View Full Version : The Edict of Fatih Mehmet
I just ran across this on the net, thought I'd post it for you all. This was written after the Turks annexed Bosnia, 1463. I was quite impressed with the religious tolerance. Makes a big change from the mentality of the Muslim extremists today. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
AHDNAMA OF THE FATIH SULTAN MEHMET
MEHMET THE SON OF MURAT KHAN, ALWAYS VICTORIOUS
THE COMMAND OF THE HONORABLE, SUBLIME SULTAN'S SIGN AND SHINING SEAL OF THE CONQUEROR OF THE WORLD IS AS FOLLOWS:
I, THE SULTAN MEHMET - KHAN INFORM ALL THE WORLD THAT THE ONES WHO POSSESS THIS IMPERIAL EDICT, THE BOSNIAN FRANCISCANS, HAVE GOT INTO MY GOOD GRACES, SO I COMMAND:
LET NOBODY BOTHER OR DISTURB THOSE WHO ARE MENTIONED, NOT THEIR CHURCHES. LET THEM DWELL IN PEACE IN MY EMPIRE. AND LET THOSE WHO HAVE BECOME REFUGEES BE AND SAFE. LET THEM RETURN AND LET THEM SETTLE DOWN THEIR MONASTERIES WITHOUT FEAR IN ALL THE COUNTRIES OF MY EMPIRE.
NEITHER MY ROYAL HIGHNESS, NOR MY VIZIERS OR EMPLOYEES, NOR MY SERVANTS, NOR ANY OF THE CITIZENS OF MY EMPIRE SHALL INSULT OR DISTURB THEM. LET NOBODY ATTACK INSULT OR ENDANGER NEITHER THEIR LIFE OR THEIR PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY OF THEIR CHURCH. EVEN IF THEY BRING SOMEBODY FROM ABROAD INTO MY COUNTRY, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO.
AS, THUS, I HAVE GRACIOUSLY ISSUED THIS IMPERIAL EDICT, HEREBY TAKE MY GREAT OATH.
IN THE NAME OF THE CREATOR OF THE EARTH AND HEAVEN, THE ONE WHO FEEDS ALL CREATURES, AND IN THE NAME OF THE SEVEN MUSTAFAS AND OUR GREAT MESSENGER, AND IN THE NAME OF THE SWORD I PUT, NOBODY SHALL DO CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, AS LONG AS THEY ARE OBEDIENT AND FAITHFUL TO MY COMMAND.
This is a good proof to some people who thinks Turks are barbarians, raiders or killers. The Turks allowed the Armenian, Greek churches to survive, allowed people of other religions to live their own religion, saved the Jews from Spain, invited them to live in the Ottoman lands etc.. etc...
Maybe if Turks were as evil as people thought, there would be less problems today. If they forced Balkans to be Muslims, slaughtered christians, Serbs etc... (not that I wish they did) there would never be a Bosnian problem, if they assimilated Arabs and therefore held control of Arab lands there would be no Palestinian, or middle east problem etc..., and the Ottomans would live longer lol http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
kataphraktoi
06-28-2003, 16:38
Today's Muslim have a lot to learn from the past don;t they?
Its funny - extremists who rant about the Islamic Golden Age are more strict and regulatory than Muslims in the "Golden Age" who embraced a lost of Western ideas and influences leading to an energetic Islamic civilisation.
Mehmed was mentally unstable - he could be outrageously kind or a savage beast - doesn't surprise me with his edict.
A smart politician too - he had to neutralise the hositility of the Bosnian Catholics whose northern neighbours - The Austrians - were Catholic.
kataphraktoi
06-28-2003, 16:40
I wonder if a Muslim has to recite the Shahada if he/she is born a Muslim??
LOL, no offense m8, but just as before I'm surprised with some of the points in your topics.
Quote[/b] ]"Golden Age" who embraced a lost of Western ideas and influences leading to an energetic Islamic civilisation.
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif In which western world were these ideas in in the year of 1463? I don't understand why do westerns consider everything nice as western. These things are related with true Islam. So maybe west embraced a lot of east ideas huh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]Mehmed was mentally unstable - he could be outrageously kind or a savage beast - doesn't surprise me with his edict.
In our earlier discussions I was exactly against this kind of stuff. Where does this write? I just can't understand how some people percieve history.
Quote[/b] ]A smart politician too - he had to neutralise the hositility of the Bosnian Catholics whose northern neighbours - The Austrians - were Catholic.
LOL, again I can't understand. The Ottomans were already hostile with almost all factions. When he was at war with a christian faction, Ottomans were also fighting with other Christian factions that sent their help vs their common enemy, the Turks. Fatih Sultan Mehmet did not care about friendships with anyone (not saying this is something nice though http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif )
Quote[/b] ]I wonder if a Muslim has to recite the Shahada if he/she is born a Muslim??
What is Shahada anyway? Sorry I don't know the English term. Hmmm, maybe it is the English of Kelime-i Sahadet. Are you talking about the phrase that any Muslim knows?: Esheduenla ilahe ilallah ve eshedu enne Muhammeden abduhu ve resulu. (Means Allah is the only god and Muhammed is his prophet. Do you mean this?
kataphraktoi
06-29-2003, 17:08
Let me clarify myself - when I meant western influences - I meant contextually Roman and Greek knowledge and influences in the early history of Islam. I didn't mean the modern western influences we have today and I agree that Western influences are not automatically great and superior - I never even alluded to it as such.
