What is your opinion on the Ottoman Empire/Caliphate

[Vacelere]

 

[Internet Nomad]

They have their positives and negatives many times they did things that they can criticised for being unislamic. But overall as an empire they were very impressive.

They were also able to incorporate many people from different backgrounds effectively which i think was what helped them last as long as they did.

 

[Somali Saayid]

How did the sultans not kills themselves having a 10+ different women playing court politics to trying to get her son on the other and make a new baby with you in the night

 

[Vacelere]

How did the sultans not kills themselves having a 10+ different women playing court politics to trying to get her son on the other and make a new baby with you in the night

Because the sultan ensured one son to hold all power and make him govern state close to the capital so he can rush an be the Sultan ASAP.

 

[Idilinaa]

They have their positives and negatives many times they did things that they can criticised for being unislamic. But overall as an empire they were very impressive.

They were also able to incorporate many people from different backgrounds effectively which i think was what helped them last as long as they did.

Came across this clip of a Pakistani historian was explaining this . It's kinda laughable when people like Douglas Murray try to imply that the ottomans were some sort of colonizing force similar to the British, they were not in any sort of way.


Edit:
the link might be blocked from sharing add this ''/@conflict.echoes/video/7383743794077895969'' at the end of www.tiktok.com

 

[EritreanPost_]

Came across this clip of a Pakistani historian was explaining this . It's kinda laughable when people like Douglas Murray try to imply that the ottomans were some sort of colonizing force similar to the British, they were not in any sort of way.


Edit:
the link might be blocked from sharing add this ''/@conflict.echoes/video/7383743794077895969'' at the end of www.tiktok.co

Empires are often colonial

 

[Idilinaa]

Empires are often colonial

It's true that they are formed through conquest. But they were not colonial.

The Ottomans did not engage in the same kind of economic exploitation, cultural imposition, or settler colonialism that characterized British colonialism.

The expansion was about consolidating control over strategic regions along trade routes rather than establishing distant colonies. The expansion was contiguous territories connected to eachother that allowed autonomy for different regions with central authority back in Anatolla, where as in the Biritish the expansion was non-contiguous seperated by vast regions and oceans.

The Ottomans managed a diverse empire through policies of religious and cultural tolerance, particularly for non-Muslim communities. The millet system allowed religious communities to govern themselves according to their own laws and traditions.
Even though they taxed the population they reinvested it back to benefit them and provided them with security.

Their motivations also differed in many ways, the British was motivated by racism (civilizing mission) to subjugate those different than them and impose their own ways on them. Ottomans were more motivated by the spread and defense of Islam.

 

[EritreanPost_]

It's true that they are formed through conquest. But they were not colonial.

The Ottomans did not engage in the same kind of economic exploitation, cultural imposition, or settler colonialism that characterized British colonialism.

The expansion was about consolidating control over strategic regions along trade routes rather than establishing distant colonies. The expansion was contiguous territories connected to eachother that allowed autonomy for different regions with central authority back in Anatolla, where as in the Biritish the expansion was non-contiguous seperated by vast regions and oceans.

The Ottomans managed a diverse empire through policies of religious and cultural tolerance, particularly for non-Muslim communities. The millet system allowed religious communities to govern themselves according to their own laws and traditions.
Even though they taxed the population they reinvested it back to benefit them and provided them with security.

Their motivations also differed in many ways, the British was motivated by racism (civilizing mission) to subjugate those different than them and impose their own ways on them. Ottomans were more motivated by the spread and defense of Islam.

I disagree walal.

The ottoman empire was a colonial empire. Cultural coexistance was the last thing the ottoman empire was known for.

Did u know that ottman empire has
conducted a genocide on 1, 5 million Armenians (the natives of east Turkey), transformed hagia Sophia church, imposed Jizya on
Zorostians, Christians and jews, persecuted Kurds, starved 100.000s of Maroni Lebanese Christians to death, persecuted Shia Muslims, enslaved and castrated black slaves (Zenji)

Did u know how many Shia and Christian Lebanese Syrians and Palis fled the ottoman empire because of the persecution.

Did u know that ottmans originally came
from Mogolia and invaded most of lands they captured

 

[Vacelere]

I disagree walal.

The ottoman empire was a colonial empire. Cultural coexistance was the last thing the ottoman empire was known for.

