The Armenian Genocide was a Jihad

[Steph]

Sorry for late response , I'm glad 1.5 put his well qualified (more then Mr.Bostom anyhow)2 cents. I believe there's something inherently wrong when non-believers use religion to commit crimes for or against people.And use that as a platform to pigeonhold history of all.

Agreed.

[bell-the-cat]

Sorry for late response , I'm glad 1.5 put his well qualified (more then Mr.Bostom anyhow)2 cents. I believe there's something inherently wrong when non-believers use religion to commit crimes for or against people.And use that as a platform to pigeonhold history of all.

Two cents was exactly what it was worth.

[Joseph]

I see nothing inherently wrong in this position - but I believe it is only a partial explanation that ignores the role of the revolutionary situation (of the collapsing Empire) and the rise of the Young Turk movement (that was ethnically [and nationalistically] Turkish but inherently non-religious and ensued radical breaks with the past Ottoman traditions - including multi-ethnicity in favor of single and clearly dominant exclusivistic ethnicity) as well as the economic factors where the wealth of the (defensless) Armenians and other Christians of the Empire became the target of a criminal regeim that used such to build its own wealth and power.

Likewise Armenians came to be seen as a competing ethnicity for some of the same lands - and where their loyalty to the Ottomans became suspect due to the political affiliation of some Armenians with (the most hated Ottoman rival and enemy Russia) and of course the religious ties affecting all Armenians (or at least the perception of such on the part of the paranoid Turks...who certainly had reason to suspect such ties based on their recent experience in the Balkans). Likewise the influence of Turkic peoples who had been driven out of outlying areas by Orthodox Christians whom they had previously lorded over added to the mix of hatred and resentment toward Armenians that while perhaps religiously based falls (IMO) outside the strict issue of jihadist mindset and is something else.

Jihad was primarily used as a tool - though the traditional (dominant) position of Muslims - that was threatened by the social and economic ascendency of Armenians (and other Christians) - was one primary motivational consideration among (Muslim) Turks whose position of absolute dominance was threatened by the reforms and liberalization sought by Armenians - and this fueled the resentment that turned into outright hatred and combined with prior attitudes where Christians were already (and had long been) seen as lesser humans (and fueled further by the hatred of those Turkics recently arrived from retributional persecutions metted out by fellow Orthodox Christians) - turned into a situation where their outright slaughter and elimination could be seen as a viable and desired option and where the (Muslim) people could be roused to act on such feelings (of revenge, blame and scapegoatism) - and they did.

Agreed.
Abdul Hamid II and later the CUP were able to easily use Islam as a weapon against the Christian population of Asia Minor. Whether the these leaders were actually religious or not, it remains that they utilized the Muslim populations anti-Christian sentiments and used the Muslim clergy to do their bidding. During the Hamidian Massacres, the Muezins call could be heard to signal both the beginning in the end of the massacres. During WWI, Enver called his troops the Army of Islam as they marched east and masscred the Christian populations of Anatolia, Northern Persia, and the Caucasus.