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
Most Muslims, even so called ‘traditional’ Muslims, carry a wide gap of knowledge when dealing with their tradition. That gap is history.
Indeed, the history of Muslim nations may not be relevant to ones personal faith. Faith is faith, and nation is nation. Yet, Islam is a faith that, as espoused by most Muslims, contains answers for matters of public utility and the foundation and details of creating a just, moral nation. Hence, various political organizations have come into being, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb Tahrir, and numerous so-called ‘Islamists’ groups. Most educated Muslims are familiar with them and their efforts in attempting to inject Islam piece-meal into the political landscape.
Unfortunately, the pieces these groups try to inject are usually in the wrong order, if not the wrong pieces all together.
The efforts of these organizations are usually of some interest to Muslims in their active regions. They work on educating many Muslims towards a ‘proper’ understanding of their faith (as understood through the lens of their own political machinations). Generally their explanation of Islam is completely ahistorical, and that is because a historical view of the practice of the faith is actually completely contrary to their rigid interpretation of the religion.
The history of Islamic nations is only as useful to Muslims in as much as it can be used to bolster their self-confidence. When we speak of Muslims contribution to mathematics, the sciences of optics, and medicine, we feel satisfaction that Islam brought progress to humanity. Yet, we are so easily able to forget and dismiss the leadership which created the environment which allowed people of different faiths to come together, a society which carried and defended Islam in the first place. Instead, many Muslims have bought into a fake historical tale which was put together by the combining the gossip and imaginations of the enemies of Islam.
Let us put analysis of successes aside, as most modern Muslims may tend to avoid that subject to concentrate on the ever-important ‘present’. These are the ones who would say, “Why should I care about what happened so long ago?” Often the verse of the Quran is quoted to further cement that disconnection:
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
Those are a people who have passed away; theirs is that which they earned and yours that which ye earn. And ye will not be asked of what they used to do. (2:141)
However, it is an odd contradiction that these same people will clamor over learning and understanding classical Arabic so they can spend time reading fiqh and aqeedah works from centuries past, whether it be Imam Ghazali or Ibn Tayimiyya. For some reason, these ancient people and texts are extremely important and relevant. How can it be then, that the lifestyle, texts and manners of a living, thriving, Muslim society of not only 100 years ago is completely irrelevant?
One might say that the aforementioned figures were giants in their field, and that is what gives them the right to be studied today. Yet, they too have passed away, and their teachings are not being carried by any nation. Unlike the nations gone astray mentioned in the Quranic Ayat, the Ottomans were and are Muslims, and Muslims are not a nation that has passed. We are not a people to forget the legacy of our greatest leaders and teachers.
Let us put aside that the direct spiritual inheritors of the Ottoman example live today, the Sultans were also giants in their field, which was Islamic leadership and with strength and tolerance. The awliya of the time were also giants, and yet we learn very little of their lives and how they practiced Islam as a reality. Put that aside, we are so disconnected that we learn very little how even the average Muslim lived their lives.
This present-centric Muslim will, focusing on the news of the day, speak of the problems and depravities of the various modern day states. “Lashing a woman for being raped? Bombings in Palestine? Heads rolling in Iraq? That is not part of Islam!”
Yes, you are right it is not part of Islam, but other people seem to think otherwise, so who should we choose from to represent Islam? The Saudi’s are doing the lashing. The bombings continue by Palestinian groups. And the heads are still rolling in Iraq by those proclaiming “AllahuAkbar!”.
So is it only a purely theoretical, personal Islam that we have to present as a proof of a different understanding of Islam to the world and to our own selves? Are Muslims and Islam becoming like college students wearing dark rimmed glasses professing communism: an ideal which never reaches any practicable form? Or are we only somewhat controllable and palatable as a faith and as a nation when we are living within the boundaries of a westernized host-state?
Why don’t we count on the simple reality that not only a hundred years ago, the Islamic world was much more compassionate, considerate, and just?
The relationship between our generation and the Ottomans should be very tight indeed. Yet, often Muslims know more about the Abbasids or the times of Andalus (if even that), than they know of the Ottoman Sultan prophesized by the hadith:
“Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will her
leader be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!” -Hadith (related: Ahmed, Bukhari)
Not only was the Ottoman empire ended not yet a hundred years ago from our time period, it ruled for over 600 years leading Muslims into an environment of modern day diplomacy, economics, and approaching globalization. Frankly, it is the circumstances of the Ottoman Empire which closely match the challenges that Muslims of today have faced, and it is in their example that we may find numerous answers towards dealing with the modern world.
