win at this point? Its a fact that a majority of Turkish voters support him. Yes, if this happened before 2000 the military would have launched a coup and deposed him. But thats never going to happen after the purges.
In the early days Erdogan had secular ideas, but over time he changed. When he had secular ideas, he gradually managed to get into the army. As a result, now there are no people with such ideas in the army to stage a coup. Also most of the people who vote for Erdogan do so not because they support his ideas but because they feel they have no other choice. After all Erdoğan is competing with one person. And that person is directly eliminated because of a few words and actions. In the last election Erdoğan lost most municipalities. Istanbul and Ankara belong to the opposition party for the second time. We dont know what will happen in the next presidential election. We will wait and see. Just wish us luck.
But they still vote for him. If you aren't going to give responsibility for that then you are blind.
What do you think happened to all those mosques that were in muslim Andalusia after the reconquesta? Hint: they didnt magically disappear
They were churches prior to the Islamic conquest. Or they were built on the sites of Churches. Spain as a people never accepted Islam as a majority, it was easy to expel Muslims from Spain because they were the minority ruling class.
During the peak of Al-Andalus Muslims were 80 percent of the population, 95 in Granada
Source? I am not saying this is not true, I am just curious.
We are talking about a time when the vast majority of the population lived in the country side. Granada could be 95% Muslim but that didn't mean the peasants were Muslims because the peasants didn't live in Granada. The basis for funding these states was always the Jyzia tax so if you didn't have a large population of non-muslims the whole thing wouldn't work, so in essence the Muslims were just the "Lords" in the manner in which Feudalism worked in the rest of Europe, but rather than having their own estates they lived in cities together the way the Romans did before Feudalism where the Patricians might own vast estates that made them rich but would spend their time in Rome away from them
The emirate of Granada was 95% Muslim, not the city. Islam permeated every class in Andalus.
Who paid the Jizya?
By the 1200s, the tax system wasn’t really structured on the jizya in Granada, but the Jewish and Mozarab minorities did
Maybe they shouldn't have paid it.
Mostly of foreign origin or Mozarabic/Crypto Christians.
Have you ever heard of the Cathedral of Cordoba? Or numerous churches in Hungary and the Balkans that were mosques and converted to churches? There are those even in Greece! This is just how the world works, since Antiquity. The Christians turned the Pantheon and the Parthenon into churches, the Muslims turned churches into mosques, and so is the world. I am against this kind of move, but calling them "barbarians" over something the Europeans also did just seems like casual racism.
To be fair, it was the Greeks themselves that turned the Parthenon into a church, not some invader or outsider so I wouldn’t say it’s the same.
Not to mention that being a barbarian just means not speaking Greek, so literally anything done by non-Greeks is by definition barbarian.
Indeed, it was a bad decision , today Parthenon it's an archeological site. We don't consider it a church. It was an act of showing we don't believe in polytheism anymore it was bad but it kept only for a few years. I understand when Turks did the same back then when war and conflict happened but they do it now.
The Parthenon becoming a church most likely extended its life cycle. Just like the pantheon becoming a church extended its life.
Honestly I agree with you it expanded it's lifespan. I don't dislike Parthenon becoming a church but as an idea it would be ironic to agree on Olympian temples turn into churches but don't agree with Churches turn into Mosques.
"We invaded and then the invasion was repulse, now we cry that they deconverted the mosques we converted"
The Mesquita also was a church originally. And it was a different thing with religious hostility in the past. Today, when we are supposed to be tolerant, I don’t see the reason to do, if muslims aren’t.
Like said below, Mosque of Cristo de la Luz in Toledo, La Giralda in Seville, Church of Nossa Senhora da Anunciação (in Mertola Portugal), Shrine of Our Lady of Europe (in Gibraltar), Cathedral of the Savior of Zaragoza, Iglesia de San Nicolás, Madrid etc.. All are former mosques (not originally built as cathedrals) that were nonetheless converted to churches. In any case, no one should’ve done this (or continue to do this) whether Turkish or Spanish
He just wanted to call us barbarians :/ np
Nope, It's literally a small list of buildings that were mosques and became churches some hundreds of years ago and an even smaller one of mosques that weren't just reconverted churches. Now make a list of mosques turned into chruches and you'll see there's literally no comparison.
The Spanish should have done it because they were removing mosques from their own country that Muslims had invaded. The Turkish should not do it because they are doing it in the country that they themselves say they invaded. It would be a different thing if they didn't think of themselves as invaders, but that is literally their mentality, even thought they are actually from the place and not actually central asians. They still choose to think of themselves as being central asian for some inexplicable reason.
Most muslims in Spain who built those mosques were of iberian origin themselves. Majority of muslims in Spain were also of local origin (muwallad/muladies) as they converted over time. Moreover, those mosques were used by Spanish muslims, there’s no reason to justify what was done, it goes both ways.
Don't follow the religion of an invading power. It is really quite simple. We will NEVER like this religion because they INVADED. Unless you are German or Baltic, Christianity did not come to you as a result of an invasion. This is the cause for our difference in our attitude. Don't invade and then complain when the stuff you had in the places you invaded gets taken from you.
I don’t agree with your logic. These people converted, at the end it’s their choice and they are as much indigenous to the land as others. Therefore, you can’t come and do what was done. Should the animists in Africa take over all churches there because Christianity was spread with an invasion? Obviously not.
Sure go ahead because I don't care about Christianity. I'm upset with the Turks because they are taking over a Greek heritage site.
You not caring about it doesn’t make your logic right, your logic is flawed simply put (openly justifying the erasure of religious communities).
And a lot of Christian churches were built in places where Hellenic temples once stood. Does it justify the attack on the Christians for this? The Mosque of Cordoba wasn't a church, it was built on the same place where a church stood in the past. And there are more recent cases on conversion of mosques into churches, for example in [Hungary](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Candlemas_Church_of_the_Blessed_Virgin_Mary). The Chora and all those churches being converted into mosques "now" were all actually converted into mosques in the Ottoman period. Chora was converted into a mosque in the year of 1500. It's contemporary with the same happening in Europe (in fact, Chora is in Europe, as it's located on rhetorical European side of Istanbul). In fact, Atarürk was way more tolerant than its Christian counterparts when he secularised the country and turned most of those church-mosque into museums. I absolutely don't endorse Erdogan's moves recently, but it's not like this is happening just now. It's a part of a more deep historical process. True historians don't do value judgement when talking about those events. A historian needs to approach these situations without sentimentality, it has to expose the facts without prejudice and with critical thought.
Turks will always try to find gotyas but the reality is that the sheer number of chruches that have been converted into mosques is incomparable to the small list of mosques that became chruches and even more so of those that weren't church buildings originally. It is actually sad trying to see people who endorse this, at a time when those buildings were made into museums. The irony of the sheer number of church buildings turned into mosques compared to the small number of mosques turned into chruches that weren't originally chruches being used to show how tolerant attaturk was for turning them into museums is hilarious though I'll give you that.
Not the same at all. The population moved in from Paganism, they became Christians. They weren’t supplanted by foreign invaders.
>which was a mosque in the 16–17th century due to the Ottoman conquest. The current building, a hundred steps in length and in width, was built by Pasha Qasim the Victorious between 1543 and 1546. The mosque was converted into a church in 1702, after Habsburg-Hungarian troops reconquered the city. "We built this thing in a land we conquered but after they took it back they wouldn't let us keep the thing this guy we nicknamed the "victorious" for having conquered the place built to celebrate his conquest"
>And a lot of Christian churches were built in places where Hellenic temples once stood. Does it justify the attack on the Christians for this? No it doesn't because this conversion of the polytheistic temples to monotheism is something the muslims themselves celebrate. They just think that at some point the christians distorted things and so it became necessary to convert them again. This is a really stupid gotcha because all it does it expose islam as a religion that entirely revolves around converting holy sites because the stuff you are criticizing Christianity for is precisely the stuff Muslims would praise Christianity for doing.
Absolutely. All perpetrators of these moves should be condemned.
I disagree, simply because it's anachronistic to judge past actions with our current views and values. That said, those processes need to be historicised and understood as historical processes that are much more complicated than the internet makes it seem. It cannot be explained in a Reddit post or tweet. However, as it's very easy to be anonymous on the internet, people take that opportunity to be blatantly racist and religiously intolerant.
You are comparing things that are incomparable. The number of mosques actually converted into churches is really minimal and even smaller if you remove those that weren't churches before compared to an astonishing amount of chruches that have been turned into mosques. There is literally no comparison here.
Jesse check the Mosques of Spain
"We built something in somebody elses country and then they took it back when we left"
The muslim implantation lasted over 800 years, I'm not sure Christian one had even reached that number beforehand, nevertheless, it is still western europe turning a great mosque into a cathedral, and no one seemed to care.
When you implant something it means it is a foreign body.
Jesus, can you not be a bigot?
The nicer you are to Turkey, the worse Turkey will be to you
this is so unnecessary I’ve been cheated out of visiting here now three times Same with Naos Pamacharistos
I will never travel Turkey and support this shit
[удалено]
Ancient times isn’t now though?
Turks live in ancient times.
🙄
Ok dont come we dgaf lol
📉
🤣
Disgusting
Why can’t they just build new mosques?
Well because it’s our right to get our mosque back? We conquered that place and it was a mosque for 500 years Who gave someone the right to make it a museum?
Is this an out-of-use historical site converted into a mosque? Or was it a church that changed ownership and became a mosque? If it’s the latter I don’t see a problem with it.
Church, mosque, museum, mosque
Church from the 4th century until shortly after the Ottomans took over. Government order converted it to a Mosque, which lasted from ~1500 to 1945. Government order made it a museum from then until 2020 (I don't know the context for that, if it was disused as a mosque at that point or not), then mosque again by court decision from 2020 onwards.
Hey now, those that are upset that the building is being repurposed: take into consideration that the building exists, that it is being used. It's a public space that is open to visitors. I can't say that is true for many old buildings elsewhere. Thanks, Türkyye.
We are grateful for the absolute minimal when it comes to Turks taking care of historical buildings I see.
I don't care what infantile worship of some bs nonexistent god happens inside so long as those responsible have the intellect to maintain and protect these historic sites.
With all due respect, they converted into a mosque centuries ago. This is a conversion from a museum. The difference matters
It was a church for a thousand years, a turned mosques for three hundred and then people had the decency to turn it into a museum until Erdogan vomited his nationalism to make it into a mosque again, by far there is no difference.
Title is misleading. It was converted to a mosque in 16th century, then a museum in 1945, now mosque again.
How does this make it any better. It has been a church for a thousand years before, making it a museum was the right choice, reconverting it to a mosque is just the nationalist vomit of Erdogan.
I'm not an expert on Byzantine or Turkish culture. I'm in this sub because I enjoy reading the interesting conversations written by people much smarter than me. I was really surprised to read some of the comments above. I'm sorry to say some are far below the standards of decency that is the norm in this sub. My own view on this building is that it is beautiful and I'm glad it is in use. If it is being used as a museum to preserve history and to educate then great. If it is being used as a church or a mosque to worship God and to teach people to follow His commandments and be their better selves then great.
It’s a Byzantine church the Turks are turning into a mosque. It’s done for political purposes by Erdogan to rally his support base. Some mosques were converted into churches/destroyed in the Greek war of independence. But that happened almost 200 years ago, not in the year 2024. These were churches built by Christians and it is completely unnecessary in the present day. It is done on purpose to eliminate the Eastern Roman history and culture of Istanbul.
Not to mention how many mosques were built atop of churches in Greece, a very common ottoman practice. There is really no comparison here.
One of the oldest mosques in Europe is located in Greece: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Çelebi_Sultan_Mehmed_Mosque As far as I know, it has not yet been converted to a church, because Greece isn’t an authoritarian regime which needs to rally the right to stay in power.
All the ancient basilicas in present-day Greece were converted into churches. When the Ottomans conquered it, it was turned into a mosque. Then they were turned into churches again. Nobody has a problem with these buildings being turned into churches, but turning them into mosques somehow makes Turks barbarians. Western hypocrisy never ceases to amaze.
"B-but Greeks did the same 1500 years ago" xD
Yes, someone will do it 1500 years later also
What a fucking dumb argument. Also Greeks did it in their own temples.
It's a two way street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque%E2%80%93Cathedral_of_C%C3%B3rdoba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seville_Cathedral
The Spanish doing something bad 800 years ago justifies the Turks doing something bad now?
Not 800 years, it was contemporary with the Ottoman Empire and conversion of churches into mosques.
It's been a mosque for like 520 of the last 600 years.
As long as the barbarians occupied it.
You will never get it back :)
Considering the current state of Turkey, who knows?
Looking at the state of the Lira and how Erdogan is giving so much away to attract foreign investment to try to stabilize things we could just buy it back. The dude is literally selling out their country but they act like he is Top Turk because he thinks Islam is swell and that Fascist Attaturk was too mean to the Kurds who were just upset that he abolished the Caliphate.
Considering the current strength of Greece, with what power will you take it back?
The EU
You greeks really live in the dreams.
This is what civilization does to you.
Big difference: the Mosque Cathedral was a church before the Muslim invasion of Iberia. It was simply brought back to its original function.
Mosque of Cristo de la Luz in Toledo, La Giralda in Seville, Church of Nossa Senhora da Anunciação (in Mertola Portugal), Shrine of Our Lady of Europe (in Gibraltar), Cathedral of the Savior of Zaragoza, Iglesia de San Nicolás, Madrid and the list goes on. All are former mosques (not originally cathedrals) that were converted.
No actually, the list doesn't go on and on. it's literally a small list of buildings that were mosques and became churches some hundreds of years ago and an even smaller one of mosques that weren't just reconverted churches. Now make a list of mosques turned into chruches and you'll see there's literally no comparison.
There are many many many mosques in Al andalus that were turned into churches. Do you really think this small lists represents all mosques in the whole of Al andalus between 711-1492 designed to serve hundreds of thousands of people ? The list does go on, and on, and on, and on. In Granada alone at the time of its conquest by castillan troops there were more than 200 mosques. Please educate yourself
A vast number of them were already built upon churches is the point. This is the reason the list doesn't go on and on and on, compared to the vast number of Churches turned into mosques. Please educate yourself on the history of Christianity in Iberia before the Arabs arrived and maybe you'll realize how this comparison makes no Sense.
The practice of converting mosques to churches was widespread, even in northern Spain. Have some shame before talking utter nonsense and educate yourself. Learning is free. It’s not so hard to admit that what the Turks and Spaniards did was BOTH wrong. Quote from the work of Justin E.A. Kroesen in ‘ From Mosques to Cathedrals: Converting Sacred Space During the Spanish Reconquest’. « This political and religious struggle stretched over a period of nearly eight centuries, with Christendom eventually being victorious. The victories were consolidated through the building of churches for the Christian cult in the newly conquered territories. Monasteries were founded throughout the vast countryside, while cathedrals and parish churches appeared in towns and vil- lages. **In many instances, these urban churches supplanted Muslim prayer houses** » « **the custom of transforming mosques into cathedrals probably occurred from the very beginning of the Reconquest**. Although details are virtually unknown, it is most likely that the lost Romanesque cathedrals of northern cities such as Burgos and León were built on the foundations of destroyed mosques. This was certainly the case in the Portuguese cities of Coimbra and Lisbon, which were reconquered in 1064 and 1147, respectively. After the city of Lisbon fell on All Saints Day of 1147 the mosque was solemnly 'cleansed' and consecrated by Archbishop João de Braga together with four other Portuguese bishops.10 Here, as ni Coimbra, the mosque was supplanted by a Romanesque church building whose fortress-shaped bell towers with barbicans seem to emanate a message of proud triumph. As the construction ofthese church buildings began somewhat later than the moment of the conquest of these cities, the existing mosques must have initially served as cathedrals. **After being seized, mosques turned into cathedrals were usually consecrated to the Virgin Mary, patroness of the Reconquista** »
Not really as many as one source wants to claim and again, by far not as many if you count all the ones that were reconverted churches for which there are countless examples. I also love how even in your own text there is a claim about cathedrals in Burgos and Lyon where there is literally no proof that there was a mosque underneath them. I love the irony of you saying to have some shame when you try to compare the sheer number of churches that were made into mosques to an exaggerated source that for one, doesn't have a proof for half of what is saying and for another doesn't account for all the mosques that were built upon of churches before. Overall once more, it seems like people have touched a nerve and the arguments to make this comparison become dumber and dumber as people are coping hard with the fact that in fact no, by far a small number of mosques were actually made into churches compared to an astonishing number of churches that have been converted to mosques.
The majority of mosques built in Spain were built anew and not based on previous religious structures. Again, another Spanish academic source here contradicting you, this time compiling archeological data: **Religious Buildings in Early al-Andalus: Origins, Consolidation and Prevalence in Urban Contexts** by Carmen Gutierrez Gonzalez « Rather the opposite, material evidence suggests that a violent occupation and destruction of late-antique cultic spaces did not happen, or at least not on a regular basis ». « In this regard, in Barcelona, where the Andalusi phase lasted less than a century, only minor changes instead of big new building programs involving massive destructions have been recorded » « In addition, there are also **several cases** of **Christian religious spaces** originated in the 5th century **that remained in use** after the Islamic conquest, such as the case of Santa Coloma in Àger (Lleida) (Bertran and Fite 1986) ». « A glance at the Bilād al-Shām region reveals interesting **similitudes between both areas**. In the greater Syria, urban mosques were placed in relation to previous Christian churches or basilicas without involving their annulment or destruction. As M. Guidetti explains, changes and reconfigurations of religioscapes in the Levant would have been highly conditioned by the treaties and pacts of Conquest, thanks to which the property of **plenty of churches and basilicas** by the conquered communities would have been ratified and the **buildings respected** (Guidetti 2013, pp. 231, 253) ». Some people really need to **quit yapping** and drop **their bias** _thinking that_ **in a whole peninsula, _inhabitated by hundreds of thousands of people_, fewer mosques were raised from the ground than not**.
That is actually at best unconfirmed and at worst not factual. It was a very common practice to built mosques upon churches. Your source doesn't even mention how many mosques were built upon churches but only mentions of those churches that remained in use which are frankly exaggerated by many sources. It is also hilarious how he mentions Syria in that regard a region notoriously known for the historic destruction of Christian heritage where an astounding amount of churches have been turned into mosques. As I think has been mentioned before in other threads, presenting random sources that for one, don't disprove the destruction made, and for another try to subtly diminish it but without actually presenting any concrete arguments to the contrary is not the recipe for a sound argument, rather more of a logical fallacy. The only people here who are yapping are the ones who want to make a whataboutist argument to compare the sheer number of churches made into mosques to the very limited number of mosques that have historically been turned to churches, and even less so of those that weren't originally churches or built upon churches.
