Written and illustrated by Karen Gray Ruelle and Deborah Durland Desaix, The Grand Mosque of Paris is published by Holiday House Books for $17.95. Bouquets should be presented to the authors for the research they’ve done to bring such a beautiful historical moment to life. This book is living proof that Muslims and Jews lived as brothers in the past.

At forty pages long, and with illuminating illustrations on nearly every page, this is a fascinating read. It is set in 1939, when the Nazis invaded Poland, initiating World War II. Jews, the Nazis’ main victims, were in grave danger; they were being hunted down all over Europe. Many of them fled to France in the hopes of safety, but in 1940, the Nazis conquered France. A new French government of collaborators was set up, and as per the order of the Nazis, many anti-Jewish laws were passed. The new government rounded up Jews of all ages, mercilessly tortured them, and sent them to concentration camps, where millions died. Those Jews who were not captured began to seek shelter and refuge wherever they could. A large number of them found help in an extraordinary place: it was the Grand Mosque, the center of the Islamic Community in Paris, “… an oasis hidden behind high walls right in the middle of the city.”

The authors have projected the Mosque as both a place of great beauty and as a place of refuge and sanctuary, glorifying the Islamic principle of helping people in distress:

“The Grand Mosque shimmered like a mirage, the white dome and the glittering mosaics of the minaret in shark contrast to the mutated colors of Paris. When the mosque was built in 1926, the North African countries of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia were under French rule, and many Muslims had come to Paris from those countries. The land for the mosque was given by the French government in exchange for a symbolic payment of one franc, to thank the half million Muslim soldiers who had fought for France during the First World War.”

The mosque, with its graceful columns and arches, spacious courtyards, blooming gardens, and cascading fountains had a library full of rare manuscripts and books, steam baths, a clinic, and a restaurant. Everything that happened in the Muslim community – like births, marriages, and deaths – was duly recorded at the mosque.

This short book pays tribute to some notable persons who played dynamic roles in France and unflinchingly helped Jews – women and children young and old. There was Si Kaddour Benghabrit, the writer and diplomat who was in charge of the mosque. He kept the gates of the mosque open for Jews, housed and fed them, and kept them safe from persecution. In some cases, he even issued fake birth certificates to them to prove that they were Muslims. In one example, a young Jew from Algeria, Salim Halali, had a great desire to be a singer. In France, he was given protection in the mosque. Benghabrit secretly asked a stone carver to inscribe the family name on an unmarked tombstone in the Muslim cemetery, to convince the Nazis that Salim was a Muslim.

Another notable figure was Dr. Ahmed Somia, who cared for and protected the young children who were sick.

Besides these notable people, many unnamed Muslims in the French Resistance helped Jews to escape from Nazi-occupied Paris. Various means were adopted to disguise Jews. They were supplied with the Fez (a traditional tasseled wool felt hat) so that they could pass as Muslims. The Resistance also operated a secret network that smuggled Jews out of Paris to safety, sometimes through hidden tunnels under the basement of the mosque. These passageways twisted and turned beneath the streets for miles and miles until they reached the bank of River Seine, where Jews could then be transported to safe havens.

The authors, Ruelle and DeSaix, lament the fact that most important documents and manuscripts were either destroyed or lost during the Nazi invasion. After a long and laborious search, they could obtain only a few documents that threw light on the historical facts chronicled in the book. One letter, as the authors say, “… was recently found among the old papers of a Paris cafe owned by a Tunisian. The cafe owner said that it dated from World War II. It read:

Yesterday at dawn, the Jews of Paris were arrested. The elderly, the women, and the children. In exile like ourselves, workers like ourselves. They are our brothers. Their children are like our children. Anyone who encounters one of his children must give that child shelter and protection for as long as misfortune – or sorrow – lasts. Oh man of my country, your heart is generous.

Was this letter read out in the cafe? Did it circulate among the Kaybele workers of Paris, making its way through the crowded boardinghouses where these men lived? It certainly seems to be a call to action. Without a doubt, it is a recognition of the strong bond between North African Muslims and Jews.”

When World War II ended, Si Benghabrit kept on serving in the mosque as its rector until his death in 1954. He was buried by the mosque. Jewish singer Salim Halali lived a long, successful life, and is revered as the father of modern North African song. Dr. Ahmed Somia continued his selfless devotion to the sick until his death.

