You are on page 1of 15

Turk Hazar imparatorlugu Hakklnda Yazl~malar

Degerli Arkada9lar,

Merhaba. Bildiginiz gibi Tarihte Turk milletinin kurmu9 oldugu imparatorluklardan birisi de Turk Hazar Imparatorlugudur. Avrasyanln bu gunku Ukrayna, Don ve Idil nehirleri bolgeleri ve Kafkaslar bolgesini iyine alan bu buyuk Turk imparatorlugu tarihimizde 16 Turk Devleti diye bilinen bu yu k Turk devletlerinden biri olup 'I'u r'k i ye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurba9kanllgl s an caq i nda k i. 16 y.i Ld.i z da n biridir. Tarihte sekiz a s i r kadar bir muh t.e s em omur ya9aml9 bu Turk Hazar Imparatorlugu, M. S. 6. ve 13. aSlrlar araslnda hukumran olmu9, e9siz bir h09 goruye, e9itlik kanunlarlna, hak ve adalete riayet eden, qununclen en az 1500 y i.L daha ileride, sanki qunumuz de ki yagda9 demokrat bir devlet imi9 gibi tarihe damgaslnl vurmu9tur. Bu buyuk Turk Lmpa r at.c r Luqunun adil kan a t La r i. al t i.nda b i r co k gruplar gerek sosyal hayat ve gerekse ekonomik hayat baklmlndan yok hur ve zengin yaglar ya9aml9lardlr. Bunlarln araslnda ba9ta gelenler de Yahudiler olmu9tur. Buraya pek yok uzak diyarlardan kayarak gelen Yahudi tuccar ve misyonerler hem zenginle9mi9ler ve hem de dinlerini yayma flrsatlnl bulmu9lardlr. Hatta oyle ki bazl Hazar kaganlarl bile Museviligi kabullenmi9 ve aralarlnda ad bile degi9tirmi9 olanlar olmu9tur. Bu arada olaslllkla Kaganlarln yaklnlarl ve belki de bazl Turkler Museviligi kabul etmi9ler. Denildigine gore, imparatorluk iyinde daglnlk halde 30,000 kadar musevi dininden olanlar varml9·

Bu muh t.e s em Turk Lmpe r e t.o r Luqunu ba z i. Yahudi q r up l.a r i. y ap t i.k La r i. ce s i, tli ya y i.n l a r va s i. t.a s i y La dun ya ya Yahudi Lmpa r a t o r Luqu a d i. ile t an i. tmaktalar. 1997 lerde bir vesile ile bu gibi tanltmalara kar9l Ylkml9tlm. Hazar Imparatorlugu konusunda www.khazaria.com adresli web-sitesinin sahibi Kevin Brook adll ki9i ile son birkay hafta iyinde bir e-mail konu9mamlz geryekle9ti. Hazar Imparatorlugu ile ilgilenenlerin bu tartl9mall yazl9malarl gormelerinde yarar olur dU9uncesiyle bu iki yazlml ve eklerini sizlerin dikkatine sunuyorum. www.khazaria.com web-sayfaslna baklp soylenenleri dikkatle okuyup, kimlerin nelerin pe s i.nde o Lduqunu o z e Ll Lk Le gormenizi oneriyorum.

Turk Hazar Imparatorlugu hakklnda yapllan pek yok ara9tlrma yazllarlnda ve buluntularln tasvirlerinde kaypak dil kullanllmakta olup yanlltlcl sozler, yanll9 bilgilendirme ve yanll9 temsil etmelerle eski Turk tarihini s ap t i r i Lma k t.ada r . Turk dun ya s i.n i.n ku l t.u ru 'I'u r kd e n a l Ln i p b a s ka La r i.n a aktarllmaktadlr. Bu gibi aktarmalara sozde "samimiyet" havasl iyinde yap i Ld i.q i. goruntusu verilmektedir. Geryeklerin ne o Lduqunu bilmeyen yogu okuyucu kolayllkla yanll9 bilgilendirilmektedir. Her okuyucu okudugunu pek soru9turmadlglna gore, yazllan yazllar da, dogru veya yanll9, bir kere yazlldlktan sonra ve yanll9lar da duzeltilmedikye, ilerisi iyin kaynak belgeler oluyor. $imdilerde "Yahudi Hazar" diye yaz i La p t an i. t i Lan Turk Hazar Imparatorlugunun, gelecegin Yahudi Hazar Imparatorlugu diye bilineceginden hiy kimsenin 9uphesi olmasln. Bu konuda devamll gekilde yall9an bir gebeke var. ASlI garip olan ve bu gibi olaylara cesaret veren durum, bu h a.I Le r ka r s i s i.nda Turk insaninin h i.c sesinin c i kmach.q i d.i r . Kay ki9i bilir ki Israil bayragl uzerindeki altl kogeli Ylldlzln Turk dunyasl ile yok yaklndan ilgisi olup, Turklerin eski damgalarlndan birisidir. Osmanll yini sanatlnlnda pek yok eseri susleyen bir Ylldlzdlr ve en onemlisi Barbaros Hayrettin Pa s an i.n Amirallik Bay r a qa n.i n uz e r i.nde k i. y.i.Ld.i z d i r . Yani pek co k yoriuy Le Turk ku L t u ru a s i Ll i d i r . Buna ragmen bu sembol 'I'u r k l.e r Lc i.n k a ybo Lmu s t.u r . Herkes onu "Star of David" diye bilir. Internette ara9tlrma yaparsanlz, bu sembolun Yahudilere ait olmadlgl aylkya yazllml9tlr. Durum boyle iken Turkun neden hiy sesi ylkmaz?

