This is a re-post of an article by Raziq first posted in January 2010
****
Islamist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun and the Muslim Brotherhood claim that Muslims were ruled by a single political leadership which started from the time of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century and lasted until the last days of the Ottoman Empire in 1924. According to Islamists, this political leadership looked after the interests of all Muslims worldwide. The central aim of Islamist groups today is to recreate this leadership by uniting the 52 or so Muslim-majority countries in the world into a single state ruled by a single ruler (Caliph). They refer to this totalitarian system as the Khilafah (or the caliphate).
A basic study of Muslim history tells us that various Muslim empires existed in various parts of the world at the same time. In the 10th century, for example, there were three different Muslim empires in the world; the Umayyads in Spain, the Abbasids in Baghdad and the Fatimids in Egypt. Each of these Empires had their own Caliphs and they were independent of each other. Again in the 17th century, three different Muslim empires existed; the Ottomans in Central Asia, the Safavids in Persia and the Mughals in the Indian sub-continent. As well as these empires many parts of the Muslim world were not ruled by any of these empires at all, i.e. South East Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of central Asia.
The Mughals considered themselves even more worthy Caliphs than the Ottomans because they were descendants of Tamerlane (Timur). In the 14th century Tamerlane had defeated the Ottoman army and imprisoned their Sultan Bayezid in a cage. He later had him tortured, beaten and starved to death. However Islamists groups have totally ignored the Mughal claim to the caliphate. Furthermore, many of these empires were often at war with one another, the Ottomans and Safavids fought many wars and eventually agreed on a border.
India was conquered by the first Mughal Emperor Babur in 1526 but the Mughal claim to the Caliphate began with the Emperor Akbar in 1556:
The Mughal Emperors, from the reign of Akbar onwards, called their domains ‘Dar ul Khilafat’ (the abode of caliphate). In Akbar’s reign gold coins were minted that bore the inscription ‘the great Sultan, the exalted khilafah’ (The Mughal Emperors, catalogue of Indian Gold Coins in the British Museum, by S. Lane-Poole, p.159).
In official correspondence with the Ottomans, the Mughals made clear their claim to be the true Caliphate:
In the reign of Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan … his minister wrote a letter to a Turkish ambassador. In the letter he describes Shah Jahan as ‘his exalted majesty, who occupies the dignity of caliphate, the khaqan of the world, the shahinshah of the Sultans of the whole earth, the shadow of god’ (Dastur ul-Insha, Abdi Sari Effendi, National Bibliothek, Vienna, pg 161).
Most of the Mughal emperors saw themselves as Caliphs of India:
Mughal Emperor Shah Alam 11 (1759-1806) is also called ‘Khalifah and Shadow of God’ by his biographer. (Shah Alam Nameh, p.16 – Calcutta, 1912)
So the Islamist assertion of there only being one caliphate which united all Muslims across the world under a single ruler is utterly false. It is a misrepresentation of history inspired by the Arab nationalist movements of the 1930s and 40s. The aim of constructing such a myth is to inspire confidence in their insane totalitarian project which attempts to apply medieval political paradigms to a modern globalised world. Let’s hope they don’t intend on replacing SUVs with diesel driven camels.
40 Comments
Great article. HT is a racist party and would never accept an Indian Caliph. That’s why they ignore other claimants to the Caliphate like the Mughals.
The Last Mughal by William Dalrymple is also a good read. Even Bahadur Shah (the last Mughal ruler) was referred to as Caliph by his followers!
Excellent article.
Of course, even the ‘Abbasid Caliphate was hardly a unity, with fractures beginning with the Samanid expansion in modern-day Tajikistan and northern Afghanistan in the early 9th Century and the emergence of powerful ‘Amirs in modern Syria and elsewhere later that century who owed little more than nominal allegiance to the Caliph in Baghdad.
presumably all “alternative contenders” are disqualified on various grounds, as the safavids would have been shi’a and i believe the fatimids were isma’ilis. it’s amazing how this “khilafa” idea can be used not just against non-muslims, but against heterodox muslims. i expect there are some grounds for disqualifying the mughals because they were too tolerant of what is referred to by these ninc0mpoops as “grave worship”, ie visiting sufi shrines. i suppose it has some twisted logic to it.
b’shalom
bananabrain
I have been saying this for many years, that at any given time there was more than on Caliphate present in the world, we never had a global monolithic Caliphal system. Even as early as the Caliphate of Sayyidna Ali we have Sayydina Mu’awiyya splitting off and laying claim to the leadership of the Muslims. In latter times we had the Ottomans, the Mughals and the Andalusian Caliphates (not to mention the smaller Caliphates of Africa).
The other point that arises from the fantasy of the Islamists is that the Caliphate is a magic bullet, a miracle medicine a cure-all for the Muslim malaise, they put forward a utopian ideal which never was. Even in the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), which was a time that was incredibly blessed, ills and problems in society existed. A Caliphate will not solve our problems. Under present circumstances it would be impossible to establish a Caliphate, the first stumbling block would be to select someone who everyone agrees upon, putting the Mahdi aside for a moment, it ain’t gonna happen. The next would be to unify all Muslim countries, with all the despots and their state apparatus….ain’t gonna happen.
The other issue I see is that traditionally and historically the Caliphate was not “big government”, meaning the Caliph and his government would not interfere in the lives of the ordinary person, power was devolved to local emirs. The Caliph was tasked with, amongst other duties – securing borders, welfare of the population, control of natural resources and legal redress. What the Islamists want is control of each man, woman and child in the state, they would seek to pry into people’s lives to make sure they are “good Muslims”. Their policing would be no different to the mukhabarat and the Saudi religious police, it would be Orwellian in nature.
Raziq,
Brilliant article. Your point about the Islamists’ distortion of history and their convenient dismissal of the subcontinent’s Mughal period (with the possible exception of Aurangzeb) is absolutely spot-on. Anjem Choudary has also repeatedly made false claims that “Sharia Law was implemented in full for 1300 years in Muslim-ruled regions”, which was obviously not the case for most of the Mughal era — at least not as per his assertions about hardline Sharia or his ultraorthodox interpretation of Islam.
The Islamists’ convenient silence on Mughal India is even more glaring when you bear in mind the following:
1. The Mughal Empire was the wealthiest and most powerful Muslim-ruled region in the world at the time.
2. During Akbar’s reign, India and China jointly accounted for about 50% of the world’s entire GDP.
3. During the reign of his grandson Shah Jahan, the Mughal Empire had become so successful that Shah Jahan is estimated to have been the wealthiest person in the world at the time.
4. There are still more Muslims in the Indian subcontinent as a whole than there are anywhere else in the world, especially in the areas which historically fell under Mughal rule. And Muslims have been in the subcontinent in large numbers for a thousand years.
The Islamists ignore/disqualify the Mughals because they view them as being insufficiently puritanical and too tolerant in general (with some obvious exceptions, of course), both in terms of their respective interpretations of Islam and their attitudes towards non-Muslims as a whole. In a nutshell, as far as dominant religious influences are concerned, it’s the equivalent of Omar Bakri versus Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.
jai,
as per your recommendation, i am about halfway through “white mughals”, which mrs bb kindly sourced for me. impressive stuff – actually, it sets the scene really well for the india portrayed in the “flashman” novels, which for local colour and a d0wn-and-dirty look at the real socio-politics of the east india company and the raj, are quite unparalleled.
b’shalom
bananabrain
I plan to finally get to read Dalrymple’s book on a long-haul flight to the old Mughal city of Dhaka I will be taking later this month.
PS Raziq,
I’ve plugged most of these on a couple of previous comments threads here on the Spittoon, but in case you missed them, you may be interested to know that during the past few months I’ve written some articles myself about various aspects of Mughal India which have been published on Pickled Politics. Here are the links:
“Christianity and Islam in Mughal India”
- Part 1: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6912
- Part 2: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6961
“Guru Gobind Singh’s stance towards Muslims”
– http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6688 (was also cross-posted here on the Spittoon)
“Guru Hargobind: Mosques, Minarets and Multiculturalism”
- http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6771
(Much longer article):
“Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception”
- Part 1: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6127
- Part 2: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149
I agree completely; it is incredibly informative, and the description of what Dalrymple terms the Mughals’ “hybrid Indo-Islamic culture” definitely needs to gain a much higher profile here in Britain, as a counterargument to both the Islamists and the racist Far-right. Dalrymple’s previous book “White Mughals” is also excellent and demolishes quite a few stereotypes about the pre-Victorian history of British-Indian interaction.
