Hıristiyanlık söz gücüyle mi kılıçla mı yayıldı? Ahmed Midhat Efendi - Misyoner Henry Otis Dwight tartışması
Date
2020-06-22
Authors
Cengiz, Kübra
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi
Abstract
Müslüman-Hıristiyan ilişkileri tarihinde, tarafların karşılıklı polemikleri daima dikkat çekmiştir. 19. yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nde yaşamış, farklı tür ve alanlardaki çalışmalarıyla öne çıkan Ahmed Midhat Efendi de, Müdafaa isimli eserinde, Müslüman bir yazar olarak Hıristiyanlığa yönelik araştırma ve eleştirilerde bulunmuştur. Ahmed Midhat’ın eleştiri noktalarından biri, Hıristiyanlığın söz gücüyle değil, kılıç kuvvetiyle desteklendiği ve yayıldığı iddiasıdır. O, bu iddiasını kanıtlamak için, tarihî verilerin yol göstericiliğine inanmış, İmparator Konstantin döneminden başlayarak Hıristiyanlık tarihini incelemiştir. Buna karşın, Amerikalı Misyoner Dwight, Ahmed Midhat’ın iddiasının yanlış olduğunu dile getirmiş, ona karşı bir mukabelede bulunmuştur. Ahmed Midhat da, bu mukabeleye cevap yazmıştır. Ahmed Midhat ve Dwight’ın Konstantin üzerine yazışmalarını konu edinen makalemiz, üç kısımdan oluşmaktadır. Birinci bölümde Ahmed Midhat’ın, Konstantin’in Hıristiyanlık tarihindeki rolü üzerine verdiği bilgilerin, birincil kaynaklarla örtüşüp örtüşmediği araştırılmış, Hıristiyanlığa yönelik eleştiri noktaları belirlenmiştir. İkinci olarak Dwight’ın mukabelesi ve iddiaları ele alınmıştır. Üçüncü bölümde ise Ahmed Midhat’ın cevabı yer almıştır.
In the history of Muslim Christian relations, reciprocating polemics attracted attention. Ahmed Midhat Efendi lived in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century and became famous for his works in various branches and fields. He also did some researches on Christianity and criticized it as a Muslim writer in his work Müdafaa. He claimed that Christianity was supported and spread by the force of the sword, not of the word. To prove this claim, he believed in the guidance of historical data, and he studied the History of Christianity, especially the period of Emperor Constantine. On the other hand, American Missionary Monsieur Dwight stated that Ahmed Midhat’s claim was wrong and made a response against him. Ahmed Midhat also responded to this reply. Scrutinizing the discussions of Ahmed Midhat and Monsieur Dwight on Constantine, this article consists of three parts. It first questions whether primary sources confirmed the information given by Ahmed Midhat on Constantine’s role in the history of Christianity. Secondly, it discusses the response and claims of Monsieur Dwight. Finally, it also deals with the response of Ahmed Midhat.
In the history of Muslim Christian relations, reciprocating polemics attracted attention. Ahmed Midhat Efendi lived in the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century and became famous for his works in various branches and fields. He also did some researches on Christianity and criticized it as a Muslim writer in his work Müdafaa. He claimed that Christianity was supported and spread by the force of the sword, not of the word. To prove this claim, he believed in the guidance of historical data, and he studied the History of Christianity, especially the period of Emperor Constantine. On the other hand, American Missionary Monsieur Dwight stated that Ahmed Midhat’s claim was wrong and made a response against him. Ahmed Midhat also responded to this reply. Scrutinizing the discussions of Ahmed Midhat and Monsieur Dwight on Constantine, this article consists of three parts. It first questions whether primary sources confirmed the information given by Ahmed Midhat on Constantine’s role in the history of Christianity. Secondly, it discusses the response and claims of Monsieur Dwight. Finally, it also deals with the response of Ahmed Midhat.
