Fakhri Pasha "The Defender of Madina"

[Hakan]

Fakhri Pasha
"The Defender of Medina"

During World War I, Fahreddin Pasha upon the orders of Djemal Pasha on 23 May 1916 moved toward Medina in Hejaz to defend it and he was appointed the commander of the Hejaz Expeditionary Force on 17 July 1916.

Fahreddin Pasha was besieged by Arab forces but tenaciously he defended the holy city. Fahreddin Pasha not only had to defend Medina but also protect the single-track narrow gauge Hejaz Railway from sabotage attacks by T. E. Lawrence and his Arab forces, on which his entire logistics depended. Turkish garrisons of the isolated small train stations withstood the continuous night attacks and secured the tracks against increasing number of sabotages (around 130 major attacks in 1917 and hundreds in 1918 including exploding more than 300 bombs on April 30, 1918).

With the resignation of the Ottoman Empire from the war with the Armistice of Mudros between Ottoman Empire and Entente on 30 October 1918, it was expected that Fahreddin would also surrender. But he refused to do so and simply refused to accept the armistice.

According to a Turkish author who quotes an eye-witness account, one Friday in the spring of 1918, after prayers in Masjid al-Nabawi (also known as the Prophet's Mosque), Pasha ascended the steps of the pulpit, stopped halfway, and turned his face to the Prophet's tomb and said loud and clear:

"Prophet of God! I will never abandon you!"

He then addressed the men:

"Soldiers! I appeal to you in the name of the Prophet, my witness. I command you to defend him and his city to the last cartridge and the last breath, irrespective of the strength of the enemy. May Allah help us, and may the prayers of Muhammad be with us.

"Officers of the heroic Turkish army! O little Muhammads, come forward and promise me, before our Lord and the Prophet, to honor your faith with the supreme sacrifice of your lives."'

Fahreddin Pasha had said that he had a vision in a dream that Prophet Muhammad had ordered him not to submit. In August 1918, he received a call to surrender from Sharif Husain of Mecca. Fahreddin Pasha replied him in these words:[this quote needs a citation]

"Fakhr-ud-Din, General, Defender of the Most Sacred City of Medina. Servant of the Prophet.

"In the name of Allah, the Omnipotent. To him who broke the power of Islam, caused bloodshed among Muslims, jeopardized the caliphate of the Commander of the Faithful, and exposed it to the domination of the British.

"On Thursday night the fourteenth of Dhu'l-Hijja, I was walking, tired and worn out, thinking of the protection and defense of Medina, when I found myself among unknown men working in a small square. Then I saw standing before me a man with a sublime countenance. He was the Prophet, may Allah's blessing be upon him! His left arm rested on his hip under his robe, and he said to me in a protective manner, 'Follow me.' I followed him two or three paces and woke up. I immediately proceeded to his sacred mosque and prostrated myself in prayer and thanks [near his tomb].

"I am now under the protection of the Prophet, my Supreme Commander. I am busying myself with strengthening the defenses, building roads and squares in Medina. Trouble me not with useless offers."

He refused to hand over his sword even upon the receipt of a direct order from the Ottoman minister of war. The Ottoman government was upset upon his behavior and the Sultan Mehmed VIdismissed him from his post. He refused to do so and kept the flag of Ottoman Sultan high in Medina until 72 days after the end of the war. After the Armistice of Moudros the closest Ottoman unit was 1300 km (808 miles) away from Medina.

Eventually, his men faced starvation due to a lack of supplies and the remaining garrison including Fahreddin Pasha surrendered on 10 January 1919. Abdullah I of Jordan and his troops entered Medina on January 13, 1919. After the surrender, the Arab troops looted the city for 12 days. Overall 4,850 houses which were locked and put under seal by Fahreddin Pasha were opened forcefully and looted.

About 8,000 (519 officers and 7,545 soldiers) men of the Turkish garrison were evacuated to Egypt after their surrender.Besides the evacuated some died of disease and others dispersed on their own to various areas. The weapons and ammunition of the garrison were left to the besiegers.
Life after War
After his arrest, he was brought to the military barracks at Cairo, Egypt. Later, he was transferred to Malta. Fahreddin Pasha lived as a prisoner of war for over two years in Malta until 1921.After his release in 1921, he joined the Turkish forces under the command of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and fought against the Greek and French armies occupying Anatolia. After the Turkish War of Independence, he became Turkey's ambassador to Kabul, Afghanistan between 1922 and 1926. In 1936, he was promoted to major general and retired from the army. He died on November 22, 1948, after suffering
a heart attack during a train trip in the vicinity of Eskişehir. According to his wishes, he was buried in the Aşiyan Cemetery in İstanbul.

Fakhri Pasha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Siege of Medina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[Armstrong]

I salute Fakhri Pasha !

If I were alive back then I would've been proud to serve under the Ottoman Banner & fight for the last remaining Great Empire of the Muslim World !

