THE FALL OF OTTOMAN EMPIRE & LONGING

[King Solomon]

As said by Neutralcitizin, Turks back then where dumb enough not to go with time and think that everything would be okay. If we werent dumb enough to modernize our entire country with industirilization, We would have seen a different Turkey, Rather one of the most powerfull in the Region. However this only started after Ataturk came to power and by then most other Europeun countries where world empires, Including USSR or Russian Empire. Russians where smart enough to go with time unlike us back then

I wonder, why did not Ottoman empire go with industrialization? G

It would be easier for them. They controlled the valuable sea routes for a long time and would have had the upper hand.They indeed missed a great opportunity.

 

[BordoEnes]

I wonder, why did not Ottoman empire go with industrialization? G

It would be easier for them. They controlled the valuable sea routes for a long time and would have had the upper hand.They indeed missed a great opportunity.

Arrogance and corruption in the royal family i gues, The deserved to be thrown out of Turkey.

 

[TheCommander]

Good attempt at derailing the topic. A usual tactic of trolls when they run out of arguments.

I did not run out of arguments. I just showed you some facts. Whatever I said was the fact, if I am wrong tell me which part I said is wrong.

I won't offend any Turkish members here by comparing USSR, Russian Empire or Russia for that matter with Turkey/Ottoman Empire.

You cannot compare Ottoman Empire with USSR or Russian Empire, because it is uncomparable.

 

[Armstrong]

Well, everything naturally goes through the process of "evolution"/Survival of the fittest. The otoman empire was a lackluster and corrupt empire towards it's end. It's sultans were the most corrupt ever.

In such a case it is only natural that Ottoman empire would be dismantled and a newer, better entity would be formed for better operation . It was done so by British, Russian and French empires. Better entity, in the form of nationalized countries were formed.

Can you tell me how do you expect Arabs, Turks, Armenians, Greeks and other races who fervently demanded independence, to live together under Ottoman caliph? The whole region would be on fire everyday and millions more would be killed.

Thus, in my opinion, the dismantlement of Ottoman empire may be sad for those who believe in pan Islamism, however, it was a necessity of time and ultiately proved to be something better than Ottoman itself.

Just as you don't throw out one of your loved one's when they ail, you don't abandon Nations when they need you the most ! The Ottoman Empire was exceptional at its peak; we needed to reach that high once more by reforming the Ottoman Empire not abolishing it. By ending the decadence, corruption and bigotry that had brought the Ottoman Empire to her knees, by replacing the Sultanate with Democracy so that the Caliphate would once more go to her roots and break away from the Monarchy that had crippled it. Ataturk had it in his power to do all of that and so I wonder what would he do had he the opportunity to do it all over again ! Either way using words like 'evolution and Darwinian survival' in such a cold calculating manner is deeply offensive to those of us who took (and still do) great pride in the Ottoman Empire as Our Empire.

And Ethno-Linguistic Nationalism is the worst poison that the Muslim World ever drank ! Brother turned against brother and for what ? Lines drawn on a map ? Languages and ethnic difference that we ourselves created ? I blame the Muslims most of all for the demise of the Ottoman Empire because instead of addressing all those factors that hastened the decline of the Ottoman Empire we embraced them ! The decadence and the opulence of the later Ottoman Sultans were adopted by the Royals and the Dictators throughout the Muslim world. The corruption and the nepotism that had crippled Ottoman Administrative machinery was adopted by our armies and bureaucracies alike. And whatever solidarity that had remained in the Ottoman Empire was shot to pieces by our own actions. Who in God's name needed enemies when they had Citizens like us ? We fought the Allied War better than the Brits, the French and the Russians themselves. And so Russian, despite the Ottoman Empire having crumbled, it did not replace anything for the better.

And the whole region continues to remain in fire or at the very least in a state of 'aloofness' with respect to each other's miseries. The Sunni-Shi'ite, the Egyptian-Arab, the Maghrib-Arab, the Arab-Persian, the Inter-Arab and the Turkish-Arab rivalries (or distrust) has ripped this region off worse then any Ottoman Sultan ever could hope to. We squandered away 'Our Nation' for little
Nation States' that scheme and plot against each other for 'National Interests' ! Forgive me but if that is an 'improvement' for the better then I'd much rather have the 'old system' once more.

Pan Islamism is a part of us...! We are One Nation under God...so it was many years ago and so shall it be once more ! But I do know where you stand with respect to Pan-Islamism and so it would be counter-productive to continue !

