Architectural Criticism of Suleymaniye Complex in Context of Suleiman and Architect Sinan

International Journal of Modern Social Sciences, 2014, 3(3): 179-200 International Journal of Modern Social Sciences ISSN: 2169-9917 Journal homepage: www.ModernScientificPress.com/Journals/IJMSS.aspx Florida, USA Article Architectural Criticism of Suleymaniye Complex in Context of Suleiman and Architect Sinan

Mehmet Cercis Erişmiş1, Ahmet Ozan Gezerman2,*

1Yildiz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey 2Yildiz Technical University, Faculty of Chemical –Metallurgical Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.:+90 533 393 42 79

Article history: Received 8 April 2014, Received in revised form 20 May 2014, Accepted 12 June 2014 June 2014, Published 28 July 2014.

Abstract: Within this study, Suleymaniye Complex is evaluated from architecture history perspective. The properties of the building is analyzed deeply. It is shown that there are problems with recent usage of the complex. Main research questions are as follows: What is Suleymaniye Complex? How was Suleymaniye used after construction period? How is the building being used recently? What kind of information is available in primary sources? What can be offered for today by means of building usage? Initial hypothesis of the study is that, Suleymaniye is one of the oldest surviving religious building. It is considered as a detailed “waqf”, the idea of construction is a positive example for todays Islamic architecture. Findings are analyzed with pragmatic and genetic historical research method. Firstly the period of Suleiman the Magnificent and Architect Sinan is explained. Secondly general information about the complex is presented. Lastly recent form of the complex is analyzed. Main findings of the research which develops the initial hypothesis is emphasized in the results and discussions part. In order to understand the complex better, diary of Architect Sinan and foundation texts are analyzed thoroughly. The found mistakes are explained in criticism part.

Keywords: Suleiman; mosque; Architect Sinan; waqf

Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(3): 179-200 180

1. Introduction

Suleiman I. is a world leader who increased the size of Ottoman Empire lands during his life. In his period, he ordered building activities of lots of architectural works including holy lands and place of religious leaders. Suleiman I. organized royal architect’s foundation and made this organization progress. Head of this organization was army based, royally educated, undeniably and obviously contributor of army. Architect Sinan was assigned and actively involved in management till hundred years old. Architect Sinan was well aware of the scientific debate of his age. In that period of Istanbul, city was heavily affected by moving of Sultan and the comparison of Suleymaniye construction with Hagia Sophia was done by some people. Science, reading books and joining seminars was the activities of that time. It was stated that there were lots of books in the city (Erişmiş, M. C. 2013).

2. Period of Suleiman I.

Tenth Sultan of Ottoman State, Suleiman I. (figure 1) was also referred with nicknames such as “Grand Turk, Magnificent, Grand Senior” by Franks. He was not only a ruler who put Ottoman State on the top, a commander, politician and a manager but also a poet writing poems with “Muhibbi” pseudonym (Yüksel, İ. A. 2004; Benton, W. 1768 ).

Figure 1. Signature and Portrait of Suleiman I. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tughra_Suleiman.jpg; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EmperorSuleiman.jpg)

These three verses belong to him; “Sharia is a palace sturdy Whoever disengages one of its stones Putting his head in return is worthy” (Yılmaz, Ö. F. 2011).

Suleiman I. was born in Trabzon, October 6th 1494, while his father Selim I. was the governor. His mother was Hafsa Sultan. At the age of fifteen, he was assigned as Kefe governor, three years later when his father became sultan he managed the state partially, then he became the governor of Manisa. Twenty six years old Sultan was ascended the throne after his father’s death in 1520. He was known as “Kanuni” as a result of the thirteen campaigns during his forty six years authority and his renovating legislations on the state’s divisions of management, politics, monetary and economics. In his period well-known politicians and scientists were raised. His campaigns were vital parts of world history of war. The sultan died during campaign Zigetvar, September 6-7th, 1566, in his tent set on war area (Yüksel, İ. A. 2004). His respect to scholars especially to Sheikh Baba Haydar who was one of the caliphs of Ubeydullah Ahrar, was on the top level. Around twenty million square meters of land (figure 2) was managed by him.

Figure 2. Map Showing Enlargement of Ottoman State and the Lands Conquered by Kanuni (http://en.wikipedia.org, The Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, 1923 - Courtesy of The General Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin)

Suleiman I. won every single battle he began and raised the mood of his soldiers personally. Kanuni’s reign had passed on the back of horse from one campaign to another. He showed great effort for his state, nation and even poor and oppressed people of the World. People, communities and states suffering from persecution were protected in the shadow of Kanuni, and helped by his forces. His

