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 at least 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
One of the aspects of the Islamic faith that has been lost has been our history. We have sites which are devoted to current problems, however, very few focus on understanding of our past.
A major part of the problem is the curriculum of modern Islamic teaching institutions and youth groups. Such groups focus on the Prophet’s life (Sallahu’alaiheewassalam) and immediately jump into modern day understanding of Fiqh (law) and principles of Aqidah (doctrine).
What happened in between?
We have about 1400 years of scholarly progress which has suddenly gone up in smoke!
Alhamdulillah, some groups are looking to rectify this, but one piece is missing from this equation. Spiritual progress. Muslims are forgetting that while Fiqh was helpful is solving disputes and determining the exact position of ones hands in the obligatory prayers, little is being remembered of the personalities who were deeply impacted by the tradition of purification of the self which is also part of Islam.
Without realizing it we are forgetting the greatest of the greats of our religion, as we become knee deep in legal texts and linguistic differences, we have forgotten the heart of our religion. Character, Manners, Love of Allah.
Sainthood.
Sainthood in Islam is a special concept, unlike Catholicism, Muslims do not debate over whether someone is a saint in committee. In fact, the word itself is awkward for use in English. The actual Arabic word: Awliya or Wali, means Friends/Friend (as in Friend of God).
In Islam such great people receive their titles from heavenly sources, and while some remain hidden from public eyes, some become popularized through their words or deeds which they have been ordered to do.
So the question now becomes, why is it that we are so quick to forget the greats of Islam? Why have they become the equivalent of Muslim fairy tales that our fathers and mothers tell their children? In fact, just recently when I mentioned Sheykh Abdul Qadir Jilani (rad) to someone, all the person could remember of the name was a story his mother told him some time ago of how a group of robbers repented at his hands.
This is a sad state of affairs for those of us looking to lay the bricks of strength, tolerance, hope and peace of Islam for the future. We have to know what our foundation is made of.
It is through understanding these Saints of Islam that Muslims can learn about how Islam was taught to their ancestors and how it has now reached them. We need this so we can learn about picking up from where we left off, rather than trying to tread unknown paths in the darkness.
It is also through understanding these Saints that Non-Muslims can learn what characteristics and values are important to Muslims, and how the study of the life of the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewasalam) is -supposed- to impact our lives.
In closing this brief introduction, I leave you with the retelling of Sheykh Abdul Qadir Jilani’s experience with the group of robbers.
Here is the actual retelling of his experience:
How seasoned highway robbers were moved to repentance at the hands of Shaikh ‘Abd al-Qadir.
“‘I traveled with a small caravan, bound for Baghdad. When we had reached the vicinity of Hamadhan, and found ourselves in a stretch of rugged terrain, sixty men on horseback suddenly attacked us from an ambush, and seized the caravan. None of them took the slightest notice of me personally, until one of the brigands turned to me in passing, and said: “Hey there, poor beggar, what do you have with you?” So I told him: “Forty dinars,” and he said: “Where are they?” “Stitched in the lining of my coat,” I replied, “underneath my armpit.” He assumed that I was testing his sense of humor, so he left me alone and moved elsewhere. Then a second brigand passed by me, and when he asked me the same question, exactly as the first had asked it, I repeated the answer I had given the first time, and so he also left me alone.
“‘Then the pair of them got together in the presence of their leader, and they told him what they had heard from me. “Bring him here to me,” said the leader, so they brought me to him. They were up on a hill, sharing out the goods they had robbed from the caravan. “What do you have with you?” he asked me, so I said: “Forty dinars.” He then asked: “Where are they?” and I told him: “Stitched in the lining of my coat, underneath my armpit.” So he commandeered my coat, ripped the stitching apart, and discovered that it did indeed have forty dinars inside the lining. “Whatever prompted you to make this confession?” he wanted to know, so I told him: “My mother made me promise to commit myself to truthfulness, and I would never betray my binding covenant with her.”
“‘As soon as he heard these words, the chief brigand began to weep, and he said through his tears: “You did not betray your mother’s covenant, whereas I, for so many years up to this present day, have been betraying the covenant of my Lord!” He thereupon repented at my hands, and his fellow brigands said to him: “You have been our leader in highway robbery [qat' at-tariq], and now you shall be our leader in repentance [tawba].” So they all repented at my hands, and they restored to the caravan whatever items they had seized from the travelers. They were thus the very first of all those sinners who have by now repented at my hands.”‘
His works, his life, and his miracles are accessible here: http://www.al-baz.com/shaikhabdalqadir/
It’s interesting that Haroon managed to get much further with something I had started somewhat feebly almost a year ago.
Interpreting/commenting on Shaikh Abdal Hakim’s writings is often a difficult task. I may plan to finish what I started at some point, but we’ll see.
As far as Haroon’s final thoughts on traditionalism, I must offer some points of my own.
Haroon twice defines ‘traditionalist Islam’ as the antithesis to Modernist Islamists, and I feel that is inaccurate. Sheykh Abdal Hakim Murad has quite often in his other works defined what exactly tradition means. Traditional Islam is quite literally the output of interpretation from traditional scholars.
The Sheykh explains in more detail about the founders of the legal tradition in
Understanding the Four Madhabs -
the problem with anti-madhhabism
It hardly needs remarking that although the Four Imams, Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas, al-Shafi’i and Ibn Hanbal, are regarded as the founders of these four great traditions, which, if we were asked to define them, we might sum up as sophisticated techniques for avoiding innovation, their traditions were fully systematised only by later generations of scholars. The Sunni ulama rapidly recognised the brilliance of the Four Imams, and after the late third century of Islam we find that hardly any scholars adhered to any other approach. The great hadith specialists, including al-Bukhari and Muslim, were all loyal adherents of one or another of the madhhabs, particularly that of Imam al-Shafi’i. But within each madhhab, leading scholars continued to improve and refine the roots and branches of their school. In some cases, historical conditions made this not only possible, but necessary. For instance, scholars of the school of Imam Abu Hanifah, which was built on the foundations of the early legal schools of Kufa and Basra, were wary of some hadiths in circulation in Iraq because of the prevalence of forgery engendered by the strong sectarian influences there. Later, however, once the canonical collections of Bukhari, Muslim and others became available, subsequent generations of Hanafi scholars took the entire corpus of hadiths into account in formulating and revising their madhhab. This type of process continued for two centuries, until the Schools reached a condition of maturity in the fourth and fifth centuries of the Hijra.
It is interesting that Haroon mentioned that those who are scientifically minded might flock to a non-traditional interpretation of Islam. (Made further interesting by the mere fact that I just recently posted about those interested in science being attracted to Sufism)
As a traditionalist, I feel it is within the sciences developed -within- tradition that we begin to see the fruits of employing scientific methods towards our religion.
Being “Islamically educated” without the techniques employed by the traditional schools of thought in both fiqh and spirituality leads one to an interpretation of Islam which is truly a reflection of what ones own ‘perfect’ religion should be. While it seems this may result in a single voice finding perfection, I find that it actually leads to many voices all singing a different song, out of tune, each trying to be louder than the person next to him. Eventually, the whole thing collapses with a group of very hoarse throats.
I can compare traditional Islam, on the other hand, to a multitude of voices who have different strengths and weakness. Each of them understanding that any one of them might not be suited to be the star of the show. Traditionalism, when it appreciates those differences and respects the specialities and abilities of the others, leads to a beautiful chorus.
As one who might cast himself as an appreciator of the sciences, I find myself much more attracted to the possibility that there is more complexity to be found within the details of Islam than free reading of a select few hadith compilations with the Quran. As a traditionalist examining Islam, I feel much like a scientist looking through a microscope. First seeing a plant, then cells, then DNA, then molecules, then atoms, and then possibily, super-strings. It seems that Allah Most High has provided more than enough knowledge that it is difficult for the layman to comprehend how much exactly there is to learn about it.
It is, to me, an aspect of the acknowledgement of this complexity that allows for multiple schools within traditional Islam, each with their own ‘scientific methods’ on coming to conclusions. Respecting the opinion of the other, while not always consistent throughout history, has generally been the established norm for all these schools.
At the same time I am able to appreciate the ability for Islam to present itself as something meaningful for those who choose to abstain from such complexity.
Haroon writes:
I remember laughing out loud reading Tariq Ali’s “Clash of Fundamentalisms”; he described some of the dubious practices of Sindhi villagers and admitted, in a footnote, that at times such as this, it was hard *not* to sympathize with Wahhabi “impatience” for such “nonsense.”
While there may have been a certain level of impatience for such ‘nonsense’, it may have been that level of patience which brought a people from literal idolatry to Islam. As far as the exact practices within villages, I doubt that traditional scholars view this as the epitome of traditional Islam’s possibilities.
Rather, it seems that Islam has certain abilities to mold itself and survive in the harshest conditions, whether that harsh condition is ignorance and illiteracy, or Soviet imposed atheism. It seems traditional Islam has the ability to drop those things which are unnecessary to survive and flourish in those situations, all the while retaining the ability to attach them back once the barrier has been lifted.
