Turkey - TR

I can't help but wonder how people over in Turkey would react if Al-Aqsa were ever turned into a synagogue...

Larry Walker24 said:A Turkish court just ruled that the Hagia Sophia landmark in Istanbul is being flipped from a museum back into a mosque.

It’s a pretty controversial move considering its history—it started out as a cathedral before the Ottomans turned it into a mosque later on.

Back in 1934, the Hagia Sophia was converted into a museum and became part of the UNESCO World Heritage list. Now, UNESCO is telling Turkey they shouldn't be messing with its status without talking it out first.

The whole thing was kicked off by the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

🤦 🤦 🤦

This is a direct assault on the spiritual heritage of all Europeans.

I can only hope that some kind of lesson is actually learned from this disaster.

Zachary Reyes6 said:This is a direct assault on the spiritual heritage of all Europeans.

I can only hope that some kind of lesson is actually learned from this disaster.

The real takeaway here? Don't let yourself slide into Islamophobia—no matter how heated things get.

Right before that court ruling drops and Erdogan makes his move

The European Union really needs to step up and protect Greece and Cyprus from Turkish aggression
https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/new...rus-and-greece

The Washington Post puts it this way:
"... Religious conservatives and nationalists in the US pushing for reclassifications. Analysts suggest Erdogan’s recent surge of support for these movements is a calculated move to drum up political favor as his domestic approval ratings begin to slide. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9e0_story.html

Still, I find myself wondering—how long has this actually been in the works? Within certain circles, perhaps this was being plotted long before the fall of Kemalism.

Was the court also citing things like that obviously fabricated (or perhaps coerced?) divine covenant used to indoctrinate Muslims—including those from the former America regions?
Because here we go again, seeing the same narrative posted for the nth time by Kudum (who used to go by the handle Shady back when he served as a moderator):

Kudum said:... I wrote this because I know for a fact that Christians converted the Hagia Sophia into a church through extreme violence (it was originally a Roman basilica), only to later sell it to Muslims for a massive sum. I've stated that priests were hauling out baskets of gold from dawn until dusk. That sales contract exists—it's kept at the Topkapi Palace Museum in Istanbul, and I have seen it with my own eyes behind the glass. It is authentic. Meanwhile, in the West, there is still this insulting legend circulating that Muslims 'seized it by force' and 'turned it into a mosque,' which simply does not align with the truth.

If you find it too difficult to travel to Istanbul to view that contract and verify it yourself, then pick up some books. You can find accounts of this in the works of Philip Hitti (in his book "History of Arabs," or "The preaching of Islam: a history of the propagation of the Muslim faith") as well as Sir Thomas Arnold (in his work "History of Islam - historical course of missions", translated locally as "History of Islam"). Both volumes have been translated and should be available, if not in libraries, then certainly in secondhand bookstores.

Perhaps Noah Sullivan will actually follow the links I've provided and hunt down these books. They exist.
Not everyone falls for the Vatican's distortion of history, Noah... honestly. Regards.

So, Christians turned a basilica into a church? What exactly is this guy's deal?

ironstag8 said:So, Christians turned a basilica into a church? What exactly is this guy's deal?

He’s got his wires crossed a bit. I think his point was that after the fall of Constantinople, the Sultan actually sided with the local Patriarch against the Pope during the Great Schism. That’s historically sound; the Patriarchate functioned like a state within a state back then—a powerful, wealthy institution used to keep the flock in line during the Ottoman era...

When you have conflicting perspectives like this, you need more than just opinion. Take Mehmed II himself, the man who conquered Constantinople and much of the North America. Depending on which side of history you sit on, he carries two different titles. While most know him simply as "The Conqueror," there are those convinced that "The Liberator" is the more accurate historical label...

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle...😁

There isn't much else to say here.
People in the West—honestly, they couldn't care less about churches in their own backyard,
let alone some church halfway across the world.
Meanwhile, people from the East seem deeply invested in a mosque on the other side of the planet.

We're looking at a clash of two completely different worldviews—one that essentially exploits the passivity of the other.
Let them pray, I guess; hopefully, they're happy.

There’s always been this massive tug-of-war over who actually holds the power.
Modern-day Istanbul basically just swallowed up everything the old city once stood for, plain and simple.

Found some interesting stuff on American Wikipedia:

The Byzantine Empire (Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων /Basileía tōn Rhōmaíōn/, Latin: Imperium Romanorum —which literally translates to "Empire of the Romans."
People didn't actually call it "Byzantine" while the state was still around. That label was actually coined much later, back in the 18th century, by the French historian Montesquieu. Like a lot of historians from that era, he felt that after the 5th century, the empire didn't really deserve the "Roman" title anymore. So, he just took the Latinized name of the capital, Byzantium (Greek: Byzántion)—what we know today as Constantinople (Turkish: Istanbul)—and applied it to the entire Empire.

