Muslims are going to be...very much divided on the topic. This is a good point to talk a little (though it will be in more detail at another point) on the general view of 'why Constantinople?'
A common question in the thread(s) has been how people would try and work their brain around why Constantinople was saved instead of, say, Jerusalem. The general justification people come up with is going to be something along the lines of 'The Christians/Muslims (depending on who you ask) never intended to destroy the city, just take it for themselves'. Jerusalem would endure, just with a change of management.
Remember, here, that Mehmed spent the remainder of his life convincing people that he was really that much of an asshole to destroy the city down to the bedrock, not even leaving a single stone left. While very vividly putting Galata to the torch as a distraction. So you have people convinced that Mehmed destroyed the city completely and utterly. And since he went and got himself killed against Vlad alongside most of his closest confidants, there is no one to dispute this left.
Whereupon, when people find out that Constantinople was saved, people automatically assume that Mehmed was just that terrible that God saved the City from its inevitable destruction, not just sacking and change of rulership.
Obviously, out of universe, we know that's not the case. In-universe, it isn't that simple. Remembering that Mehmed did everything he could to destroy his own, personal, reputation to try and preserve that of his family and throne.
(and, on a related note, again: Never, in or out of universe, confirming how the City got moved or who did it. We firmly maintain that you lose all the mystique and 'oomph' when you have some silly scene of curiously-bat-shaped aliens musing on screwing with humanity.)