Did u know that ottman empire has
conducted a genocide on 1, 5 million Armenians (the natives of east Turkey), transformed hagia Sophia church, imposed Jizya on
Zorostians, Christians and jews, persecuted Kurds, starved 100.000s of Maroni Lebanese Christians to death, persecuted Shia Muslims, enslaved and castrated black slaves (Zenji)

Did u know how many Shia and Christian Lebanese Syrians and Palis fled the ottoman empire because of the persecution.

Did u know that ottmans originally came
from Mogolia and invaded most of lands they captured

Didn't the majority of empires did the same thing throughout history

 

[EritreanPost_]

Didn't the majority of empires did the same thing throughout history

Definitely. But I think the British and ottoman empire the most.

They are by far the biggest colonial empires that have existed since the human beeing and both used religion as pretext to conquer, chattel slavery, power, wealth and oppression

 

[Khaem]

View attachment 338692View attachment 338695

Based

 

[Vacelere]

Definitely. But I think the British and ottoman empire the most.

They are by far the biggest colonial empires that have existed since the human beeing and both used religion as pretext to conquer, chattel slavery, power, wealth and oppression

If we speak about the late Ottoman Empire I can agree especially after the CUP coup and the fall of sultan abdulhamid II but early and mid Ottoman Empire was actually good it defended the ummah from the Portuguese and rest of Europe.

I believe after the long Turkish war the Ottoman Empire will take slow turn to the worst

 

[Yabal]

As an Arab I see them as colonisers.

 

[Vacelere]

As an Arab I see them as colonisers.

Respect your opinion

but I see it funny when the Seljuk or mamluks or ottomans conquered Arabs land you guys calls it colonization but when ummayads and Abbasids and Omanis conquer another people you call it conquest or liberation.

 

[Khaem]

Respect your opinion

but I see it funny when the Seljuk or mamluks or ottomans conquered Arabs land you guys calls it colonization but when ummayads and Abbasids and Omanis conquer another people you call it conquest or liberation.

I agree late ottoman empire after the Sultans became puppets and the state was hijacked by turk nationalists was a sick state that needed to either reform or collapse for a new Islamic state to take over.

But the Hipocracy of Arabs when you talk about Turks or Persians is very clear. When Arabs invaded and took over MENA, you has cases like the Berber Revolts which took place due to Ummyaads abusing the Natives in their lands.

An Arab attacking these empires as colonial but calling their caliphates as simple missions to spread Islam is laughable. How many nations today are Turkish? How many countries today are Persian? They remained where they have been. Meanwhile Arabs have taken over much of Northern Africa and even settled placed in southern Iran

 

[wonyluvr]

An Arab attacking these empires as colonial but calling their caliphates as simple missions to spread Islam is laughable. How many nations today are Turkish? How many countries today are Persian? They remained where they have been. Meanwhile Arabs have taken over much of Northern Africa and even settled placed in southern Iran

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Idilinaa]

I disagree walal.

The ottoman empire was a colonial empire. Cultural coexistance was the last thing the ottoman empire was known for.

Did u know that ottman empire has
conducted a genocide on 1, 5 million Armenians (the natives of east Turkey), transformed hagia Sophia church, imposed Jizya on
Zorostians, Christians and jews, persecuted Kurds, starved 100.000s of Maroni Lebanese Christians to death, persecuted Shia Muslims, enslaved and castrated black slaves (Zenji)

Did u know how many Shia and Christian Lebanese Syrians and Palis fled the ottoman empire because of the persecution.

Did u know that ottmans originally came
from Mogolia and invaded most of lands they captured

That's exactly what the Ottomans were known for was their cultural tolerance especially in contrast to the Europeans.
The Jews for example were thriving inside the Ottoman Empire


I am aware of the Armenian Genocide and others stuff you mentioned but that was by the Young Turks they were a nationalist opposition movement against the Ottoman Monarch in 1914. I am also aware they collected Jizya tax, but thats because they didn't pay the obligatory Muslim Zakat tax.

The part about the slaves as well i have covered it, it was more or less a trickle trade that pulled from all types of races not just Zenji and the same slaves had social mobility. It's nothing like the European colonial chattle slavery system at least before the 19th century.

Yeah i am aware that Ottomans were a nomadic turkic group that expanded into the area , this is not the same as settler colonialism.

 

[Idilinaa]

As I said you have your opinion I have my mine.

If a tribe settles into another part of the continent, wipes out ethnicities (living there Kurds, Armenians, maronis, Shias, this has nothing 2 do with normadic lifestyle but Invasion and ethnic cleansing.

