For those who say Mehmed II erred and deviated from the way of the Muslims because he converted Aya Sofya into a mosque.
Mehmet II renewed the agreement of Caliph Umar (رضي الله عنه) regarding the rights of the Ahle Kitab in Jerusalem. Below his degree dated 29th September 1458. Posted by a Turkish brother.
“May Allah’s curse be upon whomever repeal this degree!
When Istanbul was conquered with the permisson of Allah and for the sake of The Prophet ﷺ, delegates of foreign kings and rulers came and congratulated us. This time Atnasyos, The Patriarch of Jerusalem Greeks and his clerics came to Istanbul and brought us the degree which signed by The Prophet himself, the degree which was written with ‘kufi’ letters and given them by Caliph Umar and other degrees which given them Muslim Sultans of old times. They asked “to be able to perform their rites and visits in the center and outskirts of Jerusalem just as they continue to do, since the time of The Prophet.”
Now, as bestowed before, Kamame Church and its facilities which located at the center of Jerusalem, Georgian Monastry of …..(there is a long list)…, the big church in Bethlehem which Jesus borned, as well as The Patriarch, Priests of Jerusalem and their assistants are exempt of taxes.
Now I bestowed the same rights, while following the examples of The Prophet, Caliph Umar and Muslim Sultans of the past. So the rulers and governors of the lands of mine shall protect The Patriarch of Jerusalem, his priests, his clerics and all Christians. And no one shall cause any disturbance to them.
May Allah’s and his Messenger (ﷺ)'s wrath be upon whomever tries to repeal the degree which signed by The Prophet, the degree which bestowed by Umar, degrees granted by past Sultans and the degree which I gave, be them Sultans of the future, viziers, scholars (ulema) or others.
It shall be known like this.”
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/1596167)
So it is clear that Mehmed did not discriminate against Christians or violate their rights as mandated by the Shariah.
The ruling of Umar ( رضي الله عنه) cannot apply to Aya Sofya for three reasons.
First, the Christians in Jerusalem surrendered to Umar (رضي الله عنه) with the condition that the holy sites be honored and left intact. Umar honored the treaty and ensured that their Churches would remain as they were. The Church where Umar (رضي الله عنه) was invited to pray contains two of the most holiest sites of Christianity. One is where they believe Isa (عليه السلام) was crucified. The other is where they believe his tomb lies.
(https://churchoftheholysepulchre.net/)
It is an important site of pilgrimage for the Christians. So Umar(رضي الله عنه) sought to honor the pact and leave the pilgrimage site untouched for perpetuity.
The above excerpt makes it clear that Mehmed II honored the pact made by Umar (رضي الله عنه).
The Aya Sofya in contrast was taken by absolute conquest. The building was handed over to Mehmed unconditionally. Mehmed taking control of the building represents his absolute control of Constantinople and Rome itself as the political authority of the Kaizer is firmly entrenched with the site.
Second.
Aya Sofia was not JUST a Church. It was a political complex that belonged to the Kaizer of Rome whose authority even in a figurative sense extended to the Aegean, the Black Sea and all of Eastern Mediterranean.
The goal of Jihad is to establish the absolute political supremacy of Islam. And letting Aya Sofia remain in the hands of the Christians completely defeats the purpose.
It makes no sense to let Christians have control of such an important political institution that can contest Muslim political authority.
Third.
According to the Firman above it is clear that Mehmet II adhered to the Quran and Sunnah regarding maintaining the pluralism of pilgrimage sites.
The obvious conclusion from this is that the Aya Sofia was not a pilgrimage site.
It has no theological or historical ties to Isa(عليه السلام) except it was a building where Christians worshipped. It was a Church simply because the Emperor was Christian. If the Emperor was Pagan the Church would have existed as a Pagan temple.
The Church itself was established over a Pagan building. Pagan symbolism is still apparent throughout the iconography.
So it is clear that Christians uprooted a prior religion before establishing their own supremacy in that site.
So do any Christian offer to share the Church with Pagans? Or were the Orthodox Christians ever content with sharing the Church with the Catholics?
The very suggestion would be deemed blasphemous and an insult.
Because the building was a symbol of social, religious and most importantly POLITICAL authority.
And if the Aya Sofya was a pilgrimage site, or making it into a Masjid violated any divine sanction, Fuqaha from Shaam and the Mamluk Sultanate would have raised an issue about it to discredit Mehmed II. They had all the reasons to.
But they didn't.
This modern interpretation of apparent violation of the rights of the Ahle Kitab by Mehmed II stems entirely from the Islamophobia and Colonized Muslims whose goal is not the supremacy of Islam but to maintain their unholy alliance and ensure the supremacy of the kuffar.
To read more about the Pagan roots of the site the Aya Sofya was built on, check the links below:
Pagan symbols in Hagia Sophia
As many of you know, Hagia Sophia was once a Bizantine church. It was converted to a Mosque by Sultan Mehmed II and nowadays it is a museum. Most of the
www.travelreportage.com
