Demolishing the myth of tolerant Ottoman Rule in Balkans

Posted on February 8, 2015 by

1



These days Armenians mark 100 years of since the genocide commited  by Ottoman. The Armenian genocide has been denied for 100 years not just by ☪ ☪, but by Turkish tradittional ally ( theWest) as well. Same like Croatian authorities praise so called operation Storm, when they ethnically cleansed Krajina of Serbs,  Turkish PM Erdogan openly praises the perpetrators. As for the West, same as with Krajina case, it’s ok.

Statue

  ON the other hand, I observe more and more Turks claiming that they brought  ‘Civilization, tolerance,  noble culture, prosperity and respect for all non – Ottomans,  and even more Bosnian and Albanian Muslims  who dream the return of the Ottomans in Balkan again,  let  us  see what are they actually up to.

The Armenian genocide 1915. – 2015. Denied, same like Jasenovac and those from 1990 – ies in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, that remain still unrecognized: 

From mid-15th century for the next four centuries the Serbian  Christians of Bosnia suffered tyrannical rule.

If any single factor made the Balkans what they were in history — and what they still are today — it was the ordeal of the Turk… For the 18th and 19th Centuries, the image of Turkey was that of a rotting empire, of a corrupt, incompetent and sadistic national elite preying on the subject Balkan peoples – of a cynical government WHOSE VERY METHOD OF RULE WAS ATROCITY.

They forbade the building of all but the meanest churches, and likewise outlawed the ringing of church bells.

What was damaging to the Balkan peoples was [that]… they had been stripped of pride and freedom. As Christians, they were now despised…

The Turkish overlordship created a Balkan mosaic of legal, social and economic relations… What was uniform to all [subdued Christians] was the experience of alien overlordship and the legacy of violence as the cohesion and power of the Empire declined. When the Empire passed its apex of power in the 17th and 18th Centuries, the conditions of the subject peoples took a catastrophic turn for the worse… It was in these… years that the proverb came into vogue: “Where the Turk trod, no grass grows.” Within the Empire, the 17th and 18th Century military officials, the beys and dahis, savagely oppressed the people; they were scarcely to be distinguished from the robber bands…

On the frontiers, [which is where Bosnia was] war — and with it the parallel evils of yearly murder, rape and arson — became as regular as the cycle of season.

The above quote is from:
“The Balkans,” pp 43 – 45
Time-Life World Library
by Edmund Stillman and the Editors of LIFE
Time Inc., New York, 1967

In the Serbian regions, the most fanatical opponents of Christian emancipation were the Muslims  Bosniacs…

A systematic enquiry into the condition of the Christians was conducted by British consuls in the Ottoman Empire in the 1860s. Britain was then Turkey’s strongest ally. It was in its own interest to see that the oppression of the Christians would be eliminated in order to prevent any Russian or Austrian interference. Consul James Zohrab sent from Bosna-Serai (Sarajevo) a lengthy report, dated July 22, 1860, to his ambassador in Constantinople, Sir Henry Bulwer, in which he analyzed the administration of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He stated that from 1463 to 1850 the Bosniac Muslims enjoyed all the privileges of feudalism. During a period of nearly 400 years Christians were subjected to much oppression and cruelty. For them no other law but the caprice of their masters existed… Under false accusations imprisonments are of daily occurrence. A Christian has but a small chance of exculpating himself when his opponent is a Muslim.”

The above quote is from:
Origin of the Myth of a Tolerant Ottoman Pluralistic Islamic Society
Chicago, August 31, 1995

Bosnajci sa Turskom

Bosnian Muslims in Serbia, Raska (‘Sandjak’), wave Turkish flags as their national, saying: This is Turkey (not Serbia)


In the year 1413 the southern Serbian provinces were unable longer to hold out against the Turks. Serbia in 1459, Bosnia in 1463, and Herzegovina in 1481 were all finally conquered and became Turkish provinces.

The basis of Ottoman power was the sword and the Ottoman State was and is an organised theocracy.

The Mohammedan Ottoman religion is not a religion in the Christian sense of involving principally the problems of morality, spiritual growth, and immortality. Ottoman Mohammedanism is a state of society founded on a collection of laws and legal principles dealing with and ruling every event of individual and public life. The vast community of believers in various countries of the world basing the entire political, social, and religious fabric on that collection of laws, and the mystical, ethical, and philosophical tenets given by Mahomet in the Koran, afterward developed by the masters of the “Four Schools” of Mohammedan teaching, forms “Islam.”

