Tuesday, June 2, 2015

The Dönmeh: The Middle East’s Most Whispered Secret - By Wayne MADSEN

From: Impact <Editor@impact-magazine.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:25 AM
Subject: The Dönmeh: The Middle East’s Most Whispered Secret (Part II)

The Dönmeh: The Middle East’s Most Whispered Secret (Part II)
Wayne MADSEN | 26.10.2011 | 20:27  Comments: 2


What will surprise those who may already be surprised about the Dönmeh connection to Turkey, is the Dönmeh connection to the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia.

An Iraqi Mukhabarat (General Military Intelligence Directorate) Top Secret report, “The Emergence of Wahhabism and its Historical Roots,” dated September 2002 and released on March 13, 2008, by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency in translated English form, points to the Dönmeh roots of the founder of the Saudi Wahhabi sect of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. Much of the information is gleaned from the memoirs of a “Mr. Humfer,” (as spelled in the DIA report, “Mr. Hempher” as spelled the historical record) a British spy who used the name “Mohammad,” claimed to be an Azeri who spoke Turkish, Persian, and Arabic and who made contact with Wahhab in the mid-18th century with a view of creating a sect of Islam that would eventually bring about an Arab revolt against the Ottomans and pave the way for the introduction of a Jewish state in Palestine. Humfer’s memoirs are recounted by the Ottoman writer and admiral Ayyub Sabri Pasha in his 1888 work, “The Beginning and Spreading of Wahhabism.”

In his book, The Dönmeh Jews, D. Mustafa Turan writes that Wahhab’s grandfather, Tjen Sulayman, was actually Tjen Shulman, a member of the Jewish community of Basra, Iraq. The Iraqi intelligence report also states that in his book, The Dönmeh Jews and the Origin of the Saudi Wahhabis, Rifat Salim Kabar reveals that Shulman eventually settled in the Hejaz, in the village of al-Ayniyah what is now Saudi Arabia, where his grandson founded the Wahhabi sect of Islam. The Iraqi intelligence report states that Shulman had been banished from Damascus, Cairo, and Mecca for his “quackery.” In the village, Shulman sired Abdul Wahhab. Abdel Wahhab’s son, Muhammad, founded modern Wahhabism.

The Iraqi report also makes some astounding claims about the Saud family. It cites Abdul Wahhab Ibrahim al-Shammari’s book, The Wahhabi Movement: The Truth and Roots, which states that King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, the first Kingdom of Saudi Arabia monarch, was descended from Mordechai bin Ibrahim bin Moishe, a Jewish merchant also from Basra. In Nejd, Moishe joined the Aniza tribe and changed his name to Markhan bin Ibrahim bin Musa. Eventually, Mordechai married off his son, Jack Dan, who became Al-Qarn, to a woman from the Anzah tribe of the Nejd. From this union, the future Saud family was born.

The Iraqi intelligence document reveals that the researcher Mohammad Sakher was the subject of a Saudi contract murder hit for his examination into the Sauds’ Jewish roots. In Said Nasir’s book, The History of the Saud Family, it is maintained that in 1943, the Saudi ambassador to Egypt, Abdullah bin Ibrahim al Muffadal, paid Muhammad al Tamami to forge a family tree showing that the Sauds and Wahhabs were one family that descended directly from the Prophet Mohammed.

At the outset of World War I, a Jewish British officer from India, David Shakespeare, met with Ibn Saud in Riyadh and later led a Saudi army that defeated a tribe opposed to Ibn Saud. In 1915, Ibn Saud met with the British envoy to the Gulf region, Bracey Cocas. Cocas made the following offer to Ibn Saud: “I think this is a guarantee for your endurance as it is in the interest of Britain that the Jews have a homeland and existence, and Britain’s interests are, by all means, in your interest.” Ibn Saud, the descendant of Dönmeh from Basra, responded: “Yes, if my acknowledgement means so much to you, I acknowledge thousand times granting a homeland to the Jews in Palestine or other than Palestine.” Two years later, British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour, in a letter to Baron Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Zionists, stated: “His Majesty’s government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people . . .” The deal had the tacit backing of two of the major players in the region, both descendant from Dönmeh Jews who supported the Zionist cause, Kemal Ataturk and Ibn Saud. The present situation in the Middle East should be seen in this light but the history of the region has been purged by certain religious and political interests for obvious reasons.

After World War I, the British facilitated the coming to power of the Saud regime in the former Hejaz and Nejd provinces of the Ottoman Empire. The Sauds established Wahhabism as the state religion of the new Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and, like the Kemalist Dönmeh in Turkey, began to move against other Islamic beliefs and sects, including the Sunnis and Shi’as. The Wahhabi Sauds accomplished what the Kemalist Dönmeh were able to achieve in Turkey: a fractured Middle East that was ripe for Western imperialistic designs and laid the groundwork for the creation of the Zionist state of Israel.

Deep states and Dönmeh

During two visits to Turkey in 2010, I had the opportunity of discussing the Ergenekon “deep state” with leading Turkish officials. It was more than evident that discussions about the Ergenekon network and its “foreign” connections are a highly-sensitive subject. However, it was also whispered by one high-ranking Turkish foreign policy official that there were other “deep states” in surrounding nations and Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria were mentioned by name. Considering the links between Ergenekon and the Dönmeh in Turkey and the close intelligence and military links between the Dönmeh-descendent Sauds and Wahhabis in Arabia, the reports of close links between ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman and the Binyamin Netanyahu government in Israel may be seen in an entirely new light… And it would explain Erdogan’s support for Egypt’s revolution: in Turkey, it was a democratic revolution that curbed the influence of the Dönmeh. The influence of Wahhabi Salafists in Libya’s new government also explains why Erdogan was keen on establishing relations with the Benghazi-based rebels to help supplant the influence of the Wahhabis, the natural allies of his enemies, the Dönmeh (Ergenekon) of Turkey.

Erdogan’s desire to set the historical record straight by restoring history purged by the Kemalists and Dönmeh has earned him vitriolic statements from Israel’s government that he is a neo-Ottomanist who is intent on forming an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab countries. Clearly, the Dönmeh and their Zionist brethren in Israel and elsewhere are worried about Dönmeh and Zionist historical revisionism, including their role in the Armenian and Assyrian genocide, and their genocide denial being exposed.

In Egypt, which was once an Ottoman realm, it was a popular revolution that tossed out what may have amounted to the Dönmeh with regard to the Mubarak regime. The Egyptian “Arab Spring” also explains why the Israelis were quick to kill six Egyptian border police so soon after nine Turkish passengers were killed aboard the Mavi Marmara, some in execution style, by Israeli troops. Dönmeh doctrine is rife with references to the Old Testament Amalekites, a nomadic tribe ordered attacked by the Hebrews from Egypt by the Jewish God to make room for Moses’s followers in the southern region of Palestine. In the Book of Judges, God unsuccessfully commands Saul: “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox, and sheep, camel and donkey.” The Dönmeh, whose doctrine is also present in Hasidic and other orthodox sects of Judaism, appear to have no problem substituting the Armenians, Assyrians, Turks, Kurds, Egyptians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Iranians, and Palestinians for the Amalekites in carrying out their military assaults and pogroms.

With reformist governments in Turkey and Egypt much more willing to look into the background of those who have split the Islamic world, Ataturk in Turkey and Mubarak in Egypt, the Sauds are likely very much aware that it is only a matter of time before their links, both modern and historical, to Israel will be fully exposed. It makes sense that the Sauds have been successful in engineering a dubious plot involving Iranian government agents trying to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington in an unnamed Washington, DC restaurant. The Iraqi intelligence report could have been referring to the Zionists and Dönmeh when it stated, “it strives to . . . [the] killing of Muslims, destructing, and promoting the turmoil.” In fact, the Iraqi intelligence report was referring to the Wahhabis.

