Correspondence Relating to Executions in Turkey for Apostacy from Islamism

In Short

This collection of diplomatic correspondence documents the severe political and humanitarian crisis triggered by the execution of individuals in the Ottoman Empire for renouncing Islam. When an Armenian youth and later a Greek man are publicly put to death for returning to Christianity, European powers—led primarily by Great Britain and France—launch a concerted diplomatic intervention. Through firm remonstrances delivered by ambassadors like Sir Stratford Canning to the Grand Vizier and the Sultan, the foreign cabinets compel the Ottoman government to abandon a rigid application of religious law. The book preserves the official records of a pivotal standoff between sovereign autonomy and international human rights.

The Story

The volume opens in August 1843 with a dispatch from Sir Stratford Canning reporting the public decapitation of a young Armenian in Constantinople. The youth had previously professed Islam under duress, returned to his Christian faith, and resolutely refused to save his life through a fresh disavowal. Canning identifies the execution as a symptom of a dangerous reactionary trend within the Ottoman administration, prompting him to rally his French, Austrian, Russian, and Prussian colleagues.

As the correspondence unfolds through the autumn, the Grand Vizier defends the action, insisting that the strict, unyielding laws of the Koran leave no room for royal clemency in cases of apostasy. Despite these assertions, the European cabinets draft instructions supporting Canning's protests. Lord Aberdeen, writing for the British government, communicates a stern position: friendship and protection from Great Britain are contingent upon the Porte renouncing such barbaric practices.

The tension escalates sharply in December when a young Greek is hanged near Brussa for a similar relapse into Christianity. This second execution galvanized the European powers into a unified front. Ambassadors present formal notes of remonstrance, demanding an explicit guarantee that such acts will never recur. Inside the Ottoman councils, heated debates ensue between traditionalist doctors of the law and ministers mindful of European opinion. Rifaat Pasha attempts to shield the practice behind the inviolability of divine law, while Canning and Baron de Bourqueney press for a written, binding declaration.

The climax arrives in March 1844. Facing the threat of severe diplomatic estrangement and calculated warnings from multiple capitals, the Ottoman government yields. The Sublime Porte issues an official declaration undertaking to prevent the execution of converts returning to Christianity. To cement this victory, Canning secures a personal audience with the Sultan, who offers his royal word that Christianity will no longer be insulted nor Christians persecuted in his dominions. The book closes with expressions of cautious optimism that a lasting humanitarian improvement has been secured through joint European resolve.

How It Unfolds

• The first execution occurs — Sir Stratford Canning reports the brutal public decapitation of a young Armenian who refused to renounce Christianity, sparking immediate outrage among Christian residents and foreign embassies.
• The Porte defends the law — The Grand Vizier insists to British and French intermediaries that neither the Sultan nor his ministers could alter the inexorable capital statutes prescribed by the Koran for apostasy.
• Europe unites in protest — British, French, Prussian, and Russian cabinets coordinate their diplomatic instructions, instructing their representatives to warn the Ottoman government that such cruelty jeopardizes its international standing and independence.
• A second tragedy repeats — News arrives of a young Greek being publicly hanged near Brussa for reverting to Christianity, proving that the initial protest was insufficient and forcing a more forceful confrontation.
• The councils deliberate — Rifaat Pasha and Ottoman legal scholars struggle to balance religious mandates against mounting foreign pressure, initially resisting written concessions while internal debates divide the administration.
• The Sultan yields — Following relentless pressure from Ambassador Canning and allied ministers, the Sublime Porte issues a formal written declaration abandoning executions for apostasy, confirmed directly by the Sultan's personal pledge.

The People

Sir Stratford Canning acts as the principal British architect of the intervention. He wants to halt the reactionary religious policies threatening the stability of the Ottoman Empire and relentlessly pushes the Porte to respect European sensibilities. Despite facing institutional intransigence and defensive legal arguments, he ultimately secures a royal guarantee from the Sultan.

The Grand Vizier and Rifaat Pasha represent the Ottoman administration caught between traditional religious authorities, known as the ulema, and foreign powers. They argue that apostasy is a matter of divine law rather than policy, yet they must navigate the looming threat of diplomatic isolation and the strategic necessity of British and French support.

The Earl of Aberdeen, serving as British Foreign Secretary, provides the authoritative backing that empowers Canning. He defines the protection of Christians as a paramount duty and communicates clear warnings that British goodwill and future assistance depend on the total abandonment of the Porte's barbarous practices.

Foreign representatives such as Baron de Bourqueney, Baron Bülow, and Count Nesselrode shape the multilateral coalition. Representing France, Prussia, and Russia, they align their respective governments with the British initiative, ensuring that the Ottoman leadership faces a united European front rather than isolated bilateral complaints.

In Its Own Voice

• Describing the tragic fate of the young Armenian who chose death over a false confession, Canning notes that he "maintained his resolution, refused to save his life by a fresh disavowal of Christianity, and was finally decapitated in one of the most frequented parts of the city with circumstances of great barbarity."
• Articulating the immovable stance of the Ottoman administration during early negotiations, the Grand Vizier explains that "neither the Ministers nor the Sultan could have saved the life of the Armenian," as the laws of the Koran demand capital punishment without mercy for apostates.
• Conveying the ultimate diplomatic resolution directly from the sovereign, Canning records that the Sultan gave his royal word, declaring that "henceforward neither shall Christianity be insulted in my dominions, nor shall Christians be in any way persecuted for their religion."

What It's Really About

The book explores the friction between sacred jurisprudence and secular diplomacy, investigating how traditional religious codes survive within an evolving international order. It addresses the moral obligations of sovereign states regarding human life and religious freedom, while probing the limits of imperial sovereignty when confronted with foreign intervention. At its core, the text examines how geopolitical survival forces a weakening state to accommodate the moral and political demands of external powers, reshaping internal domestic law to align with international expectations.

Why Read It Today

Readers drawn to diplomatic history, international relations, and the mechanics of nineteenth-century statecraft will find this collection endlessly fascinating. Reading it feels like sitting behind closed doors as despatches, translations, and confidential notes pass between palaces and foreign offices, offering an unvarnished look at how historical policy was forged in real time.

The text does present notable difficulties for the modern reader. The formatting consists entirely of official correspondence, diplomatic notes, and translated dispatches rather than a narrative tale, meaning there is no traditional plot progression. Furthermore, the reliance on mid-nineteenth-century bureaucratic language, unedited French excerpts, and period attitudes towards religious law and minority populations requires patience. Yet, for those who persevere, what stays with you is the striking clarity with which global powers negotiated human rights crises long before modern international bodies existed, revealing the raw interplay of power, persuasion, and state survival.