For that reason where the Ottoman Islam is master no other civil status is recognized except in tolerance and in subordination to the Islam. There can be no assimilation with people of other creeds or civilization  The perception of that fact was vividly set forth in the arguments of that Sultan, in the seventeenth century, who urged that as an Ottoman Muslim victor and Christian vanquished could never make one people, Ottoman domination could become secure only by the universal slaughter of all Christians in conquered territories. Up to our own time that conclusion has haunted Stamboul [Istanbul] like an evil dream.

The conquered Christian populations were disarmed and dispossessed of all property, and were soon pressed into a condition of serfdom under Turkish masters. They were called “giours” and in the mass the “rayah,” “the herd.” Whoever renounced his faith and became a Turk – Mohammedan was thereby instantly naturalized into Islam, receiving the status and all the life-chances of a born Osmanili [Turk]. That was the sole means in his power of escaping from the subjected masses or of opening a door of opportunity.

The Serbians in general refused to accept that door of escape from durance vile  and remained true to their Orthodox Christian and national faith, even though the long night of practical extinction, hoping for a dawn though long deferred.

Many of the Serbian nobles and numbers of the common people fled to Serb lands under Venice or those under Hungary [i.e. to Krajina].

But certain ones among the nobles and others became Turks – Moslems, thereby preserving their lands and castles, and authority was given to them under the Turks as Pashas, Beys, Agas, and Spahis. They became ranged, in the eyes of the general populations, on the side of the conquerors, and were looked upon by the people as Turks.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the inhabitants had not only been subject to Turkish attack, but had been obliged as well to stand, ever beating back Hungarian invasions, the greater part of the nobles went over in body to Mohammedanism.

Large numbers of Serbs, loyal to their faith and home traditions, escaped to the mountain fastnesses from which they were able to harass the Turks of the plains and so maintain a relative independence.

The Serbians of the Rayah lived under great oppression and humiliation, their only means of protection being through the Serbian Patriarch so long as one existed. 

In case of acts of injustice or violence suffered at the hands of individual Turks, there was no possible redress.  –

The Orthodox Christian Serbs were forbidden the use of horses or camels, only mules and asses being allowed them.

They were forbidden to ride even a mule or an ass in the presence of a Turk (or in the presence of an converted, former Serbs).

It was not permitted that their houses should have a better appearance than Turkish houses.

For their faith they had much to suffer. The Serbian Orthodox clergy, few in number, were kept in miserable conditions, and churches which had been destroyed were not allowed to be rebuilt, the building of new churches being strictly forbidden.

The sound of church bells was forbidden as was also the reading aloud of the Holy Scriptures or the pronunciation of the name of Jesus Christ.

It was not lawful to make the sign of the cross, to show a cross, or to eat pork in sight of a Turk.

The Rayah were not allowed openly to bury their dead; Christian burials took place at night or in secret; mourning for the dead was strictly prohibited either by costume or by symbol or in any other way.

Church services were often held in some secluded spot in forest or glen, sometimes under a chosen tree marked with a cross; or ordinary houses were built as if for a family, with a central hearth, and sometimes with surrounding st

In Ottoman Empire Christians were but slaves at nonexistent mercy of their Muslim lords. Many, many books worldwide write about different horrors the Christians endured.

One of the most humiliating forms of oppression was that Muslims gave themselves “right of the first night”. In practice it meant that Turkish (or local Muslim Slav) lord would spend the first night with the new Christian bride. The groom had to take shoes off and silently circle the house while the Turk makes love to his wife.

Still, by far the worst horror the Christians had to endure was the TurkishJanissary system. Western scholars frequently downplay the importance of this “Tax in Blood” as Christian subjects nicknamed it. 

While any subject boy might aspire to the highest rank in the Turkish Empire, he had to convert to Islam to do so; when the security of the Ottoman state demanded, there were forced conversions. Every four years the most vigorous boys were taken from the towns and villages, willingly or not, to be trained as Janissaries (a word from the Turkish yeni cheri, or new troops).
The DEVSHIRME system is well known. Begun by the Sultan Orkhan (1326-1359), it existed for about 300 years. It consisted of a regular levy of Christian children from the Christian population of the Balkans. These youngsters, aged from fourteen to twenty, were Islamized and enslaved for their army. The periodic levies, which took place in contingents of a thousand, subsequently became annual. To discourage runaways, children were transferred to remote provinces and entrusted to Muslim soldiers who treated them harshly as slaves. Another parallel recruitment system operated. It provided for the levy of Christian children aged six to ten (ICHOGHLANI), reserved for the sultans’ palace. Entrusted to eunuchs, they underwent a tyrannical training for fourteen years.

