Ottoman empire - islamic or not?

[TiLK]

Hello.

I am not very good in history in fact, but I know some things. In islamic history there is one huge state which could be considered to be islamic state as Muhammad proscribed - Ottoman empire (many nations together in Islam, sharia). But in the other hand we know there was many events when this empire didn't really behave in the religious way (forcing people to Islam, expansion wars, "jihad" against Europe..). What do muslim theoretics generally think about Ottoman empire? What does this state mean for you?

I said I am not so good in history. So I think I will read more than write in this thread

 

[Idris16]

THEY WERE ISLAMIC I THINK, IF IT WAS YOUR QUESTION.

 

[mezeren]

Hello.

I am not very good in history in fact, but I know some things. In islamic history there is one huge state which could be considered to be islamic state as Muhammad proscribed - Ottoman empire (many nations together in Islam, sharia). But in the other hand we know there was many events when this empire didn't really behave in the religious way (forcing people to Islam, expansion wars, "jihad" against Europe..). What do muslim theoretics generally think about Ottoman empire? What does this state mean for you?

I said I am not so good in history. So I think I will read more than write in this thread

hi Tilk,
yes,ottoman empire was an islamic state.they conquered lands of three continent and they spreaded the massage of islam.i don't know where you get the information about them forcing people into islam,but that was never the case.all the wars they had were within the frame of islamic jihad.when mehmet the conquerer captured the istanbul he himself declared the freedom of religion,property,etc.all the churches remained free and open except hagia sophia which was turned into a mosque as a symbol of the conquest.ottomans ruled some parts of europe for centuries and never forced any nation into islam.only the bosnians became muslim and it was not by force.
when jews discriminated,tortured and sent into exile,it was ottomans that accepted them.and when the state was weak and near to its end and in financial crises,jews offered sultan abdulhamid huge amount of money to buy palestine lands,he rejected them saying the lands belonged to muslim world and would never sold any peice of it.
as a turk myself i am proud of ottoman empire because of what they did for islam.

 

[Phoyage]

:salam2:
I agree with Brother Mezran
As for the expansion wars:
If they didn't expand there country then there won't be alot of muslims.
If they expanded (which they did) people there would see the muslims upclose.
See how good there deen is and become muslim.
For the Jihad against Europe:
For the same reason as up.
Anyway Europe was the main reason of the fall of the ottmani khalifa (even though it was very weak at that time)
And Allah Knows Best

 

[Abel213]

Ottoman empire was islamic for a time, but eventually the adopted European dress, laws and customs which led to their demise. Their peak was when they followed Islam vigorously. They are most notable for vanquishing the Roman empire and taking Constantinople.

 

[AAminAA]

Hello.

I am not very good in history in fact, but I know some things. In islamic history there is one huge state which could be considered to be islamic state as Muhammad proscribed - Ottoman empire (many nations together in Islam, sharia). But in the other hand we know there was many events when this empire didn't really behave in the religious way (forcing people to Islam, expansion wars, "jihad" against Europe..). What do muslim theoretics generally think about Ottoman empire? What does this state mean for you?

I said I am not so good in history. So I think I will read more than write in this thread

:salam2:

I'll give you some great videos about Islam, how it's spread, who are otomans( part 3 ), what the world got from muslims. Muslims in Spain... I never watched something better believe me , It's very god so take your time and enjoy watching


Islam: Empire of Faith -Part 1
[vg]4222791480425043142[/vg]

Part 2
[vg]7502243539190558658[/vg]

Part 3 ( Ottomans )The best part
[vg]94144204270367302[/vg]

 

[Turk Gumption]

Selamun Aleykum

After Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror had invaded Bosnia, he offered the locals, religious freedom as a result of Ottoman governmental policies. In his firman (1478) addressed to the Latin priests, Mehmed the Conqueror says :

"I Sultan Mehmed Han, All the people from lower and upper classes should know that, I order this to the Bosnian priests who are carrying this firman that: No one shall disturb or interfere with those priests or their churches. All the people who are unaware of this order or all the people who run away from my country can come to our lands and to their churches. Neither me nor my viziers shall disturb those people. I sware on the name of Allah, on the name of Mohammed, on the names of seven holy books, on the names of 124.000 prophets and on sword I wore, no one shall oppose those priests who will obbey my authority and who will serve my country."

As it is seen in the pertinant firman, all the minorities living under Ottoman rule had enjoyed freedom equally.

