Those who consider religion merely a matter of conscience are corrupting religion by way of interpretations that contradict a faith’s Divinely ordained nature; by restricting the practice and wider influence of faith, they are preventing the individual, domestic, and social benefits and prosperity that God promises, but are contingent upon faith. However, religion is not only an inner conviction: it is a whole set of principles – ethical, filial, social, and legal in nature – believers are expected to fully observe. For those who subscribe to the faith, these disciplines are binding, with serious consequences for ignoring them. The principles of religion cannot be ignored, nor are the consequences of ignoring them to be taken lightly. Worldly order and balance, as well as individual and domestic peace and prosperity, depend upon these principles. The fruits of faith are eternal bliss in the world beyond.

Unfortunately, many rulers have ignored or distorted these fundamentals of faith. They have interrupted when believers wanted to practice their faith, and tyrannized people’s consciences, making it impossible for them to live in accordance with their beliefs.

Meanwhile, although some states governed under religious jurisprudence may appear to act liberally towards those who adopt a particular religion, it is almost impossible to say they act the same towards those who believe any religion or system of belief. Throughout history, Muslim rulers, those who have truly practiced Islam, have respected all religions, as well as all other philosophies. They have engaged in dialogue with peoples from all walks of life, and have treated other faiths with kindness.

Unfortunately, there have been other Muslim rulers, those who have misunderstood Islam, and rulers in general, no matter what religion they follow, who have ruled with hostility, hatred, discrimination, and fanaticism. And just as they have shrunk their own personal horizons, they have diminished the heavenly immensity of faith, turning belief into a system of oppression instead of a system of relief. They have employed hatred, anger, and jealousy against their coreligionists, and oppressed the “others” with violence, war, and many other various means of barbarism.

Today, there are many secular and liberal systems in which religion is separated from the state. Although governments under these systems claim to provide religious freedoms, it is no secret that many of them impose disbelief by force and treat religion and the faithful with intolerance. When such oppressive regimes dominate the fate of an entire nation, it becomes commonplace that the peace and stability of the people are threatened, and the society is ruled by intimidation. When people of faith have lived under such leaders, their struggle has been for the freedom of conscience against crude power. This campaign for freedom is an ancient one, and unfortunately, in this fight some clergymen took sides with the power, did not abstain to act like those who were against faith, and oppressed their fellow community.

Throughout history, many communities have suffered from violence and discrimination at the hands of their racist leaders. Divinely inspired faiths, which promise peace and security, have been turned into means of conflict and oppression by these leaders. Such a distortion of faith always resulted in the eventual destruction of the oppressors.

During the Crusades, great crimes were committed in the name of Jesus, peace be upon him. Though there is no doubt those “crusaders” thought they were doing good, by committing atrocities, they were misconstruing Jesus’ message of compassion and love. They claimed to be his followers, but they invented many groups of “others” and marginalized them in an illusory attempt to please Jesus and to be rewarded with heaven. The Crusades, of course, are not the only example of such violence committed in the name of religion. Many people have been murdered, throughout history, for opposing a state’s “official” religion. Such violence and unrest eventually led thinkers and philosophers to take action. Their foundational premise of action was that a religion sent by God would not command people to harm and kill one another. The growth of science helped to bring about reforms, which were quite effective at dividing religious and state affairs. Unfortunately, this split has gone too far, moving from the state, into the personal. The word of God was replaced by the word of humanity, and faith was once again shrunk and imprisoned to the individual’s inner conscience, as if it was just an ordinary theory.

Religious belief, by definition, can only maintain heavenliness when practiced in accordance with the principles prescribed by God, not by the limits defined in any kind of ideology or legal system. Indeed, in addition to the freedom of personally practicing religion, believers need to be free to express their faith, either verbally or in writing or in any other medium, without being punished. There is no freedom of faith and conscience when restrictions are imposed on religious practice, whether it is in the public or private sphere.

At the present, it appears that the Western world has mostly solved its own problems after experiencing long periods of turmoil with regards to secularism or laicism. Nevertheless, secularism, i.e. the separation of church and state was never considered as the one and only irrefutable solution to all the world’s problems, but rather as a means of reconciliation and a warranty for the freedom of faith and conscience. We can argue that in many countries where secularism has been defined as such, both religion and secularism have existed without conflict, even perhaps with some sense of mutual support. In some other countries where secularism is being used to oppress religion and religious practice, this is mainly because these countries fail to bring a scholarly definition to secularism, or that those in power are radically opposed to religion and all of its aspects, or because of other sources of power which strive to generate chaos in the country.

We can all agree that religious believers should not infringe upon the rights of others, but the state should also not infringe upon the rights of believers to practice their faiths. To do so would impact the divinity of religion and will generate false interpretations of religion based on foreign concepts. Such a development has the potential to cause serious problems at the global level.

Muslims believe that Islam is a perfected system of worship and ethics, and a spiritual journey leading to Paradise and eternal bliss. Muslims also believe that Islam lays out guidelines for solving individual, filial, economic, administrative, and social problems. It is not fair to ignore these qualities, which can contribute to social peace and security, as well as to dialogue and understanding among nations. Islam – despite Muslims’ shortcomings in its practice – is a universal faith of perfection and excellence, and undoubtedly one of its most significant aspects is that it recognizes the religions of truth and Prophets of the past. Islam refers to members of all the religions of truth as the “People of the Book”; not only did Islam recognize members of other religions, but also immediately implemented regulations in terms of safeguarding their rights. Since the very beginning, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, treated members of other religions with extreme tolerance. He was very delicate regarding this matter, and constantly encouraged his followers to behave in the same manner, calling upon them to be a nation that would be an example to others. Muslims always complied with this appeal, and, with the exception of the harsh and fanatical stances of certain illiberal, inhumane individuals during certain periods, have to a large extent acted with tolerance. The Qur’an clearly defines how Muslims should behave: “There is no compulsion in the religion. The right way stands there clearly distinguished from the false…” (Al-Baqarah 2:256).

“There is no compulsion in religion” refers to methods of reasoning while engaging with others. Some scholars even interpret the verse as meaning no aspect of religion can be forced on others. Thus, based on this commentary, religion can never rely on force; it is a matter of personal choice. As opposed to coercion, Islam has always pledged to protect others from oppression and ensured that every group could freely practice their chosen faith. Furthermore, Islam recognized oppression not only as disrespectful to the individual, but also to the spirit of religion; indeed, coercion or oppression is disrespectful to humans, for it infringes upon free will, which is what separates humankind from other creatures. It is also disrespectful towards religion, as faith is based upon sincerity, and a heart freely accepting faith. Belief and religious duties that are not recognized in the heart are not accepted. Indeed, just as belief imposed upon people with force or oppression is not faith, those who express such “faith” are not believers. If anything, such individuals are hypocrites, and the behavior and actions they perform in the name of religious duties are nothing but ostentation.

Religion is a source of prosperity and kindness. It is not an unpleasant thing that people can only accept by compulsion. In this respect, enforcing religion and religious issues rather than explaining the topic of faith in a civil manner may cause antipathy towards religion. In the very same section where the Qur’an prohibits compulsion, it also delineates the right path from the wrong based on the evidence through external and internal proofs, on the divine messages and legacy conveyed by God’s messengers, and on the teachings and guidance of faithful teachers.

Our predecessors who appreciated this used evidence and persuasive methods laid out by religion in an attempt to convey matters regarding faith and religion. They did not try to force others to join their faith, and everyone lived in accordance with their own faith. People were free to express themselves and never encountered any juridical or administrative problems. Amidst this atmosphere of tolerance, no one was subjected to any kind of oppression with regards to freedom of belief. People were not expelled from their homes or countries, or tried by the courts. People followed the religion of their choice, and were under constant protection on the condition that they abided by their pledge and fulfilled their responsibilities as citizens. Those who broke their pledge and did not fulfill their duties as citizens, who attempted to divide and destroy the nation, who openly rebelled against the legitimate rule and committed terrorist attacks, or who oppressed others, were punished according to their crimes. Peace was upheld.

In the Islamic faith, not only did Muslims act in this manner regarding freedom of faith and conscience, they did not also try to coerce people regarding worship or social relations. In fact, even during times of conflict, Islam granted the right of residence to those who agreed to pay the prescribed taxes, and never intervened in another group’s beliefs or religious practices. As for those who persisted in fighting against the Muslims, following their defeat, they were also granted civil rights in return for taxes, and were left to question their own actions. In addition, Islam enforced the same rules for those who were defeated in battle as those who voluntarily came and asked for the protection of the state, and everyone was allowed to benefit from all the privileges of citizenship, on the condition that they would cause no harm to the state or its citizens.

