Posted: Apr 01, 2016 12:24 pm
aliihsanasl wrote:Just like that it doesn't make sense to say there is no connection between Islam and Ottomans' moderate attitude towards their minorities. Sultans are openly tolerant to other religions and that's an information from encyclopedia what else do you need to accept it ?
I can accept that the Sultans were tolerant but, there Sultans =/= the religion. They just happened to be tolerant individuals. History is replete with tolerant and intolerant individuals.
What caused them to be tolerant? I don't know. I'm not persuaded it was Islam, given that the same belief system seems equally capable of producing horrendously intolerant individuals. Clearly on tolerance, Islam is not inherently that much cop.
The status of Jewry in the Ottoman Empire often hinged on the whims of the Sultan. So, for example, while Murad III ordered that the attitude of all non-Muslims should be one of "humility and abjection" and should not "live near Mosques or tall buildings" or own slaves, others were more tolerant.[2]
Christianity preaches "love they neighbour" and "thou shalt not kill" as fairly headline parts of its scripture, not to mention an adherence to the golden rule and "turning the other cheek". If people were following the scripture, you'd expect to see a similar bedrock of tolerance in Christianity. But we don't, almost as if there were other factors at play.
aliihsanasl wrote:When I say they were tolerant, they treated much better you're saying you say it's exaggeration how are we going to measure that ?
From my study of history, I'm not seeing anything that suggests the Islamic tolerance was "much better" than that of the Christians. It was "better" and that in itself is a hopefully woolly value.
Taken from the same Wikipedia page you quoted later and yet, for some reason, chose not to quote.
Ottoman religious tolerance was notable for being a bit better than that which existed elsewhere in other great past or contemporary empires, such as Spain or England
aliihsanasl wrote: So lets change the argument again and say it wasn't Islam it was Ottoman state's success, fine that goes on and on but I'm not in.
What you are arguing for and have been for most of this thread, I think of a misplaced sense of national loyalty, is for the superiority of the Ottoman empire compared to its contemporaries. Trying to pass it off as a success of Islam is a mistake and does a massive discredit to the many worthy things the Ottoman empire achieved.
aliihsanasl wrote: Edit : it's not just equivalent also rival of the Ottoman empire, Ottomans always saw Catholic church as the main boss Kingdoms add the puppets of it. Historians still argue that Fatih the conquerer poisoned by the order of the pope.
And you're still wrong. I can only assume that you are wrong either because your understanding of the Ottoman Empire is faulty or your understanding of the composition of the many and varied Kingdoms of Western Europe and their relationship with the Catholic Church is faulty.
How the Ottoman's viewed the Catholic Church is not an objective standard of measurement. The Catholic Church was not, not ever, an equivalent to the Ottoman Empire. One would only have to study briefly how the Ottoman Empire was arranged to see that.