Your post is very good and it had cleared me about the Turks, Jews and Arabs and thank you for your valuable information.

Is Bernard Lewis really the ‘doyen’ of Middle East studies in the West? I think you’d like him to be because he portrays the Ottoman empire and Turkey in the light you’d like them to be portrayed in, but really he’s just another one of these apologists Turks seem so fond of.

And let’s be clear, the Jews in the Ottoman empire were regarded and treated as second-rate infidels/giaours, with no political, civil or legal rights and severe restrictions placed on their everyday lives.

The contract with the Ottoman state for non-Muslims involved paying higher taxes and keeping your head down in exchange for the ability to follow your religion. Forget about other rights, and if you dared to query the contract, then this would be taken as disloyalty to the Ottoman state and you would face summary justice. So, let’s not paint too rosy a picture of the lives of the minorities – including the Jewish minority – in the Ottoman period.

Also, let’s not forget, since the foundation of the Turkish republic, the anti-Semitic riots in Eastern Thrace in 1934 or that Jews – like Armenians and Greeks – in the 1940s were subject to the Varlik Vergisi – the wealth tax designed to drive them out of the economy – and the Amele Taburu – the slave labour battalions designed to finish off, one way or another, the non-Muslim/Turkish presence in Turkey.

The Jewish safe-haven myth, which you believe in, has developed as a means to cement ideologically the peculiar and unsustainable alliance between Turkey and Israel – or, better, between the Turkish military and secular establishment and Israel.

See here for alternative view of Jewish-Turkish relations:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B68314118-6D77-4E06-B4D5-282AF4285BC9%7D

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3CA6CAE4-04C9-4AC6-BA1C-08B047719A1A

Alexander, I read the links you gave with much interest. Obviously, I was aware of the mistreatment of minorities under the Empire (all empires mistreat their subjects) but as you pointed out this particular empire refuses to confess the sins of their fathers. At least in the West people can talk about the evils of slavery (and it was by the way God-fearing white people who led the way in emancipating them) or the mistreatment of the American Indians (I myself have Indian ancestors), but in this country it is forbidden to speak of the injustices perpetrated on minorities both during the Republic (1955, 1934) and during the times of imperial oppression and injustice.

It is surprising to hear such things from Mustafa Akyol as he is usually quite reasonable, fair-minded, objective and well-read but all of us are subject to the prejudices of our nation. I know that living in the Middle East for 10 years has helped me to see shortcomings and injustice in the West that I might not have seen had I only lived there.

Plus, faith can sometimes color our view of the world quite dramatically and since Mr. Akyol is clearly a devout Muslim it is normal that he should overlook the failings of his "people group". How many Catholics are quick to own up to the shortcomings of the church? Some will but many are reluctant to do so. That is the danger of religion. When institutionalized it is dangerous as it serves not God but the institution.

Grace,

I have always found portrayal of Ottoman History, of the type MA has presented here, rather problematic. We're led to believe that the Ottoman Empire was the paragon of toleration, yet we overlook certain things. E.g., look at the year: 1454. Clearly, the Ottomans were trying to consolidate their foothold in Europe by bringing in hired help against the Christian peoples they had just subjugated. It was a classic colonialist move on the Ottomans' part to bring in outsiders who, out of gratitude, naturally would display loyalty to the "benevolent" colonizer rather than the colonized, with whom the newly arrived Spanish Jews had no connection. Interestingly, my reading suggests that the native Byzantine Jews did not fare as well as those who came from Spain. Rather, they suffered just as bad as the other subject, mostly Christian peoples. In time, the Spanish Jews met the same fate as the rest, too.

The reality is that the Ottoman realm was not a tolerant place. And everywhere the Ottoman realm reached is marked to this day by intolerance and bigotry, with the nerve center of that enduring intolerance and bigotry being modern Turkey. For geopolitical reasons, Turkey gets a pass on all these matters, but anyone who reads up in Turkey knows that it is perhaps the least tolerant place in the entire region (see Trabzon, Malatya, Kurds, Armenians, etc. etc. etc.). To accept the feeble thesis that this miserable legacy was the fruit of some highly tolerant and open society really stretches the imagination.

