#Recently there was a controversy whether or not it was right for Turkey to reinstate Hagia Sophia as a mosque as it was prior to the kafir Mustafa Kemal turned it into a museum.
Their main objections was that Hagia Sophia was an orthodox church but after Ottoman Sultan Mehmet Al Fatih conquered Istanbul, He converted it into a mosque. This was considered as problematic by the objectors citing evidence about Hadhrat Umar al Khattab refusing to pray in the Church in Jerusalem. But this incident was when the people of Jerusalen readily accepted Muslim authority and signed a treaty. In Islam People who readily accept authority are treated with leniency and they are bestowed with more rights and the detaild will be laid down below. Anyway one thing must be crystal clear that if a city is captured forcefully by the Muslims then it becomes a property of Muslims.
I will be covering two issues here
- Issue of what is done with the places of worship of the Dhimmis after their land is conquered.
- Issue of impermissiblity of construction of Places of worship of Kuffars in Muslim lands.
Issue of what is done with the places of worship of the Dhimmis after their land is conquered.
Regarding the matter of what should be done with the places of worship of non muslims after muslims conquer their land.
THERE ARE TWO TYPE OF AHLUL DHIMMI
- CITIES CONQUERED PEACEFULLY
- CITIES THAT WERE CONQUERED FORCEFULLY
CITIES CONQUERED PEACEFULLY
Ibn Qudamah says:
"There are two types of cities that are conquered in peaceful ways:
- the first is cities that are left in the possession of their inhabitants with whom peace is made provided that they pay us the Kharaj tax . Since the land is theirs, they are allowed to construct the buildings they need.
- The second is cities that are turned over to the Muslims and peace is made with their inhabitants if they pay us the Jizya . The ruling that applies in those cities to synagogues and churches depends on whatever is agreed upon concerning the construction of buildings and the restoration of their status in the congregation (Ibn Qudamah, 1999).
This was the common approach among Islamic religious scholars except for Al-Subki, who in his fatwas forbids Dhimmis from constructing any building used for religious purposes in territories under the rule of Islam.
CITIES THAT WERE CONQUERED FORCEFULLY.
This applies to many of the cities conquered by Muslims through war and Jihad , against their inhabitants. In cities with standing churches, synagogues, monasteries, and Zoroastrian temples, were their inhabitants allowed to keep or construct additional places of worship?
There are two approaches to the question of keeping and not destroying such places of worship:
OPINION 1
- Such places should be demolished and should not continue to exist.
- These cities have become Muslim property so places that symbolize heresy should not be acknowledged, the same as in the cities established by Muslims.
- This corresponds with the words of the Prophet: "Two Qiblas in one land is not right . "
- It is also forbidden to allow places that symbolize immorality to continue to exist, such as public houses and brothels, because there the synagogues and churches have become Muslim property. It is also forbidden to enable the heretics to practice heretic rituals by selling them or leasing to them such buildings. Also, Allah almighty ordered to practice Jihad until everything becomes his, so enabling them to exhibit heretic symbols in those lands promotes polytheism.
OPINION 2
According to Ibn ‘Abbas, such places may be left untouched:
"In any city established by non-Arabs and conquered and inhabited by the Arabs with the grace of Allah, non-Arabs will be allowed to keep whatever possession they previously had.
"The Messenger of Allah conquered
Khaybar forcefully and acknowledged their places of worship and did not demolish them, and the Sahaba conquered many of the cities forcefully, they did not demolish the churches that existed there. This is evident from the existence of churches and synagogues in the cities that were conquered forcefully; it is known without any doubt those structures were not built after the conquests but had existed before.
This is also evident in what ‘Umar Bin‘Abdulaziz (682-720H) was an Umayyad caliph who ruled from 717 to 720H, wrote to his workers:
"Do not demolish any church, any synagogue, and any Zoroastrian temple ."
HARMONIZING TWO OPINIONS
Ibn Al-Qayyiam may Allaah have mercy upon him said about the issue of destroying churches in the lands that are conquered by force:
- "The sound opinion is that the ruler should do whatever achieves the interest of Muslims. If their interest lies in taking or removing them, because of the great number of churches or the need of Muslims for some of them or because of the small number of non-Muslims in that land, then he can take them or remove them according to the interest.
- On the other hand, if leaving them involves greater interest for the great number of non-Muslims and their need for them, while Muslims do not need them, he can leave them... By such detail, evidences are reconciled together.
- This is the opinion adopted by our Shaykh (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah).
- It is also proved by the action of the rightly-guided caliphs and those who came after them of the guided scholars. ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdel Azeez destroyed of them what he viewed that destroying them achieved the interest of Muslims and he left what he viewed that leaving them achieved the interest of Muslims." [End quote]
Ibn Al-Qayyiam may Allaah have mercy upon him had said before that:
"The Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, conquered Khaybar by force and left their places of worship and did not destroy them. Also, the Companions of the Prophet, sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, conquered many countries by force and did not destroy any of the churches in them." [Abridged from Ibn Al-Qayyiam's book Ahkaam Ahl Ath-Thimmah]
I am also quoting the fatwa of a contemporary hanafi deobandi mufti - Mufti Zameelur Rehman when he was asked regarding this issue. This is what he had to say.
