State and Religion (Ottoman Empire)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During the first centuries of control over Balkans by the Ottoman Empire, the Christian population, and especially the Orthodox Cristians (who were not under the protection of a Great Power of that time, as were the Catholics,[1][2] until the rise of Imperial Russia[3]), faced various degrees of discrimination, both from local Ottoman authorities and from the Sultan.
The Ottoman Empire was, in principle, tolerant towards Christians and Jews, but not polytheists, in accordance with Sharia law. Forced conversion is counter to Sharia law, and was not standard practice, but was often excersized by various methods described below.
Though far short of modern standards, Ottoman tolerance was particularly striking compared to the contemporary situation in Europe, where wars were fought between Protestants and Catholics, heretics were routinely executed, and Jews were frequently expelled and sometimes even massacred.
Contents |
[edit] Religion as an institution
Ottoman Empire, as a state, constantly established policies balancing the the religious issues. Ottomans recognize the concept of clergy and its associated extension of religion as an institution. Ottomans brought established policies (regulations) over religious institution through the idea of "legally valid" organization.
The state's relationship with the Greek Orthodox Church was virtually peaceful, but there were a total of five Ecumenical Patriarchs who were murdered by the Ottoman authorities. The church's structure was kept intact and largely left alone but under close control and scrutiny until the Greek War of Independence of 1821–1831 and, later in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the rise of the Ottoman constitutional monarchy, which was driven to some extent by nationalistic currents. Other churches, like the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, were dissolved and placed under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Church. On the other hand, the empire often served as a refuge for the persecuted and exiled Jews of Europe, as for example following the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, when Sultan Beyazid II welcomed them into Ottoman lands, in order to inhabit the deserted city of Thessaloniki, which was conquered by the Sultan troops in 1430.
There were instances between established policy and its practical application has a gap. Nonetheless, the tolerance was not perfect;
...one may be led into thinking that [the Ottomans'] much-spoken-of policy of religious toleration was of an erratic, haphazard nature and was conveniently ignored when new circumstances seems to suggest a different course of action...
...one may regard the recurrent oppressive measures taken against the Greek church as a deviation from generally established practice—a deviation that was occasioned by the corruption and intrigue of officials and less frequently by outbursts of fanaticism or by imperial disfavor. As elsewhere, here, too, one might expect to find a gap between established policy and its practical application[4]
Since the only legally valid Orthodox organization of the Ottoman Empire was the Ecumenical Patriarchate, inheritance of family property from father to son was usually considered invalid. Regarding inheritance of property, there was no instance of Ottoman Sultan interfering with how Christians should perceive (perform) their religious activities and/or personal issues, such as "inheritance of family property"[citation needed]. Inheritance of family property is a communal issue, which its solution should be searched within the community. "Inheritance of family property" was a problem, however the extension of its consequences to the Empire is questionable. Ottoman Sultan was obliged[citation needed] to perform what the community accepted as normal, and keep the integrity of the community.
[edit] Clash of Civilizations
Ottoman Empire with Millet organization was used as a reference, generally a balancing example, regarding the cultural/religious identities which will be (might be) the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world.
Main question regarding Clash of Civilizations is; "Is it possible to balance the inter civilizational conflicts?" There is no "inter-communal" clashes within Ottoman history. Conflicts against the state have been source of many analysis, including Armenian Rebellions, Greek Revolution and National awakening of Bulgaria, which generally related to nationalism rather than religious conflicts (Anti-Catholicism, Antisemitism, etc). The Ottoman Empire's fall (decline) is attribute to rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire, rather tan rise of religious conflicts (Clash of Civilizations). Ottoman Empire tried to embrace the nationalism through Tanzimat reforms and promoting Ottomanism and First and Second Constitutional Era, but the decline could not be stopped.
The root of the Clash of Civilizations is "Did Ottoman Empire preserved cultural/religious identities during the 621 years". If different cultural/religious subjects of the Empire can be arguing over these issues after the dissolution of the Empire, the final answer should be, "Yes!". Ottoman Empire had never adapted a policy to eliminate a religion, (Jews Antisemitism- Christians Anti-Catholicism or Muslims (Anti-Muslim) during its reign. There were balancing policies (supporting one sect over another), which generates heated debates, but they were hardly eliminative[citation needed]. In some sources the treatment of old Christian mosaics during Ottoman Empire reign - a treatment not of destruction[citation needed] but of conscious preservation[citation needed] - illustrates in a way the similar fate of the Christian people of Balkans who likewise enabled to resuscitate as nations during the Balkan wars. After five centuries, in 1935-a the complete removal of the plaster Hagia Sophia could be carried out, after the new Republic of Turkey, "in the interest of art," declared Hagia Sophia neither a mosque nor a church, but a museum. It has to be remembered that Hagia Sophia was not crushed into pieces by the Ottoman Empire (see:Buddhas of Bamyan).
