Successful Jihad

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

In 1914 the Sultan-Caliph of the Ottomans called for a Jihad against the enemies of the Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Ottoman_Empire
"On November 14, 1914, in Constantinople, capital of the Ottoman Empire, the religious leader Sheikh-ul-Islam declares Jihad on behalf of the Ottoman government, urging Muslims all over the world—including in the Allied countries—to take up arms against Britain, Russia, France, Serbia and Montenegro in World War I.[76] On the other hand, Sheikh Hussein ibn Ali, the Emir of Mecca, refused to accommodate Ottoman requests that he endorse this jihad, a requirement that was necessary were a jihad to become popular, on the grounds that:
'the Holy War was doctrinally incompatible with an aggressive war, and absurd with a Christian ally: Germany' "

What if the Emir had supported it and the Jihad had become popular in Entente colonies? Does the war end in negotiated peace or o things get that much bloodier?

Also:
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/ottoman_fetva.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33610372/Jihad-in-WWI
 
TBH, the Emir disputed the Sultan's claims to be Calif, and his point that in actual fact all of the Ottoman's allies are Christian still holds. Also, with the large number of muslims in Bosnia, this is something that A-H would definately not want to happen in case it enboldened them and made them more eager for independence.
 

Deleted member 1487

TBH, the Emir disputed the Sultan's claims to be Calif, and his point that in actual fact all of the Ottoman's allies are Christian still holds. Also, with the large number of muslims in Bosnia, this is something that A-H would definately not want to happen in case it enboldened them and made them more eager for independence.

On the Bosnian issue that would seem unlikely given that they were living in a sea of orthodox Serbs which hate them and the Habsburgs were their protectors. Muslim troops proved very loyal to the Kaiser during the war for that reason. Independence would make them a minority in their own free state, with OTL post-war level of consequences.
 
On the Bosnian issue that would seem unlikely given that they were living in a sea of orthodox Serbs which hate them and the Habsburgs were their protectors. Muslim troops proved very loyal to the Kaiser during the war for that reason. Independence would make them a minority in their own free state, with OTL post-war level of consequences.

True, but would the government in Vienna come to that conclusion, or would they just view this as another potential issue for keeping control of the minorities.
 

Deleted member 1487

True, but would the government in Vienna come to that conclusion, or would they just view this as another potential issue for keeping control of the minorities.

Actually the Bosniaks (in Austrian German) were viewed as one of the most loyal groups by the Habsburgs and the call to holy war against Austria-Hungary's enemies, especially on their southern border, would be most welcome, especially given the various abused Muslim minorities in Serbia and Montenegro would and did prove allies against the Orthodox Serb majorities.

Really for the Central Powers there is no down side to this call to Jihad, which is why they pushed so hard for it, even having Wilhelm pose in Islamic grab and spread the rumor that the nation Germany would convert to Islam at the end of a successful war. Really ridiculous stuff, but it was hoped that it would be enough to 'inspire' Muslims throughout the Entente empires to revolt.
 

MrP

Banned
This idea interest me. I confess it interest me tangentially, as my interest is in the likely result of such a call to arms being declared by an Ottoman Empire aligned with the Entente on the Bosnian Muslims.
 

Deleted member 1487

This idea interest me. I confess it interest me tangentially, as my interest is in the likely result of such a call to arms being declared by an Ottoman Empire aligned with the Entente on the Bosnian Muslims.

It would probably be played off like the OTL version was, but even more so, as in that timeline the Ottomans would be allied to their arch enemies the Russians, but also the British and likely the Italians.
 
I think it depends on the exact circumstances. Persia won't listen due to the Shia-Sunni split, while actually in Britain and France the vast majority of the population who are muslim (and that's a small number anyway) would feel that any insurrection is doomed to failure anyway, or would be more loyal to the King and Parliament than to the Ottoman Sultan. Small groups probably would rebel, but be easily crushed. Repeat this for Canada, South Africa and ANZAC.

Russia's Islamic minorities are heavily tied up in ethnic and political minorities, so there should be experience with handling uprisings there.

The main issue is, however, that many even in majority muslim areas are going to feel that they need some form of outside support. Linguistic difficulties mean that while much of India could revolt, there would be little coordination. The Hindi-German conspiricy to rebel OTL was uncovered pretty easily, so we can expect that attempts by Germany to help would end pretty badly TTL as well (though perhaps not as badly as OTL). Many rulers of the Princely States and the various protectorates would be in the situation that they view themselves as being in a good situation already and would view rebellion as senseless. It must also be born in mind that the Jihad can only be spread by the Imans, so any groups with a pro-British Iman are likely to reject this as a false call under provocation and cite exactly the same reasons as the Emir.

We can also expect that some important Arab figures would view independence as more important than loyalty to the Ottomans even under Jihad if they were offered it by the British. Among them perhaps the Emir's son, or even the Emir himself if the right offer is given.

Overall, there would probably be some rebellions, but mostly disorganised ones, and the main problems would probably occur in Algeria, India and possibly Egypt (though the large numbers of troops operating there would preclude violence.)
 

Deleted member 1487

I think it depends on the exact circumstances. Persia won't listen due to the Shia-Sunni split, while actually in Britain and France the vast majority of the population who are muslim (and that's a small number anyway) would feel that any insurrection is doomed to failure anyway, or would be more loyal to the King and Parliament than to the Ottoman Sultan. Small groups probably would rebel, but be easily crushed. Repeat this for Canada, South Africa and ANZAC.

Russia's Islamic minorities are heavily tied up in ethnic and political minorities, so there should be experience with handling uprisings there.

The main issue is, however, that many even in majority muslim areas are going to feel that they need some form of outside support. Linguistic difficulties mean that while much of India could revolt, there would be little coordination. The Hindi-German conspiricy to rebel OTL was uncovered pretty easily, so we can expect that attempts by Germany to help would end pretty badly TTL as well (though perhaps not as badly as OTL). Many rulers of the Princely States and the various protectorates would be in the situation that they view themselves as being in a good situation already and would view rebellion as senseless. It must also be born in mind that the Jihad can only be spread by the Imans, so any groups with a pro-British Iman are likely to reject this as a false call under provocation and cite exactly the same reasons as the Emir.

We can also expect that some important Arab figures would view independence as more important than loyalty to the Ottomans even under Jihad if they were offered it by the British. Among them perhaps the Emir's son, or even the Emir himself if the right offer is given.

Overall, there would probably be some rebellions, but mostly disorganised ones, and the main problems would probably occur in Algeria, India and possibly Egypt (though the large numbers of troops operating there would preclude violence.)

OTL there was some violence from Muslim Indians in India, but these were generally limited incidents for precisely the reasons you mention. This all seems very logical and probably pretty close to what would have happened. Though there were some incidents in the Muslim areas of the Russian Empire, I am baffled why there weren't more occurring earlier. I suppose it had to do with the effectiveness of Russian colonization and suppression efforts in Central Asia. Still one would have thought there would have been more incidents in Caucasia similar to the Armenian revolt, but pro-Ottoman in nature or at least among Muslim soldiers in Central Asian military formations.
 
OTL there was some violence from Muslim Indians in India, but these were generally limited incidents for precisely the reasons you mention. This all seems very logical and probably pretty close to what would have happened. Though there were some incidents in the Muslim areas of the Russian Empire, I am baffled why there weren't more occurring earlier. I suppose it had to do with the effectiveness of Russian colonization and suppression efforts in Central Asia. Still one would have thought there would have been more incidents in Caucasia similar to the Armenian revolt, but pro-Ottoman in nature or at least among Muslim soldiers in Central Asian military formations.

Presumably, they wanted independence rather than being tied into vassalage/annexed by the Ottoman Empire. The fact that there were a lot of Russian troops in precisely that area was probably a large factor as well.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Presumably, they wanted independence rather than being tied into vassalage/annexed by the Ottoman Empire. The fact that there were a lot of Russian troops in precisely that area was probably a large factor as well.

A lot of Caucasian muslims, especially Circassians, had ended up refugees in the Ottoman Empire though.
 
Top