Copyright © 2014 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(3): 179-200 182 period is a time when no European force could even sound a weak opposing voice and persecute humanity. On the time of his authority an anti-Sunni rebellion took place and suppressed, responsible people were hung in “At Meydanı” (Ocak, A. Y. 1990). Suleiman I.’s Estragon campaign cost was sixty millions and income was twenty millions (İpçioğlu, M. 1990). One letter of Suleiman I. was enough for the World to come to heel. He rescued French Emperor who was captured by German Emperor, with a single letter. All the Muslims from Africa to India were protected and kept safe against imperial forces attacks (Yılmaz, Ö. F. 2011). King of France and his mother wrote a letter and demanded Kanuni’s help. King of Spain Şarlken was assigned also the king of Germany in 1519 and became the owner of greatest empire in Europe. Şarlken’s empire included Spain, its colonies and Austria-Hungarian lands. He was not regarded as an emperor officially by Ottoman Empire and this state declared war on France. Two armies fought in Pavia Italy, France forces were beaten and King of France Fransuva I. was captured by Şarlken on February 24th 1525. Fransuva’s mother wrote a letter to Suleiman I. and pleaded for the release of his son (Yılmaz, Ö. F. 2012). Ibn-i Kemal mentions this event in his book Tevarih-i Al-i Osman. These letters convey Ottoman power and authority. In Kanuni’s letter dated January 1526, religious themes was mentioned first, then Sultan and king of France is defined as follows: “I am the one who is Sultan of Sultans, Burhan of Hakans, grants crowns to the monarchs on earth, shadow of Allah on earth, Son of Sultan Baized Khan, Son of Sultan Selim Khan Sultan Suleiman Shah Khan, Sultan and Padishah of Mediterranean, Black Sea, Rumeli, Anatolia, Karaman, Rum, City of Zülkadriyye, Diyarbakir, Land of Kurds, Azerbaijan, Persia, Damascus, Aleppo, Egypt, Mecca, Medine, Jerusalem, whole Arabic land, Yemen and all other more countries which were conquered by my fathers, grandfathers with their overwhelming power and also by my fire throwing victory writing sword. And you are the one who is the king of city of France, Francesco” (Yılmaz, Ö. F. 2012). There is no valid reference that shows the Sultan was overcame by basic pleasures and entertainment of the world in his private life. He was not a seeker man of the blessings of the world, contrarily he was a world leader who spent all of his capital for the sake of his religion and state. During the last days of his life, at the age of seventy two, by travelling hundreds of miles, against mud and rain, being too weak to ride on the horse, he set a campaign against Hungary to conquer castle of Zigetvar and died there (Yılmaz, Ö. F. 2011). Most powerful army and navy, best organized state, richest lands, most proper economy was owned by him, However he left these dozens of times and entered the war where he risked to be attacked by a sword stroke or be hit by an arrow. Rather than being busy with eating and drinking activities by the sea in Sarayburnu Istanbul where may be considered as the best place in the World, he died abroad many kilometers away from his country. He

Copyright © 2014 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(3): 179-200 183 had lived for seventy years, ten months and four days; been Sultan for forty five years, eleven months and seven days. Ten years, three months and five days of his life was spent in campaigns (Yılmaz, Ö. F. 2011). Suleiman I. died during Zigetvar campaign, 1566, his inner organs were removed and he was mummified. Eighty two days after this process, his body was brought to the Qible side of the mosque which is known by his name and he was buried there (figure 3). When he died his tomb was not built yet, construction of the building was finished under control of Architect Sinan in 1568. Ten years after this, his daughter Mihrimah Sultan was also buried there. Two centuries later, mother of Suleiman II. Dilaşub and wife Rabia Sultan, his brother Ahmet II. was also buried in the same location. Three Ottoman Sultan’s were buried in the tomb (Bayhan, N. 2009; Çelik, S. 2009).

Figure 3. Miniature Presenting Kanuni’s Funeral (Ziyrek, A. 2011).

2.1. Architect Sinan

Information sources on the life of Architect Sinan (figure 4) who is undeniably one of the greatest architects of the World are writings of Mustafa Sai Çelebi, official orders from his chief architect career days, his own statutes and some documents, books with unknown authors (Aslan, F. 2010). Architect Sinan who had worked as a chief (Royal) architect for nearly half a century, controlled the construction and enabled the completion of more than three hundred buildings. These buildings which are mostly located around Istanbul are varying types such as: mosque, tomb, medresse, school, zawiya, hospital, hospice, caravanserai, palace, warehouse, bath, bridge and aqueduct (Aslan, F. 2010; Demirsoy, S. 2009; Yerasimos, S. 2002). Sinan (Sinaeddin Yusuf) was born in a Christian village Agrianos (Ağırnas) located around Kayseri Cappadocia (Yerasimos, S. 2002). In 1512. When Yavuz Sultan Selim was ascended the throne, he decided to take new soldiers in the army

(Yeniçeri Ocağı). He sent orders to the cities, all the villages were scanned, clever and skillful young people were chosen and sent to Istanbul. One of these youngs Sinan was educated in Enderun and he was given the opportunity to develop his skills on carpentry. He attended Çaldıran War, 1514 and Egypt campaign 1516-20 as a soldier. He was chosen for Yeniçeri Ocağı when he came back to Istanbul(Aslan, F. 2010; Demirsoy, S. 2009).

Figure 4. Miniature of Architect Sinan and Suleymaniye Mosque Model (Günay, R. 1998).

Architect Sinan was one of the commanders of Yeniçeri (Ovalıoğlu, İ. 2010). He analyzed architectural constructions from Iran border to Balkans (Demirsoy, S. 2009). During the campaigns he served for Suleiman I., Selim II. and Murad III. by constructing bridges as an architect. In the period of Suleiman I. He attended the campaigns Belgrade 1521 and Rhodes 1522, was promoted to be an officer. After Mohaç Campaign 1526, he became chief technician (zemberekçibaşı). Then he attended the campaigns; Vienna 1529, Germany 1529-32, Iraq 1532-35, Baghdad and Tabriz. In this last campaign he achieved construction of three ships to pass through Van Lake and he was honored to be Haseki. He was present in Pulia campaign 1536, he drew the attention of top management by construction of a bridge crossing over Prut river during Moldavia campaign 1538 (Aslan, F. 2010). At the age of forty, Sinan was assigned to be the chief royal architect (ser Architectan-ı Hassa) after death of architect Acem Ali, and served for Sultan till his death(Aslan, F. 2010; Yerasimos, S. 2002). Sinan was responsible for buildings within border of state such as a room to add on palace, a window to be opened in a mosque of Edirne or choosing an architect to work for Mostar bridge. He worked as both a designer and ministers of public Works, reconstruction. Sinan decorated Ottoman Empire with; mosques, inns, baths, tombs, medresses, sebils and bridges. Most of his Works are still erect today

(Demirsoy, S. 2009). Three big Works of Architect Sinan are important to show his and classical Ottoman architecture progress. First one is accepted as a “work of apprenticeship”; Şehzade Mosque, Complex situated in Istanbul. Şehzade mosque built by four half domes and a dome in the center stood as a model for several following mosques. Secondly, Suleymaniye Mosque, complex (figure 5) also known as “work of journeymanship” is his most magnificent work in Istanbul. Third building which is built when the architect is eighty years old and presented by Sinan his work of “mastership” is Selimiye Mosque of Edirne (Aslan, F. 2010). Architect Sinan died in Istanbul 1588 when he was around a hundred years old and buried in the simply designed tomb in Suleymaniye Complex (Aslan, F. 2010; Yerasimos, S. 2002).

Figure 5. Location and Photos of Suleymaniye Complex. (Akgün, G. H. Turk, A. 2008; http://www.hayalleme.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/suleymaniye2.jpg; http://www.Architectsinan.gen.tr/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Suleymaniye-camii-nerede-harita.jpg)

Main condition for Ottoman architecture to thrive is blending people, applications and cultures. This condition is realized because of organization capability of Ottoman management. This is a tradition of empire another example of which may also be seen in Roman State (Yerasimos, S. 2002). When Ottoman scientific life is considered a question like this may be formulated; what is the place of Ottoman architects in this life? This question may be answered by history of architecture primary reference books such as Tezkiret el-bunyân. For example both in mathematics and logic the language of old science was ratio and proportion theory. So that the proportion concept in mathematics is both valid for quantity and engineering approaches. Thus it is very well known that Sinan knew this theory comprehensively and used golden ratio in his Works. In order to further understand Sinan’s wisdom, the list of books in Enderun Library on maths, astronomy, engineering, optics may properly

Copyright © 2014 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(3): 179-200 186 defined (Fazlıoğlu, İ. 2010). Significant member of the Samarkand mathematics-astronomy school and first manager of Samarkand Observatory; Giyaseddin Cemşid Kaşi’s book Miftah el-hisab (figure 6.) contains a nine part manuscript on survey (messiah). This book was used both among accounting, clerk (katip) class and in Enderun. Fourth manuscript part nine includes the subject of architecture and construction of buildings. Thus Kaşi names this part as “Survey of Buildings and Architectural Works” and says as follows in the introduction part: “I analyzed the subjects of tak and ezec which was not presented as required in the books related to this area. I did this as needed like in other subjects. Because survey of architectural works needs much more to be gone through than other survey subjects.”

Figure 6. Fourth Manuscript of Miftah El-Hisab, Part 9, (Fazlıoğlu, İ. 2010).

He analysed the subject in three parts. Part one deals with tak and ezec which is a common theme of almost any survey book. Second part presents survey of dome and the third is about survey of mukarnas types. Kaşi presents probable formulas on the subjects, gives example solutions and drawings. In order to understand construction of Suleymaniye Complex, presence of this theoretical background is as important as Suleiman I. and Sinan (Fazlıoğlu, İ. 2010).

