Talk:Millet_(Ottoman_Empire) References

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Millet (Ottoman Empire) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AnthonyG5480. Peer reviewers: Creek3, Mjc6876.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

2005 Comments

Is it really so widespread in Arab countries? I had the impression that some of them had replaced the millet system with a bastardized mixture of the Code Napoléon and Islamic law which applies to all people, regardless of religion. AnonMoos 14:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I agree, I remember my Middle East history professor quite explicitly stating that Israel was the only nation to still use something similar to the millet system. - SimonP 15:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

No, many Middle Eastern countries still have special courts for religious minorities, on matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance etc. (personal status), and many have reserved seats for them too (which do not exist in Israel). This is e.g. true for Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran and Pakistan. -- Pylambert 18:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't feel like doing any strenuous research, but I noticed when looking up the Arabic word "millah" in the Wehr dictionary that the phrase majlis milli was defined as "court of justice of a religious minority (in Egypt abolished since 1956)". AnonMoos 18:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

According to a 1995 law, the application of family law, including marriage, divorce, alimony, child custody, inheritance, and burial, is based on an individual's religion. In the practice of family law, the State recognizes only the three "heavenly religions:" Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Muslim families are subject to the Personal Status Law, which draws on Shari'a (Islamic law). Christian families are subject to canon law, and Jewish families are subject to Jewish law. In cases of family law disputes involving a marriage between a Christian woman and a Muslim man, the courts apply the Personal Status Law. ( Egypt - International Religious Freedom Report Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor) -- Pylambert 19:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I think the problem is that you are defining millet too narrowly. It was much more than specialist courts for minorities, it was entirely different rules of citizenship. Each group had different systems of taxation, criminal and civil law, governance, education, and taxation. - SimonP 17:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

What?? (etymology)

Mellah ملاح is not "cognate" with Millah ملة -- they come from completely different consonantal roots (the root of the first means "salt", and the root of the second originally meant "word" in Aramaic, and only the first root has a pharyngeal consonant). AnonMoos 06:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply

References

"This article or section does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations" doesn't means that you can simply cut-and-paste here a bibliography taken from a website, because this would imply that this article was written on the base of the cited texts and this is not true. If you want to use that bibliography you had to check all those books and articles, find the relevants parts and modify this page to make it comply with the sources. Or you can simply modify the article so that it agrees with the website and then point out to that website as a reference. GhePeU 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

@Fastifex: According to History, you did just two minor edits in this article: [1] and [2]. The bulk of the article was written by other contributors, so you can't simply put that website and state that it is the source used for this page, because there's no proof that the other contributors used it. However, if you really want to insert that bibliography as a "Further readings" section, please shorten it and clean it, because a "Further reading" shouldn't be page XX of an article and at the moment the section is (nearly) longer than the rest of the article. GhePeU 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Gehepeu, you're living n a fantasy-world: except for a few stubby pages or a few I know to be based (e.g. because I write nearly all) from one source, the bulk of Wikipages I've examined (4700 in my watchlist) is clearly or apparently NOT fully sourced, if at all- I often put " (incomplete) " in the sources section and almost never see that challenged, as by the way I did here, so it most definitely does not claim to soirce everything. It certainly is no excuse for the capital crime of leaving out source credit where possible. What you mean by "page XX" is a cemplete mysetry to me; the relative lenght f sectis a window-dresing aspect as such. The minor is my deafu setting, which I sometimes forget to undo or, as yesterday, gets ignored when my connexion to wikepedia fails repeatedly apparently for network- or software-reasons Fastifex 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

(I'm GhePeU, I'm writing from the University lab and I don't remember my password) Could you just shorten the list? Does referring to pp. 195-207 of the article Zur Diskussion um „millet“ im Osmanischen Reich published in Südost-Forschungen 48 or to p. 302 of 2000 Jahre Geschichte des Nahen Ostens and p. 99 of Der Untergang des Morgenlandes. Warum die islamische Welt ihre Vormacht verlor, both written by Bernard Lewis, add something significant to this page or does it simply clutter the section? 147.162.97.73 06:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Needs a copy edit

The English is shaky in places, for example - History : "Given the House of Osman was a Muslim populated institution, it is important to understand objectively, besides the each millets own ego-centric histories, these institutions were related to each other during the 6 centuries that they occupied the same political sphere under the state organization of the Ottoman Empire."

I'll try editing it for clarity but can the original author check my work for intent? (in case I change the meaning) -- Nickj69 08:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Assyrians?

How can this entire section not mention the Assyrians (Nestorians, Chaldeans, Syrian Orthodox) in the Ottoman Empire? How is it that this large population of Christians has been completely left out? Waleeta 23:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Waleeta reply

Assyrians in the Ottoman Empire

Somebody should include a section on the Assyrians up until the 20th century, as they were quite significant, especially in the Hakkari region. -- Šarukinu 22:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

It seems this is being ignored. But I agree, Assyrians must be mentioned in the article. — EliasAlucard ( talk · contribs) 15:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Their inclusion is necessary, but let's remember that Assyrian was not the name of the millet. Whatever the ethnicity, there was never an Assyrian millet. There was a Süryani millet, however, and the article should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.21.207 ( talk) 06:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Do you even know what Süryani means? Hint: starts with an A and ends with Syrian. By the way, I just added a scholarly source. [3] — EliasAlucard / Discussion 16:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I think the problem is that 'millet' is not a term of ethnicity (check the article) but a term for religion. So there was an Orthodox millet but not a Greek one. There was a millet for the Armenian Church and a millet for the Syriac Orthodox (Jacobite) Church, but an "Assyrian millet" was impossible. As evidence, look at Ottoman census registers to see the vocabulary used by the administration. Süryani = Syriac Orthodox, Keldani = Chaldean etc. They were all separate. Ordtoy ( talk) 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, the Millets were religious denominations and they were separated under different millets as a result of different religious denominations. But, despite the separation between different millet groups, the ethnic groups were the same. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I am familiar with the article and have read it. I suggest that you do too since it is clear that you have not. Simply referencing an article based on the name is not sufficient! The Naby article contains no information relevant to the Ottoman Empire since it is about Iran/Persia (and is a good source on activities in that country). This article is about Ottoman administration. In the Ottoman administrative structure, 'millet's were a religious NOT ethnic designation. Please re-read the previous post I made here. If you need a source, there are many. But I am providing one which deals with Ottoman history. Sorry for the harsh tone, but you are reverting without fully understanding the issues, please check them carefully. Ordtoy ( talk) 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Macedonians in Ottoman empire

Since there is virtually no evidence of existence of Macedonians before 1944 kindly remove the statement of Macedonians being one of the Orthodox different ethnic groups in Ottoman Empire. In fact the whole world considered them to be Bulgarians at that time.Ianko 87.126.17.167 ( talk) 09:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you should reconsider this stance. If you persist on that, greeks (and other ortodox) were not also mentioned, but they were named Rumilians (from Romans). Why do you equalize Rumeli with greek?

If you want to be neutral and clear for all - remove all references to greeks, and convert them to Rumelians. Then describe that Rumelians of that time are now parts of Greeks, Macedonians, Serbians, etc of this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.218.55 ( talk) 23:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC) reply

In the early 20th century, i.e. at the end of the Ottoman rule on the Balkans, the international community viewed the Macedonian Slavs predominantly as regional variety of Bulgarians. This is the time of the first expressions of Macedonian nationalism only by limited groups of intellectuals. At the end of the First World War there were a few ethnographers, who agreed that a separate Macedonian nationality existed. Macedonist ideas increased during the interbellum, and were supported during 1930s by the Comintern. During the Second World War these ideas were further developed by the Communist Partisans, but some researchers doubt that even at that time the Macedonian Slavs considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians. In this way the crucial point for the Macedonian ethnogenessis was the creation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in 1944. As conclusion: no such ethnic Macedonian connunity existed really into the Ottoman Empire. Jingiby ( talk) 15:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Zielonka, Jan; Pravda, Alex (2001). Democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 422. ISBN 978-0-19-924409-6. Unlike the Slovene and Croatian identities, which existed independently for a long period before the emergence of SFRY Macedonian identity and language were themselves a product federal Yugoslavia, and took shape only after 1944. Again unlike Slovenia and Croatia, the very existence of a separate Macedonian identity was questioned—albeit to a different degree—by both the governments and the public of all the neighboring nations.

Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127. During the 20th century, Slavo Macedonian national feeling has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century, Slavic patriots in Macedonia felt a strong attachment to Macedonia as a multi-ethnic homeland. They imagined a Macedonian community uniting themselves with non-Slavic Macedonians... Most of these Macedonian Slavs also saw themselves as Bulgarians. By the middle of the 20th. century, however Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian loyalties as mutually exclusive. Regional Macedonian nationalism had become ethnic Macedonian nationalism... This transformation shows that the content of collective loyalties can shift.

Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe, Geographical perspectives on the human past : Europe: Current Events, George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 0847698092, p. 236. Up until the early 20th century and beyond, the international community viewed Macedonians as regional variety of Bulgarians, i.e. Western Bulgarians.

"The struggle for Greece, 1941-1949, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1-85065-492-1, p. 67. Most of the Slavophone inhabitants in all parts of divided Macedonia, perhaps a million and a half in all – had a Bulgarian national consciousness at the beginning of the Occupation; and most Bulgarians, whether they supported the Communists, VMRO, or the collaborating government, assumed that all Macedonia would fall to Bulgaria after the WWII. Tito was determined that this should not happen.

The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-691-04356-6, pp. 65-66. At the end of the WWI there were very few historians or ethnographers, who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed... Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity, the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, although they were aware of differences between themselves and the inhabitants of Bulgaria... The question as of whether a Macedonian nation actually existed in the 1940s when a Communist Yugoslavia decided to recognize one is difficult to answer. Some observers argue that even at this time it was doubtful whether the Slavs from Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians.

Kaufman, Stuart J. (2001). Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war. New York: Cornell University Press. p. 193. ISBN 0-8014-8736-6. The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either "Bulgarian," "Serbian," or "Greek" depending on the affiliation of the village priest. While Bulgarian was most common affiliation then, mistreatment by occupying Bulgarian troops during WWII cured most Macedonians from their pro-Bulgarian sympathies, leaving them embracing the new Macedonian identity promoted by the Tito regime after the war. Jingiby ( talk) 06:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The first Macedonian nationalists appeared in the late 19th and in the early 20th century outside the Region of Macedonia. At different points in their lives, most of them expressed conflicting statements about the ethnicity of the Macedonian Slavs, including their own identity. They formed their Macedonist conception after contacts with some pan-slavic ideologists in Serbia and Russia. The lack of clear ethnic identification seems to be confirmed by the fact, in their works they often used the designations as Bulgaro-Macedonians, Macedonian Bulgarians and/or Macedonian Slavs to name their compatriots. The most prominent from them is Krste Misirkov, who in his pamphlet "On the Macedonian Matters" published in Sofia, in 1903 claimed: " Many people will wonder, what national fragmentation we are talking about. Can we be thinking of creating a new, Macedonian ethnicity? That would be a fictitious thing and would not last a day. And, anyway, what sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?" Pulevski, you have given as an example viewed the Macedonian identity as being a regional phenomenon. He called himself as "Slav Macedonian" as well as "Serbian patriot", but another time "Bulgarian from the village of Galicnik". His numerous identifications actually reveals the lack of clear ethnic identification in a part of the local Slavic population in Macedonia. For more, check:

* * Roumen Daskalov, Tchavdar Marinov, 2013, "Entangled Histories of the Balkans", Volume One: National Ideologies and Language Policies, BRILL, ISBN 900425076X, pp. 315-317. "Yet there are reasons to interpret Pulevski's case as an absence of clear national identity rather than as a “full-fledged” Macedonian nationalism."