The Grand Mosque of Paris, written in simple English, is a book that must be cherished. One cannot help but feel it could have been better if descriptions of the incidents and the works of the people mentioned in the book were in greater detail. Yet, it is a book designed for children, so the authors wanted to keep the level good enough for the aimed age group.

She began to question religious thought under the influence of philosophy she studied when she was eighteen. She searched for answers but failed to convince herself. Since her grandmother taught her to be “honest” all the time, she decided to end her connection with the church, stating, “I do not have the faith and I still continue to go to church; this is not right.”

One day, in the library of the Sorbonne University, she encountered a half page text describing the views of Rumi written by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal. She grew confused after reading the article. Either Rumi or the Greek philosophy which she had been reading up until that time was correct. She looked for publications regarding Rumi to investigate the matter comprehensively. But she failed to find any record related to the topic in the entire library. She read Muhammad Iqbal’s book called The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam in English, expecting she could reach the opinions of Rumi through him. She found many answers to her questions in this book. She became a Muslim in 1954, as a result of this enlightenment, and changed her name to Hawwa.

Hawwa was very impressed with the collections of Rumi, accepting him as a guide. She translated almost all of his and Iqbal’s works into French. She worked ten years to translate Rumi’s magnum opus the Mathnawi. She became the reason for many French intellectuals to discover and grow closer to Islam by her translations, radio speeches, and lectures. She made many visits to Turkey and attended Rumi programs.

In a live broadcast, Ms Hawwa gave the following long answer to questions such as, “Why did you choose Islam? What have you found in Rumi? Why Turkey and not another Islamic country?”

The Western media happens to have launched an attack against the religion of Islam. When you listen to French or German televisions and radios, you would hear awful statements regarding the Islamic religion. You would hear that Islam is about violence, jihad, fanaticism, etc. Despite these continuous attacks, there are scores of people in Western countries adopting Islam. I know many people who have accepted Islam in France, England, Germany, and Spain.

According to the data I have obtained from French authorities, many of the converts are intellectual people. They were seeking something and they found what they were searching and longing for in Islam. It is because their interpretations on creation and existence were not addressing these feelings anymore and also materialism disappointed them completely.

I have discovered a very different Islam than the one taught at the school or university, or depicted on newspapers and televisions. I am proud to say that the work of Rumi I last translated took ten years. This is an extraordinary book. In my opinion, the West was thirsty for spirituality. I also think this is very significant for our era. I go to Konya every year and love it there since it is the town of Rumi. I feel as if I am from Konya when I am there. I also love Turkey very much; since it represents my acquaintance with Islam, I am very happy there and I feel like a Turk. I found a religion in the Mathnawi that rejects radical religious ways, strict rulings, fanaticism, and conservative approaches; a religion which is entirely sincere, tolerant, and suitable to my beliefs.

The need for spirituality in our time is not satisfied. But I also do not think that humans can quench this by withdrawing from social life. In addition, scientific developments have demonstrated such an amazing universe. What is extraordinary of Rumi (which is not my reason for adopting Islam) is his projection and this impresses people, especially a young generation who has a passion for science. Consider that Rumi tells, ‘If you split an atom, you will find a solar system.’ He speaks of planets orbiting inside and outside of us, but also warns us to be careful. Since when these atoms open their mouths, they can eject a fire that can destroy the whole world. As seen, he talks about the dangers of the atomic bomb in the thirteenth century. It mentions the presence of nine planets, whereas modern science only proved this in the 1930s. Previously, seven planets were believed to exist. Number eight was found by a French researcher in the 1840s, and the ninth was discovered by an American scientist in 1930. However, Rumi already knew that there were nine planets back in his era. While the sun was believed to orbit earth in the West, Rumi tells that earth, like other planets, is a small planet that revolves around the sun. He also mentions other extraordinary things.

I often receive frequent phone calls, usually from intellectuals, even professors, authors, and journalists, and they tell me that, ‘Do you know Madam, I have accepted Islam and this was possible via Rumi.’

I now have translated all of his books including, ‘Majales-e Sab’a (Seven Sessions), Fihi Ma Fihi (In It What’s in It).’ The most important one is the Mathnawi. I am truly happy. Furthermore, I think that the time is very suitable for the publication of such works. This is because our world is being devastated by wars, conflicts, hatred, and aggression. However, Rumi’s works are full of love, peace, and tolerance, which are essential messages for today. True Islam is a universal religion with a perfect message of tolerance. The teachings of the prophets before Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, are accepted as valid. Therefore, Islam provides satisfying answers to people seeking clearer, universal and general answers compared to their own religions. Yet I am repeating once more that conversions are totally different from each other. For instance, I know people who adopted Islam suddenly. These people experienced something, saw something, and joined Islam. Some people like me, however, adopted Islam after doing many investigations, passing through many stages, completing PhD work on Islamic philosophy, but the goal as a result is the same. Spain was Muslim for 800 years; right next to it was France, and Spain was decidedly more advanced, intellectual, and civilized than France and the rest of Northern Europe.

I only assess the situation with a Western point of view and I do not mention either Turkey or Arabia. I am talking about the West. I am talking about such a tolerance in Spain, where ministers were Jewish, doctors were Christian, and Caliphs were Muslim. In this country governed by Muslims, business was advancing much faster than other countries. This was a great threat to Christian countries, kingdoms, and the Papacy. As you know, in order to get rid of something disturbing, it must be put down. The West did that. It started imperialism wars by putting down Islam. They expanded their propaganda and misinformation campaigns against Islam. For example if you ask someone in the street, ‘What do you think of Buddhism?’ They would answer, ‘I do not know,’ but when it is about, ‘the religion of Islam,’ they would reply with phrases such as, ‘Ah, yes, marrying four women, keeping them at home, having a tent.’ As you see, there is a type of partial lack of information present, there are clichés found on televisions and in newspapers; concrete symbols exist and all of these distort Islam entirely.

Today Islam is not known very well and people have gotten completely inaccurate ideas. Unfortunately, I think that these arise from failing to generate the necessary image about Islam by Muslim countries. In addition, the misinformation planted as the result of the wars of imperialism contributed to this. Unfortunately there are fractions observed among Muslim countries and this hinders the solutions needed for this and many other issues. Muslims have the same Book, the Prophet and his tradition, culture, and the Qur’anic language, which is Arabic. Yet these countries fight frequently and do not pay attention to this common heritage. In my opinion, the main reason for Westerners not to accept Islam is the lack of unity among Muslims. In fact, this is a separate issue. Islam as a religion should not be adopted through political and social reasons, but through the point of views and paradigms that it brings to the Creator, life, humans, and the universe.

In order to describe Islam as is, it is essential to read Rumi, Ibn Arabi, and briefly, the works of all the great Islamic thinkers. People get very surprised. The other day, I went to the doctor; they are very educated people. His wife, who called me in the evening, asked me ‘what are you doing now?’ I told her that I had just completed the translation of the Mathnawi. She asked what that was. I then told her that the Mathnawi mentions nuclear break down, the atomic bomb. They did not believe. As you see, people do not know the main reason of scientific developments in the middle ages.

The first medical school was established by Arabs in France. The greatest doctor of the era was in Spain. There were many successful scientists who were very ahead of their times, but nobody is aware of this. While I was doing my doctorate on Islamic philosophy at the Sorbonne University, I discovered Islam, but while studying at the university before starting my doctorate on Rumi, nobody taught us about Muslim thinkers. They were teaching German, English, Latin, and Greek philosophers.

There is a long way to go, so much to do. Now there are intellectuals who love and embrace Islam. These people should announce what lies at the essence of Islam to the world.

In her will, written to her spiritual stepson, Prof. Dr. Abdullah Ozturk, Ms Hawwa asked to be buried near the tomb of Rumi, in Konya. After she walked to the horizon of her soul on July 24, 1999, Dr. Ozturk went to great efforts to fulfill this will and she was buried at the Ucler Graveyard, near the tomb of Rumi, on December 17, 2008, exactly the time of “Seb-i Arus” the wedding day, as Rumi described death.

Jacques Derrida¹

For over two thousand years despotism has been used by the West as a concept for slandering systems that differ from it. What this means is that the term itself is European. It was used against the French king as a means of opposition. It was also used by Montesquieu and Engels as a strategy of accusation against Oriental regimes. Karl Wittfogel attempted to adopt it for the case of Soviet Russia, but he did not succeed, because the term has been indexed to the East since the time of ancient Greece. The East for the Greeks was Persia, then, it became Seljuk-Ottoman Empire and the Mongols for a while.

“Enlightened despotism” was used in positive terms for Frederic the Great and Catherine II; however, even this positive attempt did not conceal this myth or alleviate the burden of this prejudice. To sum up, the term despotism has cast a silhouette over the Eurasian map since the time of Aristotle’s Politics. What is more, the notions developed in the West still dominate today, even in the mindset of some “intellectuals” in the East.

There have been many books written on this subject. Edward Said struggled greatly at the beginning with his Orientalism, published in 1978, and in subsequent studies. There has been much research conducted on the problems and contradictions of Eurocentrism. In 1748 Montesquieu presents us with a discussion of despotism in his The Spirit of Laws. However, his outmoded theory was found to be ridiculous by Voltaire at the time and by Anquetil-Duperron thirty years later in 1778.

In fact, the aim of the “Eastern Orientalists” is clear: they are trying to find an explanation for the lack of development in the East. Montesquieu-who invented the term despotism while criticizing the French king-would be pleased if he could hear the repercussions of his theory still haunting Eastern history after 250 years. The philosophers of the Enlightenment were very clever men, they used special terms for special aims, and the myth of “Oriental despotism” is one of the terms used for multiple aims.

The French thinker Louis Althusser analyzes and criticizes Montesquieu in his book Politics and History.2 Althusser first of all tries to “understand” the thinker he is examining. He evaluates works by Montesquieu in general terms and he divides the thoughts into themes. Despotism is one of these themes.

Althusser thinks that Montesquieu’s main aim was not to defend a republic or a democracy against despotism, but rather to support monarchy and make it something that the King would opt for. Therefore, he continually tries to frighten the King with the specter of despotism, a degenerated form of monarchy. He wanted to show the King that if you abuse the monarchy you will become a despot, like that of the Turkish and Chinese states. His warning was, “Be careful not to abuse the monarchy!”

Montesquieu was not an innocent philosopher merely giving advice to his ruler. Philosophers are at least as far removed from innocence as politicians are. However, Althusser does not see things so simple. He thinks that Montesquieu uttered these “great ideas” in order to consolidate the importance of the feudal lords, of whom he was one, in the eyes of the King.

According to Althusser, Montesquieu was trying to bring back the interests of his class that would be lost by centralizing the monarchy.3 Montesquieu was in the camp of the feudal rightist party and he was constantly criticizing Louis XIV-a monarch who represents French monarchy at its peak; he was advising him not to be a despot. If the French king became drawn into the sphere of despotism, then the privileges and rights of the upper classes would be abolished, and they would have to hand over not only their power, but also their wealth to the control of the central authority. Montesquieu lists all the problems inherent in despotism; Louis XIV would continue to distribute offices that had formerly belonged to the aristocrats-a practice started by Cardinal Richelieu-to the newly emerging bourgeoisie, and the logical consequence of this is that Louis XIV would come close to establishing a tyranny.4

Here is what Montesquieu said clearly: Despotism is a regime of fear. There is only one ruler. There are no intermediaries between the King and the people. The despot who rules arbitrarily does stand much of a chance if the people, living like a herd of animals, were to rebel against him en masse. Despotism can not oppose rebellions because the King will be the only target of a huge upsurge, and therefore the life of the king and the continuity of the regime can easily be threatened. However, if there are intermediary classes-of which Montesquieu was a member-who stand between the king and the people, they would be the target of the masses. The king would be free from blame and he would not be a direct target. Finally, Montesquieu concludes: “O Kings! Distance yourself from despotism if you want to protect your reign from the violence of the people.”5

Montesquieu denigrates despotism, particularly in his Letters from Persia, by giving examples from the administration of the Ottoman sultan and the Iranian shah (the Ottomans and the Safavids became the devils in this despotism context and were the parties accused of despotism).6 Yet, as Althusser cleverly recognized, Montesquieu’s problem was not with the Ottoman Empire or Iran. They were just distorted mirrors, fake images, or boogeyman chosen to serve the aim of the feudal rightist opposition that was trying to stand against the king. In short, Althusser wanted the Turks and the Ottomans to be left alone and he was calling for European thought to confess their faults.

