One of the common charges against the Ottomans by modern day detractors (generally Muslims) is to understand the empire in a debauched state, specifically the Sultans and other Muslim officials.
There are certainly European texts which, in order to rationalize their own use of alcohol and to limit the presentation of a superior way of life in which it is forbidden, attempt to paint the picture of a hypocritical drunk barbarian nation.
However, it is difficult to reconcile that (fictional) understanding with other much more somber texts by those same Europeans, such as “Sketches of Turkey in 1831 and 1832″, By James Ellsworth De
Kay (Published 1833, J. & J. Harper).
One of the most striking of these is abstinence from wine
and all strong liquors. They carry their notions on this
subject so far as to hold it unlawful not merely to taste
wine, but to make it, to buy or to sell it, or even to maintain
themselves with the moneys arising from the sale of
that liquor. There are, of course, among them some freethinkers
and free livers who indulge in rum, but, as far as
our observation has extended, the number is quite limited.
The most scrupulous, indeed, refrain not only from the use
of wine, but also from coffee and tobacco. It is perhaps
in reference to this that the sultan, as the head of the
church, is said never to use tobacco. If Mohammed, as is
commonly believed, copied his restrictions from the Jews,
he seems to have made an improvement upon the Levitical
law, which merely forbids the use of wine and strong
drinks to the priests when they are about to enter the
tabernacle of the congregation. So general and so strong
is the dislike to the use of spirituous liquors among the
Turks, that we know of several Europeans in their service
who carefully abstain from drinking when they are about to
transact business with the officers of government, lest their
breath should reveal the fact. If our praiseworthy associations
for promoting temperance should be in want of a
patron saint, we know of none who comes furnished with
stronger recommendations than Mohammed.
November 12th, 2007 - 2:03 pm
Asalaamu alaikum.
Always appreciate the education…
It is interesting to me that it notes that non-Muslims of the time made an effort to respect the beliefs of the Ottomans and refrain from drinking when planning to visit or meet. Not that the Ottomans forced them to live up to their own stringent lifestyle, but that the non-Muslims of their own accord had such respect for the Ottomans to want to do this on their own.
It never ceases to amaze me how non-Muslims today find it very unbearable to respect our desires to not drink and will be pushy about it. In both business and social gatherings, I am often “pressured” that I need to unwind with just one drink and they point to other Muslims they know who are willing to do so as proof that I am being extreme (nevermind that I am also in recovery, mashaAllah!). I have always found this very annoying.
But after reading this, I wonder, is the problem I encounter not possibly in part that I simply do not live up to an ideal that would instill respect for my beliefs in others? Not to say that there are not always plenty of people who wish to drag others down and that we shouldn’t expect to feel ridiculous judgment on their part, but just what part do our own failings play in the fact that they cannot simply respect us and our way and allow us to go about in our way? Maybe, just maybe, to some degree it is that we fail in so many areas of our deen that we do not engender respect from each other as brothers and sisters, much less in the wider masses. It used to be, due to their noble character, that Muslims were thought highly of even by those who did not believe. Now we are of the lowest. It is true that one reason is that we should not be concerned with the opinions of men, and it is true that society in general becomes more secular and informal as time goes on, but it may also in part simply be that we are generations that have failed to show the real character and beauty of Islam.
November 12th, 2007 - 2:52 pm
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
Salamu’alaykum Aaminah,
Well, I wouldn’t take it to mean that the Ottomans didn’t force them to live up to their own stringent lifestyle. Alcohol was outlawed after all. The considerations of not drinking when approaching officials was probably as much a means of self-preservation, lack of fines, etc, as much as a sign of respect.
November 12th, 2007 - 3:46 pm
Asalaamu alaikum.
Not disagreeing, just saying that despite laws we all know that where there is a will to get ahold of alcohol or other contraband it can and is done. Are you completely throwing my idea out the window that some Westerners may have had genuine respect for the Ottomans?
November 12th, 2007 - 4:46 pm
Salamu’alaykum,
My point was only that alcohol was illegal, just as illegal as cocaine or marijuana is today (and probably just as accessible). Its enforcement was also similar in strictness. To drink and then go visit officials or dignitaries of the court would be equivalent as to going to visit the mayor while high. It wasn’t a matter of respect as much as a matter of common sense for these individuals..
After reading through too many volumes of material on the subject, it is clear that Westerners of the time, in general, had an incredibly racist attitude towards the Ottomans and Muslims in general, demeaning their character and religion very openly, even when living amongst them.
As noted in one of the previous posts, it is unknown whether these techniques of demonization were in the authors hands as much as editors and various publishers. Understanding this environment of clear racism, jealously and distrust gives excerpts like I have posted here and elsewhere all the more meaning.
November 12th, 2007 - 5:22 pm
An example of a book that might be found laid next to the one quoted in the post, “The Ottoman Power in Europe: Its Nature, Its Power, Its Decline” : pub: 1877
The man who has risen from a low estate to a great
one by vile means,’ the man who has bought his
place by bribes, the slave who has risen by craft
and cringing, the wretch who has risen by that viler
path which Christian tongues are forbidden to speak
of, but which is the Turk’s surest path to power,
in such men as these the lowest and basest form of
human nature is reached. And such men as these
rule at pleasure over South-eastern Europe. Barbarians
at heart, false, cruel, foul, as any of the old
Turks, but without any of the higher qualities of the
old Turks, these men have picked up just enough of
the outward show of civilization to deceive those who
do not look below the surface. They meet the
Ministers of civilized powers on equal terms; they
wear European clothes; they talk an European
tongue, and are spoken of as ” Excellency” and ”
Highness.” The wretched beings called Sultans are
thrust aside as may be thought good at the moment;
but the relations between the Sultan and his subjects,
the relations with which at the treaty of Paris the
Christian powers bound themselves not to interfere,
go on everywhere in full force. There is no barbarian
so dangerous as the barbarian who is cunning enough
to pass himself off for a civilized man. pg 202-203
Works like these far outweigh in content and number the few paragraphs of truths that fall within larger lies.