This immense tolerance displayed by Islam in the name of the freedom of belief and conscience is by no means limited to those who sought refuge in its guardianship alone; Islam has constantly guarded the same values throughout the world. It came to the aid of the aggrieved, helped the oppressed, supported those who fell, and continuously enforced the truth. Islam has opposed the oppression of souls everywhere it has reached, and prepared the foundation for the voluntary acceptance of faith in people’s hearts. By virtue of this agreement, it has prevented the people from being forced into following a religion, philosophy, or ideology against their own will, and whenever possible prevented all kinds of oppression. Wherever it has been, Islam has secured the public peace and tranquility among a vast body of various communities, and stimulated respect for the principle messages of all the Prophets.

Islam places a high priority on freedom of conscience and faith due to its history. The rightly guided caliphs gave great importance to freedom of conscience, and since it was granted to minorities during the period of the Prophet, they enforced it with the utmost sensitivity. In later periods, this practice was maintained without any changes or deviations. From the periods of the Umayyads and Abbasids, to the eras of light, and to the Ottoman period – with few exceptions – all Muslim administrations granted minorities the right to practice religion, perform religious rituals, and educate their children as they wished. Minorities were also free to assemble and join various foundations and societies in efforts to maintain their cultures. They could restore their old places of worship and construct new ones, and nothing was demanded from them in return, except that they abide by the general laws and regulations of the country.

In the context of their age, the Umayyads and Abbasids from Damascus, the Andalusian Muslims, and the Ottomans can all be classified as a model in this respect. Paving the way for the Renaissance, they introduced the West to many things in terms of knowledge and insight; they not only fulfilled their duties of faith, but also did not interfere with the beliefs or cultures of others, and for centuries displayed an exemplary form of administrative conduct. But unfortunately, following the destruction of their states, they were slaughtered, and none were granted the right to remain in the region. Their people had to go through invasions, colonization, interventions, embargos, and oppression, in terms of freedom of faith and conscience.

I believe that all of these constitute, and will continue to constitute, a good example of the stance of past civilizations in terms of the freedom of faith and conscience. I am aware that, in the interest of dialogue, we should not inflame passions, but I also believe that while pointing out problems it is also important to emphasize the good aspects of our past. This is especially important today, since oppression continues. Although I am not certain that cautioning against such behavior will awaken the local and international oppressors to their mistakes, I certainly have no doubt that responding to them in this manner is a duty incumbent upon us all.

My leaves reflected the moonlight. I looked up at the moon, and it looked back at me brightly. But even its lights seemed somehow unfamiliar to me.

I slowly turned my flower head to the right to watch my brothers and sisters. They all looked pretty exhausted from the long journey, and in their face I saw the same concerns as mine. They, too, felt like strangers here.

Feeling a little bit depressed, I sighed and just wanted to sleep, but in this precise moment a move in the dark bushes that separated the garden from the fence attracted my attention. I caught sight of a small hyacinth. She looked at me curiously, as I smiled at her with mild exertion.

My smile was returned immediately, and visibly excited she gave a sign to those behind her. All of a sudden, there appeared a bevy of hyacinths, closely followed by – I could not recognize them right away – small carnations and roses.

Chatting and giggling, they hopped over to me and I realized that they were thrilled. A small carnation stumbled while running and fell to the ground. The hyacinth, which I saw first, ran back to her and helped her up.

The flower children surrounded me, eyeing me curiously. I smiled back at them kindly, a little nervous. Unexpectedly, they all erupted into laughter. I hadn’t seen such vivid flower children for a long time.

The hyacinth took the little carnation that had stumbled by the hand and started to speak:

“You and your siblings did arrive just now, didn’t you?”

I nodded, hoping that she was old enough to guess that I simply wanted to have my peace and quiet. But unfortunately, she apparently wasn’t… None of these little children were.

A murmur went through the swarm of children.

“Wow! Then you are a tulip, aren’t you? We have heard of you tulips. You guys are the first tulips coming from there,” said the hyacinth, pointing east. Her big eyes were shining with enthusiasm.

Yes, the East. From there, I came here; from a land where the sun rose and sometimes only reluctantly went down again.

My petals cramped. It had been very painful to leave that wonderful place, my home and my people.

As if reading my gloomy thoughts, the hyacinth said:

“It’s really beautiful here in the West! God showers us with water and it is pleasantly cool, sometimes even colder than we would like. Besides, we are well treated. The people are really fond of us.”

These words reminded me of the magnificent brightly lit tulip festivals, which used to be celebrated in the Ottoman Empire, of the nights made into days, and of the wonderful names we have been given, like face of the beloved or lucky star. At once I felt warm all over my carpels.

But once again, grief seized my flower head, and my sepals sank slightly due to their oppressive severity. “How long are you here, now?” I asked the kids, only to divert my attention from these thoughts.

The hyacinth shrugged her leaves:

“I don’t know exactly, but I think it was my great-grandparents, who were brought here.” The other flower children nodded doubtfully. They didn’t know anymore.

“Do you actually know anything of the country from which you, and…” – I briefly swallowed – ” … I originated?” They shook their heads. They were so young, so inexperienced. I smiled and sighed acquiescently, because I had to suppress my fatigue.

“Would you love to learn something about your country from me?” I asked.

The hyacinth politely set me straight:

“Here is our homeland. Here we were born, and here we are living in peace and joy with each other. I know my homeland. But I would pretty much like to hear something about the country where you and our great-grandparents come from.”

Smiling back at her, I was slightly confused about this answer. She was very smart, for sure, and would be a wise flower.

“Well, then sit down. I want to tell you about my homeland that is also the land of your ancestors.” They bounced close, and formed a semicircle around me with their eyes curiously focused on me.

“I am a tulip and I used to live and prosper in the Ottoman Empire, where I was surrounded with every imaginable flower. The Turks love us so much so that we have become an important part of their art and literature.”

Again a murmur was heard, and I had to smile about the naive way of these children. My fatigue and my gloomy mood slowly vanished. It was nice to relive those memories again.

“I don’t want to dive too deep into this topic. But we all are common motifs of the so-called Quatre-Fleur style of the Ottomans in the crafts.” It still made me very proud when I thought of it.

The hyacinth intervened:

“In this country, people say that we flowers have our own language. Each of us has a very special meaning for them and is given away as a present on certain occasions.”

I looked at her in surprise and let her continue. It sounded exciting.

“And not only have the flowers special meanings, but their colors as well.” The children in the semicircle nodded in agreement. “Tulips, for example, symbolize love and affection. Lovers present each other red tulips. Orange symbolizes fascination and blue means a promise of fidelity.”

My stamens trembled with joy when I heard that. How beautiful, indeed!

“This brings me back to the Ottomans,” I smiled at the children. “They also have something like a language of flowers, but somehow different from yours. They, for example, place yellow roses on the window sill, which is saying something like: there are sick or old people living in this house. In this way, passersby were prompted to behave quietly, which they did.”

I gave the flower children a short while to digest this new information, which apparently pleased them.

“By the way, do you actually know where I originally come from?” I asked them. They shook their heads. “My ancestors once left their home as well and were brought into the Ottoman Empire.”

The astonished hyacinth interrupted me:

“Does that mean that this isn’t the first migration?”

I gave her a nod. “Your ancestors were not the first, and I certainly won’t be the last who moves from one place to another in this wide world. There have always been trade relations between nations, and this will certainly remain so.”

The children smiled at me.

“And from where did you come to the Ottoman Empire?” the little carnation asked me timidly.

“Well, my real home … We tulips were already mentioned by the Greek writer Xenophon, who lived from 430 to 354 BC. And in the fourteenth century the Persian poet Hafez introduced my species into literature. He called us Lale, and this name so much appealed to the Ottomans that they adopted it.”

“In Turkish garden culture we had our heyday with Sultan Ahmet III. At that time, a whole era was named after us: The Tulip Era – Lale devri, which began in 1718. The tulip hype exceeded all bounds. There were 1323 different varieties.”

“Do they only have tulips over there?”

I shook my flower head. “No. The Ottomans had many flowers, including hyacinths as well. A part of the courtyard gardens of the Sultan were always reserved for you, the hyacinths; and this is still the case today.”

The hyacinths giggled again and whispered to each other. “See, I told you,” the first hyacinth whispered to the others.

“The poet Fazli, an Ottoman poet, often wove the hyacinth motif into his poems,” I continued. “And in Edirne and Istanbul, there are meadows covered with fragrant hyacinths.”

“Do you also know where we came to the Ottomans from?” another hyacinth, tall but very thin, asked.

“From the gardens of Baghdad and Aleppo,” I told her. A murmur rose again. The crowd of children thoroughly enjoyed themselves.

“How exciting,” they blurted.

Thus I added, “by the way, you folks came to Europe in the sixteenth century.” While they kept on jabbering with each other, the little pink carnation looked at me expectantly. Then she squeaked hesitant and softly:

“Have you also got flowers like me in the Ottoman Empire?”

I smiled at her. “Carnations, you mean?”

She nodded eagerly, and her cute petals shook with her head.

