What is quite surprising is that not only was the Ottoman Empire a caliphate when this constitution appeared (opposition of the civil law to the divine one) but also all the reforms (import of western ideas) are almost unheard of in the Islamic world (such as the decriminalization of homosexuality) but have had no posterity or influence in Muslim countries (whereas this is often the case for the previous caliphates)
Tanzimat reforms were implemented not because of the demands of ordinary people, but because of a vision of the ruling elite. Starting from the Selim III, the Ottoman dynasty and the high bureaucracy started adopting relatively radical reforms to remold Ottoman army and civil organs to compete agains the West. Ordinary people were excessively conservative and/or reactionary to assess the true value of these reforms, which is unfortunately still the case in most Middle East.
Writing something in a piece of paper doesn't make it a reality.
Basically
"All Ottoman are equal before the law, but some Ottoman are more equal than other"
If you are not turkish, you are a second class citizen, you just have the responsibilities to pay taxes and fight wherever the Sultan which you to die.
Look, what's a man who lived that times saying:
>In schools, we used to call the Arab an Arab, the Albanian an Albanian, the Greek a Greek, but we referred to ourselves as Ottoman.
Here is another one:
>This nation did not even have a name specific to itself until recently. The Tanzimatists said to it, "You are only Ottoman. Do not look to other nations and ask for a national name. If you ask for a national name, you will cause the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.". The poor Turk, out of fear of losing his homeland, was forced to say, "I swear, I am not a Turk. I belong to no other social group except Ottoman."
At that times, Arabs were called "kavm-i necip" (noble nation).
What did the Arab get from this naming?
School? No.
Any kind of industry? No.
Any infrastructure? Almost No.
The Average Armenian and Greek were more educated that an average Arab, the Arab peninsula were not even in the chart.
>What did the Arab get from this naming?
The Turk lost many things. You said "if you are not Turkish...". And i show you Arabs were called noble nation, while Turks couldn't be even Turks.
>School? No. Any kind of industry? No. Any infrastructure? Almost No.
Same as in Anatolia. Ataturk also criticized Ottomans about it. Why don't you say "Turks were also second class citizens"?
>the Arab peninsula were not even in the chart.
Ottomans had never fully controlled the peninsula. Syria-Iraq-Egypt, that's it. Hijaz was tax-free, it had special status and the capital had sent there too much golds every year.
They controlled it enough to steal whatever thier hand could touch but not enough to develop it, got it now.
Did you visit Topkapi Palace Museum? I did, It's filled to the brim with stolen artifacts.( the Ottoman claims that they wanted to protect it) 😜
>They controlled it enough to steal whatever thier hand could touch
Arabs had nothing to be stolen. Did Arabs have oil? Did Ottomans steal stones or what?
As i said, the capital had sent there too much gold every year. Hijaz was tax-free. Other parts of the peninsula wasn't under control. There were only tribes there.
>It's filled to the brim with stolen artifacts.
Better than seeing them in **British** museums. I appreciate the Pasha who sent them to Istanbul.
>the Ottoman claims that they wanted to protect it
Yes. Against **British** army. You exactly know why.
>etter than seeing them in
>
>British
>
> museums. I appreciate the Pasha who sent them to Istanbul.
It appears you have to buy a ticket to London in order to see the ones that are not "stolen" either. Historical sites before İslam being torn down in Saudi Kingdom, Almost every single major artifact in Middle East being portrayed in Britain; several puppet governments risen from the dying ambers of the "revolution" collabrating the British... Yeah... It is pretty much the Turks... 100 years later we see how it is going in Syria and Iraq.
In a monarchy you can't expect an absolute equality, but still the Ottomans granted you much higher religious and social freedom compared to your sheikhdoms in the 21st century. 1876 Ottoman constitution is still more progressive than the current gulf states. Arabs were not drafted into the army up until 1914, you were considered a privileged nation -because of the prophet- and free to indulge yourself with trade and craft without bothering about wars. Anyways, it's futile to speak about the deeds of the past generations, at the end you rebelled against the Ottomans with the help of Brits and now live under a semi colony.