 

[King Solomon]

Just as you don't throw out one of your loved one's when they ail, you don't abandon Nations when they need you the most ! The Ottoman Empire was exceptional at its peak; we needed to reach that high once more by reforming the Ottoman Empire not abolishing it. By ending the decadence, corruption and bigotry that had brought the Ottoman Empire to her knees, by replacing the Sultanate with Democracy so that the Caliphate would once more go to her roots and break away from the Monarchy that had crippled it. Ataturk had it in his power to do all of that and so I wonder what would he do had he the opportunity to do it all over again ! Either way using words like 'evolution and Darwinian survival' in such a cold calculating manner is deeply offensive to those of us who took (and still do) great pride in the Ottoman Empire as Our Empire.

I will argue this in two ways.

Firstly, your analogy of comparing old loved ones (eg. Parents when they become old) may not be so valid when it comes to empires/nations. Parents and family has a factor of emotional attachment while in case of empires, we should see it in pure materialistic terms. Also, parents do not become corrupt and use religion for their own selfish benefit when they grow old.

Secondly, I think you may not be aware what was left of Ottoman empire after WWI.

Basically, the whole Ottoman empire was non existent. Anatolia was divided between the allies + greece.

Arabs, Armenians and other races went on their own and broke off from Otoman.

What you call "ottoman empire" was basically just for namesake. The caliph had no power at that time, he was there just for show-biz.

How can Ataturk resurrect something that is not there?

How can Ataturk continue the "show-biz" that the "caliphate" was then?

How can Ataturk possibly claim the title of "caliph" when Arabs and others broke off from the empire? Are you aware that the title "caliph", in pan Islamist concept, means you are basically a dictator over the whole "ummah"? How can ataturk possibly do that when the "ummah" willingly decided to break away? How can Ataturk put up a Hogwash of Caliphate when there is nothing left? The answer: Ataturk was not a show-man like the Ottoman Caliphs who used RELIGION as their TOOL for power and influence. Had he wished, he could have used Religion like them too and gained far more power and influence. But he did not do so.

These are some hard questions which pan Islamist supporters have to answer.

And Ethno-Linguistic Nationalism is the worst poison that the Muslim World ever drank ! Brother turned against brother and for what ? Lines drawn on a map ? Languages and ethnic difference that we ourselves created ? I blame the Muslims most of all for the demise of the Ottoman Empire because instead of addressing all those factors that hastened the decline of the Ottoman Empire we embraced them ! The decadence and the opulence of the later Ottoman Sultans were adopted by the Royals and the Dictators throughout the Muslim world. The corruption and the nepotism that had crippled Ottoman Administrative machinery was adopted by our armies and bureaucracies alike. And whatever solidarity that had remained in the Ottoman Empire was shot to pieces by our own actions. Who in God's name needed enemies when they had Citizens like us ? We fought the Allied War better than the Brits, the French and the Russians themselves. And so Russian, despite the Ottoman Empire having crumbled, it did not replace anything for the better.

Well, to be honest, it is nothing unusual. You see, this is something natural. British India was a part of British empire back then. Naturally, Indians were faithful to the British Empire and fought their wars. Indians were not traitors as you make it seem, they were faithful to their promise and allegiance to British Empire. Unlike Arabs who were the traitors in case of Ottoman - did not keep their promise despite having pledged allegiance to Otttomans.

Indians had no duty of care for Otomans, why should they cry for them?

This factor just proves that Pan Islamism has failed, practically. Again, this is something natural. It is better if we all accept the reality rather than live in fantasy

And the whole region continues to remain in fire or at the very least in a state of 'aloofness' with respect to each other's miseries. The Sunni-Shi'ite, the Egyptian-Arab, the Maghrib-Arab, the Arab-Persian, the Inter-Arab and the Turkish-Arab rivalries (or distrust) has ripped this region off worse then any Ottoman Sultan ever could hope to. We squandered away 'Our Nation' for little
Nation States' that scheme and plot against each other for 'National Interests' ! Forgive me but if that is an 'improvement' for the better then I'd much rather have the 'old system' once more.

THIS is the natural mode of humans, dear. You just continue to deny it, I don't understand why. It is better to accept something which is the REALITY rather than indulge in theoretical "ummah" dream. Europe being of a much smaller size is divided into many nations. Yet, India, being united could not do as much as Europe.

You can well see the hatred Arabs in the forum have for the Iranians and vice versa. This is because of the tribal mentality which was ingrained to them as a part of history. This is the natural mode of survival. Not having one Caliph as a dictator over 2.3 billion people living in 7 continents!!!

Pan Islamism is a part of us...! We are One Nation under God...so it was many years ago and so shall it be once more ! But I do know where you stand with respect to Pan-Islamism and so it would be counter-productive to continue !

