Five Centuries Ago Tomorrow

The author says [So let us dream. And let us dream big. Let us think about Ottomans, about ideas that brought people together, that gave them a basis for resistance to outside intervention and kept them free of it for centuries. While one might challenge the legacy of the Ottomans and modernity, and what seemed to be their inability or unwillingness to keep up with Europe, I can only say: What they produced for the Muslim world was an order more stable, beneficial and benevolent than anything in existence since.]

The Ottomans produced **for the Muslim world** an order more stable, beneficial and benevolent anything in existence since. This itself is a debatable point.

However, all that crapola about [the Ottoman system serves as potent example for a region divided into false nations, whose borders criss-cross one another’s at all the wrong places. The Ottomans, as it should be recalled, were Turks who did not consider themselves such. Rather, they were a Muslim empire that put much less emphasis on race (or, indeed, class) and far more on the establishment of harmonious relations under the aegis of a moderate religious state. Perhaps one of the reasons the violence in the former Yugoslavia was so bad was because Muslims, Orthodox and Catholic Christians all lived right next door to one another: A legacy of Ottoman toleration.] is just plain nonsense. Try telling about Ottoman tolerance to the Armenians who were massacred in their millions.

The capacity for self-deception amongst the Ummah is mind-boggling.

I disagree that is is any REVIVAL in Muslim world.

Current event have shown that the ball is still falling. and there won`t be any revival unless and untill the ball hits the ground...which no one know , how long it will take.

author`s assertions make sense from an economic point of view as well. days of export led growth (a strategy employed by s.e. asian countries ) are over with the emergence of china as the manufacturing hub of the world. economic growth in developing countries in the near future will primarily be driven by internal demand. increased linkages between economic and political institutions across different muslim countries, if done properly, will lead to a larger common market which in turn will lead to economies of scale for companies in the region (a benefit now beginning to accrue to indian companies as a result of indian political union). increased linkages will also lead to a better allocation of labour and capital and lower the transactions cost of doing business with integration of transportation and communication systems and lowering of tariffs etc. most importantly however, creation of joint political institutions will lower the political risk of doing business, a huge drag on most economies in the region. domestic economic policies will be ineffective if neighbours don’t want to live in peace.

economic rationale for integration is still secondary in comparison to the reasons argued by the author. our political, economic and to a certain extent, our religious elites have placed an undue emphasis on a national identity to create a ``ku-anh kah maindak`` mentality among the masses. idea being that the less people know about progress made by the outside world and more people are scared of the threat posed by the outside world, the less likely they are to challenge the power of entrenched elites. there is a great deal of political, cultural, economic and religious diversity found within islamic world and softening of borders will lead people to question ideology peddled by the state.

distrust of the u.s. as well as increased terrorism arising out of iraq war is going to result in a decline of opportunities previously available to muslims in the west. by pooling resources, muslim countries can eventually overcome the vacuum.

Haroon

A very good write up. I enjoyed reading it and learn`t a lot.

But I am scrared of states based on religion. Religion, with all its fuzziness, is good as a personal faith. But the moment it is forced to provide answers to the living day-to-day issues, it becomes an unguided missile.

And we, the Indus valley people, were never a part of the Ottoman empire. Our future must lie in South Asia - A secular SAARC federation.

Dear Mr. Haroon Moghul,

Akhir, Khan Sahib, aap kehna kya chate hain?
History to hum bhi jaante hain!!!

RE: #5 by sac on April 1, 2003
Well said!!!

The only concept of identity that seems to have worked in the world is that of a national identity - i.e. an identity based on the nation one belongs to. Not based on the religion/ethnicity/secularity etc. one belongs to.

The nations which have been able to look after all their citizens economically have prospered. While the ones that have not been able to do so have then been split up along religious/ethnic/linguistic etc. lines. This lunge towards religious or ethnic etc. divisions (as in case of creation of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir perhaps etc.) is never the first option of the individuals demanding it. There first option is always to be a part of the nation (geographic nation) they have been born into, regardless of religion, ethnicity etc.

This is clearly evident in the fact that individuals with the same religion, belonging to different nations, have gone to war with each other. So have individuals belonging to the same ethnicity, speaking the same language.

An Ottomon-type Islamic (or any other religion or concept like secularism) will not succeed. Since it will be trying to solve the wrong problem, i.e. uniting a group of illiterate, mislead and most of all poor group of nations. Such forced unions never work.

What needs to be done is for each Muslim nation to solve its economic problems and raise the standard of living of its citizens. It doesn`t really matter what kind of govt. leads such an economic revolution. The main criteria should be the human rights and economic record of the govt. - be it religious or secular (two extremely over-rated concepts in my opinion).

For the above to happen, and spread across the Muslim world, at least one Muslim nation needs to emerge out of the third world and become successful. Such a nation would then become, as Huntington states, a, ``core state`` for the Muslim civilization. This nation would then serve as the role model for other Muslim nations and would act as its unofficial leader in international conflicts - much like the USA does for the Western world China will eventually do for the chapta world).