Roman and Greek knowledge played a large part ini the cultivation of an active Islamic civilisation which influenced to a certain extent(but not solely responsible) for the Renaissance. Ironically the Renaissance owed much of its influences to Greek influences through the Byzantines in an ironic hostile relationship.
Some people can't handle other perspectives if it doesn;t suit them. Especially about Mehmed the madman - even his Vizier thought Mehmed was s screwball with a insane ideas - but a successful madman as such. You can PERCIEVE this as an example of Western bias if you want but I am not particularly enamoured with the "Western perspective" I never view things in such a manner anyway.
You can't understand smart politics???
What kind of era were you born in?
Its called potential regional instability - Mehmed's edict was meant to neutralise the volatility of religious differences the Turks brought to Bosnia by adopting religious tolerance. It was meant to weaken any Austrian pretext for intervention in Bosnia as a champion of Bosnian Catholicism. In light of history the Austrians did it anyway - pretext or no pretext. Also in light of history Mehmed's politics foreshadowed the potentiality of religious volatility in Bosnia to the Empire as a while centuries later when Russia and the West claimed a pretext for intervening to protect Christians. Thats what I meant by smart politics - undermine your enemy's moral high ground to strengthen yours.
As for the ShahadaL Yes I meant that statement of faith.
Now this is what I call an objective and a reasonable approach. Especially the first paragraph, you described it close to what I have learned it in school. Of course as a believer of Islam it is normal that I cannot except Islam was infuenced by early Greeks, as we believe it is God's* words. 1 small objection though. The Greeks that is being mentioned here is not Byzantines, it is earlier Greeks which were living in a "direct democracy".
I critisized you referring to Mehmed as "mentally unstable". I again ask my usual question? In which dependable source is this proved?
I also critisized one other thing. There is a quite too much Anti-Turkish and more anti-Islam oppinion in west. Even if one says he is not so and says that he is objective, somewhere in his mind there are these thoughts. Just look at how you replied to this topic. Do you think a similiar topic talking about Byzantines or some catholic faction would be responded this way??? This edict is just wonderful and why do you have to think that this edict was written because "1. mehmet is a smart politician, 2. he was unstable and this is when he was kind and this doesn't surprise you, 3. Muslims embraced lots of western ideas etc.. etc...", instead of at least mentioning no no wait considering that maybe the reason is the good side of the Turks or Islam????? This is a perfect example of bias IMO. Honestly just think about a similiar thread about another non-Turk, or non-Muslim faction, I bet that there would be more replies and surely most of it admiring it.
LOL and about politics. One thing bad about my ancestors are being bad at politics, lol as it is right now.
Ottomans' way of understanding politics was threatening factions o receive more tax from them and they were friends of noone. When Ottomans were strong they just didn't care being at war with everybody, and they did not care about pissing off another faction. Most people know a little history know that Ottomans were really barbaric about this. And don't tell me this was done to stabilize their control there. Forcing to convert to Islam, massacring christians etc... etc... is an easier way to do this for a faction with about hundreds of thousands of troops at that time (I don't know about exact time at that time but I know that once in 1500's it was about 250,000) LOL and maybe being more violent in those years could stabilize that area for many long years including present as I mentioned in my last post.
For Kelime-i Sahadet, yes every Muslim knows it and knew it. Well you have to know it to be a Muslim http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Well assume you are going to change your religion and choose Islam, you cannot be a Muslim if you don't at least say that phrase once.
For example I do not know any Arabic, I'm not a fanatic Muslim. I do many things that my religion forbids me (drinking, girls, sex, etc...) but I know that phrase http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
* Irrelevant with topic but I wanted to say it here. Most people think that his only name is Allah, and we do not call him God. I think as a Muslim it is not right to say Allah in English like referring to a different God such as other religions. It is just the Arabic of God. In Turkish we sometimes use the direct translation of God which is Tanri, too.
deejayvee
06-30-2003, 08:03
Quote[/b] (Kanuni @ June 28 2003,05:18)]Maybe if Turks were as evil as people thought, there would be less problems today. If they forced Balkans to be Muslims, slaughtered christians, Serbs etc... (not that I wish they did) there would never be a Bosnian problem, if they assimilated Arabs and therefore held control of Arab lands there would be no Palestinian, or middle east problem etc...,
May be, but what little I know of the Ottomans was that their ability to absorb existing cultures, infrastructure and governments was one of their greatest abilities. The fact that they didn't convert the Balkans or assimilate the Arabs meant that these people were more content living under Ottoman rule.
People don't like being told what religion to follow, don't you know.
Well, what people liked or disliked did not matter those days as much as these days http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
For the rest of your post Kata, I think Kanuni said what was necessary. I can help to shed some light on the Kelma.
The Shahadah is the Islamic confession of faith.
From www.lotusart.com ("an art shop in rural Pennsylvania")
http://www.lotusart.com/products/1102.jpg
http://www.lotusart.com/products/kalimah_big.jpg
http://www.lotusart.com/products/1113E.jpg
From the Saudi flag:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/customs/shahadah/images/saudi_arabia_flag.jpg
There are fine examples in classic calligraphy, but I can't find any links right now. Here is the opening page from the Koran, by a Turkish artist:
http://www.islamicart.com/main/calligraphy/images/catalog/fatiha.jpg
The above page is the Al-Fatiha which means:
"In the name of God, The Compassionate, The Merciful; Praise be to God; the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds; The Compassionate, The Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship, and thine aid do we seek. Show us the straight way; The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, Those whose portion is not wrath, And who go not astray."
The Shahadah means:
"There is no God but God, Mohammed is a Messenger of God".
These are the words that a person says to enter the fold of Islam, the word Islam means faith/belief/submission. The Shahadah, or declaration of faith, is a covenant that the person makes with God: that he/she will continue to obey God, and walk in the footsteps of the Prophet Mohammed.
From the time of declaring Shahadah, the person is meant to be treated and respected like a Muslim by all Muslims, even if he/she was previously an enemy of Islam/nation/clan etc.
The bond of faith is much stronger than the bond of blood.
When a person becomes a Muslim they enter the community of Muslims, regardless of their race or background. Not that it should matter wheather you are Muslim or not, it should not and does not matter to those who are true Muslims. In Islam all mankind is one and there is no preference to be awarded to one race, or religious belief. It is a person's choice what religion to follow and no man can hold him accountable for that personal choice.
When Muslims say there is no god worthy of worship except God, it means that they disdain obedience and servitude to anyone or anything except God. It means that they will fear no one and nothing except God, that their greatest feeling of love and gratitude are for God. It means that the Muslims do not seek the acceptance of anyone or anything except God. This is so that the Muslim remembers to be strong and independent, not arrogant and hostile. Those traits are of course, looked down upon in Islam.
The ridicule, scorn, sneers and insults of people bear no importance. The statement of faith is meant to encourage the Muslim to remain calm and secure in times of danger. In times of grief and distress, the Muslim is encouraged by his vow of faith to remain steadfast and courageous.
The Vow is not a empty phrase, it is not a few words spoken but must be filled with the sincerity of intention and determination to struggle, strive and sacrifice in the Muslim's path of life.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
07-21-2003, 17:21
Kanuni, Sinan,
I am going largely OT, but you shall play Europa Universalis 2, with Turkey. It's called 'Europa', but Turkey is considered a major (and well, it's arguably, with Spain, the most powerfull country of the 16th century 1st half of the 17th) and you can feel the power of this great nation. And you will have yourself as a leader http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.
Game mechanics makes it somehow hard to achieve Turkey historical performance; which in my opinion is a tribute to the greatness of Ottoman ruler of this era.
In this game Turkey is actually one of my favorite country to play; you have great resources, and a lot of potential to go in many different directions.
Eastern Europe is not the most obvious of those directions... Asserting influence in Sunni regions is somehow easier but well, less rewarding than going after Vienna
The game does takes into account religions; it's a major factor. I find it more rewarding to be friendly with orthodox than catholic. On top of that, Catholic split with protestant, which makes central/ northern Europe a mess to rule.
I find it hard to go the Mehmet way and being tolerant with everyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.
Louis the Simurgh,
Kanuni actually put it very well. If this was some Christian leaderm the overwhelming response would have been praise.
The media images of Muslim this and that, lead people to think wrongly about Muslims. Take an average Muslim out of anywhere in the world and you will mostly find now as ever in history, a simple man who only strives to live his life in his own way, just like any other man. What the Jews, Muslims, Hindus have in common is that they attach importance to religion (in a lot of cases), more so than the average Christian (in what I have seen). Personally I am fed up with the average "conceived" opinion of Muslims, but somehow I am used to it now. Even the word fundamentalist is a reference to Christian fundamentalism, which has been so thoroughly applied to Islam.
Galestrum
07-21-2003, 20:53
Quote[/b] ]Maybe if Turks were as evil as people thought, there would be less problems today
Ah you mean they were all warm and fuzzy? The same warm and fuzzy Mehmet behind the following:
"By noon the city (Constantinople) was the Sultan's. The Turkish army spent the rest of the day plundering, enslaving, and raping, the barbarity of which was comparable only to that of the Latins of the Fourth Crusade during their sack......about 4,000 people had been killed and at least 50,000 taken prisoner" Mark Bartusis - The Late Byzantine Army 1204-1453
Ah yes, good times http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Galestrum
07-21-2003, 20:58
Quote[/b] ]I also critisized one other thing. There is a quite too much Anti-Turkish and more anti-Islam oppinion in west. Even if one says he is not so and says that he is objective, somewhere in his mind there are these thoughts
I am quite certain there are NO, whatsoever, Islamic bias in anything in the middle east, everyone over there is completely objective about everything http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Heraclius
07-22-2003, 00:06
Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ July 21 2003,14:53)]
Quote[/b] ]Maybe if Turks were as evil as people thought, there would be less problems today
Ah you mean they were all warm and fuzzy? The same warm and fuzzy Mehmet behind the following:
"By noon the city (Constantinople) was the Sultan's. The Turkish army spent the rest of the day plundering, enslaving, and raping, the barbarity of which was comparable only to that of the Latins of the Fourth Crusade during their sack......about 4,000 people had been killed and at least 50,000 taken prisoner" Mark Bartusis - The Late Byzantine Army 1204-1453
Ah yes, good times http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
to be fair here all conquering armies were allowed 3 days to sack a city resisting a siege. the byzantines invoked this principle on many an occasion and Mehmet forbade artwork to be destroyed and tried to save as many churches and important buildings as possible (although these orders were disobeyed frequently). Mehmet also promptly called off the sack after the 3 days had expired, a practice many rulers neglected. For total barbarism by generals, nobles and kings, not just regular soldiers, the 4th crusade is a good example. I'm not excusing the savagery of the Turkish soldiers, just saying it matched the practices of the day and that Mehmet did not actively seek the destruction of the city and the murder of its populace.
