When was there a Government representing the single "Ummah"?

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

In another thread, in a post that the mods decided to delete, a post stated that my sense of history is warped, and the Ottomans represented the entire muslim ‘ummah’. My understanding was that after the Khalifa-Rashidun, there have always been more than one center of power or more than a single Khalifa. In the times of the Ottoman Empire, Persians were ruled by a separate muslim state that was more often than not at war with the Ottomans. That is one of the reasons given by historians why the Ottomans were not able to expand into Austria. Then there were the Mughals in India who did not owe allegiance to the Ottomans, but considered themselves to be equals. The Uighurs, the mongols, etc. were ruled by a separate muslim state which did not owe their allegiance to either the Ottomans, the persians, or the mughals. Then there was a separate muslim state in the far east.
Now as far as numerical strength goes, the Ottomans rules over less than 40% of the muslims. Now the former areas constituing the Ottoman empire contains about 30% of the mulsims world wide.

Do I have the historical facts wrong? So when was the last time in history that there was a single center of Islamic power?

2

Re: When was there a Government representing the single "Ummah"?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
That is one of the reasons given by historians why the Ottomans were not able to expand into Austria. T
[/QUOTE]

Who said they couldn't expand into Austria and the reason for it's failure is "kismet"? As far as I know they did expand into Austria but mainly into the main city Vienna being their main target. The heart of Austria and the rest would have been piece of cake but Ottmans had to be history one day and so they had their defeats one by one.

3

Honestly, does it really matter? It's ancient history now. You should be worried about when your American Oil Empire will fall, just like all other empires before it.

4

Ali: Ottomans laid siege to Vienna twice. It was not Kismet that the Ottomans were not successful. Any good source on Islamic history will tell you that a lot of the Ottoman resources and efforts were being expended at fighting the Persian Shah (also an Islamic state of that time).
Imdad: It is ancient history, and the reason I bring it up is that many posters and people bring up history and keep mentioning that before the westerners there was a single Islamic state ruling the entire Ummah. Not learning from history, usually means we are condemned to repeat it endlessly. There is absolutely no doubt that in the early 1500's, it was the Muslim states that were the Super Powers of that time. Ottomans were the central rulers of their time. The Europeans were on the fringes of the "civilised" world and essentially barbarians. In the last 500 years, we now arrive at a situation that if you discount the income from oil, then the former Ottoman Empire countries produce less than Finland, a small country by any measure! The prescription being forwarded by some is that the way out is to pick a fight with practically all the known powers of this time (USA, Russia, Europe, China, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc) and at the same time forward a totally untried and unthought political proposition of a single Islamic state. Emotionalism has its place, but totally ignoring all facts and rationality? Where is that going to lead us?

5

Yes you do have them wrong. Please explain to me where were any of these regimes existing in isolation or as you say at war with each other. The Islamic empire existed within seperate rulers but as one society and community. I would really like to know where you got the information that the Ottoman and Persians were at war half the time.

6

CM:
The real references are Esposito’s encyclopedia and Bernard Lewis history of the Arabs and his latest book (2002) that is titled ( I think) what went wrong or some thing like that. But here is something I found on the web giving the dates of many wars that the Turks have been involved in. Most of the documents cited are from the Ottoman Empire documents itself. The turkish historians, and court chronicles etc.

Notice the Egyptian Revolution of 1805-11. Before this the Ottomans fought to bring the Marmulkes of Egypt under their power. That was fairly extended fighting. The Turko-Persian War of 1821-23. For many years the Turks and the Persians would not even trade “Ambassadors”. If you want I will PM you passages out of the historical texts that give references to original documents and stuff. Or just go to the nearest library and see for yourself.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Lodi Sultanate in India owed any “loyalty” to the Ottomans? Or they were willing to accept the Suzerenity of the Persians?

