Kapsayıcılık ve Politikanın Uyumu: Beytülmakdis'teki Tarihi Kiliselerin Osmanlı Himayesi

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 1, 1 - 21, 30.06.2025

Khalid El-awaisi , Firdan Fadlan Sidik

https://doi.org/10.31456/beytulmakdis.1717663

Öz

Halife Ömer'in 7. yüzyılda ortaya koyduğu kapsayıcı Beytülmakdis vizyonu, Mukaddes Topraklar ve bir bütün olarak bölge için bir dönüm noktası olmuştur. Bu vizyon çok sayıda akademisyen tarafından detaylandırılmış ve ilkeleriyle uyumlu vakalarda araştırılmaya devam etmektedir. Bu teori aynı zamanda İslam'da diğer medeniyetlerden farklı olan değişim kavramıyla da iç içedir. Müslümanlar değişim kavramını kapsayıcılık çerçevesinde, özellikle de Beytülmakdis'in ilk Müslüman fethi bağlamında şekillendirmişlerdir. Bu kapsayıcılık vizyonu, özellikle bu makalenin odak noktası olan 16. ve 18. yüzyıllar arasında Beytülmakdis'teki Kamame Kilisesi (Kutsal Kabir) etrafında Hıristiyan mezhepleri arasında uzun süredir devam eden çatışmayı çözmeye yönelik Osmanlı politikası ile daha da örneklendirilmiştir. Tarihi kaynaklar, Osmanlı yönetiminin Kudüs'teki Hristiyan anlaşmazlıklarını çözmedeki genel prensibinin geleneksel ibadet durumunun korunmasına dayandığını göstermektedir. Bu ilke, Osmanlıların kilise onarımını düzenleme biçimini de kapsamaktadır. Bu makalenin amacı iki yönlüdür: birincisi, Osmanlıların hangi koşullar altında geleneksel ibadet biçimlerinin korunmasına öncelik vermeyi seçtiklerini araştırmak; ikincisi ise bu politika kararının ardındaki mantığı incelemek. Osmanlı belgeleri Ömer b. Hattab'ı model aldığı için, kapsayıcı vizyon Osmanlı'yı analiz etmek için teorik bir çerçeve görevi görmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kapsayıcılık , Değişim , Osmanlılar , Hristiyan Anlaşmazlıkları , Kilise Yenileme , Çoğulculuk , Kamame Kilisesi , Çatışma Çözümü

التناغم بين الشمولية والسياسة: الوصاية العثمانية على الكنائس التاريخية في بيت المقدس

Öz

شكّلت الرؤية الشاملة لبيت المقدس التي قدمها الخليفة عمر في القرن السابع الميلادي نقطة تحول للأرض المقدسة والمنطقة ككل. وقد شرح العديد من العلماء هذه الرؤية بالتفصيل، ولا تزال هذه الرؤية قيد البحث في القضايا التي تتماشى مع مبادئها. كما تتشابك هذه النظرية مع مفهوم التغيير في الإسلام الذي يتميز به بين الحضارات الأخرى. وقد صاغ المسلمون مفهوم التغيير في إطار الشمولية، لا سيما في سياق الفتح الإسلامي الأول لبيت المقدس. وتتجسد هذه الرؤية الشمولية في السياسة العثمانية لحل الصراع الطويل الأمد بين الطوائف المسيحية حول كنيسة القيامة في بيت المقدس، خاصة خلال القرنين السادس عشر والثامن عشر، وهو محور هذا المقال. تشير المصادر التاريخية إلى أن المبدأ العام للإدارة العثمانية في حل النزاعات المسيحية في القدس كان يستند إلى الحفاظ على حالة العبادة التقليدية. وقد شمل هذا المبدأ طريقة تنظيم العثمانيين لتجديد الكنائس. والهدف من هذا المقال ذو شقين: أولاً، دراسة الظروف التي اختار فيها العثمانيون إعطاء الأولوية للحفاظ على أشكال العبادة التقليدية؛ وثانياً، دراسة الأساس المنطقي وراء هذا القرار السياسي. وبما أن الوثائق العثمانية كانت على غرار وثائق عمر بن الخطاب، فإن الرؤية الشمولية تشكل الإطار النظري لتحليل السياق العثماني في هذا المقال. ومن خلال تحليل السجلات المهيمنة، يتبين لنا أن سياسة الحفاظ على أقدم أشكال العبادة، في مواجهة النزاعات المسيحية المتزايدة، كانت جزءًا من رؤية شاملة تعكس السياسة العثمانية القائمة على العدالة وتوازن القوى.

Anahtar Kelimeler

الشمولية , التغيير , العثمانيون , النزاعات المسيحية , تجديد الكنائس , كنيسة القيامة , حل النزاعات

The Harmony of Inclusivity and Policy: Ottoman Custodianship of Historic Churches in Islamicjerusalem

Öz

The inclusive vision of Islamicjerusalem introduced by Caliph ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab in the 7th century marked a turning point for the Holy Land and the region as a whole. This vision has been elaborated upon by numerous scholars and continues to be explored in cases that align with its principles. This theory is also intertwined with the concept of change in Islam, which is distinctive among other civilisations. Muslims have shaped the concept of change within the framework of inclusivity, particularly in the context of the first Muslim liberation of Islamicjerusalem. This vision of inclusivity is further exemplified by the Ottoman policy to resolve the longstanding conflict between Christian denominations surrounding the Holy Sepulchre in Islamicjerusalem, particularly during the 16th to 18th centuries, which is the focus of this article. Historical sources indicate that the general principle of Ottoman administration in resolving Christian disputes in Jerusalem was predicated on the preservation of the traditional state of worship. This principle encompassed the manner in which the Ottomans regulated church renovation. The objective of this article is twofold: first, to investigate the circumstances under which the Ottomans chose to prioritise the preservation of traditional forms of worship; and second, to examine the rationale behind this policy decision. As the Ottoman documents modelled ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the inclusive vision serves as the theoretical framework for analysing the Ottoman context in this article. Through the analysis of Mühimime registers, it is revealed that the policy of preserving the oldest forms of worship, in the face of growing Christian disputes, was part of an inclusive vision that reflected the Ottoman policy of justice and balance of power.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pluralism , Change , Ottomans , Christian Disputes , Church Renovation , Holy Sepulchre , Conflict Resolution

Kaynakça

• Ferman of Sultan Mehmed II to Greek in 1458 (BOA. AE.SMMD.II.00001)
• Ferman of Sultan Selim I (Osmanlı Arşivi, Kilise Defteri, No: 8)
• Mühimime Defteri: d.30, s.25, h.63 (April 14, 1577) Vol. XXX, No. 63 (April 14, 1577) Uriel Heyd collection d.102, s.103, h.438 (December 22-31, 1691) d.102, s.141, h.564 (January 30-February 8, 1692) d.110, s.414, h.1819 (May 11-20, 1698) d.102, s.103, h.438 (December 22-31, 1691) d.102, s.141, h.564 (January 30-February 8, 1692. d.110, s.201, h.932 (December 15-24, 1697) in 1698 d.111, s.402, h.1382 (August 16-25, 1700) d.112, s.134, h.440 (January 30 - February 8, 1702) d.114/1, s..717, h.3213 (February 23 - March 4, 1706) d.115, s.77, h.30 In the period between July 23 and August 1, 1706. d.127, s.354, h.1574 (April 11-20, 1719) d.129, s.146, h.551 (October 25-November 3, 1719) d.129, s.156-157, h.583 (November 24-December 3, 1719) BOA, A.DVNS.MHM.d. 129, 8.247, h.938 (April 19-28, 1720) Mühimime register decree number 714 in Ali Arif Kaya's collection. KK.d. 71, s.340, h.1 and KK.d. 71, s.350, h.1 (July 30, 1613).
• Abd Rahman, F (2005). Political, social and religious changes in Islamic Jerusalem from the first Muslim conquest to the end of Umayyad period (637-750 CE). Journal of Islamicjerusalem Studies (Summer, 2005)
• Abu Assab, N. (2012). Christian Holy Sites in Islamicjerusalem under The Muslim Rule (636-969 CE). Journal of Islamicjerusalem Studies (Summer 2012) 12:1-36.
• Abu-Munshar, M. Y. (2007). Islamic Jerusalem and its Christians: a History of Tolerance and Tensions. London: Tauris Academic Studies.
• Abu-Munshar, M. Y. (2010). The Compatibility of Islam with Pluralism: Two Historical Precedents. Islam and Civilisational Renewal, 1.
• Abu Sarah, N. (1993), "al-Nuqush al-‘Arabiyah al-Islamiyah fī Khalīl al-Raḥmān", Master dissertation (Jordan University).
• Al-Tel, O. I. (2002). The First Islamic Conquest of Aelia (Islamic Jerusalem) A Critical Analytical Study of the Early Islamic Historical Narratives and Sources. UK: University of Abertay Dundee.
• Armstrong, K. (1997), A History of Jerusalem: One City Three Faiths, London: Harper Collins Publishers.
• Barkey, K. (2008). Empire of Difference. NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Bowman, G. (2015). 'The Politics of Ownership: State, Governance, and the Status Quo in the Church of the Anastasis (Holy Sepulchre)', in Elazar Barkan, and Karen Barkey (eds), Choreographies of Shared Sacred Sites: Religion, Politics, and Conflict Resolution (New York, NY, 2014; online edn, Columbia Scholarship.
• Conybeare, F. C. (1910). Antiochus Strategos' Account of the Sack of Jerusalem in AD 614. The English Historical Review, 25(99), 502-517.
• Çolak, H. (2022) "Ottoman Central Administration and Primacy in the Orthodox Church: Sources and Agents of Knowledge and Inter-Patriarchal Conflicts" in P. V. Ermilov and M. B. Gratsianskii (eds.), Poniatie pervenstva: Istoki ikonteksty. Moscow: PTGSU.
• Dipratu, R. (2022). Regulating Non-Muslim Communities in the Seventeenth Century Ottoman Empire Catholics and Capitulations. NY: Routledge.
• El-Awaisi, A. F. (2007). Introducing Islamicjerusalem. Dundee: Al-Maktoum Institute Academic Press.
• El-Awaisi, A. F. (2012). ‘Umar’s Assurance of Aman to the People of Aelia (Islamicjerusalem): A Critical Analytical Study of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate’s Version. World Journal of Islamic History and Civilization, 2(3), 128- 136.
• El-Awaisi, A. F. (2017). Prophet Muhammad's Strategic Plan for The Conquest of Islamicjerusalem. Istanbul: İNSAMER: İnsani ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Merkezi.
• El-Awaisi, A. F. (2021). “Bayt Al-Maqdis: A Muslim Model for Aman”. In Al-Quds History, Religion, And Politics. Ed. El-Awaisi & Ataman. Ankara: SETA.
• El-Awaisi, K. (2007a). Mapping Islamicjerusalem: A Rediscovery of Geographical Boundaries. Dundee: ALMI Press.
• El-Awaisi, K. (2011). From Aelia To Al-Quds: The Names of Islamicjerusalem in the Early Muslim Period. Mukaddime, 4(4).
• El-Awaisi, K. (2016). The Inclusivity of Islamicjerusalem and its Model for Multiculturalism. Journal of Islamicjerusalem Studies (Summer 2016) 16:1.
• Ergenç, Ö. (2023). “Continuity and Change in the Ottoman Early Modern Era: An Analysis of ‘Adet-i Kadime and Hâdis” in Crafting History: Essays on the Ottoman World and Beyond in Honor of Cemal Kafadar. Ed. Rachel Goshgarian, Ilham Khuri-Makdisi, And Ali Yaycioğlu. USA: Academic Studies Press.
• Faroqhi, S. (2010). The Ottoman Ruling Group and the Religions of its Subjects in the Early Modern Age: a Survey of Current Research. Journal of Early Modern History, 14, 239-266.
• Haugaard, Mark. (2013). What is Authority. Journal of Classical Sociology. 1-29.
• Koyuncu, N. (2017). “Osmanlı Devleti’nin Kudüs’teki Gayrimüslim Mabedlerine İlişkin Hukuku Düzenlemeleri, Uygulamadan Örnekler” in Filistin Meselesi ve Türkiye Uluslararası Kongresi 20-22 Ekim 2017. Konya: Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Kültür Yayınları: 31.
• Levy-Rubin, M. (2011). Non-Muslims in the Early Islamic Empire: From Surrender to Coexistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Madihah, A. (2020). The Implementations of Aman (Peaceful Coexistence and Mutual Respect) Theory and Model in First Muslim Fatih of Islamicjerusalem (634-644 CE). Social Sciences University of Ankara. (unpublished MA Thesis)
• Nor, M. R. M. (2011). Protecting non-Muslim: its implementation during early Muslim rule of Islamic Jerusalem. 9. 10.1163/22321969-90000027.
• Muthi, A. D. (2022). The Connection and Contributions of Caliph Abū Bakr to the first Muslim Liberation of Islamicjerusalem. Ankara: Social Science University of Ankara. (unpublished MA Thesis)
• Omar, A. M. (2019). Jerusalem in Muhammad’s Strategy: The Role of The Prophet Muhammad in the Conquest of Jerusalem. US: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Panchenko, A. C. (2021). Orthodoxy and Islam in the Middle East the Seventh to the Sixteenth Centuries. NY: Holy Trinity Publications.
• Peri, O. (2001) Christianity under Islam in Jerusalem. Leiden: Brill.
• Philipp, T. (2010). “The Economic Impact of the Ottoman Conquest on Bilad Al-Sham”. In Syria and Bilad al-Sham under Ottoman Rule Essays in honour of Abdul-Karim Rafeq. ed. Peter Sluglett & Stefan Weber. US: Brill.
• Rahman, F. (2020). Islam. US: University of Chicago Press.
• Sachedina, A. A. (1986). A Just Social Order in Islam, from State, Politics and Islam, ed. Mumtaz Ahmad, Indiana: American Trust Publications.
• Satış, İ. (2016). The Catholics and Organ Disagreements in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre / Kamame Kilisesi'nde Org Tartışmaları ve Politikler. Journal of History and Future / Tarih ve Gelecek Dergisi, 2 (3), 50–68.
• Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Devlet Arşivleri Başkanlığı. (2019). Kudüs'te Hristiyan Mezhep Ve Milletlerin İdaresi Administration of Christian Denominations and Communities in Jerusalem. Istanbul: Seçil Ofset.
• Wilkinson, J. (1990). "Jerusalem under Rome and Byzantium", in K.J.‘Asalī (ed.), Jerusalem in History (New York, United States: Olive Branch Press), 75-104.