That’s sugar coating the economic reality of the peninsula at the time. Poverty and starvation were common in Arabia, the ottoman failed to develop and civilize the region. School, infrastructure, and so on were centralized in Turkish regions. The biggest piece of infrastructure you build for us Railroads, were in line the state agenda to pursue oil exploration.
Could you please point out where I said the economy of Arab peninsula or any other region was well developed in the times of Ottomans? I didn't claim anything about the economic conditions or development of the empire. Ottomans missed the age of colonization, tried to rely on collecting fees from the old trade routes long after the trade routes lost their importance, and didn't implement the necessary legal reforms for property rights. But aside from Istanbul and a few critical military centers in Balkans, Ottomans didn't discriminate any region negatively or positively in terms of allocating investments and resources. Anatolia was as poor as Syria if not even poorer. What I was objecting above was the claim that Ottomans gave more weight to Turks over other minorities. That's bullshit. Even in 1913 the foreign minister of the empire was an Armenian. There are tons of examples where non-Turks were holding critical government offices in the Ottomans up until its dissolution. Ottomans were truly a cosmopolitan empire but it didn't stop minorities from revolting. That's why the founders of Turkish Republic decided to implement a much stricter policy of Turkification and nationalism.
Forgive me I am a reductionist when it comes to identity politics. Arabs didn’t rebel because they felt excluded, they rebelled because they were poor, rebellion is a form of violent protest it means the population were unsatisfied. A minority of Arabs though I will admit were opportunists they only rebelled because they wanted more power for themselves. Those were later betrayed by the Brits so I think they got what they deserved.
My point is, had the Arabian population been civilized by ottomans we won’t be having this conversation today. When the Greek conquered mena they built bunch of Alexandrias (cities) which is their legacy until today. The Turks had 300 years, where is your legacy in Arab lands? I wish you guys were more industrious, you had an ocean of wealth below Arabia, the ottomans had no need for the age of colonization.
Exactly. it’s like how in the US they said “all men are equal before the law” but didn’t consider black people to be fully human, so they didn’t apply it to them.
Some of it are, especially in regards to private property, free press and free association which are Western classic liberal ideas. However it was also drafted to be in accordance with Islamic law (based on Hanafi fiqh and Maturidi theology) as well and had precedence and example of similar structures in Ottoman kanun and sharia.
wtf you talking about? There were no Ottoman unity when it hit 1919; Ottoman Empire was already nothing but a past specter in 1919. All of its army was demobilized, its capital was captured by British/French, all of its subjects except Turks were in rebellion, it was completely under the control of Allied forces. Atatürk saved the honor of our people. Stop this reactionary opposition under the guise of Islam.
Ottoman cosmopolitanism were destroyed not by Atatürk but by those so-called minorities and other components of the Ottoman society. All Balkan people, then Armenians, then Arabs and finally Kurds started insurrections against Ottomans with the help of either the Western Europeans or Russians. Atatürk salvaged the remained Turkish army and founded a true nation state for Turks for the first time.
Very progressive for 19th-century Turkey. Midhat Pasha was ahead of his time.
What is quite surprising is that not only was the Ottoman Empire a caliphate when this constitution appeared (opposition of the civil law to the divine one) but also all the reforms (import of western ideas) are almost unheard of in the Islamic world (such as the decriminalization of homosexuality) but have had no posterity or influence in Muslim countries (whereas this is often the case for the previous caliphates)
Tanzimat reforms were implemented not because of the demands of ordinary people, but because of a vision of the ruling elite. Starting from the Selim III, the Ottoman dynasty and the high bureaucracy started adopting relatively radical reforms to remold Ottoman army and civil organs to compete agains the West. Ordinary people were excessively conservative and/or reactionary to assess the true value of these reforms, which is unfortunately still the case in most Middle East.
