Dilly Hussain – Who were the Ottomans University of Manchester
AI: Summary ©
The Ottoman Empire was a democratic-equitable state with a military-equitable stance, heavily influenced by Arabic-equitable laws and the European colonialist movement. The Empire was a wwordy state with a demilitate system and a foreign- Actualist stance, and was a popular place for modernity. The decline was due to cultural and political weaknesses, including nationalism and the desire to modernize the state. The decline was also due to cultural and political weaknesses, including nationalism and the desire to modernize the state. The decline was due to a spiritual, faulting, overindulgent life, and the loss of military campaigns.
AI: Summary ©
I believe
practically every
book or talk or lecture,
should begin with the story of Osman's dream.
Now Osman was the founder of the Ottoman
Empire,
and he had a dream. He had a
dream before the establishment of the state in
12/99.
He had a dream before he became the
Sultan.
He was not staying around the house of
a renowned Suki's daughter, Husher Edebani,
who later on became his father-in-law.
So when he had this dream,
he saw the present
leave the chest for Chef Edebari
and enter his chest.
And when that present entered his chest,
a tree grew from his leaving
and that tree continued to grow.
And in that dream, he saw the river
Danube, the river Tigris, the river Nile,
the river Euphrates, blessed and very famous mountains,
the fortress and saltwater.
And the tree carried on growing.
You'll have a handout which I'll review in
more detail. That's basically the paraphrase.
So the present which left the chest of
Sheikh and the body represented Islam.
And the tree which spread and continued to
grow
represented the state or the empire which Usman
and his descendants
were going to rule.
That was, more or less, the dream of
Usman.
And you'll find that successive rulers, Ottoman rulers,
one after another,
strive towards
fulfilling this dream, making it a reality,
spreading that state, spreading that empire,
and making
it uniquely Islamic.
Remember, the dream wasn't just a tree that
never made you never stop growing. The crescent
represented Islam.
That's Islam's dream. Always have that dream in
mind in context to some of the policies
and policies for the Ottoman rulers that we're
going to discuss later on in this lecture.
So if you know the origin of the
of the Ottomans, Otsileo Turks,
And they were given protection under the Seljuk
Sultanate
of Rome.
Now, the Seljuk Sultanate of Rome were Turks
themselves,
and it was the Western flank of the
Seljuk Empire. And they were very loyal subjects.
They were very loyal. They were given protection.
They used to protect the frontier. They fought
many battles under the banner of the Seljuk.
But in the mid to late 13th century,
we started seeing the decline of the Seljuk
Sultanate. And And as a result of that,
we started seeing the emergence
of independent
autonomous
Beyliks.
Now Beyliks is basically a principality.
It's a small autonomous state.
And increasingly, we start seeing more of those
as the subjects decline and then eventually demise.
And they found one of the bailiffs,
the Anatolian bailiffs, was the Osmondi bailiff, which
then, within a very short period of time,
evolved into the Ottoman seal violence.
Have been committed and commissioned on this topic.
Therefore, I cannot give it justice in 45
or 50 minutes, but before I'm I'm guessing
Sharma.
And,
ultimately, it began in 12 99, the establishment
of the Ottoman Sultanate in Scotland.
And then up to 15/17,
that was when the Ottoman
Empire declared itself as the caliphate,
which was then abolished in 1924. So we're
looking at
623
years
of the sultanates
or 407 years in the caliphate. Altogether, it's
625 years.
That's a lot to cover. And in in
honesty, for those of you that were reading
Ultimate History, you'll find that
events, incidents, wars,
policy changes, and so forth is vast.
However, from this period of 625 years, I
also picked out a number of dates and
incidents which I think we should all,
take note of at least. And this, again,
is from our handbags. So, of course 12
99, we saw the establishment of the Sultanate
and the Usman the first in the city
of Saudi.
We then saw between 1402 to 14 13,
the Ottoman Interregnant or the civil war
with the 3 sons of Sultanate Yazid the
first. And this 11 year civil war nearly
destroyed the state from within.
And of course 1453,
we have the conquest of Constantinople.
And this date is very important
and is a milestone
for Muslims worldwide. Why?
Because the prophecy of the beloved prophet Muhammad
Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam,
Mahindra, when he gave the glad tidings and
he prophesied the conquest of Constantinople.
Cave for the time.
And muzu Akkad the third, who was the
last Abbasid
cave, was forcibly made to abdicate.
And then when the Hejaz came under the
rule of the Ottoman, that's when Sanim the
first became the first kareem of the Ottoman
Empire.
