Abstract (eng)
There is ongoing debate in Bulgaria about whether conversions to Islam during the Ottoman empire were forced or not. This work, by scrutinising the conversions to Islam in the early modern Ottoman empire between fifteenth and seventeenth century, with a special attention to the rule of Mehmed IV, concludes that most of the conversions to Islam were voluntarily with socio-economic reasons. The devision of the Ottoman subjects into different religious groups, the so called millet system, and its poll-tax of the non-Muslim subjects to the empire will serve as the first independent variable for voluntarily conversion, supported by collected data in three tables concerning the non-Muslim population between the fifteenth and seventeenth century in the Ottoman Balkans provided by the scholar Anton Minkov In addition to it, I will refer to the primary sources Kisve Bahasi petitions as the second independent variable, where Christians and Jews petitioned to the sultan, with the demand to be converted to Islam, in exchange for Muslim clothing, money or positions in the military troops or in the palace. In addition to the petitions, as third independent variable, I will use the narrative sources of the conversion policies of Mehmed IV with special regard to the conversion ceremonies where Christians and Jews converted voluntarily to Islam. From the research with the independent variables that I have conducted, I reach the conclusion that most of the Christians and Jewish subjects of the empire converted either to skip the poll-tax, or to change their social class into better one. In addition, Mehmed IV offered benefits to the non-Muslims of their conversion, by glorifying them with Muslim clothes or coins. With this reached conclusion, I contribute to the ongoing debate in Bulgaria about the conversion, by contradicting one of the prominent scholars Hristo Hristov, who argues that the conversions were forced. Together with the works of Ali Eminov and Vera Mutafchieva, I prove that Hristov’s thesis is groundless and he fails to provide empirical and adequate sources for his thesis.