With all due respect, have you considered the possibility that pan Islamism, the way you think, may not be the way it was intended by Islam? Do not be fooled by Mullah's traps. Have you considered studying the context of the Koranic verses commonly put as arguments for pan Islamism? Please do so and compare it with your concept of pan Islamism. You may be surprised to learn the difference.

peace.

 

[King Solomon]

Either way using words like 'evolution and Darwinian survival' in such a cold calculating manner is deeply offensive to those of us who took (and still do) great pride in the Ottoman Empire as Our Empire.

Why is this so? Why is it offensive to highlight the facts?

Are you aware why Otomans lost WWI? Because you need industrial power to fight wars which Otomans did not do for the last few centuries. GB and rest of Europe industrialized rapidly Otomans remained lackluster.

Naturally, the one who is most competitive would survive. Otoman empire was the proverbial "sick man of europe" or the least competitive and least industrialized of all the major powers of Europe.

So, the Ottomans lost the war. This is a logical conclusion.

What is there to take pride on an empire which failed to compete with others??

 

[Armstrong]

I will argue this in two ways.

Firstly, your analogy of comparing old loved ones (eg. Parents when they become old) may not be so valid when it comes to empires/nations. Parents and family has a factor of emotional attachment while in case of empires, we should see it in pure materialistic terms. Also, parents do not become corrupt and use religion for their own selfish benefit when they grow old.

That analogy would be correct if we had seen 'Nations' purely in materialistic terms ! We are not You...we did have emotional attachment to the Ottoman Empire.

Secondly, I think you may not be aware what was left of Ottoman empire after WWI.

Basically, the whole Ottoman empire was non existent. Anatolia was divided between the allies + greece.

Arabs, Armenians and other races went on their own and broke off from Otoman.

What you call "ottoman empire" was basically just for namesake. The caliph had no power at that time, he was there just for show-biz.

How can Ataturk resurrect something that is not there?

How can Ataturk continue the "show-biz" that the "caliphate" was then?

How can Ataturk possibly claim the title of "caliph" when Arabs and others broke off from the empire? Are you aware that the title "caliph", in pan Islamist concept, means you are basically a dictator over the whole "ummah"? How can ataturk possibly do that when the "ummah" willingly decided to break away? How can Ataturk put up a Hogwash of Caliphate when there is nothing left? The answer: Ataturk was not a show-man like the Ottoman Caliphs who used RELIGION as their TOOL for power and influence. Had he wished, he could have used Religion like them too and gained far more power and influence. But he did not do so.

These are some hard questions which pan Islamist supporters have to answer.

I'm well aware of what was left of the Ottoman Empire and I do suggest that you re-read what I wrote ! I explicitly said that I blame the Muslims and not Ataturk; it was our ethno-linguistic nationalism that tore the Empire apart. I was merely pointing out that Ataturk commanded a lot of respect in the Muslim world because of his victories against the Allied Forces, he had an opportunity to have an over-arching vision for the Muslim World, had he exploited the reverence for him who knows things could have turned out much differently.

Secondly as someone who commanded the undying respect of the Turks...he could have reformed Islamic polity for the better within Turkey ! Consequently the remaining Ottoman Empire would not have been any smaller then the Kingdom of Andalusia but could have still taken the lead in the Muslim World by bringing a Renaissance of a sorts in the Muslim World by bringing it first at home.

Furthermore, I believe strongly in the arguments of Iqbal, that the office of the Caliphate could have been devolved to the Parliament of the Modern Day Nation State and so who asked him to be the Caliph ? Had the Turkish Republic chosen to go down that path....they could have ended up reforming the Shariah, Islamic Finance and all the other communal aspect of our faith for the better, in the light of modernity because Turkey did have those institutions still. He could have emancipated all those scholars who had been suppressed by the Sultan and the State and let Muslim Philosophical Thought flourish once more with works of scholarship that would rival those from our glorious times from Baghdad and Cordoba. He chose not to...consequently I'd like to ask him...why ? I don't judge him...I don't despise him, I respect him but I'd still like to know...why did he end religious hypocrisy, misuse of religion and the corruption of the religious institutions by targeting 'religion' instead of hypocrisy, corruption and misuse !

Well, to be honest, it is nothing unusual. You see, this is something natural. British India was a part of British empire back then. Naturally, Indians were faithful to the British Empire and fought their wars. Indians were not traitors as you make it seem, they were faithful to their promise and allegiance to British Empire. Unlike Arabs who were the traitors in case of Ottoman - did not keep their promise despite having pledged allegiance to Otttomans.

Indians had no duty of care for Otomans, why should they cry for them?

