|
Post by manijak on Jun 9, 2009 5:40:38 GMT -5
I'm sure we've had a topic about this and you can link to it if its easier..but i was wondering, when the Ottomans came into our area.
a) did they force people to convert? b) generally, how did they treat people?
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on Jun 9, 2009 5:44:29 GMT -5
The glorious Ottomans liberated the area.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Jun 9, 2009 5:47:02 GMT -5
lol
i thought i remember fazla saying they didn't force people to convert.
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Jun 9, 2009 5:49:09 GMT -5
Yes to first q, and yes and no to second. This has all be written about before...
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Jun 9, 2009 7:58:54 GMT -5
I'm sure we've had a topic about this and you can link to it if its easier..but i was wondering, when the Ottomans came into our area. a) did they force people to convert? b) generally, how did they treat people? ok let's also give some facts linked to our answers: Up to this day no Croat nor Serb ever gave ANY whatsoever document where there are witnessed forceful conversions to Islam. And I really mean it, if there are please show them. The concept of missionarism is more or less alien to Islam. As a matter of fact if we look at history Islam has always been spread either in societies that were conquered by muslims, by the emigration of muslims or by merchants(as in the case of malesia and indonesia). ONLY than, when there'd be known that already exists a community of muslims somewhere would the ulema organize itself to send some imams there to help the population in their religious matters. It's an extremely simple fact which says it all: if Turks forced people to convert, in 400 years there would be no christians left. If Turks wanted a pure muslim states they wouldn't accept Jews expelled by christians from Spain and Portugal. If Turks wanted a pure muslim state the SULTAN wouldn't renew the Serbian patriarchate in Pec in 1557. There are a number of traditions as for Bosnia which are all wrong: 1) forceful conversion en masse (no document EVER suggests this) 2) The most of muslims are descendants of the old followers of the bosnian church (Islam was accepted by every religion followers) 3) There's an attested tradition trough a document which later showed to be just a not-truthful tradition that says when Jajce fell around 36000 families went to the Sultan and freely accepted Islam, and around 30000 Bosniaks became Janissaries. (it's a document from 1724 in Istanbul). This tradition tried to explain why in Bosnia and Albania instead of christian kids only muslim kids were recruited in the Janissary order. Because that's what happened Bosniaks and Albanians are the only people in the Empire (and another one I don't remember who wanted their kids to become Janissaries). Still it holds no truth, as the Janissary order itself in the time of Sultan Faith had around 8000 people. In 1624 the Albanian Petar Masarechi writes about the en masse conversion to Islam of forcefully catholicized Bosniaks, and he writes how that happened because they remembered about their old faith (bosnian church), and as such were not strong in their catholic faith thus as Turks arrived they accepted Islam to remain free. For those who do not know the last Bosnian king forcefully catholicized people so 1)the pope wouldn't bring a crusade on Bosnia and so that 2) he'd have allies against Turks, which he didn't have anyways. Still all those "en masse" theories hold little truth when we look at Turkish documents. The process of islamisation was a constant process that started from 1463, and continued all until the end of the IXX century. Sometimes it went faster, sometimes slower but it always remained a gradual process. The process had it's peak after 1526 to 1750. Islam and the Ottoman empire compared to the previous regimes brought a lot more safety and stability. One just has to remember what happened when Tvrtko died, the nobility wars were a plague to Bosnia. Islam was a new way of life that people liked. For an example in Slavonia in 1536 when Ottomans captured Brod the cardinal of Zagreb Simun Erdody writes how "it can be confirmed how after the capture of Brod more than 40000 people left christianity, apart those who were taken as slaves. More and more people are doing that in the hope that they'll live the rest of their life in more peaceful times." Ten days later he writes to king Ferdinand how "Unfortunately, these poor people are taking muhammad's faith strongly rejecting Christ the Saviour. That is happening in such numbers that my own vassals around Sopje's fortress left me, accepting Turkish government". Again, no documents show how any Ottoman forcefully converted any town or village as a matter of fact the most of "christian" rethoric hold that people did it so that they could still retain their privileges. But this also has so many flawed points. The privileges of all the nobilities were Ottomans arrived were quitted in order to perform Ottoman rule and law. Everyone lost such privilages. The new ottoman "nobility" which can't be considered such in the European sense of the word were made up of Spahis and such Spahis as Vladislav Skaric writes were also christian all up to the great austrian-turkish war (1683-1699). How did they threat people... simply put, not basing on religion, but on loyality. Anyone who'd go against the Ottoman empire was harshly dealt with, muslim, christian or jew.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Jun 9, 2009 8:22:01 GMT -5
So basically, bosnian king tried to forcefully make some groups in bosnia catholic? you are then suggesting these same people were likley to accept islam when the ottomans arrived? (to retain privileges?)
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jun 9, 2009 11:38:48 GMT -5
If Turks had forced people become Muslims, than the entire Balkans would be Muslim!
The Ottomans were the most powerful empire - if they had wanted they could have killed everyone, like the Americans and Spanish killed all the Indians. But they didn't.
Turks respected people of other religions, and allowed them to practice it.
This is the propoganda made by Christians in order to hate Turks and aka Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jun 9, 2009 11:40:35 GMT -5
Also, Bulgarians same the same think about Pomaks - which are Muslim Bulgarians, that they were forced to convert to Islam.
But if you talk to any Pomaks, you will see that is not true.
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Jun 9, 2009 12:47:17 GMT -5
I'm sure we've had a topic about this and you can link to it if its easier..but i was wondering, when the Ottomans came into our area. a) did they force people to convert? b) generally, how did they treat people? I think an important thing to remember about the Ottomans is that there wasnt a singular frame of mind. There didnt exist a single concept of rule amidst all the rulers. Things depended heavily on the bureaucracy of the times. As in any entity, it depended heavily on the quality of the local (Aga, Bey or Pasha) and his own sensibility towards the people he was governing over. A harsh, more Islamic one, could increase the difficulty of non-Muslim life just as a liberal one could make it easier. That depended greatly. There are instances of forced conversion, and these were usually the result of failed revolts. In the aftermath of such an event the local churches could be usurped by the ottomans and converted into mosques, or just destroyed and then rebuilt as mosques. In these instances life could be become harder for the non-Muslim peasants out of revenge and thus Islaminization would increase.
|
|
|
Post by alb12345 on Jun 9, 2009 13:18:49 GMT -5
when the ottomans come we only ones who did fight for freedom and half of polulacion left albania and whent to italy after scanderbeg death. Albanians, Christian as well as Moslem, to the reforms introduced by the sultan Mahmud II. led to the devastation of the country and the expatriation of thousands of its inhabitants. During the next half-century several local revolts occurred, but no movement of a strictly political character took place till after the Berlin Treaty (July 13, 1878), when some of the Moslems and Catholics combined to resist the stipulated transference of Albanian territory to Austria-Hungary, Servia and Montenegro, and the Albanian League was formed by an assemblage of chiefs at Prizren. The movement, which was instigated by the Porte with the object of evading the provisions of the treaty, was so far successful that the restoration .of Playa and Gusinye to Albania was sanctioned by the powers, Montenegro receiving in exchange the town and district of Dulcigno. The Albanian leaders, however, soon displayed a spirit of independence, which proved embarrassing to Turkish diplomacy and caused alarm at Constantinople; their forces came into conflict with a Turkish army under Dervish Pasha near Dulcigno (November 1880), and eventually the league was suppressed. A similar agitation on a smaller scale was organized in southern Albania to resist the territorial concessions awarded by the powers to Greece. In the spring of 1903 serious disturbances took place in north-western Albania, but the Turks succeeded in pacifying the revolted tribesmen.
For Albanians education is almost non-existent, and the vast majority of the population, both Christian and Moslem, are totally illiterate. Instruction in the Albanian language is prohibited by the Turkish government for political reasons. There are two Servian seminaries at Prizren. In southern Albania there are Greek schools in the towns and a large Greek gymnasium at Iannina. The priests of the Greek Church, on whom the rural population depend for instruction, are often deplorably ignorant. Ottomans turks did not allow albanian schools but they allow serbian and greek schools in albania. For albanians under ottomans has been the hardest time in our history
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Jun 9, 2009 13:34:08 GMT -5
Basically the Bosnians sold out and mostly adopted this new religion in favour of the one they clearly did not believe in. There is proof of mass migrations from Croats into Bosnia (who LATER converted to Islam) and Croats from Bosna to Croatia (who KEPT their Catholic roots). I mean if you have amazing faith in your own religion and it's bringing you peace and happiness; why would you convert? People did it because it was convienient and there was something to gain from it. Therefore they sold their beliefs and souls. There are document showing the deportation of Croats and Bosnians out of the region; but as we know it did happen without consent. But for some reason the majority want to hide this fact as a part of our history.
thracian08, your point is meaningless. They wanted to rule and be a stronghold like all other empires before and after. If they had succeeded, which they didn't; then yes a majority of the Balkans and other regions of Europe would have converted.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Jun 9, 2009 13:35:39 GMT -5
lol you can't sell-out if you don't believe something in the first place.
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Jun 9, 2009 13:44:07 GMT -5
Ok an example. In a current day situation in the western world, if I was to convert religions : People would be asking me, "why on earth when you don't even believe and have faith in your own religion 100%, would you convert to another"? Makes sense which is why I wouldn't change. The people of the Balkans choose another path because it was the flavour of the month and they would have received benefits and felt a part of the group as other's were doing it around them. That among many other reasons.
