Hagia Sophia; Legal Analysis Review

[Saiyan0321]

Now at the end of july i wrote a bit of a study on the Hagia Sophia conversion which was submitted to PDF as article but wasnt published and you guys were having your own fight with them. I wanted you guys to read it and tell me how you guys see the conversion in light of law and not in light of morals but in light of whether the government was empowered to make such a decision or not. I am also interested in what your lawyers and jurists have stated. Surely this must have been a huge discussion in the legal circles. We start building a road here and the legal fraternity starts looking into whether that act is legal or not. Here it is. Look into it and tell me where i am wrong or right because i dont know turkish law. My inability to read turkish has not helped the situation.

Recently the Turkish top court had announced its verdict where it declared the conversion of the Hagia Sophia mosque into the museum in 1935 by President Kemal Ataturk. The verdict has seen both condemnation as well as condonation and some have even declared it as the death of secularism in Turkey. This article will not indulge into discussions of such nor as to whether there existed political motives behind Hagia Sophia decision or not. What it will look to analyze is the legal standing of the decision and what legal mindset did the Turkish court utilized when they announced the decision. The history of the Hagia Sohpia is no secret. It was part of the Byzantine Empire’s central city Constantinople and built as a Church and this was as such till 1453 (ignoring the small periods of interruptions such as the Latin occupation of Constantinople). From a period of 1453 to 1935, the Church was converted into a Mosque and Hagia Sohpia became the Mosque of Ayasofia and became the central symbol of Ottoman rule which worked as a religious congregation as well as religious school for a period of time. This was until 1935 when Kemal Ataturk and his cabinet passed a decree declaring Ayasofia to be a museum and it remained such till 2020 when Erdogan declared efforts to bring back the mosque. This has been going on since 2018 and by 2020 the matter was resolved with a court decision that declared in its judgment two major points.

· That the Cabinet decision in 1934 that ended its usage as a mosque and defined it as a museum did not comply with laws.

· That the settlement deed had allocated it as a mosque and its usage outside of such character is not legal.

These two were the major reasons behind the decision to declare the 1934 decision of the Cabinet and Ataturk as void. Now let us take a look into the first reasoning of such.

In 1934, the country was not home to the current constitutional structure nor was it home to the 1961 Constitution which was considered the most secular form of Constitution the country had. The country was home to the 1924 Constitution which had replaced the 1921 Constitution and it was this famous constitution, drawn after the Treaty of Louisiana 1923, which ended the Ottoman Caliphate and gave rise to the Republic of Turkey. It granted powers to the President and the Grand National Assembly, attempting to strike a balance between the two. According to the 1924 Constitution Article 26 stipulated the powers of the Grand National Assembly which included ‘holy law’. The term ‘holy law’ cannot be described as law in general since immediately after the next powers is the creation, amendment and abrogation of law. This highlights that within the power sphere of the Grand National Assembly, there existed the duty to manage ‘holy law’ and there existed the capability to legislate law. The conversion of the Hagia Sophia as a museum was done through a cabinet decision yet such conversion would have meant that the status of a religious site would have changed which the Article had given to the Grand National Assembly. The doctrine of Laicism was adopted into the Constitutional framework in 1937. It must also be stated that the Courts most likely took into account the Section 5 of the Constitution as well which took into account Freedom of Religion and it is a said principle that the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms are the rights which neither the state can abrogate nor set aside besides the procedure given within the Constitutional setup. The freedoms shall always exist and these freedoms are not just for the minority but for the majority as well and these freedoms are protected by courts all over the world and the state cannot interfere in them.

The protection of religious places is something Turkey has enshrined in several Constitutions that have come to pass and this freedom has been allotted to all its citizens. The decree of converting a frequented mosque where religious practice was common and religious studies were common as well, to any other form would be considered as a breakage of Turkey’s own freedom of religion law which is enshrined in the Constitution of Turkey be it 1924, be it 1961 or be it 2010.

The two most likely reasons the court looked into were the Freedom of Religion and the fact that Holy law was placed under the Grand National Assembly and the establishment of the ‘Diyanet isleri Baskanligi’ which in English is the directorate of religious affairs through the Grand National Assembly, under whom came the management of all mosques of the country which included the AyaSofia. The GNA could not have provided nor created such a department if it did not have the legislative authority over the religion and all things concerning the religion.


The second argument the court took concerned whether the State had the authority to change the nature of AyaSofia from a mosque and into a museum. To understand this we must first understand how the Hagia Sophia became the mosque of AyaSofia. After Sultan Mehmet conquered Constantinople in 1453, he looked to take possession of the Hagia Sophia and while had made the royal decree that post the three days of the fall of the city, the entirety of the city would come under state property however this did not mean that he became the owner of all religious places since he had also allowed for the protection of religious places. Post his Azan at the Hagia Sophia, he wished to convert it into a mosque and to do that, he purchased the property from his personal wealth and then converted it into a mosque. Now this act made it that the Sultan had become the legal owner of the property and as such he could anything he desired to it in accordance to personal property law. His conversion of the Church into a Mosque thus gained legitimacy in the eye of the law. Now we must understand that many would argue based on morals but in law a person has absolute right to do what he wants with his personal property and his decision to convert his personal property was legal and this has been highlighted in this decision. The court did not look into concepts of religion or Right and Left wings but upon the legal standing of such acts. Now in the ‘Treaty of Louisiana’ the Republic of Turkey was declared as the successor state to the Ottoman Empire which means that the Republic of Turkey is the rightful inheritor of all treaties that the Ottoman Empire partook in be it internal business or external which means that the purchase of the land was recognized by the Republic of Turkey. The court took this into cognizance as well. One of the most interested aspects that the judges could have taken into consideration was the easement right that the Muslims had enjoyed all these years. The sultan had bought the Church and turned it into a Mosque thus no easement right could be claimed by those that frequented the Church since the Sultan had claimed the area with the desire to build a mosque and immediately did so thus the doctrine of Easements by Estoppel could not be applied here since both party perfectly knew that the Church would no longer function as a Church but would function as a Mosque. From 1453 to 1935, the Muslims have used that place as a mosque and such a duration of usage creates certain rights upon the land as easement and such uninterrupted easement could not be so easily removed since neither was there any abandonment nor was there any expiration nor was there any release. Easement rights are recognized in the Turkish civil code most importantly in Article 786 of the civil code. The Turkish administrative court did not look into easement rights but did mention that for a long period of time, the area had been a mosque and as such its conversion could not be so easily done.

While the Treaty of Louisiana did indeed state that Turkey must allow freedom and protection for its non-muslim citizens however the Treaty of Sevres and Treaty of Louisiana did declare Constantinople as Turkish territory and none of them especially the Treaty of Louisiana, mentioned the Hagia Sophia which means that they provided their approval to the conversion as well as recognized the sovereignty of Turkey upon Hagia Sophia thus neither Greece nor the other signatories nor the states that recognized Turkey post the Treaty have any locus standi upon the matter since they have recognized the sovereignty of Turkey on this issue.

The events that are unfolding in Turkey, do indeed create cause for concern for many and it is a very controversial issue however to those that are dissatisfied by the courts decision, it must be conveyed that whether in 1961 or in 2020, the court would have passed the same judgment. The legality of the conversion was not based soundly on law and had it went through proper procedures by an act of the GNA where it would have stipulated that as Mehmet had purchased the land, the Republic of Turkey has purchased the AyaSofia and through this ownership of state, does the GNA through the constitutional authority given in the Constitution of 1924, convert it into a museum, then perhaps the case for its status as a museum would have been stronger. If the courts had taken a contrary opinion then they would have had to answer to as to why the Purchase was illegal and the conversion into mosque illegal as well and if AyaSofia was illegally converted then what about other areas in Turkey which had seen similar conversions? Then ofcourse the question would have been about whether state can interfere into Waqf land or into other religious places as well and where would that come under Freedom of Religion and lastly does the Cabinet and the President hold such powers where they can declare Religious places and lands into such enterprises and should the state be given such powers of conversion? The courts took a legal stand.

The battle between religious Turkey and secular Turkey based on Kemalism and Laicism is entirely the argument between the people of Turkey and in these times any step would be seen through this lens yet blaming the courts for a legal decision is not fruitful. It is highly doubtful that the courts would have given any decision to the contrary whenever such would have been challenged.

 

[Saiyan0321]

@Cabatli_53 @T-123456 @Test7 @Blackeyes90 @ANMDT @Combat-Master @Predator @Kartal1

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri

 

[Blackeyes90]

@Saiyan0321 I can only speak for myself. Here is what i think. I think that Atatürk wanted to reassure Greek minority and World powers that newly founded Republic was going to treat everyone equally. And that decision in 1934 to convert Hagia Sophia wasnt the only one that year. there is also a letter to ANZAC mothers.

Keep in mind the year was the same 1934. I assume Atatürk wanted to reach Western Powers and show them Turkey was a legitamate country and a potiential ally in the Middleeast. This is my interpitation of the year 1934. Lets go to Today;

Now do i have a problem with the Hagia Sophia becaming a mosque ? - NO. But you cant give one minorities more right and abandon others to their fate. That's what Erdoğan did. It was a clear abuse of power. He wanted to get more popularity and he get a little. Turkish people realise that of course.

Now you might be asking yourself ; Should we reverse that decision ? I would say NO again. Because like always Erdoğan did right things for the wrong reasons. Even though it was wrong to give one minorities this much attention it open the door to other minorities such as Allevites and Christian and Jews. What we need is a Complete religious reform that will solitify secularism. This can happen in the future. Turkish youth is understanding and i believe they will change this course.

 

[Saithan]

Treaty of Lausanne

Its conversion doesn’t need to be analyzed or discussed as much as it has been. One government made it a museum in times where we had to prove we could coexist with others. And another government decision made it as mosque. There is a time and place for everything.

It’s good and fine that it’s a mosque, but like I pointed out whether it’s a mosque or museum doesn’t matter for me. There are more important issue to be dealt with.

 

[Saiyan0321]

@Saiyan0321 I can only speak for myself. Here is what i think. I think that Atatürk wanted to reassure Greek minority and World powers that newly founded Republic was going to treat everyone equally. And that decision in 1934 to convert Hagia Sophia wasnt the only one that year. there is also a letter to ANZAC mothers.

Keep in mind the year was the same 1934. I assume Atatürk wanted to reach Western Powers and show them Turkey was a legitamate country and a potiential ally in the Middleeast. This is my interpitation of the year 1934. Lets go to Today;

Now do i have a problem with the Hagia Sophia becaming a mosque ? - NO. But you cant give one minorities more right and abandon others to their fate. That's what Erdoğan did. It was a clear abuse of power. He wanted to get more popularity and he get a little. Turkish people realise that of course.

Now you might be asking yourself ; Should we reverse that decision ? I would say NO again. Because like always Erdoğan did right things for the wrong reasons. Even though it was wrong to give one minorities this much attention it open the door to other minorities such as Allevites and Christian and Jews. What we need is a Complete religious reform that will solitify secularism. This can happen in the future. Turkish youth is understanding and i believe they will change this course.

Indeed and we must also understand that Ataturk himself would have wanted a nation built on equal principles rather than a theocratic state that would use islam for personal gain which we see is common in a theocracy plus the Ottoman Empire had islamic roots and their reign did see one religion gain central importance at the expense of others which is exactly what religion based states and theocracies are. Another thing i like to look at is the impact of WW1 to the secular nature of the turkish founding father and turkish state.
During the world war the ottoman state had declared Jihad which as a caliph he had the religious authority to declare however that call fell on deaf ears. While Pakistanis along with others point to the this movement and that movement to hide their guilt but the fact is that the call fell on deaf ears and British Indians, many muslims within the army would go on to help the british war effort. Why is this fact ignored? Muslims composed part of the British army.
So we have a commander who is watching his men get butchered on strategic spots defending inches of land repeatedly again and again against soldiers from the British India which were 16000 to 20,000 i believe. In that moment, looking back at those calls of Jihad, one would become disillusioned with the impact of Pan-Islamic notions and the role of religion in politics and international affairs. Lets not forget that the commander would watch his entire country fall to ruin in front of his eyes while the muslim nations did little to nothing. Had they started civil wars, insurrections and occupied the british to their domains, the commanders country would not have fallen. While he may not have ever stated it, this would have had an impact on his views on importance of religion.

Attaturk indeed wanted to do it and i think he also wanted to display that a muslim nation could function under secular principles as well and as one can see that it not only can but can become the envy of the muslim nations.

Never go back on an Islamic step. Thats the first rule of theocratic politics. The religious section will tear you apart. It was the same problem with us. We didnt define what a muslim is till 1974 and it was fine till then however now that it has been defined, we cant go back no matter what without creating a huge fire. Any leader that would turn the mosque back into a museum would find himself in an uncomfortable position and many wont bother without great benefit.

 

[TR_123456]

Indeed and we must also understand that Ataturk himself would have wanted a nation built on equal principles rather than a theocratic state that would use islam for personal gain which we see is common in a theocracy plus the Ottoman Empire had islamic roots and their reign did see one religion gain central importance at the expense of others which is exactly what religion based states and theocracies are. Another thing i like to look at is the impact of WW1 to the secular nature of the turkish founding father and turkish state.
During the world war the ottoman state had declared Jihad which as a caliph he had the religious authority to declare however that call fell on deaf ears. While Pakistanis along with others point to the this movement and that movement to hide their guilt but the fact is that the call fell on deaf ears and British Indians, many muslims within the army would go on to help the british war effort. Why is this fact ignored? Muslims composed part of the British army.
So we have a commander who is watching his men get butchered on strategic spots defending inches of land repeatedly again and again against soldiers from the British India which were 16000 to 20,000 i believe. In that moment, looking back at those calls of Jihad, one would become disillusioned with the impact of Pan-Islamic notions and the role of religion in politics and international affairs. Lets not forget that the commander would watch his entire country fall to ruin in front of his eyes while the muslim nations did little to nothing. Had they started civil wars, insurrections and occupied the british to their domains, the commanders country would not have fallen. While he may not have ever stated it, this would have had an impact on his views on importance of religion.

Attaturk indeed wanted to do it and i think he also wanted to display that a muslim nation could function under secular principles as well and as one can see that it not only can but can become the envy of the muslim nations.

Never go back on an Islamic step. Thats the first rule of theocratic politics. The religious section will tear you apart. It was the same problem with us. We didnt define what a muslim is till 1974 and it was fine till then however now that it has been defined, we cant go back no matter what without creating a huge fire. Any leader that would turn the mosque back into a museum would find himself in an uncomfortable position and many wont bother without great benefit.

Sometimes decisions are made ''in the moment'',wether it was right or wrong in the end is not an issue,at that moment in time.
Take the S-400 acquisition,a geo-politicly same situation as an example,it was a ''wrong'' decision but at the time it was taken,it was the best decision.
The same can be said about this situation,we already have over 85,000 mosques in my country,one more or less doesnt really matter.
This move can be seen as internal political to gain support,geo-political to be seen as the ''leader'' of the Muslim world(directed at the KSA/UAE axes),a message to the Western world or all together.
So,in the moment,it looks like a good decision.
Remains the question:Who is looking?

 

[Ryder]

To be honest im happy with Hagia sophia becoming a mosque.

Im not a religious person but neither do I smoke, drink or party. Do my best to follow my religion.

It was long overdue. We should not cuck ourselves to appease anybody. Islam allows the conversion of churches, temples and other places of worship that got conquered to be turned into mosques.

Ottomans and Mamluks may not be perfect but they knew their religion that most frauds today.

People should not compare this to isis or whatever fanatical so called Islamic terrorist group. Because if isis captured hagia sophia they would have looted it or even destroyed it they would have used a religious justification for it.

Law of conquest is natural so many mosques were destroyed or turned into churches due to Muslims suffering defeat like Cordoba. Im not whining or crying because it was natural. We lost cordoba but got hagia sophia in return.

Turkey is still a secular country. In a democracy the majority decide.

 

[Anmdt]

Treaty of Lausanne

Its conversion doesn’t need to be analyzed or discussed as much as it has been. One government made it a museum in times where we had to prove we could coexist with others. And another government decision made it as mosque. There is a time and place for everything.

It’s good and fine that it’s a mosque, but like I pointed out whether it’s a mosque or museum doesn’t matter for me. There are more important issue to be dealt with.

It wasn't government which has decided that but top court has cancelled the law which allowed hagia sophia's conversion to a museum.
And strangely, precidency has published a negative opinion on matter, to the top court yet top court has decided such.
If i am not mistaken presidency has objected to the cancellation of law (strange)
Some says they have done it to further stop objections in the future when government may be replaced the presidency position was misused to "consume" all legal ways of the objection such that cancellation of the law becomes assured.

We can discuss whether it is right or wrong, but we can not discuss legality. Legality is an internal matter of Turkish republic, and the court has ruled the cancellation of the law which rules conversion to the museum, in legal basis according the laws of the Turkish republic.

 

[Ryder]

Sometimes decisions are made ''in the moment'',wether it was right or wrong in the end is not an issue,at that moment in time.
Take the S-400 acquisition,a geo-politicly same situation as an example,it was a ''wrong'' decision but at the time it was taken,it was the best decision.
The same can be said about this situation,we already have over 85,000 mosques in my country,one more or less doesnt really matter.
This move can be seen as internal political to gain support,geo-political to be seen as the ''leader'' of the Muslim world(directed at the KSA/UAE axes),a message to the Western world or all together.
So,in the moment,it looks like a good decision.
Remains the question:Who is looking?

The Arabs laid siege to Constantinople twice which they failed. I think they are oppose to Hagia sophia becoming a mosque because Muslim Turks not Muslim Arabs succeeded in taking the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. The hadith of taking constantinople became a must for any Muslim ruler. Surprising how Timur Lenk could have not just destroy the Ottomans he could have in the process destroy the Byzantine Empire and take their capital but I guess it was secondary to his aims as he turned his attention towards China as he wanted to rebuild the Mongol Empire.

Islamic history you can basically say the Turks, Arabs and Persians all clashed to be the top. Just like how you had various Christian Kingdoms or Empires who clashed for the supremacy of Christendom.

There is already enough mosques but hagia sophia is prefered because its special due to history of conquest many are like why build new ones that will go to waste when we want Hagia sophia back.

 

[dani92]

To be honest im happy with Hagia sophia becoming a mosque.

Im not a religious person but neither do I smoke, drink or party. Do my best to follow my religion.

It was long overdue. We should not cuck ourselves to appease anybody. Islam allows the conversion of churches, temples and other places of worship that got conquered to be turned into mosques.

Ottomans and Mamluks may not be perfect but they knew their religion that most frauds today.

People should not compare this to isis or whatever fanatical so called Islamic terrorist group. Because if isis captured hagia sophia they would have looted it or even destroyed it they would have used a religious justification for it.

Law of conquest is natural so many mosques were destroyed or turned into churches due to Muslims suffering defeat like Cordoba. Im not whining or crying because it was natural. We lost cordoba but got hagia sophia in return.

Turkey is still a secular country. In a democracy the majority decide.

Córdoba was a church and temple before that the same with Sophia if any want can claim ownership it should be the pagans

 

[Ryder]

Córdoba was a church and temple before that the same with Sophia if any want can claim ownership it should be the pagans

Im not going to disagree there. Muslims and christians are pretty hypocritical when it comes to these sort of issues. As both changed the places of worship into their own. Funny seeing us Muslims and christians throwing mud at each other when we both did the same thing.

 

[dani92]

Im not going to disagree there. Muslims and christians are pretty hypocritical when it comes to these sort of issues. As both changed the places of worship into their own. Funny seeing us Muslims and christians throwing mud at each other when we both did the same thing.

The same with Jews when they claim Jerusalem as theirs as if there was no people lived in the land of canaan before them

Christians are upset about the mosques issue but they ignore that many churches were infact a pagan temples like cordoba was gothic temple then a monestary then a mosque then became cathedral and ummyad mosque was Roman temple than a church then a mosque

 

[dani92]

The Arabs laid siege to Constantinople twice which they failed. I think they are oppose to Hagia sophia becoming a mosque because Muslim Turks not Muslim Arabs succeeded in taking the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. The hadith of taking constantinople became a must for any Muslim ruler. Surprising how Timur Lenk could have not just destroy the Ottomans he could have in the process destroy the Byzantine Empire and take their capital but I guess it was secondary to his aims as he turned his attention towards China as he wanted to rebuild the Mongol Empire.

Islamic history you can basically say the Turks, Arabs and Persians all clashed to be the top. Just like how you had various Christian Kingdoms or Empires who clashed for the supremacy of Christendom.

There is already enough mosques but hagia sophia is prefered because its special due to history of conquest many are like why build new ones that will go to waste when we want Hagia sophia back.

No even Erdogan haters aren’t against hagia Sofia decision but they knew Erdogan is playing of the feelings of the Muslims and Arabs.

as for Taking the city it wasn’t even a think since any Muslim power can take it easily in 14th century thanks to the fourth crusade the ottomans just had luck on their side.

 

[Ardabas34]

No even Erdogan haters aren’t against hagia Sofia decision but they knew Erdogan is playing of the feelings of the Muslims and Arabs.

as for Taking the city it wasn’t even a think since any Muslim power can take it easily in 14th century thanks to the fourth crusade the ottomans just had luck on their side.

There were 250 years between 4th crusade and 1453.
Byzantines had all the time to repair the defenses of their city.
The problem for them was that Turks continued to advance on them and strangled them. In 718 too Byzantines were in a very poor state, they lost all Anatolia but Arabs failed at taking the city. Byzantines changed the tide of war all the way to pushing Arabs out of Anatolia. It was catastrophic for Arabs. Ummayad Caliphate fell.