This factor just proves that Pan Islamism has failed, practically. Again, this is something natural. It is better if we all accept the reality rather than live in fantasy

I have no idea how this conversation jumped from the Middle East to British India and how I implied anything about Indians and British India. Either way, its best that you not comment about British India for clearly you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about ! For starters try to look up the number of rebellions the Brits had to crush before the finally conquered India, the number of troops that they had to keep there, that India was never a country so there wasn't any coordinated rebellions, the British India was forever in a State of separatism, on what conditions did the Indian Muslims choose to fight Britain's war, how for the upteenth time were Muslims betrayed by the Brits and how many Muslims refused to fight against Turkey ! My Grandfather was in the British Indian Army...he joined after the First World War but many Muslims in his regiment were hanged because they refused to fight against the Turks. One of the reasons why the Muslim Leaders were even given an audience was because of these frequent mutinies and refusals - the Muslims wouldn't fight against their Caliph ! Yes...you heard that right...they considered him their Caliph ! Even there rulers of the past did and had to ask some sort of patronage from the Ottoman Sultan in the past to justify their succession.

THIS is the natural mode of humans, dear. You just continue to deny it, I don't understand why. It is better to accept something which is the REALITY rather than indulge in theoretical "ummah" dream. Europe being of a much smaller size is divided into many nations. Yet, India, being united could not do as much as Europe.

You can well see the hatred Arabs in the forum have for the Iranians and vice versa. This is because of the tribal mentality which was ingrained to them as a part of history. This is the natural mode of survival. Not having one Caliph as a dictator over 2.3 billion people living in 7 continents!!!



With all due respect, have you considered the possibility that pan Islamism, the way you think, may not be the way it was intended by Islam? Do not be fooled by Mullah's traps. Have you considered studying the context of the Koranic verses commonly put as arguments for pan Islamism? Please do so and compare it with your concept of pan Islamism. You may be surprised to learn the difference.

Islam came to address this exact barbarism to take People out of the ignorance of 'Tribalism and Castism' to Unity in the One God ! And that is the ideal that was practiced by most of the Muslim World till recent centuries. Saladin - a Kurd - was able to rally Arabs, Egyptians, Africans, Persians and numerous smaller ethno-linguistic groups because of that same 'Pan-Islamism' ! The only reason, my Country, hasn't been torn apart despite all of our failures is 'Pan-Islamism' ! The reason why my Province is host to so many ethnicities that not only feel at home but are dearly loved despite their linguistic and ethnic differences is because of 'Pan-Islamism'; I belong to one of those ethnic-groups myself ! The reason one never heard of 'Kurdish Nationalism' or 'Egyptian Nationalism' etc. was because of 'Pan-Islamism' and the reason one hears about them and ten dozen different other ones is again because of an absence of 'Pan-Islamism' ! Pan-Islamism, like everything which relates to Islam, has been abused in the past but its the principle that counts and a United Muslim Bloc is the ideal that we aim for ! And no...we don't want a Caliph ruling over a billion People...God aren't you presumptuous ! Pan-Islamism means little more than an EU, a NATO, a UN of the Muslim World and if one-day the Muslims are mature enough to transcend their tribal differences then perhaps we could it to the next level as well !

P.S India was called the Golden Sparrow for some reason ! When the Mughal Empire fell India had 25% of the world's GDP and the literacy rate was in the 90%s !

P.P.S Europe has already experience a 'Pan-Europeanism' of a sorts because they are united by a common belief system 'Secular Humanism', 'Free-Market Economy', 'Common Laws' and a common values 'Judeo-Christian values' ! We incidentally in the Muslim world have an exponentially greater potential to do the same and much more !

P.P.P.S I went from atheism back to Islam so the assumption is that I must have read the Quran and the Sunnah ! So don't patronize me, kid !

 

[Armstrong]

Why is this so? Why is it offensive to highlight the facts?

Are you aware why Otomans lost WWI? Because you need industrial power to fight wars which Otomans did not do for the last few centuries. GB and rest of Europe industrialized rapidly Otomans remained lackluster.

Naturally, the one who is most competitive would survive. Otoman empire was the proverbial "sick man of europe" or the least competitive and least industrialized of all the major powers of Europe.

So, the Ottomans lost the war. This is a logical conclusion.

What is there to take pride on an empire which failed to compete with others??

The same reason why one takes pride in one's country despite her defeats and failures ! Because its 'Yours' ! The Ottoman Empire was 'Our Empire' ! If you can't understand the ownership we felt for it...then there is little point trudging on like this !

And Empires don't die because of 'one factor' - Industrialization ! There is a whole body of scholarship out there which disputes this all encompassing theory and identifies many other crucial factors that point towards its decline and challenges the 'sick man' labeling in the most vociferous of terms...I do suggest that you check them out ! But either way even if one were to assume that 'it wasn't industrialized' or 'it was the sick-man of Europe'...so what ? It was 'Our Sick-Man'....we were supposed to make things right not discard it as a used piece of land that isn't fertile anymore ! We failed ourselves when we gave up ! We shot ourselves when we rebelled against it instead of taking constructive actions !

