For more than six hundred years, from 1300 until 1922, the Ottoman Empire ruled over a religiously diverse population. For the duration of its entire existence the state exhibited exceptional tolerance and permissiveness regarding religious freedom, much more so than other countries of the time. The Ottoman state practiced these Islamic values with remarkable genuineness for the majority of its rule, with the exception being in the decline of the Ottoman state (19^th century), when religious tolerance was used as a means for resecuring state authority and loyalty. To be able to understand how the Ottomans excelled in tolerance, one has to consider how they upheld Islamic principles and values concerning Muslims’ relationship with non-Muslims as prescribed in the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad’s example.

Multiculturalism and tolerance in Islam

Islam is firmly rooted in acceptance and respect of other cultures as evidenced in many Qur’anic verses and events in Muhammad’s life, like the Medina Charter and Farewell Sermon. The Medina Charter, for instance, was a contract Muhammad established to bring peace to Medina where he found himself in the role of community arbitrator. This was a sharp contrast from the context in Mecca, where his preaching of new revelation had him marked as an enemy of the establishment in Mecca.

In Medina (known as Yathrib at the time) there were two powerful tribes: the Aws, and the Khazraj. The pair were strong and forceful, idol worshipers, and in constant conflict and battle [1]. Also present in Medina were a large number of Jews, though they did not have the influence and power that the Aws and Khazraj did. When Muhammad arrived in Medina at the invitation of the community leaders in 622 AD, he developed the Medina Charter; a pact between all the major groups of the city [2].

The Medina Charter was intended to ensure the collective security of the Aws, Khazraj, and Jews, as well as Muslims who had now arrived. The document served as a defense pact for the city in order to serve the greater good of Medina. Since Muhammad held all of the groups agreeing to the pact as equals it has since been hailed as a milestone and model for multiculturalism. There are significant messages of community and cooperation in the document, as found explicitly in “the Jews of the B. ‘Auf are one community with the believers, (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs)” [3]. In this Charter, Muslims and Jews are commanded to “help the other… [and] seek mutual advice and consultation” [4]. In demanding that the two groups both aid each other and come together to form solutions, he is revealing firstly that he does regard the Jews with respect and equality; and secondly that he (and the early Muslims) can look beyond differences of religion and culture for the insurance of their security and welfare.

Looking at religious texts and models in Islam, the Qur’an contains numerous verses relevant to pluralism and acceptance. Two relevant verses are “there is no compulsion in religion,”[5] which implies that nobody can forcibly be converted to Islam, and “we have honored the Children of Adam, and We have… provided them with At-Tayyibat (lawful good things),”[6] which describes how the Muslims have honored all people, because of their belief that all of humanity come the same origin, stemming from Adam and Eve.

Muhammad’s Final Sermon is his legacy for Islam. In this sermon he reiterated the idea that all of humanity originates from the same people with the words “all mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; white has no superiority over black, nor does a black have any superiority over a white” [7]. Some of the values Prophet Muhammad wanted Muslims to adopt were those of equality and that there is no superiority of any race over another because of the fact that all of the human race originated from two people. Also present in the sermon are messages of benevolence and kindness. “Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you,” and “you will neither inflict nor suffer any inequality” [8] are intended to ensure that Muslims treat others with respect and dignity. With his final sermon Prophet Muhammad took one final opportunity to ensure that Muslims understood that equality is inherent to Islam.

Muhammad did not just preach about tolerance, he practiced it as well. Suffering years of persecution from the Quraysh, the Muslims would have been expected to retaliate for the violence against him according to Arabian tribal customs which operated on an “eye for an eye” philosophy. Instead, when Muslims came to Mecca, Muhammad promised lenience and mercy for anyone who agreed to stop fighting the Muslims regardless of their past actions. The Quraysh, upon seeing the Muslim’s true message and intention, did not resist their entrance into Mecca. Keeping his promise after he entered the city, Muhammad ensured that the “conquest” of Mecca was bloodless and non-violent, demonstrating his commitment to peace and tolerance [9].

Ottoman practice of Islamic values: The Millet system

The Ottoman Empire acted politically in accordance with the Islamic values that Muhammad demonstrated in the Medina Charter. The millet, which is translated as “nation” in English, referred to the autonomous communities under the Ottoman Empire based on their religious traditions [10]. While the Ottomans did divide groups based on their religious identities, they did so with careful attention to differences and divisions. Evidence of this is the different Armenian millets: the Georgian Armenians, Catholic Armenians, and Protestant Armenians. This breakdown demonstrates that the Ottomans understood the different beliefs and values of each group and prevented sectarian divides and conflicts [11].

