Letter of Suleyman II to Francis I of France regarding the protection of Christians in his states, September 1528. Read more on the Franco-Ottoman alliance.
Meanwhile in France, king Francis I had become disenchanted with the Catholic Emperor, Charles V. Francis desired to become independent and in 1528 sought an alliance with the famous Ottoman sultan, Süleyman I ‘the Magnificent’ (1494-1566). This resulted in an enduring military cooperation with an intensive exchange of letters. In his correspondence with Francis, Süleyman presented his tolerant policy towards Christians as a matter of imperial pride. The sultan wrote: ‘Places other than the Mosques stay in the hands of Christians, and no-one molests those who go there. They all live peacefully under the wings of our protection’. Again, the example of Islam did not have practical effect. Francis would later in his life persecute Protestants mercilessly, destroying whole villages and driving tens of thousands from their homes, forcing John Calvin into exile to Switserland.
In 1559, the Huguenots in France appealed for toleration to queen Catherine, setting off a fierce debate on the perceived pros and contras of religious tolerance. Catherine asks her Private Council to look into the request. Several pamphlet-like letters, called ‘Remonstrances’ or ‘Exhortations’ are sent to the Council to influence her on the matter. In these letters, arguments can be recognised which can later be found in debates on tolerance throughout Europe.
The opponents of tolerance argued that tolerating different religions would create social and political chaos. A country should be perceived as a grand family, they said. What would the result be if beside the lawful wife, concubines would be allowed to have rights? Also, when one would grant liberty to one sect, others will quickly follow suit. It would not be possible to give a salary to all the different preachers. Citizens would no longer obey a ruler with a different faith. A soldier would not be able to function next to his fellow in arms. Without unity, the military would not be able to achieve anything. When the country is struck by a natural disaster, people would blame each other for it. A mayor would not be able to take the oath, because it is based on a faith not his own. And when a man and his wife will have different religions, he may start using his fists in the quarrels that will arise.
The advocates of tolerance reply by offering examples in which well-recognised authorities allow the coexistence of different faiths. Typically, three examples are mentioned: the Roman emperors who tolerated other faiths, the Pope who tolerates Jews at the Vatican, and the Ottoman sultan who allows several faiths to live in his dominions, whilst being the most powerful ruler in the world:
Did the Great Turk, at present emperor of Constantinople and fifteen or sixteen countries as large as our France, detract from his status, his or that of his predecessors, by allowing three different religions in one city? No, no! My gentlemen, to the contrary, he added to his grandeur!’
This was an affront to the believers of the Catholic ideal of the purity of the Church being preserved by the ruler. In their reply, they said the others had been ‘most dishonorable … by setting an infidel and barbarous tyrant as an example for a most Christian and French King’. Arguing that freedom is indeed tyranny, they said that tolerating different sects would result in the ultimate destruction of the Church:
[The rule of the Turk] is the tyrannical way of Julian the Apostate, who was the greatest enemy of our religion, and who once declared in his writings to his most intimate friends, that it is of no benefit to kill the Christians, or to punish them for their faith, because (he said) martyring Christians turns above who were below. And there is nothing to gain from this, except distracting the honour from those who honour God. (…) Let us remember what St. Augustine wrote to the Donatists about the view of Julian concerning the freedom he seemed to grant to all religions in his nation: Does he not testify, having discussed the matter, that the end will only be the staining and ruining of the Unity of the Church and consequently the whole of Christianity? How then can they give you such an advice, whose purpose it is first and foremost to add to the Glory of God and to maintain His Church?
The debate in France did not result in any change of view within governing circles. There were moments where the ruler had to grant some space to the Huguenots because the latter became militarily stronger; as had more often been the case in Europe, it was tolerance ‘by the rules of war’.
…
This is an excerpt from the article ‘Let the Muslim be my Master in Outward Things’, on Islamic influences on the emergence of tolerance in Europe. Download the complete article from Al-Islam eGazette, January 2010.
Categories: Muslim Heritage
What about the ottoman policy of stealing christian children forcing them to become muslim by brainwashing them and fight in the sultans jannisaries. Far from tolerant
It is unfortunate that you cannot go and ask those ‘stolen children’. I have read in the history books that sometimes Christian fathers would try to bribe Ottoman officials to please ‘kidnap’ our sons too. This is because they knew that as soldiers in the Sultan’s armies they would have a much better future. Remember, retired soldiers were given lands and ‘pensions’. And many became Muslims, yes, because they saw first hand the logical teachings of Islam. Compare this to the American treatment of their slaves. Even children by the Master would be slaves, because they were half black…
There may be some dirty laundry in all Empires, but, the key is to take a comparative picture from the era. It is now important to see what different cultures , religions and scriptures can do for our global village, to promote universal compassion and brotherhood.