"I would advise reading Shurunbulali's risala on the topic
- If a town is liberated by force, then the places of worship can be removed, converted etc.
- If liberated by agreement (sulh) and part of the agreement includes allowing them to use their churches etc., then existing places of worship cannot be destroyed
- Any new places of worship that are erected must be destroyed".
As for the matter of converting a previous place of worship be it a temple or a church, this is known to be permissible from the following hadith of rasulULLAH salALLAHu alayhi wasallam :
From Talq ibn ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him): “We went out as a delegation to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). We gave bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to him and prayed with him. We told him that in our land we had a place of worship [the word used indicates a Jewish or Christian place of worship], and we asked him to give us some of the water left over from his wudoo’, so he called for water and did wudoo’ and rinsed out his mouth, then he poured that water into a vessel and told us, ‘Go, and when you reach your land, knock down that place of worship and sprinkle this water over the place, then use that place as a mosque.’ We said, ‘Our land is far away and the heat is intense, the water will dry up.’ He said, ‘Add more water to it, it will only increase it in goodness.’ So we set out and when we reached our land, we knocked down our place of worship, sprinkled water on the place and used it as a mosque. We called the adhaan there, and when the monk, a man from Tayyi’, heard it, he said, ‘The call of truth!’ then he climbed one of our hills and we never saw him again.” (Reported by al-Nasaa’i, 694). And Allaah knows best.
The building itself does not need to be destroyed so long as its roof, walls etc. can be put to use and architectural alterations can be made, after removing all the symbols of Shirk and other forbidden things, so that the structure of the building will match the rows of prayer, facing the direction of the Ka’bah. Allaah is the source of strength and He knows best.
"As for the ruling that applies to the construction of new churches in those cities.
Islamic religious scholars from the Hanafi, Shafi‘i, Hanbali, schools rule that Dhimmis are not allowed to establish new churches in those cities because they became the property of the Muslims and here we come to the next issue.
Issue of impermissiblity of construction of Places of worship of Kuffars in Muslim lands.
I have quoted evidence from 4 madhahibs and also the consensus of ulama on the matter that non muslims are not allowed to build their places of worship in muslim lands.
Regarding the ruling whether it's permissible to build places of worship by dhimmis in muslim lands.
First lets define what is muslim lands.
As for the establishment of Amsar(muslim cities),
Abu ‘Ubayda mentioned in his book
Al-Amwal that such cities are established in several ways:
- cities whose inhabitants convert to Islam without war and fighting, such as Al-Medina, Al-Taief, and Yemen;
- cities that did not exist prior to Islam and that were designed and constructed by Muslims, such as Kufa, Basra, and the fortified strongholds names-Al-dhughur.
- and every village that was conquered forcefully.
These are all amsar where Dhimmis resided.
Islamic legal scholars agreed that in Muslim cities where Islamic rituals were held and the rules of Islam were applied, non-Muslims were neither allowed to establish places of worship nor exhibit their rituals nor sound their bells publicly. In Muslim cities where dhimmis had already established places of worship it was forbidden to destroy them but they could neither exhibit their rituals nor publicly invite to their faith. Islamic legal scholars referred to this as follows:
The Hanafi School
Al-Sarakhsi said:
“and they shall not be allowed to build synagogues and churches in Muslim cities. They shall also not be allowed to publicly sell wine in Muslim cities as these dishonors the Muslims and the Dhimma contract these people were given, so it is an immoral act on their part. They should also not be allowed to publicly drink wine, play musical instruments, and wander about drunk in Muslim cities as these dishonors the Muslims.
"The book Al-Seyar Al-Kabir explains: "And if there are dhimmi villages in the barren land close to the city established by the Muslims, and those villages have churches, synagogues, or Zoroastrian temples, they should be left untouched because they are a people of peace, and as such, they are entitled to living unharmed as prescribed by the rules. And if they have a holiday in which they take out their crosses, let them do that in their old churches; but taking the crosses out of the churches to exhibit them in the Muslim city that shall be forbidden"
(Al Sarkhasi,1905/1385. ).
The Maliki School
it is written in the
Al-Mudawina :
"I said: did you see Malik saying: The Christians are not allowed to establish churches in Muslim cities? He said: yes, Malik hates that"
( Malik Ibn Ans 1323/1905).
Al-Dardir said in Al-Sharh Al-Kabir
: "As for cities planned by Muslims such as Cairo, it shall not be allowed to establish [churches] in them on the basis of an agreement."
The Shafi‘i School
Al-Mawardi said in the Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniyya :
"They shall neither be allowed to establish synagogues nor churches in Muslim territories; and if they do establish them, those buildings shall be destroyed" (Al-Mawardi 1980)
Al-Subaki says in his fatwas:
"It is unanimously forbidden to either build churches or renovate them."
The Islamic legal scholars said:
"If a will prescribes that a church
be built, that will is void since building or renovating churches is considered an act of disobedience regardless of whether the testator is Muslim or a heretic. If a will prescribes that a church shall become a religious endowment, the endowment is void whether it is made by a Muslim or a heretic. Building, reconstructing, and renovating the church shall be considered an act of disobedience, as explained by the Prophet "
( Al-Mawardi 1980)
The Hanbali School
Ibn Qudama , who cited Ibn al-Mundhir, says:
"It is forbidden in cities established by Muslims, such as Basra, Kufa, Bagdad, and Wasit, to establish churches, synagogues, and places of gathering for praying, and they shall not be forgiven for such acts."
and Al-Rahibani says:
"And they shall neither be allowed to establish churches and synagogues in Muslim territories nor construct gathering places for praying and monasteries for monks
(Ibn Qudamah,1999) ."Rulings from the Prophetic Sunna:
Al-Bayhaqi , who also cited Ibn al-Mundhir, in his Sunan
quoted Ibn Abbas quoting the Messenger of Allah: "There is no castration in Islam and no church".
This was quoted by Abu ‘Ubayd as reference. The same meaning appears in the story told in its entirety by Ibn ‘Adi about Umar Bin Al-Khattab (Ibn ‘Adi, Al-Kamil, 1984).
Ibn ‘Abbas is mentioned in a story by Ahmad and Ibn Dawud and is also
quoted by Al-Tirmidhi as saying: “
Two Qiblas in one land is not right, and Muslims should not pay Jizya.”
Ibn Abi Shaybah’s book includes the following as reference:
“Ibn Abbas was told: Are non-Arabs allowed to construct buildings or synagogues in Muslim cities? And he said: Non-Arabs are not allowed to build any structure in any Muslim city established by Muslims! They are neither allowed to sound a bell nor drink wine nor buy a pig.”
It is told that Al-Hasan hated synagogues to be left in Muslim cities (Ibn Abi Shaibah. n. d.)
.
This is also mentioned in
Al-Amwal by Abi Ubayd as reference: “ ‘Umar Bin Al-Khattab said:You shall not demolish any church, synagogue, or Zoroastrian temple, and you shall not establish any church, synagogue, or Zoroastrian temple;
Umar is also quoted saying:
“Discipline the cavalry and me and refrain from the ethics of non-Arabs; [or] live in the proximity of pigs, where you can display the cross freely.”
These Hadiths were told by Al-Bayhaqi in his Sunnans.(Al-Bayhaqi ,1971)
From the Ijma‘(the consensus among Islamic legal scholars): more than one Islamic legal scholar mentioned the consensus regarding this ruling. Al-Kamal says: "Islamic religious scholars unanimously agree that it is neither allowed to establish synagogues nor churches, gathering places for praying, and monasteries in cities established by Muslims, such as Kufa, Basra, Baghdad, and Wasit. They (dhimmis) are not allowed to drink wine, buy pigs, and sound their bells in those cities as well.”
This ruling is also mentioned by Ibn Nujim in Al-Bahr, and by Al-Subaki in his fatwas.The Ijma‘ also mentions Ibn Taymiyya, who is quoted by the
school’s religious scholars.
Ibn Muflih says in Al-Furu‘:
"And they are not allowed to establish synagogues and churches, as mentioned by our sheikh as a consensus;" and Taqi Al-Din Subki said: “As a consensus."
The agreement between Islamic legal scholars is confirmed by the similarity and unanimity of their ruling on this question(Ibn Muflih, 1989)
.
Unlike the others, Abu Hanifa says it is permitted to establish churches and synagogues in villages, but not in Muslim cities.
But reality shows that what the imam
said only applied to the areas surrounding Kufa where the inhabitants were Dhimmis, so no general ruling applied to all villages.
Al-Kanasi says: "
It was said that Abu Hanifa only permitted that at the time since the majority of the population in those areas was Zoroastrian dhimmis".
Ibn ‘Abidin, who said: “It is forbidden to establish a church in the villages and whoever issues a fatwa permitting to do so is wrong and shall be secluded.”
It is reasonable that exhibiting the heretic rituals in Muslim cities is an act of dishonor and mockery of the Muslims. The Muslims solely strive to establish the words of Allah as the highest authority (Sarkhasi,1385).
CONCLUSION.
As for the matter of Hagia Sophia being reinstated as a mosque, its all valid. Because the circumstance in which Sultan Mehmet Fatih converted it into a mosque was valid and a noble act and people prayed there for 500 years before the kafir secular tyrant Mustafa Kemal converted it into a museum which he has no right to do. As of now Istanbul has been a muslim city for more than 500 years and as such the muslims have all right to do what they wish with their belongings. It even makes sense from a rational perspective that I get to decide what I get to do with my belongings particularly when the original claimants i.e the orthodox christians don't have any say on the matter as Istanbul is a Muslim city lived and established further by the Muslims and Muslims are its inhabitants.