* * Sperling, James; Kay, Sean; Papacosma, S. Victor (2003). Limiting institutions. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-7190-6605-4. "Macedonian nationalism Is a new phenomenon. In the early twentieth century, there was no separate Slavic Macedonian identity"

* * Titchener, Frances B.; Moorton, Richard F. (1999). The eye expanded: life and the arts in Greco-Roman antiquity. University of California Press. p. 259. ISBN 978-0-520-21029-5. "On the other hand, the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians... The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one." Thank you. Jingiby ( talk) 15:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Please, do not add again the statement of Ethnic Macedonians being one of the Orthodox different ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire, since you didn't provide a single reliable source supporting such view. I recommend that you read the reference below, that is specialized in the nationalistic issues and has a very high degree of reliability because it is a new (2013) publication of the University of Oxford. It states that only a several intellectuals circa 1900 tried to conceptualize the idea of a separate Macedonian nation but it was rejected. The situation changed during and especially after the Second World War, when this idea was accepted widely by the Slavic speakers in the area:

* * * "The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism, John Breuilly, Oxford University Press, 2013, ISBN 0199209197, p. 192."

The same fact is confirmed by another Academic source, specialized in the history of the Republic of Macedonia, that claims, prior to the Balkan Wars, i.e. at the end of the Ottoman Empire, Macedonist ideas were shared not from significant community, neither from distinct people, nor from separate nation, or the like, but only by a handful of intellectuals:

* * * Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia, Dimitar Bechev, Scarecrow Press, 2009, ISBN 0810862956, p. 140.

And last but not least, because this article is about the Millet-system I will recommend you another classic source on the Macedonian question, which deals also the millets in Ottoman Macedonia in a special chapter 3 called From millet to nation. As you know the rise of nationalism had extended to the Ottoman Empire during the 19th century. The classic Ottoman millet system began to degrade with the continuous identification of the religious creed with ethnic identity. Most of Macedonian Slavs then joined the Bulgarian Millet, and some the Greek or the Serbian millets. Generally, till the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century there were recognized 17 separate millets. Macedonian Millet, i.e. separate ethnic community was never recognized or claimed. Check below:

* * * Who are the Macedonians? Hugh Poulton, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1850655340, p. 41. Thanks. Jingiby ( talk) 11:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Name change

The term "Millet" or "Melet" actually pre-dates the Ottoman Empire by quite a bit. Accordingly, the title Millet (Ottoman Empire) may not be the most appropriate. Perhaps a better title for this article would be something such as Millet (religious minority)? -- El on ka 05:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

The present content of the article does not sustain your claim. I suggest your first add references to this claim in the article before any change of name. Please keep in mind this is the millet article, not the ahl al-kitab or the ahl al-dhimma one. -- Pylambert ( talk) 12:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar with al-kitab, but I'm working on cleanup/expansion at the Nestorianism and Church of the East articles (for example: Papa (Catholicos)). The term Millet, milet, or melet is used quite a bit to refer to the Church's status while the Christians were a minority religion under the Persian Sassanid Empire (several centuries before the Ottomans). Here are some online sources, [4] [5] and here's a list of several more. [6] [7] -- El on ka 20:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I'd say that Millet (Ottoman Empire) should stand, but that we should have a separate article for the more general millet/melet, which at least conceptually predated the Ottoman Empire.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 19:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Makes sense. Perhaps at the Melet name, with a disambig note,

{{
for|the communities of the Ottoman Empire|Millet (Ottoman Empire)}}

. -- El on ka 22:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Elonka, sorry for stalking, but the argument seemed so interesting that I culdn't resist butting in ;-) Going to to the issue, I've just given a look to the last edition of the Brill Encyclopedia of Islam to see what they had to say of the topic; I was a bit uncomfortable with your sources because many of them were pretty old, like Wigram, and often were just new editions of old books. So I wondered if this was just a different transliteration of the Ottoman Turkish word. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, the word has only recently (i.e. Ottoman Empire) taken the meaning it has now: s.v. mella it originates from the Syriac mellta, and its meaning was "word, utterance" and used as a translation of logos. In Mohammed it is present as mella, where it takes the meaning of "religion", but generally used, even if not always, as the religion of Islam. s.v. millet it is stated that millet is the Turkish form of milla, wile millat is the Persian form. It is only in Ottoman Turkish that there was a radical shift of meaning, as it meant there: 1) religion (as always) 2) religious community 3) nation or people. Nothing here seems to justify a preexistent Sassanid use of term. Probably, the similarity or apparent similarity of such systems brought to use the same term: not so strange, if you consider Wigram wrote in 1909.-- Aldux ( talk) 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think Wigram was implying that the word itself dated to Sassanid times, but that the concept of a state recognized religious minority community existed at that time. I checked the OED, which says under millet: "In the Ottoman Empire: a division of the population according to religious or ethnic affiliation; a religious community or ethnic group having some degree of internal autonomy, esp. a non-Muslim one." It says that the Turkish milletcomes from the Arabic milla(t) and directs the reader to the Encyclopedia of Islam you brought up. So it looks like Wigram's use of melet for the pre-Ottoman Centuries in an English publication is somewhat idiosyncratic and should probably be avoided. But again, the concept does predate the Ottomans, whatever you call it; during the Caliphate, I would have called them a dhimmi community.-- Cúchullain ^t/ c 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

You're last point is not a bad one, even if a term like dhimmi has the problem of capturing only part of "millet" in the Ottoman sense: as said by the OED you've mentioned, millet is a division by "religious or 'ethnic affiliation", and the latter definition I don't think is available in "dhimmi". That said, I tend to agree about what you said regarding Wigram and the ultimate truth behind it, that is a the existence of the "the concept of a state recognized religious minority community". An article on the concept in the Sassanid times wouldn't be wrong, but I'm not sure what title it could have.-- Aldux ( talk) 20:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, sorry for my brief (and delayed) reply, but I'm on wikibreak for the next several days. But here are a couple other sources: [8] [9] [10] Perhaps an alternate article could be Millet (Sassanid Empire)? And Aldux, no need to apologize, I'm happy to have more eyes on the situation. :) -- El on ka 03:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC) reply

.

Modern Greeks are not necessarily "engrained" with the millet mentality

Ref: "Interestingly, while Greece does not formally employ a millet system, in practice, Greek policy recognizing only a Muslim minority, as opposed to an ethnic Turkish or Pomak minority, reveals the extent to which the millet system has become engrained in Greek mentality." Very subjective statement. In addition, modernizing forces (left, center, and some right) have either opposed or are beginning to see the ultimately discriminatory nature of the system. I think, in fact, that religious affiliation is no longer a category on most government records ... I think. Also, I recall that Greek Turks were granted a separate identity from Greek Muslims. Finally, the origins of these distinctions are as much political as they cultural/religious. The Liberals lost the election after the transfer of Salonika to Greece because both Jews and Muslims voted for the Conservatives/Monarchists. In response, the Liberals at the next opportunity removed direct voting rights from these communities as confessional and cultural groups and limited their franchise to electing representative to an electoral college that decided how the entire community would vote. These are just an observation on one sentence in a very informative article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asinimali ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Largely agree, the Greek society is widely conscious of the ethnic divisions inside the Muslim minority, its long standing affiliation with the Turkish nation and the process of ethnic Turkification which still continues. So i can't see how the state policy on this issue expresses a social mentality that originates partly or wholly from the millet system. The Greek government has interests against giving one more argument to its Turkish counterpart for interfering in this matter. This is by far the most important reason why Greece does not give ethnic/national minority status to the Muslims of western Thrace, combined with the fact that there is a legal basis they can use for their stance, and also the deeply rooted mistrust among the two countries which is reinforced by the Aegean dispute. But since i'm no expert on this subject's bibliography i've placed a citation tag, in need of an authoritative source to elaborate on this aspect and confirm its noteworthiness.

I would also like to see a source for the next sentence. I can imagine a loose connection with the millet heritage since this system strengthened the Orthodox Church's place as the only main cultural institution of Hellenism inside the Ottoman empire but the core of the recent dispute as well and the perceived historical "necessity" of mentioning religion in ID cards during the civil war is out of this article's scope. This started and ended not as an issue between minority-majority groups of the traditional religious divisions, but, in a few words, between liberal (communists, atheists, agnostics, proponents of State-Church separation regardless of religion and others) and conservative elements. The stance of the religious groups in the issue reaffirms this revision. Christian minorities lay indifferent, while the Muslim community was largely against the abolition of mentioning religion, denoting it as a positive "discrimination".-- IpProtected ( talk) 15:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The paragraph about Greece was certainly ill-formulated. The connection between the formal religious minorities status in Greece and Turkey and the Ottman millet system is to be found in the initial bi- or multilateral treaties of the 1920s, when the Ottoman Empire still was the internationally recognized state (the Treaty of Lausanne recognized the succession of state and the Republic of Turkey), and the millet was the base for the population exchanges and the protection of minorities, so Muslim Greeks/Hellenophones (like most Cretan Muslims) and Orthodox Turks/Turcophones (even those who had tried to form a separate Anatolian Turkish Orthodox Church) were expelled from their respective countries to the one corresponding to their religious millet (and not to their ethnic/national identity). The same in Cyprus where non-Greek Christians and non-Turkish Muslims were squeezed into the two-communities institutional system. As for the ID card controversy, OK if you give sources about the introduction of religion on the ID cards in Greece, but a priori it is obvious that this mostly existed/exists in post-Ottoman countries like Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan etc. and in Muslim countries that adaptated the millet system (see e.g. here), and that only the religion is mentioned, as the successor of "millet", never (except in Israel) the ethnicity/ethnonationality. -- Pylambert ( talk) 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, here it is mentioned that the decision to add the religion on the ID card in Greece dates form the dictatorship of Metaxas in 1936-1940. -- Pylambert ( talk) 19:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Odd Passage

The establishment of the Millets is a recognition, and a palliation, of the pathological anomaly of the Near East - the political disintegration of Near Eastern peoples and the tenacity with which they have clung, in spite of it, to their corporate spiritual life.

Lots of content in this sentence, but it seems not to be very encyclopedic. To say that political disintegration is a 'pathological anomly of the Near East' is contentious and has racist overtones. The idea that this 'pathological anomaly' is linked to the establishment of the Millets is either original research or should be sourced. 94.31.32.54 ( talk)

Serious Misconceptions in the Article

First: Millet comes from Arabic "millah" but it does not "literally" mean "nation." It means "a group of people who believes in a certain religion." Millah is a subset of Ummah. Ummah is "all" the people who believes in a certain religion. Millah is a subset of it.

Millet is the same as "Millah."

For example, Christendom is the Christian Ummah. But "Christian" Germans is a "millet" of that "Christian Ummah" (Christendom). Similarly, "Christian" Englishes are again another millet of that ummah and christian italians are again another millet of that Christian ummah.

Millet does NOT mean a "nation." Nation does not have a religious meaning. For example not all French nation is Christian. So "French Milllet" and "French Nation" are two different entities. The "millet" only defines a certain religious comunity. Nation encompasses "all" French people whatever their religions are.

Thus, French Nation has many millets in it. "Muslim French millet", "Christian French millet" etc. Muslim French millet is a subset of "Muslim Ummah" while Christian French millet is a subset of "Christian Ummah" which is also called Christendom.

Second

Ottoman Empire didn't have a "religious pluralism" in its law and administration. This is ridiculous.

Ottomans defined three certain religions as "valid." Sunni İslam, Orthodox Christianity and Judaism. All other sects of those religions were "outlawed" and all other religions were "outlawed."

For example; Alevi sect of Islam, Catholic sect of Christianity, and Shabbati sect of Judaism were outlawed and the adherents were systematically persecuted.

Those who don't adhere Christiyanity, Islam or Judaism were persecuted as well -whatever their religions are.

Those who don't adhere any religions were persecuted as well.

The punishment was almost always death. Most of the time without a trial.

So I can't see a "religious pluralism" here. I think the article is fabricated by some Ottomanist agitators.-- 144.122.104.211 ( talk) 11:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Ethnic Macedonians in Ottoman empire II?

Since there was no real discussion above, I am removing my posts here and invite the editors on this article to reopen the case aiming a consensuss.

In the early 20th century, i.e. at the end of the Ottoman rule on the Balkans, the international community viewed the Macedonian Slavs predominantly as regional variety of Bulgarians. This is the time of the first expressions of Macedonian nationalism only by limited groups of intellectuals. At the end of the First World War there were a few ethnographers, who agreed that a separate Macedonian nationality existed. Macedonist ideas increased during the interbellum, and were supported during 1930s by the Comintern. During the Second World War these ideas were further developed by the Communist Partisans, but some researchers doubt that even at that time the Macedonian Slavs considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians. In this way the crucial point for the Macedonian ethnogenessis was the creation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia in 1944. As conclusion: no such ethnic Macedonian connunity existed really into the Ottoman Empire. Jingiby ( talk) 15:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Zielonka, Jan; Pravda, Alex (2001). Democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 422. ISBN 978-0-19-924409-6. Unlike the Slovene and Croatian identities, which existed independently for a long period before the emergence of SFRY Macedonian identity and language were themselves a product federal Yugoslavia, and took shape only after 1944. Again unlike Slovenia and Croatia, the very existence of a separate Macedonian identity was questioned—albeit to a different degree—by both the governments and the public of all the neighboring nations.

Region, Regional Identity and Regionalism in Southeastern Europe, Ethnologia Balkanica Series, Klaus Roth, Ulf Brunnbauer, LIT Verlag Münster, 2010, ISBN 3825813878, p. 127. During the 20th century, Slavo Macedonian national feeling has shifted. At the beginning of the 20th century, Slavic patriots in Macedonia felt a strong attachment to Macedonia as a multi-ethnic homeland. They imagined a Macedonian community uniting themselves with non-Slavic Macedonians... Most of these Macedonian Slavs also saw themselves as Bulgarians. By the middle of the 20th. century, however Macedonian patriots began to see Macedonian and Bulgarian loyalties as mutually exclusive. Regional Macedonian nationalism had become ethnic Macedonian nationalism... This transformation shows that the content of collective loyalties can shift.

Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe, Geographical perspectives on the human past : Europe: Current Events, George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 0847698092, p. 236. Up until the early 20th century and beyond, the international community viewed Macedonians as regional variety of Bulgarians, i.e. Western Bulgarians.

"The struggle for Greece, 1941-1949, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2002, ISBN 1-85065-492-1, p. 67. Most of the Slavophone inhabitants in all parts of divided Macedonia, perhaps a million and a half in all – had a Bulgarian national consciousness at the beginning of the Occupation; and most Bulgarians, whether they supported the Communists, VMRO, or the collaborating government, assumed that all Macedonia would fall to Bulgaria after the WWII. Tito was determined that this should not happen.

The Macedonian conflict: ethnic nationalism in a transnational world, Loring M. Danforth, Princeton University Press, 1997, ISBN 0-691-04356-6, pp. 65-66. At the end of the WWI there were very few historians or ethnographers, who claimed that a separate Macedonian nation existed... Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity, the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, although they were aware of differences between themselves and the inhabitants of Bulgaria... The question as of whether a Macedonian nation actually existed in the 1940s when a Communist Yugoslavia decided to recognize one is difficult to answer. Some observers argue that even at this time it was doubtful whether the Slavs from Macedonia considered themselves to be a nationality separate from the Bulgarians.

Kaufman, Stuart J. (2001). Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war. New York: Cornell University Press. p. 193. ISBN 0-8014-8736-6. The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either "Bulgarian," "Serbian," or "Greek" depending on the affiliation of the village priest. While Bulgarian was most common affiliation then, mistreatment by occupying Bulgarian troops during WWII cured most Macedonians from their pro-Bulgarian sympathies, leaving them embracing the new Macedonian identity promoted by the Tito regime after the war. Jingiby ( talk) 06:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply