Dilly Hussain – What Made The Ottomans Great Birmingham City Uni
AI: Summary ©
The Ottoman Empire was a capitalist state and a multi-tailed state focused on the spread of Islam and justice. The decline and demise of the Ottoman state was due to a lack of military expansion and political campaigns, resulting in corruption and nepotism. The decline was due to the loss of military campaigns, the spread of nationalism, and the first organ of the Ottoman government. The current political situation is a legacy of the colonial and cultural legacy of the Middle East and North Africa, and the future is a critical time for the United States.
AI: Summary ©
Later on once it's uploaded inshallah.
I pray you're well.
Let me first begin by saying Jazakumullah and
to our brother Suleiman
and Birmingham City University Islamic Society
for inviting me and giving me an opportunity
to
discuss a very passionate topic of mine and
one which I hope
resonates and becomes a passion,
for those who are tuning in for today's,
lecture.
Now I know the event poster
was entitled what Made the Ottomans?'
Alright? So one cannot help but infer
or assume
that by that title
that it's to do with what made them
great or because that's usually what that term
made
is usually,
refers to.
And
in all honesty, brothers and sisters, no justice
can really be done about Ottoman history because
they they they existed for such a large
span of period.
625
years.
And that's excluding
before they became a dynastic
state.
Now even under the the period of Etrul
Hazir Rahimahullah
with the Kayi tribe etcetera and so forth,
if you were to include that period as
well, we're talking about a period of 635
years and
no lecture, no lecture,
irrespective of how long or how detail
can ever give true justice to the breadth
and the depth of Ottoman history.
However, I will try my best today Insha'Allah
to give you some key points and some
key messages,
and some key events and incidents,
as well as some take home messages with
regards to what the Ottomans achieved,
why learning
about their history is important
to us as an Ummah
and what it means in terms of us
collectively moving forward in terms of revival and
improving
the situation of the Muslim majority world.
Now
no
lecture
or no book
that addresses Ottoman history
can begin without discussing
Sultan Osman's dream.
Now Sultan Osman
was the founder of the Ottoman Beylik. Now
the Ottoman the the what what I mean
by Beylik was a confederation of Turkic tribes
that formed a kind of a state,
but the sultanate was a title that was
given to the beylik by Osman's son Orhan.
Osman's dream, Sultan Osman's dream is so important
because it is the fundamental
basis
of the world view
and the objectives of the Ottoman state from
12/99
right up until the state was,
abolished in 1924.
It is Sultan Osman's dream that essentially was
a blueprint
of how the Ottomans perceive themselves,
perceived
man, life and universe and saw their mission,
on earth.
So listen attentively
to Osman's dream. And this is gonna be
a very shortened version. There are far more
elaborated versions that exist in in in on
on books and in other literature pertaining to
Ottoman history.
Now one night,
Sultan Osman
was sleeping,
at the home of a very well known
Anatolian
Sheikh called Sheikh Edebali, Rahimahullah,
who later on became his father-in-law.
He married Sheikh Edebali's daughter. But at the
time when he went to the Sheikh's house
and and stayed the night there, he he
was not his father-in-law
and he had a dream.
And the in that dream,
he saw a full moon.
He saw a tree
growing from his navel
that continued growing,
and the tree grew all around his body
and the tree did not stop growing.
And he saw
three parts of the world,
Asia, Africa, and Europe.
And of course, as part of those continents,
it included the Caucasus, the Atlas, the Taurus
and the Jemez mountain regions.
And of course as part of those continents,
Sultan Osman saw in his dream the river
Nile, the river Danube, Euphrates and Tigris.
Sultan Osman
saw tall ships and big harvests.
He saw a crescent shining
and Amwadir making the adhan
and he saw the city of Constantinople.
When he awoke from the dream, he asked
the Sheikh
for an interpretation
of the dream and the Sheikh interpreted
it as follows:
The full moon represented
Islam.
The growing tree
that continued to grow.
Nowhere in the dream did that state,
did the the tree stop growing. It just
carried on growing to all parts of his
body.
That tree represented the state
in which
Sultan Osman and his progeny were going to
rule over.
The three parts of the world, Asia, Africa
and Europe were the continents in which the
state would govern and rule over
And of course as part of those continents,
the Ottoman state would reach the Caucasus, it
would reach the Atlas mountains, it would reach
the Taurus and the Hamus mountains
as it would river Nile in Egypt and
the Danube and Euphrates and Tigris in Iraq.
The tall ships and the big harvest represented
according to Sheikha Debali,
successful battles on land and on sea.
The crescent which was shining and the Muadid
who made the Adhan
symbolized
Islamic authority.
That Sultan Osman and the State that he
and his progeny were going to establish and
expand was going to be an Islamic one.
As Sheikh Ineb Ali even elaborate that it
would be the legitimate Islamic authority.
And of course,
seeing Constantinople
meant that his progeny or someone from his
lineage was going to fulfill the prophecy of
Rasool Allah SallAllahu Alaihi Wasallam
and con and conquer Constantinople.
Now that, this was a very brief, a
shortened overview of Sultan Osman's dream. There's, there's
a far more beautiful and detailed version of
it, one which exists in the
Ottoman archives, in Istanbul today.
And I want you all
to never ever forget about Sultan Osman's dream
because it is so central,
it is so central to how the Ottomans
perceive themselves
and perceive their objective with regards to
their state,
the religion, and the Ummah.
So always remember Usman's jinn. I'm gonna refer
back to it here and there throughout the
lecture. As I mentioned earlier,
I can't do any justice to how
how much depth and how much there is
to cover
with regards to Ottoman history.
In fact, you'll find that historians
generally break it up to 4 or 5
periods.
The beginning, the interregnum,
the pinnacle,
stagnation, then of course decline and demise.
There are entire historians out there that only
specify,
that only specialize in specific periods and even
specific sultans and caliphs.
No one has really attempted to
cover the breadth of Ottoman history in the
manner in which we would like it. Of
course, there are books which, which are currently
out there that attempt this in terms of
an overview with key events and so forth,
but quite frankly
they lasted for too long and they did
too much to try cover it in such
a short period of time. However, it's important
to know
that the Ottoman Sultanate
lasted from 12/99
to 1922,
so that's 623
years.
The Ottoman Caliphate
lasted from 15/17
to 1924.
So they were a caliphate for 407 years.
I say this because it's it's a common
mistake which affects some Muslims
referring to the Sultans
before 15/17
as Khalifa. They were not Khalifas.
The Ottoman state was not a Khalifa be
before 15/17,
and I'll explain to you, the circumstances in
which they did become,
the caliphate and how they announced it and
how it came about.
But the Ottoman state
essentially lasted from 12 99 to 1924
years. Right? That's a huge period.
And it's important for me to just highlight
some of the key events
that I felt are noteworthy
to remember,
especially in terms of their significance.
So in 12/99,
Sultan Osman, he established
the first Ottoman state. Now I write here
Ottoman Sultanate because that's what it's commonly referred
to as, but in reality in 12/99 what
Osman,
really established was the the first
unified Beylik.
It was basically a confederation
of Turkic tribes in Anatolia.
He united them all and then from that
point onward they expanded at all fronts. It
was his son and his grandson who referred
to Osman as Sultan.
Osman never referred to himself as Sultan.
This was a title that was given to
him by his son, but mainly his grandson
who kind of glorified
the achievements of his grandfather.
But the state as we, if you were
to kind of pinpoint and identify
an actual start date, it was 12/99.
In 1402
to 14/13,
we had the Ottoman interregnum
which was a
bitter civil war between the three sons of
sorry there's a typo there, this is my
fault and not that of Suleyman.
Between the three sons of Sultan Bayezid the
first, not Murad the first.
It was Sultan Bayezid the first.
Sultan Bayezid was defeated by Timur Lane or
the Timurids. It was a,
a a a a blowing defeat
and in the aftermath of that defeat against
the Timurids,
the 3 sons or maybe it could even
be argued 4 sons of Sultan Bayezid,
ensued in a civil war. And this civil
war lasted for 11 years
and it literally got to the the the
situation
where whatever remained as the Ottoman state was
going to self implode. They were literally going
to destroy themselves
and basically were going to essentially,
decimate whatever their forefathers had achieved. The the
civil war was that bad.
It was that bad that it resulted in
the sons of, Bayezid
to seek alliances with European and Christian leaders
who essentially were the enemies of the state,
and they they couldn't have wished for anything
better than to have seen the the sons
of Bayezid
at each other's throats.
But Alhamdulillah,
in 14/13,
there was a victor amongst the sons of
Bayezid,
Rahimahullah,
and the Ottoman state managed to survive,
but it was such a crucial
part of Ottoman history
that it was
after that period, it was in the aftermath
of that period
that a state fatwa was passed
of fratricide.