[edit] Inter-Christian issues
Ottoman Empire had to balance not just Muslim-Christian issues, but also among the Christians sects. The Ottoman Empire was in between the Christian dominance fights, specially within the decline period. Ottoman policies sometimes originated not from the needs of the citizens, but its wartime lots.
There was a long time policy which granted to schismatical patriarchs from the forbidding Christian subjects of the Empire to embrace the Roman religion, and the Latin religious to hold any communication with the Greeks, Armenians and Syrians, on the pretext of instructing them. Ottoman Empire when it lost the Russia and Austria (1736-9) wars needed the French support. French only gave support if the Ottoman Empire explicitly confirmed the right of the French Protectorate, and at least implicitly guaranteed the liberty of the Catholic apostolate. On 28 May 1740, Sultan Mahmud I declared:
“... The bishops and religious subject to the Emperor of France living in my empire shall be protected while they confine themselves to the exercise of their office, and no one may prevent them from practicing their rite according to their custom in the churches in their possession, as well as in the other places they inhabit; and, when our tributary subjects and the French hold intercourse for purposes of selling, buying, and other business, no one may molest them for this sake in violation of the sacred laws.”
However, not more than half a century, in the case of candlestick wars of 1847, a tension began among the Catholic and Orthodox monks in Palestine with France channeling resources to increase its influence in the region beginning with 1840. The repairs were important for the sects as it was linked to owning the keys to the temples. The notes were given by the protectorates, including the French, to Ottoman capital about the Ottoman governor. The Ottoman governor was condemned as he had to defend the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by locating soldiers inside the temple from the candlestick wars, actively eliminating the change of keys. Successive Ottoman governments had issued edicts granting primacy of access to different Christian groups which were veying for control of Jerusalem's holy sites. [5]
[edit] Religious persecution
The main idea behind Ottoman law system was "Confessional community". Ottomans tried to give choice to the person, opposed to forced classifications. Muslims-Jews-Christians should not enforce their view on another. However, there were gray areas where these circles intersect.
The Ottoman Empire decreed that people of different millets should wear specific colors of, for instance, turbans and shoes—a policy that was not, however, always followed by Ottoman citizens[6].
[edit] State-Religion-Law
- See also: Religious law
Modern of Law assumes that it is objective and secular (non-religious). Ottomans practice was against the absolutism, and it was not secular. Ottoman practice assumed that Law should be applied within the religious beliefs of its citizens. Ottoman system, accepted the Religious law over its subjects. However, the Ottoman Empire was organized around a system of local jurisprudence; that is, local legal systems which did not conflict with the state as a whole were largely left alone[citation needed]. The Ottoman system had three court systems: one for Muslims, which was run by the kadıs, or Islamic judges; one for non-Muslims, involving appointed Jews and Christians ruling over their respective religious communities.
Some Christian sources points that although Christians were not Muslims, there were instances which they were subjected to the Sharia law[7]. In the Ottoman Empire, there were three courts. Christians were liable in a non-Christian court at specific instances, which these were clearly defined. These instances include such as the trade (go to "trade court"), or the assassination of a Muslim (go to "Muslim court"). In some western sources; "the testimony of a Christian was not considered as valid in the Muslim court as much as the testimony of a Muslim". In a Muslim court, a Christian witness had a problem of building trust with oath. In a Muslim court, A Christian taking a "Muslim oath" over the Koran ("God is Allah and there is no other God"), committed a perjury. It was legally a good idea for a Christian to find a Muslim witness in a Muslim court, simply only Muslims can take an Muslim oath over Koran.
