“Haramayn” is the word used in Ottoman Manuscripts to refer to Mecca and Medina; it means “the two harams-sanctuaries.” Mecca is a sanctuary because of the Ka’ba, and Medina was declared a sanctuary after the Prophet’s emigration to this city. The Ottomans referred to Jerusalem, which was the first direction for prayer (qibla), as “the third of the Haramayn.”
The Ottomans were emotionally connected with these two holy cities and this connection was reflected in their national traditions and international policies. Starting from the time of Sultan Celebi Mehmed, every year a caravan of royal gifts (Surre Alayi) was sent to the holy lands as a sign of respect. Sultan Mehmed II the Conqueror demanded that the Mamluks renovate the conduits that carried water to the Hijaz, or that they leave the renovation to the Ottomans. The Mamluks’ refusal to do this brought the two countries to the brink of war.
Following the conquest of Egypt by Selim I (Yavuz Sultan Selim) in 1517, the governor of Mecca sent an envoy to deliver the keys of the city to the Sultan and expressed his allegiance on July 12, 1517; it is from this date that the Ottoman rule over the holy lands, a rule lasting for four centuries, started. Selim I sent the envoy back with a caravan of two hundred thousand gold coins and a great quantity of foodstuffs.
Selim I attended the Friday prayer in the Grand Mosque (Ulu Cami) of Aleppo after defeating the Mamluks in Marj Dabiq. The imam proclaimed the sultan to be “Ruler of the Haramayn” while delivering the Friday sermon given in the presence of Abbasid Caliph Al-Mutawaqqil. Selim I correct the imam saying that he was the “Servant of the Haramayn”. This gives an idea about the respect the Ottomans felt towards the region in comparison to the Mamluks, who had adopted the title “Protector of the Haramayn”.
Selim I is quoted as having said, “We are a nation who has sacrificed our lives for the unity of Muslims” For centuries, the Ottomans were a unique power that protected the Islamic world from outside attacks; a fact that has strengthened the allegiance of Muslims to Istanbul until the time when the Great Ottoman State (Devlet-i Aliye) collapsed. Halil Inalcik reports the following events in his “The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300-1600: In 1517, while Selim I was in Cairo, the Protuguese fleet entered the Red Sea to attack Mecca. The governor of Mecca was about to leave the city when the people of Hijaz asked for help and protection from the Ottoman admiral Selim Reis. The port of Jeddah was successfully defended against the Portuguese.
The Ottomans already had a fleet in the Mediterranean; Selim I ordered that another fleet be built in the Suez to ensure Ottoman rule over the Red Sea and the protection of the Haramayn, which was further strengthened after Aden and Yemen were annexed.
In the sixteenth century, the Muslim rulers of Sumatra and India demanded support from the Ottomans against the Portuguese , and in their letters they addressed the sultan as the “protector of Islam”. Turkish khanates to the north of the Black Sea complained to the Ottomans about the Russian obstruction of their pilgrimage route to Mecca through the Crimea. The Ottomans launched a campaign to the Volga basin to establish security for the pilgrims.
Excerpted from the “Yildiz Albums of Sultan Abdul Hamid II Mecca-Medina”
Whosoever comes to you while your affairs has been united under one man, intending to break your strength or dissolve your unity, kill him. – Sahih Muslim
A carpet is large enough to accommodate two sufis, but the world is not large enough for two Kings. – Yavuz Selim (Selim I)
Sultan Saladin was a famous Muslim Sultan. Countless versions of his life story have been told in historical texts, novels, cartoons and even on the big screen. He was known for his justice and sincerity.
Yet, it was only 60 years after his death that civil war entered creating a split empire, various brothers and relatives maintaining power over individual states. This eventually allowed the non-Muslim Mongols to tear through and assassinate the Sultans and Caliphs, end the dynasty and ransack Muslim land and libraries.
In Andalus (Moorish Spain), after the overthrow of Hisham III, the land holdings devolved into weak city states ruled by various Emirs which eventually led to the inability to respond to Ferdinand and Isabella’s Inquisition and subsequent usurpation of Granada.
Is participating in a power struggle enough to consider a person an immoral ruler? Is relinquishing power the only moral option? The Islamic understanding of a great leader has been unique in that it is generally understood that the best leaders are those who have power thrust upon them, rather than demanded or taken by force (or won by seeking office). Most modern Muslims apply this principle to an extreme, and end up having a distaste for looking at the struggles between leaders of the past.
However, when examining upright rulers within Islamic history it becomes clear that the motivations of consolidation of power seemed to be completely separate from the desire of power itself. Sultan Saladin, widely considered a Wali (Friend of Allah) by Sunni tradition and defender of the Holy Cities from Crusaders, fought numerous Muslim leaders of sub-states in the process of consolidation. Yet somehow, the deaths of Muslims in the struggles that occurred in the process of securing power are not considered to be a black mark on his reputation.
The truth of the matter is that it has always been understood that successorship and power was in the hands of those whom Allah has given power and success to. If leaders were moved by spiritual wisdom and political forces to gather power to ensure better protection of their Muslim territories, or if there indeed were rebellious factions to the obvious leader of the people, then the unfortunate reality is that battles were necessary.
Examples of the conflicts which resulted from the consolidation of power that arose between Muslims are numerous within Islamic history.
Sultan Nur ad-Din desired to consolidate Muslim power and unify the Muslim states. By the fortune of the recent deaths of various Sultans, he was able to gain control over a large territory between the Euphrates and the Nile. Only Damascus remained, where Sultan Mujir ad-Din had agreed to pay tribute to the Crusaders for their protection. Sultan Nur ad-Din was eventually able to overthrow Sultan Mujir ad-Din and establish a solid front against the Crusaders. Sultan Nur ad-Din also brought Egypt under his control as well, taking it from the Shia Fatimid dynasty.
However, it wasn’t until Sunni Muslims began facing external forces that the critical nature of minimizing such instability and disturbances became apparant. It was the forces of the Crusaders, the Mongols and Persians that made clear the need for a strong unified leadership.
When Raynald of Chatillon directly threatened to attack Makkah during the course of the Crusades, Sultan Saladin ended up using the combined forces of the Muslims to secure and recapture Jeruselem. In the course of these battles he ended up using Egyptian land as a safehaven and used Syria to wait and consolidate his power. All of this would not have been possible with separate sovereign empires, independently bargaining for their safety, determining their own strategies, and certainly would have left Muslims at the mercy of petty squabbles.
It is clear that such consolidation of power was a necessary evil in order to unify Muslims under the strongest leadership possible. Certainly it is only with this system in place that made it possible for Muslims (with the Ottomans) to hold the longest-reigning dynasty in world history.
Yet, this dynasty is questioned quite often on the moral compass of its leadership, especially by Muslims. Muslims who, by mere fortune of having eaten the fruits of the sacrifices of these people, find it quite easy to turn back and complain about this or that from the hundreds of years they relied on the Ottomans to protect them. One example, beyond the necessity to battle Muslim states, was the practice of ‘fratricide’ supposedly put in place by the Ottomans.
Modern day Muslims tend to view the Caliphs and Sultans as invincible tyrants, free to have their whim obeyed at each turn. The reality was the Sultans lived in complex political times, their relatives were representing other powerful political groups with their own interests, Viziers from previous administrations and commanders and statesmen representing noble families wielded great influence. The motivations for power were not simply personal ambition but a representation of a vast families, political parties, provinces.
In Ottoman times, the simple presence of a lateral royal personality caused great havoc. Such individuals would constantly be approached to rally some area under their banner and seek to gain greater control or become puppets of another.
Upon the succession of Sultan Murad II, the Byzantine Empire released Mustafa Celebi and declared him the rightful heir to the Ottoman Sultanate. Of course, this was with prior agreement that a number of provinces would be turned over to the Byzantines should he succeed in claiming the throne. Sultan Murad II was able to properly defeat this rebellion and in Gallipoli executed Mustafa Celebi. This same situation occurred again in Sultan Murad’s reign when the Byzantines used his younger brother Mustafa to distract Sultan Murad from his siege on Constantinople by supporting an uprising in Anatolia.
With Sultan Beyazid, his brother Cem gave Pope Innocent VIII a figurehead and puppet Muslim king with which to seek resources to launch another crusade. Fortunately for Muslims, the European monarchies rejected the proposal from the Pope at the time. Cem was a powerful figure, capable of rallying people and creating disunity in the Empire. Prior to his capture and use by the Pope, he was able to rally an army of over four thousand and win Anatolia from his brother, until Sultan Bayezid was forced to act against him. Once captured, the European powers and the Pope used Cem often to halt Ottoman advances at the Balkans, threatening his mistreatment or even release.
The overarching threat of enemy use of powerful individuals with the ability to draw large armies did not end there. When the succession was still in play Korkud attempted to buy the jannisaries support by distributing gold which they accepted. However when Selim I arrived in Istanbul in April 1512, they backed his succession and deposition of his father (ref: Uluchay, ‘Yavuz Sultan Selim’ VII 10.125-6, VIII/ 11-12.185-6). Upon succession, Sultan Selim I found the European powers eyeing his brother Korkud to be used in a similar manner to Cem and the Safavid Persians were providing heavy support to his brother Ahmed.
Due to these and numerous other events, Sultan Selim I was forceful in his elimination of lateral competition to the throne, in the interest of unity against enemies of the orthodox Sunni Ottomans. Actual execution became a practice for a period of less than 100 years leading to utter confinement. Either of these approaches were not something taken lightly by the Sultans nor their family. This sacrifice was a very real necessity that became something demanded of the Sultans by the statesmen of the Ottoman Empire, and the Muslim people, in the interest of presenting a unified front and eliminating needless bloodshed.
When imagining the power struggles and hearing of the supposed penultimate power of the Caliphate, one would think: who would be so eager to kill their brother except a power hungry facist? But it turns out this was not the case at all.
Proof that these executions were not the deepest wish of the Sultan is found clearly within the Ottoman archives. Sultan Murat’s Jewish physician, Domenico Hierosolimitano, describes the sacrifice made for stability in describing the ascension of Sultan Murat to the throne (and its consequences for his family):
But Sultan Murat, who was so compassionate as to be unable to see blood shed, waited eighteen hours, in which he refused to sit on the Imperial throne or to make public his arrival in the City [arrival in Istanbul was trigger for the process of ascension], seeking and discussing a way to free his nine brothers of blood who were in the Seraglio… In order that he should not break the law of the Ottoman state … weeping, he sent the mutes to strangle them, giving nine handkerchiefs with his own hands to the chief of the mutes. – ref: Austin, Domenico’s Istanbul
Each of the Sultans lateral competitors to the throne were carrying influences from their families and political allies. Each of the members of the House of Osman had their political fate tied to them at birth. At a certain point, it was commonly known to all involved what would occur when a Sultan succeeded to the throne. Every individuals fate, political allies, and enemies in the family being known to them years in advance. When the men of this family weren’t facing execution, they were facing long-term confinement in the Palace (so as not to rally any potential factions under their flag).
When the assembly of statesmen, legal authorities and commandors assembled to discuss who should ascend the throne after Sultan Mehmed IV (who had accepted abdicating the throne), they decided in favour of his brother Suleyman. This case, like others, indicates the Sultanship was (unlike European kingdoms) transferred through the process of consultation and deliberation of those in authority. Quite similar to what occurred in the time of the Sahabi and the Khulafa Rashidun, not simple ‘nepotism’.
Further, the entire process of the ascension was related by Silahdar Findiklili Mehmed Agha, who was serving as a page in the privy chamber, he (as he notes) ‘witnessed the truth of it all’. This narration demonstrates the manner in which the family of Osman was raised, what they were asked to sacrifice, the manner in which they were ready to die, and the manner in which they accepted Sultanship. The myth of plump princes handed free reign over the world through nepotistic practices disappears quickly. The lessons in here are innumerable, so I will end on this narration of the successorship of Sultan Suleyman Khan (Suleiman II).
The Chief Black Eunuch went to that part of the Palace known as the Boxwood apartment, where Prince Suleyman Khan was confined, and invited him to leave his quarters whereupon, supposed he was to be done away with, the Prince refused to come out. ‘Your majesty, my Sultan, fear not! By God, I swear I intend you no harm. All the imperial ministers and doctors of theology and your military servants have chosen you as the next sultan and are awaiting the honour of your presence. We are at your command.’
His heart still in a state of unease, the Prince replied, weeping, ‘If my removal [i.e. execution] has been ordered , tell me, so that I may perform my prayers in the prescribed form prior to the order being carried out. I have been confined for forty years – ever since I was a child. Rather than dying [a thousand deaths] each [and every] day, it is preferable to die [once] at the earliest instant….’
