1914: The Shaping of the Modern Muslim World ~ Dr. Yasir Qadhi
- Thread starter سيف الله
- Start date
- Replies 14
- Views 19K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Salaam
Like to share, different perspectives on the lead up to the break up of the Ottoman empire.
Like to share, different perspectives on the lead up to the break up of the Ottoman empire.
He has truth and wrongness. Ofcourse we cant blame all Arabs with the rebellion. There were even many Arabs in the Ottoman army of that time. But the ones who rebelled were enough to put the state in trouble in the mid of WW1 when they needed more human force and unity. Also its true that the Ottoman state was already falling before the revolt due to the wrong politics of the sultans and goverments. And Abdülhamit 2nd was one of the responsibles of this fall unlike what today’s Erdoğanists tell you. Ottoman empire lost 2 million square km land mass during his reign. He also let the western states to establish “Duyun-u Umumiye” the institution of general debts in Turkey so that they could control the Ottoman economy. Young Turks only accelerated this.
But he is completely wrong by claiming that the Ottomans did not care the Arab lands but cared only Balkan region. Ottoman empire cared all of its people and brought the same civilization to all corners of the country in every stage. At the end of the day no, Arabs, the ones who did, had no right to revolt against the Caliph and stab us Turks from our back in a harsh war enviroment.
But he is completely wrong by claiming that the Ottomans did not care the Arab lands but cared only Balkan region. Ottoman empire cared all of its people and brought the same civilization to all corners of the country in every stage. At the end of the day no, Arabs, the ones who did, had no right to revolt against the Caliph and stab us Turks from our back in a harsh war enviroment.
Salaam
Thanks, the brother for your contribution. There's a thread I'm trying to find that questions the whole 'Ottoman decline' thesis, I'll share it if I find it.
I think you too harsh on Abdülhamit 2nd I think he is one of the greats but for different reason compared to earlier Sultans. He was in an impossible situation, surrounded by predatory powers (Russians were eyeing up Constantinople, Autro-Hungarians, British etc) so he did his best with the hand he was dealt. His situation reminds of the German commander Walther Model, given orders that were on paper impossible to achieve, but somehow managing to pull a rabbit out of a hat in the most trying of circumstances. He definitley played a role in delaying the collapse of the Empire.
This doesn't detract from his failings, I agree why did he let the bankers in (was he pressured or bad decision making on his part?), creation of a police state and lets not forget the treatment of the Armenians (Im not familiar so I need to look into it more).
I agree with you though the betrayal by (certain) Arabs during WW1 was profoundly bad move, whatever the differences they could of been settled after the war (wishful thinking on my part?) and we could be living in a very different world.
In the end, we all paid a price.
Blurb
In 1916, in the middle of the First World War, two men secretly agreed to divide the Middle East between them. Sir Mark Sykes was a visionary politician; François Georges-Picot a diplomat with a grudge. The deal they struck, which was designed to relieve tensions that threatened to engulf the Entente Cordiale, drew a line in the sand from the Mediterranean to the Persian frontier. Territory north of that stark line would go to France; land south of it, to Britain. Against the odds their pact survived the war to form the basis for the post-war division of the region into five new countries Britain and France would rule. The creation of Britain's 'mandates' of Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq, and France's in Lebanon and Syria, made the two powers uneasy neighbours for the following thirty years.
Through a stellar cast of politicians, diplomats, spies and soldiers, including T. E. Lawrence, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle, A Line in the Sand vividly tells the story of the short but crucial era when Britain and France ruled the Middle East. It explains exactly how the old antagonism between these two powers inflamed the more familiar modern rivalry between the Arabs and the Jews, and ultimately led to war between the British and the French in 1941 and between the Arabs and the Jews in 1948.
In 1946, after many years of intrigue and espionage, Britain finally succeeded in ousting France from Lebanon and Syria, and hoped that, having done so, it would be able to cling on to Palestine. Using newly declassified papers from the British and French archives, James Barr brings this overlooked clandestine struggle back to life, and reveals, for the first time, the stunning way in which the French finally got their revenge.
And of course lets not forget.
Thanks, the brother for your contribution. There's a thread I'm trying to find that questions the whole 'Ottoman decline' thesis, I'll share it if I find it.
I think you too harsh on Abdülhamit 2nd I think he is one of the greats but for different reason compared to earlier Sultans. He was in an impossible situation, surrounded by predatory powers (Russians were eyeing up Constantinople, Autro-Hungarians, British etc) so he did his best with the hand he was dealt. His situation reminds of the German commander Walther Model, given orders that were on paper impossible to achieve, but somehow managing to pull a rabbit out of a hat in the most trying of circumstances. He definitley played a role in delaying the collapse of the Empire.
This doesn't detract from his failings, I agree why did he let the bankers in (was he pressured or bad decision making on his part?), creation of a police state and lets not forget the treatment of the Armenians (Im not familiar so I need to look into it more).
I agree with you though the betrayal by (certain) Arabs during WW1 was profoundly bad move, whatever the differences they could of been settled after the war (wishful thinking on my part?) and we could be living in a very different world.
In the end, we all paid a price.
Blurb
In 1916, in the middle of the First World War, two men secretly agreed to divide the Middle East between them. Sir Mark Sykes was a visionary politician; François Georges-Picot a diplomat with a grudge. The deal they struck, which was designed to relieve tensions that threatened to engulf the Entente Cordiale, drew a line in the sand from the Mediterranean to the Persian frontier. Territory north of that stark line would go to France; land south of it, to Britain. Against the odds their pact survived the war to form the basis for the post-war division of the region into five new countries Britain and France would rule. The creation of Britain's 'mandates' of Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq, and France's in Lebanon and Syria, made the two powers uneasy neighbours for the following thirty years.
Through a stellar cast of politicians, diplomats, spies and soldiers, including T. E. Lawrence, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle, A Line in the Sand vividly tells the story of the short but crucial era when Britain and France ruled the Middle East. It explains exactly how the old antagonism between these two powers inflamed the more familiar modern rivalry between the Arabs and the Jews, and ultimately led to war between the British and the French in 1941 and between the Arabs and the Jews in 1948.
In 1946, after many years of intrigue and espionage, Britain finally succeeded in ousting France from Lebanon and Syria, and hoped that, having done so, it would be able to cling on to Palestine. Using newly declassified papers from the British and French archives, James Barr brings this overlooked clandestine struggle back to life, and reveals, for the first time, the stunning way in which the French finally got their revenge.
And of course lets not forget.
Last edited:
Thanks for another interesting video. It's true that in the West (in the US, at least), the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the impact of WW1 on the Arab World are treated as afterthoughts compared to the European theater. Arab history in general is barely glazed over in our formal education.
Given that the US has been heavily involved militarily in the Middle East for decades, I think it is important for Americans to better educate themselves about the history of this region. Wars don't burst out of a vacuum. The cultural and historical context is crucial.
So many people on both sides try to portray the conflicts as religious (Christians vs. Muslims, eg.), but there is a lot more to it than that. Christians and Muslims mostly live peacefully side-by-side here in the US, just as they have in the Middle East for centuries. So what is the problem? Better yet, what are the right questions? Because I think we have been working with false presuppositions, creating puzzles for which there is no solution.
Just some random thoughts. Thanks for reading.
Given that the US has been heavily involved militarily in the Middle East for decades, I think it is important for Americans to better educate themselves about the history of this region. Wars don't burst out of a vacuum. The cultural and historical context is crucial.
So many people on both sides try to portray the conflicts as religious (Christians vs. Muslims, eg.), but there is a lot more to it than that. Christians and Muslims mostly live peacefully side-by-side here in the US, just as they have in the Middle East for centuries. So what is the problem? Better yet, what are the right questions? Because I think we have been working with false presuppositions, creating puzzles for which there is no solution.
Just some random thoughts. Thanks for reading.
Salaam
Thanks, the brother for your contribution. There's a thread I'm trying to find that questions the whole 'Ottoman decline' thesis, I'll share it if I find it.
I think you too harsh on Abdülhamit 2nd I think he is one of the greats but for different reason compared to earlier Sultans. He was in an impossible situation, surrounded by predatory powers (Russians were eyeing up Constantinople, Autro-Hungarians, British etc) so he did his best with the hand he was dealt. His situation reminds of the German commander Walther Model, given orders that were on paper impossible to achieve, but somehow managing to pull a rabbit out of a hat in the most trying of circumstances. He definitley played a role in delaying the collapse of the Empire.
This doesn't detract from his failings, I agree why did he let the bankers in (was he pressured or bad decision making on his part?), creation of a police state and lets not forget the treatment of the Armenians (Im not familiar so I need to look into it more).
I agree with you though the betrayal by (certain) Arabs during WW1 was profoundly bad move, whatever the differences they could of been settled after the war (wishful thinking on my part?) and we could be living in a very different world.
In the end, we all paid a price.
Blurb
In 1916, in the middle of the First World War, two men secretly agreed to divide the Middle East between them. Sir Mark Sykes was a visionary politician; François Georges-Picot a diplomat with a grudge. The deal they struck, which was designed to relieve tensions that threatened to engulf the Entente Cordiale, drew a line in the sand from the Mediterranean to the Persian frontier. Territory north of that stark line would go to France; land south of it, to Britain. Against the odds their pact survived the war to form the basis for the post-war division of the region into five new countries Britain and France would rule. The creation of Britain's 'mandates' of Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq, and France's in Lebanon and Syria, made the two powers uneasy neighbours for the following thirty years.
Through a stellar cast of politicians, diplomats, spies and soldiers, including T. E. Lawrence, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle, A Line in the Sand vividly tells the story of the short but crucial era when Britain and France ruled the Middle East. It explains exactly how the old antagonism between these two powers inflamed the more familiar modern rivalry between the Arabs and the Jews, and ultimately led to war between the British and the French in 1941 and between the Arabs and the Jews in 1948.
In 1946, after many years of intrigue and espionage, Britain finally succeeded in ousting France from Lebanon and Syria, and hoped that, having done so, it would be able to cling on to Palestine. Using newly declassified papers from the British and French archives, James Barr brings this overlooked clandestine struggle back to life, and reveals, for the first time, the stunning way in which the French finally got their revenge.
And of course lets not forget.
Selam. I dont want to disrespect Abdülhamit as he was an Ottoman sultan who cared his country like the others. I just think that he was not succesful as he is portrayed. He did not delay the fall since no one was trying to destroy the state completely at his time. He lost most of the Balkan region, caucasus, and egypte. He was the most land loser sultan of all times. Ofcourse it wasnt all of his fault as he inherited all the problems from his uncle but he could do nothing to correct anything. Also although financially and technologically falling, the Ottoman state still had a strong govermental and militaristic structure. So without such a big war as WW1 it was not possible for the empire to terminate completely, and this war did not happen during his reign. The Armenian events is a differnt issue and needs its own thread.
Unfortunately I have never had the chance to read the books you share yet. I would like to read this one though.
- - - Updated - - -
Ottoman empire was a “magical” state. They controlled the entire Middle east with peace and order for hundreds of years. Look at what America brought there in only fifteen years..
CuriousonTruth
IB Veteran
- Messages
- 527
- Reaction score
- 4
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
Abdulhamid was not properly in power when the Ottomans lost the Russia war in 1878. Ottomans were at a free fall after Mahmud II's rule who wanted to make the state more of a European nation state and took loans from England and France to fund his Crimean war. Let me put this into perspective. Mahmud's army lost twice to Egyptian army, the same Egyptian army that lost to Ethiopia. This was the state of the Ottoman army.
To make matters worse Abdulmecid made the economy worse and made the state bankrupt. And Young turks were young turks, with the exception of some pashas most were just horrible people and even worse politicians.
At that stage it was a question of when and not if the Ottoman state completely collapses. If Abdulhamid was in place of Mahmud, the Ottoman state could have been saved.
- - - Updated - - -
The Ottomans had professional soldiers from Syria, I think they were the Haleb forces and also Egyptian soldiers. They didn't have any professional peninsula Arab forces though.
Salaam
More food for thought, I had no idea.
More on the general debate
More food for thought, I had no idea.
More on the general debate
Salaam
Related, Sauds are embracing nationalism as their new religion.
Saudi Arabia changes Ottoman ‘Empire’ to ‘occupation’ in school textbooks
Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Education has made a series of modifications to its history textbooks altering the legacy of the Ottoman Empire and its former rule over parts of the Arabian Peninsula.
While the former curriculum taught the topic referencing the Ottoman Caliphate, the new curriculum will now cover the Empire’s “occupation”, crimes and subsequent collapse to pupils in the lower years of high school.
Among the crimes the Saudi text books will level against the Ottoman rule are “Fighting with the first and second Saudi states; supporting some local leaders against King Abdul Aziz; destroying Diriyah and surrounding towns; as well as many parts of Zahran and Asir, besides torturing Imam Abdullah Bin Saud, the last imam of the first Saudi state, and assassinating him after taking him to Istanbul.”
The curriculum also accuses the Ottoman government of having divided the Arabs of the Peninsula, stating: “The Arab land that came under the subjugation of the Ottoman administrative regime were divided into at least 15 states and each state was administered by a governor.
The regime also sought to impose many taxes on the population and agricultural crops as well as on land, goods and services with collecting money to serve the Ottoman state and its sultans without leaving any significant revenues for these states.
”The Ottomans, as the new narrative puts it, governed primarily by a policy of divide and rule, enforcing “political domination and sowing discord in order to prevent the Arabian Peninsula from being united, transferring skilled craftsmen and builders from Egypt and the Levant to Istanbul, building fortresses and forts to protect the state soldiers and their states, and prevalence of instability and insecurity within these countries and along the pilgrimage routes.”
Saudi Arabia’s official defamation of the Empire – or Caliphate, as it is widely known – signals a heightened sense of nationalism, as well as a strong anti-Turkish sentiment which has dominated the kingdom’s narrative in recent years.
Critics of the move by the Saudi ministry have likened it to the similarity of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s popular narrative of the Ottoman Empire, exploiting a rising sense of Arab nationalism while countering the perceived increasing influence of Turkey in the region by attacking and defaming its imperial history.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/2...man-empire-to-occupation-in-school-textbooks/
Dont forget.
Related, Sauds are embracing nationalism as their new religion.
Saudi Arabia changes Ottoman ‘Empire’ to ‘occupation’ in school textbooks
Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Education has made a series of modifications to its history textbooks altering the legacy of the Ottoman Empire and its former rule over parts of the Arabian Peninsula.
While the former curriculum taught the topic referencing the Ottoman Caliphate, the new curriculum will now cover the Empire’s “occupation”, crimes and subsequent collapse to pupils in the lower years of high school.
Among the crimes the Saudi text books will level against the Ottoman rule are “Fighting with the first and second Saudi states; supporting some local leaders against King Abdul Aziz; destroying Diriyah and surrounding towns; as well as many parts of Zahran and Asir, besides torturing Imam Abdullah Bin Saud, the last imam of the first Saudi state, and assassinating him after taking him to Istanbul.”
The curriculum also accuses the Ottoman government of having divided the Arabs of the Peninsula, stating: “The Arab land that came under the subjugation of the Ottoman administrative regime were divided into at least 15 states and each state was administered by a governor.
The regime also sought to impose many taxes on the population and agricultural crops as well as on land, goods and services with collecting money to serve the Ottoman state and its sultans without leaving any significant revenues for these states.
”The Ottomans, as the new narrative puts it, governed primarily by a policy of divide and rule, enforcing “political domination and sowing discord in order to prevent the Arabian Peninsula from being united, transferring skilled craftsmen and builders from Egypt and the Levant to Istanbul, building fortresses and forts to protect the state soldiers and their states, and prevalence of instability and insecurity within these countries and along the pilgrimage routes.”
Saudi Arabia’s official defamation of the Empire – or Caliphate, as it is widely known – signals a heightened sense of nationalism, as well as a strong anti-Turkish sentiment which has dominated the kingdom’s narrative in recent years.
Critics of the move by the Saudi ministry have likened it to the similarity of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s popular narrative of the Ottoman Empire, exploiting a rising sense of Arab nationalism while countering the perceived increasing influence of Turkey in the region by attacking and defaming its imperial history.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/2...man-empire-to-occupation-in-school-textbooks/
Dont forget.
Last edited:
As a reaction for the president of lebanon’s accusation of the Ottoman empire for state terrorism..
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_258_-lubnan-cumhurbaskaninin-yaptigi-aciklamalari-hk.en.mfa
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD] No: 258, 1 September 2019, Press Release Regarding Lebanese President Michel Aoun's Address at the Launching of the Centennial Celebrations of Lebanon / Rep. of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs
...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_258_-lubnan-cumhurbaskaninin-yaptigi-aciklamalari-hk.en.mfa
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR][TD] No: 258, 1 September 2019, Press Release Regarding Lebanese President Michel Aoun's Address at the Launching of the Centennial Celebrations of Lebanon / Rep. of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs
...[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]
Last edited:
Salaam
Nationalism is ugly. Lebanon has had a hard history (civil war, civil strife, foreign interference) still being played out. Plus how did the Sauds gain power over the other tribes? It wasn't pretty.
And whats even 'odder' is that they are quite happy to be servile to western interests (its no secret that western powers are manipulating their society for their own ends). Pitiful really.
This does not detract from the failings of the Ottoman empire but we have to be even handed.
Nationalism is ugly. Lebanon has had a hard history (civil war, civil strife, foreign interference) still being played out. Plus how did the Sauds gain power over the other tribes? It wasn't pretty.
And whats even 'odder' is that they are quite happy to be servile to western interests (its no secret that western powers are manipulating their society for their own ends). Pitiful really.
This does not detract from the failings of the Ottoman empire but we have to be even handed.
Last edited: