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

Article needs better organization

Many of the most famous examples of mosques here (such as the two photos are the top) are ex-mosques in lands that are no longer Muslim. This article probably should be grouped (1) by region and (2) into "currently a mosque" and "ex-mosque" categories, because right now looking at it you get confused as to whether all of these are in use or not. Most of the big ones are just museums right now, some are now churches, and others have been destroyed. But the article just talks about them as if they are all mosques in some irreversible process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.174.90 (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Article created from deleted material

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)

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)

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)

Any reference to P N Oak is laughable at best, check out the Wikipedia for the so-called historian. Balsumeet 22:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balsumeet (talk • contribs)

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).

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Qur’an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.

Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And here come the Islamophobic fanatics misinterpreting things as usual. I don't doubt that non-Muslim places of worship were converted into mosques. What I do wonder is the relevance of this article considering that throughout recorded human history, one faith has usually been trying to conquer another. How many pagan temples were converted to synagogues and churches? Still, this article is informative even if it needs work on the POV.Shabeki (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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. 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. 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.

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)

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)

Another major problem is the section of proofs of P. N. Oak about the Taj Mahal's Hindu origin. Grammatically this section is a mess. Bad grammar and poor factual accuracy often go hand in hand, so I would recommend that someone review the validity of these claims. If they are in fact valid, a rewrite would be appropriate to make the section clearer. Baron von HoopleDoople (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hindu temples section

The unreferenced section 'Hindu temples' talks about a temple which was destroyed, and not converted into a mosque. I believe the section is out of the article's scope, which covers conversion, and I propose the removal of that section. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

An Explaination: The article "Hindu temples" is all about temples which was converted into mosques. As far as the "Ram Janmabhoomi" is concerned the mosque which stood at the site of an ancient temple was razed by non- islamic indigenious community later on in 1992. So the reference is about a temple which was converted to a mosque in 16th century.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Suneet87 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 January 2010

The temple was destroyed, not converted. There is no evidence conversion given, so it is beyond the scope of the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Destructing a "Hindu place of worship" and building a mosque at that place is also "conversion". Because the temple was made in pristine Hindu architecture and modeled for idol-worship, the "building" was no way suitable to be made itself into a mosque. Therefore, the "temple" was converted by destroying the "Hindu building" and building a mosque there. To Hindus, not just that building was the temple but also the LAND itself on which the new mosque came up. (Ram-janma-bhoomi in Sanskrit means "Ram-born-land"). 117.204.90.175 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There was never a temple at the Baburi Mosque. In the course of the last eight hundred years scores of temples were razed and replaced by mosques. This article mentions two famous examples of Aurangzeb demolishing temples in Ujjain and Vernanasi to construct temples. We know that there were temples there because the Persian sources of the Mughals say "there was a temple here, Aurangzeb destroyed it and built a mosque." Similarly local Hindu religious communities have records that show that there was a temple that was destroyed by Aurangzeb and replaced by a mosque. No such testimony exists in Persian or any Indian language for a temple existing on the site of the Baburi Masjid until the early 20th century. Does that not elicit some scrutiny? Does that not elicit some skepticism? In the 19th century local Hindu communities claimed that a structure behind the Baburi Masjid had replaced a Hanuman Mandir. However the claim of the existence of the Ramjanambhoomi did not exist, until the 20th century. At no point has anyone proven scriptural or historical reason to claim that the Ramjanambhoomi existed at the site of the Baburi Masjid (directly below the main dome, if you can believe the coincidence). There were many, many temples destroyed and replaced by mosques by the Mamluks, Tughlaqs and Moghuls, the thing is that when Muslims did this sort of thing they made records of it and would inscribe this deed on the mosque. However there is no such record or inscription (was no inscription) on the Baburi Masjid. Even the architectural claims made by claimants of the Ramjanambhoomi contradict patters of Muslims reclamation of Hindu sites, Muslims would not have built the dome of the mosque right above the site of Ram's birth, Muslims wouldn't care. In the same way that Aurangzeb's mosque in Veranasi actively inverts the footprint of the preceding temple and places the site of the former temple murti in a courtyard at the side of the new structure.

The Baburi Masjid/Ramjanambhoomi affair is more about contemporary Hindi/Muslim communalism in India. For more information I suggest a good place to start would be "Temple Desecration and Muslims States in Medieval India" by Richard Eaton.

Best Ahassan05 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)ahassan05

Funny

This article is funny but it fails to mention important points, like that most of these churches and temples used to belong to other religions before they became churches etc.. For example, the Great Mosque of Damascus used to be a "pagan" temple before it became a church; and the same is true for the Hagia Sophia. The article also does not seem to notice that these temples became mosques as the PEOPLE themselves became Muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.220.100 (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then start a page named The Conversion of non-Christian places of worship into Churches -MinorFixes (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Explaination: The Temples, in India, were converted to mosque because the rule went from Hindu rulers to Muslim rulers and not because people converted from Hinduism to Islam... Historians suggest conversion of more than 20,000 temple during the 400 years of Islamic rule over the majority Hindu population(which today accounts to 82% of India's total population). Excavation below Ram Janmabhoomi has suggested the presence of a ancient 10th century grand temple. These finding, later, became a testimony in a legal dispute, filed in Allahabad High Court, in a title suit over the ownership of the land. The decision was in favour of the Temple, thought a patch of land of the disputed structure was also awarded to the Islamic claimant... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suneet87 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Added the important Allahabad high court judgment which by a majority verdict has agreed that a Hindu temple was demolished to construct a mosque. The judgment was based on the ASI report and the literary evidences bundle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.194.164 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock vs. Machpelah cave shrine in Hebron

These really aren't the same -- the site of the Dome of the Rock (former Jersualem Jewish Temple) was desolate and ruined at the time of the Muslim conquests (partly due to Byzantine policies, partly due to the recent Byzantine-Persian wars), so that the Arabs didn't really "convert" any structure. By contrast, the Machpelah cave shrine at Hebron was a functioning holy place built by the Jewish king Herod... AnonMoos (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A Masjid is for the Worship of Allaah alone

Forgive me folks, but this article obviously was authored by someone with an anti-Islamic pov trying to appear as npov, but I'm not going to change it much because I'm not an authority on the this matter, and it's good as a starter article (and, I have precious little time)... But this is one statement that was made in the intro that's horribly wrong that needs correcting:

The Qur'an applies the term "masjid" to places of worship 
of different religions, including Judaism and Christianity;

This is not true at all: the masaajid (plural of masjid) is for the worship of Allah alone:

The Quran Ch72:v18 "And the mosques are for Allâh (Alone), 
so invoke not anyone along with Allâh."

So, I'm just going to remove what first statement, and copy out the definition of a mosque/masjid from [masjid]. Pls dont revert,, it really is an incorrect statement.. i think the original author got a little over-zealous.

-MinorFixes (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced content

This article's factualy accruacy has been disputed since 2008. Some of the content is still unsourced. I will begin rmeoving the unsourced content. I anyone would like to source it, please do so soon.Bless sins (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nature of conversion

There are three ways of conversion:

1. Converting abandoned places of worships into mosques, as done with many Greek orthodox churches in Turkey,
2. Purchase, as done in many places in Western Europe and the Americas, where Islam is new, and Muslims buy off/Christians sell off churches, and
3. The old fashioned way - invasion.

This article should state the nature of conversion, to provide clarity to the topic. Otherwise, this turns into an excuse for the Islamophobic to spread hatred. Ratibgreat (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is also the question about what constitutes conversion. The most sections talk about the conversion of an existing structure into a mosque, the Hindu temples section is about temples that have been destroyed, with a mosque built in place. Except in the case where the land itself is of particular importance, as in the case of Babri Masjid, they are not conversions of temples – just destruction. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Krishna-Janma-Bhumi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Krishna-Janma-Bhumi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 9 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm pretty sure this sentence is vandalism: "Many of the Orthodox churches in Northern Cyprus have been converted, and many are still in the process of becoming mosques which is Odd because turkey is a secualr godless state that doesn't have no political islam at the the time."--24.240.187.254 (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hagia Irene should be removed