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jun 9, 2009 14:01:54 GMT -5
why would you convert? People did it because it was convienient and there was something to gain from it. Therefore they sold their beliefs and souls
Ok, I get the opportunism part. But what does that have to do with souls being lost? LOL
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Jun 9, 2009 14:14:48 GMT -5
Ok first of all, because I question history, religion and politics; it is because I want to learn and I want to learn the truth. In this case I am not against Islam or the Bosnian identity; so don't take it like many do here "Oh you are the enemy". I am not the enemy or AGAINST BOSNIA. I am seeking and projecting the truth.
A soul is lost when you sell out what you believe in for a benefit, or just because other's expect that from you. i.e doing only as your parents tell you, or doing something against the law for monetary benefit; changing your religious beliefs is the same. Hope that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by insomniac on Jun 9, 2009 14:33:44 GMT -5
I'm not Bosniak anyway but an Albanian of orthodox christian heritage. Which should make me impartial [at least theoretically] in arguing about Islam.
If being opportunist means you have lost your souls; than perhaps a lot of people don't have souls.
Second, you traveled from Croatia to Australia. You did that for a benefit. As a result, your actions were opportunistic. Are you a lost soul? Or better yet. Serbs converted from paganism to a religion that spread from the Middle-East. They too did it for a benefit. Are they lost souls?
So why is being opportunistic a bad thing? People act for their self-interest every day.
So what if a Balkanian in 14th century wanted to have less taxes. Therefore he changed into a religion in which in the first place he didn't care about.
It doesn't make him a lost soul. It makes him a smarta$$.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Jun 9, 2009 14:57:00 GMT -5
One of the smartest things you have ever said. But I think you drew some other faulty conclusions.
BIH is not a succesful country because it is going in so many different directions and that can definetley be attributed to losing its soul. You are 100% right there.
But Insomniac is right to say what happened is nothing more than opportunism, and in some peoples eyes, smart decision making. People always want better for themselve. If you thought that way, you can basically call all Americans, Canadians, sell-outs for leaving their homeland, but they left for a better life and better days. And they are two of the most succesful nations in the world. And that is what happened here as well. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Jun 9, 2009 15:03:46 GMT -5
First of all, we can continue this discussion via PM because you clearly don't understand my thoughts...in a sec. :-)
Secondly, I did not travel to a far away land in which I did not know the language or culture. My wonderful granparents did with their young children (which I thank them personally every time I see them). They did not sell who they were at any time and were not paid to do so (in fact the old Yugoslav govt received benefits from the Australian govt, FACTUALLY enough to release people who wished to leave after about 1967, beforehand it was harder to leave). They did so because they decided to bring up their children in a free, peaceful country full of opportunity rather than staying in a country that didn't recognise their hard efforts. This is not selling your soul or changing beliefs for ones gain. This is common sense to keep their family together, in a happy properous environment. This is again, why I thank everyrytime I enjoy peace with them, talk, enjoy food and coffee with them. That I am grateful of. I am also grateful to be alive everytime I hear the story my baka tells me of the air bomb that did not explode next to her bed in '42. I am happy to be alive. What they did was not going against their country or their friends, family, or religion. What they did was a positive and selfless act for their children and future grandchildren; not opportunistic. They did not receive payment or discounts from either government to move to a country 20,000km from their homeland. They had to start with nothing, nada not one cent.
manijak, people are not sell outs. Sounds like a sermen a priest gave us back during the war telling the whole congregation that we are all sell outs and they we should all sell up and ship back to Croatia (like you are going to take you're whole family back to a country when you and you're family have 20 years in a new country), whilst we were rallying for a better Bosnia and Croatia from day one since we settled in Australia. And not only supported voluntarily with time but also monetarily; these countries would have been nothing without the WHOLE support of the diaspora. This priest was clearly a dickhead. :-)
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Jun 9, 2009 15:11:22 GMT -5
yes, there was no direct payment..but they went for a better opportunity, they left their country. because there was better potential in the new country. its really the same.
|
|
Trazi Vise
Amicus
Today's "church" has NOTHING to do with religion.
Posts: 3,126
|
Post by Trazi Vise on Jun 9, 2009 15:15:57 GMT -5
A better friggen life, they worked just as hard in Australia as they did back home; but for more than a piece of meat per day. For their own sanity and peace...my grandmother lives on a massive property; has everything she needs; but still lives with an old mentality. Use what you can grow; save for a rainy day. Nothing has changed, but here she is in peace and with all of her family around her. If she stayed in Croatia no doubt my father would have moved onto a larger city or country, my aunts to another...and what; everyone would be dispersed. As I said it was a selfless act; but then again she did what dida said :-)
|
|