Description
Müslüman-Hıristiyan ilişkilerini anlayabilmek için tarafların birbirlerine yazdıkları polemikleri incelemek önemlidir. Araştırmamızda iddialarını incelediğimiz Ahmed Midhat Efendi (1844-1912), 19. yüzyılda Osmanlı Devleti’nin buhranlı döneminde yaşamıştır. Osmanlı maarif ve matbuatının öncü ismi olan araştırmacı, gazeteci bir yazardır. Yazı makinesi olarak nitelendirilen Ahmed Midhat, elli yılı aşkın yazarlık yaptığı ömründe, farklı tür ve alanlarda genellikle halkı bilinçlendirmeye yönelik iki yüzü aşkın eser bırakmıştır. Çalışmamızda iddiaları ele alınan diğer bir isim, İstanbul doğumlu Henry Otis Dwight’tır (1843-1917). Dwight, yurt dışına misyonerler göndermek için kurulan ve Osmanlı Devleti’nde de açmış oldukları hastaneler, kolejler, eğitim ve basın faaliyetleri ile tanınan American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) misyoner teşkilatına bağlı Amerikalı Protestan misyoner bir yazardır. Akıcı şekilde Osmanlı Türkçesi konuşabilen Dwight, Bible House’nin yöneticisi olmuş, Kitab-ı Mukaddes’in Türkçe çevirisini düzenleme kurulunda yer almıştır. Ayrıca, İstanbul ve Türkiye üzerine birkaç kitap ve makale yazmıştır. Ahmed Midhat, Hıristiyanların sınır tanımayan misyonerlik faaliyetlerine şahit olmuş, İslam hakkındaki asılsız iddiaları üzerine muteber kaynaklara dayanarak onların dinlerini ve tarihlerini ortaya koymak için üç ciltten oluşan Müdafaa serisini kaleme almıştır. Tercümân-ı Hâkikat gazetesinde yayımlamaya başladığı bu eser, gazeteye gelen çeşitli itirazlar üzerine yazılmaya devam etmiştir. Ahmed Midhat, edepsizce sözler ve hakaretler içerdiği için pek çok mektup ve eleştiriye cevap vermemiştir. Henry Otis Dwight’ın, Müdafaa’yı dikkatle incelediğini belirtmesi ve mukabelesinin gazetede yayımlanması isteği üzerine, fikir özgürlüğüne riayet ederek Dwight’ın karşılığını ve kendi cevaplarını gazetede yayımlamıştır. Müdafaa’da, Hıristiyanlığın, Hz. İsa’dan sonra değiştiğini, Hıristiyanların inanç ve uygulamalarının Hz. İsa’nın öğretisiyle bağdaşmadığını, Hıristiyanlığın söz gücüyle değil, kılıç kuvvetiyle yayıldığını ifade etmiş, Hıristiyanlık tarihinin çeşitli dönemlerini ve bazı inançlarını inceleyerek iddialarını kanıtlamaya çalışmıştır. Karşılaştırmalı metotla ele alınan makalemiz üç bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlk kısımda, Ahmed Midhat’ın, Hıristiyanlığın Konstantin sayesinde, kılıç kuvvetiyle güçlendiği iddiasını kanıtlamak için Konstantin Dönemi üzerine verdiği bilgiler ve eleştiri noktaları, birincil kaynaklarda tespit edilmeye çalışılmaktadır. İkinci kısımda, Dwight’ın karşılığı ve iddiaları değerlendirilmektedir. Üçüncü kısımda ise, Ahmed Midhat’ın cevabı incelenmektedir. Tarafların iddiaları belirlendikten sonra, tutarlılıkları değerlendirilmektedir. Makalenin ilk bölümünde, Ahmed Midhat’ın Hıristiyanlığın Konstantin sayesinde yayıldığını kanıtlamak için; Konstantin öncesi Hıristiyan nüfusunun azınlık oluşu, Konstantin’in Hıristiyanlarla işbirliği ve vizyon görmesi, ailesine ve bazı kişilere yaptığı zulümler, Mesih’in yönlendirmesiyle Konstantinopolis’i kurması, vaftiz oluşu, Arius’a mektubunda halkı Hıristiyanlaştırma isteği, paganlara yönelik kısıtlamaları, Hıristiyanlara imtiyazları, kiliseye bağış ve hediyeleri, Hıristiyanlığı şekillendirmesi, onun döneminde Kudüs’ün Hıristiyanlık merkezi olması, Hıristiyanlar arasındaki dinî tartışmaların gün yüzüne çıkmasına dair sunduğu