Now fratricide is when
Crown Princes,
or those who
are assumed to take over power over a
State or a Kingdom or an Empire
would kill their brothers, their blood brothers, their
siblings
to avoid a civil war and this is
something that I will elaborate on later on
Insha'Allah.
But perhaps,
in fact, not even perhaps, without a shadow
of a doubt,
the most significant event
in Ottoman history
was the conquest of Constantinople.
In fact, I'll take it a step further.
The conquest of Constantinople
in 14/53
under Sultan Fatih,
Mehmed the second, Rahimahullah,
was perhaps one of the most significant events
in Islamic history. Why is that?
Because it was the fulfillment of the prophecy
of Rasoolah salallahu alaihi wasalam
who
narrated,
who said that the Muslims will conquer Constantinople,
and he didn't just stop there. He said
what a beautiful and great army it will
be, and what a beautiful and great leader
of that army it will be.
And that is why the conquest of Constantinople
brothers and sisters
is such a huge event
in both Ottoman and Islamic history.
Because don't get it twisted,
It what the Ottomans weren't the first to
try conquer Constantinople from the very moment.
Abu Ayub Al Ansari and
the maternal cousin of Rasool Allah Sallallahu Alaihi
Wasallam,
the cousin whose home the prophet stayed in
when he first arrived in Madinah, when he
was the one that heard this hadith, narrated
it and shared it with the Sahaba,
from that moment onward
there were campaigns,
and conquest attempts
at Constantinople
from the very time
of the Sahaba.
So the fulfillment of that prophecy was a
huge event.
Hence why the reconversion
of Hagia Sophia
recently last year, which I had the great
honor and pleasure of being present during that
event, was so huge.
Not just for the Turk, but for the
Muslim Ummah
because it had been converted into a church
under the Ataturk regime.
It became a museum,
but now Alhamdulillah it's become a masjid
because it was symbolic and it was synonymous
to the conquest of Constantinople.
In 15/17,
under under Khalif
Salim Yoavaz Rahimahullah,
the Ottomans defeated the Mamluks in the battle
of Marj Dabik and they declared themselves as
the Caliphate. So
Khalif Salim
Yawaz the first was the first Khalifa of
the Ottoman dynasty.
He was the 9th ruler
in the Ottoman,
rulers.
So the first 8 Ottoman rulers were not
Khalifa,
they were Sultans.
Khalif Salim
was the first Khalifa of the Ottoman,
dynasty.
Now in terms of the context of that
battle,
they defeated the Mamluks.
The Mamluks who had
upheld and preserved
the nominal and ceremonial Abbasid caliphate,
they were defeated and once the Ottomans,
forcibly made Mutawakkil the third abdicate
and gave him safe passage, that is when
Khalil Salim,
declared him and the himself and the state
to be the Khalifa of the Muslimin.
And that picture there is the very famous
picture of Sultan Fatih as he entered
Constantinople.
In 17/40/17/68
there was 28 years of peace
and the beginning of military decline.
I'm going to elaborate on this particular period
later on in the talk but it is
crucial to understand
that
that period
was very critical in terms of how competing
and neighboring
superpowers and empires of the time, namely the
Europeans,
had excelled in many fronts
when the Ottomans were taking a breather
from
expansion and conquest.
Between 18/39
to 18/76,
we had the Tanzimat reforms and the *
of European powers and not just the external
* of European European powers but their interference
in influencing and poisoning
the ideas, the values, the morals
of the Ottoman state.
In 19 09, it was the end of
the sultan and Khalif's executive rule under Khalif
Abdulhamid the second Rahimahullah.
So up until 1909,
Khalifa Abdul Hamid had executive authority over the
state.
That ended once the Young Turks had removed
him in a coup attempt in a in
a in a crew,
and that essentially, you know, Khalifa Abdul Hamid
is regarded widely and referred to widely as
the last great Khalifa or the last great
Sultan because he was the last ruler who
had,
any control over the state, its policies domestic
and foreign and so forth.
And of course in 1914,
the Ottomans
joined World War 1,
a decision that cannot be
pinned on the Khalifa at the time
rather it was a decision that was made
by the 3 secular Pashas of the time,
they're known as the 3 Pashas.
They were and the Khalifa had no real
power,
except for announcing jihad and declaring jihad and
etcetera. So he had no power. So the
decision to take the Ottomans into war in
World War 1 was one that had no
influence or no say by the Khalifa, rather
it was done by the 3 Pashas.
They joined Germany
and the side of Germany and they were,
of course, defeated in 1918,
which then resulted in the Ottoman Sultanate being
dissolved after 623
years in 1922.
In 1923,
there was the Treaty of Lausanne which was
the partitioning
of the Ottoman lands between Britain and France.
So all those straight lines that you see
from Morocco all the way to the Khaleed
and the Arabian Peninsula
was as a direct result of the Treaty
of Lausanne.
And of course,
perhaps
one of the most saddest events in Islamic
history after the passing of our beloved Prophet
Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam
on the 3rd March, 1924,
the Ottoman Caliphate was abolished.
After 407 years of its existence and of
course nearly 14 centuries of its existence from
the time the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam established
the first state in Madinah
up until that time and of course we
are fast approaching
the 100 Hegdi years of its,
demise.
It's important to understand also the characteristics of
the Ottoman state. How they define themselves,
what the state actually was in terms of
the attributes that it
it referred to in terms of defining itself,
what it was in terms of its foreign
policy, its domestic policy,
how
it defined itself when engaging with its citizens,
when it was engaging externally with other powers
and so forth.
There goes without a shadow of a doubt
that the Ottoman state was unequivocally
Islamic.
That doesn't mean
that there
were un Islamic aspects of it or that
there were moments in its history
where un Islamic laws or un Islamic incidents
or not so Islamic sultans and Khalifa ruled
over it.
What I mean by that it was an
Islamic State
was
that Hanafiq
was
codified into its State law.
They took great pride and honor in the
fact that theologically there were maturidi in their
aqidah
and they were people of the Sowulf. They
were Sufis.
This was something that is undeniable
and
it shouldn't
be, you know, it shouldn't be
conflated with perhaps
some of the Sufi groups,
today who are not interested
in politics, who are not interested
in the current affairs and generally the affairs
of the Ummah and certainly are not interested
in the
work to see such a state reemerge again.
However, the Ottomans
were Sufi
start to end. They were people of Tasawwuf
as were the Seljuks before them, as were
the Ayubis before them, right? So we should
not get it twisted and make it synonymous
to some Sufi groups and turikas that exist
today that are not interested in in in
replicating the legacy of the Ottomans.
They were proudly Turkic but they were pan
Islamic in their worldview.
How do we know this? In the language,
because the language of the Ottoman state and
the internal and external discourse was entirely Islamic.
Now, there on that slide
is a late 19th century military emblem
that was designed
by Khalif Abdul Hamid, the second Rahimahullah. And
I'm just gonna go over some of the
things within this emblem which which symbolizes and
signifies that even towards its latter stages, like
30, 40 years before the the Ottoman state
was destroyed and and was dissolved
that even up until then there were key
identifiers in this in this military emblem itself.
So the red flag with the single crescent
and star
symbolizes the Sultanate and the Turkic heritage and
the Turkic lineage of the Ottoman
household.
The green flag on the left, which has
three crescents,
is the flag of the Ottoman Caliphate. That
was the flag of the Uthmani Filafa, and
the 3 crescents represented the 3 continents, Africa,
Asia, and Europe, in which the Uthmani Khalifa
ruled over.
All the military emblems
represent things like the Janissaries, which are but
but not that they existed at that time,
but it was the kind of modernized the
modern version of what was that Janissaries
before that, the navy,
the military corpse, and so forth. That symbol
at the top is the the tughra of,
Khalifa Abdulhamid, that circle on the top and
under it is a passage from the Quran.
And so just that emblem alone,
just that military emblem alone, right, shows us
that even towards the right towards the latter
stages of the Ottoman, they still identified themselves
as holy Islamic,
right?
And in fact,
I want to and anyone who tries arguing,
anyone who tries arguing that the Ottomans
were some kind of Turkic supremacist state
is they're an outright liars
and I'm yet to see
any primary source evidence
to suggest that they saw themselves as Turkic
rulers
over non Turkic subjects. Wallahi, this is not
the case. I would like to see as
my,
as my teacher in Ottoman history,
Doctor Yaqub Ahmed
Hafidahullah
who is an Ottomanist
historian at the University of Istanbul,
as he would commonly say I would like
to see the charge sheet.
I want to see the charge sheet that
the Ottomans were un Islamic
or that they ruled by other than Islam
or that they saw themselves as a Turkic
State and not a
Islamic or, or an exclusively Muslim State
because the latter is exactly what they were.
