TURKEY - ISLAM - Forced Islamisation of Armenians raises questions about today's Turkey [AN]


#1

Ethnic and religious cleansing accompanied the genocide perpetrated by the Young Turks and the construction of Ataturk’s new Turkey. Millions of Turks are related to Armenians. Crypto-Armenians and Crypto-Christians are now breaking their silence.

More…


#2

It is strange how the world rushes to the defence of Islamic radicals. Hitler is reported to have said once, " Who remembers the Armenians? "

Linus2nd


#3

Since forced Islamisation has occurred in Turkey, I wonder where else it ha occurred. Is forced conversion to Islam a common practice in Islam?


#4

Yes, from the very beginning. Many books available on the spread of Islam. Robert Spenser ( see: jihadwatch.org/ ), Bat Ye’or, and Joan Peters are excellent sources.

Linus2nd


#5

Just some minor issues with the article-

“The founding of the new Turkish Republic was premised on the policies of Islamisation and genocide pursued by the Young Turks and the Committee of Union and Progress.”
The social and legal history of the Turkish Republic doesn’t support this conclusion of “Islamization.” Sultanate- abolished, Caliphate- abolished, call to prayer- in Turkish not Arabic, the move toward the “separation of Church and State” liberal position so many on here label as a sure sign of secularism, and a rather big one for those all caught up in our politicians praying before meetings- they fired the Imam responsible for this for their version of Congress and got rid of the position

“…since its aim was to establish a new Turkey that would be Sunni Muslim. Even Kemal Ataturk, founder of Turkey’s so-called secular republic, appealed to Muslim solidarity to consolidate his power. In short, a real Turk was a Muslim Turk.”
Apparently not since the very Muslim and Sunni Kurds living in Turkey are still facing persecution and attempts by the Turkish government to “get rid of them.” Turkey didn’t help us with the Iraq war not because they liked Saddam, but because of the possible uprising of Turkish and Iraqi Kurds.

The genocide of the Armenians and the continued willful blindness of it by the world shouldn’t be used as a tool to push an opinion, especially an opinion (Islamization) that isn’t supported by the facts. The author of the article should be ashamed of himself.


#6

Historically, this is not a common practice, and for very good reasons. Non-Muslims pay a different tax rate than Muslims, so it was not in the interests of the caliphs/authorities to have vast sectors of the population converting. Submitting to the Islamic authority was sufficient.
That is not to say that forced conversions are not happening, or never happened, but just that it was not the typical practice.

Girls in Egypt are being kidnapped and forced to convert through marriage though.


#7

You need to read the references I suggested. " Forced conversions " have always be a part of Islamization. The degree of force applied is not always the same. It varies from country and from time to time. Violence, threats of torture and death are rather common in some African countries as of this moment. Other countries simply use political, social, and economic intimidation, which is still and example of " forced Islamization. "

Linus2nd


#8

And what does this all say about those countries that are members of NATO and would be obligated to defend Turkey ?


#9

There was the case in Indonesia of a Christian converting to Islam in order of marry the Muslima of his life. After he says that he did not believe in Islam, just that it was a means to an end, and that he was really still a Christian.
In a way, I suppose that kind of conversion is forced too.

What I did was give the general rule, and a specific counter example to that rule. The general rule is that it was not traditionally in the ruling authorities interest to have all their conquered people convert to Islam, because that would mean that were converting out of a higher tax bracket into a lower one. On the other hand, over the centuries, for those not so fervently Christian or Jewish especially, it has been a pretty simple thing for them to say the formulaic code that converts them to a Muslim, in order to raise their economic and social status in the House of Islam, and from that point on they and their progeny will be Muslim forever.
Countries like Turkey are pretty much 99 % Muslim now. It took centuries for them to convert from Christianity to Islam, but it is the process of a death by a thousand cuts. Unlike in Roman persecution, where each successive persecution resulted in a Christian population returning stronger and more numerous than before, this has been more of the steady drip, drip, drip of the Chinese water torture. Islam is a system that is consciously political and it does realize that the nature of strong persecution means that the Christian communities subjected to that kind of treatment will coalesce against them-much like the Armenians have now against the Turks.
Modern Islamists are not so coldly analytic in that regard, but Islamists are a modern aberration. Moreover, the forced conversions of young Christian girls I referred to is more like the traditional humiliations and mistreatment that dhimmi populations have always been subjected to. Due to their lowered status, criminal activities against Christian communities are are seldom acted against by the state. The Muslim authorities don’t bother themselves with such things.


#10

It means that the Turkey that entered into those NATO agreements is no longer the Turkey that is now emerging under the Islamist Ergodan.


#11

No, it wasn’t “sufficient” in most places. Building on what Linus said, forced conversion was indeed typical. How else do you explain Byzantium turning into a land with 99% Muslims today? Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey-- these were all Christian lands before being conquered by Muslim armies.

It’s true that at different times and different places, the harshness of the dhimmi laws varied. There were many factors involved in shaping the occupation of a country: how rich it was, how cruel the Muslim conqueror was, and what sort of internal divisions allowed the conquerors to play groups off one another. Read up on the Muslim conquest of Albania, as that was very bloody over many decades.

A sultan might make laws saying that Christian children could not inherit land from their parents, that it had to be given to the Muslim leader. The taxes on Christians were meant to be back-breaking, and the humiliation and fear of not being able to feed their children, or knowing that their children would starve or be enslaved led many Christians to convert. If you don’t think that is forced conversion, I disagree.

historyofjihad.com/sitemap.html

About what it says about all those EU countries that have not enforced UN rulings requiring the Turks to end their occupation of northern Cyprus.


#12

I disagree, somewhat at least… Heretical Christians, for example, were treated with much more tolerance in the Byzantium of the caliphs than they were in the Orthodox domains of patriarchs and emperors.
That does not make the Ottomans tolerant in a modern sense, but there was tolerance in Islam that was often not present in Christendom.

Building on what Linus said, forced conversion was indeed typical. How else do you explain Byzantium turning into a land with 99% Muslims today? Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey-- these were all Christian lands before being conquered by Muslim armies.

I know, and I already explained that in a subsequent post.
What is important, I think, is to pay attention to the nuances.

It’s true that at different times and different places, the harshness of the dhimmi laws varied. There were many factors involved in shaping the occupation of a country: how rich it was, how cruel the Muslim conqueror was, and what sort of internal divisions allowed the conquerors to play groups off one another. Read up on the Muslim conquest of Albania, as that was very bloody over many decades.

A sultan might make laws saying that Christian children could not inherit land from their parents, that it had to be given to the Muslim leader. The taxes on Christians were meant to be back-breaking, and the humiliation and fear of not being able to feed their children, or knowing that their children would starve or be enslaved led many Christians to convert. If you don’t think that is forced conversion, I disagree.

I am aware of all this. Taxes often took the form of confiscating children, to serve as castrated Janissaries, or in the harems, etc. etc… I don’t think it was Muslims that St Nicholas rescued the children of poor families from with his gifts, but this is the kind of
‘taxes’ that poor people were often subjected too in those times.

What should also be noted is that the crushing poverty that was typical for Christians, was not all that untypical for the vast majority of Muslims too. Poverty was literally crushing in those times. Humanitarianism was not much of a concern for anybody before Catholic reformers such as Erasmus and others came up with a radical insight about their Christian faith.


#13

the exact same thing is happening in the US!! that is something I find very strange. If you watch any of the mainstream media stations, you will never hear them speak negatively about Muslims, Islam, or even Islamic terrorism to some degree, yet they bad mouth Christianity every chance they get.

Its only a matter of time before the Muslims get what they want here in the US, Heck, maybe even Sharia law!!!


#14

I thought this was about ‘turkey’ and “…today’s turkey” . :smiley:


#15

-I’m pretty sure the Janissaries, or at least the majority of them, weren’t castrated. There existed within Ottoman policies a support system for the families and children of Janissaries.
-The tolerance shown other religions in the Ottoman Empire wasn’t based on religious tolerance or humanitarianism, but on politics (easier to keep the peace and have a stable empire if the people you conquer are allowed to keep their faith and local customs)


#16

I think that that was overall the point that was trying to get across. Islam is as much a political system based in intelligent and rational calculations as it is a system based on personal belief. The models that were available to the Arabs when they suddenly found themselves with a huge empire, were the Byzantine and the Persian, both which had official religions. Decisions that the early caliphs made about their new religion were specifically designed to avoid some of the political pratfalls that Christianity had fallen into, with all the endless religious debates and divisions that came about in Christianity.
.
The main interests was not to convert the huge Christian populations that were now their subjects, but to ensure that they were properly subjected and understood that fully. Decisions were also made in which to keep the coffers as full as possible, and higher taxes on people of the book was a calculated decision too. Over time, to be sure, the Islamic political system was brilliant in erasing Christianity and other religions from the map, but the method was not to force their beliefs down the Christians throats, which is not possible anyway on a large scale.


#17

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.