who gives a s**t? why is that a concern? a better question is, why didn't everyone convert?
It's a legit question, I'm just wondering: Was it politically motivated or did they think Islam was the real-enlightened religion?
For those who didn't convert, the answer is simple; They wanted to stay the same (whatever that meant to them).
You keep forgetting the fact that Muslims had more privelages that the Christians... so indeed, imagine those who didn't convert..... why ?
here this would give you some idea UZ
...
but your gonna have to read it ...take your time though its good read honestly
the problem of religion:
Although
there have been conversions also in Bulgaria and Cyprus, the fact,
nonetheless, remains that the most significant ones occurred among the
Bosnians and the Albanians. In 1520, i.e., eighty years after Bosnia's
conquest by the Turks, Sarajevo was 100% Moslem.71
The Bosnians admit that they did not regard the Turks as oppressors, that on the contrary, they welcomed them as liberators.72
The
Albanians cannot say the same thing about themselves, for their
numerous fights against the Turks are an undeniable historical fact. The
Albanian national hero who distinguished himself in these combats was
compared to Charles Martel73 who in 732 halted the Moorish invasions at
Poitiers, thus saving western Europe from the Moslem peril.74
Voltaire
asserted that if the Greek emperors had been comparable to Skanderbeg,
the Eastern Empire would have been preserved.75 The French savant Ami
Boue, drawing a parallel between the Albanian leader and Stefan Dušan,
portrayed the latter as a mere conqueror but pointed out that Skanderbeg
is remembered as one of the bravest soldiers that has ever existed.76
During
the 25-year span that preceded the Turkish invasion, the Albanians were
at the height of their power; as regards moral prestige, they had
plenty of it. Relating to territories, according to the Byzantine
chronicler L. Chalcocondiles, the land of Gjon Castriota, Skanderbeg's
father, extended between the kingdom of Sandalj, king of Bosnia, and
Epirus.77 N. Iorga mentions a document from the archives of Venice,
dating from 1413 which calls Gjon Castriota "dominum partium Bosniae";78
this presupposes that the territories northeast of Shkodra (Scutari)
were under Castriota's sway.79 Also, in 1420, Gjon Castriota granted to
the inhabitants of Ragusa the privilege to exercise trade in his
territories until Prizren,80 an indication that this latter town was
under Gjon Castriota's rule. Besides, according to Ami Boue (who points
out that between the Greeks and the Albanians the differences are very
slight), the Albanians inhabiting Greece were so excited about
Skanderbeg's deeds that in 1454, they would have easily subdued the two
despots, Demetrios and Thomas, and Greece would have come under their
sway.81
It becomes evident that under these circumstances the
Turks would not have been welcomed by them. In fact, the Albanians who
fled to Italy following the Turkish invasion of their land were very
numerous. They are said to have made up one-fourth of the nation's
population.82
When thinking of these facts and considering that
the fights of the Albanians against the Turks constitute a glorious
episode in the history of the Albanian nation, the question, of course,
arises as to why so many of these firm opponents of the Ottomans gave up
Christianity.
There is no doubt that in the Balkans the Turks
used pressure at times, especially perhaps in regard to the Albanians
because they resisted them longer than other Balkan nations, but also on
account of their links with the Pope, i,.e., with the West, which were
suspect to the Porte. On general, however, the Turks strike as having
been extremely tolerant in matters of religion. In fact, various data
lead to the assumption that practically all conversions were in a way,
voluntary. At the present time, it seems therefore simplistic to think
that "after the Battle of Kosova whole populations were butchered or
compelled to adopt Islam.83 Neither may those who remained Christian be
regarded as angels and martyrs, nor should those who embraced Islam be
depicted as opportunists.
The religious problem is, as are most
problems, more complicated than it seems at first sight. Up to now,
scholars have not been able to study it properly on account of
insufficient documents. Therefore, in many respects, there have been
conjectures of a controversial order rather than definite conclusions
drawn from objective historical evidence. The conversions of the
Bosnians, for example, have often been attributed to the eagerness of
the Bosnian nobles to secure their feudal rights. Yet the Bosnians
themselves consider their acceptance of Islam as a means to preserve
their identity for they do not identify themselves with the Serbs.84
As
far as the Albanians are concerned, since they provided Turkey with
numerous energetic and most able statesmen and reformers, various
scholars, contending that they had a privileged position in the Turkish
Empire, have imputed these conversions to utilitarian motives, such as
the desire to have access to high positions,85 if not simply to avoid
taxes.
As regards Islamization, the role played by the Balkan
Churches has received very little attention although the pressure
wielded by these churches against one another has often been stressed
with respect to other matters. It is in connection to these churches
that this problem shall be considered in this essay. * * *
The corruption of the Greek church has already been pointed out by different scholars.
In this regard, a passage from Sir C.N.E. Eliot's Turkey in Europe (first published in 1900) is illuminating:
"There
was a strong party for the reelection of Jeremias, who, finding that
the Porte refused to accept his candidature, offered 40 000 ducats if
his brother Nicephorus could be elected. Metrophanes, by unheard of
efforts, collected a like sum and laid it at the Sultan's feet. "The man
is worthy of his office", said his Majesty; "let him alone". In 1620,
the Grand Vizier demanded from Timotheus 100 000 ducats, on the ground
that he had named 300 Metropolitans during his 10 years tenure of
office. Cyrillus Lucaris, the successor of Timotheus, was deposed by the
Jesuits and their party for 40 000 ducats and reinstated for 180 000
more.
"Naturally, these enormous sums did not come from the
pockets of the Patriarch. As the Turks treated him, so he treated his
own subordinates. The tribute of the Patriarchate was paid from the
money received from consecrating bishops, the bishop paid his money from
consecrating priests, who in their turn found the wherewithal by
insisting on payments from their flocks for the performance of the
simplest religious rite. The visitations of Metropolitans were dreaded
almost as much as those of Pashas, and the whole fabric of the Church
seemed converted into a vast mechanism of extorting money from the
unhappy Christians for the most shameful purposes" (pp. 246-347 - 1965
ed.).
Not only ecclesiastical, but also educational matters were
in the hands of the Greeks. "Their object was to Hellenise the Christian
races of the Ottoman Empire, which meant that those unfortunate
populations had to submit to a double yoke: Turkish and Greek".86 Eliot
also adds that under these conditions, "It is hardly surprising to find
that this dark period was characterized by numerous conversions" (op.
cit., p. 50).
These conversions become, indeed, understandable
when one thinks that the non-Greek populations had to pay huge sums to
keep in Constantinople a patriarch whose aim was to prevent the
development of their own cultures and to suppress their own languages.
In fact, according to Turkish catastral registers, at the beginning of
the 16th century, Gjirokastra's and Vlora's populations were
overwhelmingly Christian (53 hearths Moslem as against 12 257 hearths
Christian for the former city; 1 200 Moslem
against 14 304 Christian
for the latter).87 At the beginning of the 20th century, the Christian
population of these two cities had dwindled; they were overwhelmingly
Moslem.
C.and B. Jelavich have remarked that the Greeks who had
high positions in the Turkish Empire88 used their authority to oppress
the rights of other nations in the Balkans, especially those of the
Serbs.
Also, when examining the Bosnian problem, C. and B.
Jelavich have pertinently indicated that the Bosnians, situated as they
are, between Orthodox Serbia and Catholic Croatia, found themselves torn
by disputes between the two churches and they were compelled first to
have recourse to the Bogomil heresy and after the Turkish conquest to
embrace Islam.89
These two remarks by C. and B. Jelavich are
relevant. The first about the Greeks in regard to other nations may
apply also to the Serbs with respect to the Albanians. When reflecting
on the second remark pertaining to the conversions of the Bosnians, who
first turned Bogomil, then Moslem in order to keep their identity, the
question arises as to what were the Albanians before embracing Islam.
