As part of an initiative to change school curricula and revolutionize textbooks, Egypt’s Ministry of Education crossed out the word “conquest” in reference to the Ottoman presence in Egypt and replaced it with the term “invasion.”
With the start of the new academic year, the Ministry of Education announced the implementation of radical changes to school textbooks in elementary and junior school stages.
"Ghazw" vs. "Fateh"
We changed much of the curricula and replaced old textbooks with new ones in order to cater to the mentality of modern students in the 21st century
Education Ministry official“We changed much of the curricula and replaced old textbooks with new ones in order to cater to the mentality of modern students in the 21st century,” a ministry official told Al Arabiya.
According to press reports, the ministry sent confidential reports to education departments all over Egypt that contained the changes. The daily independent al-Dostour obtained a copy of these reports.
One of the most striking and controversial changes, the newspaper reported, was calling the Ottoman advancement into Egypt “ghazw,” meaning invasion, instead of “fateh,” meaning conquest, which was used for decades in all school textbooks in reference to Ottoman and Islamic presence in the country and the rest of the region.
Fateh, which literally means “opening” in Arabic, means annexing a territory to the nation that seized it. It is commonly used to denote a benevolent intention to spread justice in this territory and/or save it from an oppressive occupier.
This term has been used in reference to the Islamic presence outside the Arabian Peninsula. It was usually considered to have taken place in order to spread the then new religion (Islam) and gather people under the banner of Ummah (nation).
In contrast, the word “ghazw” in Arabic denotes a military incursion that primarily aims at occupying a country for plundering its wealth and exploiting its people and usually involves violence and extensive military action.
Turkish influence
Egypt is trying to counter Turkey’s expanding role in the region especially that many observers are linking this current role to the Ottoman Empire, considered by historians the last Islamic caliphate. This change in particular is seen against the backdrop of the growing Turkish influence in the Middle East, said educational expert Gamal Abdul Hadi.
“Egypt is trying to counter Turkey’s expanding role in the region especially that many observers are linking this current role to the Ottoman Empire, considered by historians the last Islamic caliphate,” he told Al Arabiya.
The new textbook, part of the history course, states that Ottomans invaded Egypt because they wanted to expand their influence to the East and Egypt, as the heart of the Muslim world, was their way to do so.
According to the book, Ottomans used religion only as a means of tightening their grip on the Arab world.
“They took advantage of the fact that the medieval mentality was prevalent in the Arab world,” says the textbook. “It is a mentality that basically depended on taking things at face value and on theoretical rather than practical sciences.”
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
salaam
more bogus arab nationalism from Egypt.
peace
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
don't feel so bad, in Egypt everyone has problems with everyone, north vs. south, east vs. west, christian vs. Muslim.. the country is a frank mess.. what a shame
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
Salaam
Its a pity that Hosni Mubarak and his cohorts want to engage in petty nationalism.
Mind you, they don't seem to be too bothered by attempts to 'Americanise' Egypt. (culture, TV etc ad infinitum) and too follow orders from Washington like a faithful puppy.
So wonder whats going on?
PS. Ive seen some jokes made about Alarabiya, some of my friends call it Alamreeka
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
don't feel so bad, in Egypt everyone has problems with everyone, north vs. south, east vs. west, christian vs. Muslim.. the country is a frank mess.. what a shame
I don't feel bad because of this particular issue, I feel sad because this attitude is so widespread in the ummah. It's an obligation for Muslims to help each other and act in unity; it's farz and yet nobody cares.
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
more bogus arab nationalism from Egypt.
May be you're right, but in my opinion these changes to the educational system have nothing to do with nationalism. I think it's purely for political reasons. You know many muslim countries, especially some arab govs are indirectly ruled by western policy. Some presidents are like puppets, they only do what they are ordered to do by other political powers having interests in the middle-east region, and want to strike some muslim country with another muslim country.
Therefore I'm really worried about these stupid decisions of the egyptian minister of education.
That's said, I only support the Othmani khilafa because as a muslim I support the presence of an islamic khilafa of any kind, and because at the beginning, the othmani khilafa was led by righteous othmani rulers who didn't descriminate between all muslims.
But I can't support the othmani presence in the muslim world at the end of the khilafa, because at the end of its time, the late othmani rulers started to act unfairly and it becomes like an Empire who is just exploiting and milking the islamic countries under its reign, and I think that is one of the main reasons the othmani khilafa collapsed (in addition to other external reasons of course).
But although the othmani rulers acted wrongly in its last century, we still cannot call it "invasion", because it's still an islamic khilafa, not a strange invasion. That's why I feel that these late decisions of the egyptian government is really an external political tactic to make fitna in the region and also to destroy the islamic history/civilisation and islamic constants, as a plan to eliminate islam from the region and to eliminate any idea from muslims' minds to rebuild the islamic khilafa again.
Last edited by marwen; 10-29-2010 at 05:43 PM.
Reason: typo
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
format_quote Originally Posted by Argamemnon
Who knows, maybe Egypt is planning to attack Turkey one day to get revenge.. you never know with today's "mu'minun"...