With new freedom in Turkey and Egypt to examine their pasts, there is more reason for Israel and its supporters, as well as the Sauds, to suppress the true histories of the Ottoman Empire, secular Turkey, the origins of Israel, and the House of Saud. With various players now angling for war with Iran, the true history of the Dönmeh and their influence on past and current events in the Middle East becomes more important.
---

Wikipedia entry:

Dönmeh


 Dönmeh (TurkishDönme) refers to a group of crypto-Jews in the Ottoman Empire who, to escape the inferior condition of dhimmis, converted publicly to Islam, but were said to have retained their beliefs. The movement was historically centred in Salonica.[1] The group originated during and soon after the era ofSabbatai Zevi, a 17th-century Jewish kabbalist who claimed to be the Messiah and eventually converted to Islam in order to escape punishment by the Sultan Mehmed IV. After Zevi's conversion, a number of Jews followed him into Islam and became the Dönmeh. Since the 20th century, many Dönmeh have intermarried with other groups and most have assimilated into Turkish society.

Etymology[edit]

The Turkish word dönme is from the verbal root dön- that means 'to turn', i.e., "to convert", but in a pejorative sense. They are also called Selânikli"person from Thessaloniki" or avdetî "religious convert" (Arabicعودة‎ ‘awdah 'return'). Members of the group refer to themselves simply as "the Believers" in Hebrew (Hebrewהמאמינים‎ ha-Ma'aminim),[2] or "sazanikos," Turkish for "carp" in honor of the changing outward nature of the fish.[3] An alternate explanation of this self-nomenclature is the prophecy that Sabbatai Zevi would deliver the Jews under the sign of the fish.[4]

History[edit]

New Mosque, built by Dönmeh community of Salonica during the Ottoman period
Despite their conversion to Islam, the Sabbateans secretly remained close to Judaism and continued to practice Jewish rituals covertly. They recognized Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676) as the Jewish Messiah, observed certain commandments with similarities to those in Judaism, and prayed in Hebrew and later inLadino. They also observed rituals celebrating important events in Zevi's life and interpreted Zevi's conversion in a Kabbalistic way.
There are several branches of the Dönmeh group. The first is the İzmirli, formed in İzmir, Turkey (Smyrna). This was the original sect, from which two others eventually split. The first schism created the sect of the Jakubi, founded by Jacob Querido (ca. 1650–1690), the brother of Zevi's last wife.[3] Querido claimed to be Zevi's reincarnation and a messiah in his own right. The second split from the İzmirli was the result of claims that Berechiah Russo, known in Turkish as Osman Baba, was truly the next reincarnation of Zevi's soul. These allegations gained following and gave rise to the Karakashi (Turkish), or Konioso (Ladino), branch, the most numerous and strictest branch of the Dönmeh.[5] Missionaries from the Karakashi were active in Poland in the first part of the 18th century and taught Jacob Frank (1726–1791), the alleged heir of Russo's soul.[citation needed] Frank went on to create the Frankistsect, another non-Dönmeh Sabbatian group in Eastern Europe. Yet another group, the Lechli, of Polish descent, lived in exile in Salonika (modern Thessaloniki, Greece) and Constantinople.[citation needed]
The Dönmeh played an enormous role on the Young Turk movement, a group of modernist revolutionaries who brought down the Ottoman Empire.[6]At the time of the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923, some among the Salonika Dönmeh tried to be recognized as non-Muslims to avoid being forced to leave the city.[citation needed] After the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1922-1923, the Dönmeh strongly supported the Republican, pro-Western reforms of Atatürk that tried to restrict the power of the religious establishment and to modernize society.[citation needed] In particular, the Dönmeh were instrumental in establishing trade, industry, and culture in the emerging Republic of Turkey, which is partially due to the prominence of Rumeli immigrants in general, and of Salonika in particular, in the early Republic years.[citation needed]
An interesting case is the one of Ilgaz Zorlu, a Dönmeh publisher who founded Zvi Publishers in 2000 and sought recognition as a Jew, but a Beth Din refused to recognize his Jewishness without a full conversion.[citation needed] He claimed to have converted in Israel and then filed a lawsuit for changing his religion from Islam to Judaism in his registry records and identification. The court voted in his favor.[citation needed]
Işık University, which is the part of the Feyziye Schools Foundation (TurkishFeyziye Mektepleri Vakfı, FMV), and Terakkî schools were founded originally by the Dönmeh community in Thessaloniki in the last quarter of the 19th century and continued their activities in Istanbul after Greeks captured the city on 9 November 1912.[citation needed]
There is a community of Dönmehs living in Yeniköy district of İstanbul.[citation needed]