The dominant millet, or religiously defined community, were the Muslim Turks. In spite of the dominance of the Muslim Turks, non-Muslim subjects in the empire possessed almost equal rights. The Ottoman state insured that the members of the non-Muslim millets had security of life and property, and freedom of religion and work, provided that they did not interfere with the governing of the state or the lives of the Muslim population. The non-Muslim millets were also granted the legal right to use their own language; develop their own educational institutions, religious or cultural; collect taxes; and establish their own court systems. With their own court system, millets could produce their own legal doctrines and try members of their millet provided that the offense concerned members of the relevant millet only and was minor. If the issue was concerning public order or criminal law the matter would be dealt with in accordance with Islamic law. The non-Muslim millets also possessed a large degree of autonomy in matters of family law, such as birth, marriage, death, and inheritance. As aforementioned, the non-Muslim millets possessed almost equal rights. These groups were forbidden from bearing arms and riding horses, and were also mandated to wear hats and shoes of certain colors which corresponded with their millet [12].

The millet system can be likened to the Medina Charter for they both facilitated coexistence of different groups under one administration while still enjoying respective freedoms of religious practice and legal autonomy. The millet system itself, and the religious tolerance that is inherent in its creation, also reflects Muhammad’s idea that “the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs” because both with the Ottomans and Muhammad, religious differences are respected for the greater good of the community. The Ottomans were faithful to Muhammad’s command for the Jews and Muslims to “seek mutual advice and in the Medina Charter” as they allowed millets to elect their own leaders as long as the Ottomans approved of him. This leader then represented the millet and voiced their interests to the state [13].

Ottoman religious tolerance with the millet system is even more significant when compared to other states and empires and their tolerance of alternative faiths. In 1492, the Spanish kingdom issued the Alhambra Decree which expelled all Jews from its lands. The edict ordered all “Jews and Jewesses of our kingdoms to depart and never to return or come back to them,” taking with them their “sons and daughters, menservants and maidservants, [and] Jewish familiars,” returning “neither temporarily on the way to somewhere else nor in any other manner.” The Jews were allowed to leave with their possessions, though, “as long as they do not export gold or silver or coined money.” The Spanish justified this because “every day it is found and appears that the said Jews increase in continuing their evil and wicked purpose wherever they live and congregate” [14].

Sixty-three years later, Catholic Pope Paul IV issued “Cum Nimis Absurdum,” which read “it is completely senseless and inappropriate to be in a situation where Christian piety allows the Jews… access to our society and even to live amongst us.” The Pope was upset that the Jews “manage[d] to claim superiority,” “instead of slavery, which they deserve.” Because of this, he issued a new code of behavior for the Jews, mandating that “for the rest of time, in… [the] domains of the Church of Rome… all Jews are to live in only one [quarter] to which there is only one entrance and from which there is but one exit,” with only one synagogue allowed in each quarter. The rest of the synagogues were “to be destroyed and demolished.” In addition to the new restrictions of their community, Jews could no longer “incriminate Christians in any way,” “play, eat or fraternize with Christians,” or perform any occupation other than rag-picking [15].

Tolerance of the Sultans

Smaller, though significant examples of Ottoman tolerance can be found in the actions of the sultans [16]. Following the Ottoman’s conquest of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1463, Sultan Mehmet II issued an Ahdnama, an imperial document concerning rights and protections. Mehmet II assures the Bosnian Franciscans that they are in his “good graces,” and proves this to be true, as he wrote: “Let nobody bother or disturb those who are mentioned, nor their churches… let them dwell in peace… and be safe… let them settle down their monasteries without fear in all the countries of my empire.” Mehmet II did not just extend his good will, he also ensured that “neither my royal highness, nor my viziers or employees, nor my servants, nor any of the citizens of my empire shall insult or disturb them,” explicitly forbidding any members of the empire, regardless of their rank, to act against the Bosnian Franciscans [17].

Twenty-nine years after Sultan Mehmet II’s acceptance and blessing of the Christians, Sultan Bayezid II sent the Ottoman navy to the rescue of the Jews that were expelled from Spain with the aforementioned Alhambra Decree of 1492. The sultan also sent representatives to all of his European provinces with orders to ensure that the Jews received a welcome and friendly reception from their hosts. Bayezid II even went as far as to punish with death penalty anyone that refused to accept the Jews into the empire or treated them harshly [18].

Ottoman decline and disingenuous tolerance

The Ottomans entered a period of decline in 1600s that would eventually result in its collapse after World War 1. During this period while many territories were being lost to the Europeans, the Empire was also not able to take steps for economic, industrial, and political progress. To reverse the downturn, several reforms were introduced to modernize the state. The Rescript of Gülhane in 1839 and the Rescript of Reform in 1856 guaranteed security of life, honor, and fortune, and standardized taxes and military service. The second Rescript has a bigger focus on religions other than Islam and is much more oriented towards clarifying the specific rights of Christians and Jews [19]. In this document, there is also a push for “the formation of roads and canals to increase the facilities of communication and increase the sources of the wealth,” which will be done through “profit by the science, the art, and the funds of Europe” [20]. The introduction of taking loans from Europe evidences the Ottoman decline as well, because the state was unable to collect sufficient capital internally.

All of the reforms made under both the Rescript of Gülhane and the Rescript of Reform paralleled Western values, and even ape them in some cases. Included in this rather vain attempt at restoration were the Ottoman reforms on the freedom of religion, making it a means to an end, just as the rest of the reforms were. This was a distinct departure from earlier Ottoman policies and actions. With the millet system and the actions of the sultans, the state was performing genuine tolerance and acceptance. The acceptance of religious minorities was casual, standard, and expected, and had its foundation in Islam, particularly in Qur’anic verses related to tolerance, the Medina Charter and Muhammad’s conduct with non-Muslims. Later, as the Ottoman Empire began to decay and lose authority, the religious tolerance became written law with the Rescripts, as they felt it necessary to explicitly state what had already been happening for centuries as a way of proving their currency and parallel with the West. This made the religious tolerance a means to an end. In spite of this disingenuous tolerance at the end of the Ottoman Empire, for more than six hundred years it managed to rule a diverse population, and did so with more respect and sensitivity than most other states of the time, providing a testament to the sympathy and understanding that are at the core of Islam.

Notes

1. The tribal system in Arabia in the seventh century promoted retaliation for offenses against the tribe, resulting in cycles of conflict.
2. Azzam, Leila and Gouverneur, Aisha, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, (Edmonton, 2019). 39-45.
3. Muhammad, Medina Charter, 622 a.d., in In The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume (Karachi: Oxford, 1978), section 25.
4. Ibid. Section 37.
5. Muhammad Taqi-ud Din Al-Hilali and Muhammad Muhsin Khan, eds., Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an: in the English Language (New York, 2010), 2:256.
6. Al-Halali, Interpretations of the Meanings, 17: 66-70.
7. Muhammad, Farewell Sermon, 632 a.d. https://isaugusta.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/The-fare well-sermon.pdf, 2.
8. Ibid, 1.
9. Azzam, The Life of the Prophet, 68-71.
10. Ceylan, Ebubekir, “The Millet System in the Ottoman Empire,” in New Millennium Perspectives in the Humanities, ed. Judi Upton-Ward (Istanbul: Faith University, 2002), 248-250.
11. Ibid, 256.
12. Ibid, 250-251.
13. Ceylan, “The Millet System in the Ottoman Empire,” 251.
14. King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, Edict of the Expulsion of the Jews, 1492, http://www.sephardicstudies.org/decree.html.
15. Pope Paul IV, Cum Nimis Absurdum, 1555. https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/paul-iv. ‘Ragpicking,’ refers to collecting garbage from the streets.
16. “Sultan” has Arabic origins as a spiritual or moral authority. In this context, it refers to the political leader of the Ottoman Empire. See https://www.britannica.com/topic/sultan-Islamic-title.
17. Mehmet II, Ahdnama of Mehmet II, 1463.https://niagara.instructure.com/courses/16790/files/folder/Weekly%20Readings?preview=1116587.

18. “Sultan Bayezid II Welcomes Jewish Refugees from Spain,” History of Information, accessed December 10, 2020, https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=2346.
19. Abdulmejid I, Rescript of Reform, 1856.
20. Ibid.

Bibliography

• Abdulmejid I. The Rescript of Gulhane, 1839. https://www.anayasa.gen.tr/gulhane.htm.
• Abdulmejid I. The Rescript of Reform, 1856. https://www.anayasa.gen.tr/reform.htm.
• Al-Hilali, Muhammad Taqi-ud Din and Khan, Muhammad Muhsin, eds. Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an: in the English Language. New York: Darussalam, 2010.
• Armstrong, Karen, Islam: a Short History. New York: Modern Library, 2002.
• Azzam, Leila and Gouverneur, Aisha, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad. Edmonton: Al Rashid Mosque, 2019. https://alrashidmosque.ca/wp-ontent/uploads/2019/05/The-Life-of-The-Prophet-Muhammad.pdf.
• Ceylan, Ebubekir. “The Millet System in the Ottoman Empire.” In New Millennium Perspectives in the Humanities, edited by Judi Upton-Ward, 245-266. Istanbul: Faith University, 2002.
• King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. Edict of the Expulsion of the Jews, 1492. Translated by Edward Peters, 2002. http://www.sephardicstudies.org/decree.html.
• Mehmet II. Ahdnama of Mehmet II, 1463.https://niagara.instructure.com/courses/16790/files/folder/Weekly%20Readings?preview=1116587.
• Muhammad. Farewell Sermon, 632 a.d.. https://isaugusta.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/The-farewell-sermon.pdf.
• Muhammad. Medina Charter, 622 a.d.. In The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume. Karachi, Oxford, 1978, p. 231-233.
• Pope Paul IV. Cum Nimis Absurdum, 1555. https://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/paul-iv.
• “Sultan Bayezid II Welcomes Jewish Refugees from Spain.” History of Information. Accessed December 10, 2020. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=2346.

Historical background

Dhimmi designates an indefinitely renewed contract through which non-Muslims have a specific status (but are not full citizens), have their property protected, and are ensured safe conduct in return for acknowledging Islam’s domination and paying the jizya (poll tax).(3) In early Islam, they were Christians, Jews, Magians, Samaritans, and Sabians.(4) The Prophet and the early caliphs showed religious tolerance and caution toward religious minorities.(5) The Ottoman sultans made slight changes, but basically followed the same attitude in a more structured fashion.

Dhimmis in the Ottoman State

Some assert that Ottoman society was divided into ruling (Muslim) and (non-Muslim) raaya classes. But it was more complicated than that, for Muslims and non-Muslims were referred to as raaya (followers, the ruled, or non-participants in government). As the Ottoman State was semi-theocratic, raaya should be understood in the biblical sense as the shepherd and the flock.(6)

Government personnel worked in three areas: religion and law, war and statecraft, and the bureaucracy. The first branch was restricted to Muslim-born subjects. The ulema devoted long years to theological, scholastic, and legal studies in order to become judges and professors. The latter two branches were reserved mainly for non-Muslims. Neither group was inferior to the Muslims.

The Ottoman system was so complex that we cannot determine whether there was religious or racial discrimination. After reforms during the nineteenth century, many intellectuals and ecclesiastics argued that applying a unified law would deprive them of their privileges.(7) The Ottoman system of government was holistic, considered all branches interwoven and interconnected, and was fairly well integrated, in socioeconomic matters but not in religious matters, at least in Turkish-majority areas.

The Millet System

Three days after Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror entered Constantinople (1453), he told everyone to go home and continue his or her occupation and religion. He supervised the election of a new Greek Patriarch, a monk named Genadius, who was elected by Synod and consecrated. He proclaimed the patriarch-elect in the most honorific terms, gave him the pastoral staff with his own hands, and said: Be patriarch, live with us in peace, and enjoy all the privileges of your predecessors.(8) Though other communities later were recognized in the same terms, the Greek Orthodox Church always had more privileges and stronger ties with the central government.

Gradually, dealing with minorities engendered the millet system. Controlling the minority communities through their local bishops and rabbis stopped, and the whole Orthodox Church was organized as Rum Milleti (Roman people). The patriarch collected and allocated the poll tax and served as his community’s temporal leader. He was assigned a ceremonial rank with three tugs (horsetails), allowed his own court and prison in Istanbul’s Fener district, and had unlimited civil jurisdiction over and responsibility for his community. The State assigned him other duties and enforced the laws that he laid down for his community.

Since Islamic law is corporate (not territorial) and Ottoman society was corporate in nature, the Ottoman State dealt with dhimmis as members of a community and not as individuals.(9) A community member was directly responsible for and accountable to the community. Thus the government protected the communities from internal and external aggression, while the community’s leaders managed its affairs. The Porte had to ratify the chosen leader, but this was a mere formality. Each millet’s leader represented his people, and these matters were dealt with through the Foreign Ministry. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch had the rank of vizier and was provided with a guard of Janissaries (soldiers).

The Christian Millet. Most Orthodox Christian Balkan territories had been included in the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s jurisdiction. But by the time of Ottoman conquest, the Slavonic branch in the Sultan’s dominion had split into three patriarchates: Ochrida, Trnovo, and Ipek. These divisions were racial, dynastic, and nationalistic, and not doctrinal. Thus the Conqueror placed all Orthodox Christians under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople and let him decide how to apportion the tax among them.

The sixteenth-century conquests in the Islamic lands and the capture of Cyprus and Crete brought many Orthodox Christians and the ancient patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria under Muslim control. As the patriarch was influential with the sultan, the Porte made arrangements through which the Greek elements became dominant.(10)

The Jewish Millet. The Conqueror allowed the Jews, recognized as another millet, to settle in Istanbul. He appointed a haham basi (Chief Rabbi) with powers similar to those enjoyed by the patriarch. The haham basi was given precedence over the patriarch next to the head of ulema, and after the conquest, the Jews’ position improved. Although outcasts under the Byzantines, they now started holding various public offices.(11) Jews fleeing persecution in Spain and elsewhere were welcomed into Ottoman lands.

Each minority community was treated according to how it had been incorporated into the Ottoman State. Under Bayezid II and Mehmed the Conqueror, Muslims seem to have favored Jews over Christians, since Christians were suspected of being too sympathetic to Christian Europe. The Jews had no central authority to follow and be instigated by, save that of the office of haham basi, which the Porte could check easily. Almost all Jews were immigrants and brought their distinctive rituals, habits, and customs with them, Therefore, different regions inhabited by homogeneous groups were represented by different synagogues.

The Armenian Millet. In 1462, the Armenians became the last community recognized as a separate millet until the period of decline. Whereas the Patriarch was the most prominent ecclesiastical figure in the Orthodox Church and the Jews had no spiritual universal director, the head of Armenian Church did not reside within the Empire.

The Orthodox Church considered the Armenian church (Gregorian) heretical. Earlier, it had been as powerful as Orthodoxy. When the Armenians became a separate millet, neither little Armenia nor the Armenian provinces of the East, two important seats, were ruled by the Ottomans. Therefore, Mehmed II chose Horaghim, Gregorian bishop of Bursa, as the Armenian patriarch of Istanbul and gave him powers similar to those of the Orthodox patriarch and the haham basi.

Also belonging to this millet were all unclassified subjects, such as the Bogomils and the Paulicans, two heretical sects that originated from the Armenian church. Most Balkan Armenians accepted Islam after the area was overrun by the Ottoman armies. Remaining subjects have retained their particular faith until today. Other members included various Catholic and other Christian groups that the Orthodox Church considered heretical.

The devshirme and ghulam systems

This devshirme system was based on traditional views of dealing with prisoners of war. In the classical Islamic period, jurists advised immediate execution, allowing some or all to be ransomed or freed, exchanges for Muslim prisoners, or enslavement.(12)

Islam allowed slaves to be emancipated; the Ottomans did not. One-fifth of all captives entered the ghulam system (the sultan’s slave family), and were trained and allowed to rise within the system. Such slaves were recruited from Christians aged 10 to 20 years. The preferred ages were probably between 14 and 18, and boys younger than 12 or older than 20 were considered only in exceptional cases.(13)

Recruits were obtained through capture, purchase, gift, or tribute. Slaves not bought for the sultan or given to him were usually either captives or levied with the tribute boys. There was hardly any other way, since slaves passed too rapidly into the Muslim fold to have their children available for the system. The sons of the recruits (though already themselves Muslim) were eligible, but not their grandsons, because by then the grandchildren would most likely be Muslims. Reliable statistical data is rare, but based on contemporary ac-counts, in the sixteenth century probably 3,000 children were recruited annually. Those within the system might have reached as high as 80,000, and the total number recruited throughout the centuries might have been close to 2 million.

This exclusion of all other Muslims’ children and grandchildren lasted until Suleyman the Magnificent broke them. He allowed the Janissaries’ children to join their ranks or other parts of the system. This proved to be a fatal move, for it became the only hereditary institution after the sultanate.

At first, parents were anxious to keep their children out of the system. But later on, even Muslim families tried to get their children into it because of the prestige it conferred. Originally restricted to the sons of villagers and poor families, it eventually spread to the townsmen’s children. The earlier practice resulted in great social upward mobility; the later practice opened up a new way of accumulating wealth and prestige, and thus undermined the State.

This tribute system brought children from Austria, the Caucasus, the Crimea, and the Balkans. Those captured by raiders and corsairs were presented to the sultan as gifts. Otherwise, recruiting officers visited some villages every 4 years to fill their quota. The officer summoned the priest and got a list of children, visited the houses, and took the most suitable children. If he received more than required, the surplus was sold elsewhere.(14) Contemporary accounts say that it produced the ablest and most talented children.

These children became known as ghilman. The sultan had the absolute sovereignty over them. However, they felt honored by this title and tried to show their loyalty to him. The Ottoman system raised slaves to ministers of state, courtiers, husbands of princesses, rulers of the Islamic state, soldiers and generals, bureaucrats and prime ministers. Race was irrelevant, for only potential talent was considered.(15)

They were taught Turkish, Arabic, Persian, physical training, war affairs, administration, the Ottoman governing institutions, and so on. The successful and meritorious could expect to serve in some of the Empire’s highest positions. Its graduates became fully Muslim, as did those who served in the Ottoman armed forces. However, many non-Muslims served in respectable positions during the reigns of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, and Salim I. Muslims and non-Muslims held provincial administration positions and were members of court slave families (e.g., the grand vizier, governors, princes, military officers, and so on).

Taxation

Dhimmis paid two special taxes: jizya (a tribute or a poll tax) and kharaj (land tax). Ottoman ulema ruled that this rule still was in use, but since all agricultural land belonged to the State, it applied to private holdings. Another tax was taken from all peasants. Many other dues levied on peasants and traders were heavier for dhimmis than for Muslims. Though the land tax was discontinued during the early days of Islam, the Ottomans continued to levy the poll tax in lieu of military service.(16) Interestingly enough, it was confused with land tax and the dhimmis were confused with the masses. The masses’ payment of the land tax thus was actually the dhimmis’ payment of the poll tax.(17)

Originally it was levied only on free men who could earn and afford to pay it. But later on, ministers, rabbinical representatives, the chief rabbi, teachers, slaughterers, and a few Jewish families in Istanbul were excluded. Many Christian families obtained a decree from the sultan that made them exempt. Gibb and Bowen estimate that probably only one-third of all eligible dhimmis paid this tax during the State’s later period.(18)

During the nineteenth century, the land tax was abolished (in principle) and yet retained as a compensation for military duty. Shortly thereafter, Istanbul’s people were exempted from it in toto, although it was still collected in the provinces. Until the republican era, all non-Muslims (except for Istanbul residents) paid only a military and a road tax.

Conclusion

The Ottoman State acted according to Islam and its own interests. It recognized each community’s rights and frequently protected them at the expense of its own citizens. It opened up state offices to non-Muslims as an incentive to become Muslim. Such a policy was unknown to the Europe of that time. However, the Ottomans did not spread the Islamic educational system among the non-Muslims to encourage their conversion, which constituted the state’s very raison d’etre.

Footnotes

1. Abu Jaber, book title/pub. info needed, 213.
2. H.A.R. Gibb and Harold Bowen, Islamic Society and the West (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1950-), 1:43.
3. H.A.R. Gibb et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Islam, Dhimma (Leiden: Brill, 1960-).
4. M. Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1955), 176-77.
5. Ibid., 173.
6. Abu Jaber, 212.
7. Carel Bertram, book title/pub. info needed, 127.
8. Ibid.
9. Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel K. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976-77), 1:151.
10. Ibid., 153.
11. Cyrus Adler et al., eds., The Jewish Encyclopedia, Turkey (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901-06).
12. A. H. Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913).
13. Ibid., 54.
14. Ibid., 46.
15. Vernon Parry, Elite Elements in the Ottoman Empire, in Governing Elites: Studies in Training and Selection, ed. Rupert Wilkinson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 50-73.
16. Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society, 253.
17. The Jewish Encyclopedia, Turkey.
18. Gibb and Bowen, Islamic Society, 255.