THE GLORIOUS LEGACY OF THE OTTOMANS

AND TODAY’S TURKEY

A SOCIO-POLITICAL COMPARISON

Muzaffer Katar
Abant Izzet Baysal University,
Bolu, Turkey
2007

"In the name of Allah who is Rahman and Rahymm"(1) would utter the Ottoman King on the
Throne, the traditional starting key of Quran readings, which passes only once and belongs to
the heir of King David, Solomon in Quran, and which is the foretold messianic salvation.(2)

Introduction: A General View of the Study

To succeed of an objective study on such a sophisticated and often misinterpreted case like the
Ottomans necessitates having not only knowledge, but also insight and ability in philosophy.
Another necessity is to overcome the typical conditionings about the case, and the emotional
approaches peculiar to most of the Islamic countries like Turkey. Objective propositions
should be voiced regardless of conventional studies, which are generally populist and
practical for self-seeking ethnic, religious and political ideologies. Blessing of inspiration by
God for one's wisdom and virtue always has its supreme and respected place all in
thankfulness though.

Turkey (3) was the successor of the great Ottoman Empire in the head and heartland of the
Empire. Therefore, there is no chance to think of the two states of having very different
possessions and diverse characteristics of values, institutions and culture. Haim Gerber
explains this as "The past was not simply swept away with the fall of the Ottoman Empire but
remained hidden and potent in all sorts of niches, institutions and memories, many of which
still elude us"(4). Diversities of the two states would generally be due to changing standards
of human life and society in course of the time in general. However, we must say that Gerber's
theses could be proved only from a negative point since we, as the inheritors of the Ottomans,
have great doubts and heavy sighs about the situation of today's Turkey in all aspects.

The legacy for today's Turkey of the Ottomans who executed a detailed mission in the history
despite all its polygenetic and multi-disciplined order has great potent to study in a very wide
range of scientific categories. This great potent may inevitably turn the study into ‘the high
Ottoman legacy that the new State has not been able to inherit, and criticizing today's Turkey
as a modern state from the perspective of the Ottoman legacy'. Therefore, what aimed in this
small but very precious article is to discuss the most crucial concepts from a possible
comparative point of view, and to make any new contribution to the readers with their insight
of the issue of the Ottomans, Turks, Turkish Republic, and their interrelated roles played in
the history and today.
How to Understand the Ottoman Case
First of all, who were the Ottomans, appeared all of a sudden just in the junction of the east
and the west, developed such a great civilization on a seemingly Islamic fundamentalist
structure behind of which all a human virtue and wisdom lied, and survived so long in spite of
its complex structure? Within its heterogeneous character, where does the name ‘Ottoman'
belong to or come from? Is it an ‘Osman', if ever of original Turkish, an ‘Ottoman', or a
German ‘Otto-man', or an ‘Othman'? Did they implement a cryptic or occult office with the
fate of "circumcised Turks"(5) "who were almost to perish"(6) in the course of the history; or
with the holy land, Anatolia, home of the promised peace? Since they were obedient believers
of the Islamic religion, appeared in Holy Mecca, why did they not ride over the Arabian
Peninsula, but ride over Europe and make the Byzantine Constantinople the center of the
Islamic Empire? Whose agents were these glorious but humble people: of the west or the east,
of the Turks or the Rome, or of a unique divine mission?

Alternatively, at the crossroads of the east and the west, and on the headland of the Asia, did
the Ottomans stop the era of "savage invasions"(7) and save the west from the invasions of
eastern vandals? Otherwise, as a cryptic mission, did they change the quality of the barbaric
methods of production of life, soften them slowly slowly, and introduce peace and beauty of
the settled life to the last vandals of the east who were driven, or rode away to the west?

This brainstorming does not initiate to be negative with the any of the sides. It is sure that
Ottomans did not spoil the law of the enlightenment of the heavens under the flag of
Salem/Islam religion; the scepter had not been departed from brave Turks over all Asia for a
couple of millenniums; Islam had been the lawgiver for many centuries since
Muhammad(8)/Machammaddim(9) of the Holy Salem religion, and the seal of the prophets
has arrived; and many Judaic and Christian people around the Ottoman territories happily
hurried up to gather under the peace flag of Islam, which were composed of ‘three crescents'
together symbolizing Holy Islam/Salem religion.

It was a great success that we Turkish nomads, having ridden from the Mongolian steps,
established one great Ottoman Empire and civilization in the 13th century AD on the eastern
lands of the wild Romans a hobby of whom was to give alive men to lions; and also
"developed a powerful fleet in Aydin"(10), a city on the coast of the Aegean Sea.

Many popular conventional writers have assumed the Turkish and the Ottoman concepts of
being the same and always put forward subjective, populist, shallow and conventional
propositions within ‘Turk and Ottoman' studies as the case is hardly ever so easy but some
misinterpreted from this perspective. Therefore, instead of a couple of populist, shallow, and
practical theories, which generally deny the virtue and heritage of Ottomans on ‘the
foundation of Turkey'; or of those which exalt the Ottomans blindly without realizing any of
their real meaning, we must be able to make some new, meaningful, and perceiving references
about the identity of the Ottomans and their impacts on modern Turkey.