Ideology[edit]

The Dönmeh ideology of the 17th century revolved primarily around the Eighteen Precepts, an abridged version of the Ten Commandments in which the admonition against adultery is explained as more of a precautionary measure than a ban, likely included to explain the antinomian sexual activities of the Sabbateans. The additional commandments are concerned with defining the kinds of interactions that may occur between the Dönmeh and the Jewish and Muslim communities. The most basic of these laws of interaction was to avoid marriage with either Jews or Muslims and to prefer relations within the sect to those outside of it. In spite of this, they maintained ties with Sabbateans who had not converted and even with Jewish rabbis, who secretly settled disputes within the Dönmeh concerning Jewish law.[5]
As far as ritual was concerned, the Dönmeh followed both Jewish and Muslim traditions, shifting between one and the other as necessary for integration into Ottoman society.[7] Outwardly Muslims and secretly Jewish Sabbateans, the Dönmeh observed traditional Muslim holidays likeRamadan but also kept the Jewish Sabbath and major holidays.[8] Much of Dönmeh ritual is a combination of various elements of Kabbalah, Sabbateanism, Jewish traditional law, and Sufism.[9]
Dönmeh liturgy evolved as the sect grew and spread. At first, much of the Dönmeh literature was written in Hebrew. Later, as the group developed, Ladino replaced Hebrew as the prominent language and became not only the vernacular language, but also the liturgical language. Though the Dönmeh had branched into several sects, all of them held the view that Zevi was the divine messiah and that he had revealed the true "spiritualTorah"[5] which was superior to the practical earthly Torah. The Dönmeh created and celebrated holidays pertaining to various points in Zevi's life and their own history of conversion. Based at least partially in the Kabbalistic understanding of divinity, the Dönmeh believed that there was a three-way connection of the emanations of the divine, which engendered much conflict with Muslim and Jewish communities alike. The most notable source of opposition from other contemporary religions was the common practice of exchanging wives between members of the Dönmeh.[5]
The hierarchy of the Dönmeh was based in branch divisions. The Ismirli lay at the top of the hierarchy, composed of merchant classes and intelligentsia. Artisans tended to be mostly Karakashi while lower classes were mostly Jakubi. Each branch had its own prayer community, organized into a "Kahal," or congregation (Hebrew).[5] An extensive internal economic network provided support for lower class Dönmeh in spite of ideological differences between branches.[10]

Mehmet Karakaşzade Rüştü[edit]

In 1924, Mehmet Karakaşzade Rüştü, a Karakash Dönmeh,[clarification needed] revealed information (= made allegations?) about Dönmehs, branches and wife-swapping rituals to Vakit newspaper. He also accused Donmehs of lacking patriotism and not having been assimilated. Discussions spread into other newspapers including the ones owned by Dönmeh groups. Ahmet Emin Yalman, in the newspaper (Vatan) he owned, accepted the existence of such groups, but claimed that those groups were no longer following their traditions. Then Karakaşzade Rüştü petitioned TBMM, requesting the abolition of some Dönmehs' ongoing immigration from Macedonia by population exchange.[11][12][13]