Serbian Revolt 1804-6
Egyptian Revolution 1805-11
Janissaries’ Revolt 1805
Russo-Turkish War 1806-12
Janissaries’ Revolt 1807-8
Ottoman Reoccupation: Serbia 1813
Serb Revolt in the Ottoman Empire 1815-17
Turko-Persian War 1821-23
Greek War of Independence 1821-32
Massacre of the Janissaries 1826
Russo-Turkish War 1828-29
First Egyptian War 1831-33
Bashir II’s Secession 1832-40
Second Egyptian War 1838-41
Walachian Revolution 1848
First Turko-Montenegrin War 1852-53
Crimean War 1853-56
Austrian Occupation: Romania 1854-7
Damascus Massacre 1860
Second Turko-Montenegrin War 1861-2
Cretan Uprising 1866-68
Bulgarian Uprising 1876
Serbo-Turkish War 1876
Russo-Turkish War 1877-78
Prizren League Resistance 1878-81
Armenian Massacre 1895
Cretan Uprising 1896
Albanian Nationalism 1897-1902
First Greco-Turkish War 1897
Macedonian Insurrection 1902
Ilinden Preobrazhensko Uprising 1903 Anglo-Ottoman Border Dispute 1904
Yemeni Secession 1904-11
Cretan Independence 1905
Macedonian Communal Violence 1906-7
Moldavian Uprising 1907
Young Turks Revolt 1908
Albanian Uprising 1910
Albanian Uprising 1911
Italo-Turkish War 1911-1912
First Balkan War 1912-13
Young Turks Coup 1913
Second Balkan War 1913
Saudi-Ottoman War 1913
World War I 1914-18
Armenian Genocide 1915-17
Armenian Rebellion 1919
Turkish War of Independence 1919-23
French Occupation of Syria 1919-20
Second Greco-Turkish War 1921-22
Kurdish Rebellion in Turkey 1925
Dervish Rebellion: Turkey 1930
Korean War 1950-53
“Enosis” Campaign in Cyprus 1952-59
Turko-Syrian Border Incidents 1957
Cypriot Civil War 1963-64
Cypriot Crisis 1967
Turkish Invasion: Cyprus 1974
Second Kurdistan Movement 1979-95
Turkish Military Coup 1980
Turk Assimilation: Bulgaria 1984-5

7

Here is another quick look into the question of wars on the web:
http://www.islamnow.com/docs/warsviolence.html

This site is run by (Professor Mohamed Ibrahim Elmasry, a world expert on microchip design) as he puts it himself on his site. Notice the 110 years he lists for the Turko-Persian wars. Notice this list does not include any wars between the lodi’s and the mughals etc. in india or between the lodi’s and afghans either. When Nadir Shah of Persia sacked Delhi and took the peacock throne, who was he fighting? Non-muslims?

136 Years of Muslim Civil and Religious Wars:

  • Muslim Civil Wars (657-1108) 51 years

  • Muslim Dynastic Wars (1196-1200) 4 years

  • Ottoman Civil Wars (1403-1559) 16 years

  • Mamluk-Ottoman Wars (1485-1517) 7 years

  • Ottoman-Druse Wars (1485-1517) 7 years

  • Afghan Civil Wars (1948-1995) 46 years

  • Somalian Civil War (1989-1995) 6 years

205 Years of Wars by the Muslim Powers:

  • Turko-Ottoman Wars (1400-1473) 73 years

  • Turko-Persian Wars (1473& 1747) 110 years

  • Turko-Egyptian War (1823-1841) 12 years

  • Iran-Iraq War (1980-1989) 9 years

Conclusions

  • The Muslim powers were involved in 341 years of civil and religious wars and acts of violence.
  • The Christian powers of Europe were involved in more than 1700 years of wars and acts of violence, civil and religious wars in Europe, and wars of power/expansion in Europe, Asia and Africa.
  • European powers caused 60 million deaths in World War I & II alone (including civilians).
  • The top nations involved in wars were as follows:
  • Britain (16 wars) * France (15 wars)
  • Russia (13 wars) * Italy (9 wars)
  • Japan (7 wars) * USA (6 wars)

References:

  1. G.C. Kohn, “Dictionary of Wars”, Anchor Books, 1986
  2. D. Eggenberger, “A Dictionary of Battles”, 1967
8

old lahori

the wars you list are at the decline of the islamic state. when nationalism was filled into the minds of these balkan states by the likes of britain and france is it any surprise these instigated rebellions took place.

The uthmani khilafah was great warrior and had formidable army unfortuantly they did not consolodate there conquests i.e build the thoughts and emotions of the people they conquered. Instead they conquered land after land without any consolidation. This made rebellion and instigation very easy.