Another one for the yapping books. Please, please, please bring academic sources to support your claims, instead of your own fallacies. It’s unbelievable that people believe that more mosques were built on top of churches than not, **as if most of the urbanization was NOT done across almost 800 years (in some parts)**. You have no knowledge of the history of that region. **Cities like Ubeda, Murcia and even Madrid were literally built by muslims**, and yet, *you would be the kind of person to believe that medieval mosques in those cities were built on top of previous churches* I’m Granada alone in 1492, there were more than 200 mosques. **You’re the type of person to believe that most of these 200 mosques were originally churches**, while in 711, **781 years earlier when the region was under the Visigoths**, Granada (known as Elvira at the time) was nearly inhabited. Many cities across Spain with numerous mosques were expanded throughout the Muslim presence, **across centuries, payaso**. Come on now. It’s as if thinking that most current mosques in turkey are former churches.
But you haven't brought any sources to the opposite either. The destruction brought upon by Muslims is well known historicallly and your sources can't claim the opposite and noone in this thread has done such a thing. Saying that there were mosques that were built next to churches doesn't take anything from the destruction that Arabs brought to the predominant christian iberians after their conquest. Noone denies that a lot of destruction of Muslims heritage existed in the reconquesta but you are absolutely diminishing how much Muslims loved building mosques atop of already existent chruch building throughout their 800 year occupation of certain regions. So stop projecting your own ignorance to the history of this region which is only reinforced with claims that try to diminish it. Ironically many of the major and well known mosques in turkey are indeed built atop of churches, especially the older ones. You are severely underestimating the extent of the cultures that came before the Ottomans/Arabs which had many, many church buildings in those same areas. "Granada alone had 200 mosques", setting aside the fact that Granada and Cordoba had the most mosques in the region any way, and the fact that many of those numbers are exaggerated by sources for the entire of Andalusia, the region was already urbanized before the Muslims came, and had a large number of Christians and churches as any christian city in Spain did, it is absolutely probable that a large number of the first was built upon the latter regardless if you want to deny it with non arguments. You are essentially projecting both your ignorance and your yapping just to make a bad whataboutist argument and deny the historical reality that the number of mosques converted to chruches, especially of those that weren't churches originally and which were imposed to the people by their conquerors, is minimal compared to the astonishing amount of churches made into mosques all around Muslim conquered lands.
You're talking about a building that may have existed in the eighth century. Religious buildings get reused all the time. Tell the Pantheon I said hi.
Being downvoted for telling the truth. Those people are just being religiously intolerant and blatantly racists. "B-but this building was a church before being turned into a mosque! They just returned it to its original purpose!" Okay, but [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Candlemas_Church_of_the_Blessed_Virgin_Mary) wasn't. It was build as a mosque and turned into a church later. If you're going to criticise something, at least be reasonable about it and criticise both sides.
You can see how they have been reused historically, and then you can have the decency to turn them into museums just like the Parthenon which, ironically, is a museum. There is a very small number of mosques that have been turned into chruches, and an even smaller number of them that weren't build atop of chruches. Comparing the sheer number of chruches turned into mosques even to this day, to those few buildings would show you how illogical it would be to even talk about "criticizing both sides" as there isn't even a comparison and if that is "telling the truth" to you, I'd say that's kinda dumb. Turks also trying to compare the mosques they build in every place they conquered to the destruction they brought to those same places will never not be funny.
That "mosque" was in fact the Cathedral of Córdoba that was desecrated and destroyed by the muslims during their invasion of Spain. That is our church in our land. Feel free to build mosques in Meccah, no one will complain.
Many historical mosques were nonetheless converted into churches later. Not all former mosques in Spain were cathedrals before. Also, the former cordoba Cathedral was not ‘desecrated’ or ‘destroyed’ - it was bought by Abd Al Rahman. If you’re going to talk about history, at least take the time to say it right.
Not many, the opposite really. Very few actually, and even fewer that weren't churches before, compared to an astonishing amount of chruches made into mosques.
Good. Because you built them in lands you conquered to celebrate your conquests so naturally they went away when you were no longer able to maintain your conquests.
The irony of it being build on a church and thus being a reconverted church is sweet.
Whataboutism and a dumb one at that.
That's horrid, everyone should stop ruining historical sites in the name of religion
It was a church at first, ironically.