rivayetler, tarihsel bilgiler ve eleştiri noktaları ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca bu kısımda Ahmed Midhat’ın sunduğu bilgi ve rivayetlerin tarihle örtüşüp örtüşmediği araştırılmış, Ahmed Midhat’ın kullandığı kaynaklara ve ele alınan konuyla ilgili yazılmış birincil kaynaklara ulaşılmaya çalışılmıştır. Ahmed Midhat’ın bildirdiğine göre, Hıristiyanlar, savaşmayı kerih gördükleri halde, zulümler yapan Konstantin’i vizyonla yüceltmiş ve ordusunda savaşmışlardır. Konstantin de Hıristiyanlara desteklerini gizlememiş; ama insanlara zulümler de yapmıştır. Onun döneminde Hıristiyanlar, müşterek mallarla kardeş gibi yaşamayı terk etmişler, Hz. İsa, mütevazı yaşamı salık verdiği halde papazlar gösterişli kıyafetler giymişler; Hıristiyanları eşit tuttuğu halde din adamları sınıfını ortaya çıkarmışlardır. Ayrıca Konstantin’in desteğini almak isteyen Hıristiyan gruplar arasında dinî tartışmalar çıkmış, Konstantin sorunların çözümü için bizzat harekete geçmiş ancak sonucunda ayrılıklar gerçekleşmiş, zamanla bu gruplar arasında kanlı çatışmalar meydana gelmiştir. Makalenin ikinci bölümü, Henry Otis Dwight’ın Ahmed Midhat’a karşı cevabını ele almaktadır. Dwight’a göre, Ahmed Midhat’ın verdiği bilgiler tarihle örtüşmemektedir; Konstantin, din uğruna savaşmamış, ömrü boyunca paganların başrahibi olarak anılmış, putperestleri hür bırakmış adil bir hükümdardır. Hıristiyanlık savaşlarla, zorla değil, ikna ile yayılmıştır. Makalenin üçüncü bölümünde, Ahmed Midhat’ın, Dwight’a cevabı yer almaktadır. Konstantin’in yaptığı her savaşı din uğruna yapılmış saymadığını, Dwight’ın kimi sözlerinde kendisini tasdik ettiğini söyleyen Ahmed Midhat’a göre, tarihsel bilgiler açıktır ve Hıristiyanlığın ikna ile yayılması fikri, Hıristiyanların bir gayretidir. Tarihte Konstantin, Hıristiyanlığı kökleştirmiş, putperestleri özgür bırakmamıştır; Arius’a mektubunda halkı Hıristiyanlaştırma isteğini dile getirmiş, bazı pagan festivallerini yasaklamış ve bazı pagan tapınaklarını kapattırmıştır. Putperestlere zulmetmiş, Hıristiyanlar da kimi zaman bu zulümlerde onun ordusunda rol almıştır. Hıristiyanlar, Konstantin’in kılıcı sayesinde görünür olmuşlar, sayılarını arttırmak için daha sonra da savaşmaya devam etmişlerdir. Böylece Konstantin, Hıristiyanlığın kökleşmesini sağlayan önemli kişilerden biri olmuştur. Sonuç olarak Ahmed Midhat, sadece polemik yapmamakta, Hıristiyanların Konstantin ile kılıca sarıldığını ve güçlendiğini tarihsel olarak kanıtlamaya çalışmaktadır. Onun sunduğu argümanların genellikle birincil kaynaklarla örtüştüğü, “Konstantin’in putperestlere yönelik kısıtlamalarıyla ve kiliseye siyasî, mâli, hukukî destekleriyle Hıristiyanlığı kökleştirdiği” iddiasının tarihle tutarlı olduğu görülmektedir. Konstantin’in yaptığı savaşları din uğruna addetmesi ise, tartışmalı bir iddia olmuştur. Ancak Ahmed Midhat’ın genel kastı, Hıristiyanların Konstantin’in ordusuna katılmaları, onu din uğruna savaşmış sayarak vizyonla anmaları, kendi aralarında ve diğer din mensuplarıyla kanlı çatışmalarıdır. Dwight’ın argümanları ise Konstantin’in ilk hükümdarlık dönemlerine tekabül etmektedir. Dwight’ın polemik usulünü tercih etmesi ve Ahmed Midhat’ın sunduğu bilgileri Katoliklerin tarihi gibi yansıtarak “Konstantin’in vizyonu, kiliseye hediyeleri ve vaftizi” gibi rivayetlere değinmemesi, Hıristiyanlık tarihi açısından değil de, mezhebine göre cevap vermesi dikkat çekmektedir.
