Talk:Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

Parthenon?

how about the conversion of the Parthenon into a mosque by the Ottomans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.125.84 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ateeqahmad (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.50.101 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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. ^[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)

References

^ ^a ^b Goel, Sita Ram. Hindu Temples: What happened to Them: Islamic Evidence (Second Enlarged Edition). Volume II. Chapter 8: Summing Up. New Dehli: Voice of India.
^ Goel, Sita Ram. Hindu Temples: What happened to Them: Islamic Evidence (Second Enlarged Edition). Volume II.Chapter 6: The Epigraphic Evidence. New Dehli: Voice of India.

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:

Converting abandoned places of worships into mosques, as done with many Greek orthodox churches in Turkey,
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
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)

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)

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)

Götz Hoeppe's book, "Conversations on the Beach", states, "the notion, widespread in central Kerala..."

Winand M. Callewaert's book, "Banaras: Visions of a Living Ancient Tradition", states, "British chronicles of the 18th century refer to a Hindu belief that the black stone in the Kaaba, Mecca, was in fact a lingam carried off by the Muslims."

Neither of these two "sources" are stating this information as fact, but as notions or beliefs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess i got the line from last edit here. @Kansas bear, you even read ""the perceived identity of a muslim saint and a hindu diety prallels the notion, widespread in coastal central Kerala, that allah resembles Lord Shiva in being the supreme deity and that, prior to becoming a centre of muslim faith, the Kaaba in Mecca(saudi arabia) had been a bana(arrow) lingam, and therefore, it's sorrounding mosque a shiva temple....."? It's not the just notion.Capitals00 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

You need a better understanding of English. "parallels the notion is the operative phrase in that sentence. Thus it is NOT a fact but a "notion widespread in coastal central Kerala". --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, let's move the kaba thing to it's actual page. Back to varanasi temple's issue, what you think about these sources? :-

"80 Questions to Understand India", By Murad Ali Baig. [1], "Ayodhya: the case against the temple", by Koenraad Elst, P. 77 - 80. "Frommer's India" By Pippa de Bruyn, Keith Bain, David Allardice, Shonar Joshi, P. 472 - 473[2], And this news source[3] Capitals00 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Krishna Janmabhoomi (Mathura)

My contribution

(cur | prev) 21:36, 28 February 2014‎ Clapkidaq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,947 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (but better citation wished for) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:33, 28 February 2014‎ Clapkidaq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,938 bytes) (+1,309)‎ . . (rv unexplained deletion by pov warrior see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.wikipedia/u4dJIwvCQc4)) (undo)

was reverted because the source is not highly enough for homepage of wikipedia. But Krishna Janmabhoomi (Mathura) is very important temple- it is not just one of 1000 temples destroyed - it has large signifance and should be included. Please, help in finding sources for this. Thanks. --Clapkidaq (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Article needs much more material

There are endless of Christian Orthodox Churches that have being converted to mosques by the turks, both in Asia Minor, Eastern Thrace and in the occupied areas of Cyprus. I have seen them with my own eyes. Why I haven't seen even one of them in this article? The last that I saw for example, was in the occupied area of Nicosia in Cyprus, another famous one is the Hagia Sophia of Nicaea and those are just two from the endless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 22:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques → Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques – Maybe I'm being overly pedantic, but this seems more correct. "Islamic" means of or related to Islam; "Muslim" means of or related to a Muslim (i.e., a follower of Islam). This came up at a related category renaming discussion. Likewise, Conversion of places of worship into mosques also seems acceptable and more concise. There are Islamic places of worship that aren't mosques, and you could have one that gets sanctified as a mosque, but "conversion" probably isn't the word you'd use for that. --BDD (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Support - makes sense. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Support per nomination. It does, indeed, seem more correct. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Support per nomination.Pincrete (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121110055112/http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2022/stories/20031107005801300.htm to http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl2022/stories/20031107005801300.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.wdr.de/themen/kultur/aleviten124.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Shortened title?

Can the title be shortened to Conversion of places of worship to mosques? Conversion strongly implies that they would have been non-Islamic prior to being converted ... Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the recent edits because they were unsourced and off-topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Scope

The scope of this article seems to be getting broader and broader. What is the utility of an exhaustive list of all mosques that used to be other religious buildings, whether converted during a conquest, or abandoned by their worshipers and later purchased by a Muslim congregation? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see an obvious rationale to exclude these from the scope, but in general when a list of examples related to a topic begins to take up too much space in a general article on the topic, it should be spun out into a separate list article. Eperoton (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Well, I think the original intent was to document forcible conversion due to conquest. Most of the examples are still of this, and I'm questioning the encyclopedic value (and neutrality) of suggesting that a congregation of Muslims purchasing a disused church is in any meaningful continuity with conquering it, desecrating it, and ejecting its worshipers. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the original intent. The title of article, Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques, doesn't seem to me to imply any restriction of scope to forcible conversion or conquest. Historically, this type of conversion sometimes reflected actions by Muslim authorities in the aftermath of conquests and at other times was a consequence of gradually changing demographics. Eperoton (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article is a list of places, not a description of the process for consecrating a mosque. What, in your opinion, is the encyclopedic connection between these two lists? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the article is at present a long list of places without much narrative or analysis, and quite unappealing to any reader who might want to find out about it. The best thing to do might be to spin off a List article on the lists of places that don't have any narrative to go with them. Then we might be left with some reasonable text that we can think of reorganizing or rewriting. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The distinction is a bit blurry in this case. The lists have some basic narrative and some of the free-flowing text consists largely of lists masquerading as prose. The article just doesn't have much analytical content and is mostly an accumulated collection of examples.

