Talk:The Mountain Wreath

message: The article text:
The poem, one of the defining features of Serb nationalism and required reading in all schools in prewar Yugoslavia, is also notable for its celebration of Bishop Danilo's ethnic cleansing of Montenegro (the so-called "Christmas Eve Massacre") in the early 18th Century. 
In the poem, the Muslims repeatedly plead for coexistence.  One example:
Small enough is this our land,
Yet two faiths there still may be
As in one bowl soups may agree
Let us still as brothers live.
However, these pleas for coexistence are seen by the bishop as merely a satanic temptation, the smile of Judas, which he finally overcomes.  So he replies: ‘Our land is foul; it reeks of this false 
religion’. And, following his command:
No single seeing eye, no Muslim tongue,
escaped to tell his tale another day.
We put them all unto the sword
All those who would not be baptised.
But who paid homage to the Holy Child,
were all baptised with sign of Christian cross.
And as brother each was hail’d and greeted.
We put to fire the Muslim houses,
That there might be no stick nor trace
Of these true servants of the devil!
Source:  Michael Sells, The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and genocide in Bosnia  (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 15.
is basically a rip off of this text, written by Sheikh Abdal-Hakim Murad aka Timothy Winter, a British Islamic scholar:
The Mountain Wreath is interesting in several ways. Not least is the way in which the bishop portrays the Muslims, who plead for coexistence. One of them, for instance, says:
    Small enough is this our land,
    Yet two faiths there still may be
    As in one bowl soups may agree
    Let us still as brothers live.
Repeatedly the Muslims are shown as advocates of coexistence; but in the poem, this is simply a satanic temptation, the smile of Judas, which the bishop finally overcomes.
So he replies: ‘Our land is foul; it reeks of this false religion’. And, following his command:
    No single seeing eye, no Muslim tongue,
    escaped to tell his tale another day.
    We put them all unto the sword
    All those who would not be baptised.
    But who paid homage to the Holy Child,
    were all baptised with sign of Christian cross.
    And as brother each was hail’d and greeted.
    We put to fire the Muslim houses,
    That there might be no stick nor trace
    Of these true servants of the devil!
So, it is a barely reworded quote from a polemical text by an Islamic scholar, who is mentioning the poem in an attempt to prove his view that the Bosnian War was an religious war against Islam instigated by Christians. What qualfies this man for literary criticism? Can you see how this could be viewed as a non neutral source? And leaving that aside, it may be a copyright violation. So I basically have no choice but to remove this from the article until we resolve it here, which I am more than happy to do.--Methodius 10:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ethnic cleansing" 

message: An editor (not myself) has expressed concerns with the neutrality of the "Role in Ethnic Cleansing" section, in part because the criticism comes from a sole source.  The thread above notes some concerns as well.  I have no opinion on the matter, but it warrants discussion.  Tagged and noted, please discuss.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Dear friend,
You say “leave as is” while I say “remove the nonsense” What makes a source credible? The fact it was published by California Press?! Why would California press care about the poem? They probably offered the best deal for printing. It is common knowledge that the main source of income to professors in humanities is selling their books. The more controversy the better. Citations here and there are always helpful. How much of history of Balkans does the author know? All books I see on his website are pro islam. Why is his attitude neutral? Wish I could read the book myself, but I am too busy for books of that kind. Nevertheless I will always find time to defend The Mountain Wreath.
My motives to defend this monumental work are very clear. I have read the whole poem in its original and quite frankly I can’t find anything controversial in it. I do understand that it is not very appealing to converts. Also, no one who is not somehow affiliated with the ex-Yugoslavia would actually care about this poem. Therefore it is very possible that I don’t need to address you in English, but nevertheless I will try. It would be also helpful if you have read the poem yourself not just keep repeating “highly reputable source”. The translation I am using is the third external link at the bottom of the page. You can read it yourself.
Here is why the analysis of the Islamic scholar is wrong:
First of all the book was not a required reading. Only a few excerpts were present in Serbian literature textbooks. The following two were required to memorize. I love to quote these among many others.
My people sleep a deep and lifeless sleep;
no parent's hand to wipe away my tears.
Above my head the heaven is shut tight;
it does not hear my cries or my prayers.
The world has now become a hell for me,
people have turned into hellish spirits.
O my dark day! O my black destiny!
Next one:
No one has yet drunk a cup of honey
without mixing it with a cup of gall.
A cup of gall needs a cup of honey;
they are swallowed the easiest when mixed.
I remember the following read in class:
Selim Vizier, slave of the Prophet's slave,
servant of the brother of the world's sun,
envoy of him who rules all of the earth.
Now be it known, leaders with your Bishop,
that the tsar of all tsars has ordered me
to make a tour of his land long and wide,
to see if all is in perfect order,
to see that wolves do not over-eat meat,
to see that sheep do not wander astray
and lose their fleece in a bush by the road,
to shorten that which is overly long,
to pour out that which has been overfilled,
to check the teeth of all the young people,
to see that a rose doesn't get lost in thorns
and that a pearl doesn't perish in the mire,
and to tighten the reins of the mob
since the mob is like other livestock.
If its not clear from this excerpt, this is a letter from Vizier who is asking the christian to submit to Turkish rule. He also announces taxing. 
“to check the teeth of all the young people” – take christian boys away and make them foot solders in Turkish army.
“to see that a rose doesn't get lost in thorns
and that a pearl doesn't perish in the mire” – take Christian girls away from their families and send them to harems.
Here Bishop Danilo refers to Turkish rule:
The wagon was overturned down the hill.
To the cruel men an empire is no good
except to spread their shame before the world.
A savage mind and a poisoned temper
has a wild boar, not a human being.
He whose law is written by his cudgel
leaves behind stench of inhumanity.
Basically the poem is not easy to read and high school students do not read the whole book – just the several passages that I have mentioned above.
Let me continue with the rest.
The analysis provided by an “Islamic scholar” who himself is a convert is extremely naïve and inaccurate, or simply malicious with the intent to convince readers of this article that Serbian people are genocidal and portray Bosnian muslims as the victims of “Serbian nationalism”. Well this is kind of inaccurate, shallow and offensive.
First of all, one cannot analyze this part of the poem as if  two statements were given at two different press conferences in the CNN style: One from Bishop Danilo and the other by converts to Islam.  The whole poem was written by one man; Njegos who was the ruler of Montenegro. Therefore it’s not muslims who are speaking, its one man who was trying to make a point.
Also, throughout the whole book, Njegos is pointing out that whatever is spoken by Turks is a lie:
A merchant lies to you with a coy smile,
a woman lies while she is shedding tears,
but no one lies as deftly as a Turk. 
Therefore, the “plea for coexistence” is not a plea, nor it is honest, it is just a lie and a way to buy time while muslim converts keep growing in numbers. 
So if you haven’t read the whole poem let me clarify a few things for you.
P.P. Njegos put himself in the shoes of his predecessor Bishop Danilo, who saw the following thing: His small country Montenegro was in the way of the expanding ottoman empire. He had a few thousand solders at best, vs hundreds of thousands of the Turkish invaders. The Turks did not come as guests but as conquerors, O,K.?... there is a difference. They offered the following choices to the conquered nations: death, conversion to islam or higher taxes. One of the taxes was the so called “blood tax”. Simply, turks used to take away christian boys from their families and make them foot soldiers for the Turkish army. Now put yourself in a situation of a member of a conquered nation. Would you like your invader who killed your people, who taxed you heavily, who took your  kids away to become solders in enemy’s army so they can come back and destroy and plunder their own nation? Would you like someone who imposed his religion on your people by force and death treats? Who is the victim here? Who is fighting for survival? Montenegro is mostly high mountains so  there were always parts impossible to conquer. Nevertheless, the weak had converted to islam because they obtained privileges.
In the poem many members of the council want to fight immediately, but Bishop Danilo says:
No ... no ... sit down. Let us talk it over!
If we agree, my brothers, I would like
to invite the leaders of the converts
to a meeting of all of our brothers,
we'll guarantee their lives until they leave.
Perhaps they will return then to our faith
and extinguish the flame of our blood-feud.
Now lets talk again about the plea for coexistence. This is also what the leaders of the converts said when they got together with christians:
In the name of my fair faith, I wonder
what reproach there you are making, Bishop!
Have you ever seen a cup to hold two drinks,
or seen a cap to fit two heads at once?
A small brook runs into a larger stream,
on emptying, it loses its own name;
at the seashore both lose identity.
Are you trying to catch bees in your cap
and with it start a beehive in the woods?
From such beehive no one will eat honey!
You are pushing a stone up hill in vain!
An old tree breaks before it is straightened!
Animals are very much like people.
Each living sort has its own character.
I don't ask 'bout the hen and the eagle,
but does, pray tell, a lion fear a goose?
DOES A LION FEAR A GOOSE I hope you get this one. Very strange plea for “coexistence” Read it again if you don’t understand. In plain English it’s “We are strong, it will be our way” After all, you defend the analysis done by “Islamic scholar”. Maybe you should spend some time reading the entire poem.
Your “scholar” says: 
“However, these pleas for coexistence are seen by the bishop as merely a satanic temptation, the smile of Judas, which he finally overcomes. So he replies: ‘Our land is foul; it reeks of this false religion”
Totally wrong!
This is the part in the poem that follows the “plea for coexistence”:
We would like to, Turks, but it cannot be!
This love of ours is a strange kind of love.
Our eyes do clash in a terrible way.
They do not look at each other friendly,
but vengefully and even savagely.
The eyes do say what the heart commands them.
Did your “Islamic scholar “miss this on purpose? What kind of analysis is that?
The part that mentions the false religion is this one:
And so began the devil's Messiah[43]
to offer them sweetmeats of his false faith.
May God strike you, loathsome degenerates,[44]
why do we need the Turk's faith among us?
What will you do with your ancestors' curse?[45]
With what will you appear before Milos[46]
and before all other Serbian heroes,
whose names will live as long as the sun shines?
Bishop Danilo was the ruler of the country. His people were converting to Islam for benefits they were given, and practically were not loyal to his rule but to Turkish rule. They were turning against their own people. Would you have liked Bishop Danilo to embrace them, especially in the 18th century? Would you have liked him to say “Please come conquer my land, kill my people, convert the rest to islam who will then do the same, even though you might be doing that we understand that you are peaceful and that you just want to coexist?” Would you like him to praise islam maybe?
Now your sentence 
”Role in Ethnic Cleansing" mainly quotes from the poem itself, in unambiguous terms. Its interpretation is plain and uncontroversial. This is reported on in a highly credible publication (University of Chicago professor, University of California press.)” 
Of course it quotes the poem only, but the whole poem is made in the way that two opposing sides are talking to each other while one of them (guess which one) is deceitful and the other one is fighting for survival. Yes the Christians decided to fight for their lives, land, honor and freedom. They didn’t to go Istanbul to oppress muslims there. They were fighting against the oppressors in their own land – Montenegro. Look at the map!
Also where is the proof that in the bloody war in which both sides committed crimes Serbs committed crimes because they read The Mountain Wreath?! If it's in the Michael Sells book then point out EXACTLY how Serbs were influenced? When I was in school I don't remember anybody told me that I should kill muslims? Also it is not in the bible.
Why don't you read Hadith book of jihad (book 11 verse 2:216), it bluntly says that you should kill for Allah even though you may not like it but it can be good for you. Read your book!
So let's see...your book says clearly and bluntly that you should kill in Allah's cause, while you insist on circumstantial evidence that a poem about fight for survival that is simply literature and not a HOLY BOOK is responsible for killing! Something is wrong here! Is this the kind of logic you use to go through life?
Here is another of your quotes:
“If there is an equally credible source challenging this straightforward interpretation, include it too-- but it would be foolish to withhold this citation until some mythical "alternative perspective" from a credible source surfaces.”
“Straightforward interpretation” I don’t think so. I call that an attempt of an “Islamic scholar” to portray the small group of christians fighting for survival as villains while their oppressors are the innocent victims. What is he trying to say? That oppressed nation is genocidal because they fought the conqueror?! Where is logic in that? 
Whoever reads the whole poem will understand who is the good guy and who is the bad guy (if i have to use these simplified terms) 
It is a ridiculous interpretation. Of course I understand why converts don't like it.
“Alternative perspective” – There are many “Christian scholars” who may not agree with your “Islamic scholar” I will make sure I contact some of them. So it is hardly an “alternative perspective” as you say. 
I know you are peaceful too but I hope you don’t set my car on fire now because I have quoted the text in which your prophet is mentioned. You know you should add a stub “The Role of Mountain Wreath in 9/11” That would be equally accurate. Then put a reference to someone whose book you want to help sell to university libraries since nobody buys that anyway.
I think this should be enough for tonight. I know that nothing I say will change your “determination” to attack a 150 year old poem for some reason that is I am sure different that just the innate desire of a honest human being to tell the truth to the world. Maybe you are the “Islamic scholar” yourself, or an ex-grad student of the author of the book so you get your cut when the book is sold or in the worst case you just want to defend “the right religion”?
Graduardo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.222.225 (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Break

message: * 22:04, 19 November 2007 Jeffrey O. Gustafson  protected The Mountain Wreath ‎ (target of banned user [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]
That was a couple of years ago, so it's possible that the banned user is no longer around, in which case the article can be unprotected.  As well as welcoming comments from regular editors I've contacted the protecting admin, Jeffrey O. Gustafson. --TS 03:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotection review

message: In the section "Ideological controversy", several fairly long stretches of text are borrowed from a source, the article by Srđa Pavlović  When reading Pavlovic's article one immediately recognise the wordings of the Wikipedia entry. The section should be reworked, reworded and when quoting the source verbatim, citation marks should of course be used. --Stighammar (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Duplicate Detector confirms your concern (link). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issues 

message: :It should be noted somewhere in the article that Njegos' Mountain Wreath was not a completely original work, but rather a combination of earlier Serbian Epic poems concerning the Montenegrin Inquisition. In Njegos' earlier book "The Serbian Mirror" (Ogledalo Srpsko) published 1835 (11 years earlier than MW) he includes traditional Serbian epic oral poems concerning the events that occur in The Mountain Wreath. The oral folk poem "Srpski Badnji Vece" directly deals with the events in the Mountain Wreath, featuring the main characters, Vladika Danilo, Batric, Vuk Micunovic and others. I believe it is important to note that the story of this work is not fiction made in 1847, rather based on oral history in Montenegro from 1699/1700. Critikal1 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mountain Wreath was a composition of older Epic Poetry 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Mountain Wreath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226200001/http://www.rastko.org.rs/knjizevnost/njegos/index.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/knjizevnost/njegos/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified