By Muhammad Jilani
The Caliphate system has left its mark on history, but contrary to a
basic view of history, the Caliphate did not just leave one mark but
several.
It was able to adapt to different cultures and people and moved from
one seat of power to another. The Ummayad Caliphs, for example, were
responsible for amazingly beautiful design and inventions, including
the first computer. This great civilisation managed to dominate all of
Spain (except the troublesome Catalan region).
Despite its close proximity to France and Britain, it is another
incarnation of the Caliphate that haunts Europe to this day, namely
the Ottoman Caliphate. European historians still refer to it as the
“sick man of Europe” to this day and deny its greatness, despite some
of its Caliphs being unanimously regarded as the most powerful men in
the world during their day. Its rule was uninterrupted for over 600
years and is comparable to any civilization throughout history. It is
still a scar on the psyche of Europe and to this day breeds resentment
and hatred towards Islam and Muslims.
This paper aims to address many of the misconceptions about the
Ottoman Caliphate, since they are likely to be repeated time and
again. The aims of this paper are three things:
1) Ensure that there is a strong case for Caliphate, by understanding
Islamic heritage.
2) Address the propaganda leveled against it by a plethora of other
European historians and orientalists over previous decades and
centuries.
3) Ensure we don’t succumb for the age old propaganda aimed at
weakening the intellectual value of the Ottoman Caliphate by labeling
it the ”sick man of Europe”
Since this is a vast topic, I will address the following areas:
a) The motivations of the Ottoman Caliphs
b) Was the system adopted by the Ottoman state Islamic?
c) Alleged brutality of the Ottomans
d) Political impact of the Ottoman Caliphate
The motivations of the Ottoman Caliphs
The Islamic motivations of the Ottoman Caliphs have come under
scrutiny. The BBC in a recent documentary specifically cited the
example that over several hundred years no Ottoman Caliph made hajj to
exemplify their so-called Machiavellian tendencies. In fact
Orientalists have often explained their conduct, honour, kindness,
valour and justice were all accredited to their own personal
character, while their misdemeanors were put down to Islam.
One of the problems with secular historians and commentators is that
they embody an implicit arrogance that the only world view is their
own one. Motivating factors such as altruism, spirituality or social
justice are generally viewed skeptically.
The reality is that Islam makes no division between religious
motivation and political aims. So to see it through a
Machiavellian/Spiritual dialectic will never lead to the truth. Rather
it should be viewed from a perspective of the standards that Islam set
in rulers, which are well documented.
The Islamic motivations of the Ottoman Caliphs are very clear. For
example, the second Ottoman Sultan, Orhan (the son of Osman)
specifically adopted the Hanafi school of thought as the official
state madhab (legal school of thought). He took care in understanding
it, familiarizing himself and then implementing its practices. In 1324
he passed a law granting land for the building of Masjid’s as part of
official policy. This law was enacted in every newly conquered land
thenceforth and is the prime reason for the proliferation of Masajid
across Eastern Europe.
Such care to expand Islamic learning demonstrates their deep Islamic
inclinations at a time when they were becoming the dominant force in
their region.
In fact the Ottoman Caliphs saw themselves as divinely chosen to carry
the banner of Islam. Osman I (from whom the Ottoman caliphs descend)
saw himself as the “glory of Islam” and Orhan as “Champion of Islam”.
They wanted to demonstrate their noble stock by commissioning
genealogical experts to trace their heritage back to the Prophet Nuh
(as) so as to ensure that their Islamic legacy endures. They were able
to clarify that the land from which they emanated from was given to
Nuh’s son, Japeth, from whom they descend. This gave them an Islamic
sense of mission.
This view disseminated down, one caliph after another. For example,
the famous Caliph Muhamamd at-Fatih was well versed with the hadith of
the Prophet (saw), when he stated ”One day Constantinople will be
conquered, a good army and a good amir will achieve it”. This
particular hadith acted as a motivation for the fathers of Mohammad
al-fatih.
He was particularly honoured by his achievement as none other than the
Prophet (SAW) himself endorsed it, and it was the 13th attempt by a
Muslim army to conquer the city. When he achieved his success, he
offered salah (prayers) at the Hagi Sofia as an act of gratitude.
Mohammad al-Fatih was particularly spiritual. In one reverse against
the Italian fleet he turned to the Sheikh of Islam, Sheikh Aksemuddin,
who reassured him with classical texts and prophecies of his great
achievements. This soothed his heart and gave him tranquility. His
sons all vied with each other to be the “good amir” to conquer Rome,
as foreseen by the Prophet (SAW)!
There are many examples abound to demonstrate the Islamic motivations,
but the quote below from Albert Hourani (the pre-eminent Arab
historian) is clear enough:
“The most fundamental duty of a Muslim ruler….was to maintain the
Shariah. In the Ottoman period, the institutions by which the Shariah
was preserved were drawn into closer union…than ever before. The
school of law favoured by the Ottomans was the hanafi school, and the
judges who administered it were paid for directly by the government.
They created a special corps of ulema and ranked and graded them. They
created a new military court (kadikaser)…” to curb the excesses of
previous caliphs.
It is explicitly clear from this that the Ottoman caliphs were
motivated by Islam and saw themselves as the carriers of the Islam.
Was the system adopted by the Ottomans Islamic?
The hanafi scholars guided the system implemented by the Ottoman
Caliphs. In summary, it follows the following structure.
At the Head was one of the “House of Osman”. The laws of succession
were not rigid, and the most competent son was usually chosen as the
next caliph (as opposed to the eldest).
The system was run by the Sadr-i-Azam (commonly known as the grand
wazir), who reported directly to the Caliph. The Caliph could choose
to appoint several Wazir’s if the need required, but they would report
to the Grand Wazir (sadr-i-azam). They appointed Governors in each
region to look after the general affairs of the people.
The Sipahi’s or Cavalry officers collected the taxes, and they were
later augmented by the deviserve (janissaries) – comprised of
Christian youth converted to Islam.
From the 16th Century, the kalimiye (bureaucratic system) grew to deal
with the vast expansion of the State. This system standardized
documentation, and established processes and protocols that can be
unified around the entire state. Given the vast size of the state at
the time, this was a huge feat of organizational excellence and is
studied to this day by the best management schools as a case of best
practice.
The highest officials met regularly in the palace council (divan),
which made decisions on policy. Local government decisions were made
by the (sancak) and sometimes grouped together in larger provinces
(eyalat). Both forms had government representatives reporting back to
the Sultan and scholars ensuring that the decisions were based on
shariah.
This system they implemented is consistent with the principle of
ruling laid out by the Prophet Muhammad (saw), with the same checks
and balances, source of ruling and enactment of the people’s
authority.
There are three specific questions about the Islamic system:
1) Ba’yah (contract of ruling) – amid what appears to be a kingship.
There was never a question of ba’yah being refused by the influential
people or the general people, hence this area need no further
elaboration here.
2) Sulaiman al-Qanuni adopting legal canons, as explained above. This
gave rise to the administrative system that ruled the Ottomans for
centuries afterwards. This is strangely cited as an example of secular
rule, despite the fact that Sulaiman al- Qanuni’s reign ended some 200
years before European secularism took root. One can assume this is due
to the secular viewpoint of lawmaking, and the Islamic system being an
unknown, unknown!
Albert Hourani, provides the clearest documented view on this:
“Like previous rulers, the Ottoman sultan found it necessary to issue
his own orders and regulations in order to preserve his authority or
ensure that justice was done. He did this by virtue of the power which
the shar’iah itself gave to rulers, so longs as they exercised it
within the bounds of shariah”
Hence, rather than a secular application, he was merely exercising his
right as the Caliph. The pity is that the thinking receded soon after
him, but that is another discussion.
3) Tanzimat reforms. Tanzimât emerged from the minds of reformist
sultans like Mahmud II and Abdülmecid I, and pioneered by Grand Wazir,
Ahmed Rashid Pasha, as well as prominent reformers who were
European-educated bureaucrats who recognized that the old institutions
and practices no longer met the needs of the Caliphate in the modern
world.
Most of the symbolic changes, such as uniforms, were aimed at changing
the mindset of imperial administrators. Many of the reforms were
attempts to adopt successful European practices. The Napoleonic Code
and French law under the Second Empire heavily influenced the reforms.
Changes included universal conscription; educational, institutional
and legal reforms.
Though these reforms proved to be a major problem for the Ottoman
Caliphate, they never understood nor adopted the secular basis of law
making, nor the democratic system of government. Hence rather that
adopting values and ideas, they imitated solutions. The prophet (saw)
gave a clear description of when a state becomes un-Islamic, in the
famous hadith:
Al-Bukhari narrated: “… He said, the Messenger of Allah (saw) called
upon us and we gave him the Bai’ah, and he said, of that which he had
taken from us, that we should give him the pledge to listen and obey,
in what we like and dislike, in our hardship and ease, and that we
should not dispute the authority of its people unless we saw open Kufr
(kufr buwah) upon which we had a proof (burhan) from Allah”
Open Kufr cannot be committed unless there is an understanding by the
one who commits it of what they have committed. In this case, they
were not at a level to understand what the underpinning values were,
but rather imitated solutions.
This is exemplified by the statement of Shaykh-ul Islam Mustafa Sabri
who worked for Sultan Abdul Hamid II, the last Shaykh al-Islam of the
Ottoman Caliphate. He was exiled to Egypt by the Kemalist regime. He
said:
‘Caliphate i.e. succession to the Messenger of Allah means: obliging
the adherence of the rules of the Shari’ah over the Muslims by the one
who assumes authority, it by this way one is successor to the Prophet.
And the abolition of the Caliphate is abolition of this
adherence….This has actually happened in Turkey after the abolition of
the Caliphate. So what has succeeded it is a secular government.’
The point here is that he considered the Ottoman state, even in its
weakened state, Islamic in its basis until it was destroyed. This view
was agreed upon by Sheikh-ul-Hind Maulana Mahmud Hassan. He was the
then head of Darul Uloom Deoband and direct student of Maulana Qasim
Nanautavi, the founding father of the Darul ‘Uloom) in the 1920′s. He
mentioned a fatwa regarding saving the Ottoman Caliphate from the
enemies of Islam. The respected Maulana said:
‘The enemies of Islam have left no stone unturned to strike against
and harm the honour and prestige of Islam. Iraq, Palestine and Syria
that were won over by the Prophet’s companions and his followers,
after in numerous sacrifices, have once again become targets of greed
of the enemy of Islam. The honour of Caliphate is in tatters.
Calipha-tul- Muslimin, who used to unite the entire community on this
planet; who is the vice-regent of Allah on this earth; used to
implement the universal law of Islam; who used to protect the rights
and interests of Muslims and used to preserve and ensure the glory of
the words of the Creator of this universe be preserved and
implemented, has been surrounded by enemies and made redundant.’[9]
To conclude this section, we can see that despite some areas of
weakness, the Ottoman State was based on Islam, motivated by Islam and
never ceased to implement Islam. The allegations of secular
implementation are often malicious and politically motivated.
Ottoman Brutality
One of the continuous acts of propaganda against the Ottoman Caliphate
is the allegation of brutality. Several examples are given such as the
practice of the killing of all brothers of the newly selected Caliph,
the put down of rebellions and the alleged Armenian genocide.
The first two points can be dealt with later. With regards to the
Armenian uprising, this is one of the worst cases of black propaganda,
pre World War I. I have gone into detail on this point to demonstrate
the level of misinformation regarding the Ottoman Caliphate.
The allegation is that between the periods of 1894-1896, Sultan Abdul
Hamid II enacted acts of genocide against entire Armenian populations;
indiscriminately killing men, women and children while the Christian
Armenians were defenseless (this is not to be confused with the events
of 1915 by the Young Turk movement). The truth is very different:
1) The Armenian Christian, with the backing of Russia and Europe were
trying to separate from the Ottoman state. The position of Abdul Hamid
II was consistent with Islamic unity and he wasn’t in a position to
allow this to happen under his watch, since this was haram. This is
the root cause of European derision. There were inflammatory
nationalistic speeches made by prominent Christian Armenians openly
calling for violent separation from the Caliphate.
2) Britain and Russia claim that Ottoman soldiers committed the
massacres, but this has never been proven. In fact, after the 1878
Treaty of Berlin, Western powers forcibly removed Bulgaria from the
Caliphate. Crucially, the borders surrounding the Armenian enclaves
were no longer under Ottoman authority due to losses against Russia
and Western Powers, and the subsequent Treaty of Berlin. Hence it is
unlikely the Ottoman soldiers would have been present in the first
instance. In reality Russian and Hungarian militia, assisted by
Kurdish separatists undertook genocide activity against the Armenians,
in order to incite ethnic tensions and this caused reprisals against
the Ottoman State, creating circular behavior. [10]
3) The only reporting to come out is politically motivated, and not
unbiased. This episode occurred during a period of time when mass
communications were not available. The sources that state the genocide
and the actions that emanated are from various European embassies and
the Russian diplomacies. The reality is that these sources are not
credible.
In fact, every original document of the Ottoman Archives was taken
over by the Governmental Archives Directorate of the Prime Ministry.
According to Turkish authorities many historians have researched the
Ottoman Archives. Besides the research made by thousands of
historians, these documents were translated into English and published
in order to enlighten the public.[11]
Turkish authorities point out that even if the facts were reported
correctly, the conclusions are unclear. Therefore, it is also crucial
to look at secondary sources in the Ottoman Archives of the period
such as budget, allocations, decisions/reasons of requests. This is
important since Kurds, Turks and Hungarians suffered much of the
starvation suffered by Armenians – i.e. there was widespread famine in
the region. There are also personal records such as Mehmed Talat
Pasha’s personal notes. – Which were disregarded. They also point out
the general attitude (“Sick man of Europe”) of the time and how it
deforms perceptions. They state that the conclusions reached toward
genocide are highly biased.
Some very “central” and the most cited sources are actively questioned
on the basis that they do not include a single reference from the
Ottoman Archives mainly occupying forces’ sources of the period
(British, French) on the basis of their Intelligence (information
gathering) issues. There are major concerns that these sources promote
propaganda.
4) Far from being unanimously accepted as the Truth, prominent experts
have openly questioned the events of the Armenian Genocide. For
example On May 19, 1985, The New York Times and The Washington Post
ran an advertisement in which a group of 69 American historians called
on Congress not to adopt the resolution on the Armenian Genocide.
Bernard Lewis, a prominent historian of Islam at Princeton, was among
them and so the case was named after him[12]
Muslims will point to the numerous examples of Ottoman integration of
its disparate populations – from Serb, Croat, Hungarian, Arab, Jew and
others. For the majority of the 600 years of the Ottoman Caliphate,
unity reigned in the state and the state’s integration policies were
marked by kindness rather than brutality.
In fact, the State’s leniency led to the effective balkanization of
the Ottoman Caliphate, since it allows whole communities to function
independent of the State system. These communities were later used
against the State and led to various atrocities in the former Ottoman
regions, such as the Bosnian War on the mid 1990s.
The Political impact of the Ottoman Caliphate
The previous sections deal with some of the negative questions raised
about the Ottoman Caliphate. What is ignored is the sheer dominance
and progress of the Ottoman’s in their hey day.
The political impact of the Ottoman Caliphate in Europe is long
lasting and profound on a number of levels and is the main source of
European resentment to this day.
Three Ottoman Sultans were most notable in this area; Mohammed
Al-Fatih, Selim I and Suleiman al-Qanuni. The cornerstone of their
overarching philosophy was to take Istanbul and then Rome, thereby
destroy the Roman Empire as a result. Their motivations stemming from
the famous ahadith of the Prophet (SAW).