To understand the MuslimChristian relations, it is crucial to examine the polemics written by both parties. Ahmed Midhat Efendi (1844- 1912), with whose claims our study deals, was a journalist writer who lived in the 19th century during the regression period of the Ottoman empire. He was a researcher who became the leading name of Ottoman education and the press. He left more than two hundred works in different genres and fields aimed at raising public awareness in his lifetime of more than fifty years of writing. He was described as a “writing machine”. Henry Otis Dwight, another name whose claims our study discusses as well, was born in Istanbul in 1843. Dwight was an American Protestant missionary writer affiliated to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) missionary agency, established to send missionaries abroad and known for the hospitals, colleges, education, and press activities they opened in the Ottoman Empire. Dwight, who could speak Ottoman Turkish fluently, became the manager of Bible House and was a member of the Turkish translation board of the Bible. Besides, he wrote several books and articles about Istanbul and Turkey. Ahmed Midhat witnessed the Christians’ great missionary activities and false claims on Islam. Therefore he wrote the Müdafaa series consisting of three volumes to reveal their religion and history based on credible sources. This very work, which he started to publish in the newspaper Tercümân-ı Hâkikat, continued to be written on various objections to the newspaper. Ahmed Midhat did not respond to many of the letters and criticism because of their libelous content. However, upon Henry Otis Dwight’s publishment request of his answer to Ahmed Midhat on the base of carefully examining Müdafaa, Ahmed Midhat published Dwight’s response for the freedom of opinion and answered him in the newspaper. In Müdafaa, Ahmed Midhat made several claims. He stated that Christianity changed after Jesus. The beliefs and practices of Christians were incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. Christianity spread with sword force, not with the power of the word. Ahmed Midhat tried to prove his claims by examining some Christian dogmas and various periods in the history of Christianity. Our article, built with the comparative method, consists of three parts. Firstly, it deals with the information and criticism points given by Ahmed Midhat on the Constantine Period to prove his claim that Christianity was strengthened by the sword force thanks to Constantine. Then, it evaluates Dwight’s response and claims. Finally, it examines Ahmed Midhat’s answer to Dwight. After determining the parties’ claims, the article scrutinizes their consistency. The first part of the article deals with Ahmed Midhat’s claims. He tries to prove his view that Christianity spread by Constantine on the ground that the pre-Constantin Christian population was a religiously minor group. Christians collaborated with Constantine, claiming that he saw a vision. Ahmed Midhat also points to Constantine’ persecution to his family and some people, his baptism, his desire to Christianize the people, his restrictions towards the pagans, his concessions to Christians, his donations and gifts to the church, rumors, historical information and points of criticism about the emergence of religious debates among Christians. Furthermore, in this section, it was investigated whether the information and narratives presented by Ahmed Midhat match with the historical facts. The article seeks the sources and primary resources used by Ahmed Midhat. According to Ahmed Midhat, Christians fought in the army of Constantine although they are disgusted by the idea of war, and they glorified Constantine, the perpetrator of committed persecution, by a vision. Constantine did not hide his support for Christians and persecuted pagans. In his period, Christians stopped living in harmony with communal goods. Even though Jesus recommended modest life and considered all Christians are equal, priests wore flamboyant clothes, and the clergy created their class. Also, there were religious debates among Christian groups who wanted to get the support of Constantine. Constantine took action personally to solve the problems. However, as a result, some further divergences occurred, and bloody clashes occurred among these groups over time. The second part of the article discusses Henry Otis Dwight’s response to Ahmed Midhat. According to Dwight, the information given by Ahmed Midhat