Fall of Constantinople 29th May 1453

The site of Cordoba was originally used as a pagan temple. I do have a source for that:

 

Mezquita, (from Arabic مسجد "Masjid"), is Spanish for "mosque".

This article deals with the one in Cordoba, Spain. It is a 10th century Moorish Islamic house of prayer. The site is older than the building, having been host to a Roman pagan temple, the cathedral church of St Vincent of Saragossa built by the Catholic bishops under Visigothic rule, and finally the Mezquita itself.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosque-Cathedral_of_Cordoba

 

A historian must deal with the fact that the vast bulk of what happened in history was not recorded, instead the contemporary evidence must be examined to determine what most likely happened. I have provided evidence that there was an empire-wide persecution of pagans, sanctioned by Roman imperial authorities. The evidence to suggest there was a persecution of the pagans in Cordoba and confiscation of their property is MORE CONVINCING than that they simply up and converted, raising their hands in the air and shouting "praise the Lord!" like a pack of evangelical rednecks. Also it wouldn't matter if the bulk of the population was pagan or not, it was the pagan's site and they had a right to it. But of course, the Christians chose to deny the pagans their right to simply exist, so we all know that one way or another the Christians managed to take the site by persecuting the original users. They either killed off the pagans and then took the site, or they took the site from them and then killed them. Not a world of difference.

 

Back to the overarching argument here, you claimed that the Christians had a right to confiscate the Cordoba mosque (the Mezquita) because it was stolen from them, that this was different from Mehmet and Haghia Sophia. Yet you are clearly in error. A little research reveals thats the Muslims were tolerant enough to allow joint use of the site and that the Christians abandoned it, actually relinquished their claim to ownership. I have a source for that too:

 

The construction of the Mezquita (originally the Aljama Mosque) lasted for over two centuries, starting in 784 A.D. under the supervision of the first emir of Cordoba, Abd ar-Rahman I, who used it as an adjunct to his palace and named it to honor his wife. The site was that of the Visigothic cathedral of St. Vincent. When the forces of Tariq ibn-Ziyad had first occupied C�rdoba in 711, it had been equitable that they and the Christians share the cathedral space, according to the historian ar-R�z�, who documented the mosque's history. But with the establishment of the Umayyads in exile as emirs of C�rdoba, the compromise space was no longer sufficient. Negotiations between the Emir and the bishop of C�rdoba, eased by the promise of a large cash payment as well as permission to rebuild one of the extramural churches that had been leveled at the time of the conquest, resulted in the Christians' relinquishing their half of St. Vincent, which was razed and the new mosque, in its first phase, built upon the foundations

 

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mosque_at_Cordoba

 

So in fact, the Christians GAVE UP their claim to the church VOLUNTARILY, that after centuries of enjoying joint use of it as well as enjoying renovations and enlargements to the building paid for by Muslim authorities. So you have no basis to claim the Christians were "taking back" what was "stolen" from them. As conquerors the 13th century Spaniards simply took what they wanted, just as Mehmet did, so the two situations are perfectly comparable. My original argument that medieval conquerors took by conquest what they wanted and that this was common throughout the medieval world (both Christians and Muslims) is therefore entirely vindicated. My original point has been proven correct, and now it is your lack of research into this matter which is evident for all to see. Happy reading, mate.

Please stop misquoting me, it makes you look silly. I actually said the CHRISTIANS were the main agents who persecuted the pagans. I have said Romans persecuted them as well as Visigoths, but my point has always been that the persecutions were driven by Christians. I'll even quote myself to prove it: See my above explanation. Your view that all the Christian conversions were peaceful is totally erroneous, the Christian conversions and oppressions were as bad as a foreign invasion. The pagans often had to put up with Christianity imposed by foreigners, either from the far away priests of Rome of from some equally violent foreign tribe such as the Visigoths. It is naive to think that the Christian conversions were all some happy and peaceful affair with cotton candy, fun and games.