Bilmem ha t i r La r rru s i.n i z , Yugoslavia pe r ca Lan i p Makedonya Cumhuriyeti kuruldugu zaman, Grekler hem "Makedonya" adlnln kullanllmaslna kar~a C;:lktllar ve hem de Makedonyall Buyuk Iskenderin bayraglndaki "gune9 sembolunun" Makedonyalllar taraflndan kullanllamayacaglnl lsrarla sbylediler. Greklerin iddiasl, bu adln ve sembolun Grek kulturune ait oldugu idi ve dolaYlslyla ba9ka kimse kullanamazdl. Bu iddia dahi tartl9ma qo t u r u r o Lma s i.n a ragmen Grekler yine de "benim" diye .i s r a r ettiler. Demek Ls t ed i q i.m s udu r ki ce s i, tli Turk ku L t u r u ba s ka I a r i. t.a r a f i.ncla n a La nda qa nda Turkler neden sessiz kallyorlar? Bu bir uyuma degil mi? "Sarl Gelin turkusu" ic;:in "bu bize ait olmaYlp ta Ermenilere ait olsa ne C;:lkar?" diyen zihniyetten ne zaman kurtulur Turk?

Bu gunku Turk dunyasl 2000 sene evvelinden geriye dogru binlerce sene bncesinde qe Li s t.Lrrni.s o l.du qu muh t.e s em Turk dunya s i. ve 0 dun yari.i n tbreleri hakklnda hemen hemen her geyi unutmu9 veya unutturulmu9 gibidir. Uzak gec;:mi9te dunyaya din, dil ve medeniyet veren Turk dunyaslnln Sumerleri ve bence dunyanln en uzun bmurlu Turk devleti olan eski Masar/Mlslr devletini Turklukten uzakla9tlranlar 9imdi ba9ka emeller pe9indedirler.

Bilinir ki k o kuriu kaybeden ot bir daha da kolay kolay yegeremez. Turk milleti kbkunu kaybederse kendi gelecegini ve kimligini tehlikeye dU9urur. Turkler 9anll atalarlndan bir grubu ve onlara ait olan butun tbreleri ba9kalarlna kaptlrlrsa neticede insanllk bnunde C;:lplak kallr, kultursuz diye t an i. t i La r ve ba s ka I a r i. t.a r a f i.ncla n ku cums e n i r . Turk dunya s i. Ln s an.i.n.i.n bbyle bir duruma dU9memesi ic;:in butun cedlerine sahip C;:lkmasl, "onlar 'I'u r k t u l.e r ve benim a t a La r i.md i." diyerek gururla onlara ve on La r i n kulturlerine, hangi dinde olurlarsa olsun, sahip C;:lkmasl gerekir. Gbruluyor ki on La r i n ce s i, tli dinlere ka r s i. olan h09 gbruleri kaypak ve yan i L t i c i. sbzlerle sbmurulmek istenmektedir. Turk insanlnln bu durumlarln bilincinde o Lma s i.n a ve bu gibi a s i rma La r a hedef olan tbrelerinin ko runma s i.nda uyan i k olmaslna yardlmcl olur amaclyla sizlere 0 yazl9malarl sunuyorum.

Selamlar,

Polat Kaya

Subject: Re: A new website

Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:08:44 +0100

From: Pol at Kaya <tntr@c >

To: Kevin Brook <kbrook@p >

Dear Kevin Brook:

This is in response to your e-mail dated Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17: 58: 33 -0400 (EDT) and entitled "Re: A new website".

I do not find your "virus" explanation convincing. The initial e-mail came from your email address to my email address. Since you before, why should you have my email address remove it so that I do not get any more viruses messages from your system.

I have never written to in your system? Please or worms or whatever

You said:

Since you contacted me, I would like you to apologize for your anti- Jewish remarks against my website's acknowledgement that the Khazars converted to Judaism. I am a friend of Turks and do not "steal" from Turks.

This is an unwarranted assumption. It seems that you are either confused or in the mood for playing tricks which I did not expect from a person that wri tes history books and claims to be a scholar. First you sent me a strange email, now you deny it and also come forward with an absurd request for an apology for something I did not do. You have to be kidding. Unquestionably we must be living in a peculiar world.

I do not know what you are talking about. I have not made anti-Jewish remarks nor do I apologise for my critism of your writings in your website. You seem to be full of assumptions and hostility to accuse me when you are the one who should be accused. I f you really are a friend of the Turks, which you claim to be and you should be, then you will have to change your attitude, particularly your double-talking writing style regarding the ancient Turks. Instead of getting carried away with false assumptions about me, you should try to learn more about the Turks.

Regarding some of the Khazar Turks being converted to Judaism is no problem for me at all, however, misusing such a conversion for unintended purposes becomes a problem. Since very ancient times, Turks, in addition to their own celestial religion, have, sometimes, acquired different religions that were influenced or derived from their own ancient religion. However, it must be noted that following a religious belief other than their own does not change a Turk's identity. No matter what religion a Turk follows, he is still a Turk and remains a Turk and his culture belongs to him. The same applies to the Khazar Turks, only a limited numbers of whom were converted to Judaism during their reign. However, such a limited conversion neither makes their Turkish empire a "Jewish Empire" nor does it make all of them "Jewish Khazars" as you portray. You imply a whole spectrum of Khazar Turks being "Jewish" which is absolutely not true. You and also some other wri ters have been using such terms very freely. You must appreciate that what you write now will possibly be a reference for future generations. After a few generations pass by, a writer will not be around to explain what he/she wrote in the past, therefore, his/her present writings must be clear, explicit and self explanatory so that there will be no confusion in the future as there are presently due to erroneous past writings.

