Position of the Muslims in Salonica during the Reform Period:

“Rulers” or “Ruled”?

 Bülent ÖZDEMİR*

The presence of Muslim people in the Salonica region dates back to the initial Ottoman conquest of Salonica in 1392.  In accordance with the well-known Ottoman settlement system in the Balkans, nomadic Muslim populations (mostly yürüks) were brought to the region from different areas, particularly from Saruhan and Konya.  They were settled all over the region in places such as Drama, Kavala, Kelemeriye, Serres, Kozani and Yenişehir (Larissa), and a new town called Yenice (Yenitsa) was even established for the immigrants.[i]  With the continuing settlement of Muslim Turks in the region in later periods, especially during the fifteenth century, and by a small number of conversions to Islam, a new ethnic, linguistic, and religious group emerged in the already ethnically rich social structure of the region.[ii]  Within the almost five-hundred-year period until 1912, the Muslim population of the region consolidated itself into the rich cultural setting of the region, both through its original contributions and by easily and pragmatically occupying a place within the established socio-economic and cultural strata of the region.[iii]   

 In the nineteenth century, Muslim elements in the socio-economic, political and cultural settings of the region constituted an integral part of the social structure and were consequently an authentic part of nineteenth-century Ottoman society.  As Halil İnalcık notes with assurance,

Popular culture and all other cultural components, especially related to the Church, continued to flourish with vitality, throughout the centuries.  The Ottoman culture impacted strongly on the languages, arts, and on the daily life in the Balkans. Thus, it could be said that in the process of Ottomanization the folk cultures of the Balkans were enriched by their association with the Turkish-Islamic culture.  The best testimony to this process of enrichment is the Balkan languages … Today, the Ottoman heritage could easily be observed not only in the languages but also in the style of the attire, the folk music, the culinary taste, and in the traditions and the modes of human behaviour in the Balkans.[iv]

Muslims in the Balkans have been seen so far in existing literature as a substitute for the rulers and as the natural representatives of the Islamic state, the Ottoman Empire.  The perception of the Muslim peoples in the present literature regarding Balkan history has been misleading and in some works their role is altogether ignored.  In the present literature, when one wants to say something about the Muslims of the Empire in the Balkans, one starts with the state and state officials and ends with the well-known perceptions of Muslims in Istanbul.  The ordinary Muslim peoples of the Empire in the provinces or in the villages are mostly absent in the literature.  The lives of the Muslim peasants, traders and artisans in the Balkans under various conditions were not recorded well enough to place them accurately in contemporary pictures of Ottoman society.  Indeed, for instance, the Muslim peasants lived in conditions not much different from those of their Christian counterparts during wars, epidemics and natural disasters.  They were producers and taxpayers just like the other subjects of the Empire.  The whole population of the Empire shared the same problems and advantages.  This paper will examine the perception and consequences of the Tanzimat reforms for the Muslims of Salonica as common citizens of the Ottoman Empire, in connection with their interrelations with other social groups in the area.

By the time of the Tanzimat reforms, the status of the Orthodox and Jewish communities in the Ottoman Empire was almost equal with that of the Muslims.  Indeed, in terms of the common classes and the wealthy these changes had little meaning.  For both Christians and Muslims of the lower class there was not much change in their daily lives, because they still shared the same fate, which was to work in the field and struggle.  For the wealthy, for instance for a wealthy Christian, the reforms provided a better framework within which to achieve a more comfortable life.  However, in practical terms, wealthy Christians had already achieved a similar standard of life to wealthy Muslims and also enjoyed better living conditions and more freedom in their actions before the Tanzimat reforms.[v]

            While the Muslim population of Salonica in the first Ottoman census of 1831 was about 10,000, it increased in the 1840s to 15,000 (excluding about 5000 Dönmes, nominal converts to Islam) as a result of continued immigration to Salonica.[vi]  In 1840 there were 25 Mosques with 48 İmams, 8 schools with 8 schoolmasters and 30 scholars, 60 ulemas, 8 Derviş Tekkes, 1 Şeyh, and 100 Dervişes in Salonica.[vii]  Contrary to the prevailing view in the literature respecting Muslims’ occupations in the Balkan cities as primarily government officials and military men, the Muslims of Salonica in the 1840s were involved in every sphere of city life, ranging from the rich merchants to peasants and porters.  There were 10 Muslim commercial establishments in Salonica in 1839.[viii]  Quite a large number of the artisans of the city were Muslims.  

  Change in people’s thinking and feeling

All groups of people in Salonica in 1840, including Muslims, were suspicious about the new reform measures of the Tanzimat and were unable to understand them properly.  The declaration of security for the life, honour and property of all groups by the Hatt-i Şerif was rather confusing for the people.  They had no confidence and were still fearful that the reforms might work against their existing interests or as pretext for a different mode of plunder.  Having seen the general sentiment among the people, in some towns the governors held special meetings in order to explain the sense of the Hatt-i Şerif of Gülhane, and fermans were issued for the same purpose of clarification.  According to reports, the assemblies were very well attended and the people appeared particularly pleased with some of the new reform measures such as the just tax assessment.

Some sections of society, however, were still very much concerned about the proposed changes, though the people in general saw the reforms as a relief for their present conditions.  The beys, for instance, expressed the opinion that the idea of their paying the same taxes as the people was entirely unacceptable for them.[ix]  Consul Blunt's remarks clearly reflect the general sentiment among the people:

“Some villages have risen against the beys of Salonica and I am inclined to think that the people have been advised to take these measures, under the assurance of assistance and redress, because their language is much changed.  They make their complaints with more courage than formerly.  In the instance of the people of a village making their complaint they said boldly before the beys: ‘ We know it to be the will of the Sultan that we should enjoy our rights; we have suffered much, too much from your oppressions, and as subjects of the Sultan we demand justice.’ Such language would not have existed formerly.” [x]

Doubtless, the people in the interior of the Ottoman Empire had interpreted in a very short time the meaning of the Hatt-ı Şerif of Gülhane as being advantageous for their own interests. They knew that the government wanted to solve their problems by these new reform measures, which provided a strong and reliable basis on which they could seek justice and defend their basic rights.  For example, in 1840, supported and heartened by the Tanzimat reforms of the prior year, the people of Salonica, both Muslim and non-Muslim, defended their rights and threatened the local government.  A written note was posted on the walls of Christian churches and other parts of the town, calling the attention of the Pasha to the acts of the Bishop, molla, muhasıl, and the City Council.  The note stated that the Pasha ought to know that the acts of the named parties were not in accordance with the Hatt-ı Şerif, and if they did not change their present conduct, more open demonstrations would be made in the city.[xi]

            Similarly, with respect to the disturbances in Niş, Üsküp, and Brania in 1841, according to the reports, it was acknowledged that the insurrections had been caused by the oppression of the muhasıls.  The Christians and the Muslims were united against the injustices of the muhasıls. They all knew that the Tanzimat was for their good, but at the same time they would not submit to the ordinances of the local councils, which forced them to pay for the rich.  In this sense, it was not the application of the Tanzimat, but rather the application of force and injustice under the cover of the new Tanzimat measures that was the main reason behind such incidents as occurred in some places directly after the promulgation of this reform.  That both Muslims and non-Muslims had acted in unison is convincing proof of the unjust conduct of the muhasıls and the councils in the region.[xii]

Meaning of Reform 

For the Muslim population, the Tanzimat reforms were the first steps in establishing a more centralised state and of increasing the power of the Sultan’s authority, which might end the present abusive system and deserved their support.  For the non-Muslim subjects, those reforms would protect their rights and give them new freedoms according to their traditional rights as subjects of the Ottoman Empire.  For instance, in 1826 when the Janissaries were destroyed, the feelings of the whole nation changed – Sultans no longer sat upon the Ottoman throne subject to the will of a deceiving group.  Indeed, those radical reforms of Sultan Mahmut eased the way for the Tanzimat reforms and provided a certain degree of security for the acceptance of the Tanzimat reforms.  In one of his reports, Consul Blunt says:

“Since that period [Sultan Mahmut's time] there has been no open expression on the part of the Muslim population, against the introduction of the new measures of reform supposed to be so repulsive to the fanatical feelings of the people.  At the time of the publication of the Hatt-ı Şerif of Gülhane, there was no reactionary movement as a result; and it was received without trouble.”[xiii]

