« What Would the Caliph Do? | Main | Clash of Civilizations over Euro-Cartoons? »
January 21, 2006
Abdulhamid II and the 'Armenian Genocide'
After my piece on The Weekly Standard on Abdulhamid II, a disagreeing letter to the editor was published along with my reply. Here is the letter:
Mustafa Akyol's "A Sultan with Swat" (Dec. 26) ends with the suggestion that we "recover the spirit of Islamic modernity personified by the piano-playing Sufi, Abdul Hamid II." That same Abdul Hamid II was responsible for murdering over 200,000 Christian Armenians between 1894 and 1896, which laid the groundwork for the 1915 Armenian genocide. He was not the gentle, melodious musician that Akyol would have you believe; rather, he was a paranoid and homicidal maniac hell-bent on exterminating the Armenian race, only stopping with the threat of European intervention. How could this man—known as the "Ottoman Butcher" for making his Sunni Muslim subjects brutally murder innocent Christians—possibly embody the "spirit of Islamic modernity"?Brian Sieben
Portsmouth, R.I.
And this is my response:
My article on Abdul Hamid II intended not to portray him as a completely faultless ruler, but to stress the great dichotomy between this prominent Caliph, which was a modernizer of Islamdom and a friend of the US, and the contemporary self-declared warriors for the Caliphate such as Al Qaeda terrorists.Moreover, although the massacres of 1894-96 are a stain on the Sultan's record, he was not a "butcher" and this is mainly because of his attachment to Islam. According to historian Robert T. Melson, "The main reason total genocide was not perpetrated by the Ottoman regime in 1894-96 was its commitment to Islam, to the millet system [Ottoman religious pluralism], and to restoring the old order . . . To commit genocide by destroying the Armenian millet would have been a radical departure from the sultan's ideology . . . The Young Turks had no such scruples "
One should also note that the whole Armenian tragedy was just one side of a bloody inter-communal violence. According to Bernard Lewis, "What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks . . . The massacres were carried out by irregulars, by local villagers responding to what had been done to them and in number of other ways."
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at January 21, 2006 4:05 PM
The massacre of Armenians didn't stop with European intervention. The Europeans wouldn't care less about an old Eastern Anatolian nation. The Armenians constantly had to remind them of what was going on in Anatolia. The massacre (which took the lives of 200 000 innocent Armenians) stopped only when Armenians took the matter into their own hands.
The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsoutyoun) first organized an attack on the Ottoman Bank, in order to capture European attention. It is noteworthy that the Armenians didn't touch a single penny when they took over the bank.
Then, they organized an attack on Yildiz, in order to get rid of the "Red Sultan" once and for all. Even though the attack failed, the Sultan probably got so traumatized that the massacre stopped.
Posted by: David K. at January 21, 2006 5:52 PM
I think we should have a look at wikipedia. It has many pages on Turkey dominated by armenians who edit and revert anything they do not like.
Posted by: me at January 22, 2006 2:04 PM
I think piano playing by masochists should be outlawed. Should the Turks allow Armenians to operate Casinos in self-populated reservations where they drink themselves to oblivion? I think the time has come for us to look ahead while driving as opposed to always having our eyes fixed on the rear view mirror and see skidmarks.
Posted by: metin at January 23, 2006 7:48 PM
Metin,
You can't just ignore the past, and think that it will go away. It will come and haunt you constantly, until you come to terms with it.
Posted by: David K. at January 26, 2006 6:23 AM
I wasn't suggesting ignoring the past, i was merely pointing out the past should not be ever-consuming of the present.
Speaking of the past, how far do we need to go back to come to terms . . as recent as Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo or all the way back to the American Indians or even further to Crusades . . . how about way back to Cain & Abel . . .
Maybe we should all 'come to terms' with everything that's happened by all parties against each other since historical records were kept.
When will we ever find the time . . .
Posted by: metin at January 27, 2006 8:50 AM
To the author of these words:
"I think piano playing by masochists should be outlawed. Should the Turks allow Armenians to operate Casinos in self-populated reservations where they drink themselves to oblivion?"
Watch yourself.
Posted by: david at January 28, 2006 7:44 AM
Why is 'The Armenian Genocide' in scare quotes?
Posted by: BillyHW at February 4, 2006 5:54 PM
Hamid II was "butcher" all right....He also was not the smartest knife in the drawer.During his reign the H20 abreviation for water was not permitted to be used because sultan thought H20 means "Hamid II is zero"
W.
By the way...when is Turkey going to acknowledge Armenian genocide?
Posted by: Walter at February 7, 2006 7:31 PM
Walter,
I didn't realize this was a forum addressing the Turkish government regarding the subject of acknowledgement.
When would be satisfactory to you? What are your concerns if Turkey didn't respond to your question?
Posted by: metin at February 9, 2006 10:24 AM
I don't think I meant it as a question.I know that Turkey never officialy acknowledged it.
What I oppose is rewriting the history.
By refusing to do so Turkey is only adding ammunition to those who claim that its place is not in Europe.
Walter
Posted by: Walter at February 15, 2006 5:31 PM
Metin asks : What are your concerns if Turkey didn't respond to your question?[i.e. to acknowledge the genocide]
Good question. What is the answer ? Maybe another question like : Why is it assumed that avoiding or deflecting this subject is the best option for Turkey ?
Actually the very opposite is the best option since it would mean that the Turkish people will have stopped being a people that systematically lies to itself.
That is the real problem here and very few Turks care (or appear to care) about this problem and that is why it is compounded, if such a thing can be possible where the subject of genocide is concerned. But it is possible because genocide scholars tell us that denial is the final stage of genocide.
Posted by: Mr Majestic at March 29, 2007 10:58 PM
If only the Turkish government recognized the Armenian genocide, they would be acting as a leader in Asia Minor. After recognotion, they should return much of the land of the exterminated Armenians to make good and restrore friendship between Turks and Armenians. They should undo what they haev done.
Posted by: Ray Tan at December 31, 2007 5:12 AM
First of all, how on earth can you say 200,000 died during the Hamidian massacres? Sure there are claims of 100-300 thousand, but these are baseless. Even Pastermadjian (the ARF guy that was the leader of the Ottoman bank takeover) said 100,000 died.. and that's coming from an Armenian. It's likely roughly 60 thousand died. Ottoman government documented roughly 9000 christian deaths during 1915 (sure you can take that to be bias, but just 10% of the real figure? Get real!)
Also, as to the H20 comment, well done, you know how to read, bravo. 'The Burning Tigris' is so bias that i wouldn't take anything said in there too seriously, but if we were to believe it, Abdul Hamid wanted to keep control, and censorship throughout the empire was high. It's not that HE thought h20 was about him, but what some rural dashnak might interpret it as.
Posted by: your mum at August 1, 2008 9:14 AM