In fact,
this whole idea that they were Turks ruling
over non Turks
was something that was instilled
externally
by Europeans,
by the European powers to create disunity and
discord within the Ottoman state. They were entirely
pan Islamic in their world view
because when you see
the
court documents,
the memoirs,
the poetry,
the way they used to address themselves, and
the way they should address
global rulers,
they should address themselves
as Islamic titles.
You know? God's shadow on earth
was a famous one
because they used to see themselves as the
implementation and the manifestation of God's law on
earth.
They were an expansionist state.
Now when I say expansionist, it's not to,
get confused by the kind of secular European
colonial way, of course Europeans will,
synonymize and equate it to it being like
any other empire of its time,
right, but what I mean by this is
that it was an expansionist state in that
it was
dedicated towards the spread of Islam
and the spread of the justice in which
Islamic law and the Islamic system had brought
to its people.
If you recall the dream of Osman which
I began today's lecture with,
in that dream
the tree did not stop growing.
If we are to accept that Sheikh Edebali
interpretation
of Osman's dream was correct,
well, at least whether it's correct or not,
the Ottomans took it as the truth. They
took, Sheikh Edebali's interpretation as the truth.
That tree did not stop growing.
It from the moment it came out of
Osman's navel in the dream, it just carried
on growing.
Hence, the name which they used to refer
to themselves as as the eternal state.
The agenda and the objective of the Ottomans
was always
for the tentacles of Islam
to reach all corners of the world.
They were a militaristic state. The Janissaries
who are meant to,
I'll I'll touch upon them later, they were
one of the first,
pre modern elite fighting corps.
Jihad fe sabilillah
and military conscription was something that was central
to the Ottoman state,
but whilst being a militaristic
state,
they were also a very tolerant and they
were very pluralistic of different faiths. Now don't
mean pluralistic in the secular liberal way where
all religions
have similar equity
and same,
political authority power. No. We're not talking about
from that point. They were pluralistic in the
sense that they allowed
impressive levels of religious freedoms
within the Ottoman state,
namely with Jews and Christians, and I'm specifically
talking about the Millet system. The Millet system
is something which I will again elaborate on
later on in the talk.
But yeah, I mean Jews and Christians
thrived and flourished under the Ottoman state.
They allowed a certain level of freedom
that quite frankly even today
in certain modern
Western states you won't find that level of
religious freedom that's given especially in the post
9/11 climate.
And of course, if there's one thing that
the Turks were greater, the Ottomans were greater,
and their Turkish predecessor before them, whether it
was the Seljuks or the Ghaznavids,
is that they were administratively
very strong. And two examples
is the Waqf system and the taxation system.
This is just 2 of many systems
which
was administratively
very effective and which allowed the Ottoman state
to remain a centralized state
and and very,
administratively strong because I'm sure you can appreciate
to
keep a state which was from
modern day Libya,
right, or Algeria, modern day Algeria and Libya,
all the way to the Arabian Peninsula bordering
Persia
as north as the Balkans and as south
as Sudan
to keep such a state
unified,
centralized, you had to be administratively
strong.
Now, of course, given that today's lecture is
entitled
what made the Ottomans
or what made them great,
we let's go over some of their achievements.
Right? And these are just some of the
key achievements that I felt were important to,
to highlight.
There are, of course, many other achievements.
They were one of the first gunpowder
empires in the world alongside the Safavids and
the Mughals. So there was about a period
of a 150 years
where
the 3 Muslim
states of that time, the Ottomans, the Safavids,
and the Mughals,
were the most powerful in the world in
in terms of having access
to gunpowder
in their armament.
And of course the Ottomans had the the
most wide ranging,
weaponry when it came to gunpowder. This is
something that the Europeans have not introduced,
but they were for a good period of
time one of the first empires and the
only states in the world to have had,
gunpowder based weaponry.
They created the first pre modern elite military
corps, the Janissaries. Now the Janissaries,
wow, the Janissaries were a unique bunch.
They were
an elite fighting force
that were entirely
dedicated towards two things,
spreading the Ottoman state
and spreading Islam
and holding
the Ottoman, the Uthmani Khalifa or the Sultan
to account,
whilst not only protecting him and the state
but also holding to an account.
The Janissaries
were a formidable fighting force. Wallahi, they they
struck fear in the hearts of every army
that they fought.
The Europeans
wrote about the Janissaries
as an undefeatable
force
because they were they they only lived and
survived for those two causes,
to fight jihad,
to spread the state, the Ottoman state, and,
of course, to protect the khalif and the
sultan whilst also holding to account. And in
some instances they got so powerful that they
would even remove Khalifa and sultans. Now I'm
not saying that's Islamically right or nor am
I saying that the reason was when they
did it throughout history was correct, but nevertheless
it shows
the level of power and influence that the
Janissaries had throughout the Ottoman period.
The Ottoman state for the best part of
4 to 500 years was a cosmopolitan,
multi ethnic, religiously pluralistic
state in the world. In fact, I'll go
as far as to say that no other
state
really came close to it in terms of
what a melting pot it was.
That so many different races and ethnicities
and religions had existed
in
impressive levels of peace and security
in comparison to other empires and states of
the time.
I mean,
if you are to look at how the
Jews and the Christians flourish on the Ottomans,
and we're not talking about the latter stages,
we're talking about
15th century, 16th century, when it was quite
frankly unthinkable.
It was unthinkable to have Jews and Christians
Jews and Muslims,
you know, flourishing,
let alone ruling by their own laws or
having their own court systems or even given
or even being given, you know, notable and
prominent positions within the state. That was something
that was unthinkable.
In fact,
no European power did this.
The French didn't do it, the British didn't
do it, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch,
the Belgian,
no one had
anyone besides white Christians
as part of the,
you know, as part of the establishment of
the power structures.
Now I personally don't agree that that I
I don't I don't believe that was the
right thing to do, by the way, by
the Ottomans. But nevertheless, it was
an impressive show
of how,
tolerant
the Ottoman state was.
They brought Islam to Eastern and Central Europe,
namely the Balkans.
So
Islam would not have reached
Bosnia,
Kosovo,
Albania,
certain parts of the caucus. Islam would not
have reached Bulgaria,
Romania,
Armenia.
It would not have reached Hungary.
It would not there would be no Islam.
There would be no Muslims there today. There
would be no mosques in those very countries
that I mentioned had it not been for
the Ottomans,
you know, giving Dawah
and spreading Islam to those lands to the
extent that
even after the Ottoman state had been dismantled,
Islam remained in those regions,
especially
Bosnia, Kosovo, and Albania,
as well as other parts of Bulgaria and
so forth.
Had it not been for the Ottomans
and their
dedicated campaign westwards into Europe
and and and and, northwestwards as well, there
would be no Islam in these areas.
The Ottomans,
they protected the Mediterranean Sea against European pirates.
Now I know that in popular western culture
and in popular western media,
whenever you see
pirates, they always seem to be tanned or
dark skinned and, you know, it's as if
they're trying to depict the pirates to be
Muslims. No. No. No. No. The real pirates
were the Europeans. It's just that now in
western academia, they're celebrated as explorers and travelers.
When in in essence, the likes of Columbus
and these guys were crooks and thieves and
and and and thugs and gangsters
on the seas. That's what they were. But
who protected the Mediterranean for over 400 years?
It was the Ottomans.
In fact, there was
there is a document from 17/96,
it's called the Treaty of Tripoli,
where America,
the United States at that time had signed
a deal
to give homage
and money to the Ottomans to protect their
navies and their expeditions in the Mediterranean,
right?
They protected the Mediterranean from,
European powers who were seeking to,
access
Africa,
who were seeking to access India.
And in fact, it was because of the
Ottoman's protection and security in the Mediterranean that
the Europeans were forced
to go and find other routes
into
India,
and and the East.
I just wanna actually, no. I'll get to
the pictures in a bit. The first picture
there that I've got on the slide
is of the Janissaries,
and you can see the Khalifa,
seeing a
military
show,
in a military parade in front of them.
And I'll get to the other picture in
a bit.
The construction work that the Ottomans carried out
was very impressive.
The fact that you could go to Masjid
Al Aqsa today,
Makkah and Madinah, for those of you who
have visited and have had the honor to
make pilgrimage to those three places as well
as,
sadly, what remains of Damascus,
Cairo,
and key,
cities in the Islamic world.
The very fact that many of the masajid
and many of the buildings remain today is
because of the construction work and the in
terms of the preservation
of these key Islamic cities.
The Ottomans welcomed the Jews after the Spanish
inquisition.