 

[King Solomon]

That analogy would be correct if we had seen 'Nations' purely in materialistic terms ! We are not You...we did have emotional attachment to the Ottoman Empire.

Unfortunately, emotional attachment holds no value whatsoever in the real world.

I'm well aware of what was left of the Ottoman Empire and I do suggest that you re-read what I wrote ! I explicitly said that I blame the Muslims and not Ataturk; it was our ethno-linguistic nationalism that tore the Empire apart. I was merely pointing out that Ataturk commanded a lot of respect in the Muslim world because of his victories against the Allied Forces, he had an opportunity to have an over-arching vision for the Muslim World, had he exploited the reverence for him who knows things could have turned out much differently.

I have no idea how this conversation jumped from the Middle East to British India and how I implied anything about Indians and British India. Either way, its best that you not comment about British India for clearly you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about ! For starters try to look up the number of rebellions the Brits had to crush before the finally conquered India, the number of troops that they had to keep there, that India was never a country so there wasn't any coordinated rebellions, the British India was forever in a State of separatism, on what conditions did the Indian Muslims choose to fight Britain's war, how for the upteenth time were Muslims betrayed by the Brits and how many Muslims refused to fight against Turkey ! My Grandfather was in the British Indian Army...he joined after the First World War but many Muslims in his regiment were hanged because they refused to fight against the Turks. One of the reasons why the Muslim Leaders were even given an audience was because of these frequent mutinies and refusals - the Muslims wouldn't fight against their Caliph ! Yes...you heard that right...they considered him their Caliph ! Even there rulers of the past did and had to ask some sort of patronage from the Ottoman Sultan in the past to justify their succession.

You said: "we fought the allied war better than brits". I thought you must be referring to India's participation in WWI against Ottomans as part of British Empire.

But then again, a remarkable failure of (traditionist) pan Islamism.

Furthermore, I believe strongly in the arguments of Iqbal, that the office of the Caliphate could have been devolved to the Parliament of the Modern Day Nation State and so who asked him to be the Caliph ? Had the Turkish Republic chosen to go down that path....they could have ended up reforming the Shariah, Islamic Finance and all the other communal aspect of our faith for the better, in the light of modernity because Turkey did have those institutions still. He could have emancipated all those scholars who had been suppressed by the Sultan and the State and let Muslim Philosophical Thought flourish once more with works of scholarship that would rival those from our glorious times from Baghdad and Cordoba. He chose not to...consequently I'd like to ask him...why ? I don't judge him...I don't despise him, I respect him but I'd still like to know...why did he end religious hypocrisy, misuse of religion and the corruption of the religious institutions by targeting 'religion' instead of hypocrisy, corruption and misuse !


Secondly as someone who commanded the undying respect of the Turks...he could have reformed Islamic polity for the better within Turkey ! Consequently the remaining Ottoman Empire would not have been any smaller then the Kingdom of Andalusia but could have still taken the lead in the Muslim World by bringing a Renaissance of a sorts in the Muslim World by bringing it first at home.

I think many pakistani people idolize Iqbal by attitudes around the forum so I prefer not to argue in such a sensitive point.

You have two ways to end the hypocrisy. The way you suggested is a LONG term solution, of whose luxury Ataturk did not have. In the Short term, you have to target in such a way as it appears you have targeted "religion" in itself when it was targeting the corrupt religious scholars. In the long term, things will automatically correct itself, as it has now.

Ataturk identified that religious bigotry is the issue which kept otomans backward and he proceeded to correct it by uprooting it completely. Some people calls him a traitor to Islam because of it. This couldn't be far from truth. Hint: Umar also burned all other copies of Koran after compiling the official one... what do you have to say about that?

Why in Turkey there is little or no Islamist fanaticism today? Why are Turks tolerant towards other religions and views? You can give the credit to Ataturk.

Islam came to address this exact barbarism to take People out of the ignorance of 'Tribalism and Castism' to Unity in the One God ! And that is the ideal that was practiced by most of the Muslim World till recent centuries. Saladin - a Kurd - was able to rally Arabs, Egyptians, Africans, Persians and numerous smaller ethno-linguistic groups because of that same 'Pan-Islamism' ! The only reason, my Country, hasn't been torn apart despite all of our failures is 'Pan-Islamism' ! The reason why my Province is host to so many ethnicities that not only feel at home but are dearly loved despite their linguistic and ethnic differences is because of 'Pan-Islamism'; I belong to one of those ethnic-groups myself ! The reason one never heard of 'Kurdish Nationalism' or 'Egyptian Nationalism' etc. was because of 'Pan-Islamism' and the reason one hears about them and ten dozen different other ones is again because of an absence of 'Pan-Islamism' ! Pan-Islamism, like everything which relates to Islam, has been abused in the past but its the principle that counts and a United Muslim Bloc is the ideal that we aim for ! And no...we don't want a Caliph ruling over a billion People...God aren't you presumptuous ! Pan-Islamism means little more than an EU, a NATO, a UN of the Muslim World and if one-day the Muslims are mature enough to transcend their tribal differences then perhaps we could it to the next level as well !



P.P.S Europe has already experience a 'Pan-Europeanism' of a sorts because they are united by a common belief system 'Secular Humanism', 'Free-Market Economy', 'Common Laws' and a common values 'Judeo-Christian values' ! We incidentally in the Muslim world have an exponentially greater potential to do the same and much more !

If by pan Islamism you mean a system like EU/nato, then i am in complete agreement with you. what are we arguing about after all? And yes, this is the kind of " pan islamism" advocated by the Koran where you have sovereignty but are united as far as outsiders and disputes are concerned. However, pan islamism is not equal to the "caliphate' which is commonly assumed.

However, I thought your concept of pan Islamism is that traditional one ie. borderless unity where you forsake your culture for an Arab/turk caliph, where you follow a caliph dictator. Just like Otoman empire and all preceeding caliphate was, which is a failed model. Apologies for the misassumption.

And no, back then there were no "egyptian", Tunis etc. nationality. Saladin's situation was very different from today and we must learn to adopt to today rather than pondering what Saladin did.Islamic history glorifies warmongers but not those who actually provide for good life eg. Harun al Rashid! This is a very wrong approach to take.

P.P.P.S I went from atheism back to Islam so the assumption is that I must have read the Quran and the Sunnah ! So don't patronize me, kid !

Well, you told me a few days ago you are agnostic. So i thought you may be unaware of the concept of "unity" as meant in the koran. However, it stands that Islamic world today is far from that concept of "unity". And Otoman empire is the least one to be our "model" in this regard.

peace.

 

[King Solomon]

The same reason why one takes pride in one's country despite her defeats and failures ! Because its 'Yours' ! The Ottoman Empire was 'Our Empire' ! If you can't understand the ownership we felt for it...then there is little point trudging on like this !

And Empires don't die because of 'one factor' - Industrialization ! There is a whole body of scholarship out there which disputes this all encompassing theory and identifies many other crucial factors that point towards its decline and challenges the 'sick man' labeling in the most vociferous of terms...I do suggest that you check them out ! But either way even if one were to assume that 'it wasn't industrialized' or 'it was the sick-man of Europe'...so what ? It was 'Our Sick-Man'....we were supposed to make things right not discard it as a used piece of land that isn't fertile anymore ! We failed ourselves when we gave up ! We shot ourselves when we rebelled against it instead of taking constructive actions !

I am curious. Why are you so emotionally attached over a "country" who saw it's demise long before any of us were even born ?

Why are you not so emotionally attached over Turkey, Tunis, Sudan etc?

You did not rebel against it, your forefathers did, that too Arabs, not pakistanis!

It seems you think Ottoman was the "upholder of Islam". You are very wrong at that. Perhaps you have been influenced by Mullah/Iqbal brainwashing. Sorry, I could not use a better word.

I fail to see the logic behind such an emotional attachment.

P.S. Iqbal may be your ideal. But he is not someone above criticism. You should be critical of him instead of accepting what he says in face value. I could criticise his philosophies like anything here but I won't because I know this may be a sensitive point with pakistanis.

 

[Armstrong]

Unfortunately, emotional attachment holds no value whatsoever in the real world.

As it so happens for us - the People, they do ! And thankfully our every move isn't played out on the chessboard in a cold and calculating manner ! The Turks love and we love them ? Why...? Why did we help them in their liberation and why did they inturn help us in our time of need ? Pakistan is hardly a country that anyone would like to align with right now...!

You said: "we fought the allied war better than brits". I thought you must be referring to India's participation in WWI against Ottomans as part of British Empire.

But then again, a remarkable failure of (traditionist) pan Islamism.

Again, I have no idea what your talking about !

I think many pakistani people idolize Iqbal by attitudes around the forum so I prefer not to argue in such a sensitive point.

He is the poet-philosopher of Pakistan ! And in many ways he was far...far ahead of his time ! I suggest you read him ! Google in 'Iqbal Academy' and they have his poems in English and his book 'the Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam' also in English ! The poems are inspiring whilst the book is written in gold...its first few chapters are probably the best defense of monotheism that I've ever come across and the last few are probably the best, most articulated and reasonable discussion on 'Islamic Polity' that I've ever read.

You have two ways to end the hypocrisy. The way you suggested is a LONG term solution, of whose luxury Ataturk did not have. In the Short term, you have to target in such a way as it appears you have targeted "religion" in itself when it was targeting the corrupt religious scholars. In the long term, things will automatically correct itself, as it has now.

Ataturk identified that religious bigotry is the issue which kept otomans backward and he proceeded to correct it by uprooting it completely. Some people calls him a traitor to Islam because of it. This couldn't be far from truth. Hint: Umar also burned all other copies of Koran after compiling the official one... what do you have to say about that?

Why in Turkey there is little or no Islamist fanaticism today? Why are Turks tolerant towards other religions and views? You can give the credit to Ataturk.

Ataturk had the army at his disposal and the love of the People ! He could have done wonders for Islam had he choose to ! Turkey could have become a model of 'Islamic Polity' and 'Scholarship' that would be envious to even the pages of history that had recorded the great exploits of 'Cordoba' and 'Baghdad' ! Don't get me wrong....I don't consider him a traitor and nor do I think that he was remotely acting malafide; he did what he thought was right ! I'm just sad that so much more could have been done...perhaps its wishful thinking ! Perhaps not !

As for the analogy of Umar bin Khattab, what does that have anything to do with what Ataturk did ? Umar is considered one of the greatest jurists of Muslim History and an able leader second to none ! He is responsible for some of the best traditions of Shariah; Ataturk took a different path altogether one that didn't factor in the Shariah, Islamic Finance, Islamic Standards of Propriety or anything like it ! I respect the Great Turks decision and his prerogative to do what he thought was right but I still don't understand the analogy you used !

If by pan Islamism you mean a system like EU/nato, then i am in complete agreement with you. what are we arguing about after all? And yes, this is the kind of " pan islamism" advocated by the Koran. However, pan islamism is not equal to the "caliphate' which is commonly assumed.

However, I thought your concept of pan Islamism is that traditional one ie. borderless unity where you forsake your culture for an Arab/turk caliph, where you follow a caliph dictator. Just like Otoman empire and all preceeding caliphate was, which is a failed model. Apologies for the misassumption.

Like I said, EU, NATO - thats only the beginning ! Perhaps when we're led by a more able leadership and our People have transcended their ludicrous distinctions ! We may yet have a 'borderless state' ! If free-movement is possible within countries then why not out-side them ? If we can elect a President or a PM that represents our interests at a National Level then why can't we elect one that represents them at a UN or OIC level ! But I foresee none of that happening in my life time or that of the generation after me; we're still far too gullible to accept anything that either the Mullah or the West throws at us ! Instead of providing an alternative model to the world we're busy trying to show how ours is 'adaptable' to what the West came up with ! Instead of providing an alternative paradigm we're busy showing how 'we're carbon copies' of the West with our own tinge of spice added to the mix ! I find such adaptability that borders on appeasement till the point that we're revising Islam to suit 'things' and 'models' that exist instead of realizing that 'Our Polity' was never a carbon copy of whatever others came up with....we were unique because our fundamentals were unique !

Well, you told me a few days ago you are agnostic. So i thought you may be unaware of the concept of "unity" as meant in the koran. However, it stands that Islamic world today is far from that concept of "unity". And Otoman empire is the least one to be our "model" in this regard.

peace.

Forget that last ! It was supposed to mean something...but it gets misconstrued more often than not !

The Islamic world, is indeed far from being 'unified' but the Ottoman Millet System is a model worth studying where Muslims and Non-Muslims lived in peace as constructive citizens of the State !

 

[Armstrong]

I am curious. Why are you so emotionally attached over a "country" who saw it's demise long before any of us were even born ?

Why are you not so emotionally attached over Turkey, Tunis, Sudan etc?

You did not rebel against it, your forefathers did, that too Arabs, not pakistanis!

It seems you think Ottoman was the "upholder of Islam". You are very wrong at that. Perhaps you have been influenced by Mullah/Iqbal brainwashing. Sorry, I could not use a better word.

I fail to see the logic behind such an emotional attachment.

P.S. Iqbal may be your ideal. But he is not someone above criticism. You should be critical of him instead of accepting what he says in face value. I could criticise his philosophies like anything here but I won't because I know this may be a sensitive point with pakistanis. His ideas are in fact, borrowed from European philosophers long before him and nothing but an Islamo-fascist version of it.

I think as being someone whose read Nietzsche, Camus, Spinoza, Hegel and a couple of others, the assumption is that I'd have the faculty of mind to know how to think critically ! So again...don't patronize me ! On to Iqbal - You don't have a clue what he talked about...do you ? Read and then comment !

I'm critically attached to that 'country' because it is a part of my Past ! I am a Muslim and consequently I make a conscious choice to claim ownership of all the warts and blemishes and the triumphs and brilliances of all those who ever did any service to Islam and called themselves Muslims; irrespective of whether I share a history, culture, language or an ethnicity with them or not ! My polity is not based on a particular race, culture, ethnicity or language but on a common collective consciousness (Islam in other words)...hence why I feel for them and own up to them as 'My People' and 'My Empire' ! And the day you understand that without bringing in 'Mullah Brainwashing' as if you're the only one on whom the miracles of Critical Thought ever descended upon, is the day you'd understand why I support them !

P.S I extend the same 'emotional affinity' to Turkey, Tunis, Sudan, Somalia etc. and the friends of Pakistan ! But I also recognize that our minds have been clogged for so long, our connection to our past so dim that it is natural that sometimes that would not be reciprocated but thats why we have 'ideals' to aspire too !

 

[TheCommander]

Why in Turkey there is little or no Islamist fanaticism today? Why are Turks tolerant towards other religions and views? You can give the credit to Ataturk.

I did not want to get involved your argument since you argue with Armstrong.Although I have lots of things to tell you, I just want to say something. You pretend that as if you know ottoman history but you do not. If we today do not have extremism in Turkiye, it is not because of Ataturk but because of our believe and history. The true way of Islam all the time led turks and tolerance took place for centuries. The minorities were always treated very well. Tolerance to other religious beliefs was a noteworthy attribute of the Ottoman Turkish rule. Christians and Jews were allowed to pray in their own churches and synagogues, do teaches their own religion in their schools and seminaries and establish their own businesses while the Muslims and Jews were slaughtered in the Europe. Ottoman tolerance was unique in early modern times and continues to be valued in Turkiye today.

The ferman (imperial order) of Fatih the Conquer to the catholic Church leader

 

[King Solomon]

I think as being someone whose read Nietzsche, Camus, Spinoza, Hegel and a couple of others, the assumption is that I'd have the faculty of mind to know how to think critically ! So again...don't patronize me ! On to Iqbal - You don't have a clue what he talked about...do you ? Read and then comment !

I'm critically attached to that 'country' because it is a part of my Past ! I am a Muslim and consequently I make a conscious choice to claim ownership of all the warts and blemishes and the triumphs and brilliances of all those who ever did any service to Islam and called themselves Muslims; irrespective of whether I share a history, culture, language or an ethnicity with them or not ! My polity is not based on a particular race, culture, ethnicity or language but on a common collective consciousness (Islam in other words)...hence why I feel for them and own up to them as 'My People' and 'My Empire' ! And the day you understand that without bringing in 'Mullah Brainwashing' as if you're the only one on whom the miracles of Critical Thought ever descended upon, is the day you'd understand why I support them !

P.S I extend the same 'emotional affinity' to Turkey, Tunis, Sudan, Somalia etc. and the friends of Pakistan ! But I also recognize that our minds have been clogged for so long, our connection to our past so dim that it is natural that sometimes
that would not be reciprocated but thats why we have 'ideals' to aspire too !

Well armstrong, we may disagree. But I think both of us have already made our point... Going further may only lead to unnecessary diversions.. And we are not giving the chance to native Turkish members to debate about this...

Let's see what they think of this pan Islamism vs nationalism and Ataturk vs Islamism

Summarily, in my opinion, Islamists are there just to drag the world 1400 years back and nothing more. Same for Pan islamism and other BS. We live in 2012 not 700 with Ayesha-Ali, Yazid and other tribal warlords fighting nor do we want that system.

 

[Quasar]

here is some basic knowledge on a few vital issues for ...

Düyun-u Umumiye - Vikipedi

The Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA) (Ottoman Turkish: Düyun-u Umumiye-i Osmaniye Varidat-ı Muhassasa İdaresi, or simply Düyun-u Umumiye as it was popularly known), was a European-controlled organization that was established in 1881 to collect the payments which the Ottoman Empire owed to European companies in the Ottoman public debt. The OPDA became a vast, essentially independent bureaucracy within the Ottoman bureaucracy, run by the creditors. It employed 5,000 officials who collected taxes that were then turned over to the European creditors.[1] The OPDA played an important role in Ottoman financial affairs. Also, it was an intermediary with European companies seeking investment opportunities in the Ottoman Empire. In 1900, the OPDA was financing many railways and other industrial projects. The financial and commercial privileges of the non-Muslim foreigners were protected with the capitulations of the Ottoman Empire.

Capitulations of the Ottoman Empire

Ottoman military reform efforts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_balance_of_power