Can you guess who took the first stab at writing the first history of the world? None other than the indefatigable Arab Ibn Khaldun, who is considered the father of modern history. His Muqaddimah reads like a scientific study of past events and was followed by number of other Muslim historians clearly motivated by him. Baki follows lost this tradition in Islamic cultures. A tradition of critical analysing their own history. I found his confrontational style very very satisfying indeed. Why he asks, is one regicide (Britain) considered as progress as another (Ottoman, Turkey) as a sign of decline? Indeed a most pertinent observation which must be pondered in detail unfortunately before history can be re-written again. For to take down existing opinions is far more difficult than defining new ones. Baki’s attempt is most admirable but needs to be urgently repeated all over the world where orientalism has left a deep and ugly mark.
While reading about the battle between Kanun and Sharia, I had a fantastic revelation. If Sharia was Allah’s Kanun then surely it must include all of His creation, which can only mean that the real and proper Sharia has to be His Laws of Nature. For it is only the Laws of Nature which every created creature is bound to once created. All other laws including the man’s descriptions of Sharia are therefore redundant and obsolete as every kanun changes with change of the Ruler.
This book presents a brilliant analysis of the Ottoman history. Who really controlled the infamous fracticides? What attributes were required to remain a Sultan? Who really called the shots, the absolutists or the Constitutionalists? Baki has provided compelling evidence to demonstrate how the power shifted from absolutism to constitutionalism after the Ottomans started to rely on Devshirme to run their huge state. The infamous ‘Harem’, instead of a degenerate sexpot of orgy was in effect an institution for producing and grooming future Sultans with the help of a very able class of civil servants supplied by Devshirme. I have a clear image of an all powerful Ottoman royal family kept in constant check by the constitutional Janissaries, making sure that every Sultan was able to tow the policy agreed by their selected viziers. Small wonder that the Ottomans were able to rule such a huge kingdom for so long.
Baki details the first known regicide of Osman II and argues pretty convincingly that he was killed because he was openly trying to rebel against the constitutional vice, made up of Janissaries as the mighty Ottoman army had become a financial hub rather than a fighting force. Pretty much like the Turkish or Pakistani army of today. Who says we can't learn anything from history?
The book also explains the social classes in the Empire with power in the hand of the Askeri class who owned 80% of the resources. The devshirme were also converted from a once potent fighting force to financial ombudsmen, collecting taxes and conducting various types of business.
The reasons of the demise of the Sultanate? Well Baki argues that the Askeris did not take up Capitalism and Corporatism as vigorously as modernists in Britain for instance. There was a different approach in land management as well rather than the popularly held view of loss of the vast tracts of land. Again Baki takes a very apt analogy with Britain losing America only to rebound and take up India and vast straits of Africa through largely a policy of aggressive corporate trade policy, which is still being followed generally. There was also the absence of the bourgeois against Lords and Barons in the Sultanate which could be a significant factor in the loss of Ottoman prestige as the bourgeois was slow to take up the nationalism.
In the end, I have come to a very valuable conclusion. History should be written by a representative of the natives, as well as outsiders, leaving the readers to conclude for themselves.
While reading about the battle between Kanun and Sharia, I had a fantastic revelation. If Sharia was Allah’s Kanun then surely it must include all of His creation, which can only mean that the real and proper Sharia has to be His Laws of Nature. For it is only the Laws of Nature which every created creature is bound to once created. All other laws including the man’s descriptions of Sharia are therefore redundant and obsolete as every kanun changes with change of the Ruler.
This book presents a brilliant analysis of the Ottoman history. Who really controlled the infamous fracticides? What attributes were required to remain a Sultan? Who really called the shots, the absolutists or the Constitutionalists? Baki has provided compelling evidence to demonstrate how the power shifted from absolutism to constitutionalism after the Ottomans started to rely on Devshirme to run their huge state. The infamous ‘Harem’, instead of a degenerate sexpot of orgy was in effect an institution for producing and grooming future Sultans with the help of a very able class of civil servants supplied by Devshirme. I have a clear image of an all powerful Ottoman royal family kept in constant check by the constitutional Janissaries, making sure that every Sultan was able to tow the policy agreed by their selected viziers. Small wonder that the Ottomans were able to rule such a huge kingdom for so long.
Baki details the first known regicide of Osman II and argues pretty convincingly that he was killed because he was openly trying to rebel against the constitutional vice, made up of Janissaries as the mighty Ottoman army had become a financial hub rather than a fighting force. Pretty much like the Turkish or Pakistani army of today. Who says we can't learn anything from history?
The book also explains the social classes in the Empire with power in the hand of the Askeri class who owned 80% of the resources. The devshirme were also converted from a once potent fighting force to financial ombudsmen, collecting taxes and conducting various types of business.
The reasons of the demise of the Sultanate? Well Baki argues that the Askeris did not take up Capitalism and Corporatism as vigorously as modernists in Britain for instance. There was a different approach in land management as well rather than the popularly held view of loss of the vast tracts of land. Again Baki takes a very apt analogy with Britain losing America only to rebound and take up India and vast straits of Africa through largely a policy of aggressive corporate trade policy, which is still being followed generally. There was also the absence of the bourgeois against Lords and Barons in the Sultanate which could be a significant factor in the loss of Ottoman prestige as the bourgeois was slow to take up the nationalism.
In the end, I have come to a very valuable conclusion. History should be written by a representative of the natives, as well as outsiders, leaving the readers to conclude for themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment