Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”

[Zafran]

salaam

But The later generations, although they kept the same form of the ottoman empire, they made also some mistakes

I want to know what these mistakes were - like giving some historical examples

we ended up talking about arab nationalism because thats the reason why Egypt is changing there text books against the Ottoman empire.

 

[Argamemnon]

During the Ottoman era people didn't consider themselves "Syrians", or "Turks" etc. The "Ottomans" never called themselves "Turks" (I believe until 1876). Even the Ottoman/Turkish language was rather a mix of Arabic and Persian...

 

[Zafran]

During the Ottoman era people didn't consider themselves "Syrians", or "Turks" etc. The "Ottomans" never called themselves "Turks" (I believe until 1876). Even the Ottoman/Turkish language was rather a mix of Arabic and Persian...

Salaam

Your right - the ethinc idea came way later when ideas of self determinism were introduced based on ethnic lines.

peace

 

[marwen]

I want to know what these mistakes were - like giving some historical examples

I can't find good english texts reporting the accurate history, not all western references are reliable sources. But I think this website is summing the most important factors of the decline of the Ottoman Islamic Empire :
http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ottoman3.html

This website is unfortunately in arabic, I don't know if you speak arabic. But it gives a clear explanation of the advantages of the Ottoman empire and also the reasons of its fall, mainly external (European threats), but also internal factors :
http://www.saaid.net/Minute/mm72.htm
I'm unable to translate this whole page right now. But I will report the main factors of decline mentioned in that page :
- corruption of some rulers.
- spread of suffism/bid'ah in the empire.
- ignoring the Shariah in some rules and using many man-made rules.
- the external threat of european countries / the crusades.
- the expanding area of the empire and the growing difficulty to control it with traditional ways.
- scientific and intellectual regression.
- neglecting islamic dawah in the non-muslim regions of the empire, and requiring just the Jiziah (taxes) from them.
- Separatist movements inside the empire, encouraged by the enemies of islam.
- misconduct in the repartition of wealth : giving money to people who don't deserve it.
- the "Inkishari" army, founded by the sultan Ur-Khan. The army was formed from initially non muslims who were converted to islam and the army ruled the diffent countries of the empire. Most of the members of that army used to act badly, starting to drink Alcohol and rip off peoples properties. So the sultan Mahmud II was obliged to get rid of the "inkishari" Army in the year 1241 Hijri.
- the caliphs did not lead the armies by themselves, but they delegated it to incompetent leaders who messed it up.
- the sultans isolated themselves and focused on their castles.
- the ottoman state took many debts from european countries, but they were unable to pay them back. The european counties used these debts as a trap and a trick to take over parts of the empire.

 

[marwen]

Ali Imran 103

And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. And remember the favor of Allah upon you - when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers. And you were on the edge of a pit of the Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses that you may be guided."

Hope the islamic khilafa be restored back and all the muslims will be unified politically, as they are unified religiously.
Sorry bro Argamemnon if we were a little bit off topic, we were just discussing to have a clearer vision of what causes have made us so weak today, and to learn from the past mistakes, to not do them again if we want to start a new islamic Unity. It's our only intention.

 

[Zafran]

Salaam - my reply in blue.

I can't find good english texts reporting the accurate history, not all western references are reliable sources. But I think this website is summing the most important factors of the decline of the Ottoman Islamic Empire :
http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ottoman3.html

This website is unfortunately in arabic, I don't know if you speak arabic. But it gives a clear explanation of the advantages of the Ottoman empire and also the reasons of its fall, mainly external (European threats), but also internal factors :
http://www.saaid.net/Minute/mm72.htm
I'm unable to translate this whole page right now. But I will report the main factors of decline mentioned in that page :
- corruption of some rulers.Yes its bound to happen but corruption was always there in any empire not just the Ottoman empire - if we campare there corruption to do todays leaders there isnt a big difference maybe today the leaders are worse
- spread of suffism/bid'ah in the empire.and......sufism was going on the early period of the empire as well when it was expanding under sulimen the magnificent
- ignoring the Shariah in some rules and using many man-made rules.The shariah is broad but "man made law" we're being used before as well in the Ottoman empires height of power so how can they explain for the decline or even a mistake
- the external threat of european countries / the crusades.The Ottomans kept the european powers at bay only until the arab revolt was it destroyed
- the expanding area of the empire and the growing difficulty to control it with traditional ways.Yes the need to modernise is this a mistake? The ottomans were trying modernise but they got a setback in the war.
- scientific and intellectual regression.You cant blame the ottomans for that -
- neglecting islamic dawah in the non-muslim regions of the empire, and requiring just the Jiziah (taxes) from them.The ottomans didnt do much dawah even in there rise but they did convert people through the devsirme system which was a "man made system" - doesnt explain the decline or mistake its Just the way it governed the empire.
- Separatist movements inside the empire, encouraged by the enemies of islam.
- misconduct in the repartition of wealth : giving money to people who don't deserve it.For example?
- the "Inkishari" army, founded by the sultan Ur-Khan. The army was formed from initially non muslims who were converted to islam and the army ruled the diffent countries of the empire. Most of the members of that army used to act badly, starting to drink Alcohol and rip off peoples properties. So the sultan Mahmud II was obliged to get rid of the "inkishari" Army in the year 1241 Hijri. Yes but the janissery army was a succesful tool in the early years only later when it became renegade did the sultan destroy it - I dont think this was a mistake on the caliphs part. The janissey army was to blame for that
- the caliphs did not lead the armies by themselves, but they delegated it to incompetent leaders who messed it up.
- the sultans isolated themselves and focused on their castles.
- the ottoman state took many debts from european countries, but they were unable to pay them back. The european counties used these debts as a trap and a trick to take over parts of the empire.This was to modernise the empire - the famous railway line that which was meant to link Germnay and the Ottoman empire, the new army and navy was all there from european money to modernise the empire. I wont call it a trap at all.

