Making a connection while reading Halil Inalcik's 'The Ottoman Empire' Bayan Al Momani
I keep on remembering the university lecturers who taught us literature English or American; they insisted that we should look for authentic events while reading novels. They stated frequently that what we read is a definite mirror of what was going on at that time, and we should find the connection. I as many of my colleagues realized that the strings in the books we read not just at the university, but at anytime have roots in the past and linger their strings to the present time. I am not a historian, nor even a writer; I am just someone who enjoys reading books and inadvertently while reading thinks that there is something familiar. THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, THE CLASSICAL AGE 1300-1600, HALIL INALCIK a very interesting book (a history book) in fact it is captivating, and while reading it one once again realizes that history is connected to the present. Writing about something needs many references, but I just would like to write about what I thought to be interrelated with social or political events that are taking place nowadays in this book. They are four things, two social and the other two political. First thing I thought to be related socially to many societies all over the world is the decline in the quality of scientific research. There are many people who consider themselves scholars by just reading few things or even simple handbooks. Although Halil Inalcik provides in a way different example, but the problem is the same. Inalcik says, as early as the 1540s Taskopruluzade1 was lamenting that scholastic theology and mathematics had lost their old popularity among the ulema (scientists) in the medreses (schools) and that the general level of scholarship had fallen. He complained that books on the theoretical sciences were no longer sought after and that the ulema considered themselves scholars after reading only simple handbooks. They attached importance not to sciences such as theology and Koranic exegesis but only to the worldly aspects of Islamic law or to composition or anecdotes. The writer shows the reason for doing so, and it was for acquiring worldly positions. The second factor tangles with the first one and that is having fanatics as ulema. Inalcik states that since the fifteenth century the Ottomans had been adopting and imitating .famous Turkish scholar 1
1
European geography, military technology and, especially medicine without anyone raising religious objections. The practice of adopting the useful aspects of foreign cultures is much older than the so-called 'Westernization' of the eighteenth century, since these had no influence on the fundamental values of Islam. The ulema and medrese circles came to take a firm stand against novelties both in the practical and in rational sciences. That made it extremely difficult for the Islamic world to benefit from scientific development in the west. A few individuals from the bureaucratic class had the courage to translate works on geography and medicine from western languages. It has been claimed that Mehmed the Conqueror had taken an interest in Italian renaissance culture but that was halted after his death. The writer goes further on that in Ottoman society there was always a class of fanatical ulema who regarded the intellectual sciences, mysticism, music, dancing and poetry as impious; against these was a class which defended them as coming within the scope of religion. The fanatics were usually the popular seyhes and ulema who preached and taught in the mosques. As if we are reading about the fanatics of the 21 st century, everything well, almost everything is preached by the devil and we are all going to hell. All the bitter and ironic conflicts in the Middle East is sponsored and cherished by fanatics, who helped extremists to form deadly sects by the name of religion. Taskopruluzade complained bitterly of these ulema who exploited the people's ignorance the astray: 'God preserve us from those who show fanaticism in religion.' He believed that each man is free to choose his own religious school and that to regard one's own school as indisputably correct and the others as false, and to attribute unbelief to any Muslim is contrary to true religion. Only God can recognize true faith. Third thing which is much related to fanaticism is political besides being religious. The Ottoman Empire, of all Islamic societies, was the one most open to foreign cultural influences; but from the beginning of the sixteenth century the forces of religious fanaticism became increasingly powerful. Inalcik gives the reason, the diminishing influence of the frontier traditions and the growing consciousness of the empire's status as a classical caliphate must have had their effect on this movement. The Kizilbas movement, a deadly weapon of Safavid Iran against the Ottoman Empire, may have been a contributory cause. They were tribes adhered fanatically to dervish orders which professed a form of Islam profoundly modified by tribal customs and shamanistic beliefs, while the Ottoman regime upheld the cause of Sunni orthodoxy. The tribes clothed their anti-Ottoman social and political aspirations in the garments of heterodox belief, becoming known as kizilbas-red head- from the red head covering which they wore. A.Baltacioglu, wrote a paper Turning
Kizilbas, Turning Safavid: Pro-Safavid Propaganda in Anatolia During the 15 th and 16th centuries, she says, the main methods utilized by the Safavids included the dispatching of religious agents, or halifes; circulating books, poems, and objects; making marriage alliances; supporting political and social upheavals; and encouraging migration to Safavid Iran with the lure of lands and titles. Significantly, in the second half of the sixteenth century pro-Safavid propaganda intensified to an extent that the Ottoman central authority switched its focus from born kizilbas to kizilbas converts as a response to ongoing pro-Safavid efforts. In an Al-Monitor article on Dec.7, Metin Gurcan discusses Turkey's latest and controversial move near Mosul that aroused the fury of Iraqi Prime Minister in Baghdad and brought Kurdistan Regional Government President to Ankara. Gurcan entitled his article 'Are Turkey and Iran reviving a 16th century conflict?' I can take only parts of the article to relate to Halil Inalcik's book, Gurcan writes taking history into account; it may be seen as no more than a replay of perennial Turco-Persian or Turkish-Iranian rivalry in and over Mesopotamia. Ottoman Turkey and Safavid Iran fought over Mesopotamia for the control of today's Iraq several times in the 16th and 17th centuries. The safavids, a Turkish dynasty that once ruled what is today Iran, declared Shiism as the state religion of their empire. Until Shah Ismail transformed the empire in the land of ancient Persia, its subjects were predominantly Sunni. Adding to the theological dimension of the matter, ever since the first half of the 16 th century, Shiite Iran and Sunni Turkey have been geopolitical rivals, and their competition mostly has been reflected over the territory and the communities of Mesopotamia. Baghdad itself changed hands several times. It was under Safavid rule between 1508 and 1534, before it fell into Ottoman-Turkish hands in 1638. Fourth thing is the Janissaries, whom only strong willed sultans such as Mehmed the Conqueror or sultan Selim could effectively control. With the institution of the kafes where princes were imprisoned, the Janissaries came to be tools in the intrigues of the valide sultan and the harem agasi and the grand viziers became the playthings of these two forces. From the seventeenth century the seyhulislams and the ulema often made common cause with the Janissaries, gaining the power to overthrow viziers and sultans. To give their revolts a semblance of legality, the Janissaries needed the seyhulislam fetva. At the present time turkey went through many military coups the last one took place in 2016, a coincidence, maybe it is, still there is a connection based on the book. I think it is up to the reader to decide. Military coup happened in different parts of the world though I believe that a king or a sultan should have-for granted- his army as a trusted shield.
These are only observations made through reading Halil Inalcik book that is filled with enchanting information of the great Ottoman history. At the same time makes you relate some events to personal, regional or international events. There is one thing I noticed that made me think of those who keep on nagging on developing one's personality and mind. The Ottoman society wasn't interested in change but in preservation of the existing order. So while a rapidly developing and humanistic Europe was ridding itself of all forms of medievalism, the Ottoman Empire clung ever more zealously to the traditional forms of neareastern civilization. As early as the fifteenth century there had been some European observers who sought to describe objectively the ottoman state, religion and culture, while the ottomans, convinced of their own religious and political superiority, closed their eyes to the outside world, and that was according to Inalcik the main reason for the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Which reminds me of Maya Angelou's 'when you know better, you do better.'
This situation is a good field for those self-development trainers to give their
lectures and say this is what happens when you stop learning or stop looking for knowledge. So, each book has its own story and lessons to give whether it was a novel or a history book. In my opinion, history never seizes to surprise us because even at the present, it will tell you the same story in another way.