 

[dani92]

There were 250 years between 4th crusade and 1453.
Byzantines had all the time to repair the defenses of their city.
The problem for them was that Turks continued to advance on them and strangled them. In 718 too Byzantines were in a very poor state, they lost all Anatolia but Arabs failed at taking the city. Byzantines changed the tide of war all the way to pushing Arabs out of Anatolia. It was catastrophic for Arabs. Ummayad Caliphate fell.

After the fourth crusade the city was not the same also the problem wasn’t with defense since they had the same walls for centuries but the problem was with finance and population.

notice even a weak divide Ottoman Empire under one prince was about to take the city if wasn’t for his brother who attacked him this was after Timur invasion.

 

[Ardabas34]

After the fourth crusade the city was not the same also the problem wasn’t with defense since they had the same walls for centuries but the problem was with finance and population.

notice even a weak divide Ottoman Empire under one prince was about to take the city if wasn’t for his brother who attacked him this was after Timur invasion.

Fourth crusade damaged the city but they had 250 years to fix their situation. It was not like 4th crusade was yesterday and 1453 was tomarrow.
Why they couldnt and they slowly declined? Because Turkish invaders didnt give them the opportunity. We kept harrassing them.

If it was so simple to take the city, there were much stronger kingdoms in Balkans than the newborn Ottoman chiefdom after 1204 happened.

Also like you said Ottomans faced Timurid invasion and an 11 years of interregrum process(1402-1413), a civil war. Yet one prince managed to unify the kingdom and 30 years later fended off a crusade(Varna 1444) and 10 years after that, Ottomans were in front of the citys walls again. Byzantines had so much opportunity. So it doesnt make much sense to blame on a 250 years old catastrophe when your conqueror survived a civil war of 11 years just 40 years ago and successfuly fended off a crusade just 10 years ago.

 

[Oublious]

No even Erdogan haters aren’t against hagia Sofia decision but they knew Erdogan is playing of the feelings of the Muslims and Arabs.

as for Taking the city it wasn’t even a think since any Muslim power can take it easily in 14th century thanks to the fourth crusade the ottomans just had luck on their side.

LoL....

 

[dani92]

Fourth crusade damaged the city but they had 250 years to fix their situation. It was not like 4th crusade was yesterday and 1453 was tomarrow.
Why they couldnt and they slowly declined? Because Turkish invaders didnt give them the opportunity. We kept harrassing them.

If it was so simple to take the city, there were much stronger kingdoms in Balkans than the newborn Ottoman chiefdom after 1204 happened.

Also like you said Ottomans faced Timurid invasion and an 11 years of interregrum process(1402-1413), a civil war. Yet one prince managed to unify the kingdom and 30 years later fended off a crusade(Varna 1444) and 10 years after that, Ottomans were in front of the citys walls again. Byzantines had so much opportunity. So it doesnt make much sense to blame on a 250 years old catastrophe when your conqueror survived a civil war of 11 years just 40 years ago and successfuly fended off a crusade just 10 years ago.

I think due the ottoman had better administrative system from that of the Byzantine that’s why they recovered fast and Muslims in general were less fuedal than the Christians who relayed of fuedal lords , dukes armies while Muslims had standing armies for long times plus ghazi volunteers and other religious warriors also the Byzantine like you said after the fourth crusade they fought against Bulgarians, slavs, Italians, Seljuks and ottomans all these wars didn’t happen them recover from fourth crusade.

 

[dani92]

To be honest im happy with Hagia sophia becoming a mosque.

Im not a religious person but neither do I smoke, drink or party. Do my best to follow my religion.

It was long overdue. We should not cuck ourselves to appease anybody. Islam allows the conversion of churches, temples and other places of worship that got conquered to be turned into mosques.

Ottomans and Mamluks may not be perfect but they knew their religion that most frauds today.

People should not compare this to isis or whatever fanatical so called Islamic terrorist group. Because if isis captured hagia sophia they would have looted it or even destroyed it they would have used a religious justification for it.

Law of conquest is natural so many mosques were destroyed or turned into churches due to Muslims suffering defeat like Cordoba. Im not whining or crying because it was natural. We lost cordoba but got hagia sophia in return.

Turkey is still a secular country. In a democracy the majority decide.

Since when cordoba was your thing to lose to begin with just like a theif who steals then you take what he stole you don’t say he lost his money because he didn’t earn it the same with Hagia Sophia.

 

[Ryder]

Since when cordoba was your thing to lose to begin with just like a theif who steals then you take what he stole you don’t say he lost his money because he didn’t earn it the same with Hagia Sophia.

Spoils of war