Not all these are mistakes - you just listed the usual decline of the Ottoman empire and blamed it on the Ottomans themselves - You don know that the early Ottomans had similar ideas as well and ran the empire in a similar way. Later they did try to modernise the empire but due to too many forces trying to destroy the empire the Imperial powers and the nationalist arabs - it couldnt last.

peace

 

[Muhaba]

^^there is no way to make a building without making the individual bricks. how can you expect the khalifat to be restored? no one's going to come go "poof" (or wave a wand and go abracadabra) which will restore the khilafat. each and every muslim first needs to improve themselves, then their household, as well as preach to the non-muslims and then when everyone in society is the best muslim, who knows, maybe Allah will restore the khilafat.

 

[titus]

how could you possibly know whether or not they saw the Ottoman rule as an invasion?

This is simply a case of Muslims attempting to whitewash and make excuses for history.

The conquests are a fact, regardless of the reasons for Egypt to admit it.

The Muslims that invaded Egypt did not do it out of the kindness of their of their hearts or to help the population and to claim so is naive at best.

If this was not invasion, then why did so many people die trying to keep them out?

 

[Zafran]

This is simply a case of Muslims attempting to whitewash and make excuses for history.

The conquests are a fact, regardless of the reasons for Egypt to admit it.

The Muslims that invaded Egypt did not do it out of the kindness of their of their hearts or to help the population and to claim so is naive at best.

If this was not invasion, then why did so many people die trying to keep them out?

How many people died? and whats funny is that the Egyptians and Jerusalem welcomed the Muslims as they didnt like the previous regime.

Ofcourse they did - the early muslims were full of religous zeal and saw spreading Islam as a helpful thing - they wanted to share it to the world and if people didnt accept it no problem they could live as they wanted as long they payed there taxes to the autority. One of the reasons why it took ages for syria, Egypt and palestine to become muslim majority places becasue the populations didnt convert all at once.

 

[titus]

How many people died?

In which battle? Or which siege?

What number of casualties would make this invasion acceptable?

Ofcourse they did - the early muslims were full of religous zeal and saw spreading Islam as a helpful thing - they wanted to share it to the world and if people didnt accept it no problem they could live as they wanted as long they payed there taxes to the autority.

I could go on and on about the double standard that many have concerning this.

 

[Zafran]

In which battle? Or which siege?

What number of casualties would make this invasion acceptable in your eyes?



I could go on and on about the double standard that many have concerning this.

It doesnt matter if I accept the liberation - History shows that it was a liberation for the people of Egypt-

 

[titus]

Then you support the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, since one of the purported reasons was the improvement over the previous regime?

What, exactly, is the difference?

One could easily argue that the American version of help is even more altruistic since they actually leave the native population in charge instead of taking over the rule of the country.

Like I said, a double standard when it comes to Muslims conquering their neighbors and Muslims being conquered.

 

[Pygoscelis]

They should dump Christianity and Islam and go back to worshiping Ra and Osiris That egyptian pantheon was pretty cool.

 

[Zafran]

Then you support the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, since one of the purported reasons was the improvement over the previous regime?

What, exactly, is the difference?

One could easily argue that the American version of help is even more altruistic since they actually leave the native population in charge instead of taking over the rule of the country.

Like I said, a double standard when it comes to Muslims conquering their neighbors and Muslims being conquered.

Oh there is a difference - the US is still killing and fighting the people of Afghanistan and Iraq - Its not an easy argument of the US invading Iraq and Afghainstan for alturistic motives - Even the US government is clear about that.