So when
Spain under
Prince or King Ferdinand and Isabella,
whilst they were forcibly making Muslims and Jews
convert to Catholicism
or face exile or outright murder
and massacre,
it was the Ottomans who opened the gates
and welcomed the Jews
to come and settle
under their stay in Istanbul where there are
even Jewish quarters today in Istanbul. Even till
today,
in Istanbul there are Jewish quarters.
They date all the way back to the
time when the Jews were expelled
from Spain
and then it was the Ottomans who sent
navies and ships
to bring the Jews
of Spain to come settle and flourish
under their state. There is never,
there is never
an incident in history
where any of the Christian European powers,
any of the Christian European powers
allowed,
as a result of such a mass exodus,
as a result of religious persecution, to allow
Muslims and Jews into their countries,
into their states and empires. There's no such
incident in the way the Ottomans did it
with the Jews.
Even when the, you know, even when there
was the potato famine, when there was a
famine in Ireland
it was the Ottomans who sent gold and
money
and then their ship that was going to
Ireland
was interceded and intercepted by,
the Queen of England, I forgot which queen
it was, and she took some of that
wealth and I believe she gave it back
to the Ottomans because she didn't want to
be embarrassed
of
not just being the cause of the famine
in Ireland,
but also the fact that she didn't want
to be embarrassed that a Muslim Mohammedan ruler
was sending so much aid
to a Christian state,
it was an embarrassing thing for them. But
this was the big hearted nature of the
Ottomans. And I would even argue say this
was generally the big heartedness
of many Muslim states and dynasties that that
predated them.
They designed, believe it or not, the first
blueprint of the first robot and they sent
it to Japan. So that image there on
the right,
under Khalifa Abdul Hamid,
that is a one of the first blueprints
of what a robot would look like. The
Ottomans were thinking of robots
and they actually sent that to Japan
to see whether there could be any kind
of
work where we can progress towards creating robots.
That is an official Ottoman document
with,
a seal that proves that it is an
authentic document and one which the Japanese till
today have corroborated
that
during the Khalifa of Khalif Abd al Hamid
that engineers and technicians at that time were
thinking about things like robots.
And perhaps one of the last achievements
right towards the latter,
weaker stages of the Ottoman state under Khalif
Abdul Hamid,
there was the train line which he wanted
to create, which would go from Istanbul
to Damascus,
Damascus to Jerusalem, Jerusalem to Medina and the
Mecca.
It wasn't just any train line.
Of course, there was a specific objective for
this train line, to make
trade
easier,
to make it easy for pilgrimage so that
the Hujjaj can use that train.
But it was the pan Islamic world view
of Khalif Abdul Hamid in trying to revive
and reconnect and bring together the Islamic world
by creating a train line of these key
cities. Now, of course, that project
never was never managed to be completed.
However, you for those of you who have
been to Madinah, you'll still see a train
a train
station or train line that was created by
the Ottomans,
And this was something which sadly didn't come
into fruition. It wasn't completed
because, of course, Khalifa Abdulhamid was was removed
by the young Turks, and they didn't prioritize
this train line because this train line wasn't
just any train line. It was an indicator
of Khalif Abdulhamid's attempts to reunify
and strengthen the Islamic bond of the Ottoman
state.
Now
it's all good and well to talk about
what made the Ottomans great.
It's all good and well to talk about
their achievements. And I do genuinely believe that
their achievements
far outweigh,
some of their shortcomings.
Of which some of their shortcomings were very
major, but I believe that it's incomparable to
say that it was a kind of a
50 50 kind of thing. No. Their their
achievements
and the khair and the goodness that they
did for Islam and Muslims and mankind at
the time and its citizens, irrespective of faith,
outweighed the negatives. However, it is important that
we do address the negatives.
And it's also important to highlight, brothers and
sisters,
what from these commonly cited,
negatives is facts and what is propaganda
and what was
exaggerated.
It's also important to understand my brothers and
sisters
is that
we cannot,
as Muslims,
present
Islamic history,
not just the Ottomans,
whether it be
even the Khulafa'ar Rashidin, the Umayyads, the Abbasids,
the Ottomans, the Yubids, the Mamluks,
the Ghaznavids,
the Sakhota Caliphate,
all the various Western African,
Malayan sultanates throughout the time,
we should not
present Islamic history as a utopian civilization,
because it wasn't.
How can we ever romanticize our history to
the extent
that we present it as
everything was so hunky dory,
Right? Everything was perfect and after his demise
everything went bad.
There is truth to this,
but we need to be mindful
that
Islamic history was not all roses.
There were civil wars.
There were disputes between,
rival dynasties.
There were power struggles both internally and externally
between Muslim states.
Right?
And
even the fact that the Sharia,
God's law, Allah's law,
there is a penal code for when crimes
are committed
or that there is a mechanism in which
the Sharia has to account and remove a
ruler
shows that it is not it is not
a Utopian state and it is not a
Utopian system.
Rather what we say is that the Sharia,
Allah's laws, is the best system and the
best law to govern mankind given
the
the the the fallibility
of of of mankind.
That is the position
that we should have. The position that we
should have is that, yes, Islamic civilization, Islamic
history was not perfect. However,
it was significantly
better than the situation that Ummah finds itself
today. And when I refer to the Ummah,
I'm talking about from two perspectives. The Ummah
in terms of the global Muslim nation
and its population of 1 point something 1000000000
plus, but also I'm referring to the Muslim
majority world where
Islamic states and and and empires and and
sultanates and so forth did rule over. If
you were to compare the situation
today to that of the past,
it is incomparable.
Right?
So before I go into the facts and
the propaganda and the negatives, I want to
drive this point home.
Islamic civilization is not a utopian state. We
should be mindful not to romanticize it to
the extent
that we project it as something that had
no fault. There were many faults. There were
many mishaps.
There were many issues and incidents that took
place. However, what we say is
that it was way better,
incomparable
to the situation that we find ourselves in
today.
And I will elaborate on that point later,
but let's go over some of the negatives.
What is true? What is propaganda? What's an
over exaggeration?
Now if you recall,
when I went over the key events of
the,
Ottoman history and or Ottoman state,
after the civil war that broke out
between the sons of Sultan Bayezid
after their defeat by the Timurids,
that there was a civil war which is
known as the Ottoman interregnum between his 3,
4 sons
and that after the end of that civil
war, a fatwa and a state law was
passed
of fratricide.
Now fratricide is when the
crown prince or crown shazadeh or the crown
sultan or crown Khalifa, whatever you wanna call
them, the the the son or the prince
who is assumed to to take over from
his father usually,
that he would kill his brothers.
Now
we can
sit here in 2021,
you know, and,
you know, in the comforts of our life
and say that, yeah, you know, it goes
without saying that this is unequivocally haram and
I am also of this position that
I don't know how killing your
blood brothers, your siblings, or any Muslims for
that matter could be Islamically justified. However,
the thinking was this.
For those of you who have had a
cursory reading or understanding of Islamic law, you
know that there is a concept or an
idea called
al Maqasid al Sharia.
Now Maqasid al Sharia
is generally the overarching
objectives
of which the Sharia seeks to preserve and
protect,
right?
Now after the civil war and during the
civil war the situation was so bad brothers
and sisters,
that civil war was so bad that so
many Muslims had died, so many citizens of
the Ottoman state were killed between a faction,
between a war between 3, 4 brothers.
A war between 3, 4 brothers
had merely resulted in the destruction of the
state and so much
death
and so much
opportunity
for the enemies of the state
to intervene, to interfere,
to instigate,
that the Ulema at the time of the
Sultan,
at the time after the
the Ottoman Interregnum, the civil war,
said that
to preserve
Islam
and to preserve
the security of the state and the unity
of the state and its citizens,
that it is better
for
the other brothers or the other princes to
be killed to avoid such a civil war
that time. So one of the things which
the Sharia seeks to preserve and protect
is
people's deen, the religion, and of course to
provide security for its citizens.
The civil war that ensued between 1402 to
14/13
was so damaging.
It was so crazy
that after that to avoid such an incident
to take place,
they passed this fatwa, it became state law
that the,
that we would never have
an incident or situation again where Ottoman princes
would be fighting for power which would result
in the disunity,
dismantling the death and destruction
of the state and its subjects and its
citizens.
Right?
However, this law existed for about
200 or so years until
until Sultan Ahmed the first, Rahim Muhullah
disbanded this law, he got rid of this
law,
and he introduced that it is perhaps better
to put them out to put
the princes of the shazadeh
who did not become sultans and khalifas
to put them into faraway exile them into
certain palaces
and not to give them any positions of
power or authority to to avoid,
any kind of civil war, but he banned
the practice of killing brothers. Now for those
of you who've been Istanbul
and you've been to,
the Blue Mosque or known as the Sultan
Ahmed Mosque, it is that Sultan Ahmed who
built that mosque, who that mosque is named
after, was the one who got rid of
that law of killing each other's brothers. Now,
of course,
again,
it should be added that the Ottomans were
not the first to practice fatricide.
