Türk Hazar Imparatorlugu
hakkinda yazismalar
--- In b_c_n@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya
<tntr@C...> wrote:
Degerli Arkadaslar,
Merhaba. Bildiginiz
gibi Tarihte Türk milletinin kurmus oldugu
imparatorluklardan
birisi de Türk Hazar Imparatorlugudur. Avrasyanin
bu günkü Ukrayna,
Donve Idil nehirleri bölgeleri ve Kafkaslar
bölgesini içine
alan bu büyük Türk imparatorlugu tarihimizde 16 Türk
Devleti diye
bilinen büyük Türk devletlerinden biri olup Türkiye
Cumhuriyeti
Cumhurbaskanligi sancagindaki 16 yildizdan biridir.
Tarihte sekiz asir
kadar bir muhtesem ömür yasamis bu Türk Hazar
Imparatorlugu, M.
S. 6. ve 13. asirlar arasinda hükümran olmus, essiz
bir hos görüye,
esitlik kanunlarina, hak ve adalete riayet eden,
gününden en az 1500
yil daha ileride, san ki günümüzde ki çagdas
demokrat bir devlet
imis gibi tarihe damgasini vurmustur. Bu
büyük Türk
imparatorlugunun adil kanatlari altinda bir çok gruplar
gerek sosyal hayat
ve gerekse ekonomik hayat bakimindan çok
hür ve zengin
çaglar yasamislardir. Bunlarin arasinda basta gelenler
de Yahudiler
olmustur. Buraya pek çok uzak diyarlardan kaçarak
gelen Yahudi tüccar
ve misyonerler hem zenginlesmisler ve hem de
dinlerini yayma
firsatini bulmuslardir. Hatta öyle ki bazi Hazar
kaganlari bile
Museviligi kabullenmis ve aralarinda ad bile
degistirmis olanlar
olmustur. Bu arada olasilikla Kaganlarin
yakinlari ve belki
de bazi Türkler Museviligi kabul etmisler.
Denildigine göre,
imparatorluk içinde daginik halde 30,000 kadar
musevi dininden
olanlar varmis.
Bu muhtesem Türk
imparatorlugunu bazi Yahudi gruplari yaptiklari
çesitli yayinlar
vasitasiyla dünyaya Yahudi Imparatorlugu adi ile
tanitmaktalar. 1997
lerde bir vesile ile bu gibi tanitmalara karsi
çikmistim. Hazar
Imparatorlugu konusunda www.khazaria.com adresli
web-sitesinin
sahibi Kevin Brook adli kisi ile son birkaç hafta içinde
bir e-mail
konusmamiz gerçeklesti. Hazar Imparatorlugu ile
ilgilenenlerin bu
tartismali yazismalari görmelerinde yarar olur
düsüncesiyle bu iki
yazimi ve eklerini sizlerin dikkatine sunuyorum.
www.khazaria.com
web-sayfasina bakip söylenenleri dikkatle okuyup,
kimlerin nelerin
pesinde oldugunu özellikle görmenizi öneriyorum.
Türk Hazar
Imparatorlugu hakkinda yapilan pek çok arastirma
yazilarinda ve
buluntularin tasvirlerinde kaypak dil kullanilmakta
olup yaniltici
sözler, yanlis bilgilendirme ve yanlis temsil etmelerle
eski Türk tarihini
saptirilmaktadir. Türk dünyasinin kültürü Türkden
alinip baskalarina
aktarilmaktadir. Bu gibi aktarmalara sözde
"samimiyet"
havasi içinde yapildigi görüntüsü verilmektedir.
Gerçeklerin ne
oldugunu bilmeyen çogu okuyucu kolaylikla yanlis
bilgilendirilmektedir.
Her okuyucu okudugunu pek sorusturmadigina
göre, yazilan
yazilar da, dogru veya yanlis, bir kere yazildiktan
sonra ve yanlislar
da duzeltilmedikce, ilerisi için kaynak belgeler
oluyor. Simdilerde
"Yahudi Hazar" diye yazilip tanitilan Turk Hazar
Imparatorlugunun,
gelecegin Yahudi Hazar Imparatorlugu diye
bilineceginden hiç
kimsenin süphesi olmasin. Bu konuda devamli
sekilde çalisan bir
sebeke var. Asil garip olan ve bu gibi olaylara
cesaret veren
durum, bu haller karsisinda Türk insaninin hiç sesinin
çikmadigidir. Kaç
kisi bilir ki Israil bayragi üzerindeki alti köseli
yildizin Türk
dünyasi ile çok yakindan ilgisi olup, Türklerin eski
damgalarindan
birisidir. Osmanli çini sanatininda pek çok eseri
süsleyen bir
yildizdir, ve en önemlisi Barbaros Hayrettin Pasanin
Amirallik
Bayraginin üzerindeki yildizdir. Yani pek çok yönüyle Türk
kültürü asillidir.
Buna ragmen bu sembol Türkler için kaybolmustur.
Her kes onu
"Star of David" diye bilir. Internette arastirma
yaparsaniz, bu
sembolun Yahudilere ait olmadigi açikca yazilmistir.
Durum böyle iken
Türkün neden hiç sesi çikmaz?
Bilmem
hatirlarmisiniz, Yugoslavia parçalanip Makedonya Cumhuriyeti
kuruldugu zaman,
Grekler hem "Makedonya" adinin kullanilmasina karsi
çiktilar ve hem de
Makedonyali Büyük Iskenderin bayragindaki "günes
sembolunun"
Makedonyalilar tarafindan kullanilamiyacagini israrla
söylediler.
Greklerin iddiasi, bu adin ve sembolun Grek kültürüne ait
oldugu idi ve
dolayisiyle baska kimse kullanamazdi. Bu iddia dahi
tartisma götürür
olmasina ragmen Grekler yine de "benim" diye israr
ettiler. Demek
istedigim sudur ki çesitli Türk kültürü baskalari
tarafindan
alindiginda Türkler neden sessiz kaliyorlar? Bu bir uyuma
degil mi?
"Sari Gelin türküsü" için "bu bize ait olmayip ta
Ermenilere ait olsa
ne çikar?" diyen zihniyetten ne zam kurtulur Türk?
Bu günkü Türk
dünyasi 2000 sene evvelinden geriye dogru binlerce sene
öncesinde
gelistirmis oldugu muhtesem Türk dünyasi ve o dünyanin
töreleri hakkinda
hemen hemen herseyi unutmus veya unutturulmus
gibidir. Uzak
geçmiste dünyaya din, dil ve medeniyet veren Türk
dünyasinin
Sümerleri ve bence dünyanin en uzun ömürlü Türk devleti
olan eski
Masar/Misir devletini Türklükten uzaklastiranlar simdi
baska emeller
pesindedirler.
Bilinir ki kökünü
kaybeden ot bir daha da kolay kolay yeseremez. Türk
milleti kökünü
kaybederse kendi gelecegini ve kimligini tehlikeye
düsürür. Türkler
sanli atalarindan bir grubu ve onlara ait olan bütün
töreleri
baskalarina kaptirirsa neticede insanlik önünde çiplak kalir,
kültürsüz diye
tanitilir ve baskalari tarafindan küçümsenir. Türk
dünyasi insaninin
böyle bir duruma düsmemesi için bütün cedlerine
sahip çikmasi,
"onlar Türktüler ve benim atalarimdi" diyerek gururla
onlara ve onlarin
kültürlerine, hangi dinde olurlarsa olsun, sahip
çikmasi gerekir.
Görülüyor ki onlarin çesitli dinlere karsi olan hos
görüleri kaypak ve
yaniltici sözlerle sömürülmek istenmektedir.
Türk insaninin bu
durumlarin bilincinde olmasina ve bu gibi
asirmalara hedef
olan törelerinin korunmasinda uyanik olmasina
yardimci olur
amaciyla sizlere o yazismalari sunuyorum.
Selamlar,
Polat Kaya
Subject: Re: A new
website
Date: Wed, 24 Jul
2002 09:08:44 +0100
From: Polat Kaya
<tntr@c...>
To: Kevin Brook
<kbrook@p...>
Dear Kevin Brook:
This is in response
to your e-mail dated Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:58:33
-0400 (EDT) and
entitled "Re: A new website".
I do not find your
"virus" explanation convincing. The initial e-mail
came from your
email address to my email address. Since I have never
written to you
before, why should you have my email address in your
system? Please
remove it so that I do not get any more viruses or
worms or whatever
messages from your system.
You said:
> Since you
contacted me, I would like you to apologize for your anti-
Jewish remarks
against my website's acknowledgement that the Khazars
converted to Judaism.
I am a friend of Turks and do not "steal" from
Turks.
This is an
unwarranted assumption. It seems that you are either
confused or in the
mood for playing tricks which I did not expect from
a person that
writes history books and claims to be a scholar. First
you sent me a
strange email, now you deny it and also come forward
with an absurd
request for an apology for something I did not do.
You have to be
kidding. Unquestionably we must be living in a
peculiar world.
I do not know what
you are talking about. I have not made anti-Jewish
remarks nor do I
apologise for my critism of your writings in your
website. You seem
to be full of assumptions and hostility to accuse me
when you are the
one who should be accused. If you really are a friend
of the Turks, which
you claim to be and you should be, then you will
have to change your
attitude, particularly your double-talking writing
style regarding the
ancient Turks. Instead of getting carried away
with false
assumptions about me, you should try to learn more about
the Turks.
Regarding some of
the Khazar Turks being converted to Judaism is no
problem for me at
all, however, misusing such a conversion for
unintended purposes
becomes a problem. Since very ancient times,
Turks, in addition
to their own celestial religion, have, sometimes,
acquired different
religions that were influenced or derived from
their own ancient
religion. However, it must be noted that following
a religious belief
other than their own does not change a Turk's
identity. No matter
what religion a Turk follows, he is still a Turk
and remains a Turk
and his culture belongs to him. The same applies
to the Khazar
Turks, only a limited numbers of whom were converted to
Judaism during
their reign. However, such a limited conversion neither
makes their Turkish
empire a "Jewish Empire" nor does it make all of
them "Jewish
Khazars" as you portray. You imply a whole spectrum of
Khazar Turks being
"Jewish" which is absolutely not true. You and also
some other writers
have been using such terms very freely. You must
appreciate that
what you write now will possibly be a reference for
future generations.
After a few generations pass by, a writer will not
be around to
explain what he/she wrote in the past, therefore, his/her
present writings
must be clear, explicit and self explanatory so that
there will be no
confusion in the future as there are presently due to
erroneous past
writings.
You must understand
that my opposition is to your style of rewriting
Turkish history and
not against your people. My objections are
against your
misleading references to the Turkish Khazar Empire as
being the
"Jewish Khazars", "Jewish Empire", the "Jewish kings
ruling
the eastern
Europe", "the Great Jewish Cities of Central and Eastern
Europe" (which
were all Turkish cities), "the local governors of
these cities and
districts were usually Jewish" and many more similar
statements which
push the Khazar Turks into being a phantom at the
background. The
titles of your references enhance your claims as
well. So what is
going on here regarding the Khazar Turks? Are some
coordinated efforts
being directed towards obliterating the Khazar
Turks and their
Turkish Empire from history so that some other group
can take over their
magnificent heritage? It is obvious that
painting the
"Khazar" name with double-meaning adjectives such
as
"Jewish" or "Turkic" and not explicitly mentioning
"Turk" paints a
clouded picture of
the Turkishness of this Turkish empire. What is
also obvious is
that this is an effort of intentional takeover of one
of the most
important Turkish empires by a handful of ambitious
writers. You and a
number of other writers use phrases of double
meanings which
cannot be distingushed by the ordinary reader. When
you make such
references in your text, you are making
misrepresentations
and misleading the reader. I am sure you know and
speak English well
enough to know how to be unambiguous in your
writings, that is,
if you want to be.