William Dalrymple has his own website and you can read dozens of superb articles he has written : http://www.williamdalrymple.uk.com/Pages/Links.html
Incidentally, Dalrymple is planning to write a further 4 books focusing on the “Great Mughal” era, presumably dealing with Babur to Aurangzeb. I’m sure that these books will be outstanding too; it looks like this may well be Dalrymple’s magnum opus.
PS Raziq,
I’ve plugged most of these on a couple of previous comments threads here on the Spittoon, but in case you missed them, you may be interested to know that during the past few months I’ve written some articles myself about various aspects of Mughal India which have been published on Pickled Politics. Here are the links:
“Christianity and Islam in Mughal India”
- Part 1: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6912
- Part 2: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6961
“Guru Gobind Singh’s stance towards Muslims”
– http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6688 (was also cross-posted here on the Spittoon)
“Guru Hargobind: Mosques, Minarets and Multiculturalism”
- http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6771
(Much longer article):
“Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception”
- Part 1: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6127
- Part 2: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149
I agree completely; it is incredibly informative and the description of what Dalrymple terms the Mughals’ “hybrid Indo-Islamic culture” definitely needs to gain a much higher profile here in Britain, as a counterargument to both the Islamists and the racist Far-right. Dalrymple’s previous book “White Mughals” is also excellent and demolishes quite a few stereotypes about the pre-Victorian history of British-Indian interaction.
William Dalrymple has his own website and you can read dozens of superb articles he has written : http://www.williamdalrymple.uk.com/Pages/Links.html
Incidentally, Dalrymple is planning to write a further 4 books focusing on the “Great Mughal” era, presumably dealing with Babur to Aurangzeb. I’m sure that these books will be outstanding too; it looks like this may well be Dalrymple’s magnum opus.
I agree completely; it is incredibly informative and the description of what Dalrymple terms the Mughals’ “hybrid Indo-Islamic culture” definitely needs to gain a much higher profile here in Britain, as a counterargument to both the Islamists and the racist Far-right. Dalrymple’s previous book “White Mughals” is also excellent and demolishes quite a few stereotypes about the pre-Victorian history of British-Indian interaction. [Faisal, you’re in for a treat. Bananabrain, I’m glad you’re enjoying it. You should both check out “The Last Mughal” too].
William Dalrymple has his own website and you can read dozens of superb articles he has written : http://www.williamdalrymple.uk.com/Pages/Links.html
Incidentally, Dalrymple is planning to write a further 4 books focusing on the “Great Mughal” era, presumably dealing with Babur to Aurangzeb. I’m sure that these books will be outstanding too; it looks like this may well be Dalrymple’s magnum opus.
PS Raziq,
I’ve plugged most of these on a couple of previous comments threads here on the Spittoon, but in case you missed them, you may be interested to know that during the past few months I’ve written some articles myself about various aspects of Mughal India which have been published on Pickled Politics. Here are the links (apologies in advance for posting them separately in multiple comments – I just tried submitting them in a single post but the Spittoon’s filter seems to have swallowed that post up):
“Christianity and Islam in Mughal India”
- Part 1: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6912
- Part 2: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6961
(continued)
“Guru Gobind Singh’s stance towards Muslims”
– http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6688 (was also cross-posted here on the Spittoon)
“Guru Hargobind: Mosques, Minarets and Multiculturalism”
- http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6771
(continued)
(Much longer article):
“Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception”
- Part 1: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6127
- Part 2: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149
Lets not forget that when most Muslims make reference to a caliphate they are referring to the Rashidun the rightly guided Caliphs. In their time there were no other Caliphs and no other contender!
Eesa Ahmed Jan
It did not stop three of the four “rightly guided” Caliphs being assassinated by political opponents, though, did it?
I agree with Eesa Ahmad Jan, It is by far the purest and most sincere post compared to of the pundit intellectual mumbo-jumbo from above. Let’s NOT put the Mahdi aside and remember the times in which we are living. Furthermore, I am married to a Sahib Zada Mir Ali Khan myself and my esteemed husband actually went to the judge to have his surname removed from his passport. It is embarrassing to have such fasiqs as relatives. Don’t get me started on the internal corruption within the family itself. Sheikh Nuh Ha Meem Keller was correct in his assertation that the simple-minded are more likely to become those drawn nearer in proximity to the REAL. Pseudo-intellectuals literally “think” themselves in to a place remote from reality and the REAL.
Most of you can talk like you are working on a Masters’ in Political Science, yet are so ignorant about the Political realities in which we are living. The intelligence agencies, their messy co-vert operations, the up-side down , deceptive fitnah we find ourselves in currently etc.
Stop trashing good, honest, believing Muslims who put their trust in the shuykh of Syria and other awliya who have publicly stated we are in the age of the Dajjal and the advent of the Mahdi. Just because some of us wish for a large scale “clean-up ” of the ummah, and intelligent implementation of Shariah, doesn’t make us half-winded, idiot Caliphat mongers!
I am reminded of a hadith of the Prophet sallallahu alahyi wasalaam that states during the time of the Masih Dajjal, esteemed scholars would approach the Dajjal in order to argue with him, but would end up becoming deceived and following him in spite of themselves.
La huwa la quwatta illa billah.
Another excellent article by Raziq!
The Question is why do they concoct such myths and what purpose do they serve?
Abu Wanabee Arab,
It seems pretty clear to me. The idea of a global worldwide caliphate, stretching from the Maghrib to Indonesia, is so obviously infeasible, that even the most dimwitted Muslim would question its viability. But, if you’re told that such an empire existed, and did so for 1400 odd years, then the goal seems slightly more achievable. Hence the lie.
Abu Faris,
Rightly guided doesn’t imply immunity from assassination; being murdered doesn’t make you any less guided.
Hassan
No, but it shows that the so-called Caliphate of the so-called Rightly Guided was punctuated by open rebellion, revolution, armed conflict, inter-communal warfare, whole cities being sacked, besieged – in other words insurrection and refusal to be guided (rightly or wrongly) by Caliphs. Leaders who were clearly deeply unpopular across wide swathes of their lands and were not regarded as right or rightful for large periods of their rule.
Islam and politics do not mix.
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum,
This is a pretty large distortion based on misunderstanding of honorifics.
That the ‘Absolute’ Caliphate, in other words, the protectorate of the Haramayn, who facilitated Hajj, bared the Prophet’s (S) mantle and flag, was a level of authority in the Ottomans hands from the time of Yavuz Selim was well known and basically undisputed in history.
On the other hand, each of the different Sultanates were Caliphs in their own right. According to the Holy Quran, every human has the capacity (through faith and righteousness) to become a representative (Caliph) of Allah:
In the end, to discount the Ottomans administration of the Haramayn, combined with the Abbasid ceremonial transfer of the title to the Ottomans, due to the use of honorifics is a intellectually dishonest way to understand how the Muslims worldwide viewed the Turkish Sultans as the ultimate protectors of the faith.
The help of the Ottomans was sought by the Far East when dealing with matters of faith and state, even though each had local rulers or ‘Caliphs’, and even when the Mughals were physically closer.
Yursil
The Ottomans were widely loathed across their empire. Indeed their empire was possibly one of the least contructive and overtly parasitic of any in history, anywhere.
The Abbasids hardly had much of an alternative to handing over their entirely ceremonial and nominal powers to the Ottomans. The Abbasids had been prisoners of the regime in Egypt and were handed over to the Supreme Porte on the latter’s occupation of Egypt. The fact that the Ottomans chose to strangle to death the last Abbasid “caliph” speaks volumes.
Politically and socially the institution of the Caliphate was historically an utter disaster for the Muslim community and for all the other communities that had the misfortune to fall under its rule. It was widely ignored, subverted, undermined, disregarded and fought against, whenever and where ever it reared its ugly head.
Politics and religion should not mix – nor does it fair well for ordinary people when they are mixed.
Yursil,
You are actually distorting my words. I never said the Ottomans did not claim to be caliphs. I’m not disputing that some people accepted them as such. What I’m saying is that the Mughals also saw themselves as valid Caliphs and made this claim on many occasions. Hindus and Muslims accepted their claim to the Caliphate. This is also why during the 1857 mutiny in India, the Hindus rallied around the ageing Mughal emporer Bahadur Shah Zafar. They still wanted the Mughals to lead them. It was only after the British got rid of the Mughals that some Indian Muslims started to look towards the Ottomans as the last independent Muslim Empire.
Regarding your other points:
The Taliban also have a mantle of the Prophet. Mullah Omar has used it in the past. Does that make them leaders of all the Muslims today? ( he does claim to be Amir ul Momineen after all).
The Saudis have control over the Haramayn today and they also facilitate the Hajj. So does that make them the true leaders of Islam?
Historically it has never been proven that the Abbasids transferred their authority to the Ottomans. The Ottomans actually invavded Egypt, defeated a fellow Muslim empire (Mamluks), kidnapped the Abbasid consitutional Caliph and had him bought in chains to Istanbul. Doesn’t appear like a nice religous transfer ceremony to me!
The main point is that the Ottomans never had any political control of Muslims outside of their Empire. Even their Muslim subjects rebelled against them on many occasions i.e. the Arabs who rejected the Ottoman claim to the Caliphate because the were not from Quraishi descent (a pre-requiste for the Caliph according to some scholars) or the Kuleli incident in Istanbul.
Yursil – it seems you have bought (hook, line and sinker) the highly romanticised version of Muslim history that Islamists peddle. When was the last time Muslims were ever united under one ruler? Pipe dreams of fantasists!
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum,
Raziq, you are misunderstanding me.
Please read my comment again. I never said that you said the above.
Of course, as I stated, many people can be caliphs. Every human being can be a caliph. Multiple rulers at the same time *are* caliphs. However, ‘THE Caliph’, the protector of the Haramayn, is singular.
Hindu’s had no allegiances or stake in a singular or plural Caliphate, I’m not sure what that example buys in terms of this discussion.
Claiming to be Amir ul Mumineen is a far cry from claiming to the equivalent of the Ottoman Caliph, who were actual practitioners of power over vast regions of Muslims, with established control over the Haramayn and supported and defended Muslims world wide.
When he makes an equivilant claim, we can discuss the implications, until then it is a hypothetical that is actually self-defeating.
The Saudi’s do not claim to be ‘The Caliphate’, so again, when they make such a claim, we can discuss the implications. The title of Calipha necessitates control over the Haramayn, but, like most things it does not imply its reverse.
Another example where this is the case: A President must occupy the White House, but anyone who is occupying the White House is not necessarily the President.
Countless historical books make this note as an accepted fact, and your doubt is based on?
Didn’t I just provide you a specific example of Ottoman defense in Sumatra?
Don’t mistake the Ottoman loose rule and support of self-government over even the closest parts of their empire to be complete lack of control.
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum Abu Faris,
“The fact that the Ottomans chose to strangle to death the last Abbasid “caliph” speaks volumes.”
A fact needs evidence. By all accounts al-Mutawakkil III died in 1543 in Cairo after being allowed to return to Egypt once again as a ‘Caliph’/Representative of the Ottomans, and after divesting the ultimate Caliphate to the Ottomans.
This is far from the chains and strangling fake-history being purported on this forum.
They certainly did during the 19th century, at least as far as the Indian “Mughal Caliphate” was concerned. Dissent against the East India Company had been escalating for a long time, and the activities of Victorian Evangelists coupled with the rumours of cartridges greased with cow and pig fat were the tipping point triggering open warfare.
It resulted in huge numbers of Hindu soldiers as well as Muslims rallying to the Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar in Delhi, declaring their allegience to him as their legitimate ruler, and the most large-scale armed insurrection against any European colonial power in any part of the world during the entire 19th century.
There is a vast amount of authenticated records from Indian (particularly Mughal) sources as well as detailed British records from the period which exhaustively detail what happened, the specific groups involved, and their respective motivations. The extensive Mughal records, written in Persian and Urdu, have proved particularly enlightening in recent years.
And Hindus had been heavily involved in supporting the Mughal imperial administration at the highest levels for centuries, most of all during the “Great Mughal” period.
“The Last Mughal” by William Dalrymple contains hundreds of references in its bibliography, but in the meantime initial primers about those events can be read here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3655677/A-dynasty-crushed-by-hatred.html
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?231737
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?234421
Perhaps you might explain the considerable unrest in Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Arabia – indeed in every corner of the Ottoman Empire that started in the 15th Century and continued until the eventual destruction of the Empire in the early part of the 20th Century?
The Empire was loathed by its subjects – Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Indeed, more broadly, any empire is usually so loathed by its subjects. I am not impressed by claims that imperial power is ever anything other than the curse of humanity. The assumption that any empire is divinely approved is both disgusting and truly fake.
Yursil
I hope I have it made it quite clear, Yursil, that I have nothing but contempt for theocracy, of any stripe. I am a secularist and a democrat. I can see no benefit in autocracy, authoritarianism and their associated political formations.
The Caliphate is dead and gone. It was a bloody disaster when it existed – even in the nominal, deeply corrupt and violently disposed forms in which it cursed the Muslim world for far too long.
Islamism is not an appeal to traditional Islam – it is a narrow-minded, innovatory, bigoted, twisted and deeply flawed perversion of Islam. It is, in point of fact, the enemy of Humanity and God.
If you want to live in cloud cuckoo-land, then that is your right; however, do not expect to garner much sympathy for your condition hereabouts.
And do me a favour? Please drop the faux-Arabic greetings and imprecations that head your comments.
Yursil
I hope I have it made it quite clear, Yursil, that I have nothing but contempt for theocracy, of any stripe. I am a secularist and a democrat. I can see no benefit in autocracy, authoritarianism and their associated political formations.
The Caliphate is dead and gone. It was a bloody disaster when it existed – even in the nominal, deeply corrupt and violently disposed forms in which it cursed the Muslim world for far too long.
Islamism is not an appeal to traditional Islam – it is a narrow-minded, innovatory, bigoted, twisted and deeply flawed perversion of Islam. It is, in point of fact, the enemy of Humanity and God.
If you want to live in cloud cuckoo-land, then that is your right; however, do not expect to garner much sympathy for your condition hereabouts.
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum,
The Ottomans were the singularly longest lasting dynasty, period. That they dealt with unrest and were able to carry that accomplishment is the ultimate testament to their largely religiously tolerant, multi-ethnic, lenient rule over a vast area.
The Western powers decisions to chop it up into semi-demagogue governments with a dash of democracy sprinkled in hasn’t brought us much less unrest. So, in this context, your use of the word ‘considerable’ is without meaning.
Thanks. I simply chimed in to shed some well referenced facts as to whether the Mughals truly understood references to their local Caliphate to be equivalent to the overarching Caliphate of the Ottomans and their predecessors.
Discussing whether the Ottomans were historically good or bad, is obviously beyond the scope of this conversation, but, yes, we probably land on different sides. But this group of Orthodox priests probably disagrees with you in terms of favoring the secularist Turkish state vs the Ottomans:
link
Like your faux arabic pen-name? No thanks.
And if the Third Reich had lasted 1000 years this would have given it greater moral purchase, making it a better thing? A strange moral compass you have, that measures worth by regime-success. Not that the Ottomans were especially successful, of course – having lost control of most of their Empire within a century or two of its imposition.
By “dealing with unrest”, you presumably mean the incredible savagery with which the Sublime Porte dealt with the almost continuous rebellion and revolt that accompanied their rule across their Empire.
Presumably you would regard the deportation into slavery of some 1/3 of the population of northern Sudan as a successful example of Ottoman rule. How about the use of slave armies, the use of rape and looting as a means of paying for one’s mercenaries, the decrepid parasitism that was imposed upon much of the Arab world, even the refusal to introduce the printing press? These are Ottoman “successes” that you clearly do not want to discuss.
This religious tolerance included, of course, the millet system. A form of religiously-inspired apartheid that influenced later forms of ethnic and religious discrimination. Again, an odd set of moral values you display.
No, the issues of the moral worth of theocracy in general and your support for one of the most revolting examples of the same is at the very core of this discussion. That you would seek to avoid the same is telling in the extreme.
The fact that you evidently feel that theocracy trumps democracy; that the religious supremacist, clerical fascist ideology that is Islamism is the correct line to follow speaks volumes.
Actually, it is my real kunyah – you might find it hard to grasp, but most Muslims – especially those who live and work in the Arab world (like me) find your Islamist views quite repellent and utterly pitiful.
Just to correct you:
Actually, this makes no sense whatsoever in Arabic. You see, you are slurring into one nonsense-word two quite distinct words, the former of which requires an article as well.
Hence my concern for your faux-Arabic.
Begone, Islamist.
Ottoman North Africa was lost long before the modern era. Greece and the Balkans waged successful liberation campaigns against the universally loathed Ottomans long before the Twentieth Century.
“With a dash of democracy” – doubtless you disapprove of even this “dash. Not that there was even such a dash – as you would know if you had actually bothered to study the post-Ottman history of the region; which you clearly have not.
My use of considerable as in “considerable unrest” is meaningless? Do you actually know of what you write? Are you totally unaware of the almost constant revolt against Ottoman rule from all quarters of the Empire? Are you remotely interested in facts and not fantasies that fit your Islamist agenda?
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
Salamu’alaykum,
Actually the above is the Turkish-style transliteration of an Arabic phrase. I’ve spent a few years studying Turkish and the Ottoman language so I’m comfortable in this mode.
As far as my views, regardless of your repetitious ad hominem approach, I am not an ‘Islamist’. I don’t espouse any of today’s modern political Islamic ideologies such as HT, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. Nor do I believe any such ideology has any hope in the Arab world.
I have, on the other hand, studied Ottoman history quite a great deal. I’d suggest you abandon whatever bias it is you have against them and look at works such as Osman’s Dream by Caroline Finkel, a recent and also Western take on Ottoman history based on newly available primary sources (also a New York Times best-seller).
I said ‘considerable unrest’ is meaningless in a historical context when the fact is the entire region has been in ‘considerable unrest’ before and after the Ottomans.
If you doubt my description of Arab despotic-democratic regimes, you need only look at how many Arab states have a parliament. That is a ‘dash’ enough for me.
Anyway. I’ve said my piece, and its probably best not to discuss history with those who have really have a modern political agenda to promote (Islamist or secularist), which is sadly the downfall of this whole post and comment section.
You mean you have been studying Turkish and Turkish?
Sorry, I fail to see how calling out you on your support for theocracy is repetitious; nor do I see how repeatedly drawing to your attention the deeply reactionary, authoritarian, incompetent and damaging character of Ottoman rule is negatively repetitious. Nor do I think defining your ideological position as Islamist is an ad hominem attack.
Glad to hear it. Still, this does not mean that you do not basically go along with their views. As quite clearly, you do. One of the most important Islamists tenets being restoration of the Caliphate (together with an equally ahistorical and convenient grasp of the historical Caliphates). Another being an assertion that Islamism is about “restoring” an entirely fictional “traditional” Islam. Both of these key views you would seem to share – and from inspection of your website, quite a few others as well.
Far better a theocratic-despotic regime, eh?
Incidentally, what is a democratic-despotic regime? Can you name any such in the Arab world?
However, more telling is your notion of democracy as secular despotism – another favourite Islamist theme, incidentally. Whoops!
I wonder, then, how many people might go along with the view that seems to follow on from your position that it would be far more cogent and useful then to discuss an entirely fantastic political agenda; one that would like to moor itself in some fabulously misunderstood point of the distant past. Understandably not many, I should wager.
This comment is actually quite amusing, As it was my point exactly that democracy is something that Arab states generally lack. You appear to have entirely misread this.
Incidentally, have you actually read anything I wrote? I note your studious avoidance of any discussion of the ills of Ottoman rule. Doubtless all the inventions of fiendish Western imperialists out to libel the glorious… errr… imperialism of the Sublime Porte.
Good luck!
Incidentally, neither the imprecation nor the greeting would be rendered in any Turkic language as single words. Do pull the other one, it has Janissary bells attached.
Oh and please save us from the “objective historian” nonsense. It is signal of a very naive view of history, how it is made and understood.
Islam needs the establishment of a proper and just socio-economic and political order in
the society so that a complete environment is provided for the upbringing of a balanced
personality in the society. This is why Islam is not only a charter of divine spiritual guid-
ance for individuals, it is a well coordinated system of beliefs and practices. Islam at the
same time is a fully integrated philosophy of spiritual and secular aspects of the needs. It is
at the same time a comprehensive code of human conduct, and a profound basis of a just
socio-economic and political order of the society.
Refer to the quote from a kuffar (before you get your panties in a wad…simply using the Arabic descriptive word for the obvious) below:
“But is there really a serious theological debate in Islam, on which a “pope” could pass judgment? Or are the sectarian divisions within Islam mostly about power?
And if there were a Caliph, without political power, would anyone take him seriously – I don’t think so, since Islam is all about linking religion and political power.
Thus, a call for a Caliphate is, unless simply naive, a call for a renewed center of Islamic worldly political power. And isn’t the rest of the world much better off with multiple centres of political power among which we can ally, divide, and conquer?”
Seeing as most of you “so-called” believers have been sufficiently brainwashed by the orientalists in your quest for higher education, good to see at least the non-Muslims have grasped the truly grandiose concept of “Divide et Impera ” and why
there is an absolute need to have security to back up the autonomy that Muslims need to regain the “helm of the ship” as the Prophet sallahu alahyi wasalaam described metaphorically.
Wether you dimwits think it possible or not given the historical contextual failures of Islamic governance in eons past, the inevitable WILL come to pass as the Best of Creation (sallahu alahyi wasalaam) foretold it would. That in the end days a renewer from the family of the Prophet (sallalhu alayhi wasalaam) would appear and unify the believers under a single banner of leadership not withholding internal political infrastructure as seen fit.
‘In his book ‘Serh-I Müsned Imam Ahmed’ Eb’ul-Esbal Ahmed Muhammed Sakir writes: According to this Sunna that has come down from many of the companions of the Prophet, belief in the Mahdi is proven, and nobody has the right to entertain any doubts on the matter.’
(Casim Mühelhil, el-Burhan… Mukaddimesi, Vol. 1, page 343)
‘This means that it is obligatory to believe that the Mahdi will appear, and it is necessary to believe that in order to abide by the commands of the Prophet. This matter has been recorded and proven in the books of faith of the People of the Sunna.’
(Eb’ul-Feyz Ahmed b. Muhammed Gumari Safii, Ibraz’ül-Vehm’ül-Meknun, pages 3-4)
Having spoken my piece as best as possible, I will unsuccribe from this fitnah, as I see there is absolutely ZERO spiritual benefit it it and it is but an observance of traumatized, post-colonial born Muslim brainwashing.
Abu Faris & Raziq,
The assertions by some people on this thread about some kind of ‘overarching Caliphate’ allegedly including the Mughal Empire are curious, albeit not surprising; and someone has been adding similar historically-dubious information to the Ottoman Empire’s various Wikipedia pages too.
In reality, although the Mughal Empire certainly had diplomatic and trade relations with the Ottoman Empire, the Mughal Emperors themselves never viewed their own territory as being under the ultimate jurisdiction of the Ottomans, and they certainly did not regard themselves as being subservient to them in any way whatsoever.