Until the Revolution of 1908, the doors of the Islamic religious schools

(medrese) were closed to the Turkish language. The history that was taught
there was Ottoman–Islamic history, which began with the life of the
Prophet.

In contrast to other Islamic countries, among the Ottomans, Islamic identity

developed in tandem with the lapse of any sense of Turkishness. The effect of
Islam upon the Turks was so profound that, even though the Turkic peoples
did retain their languages after entering the Islamic fold, in not a single
Turkic state was the official language a Turkic one. On the contrary, up to
the end of the 12th century, all of the Turkic states used Arabic as their state
language.

Ağah Sırrı Levent, Türk Dilinde Gelişme ve Sadeleşme Evreleri (Ankara, 1960), p. 6.

The fact that the Ottomans possessed a vast Empire had an effect on
their own historical consciousness. Terms such as ‘homeland’ (vatan) and
‘nation’ (millet) were foreign to them. For this reason the Ottoman rulers
never fully understood the nationalism that developed in the West. Even in
situations wherein it could be argued that they did understand it, they
tended to perceive it as the actions of ‘civilian hooligans.’ The attitude with
which they viewed the French Revolution is a prime example of this. In the

1
minds of the Ottoman leaders, the revolution was ‘the blaze of sedition and
disorder’ (fitne ve fesat ateşi). Ali Efendi, one of the chief secretaries
during the reign of Selim III, prepared a rather lengthy report on the French
Revolution, in which he described its leaders as ‘a few loathsome persons
who have formed an alliance…instigators…persons with corrupt aims.’

Ahmet Rasim, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun Reform Çabaları İçinde Batış

Evreleri (Istanbul, 1987), p. 81.

Even after the passing of nearly a century, Cevdet Paşa, who includes this
report in his famous history Tarih-i Cevdet, concurs with Ali Efendi’s
assessment, calling the revolutionary leaders ‘lowly characters’ and
‘hooligans’ and claiming that the revolution was a ‘debasement of the word
itself (sözün ayağa düşmesi) and the affair was in the hands of hooligans.’

Yalçın Küçük, Aydın Üzerine Tezler, vol. II (Istanbul, 1985), p. 257.

We can say—if we set aside these assessments, which today strike us as

odd—that the Ottoman leaders remained bound to an understanding of
universalism that had arisen as a result of their being the rulers of a
multinational state. This can also be observed when the present-day term for
homeland (vatan) is examined. ‘Until the 19th century, this concept…had
been used only in a very narrow sense, indicating place of birth or
residence, and commanding some sentimental loyalty.’

David Kushner, The Rise of Turkish Nationalism, 1876–1908 (London, 1977), p. 50.

In the middle of the 19th century, Cevdet Paşa claimed that the word vatan
never had any other meaning for a Turkish soldier than simply the village
square.

2
 A. Cevdet Paşa, Maruzat (Istanbul, 1980), p. 114.

Even as late as the end of the century the term continued to be used in this
sense. For example, Sultan Abdülhamid II said that ‘the vatan is the place
where people have gathered together.’

‘I cannot understand why someone would be willing to die for it. It is not
a good thing for so many persons to slaughter one another for the sake of the
vatan.’

Enver Ziya Karal, Osmanlı Tarihi, vol. VIII (Ankara, 1996), p. 260.

Already in 1862, Ali Paşa, Grand Vizier and a leading figure in the Tanzimat
era, informed the French foreign ministry that inciting the Balkans with
such ideas would mean ‘chaos and eternal’ war. He added: ‘if all of the
national demands in Turkey are freely recognized, think for a moment what
will be…One portion will require a whole century and rivers of blood in order
to create a stable situation.’

Orhan Koloğlu, Abdülhamit Gerçeği (Istanbul, 1987), p. 383.

In Ottoman history, being a Turk has been understood to be the same as

being humiliated. As one example, let us examine the statements of the
late-17th century Ottoman court historian Naima Mustafa Efendi about the
Turks, which appear in his history of the same name (Tarih-i Naima).
Naima refers to the Turks as ‘brainless’ or ‘dull-witted’ (idraksiz Türkler),
‘ugly in appearance’ (çirkin suratlı Türk), ‘deceitful’ (hilekar Türk) and
‘large and sheepdog-shaped’ (çoban köpeği şeklinde bir Türk-ü sü-türk).

Çetin Yetkin, Türk Halk Hareketleri ve Devrimleri Tarihi (Istanbul, 1984), p. 4.

3
Clearly, the Ottomans themselves did not appreciate being referred to as
Turks, particularly not by Westerners. The orientalist Vambéry relates an
experience he once had in Istanbul:

…upon inquiring among learned Turks as to their interest in the matter of their

racial and cultural relationship to the Turks of Central Asia, these learned souls

felt as if they had been insulted, because it was claimed that they were somehow

related to this nomadic people. In their eyes, ‘Turk’ was a term used only for the

lowly levels of society, particularly for villagers.

Gotthard Jäschke, Die Turanismus der Jungtürken, Zur Osmanischen

Außenpolitik im Weltkriege (Leipzig, 1941), pp. 2–3.

Veled Çelebi, one of the important figures among the Turkists, was scorned
not just by his social circle, but even by his family during the time that he
labored to develop the Turkish language. The work that Çelebi did was
innocent in the extreme, changing the Arabic spelling of a few words and
bringing them closer in line with the Turkish language. But even this was
sufficient for him to be ostracized and cursed. In his foreword to a 1941
reissue of a work he had originally translated in 1897, Çelebi wrote:

…at that time it was a great sacrifice to make this revolution. Because of my

love and ardor for my nation, my language and its grammar, some of my own

community and family were furious at me; they criticized me viciously, saying

‘Instead of humbly continuing to follow the pure path of great persons of exalted

lineage, is it proper for this underling to rush headlong and adopt such

improperly novel habits, or even to write a piece in a manner so contrary to

everyone else and in opposition to the previous rules [of orthography]?’ And

they imparted to everyone in the council at which we were present a pearl of

wisdom from the eternal and noble forefathers and, considering this poor soul a

decadent type, they cast him out from among them.

4
 Ali Kemal Meram, Türkçülük ve Türkçülük Mücadeleleri Tarihi (Istanbul, 1969), p. 63.

The widespread [Ottoman] hostility toward the ‘Turks’ was, in a general

sense, due to the following causes:

(a) The devşirme identity of the Ottoman bureaucracy. The Empire’s

central administrative arm was formed for several centuries by the forcible
levy, or devşirme, of Christian children, who were then converted to Islam
and educated to be the Empire’s bureaucratic and military elite. This group
always looked poorly upon Turkish tribesmen and humiliated them. Some
officials even explained the decline of the Empire by the ‘seepage of Turks’
into administrative structures.

The official who was most well-known for such views was Koçi Bey. See Koçi Bey

Risalesi (Istanbul, 1972).

(b) The defeat by Timur (Tamerlane). In the period before the momentous
Battle of Ankara in 1402, the Turkish beys of Anatolia betrayed the Ottoman
cause and went over to Timur’s side, thereby paving the way for Sultan
Beyazid’s defeat and the temporary collapse of the Empire. ‘Exploiting the
House of Osman’s inferiority complex and the bitter feelings born out of this
defeat at Timur’s hands…the devşirme leaders strove to exacerbate the
feelings of mistrust…and rancor against the Anatolian Turks.’

Muzaffer Özdağ, ‘Osmanlı Tarih ve Edebiyatında Türk Düşmanlığı,’ Tarih ve

Toplum, 65 (May 1989), p. 270.

(c) Arab–Islamic science. This was one of the main reasons for anti-Turkish
hostility and scorn for things Turkish in Ottoman society. In Ottoman
medrese, the foundation of the educational curriculum was comprised of

5
works of Arab–Islamic origin, which denigrated the Turks. In the Arab–Islamic
world, and particularly in the Koranic commentaries, Turks were imagined to
be a herd of monsters, hostile to humankind, a race that visited disaster
upon humanity. In all of these works, certain hadiths, (‘traditions of the
Prophet’) that described the Turks negatively were included. The contents
were attributed to Muhammad himself: ‘The Day of Judgment shall not arrive
before war is waged against the Turks, who are beady-eyed, red-faced, flat-
nosed, and whose visages resemble shields made of thick leather.’

İlhan Arsen, Arap Milliyetçiliği ve Türkler (Istanbul, 1987), p. 37. This work examines in detail
all mention of the Turks in Islamic sources.

These and other similar denigrating descriptions can be found in nearly all of
the fundamental Islamic works. Here are but two examples: the land of the
Turks ‘is the source of unbelief and sedition’; the Turks are creatures who
‘have nails like claws, tusks and molars similar to those of wild animals, they
have teeth that resemble those of dogs, chins that resemble those of camels,
their entire bodies are covered with bristles, and when they eat something,
their teeth are heard clicking together like the sound made by mules and
mares.’

Ibid., pp. 32, 38

d) The Alevi-Türkmen revolts. These occurred at various times throughout

Ottoman history, and were often socio-economically motivated
rebellions by Anatolian villagers, and even more so by nomadic groups,
against the central administration of the Empire. Whether the rebels in
large part consisted of Türkmen tribes or were of a religious character, they
served to push the Ottoman rulers into a more generally hostile attitude
toward the Alevi Türkmen.