The islamic state was represented as one state at all times regardless of problems here or there al states face war and problems it was none the less one state. The only time that the state was officially split was when al andulus(spain) claimed to be seperate and the disaster that happened there is all to well known.

And today anything less that unity of the ummah is a disaster and a need for one state is urgent if you don't belive that then just look at the ummah today with its divided states who cannot even agree on the start of ramadhan.

9

ak47:

CM wanted to know about the Turko-Persian wars. The turkish site does not start till the late period of the Ottoman Empire. You are right about that. It only gives wars between 1800 and 1999. The case of Spain that you point out is accurate. It was under the Ottomans, and as a matter of fact for the Ottomans of that time Spain was a minor province on the fringe of their empire. That event was not considered nearly as important for them as it did for the Christian Europe. However, the Persians were never part of the Ottoman Empire.
* Turko-Persian Wars (1473 & 1747) 110 years
Notice the first wars around 1473. That is not near the end of the Ottomans period. Similarly, Lodi Sultanate and the Mughals were not part of the Ottomans or the Persian Shah empires. As a matter of fact, Ottomans sent an emmisary to Hyumayun's Court asking for allegeance. The Moghul basically laughed it off. Ottmans were the Islamic state for the middle eastern countries, but Persia and east of it never came under the Ottomans. Again remember Sher Shah Suri of the Grand Trunk road was an afghan and it was fight between the Mughals and him. Then the raid of Nadir Shah, a persian, stand out in South Asian History.
I am not saying muslims should not unite! They should, but don't deny history and start lying to each other.

10

CM: Here is another site that give a view into the Ottoman- Persian rivalary. History of that period is fascinating, and worth the read.
Idealization of the Ottomans is not going to provide anyone any answers why the middle easterners find themselves dead last in todays world.
Unfortunately no one wants to read or hear the truth. Please let me know if you want further references. I really would like to hear from any one of the usual Khalifa supporters that post on this site. I really would like to learn from them which historical sources they use, and what benefit do we accrue by spreading a false history.

http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/history.htm

…
Sultan Selim immediately began operations against Shiite rebels who had strong support in Anatolia. Forty thousand of them were killed in battle and later, at the Battle of Childiran, Shah Ismail was routed. The provinces of Dulkadiroghoullari, Marash and Elbistan were siezed. The Mamelukes were totally defeated at Medjibadik in 1516 and at Ridaniye in 1517. In addition, Syria, Egypt and Hejaz came, administratively, into the Ottoman Empire.
…

In 1603, while the Ottomans were fighting with the Austrians, the Iranian Shah attacked and the second war with Persia began. The war ended with an agreement that the Shah would pay 200 yuks (an ancient unit of weight) of silk to the Emperors each year. War again broke out when this agreement was broken but it was an inconclusive affair in which neither side gained the upper hand.
…
In the East, anarchy in Iran was brought to an end by Shah 'Abbas I, who not only restored Iranian power but also conquered Iraq (1624) and threatened to take the entire Ottoman Empire. Though Murad IV was able to retake Iraq (1638), Iran remained a major threat.
…

11

Here is a little blurb about how the Ottomans Khalifa fought and suppressed the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia back in the early 1800’s. This ofcourse was not the last time that the Turks and to go put revolt down in the Hejaz. There is even the time in the late 1800’s when the Imam of Mecca gave a fatwa declaring Turks as Kuffar and authorized killing and taking them as slaves. The Turks dealt with that quite harshly.

History is absolutely amazing! The more you read the more you learn.

http://naqshbandi.org/ottomans/wahhabis.htm
Struggle with the Ottomans

In 1801 the Wahhabis captured and sacked the Shi’ite holy city of Karbala in Ottoman Iraq, and in the following year Sa'ud led his father's army to the capture of Mecca itself in the Ottoman Hejaz. It was soon after his return from this expedition that his father was assassinated by a Shi'ite in the mosque of Ad-Dir'iyah in revenge for the desecration of Karbala. (see also Index: Ottoman Empire)

The issue was now joined between the Ottomans and the Wahhabis of Arabia. In 1804 Sa’ud captured Medina, and the Wahhabi empire embraced the whole of Arabia down to Yemen and Oman. Year after year Sa’ud visited Mecca to preside over the pilgrimage as the imam of the Muslim congregation. But the tide was soon to turn to his disadvantage. The sultan of the Ottoman Empire, preoccupied in other directions, consigned to Muhammad (Mehmet) 'Ali Pasha, the virtually independent viceroy of Egypt, the task of crushing the “heretics.” An Egyptian force landed on the Hejaz coast under the command of Tusun, the youthful son of Muhammad 'Ali Pasha. Sa’ud inflicted a severe defeat on the invaders, but reinforcements enabled Tusun to occupy Mecca and Medina in 1812. The following year Muhammad 'Ali assumed command of the expeditionary force in person. In the east, Britain severely curbed the naval allies of the Wahhabis in 1809.