 

[MESUT KUMRU]

ottoman empire = turkey

selamunaleyküm

ben türküm . ve türkler osmanlıyla gurur duyarlar çünkü onlar bizim atalrımızdır.
ve 1000 yıldır türkler islam'ın bayraktarlığını yapmştır ve islam'a en çok hizmet eden millet türklerdir.zaten omanlı olmasaydı tarih diye birşeyde olmazdı


selamunaleyküm esenle kalın ALLAH'a ısmarladık

 

[Zafran]

salaam

there are things that th Ottomans did which are not islamic

1 - Harems.....marrying more then 4 wives or atleast keeping more then 4 women.

2 - Brother killing brother - when te sultan would die one of the brothers would give the order ot kill his other brothers so he could be the next sultan.

3 - wars for expansion - I mean conquering foriegn lands and using the excuse thats its for religion.

4 - enuchs or castrated slaves were used to prtect the harems

Lets just say that the ottoman empire wasnt the best example of an Islamic state - My opnion would be that it wasnt very islamic.

 

[xSharingan01x]

Hello.

I am not very good in history in fact, but I know some things. In islamic history there is one huge state which could be considered to be islamic state as Muhammad proscribed - Ottoman empire (many nations together in Islam, sharia). But in the other hand we know there was many events when this empire didn't really behave in the religious way (forcing people to Islam, expansion wars, "jihad" against Europe..). What do muslim theoretics generally think about Ottoman empire? What does this state mean for you?

I said I am not so good in history. So I think I will read more than write in this thread

TilK, I suggest that you learn Islamic history from Muslims and our classical scholars, rather than oreintalist. IMO, they are professional enemies of Islam (because of their biased and prejudice toward Islam and Muslims). You will hardly find an exception, save a few.

The way Islam spread was very simple. The shahabas prior to conquering land and would give the people 3 options.
1. They would invite people to join Islam, and if the people accepted they and their wealth would be left alone, and they would be treated like any other Muslims.
2nd. If they reject Islam then the Shahabas would offer them to be ruled by Muslims, in which case they would be obligated to pay the Jizya.
3rd. If they rejected the first 2 options then it would be war.

Freedom of religion was nonetheless upheld after a land has been conquered.
The shabas did not conquer land to take resources and reduce people to poverty and slavery, they conquered in order to spread the religion. Because of their conduct and truth of Islam (in many cases even Christians were happy to be ruled by Muslims, rather than Byzantium Christians), people eventually came to accept Islam.

Do not compare the way Islam spread to the way European empires spread.
There is a huge difference between the two.

Back to OP: As far as I know about the Ottoman empire, they first started following the Sharia and fighting fisabliliah (famous ottoman ghazis).
However near the end of their empire, they indulged in luxuary and became loose in their practice, which ultimately lead to their demise.
They compromised so much with the Kuffars even putting their own security at risk. (making very compromising treaties with European powers of the time)
They also had alot of internal problems.

 

[daywalker]

However near the end of their empire, they indulged in luxuary and became loose in their practice, which ultimately lead to their demise.
They compromised so much with the Kuffars even putting their own security at risk. (making very compromising treaties with European powers of the time)
They also had alot of internal problems.

thats true and as a result al-saud family got the control over saudi arabia.

 

[TiLK]

The way Islam spread was very simple. The shahabas prior to conquering land and would give the people 3 options.
1. They would invite people to join Islam, and if the people accepted they and their wealth would be left alone, and they would be treated like any other Muslims.
2nd. If they reject Islam then the Shahabas would offer them to be ruled by Muslims, in which case they would be obligated to pay the Jizya.
3rd. If they rejected the first 2 options then it would be war.

What is unusual about this behaviour? Majority of aggressors gave to the other side the opportunity to subordinate, and if they did not accept it, they started to fight.

Freedom of religion was nonetheless upheld after a land has been conquered.
The shabas did not conquer land to take resources and reduce people to poverty and slavery, they conquered in order to spread the religion.

So the reason for the expansion was to spread Islam religion, right? Is this according to Islam teaching? I asked in my 1st post if Ottoman empire was islamic state or not. Is it a duty for islamic state to spread Islam (peacefuly or with sword)?

Back to OP: As far as I know about the Ottoman empire, they first started following the Sharia and fighting fisabliliah (famous ottoman ghazis).

I dont know much about ottoman history but it seems to me that one of ottoman empire leaders Sultan Mehmet IV In July 1683 (thank you wikipedia ) officialy opened jihad (holly war) against Europe. I know there is more meanings of jihad. For example fight against myself (to be good muslim) and so on. But as far as I know jihad can be opened only as a defensive war - so did he mistaken when he opened it?

