From: han@anadolu.michigan.com (hasan.b.mutlu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.soviet,soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.german
Subject: If Turks Had Behaved Like Christians To Use Force To Convert To Islam,
Date: 11 Apr 92 20:28:00 GMT


<PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu>
<92101.052308PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu>

>        --> Yes, bay Parlakbilek: The Ottomans were no angels as you ob-
>            served  but it appears to me that you  can not  believe that
>            THEY COULD EVER ACTED as I described! Actually, you say:
>            "...but they were not definitely the  evil  you presented".
>            Remember,it is YOU that said that only evil people could ha-
>            ve acted such. Brace yourself then for a SURPRISE.

Surprise? Your insight and ability to foresee events is truly amazing.
"As early as the Renaissance, claims that non-Muslim minorities were under
pressure in the Ottoman realms began to be made in the West. The threat 
presented by Turks to the Christian Europe forced the West to identify
itself with the old Roman Empire, to fear the same fate for itself, and to 
feel the need to struggle against the Muslim Ottomans. The memory of Atilla
who could go as far as Rome was revived, thus leading the West to regard the 
Ottomans as another "barbarian" tribe which was poised to invade Europe.
During the Age of Enlightenment, groups which were opposed to the Church
avoided making Christianity a target for themselves in their struggle against
the oppression of religion; instead, they used Islam as an example in order to
achieve their goal indirectly. Even in Voltaire's book "Mahomet (Mohammad)",
the actual target was not Islam but the criticism of the oppressive attitude
of religion in the Western society. The philosophers were not interested in 
the differences between two religions in their teachings and attitudes. To put
it in another way, they chose to exploit Islam by interpreting it so as to
make it serve their goals instead of trying to understand it properly. However,
their efforts bore fruit; mistaken notions and presuppositions concerning
Eastern civilization persisted even after the relations between the Church
and Society were reorganized.[1]

In contrast with this approach, those who studied Turkish history or who lived
in the Ottoman Empire tended generally to make positive evaluations. In the
dark period that began with the Mondros Truce (1919), states which were
enemies of the Ottoman State concentrated their efforts upon preparing
a treaty to "punish" the Turks by using as their main excuse the accusation
that the Turks had treated the minorities with cruelty. A group of Turkish
intellectuals in Istanbul responded to these Western claims with a rebuttal
using some statements by the Westerners themselves. The following observations
by Westerners were written in French by Ahmet Cevat: 

"If Turks had behaved like Christians to use force to convert to Islam the
nations which they brought under their power, to which no one could have
opposed, today there would be neither an Armenian question, nor a problem
about Crete, and probably no Eastern problem. But Turks did not do so. They
obeyed the word of the Koran to permit everybody "to worship in their own
way" centuries before Frederick the Great pronounced his famous dictum. Thus,
in an age when the Christian Europe itself shed Christian blood and when 
people in Europe enjoyed inflicting inhuman tortures upon those whose beliefs
differed from theirs, the Ottoman Empire became the sole country where the
inquisition did not exist, where deaths at the stake were unheard of and 
where accusations of witchcraft were not made. And the barbarian (!) Turkey
was the only country where the Jews persecuted and chased away everywhere
by the Christians, could find asylum. These facts demonstrate that Muslim
countries provided spiritually far better living conditions than Christian
countries."[2]

"The Turks, who are a conquering nation, did not Turkify the nations that came
under their rule; instead, they respected their religions and traditions. It
was a stroke of luck for Romania to live under Turkish rule instead of
Russian or Austrian rule. Because otherwise there would not have been a
Romanian nation today" (Popescu Ciocanel).

"Turks rule over people under their administration only externally, without
interfering with their internal structures. On account of this, the autonomy
of minorities in Turkey is better and more complete than any in the most
advanced European countries."[3]

All historians are agreed that these freedoms granted to the Christian subjects
played a major role in the weakening of the Ottoman Empire. As long as the 
Empire was strong and struck fear in Europe, the Christian subjects were
content to exploit the victorious Turks by dominating finance, commerce and
industry. But after the conclusion of the treaties of Pasarofca and Kucuk
Kaynarca following the defeat at Mohac, the same Christian subjects felt
that the Empire was beginning to decline and they began to collaborate openly
or secretly with the states that were relentless enemies of Turkey. If Turks
had not been endowed with a patience and camless the exaggeration of which
verges upon being a flaw, they would certainly have punished very severely
these internal enemies who could no longer conceal their intrigues and 
treachery and who used military losses of the Turks as their victories.

"The Ottoman Government could not easily reconcile itself even to exiling
in 1828 the Armenians who were guilty of collaborating with the Russian
intriguers. But this magnanimity of the sultan was also regarded as a sign
of his weakness and was used as an evidence to support the idea of partitioning
the Empire."[4]

"...human beings hate each other on account of religious differences. This flaw
is older than Islam and Christianity. But there has never been any examples
of this adjuration in Turkey because Turks never oppress anybody on account
of his religion. If enmity on the basis of religion had been such a case of
simple contempt among us too, or if it did not keep translating itself into
action, many nations in our Europe would probably have considered themselves
happy!" (A. de Mortraye).[5]

"Turkey never became a scene for religious terror or for the cruelty of the
inquisition. On the contrary, it served as an asylum for the unfortunate
victims of Christian fanaticism. If you look into history, you will see that
in the fifteenth century thousands of Jews who were expelled from Spain and
Portugal found such a good asylum in Turkey that their descendants have been
living there very calmly all through these approximately three hundred years,
and are only forced to defend themselves in some countries against the
cruelty of Christians, especially that of the Orthodoxes. No Jew is able to
appear in public during Easter celebrations in Athens, even today. In Turkey,
however, if the Israelites are insulted by the Greek and Armenian communities,
local courts immediately take them under their protection."

"In that vast and calm country of the sultan, all religions and nations are
living together peacefully. Although the mosque is superior to the church and
the synagogue, it does not replace them. Because of this, the Catholic sect is
more free in Istanbul and Smyrna (mine: Izmir) compared with Paris and Lyon.
In addition to the fact that no law in Turkey prohibits the open-air ceremonies
of this sect, neither does any law imprison its cross in the church. While the
dead are being taken to the graves, a long line of priests bear processional
candles and chant Catholic hymns. When all the priests in all the churches in
the Galata and Beyoglu districts go into the streets and form clerical
processions during the Eucharist celebrations, chanting hymns and bearing
their crosses and religious banners, a detachment of soldiers escorts them
which forces even the Turks to stand in respect around the group of 
priests." (A. Ubicini).[6]

The Ottomans established a centralized system and regarded the state as an
indivisible holy entity. Mehmet the Conqueror's approval of the execution
of brothers (of a sultan after he ascends the throne, to prevent possible
insurrections because the crown is disputed) for the sake of the 'ever-existing
state' is an example of how much importance the sultans attach to this subject.
According to the Ottoman ideal of the 'World Order' which was a combination
of Islamic principles and traditions Turks had brought from Central Asia,
the principle duty of the state was to spread God's word in the world.
This principle gave the Ottomans the responsibility of establishing justice
in the lands they conquered.[7] Gungor approaches this subject from the
socio-psychological viewpoint, emphasizes that the lack of tolerance arises
mainly from a sense of insecurity and attributes the toleration Turks showed
throughout history, to their ability to establish powerful states. Thus, to
use the example given by M. K. Oke, a person becomes intolerant if he expects
harm: "Statements by mentally ill persons do not upset anybody. Also, the 
mistakes of children are always tolerated because they do not have the power
to upset the social order. The Turkish people regarded the minorities as people
who were enjoying peace and welfare thanks to it and did not envision any 
danger from them while it was strong."[8] It follows that on account of such
thoughts and feelings, the Ottomans treated with toleration the non-Moslem
peoples of the areas that became included in their 'Pax Islamicus': in the
social order which is generally called the 'millet system,' the minorities
were granted important freedoms. Although the administrative mechanism was a
strictly centralized one, the Ottoman Empire 'was a classical example of a
pluralist social order.' Western scholars who have done research in the 
Ottoman archives are agreed that, in spite of some shortcomings, the Ottoman
State provided a life of peace and welfare for the nations that lived under
its rule. Furthermore, compared with the states established in the lands of
the Ottoman Empire after its collapse, the Ottoman state has a remarkable
record concerning its treatment of minorities.[9]

The 'millet system' was the mechanism which shaped the social order of the
multi-national Ottoman Empire and stood behind its continuity. However, two
points that are often a source of misunderstanding need to be clarified in
connection with this subject. First, the term "millet" was used only for
Muslims during the rise of the Ottoman Empire. For example, in the phrase
'religion and state, country and millet' that we see in the edicts of 
Suleyman the Magnificent and of his Sheikhulislam Ebussuud Effendi, 'millet'
means 'millet-i Islamiye' (the Muslim millet), the ruling class of the 
state.[10] Non-Muslims had religious, cultural and economic autonomy; as
will be seen below, they were autonomous within the framework determined
by the state. However, they did not have political rights; they could not
participate in the administration. In short, they did not have sovereignty.
Perhaps it was because they wanted to emphasize this difference that the 
Ottomans reserved the term 'millet' for the Muslim population, called the
sovereign European states 'milel-i nasraniye' or 'iseviye', and indicated
the non-Muslims under their rule with the terms 'zimmi', 'cemaat' and 'taife.'
When the state reviewed the status of its non-muslim subjects during the 
'Tanzimat' the reforms of the 19th century, these subjects were referred to as
a 'millet' for the first time. The phrase 'tebaayi saltanat-i seniyyemizden
olan ehl-i islam ve milel-i saire' ('Muslims and the other "millets" among our
subjects") is found in the 1839 Gulhane Edict. In the 1856 Imperial Reform 
Edict, the term 'millet' is used together with the term 'cemaat' 
('community').[11] Perhaps it is possible to interpret this as a sign of the 
intention to grant the non-Muslim subjects equality with the Muslims before the
law. However, it would be false to claim that the Muslims, and, 'millet' is 
still used to refer to the Muslims in the dictionaries of Semseddin Sami and 
Ali Said.[12] Secondly, the term "millet" should be understood as a community 
defined not on the basis of ethnic, but religious criteria. To put it in another
way, the beliefs of an individual determined also his nationality in the Ottoman
Empire. As a matter of fact, because Islamic principles were in force in the 
Ottoman Empire, it was natural to use religious criteria to differentiate among 
the various communities which constituted the Empire. The 'millet' system began
to be based on ethnicity in the 19th century under the influence of nationalism.
It was only after then that the various communities in the Ottoman Empire
began to be divided on a national basis. Until then, it was possible, for
example, to see the Christian Arabs of Syria, the Greeks of Istanbul who 
were remnants of the Byzantine Empire, and the Bulgarians and the Serbians all
included in the Greek community. As for the Armenian community, the Catholics
were grouped with the Latins, the protestants were grouped with the British,
and the Gregorians were regarded as a separate group. Under the impact of the
efforts of the Great Powers to create groups under their protection, the 
foundation of the 'millet' system was adapted to the reigning sociological
views of the time.

Sousa writes of the existence of thirteen communities in the Ottoman Empire
in addition to the Muslim 'millet' in 1914. These were: (1) Greeks attached
to the Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul; (2) Catholics or Latins who were
remnants of Genoese and Venetian merchants; (3) Gregorian Armenians attached
to a Patriarchate in Istanbul; (4) Catholic Armenians; (5) Syrian Catholics
attached to a Patriarchate in Mardin; (6) Chaldean Catholics attached to a
Patriarchate in Mosul; (7) Syrian Jacobites attached to a Patriarchate in 
Mardin; (8) Protestants; (9) Melchites attached to a Patriarchate in Damascus;
(10) Hebrews of two rites; (11) Bulgarian Catholics attached to the Bulgarian
Exarch; (12) Maronites; and (13) Nestorians.[13]

Scholars who studied the pluralistic social structure outlined briefly above,
concluded that the social order of the Ottoman Empire fit the framework of the
'Mosaics Theory.'[14] When we examine the details, we see that the 'Ottoman
mosaics' had the following characteristics: first, the Ottoman public
authorities were content to make only political claims over their subjects.
The state only expected from its subjects loyalty to the sultans, the payment
of taxes, and the preservation of peace and social order. With the exception
of these demands, the Ottomans required no efforts from the peoples of the
lands they conquered in the way of establishing cultural homogeneity in the
Empire. Secondly, the Ottoman State was careful not to destroy the 
socio-economic traditions of the units which were parts of this mosaic. It did 
not tear them from their accustomed areas of economic activity to place them in 
relations of production determined by the state. Turks became the indispensable 
elements of the military services, the Arabs constituted the 'ulema', and the 
non-Muslims opted for the areas of commerce and banking. To put it briefly, 
wherever the Ottomans went, the codes of law which fit the special 
characteristics of that city or region were prepared and put into effect. If the
Ottomans instituted an entirely new administrative system in an area, it was for
the purpose of establishing a more equitable order. The state institutions that 
the Ottomans established were far superior to the feudal structure with its 
serfdom which existed in the countries that they conquered. It was on account of
this that Islam spread so swiftly in the Balkans. The fact that the army was 
based more on recruitments from among Christian children, may at first seem to 
conflict with the mosaic theory. However, as Aydemir points out, the fact that 
these children could join political life after the completion of their training 
as well-educated soldiers, officers, administrators and governors; and the
fact that pashas, viziers and high state officials were selected from among
them made the recruitment system very desirable for the Christian peoples.[15]
The fact that the political system the Ottomans created, achieved a voluntary
'ethnic division of labor,' and the fact that the Ottomans could keep this 
system going for a few centuries with a minimum number of interventions, must
be seen as their great success.[16]"

[1]  B. Braude/B. Lewis, eds., "Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire:
     The Functioning of Pluralist Society," (New York/London, 1982), p. 2.
[2]  Ah. Djevat, "Yabancilara Gore Eski Turkler," 3rd ed. (Istanbul, 1978),
     pp. 70-71.
[3]  Ibid., p.91.
[4]  Ibid., pp. 103-104.
[5]  Ibid., pp. 214-215.
[6]  Ibid., pp. 215-216.
[7]  A Taneri, "Turk Devlet Gelenegi," (Ankara, 1975). Furthermore, O. Turan
     writes that Turkish states before the Ottoman Empire also showed 
     toleration to minorities and that they provided freedom of belief (Turk
     Cihan Hakimiyeti Mefkuresi Tarihi, v. 2, Istanbul, 1969.)
[8]  E. Gungor, "Kultur Degismesi ve Milliyetcilik," 2nd ed. (Istanbul, 1984),
     pp. 142-143. This author's observation concerning minorities is also worth
     quoting: "In reality, minorities in a country are like harmful bacteria in
     a living organism. As long as the organism is strong, the bacteria are 
     inactive; but when it becomes weak, they try to eat it up." (p. 142).
[9]  Braude/Lewis, op. cit., p. 1.
[10] M. E. Duzdag, "Sehyulislam Ebussuud Efendi'nin Fetvalari Isiginda XVI.
     Asir Turk Hayati," (Istanbul, 1972), p. 176.
[11] E. A. Van Dyck, ed., "Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire," (Washington:
     Government Printing Office, 1881), appendix III, pp. 106-113.
[12] S. S. Fraseri, "Kamus-i Turki," (Istanbul, 1901), v. 2, p. 1400 and
     Ali Said, "Resimli Kamus-i Osmani," (Istanbul, 1912), p. 980.
[13] N. Sousa, "The Capitulatory Regime of Turkey, its History, Origin and
     Nature," (Baltimore, 1933).
[14] C. S. Coon, Caravan: "The Story of the Middle East," (New York, 1951),
     p. 162 and H. A. R. Gibb/H. Bowen, "Islamic Society and the West: A
     Study of the Impact of Western Civilization on Moslem Culture in the
     Near East," (Oxford, 1951).
[15] S. S. Aydemir, "Makedonya'dan Orta Asya'ya Enver Pasa," 2nd ed. (Istanbul,
     1972), v. 1, p. 315.
[16] I. F. Harik, "The Ethnic Revolution and Political Integration in the 
     Middle East," IJMES, v. III (1972), p. 305; A. F. Hourani, "Minorities
     in the Arab World," (London, 1947).

Hasan B-) Mutlu

                     'Kill Turks and Kurds wherever you find them 
                      and in whatever circumstances you find them. 
                      Turkish children also should be killed as 
                      they form a danger to the Armenian nation.' 
                                     (Hamparsum Boyadjian - 1914)