Islamic Law in Constantinople - Transformation of Constantinople

Transformation of Constantinople

After the sac of Constantinople by Mehmad II in 1453, the Ottoman Sultan, as a Muslim ruler, was obliged to act in the conformity with the Muslim Holy law, the Shari’a. The Shari’a decrees that if a community of ahl al-kitab (literally, “people of the Book, in effect, Christians and Jews) rejects the obligatory invitation to surrender and continues to resist, they are treated as mushirk’s (those who admit partners to God, in effect, polytheists). When they have been subdued by force – anwatan qahran – no rights are conceded to them: their goods are legitimate booty and their children are reduced to slavery. Immovable property, or real estate, was defined as a different type of booty (Inalick 232). According to a principle that had been established long before the rise of the Ottomans had been accepted in Islamic land law, the freehold possessions over land, whether acquired by force or by peaceful occupation, belonged to the bayt al-mal, the state treasury. In other words the land belonged to the state. By Mehmad II relying on this theory he was able to defeat an aristocratic method and gain rise to a nationalist movement, by which the power resides within the state.

The Ottomans, in reorganizing the conquered the city, follow a series of established principles. According to the Shari’a, the inhabitants of a city or town which had responded to the invitation of surrender were left undisturbed in their homes, which the status of dhimmi, and their lives, their possessions, and their religion were fully protected by the Islamic state. By a precept of the Shari’a, statesman Mevquafati Sherhi proclaimed:

“If they accept the jizya, (poll tax) that which is due to us is due also to them, and that which is obligatory upon us is obligatory also upon them (Inalick 234).”

This is basically stating that after a Christian population had agreed to pay the supplementary due of the jizya, to which Muslims were not liable, they obtained from the imam (Arabic translation for leader) exactly the same rights and obligations as the Muslims enjoyed.

Some years later, in 1459, the Sultan took extraordinary measures to promote the prosperity and repopulation of Istanbul (Inalick 237). He regarded his nationalist effort to develop theological colleges, schools, public kitchens, all grouped around mosques, and have commercial buildings as a caravansary, as well as markets. This promotion of commerce and the increase of population were considered to be depended upon the creation of such facilities. At the end of 1459 Mehmad II sent out orders that Greeks who either before or after the conquest, had left Istanbul as slaves or refugees to live in other cities should return. All of whom did were given houses and plots of land, and promote in the nationalist effort. Houses were not merely just granted to Muslims slaves or refugees; but Christians as well, a deviation from the Shari’a. This obviously created a large backlash between the two communities due to ideological differences.

It is a prominent characteristic of Mehmed II’s policy that he sought to give prime emphasis in state affairs to the principal of ớrf (or urf translates to knowledge), the executive competence of the rule, and thus win absolute and unlimited authority for his own decisions. His contemporaries thought that he had pushed principal too far. At his death, many of the measures which he had taken were declared contrary to the Shari’a. In a letter of advice addressed to his successor, the maintained that Mehmed,

“By the counsel of mischief-maker’s and hypocrites,” had “infringed the Law of the Prophet and impaired the good order of the land (Inalick 247).”

Mehmed II, under the pressure of the Muslims and the Orthodox Christians, acted in the most diplomatic way possible, even with disregard to the Shari’a. Even though Medmed II was a representative for the people of Istanbul, the majority of the people, meaning Muslim’s, disagreed with his policy. In sense, he was an inapt representative. Change did occur, in the process, Mehmed II was despised among the original inhabitants of Constantinople and left the Ottoman residents alienated from traditional Shari’a governance. The significance of this argument can be found in present day policy. To be a new occupier of conquered land, the ruler will always be placed in a lose-lose situation, just as Mehmed II was. By no means will either party see to conform to another ideology, but ultimately, reject the ruler completely. Rules will be broken, and beliefs will be reconfigured to accustom to a new, reformed country; leaving the two traditional parties divided.