Talk:Millet (Ottoman Empire)

message: Is it really so widespread in Arab countries?  I had the impression that some of them had replaced the millet system with a bastardized mixture of the Code Napoléon and Islamic law which applies to all people, regardless of religion. AnonMoos 14:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I remember my Middle East history professor quite explicitly stating that Israel was the only nation to still use something similar to the millet system. - SimonP 15:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, many Middle Eastern countries still have special courts for religious minorities, on matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. (personal status), and many have reserved seats for them too (which do not exist in Israel). This is e.g. true for Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran and Pakistan. --Pylambert 18:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel like doing any strenuous research, but I noticed when looking up the Arabic word "millah" in the Wehr dictionary that the phrase majlis milli was defined as "court of justice of a religious minority (in Egypt abolished since 1956)". AnonMoos 18:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to a 1995 law, the application of family law, including marriage, divorce, alimony, child custody, inheritance, and burial, is based on an individual's religion. In the practice of family law, the State recognizes only the three "heavenly religions:" Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Muslim families are subject to the Personal Status Law, which draws on Shari'a (Islamic law). Christian families are subject to canon law, and Jewish families are subject to Jewish law. In cases of family law disputes involving a marriage between a Christian woman and a Muslim man, the courts apply the Personal Status Law. (Egypt - International Religious Freedom Report Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor) --Pylambert 19:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that you are defining millet too narrowly. It was much more than specialist courts for minorities, it was entirely different rules of citizenship. Each group had different systems of taxation, criminal and civil law, governance, education, and taxation. - SimonP 17:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 Comments

message: Mellah ملاح is not "cognate" with Millah ملة -- they come from completely different consonantal roots (the root of the first means "salt", and the root of the second originally meant "word" in Aramaic, and only the first root has a pharyngeal consonant). AnonMoos 06:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What?? (etymology)

message: "This article or section does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations" doesn't means that you can simply cut-and-paste here a bibliography taken from a website, because this would imply that this article was written on the base of the cited texts and this is not true. If you want to use that bibliography you had to check all those books and articles, find the relevants parts and modify this page to make it comply with the sources. Or you can simply modify the article so that it agrees with the website and then point out to that website as a reference. GhePeU 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gehepeu, you're living n a fantasy-world: except for a few stubby pages or a few I know to be based (e.g. because I write nearly all) from one source, the bulk of Wikipages I've examined (4700 in my watchlist) is clearly or apparently NOT fully sourced, if at all- I often put " (incomplete) " in the sources section and almost never see that challenged, as by the way I did here, so it most definitely does not claim to soirce everything. It certainly is no excuse for the capital crime of leaving out source credit where possible. What you mean by "page XX" is a cemplete mysetry to me; the relative lenght f sectis a window-dresing aspect as such. The minor is my deafu setting, which I sometimes forget to undo or, as yesterday, gets ignored when my connexion to wikepedia fails repeatedly apparently for network- or software-reasons Fastifex 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'm GhePeU, I'm writing from the University lab and I don't remember my password) Could you just shorten the list? Does referring to pp. 195-207 of the article Zur Diskussion um „millet“ im Osmanischen Reich published in Südost-Forschungen 48 or to p. 302 of 2000 Jahre Geschichte des Nahen Ostens and p. 99 of Der Untergang des Morgenlandes. Warum die islamische Welt ihre Vormacht verlor, both written by Bernard Lewis, add something significant to this page or does it simply clutter the section? 147.162.97.73 06:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The English is shaky in places, for example - History : "Given the House of Osman was a Muslim populated institution, it is important to understand objectively, besides the each millets own ego-centric histories, these institutions were related to each other during the 6 centuries that they occupied the same political sphere under the state organization of the Ottoman Empire."
I'll try editing it for clarity but can the original author check my work for intent? (in case I change the meaning) --Nickj69 08:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a copy edit 

message: How can this entire section not mention the Assyrians (Nestorians, Chaldeans, Syrian Orthodox) in the Ottoman Empire?  How is it that this large population of Christians has been completely left out?Waleeta 23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this is being ignored. But I agree, Assyrians must be mentioned in the article. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their inclusion is necessary, but let's remember that Assyrian was not the name of the millet. Whatever the ethnicity, there was never an Assyrian millet. There was a Süryani millet, however, and the article should reflect this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.21.207 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you even know what Süryani means? Hint: starts with an A and ends with Syrian. By the way, I just added a scholarly source. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that 'millet' is not a term of ethnicity (check the article) but a term for religion. So there was an Orthodox millet but not a Greek one. There was a millet for the Armenian Church and a millet for the Syriac Orthodox (Jacobite) Church, but an "Assyrian millet" was impossible. As evidence, look at Ottoman census registers to see the vocabulary used by the administration. Süryani = Syriac Orthodox, Keldani = Chaldean etc. They were all separate. Ordtoy (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Millets were religious denominations and they were separated under different millets as a result of different religious denominations. But, despite the separation between different millet groups, the ethnic groups were the same. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am familiar with the article and have read it. I suggest that you do too since it is clear that you have not. Simply referencing an article based on the name is not sufficient! The Naby article contains no information relevant to the Ottoman Empire since it is about Iran/Persia (and is a good source on activities in that country). This article is about Ottoman administration. In the Ottoman administrative structure, 'millet's were a religious NOT ethnic designation. Please re-read the previous post I made here. If you need a source, there are many. But I am providing one which deals with Ottoman history. Sorry for the harsh tone, but you are reverting without fully understanding the issues, please check them carefully. Ordtoy (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assyrians?

message: Somebody should include a section on the Assyrians up until the 20th century, as they were quite significant, especially in the Hakkari region. --Šarukinu 22:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems this is being ignored. But I agree, Assyrians must be mentioned in the article. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 15:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their inclusion is necessary, but let's remember that Assyrian was not the name of the millet. Whatever the ethnicity, there was never an Assyrian millet. There was a Süryani millet, however, and the article should reflect this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.21.207 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you even know what Süryani means? Hint: starts with an A and ends with Syrian. By the way, I just added a scholarly source. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that 'millet' is not a term of ethnicity (check the article) but a term for religion. So there was an Orthodox millet but not a Greek one. There was a millet for the Armenian Church and a millet for the Syriac Orthodox (Jacobite) Church, but an "Assyrian millet" was impossible. As evidence, look at Ottoman census registers to see the vocabulary used by the administration. Süryani = Syriac Orthodox, Keldani = Chaldean etc. They were all separate. Ordtoy (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Millets were religious denominations and they were separated under different millets as a result of different religious denominations. But, despite the separation between different millet groups, the ethnic groups were the same. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am familiar with the article and have read it. I suggest that you do too since it is clear that you have not. Simply referencing an article based on the name is not sufficient! The Naby article contains no information relevant to the Ottoman Empire since it is about Iran/Persia (and is a good source on activities in that country). This article is about Ottoman administration. In the Ottoman administrative structure, 'millet's were a religious NOT ethnic designation. Please re-read the previous post I made here. If you need a source, there are many. But I am providing one which deals with Ottoman history. Sorry for the harsh tone, but you are reverting without fully understanding the issues, please check them carefully. Ordtoy (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assyrians in the Ottoman Empire

message: The term "Millet" or "Melet" actually pre-dates the Ottoman Empire by quite a bit.  Accordingly, the title Millet (Ottoman Empire) may not be the most appropriate.  Perhaps a better title for this article would be something such as Millet (religious minority)? --Elonka 05:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The present content of the article does not sustain your claim. I suggest your first add references to this claim in the article before any change of name. Please keep in mind this is the millet article, not the ahl al-kitab or the ahl al-dhimma one. --Pylambert (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not familiar with al-kitab, but I'm working on cleanup/expansion at the Nestorianism and Church of the East articles (for example: Papa (Catholicos)).  The term Millet, milet, or melet is used quite a bit to refer to the Church's status while the Christians were a minority religion under the Persian Sassanid Empire (several centuries before the Ottomans). Here are some online sources, and here's a list of several more. --Elonka 20:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that Millet (Ottoman Empire) should stand, but that we should have a separate article for the more general millet/melet, which at least conceptually predated the Ottoman Empire.--Cúchullain t/c 19:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes sense.  Perhaps at the Melet name, with a disambig note, . --Elonka 22:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think Wigram was implying that the word itself dated to Sassanid times, but that the concept of a state recognized religious minority community existed at that time. I checked the OED, which says under millet: "In the Ottoman Empire: a division of the population according to religious or ethnic affiliation; a religious community or ethnic group having some degree of internal autonomy, esp. a non-Muslim one." It says that the Turkish milletcomes from the Arabic milla(t) and directs the reader to the Encyclopedia of Islam you brought up. So it looks like Wigram's use of melet for the pre-Ottoman Centuries in an English publication is somewhat idiosyncratic and should probably be avoided. But again, the concept does predate the Ottomans, whatever you call it; during the Caliphate, I would have called them a dhimmi community.--Cúchullain t/c 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're last point is not a bad one, even if a term like dhimmi has the problem of capturing only part of "millet" in the Ottoman sense: as said by the OED you've mentioned, millet is a division by "religious or 'ethnic affiliation", and the latter definition I don't think is available in "dhimmi". That said, I tend to agree about what you said regarding Wigram and the ultimate truth behind it, that is a the existence of the "the concept of a state recognized religious minority community". An article on the concept in the Sassanid times wouldn't be wrong, but I'm not sure what title it could have.--Aldux (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, sorry for my brief (and delayed) reply, but I'm on wikibreak for the next several days.  But here are a couple other sources:  Perhaps an alternate article could be Millet (Sassanid Empire)?  And Aldux, no need to apologize, I'm happy to have more eyes on the situation.  :) --Elonka 03:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: First:
Millet comes from Arabic "millah" but it does not "literally" mean "nation." It means "a group of people who believes in a certain religion." Millah is a subset of Ummah. Ummah is "all" the people who believes in a certain religion. Millah is a subset of it.
Millet is the same as "Millah."
For example, Christendom is the Christian Ummah. But "Christian" Germans is a "millet" of that "Christian Ummah" (Christendom). Similarly, "Christian" Englishes are again another millet of that ummah and christian italians are again another millet of that Christian ummah.
Millet does NOT mean a "nation." Nation does not have a religious meaning. For example not all French nation is Christian. So "French Milllet" and "French Nation" are two different entities. The "millet" only defines a certain religious comunity. Nation encompasses "all" French people whatever their religions are. 
Thus, French Nation has many millets in it. "Muslim French millet", "Christian French millet" etc. Muslim French millet is a subset of "Muslim Ummah" while Christian French millet is a subset of "Christian Ummah" which is also called Christendom.
Second
Ottoman Empire didn't have a "religious pluralism" in its law and administration. This is ridiculous.
Ottomans defined three certain religions as "valid." Sunni İslam, Orthodox Christianity and Judaism. All other sects of those religions were "outlawed" and all other religions were "outlawed."
For example; Alevi sect of Islam, Catholic sect of Christianity, and Shabbati sect of Judaism were outlawed and the adherents were systematically persecuted.
Those who don't adhere Christiyanity, Islam or Judaism were persecuted as well -whatever their religions are.
Those who don't adhere any religions were persecuted as well.
The punishment was almost always death. Most of the time without a trial.
So I can't see a "religious pluralism" here. I think the article is fabricated by some Ottomanist agitators.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Misconceptions in the Article 

message: The sentences "The millets had a great deal of power – they set their own laws and collected and distributed their own taxes. All that was required was loyalty to the Empire. When a member of one millet committed a crime against a member of another, the law of the injured party applied, but the ruling Islamic majority being paramount, any dispute involving a Muslim fell under their sharia−based law." are plagiarized, from Hosen and Mohr, Law and Religion in Public Life, p. 239. Omniadisce (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: Historians of the Ottoman Empire are not unanimous in believing that the Millet System can be traced all the way back to the time of Mehmed II. Benjamin Braude, in his famous article, argues very strongly that Mehmed II's supposed establishment of millets for the Christians, Jews, and Armenians after 1453 is in fact a myth invented much later and projected back upon that period. See "Foundation Myths of the Millet System," in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, Volume I, The Central Lands , London 1982. -Chamboz (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I just chanced on this topic after coming across it in Quataert's book. I've added another section, but I'm not quite sure where due weight lies here. Ursinus isn't quite buying this revision and by default I give considerable weight to EI2, hence I've softened Master's generalization a bit. The broader question is what to do with the antiquated -- or perhaps simply improperly sourced -- interpretations, like the stuff that was sourced with a 1910 citation I just removed, which doesn't even seem to mention millet. Perhaps this content should be replaced with a background section based on modern sources discussing how the Ottomans managed similar issues during earlier epochs. Eperoton (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Upon closer inspection, the (miscited) 1910 book used the spelling "melet" and the author explains that he uses it in a non-technical way for lack of a better term. Not sure this is due, but it least it's no longer misleading.  Eperoton (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: Here we read : "such in the case of candlestick wars of 1847, which eventually led in 1854[18] to the Crimean War."
Surely this must be a strange assertion.  I have never heard of such wars, and whereas the writer connects the section to the rise of nationalism within the Ottoman Empire, perhaps this needs revision?  I don't have sufficient knowledge myself, although I am interested in the Millet system, as it seems to be undergoing a rebirth in the UK.Johnny Cyprus (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of Protectorate of missions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Millet (Ottoman Empire). 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/20070704024752/http://www.psa.ac.uk/2006/pps/Kuruvilla.pdf to http://www.psa.ac.uk/2006/pps/Kuruvilla.pdf
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) 06:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see no straightforward connection with what Jingiby added and a millet influence in post-Ottoman Greece. The population exchange with Bulgaria that involved only Orthodox Christians is more of an example of ethnic-nationalism, with a European influence. On the contrary, the assimilatory practice for those who remained in Greece could be, at least in part, attributed to a millet/Ottoman heritage, but we need a source explaining this, as assimilation practices were common in nationalist movements across Europe as well, from which Balkan counterparts got most of their inspiration. We're really in OR territory here and in need of some source guidance to establish relevance/due weight.GroGaBa (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is poorly sourced and displays some confusion between millet as an Ottoman institution and millet as a looser designation for traditional religion-based legal pluralism of the Islamic world. Some sources do use the term in the broader sense, but the scope of this article is explicitly restricted to the Ottoman institution by the title. I'm not deleting any of the content for now, but, unless we get a consensus for changing the scope of the article, content in this section should be based on sources which use the term "millet" and discuss the Ottoman institution and its influences in post-Ottoman nation states. Eperoton (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Ottoman use in Greece