The Case of a Special Meeting Between Islam and a Christian Nation A
survey from Islamic dhimma through
the Ottoman millet with
a special regard to the Armenian experience of living together with Islam By Dr. Boghos Levon Zekiyan Professor of Armenian Language and
Literature Armenians met Islam since its earliest
origins. Islam’s first impact with Differently from all earlier invaders, as
Achemenians, Parthians, Romans, Sasanians, Byzantines, the Arabs came to To resume, two basic changes took place in Obviously there is no invasion or foreign
dominion in history without shedding of blood and, often vehement, cruelty.
Nevertheless we cannot evaluate subsequent evolutions of those events uniquely
at the light of shed blood and stroke violence. As in many other similar cases,
subsequent history between the Arabs and the Armenians has also had more than
one bright moment, and above all a remarkable mutual enrichment in arts,
crafts, thought, and literature, and even phases of political collaboration and
alliance, as it happened between the Caliph and Bagratid Armenia. This history of
mutual relationship, especially in its intellectual, artistic, cultural
aspects, is still almost a virgin forest for scholarly research. The Arabs were
amazed of Having made this preliminary statement, we
still need some further remarks for a better contextualization of the announced
topic in a more adequate frame. Our first remark will be a strong caveat
against a banally superficial common place: to consider This would be a misleading attitude, frequent
indeed even among scholars, for the following reasons: a) not only Christianity itself has deeply
Oriental roots, but the Armenian Christianity, especially in its earlier
phases, derived so much from the Jerusalemite and proto-Syriac Christian
traditions which certainly represent the most prominently and genuinely
Oriental faces of early Christianity. Furthermore b) Islam, in its turn, even though originated
in a remarkably Oriental context, has come very soon, especially in its
culturally more refined currents, into an intimate contact with the Western civilization
and, in a very special way, with Greek thought, science and philosophy. Obviously, these statements do not mean
anyway ignoring all those elements in the early Armenian Christianity which are
indicative of a pro-Western, i.e. a pro-Greek/pro-Roman tendency. Simply the
reality itself is of a great complexity and has a great variety of dimensions.
It would be misleading not to perceive this or to oppose those dimensions as
irreconcilable. Religious and Ethnic Groups in Traditional
Islam The Islamic society, in its traditional,
classical form was basically formed by the umma, that is by the
people of Muslim faithful while the followers of the great Biblical religions,
Jews and Christians, called the people of the Book (ahl al-Kitab) - the Book
being the Bible - were considered as dhimma, that is “protected”, when defining the community, or dhimmīs
with regard to the individuals. The Ottoman socio-political concept and the
corresponding juridical system of millet – from Arabic milla meaning originally a
group, a sect – was based on the Islamic ethno-religious conception of dhimma
which was brought by the former to a fuller formulation as a basic element in
the composition of the new Islamic political society. In fact the original dhimmī system used to distinguish between the non Muslim subjects
but for their religion, such as Jews and Christians. It took into consideration
other elements defining a community identity, as the factors linked to
ethnicity and to the living culture of a people, but on the ancestral territory
of the submitted peoples considered as a political administrative unite of the
Muslim Empire. The Ottoman
millet system, on the contrary, recognized, according to established
criteria, the communitarian identity of the various ethnic groups, at least of some of them,
as Greeks and Armenians in particular,
even outside of the borders of
their ancestral territories; with a limit, however: that of being somehow subjects
of the State at a second degree, with mutilated rights in comparison with the
Muslim umma, in so far the members of the various non Muslim millets did not fully enjoy the same
rights owned by the Muslim subjects. Although similar, to some extent, to the
imperial law system of ancient Rome where non territorial ethnic elements were
also recognized – this we know for certain with regard, at least, to the Jews
–, the Ottoman millet system, as in
general the Muslim law systems, differed from it for their discrimination
between Muslim and non Muslim subjects. In ancient The development that led
from the dhimmī to the
Ottoman millet needs still further
investigation and explanation as to its basic rationale and its interior
dynamics. Since it was Mehmet II the Conqueror its great conceiver, who had a
very close friendship with the Armenian Bishop of Boursa, the early Ottoman
capital, prior to Constantinople, I would like to propose here as a pure
hypothesis, to be investigated and ascertained indeed, that in his
re-interpretation of the dhimmī system,
the Conqueror was perhaps inspired by the traditional Armenian model of
conceiving the ethnos, that is the «nation» (azg, in Armenian) in
the sense of ethnicity. A conception that was far from perceiving ethnicity as
a simple folklore or as something belonging to a quasi ethereal sphere that
might function as a substitute for frustrated ambitions, but rather as a real
and concrete factor defining community's identity and founding its Weltanschauung,
as I tried to show in several prior studies. Discriminations, as the ones just described in the Islamic societies,
existed, however, almost everywhere in past centuries following the collapse of
the classical Roman system, even if in different measures and according to
different modalities, and led to periodic persecutions which could end even in mass executions. Apart from these
extreme cases which prevailed rather in times of turbulence, war and invasions,
it is evident enough that those forms of statehood and governance were
essentially of a theocratic and absolutist, consequently of a dictatorial
nature. Such
features were indeed common traits, even though, as already said, in different forms and degrees, almost of
all the various regimes of the pre-modern era in human history. We must remind,
moreover, not to evaluate all those restrictions neither according to
contemporary European/Western standards, that would be a heavy anachronism, nor
on the basis of unique criteria or one-sided viewpoints. This general rule of historical hermenutics must be
applied with a special attention as
far as the great Islamic Empires, mainly
the Safavid and the Ottoman Empires, are at issue since their remarkable
differences from the Western models of State absolutism, to which we are better
accustomed, can be easy temptations to overemphasize some particularly despotic
aspects. A special caution and balance in judgement are all the more necessary for the following reasons that I would like to
point out here, to which
eventually others can be added: a)
the prohibition, for
instance, to bring arms and to become soldiers or warriors, applied to
Christians and Jews in Islamic societies, pushed the members of both these
groups to develop mercantile skills which guaranteed many of them a highly
well-off standard of life even in a larger percentage vis-à-vis the
Muslim population; b) exception to the restrictive rules were sometimes
made by Shahs or Sultans, if not on a theoretical, certainly on a practical
ground. For instance, some privileges conceded by Shāh ‘Abbās to the
Armenians offered these latter better opportunities than those enjoyed by
Muslims; c) a very special status of exception was represented by the Khojas
in Persia and the Amiras in the Ottoman State some of whom were at top
positions as counsellors and administrators of Shahs and Sultans. Ethnicity and the Nation-State Notwithstanding the now stressed limits of
both the general Islamic and the Ottoman rules – limits that cannot absolutely
be ignored or minimized, however contextualized they must be in their epochal Sitz
im Leben –, if we make a comparison of those rules with the current Western
system of the nation-State as such, in its rigorous and coherent formulation,
it is only fair to admit that this latter is capable but to realize two kinds
of identity: either the one consisting in citizenship, or the one that derives
from belonging to a territorial minority intending with this term such minority
groups that are basically linked to and recognizable in a well defined
territory as are, for instance, the Basks in Spain, the Magyar in Transylvania,
the South-Tyrolean in Italy, etc. In all other cases, which offer a remarkable
multitude of typologies, based on differences of ethnic, cultural, religious,
linguistic, and similar peculiarities, the identity of minorities is
recognized, in public life and institutions, certainly at a lesser or much
lesser degree, according to the variety of single cases, than in the above
mentioned traditional Islamic systems, even if a treatment of full
equality is guaranteed individually – which unfortunately is not even as
frequent as one could or should expect from modern democracies – to all the
individual citizens belonging to those minorities. Being an Armenian or a Greek
or a Jew, within the Ottoman State, was not a kind of “hobby”, expressible at
best in forms of an association, as often it is the case in the frame of modern
nation-States for non-territorial minorities; in fact the ethnic, cultural, and
religious identity of the various officially recognized Ottoman millets was realized in and expressed
through typical, and exclusively owned institutions which were linked to the
very existence of the community itself, independently from any contingent
personal or group initiative. Historical Forms of Fanaticism and
Intolerance, and Modern Fundamentalism The traditional Islamic systems put
moreover in light another and very important reality, of topic interest for our
time: fundamentalism was alien to the traditional, classic Islam. This is clear
in so far dhimmīs and millets had their own law and
procedures which did not coincide with the Islamic rule or sharī‘a. This does not mean at all that there was no