If I recall
correctly, you did say, in a letter to Mr. Mehmet Tutuncu,
that the Khazar
culture belonged to the Jews rather than to the Turks.
This is quite a
claim. You must remember that without the
magnanimity of the
Khazar Turks, whom you seem to phantomise with
subtleties of your
writings, you would have neither the Jewish
presence nor the
Jewish culture in the Turkish Khazar Empire at a time
when Jews were
being persecuted at many other places. So, please let
us not forget the
source of who gave what to whom. Additionally, you
must not forget
that Turks, who had the ancient ancestor worshipping
cult, are also very
fond of their ancestors and the heritage that
they left behind.
Thus only the present day Turkish peoples are the
owners of the
legacies of their ancestors and it will be so as long
as Tur/Turk peoples
are around.
So this is my point
in this issue and it is the end of this
discussion.
Best wishes,
Polat Kaya
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Brook wrote:
>
> Dear Polat
Kaya:
>
> I did not send
any such email to you. There are viruses and worms
on the Internet
which pick up people's email addresses from public
websites on the
World Wide Web and then use a third-party's Microsoft
Outlook software to
send out fake emails with no content, or
sometimes with a
false .PDF or .HTM file, but only intriguing subject
lines without any
actual message. Usually these emails are between
100K and 200K in
size. But this kind of virus does not actually
infect the email
address it stole, so there is nothing I can do on my
end to stop your
receipt of such messages.
>
> Since you
contacted me, I would like you to apologize for your anti-
Jewish remarks
against my website's acknowledgement that the Khazars
converted to
Judaism. I am a friend of Turks and do not "steal" from
Turks.
>
> On Thu, 18 Jul
2002, Polat Kaya wrote:
> > Hello
kbrook,
> >
> > This is
in response to your e-mail dated Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:12:03
> > +0300 in
which you refer to a new website without given any > > >
> indication of
what it is about and how to find it. Additionally,
> > you did
not > > indicate whom you are talking to and neither you
> > signed
your name. > > Can you be more visible and proper in your
> >
communication? > >
> > Polat Kaya
> >
> >
> >
> > kbrook
wrote:
> > >
> > > Part
1.1 Type: Hypertext Markup Language (text/html)
> > >
Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
Subject: Re:
Khazars mentioned repeatedly as Turks
Date: Wed, 24 Jul
2002 09:10:44 +0100
From: Polat Kaya
<tntr@c...>
To: Kevin Brook
<kbrook@p...>
Dear Kevin Brook:
This is in response
to your e-mail dated Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:36:16
-0400 (EDT) and
entitled "Khazars mentioned repeatedly as Turks".
I will respond to
the first of your last two paragraphs first where
you are again
attributing things to me that I have not said . You
have written:
"Because I
never denied that Khazars were Turks, your accusations
against me 5 years
ago have been proven totally false. Of course the
Israeli documentary
emphasized the Jewish religion of the Khazars, so
what? Furthermore,
your claim that Jews are backstabbing people who
are trying to trick
Turks is also false."
1) First what you
have indicated here is not my style of writing. I
don't write or make
remarks like that. Other than my first paper to
TURKISTAN:
NEWSLETTER some years ago regarding your website, I had
nothing to do with
you at any time. This is the first time I am having
any communication
with you after your recent two line e-mail. Yet you
attribute sayings
to me that I have not said at all. I have given my
response to you in
this regard in my first letter but let me just add
here that I really
resent your baseless accusations and insinuations
and for that you
owe me an apology.
Secondly, please do
not be in such a hurry in dismissing the term
"Jewish"
by saying "so what?" Let me begin with the term "Jewish"
that
you use
considerably in your website writings. To my knowledge, this
is the first time
you indicate, privately in your letter to me, that
the term:
""Jewish" refers to the religion only". To my knowledge,
this you have not
indicated in your website writings. Additionally,
this term may or
may not mean so for you, but not so to the ordinary
reader. The term
"Jewish" is the adjective form of the name "Jew"
meaning "OF OR
PERTAINING TO JEWS". Thus, it implies anything and
everything to do
with Jews including themselves. Hence, your view of
the term
"Jewish" is not defined in the dictionaries as you indicate
it to mean
"religion only". Therefore, the term is synonymous not
only with
"being in the religion of Judaism" and many other things
related to the
Jewish people, but also with the "Jewish people, that
is, the Jews"
as well. Thus, the image you are presenting about the
Khazar Turks is
very ambiguous and misleading. In fact probably a
very high
percentage of your readers, after reading what you have
presented, will go
away with the impression that: a) Khazars were
Jews; b)
"Khazars were Jewish; c) Khazars were Turkic, and d) Khazars
were Turks. As you
can see there is a lot of ambiguity and room for
confusion in such
terminology. Such loose statements have the room
for obliteration of
Turks, Turkish identity and Turkish culture. That
is why you need to
be specific and/or explicit.
2) The second term
that you seem to use a lot is the term "Turkic".
This English term
refers to "those who speak Turkish language" who may
be the Turks
themselves but also those non-Turks who may also speak
Turkish. Thus,
again you are using another double edged terminology
that can be taken
in any direction you wish. When someone questions
you about what do
you mean by the term "Turkic", you may give any
explanation that
suits your purpose. Accordingly, the term "Turkic
Khazars" can
mean "Khazar Turks" to some knowledgable people, or
"Turkish
speaking non-Turks" to some other people. Since you keep
calling them
"Jewish Khazars", the reader will definitely think that
they were Turkish
speaking Jews. Thus, again you have created an
atmosphere in which
the Khazar Turks are liable to lose their Turkish
identity and for
the present day Turks to lose one of their most
cherished
ancestors. The Turkish Khazar Empire lasted about 800 years
with social
standards as free, tolerant and democratic as any of the
so-called
"democratically and socially developed countries of present
times". When
Turks have served humanity in such a magnificent way, why
are they not identified
with their Turkish identity and why is their
ancestry identified
with the ancient Jewish people? When you use
double meaning
terms in your writings, you are not only overtaking
Turkish heritage in
a very subtle way, but you are also obliterating
the Turks and their
history. This is not acceptable. Therefore, as a
writer, you must be
very careful. If you are going to be a scholar and
write a book or
essay about the ancient Khazar Turks and the refugee
Jews that the
Khazar Turks accepted into their country as a safe haven
for them, you need
to be very specific. You cannot use ambiguous
terms as you have
done. This is objection I had then and I still
have.
Just as you feel
that your ancestors and their heritage are important
to you, so do the
Turks feel about their ancestors, and their
ancestors' culture
and heritage. In fact this is as important to the
Turks as life
itself. Because once you remove a link from their
ancestorial roots,
no matter what religion they may have had, you have
cut their lifeline
to the past. No one has the right to do that.
This is what has
been done to Turks in the writings of ancient media
since ancient
times. This is not acceptable anymore.
Using your writings
as a model, say in 200-300 years from now, another
XYZ comes along and
writes another book calling it "The Jewish
Ottomans" or
"Jewish Ottoman Empire" or the Muslim Arap Empire of
Ottomans or
something similar thinking that there were Jews, Arabs,
and other groups in
the Ottoman Empire and therefore it is OK to use
such terminology.
Dont you think that would be an absurd and
misleading title
for a book?
3) In your very
last paragraph, you said: "The people you should
really have a
problem with are those who suggest that Khazars were
Scythians or Lost
Tribes of Israel or Circassians."
In this regard I
agree with you about the suggestion of "Lost Tribes
of Israel or the
Circassian". But I must highlight the so-called name
"Scythians"
who were the ancient Turkish "SAKA" people. Their name
has also been
distorted into "Scythians" this time by the ancient
Greeks. Hence, they
have been called SCYTHIANS by western writers,
SAKA and/or ISKIT
by some other writers. Thus the confusion has
lingered on. This
confusion is part of the game of obliterating
Turkish ancestry
from history. Once the name of the Turkish people in
question is changed
and they are associated with some non-Turk
groups, the problem
starts.
4) I visited your
website once more after your first e-mail. I
cannot go through
all of your writings as I do not have time for
that. But I have
seen some important parts of it.
I see that you have
made some improvements to your writings, but if
you dont mind my
telling you, what you have done is not enough because
you are still
following the same line of ambiguity. Let me indicate
some of them to
you. You will never find a better critic or editor.
Here are some of
your writings from your website and my comments. You
wrote:
4.1) Medieval
Kingdom of Khazaria, 650-1016
You write:
"Over a
thousand years ago, the far east of Europe was ruled by Jewish
kings who presided
over numerous tribes, including their own tribe:
the Turkic Khazars."
This misleading
statement seems to be intentionally slanted such that
any ordinary
reader, who does not know the facts, will get the
impression that it
was the Jewish people and their kings who
established such a
great empire and ruled many peoples. Even the
structuring of your
sentences adds to the confusion. You associate
"kings"
with "Jewish" and "tribes" with the term
"Turkic". While the
"Jewish"
ones are being elevated to the level of kings, the Turks are
being put down to a
tribe level. Yet there is no indication that in
actuality the kings
and the rulers were the Turks. Your statement
would have been
much more truthful if you had said, for example:
"OVER A
THOUSAND YEARS AGO, THE FAR EAST OF EUROPE WAS RULED BY
TURKISH HAKANS OF
THE TURKISH HAZAR EMPIRE WHO PRESIDED OVER
NUMEROUS TRIBES,
INCLUDING THEIR OWN PEOPLE THE HAZAR TURKS.
SOME OF THESE
TURKISH HAKANS WERE CONVERTED TO JUDAISM."
As you can see this
would have been the truthful statement, yet yours
is not. You used
all the double meaning words such as "Jewish",
"Turkic",
"Jewish kings", etc., to push the Turks back into ambiguity
in their own empire
while bringing a handful of guest Jews and Judaism
practising Hazar
Turks to the forefront. This is not truthful history
writing. What kind
of "a friend of Turks" which you claime tobe are
you? I am sure you
know how to express things clearly and honestly
in the language
that you write in. But you choose to manipulate the
reader by
misleading verbology. This is very objectionable to the
Turks.
Additionally, any
religion, including Judaism, is just a "religious
belief",
althought some beliefs are much more transparent than the
others. A Turk
believing in any such "belief" does not lose his
Turkish identity.
Thus, identifying Turks, ancient and present, with
their
"religious affiliation" rather than with their ethnic identity
is a tactic of
obliteration which has been perpetrated by many writers
for so long and
most likely for hidden reasons.
Now if you want to
write about the Khazar Turks and the Jewish
religion in that
ancient Turkish state, you have to change your style.
If you are a friend
of Turks, as you claim to be, then you have to be
truthful and not
use slippery statements in your writings. Otherwise,
you are doing a
disservice to the Turks and the Jewish people. Please
do not think that
Turks are dumb and hence will not understand your
double cutting
terminology.
4.2) The
"TURKISH KHAZAR EMPIRE" is known as "T*RK HAZAR
IMPARATORLUGU"
in Turkish. Yet you have indicated their name as "The
Medieval
Turkic-Jewish Kaganate of KHAZARIA". In other words, your
title translates as
follows: "TURKISH SPEAKING JEWISH KAGANATE OF
KHAZARIA".
This title with such a meaning is a gross misnomer. By
doing such verbal
manipulations you have obliterated a whole 800 years
of Turkish history
from the face of the earth and attributed that
magnificent history
to a minority group of Jewish refugees who were
given safe haven
from their persecution elsewhere. Is that fair
history writing in
your view? Additionally, religion identifying
adjectives should
not be attached to the name of Turkish peoples.
Religion
identifying adjectives should not replace the ethnicity of
Turkish people
(e.g., the Turks of Russia from 200 years ago onwards
have been referred
to as the Moslems of Russia which of course
obliterates their
ethnicity and makes phantoms out of them). Are you
trying to do the
same thing?
4.3) You write in
the continuation of the same paragraphs:
"After their
conversion, the Khazar people used Jewish personal
names, spoke and
wrote in Hebrew, were circumcised, had synagogues
and rabbis, studied
the Torah and Talmud, and observed Hanukkah,
Pesach, and the
Sabbath. The Khazars were an advanced civilization
with one of the
most tolerant societies of the medieval period. It
hosted merchants
from all over Asia and Europe. On these pages it is
hoped that you may
learn more about this fascinating culture."
Now I will comment
on the above.
a) After the
conversion of some Khazar Turks to Judaism, some Khazar
Turks could have
taken "Jewish" names, including some of the hakans,
but not all Khazars
did it. Thus, your all-sweeping statement is
misleading.
b) After the
conversion of some Khazar Turks to Judaism, some may
have spoken and
written in Hebrew in addition to their own Turkish
language. This is
also normal. But it does not mean that they gave
up altogether their
language, old religion and culture in exchange for
Hebrew and Jewish
culture as implied by your statement. Your
statement would
apply to the incoming guests Jews who were already
reading and writing
in Hebrew. But applying the same statement to all
Khazar Turks
throught the Turkish Khazar Empire as sweepingly as you
have done is very
misleading and not truthful.
Your statement also
implies that the Khazar Turks learned to read and
write only after
converting to Judaism. Nothing can be further from
the truth as you
yourself have indicated, but rather obscurely, that
the Khazar Turks
were part of the Celestial G*k Turks whose writings
have been preserved
on stone to present times. So the Khazar Turks
did not learn how
to read and write after the conversion of some of
them to Judaism.
Let us not give misleading information to the
readers.
Additionally, writing is an invention of the Turanian
Tur/Turk peoples,
although historians would like to ignore this fact.
For that reason
alone, many of the Tur/Turk peoples knew how to read
and write. Hence,
Turks have written in many forms of lettering.
c) The statement
that "After their conversion, the Khazar people were
circumcised" is
also questionable. It is most likely that Turks did
not learn the
custom of circumcision from the Jews or the Arabs. Most
likely they did it
because of their own ancient Celestial Sky-God
religion.
d) Your statement
that "After their conversion, the Khazar people had
synagogues and
rabbis" is another open ended statement that needs
further
explanation. Of course one would find synagogues and rabbis
in Khazaria after
the arrival of guest Jews and also after some Khazar
Turks converted to
Judaism since there would then be a need for them.
However, this
applied only to a limited number of people, not so
sweepingly as you
imply. This was possible because of the great
tolerance of Khazar
Turks towards other religions.
Your statement also
implies that the Khazar Turks learned to pray in a
temple only after
their conversion to Judaism. This is again
misleading. The
Khazar Turks, being part of the celestial G*k-Turks,
is an indication
that they were believers of the Celestial God whom
they also worshiped
in the temples as well as in open areas and the
tops of mountains.
The ancient trinity Sky-God (Tengri) of Turanians,
i.e., the
Father-Sky-God, Sun-God and Moon-God religion, was the
universal religion
of the Turanian Tur/Turk peoples. They built
temples and pyramids
for their ancient religion at least since the
time of the
Sumerians in spite of the denials of writers of history of
the ancient world.
A people such as the Khazar Turks with such a
cultural background
would not need to learn temple building or temple
going from the
Jewish people who introduced some of the Khazar Turks
to Judaism. After
all, the so-called ancient ziggurats were the temple
complexes of the
Turanian peoples in the Middle East.
e) Your statement
that ""After their conversion, the Khazar people
studied the
Torah" also needs explanation. The name "TORAH/TORA/T/RE"
is a Turkish word
meaning LAW, SOCIAL RULES and ANCIENT TRADITIONS.
The religious and
the social culture of ancient Turks are expressed
with the word
TORA/T/RE. Thus Turks did not have to learn
"TORA/T/RE/TORAH"
from the Jews. In fact it is the other way around.
When you say that
they studied TORAH, actually Turk Khazars were
studying their own
"laws" and "traditions" called "TORA/T/RE", and
not necessarily the
so-called "TORAH" of Jews. You see that again you
have a very
ambiguous statement which in one hand doesn not even
mention the
existence of the Turkish "TORA/T/RE", but on the other
hand, brings
forward the "TORAH", which has the same linguistic
morphology and
context as the Turkish TORA/T/RE. This again
misleads the
unsuspecting reader. What must be understood here is
that the word
"TORAH" has its roots in the ancient Turkish
word
"TORA/T/RE".
With regards to the
"TORA/T/RE/TORAH", in one of your paragraphs you
write: "In the
capital city, the Khazars established a supreme court
composed of 7
members, and every religion was represented on this
judicial panel
(according to one contemporary Arab chronicle, the
Khazars were judged
according to the Torah, while other tribes were
judged according to
other laws)."
Here again you are
making use of the double identity of the Turkish
ancient traditions
called Tora/Torah/T*re which also provides the name
and the source for
the "Torah". You and your readers should know that
all ancient
Turs/Turks were judged in accordance with their own
Tora/Torah/T*re,
that is, their ancient traditional laws. Without
this knowledge, you
give the impression that it was the Jewish "Torah"
by which all other
people of Khazaria were judged implying that the
culture was brought
to the Khazar Turks by the Jewish people. This is
still playing games
with words of the same structure. Yet you utilize
this Turkish word
so conveniently for your own purpose without
explaning the full
facts. You seem to give half-truths mixed with
half non-truths
rather than the full truth. Some very ancient books
have also been
written in this fashion and have misled many readers.
f) Yes the KHAZAR
TURKS were an advanced civilization with one of the
most tolerant
societies of the medieval period. Yes the KHAZAR TURKS
hosted merchants
from all over Asia and Europe. But the KHAZAR TURKS
were all of these,
not because of their conversion to Judaism, but
because of their
own celestial religion which has been deceptively
renamed as "shamanism",
"paganism", "heathenism", etc.. Turs/Turks
have always been
tolerant towards other non-Turk peoples and their
religions. The
Khazar Turks' "tolerance" does not come from the
conversion of some
of them to Judaism as you imply, but rather from
their own very
tolerant and very ancient celestial religion. A very
recent example of
this Turkish tolerance has also been amply
demonstrated to the
world by the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The Jewish
friends of Turks
will know this very well.
So you see, in only
few paragraphs of your writing, I indicated so
many things that
are wrong, misleading and/or misrepresenting. In
fact you, in a very
subtle way, have belittled the Khazar Turks to
the level of
uncivilized nomads before some of them were converted
to Judaism. For
this alone you owe an apology to the Khazar Turks
who have been so
generous to the Jewish people of their times . My
bringing all of
these important points to your attention should be
appreciated.
4.4) One of your
subtitles reads as follows:
"The Khazars:
A European Experiment in Jewish Statecraft"
This is another one
of your misleading titles. A total
misrepresentation.
What does the name "European" have to do
with the Turkish
Khazars"? Why is it "The Khazars: A European
Experiment in
Jewish Statecraft" but not "A European experiment
in Turkish
Statecraft"? After all it was the Turks who founded
the Turkish Khazar
Empire before Jewish refugees were ever
accepted into their
country. Hence, the Khazar Turks already
knew how to found,
lead and rule a Turkish state on their own
without the help of
the guest Jews. Throughout history, Turks
have always been
"empire builders". In view of this fact, you
are grossly
misleading the readers with the notion that in this
Turkish Khazar
Empire, Turks learned how to run their state from the
so-called
"Jewish Statecraft". Neither the Turkish tolerance to
other peoples nor
their knowledge of statecraft take their roots from
"Jewish
statecraft" as you are implying. It comes from their own
very ancient
culture.
4.5) You write:
"The Khazar
people were an unusual phenomenon for Medieval times.
Surrounded by
savage and nomadic tribes, they had all the advantages
of the developed
countries: structured government, vast and prosperous
trading, and a
permanent army. At the time, when great fanatism and
deep ignorance
contested their dominion over Western Europe, the
Khazar state was
famous for its justice and tolerance. People
persecuted for
their faiths flocked into Khazaria from everywhere. As
a glistening star
it shone brightly on the gloomy horizon of Europe,
and faded away
without leaving any traces of existence."
This statement of
yours would have been truthfull and fair if you had
said, for example:
"The TURKISH
Khazar people were an unusual phenomenon for Medieval
times. Surrounded
by savage and nomadic tribes [whom do you have
in mind?], they had
all the advantages of the developed countries:
structured
government, vast and prosperous trading, and a permanent
army. At the time,
when great fanatism and deep ignorance contested
their dominion over
Western Europe, the TURKISH Khazar state was
famous for its
justice and tolerance. People persecuted for their
faiths flocked into
the TURKISH State of Khazaria from everywhere. As
a glistening star
it shone brightly on the gloomy horizon of Europe,
and faded away
without leaving any traces of existence."
Instead of being
clear about the Turkish identity of the Khazar Empire
as I indicate
above, you chose to be obscure about their identity.
After all,
persecuted people were not attracted to the State of
Khazaria because of
the Judaism in this Turkish state, but rather to
the social justice
and fairness associated with the Turks of the
Turkish Khazar
empire. Similarly, many people flocked to the social
justice, laws and
fairness of the Turkish Ottoman Empire as also
happened with the
other Turkish empires.
4.6) You write:
"Though the
Jews were everywhere a subject people, and in much of the
world persecuted as
well, Khazaria was the one place in the medieval
world where the
Jews actually were their own masters.... To the
oppressed Jews of
the world, the Khazars were a source of pride and
hope, for their
existence seemed to prove that God had not completely
abandoned His
people."
Yet you would have
been fair, gracious and also correct if you had
written:
"Though the
Jews were everywhere a subject people, and in much of the
world persecuted as
well, THE TURKISH STATE OF KHAZARIA was the one
place in the
medieval world where the Jews actually were their own
masters.... To the
oppressed Jews of the world, the Khazar TURKS were
a source of pride
and hope, for their existence seemed to prove that
God had not
completely abandoned His people."
That is how you
should have remembered this magnanimous Turkish people
who were unusually
just to all of their subject peoples at such an
ancient time,
rather than conveniently forgetting to associate the
name TURK with
Khazaria. Remember that Turks also feel very proud of
their Turkish
ancestry and heritage and they like to see their name
mentioned where
required. Incidentally, the term KHAZARIA is from
Turkish
"KHAZAR-/Y" and is a Turkish term meaning "The House of
Khazars" or
"The Land of Khazars" in Turkish.
Additionally, why
do you keep referring to the Jews as God's people?
In your view, are
non-Jew people not God's people? Why should God
have been any
different to Jews than the rest of His other peoples
that He created. A
just God does not favour one group over any
other. In the eyes
of a just God, all of His creations are equal.
What you are
wrongly implying is that the Jews are somehow God's
people but the rest
of humanity is not. This notion of yours is not
only racist but has
nothing to do with reality.
4.7) You write:
"The history
of Khazaria presents us with a fascinating example of how
Jewish life
flourished in the Middle Ages. In a time when Jews were
persecuted thruout
Christian Europe, the kingdom of Khazaria was a
beacon of hope.
Jews were able to flourish in Khazaria because of the
tolerance of the
Khazar rulers, who invited Byzantine and Persian
Jewish refugees to
settle in their country."
Yet your statement
would have been fair and correct if you had said:
"The history
of TURKISH Khazaria presents us with a fascinating
example of how
Jewish life flourished in the Middle Ages. In a time
when Jews were
persecuted throughout Christian Europe, the TURKISH
KHAZAR EMPIRE was a
beacon of hope for them. Jews were able to
flourish in
Khazaria because of the tolerance of the TURKISH KHAZAR
RULERS, who
ACCEPTED THE FLEEING Byzantine and Persian Jewish refugees
to settle in their
country."
As you will
appreciate "ACCEPTING REFUGEES" who were persecuted in
their original land
of habitation "TO SETTLE IN THE TURKISH KHAZAR
EMPIRE LANDS"
is not exactly the same as the Khazar Turks'"INVITING
THEM". They
have different meanings although it does not matter for
the Turks. Because
Turks are the kind of people who have always
stretched out a
helping hand to those who were in need of it.
Additionally, you
must note that by the time these Jewish refugees
arrived in the
lands of Khazar Turks, the Turkish Khazar Empire had
already been
founded by Turks and was in perfect functioning order.
No outsiders
brought "statecraftsmanship" to the Turkish Khazar State.
After all the
Khazar Turks also had the same Turkish cultural
background as the
Turkish G*k-T*rk Empire. That is to say, they had
all the knowledge
they needed for statehood and governing people.
4.8) You said:
"Origins. The
Khazars were a Turkic people who originated in Central
Asia. The early
Turkic tribes were quite diverse, although it is
believed that
reddish hair was predominant among them prior to the
Mongol conquests."
First of all, you
should have said that "THE KHAZARS WERE TURKISH
PEOPLE",
rather than "TURKIC PEOPLE" which would make your statement
correct. Secondly,
by introducing the reddish component of the hair
of some of the
Turkish people, and quite a few Turks fall in that
category, it seems
that you are trying to introduce further confusion
into the ethnicity
and the linguistic and cultural uniformity of the
Turks. I wonder if
this is another attempt to obliterate the ancient
Turkish people.
4.9) You say:
"In the
beginning, the Khazars believed in Tengri shamanism, spoke a
Turkic language,
and were nomadic. Later, the Khazars adopted Judaism,
Islam, and
Christianity, learned Hebrew and Slavic, and became settled
in cities and towns
thruout the north Caucasus and Ukraine. The
Khazars had a great
history of ethnic independence extending
approximately 800
years from the 5th to the 13th century."
This statement of
yours requires explanation because again it is
playing on words.
First of all the term "nomadic" is a misleading and
put-down term.
Implied in the term "nomadic" by the so-called
"scholars"
is the meaning that a "nomadic" people had no land of their
own, no customs of
their own; they go from place to place without
having any cultural
contribution of thier own and are trying to attach
themselves to some
place. Surely there must have been some wanderer
peoples in that
category, but Turks were not one of them. The
ancestors of Turks
have always had their own lands, empires, cities
and rich culture
that fills todays museums of the world. Additionally
your stating that:
"Later, the Khazars adopted Judaism, Islam, and
Christianity,
learned Hebrew and Slavic, and became settled in cities
and towns thruout
the north Caucasus and Ukraine" is totally false.
Those cities of
Khazaria that you have called by the title: "The
Great Jewish Cities
of Central and Eastern Europe" were actually
built, run and
administered by the Khazar Turks, Bulgar Turks,
Chuvash Turks,
Tatar Turks and other Turks. Yet in your statement,
you have turned the
table around and portrayed the Turks in a dark
light as being
"nomads" who became settled in the cities after their
conversion to these
religions. Nothing can be further from the truth.
You cannot get this
kind of people to turn out to be the masters of so
many other peoples
some of whom may falsely think that they were
the ones who gave
civility to the Khazar Turks.
4.10) In the map of
the Turkish Khazar Empire that you label as
"Khazaria"
(i.e., again omitting the word "Turkish"), you have stamped
it with the star
symbol that present day Israel uses as their state
emblem; hence, you
have associated this ancient Turkish State with
present day Israel.
This is a total misrepresentation of the Turkish
Khazar Empire.
By this very subtle
misrepresentation, the Turkishness of the Turkish
state of Khazaria
is conveniently obliterated and that very same
Turkish state is
transferred to Jewish people. This is not a truthful
representation.
Additionally, that star is another one of the Turkish
"damgas"
used in ancient times. Not only that, there are so many
Turkish historical
decorations that use this star in Turkish
monuments. On top
of that, it was also on the flag of Turkish admiral
Barbaros Hayrettin
Pasa in the 16 th century. So you see, this emblem
is very much part
and parcel of Turkish culture. In spite of this,
not only have you
claimed ownership of this emblem for the Jewish
people but you have
also implanted it on top of the empire territory
of the Turkish
Khazar Empire. Yet the Khazar Turks had a different
emblem that is not
present in your Khazaria site.
You say that the
artifact carrying the so-called "Star of David" found
at Khazar sites is
"interpreted by Professor Bozena Werbart of Umea
University as
Jewish but seen by others as shamanistic and pagan".
This statement of
yours in actuality and straight forward language
means that the
symbol belongs to the so-called shamanist and pagan
Turks. As I
indicated above, Turks had them as Turkish damgas and on
Turkish tiles and
flags etc. and many other objects.
4.11) At the top of
the Khazaria front page, you have put three
symbols side by
side in a picture. The middle symbol is the Turkish
Cosmic tree and the
national emblem of the Turkish Chuvash people but
this has not been
indicated by you. The star at the right is again
the six sided
Turkish star damga with ancient Turkish colours
embelleshing the
inside. This Turkish star is associated with present
day Israel but as I
have explained to you, this is actually a Turkish
symbol. And the
left symbol is an ancient Canaanite symbol. Yet you
are so silent about
the origins of these symbols. They need to be
clearly explained.
Without the explanation, this top picture on your
front page is very
misleading and erroneous.
4.12) You wrote:
THE KHAZAR FORTRESS
OF SARKEL
"Sarkel's
fortress was one of Khazaria's most important, serving both
as a defensive
structure and a trading caravan stopover. Includes
images of the
layout of the fortress, a bronze warrior figurine,
pottery, jewelry,
bricks, and other objects. "
You keep referring
to one of the Khazar Empire's fortresses as the
Khazar fortress
"SARKEL". Yet the Turkish name is "SARIKALE" meaning
Yellow or white
Fortress. As you can see the name "Sarkel" is
distorted so much
that it cannot be recognized as Turkish anymore, but
rather looks like
someting else with an "el" ending. Is this a
coincidence? Why do
you have to change Turkish names into formats
that are not
recognizable as Turkish anymore?
4.13) You have
shown a word written in Turkish Runes and you have
indicated its
meaning as "I HAVE READ [IT]". How come you did not
indicate in any
form that the word was the pure Turkish word "OKURUM"
meaning "I
READ"? This also leaves the reader in the dark.
4.14) You have
shown an artifact which you call the "Slavic"
necklaces from
Sarkel, 9th century, yet the printing at the upper
right hand corner
of your picture says: "PREHISTORIC ART, The Turki,
Khazars,
Bulgarians, Polovtsy, and Pereshchepina Treasure". Yet all
those names that
appear in this quotation are names describing Turkish
peoples. But you
labelled the necklace as "Slavic" necklace. Why the
misrepresentation?
Additionally, when all those names are separated
by commas with a
leading "Turki" name, it appears to the unsuspecting
reader that the
others are not Turkish. Yet they are all Turkish
peoples and the
treasures are Turkish treasures. They should have
been labelled so.
You see, my friend,
I can go on and on regarding many aspects of your
website but this
should be sufficient to demonstrate my point. Now if
you correct and
explain these items as I have indicated, plus others
that need to be
corrected in order to be unambiguous, you might have a
credible source
about that GREAT Turkish Khazar Empire and the Jewish
people who were
accepted to live there in peace and harmony.
As I have stated my
views on this matter quite clearly, I do not want
to, and will not,
carry on this discussion any further. Once again, I
am not against
Jewish people. I am against misleading and
misrepresentation,
wherever it may come from.
Best wishes,
Polat Kaya
Kevin Brook wrote:
>
> Dear Polat
Kaya:
>
> Let me just
add that I repeatedly mention that the Khazars were a
Turkic > people.
I do not suggest anywhere that they were an
Israelite people.
> When I say
"Jewish", "Jewish" refers to the religion only. Since
1995 I always refer
to the Khazar Turkic Shamanism, Khazar Turkic
Calendar, Khazar
Turkic Amulets, Khazar Turkic Language, Khazar
Turkic Governmental
> System, and
Khazar Turkic Ethnic Origins at many parts of my
website and my
other writings. This is why your attack on me in 1997
was unjustified.
Even in my abbreviated description of Ehud Ya'ari's
documentary I said
that Khazars wrote in Turkic runic letters.
>
> Months ago, I
added the following content to
> http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html:
>
> << 1.
Many medieval writers attested to the Khazars' Turkic origins
including
Theophanes, al-Masudi, Rabbi Yehudah ben Barzillai,
Martinus
Oppaviensis, and the anonymous authors of the Georgian
Chronicle and
Chinese chronicle T'ang-shu. The Arabic writer al-
Masudi in Kitab
at-Tanbih wrote: "...the Khazars... are a tribe of
the Turks." (cited
in Peter Golden, Khazar Studies, pp. 57-58). T'ang-
shu reads:
"K'o-sa [Khazars]... belong to the stock of the Turks."
(cited in Peter
Golden, Khazar Studies, p. 58). In his Chronographia,
Theophanes wrote:
"During his [Byzantine emperor Heraclius] stay
there [in Lazica],
he invited the eastern Turks, who are called
Chazars, to become
his allies." (cited in Theophanes, The Chronicle
of Theophanes
Confessor, translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott,
1997, p. 446). The
claim that the Khazars were Scythians is
completely without
merit. >>
>
> I also have
the statement << The Khazars were a Turkic people who
originated in
Central Asia >> and << . In the beginning, the Khazars
believed in Tengri
shamanism, spoke a Turkic language, and were
nomadic >>
and << Kiev is a Turkic place name >> and << The Khazars'
dual-monarchy was a
Turkic system under which the kagan was the
supreme king and
the bek was the civilian army leader >> And
statements like
those existed at my website since it opened in May
1995.
>
> I also list
the Turkic names of Khazars at
> http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-names.html
>
> I am also a
supporter of your important research on Turkic
shamanism and
symbolism such as the worship of the sun and stars.
And I always
included KHAZARIA as a Turkic nation at my directory at
http://www.khazaria.com/turkic/index.html
>
> Because I
never denied that Khazars were Turks, your accusations
against me 5 years
ago have been proven totally false. Of course the
Israeli documentary
emphasized the Jewish religion of the Khazars, so
what? Furthermore,
your claim that Jews are backstabbing people who
are trying to trick
Turks is also false.
>
> The people you
should really have a problem with are those who
suggest that
Khazars were Scythians or Lost Tribes of Israel or
Circassians.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kevin Brook