Notable people of Dönmeh descent[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up^ Sean McMeekin, The Berlin-Baghdad Express p.75
  2. Jump up^ Waiting for the Messiah
  3. Jump up to:a b Maciejko, Pavel (2011). The Mixed Multitude: Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement, 1755-1816. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  4. Jump up^ "Dönmeh" in Singer, Isidore, ed. (1906). "Jewish Encyclopedia." Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House. s.v. (accessed 10 March 2013).
  5. Jump up to:a b c d e Scholem, Gershom (1974). Kabbalah. New York, NY: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Company.
  6. Jump up^ Kirsch, Adam (15 February 2010). "The Other Secret Jews"The New Republic. Archived from the original on 5 December 2010. Retrieved 5 December2010.
  7. Jump up^ Baer, Marc. "Globalization, Cosmopolitanism, and the Dönme in Ottoman Salonica and Turkish Istanbul." Journal of World History. 18. no. 2 (2007): 141-170. doi: 10.1353/jwh.2007.0009 (accessed 6 March 2013). [1]
  8. Jump up^ [2]
  9. Jump up^ Marc Baer, "Dönme (Ma'aminim, Minim, Shabbetaim)," Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World. Executive Editor Norman A. Stillman. Brill Online, 2013. Reference. University of Maryland. 7 March 2013
  10. Jump up^ Weiker, Walter F. (1992). "Ottomans, Turks, and the Jewish Polity: A History of the Jews of Turkey." Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
  11. Jump up^ Link text, Turkay Salim Nefes (2013) The Sociological Review Volume 61, Issue 2, pages 247–264.
  12. Jump up^ Link text, Turkay Salim Nefes (2012) Journal of Historical Sociology Volume 25, Issue 3, pages 413–439, September 2012.
  13. Jump up^ Cengiz Sisman, "The History of naming the Ottoman/Turkish Sabbatians", in Studies on Istanbul and Beyond ed. by Robert G. Ousterhout (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007).

Further reading[edit]



My comments posted on Economic Times webpage blog by Keki Daruwalla: 

Why BJP needs to change the mindset of its members against minorities


Ghulam MuhammedMumbai1 min ago

Keki Daruwalla's advice to BJP is like a voice in the wilderness. BJP as a political proxy of RSS, cannot write off 90 years internalization of the Idea that India belongs to Hindu -- read Brahmins. They are in a hurry to take advantage of the majority -- first past the poll -- government to bring in major changes as per their old agenda. That agenda in principle wants India to be free of Muslims, even though they are Indian citizens and number a huge 150 millions spread out all over the country. It is a piece of luck that 150 million Muslims are silently tolerating all the communal discrimination and even genocidal riots without any violent reaction. But the danger is always lurking. Modi is in a hurry as if he is aware that BJP will not remain in power for long and they must take advantage to push their communal agenda, mainly focused against Muslims. Love Jihad, Ghar Vapsi, beef ban are a series of measures that BJP/RSS are deeply committed to, as an ideological commitment to their constituency. It is therefore impossible for them to take advice of sane elements in the society at least for a time, till situations change. It is unfortunate that ET should add a disclaimer to Keki Daruwalla's wise counsel. Media too is blinded by visceral hate and that is not good for the future of the nation.

Muslim Woman Denied Job Over Head Scarf Wins in Supreme Court - By Adam Liptik - The New York Times, NY, NY



THE NEW YORK TIMES


Muslim Woman Denied Job Over Head Scarf Wins in Supreme Court



By ADAM LIPTAKJUNE 1, 2015
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday revived an employment discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch, which had refused to hire a Muslim woman because she wore a head scarf. The company said the scarf clashed with its dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”
“This is really easy,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in announcing the decision from the bench.
The company, he said, at least suspected that the applicant, Samantha Elauf, wore the head scarf for religious reasons. The company’s decision not to hire her, Justice Scalia said, was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her religious practice. That was enough, he concluded, to allow her to sue under a federal employment discrimination law.
The vote was 8 to 1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
Ms. Elauf had been awarded $20,000 by a jury, but the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, overturned the award, saying the trial judge should have dismissed the case before trial. “Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie before its hiring decision that she wore her head scarf, or ‘hijab,’ for religious reasons,” Judge Jerome A. Holmes wrote for the appeals court.
Photo
Samantha Elauf.CreditJim Bourg/Reuters
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the appeals court for further consideration, but Monday’s ruling suggests that Ms. Elauf is likely to prevail.
Justice Scalia, writing for seven justices, said Ms. Elauf did not have to make a specific request for a religious accommodation to obtain relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in hiring.
“Title VII forbids adverse employment decisions made with a forbidden motive,” Justice Scalia said from the bench, “whether this motive derives from actual knowledge, a well-founded suspicion or merely a hunch.”
Justice Scalia elaborated on this point in his written opinion. “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions,” he wrote.
Groups that represent religious minorities, including Muslims, Sikhs and Jews, applauded the ruling. They said it would help protect their members against employment discrimination based on their members’ religious attire, head coverings or beards.
“The decision by the Supreme Court today affirmed the basic right to practice one’s faith freely without fear of being denied the opportunity to pursue the American dream,” said Gurjot Kaur, senior staff attorney of the Sikh Coalition, a national advocacy group.

Employment Discrimination

The court decided in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores that Samantha Elauf was not required to make a specific request for a religious accommodation to wear a hijab when applying for a position at a children’s clothing store owned by the company.
8-1
MAJORITY
Sotomayor
Kagan
Ginsburg
Breyer
Kennedy
Roberts
Scalia
Alito
Thomas
• The company declined to hire Ms. Elauf, saying her scarf clashed with the company’s dress code. It maintained that it should not have been made to guess that she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.
The case started in 2008 when Ms. Elauf, then 17, applied for a job in a children’s clothing store owned by Abercrombie & Fitch at Woodland Hills Mall in Tulsa, Okla. She wore a black head scarf but did not say why.

RECENT COMMENTS

Dan Bray

 16 minutes ago
I think she was making a much bigger deal about this, than necessary. What if I was a Mormon and wanted to work for A & F, but was told...

Curt

 17 minutes ago
In 2013 a 16-year old Swedish citizen, Hussein Radhi, was denied admission to an industrial technology program at a Swedish high school. The...

TKList

 22 minutes ago
Civil Rights Act goes too far.
  • SEE ALL COMMENTS
  •  
  • WRITE A COMMENT
The company declined to hire her, saying her scarf clashed with the company’s “Look Policy,” or dress code. After the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on Ms. Elauf’s behalf, the company said it had no reason to know that Ms. Elauf’s head scarf was required by her faith.
Advertisement
Advertisement
In its Supreme Court brief in the case, E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, No. 14-86, the company argued that job applicants should not be allowed “to remain silent and to assume that the employer recognizes the religious motivations behind their fashion decisions.”
Carlene Benz, an Abercrombie spokeswoman, said the company had altered its dress code since 2008, allowing workers “to be more individualistic.” She added that the company “has a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion” and “has granted numerous religious accommodations when requested, including hijabs.”
At the trial, Ms. Elauf said she loved movies, shopping, sushi and the mall. “It’s like my second home,” she said.
Her experience with Abercrombie made her feel “disrespected because of my religious beliefs,” she said. “I was born in the United States, and I thought I was the same as everyone else.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. voted with the majority to reverse the appeals court’s decision, but he did not adopt the majority’s reasoning. “I would hold,” he wrote, “that an employer cannot be held liable for taking an adverse action because of an employee’s religious practice unless the employer knows that the employee engages in the practice for a religious reason.” He added that in this case there was “ample evidence” that “Abercrombie knew that Elauf is a Muslim and that she wore the scarf for a religious reason.”
In dissent, Justice Thomas wrote that the company’s dress code was a neutral policy that could not be the basis for a discrimination lawsuit.
Laurie Goodstein contributed reporting from New York.