Again placing a kiss on the Prince’s foot, the imperial officer responded, ‘God forbid, do not say such things, I beg you! It is not a death but rather a throne which has been set up for you’.[When the Chief Black Eunuch stated that all the Prince's servants would attend him] the Prince’s companion by his side, his younger brother Ahmed, offered reassurance, saying, ‘By your leave, do not be afraid, the Agha always tells the truth’ Upon this, the Prince emerged from the apartment Since he was dressed in a robe of red satin and his feet encased in a pair of short, heavy, riding boots- having had nothing to wear for years except clothes of the very meanest and poorest sort – the Agha had one of his own robes brought, a dark bluish-brown broadcloth lined with sable, which he draped over Prince Suleyman’s satin robe, and then, giving his arm to the Prince, conducted him with reverance and deference to the Pavilion of Felicity of the Privy Chamber and seated him on a throne by the pool. The Swordbearer and the pages of the Privy Chamber came forward and, as he advanced in their company toward the imperial Audience Hall, the Prince inquired, ‘Are you going to stop by the Lion House (a former church where animals were kept), all enveloped in darkness, and execute me there?’
‘Oh my Lord’, the Swordbearer answered, ‘how can you suggest such a thing? God forbid, may it be known that your removal from the Boxwood Apartment was in order that you should ascend the throne. See your servant, the Chief White Eunich, along with the imperial messenger, is coming from the Privy Apartments to meet you’ The Chief White Eunuch extended his salutations to the Prince and putting his arm through the Prince’s left arm escorted him to the imperial audience hall and seated him on the throne. In accordance with ancient custom, the sacred turban of the Prophet Joseph, [kept safe] in the Imperial Treasury, was brought forth and placed on the exalted head of the Prince and adorned with three bejewelled plumes, trailing downwards. The point to which the sun ahd risen was but one-and-a-half spears-length high: it was three o’clock.
Prince Suleyman ascended the imperial throne … and the first in line to swear allegiance was the Registrar of the Descendants of the Prophet Muhummad (S), followed by the Grand Vizir’s Proxy and the Chancellor and the chief justices of the provinces of Rumeli and Anadolu and subsequently, the SheykhulIslam with various doctors of theology, and the senior officers of the militia and the sultan’s regiments and the rebels, as well as the head of the Palace Doorkeepers and the chief officer of the Bearers of the Imperial Flask – all swore their allegiance to the Sultan. In turn, the Sultan extended his salutations to the assembled body in the imperial Audience Hall and then honoured the Pavilion of the Privy Chamber by his presence, where he was seated on a throne at the pool. Now, the servants of the treasury and the commissariat and the campaign also came to swear their allegiance.
The Chief Black Eunuch, Ali Agha, came bearing an imperial rescript ordering the confinement of the new Sultan’s brother Ahmed Khan, the deposed Sultan [Mehmed IV], and the two princes … Mustafa Khan and Ahmed Khan; the three were raised up and detained in the Boxwood Apartment. A secret concealed from the inmates in the court and residents of the city, the imperial writ was presented to Sultan Mehmed Khan, who said, ‘ I bow my head to God’s wish. Once imprisoned are we then to be executed? ‘ The Agha replied, ‘ God forbid, your Majesty ! May that day never come. The order only refers only to your being confined.’ That same say, the palace heralds delivered the propitious news to the Queen-mother and were granted an untold number of gifts, and the public crier proclaimed to the city the glad tidings of the imperial accession; and the Firday sermon was orated in the name of the newly enthroned sultan and the coinage now bore his name.
ref [Silahdar Findiklili Mehmed Aga, Silhadar Ta rihi 2.296-8]
Taken from Sources of Indian Tradition – Vol 1 (ed: Ainslie T Emree)
–
Shaikh Hamadani, who is considered largely responsible for the conversion of Kashmir to Islam, wrote Zakhirat ul-Muluk (The Treasuries of Kings) in the second half of the fourteenth century. It contains a clear statement on the origin and necessity of rulers.
-
Know ye that among the great ones of the learned, those possessed of intelligence and wisdom, it is established and proved that, at the very moment of creation, by reason of the different qualities and admixture of ability that are bestowed by the bounty of God like a lustrous and bejeweled costume, the souls and natures of men have fallen out differently. Hence, the inclinations, motives, and purposes of men have become different and the difference is manifested in all their words, deeds, and fundamental articles of faith.
The qualities of beastliness and of base morals – tyranny and injustice, hatred and rancor and avarice are implanted in the dispositions of men. Then, in the perfect of His great wisdom, God has decreed that there be a just and competent ruler of mankind so that, by the power of judicial process, the affairs of the progeny of Adam and the rules for managing the affairs of mankind may be kept and preserved on the right path; also a ruler has been ordained by God so that he may endeavor, as far as possible, to put into operation the mandates of the Sharia and to be on guard to preserve the prescriptions of rules of Islam among the people of all classes and, with the prohibitions of punishment and the curb of command, to prevent tyranny over and oppression of the weak by the strong. Thus the physical world may be assured of stability, the bound of the Sharia not invaded by the disorder of oppression and innovation, and the characteristics of brute beasts and camels may not be manifested among people of classes.
Most people are familiar with Machiavelli, whose famous book “The Prince” taught medieval lords and princes how to usurp and retain power. Machiavelli became famous and is remembered for his approach towards manipulation of common people, of nobility, of allies and enemies.
The view of the application of morality presented in the book is indeed a twisted one:
“Because how one ought to live is so far removed from how one lives that he who lets go of what is done for that which one ought to do sooner learns ruin than his own preservation: because a man who might want to make a show of goodness in all things necessarily comes to ruin among so many who are not good. Because of this it is necessary for a prince, wanting to maintain himself, to learn how to be able to be not good and to use this and not use it according to necessity.”
Though in this passage Machiavelli is very careful in using “not good” instead of evil, rest assured, what is being advocated is the use of evil to further pursuits of power and self-preservation. The basic thrust of the book is overall consumption of this world, how to increase it, and how to increase ones holdings of this world. This book is still studied today as a foundational text for members of parliament, dictators and presidents.
If you want to figure out why the world is suffering under endless power struggles, a good place to start is by reading “The Prince.”
What is interesting, and unknown to most Muslims is that Muslim princes also had their manual, the Sea of Precious Virtues (Bahr Al-Favaid) which is described:
It was compiled in Persia in the mid 12th century by an anonymous author and concerns the moral fitness of a ruler, defined in orthodox Muslim terms. In addition to direct admonitions to the ruler, the work is a veritable encyclopedia of Muslim knowledge and beliefs of the period.
This is a powerful manual for Muslim rulers, which compiled the understanding of Islam for the precise purpose of raising the just rulers of the Islamic empires. When considering the usual Western Orientalist understandings of most of the rulers of the Islamic empire (including accusations of debauchery, intoxication, and general evil, often stated as casual fact), it is interesting to note the types of lessons found in this text.
The testament of Yaqub (as): he told his sons, “Allah maintains this faith for you; strive to die in the Muslim faith, and do not despair of Allah’s mercy. Know and be aware that Allah gave the best of all things to the prophets, and that is faith; and He gave the worst of all things to His enemies, and that is this world. Beware of exchanging the best for the worst, and do not sell faith for this world. He who possesses faith is exalted in both worlds; but he who possesses this world without faith is abased in both worlds.”
The book for teaching Muslim princes is emphasizing detachment from power, emphasizing the power of faith in giving a proper perspective to the world. Viewing the world as the worst of things is the primary message being taught to a Muslim Prince.
Hazrat Zul-Qarnain conquered east and west and the Lands of Darkness. As he was dying he commanded, “Strip me naked, empty my hands, and expose me in my coffin, so that the world’s inhabitants will know that I take with me no gold and silver from this world: empty-handed I came into it, and empty-handed I depart.”
The meaning of this passage is actually quite deep. We find that Hazrat Zhul Qarnain (AS), who is mentioned in the Quran al-Karim as well, has left the world with nothing worldly. This attitude prevailed while he had collected vast areas of land under his authority. Furthermore, notice the use of the “Lands of Darkness” as the conquered territory, which suggest that the lands he conquered benefited from his just rule.
Within this small lesson we find that the Muslim prince is learning to go in and out from this world with nothing worldly. This emphasis purifies intentions of even the strongest conquering spirit, who is apt to be caught up in the confusion of this world in a Firawnic sense.
It is interesting to note that the few Muslim rulers who fell into this trap were often saved of dying without repentance, due to this Islamic training. For example, we find in a history of the Seljuk Empire:
He (Qawurt) died with the utmost resignation. “Never,” said he, “did I advance on a country or march against a foe without asking help of Allah in mine adventure; but yesterday, when I stood on a hill, and the earth shook beneath me from the greatness of my army and the host of my soldiers, I said to myself, `I am the King of the World, and none can prevail against me’: wherefore Allah Almighty has brought me low by one of the weakest of His creatures. I ask pardon of Him and repent of this my thought.” (A History of Persia, by Edward Browne 1902)
Notice that through his upbringing, such a thought did not enter his heart once in his lifetime until that one point. When that one feeling entered his heart for only a moment, Allah caused him to wake up and regret it. The standards that Muslims held themselves to were lofty indeed.
Another Excerpt from the Sea of Precious Virtues:
The Testament of Nuh (as): “Friends, honor Allah, that you may become close to Him. Do not associate or have commerce with innovators, unbelievers, and hypocrites, lest you repent of it. ‘Love is with Allah and anger is with Allah.’ Know that Allah’s pleasure lies in the pleasure of righteous mother and father; if a man’s mother and father who are obedient to Allah’s orders are pleased with him, Allah is pleased with him.”
The Muslim manual for Princes teaches us to avoid hypocrisy and keep the best of company.
Yet Machiavelli teaches the Western Prince:
Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.
What we have here is a manual on hypocrisy guiding the Princes of West, and a manual of foresight, wisdom and Islamic character guiding the Princes of the East.
Finally I close with Sultan Osman Ghazi, founder of the Ottoman Empire, addressing his son and successor Sultan Orhan Ghazi in his last will:
Son! Be careful about the religious issues before all other duties. The religious precepts build a strong State. Do not give the religious duties to careless, faithless and sinful men or to dissipated, indifferent or inexperienced people. And also do not leave the state administrations to such people because the one without fear of Allah the Creator is in fear of the created. The one committing a great sin and continuing to sin can not be loyal. A person would be loyal if he fits to the Prophet’s (sws) true traditions and does not go out from Sheriat. Avoid cruelty and superstition. Remove the persons who encourage cruelty and superstition from your State. The underlying reason for it is that such persons make you decline.
[cut]
Save the Beytul Mal (treasury). Try to make much the State stock. Within the borders of Sheriat be contented with what you have. Do not destroy in an unuseful manner but fulfill your needs and necessities and do not squander. Do not be proud with your soldiers and goods. Because they are the intermediaries in the way of Allah for carrying the public services as a whole and for widening justice and virtue in the world. Protect the statesmen working for Allah’s sake. After their death care about their families and answer their needs. Do not seize public goods by violence. Give your kind hand to the deserved people and save such persons’ relations from troubles. Protect capable military officials. Scholars, virtuous men, artists and literary men are the power of the State structure. Treat with kindness and show honor to these men. Make close relationship when you hear about a virtuous man and give wealth and grant to him. Thus, in your State the number of learned men, virtuous men and knowledgeable men becomes high. Put in order the political and religious duties.
Take lesson from me. I came to these places as a weak leader and the help of Allah reached me, although I did not deserve it. Follow my way and protect Din-i Muhammad (the religion of Muhammad sws) and the believers and your followers. Respect the rights of Allah and His servants. Do not hesitate to advise your successors in this way. Depend on Allah’s help regarding justice and fairness and attempt to remove cruelty in every duty. Protect your public from the enemy’s invasion and from their cruelty. Do not behave with any person in an unsuitable manner or with unfairness. Gratify the public and save all of their affairs.
The Muslim Prince and non-Muslim Prince were very different indeed, raised completely differently. It is important to maintain an understanding of our tradition, even as it applies to our nobility, as it is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. Focusing our efforts on certain aspects of tradition while neglecting other aspects is not a safe approach for a balanced understanding of who we are and what powerful Islamic values our forefathers carried to us in a practical reality. Falling into the trap of the orientalist and Western definition of Islamic rulers is an easy one, but it is easy to see the picture they paint is quite the opposite from the reality.
Thanks to Yeni Osmanli for collecting the excerpts.
The links of the first Ottoman rulers with dervishes are attested to by the earliest extant document of the Ottoman state, the grant in 1324 by Osman’s son Orhan of land east of Iznik for a dervish lodge. Such lodges, like the tomb of Christian saints, formed a nucleaus which attracted settlement into new areas and were an inexpensive means of securing the loyalty of the common people; dervish lodges symbolized the popular expression of Islam which flourished in Anatolia alongside the Sunni Islam of Seljuk imperial culture… The Ottoman sultans who followed Orhan were invariably affiliated to one of the dervish orders: coexistence and compromise between different manifestations of religious belief and practice is one the abiding themes of Ottoman history.
[source: "Osman's Dream" by Caroline Finkel]
This is one clear reason why non-Muslim historians or Orientalists in general fail so poorly at understanding the motivations behind many of the Ottoman actions. While on one hand they acknowledge the strong sufi ties of the Sultans, they have no idea what sort of impact the Tariqat can have on a person. They have absolutely no clue on what it means to be a dervish, yet they are taking it upon themselves to fit the personalities and motivations of the Sultans into molds of people that they can understand so that they can fill in between the lines of supposed ‘facts’.
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 