Talk:Haxhi Qamili

renewed rebellion
I think that Qamili was leader of two rebelions.

The first rebelion, Peasant Revolt in Albania, took part during 1914 and was pro-Ottoman and anti-Wied rebelion. Wied was supported by Kosovo katchak forces of Isa Boletini. The main aim of this rebelion was to return Albania under suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire. This rebelion ended in 1914 when rebels expelled Wied and took over a control of all Albania, defeating and capturing members of the International Gendarmerie. They invited Essad Pasha to take control of the country (I can not find what was the name of this country, continuation of the Republic of Central Albania?).

The second rebelion started in 1915 was aimed against Essad Pasha's regime and its aim might be social too. But I think that this second rebelion should not be referred to as renewed. It was another rebelion. Aimed against another party with different aims.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment. I guess the main difference is that Qamili played, to my knowledge, a more prominent role in the latter than the former. --Ismail (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The role Qemili played is irrelevant for distinction between two rebellions. He could be the only leader of both, they still would be different rebellions which took part in different time, aimed against different parties having different motifs.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This issue should not affect DYK nomination of this article. It is just possible minor improvement opportunity.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been a while, but I just wanted to clarify two things: I didn't say there weren't two separate rebellions, I argue that Qamili's role in the second was much more important. Also, the second rebellion was still linked to the first, they weren't entirely separate. --Ismail (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

anti-feudal leader?
For around 45 years the Communist propaganda and historians tried to present Qamili as a reformist or anti-feudal, somehow passing the idea of a liberator of the peasant class. This had three purposes: first to focus on social class differences between Albanians and emphasize this antagonism as needed, second: to avoid showing that there was a pro-Islamic movement in central Albania right after the November 28 of Vlora, thus using the term "Peasant revolt" instead of "Islamic revolt", and third: to make sure that the only "bad guys" were Essat Pasha and the Serbs, which might be true to a certain extent only. This is far from reality.

Facts show that this "peasant revolt" was a pure Islamic one. Haxhi Qamili was a strictly pro-Ottoman and religious extremist. Their slogan was "Dum baben" - meaning "We want our Father", and the father was the Sultan. They asked for Turkish flag, Turkish schools, Islamic laws, etc. The rebels made an agreement in Pogradec with the so-called "Epirotes" of the south, Greek insurgents mainly from Crete which had burned every single village in the south, leading to practically an total ethnic cleansing of all muslims, which would be reverted only after Italians entered the area. Qamili and co. agreed to recognize south Albania as part of Greece.

In every single town the "peasant" stopped, the first thing to do was burn any Albanian school and hang the teachers. Qamili was responsible for hanging a large nr of patriots and intellectuals.

From the other side, these anti-Feudal leaders were contacting Ottoman authorities for support and for delegating the sovereignty to Sultan. Being anti-feudal and pro-Ottoman at the same time does not really make any sense. Mondiad (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I created the article on Peasant revolt and I don't mind it renamed to Albanian Islamic Revolt.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No doubt a lot of what Qamili's forces did was incompatible with modern notions of nationalism, but that doesn't negate the socialist-era arguments about his views on property, confiscation of landowners' estates, etc. being objectively directed against feudalism. Similarly, the fact that the Khilafat Movement in India pledged allegiance to the Turkish Caliphate and was dismayed at its abolition didn't make it pro-feudal (or, for that matter, pro-colonial.) --Ismail (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Bumping this. The page seems to uncritically report Enver Hoxha's (you know, long running communist leader) view of hte revolt as "proletarian" and "anti-feudal" and all that stuff, but obviously Hoxha is not exactly the best commentator, and we shouldn't be just reporting what he said as fact. --Yalens (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hoxha didn't describe the revolt as "proletarian" (nor did Albanian historians back in the day), it was described as a peasant revolt. In addition, Hoxha's pronouncements on the character of the revolt (that it was, in the main, anti-feudal and progressive) established the official line upon which all socialist-era historians based their assumptions on, hence why he's quoted in the article. --Ismail (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)