Islamic law in Constantinople

After the fourth crusade, Constantinople was under an unstable aristocratic governance, in which a new system had to emerge to stop any further civil crisis amongst the people. This system, under the Ottoman Turks, was founded under Islamic principals, known as the Shari’a. Naturally, any new form of governance will see some resistance; but more importantly, how does Islamic law conform to the aristocratic governance of Constantinople.

Byzantine Rule

To first understand how Islamic Law changed the landscape of Constantinople, we must first examine how bureaucracy was set up for the dwindling Byzantine Empire, particularly Constantinople. The idea of Byzantium is usually associated with the picture of a powerful centralize state, which had at its disposal a vast bureaucratic machine, operating at a high degree of perfection. Such a picture did once correspond with the facts, but, over the centuries, developments drastically modified theses facts and nothing was left of the power and glory of earlier times except a few pathetic survivals, proud memories, and pretensions that could not be realized.

The transformation of Byzantine aristocracy was founded on Greek scientific ideas, Greco-Roman legal conceptions, and Christian theological doctrines. Interestingly enough, Byzantine aristocracy was not just set up by a matter of birth, exalted rank, and wealth; it also would require a fundamental Greek tradition in the arts and law. This affluent Aristocrat would give the empire a sense of cultural participation, which could be put in terms as penetrating, was a fundamental characteristic of Constantinople aristocracy, in turn, created a foundation of educated elite whom oversaw the empire. The ability to write in a florid classical language, skilled in the arts of philosophy, law and ethic’s, distinguished the elite from the ordinary citizens of Constantinople. Though Constantinople was rich in an aristocratic history, the social-economic factors plagued the Byzantine Empire after the fourth crusades. An anti-aristocratic movement was on the rise and spread rapidly all the way to the outer reaches of the broken Byzantine Empire. The cities governors fell from its ranks and the town councils were all in the hands of rebelling, anti-aristocratic representatives. The merchants and artisans that were in Constantinople, once regarded so highly, came to know as the “middling people” (Ostrogosky 20), according to the sources, and were completely overshadowed. These middling people, as a social class, were not much akin to the rising Ottoman merchants and artisans that came to flourish in the Byzantine Empire. Because of the alienation of the Byzantine artisans and merchants, a serious crisis emerged for the aristocracy of Constantinople. Because of territory being lost to the Ottoman Empire, on top of the emerging civil crisis, subdivisions were created and redistributions of territorial assets were taking place. Once final reckoning occurred, partly due to an empty treasury, as well as, a long and exhausted civil war, the unity of the sovereign authority became only a matter of theory.

Because the aristocracy of Constantinople had already been disenfranchised, it was relative easy for the Shari’a (literally meaning path), or Islamic Law, to be enforced upon by the people of Constantinople and it ruling Turks. More importantly, the people of Constantinople could still practice their faith of Orthodox Christianity. This was a guarantee right to non-Muslims residing under Islamic Law. The dhimma law particularly ensured this entitlement. The right to practice there faith, as well as, the right to maintain ancient shrines places of worship was one of the legal binding privileges in Constantinople. Nevertheless, closer, expropriation, and destruction were real dangers in the Byzantine Empire under Islamic rule. Not to say that Muslims didn’t follow the commandment of the Shari’a with regards to non-Muslim sanctuaries, they were just overzealous in the application of it. One particular instance is the Patriarchal Church, still in existence in Istanbul. This once Orthodox Christian church, was all to the glory of Constantinople. This monument exalted Byzantine craftsmanship, and was, more or less, a symbol of the Christian theocracy in Constantinople.

The fall of Constantinople and Transformation

Clearly the destruction or convergence of the Patriarchal Church would have been in violation of the Shari’a, particularly the dhimma law. So to avoid these direct violations Shari’a authorities released a firman (Persian meaning law) that claimed:

"“In the time of the [Ottoman] conquest [of Constantinople] the Muslim community used the so-called Patriarchal Church for the performance of Muslim prayers. It was only right and proper, then, that this church would be made into an exalted mosque. And an exalted mosque it did indeed become. As it stands now, this should not be regarded as an arbitrary action of [expropriating an existing church and] converting it illegally into a mosque (Peri 101-02).”"

As stated in the firman, what would be viewed as an illegal action in the Shari’a of confiscating the Church and converting it into a Mosque; but due to the fact that it was used for Islamic prayer, which, regarded by this source, has no proof to support the premise or the validity of such a claim, restoring the church into a Mosque is perfectly legal.

So in regard to the Shari’a, it can be seen that it, as well as the Patriarchal Church, took somewhat of a syncretism action. Thought the Shari’a wasn’t that monumental factor of a change, excluding the Patriarchal church, it still was an adaptation of a religious belief to establish authority and limit the rulings of the Christian aristocratic theocracy of Constantinople. The Converting of the Patriarchal Church not only promoted Islamic jurisprudence; but symbolized the ailing aristocracy of Constantinople and the entering of a new bureaucracy and law.

The politics of Constantinople under the Shari’a showed great advancements towards trade as a means of diplomacy between Christians and Muslims. The Byzantine aristocratic theory, though in shambles, pleased Ottoman rulers. To maintain a secure relation, as well as prevent political uprising, luxury gifts were shared. Many of the gifts included exotic animals such as giraffes and elephants, mechanical contraptions and Oriental textiles, kept relatively peaceful relations between the two sects. Because of the artisan background of Constantinople, the more exotic artifact that could be presented, the better it was for relations. Contrary to their Christian allusion, these works pandered to the Western taste for marvels of the East. It is well known that the Arabic scripture appeared and many medieval Byzantine and European work's of art, often without any knowledge on the part of its users that it enshrined Islamic political messages (Hillenbrand 389).

It is distinguishable that diplomatic ties must have been intact for Constantinople to flourish under Islamic Law. More or less, these relations were upheld by economic trading factors, not just solely by force. So for Constantinople, it still maintained an aristocracy, granted it was disenfranchised and subdivided; but the old system of elites from the philosophical background was intact even though the formal regulation was under the Shari’a. This presents of economic relations not only showed tolerance of both factions; but it also details that the foundation of a political structure can be built on one premise, greed. The acculturation can also be attributed to the close cultural ties with the Muslims and the Christians within Constantinople, with regards to the shared tastes of craftsman tailored artifacts. Sectors of Constantinople’s economic and political structures underwent important structural changes after the fourth crusade, particularly the mid-fifteenth century time frame. The main factors contributing to this evolution were constant interplay between micro- and macroeconomic factors, as well as between private initiative and political factors; geopolitical developments within and outside of Constantinople; and, finally, the border economic systems within the province were integrated, thus diversifying political, aristocratic, structure of Constantinople. After the conquest of Constantinople, the economy swiftly geared itself to Western demand, yet also took advantages of conjuncture to develop its bilateral exchanges with other religions. Credit was a major factor stimulating a growth in export-oriented products, as well as in short-and medium-range trade and transportation. In this respect, the political and economic factors were dynamic in regard to a new foundation of laws and political ideologies. In addition to the factors just mentioned, the intensification of local, regional, and trans-Mediterranean trade and shipping and the supply of services in their framework generated substantial infusion of cash into Constantinople, which from their major ports trickled through the various sectors of its economy. As a result, the whole region experienced an ever stronger economic and political interaction between the countryside, the cities, and maritime trade, as well as acceleration of monetary circulation (Jacoby 233).

The Ottoman Turks and the subjects of Constantinople found common interests in the arts that blinded them together. On Jacoby’s side of the argument the foundation of Constantinople political rulings post-fourth crusade, was based more on the merchant, and less on an aristocratic ruler. This is the base of how the Ottoman Empire established authority and ruling, not much so by an aristocracy. Being that Islamic ruling served as the main authority of the people of Constantinople; the Shari’a had been the main way of jurisprudence for the Byzantine Empire. To gather an overall comprehensive idea of how Constantinople was ruled under the Turks and what system of governance was implemented, we must examine the ruler of Constantinople, or under the Turks, Istanbul, to see how the policy was directed towards the people, as well as the state of Constantinople during this time frame.

When in the spring of 1453 the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II appeared with his immense army before its walls, Constantinople was a half ruined city whose population probably numbered fifty thousand (Inalick 231). From the time the Latin occupation after the fourth crusade, the city had progressively declined into the effect that it was no more than a collection of villages. Already by the seventh decade of the fourth century Constantinople and its immediate neighborhood had formed only a small islands surrounded by territories under Ottoman rule. Economically the Ottoman capitals of Brusa and Adrianople had begun to overshadow the aristocratic center of Constantinople. The old silk route from Persia via Trebizond to Constantinople had, by the end of the fourth century been diverted to Brusa, which lead Brusa to become the trading epic center for Oriental products for the west and near east region. In short, Constantinople was the dead center of a dead empire, in which can be described as a city of ruins, poor, and largely uninhabited.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 [Muslims] 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 foreign policy. To be a new occupier of conquered land, the ruler will always be placed in a lose-lose situation, just like Mehmed II. By no means will either party see to conform to another ideology, but ultimately, reject the ruler completely, just like the people did of reformed Istanbul. Rules will be broken, and beliefs will be reconfigured to accustom to a new, reformed country; leaving the two traditional parties divided.

ources

*Hillenbrand, Carol. The Crusades, Islamic Perspective. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1999.
*Inalick, Halil. “The Policy of Mehmed II towards the Greek Population of Istanbul and the Byzantine Buildings of the city.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23 (1969 – 1970) : 229 – 249.
*Jacoby, David. Medieval cultures in Contact. New York: Fordham, 2003.

*Ostrogorsky, George. “Observations on the Aristocracy in Byzantium.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25 (1971) : 1 – 32
*Peri, Oded. “Islamic Law and Christian Holy Sites: Jerusalem and Its Vicinity in Early Ottoman Times.” Islamic Law and Society 6.1 (1999) : 97 – 111
*Thomson, William “The Renascence of Islam.” The Harvard Theological Review 30.2 (1937) : 51 - 63

ee also

* Istanbul
* Ottoman Empire
* Fall of Constantinople