fanaticism in traditional Islam as there was, even if in different measures and
according to different modalities, everywhere else. The fact is that
fundamentalism is not simply fanaticism. Neither is fundamentalism synonymous
of “integralism” which also is an attitude of a literal and most rigorous
interpretation of religious law, but remaining in the inner sphere of a given
religion and of its community of faithful without conditioning other religious groups;
nor is fundamentalism synonymous with classical Medieval theocracy which
occurred, as we just said, both in the Muslim and Christian worlds and is rather
a peculiar theological view of society, State, power, sovereignty, law and
related concepts. Fundamentalism is a modern and technical concept to denote those cases
in which some religious law must be applied to all the members of a given
political community whatever their religion may be. In this technical sense, fundamentalism supposes a
conception of the law as a pure form which is a typically Western conception,
and has known its most remarkable developments in modern era, especially in the culture of
Enlightenment and of Kantian philosophy. Even if the origins of modern
fundamentalism is related mainly to religious contexts, but fundamentalist
forms of thought have had a large diffusion also in other domains of life, as
for instance in education, the conception itself of the secular state, and not
least in economics. Thus it is possible to speak of a "market
fundamentalism" (see Kensei Hiwaki,
"The enrichment of culture", in Journal of BWW Society, Nov.-Dec. 2001). As a religious trend, its origins lay in
some peculiar forms of Christian Protestantism that developed, especially in
the New Continent, through the Nineteenth century and further. Normally,
neither Ottoman Sultans nor Savafid Shahs imposed Islamic sharī‘a to their Christian subjects. Sometimes fanaticism lead
them or their representatives, their high officials, to attempt converting
those subjects by force or simply to persecute them, as already mentioned. But
it is evident that this did not happen either universally or constantly. Hence
fundamentalism, injected into modern Islam by Western models, in a strange dialectics
of contrasting and at the same time emulating the West, its models, its
achievements, sets out on a path that, both historically and ideologically, seems not to be lined
up with the basic attitude and the
world vision of the classic, traditional Islam. What I am saying is not denied even by the
catastrophic tragedy of the Armenian Genocide. In fact, its conception and
execution were due mainly to the Panturkic/Panturanian nationalistic ideology
of the modernizing and Westernizing movement of the Union and Progress party whose ideology was inspired and clumsily
copied from Western, and especially French, models. Very difficultly indeed the
theocratic Islamic ideology would conceive such a universal target, unless in
its more primitive form, common to all radically aggressive, devastating
action, of “not leaving stone upon stone”. But this latter form of action was
typical of intense contexts of war or invasion; moreover, it happened, and
normally on regional dimensions, in concurrence with the advancement of huge
waves of migrating populations or invading and destroying armies. Such was not
the historical context at all in Anatolian Turkey towards the end of the 19th
century. Nevertheless the Westernizing pioneers of the Union and Progress have been able to project and execute a muss
murder, the murder of a millet, in an exemplary way. We also know that
the Sheikh-ül-Islam of the time opposed, himself, the decision of “deportation”
of all the Armenians on the basis of eventual, conjectural imputations, judging
such generalized measures against innocent people contrary to the Islamic faith
and law requiring to punish those whose guilt was proved, but not the whole
innocent people. Some Conclusions
We can resume in the following points what
has been said above drawing some conclusions which are, I think, of topic
interest for our times: 1. the Armenian adhesion to Christian faith is
certainly one of the firmest witnesses to Christianity given by a nation or by
an ethnic group that we can ever see in history. This firmness, in any case, did
not comport as such a radical incompatibility for a peaceful coexistence with
other religions, and with Islam in particular, within an Islamic society, even
under Islamic dominion; on the contrary, Armenians were distinguished for their
sense of loyalty (they were known in the Ottoman Empire as the “loyal nation”)
contributing all out to the enrichment and progress of the societies, both Christian
and non, in which they used to live. As far as the catastrophic tragedy of the
Armenian Genocide is at issue, its conception and execution were due mainly to
the Panturanian nationalistic ideology of the modernizing and Westernizing
movement of the Union and Progress
party whose ideology was inspired and clumsily copied from Western models. 2. Religious fundamentalism, which is to be
accurately distinguished from simple fanaticism, intolerance, and even from
religious integralism, and which forms one of the major and most awful concerns
of our days, does not derive from the inner nature of Islam as such. It
certainly did not exist, in its current theoretical, universalistic forms of
our days, neither in the Safavid nor in the Ottoman Empires, which were,
without any doubt, theocratic Islamic entities based on sharī‘a. As a rule, however, except in cases of local violent
persecution or institutional prescriptions imposing Islamic faith, as in the
case of the devşirme (the forced
recruiting of adolescent boys to raise them as future janissaries and officials
of the Empire), neither Shahs nor Sultans thought to impose, as a rule, Islamic
law to their non Muslim subjects. 3. The Islamic dhimma, and later the
Ottoman millet systems,
although limited in their conception of human rights, so that non Muslim
subjects were somehow considered as “subjects” of a secondary degree, balances,
however, this limitation by its explicit recognition of an ethno-cultural group
identity, different from that of the dominant Islamic majority. In the ancient
classical West, the A synthesis between the best
of the classical imperial “cosmopolitan” systems and the modern conception of
full citizenship – as taught and practiced in the nation-States of a Western
standard which gave us a rather great chart of human rights, and especially of
the rights of human person, regardless of any eventual factor of discrimination
– seems not only theoretically possible, but also actually suitable. It can
offer a highly appropriate path to come out from the blind alley in which things
seem entrapped today, with inter-cultural and inter-religious relations
following the big bang, at global extensions, of migratory movements and
inter-ethnic conflicts. An
essential bibliography: BRAUDE Benjamin - LEWIS Bernard, (ed.),
Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, 2 vols., Holmes & Meier
Publishers, GREGORIAN Vartan, Islam: A Mosaic, Not a Monolith, Carnegie Corporation of HEMMINGER Hansjörg,
(ed..), Fundamentalismus in der verweltlichen Kultur, Quell, Stuttgart,
1991. KERBER
Walter (ed.), Wie tolerant ist der Islam? Isslamwissenschaftler nehmen
Stellung, (Fragen einer neuen Weltkultur, Bd. 6), Peter Kindt Verlag,
München, 1991. KÜNG Hans -
MOLTMANN Jürgen, (ed.), Oecuménisme. Le fondamentalisme, défi
œcuménique: Concilium, Revue Internationale de Théologie, N° 241, 1992. LAURENT Joseph, L’Arménie
entre Byzance et l’Islam depuis la conquête arabe jusuqu’en 886 (Paris,
1919), nouvelle édition revue et mise à jour par M. [Marius] Canard, (Armenian
Library of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation), Librairie Bertrand, Lisbonne,
1980. LEPSIUS Johannes, Der Todesgang des armenischen Volkes.
Bericht über das Schicksal des armenischen Volkes in der Türkei während des
Weltkrieges, Vierte Auflage, Missionshandlung und Verlag, Potsdam, 1930, 1st
ed., Potsdam, 1916. MARCUS
Abraham, The PANE Riccardo, SANJIAN Avedis, The
Armenian Communities in ZEKIYAN Boghos Levon, “L'«idéologie»
nationale de Movses Xorenac‘i et sa conception de 1’histoire, Handes Amsorya, CI (1987), pp. 471-485. ― “The
Iranian Oikumene and Armenia”, in Iran
and the Caucasus, vol. 9 (2005), pp. 231-256. Dr. Boghos Levon Zekiyan was born in In 1974 Dr. Zekiyan moved to Since 1978 Professor Zekiyan has animated
some of the major activities in Armenian Culture in Italy, such as the first
Festival of Armenian Cinema in Italy in 1983, the series of conferences
entitled Armenians in Italian Culture, the 5th International Symposium on
Armenian Art in 1988, the exhibition 'The Armenians in Italy' in 1990, and
since 1986, the Summer Intensive Course on Armenian Language and Culture. In
1982 Dr. Zekiyan joined the Committee Board of the newly founded Association
International des Etudes Armeniennes. He is President of the special Armenian
Studies 2004 Committee for the celebration of the 16th centenary of the
Armenian alphabet. He was one of the founders of the Association Padus-Aries in
1987, and of the Association Italiarmenia in 1991. Dr. Zekiyan is the author of 11 monographs
and over 100 scholarly articles in six languages. He also directed the first
audiovisual course on the Armenian language. Dr. Evian's scholarly interests
mainly concern Armenian studies in different dimensions, such as literature and
philology, Church history, and Armenian thought and identity, as well as
philosophical and theological issues, such as the problem of consciousness, the
philosophical idea of humanism, the question of value, and the attempt at a
theology of ethnicity. A brilliant orator, Dr. Zekiyan speaks
eight and can understand twelve languages. He has given almost three hundred
lectures and has presented more than fifty scholarly papers at international
conferences in different countries of the world. In 1992 Dr. Zekiyan was named
a corresponding member of the Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, and
in 1994 he was accepted as a member of the National Academy of Sciences of the
Republic of Armenia. [ BWW Society Home Page ] © 2007 The Bibliotheque: World Wide Society |