This question is rather orthogonal to the original question that brought me here, which is scope. I still don't see a rationale for restricting the scope to forcible conversion. It's not a topic that I can recall treated separately in reliable sources (as opposed to certain less reputable sources devoted to cataloging bad things done by Muslims), it would be likely to encourage OR, and some of the related analytic content on this topic that I recall coming across, such as the influence of building conversion on Islamic architectural styles, applied to the broader scope. Eperoton (talk)

I'm sorry, do you have examples of sources that treat these things together? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs)

The sources I recall coming across that discuss the influences of church architecture on mosque architecture mentioned building conversion without specifying whether it happened by force or not. Off the topic of my head, I recall this passage from Masjid in Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World: "In the earlier period, many churches, synagogues, and temples that were converted into masjids contributed significant influences to aspects of subsequent masjid design, helping give rise to highly distinct indigenous idioms exhibited in the size, the shapes, and the lines of minarets, domes, facades, arcades, floor plans, portals, and the internal furnishings characteristic of such particular styles identified, for instance, as Arab, Andalusian, Persian, Mongol, Mamluk, or Ottoman." I believe in many cases the historical record simply doesn't provide enough information to make that distinction. If you browse a monographs like In the Shadow of the Church: The Building of Mosques in Early Medieval Syria, you'll see that the circumstances of conversion are often uncertain. Eperoton (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that's really interesting, but to make the article about that would nearly require WP:TNT. If you look at the present state of the article, it is almost entirely not about that at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, what do you mean by "about that"? The current title and content both correspond to scope without restriction to forcible conversion, and the passage I quoted above is within the same scope (I'll reflect it in the article shortly). I think it's rather the scope you propose that would require a change: removing some current content and changing the title to restrict it to forcible conversion. Eperoton (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Reverted POV language and alteration to direct quote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Scope

No consensus. Editors were largely split between options 1 and 3, with one additional editor voting 4 and making arguments toward a middle ground between 1 and 3. Editors across the board generally agreed that type-1 examples of converted mosques could be used in an attempt to POV-push anti-Muslim narratives, and across these statements I see a consensus to implement a high bar of noteworthiness for type-option-1 examples to be added to the list. Editors advocating for options 1 or 4 nevertheless felt that some examples of type-1 were noteworthy enough to deserve inclusion, and noted that for historical cases it is not always clear whether forcible conversions occurred. Option-3 editors argued that the focus on places of worship, regardless of whether a violent conversion took place, as opposed to the inclusion of any building repurposed as a mosque, was unencyclopedic and suggestive of an attempt to push anti-Muslim POV by conflating non-violent conversions of places of worship with violent ones. Option 2 was rejected by most editors as being too difficult to distinguish from other types and inviting OR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should the scope of this article be?

Any place or building which was formerly another place of worship and became a mosque, whether conquered and forcibly converted, repurposed by its worshipers who had converted, or abandoned by its worshipers and then purchased by a Muslim congregation
Places or buildings that were conquered and forcibly converted, and those whose worshipers converted to Islam and repurposed the site, but not those which ceased to be used by members of their religion and were later purchased by a Muslim group
Only those places or buildings which were conquered and forcibly converted
Something else

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Option 3 or nuke the article. The article as it stands is not substantially about the process of building or consecrating a mosque for the purpose of Muslim worship, the only common link between the various situations described. If that were the point of the article, why limit it to former houses of worship, when Muslim congregations meet in mosques that used to be homes, schools, fire stations, and restaurants? Rather, the juxtaposition of otherwise unrelated topics seems to imply some sinister takeover in the act of a Muslim congregation purchasing a disused building. Let's keep the article to a tight scope rather than creating OR-ish listcruft better handled in the articles on eg. the individual history of the Brick Lane Mosque. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I think I also support option 3, except I am a little fuzzy on the meaning of #2 because of its wording. "worshipers converted to Islam" e.g. there was a Hindu Temple, the formerly Hindu faithful in its surrounds accepted Islam and made it a mosque? That kind of thing? If I am correct, then option 3 for sure. Elizium23 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Elizium23: This was what I meant in the question, yes, following another user's recent addition indicating that some cases historically might have fallen under this heading. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment - there seems to be somewhat of a grey area between 2 and 3. Where would a case of majority population forcibly converting place of worship used by a smaller minority fall?--Staberinde (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Option 1. I don't see a clear way to restrict the scope to option 2. For the choice between options 1 and 3, I'll just copy some of the comments I made in the discussion of this question earlier on this talk page, and which then prompted me to add some material about architectural influences to the article: I still don't see a rationale for restricting the scope to forcible conversion. It's not a topic that I can recall treated separately in reliable sources (as opposed to certain less reputable sources devoted to cataloging bad things done by Muslims), it would be likely to encourage OR, and some of the related analytic content on this topic that I recall coming across, such as the influence of building conversion on Islamic architectural styles, applied to the broader scope. The sources I recall coming across that discuss the influences of church architecture on mosque architecture mentioned building conversion without specifying whether it happened by force or not. I believe in many cases the historical record simply doesn't provide enough information to make that distinction. If you browse a monographs like In the Shadow of the Church: The Building of Mosques in Early Medieval Syria, you'll see that the circumstances of conversion are often uncertain. Eperoton (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Option 4. Most of the content of the article should be oriented towards option 2 or 3 (forceful conversions), as they receive most attention. Differentiating between 2 and 3 would be difficult, as usually conversion (forced or peaceful) of the population accompanies conversion of places of worship. Peaceful conversion of some old building into a small prayer hall really is not significant. However, there may be cases (for instance very prominent buildings that were peacefully repurposed) in which some "option 1" is appropriate.--Eostrix (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 Roscelese pretty much summed it up. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Option 3, also agree with Roscelese's argument. Zero^talk 01:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 with harsh enforcement of WP:NOTNEWS. Basically in agreement with Eperoton and Eostrix. I don't want to see the page swamped with every single 'Changing character of local area - disused chapel bought by Muslim community' story or anti-immigrant nonsense. On the other hand I don't want to limit the scope of the article to just the Hagia Sophia. If there is any non-routine coverage then it should be included. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 I don't see how forcible conversion would be workable, nor why it would be desirable. Article title surely already excludes disused fire-stations and other inherently secular building? What is the problem there that this is trying to fix? Brick Lane Mosque is as inherently interesting as Hagia Sophia surely - though for very different reasons and at different historical periods. Temporary meeting places/prayer rooms should be excluded, but I presume there is a Muslim equivalent to 'consecration' of a mosque.Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Option 1 and 2 It’s kind of in the title. ~ HAL 333 03:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

German churches

Except where churches have been re-consecrated (eg in Greece), or secularised with their traditional christian name (eg Hagia Sophia) - surely the name should be the current (ie Islamic name). The German examples list the pre-conversion name and in those examples which are actually cited, no new Islamic name is given in the source - usually only intention to convert is verified. Pincrete (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Kaaba Conversion and Ram Janmabhoomi

Moved from User talk:Kautilya3 § Regarding Kaaba Conversion of non Islamic Places of Worship into mosque.