Aaaw come one, stop passing the buck.
Obviously, such a remark about objectivity is not only misplaced, since we are trying to discuss a particular issue that EVERY Muslim faces in his life living in the "west" (and it is a pain I tell you). This remark is also as relevant as saying there is salt water in every ocean. That is a fact evident to anyone with basic life experience.
I have personally noted the anti-Muslim bias in the West, on many occasions, I'll mention one. One of my x-girlfriends was Flemish. As you know Flanders was one of the states with the highest percentage of population participating in the Crusades. Her Mom forbid her to see me becuase "those Turks, those Muslims, they are all thieves, robbers, they can do nothing good. They have no religion, no culture, they beat their women...." Her Mom was much more explicit than this. Thankfully for me, my girl refused to accept such nonsense, since she knew me, trusted me and thanks to her greater power of judgement knew better about me, than her mother did. I really felt that her Mom was in another time zone trapped in Papal propaganda. It's not the only instance, I assure you.
Please read the whole thread carefully and make an effort to understand the honest statements being made here. My point in posting this was that there exists another branch of Islamic society, "smart politics" "mentally unstable" or whatever, which is not right wing, unlike most of the images the media feeds us. It has existed since the birth of Islam, and exists today as the majority of Muslim opinion.
Once again Kanuni's point is proved, by focusing on the negative aspects of Muslim history, rather than focus on what is being discussed here. What does this tell us about convictions. I'll not make any judgements since that is not my purpose here. However it is clear that people find it hard to accept anything good about Muslims, except the objective few.
About Constantinople and the Crusades ?
I do not doubt Mark Bartusis credentials, but the paragraph qouted is his own personal description of the way the siege of Constantinople ended. Has he given any sources for his essay ?. The fact that he mentions only the Fourth Crusade is curious, when the Crusaders displayed exactly the same behaviour on every Crusade. 4,000 killed and 50,000 taken prisoner ? Curious. He is talking about the Byzantine defenders or civilians ? Obviously he should know that estimates of the defenders ranged from 4,000-10,000. I think I even have read 12,000. Anyway this aside, the Turks wanted to keep this city as the CAPITOL. What sense would it make for any monarch to sack a city he wishes to keep as his capitol. Why no mention of this. There were deliberations on the topic in the Turk camp, and finally a decision was taken. Why does Mark say nothing about this ?
What about the following questions:
1. Did the Europeans not thrash Constantinople ? Did they not rape every woman in the countryside, Turk AND Greek on their way to the Holy Lands ?
2. What relationship did the Venetians and the Hungarians have with the Turks ?
They betrayed the Byzantines and signed treaties with the Sultan. Even when the Turks sunk a Genoese ship which refused to pay a toll, the Venetians failed to commit to the aid of their allies in Constantinople, substancially. They in fact made the siege a viable option since the Sultan knew he would face far less threats from the Allies of Constantinople.
3. What did the Sultan have to say about sacking the city ?
No where is it mentioned that Mehmet is said to have wept at the end of the conquest, crying for the victims of his troops. He was advised that the troops would not tolerate if he rejected a demand for 3 days of looting. Why are these facts left out ?
Just focus on the negative again, without completing the picture. This is poor, and cannot be called objective.
In the Arab armies there was a tradition (apparently the Turks adopted this practice too), the men were not necassarily paid but were allowed to loot after the battle was over, as compensation for their combat. This is nothing to do with Islam, neither does it have any basis in Islam.
Can anyhthing possibly rival the sacking of Jerusalem, where "eyewitness" accounts from Jews, Christians, Muslims who survived tell the same story. EVERYONE was massacred Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, no one was spared.
"Throw a valuable pearl at a sparrow and the world will laugh at you."
Galestrum
07-22-2003, 01:11
aaww seljuk so quick to cry a foul has been stated perhaps you have some bias and/or are looking to find offense where no is to be found?
The point of my posts was nothing other than to point out that islam, like all other cultures and their leaders are not perfect and secondly to make you completely overreact in your anti-western views http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
If you want Bartusis' sources by the book http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Does "western bias", "ethnocentrism" etc exist, most certainly, but i would submit that being biased towards ones culture and religion is not unique to the western world. Just look at you post versus mine, I didnt mock or distort or say anything negative about turks or islam, i merely cited (1) a source and (2) the numbers reported by that source in opposition to you and other posters painting turks as peaceniks and lovey dovey, perfect people that never did anything wrong, and that the west is the source of all evils.