How to Identify the Ottoman Ancestors of the Turks

Turks were one subject of the heterogeneous Ottoman structure, but what was the dominant
character of the Ottomans? Before writing about the Ottoman legacy for today's Turkey, we
are first to try an attempt to understand ‘whose heritage were the Ottomans' to mean a sense
with both the owners of the Ottoman civilization and the study.
That the most people, learned or not, propose that ‘"the state language was Turkish"(11), so
were the Ottomans' is not true, or they do not know any language because nobody can say that
the language the Ottomans used was Turkish, nor was half of it. In spite of the fact that there
was a frame of Turkish grammar in use, most of the means, words, groups etc. of the Ottoman
language were not Turkish, but Persian and Arabic, the sister of Hebrew whereas the original
Turkish language never developed and lost its power. It is interesting that the Ottomans,
whose intellectuality was formed by Hebrew and Greek culture, used a Turkish sentence
frame within their language. Thus, the circumstance leads us to ask another question: What
was the reason of Ottomans to use Turkish sentence frame(12)?

To have a clue about the origin of the Ottoman dynasty, we may first try a simple onomastic
study of the first four names of the Dynasty, that anyone who has some awareness in Turkish
and languages in general can easily notice that the origins of these so-called Turkish names
are not originally Turkish at all.

The origin of the name of the founder of the Ottoman Empire, ‘Osman' must be a very
Germanic, Christian name: ‘Osmond' or ‘Osmund', which means ‘god protector' from old
English os ‘god' and mund ‘protector'(13). The origin of ‘Ertugrul', Osman's father must be
the very Roman, Germanic, European, and Christian name: "Arthur, Artur, Arturius,
Artio"(14). The origin of ‘Hayme', the mother of Osman is a certain Hebrew name of which
origin is ‘Hayim/Haim', which means "life"(15). And, the origin of ‘Orhan', son of Osman
must be "Or-khan" or "Or-Cohen" as the most possible variants (16).

Besides these traditionally Judao-Christian names, none of the names of the later Sultans were
of original Turkish. It is also known that almost all their friends, the ranked officials like
pashas, commanders, and high ulema/the learned scholars of the Empire were not Turkish, but
converted, or seemed so, from Christianity or Judaism into Islam. They whether wanted to be
honored by being Turk, or burdened and realized a cryptic mission with Turks.

Also, both the Islamic flag of Ottomans, which has three crescents, as the symbol of ‘Papa,
The Holy Spirit and the Son', and the flag of Turkey, the legacy of Ottomans, composed of a
five-ended star and a crescent on red background are designs of Judao-Christian teaching.(17)
You can see many examples like these within the world of the Ottomans.(18) ‘Roman'
Mawlana Jalaladdin was the world-wide famous philosopher of the Empire who gave
beautiful samples of mystics with his ufo-like ‘whirling dervishes', while the worldwide
famous architect of the Empire was originally a "Christian Greek"(19) ; Architect Sinan,
beauty of whose also ufo-like Islamic mosque tombs were as fabulous as the Christian Church
tomb of the Hagia Sophia built by Christian architects.

Millions of Jews have been transferred to Anatolia from all Eurasia during both the Ottomans
and the Republic.(20) According to Yalçin Kucuk, "Jews were the natives of this land."(21) It
also calls our attention that Ottoman Sultans never got married to ethnically Turkish brides to
have heirs from for the throne.(22) Another debate about the identity of our Ottoman
ancestors may be: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between
his feet, Until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."(23)

In addition, some ‘privileges' for Turks do not elude us such as the "duty of being
soldiers"(24) while non-Moslems were not taken for military service, whereas the bureaucrats
were all chosen from non-Moslems; what give us clues about the Ottoman Empire. We also
find, as in the sample miniature on the cover of ‘The Ottoman Empire (2002) by Colin Imber',
that artists also characterized in detail the human identity of the Sultans, and the ethnicity of
the devoted subjects.

Nevertheless, that ‘the origin of the Ottomans was doubtful in terms of Turkishness does not
intend to blame them by any way. The purpose of the discussion is to provide the readers with
a new perspective about ‘who really Turkey and its people have inherited the legacy from'.
Under the enlightenment of all this clear data given above, ‘the legacy of Ottomans for today's
Turkey' can now be discussed in a more meaningful ambient.

The High Legacy of the Ottomans, and Turkey as the Inheritor

The case has varied characteristics depending on many vertical and horizontal factors like
time, ethnicity, religion, area and conditionings. The same circumstance has different
meanings for different people. For instance, the Ottomans do not appeal a Turk, while it
appeals a crypto Greek because Turks were of a degraded subject of the Ottomans, and
Greeks were more effective. On the other hand, a Moslem Turkish citizen loves Ottomans
because he finds the Empire to be Moslem even without knowing the meaning of ‘three
crescents' and that Turks were almost lost from the Earth on long lasted Jihads. Today there
are thousands of debate matters like these in Turkey. For this reason, the legacy will be
studied concentrating on the most objective and crucial aspects of the case beyond the local
matters.

