Religion in the Ottoman Empire

: Note: "The following is concerned with Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire; it does not discuss the role of, importance of, and characteristics of Islam in the Ottoman Empire, an Islamic theocracy and the political center of the Ummah during its reign."

During the first centuries of control over Balkans by the Ottoman Empire, the Christian population, and especially the Orthodox Christians (who were not under the protection of a Great Power of that time, as were the Catholics, [The Middle East Today, Don Peretz, 1971, p.79] [Randall Lesaffer, 2004, p.357 Nonspecific|date=August 2008] until the rise of Imperial Russia [Peace Treaties and International Law in European History: from the late Middle Ages to World War One, Randall. Lesaffer, 2004, p.357] ), faced various degrees of tolerance, both from local Ottoman authorities and from the Sultan.

The Ottoman Empire was, in principle, tolerant towards Christians and Jews, but not polytheists, in accordance with Sharia law. Forced conversion is counter to Sharia law, and was not standard practice, so was not practiced.Though far short of modern standards, Ottoman tolerance was particularly constructive compared to the contemporary situation in Europe.

Religion as an institution

Ottoman Empire, as a state, constantly established policies balancing the religious issues. Ottomans recognize the concept of clergy and its associated extension of religion as an institution. Ottomans brought established policies (regulations) over religious institution through the idea of "legally valid" organization.

The state's relationship with the Greek Orthodox Church was peaceful. The church's structure was kept intact and largely left alone (but under close control and scrutiny) until the Greek War of Independence of 1821–1831 and, later in the 19th and early 20th centuries, during the rise of the Ottoman constitutional monarchy, which was driven to some extent by nationalistic currents. Other churches, like the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, were dissolved and placed under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Church. On the other hand, the empire often served as a refuge for the persecuted and exiled Jews of Europe, as for example following the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, when Sultan Beyazid II welcomed them into Ottoman lands, in order to inhabit the deserted city of Thessaloniki, which was conquered by the Sultan troops in 1430.

There were instances between established policy and its practical application has a gap. Nonetheless, the tolerance was not perfect;

...one may be led into thinking that [the Ottomans'] much-spoken-of policy of religious toleration was of an erratic, haphazard nature and was conveniently ignored when new circumstances seems to suggest a different course of action...
...one may regard the recurrent oppressive measures taken against the Greek church as a deviation from generally established practice—a deviation that was occasioned by the corruption and intrigue of officials and less frequently by outbursts of fanaticism or by imperial disfavor. As elsewhere, here, too, one might expect to find a gap between established policy and its practical application [G. Georgiades Arnakis, "The Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire", "The Journal of Modern History" 24:3. (Sep., 1952), p. 235 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2801%28195209%2924%3A3%3C235%3ATGCOCA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4 JSTOR] ]

Since the only legally valid Orthodox organization of the Ottoman Empire was the Ecumenical Patriarchate, inheritance of family property from father to son was usually considered invalid.

Clash of Civilizations

Ottoman Empire with Millet organization was used as a reference, generally a balancing example, regarding the cultural/religious identities which will be (might be) the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world.

The main question posed by the authors of the Clash of Civilizations thesis is: "Is it possible to balance out inter-civilizational conflicts?" There are no "inter-communal" clashes within Ottoman history. Conflicts against the state have been a source of many analyses, including Armenian Rebellions, Greek Revolution and National awakening of Bulgaria, conflicts which were generally fought on nationalistic rather than on religious grounds (Anti-Catholicism, Antisemitism, etc). The Ottoman Empire's fall (decline) is attribute to the rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire, rather than to a rise of religious conflicts (Clash of Civilizations). The Ottoman Empire tried to embrace nationalism through the Tanzimat reforms and promoting Ottomanism and First and Second Constitutional Era, but the decline could not be stopped.

The Ottoman Empire never adapted a policy seeking to eliminate other religions, such as Jews (Antisemitism) or Christians (Anti-Catholicism) during its existence. Ottomans had balancing policies, such as the in the "candlestick wars", which centered around the control of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, a subject that generated heated debates. The treatment accorded to old Christian mosaics by the Sublime Porte - a treatment not of destruction but of conscious preservation - illustrates in a way the similar fate of the Christian people of the Balkans who, by virtue of Ottoman tolerance, were eventually able to resuscitate as nations during the Balkan wars. [Ernest Jackh, "The Rising Crescent: Turkey yesterday, today, and tomorrow." p 75] After five centuries, in 1935-a the complete removal of the plaster Hagia Sophia could be carried out, after the new Republic of Turkey, "in the interest of art," declared Hagia Sophia neither a mosque nor a church, but a museum. It has to be remembered that, contrary to popular belief, the Hagia Sophia was not crushed into pieces by the Ottoman Empire (see:Buddhas of Bamyan). However, both the exterior and the interior of the cathedral suffered great destruction, during the removal of the christian symbols, the plastering of the mosaics and the vandalism of the icons.

Inter-Christian issues

Ottoman Empire had to rule on not just Muslim-Christian issues, but also on Christian sects. The Ottoman Empire was in between the Christian dominance fights, specially during the decline period. There are Ottoman policies over the religious communities originated not from these communities, but its wartime lost.

There was a long time policy that permitted schismatical patriarchs from the forbidding Christian subjects of the Empire to embrace the Catholic religion, and the Latin religious to hold any communication with the Greeks, Armenians and Syrians, on the pretext of instructing them. After having suffered defeat in the Russian and Austrian (1736-9) wars, the Porte tried to obtain French support. France was only willing to give support if the Ottoman Empire explicitly confirmed the right of the French Protectorate, and at least implicitly guaranteed the liberty of the Catholic apostolate. On 28 May 1740, Sultan Mahmud I declared: Quote|... The bishops and religious subjects of the King of France living in the Empire shall be protected from persecution provided that they confine themselves to the exercise of their office, and no one may prevent them from practicing their rite according to their customs in the churches of their possession, as well as in the other places they inhabit; and, when our tributary subjects and the French hold intercourse for purposes of selling, buying, and other business, no one may bother them for this sake in violation of the sacred laws. However, not more than a century later, in the context of the candlestick wars of 1847, a tension began among the Catholic and Orthodox monks in Palestine with France channeling resources to increase its influence in the region beginning with 1840. The repairs were important for the sects as it was linked to owning the keys to the temples. The notes were given by the protectorates, including the French, to Ottoman capital about the Ottoman governor. The Ottoman governor was condemned as he had to defend the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by locating soldiers inside the temple from the candlestick wars, actively eliminating the change of keys. Successive Ottoman governments had issued edicts granting primacy of access to different Christian groups which were vying for control of Jerusalem's holy sites. [S.J. Kuruvilla, " [http://www.psa.ac.uk/2006/pps/Kuruvilla.pdf Arab Nationalism and Christianity in the Levant] "]

Religious persecution

The main idea behind Ottoman law system was "Confessional community". Ottomans tried to give choice to the person, opposed to forced classifications. Muslims-Jews-Christians should not enforce their view on another. However, there were gray areas where these circles intersect.

The Ottoman Empire decreed that people of different millets should wear specific colors of, for instance, turbans and shoes—a policy that was not, however, always followed by Ottoman citizens. [Mansel, 20–21 Nonspecific|date=August 2008]

tate-Religion-Law

Modern Law assumes that it is objective and secular (non-religious). Ottomans practice was against the absolutism, and it was not secular. Ottoman practice assumed that Law should be applied within the religious beliefs of its citizens. Ottoman system, accepted the Religious law over its subjects. However, the Ottoman Empire was organized around a system of local jurisprudence. Legal administration in the Ottoman Empire fit into a larger schema for balancing the central and local authority.Lauren A. Benton “Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400-1900” pp.109-110] Ottoman power revolved crucially around the administration of the rights to land, which gave a space for the local authority develop the needs of the local millet. The jurisdictional complexity of the Ottoman Empire was aimed to permit the integration of culturally and religiously different groups. The Ottoman system had three court systems: one for Muslims, one for non-Muslims, involving appointed Jews and Christians ruling over their respective religious communities, and the "trade court". Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, or capital offenses or threats to public order. However, in the Ottoman Empire of the 18th and 19th centuries dhimmis frequently attended the Muslim courts. Christians were liable in a non-Christian court at specific instances, which these were clearly defined. These definitions included such as if the conflict was on trade (go to "trade court"), or the assassination of a Muslim (go to "Muslim court").

When the dhimmis attended the Muslim courts, only when their appearance was compulsory (for example in cases brought against them by Muslims), but also in order to record property and business transactions within their own communities. Cases were taken out against Muslims, against other dhimmis and even against members of the dhimmi’s own family. Dhimmis often took cases relating to marriages, divorces and inheritance cases to the Muslim courts so that these cases would be decided under shari’a law. Oaths sworn by dhimmis in the Muslim courts were sometimes the same as the oaths taken by Muslims, sometimes tailored to the dhimmis’ beliefs. [ al-Qattan (1999) ] Some Christian sources points that although Christians were not Muslims, there were instances which they were subjected to the Sharia law. [A Concise History of Bulgaria, Richard J. Crampton, 2005, p.31] In some western sources; "the testimony of a Christian was not considered as valid in the Muslim court as much as the testimony of a Muslim". In a Muslim court, a Christian witness had a problem of building trust with oath. In a Muslim court, A Christian that took a "Muslim oath" over the Koran ("God is Allah and there is no other God"), committed a perjury. It was legally a good idea for a Christian to find a Muslim witness in a Muslim court, simply only Muslims can take an Muslim oath over Koran.

Conversion

In the past, Christian missionaries sometimes worked hand-in-hand with colonialism, for example during European colonization of the Americas, Africa, and Asia. There is no record of established of a Muslim organization that corresponds the Christian mission system under the Ottoman Empire. There is no record of existence/planning/implementation of a clergy system under Ottoman practice of Islam, which had the same functions as Mission (Christian). Voluntary conversion to Islam was greeted by the Ottoman authorities. It was not a secret that Muslim Ottoman authorities perceived Islam as an higher/advance/correct form of belief system, which accompanied with greetings. Negative attitudes towards dhimmis existed by the ottoman governors partly due to the "normal" feelings of a dominant group towards subject groups, partly due to the contempt Muslims have for those who they perceive have willfully chosen to refuse to accept the truth (convert to Islam) while the opportunity to do so exists; and partly due to certain specific prejudices and humiliations. The negative attitudes however rarely had any ethnic or racial components. [ Lewis (1984) p. 32–33] When a Christian become a Muslim, he/she had shared the same rules and regulations that applied to any other Muslim.

Under Ottoman rule dhimmis were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, see: Millet (Ottoman Empire)" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute to Muslims and acknowledging Muslim supremacy. [Lewis (1984) pp. 10, 20] Regarding "conversion accompanied by privileges"; a social group or millet such as "Christian converted-Muslim rules" or "Christian converted-Muslim privileges", which could be applied to a "specific policy for conversion" did not exist.

Civil status

While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, states that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe." [Lewis (1984) p. 62, Cohen (1995) p. xvii] For example, in contrast, Dhimmis rarely faced martyrdom or exile, or forced compulsion to change their religion, and with certain exceptions they were free in their choice of residence and profession. [Lewis (1999) p.131]

Lewis and Cohen point out that until relatively modern times, tolerance in the treatment of non-believers, at least as it is understood in the West after John Locke, was neither valued, nor its absence condemned by both Muslims and Christians. [Lewis (1995) p. 211, Cohen (1995) p.xix]

Educational

Under Ottoman Empire, all Millets (Muslims, Jews, Christians) continue to utilize their educational institutions.

For the development of the state functions, Ottoman Empire employed the Enderun School. Murad I through the 17th century—the Ottoman state also put into effect the "devşirme" (دوشيرم), a policy of selecting the students to Enderun School which will fill the higher ranks of the Ottoman army and administrative system by means of forcefully collecting young Christian boys from their families and taking them to the capital for education and an eventual career either in the Janissary military corps or, for the most gifted, the Ottoman administrative system. Most of the children thus collected were from the empire's Balkan territories, where the "devşirme" system was referred to as the "blood tax". When the children ended up becoming Islamic due to the milieu in which they were raised, any children that they had were considered to be free a Muslim. [Kjeilen, Tore. " [http://lexicorient.com/e.o/devsirme.htm Devsirme] ," "Encyclopaedia of the Orient"]

Taxation

Taxation from the perspective of dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule, was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"Cl. Cahen in Encyclopedia of Islam, Jizya article] (but now lower under the Muslim rulecite book | author=Esposito, John| year = 1998| title = Islam: The Straight Path| publisher = Oxford University Press | isbn = 0-19-511233-4 - First Edition 1991; Expanded Edition : 1992.pn] [Lewis (1984) p.18 ] [Lewis (2002) p.57 ] ) and from the point of view of the Muslim conqueror was a material proof of the dhimmi's subjection.

Ottoman Empire had difficult economical status during decline and dissolution periods was a proven fact. The argument of Muslim millet had a better economy then Christian millet was highly questionableFact|date=February 2007. The Muslim states that emerged from the dissolution era did not have a better socio-economic status than the rest. Opposing arguments are highly questionable. Use of economic incentives for conversion, even if it was claimed in some western sources, is not an established factFact|date=February 2007. The planing of economic policies based on goals for religious conversion are highly questionableFact|date=February 2007. Such as in this statement:

The "one tenth tax" and the exception of the custom of Janissaries.Fact|date=February 2007 There was not any millet, besides the "Christian Millet" or "Muslim Millet" talking about specific policy for "Christian converted Muslim Millet" is without a base. Voluntary conversion to Islam was greeted by the Ottoman authorities, accompanied by privilleges. Voluntary conversion from Islam to Christianity was punished by death. [The Islamic Shield: Arab Resistance to Democratic and Religious Reforms, Elie Elhadj, 2006, p.49]

Protectorate of missions

Ottoman State and religion has also another dimension beginning with the Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire; contracts between Ottoman Empire and European powers, protecting the religious rights within the Ottoman Empire. The Russians became formal Protectors of the Eastern Orthodox groups in 1774, the French of the Catholics and the British of the Jews and other groupsFact|date=February 2007. Russia and England competed for the ArmeniansFact|date=February 2007 and they perceived AmericansFact|date=February 2007 with Protestant Church who had over 100 missionaries established in AnatoliaFact|date=February 2007 by World War I as a weakening of their own Eastern Orthodox teachingFact|date=February 2007.

Conversion and destruction of churches

As a ruling institution, Ottoman Empire brought regulations on how the cities would be build (quality reassurances and how the architecture (structural integrity, social needs, etc) should be shaped.

Special restrictions were imposed concerning the construction, the renovation, the size and the ringing of the bells in Orthodox churches. For example, an Orthodox church should not be larger in size than a mosque. Many of the large cathedrals were destroyed (e.g. the Church of the Holy Apostles), transformed into mosques, by desecrating their interior and exterior (notably the Hagia Sophia, Chora Church, Rotonda, Hagios Demetrios) or served as armories for the Janissaries (e.g. Hagia Irene).

Footnotes

References

*
*