|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Islamic Authority
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
These human beings must lead their limited life spans taking the
lives of human societies and future generations into consideration
starting from closer to remote ones. They should not forget that
they will be in the presence of God who created them by “breathing
something of His spirit”.[2]
I believe that all followers of Abrahamic religions and their
religious leaders at the first instance are charged with working for
the happiness of mankind with “feelings of respect for the
Creator and mercy for the created”.
Islam and other religions aim at providing happiness and salvation
for mankind despite differences amongst them. From this point of
view one can argue that peace, happiness, and respect for human
beings are at the core of basic messages of especially universal
religions. Three aspects stand out in the system offered by
Abrahamic religions to secure happiness in the eternal life: 1) A
sincere belief in God and attachment to Him who created and governs
the universe. 2) Acceptance of His messages (conveyed by His
messengers) and their implementation in life as much as possible and
3) acceptance and internalization of the existence of eternal life
and feeling its responsibilities. A school of thought based on these
three principles, and various approaches (religion and denomination)
that emerged around such a main school of thought and world system
suggest that Abrahamic religions address the whole humanity.
As far as origins of the above mentioned system of thought in Islam
is concerned, we see that it is based on the Qur’an which contains
the last divine message, it is also based on the statements of the
last Prophet Muhammad (S.A.V.) and on the 14 century-old tradition.
However, we know that religious beliefs and differences are time to
time used for the purpose of creating conflicts, rivalry, fighting
and hatred. Use (and abuse) of religious beliefs and differences to
produce conflicts and tensions not only wears down religion itself
which is supposed raise universal peace and unity but also threatens
individual and collective peace.
B. DIALOGUE AND TOLERATION
Islam is a religion that recommends mankind to use their mind and to
think. It shows the true path and salvation. Islam calls upon man to
believe in the principles of faith such as the existence of God and
the hereafter in the first place and invites him to follow righteous
behaviours which reflect the practical effect of the faith. In
addition to that, Islam draws attention to the fact that
differences/diversity in terms of religious choices, understanding
of a belief system and its application in practical life are
inevitable. Islam recommends that these differences should be
regarded as an opportunity for people to know each other better.
What is understood from dialogue is to realize a wish to live
together in daily life by recognizing our differences but not
exaggerating and proplemetizing these differences. Differences
should be sought in the nature of existence. If there was no
phenomenon of diversity, perhaps we may have been not able to know
the existence of the Holy Creator and thus we could have failed to
recognize our self and the beauty of life. Therefore, dialogue
should not be a form of eliminating, shaping or moulding
differences. Referring to the naturalness of diversity and
differences, The Qur’an reminds that God has created human beings
different from each other and divided them into various nations so
that people meet and know each other: “O mankind! We created you
from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into
nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may
despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight
of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has
full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).”[3]
Offspring’s of Adam and Eve have established small and large
communities with different colours and languages on earth. The
rational behind such a diversity starting from small to large
groups, from tribes to national ones supposes that diversity
requires knowing and understanding other communities and getting
along and mixing with them.
Verses in the Qur’an clearly prohibit coercion on people in
religious affairs and commends extension of tolerance to members of
other religions.[4]
However, there are some strong statements and warnings regarding
non-Muslims in the Qur’an. These statements should be evaluated and
understood in the context of the totality of the Qur’an, taking the
process of revelation into consideration. When we take these
elements into account we can see that these statements address to
those individuals and communities who were openly hostile to Muslims
during the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.V.)’s period. Except these special
cases, general attitude of Islam and its Messenger suggest that
Muslims should establish relations with followers of all other
religions based on mutual respect and tolerance.
C. STATE ORGANISATON IN THE FORMATIVE PERIOD OF ISLAM
Muslims and non-Muslims scholars assert various views on the
emergence of state organization in Islamic history. These views can
be divided into two groups: The first view argues that organization
of the state emerged following the hegira (emigration) to Madina and
the Muslim community had the qualities and characteristics of a
state organization. The second view on the other hand argues that
the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.V.) was a religious leader rather than a
political one and therefore there was a community organization
rather than a state organization as we understand today. When we
look at the issue from a perspective of organization of political
power, we can argue that establishment of a state organization in
Islamic history have emerged in the process of expressing
allegiances in Akaba. Muslim community under the leadership of the
Prophet Muhammad (S.A.V.) in Madina had all the functions of the
organization of political power. By uniting theory and practice and
political ideal and reality, political community in Madina has
succeeded to establish a different conception of state and state
organization than a city state, an empire and a nation state that
exist in political history of the West. State organization and
practice in Madina which is based on a faith which inspired it,
differs from other state models because of its openness to all sorts
of national identities and religious belongings and the extent of
geography this conception has spread. All sections of the community
in Madina had a chance to express its views through open
participation in consultative (shura) meetings. Within this first
structure and understanding which served as a model for political
formations in Islamic history the state was not isolated from the
society. It was an abstract and dominant force neither in theory nor
in practice. As an organization of political power the state is only
a means to materialize social and moral ideals which the belief
system assigned.[5]
Therefore, there is no mechanism which inspects an individual
society in the name of state or an ideology.
