Religion for PeaceWorld for Peace

Hagia Sophia Conversion into Mosque: Questions for our own introspection!

A fierce debate over the conversion of Hagia Sophia from Turkey into a mosque has raged from East to West. The world has already been split into two sides, at least in the virtual world, which certainly represents the reality of today.

Is there any cause to celebrate?

A lively debate is raging from East to West over the conversion of Turkey’s Hagia Sophia into a mosque. The debate over the topic has already been deeply split into two sides, at least in the virtual world, which is certainly a true representation of the world today.

Hagia Sophia Conversion into Mosque: Questions for our own introspection!While a community of Muslims rejoice, non-Muslims voice their frustration. This will undoubtedly have a huge effect on the relationships between religious groups, as well as on international politics.

The Muslims who celebrate it as their victory explain this act by claiming that, after capturing Constantinople in 1453, Turkey merely brought back the old use of the building as a mosque, as Sultan Fateh had bought it from Christians / non-Muslims, and rightly converted it to a mosque.

To justify this act, many of them often point to the fact that during the crusades of the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, numerous mosques were converted to churches and other forms of institutions in Europe.

To walk in their shoes

Can I ask some questions, my dear Muslim brothers and sisters, for our own introspection? Should we look into the matter now after wearing the non-Muslims’ shoes? And I think this is the custom that Allah SWT has instructed us to obey, as He said in verse 44 of Surah Al-Baqara:“Do you enjoin righteousness on people and forget your own selves even though you recite the Scripture? Have you no sense?”

And if I were allowed to ask a question, what would have been our reactions to the incident if we were the Christians or non-Muslims today? Were we sure this decision will satisfy us?

What would have been our reactions today if the Hagia Sophia were originally built as a mosque, then transformed into a church (after Christian conquerors purchased it from vanquished Muslims), then converted into a museum or mosque once again, and finally converted by a Christian / secular ruler of Turkey back into a church?

Had we accepted the decision? I’m sure we wouldn’t be happy anyway. Surely it would have hurt our religious feelings. The way it hurts us, and still hurts us, when mosques were turned into churches during the crusades, this decision to turn the Hagia Sophia into a mosque hurts Christians and non-Muslims around the globe, regardless of whether Sultan Fateh bought it or not.

When a warrior wins a battle, it subdues everything and everyone belonging to the conquered position, and no one has the courage to speak out against the conquerors, even if they are unjust.

No-one should dare to speak out for their inalienable rights. For years in Bangladesh and elsewhere in the world we have seen this phenomenon — how people change their places of worship in a moment of change in government.

The question is: Had anyone dared to say “no” to Sultan Fateh, a man who had just conquered the city with a lot of bloodshed, and his decision to buy the Hagia Sophia? I am sure there was no one. Should there not be a sense of apprehension about Sultan Fateh among the non-Muslims?

Coercion or free will?

Therefore the question naturally comes up: Did the conquered Christians happily and readily sell the Hagia Sophia? My guess is they were doing it under pressure, in terror. If, due to a sense of fear, even a very small amount of fear, the Christians decided to sell the Hagia Sophia, the act would be considered a julum act (repression) in the eyes of Allah.

Some Muslim brothers claim that Sultan Fateh did nothing wrong by transforming the Hagia Sophia into a mosque, because Islamic law allows Muslim conquerors to do whatever they wish, with the conquered and their land.

I’m not sure where the permission they get is. No Quranic verses or hadiths have I found, no precedents from the life of Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH) and his Sahabis for this theory. To the contrary, Quranic verses stipulate that Muslims (not just Muslims, in general, all human beings) are not allowed to do whatever they want after winning a war or in any condition.

Under no circumstances is allowed any injustice, any julum (stripping away any kind of human rights), and even any kind of work which creates a sense of fear among the people. Even in war Islam does not require innocent people to be killed in the name of “collateral damage.”

In this case the definition to follow is to be the minimalistic. If the war becomes inevitable, we will have to follow the means which would cause the least number of casualties.

The thing to note here is that war is imminent only if it hits you. None of the wars fought during the time of the Prophet Muhmmad (PBUH) were a willful act of the Rasul of Allah. All of them were defensive wars.

Justice and equity

Many claim that Muslim conquerors may make conquered citizens their slaves, and own the conquered ‘s property. To my interpretation, Muslim conquerors can only take the wealth or belongings left behind in their control, if there is no one to claim ownership.

Also, if they show their repentance the way that Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH) did after the capture of Makkah, they may be forgiven. Islam does not authorize Muslim conquerors in any way to take away the property and rights of citizens who were not directly / physically involved in the battle.

The question is: Why then does the same Islam encourage Muslim conquerors to carry on unbridled killing and pillaging after a war has been won? Why would the same Islam cause a church, synagogue, or temple to be converted into a mosque after the war, if there are still people there who would like to say their prayers?

Allah warned us repeatedly against taking away the freedoms of another (haq), no matter what the circumstances were.

A glaring example from the life of Islam’s second caliph Umar Ibn-ul Khattab (R) when he captured Jerusalem is given. He gave guarantees of protection to non-Muslims for themselves and their properties, their churches, their crosses, the sick and the well, and for all the rituals that belonged to their religions.

Some claim that Umar (R) captured Jerusalem by an agreement, not by battle. I wonder if that would make any difference to the defeated one. For the sake of argument, even if we were to believe that Muslims were able to destroy places of worship and convert them into mosques, wouldn’t it be an injustice to those non-Muslims who are by no means part of the battle, particularly given that Allah speaks against injustice in many places in the Qur’an?

Throughout verse 108 of Surah Al-Imran, Allah says: “These are God’s revelations — We do indeed recite them to you. And Allah does not mean cruelty to the species.” Therefore, after occupying cities and states, the concept of converting churches or temples into mosques is in clear contradiction with this verse.

Also, if Muslims are permitted to do this custom, it will extend to non-Muslims too. Would it not be an injustice from Allah (Naujubillah) if the non-Muslims are not permitted to do the same practice? Has Allah made a distinction in some of His decisions while dealing with the non believers?

Rather, in the Qur’an, He also talks about justice and equality for all people, not only among Muslims, and that’s what we Muslims preach as well.

So, what would you think if non-Muslims invaded Mecca, and the Kaaba is demolished or bought or converted into a church? Then what your place will be?

Finally, do the Muslims have the legal right to speak out against such a conqueror-led decision? Won’t that be an injustice to them, and so wouldn’t that contravene the principle that Allah commanded the believers to follow?

As He says in Sura Mai’dah’s verse 8: “Believers! Be upright bearers of witness for Allah, and do not let the enmity of any people move you to deviate from justice. Act justly, that is nearer to God-fearing. And fear Allah. Surely Allah is well aware of what you do.”

Some others claim that after the conquest of Mecca by Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH), Turkey put back a mosque to its old use, the way Kaaba was taken down. But no, that’s not it.

First of all, the Hagia Sophia was not a mosque when it was built, but the Kaaba was. Hagia Sophia “was born as a church, one of the icons of the Byzantine world,” as began an article in The Economist.

An example of magnanimity

Let me recall an event concerning the capture of Mecca. One day before the conquest of Mecca, Allah’s Rasul went to the Kaaba and asked to say prayers for his key, but the keeper did not give him the key. After the conquest of Mecca, Rasul of Allah found the key from the same person and of course he immediately gave it to the Prophet.

Imagine the situation of the caretaker at that time, who refused to give the key to the Prophet. He must have been shivering in fear. After taking the key, Allah’s Rasul opened the gate of the Kaaba, removed the idols, and returned the key to the same person again and said: “None but a kafir will take away the key from you.”

So, in every single situation, this is the degree of magnanimity Allah’s Rasul displayed, as he always did. In his life there are several instances of the magnanimity.

These events testify to the fact that at its highest level, Islam is associated with magnanimity and justice. That is Islam, Allah and His Rasul’s beauty. Islam came with magnanimity, not sword-power.

“No fault is laid against him who avenges himself after being wronged (42:41). Blame belongs only to those who are wrong-doing people and committing excesses on earth. We expect a painful chastisement (42:42). But he who endures and forgives patiently is a behavior of great resolve “(42:43).”

It is the code of conduct prescribed by Allah for humans and believers, where He favors mercy and patience to revenge.

In my understatement, in the coming days at least four far-reaching impacts of the Hagia Sophia problem will be produced in the world. They are as follows:

  1. This would help to depict Islam as a religion (philosophy) of revenge, as an occupying religion (philosophy) among humans, giving the Western argument that Islam came with the power of the sword some kind of credence.
  2. This will help grow a sense of hate among non-Muslims worldwide against Muslims (the virtual world is proof of that).
  3. This would allow ”anti-Islamic forces” to destroy Islamic structures around the world.
  4. This would tarnish the reputation of Islam as being an insaf religion (justice).

To the Muslim brothers and sisters who celebrate this as a victory, I have a few humble questions: Does Islam encourage hate and violence? How do we want to achieve by doing this kind of action?

May we think deeply again with our hearts, please, using our senses the way Allah asks us: “Do you have any sense?

Show More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA ImageChange Image

Back to top button
Translate »