3. History of Suleymaniye Complex and Its Foundation

Suleymaniye Complex was built in a part of palace garden on a high hill with a sight of Golden Horn port (Haliç) where the trade of the city had been done. Dominant element is the mosque placed at center and other building units were placed on terraces with varying altitudes. The mosque was built on a four huge elephant feet, the architecture of Hagia Sophia is taken as a reference model. Interior

Copyright © 2014 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(3): 179-200 187 solution is tried to be solved as a whole space fitting for a huge number of society to pray, lit and conditioned with lots of windows. Inside, there is units formed with varying materials of high value of art, writings of verses. Crown door (taç kapı) and side gallery development are the innovations belong to this mosque. There is a fountain in the center of inner garden with porticoes. Tombs which has architectural contributions in and outside except Sinan’s were place in qible side of the mosque. These tombs were built by using older Works as a reference model. A primary school was built for small poor children in need of care. Two twin medresses for advanced studies were placed on east and West side of the mosque. A pharmacy, medical school and a hospital was added to the complex. A unit serving for catering purposes and income-generating shops, student dormitories was designed. Tomb of Sinan is on the North corner of the mosque. A bath with a space especially designed for Suleiman I. is also added to the building group (Erişmiş, M. C. (2013). Bath is placed in the lowest part of the land on a ramp (Kuban, D. 2007, p277). On south-east of Darulhadis, bath is on very sloppy area in the intersection of Dokmeciler hamam road (slope, 12%) and Dokmeciler road (slope, 18%) (Çelik, S. 2009). It is a bath built for the use of man which is called Dokmeciler Bath due to the name of the corresponding bazaar. The building is composed of one domed cold room, small rectangular warm room, and a hot room, cubicles and furnace. An interesting property of it is that it has an entrance colonnade (Kuban, D. 1993). According to the original construction books, burning the bath fire dates back to 1557. The foundation text (waqf) belonging to Suleymaniye and some other buildings (figure 7) contain 105 leaves and each leaf contained eleven lines and was written in Turkish by Arabic letters with signs.

Figure 7. Plan and 3D View of Suleymaniye Complex (Barkan, Ö. 1972; Mülayim, S. 2007).

When Suleymaniye foundation text which was written before the opening of the complex is analyzed; It is seen that after world and religious themes are dominant such as verses, hadiths, poems.

Moreover, Daily and annual incomes, task description of workers is defined in detail. One of the main purposes is not to let Sultans and includers’ reward book to be closed. Therefore at the end of the text, It is told that true believers will keep the foundation carrying on and the one who will destroy or block the foundation is cursed. It is written that god may accept his beautiful foundation and make this a rational to be mentioned in world and rewarded well in afterworld. It is demanded to give five thousand aspers each five people and that they were sent to Meccah for reward annually. Also a list of manuscript books were also presented in text (Kürkçüoğlu, K. E. 1962).

3.1. Clues on the Usage of the Complex from Ottoman Archives

Following information from 135 Suleymaniye Complex related archive documents dated between 1748 and 1919 is summarized as follows: In the period wishes of the society was presented to Sultan in Suleymaniye Mosque. Students from varying states of the empire came there for education, for example Osman form Varna demanded help to return his homeland, Ismail Efendi got an official order paper (mürur tezkiresi) to return home. There were lots of assignation orders as the complex was for official duty. Suleymaniye teacher Ali Efendi was assigned to Uskudar Judge, Ebubekir Efendi who was a surgery instructor at Suleymaniye Medical School was assigned to head surgeon of army. One of the graduates of Mahmud Kamil Efendi from Rize requested to be assigned to one of Dersaadet Schools as a teacher. There are orders for burying famous people on the cemetery garden of the mosque. When a person among Scholars writes down a book, he was awarded, for example Abdurrahman Efendi was given “atiyye” in return for his labor on writing “Tuhfetü’l Mecidiye. Resul Hüsnü Efendi wrote two books, Resul Mesti Efendi wrote a book on engineering and was awared. An instructor Hacı Ali Şevki Efendi produced a 3D world model out of brass and there is an official order to award him and establish a museum for this object and others. There was a hospital where psychologically ill people were treated. Mülazım Medresse is recorded in archives. There were shops under Darulhadis Medresse. Repair texts were also presented about units of the complex. Repair of Darulhadis, replacing leads was a case. It was decided to place signature of Sultan on minaret of mosque. Mosque was repaired, an opening ceremony including state officials was organized. There were lions on Suleymaniye hospital of mads and an order was given to stop sending meat there due to the death of these animals. Fire watchers on the minarets of mosques were moved to harik tower. According to the oldest archive document, 1748, there is a list of books in Suleymaniye Library. In 1922 a text in Hariciye department informed that Salis, Rabi and Medical School should be organized as a library, unique manuscripts of other libraries should be gathered and 129 pieces of iron sheet cabinets with glass was ordered from Berlin. There are order texts to tidy up

Copyright © 2014 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(3): 179-200 189 the mosque and its around due to Istanbul journey of daughter and sons of Germany Emperor. One of Sanayi-i Nefise School graduates Artist Şevket Efendi requested to draw pictures of Suleymaniye Mosque. There was an official approval text which enables English Yercis’ mosque vist and drawing pictures of certain mosque parts (Erişmiş, M. C. 2013).

4. Recent Situation of the Complex

Why is the historical city identity not preserved in Istanbul while it is preserved in lots of cities varying from Paris, London, Vienna, Rome, Prag to Lisbon? Prof. Dr. Semavi Eyice comments as below: “Current situation of Istanbul is wretchedness. Proportion of the city was distorted above all. Suleymaniye, Fatih mosque used to have a stateliness. Now nightmare like ugly buildings gathered around these. Old magnificence disappeared.” Selim İleri explains: “A building over Suleymaniye was considered in neither Ottoman nor Republic period. This is intentional sauce belonging to our own age” (Sönmez, Z. 2012). In 1985 UNESCO added four regions one of which is Suleymaniye Mosque and around in historical peninsula to world heritage list. Furthermore UNESCO argues that the whole peninsula should be protected region. In the past there were opposing arguments on municipality level (Kocabaş, A. 2006). UNESCO should change status of Istanbul to “endangered” because of bridge built in Haliç. This bridge harms silhouette of Sinan’s 16th century masterpiece (figure 8). According to Tanbay soul of Istanbul has been stolen (Sönmez, Z. 2012).

Figure 8. Visual Impact of the Bridge in Golden Horn on Silhouette Of Suleymaniye

Photographic evidences prove that there are certain problems in some parts of the complex (figures 9, 10, 11, 12.). Tomb of Architect Sinan and its periphery is not in good condition. It is not well-kept. Parking lot was built on area belonging to complex, original plan of complex is deformed. Salis Medresse is ruined. In bath of Suleymaniye, there’s a lodge especially designed for Suleiman I. (figure 14). Recently bath is ran as a touristic facility to be used by both men and women at the same time (http://finanstek.net/turizm/Istanbul-hamamlari-anadolu-ve-avrupa-yakasi-adresleri.html). Suleymaniye complex is a foundation (waqf). Waqf has meanings such as; standing, living, made to survive, something life of which is carried on. A quotation from the original foundation text (figure 13) dating back to 16th century may clarify the issue on the subject (http://www.osmanlicaturkce.com; Devellioğlu, F. 2011).

Figure 9. Recent View of Architect Sinan Tomb

Figure 10. Parking Lot in the Space between Architect Sinan Tomb and Salis Medresse

Figure 11. Irrelevant Buildings in the Space between Architect Sinan Tomb and Salis Medresse

Figure 12. Recent View of Salis Medresse Dome and Walls

Figure 13. First Page of Suleymaniye Foundation (Waqf) and names of manuscript books (Kürkçüoğlu, K. E. 1962).

Figure 14. Use of Suleymaniye Complex Bath by both Men and Women at the Same Time (Gokcen, A. Turk, A. (2008)

“Everyone must know that after writing and making decision absolute on this foundation. It is not halal to destroy, deform the foundation to anybody who believes in god (Allah), angels, books and judgement day. May God not accept actions, must and other type worship of the one who attempts to change or cancel depending on their own lies! May God ruin their actions, add them to the group of people who were faced with evil things by means of state and material! May the curse of God, angels, people may rain onto themselves! Their location may be the hell! They may be made to drink hot boiled hot water and liquid drops of burns of hell people! How can a true believe dare to this after hearing the great message of the god of universe? (Hud 18: Behold! The curse of Allah is on those who do wrong!) How can a person who is afraid of watcher Allah put his/her hand on? Reward of the Sultan who facilitated the foundation belongs to Allah who is powerful and alive forever. Undoubtfully God does not destroy the rewards of the one who keeps on being a servitude as if god sees.” (Kürkçüoğlu, K. E. 1962; www.kuranadogru.net, online access). Here it is obvious that there is disrespect to historical values, foundation is used out of its purpose. In order to clarify the subject more clearly, such a question may be raised about following example. In what degree is it fair to decide to open a turnspit inside Suleymaniye Mosque, smoke shisha, organize a belly dance play within shish kebab and ayran according to a new design concept? Current situation of Evvel and Sani Medresse is deplorable (Yüksel, İ. A., 2004). Similarly, all parts of complex must be considered (figure 15, 16, 17.). Usage of space under Sıbyan Mekteb is controversial. The road between Darüzziyafe and mosque is open to traffic. Fig tree is grown on the Wall of Medresses. There are parts that need to be repaired. Moreover current usage is also debatable.

Figure 15. Sıbyan Mekteb, Shops Under Evvel and Sani Medresse

Figure 16. The Road between Darüzziyafe and Mosque Is Open to Vehicle Traffic

Figure 17. Some of the Ruined Parts of Suleymaniye Complex

5. Results and Discussion

Suleymaniye Complex is dominating the city sight with a temple in the middle, a detail solved charity piece, a science and culture center. Although it is exposed to some misuse cases, it has sustained to be the dominant architectural element of its surroundings. We who live in the present must share the responsibility; to understand the value of this masterpiece, perceive the original usage of the time it was built and develop it further within the opportunities of today. By looking back, we can understand today better and establish a more developed civilization, up with the nuclear age. Science, culture and art is not in the monopoly of any society, only the societies who try to own and internalize this heritage can go further. From this perspective, it is obvious that our past is full of motivating cases (Kürkçüoğlu, K. E. 1962). We need to preserve our values, our miniatures, works of art and science must be kept within our borders. Suleymaniye Library can be evaluated as a big Project; our original manuscript books can be both physically kept there and transferred to computer environment. Akgündüz analyses Ottoman Medresse system in ten main titles. These are, research, academic education, value education, education right, generality and equality, possibility and opportunity