Where, in any of my statements did i allude to "all muslims being whackos"? Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder? Maybe you just want to be offended? My first comment was to show - that no peoples have been perfect and that, yes indeed any people can be considered evil, what have you if they are on the opposite side of history.
My second post was in response, to
Quote[/b] ]There is a quite too much Anti-Turkish and more anti-Islam oppinion in west. Even if one says he is not so and says that he is objective, somewhere in his mind there are these thoughts
Ah yes, someone talkin about the evils of generalizations, and THEN in turn MAKING the same generalizations about other peoples - way to prove a point, no http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
my response was
Quote[/b] ]I am quite certain there are NO, whatsoever, Islamic bias in anything in the middle east, everyone over there is completely objective about everything
which was meant to show, that these problems are in no way a "one way street" or are only confined in the west, please also note that there was a smiley and a laughin joker at the end of the comment http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
The human condition, is present in all peoples, religions and cultures, they have all arisen to the greatest highs and sadly sunk to the lowest levels of depravity as well. You will also note that i included the reference to the 4th crusade, why, because my EXACT point was, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE
I was not here to paint the west as "good" and islam as "bad", my comments were merely there to show, that mehmet wasnt some demi god of virtue AND to show that prejudice and bias exists everywhere, so before you cry foul you should look to your own prejudices and misjudgments?
Galestrum
07-22-2003, 01:33
and just a side jaunt on sources and what not....
of course your sources must be correct and any which might conflict with yours are wrong? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif I guess only sources written by Mehmets court scribes are to be found "correct" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
to get on point, Bartusis and other sources i have come across generally agree with what you said, i just didnt write them out and everything else, well, because I really really didnt want to be typing out his entire chapter, sorry dont have the time, thats why i gave the reference http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
regarding this incident
Quote[/b] ]"If you hate Arabs, press F6" LOL there is a penalty if you get kicked from a serever. You lose honor. Anyway I exit real fast and reconnected to the server to make the vote fail, just incase they really do hate all Arabs, without any reason.
BTW I am neither Arab nor Turk.
that is pretty sad, and i have actually seen that happen in a game before, the difference is, i unload on that POS so ahrd and fast AND I got the other people to kick him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
from your many posts, you seem like a nice guy seljuk, my only point with and and all of this, is you at times seem to convey biases too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif and perhaps you dont realize it and that biases and evil deeds arent unique to the west. I can tell you from personal experinces that there are "anti christian and west" biases out there as well.
Regarding your speech here
Quote[/b] ]Once again Kanuni's point is proved, by focusing on the negative aspects of Muslim history, rather than focus on what is being discussed here. What does this tell us about convictions. I'll not make any judgements since that is not my purpose here. However it is clear that people find it hard to accept anything good about Muslims, except the objective few.
His statement was to gloss over any negativity and paint the west as bad, of course you dont see that, it is perfectly acceptable, for you to take any and every opportunity to insult the west? So what are we to learn about you seljuk, that only positive things may be said about islam, and only your negative comments about that mysterious "western culture"?
Galestrum
07-22-2003, 01:58
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
btw, i am starting another thread here in this forum right now, id like your input if you have any seljuk http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
First of all I want to start by saying this: I actually wanted to ignore your posts as I think they aren't worth of my time and attention because I find them very ridicilous. However I'd like to respond to you once, and I do not intend to respond to you any further if you write replies to me.
Actually Heraclius and Sinan replied to you well about your first post so there is not much to be said, but I'd like to add something also.
Quote[/b] ]Maybe if Turks were as evil as people thought, there would be less problems today
Ah you mean they were all warm and fuzzy? The same warm and fuzzy Mehmet behind the following:
"By noon the city (Constantinople) was the Sultan's. The Turkish army spent the rest of the day plundering, enslaving, and raping, the barbarity of which was comparable only to that of the Latins of the Fourth Crusade during their sack......about 4,000 people had been killed and at least 50,000 taken prisoner" Mark Bartusis - The Late Byzantine Army 1204-1453
Ah yes, good times
As Heraclius and Sinan said this sacking/plundering was practised often by other factions/armies as well in those times. You made it seem like this wasn't usually happening and only 4th Crusade did something similiar. As Sinan pointed out, most soldiers that were seen as "slaves of God" were not paid and they were allowed to loot after combat for their compensation of efforts.
So you think this makes Turks evil? Then you must be thinking Romans, English, HRE etc... are the devil Consider about what THEY did http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif You can find many examples of cruelty in history if you search. There were many cruel examples in history, I'll write just a few that comes to my mind right now:
* Throwing human excretions or dead bodies that carried plague with catapults inside the city in siege
* Lords having a right to sleep with girls that have just married (Shown in the film Braveheart which was a historical fact)
* Roman tradition of 4-5 soldiers gathering and deciding to kill 1 of them for no reason.
etc... etc...
You can find thousands of examples and show them as proofs of cruelty if you judge them in today's world with today's conditions and values. But you need to think about the conditions of past, and if you do so you can see that many things cannot be considered evil. And sacking a city after a long siege? I think that will stand like an angel compared to others.
BTW, you only said that Bartusis shows sources in that book. So this means every word he says is right and not questionable? LOL LOL LOL. I repeat Sinan's question: What is the source of that sentence?
There are other examples of Turks accpeting and welcoming other races/religions as well. One other example: Did you know that Sultan Selim II (the sultan after Suleyman the Magnificient) (after all the cry out for help by the Jews in Spain) sent the Ottoman fleet all the way to Spain, fought with Spain just to save those people, then filled them to fleets and came back. Then he gave land to the Jews and told them they can live freely with their own beliefs in Ottoman lands. You may ask where is the proof for this. Well every year in its anniversary the Jews remember this and express their gratefullness to the Turks. I have many Jewish friends who are the grand grand grand... sons of these people.
Quote[/b] ]The point of my posts was nothing other than to point out that islam, like all other cultures and their leaders are not perfect and secondly to make you completely overreact in your anti-western views
I have not seen a SINGLE anti-western view from Sinan.
Quote[/b] ]If you want Bartusis' sources by the book
Yes but he asked for THAT sentence.
Quote[/b] ]Does "western bias", "ethnocentrism" etc exist, most certainly, but i would submit that being biased towards ones culture and religion is not unique to the western world.
ONLY LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif and nothing more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] ]Just look at you post versus mine, I didnt mock or distort or say anything negative about turks or islam, i merely cited (1) a source and (2) the numbers reported by that source in opposition to you and other posters painting turks as peaceniks and lovey dovey, perfect people that never did anything wrong, and that the west is the source of all evils.
LOL, do you need new glasses? Or a new errr.... nm LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
My sentence you quoted was if the Turks were as evil as people thought Responding it negatively means you think that Turks ARE evil. You said you did not say anything negative but this shows that you did indirectly said something negative. If you still insist otherwise I'd say that either you or me missed logic courses in school.
And I see nothing in Sinan's thread that is against west or west's culture. He just shares his opinion and experiences similiar to what I hear from my friends in Europe/USA. I even once heard this from a German (my best friend's girl friend, both lives in Germany), she admitted the bias vs Turks/Muslims and she also admitted that it is very difficult to be together with a Turk because of this bias.
Oh and about the rest of your sentence:
(1) No you did not show a source. That sentence has no acceptable source. And lol as far as I know Bartusis is NOT a source himself.
(2) I nor noone said that Turks are peaceniks and lovey dovey, perfect people etc... I am not a racist. I only said that Turks are NOT EVIL . Can you not read?
Quote[/b] ]Ah yes, someone talkin about the evils of generalizations, and THEN in turn MAKING the same generalizations about other peoples - way to prove a point, no
What are you saying? LOL You OK? Yes we generalised people in west's opinion about ISLAM but WHERE IS the THEN part? LOL
Quote[/b] ]
I am quite certain there are NO, whatsoever, Islamic bias in anything in the middle east, everyone over there is completely objective about everything
which was meant to show, that these problems are in no way a "one way street" or are only confined in the west, please also note that there was a smiley and a laughin joker at the end of the comment
Believe me there is less bias in middle east. There is a strong bias mostly among Arabs for west governments yes, especially the US, but I don't think one can blame that much after all governments done to that area. But against a western individual, the people of middle east are very welcoming and giving. They are known with their hospitality. Go there and experience it.
Quote[/b] ]The human condition, is present in all peoples, religions and cultures, they have all arisen to the greatest highs and sadly sunk to the lowest levels of depravity as well. You will also note that i included the reference to the 4th crusade, why, because my EXACT point was, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE
Man, which world do you live in? There surely are differences. Can you say there is no difference with what Hittler has done also? LOL LOL LOL - (Actually this LOL should be the answer to all what you say)
Quote[/b] ]I was not here to paint the west as "good" and islam as "bad", my comments were merely there to show, that mehmet wasnt some demi god of virtue AND to show that prejudice and bias exists everywhere, so before you cry foul you should look to your own prejudices and misjudgments?
Now I see you are trying to misguide people of what Sinan said. When did Sinan even judge west so he misjudged? So I think LOL is what you deserve most. I'll reply as LOL only, when I see you did the same instead of saying when Sinan said this etc...
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] ]and just a side jaunt on sources and what not....
of course your sources must be correct and any which might conflict with yours are wrong? I guess only sources written by Mehmets court scribes are to be found "correct"
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] ]His statement was to gloss over any negativity and paint the west as bad, of course you dont see that, it is perfectly acceptable, for you to take any and every opportunity to insult the west?
LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] ]So what are we to learn about you seljuk, that only positive things may be said about islam, and only your negative comments about that mysterious "western culture"?
Yes if you are going to say anything, you have to say something positive about islam because it is a religion. This is of course assuming that you are someone with respect to beliefs, but I wouldn't be surprised if you are the opposite.
Lastly I'd like to say this. I do NOT think Turks are perfect nor west is evil. You maybe saw in other posts when I wrote good things about Turks or Muslims. I wrote them simply because I am proud of my ancestors' or Muslims' history. Nothing more. I see the fact that we are all humans and surely Muslims or Turks did make mistakes in history too as everyone did. The whole point of this thread is not WE ARE PERFECT but WE ARE NOT EVIL. Surely most people saw this, but some with low capacity of understanding may still not understand, after this point I cannot help.