– Content discussion

[Diff of revert at Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques]

I have posted the citation while doing the changes let me share them again 1)https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/west-and-central-asia/a/the-kaaba ( from an islamic origin) 2) https://www.al-islam.org/story-of-the-holy-kaaba-and-its-people-shabbar/kaaba-house-allah ( from non islamic origin)

Regarding the Ram Janm Bhoomi I have posted the reference and report of ASI which was cited by the hindu news paper Which clearly state that no temple was demolished to built the mosque also a structure do exist but it is not temple. for further clarity please read the verdict of Supreme court of india https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/The-ASI-Report-a-review/article16052925.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfalah7711 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page watchers, can somebody look into the claims being made here? I do not have much time today to attend to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ahmedfalah7711: Neither khanacademy not al-islam are reliable sources so I haven't looked at them. The Hindu article you link to does not categorically state that no temple was demolished to construct the mosque. Rather, and admittedly I only skimmed the article, it is a review of the ASI report that appears to think that the report does imply that a temple existed at the site but, according to the author, that is based on a dubious reading of the archeological evidence. You will need to show that the writer of the review is an academic archeologist whose views are reliable enough for inclusion in any article. --regentspark (comment) 14:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Regentspark, Coming to kaaba first well both domains are of very high authority khanacademy is being sited by many big publishing sources like newsweek and here is the britanica source which clarifies it further more.

Now coming to ramjanmbhoomi ram lala land dispute feel free to read it out here is the hd (check on page 530) "One of the objections before the High Court was that the ASI report did not specifically answer whether there was any pre-existing structure which was demolished for the construction of a mosque and whether the pre-existing structure was a temple." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfalah7711 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ram Janmabhoomi

on page No. 530 of same Judgement quoted by you, it concludes by observing "High court held... "The existence of several pillar bases all show earlier existence of a sufficiently bigger structure, if not bigger than the disputed structure then not lesser than that also." (Page-531). Further "After Analysing the evidence, Justice Agrawal observes:.....(i) The disputed structure was not raised on a virgin, vacant, unoccupied, open land. (ii) There existed a structure, if not much bigger then at least comparable or bigger than the disputed structure, at the site in dispute. (iii) The builder of the disputed structure knew the details of the erstwhile structure, its strength, capacity, the size of the walls etc. and therefore did not hesitate in using the walls etc. without any further improvement. (iv) The erstwhile structure was religious in nature and that too non-Islamic one. (v) The material like stone, pillars, bricks etc. of the erstwhile structure was used in raising the disputed structure. (vi) The artefacts recovered during excavation are mostly such as are non-Islamic i.e pertaining to Hindu religious places, even if we accept that some of the items are such which may be used in other religions also. Simultaneously no artefacts etc., which can be used only in Islamic religious place, has been found. Santoshdts (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ahmedfalah7711, in the first place, the issues you are raising are not straightforward issues. So I do not think you can delete existing long-standing content that appears well-sourced without prior discussion and the agreement of other interested editors. Please see WP:CONSENSUS.

The Hindu article you cited is not a Supreme Court document. It is a review written by an Allahabad University professor, who also appeared as an expert witness on behalf of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) in the Allahabad High Court. So, he would obviously contest everything said by the ASI. The High Court has by and large rejected his testimony because he had no expertise in archaeology and other similar problems. I can dig up the High Court's comments if necessary. But, by and large, this review of of no use to Wikipedia.
The statement you quote from the Supreme Court judgement was not a statement of the Supreme Court. It was an objection raised, presumably by the BMAC. Moreover, the full objection is that the ASI did not say that the pre-existing structure was "demolished". But it did say that there was a pre-existing structure. (See the quotes provided by Santoshdts).
The statement you made in your edit summary,

"order of honorable supreme court of India which state that mosque was built on flat ground and temple was not demolished"

is not verified. Where did you get "flat ground" and "not demolished"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi

This article, as currently framed in the lead, discusses the conversion of non-Islamic buildings into mosques. No sources that I am aware of describes the Babri Masjid as having been converted from a temple, and there's no consensus among scholars as to whether any pre-existing structures were Hindu temples, or whether they were demolished or simply replaced much later. Listing the Babri Masjid here is original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RGW and see this too. You are not following WP:BRD and should self-revert. Just because someone disagrees with this view, doesn't means their unofficial view becomes "consensus". Shashank5988 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that. Your source shows one archaeologist stating that a temple existed before the mosque. That does not make it the consensus view among scholars. Furthermore, even this says nothing about conversion, which is what this article was about. He doesn't say that the temple was converted, or even that it was demolished. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It is undeniable that a temple existed before the structure.There has been entire court battle over it. Your removal is problematic because you are trying to find only loopholes in the argument. Sources are correctly interpreted on the section so your removal is again very problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshsaxena760 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93 You are supposed to prove your personal opinion that "there's no consensus among scholars as to whether any pre-existing structures were Hindu temples". Don't revert my edits as "unexplained" when I already made my response on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshsaxena760 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

per WP:BURDEN, you need to demonstrate that the sources actually support what you are saying they support. The sources provided say nothing about conversion. Abecedare, d'you mind taking a look at this from an administrative point of view? Taking an editor with less than twenty edits to AE seems like a waste of time, but the OR is serious, and I'm not getting through to them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93 There has been significant proof to show that there existed a hindu temple under the demolished Babri Masjid. Refer to this as well as historical accounts like ^[1] as well, which have accounts from foreign missionaries and travellers such as Joseph Tiefenthaler, Francis Buchanan, etc. Consistently theres mention of "a fortress castle of Ramachand" or "Ramkot" which was destroyed by either Aurangazeb (r. 1658–1707) or Babur. Hence, there are sufficient sources and accounts to verify that there once existed a temple, or holy fortress on the location. Furthermore, mentioning Voice of India as unreliable is simply baseless. You denounced it as unreliable just because you had found the information against your views. Subsequently, there is fewer or no sources at all which mentions that the Babri mosque was built on new land or whatsoever. Before you make any unverified assumptions about anything, or proceed to make objective edits to articles related to India and Hinduism, i suggest you do your proper research before doing so. Any such consistent non-constructive edits made consistently may lead to a ban on your account and your editing privileges --Hari147 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Medieval sources are not reliable. Voice of India's unreliability has long been demonstrated, and you would need consensus to use their publications. The Layton and Thomas source is very reliable, but does not support the claim that a temple was destroyed and replaced with a mosque, and certainly does not show that a temple was converted to a mosque. Given your multiple blocks and numerous warnings, I think you'd do well to tread carefully here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

