The “Noble Edict of the Rose Chamber” was an 1839 proclamation by Ottoman Sultan Abdül Mecid I that launched the Tanzimat period of reforms and reorganization within the Ottoman Empire.
Below is the text of the edict:
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
—-
All the world knows that since the first days of the Ottoman State, the lofty principles of
the Qur’an and the rules of the Sheriat were always perfectly observed. Our mighty
Sultanate reached the highest degree of strength and power, and all its subjects [the
highest degree] of ease and prosperity. But in the last one hundred and fifty years,
because of a succession of difficulties and diverse causes, the sacred Sheriat was not
obeyed nor were the beneficent regulations followed; consequently, the former strength
and prosperity have changed into weakness and poverty. It is evident that countries not
governed by the laws of the Sheriat cannot survive.
From the very first day of our accession to the throne, our thoughts have been
devoted exclusively to the development of the empire and the promotion of the prosperity
of the people. Therefore, if the geographical position of the Ottoman provinces, the
fertility of the soil, and the aptitude and intelligence of the inhabitants are considered, it is
manifest that, by striving to find appropriate means, the desired results will, with the aid
of God, be realized within five or ten years. Thus, full of confidence in the help of the
Most High and certain of the support of our Prophet, we deem it necessary and important
from now on to introduce new legislation to achieve effective administration of the
Ottoman Government and Provinces. Thus the principles of the requisite legislation are
three:
1. The guarantees promising to our subjects perfect security for life, honor, and
property.
2. A regular system of assessing taxes
3. An equally regular system for the conscription of requisite troops and the
duration of their service.
Indeed there is nothing more precious in this world than life and honor. What
man, however much his character may be against violence, can prevent himself from
having recourse to it, and thereby injure the government and the country, if his life and
honor are endangered? If, on the contrary, he enjoys perfect security, it is clear that he
will not depart from ways of loyalty and all his actions will contribute to the welfare of
the government and of the people.
If there is an absence of security for property, everyone remains indifferent to his
state and his community; no one interests himself in the prosperity of the country,
absorbed as he is in his own troubles and worries. If, on the contrary, the individual feels
complete security about his possessions then he will become preoccupied with his own
affairs, which he will seek to expand, and his devotion and love for his state and his
community will steadily grow and will undoubtedly spur him into becoming a useful
member of society.
Tax assessment is also one of the most important matters to regulate. A state, for
the defense of its territory, manifestly needs to maintain its borders, the costs of which
can be defrayed only by taxes levied on its subjects. Although thank God, our Empire has
already been relieved of the affliction of monopolies, the harmful practice of tax-farming
[iltizam], which never yielded any fruitful results, still prevails. This amounts to
handing over the financial and political affairs of a country to the whims of an ordinary
man and perhaps to the grasp of force and oppression, for if the tax-farmer is not of good
character he will be interested only in his own profit and will behave oppressively. It is
therefore necessary that from now on every subject of the Empire should be taxed
according to his fortune and his means, and that he should be saved from any further
exaction. It is also necessary that special laws should fix and limit the expenses of our
land and sea forces.
Military matters, as already pointed out, are among the most important affairs of
state, and it is the inescapable duty of all the people to provide soldiers for the defense of
the fatherland [vatan]. It is therefore necessary to frame regulations on the contingents
that each locality should furnish according to the requirement of the time, and to reduce
the term of military service to four or five years. Such legislation will put an end to the
old practices, still in force, of recruiting soldiers without consideration of the size of the
population in any locality, more conscripts being taken from some places and fewer from
others. This practice has been throwing agriculture and trade into harmful disarray.
Moreover, those who are recruited to lifetime military service suffer despair and
contribute to the depopulation of the country.
In brief, unless such regulations are promulgated, power, prosperity, security, and
peace may not be expected, and the basic principles [of the projected reforms] must be
those enumerated above.
