Author: Bat Ye'or
Publication:
Date: August 31, 1995
Introduction: The Tolerant Pluralistic
Islamic Society: Origin Of A Myth Dinner Address
Ladies and gentlemen:
My subject this evening is "Myths
and Politics: Origin of the Myth of a Tolerant Pluralistic Islamic Society".
Ten years ago when I came to America
for the launching of my book The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam,
I was struck by the inscription on the Archives Building in Washington:
"Past is Prologue". I had thought - at least at the beginning of my research
- that my subject related to a remote past, but I realized that contemporary
events were rapidly modernizing this past. Muslim countries, where Islamic
law - the shari'a - had been replaced by modern juridiction imposed by
the European colonizing powers, were abandoning the secularizing trend,
replacing it with Islamization in numerous sectors of life. This impression
of the return of the past became even more acute when I was working on
my next book, published in 1991, whose English edition will appear in early
1996 under the title: The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam -
7th to 20th century: from Jihad to Dhimmitude (Associated University Presses).
In this study, I tried to analyze
the numerous processes that had transformed rich, powerful Christian civilizations
into Islamic lands, and their long-term effects, which had reduced native
Christian majorities into scattered small religious minorities, on the
way to total disappearence. This complex Islamization process affecting
Christian lands and civilizations on both shores of the Mediterranean -
and in Irak and Armenia - I have called: the process of "dhimmitude"; and
the civilization of those peoples who underwent such transformation, I
have named the civilization of "dhimmitude". The indigenous native peoples
were Jews and Christians (Orthodox, Catholics, or from other Eastern Christian
Churches). They are all referred to by Muslim jurists as the "Peoples of
the Book" - the Book being the Bible - and they were subjected to the same
condition according to Islamic law. They are called by the Arabic term,
dhimmis: "protected peoples", because Islamic law protects their life and
goods on condition that they submit to Islamic rule. But it is this very
Islamic law that generates the processes of dhimmitude and of self-destruction.
I will not go into details here
for this is a very long and complex subject, but in order to understand
the Serbian situation one should know that the Serbs were treated during
half a millenium just like the other Christian and Jewish dhimmis. They
participated in this civilization of dhimmitude. It is important to understand
that the civilization of dhimmitude grows from two major and interconnected
religious institutions: jihad and shari'a, which establish a particular
ideological system that makes it mandatory - during the jihad operation
- to use terror, mass killings, deportation and slavery. And the Serbs
- because I am speaking of them tonight - did not escape from this fate,
which was the same for all those peoples around the Mediterranean basin,
vanquished by jihad. For centuries, the Serbs fought to liberate their
land from the laws of jihad, and dhimmitude, which had legalized their
condition of oppression on their own lands.
So while I was analyzing and writing
about the processes of dhimmitude and the civilization of dhimmitude -
while listening to the radio, watching television, reading the newspapers
- I had the uncomfortable feeling that the clock was being turned back.
Modern politicians, sophisticated writers - using phones, planes, computers
and all the modern techniques - seemed to be returning several centuries
back, with wigs or stiff collars, using exactly the same corrupting arguments,
the same tortuous short-term politics that had previously contributed to
the gradual Islamization of numerous non- Muslim peoples. I had to shake
myself in an effort to distinguish the past from the present.
So, is the past always prologue?
Are we doomed to remain perpetually prisoners of the same errors? Certainly,
if we do not know the past. And this past - the long and agonizing process
of Christian annihilation by the laws of jihad and dhimmitude - is a taboo
history, not only in Islamic lands, but above all in the West. It has been
buried beneath a myth, fabricated by Western politicians, religious leaders
and scholars, in order to promote their own national, strategic, economic
and personal interests.
Curiously, this myth started in
Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 19th century. It alleges that Turkish rule over
Christians in its European provinces was just and lawful. That the Ottoman
regime, being Islamic, was naturally "tolerant" and well disposed toward
its Christian subjects; that its justice was fair, and that safety for
life and goods was guaranteed to Christians by Islamic laws. Ottoman rule
was brandished as the most suitable regime to rule Christians of the Balkans.
This theory was advanced by European
politicians in order to safeguard the balance of power in Europe, and in
order to block the Russian advance towards the Mediterranean. To justify
the maintenance of the Turkish yoke on the Slavs, this yoke had to be presented
to the public opinion as a just government. The Ottoman Empire was painted
by Turkophiles as a model for a multi-ethnical, multi- religious empire.
Of course, the reality was totally different! First the Ottoman Empire
was created by centuries of jihad against Christian populations; consequently
the rules of jihad, elaborated by Arab-Muslim theologians from the 8th
to the 10th centuries, applied to the subjected Christian and Jewish populations
of the Turkish- Islamic dominions. Those regulations are integrated into
the Islamic legislation concerning the non-Muslim vanquished peoples and
therefore they present a certain homogeneity throughout the Arab and Turkish
empires - and, apparently, in Muslim Asia too.
The civilization of dhimmitude,
in which the Serbs participated, had many aspects that evolved with changing
political situations. They suffered from the same oppressive laws and prejudices
that concerned all Christians and Jews in the Islamic Empire. From the
1830s, the Ottomans embarked on reforms (Tanzimat), aimed at the emancipation
of their Christian raya (dhimmi) populations. They didn't act on their
own volition, rather they were forced to accept them by the European powers.
It was not out of humanity that European politicians wished to abolish
the degrading condition of the Christians; they promoted these reforms
in order to prevent their seeking Russian help to liberate themselves from
Ottoman oppression.
In the Serbian regions, the most
fanatical opponents of Christian emancipation were the Muslims Bosniacs.
They fought against the right of Christians to possess lands, and - in
legal matters - to have rights equal to theirs. They opposed these reforms
on the bases that under the old system, which gave them full domination
over the Christians rayas, Muslims and Christians had lived for centuries
in a convivial fraternity. And this argument is still used today by Bosniac
President Izetbegovic, and others. He repeatedly affirms that the half
millenium of Christian dhimmitude was a period of peace and religious harmony.
Let us now confront the myth with
reality. I shall now quote a few facts from some of the documents in my
forthcoming book. A systematic enquiry into the condition of the Christians
was conducted in the 1860s by British consuls throughout the Ottoman Empire.
Britain was then Turkey's strongest ally; it was in its interest to see
that oppression of the Christians was eliminated, in order to prevent Russian
or Austrian interference.
On July 22, 1860, Consul James Zohrab
sent a lengthy report from Bosna-Serai (Sarajevo) to his ambassador in
Constantinople, Sir Henry Bulwer, in which he analyzed the administration
of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He stated that from 1463 to
1850 the Bosniac Muslims enjoyed all the privileges of feudalism: "During
a period of nearly 300 years Christians were subjected to much oppression
and cruelty. For them no other law but the caprice of their masters existed."
Here we should remember the devshirme
system, which is well known. Initiated by the Ottoman Sultan Orkhan (1326-1359),
it existed for about 300 years. It consisted of a regular levy of Christian
children from the Christian population of the Balkans. These youngsters,
aged from fourteen to twenty, were Islamized and enslaved for military
purposes. The periodic levies, which took place in contingents of a thousand,
subsequently became annual. To discourage runaways, children were transferred
to remote provinces and entrusted to Muslim masters, soldiers who treated
them harshly, as slaves. Another parallel recruitment system operated:
It provided for the levy of Christian children aged six to ten (ichoghlani),
reserved for the sultan's palace. Entrusted to eunuchs, they underwent
a tyrannical training for fourteen years. In Africa, a system of enslaving
Black Christian and Animist children, similar to the devshirme existed,
as is shown from documents to be published in my book. A sort of devshirme
system still exists today in the Sudan and has been described and denounced
by the United Nations Special Rapporteur Mr Gaspar Biro in his 1994 report,
and by an article in The Times of London (Sudanese Christians 'sold as
slaves', August 25, 1995).
