Islam in the Ottoman Empire

Islam in the comfort empireTHE ISLAMIC CHARACTER OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIREIn what ways was the queen pudding stone Islamic?________________________________________________________________________ section I doorway This paper seeks to make an analysis of the ways in which the hassock Empire was Islamic. It seeks to establish the relationship amongst the fag Empire and Islam, the religion on which it was founded.Part IISummary At the core of this narration is the occurrence that the nature of enforcement of Islamic tenets in the length and breadth of the Empire unplowed shifting with time. Although Islam and the Ottoman Empire were inseparable, since the very foundation of the Empire was Islamic, the true(a) manner in which Islam was compel in the Empire varied in relation to time and geographical space. The pattern in which Islam was enforced adapted from that of a brutal version at the beginning of the Empire to ace that moderated greatly as the decades and centuries progress ed. In other words, the dispensation shifted from Jihad to Dhimma. 1 The nature and reasons for this transfiguration forms the heart of the paper. Moreover, Islam in its unadulterated form could not be enforced in a monolithic, homogeneous fashion in all the centuries of Ottoman rule, because the territories they governed were vast and disparate. In view of this complex scenario, this paper, due to the severe constraint of space, takes up only two important verbalisms of Islam that were more than or slight a constant in the Empire as it grew the treatment of non- Moslem subjects, and of women. In these, an overwhelmingly large part is devoted to the former, because judicial system enjoyed greater primacy, term the latter is referred to in passing. On handbill of this dearth of space, a funny element of the Ottoman Islamic military, the Janissaries, is left out.Part III password The ascendancy to power of the Ottomans took place in the backdrop of the waning of dresser of t he Seljuk dynasty, the sovereign power of Asia Minor until thence.2 In the given situation, since the semipolitical situation was very volatile, and opportunity was afforded to building an empire to one who succeeded in this unstable milieu, what was needed was brute force to achieve these ends. The period power saw a novelty the formation of a band of savage and rapacious men calling themselves the Ghazis. Fanatically dedicated to Islam, these warriors derived their authority from the Islamic conceit of Jihad Holy War. The earliest Ottomans were typical examples of Ghazis. This concept enabled the Ottomans, who till then had been an insignificant vassal of the Seljuk dynasty, to now establish their authority in the region. This is how the establishment of the Ottoman Empire was based entirely on a primitive interpretation of and resort to militant Islam. (Turnbull, 2003, p. 10)From these beginnings, over the years, the Ottomans displayed towards non- Islamic subjects a perce ive of tolerance that would put Europe to shame. During the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, when events such as the Inquisitions were becoming milestones in Europes history3, the Jews found refuge in the Ottoman Empire. This was the predominant destination to which the persecuted Jews milled, and were able to practice their way of disembodied spirit without any hindrance. A Hapsburg ambassador in the court of Suleiman the Magnificent had this to ordinate about the Ottoman Sultans attitude towards his empires non-Muslim subjectsIt is by merit that men rise in the service, a schema which insures that posts should be assigned to the competent . . . . They do not believe that eminent qualities ar either natural or hereditary . . . , but that they are partly the gift of God, and partly the result of good training, great industry, and . . . set . . . . Honors, high posts and judgeships are the rewards of great ability and good service. This is the reason that they are successful in their undertakings. (Levy, 1992, p. 15)Reasons for the change in attitude Some major(ip) reasons can be attributed for this benign treatment of these subjects. As inheritors of the pristine tenets of Islam, these rulers considered Christian and Jewish people their theological predecessors on account of this, although the book of account was considered the concluding and purest revelation, the same Koran, the ultimate fountainhead of wisdom to the Muslims, also placed upon Muslim rulers an obligation to protect their non-Muslim subjects, under the covenant of the Dhimma. (Levy, 1992, pp. 15, 16) For this protection, these subjects had to pay a tax, and were compulsory to live under somewhat restrictions, such as acceptance of Muslim superiority, macrocosm banned from riding animals that Muslims rode, and being made to wear distinguishing dresses or badges. (Lewis, 1982, p. 5) Other restrictions included being obliged to build houses lower than those of Muslims, being proscribed from residing in the neighbourhood of a mosque, and allocation of the place of dissension resolution between minorities.4 (Gek , 1996, p. 35)However, essentially, as pointed out by Lewis (1982), during the course of their history, the Ottoman Turks outgrew their initial tendency to maraud and slaughter at will, and were predisposed towards building an empire through a well-knit system of administration that derived from the Koran over the years, they graduated to retaining their warm relationship with non-Muslims out of practical considerations. (Lewis, 1982, p. 5) For example, in intimately of the lands the Ottomans ruled, Christians and Jews had lived for centuries. Where conversion