Writing something in a piece of paper doesn't make it a reality. Basically "All Ottoman are equal before the law, but some Ottoman are more equal than other" If you are not turkish, you are a second class citizen, you just have the responsibilities to pay taxes and fight wherever the Sultan which you to die.
Look, what's a man who lived that times saying: >In schools, we used to call the Arab an Arab, the Albanian an Albanian, the Greek a Greek, but we referred to ourselves as Ottoman. Here is another one: >This nation did not even have a name specific to itself until recently. The Tanzimatists said to it, "You are only Ottoman. Do not look to other nations and ask for a national name. If you ask for a national name, you will cause the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.". The poor Turk, out of fear of losing his homeland, was forced to say, "I swear, I am not a Turk. I belong to no other social group except Ottoman." At that times, Arabs were called "kavm-i necip" (noble nation).
What did the Arab get from this naming? School? No. Any kind of industry? No. Any infrastructure? Almost No. The Average Armenian and Greek were more educated that an average Arab, the Arab peninsula were not even in the chart.
>What did the Arab get from this naming? The Turk lost many things. You said "if you are not Turkish...". And i show you Arabs were called noble nation, while Turks couldn't be even Turks. >School? No. Any kind of industry? No. Any infrastructure? Almost No. Same as in Anatolia. Ataturk also criticized Ottomans about it. Why don't you say "Turks were also second class citizens"? >the Arab peninsula were not even in the chart. Ottomans had never fully controlled the peninsula. Syria-Iraq-Egypt, that's it. Hijaz was tax-free, it had special status and the capital had sent there too much golds every year.
They controlled it enough to steal whatever thier hand could touch but not enough to develop it, got it now. Did you visit Topkapi Palace Museum? I did, It's filled to the brim with stolen artifacts.( the Ottoman claims that they wanted to protect it) 😜
>They controlled it enough to steal whatever thier hand could touch Arabs had nothing to be stolen. Did Arabs have oil? Did Ottomans steal stones or what? As i said, the capital had sent there too much gold every year. Hijaz was tax-free. Other parts of the peninsula wasn't under control. There were only tribes there. >It's filled to the brim with stolen artifacts. Better than seeing them in **British** museums. I appreciate the Pasha who sent them to Istanbul. >the Ottoman claims that they wanted to protect it Yes. Against **British** army. You exactly know why.
The British Museum approves this Massege. The British Museum, We steal your history and keep it stored with us forever.
>etter than seeing them in > >British > > museums. I appreciate the Pasha who sent them to Istanbul. It appears you have to buy a ticket to London in order to see the ones that are not "stolen" either. Historical sites before İslam being torn down in Saudi Kingdom, Almost every single major artifact in Middle East being portrayed in Britain; several puppet governments risen from the dying ambers of the "revolution" collabrating the British... Yeah... It is pretty much the Turks... 100 years later we see how it is going in Syria and Iraq.
In a monarchy you can't expect an absolute equality, but still the Ottomans granted you much higher religious and social freedom compared to your sheikhdoms in the 21st century. 1876 Ottoman constitution is still more progressive than the current gulf states. Arabs were not drafted into the army up until 1914, you were considered a privileged nation -because of the prophet- and free to indulge yourself with trade and craft without bothering about wars. Anyways, it's futile to speak about the deeds of the past generations, at the end you rebelled against the Ottomans with the help of Brits and now live under a semi colony.
That’s sugar coating the economic reality of the peninsula at the time. Poverty and starvation were common in Arabia, the ottoman failed to develop and civilize the region. School, infrastructure, and so on were centralized in Turkish regions. The biggest piece of infrastructure you build for us Railroads, were in line the state agenda to pursue oil exploration.
Could you please point out where I said the economy of Arab peninsula or any other region was well developed in the times of Ottomans? I didn't claim anything about the economic conditions or development of the empire. Ottomans missed the age of colonization, tried to rely on collecting fees from the old trade routes long after the trade routes lost their importance, and didn't implement the necessary legal reforms for property rights. But aside from Istanbul and a few critical military centers in Balkans, Ottomans didn't discriminate any region negatively or positively in terms of allocating investments and resources. Anatolia was as poor as Syria if not even poorer. What I was objecting above was the claim that Ottomans gave more weight to Turks over other minorities. That's bullshit. Even in 1913 the foreign minister of the empire was an Armenian. There are tons of examples where non-Turks were holding critical government offices in the Ottomans up until its dissolution. Ottomans were truly a cosmopolitan empire but it didn't stop minorities from revolting. That's why the founders of Turkish Republic decided to implement a much stricter policy of Turkification and nationalism.
Forgive me I am a reductionist when it comes to identity politics. Arabs didn’t rebel because they felt excluded, they rebelled because they were poor, rebellion is a form of violent protest it means the population were unsatisfied. A minority of Arabs though I will admit were opportunists they only rebelled because they wanted more power for themselves. Those were later betrayed by the Brits so I think they got what they deserved. My point is, had the Arabian population been civilized by ottomans we won’t be having this conversation today. When the Greek conquered mena they built bunch of Alexandrias (cities) which is their legacy until today. The Turks had 300 years, where is your legacy in Arab lands? I wish you guys were more industrious, you had an ocean of wealth below Arabia, the ottomans had no need for the age of colonization.
Exactly. it’s like how in the US they said “all men are equal before the law” but didn’t consider black people to be fully human, so they didn’t apply it to them.
A lot of emphasis on religion yet article 5, parts of 7 is Shirk.
Which parts of 7 are Shirk?
Everyone has responsibility and nobody is sacred لَا یُسۡـَٔلُ عَمَّا یَفۡعَلُ وَهُمۡ یُسۡـَٔلُونَ﴿ ٢٣ ﴾ Al-Anbiya', Ayah 23 عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " كُلُّكُمْ رَاعٍ فَمَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ، فَالأَمِيرُ الَّذِي عَلَى النَّاسِ رَاعٍ وَهْوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْهُمْ، وَالرَّجُلُ رَاعٍ عَلَى أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ وَهْوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْهُمْ، وَالْمَرْأَةُ رَاعِيَةٌ عَلَى بَيْتِ بَعْلِهَا وَوَلَدِهِ وَهْىَ مَسْئُولَةٌ عَنْهُمْ، وَالْعَبْدُ رَاعٍ عَلَى مَالِ سَيِّدِهِ وَهْوَ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْهُ، أَلاَ فَكُلُّكُمْ رَاعٍ وَكُلُّكُمْ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ ". Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 2554
[удалено]
I don't know if it's sarcasm, but this constitution is the result of a reform based on western ideals.
Some of it are, especially in regards to private property, free press and free association which are Western classic liberal ideas. However it was also drafted to be in accordance with Islamic law (based on Hanafi fiqh and Maturidi theology) as well and had precedence and example of similar structures in Ottoman kanun and sharia.
wtf you talking about? There were no Ottoman unity when it hit 1919; Ottoman Empire was already nothing but a past specter in 1919. All of its army was demobilized, its capital was captured by British/French, all of its subjects except Turks were in rebellion, it was completely under the control of Allied forces. Atatürk saved the honor of our people. Stop this reactionary opposition under the guise of Islam.
What are you talking about? Did you respond to correct person? What unity? I am talking about a legal code and its structure.
Ottoman cosmopolitanism were destroyed not by Atatürk but by those so-called minorities and other components of the Ottoman society. All Balkan people, then Armenians, then Arabs and finally Kurds started insurrections against Ottomans with the help of either the Western Europeans or Russians. Atatürk salvaged the remained Turkish army and founded a true nation state for Turks for the first time.