The Hamidian massacres of 1894–1896 started in Sasun and spread to a far-reaching geography in the provinces of Eastern Anatolia and Cilicia; more specifically, from Bitlis, Mu?, and Diyarbak?r to Sivas, Trabzon, Samsun, and Erzurum, and then continuing to Merzifon, Tarsus, Zeitun, Marash, Adana, Urfa, Birecik, and Aintab. Numerous acts of slaughtering, plundering, and destruction targeting Armenians were organized with the large-scale participation of local elites as well as Turkish-Kurdish Muslim populations. Ordinary elements of the dominant community were deliberately mobilized to participate in killings with the ‘permission’ of officials (governors, the sub-prefects, police, and gendarmerie forces). The self-justification employed by ordinary people for inflicting dreadful bodily harm on people who were often their neighbors, employers, employees, customers, and even friends was a desire for material gain, as well as local and personal grievances in some of the raids. It is also true that many Muslims who took part in the violence thought that they were acting completely in line with the Sultan’s wishes. This paper examines why and how the Hamidian massacres took place in Aintab and how two communities—Armenian and Muslim—which lived in relative harmony until the last quarter of the nineteenth century entered into ethnic strife. Most prominently, my attention is focused on how the events revolving around the Aintab Armenian massacres unfolded. The paper shows that the 1895 Aintab massacres were a demonstration of a climate of sharp enmity crumbling into direct violence exacted on a minority. It will also demonstrate that what preceded the massacres was the mobilization of Muslim groups’ (Turks, Kurds, and Arabs) grievances by political leaders and organizations, including local notables, provincial elites, and also the Muslim clergy. This paper analyzes how these groups provoked the majority with a deep sense of collective frustration into viewing Armenians as the fundamental cause of their difficult life conditions, as well as social, political, and economic lack of progress. As a result, each channel and physical space signifying the superiority of Armenian community over Muslims eventually became an object of this extreme violence. Finally, the paper explores the perpetrators’ focus of rage which was initially economically valuable assets, such as shops and businesses in the market area and the Armenian quarters of Aintab. It indicates how exposing these spatial planes to violence became a manifestation of feelings of economic envy and resentment in the eyes of Muslims.