What's new

England’s Forgotten Muslim History

Devil Soul

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
22,931
Reaction score
45
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
England’s Forgotten Muslim History


By JERRY BROTTONSEPT. 17, 2016

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
  • Britain is divided as never before. The country has turned its back on Europe, and its female ruler has her sights set on trade with the East. As much as this sounds like Britain today, it also describes the country in the 16th century, during the golden age of its most famous monarch, Queen Elizabeth I.

    One of the more surprising aspects of Elizabethan England is that its foreign and economic policy was driven by a close alliance with the Islamic world, a fact conveniently ignored today by those pushing the populist rhetoric of national sovereignty.

    From the moment of her accession to the throne in 1558, Elizabeth began seeking diplomatic, commercial and military ties with Muslim rulers in Iran, Turkey and Morocco — and with good reasons. In 1570, when it became clear that Protestant England would not return to the Catholic faith, the pope excommunicated Elizabeth and called for her to be stripped of her crown. Soon, the might of Catholic Spain was against her, an invasion imminent. English merchants were prohibited from trading with the rich markets of the Spanish Netherlands. Economic and political isolation threatened to destroy the newly Protestant country.

    Elizabeth responded by reaching out to the Islamic world. Spain’s only rival was the Ottoman Empire, ruled by Sultan Murad III, which stretched from North Africa through Eastern Europe to the Indian Ocean. The Ottomans had been fighting the Hapsburgs for decades, conquering parts of Hungary. Elizabeth hoped that an alliance with the sultan would provide much needed relief from Spanish military aggression, and enable her merchants to tap into the lucrative markets of the East. For good measure she also reached out to the Ottomans’ rivals, the shah of Persia and the ruler of Morocco.

    The trouble was that the Muslim empires were far more powerful than Elizabeth’s little island nation floating in the soggy mists off Europe. Elizabeth wanted to explore new trade alliances, but couldn’t afford to finance them. Her response was to exploit an obscure commercial innovation — joint stock companies — introduced by her sister, Mary Tudor.

    The companies were commercial associations jointly owned by shareholders. The capital was used to fund the costs of commercial voyages, and the profits — or losses — would also be shared. Elizabeth enthusiastically backed the Muscovy Company, which traded with Persia, and went on to inspire the formation of the Turkey Company, which traded with the Ottomans, and the East India Company, which would eventually conquer India.

    In the 1580s she signed commercial agreements with the Ottomans that would last over 300 years, granting her merchants free commercial access to Ottoman lands. She made a similar alliance with Morocco, with the tacit promise of military support against Spain.

    As money poured in, Elizabeth began writing letters to her Muslim counterparts, extolling the benefits of reciprocal trade. She wrote as a supplicant, calling Murad “the most mighty ruler of the kingdom of Turkey, sole and above all, and most sovereign monarch of the East Empire.” She also played on their mutual hostility to Catholicism, describing herself as “the most invincible and most mighty defender of the Christian faith against all kind of idolatries.” Like Muslims, Protestants rejected the worship of icons, and celebrated the unmediated word of God, while Catholics favored priestly intercession. She deftly exploited the Catholic conflation of Protestants and Muslims as two sides of the same heretical coin.

    The ploy worked. Thousands of English traders crossed many of today’s no-go regions, like Aleppo in Syria, and Mosul in Iraq. They were far safer than they would have been on an equivalent journey through Catholic Europe, where they risked falling into the hands of the Inquisition.

    The Ottoman authorities saw their ability to absorb people of all faiths as a sign of power, not weakness, and observed the Protestant-Catholic conflicts of the time with detached bemusement. Some Englishmen even converted to Islam. A few, like Samson Rowlie, a Norfolk merchant who became Hassan Aga, chief treasurer to Algiers, were forced. Others did so of their own volition, perhaps seeing Islam as a better bet than the precarious new Protestant faith.