I think they they were the 1st Muslim
state
to codify and enshrine it into the state
law.
However, fratricide was a somewhat common practice
amongst other empires and states of the time,
dating way back to,
pre ancient empires as well. But the Islamic
justification that was given at the time
was that it was better,
it was better
to for for 2, 3 princes to be
killed
than to have a civil war every time
when there is an opportunity where the where
a sultan, Ra Khalifa, is dying and then
his sons are at each other's throats and
they start siding with, European states and start
killing each other and weakening the state and
essentially creating disunity amongst the Muslims
and also the implementation of Allah's laws becomes
disruptive when there's a civil war.
So that was the object that was the
justification that was given for the law of
fratricide.
The,
the use of eunuchs. Now for those of
you who don't know what eunuchs are, they
are castrated male slaves.
They were slaves
that were purchased in slave markets.
From my reading, the Ottomans themselves did not
carry out this
operation.
They were essentially mutilated
slaves that, you know, had some of their
sexual organs
snicked
and yes they became
the prominent and the main
inhabitants of the Ottoman palaces.
What am I supposed to say? What can
we say about the existence of eunuchs? Again
the the the use of eunuchs was not
something that was exclusive to the Ottomans. The
Mughals had them, the Abbasids had them, I
believe even the Mamluks had them. But I
think it was the Ottomans that made it
a thing of theirs
to ensure that the eunuchs
resided in their palaces.
And the reason for that is that
they were unable to have any kind of
sexual desires towards the
women of the palaces,
the the royal women, the royal women of
the Ottoman palaces, that eunuchs were unable to,
commit zina with them, they could be trusted
in terms of looking after them and protected
them. I know this isn't a justification, but
it
is fact is fact.
Eunuchs went on to become some of the
most powerful and influential people within the Ottoman
state. Why is that? They were the eyes
and ears of the palace. They were the
eyes and ears of the palace and some
eunuchs went on to become very, very influential
people within the Ottoman state.
Slave trade. Yes. The Ottomans were involved in
the slave trade, but it was a slave
trade that was essentially centered around the procurement
of slaves by a war
and conquest.
Right? It cannot be compared in any shape
or form to the transatlantic
slave trade led by Britain and other European
powers which was entirely
created
to subjugate
free people of Africa,
to subjugate them, to force them into slavery
and horrific levels
of living conditions,
enslaving them and then using them
as labor and all kinds of things in
America
and other parts of the new world. It
simply cannot be compared that the Europeans
had a specific
project, a specific plan that they implemented
which was the transatlantic slave trade, that the
the Ottomans were not part of that.
They were part of a slave trade which
is as a result of war and conquest,
Right?
So yeah, and at the time it was
something that was accepted and something that was
normal.
And in fact, I should also add to
this,
you know, the rights that Islam gives
slaves,
first and foremost, the overarching objective is to
free the slave.
That's something which we know
for those of you who have a cursory
understanding of,
you know, Islamic history and some of the
hadith and the verses of Allah Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala in the Quran and some of the
actions of the sahab and the salafu salihim.
You know the overarching
objective is to free the slave.
Yeah.
We know the famous story of Imam Malik
Rahimahullah
who people were asking him to address freeing
slaves in the Khutba.
1 week went, he didn't address it. 2
weeks went, he didn't address it. And the
3rd week, he addressed it. And then someone
asked him, Imam Malik, why did you not
address this in the previous Jum'ah as when
we asked you? He said it's because I
had a slave myself, and until I freed
him, I felt that it was hypocritical to
address it. And we know that the rights
which slaves have
under Islam is something which quite frankly is
incomparable to any other civilization or any other,
worldview.
And it was not something which,
you know, Islamic states or empires or civilizations
were were specifically,
you know, * bent on
monopolizing.
They were involved but they were involved generally
as a result of war.
Another controversial
aspect of the Ottoman state and one of
his policies was the devisem system.
Now the devisem system
was where
one boy or one son from each Christian
household would be taken by the Ottomans,
they would be educated,
fed, clothed and they would eventually join the
Ottoman army.
Now
the way the Ottomans justified this is that
this would only apply
in those areas
which were conquered through battle.
So if the Ottomans had to fight to
take a particular region or a particular city
and they lost men as a result of
that,
that is where
the the Visham system would kick in. Now
where they lost men and they had to
fight for a particular land to take that
land,
one Christian boy or son from each household
will be taken so as long as there's
at least 2 sons. If a Christian household
had one son, that one son wouldn't be
taken. It's only when there was 2 sons
or more.
Now,
you know,
they were one of the first ones to
kind of incorporate it into their state law
and made it into an actual system. It
was actually very it was more predominant. In
in fact, it was mostly implemented in the
Balkans and in certain parts of Europe. So
modern day Bosnia, Serbia,
maybe, you know, Armenia, some of the Greek
some some of the Greek dominated areas today
in Europe.
It was in those areas where the Ottomans
had to fight on the conquered Israel and
they lost men, and that's where the policy
was justified.
Look.
No one can say that, you know, a
family would have willingly gave their sons all
the time and it wasn't heartbreaking that their
sons were essentially forcibly taken.
But it wasn't entirely all bad. I know
people,
non Muslims, are probably watching this. Some Muslim
may be watching, what? Are you crazy? If
that's the case, then why do we have
poetry?
Why do we have documentations?
Why do we have books written about certain
Christian families and households and communities within the
Balkans
who
pushed their sons to to go and join
the Ottomans, who wanted to give more of
their sons. Why is that?
They became the main source of income
and they were paid very well. When they
eventually joined the Ottoman army or became the
Janissaries
and many of them went on to become
Muslim,
they became the main source of income for
their families.
These boys that were taken from these Christian
households went on to become
governors,
military leaders, generals, pashas,
something which would have been unforeseeable
and unimaginable
had they remained
within their
households
as Christian minorities or majority in whatever land.
And that it became a source of honor
and idza for some Christian households and families
that, you know, yes, the Ottomans took our
son but he went on to achieve great
things and he became a very senior person.
He essentially supported the family and made us
wealthy and so forth. But this is something
which Christians,
European Christians commonly cite,
and it's understandable.
It's understandable that, you know,
sons were taken from household by force and
they were and by force they were made
to join the Ottoman army. But the flip
side, the justification that was given by the
Ottomans was that well,
we did we told you not to fight
us. And when you fought us, we lost
our men. We need to replenish the fighting
force, so therefore we'll take your sons. That
was the thinking of the Ottomans.
A very
commonly cited one which we'll hear even up
until today is the Armenian genocide of 1915.
Was it really a genocide
or was it a case of treason? Now
the Armenians,
the Armenians were
citizens of the Ottoman state, they were citizens
of the Ottoman Caliphate.
They were bound by contract
to not raise arms against them, to not
commit treason against them and not to conspire
with the state's enemies.
The Armenians did that. Well, at least the
Armenian intellectuals and the leaders did that at
the time. They conspired with the Russians
who the Ottomans were at war with,
and they conspired with the French who the
Ottomans were at war with.
Their intellectuals and their leaders were seeking help
and even in many cases received weapons and
funding
from states that the Ottomans were at war
with.
So, of course,
there was not a genocide that was carried
out. What actually happened was that they were
their leadership were killed
because that
was the the had that was
the Islamic punishment for treason
and then
because the Armenian intellectuals and the leaders had
great mass support amongst his
people, the Ottomans simply couldn't risk it so
they were forced to they forced him into
exile
during the beginning of the World War 1
where there was a perilous journey
towards Deir Ezzur, the deserts of Deir Ezzur
in modern day Syria.
And of course, during that perilous journey,
100 if not thousands of Armenians
had died in that journey and of course
I'm not even gonna dismiss
or or or or, you know, downplay
the possibility,
and I'm sure it actually happened, where
certain Ottoman soldiers or garrisons,
may have committed * and torture and killing
whilst the Armenians
were
making that
were making that journey when they were exiled
by the Ottomans
during
1915. But was it a genocide?
Was it a genocide in the sense of
the Holocaust?
Was it a genocide in the sense of
what happened to the Rohingya?
Was it a genocide in the sense of
what happened is happening to the Uyghurs?
No, it wasn't.
The fact of the matter is this,
and I know many people won't like this,
when you are the citizens
of an Islamic state, we are the citizens
of any state for that matter,
the least they expect for me is not
to raise arms against you and not to
conspire with its enemies.
The prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam
also had this approach with Banu Quraydah,
when they committed treason against the Muslims
with Quraysh
and the other confederate tribes during the battle
of Hamdak
and a harsh punishment
was sent down upon them
where the men
where the men and boys of puberty onward
had the capital punishment carried out on
them. That's the price you pay for committing
treason and conspiring with the enemies of the
state.
The leadership were killed,
the intellectuals who were igniting these ideas and
were rallying the masses
were killed
and the people were forced into exile.
Is that a genocide?
No. But people died
during that perilous journey.
Many died during that perilous journey.
And
many of the women folk were wrongly,
treated
during that journey by some Ottoman soldiers and
garrisons. No one's denying that. It would be
unfair to call it a genocide. It was
as a result of the treason
that the Armenian leadership had committed
against the Ottoman state.
Last but not least,
it became a common term, I believe it
was coined by the French but it could
have been the Russian but I think it
was coined by the French that the Ottomans
were the was the sick man of Europe.
It was an outdated,
it was an outdated
regressive
religious state that kind of had no place
in
modern Europe or in the modern world.
It was a state that was
technologically
backward.
Its its its its its army and its
military was
not up there, really up to scratch and
up to par with its European counterparts.
It was still kind of involved in religious
dogma and so forth, it had not embraced
enlightenment and the age of science and reason,
etcetera and so forth, and therefore it was
a sick man of Europe, one which is,
what do you do with a sick man,
an aging ailing sick man?
You either finish him off by euthanasia
or it's just really a case of a
ticking,
a ticking
exercise until it finishes. But this was a
lie.
The fact that the Ottomans,
this this this this this perception that, you
know, that they were the sick man of
Europe was was an outright lie. It was
actually done
to, you know, negatively impact the morale of
the Ottoman state and to make them feel
that they weren't part of the global stage.
Sure. They were weak.
They were definitely weak on paper if you
were to compare their economy,
how much debt that the state had in
terms of technology,
in terms of modernization of the army and
and its weaponry. Yeah. They were.
It certainly wasn't a sick man. I'll tell
you why. Because if he was such a
sick man,
why couldn't the Europeans and the British specifically
be able to defeat them
in in Gallipi
or in the Donardelles?
How is it that the British got battered
in the siege of Qult in Iraq?
And that the only way in which the
Ottomans were actually defeated
was when Britain sent TE Lawrence, Lawrence of
Arabia,
to the Arabian Peninsula
and stirred up some of the Arab tribal
leaders namely the Sharif of Makkah
and basically started an Arab revolt.
So essentially what it was, it was a
backstab and it was it was the igniting
of a civil war
that really dealt the final blow towards the
Ottomans. Whereas up until that point,
the Ottomans were doing quite well during World
War 1 given
the restricted and the limited,
you know, armament and manpower and gunpowder in
comparison to the Europeans that they were fighting.
They were far from the sick man of
Europe. In fact, what diff
what the the the the knife which drew
that final blow, that stab which finished it
off, it was the Arab revolts.
It was having to fight
it was having to fight in the eastern
front,
in the what's what's common day, today's Makkah,
Medina,
Damascus, Jerusalem, when when the Arab revolt
had turned and had reached those places with
the support of the British, that's what finished
off the Ottomans. As prior to that,
they were holding it down. They were putting
up a good fight.
Just there in terms of the images,
if you look at the top picture that's
some of the kind of
propaganda,
cartoons that was spread and circulated
to affect the morale of the Ottomans.
There you have the European powers surrounding it,
hunting a bird
with the kind of sultan's
headgear on,
basically trying to, you know,
give off the message that it's only a
matter of time before the Ottomans were finished
and I believe that picture was
very very early in the 20th century, so
early 1900s.
I believe the image below
is when the Armenians were exiled
and forced out of
whatever lands that they were residing in,
after it was known that their leaders and
the intellectuals were conspiring with Russia.
And also the fact that they failed and
they refused
to give up any of their men folk
and weaponry
towards the war effort of World War I.
The reasons for the decline and the demise
of the Ottoman state.
The reasons for decline and demise of any
state,
there's never one single reason.
It's
complex, it's multi complex, it's multifaceted.
There's never just one reason. Sure,
Some re
some some incidents or some events
are more significant than others and play a
bigger role than others.
However,
in the case of the Ottomans,
it was an array of things. There were
there were multiple issues. I personally have my
view with regards to what played a bigger
role than others and I will explain my
reasons why
and back it by some of the views
of
prominent and celebrated Ottomanist historians who don't kind
of necessarily come from a kind of an
orientalist
background.
The reasons for the decline and the eventual
demise of the Ottoman state
vary. I'm just going to highlight some of
them.
When I mentioned earlier
that one of the achievements and one of
the things which the Ottomans did very great
was that they were administratively
strong.
The reason why they were administratively strong is
that
they gave a level of autonomy
to
governors
and pashas and beys
who basically
oversaw the management and the the authority and
the implementation of Ottoman law
into,
into those regions of those lands. What ended
up happening is they gave them too much
autonomy.
Eventually
the Ottoman sultans and Khalifa gave way too
much autonomy
to some of the governors and pashas and
beys. You know, the most famous one is
Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt who essentially became
a ruler in and of himself and separate
and independent
to the Khalifa at the time in Istanbul
and essentially became more powerful than the Khalifa
in the at one period.
And that was one of the dangers.
As a result of being so administratively
strong and being so centralized,
it required giving some level of autonomy
to its governors and pashas but it got
to a point where they gave them too
much autonomy and too much power which then
led to corruption and nepotism.
There was an intellectual stagnation
and there was a level of resisting
modernity.
What I mean by this is that under
the period of Khalif Suleyman the Magnificent or
Suleyman al Khanuni the lawgiver,
the son
of the,
of Khalif Salim Yoavaz, the 2nd Khalifa
of the Ottomans and the 10th sultan of
the Ottomans,
Suleiman the Magnificent al Qanuni.
It was under his period
where Hanafi faq and Hanafi jurisprudence became codified
into
Ottoman state law.
Now what ended up happening after that was
that the gates of Ijtihad started closing.
Now we know, if you have any students
of knowledge here, we know that the Sharia
and and and and fiqh
is something which is very robust. Yes. We
have a framework.
We have a base upon which we work
within the Quran, the sunnah, the ijma'at, the
sahabah, and the qiyas of the scholars. We
know that there is a particular framework which
we do not transgress or overstep, that it
is within that particular boundary which we feel
is sufficient for mankind from now until the
day of judgement. But the the Sharia and
and Islamic display is something that's robust.
Right? It deals with new realities. This is
why Islam would be here from the time
it came to the people right to the
end of times. It because it will be
able to deal with new realities and new
situations
as times pass and as time change. And
there was a level of resistance
by the,
scholarly,
council and the scholarly power within the Ottoman
state when it came to technology,
when it came to taking things from Europeans.
And the irony is that
those things which the Ottomans shouldn't have taken
from the Europeans at the latter stages, I'm
talking about
mid to late 19th century,
the things which they shouldn't have taken from
the from the Europeans, they ended up taking.
So certain ideas,
certain reforms with regards to the penal code
and so forth because these were things which
were grounded in Christian European
thinking and ideology.
But the things which should have been taken,
right, whether it was, you know, modernizing weapons,
whether it was war strategies, whether even if
it was things like the printing press or
the or or the telephone or telegram,
there was a level of resistance to these
kind of things and therefore there was a
I wouldn't say regression but there was a
kind of
there was a kind of resistance to being
open to the idea of new things because
it got to a point where they felt
that the
that, you know, Islamic law at that time
was sufficient and enough and adequate to deal
with all realities.
So that that kind of contributed towards
the intellectual decline of the Ottoman state because
at the end of the day,
the the citizen of the state as well
as different
constituencies of the Ottoman state were looking at
Europeans and seeing how they were advancing. Now,
of course,
we have to appreciate that the European counterparts,
the Ottomans' European counterparts
had got to where they were from an
industrial and global scale massacre
and looting,
wiping out entire regions,
whether it be the native Americans in modern
day United States, whether it be the aboriginal
people in Australia, whether it be the kind
of
native people of
the Americas and South Americas, these people were
literally wiped
out. Wiped out.
Yeah? And and and and it is from
that that they,
you know, reaped huge
financial rewards.
Gold, precious stones, natural resources,
and so forth. Slaves, the transacting slavery. There
was a huge advantage that the Europeans had
to kind of basically,
you know, you know, to put them in
a more advantage situation,
economically, politically
to in comparison to the Ottomans. But it
didn't help also
that there was a genuine
progression within European state
in in terms of science, in terms of,
technology,
things which the Ottomans not only could have
taken from them, but could have built on
those things to strengthen the state and given
confidence
to its citizens that, you know, they weren't
that far behind
with their European counterparts.
There was also a period,
at the beginning of today's lecture when I
spoke about key events,
the period of 17 40 to 17 68
where there was 28 years of peace.
Now when I say 20 years of peace,
what I mean by this is that there
was no
active
outward military expansion or military campaigns to expand
the state.
And this is something that's backed by 2,
perhaps one of the most well known Ottomanist
historians.
1st and foremost, I'm going to cite Doctor
Virginia Aksan from her book Ottoman Wars and
Empire BC, she wrote,
the Ottoman Empire
continued to maintain a flexible and strong economy,
society, and military
throughout 17th
and much of 18th century.
However,
during a long period of peace from 17/40
to 17/68,
the Ottoman military system fell behind that of
their European rivals.
And that is corroborated and backed by
Surya Farooqi, another very well known Ottoman historian,
who is from the UK.
In her book The Ottoman Empire and the
World Around It, she wrote
moreover,
in the 18th century, when expansion
definitely had ended, Ottoman military effectiveness
and sultanic concern for army reform were not
totally at an end. So what these two
Ottoman historians are saying and others have made
this point as well is that during this
period of 17/40 to 17/68,
the Ottomans were not engaged in any kind
of major outward military campaign to expand their
state.
But let me give you some context with
regards to that.
From 12/99,
when Sultan Osman established the 1st Balik to
17/40,
brothers and sisters,
is 4
41 years.
For 4
41 years, the Ottomans were in a constant
state of jihad,
in a constant state of military conquest in
seeking to expand, not just preserve and protect
what they had already established and conquered, but
to just carry on it, trying to fulfill
that dream of Osman,
trying to fulfill that tree that continued to
grow.
In 17/40
to 17/68,
the Ottomans took a breather after 441
years. That was a mistake on their part,
but at the end of the day, at
the time, they felt that the times were
good.
The riches and and the riches and the
spoils were so much that, you know, there
was no need to kind
of immediately think about any expansion because
where they were not directly expanding into, there
were existing,
peace treaties
where they were paying the jizya or they
were paying financial homages,
to ensure that the Ottomans did not,
engage in war with them. But it is
during that 28 years of peace
where the Europeans have truly excelled.
They had truly excelled. So whilst the Ottoman
state was taking a breather, the autumn the
the European counterparts were excelling
at a phenomenal pace,
at a phenomenal pace.
And I believe that I personally believe that
this was one of the main reasons for
military for the decline, for the what began
the decline.
Right?
Because at the end of the day, if
if being in a constant state of war
and to expand your state was working,
if for 441 years it was working,
you know, in hindsight, you could argue, well,
what what what made you feel like that
it was okay to stop?
But at the end of the day, if
you
look at it,
it was the case that so much had
been achieved.
So many great things have been achieved. So
many fronts were opened.
The riches were so much
that the Ottoman state felt at the time
that it wasn't a priority.
Right? That's a very simple explanation, but generally
speaking, that's the thinking behind it.
But I believe alongside
the 28 years of peace between 17/47/68,
the true killer,
the true killer
of what resulted in the demise of the
Ottoman state was the spread of national of
nationalism,
both internally
and what was happening in Europe around that
time.
And of course it was Asabiyyah and nationalism
and the Arab revolt which also
led to the direct
demise and defeat of the Ottomans during World
War I. Now brothers and sisters, nationalism is
not an idea that comes from the Islamic
tradition.
Nationalism
or
a bond of statehood or identifying a state,
carving up a state based on language, based
on
cultural similarities,
food,
these kind of things, it's not from the
Islamic tradition.
Nationalism is an ideology
and a type of statehood that is distinctly
European
and was distinctly born out of Europe's struggle
with Catholicism and Christianity.
It was something that was directly born out
of the period of enlightenment, it was something
that was directly born
out of the result of
Europeans
and their inability
to live in peace with one another.
So of course this this
idea
was perfect
to disunite
and and and destabilize the Ottomans because
you had Armenian nationalism, you had Serbian nationalism,
you had Albanian nationalism, you had Greek nationalism,
you had all
to in the in the beginning to the
mid to the late 19th century, throughout the
entirety of the 1800
and especially during the early 1900,
that's all the Ottomans were dealing with.
Besides fighting the Russians and fighting other European
powers, they had to deal with
a separatist movement in all their fronts, especially
in the Balkans,
as well as in Greece
and what's modern day Armenia and and and
and eventually even with the Arabs or or
some of the tribal Arab leaders who sided
with the British.
Nationalism was one of the
one one of the most dangerous blows
to what contribute towards the demise of the
Ottomans. To the extent where
the lost Sheikh Islam
of the Uthmani Khilafa,
Sheikh Mustafa Sabri Afendi Rahimahullah
said that the two things which resulted in
the destruction of the caliphate
was secularism
or not he said secular nationalism
and atheism. He goes these two things
finished off the Ottoman state and this was
the last Sheikh Islam of the Ottoman state.
And of course, these ideas
led to the emergence of the movement that's
known as the Young Turks,
who essentially looked towards,
the West and Europe
for revival, for
resurgence,
to remain relevant.
They took these ideas from Europeans,
right, and injected and poisoned it within the
state and even amongst the masses.
And look,
whilst I said that the Ottomans weren't the
sick men of wasn't wasn't the sick men
of Europe, we can't help but accept that
on paper
on paper, the European counterparts
were far more technologically advanced
than they were. Hence why even during the
khilaf of Khalif Abdul Hamid the second he
used to consistently and regularly seek the help
and assistance and aid of the Germans.
In terms of modernizing the army, in terms
of, you you know, military reforms, ideas were
taken from the French and then later on
the Germans, you know, and and and and
and just the gun power and the quality
of the ships and stuff just wasn't up
to the standard of Britain and France and
Russia and and other countries, but named it
Britain and France.
All these things put together
were the reasons for the decline of the
eventual demise of the Ottoman state. If I
had to pick 3
from that list,
it has to be the fact that for
28 years, there was no active outward military
campaign
to expand the Ottoman state. For some reason
or another,
the fulfillment of Osman's dream
stopped at that point or it wasn't given
a great priority.
The argument against that would be that so
much had been achieved that they deserved a
breather.
The spread of nationalism
the spread of nationalism
and and and of course, the fact that
in terms of weaponry
and military prowess,
they were much weaker than their European counterparts.
But all those things which I've mentioned and
and far other thing and more other things,
for example, at the Ottoman state after the
Crimean war
start became heavily indebted with Britain and France.
It started taking interest based loans
from the Europeans. There were so many things
that contribute towards the decline and the eventual
demise, but I believe that those reasons which
I stated are perhaps some of the most
important ones which contribute towards its,
abolition.
But why are we in 2021,
in the UK
discussing Ottoman history? Why did Birmingham City University
Islamic Society
decide to have the Ottomans as a theme
to discuss
throughout a series of lectures?
It's because brothers and sisters, the Ottomans were
the last legitimate Islamic authority.
You know when we talk about
1 Ummah, 1 Ummah, kay, we know that
we are 1 Ummah, we are Ummatal Wahid.
We know this. We know from the hadith
of the Ummah being one body and that
when something paraphrase, when something happens in one
part of the body the rest of you
respond in feverishness and restlessness. We know that
Allah
says in the Quran that verily the the
the the Muslims the the believers are but
brothers. There are so many references
and emphasis in Islamic and Muslim brotherhood. We
know that one of the reasons which Islam
allows us to lie, which is a sin,
which is a major sin, is to bring
2 Muslims, 2 warring Muslims to reconcile 2
Muslims.
But the real manifestation of 1 Ummah
is from a civilizational
point of view.
After the Ottomans, there was no Islamic civilization.
There was no Islamic civilization.
Whether
no one's saying that they were perfect, they
were far from perfect.
But for all their shortcomings, they were the
last manifestation
of a unifying Islamic authority which transcended borders
and nationalities and ethnicities.
The Ottomans were the last dynasty
to hold a seat of the caliphate.
A system, a state, an idea, an institution
which started from our beloved prophet sallallahu alaihi
wa sallam
all the way up to 1924,
uninterrupted with exception to 3 years between 1258
to 1261 during the Mongol invasion,
it existed.
Good, bad and ugly existed,
and they were the last dynasty to hold
that seat.
Another reason why understanding
Ottoman history, why it's so important for us,
is the time and distance.
Hey, we can we can read the silla,
we can read the history of the Umayyads
and the Abbasids,
but the Ottomans were were literally in the
20th century.
Many of our great grandfathers and grandpa great
grandparents would have known who the Ottomans were.
Right?
Istanbul,
97 Gregorian years ago, was the capital of
the caliphate.
So, therefore, due to time and distance and
because
because of what happened to the Ottomans
in the way that they were dealt with,
in the way that they were plotted and
planned against, in the way that they were
defeated and the reasons for their defeat
has resulted in the situation that we find
in the Muslim majority world today. It's mainly
Middle East and North Africa.
The situation of Middle East and North Africa
the Middle East and North Africa from Morocco
all the way to the Arabian Peninsula,
the the the socio economic and socio political
situation that we have today
is the legacy, is the colonial legacy
of how of what happened with the when
the Ottomans were defeated and the and the
land that were under their rule was dismantled
and carved up by Sykes mister Sykes and
Pico.
Right?
And the kind of
destabilization,
occupation, death and destruction, all of that followed
as a result of the destruction of the
Ottoman state.
They were the last example of manifestation of
Islamic unity.
Today, we have 57 or so Muslim majority
secular nation states
who sing national anthems
that did not exist 80 to 90 years
ago,
who wave flags and die for flags and
fight for flags that did not exist 80,
90 years ago.
We know
this. Whether you are Algerian, whether you are
Libyan, whether you're Bangladeshi, Pakistani, or even though
even though the Ottoman,
rule did not extend the way into
Southeast Asia, but the point here is the
Muslim majority countries that we have today, these
flags are new.
These national anthems are new, these things did
not exist 18, 90 years ago, these borders
did not exist 18, 90 years ago.
So when we talk about 1 Umma and
we're talking about yet Islamic unity, the Ottomans
were the only manifest the last manifestation of
that.
And last but not least,
we look towards the Ottomans not to reestablish
the Ottomans.
We look towards Ottoman history not to
want a state like the Ottomans. No, we
want something better than that.
We want the state that was promised to
us by Allah and His Messenger.
We want the khilafa ar Rasidah.
That's what we want.
We want a state to re emerge Insha'Allah.
It's not a matter of
if, it's a matter of when because it's
a prophecy.
Allah promised us to believe, Allah promised the
believers that he will establish us on earth,
Right? And we know from the famous hadith
of of Rasulullah in Musad Ahmad
where prophet said that there will be khilafa
or rashida, then it will be kingship, then
it will be biting too many, then there
will be no khilafa and then it will
reemerge
upon his methodology and he remained silent, Amba
ulama and the scholar of hadith said that
the silent meant that when this state reemerges,
it's here forever. Good, bad, or ugly, it's
here forever.
So we don't discuss Ottoman history
to replicate the mistakes of the Ottomans
or to have a state like the Ottomans
or the Abbasids or the Umayyads. No, what
we want is a state and a civilization
which is akhilafaar
Rasida.
You know, when we talk about the golden
period of Islam, the golden age of Islam,
look, this whole this coinage of this term
of golden age of Islam is something that
was essentially coined by Western Europeans
When they speak
about Andalus or when they talk about Baghdad
under the Abbasids and, you know, scientific,
advancement and and, you know, all the, you
know, the the age of reason and and
the centers of knowledge, that's fine. No one's
disputing that. That for nearly a millennia, the
Islamic world and Islamic civilization was the center
of learning. But when we talk about the
golden state, the golden age,
it can only be the 4 rightly guided
caliphs after a sunnah or else why would
they be called the rightly guided
Khalifa?
Because we don't judge,
we don't judge a civilize we don't judge
Islamic civilization,
we don't judge Islamic states
and polities
by how well they're doing in maths or
science.
Right? We judge them by how close they
are in governing and ruling according to Islam.
So we look towards the Ottomans
first and foremost because we are living the
result, we are living and breathing an experience
and seeing and witnessing
the outcome and the result of what happened
when they were destroyed.
We look towards the Ottomans to learn from
their lessons and their mistakes.
This is why understanding,
learning,
researching and of course teaching and discussing Ottoman
history is so
important
to
Muslims.
To conclude brothers and sisters,
I pray to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala
that we all live to see a time
where
we have such a polity.
We have such a institution,
which is not at the behest and enslaved
to the 5 permanent security members of the
UN, namely Russia, America, China,
and Britain and France.
We wanna,
Insha'Allah, in our lifetime see
a situation
where at least there is a ruler
who will defend the honor of the Muslims
even if it means something like cutting trade,
dis you know, expelling diplomats,
threat you know, at least at least paying
a lip service
to military action
when 2,000,000 of our brothers and sisters are
in concentration
camps in China,
or that over a1000000 have been killed in
Syria and half the population are living as
refugees,
or that over half a 1000000 Rohingya refugees
are have been forced out of their lands
and so many mothers and sisters were raped,
their children were burnt in fires.
The fact that Masjid al Aqsa and al
Quds remains occupied under the Zionist entity
and yet we have
not just rulers and states and governments that
are spineless, no, it's not good enough for
them to be spineless, as if that wasn't
bad enough, they are complicit.
They are complicit and involved in the oppression
of their fellow brothers and sisters.
We have the natural resources, we have the
manpower.
The issue here, one is of leadership.
That's what it is.
The issue here is one of leadership. So
I pray to Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala that
we live to see a time where at
least contribute towards
the reemerges of changing the Ummah situation collectively.
And last but not least brothers and sisters,
we are living a very critical time.
We are living a very critical time in
Islamic history. I conclude many of my lectures
to ISOCs like this
because never in Islamic history have we has
the Ummah found itself in a situation like
it does today.
I know some well known du'aat like making
the comparison to the Mongol invasion of 1258.
No. It makes no sense.
I know that some,
ulama and some well known du'aat and Muslim
personalities like making a comparison to, oh, well,
we have tyrants today and we have tyrants
of the past and they refer to Hajj
al Din Youssef or they refer to other
tyrannical rulers and military generals. Look.
Look. We had tyrants.
We had tyrannical rulers. We had tyrannical military
generals.
We had civil wars and power struggles for
Islamic civilization. But you know what the difference
is? Hence what the difference is. Even whilst
this was happening,
even whilst all these things were happening,
jihadi, sabiliyyah was still happening.
There was still an objective to want to
spread the justice and the laws of Islam.
The fact that the institutions,
the values and morals of society was Islamic.
The fact that the Islamic courts were there
to address all of the public affairs of
the Ummah according to divine Sharia law. The
fact that
irrespective of irrespective
of
the the the disputes and the power struggles,
they ruled by Islam or an interpretation of
what they believe to be Islam, not just
a ceremonial
inclusion in the constitution.
Oh la ilaha illaam, alhamdulillah in the Quran
and that's it. Finished. Everything else is secular
laws. Everything is is all un Islamic but
we just stuck it in there in our
constitution. No no no. During that period,
whatever problems Islamic civilization was happening, it was
happening internally
whilst the Muslims were in authority and in
power. They never abandoned the outward
duty of Bawah and Jihad
whilst the internal problems were happening. The power
dynamics were entirely different. The balance of power
was entirely different.
We're in a situation now where we're 57
plus countries.
We're
we're not in no situation of authority.
We're enslaved.
We're enslaved
to Washington and London and Moscow and Beijing
and Paris.
We are entirely enslaved. If not politically or
militarily,
we certainly are economically.
The fact that we have 20 plus Muslim
countries who signed a document in the UN
saying that what China is doing to our
all good brothers and sisters is acceptable gives
you an indication of where we are as
an Ummah in terms of leadership.
Yeah? So
to those du'aat and those Muslim personalities and
those masha'ikh who respectfully, whom I love and
respect and love for the sake of Islam,
who like making these comparisons to the past,
like it's a fair comparison,
it's
embarrassingly,
embarrassingly untrue.
It is embarrassingly disproportionate
to try and make some kind of comparison
between the problems that we had for our
Islamic civilization for over a millennia to the
situation that we find ourselves today.
Yeah? You simply can't.
So therefore we are living in that very
critical time and I strongly believe that generations
of Muslims will come in the future in
in 100 of years, Abwallahi, they will study
how did the Muslims deal and overcome
and reemerge
during this situation,
whether where they were without a leader, whether
were without an imam, where there were no
parts of the Muslim world that was ruling
by Allah's law.
How did they overcome the situation? There were
57 plus countries
and they had
military bases of foreign powers in their lands
where they were enslaved to the IMF and
the World Bank. How did they get to
a situation where there were 2,000,000 in concentration
camps? How did this happen? How did they
liberate Palestine? Wallahi, they're
gonna dissect and analytically
talk about the revival of this period.
Do not be silent bystanders because it's time
to gain ajr. I understand if Allah Subhanahu
Wa Ta'ala on the day of judgment,
I say that I did what I could.
You Rabbi, I did what I could.
Within my means and my ability, in terms
of the resource that I have access to,
I did what I could.
Because dawah isn't just local, in the same
way dawah is not just global, it's multifaceted,
it's multilayered
and it has
different scopes.
And it's on this note I conclude and
I pray that we're all part of this
movement of allata.
And that Allah accepts from us and that
Allah gives us the Izzah and the honor
to be part of it And I fear
that he will replace us,
that he replaces us as a people who
are more worthy of his victory. Ameen, Assalamu
Alaikum Jazakumullah Khaydul for your patience.