“Of course, even at the time of Theophrastus, in 300 BC, you were already growing. But I guess it was the Arabs who brought you to the Ottomans. At least, you got your name from them. The Arabs call you Qaranful, which is probably derived from the Latin Caryophyllus or from the Greek Karyphillon. And the Ottomans call you Karanfil.”

The eyes of the flower children widened and they tried to repeat the name slowly. Apparently they liked it very much.

For the first time, a small rose spoke up, slowly and gracefully as is to be expected from a rose:

“And what about us? What did we mean to the Ottomans?”

Again, I had to smile. What a question!

“Roses are sacred to all Muslims and, therefore, also to the Ottomans. They play a major role in Turkish culture.” The roses looked at me in surprise. “The Ottomans never left rose petals lying on the floor because rose in their tradition symbolized the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.”

“Wow,” the children whispered reverently, as with one voice. The carnations and hyacinths respectfully looked up at the roses. They, in turn, humbly looked at me, waiting for me to go on, which I did:

Again, the flower children were whispering to each other. At the sight of them, I rejoiced. Now, they were my new neighbors. What luck! With them, I would certainly never get bored.

I looked over at my tulip siblings. They had already made themselves comfortable and were sound asleep. Out of the blue, I felt tired again. “Dear children! Tomorrow I’ll tell you more, if you want. But for today, it’s enough.”

A disappointed murmur rose. But the hyacinth encouraged me.

“Okay friends. She’s right. It’s enough for today. We should go back. Our parents are probably already worried. It’s getting late.”

“But I certainly would like to know more about my ancestors in Albania,” the little carnation complained.

“Arabia! Your ancestors came from Arabia! Just listen more carefully,” the hyacinth chastened her. She stood up and pulled the others behind her. “And now let’s go home!”

“Didn’t you forget something”, the hyacinth asked the flower children. As if on command they all turned again to me and shouted:

“Thank you very much, Mrs. Tulip!”

I laughed. The hyacinth had a very good grip on them.

“You are welcome,” I replied. “Good night!”

“Good night,” they echoed back, and with a broad grin and still fidgety, they retreated. I was alone again, and at once felt a little lonely. So I hurried back to my brothers and sisters.

This country seemed to be very exciting, at least more exciting than I would have thought. I smiled and suddenly did not even remember why it seemed so strange to me in the beginning.

Destruction is easy. Those who want to destroy something should first know how to construct something. Otherwise, the shortcomings that emerge after destruction will be impossible to solve. Some issues are not open to destruction unless a clear alternative has been set forth. I think one of the most significant missions of the prophets was to set the balance pertaining to this issue. They exposed all the fallacies in society, and exclaimed bravely, “this is incorrect.” They did so convincingly, looking people in the eye. They immediately offered alternative “corrections,” and prevented any sort of chaos or shortcomings. That is, they handled every matter on both positive and negative fronts and did not allow any kind of mental or sensual abyss to emerge. Without plans and projects of “construction” that have been built upon a firm foundation, any sort of destruction or demolition will be reckless.

As a matter of fact, simply due to the lack of this approach, sometimes individuals, sometimes families, sometimes states – in a direct proportion to the dimension of the mischief committed – are destined to collapse. The Ottomans primarily come to our minds, if we want to examine the issue from a state or national perspective. Sometimes, sultans were dethroned with thoughts of replacing them with better ones. But these absences created a power gap, they couldn’t find better rulers, and the people yearned for the old sultans. Because of this, the Ottomans were severely weakened, creating a power vacuum in the region.

It’s with deep regret that we must acknowledge this sort of historical mistake is still being committed. Without alternative, precise plans and projects in place, states or governments are being erased. That is, opposition consists only of loaded slogans and criticism. If they were asked how things really should have been, they would not know. A state or government may surely make mistakes. It should be open to criticism. But that criticism should never amount to, “let’s destroy it and then figure out an alternative.” Such a thought would weaken the state and could even cause the total loss of national credibility.

Believers should have no affiliation with those pursuing incorrect actions. To prevent a serious dissolution of national will, and against the dangers presented, they should always do what is expected of them. To those who chase them and torment them, believers should merely utter, “everyone acts according to his own character” (Qur’an 17:84). On this issue, balance is very important.

In conclusion, everything should be done in accordance with the proper rules. And while endeavoring to construct, the utmost care should be taken to avoid total destruction. Shortcomings should be avoided by heeding historical lessons. And the nation and state should not be recklessly sacrificed.

Sarahsi’s commentary on this incident is quite thoughtful: “The judge must pay extreme attention to this matter because of the following saying of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him: ‘The noble one should not be hopeful for your favor, nor should the weaker despair of your unfair treatment.’ If the noble one is positioned in the front, he or she may raise hopes for the judge’s favoring them, which will dishearten the weaker who will be concerned of a possible injustice incurred on them.” (Sarahsi 1983, 61)

Let us consider this incident. An ordinary citizen, who happens to be a Christian, complains and files a case against the Muslim President of the country without any concern of the consequences. The Chief Justice of the fantastic Abbasid Empire is Imam Abu Yusuf, the great jurist of the Hanafi school of thought, second only to Imam Azam. He hears both parties without being able to bring them to the same level of seating, for he is too shy to ask the Caliph to rise up from where he is and stand next to the plaintiff. This would normally be perceived as a minor, even insignificant lapse; but the judge never forgets this for his entire life, and considers it his most grievous error. In fact, it so grieves him, it is the one lapse he asks God to forgive him for. On the other hand, Sarahsi’s comment is also worth analysis, as he does not deem this incident an insignificant one, but takes a very meticulous approach when he says, “The judge must pay extreme attention to this matter.” We should also keep in mind that this incident is not narrated in a fictional work of stories or legends, but in one of the fundamental sources of Hanafi jurisprudence, and this makes the incident even more significant and makes it sufficient to reflect, singlehandedly, Islam’s very accommodating and tolerant policy towards non-Muslims.

Forbearance, or tolerance, is kindheartedness without expecting anything in return, and it is more comprehensive than a mere word or slogan in Islamic terminology. It is an injunction in the religion, as it is firmly established by Divine revelation and explained by the Prophet. This duty upon believers has taken a material form in the Age of Happiness, during the reign of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and throughout fourteen centuries of Islamic civilization. It is a product of the eternal and universal faith of Islam.

The Qur’an raised the columns of forbearance upon the Islamic foundations of life, universe, and mankind. Oneness is an attribute to God, and God alone; whereas all of creation is a manifestation of multiplicity, diversity, and differences. The basis of Islamic tolerance is that justice is obligatory. The Qur’anic description of God is “the Lord of the worlds,” the Lord of all mankind (Fatiha 1:1). As a result of this rationale, Islam embraces all the heritages of prophethood sent to all nations.

The Qur’an confirms the truthful acts of those who followed past prophets, corrects their faults or introduces new commandments (Maidah 5:48; Al Imran 3:3-4; A’raf 7:157-158).

Tolerant and just conduct towards non-Muslims was not only observed in the early days of Islam, but also in the following centuries. The Ottomans, from their onset in the late thirteenth century, particularly stand out for their political character. They prioritized avoiding internal conflicts with other principalities in Asia minor, and focused more on expanding westward to annex Byzantine towns. Their engagements with the non-Muslim people of these towns were never solely based on warfare and military power; instead, they cultivated relations based on fair treatment and tolerance. This diplomacy of fairness and forbearance paved the way for Orhan Bey (d. 1362) to have the gates of Bursa opened to him in peace in 1326 (Neşri 1983, 67; Akgündüz 1999, 430; Ihsanoğlu 1999, 422).

There is an overwhelming consensus among historians that the Ottomans were able to expand their territories in Asia Minor and the Balkans not only through military means but also through many social and ethical factors. Otherwise it is impossible to hold so many different ethnicities, with different faiths and languages, united (Eryılmaz 1990, 24). Sultan Mehmed II’s declaration on non-Muslims following the conquest of Istanbul is exemplary in terms of religious liberties, as he recognized the people’s freedom to worship in their own tradition; to conduct ceremonies as they did before; to travel freely; that their properties, shops, groves, farms, families, servants, and slaves were inviolable; that there was going to be no forced conversion to Islam; that their boys would not be conscripted; that they could choose their own community leaders; and that they would not be forced to work without compensation (Akgündüz 1999, 430; Ihsanoğlu 1999, 422-3).

The Ottoman policy on non-Muslims was mostly inspired from a judgment derived from a saying of the Prophet: “They (non-Muslims) have the same rights as we Muslims do; they are liable to the same duties as we Muslims are” (lahum ma lana wa alayhim ma alayna).