Though he can be a good, thoughtful writer, this was one of MA's weaker pieces. Purely a puff piece that pulls the standard levers of "anti-Semitic Christians" vs. "benevolent, tolerant" "Islamdom" for largely political ends.

Good article Mustafa.

I find the comments very interesting too.

There is obviously a desire by the commentators to denigrate the pluralistic achievements of the Ottoman Empire.

It is obvious that some Ottoman Turks were as intolerant as Europeans. What Mustafa is highlighting here is the official policies of a state, the ottoman one. Mustafa is not trying to describe the flaws of human nature, found in all nations, including 'intolerance'.

Alexander, I suggest you speak to Turkish Jews. And please do not insult their intelligence by saying that they are 'brainwashed by the Turk'. They will be able to give you their truest recollection of Jewish history in turkey.It is indeed an history of friendship. I do not advise reading from 'Front Page Mag' either, it's not an accurate source of information. In regards to the 'second class' status or 'protected' status. 100% True. But you fail to mention that the Ottoman sultan abolished this in the 19th century, granted equal citizenship to all Ottomans, despite of religion and ethnicity.

Lionel, where do you find the evidence for what you say? Not one line of yours is accurate. Apart from being obviously Ottomanophobic, you fail to see and understand the realities of history. The fact that ottomans are seen as tolerant and historically Europeans are seen as racist/prejudist, as you describe, you find 'problematic'. Why? Is the inquisition not a feature of European history? It certainly is not ottoman. Are the anti-semitic pogroms carried out through all the ages against the jews of Europe not historical truth?

To Ceyhan:

Your reply to my comments rests on the same feeble dichotomy--"Ottoman good; European bad"--that MA's article is premised on. This may pass muster in Turkey, but don't expect it to pass without criticism elsewhere.

You laud the Ottomans' "pluralistic achievements." But these were not "achievements" in the sense that pluralism was not the purpose the Ottomans in mind. Rather pluralism was simply the necessary consequence of Ottoman jihadism. Through Jihad, they conquered the lands of other people, and forced Islamic Law on them, making them second class citizens in their own lands, and subjecting them to such inhuman and specifically Ottoman institutions as the devshirme (a particularly cruel Ottoman development of the Jizya). (As a side note, you are aware that the reforms you praise to Alexander that rid this second class citizenship were not to come till 400 years after the era this article is even talking about. I would recommend you read Bostom's article that Alexander posted. It is fully cited, and I imagine will enlighten you.)

After these conquests, the Ottomans allowed some Jews from Spain to come in because it suited their imperialistic ends--they were a small, urbanized group, suited to bureaucracy, who had no tie to those conquered, but would be loyal to those who allowed them to settle. Colonizlism 101 from the Ottoman point of view.

Yet some Turks, inspired by certain geopolitical trends from nowadays, see this as some of case of exceptional Turkish philo-Semitism, which they oppose to the "anti-semitic pogroms carried out through all the ages against the jews of Europe." I bet very few of these Turks have ever asked themselves why relatively so few Jews (max. 500,000 at the begninng of the 20th c.) chose to live in the Ottoman realm compared to how many lived in Europe (millions). How can it be that so many millions of Jews preferred to live in so incurably anti-Semitic Europe? If, on the other hand, Turks so loved the Jews, why did they subject them to the Varlık Vergisi, and even to the disgraceful pogroms of 1955? Today, there are about only 26,000 Jews in Turkey. Why so few, when even Germany, with all its dark history, has 200,000. Why?

No one denies that historically there was mistreatment of the Jews in Europe. But in the light of the truly heinous episode of Hitler, the severity of the other instances of persecution has tended to be overemphasized.

