The BBC reports on the death of HIH Ertugrul Osman at the age of 97. Had not the Turkish monarchy been abolished he would have been the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and Caliph of Islam. His wife, who survives him, is a relative of the late King Zahir Shah of Afghanistan.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Unfortunately the BBC's headline could not be more wrong: "'Last Ottoman' dies in Istanbul".
ReplyDeleteThere are about 1,000 members of the Ottoman Family. His Imperial Highness was not the last nor will Turkish Monarchists stop acknowledging his successor as head of the family, Daulatlu Najabatlu Vali Ahad-i-Sultanat (given name) Effendi Hazlatlari, as rightful Sultan.
Yes, that rather perplexed me. They mention that he was known as "the Last Ottoman" but it doesn't really make sense. He was neither the last Sultan, the last Caliph nor is he the last of the Osman dynasty. Made no sense to me either but thanks for pointing out the current heir to the Ottoman throne (I should have mentioned that first time around).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think of that when I hear modern Muslim radical revolutionaries calling for a return to the caliphate -they had one but did not unite in its defense. There is plenty to criticize in the Ottoman Empire but I think in the years since its fall the world has seen all too clearly why so many European powers thought it better to support its continued survival.
ReplyDeleteOf course, modern Radical Muslims are heavily influenced by the Marxist principles brought ot them in the era of the Soviet Union, and have also been brought to where they are by means of the Western encroachment, destroying their culture. Combine these factors into the Islamic Culture, which had been in decline since WW1, and you see that they are merely the same sort of Radixcals as Atheists like William Ayers, and driven by largely the same social outlook. The trouble with Revolutionary thinking is that it causes us to willingly kill and live in a wold engulfed in Chaos. Of course, Islam has always had a militant background, but originally Islamic culture was very much dedicated to the principles of order, justice, and rule of law, not to the principles of an ever-changing sea and simply causing chaos to get ones way.
ReplyDeleteThe ironic thing to me is that the radical libs and the Muslims are so much at odds. The Muslim militants the radicals so often defend advocate the spiritual over the secular, the subordination of women, theocracy and so on, all things the radicals condemn but they are united by their shared hatred of western civilization.
ReplyDeleteThey are so big a problem often because they are strong in areas in which the west is lacking. I remember an interview with His Highness the Aga Khan in which he pointed out one of the key differences is that, to paraphrase, the "Christian world" tends to seperate their faith from their everyday life whereas for Muslims this is impossible. In short, they actually believe in their faith while many "Christians" have abandoned their own or simply profess it but do not live it. They also have the benefit, not of unity, but at least of a Koran that has never been re-interpreted to the extent that the Bible has.
They have been affected by Marxism (which infects whoever touches it) but I think this is mostly an issue of western converts rather than Muslims in the Middle East where the primary political division is between those who adhere to monarchy and those who (absurdly in my view) dismiss monarchy as un-Islamic and advocate a total theocracy in the mold of Iran or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
Actually Iran is not a Theocracy. Its a common misconception and loads of people call it that, especially online Militant Atheists who claim there ar eno good theocracies, however, the proper term is Eccleseocracy. It is ruled by a Religious counsil, but not understood to be lead directly by God himself. The only true Theocracy currently in existance is the Vatican City-State, which is by no means a tyranny, and formerly the Papal States were considered Theocracies as well, and much better htan the Italian Republic that conquered them. Incidentlaly Tibet was also ruled by a Religious figure, the Dali Llama, but this also wans't a Theocracy. It was, however, still much better han the COmmunist reign they currently find themselves in.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I beleive you are also mistaken on the Middle East. THe Islamic Republicans aren't immune to COmmunist htinking, and the strain of COmmunist thought actually emerged into Islam via the Soviets who managed to hold a powerful sway over the Arabian world in the cold war. Just as in South America Cahtilisism was perverted with Liberation theology, the Middle Eastern strands of Islam are heavily influnced by the Marxism of that era.
The reason Liberals love Islam is simple though, because its not Christian. Modern Liberal thinking emerged from the Humanist development of the 19th cenury, which in tun grew ut of the Enlightenment and its assumptions. All of the Anti-Religious arguments in the Enlightenment were aimed at Christianity, and the enture culture of modern Atheism, as well as the Liberal thinkign that is not nessisarily Atheistic, derives its enture contemot for Religion from the Enlightenments contemot for it, but Religion was at the time undertsood only to mean Christianity, and so it is today with them.
Ever since the Tolerance addition to the movement thoguh, they have always sough tto elevate minority and alein cultures above Western traditions, and ISlam is an Eastern Religion and forms the basis of an Eastern culture, and is seen as automatically superior. Modern Liberalism advances by making us feel ashamed of our past and attemots to show us how much better others are htan us, and once we are sufficuntly shamed, we will drop our past assoicatiosn in the interest of a vaugley defined Progress.
Christainity is simply hated, and this also plays a part. As irraitonal as the hatred of Christanity actulaly is, especially these days, it still is part of the core identity of those followign enlightnement thinkng, even those hwo proffess thmselves as Christain. (How often have CHristains apologised needleslsy for the evils doen in he name of Christainity such as the Crusades withotu an ounc eof understanding of why they were fought?)
Islam oresents itself as an alternative to Christainity, and a shining example, at least int he minds of the liberals, of how wonderful and peaceful things can be if not Christain. The fact that tit is eastern and most adherants brown skinned also is a plus.
Mind you, I have no actual problem with Islam itself, but do find the Liberal lvoe affair as odd as you, I just udnerstand it better. THey need to tear down Christainity na dmake the culture it develped look bad and Islam helps by offering a counter point. They just ignroe where Islam stands opposed to thir vision of Utopia, which is Ironic since a lot of the htings theyt proffess to hate CHristainity ovr, such as intoelrance ot Gays or supposed suppression of women, are far mroe prevailent in Islam, but simply ignroed.
Two points:
ReplyDelete1) Hizb ut-Tahrir (the largest radical Islamist movement advocating the return of the Caliphate, and which also demonizes capitalism) is strongest in Central Asian countries which used to be part of the USSR.
2) Ertugrul Osman was dubbed "The Last Ottoman" because he was the last member of the House of Osman who was born when the Ottoman Empire was still in existence.