Of
late, the Albanian scholar Dhimiter S. Shuteriqi has expressed the
opinion that the Albanians also, like the Bosnians, might have been
Bogomil.90 There are, however, no extant documents to support this
conjecture with incontrovertible evidence.
It is assumed that
Skanderbeg was Catholic on account of his close connections with four
different popes. Yet, one of his brothers, Reposh, was a monk in an
Orthodox monastery as were other north Albanians. These data do not
simplify the religious problem as regards the Albanians.
* * *
The
Albanians, we are told, were under the jurisdiction of Rome until 731
when Leo the Isaurian placed Illyricum under the Patriarchate of
Constantinople (K. Jirecek, Geschichte der Serben, p. 47). However, as
pointed out by N. Iorga, Illyricum had received its first missionaries
from Rome quite early,91 which meant that it adhered to Western
civilization. The Albanians, on account of the geographical position of
their country and for various other reasons, found themselves obliged,
in the course of years, to vacillate between the two churches. Yet they
managed to keep alive their Western background. Perhaps they never
severed completely their ties with Rome. According to A. Cabej, of all
the Balkan nations - including even Rumania - Albania sided more with
the West than with the East. It is also interesting to indicate that the
Albanians who settled in Italy following the Turkish invasion, many of
whom still use the
eastern rite, were never required to sign any
document proclaiming their union with the Vatican as is the case with
other Eastern communities. Nor did they abjure Orthodoxy. This
presupposes that their links with Rome had never been broken.92
The
Serbs, evangelized many centuries after the Albanians, did not receive
their missionaries from Rome. In Stefan Dušan's Code of Laws, there are
indications that those who had links with Rome were persecuted.
According
to Law no. 6, "The ecclesiastical authority must strive to convert such
(i.e., Catholics) to the true faith. If such a one will not be
converted..., he shall be punished by death. The Orthodox Tsar must
eradicate all heresy from his state. The property of all such as refuse
conversions shall be confiscated... Heretical churches will be
consecrated and open to priests of Orthodox faith".
According to
Law no. 8, "If a Latin priest be found trying to convert a Christian to
the Latin faith, he shall be punished by death".
According to Law
no. 10, "If a heretic be found dwelling with the Christian he shall be
marked on the face and expelled. Any sheltering him be treated the same
way".93
It is evident that under such rigid laws it must not have
been easy for the Kosovars to keep their ties with Rome. In fact, the
recent examination of Turkish catastral registers has revealed that in
the 15th and 16th centuries many Albanians in Kosova were Orthodox.94
It
goes without saying that the Albanians were not persecuted merely on
religious grounds. In fact, in 1332, Father Brocardus (Gulielmus Adae, a
French Dominican, Archbishop of Antebari) remarked that "The Albanoi
are oppressed under the intolerable and very hard servitude of the most
hateful and abominable lordship of the Slavs because they are
overburdened with taxes, their clergy is lowered and humbled, their
bishops and abbots often imprisoned, their monastery and priests lost
and destroyed, their nobles deprived of their possessions".95
These persecutions against the Catholic Albanians continued during the Turkish occupation.
The
Yugoslav scholar Jovan Radonic (Rimska Kurija i Juznoslavenske zemlje
XVI-XIX veka, Beograd 1950,pp. 269, 473, 511-512) has revealed that the
Patriarch of Peja had the authorization of the Porte to place the
Catholics under his jurisdiction, threatening to impale the Albanians
who would dare to address themselves to the Pope.
In 1664, Andre
Bogdani, Archbishop of Shkup (Skopje), informed his congregation in Rome
that the Albanians were more persecuted by the Orthodox Church than by
the Turks (see Mark Krasniqi "Les Albanais dans l'oevre d'un diplomate
russe", "Gjurme e Gjurmine, Prishtine, 1979, pp. 291-391).
The question of religion is, indeed, closely related to that dealing with national identity.
Being
evangelized by Roman missionaries, the Albanians did not have a
national church of their own similar to that of the Slavs. Pressed by
the Greeks in the south and by the Slavs elsewhere their conversion to
Islam seems to have been a means to preserve their national identity.
* * *