The above quote is from:
Origin of the Myth of a Tolerant Ottoman Pluralistic Islamic Society
Chicago, August 31, 1995

download

Turkish way of dealing with Serbs ( with  RAYAH, as they called them)

The first presentation above sounds almost idyllic: A boy dreams of obtaining “high rank in the Empire” or some boys “were taken” from their parents in order to achieve glorious carrier in Turkish Army.

What it actualy meant was that the hated Turks would kidnap your child and – even worse – return it, now as a Muslim and your worse enemy!

How can anyone put it in words? Dr. Ivo Andrich, who was born in Bosnia was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1961 for his novels about Bosnian Christian suffering. Encyclopedia Britannica (Micropedia, Edition 1986, Vol 1, Page 393, entry: Andric, Ivo) said (quote):

Andric’s work reveal his deterministic philosophy and his SENSE OF COMPASSION AND ARE WRITTEN OBJECTIVELY AND SOBERLY, in language of great beauty and purity. The Nobel Prize committee commented particularly on the “ephic force” with which he handled his material, especially in “The Bridge on the Drina”.

Let the master of literature talk. Here is an excerpt from the above mentioned Nobel Prize book “Bridge on the Drina,” which describes how this “tax in blood” felt, as it is told and retold chilling blood of generations of surviving Christians of Bosnia

On that November day a long convoy of laden horses arrived on the left bank of the river and halted there to spend the night. The Aga of the janissaries, with armed escort, was returning to Stambul after collecting from the villages of eastern Bosnia the appointed number of Christian children for the blood tribute.

…the necessary number of healthy, bright and good looking lads between ten and fifteen years old had been found without difficulty, even though many parents had hidden their children in the forests, taught them how to appear half witted, clothed them in rags and let them get filthy, to avoid the Aga’s choice. Some even went so far as to maim their own children, cutting off one of their fingers with an axe.

a little way behind the last horses in that strange convoy straggled, dishevelled and exhausted, many parents and relatives of those children who were being carried away forever to a foreign world where they would be circumcised, become Turkish and, forgetting their faith, their country and their origin, would pass their lives in the service of the Empire. They were for the most part women, mothers, grandmothers and sisters of the stolen children.

[The women would get driven away but…] ….gather again a little later behind the convoy and strive with tear-filled eyes to see once again over the panniers the heads of the children who were being taken from them. The mothers were especially persistent and hard to restrain. Some would rush forward not looking where they were going, with bare breasts and dishevelled hair, forgetting everything about them, wailing and lamenting as if at a burial, while others almost out of their minds moaned as if their wombs were being torn by birthpangs and blinded with tears ran right onto the horsemen’s whips and replied to every blow with the fruitless question: “Where are you taking him? Why are you taking him from me?” Some tried to speak clearly to their children and give them some last part of themselves, as much as might be said in a couple of words, some recommendation or advice for the way…
“Rade, my son, don’t forget your mother…’
“Ilija, Ilija, Ilija!” screamed another woman, searching desperately with her glances for the dear well-known head and repeating this incessantly as if she wished to carve into the child’s memory that name which would in a day or two be taken from him forever.

Mother’s cries must still be echoing Bosnian mountains.

It should not pass without mention that once Westerners conquered Bosnia, recently, one of the first thing they did in the course of “engineering democracy” (and while trying to impose Muslim rule on Bosnian Serbs) was to ban use of Dr. Andrich’s works from school books for the Serbian children. It is as if one was to ban Shakespeare in England!

Andrich’s books were translated in all languages of the West. His, above cited book “The Bridge on the Drina” can be found in any decent size library in the West. It tells volumes about total collapse of Western culture and morality that the same Western nations which praized Bosnian author in 1961 – banned his works few decades later.

Again, the Serbian grief was amplified by the fact that these returning children, now Janissaries were the most intolerant, most militant Muslims. As the time was passing and the central rule in the Empire was dying out, it was Janissaries who actually governed Bosnia. They were the ones who were the most oppressive and cruel. When Great Britain (in trying to repel Russia from the Balkans, in its self-imposed, everlasting “Great Game”) insisted that Turkish sultan should give equal rights to his Christian subjects, Janissaries of Bosnia were the ones who started a rebellion to topple the sultan.