Structure of the state peculiar to the Madina period is directly
reflected in the political consciousness of its citizens, in the
formations of political leadership and in state-citizen
relationship. The Madina Document known as the Madina Constitution
offered a new definition of political membership which shook the
fundamentals of tribal political membership. Based on the new
definition of political membership all zimmet agreements with
non-Muslims communities during the Prophet’s and the Rightly Guided
Caliphs’ periods clearly recognized freedom of religion and
conscience. As a requirement of freedom of belief, religious
education and training, temples, performances of prayers, rituals
and worship were under the the protection of law. This tolerant
policy in the formative period has constituted a model and an
example for the latter Muslim societies. Generally speaking, it is
well documented that non-Muslim communities living in Muslim
countries have enjoyed respect for their freedom of religion and
conscience.[6]
Non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries preserved their existence
throughout the history and today there are non-Muslims in various
Muslim nation states. This is the result of Islamic principles and
policies about non-Muslims which were practiced throughout the
history.
The following point should be underlined: Toleration towards
non-Muslims in Muslim societies and states is a part of Islam’s
general approach towards non-Muslims and it exists everywhere not
only in a particular region or a state. One can see expression and
application of such a tolerant policy in many parts of the Muslim
geography and in every period of Islamic history. For example,
religious monuments and institutions of Christians in Palestine were
preserved (despite various wars throughout the history and even
after the Crusades). Christian Arabs also preserved their identity
without being forced to assimilate in the largely Muslim Arab
society. These are the results of upholding principles of the Qur’an
regarding non-Muslims. Today, around 7-8 million Christians live in
Egypt. They have a history of 1400 years and preserved their
religious and cultural existence despite having lived under various
political administrations. We can see a similar toleration towards
non-Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, Morocco and Central Africa.
D. NON-MUSLIMS IN THE QUR’AN
The Qur’an asserts that choice of a religion and faith is a personal
preference between God and the creature and therefore there is no
room for coercion in religion.[7]
The Qur’an also tells that if God wished, all human beings in the
world would have believed in Him. However He did not wish them to do
so. This shows that God has furnished us with a freedom of religion
and willpower.[8]
The Qur’an sends the following message through the personality of
Prophet Muhammad (S.A.V.): Men’s duty is to convey and explain the
truth. They have no responsibility to enforce others to accept a
faith.[9]
For it is only God who will judge human beings according to their
faith. The Qur’an frequently refers to “People of the Book” (ahl al-Kitab).
This concept reminds Muslims, Jews and Christians that they are the
descendants of Adam and Eve and also all three religious traditions
have emerged from the same root,[10]
and therefore they have many common grounds.[11]
The Qur’an also calls upon Jews and Christians to improve their
dialogue with Muslims by emphasizing the shared principles of these
religions such as the concept of the oneness of God, belief in the
hereafter and performance of good deeds.[12]
D. THE POLICY OF APPEASMENT (İSTİMALET)[13]
IN THE OTTOMAN STATE
In the dictionary “istimâlet” means “appeasement, encouragement,
attraction, causing inclination”. In the Ottoman chronicles, the
concept of “istimâlet” meant “protection of people and non-Muslims
in particular and tolerant treatment of the subjects”. Policy of
appeasement / istimâlet is based Islamic toleration and contributed
to the expansion of Ottoman conquests. Origins of the policy of
appeasement / istimâlet can be traced back to the formative period
of Islam. There are numerous examples in Islamic history which
indicate that there was a policy of well treatment and protection of
people in the newly conquered areas. This policy also included
freedom in religious affairs and providing convenient terms for tax
payments.
In fact, The Qur’an refers to a group of people “those whose hearts
have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth)”
[14]
which prepares a ground for the policy of appeasement / istimâlet.
The Ottomans adopted this principle which facilitated their
conquests.[15]
The permanent Ottoman conquests took place in some particular
stages. According to Halil Inalcik, first a period of tax collection
starts, followed by a period of getting accustomed to this policy.
Then a new period emerges during which the dynasty which is unwanted
by the people is removed from the throne by peaceful means. The
Ottomans followed a gradual policy of changing administrative
structures. They did not change old administrative structures
overnight. Old administrative structures were gradually integrated
into the Ottoman system. However, useleaa duties were abolished
quickly. The Ottomans preserved religious institutions and
hierarchies, statuses of classes, administrative divisions and
traditions. The Ottomans also included those military classes who
were familiar with the timar (Ottoman land regime) system into the
wider system. These policies enabled the Ottomans to win the support
and acceptance of people in the newly conquered lands who were
unsatisfied with their rulers because of the Catholic oppression and
local political elites. The Ottoman policy united its citizens
around the concept of belonging to a community namely the concept of
Osmanlılık.
