Jews and the Ottoman Empire

[civfanatic]

At midnight August 2, 1492, when Columbus embarked on what would become his most famous expedition to the New World, his fleet departed from the relatively unknown seaport of Palos because the shipping lanes of Cadiz and Seville were clogged with Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain by the Edict of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain.

The Jews forced either to convert to Christianity or to "leave" the country under menace "they dare not return... not so much as to take a step on them not trespass upon them in any manner whatsoever" left their land, their property, their belongings all that was theirs and familiar to them rather than abandon their beliefs, their traditions, their heritage.

In the faraway Ottoman Empire, one ruler extended an immediate welcome to the persecuted Jews of Spain, the Sephardim. He was the Sultan Bayazid II....

The history of the Jews in Anatolia started many centuries before the migration of Sephardic Jews. Remnants of Jewish settlement from the 4th century B.C.E. have been uncovered in the Aegean region, where Jews lived and traded in the ancient cities of Ephesus, Sardis, Pergamon, and Smyrna (renamed Izmir by the Turks). The historian Josephus Flavius relates that Aristotle "met Jewish people with whom he had an exchange of views during his trip across Asia Minor."

Sultan Bayezid II of the Ottoman Empire, who reigned from 1481 to 1512.

Second and third century Greek inscriptions tell of a flourishing Jewish community in Smyrna. Ancient synagogue ruins have also been found in Sardis, near Izmir, dating from 220 B.C.E. and traces of other Jewish settlements have been discovered near Bursa, in the southeast and along the Aegean, Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts. A bronze column found in Ankara confirms the rights the Emperor Augustus accorded the Jews of Asia Minor.

Jewish communities in Anatolia flourished and continued to prosper through the Turkish conquest. When the Ottomans captured Bursa in 1324 and made it their capital, they found a Jewish community oppressed under Byzantine rule. The Jews welcomed the Ottomans as saviors. Sultan Orhan gave them permission to build the Etz ha-Hayyim (Tree of Life) synagogue which remained in service until 50 years ago.

Early in the 14th century, when the Ottomans had established their capital at Edirne, Jews from Europe, including Karaites, migrated there. Similarly, Jews expelled from Hungary in 1376, from France by Charles VI in September 1394, and from Sicily early in the 15th century found refuge in the Ottoman Empire. In the 1420s, Jews from Salonika then under Venetian control fled to Edirne.

Welcoming of the Jews in Turkey, painting by Mevlut Akyildiz

Ottoman rule was much kinder than Byzantine rule had been. In fact, from the early 15th century on, the Ottomans actively encouraged Jewish immigration. Western European Jews received three invitations to settle in the Ottoman Empire. Two were from Muslim sultans, Muhammad (Mehmet) II in the middle of the 15th century and Bayazid II in 1492. The third came in a letter sent by Rabbi Yitzhak Sarfati (from Edirne) in 1454 to Jewish communities in Europe in the first part of the century that "invited his coreligionists to leave the torments they were enduring in Christiandom and to seek safety and prosperity in Turkey." Rabbi Sarfati wrote that "here every man dwells at peace under his own vine and fig tree."

When Mehmet II "the Conqueror" took Constantinople in 1453, he encountered an oppressed Romaniot (Byzantine) Jewish community which welcomed him with enthusiasm. Sultan Mehmet II issued a proclamation to all Jews "... to ascend the site of the Imperial Throne, to dwell in the best of the land, each beneath his Dine and his fig tree, with silver and with gold, with wealth and with cattle...".

In 1470, Jews expelled from Bavaria by Ludvig X found refuge in the Ottoman Empire.


A Haven for Sephardic Jewry:

Sultan Bayazid II's offer of refuge gave new hope to the persecuted Sephardim. In 1492, the Sultan ordered the governors of the provinces of the Ottoman Empire "not to refuse the Jews entry or cause them difficulties, but to receive them cordially." According to Bernard Lewis, "the Jews were not just permitted to settle in the Ottoman lands, but were encouraged, assisted and sometimes even compelled". Immanual Aboab attributes to Bayazid II the famous remark that "the Catholic monarch Ferdinand was wrongly considered as wise, since he impoverished Spain by the expulsion of the Jews, and enriched Turkey."

The arrival of the Sephardim altered the structure of the community and the original group of Romaniote Jews was totally absorbed.

These Jews settled in various Ottoman cities, such as Salonika, but it was not until the late sixteenth century that they moved to Smyrna, which has become a major port city. The arrival of the Sephardim altered the structure of the community and the original group of Romaniote Jews (descendants of Greek-speaking Jews) was totally absorbed.

Over the centuries an increasing number of European Jews, escaping persecution in their native countries, settled in the Ottoman Empire. In 1537 the Jews expelled from Apulia (Italy) after the city fell under Papal control, in 1542 those expelled from Bohemia by King Ferdinand found a safe haven in the Ottoman Empire. In March of 1556, Sultan Suleyman "the Magnificent" wrote a letter to Pope Paul IV asking for the immediate release of the Ancona Marranos, which he declared to be Ottoman citizens. The Pope had no other alternative than to release them, the Ottoman Empire being the "super power" of those days.

By 1477, Jewish households in Istanbul numbered 1,647 or 11% of the total. Half a century later, 8,070 Jewish houses were listed in the city.

The Life of Ottoman Jews:

For 300 years following the expulsion, the prosperity and creativity of the Ottoman Jews rivaled that of the Golden Age of Spain. Four Turkish cities: Istanbul, Izmir, Safed and Salonica became the centers of Sephardic Jewry. The Tu B'Shevat seder was developed in Izmir in the seventeenth century. The creator may have been Shabetai Zvi, the pseudo Messiah and founder of the Sabbatean movement. In reaction to Zvi, Izmir's Jews withdrew from any secular pursuits.

Most of the court physicians were Jews: Hakim Yakoub, Joseph and Moshe Hamon, Daniel Fonseca, Gabriel Buenauentura to name only very few ones.

One of the most significant innovations that Jews brought to the Ottoman Empire was the printing press. In 1493, only one year after their expulsion from Spain, David & Samuel ibn Nahmias established the first Hebrew printing press in Istanbul.

Ottoman diplomacy was often carried out by Jews. Joseph Nasi, appointed the Duke of Naxos, was the former Portuguese Marrano Joao Miques. Another Portuguese Marrano, Aluaro Mandes, was named Duke of Mytylene in return of his diplomatic services to the Sultan. Salamon ben Nathan Eskenazi arranged the first diplomatic ties with the British Empire. Jewish women such as Dona Gracia Mendes Nasi "La Seniora" and Esther Kyra exercised considerable influence in the Court.

In the free air of the Ottoman Empire, Jewish literature flourished. Joseph Caro compiled the Shulkhan Arukh. Shlomo haLevi Alkabes composed the Lekhah Dodi a hymn which welcomes the Sabbath according to both Sephardic and Ashkenazi ritual. Jacob Culi began to write the famous MeAm Loez. Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac Assa became known as the father of Judeo-Spanish literature.

On October 27, 1840 Sultan Abdulmecid issued his famous ferman concerning the "Blood Libel Accusation" saying: "... and for the love we bear to our subjects, we cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented as a consequence of accusations which have not the least foundation in truth...".

Under Ottoman tradition, each non-Moslem religious community was responsible for its own institutions, including schools. In the early 19th century, Abraham de Camondo established a modern school, "La Escola", causing a serious conflict between conservative and secular rabbis which was only settled by the intervention of Sultan Abdulaziz in 1864. The same year the Takkanot haKehilla (By-laws of the Jewish Community) was published, defining the structure of the Jewish community.


Link: Turkey: Virtual Jewish History Tour

 

[roma]

with the exception of one country all other muslim are most beautiful people .....shalom ....salaam !

 

[indian_sukhoi]

Ottoman Empire was by far better civilization than any other Middile-East kingdoms.

When the Spanish Inquisition, Most of the Muslims and Jews moved to Turkey and lived a good life.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

Ottoman Empire was by far better civilization than any other Middile-East kingdoms.

When the Spanish Inquisition, Most of the Muslims and Jews moved to Turkey and lived a good life.

Not really. The territory controlled by the Ottoman Empire was the most backward of all regions in Europe. In fact one key reason for the continuing backwardness of Middle east as a whole was that those areas were under Ottoman EMpire. The Ottoman Empire, being extremely diverse as it was, needed ideology of pan Islamism to unite all of its subjects. Pan Islamism and hardocre islamic policies ensured that the empire remained backwards and failed to go through many of the key social revolutions that were ongoing in Europe at the time, despite the Ottomans' geographical proximity to the "enlightened west".
As a whole, the only reason why Turkey is so modern in comparison to its muslim neighbours today is because its foundations lie in the staunch anti religion secularism as envisioned and implemented by its great founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Today's Turkey is the product of ultra nationalism rather than any kind of Islamic ideology.