This article is on Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques", The Hagia Irene was never used as a Mosque, instead it was used as "offices" for Ottoman military personel for the first three centuries after the conquest, and then for two centuries it was used as storage space for the Topkapi. Finally in the 19th century it briefly served as the official Ottoman Museum of Antiquities before a building was constructed to house the museum's collection. At no point was it used as a Mosque. Perhaps it can be places under an article about "Churches that are no longer used as churches"? Best, Ahassan05 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)ahassan05

Taj Mahal

The Bhat-Athawale source blatantly fails WP:RS, and the second source doesn't even support the argument - it's saying that Muslim builders used existing building systems, not that they converted a Hindu building. We're not going to promote this WP:FRINGE theory. (see WP:WEIGHT as well) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Last revert

I will revert back under 12 hours, if revisionist didn't explained his revision ""mosque built where a temple used to be" is really in the scope of the article. Ka'ba comment is obvious fringe nonsense, self-published sources)" http://www.hoteltravel.com/india/varanasi/great-mosque-of-aurangzeb-in-varanasi.htm

Well, you didn't read the other sources? And there's no need to resort with "i don't think", 2nd thing, that ka'aba was a hindu temple, there's nothing to do with 'self-published sources', since they are not self-published, but independently researched and given. This is not the fan portal, but neutral encyclopedia.Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to respond to your comment, but I'm having trouble understanding what you mean to convey. Please let me know if I've mistaken you. Anyway. There are two issues here. The first is whether or not a mosque built in a location where a temple used to be fits within the scope of the article. My thought was that it wasn't, and that the article was intended to be more about temple and church buildings that had been converted to mosques, but perhaps the broader scope is appropriate. The second issue is the Ka'ba and we're obviously not going to use a self-published book or other fringe material from a crackpot pseudohistorian. Don't waste our time on this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you mistaken about the mosque from varanasi. About kabaah, my point was, that it's worth it to mention, since there are other "self published book" text, i even led to think that more people believes that kabaah was a hindu temple, than it was any other temple, right after when the photos of a shivling was leaked.

And not just 3 sources, but many others like "Conversations on the Beach" By Götz Hoeppe, page 35. "The Hindu Pantheon" By Edward Moore, page 589. "Banaras: Visions of a Living Ancient Tradition" By Winand M. Callewaert, page 84. and many other sources that have referred the same, thus it should be placed back.Capitals00 (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying, and while part of the problem is that you clearly don't understand what I'm saying, you are also not getting your point across clearly. Please respond to the comment that I made: the Varanasi info may be verifiable but I'm not sure it belongs in the article, the Kaaba info is simply rubbish though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Muslim ruler, aurangzeb tried to destroy Varanasi temple, he made a mosque there, which still remains as it is. So no more explanation needed there, same thing was done by his ancestor babur in ayodhya. Now regarding the Kaaba temple, even if you don't like it, it needs to be added, considering we have already got enough sources, that presents neutrality.Capitals00 (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality does not entail presenting any crack theory as valid; we rely upon reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You seems to be relying upon your likeness more, same way you had assumed the varanasi temple.Capitals00 (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're not going to discuss ways of making the article better, rather than complaining aimlessly, there is no point in continuing this conversation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So yes, these 2 sources ([Götz Hoeppe, "Conversations on the Beach", p. 35.], [Winand M. Callewaert, "Banaras: Visions of a Living Ancient Tradition", p 84.]) are regarded to be reliable, after the recent resolution at :-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Conversion_of_non-Muslim_places_of_worship_into_mosques.23Ka.27aba.2C_Kaaba

So how you think, what kind of information we can add here, related with this. Capitals00 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Not in this article. The sources only support that there's a popular belief that the Kaaba used to be Hindu, not that it actually was, so it doesn't belong in this article. (Similarly, there's a popular belief that Barack Obama is Muslim, but for the same reason, we wouldn't talk about his religion in an article on Muslims.) Possibly in Kaaba if you can suggest appropriate, supported wording. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)