Thus, from now on, every defendant shall be entitled to a public hearing,
according to the rules of the Sheriat, after inquiry and examination; and without the
pronouncement of a regular sentence no one may secretly or publicly put another to death
by poison or by any other means. No one shall be allowed to attack the honor of any
other person whatsoever. Every one shall possess his property of every kind and may
dispose of it freely, without let or hindrance from any person whatsoever; and the
innocent heirs of a criminal shall not be deprived of their hereditary rights as a result of
the confiscation of the property of such a criminal. The Muslim and non-Muslim subjects
of our lofty Sultanate shall, without exception, enjoy our imperial concessions. Therefore
we grant perfect security to all the populations of our Empire in their lives, their honor,
and their properties, according to the scared law.
As for the other points, decisions must betaken by majority vote. To this end, the
members of the Council of Judicial Ordinances [Mejlis-i Ahkam-i Adliyye], enlarged by
new members as may be found necessary, to whom will be joined on certain days we
shall determine our Ministers and the high officials of the Empire, will assemble for the
purpose of framing laws to regulate the security of life and property and the assessment
of taxes. Every one participating in the Council will express his ideas and give his advice
freely.
“Committee of Union and Progress”
It should be remembered that the ulema, as a class, did not form a homogeneous but a fragmented body, members of which defending somewhat contradictory theses. Many high-ranking members of the ulema strongly supported the Hamidian regime and policies implemented by the sultan for different reasons. In retrospect, however, it would not be inaccurate to comment that those who wholeheartedly supported the aforementioned regime were of a negligible quantity. This comment might seem contradictory, given the policies implemented by the sultan. The examination of a host of memoirs, pamphlets, and newspaper and journal articles published by members of ulema in exile and after the reinstatement of the constitutional regime unequivocally reveals this significant fact, however.
The idea of creating a political opposition movement was born in 1889 among military medical school students, but similar or identical ideas had entered the minds of a grater mass of people. Since there was no other influential authority apart from religion that could legitimize the opposition, the sympathizers of CUP discovered that clamorous opposition, shrouded in religious motifs, was the best way of guaranteeing the future of their movement, of legitimizing it and of delegitimizing the regime of Abdulhamid II. This became more urgent as Abdulhamid II and the palace increasingly labeled members of the opposition as ‘irreligious’ ‘traitors’, ‘intriguers’, ‘immoral’, ‘lacking in patriotism’, and ‘bandits’, this increasing tension by appealing to religious sentiments. So the ulema, who had not yet gone into action, were urged to do so through celebrations, persuasion, threats, satire and contempt.
….
It is strange that a member of the Ottoman ulema should question the legitimacy of the title of caliph of Sultan Selim I, but the real aim of this discussion is to establish an historical framework that would delegitimize the titles of caliph and sultan held by Abdulhamid II and diminish his reputation. If the author could establish that the title of caliph held by the Ottoman dynasty was an usurpation obtained by massacring thousands of Muslims then the caliphate and sultanate of Abdulhamid II would be null a pirori. Similar ideas, and the notion of the caliph as a member of the Quraysh tribe were first created as a political maneuver by English functionaries in India and developed by London newspapers in order to weaken the power and influence of the Ottoman state over the Islamic world. That such ideas questioning the legitimacy of the Ottoman caliphate were adopted after a decade by the ulema and presented as if they constituted a local and religious question illustrates the ulema’s political situation and the loss of their ability to use their own judgment to follow and interpret political developments.
The conclusion expounds on the subjects touched on in the introduction of the pamphlet. It reiterates the need to weaken absolute obedience to the caliph and, consequently to Abdulhamid II, and the need for outright disobedience; it reinterprets the verse of the Koran ordering obedience to established authorities in a way that excludes sultans and emirs and includes ‘learned mystics with the capacity of governing people’; and it includes a defence of a constitutional, even republican, regime in place of the caliphate-sultanate. It also stresses the need for consultation and to found a parliament, which is considered as a synonym for ‘a council of the Muslim community and a national council, both of which are a religious necessity’. The final ‘personal comment’ frequently points to the affinity between the ulema and the CUP opposition.
..
As in the case of Imamet ve Hilafet Risalesi, the author remains anonymous, but to increase his legitimacy, credibility, influence and also his potential threat, he is described as ‘the most virtuous scholar’. The Egyptian branch of CUP published this pamphlet twice in 1896. It must have been one of the first joint acts (or the first) by the recently formed CUP, the opposition and the ulema. The fact that – to our knowledge – it is the first pamphlet in which the CUP is mentioned by name increases its importance. The cover states that the publication was made in conformity wit hthe CUP regulations (Article 21).
The aim of this publication was to incite the ulema to revolt against the authorities, while at the same time asking the authorities to grant a constitution, and attempting to politicize the Muslim community. Its political aims were important and clear. It was successful in using cherished symbols and in playing on common sentiments in a provocative language.
(Late Ottoman society: the intellectual legacy (2005) By Elisabeth Özdalga)
PROPHET MUHAMMED’s Letter to the Monks of St. Catherine Monastery from Haqqani OSMANLI on Vimeo.
The Letter Reads:
This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).
–
St Catherines monestary has this to say about their letter:
“According to the tradition preserved at Sinai, Mohammed (AS) both knew and visited the monastery and the Sinai fathers. The Koran makes mention of the Sinai holy sites. In the second year of the Hegira, corresponding to AD 626, a delegation from Sinai requested a letter of protection from Mohammed (S). This was granted, and authorized by him when he placed his hand upon the document. In AD 1517, Sultan Selim I confirmed the monastery’s prerogatives, but took the original letter of protection for safekeeping to the royal treasury in Constantinople. At the same time, he gave the monastery certified copies of this document, each depicting the hand print of Mohammed (S) in token of his having touched the original. ”
On the three approaches to the condemnation of
wrongs: with the hand, with the tongue
and with the heart.
Once it has been established that the condemnation of wrongs [al-inkar] is a necessary duty, it should be noted that those who discharge this duty [al-munkirun] are grouped in three distinct categories:
1. The first group is made up of those who are in a position to give
effect to their condemnation through the use of physical force;134 that
is to say, it consists of the leaders of the community [a imma] and the
rulers in power [salatin].135
2. The second group is made up of those who express their condem
nation verbally rather than by physical means;136 in other words, it
consists of the learned scholars ['ulama'].
3. The third group is made up of those who can express their
condemnation only through their feelings;137 in other words, it consists
of the mass of ordinary people [amma].
This is borne out by a tradition [hadlth] that has been handed down to us, namely the report transmitted by Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (may Allah be well pleased with him), according to whom the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) once said:
If one of you happens to see something wrong [munkar], let him try to correct it with his hand. If he is unable to do it this way, then with his tongue. If he cannot do it this way either, then with his heart, although that is the weakest of faith [ad 'afu'l-iman].138
One of the Companions [Sahaba] (may Allah be well pleased with them all) is reported as having said: “If one of you happens to see something wrong, but he is incapable of taking action to correct it, let him say three times: “O Allah, surely this is wrong!” 139 If he does say this, he will actually be entitled to the spiritual reward that is earned by enjoining what is right and fair and forbidding what is wrong and unfair.”
134 Literally, ‘by means of the hand’[bi'l-yad].
135 The singular forms corresponding to a’imma and salfitin are imilm and sultan, respectively.
136 Literally, ‘by means of the tongue, not tbe hand1 [bi'l-lisani duna'l-yad].
137 Literally, ‘with the heart’ [bi'l-qalb].
138 Author’s note: Meaning, ‘the weakest act of faith” [ad 'afu fi'li'l-iman].
139 Allahumma inna hadha munkar
ref: Shaikh Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (R) – Al Ghunya li Talibi Tariq al-Haqq Volume 1
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 