In reality, there was opposition to the new reform measures at the local level, not from ordinary people, but from the notables and local government officials.  In the first place, the ulema naturally feared the consequences of change, which could have affected their position in society. Local government officials and tax-farmers did not like the idea of close supervision.[xiv]  Moreover, the heads of the Christian and Jewish communities were surprised by and to some extent opposed to the new reform measures.[xv]  Since the chiefs of the two communities were in the forefront of the depredation of their own people, they did not like the prospect of change in the present situation.[xvi]  On the one hand, local government authorities by using their arbitrary power changed or channelled the reforms for their own desires and interests.  On the other, when the Muslim and non-Muslim communities united against the corrupt measures of the local authorities, this was falsely depicted by the Porte as opposition to the new reform measures.  This misperception by the government was changed when the people had the chance to represent their affairs to the Porte on some occasions.  For instance, in Salonica a newly established tax, which was called temettuat (income tax), had been applied most unjustly.  Consul Blunt’s observation, which has to be interpreted with caution, shows the intensity of the plunder brought about by the temettuat tax: “Indeed I have heard respectable Turks say 'When will the Franks come and take this country, and save us, and our children from ruin?'”[xvii]

            Information respecting the state of local administrators in the interior of the country, and of the prevalent corruption in all its branches, affords sufficient evidence of the cause of popular movements.  According to Blunt, the popular movement in Bulgaria in 1841 occurred, in the first instance, because of corruption in the collection of cizye.  “It would be wrong,” he stated, “to suppose it as arising from the foreign intrigue or nationalist feelings.”[xviii]  In particular, the confusion and disorder in the land system after the proclamation of the Tanzimat was a unique cause of the peasants’ discontent.  The beys' insistence on taking dues and services by force, given this great opportunity of power resulting from the dominance of local councils, and their deliberate misinterpretation of the new measures, swept away the peasants’ expectations and paved the way for the well-known peasant rebellions between 1839 and the 1860s.[xix]    

The perception of the Tanzimat reforms at the local level five years after its promulgation had changed.  The people of all classes in the interior were far from being so much opposed to the reforms.  Although the ulema's position was not so different from that of other government officials at the local level, it should be noted that particularly in İstanbul the ulema were the chief supporters of the reforms following the abolition of the Janissaries by Sultan Mahmut in 1826.[xx] However, it was a reality in the early years of reform that some sections of the Muslim population were very cautious in their attitude towards the reform measures, because of the assertions of the fanatical ulema, which led them to believe that the projected reforms were nothing but the commencement of a grand attack aimed at the overthrowing of Islam.  One might find some cases respecting anti-Christian or anti-Jewish hostility to suggest that the ulema might have used their influence upon the Muslim masses in some other parts of the Empire.[xxi]  As far as Salonica was concerned, in the light of archival documents there is no record of any anti-Christian or anti-Jewish riots by the Muslim population with the support of the ulema arising from the new privileges given to the non-Muslims during the early Tanzimat period.

 It was the same for the Greek clergy, who feared that the position of Greek people among the other subjects would be threatened in some respect by the acceptance of equality.  However, after having seen the amelioration of their local administration and taxation, as for all the other subjects of the Empire, Greek people were convinced that the Tanzimat reforms were for their benefit and warmly supported the new measures. [xxii]

Position of the Muslims

The Muslims' acceptance of the non-Muslims as their equals before the law was peacefully received in Salonica.  After the proclamation of the Tanzimat decree, there was no anti-Jewish or anti-Christian violence or opposition to the new measures on the part of the Muslim population of Salonica.  Even the possible provocative effects of the presence of Jewish and Christian prosperity in Salonica did not lead the thoughts or feelings of the Muslim population to any hostile acts.  Certain sections of the non-Muslim communities in Salonica had had remarkably better economic and social conditions than that of most of their Muslim countrymen.  Also, non-Muslims dominated certain sectors of economic activity.  However, these factors did not seem to generate Muslim hostility towards non-Muslims in Salonica.  Mainly Muslims of the middle class (artisans and traders) continued to prevail in Salonica even in the face of the negative impact of foreign trade, in which the non-Muslims were very active and which consequently paved the way for the disintegration of the Muslims’ professional organisations, the guilds.  In this sense, we should note that the economic development of Salonica through commerce and industry very much contributed to the already existing consolidation of society, the increasing mode of liberal sentiments and the well-established tolerance among the people.

The Ottoman government did not, however, intend to promote economic activity only among the Muslim population of the Empire by the ongoing reform measures of the Tanzimat. The government did not distinguish among its subjects in this matter.  In fact, there was a huge potential among the Ottoman elite, which had traditionally been interested in agricultural, military and administrative careers and not in commerce.  The ayans, in particular, were very influential in the development of agriculture.  However, these ayan families were not recognised by the state as instruments to transform their regional and agricultural economic power into a national and commercial one in support of the Ottoman state.  The Ottoman government did not have any intention to turn Muslims into a state-backed merchant class or to promote them into the position of the backbone of Ottoman economy, because of its centuries of a non-partisan perception of society.  It is well known that the greater part of trade activities remained in the hands of non-Muslims until the end of the Empire.  This was sometimes perceived as the weakness of Ottoman reform in the nineteenth century, but alternatively it can be seen as a daring act of the Ottoman state at a period of time in which no other state showed a similar initiative.[xxiii]

Some remarks on perceptions

Nineteenth century European travellers portrayed the Turks as a people who did not engage in industry or trade and were peasants, administrators, and soldiers by nature.  For instance, Sir Charles Trevelyan, a contemporary European traveller, remarked on the typical position of the Muslims as follows:

 “The Turk is not a producer.  He never appears as a proprietor or manager of a manufactory, or partner in a banking or mercantile firm.  To keep a coffee-house, or some of the commonest kind of retail shops, seems to be the limit of his capacity in this respect; and this he does in such a lazy, sleepy way—spending most of his time in gossiping, smoking, and drinking coffee—that, in the sales of real property registered by the kadı, the transfer is almost always from Mohammedan to Christian hands.”[xxiv] 

Again, this generalisation was not true for Salonica as in the rest of the Empire.  Muslim populations in the Balkans like other groups had been accommodating themselves to the gradually changing conditions of social and economic life in the region since the time of their settlement or their conversion to Islam.  When looking at structural changes in the Orthodox community of the Balkans through the increasing pace of commercial activities particularly in the eighteenth century, we should not ignore the possibility of the same kind of structural changes among the Muslims of the Balkans.  Conceptualising the Muslims in the nineteenth century as people who were mostly peasants and military or administrative officials, as in the fifteenth century, is misleading.  During this four-hundred-year period, the Muslims made the required adaptations to change along with other sections of society.  For instance, in Salonica with the increasing Muslim immigration from rural areas, Muslims took part in different urban occupations, such as artisan, merchant and porter.[xxv]  In like manner, as we have seen in the reports, the Muslims of Salonica were largely involved in maritime shipping activities in Salonica as well.  For instance, the number of Muslim merchants’ ships entering the port of Salonica in the year 1840 was 100, carrying goods weighing a total of 5,070 tons.  This was the second largest shipping enterprise after Greek shipping, with 245 ships carrying 9924 tons.[xxvi]

Another misperception of Ottoman society is to consider the Muslims as the only land-holding group of the Empire.  Particularly in eighteenth and nineteenth century foreign accounts, through a considerable change in the land-system, the Muslims were usually portrayed as tax-farmers and the holders of large tracts of land.  Accordingly, they were a powerful group of people who, by getting the full support of the central state in their affairs, were the oppressors and rulers over the mostly non-Muslim peasants.  It is true that there was an accumulation of land in the hands of some people, stimulated by the ongoing process of cash-crop practices and market oriented agriculture.  However, the land-holding group by no means consisted of Muslims alone.[xxvii] According to contemporary sources, there were a considerable number of Christian and Jewish çiftlik holders in the Salonica region in the 1840s.[xxviii] 

The attitudes of Ottoman government officials regarding the reforms varied according to their temperament, but at the end of the day they were obliged to obey the general policy of the central government, which had sought to introduce new privileges to the non-Muslims, because, unlike previous practice, they were now appointed to their positions with fixed salaries.  The position of many of the Pashas on the subject of equality was liberal and they showed a general willingness to carry out the proposed reforms.[xxix]  The secondary officials in the provincial administration also followed the same line and tried not to contravene the new measures.

Conclusion

As pointed out by Halil İnalcık, the Ottoman social system underwent rapid change under specific historical conditions and circumstances.  This is not to say that it failed to respond to the changing circumstances in earlier centuries, merely that the pressures for rapid change occurred more urgently in the 1830s and 1840s.  “A multiethnic, multinational, multi-religious, and multilingual state such as the Ottoman Empire cannot be considered to be based on disfunctional institutions.”[xxx]  During the reform period in the nineteenth century in particular, the nature of the Ottoman social system should be understood correctly in order to comprehend the essence of changes in the society.  All the historical accounts of the time examined so far, including archival and non-archival sources, suggest that the Ottoman society reflected a very agreeable picture in which tolerance, dialogue and mutual respect were the basic elements among all the polarities.  The functioning of this plural society without any political intervention was well described by a European traveller in the early nineteenth century in the following sentences:

“What greatly struck me was to see with what freedom the Christians and Jews enter the mosque at Adrianople without meeting the least opposition… you are even allowed here to go up the minarets and what is still more extraordinary, the Greeks are permitted to pray in the beautiful mosque of Sultan Selim on their Ascension Day.  Tradition says that where that mosque stands there was formerly a Greek church called the Ascension Church… it is a curious sight to see the Greeks with their small lighted candles, praying and crossing themselves on one side of the mosque and the Turks with their accustomed prostration on the other.  After finishing their devotions the Greeks fill small vials from a spring which is in the centre of the mosque, pretending that that water becomes Holy on the Ascension Day.”[xxxi]   

ÖZET

Müslümanların Selanik bölgesinde görünmeleri Osmanlı Devleti’nin bölgeyi ilk fetih tarihi olan 1392’ye rastlamaktadır. Daha sonraki dönemlerde ve özellikle 15. yüzyıl  süresince, Müslüman Türklerin bölgeye iskanı ve az sayıdaki bölge halkının İslam dinini kabulüyle, zaten etnik olarak zengin bir sosyal yapıya sahip olan bölgede, din dil ve ırk bakımından yeni bir grup ortaya çıkmıştır. 1912’ye kadar, beşyüz yıla yakın bir süreç içerisinde, bölgedeki Müslüman nüfus hem orijinal bir kısım katkıları hem de pragmatik bir anlayışla varolan kültürel yapıyı kabulü sayesinde bölgenin sosyo-kültürel yapısına kendisini adapte etmesini bilmiştir. 19. yüzyılda, İslami kültür değerleri  artık bölgenin sosyo-ekonomik, politik ve kültürel yapısında vazgeçilmez bir öge olmuş ve dolayısıyla otantik bir yapı oluşturmuştur. Günümüz Balkan tarih literatüründe, Müslüman halkın algılanışı şimdiye kadar oldukça çarpıtılmış ve bazı çalışmalarda bu Müslüman kültürel kimliği tamamen ihmal edilmiştir. Bu çalışmalarda ne zaman Balkanlarda yaşayan Müslüman toplumundan bahsedilecek olunsa, Müslümanlar ya Osmanlı resmi devlet görevlileri ile ya da İstanbul’daki Müslüman imajıyla özdeşleştirilmiştir. Bunların dışındaki, köylerde ve kasabalarda yaşayan ve çok farklı meslekler icra eden sıradan Müslüman halk genellikle mevcud literatürde ihmal edilmiştir. Balkanlardaki Müslüman çiftçi, esnaf ve tüccarlar her yönüyle ve Osmanlı reayasını oluşturan gruplar olarak, o günkü Balkanlarda yaşayan Osmanlı toplumunu ortaya koyacak şekilde tam anlamıyla ele alınmamıştır. Aslında onlar da, diğer gruplardan farksız bir şekilde üretmekte ve vergilerini vermekteydiler. Bu makalede, Selanik’te yaşayan Müslüman halk, şehir hayatındaki  bütün olumlu ve olumsuz şartları paylaşan sıradan insanlar olarak ele alınmakta ve Selanik’in 19. yüzyılın ilk yarısındaki sosyo-kültürel yapısı içerisinde ayrılmaz bir parça olduğu ortaya konulmaktadır. Özellikle de, Tanzimat reformlarının Selanik’te yaşayan Müslüman halk tarafından algılanışı ve reformlarla olan karşılıklı etkileşimleri, tepkileri ve bunların sonuçları örneklerle anlatılmaya çalışılmaktadır.