This passage is written in old English and expresses the opinion of a historical writer about war, law, and political decisions. It describes how, in certain historical narratives, rulers were said to seek religious or legal approval before starting a war. The language of the original text is complex and biased, so it needs correction and simplification for modern readers. The corrected version below explains the ideas in clear and simple English while keeping the historical meaning.
Asking for a Religious Opinion Before War
According to the text, it was considered a usual custom, in some historical accounts, for rulers to ask for the opinion of a religious authority when they wanted to start a war. If a country seemed weak or offered a good strategic advantage, but there was no clear reason for conflict, the ruler would seek a formal judgement from a legal or religious scholar, called the Mufti.
The passage claims that this judgement, sometimes called a “fetva” or legal ruling, would declare whether the war was lawful. The writer suggests that the decision was often influenced more by the usefulness of the war for the empire than by moral or political reasons. Once the ruling was given, the war was presented as justified and acceptable in the eyes of the state and its people Guided Istanbul Tour.
Comparison with Other Nations and Princes
The article also admits that such behavior was not limited to one group or nation. It states that even Christian princes and many powerful states in history have broken treaties, ignored promises, or started wars for small or weak reasons. Leaders have often found excuses to end agreements, even when those agreements were confirmed by oaths and religious ceremonies.
This shows that political advantage has often been placed above moral duty in many parts of the world. Wars have sometimes begun not because of real necessity, but because rulers saw an opportunity to gain land, power, or influence. Therefore, the issue of breaking faith in diplomacy is presented as a common historical problem rather than something unique to one culture.
Debate About Faith and Promises
The text mentions that scholars and thinkers have long debated whether promises should always be kept, especially when dealing with enemies, heretics, or people of different beliefs. The writer personally argues that keeping one’s word should not even be questioned, because honesty and trust are honorable qualities in all societies.
A Critical and Historical View
Finally, the passage strongly criticizes the idea that faithlessness or breaking promises could ever be considered holy or acceptable. It claims that some legal traditions justified such actions by referring to religious examples, though this reflects the author’s personal and historical bias.
In simple terms, the corrected article explains that the original writer believed rulers sometimes used legal or religious approval to justify wars, even when the reasons were weak. However, it also recognizes that many nations in history have acted in similar ways. Today, such texts should be read carefully as historical opinions shaped by the political and religious conflicts of their time, not as objective or balanced truth.