 

[Das ka das]

with the exception of one country all other muslim are most beautiful people .....shalom ....salaam !

What an asinine statement, I suppose the Saudis and Iranians with their draconian laws are "beautiful people".

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

What an asinine statement, I suppose the Saudis and Iranians with their draconian laws are "beautiful people".

Ay-rab countries are worse than bakistan. Ay-rab countries have the lethal mixture of islamism + institutionalized racism. Ask the thousands of south asians and other non whites living there. Gulf ay-rabs even treat other non gulf ay-rabs as scum.

 

[civfanatic]

Not really. The territory controlled by the Ottoman Empire was the most backward of all regions in Europe. In fact one key reason for the continuing backwardness of Middle east as a whole was that those areas were under Ottoman EMpire. The Ottoman Empire, being extremely diverse as it was, needed ideology of pan Islamism to unite all of its subjects. Pan Islamism and hardocre islamic policies ensured that the empire remained backwards and failed to go through many of the key social revolutions that were ongoing in Europe at the time, despite the Ottomans' geographical proximity to the "enlightened west".
As a whole, the only reason why Turkey is so modern in comparison to its muslim neighbours today is because its foundations lie in the staunch anti religion secularism as envisioned and implemented by its great founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Today's Turkey is the product of ultra nationalism rather than any kind of Islamic ideology.

In what way was the Ottoman Empire "backward"? Be specific.

The social backwardness of the Ottoman Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries had nothing to do with "Pan-Islamic policies" but with the increasing inability of Ottoman sultans to pass effective legislation and reforms due to court intrigue and the intervention of the Janissary Corps. There were numerous Ottoman sultans who wanted to reform the Ottoman Empire along European lines in the 17th-19th centuries, but most lacked the political means to do so.

Even then, the Ottoman Empire managed to maintain its independence from the European powers and successfully fought off the Greeks and Allied powers in the early 1900s.

 

[prateikf]

The Ottoman Empire towards the end became intolerant and increasingly brutal towards it's non-turkic minorities. It savagely massacred a million innocent Armenian's in what became the first Genocide of the 20th Century and served to inspire Hitler to implement the Holocaust. There should be no glorification of such a brutal empire. How would it be if one were to praise Nazi Germany for it's effective economic policies and protection of wildlife? The brutal massacres of innocent Armenians will forever be a stain on the Ottoman Empire and Turkey.

 

[Das ka das]

The Ottoman Empire towards the end became intolerant and increasingly brutal towards it's non-turkic minorities. It savagely massacred a million innocent Armenian's in what became the first Genocide of the 20th Century and served to inspire Hitler to implement the Holocaust. There should be no glorification of such a brutal empire. How would it be if one were to praise Nazi Germany for it's effective economic policies and protection of wildlife? The brutal massacres of innocent Armenians will forever be a stain on the Ottoman Empire and Turkey.

It should be noted that the Ottoman genocide of the Christian Armenians started when the Young Turks came to power. The Young Turks were against granting concessions to dhimmis or gavours and theirs was a true Islamic backlash. Mehmed Talat an influential leader of the Young Turks argued that notion of equality with gavours "is an unrecognizable ideal since it is inimical with Sheriat and the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of Muslims". In short the Armenian genocide was among the most recent of the successful Islamic campaigns against the infidels. Blaming it all on Turkic nationalism is an exercise in futility. For more information consult "The Legacy of Jihad", a magisterial work edited by Andrew Bostom.

 

[dhananjay1]

Jews were second class citizens under all Christian and Muslim states, only the degree of persecution was different in places and times.

 

[civfanatic]

The Ottoman Empire towards the end became intolerant and increasingly brutal towards it's non-turkic minorities. It savagely massacred a million innocent Armenian's in what became the first Genocide of the 20th Century and served to inspire Hitler to implement the Holocaust. There should be no glorification of such a brutal empire. How would it be if one were to praise Nazi Germany for it's effective economic policies and protection of wildlife? The brutal massacres of innocent Armenians will forever be a stain on the Ottoman Empire and Turkey.

This thread is not about the Armenian Genocide. It is about Jews and the Ottoman Empire.

It's rather idiotic to judge a state that spanned over 600 years based on some events that took place in the last decade of its existence. The simple fact is that, for much of its history, the Ottoman Empire was far more tolerant of religious and ethnic minorities than most of Europe. Religious minorities from all over Europe flocked to Turkey when the Ottoman Empire was at its height, not the other way around. This is discussed in the article in the OP.