With your theory that would mean that any sort of medieval sources would be unreliable, and there would be no possible articles related as such. That would mean any historical accounts till date can never be referred to ,let alone in wikipedia, or on modern science, and with that theory humanity may have not advanced till today. This sources are mentioned as such in Layton and thomas sources and there have been several news articles and reports done in this issue with clear images and video recordings of the archaeological findings, which other editors have linked them here as well. I make several edits and changes to many articles. There is no requirement for me to "tread carefully" as i always keep information transparent on my talk page. And i am not the one who made the unconstructive editing here. --Hari147 (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Robert Layton and Julian Thomas (2003). Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 2–9. ISBN 9781134604982.

Regarding the use of the word "evicted"

In the section "Mecca", the article states that "all the idols were evicted." Is "evicted" the appropriate term? According to Merriam Webster^[1], there is no meaning pertaining to inanimate objects, much less religious symbols. To use the word evicted then is metaphoric or suggests that the idols were relocated to another area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.126.106 (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Ka'aba

With regard to this edit:

The source in question does not say that it is, it is instead referring to the al-Masjid al-Haram. i.e. the Great Mosque of Mecca that surrounds the Ka'aba. If the Ka'aba is a mosque, then it shouldn't be that difficult to find sources describing it as such. That's all I asked the IP who kept reintroducing the content. M.Bitton (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll be advertising the discussion in the related articles to draw more input from the community. M.Bitton (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

We have enough reliable sources to verify this information. Whether many sources mention is or not is not exactly enough for modifying the section. Capitals00 (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

In that case, it shouldn't be that hard to cite some RS that describe the Kaaba as a Mosque. M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Please provide the reliable sources. I have not seen the Ka'aba being described as a mosque either. If there are no reliable sources then this needs to be changed. Joelaroche (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding use of the word »desecration«

I noticed in the text, especially where there is talk about conversion of Christian places of worship, the phrase »… desecrated and converted …« is consistently used. I am thinking this word »desecrated« must be superfluous at the least, if not directly derogatory. I have tried to imagine what the author may have meant by it, and come to the conclusion it may have been the removal of for the Christian users sacred objects like crucifixes and images of God and prophets etc., but use of »desecration« leads the thought toward rather more perverted actions. If that is what is meant, that's what it should read. Those objects were by the Muslims of course not considered sacred but rather sacrilegious, and so the action of removing them would be the opposite of desecrating. What do you all (and especially the author) think? Itsameno (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The word does not belong and just confirms my feeling that this is basically an WP:Attack page. Feel free to remove it. Zero^talk 04:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is totally an attack page and one of the recent accounts to add material was indefinitely blocked. I'm going to remove the content that the blocked account added.VR _talk 19:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Babri-masjid.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Ws Mecca 1024x768.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

2D8EE69600000578-0-image-a-6 1445257618325-962x530 - Copy.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Tightening scope of non-forcible conversions

@RaiderAspect: I'm pinging you because you specifically mentioned a high sourcing threshold in the RFC, for "changing character of local area" type stories of disused churches or parish halls becoming mosques. Can you elaborate on what you would consider a useful standard? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Sorry to keep you waiting. What I had in mind was requiring examples to have some claim to significance beyond simple conversion; either because the building itself has some important or because the circumstance of the conversion attracted unusual attention. IMO that would exclude all the current examples in the United States and Germany sections except the Islamic Society of Greater Harrisburg (sources aren't great, but the preferential sale does demonstrate another facet to the nature of conversions), and perhaps the Mosque Maryam (blue link). More WP:DUE than WP:RS], although if a specific conversion does attract high quality sources that would very strongly suggest significance.

I hope that isn't too vague! --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@RaiderAspect: Sorry for the delay. I think your standards are reasonable, but I would disagree that Harrisburg is (necessarily) an exception; we don't even have reliable independent coverage of it in the article right now. (The sourcing may be out there, I see where you're coming from with the preferential sale, but I haven't checked.) Can I propose that the standard for inclusion basically needs to be, well, beyond simple verifiability that the building was in fact converted into a mosque? That'd help us strip out the ones that have no third-party sourcing and the ones where the third-party sourcing is hyper-local. Maybe it would help to think of "this should be a prose article, not a list" as a long-term goal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hah, yes, I had the exact same thought; ideally the article would be rewritten to actually discuss conversion using examples to illustrate. Fear that's going to be a tricky task, but I guess there isn't a deadline.

"Something beyond mere verifiability" sounds like a good idea. Looking at the Ottoman-era examples, do you feel that antiquity or cultural/architectural significance would qualify as something more? --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC) @Roscelese: Whoops, messed up the reply notification. --RaiderAspect (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, it's definitely a long-term goal, but I think even keeping it in mind as a goal helps us with inclusion now. For instance, we mention those two disused churches in Detroit - that'd be a great citation if we were discussing how demographic change leads to this kind of turnover, not just listing addresses.

Wrt the Ottoman ones, I am inclined to say that if it's true that almost every church in Istanbul became a mosque, listing them is certainly superfluous. We have Category:Mosques converted from churches in Istanbul so this could be linked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Topic, sub-topics, interest, bias

This is an interesting topic, but as some editors have already observed it is problematic:

Undefined scope:

converted active buildings vs. destroyed and (directly/later) replaced buildings vs. usage of abandoned buildings vs. usage of abandoned/inactive/potentially previously significant site

for example: what did the conversion of the Ka'ba or the surrounding space entail? was anything 'converted' in Jerusalem per se?

Undefined areas of interest: Architecture vs. sociopolitical history vs. demographics vs. history of religion etc.

Sources:

There is a lack of primary and secondary sources (e.g. much of the Ka'ba section remains without sources)

There seems to be dependence on popular narratives, folk or otherwise, as opposed to primary and secondary sources.

Some of the folk narratives are improtant and should be included but should not be introduced as securely factual (e.g. the likely, though unconfirmed, location(s) of Jewish sites in Jerusalem etc.)

There was at least one instance of using a rather weak or unspecialized source (the mention of the hanging of the Mu'allaqat in the Ka'bah, histroically unconfirmed, attested and contested among early Arab/Muslim historiographers, is sourced to an ethnomulsicological(?) work).

Bias:

Most of the article is decidedly anti-Islamic, with little reference/focus on the topic or facts. This is apparent in the chosen narratives, the tone and even the ex/included information.

The edits/comments that object to this, similarly, do not concern the issues/facts discussed but rather on their perception/understanding of the spirit/rules of Islam (i.e. the comments that essentially argue: it is forbidden, in Islam, to convert an active non-Muslim place of worship into a mosque, therefore, Muslims did not do so.)

Overall opinion:

More reliance should be placed on proper academic work that seriously treats primamry data. Would-be editors should consider the purpose of the article and the merit of their contribution. I suggest the following points as an outline:

1. What is the site?

2. When was is it converted and who converted it?

3. What are the circumstances surrounding the coversion?

4. What are the changes that took place (how was it before and after)?

What is the scope of this article?

Taking the most liberal possible interpretation of the comments above; the argument seems to be that since there's some evidence (not universally accepted, but the claims do exist) that a temple stood on the land that the Babri Masjid was later built on, that belongs on this page. This is contrary to both the article title and the lead, but I suppose the thing to do is to sort out what the scope of the article is, and therefore what the title and the lead should look like. I can see three general possibilities, listed below. Thoughts would be welcome. If no consensus can be reached here, I will open a formal RfC, but I don't think that's yet necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Places of worship, ie buildings, shrines, etc, that were forcibly taken over and turned into mosques. This would, by definition, exclude the Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid, as well as the abandoned churches listed at the very end; but it would be consistent with the current title and lead.
Mosques that were formerly places of worshop for other religions. This would include all of the above, but would likely necessitate retitling and/or reframing the article, as the lead currently does not reflect this possibility.
Places of worship, ie buildings, shrines, etc, for which forcible takeover is either known or has been postulated. This would exclude the abandoned churches, but would include the Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, with some language modifications being necessary.

Hello @Vanamonde93: With respect to your comments on the scope of the article and your analysis made in three points, I feel your analysis, atleast in point No.1 is incomplete. As the title and content of the article deals with conversion of places of worship and not some residential or commercial property. Concerning this, I have a query related to your point No.1 and would like to know your thoughts on the same.

Can the same non-Islamic place of worship become an Islamic place of worship without modification or re-construction post takeover? What happens to the non-Islamic places of worship after they have been forcibly taken over? Thanks Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 18:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Santoshdts: Well, to begin with it's not my analysis that matters but that of reliable sources. Second, I'm saying there's some locations where temples were demolished and mosques built in their place. There are others (ie the Babri Masjid) that may have been built over a temple, but where there's no evidence of forceful takeover; no reliable contemporary sources describe takeover, or demolition of a temple, or anything. Finally, there's the list of churches and such that were essentially commercial property when they were "taken over" by mosques. The lead, at the moment, does not distinguish between these. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We tried this a month ago, with no consensus. How will this time be any different? Elizium23 (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I don't know that it will be different. But the page is a mess, and a no consensus closure is always without prejudice towards attempting to reach consensus again. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I still support prior option #3: Only those places or buildings which were conquered and forcibly converted. Elizium23 (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

pinging Roscelese as the initiator of the discussion above; thoughts on this, and on the discussion above? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Ofcource, I forgot to mention about the importance of reliable sources. With respect to your comment on lack of evidence on forceful takeover of a Temple at Ayodhya. Kunal Kishore has discussed this, attributing the demolition to Aurangzeb in 1660 and some others attributing to Babur. Where as, I do not find any sources discussing non-forceful takeover of this site. However, on the scope of the article title and content, I support option #3. Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 20:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Santoshdts: Can you provide explicit, contemporary, reliable sources stating that the temple was demolished? There are, as far as I am aware, other temples replaced with mosques by the Mughals; for this one, the evidence about the building is clear, but the evidence for demolishing is scant. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Sure. I have Ayodhya revisited in Kindle, I need to get the page Nos and shall quote that by tomorrow with others. Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 20:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I've managed to get the page Nos of Ayodhya Revisited. As this section is discussing the scope of the article, do you want me to quote the content here or on you TP? Thanks Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 21:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Kishore Kunal is a police officer, not a scholar; as such he is not as reliable as a scholarly source, particularly given that his thesis, about the construction of the Babri Masjid occurring in 1660, is totally at odds with what most other sources have written about this topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Now, first point to correct is, he was a police officer. We need to get a clear definition of 'Scholar'. As he is a police officer, his post retirement work now cannot be considered as a scholarly work, though he is quoted as a reliable source in some of the articles in wikipedia? I'am not sure, wether you made this statement by going through the content of the book. Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 08:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Santoshdts: Apologies for a delayed response. A person's credentials as a scholar are not determined by whether they're cited on Wikipedia; it's based on real-world credentials, publications, affiliation, etc. A book of this sort can be a reliable source, but his claim about the temple being demolished is accompanied by a claim about it having occurred in 1660. I don't see anyone else supporting that idea, and therefore it's insufficient to make statements in Wikipedia's voice. I actually appreciate what you've done with the text in the article; it is much improved. That still raises the question of whether it belongs in this article; but if we're willing to include alleged conversions in addition to documented conversions, then perhaps it's okay. We would have to clearly state that in the lead, though, else this is again falling afoul of WP:NOR. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for your reply and for recognizing my edit to the article and considering it helpful. However, I differ with you on Kunal Kishore's scholarship. He is a Sanskrit scholar and after his book with such an in-depth analysis of the subject by interpreting various contemprory accounts, that even Supreme Court considered his book as evidence in the case. And, most of the historians propagating the idea that; there was no temple at the place to temple was not destroyed to various other claims could(did?) not refute the claims made in his book ( can you please guide me to some source where, his claim of demolition in 1660 is been refuted). Given this, he is considered as a scholar, and hence, cited in the articles related to this complex subject.

