intellectual in exile in Cairo, took up the contentious
matter of the Islamic Caliphate late in 1905, and
again 6 months later, in two separate articles.
Herewith, the first.//
Caliphate background click here for info.
The Islamic Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire.
I'm Thinking That...
"Türk" newspaper: 17 December 1905
One of the problems that plague the Islamic community and drive
one nation against the other is the matter of the Caliphate. And it is not
a new problem, dating to the time of the Prophet Ali and Muaviye bin
Ebu Süfyan (founder of the Umayyad state). Today, no Islamic country
wants to concede the Caliphate to another and the consequence has
been endless bloodshed and loss of life. Where will it end?
The Arabs always think they are the rightful heirs to the Caliphate,
noting that the Prophet Mohammed was an Arab and the language of
the Holy Ku'ran is Arabic. The fact that the Caliph is an Ottoman Turk,
with the Turks having adopted Islam six or seven centuries ago, is
anathema to them. But even among the Arabs there is no unity on this
issue - the Hecaz people claim that Şerif is the Caliph, in Yemen every
tribal leader claims to be the Caliph, the Syrians think otherwise and in
Morocco the ruler asserts he is the Caliph, being a descendant of the
Prophet Mohammed.
In the Valley of the Nile, some people push the idea that since the Caliph
was located in Egypt for centuries, the same should be the case today. For
their part, the Iranians consider all the Caliphs after Ali to be illegitimate.
As far as I'm concerned, all these claims are baseless and without merit.
Logically and intelligently, the Caliphate must be located in the country
that is the most civilized, the strongest and best able to fend off external
attacks.
So let's take each country one by one. Can we find any other people
besides the Ottomans who possess these qualities? Never. The Caliphate
should not be compared to the Catholics' Pope. The Caliph's duty is not
just to raise his hands and pray for the happiness and preservation of
Islam. He must oppose every sort of attack and transgression with lives,
blood and property. Neither the Moroccans, who still live in the Middle
Ages, nor the African tribes with their arrows and spears, nor the ignorant
bandits of the Hecaz who rob their own people and pilgrims, nor the
Egyptian intellectuals can assume this role. Only the Ottomans, in light
of their geography, military might, toughness and civilization, can take
on this duty.
Sultan Yavuz Selim entering Cairo and assuming the Caliphate
for the Ottoman Turks in February 1517 (and until 1924).
The Ottomans have been performing the duty of the Caliphate for
centuries, at great cost and sacrifice. What have they gotten in return?
Nothing. If the Ottomans hadn't assumed this duty, they could have lived
a more peaceful and relaxed political life. Still today the Christians, even
in America, pertinaciously attack the Turks in every way possible, with
the thought that the Turks are the biggest and strongest of the Islamic
nations. That is why these fanatical Christian, anti-Islamic, blows all fall
on the heads of the Turks.
It may be true that the Ottomans do not run the Caliphate as well as it
should be run. But who could do it better? And not with just words.
With deeds. The Ottomans are willing to turn over this sacred and holy
duty immediately and withdraw to a quiet corner. But they can't leave
it to the Yemenis, the Syrians, the Iraqis or the Moroccans. Is there
anyone who can take hold of this duty?
Just about 20 years after Mağmumi's articles, the Turks gave
up on the Caliphate.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder