Understanding Halal

1/2


2/2


Read more>>>

War on Halal-labelled products: The worst economic hit man now in town

1/2

2/2; Economic hit men are feared as well as loved

Economic hit men are feared as well as loved. Feared because they hit you without you knowing from where you were hit; loved because they give you so much of excitement that you can talk about them for days without being bored. This was exactly what happened when John Perkins released ‘Confessions of an Economic Hit Man’ in 2004 alleging that the World Bank and US AID, two international agencies that provide development lending and aid to world’s poor countries, have employed economic hit men to destroy the countries which they planned to support.

Critics of Perkins were very quick to point out that he was a person infected by ‘conspiracy theory ailment’ and he had presented a dramatised story without facts or documentary evidence. Yet his book became so popular that it was on the top of the bestseller’s list for many years. Since then, it has become fashionable to label those who are disliked as ‘economic hit men’ because it tells a whole story in just three words. But, Perkins made history by coining a popular term to describe a great danger that is to befall on an economy due to orchestrations or wrong moves of men and not due to natural events. In that sense, there is an economic hit man today in town and that economic hit man is, by any comparison, the worst kind of economic hit men which Sri Lanka could have ever encountered.

The war on Halal is an economic hit man

That hit man is no one but the campaign orchestrated by some in the majority race against the economic interests of minorities, brought to surface for the time being in the form of declared war on Halal certified products, foods which are permitted by Islam for consumption by its followers. Halal is so sacred to Islamists that they would not even set their eyes on any food which is not Halal. This is not an odd behaviour because every religion has similar type of faiths deeply rooted to the minds of their followers. In a society with multiple religions, one should learn to respect the religious practices of others, however much they seem to be odd or unacceptable.

Emperor Asoka: Religious tolerance a must

The best advice in this respect has been given by a Buddhist Emperor in ancient India, Emperor Asoka, when he pronounced in Asoka Rock Edicts that people should never denigrate the other sects of religions but inform themselves of their core values. In the same Rock Edict, he went on describing his wisdom further by announcing that “other sects (of religion) should be duly honoured in every way on all occasions. By doing so, he not only promotes his own sect, but also benefits other sects”.

Towards the end of this Rock Edict, he castigated those who make disparaging utterances about other religions while upholding their own. He firmly said that a person who “disparages other sects with a view to glorifying his own sect, injures his own sect very severely”. Emperor Asoka praised those who restrain themselves in their speech and advised that “people should learn and respect the fundamentals of one another’s Dharma” (Rock Edict XII). Hence, the age old Buddhist tradition passed down by Buddhist leaders like Emperor Asoka to posterity has been to practice religious tolerance and live coherently in a multi-faith society.

Cultural police versus the State police: Who is more powerful?

The war on Halal has been declared by two organisations, one called Sinhala Ravaya or the ‘Roar of the Sinhalese’ and the other called Bodu Bala Sena or the ‘Powerful Army Protecting Buddhism’. The two combined together can be christened ‘the Rising Power of the Sinhalese Buddhists’. This rising power of the Sinhalese Buddhists has identified Sri Lanka as a Sinhalese Buddhist country and therefore, all other faiths and ethnic groups have to live in the country recognising and respecting this view.

If anyone is found to be violating the dictions, the powerful Buddhist army has vowed to function as a ‘cultural police’ and stop such wrong practices forthwith. This would mean that there would be two police forces, one operated by the State at the expense of the tax payers and the other operated by this powerful Buddhist force. The people in the country will therefore be confused to which police force they should submit themselves and to which government they should pay taxes. Naturally, people will choose not to pay taxes to the government.

An economy is made up of many

How could this war be an economic hit man set upon destroying Sri Lanka’s economy? It could be understood by identifying interrelationship, interconnectivity and interdependence of millions of segments in a vast economy.

An economy is a wonderful creature made up of a large number of people belonging to many different religions, ethnic groups, races, castes or classes. All these people are interconnected and interdependent and organised to fulfil one objective: That is, to provide the maximum wellbeing to everyone. Each person is a cog in a massive cogwheel that turns constantly to produce goods and services needed by people in an economy. Each cog is important and needed for this production process. One cannot give undue importance to one particular cog and downplay the role played by others; they all are equally important and needed for the massive cogwheel to turn smoothly.

Every organ in the human body is important

This process can be equated to the functioning of a human body consisting of many different parts and organs. Nature has seen to it that all those parts and organs are needed for the perfect working of the body. There is no a single organ or a single part that does not provide a useful service to the overall working of the body.

For instance, till recently, many believed that the appendix in the human body does not provide any service and therefore could be excised without any loss to the body’s functions. But the scientists at Duke University in USA have now found that the appendix is a depository of beneficial bacteria that are needed for the proper digestion of foods in the stomach and whenever those bacteria are depleted due to illness or medication, the appendix releases such bacteria from its stocks. Thus, removing or constraining the working of a single organ or a part of a body makes it imperfect and the person owning the body will feel its adverse effects forthwith.

Hand cannot fight with leg without destroying itself

Then, what happens if one part, say the hand, declares war on another part, say the leg, alleging that the leg is trying to take over the body making the hand unimportant? Surely, this war will not be beneficial to the overall functioning of the body because the war will make it impotent and imperfect. Both the hand and the leg are interconnected and interdependent; one cannot function without the other.

If the hand is successful in paralysing the leg, then, the hand too gets paralysed and the body becomes dysfunctional. Fortunately, in such a disastrous conflict, there is a supreme arbiter who will discipline the wrongly moving hand. That arbiter is the brain which does not take sides and functions only with the objective of maintaining the stability and sustenance of the overall body. In other words, the brain views the overall picture and sees beyond the narrow vision of the hand.

Adam Smith: Conflicts to be settled by an impartial spectator

Similarly, in an economy, when one segment declares war on another segment for whatever the reason, the overall economy takes the beat and becomes malfunctioning. The segment that declares the war will look at only from its point of view which according to that segment is perfectly justifiable. It may not see the harm it may inflict on the overall working of the economy and thereby the danger it will bring to itself. To understand, one has to see beyond the narrow view of the segment that has declared the war on the other segment.
Adam Smith, the founding father of modern economics, in his Theory of Moral Sentiments published in 1759, assigned this function to a natural force in a free market economy called “an impartial spectator” whose job is to observe everything objectively from the above and pass judgments, favourable or unfavourable, depending on the case in hand. But it would give rise to a series of causes and effects that would bring about a beneficial or a vicious cycle within the economy depending on the nature of the initial impact. When one segment of the economy declares war on another segment, it will certainly be a vicious cycle that would be generated and the economy will start shrinking due to the removal of the segment which is being fought by the other segment.

Kautilya: A king who promotes conflicts will end losing revenue

Prior to Adam Smith, more than 2,000 years ago, Indian economist and statesman, Kautilya did not want to rely on such a fictitious force to bring stability to an economy because the final outcome of such natural forces would be disastrous to the smooth functioning of a state. Hence, he assigned that job to the king. If there is a calamity arising from conflicts among different segments in a state, Kautilya advised his king in The Arthashastra that “in the interest of the prosperity of the country, a king should be diligent in foreseeing the possibility of calamities, try to avert them before they arise, overcome those which happen, remove all obstructions to economic activity and prevent loss of revenue to the state”.

Kautilya’s advice is equally relevant to a modern economy and accordingly the arbiter of conflicts among different segments in an economy should be the state. If the state shirks its responsibility or fails to foresee the ill effects of the calamity, it will be the ultimate loser because as Kautilya has pointed out, it will lose its revenue sources.

The state should have an overall vision

Hence, the arbiter, in the present case the state, has to take an overall view of an economy in order to avert harmful conflicts that arise among different segments. The brain in a human body and the impartial spectator as pronounced by Adam Smith do so, because in each case, it is hard-wired to gathering information and capable of evaluating the same taking an overall view of the system it deals with.

But the king and the state have to learn it in the hard way by gaining capability of seeing beyond what they see with their naked eyes which give them only a very narrow vision. They have to understand and appreciate the useful roles played by different economic agents and the millions of economic transactions that have taken place in order to produce a given economic outcome. You remove one transaction from the chain and the whole process gets paralysed and you are the loser at the end.

The Buddha could see beyond the naked eye

The Buddha has been such a personality who had cultivated the capability of seeing beyond what the naked eyes would present to him. In the Aavaasa Sobana Sutra in the Anguttara Nikaya, he advised the Bhikkus to learn many Dharmas and gain capability of seeing beyond those Dharmas.

In the Dhajagga Sutra in the Samyuttha Nikaya, his advice to Bhikkus who are fled in fear of presumed evil forces present when they practiced meditation in forests was not to seek refuge from God Shakra because the God, not having rid himself of greed, hatred and delusion, was inflicted with fear himself; instead, they should reflect on the Buddha who had rid himself of these defilements. Ridding oneself of these defilements actually means seeing the reality from its overall perspective.

Prince Siddhartha: Producing rice involves millions of people

The Buddha had this capacity even before he attained the Buddha-hood. According to a story relating to Prince Siddhartha, his father, King Suddhodhana, had once asked the Sakya Princes whether they knew how cooked rice comes. One prince had said that when he sits at the table, rice is served to his silver plate with a golden spoon from which rice comes. Another had disputed him saying that rice comes to the golden spoon from a silver bowl. A third had explained that rice comes to the silver bowl from a copper pot in the kitchen. None of the Sakya princes could give a proper answer to the question raised by the king.

It was only Prince Siddhartha who had explained it fully: He had said that people in such and such village bring uncooked rice to the Palace kitchen in carts drawn by bullocks. Those bullocks had been trained by people in another village and carts had been manufactured by people in yet a different village. Then, people in another village had de-husked paddy into rice for those carters to transport to the Palace. Those people had got paddy from farmers from a village further down by preparing fields for its cultivation. The implements which the farmers had used for preparing the fields had been manufactured by blacksmiths in another village. The iron for the blacksmiths had been supplied by miners in another village. Thus, it was not a simple exercise of cooked rice serving with a golden spoon. There were millions of pre-activities that had enabled rice to be served in that manner.

Think of declaring war on blacksmiths and eliminating them because there is a fear that they would take over the farmers. First, the blacksmiths will disappear and then the farmers will disappear because farmers do not have the skills which the blacksmiths have cultivated in manufacturing those implements. Any attempt by farmers to manufacture these implements by themselves will result in less output in the field as well as at the smithy.

Mugabe doctrine: Promote conflicts and destroy yourself

This was shown amply in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. In order to remain in power forever, Mugabe pampered the nation’s nationalistic sentiments and promoted the taking over the farms of white planters by the native black people. But they did not have the skills to run commercial farms and pretty soon they ended in destroying the commercial viability of those farms.

The result was catastrophic: A country which had supplied beef to the UK and Europe prior to that ended as a nation that begs foods from others. The subsequent wrong measures of Mugabe to correct his initial mistake had earned Zimbabwe a historical record: That is, as the nation that had had the highest ever hyperinflation recorded in the recent history. Economists call such leadership “destructive leadership” because such leaders, blinded by narrow objectives, drive their nations to complete destruction.

The silence of those who know is the strangest in a Buddhist land

It is strange that a nation with a majority of Buddhists has not understood properly what the Master has preached. It is stranger when some in that nation commit unwholesome acts in the name of the Buddha for the protection of the esteemed Dharma he has left behind for the posterity to follow for their own good irrespective of whether they are his followers or not. But it is not the strangest thing to observe here in this Buddha’s land. That is the silence of those erudite Buddhists who know of the Master’s Dharma properly and failure to speak up when they see the worst type of economic hit man being armed and released to prowl freely. (W.A Wijewardena can be reached at waw1949@gmail.com.) (FT)

Home  ||  Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link) ||  Empowered by; FB Page  (Like us) ||  FB Group  (Request)|| FB Wall (Add)    ||

Pictures of Globalization & Capitalism

1/

2/

3/

Home

Match Fixing in football reflects corruption in wider society

Capitalism emphasises the material value over morality producing individuals who are willing to cheat, lie and break the law for personal or economic gain 

It is becoming increasingly and worryingly clear that nothing is sacred in the modern world. Society is being tarred by one scandal followed by another, be it politicians like Chris Huhne who openly lied about a speeding offence or police officers who lied during the “plebgate” affair. Trust is simply not there anymore. This is the sad reality of western society, where those who are meant to rule and implement justice are found wanting. It is hardly surprising that an ideology such as Capitalism, which emphasises material value over morality, will produce individuals who are willing to not only ‘bend’ the truth but break the law for personal or economic gain.

Capitalism not only produces the instruments to create a chaotic society but it also gives the masses plenty of distractions to not question the real problems of everyday life. The London Olympics was testament to this. Rather than question the billions of pounds spent on the games during a time of austerity people simply revelled in the pomp and ceremony. Similarly, commentators during the Mali and South Africa Africans Nations game continually referred to how much Mali, as a suffering society, needed the victory. As if winning a game of football could reverse the recent colonial adventure by the French into Mali.

For decades, sport has been full of scandals about cheating, drug taking and match fixing. However, it has always been easy to sweep this under the carpet as a foreign problem perpetrated by those outside the West. These foreigners are thought not to understand the gentlemanly rules of sport and in their pursuit of wealth disregard the spirit of the game. However, the problem of football match fixing – on a massive scale – has come to the very doorstep of those who lecture the world on fairness and honesty.

After seeing sporting heroes such as Lance Armstrong exposed as frauds, millions of sports fans are now coming to terms with the fact that their highly paid football players are not immune to the kind of backhanders more commonly practised by today’s politicians.

Corruption and bribery are nothing new and have been a part of societal life for thousands of years. Islam addressed this issue over 1400 years ago with the Prophet Mohammad (saw) condemning bribery in a hadith narrated by Abdullah bin Amur who said:

Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: “Allah cursed the briber (rashi) and bribe-taker (murtashi).”

Ahmad narrated from Tawban who said: “The Messenger of Allah (SAW) cursed the briber, bribe-taker and the mediator meaning the one who walks between the two.” [Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi and ibn Majah] 

These instructions from Prophet Mohammad (saw) condemned bribery at all levels ensuring that it is eradicated from all aspects of society. The impact of bribery on sport is largely trivial in relation to its corrosive effect on politics. This absolute prohibition of bribery is another example of legislation in the Shariah that will have a transformative effect on corruption ridden public life in the Muslim world re-establishing trust in officials and protecting the integrity of government institutions. (HTB)

Home    ||  Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link) ||  Empowered by; FB Page  (Like us) ||  FB Group  (Request)   || FB Wall (Add)    ||

The Decline of the Ottoman Empire: Politics and Economics

1/3


1/3; The Decline of the Ottoman Empire: Politics and Economics

Throughout Islamic history, empires rose and fell for 1400 years. The Umayyads, Abbasids, Mamluks, Mughals, and Ottomans are just some of the major dynasties of Islam that rose to prominence, achieved a golden age, and eventually fell and were only remembered in the history books. Ibn Khaldun, in his brilliant book on historiography, The Muqaddimah, states that “dynasties have a natural life span like individuals” and that “it [a dynasty] grows up and passes into an age of stagnation and then into retrogression.” The insightful words of Ibn Khaldun in 1337 hold true for the history of the last great Muslim empire – the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire began as a small state of Turkish sultans in Anatolia (present-day Turkey) in 1300. By 1453, they were a force to be reckoned with, controlling land in Europe and Asia, with a capital at Istanbul. By the mid-1500s, the empire had reached its zenith under Sultan Süleyman. At that time, it was by far the most powerful and largest empire in Europe, and also controlled North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of Persia. However, as Ibn Khaldun stated, this dynasty would eventually go into a time of stagnation, and finally decline. This post will analyze two factors that helped bring about the decline of the Ottomans from the 1500s through the 1800s – a weak and ineffective government and economic stagnation.

Government

At its height in the mid-1500s, the Ottoman Empire controlled North Africa, Southeast Europe, and the Arabian Pensinsula

From the birth of the Ottoman state under Osman Gazi through its period of unrivaled power in the mid-1500s, the center of the Ottoman Empire was always the sultan. The Ottoman Empire was a dynastic one, so when a sultan died, his son would become the new sultan. These early sultans all took great pride in their jobs and had a central role in the direction of the empire. Sultans oversaw governmental meetings, hired and fired officials, and personally led military campaigns to the edges of the empire.

However, there was one aspect of the sultanate that was never fully formalized – succession. The early years of the Ottoman Empire were beget by numerous civil wars, as sons would fight each other for power after their father had died. Usually it was not much of a problem, as the sultans would make it clear which of their sons they preferred. At other times, however, wars within the empire lasted for years and were horribly destructive to the power of the empire.

Seeking to solve this problem, Sultan Ahmed I (reigned 1603-1617) instituted a new system for choosing sultans. Instead of a sultan’s sons being governors within the empire until their father died, they would stay at the palace in Istanbul until their time came. In most cases, they actually were not even allowed to leave the palace. This essentially made them prisoners until they became sultans.

Sultan Ahmed I began a new system for picking sultans in the 1600s

While the intentions of Ahmed I were probably righteous, the effects of his policy were disastrous. Instead of sultans coming to the throne with experience in governance and policy, they were usually ignorant of anything but the pleasures of palace life. They were completely incompetent as rulers of a powerful empire. The 300 year old tradition of sultans being the powerful, resourceful, and able leaders of the Ottoman State was over. To give some context, the Ottoman sultans saw their job primarily as the commander-in-chief of the army. All Ottoman sultans led their armies into battle and saw that as a central aspect to their job. However, Sultan Murad IV was the last Ottoman sultan to lead his army into battle in 1638.

Despite their inexperience and incompetence, Ottoman sultans were still officially in charge of the empire. Thus, without education and knowledge of how to run an empire, they still had the power to direct the government. The result of this was a long period of complete administrative instability. Viziers (ministers) were appointed and fired at the whim of the sultan, leading to great difficulty in policies ever being put into place. Also, since experience and talent were no longer seen as necessary by the Ottoman sultan himself, those hoping to advance in civil service were not promoted based on skill. Instead, bribery and favoritism wreaked havoc on the Ottoman government.

With the rise of incompetent officials in the central Ottoman government, a process of decentralization began. Local governments gained more autonomy and showed less respect for the government in Istanbul. On a practical level, this meant less tax revenue sent to the central government, which meant a weaker government and military in general. All this occurring during the rise of the empires of Europe such as England, France, Russia, and Austria.

Economic

Going hand-in-hand with the political decline of the empire was its economic decline. Traditionally, one of the major sources of income of the Ottoman Empire was booty gained in war. As the empire reached its maximum size in the mid-1500s, that source of income dried up. Because of the empire’s large size, foreign nations were further and further away from the capital, making campaigns against those nations very expensive. So expensive, in fact, that it didn’t make economic sense to keep expanding.

Another economic aspect that affected the empire staring in the 1600s was inflation. In the 1500s and 1600s, Western European nations like Spain, England, and France were exploring and conquering the New World across the Atlantic. Their conquests brought them huge quantities of gold and particularly silver, particularly to the Spanish from Mexico. The Ottoman economy was based on silver. Coins were minted in silver, taxes collected in silver, and silver to government officials paid in silver. The huge influx of silver coming from America drastically devalued the Ottoman currency according to the economic laws of supply and demand.

These statistics show how bad inflation was in the 1500s and 1600s in the Ottoman Empire. In 1580, 1 gold coin could be bought for 60 silver ones. 10 years later, in 1590, it would take 120 silver coins to buy one gold. And in 1640, it took 250 silver coins in order to buy one gold one. This inflation caused prices across the empire to rise, hurting average citizens and the empire as a whole.

As this process of economic stagnation and decline continued throughout the 1600s and 1700s, the central government had to look for new sources of income. At the same time, European nations were gaining the upper hand over the Ottomans militarily, politically, and economically. As a result, a new policy of economic capitulations and concessions began. Capitulations were agreements between the Ottoman government and certain European governments (usually the French), giving the Europeans control over an entire industry within the Ottoman Empire in exchange for a one-time payment and/or diplomatic support. Because of the relative weakness of the Ottoman Empire compared to European nations, the Ottoman government had to enter into these agreements.

The negative side effects of these agreements were devastating. For example, in 1740, the Ottoman Empire entered into an agreement with France that gave French citizens the right to travel and trade in any part of the Ottoman Empire. With cheaper and better goods, they were able to start to push out local Ottoman merchants, hurting the economy in general. In addition to economic concessions, the capitulations also meant a loss of sovereignty for the Ottoman government. In that same agreement, the French were given full jurisdiction over their own citizens and all Roman Catholics in the Ottoman Empire. In effect, what this meant is that the Ottoman government had no authority to enforce laws on any of those people, even if they are with the empire’s borders.

The capitulations of the 1700s and 1800s were one of the biggest reasons for the decline of the Ottoman Empire during this time. This series of humiliating contracts put the empire in a position of subservience to European nations, which referred to it as the “Sick Man of Europe”. (lostislamichistory)

2/2; The Decline of the Ottoman Empire: Islamic Decline

In Part 1 of The Decline of the Ottoman Empire we analyzed the political and economic aspects of this great empire’s decline. In history, nothing happens for only one reason. The decline of the Ottomans was the result of a great many factors. Among the most important reasons are the social and religious changes in the Ottoman realm. This post will analyze the Islamic changes in the last decades of the Ottoman Empire in the 1800s and how they helped bring the downfall of the empire in 1922.

Religious Changes – The Tanzimat

From the very beginning of the Ottoman Empire in the early 1300s, Islam had been the basis of the state. The Ottomans built on the Islamic government traditions of the Seljuk Empire of the Middle Ages which prided itself on being the defender of Islam in its time. The Ottomans saw themselves in the same light. As the empire grew and expanded through the centuries, the Ottomans formalized their position as the defenders of Islam, with the sultans taking on the title of khalifah (caliph) of the Muslim world. The law of the land was the Shariah, the religious laws of Islam passed down through Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) in the deserts of Arabia in the 600s.

In the late Ottoman Empire, however, things began to change. With the political and economic rise of Europe in the face of Ottoman decline that was discussed in part 1, questions began to be asked about the direction of the Ottoman Empire. Many people within the government of the empire began to think that in order to become more powerful like the Europeans, the Ottoman Empire needs to become more like European nations.

These beliefs reached the level of the Ottoman sultan in the early 1800s. Soon, reforms meant to make the Ottoman Empire more European touched all aspects of Ottoman life. In 1826, sultan Mahmud II (reigned 1808-1839) instituted a clothing reform for all government officials. Instead of the traditional robes and turbans that sultans and government workers wore, they now dressed in European-style military clothes. Looking like the Europeans was not the only reform, however. Mahmud also abolished the ancient Janissaries, military troops that came from all parts of the empire. Instead, he began a new corps called the Nizam-ı cedid, which was recruited only from the empire’s Turkish citizens.

Mahmud II’s reforms only began the drastic changes that the Ottoman Empire would undergo in the turbulent 19th century. The changes would culminate in the Tanzimat reforms under sultans Abdülmecid in 1839 and 1856. “Tanzimat” means reorganization in Ottoman Turkish and that is exactly what these changes were: a complete reorganization of the Ottoman government. The Tanzimat were a series of laws that was meant to modernize the Ottoman Empire along European lines. The old system of a Shariah-based government was gone.  Islamic laws and norms were gone from the government. The fair and equitable Islamic social structure of the empire was gone.

Sultan Abdulmecid I, who instituted the Tanzimat reforms

Keeping in mind the political and economic problems the empire faced from part 1 of this article, the Ottoman Empire certainly did need to reform. It was declining fast in power in comparison to Western European nations. However, the path the Ottomans took was to erase Islam from the political structure of the Ottoman state. During this time, Europe had mostly gotten rid of religious influence in politics. The French Revolution in the early 1800s separated church and state and created a secular society. The power of the Anglican Church in English politics was nowhere near its former power. The pope in Rome was merely but a figurehead. The overarching idea in Europe at that time was that if you get rid of religion in general, you will become more successful. The Ottomans copied this same formula.

Some of the changes included: secular courts replaced Islamic judges, a finance system based on the French model, legalization of homosexuality, factories replaced artisans guilds, enforcement of an “Ottoman” identity instead of unique cultural identities, and the reform of the educational system to be based on a science/technology curriculum instead of traditional subjects such as Quran, Islamic studies, and poetry. While there were many other reforms that were necessary and did not change the role of Islam in the empire, many of the new laws were aimed at removing Islam from public life. The Ottomans brought in people known as “French knowers” from Europe to come and reform their society.

European influence was even seen in architecture. Dolmabaçe Palace, built by Sultan Abdulmecid was meant to look like European palaces of that time.

This attempt to remove Islam from public life left many within the empire feeling as if their traditions were being marginalized in favor of European norms that did not fit in the empire. The role of teachers, shaikhs, and Islamic judges was suddenly marginalized. Large segments of the population opposed the Tanzimat’s efforts to redefine their lives. Islamic rebellions against the government began in places such as the deserts of Arabia (the First Saudi State), Bosnia, and Egypt. The Ottoman Empire had historically used Islam to unite the diverse peoples of its lands, but with the removal of Islam, that bonding agent was slowly breaking away the empire.

Sultan Abdülhamid II

In the middle of all these changes and reforms regarding the role of Islam came a new sultan in 1876: Abdülhamid II. While he was in favor of the parts of the Tanzimat that did not contradict Islam and actually did benefit the empire, he was vehemently against the decline of the role of Islam in the empire. Since 1517, the Ottoman sultans were also the caliphs of the Muslim world, in essence the official leaders and protectors of Muslims worldwide. Most sultans had recently played down their roles as caliphs. Abdülhamid on the other hand emphasized the Islamic aspects of his job.

In the late 1800s, Sultan Abdülhamid II attempted to bring back the Islamic character of the Ottoman Empire.

During his reign, Abdülhamid built the Istanbul-Madinah railway which make travel to the Hajj for pilgrims much easier. During his reign, Istanbul was made a center of Islamic printing, producing thousands of copies of the Quran for distribution around the Muslim world. In 1889, he established a “House of Scholars” whose purpose was to promote the Islamic sciences across the empire. Perhaps his most daring and notable defense of Islam and Muslims occurred when the Zionist leader, Theodor Herzl offered Abdülhamid II 150 million pounds in gold in exchange for the land of Palestine. Abdülhamid’s response was legendary:

™Even if you gave me as much gold as the entire world, let alone the 150 million English pounds in gold, I would not accept this at all. I have served the Islamic milla and the Ummah of Muhammad for more than thirty years, and never did I blacken the pages of the Muslims- my fathers and ancestors, the Ottoman sultans and caliphs. And so I will never accept what you ask of me.

Despite Abdülhamid’s best efforts, the rising tide of European secularism was too great to resist. In 1909, the Young Turks, a liberal secular group, overthrew Abdülhamid and installed his brother Mehmed V on the throne. Mehmed was to have no real power as the control of the empire was in the hands of a group of three Young Turks called the “Three Pashas”. Abdülhamid II was the last Ottoman sultan to exercise any real power over the empire. Just 13 years later the empire would be destroyed in the aftermath of World War One, and the caliphate destroyed 2 years later in 1924. (lostislamichistory)

Home    ||  Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link) ||  Empowered by; FB Page  (Like us) ||  FB Group  (Request)  || FB Wall (Add)    ||