For example, the Inquisition you cite was simply one of the negative aspects of the Spanish finally liberating their land from the invaders: the invaders (the Moors), and those perceived to have been their allies (in this case, the Jews), were persecuted. The Inquisition's attentions were also turned against the Protestants a few decades later, which has also contributed to the much of the mythology surrounding it, as Protestant writers would deplore its doings from propagandistic reasons.

But the fact is that the Inquisition, from 1476 to 1834, was responsible for the deaths of between 3,000 and 5,000 people. Not nice, but quite small fry in the grand scale of things.

The real black mark on European history is, of course, Hitler. But the Europeans don't deny or downplay the evil of his deeds. Rather, though Europe produced Hitler, it also produced the millions of marytrs who died in the fight to get rid of him. Europe literally tore itself apart in order to destroy the evil that Hitler represented. And in the wake of Hitler, Europe has taken every step imaginable to ensure that something like that never happens again.

And this is what makes Turkey much different from Europe. Quite apart from the fact that Turkey did not even consider the Hitler thing important enough to go to war over (Turkey stayed out of WWII), Turkey's attitude to its own failings has been one os denial and pretty varnishing of the past. The Armenian Genocide is the perfect example of this. In Turkey, people go to jail for even mentioning it.

But this tactic of systematic denial simply reinforces what is really Turkey's oppressive nature. Though these pretty depictions of "history" crow about Turkey's supposed "tolerance," there is nothing tolerant about it. Where else do Christian priests get shot in the back while praying (Fr. Andrea Santoro)? Or Christian missionaries carved up like lambs (Malatya)? Or shot in the back for not toeing the state line (Hrant Dink)? Or where else do scores of Alevis get burned alive in their hotels for being the wrong kind of Muslims (Sivas, 1993)? Where else do Kurds have their language, culture, and even existence denied? We won't talk about the Armenians, the events of 1955, or the ethnic cleansing of Cyprus...

Which leads me to my main point, which is inspired by a line from Gore Vidal: "The present is the same as the past, only clearer." If the Ottoman Empire were so tolerant, why is there not a remnant of this tolerance in a single place where the Ottomans spread their malign influence? Rather, everywhere the Ottomans went is to this day marked by intolerance. And the nerve center of this intolerance remains Turkey itself. How can it have disappeared so totally? Perhaps it never existed...

alexander, why do you post links to frontpage magazine. A magazine known fir its anti Islamic stance. The writer of the article (andrew bostom) is no historian nor has he knowledge of Islam. Quoting or linking bostom to justify your point is like asking david duke about judiasm. It will always be negative.

Akyol,

You said something very interesting:

"Here, obviously, you have an Islam which is more on the tradition of Ottoman Sultan Bayazid II than on the line of radical Islamists of Egypt or Pakistan. It should be appreciated, and utilized, more."

How does Islam thought (other than the anti-semitism as you highlighted in your article) in Turkey differ from Islam in other countries (Or how does the school of Islamic Thought, you mentioned). Just about every writing I've seen involves not just the Koran, a relationship with a particular school of Islamic Law (whether its been implemented in their country or not), and two elements that inform their interpretation of the Koran: the "Sunna", and the "Hadith".

However I've noticed that you've taken an approach that either doesn't directy appeal to the Sunna or the Hadiths, or one that actually tries to get directly at the Koran without trying to see them it through the Sunna or the Hadith. I'm curious is this perception correct, and if it is, does this represent a Turkish approach, or is this your own personal approach?

To Lionel:
Why do Jews choose to live in anti-semitic Europe rather than Turkey? Simple! Much better treatment and hospitality by Turks as usual but the weaker economy and lower wages as compared to Western Europe. Do millions of Turks that live in Germany love the racist Germans or being looked down upon all their lives? No! It is simply economic reasons , it ain't the lovely,great and open (more like hypocritical) European civilization(?!).