from Part II - Historical OrdersPublished online by Cambridge University Press: 25 December 2019 Show Christian Reus-SmitAffiliation: University of Queensland
SummaryConflicting narratives exist about Ottoman cultural practices. On the one hand, the Empire is lauded for its tolerance of cultural difference, with the famed ‘millet system’ upheld as a model of institutionalized cultural recognition. This sits side by side, however, with another view, of an order ruled by repressive Islamists. This chapter observes that widely different interpretations of Ottoman attitudes to diversity are possible because the empire was not static in this regard over the course of its more than six-hundred-year-old history. As with the modern international order, Ottoman history is marked by successive diversity regimes, in which a generally ‘latitudinarian’ approach to the management of diversity was punctuated by notable periods of cultural closure and repression. The chapter focuses on two such periods in the ‘long’ sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. In both periods, the shift to greater cultural intolerance and repression was propelled by institutional trends towards greater state centralization, interpolity completion involving external actors with ties to internal groups, and a governing (or legitimating) ideology viewing heterogeneity as a threat. In the sixteenth century it was heterodox Muslim communities that were targeted, with the empire thoroughly 'Sunnitised'. In the nineteenth century, by contrast, it was non-Muslim communities that bore the brunt of oppression, culminating most notably in the Armenian genocide of 1915. KeywordsType ChapterInformation Publisher: Cambridge University Press Print publication year: 2020 Access optionsGet access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.) This is a preview. Log in through your library. Abstract Over the last fifteen years, hundreds of Muslim citizens claiming Armenian descent have submitted petitions to Turkey's secular legal authorities asking for changes to both their name and religion in the public record. In this article, I discuss the name-change cases of Armenian return converts to further the debates on Turkish secularism and to critique the body of scholarship that welcomes the governing Justice and Development Party's legal reforms as a measure of growing religious tolerance. In the article's first part I analyze the historical foundations of the regulation of religion and name changes in Turkey by fully and explicitly engaging with law as a site where minority difference is constructed, authorized, and challenged. The article's second half offers an alternative reading of how tolerance functions as an aspect of the Justice and Development Party's reforms. Based on my investigation of specific legal forms of argument that converted Armenians and their lawyers put forward in today's secular courts, and how legal officers of the state respond to them, I demonstrate that legal reform has shifted the definition of religion as a marker of minority difference in legal space. I argue that the historical context of name change and religious conversion forces the limits of existing understandings of freedom of religion in Turkey, and that this renders visible historical injustices that cannot be resolved simply through the notion of "religious tolerance" in the courts. Journal Information Comparative Studies in Society and History (CSSH) is an international forum for new research and interpretation concerning problems of recurrent patterning and change in human societies through time and the contemporary world. CSSH sets up a working alliance among specialists in all branches of the social sciences and humanities as a way of bringing together multidisciplinary research, cultural studies, and theory, especially in anthropology, history, political science, and sociology. Review articles and discussion bring readers in touch with current findings and issues. Instructions for Contributors at Cambridge Journals Online Publisher Information Cambridge University Press (www.cambridge.org) is the publishing division of the University of Cambridge, one of the world’s leading research institutions and winner of 81 Nobel Prizes. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. For more information, visit http://journals.cambridge.org. What role did tolerance play in the Ottoman Empire?In the Ottoman Empire, there was religious tolerance because religion played a critical role in enhancing peace and stability. Religious leaders were respected because they were depended upon during calamities and disasters. Moreover, religious leaders had a big role to play in ensuring that people lived in harmony.
Which best explains how religious tolerance helped the Ottoman?Which best explains how religious tolerance helped the Ottoman and Mughal Empires succeed? By showing religious tolerance, both empires maintained stability and earned loyalty from different peoples.
How did religious tolerance in the Ottoman Empire affect the spread of Islamic culture?Religious tolerance facilitated greater expansion of the empire and trade within the empire, allowing Islamic culture to spread much farther than it might have if the empire had faced more difficulty in expanding because of greater resistance from internal populations.
How did Akbar demonstrate tolerance in his empire?Akbar demonstrated religious tolerance by reframing to impose his religion upon those living in his empire. Akbar was open to all religions and believed people should be able to worship freely. He even sponsored religious debates between those of different faiths.
|
Briefly explain one example of tolerance and its results in the Ottoman Empire
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 paraquee Inc.