The Ottomans followed the policy of appeasement / istimâlet not only
during the process of conquest but also continued to apply that
policy following the establishment of a new administrative
structure. While analysing the economic life under the Ottoman rule,
the Hungarian historian Lajos Fekete points out that the Ottoman
rulers provided freedom of work and earning for everyone, treated
their subjects well and protected them all regardless of language
and religion. Fekete also asserts that following the Ottoman
conquest of Hungary, markets became more active and alive through
the flow of goods and the number of manufacturers in textile and
household goods has increased. He draws attention to the fact
Christian butchers selling pork and Turkish butchers selling beef,
taverns offering alcoholic beverages and shops offering Turkish
drinks worked side by side in the same market. Fekete adds that
Turks did not force local people to convert to Islam, they accepted
the existence of people of other faiths and tolerated co-existence
of Muslims and others.[16]
There are interesting examples of this toleration and acceptance of
co-existence as shown in some edicts/decrees (firmans) regarding
complaints about excessive taxing of tradesmen and collection of
cizye taxes. When complaints reached the Ottoman administration,
the state has appointed investigators and stopped any wrongdoings
and unjust treatment. For example it is noteworthy to mention the
declaration of the policy of appeasement / istimâlet by Mahmud II.
regarding the poor conditions of Armenians who were forced to
migrate to Russia from the Eastern Anatolia and Bulgarians who
migrated to Russia in the XIXth century. One can se frequent
references to the just and tolerant policy of the Ottoman state in
the writings of European travellers who visited Ottoman lands.
Additionally, Western researchers also points out that the Ottomans
had a policy of tolerant treatment of its non-Muslim subjects.[17]
E. GENERAL POLICY IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
1. It should be noted that the Ottoman Empire became a very powerful
state reigning in three continents in the beginning of the 14th
century which lasted for many centuries. It has emerged from a small
local tribe (beylik) on the frontiers of the Byzantine-Seljuk
regions and expanded to an imperial power which accommodated various
people of different ethnic, linguistic and religious origins.
Justice and toleration as human values lie at the very origins of
the Ottoman Empire which left an imprint in history.[18]
Ability of the early Ottoman sultans as well as provisions of
Islamic law regarding rights of non-Muslims played a role on the
peaceful co-existence of Muslims and Christians from the beginning
of the Ottoman State. Ottoman Sultans of the later periods have also
followed the same policy and protected churches and synagogues as
mosques. They recognized the freedom of religious beliefs and
practices for all regardless of differences.
2. It is a well accepted fact that non-Muslims were treated with
justice and fairness by Orhan Gazi in the first instance and by
other Ottoman sultans since the conquest of Bursa. Christian
communities such as Greeks (Rum) and Armenians as well as Jews were
living side by side with Muslims or in their own neighbourhoods.
Some of the Jews who migrated to the Ottoman territory after their
expulsion during the Spanish Inquisition in 1492 were also settled
in Bursa. When they formed a community in this city they applied
Orhan Gazi to establish a synagogue. Upon their application they
received a permission to build a synagogue, to worship freely and to
live in a particular quarter. Non-Muslims enjoyed state protection
and conducted their affairs and religious worships freely as long as
they observed the rules regarding the payment of tributes (taxes).
The Ottoman toleration and justice played an important role on the
conversion of non-Muslim people with zimmi status to Islam in
Ottoman territories.[19]
3. In addition to the provision of freedom of religion and
conscience to non-Muslims, the Ottoman Sultans have also been very
sensitive to protect their legal rights by exhibiting a just rule.
It is noteworthy to observe that non-Muslims applied to the same
court for the settlement of legal disputes among them. This trend
testifies that they trusted the Ottoman justice.
4. Non-Muslims have also enjoyed personal rights and freedom same as
Muslims. Except few minor restrictions they enjoyed freedom of
travelling, residence and personal immunity. The only exception to
travel destinations and place of dwelling for non-Muslims was the
Hijaz region. Non-Muslims also enjoyed utilization of public
services, social security benefits with some restrictions and
employment and establishing foundations. According to the court
records, property rights of non-Muslims and other civil rights were
protected and protective principles were applied.
5. The Zimmis (non-Muslim subjects paying special tribute to the
state) enjoyed legal and executive rights since the early period of
the Ottoman State. However, when the zimmis applied to the Ottoman
courts as the juridical authority whether voluntarily or forcedly,
the Islamic law applicable to their cases presented some different
provisions than the provisions applicable to Muslims. For example,
according to the Hanafi school of thought, alcohol consumption among
zimmis should not be a legal problem because their religion allows
it, as long as such a practice does not breach the public order. The
same rule applies to the consumption of pork.
6. Non-Muslims were also appointed at different positions of
government jobs as civil servants except being the head of state,
chief of the army, the grand vizier, the governor and the ruler of a
Sanjak (sancakbeyi). For example, some Jews and Christians were
appointed to high state offices after the conquest of the Rumelia.
After the declaration of Tanzimat some non-Muslims were appointed as
ministers.
F. SUPREME PERIOD OF THE OTTOMAN STATE
AND NON-MUSLIMS
Many nations wanted to conquer Istanbul in history. It was the
Ottomans who succeeded to overtake Istanbul’s administration on 29
May 1453 under the leadership of
Fatih Sultan Mehmed. His attitude in the city after the conquest is
noteworthy example recorded in history. Fatih Sultan Mehmed openly
declared in his edicts (firmans) that he has taken people of
different religions and sects and their religious leaders as well as
churches, monasteries and synagogues under his protection. In a
religious decision (fetva) by Ebu’s-Suud Efendi it was declared that
churches were left to continue their old status as if Istanbul was
conquered by peace not by force.[20]
It should be particularly emphasised that Fatih Mehmed has
introduced a number of arrangements within the context of freedom in
legal and executive matters to the Greek Orthodox community first
and to the followers of sects and religions other than Islam after
the conquest of Istanbul. As part of these arrangements, Fatih
appointed the famous Orthodox scholar Gennadios (II. Gennadios
Scholarios) as the Patriarch and furnished him with authority and a
number of privileges. Byzantine sources of this period record that
Fatih organized a banquet for Gennadios and presented him with the
Patriarchal sceptre. Fatih declared at the banquet that the
Patriarch had the freedom of expressing his beliefs and views.[21]
Although the text of agreement between Fatih Sultan Mehmed and the
Greek Orthodox community did not reach us today we see that the text
of an agreement between the Ottoman state and zimmis of Galata in
857 (1453) still exists and it includes provisions ensuring freedom
of religion and conscience. In this pact it is clearly noted that
churches of the Galatian Christians are protected, these temples can
not be converted to mosques, their worships can not be intervened,
zimmis can not be forced to convert to Islam.[22]
On the other hand, drawing upon an imperial idea Fatih Sultan
Mehmed gathered children of noble Greek families in his palace and
they were appointed to important offices as Ottoman subjects at a
later period. In addition to that a number of noble Byzantines and
Christian Greeks undertook important financial responsibilities. It
should be also noted that some wealthy Greek families who fled
Istanbul and settled in the West have returned to the city again
because they lost their wealth there. It is known that Greek
scholars enjoyed a special attention in Fatih’s court between 1464
and 1472. Jews also received assurances and guarantees for the
protection of their monuments and freedom of worship. Fatih invited
Moshe Kapsali to his court and appointed him as the Chief Rabbi,
authorizing him to serve as a judge for court cases among the Jews.[23]
Eliyahu Kapsali, a Jewish historian from the Venetian Republic gives
information about the acceptance of Jews in his diary.[24]
It is known that the Jewish migration to the Ottoman territory
continued in the 19th century during the reign of Abdülhamid II. On
his own initiative, Fatih Sultan Mehmed brought Hovakim, religious
leader of Armenians in Bursa, to Istanbul and established the
Armenian Patriarchate (1461). Patriarchs were charged with the
administration of religious and social affairs of their communities,
investigation of their complaints and management of their properties
and collecting property incomes/taxes. After The Patriarch Hovakim,
numerous Armenians moved to Istanbul in different periods and
settled in various neighbourhoods. From the reign of Fatih to the
time Mahmud which covers 350 years, Christians and of course also
Armenians did not experience intervention in their religious and
social affairs. Additionally, the Patriarch used to collect taxes
(tribute) as a responsible authority to the Sublime Court, served as
a judge in the courts belonging to the Patriarchate, administered
weddings and took religious decisions. The Armenians were not only
influential in trade and crafts in the 19th century but also in
state bureaucracy as they were employed in important offices.
The following example is also significant which shows the treatment
of non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire. Yavuz Sultan Selim has issued
an edict about the St. Catherine Monastery on the Mount Sinai which
included a number of important provisions in terms of freedom of
religion and conscience. The imperial edict stipulated the
following: 1. Monks/priests at the Monastery have freedom in
their own affairs and they are immune from intervention, 2.
Protection of the status of foundations belonging to the Monastery
and transfer of their income to the monastery, 3. Tax
exemption for Monasteries and their foundations 4. Tax
exemption for necessary goods arriving from Muslim borders. 5.
Permission to perform pilgrimage to Jerusalem without any
intervention 6. Allowing the burial of their dead according
to their customs 7. An order for the state authorities to
solve their problems if/when they encounter injustice.[25]
G. THE OTTOMAN PERIOD AND THE BALKANS
Important consequences of the Ottoman policy of appeasement /
istimâlet can be seen in Ottoman conquests in the Thrace as well as
in the presence of the Ottoman state for centuries in the Balkans
and in Central Europe. Settlement patterns and demographic
characteristics of Christians in the Balkans between the 14th to the
19thth centuries under the Ottoman rule indicate that they lived in
peace with the Muslim Turks who came and settled in the region.
Moreover, Christian youth joined the army, sipahis and voynuks had a
place within the military structure of the Ottoman Empire. These
practices suggest that non-Muslims participated in the
administration of the Ottoman state and thus became a part of it. It
is known that conquests in the Balkans after the fall of Edirne did
not take place through battles and fightings only. A policy of
appeasement aimed at non-Muslim local people including tax
exemption, protection of Christians, rendering their rights back to
them and provision of religious freedom etc. also contributed to the
process of Ottoman conquests in the region. This tolerant policy
used to be documented on official records called “appeasement
decision/istimâlet hükmü”, “certificate of appeasement/istimâletname”
or “appeasement paper”.[26]
These documents used to document the commitment of the state towards
its subjects. The overriding commitment of the state was to protect
Christian subjects against wars and oppression stemming from
religious and sectarian differences. Non-Muslim subjects gained
safer and protected living conditions in the Ottoman Empire compared
to the pre-Ottoman era. No serious conflicts emerged after the
conquest. This policy is one of the causes of Ottoman presence for
centuries in the Balkans and in Central Europe. It is noted that the
peasants who were freed from the oppression and heavy burdens of the
old feudal regimes considered the Ottomans as saviours. The
Ottoman’s tolerant policy has also relatively contributed to the
spread of Islam in the Balkans. The Ottomans prevented the pressure
of Catholic Church on people to change their denominational
affiliation by force and provided a free atmosphere for the Orthodox
people to lead their life in liberty.
During the 550 years of Ottoman administration in the region,
Christians as a minority community were able to preserve
denominational diversity amongst them. The most outstanding example
of this fact is the Albanian nation, off which at least % 85 percent
were Muslims and the remaining % 15 per cent were Catholics and
Orthodox under the Ottoman Empire. Religious diversity survived
until today mostly because of the state protection of religious life
and its different manifestations under the law including all
communities.[27]
Historians note that the Albanians were freed from the oppression of
the Byzantine and Serbian rulers as a result of Ottoman policy and
its implementation following the Balkan conquest. The Ottoman policy
also broke down the dominancy of the Serbian Church and prevented
assimilation.
When Ohri (Macedonia) was conquered, the Ottomans faced no
resistance. The Ottomans left the local people and their monuments
untouched. Today one sees that Christians did not leave their
neighbourhood and still live in the walls surrounding the city by
preserving their historical heritage. Moreover, restoration of
icons, other religious decorations, and similar works of art in
their churches were restored during the Ottoman period. However,
sources note that few churches were converted to mosques in Ohri in
the early period of the conquest. There was a tradition of
converting an important church into a mosque in the newly conquered
places during the Ottoman reign. Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi notes that “the
tradition of turning the largest church into a mosque was a sign of
domination and sovereignty”.[28]
One of the churches which was turned to a mosque was Aya Sophia
Church (Sveta Sofija) in Ohri, built in 1056 in the Byzantium
period. It was named as Ayasofya mosque and opened to prayers once a
week because there was no Muslim congregation as the mosque was
situated in the Christian quarter. Additionally, the Imaret Mosque (Fatih
Sultan Mehmed Mosque) was built in the place of St. Clement Church
and Monastery (Klimentoviot Manastir Sv. Pantelejmon), which built
in 893. The mosque was built on the ruins of the church however its
remnants and walls were not used in the building.[29]
One of the striking examples in this regard can be found in the
works of priest Johannis Anagnostis who witnessed the fall of
Selonika in 833 (1430). He notes that people of Selonika were
suffering under the Latin oppression occupied by the Venice.
Therefore Turks were greeted as saviours by the locals. Anagnostis
also records that after the conquest of Selonika, Murad II. had
personally paid ransoms to free children of noble families who
became slaves in the war. He offered freedom of religion and
launched a campaign to restore and rebuilt the city. The Sultan also
issued a decree for the return of houses to their local owners and
called back people to Selonika who fled Latin oppression earlier.[30]
A period of peace lasted for more than two hundred years in Moro
which fell under the Ottoman rule in the 14th century. This city is
in Greece today. The Sultans limited their roles to turning some
churches into mosques as a sing of victory and concentrated on
serving the privileged needs of their Muslim subjects. There are at
least nine examples of this practice in Anabolu, Argos, Balyabadra,
Corinth, Koron, Londari, Mezistra, Modon, Monemvasia/Menekşe.
However, Christian Greeks were able to build well decorated
monumental churches and monasteries of large and middle size in the
central zones of the country. Numerous important artists of icons
and frescos emerged in the 17th end the 18th centuries in Moro under
the Ottoman reign. Demetrius and Georgios Moschos and Kakavas family
from Anabolu are good examples of this.
In the 1700s, Roman Catholics started to propagate their faith
actively and thus the local Orthodox community excluded them. The
French aristocrat and diplomat De La Motraye notes that he found
Greeks of Modon “praying to be under the rule of Turks” because
Turks were receiving reduced taxes and furnishing them with liberty
to lead their life as they wished. De La Motraye writes that local
people were complaining about the rapes of their women by the
Venetian soldiers and negative comments of priests about orthodox
beliefs and their oppression to convert to their religion. Turks as
reported by the local people never did any of these and instead
recognized all the freedoms for them.
[31]
When the Ottomans returned to Moro as a result of Damat Ali Pasha’s
military campaign (1127/1715), local people did not show significant
resistance. In fact, majority of the Orthodox community helped him.
Damat Ali Pasha paid for all the food supplies instead of
confiscating them like the Venetians and he did not treated people
of Moro as losers in the war but instead treated them as the Ottoman
subjects. Records which were completed in 1128 (1716) shows that
many Greeks voluntarily came forward to declare their allegiance to
the Ottoman ruler. Memoirs of Kanellos Deligiannes, from Kocabaşı
family, a descendant of Karytaina lineage confirms these
observations. In his memoirs, Deligiannes calls the period starting
with this new conquest and rebellions (1184/1170) with the
provocation of Orloffs leading the Russian army as the “good old
period”. In fact decrees which allowed monks to have financial
privileges, tax exemptions and permission to restore or rebuild
churches were issued in this period. In 1993 (1779) 10 000 Greeks
from Moro migrated to Anatolia with ships. They were well received
and settled in the Ottoman territory by the local rulers and
chieftains in western Anatolia such as Karaosmanoğulları of Manisa.
Houses and churches were built for the new settlers and they were
exempted from tax payment for ten years. Most of these people did
not return to their homeland even after Moro became a peaceful
place.
[32]
H. CONTEMPORARY SOCIETIES AND THE UNIVERSAL MESSAGE
Political and religious crisis have emerged in the Muslim world
following the removal of the Ottoman caliphate. Muslims in the
Balkans and Central Asia in particular fell victims to the campaign
of “taking revenge from history”. They were forced to leave their
country only because of their religion. A great portion of Muslims
in the Balkans were forced to migrate and settle in the newly
established Republic of Turkey after the World War 1. During the war
and its aftermath hundreds of thousands of people were killed and
the European Church remained silent on this problem. In fact, some
church authorities and political circles have even supported the
killings. The world witnessed these events as an audience. Turkey
was forced to become a ghetto for the Balkan Muslims receiving
migrants from 1912 onwards, accepting refuges from the Balkan region
and experiencing a problem of high population growth.
867 mosques were destroyed during wars in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo
and Macedonia between 1991 and 2001, and 250 000 Muslims were
killed. According to the official documents of the Directorate of
Religious Affairs in Kosovo, 218 mosques, 4 religious schools (madrasas),
3 shrines, 1 bath and 75 shops were destroyed and ruined. Moreover,
86 minarets, 114 domes, 560 wall decorations and more than 12 000
manuscripts were also destroyed. Ramazaniye Mosque (1470) in
Phristina, The Çarşı Mosque (1470), the Defterdar mosque (1570), the
Kurşumlu mosque (1577), the town bath and the old Ottoman Market in
Ipek and the Hadum mosque and its library (1592) in Gjakova and some
other properties belonging to the pious foundations were either
burned or destroyed.[33]
One can never claim that such a destruction which wiped about
historical monuments and cultural heritage as well as human beings
took place during the Ottoman administration in the region which
lasted 550 years. There are no historical records implying such
atrocities under the Ottoman regime. Recent treatment of detainees
in the Abu Ghareeb prison in Iraq and torturing people there is
unacceptable. However such scenes are used by some people to justify
radicalism against the invading powers. These kinds of treatments
and their impacts seem to be a serious threat for the world peace.
Despite all events in the past and in the present, one can approach
issues of dialog and toleration from the universal Islamic
principles as follows:
1. In addition to the main texts historical experiences of
religions, art, architecture, music, aesthetics, literature and
varieties in life styles should also be taken into account when we
try to understand and interpret religions. If/when we read the text
out of its historical context; this means we legitimize our view
rather than following the text itself. In sum, we can conclude that
Islam and other Abrahamic religions have messages for the peace and
happiness for mankind in principle. If we have disputes and
conflicts based on religious differences, it is not because
religions approve such things but religion are wrongly understood
and interpreted by its followers.
2. It is important to have a religious understanding based on
scholarly investigation for the promotion of tolerance, dialogue,
respect for cultural differences and mutual existence in the name of
world peace.
3. Some churches in the west interpret inter-religious dialogue as a
means of conveying the message of Christianity rather than as a
process of meeting and learning from people of differnt faiths. This
constitutes a serious obstacle in the dialogue efforts. However,
many Muslims, Christians, Jews and Buddhists etc. are working for
dialogue with sincerity.
4. Inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue will also contribute
to the elimination of conflicting issues stemming from history. This
process will also contribute to the solution of current problems
such as starvation, poverty, environmental pollution, unemployment,
drug addiction, natural disasters and terror etc.
5. Problems and difficulties that render differences to be the basis
of dialogue is not only a problem for inter-religious dialogue. Each
religion and culture has also such a problem within itself. Our task
is not to impose our different understanding and interpretation of
religion on each of us. Islam regarded the variety and differences
in understanding and interpreting religion as an asset and thus the
diversity did not lead to tension and conflict except few times.