As far as the mention of Salafism and Wahabism as ‘contributors’, I cannot say that I find their contribution of much value. The idea that they “raised Muslim consciousness of the dangers of excessive reliance on human authority, the quietism and decadence of certain Sufi orders, etc.” is absolutely unproven to me. I find that their reliance on human authority, especially their own human authority, excessive to the point of it becoming ego-worship. Believing that their recent interpretive techniques (mostly involving the use of indexes) trumps the collective understanding of centuries of scholarship is, as of yet, unparalleled in it’s audacity. The common representation of their interpretation as the Sunnah, is simply a matter of using polemic to pass off human authority as singular Divine authority. As far as the “quietism and decadence of certain Sufi orders”, I refer back to my quote of “An Introduction to Classical Islamic Philosophy”, by Oliver Leaman:
There were mystics in the Islamic world who could be characterized this way, but the system of mysticism is just as systematic as any other form of intellectual enquiry, and there was a great deal of suspicion even within Sufism of various esctatic and emotional states into which some of their peers threw themselves
On the whole, also, they insisted on a serious attitude to the norms of social and religious behaviour, rather than their replacement by other and more dramatic forms of spiritual expression.
It seems that traditional Islam had a self-regulating approach which existed for some time prior. Now this does not mean deviants did not come to pass, but they by no means lasted long.
Back to the topic at hand, whether scientific thinkers, engineers and the like might be attracted to the Salafi approach, I differ with Haroon’s supposition. I find the Wahabi/Salafi approach towards a singular vision of Islam limiting, too simple to be scientific, and fundamentally appealing to those who cannot understand the interpretive differences and the sciences involved. It is Islam with little or no regard to the possibilities of the multitude of options for the human condition.
As far as the cardboard cut-out enemies of traditional islam, again, it may be what it able to be easily digested by the masses. On the other hand, it is clear that someone of the intellect of Sheykh Abdal Hakim, Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller and the like have the capacity to understand the subtleties involved in the various threats to traditionalism. Some time spent with Sheykh Abdal Hakim’s “Contentions” makes that abundantly clear.
At the same time, identifying the enemy into categories is not necessarily the problem and I fail to see where our leading traditionalist ulema have condemned based off of simplistic boundaries alone. It seems an emphasis of the actual issues of differences, whether it be in aqida, fiqh, or tassawuf, have all been brought to the forefront, in English, since traditionalists participation in the discussion. It is apparent that their knowledge of these differences is immense, as well as their understanding that it is deviation in any of these areas which leads down the slippery slope away from traditional Islam.
Our halaqa a few years back attempted to read Hujjat al Islam Imam Ghazali’s (ra) work, “Incoherence of the Philosophers”. We failed miserably as the work is a very complicated philosophical book. Without the context of the opponents arguments, and maybe even a general summary of what Imam Ghazali (ra) was trying to say our discussions trailed into the confused look / ‘scratch our head’ zone.
I still have the book which I often attempted to try to read on my own, but the same problems affected my individual comprehension of this book. I didn’t feel I understood what Imam Ghazali(ra) was trying to prove and why, yet I was fascinated by the book as I knew that it represented one of the most intellectual works our ulema have produced.
I recently came upon this book by a western author, “An Introduction to Classical Islamic Philosophy” by Oliver Leaman. While I am the first to suggest to steer clear of books about Islam from non-Muslims, this book has been very helpful in providing some context to the philosophical discussions that took place in the past. The author really takes an impartial view towards the arguments made in both directions, and I get a feeling that he respects the conclusions that the traditional/classical Muslim community came to. In the absence of a teacher I found this book as a good way to get some context and understand the actual text of Imam Ghazali’s (ra) Incoherence .
It also has some interesting sections on Sufism and its role in lives of the philosophers. He appreciates the difference between the science of Sufism and the mystical traditions of other religions. I especially liked this passage:
“There can be a ‘science’ of this (the mystical) experience in just the same way that there is a natural science and a system of logic, and such a science would have as its task the explication, description and organization of our religious experience.
This sounds very different from the normal way of understanding mysticism, which often takes the form of an antinomian contrast with rational approaches to faith that is, the mystic does not have respect for the laws of religion since he has another and more direct route to the truth, that of experience of God. Also, the techniques of the mystic are often far from clear, and highly subjective. There is no reason to think he has hit the mark, as it were, apart from his self-observation, and this is far from scientific in the sense where science is aligned with objectivity.
There were mystics in the Islamic world who could be characterized this way, but the system of mysticism is just as systematic as any other form of intellectual enquiry, and there was a great deal of suspicion even within Sufism of various esctatic and emotional states into which some of their peers threw themselves
…
On the whole, also, they insisted on a serious attitude to the norms of social and religious behaviour, rather than their replacement by other and more dramatic forms of spiritual expression.”
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 
Contentions 1 (39)
preparatio evangelica – As far as I could discover its origins are from a book of early Christian historian, Eusebius. Translating to “The Evanglical Preperation”
From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jackson2/04_eus.html
This is a great introduction to the early Christian writings which may have envisioned a Christianity much more similar to Islam and Judaism in theology.
As far as the Sheykh’s contention, I believe it is simply indicating that the discussion of Christianity within this text is representing (at some level) the divinely sent religion of Isa (AS).