 

[Levina]

I salute Fakhri Pasha !

If I were alive back then I would've been proud to serve under the Ottoman Banner & fight for the last remaining Great Empire of the Muslim World !

tell me about it...

 

[rockstar08]

great article , thanks for sharing
never heard the story of Fakhri pasha .. it was new to me , but good read

 

[shaista batool]

love this info

 

[viper46]

 

[anonymus]

@al-Hasani

 

[Desert Fox]

A true Soldier of his cause. Such tenacity under extreme circumstances has only been displayed by a handful of men in the annals history.

This particular quote of his moved me:

"In the name of Allah, the Omnipotent. To him who broke the power of Islam, caused bloodshed among Muslims, jeopardized the caliphate of the Commander of the Faithful, and exposed it to the domination of the British.

"On Thursday night the fourteenth of Dhu'l-Hijja, I was walking, tired and worn out, thinking of the protection and defense of Medina, when I found myself among unknown men working in a small square. Then I saw standing before me a man with a sublime countenance. He was the Prophet, may Allah's blessing be upon him! His left arm rested on his hip under his robe, and he said to me in a protective manner, 'Follow me.' I followed him two or three paces and woke up. I immediately proceeded to his sacred mosque and prostrated myself in prayer and thanks [near his tomb].

"I am now under the protection of the Prophet, my Supreme Commander. I am busying myself with strengthening the defenses, building roads and squares in Medina. Trouble me not with useless offers."

Not much has changed about the Arabs since. Heck, one might even say not much has changed about the Arabs of today and those of the pre-Islamic era.


They betrayed the Caliphate and opened the Holy Lands to colonization. Israel owes its existence to Arabs.

 

[madmusti]

At the End the Arabs who Betray and who not ,all have Cried. But it was too late !

 

[al-Hasani]

A true of his cause. Such tenacity under extreme circumstances has only been displayed by a handful of men in the annals history.

This particular quote of his moved me:



Not much has changed about the Arabs since. Heck, one might even say not much has changed about the Arabs of today and those of the pre-Islamic era.


They betrayed the Caliphate and opened the Holy Lands to colonization. Israel owes its existence to Arabs.

What a dumb comment by a Pathan.

Yet who ruled the Islamic Caliphate for nearly 1000 years prior and who was its founders, protectors and basically inventors? No other than the Arabs. Who conquered 90% of the territories that are now Muslim? No other than Arabs once again. Who ruled it during the Golden Age whether in Al-Andalus or the Abbasid Caliphate? No other than the Arabs again.

How did a obscure tribe from Turkmenistan, back then, suddenly gain the Caliphate in 1517? Yes, they were not given the Caliphate by the Arabs they rather "betrayed" the Arabs. So you can call this payback.

Besides the reason for all the uprisings against the Ottomans, not only in the Arab world (Egypt had already succeeded 100 years prior) was due to the bad rule by the Ottomans and growing nationalism among them (Young Turk movement etc.). People did not accept being second class citizens especially not the Arabs who ruled the Caliphate for nearly 1000 years prior to it and saw themselves as the inheritors and leaders of Islam.

So they revolted and won back their freedom. Far from all Arab countries since there were always sovereign Arab countries and empires such as Morocco, Oman, large parts of KSA, Yemen etc.

Besides not even all Arabs supported the Arab revolt. You had Arab Kingdoms and Emirates such as the Emirate of Jabal Shammar supporting the Ottomans.

Anyway this is not something you will understand since neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan was part of the Ottoman Empire nor did they experience the downfall of the Ottoman Empire due to corruption, lack of development and growing Turkish nationalism at the expanse of the non-Turks who made up by far the majority of the population.

@Arabian Legend @JUBA @BLACKEAGLE @Awadd @Hadbani @burning_phoneix etc.

@al-Hasani

 

[madmusti]

How is that ? Stop talking about History and look forward ? There is no more Ottoman Empire ,there is a Republic of Turkey ,one of his Member under Atatürk was too Fahrettin Paşa.



But @al-Hasani

Please top talk ,or i must enter here and i don´t want to waste my Time here. The Point where you are start is False ,so maybe come back with more backround.



@Sinan (Bi el at su mahlukata).

 

[al-Hasani]

How is that ? Stop talking about History and look forward ? There is no more Ottoman Empire ,there is a Republic of Turkey ,one of his Member under Atatürk was too Fahrettin Paşa.



But @al-Hasani

Please top talk ,or i must enter here and i don´t want to waste my Time here. The Point where you are start is False ,so maybe come back with more backround.

We are talking about the Ottoman Empire if you have not noticed this not modern day Turkey. The Ottoman Empire was mostly non-Turkish. Even the Sultans were always mixed with foreigners.

@Sinan (Bi el at su mahlukata).

The only fake country is yours here. You cannot counter anything of the correct claims I made. Yet you have the audacity to cry here and show your ignorance for all to see. Back then the Ottomans used the Arabic alphabet and Ottoman Turkish had more Arab words than Turkish. It was nothing like the nationalism you see in Turkey today. The same nationalism that became the downfall of the Ottomans. The problem was that some Turks (Young Turks Movement) tried to turn it into a nationalist Turkish Caliphate which is why so many people (Arabs as non-Arabs) revolted against it and won. WAY before the Arab revolt.

You have no other but yourself to blame for it.

 

[KingMamba]

@al-Hasani

By the time of the Ottomans the Abbasids had been destroyed by the Mongols and the Caliph was nothing but a figurehead the Ottomans only did what all successive Muslim dynasties already were doing which was fighting amongst one another but they managed to defeat them all and the Caliph abdicated in favor of the Turkish Sultan. So I don't see what betrayal you are speaking about and Arabs never had a monopoly on the seat anyway. An example of this was that when on his deathbed Omar RA was asked who he would have designated as a successor and he named three Sahaba one of whom wasn't even Arab but Persian. Now yes the Young Turks were racist in their outlook but they had little to do with the Ottoman Caliphate and their place in Islamic history.

 

[al-Hasani]

@al-Hasani

By the time of the Ottomans the Abbasids had been destroyed by the Mongols and the Caliph was nothing but a figurehead the Ottomans only did what all successive Muslim dynasties already were doing which was fighting amongst one another but they managed to defeat them all and the Caliph abdicated in favor of the Turkish Sultan. So I don't see what betrayal you are speaking about and Arabs never had a monopoly on the seat anyway. An example of this was that when on his deathbed Omar RA was asked who he would have designated as a successor and he named three Sahaba one of whom wasn't even Arab but Persian. Now yes the Young Turks were racist in their outlook but they had little to do with the Ottoman Caliphate and their place in Islamic history.

Yet they had no legitimacy and took it from the Abbasids who ruled nominally from Cairo under the Arab Fatimid's which back then was the biggest Muslim Empire. So naturally the throne should have been taken by them had it not been for the Ottoman betrayal. I use "betrayal" in the same way as some Turks and non-Turks use it here for Arabs in one part of the Arab world.

This does not change the fact that the entire foundation and prior rule was dominated by Arabs. I am just telling how Arabs viewed themselves and still view themselves by large.

Well prior to the Ottomans Arabs had ruled the Caliphate for nearly 1000 straight years. From the very foundation so it was a monopoly in reality.

The problem is that people do not look at the causes for the Arab revolt nor all those dozens of other revolts that Arabs had nothing to do with. Aside from the succession of Egypt 100 years prior.

It is not as white and black as some users here try to make it out. The downfall of the Ottomans happened due to corruption, lack of development, growing Turkish nationalism etc.
At the end of the Ottoman Empire most of the non-Turks (which was the majority of the Ottoman Empire population) saw the Ottoman Empire as nothing more than a oppressor and occupier hence they revolted and won. From Greece, the Balkans to Hijaz to elsewhere. Whether Muslim or not.

 

[Desert Fox]

What a dumb comment by a Pathan.

Yet who ruled the Islamic Caliphate for nearly 1000 years prior and who was its founders, protectors and basically inventors? No other than the Arabs. Who conquered 90% of the territories that are now Muslim? No other than Arabs once again. Who ruled it during the Golden Age whether in Al-Andalus or the Abbasid Caliphate? No other than the Arabs again.

How did a obscure tribe from Turkmenistan, back then, suddenly gain the Caliphate in 1517? Yes, they were not given the Caliphate by the Arabs they rather "betrayed" the Arabs. So you can call this payback.

Besides the reason for all the uprisings against the Ottomans, not only in the Arab world (Egypt had already succeeded 100 years prior) was due to the bad rule by the Ottomans and growing nationalism among them (Young Turk movement etc.). People did not accept being second class citizens especially not the Arabs who ruled the Caliphate for nearly 1000 years prior to it and saw themselves as the inheritors and leaders of Islam.

So they revolted and won back their freedom. Far from all Arab countries since there were always sovereign Arab countries and empires such as Morocco, Oman, large parts of KSA, Yemen etc.

Besides not even all Arabs supported the Arab revolt. You had Arab Kingdoms and Emirates such as the Emirate of Jabal Shammar supporting the Ottomans.

Anyway this is not something you will understand since neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan was part of the Ottoman Empire nor did they experience the downfall of the Ottoman Empire due to corruption, lack of development and growing Turkish nationalism at the expanse of the non-Turks who made up by far the majority of the population.

@Arabian Legend @JUBA @BLACKEAGLE @Awadd @Hadbani @burning_phoneix etc.

Typical rants about Arab supremacy, worthy only of the trash bin. Why am i not surprised?

Anyway, Salahuddin was a Kurd, not a Arab, and neither were hundreds, perhaps even thousands of excellent Islamic scholars, leaders, commanders, scientists, etc.


Good day.