First of all, it must honestly been accepted that Turkish State itself is a strategic and political
heritage from the Ottomans. The Ottomans, yet who had a huge and complex body, showed
great resistance for one or two centuries against the open and secret aggressions of global
states of the time. Despite some judas kisses, an issue stemming from its multi ethnic
structure, the Ottomans always had consciousness to defend the Empire and their nation
whereat resulted in the foundation of Turkish State at the end as an Ottoman gift for Turkish
People. It must be assessed that Turks would not have been able to found the Republic of
Turkey out of the initiation of the Ottoman Empire; and being in the same context,
institutionalization of values of Turkishness has also been an Ottoman legacy for the nation.

The founding leader of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal was a commander and pasha of
the Ottoman State. His colleagues, the other distinguished pioneers of the independence war
of Turks and foundation of the Turkish Republic, formally or not, came from the Ottoman
school. Even if there is no document proving the initiation of the Ottoman Empire within the
establishment of the Turkish Republic, it should nonetheless be accepted that it was the
Ottoman consciousness, decision and faith that initiated the foundation of the Republic. First
of all, how would unorganized Turks be successful in creating a state in Anatolia if it was not
controlled by the Ottomans? Therefore, it can be said that the Ottomans did not defraud their
degraded but most devoted subject-Turks, who had given their blood for centuries for the
bright Ottoman light, and stood for and with Turks during the collapse, gifting them a blessed
opportunity for their surviving. This gift by Ottomans, and of heavens, not only gave Turks a
chance to change their damned fate of destruction and exhaustion, and almost being lost in
nearly 2000 year-lasted wars, one of which was the biggest ‘war trap' at Canakkale in
1915(25), but also presented them the beauties of the modern life and society by the policy of
the new Republic.

On the other hand, the legacy of the Republic of Turkey by the Ottomans, has its political and
strategic subordinates for the Turkish State as well on the territories of the Empire, namely
Anatolia, Balkans, Caucasus and the Middle East, which may be said to be inherited from the
long-lasted, and still dreamed ‘Caliphal' structure of the Empire. The action of Turkey on the
former Ottoman territories improves or decreases depending on the strength of Turkey. If
Turkey does not have power to control these territories, its existence and sovereignty might
even be in danger.

The claim that the Turkish Republic and people reject the Ottomans cannot be true. It must be
reasoned as the rejection of being lost with the formal end and collapse of the Ottoman
Empire rather than the total rejection of the Ottomans including their high existence, virtue
and civilization. Furthermore, the rejection of the dying body of the Ottoman Empire after the
collapse and the accreditation of Turks, the formerly degraded subject, as the heirs of the
Empire, was even interestingly an initiation of ‘the high Ottoman faith and mind'. It was the
end of the legend of the glorious and humble Ottomans with the rise of nation states, and
introduction of Turkishness and Turks as the inheritors of the legacy of the Ottoman country:
The constancy of Constantine city. It is sure that the continuation of the Ottomanism instead
of replaced Turkishness would have been the end of Turkishness in the Asia Minor.

However, as the live witnesses, can we say that the State of Turkey has been worthy of this
high legacy of the Ottomans, and also Ataturk's as the last Ottoman, including their virtue and
wisdom? Has the new State fulfilled the state and public essentials in any field relatively
better than the Ottomans, and been able to create a nation out of the subjects of the Empire of
diverse roots by building a correct state structure? All this chaos and seduced psychologies of
the good citizens of the country of any category from Jewry to Sunnis, or from the rich to the
poor for many decades, since the foundation of the Republic, drives you to deep thinking
about the state.(26) While quite a big lot of the nation of any category experience, complain
and are convinced about the despotism of the new State today, there are also ideas that the
Ottoman state structure was a "centric-despotic one"(27) whereas there are other scientists
who claim counter ideas that the "Ottoman State was not a despotic country"(28). "Amy
Singer makes a convincing argument that the Ottoman state was a paper lion rather than a real
form of despotism".(29) Anyway, it must be reasoned that despotic actions at the Ottoman era
were just against the developing Turks here and there, generally by non-Moslem natives of the
land, who did not like Turks to improve themselves as a community in time. Despotism was
no way an aspect of the Ottomans or the Ottomanism.(30) Even the Sultans would complain
and stand against the occasional oppressions of the state bureaucracy.(31) But in today's
Turkey, normal and innocent citizens of this country are scared to tell what they are, what they
believe in, even what color they like in fear of the despotic system guarded on so-called a law
which does not generally bear any meaningful human and social aspects, and seduces the
logic and psychology both because of its content and the unjust applications by using police
force. The modern Turkey is beyond the range of understanding that it is impossible to
produce justice by unjust and lawless, so-called laws.

Though the Ottoman Sultans ruled the country under the sacred Islamic law of God, the
Shari'a, they always acted in faith, virtue and just in fear of God, as well understood from
documents and their biographies, and did not frustrate their people in their trust of the
Ottoman ruling. Even the Judaic and Christian elements of the Empire even trusted the the
Ottoman ruling and the so-called Islamic law because their natural human rights of any
category were guaranteed by the law; whereas today, from Moslem to Alevis and to Judaist, or
from the rich to the poor are suffering due to the lawless laws and the chaotic state the
Republic. Non-Moslem subjects were so pleased with the Ottoman Islamic law that they
always contributed to the Empire by presenting her their most successful children and works
in every field from music, or poetry to the beautiful ‘ebru-ebrew' art, or architecture; such as
magnificent ‘Divan Literature' or the originally Christian, Hiram-like architect Mimar Sinan
who built world-wide famous great works over all the Ottoman country. How a man of the
good would serve an order of all corrupt, injustice, darkness, oppression and degradation.

The Turkish State could not pitifully develop a really human and modern order, which meets
the needs of its citizens, and necessities of the modern state as in the western terms like the
one which Ataturk had intended. For example, the Ottoman state organs did not practice open
and hidden sick operations and sanctions with one of its subjects, who would later be the sole
supporting and sister people of Turks, like changing their names of their own culture,
prohibiting them of speaking their own mother tongue, and obliging them to migrate by
purposefully created bad conditions against them.

The circumstance was quite positive for Christian, Jewish and Roman communities during the
Ottoman times, which lived better than the degraded subjects of the Empire. The "Christian
and Jewish communities enjoyed legal autonomy in intra-communal matters, under the aegis
of their own religious leaders".(32) At the time of the Ottomans, non-Moslems were free to
divulge what they are, not killed or blamed for they were non-Moslem, and the Empire
Inzibats/disciplinary offices most probably would not welcome the murderers in cheerful
hugs. In our opinion, the Ottoman Kingdom would not itself found and approve provocation
organizations to kill any innocent member of the nation; and the unknown provocations would
not be the source of all of the contradictions and problems among the ethnic, religion, or
political groups. But "the Ottoman State was the only political organization of the middle ages
and the modern era, which recognized different religions and guaranteed a common and
harmonized life together with its ethnic groups".(33) As well as understood from the long
lasted multi religious and national structure of the Ottomans that secular life practice was a
legacy for Turkey of the Ottoman culture of the middle ages. Witnessing Turkey of hostilities,
fights, murders etc., it is possible to say that State of Turkey have not been able to inherit the
secular consciousness of the Ottomans as a republic and public policy and principle.

Judaic and Christian subjects, or rather lords of the Ottoman Empire were socio-economically
much better and civilized than Moslems and Turks, which may be due to that non-Moslems
started ‘settled life' long before Turks who whereat have not been able to develop abilities
needed for an urban life and community. Turks were only villagers, nomads, and soldiers who
went on wars, and died for the Islamic jihad for centuries, which were almost being the end of
Turks. With the Turkish revolution as a legacy of the Ottomans under the leadership of
Ataturk and his colleagues, among distinguished leaders of which there were also many non-
Moslems, the new state started to improve Turks together with the all nation for all good
values and gifts of human being and civil society. But just after Ataturk died, the political
leaders, or rather state organs of Turkey have not been able to create a logical and acceptable
state structure and social system for the nation and country, but have led to a non-human,
corrupted and illogical structure. This blasphemy of the state caused the distinguished
dominant groups of the Ottomans and the feverish pioneers of the new state to feel of
deception, disappointment and alienation about the new state. Having driven alienated, their
concentration went away from the country, and turned into themselves; that but resulted in
having the leading socio-economic place naturally in the corrupted system of Turkey.

In the contemporary Turkey, as a social case not formally practiced with the Ottomans of the
old times, members of other ethnics or religions, even of politics would be more beyond stress
and pressure in today's Turkey as long as they have the standard behaviors the State and
fundamentalists expect them to exhibit. Therefore, what expected, for the rose garden, of non-
Moslems and other ethnic, religious or political groups to do is just to behave in the fixed
standards of the perception of Turkishness, or ‘the citizen'; not to disturb the nationalist
feelings and psychology of ‘the people'; and obey the ‘law of Turkey'.

As well as the practice shows, the law of the Ottomans, when compared in their self-
standards, can be said to have presented more justice and had more empathy with its citizens,
and did not produce more doubt, frustration, fear and suffer than today's Turkey that even
non-Moslems were happy with the Ottoman law. It is subject to questioning today if
prosecutors work on a logical base within a correct philosophy of the ‘state, people, the
individual, and the rights'. On a witnessed case, the judge of Turkey would ask the prosecutor
and she would sentence a judgement together with him.

The judge presides the court ‘formally'. Both prosecutors and the judges operate under the
same board: ‘The Board of Judges and Prosecutors'; and they are selected by the government
from ‘the bar of lawyers'. The bar and the board altogether produce very nice justice:
‘Seduction of Justice'. Erdo?an Saracoglu defines the language "as each tribe is a system of
secret agreements, there are as many languages as tribes upon the earth".(34) In the Ottoman
Empire, except for the Sultan's occasional interventions as the king and the ‘faithful successor
of the order of God', "the judge did not depend on the government".(35) How interesting it is
that judges, prosecutors, and lawyers of modern Turkey are so happy with such an unjust law
and do not take a stand, brave or not, against the law of the corrupt in every field, and are
judging through such a law.(36) The other elements of the Trinitarian system sustain the
Turkish nation in prosperity are the army and the intelligence.

It was due to the high consciousness and faith of Ottomans that the policy of the Empire was
to avoid from unjust laws which would otherwise have restricted the most natural human
rights of individuals and communities (as well as standard civilization and tradition sufficed).
This consciousness led so many different groups lived together in peace for many years,(37)
whereas today's modern Turkey has not been able to inherit and practice any of the approach.
In today's modern Turkey, self-conditioned and self-approved approaches of any kind, which
you are not to make any negative, and cannot make any positive comment on, is accepted to
be good, and imposed to be made the norm for all. People of any upper or lower category
suffer in this country. The oligarchs of Turkey are not only disable to understand the problems
and to lead to a really modern, collectivist and happy country but also shush the most
advanced children of the country since Ataturk died. Being unable in successfully inheriting
the legacy of the high wisdom and virtue of the Ottomans; behaving some other group as
secondary citizens, thereby seducing the people's and individuals' psychologies; and
primitiveness and injustice have inevitably caused great pains, conflicts, and chaos in the
country.

It is certain that the Ottoman perception of individuals' freedom is not like that of today's. "It
was rather a concept of ‘justice' beyond the individual freedom"(38), whereat "the basic
element of the Ottoman state ideology was the concept of justice"(39), and as the Ottoman
historians stated "the state cannot be without justice".(40) "Justice was the base of the
‘mülk'/ruling"(41) for the Ottomans.

The Ottomans, a monarchy of old times, succeeded such a state system that accomplished the
missions of legislation, jurisdiction, economy, army, public services, etc., which functioned as
one unified power codified and defined by the sacred law of God, called the ‘Shari'a' of which
sanctions were equal for all; but which were controlled by the wisdom, virtue and deep faith
of the prophetic Ottoman Sultans. That there was no separation of power resulted in more
sensible and stronger governance, whereas today's modern Turkey succeeded ‘great
democratic attacks', failed in all its state office of very important affairs, the law as the most
important, separated all its power of the country: An occasion causing very important disunity
in decision making and governing processes of the state.

Among the nation, secular culture was one of the most crucial cultural aspects of the
Ottomans of the medieval ages, whereas people in Turkey have not been able to establish a
secular life among them in the later process. Most people of different faith groups today judge
others who are naturally different from them. Even in many recent times, it is known that
some organized groups have murdered many people of some other category. There are also so
many events witnessed that even the state officials themselves behave in very unfair and
hostile ways to members of some certain groups of any category, ethnic or political. As it is
very pitifully seen, both civil people and the state of Turkey lack of most general human
values and rights which the Ottomans had both as the state and the nation.

The Ottoman monarchic state was also very positive to support the nation's economic and
social necessities. People were allowed to establish many social associations for their social or
group needs and for improving themselves, most of which had a religious base in correlation
with the standard civilization, whereas today people are afraid of grouping on any human or
social need. The Ottoman State was able to manage its foreign affairs all on a positive base,
and its domestic affairs all in empathy for people. The Empire did not of course stand for
centuries on an Islamic Jihad. Today Turkish people are still conditioned that ‘Turks has no
friends other than Turks'. It is a pity that many of the good intentions, practices, and the bright
apostolic light of the Ottomans have all died after Ataturk because uneducated, bad-spirited,
weak and incapable governors have been entrusted with the State that did not have any slight
bit of high wisdom and faith of Ottomans and Ataturk. A failure that has resulted only in
chaos and tribulation with both domestic and foreign affairs of the State, and in seduction of
the psychology and civil, social and economic lives of the people.

The Ottomans successfully sustained the standard civilization of the era, and then passed it to
the West that has developed and brightened the light of civilization; whereas today's modern
Turkey has not been able to convey of any. Instead, the State has established a wild capitalist,
all speculative and oligarchic system under the mask of ‘a secular and democratic republic': A
system which was designed to serve only for some capitalists and their servants holding the
system who possess the most of the national production and income as well as having the fruit
of modernity, welfare and the law. Today's so called modern Turkey has left its poor people to
the elite or rich people's feelings of compassion instead of promulgating the most basic,
contemporary, human and collectivist approaches needed in the modern era, whereas the
Ottoman ruling always had empathy with people of any category and acted to provide means
to solve the possible problems of the nation as a state approach.

Failure of the modern Turkey in establishing an auspicious order, and exploitation of the good
virtues, values and wisdom of the Republic would have normally caused vexation and
reaction of the most commonsensical and enlightened children of the nation, against the
strong State, who would all be demolished and destroyed afterwards

Despite any possible human mistakes of them, all of the Ottoman sultans were higher people
of virtue, wisdom, divine discipline and a prophetic faith. They always behaved in fear of
God, and in a divine discipline in state and public affairs. They always had an effort for and
recognized the rights of others coming from their high human creation and nature. The highest
virtue and wisdom owned by the sultans were gradually being distributed into all state and
civil staff and affairs affecting the state and people positively. After Ataturk, whose deed was
also prophetic, the leaders of the state have somehow not been of the same high capacity in
state and public affairs so the state and people had very important problems and degraded in
every field of state and human life, and Modern Turkia could not have reached the highest
ideals it had during its foundation.

In spite of some ideas, we do not agree that resolving problems of Turkey "requires
reconciliation with the Ottomans"(42), nor the problems of Turkey have arisen because
Turkey did not accept the formal inheritance of the Ottomanism. The agony of the Republic of
Turkey has not arisen from the reason that Ottomanism was left, but rather because faithful
and learned leaders, like the ones in the era of the Ottomans, have not been grown and
charged with the state departments like army, intelligence, and the judiciary as the most
important, after Ataturk. Hence, the state has not been able to establish a good, right and
peaceful system for the people and the country. The Ottomans, under the leadership of the
Sultans did the best of the time with their unique civilization, culture, institutions, virtue and
wisdom, which the successors unfortunately have not been able to be worthy of, inherit, and
continue.

Ottomans succeeded in such a successful synthesis of the qualities of different poles of many
groups and from many social categories, thereby who lived, even growing, in peace for many
years until Turks also naturally showed a little bit socio-economic development in its last
centuries what Greco-Roman elements did not like, and thus prepared the end of the Empire.
It can be said that Turkey has had this legacy from the Ottoman times of treacherous Greco-
Roman agents by realizing their important contribution to the chaos since the foundation of
Turkey. It must be confessed that most of the Turks still have their Islamic Jihad spirit they
have as a legacy of the Ottomans, by the effect of which Turks lied to Greco-roman lands
under the leadership the Ottomans.

Nevertheless, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire by its enemies could not prevent the
foundation of Turkish Republic and institutionalization of Turkishness as a nation; by the time
sooner when incapable and bad state staff that drove both the state and the nation into great
tribulation took the young Turkish Republic. In this process, the unreasonable and corrupted
practices, which were never seen with the Ottomans, of the incapable so-called ‘democratic'
state of Turkey offended, frustrated and drove into rebellion not only the successors of the
crypto pioneers, who founded the Republic by the inspiration they inherited from the high
Ottoman faith, but also the logical people of the country regardless of whatever category they
are from. What engrossing is that the corruption has been based on a law and got a ‘forcing'
character and that the people of ‘the low' and ‘the lie' are so happy with ‘the law' of the
corrupt. Moreover, evil state executives of the multi-party democratic system are so foible to
realize the simplest wrongs. The system killed not only many of human and social ideals, but
also national values of Turkishness, which never means a racist sense.

Modern Turkey almost loses every kind of the legacy of the Ottomans from abstract to
concrete. Few people realize neither the meaning of the spirituality nor the concrete values of
the Ottomans. Today some people censure the high works of Divine music of the Ottomans
while they do not see the great prosody mistakes within the Turkey's national anthem Turkey.
The State of Turkey has pitifully not been able to solve the potential problems of the Turkish
people and the beautiful country inherited from the Ottoman times. That one accepts ‘the state
is still up is a success' is another idea.

Conclusion:
The legacy of the humble but all glorious Ottomans is great for not only Turks but also the
humanity. From the most advanced groups to the underdeveloped ones, people were
introduced and developed a way of life in peace under their just reign fully in their supreme
faith of God, the Light, and the Turkish Sultan on the throne, who fought like a lion with his
head under his arm on his white horse.

When the Empire wounded severely in the 1800s, and when Turks were almost destroyed in
the early1900s, the Ottomans healed them by initiating the foundation of the Turkish Republic
on the account of the blood of Unknown Soldier of the Turks under the leadership of the great
Ottoman Pasha, Mustafa Kemal of Thessalonica. The Ottomans, when burned left alone,
erected Turks and the Republic of Turkey from their own ashes as their legacy for their most
devoted subject, which presented Turks of surviving, a beautiful country, and the latest gifts of
the modern human civilization altogether with the whole nation. Ottomans who adopted,
accredited, and thereby became ancestors of, the Turks. Together with the Turks from the east,
facing to the west, Ottomans, whose funny white tiaras on their heads were as clean as the
Black Sea, also led a holy mission with not only Turks but also non-Moslems by introducing
them to each other for a heterogeneous togetherness.

Nevertheless, after the death of Ataturk, the state has been captured by incapable, uncivilized,
and undeserving oligarchs, who were not able to inherit the high wisdom, virtue and merit of
Ottomans, and who corrupted the state, seduced the existence and psychology of the people
including that of Recep Tayyip Erdogan's, one of the most beloved sons of the nation: and
drove the Republic into such an agony, chaos and unhappiness.

It is a great pity that some ‘devoted' Kemalist thinkers slander the Ottomans of being corrupt
and the last Sultans to have been disloyal to the country, whereas on the other hand, some
‘devoted' Moslem ideologists, without being able to realize the real merit of the Ottomans and
that the Turkish Republic itself is a legacy of the Ottomans, slander that Turkish Republic is a
blasphemy. Neither groups are able to see their fruit, nor recognize them at all.

The principles, ideals and the actions of the founding leaders of the Turkish Republic, who
had grown at the Ottoman school, were all just of virtue and wisdom. In a very short time,
they provided the Republic and the nation with great development in every field by the time
when, all of a sudden, the State started a corruption called ‘multi party democratic system',
which later on would be the reason of every harm in every field: separation of the unity of the
country, people and power of the state. The unworthy, if not treacherous, state officials were
not able to read the role models in the west as a state system, and has caused the country to be
degraded, and many decades wasted and the nation suffered a lot.