For traditional Muslims this is even more of an important connection. The reality is that when Wahabis and Salafis speak of ‘returning’ to the Quran and Sunnah, it is largely the Ottomans which they wish to forget. It is the Ottomans they took up arms against. In fact, it is the Ottomans that carried what is commonly understood as “traditional” Islam in its spiritual and political form together as a reality. It was in Ottoman times that the Sultans that came to sit at the feet of the Sheykhs of the true Sufi orders.
Modern day Muslims are usually pleasantly surprised to learn only a sample of the true facts of the Ottoman Empire. Through those facts, the last great Islamic empire becomes understood as highly educated, sober and scrupulous about Islam’s edicts, charitible, and scientific. As a consequence, the false history written largely by combining the medieval gossip and conjecture of the enemies of Muslims becomes obliterated.
However, Muslims may say, “The Ottoman Sultans ultimately failed.” Or, even more disturbing (and slightly obscene when compared to the facts ), they will attempt portray the Ottoman Sultans as corrupt (and hence why they lost their power). On the other hand, high scholars such as Mufti Taqi Usmani and Sheykh Abdul Hakim Murad have written about the departure of power from the Sultans in a completely different light:
This was the beginning of the Uthmaani or Muslim reign over Istanbul and Turkey which lasted for five centuries. The Uthmaani Sultans reigned over it with great splendour and it ended in the beginning of the twentieth century through the treachery of Kamal Ata Turk, and the secular state which came into being. – Mufti Taqi Usmani
Shaikh Abdul Hakim Murad’s work on the Ottomans is a testament to his study on the matter, and his fluency in the Ottoman tongue gives him unique access to the records relevant to coming to appropriate conclusions. What was his take on the downfall of the Ottomans?
Much of the recent history of the Umma can be understood as the simple consequence of ghafla – of heedlessness of Allah ta‘ala. The Ottoman empire, for instance, is a good example. By Allah’s decree and permission, this state continued for an astonishing six hundred years or more, from 1280 until 1924. In fact, the Ottoman sultans were the longest-reigning of any significant dynasty in world history. No family, in China, India, Europe or anywhere else, ruled for so long. And the achievement is the more remarkable when we look at the size and the diversity of the empire. Many races, religions and languages were present; there was no obvious unifying criterion for all the sultan’s subjects; and yet the empire endured.
It is not difficult to see why Allah should have given the Ottoman state such success. The sultans always respected the ulema and the shuyukh: Sultan Mehmed, who liberated Constantinople from the Byzantine oppression, was the disciple of Ak Shamsuddin, himself of the lineage of Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, radiya’Llahu anhu. With such men to pray for them, the early sultans could hardly be defeated in battle. Another factor in Ottoman success was the insistence of the Ottoman ulema on tolerating differences of opinions among Muslims. All classical writers on Muslim political theory have taken to heart Imam al-Ghazali’s insistence that the Muslims are never served by attempts to impose one narrow definition of the faith on everyone else. That kind of totalitarian approach results only in hatred and civil war, bringing misery and weakness to the Muslim community.
The Ottoman demise resulted not from the adoption of a narrow definition of Islam that set Muslim against Muslim, but from a thoughtless Westernisation among the ruling classes. Adopting the materialism of Western Europe, the Ottoman nobility and middle classes began to abandon the Sunna. The turban began to disappear, followed by the remainder of Muslim dress. Houses began to be designed to bring the sexes together, rather than to separate them. The mosques in rich sections of town emptied, except on Fridays. And the high men of the state, with some exceptions, were increasingly reluctant to ask the great ulema for their prayers.
The Ottoman empire ended, effectively, with the First World War. Sultan Abd al-Hamid had been overthrown by a Westernising clique which then decided to bring the empire into the war which ended in its dismemberment. If the Ottomans had remained loyal to the Sunna, and hence avoided injustice, bribery, and weakness on the field of battle, the Ottoman state would in all probability be in existence today, and its model of an Islam which tolerates diversity would still prevail, instead of the nervous, intolerant little groups which fill the Islamic scene today.
The Sultan may have been removed by ‘the people’, but it was not the Sultans who suffered as a result of people choosing unbelief over belief. They lived fairly simple lives before and after the removal of power, Sultan Abdul Hamid died continuing his love for carpentry. It is us, the people, who have suffered.
In any event, this is not a call to a new political party or some other form of obtuse power play. The spiritual inheritors to the Ottomans are making subtle preparations awaiting Imam Mahdi (AS) rather than making bold power moves. Rather this is a small reminder that when understanding things about our tradition, the Ottomans should not be forgotten. And it is a history which should be learned at the feet of one of those spiritual inheritors.
It is there we dropped the flag, and it will be from there that Muslims will pick it up.
Excerpted from:
Newsweek – On Faith
-
The Ottoman Caliphate, the supreme representative of Sunni Islam, formally abolished this penalty in the aftermath of the so-called Tanzimat reforms launched in 1839. The Sheykh al-Islam, the supreme head of the religious courts and colleges, ratified this major shift in traditional legal doctrine. It was pointed out that there is no verse in the Qur’an that lays down a punishment for apostasy (although chapter 5 verse 54 and chapter 2 verse 217 predict a punishment in the next world). It was also pointed out that the ambiguities in the hadith (the sayings of the Prophet) suggest that apostasy is only an offense when combined with the crime of treason. These ambiguities led some medieval Muslims, long before the advent of modernisation, to reject the majority view. Prominent among them one may name al-Nakha’i (d.713), al-Thawri (d.772), al-Sarakhsi (d. 1090), al-Baji (d. 1081), and al-Sha’rani (d.1565). The debate triggered by the Ottoman reform was continued when al-Azhar University in Cairo, the supreme religious authority in the Arab world, delivered a formal fatwa (religious edict) in 1958, which confirmed the abolition of the classical law in this area.
Among radical Salafis and Wahhabis who do not accept the verdicts of the Ottoman or the Azhar scholars, it is generally believed that the majority medieval view should still be enforced.
-
My comments:
The general ignorance of Muslims towards the Ottoman Caliphate, its legal process, and the true nature of its Sultans have left the door open for its history to be written largely by its enemies and detractors. Sh Abdul Hakim hints at a part of this misrepresentation when describing “so-called Tanzimat reforms”. There are few actual citations for the numerous allegations against the Sultans and Ottomans, and very little understanding when it comes to the deeply religious nature of their rule.
During this weekends sohbet Lukman Khwaja raised an interesting fact that many people are not aware of. The fact that during Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent’s time, rocket science was being developed and shown to the Sultan. This is certainly interesting as the Ottomans are sharply criticized by some for falling behind in technology.
“Evliya Celibi’s anecdote of Lagari Hasan Celebi flying with a seven winged rocket of his own invention is still more interesting, and is as follows:
“Lagari Hasan Celebi: The night Murad Han’s daughter, Kaya Sultan, was born as brilliant as a star, and there was an infant ceremony. Lagari Hasan had invented a seven winged rocket using fifty okka (140 lbs) of gunpowder paste. In Sarayburnu, he mounted the rocket before the emperor. His students lit the wick. Lagari said ‘O my sultan! Be blessed, I am going to talk to Christ’, and he ascended praying. He lighted the rockets he took with him, illuminating the surface of the sea. When the big rocket ran out of gunpowder, he splashed into the sea while landing. Thereon, he swam and came before the sultan naked. He kissed the ground and joked ‘O my sultan! Christ sends his regards to you’. He was granted a sack of silver coins, and was enrolled as a cavalry soldier with seventy silver coins for his salary:
Then he went to Selamet Giray Khan in Crimea, and died there. The deceased was a close friend of mine. God bless him”
Lukman Khawaja pointed out that while the Ottomans had this technology, Sultan Suleyman ordered for it to be covered up, as he, even back then, realized the harm that would come when nations like today were to have access to such technology. He realized then that if this type of knowledge fell into the hands of the wrong people, they would destroy not only each other, but all of humanity with it. And this is where we are today.
Today nations are desperate, yet they cannot stop the spread of nuclear weapons, as they attempt to follow Sultan Suleyman’s example.
People mistake wisdom, earnestness, clarity and goodness for backwardness. This is something that needs to be reevaluated.
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 
Contentions 1 (51)
Shaikh Abdul Hakim Murad wrote a number of “Contentions“, which often require a moment of reflection, thought, or research. I continue to make a weak attempt at finding some meaning within them, with support.
muezzin : One who is calling Azhan loudly, clearly, and usually in a beautiful voice.
One simple interpretation: a sign of a false scholar is one who does not listen but speaks a lot.
There are different levels in every possible thing, and in this as well. Before our ego gets carried away we should realize that this contention should not imply that the scholars need to take orders from laymen, like you or I.
Yes, indeed, above every knower… there is a knower. So everyone accomplished is listening to someone in one way or another.
The true Wali’s and scholars eventually begin to hear completely differently than what we may expect, they begin to watch and listen with the hearts ear. When one achieves that… well, MashaAllah.
At the same time we need to realize where it is we stand, and whether we are listeners or talkers. Just a few lessons I took from this contention.