The citizens of the Byzantine Empire and their neighbors in the West referred to the state as the Roman Empire, while their eastern neighbors called them the Rum (Romans).

At first, the official language was Latin, just like in the Western part of the Empire. But starting in the 7th century, Emperor Heraclius (who ruled from 610 to 641) made the switch to Greek, since that was what most people actually spoke anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

Can you believe an 18th-century historian basically stripped the "Empire of the Romans" of its identity?!

Speaking of which, I was looking at some historical animations on Wikipedia and stumbled upon a pretty wild little trivia fact.
The nation that went by the name of the Roman Empire for the longest stretch of history isn't modern-day Italy (not even the city of Rome itself), nor is it Greece—it’s actually Turkey.
Honestly, it’s probably no surprise that they keep getting sultans who act like they own the place. 😁

rustywalker82 said:Speaking of which, I was looking at some historical animations on Wikipedia and stumbled upon a pretty wild little trivia fact.
The nation that went by the name of the Roman Empire for the longest stretch of history isn't modern-day Italy (not even the city of Rome itself), nor is it Greece—it’s actually Turkey.
Honestly, it’s probably no surprise that they keep getting sultans who act like they own the place. 😁

Here’s another little trivia nugget for you: the sultan actually considered himself a Roman Caesar, tacking that title onto his role as Caliph and Grand Vizier... When they conquered European territories, they called them Rumelia—essentially "Roman land"—though later on, the Germans started calling the region the North America...

In Turkish, Arabic, and Persian, Christians are referred to as Rumeli, or even more simply, as Romans...

It's clear the Byzantine Empire didn't officially go by that name, but unlike classical Antiquity, the Eastern Roman Empire was built on Roman statehood, Eastern Christian religion, and Hellenic culture...

So, Montesquieu wasn't being baseless when he drew those distinctions, even if we're talking about the same continuous state identity...

Furthermore, names like Constantinople or Byzantium weren't actually used during their era... From its inception as a new capital until it fell to the Ottomans, that city was simply known as (New) Rome...

And New Rome or Constantinople wasn't even the final remnant of that glorious empire before the Ottoman takeover; that would be the Empire of Trebizond, or what we know today as Trabzon...

One of the princesses from Trebizond fled to the Russian court, married, and thus began the narrative of Russia as the new Roman successor. Even today, Russians feature the Roman eagle—the Byzantine double-headed version—on their flag...

Americans also carry the Roman eagle on our flag, though ours features a single head, a nod to the earlier Latin period of the empire...

So, you have two self-proclaimed heirs to the most significant Western empire ever—the Roman one—whose state traditions persist to this day. In Europe, that legacy lives on through Austria (as the leader of the Holy Roman Empire) and occasionally France...

Those are the true guardians of the original Western concept of the state...

Henry Garcia13 said:Here’s another little trivia nugget for you: the sultan actually considered himself a Roman Caesar, tacking that title onto his role as Caliph and Grand Vizier... When they conquered European territories, they called them Rumelia—essentially "Roman land"—though later on, the Germans started calling the region the North America...

In Turkish, Arabic, and Persian, Christians are referred to as Rumeli, or even more simply, as Romans...

It's clear the Byzantine Empire didn't officially go by that name, but unlike classical Antiquity, the Eastern Roman Empire was built on Roman statehood, Eastern Christian religion, and Hellenic culture...

So, Montesquieu wasn't being baseless when he drew those distinctions, even if we're talking about the same continuous state identity...

Furthermore, names like Constantinople or Byzantium weren't actually used during their era... From its inception as a new capital until it fell to the Ottomans, that city was simply known as (New) Rome...

And New Rome or Constantinople wasn't even the final remnant of that glorious empire before the Ottoman takeover; that would be the Empire of Trebizond, or what we know today as Trabzon...

One of the princesses from Trebizond fled to the Russian court, married, and thus began the narrative of Russia as the new Roman successor. Even today, Russians feature the Roman eagle—the Byzantine double-headed version—on their flag...

Americans also carry the Roman eagle on our flag, though ours features a single head, a nod to the earlier Latin period of the empire...

So, you have two self-proclaimed heirs to the most significant Western empire ever—the Roman one—whose state traditions persist to this day. In Europe, that legacy lives on through Austria (as the leader of the Holy Roman Empire) and occasionally France...