You must understand that my opposition is to your style of rewriting Turkish history and not against your people. My objections are against your misleading references to the Turkish Khazar Empire as being the "Jewish Khazars", "Jewish Empire", the "Jewish kings ruling the eastern Europe", "the Great Jewish Cities of Central and Eastern Europe" (which were all Turkish cities), "the local governors of these cities and districts were usually Jewish" and many more similar statements which push the Khazar Turks into being a phantom at the background. The titles of your references enhance your claims as well. So what is going on here regarding the Khazar Turks? Are some coordinated efforts being directed towards obliterating the Khazar Turks and their Turkish Empire from history so that some other group can take over their magnificent heritage? It is obvious that painting the "Khazar" name with double-meaning adjectives such as "Jewish" or "Turkic" and not explicitly mentioning "Turk" paints a clouded picture of the Turkishness of this Turkish empire. What is also obvious is that this is an effort of intentional takeover of one of the most important Turkish empires by a handful of ambitious writers. You and a number of other writers use phrases of double meanings which cannot be distingushed by the ordinary reader. When you make such references in your text, you are making misrepresentations and misleading the reader. I am sure you know and speak

English well enough to know how to be unambiguous in your writings, that is, if you want to be.

If I recall correctly, you did say, in a letter to Mr. Mehmet Tutuncu, that the Khazar culture belonged to the Jews rather than to the Turks. This is quite a claim. You must remember that without the magnanimity of the Khazar Turks, whom you seem to phantomise with subtleties of your writings, you would have neither the Jewish presence nor the Jewish culture in the Turkish Khazar Empire at a time when Jews were being persecuted at many other places. So, please let us not forget the source of who gave what to whom. Additionally, you must not forget that Turks, who had the ancient ancestor worshipping cult, are also very fond of their ancestors and the heritage that they left behind. Thus only the present day Turkish peoples are the owners of the legacies of their ancestors and it will be so as long as Tur/Turk peoples are around.

So this is my point in this issue and it is the end of this discussion.

Best wishes,

Pol at Kaya

Kevin Brook wrote:

Dear Pol at Kaya:

I did not send any such email to you. There are viruses and worms on the Internet which pick up people's email addresses from public websites on the World Wide Web and then use a third-party's Microsoft Outlook software to send out fake emails with no content, or sometimes with a false .PDF or .HTM file, but only intriguing subject lines without any actual message. Usually these emails are between lOOK and 200K in size. But this kind of virus does not actually infect the email address it stole, so there is nothing I can do on my end to stop your receipt of such messages.

Since you contacted me, I would like you to apologize for your anti- Jewish remarks against my website's acknowledgement that the Khazars converted to Judaism. I am a friend of Turks and do not "steal" from Turks.

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Pol at Kaya wrote:

Hello kbrook,

This is in response to your e-mail dated which you refer to a new website without about and how to find it. Additionally, talking to and neither you signed your proper in your communication?

Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:12:03 +0300 in given any indication of what it is you did not indicate whom you are

name. Can you be more visible and

Pol at Kaya

kbrook wrote:

Part 1.1 Type: Hypertext Markup Language (text/html)

Encoding: quoted-printable

Subject: Re: Khazars mentioned repeatedly as Turks Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:10:44 +0100

From: Pol at Kaya <tntr@c >

To: Kevin Brook <kbrook@p >

Dear Kevin Brook:

This is in response to your e-mail dated Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18: 36: 16 -0400 (EDT) and entitled "Khazars mentioned repeatedly as Turks".

I will respond to the first of your last two paragraphs first where you are again attributing things to me that I have not said. You have written:

"Because I never denied that Khazars were Turks, your accusations against me 5 years ago have been proven totally false. Of course the Israeli documentary emphasized the Jewish religion of the Khazars, so what? Furthermore, your claim that Jews are backstabbing people who are trying to trick Turks is also false."

1) First what you have indicated here is not my style of writing. I don I t wri te or make remarks like that. Other than my first paper to TURKISTAN:

NEWSLETTER some years ago regarding your website, I had nothing to do with you at any time. This is the first time I am having any communication with you after your recent two line e-mail. Yet you attribute sayings to me that I have not said at all. I have given my response to you in this regard in my first letter but let me just add here that I really resent your baseless accusations and insinuations and for that you owe me an apology.

Secondly, please do not be in such a hurry in dismissing the term "Jewish" by saying "so what?" Let me begin with the term "Jewish" that you use considerably in your website writings. To my knowledge, this is the first time you indicate, privately in your letter to me, that the term: ""Jewish" refers to the religion only". To my knowledge, this you have not indicated in your website writings. Additionally, this term mayor may not mean so for you, but not so to the ordinary reader. The term "Jewish" is the adjective form of the name "Jew" meaning "OF OR PERTAINING TO JEWS". Thus, it implies anything and everything to do with Jews including themselves. Hence, your view of the term "Jewish" is not defined in the dictionaries as you indicate it to mean "religion only". Therefore, the term is synonymous not only with "being in the religion of Judaism" and many other things related to the Jewish people, but also with the "Jewish people, that is, the Jews" as well. Thus, the image you are presenting about the Khazar Turks is very ambiguous and misleading. In fact probably a very high percentage of your readers, after reading what you have presented, will go away with the impression that: a) Khazars were Jews; b) "Khazars were Jewish; c) Khazars were Turkic, and d) Khazars were Turks. As you can see there is a lot of ambiguity and room for confusion in such terminology. Such loose statements have the room for obliteration of Turks, Turkish identi ty and Turkish culture. That is why you need to be specific and/or explicit.

2) The second term that you seem to use a lot is the term "Turkic". This English term refers to "those who speak Turkish language" who may be the Turks themselves but also those non-Turks who may also speak Turkish. Thus, again you are using another double edged terminology that can be taken in any direction you wish. When someone questions you about what do you mean by the term "Turkic", you may give any explanation that suits your purpose. Accordingly, the term "Turkic Khazars" can mean "Khazar Turks" to some

knowledgable people, or "Turkish speaking non-Turks" to some other people. Since you keep calling them "Jewish Khazars", the reader will definitely think that they were Turkish speaking Jews. Thus, again you have created an atmosphere in which the Khazar Turks are liable to lose their Turkish identity and for the present day Turks to lose one of their most cherished ancestors. The Turkish Khazar Empire lasted about 800 years with social standards as free, tolerant and democratic as any of the so-called "democratically and socially developed countries of present times". When Turks have served humanity in such a magnificent way, why are they not identified with their Turkish identity and why is their ancestry identified with the ancient Jewish people? When you use double meaning terms in your writings, you are not only overtaking Turkish heritage in a very subtle way, but you are also obliterating the Turks and their history. This is not acceptable. Therefore, as a writer, you must be very careful. If you are going to be a scholar and write a book or essay about the ancient Khazar Turks and the refugee Jews that the Khazar Turks accepted into their country as a safe haven for them, you need to be very specific. You cannot use ambiguous terms as you have done. This is objection I had then and I still have.

Just as you feel that your ancestors and their heritage are important to you, so do the Turks feel about their ancestors, and their ancestors I cu I ture and heritage. In fact this is as important to the Turks as life itself. Because once you remove a link from their ancestorial roots, no matter what religion they may have had, you have cut their lifeline to the past. No one has the right to do that. This is what has been done to Turks in the writings of ancient media since ancient times. This is not acceptable anymore.

Using your writings as a model, say in 200-300 years from now, another XYZ comes along and writes another book calling it "The Jewish Ottomans" or "Jewish Ottoman Empire" or the Muslim Arap Empire of Ottomans or something similar thinking that there were Jews, Arabs, and other groups in the Ottoman Empire and therefore it is OK to use such terminology. Dont you think that would be an absurd and misleading title for a book?

3) In your very last paragraph, you said: "The people have a problem with are those who suggest that Khazars Lost Tribes of Israel or Circassians."

you should really were Scythians or

In this regard I agree with you about the suggestion of "Lost Tribes of Israel or the Circassian". But I must highlight the so-called name "Scythians" who were the ancient Turkish "SAKA" people. Their name has also been distorted into "Scythians" this time by the ancient Greeks. Hence, they have been called SCYTHIANS by western writers, SAKA and/or ISKIT by some other writers. Thus the confusion has lingered on. This confusion is part of the game of obliterating Turkish ancestry from history. Once the name of the Turkish people in question is changed and they are associated with some non-Turk groups, the problem starts.

4) I visited your website once more after your first e-mail. through all of your writings as I do not have time for that. seen some important parts of it.

I cannot go But I have

I see that you have made some improvements to your writings, but if you dont mind my telling you, what you have done is not enough because you are still following the same line of ambiguity. Let me indicate some of them to you. You will never find a better critic or editor. Here are some of your writings from your website and my comments. You wrote:

4.1) Medieval Kingdom of Khazaria, 650-1016

You write:

"Over kings

a thousand years ago, the who presided over numerous

far east tribes,

of Europe was including their

ruled by Jewish own tribe: the

Turkic Khazars."

This misleading statement seems to be intentionally slanted such that any ordinary reader, who does not know the facts, will get the impression that it was the Jewish people and their kings who established such a great empire and ruled many peoples. Even the structuring of your sentences adds to the confusion. You associate "kings" with "Jewish" and "tribes" with the term "Turkic". While the "Jewish" ones are being elevated to the level of kings, the Turks are being put down to a tribe level. Yet there is no indication that in actuality the kings and the rulers were the Turks. Your statement would have been much more truthful if you had said, for example:

"OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AGO, THE FAR EAST OF EUROPE WAS RULED BY TURKISH HAKANS OF THE TURKISH HAZAR EMPIRE WHO PRESIDED OVER NUMEROUS TRIBES, INCLUDING THEIR OWN PEOPLE THE HAZAR TURKS. SOME OF THESE TURKISH HAKANS WERE CONVERTED TO JUDAISM."

As you can see this would have been the truthful statement, yet yours is not. You used all the double meaning words such as "Jewish", "Turkic", "Jewish kings", etc., to push the Turks back into ambiguity in their own empire while bringing a handful of guest Jews and Judaism practising Hazar Turks to the forefront. This is not truthful history writing. What kind of "a friend of Turks" which you claime tobe are you? I am sure you know how to express things clearly and honestly in the language that you write in. But you choose to manipulate the reader by misleading verbology. This is very objectionable to the Turks.

Additionally, any religion, including Judaism, is just a "religious belief", al thought some beliefs are much more transparent than the others. A Turk believing in any such "belief" does not lose his Turkish identity. Thus, identifying Turks, ancient and present, with their "religious affiliation" rather than with their ethnic identity is a tactic of obliteration which has been perpetrated by many writers for so long and most likely for hidden reasons.