[edit] Conversion
- See also: Mission (Christian)
In the past, Christian missionaries sometimes worked hand-in-hand with colonialism, for example during European colonization of the Americas, Africa, and Asia. There is no record of established of a Muslim organization that corresponds the Christian mission system under the Ottoman Empire. There is no record of existence/planning/implementation of a clergy system under Ottoman practice of Islam, which had the same functions as Mission (Christian). Voluntary conversion to Islam was greeted by the Ottoman authorities. It was not a secret that Muslim Ottoman authorities perceived Islam as an higher/advance/correct form of belief system, which accompanied with greetings. When a Christian become a Muslim, he/she had shared the same rules and regulations that applied to any other Muslim.
Regarding "conversion accompanied by privileges"; there was set of Christian converted-Muslim rules or Christian converted-Muslim privileges, which could be classified as a "specific policy for conversion", such as the one tenth tax and the exception of the custom of Janissaries.[citation needed] There was not any millet, besides the "Christian Millet" or "Muslim Millet" talking about specific policy for "Christian converted Muslim Millet" is without a base.
Ottoman Empire had difficult economical status during decline and dissolution periods was a proven fact. The argument of Muslim millet had a better economy then Christian millet was highly questionable[citation needed]. The Muslim states that emerged from the dissolution era did not have a better socio-economic status than the rest. Opposing arguments are highly questionable. Use of economic incentives for conversion, even if it was claimed in some western sources, is not an established fact[citation needed]. The planing of economic policies based on goals for religious conversion are highly questionable[citation needed]. Such as in this statement:
“The difficult economic situation of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, as well as the needs of the Ottoman Empire during its expansion, had as a result the imposition of the tax of the tenth, forcing many Orthodox peasants to convert to Islam.”
Voluntary conversion to Islam was greeted by the Ottoman authorities, accompanied by privilleges. Voluntary conversion from Islam to Christianity was punished by death.[8]
Moreover—from the time of Murad I through the 17th century—the Ottoman state also put into effect the devşirme (دوشيرم), a policy of filling the ranks of the Ottoman army and administrative system by means of forcefully collecting young Christian boys from their families and taking them to the capital for education and an eventual career either in the Janissary military corps or, for the most gifted, the Ottoman administrative system. Most of the children thus collected were from the empire's Balkan territories, where the devşirme system was referred to as the "blood tax". When the children ended up becoming Islamic due to the milieu in which they were raised, any children that they had were considered to be free a Muslim.[9]
[edit] Protectorate of missions
- See also: Protectorate of missions and Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire
Ottoman State and religion has also another dimension begining with the Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire. Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire were contracts between Ottoman Empire and European powers, protecting the Religious rights within the Ottoman Empire. The Russians became formal Protectors of the Eastern Orthodox groups in 1774, the French of the Catholics and the British of the Jews and other groups[citation needed]. Russia and England competed for the Armenians[citation needed] and they perceived Americans[citation needed] with Protestant Church who had over 100 missionaries established in Anatolia[citation needed] by World War I as a weakening of their own Eastern Orthodox teaching[citation needed].
[edit] Conversion and destruction of churches
As a rulling institution, Ottoman Empire brought regulations on how the cities would be build (quality reassurances0 and how the architecture (structural integrity, social needs, etc) should be shaped.
Special restrictions were imposed concerning the construction, the renovation, the size and the ringing of the bells in Orthodox churches. For example, an Orthodox church should not be larger in size than a mosque. Many of the large cathedrals were destroyes (e.g. the Church of the Holy Apostles), transformed into mosques, by desecrating their interior and exterior (notably the Hagia Sophia, Chora Church, Rotonda, Hagios Demetrios) or served as armouries for the Janissaries (e.g. Hagia Irene).
[edit] References
- ^ The Middle East Today, Don Peretz, 1971, p.79
- ^ Randall. Lesaffer, 2004, p.357
- ^ Peace Treaties and International Law in European History: from the late Middle Ages to World War One, Randall. Lesaffer, 2004, p.357
- ^ G. Georgiades Arnakis, "The Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire", The Journal of Modern History 24:3. (Sep., 1952), p. 235 JSTOR
- ^ Mr.S.J. Kuruvilla,M.Phil, "Arab Nationalism and Christianity in the Levant",www.psa.ac.uk/2006/pps/Kuruvilla.pdf
- ^ Mansel, 20–21
- ^ A Concise History of Bulgaria, Richard J. Crampton, 2005, p.31
- ^ The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms, Elie Elhadj, 2006, p.49
- ^ "Devsirme", Encyclopaedia of the Orient