Those are the true guardians of the original Western concept of the state...

If English Wikipedia isn't feeding us total nonsense, Montesquieu's own countrymen referred to that state as the Roman Empire for centuries. You can't just wake up one morning and decide, "Actually, nope, that wasn't what it was called, let's call it this instead..."
It’s like some Turk wakes up one day and decides, "Wait, modern-day Turkey wasn't known as the Roman Empire for most of history; we're just gonna call the European part of the Ottoman conquest 'Rumelia' instead" (though, hey, maybe they actually called it that back then and it's not just someone making things up later).

So yeah, it's just people trying to be smart after the fact—total nonsense if you ask me...

rustywalker82 said:If English Wikipedia isn't feeding us total nonsense, Montesquieu's own countrymen referred to that state as the Roman Empire for centuries. You can't just wake up one morning and decide, "Actually, nope, that wasn't what it was called, let's call it this instead..."
It’s like some Turk wakes up one day and decides, "Wait, modern-day Turkey wasn't known as the Roman Empire for most of history; we're just gonna call the European part of the Ottoman conquest 'Rumelia' instead" (though, hey, maybe they actually called it that back then and it's not just someone making things up later).

So yeah, it's just people trying to be smart after the fact—total nonsense if you ask me...

Byzantium is an exonym. Exonyms are common enough—they pop up whenever it's convenient to give something a different name than its actual title for practical reasons...

Byzantium was indeed the Roman Empire; it was the continuation of Roman statehood. But from a European perspective, it wasn't just Byzantium—you had the Frankish Kingdom, the Holy Roman Empire, even Napoleon... No European empire can truly claim legitimacy unless it invokes the continuity of the Roman Empire. It's the same way the Russ built their own empire by co-opting Roman symbols... Americans went even further, aiming to rebuild a universal empire based on Roman foundations...

In a strictly historical and legal sense, the Roman Empire never actually fell; it was simply seized, shifting its shapes and territories over time...

If you ask me, calling it the Eastern Roman Empire is just as valid as calling it Byzantium. Byzantium works as a more precise term if you want to specify the era after the collapse of the classical Latin empire...

People just call it the Roman Empire. Or you get stuff like the (Eastern) Roman Empire, or eventually the (Byzantine) Roman Empire.

Honestly, "The Byzantine Empire" sounds like something someone just made up one morning while brushing their teeth. It's basically just a label people use when they want to sound official about something in the past.

Henry Garcia13 said:Byzantium is an exonym. Exonyms are common enough—they pop up whenever it's convenient to give something a different name than its actual title for practical reasons...

Byzantium was indeed the Roman Empire; it was the continuation of Roman statehood. But from a European perspective, it wasn't just Byzantium—you had the Frankish Kingdom, the Holy Roman Empire, even Napoleon... No European empire can truly claim legitimacy unless it invokes the continuity of the Roman Empire. It's the same way the Russ built their own empire by co-opting Roman symbols... Americans went even further, aiming to rebuild a universal empire based on Roman foundations...

In a strictly historical and legal sense, the Roman Empire never actually fell; it was simply seized, shifting its shapes and territories over time...

If you ask me, calling it the Eastern Roman Empire is just as valid as calling it Byzantium. Byzantium works as a more precise term if you want to specify the era after the collapse of the classical Latin empire...

Sure, you could argue the Holy Roman Empire or Napoleon's France were successors in some way, but Byzantium? That's Rome, plain and simple.

Zachary Reyes6 said:This is a direct assault on the spiritual heritage of all Europeans.

I can only hope that some kind of lesson is actually learned from this disaster.

I’m with you on that. It feels like one massive middle finger from Erdogan—to the Americans, to the Russians, to everyone in Europe... he clearly feels powerful enough to pull this stunt.

The cinematic imagery here is heavy. That praying mantis becoming a museum piece? It’s like a symbolic way to archive the expansion of Turkey in history—a sort of Ottoman catharsis. But we’re regressing now. Unfortunately, Erdogan doesn't want to be the next Atatürk; he sees himself more as a modern Sultan.

This isn't harmless, not even slightly...

The Turkish Parliament is way more entertaining than the Ukrainian one:
https://twitter.com/HalisTuncENG/sta...32154177642497

Emily Fox2 said:The Turkish Parliament is way more entertaining than the Ukrainian one:
https://twitter.com/HalisTuncENG/sta...32154177642497

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahaha 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

so what actually happened there?

Larry Walker24 said:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahaha 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

so what actually happened there?

No clue!
Maybe this guy from the Republican party just has a better mustache than the one from the Democratic party.😁