Copyright © 2014 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(3): 179-200 195 equality, scientificness, being planned, continuity and commitment to religious law- tasavvuf philosophy. Notables of society established Foundations (Waqf) in order to sustain education facilities, Ottoman medresse’s are a holistic experience. Although these education facilities are banned by law, we face these as an inevitable and hidden process. In this situation the thin to do is not to forget or efface the Medresse which represents thousands of years of history of Turkish society by means of thinking and education tradition. The subject must be examined thoroughly with a scientific experiment strategy, identify extensions inherited today and by taking the gained clues, durable and creative solutions (not weakening historical tendencies) for recent education and thought life of Turks (Akgündüz, H. 1997). Suleymaniye Mosque Myth’s being still shared in computer environment is a sign that our folks still Show respect, love and admiration to Architect Sinan and Suleiman I.. Moreover these myths keep the historical religious and architectural value of Kanuni, Sinan and Suleymaniye Mosque, sanctify the space, fulfill a very important function of eternalization (Aslan, F. 2010). All the pieces of Sinan including dome, arch, pendant and dimensions of load-bearing elements must be measured, building survey must be done by modern methods such as photogrametry and laser. For the calculations of finite element method, section contents of the elephant feet base length and with of which is around 7 m. in the mosque can be known. Suleymaniye complex can be wholistically considered, building units other than the mosque can be turned to a “Sinan Museum” that presents the time of construction, there is a an example in Edirne Bayezid II. complex. Unique samples of Ottoman Architecture, Haseki Hurrem Sultan twin baths in Sultanahmet can also be ran as a Turkish bath or a museum. Easier transportation facilities for Sinan’s buildings in Istanbul either on foot or by railway systems must be made. These systems must be integrated to other routes like Marmaray and other pieces such as Şemsi Paşa, Mihrimah Sultan and Atik Valide complexes in Anatolian side must also be on the reach. Organizing cultural tours about Sinan may lead to a better understanding of Sinan by foreign and local tourists (Mülayim, S. 2007). Periphery of Sinan Buildings must be tidied, blocks (especially controversial bridges) negatively effecting the sights may be removed (Mülayim, S. 2007). There are more restoration problems in Medical School, Pharmacy and Darülhadis compared to other units. When reuse of the complex units is questioned, great attention must be drawn on relevancy on selecting new functions of the buildings (Mülayim, S. 2007). Ottoman complexes (külliye) were not only serving to fulfill social and religious functions but also these were the central focus points of the city pattern developing around. These areas were also centers of crowds on construction. Site selection is an important reality, one of the rules of architecture and design, however this rule may be neglected in several buildings. Considering this subject is vital for sustaining recent buildings in the future (Gokcen, A. Turk, A. 2008). Future directions of this study may rely more on primary evidences. It is useful to analyze the time in question deeply and with a critical point of view when conducting

Copyright © 2014 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(3): 179-200 196 historical research that is beneficent today. But from then to now, being unable to provide basic outputs of past today, furthermore despite the achieved level of recent civilization attempts to produce imitation pieces while designing similar concepts is one of the idols of Islamic architecture to be broken. Architect Sinan would not have been named as one of the greatest architects of the world if he had had imitated Hagia Sophia line by line.

6. Criticism

Criticism of the sources and interpretations are made below. It is organized by author names and then followed by comments. Kuban, D. (2007): “On page 171, the photograph is taken from the perspective which hides the very first minaret of Istanbul. It is argued that construction began in 1451, despite counter views. The study shows Gabriel, Ayverdi, Eyice, Encyclopedia of Dünden Bugüne Istanbul as a reference. The sources arguing that initial tests were done at the palace is neglected. It is said that tower by shore is built first however there are contradicting references. The claim of being worlds greatest castle towers is not presented. It is stated that the tower with a brick dome is Zağanos Paşa Tower, contrarily according to both Ayverdi and Gabriel’s section views; tower with brick dome is Saruca Paşa Tower. It is suggested to conduct subjects with a narrower cover rather than big reference books. On page 42, contrary to page 171 It is said that castle was constructed in 1452, which one of these statements are true? The building purpose of the building is not told? On page 212 these sentences are placed: “One of the famous adopted viziers of Fatih period, Zağanos Paşa is well known for being both the husband of Fatih’s wife and the person to construct one of towers castle”. No reference is given to this sentence. According to the inscriptions Zağanos Paşa built two towers, How can double marriage of Sitti Hatun with two men can be explained?” Kuban, D. (1993): “There are conflicting issues on Darulhadis, It is both stated that the medresse was top degree school and salary of the teachers were below others according to the foundation text. The reference gives different information from Dener. Additionally Çelik informs that double salary of foundation text is paid to teachers (Çelik, S. 2009; Kolay, A. İ. Çelik, S. 2006). It must be clearly stated that whether shops under retaining walls or not. Time period of income sources of the complex is not stated moreover according to the foundation text not only Suleymaniye Complex but also other building groups were fed by this kind of income generators. When the percentage shares are added, no share for Sıbyan school remains. Calculation time of Peçevi is not explained. Salavat during pray is a wrong statement, special officers called Salavathan were said to say “salat’üs selam” during pray. It is written

