You seem a bit angry. Ottoman took Christian boys but that was an advantage for those childs. They could have importand positions in state. You may have a right that those childs got converted to Islam under care of Islamic families. That was a political law of Ottoman.
As much I know Muslims did not destroy churchs maybe some churchs transformed to mosques becuase of need. But Christians destroyed many mosques in last some centuries after Ottoman.
Dhimni is a description and give chance and permission to non-Muslims to hold their religion. I do not think a Dhimni has disadvantages.
And you may be right that it was more easy to be Muslim for economical and social benefits. But that situation do not refute that Islam has a great fact and affection. Otherwise nobody choice which supposed to be false belief so easily.
I’m reminded of two stories, the first is that of the Jewish woman during the time of the maccabees who encouraged her children to die rather than give in, sacrifice to the gods and eat pork. The second is Saint Sophia and her three children, she encouraged each of them to die rather than sacrifice or praise Caesar. This is the Christian belief in things, it is better to die in pain, suffering and torture, than have material things and false religion and be lost to God forever. It however, the taking of children from their parents, is persecution, no matter how you justify it. Why couldn’t if the Ottomon empire was so great, they remain Christian and get all the benefits you mention? Perhaps ones status as a Christian impaired one’s chances to serve imperial powers hmm? Perhaps ones status as Dhimmi prohibited one from certain jobs?
I don’t know about destroying churches, but I know about converting churches, which seems to be the main of what Ottomons did. They took Christendom’s greatest church and defiled it. They destroyed the icons, altar area no doubt and the vessels which were used during the liturgy. It wasn’t only the Hagia Sophia but a good portion of the churches. Consider these two wiki articles
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Turkey (I see more purple than other colours)
As for destruction of churches by Muslims, consider one of the inciting factors of the Crusades, the destruction of Church of the Holy Sepulche by the Fatimid Caliph, Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. Now before I investigate this more thoroughly, are so sure you want to suggest Muslims destroyed no Christian churches?
I would ask you some things about the Dhimmi status. What happens to the Christian who fails to pay the Jizya with willing submission? What then happens if he refuses to convert to Islam? What did happen? Nothing? As for Dhimmi only meaning you are protected I would ask, was any Dhimmi under islam allowed to explain why they rejected Muhammad? Would they have been allowed to call Muhammad a False prophet to another Muslim? Would a Muslim have been allowed to become a Dhimmi if they wanted to become a Christian? I suspect you have bought into a rose tinted version of Islamic history Hasantas.
Here is something enlightening from Sydney H Griffith
"There is no doubt then that in the view of the stipulations of the Covenant of Umar the Dhimmi populations of Christans in the Islamic world were what we would now call “second class citizens,” if the term “citizen” can even be meaningfully used of people whose presence in the body politic is merely tolerated. The legal disabilities that governed their lives required subservience, often accompanied by prescriptions to wear distinctive clothing and to cease from public display of their religion, and, of course, to refrain from inviting converts from among the Muslims. Christian wealth, buildings, institutions and properties were often subject to seizure. As a consequence, over the course of time, the number of bishoprics, churches, monasteries, and schools gradually decreased, having fallen victim to the very conditions of the official establishment of Islam. These circumstances of a necessity put dhimmi groups such as the Christian communities at risk; in spite of their numbers they became sociological minorities, subaltern populations subject to discrimination, disability and at times even persecution. "
The church in the shadow of the Mosque, chapter One.
I do not believe the picture of Islamic history you present Hasantas, as if Islam were some beacon of enlightenment and this is one the problems I have with islam. The last point you raise is that no one chose false belief so easily. I happen to think given the time that elapsed and the conditions under which Christians fared while under Islamic rule, people gave into the original sin rather than persevere through suffering. It’s human nature to give into what is easy and it was simply much easier being a Muslim in a Muslim country (that’s still the case) than it is to be a Christian or (especially) a Jew.
The signs are Biblical and if we look with justice, undeniable.