 Thank you. We heard this morning a very powerful argument against a coexistence of communities against immigration and so on in the sense that immigrants would transform the culture of the community and it would be so huge between various communities and so on as, for instance, the example was quoted, Estonian and Russian and so on. I wonder if there is a lidatarian argument that could come out of the Ottomans' experience where, for hundreds of years, various communities lived together in red economy and Greeks and Armenians and so on as a factor that's reminded us earlier. What was constitutive of the Ottoman identity? Because if a culture is only its identity, I mean, how did people view themselves of the subjects of the empire or Greeks and nothing to do with young communities of question that they need and so on? And what was the exact nature of their identity? Let me try. Good question. Thank you. Well, there can be an intuition about my part or a lidatarian with these questions, but I think we should also be aware that the argument of our captives, different communities, and the autonomous state, existing with your identities, partly takes to the fact that it was a demodern social structure and you had little interaction with the groups. For example, the Kurds, I mean, they were in their community and they didn't free them, there was no central education for them. There was no between, until the modern time, until the 19th century. So when you go to school in Damascus, we slam into that, okay, that's a new question. So any modernization creates these ties, like railroads, telegraphs, education, bureaucracy. And well, then when we found the lead, we went off and that's a new question, which was not there in the 16th century. So there is, so modernization, unavoidably brings these communities into each other and you have to have some national, I think, system. We obviously had a problem in the legal law system they had. In the few hours time, until the 19th century, there were different legal structures. Christians had to go their own courts, their pieces, they had their own issues. And Jews with their own, with their own issues, they were allies. And we love them both as they share those. But the war in Damascus, the war you had, further interaction between these groups, became increasingly complex. One of the war, you had a legal case between a Muslim and a Christian, a Christian, a Jew. So which court would all of you take care of? And that question became more problematic. And then that's why they had to get a section of the law for me, based on the idea that we formed our own laws, it created a single, like, it's a law or a whole agenda. It's called all of these, regardless of their fate. So I think it's in the nature of modernity, to be somewhat super, you know, traditional entities. But I think there are ways of things, for a very way of it, trying to crush everything, and trying to wipe it out from the French state, after the revolution, and then there is this, more I think, look away, in which you get to create a national language, you teach certain people, but you don't go out of any courage. It is there. And if they want to advance sort of in front of you, it's what they can. But you also teach certain people, you know, if you say, you know, I see people on jobs, I come in and talk. So I think there are two extremes. And what we did get is an inspiration, which was the fact that the community needed to make this exclusive, and of course, we had our person here, and I need to think about that. Is that an answer? Yeah, just very briefly, I think you're right, the groups of matters is a modernity, right? The only thing is to put it in the blocks of this, you're in there, even before the modern period, with the different groups that are on different law courts, when Christians had a case between one another, that happened actually, in fact, there was a lot of trade during that. And there were many instances where they could sort of decide between them, which would be, and sometimes they would go over to Christians. And Christians actually prefer going to the simple books, because they didn't get better at that. They just served there. And the real problem is they agree with the ones during when the Ottomans tried to modernize, when they tried to determine the Ottoman Empire, and it's something to resemble in European state. The one, one last thing I'm going to mention this morning is very, very important. In 1876, there was a constitutional revolution empire that established the Ottoman Empire as a constitutional monarchy. That lasted until 1878, and that was the constitution, the old Turks re-instituted in 1908. In 1876, one of the things that we used to do with the Southern Ottoman Empire, there's actually a fair amount of evidence, even then, in that they were claimant of the Jews, who participated in the Ottoman Empire, and that it seemed to be quite a lot. It seemed like it was going to be a legal thing, for that to be perceived as possible. Some of you may be interested in what I'm going to ask, because it's a wrong irresponsibility, like compulsory military service, you were having to pay a little bit more taxes to stay away, but now they were equal, and they were supposed to go to military. So, some prefer the old ways, while some don't like the new ones. Yeah, I'd like to ask you a follow-up question. I'd like to ask you to talk a lot, please, Mel, and your current work report, and also the P-JAC group, which is the Irish terrain group. We are the first captured by the P-JAC, by the British Air Force, a lot of the papers were written in months, that were flagged by British, not that from the U.S. Army, and if you talk a little bit about the P-JAC, if you take a real presentation, if you respond to infiltration, attack on the British Air Force, ask in the room, and then we get to learn about the American nation, all of this, seeing more of Irish had a series of articles on the connection between the P-JAC and the P-JAC, and finally, and then some of the comments that emerged from the P-JAC, on showing the tradition of prison, and that these really were actually bringing British criminals again in a, you know, weapons that they used to do. One good question, that's something which addresses the lessons of all of what I'm trying to give you too. Well, first of all, each kind of approach, like, for me, sort of talking about experience, it seems to me, that they're not an option, especially in the world of