Yes i agree there is dirty laundry in most empires. You are correct in observing that the french did persecute the hugonauts and other protestant sects but the ottomans are also guilty of doing the same at times. The ottomans as i said after Sulieman the magnificent conqured eastern europe they kiddnapped thousands of christian children for the jannisaries. The ottoman sultans also used to have large harems full of captured christian women who the sultan used for entertainment and as sex slaves and often when a sultan passed on rival concubines who bore the same sultan children were at times murdered with their children in power plays over whose child will succede the throne So i do not think the ottomans were any more peaceful or tolerant than europe to be honest. And far later after their empire degenerated further they entered into genocide. So were the ottomans paragons of toletance? I think not
While I do not say that the Ottomans were angels we have to point out that the ‘slaves’ of the Ottomans cannot be compared to the slaves of the Americans. Often poor Christian fathers of the Balkans would try to bribe Ottoman officials to please ‘kidnap our sons too’, because they knew that they had a better future with the Ottomans. And – we treat our women well in our harems. Do you think Christian ladies objected to be in the Harem of the Sultan? No, they tried their best that their daughters should reach there too.
You make vast generalisations about yhe plight of christians under the ottoman empire and i find it insulting whilst i cannot deny some individuals thought it was an opportunity generalising that everyone wanted it is sickening. I myself am from the balkans did you know that instead of having our children stolen brainwashed on Islam and made to fight for the sultan some parents mutilated their own children by cutting off limbs so they could not be taken for military service. Stealing children and forcing a religion on them and making them fight for the sultan is wrong no mater how you try to justify it. yes those that survived were given lands but thats not the point. Likewise using christian women as sex slaves in ottoman harems because the koran forbids treating muslim woman thus is similarly wrong. When did i mention american slavery once? My arguments were against trying to present the ottomans as so tolerant when its not the case. The ottomans massacred and opressed but so did medieval europe. Im not saying they are better just trying to be honest here. The divisions and hatred caused by the ottoman conquest still simmer in the balkans and largely led to serb genocide of muslims in bosnia due to antimuslim hatred due to the ottoman conquest so the ottomans left a bitter legacy.
Well, if you are from the balkans you will appreciate that all churches remained safe during the Ottoman empire. Mosques and churches coexisted peacefully next to each other.
And in response to your previous comment the jannisary children converted due to indoctrination rather than due to logic. They were stolen then indoctrinated in islam from an early age and not told where they came from and were often even used as soldiers against their own people. A despicable practice for which there is no justification.
We are not justifying atrocities. Please read: http://islamforwest.org/ and you will see what we stand for.
Im not talking about your organisation im talking about you. What you said that all the victims of the ottoman jannisary system and harems wanted to be siezed and exploited is a vast generalisation and an absolute lie. I am from the balkans and i know our history and this was far from the case. Rather than having an honest discussion on the true nature of ottoman rule you sought to defend their actions and misrepresent history out of some religious agenda. I find this disgraceful and as i have proven the ottomans commited numerous attrocities and were far from tolerant being the epitome of tolerance. Good day.
I lived four years in the balkans and do understand a bit the feelings of the people there. The fact remains, during the Ottoman period in Prizren, Kosovo, for instance a Catholic, a Orthodox Church and a Mosque were ‘happily’ standing next to each other. Compare this with the inquisition of Spain. (The Orthodox church was burned down recently by the Albanian Kosovars – while the Church was under German Army protection. Yes, a complicated heritage).
And the fact remains that ottoman tolerence quickly gave way to opression , murder and destruction whenever the native inhaitants sought self determenation. like the romans the ottomans were pragmatic and were tolerant to maintain peace and order but aat any hint of revolt they were heavy handed and brutal. I once read that 3000 orthodox chueches were destroyed during the serbian rebellions of the 1800s though i dont know the exact figure it was far from a ottoman utopia. The kosovan albanians still feel outrage over the attrocities the attrocities they suffered hence the destruction of churches. It is understandable. A bitter legacy indeed. I think the balkans would hsve been far better off if the ottomsn imperialists had never invaded
The ottomans were pragmatic and like many empires had done in the past had a degree of tolerance as long as thas nont of revolt hint of revolt as it was a way of ensiring order. Bht when revolt came the ottomans werr brutsl and destroyed up to3000 churches some say but i dont know the exact number dueing the serbian revolts
Well, naturally, any revolt will have to be dealt with … Now things of course have changed so much for the better. Now a meeting in Geneva for instance decides on a new ‘democratic’ government for Syria and then exports it – and all will end well, no doubt.