However, in the west, denominations emerged from Christianity were
interpreted as if they were different religions, thus leading to
serious conflicts in history.
6. Mystical thought and tradition of Sufism significantly
contributed to the promotion of toleration and to the growth and
spread of mutual existence. Mystical thought offers a great
opportunity to people by softening hardliners in religion and by
conveying the message to the masses. There are a lot to learn in the
name of toleration and mutual existence from historical figures such
as Ibn Arabi, Hakim Tirmizi, Imam Rabbani, Junaid al-Bagdadi, Zu’n-Nun
al-Masri, Abu Yezid al-Bistami, Ahmed Yesevi, Mavlana Jalaluddin
Rumi and Yunus Emre etc.
7. The
existence of a real democracy is crucially important for the
establishment and survival of tolerance, dialogue, respect for
cultural differences and co-existence in this century. Democracy
provides great opportunities from the point of universality of peace
and its permanency. The Ottoman historical experience has also
contributed to the development of the concept of peaceful
co-existence of religions and cultures. The fact that different
religions and cultures have lived side by side in peace in Anatolia
and in the Balkans for centuries. Therefore, while the EU is
establishing a new order and expanding
[1]
But He fashioned him in due proportion, and
breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you
(the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and
understanding): little thanks do ye give! (The Qur’an,
Sajda, XXXII/9).
[2]
Also see: The Qur’an, Al-Hijr, XV/29; Al-Anbiya,
XXI/91; Sad, XXXVIII/72; Tahrim, LXVI/12.
[3]
The Qur’an, Hujurat, XLIX/13.
[4]
For example see the following verses: “Let there be
no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from
Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath
grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks.
And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.” (Baqara,
II/256); “Mankind was but one nation, but differed
(later). Had it not been for a word that went forth before
from thy Lord, their differences would have been settled
between them.” (Yunus, X/19); “Say, "The truth is
from your Lord": Let him who will believe, and let him who
will, reject (it): for the wrong-doers We have prepared a
Fire whose (smoke and flames), like the walls and roof of a
tent, will hem them in: if they implore relief they will be
granted water like melted brass, that will scald their
faces, how dreadful the drink! How uncomfortable a couch to
recline on!” (Al-Kahf, XVIII/29).
[5]
For a detailed account of state formation in Muslim
history see: Ahmet Davutoğlu, “Devlet”, TDV İslam
Ansiklopedisi ( DİA ) , Istanbul 1994, IX, 234-240.
[6]
For more information on the policies towards
non-Muslims and their treatment in Muslim history starting
from Muhammad (S.A.V.)’s time see: Muhammed Hamidullah,
al-Vathâiku’s-siyâsiyya, Beirut 1405/1985; Mustafa Fayda,
Hz. Ömer Zamanında Gayr-i Müslimler, Istanbul 1989;
Levent Öztürk, İslâm Toplumunda Hıristiyanlar: Asr-ı
Saadetten Haçlı Seferlerine Kadar, Istanbul 1998; “İslâm
Toplumunda Hıristiyanlara Gösterilen Hoşgörü Örnekleri-İlk
Beş Asır”, Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi
Dergisi, IV, 2001, 25-37.
[7]
“There is no coercion in religion.” (The
Qur’an, Baqara, II/256).
[8]
“If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all
have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel
mankind, against their will, to believe!” (The Qur’an,
Yunus, X/99).
[9]
“So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have
submitted My whole self to Allah and so have those who
follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those
who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they
do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Thy
duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are
(all) His servants..” (The Qur’an, Al-i ‘Imran, III/20);
Also see: Maida, V/92, 99; Ra’d, XIII/40; Ibrahim, XIV/52;
Nahl, XVI/35, 82; Nur, XXIV/54; Ankabut, XXIX/18; Yasin,
XXXVI/17).
[10]
They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be
guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the
Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with
Allah." (The Qur’an, Baqara, II/135).
[11]
“Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation
given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the
Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to
(all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference
between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in
Islam)." (The Qur’an, Baqara, II/136).
[12]
Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as
between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we
associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from
among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If
then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at
least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will) .” (The
Qur’an, Al-i ‘Imran, III/64).
[13]
A term which is used to denote an Ottoman policy for
conquests based on appeasement and encouragement.
[14]
“Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those
employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts
have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in
bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the
wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full
of knowledge and wisdom.” (The Qur’an, Tavba, IX/60).
[15]
The Ottomans inherited this policy from the Seljuks and
applied this policy in Byzantine regions in order to live in
peace with the Byzantine rulers. The rationale behind such a
policy was to earn the respect and sympathy of the local
people. As a result of this policy some raider (frontier
warriors/akinci) families such Mihaloğulları joined the
Ottomans which made significant impact in the Ottoman
military history. See Mücteba İlgürel, “İstimâlet”, TDV
İslam Ansiklopedisi ( DİA ), Istanbul 2001, XXIII, 362.
[16]
See, Lajos Fekete, “Osmanlı Türkleri ve Macarlar,
1366-1699”, TTK Belleten, XII/52, Ankara 1949, p.
699-700, 729-730, 733.
[17]
For example the following observation by Gibbons is very
significant. “When the Jews were being massacred and the
Inquisition courts were spreading death, people who belonged
to various religions under the Ottoman rule were living in
peace and harmony.” See, Ziya Kazıcı, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde
Dinî Hoşgörü”, Kültürlerarası Diyalog Sempozyumu,
Istanbul 1998, p. 111.
[18]
An episode narrated about Osman Gazi who was founder of
the Ottoman State confirms this observation. Osman appointed
Dursun Fakih from Karaman as an Imam and gave him the
responsibility of protecting the order in the markets
regardless of religion and ethnicity. When a disagreement
emerged between a Muslim and a Christian, Osman decided in
favour of the latter. Following this event everyone in the
Empire started to talk about Osman’s fondness for justice
and truth. See, Ziya Kazıcı, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Dinî
Hoşgörü”, Kültürlerarası Diyalog Sempozyumu, Istanbul
1998, p. 105-115.
[19]
Osman Çetin, Sicillere Göre Bursa’da İhtida
Hareketleri ve Sosyal Sonuçları (1472-1909), Ankara
1994, p. 25, 26, 29, 68.
[20]
Fatih Mehmed visited the largest church of the city, Aya
Sophia, and he ensured people who were waiting in fear that
they and their religious leaders were safe. He declared that
those who fled the city could come safely and practice their
religion freely. See, Ahmed Agendum, Belgeler Gerçekleri
Konuşuyor, II, p. 11-12; Feridun Emecen, “Istanbul (Istanbul’un
Fethi)”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi (DİA), Istanbul
2001, XXIII, 218.
[21]
Kritovulos, Istanbul’un Fethi (trc. M. Gökman),
Istanbul 1999, s. 127-129; Francis Yeorgios, Şehir Düştü
(trc. Kriton Dinçmen), Istanbul 1992, p. 105, 107, 109. Also
see: Selahattin Tansel, Osmanlı Kaynaklarına Göre Fatih
Sultan Mehmed’in Siyasî ve Askerî Faaliyeti, Istanbul
1971, p. 106-107.
[22]
M. Akif Aydın, Türk Hukuk Tarihi, Istanbul 2001,
p. 152-153; Idem, “Din (Din ve Vicdan Hürriyeti-Gayri
Müslimler-)”, TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi ( DİA ),
Istanbul 1994, IX, 327.
[23]
Bilal Eryılmaz, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Gayri Müslim
Tebaanın Yönetimi, Istanbul 1996, p. 35-36.
[24]
Bernard Lewis, Çatışan Kültürler: Keşifler Çağında
Hıristiyanlar, Müslümanlar, Yahudiler (trc. Nurettin
Elhuseyni), Istanbul 1996, p. 26; Mehmet Aydın, “Türk
Toplumunda Dinî Hoşgörünün Temelleri”, Kültürlerarası
Diyalog Sempozyumu, Istanbul 1998, p. 59-69.
[25]
Zekeriya Kurşun, “Osmanlı Devleti’nde Dinî Hoşgörüye Bir
Örnek: Yavuz Sultan Selim’in Fermanı”, Türk Dünyası Tarih
Dergisi, XXII (1988), pp. 53-55, p. 55.
[26]
bk. Selaniki, Tarih (İpşirli), II, 586, 769;
Defterdar Sarı Mehmed Paşa, Zübde-i Vekaiyat (nşr.
Abdülkadir Özcan), Ankara 1995, s. 289, 317.
[27]
Muslims in Albania have Bektashi and Sunni trends.
Current efforts to present these trends as two different
religions and missionary activities trying to show the
Christians as the majority population threatens the
stability in this country.
[28]
Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Avrupa'da Osmanlı Mimârî
Eserleri - Yugoslavya, Istanbul 1981, cilt III, kitap 3,
p. 138.
[29]
See. Ekrem Hakkı Ayverdi, Avrupa'da Osmanlı Mimârî
Eserleri - Yugoslavya, Istanbul 1981, vol. III, kitap 3,
p. 138, 141; Semavi Eyice, "Ohri'nin Türk Devrine Ait
Eserleri", Vakıflar Dergisi, Istanbul 1965, VI, p.
140-141.
[30]
J. Anagnostis, Selanik (Thessaloniki)’in Son Zaptı
Hakkında Bir Tarih. Sultan II. Murad Dönemine Ait Bir Bizans
Kaynağı (trc. Ve nşr. Melek Delilbaşı), Ankara 1989, p.
23, 26, 29.
[31]
Aubri De La Motraye, Voyage du Sr. De La Motraye en
Europe, Asie et Afrique, La Haye 1727, I, 462.
[32]
Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatnâme, Istanbul 1928, VIII,
275-376, 580-610.
[33]
For detailed information on these sourcess see:
Barbaria Serbe ndaj Monumenteve Islame në Kosovë
(Shkurt'98-Qershor'99), Prishtinë 2000, s. 5-312.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment