After Sultan Mehmed II conquered the territory in 1463, he issued the following firman:
“I, the Sultan Khan the Conqueror,
hereby declare the whole world that,
The Bosnian Franciscans granted with this sultanate firman are under my protection. And I command that:
No one shall disturb or give harm to these people and their churches! They shall live in peace in my state. These people who have become emigrants, shall have security and liberty. They may return to their monasteries which are located in the borders of my state.
No one from my empire notable, viziers, clerks or my maids will break their honour or give any harm to them!
No one shall insult, put in danger or attack these lives, properties, and churches of these people!
Also, what and those these people have brought from their own countries have the same rights…
By declaring this firman, I swear on my sword by the holy name of Allah who has created the ground and sky, Allah’s prophet Mohammed, and 124.000 former prophets that; no one from my citizens will react or behave the opposite of this firman!”
The original edict is still kept in the Franciscan Catholic Monastery in Fojnica. It is one of the oldest documents on religious freedoms. Mehmed II’s oath was entered into force in the Ottoman Empire on May 28, 1463. In 1971, the United Nations published a translation of the document in all the official U.N. languages. -wikipedia
The discussion about the personality of Sultan Selim II goes back centuries, he was most likely the center of discussion even in the period of time in which he lived. This would be understandable, as his father, Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent, would be difficult to surpass in greatness. It was with Sultan Selim that the office of the Sultan became immensely more private and reserved, hence the door to open speculation about his character was also widely opened.
Due to this, we also find with Sultan Selim an obvious departure of what is accepted as ‘history’ by Western students from reality. Once a few facts are examined and logical contradictions are exposed, the propagated history of Sultan Selim II becomes very clearly an invented tale. The extent of this false history is somewhat unbelievable to those who are accustomed to what has been bought as the idea of Western ‘impartiality’ when it comes to news and history. Similarly there is often a negative consideration to those who speak out against what is considered as established fact, left to be called ‘conspiracy theorists’.
Oddly enough for a Muslim community, which some may say loves conspiracies, there has been little or no call to rally around when it comes to a false Ottoman history.
As to why there hasn’t been much opposition, it is not difficult to come to some simple conclusions. The founders of the present secular state of Turkey had little motivation to promote an accurate view of history and sought to separate themselves from the Ottomans as much as possible. With no state backing and really no people identifying themselves with the Sultans in spirit, there has been really no organized state effort to provide even an emotional rebuttal, much less a factual one which requires research as in this post. At the same time the Muslim population which turned away from Islam and abandoned the Caliphate has now revitalized a new anti-historical Islam which avoids Ottoman contributions, and in some cases, even perpetuates these myths.
Further, most people have been cut off from the actual facts since the massive cultural shift from the Caliphate to present day. Not only was the entire Ottoman language obliterated and the script of a new language forced on the population, but even ancient religious traditions such as the Azan (Call to Prayer) were being outlawed in anything other than ‘Turkish’ [1]. Furthermore, for decades, the Ottoman archives were completely sealed shut, leaving only biased 18th century Western documents as sources of Ottoman history.
Sultan Selim II receiving Safavid Ambassador
The Ottomans were notorious record keepers, from the earliest days of the Empire. The Ottoman archives are estimated to hold more than 150 million handwritten documents. Only about a quarter of them are yet classified and computerized. It is estimated that only about 32 million records are currently accessible for researchers [2]. The Turkish state is extremely selective on who gets access and it is monitored carefully, being banned without notice is quite common. The Ottoman archives store treaties, border disputes, inheritance, titles and privileges, trusts, gifts, charitable and religious foundations (vakif), court documents, land deeds, applicable laws, historical demographics, tax, crops, military records, and official correspondence.
Only recently have researchers been given the ability to apply to access even the limited catalogue of the Ottoman Archives. With that in mind, this article will focus largely on accepted Western sources, and primarily Osman’s Dream by Caroline Finkel, one of the few books to use information from the Ottoman Archives in order to give a better picture of Ottoman history. The intention is to contrast this information with what is popularly retold as the biography of Sultan Selim II, largely summarized on Wikipedia as sourced from the Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh Edition (public domain) and Ottoman Centuries by Patrick Balfour Kinross.
Ottoman Centuries is a particularly dastardly work when it comes to accuracy, being one of the most popular on the subject, yet containing only two pages of a bibliography for covering 700 years of history at 640 pages. Osman’s Dream, a much more scholarly work, has 30 pages of bibliographic references and 37 pages of cited notes for a total of 660 pages.
Kinross’s work, the encyclopedia entries, and nearly all Western books on Sultan Selim II’s personality start by painting a picture of an incompetent drunkard :
After gaining the throne after palace intrigue and fraternal dispute, Selim II became the first Sultan devoid of active military interest and willing to abandon power to his ministers, provided he was left free to pursue his orgies and debauches. Therefore, he became known as Selim the Drunkard or Selim the Sot. His Grand Vizier, Mehmed Sokollu, a Serbian forced-convert from what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina, controlled much of state affairs…[wikipedia]
As is commonly known, alcohol is forbidden in Islam, the professed faith of all Sultans (and by which authority they ruled). The attempt to portray certain Sultans as drunks seems to be rooted in a desire to demonstrate weakness of character and sincerity when it came to the faith of Islam. This accusation is repeated through most Western books regarding the Ottoman empire dated from the 18th century onwards (the Sultan ruled in the 16th century) however each case remains uncited as to its source. The most academically honest student might cite Kinross’s work, but that leads the student to a dead end since it is already noted how well referenced that work actually is.
How can we reconcile conflicting idea that the Sultan sought to escape a basic Islamic ruling yet for some reason promoted Islam itself, especially as strongly as Sultan Selim II did? It is difficult to accept this characterization in light of the numerous investments in Islam that Sultan Selim II made, sacrificing great personal wealth in order to leave a legacy of Islam which has stood to this day. Further, the appointments that Sultan Selim II made were of highly religious people, many writing deep loving poetry for God and His Prophet (S). One of the most notable poets of that time, “Fuzuli” was appointed Secretary of State, a sample of his poetry demonstrating a deeply religious character is available within Ottoman Poems by E J W Gibb. Some of that poetry has been available on yursil.com.
Actual imperial orders from the Sultan seem hardly able to fit within the uncited fictional character seeking to escape Islam’s commandments to pursue Western frivolities. On the contrary, imperial orders show firm resolve to ease the burden of those engaging in the strenuous Hajj pilgrimage, and special consideration for Muslims living under the subjugation of intolerant colonialists.
An excerpt of an imperial order from the Sultan below:
..because the accursed Portugese are everywhere owing to their hostilities against India, and the routes by which Muslims come to the Holy Places are obstructed and moreover, it is not considered lawful for the people of Islam to live under the power of miserable infidels … you are to gather together all the expert architects and engineers of that place and investigate the land between the Mediterranean and the Red Seas and report where it is possible to make a canal in that desert place and how long it would be and how many boats could pass side by side. - ref: Ottoman Archives: Muhimme Defteri Vol 7 No 721
Indeed, it was with Sultan Selim II that the first plans of the Suez Canal began, although it was not accomplished in his lifetime.
The second part of the introduction of Sultan Selim II’s character, by Western sources, is the common story that Sultan Selim II was actually controlled by his Grand Vizir. This theory has left out important information contained within Ottoman Archives where Sultan Selim II was often deciding between various Vezirs and creating his own hierarchies of authority:
In 1568 a strong expedition was sent to pacify the province under the command of Sultan Selim’s former tutor and confidant Lala Mustafa Pasha, a choice which showed that Selim was not entirely the pawn of his grand vezir, for Sokullu Mehmed resented Lala Mustafa’s place in the Sultan’s affections. To put down the uprising in Yemen Lala Mustafa needed men and supplies from Egypt but the provincial governor, another rival Koca Sinan Pasha, refused his requests and made it impossible for him to pursue the campaign. In a spate of petitions to the Sultan the two defended their respective positions. Koca Sinan proved the stronger and Lala Mustafa was dismissed from command of the Yemen campaign. To mark his continuing favour, however, Selim created for him the position of sixth vezir of the governing council of the empire. -Osman’s Dream by Caroline Finkel
Introducing another odd contradiction, after insinuating that Sultan Selim had really no care or control of the empire, Kinross’s account in Ottoman Centuries takes almost laughably ridiculous guesses as to motivations for various military campaigns. This is cited on Sultan Selim II’s Wikipedia entry:
Lord Patrick Kinross’ account of Selim’s reign is how he starts a chapter of his book called “The Seeds of Decline”. He sees the massive outlay for the fleet-rebuilding following the Battle of Lepanto as the start of the Empire’s slow decay. Kinross also says that Selim’s reputation for drunkenness was solidified in his decision to invade Cyprus rather than supporting the Morisco Revolt in Grenada as well as in the manner of his death; Selim died after a period of fever brought on when he drunkenly slipped over on the wet floor of an unfinished bath-house.
