AHC: Western-Style 'Englightenment'...in Middle East

Enlightenment could have started in Middle East in middle of 19 century. There were couple Iranian reformers like Bahá'í Faith. If they had succeeded, it would be easier to introduce modern ideas in Middle East.
 
As I have argued before on this site numerous times, the Ottomans in many terms was the greatest of the Khilafah. It was only bested at time in terms of war by the Umayyad. If you wish to debate this topic in more detail then that can be done easily.

That seems to be off from what I know of Ottoman history. Before the 19th century, the Ottoman claims to the Caliphate were generally only somewhat more important than the Ottoman claim to the Caiserdom of Rome. It was only with the rise of Pan-Islamic sentiments under the late Ottomans that the Caliphate began to be more important in Ottoman terminology and self-definition.

The Ottomans were a Turkish Islamic empire. Calling them a Caliphate helps better the understanding of Ottoman actions in the late 19th century, but very little before that.

EDIT: I don't mean that the Ottomans were not Caliphal, I mean that calling it a Caliphate it doesn't actually help us understand the Ottoman polity for most of its existence. And I'm sure you understand that jihad has been called by almost anyone around the world.
 
Last edited:
Enlightenment could have started in Middle East in middle of 19 century. There were couple Iranian reformers like Bahá'í Faith. If they had succeeded, it would be easier to introduce modern ideas in Middle East.
Please look at my previous post. The Bahá'ís were not the only reformers in the Islamic world, there was in fact a strong and influential Islamic reformist movement.
 
That seems to be off from what I know of Ottoman history. Before the 19th century, the Ottoman claims to the Caliphate were generally only somewhat more important than the Ottoman claim to the Caiserdom of Rome. It was only with the rise of Pan-Islamic sentiments under the late Ottomans that the Caliphate began to be more important in Ottoman terminology and self-definition.

The Ottomans were a Turkish Islamic empire. Calling them a Caliphate helps better the understanding of Ottoman actions in the late 19th century, but very little before that.

EDIT: I don't mean that the Ottomans were not Caliphal, I mean that calling it a Caliphate it doesn't actually help us understand the Ottoman polity for most of its existence. And I'm sure you understand that jihad has been called by almost anyone around the world.



I would disagree on this point. For instance the Ottomams referred not to their duties as a Turkish or Roman entity in its Jihad against the Shi'i entities of Iran and Iraq. Nor did the Ottomams refer to its Roman or Turkish identity for its conquest of the Mamluks, their conquest was clear: to remove the other claimant of the Khilafah

Further you said it was more important than the Caesardom of Rum, so if that wasn't their greatest title than what was? Obviously it would have been the Khilafah. Further the Ottomans had claimed Khilafah far before 1453, (before the battle of Konya as well) the name it took and its movement after the claim is what most greatly defined the Ottomans in my opinion.
 

Cueg

Banned
I would disagree on this point. For instance the Ottomams referred not to their duties as a Turkish or Roman entity in its Jihad against the Shi'i entities of Iran and Iraq. Nor did the Ottomams refer to its Roman or Turkish identity for its conquest of the Mamluks, their conquest was clear: to remove the other claimant of the Khilafah

Further you said it was more important than the Caesardom of Rum, so if that wasn't their greatest title than what was? Obviously it would have been the Khilafah. Further the Ottomans had claimed Khilafah far before 1453, (before the battle of Konya as well) the name it took and its movement after the claim is what most greatly defined the Ottomans in my opinion.

Do you ever cite anything, or is your word gospel?
 
I would disagree on this point. For instance the Ottomams referred not to their duties as a Turkish or Roman entity in its Jihad against the Shi'i entities of Iran and Iraq. Nor did the Ottomams refer to its Roman or Turkish identity for its conquest of the Mamluks, their conquest was clear: to remove the other claimant of the Khilafah
The reasons for the conquest of Egypt remain disputed. To quote The Ottoman Age of Exploration

Against this exhilarating intellectual background, we can pinpoint the true beginning of the Ottoman Age of Exploration to Sultan Selim’s decision to invade the territories of the Mamluk empire in 1516. Th is was a move with overwhelmingly important consequences for later Ottoman history, doubling the size of the empire in a single year and solidifying the Ottomans’ status as the most powerful state in the Islamic world. Yet surprisingly, it is also a decision whose motivations still remain, nearly five hundred years after the fact, shrouded in a thick veil of mystery. Was it intended as a preemptive strike against Selim’s archrival Shah Ismail of Iran, designed to deprive him of a potentially powerful Egyptian ally? Was it instead a political gambit to shore up Selim’s legitimacy on the domestic front, by appropriating the prestigious religious centers of Jerusalem, Mecca, and Medina? Or was it merely the first step in a much grander strategy aimed at pulling the Indian Ocean into the Ottoman orbit and seizing control of the spice trade from the newly established Portuguese Estado da Índia?

Probably no single factor can fully explain Selim’s decision, and even a considerable element of chance may have lain behind the immediate political conditions that brought his army first into Syria and then to Egypt. Still, it seems extremely likely that an interest in the spice trade played at least some role in drawing Selim to the banks of the Nile. And although it remains an elusive goal to determine exactly how and under what circumstances this came about, at least one fact is clear: just as Ottoman geographic knowledge of the Indian Ocean had begun to grow in the years leading up to the conquest of Egypt, so, too, did Ottoman merchant communities begin to establish their first direct commercial ties with the region.

Further you said it was more important than the Caesardom of Rum, so if that wasn't their greatest title than what was? Obviously it would have been the Khilafah.
Caliph may have been most prestigious, but Sultan was the most pertinent title as well as the title most Ottoman rulers probably primarily identified as (as we see from European surprise when they learned that one of the last Ottoman rulers thought of himself more as Caliph than Sultan).
 
The reasons for the conquest of Egypt remain disputed. To quote The Ottoman Age of Exploration




Caliph may have been most prestigious, but Sultan was the most pertinent title as well as the title most Ottoman rulers probably primarily identified as (as we see from European surprise when they learned that one of the last Ottoman rulers thought of himself more as Caliph than Sultan).

Of course there are multiple reasons, but it is clear that at the time there were two Caliphs in the Middle East (Ottomans and the Abbasid under the Mamluks), it is clear within the Fiqh that the Caliph cannot be two or any number except one or zero. The removal of a rival in its dominance of Ahl Sunnah gave the Ottomams unprecedented prestige and the loyalty of the Ulema in general regardless of school. The other reasons were factored into this.


Perhaps, but internally I am not sure that it's subjects viewed it as such.
 
Do you ever cite anything, or is your word gospel?


Is anyone in this thread taking the time to go and pull out their library and begin citing? It is not like I am writing essays where I have pre studied a subject, I am answering from knowledge I have attained by reading over time, I'm sure that is how everyone on this site answers unless they are partaking in something very important.

The Mamluk issue is from the knowledge of how the culmination of reasons led to its complete conquest. In my opinion (which is disputed) is that the Ottomans sought domestic reasons for its conquest of the Mamluk sultanate rather than the Safavid/Venetian threat.

My information on the Safavid issue and the battle of Chaldiran comes from the series of letters sent between Selim to Ismail in 1514 as it is collected in the Munsha'at vol.1 by Feridun Ali. I believe it is available in English, not sure however.
 
Do you ever cite anything, or is your word gospel?

Quickly: I really don't appreciate your attitude, in this thread or the last one. You have good points and I get you are passionate about history, but please adjust your tone (as I have from last thread to this one).
 
if Ottoman Empire Were to Remained Neutral During WW1 and so Ataturk would be a Grand Vizier and do more Reforms in the Empire and so Middle East would have Western-Style Enlightenment and More Peaceful.

In my Opinion
 
if Ottoman Empire Were to Remained Neutral During WW1 and so Ataturk would be a Grand Vizier and do more Reforms in the Empire and so Middle East would have Western-Style Enlightenment and More Peaceful.

In my Opinion


They did pass reforms and reforms after reforms even taking the Sharia and trampling over it. It failed to do much other than lead to eventual genocide of Armenians. As well, whether reforms where passed, no Arab wanted to live under such a rotted regime as the Ottoman at this point.
 
They did pass reforms and reforms after reforms even taking the Sharia and trampling over it. It failed to do much other than lead to eventual genocide of Armenians. As well, whether reforms where passed, no Arab wanted to live under such a rotted regime as the Ottoman at this point.
If no Arabs wanted to live under the Ottomans why was the Arab rebellion so small?
 
If no Arabs wanted to live under the Ottomans why was the Arab rebellion so small?


Just because you don't rebel does not mean you are not disgruntled at a state that makes reforms without your consent and claims Khilafah while simultaneously trashing the Shariah. As well, it is hard to rebel with guns in your face.
 
Top