These rights and liberties the Ottomans recognized for the non-Muslim community become even more meaningful when compared with the situation in Europe during the same period of history. Bernard Lewis was visiting Turkey in the 1990s. In an interview for TRT (Turkish national network), the reporter asked him to comment on why, in the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, there is almost no record of Turkish travelers in Europe, whereas there were quite a number of European travelers who travelled across the Ottoman territories. I am summarizing Lewis’ answer as follows: “In those centuries there was no obstacle for Europeans to travel in the Ottoman land, for the Ottoman government was a state of rule and law. Europeans could visit the country on a visa (musta’man), travel, and follow up on their business freely. The travelers were of different religions, but they could freely gather with their co-believers or the locals who spoke their own language and hold services in their places of worship. They did not feel homesick or alienated. On the other hand, however, a Muslim could no way dare to visit a European country in those centuries without forsaking his life. Fanaticism was at its peak in Europe.”

The Ottomans had almost no competition in championing the freedom of religious belief and practice as a cornerstone of social order. The Ottomans also had non-Muslim groups represented in the parliament as ministers and at other senior levels; there were sometimes almost as many as fifty non-Muslim members of parliament, especially in the nineteenth century.

A more recent event was when Assyrian Christians, in the city of Mardin, had to confront the Ottoman state in 1915. Following the internal conflicts between Muslims and Armenians during World War I, in which the Tashnak and Hinchak groups of Armenians massacred Turkish villages, the Union and Progress government of the Ottoman state passed a decision to send all Armenian citizens – with the exception of those residing in Istanbul – into exile. Despite the fact that Assyrian Christians were not involved in any of those incidents, state officers in Mardin wanted to send them into exile too, simply because they were also Christians. In the chaotic environment of war, murder and violence followed this decision, and Assyrians from Midyat armed themselves and gathered in the village of Aynverd (Gulgozu). They did not obey calls to concede their weapons, for they did not trust the state’s army. Shaikh Fethullah Hamidi, of the Mardin region, announced a religious ruling that it would not be lawful according to Islam to harm Assyrians, and that their lives, properties, and honor were inviolable. He further communicated with state officers and, after three months of persistent efforts, secured a warrant of safety for the Assyrians. Assyrians never forgot his selfless stance and hard work, and as a sign of appreciation, they hang his picture next to their patriarch in the Mardin Deyruzzaferan Patriarchate.

Inspired by these ideas, Fethullah Gülen, one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in 2013,” and the Hizmet Movement, which has developed around this thought and guidance, are trying to reflect the same spirit of dialogue among different nations, religions, and cultures around the world. Born out of Turkey, this movement is now active in around 140 countries. Their outreach extends to all walks of life, regardless of differences, and their achievements raise our hopes that the world can once more experience a time of tolerance and coexistence, at least to the same degree, if not higher, as in the historical examples described in this article.

Dr. Yildirim is a professor of Qur’anic exegesis in the School of Divinity, Fatih University, Istanbul.

References

• Akgündüz, Ahmet, Said Öztürk. 1999. Bilinmeyen Osmanlı, Istanbul: Osmanlı Araştırmaları Vakfı Yayınları.
• Eryılmaz, Bilal. 1990. Osmanlı Devletinde Gayrimüslim Tebaanın Yönetimi, Istanbul: Risale Yayınları.
• Gibbons, Herbert Adams. 1998. Osmanlı imparatorluğunun Kuruluşu, Translated by R. Hulusi (Özdem), Istanbul: 21.Yüzyıl Yay.
• Hamidi, Muhammed Sadık. 2002. Mardini Es-Seyyid Eş-Şeyh Hamid Evlad ve Torunları, Istanbul,.
• Ihsanoğlu, Ekmeleddin. 1999. Osmanlı Devleti Tarihi I-II, Istanbul: Zaman Gazetesi Yayınları.
• Serahsî, Şemsu’l-eimme. 1983. el-Mebsut, Istanbul: Çağrı Yayınevi.

Some modern Western scholars would ascribe the long-lasting existence of Ottoman rule to oppression and a strong military presence. According to this view, it was fear and terror that brought authority and control over at least the Balkans, a dominantly Christian territory. Careful and accurate scholarship, however, has revealed that this was certainly not the case. The majority of historical sources and archives have so far disclosed highly advanced administrative skills in the Ottoman state affairs. The most recent scholarly works, both popular and academic, have unanimously praised and applauded the Ottomans’ cultural and social contributions to the regions they administered, as well as their equitable treatment of their subjects over long periods of time. The Ottoman experience of social and cultural life provides valuable lessons for those nations that live in these regions today: The value of putting aside ethnic, religious and cultural differences, of living together and cooperating for a better future, and the sacredness of human life and the respect for the right of others to live, as well as freedom of expression and religion all existed in this state.

Historically speaking, Western Europe has always been in contact with the Ottomans through commerce or other forms of international relations. Diplomacy in the Middle Ages and afterwards was made possible by ambassadors. These ambassadors would conduct negotiations regarding disputes and sign new agreements. The observations of these special envoys about their visits formed first-hand reliable information about the unknown “others.” For example, in the year 800 AD, on one of these occasions long before the Ottomans, Charlemagne sent an envoy to Harun al-Rashid, the Abbasid Caliph, with gifts. On his part, the Caliph also sent many gifts to Charlemagne, one famous one being a clock. In a similar vein, many ambassadors had the chance to see and study Ottoman life closely during their visits. These visits considerably increased in number with the agreement of concessions granted by the Ottomans. The ambassadors would often record their experiences as notes or letters, which have proven to be of indispensable value for us today in studying an era and civilization about which not much is known.

Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq (1520–1592) was one such ambassador for the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand. He came to Turkey and wrote about the life in Ottoman lands and their public administration practices. Busbecq grew up at Busbecq Castle as the son of the reputable Busbecq family. He studied in famous schools and like his father and grandfather he followed a career as a servant of the crown. He was first sent to England in 1554, and then appointed as ambassador to the Ottomans under the rule of Süleyman the Magnificent in Istanbul from 1555 to 1562.

For the duration of his service in the Ottoman lands, Busbecq constantly wrote letters to a friend in the Netherlands. These were later on published many times, most recently by Forster and Daniel in 1881 as the Turkish Letters. Widely accepted as one of the world’s first travel literatures, Busbecq describes public life and his adventures in the Ottoman land in the letters in some detail. One of the letters is of particular interest as it sheds light on certain historical aspects related to the Janissaries, the well-trained Ottoman guards.

The word “Janissary” had negative connotations in the West during the Middle Ages. The Ottoman Muslim conquests in Eastern Europe certainly contributed to this. However, Busbecq, after a prolonged visit to the Ottoman sultan, had the chance to evaluate the Janissaries and he developed some sympathy with them. In his letter he describes these guards as being of good character and spiritually elevated. In fact, Busbecq starts this letter with a description of these highly-educated Janissaries, how they function and their duties in the Ottoman lands, as well as their equitable and unbiased treatment of the public, poor or rich, Muslim or non-Muslim:

“At Buda I made my first acquaintance with the Janissaries; this is the name by which the Turks call the infantry of the royal guard… Janissaries are scattered through every part of the state, either to garrison the forts against the enemy or to protect the Christians and Jews from the violence of the mob. There is no district with any considerable amount of population, no borough or city, which has not a detachment of Janissaries to protect the Christians, Jews, and other helpless people from outrage and wrong.”

Busbecq goes on to comment about the gentle and polite disposition of Janissaries. In fact, he seems to be quite impressed by the simplicity and modesty of these guards, praising them highly, as can be seen in his next letter:

“These Janissaries generally came to me in pairs. When they were admitted to my dining room they first bowed, and then came quickly up to me, all but running, and touched my dress or hand, as if they intended to kiss it… After reaching the door, they would stand respectfully with their arms crossed, and their eyes bowed to the ground, looking more like monks than warriors… To tell you the truth, if I had not been told beforehand that they were Janissaries, I should, without hesitation, have taken them for members of some order of Turkish monks, or brethren of some Moslem college. Yet these are the famous Janissaries, whose approach inspires terror everywhere.”

According to Busbecq, these soldiers were ready to act even under extremely harsh conditions, accepting with resignation all that happened due to their faith. The Janissaries were certainly trained to obey their commander under the most severe of circumstances. In addition, Busbecq admired the Janissaries, who would never complain about difficulties:

“On such occasions (war or campaign) they take out a few spoonfuls of flour and put them into water, adding some butter, and seasoning the mess with salt and spices; these ingredients are boiled, and a large bowl of gruel is thus obtained. Of this they eat once or twice a day, according to the quantity they have, without any bread, unless they have brought some biscuit with them…”

Busbecq then goes on to compare the attitudes of these soldiers with their Western counterparts and admits the supremacy of the former with stunning self-assessment and criticism:

“From this you will see that it is the patience, self-denial and thrift of the Turkish soldier that enable him to face the most trying circumstances and come safely out of the dangers that surround him. What a contrast to our men! … On their side is the vast wealth of their empire, unimpaired resources, experience and practice in arms, a veteran soldiery, an uninterrupted series of victories, readiness to endure hardships, union, order, discipline, thrift and watchfulness. On ours are found an empty exchequer, luxurious habits, exhausted resources, broken spirits, a raw and insubordinate soldiery, and greedy quarrels; there is no regard for discipline, license runs riot, the men indulge in drunkenness and debauchery, and worst of all, the enemy are accustomed to victory, we to defeat. Can we doubt what the result must be?”

Thus, Busbecq sets out several universal virtues and ethical and moral principles as belonging to the Janissaries. Selflessness, humility, simplicity, integrity, and honor are among the virtues that Busbecq attributes to the Janissaries. He believes the way that individuals are ranked and merited for a job or promotion in the Ottomans is certainly of importance and may help us at least to partially explain the lofty character of the Janissaries. According to Busbecq, the merits for an important position in public service and authority should be based on character and ability, rather than privileges of birth, prosperity or social status:

“No distinction is attached to birth among the Turks; the deference to be paid to a man is measured by the position he holds in the public service. There is no fighting for precedence; a man’s place is marked out by the duties he discharges. In making his appointments the Sultan pays no regard to any pretensions on the score of wealth or rank, nor does he take into consideration recommendations or popularity, he considers each case on its own merits, and examines carefully into the character, ability, and disposition of the man whose promotion is in question. It is by merit that men rise in the service, a system which ensures that posts should only be assigned to the competent…”

These remarks are astounding, even to us today. Being awarded with a position is based on qualifications and past accomplishments rather than social status and rank. This normative statement certainly has political and social implications. Busbecq continues in his claim even further:

“Those who receive the highest offices from the Sultan are for the most part the sons of shepherds or herdsmen, and so far from being ashamed of their parentage, they actually glory in it, and consider it a matter of boasting that they owe nothing to the accident of birth; for they do not believe that high qualities are either natural or hereditary, nor do they think that they can be handed down from father to son, but that they are partly the gift of God, and partly the result of good training, great industry, and unwearied zeal; arguing that high qualities do not descend from a father to his son or heir, any more than a talent for music, mathematics, or the like; and that the mind does not derive its origin from the father, so that the son should necessarily be like the father in character, or emanates from heaven, and is thence infused into the human body. Among the Turks, therefore, honors, high posts, and judgeships are the rewards of great ability and good service. If a man be dishonest, or lazy, or careless, he remains at the bottom of the ladder, an object of contempt; for such qualities there are no honors in Turkey!”

Nobody is held responsible for the misfortunes or sins of their parents. Everybody is accountable for his or her own deeds. The lofty character of a mother and father does not pass to the children at birth. It is how a child is raised and educated that really matters in society. People who are elevated intellectually or spiritually are those who benefit themselves and society. Without a doubt these universal messages that Busbecq proclaims with honesty are ones that we wholeheartedly support.

In addition to being an indispensable source of information about Ottoman life more than four centuries ago, these letters also provide valuable lessons for policymakers. They remind us that the foundations of great civilizations and military power were lofty values and virtues. Power, when in the hands of the righteous, becomes an instrument for stability and balance. On the contrary, when in the hands of a tyrant, power causes chaos and anarchy in the world. Morality, integrity, equity and fairness, as well as merit, are some of the principles that may guide nations towards progress and prosperity. In a sense, a nation will rise when more of its members become selfless and are able to put the interests of “others” before “their own.” Societies that are made up of people who are ready to sacrifice themselves for the better good of others will indeed inherit a better world for their children. They will also be remembered forever. Those who put their own hedonistic ambitions before all else are doomed to be forgotten. Nobody will remember their lavish and inconsiderate lives or existence. The former U.S. president, J. F. Kennedy once said “Ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country.” It may be most appropriate for us to conclude as follows: “Ask not how others can help you, but ask how you can help others.”

Osman Nal is an associate professor in finance, Texas Southern University.

Notes

1. Several uprisings by local populations in different parts of the Ottoman State occurred. But their number was very limited. In the case of the Balkans, for at least 200 years, and in the Middle East for at least 400 years, social life was very calm and stable.
2. A useful book on the Ottomans is Ottoman Centuries by Lord Kinross and Lords of the Horizons: A History of the Ottoman Empire by Jason Goodwin.

References

1. C. T. Forster and F. H. B. Daniel, eds. The Life and Letters of Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, Vol. I, London: Kegan Paul, 1881.
2. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1555busbecq.html

Beyatli noticed this unusual person, and could not help asking him the reason. “I am obliged to do it. Not only I, but are all Irish men and women,” said the Irish representative. “When we suffered from famine and disease, your Ottoman ancestors shipped loads of food and monetary donations. We have never forgotten the friendly hand extended to us in our difficult times. Your nation deserves to be supported on every occasion.” Ireland was ridden with famine and disease between 1845 and 1849. Also known as the Great Hunger, this famine had lasting effects: at least one million people died due to famine-related diseases and more than one million Irish fled, mainly to the United States¹, England, Canada, and Australia. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent five ships full of food supplies and funds as charity.

However, the British administration did not give permission for these ships to enter the ports of Belfast or Dublin. Taner Baytok, former Turkish ambassador to Ireland, recounts in his memoirs that these ships secretly discharged their load in Drogheda, a town approximately 70 miles north of Dublin. In May 2, 1995, commemorating this charity, the mayor of Drogheda, Alderman Frank Goddfrey, paid honor to Baytok and erected a plaque in the Westcourt Hotel, which was then the City Hall where Turkish seamen stayed.² Baytok says he first learned of this act of charity from an article by Thomas P. O’Neill published in The Threshold magazine in 1957. The Ottoman sultan declared that he would donate 10,000, but on the orders of Queen Victoria the British Ambassador in Istanbul informed the Sultan that he shouldreduce this amount, for the Queen’s donation was only 2,000. As noted in the letter of gratitude from the “noblemen, gentlemen, and inhabitants of Ireland,” the amount donated by Sultan Abdulmecid was reduced by the Queen to one thousand pounds.

Ottoman efforts to provide food and lessen the pains of the Irish people, despite political obstacles and the long distance, certainly deserves to be appreciated.It is a case study that should be analyzed carefully, not only as historical evidence for the friendship between two nations, but also as a perfect example that differences of race, religion, or language should not prevent humanitarian aid. This generous charity from a Muslim sultan to a Christian nation is also important, particularly in our time when Muslims are often unfairly accused of human rights violations. Likewise, the appreciative plaque and overall reaction of the Irish society in return for this charity deserves to be applauded. We hope that the Turkish-Irish friendship sets a model for peace among different nations.

Notes

1. Many American presidents have been of Irish descent whose ancestors immigrated to the USA for various reasons, perhaps the famine being one of them. Among the recent American presidents from Irish descent are John F. Kennedy (1961-1963), Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969), Richard Nixon (1969-1974), Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), George W. Bush (1989-1993), and Bill Clinton (1993-2001).
2. Baytok, Taner, Dis Politikada Bir Nefes (A Breath in Foreign Politics), Remzi Kitabevi. See also Hurriyet, November 9, 2005, at http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/3497818. asp?m=1&gid=69; Tarih ve Dusunce (History and Thought), March 2003; Sabah, May 5, 1995.

Montaigne says that the main motivation for writing his famous Essays was to end his great solitude. Why was he lonely? Why did he feel alone and prefer conversing with his readers in an attempt to reduce his isolation? The answer to this question again can be found in his writings. He came from a wilder region of France, from behind the Alps that divided Western Europe. Thus, he was protected from the ills that the Italian Renaissance had imposed on European mentalities. What made him feel lonely was the meeting of his country with these new ideas and sects, the murder of thousands of people in the war of Saint Bartholomew (1572) on religious pretexts, and the arrival of this “European” attitude to his hometown²

This isolation preserved Montaigne from the mental crisis that his contemporaries were experiencing. He looks at both the past and the present and future within the possibilities that exist in the “thought from the wilderness.” It is for this reason that he has no prejudices. He is a free man of the world. This fact is demonstrated in his attitude toward the Orient and in particular to the Ottomans, whose images had been so distorted because of established prejudices.

Islam in European Culture

The thesis that supports the idea that there were vital differences between European and Ottoman societies and cultures and the politics of positioning them as opposites who were not willing to come to an agreement should give way to the thesis that there are more complicated and closer relationships between them. A deeper investigation will even allow us to trace signs of a “modern” mentality in the Ottoman culture that reaches all the way back to the beginning of the sixteenth century³ The Ottomans were interested in European affairs. Many historical readings bring us to a point that the survival of Protestantism owes itself to Ottoman support. It is not too difficult to find other examples.