You dont have to be smart to see the US invasions have been pure failures in convincing the populations - whilst the muslims were liberators - Just ask the egyptians, Syrians and palestinains and look at how they see history. Now do the same for the Afghanis, Iraqis - people in Nicaragua or Vietnam for the US.

when did the US ever say it was all out in conquering muslims anyway?

 

[titus]

Its not an easy argument of the US invading Iraq and Afghainstan for alturistic motives

Sure it is. Self defense and to help out the native population are easy arguments for the invasions.

The same cannot as easily be said for the Muslim invasion, since if their motives were truly to liberate them then they would have let the natives Egyptians (and Persians, Spaniards, etc.) rule themselves. Instead they imposed their own rule and enriched themselves, while the Americans at least can point to their helping the Iraqis and Afghans set up their own governments instead of making Iraq and Afghanistan a part of the United States.

I know that Muslims like to believe their history of conquering was a string of liberations, but that is from a biased eye. Muslims of the time did not even try to convince people that the wars were for liberation. They admitted it was to spread Islam and to enrich Muslims. It was only later that Muslims attempted to rewrite history by claiming the wars were to liberate the poor people of any nation that happened to border them.

whilst the muslims were liberators - Just ask the egyptians, Syrians and palestinains and look at how they see history

The real question is what the people of the time thought, not what their ancestors think over a thousand years later.

 

[marwen]

The Muslims that invaded Egypt did not do it out of the kindness of their of their hearts or to help the population and to claim so is naive at best.

From the beginning of history, there was a clear difference between an invasion and a conquest. A conquest is a way to spread a religion or a civilisation in new places of the world. Even in christianity, there have been conquests to spread the christian belief and civilisation. There is other ways to spread a religion, like dawah, preaching or missionary compaigns, like how its done today. But in the first ages (7th century), conquests were the only available means to contact other distant populations. For example, because Romans dominated North Africa, in order to reach the population there, muslims needed to go there with an army and try to present islam to the people and invite them to be under the protection of the islamic state, even if they chose to remain non muslims.
I can't call this an invasion. An invasion is different from a conquest. Yes, in both of them there are probably some casualties, but the objectives of an invasion and the way invadors consider/treat invaded peoples are different from a conquest.

 

[Argamemnon]

Sure it is. Self defense and to help out the native population are easy arguments for the invasions.

The same cannot as easily be said for the Muslim invasion, since if their motives were truly to liberate them then they would have let the natives Egyptians (and Persians, Spaniards, etc.) rule themselves. Instead they imposed their own rule and enriched themselves, while the Americans at least can point to their helping the Iraqis and Afghans set up their own governments instead of making Iraq and Afghanistan a part of the United States.

I know that Muslims like to believe their history of conquering was a string of liberations, but that is from a biased eye. Muslims of the time did not even try to convince people that the wars were for liberation. They admitted it was to spread Islam and to enrich Muslims. It was only later that Muslims attempted to rewrite history by claiming the wars were to liberate the poor people of any nation that happened to border them.



The real question is what the people of the time thought, not what their ancestors think over a thousand years later.

It would be interesting to know what sources you have used to come this (rather biased and inaccurate) conclusion. Were the Byzantine and Roman empires more tolerant and peaceful than Islamic empires for instance? Quite the contrary, even different Christian denominations were extremely intolerant and hostile towards one another.

It's a historical fact for example that before the conquest of Istanbul many Greeks preferred Ottoman rule over the Catholics. In general, religious tolerance and peaceful coexistance were non-existent in non-Muslim societies. Religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence are relatively new phenomena in the western world. These are historical facts also accepted by reputable western scholars.

 

[Argamemnon]

What happened to all the natives after the arrival of westerners in North America and South America? And in Australia and New Zealand? It's interesting to note that I have never heard westerners (especially those who dislike Islam) complain about the brutal Roman and Byzantine rule over the locals.

 

[جوري]

They should dump Christianity and Islam and go back to worshiping Ra and Osiris That egyptian pantheon was pretty cool.

I am pretty sure most Egyptians enjoyed sacrificing their lives building large graves to their Pharaohs, mummifying them and then taking their brains out for they were useless...

Sad thing is in fact Egypt has never been able to rid itself of its Pharaohs with the current mad cow president a prime example of one!

The term Pharaoh amongst Egyptians is synonymous with a tyrant I guess that goes to show how cool it was living under paganism ..

all the best

 

[جوري]

It would be interesting to know what sources you have used to come this (rather biased and inaccurate) conclusion

Ignore that.. he just always has to have something to say that is contradictory!

My ancestors and myself are grateful for the fat'h that happened in Egypt and neighboring countries.. al7mdlillah for the greatest gift ever.