Since the Papal Brouhaha erupted I have been very interested in identifying the "Educated Persian" with whom Manuel II Palaiologos carried on his famous religious debates. The answer is fascinating.

First, it is important to note that the political relationship between the deteriorating Byzantine empire and the rising Ottoman empire was an extremely complex one, but suffice it to say that Manuel was very much the underdog. In fact, he (the Emperor of all the Romans) was an acknowledged vassal of the Turkish sultan.

According to an article by Wilhelm Baum of the University of Graz in Austria, Manuel's debates took place under the auspices of the sultan:

After his enthronement in March 1391 Manuel II still had to perform military service for the sultan in Asia Minor from June 1391 to January 1392 as a vassal of the Turks. As part of it he not only had had (in late 1390) to support the sultan against various Turkish emirates, but as an especial humiliation he had to aid his mortal enemy with the conquest of Philadelphia, the last Byzantine hold-out in Asia Minor, but now in May 1391 he was summoned again to Anatolia and took part in a campaign on the Black Sea coast until Mid-January1392. The emperor, who on the coins still bore the title King and Autokrator, was as a vassal of course subject to the sultan's orders on campaign -- the sultan who amused himself at banquets, while the emperor discussed Islam with the Kadi. From October to December of 1391 the emperor enjoyed the hospitality of the Muderris (=Kadi) at Ankara. A Muslim born to Christian parents acted as interpreter between the emperor and the Kadi.

So this is the "Educated Persian," the Kadi or Qadi:

a judge ruling in accordance with the sharia, Islamic religious law. Because Islam makes no distinction between religious and secular domains, qadis traditionally have jurisdiction over all legal matters involving Muslims. The judgment of a qadi must be based on ijma, the prevailing consensus of the ulema, Islamic scholars.

Manuel's conversations about Islam therefore took place with an expert in Sharia law in the presence of the sultan. It was Manuel who was in a position of subordination to his Muslim overlords and was at the time a guest of the Qadi.

How interesting indeed, that in the old days of Muslim ascendency, no one offered to cut off the head of the questioning infidel, although they could easily have done so. Instead, his gracious hosts encouraged him to speak his mind and amused themselves by answering his objections and correcting his misconceptions, as they understood them.

The behavior of the Qadi and his Sultan, in my opinion, should be celebrated as one of the high points of Muslim civilization. Has that civilization declined so much in the intervening centuries, that the way debates are settled is now by vitriol and violence instead of by reasoned and dignified discourse?

So what this very well researched and educated blogger states and correctly I might add, is that the followers of Islam that use the violence we are seeing today would not have been welcome members in their own society back in the late 1300 and early 1400's? Amazing that a people can can become so uncivilized as to go backwards instead of forwards in development. Sad, very sad...