 Bosnian Muslims also provided the Ottoman bureaucracy in Hungary after the battle of Mohacs in 1526. At lower level of administration, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christian peasants of the raya were governed by Slav Muslim landowners, who, whilst retaining their Slavonic speech, adopted the manners and dress of the Turkish court. Like many converts, they often ‘out-Ottomaned the Ottomans in their religious zeal’.

The above quote is from:
“A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples”
by Professor Fred Singleton,
Cambridge University Press,
Edition 1985, pp 20-21

The janissaries, who were once the elite corps of the sultan army, had degenerated by the end of the eighteenth century into an unrully and lawless rabble, who were at best an embarrassment and at worst threat to their rulers… Sultan Mahmud I (1730-54) attempted to disband the janissaries and to put in their place a modern force, modelled on the standing armies of his European enemies. Unfortunately for the Serbs, he was only partly successful. In an attempt to remove the influence of the janissaries from Istanbul, where they naturally formed a powerful opposition to his reforms, Mahmud tried to buy them off by offering them a virtually free hand in garrisoning the remote provinces of the empire [like Bosnia and Hercegovina]. There they could plunder and abuse the local peasantry with impunity, even dispossessing them from their lands. … Mahmud may have bought time for himself, but he stored up trouble for his successors.

The above quote is from:
“A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples”
by Professor Fred Singleton,
Cambridge University Press,
Edition 1985, page 75

The reform of the Ottoman government contemplated by the sultan Mahmud II (1808-1839) was BITTERLY RESENTED in Bosnia… Many of the janissaries had married and settled on the land, forming a strongly conservative and FANATICAL caste, friendly to the Moslem nobles, who now dreaded the curtailment of their own privileges. Their opportunity came in 1820, when the Porte [the Turkish government] was striving to repress the insurrection in Moldavia, Albania and Greece. A first Bosnian revolt was crushed in 1821, a second, due principally to the massacres of the jannissaries, was quelled with much bloodshed in 1827. After Russo-Turkish War of 1828-29, a further attempt at reform was initiated by the sultan and his grand vizier, Reshid Pasha. Two years later came a most formidable outbreak: THE SULTAN WAS DENOUNCED AS FALSE TO ISLAM, AND THE BOSNIAN NOBLES GATHERED IN BANJALUKA (Bosnia), DETERMINED TO MARCH TO CONSTANTINOPLE, AND RECONQUER THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE FOR THE TRUE [Islam] FAITH.

A HOLY WAR WAS PREACHED BY THEIR LEADER, HUSSEIN AGA BERBERI, A BRILLIANT SOLDIER AND ORATOR, WHO CALLED HIMSELF “ZMAJ BOSANSKI” [dragon of Bosnia], AND WAS REGARDED BY HIS FOLLOWERS AS A SAINT. The Moslems of Herzegovina, under Ali Pasha Rizvanbegovic, remained loyal to the Porte, but in Bosnia Hussein Aga encountered little resistance. At Kossovo he was reinforced by 20,000 Albanians, led by Mustapha Pasha, and within a few weeks the united armies occupied the whole of Bulgaria, and large part of Macedonia. Their career was checked by Reshid Pasha, who persuaded the two victorious commanders to intrigue against one another, secured the division of their forces, and then fell upon each in turn.

The rout of the Albanians at Prilipe and the capture of Mustapha at Scutari were followed by an invasion of Bosnia. After a desperate defence, Hussein Aga fled to Esseg in Hungaria – Slavonia, his appeal for pardon was rejected, and in 1832 he was banished for life in Tribizond.

The power of the Bosnian nobles, though shaken by their defeat, remained unbroken, and they resisted vigorously when their kapetanates were abolished in 1837, and again when A MEASURE OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW was conceded to the Christians in 1839.

In Herzegovina, Ali Pasha Rizvanbegovic reaped the reward of his fidelity. HE WAS LEFT FREE TO TYRANNIZE OVER HIS CHRISTIAN SUBJECTS, a king in all but name.

The above quote is from:
Encyclopedia Britannica,
Edition 1910
Volume 4, page 284

As  BAT YE’OR*  said  in her speech 

THE INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIC STUDIES ASSOCIATION 

SYMPOSIUM ON THE BALKAN WAR 

YUGOSLAVIA: PAST AND PRESENT  –  31 August 1995: 

 (…) The DEVSHIRME system is well known. Begun by the Sultan Orkhan (1326-1359), it existed for about 300 years. It consisted of a regular levy of Christian children from the Christian population of the Balkans. These youngsters, aged from fourteen to twenty, were Islamized and enslaved for their army. The periodic levies, which took place in contingents of a thousand, subsequently became annual. To discourage runaways, children were transferred to remote provinces and entrusted to Muslim soldiers who treated them harshly as slaves. Another parallel recruitment system operated. It provided for the levy of Christian children aged six to ten (ICHOGHLANI), reserved for the sultans’ palace. Entrusted to eunuchs, they underwent a tyrannical training for fourteen years. (A system of enslaving Black Christian and Animist children, similar to the DEVSHIRME existed in Sudan as is shown from documents to be published in my book. A sort of DEVSHIRME system still exists today in Sudan and has been described and denounced by the United Nations Special Report on Sudan and in a recent article last Friday’s TIMES OF LONDON.) In 1850, the Bosniac Muslims opposed the authority of the Sultan and the reforms, but were defeated by the Sultan’s army aided by the Christians who hoped that their position would thereby improve, “but they hardly benefited.” Moreover, despite their assistance to the sultan’s army, Christians were disarmed, while the Muslims who fought the sultan could retain weapons. Christians remained oppressed as before, Consul Zobrab writes about the reforms: “I can safely say, they practically remain a dead letter”.

Discussing the impunity granted to the Muslims by the sultan, Zohrab wrote:
“This impunity, while it does not extend to permitting the Christians to be treated as they formerly were treated, is so far unbearable and unjust in that it permits the Muslims to despoil them with heavy exactions. 
Under false accusations imprisonments are of daily occurrence. A Christian has but a small chance of exculpating himself when his opponent is a Muslim.
“Christians are now permitted to possess real property, but the obstacles which they meet with when they attempt to acquire it are so many and vexatious that very few have as yet dared to brave them. Although a Christian can buy land and take possession it is when he has got his land into order […] that the Christian feels the helplessness of his position and the insincerity of the Government. [Under any pretext] “the Christian is in nineteen cases out of twenty dispossessed, and he may then deem himself fortunate if he gets back the price he gave.”

Commenting on this situation, the consul writes:

“Such being, generally speaking, the course pursued by the Government towards the Christians in the capital of the province Sarajevo where the Consular Agents of the different Powers reside and can exercise some degree of control, it may easily be guessed to what extend the Christians, in the remoter districts, suffer who are governed by Mudirs generally fanatical.”

He continues:

“Christian evidence in the Medjlises (tribunal) as a rule is refused. Knowing this, the Christians generally come forward prepared with Mussulman witnesses (…), twenty years ago, it is true, they had no laws beyond the caprice of their landlords.”

“Cases of oppression are frequently the result of Mussulman fanaticism, but for these the Government must be held responsible, for if offenders were punished, oppression would of necessity became rare.”

In the spring of 1861 the sultan announced new reforms in Herzegovina, promising among other things freedom to build churches, the use of church bells and the opportunity for Christians to acquire land.

Commenting on this, Consul William Holmes in Bosna-Serai writes to Ambassador Sir Henry Bulwer thatthose promises rarely applied. He mentions that the Serbs, the biggest community were refused the right to build a church in Bosna-Serai. Concerning the right to buy land, he writes; “Every possible obstacle is still thrown in the way of the purchase of lands by Christians, and very often after they have succeeded in purchasing and improving land, it is no secret that on one unjust pretext or another, it has been taken from them.”

Consul Longworth writes, from Belgrade on 1860 that by its Edicts the “Government may hasten such a reform but I question very much whether more evil than good will not arise from proclaiming a social equality which is, in the present stage of things and relations of society, morally impossible.”

The biggest problem, in fact, was the refusal to accept either Christian or Jewish testimony in Islamic tribunals.

Consul Longworth comments on “the lax and vicious principle acted upon in the Mussulman Courts, where, as the only means of securing justice to Christians, Mussulman false witnesses are permitted to give evidence on their behalf.”

The situation didn’t change, and in 1875 the Grand Vizier Mahmud Pasha admitted to the British Ambassador in Constantinople, Sir Henry Elliot, the “impossibility of allowing Christian testimony at courts of justice in Bosnia.” Thus, the Ambassador noted: “The professed equality of Christians and Mussulmans is, however, so illusory so long as this distinction is maintained.”

This juridical situation had serious consequences due to the system of justice, as he explained: “This is a point [the refusal of testimony] of much importance to the Christians, for, as the religious courts neither admit documentary nor written evidence, nor receive Christian evidence, they could hope for little justice from them.

The difficulty of imposing reforms in such a vast empire provoked this disillusioned comment, from Sir Francis, consul-general, judge at the British Consular Court in 1875 Constantinopole: “Indeed, the modern perversion of the Oriental idea of justice is a concession to a suitor through grace and favor, and not the declaration of a right, on principles of law, and in pursuance of equity.”

From Consul Blunt writing from Pristina on 14 July 1860 to Ambassador Bulwer, we learn about the situation in the province of Macedonia: “[…] For a long time the province of Uscup [Skopje, Macedonia] has been a prey to brigandage: […] Christian churches and monasteries, towns and inhabitants, are now pillaged, massacred, and burnt by Albanian hordes as used to be done ten years ago.

“The Christians are not allowed to carry arms. This, considering the want of a good police, exposes them the more to attacks from brigands.” “Christian evidence in law suits between a Mussulman and a non-Mussulman is not admitted in the Local Courts.”

Ten years before he said: “Churches were not allowed to be built; and one can judge of the measure of toleration practiced at that time by having had to creep under doors scarcely four feet high. It was an offense to smoke and ride before a Turk; to cross his path, or not stand up before him, was equally wrong.” […]

Fifteen years later, in another report from Bosna-Serai, dated December 30, 1875, from consul Edward Freeman, we learn that the Bosnian Muslims had sent a petition to the sultan stating that before the reforms, “they lived as brother with the Christian population. In fact, wrote the Consul, “their aim appears to reduce the Christians to their former ancient state of serfdom.” So once again we go back to the myth. When reading the literature of the time, we see that the obstruction to Serbian, Greek and other Christian liberation movement was rooted in two main arguments:

1) Christian DHIMMIS are congenitally unfitted for independence and self-government. They should therefore remain under the Islamic rule.
2) The Ottoman rule is a perfect model for a multi-religious and multi-ethnical society.

Indeed these are theological Islamic arguments that justify the JIHAD since all non-Muslim people should not retain political independence because their laws are evil and must be eventually replaced by the Islamic rule. Those arguments are very common in the theological and legal literature and are exposed by modern Islamists.

Collusion

The myth didn’t die with the collapse of the Turkish Empire after World War I.  And in the same way as the myth of the Ottoman political paradise was created to block the independence of the Balkan nations. 

And although from the beginning of this century until the 1930s, a stream of Christian refugees were fleeing massacres and genocide on the roads of Turkey, Irak and Syria, the myth continued to flourish,sustained mostly by Arab writers and clergyman. The myth reappeared in the form of a multi-cultural and multi-religious tolerance and caused  pernicious effects that led to the destruction of the Christians in Lebanon. One might have thought that the myth would end there.

But suddenly the recent crisis in Yugoslavia offered a new chance for its reincarnation in a multi-religious Ottoman Muslim Bosnian state. What a chance! A neo Ottoman Muslim state again in the heartland of Europe. And we know the rest, the sufferings, the miseries, the trials of the war that this myth once again brought in its wake.

To conclude, I would like to say a few last words. The civilization of dhimmitude does not develop all at once. It is a long process that involves many elements and a specific conditioning.

It happens when peoples replace history by myths, when they fight to uphold these destructive myths, more then their own values because they are confused by having transformed lies into truth. They hold to those myths as if they were the only guarantee of their survival, when, in fact, they are the path to destruction. Terrorized by the evidence and teaching of history, those peoples preferred to destroy it rather than to face it. They replace history with childish tales, thus living in amnesia.

=== The end of the speech

* About the speaker:

 BAT YE’OR, a pseudonyme of the Egypt born  author and scholar. A British citizen living in Switzerland, she is a specialist on the DHIMMIS and “DHIMMITUDE” (a new word which she coined), and the subject of her pioneer research for the past twenty-five years. Author, since 1971, of numerous articles on non-Muslims under Islamic rule.

Based on:

 “A Short History of the Yugoslav Peoples” Professor Fred Singleton,Cambridge University Press, Edition 1985,

Origin of the Myth of a Tolerant Pluralistic Islamic Society” Bat Ye’Or Chicago, August 31, 1995

“THE SERBIAN PEOPLE” by P. Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich & Eleanor Calhoun New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910, etc….

sourse: “Srpska mreža”,