Other orientalist works from the 1800’s seem to hold the Sultan Selim II was so in love with wine that he wanted control of Cyprus to have fresh wine. On the other hand, Caroline Finkel notes:
Friction between the Ottomans and Venice was never completely absent but outright war was usually avoided. According to contemporary Ottoman historians, it was Venetian protection for the corsairs who plagued Ottoman vessels sailing the route to Egypt which drove Selim to mount a campaign to conquer Cyprus.
It is not difficult to see which theory seems more intelligently considered. Furthermore, a few different reports exist for Sultan Selim II’s death, some indeed say he died from complications from a fall in a bath, without mentioning drunkenness. Other versions state that he fell on way to perform a Khutbe at the new Mosque bearing his name. Oddly enough, for how widely present the idea of a drunk Sultan is within Selim II’s internet presence, Caroline Finkel’s work does not mention drinking or debaucheries within her 20+ page write up on the Sultan.
Selimye Mosque
Far from running from Islam, Sultan Selim II’s work for Islam is truly beyond impressive, the Selimye mosque he built is an architectural achievement which still causes emotional reactions. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (d. 1762), wife of the English ambassador in Istanbul is quoted as saying the mosque which Sultan Selim II build was “The noblest building I ever saw.”
The seventeenth century traveller Evliya Celebi notes Sultan Selim’s justification for choosing Eridrne as a location for the mosque, relating that the Prophet Muhummad (S) came to to the Sultan in a dream and directed him to build it there.
As is also noted within Osman’s Dream, Sultan Selim’s work for Islam was carried far beyond Istanbul:
Sultan Selim also continued his parents’ involvement with Mecca, his work gave the great mosque the distinctively Ottoman appearance it retains today. The enclosure lacked the space for a monumental mosque like those in Istanbul, so the galleries surrounding the courtyard were remodeled in the Ottoman style and given domes in places of their original flat roof. These works were continued during Murad II’s reign, serving to impress pilgrims from the all over the world with the power and munificence of the new protectors of the Muslim Holy Places
That’s correct, all the structural beauty of Makkah itself in the grand Ottoman style came from the direction and resources of Sultan Selim II. All Hajji’s are witnesses to this. All this, and we have barely scratched the surface. Sultan Selim II was a Sultan for only eight years. This was a Sultan who ruled by the foundations of Islam such that they literally stand to this day, and that itself is testimony to the righteousness of Sultan Selim II. With all of the information of his personal pursuits such as his love of archery, his political activities, his architectural projects and plans, and considering the short time of his rule, it is impossible to buy into the Kinrossian picture of a disinterested drunk perpetuated by his book (Hasha Astaghfirullah).
Kinross’s work is cited in 86 other books on Ottoman History [3], and is clearly and fundamentally flawed in its depiction of this Sultan. The flaws, if not in structure then in reasoning, are so apparent that it casts huge doubts on what is commonly known about the Ottoman Empire in general. Britannica and other well considered sources of information make the same fundamental mistakes as Kinross.
Osman’s Dream by Caroline Finkel is a tremendous improvement to what has existed prior to it, however it suffers from a critical flaw: lack of understanding of the Ottoman Muslim culture. A reevaluation of Ottoman history needs to occur from parties with keen insight into the tradition and culture of the Ottomans. Until that occurs, what is currently available is little more than the retelling of enemy campfire stories.
A couplet from Sultan Selim II’s poetry:
We are loving nightingales that have got wretched because of the longing of separation,
The gentle morning wind becomes fire if it blows through our rosary.
