Millet System in the Ottoman Empire
The Millet System in the Ottoman Empire and Its Observed Effects and the Aftermath of the Millet System
For the Ottoman Empire, the concept of “millet” has an important place from the period of its rise to the period of collapse. This concept has been used for religious groups instead of the nation, which has its original meaning, since a certain time in the Ottoman Empire.
In the Ottoman Empire, it can be said that the reason for the use of the concept of millet as a religious scope stemmed from the importance of the religious traditions of the historical period. For example, the church was of great importance in the Byzantine period on behalf of the Greek nation and McCarthy said: “The Church had been closely entwined with the Empire(Byzantine Empire), each supporting the other and each a symbol of Greek identity.” (McCarthy, p. 128). As another example, it is possible to give an example of Armenians, an important group within the Ottoman Empire, and the Armenian Church: “To the Armenians, their Church was a point of identification that kept them together through rule by various larger and stronger neighbours.” (McCarthy, p.129). The experiences of the Jews can be given as an example of why the religious tradition is ahead of the concept of millet not only in the existing Ottoman lands but also in various geographies in general: “When Christian governments gave them order it was usually to the Jews’ detriment.” (McCarthy, p. 130).
The importance of religion in Islam is obvious. It has even reached such a position that after the success of the people, this success is attached to religious elements. As an example of this, Shah Ismail’s conquest of the vast majority of present-day Iranian lands in a short period of 9 years and the establishment of the Safavid State is considered by the public to be the 12th Imam according to the Shi’ite belief, and even various poems and stories were written on his behalf can be given as.
The Ottoman Empire knew the importance of this religious integration in its early periods and acted in this direction. “To the Ottomans, religious tolerance was both a practical and a legal necessity.” (McCarthy, p. 127). It is possible to mention that the Ottoman Empire’s tradition of tolerance to the Islamic state had an advantage. “There also was a practical basis for tolerance.”(McCarthy, p. 127). However, it is possible to say that the success of the Ottomans in the early periods resulted from the fact that he put the tolerance here into a series of rules. “The Ottoman Empire took the religious traditions of the Middle East and Balkans and codified them into law.”(McCarthy, p.128). These rules had an advanced understanding compared to the equivalents of the period. For example, they increased the power of religious groups, which had some power in the past, in a controlled manner. “Gennadius was actually given more authority than previous patriarchs.”(McCarthy, p.128). In order to balance them, they also increased the opposing forces and even balanced them with other small forces. “Mehmet the Conqueror had attempted to put smaller religious groups under the legal authority of the Armenian Patriach in Istanbul, perhaps to balance the power of the Greek Patriarch.” (McCarthy, p. 130). It can be added that they provided opportunities for various millets that were suppressed by the other sovereign countries of the period, such as the Jews. “Ottoman toleration drew Jews to the Empire from Eastern Europe and Spain and Portugal.” (McCarthy, p. 130).
It is also possible to reach the assumption that various such moderate practices within the Ottoman Empire increased the integrity of the lands and thus various uprisings were prevented in their early periods. This interpretation can be made when the revolts caused by the minorities are examined within Ottoman history within the framework of number and reason.
The understanding of millet is not reflected negatively in the folk tales told by different millets in the periods when the empire understanding of the Ottoman Empire started to be established. On the contrary, it is possible to catch some positive traces. “Turkish heroes twelve, the princely Marko//…//‘Better is it that I seek the sultan;//And let Marko tell the deeds of Marko — //Not the foes of Marko — not t.he Moslems!’” (Tappan, p.415).
However, with the advancement of time, it can be said that the rights provided by the Ottoman State became insufficient when compared to other states of the period. This point can be given the details of the text written by a religious authority in response to a question asked by a Muslim in 1772. It is possible to see the differences when this text is examined by comparing it with the American Declaration of Independence published in 1776 during the period. “They must use neither saddles, nor iron-stirrups, in order to be distinguished from the true believers….Their men and women are ordere to wear garments different from those of the Muslims in order to be distinguished from them.” (Kafrawi, pp. 1–2). However, the importance of concepts such as equality and equal rights was pointed out in the declaration of independence. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed their Creator with certaion unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happines.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-.” (United States Declaration of Independence, p. 1). In addition, we can approach this question posed by a Muslim in 1772 as one of the first examples of questioning the current millet approach that has been applied for a long time, and the loss of modernity of the current practice. We can also give an example of the increasing minority riots in the period he was in.
Another important point is that, considering the effects of issues such as the basing of national sovereignty on the nation in the American Declaration of Independence or the spread of nationalism as a result of the French Revolution, it is possible to say that the millet understanding within the Ottoman Empire increased and fell behind its contemporaries. In this period, when the understanding of the nation-state became widespread and empires were in the process of disintegration, it made it necessary for the Ottoman State to make some reforms in order to keep the minorities within the millet together.
The Reform Edict of 1856 can be given as an example of these reforms for this and various reasons. With this decree, the millet system, which had been ongoing for years, was abolished and it was trying to achieve the conditions of its time and to ensure full equality between Muslim and non-Muslim Ottoman subjects by providing equal citizenship rights of all religious communities. “All the privileges and spiritual immunities granted by my ancestors from time immemorial, and at subsequent dates, to all Christian communities or other non-Muslim persuasions established in my empire, under my protection, shall be confirmed and maintained… All commercial, correctional, and criminal suits between Muslims and Christians, or other non-Muslim subjects, or between Christian or other non-Muslims of different sects, shall be referred to mixed tribunals… Proceedings shall be taken for reform in the constitution of the Provincial and Communal Councils, in order to ensure fairness in the choice of the deputies of the Muslim, Christian, and other communities, and freedom of voting in the Councils… The taxes are to be levied under the same denomination from all the subjects of my empire, without distinction of class or of religion…” (Imperial Rescript, p. 1).
As a result, we reach from McCarthy’s studies that the “nation” system used by the Ottoman Empire is a system that is based on the concept of a religious nation and is compatible with the requirements of the age. We can understand from folk tales like Marko and the Turks that the “Nation” system caused the Ottoman Empire to have a more moderate structure compared to other states and that this might have strengthened the integrated state structure within the Ottoman Empire. In the coming years, we can reach the idea that the nation system cannot catch up with the contemporaries of the period, through comparisons such as the letter of Hasan al Kafrawi with the American Declaration of Independence, and therefore, from sources such as Imperial Rescript, that they carried out equality reform studies in order to catch the contemporaries of their time.
References
Charles F. Horne, ed., The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, (New York: Parke, Austin, & Lipscomb, 1917), Vol. VI: Medieval Arabia, pp. 329–395. (Original work published by Sidi Ali Reis. (1557). Mirat ul Memalik (The Mirror of Countries).)
McCarthy, J. (1997). The Ottoman Turks: An Introductory History to 1923 (1st ed.). Routledge.
Tappan E.M., ed., The World’s Story: A History of the World in Story, Song and Art, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914), Vol. VI: Russia, Austria-Hungary, The Balkan States, and Turkey, pp. 415–419.
Marcus J., The Jem in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, (New York: JPS, 1938), 15–19, pp. 315–1791
Ottoman Empire, Imperial Rescript, (1856) Istanbul