As far is adding alleged conversion: ( my views are based on Hindu, Jain and Buddhist section) This article is about conversion and surely not about destruction of non-Islamic places of worship. There could be varying accounts on the method of appropriating non-Islamic places. But eventually, they were converted to Islamic places by whatever means available in that particular time and context. Hence, seems appropriate to the scope of this article. As far as Ram Janmabhoomi, it's been mentioned about the existence of a Hindu place of worship earlier and in 1528 or 1660, it was converted to an Islamic place and I guess this content is in line with reliable sources and there isn't any NPOV violation. Thank you again. Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 18:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As in the previous discussion, I agree with Elizium that the proper scope of this article is conquest and forcible conversion of places of worship. There are undesirable non-NPOV implications in listing deconsecrated churches that were purchased by Muslim congregations together with conquests, while failing to discuss the actual process of adapting and consecrating a building for Muslim worship at all. I am not familiar with this specific case, but I would say that demolishing a house of worship for the purpose of building a mosque in its stead would be in-scope even if the specific edifice is not being re-used. However, I do not think that a mosque coincidentally having been built where a temple used to stand would be in-scope. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel this article has already been clearly reflecting what it intends to say. Why the sudden need to modify it? I do not see any violations or misrepresentation in it. Hari147 (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The page as written violates WP:NOR, which is a core policy. The definition of "conversion" used is very different for the different cases described. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

In what way does it violate that? Conversion is more appropriate as the places were of another faith and demolished to build islamic buildings for muslim activities. The sources are referred with different accounts, both local and historical, as well as supporting archaeological evidence. You had previously debated on Ram Janmabhoomi and are well aware of this Hari147 (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that there is a consensus among reliable sources that a temple was demolished to make way for a mosque? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Catching up belatedly. I support the idea that this page is about "places of worship", i.e., constructed buildings, being converted into Islamic places of worship. Demolitions of previous buildings do not belong here. So, the Ayodhya stuff should be taken out (even if we agree that a temple was demolished). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Santoshdts It's been a while, but you've still not provided evidence in reliable sources that the shift from a Hindu place of worship to an Islamic one occurred when the Babri Masjid was constructed. Absent that, and given that the only other person objecting here has been topic-banned, I am going to have to remove the content again unless you provide better sources to back your claim. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde93"In the words of V.S. Naipal, ’In Ayodhya the construction of a mosque on the spot regarded as sacred by the conquered population was meant as an insult.’-~ But another version of the Masjid’s origins is that it grew out of a visit which Babar made to Ayodhya in 1528 to pay his respects to a famous fakir, Quazal Abbas Qulandar, who resided there. In the words of Farzand Ahmed of Ayodhya: ’Fakir Quazal Abbas Qulandar...apparently asked Babar to demolish the temple and build a mosque where he could offer namaz. According to historical accounts, Babar was reluctant to do so, but the Fakir prevailed on him and his wish was carried out.’4 If there is any validity to the latter version, then it is apparent that even in the16th century the first Mughal ruler foresaw the political implications of such a deed." ^[2]

There are more like Meenakshi Jain and Kunal Kishore etc, if needed, I can quote verbatim, and some already cited in the Ayodhya dispute, Ram Janmabhoomi etc. Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 19:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Santoshdts: You do realize that nowhere in this quote is Gould saying that a temple was demolished by Babur? There's a reason why the pages you are linking to do not say a temple was demolished in Wikipedia's voice; because no scholarly sources say so in their own voice. Please provide a source that actually supports your argument and is reliable, because otherwise it looks like you're just stonewalling. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 In the words of Farzand Ahmed of Ayodhya: ’Fakir Quazal Abbas Qulandar...apparently asked Babar to demolish the temple and build a mosque where he could offer namaz.. but the Fakir prevailed on him and his wish was carried out. This part clearly mentions the demolishing of the temple and building a Mosque.

Kunal Kishore:p=241 ... Sulaiman Shukoh, was made Governor of Ayodhyā in August 1658 and it was Fedai Khan who demolished all the three temples at Ayodhyā, viz. Svargadvārī, Tretā Kā Thākura and Rāma-janma-bhūmi temples and built mosques at all the three places. Svargadvari temple’s demolition by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Joseph Tieffenthaler, C. Mentelle, Mirza Jan and many subsequent Muslim authors. The demolition of Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple by Aurangzeb has been mentioned by Tieffenthaler (1670 A.D.), Mentelle (1800 A.D.) and J.R. M’culloch (1842 A.D.). The perception that Aurangzeb demolished Rāma-janma-bhūmi temple was prevalent during the visit of Buchanan also

I have no intentions of stonewalling any progress. I hope these could help and Iam sure you would also consider other related pages with sources on demolition. Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 21:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

However, as you are intending to change/define the scope of the article, RfC would be a appropriate forum to discuss that, instead of we both discussing it on the talkpage without much participation from other editors. Your views Plz. Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 21:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Santoshdts:, those sources are not stating that a temple was demolished. They are reporting on the statements of authors writing between 180 and 350 years ago. Those authors are the ones saying a temple may have been demolished, and those are decidedly not reliable sources. As such, it's you who is looking to expand the scope of the article, because your sources are insufficient for anything more than allegations of demolition. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93The demolition we are discussing is not some recent event and is an centuries old historical event. The sources I have provided mentiones the event i.e. Demolishing of the Temple after interpreting historical records and have based their conclusions on those authors between 180-350 years ago. As far as expanding the scope of the article, you are the one who has initiated the discussion. Hence, I asked your views on RfC. You might ping some other senior editors to look at the sources I have provided to your query and comment on that. I could have done that, but I hardly know any senior editor expert on Indian History. Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 22:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you're misreading the sources. None of the sources you have provided states in its own voice that a temple was demolished. If one administrator telling you that isn't sufficient, let's ask another couple; Doug Weller, RegentsPark, it's fairly clear to me that Santoshdts is misrepresenting the sources he's provided; am I wrong?Please find such a source, or accept that the content in questions isn't appropriate for the article as presently framed. If you want to change the scope to include alleged conversions, please initate a discussion for that. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93Thanks for inviting other seniors. I'll make an last attempt, post which I leave at the wisdom of senior editors. Hope this would suffice: Therefore, we should conclude that it was the year 1660 A.D. when the temples at Ayodhyâ, including the Râma-janma-bhûmi temple, were demolished and mosques were built on those sites by Fedai Khan at the behest of Aurangzeb. Kunal Kishore (2016) p = 276 Santoshdts^[TalkToMe] 22:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the "forcible" option is the appropriate one and we should only include clear instances of that. I'm not up to speed on what was the state of the Babri Masjid site prior to the construction of the mosque but, afaik, there is murky evidence of a Hindu structure at the site but no evidence of when that structure was demolished or whether it was in use prior to the construction of the mosque. I also suggest that using evidence that a court chose to see is probably not advisable and is against policy. Lacking scholarly evidence that the temple was demolished explicitly to make way for the mosque, we should exclude it from this "list". --RegentsPark (comment) 23:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, real life hasn't been kind to me recently and has taken up far too much of my time. Nice to see that RegentsPark got here first and expressed himself so well. He's right - clear cut forcible instances are all that should be included. Wikipedia does not accept the authority of courts over factual physical evidence or indeed scientific theory. In this case it's peer reviewed archaeology that should be considered for the Babri Jasjid site, or perhaps documentary evidence although that's more of an "it depends" question, and that doesn't seem to exist. So it belongs in the mosque's article, not here. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with RegentsPark and Doug Weller that only forcible conversions should be included. But that's my second choice. My first choice would be to dispose of this article altogether. It began life as a way to get rid of some dross from mosque and since then all it has done is gather more dross. All the significant examples are covered in their own articles and the insignificant examples are, well, insignificant. Zero^talk 13:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it not logical that if a temple was ruined why locals do not urge to reconstruct it. And if mosque was built were they blind that they can't see the temple ruins over there. YasharthSinhaOfficial896 (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. We don't make logical deductions here but report the results of research (logical deductions if you will) that is done by historians and archeologists. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Alamgir Mosque

Was Alamgir Mosque built after razing the temple. YasharthSinhaOfficial896 (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Should the term desecrated be included in this article?

I noticed an IP restoring the word "desecrated" which is mention 4 times throughout this article. In my opinion, desecrated should only be used when supported by a reliable source(s).

The first usage has Mamboury (1953), p. 221. No idea what the title of this book is. Unverifiable.

The second usage under "Rest of Turkey" is unsourced.

The third usage under "Cyprus" is unsourced.

The fourth usage under "Hungary" is unsourced.

Pinging editors that have edited this article and a few more.

@23.240.160.134:
@Dicklyon:
@Ferien:
@Aeschylus:
@M.Bitton:
@Jonathansammy:
@Wikaviani:
@LouisAragon:
@HistoryofIran:
@Wario-Man: --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Of course it needs to be sourced. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing is important. If the source says something like that the place suffered a treatment like what desecrate means -- "treat (a sacred place or thing) with violent disrespect" -- that might be enough to make the term appropriate. If we had sources to look at, we could decide better. For now, no, it's not appropriate. And yes, the question of whether it was a sacred place and whether it was treated with violent disrespect comes with a POV, so we should be careful and not write it all from that POV, as this editor seems to be doing. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources are needed in my opinion.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, we would be able to cite a source describing what actually happened to the church. Removal of the Christian artifacts by non-Christians to convert it into a mosque would presumably be desecration in itself, so if what we're meant to understand is that the artifacts were damaged/destroyed, that the place was vandalized etc. we should be clear on what the nature and scope of the desecration was. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Revert

No one converted buildings into mosques before Islam existed, regardless of lore about the Kaaba being built (ground-up, apparently) by Abraham. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I have raised the issue of the Kaaba before and somehow forgotten about it. So far, nobody has been able to cite a RS describing it as a mosque. In my view, it should be removed from the list. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, there's obviously a big significant mosque surrounding it. I think that's on topic. "Mosque" here is being used to mean "place of Muslim worship," not "building with a tower." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Grand Mosque of Tangier

The article on the Grand Mosque of Tangier notes that it was built as a mosque, forcibly converted to a church in the 1470s, and then converted back to a mosque in the 1680s. So, while it is true that it was a non-Islamic place of worship that was converted to a mosque, this seems a little misleading. What do other people think? Certainly if it's retained I'd say we should note that it was a mosque that was converted to a church. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

One way or another, the current material is clearly highly misleading. I would say remove it, because if it was built as a mosque and returned to that state it was less a conversion than a reversion/restoration/re-consecration. If kept, obviously the 'built as a church' has to go. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The article Grand Mosque of Tangier says "The site of the mosque is believed to have originally been the site of a Roman temple dedicated to Hercules and of a 5th-century Roman church. A grand mosque (Friday mosque) was established on this site during the Marinid dynasty (13th-15th centuries). Tangier was frequently besieged by European forces in the 15th century until it was finally conquered by the Portuguese in 1471. The Portuguese immediately converted the mosque or rebuilt the site into a cathedral." So the sequence was Roman temple (non-Islamic) -> Roman Church (non-Islamic) -> (Marinid) Mosque-> (Portuguese) Cathedral -> (Moroccon) mosque. It seems to me that it was first a church which was converted to a mosque. I am ignoring the Roman temple since that is outside the scope of this article. Zanonomous (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

But nowhere does it say a church was converted, only that it was believed to have been the site of temple/church, and even that statement is speculative. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The original source [4] says, "The site of the mosque was formerly the home of several significant religious buildings from various civilizations that previously occupied Tangier, dating back originally to a fifth century Roman church. After the Muslim conquest of Tangier in the eighth century, the church was converted to a mosque". So, while the text on wiki is speculative, the source seems definite. Zanonomous (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Well that is sounding fairly conclusive. But better to find the original, hopefully reliable secondary source behind the archnet.org repackaging. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The original source (in pdf format) is listed at the bottom of the article (scroll down to the "Documents" section). At first glance, it doesn't appear to support what's on archnet. There is also this source (in French), which simply says that it was "probably built on a site formerly occupied by a Roman temple." M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

@Zanonomous: Here's the link to the discussion (about the article's scope) that I was referring to. You'll also notice a RfC above it. I suggest you read both. M.Bitton (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I also suggest you refrain from edit warring and seek consensus for your change. M.Bitton (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. New here - trying to learn the ropes. Sort of didn't know how to create a discussion

Of the 4 edits you undid, the last two don't seem to have anything to do with this discussion.