[1] The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success (Oxford Linguistics) - Geoffrey Lewis
[2] Turkish Cultural Foundation - turkishculture.org
[3] Amazon.com - Product Details, Citations
For Muslims, the ultimate prerequisite towards discussion with people of other faiths has to be mutual respect of everyone’s beliefs. Muslims have always been uniquely positioned in this regard, as accepters of the validity of all prophets.
Muslims often repeat the concept of accepting Jesus (AS), Moses (AS), and 124,000 other Prophets when explaining their religion to others. It is indeed an important point to recognize when trying to understand Islam. But some might wonder, what is the real significance of the acceptance of Jesus (AS) as a Prophet, Moses (AS) as a Prophet, and thousands of other prophets, if Muslims believe (sometimes radically) different things about those personalities than Christians or Jews?
The answer is that acceptance of prophethood boils down to a practical reality of respect and tolerance on the part of Muslims towards people of other faiths. Christians believe Jesus (AS) was crucified and exists within a Trinity, Muslims do not. This leads to drastic differences of theology which are real and not to be ignored. But, if we agree Jesus (AS) existed, that he was a man of holy and spiritual significance, and that he brought a message from God of righteousness, we may begin to move the relationship past suspicion to one of neighborly acceptance and practical benefit.
Respect and tolerance, written right into the religion, that is what acceptance of Prophethood for Muslims means in terms of real world interactions with those of other faiths. In fact, this belief puts Muslims in the unique position of not only to being tolerant to other faiths, but to be the party to allow various factions and sects of other faiths to come together.
This experience comes to life in the case of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
When the Caliph and close companion of the Prophet Muhummad(S), Umar (R), obtained control of Jerusalem, he refused to pray within the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as a sign of respect towards the Christians, and as a sign of fear that later generations might turn it into a mosque. Rather, he prayed in the courtyard across from it, and eventually built a mosque there. Not soon thereafter the Crusades began, and again in 1187, Sultan Salidin maintained that decision and appointed Muslim families to be neutral keepers of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. His Sultanate lasted only 57 years after his demise, but the Ottomans revived and improved on this tradition of tolerance for hundreds of years. The wisdom they used in this regard resulted in a traditional division and acceptance of roles which are still practiced to this day.
Relationships between Christians were much more complicated in Ottoman times, with rival Christian factions looking to establish dominance over the Church.
The Ottoman Sultans upheld the Muslim custodianship of the Key to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. A second Muslim family was given custodianship over the opening of the gates themselves. The spiritual and political significance of these roles should not be missed by those who are not used to the subtle ways in which the Sultans often worked. By 1767 the responsibilities of religious duties within the church was split between Greek Orthodox, the Armenian Apostolic, and the Catholics. By the 1800’s, the Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox were included in the partitioning of religious duties. It was the Muslim families who, holding the key and gates, kept each of these parties satisfied with their rights to the church while keeping tensions between them to a minimum. The violence which threatened this land from the times of the Crusades has been carefully managed in this exact same manner until this day.
There is no doubt that the balance is delicate, violent incidents occurring well into the modern day when any of the groups perform out of sync with established guidelines. This incident in 2002 speaks volumes as to the conditions which the Sultans tread when dealing with the religious sects centuries ago:
Last Monday, chairs, iron bars, and fists flew on the roof of one of the most revered sites in Christianity, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. When the dust cleared, seven Ethiopian Orthodox monks and four Egyptian (Coptic) monks had been injured. The fight started when an Egyptian monk decided to move his chair into the shade—technically, argued the Ethiopians, encroaching on the latter’s jurisdiction. - Christianity Today - July 2002
This being just one of many modern day incidents, it is not hard to imagine the difficult waters the Sultans had to deal with to secure the Church and arbitrate between such bitter rivals, attempting to be just guardians of a site of utmost importance to a faith other than their own. It is clear that even when those espousing peace and love and forgiveness feel their rights have been breached, the result is never good.
In 1999 the government presently in Jerusalem decided these Ottoman laws were antiquitated and needed to be overhauled. They began by planning the relieving of the Muslim families of their duties, assuming ownership of the land, and the construction of a new door through the Ethiopian section of the Church. The BBC reported that year, “the Ethiopian Patriachate has already expressed unwillingness to cede its quiet little spot without a fight.” [ref] As can be imagined, numerous hostilities broke and the status quo was eventually restored.
The Muslims open the door to the Church to this day.
Christians are not the only ones who benefited from a tolerant Islamic empire, looking to maintain everyones rights. Jews also found safety and high positions within the Ottoman government, and were welcomed during the Inquisition.
For their part, Ottoman sultans, eager to expand, hailed Jewish immigration
and Jewish skills as an unexpected but welcome benefit. Sultan
Bayezit II (1481–1512) was quoted as saying: “Can you call such a king [as
Ferdinand of Spain] wise and intelligent? He is impoverishing his country
and enriching my kingdom.” During the early sixteenth century, when the
Ottoman Empire was at the peak of its success militarily, politically, and
economically, a positive attitude toward immigration continued
- Jewish Publication Society, Guide to Jewish Women 600 B.C.E. - 1900 C.E
Nor was tolerance limited to Christians and Jews. In the Ottoman influenced Mughal empire in India, Babur wrote the following will to his son inheriting a kingdom with a large number of people of the Hindu faith:
“My son take note of the following: Do not harbour religious prejudice in your heart. You should dispense justice while taking note of the people’s religious sensitivities, and rites. Avoid slaughtering cows in order that you could gain a place in the heart of natives. This will take you nearer to the people.
Do not demolish or damage places of worship of any faith and dispense full justice to all to ensure peace in the country. Islam can better be preached by the sword of love and affection, rather than the sword of tyranny and persecution. Avoid the differences between the shias and sunnis. Look at the various characteristics of your people just as characteristics of various seasons.”
This is the spirit of tolerance, respect, and value for justice that Muslims can and should bring to the table when discussing with those of other faiths. At least, those Muslims who are following in the footsteps of traditional Islamic leadership. Reform movements which seek to belittle the contribution of the Sultans are largely to blame for the cruelty which has infected the Muslim side of the equation of modern day dialogue.
Of course, there is an increased lack of tolerance which is playing out today by those who have an agenda to create strife and friction. This is largely occurring by rewriting history and attempting to choose a theoretical and literalistic approach towards religion rather than a practical one of tolerance, and this must be rejected at its core.
People like Robert Spencer have chosen to rely on picking and choosing from ancient texts to attempt to create a picture of an intolerant religion. One of the benefits of a traditional approach towards Islam is the various accusations against the Prophet (S) lose all weight, as one can readily see a strong Islamic character which caused the Sultans to hold such tolerant viewpoints as a matter of practical reality, not legalistic conjecture. Of course, history is not bloodless, and there were casualties of political motivations which gave us incidents of violence and the desire for all parties to determine their rights. However, to blame religion for what was the reality of a world clamoring to determine the boundaries of progressive civilization is beyond obtuse.
It is necessary for those of other faiths to respect Muslims and the Prophet Muhummad (S) for success in matters of interfaith dialogue and this is necessary for anyone who desires an end other than the complete extermination of the other. It is clear that the various churches of established religions did just that. The Catholic Church, specifically calls out for a respectful view of the Prophet Muhummad’s (S) “prophetic call”:
Gabriel Oussani in Catholic Encyclopedia states that the views of Luther and those who call Muhammad a ‘wicked impostor’, ‘dastardly liar’ and a ‘willful deceiver’ are an “indiscriminate abuse” and are “unsupported by facts: Instead, nineteenth-century Western scholars such as Sprenger, Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Koelle, Grimme and Margoliouth give us a more correct and unbiased estimate of Muhammad’s life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity.”
This is what modern day interfaith discussions sometimes (if not often) lack, the fundamental agreement of respect. When one person holds that the others religious figures were motivated not by God but by their ego, discussion and dialogue is lacking a strong foundation.
By returning to a historical viewpoint, and specifically the most tolerant times of our history, we find lessons which have allowed us to avert a ‘clash of civilizations’ time and time again. As a people, we need to return to these lessons and re-think our approach to “interfaith” programs and events, making it less about making us all into one monolithic entity, and more about respecting each others holy sources. Part of that effort must include reviving the great legacy of tolerance that has existed in Islamic history, another part is acknowledging modern day forces which are the antithesis to that tradition of righteousness.
The curious reader perusing the last few articles regarding the Ottomans might easily take for granted the power of such positive statements by European travelers about the character of the Ottomans. The full force of these quotes are only truly brought into light when understanding the environment of sheer racism on the part of the general European establishment towards the Ottomans and their intense hatred for their political successes.
Works such as these are, unfortunately, also the ultimate source for much of the history available today within English regarding the Ottomans. Of course, these statements have been filtered in modern day history books, however the biased opinion on various events and inclination to a negative character remains.
Some of these comments echo what we hear from today’s neo-cons. Interestingly enough, the criticisms against the Ottomans are largely against their faith and their strong hold of it. Not only does this help eliminate the myth of irreligious leaders, these comments describe the foundation for the European movement away from the Ottomans and Islam by some Turkish parties influenced by the Western lifestyle. Eventually this party became known as the nationalist ‘Young Turks’ which led to the abolishment of the Caliphate.
A small collection of these comments from authoritative works and sources of ‘history’ are presented below.
As always I am interested in your thoughts and comments.
Such a religion, so inwrought in every political, social,
and moral relation of every Moslem believer, cannot
but have a powerful influence upon the character, and
capacity of a nation, composed of such believers, for
progress and advancement in civilization; and facts
justify the position of some of our ablest historians, that
any real civilization is impossible for the Turk, until he
abandons the Koran and the faith of Mahomet. Of
course, in’the light and knowledge which forces itself
upon nations surrounded by a higher civilization in this
nineteenth century, the continued existence of such a
nation is a struggle, which can have but one of two terminations ;
either it must abandon Islamism, or it must
go to the wall. Unhappily, while all that was vital in
the Mahometan faith has been gradually eaten out in
the larger cities, the empty shell remains, and is strong
enough to bring about their destruction as a nation. In
the country and the provinces, the old bigotry yet remains.
As long as the Turks entertained no doubt of the superiority
of their religion, they zealously practised its
tenets, and only revealed the natural deformities of a
system, which, while it enforces and exaggerates the
Value of certain specific social virtues, more than makes
up for it, by giving the reins to all the worst passions
inherent in human nature.
-The Conquest of Turkey, Or, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire, 1877 …
By Linus Pierpont Brockett, Porter (1878)
“But your Turk is a Mahometan, it seems, and therefore an
ally not fit for a Christian !—I do not know, sir, but an alliance
with a Mahometan may be as good as a peace with an atheist; /
the sanction of its engagements may, perhaps, be as sacred, and
its stipulations as likely to be fulfilled. ”
-Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honourable George Canning
By John Styles (pg 99) Published 1829
“We have heard much of the
reforms introduced into Turkey during the last twenty or
thirty years, and the progress she is making in civilization,
or in approximating the civilization of the West, and we are
willing to admit that some progress has been made at Constantinople
in rejecting the least objectionable portions of
Mahometanism, and in adopting the vices and frivolity of
our Western civilization. But we see in this nothing to
encourage us. Western civilization is at bottom a Christian
civilization, and can be adopted in its essential and
living principles by no nation that rejects, or does not adopt,
the Christian religion. No nation can adhere to the Koran
and enter into the civilized order of Europe or America.
Even if a Mussulman people were to reject the Koran,
without accepting the Bible, it could not enter that order.
Jt could adopt only what is anomalous in it, accidental
to it, or exists along with it, in spite of it; for what constitutes
its life, its soul, its vigor, is Christianity, and not an
abstract or disembodied Christianity, but the Church.”
– Brownson’s Quarterly Review
By Orestes Augustus Brownson (Published 1860)
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
“The Ottoman Power in Europe: Its Nature, Its Power, Its Decline” : pub: 1877
Another one of the criticisms by Muslims today is that the Ottomans did not embrace a more ‘modernized’ public education system or otherwise kept the subjects uneducated. This is a large departure from the truth especially when one keeps in mind that it was only by 1870 that the United States provided free *elementary* education in the states, and in Scotland public education became mandatory in 1872, similar efforts were only taken in England by 1888.
On the other hand an elementary and secondary education in Ottoman times was already available, free, and mandatory for both sexes by 1846. Of course, Ottoman subjects also were privy to the mass amounts of works in the public libraries and the madrassa education in a traditional style even prior to that time.
The schools taught subjects such as literature, mathematics, art, and Islam. The Sultan himself visited these schools, and a small account of this is available below (from a non-Muslim):
If Abdul Medjid loves literature, he wishes to have his taste for it shared by his subjects, whom he is always endeavoring to rescue from their ignorance. It is from his reign that the reorganization of public instruction must be dated.
In 1846 an imperial decree ordered the formation of a council, to which were intrusted all questions of public instruction, and the task of erecting a building to serve as a new university. The state of the muktebs, or primary schools, is satisfactory enough at the present day. Elementary instruction in Turkey is gratuitous and obligatory.
The law ordains that each Mussulman, as soon as his sons or daughters have reached their sixth year, shall have their names inscribed in the books of one of the public schools, unless he proves his intention of educating them at home, and shows that he possesses the means of doing so. At Constantinople there are now existing 396 muktebs, or free schools, frequented by 22,700 children of both sexes. After four or five years passed in the mukteb, the child who wishes to continue his studies further enters a secondary school, where instruction on all points is also gratuitous. There are now six of these schools at Constantinople, containing 870 pupils. The superior instruction has been divided into several branches: the school of the mosque of Ahmed and that of Suleiman, for the young men who are intended to fill public appoint- merits; the college of Valide-Sultana, founded with the same view; the normal school, for the education of the professors; the imperial school of medicine; the military school, the naval school, and the agricultural school of San Ste- fano. Abdul Medjid, who has studied the writings of the political economists, has understood that agriculture must be the principal source of the riches of the empire. Indeed Turkey, distanced by other nations in trade and commerce, should be, above all, an agricultural country, and a producer of raw materials. It was this conviction which led to the establishment of San Stefano, where sixty-six young men, half natives and half foreigners, are instructed.
…
Abdul Medjid himself superintends these different schools, and visits in person at the frequent examinations by which the progress of the pupils is tested. In a vast hall, decorated with military trophies, and provided with scientific instruments of every kind, a hundred young men, of from fifteen to twenty years of age, modestly await the Sultan, whom they love as much as they revere. No noise takes place among them—no conversation—no laughter ; all eyes are turned toward the throne, which stands in the middle of the room, and which is as yet empty. At length Abdul Medjid appears and sits lown—near him the sheiks, the ulemahs, the Ministers, and the principal pachas. Each pupil advances in turn toward the throne, and replies to the questions which are put to him by one of the professors, one of the ministers, or by the Sultan himself. The questions refer to mathematics, literature, and art. When Abdul Medjid puts a question, he does so with the greatest kindness. If the pupil replies correctly, a soft smile lights up the Sultan’s face; if he makes a mistake, the Sultan corrects him with indulgence and without making him the least reproach. When the examination is finished, the rewards are given to those pupils who have chiefly distinguished themselves. The young Turks are very intelligent and very docile; without vanity; exceedingly conscientious, and bent upon doing their duty. They are grave, but polite in their demeanor, and never quarrel or dispute. There are numerous libraries at Constantinople ; the number of volumes which they contain roay be estimated at 80,000, reckoning both MSS. and printed books. The literature of Arabia, Persia, and Turkey is represented in them; and the collection includes philosophical and theological works, poetry, history, books of science, and an immense number of those treatises on conduct and manners, to which the Turks attach almost as much importance as the Chinese themselves. The printing-press does its work at Constantinople, but as yet but slowly. The periodical press has produced a sufficiently large number of journals, printed sometimes in French, sometimes in Turkish or Greek.
-The Czar and the Sultan: Or, Nicholas and Abdul Medjid: Their Private Lives By Adrian Gilson, François, Published 1855 Harper & Brothers
Would Muslims of that age even recognize the innovated shortened Azan that we hear today?
The calls during the night are long chants, that of the daytime
is much shorter. Mr. Lane renders it thus: ”
God is most Great ” (four times repeated). “I testify that
there is no deity but God ” (twice). ” I testify that Mohammed
is God’s Apostle ” (twice). “Come to prayer ” (twice). “Come
to security ” (twice). “God is most Great” (twice). “There is
no deity but God.”
The muezzin whom I hear when the first faint light
appears in the east, has a most sonorous and sweet tenor
voice, and his chant is exceedingly melodious. In the perfect
hush of that hour his voice fills all the air, and might well be
mistaken for a sweet entreaty out of heaven. This call is
a long one, and is in fact a confession and proclamation
as well as a call to prayer.
It begins as follows: “[I extol] the perfection of God, the Existing forever and
ever” (three times) : ” the perfection of God, the Desired, the
Existing, the Single, the Supreme: the perfection of God, the
One, the Sole: the perfection of Him who taketh to Himself,
in his great dominion, neither female companion nor male
partner, nor any like unto Him, nor any that is disobedient,
nor any deputy, nor any equal, nor any offspring. His
perfection [be extolled]: and exalted be His name. He is a
Deity who knew what hath been before it was, and called
into existence what hath been; and He is now existing, as He
was [at the first]. His perfection [be extolled]: and exalted
be His name.”
And it ends: ” O God, bless and save and still beatify the
beatified Prophet, our lord Mohammed. And may God,
whose name be blessed and exalted, be well pleased with thee,
0 our lord El-Hassan, and with thee, O our lord El-Hoseyn,
and with thee, O Aboo-Farrag, O Sheykh of the Arabs, and
with all the favorites [’ the welees’] of God. Amen.”
The mosques of Cairo are more numerous than the churches
in Rome; there are about four hundred, many of them in
ruins, but nearly all in daily use.
– “Mummies and Moslems”, Travelogue By Charles Dudley Warner Published 1876
Now one may compare this type of Azan to what one may hear in the company of Naksibendi Mureeds:
Arabic
——
Allahumma Salli ‘alaa Sayyidina Muhammad
Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar
Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar
Ashhadu an la ilaha illallah
Ashhadu an la ilaha illallah
Ashhadu anna Muhammadan Rasulullah
Ashhadu anna Muhammadan Rasulullah
Hayyi ‘alas salah
Hayyi ‘alas salah
Hayyi ‘alal falah
Hayyi ‘alal falah
Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar,
La ilaha illallah
As-Salatu was salamu ‘alayk,
alayka ya Sayyidiyya Rasullullah
As-Salatu was salamu ‘alayk,
alayka ya Sayyidiyya Habbibullah
As-Salatu was salamu ‘alayk,
ya man arsalahu-llahu ta’ala rahmatan lil-’alamin
As-Salatu was salamu ‘alayk,
alayka ya Sayyidiyya Awwalin wal Akhirin
As-Salatu was salamu ‘alayk,
wa ‘ala alika wa ashabika ajma ‘in
As-Salatu wa s-salamu ‘alaykum,
ya Anbiya wa Awliya Allah.
Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alamin!
(Du’a)
Allahumma Rabba hadhihi da’wati tamma’ was salatil qa’ima, ati Muhammadan al-wasilata wal fazilata wad darajatir rafi’atal ‘aliyya, wab’athhu, ya Rabbi, al-maqamal mahmudal lazi wa’adtahu, warzuqna shafa’atahu yawmal qiyama, innaka la tukhliful mi’ad
English
——-
O Allah! Shower blessings upon Sayyidina Muhammad
Allah is Greatest
(four times)
I bear witness that there is no god but Allah
(twice)
I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (twice)
Hasten to the prayer
(twice)
Hasten to salvation
(twice)
Allah is Greatest (twice)
There is no god but Allah.
Blessings and peace be upon you,
O Messenger of Allah
Blessings and peace be upon you,
O Beloved of Allah
Blessings and peace be upon you,
O you whom Allah Most High sent as Mercy to the Worlds.
Blessings and peace be upon you,
O Master of Here and Hereafter
Blessings and peace be upon you,
and upon all your family and your Companions.
Blessings and peace be upon you,
O Prophets and Friends of Allah
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds!
O Allah! Lord of this perfect supplication and of this established prayer, grant Muhammad the means and the exellence, and the sublime and supreme rank. Raise him, O my Lord, to the Praiseworthy Station which You promised him, and grant us his intercession on the Day of Judgement, for You do not fail Your promise.
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.
|