Sa’ud died at Ad-Dir’iyah in 1814. His successor, his son 'Abd Allah ibn Sa’ud, was scarcely of his father’s calibre, and the capture of Ar-Ra`s in Al-Qasim by the Egyptians in 1815 forced him to sue for peace. This was duly arranged, but the truce was short-lived, and in 1816 the struggle was renewed, with Ibrahim Pasha, another of Muhammad 'Ali’s sons, in command of the Egyptian forces. Gaining the support of the volatile tribes by skillful diplomacy and lavish gifts, he advanced into central Arabia. Joined by most of the principal tribes, he appeared before ad- Dir’iyah in April 1818. Fighting ended in September with the surrender of 'Abd Allah, who was sent to Istanbul and beheaded. Local Wahhabi leaders were executed, Ad-Dir’iyah was razed to the ground, and Egyptian garrisons were posted to the principal towns. The Sa’udi family had suffered heavy losses during the fighting. A few had managed to escape before the surrender; the rest were sent to Egypt for detention along with descendants of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. The Wahhabi empire ceased to exist, but the faith lived on in the desert and in the towns of central Arabia in defiance of the new rulers of the land. (see also Index: Dir’iyah, Battle of ad-)

Copyright © 1994-1997 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

“Arabia: THE COUNTRIES OF ARABIA: Saudi Arabia: HISTORY: The Wahhabi movement.” Britannica Online.
http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=macro/5000/24/64.html
[Accessed 02 February 1998].

12

Oldlahori

Khilafah did not exist after the kalifa e rashideen were gone. There had been various diff kingdoms as well as various groups vying for rule in this monrachy since then.

No one else destroyed khilafah, the powers that be of these empires did.

13

Thank you Pir Sahib. I think I said the same thing, but I was told I had a warped sense of history because I had been in US too long. I was trying to clarify that. Do you know what was the extant of the lands under those Khalifa's? I have not been able to find a good map.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by OldLahori: *
Here is a little blurb about how the Ottomans Khalifa fought and suppressed the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia back in the early 1800's.

Copyright © 1994-1997 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

[/QUOTE]

The wahabbi movement was legitimate group in islam, but the bin saud clan took over and with military and monetary support from the british they continued to fight the islamic state this classes them as rebels and with rebels what do you do you neutralize them.

Its unfortunate the encyclopedia britannica does'nt wish to tell the whole truth of this event and how britian supported the bin saud clan but what do you expect from colonial history.

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *

The wahabbi movement was legitimate group in islam, but the bin saud clan took over and with military and monetary support from the british they continued to fight the islamic state this classes them as rebels and with rebels what do you do you neutralize them.

Its unfortunate the encyclopedia britannica does'nt wish to tell the whole truth of this event and how britian supported the bin saud clan but what do you expect from colonial history.
[/QUOTE]

ak47:
Where do I get the real history as you see it. I would like to know more about it. Do you have a book, or a reference? Even if it is in Urdu, Farsi, or Arabic, I am interested. What was the whole truth. It is now getting to be 200 years ago. Unfortunately it is as true as ever that who controls history controls the past and one who controls the past controls the future. I am always hesitant to beleive the British historians about that region because they clearly had a bias and a reason to lie. The old American historians are better, but the modern and recent American historians: again I take them with a grain of salt since they might have a bias. So if you have a source with Arabic or persian historians that cite original sources that would be marvellous. The closest I have been able to come is the Turkey has the documents of the Ottomans preserved and are getting them translated slowly. So one can get to read the original correspondence at the Ottoman court etc. The bitish supported the Saud clan in the late 1800's and the early 1900's. I am not sure that britian had penetrated the Hejaz in the early 1800's. The passage I gave is for the early 1800's. Anyway, please if you have references let me know.