of these people, especially the numerically superior Christians was impossible, forcing conversion would close to certainly dupe invited revolt because of this, most Ottoman rulers decided that it was wiser to contribute these minorities to their own religion. In addition, allowing them to practis e their own religion also gave the administration much needed taxes. In this sense, the presence of the minorities was actually an advantage to some Ottoman sultans. These minority religious groups usually were classified under a system of local administration called the millet. Literally translating to nation, these units were helpful in belongings the Sultan informed about the state of affairs of the minorities. (McCarthy, 1997, pp. 127, 128) As a result, although there were some infrequent tensions in the form of humiliation and derision, by and large, the relationship between the Muslims and non-Muslims in the entire length and breadth of the Ottoman Empire, almost throughout the six centuries of its existence, was characterised mostly by goodwill, making the Empire a medley of various religions and cultures. This contrasted starkly with the ghettos and exile of the Jews in Europe. The occasional(a) strains that arose were more for economic and social reasons rather than purely religious. (Lewis, 1982, pp. 5-7)Women in the Ottoman Empire When it came to their treatment of women, the Ottomans derived from the various traditions they inherited, and Islam was one of them. While the lineage was patriarchal, their regional and tribal inheritance showed up in various aspects of their relationship with women, as precisely described here the Ottomans did make rational choices and draw upon a number of traditions in establishing the imperial household. The legacy of acquiring women through raids most likely came directly from a central Asian tradition the job of polygyny, that is multiple wives, probably derived from Islamic sources the Ottomans may have learned of concubinage from the Persians and they may have adapted from the Byzantines the idea of securing alliance and treaty through marriages. (Goffman, 2002, p. 40)Part IVConclusion Islam was the soul of the Ottoman system of governance yet, this was by no means a repressive regime. Contrary to the treatmen t of non-Muslims in most parts of the world that came under Muslim rule5, the Ottoman Empire, the largest Islamic empire in history, (Karsh, 2003, p. 25) displayed a fair degree of tolerance towards its non- Muslim subjects. Whatever may have motivated this, the fact is that this speaks of the completeness of their evolution from the age of the Ghazi to that of a rule that had a generally salutary effect on the minorities of the empire. Overall, the Ottomans turned out to be a relatively faraway more tolerant empire than the Christian regimes of Europe of the same period. This perhaps was to lay the foundations of the modern Turkey as we know it today.ReferencesGoffman, D., (2002), The Ottoman Empire and primaeval Modern Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Gek , F. M., (1996), Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire Ottoman Westernization and loving Change, Oxford University Press, New York.Karsh, E., (2003), Rethinking the Middle East, Frank Cass, London.Le vy, A., (1992), The Sephardim in the Ottoman Empire, Darwin Press, Princeton, NJ.Lewis, B., (1982), Introduction, in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire The Functioning of a Plural Society, Braude, B. Lewis, B. (Eds.) (pp. 1-32), Homes Meier Publishers, New York.McCarthy, J., (1997), The Ottoman Turks An Introductory History to 1923, Longman, London.Turnbull, S., (2003), The Ottoman Empire, 1326-1699, Routledge, New York.ZeEvi, D., (1994), The Sufi Connection capital of Israel Notables in the Seventeenth Century in document from CIEPO IX, Jerusalem Papers from CIEPO IX, Jerusalem, Singer, A. Cohen, A. (Eds.) (pp. 126-142), Hebrew University, Jerusalem.11 This blend of militarism and religious doctrines is best illustrated by cite Hodgson, in whose words the basic feature of the Ottoman Empire was that it was a military- shara alliance (ZeEvi, 1994, p. 136)2 Information on the early history and the coordinate of governance of the Ottoman Empire is neatly summed up in the spare-time activity link http//www.wsu.edu8080/dee/OTTOMAN/ORIGIN.HTMAlthough this site cannot be treated as a great scholarly work, it is a good account that can be used as a kind of concise guide to this aspect of the power vacuum in the founding of the Empire, and the relationship of the state and its structure with Islam.3 The following link is an excellent source for a detailed account of the blood-soaked history of the Inquisitions http//www.sundayschoolcourses.com/inq/inqcont.htm4 On the subject of jurisdiction of dispute settlement between members of the minority communities, this author offers an interesting recorded instance, in which there is no contradiction about a situation such as this if Zeyd the Jew goes from Istanbul-proper to Galata to pass on business and if Amr the Christian, claiming (Zeyd the Jew) needs to settle a transaction, takes him to the Islamic court of Galata, would Zeyd the Jew have the right to state that he wants the case heard instead by the Isl amic court in the neighborhood of Galata-proper.(Gek, 1996, p.35)5 An interesting case for the bring of treatment of non-Muslim subjects in a state ruled by Muslims is that of India. The Muslims were the dominant ruling class for about 10 centuries, but this reign was far from even. Islamic kings treatment of the majority Hindus saw no uniformity, and is a social function of heated and emotive debate to this day in the country.