AHC: Muslim roman empire

According to Sunni tradition, all the caliphates following the Rashidun were guided correctly and were legitimate and fulfilled all the statuses for the Caliphate. None of them veered from the supposed ideal of the Sharia except in some minor ways such as differing rulings on tax and what have you. I am not such a puritanical person, as to nullify 1500 years of Caliphal reign as some Muslim wish to do in their purity spirals.

Well yeah, but when you look at the changing way the caliph acted over the years as the character of Islam itself evolved it seems to me that interpretations of legitimate sharia law evolved to explain and legitimise whatever the current state of affairs was, instead of the state of affairs changing to match the latest interpretation of sharia.
 
Fall-Of-Ottoman-Empire-Map.jpg

<cough> looks like the eastern empire witih some tacked on
note this map isn't 100% given at times the ottomans also controlled crimea and parts of Italy during different stages

The ottomans where the direct successors to the eastern empire. just they were Muslim and since most of history has been written from the bias of European view .. well.. they got voted off the island.

however - the ottomans for all intensive purposes were the successor.

its like saying Rome was no longer Rome when they converted to Christianity from paganism and the old gods.

Note we also call the holy roman empire - neither holy nor roman
Napoleon also wanted to have the title of king of the Romans

Last but not least the Russians also claim Moscow as the the Third incarnation of Rome and heir to the eastern Empire in that they married into the gig and are the center of the Russian Orthodox Church

So hey.. go islam .. go French.. go german.. go Russian.. so many choices .. or hey Mussolini declared the revived roman empire

My humble opinon says Ottomans for hey .. they actually controlled all the lands of the east.

then the Russians since they married into the gig and became the mantle of the eastern church
 
Last edited:
Well yeah, but when you look at the changing way the caliph acted over the years as the character of Islam itself evolved it seems to me that interpretations of legitimate sharia law evolved to explain and legitimise whatever the current state of affairs was, instead of the state of affairs changing to match the latest interpretation of sharia.

I do not see any of this. Give me an example perhaps?
 
Fall-Of-Ottoman-Empire-Map.jpg

<cough> looks like the eastern empire witih some tacked on
note this map isn't 100% given at times the ottomans also controlled crimea and parts of Italy during different stages

The ottomans where the direct successors to the eastern empire. just they were Muslim and since most of history has been written from the bias of European view .. well.. they got voted off the island.

however - the ottomans for all intensive purposes were the successor.

its like saying Rome was no longer Rome when they converted to Christianity from paganism and the old gods.

Note we also call the holy roman empire - neither holy nor roman
Napoleon also wanted to have the title of king of the Romans

Last but not least the Russians also claim Moscow as the the Third incarnation of Rome and heir to the eastern Empire in that they married into the gig and are the center of the Russian Orthodox Church

So hey.. go islam .. go French.. go german.. go Russian.. so many choices .. or hey Mussolini declared the revived roman empire

My humble opinon says Ottomans for hey .. they actually controlled all the lands of the east.

then the Russians since they married into the gig and became the mantle of the eastern church

The Umayyad Caliphate has its capital in Damascus, Damascus was part of the Roman Empire; Is your opinion that the Umayyads are a Roman Imperial claimant?

Almohads ruled Tangier, are the Almohads the legitimate heirs of Rome?

This argument from geography is silly to me, frankly.
 
The Umayyad Caliphate has its capital in Damascus, Damascus was part of the Roman Empire; Is your opinion that the Umayyads are a Roman Imperial claimant?

Almohads ruled Tangier, are the Almohads the legitimate heirs of Rome?

This argument from geography is silly to me, frankly.
None of them had Constantinople Athens.. And everything else.. So no I don't .
The osmani made an effort to integrate fudal byzantine Into their world.


Wrte they Rome ?

No.. Not from a western euro view

Were they Rome? They were the center of the calphite . So from an Islam view. Sure

Did those others try to be eastern Rome?
 
None of them had Constantinople Athens.. And everything else.. So no I don't .
The osmani made an effort to integrate fudal byzantine Into their world.


Wrte they Rome ?

No.. Not from a western euro view

Were they Rome? They were the center of the calphite . So from an Islam view. Sure

Did those others try to be eastern Rome?

Ottomans did not try to be Byzantium either. The association with Rum was one of geographic terminology, not of direct or perceived succession.

There is no reason Constantinople or Athens is more Roman than Tangier or Damascus. Mind you, I do not feel any of these are successors of Rome...
 
just they were Muslim and since most of history has been written from the bias of European view .. well.. they got voted off the island.
This is exactly what I'm asking about. if the ottomans embraced the roman identity more (like mehmed IV tried to do with himself being crowned 'caesar') and europe approved in one way or another, then we would all be speaking about the third roman empire today - but those factors would take a wildly divergent timeline to solve. How could these be resolved or changed?
 
This is exactly what I'm asking about. if the ottomans embraced the roman identity more (like mehmed IV tried to do with himself being crowned 'caesar') and europe approved in one way or another, then we would all be speaking about the third roman empire today - but those factors would take a wildly divergent timeline to solve. How could these be resolved or changed?

I do not really agree with this point.
 
The Exalted Ottoman State was pretty much the next form of Basileía Rhōmaíōn no matter how much the conversations of disapproving peoples say otherwise. They comprised the territory of the old ERE and more importantly they ruled over the majority of its peoples.
 
The Exalted Ottoman State was pretty much the next form of Basileía Rhōmaíōn no matter how much the conversations of disapproving peoples say otherwise. They comprised the territory of the old ERE and more importantly they ruled over the majority of its peoples.
Ok using this logic the Seljuks were the next form of the Achaemenids and Seleuicids given the borders.
 
That makes no sense though, to be a successor you need to succeed something meaningful, if anything the Turkic and Ottoman conquest created the biggest rupture in the linguistic, religious, demographic and geopolitical sense in Anatolia since the Roman period, the Ottomans of the 15th and 16th century far diverge from the Byzantines of the 12th century in territory and everything.
 
Last edited:
I do not see any of this. Give me an example perhaps?

Well I mean the changing nature of the caliphate can be seen in the way it went from elective to hereditary from rashidun to Umayyad. There’s also the weakening of the legal idea that only the caliph can declare jihad and negotiate truces with non Muslim states as time goes on and these rights are taken up more by local leaders and dynasties, from the mid abbasids onwards I think, though I’m not sure on the exact timing, especially the Mamluks later on. And then in the colonial era that morphs into a direct refutation of al ghazalis ideas about tyranny being better than anarchy and turning jihad from something that any established Muslim leader can declare into something that any individual can start.
 
Ok using this logic the Seljuks were the next form of the Achaemenids and Seleuicids given the borders.

Right. For that matter, could we not say, the late Abbasid Caliphate is essentially the continuation of the Akkadian empire, Assyria and Babylon as Saddam Hussein likened it? In this case, the Abbasid and later the republic of Iraq, are at least Semitic, the Ottomans though? Or perhaps we could say that Pakistan is the inheritor of the Indus Valley Civilization, they rule the same territory no? Claiming that the Turkic beyliks and the Islamic rulers of the Ottoman Caliphate are the successors of Byzantium, is analogous to me, as saying that the Spanish holdings in Mexico are successors of the Aztec, Huastec, Toltecs, etc... or analogous to saying that the US is successors of the Native tribes and peoples of North America. The Muslim lords and scholars of the time even viewed the situation as the previously mentioned parallels did, that the goal ultimately of baghwa was conquest and to perform the holy duty of jihad upon the kuffar which distribute chaos unto the world by their disobedience to Allah. This is no different from the 'sea to shining sea' model or 'manifest destiny' and other ideals spoken of by European colonialists. This can be supported by both Ottoman era jurisprudence and jurisprudence prior to the Ottoman foundation...

Regardless, some posters in this thread, have essentially resorted to saying, 'we believe that this is the case, for reasons' as opposed to reasoned counters. Further, they cheapen the uniqueness of the Ottoman state and the Turkic beyliks by consuming themselves with westernizing every aspect of their existence and cutting it from the wider Islamic perspective and viewing it as part of the European fold via 'Rome'.
 
Well I mean the changing nature of the caliphate can be seen in the way it went from elective to hereditary from rashidun to Umayyad. There’s also the weakening of the legal idea that only the caliph can declare jihad and negotiate truces with non Muslim states as time goes on and these rights are taken up more by local leaders and dynasties, from the mid abbasids onwards I think, though I’m not sure on the exact timing, especially the Mamluks later on. And then in the colonial era that morphs into a direct refutation of al ghazalis ideas about tyranny being better than anarchy and turning jihad from something that any established Muslim leader can declare into something that any individual can start.

1. Al-Ghazali, is not someone who is the arbiter regarding the fiqh issues, and there are many disagreements that scholars preceding him and after him had with his views and methodology. While he is certainly not deviant in my view and widely accepted, any statement of his that is given, must be vetted by existing scholars in our records and then vetted toward what we have learned by holy tradition. As a precursor, I am not exactly sure what al-Ghazali refers to when he says that only the Caliph may declare jihad, there is an argument that this may be the case, but it is also generally accepted that the declaration of jihad is not declared truly by a ruler, but by Allah Himself by Divine Command, the Caliph or ruler only has rights to make treaties, deals and such based upon the necessity of the time. Jihad generally is not simply thus a war or treaty, but an existing state of baraa (enmity) with the world around yourself in the sense that Allah has commanded His followers to reject much of this world and some of this includes a command that ultimately one pursues a state of enmity with the kuffar entities that are disobedient and to bring them to heel. In that respect, there is both war and treaties, both are methods of jihad and used tactically for the uses of the Islamic regime. If al-Ghazali said, jihad is only declared by the Caliph, then I would have to disagree with him and nearly all scholars would as well, as this statement would require him to say that Allah is the Caliph, which is kufr akbar (great sin).

Much of this issue is, al-Ghazali was likely influenced by Platonism and other such ideas when he stated this regarding tyranny vs anarchy, not necessarily Islamic traditions, which favored more decentralized warfare. In the Abbasid Caliphate, the Caliphs allowed armies on its fringes, as the Umayyad and Rashidun did, prosecute wars of 'movement', which were in essence, decentralized wars occurring at all ends of the growing Islamic world, as it was understood, all nations and people are ultimately to be attacked or subjugated to a degree and if they cannot be, seek peace in order to by one's time. This situation was generally the case and was accepted as a system with its model directly in the directives of Muhammad (SAW) by all four of the founders of the major 4 madhab. In fact, the Abbasid system allowed the Abbasid to delegate wars of invasion and conquest to other Muslim, as Caliph Abu Bakr did with Khaled bin Walid of Caliph Umar did with his generals, there was never this sort of Byzantine platonism within the Islamic tradition. There is thus not structure by which we say in Islamic jurisprudence, that the state must be a centralized entity, if it is, then this is permissible, if not, then that too is permissible. It should also be remembered, in terms of title, other than the Umayyads in Iberia and some other non Sunni realms, all Muslim states prior to the Fatimids were legally speaking subjects of the Abbasid Caliphate and likewise, so were the Saljuq, Ghaznavids, etc...

2. In terms of the status of al-Ghazali saying only rulers can declare a war, this is true, but declaration of jihad, like I said, is not controlled by a ruler and the Abbasid caliph, in the views of the times, had already legislated wars upon all enemies on its borders, so any individual army under the sponsorship of the Abbasid throne that attacks nearby kuffar, this was in fact a war declared by the ruler. Even in the earliest times, during the Caliphate of Umar, governors of conquered territories were allowed to prosecute military jihad at their own discretion.

"Jihad (physical) is an obligation upon the community; if some people undertake this, the rest are relieved of the obligation." -Ibn Qadamah al-Maqdisi 1147-1223

-This could even include the Caliph^ who centered within the heart of the Islamic world, is not near the kuffar and is difficult for himself to lead the wars personally each time. Thus, it is permissible for him to delegate this function to men who reside on the fringes and have less duties as the Caliph, who concerns himself with enforcing Shari'a.

"Listen and obey, even if you are ruled by an Abyssinian slave." -Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

-This Abyssinian slave, who a Muslim, is your local leader and declares jihad on the fringes, one should still go to perform the jihad. This slave mentioned by the Prophet, is not the Caliph or descended from the Hashim, but Muhammad (SAW) clearly used a term not of his own he held, Caliph, meaning, it is not only him who declares the physical jihad in the moment. If even Muhammad (SAW) delegates to a degree, then that shows you the position of al-Ghazali, if he truly believed this.

"-It should be noted that appointing a leader to run the people’s affairs is one of the greatest of religious duties, without which no religious or worldly matters can be established, because the best interests of the son of Adam cannot be achieved without coming together, because they need one another. When they come together, it is essential to have a leader. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If three people set out on a journey, let them appoint one of them in charge.” Narrated by Abu Dawood from the hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed and Abu Hurayrah. Imam Ahmad narrated in his Musnad from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible for three people to be in the wilderness without appointing one of them in charge.” The fact that it is obligatory to appoint one person in charge of a small temporary group whilst travelling indicates that this is essential in all kinds of groups. And Allaah has commanded us to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, which can only be achieved from a position of strength and authority, and the same applies to all the other things that He has enjoined, such as jihad, justice, establishment of Hajj, Jumu’ah and Eid, as well as supporting those who are wronged or oppressed, and carrying out hadd punishments – it cannot be achieved except from a position of strength and authority. Hence it was narrated that “the ruler is the shadow of Allaah on earth” and “Sixty years with (even) an unjust ruler are better than one night without a ruler." Experience proves that this is so.-" -Ibn Taymiyyah 1263-1328

- Essentially, even if three people are alone in the wilderness, they may appoint a leader among themselves and conduct their actions, without the necessary need of the Caliph. Further, the Caliph in the situation of the Abbasid has appointed his own rulers to prosecute wars he has set parameters fro or given them freedom to conduct on their own with knowledge best of the surrounding situation. It makes little sense for in an age of hard travel, for the ruler to direct the wars in a mircomanaging fashion in far off Sindh.

In this regard, I am not so puritanical as you portray al-Ghazali and accept that in differing situations, the Caliphate may adopt different methods for what it is required to do.

3. Regarding the election, this is an area of dispute. While Abu Bakr was elected by the people of high position or of great skill, the situation was changed when Abu Bakr appointed Umar al-Khattab as his successor, in this regard, the Abbasid and Umayyad practiced this form of transfer. If Caliph Abu Bakr could appoint his successor, then so could the Abbasid caliphs. If you believe that the appointing of the next caliph by the previous is a nullification of caliphate, then you must also say that the caliphate of Umar al-Khattab is null and only returns to the Caliphate with Utham ibn Affan.
 
the Islamic rulers of the Ottoman Caliphate are the successors of Byzantium, is analogous to me, as saying that the Spanish holdings in Mexico are successors of the Aztec,
I think this is more and less true. There are strong continuation from Aztec and Inca to Spanish colonial empires. many bureaucracy and social system is similar.

That makes no sense though, to be a successor you need to succeed something meaningful, if anything the Turkic and Ottoman conquest created the biggest rupture in the linguistic, religious, demographic and geopolitical sense in Anatolia since the Roman period, the Ottomans of the 15th and 16th century far diverge from the Byzantines of the 12th century in territory and everything.

in Anatolia, that is true. majority of Turkish beyliks in Anatolia is NOT descendants of Byzantine tradition.

Ottoman Empire, however, since Adrianople, had inherited many Byzantine bureaucratic and cultural traits, they also descended from many Byzantine nobility through female line. So I think, Ottoman is heir to both Caliphate and Byzantine Empire. And since Byzantine is heir of Rome, transmission from Rome -> Byzantine -> Ottoman is correct.
 
I think this is more and less true. There are strong continuation from Aztec and Inca to Spanish colonial empires. many bureaucracy and social system is similar.



in Anatolia, that is true. majority of Turkish beyliks in Anatolia is NOT descendants of Byzantine tradition.

Ottoman Empire, however, since Adrianople, had inherited many Byzantine bureaucratic and cultural traits, they also descended from many Byzantine nobility through female line. So I think, Ottoman is heir to both Caliphate and Byzantine Empire. And since Byzantine is heir of Rome, transmission from Rome -> Byzantine -> Ottoman is correct.

Which bureaucracy? Everyone says bureaucracy remains in these cases without acknowledging the mindset of the Ottomans... Also can you mention this situation of bureaucracy? Where exactly is this bureaucracy and who are they that you mention?

Also be clear, your succession or opinion regarding translatio imperii, is that, an opinion. Do not propose your opinion as an absolute, as many disagree with this.
 
Last edited:
Top