Put down by massacringvthe populace and destroying churches. The ottomans killed at least 3 million last century alone when you count the various massacres which culminated in the armenian genocide. Then the pontic greek genocide and the assyrian genocide. This is the ottoman “legacy of tolerance”
Bob if you study these alleged 3 million along side the 50 million killed during the World War II, you may be able to learn greater insight into human nature and history and how we can rise above the short comings of the past.
Remember that a defensive war is a ‘Just War!’
bob, let’s close this discussion. I think all of us made our point. Personally I think it is useless to ‘make a big deal’ about the Armenian Genocide now after a hundred years. We could go on about the American genocide of the native population (and other native populations elsewhere), about the American slave trade, about the Inquisition etc.etc.etc. It is history. Let’s look forward.
Those who do not know history are destine to repeat it -Edmund Burke
There are different versions of history. For starters the quote you mention by my sources of information is attributed to George Santayana:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santayana
Dear all,
I apologise to enter the discussion so late. I recognise the kind of discussion from my Dutch weblog where I posted this earlier. These discussions can become quite confusing. I have a few remarks:
People like “bob” tend to think we only desire a positive image of Muslim history, and to counter this fill their comments with only negative remarks which can sometimes cross the limits of civilized discourse. Please know we do not deny dark pages in Muslim history, the thing is only that the purpose of this paper was to show “References to Islam in the Promotion of Religious Tolerance in Christian Europe” (see pdf). Its purpose is to show these references, not to show a balanced view on the tolerance of Muslim or Ottoman history.
If I could attempt to strike a balance, there obviously have been more and less tolerant episodes or elements in Muslim or Ottoman history, and it will take quite some work to put that all together. What I can say with certainty is this:
1. The phenomenon of the multireligious society in the Muslim world existed from the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him. It was created by him in a true spirit of tolerance. Its relative continuity in history is closely related to the Islamic notion of all religions coming from the same God. Hence believers in other religions were in the Muslim Empires seldomly “dehumanized” in the way which is necessary for the practice of intolerance.
2. The tolerance of especially the Ottoman Empire was enough to receive the admiration of Christians in early modern Europe, or at least their view of the Ottoman Empire was such that they referred to it as an example of tolerance they wished to emulate in Europe. The image of the Ottoman Empire helped European Christians grasp the possibility of a multi religious society, which before they had no understanding of.
I hope these points bring some clarity to the discussion. It is thus beside the point to discuss the tolerance or intolerance of the Ottoman Empire based on this paper. This paper is about the image of the Ottoman Empire which shaped European thought on tolerance.
There are no people like me im an individusl please do not generalise me as being pat of agroup when you do not know me . Seconfly rafiq defended kidnapping children for janissaries , women as sex slaves (he said they all wanted it ), he thinks its justifiable to masdacre native populations in a revolt against imperialism, and said the armenian genocide wasnt woth making a big deal about. If that isnt trying to present ” muslim history in a poitive light” what is? While i do not deny some christians admired the empire for tolerance im sure none of them actually went to ottoman ruled parts of the world and saw the injustice of crippling blood tax, cultural and religious persecution. My point is. Can an empire which commited such attrocities at times really be used as an example of world peace. Also therr were periods of religious tolerance in europe such as in Norman sicily under the guiscards and in spain under king alfonso in a period known as la covivencia. So i woyld not say there had never been a concept of it rather that it was rarely practiced. But i do not uphold these as being perfect eras of tolerance as in both cases there were later periods of persecution. What i am saying is that you should do the same .
Can any man be a role model, when no one is perfect? Yet most parents end up being role models for their children!
Muslims will claim the Prophet Muhammad to be perfect and an exception to the general rule, but, others will not grant it and many will not grant Christians’ claims for Jesus. My point is that one should review the overall case and try to make fair and balanced judgments. Let me conclude with a remark from Karen Armstrong:
I am going to close the discussion in this post now. Thanks everyone.