Now if you want to write about the Khazar Turks and the Jewish religion in that ancient Turkish state, you have to change your style. If you are a friend of Turks, as you claim to be, then you have to be truthful and not use slippery statements in your writings. Otherwise, you are doing a disservice to the Turks and the Jewish people. Please do not think that Turks are dumb and hence will not understand your double cutting terminology.

4.2) The "TURKISH KHAZAR EMPIRE" is known as "TURK HAZAR IMPARATORLUGU" in Turkish. Yet you have indicated their name as "The Medieval Turkic-Jewish Kaganate of KHAZARIA". In other words, your title translates as follows:

"TURKISH SPEAKING JEWISH KAGANATE OF KHAZARIA". This title with such a meaning is a gross misnomer. By doing such verbal manipulations you have obliterated a whole 800 years of Turkish history from the face of the earth and attributed that magnificent history to a minority group of Jewish refugees who were given safe haven from their persecution elsewhere. Is that fair history writing in your view? Additionally, religion identifying adjectives should not be attached to the name of Turkish peoples. Religion identifying adjectives should not replace the ethnicity of Turkish people (e.g., the Turks of Russia from 200 years ago onwards have been referred to

as the Moslems of Russia which of course obliterates their ethnici ty and makes phantoms out of them). Are you trying to do the same thing?

4.3) You write in the continuation of the same paragraphs:

"After their conversion, the Khazar people used Jewish personal names, spoke and wrote in Hebrew, were circumcised, had synagogues and rabbis, studied the Torah and Talmud, and observed Hanukkah, Pesach, and the Sabbath. The Khazars were an advanced civilization with one of the most tolerant societies of the medieval period. It hosted merchants from all over Asia and Europe. On these pages it is hoped that you may learn more about this fascinating culture."

Now I will comment on the above.

a) After the conversion of some Khazar Turks to Judaism, some Khazar Turks could have taken "Jewish" names, including some of the hakans, but not all Khazars did it. Thus, your all-sweeping statement is misleading.

b) After the conversion of some Khazar Turks to Judaism, some may have spoken and written in Hebrew in addition to their own Turkish language. This is also normal. But it does not mean that they gave up altogether their language, old religion and culture in exchange for Hebrew and Jewish cu I ture as implied by your statement. Your statement would apply to the incoming guests Jews who were already reading and writing in Hebrew. But applying the same statement to all Khazar Turks throught the Turkish Khazar Empire as sweepingly as you have done is very misleading and not truthful.

Your statement also implies that the Khazar Turks learned to read and write only after converting to Judaism. Nothing can be further from the truth as you yourself have indicated, but rather obscurely, that the Khazar Turks were part of the Celestial Gbk Turks whose writings have been preserved on stone to present times. So the Khazar Turks did not learn how to read and wri te after the conversion of some of them to Judaism. Let us not give misleading information to the readers. Additionally, writing is an invention of the Turanian Tur/Turk peoples, although historians would like to ignore this fact. For that reason alone, many of the Tur/Turk peoples knew how to read and write. Hence, Turks have written in many forms of lettering.

c) The statement that "After their conversion, the Khazar people were circumcised" is also questionable. It is most likely that Turks did not learn the custom of circumcision from the Jews or the Arabs. Most likely they did it because of their own ancient Celestial Sky-God religion.

d) Your statement that "After their conversion, the Khazar people had synagogues and rabbis" is another open ended statement that needs further explanation. Of course one would find synagogues and rabbis in Khazaria after the arrival of guest Jews and also after some Khazar Turks converted to Judaism since there would then be a need for them. However, this applied only to a limited number of people, not so sweepingly as you imply. This was possible because of the great tolerance of Khazar Turks towards other religions.

Your statement also implies that the Khazar Turks learned to pray in a temple only after their conversion to Judaism. This is again misleading. The Khazar Turks, being part of the celestial Gbk-Turks, is an indication that they were believers of the Celestial God whom they also worshiped in the temples as well as in open areas and the tops of mountains. The ancient trini ty Sky-God (Tengri) of Turanians, i. e., the Father-Sky-God, Sun-God and Moon-God religion, was the universal religion of the Turanian Tur/Turk

peoples. They built temples and pyramids for their ancient religion at least since the time of the Sumerians in spite of the denials of writers of history of the ancient world. A people such as the Khazar Turks with such a cultural background would not need to learn temple building or temple going from the Jewish people who introduced some of the Khazar Turks to Judaism. After all, the so-called ancient ziggurats were the temple complexes of the Turanian peoples in the Middle East.

e) Your statement that ""After their conversion, the Khazar people studied the Torah" also needs explanation. The name "TORAH/TORA/T/RE" is a Turkish word meaning LAW, SOCIAL RULES and ANCIENT TRADITIONS. The religious and the social culture of ancient Turks are expressed with the word TORA/T/RE. Thus Turks did not have to learn "TORA/T/RE/TORAH" from the Jews. In fact it is the other way around. When you say that they studied TORAH, actually Turk Khazars were studying their own "laws" and "traditions" called "TORA/T/RE", and not necessarily the so-called "TORAH" of Jews. You see that again you have a very ambiguous statement which in one hand doesn not even mention the existence of the Turkish "TORA/T/RE", but on the other hand, brings forward the "TORAH", which has the same linguistic morphology and context as the Turkish TORA/T/RE. This again misleads the unsuspecting reader. What must be understood here is that the word "TORAH" has its roots in the ancient Turkish word "TORA/T/RE".

