Talk:Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


I know this will likely be a controversial page. I do not think it needs to stay in its current form, with its current title or anything. It was created because a lot of this material was removed from mosque since it threw off that article's balance having such a large section on this subject. I didn't like removing such a large chunk of sourced text (I am not vouching for its accuracy or neutrality--just that effort was obviously taken in writing it) but we couldn't have it making an article about mosques be monopolized by an issue that is relatively unimportant to the subject of mosques (look at other encyclopedias, it would never be in such a large proportion to the rest of the content). I didn't know what to do with the text so I just moved it to this article... so, here we stand. Let there be discussion on how this should be treated. gren グレン 04:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Tags

Context is obviously needed. This is a section taken directly out of mosque and has no introduction to itself. So, the context of this article is horribly skewed.

NPOV tag is because there are sweeping statements that conflate Islamic law as a unified entity... which is, of course, wrong. Bat Ye'or is not an expert on Islamic law as a whole and is by no means qualified to say that "Islamic law" provides for confiscation of religious buildings taken in battle. It would depend on the jurists, the school, the time period, the place... the point is... which jurists said this? But, to say "Islamic law" provides for this is a completely superficial understanding of how diverse Islamic law is. The sentence "The process of turning churches into mosques was especially intensive in the villages, with the gradual conversion of the people to Islam." is very interesting but gives no explanation... becuase the Arab conquests didn't create huge numbers of converts (since they wanted tax money from non-Muslims) did the conversion of churches to mosques in villages happen as imposed by the leaders or happen because the numbers of Christians fell and Muslims rose over time? Obviously having Muslims in power leads to there being incentives to being Muslim under the political system... but this tries to decomplexify a very complex issue. gren グレン 06:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If anything your comment shows that you have done the splitting from Mosque improperly and in a disruptive manner; the split must be either done properly so that the daughter article is coherent, wel--structured, and well-written or not done at all. Your musings disagreeing with Bat Ye'or and the Encyclopaedia of Islam are not terribly interesting, and please consult one of the Wikipedia's cornerstone policies. Pecher Talk 06:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If you would prefer I had not saved this content feel free to get the support of the other editors of this article and then put it up for speedy deletion and I will oblige. I really don't understand what you want. I am sorry that I have no made this article into a budding FAC... but, I am not sure how that's disruptive. We have also gotten to the point where both of us have read the rules here and it is rather condescending and not very helpful for you to cite them to me. There is no real way to cite that the way an argument is presented is overly simplistic. Random dueling sources is not scholarship as much as we like to pretend it is on Wikipedia. gren グレン 10:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If you would prefer I had not saved this content feel free to get the support of the other editors of this article and then put it up for speedy deletion and I will oblige. WP:POINT, Gren. You didn't even care to give this article a proper title. "Other religions" need no explanation in Mosque, but in a separate article it sounds weird indeed. Pecher Talk 15:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parthenon?

how about the conversion of the Parthenon into a mosque by the Ottomans?

It was converted from a temple of Athena to a Church, like a host of other "pagan" temples.--Tigeroo 18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The idea of conversion of one religious place into another is heinuous to us at this point. It also does not help to say that the blame lies with people professing all faiths. There are mosques which were converted from churches without any agreement of the local populace. I think we can and should name them. However, citations of marginal sources or those wiht extreme views like Yeor, is not a helpful way to show us Muslims that the writer(s) is serious about the subject and is just not out to score points.

It was also true the other way around. In fact it was downright common and traditional in the good "old days" everywhere. You are right, as it stands it used more as an attempt to smear and as other editors contribute, can only hope it matures into a more rounded and fuller rendition of the facts.--Tigeroo 18:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


somsuj : added on 11/11/06 : Parthenon was initially converted to a Church by Christians and then to a Mosque.

I take strong exception to this comment : Taj Mahal is also considered to be a hindu temple (originally called Tejo Mahalaya meaning bright big building in sanskit) this fact has been proved beyond any doubt by prominent historian of India Prof P N Oak. - It is neither proved, and there is no question of "beyond any doubt". It is a hypothesis postulated by Mr Oak - who is not even a historian and not accepted by mainstream historians. In my opinion this sentence should be edited to give a more balanced view.

Hah Purushottam Nagesh Oak. Go take a peep. It should be removed--Tigeroo 18:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A plea for the TRUTH !

All I see is a stereotypical bid to bend the truth. Let us be rational, yes the hagia Sofia has been converted from a church to a mosque but that occurred (unlike what you said “upon the first day of conquest “) during the renaissance of Islam in turkey for unlike other faiths conversion to Islam is a matter of free will not force I quote(“لااكراه فى الدين”). Regarding the Masjid Al Haram (Mecca), Al Qaaba was built by the profit Ibrahim the father of all Muslims (and the one who gave them that name) for the sole purpose of worshiping one god (not many like other faiths). So it was only fair that the profit Muhammad (صلي الله عليه وسلم) a direct descendant of Ibrahim return the Qaaba to its true owners the Muslims. Add to the matter the taj Mahal was a burial monument build by a Muslim maharajah for his wife and is nither a mosque or a hindu temple. The Dome of the Rock was built over nothing and all these years of destructive excavations have turned out nothing (even if there was a temple the Muslims had no hand in its destruction unlike what the ungrateful Jews are doing now).

As for the matter of double standard what about the conversion of all mosques build by the mores in Andalusia (Spain) to churches and torturing millions to join Christianity as they did with the Latin Americans or maybe more. Also the revolting conversion by soviet invaders of mosques in already Muslim countries with an overwhelming Muslim majority to stables, public centers, shops and mostly storage houses. Not to mention the new crusaders mission to wipe all mosques from the face of the planet like in Iraq !!!.

refer to:(http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-920X(1997)36%3A2%3C190%3ATCOMTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L)

        (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/545/chrncls.htm)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.54.234.117 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Deletions

As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage. Why was it deleted, and how could it be improved..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conversion_of_non-Muslim_places_of_worship_into_mosques&diff=127646807&oldid=126856273 The destruction of Hindu temples in India during the Islamic conquest had occurred from the beginning of Muslim conquest until the end the Mughal Empire throughout the Indian subcontinent. [1] Numerous Indian mosques bear inscriptions that they were constructed on the sites of destroyed Hindu temples; in many cases materials from the demolished temples were used for construction of mosques. [2] The total number of mosques on the Indian subcontinent that were built on the sites of former Hindu temples is difficult to estimate; however, the number of demolished temples is in the tens of thousands, and in most cases the destruction was accompanied by construction of mosques on the freed places.[1]

Better sources could surely be found, but until then we should take the best sources that are already there in the article. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

There are some problems.

  • In this section, the article is relying on an inscription (written anonymously) some centuries ago for historical events. Inscriptions on monuments are often known to be propaganda, and we need a secondary reliable source. In any case, the inscriptions say that the material from the temple/idols was used, not that the temple itself was converted.
  • This article is not about destruction of places of worship, rather about the conversion of places of worship to mosques. In fact, if the places were destroyed then it is likely they were never converted.
These problems should be addressed as soon as possible.Bless sins (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)