In 1850, the Bosniac chiefs opposed
the authority of the Porte and the reforms. They were defeated by the Sultan's
army commanded by Omer Pasha, aided by the Christians. The corvées
imposed by the Bosniac lords over their subjected Christian populations
were abolished, as well as their feudal privileges. The Christians hoped
that the direct administration of the Porte would ameliorate their position,
but they hardly benefited from it. Moreover, in spite of their assistance
to the sultan's army they were disarmed, while the Muslims who fought the
sultan could retain their weapons. Christians remained oppressed as before,
although it was not permitted to treat them as formerly. Referring to the
reform, Zohrab states: "I can safely say, (it) practically remains a dead
letter".
Discussing the impunity granted
to the Muslims by the sultan, Consul Zohrab writes in the same report:
"This impunity, while it does not extend to permitting the Christians to
be treated as they formerly were treated, is so far unbearable and unjust
in that it permits the Mussulmans to despoil them with heavy exactions.
False imprisonments (imprisonment under false accusation) are of daily
occurence. A Christian has but a small chance of exculpating himself when
his opponent is a Mussulman (...) Christian evidence, as a rule, is still
refused (...) Christians are now permitted to possess real property, but
the obstacles which they meet with when they attempt to acquire it are
so many and vexatious that very few have as yet dared to brave them."
"Such being, generally speaking,
the course pursued by the Government towards the Christians in the capital
(Sarajevo) of the province where the Consular Agents of the different Powers
reside and can exercise some degree of control, it may easily be guessed
to what extend the Christians, in the remoter districts, suffer who are
governed by Mudirs (governors) generally fanatical and unacquainted with
the (new reforms of the) law."
Concerning the acquisition of land
- a new right for the Christians - he states: "(Although) a Christian can
buy and take possession; it is when he has got his land into order, or
when the Mussulman who has sold has overcome the pecuniary difficulties
which compelled him to sell, that the Christian feels the helplessness
of his position and the insincerity of the Government. Steps are then taken
by the original proprietor, or some relatives of his, to reclaim the land
from the Christian, generally on one of the following pleas: (...) that
the deeds of transfer being defective, the sale had not been legally made.
Under one or other of these pleas the Christian is in nineteen cases out
of twenty dispossessed, and he may then deem himself fortunate if he gets
back the price he gave. Few, a very few, have been able to obtain justice;
but I must say that the majority of these owe their good fortune not to
the justice of their cause, but to the influence of some powerful Mussulman."
"Christian evidence in the Medjlises
(provincial councils) is occasionally received, but as a rule is refused,
either directly or indirectly, by reference to the Mehkemeh. Knowing this,
the Christians generally come forward prepared with Mussulman witnesses.
The cases in which Christian evidence has been refused are numerous". But,
comments Zohrab, "twenty years ago, it is true, they had no laws beyond
the caprice of their landlords (...) Cases of oppression are frequently
the result of Mussulman fanaticism, but for these the (Turkish) Government
must be held responsible, for if offenders were punished, oppression would
of necessity become rare."
By proclamation, in the spring of
1861, the sultan announced new reforms in Herzegovina, promising among
other things freedom to build churches, the use of church bells and the
opportunity for Christians to acquire land. Commenting on this from Bosna-Serai,
Consul William Holmes wrote to Sir Henry Bulwer on May 21, l861, that those
promises had been given often, without being applied. He mentions that
the Serbs, the largest community, were refused the right to build a church
in Bosna-Serai.
Concerning the right to buy land,
he wrote: "Every possible obstacle is still thrown in the way of the purchase
of lands by Christians, and very often, after they have succeeded in purchasing
and improving land, it is no secret that on one unjust pretext or another,
it has been taken from them."
From Belgrade, Consul Longworth
wrote to Sir Henry Bulwer on July 14, 1860: "The Government may by its
Edicts and Hatti-humayouns hasten and advance such a reform; but I question
very much whether more evil than good will not arise from proclaiming a
social equality which is, in the present stage of things and relations
of society, morally impossible."
"Equality before the law is that
which must be first established; the only sort of equality, in fact, which
can under existing circumstances, be realized. And in connection with this,
we come to the complaint in the petition - the only tangible point in it
- relative to the rejection of Christian evidence in the Ottoman tribunals.
In this respect, it cannot be denied there is room for amendment, not only
at Widdin, but in every province of the Empire."
He then comments on "(...) the lax
and vicious principle acted upon in the Mussulman Courts, where, as the
only means of securing justice to Christians, Mussulman false witnesses
are permitted to give evidence on their behalf. The abolition of this practice
would do more than anything else to purify these tribunals; but this can
only be effectually accomplished by the admission of Christian evidence,
instead of Mussulman perjury, as a matter of legal necessity."
He goes on to say that the forcible
abduction of Christians girls by Mahometans, "and the question of Christian
evidence are the two main points to which, as sources of bitter feeling
and discussion, the attention of the Porte should now be directed."
Comparing the condition of Christians
in the different provinces, he states, " but in Bosnia the question of
privilege was complicated by religious considerations, the nobles having,
at a former period, embraced Mahometanism to preserve their estates, which
were thus conditionally assured to them. Each of the other provinces had
passed through its peculiar ordeal."
From Consul Blunt - writing from
Pristina on July 14, 1860, to his Ambassador, Sir Henry Bulwer, about the
condition of the province of Macedonia - we learn that: "For a long time
the province (of Uscup:Skopje) has been a prey to brigandage: Christian
churches and monasteries, towns and inhabitants, are not now pillaged,
massacred, and burnt by Albanian hordes as used to be done ten years ago."
(...) "They (the Christians) are not allowed to carry arms. This, considering
the want of a good police, exposes them the more to attacks from brigands."
"Christian evidence in law-suits
between a Mussulman and a non- Mussulman is not admitted in the Local Courts."
With a few examples, he then illustrated
the consequences of such a system in everyday life: "About seventeen months
ago a Turkish soldier murdered a Mahometan, an old man, who was working
in his field. The only persons, two in number, who witnessed the deed are
Christians. The Medjlis of Uscup would not take their evidence."
"About the same time, a Zaptieh
(soldier) tried by force to convert a Bulgarian girl to Islamism. As she
declared before the Medjlis of Camanova (Kumanovo, near Skopje) that she
would not abjure her religion, he killed her in the very precincts of the
Mudir's house. This tragedy created great sensation in the province. The
Medjlises of Camanova and Prisrend (near Kosovo) would not accept Christian
evidence, and every effort was made to save the Zaptieh."
"Six months ago a Bulgarian in the
district of Camanova was attacked, without provocation on his part, by
two Albanians. They wounded him severely; on the case being referred to
Prisrend, the Medjlis refused to take congnizance of it, as the only evidence
produced was Christian."
Ten years ago, writes the consul:
"Churches were not allowed to be built; and one can judge of the measure
of toleration practised at that time by having had to creep under doors
scarcely four feet high. It was an offence to smoke and ride before a Turk;
to cross his path, or not stand up before him, was equally wrong."
In his report from Constantinople
of October 10, 1873, Sir Henry Elliot wrote to Foreign Secretary Earl Granville,
"that the nominal equality of Mussulmans and Christians before the law,
which had never thoroughly existed in practice, was now in most provinces
more illusory than it had been a few years ago."
In another report from Consul Edward
Freeman in Bosna-Serai, dated December 30, 1875, we learn that the Bosnian
Muslims had sent a petition to the sultan stating that, before the reforms,
"they lived as brothers with the Rayah (Christian) population. In fact
their aim appears to reduce the Christians to their former ancient state
of serfdom." So once again we are brought back to the myth. The situation
didn't change, and in 1875 the Grand Vizier Mahmed Pasha admitted to the
British ambassador in Constantinople, the "impossibility of allowing Christian
testimony at courts of justice in Bosnia." Thus, the ambassador noted:
"The professed equality of Christians and Mussulmans is, however, so illusory
so long as this distinction is maintained."
This juridical situation had serious
consequences due to the system of justice, as he explained: "This is a
point of much importance to the Christians for as the (Muslim) religious
courts neither admit documentary nor written evidence, nor receive Christian
evidence, they could hope for little justice from them."
The difficulty of imposing reforms
in such a vast empire provoked this disillusioned comment (December 12,
1875) from Sir P. Francis, consul-general and judge at the British Consular
Court in Constantinople: "Indeed, the modern perversion of the Oriental
idea of justice is a concession to a suitor through grace and favour, and
not the declaration of a right, on principles of law, and in pursuance
of equity."
When reading the literature of the
time, we see that the obstruction to Serbian, Greek and other Christians
movements of liberation was rooted in two main arguments:
1) Christian dhimmis (rayas) are
congenitally unfitted for independance and self-government. They should
therefore remain under Islamic rule.
2) The Ottoman rule is a perfect
model for a multi-religious and multi-ethnical society.
Indeed, these are theological, Islamic
arguments that justify the jihad, since all non-Muslim peoples should not
retain political independance because their laws are evil and must eventually
be replaced by Islamic rule. We find the same type of reasoning in the
Palestinian 1988 Covenant of the Hamas movement, which affirms that only
Islamic rule can give peace and security to Jews and Christians. Those
arguments are very common in legal and theological literature and are advanced
by modern Islamists.
We have seen the origin of the myth,
its political function and usefulness - and we have confronted this myth
with the reality, described by contemporary observers in the nineteenth
century. It is interesting to note the collusion between - on the one hand,
the European powers defending the territorial integrity of the Ottoman
Empire, for their own national interest; and on the other hand, the Muslim
policy aiming at keeping under subjection the Christian population.
The myth didn't die with the collapse
of the Turkish Empire after World War I. Rather, it took another form:
that of the National Arab Movement, which promoted an Arab society, in
which Christians and Muslims would live in perfect harmony. Once again,
this was the fabrication of European politicians, writers and clergyman.
And, in the same way as the myth of the Ottoman political paradise was
created to block the independence of the Balkan nations, so the Arab multi-religious
fraternity was an argument to destroy the national liberation movements
of non-Arab peoples of the Middle East (the Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians,
Maronites, as well as that of the Jews).
And although from the beginning
of this century until the 1930s, a stream of Christian refugees were fleeing
massacres and genocide on the roads of Turkey, Irak and Syria, the myth
continued to flourish, sustained mostly by Arab Christians writers and
clergyman. After the Israelis had succeeded in liberating their land from
the laws of jihad and dhimmitude, the myth reappeared in the form of a
multi- cultural and multi-religious, fraternal Palestine which had to replace
the State of Israel (Arafat's 1975 UN speech). Its pernicious effects led
to the destruction of the Christians in Lebanon.
One might have thought that the
myth would end there, but suddenly the recent crisis in Yugoslavia offered
a new chance for its reincarnation in a Muslim-dominated, multi-religious,
multi-ethnic state. What a chance! A Muslim state again in the heartland
of Europe. And we know the rest, the sufferings, the miseries, the trials
of the war that this myth once again brought in its wake. The 1992 UN decision
to recognize a "multi-ethnic", "multi-religious", Muslim state in the former
Yugoslavia appears to have been a compensation offered to the Islamic world
for the devastating 1991 Gulf War. The destruction of Iraq's nuclear, chemical
and bacteriological arsenal, as well as its economic infrastructure, appears
to be "equitably" counterbalanced by NATO's massive bombing of the Bosnian
Serbs, even though the two situations cannot be compared.
To conclude, I would like to say
a few last words. The civilization of dhimmitude does not develop all at
once. It is a long process that involves many elements and a specific mental
conditioning. It happens when peoples replace history by myths, when they
fight to uphold these destructive myths, more then their own values because
they are confused by having transformed lies into truth. They hold to those
myths as if they were the only garantee for their survival, when, in fact,
they are the path to destruction. Terrorized by the evidence and teaching
of history, those peoples prefer to destroy it rather than to face it.
They replace history with childish tales, thus living in amnesia, inventing
moral justification for their own self- destruction.