It is known that Postel and Jean Bodin admired the Ottoman state and its administration in the sixteenth century and they were desirous to transmit these thoughts to their political theory. Likewise, Alan Grossrichard had already demonstrated that the image of the East, which was the “tour de force” of Montesquieu in his Persian Letters, was the representative of a popular ghost-that of despotism-in Europe during the seventeenth century. There are many researchers, from Bryan S. Turner to John M. Hobson, who have stated that both the negative side of European thought, like Hegel, Engels, and Marx, and the positive side, like Max Weber, shared the viewpoint of Orientalism that was against the East and Islam, particularly against the Ottomans. Even now it is questioned whether there is implicit Orientalism in the writings of European travelers-including Lady Montague, who was a most objective person. This list can be easily extended: despite his play Mahomet, which took a very negative view of the East, Voltaire was an admirer of the morality and discipline of the Muslims and the Ottomans. Lord Byron was a lover of Ottoman and Istanbul civilization, despite his political animosity that derived from his love of Hellenism. The “poet of the lakes,” Lamertine was awarded with a farm house by Sultan Abdulmecid, as a sign of appreciation for his book A History of the Turks. The father of Jean Jacque Rousseau was a repairer of clocks in Topkapi Palace in Istanbul. Goethe learned to read the Qur’an and pray from the Bashkird Turks, who were among the Russians who invaded Germany. Campanella said in his La Citta del Sole (The City of the Sun) that the utopia he had fictionalized had been realized in this world by the Ottomans. The writer of Don Quixote, Cervantes, lost one of his arms in the war of Lepanto, which he fought against the Ottomans; he wrote his novels during his imprisonment after this war inspired by Algerian scholars. The philosopher Leibniz presented a treatise of conquest to the French King in which he discussed how to destroy the Ottomans.

Montaigne

We have to add a new name to this list: Michel de Montaigne. In spite of having a few prejudices, Montaigne was one of the few modern writers who did not let prejudices dominate his view. In the first sentence of his Essays he promised that this book was going to be an honest one. Indeed, he continuously revised and edited his books before each new edition was published, including his essays on the Ottomans. He questioned his thoughts with reference to new sources he read and added new essays⁴

In the revised and extended 1595 edition of his book, which was published after his death, he advised French soldiers, whose laxity he had observed during the civil war in Perigord, to take Turkish soldiers for their model. He said that all young French soldiers should learn discipline from the Turkish armies:

Their discipline is very different from and superior to ours. At times of war, our soldiers are more irresponsible and disorderly than at times of peace; on the other hand, Turkish soldiers are moderate and reluctant to behave so, because stealing from the poor is punished with a few lashes in peace time, but very severely at war. Taking away an egg by force without paying money for it is punished with 50 lashes. Moreover, those who steal the most insignificant thing that does not even satisfy hunger nor have any value whatsoever are sentenced to death. I am surprised to read about Selim that when he conquered Damascus on his campaign to Egypt none of his soldiers took anything from the peerless gardens of this city, even though they were unprotected⁵

Montaigne, then, was not aware of “Eastern despotism,” a thesis that had been influential since the seventeenth century. Distanced from the influence of this thesis, he mentions how the philanthropic activities of the Turks extended to include fauna and flora, stating that the Turks had charities and hospitals even for animals.

Montaigne was influenced by the unfavorable winds that blew against the Ottomans through France, but he desired to use the Ottomans against his own despots as a mirror. In other words, he used a method that was similar to that of most other French intellectuals, like Montesquieu, after him.

He was aware of the power of habits and how they can capture people and he emphasized how wrong it was to label everything that is opposed to local habit as barbarism. To quote Dr Zeynep Sayin of Istanbul University:

The universal certainty that Descartes tried to find seems impossible for Montaigne because he is not in favor of certainty that is independent from conditions. On the contrary he analyses humans and societies in their differences. “I am not mislead to think that everybody should be like me…It seems reasonable to me to think that there are thousands of different lives.”⁶

Finally, Montaigne was aware of the fact that judgments do not carry the claim of universality; they are limited to the conditions in which they emerge. He was not bounded by Eurocentrism and was aware that there are different worlds and different life-styles. He did not try to regulate world according to himself, but rather realized that it is essential to recognize differences. It is probably because of this attitude that Montaigne stands in an exceptional place in Western thinking and why he does not find a place in books of “history of Western philosophy.”

Montaigne and the Ottomans

It is thanks to the magnificent study of Clarence Dana Rouillard⁷ that we learn that in the great world of Montaigne the Orient was identical with the “Turk,” i.e. the Ottomans. We are able to see that the Ottoman grew like a flower in Montaigne’s works and that he revised his thoughts and prejudices with new contributions and information with every new edition.

According to Rouillard, Montaigne-like P. Villey who prepared Essays for publication-believed in the necessity of knowing something well before judging it. More importantly, the Orient he identified with the Ottomans played a significant role in terms of widening his vision as it broadened the horizons of his era. According to Rouillard, Montaigne owes the wide vision and pluralism in his essays to the Ottomans to a great extent.

Rouillard, who surprised us with this striking information, firstly analyses Montaigne’s acquaintance with the Ottomans. According to him it is very interesting to observe the development of Montaigne’s knowledge about the Ottomans. Prior to the first publication of Essays in 1580, the only information that we get about Montaigne’s readings is that he got his information on Turks from the Italian history of Guichardin, not from the classics or chronicle writers and historians like Joinville or Froissart. The only reference to the Turks in the 1580 edition was that they partook of food by reclining on comfortable sofas and their belief that Paradise was a sensual abode. However, Montaigne’s curiosity was not confined to the borders of Western Europe and was open to all human activities experienced in modern history.

It seems that Paul Villey, a Montaigne specialist, did not study the 1582 edition of Essays attentively enough. Though rare and insignificantly small, there are some new additions to this edition. We are able to conclude from some points in this new edition that Montaigne read a new study that had been written directly about the Ottomans. Thus we got a clue that Montaigne’s interest about the Ottomans had increased.

As a matter of fact, the number of these clues increases in following editions. For the first time Montaigne encounters direct material concerning the Ottoman world in a Polish history book that he studied and used in the third edition. In this book was an engraving that displayed the celebration held on the occasion of the circumcision of Murad III’s sons. This engraving made Montaigne to think of the Ottoman world, their costumes, and context in a different way. In the last edition to be prepared before Montaigne passed away, his interest in foreign places was at its peak. In this last edition, Montaigne found, read, and analyzed books in Latin that had been written, directly or indirectly about Ottoman history, including the book of Halkokondil on the foundation and rise of the Ottomans and Postel’s De la Republique des Turcs. (He knew Postel-one of the significant intellectual of his time-personally.) There were nearly 50 references to the Ottomans in the last edition of Essays.

“The Turk the warrior!”

It seems clear that Montaigne did not believe in theological explanations concerning the defeat or victory of the Christians against Muslims. For example, he commented very dryly-which is not what one would expect from a European-on the war of Lepanto in 1571 in which the Christians won and which was followed by days of festivities:

A maritime war was won against Turks in the preceding months under the commandership of Don Juan d’Austria; but God was pleased when we saw the reverse many times in the past.

Montaigne desired that his fellow countrymen not put so much importance on this victory because the Turkish army was still standing. He recognized explicitly that the Turks had developed a considerable military force that could only be explained on the basis of material and human power. He related the Turkish ability to establish such a great army to their discipline. According to him, the Turks knew how to use their minds as much as they knew how to fight and this is what made them different from an army of barbarians.

Montaigne thought the acts of the Turks were not restrained merely because of the heavy punishments that were imposed. They were also accustomed to rigid physical discipline and sobriety. This quality made them superior to Western soldiers. He expressed his thoughts as follows:

In order to verify to what extent Turkish armies are more intelligent and behave more reasonably than ours it is enough to say that besides their other virtues they drink only water and eat rice and salty meat. Thus, each of them can carry one month’s provisions with them.

Montaigne explained another influential factor in the success of the Turks which was the Sultan being in command of their armies. Selim I thought that victories that had been won without the sultans leading the armies were not complete and thought it was shameful to be proud of such a victory. However, Montaigne did not treat all sultans identically; he did not have a holistic perspective. He was well aware of the fact that all sultans had different tendencies. According to him, surprisingly, Beyaz›d II and his contemporary Murad III’s excessive fondness for natural sciences (s’amusants aus sciences) caused harm to their countries; they not only failed to lead their country, but also caused harm.

Montaigne was closely interested in the opinion that espoused that warriors should abstain from the fine arts. He returns to this subject again in his essay “On Pedantry” in which did not only criticize the mistakes and uselessness of a few scientists, but also went further to argue that all kinds of education are useless, if not fatal, especially if education goes beyond the scope of a very few aristocratic minds to reach the general public:

Examples show us that learning the sciences does not make hearts rigid or inclined to fight, but rather more effeminate. The most powerful state nowadays seems to be that of the Turks, and they value weapons and humiliate the arts and sciences.

Montaigne can be excused for this mistaken final sentence, as he was then too distant from the time when samples of Ottoman-Divan literature were to be made available to the European public.

While his contemporaries were calling this so-called aspect of the Turks barbarism-we will not discuss whether this argument was valid or not-Montaigne looked at the issue from a very different perspective, which he claimed was essential for a people to survive. This is an example of Montaigne’s contradictory opinions.

