The Ottoman Empire is not colonialism

Many people think that the Ottoman Empire was a western colonialism due to their national and patriot tendency. They only look at the Ottoman period of deterioration in compare to the democratic application in Europe and USA, ignoring the people of the third world which politically and economically affiliate to them.

The emotions of vulnerability and weakness which the Muslim countries suffered due to oppressions and pains might lead us to fall into many mistakes, whereas judging a country which its rule lasted for six centuries entails far horizons and comprehensive details.

Prof. `Abdur-Rahman `Azzam -the former Secretary of the Arab League- said:

"If the matter had been gloomy as those -who are fooled by the effects of the role of decadence represented in: Using sectism, jealousy among elements, and violence to cover their weakness- think, it would not have lasted for six centuries including two hundred years during which they had no power over their dominance[1].

The opposite view was adopted by Muhammad `Abdullah `Anan in his book entitled "Islamic Egypt" in which he attacked severely the Ottoman Caliphate and said that the Islamic Egypt did not know during its entire history distresses and catastrophes as occurred during the Ottoman opening to Egypt because of the hit received by Islam during that period. He likened the behavior of the Turk to the actions of bloodshed, enormous vandalism initiated by Hulagu and Tatar by crushing the Abbasid state and Islamic civility then resumed by Tamerlane in the late fourteenth century.

He also considered the missions which Sultan Selim sent of scholars and skilled craftsmen to Constantinople an exile and the transfer of books and precious monuments to Constantinople destruction[2].

Sheikh Mustafa Sabry intervenes to correct this information: Most these books were religious and scientific manuscripts and the Sultan transferred them out of his admiration and care for them after Egypt had become part of the Ottoman empire and there is no difference between it and Constantinople. So, how could he compare between the action of Sultan Selim and Hulagu who throw the books of Baghdad into the Tigris and Euphrates?!

As for transferring Egyptian scholars, leaders, and skilled craftsmen, it is not counted an exile but to be of the close people and to benefit the entire empire because Muslims are equal regardless their nations and nationalities, and the purpose of Sultan Selim of opening Egypt but unifying Islamic Egypt and Turkey.

However, if `Anan believes that Turks seized Egypt from the Circassian Mameluke rule, they themselves seized it from the Marine Mameluke rule who were originally Turks. At that time, Egypt was not under the Arab rule who opened the country for Islam and the purpose of the opening was not to empower the Circassians, the Egyptians, and the Arabs[3].

The truth is: We do not approve these images of competition and control because we do not put them in their historical context in which they occurred, whereas it is in fact subject to international custom (at that time), then we object because this custom forms a continues law that regulates the relationship between the strong and the weak.

Let us assess the current international reality, was it different from what was happening in the near and distant history? The Third World countries are divided between two countries: Russia and USA, and countries in the past missed mass media that portray things other than what they are, and the minds of their rulers were not the same savvy as colonialism which invented forms of colonialism and domination under the names of "custody," "Mandate," and others! Or placed nominal regimes under the name of socialism, democracy, and Commonwealth to deceive the people, keep them busy, and mislead them by ruling themselves, but in fact they are subject to the super powers.

Back to the views of Sheikh Mustafa Sabry which he stated to defend the Ottoman empire, and he quoted from the book of Dr. Anklhard: "The history of the Ottoman Empire developments" some words stating that "Islam which has been the founder of the Ottoman government remained an absolute ruler over the government where the civil law has been united with the Qur'an." Then he revealed the intentions of the Christian countries of Europe, which has been working to undermine the Ottoman Empire force for five centuries, and when they failed, they followed the trick of turning the spiritual role of the Ottoman government to the material one as took place in the Christian world[4].

That was the main reason for the hostility because Europe has been in the case of ongoing wars since the era of the Seljuk Turks because of their certainty of the real Ottoman role in the defense of the religion and the Muslim countries which cannot be separated by nations, color, or race. During the crusade wars which started since the time of the Seljuk Turks, Europe was attacking and Seljuk were defending, then conditions changed and Ottomans were attacking and the Europeans were defending and Europe kept taking into consideration their role because they unite the Muslim world under their banner and confront the European colonial fatal danger.

So, the relationship is not the same between colonial power and occupied countries, and perhaps one of the strongest proofs to that is as soon as the separation of the Arab state after the success of the revolution under the leadership of Sharif Hussein, but success turned to be a disaster for the peoples because the Arab revolution, which broke the Ottoman protection, contributed in the break of the Ottoman power which stood in the face of the colonial ambitions which flowed like torrential floods that destroy everything and everybody, or like wild animals which attacked their victims fiercely when they had seen that the fence between them and their victims fell apart.

To compare between the events which took place consecutively and what the Ottoman did with non-Arabs, let us ask ourselves: Can we call that colonialism? Prof. `Abdur-Rahman `Azzam said:

"When the Ottomans arrived to Eastern Europe, which was eternal prisons for breeding peasants to bondage, they broke the chains of prisons and established in their places individual freedom, so they eradicated the system of feudalism and aristocracy to be replaced by a free citizen system and equal care of rights. Hence, the Circassians and the Sicilians slaves have reached the highest positions in the state as clever laymen reached higher positions and high authority, and the Eastern Europe learned the supremacy of law at the hands of their liberators[5].

These values negate the charge of colonialism from the Ottoman state, so what was the Western role with us? Perhaps we shock the reader as we were shocked by the fact which "Mentskjo" wrote in his book "The Spirit of Laws" in which he said:

"If I was asked to defend our acquired right to take Negro as slaves, I say: After the peoples of Europe had eradicated Native Americans, it did not see any harm in enslaving the peoples of Africa to use them in the exploitation of all these spacious countries. The mentioned peoples are only black groups that you cannot pity and it is not imaginable that Allah (Glory be to Him) who is Wise can place good spirits in black bodies."[6]

---

[1] Taken from an essay in "Al Ahram," dated 10/22/1944, entitled: "The last Caliphs", cited from the great writer Sheikh Mustafa Sabry (1: 86).

[2] Ibid (p: 84).

[3] Ibid (p: 85).

[4] Ibid (p: 81).

[5] Ibid (p: 86).

[6] Translated from French by Dr. Mohamed Awad Mohamed in his book "colonialism and colonial doctrines" (p. 37), Dar Al Ma`arif in Egypt in 1957.