The names of rulers who razed Somnath are mentioned also in the article on the Somnath temple. I only added them here to fill in a blank field in the table.
The penultimate edit was a minor one that put text into the correct columns.

Do we concur that these edits need not have been undone?

As for the RfC you pointed me to, it is an interesting discussion with seemingly no general consensus. What is now the minimum criteria for an entry to be added to the list? Zanonomous (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The last two were caught in the middle of the revert. They appears to be minor and I see no issue with restoring them. Happy editing! M.Bitton (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

So is the current version agreed upon? >>> Extorc.talk 19:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't checked it properly. My main concern was to let the new editor know about the previous discussion (the article's cope). M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of simplifying things, I first make my case for including the Adinath Temple/ Adina Mosque. This source [5] (if you need the PDF directly, [6]) says, “This magnificent structure equaling in size the Great mosque of Damascus, was built by the spoliation of Hindu and Buddhist shrines.”. Does this not meet the criteria for inclusion? I am still unclear what the minimum criteria is for inclusion or whether there is one at all. Zanonomous (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zanonomous: The source should clearly say that a non-islamic place of worship existed at that spot and at the time that the mosque was created. The source also needs to be a reliable source. Imo, your source is unclear (was the spot occupied by a Hindu temple or a Buddhist temple, presumably not both? where is it published? peer reviewed?). BTW, I can't access the pdf without an account (and I don't like the idea of making one at academic.edu for obvious reasons). --RegentsPark (comment) 19:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears that the mosque was constructed with proper plans and designs in mind so most probably a new construction but definitely a lot of spoila of Hindu structures were used. Doesn't make the current agreed upon scope. At least according to my current understanding. >>> Extorc.talk 21:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As I read it, the source says that it was a collection of Hindu and Buddhist shrines that were destroyed to make the mosque. Its was fairly common for a cluster of shrines to be demolished and their spoila used to build a mosque (Another example is seen at the Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque, where 27 shrines were demolished and used in the construction of the mosque). I think it would warrant inclusion here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not what the source says. M.Bitton (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont know what extraordinary interpretation you seem to have, "was built by the spoliation of Hindu and Buddhist shrines" is exactly what the source says and it means that shrines of Hindu and Budhishts were demolished. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, a place of worship being built from the rubble or ruins of former temples is not the same thing as it being established by converting a place of religion. Grand construction in the ancient world routinely cannibalized the stone of prior grand constructions. This page is on the discrete conversion of one religious site to use by another faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Extorc: Can you please self-revert? This addition is clearly not even an example of a conversion, let alone a "clear cut forcible" one. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The previous discussion that I linked to above and its consensus that was agreed upon by a number of editors (including veteran admins) cannot be superseded by a discussion between two editors on their own talk pages. If a new consensus is to be reached, it has to be sought on this talk page and not elsewhere. M.Bitton (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging TrangaBellam for comment as they were the other participant in the aforementioned discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Somnath-mosque.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Conversions to mosques in modern West

This page seems to only be about conversions by force under the Arab caliphates, the Ottoman Empire or the Mughal Empire, which while historically factual, is not the only way that these conversions happen. In the modern West, disused churches or even synagogues have been legally acquired and converted by Muslim civilians. I have just written about Aqsa Mosque, The Hague which was a synagogue sold to the council (on condition it never become a church) and then bought legally by Muslims. The Swansea Mosque is one I can think of off the top of my head which is very visibly a church in architecture. I'm pretty sure there must be many more of these examples, particularly in Northern Europe or Canada/Australia/New Zealand where Christian congregations are declining. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

^ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evict
^ Gould, Harold A. (2016). "The Babri Masjid and the secular contract". Contributions to Indian Sociology. 32 (2): 509. doi:10.1177/006996679803200215. ISSN 0069-9667.

[Goel-1] Goel, Sita Ram. Hindu Temples: What happened to Them: Islamic Evidence (Second Enlarged Edition). Volume II. Chapter 8: Summing Up. New Dehli: Voice of India.

[2] Goel, Sita Ram. Hindu Temples: What happened to Them: Islamic Evidence (Second Enlarged Edition). Volume II.Chapter 6: The Epigraphic Evidence. New Dehli: Voice of India.

[Robert_2003-3] Robert Layton and Julian Thomas (2003). Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property. Routledge. pp. 2–9. ISBN 9781134604982.

[4] ttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evict

[Gould2016-5] Gould, Harold A. (2016). "The Babri Masjid and the secular contract". Contributions to Indian Sociology. 32 (2): 509. doi:10.1177/006996679803200215. ISSN 0069-9667.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

Article created from deleted material

Tags

Parthenon?

A plea for the TRUTH !

Deletions

Problems

Hindu temples section

Funny

Dome of the Rock vs. Machpelah cave shrine in Hebron

A Masjid is for the Worship of Allaah alone

Removal of unsourced content

Nature of conversion

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

Article needs better organization

Vandalism

Hagia Irene should be removed

Taj Mahal

Last revert

Krishna Janmabhoomi (Mathura)

Article needs much more material

External links modified

Requested move 14 December 2016

External links modified

Shortened title?

Revert

Scope

Revert

RfC: Scope

German churches

Regarding Kaaba Conversion and Ram Janmabhoomi

Ram Janmabhoomi

Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi

Regarding the use of the word "evicted"

The Ka'aba

Regarding use of the word »desecration«

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

Tightening scope of non-forcible conversions

Topic, sub-topics, interest, bias

What is the scope of this article?

Alamgir Mosque

Should the term desecrated be included in this article?

Revert

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

Grand Mosque of Tangier

May 2022

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Conversions to mosques in modern West