Minorities in the Ottoman Empire

So on questioning the existence of minorities in the Ottoman empire, one has to consider the definition of the term minority and then see if truly applies to the Ottomans. I had been of the opinion that minorities had existed based on race, religion and social status, but when the question of whether the definition of minority could truly have been applied to the non-Muslims living and working in the empire, i clearly had to change my stance. After all the Jews, Christians and other non-Muslim people, most probably did not consider themselves to be a lesser and abused sector of the empire. They lived and worked like everyone else, with opportunities for advancement and privileges that would have defied the term "minority". Their taxes may have been different or some such responsibilities, but this enabled them to be excused from paying all the other taxes that Muslims were obligated to pay. If anything, this class taught me to question how i would apply when talking in a historical context. Not only has the meaning of the terms evolved with time and events, but they may not even capture the true meaning of the state of events in history.

On the Ottoman bill of rights

The bill of rights is very good in that introduces to us the conception of political rights in as well as showing that individual right were prominent in the Ottoman mind.

This is especially important because of the popular perception in many circles that the Islamic faith cannot conceivably be associated with granting individual rights. People would rather think of them as barbaric and incapable of human rights but the Bill of Rights disproves this notion.

It is further elevated in value by the fact that it represents proof that under the Ottomans’ Muslim empire, Christians and Jews enjoyed equal rights and expectations as Muslims. Before the Bill, they had had rights but within their own communities with the distinction that they were not equal to Muslims, hence practices such as enslaving Christians and Jews but never Muslims. With the Bill of rights things change as it initiates the process of ensuring equality between Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the Ottoman Empire.

The Gulhane proclamation

I was going through the Gulhane Proclamation in regards to the snow day assignment and i felt i should post my discussion board responses here.

Looking at this document, it seems to me that the Gulhane Proclamation talks about change. At first it looks to be very backward looking as it sorts of tries to reincarnate the good old days when the empire was at its greatest. As you go further in the reading, the tone struck me as being more a stylistic way of writing than actually being an exhortation about the need to return to the past when the empire ran according to the law.

This is best described when one see that there are actually new changes being spoken about in the proclamation thereby indicating that it is forward looking and not just wanting the old days. In cases where the proclamation declares that “From henceforth” this shows that this was an example of reform introducing something that was never there before thus the document looks forward. An example of reforms suggested is the practice that without judgment being pronounced, a person can neither secretly nor publicly kill someone else. This shows a clear progression from the old ways of meting justice.

The proclamation also suggests other changes that are useful as well as progressive in approach such as ensuring property rights. For me this was most impressive considering that even today many countries around the world are only beginning to understand the importance of property rights to a well functioning society, while some have not even gotten there yet. For the Ottomans to have been suggesting this in 1839, when the modern world had to go through colonialism in Africa, two world wars and communism to understand the same thing, is quite impressive.

Hats off to an absoultely stunning empire

There is a lot to be said about the complexities and efficiency of the Ottoman empire. Looking at its composition, hierarchies and institutions, it is easier to understand how it was one of the most influential empires spanning over centuries. The idea that they would have a form of slavery that is supported by a human tax collected every seven years from non-Muslim families yet enable these same slaves to gain political advancement based on merit, is simply mind-boggling. It puts to shame all of the slave systems that all of the western states ever put together that were oppressive and denigrating to the slaves unlike with the Janissaries that were an integral part of the Sultan's court and were absolutely loyal to him. That is genius in my book, when you conscript so called outcasts of society, in this case non-Muslim children, and incorporate them into your culture and giving them the dignity and opportunity to advance based on their ability. Although they later turned out to be the downfall of the Ottoman Empire, at its peak, the Janissaries were a huge power force that was admired within the Ottoman society. This was regardless of the fact that they were never full Muslims having been inculcated into the faith.

The nature of truth in history

When studying history anyone can tell you that there comes a time when you have to question the authenticity of the writer of a book, the speaker or even the witness account. So much information that we analyze as seekers of knowledge is subject to the vagaries of human emotion, motivation of the source of information or timing of when the information is relayed. So one has to ask what truth is.

My take on such a debate is that everything is to be taken with a grain if not a pinch of salt, maybe even the whole jar; after all historical facts have been twisted time and time again to suit the purposes of who is relaying the truth. But even as i say this, i am also of the opinion that for as long as the lack of objectivity on the part of the source does not totally change the nature or sequence of how events took place, then it is permissible in as much as it gives a variety of opinions and perceptions. This enables the student of history to question opinions, seek different versions of truth, and judge on what is truly acceptable. The sources of history can never be truly objective and unbiased because of the human element so this very weakness of the source is its strength in providing a basis for comparison with other sources.

Challenging the attitudes

First day of class and all i wanted to do was just to sit back and assimilate all that i had missed in prior classes and all that was going on today. To my pleasant surprise what i had been expecting to be an oration of historical facts and events turned out to be a lively debate on the rightness or lack thereof of women covering themselves up primarily in the Muslim culture but also in other cultures such as here in the US.

Whereas some saw it as a means of oppression and couldn't believe that a woman would choose to cover up as a feminist stance or of her own voluntary will, i was of the opinion that its a woman's choice which i would willingly take because of how it can instill confidence, dignity and a higher self-esteem- not to mention that people would likely treat me with more respect than if i were more scantily clad. In fact, i find the hijab could very well be a fashionable item to have in one's wardrobe and i would wear it without either being forced, feeling oppressed or less of a woman. The act of covering oneself up as opposed to minimal clothing impacts how people perceive and react to you and in my mind the choice solely lies in the hands of the woman herself (if not then it should) depending on the impression she is trying to make.