 

[xSharingan01x]

I dont know much about ottoman history but it seems to me that one of ottoman empire leaders Sultan Mehmet IV In July 1683 (thank you wikipedia ) officialy opened jihad (holly war) against Europe. I know there is more meanings of jihad. For example fight against myself (to be good muslim) and so on. But as far as I know jihad can be opened only as a defensive war - so did he mistaken when he opened it?

The correct word is Fisabelilah (fighting in the cause of Allah). I dont like using the word jihad, it has become such a political term nowdays.


Sultan Muhammed (Mehmet) was the leader who was mentioned in the book of hadeeth.
“salvation in the Hereafter for the first participants of Jihaad on this city (Constantinople), and their commander (Sultan Mehmet) as a better commander and their army as a better army”.

The wars between the Romans and the Muslims simply didn't start with Sultan Mehmet. It goes back to the days of the prophet.
The wars between Muslims and the Romans, and the Muslims and the Persians were undertaken during the time of Abu Bakr. When he became the Khalifa he opened two fronts, one against the Persian (sassanid empire) and the other against Byzantium Roman Empire.
Example: Battle of Yarmuk against the Romans, lead by Khalid bil Walid.

If you study the books of histories (Islamic history), which I suggest you do.
If you do ever read the book, keep in mind the book contains some narrations that are weak (not Sahih).

(The begining and the End by Ibn Katheer is an excellent book).

Then you will come to the conclusion that the war against Persians and Romans was not a defensive Jihad, rather offensive. It was the Muslims who provoked the Persians and the Romans into fighting.
I don't see any reason why Muslims need to be apologetic about the how Islam spread in the lands of former Persian and Roman empire.
The Sahabas (RA's) had a clear understanding that they will be fighting the Romans and the Persians.
That is the reason why Abu Bakr wasted no time in sending out armies against the Persians and the Romans, even though the Muslims at the time were weak, small in number, and were dealing with many internal problems.
The Prophet SWA spoke of defeating.

1. O my people! You are about to conquer Egypt. Keep the welfare of the conquered people in view. You shall have to abide by the divine covenant that their life and property and their honor should be protected.

2. Kisra (Khosrau, King of Persia) will die; there will be no Kisra after him, and Qaisar (Caesar, King of Rome) will die; there would be no Qaisar after him, but, by One in Whose Hand is my life, you will spend their treasures in the cause of Allah. 12

There are few other hadeeths concerning Persians and Rome, but you get the point.

Keep in mind, this is not how Islam spread in other place. Central Asians eventually adopted Islam after the invasion of Tatars.
The Tatars (Mongol/turks) eventually accepted Islam, even though they were conquers, as a result their people accepted Islam also.
Elsewhere, in the Indian Sub-continent, Malasya, Philliphines (up untill the time Spanish conquered the area) Indonesia. West Africa,etc These people eventually came to accept Islam, without any Muslim army going there or any wars being fought.


Present day it's only defensive wars against the Kuffars who are trying to conquer Muslim lands. So in places like Checnya, Somalia, Kashmir, Palestine, it is defensive Jihad.




To answer your question. Yes the war was opened to establish the rule of Allah SWT on the land. Establishing the rule does not mean forcing people into Islam. There is a clear distinction between the two. The people who undertook in Fisbaelilah against the Persians and the Romans, are according to us, the finest human beings after the prophets of Allah. The Sahabas (companions of the prophet), ruled with dignity, justice, and humility on the land. You can find the examples by studying about some of the Sahabas, such as Umar bin Al Khattab, Abu, Bakr, and the Sahabas who were appointed as governors, over newly annexed states.
This principle was kept alive by many later Muslim leaders. Just to give you an example.
This is the treaty between Sultan Mehmet and the Bosnians.

AHDNAMA OF THE FATIH SULTAN MEHMET

MEHMET THE SON OF MURAT KHAN, ALWAYS VICTORIOUS!

THE COMMAND OF THE HONORABLE, SUBLIME SULTAN'S SIGN AND SHINING SEAL OF THE CONQUEROR OF THE WORLD IS AS FOLLOWS:

I, THE SULTAN MEHMET - KHAN INFORM ALL THE WORLD THAT THE ONES WHO POSSESS THIS IMPERIAL EDICT, THE BOSNIAN FRANCISCANS, HAVE GOT INTO MY GOOD GRACES, SO I COMMAND:

LET NOBODY BOTHER OR DISTURB THOSE WHO ARE MENTIONED, NOT THEIR CHURCHES. LET THEM DWELL IN PEACE IN MY EMPIRE. AND LET THOSE WHO HAVE BECOME REFUGEES BE AND SAFE. LET THEM RETURN AND LET THEM SETTLE DOWN THEIR MONASTERIES WITHOUT FEAR IN ALL THE COUNTRIES OF MY EMPIRE.