With regards to the "TORA/T/RE/TORAH", in one of your paragraphs you write:

"In the capital city, the Khazars established a supreme court composed of 7 members, and every religion was represented on this judicial panel (according to one contemporary Arab chronicle, the Khazars were judged

according to the Torah, while other tribes were judged according to other laws) ."

Here again you are making use of the double identity of the Turkish ancient traditions called Tora/Torah/Tore which also provides the name and the source for the "Torah". You and your readers should know that all ancient Turs/Turks were judged in accordance with their own Tora/Torah/Tore, that is, their ancient traditional laws. Without this knowledge, you give the impression that it was the Jewish "Torah" by which all other people of Khazaria were judged implying that the culture was brought to the Khazar Turks by the Jewish people. This is still playing games with words of the same structure. Yet you utilize this Turkish word so conveniently for your own purpose without explaning the full facts. You seem to give half-truths mixed with half non-truths rather than the full truth. Some very ancient books have also been written in this fashion and have misled many readers.

f) Yes the KHAZAR TURKS were an advanced civilization with one of the most tolerant societies of the medieval period. Yes the KHAZAR TURKS hosted merchants from allover Asia and Europe. But the KHAZAR TURKS were all of these, not because of their conversion to Judaism, but because of their own celestial religion which has been deceptively renamed as "shamanism", "paganism", "heathenism", etc.. Turs/Turks have always been tolerant towards other non-Turk peoples and their religions. The Khazar Turks' "tolerance" does not come from the conversion of some of them to Judaism as you imply, but rather from their own very tolerant and very ancient celestial religion. A very recent example of this Turkish tolerance has also been amply demonstrated to the world by the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The Jewish friends of Turks will know this very well.

So you see, in only few paragraphs of your writing, I indicated so many things that are wrong, misleading and/or misrepresenting. In fact you, in a very subtle way, have belittled the Khazar Turks to the level of uncivilized nomads before some of them were converted to Judaism. For this alone you owe an apology to the Khazar Turks who have been so generous to

the Jewish people of their times. My bringing all of these important points to your attention should be appreciated.

4.4) One of your subtitles reads as follows:

"The Khazars: A European Experiment in Jewish Statecraft"

This is another one of your misleading titles. A total misrepresentation. What does the name "European" have to do with the Turkish Khazars"? Why is it "The Khazars: A European Experiment in Jewish Statecraft" but not "A European experiment in Turkish Statecraft"? After all it was the Turks who founded the Turkish Khazar Empire before Jewish refugees were ever accepted into their country. Hence, the Khazar Turks already knew how to found, lead and rule a Turkish state on their own without the help of the guest Jews. Throughout history, Turks have always been "empire builders". In view of this fact, you are grossly misleading the readers with the notion that in this Turkish Khazar Empire, Turks learned how to run their state from the so-called "Jewish Statecraft". Neither the Turkish tolerance to other peoples nor their knowledge of statecraft take their roots from "Jewish statecraft" as you are implying. It comes from their own very ancient culture.

4.5) You write: "The Khazar people were an unusual phenomenon for Medieval times. Surrounded by savage and nomadic tribes, they had all the advantages of the developed countries: structured government, vast and prosperous trading, and a permanent army. At the time, when great fanatism and deep ignorance contested their dominion over Western Europe, the Khazar state was famous for its justice and tolerance. People persecuted for their faiths flocked into Khazaria from everywhere. As a glistening star it shone brightly on the gloomy horizon of Europe, and faded away without leaving any traces of existence."

This statement of yours would have been truthfull and fair if you had said, for example:

"The TURKISH Khazar people were an unusual phenomenon for Medieval times. Surrounded by savage and nomadic tribes [whom do you have in mind?], they had all the advantages of the developed countries: structured government, vast and prosperous trading, and a permanent army. At the time, when great fanatism and deep ignorance contested their dominion over Western Europe, the TURKISH Khazar state was famous for its justice and tolerance. People persecuted for their faiths flocked into the TURKISH State of Khazaria from everywhere. As a glistening star it shone brightly on the gloomy horizon of Europe, and faded away without leaving any traces of existence."

Instead of being clear about the Turkish identity of the Khazar Empire as I indicate above, you chose to be obscure about their identity. After all, persecuted people were not attracted to the State of Khazaria because of the Judaism in this Turkish state, but rather to the social justice and fairness associated with the Turks of the Turkish Khazar empire. Similarly, many people flocked to the social justice, laws and fairness of the Turkish Ottoman Empire as also happened with the other Turkish empires.

4.6) You write: "Though the Jews were everywhere a subject people, and in much of the world persecuted as well, Khazaria was the one place in the medieval world where the Jews actually were their own masters.... To the oppressed Jews of the world, the Khazars were a source of pride and hope, for their existence seemed to prove that God had not completely abandoned His people."

Yet you would have been fair, gracious and also correct if you had written:

"Though the Jews were everywhere a subject people, and in much of the world persecuted as well, THE TURKISH STATE OF KHAZARIA was the one place in the medieval world where the Jews actually were their own masters.... To the oppressed Jews of the world, the Khazar TURKS were a source of pride and hope, for their existence seemed to prove that God had not completely abandoned His people."

That is how you should have remembered this magnanimous Turkish people who were unusually just to all of their subject peoples at such an ancient time, rather than conveniently forgetting to associate the name TURK with Khazaria. Remember that Turks also feel very proud of their Turkish ancestry and heritage and they like to see their name mentioned where required. Incidentally, the term KHAZARIA is from Turkish "KHAZAR-/Y" and is a Turkish term meaning "The House of Khazars" or "The Land of Khazars" in Turkish.

Addi tionally, why do you keep referring to the Jews as God's people? In your view, are non-Jew people not God's people? Why should God have been any different to Jews than the rest of His other peoples that He created. A just God does not favour one group over any other. In the eyes of a just God, all of His creations are equal. What you are wrongly implying is that the Jews are somehow God's people but the rest of humanity is not. This notion of yours is not only racist but has nothing to do with reality.

4.7) You write:

"The history of Khazaria presents us with a fascinating example of how Jewish life flourished in the Middle Ages. In a time when Jews were persecuted thruout Christian Europe, the kingdom of Khazaria was a beacon of hope. Jews were able to flourish in Khazaria because of the tolerance of the Khazar rulers, who invited Byzantine and Persian Jewish refugees to settle in their country."

Yet your statement would have been fair and correct if you had said:

"The history of TURKISH Khazaria presents us with a fascinating example of how Jewish life flourished in the Middle Ages. In a time when Jews were persecuted throughout Christian Europe, the TURKISH KHAZAR EMPIRE was a beacon of hope for them. Jews were able to flourish in Khazaria because of the tolerance of the TURKISH KHAZAR RULERS, who ACCEPTED THE FLEEING Byzantine and Persian Jewish refugees to settle in their country."

As you will appreciate "ACCEPTING REFUGEES" who were persecuted in their original land of habitation "TO SETTLE IN THE TURKISH KHAZAR EMPIRE LANDS" is not exactly the same as the Khazar Turks' "INVITING THEM". They have different meanings although it does not matter for the Turks. Because Turks are the kind of people who have always stretched out a helping hand to those who were in need of it.

Additionally, in the lands

you must note that by the time these Jewish refugees arrived of Khazar Turks, the Turkish Khazar Empire had already been

founded by Turks and was in perfect functioning order. No outsiders brought "statecraftsmanship" to the Turkish Khazar State. After all the Khazar Turks also had the same Turkish cultural background as the Turkish Gbk-Turk Empire. That is to say, they had all the knowledge they needed for statehood and governing people.

4.8) You said:

"Origins. The Khazars were a Turkic people who originated in Central Asia. The early Turkic tribes were quite diverse, although it is believed that reddish hair was predominant among them prior to the Mongol conquests."

First of all, you should have said that "THE KHAZARS WERE TURKISH PEOPLE", rather than "TURKIC PEOPLE" which would make your statement correct. Secondly, by introducing the reddish component of the hair of some of the Turkish people, and quite a few Turks fall in that category, it seems that you are trying to introduce further confusion into the ethnici ty and the linguistic and cultural uniformity of the Turks. I wonder if this is another attempt to obliterate the ancient Turkish people.

4.9) You say:

"In the beginning, the Khazars believed in Tengri shamanism, spoke a Turkic language, and were nomadic. Later, the Khazars adopted Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, learned Hebrew and Slavic, and became settled in cities and towns thruout the north Caucasus and Ukraine. The Khazars had a great history of ethnic independence extending approximately 800 years from the 5th to the 13th century."

This statement of yours requires explanation because again it is playing on words. First of all the term "nomadic" is a misleading and put-down term. Implied in the term "nomadic" by the so-called "scholars" is the meaning that a "nomadic" people had no land of their own, no customs of their own; they go from place to place without having any cultural contribution of thier own and are trying to attach themselves to some place. Surely there must have been some wanderer peoples in that category, but Turks were not one of them. The ancestors of Turks have always had their own lands, empires, cities and rich culture that fills todays museums of the world. Additionally your stating that: "Later, the Khazars adopted Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, learned Hebrew and Slavic, and became settled in cities and towns thruout the north Caucasus and Ukraine" is totally false. Those ci ties of Khazaria that you have called by the title: "The Great Jewish Cities of Central and Eastern Europe" were actually built, run and administered by the Khazar Turks, Bulgar Turks, Chuvash Turks, Tatar Turks and other Turks. Yet in your statement, you have turned the table around and portrayed the Turks in a dark light as being "nomads" who became settled in the cities after their conversion to these religions. Nothing can be further from the truth. You cannot get this kind of people to turn out to be the masters of so many other peoples some of whom may falsely think that they were the ones who gave civility to the Khazar Turks.

4.10) In the map of the Turkish Khazar Empire that you label as "Khazaria" (i.e., again omitting the word "Turkish"), you have stamped it with the star symbol that present day Israel uses as their state emblem; hence, you have associated this ancient Turkish State with present day Israel. This is a total misrepresentation of the Turkish Khazar Empire.

By this very subtle misrepresentation, the Turkishness of the Turkish state of Khazaria is conveniently obliterated and that very same Turkish state is transferred to Jewish people. This is not a truthful representation. Addi tionally, that star is another one of the Turkish "damgas" used in ancient times. Not only that, there are so many Turkish historical decorations that use this star in Turkish monuments. On top of that, it was also on the flag of Turkish admiral Barbaros Hayrettin Pasa in the 16 th century. So you see, this emblem is very much part and parcel of Turkish cu I ture. In spite of this, not only have you claimed ownership of this emblem for the Jewish people but you have also implanted it on top of the

empire territory of the Turkish Khazar Empire. Yet the Khazar Turks had a different emblem that is not present in your Khazaria site.

You say that the artifact carrying the so-called "Star of David" found at Khazar sites is "interpreted by Professor Bozena Werbart of Umea University as Jewish but seen by others as shamanistic and pagan". This statement of yours in actuality and straight forward language means that the symbol belongs to the so-called shamanist and pagan Turks. As I indicated above, Turks had them as Turkish damgas and on Turkish tiles and flags etc. and many other objects.

4.11) At the top of the Khazaria front page, you have put three symbols side by side in a picture. The middle symbol is the Turkish Cosmic tree and the national emblem of the Turkish Chuvash people but this has not been indicated by you. The star at the right is again the six sided Turkish star damga with ancient Turkish colours embelleshing the inside. This Turkish star is associated with present day Israel but as I have explained to you, this is actually a Turkish symbol. And the left symbol is an ancient Canaanite symbol. Yet you are so silent about the origins of these symbols. They need to be clearly explained. Without the explanation, this top picture on your front page is very misleading and erroneous.

4.12) You wrote:

THE KHAZAR FORTRESS OF SARKEL

"Sarkel's fortress was one of Khazaria's most important, serving both as a defensive structure and a trading caravan stopover. Includes images of the layout of the fortress, a bronze warrior figurine, pottery, jewelry, bricks, and other objects.

You keep referring to one of the Khazar Empire's fortresses as the Khazar fortress "SARKEL". Yet the Turkish name is "SARIKALE" meaning Yellow or white Fortress. As you can see the name "Sarkel" is distorted so much that it cannot be recognized as Turkish anymore, but rather looks like someting else with an "el" ending. Is this a coincidence? Why do you have to change Turkish names into formats that are not recognizable as Turkish anymore?

4.13) You have shown a word written in Turkish Runes and you have indicated its meaning as "I HAVE READ [IT]". How come you did not indicate in any form that the word was the pure Turkish word "OKURUM" meaning "I READ"? This also leaves the reader in the dark.

4.14) You have shown an artifact which you call the "Slavic" necklaces from Sarkel, 9th century, yet the printing at the upper right hand corner of your picture says: "PREHISTORIC ART, The Turki, Khazars, Bulgarians, Polovtsy, and Pereshchepina Treasure". Yet all those names that appear in this quotation are names describing Turkish peoples. But you labelled the necklace as "Slavic" necklace. Why the misrepresentation? Additionally, when all those names are separated by commas with a leading "Turki" name, it appears to the unsuspecting reader that the others are not Turkish. Yet they are all Turkish peoples and the treasures are Turkish treasures. They should have been labelled so.

You see, my friend, I can go on and on regarding many aspects of your website but this should be sufficient to demonstrate my point. Now if you correct and explain these items as I have indicated, plus others that need to be corrected in order to be unambiguous, you might have a credible source about that GREAT Turkish Khazar Empire and the Jewish people who were accepted to live there in peace and harmony.

As I have stated my views on this matter quite clearly, I do not want to, and will not, carryon this discussion any further. Once again, I am not against Jewish people. I am against misleading and misrepresentation, wherever it may come from.

Best wishes,

Pol at Kaya

Kevin Brook wrote:

Dear Pol at Kaya:

Let me just add that I repeatedly mention that the Khazars were a Turkic people. I do not suggest anywhere that they were an Israelite people.

When I say "Jewish", "Jewish" refers to the religion only. Since 1995 I always refer to the Khazar Turkic Shamanism, Khazar Turkic Calendar, Khazar Turkic Amulets, Khazar Turkic Language, Khazar Turkic Governmental

System, and Khazar Turkic Ethnic Origins at many parts of my website and my other writings. This is why your attack on me in 1997 was unjustified. Even in my abbreviated description of Ehud Ya I ari I s documentary I said that Khazars wrote in Turkic runic letters.

Months ago, I added the following content to

http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html

« 1. Many medieval writers attested to the Khazars' Turkic origins including Theophanes, al-Masudi, Rabbi Yehudah ben Barzillai, Martinus Oppaviensis, and the anonymous authors of the Georgian Chronicle and Chinese chronicle T'ang-shu. The Arabic writer al- Masudi in Kitab atTanbih wrote: " ... the Khazars ... are a tribe of the Turks." (cited in Peter Golden, Khazar Studies, pp. 57-58). T'ang- shu reads: "K'o-sa [Kh a z a r s ] ... belong to the stock of the Turks." (cited in Peter Golden, Khazar Studies, p. 58). In his Chronographia, Theophanes wrote: "During his [Byzantine emperor Heracliusl stay there [in La z Lc a ] , he invited the eastern Turks, who are called Chazars, to become his allies." (cited in Theophanes, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, 1997, p. 446). The claim that the Khazars were Scythians is completely without merit. »

I also have the statement « The originated in Central Asia » and believed in Tengri shamanism, spoke a and « Kiev is a Turkic place name » a Turkic system under which the kagan the civilian army leader »

Khazars were a Turkic people who

« In the beginning, the Khazars

Turkic language, and were nomadic » and « The Khazars' dual-monarchy was was the supreme king and the bek was

And statements like those existed at my website since it opened in May 1995.

I also list the Turkic names of Khazars at

http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-names.html

I am also a supporter of your important research on Turkic shamanism and symbolism such as the worship of the sun and stars. And I always included KHAZARIA as a Turkic nation at my directory at http://www.khazaria.com/turkic/index.html

Because I never denied that Khazars were Turks, your accusations against me 5 years ago have been proven totally false. Of course the Israeli documentary emphasized the Jewish religion of the Khazars, so what? Furthermore, your claim that Jews are backstabbing people who are trying to trick Turks is also false.

The people you should really have a problem with are those who suggest that Khazars were Scythians or Lost Tribes of Israel or Circassians.

Best wishes,

Kevin Brook

You might also like