Concepts should be perceived as an umbrella rather than as a shopping bag into which we can cram everything. If we use them in the latter fashion then, as implied by Braudel, they tell us nothing, while trying to tell everything. Likewise, Karl Popper-a philosopher of science-was right when he said if we do not limit a concept, a theory, or a scheme and if we try to use it to explain everything, then it is difficult to call it scientific. This is also true for the concept of despotism. If this term is used in an unrestricted sense and is universalized, there will be a superficiality that eliminates all minor differences within the concept. This leads to an evaporation of the deep meanings that are hidden in the nuances, an atrophy of complex thinking and an establishment of thinking based on limits and ease. Because of this we need to talk about multiple despotisms rather than unique despotism.

In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, 7 there are four meanings for the term despotism:

1. In political terms, despotism emerged for the first time in the war between the Persians and Greeks in 5th century B.C. However, the term was formulated by Aristotle. According to him, despotism was an administration confined to Asian barbaric people. Therefore, the first conceptual iron door between Asia and Europe was constructed by Aristotle, who is known as “the first teacher” in Islamic philosophy. According to him, Asian peoples are natural born slaves and are accustomed to living under the authority of a single leader. He thought that their power was derived from despotism. However, since Greek (Europeans) people were superior to Asians in terms of rational capability and spirit, they should be the rulers. Thus, despotism was commonly used in a pejorative sense.

2. In the 16th century, the colonial powers that went to discover new lands to plunder frequently remembered Aristotle’s legitimizing despotism concept. The slave trade was inspired by this ancient obsession with despotism. The people who divided the world into two camps, the free and the barbaric, like Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, and Grotius, believed that the soldiers of European republics were more virtuous than those of the barbarians. According to this belief, it was therefore acceptable for the virtuous to convert the slavish barbarians into slaves.

3. In the 17th and 18th centuries two opposing groups in France, the French aristocrats and the Huguenots (French Protestants, some of who took refugee in the Ottoman Empire after the Edict of Nantes) used the term despotism as a tool of criticism for a European state. Therefore, the content of the term despotism expanded to European rulers who were ruling over free people. In conclusion, the term became two-sided; one for “Western despotism” and the other for “Eastern.” The despotism concept of Montesquieu emerged in the context of this century.

4. There is one other thesis which originated from the Swedish-born French liberal Benjamin Constant and was developed by Tocqueville. This thesis argues that the term of despotism had lost its ancient and original meaning after the French Revolution. These discussions allowed despotism to enter European politics and led to many interesting discussions, like “democratic despotism” or “the tyranny of the majority.”

After all these definitions those of Hegel, Marx, Weber, J. Stuart Mill, and Wittfogel follow; these are not very different in the main line of thought, also seeing despotism as something reserved for the East. They use terms “petrification, “resistance to change” and “static” as symbols of despotism and see it as the reason why eastern societies did not create democratic tendencies and a civil society.

Edward Said in his Orientalism has already shown that the concept of “the East” is a fiction. To put it more correctly, it is an image constructed by the European imperial subject in his mind and then imposed on the world. Therefore, there is no fixed “reality” of the East; rather there is only the ideologically distorted image of the “East” constructed over the ages in the Western imagination. Yet, our mission seems more difficult, as Said does not present us with any clue that can differentiate the “factual” and “fictional” faces of the East. He only diagnoses the existence of the fiction and analyzes the roles of the most important actors (Orientalists) in creating such a fiction. This critical tradition of Orientalism developed greatly after the pioneering role of Edward Said. According to his perception, the East has been singly constructed in the West. Arif Dirlik in his The Postcolonial Aura elegantly criticizes Said”s thought and says that Said is obsessed with external Orientalists; however, Dirlik puts it that Said seems to be unable to recognize the internal Orientalists among easterners.

According to Dirlik, Edward Said takes Orientalism as something that has finished; however Dirlik suggests that it is a continuing process. Thus, he advises that we closely examine local compradors. He asks the question that if there were not collaborationists in the “Orient” would it be so easy for a perspective like Orientalism to settle there? Finally, departing from the Chinese example, he tries to display how Asian intellectuals supported and adopted the Orientalist discourse at its birth and throughout its evolution, and how they worked hard in order to make their societies adopt this perspective.8 This striking thought of Arif Dirlik may facilitate our task, as it is very interesting to note how eastern intellectuals adopted a pejorative and humiliating term like eastern despotism for defining their own histories without questioning and criticizing it, how they were able to take on the habit of seeing their societies through the eyes of a Western subject and in the name of liberation and modernization. According to this approach, the commoditization of Chinese culture and its presentation as a static and petrified entity and marketing it like a commodity to Western people are one side of the Orientalization of the Orient itself.