Look how the demographics looked like in turkey before the Ottomans arrived. Kurds lived their, Armenians lived their, Turkey used to be Christian majority country bynzantine, and turkey had also large alevite population, the ottoman conquest has completely changed that.

The Turkish-arab slave trade was very racially motivated unlike pan arabs and Turkish nationalists like 2 claim. Black slaves had no rights, they were castrated, and their women raped, whereas white slaves from east Europe became part of the ruling elite in the ottoman empire or were freed from slavery after they adopted Islam.

I don't think its fair to characterize the entirety of Ottoman history with a nationalist rebellion that happened in the closing years of World War 1.

Enuchs that you are talking i.e castration that you mentioned came from all sorts of groups, Most of the early enuchs were white and some from other turkic groups even, there was no mass slavery during the middle ages either. Slavery was a trickle trade and only a few individuals was bought and sold by limited wealthy elites.

The Black Enuchs even wielded power and some even had important high positions within the Ottomans empire, rose to become emirs, viziers and courties.

Once upon a time when Africans wielded power in the Ottoman Empire​

https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/once-upon-a-time-when-africans-wielded-power-in-the-ottoman-empire-32031

Also the Ottomans didn't castrate them, it was slave traders that did

Contrary to the popular notion, the African eunuchs who worked for the Ottoman state were not castrated since the practice is forbidden in Islam. As per many historical accounts, Africans were generally castrated by slave traders who later sold them to the Ottoman rank and file. Once enrolled in the palace, they were sent to schools and universities for formal education.

Systematic importation of Black slaves didn't really feature heavily in the Muslim world until the 19th century, same with plantation slavery and it's clearly of western capitalist influence

At a time when slavery was largely accepted in the Western world, the Ottoman Empire opposed it, especially the Atlantic slave trade to the United states, the Caribbean and Central and South America, where slaves generally worked in agricultural fields and coal mines. In Istanbul, however, Africans had access to power corridors of the Ottoman Empire as they worked with the imperial elite.

 

[Internet Nomad]

The tradition of fratricide to ensure stability and way to maintain power is evil. It was common in the ottoman empire.

 

[EritreanPost_]

I don't think its fair to characterize the entirety of Ottoman history with a nationalist rebellion that happened in the closing years of World War 1.

Enuchs that you are talking i.e castration that you mentioned came from all sorts of groups, Most of the early enuchs were white and some from other turkic groups even, there was no mass slavery during the middle ages either. Slavery was a trickle trade and only a few individuals was bought and sold by limited wealthy elites.

The Black Enuchs even wielded power and some even had important high positions within the Ottomans empire, rose to become emirs, viziers and courties.

Once upon a time when Africans wielded power in the Ottoman Empire​

https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/once-upon-a-time-when-africans-wielded-power-in-the-ottoman-empire-32031

Also the Ottomans didn't castrate them, it was slave traders that did


Systematic importation of Black slaves didn't really feature heavily in the Muslim world until the 19th century, same with plantation slavery and it's clearly of western capitalist influence

So I see you are supportive of the ottman empire.

Lets turn the angles.


If hostile country to
Somalia, like Ethiopia would take over somalia, annex Somalia, impose religious tax (Christian jizya), convert people by force, enslave Somalis in mass or kill 1, 5 million Somalis. You wouldn't like that.




There is a reason why Eritreans Djibouti and somalis oppose Ethiopias history.


Now imagine the ottoman/Mongol empire did all of these mentioned things to the people of the middle east Africa Asia and southern Europe.

1, 5 million Armenians died, Coptic Christians died, Maronis in Lebanon were starved, Shias were persecuted in Syria Lebanon and Iraq, Alevites in Turkey, and the many black slaves.


And u still believe black people didn't make
A large number of the enslaved peoplee in the middle east, then wonder why there
Are millions of
Black people in Saudi, Iraq, Pakistan, 1000s in Syria Pali Turkey Iran.


If u think the arab and ottman slave trade were not racially based why were black slaves on the bottom castraded or raped why were eastern European slaves becaming rulers in ottman empire


Why did Iraq had 100.000s of
Black slaves in the 10th century.

Why were African soldiers over represented during the Iberian-magreb war?

Why do middle eastern countries
Still call black people as Zanj, discriminating afro arabs and why are they not recognized as ethnic
Minorities

_