Bro we should not reason in terms of revenge, this will take us away. Besides there is no reason.
It's just politics. If, like you said, Husni Munbarak decided one day to mess up with Turkey, the reason would be just because he wants to do a favour to Israel and company.
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
Bro we should not reason in terms of revenge, this will take us away. Besides there is no reason.
It's just politics. If, like you said, Husni Munbarak decided one day to mess up with Turkey, the reason would be just because he wants to do a favour to Israel and company.
LOL, it was meant to be a joke..
Long live all Arabs and Turks and others who were righteous and served Islam - and those who will serve Islam in the future.
"O glorious army, o glorious soldier - Allāhu akbar" (I tried to translate the whole thing but it's hard because Ottoman Turkish is different). It's all about defending Islam !!! Long live the Ottomans...
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
May be you're right, but in my opinion these changes to the educational system have nothing to do with nationalism. I think it's purely for political reasons. You know many muslim countries, especially some arab govs are indirectly ruled by western policy. Some presidents are like puppets, they only do what they are ordered to do by other political powers having interests in the middle-east region, and want to strike some muslim country with another muslim country.
Therefore I'm really worried about these stupid decisions of the egyptian minister of education.
That's said, I only support the Othmani khilafa because as a muslim I support the presence of an islamic khilafa of any kind, and because at the beginning, the othmani khilafa was led by righteous othmani rulers who didn't descriminate between all muslims.
But I can't support the othmani presence in the muslim world at the end of the khilafa, because at the end of its time, the late othmani rulers started to act unfairly and it becomes like an Empire who is just exploiting and milking the islamic countries under its reign, and I think that is one of the main reasons the othmani khilafa collapsed (in addition to other external reasons of course).
But although the othmani rulers acted wrongly in its last century, we still cannot call it "invasion", because it's still an islamic khilafa, not a strange invasion. That's why I feel that these late decisions of the egyptian government is really an external political tactic to make fitna in the region and also to destroy the islamic history/civilisation and islamic constants, as a plan to eliminate islam from the region and to eliminate any idea from muslims' minds to rebuild the islamic khilafa again.
salaam
The later Ottoman rulers were far better then anything pan arabism has produced in the past years - You should look up abdul hamid II and how he dealt with the early zionists. The later rulers were not bad - they were still trying to modernise the empire - until the arabs got drunk on nationalism and decided to rebel - after that I'm afraid the arabs have been getting slapped around all over the place.
By the way dont get mixed up with Aturk and the later Ottoman Caliphs - Both were radically different.
Promoting nationalism is a political motive. Thats why they are re-writing history.
Last edited by Zafran; 10-30-2010 at 01:22 AM.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
format_quote Originally Posted by Argamemnon
Who knows, maybe Egypt is planning to attack Turkey one day to get revenge.. you never know with today's "mu'minun"...
Salaam
- Turkey is still in a very strong though - besides nobody can go to war in the region without the Godfather (USA) and its servant (Isreal) actually letting it happen.
peace
Last edited by Zafran; 10-30-2010 at 01:23 AM.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
By the way dont get mixed up with Aturk and the later Ottoman Caliphs - Both were radically different.
Aturk ? Do you mean Atatürk ?
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
The later rulers were not bad - they were still trying to modernise the empire - until the arabs got drunk on nationalism and decided to rebel - after that I'm afraid the arabs have been getting slapped around all over the place.
LOL. Bro Zafran, although you're condemning the stupid arab nationalism and I'm with you in that, but you're speaking out of nationalism too lol : You're assuming later Ottman caliphs never made mistakes.
I agree that the biggest number of Othman Khalifs were righteous, even the later ones. But some of them acted wrongly too. It's true Othman rulers, seen from outside, were trying to protect the Othmani Empire, But in the inside of islamic empire they were lately doing many mistakes. I don't want to report history back because it's not our main subject here, but every one knows how late othman rulers treated arabs. They were not considering arabs as their muslim brothers, but as inferior individuals, as part of their empire and kept just to profit from them. Mainly this maltreatment of arabs by othmans, the poverty, the bad conditions and bad education : therefore many arabs forget their islamic knowledge and the sense of islamic unity, and they resorted to nationalism and rebelling. They were stupid, but we should be fair enough to admitt that there were causes to this stupid nationalism. And we should be fair enough also to admit that every part of the islamic world (be it Turks, Arabs or others) have committed his own mistakes which led muslims today to this bad position in the world. No one is exempt from doing mistakes.
Although it was a little bit off topic, but I just replied to clarify that part. And I don't care about arabs or turks or any ethnicity. I only care about muslims. As muslims we should be fair and correct the ones who are wrong, and thank the ones who are right, and never attack each other.
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
Aturk ? Do you mean Atatürk ?
LOL. Bro Zafran, although you're condemning the stupid arab nationalism and I'm with you in that, but you're speaking out of nationalism too lol : You're assuming later Ottman caliphs never made mistakes.
I agree that the biggest number of Othman Khalifs were righteous, even the later ones. But some of them acted wrongly too. It's true Othman rulers, seen from outside, were trying to protect the Othmani Empire, But in the inside of islamic empire they were lately doing many mistakes. I don't want to report history back because it's not our main subject here, but every one knows how late othman rulers treated arabs. They were not considering arabs as their muslim brothers, but as inferior individuals, as part of their empire and kept just to profit from them. Mainly this maltreatment of arabs by othmans, the poverty, the bad conditions and bad education : therefore many arabs forget their islamic knowledge and the sense of islamic unity, and they resorted to nationalism and rebelling. They were stupid, but we should be fair enough to admitt that there were causes to this stupid nationalism. And we should be fair enough also to admit that every part of the islamic world (be it Turks, Arabs or others) have committed his own mistakes which led muslims today to this bad position in the world. No one is exempt from doing mistakes.
Although it was a little bit off topic, but I just replied to clarify that part. And I don't care about arabs or turks or any ethnicity. I only care about muslims. As muslims we should be fair and correct the ones who are wrong, and thank the ones who are right, and never attack each other.
Thats not the assumption - the assumption is that the Ottoman caliphs were far better then any arab nationalist leader unless you can show otherwise - for starters they kept the title Caliph - secodnaly they still saw themselves as an Islamic empire unlike the arab nationalist who were a exculsive group for the arabs.
Your confusing the caliphs with Ataturk and the concept of modern Turkey - the Turkish nationalist did see themselves better then the arabs but the caliphs were not nationalist - thats why the institution of Caliph was destroyed by Ataturk to promote his own brand of Turkey - but this all happend after the west was about to carve up the empire - it didnt happen before WW1 - The arabs rebeled not because they were seen to be inferior but because of British agents like Lawrence of Arabia promised them nationalism if they supported the British - which they did - weakening the Caliphate.
The Ottoman caliphs were muslim to the end - soon as the arabs came in power they became puppets of western powers.
We can still see the effects today and what arab nationalism has achieved.
Last edited by Zafran; 10-30-2010 at 03:51 PM.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Thats not the assumption - the assumption is that the Ottoman caliphs were far better then any arab nationalist leader unless you can show otherwise - for starters they kept the title Caliph - secodnaly they still saw themselves as an Islamic empire unlike the arab nationalist who were a exculsive group for the arabs.
I know that the khilafa is the best way to rule the islamic countries. I'm totally anti-nationalist muslim. I'm not even comparing between the caliphs and nationalist leaders.
I was only discussing the later period of islamic khilafa in the ottoman empire, that I thought it has to do with the thread topic, because I said that, although there have been some kind of tension between the ottoman empire and arab countries, the introduction of the term "Invasion" is incorrect because the islamic empire is already established in the islamic world and Egypt is already part of the islamic Khilafa before ottomans took the lead. There is no invasion.
I dunno how we ended up talking about arabic nationalism..
I support the Ottoman Empire in general. I just mentioned that there were some errors within the Empire near the end of its days, and to be fair we should consider these errors so muslims don't do them again. Yes, I agree that nationalism is one important factor of the separation between muslims and the decline of Ummah. Another factor is the errors made by the later caliphs of the ottoman Empire and that led to the weakening of the empire and the growing of problems between the caliphs and the countries which are under his control. Some of these errors (I will not expand about this point because this is not a history thread) : At the end of the empire, the caliphs become weak and could not control the whole empire; there was a disconnection between the caliph and the different rulers who are ruling the different parts of the empire. This encouraged some unsupervised rulers to do wrong things like collecting money by overtaxing people and opressing them. Also, the governance was transmitted by inheritance : only the descendants of the ruling family have the right to become a caliph/ruler.
format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran
Your confusing the caliphs with Ataturk and the concept of modern Turkey
No I'm not confusing the tow concepts. The Ataturk era is another story. I'm talking about the later period of the Uttoman Empire, before Ataturk abolished the empire.
The first generation of ottoman caliphs were pious muslim leaders who did many successful conquests to expand the islamic ummah and they dedicated themselves for islam.
But The later generations, although they kept the same form of the ottoman empire, they made also some mistakes.
Last edited by marwen; 10-30-2010 at 06:32 PM.
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
format_quote Originally Posted by titus
Will you tell all of the members of this forum that are not American not to comment on the United States?
Your contention is a ridiculous one.
you speak of a very personal Egyptian experience and sentiment of which you obliviously have no knowledge --
so in fact you are the one who is ridiculous, how could you possibly know whether or not they saw the Ottoman rule as an invasion? Most observant Muslim Egyptians should you interview them would contend that being under a Muslim Empire rule ottoman or not is far better than the new secular, debauched regime or the monarchy that preceded it which was very much a product of British imperialism. Maybe in your mind you view a dissolution of the Ottoman's a blessing and their rule an invasion but the miserable life under British or French colonialism as a liberation but as stated prior don't speak for a people or a country whose history, culture, religion are elusive to you at best-- even your analogies are inane. What were you hoping for, for your all too frequent silly comments to be swept under the rug?
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Re: Egypt books refer to Ottoman rule as “invasion”
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."
Last edited by Argamemnon; 10-30-2010 at 09:48 PM.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks