CONQUEST OF ISTANBUL AND CONVERTING THE HAGIA SOPHIA TO MOSQUE<\/p>\n
MANY PAPERS WHICH HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BY SOME HISTORIANS WERE NOT BASED ON ARCHIVAL DOCUMENTS ABOUT CONQUEST OF ISTANBUL AND HAGIA SOPHIA<\/p>\n
On the allegations that Sul\u1e6d\u0101n Me\u1e25med the Conqueror\u00a0took Constantinople\u00a0by the might of the sword, he \u2013 especially with his conversion of the Church of St. Sophia\u00a0into a mosque\u00a0\u2013 razed the Christians\u2019 places of worship, massacred the Byzantines, and, most importantly, devastated the city.<\/p>\n
We should first state that even those Byzantine historians who witnessed the conquest in person did not dare utter such claims. Sul\u1e6d\u0101n Me\u1e25med the Conqueror\u2019s fulfilment of the conquest of Istanbul as well as other places was within the decrees of the Islamic law\u00a0in its entirety. According to Islamic law, even during actual fighting Islamic troops are forbidden\u00a0to carry out some acts against the persons and goods of the enemy. One of the most significant reasons that enabled our ancestors to leap from one victory to another is that they adhered to these principles verbatim ac litteratim<\/em>. In fact, their triumphs were proportionate to their adherence to these essentials. (Upham, History of the Ottoman Empire, <\/em>vol. I, pp. 196ff.; Colin Imber, Keiko Kiyotaki and Rhoads Murphey, Frontiers of Ottoman Studies: State, Province, and the West<\/em>(Edinburg: I.B. Tauris, 2005), pp. 213ff.)<\/p>\n Let us now summarise the prohibited acts: killing enemy soldiers through tyranny\u00a0and torture, murdering people like women, children,\u00a0 or slaves\u00a0who had come to the battlefield to serve their masters, the disabled, and the chronically ill, the elderly, the sick, the mentally sick, etc. who did not fall into the category of soldiers, and the ecclesiastics who lived in seclusion (nevertheless, if any one of these takes part in a war\u00a0either physically, intellectually, or with his goods they may then be killed), mutilating the organs (muthlah<\/em>) of people and animals, acting contrary to a promise or treaty, burning crops, forests, and trees (unless strategically required), committing adultery\u00a0or any illicit relations, killing hostages, cutting off the head or any organs of the dead, or committing a massacre, and killing close relatives, especially the father, or anybody who is not involved in war like tradesmen and merchants. Although there are also some other prohibitions, we suffice with the aforementioned ones.<\/p>\n The above-mentioned decrees are quoted from the book by Molla \u1e24usrev, the Conqueror\u2019s Q\u0101\u1e0d\u012b\u02bbaskar<\/em>. Therefore it would only be a malignant example of uttering words without any proof to ascribe such acts to a state official who accepted and applied the said decrees as his official law codes. (Molla \u1e24usrev, Durar wa Ghurar<\/em>, vol. I, pp. 282ff.; Mevkufati, Translation of Multek\u0101<\/em>, vol. I, p. 343; Damad, Majma\u02bb al-Enhur Sarh-i Multeka al-Ebhur<\/em>, vol. I, pp. 643ff.)<\/p>\n With respect to how Istanbul was conquered and the St. Sophia\u00a0event, we should note the following.<\/p>\n According to the provisions of the law of Islamic states, places of worship pertaining to Ahl al-Kit\u0101b<\/em>\u00a0(\u201cPeople\u00a0of the Book\u201d) in such states where conquest through peaceful means have taken place are never harmed. However, the construction of new ones is not allowed while those already existing may be restored. But in countries captured through wars\u00a0the situation is just the reverse. That is, the Muslim ruler \u2013 if he so wishes \u2013 may destroy all the temples pertaining to other religions and deport non-Muslims. Istanbul was conquered through war. The legal rationale for the conversion of St. Sophia\u00a0and similar churches into mosques was that very provision. As a matter of fact, if that provision had been applied throughout Istanbul, all the churches and synagogues in Istanbul would have been destroyed. After Sul\u1e6d\u0101n Me\u1e25med the Conqueror\u00a0\u2013 who had conquered Istanbul through the divine aid of Allah and the might of his sword \u2013 had transformed HAGIA SOPHIA into a mosque, he received a delegation of priests and rabbis, who told the Sul\u1e6d\u0101n that he had conquered Istanbul and therefore he might \u2013 if he so wished \u2013 leave no churches or synagogues there as a right that had been granted to him by international law. Nonetheless, they insistingly requested him to treat their communities and worship places as if he had conquered the city peacefully.<\/p>\n Sul\u1e6d\u0101n Me\u1e25med the Conqueror, in consultation with the Islamic scholars in his entourage, did not reject their demand and no more were converted into mosques. As a result, he did not touch churches and synagogues although he had right to do so. In this regard, Abussu\u02bb\u016bd Efendi, a renowned \u015eey\u1e2bulislam<\/em>\u00a0of the Ottoman state, explained that those churches and synagogues that have existed exiting up to today reflected the Conqueror\u2019s notion of freedom\u00a0for religion and conscience. The original text of that fatw\u0101 <\/em>(judgment) is as follows:<\/p>\n Question<\/em>: Did Sul\u1e6d\u0101n Me\u1e25med Han conquer Istanbul and the neighbouring villages by force?<\/p>\n Answer<\/em>: What is known to us is that it was conquered by force. Nevertheless, the ancient churches point to a peaceful conquest. This issue was investigated by the state in 945. Two very important witnesses were found, one of whom was 130 years old and the other 110. They testified that the Jewish and Christian communities concluded a secret agreement with Sul\u1e6d\u0101n Me\u1e25med the Conquerer that they did not help the tekfur<\/em>\u00a0and the Sul\u1e6d\u0101n did not take them as slaves\u00a0(seby etmey\u00fcb<\/em>) and allow them to live in Istanbul. Thus old churches remained as they were previously. Abussu\u02bb\u016bd has written this fatw\u0101<\/em>. (Molla \u1e24usrev, Durar wa Ghurar<\/em>, vol. I, pp. 282ff.; Mevkufati, Translation of Multek\u0101<\/em>, vol. I, p. 343; Damad, Majma\u02bb al-Enhur Sarh-i Multeka al-Ebhur<\/em>, vol. I, pp. 643ff.).<\/p>\n What we have reported here is affirmed by historians. Sul\u1e6d\u0101n Me\u1e25med the Conqueror\u00a0sent Damad Kasim Bey the Isfandiyarid, on 23 May as an envoy to the Byzantine Empire\u00a0to convey the following information. The city would fall at the first general attack, and the fact must have been admitted by the Emperor himself, who was a perfect soldier. If they surrendered peacefully, no harm would by any means be done to their lives or goods as per the decrees of Islamic law. However, if it was captured by force, blood would be shed, and no guarantee would be given. Unfortunately when the Emperor rejected the peaceful means despite the proposal, the city was conquered by force. All the same, the Conqueror treated the Byzantine Emperor\u00a0in the aforementioned way. As a matter of fact, the fact that Me\u1e25med the Conqueror did not totally destroy the mosaics of St. Sophia\u00a0and did not tear down the city walls of Istanbul openly reflects the Conqueror\u2019s attitude on this subject.<\/p>\n As can be seen, the promise of Sul\u1e6d\u0101n Me\u1e25med the Conqueror\u00a0was that \u201che would allow the Christians to erect a church next to each church in Serbia<\/em>\u201d was actually effectuated in Istanbul. For instance, does the existence of the Patriarchate of the Anatolian Greeks\u00a0and the adjacent church next to a mosque\u00a0in Abdi Suba\u015f\u0131 quarter in Fener, Istanbul, not reflect the real freedom\u00a0of religion and conscience in the Ottoman state? Is the permission for the Anatolian Greeks to build a church precisely opposite the Mihrimah Sul\u1e6d\u0101n\u00a0Mosque at the end of Edirnekapi Street not tangible evidence of the same freedom?<\/p>\n On the other hand, the allegation that Istanbul was devastated is not correct. Rather than replying to this question in detail, we will quote a report from mass media like CNN, Time<\/em>, and the like, which ranked the conquest of Istanbul among the most significant hundred events of the last millennium:<\/p>\n While Istanbul had been thoroughly a dead city in ruins before it was conquered by the Conqueror, it turned out to be the commercial centre of both Europe and Muslim countries and a prosperous world city after the conquest. Yet on the other hand, even Ouspensky, a Russian historian, dared to say: \u201cThe Turks acted much more humanely and tolerantly in 1453 than the Crusaders did in 1204.
\n(Ibn al-Kamal, Taw\u0101r\u012b\u1e2b-i \u0100l-i Osman, Book VII, pp. 62ff.; Ba\u015ftav, \u015eerif, \u201cXIV. As\u0131rda yaz\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Grek\u00e7e Anonim Osmanl\u0131 Tari\u1e2bine g\u00f6re \u0130stanbul\u2019un Muhasaras\u0131 ve Zabt\u0131,\u201d pp. 51-82; \u0100l\u012b, Kunh al-A\u1e2bb\u0101r, vol. V, pp. 251-60; Solakz\u0101de, Tari\u1e2b, pp. 191-201; A\u015fikpa\u015fa-z\u0101de, Tari\u1e2b, pp. 141-43; Clot, F\u0101ti\u1e25, pp. 60ff.; for opposing views see Ayd\u0131n, F\u0101tih ve Fetih, Mitler ve Ger\u00e7ekler, pp. 66-67, 94-95, 127-28; P.D. Ouspensky, In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1949).)<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"