NEITHER MY ROYAL HIGHNESS, NOR MY VIZIERS OR EMPLOYEES, NOR MY SERVANTS, NOR ANY OF THE CITIZENS OF MY EMPIRE SHALL INSULT OR DISTURB THEM. LET NOBODY ATTACK INSULT OR ENDANGER NEITHER THEIR LIFE OR THEIR PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY OF THEIR CHURCH. EVEN IF THEY BRING SOMEBODY FROM ABROAD INTO MY COUNTRY, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO.

AS, THUS, I HAVE GRACIOUSLY ISSUED THIS IMPERIAL EDICT, HEREBY TAKE MY GREAT OATH.

IN THE NAME OF THE CREATOR OF THE EARTH AND HEAVEN, THE ONE WHO FEEDS ALL CREATURES, AND IN THE NAME OF THE SEVEN MUSTAFAS AND OUR GREAT MESSENGER, AND IN THE NAME OF THE SWORD I PUT, NOBODY SHALL DO CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, AS LONG AS THEY ARE OBEDIENT AND FAITHFUL TO MY COMMAND.

MAY 28th 1463

 

[Amir_of_spain]

Asalam wailkium. I agree with many of the comments posted on here but everyone needs to remember one important thing. When we refer to any Islamic Empire, whether it be the ottoman turks or persia safavids or mughals of India and the great Ummayads, the reality is there were periods where the dynasty/empire was Islamic and also when it was unislamic. This depends on which periods you are looking at because now we are refering to centuries of rule, so one may pick and choose a good period and say see look at how islamic they were, but there were also times of bad leaders, future generations who slacked in imaam, so hence one can say see how unislamic they were. So you cant really answer this question.
The other subquestion of opening the european lands, this was correct according to Islam because religiously we accept that people can have other faiths but there is no acceptables on any non-islamic governments, only the rule of Allah should be established throughout the world. Thus when the muslims conquered the romans and persians they didnt force conversations, instead the insisted by force the rule of Allah. Now going back to the Ottomans, from history they realised the christain cruaders represented a huge threat to the muslim holylands, and because the turks were bordering with them on the western front, there were repeated battles with them. Finally the Sultan made a decision that he won't wait around for fresh new forces to some point come and attack them, so he launched a offensive. The muslims arabs also did the same and reached just 100 miles from Paris in the 7th century until they were stopped. The ottomens were stopped after taking 1/3 of Europe. So thats the facts folks, people dont mention it alot in our times because of politics but thats how the sahabah expanded religion through dawah and jihad, used each type when it was necessary.

 

[Zaynab123]

hello

as it was said by many memebers, ottoman empire was islamic. when non muslims teach or talk about history they hide the fact, and they made people hate islam by saying they forced people to convert to islam. otoman empire was lots of nations. they were many nations under Allah subhana wata'ala. and thats how muslims should be, brothers and sisters helping one another. what happened after the collapse of the ottoman empire? well, muslims are been terrorised. the world has never been peacful after the collapse of ottoman empire. insha Allah(god willing) we are hoping for the appearance of Imam mahdi and the world would be peaceful once again. and by the help of our lord we would be one nation under the law of Allah subhana wata'ala(shari'ah). no money would be wasted rather it would be spented on the poor.

 

[zulfikar]

The political conditions undered the three biggest 'islamic' emperor which ever conquer the world ( Umayyah, Abbasid, and Ottoman) were very similar with my country undered president Soekarno and president Soeharto. There were distinct and separate of the wills between the government and the people. So they weren't live longer untill present day. Now they are already extinct. and couldn't defended the glory of islam. Umayya gived more concern just for power, politic, and military capability. The Abbasid very concern about property and treasure. Ottoman very concern about women.
Islam couldn't be glorify by power, treasure and women.

 

[xSharingan01x]

The political conditions undered the three biggest 'islamic' emperor which ever conquer the world ( Umayyah, Abbasid, and Ottoman) were very similar with my country undered president Soekarno and president Soeharto. There were distinct and separate of the wills between the government and the people. So they weren't live longer untill present day. Now they are already extinct. and couldn't defended the glory of islam. Umayya gived more concern just for power, politic, and military capability. The Abbasid very concern about property and treasure. Ottoman very concern about women.
Islam couldn't be glorify by power, treasure and women.

Saalam,

Compairing the Ummayad, Abbasid, and Ottoman empire to military dictator Suharto is very unfair, brother. We all know who supported and armed Suharto.


There are many great things Ummayad, Abbasid, and Ottomans accomplished, let us not forget that because of the mistakes they made.
Yes they were Islamic and at the same time some of their actions or policies might have not been Islamic.

Just think about it for a moment, those who criticize these Musilm empires, are mostly kuffars and orientals. With the exception of the political chaos that followed in the early days of Ummayad and during the time of Yazid, these 3 empires didn't do much to harm Muslims or there welfare. Infact, I would argue the rights and freedom the Muslims enjoyed during their reign is unmatched in any other period of history.
I mean come on back then I wouldn't need a passport to travel from one corner of the Muslim world to another corner., just "ashadu an la ilaha il lal la" that's it.

The represents the peak of freedom for Muslims.





If I had a choice I would personally live under Abbasid rule

 

[xSharingan01x]

Sorry for the double post.

 

[Mabsoot]

ASsalamu alaykum,

The Ottomans played a great and valuable role in Islamic history. They were great Muslims.

They helped with taking Islam into Europe as well as keeping Muslim lands safe for 100s of years.

There were many great heroes from Turkiye, for example Heyredin Babarosa and many others. You should look into their lives. They were exemplary characters who would defend the rights of Muslims and also non-Muslims! They had the best navies and would do brave acts of kindness, putting their lives at risk, by freeing slaves and prisoners from fortresses. They helped 1000s of Muslims and Jews escape the murderous pillaging of the Inquisition by sailing ships to Spain and doing daring raids to rescue people.

Ottomans were at their height, very good Muslims. Islam is for ALL people, whether they are European, Indian, Pakistani, Arab or as the Ottomans were, Turkish. -- Although, we need remember that the Ottomans were much more than just being "Turkish", as Muslims they welcomed people from different races and backgrounds to be with them.

I was speaking yesterday to an Old Palestinian man, he is from Tulkarem in West Bank. We discussed the Ottomans and he explained how they had originally bought Muslims to Jerusalem many 100s of years ago. THey had helped people from places as far as Yemen and Morocco to settle there. That is why, if you go to Jerusalem or what was the OLD JERUSALEM, (before the Zionist Jews destroyed those areas) places such as the "Moroccan quarter" etc.

And, I read from extract, I think from book "Silsilah ahadith ad-daeefa" with regards to an unauthentic hadith about Arabs, what Shaykh Albani (rahimahullah) said, that Islam is not dependent on Arabs. Yes, the Prophet was Arab and many of his companions. They were chosen by Allah because they were the best of people, in character, manners and their obedience to Allah etc

But, Islam's honour is independent of Arabs or any race. It is simply based on Taqwa, Piety. When the Muslims are pious, then Allah bestows upon his favours and grace. If, however, they fall away from Islam and start doing things that are not good, then they will lose this status that Allah gave them.

This is what happened with the Muslims in Andalus and in the Middle East, it is also what happened with the Ottomans.

Allah help all the Muslims and make us return to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of his Messenger AMIN

From what I have seen, Islam is really gaining strength in the Muslim countries, especially in Turkiye. The people love Islam a lot there and care for other Muslims much, which is nice to see. Although, unfortunately there are still many problems, not just limited to the Secular people, but including those who promote incorrect teachings of Islam, such as the Naqshbandi sufis and their cousins, the Alevi Shia who spread Shirk and Bidah.

Whether we speak about the past or today, the issue of our success is the same. It is of little use complaining, rather constructing our lives and those of our families around Islam properly. When we can love and implement Islam and call people to worshipping Allah alone, and doing their Islamic actions only as was revealed in the Quran and Sunnah, then we will have success!!

This is what our website here, is made for, it is just a small step, but inshaAllah a meaningful one, so that Muslims can unite upon truth and regain the honour that Allah had once bestowed upon us, so that we can live our lives as Muslims and have justice.

Ya Allah give us that success, Amin.

 

[Amir_of_spain]

nah bro .. the best rule and glory was the Ummayads.... from spain/southend franc to india.. ohhh beat that... at this peak, Khalif Al Waleed was the supreme leader of half the world. If he didnt stop the armies in the west, they would have took france, crossed the english channel and occupied Britain. Furthermore, when the ummayads did collapse, the entire splendour of the empire was brought back to life in Al Andalus... a feat unsurpassed by any previous islamic power.

UMMMMMMMMMAYADS