In his essay “On Virtue” Montaigne wrote about the story of a young Turk who dared to challenge the Hungarian King Hunyadi Janos at war, despite lacking experience. This youth, when questioned by Sultan Murad, answered that he learned to be courageous from a rabbit. Fate protected the rabbit from 40 arrows he had shot and allowed it to escape the hunting dogs. The young man believed that the arrow and sword could only function if this was written in fate, and thus fought fearlessly in wars from that day on. A belief in fate was widespread among the Turks. Turkish historians wrote that soldiers felt secure against danger because they believed that the days which they would live were immutable and had already been established.

What Montaigne did was not to accumulate systematic information on a certain topic, but rather he involved in mental exercises. He lists these as the basis of the Turk’s successes in the sixteenth century.

Moral aspects of the Ottomans and Islam

Montaigne preserved his objective standing toward the Ottomans at different times. Although he was critical of many aspects of Turkish society and character, he still did not adhere to extreme definitions or popular descriptions, like the “Barbarous Turk,” or the “Lover Turk.” He even tried to alter the image of the cruel Turk in his other essays. He emphasized, for instance, that the Turks had established charities and hospitals for animals.

The only reference to Islam in the first edition of the book is concerned with worldly heaven. Montaigne was an intellectual whose eyes had not been blinded by religious prejudices and he did not refrain from calling some of their religious bigotry “stupidities.” Even when he wrote about the superstitions of the Turks he did not explain the issue in defense of Christianity, but saw such things as errors that could be found on both sides. Thus he was able to preserve the balance that he wanted to establish in his book.

Montaigne was a devout Catholic. He not only dealt with Islam, but also Calvinism and Protestantism, which came to his country from behind the Alps and he criticized the translation of the Bible into local languages, praising the Turks for their respect of the original language of their sacred revealed text. In the end, in one of the best examples of tolerance in Essays, he reminds his countrymen that the Ottomans outstripped them in terms of some Christian values.

Do you want to see it with your own eyes? Compare our traditions and customs with those of a pagan or a Muslim. [You will see that ours is beneath theirs] Although his doctrine is superior, a Christian has to accept the fact that a Muslim we underestimate can teach him many things in terms of justice, affection, and virtues.

The references to Turks increase in later editions of Essays. An interesting letter sent to Mehmed the Conqueror by Pope Pius II and the response sultan gave him is contained in one of them. Another example is Bayezid I’s and Timur’s rejection of mutual gifts. As an example Montaigne shows the pride of Turks in the leader of the Janissaries Hasan Agha, who preferred to die after he had been severely reproved by Sultan Mehmed.

The virtue of the “eye of the wilderness”

What are the results that we may extract from Essays?

First of all, Montaigne was not looking at the problems within a fixed framework. He examined the Turks, arriving at rich observations and interpretations. He was basically interested in human nature, not religious doctrines. Was he not a believer then? Since it is impossible to call anyone who fought for the Catholic cause an unbeliever, we should rather say that Montaigne did not look at Islam and the Ottomans from the perspective of the prejudices of popular theology and religion. Though there are some fictive and incorrect statements in his essays, his perspective about the Turks and Ottomans is not derived from a single source. He was not bound with a systematic connection to a doctrine and he did not have an idae fixes. He came with a new perspective and a new interpretation every time. He learned long before Nietzsche not to look at information as natural facts. According to him there are only interpretations and the interpretations of these. He approached his subject knowing that most of the information he took in his book concerning Islam was not facts, but rather interpretations.

This is the privileged standing that differentiates Montaigne from others. Maybe this was the point that made him so alone-he had no one except his friend La Boetie. We owe Montaigne’s Essays to this solitude. Though he thought that his loneliness derived from his melancholic psychology, his seclusion could have been caused by his differences in his mode of thought and perception. He refrained from lies, i.e., the knowledge of his contemporaries, which he said were interpretations of interpretations, he focused on the knowledge of objects and directed his attention to the truth. He said that “we are making interpretations of the interpretations of objects.” He transmitted the information written in the books on the Ottomans, their histories, cultures, and moral qualities, but he did not adopt them, calling them rather “our stupidities.” He tried to pass beyond this wall of information that he felt had been built around him and to hear the voices of objects. This should be one of the virtues of the eye from the wilderness that he possessed.

Notes

1. Tugrul Inal, “Denemelere bir giris denemesi” (An Introductory Effort to Essays), Frankafoni, n. 5, 1993, p. 12.
2. Semiramis Kantel, “Montaigne ve dil” (Montaigne and Language), Frankafoni, n.5, 1993, p. 33.
3. Cemal Kafadar, “The Ottomans and Europe” in Handbook of European History, 1400-1600, v.1, ed. H. Oberman and others. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), p. 622.
4. Montaigne published his Essays four times with different and extended versions each time. Corrections and editions in the fifth edition (1595) were made by his adopted daughter after his death in 1592. Thus, the book extended to 3 volumes. See J.M. Cohen, “Introduction” in Montaigne, Essays, (London: Penguin books, 1966), p. 20.
5. Ali Celebi, “Montaigne’de Turkler” (Turks in Montaigne), Frankafoni, n. 5, 1993, p. 26-27. This article uses Rouillard, whom we will touch upon in depth in the following pages. Unfortunately, this study cannot go beyond a mere translation to become an original study.
6. Zeynep B. Sayın, “Yenicağ: Descartes ve Montaigne,” Cogito, n. 10, 1997, p. 158.
7. Clarance Dana Rouillard, The Turk in French history, thought and literature (1520-1660), Ancienne Libraire Furne, Paris: 1938.

Why and how civilizations rise and fall is a hard question to answer. To do so, one must understand the civilization and the time in which it began to rise. Jason Goodwin, an English journalist, uses memoirs of European visitors and standard histories to explore the 600-year existence of the Ottoman Empire. He writes: This is a book about a people who do not exist. The word ˜Ottoman does not describe a place. Nobody nowadays speaks their language.

The Ottoman Empire, at one time, stretched from the border of Iran to the gates of Vienna and included hundreds of ethnic groups and three dozen nations. United under a tolerant form of Islam, the Ottoman Turks forged a culture that was such a prodigy of pep, such a miracle of human ingenuity, that contemporaries felt it was helped into being by powers not quite human”diabolical or divine, depending on their point of view.

The Ottomans were the first state to maintain a standing army in Europe since Roman days. Chalcocondyle, a Byzantine chronicler, wrote:

I think there is no prince who has his armies and camps in better order, both in abundance of victuals and in beautiful order they use in encamping without any confusion or embarrassment.

Goodwin argues that the key to Ottoman success, besides an obvious skill at war, was cultural and institutional open-mindedness: The Ottoman umbrella made room for Spanish Jews, Orthodox Greeks, Venetian merchants, Albanian tribesmen, Arab bedouins, and others. The Ottomans did not demand religious or linguistic uniformity. Unlike later imperialists, they never asked themselves why others were not like them. Muslims followed Islamic law, and Christians and Jews were expected to have their own laws. Community leaders were allowed to run the community’s affairs as long as they did not come into direct conflict with Islamic organization.

An Ottoman was not born, but made, passing through imperial schools, following the requisite course of studies says Goodwin. There was no inherited nobility, as in other contemporary European empires, for people rose on merit. Cities prospered by agriculture and trade. Social welfare projects were maintained by tax-exempt charitable foundations holding almost one-third of the land and great wealth. These foundations built bridges and mosques, took care of the sick and the poor, and lodged travelers for free.

With the coming of the Industrial Revolution, however, the Ottomans lost their military, economic, and social superiority. Decreased military power resulted in land losses and reduced tax revenues, and self-indulgent leaders could not adapt the intricate socio-economic structure to changing conditions. Although palace intrigue, factional rivalry, military disloyalty, and nationalist rebellions in Greece and Egypt combined to sap its strength, it survived into the twentieth century.

Goodwin narrates this fascinating story in an elegantly written, thoroughly entertaining work of popular history. As he quotes from Andrija Kacic-Mosic: These songs will not be for everyones taste May those who find them pleasing sing them; may those who do not, go off to sleep.

All these brutalities may make us think that the strong and powerful always try to dominate and treat unjustly the less powerful. The fact is, however, that some societies have displayed great mercy and tolerance to the people under their rule regardless of their belief and race. This article tries to give some information about the tolerance of the Ottomans toward minorities, especially the Jews who were mistreated under the Byzantine dominion. They experienced expulsion from Spain after which they were accepted in the Ottoman lands and lived in peace and comfort.

Let us first look at the lives of the Jews during the Byzantines.

Jews of Byzantium

Jews were well-treated in Byzantium. The people of Byzantium did not like the Jews for religious reasons. They regarded them as damned by God since they denied the words of God and allegedly killed Jesus. They thus subjected the Jews to restriction and persecution:

Byzantine Jews were nominally free to follow their own faith, but the Byzantine Emperors excluded Jews from rights of full citizenship and restricted the locations of their settlement and synagogues as well as their rights to engage in trade and professions (Shaw, 1991, p.18).