I'd like to also add that I think west is a great civilisation and I have no intention to talk bad about this. Actually according to my beliefs, some aspects of life in west are even closer to Islam than that in Islamic countries. Human rights, LOL even animal rights, like in TRUE Islam unlike the practise in Muslim countries. So what can I say? Only praise http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Galestrum
07-22-2003, 22:17
TO Kanuni Ill just LOL at you as well since you didnt read anything i said, and made gross exaggerrations or misinterpretations of what i said. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Sjakihata
07-23-2003, 13:39
To draw a conclusion, the edict was made to strenghten the stability in the realm and to relax the catholics. Also, this proves that yes, turks was not barbarians when it came to religion. They tolerated it, of course with their own agenda (it would be false if they did it without any gain, almost no one does something without gain).
To compare take Spainish inquisitors...
Now I do have some sources here for any research that is required about the Jews who were expelled from Spain.
-Mark Alan Epstein, "The Ottoman Jewish Communities and their role in the 15th and 16th centuries"
-Joseph Nehama, "Histoire des Israelites de Salonique"
-Bernard Lewis, "The Jews of Islam"
-Encyclopedia Judaica
-Avram Galante, "Histoire des Juifs d'lstanbul", Volume 2
-Abraham Danon, in the Review Yossef Daath No. 4
-Immanual Aboab, "A Consolacam as Tribulacoes de Israel, III Israel"
-H. Graetz, "History of the Jews"
I found some material here on the Jews in Europe, which were expelled during the Inquisitions, I think. Also this excerpt is related to what Kanuni mentioned on the Turks sheltering the persecuted Jews.
THE JEWISH MILLET IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
by
PROF. DR. STANFORD J. SHAW
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA/LOS ANGELES U.S.A.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
It was only with the establishment of the Ottoman Empire in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East starting in the 14th century that Jewish refugees from Christian persecution found the kind of tolerance and freedom that enabled them to prosper without fear. As a result, those Jews who had survived in Byzantine Constantinople and Asia Minor did everything they could to contribute to Ottoman success, particularly during the sieges which led to the Ottoman conquests of the centers of Byzantine administrative and economic life in Asia Minor and Thrace, Bursa and Constantinople. The Ottoman rulers very quickly contrasted the support provided by Jews in the conquered Byzantine territories with the hostility manifested by the conquered Greeks and Armenians, who from the earliest days of Ottoman rule attempted to stimulate European Crusades to rescue them from the domination of Islam. Insofar as the Ottomans were concerned, therefore, they trusted and relied on their Jewish subjects far more than on the Christians. The Ottomans therefore preferred to use Jews wherever possible to develop the trade and commerce of their new empire. In return for their support, Ottoman Jewry received rewards from the sultans, including not only toleration and ability to pursue their own lives and religious practices without any of the restrictions which had so limited their lives in Christian Europe, and protection against Christian attacks, but also encouragement for their co-religionists remaining in western Europe to emigrate into the lands of the Ottoman Turks.
The 16th century Jewish historian, Eliyahu Kapsali, writing in Crete, attributed the collapse of the Byzantine Empire and its conquest by the Ottomans directly to the Byzantine persecution of the Jews:
Pass through the gateways of this book, turn to the way of God, study its tales, read and see that God, in His wisdom and understanding, rendered this Turkish nation great.... The Turks is the rod of His wrath, the staff of His anger, and by means of Him He takes His vengeance of the gentle nations and tongues and states whose time has come.
Following the Ottoman conqueror of Byzantine Constantinople in 1453, Mehmed II 'The Conqueror' (Fatih) encouraged the persecuted Jews of Germany and Spain and elsewhere in Western Europe to immigrate into his Empire, using for this purpose the Chief Rabbi of Edirne (Adrianople), Isaac Tzarfati, who himself had fled from persecution in southern Germany earlier in the century, sending Tzarfati's appeal to his fellow Jews to join him in the dominions of the sultan:
Your cries and sobs have reached us. We have been told of all the troubles and persecutions which you have to suffer in the German lands.... I hear the lamentation of my brethren.... The barbarous and cruel nation ruthlessly oppresses the faithful children of the chosen people..... The priests and prelates of Rome have risen. They wish to root out the memory of Jacob and erase the name of Israel. They always devise new persecutions. They wish to bring you to the stake.... Listen my brothers, to the counsel I will give you. A too was born in Germany and studied Torah with the German rabbis. I was driven out of my native country and came to the Turkish land, which is blessed by God and filled with all good things. Here I found rest and happiness. Turkey can also become for you the land of peace.... If you who live in Germany knew even a tenth of what God has blessed us with in this land, you would not consider any difficulties. You would set out to come to us.... Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes. Much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes, and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap, and every one of us lives in peace and freedom. Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow hat as a badge of shame, as is the case in Germany, where even wealth and great fortune are a curse for a Jew because he therewith arouses jealousy among the Christians and they devise all kinds of slander against him to rob him of his gold. Arise my brothers, gird up your loins, collect your forces, and come to us. Here you will be free of your enemies, here you will find rest.
Capsali relates how Sultan Bayezid II (1481-1512) sent out his own invitations to the Jews of Spain as soon as he learned of their expulsion at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition:
So the Sultan Bayezid, King of Turkey, heard of all the evil that the Spanish king had brought upon the Jews and heard that they were seeking a refuge and resting place. He took pity on them and wrote letters and sent emissaries to proclaim throughout his kingdom that none of his city rulers should be wicked enough to refuse entry to Jews or to expel them. Instead, they were to be given a gracious welcome, and anyone who did not behave in this matter would be put to death.... Sultan Bayezid, king of Turkey, having learned of all the evil that the King of Spain did to the Jews, who were seeing a place of refuge, had pity on them and ordered his country to greet them well, and he ordered the same thing for the island of Chios, which had been paying a tribute to him....
Just as Sultan Mehmed gathered the Jews living in other communities and brought them to live with him in Costantinople and said: 'Come and shelter in my shade as we have written,' similarly his son, this Sultan Bayezid, treated the seed of Abraham, servants of God, well,... and did not cast them out from before him as some of the Gentile Kings did to us.... Were it not for this, the remnant of Judah and traces of Israel, exiled from Spain and Aragon and Portugal and Sicily by the unsheathed sword of the wicked King of Spain, would have been lost....
Even before the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and its transformation into the Ottoman capital Istanbul, therefore, and increasingly afterwards for another two centuries, the Ottoman Empire became the principal object of immigration for the persecuted Jews of Central and Eastern Europe, to whom were added the flood of exiles from Spain and Portugal and of the Spanish Jews who had converted to Christianity (Marranos), but who still were persecuted by the Inquisition in the early decades of the 16th century, as well as those found in the Middle East as it was incorporated into the empire at the same time.
These Jewish immigrants settled all over the expanding Ottoman empire, in the lands that today are the states of Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Egypt, Syria, Cyprus and the other Aegean and Mediterranean islands and in what is now Turkey at Bursa, Gallipoli, Manisa, فzmir, Tokat and Amasya. Some also went to the east Mediterranean islands of Cyprus, Patras and Corfu, but with their native Greek populations remaining substantial majorities, they were not as welcome as in those areas of the new Empire in which Muslims dominated society. For the most part, however, the newly arriving Jews settled down where there were substantial Muslim populations, in the Ottoman capital Istanbul, in the capital of Ottoman Thrace Edirne (Adrianople), along the Macedonian shores of the Aegean at Salonica, and in the Holy Land, particularly at Jerusalem and Safed, in total numbers estimated at from 150,000 to 200,000 people, far more than the 30,000 Jews then living in Poland and Lithuania. Ottoman Turkish Jewry thus constituted by far the largest and most prosperous Jewish community in the world at that time, a period that came to constitute the Golden Age of Ottoman Jewry."
The author has also written the following book:
The Jews of the Ottoman Empire & the Turkish Republic (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?userid=51KIJISTWK&isbn=0814779581)
From the BN lnik, about the author:
From The Critics
Booknews
The Ottoman Turks provided refuge for Jews fleeing from persecution in Europe and Byzantium from the emergence of the Ottoman Empire in the 13th century until the 19th century, when it also received thousands of Jews persecuted in Tzarist Russia, and the 20th century, when it provided refuge for Jews fleeing from Russian pogroms and the Nazi holocaust. Shaw's study is the product of some 35 years of research on Ottoman history. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com)
more books by the same Prof. :
Shaw's books @ BN (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/results.asp?userid=51KIJISTWK&ath=Stanford+J%2E+Shaw)
Heraclius
07-28-2003, 18:53
yes, after the Spanish Inquisition my father' family managed to flee to Sardinia and on to Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire where they were assured tolerance as one of the "People's of the Book" (I believe that is the name). No one in my family is quite sure however why they learned Greek and intermarried with Greeks instead of Turks. Anyway thanks for the info, Sinan.
Heraclius in a previous converstaion we spoke about the Ottoman rule in Greece.
I can easily see how Greece has been scarred by the Ottoman rule. After some recent research I agree with you more and more that Greece was fortunate in a way. And the more I read the more your statements about reasonable religious freedom for subjects of the Devleti, sound true.
kataphraktoi
08-08-2003, 14:37
I'm studying Islam and World Politics as a politics unit at University. Here are my observations.
Its fair to say, Islam's treatment of minorities varies from case to case, some Jews have it better in Spain than say Jews in Syria, etc.
So it is with the Ottoman Empire, it varies ruler from ruler, although towards the end of the Ottoman Empire, there was increased persecution after a mixed history of benevolence and discrimination. One could take it in the context of nationalism in the 19th cent, nationalism threatened the Ottoman Empire until it became part of the nationalist era when Kemal Ataturk (great reformer and visionary) declared a Republic.
I find it interesting that some Greeks still consider Istanbul their capital instead of Athens.
kataphraktoi
08-08-2003, 14:51
One of my readings for the unit this week is the life of Muhammed.
Mrs Dutch lady: My daughter, don't have anything to do with the Turks, they are brutes, savages and unclean animals
Ms Dutch daughter: But they learned how to bathe before we learned to use a fork.
Mrs Dutch lady: But, but, but look at all the nasty things they did. Aha, you see all those Turkish woman forced to wear a Hijab?
Ms Dutch daughter: Why are you so keen on knowing whats beneath the Hijab?
Mrs Dutch lady: They are fundamentalist terrorists case closed
Ms Dutch daughter: No, they are extremists not fundamentialists.
They call it a dialogue.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.