Talk:Millet (Ottoman Empire)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Comments
[edit] Comment
Is it really so widespread in Arab countries? I had the impression that some of them had replaced the millet system with a bastardized mixture of the Code Napoléon and Islamic law which applies to all people, regardless of religion. AnonMoos 14:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, I remember my Middle East history professor quite explicitly stating that Israel was the only nation to still use something similar to the millet system. - SimonP 15:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, many Middle Eastern countries still have special courts for religious minorities, on matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. (personal status), and many have reserved seats for them too (which do not exist in Israel). This is e.g. true for Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran and Pakistan. --Pylambert 18:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't feel like doing any strenuous research, but I noticed when looking up the Arabic word "millah" in the Wehr dictionary that the phrase majlis milli was defined as "court of justice of a religious minority (in Egypt abolished since 1956)". AnonMoos 18:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- According to a 1995 law, the application of family law, including marriage, divorce, alimony, child custody, inheritance, and burial, is based on an individual's religion. In the practice of family law, the State recognizes only the three "heavenly religions:" Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Muslim families are subject to the Personal Status Law, which draws on Shari'a (Islamic law). Christian families are subject to canon law, and Jewish families are subject to Jewish law. In cases of family law disputes involving a marriage between a Christian woman and a Muslim man, the courts apply the Personal Status Law. (Egypt - International Religious Freedom Report Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor) --Pylambert 19:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that you are defining millet too narrowly. It was much more than specialist courts for minorities, it was entirely different rules of citizenship. Each group had different systems of taxation, criminal and civil law, governance, education, and taxation. - SimonP 17:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- According to a 1995 law, the application of family law, including marriage, divorce, alimony, child custody, inheritance, and burial, is based on an individual's religion. In the practice of family law, the State recognizes only the three "heavenly religions:" Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Muslim families are subject to the Personal Status Law, which draws on Shari'a (Islamic law). Christian families are subject to canon law, and Jewish families are subject to Jewish law. In cases of family law disputes involving a marriage between a Christian woman and a Muslim man, the courts apply the Personal Status Law. (Egypt - International Religious Freedom Report Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor) --Pylambert 19:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't feel like doing any strenuous research, but I noticed when looking up the Arabic word "millah" in the Wehr dictionary that the phrase majlis milli was defined as "court of justice of a religious minority (in Egypt abolished since 1956)". AnonMoos 18:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, many Middle Eastern countries still have special courts for religious minorities, on matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. (personal status), and many have reserved seats for them too (which do not exist in Israel). This is e.g. true for Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran and Pakistan. --Pylambert 18:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] What??
Mellah ملاح is not "cognate" with Millah ملة -- they come from completely different consonantal roots (the root of the first means "salt", and the root of the second originally meant "word" in Aramaic, and only the first root has a pharyngeal consonant). AnonMoos 06:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
"This article or section does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations" doesn't means that you can simply cut-and-paste here a bibliography taken from a website, because this would imply that this article was written on the base of the cited texts and this is not true. If you want to use that bibliography you had to check all those books and articles, find the relevants parts and modify this page to make it comply with the sources. Or you can simply modify the article so that it agrees with the website and then point out to that website as a reference. GhePeU 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
@Fastifex: According to History, you did just two minor edits in this article: [1] and [2]. The bulk of the article was written by other contributors, so you can't simply put that website and state that it is the source used for this page, because there's no proof that the other contributors used it. However, if you really want to insert that bibliography as a "Further readings" section, please shorten it and clean it, because a "Further reading" shouldn't be page XX of an article and at the moment the section is (nearly) longer than the rest of the article. GhePeU 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Gehepeu, you're living n a fantasy-world: except for a few stubby pages or a few I know to be based (e.g. because I write nearly all) from one source, the bulk of Wikipages I've examined (4700 in my watchlist) is clearly or apparently NOT fully sourced, if at all- I often put " (incomplete) " in the sources section and almost never see that challenged, as by the way I did here, so it most definitely does not claim to soirce everything. It certainly is no excuse for the capital crime of leaving out source credit where possible. What you mean by "page XX" is a cemplete mysetry to me; the relative lenght f sectis a window-dresing aspect as such. The minor is my deafu setting, which I sometimes forget to undo or, as yesterday, gets ignored when my connexion to wikepedia fails repeatedly apparently for network- or software-reasons Fastifex 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- (I'm GhePeU, I'm writing from the University lab and I don't remember my password) Could you just shorten the list? Does referring to pp. 195-207 of the article Zur Diskussion um „millet“ im Osmanischen Reich published in Südost-Forschungen 48 or to p. 302 of 2000 Jahre Geschichte des Nahen Ostens and p. 99 of Der Untergang des Morgenlandes. Warum die islamische Welt ihre Vormacht verlor, both written by Bernard Lewis, add something significant to this page or does it simply clutter the section? 147.162.97.73 06:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs a copy edit
The English is shaky in places, for example - History : "Given the House of Osman was a Muslim populated institution, it is important to understand objectively, besides the each millets own ego-centric histories, these institutions were related to each other during the 6 centuries that they occupied the same political sphere under the state organization of the Ottoman Empire."
I'll try editing it for clarity but can the original author check my work for intent? (in case I change the meaning) --Nickj69 08:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