    English aristocrats delighted in the silks and spices of the east, but the Turks and Moroccans were decidedly less interested in English wool. What they needed were weapons. In a poignant act of religious retribution, Elizabeth stripped the metal from deconsecrated Catholic churches and melted their bells to make munitions that were then shipped out to Turkey, proving that shady Western arms sales go back much further than the Iran-contra affair. The queen encouraged similar deals with Morocco, selling weapons and buying saltpeter, the essential ingredient in gunpowder, and sugar, heralding a lasting craving and turning Elizabeth’s own teeth an infamous black.
    The sugar, silks, carpets and spices transformed what the English ate, how they decorated their homes and how they dressed. Words such as “candy” and “turquoise” (from “Turkish stone”) became commonplace. Even Shakespeare got in on the act, writing “Othello” shortly after the first Moroccan ambassador’s six-month visit.

    Despite the commercial success of the joint stock companies, the British economy was unable to sustain its reliance on far-flung trade. Immediately following Elizabeth’s death in 1603, the new king, James I, signed a peace treaty with Spain, ending England’s exile.

    Elizabeth’s Islamic policy held off a Catholic invasion, transformed English taste and established a new model for joint stock investment that would eventually finance the Virginia Company, which founded the first permanent North American colony.

    It turns out that Islam, in all its manifestations — imperial, military and commercial — played an important part in the story of England. Today, when anti-Muslim rhetoric inflames political discourse, it is useful to remember that our pasts are more entangled than is often appreciated.

    Jerry Brotton, a professor of Renaissance studies at Queen Mary University of London, is the author of the forthcoming “The Sultan and the Queen: The Untold Story of Elizabeth and Islam.”

    Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/englands-forgotten-muslim-history.html?_r=0
 
Before 1948 there were a few hundred Muslims in the country. Hardly a great history. America might be a "nation of immigrants" but we most definitely aren't.
 
Before 1948 there were a few hundred Muslims in the country. Hardly a great history. America might be a "nation of immigrants" but we most definitely aren't.

You didn't read the OP. It's not about Muslim immigrants in the UK.
 
800px-Elizabeth_I_%28Armada_Portrait%29.jpg

Rest in peace your royal Highness.



As for the Spanish, their armada was sent to the bottom of the Irish Sea.

"My loving people, we have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourself to armed multitudes for fear of treachery; but I assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people ... I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any Prince of Europe should dare to invade the borders of my realm."
 
With the help of Ottomans at times.
 
Last edited:
With the help of Ottomans at times. Also waz I dont understand your love for the Queen etc so much, at the end of the day they slaved Hindustan which Pakistan broke apart from. Stockholm syndrome?

Pakistan never "broke apart" from India to begin with.

At the time of British occupation so called indias was divided into more than 600+ states or kingdoms.



The British anexed them and united them into "British India".

None of Pakistans modern day provinces or territory were part of any of indian princely kingdom or state to begin with..

All out our territory was ruled by local regional kingdoms by local rulers...
 
Interesting story would certainly love to read more about that particular cooperation
 
Ottoman empire was the most important empire in that day. More powerful than England, France etc. So the European powers were forced to have reasonable relations with them
 
With the help of Ottomans at times. Also waz I dont understand your love for the Queen etc so much, at the end of the day they slaved Hindustan which Pakistan broke apart from. Stockholm syndrome?

You don't understand because you are not a citizen of this country, nor do you know my family background. Stockholm syndrome, I wasn't a victim to begin with. The rest of your post was answered by Desert, there was no "Hindustan", what is that anyway? Nor was Pakistan a part of it.
Also don't engage me again in conversation again, I don't take kindly to personal attacks.
 
Last edited:
Pakistan never "broke apart" from India to begin with.

At the time of British occupation so called indias was divided into more than 600+ states or kingdoms.



The British anexed them and united them into "British India".

None of Pakistans modern day provinces or territory were part of any of indian princely kingdom or state to begin with..

All out our territory was ruled by local regional kingdoms by local rulers...

I know about India/Pakistan previous history but I cut it short. I know about the Mughals and other small states at the time before British etc. Mistake from my part in saying it incorrectly. Obviously you know much more than me.
 
Last edited:
Ottoman empire was the most important empire in that day. More powerful than England, France etc. So the European powers were forced to have reasonable relations with them

In that part of the world, not in the world. At that times, even Korea, a little nation in East Asia, was more developed technologically and economically than England or France.
 
In that part of the world, not in the world. At that times, even Korea, a little nation in East Asia, was more developed technologically and economically than England or France.
Sure it was :lol:
 

Back
Top Bottom