A story in today’s International Herald Tribune (read here on the New York Times website) provides an interesting insight into exactly what happens when a secular state is taken over by Islamists. The piece concerned the Hagia Sophia of Iznik, an ancient church that brought 40,000 tourists to the town south of Istanbul much to the delight of the locals. Iznik was once known as Nicaea, and it was there the first Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church met at the Hagia Sophia in the year 325. But the Islamist government of Turkey has put a damper on the prosperity of those who profited from the museum by formally converting the building into a mosque.
Of course, after the Muslim conquest of the Byzantine Empire, all churches in the region were turned into mosques, with the most conspicuous example being the majestic Hagia Sophia of Constantinople (now Istanbul). But unlike that more famous site, which was registered as a museum when Turkey became a secular republic, the one in Iznik was never formally named as such, though it served in that function and had not been used as a mosque in well over a century. The ruling AKP party of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has taken the initiative to reinstitute Muslim-only worship at the place, much to the dismay of the Muslim residents of the town who point out there was no shortage of mosques there. But to the AKP, the ancient surge to plant the flag of Islam over the ruins of other cultures is more important than tourism.
The irony here is the Turkish Ministry of Culture had been hoping to promote the place to increase its share of tourists from Europe and elsewhere, especially those interested in the considerable Christian heritage of the region. But like the abortive effort to entice Americans to go to Turkey to see the place where the original Saint Nicholas lived during their Christmas holidays, the AKP’s intolerance trumps other considerations.
While people in the town are appalled at this turn of events, it appears the decision came straight from the top, with Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc taking credit for the conversion of the site. When the Culture Ministry asked to take over the place, Arinc said, “We told them that it is a mosque and that it cannot be used for any other purpose.”
Need we ask how Muslims would feel if an ancient mosque were converted into a church or a synagogue? The answer to that question is obvious. There would be riots, murders and terrorism, with the blame put on those who offended Islamic sensibilities. But the Muslims who run the Turkish government do not think tolerance or religious sensitivity is a two-way street even when their decisions hurt Muslims who stood to benefit from a policy that honored Turkey’s Christian heritage.
The story of the Hagia Sophia of Iznik is a sad one, but what is truly troubling about this tale is the way it illustrates the triumphalist spirit of Islamism redolent of the era of the Ottoman conquest and the short shrift its advocates have for respect for other faiths. Those optimists who keep telling us Turkey can be an Islamic democracy and a model for the Middle East need to look at what happened at Iznik and realize what is happening there is symbolic of that country’s drift toward Islamist tyranny.
You wrote: "Of course, after the Muslim conquest of the Byzantine Empire, all churches in the region were turned into mosques" n nThat is not quite correct. Many churches were turned into mosques. However, not all were. I rather doubt that even most were. n nHowever, the rules governing how non-Muslim infidels living under Islamic rule/law precluded the creation of new churches and much difficulty in repairing existing churches. The rules were applied, to varying degrees over the course of time and, even at the same time, in different areas. n nThe existence of detailed laws – in Shari'a, by the way but also part and parcel of Ottoman law – about the maintenance of churches basically undermines the argument that no churches survived Muslim conquest of Byzantium. However, the restrictions placed on non-Muslims, Jews and Christians, were very real. See, in particular, In Ishmael's House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands; Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude: 7th – 20th Century; Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam. These, among other books, show that your statement is inaccurate. Life for the dhimmis (i.e., non-Muslims living under Islamic rule; such people were required, as a condition for the ending of a Jihad, to accept a pact of security under Islam, under condition of acknowledging supremacy of Islamic authority and the payment of a poll tax – at times, confiscatory; at other times, less so – and, depending on the time and place, to live with other restrictions (e.g. clothing restrictions, clothing badges, loss of right of self-defense, loss of right to testify against a Muslim, requirements for buildings being lower in height than those for Muslims, etc., etc.). It was not a pretty sight, but the loss of all Churches was not part of the mix.
This is standard practice. nMuslims believe that they have the right to proselytize mosques all over the world while denying to other the same right in their countries. As shown in France they use public property as their own, they give a damn of the host country rules and the Fr. gvt keeps it mouth shut! nAnd the religious and secular West accept cowardly.
I agree with steven L. It is way past time for the West to stop baby-coddling Muslims.
Political Islam is not compatible with individual liberty or religious pluralism. We'll see what happens to the oxymoron of "Islamic democracy."