The legacy of Ottomans was not a corrupt order, degradation and exploitation; provocations
with its own people, separating people into pieces through complots, and forcing people upon
primitive and non-human laws that seduce people's good feelings and psychology. It was not
building people some deliriums of any kind, and mines bedded under some group of her own
citizens feet; thereby causing the most devoted children of the nation to wish a mandate in
feelings of revenge for their sufferings and hopelessness of their state. It was not also the
legacy of Ataturk and his colleagues who founded The Turkish Republic. The legacy was not
of the grail turning to the grave, and the crown to the clown.

The State of Turkey is no way, pessimistic. Today thousands of promising assistant

researchers and assistant professors, most of whom are young and successful ladies, are
transforming Turkey into a faculty and scientifically analyzing Turkey from every point; by
whom we believe that the country will solve most of its problems of a couple of centuries.

(katar_m@ibu.edu.tr)

FOOTNOTES

(1)The Qoran, (Neml, 27:30)

(2)*The key phrase, ‘In the name of Allah, who is Rahman and Rahymm' is in fact the
statement of a very famous theme of all theologies: The evangel and peace of the ‘sacred
wedding' of Ra-Amon (Rahman, the Sun God) and Ra-Hymm (Rahim, the Goddess of the
Hymm); ‘Hieros Gamos' and ‘Hiero Salem'. This note is given to explain that the basic key of
Quran correlates the basic theme of religions, which Moslems do not know.
**While the Lord and Qoran order the prophet to start with this starting key, "Read in the
name of thy Lord who createth" (Alak, 01:01 in the original revelation order), Moslems use
the messianic evangelic verse of Solomon in Qoran.
**The Turkish flag, which was composed of a five-ended star and a crescent on red, a legacy
of the Ottomans, is the symbol of the same promised messianic evangel.
(3)The correct name is ‘Turkia' as in Bolivia, Namibia, Arabia, Serbia, Mongolia, and
Australia.
(4)Haim Gerber, (Ed. by Kemal Karpat), Ottoman Past and Today's Turkey, (Netherlands,
2000), p. 133
(5)Saint Paulus sharply warns against circumcisiton, which is so-called a religious rituel
practiced by Moslems and Turks, though there does not exist such a rituel in Qoran.
(6)*Thomsen Wilh., Çözülmü? Orhon Yaz?tlar?, ?lk Bildiri, ‘North Face-IN10', (Translated
by Vedat Köken, Ankara, 1993), p. 121. (Great Danish philologist who solved the Orkhon
Inscriptions).
(7)*Taner Timur, Osmanli Toplumsal Düzeni, (Ankara, 2001), p. 12.
**Timur, quoted from the prominent French Historian J. Michelet: "Turkish migrations are
the final of the barbaric invasions", ibid., 13.
(8)The Quran Prophet of the Salem/Islam religion, the name used for the seal of the prophets
of the evangel and salvation.
(9)The Old Testament, (Shir Ha-shirim 5:16), the word used for the seal of the prophets, of
the evangel and the salvation.
(10)Justin McCarthy, The Ottoman Turks, (Longman Publications, New York, 1998), p. 36.
(11)Such as McCarthy, ibid., 106.
(12)*Many academicians get their Ph.D.s just for they ‘read, and translate' the Ottoman pages
into Turkish. An average Turk does not even understand a tenth of a sentence in the Ottoman
language.
**We accept nomadic Turkish language was limited to meet the needs of the world of the
Ottomans.
(13)http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/osmond,
http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/names.htm,
http://www.behindthename.com/name/osmond.
(14)‘?' (soft g) in Turkish is zero value in phonetics and always drops in pronunciation and
Turkish people almost never pronounce ‘?' in speaking. Thereby ‘Ertu?rul' is equal to ‘Erturul'
and then, to ‘Arturul' in phonetics. Arthur is a very familiar Christian name. There are at least
two types of ‘-ul' and two types of ‘-l' suffix in Turkish used after nouns and verbs. We must
accept that it is a bilingual name converted from Christianity.
(15)*Remember the name of former Israeli president ‘Hayim' Herzog.
**Many names in Turkish is turned out to a female name by adding the suffix ‘-e' at the end
of the name such as in Nadir (male)-Nadire (female). The relative female form of Hayim
thereby is ‘Hayime'. That the ‘i' vowel in the middle syllable of Ha-yi-me falls and the name
is pronounced as in ‘Hayme' is due to a very general phonetic sound event in Turkish
language. It is also very interesting that in the Turkish names and dictionaries we cannot find
any Turkish ‘Hayme' name, nor in the society.
(16)*See the site for the related Hebrew name:
http://phelafel.technion.ac.il/~orcohen/cv_orcohen.pdf.
**‘Or' means ‘light'; and "Khan", which is a variant of ‘Cohen' in Hebrew and ‘Kagan' in
Turkish, means ‘king' in Turkish, and ‘priest' in Hebrew. Therefore, as a variant of the name
‘Orhan', ‘Orkhan' means ‘Light-King' or ‘Or-Cohen' means ‘Priest of light'. It can also be
related to ‘Oran' in Hebrew in a phonetic and onomastic study.
(17)For further information about the flag of Turkey, study about the Sun God and Moon
Goddess, Hieros Gamos, Sacred Wedding, Solomon and Sheba Queen stories of Judaic
mythology.
(18)See Sultan Solomon's tomb, or visit the site:
http://www.sinanasaygi.com/i/eserler/b/77_2004.jpg