After Christianity was declared to be the religion of the state by Theodosius 11(408 – 450), conditions for the Jews in Byzantine Empire became worse. Theodosius excluded the Jews from most of the privileges of citizenship while imposing all sorts of burdens on them. He prohibited them from building new synagogues. Soon afterwards, during the reign of Emperor Maurice, all synagogues were changed into churches and Jews were ordered to be forcibly converted to Christianity.

The situation became even worse for the Jews as the Byzantine Empire declined. In order to restore religious unity within the collapsing empire, rulers increased the pressure upon the Jews by reissuing the old legal restrictions and condemning anyone who happened to favour Jews by allowing them to live and work beside Christians (ibid., pp.2l-3).

Jews of the Ottoman State

The collapse of Byzantium was a fortunate event for the Jews under its dominion. Even before the Ottoman State was born, as Seljuk Turks established their state around central Anatolia in the twelfth century, Byzantine Jewry sprang rapidly to their assistance welcoming the tolerance and prosperity which the rule of Islam offered them. Thousands of Jews fled from Byzantine persecution to Seljuk protection. In the following century, Ottoman Turks established their principality in north-western Anatolia. Within two centuries Ottomans had taken over most of western Anatolia and gained control of Syria, Iraq and Egypt in the East. In the West they expanded through South-eastern Europe all the way to Vienna. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent extended the Ottoman rule across North Africa almost to the Atlantic and controlled much of Caucasia.

This Ottoman expansion marked a very substantial change for the Jews of the Middle East and Europe. In complete contrast to their situation under the Byzantines, Jews entering the Ottoman dominions were allowed to practice whatever profession they wished, to engage in trade and commerce without restriction and to possess landed property and buildings in town and country (ibid., p.26). After Sultan Mehmed II conquered Istanbul in 1453, he allowed Jews to settle in Istanbul and carry out their commerce. From the start, Sultan Mehmed II encouraged the emigration of Jews from Europe even more than the Jews already living in the expanding Ottoman Empire itself. Just as the Jews of England, France, Germany, Spain, and even Poland and Lithuania were being subjected to increasing persecution, blood libels, massacres, and deportations, the Turkish rulers of the expanding Ottoman state actively encouraged them to come and live under conditions of tolerance and freedom. Mehmed II himself is said to have issued a proclamation to all Jews:

“Who among you of all my people that is with me, may his God he with him, let him ascend to Istanbul, the site of my imperial throne. Let him dwell in the best of the land, each beneath his vine and beneath his fig tree, with silver and with gold, with wealth and with cattle. Let him dwell in the land, trade in it, and take possession of it.’’

As a result of these efforts, during the three decades following the Ottoman conquest, according to a Turkish register, Istanbul’s population increased to 16,326 households including 1,647 Jewish households. By the mid-l6th century, according to a similar census in 1535, 8,070 Jewish households were listed in the capital city. The city’s Jews numbered some 40,000 – a tenth of the population. Salonica, which had no Jewish population represented in the census of 1478, had 2,645 Jewish households by 1535. (Kedourie, 1992, p.165).

Similar increases were to be found in many Ottoman centres in the Balkans and Asia Minor because the Turks trusted them. They preceded the Greeks and Armenians as bankers, physicians and interpreters, and eventually gathered most of the empire’s trade into their hands (Thubron, 1978, p.189).

The following quotes provide clear evidence that Jews of that time were happy with the Ottoman Empire as well. Rabbi Isaac Tzarfati invited the Jews who were suffering in Germany to the Turkish state:

“…Listen my brethren, to the counsel I will give you. I, too, was born in Germany and studied Torah with the German rabbis. I was driven out of my native country and came into the Turkish land, which is blessed by God and filled with all good things. Here I found rest and happiness. Turkey can also become for you the land of peace. ..If you who live in Germany knew even a tenth of what God has blessed us with in this land, you would not consider any difficulties, you would set out to come to us…Here in the land of the Turks we have nothing to complain of. We possess great fortunes; much gold and silver are in our hands. We are not oppressed with heavy taxes, and our commerce is free and unhindered. Rich are the fruits of the earth. Everything is cheap, and everyone of us lives in peace and freedom. Here the Jew is not compelled to wear a yellow hat as a badge of shame, as is the case in Germany…Arise my brethren, give up your lands, collect your forces, and come to us. Here you will be free of your enemies, here you will find rest…(Shaw, 1991, p.32).”

The most significant example of tolerance Ottomans displayed for the minorities, especially the Jews, is that they opened their land to those who were expelled from Portugal and Spain.

Jews found refuge in Ottoman lands

During the 15th century in Europe, slavery, race discrimination, religious intolerance and the cruelties and atrocities of the inquisition resulted in the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. Christians were becoming more powerful and grew confident in the wake of victories over Muslims. The defeat of the Muslims in Spain made things difficult for the Jews who had been living in peace under the rule of Andalusian Muslims. They now faced restrictions and difficulties. As Christian rule solidified, there was less need for Jews, and since they were accused of the death of Jesus, Spanish Jews were subjected to the same persecutions by Christians as had taken place elsewhere in Western Europe. These persecutions and restrictions culminated in a decree of expulsion. After Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain had accepted the capitulation of the city of Granada, they decreed the expulsion of the Jewish population from their united realms.

Since the Jews in Western Europe were already under pressure, the neighboring states of Spain did not seem to be happy about large-scale immigration of Jews. Sultan Bayezid, the ruler of the Ottomans at that time, heard of the evil nature of the king of Spain and the inflictions on the Jews who were seeking refuge and a resting place. He took pity on them, wrote letters and proclaimed that the Jews were to be given a gracious welcome. Despite considerable religious conservatism of his own, Bayezid went on to decree that all Jews fleeing from Spain should be admitted to his dominions without restriction, and with the same inducements that had been offered during the reign of his predecessor. Ottoman officers were ordered to do everything they could to facilitate the entry of Iberian Jews into Ottoman territory, and strict punishments were provided against all those who mistreated the immigrants or caused them any sort of damage (ibid., p.33).

It is estimated that 250,000 Jews came from the Iberian peninsula to the Ottoman realms and settled in all parts of the Sultans territory including modern Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Egypt, and in Anatolia at Bursa, Gallipoli, Manisa, Izmir (Smyrna), Tokat and Amasya. But most commonly they settled in places that became the centres of Jewish life in the Ottoman State in the capital, Istanbul, in Eastern Thrace at Edirne (Adrenapolis), along the shores of the Aegean at Salonica. This made the Ottoman Jewish community not only the largest but also the most prosperous Jewish community in the world, during the sixteenth and early seventieth centuries, a period which constituted the golden age of Ottoman Jewry.

The Ottoman Jews did indeed live in great relief and comfort. They were allowed to follow their religious requirements and build their own synagogues as well as being free to deal in commerce. There is no evidence that shows Jews were forced to change their religion. However, a considerable number of them willingly converted to Islam.

Conclusion

The reason why the Ottomans displayed such tolerance to all minorities under their dominion and why they allowed Jews to enter their territory and live peacefully though they gained no benefit from doing so originates from their religious values.

Islam takes into consideration that Jews, like Muslims and Christians, were a people to whom a Divine Book was sent, although they corrupted it in the course of time. Great figures of the old Testament, like Aron, David, Solomon and Job, are all prophets and, like Jesus Christ, are mentioned in the Qur’an. God chose Moses as the Messenger for the Children of Israel. Jews, like Christians, are considered to be a people of the book, ahl al-kitab, and enjoy special religious tolerance and autonomy.

All ‘people of the book’ were allowed to preserve their religions and recognized as religiously- based communities. They paid a special ‘poll tax’ called harac or cizye. The poor, the sick and the clergy were exempt. All minorities were exempt from military service and they were admitted the right to maintain their own forms of government within their communities. While they lived in great comfort and prosperity, there were some limitations. For example, they could not marry Muslim women or bear arms. Compared to the active persecution to which Jews were subjected in the Christian lands of Europe, the world of Islam was indeed paradise for them (Shaw, 1991, ph).

The modern world may be depressing with its catalogue of holocausts and massacres which continue up until today. However, we can learn from the tolerant attitude shown by the Ottomans towards their Jewish minority that co-existence in peace is possible through the observation of Divine principles. It should give us hope. Our real hope is that all tyrants will give up their cruelty and treat others as fellow human beings.

References 

• BACON, 1. (1990) Atlas of Jewish Civilization, Andr Deutsch, London, p.144.
• KEDOURIE, 5. (1992) Spain and the Jews, Thomas and Hudson, London, p.165.
• SHAW, S.J. (1991) The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and The Turkish Republic, Macmillan, pp.11-33.
• THUBRON, C. (1978) The Great Cities: Istanbul, Time-Life International, Netherlands, pp.189-90.U