From: …. <fr…..@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 22:44:51 +0200
Subject: Re: A letter to Father ……., Archangel Monastry in
Prizren about name of Sultan Murat
To: Hasip SAYGILI <hasipsaygili@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. Sayigili,
Thank you very much for your letter. First of all, from your letter I did
not understand who you were nor on whose behalf you wrote me your e-mail.
Are you a Turkish KFOR officer or soldier, or you write only in your own
name a personal letter.
I do not know who from you got my e-mail address and I consider it very
impolite from anyone giving you my personal e-mail address without my
approval.
It is true that I stated in some PRIVATE conversations that it is a
diplomatic slap in the face to the serbian people that the Turkish army in
Kosovo called it base Sultan Murat. So it is very incorrect from the part of
these persons to gossip about my personal objections. Only for principle,
though, since I am not afraid to state it publicly, also, which I confirm to
you now by this letter.
Why do I say so? I compared this fact with the fact that a German army would
call an army base in Jerusalem Adolf Hitler Base. For us Serbs, the barbaric
Ottoma occupation of Serbia is the saddest and the most difficult period of
our history. The words of Bishop Artemije are taken completely out of
context as he was not praising a nice period of Turkish yoke in serbia, but
on the contrary, saying that now the period that KFOR securing Kosovo it is
worse than Ottoman dominance, since the churches the Turks did not destroy,
are destroyed now, in the years of internationally guaranteed peace.
Now, not saying that all the Sultans and all the Turks were also a
blood-suckers and barbarians, there were also brave people, and people that
tried to protect the raya subdued and without any rights, but in general,
the Turkish rule in Serbia in general represents that.
Beginning with Murat. He is the symbol of the Serb and christian defeat in
Kosovo, when the muslim armies conquested the lands and thus a five hundred
year of Turkish yoke began. And yes, it is politics. Probably you from your
side simbolically wanted to show the serbs that you conquested Kosovo in the
name of your sultan who did it 600 years ago. Why do you name after sultan,
when we know that the army headed by Ataturk was the main force to fight
against sultans rule (spiritual and temporal) and was the main force of
secularization of Turkey?
Should I name you the beautiful churches and monasteries destroyed by the
Turks in Kosovo. Should I start with Sinan pasha, a nobleman that destroyed
the Holy Archangels Monastery and used its material to build his beautiful
mosque in Prizren?
Should I speak about Bogorodica Hvostanska, a Bishop's seat near Pec, a
beautiful church leveled to the ground?
Should I mention Banjska which the Turkish army used as its garrison?
Should I mention Ljeviska cattedral in Prizren which the Turks turned into
mosque, and burnt and destroyed most of other Prizren churches.
Should I mention Jashar Pasha of Pristina who was destroying churches and
monasteries and using materials to build his hamaams and bridges?
Would yuo like me to mention to you that the christians, the giaurs, were
not allowed to construct any new churches and now allowed to ring their
bells?
Would I mention to you hundreds of other churched destroyed by the Turks?
Would I mention how the Turks were selling serb women and children as slaves
for a pair of boots?
What do you mean by mentioning serb women (among many the sultans had) if
not the humiliation the christian princesses had to pass by marrying them
only to make the situation of their people better?
Protector of the oppressed? Yes, the christians were protected if they could
pay enough, and cheat the Turkish administration. Maybe you could fool
somebody else, but not me, since I have a deep knowledge of Serb history.
And again, I ask myself, how come the army, the bearer of secularization,
insists on the name of the kaliph, and not, for example, of Ataturk, or some
other general.
Do not try to convice me how beautiful the Turkish rule in Serbia was, the
destroyed monasteries and churches are still the inevitable witnesses of
that, and Archangels monastery is sure one of the most convincing.
I would only appreciate if you would present yourself. If you were the
Colonel Saygili, whom I heard of, since I still do not know who am I talking
to.
And if you ask me for proposal, I would say that completely neutral would be
names which have nothing with the conquest of Serbia (and I remind you,
according to resolution 1244, Kosovo is still part of Serbia). Names
Ataturk, Anadolia, Istambul or something else would be quite inoffensive for
the serbs, as well as names of some other generals or other notable and
famous people of whom the brave Turkish nation is full of.
I hope that you will change it since I must tell you at the end that in our
Orthodox Church there are already some preparations to make media campaign
that this offensive name of the Turkish camp be changed. I suppose it can be
resolved without any media involvment for our mutual benefit.
Best regards,
Fr. Ksenofont