does not overlap with history. Constantine was a just ruler who did not fight for religion. He was called the priest of the pagans throughout his lifetime and left the pagans free. Christianity was not spread by force but by persuasion. The third part of the article deals with Ahmed Midhat’s response to Dwight. He explains that he did not consider every war Constantine fought for was the sake of religion and that Dwight had approved him in some of his words. According to Ahmed Midhat, because historical information is clear, the idea of spreading Christianity by persuasion is an effort of Christians. Constantine rooted Christianity and did not leave the pagans free. On the contrary, he banned some pagan festivals and closed some pagan temples. He, moreover, persecuted the pagans, and sometimes Christians themselves took part in his army of persecution. In his letter to Arius, Constantine expressed his desire to Christianize the people. Christians became visible through Constantine’s sword and continued to fight to increase their number. Thus, Constantine became one of the prominent figures who ensured the rooting of Christianity. As a result, He did not just intend to reply or polemical book. He tried to prove that Christians started using the sword with Constantine, and thus, it strengthened. His arguments generally overlap with primary sources. The claim that “Constantine has rooted Christianity with his political, financial and legal support to the church and his restrictions on pagans” is consistent with history. It is a controversial claim that Constantine fought the wars for the sake of religion. Dwight’s arguments correspond to Constantine’s first period of reign. It is noteworthy that Dwight preferred a polemical method. He reflected the information presented by Ahmed Midhat as the history of the Catholics. Dwight did not mention the narrations such as Constantine’s vision, his gifts to the church, and his baptism. He responded not by the history of Christianity but by his sect.
To understand the MuslimChristian relations, it is crucial to examine the polemics written by both parties. Ahmed Midhat Efendi (1844- 1912), with whose claims our study deals, was a journalist writer who lived in the 19th century during the regression period of the Ottoman empire. He was a researcher who became the leading name of Ottoman education and the press. He left more than two hundred works in different genres and fields aimed at raising public awareness in his lifetime of more than fifty years of writing. He was described as a “writing machine”. Henry Otis Dwight, another name whose claims our study discusses as well, was born in Istanbul in 1843. Dwight was an American Protestant missionary writer affiliated to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) missionary agency, established to send missionaries abroad and known for the hospitals, colleges, education, and press activities they opened in the Ottoman Empire. Dwight, who could speak Ottoman Turkish fluently, became the manager of Bible House and was a member of the Turkish translation board of the Bible. Besides, he wrote several books and articles about Istanbul and Turkey. Ahmed Midhat witnessed the Christians’ great missionary activities and false claims on Islam. Therefore he wrote the Müdafaa series consisting of three volumes to reveal their religion and history based on credible sources. This very work, which he started to publish in the newspaper Tercümân-ı Hâkikat, continued to be written on various objections to the newspaper. Ahmed Midhat did not respond to many of the letters and criticism because of their libelous content. However, upon Henry Otis Dwight’s publishment request of his answer to Ahmed Midhat on the base of carefully examining Müdafaa, Ahmed Midhat published Dwight’s response for the freedom of opinion and answered him in the newspaper. In Müdafaa, Ahmed Midhat made several claims. He stated that Christianity changed after Jesus. The beliefs and practices of Christians were incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. Christianity spread with sword force, not with the power of the word. Ahmed Midhat tried to prove his claims by examining some Christian dogmas and various periods in the history of Christianity. Our article, built with the comparative method, consists of three parts. Firstly, it deals with the information and criticism points given by Ahmed Midhat on the Constantine Period to prove his claim that Christianity was strengthened by the sword force thanks to Constantine. Then, it evaluates Dwight’s response and claims. Finally, it examines Ahmed Midhat’s answer to Dwight. After determining the parties’ claims, the article scrutinizes their consistency. The first part of the article deals with Ahmed Midhat’s claims. He tries to prove his view that Christianity spread by Constantine on the ground that the pre-Constantin Christian population was a religiously minor group. Christians collaborated with Constantine, claiming that he saw a vision. Ahmed Midhat also points to Constantine’ persecution to his family and some people, his baptism, his desire to Christianize the people, his restrictions towards the pagans, his concessions to Christians, his donations and gifts to the church, rumors, historical information and points of criticism about the emergence of religious debates among Christians. Furthermore, in this section, it was investigated whether the information and narratives presented by Ahmed Midhat match with the historical facts. The article seeks the sources and primary resources used by Ahmed Midhat. According to Ahmed Midhat, Christians fought in the army of Constantine although they are disgusted by the idea of war, and they glorified Constantine, the perpetrator of committed persecution, by a vision. Constantine did not hide his support for Christians and persecuted pagans. In his period, Christians stopped living in harmony with communal goods. Even though Jesus recommended modest life and considered all Christians are equal, priests wore flamboyant clothes, and the clergy created their class. Also, there were religious debates among Christian groups who wanted to get the support of Constantine. Constantine took action personally to solve the problems. However, as a result, some further divergences occurred, and bloody clashes occurred among these groups over time. The second part of the article discusses Henry Otis Dwight’s response to Ahmed Midhat. According to Dwight, the information given by Ahmed Midhat does not overlap with history. Constantine was a just ruler who did not fight for religion. He was called the priest of the pagans throughout his lifetime and left the pagans free. Christianity was not spread by force but by persuasion. The third part of the article deals with Ahmed Midhat’s response to Dwight. He explains that he did not consider every war Constantine fought for was the sake of religion and that Dwight had approved him in some of his words. According to Ahmed Midhat, because historical information is clear, the idea of spreading Christianity by persuasion is an effort of Christians. Constantine rooted Christianity and did not leave the pagans free. On the contrary, he banned some pagan festivals and closed some pagan temples. He, moreover, persecuted the pagans, and sometimes Christians themselves took part in his army of persecution. In his letter to Arius, Constantine expressed his desire to Christianize the people. Christians became visible through Constantine’s sword and continued to fight to increase their number. Thus, Constantine became one of the prominent figures who ensured the rooting of Christianity. As a result, He did not just intend to reply or polemical book. He tried to prove that Christians started using the sword with Constantine, and thus, it strengthened. His arguments generally overlap with primary sources. The claim that “Constantine has rooted Christianity with his political, financial and legal support to the church and his restrictions on pagans” is consistent with history. It is a controversial claim that Constantine fought the wars for the sake of religion. Dwight’s arguments correspond to Constantine’s first period of reign. It is noteworthy that Dwight preferred a polemical method. He reflected the information presented by Ahmed Midhat as the history of the Catholics. Dwight did not mention the narrations such as Constantine’s vision, his gifts to the church, and his baptism. He responded not by the history of Christianity but by his sect.
Keywords
Dinler tarihi, Müslüman-Hıristiyan ilişkileri, Polemik, Müdafaa, Ahmed Midhat Efendi, Konstantin, Tarihsel eleştiri, Henry Otis Dwight, History of religions, Muslim- Christian relations, Polemic, Defence, Constantine, Historical criticism
Citation
Cengiz, K. (2020). “Hıristiyanlık söz gücüyle mi kılıçla mı yayıldı? Ahmed Midhat Efendi - Misyoner Henry Otis Dwight tartışması”. Oksident: Yahudilik, Hıristiyanlık ve Batı Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 59-89.