Islam and Toleration: Studying the Ottoman Imperial Model

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between religion and politics in the context of the recent debates on Islam and religious fundamentalism. I argue that too much attention is paid to the theological issues of Islam, and that we should rather focus on the historical conditions that tend to produce religious tolerance or intolerance. I use the Ottoman Empire as an example of a polity that succeeded in maintaining religious and ethnic toleration for the tremendous diversity it encountered within its frontiers. I analyze the specific relationship between the Ottoman state and Islam, the subordination of religion to the state, the dual role of religion as an institution and a system of beliefs as well as the intricacies of the millet system. I conclude that the particular relationship that was forged between religion and politics during the first four centuries of the empire promoted religious openness and toleration.

Reading Occupied Istanbul: Turkish Subject-Formation from Historical Trauma to Literary Trope

“…For more on the 'tolerance narrative' in the Ottoman context seeBarkey (2005 and andKarpat and Yıldırım (2010).…”

The differential demand for indirect rule: evidence from the North Caucasus

“…Our theory's core claim is that the middle class should express the greatest demand for indirect rule, for it stands to benefit the most from a switch to this form of governance, 1 Although the Ottoman Empire's use of the millet system concerned religious rather than ethnic communities, it is a familiar case in point (Barkey 2005). while the upper and lower classes should desire less indirect rule --and hence more direct rule. More formally, we predict an inverse parabolic relationship (a concave function) between the demand for indirect rule and economic class.…”

The example of the Armenian genocide and the role of the millet system in its execution

“…Though initially the millet system provided minorities with a degree of legal autonomy at the local level, de facto the legislation ensuring their autonomy was ignored and they were barred from holding high government office. Barkey suggests that 'In its broad outlines the Ottoman state organized and administered a system of religious and communal rule that instituted religious boundaries, marking difference, yet allowing for enough space, movement and parallel alternative structures to maintain a divided, yet cohesive and tolerant imperial society' (Barkey, 2007). Despite the fact that intergroup grievances existed long before the institution of the millet system; the introduction of new norms helped to proliferate and entrench preexisting perceptions and sentiments even further.…”

“…It created an atmosphere of distrust toward Christian minorities across the Ottoman Empire (Guenter, 2005). Barkey (2007) finds that prior to the rise of the CUP, the millet system could maintain at least some societal cohesion.…”

“…Upholding peaceful relations across the communities was in the interest of both the state and its chosen state-community brokers. (Barkey, 2007) 10…”