I can see hypocrisy in your comment. You support Turkey converting church into mosque but you have problem when Babri masjid is converted into hindu temple?
it wasn't "convered" it was burned/torn to th
My question is why did Ottoman converted churches into mosques instead of building them in new land? I have heard numerous times that Islam respects other faiths and Muslim kingdoms particularly Ottomans were known for their religious tolerance then why they did not build new mosques and let Christians practice their religion in their churches?
@Hakikat ve Hikmet @xenon54 out
You Turkish members should answer this.
Does anyone say anything about mosques in the balkans that converted? or the mosque in cordoba? how is razing a historical structure(WHICH WAS IN USE AS A RELIGIOUS SITE BY THE LOCAL COMMUNITY), completely destroying it, comparable to a museum, where everything was preserved, the only change being the removal of fees for entry(for anyone regardless of religion). and the resumption of prayers? The Hagia Sofia was bought from its previous owners, and it wasn't merely a church, it was the site of the coronation of kings, which holds symbolic importance to any ruler of Istanbul.
Historically, Hagia Sophia was not merely a worshipping place for Christians, it was also a place for the investiture of Byzantine emperors. In Hagia Sophia building the upper portion was exclusively used by the royal family and even the entrance through the ninth gate was the prerogative of the Emperors and their families throughout the centuries. Sultan Mehmed’s entry into the Hagia Sophia was symbolic i.e. declaration of his rule over the city. When the Ottoman army under its ruler/commander Sultan Mehmed II entered the city, almost the entire population including priests had fled the city which then gave a kind of deserted look. All the churches in the city were abandoned by the people and the priests. It was Sultan Mehmed II who persuaded the people from the neighboring towns and villages who had left Constantinople out of fear of their life to return with the assurance that their life, property, and honor would be protected. It was against this backdrop that Sultan Mehmed bought the Hagia Sophia building and the adjoining lands from his wealth. And immediately after he acquired legally the Hagia Sophia from their priests, Sultan declared it as an endowment (waqf or vakif).
From the historical perspectives, it should be clear that the two cases have nothing to do with each other. Babri Masjid was a mosque right from the beginning after its construction in 1529 C.E. until it was demolished by RSS, BJP, VHP hooligans, and so-called political elites in 1992 C.E.
The original Babri Masjid was built on vacant land on the hilltop of Ayodhya city in north India. In history, there is no record that Babri Masjid was originally a Hindu temple. RSS, BJP, and VHP miserably failed to produce any evidence that Babri Masjid was built on a temple. Hindu side counsels kept repeating in the court hearings that the people believed that Babri Masjid was originally the birthplace of Ram. Due to the socio-political pressure from the Hindu nationalist outfits and organizations the Supreme Court of India ordered the BJP government to hand over the disputed place to a Hindu trust to build a temple and allocate a separate piece of land for the mosque.
The case of Hagia Sophia is essentially different from the Babri Masjid case. Hagia Sophia was originally Hagia Sophia church abandoned by Christians and priests which was bought by Sultan Mehmed II as his personal property and handed over to the Waqf foundation in 1462 C.E. Under Waqf document the purchased property is declared as a mosque. It remained a mosque until 1934 when the then Turkish Cabinet converted it into a museum. On July 10, 2020 a Turkish court annulled the 1934 Cabinet decree that turned Hagia Sophia into a museum, paving the way for its use as a mosque.