Then it had a period of 28 years
of peace between 1740 to 1768.
And the reason why I think you look
at this in the timeline,
it was, I personally believe, from my reading,
my limited reading,
is that decline
began in this period.
Now some of you may be thinking, well,
hold on. 28 days of peace, you think
time were good. Yeah. They were good. As
a result
of having no major military campaigns, you
the Ottoman Empire entered
entered World War 1, the side of the
Germans, and they lost.
In 1922, the Ottoman Sultanate was dissolved by
the National Assembly led by Ivan Ataturk.
In 1923, we had the Treaty of Lausanne
where the allied forces, namely Britain and France,
annexed former Ottoman territories.
And in 1924,
we have the abolishment of the Ottoman Caliphate.
Now these are, I feel, are some very
important dates.
Was known as the consolidator because of 2
things.
He practically
conquered the entirety of Burellia, which is modern
day Balkans.
He also created the 1st elite infantry unit
known as the Janissary Corps.
Then of course we have Mehmed the 2nd,
the conqueror, who was prophesized.
And he wrote in 2 intervals, 1444 to
1446
and 1451 to 1481.
It's also important to add I noticed
Mehmed
the second, the conqueror,
who also introduced
the policy of word fratricide,
which is a practice of Ottoman princes before
they took,
leading their part of killing their brothers with
a sick problem.
Fully setting out the remit of the law
whilst in a dynamic role to the Islamic
scholars and the judges of his time.
Move into Islam, Mounia.
What's that lovely, most popular, highest of here?
Sultan Ahmed. Sultan Ahmed.
With an idea of it imitating or at
least taking from the West at the time.
He was assassinated by the Janissary Corps
because one of the reasons he wanted to
do it was get rid of the Janissary
Corps. So he was assassinated.
But very shortly after, under Solange Hormuz II,
who
moved between 1808 to 18 39, he was
known as the modernist, he put into effect
the planned reforms of selling the fern. And
he essentially created the planned reforms of selling
the fern. And he essentially created the ferns
of the ferns of the
ferns
of selling the fund. And he essentially
created a movement of the Tanzimas,
the Tanzimas reforms,
in 18/39.
And the Tanzimas reform was then, implemented in
the first constitution of 18/76.
There were a number of paths of re
reforms. Just to name you some of them,
he wanted to get rid of the Mille
system. The Mille system was a legal procedure
whereby Jews and Christians in their respective areas
were allowed to resolve their disputes according to
their own religious law.
He wanted the entire
global Muslim population to unite
behind his leadership
and the Ottoman state from the religious perspective
of the Khalifa. Now that's not to say
that previous rulers Ottoman rulers didn't want this,
but he put extreme emphasis
on this religious obligation of Muslims uniting behind
the Khalifa,
and supporting the Khalifa to the extent where
he would reach out to the Muslims of
India and Africa during the period
of European
colonialism to counter certain importance by European powers
at the time. So Catholicism and friends, out
of 3601, the 28th ADH, is in the
10th
back into mind.
The state.
Now,
the Ottoman Empire
was indeed a religious state. It was an
Islamic state. And we just need to look
at,
Osman's dream
and the way that it was interpreted.
The role of the present,
civilizing Islam.
Or the fact that from the very inception
of the state, that
the state rule was essentially in private. In
private. It was influenced by Martha Neely's theology,
and
Milnez, in his book The Caliphate We Defined,
and it was distinctly influenced by modern ideology,
as well as the proliferation of a number
of Sufi movements of trade as named in
the Najdulbes.
But it was also very Turk. It was
non apologetically Turkish, but it was par Islamic
in its outlook.
And we know this because the state language
was not Arabic or Persian.
It was Ottoman Turkish. Now, Ottoman Turkish was
heavily influenced by both Arabic
and Persian.
And it was an expansionist state. And when
I say expansionist, I'm gonna make a distinction
that
And when I say expansionist,
I'm gonna
make a distinction that when I say expansionist,
it wasn't from the European
colonial perspective of expansionist.
It was more an expansionist from the perspective
that the state foreseen its
expansion as a religious beauty.
And again, I refer back to Osman's dream.
That tree did not stop growing from his
name. In fact, the motto of the Ottoman
Empire was the eternal state,
as successive rulers, I've noticed in the previous
slide,
wants to fulfill this vision.
It was a very militaristic state.
And we knew this from the way they
created the judiciary cause.
All the huge,
importance
that the state
had exerted on the concept of jihansky sabienda,
in front of me, to the
mosques, to everyday society,
to the concept of martyrdom that was praised
on the families of those who had died
in military campaigns, were given a lot of
honor and respect to society,
and also the importance that the Ottoman Empire
had exerted on the law of military transcription.
In that regard, it was a very militaristic
state. It was also a foreign, a pluralistic
state.
And, to be honest, there was no other
empire or polity at its time
that,
whereby Christians, Jews and Muslims had not just
coexisted,
but Jews and Christians had flourished
in their respective traits.
Christians
had a normal senior position
in within the global world. Right? And this
was, quite frankly, unheard of. It was unheard
of the Liberation Empire,
the Russian empire, the Habsburg,
the Holy Roman Empire.
To hear a newspaper for a Jew to
have such high position or even a Roman,
it was unheard of. So in that regard,
it was truly a proristic state for his
time, and of course, he had a demilitate
system, whereby Jews and Christians in their respective
areas were allowed to sort their disputes out
into their religious law. But this was a
tradition that was maintained by previous dynasties and
some some of our leaders who dated back
all the time to the Ottoman Empire of
Pompey Peace.
And lastly, the Muslims were very Lebanon
for their administrative capabilities in that
the
state had
covered 3 continents,
Africa,
Europe, and Asia.
Collect tax in a manner in which there
was no gains to corruption, which I'm sure
there was, exactly, it was in the latter
period,
it was unheard of. It was unheard of
that the Nag Empire at its time had
caught the last one that the Ottomans did,
yet they managed
They managed
to collect tax and distribute tax and utilize
it for the progression and for the advancement
of their state.
Now, this Ottoman cult of arms
more or less depicts the characteristics of the
Ottoman state.
It was created by Abu Dhabi the second
in 18/82.
So it was very, very modern, very late
in the empire.
And it more symbolizes
evidently the characteristics of the things I've just
discussed.
Proudly Turkish.
The green flag, which represents the caliphate.
You can't see it. There's 3 crescents. The
3 crescents represent Africa, Asia, and Europe.
And then, of course, you've got the cannons,
the spears, the guns,
the navy emblem.
In that regard, it was a very militaristic
state. So everything that John just discussed is
depicted
in that whole bronze there.
Achievements. There
the generalist who requested the generalist series. Just
to give you a brief overview of the
generalist who called us, well, they were created
under the law the first, and they,
over a quick period of time, became the
military age of Ottoman society
and had three objectives.
Number 1,
to bodyguard and protect
the ruler.
Number
2, to protect the state.
Number 3, to make sure that then the
state was in a constant state of expansion.
So whenever there was a time when there
were no military campaigns, you'd hear about a
Janissary rebellion or an uprising
because
they were ultimately
paid soldiers who lived in the barracks.
But they became very powerful, very influential.
Over time, they were very well organized. They
went in the front line. They were used
as a police,
within the empire.
And they got so powerful towards
the
17th 18th century, where they practically decided
who would become
the Sultan of the Khalif.
And they were a formidable force.
They
gave Europeans mightness,
in a sense that
the way that they were organized
and the way that they would approach battle
was something which was unheard of at the
time. And some of these stories have compared
the Janissary corps
to the modern day National Guard. So when
you hear about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or
the Sami National Guard or even in the
Western context, the SAS or whatever they may
be, many of them take back its structure,
its organization
to the Janus 3
courts. They were mafia.
It was also the ultimate part was basically
the first cosmopolitan
multi ethnic police and pluralistic empire in Europe.
And because it was, for the reasons I
explained in the previous slide, because of the
Malay system, because of the fact that Christians
had significant roles to play within the empire
and in the government, the fact that they
were allowed to, so either just difficulty with
their own laws,
the fact that
it wasn't just a case of coexistence.
It wasn't. It really wasn't. And it was
incomparable to any other part of the world
at that time where those 3 Abrahamic faiths
had lived
in more than relative peace.
And, of course, it was
under the reign of, an authority of the
Ottoman and the permission of Allah
that Islam came to Central and Eastern Europe.
Of course, we had Islam in Spain for
the best part of 800 years,
commissioned,
raids on traders and merchants in the Mediterranean
Sea. It was the Ottomans who protected those
seas.
A number of construction work took place in
Masjid Al Atsla, Domodarok,
in
flourish their own businesses, set up their own
neighborhood and their quarters,
to the extent that, towards the end of
the Ottoman Empire,
that Jewish financial advisers, you should be very,
very consulted with regards to fiscal policies.
In the 17th century.
And last but not least,
Alok Khufid the second, there was a blueprint
to build a train line from Istanbul
to go all the way through to Belemont,
to Jerusalem, all the way to Hejaz.
And again, this reflects the very packed Slavic
view that we meet the second hand
in terms of tying in 3 major regions
and 3 major cities
to exert
the role and the authority and the position
of himself as the kharifa
of all Muslims around the world. Sheikh Jihad,
Al Qaeda, being the president of pilgrimage.
Ashan also being a very holy region
Relations with other powers. So let's begin with
the Europeans.
And by the way, I'm literally listening through
history here. Right? So forgive me if it's
not the details. Some of you may have
expected, and Charlotte will pick up some of
the things in today.
And that continued right through to the Ottoman
period, right through to the Soviet period, right
through to the Ottomans who essentially,
finished the Byzantine Roman Empire when they took
Constantinople in 14 53. It was always a
big hostile relationship.
The Austrian Habsburg Empire, a very hostile relationship
from the siege of Vienna to the Battle
of Morwes,
from, the annexation of Hungary.
The after the Byzantines, it was the the
the perhaps the Austrians
were kind of the main,
adversaries of the Ottoman Empire.
But in the last 150 years, so we're
talking about the beginning of 19th century right
through to World War 1, Russia was practically
the arch enemy of the Ottoman Empire. Empire.
And the reason why that is is there
was a number of transgressions and a number
of annexations by the Russian Empire, at least
in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.
But what made Russia unique in in its
anniversary to the Ottomanism was that it used
to exert itself
as a protector of the Orthodox Christians within
the empire.
There was no other European empire that used
to emphasize
their role and their influence even when it
came down to agreeing on treaty causes
that we are the protectors of the Christians
in your state.
And, of course, the Russians also played a
very key role in,
starting a number of separate agreements,
in the Balkan region.
A lot of the land that was initially
lost in the mid 19 to late 19th
century was to Russia.
Germany was a fairly new state. We saw
that. Otto had Bismarck, Otto Haile and Guilherme
the second. And, of course, the Kaiser himself
were very fond of the Ottoman Empire.
It wasn't so direct as the Russians perhaps
were.
It was more clandestine
from a perspective
of
commissioning missionary work in the Ottoman Empire,
you know, teaching ideas such as nationalism and
secularism
within the empire,
doing a number of things in both Africa
and the Middle East.
Very rarely did you find open conflicts
prior to world war 1 with Britain and
France. There were some conflicts being compared to
the experts
and the Russians was incomparable.
But they were the the 2 cameras who
delivered the final blows to the Ottoman Empire,
during the war after world war 1.
There's a lot of man grabbing in modern
day, in modern day Iraq and Iran, so
as a result of Beijan.
So it was it was not only politically
hostile, it was theologically and religiously enforced.
And every time there was a campaign
After they were defeated in the Paxman Warat
Dlade,
and the Salim the first,
there was no normal state. However,
normal base and sherds and elders and and
and influential still remained in Egypt.
And for at least 200 years, there'd be
a number of attempts at Khunetars. There'd be
a number of upwars in the rebellion
until it was after Muhammad Ali Pasha,
the very powerful
governor of Egypt,
to the extent that the models
acknowledge the Ottomans
as
the rightful
country,
as the rightful case for the global Muslim
nation.
And this has been documented between,
to address them as Amr ibn Mubini. What
Alif is going to mostly mean is how
they should address them. It is also being
documented that under some under some areas of
the Mughal Empire, every Friday during Sahat al
Jum'ah, there'll be salutations and praises made to
the Ottomans within the Mughal Empire. So their
relation was very formed to the extent
that in the 18th century,
there were even a number of campaigns that
they had fought together, anti politically,
to counter the British and the French and
the Portuguese in the English subcontinent.
That's generally the relationship the Ottomans had with
their respective powers and empires at the time.
Reasons for decline.
Now,
I've heard a number of Islamic scholars and
Muslim academics
of the Ottoman Empire. Some played a bigger
role than others and they took part in
different periods of time. So let's go over
some of them. So when I said to
you that, I think the characteristics of the
Ottoman Empire
was its impressive degree of administration.
Well,
it also became a problem, remember, because quite
frankly, to
to covenant an empire that fast,
at a time when communication was very difficult,
was inevitably gonna cause problems.
So one of the ways the Ottoman rulers
planned to encounter this was to allow an
impressive degree of autonomy to their governors.
Who practically governed
North Africa and, the Levons,
they were given autonomy
in a way to overcome administrative problems. When
they were given autonomy,
they became power and really opened their gates
to corruption.
That's one reason. Another reason, intellectual decline. So
there was
there was
a period
whereby the Ottoman,
scholars and Islamic thinkers
With all the laws that we possibly need,
there's no need to be Istiara new realities.
And many have argued that this this intellectual
decline
not only prevented modernity,
but it pushed,
many elements within Ottoman society to look towards
other
empires and states from powers
to revive and have more of a dynamic
approach to to to new realities.
So the intellectual decline is one thing which
many scholars and and and academics have argued.
The decrease in military campaign. Now remember the
timeline I included
that period of 17 40 to 17 68.
That 28 year period of peace.
Doctor Virginia Aksam, very famous Ottoman historian,
in her book, The Ottoman War 17 100
to 18 60, she wrote,
the Empire continued to maintain a flexible and
strong economy supplied to military throughout 17th and
most of the 18th century.
However,
during the long period of peace from 17/40
to 17/68,
the Ottoman military system fell behind
that they were capable.
And this was echoed by another famous Ottoman
historian, Sarai Veruki. The reading is in your
handout.
400 and 41 years,
the Ottomans were in a constant state of
expansion and military campaigns.
So
in that light, to have a 28 year
period of peace,
it was inevitable that their respective and neighboring
counterparts in Europe weren't actually gonna utilize this
time, this this period where the autos put
their their filter gas, and we're gonna start
developing the oblutilities and start advancing technology technologically
and so forth. And
of statehood from the perspective of shared culture
or,
ethnic or racial values,
it was unheard of in Eastern Empire. I
say Eastern Empires are including the Mongols and
the and the Chinese Empires and other empires.
The very notion that a state could exist
on the premise of some ambigi ambiguous
live,
values of shared culture
or or or nationality or race or ethnicity,
it was unheard of. However, it's not a
surprise
that it gained momentum within the Ottoman Empire.
Why? Because it was so diverse.
So you had Armenian nationalism, Greek nationalism,
Serbian nationalism, Assyrian nationalism,
Arab nationalism
at the very end. So
nationalism was
strategically used, at least by a number of
European powers, namely Britain and France, to destabilize
the Ottoman Empire. That's not to say that
there weren't organic calls
by certain elements and demographics and constituencies within
the Ottoman Empire who did want to break
away from the empire and create a state,
like other Western European nations had at the
time, based on shared cultural values or ethnicity
or or race. So
The Young Turks Movement
and what is a huge
misconception
and, also, some way to say it with
is that the Young Turks Movement are Western
agents,
declining. It was on the verge of destruction.
And they felt that the only
entities at the time that had the answers
for revival
was Western Europe. They wanted to modernize the
state. They wanted to secularize the state. They
wanted to get rid of this religious dogma.
This kind of very,
pan Turkish tribal approach to state policies.
Right?
But
the leadership
young
Turks.
They were given protection in Paris and they
came back
in 190 8 to create the, the Young
Turks
Revolution.
And it's kind of linked with the Kosovo
Nationalism because the Young Turks had 2 movements
within the movement.
Now, all of these things that I've just
addressed are contributors.
They are all contributors to ultimate decline.
If you were to ask me, David, what
do you think,
what key contributors? Which played a bigger role
than others? Number 1, intellectual decline.
So I feel that intellectual decline, where you
lose faith, where you lose confidence, where you
lose conviction
in your own philosophy, in your own,
in your own religion,
that naturally, that open the doors to start
looking for answers elsewhere.
And that, naturally,
got into the minds
of many
senior Ottoman officials.
And last but not least, the fact that
during the past all this is happening,
the European empires were getting stronger
from industrialization
and the fact that
their their work to create and so forth
perform in advance. Also, the fact that many
had, through their very strong navies,
had,
you know,
We,
as Muslims,
don't even attribute the concept of a Utopian
society
to a Madinah under prophet Muhammad
We don't apply the concept of a Utopian
society to the law of Hasidim, where the
4 white people
not just exile them to some faraway
palace.
They would have to be killed
with a sick rope.
Right?
This was given a green light by Osama
bin Laden at the time. The scholars to
say that, you know, for the sake of
the unity of the state, to prevent civil
war,
to prevent what happened under the,
the Ottoman terrain between 1402
to 1413 under the Psalms of the 3
Psalms of Khan Beyazi, we need to exclude
the state. To prevent that, we need to
have the policy of World Factories like in
hindsight, we cannot look at this policy and
say, you know what?
This can't be from Islam. But that's because
that's completely in hindsight,
quite frankly. At the time,
that was the context and understanding of the
policy.
Which was a traditional practice
that existed for 1000 of years, whereby in
a military campaign, if a city or a
town or a particular land was taken by
force, by military,
campaign,
The prisoners of war would be taken as
slaves unless they were ransomed, and then they
were then used for labor or then so
long. The same kind of applies for concubines.
But let me explain something to you about
concubines purposes as a friend, and I'm not
justifying I'm not here to justify concubines
were initially concubines.
Greeks, the Romneys,
the Russians,
they became the wives
and the queens in the empire.
Just in that context.
So we need to distinguish between the transatlantic,
slave trade, which, was distinctly
white and European,
whereby
certain European, Palestinian, American,
prisoners of war or countrywide as a result
of major campaigns. If you had no use
for them, they'd be sold in slave markets.
In fact, another one of the reforms
of the Tanzimat to abandon,
the practice of slave trade.
The system of division,
whereby
whereby a Christian boy
from each Christian household from the age of
8 to 18 will be taken from their
families.
This rule is justified under the pretext of
blood compensation.
So again, if there was a particular land
or a region or a town or a
city that was taken by conquest and Muslim
soldiers had died,
the policy of the Derisham
was basically, you will compensate us for the
Muslim souls that were lost in battle by
giving us one of your sons.
Now, the Christian households that only had one
son, they were exempt.
For those who had more than one son,
they were they were taken.
If we speak to
Serbians,
Cossacks, and greats and Armenians today, you'll hear
a number of grievances.
And justified.
Right? The fact that, you know, boys were
taken forcibly,
from their households.
But, again, that has to provide you some
context. It's not apologism. I have to give
you context.
A lot of these Christian boys went on
to take a very powerful
a lot of these Christian boys went on
to become very powerful influential soldiers. They went
to become very influential statesmen. Some of them
after they became Muslim,
became Grand Viziers.
They became an elite
within them soldiers.
Some Christian families, it's been documented
as a false description,
how that could be argued
quite strongly as something that was in Islamic,
something that was in Egypt, something that was
never practiced by any other dynasty or state,
quite the Muslims.
But, again, how did they justify it? They
justified it for the Ijtihad or basically blood
compensation.
All the Muslim soldiers that were lost in
battle, as a form of repayment, we're gonna
take 1 question from each household. That's how
they justify it. And then, you will learn
from other 4 Badhakt, of today, have argued
that this was, quite frankly, an uncertain
Mulard was first had adopted and then became
state law.
But perhaps, the one event or incident
which has
tarnished
the legacy of the Ottomans is what's known
as the Armenian genocide of 1915 from April
to August.
I'm not gonna delve too much into this,
but I will say this much.
The dominant narrative
is that
1,500,000
Armenians
were systematically
killed
and raped
and put into concentration camps and forced into
exile.
That's the dominant
mainstream
taker on the Armenian Genocide.
So since I'm giving you all a lecture
on Ottoman history,
I have to give you the Ottoman perspective.
And the Ottoman perspective to us, along with
the Armenian genocide, was a case of treasonous
sedition.
During World War 1,
there was a campaign,
the Caucasus Campaign.
Caucasus Campaign. The Caucasus Campaign
Armenians, I think, as a political opinion subject,
they gave 250 or 500 Armenian men to
join the Ottoman military effort.
On top of that,
there are also
documented correspondence between
Armenian elements, namely the thinkers, the philosophers, and
the Russian empire at the time,
to
basically establish their own state, which was known
as the Armenian Liberation Front.
So if you look at it from that
perspective, from the Ottoman perspective,
they had a huge constituency within their empire,
or their state,
tax paying citizens who they gave security
and protection to,
and they were
collaborating
with another empire
or another state, that they were in a
state of war.
It was perceived as an act of truth
and sedition.
Dare I say,
dare I say that there may be some
similarities to one of Korea? It doesn't mean
all the story.
And that it was a collective punishment that
was given up. And the collective punishment that
was beaten out to the Armenians
was exiled.
They were exiled towards Syria.
And in that Paris journey, according to the
Autonomous chronicles and historians,
many many many many died.
I can't really say with a 1,500,000
died, but I'm very sure 1000 of 1000
did die.
The
Alright? So that's the Ottoman perspective.
The Armenians were exiled
for colluding with the Russians, for not giving
a sufficient required amount of their men for
the war effort,
and therefore, the collective punishment was exiled.
And during the exile towards Syria, many died.