The blueprint for this was laid by Mohammed al-Fatih, who took
Istanbul and thereby moved the capital of the Islamic state from
Anatolia. This provided prestige, due to the reverence that Istanbul
held across Europe but also a formidable power-base due to the
effective destruction of the Greek Orthodox Church, established under
Emperor Constantine.
The second principle was established by Selim I, who consolidated the
Arab states under Ottoman rule and effectively secured the Middle East
(and a strong Eastern bloc) against European aggression. His
ruthlessness against the Europeans earned him the nick name “Selim the
Grim”
This allowed his son, the great Suleiman al-Qanuni to focus
exclusively on Europe and establish himself as the most powerful man
in the world. His contemporaries included Charles V (of Spain),
Francis I (of France) and Henry VIII.
Suleiman’s political maneuverings were legendary, and he existed at a
time of four major powers; Austria (under the Habsberg’s), France,
Russia and Spain, the most powerful of these were the Austrian
Habsberg dynasty who stood between him and wider Europe.
He was able to take advantage of Christian intrigue and separate
France from the Christian bloc by rescuing their King Francis I on the
request of his mother (who had lost hope that she would ever see her
son again) against the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. His response to
this is stated below. I have put the long response in full so we can
appreciate his standing and the way in which he addressed the powers
of his time; his position was one of immense strength and power.[13]
“I, the khan and sultan of Mediterranean, Black Sea, Anatolia,
Karaman, Kurdistan, land of persian, Damascus, Aleppo, Egypt, Mecca
and Medina, Jerusalem and all of the lands of arabian, yemen and all
of many other countries; Son of the Bayezıd, Son of the Sultan Selim,
Shadow of the God, Sultan Suleiman Khan and you, governor of the
France, Francis…You have sent to my Porte, refuge of sovereigns, a
letter by your faithful agent Frangipani, and you have furthermore
entrusted to him sundry verbal communications; you have informed me
that the enemy has overrun your country and that you are at present in
prison and a captive, and you have here asked aid and succors for your
deliverance. (…) Take courage then, and be not dismayed. Our glorious
predecessors and our illustrious ancestors (may God light up their
tombs!) have never ceased to make war to repel the foe and conquer his
lands. We ourselves have followed in their footsteps, and have at all
times conquered provinces and citadels of great strength and difficult
of approach. Night and day our horse is saddled and our saber is girt.
May God on High promote righteousness! May whatsoever He will be
accomplished! For the rest, question your ambassador and be
informed.(…)”
He accentuated European disunity by encouraging a different form of
Christianity (Protestantism) by allying with Henry VIII and William of
Orange[14] and entered into the Franco-Ottoman Alliance in 1536[15],
which was a series of concessions made by the Sultan in return for
French loyalty and an extension of support across Europe!
It caused a scandal in the Christian world and was designated as “the
impious alliance”, or “the sacrilegious union of the Lily and the
Crescent”; nevertheless, it endured since it served the objective
interests of both parties. The strategic and sometimes tactical
alliance was one of the most important foreign alliances of France and
lasted for more than two and a half centuries, until the Napoleonic
Campaign in Egypt in 1798–1801.
Once he nullified the French threat, he then marched into Hungary,
took Budapest and annexed it under his authority, while French support
for Hungary did not arrive due to their agreement with the Ottoman’s.
This set the Ottoman Caliphate in direct conflict with the Austrians
Habsberg’s who ruled Hungary at the time and Suleiman unsuccessfully
laid siege to Vienna twice.
By the 1540s a renewal of the conflict in Hungary presented Suleiman
with the opportunity to avenge the defeat suffered at Vienna.
This time Suleiman in two consecutive campaigns (1541 and in 1544)
ensured the defeat of Ferdinand of Austria and his brother Charles V
(of Spain) and forced them to conclude a humiliating five-year treaty
with Suleiman. These were the two most powerful men in the Christian
world at the time so this was a most significant treaty.
Ferdinand renounced his claim to the Kingdom of Hungary and was forced
to pay a fixed yearly sum to the Sultan for the Hungarian lands he
continued to control. Of more symbolic importance, the treaty referred
to Charles V not as ‘Emperor’, but in rather plainer terms as the
‘King of Spain’, leading Suleiman to be considered unanimously the
most powerful man in the World and considered the true ‘Caesar’.
With his main European rivals subdued, Suleiman had assured the
Ottoman Empire a powerful role in the political landscape of Europe
for some years to come. Despite loss of land and prestige in following
years, this leading position set by Suleiman endured for 300 years and
is one of the sources of European resentment to this day.
This section would not be complete without providing some British
context to the Ottoman state’s intervention. There are numerous
examples, but three are particularly pertinent.
Firstly, Suleiman al-Qanuni reassured Henry VIII of his assistance in
the event of Spanish/Roman reprisals for his religious innovations. He
took the support from Suleiman before divorcing his wife (an act that
was deemed sacrilegious), knowing that the Catholic Church would not
be able to force him to accede to their Church. In effect Suleiman
took advantage of European disunity to encourage religious dissipation
and effective disunity.
Secondly, Sultan Murad III came to the aid of the Protestant Queen,
Elizabeth I who came under attack from the Roman Empire (in the guise
of the Spanish Armada). Popular convention states that Sir Francis
Drake symbolised English nonchalance and cunning in the face of
danger. First, according to the legend drummed into every pupil, he
insisted on finishing his game of bowls on Plymouth Hoe as the Spanish
Armada approached in July 1588. Then he dispatched the enemy ships
with little more than a few burning rowing boats and a favorable
breeze.
The truth is a bit more humbling – it was the Ottoman Caliphate that
dispatched it’s deadly naval forces and engaged the Spanish all the
way from the Mediterranean to Plymouth harbor, decisively weakening it
and allowing Drake to finish the Spanish off.
Jerry Brotton, a lecturer at Royal Holloway College and foremost
authority on this topic states that “…Ottoman fleet movements in the
eastern Mediterranean fatally split Philip II’s armada _ So alongside
all the stories we’re told at school about why the Spanish Armada
failed to conquer Britain and destroy Protestantism, we should add
another reason: the Anglo- Ottoman alliance brokered by Elizabeth” and
the Ottoman Sultan.
Thirdly, in 1845, the onset of the Great Irish Famine resulted in over
a million deaths. Ottoman Sultan Caliph Abdulmajid I declared his
intention to send 10,000 sterling to Irish farmers, despite on-going
economic problems within the Ottoman State. However, Queen Victoria
requested that the Sultan send only 1,000 sterling, because she had
sent only 2,000 sterling herself. The Sultan sent the 1,000 sterling
but also secretly sent 3 ships full of food. The English courts tried
to block the ships, but the food arrived in Drogheda harbor and was
left there by Ottoman Sailors.
This act of kindness was well received and the Irish sent a letter of
gratitude to the Ottoman Sultan, which is still displayed in the
Topkapi Palace.
“We the noblemen, gentlemen and inhabitants of Ireland want to express
our thank and gratitude for the Ottoman Sultan’s … The Ottoman
Sultan’s munificent response to this aid call displays an example to
European States. Numbers were relieved and saved from perishing
through this timely act. We express our gratitude on their behalf and
hope that the Ottoman Sultan and his dominions will be saved from the
afflictions which have befallen us.”
In conclusion, we should take note that despite the cracks towards the
last 200 years, the Ottoman Caliphate was only rivaled by the Roman
Empire as the dominant force in Europe throughout its history. We
should not fall victim to the propaganda against the Ottoman state.
The fact is, even a weakened Ottoman state would be far better than
any of the rulers we have now. The current Muslim leadership consists
of rulers that are not independent of external influences, have no
ideological system that guides them and produces results and are
merely self-serving. The fact remains that the best Ottoman Caliphs
rank amongst the best heroes in the history of Islam. – Eurasia Review