Copyright © 2014 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(3): 179-200 197 that Nur Surah was written as an interior decoration of the dome, but It is impossible to write down the whole surah including 63 verses in such a style. The expression of “Fetih Sura in Ceramic Tiles” is also wrong, these ceramic tiles are not the decorations over mihrap but on left and right side of mihrap. There are some comments on Sinan, these are ascriptions without evidence. Side’s of the mosque in the garden is said to be used for Abdest, this information is missing, according to Çelik there are additional closed spaces for Abdest.” Ovalıoğlu, İ. (2010): “The word mahfil is written mistakenly as mahfel. “ Mülayim, S. (2007): “It is argued that gravure of Lorichs is a primary evidence of critical importance, originality of this drawing is debatable. An expert eye should scan this source, furthermore an expert or a group of experts of perspective drawing should comment on whether the roof of the building was drawn in detail or as an outline and left unfinished. It’s the authors opinion that the this primary source is not valid. Plan of medical school is controversial.”

Figure 18. Sight of the Complex from Galata, Lorichs (Yerasimos, S. 2002).

Ziyrek, A. (2011): “Why are miniatures of Nakkaş Osman which is also mentioned by Kolay in Chester Beatty Library, Dublin? (Dener, H. 1957) ” Fazlıoğlu, İ. (2010): “The source contains science together with Islam perishing statements. It is said: “The neglected reality with concise words like; “Ottoman civilization was just an emotional structure, It depended on understanding rather than calculation” is an imagination of a body without a head. This kind of mind blocking aphorisms are mere products of ignorance. It must kept in mind that history is only meaningful for the nations who have projects related with future. On the contrary, it is a burden or a

Copyright © 2014 by Modern Scientific Press Company, Florida, USA Int. J. Modern Soc. Sci. 2014, 3(3): 179-200 198 nostalgia. This source should have clearly presented the works which were criticized and the comments on history should have been more neatly conveyed.” Yerasimos, S. (2002): “On page 37 there is an expression: “Sinan was born as a Christian…”, there is a religious attitude here. Furthermore, references is not shown in this work and Sinan is made a legend with adjectives such as supernatural rather than a human being. Likewise Roman Empire was praised by the author. Yerasimos is a 1942 born historian who studied Ottoman Empire and Turkey. He defended the thesis “Travelers in Ottoman Empire” in 1986. Name of his PhD thesis is “Turkey in the process of Less Developing”, between 1994 and 1999 he ran the management of French Anatolian Research Institute. He got his Professor degree in 1989. He directed many graduate and PhD studies subjects of which were Ottoman Geography and Turkish History in Paris (Gündoğdu, E. (2005). One of his papers on Ottoman Architecture is 20 pages long, includes 169 architect names and 393 references. He says “Large amount of documents and untidy nature of these shows that this study may be done wholistically and in long period of time. From our point of view only solution is to set up a skeleton and feed it with the findings of researchers. Here we aim to set up this skeleton” (Batur, A. (2005) ” Aslan, F. (2010): “Number of pieces of Sinan is controversial, conflicts with Yerasimos (Yerasimos, S. 2002).”

7. Conclusion

Suleymaniye Complex was built in the age of a world dominator and by one of the greatest architects ever. One of the critical points of this building activity is an effective case of management and foundation organization. Designing the complex as a higher education facility and placing the mosque on the center emphasizes the importance of science and education at that time. Predicament of Ottoman education system to Islamic education culture is meaningful from the perspective of problems of Islamic architecture. Two Sultans of Ottoman Empire; Fatih and Kanuni’s emphasizing the importance of education must be thoroughly understood. It is understood that Architect Sinan set and developed given opportunities according to functions demanded from him in that age. Archive records explain function of the building. However Suleymaniye Complex has not survived undamaged till today. It is clear that units of the complex are reused for varying purposes. Main idea should be to understand the inheritance of history and apply it today pragmatically yet we may start by preserving original views of the buildings, we must know to be respectful towards our history. Can a society have a future without a past? It is hoped that the study helps a better understanding of Suleymaniye and throw light on recent debate of Islamic architecture.