That's the Ottoman perspective.
And it has been challenged and it has
been questioned,
by genocide specialists,
but that's the Ottoman perspective. And lastly,
that's the Ottoman
perspective. And lastly, this notion that this notion
that the Ottomans were the sick man of
Europe, this was a turn out of Poland
and then
it was repeated by the British and French
media at the time. Yes. The Ottomans
were technologically
back
or pretty late, they were as advanced as
their respective European counterparts.
Unless the Ottomans were really the sick men
of Europe, would they have won the Moscow
Gavi? Or would they have won the
were
that sick, that updated. They were not able
to accomplish all military victories. It was only
a lobby
through the Arab Revolt
that they managed to destabilize and successfully beat
the Ottoman Empire. So yes, the Ottomans at
least going went into
the mid to late 19th century and then
into World War 1. Yes. They weren't as
advanced and military prepared or economically strong
or intellectually
on point
as their European counterparts,
but they were they were fluffing in the
sick man of Europe.
And also, mothers and sisters and friends are
the main,
negatives, but we have to be very important
when reading history
of distinguishing facts and propaganda.
To conclude,
the last seat
of the country.
And not only that,
there's an element of connection
that Muslims in 2018
are able to have with the Ottoman history.
Why? Because when you think about
when you think about the radical articulators
or the makers of the Abbasids or or
the Uyghurs or whichever dynasty, or the Sogotho
country of Africa,
whatever it may be.
In terms of time and distance, the Ottomans
are very close to us. Only 90 4
years ago, some of our grandparents or great
grandparents would have no longer bought a hotel.
Constantinople, Istanbul is only a 3 hour flight
from here.
Annexing and deciding
how the Ottoman territories would be taken.
And last but not least,
a number of Islamic revivalist movements that came
in the early 20th century,
they looked towards the Ottomans
for inspiration
because the struggle was similar.
This struggle with the concept of nationalism, nation
states, and secularism,
what was the role of religion in terms
of state policy and the public sphere, and
all of that. What what what were the
cause of decline? So a number of Islamic
revival.
That image there
is of
Turkish protesters when we, attempted coup took place
in Turkey, had been in Vienna a few
years ago.
Obviously, that's the flag of the republic.
And that green flag is the flag of
the Ottoman Caliphate,
with 3 presence representing,
of course,
Africa,
Asia, and Europe.
So this is why
the legacy
of the Ottomans
and its history is important to us.
Because 625
years of it makes up Islamic civilization.
So, you know, we can't just ignore that.
Right? And there's always places to us. And
there is a plethora of reasons
and and and,
realities
which we are experiencing today. The Ottoman also
faced more than 100 years ago.
Patients.
And
here we have the lecture halls in ACOG.
Yeah. Kind of Gilletteos, a specific type of
Gilletteos.
My first question would be, how would you
go about reestablishing that? Do you think you
should be established that in your watch? And
number 2, just how would you What's that
thought of my thing? You mean by getting
into
For 13 centuries,
neither of those dynasties or qualities
were preceded backward. So there's no reason that
if a quality of this nature were to
reemerge in our own time, insha'Allah,
why it shouldn't have the the same trappings,
if not more, at least trappings
will say that, no. We have to, rally,
certain elements within the warning and lead to
the Muslim majority. Well, be it the military,
be it powerful politicians.
Will say, no. We will fight.
We will fight and take the authority,
by force. So there's a number of different
perspectives and different issues he has as to
how this Khalifa will will establish. Gulakkasey, that
we seek to live that time. And
150
years at best.
What? So in that regard,
we shouldn't be scared, because one of the
strategies
of colonizing the Muslim mindset and Muslim psyche
was taken
away. Certain expressive
terms that were very common within the empire
had been taken away. So it wasn't just
a language change, right, which which was the
kind of the last nail in the coffin
in terms of intellectual decline.
That was the last nail in the coffin.
It was literally Kamal Ataturk overnight
had had implemented this very utterly secular policy.
Right?
What were the ramifications of it? The ramifications
of it was that there was a huge
disconnection
between
both Turks
who were born in that period
and their connection with their Ottoman legacy
and
a connection with the Islamic,
culture
and legacy of the Ottomans. Because as I
mentioned, the Ottoman Empire
your descendants and your great British history. Is
that a major modification? We need to move
away from this kind
of Arabic who's replacing Latin. Guess that took
place, but it was the spirit of the
language,
the expression of that language, what that language
represented.
But I personally believe that you can replace
any language from any language. Right? But as
soon as you literally remove
scholastic and religious expressions or cultural expressions,
that's a different, matter which, Kamar will take
it.
In terms of its role, in terms of
decline,
there is an argument that after the Crimean
campaign
of 19th century, the mid well, give me
2 days. I won't go long. The mid
to late 19th century of the war the
the Crimean war,
that that was the first time that the
Ottoman Empire had fallen into debt with the
border of France, and that debt accrued
interest.
Prior to the Crimean War, it was unheard
of to have interest based loans or debts
unless it was practiced
by, Jewish financiers, which it was halal for
them within the empire.
But for the empire, they were not allowed
to give or take any kind of interest
based
loans. It's after the Crimean War that
the Ottoman army faced huge losses.
And to rebuild the army, it required money,
money which they did not have. So they
got the money from Britain and France.
And that basically
accrued interest. Was that stand alone reason for
decline? No. We have to also appreciate
that once they had that 28 year period
of peace, that military campaigns of warfare was
a source of revenue.
It was a source of revenue. Hanima, Houthi,
tax, all of this stuff contributed equality to
the strength of the state. Not just the
Ottoman Empire, any states. Right? So for 28
years, they stopped those military campaigns.
And whilst respective European powers were well underway
in exploring different lands and carrying out their
own military campaigns, naturally,
I don't I I for my reading, I've
not really seen a connection between that because
it could be argued that from as
early as, Sultan ul Haqam, who was the
second ruler or Sultan ul Haqam the first,
he said that even up until 19th century,
the degree of welfare within the Ottoman Empire
was very advanced.
But that's not to say that there were
shortcomings and failures.
That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that there
may have been a spiritual decline. The very
fact of of an overindulgent and extravagant life
is an indication
of a spiritual,
faulting. I
can't really I know you asked me to
comment on that. But was there a link
between this spiritual decline or this kind of
overindulgence and the way they treat their poor?
From my reading, I don't think there was
because they expressed a huge importance on the
role of the Waq and the collection of
Jiziyan and Zakkad and his British division. Oh,
I'm asking questions.
Which were heavy influence and inspired by European
powers, namely France and Germany,
was that to revive the state, there had
to be something which binded its citizens
strongly
Islamic culture or Abrahamic
shared values. Right? And that's when we start
seeing the birth of Turkish nationalism,
whereby
great influence and emphasis were given to the
Turkish identity of the state
as opposed to its Islamic identity. Remember, the
Turks or the Ottomans were consistently involved to
be entirely unapologetically
Turk, the Palestine and the Ottoman. That changed
with the birth of the young Turk movement.
And one of the strategies to counter that
Because it's assholes. The way we dress, the
way we live our lives culturally as Muslims,
and and some of the things that we
try to imitate from different cultures and societies
is the sunnah of humanity
that less
That in these regions, there were, at times,
accusations
of oppressive rule of certain Ottoman governors.
Right?
That they favored
Turks in positions of authority
in comparison to, let's say, the Arab share
and tribes of those respective areas. There were
those accusation,
especially under the ruler of Muhammad Ali Qasha,
who was the governor of Egypt. But generally
speaking
generally speaking,
Arabs are the type of codistic because you
have Kurds, you have Arabs
in military positions,
but there were instances of certain governors who
had press response and all that that contributed
to the grievance date.
How come, the Mughals had, like, a warm
and kind of sense towards the Ottoman Empire
whereas, like, the other Islamic empires such as
the Mongols,
there was disparity in tension between them. How
come, like, they were they were different in
in those words?
I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. So so,
like, do you know how, like, in your
it's like you said, the Mughals had a
warm sense or outlook towards the Ottoman Empire
whereas, the Mongols had a a very different
and hostile approach towards them. Why was that
that difference? Good question. So just to quickly
go over that, brother asked why was there
a different kind of relationship between certain Muslim
Eastern empires with the Ottomans? Number 1, the
Safavids
were Shia. They were Persians.
Had a very antagonistic,
hostile relationship with the with the Ottomans was
that, number 1, they were protecting
the Abbasid caves.
Right? So for the Ottomans,
they respected
they respected the normative position that you cannot
announce Pylak when there's a Pylak already in
existence, not how useless and knowing them and
ceremonial it may be. They respected that nation
opinion that there's a belief in the second
killer letter, so they never declared it until
they defeated the
and they've always started to kind of return
to that glory. So they tend to have
played a key role in rebellions and uprising
in Egypt. So that was why there was
a very negative and hostile relation to the
monks because the Ottomans ultimately defeated them. And
the