I have mentioned on here quite a few time how the "Middle-eastern front" in World War one is often overlooked and many do not know that a major part of world war one was the decimation of the ottoman empire.
However, something that has not been discussed, nor have I looked at is the Ottoman empire itself.
How was it run? Was it a force for good or evil?
Why did everyone want to break away?
I think we can all agree that the Armenian genocide was absolutely appalling, but other than that, what else was there (especially in the late Ottoman empire)?
Tags:
how was their run? good man, they were the last section of the islamic empire to be wiped out becasue of that hypocrit mustafa whatever the rest of his name is, they were very diciplined, did their best to keep the khilalfa and unity going but later on had to give up seeing certain parts of the islamic empire were heading towards evil like the mamluk empire
I am quite sure the mamlukes were centuries earlier? :s
Also, Attaturk and his actions to create turkey came after the decimation of the Ottoman empire - even the capital at that point was occupied territory. The Arabs had broken away too on the promise of a united arabia (is it karma that they got screwed over?).
Other places had broken away too.
But if they were such good people, would the people not have stuck with the Ottomans instead of wanting to break away?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
mamluks existed for a long time, one of the longest lasting islamic empires, as time went they started to get corrupted and after that the ottomans had to invade the mamluks to get them in the correctpath again for a while it worked until mamluks got corrupted again its here were ottomans realsied mamluks are now a lost and corrupted partof the ummah and not what they used to be so they gave up and just expanded on themselves which was actually a good move but as i said musta kamal ateruk corrupted the empire and the khilafa that hypocrit
as for the last bit, well if you look into the lfie of ali RA it states in his biography, people joined muawiyah not because they viewed him better they knew he was the false and the wrong one but even then they joined him because people had lost their loyalty in faith, if you look into the world today people do bad things because they think its fun and many other reasons, like commiting zina, just like that people of that time were blinded by the shaytan of doing things like watching women dance drink and many other bad things, the iman and belief and as ali RA clearly said people just lost their loyalty and faith in islam.
oh yes, I was confusing them with something else (their sultanate).
(I am more questioning the later Ottoman empire, not the earlier one. Let me preface by saying I know next to nothing about it.)
What about before Attaturks actions... was it good or bad then? The Armenian massacre had already happened...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
ottoman empire at one point were the strongest empire in the islamic empire, their helmet was designed as a turban, after the roman empire was weakened ottoman empire destroyed the whole empire, with roman empire not existing anymore one of the main threats was destroyed, but they had a lot of rivalries with christians and many other empires, their downfall like many islamic empires came when their final good amir died, and his replacement just didnt have what it takes to lead the army and its downfall started until finally benign overthrown by mustafa ataruk.
Alond with mamluk ottoman empire and the main islamic empire of saudi arabia abbasyd too was a very powerful empire along with the mughal empire.
As time went the unity got destroyed as the prophecy of muhammad SAW stated and all of them vanished.
(I had a better formed post, but firefox ate it.)
There was not unity for a long long time - even at the time of the Ottomans they were not the one and only Islamic/Muslim state. There was a single state during the khilafat rashida (well, not really - in the later years of Caliph Uthman, the years of Caliph Ali (ra) and then his son Imam Hassan (ra), there was disunity which disaperared under amir Mu'awiyah, but returned once again once his son came to power), and then maybe under some of the ummayyads, but that was not the case after that.
Either way, this is ignoring what I am trying to get at (which is probably due to my bad phrasing), which is not conquests or losses, but quality of life.
What was the quality of life for ordinary citizens like under the Ottomans? Why did many people/groups (like many Arabs) hate them? Were they despotic? What were their taxation/economic policies like? and their governance models.
Got any sources for such things?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
it did exist to some some extant, yes its true it was weak infact it was very weak, as you said the mughal empire actually tried to join the islamic empire they wanted to unite with all of the empires of the time but they all rejected not due to the fact that they didnt like them but the unity wwas weak but even then the unity was strong were they got along with each other and whenever one was in trouble the other came to help the others, so to this extant it was united although in terms of having one leader that obviously wasnt their.
However khilafa wasnt really their under yazid either, infact things got worse as time went until zubari RA became the first good khilafa after a while until he was killed, the khilafa finally returned through one of the great grandson of muawiyah RA who realised his family were wrong and their rule was wrong so what he did was he didnt select the next khilafa from his family but someone who was good and wasnt a member of his family, thats when things got sorted at last.
As for the ootman hate, im notsure about muslims hating them but according to some articles (which may be false) i do know some nonmuslims hated them one of the reason was probably due to their harshness, but other then that im not sure, i can only tell you their battle history in detail other then that i dont know much about them, im not sure if other muslim countries hated them but some nonmuslims did hate them a little.
As for the hassan hussain RA their is a interesting story which is unknown to many muslims is the fact that hussayn RA was actually killed by shia because they were going to be exposed by him, and this is not from sunni sources, this is actually from the shia source.
As for hassan RA he was the original pick for khilafa but to stop the killing and dieing of muslims he decided to give it to muawiyah RA.
Now back on topic as i said im not sure if other muslim countries hated ootman but some nonmuslims hated them a little, you can find articles of this online theirs quite alot, but again im not sure if the nonmuslim hatred for ottoman empire is a reliable one so again have to double check that.
anyway i'll talk to you tomorrow
asalamualaikum
OTTOMAN are idiots