References

Erişmiş, M. C. (2013). Islam Mimarisinin Sorunları: Suleymaniye Külliyesi, Report. Yüksel, İ. A. (2004). Osmanlı Mimarisinde Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devri, Istanbul Fetih Cemiyeti, Istanbul, p.555-652. Benton, W. (1768), Suleiman I, Encyclopedia Britannica, USA, p.388-389 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tughra_Suleiman.jpg, online access: 27. 12. 2012. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EmperorSuleiman.jpg, online access 27. 12. 2012. Yılmaz, Ö. F. (2011), Seferlerde Geçen Bir Ömür: Kanuni Sultan Süleyman, Yedikıta, Mart, 31: 30-35. Ocak, A. Y. (1990), Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Devrinde Osmanlı Resmi Düşüncesine Karşı Bir Tepki Hareketi: Oğlan Şeyh İsmail-i Maşuki, The Journal of Ottoman Studies, 1990: 49-58. İpçioğlu, M. (1990), Kanuni Sultan Süleyman’ın Estergon Seferi 1543, The Journal of Ottoman Studies, 1990: 136-159. Yılmaz, Ö. F. (2012), Fransa Kralını Esaretten Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Kurtarmıştı, Yedikıta, Şubat, 42: 12-17. http://en.wikipedia.org, The Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, 1923 - Courtesy of the General Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin, online access 27. 12. 2012. Bayhan, N. (2009), Tombs of The Ottoman Sultans In The Old Postcards, 1453 Istanbul Kültür ve Sanat Dergisi, Mayıs- Haziran- Temmuz, 6: 81. Çelik, S. (2009), Suleymaniye Külliyesi, Malzeme, Teknik ve Süreç, T. C. Başbakanlık Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Ankara, 2009: 12-45. Ziyrek, A. (2011), Suleymaniye Külliyesi Türbeleri ve Haziresi, Waqf Restorasyon Yıllığı. Aslan, F. (2010), Suleymaniye Camii Efsaneleri, Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 47-48: 333-352. Demirsoy, S. (2009), Üç Padişah’ın Architectı Architect Sinan 1490-1588, Yedikıta, Mayıs, 9: 50-51. Yerasimos, S. (2002), Suleymaniye, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, Promat, Istanbul, 2002: 34-51. Ovalıoğlu, İ. (2010), Osmanlı Mimarisi, Usul-i Mi’mari-i Osmani, Çamlıca, Istanbul, 2010: 21-32. Günay, R. (1998), Sinan the Architect and His Works, Yapı Endüstri Merkezi Yayınları, Istanbul. Fazlıoğlu, İ. (2010), Semaniye’den Suleymaniye’ye: Bir Külliye’yi Mümkün Kılan Nazari Hikmet, Türkiye Günlüğü, 100: 29-41. Akgün, G. H. Turk, A. (2008), Determination And Analysis Of Site Selection Factors For Kulliyes Of Architect Sinan With Respect to the Locations In The Ottoman City Of Istanbul, Building And Environment, 43: 720-735. http://www.hayalleme.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/suleymaniye2.jpg, online access 27. 12. 2012. http://www.Architectsinan.gen.tr/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Suleymaniye-camii-nerede-harita.jpg, online access 27. 12. 2012.

Kuban, D. (2007), Osmanlı Mimarisi, Yapı Endüstri Merkezi, Istanbul. Kuban, D. (1993), Suleymaniye Külliyesi, Dünden Bugüne Istanbul Ansiklopedisi, Kültür Bakanlığı ve Tarih Vakfı’nın Ortak Yayını, Istanbul, 1993; 97-105. Kürkçüoğlu, K. E. (1962), Suleymaniye vakfıyesi, Resimli Posta Matbaası, Ankara. [Barkan, Ö. (1972), Suleymaniye Cami ve İmareti İnşaatı, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara. Mülayim, S. (2007), Bir Şaheser Suleymaniye Külliyesi, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, Ankara. Sönmez, Z. (2012), Siluetimi Kaybettim, Hükümsüzdür, Derin Tarih, Nisan, 1: 44. Kocabaş, A. (2006), Urban Conservation in Istanbul: Evaluation and Re-conceptualization, Habitat International, 30: 107-126. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1221168626?accountid=17384, Under attack; Istanbul's heritage, The Economist (Dec 1, 2012): 60, The Economist Intelligence Unit, London, online access 17. 12. 2012. http://finanstek.net/turizm/Istanbul-hamamlari-anadolu-ve-avrupa-yakasi-adresleri.html, online access 27. 12. 2012. http://www.osmanlicaturkce.com, online access 29. 12. 2012. Devellioğlu, F. (2011), Osmanlıca- Türkçe Ansiklopedik Lügat, Aydın Kitabevi Yayınları, Ankara. http://www.kuranadogru.net, online access 03.06.2013 Akgündüz, H. (1997), Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Medrese Sistemi Amaç Yapı İşleyiş, Ulusal Yayınları, 1997: 529-535. Kolay, A. İ. Çelik, S. (2006), Ottoman Stone Acquisition in the Mid-Sixteenth Century: The Suleymaniye Complex in Istanbul, Muqarnas, 23: 251-271 http://www.jstor.org/stable/25482444, online access 17. 12. 2012. Dener, H. (1957), Suleymaniye Umumi Kütüphanesi, Maarif Basımevi, Istanbul. Gündoğdu, E. (2005), Stefanos Yerasimos 1942-2005, Boğaziçi… Ltd. Maket Matbaacılık, p5. Batur, A. (2005), Stefanos Yerasimos, Mimarlık Üç Aylık Mimarlık Kültürü Dergisi, 17.