The point of al this is that Turks possessed of their barbarous natures, are no friend of America's. Our President has wisely shoved them off to the wayside...
ARMENIAN ALLEGATIONS and THE FACTS
ARTICLES
HAVE TURKS ALWAYS IMPOSED PRESSURE AND CRUELTY AGAINST ARMENIANS THROUGHOUT HISTORY?
The Armenian propaganda has been advocating that the Turks have always mistreated non-Muslims and Armenians throughout the history, in order to rest its allegation of "Genocide" on a historical basis. Because, they believe that they can not reply the question "how did Turks, having lived together with the Armenians for 600 years, decide to annihilate the Armenians in one day" if they do not have such an allegation. Another factor directing Armenians to hold this allegation firmly is to misrepresent the issue and transform it into a "Christian-Muslim struggle" and thus gain the support of the world of Christianity in advance.
The Armenian historians themselves write that the Armenians welcomed the entry of Turks in Anatolia in the air of festivity because of the Byzantine cruelty they had been subjected to. Because the Seljuks started to protect the Armenian church, which was attempted to be suppressed and demolished by the Byzantine, abolished the grave taxes imposed by the Byzantine on Armenian church, monasteries and clerical class and exempted them from tax, set the Armenian society free in religion, education and internal affairs, did not intervene with their internal affairs and never forced the Armenians to become Muslim. Armenian spiritual leader visited Sultan Melikşah against this attitude of the Seljuks and presented his gratitude. Briefly, the Armenians could preserve both their existence as a society and their religions and church during this period due to the Turks.
This phenomenon was also mentioned with pride by the Armenian historians themselves. Armenian historian Mateos of Urfa mentioned Seljuk Sultan Melikşah as follows in his chronicle no. 129:
"Melikşah's heart was full of tenderness and kindness towards Christians. He treated the children of Jesus very nice. He brought welfare, peace and happiness to the Armenian people."3
Mateos wrote the following after the death of Sultan Kılıç Aslan:
"Christians were much grieved upon the death of Kılıç Aslan. Because this Sultan had a lofty character and was a charitable person."
How good the Seljuk Turks treated the Armenians is evident in that some Armenians such as Taşirk family spontaneously accepted Islam and struggled against Byzantine together with Turks.
The good treatment of Turks towards non-Muslims finds its expression in the Islam-Turk philosophy. This philosophy can be summarized as follows:
When Turks included the territories of non-Muslim tribes into their countries, they made an agreement called zimma with the people of these regions. The rights of non-Muslim people were secured by means of this agreement and such people were called zımmî. Thus, people of other religions were treated with a tolerance that was not witnessed until then. The philosophies of "regarding 72 nations as one" and "come as you are" of great philosophers such as Yunus Emre and Mevl'na Celaleddin Rumî of that period should be evaluated within this framework. When the sect struggles among Christians and the cruelty applied by Byzantine on the Armenians are considered, it is evident how humanly an approach this is.
Upon the foundation and development of the Ottoman State and particularly the collapse of Byzantine as a result of the conquest of Istanbul, a new era that was experienced in no period of their history was opened for the Armenians and they were released from all religious, political, social, economic and cultural suppressions and a time of peace, confidence and welfare started.
As it is known, the Ottoman State was a Turkish-origined multinational state with an Islamic structure. There is place for other nations as well as Turks within this multinational structure. The first Ottoman Sultan Osman Bey allowed the Armenians to be organized as an individual society in Anatolia to be protected from Byzantine cruelty and the first Armenian religious center in Western Anatolia was founded in Kütahya. Upon the conquest of Bursa and making it the capital city, this religious center was transferred to Bursa from Kütahya and the Armenian religious leader Hovakim was brought to Istanbul in 1461 following the conquest of Istanbul by Fatih Sultan Mehmet and through the firman of Fatih, an Armenian patriarchy was founded in Istanbul.4 Consequently, Armenian immigration started from Caucasus, Eastern and Middle Anatolia, Balkans and Crimea to Istanbul and the Ottoman Empire became a center of attraction for Armenians. As it is seen, Armenian society and church developed in parallel with the development of the Ottoman State.
Ottoman Empire organized Gregorian Armenians under the name of a "nation" and left their rule to their own religious leaders. In his firman founding the Armenian Patriarchy, Fatih sultan Mehmet resolved that the Patriarch was both religious and material leader of all Armenians living within the empire.
While enjoying all rights granted to the Muslims, the Armenians also had some privileges, for example, they were not enlisted to the military. Not being enlisted provided continuity to the Armenian families, thus leading them to welfare.
Tribute and capitation taxes were imposed on Muslims and non-Muslims, but they were exempted from devotion and tithe taxes imposed on Muslims. Determining the manner of distribution of tribute and capitation taxes over the Armenian society was left to the religious leaders.
Ottoman administration assisted the Armenians when their financial power was insufficient to carry out their religious, cultural, educational and felicity affairs, met the deficits of the Patriarchy and provided financial assistance to Armenian institutions. This foundation system is today still preserved.
We also want to emphasize one point here: As Orthodox Greeks were organized before Armenians, all Christian subjects other than Orthodox Greeks were considered as Armenians. Christians that have no relation with Armenians, such as Pauliciens and Jacobites in Anatolia and Bogomils in the Balkans, were included in these subjects. This should be given consideration particularly in the disputes on the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire.
Armenian society rapidly developed and reached welfare through the utilization of the rights and privileges granted to them and moreover, adopting the Turkish-Ottoman culture, living style and administration, they soon deserved the confidence of the Ottomans and were entitled to receive the title "loyal nation". Ottoman Armenians came to important positions both in business life and in public services. 29 pashas, 22 ministers, 33 deputies, 7 Ambassadors, 11 Consul Generals and Consuls, 11 University instructors and 41 supreme officials of the Armenians are recorded in Ottoman history. Among Armenian Ministers, there were ones who were at extremely important and key positions such as Foreign, Finance, Trade and Postage Ministers.5
Armenians made important contributions to Ottoman-Turkish art, culture and music and brought up famous artists. These artists are today still referred to as sources of pride for Turkish Armenians and Turks.
It would be appropriate to indicate here that the first Armenian printing office in the world was established in Istanbul in 16th century.
Thus, Armenians lived in peace and confidence with all subjects of the Empire -primarily Turks- until late 19th century and they had no complaint or problem about Ottoman administration.
On the other hand, they has some internal disputes at times. The Armenians that came to Istanbul from Anatolia and Crimea before and immediately after the conquest of Istanbul, called "Local" Armenians and those that came from Iran and Caucasus called "Oriental" or "Country" Armenians launched a struggle because of the election of the Patriarch, complained of each other to the ottomans and tried to make the administration intervene in their favor respectively. Ottomans persistently remained unbiased against Armenian groups and internal problems. As this struggle was won by the "Oriental"s, non-clerical persons were also started to be assigned as the patriarch and position and title disputes were sometimes transformed into bloody conflicts. The Ottomans intervened at that stage and prevented the Armenians from killing each other.
Sect struggles was another factor making the Armenians fight fiercely. The spread of Catholicism and Protestantism among Armenians particularly as a result of foreign interventions caused great resentment among Gregorian Armenians and the Gregorian Armenians applied to the Ottoman administration for the prevention of this situation. When the Ottoman administration did not intervene this development that it considered to be an internal problem of the Armenians, bloody conflicts were seen again and the Armenians who accepted Protestantism were excommunicated by the Patriarchs called Çuhacıyan and Tahtacıyan.6 Later, conflicts arose between the Catholics as well, with respect to being dependent on Vatican or not, the Pope excommunicated those Armenians who were not dependent on Vatican and the Ottoman administration intervened the situation and made peace between these two Catholic groups in 1888.
This vast tolerance shown by the Ottomans towards non-Muslims made the Empire a country to take shelter for all people escaping from religious cruelty until the years of collapse. Christians of one sect subjected to the cruelty of Christians of another sect and the Jews subjected to serious tortures by the Catholics found salvation in taking refuge with the Ottomans. The most evident example for that is the immigration of Jews to the Ottoman Empire both after the reoccupation of Spain by the Catholics in late 15th century and during the following centuries while escaping from the Christian suppression in France, Middle Europe and Russia.
Whereas the truth is as above, one should either lack logic, conscience, comprehension, fairness and historical knowledge or be prejudiced to allege that Turks mistreated non-Muslims and Armenians, suppressed and subdued them, because there is no other way of explanation. It is approved in the works of many foreign historians and authors that history contradicts this allegation.
Many historians and authors extending from Asoghik and Mateos to Voltaire, lamartine, Claide Farrere, Pierre Loti, Nogueres, Ilone Caetani, Phillip Marshall Brown, Mitchelet, Sir Charles Wilson, Politis, Arnold, Bronsart, Roux, Grousset, Edgar Granville, garnier, Tuynbee, Lewis, Price, Bombaci and Shaw, some of which can not be qualified as friends of Turks at all, acknowledged the righteousness of Turks on this matter.
We would like to close this issue by referring to some of these and seeing what they had said.
Voltaire:
"Great Turks rule 20 nations of various religions in peace. They taught Christians to be moderate in war and tender in victory."
Phillip Marshall Brown:
"In spite of the great victory that they gained, Turks generously granted to the people of the places they conquest the right to self-rule with their own laws and traditions."
Politis, Foreign Minister of Venizelos Government:
"The interests of Greeks in Turkey could not have been so much protected by any power other than Turks."
J.W. Arnold:
"It is a fact that can not be denied by the history that Turkish armies did not intervene with the religion and culture at the places they conquest."
German General Bronsart:
"Turks are the most tolerant people of the world towards people of other religions unless they are disturbed."
Finally, we would like to give the following example: Napoleon Bonaparte considers to make the Catholic Armenians in Ottoman Empire rebel against the administration and take some kind of revenge upon Akka defeat. He asks whether this would be possible to his Ambassador in Istanbul. The reply of the Ambassador is clear and definite:
"Armenians are so pleased with their lives that this is impossible."
Footnotes:
(3) MATEOS OF URFA (Mathieu d'Edesse); Chronicles, No. 129.
(4) URAS, Esat; Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi, 2nd Edition, Istanbul, 1976, p. 149.
(5) Türk Ermenilerinden Gerçekler, Jamanak Publication, Istanbul, 1980, p. 4 and KOÇAŞ, Sadi; Tarih Boyunca Ermeniler ve Türk-Ermeni İlişkileri, Ankara, 1967, pp. 92-I 15.
(6) SCHEMSI, Kara; Turcs et Armeniens devant l'Histoire, Genere, Imprimeric Nationale, 1919, p. 19.