The other side is glorifying the superior Western race, its land and its culture after humiliating the Orient. Furthermore, the East believes that if it possesses superior properties to that of the West it will be also superior and have a free-minded society. To sum up, much as Hegel strived to achieve, Easterners have put themselves onto this scale of frozen, static and unchanging societies because that is what the West thinks of them. So we have to admire the success of the Orientalist project. Lucette Valensi, in his encompassing and striking study, The Birth of the Despot: Venice and the Sublime Porte, draws conclusions from reports of Venetian ambassadors and arrives at how the concept of the “despot” was constructed in Europe. He says that the Ottoman sultan had not been called a despot and the Ottoman order had not been conceptualized as despotism before. On the contrary, the power, brilliance, and progressiveness of the Ottoman administration were often discussed.

However, beginning with the 17th century, the discourses of the Venetian ambassadors started to change. It was strange, according to Valensi, how the “grand Turc” was transformed into a “despot” in the 17th century. He rightfully asks why the Venetian ambassadors had glorified the Ottoman sultan until the 16th century and then humiliated him in the 17th century. It is clear that there was a change in the Venetian perspective of the Ottomans during this century. As Valensi himself elegantly points out: In the end, the ambassadors and then Montesquieu dressed an ancient Greek concept in a Turkish robe. To say it more correctly, that time is not very distant from us. The fantasy of pure power follows us and transforms its vision continuously.9 According to Valensi, Oriental despotism is just an image reflected onto non-western societies by the West in order to satisfy its fantasy of power. Yet, this image reflects the passion of power in the West; a passion that desires to be as powerful as the Ottomans. Voltaire declares the concept of despotism as presented by his contemporary Montesquieu as ridiculous; he defends that a mass of people ruled by a regime led by a single leader cannot survive; even though it might be possible for it to remain standing, it will not be for long. There was no despotic rule according to Voltaire because it could not exist. It is nothing less than a lie to talk about the existence of such a regime.

As I mentioned above, the concept of despotism, which Voltaire found absurd and fictive, has been used with the aim of concealing rather than describing, complicating rather than explaining. However, we should direct our energy and attention to understanding the facts rather than thinking within limits and fantasies. Then, our attempt to find the realities will remind us that our past is not “a foreign country,” it will give us sound clues about our present and past. Likewise, Voltaire, addressing Montesquieu, explained the Ottoman reality to those who thought like Montesquieu. Voltaire underlined that not only were the Turks free, but they also did not discriminate according to class. Their only criterion of privilege was merit. The facts Voltaire provides about the Ottomans are in complete contrast with the fiction. In conclusion, when carefully examined, myths like “Oriental despotism” do not amount to anything more than European fantasies about the East. Seeing despotism as an oriental concept is no more realistic than the Western misconception of the harem, where the sultan is depicted with hundreds of women. As long as we adopt orientalist presumptions without thoroughly questioning them, we will be unable to tell where the fictional ends and where the factual starts.

Notes

1. Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, The John Hopkins University Press, 1976, p.80
2. Louis Althusser, Politika ve Tarih: Montesquieu-Rousseau, (Politics and History: Montesquieu-Rousseau) Ankara: Verso, 1987. Translated by Alaattin Azenel and Ömür Sezgin.
3. For this transitional period, the seigneurs or landlords were delivering their rights to central government, that is, the central state was becoming a universal seigneurate, see W. H. Lewis, The Splendid Century: Life in the France of Louis XIV, Anchor Books, 1957, pp. 73-79.
4. Stephan J. Lee, Aspects of European History, 1494-1789, Routledge, 1986, p. 167.
5. Micheal Curtis, “The Oriental Despotic Universe of Montesquieu&”, Princeton Papers in Near Eastern Studies, n. 3, 1994, pp. 1-33.
6. Montesquieu, Ãran Mektuplari (Letters from Persia), Anka, Istanbul, 2001, p. 88-89. Translated by Muhiddin Gaklu.
7. David Miller (ed), The Blackwell Encylopedia of Political Thought, Blackwell, 1998.
8. Arif Dirlik, Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism, Westview Press, 1998
9. Lucette Valensi, The Birth of the Despot: Venice and the Sublime Porte (Despotun Dogusu: Venedik ve Bab-i Âli), tr. A. Turgut Arnas, Baslam, Istanbul: 1994.