It should be noted that the Ottoman genocide of the Christian Armenians started when the Young Turks came to power. The Young Turks were against granting concessions to dhimmis or gavours and theirs was a true Islamic backlash. Mehmed Talat an influential leader of the Young Turks argued that notion of equality with gavours "is an unrecognizable ideal since it is inimical with Sheriat and the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of Muslims". In short the Armenian genocide was among the most recent of the successful Islamic campaigns against the infidels. Blaming it all on Turkic nationalism is an exercise in futility. For more information consult "The Legacy of Jihad", a magisterial work edited by Andrew Bostom.

Bullshit. The Young Turk Revolution took place due to the common anti-monarchial sentiments of a diverse coalition of groups, including moderate reformists, Turkish ultranationalists, staunch secularists, and Pan-Islamists. Many of the Young Turks were highly critical of Islam and religion in general as obstacles to social advancement; several members, such as Munis Tekinalp (a Jew) and founder Abdallah Cedvet (a Baha'i), were not even Muslims. The Young Turks did occasionally use Islam as a nationalist device to unite the Turkish masses (who at this time were still quite religious), but to call the Young Turk Revolution as an "Islamic backlash" is entirely inaccurate, and in fact an obfuscation of the historical evidence. Immediately after the Young Turks rose to power in 1908, they took action to restrict the role of Islam in social life, so that in June 1909 the sharia courts were banned from hearing private cases, and by 1917 all sharia courts were subject to the state as part of the Ministry of Justice. Indeed, it was the Young Turk Revolution that set Turkey on the path towards secularism and the total overhaul of its society.

 

[Das ka das]

Bullshit. The Young Turk Revolution took place due to the common anti-monarchial sentiments of a diverse coalition of groups, including moderate reformists, Turkish ultranationalists, staunch secularists, and Pan-Islamists. Many of the Young Turks were highly critical of Islam and religion in general as obstacles to social advancement; several members, such as Munis Tekinalp (a Jew) and founder Abdallah Cedvet (a Baha'i), were not even Muslims. The Young Turks did occasionally use Islam as a nationalist device to unite the Turkish masses (who at this time were still quite religious), but to call the Young Turk Revolution as an "Islamic backlash" is entirely inaccurate, and in fact an obfuscation of the historical evidence. Immediately after the Young Turks rose to power in 1908, they took action to restrict the role of Islam in social life, so that in June 1909 the sharia courts were banned from hearing private cases, and by 1917 all sharia courts were subject to the state as part of the Ministry of Justice. Indeed, it was the Young Turk Revolution that set Turkey on the path towards secularism and the total overhaul of its society.

I am going to quote verbatim from Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad".

The wartime reports from German and Austro—Hungarian officials also confirm independent evidence that the origins and evolution of the genocide had little to do with World War I 'Armenian provocations'. Emphasis is placed, instead, on the larger pre—war context dating from the failure of the mid—19th century Ottoman Tanzimat reform efforts.[/B] [15] These reforms, initiated by the declining Ottoman Empire (i.e., in 1839 and 1856) under intense pressure from the European powers, were designed to abrogate the repressive laws of dhimmitude, to which non—Muslim (primarily Christian) minorities, including the Armenians, had been subjected for centuries, following the Turkish jihad conquests of their indigenous homelands. [16]
Led by their patriarch, the Armenians felt encouraged by the Tanzimat reform scheme, and began to deluge the Porte (Ottoman seat of government) with pleas and requests, primarily seeking governmental protection against a host of mistreatments, particularly in the remote provinces. Between 1850 and 1870, alone, 537 notes were sent to the Porte by the Armenian patriarch characterizing numerous occurrences of theft, abduction, murder, confiscatory taxes, and fraud by government officials. [17] These entreaties were largely ignored, and ominously, were even considered as signs of rebelliousness. For example, British Consul (to Erzurum) Clifford Lloyd reported in 1890,
Discontent, or any description of protest is regarded by the local Turkish Local Government as seditious. [18]
He went on to note that this Turkish reaction occurred irrespective of the fact that "..the idea of revolution.." was not being entertained by the Armenian peasants involved in these protests. [19]
The renowned Ottomanist, Roderick Davison, has observed that under the Shari'a (Islamic Holy Law) the '..infidel gavours ['dhimmis', 'rayas']" were permanently relegated to a status of "inferiority" and subjected to a 'contemptuous half—toleration'. Davison further maintained that this contempt emanated from 'an innate attitude of superiority', and was driven by an 'innate Muslim feeling', prone to paroxysms of 'open fanaticism'. [20] Sustained, vehement reactions to the 1839 and 1856 Tanzimat reform acts by large segments of the Muslim population, led by Muslim spiritual leaders and the military, illustrate Davison's point. [21] Perhaps the most candid and telling assessment of the doomed Tanzimat reforms, in particular the 1856 Act, was provided by Mustafa Resid, Ottoman Grand Vizier at six different times between 1846—58. In his denunciation of the reforms, Resid argued the proposed 'complete emancipation' of the non—Muslim subjects, appropriately destined to be subjugated and ruled, was 'entirely contradictory' to 'the 600 year traditions of the Ottoman Empire'. He openly proclaimed the 'complete emancipation' segment of the initiative as disingenuous, enacted deliberately to mislead the Europeans, who had insisted upon this provision. Sadly prescient, Resid then made the ominous prediction of a 'great massacre' if equality was in fact granted to non—Muslims. [22]
Despite their 'revolutionary' advent, and accompanying comparisons to the ideals of the French Revolution, the CUP's 'Young Turk' regime eventually adopted a discriminatory, anti—reform attitude toward non—Muslims within the Ottoman Empire. During an August 6, 1910 speech in Saloniki, Mehmed Talat, pre—eminent leader of the Young Turks disdainfully rejected the notion of equality with 'gavours' , arguing that it '...is an unrecognizable ideal since it is inimical with Sheriat [Shari'a] and the sentiments of hundreds of thousands of Muslims...'. [23] Roderick Davison notes that in fact '..no genuine equality was ever attained..', re—enacting the failure of the prior Tanzimat reform period. As a consequence, he observes, the CUP leadership '...soon turned from equality...to Turkification...' [24] Indeed, an influential member of the Ottoman Committee of Union and Progress, Sheik Abd—ul—Hack, a 'progressive' Young Turk, made this revealing declaration writing in a Parisian Muslim review, (Le Mecherouttiete, edited by Sherif Pasha, Paris), in August, 1912:
Yes! The Musulman religion is in open hostility to all your world of progress. Understand, you European observers, that a Christian, whatever his position may be, by the mere fact of his being a Christian is regarded by us as a blind man lost to all sense of human dignity. Our reasoning with regard to him is as simple as it is definitive. We say: the man whose judgment is so perverted as to deny the existence of a one and only God, and to make up gods of different sorts, can only be the meanest expression of human degradation; to speak to him would be a humiliation for our intelligence and an insult to the grandeur of the Master of the Universe. The presence of such miscreants among us is the bane of our existence; their doctrine is a direct insult to the purity of our faith; contact with them is a defilement of our bodies; any relation with them a torture to our souls. Though detesting you, we have condescended to study your political institutions and your military organization. Over and above the new weapons that Providence procures for us through your agency, you have yourselves rekindled, the inextinguishable faith of our heroic martyrs. Our Young Turks, our Babis, our new Brotherhoods, all our sects, under various forms, are inspired by the same idea; the same necessity of moving forward. Towards what end? Christian civilization? Never! Islam is the one great international family. All true believers are brothers. A community of feeling and of faith binds them in mutual affection. It is for the Caliph to facilitate these relations and to rally the Faithful under the sacerdotal
standard. [25]
During the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid, the Ottoman Turks massacred over 200,000 Armenians between 1894—96. This was followed, under the Young Turk regime, by the Adana massacres of 25,000 Armenians in 1909, and the first formal genocide of the 20th century, when in 1915 alone, an additional 600,000 to 800,000 Armenians were slaughtered. [26] The massacres of the 1890s had an 'organic' connection to the Adana massacres of 1909, and more importantly, the events of 1915. As Dadrian argues, they facilitated the genocidal acts of 1915 by providing the Young Turks with 'a predictable impunity.' The absence of adverse consequences for the Abdul Hamid massacres in the 1890s allowed the Young Turks to move forward without constraint. [27]
Contemporary accounts from European diplomats make clear that these brutal massacres were perpetrated in the context of a formal jihad against the Armenians who had attempted to throw off the yoke of dhimmitude by seeking equal rights and autonomy. For example, the Chief Dragoman (Turkish—speaking interpreter) of the British embassy reported regarding the 1894—96 massacres:
[The perpetrators] are guided in their general action by the prescriptions of the Sheri [Sharia] Law. That law prescribes that if the "rayah" [dhimmi] Christian attempts, by having recourse to foreign powers, to overstep the limits of privileges allowed them by their Mussulman [Muslim] masters, and free themselves from their bondage, their lives and property are to be forfeited, and are at the mercy of the Mussulmans. To the Turkish mind the Armenians had tried to overstep those limits by appealing to foreign powers, especially England. They therefore considered it their religious duty and a righteous thing to destroy and seize the lives and properties of the Armenians. [28]
Bat Ye'or confirms this reasoning, noting that the Armenian quest for reforms invalidated their "legal status," which involved a "contract" (i.e., with their Muslim Turkish rulers). This
...breach...restored to the umma [the Muslim community] its initial right to kill the subjugated minority [the dhimmis], [and] seize their property... [29]
Kinross [30] has described the tactics of Abdul Hamid's agents, who deliberately fomented religious fanaticism among the local Muslim populations in Turkish Armenia, and the devastating results of this incitement:
It became their normal routine first to assemble the Moslem population in the largest mosque in a town, then to declare, in the name of the Sultan, that the Armenians were in general revolt with the aim of striking at Islam. Their Sultan enjoined them as good Moslems to defend their faith against these infidel rebels. He propounded the precept that under the holy law the property of rebels might be looted by believers, encouraging Moslems to enrich themselves in the name of their faith at the expense of their Christian neighbours, and in the event of resistance, to kill them. Hence, throughout Armenia, 'the attack of an ever increasing pack of wolves against sheep.'... Each operation, between the bugle calls, followed a similar pattern. First into a town there came the Turkish troops, for the purpose of massacre; then came the Kurdish irregulars and tribesmen for the purpose of plunder. Finally came the holocaust, by fire and destruction, which spread, with the pursuit of fugitives and mopping—up operations, throughout the lands and villages of the surrounding province. This murderous winter of 1895 thus saw the decimation of much of the Armenian population and the devastation of their property in some twenty districts of eastern Turkey. Often the massacres were timed for a Friday, when the Moslems were in their mosques and the myth was spread by the authorities that the Armenians conspired to slaughter them at prayer. Instead they were themselves slaughtered, when the Moslems emerged to forestall their design. The total number of victims was somewhere between fifty and a hundred thousand, allowing for those who died subsequently of wounds, disease, exposure, and starvation...In each of thirteen large towns the numbers of those dead ran well into four figures. In Erzurum, the bazaar of a thousand shops was looted and wrecked by the Moslems, while some three hundred Christians were buried the next day in a single massed grave...Cruelest and most ruinous of all were the massacres at Urfa, where the Armenian Christians numbered a third of the total population. Here in December 1895, after a two—months siege of their quarter, the leading Armenians assembled in their cathedral, where they drew up a statement requesting Turkish official protection. Promising this, the Turkish officer in charge surrounded the cathedral with troops. Then a large body of them, with a mob in their wake, rushed through the Armenian quarter, where they plundered all houses and slaughtered all adult males above a certain age. When a large group of young Armenians were brought before a sheikh, he had them thrown down on their backs and held by their hands and feet. Then, in the words of an observer, he recited verses of the Koran and 'cut their throats after the Mecca rite of sacrificing sheep.'...When the bugle blast ended the day's operations some three thousand refugees poured into the cathedral, hoping for sanctuary. But the next morning — a Sunday — a fanatical mob swarmed into the church in an orgy of slaughter, rifling its shrines will cries of 'Call upon Christ to prove Himself a greater prophet than Mohammed.' Then they amassed a large pile of straw matting, which they spread over the litter of the corpses and set alight with thirty cans of petroleum. The woodwork of the gallery where a crowd of women and children crouched, wailing in terror, caught fire, and all perished in the flames. Punctiliously, at three—thirty in the afternoon the bugle blew once more, and the Moslem officials proceeded around the Armenian quarter to proclaim that the massacres were over. They had wiped out 126 complete families, without a woman or a baby surviving, and the total casualties in the town, including those slaughtered in the cathedral, amounted to eight thousand dead.
A 1915 Ottoman Fatwa [31] believed to have been written by Sheikh Shawish (entitled, Aljihad, and translated into English, March 10, 1915) included a statement attached to its official United States consulate translation indicating, 'It was undoubtedly this and similar pamphlets which inspired the Jewish community of Alexandria' to contact the United States Consul General's office in Cairo. The calls to religiously motivated violence against non—Muslims, as sanctioned by Islam—jihad war—are unmistakably clear.
If you believe in God, in his faith and apostle, hear the words of our sages as recorded by his holy prophet. 'You believers take not the Jews and Christians as friends unto you, He who loves then shall be called one of them'. 'God shall not foster the tyrants'. You believers accept not unto you friends of these who abuse your faith and mock thereof. They are called unbelievers, and you hearken unto the words of God of you believe. Therefore if after you will put to heart to these sacred words, perhaps they have been spoken to you by God not to acquire unto us Jewish or Christian friends. From these holy words you will realize that it is forbidden us to approach those who mock our faith — Jews and Christians, for then God forbid, God forbid we shall be deemed by the almighty as one of them God forbid.... After all this how can we believe in the sincerity of your faith when you befriend and love unbelievers, and accept their Government without any rising without attempting to expel them from your country. Therefore arise and purify yourselves of such deeds. Arise to the Holy War no matter what it costs so as to carry into execution this sacred deed. It is furthermore said in the Koran 'If your fathers if children taken unto them friends of the unbelievers, estrange yourselves even from them.'... The Mohammedan religion enjoins us to set aside some money for Government expenses and for preparations of a holy war. The rest of your tithes and contributions you are duty bound to send to the capital of the Caliphate to help them to glorify the name of God, through the medium of the Caliph. Let all Mussulmans know that the Holy War is created only for this purpose. We trust in God that the Mohammedan lands will rise from humiliation and become faithfully tied to the capital of the Caliphate until, so as to be called 'the lands of Islam'. This is our hope and God help us to carry through our holy aims to a successful issue for the sake of our holy Prophet... A holy war is a sacred duty and for your information let it be known that the armies of the Caliph is ready and in three divisions, as follows: War in secret, war by word of mouth, and physical war. War in secret. This is the easiest and simplest. In this case it is to suppose that every unbeliever is an enemy, to persecute and exterminate him from the face of the earth. There is not a Mussulman in the world who is not inspired by this idea. However in the Koran it is said: 'That such a war is not enough for a Mohammedan whether young or old, and must also participate in the other parts of the Holy War. War by word of mouth. That is to say fighting by writing and speaking. This kind of war for example should pertain to the Mahomedans of the Caucasus. They should have commenced this war three or four months ago, because their actual position does not permit them to but the carrying on of such warfare. Every Mahomedan is in duty bound to write and speak against the unbelievers when actual circumstances do not permit him to assume more stringent measures, as for instance in the Caucasus. Therefore every writer must use his pen in favor of such a war. Physical war. This means actual fighting in the fullest sense of the word... Now let us mention here the means to be adopted in carrying on this holy war, as follows: Every private individual can fight with deadly weapons, as for example. Here is the following illustration of the late Egyptian Verdani who shot the unbelieving Butros Gal Pacha the friend of the English with a revolver. The murder of the English police Commissioner Bavaro in India by one of our Indian brethren. The killing of one of the officials of Kansch on his coming from Mecca by the Prophet's friend 'Abu Bazir El Pzachbi', peace be unto him! Abdallah ibn Aatick and four colleagues killed 'Abu Raafah Ibn El Hakiki'. The leader of the Jews of Khaybar so famous for his enmity to Islamism. This was executed by our Prophet's command, so did Avrala Ibn Ravacha and his friends when they killed Oscher Ibn Dawas one of the Jewish dignitaries. There are many instances of similar cases. Lord of the Universal What fails us now, and why should not some of us go forth to fight this sacred war for exalting thy glorious name?
An intrepid Protestant historian and missionary Johannes Lepsius, who earlier had undertaken a two—month trip to examine the sites of the Abul Hamid era massacres, returned to Turkey during World War I. He again documented the results of such invocations of jihad against non—Muslims, as espoused by Sheikh Shawish, during the period between 1914—1918. Lepsius wrote:
Are we then simply forbidden to speak of the Armenians as persecuted on account of their religious belief'? If so, there have never been any religious persecutions in the world...We have lists before us of 559 villages whose surviving inhabitants were converted to Islam with fire and sword; of 568 churches thoroughly pillaged, destroyed and razed to the ground; of 282 Christian churches transformed into mosques; of 21 Protestant preachers and 170 Gregorian (Armenian) priests who were, after enduring unspeakable tortures, murdered on their refusal to accept Islam. We repeat, however, that those figures express only the extent of our information, and do not by a long way reach to the extent of the reality. Is this a religious persecution or is it not? [32]
Finally, Bat Ye'or [33] places the continuum of massacres from the 1890s through the end of World War I, in an overall theological and juridical context, as follows:
The genocide of the Armenians was the natural outcome of a policy inherent in the politico—religious structure of dhimmitude. This process of physically eliminating a rebel nation had already been used against the rebel Slav and Greek Christians, rescued from collective extermination by European intervention, although sometimes reluctantly.
The genocide of the Armenians was a jihad. No rayas took part in it. Despite the disapproval of many Muslim Turks and Arabs, and their refusal to collaborate in the crime, these masssacres were perpetrated solely by Muslims and they alone profited from the booty: the victims' property, houses, and lands granted to the muhajirun, and the allocation to them of women and child slaves. The elimination of male children over the age of twelve was in accordance with the commandments of the jihad and conformed to the age fixed for the payment of the jizya. The four stages of the liquidation— deportation, enslavement, forced conversion, and massacre— reproduced the historic conditions of the jihad carried out in the dar—al—harb from the seventh century on. Chronicles from a variety of sources, by Muslim authors in particular, give detailed descriptions of the organized massacres or deportation of captives, whose sufferings in forced marches behind the armies paralleled the Armenian experience in the twentieth century.

 

[Armand2REP]

What an asinine statement, I suppose the Saudis and Iranians with their draconian laws are "beautiful people".

Have you ever seen Persian women? :cb:

 

[civfanatic]

I am going to quote verbatim from Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad".

Why don't you respond to my actual post rather than quote blindly from someone who is not even a professional historian.

The Armenian Genocide may or may not have characteristics of a "jihad", but the Young Turk Revolution certainly was not an "Islamic backlash" or anything remotely approaching it.

 

[Das ka das]

Why don't you respond to my actual post rather than quote blindly from someone who is not even a professional historian.

The Armenian Genocide may or may not have characteristics of a "jihad", but the Young Turk Revolution certainly was not an "Islamic backlash" or anything remotely approaching it.

Bat Y'eor is the foremost authority on Christian and Jewish dhimmis and was quoted in the article.

Also the arrogance you show on someone who is not a "professional" historian is not encouraging. Are you a professional historian? Dr. Bostom has compiled a huge amount of data regarding the true nature of the Armenian genocide, his book is worth looking at.

 

[civfanatic]

Bat Y'eor is the foremost authority on Christian and Jewish dhimmis and was quoted in the article.

Also the arrogance you show on someone who is not a "professional" historian is not encouraging. Are you a professional historian? Dr. Bostom has compiled a huge amount of data regarding the true nature of the Armenian genocide, his book is worth looking at.

I am not a professional historian but I get my information from people who are, and not conspiracy theorists like Bat Y'eor, who should not even be considered an "academic" let alone an "authority" on anything. Lead Bernard Lewis (a Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern studies and a real authority on Islam) and other actual historians for a better understanding of Islamic history.

 

[Das ka das]

I am not a professional historian but I get my information from people who are, and not conspiracy theorists like Bat Y'eor, who should not even be considered an "academic" let alone an "authority" on anything. Lead Bernard Lewis (a Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern studies and a real authority on Islam) and other actual historians for a better understanding of Islamic history.

Yeah okay...the same Bernard Lewis who told Congress not to formally recognize the Armenian Genocide as a genocide. You ever think that these professional historians have vested interests? Did you know Bernard Lewis served as editor for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs which is a front of the Muslim Brotherhood?

 

[civfanatic]

Yeah okay...the same Bernard Lewis who told Congress not to formally recognize the Armenian Genocide as a genocide. You ever think that these professional historians have vested interests? Did you know Bernard Lewis served as editor for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs which is a front of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Some of Lewis' views are controversial for obvious reasons (just to make it clear, he doesn't deny that Armenians were massacred in large numbers, only the interpretation of the events as a "genocide"), but that's besides the point. He is entitled to his own opinions that he may formulate as a result of his research, just as people like K.S. Lal are entitled to their own opinions. The fact that he served as an editor for the JMMA shows what, that he is a jihadist? Anyone who has read his work on Islamic history knows that couldn't be the case. I would strongly recommend his works, especially his earlier ones, for anyone wanting to know more about the interaction between Islam and other cultures.

 

[ashdoc]

Ottoman Empire was by far better civilization than any other Middile-East kingdoms.

When the Spanish Inquisition, Most of the Muslims and Jews moved to Turkey and lived a good life.

not true . the ottoman's were barbarians and their history is replete with sickening massacres of human beings .

 

[prateikf]

Even before the collapse of the Ottoman empire the Armenian's were savagely massacred in 1894 in what came to be known as the Hamindian massacres by the Ottoman Sultan. The otoman's treated non-muslims and later non-turks as second class citizens and were hated by even the Arabs.