British Army, and there's always a little bit of a difference. And it's simple, this should be a pretty national level of experience, you're always together, but that's the world in that way. And actually, we're operating here, they're open all the time, they're in place at the moment. And we don't ask people to have a split course on time, they don't need seats. You can't be on a curve, because some of these, you can't easily ride on a street, you can't get in the car. So, the connection, what's happening? And I wouldn't describe that, just to a little. I don't feel a lot of that, I don't know what's going on. So, that's the spirit of the question. Don't be cheap on that one, don't be cheap on that one. That's the problem. And so, if you are, you can provide that extra vision, less than what you are then doing, you're not doing it. Yes, we can. Especially with superiors, who are famous. And it's not exactly that, unless it's an incident, like you're just a learner, you're not just a security guard, you're not doing it. And you're just following the path of the person, you're not just a person, you're not just an expert, but an expert, you're not just an expert, you're not just an expert. The question is, you know, most of the people hour to do the case, the church will be taken over to us in the U.S. in front of us. I think that this is possible, let's not argue the fact, right now this will be a big thing. Or it's not the awesome fun we're supposed to do, it's just great. It's possible that some of the you know, just all of these guys can be taken over by them. That's one reason why they're not happy about what they're doing, they're doing great in general. But if I mean that, they're coming here and there's another different one similar to the film for all children in the United States. And the news is and they walk by Dips, they're from the U.S. and they're from the United States. They're like the father of one of them. Great. It's a big deal. It's about a chicken, a coffee, a can, and we're not saying it's a big deal, but it's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. It's a big deal. Great.cek I say, okay, because they think so. So this impact is perfect for us to be okay. And I don't think that there's a same thing, but it is probably to be surprised. It's still not my session, but it's narrow, it's okay, it's a pretty great privilege, you know, from there. That's all right. Two short questions. I was just going to tell you one, how I was wishing this question to you, I just want to know which is, which is a word, so check one out, and I think that's not going to be fine. The answer is, you also need more questions. I don't know the actual theory for the next section of the actual problem. The question about the increase, the additional capacity by the population. I understand it is that it sometimes, it's sort of a period, I'm not going to hear that, it's sort of your, but my understanding is that frequently, not always, the tax close to us depending from tie or alms that is made by Muslims called the Zakat. So one volume literature argue is similar, similar in size. Other things that are being said, the GZF, the tax paid by the Polatax, paid by the U.S. in high torsion, no, the intercursing, but it's a very, very, very important one. A lot of questions I have to bring up, I said it, now you've almost all answered this time, so see you in a higher period. We're going to go back to that. Two short questions, here's a lot of them, we're going to go to the next question. I want to go to the next question. So that was as well as the realization, subject to my view, I want to get some realization, which is one of the things that I think that national revolution, since the period of the last one, by the civil, I need the structure of, so I think that national revolution, the realization, and so it's part of the lives of the people of Europe. Yeah, I think we're going to go back to the question, my mind, I think we're going to go back to the question, I just want to bring up, I think we're going to go back to the end of, how long? Well, actually it was reserved for two years and more, like in 24 years from the Soviet times, in 24 caliphates. And now, from looking at it from today, some people say, well, would it be a good idea to caliphate? If that's a debatable question, but one thing you can laugh to is like, you had no point, you should stick in there on the side. And you had all these crazy groups which didn't go out, and issues might go out, we've only got a few, it's no point in saying it's right or it's wrong. I mean, now people say like, the mind is supposed to create a caliphate, and all these groups, like different groups that aspire to a caliphate, but the caliphate they have in mind, is that what the audience has? I mean, the most important part of the caliphate in the last 90 years, was the results of a couple of committees, which like William C. Searsson, 19, from 1876 to to the end of the closure in 1908. And so all of those, and in the modern era, he brought in many things in the environment, where he wrote a draft, he wrote it in schools in New York cities, and he actually helped the United States make peace with the Muslims of the Philippines, but he was just looking at problems in the area, more or less. And then they came to solve it up, and they said, can you help us make a deal with the Muslims here? And he said, if you send a letter to the police, he said, I'm a caliph, don't fight with these Americans, they're not, people just keep hating, and it's happened. So, Caliphate, the caliphate was also important, if you can deal with it, you can talk to it, and you can ask him to help your problems, and I don't know whether it's going to help him or, he might not be able to help him. Okay, so not all of this, but the more to the false question, it's kind of back to Christian, to the Christian question earlier, because I think one of the interesting things we're seeing in the case of Austria-Hungary, where the Ottoman Empire remained in the century, is a change in identity, is a change in identity formation, in questions of self-destruction, and other described identity. So, something that we've talked about a little bit before, this, there is a change, a conflict in the 19th century with the importation of ideas like nationalism, about who I am, and what that entails. And one of the interesting questions I think about both Ottoman and Austrian suppliers is to look at the attempts they made to try to solve that question. One thing that actually I've really averaged about this was that the system in the Ottoman state, some of which probably left system, where by each of these different organizations had the different religious groups, had a great deal of economy. Karl Reiner actually proposed something like that as a solution for the troubles of the Asperger Empire. Just as it was kind of depreciated in the Ottoman Empire, I got ready when the great students said, you should try something like this in the Catholic state as well. In both cases, though, I can move back to your question, because it comes down basically to a question of identity, but also authority, where authority lies in the role of the state. In a powerful centralizing state, something that lets us know that it's different sort of multi-centric centers of law is, it can't work, right? But in a decentralized state, centralizing state, it didn't work, for some reason. And maybe just one thing, I totally agree. And I think it's also related to securitization in the Ottoman Empire. People, until the end of it, people identify themselves with their religion. Who are you among them from a Christian culture? But now, who are you became from a church of the Ottoman Empire? And that rise of this national, where I think I have to be, draw up the end of it. Can I, can I just, yeah, yeah, all right. Yes, but isn't it correct, for instance, that even in all the people of Constantinople, you had a multi, not only religious, but multi-ethnic empire. And people were known as their nationality. I mean, they would be referred to as deprivation, and then Ali or the other means, you know, be whatever, I mean, and so on. And they could reach, if they converted to the United States, they could reach the highest position in the empire, become ministers and jailers and so on. And after the Constantinople, no longer had to convert to Islam. And at the end of the empire, actually, I wonder if the Turks were not having a role here in the sense that all the nature of the issue, they're telling about people that they're not definitely the Turks. Exactly like in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, at the end of the empire, it was run by Hungarians, more than by Austrians. So I don't know if I'm correct in saying this or not, that the empty city was very much part of the individual identity, but yet everybody was a lot of them. I mean, that's true. And the thing is, it was not enough, and people could easily refer to their ethnicity. Some of them would be occurred an hour before they would be involved in our cause, I'm sure. But that was not how people were legally defined. So in fact, legally defined as a Christian and an Armenian Christian. I mean, you would be defined as the church that you belong to. You're Armenian, you're Armenian, you're Orthodox. But you could be an Armenian Catholic church, that was what it was. So you could, if you were Muslim, you were Muslim. And, you know, so, and while Muslims, whether you were a current Arab or an Indian, followed you there, if you don't just specify you're from the class, you're like from the world, that to give you an identity, you just are deeply losing one's head. And it's true that our environment was not a traditional environment to say it, because the other elites was very long to get. I mean, many other Muslims had Christian wives. So actually, so, I mean, the son of a lady, you know, they were very likely more comfortable than she may have been, you know, child of an Afghan consultant. Today, that's, it's no accident that some arch-arch-arch-arch-arch was so içer gr味ß, see all that for as reasons of Turkishness. Because it was not totally Turkish and its bases, Turkish laws, and, and today, in Turkey, today, say, there is a reason, in a collage, a seemingly people who aspire to the Ottoman heritage and who are at time arch-arch-Rockies nationalists, can actually see anything to not selfish as alien, but you would think, or the other mind, think, oh, we're going to be together for how long we're going to be able to detail what they believe in terms of that. Still those intuitions, what this is about, you said? Do you want to make one very brief comment for that? I think the distinction here is really crucial. In this, the ego we define again, you say, about what we do with ethnicity in the end, and these mockers are going to be able to sometimes have gone and do some sort of ethnicity. The other thing that I might caution, another caution I find, in terms of light and steep, is these are very mutable categories, right? In terms of like Arab or Albanian or even Turk, what those things meant, and what those terms meant in the 7th century are not necessarily what they mean to us today, in terms of ethnic use, or ethnic terms like that. The fact that it's about, it's the nationalism and to be less, the crucial thing about being less, is not that you're defined religiously as opposed to ethically, whatever that means, but that they were non-territorial, and that's also something that's crucial. It was a kind of personal ego system where a law adhered to the individual person as opposed to a territory, and that's why, in the post-automoral world, the nationalists faced so many problems, I mean problems, self-merit problems, because they were minorities, national, some of these national minorities living in certain islands all over the island, successor states, that's one of the legacies of the U.S. without us, we're able to maintain this as long as possible. Just again, just a gloss on it. I think this system is interesting, because it shows that Islam did not, at least, possibly, plan to convert Christians and Jews into Islam, and really have Islamic law, accepted them as what they are, and interestingly, at times, you don't need to point out an empire, some Ottoman and some Islamic emirate Muslims. They didn't like Christians to convert them to Islam, because they were getting into an acting test, so you treat them as what they are, it's okay. So, you see there, you Christian, Luther, and Cross-Murder, and the National Test of Islam, and you'll watch it, that will also be much possible, because Islam thought that one could be a Muslim. Where is it like? He didn't even know about it. And the ideology was the parasite, if you're not following the description, Christian, you may have watched it, except from the very beginning, and that the Islamic debates allowed the increase of the chain of ability to move forward.