Just an example of how an event that happened long ago can still rankle in popular memory.Did one person in this thread mention the Crusades? Then why did you? It's nonsense. Your ridiculous logical fallacy is OK because someone somewhere else that's not in this discussion has complained about the Crusades? What does this have to do with anything?
Do you mean the original Greece (Central Greece, the Peloponnese and the nearest islands)? Is there really any evidence that they were more than a few percent of the population?It's true that the original Serbia never had a large Muslim population, but Greece most certainly did, and so did today's Macedonia, which ended up with Serbia. The upper half of Greece obtained in the Balkan Wars had a Muslim plurality, meaning Muslims were the largest group, albeit not a majority.
The Ottomans have been accused of underestimating the number of Christians and different sources show quite different figures.
When the Ottoman Empire ended, there were still far more Muslims of the original population left in the Balkans, than Christians in the Ottoman Empire. So you may be correct about the intolerance of the Balkan Christians, but they were certainly outdone by the Ottomans in the end.The original treaty allowed for a small symbolic garrison in Belgrade with some support civilians. They were later evicted. Why does this even matter? The point was that Muslims were subjected to massive ethnic cleansing in the Christian Balkans, while Christians were allowed to live freely in the Ottoman Empire.
The source said that tribute which "was normally confined to non-Muslims" (page 174) was collected from Gypsies regardless of religion. So how am I incorrect?Did you read the source you linked? It says the opposite of what you're claiming. Gypsies paid taxes per their religion. Taxes got worse for everyone in the empire, later on, not just the gyspies.
Caesar Australis gave as a source this document which referred to the 1958 penal code (page 55).There is no 1958 code. Homosexuality has not been illegal in Turkey since 1858. At no time in the history of the Republic was this ever changed.
Cite (and you're aware that there are Muslims in India, too)? And I still haven't seen anything about Christian countries.No, it's not. There are more forced marriages each year in India than there have ever been in the entire Islamic world.
Strange, it worked for me. And no, the Muslims were not being expelled during peacetime. In fact, the Ottoman Empire encouraged their emigration.Your link isn't a book that's readable. I did find figures researching myself. You're right, in the 1881 census Muslims were a quarter of the population - I didn't know about that one. In 1888, however, they were 20%, and by 1910, only 12%. They were not leaving voluntarily. In the Ottoman Empire they ended up in refugee camps, sometimes for decades, in starvation conditions with horrendous mortality.
As for "absurd figures", I have no idea what you're talking about because you didn't elaborate.
In the Danube province, the fairly detailed study returned:
District Muslims %
Ruschuk 356,160 58%
Vidin 59,964 17%
Sofya 75,030 19%
Tirnova 134,117 31%
Tulcha 122,524 56%
Varna 96,936 73%
Nish 117,742 35%
Sofya 75,030 19%
Total 1,037,503 36%
The absurd figure is the claim that 1.3 Muslims were killed or expelled. That would mean a total pre-war Muslim population of about 2 million, which is above any estimate and is not consistent with your figures, which show quite a lower number than the one given by Karpat.
A 30 year interruption certainly qualifies as not very often.You're just making silly unsupported assertions and insinuations now. "On paper"? They were elected, and the voted in parliament. What is "not very often?" The parliament wasn't in session 365 days a year, which was the same for all parliaments everywhere. What are you basing this on? What you hope is true? And so what? There would be no Slavs in the Balkans if they hadn't invaded it. There would also be no Christians there if they weren't converted by the Byzantines. What is your point?
My point was that while the converted Muslims of the Balkans are of course native, their conversion just as obviously due to the Ottoman conquest and was meant to clarify what I meant under natives.
The conflict between the three main groups in Iraq predate the US invasion, though the almost entire destruction of the Christian population indeed happened after the US invasion.Are you serious? IRAQ?!? Sectarian conflict was cause by OUR INVASION! You're supporting my argument! Lebanon was disturbed from 1840-1860 by British & French intervention on behalf of their sponsored minorities (the Druze & Maronites respectively), but once the Ottomans gained control and established a constitutional regime there, there was ZERO sectarian conflict until the end of the empire. Nobody has done better since, so the obvious conclusion is that Ottoman rule there was better.
You're assuming that just because the Ottoman Empire was able to keep the peace at one point, it would be able to do so throughout the future. The general record of multinational states doesn't bear this out, really.
You're right about the dictators, but Christians in Syria especially have expressed fears about their future without the protection of Assad.And SYRIA?!? Is the dictator controlling things there? And why was he "needed"? Dictators aren't needed anywhere. They are maintained because we can get an unreasonable share of oil revenues when there are non-democratic regimes in place, and we can depend on client dictators to maintain peace with Israel, which for some reason is a policy imperative, despite it's being clearly contrary to our interests.
It's quite possible that in a more successful Ottoman Empire they would still control Kuwait and Qatar, which makes up a significant part of the oil production in the world. As for Saudi Arabia, the ordinary citizens may not get their fair share but their living standard is much higher than the average for the Middle East.With regard to the standards of living, the Ottomans didn't control the oil sheikhdoms, they controlled the coasts of Saudi Arabia and they controlled Iraq. Iraqis didn't benefit much form their oil, and Saudis, outside the ruling class, don't really get much of a fair share either. Within the context of the Ottoman Empire, that revenue would have been part of a more balanced economic system which would have benefitted a much larger population.
And you seem very certain about the hypothetical development of the Ottoman economy, when even the POD has not been established in this thread...