(19)Dennis Sharp, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Architects and Architecture, ( Quatro
Publishing, New York, 1991) p. 141
(20)*Yalcin Küçük, Tekeliyet 2, Ikinci Cilt, (Istanbul, 2003)
**H. Kemal Karpat, Studies On Ottoman Social and Political History, (Netherlands, 2002),
pp. 146-168
***Yalcin Küçük presents very comprehensive books about crypto Judaism and Christians
from Ottoman times to today. His general idea cannot be shared that Jews in Turkey, who also
pioneered the foundation of the Republic, have been turning Turkey into a monopoly of theirs
and betraying the Republic. Though some Greek, so-called Jewish, elements are betraying the
Republic, as they did during the collapse of the Empire, the real sociology of the case is that
the Jews are also losing all their good expectations of the State; and that they would also be
lost in the corrupt and primitiveness otherwise.
(21)*Kücük, Ibid., 431.
(22)*"Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan" (Genesis 28:1).
**"Every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the Israelites shall marry one
from the clan of her father's tribe, so that all Israelites may continue to possess their ancestral
inheritance. No inheritance shall be transferred from one tribe to another; for each of the
tribes of the Israelites shall retain its own inheritance." (Numbers 36:8,9)
(23)*Genesis 49:10. The correlation of Shiloh is the promised Messiah, to whom the Holy
Spirit is seen at Ararat and of whom Islamic variant is the long awaited Muhammad/Mahdi,
Machammadim(Note 8). Of course, it depends on the readers' acceptation whether or not to
share the idea that anyone other than children of Jacob would hold the scepter as the Qoran
and the Bible are all in consensus that Shiloh has not arrived yet. Not mentioning the high
enlightenment of the children of Jacob would of course be a lacking within a study on the
Ottomans.
(24)Ufuk Gülsoy, Tarih ve Düsünce Dergisi, No: 2003/11, "Osmanli gayrimüslimleri
askerlikten hoslanmadilar/Ottoman Non-Moslems Did not Like Being Soldiers", p. 23.
(25)Who would know that mythological fight treachery of the legendary Troy is in fact the
biggest treachery and plot of the world history that plotted against Turks at Canakkale in
1915, where Turks gave most of their losses in the Turkish independence war. Greek kohen-
poet, Homeros who sang the Troy legends to people could not have revealed that one day
Turks would have been settled around Troy/Canakkale.
(26)The different root subjects and the citizens of the Ottomans relatively lived more in
harmony and peace; and would not be provoked and discriminated through an office and
agenda of the Empire.
(27)*Timur, 142.
**Gerber, 135, quoted from Halil Inalcik.
(28)*Gerber, 137, quoted from Amy Singer.
**Ortayli, Ilber, Tarihin Sinirlarina Yolculuk, (Istanbul, 2007), p. 17
(29)Different acceptations of the same case of Ottomans and modern Turkey are generally due
to the identity and social or ethnic characteristics of the ideologist, and due to assessing the
events from different categorical points. For example from a sociological point, you can judge
and criticize a state to be ‘centric', but from the political point of view, one should not criticize
a state to be "centric" because a state must be centric.
(30)What is understood of the sister terms ‘Ottoman', ‘the Ottomans', and ‘the Ottomanism' is
only the Sultans together with their virtue and wisdom, that is generally thought to come from
Islam and Turkishness, whereas Hebrew essence of them is not taken into account.
(31)Bülent Tanör, Osmanli-Türk Anayasal Gelismeleri (1789-1980) (Istanbul, 2006), p. 28
(32)Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire (Great Britain, 2002), p. 216
(33)Nazmi Eroglu, Tarih ve Düsünce, 2003/11, p. 80, quoted from ‘Osmanli ve Dünya' by
Kemal Karpat, (Istanbul, 2001).
(34)http://nec.neu.edu.tr/english/news03_04/erdogansaracoglu.htm
(35)Feridun Emecen, et al, Osmanli Devleti Tarihi, 2. cilt, (Istanbul, 1999), p. 393.
(36)E.g., the law of corrupt judges that ‘one's own culture or belief' is an ‘extenuating
circumstance' for one who killed his sister or daughter because she was seen, or told to be
with a man. Some other accustomed lowness of the law is that innocent people would be
followed just for they would be, or were said ‘would sleep together', then these innocent
people would be arrested by the order of the state prosecutor as if they had committed a
crime; their photos and videos would be taken and shown on the media, and they would be
blamed of committing a shameful crime.
(37)What wanted to be meant is not that the Empire was a rose garden. It is sure that there
were also problems but arising away from the Sultans' disposal. The case rather should be
studied from the point of the Sultans' virtue, view and initiation in the direction that what is
understood of the concept ‘the Ottomans' is ‘the Sultans' and ‘the virtue, culture and wisdom
they had'.
(38)Tanör, Ibid., p. 26
(39)Ibid., 26
(40)Ibid., 26
(41)*Timur, ibid., p. 242. Taner Timur has very good ascriptions relating the Ottoman case to
the Byzantine aspects including Turkic arguments.
**‘mülk' has a very diverse range of interpretation like from ‘kingdom' or ‘every thing' to
‘possessing' or ‘power'.
(42)Karpat, Ibid., p. viii