The Ottoman model and its critique

[Saleem]

The Ottoman model and its critique

The “Ottoman model” stands out as a new framework of political organization as the regimes in the Middle East are being challenged one by one. Today, I will look at the Ottoman model from a critical point of view.


The Ottoman history is our heritage. And we cannot renounce this heritage. History does not repeat itself; it is rights or wrongs that repeat themselves. It is impossible to repeat the Ottoman case, but it is possible to repeat its rights or wrongs. In a world with changing objects and historical and political parameters, the Ottoman case alone cannot be taken as a reference for a new union. With its administrative and legal structure, the Ottoman Empire was admirable, of course. But it did not have a good intellectual reserve. Just as the Roman Empire consumed Greek thought, the Ottoman Empire exhausted what the Umayyads, the Abbasids and the Seljuks philosophized. The Ottoman Empire exaggerated the separation between the religion and the world, and removed philosophy and natural sciences from the curricula of madrasas, but this led only to the drying out of thought and meditation. If we are seeking for a model for revival in reflection, learning and sciences, only the Abbasids can serve as such a model. The Abbasids did not feel admiration toward anyone and borrowed the sciences and philosophy from the Greeks and other ancient cultures, and they left literature, arts, poetry and drama to their real owners.

The coming battles for hegemony will be fought in the Middle East, Eurasia and the Far East, where the Ottoman Empire did not have much experience. Instead of spreading and establishing a global hegemony, Europe’s reflexive tendency will be to maintain its existing borders and attempting to protect its existing welfare. Europe attaches some value to Turkey only because it has a certain strategic importance, and because of the pressures from the US to do so and the likelihood of Turkey’s establishing an alliance with the Muslim world. The EU’s view of Turkey is purely instrumental and strategic. Therefore, we have to turn our eyes along with the world toward the East.

Epistemologically, the Muslim world is going through a deep crisis, and there must be a concrete historical experience to which we can refer, and it is the Abbasid model. Second, in designing a new Muslim union, the Seljuk model is more functional than the Ottoman model.

The Seljuk Empire was geographically monolithic: It spread from Afghanistan to Konya, from Iran to Egypt, and from Baku to Bilad-i Sham -- modern Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Lebanon. Compared to the Ottoman model, the Abbasid/Seljuk model offers much more authentic and more comprehensive cultural grounds that are more applicable to the current conjuncture developments. The parameters that must be underlined here are related to how we see the world:

(1) As the world is being reshaped again, the interests of individual nation-states, as well as the strategies centered on ethnic groups or regions, are outdated. A new regional integration model should be designed by taking into consideration the interests of Muslim populations -- states and regions, ethnic groups and sects -- as well as non-Muslim populations. (2) With the bankruptcy of Arab nationalism, the Arabs can only exist together with Turkey and Iran. However, Arabs, Turks and Iranians cannot build a regional integration framework based on, Sunnism, secularism and Shiism respectively.(3) Turkey and Iran cannot have initiatives in the Middle East, Eurasia or the Far East either by “clashing” with each other as they did until the Kasr-ı Şirin treaty of 1639 or by “freezing the relations” as they did after the treaty was signed. The only possible way for them is to act together. (4) As was the case with the Ottomans, we cannot be disconnected from Asian Muslims, nor from the Caucasus, Azerbaijan, and the Turkic republics. We must reinforce our relations with these regions and in doing so we must “cooperate” with Iran instead of “compete” with it. Historically, when Iran and Russia severed ties with the Ottoman Empire, this put an end to the Samarkand- and Herat-centered Muslim Asian Renaissance. Therefore, cooperation with Iran is a must for Turkey to be able to resist Russian and Chinese pressures and overcome any obstacles in its efforts to establish relations with the Turkic republics. (5) After the nation-state phase, we are now entering the period of regional integration. Kurds are a natural part of this integration. They cannot exist in a buffer zone or by being excluded from the region. 6) Africa and the Balkans as well as Indonesia and Malaysia should be connected to the main body like two big wings of the big integration so that they can give it to strong spiritual and material push. 7) How will we address the world? Using which values? This is the ideal of the “ummah” that is beneficial to the entire humanity and its concrete expression is the set of rights, high moral life, freedoms and justice.

 

[ovarel]

nice critique..actually science in the muslim world had been dying when the ottomans emerged..mongolian invasions also hurt science/technology too..unfortunately the ottomans couldnt change that,they concentrated on only "fıkh" etc.

 

[Saleem]

Actually the khilafat system usurped by the banu ummayyah who instituted the hereditary system of rule. the rulers use religion as a tool to control the population and minimize operations. In fact, during the later time of osmanlis, the muslim population was at greater disadvantage then the non muslims. in their desire to retain their rule. the alleged concentration on fikh etc was in line with this. the problem is not with the religion but with its use as a tool to control the population. IN pursuit of this goal they forced the majority population to confine themselves to activities which was politically non threatening to the rulers - study and research of science etc required a degree of freedom of thought that the "state" could not permit without threatening the control of the rulers. thus religion was used as a tool the eg with russia orthodox christianity and islam (see the book Tsar and the prophet) and islam by the osmanlis.

 

[ovarel]

so you are opposed to khilafat system?correct me if im wrong..

arab regimes are also the problem to be solved.they hate iran regime more than the zionist one.arab armies have great relations with the USA.even turkish army doesnt share the ideas of Turks generally..and the best cure for this problem would be 100% democratization,so that those countries would represent its people..when those regimes act wisely,even israel would act reasonable and then iran wouldnt be so offensive..no need to mention the dictators in central asia..

id love to write longer but its too late now.all i want to say is that if we want integration ,we need stabilization.in order to achieve this,the regimes must act reasonable especially arabic ones,the rest comes later..i think after that we can talk about seljuk model,ottoman model,abbasids model etc. but now the problems should be taken care unit by unit..

 

[Saleem]

No Averal I am not opposed to the principle of the khilafat but the real khilafat was only practiced by the rashidun ie the first four where the ruler is endorsed by the populace and obedience to him subject to him following the right path - H. Ali and H. Umar are on record as having said that they should only be followed if the are following the path of justice. A very good discussion about this may be found in english in the book excellence and precedence by Asma Afsaruddin (ISBN 9004120432). the price is rather steep some $160 but at I found it very informative. she has another book "the first muslims" much less costly and covering much the same ground but from a different perspective. I meant the concept of hereditary rule is anathema to islam.

As discussed by Sh Hamza Yusuf in his lecture here [ Hamza Yusuf – Rethinking Islamic Reform | Halal Tube ], in the sunni perspective islam is constitutional as opposed to statutory ie in most cases it gives the principles on which laws are to be codified and not the statutes (section xyz of of the law etc). thus the quran and sunnah give the principles on which government and leadership is to be based and not the actual mechanism.

It seems quite logical to me for this to be so - those familiar with statistics will know that the normal curve - 99.5 % fall within two standard deviations of the mean but only some 68 % within one SD. thus the more strictly you define something the more exclusive it becomes whereas islam claims to be for the whole of humanity.

we need to follow the right path and not individuals ie we support correct actions and oppose wrong ones even if the same individual is doing both - only support his legitimate actions.

As for the "arab nationalism" they are a product of 18th and 19th century christian empires who sought to carve out a sphere of influence for themselves in the osmanlis devlet and example of what I am talking about may be found in [ The Culture of Sectarianism ] and [ The Long Peace ].
its initiators were christian arabs who sought to acquire influence in their localities by acting as proxies for the foreigners. the muslims, even up to after the end of the 1st world war (1918) identified themselves with their tribe / clan and then as muslims - not as "arabs".