Once all these nations have solved their economic woes, only then will some kind of a union be possible. This union would be more like a European Union and not like an Ottomon union, i.e. an economic block of Islamic nations and not a united Ummah of some sort - religious affinity, amongst economically advanced nations, rarely proves stronger than geographic affinity and/or cultural affinity.

The current group of Islamic leaders in various countries are part of the problem and not part of the solution. A Qazi Hussain-led Islamic govt. in Pakistan, on the whole, will be better (for the already rich it will be worse, for the poor it will be better) than a feudal Benazir or Nawaz-led one. However, it will still be a bad for Pakistan, its only feather in the cap being that it will not be as big of a negative as the feudal govts, which are now proven failiures and have even been rejected in elections in two provinces. Nearly all of the present leadership of the Muslim world (Saddams, Fahds, Khomenis, Benazirs, Hosnis, Arafats et al.), and the relgious leaderships waiting in the wings, are both disastrous for the Muslim nations. The first needs to be kicked out of power and the second needs to be kept away from power, somehow.

The solution for the Islamic countries is obviously not Western-styled secularist govts (Saddam and Syria were one at one point) nor Soviet styled socialist ones (Egypt and Afghanistan were one at one time). Nor is it Islamic govts. (not a single one, including Iran and Afghanistan has resulted in high living standards for their citizens).

Nor is the solution the concept of an Ummah or Ottomons (both totally connterproductive and impratical at this time). The solution is any govt., based on a national agenda (exclusive from an Ummah agenda, or a secular agenda or a Western agenda), that does one basic thing: it raises the economic standards of all members of the nation (men, women, minorities etc.).

Economics, based on a country-agenda (not an Ottomon agenda), and not secularism, religionism, socialism, Ummahism, Ottomanism etc. should be the deciding factor. At least for the time being, considering the state of development of the Muslim countries.

Do I hear the words, ``Tehrik-i-Insaaf`` being whispered somewhere over the horizon........:)

It is clear that soon enough, many things are going to give and the region will collapse into terror and chaos. This is a prediction of which, unfortunately, I am rather confident. It is but a matter of time – even if it is a few decades away, it is coming.

Yes, Its been already predicted. Muslims will not be united till Mehdi appears.

If you are looking for a khilafah - watch for Mehdi He`ll be here soon.

70 percent of the Muslims live east of Indus and the natural center of Islamic Khilafat must shift from Istanbul to Islamabad. I am all for Islamic khilafat out of Islamabad, sector G6-1/4 in Aab Para Market, behind Crown Bakery, second floor above Sangam Paan House. Free armpit shaving service performed by His Majesty khalifa himself.

And I thought an Ottoman was a footstool.....silly me!!

later
-sac

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

The Sultanate of the Osmanli family was the one of the last synthesis of Muslim power under the banner of the Turkic tribes (the Mughals and Afghan/Pashtuns being the other).

Mr Moghul are you referring to the restoration of a Khilafat?, which could be seen differently from the restoration of the Ottoman Empire. There have been attempted restorations by the Kings of Egypt in the 1920`s in the case of an empire the case is different. After all any Empire ( Americana or otherwise) is based on a few basic concepts. The capacity to project power, the capacity to win wars, transcend religion and ethnicity and the belief in manifest destiny. While some would argue that economic prosperity should be the driving force, that is not neccessarily so. The creation of economic empires which did not need to occupy all the land was something unique to the British Empire and probably the Greek city states of the by gone era.

Pan Islamic or trans national concepts of alliances and unity have also had very bad records. The Arabs under Nasser tried to merge Syria and Egypt and failed. Pakistan failed in East Pakistan. Indonesia is in constant turmoil because of ethnic and religious divisions. Muslims seem to have failed to grasp what the structural flaws with the political systems they use to govern. They are unstable with no concepts of transition of power (the Ottomans employed a uniqe way to prevent the threat from rivals in the family. They were strangled), they failedl to balance either the role reliogion plays or the role ethnicity plays in a society. Militarily, no Muslim state has won an overwheliming victory in war against any opponent(there own people excluded) since the late 18th Century (the Turks, Afghans, Lebenese being notable exceptions but even in tjose cases they werent conventional battles they were wars of attirition).

Excellent piece of work and vision. I usually agree with almost everything that you have written in past, but I couldn`t agree with this any more. I might, however, disagree with your contention that Islamist`s visions are as extremist and shortsighted as those of nationalists, ethnicists, and socialists have proven to be. I do not agree with this. The fact remains that what you are proposing now had always been the Islamsits vision. It is being promoted even before the Ottomon Caliphate collapsed. That is the vision which people like Jamal ud din Afghani put froth in 19th century. An Islamic economic union is the ultimate goal - and I think the current American aggression has only given the necessary catalyst that it needed to accelerate.

Haroon Mughal:

You are not alone in the universe to work on the idea. Dr. Israr Ahmad of Tehreek-e-Islami is at it since ages.

However, I offer an alternative. Let us make Pakistan into an economic and military force and become a role model for other Muslim countries to show them the light.

By military force I am referring to the situation that the world listens to militarily stronger nations more attentively, not that I am suggesting a military campaign against the world at large.