The Ottoman’s and how its timeline affected our understanding of modern Islam
The Rise and Fall Of The Ottomans – Its Influence On Islamic Extremism And The Western Influence
tl;dr will not be given, I encourage anyone interested in the topic to read with care and give a deserved time to reflect. Or check out the pictures attached; but understand they are not a representation of a wider reality.
Creating this post was no easy task—it made me sweat. This is not a simple conversation; it requires deep reflection and, to some extent, the unraveling of indoctrination. The Western perspective on historical events holds a powerful influence, not just on me but on the majority of people, especially those living in the West. However, the Muslim perspective shapes the understanding of those living outside the West. What I present here is an attempt to reconcile both views.
The Ottoman period continues to be a subject of much debate.
However, one thing is clear:
by the 14th century, Islamic extremism began to take root in a way that has persisted and, in many ways, intensified to this day. The idea that movements like Salafism or other extremist ideologies are “a jihad against Western values” or “a defense of pure Islam” serves as a stark example of Western propaganda. These individuals believe they are protecting Islam, yet in reality, they are defending an interpretation of Islam that has been deeply shaped by Western influences. The west, together with internal extremism was selling a product, that continues to dominate the markets.
In my last post, I aimed to explore the use of Hadith as a political tool throughout history. I created a timeline of common key events, deliberately leaving a gap between the 14th and 19th centuries. The reasoning behind this will hopefully become clearer as we continue this exploration.
Additionally, I want to emphasize an important point: while it is essential to explore Islamic history from a Muslim perspective, we must be careful not to allow this lens to distort our understanding of the broader historical narrative. It’s crucial to approach both sides of the story with care, balancing relevance, maintaining a broader perspective, while also ensuring we don’t oversimplify.
For instance, when discussing the decline of intellectualism or the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, although the explanations may have seemed simplified, they do not misrepresent the reality of the events, but are common representations of a much larger problem.
The root of the problem regarding misrepresentation must be addressed, and this can be traced back to the period between the 14th and 19th centuries, during the rise and “fall” of the Ottoman Empire.
This has been the most challenging historical dive I’ve ever undertaken. The amount of distortion, propaganda, and political agendas at play is staggering, and they must be understood in their proper context.
Just as the rise of extremism is deeply intertwined with these historical events, it’s equally important to address it with dignity, respect, and an awareness of the colonial impact. The seed of many modern issues was planted during the Ottoman era, and its roots have continued to spread with little signs of no ending. Only by understanding this context can we begin to examine the earlier events that led to this pivotal moment in history.
This post is, admittedly, the most daunting to share, and I am aware that it may provoke strong reactions. I am open to further explaining my views, but only if you are able to appreciate both the internal Muslim perspective and the external Western influence — and how both have shaped Islam and our understanding of it up to the present day.
Content:
I. The Five-Phase Theory - The Ottoman Empire Through Ibn Khaldun’s Lens - Key takeaways II. ”The Sick Man Of Europe” - Contradictions to the “Sick Man” Narrative - Why was the label used? - Imitation, Dependence, and Resistance III. Western Influence on Salafism, Extremism, and Hadith Misuse in the Ottoman Context (Based on the Analysis) - The Ottoman Empire as a Barrier Against Extremism - The Role of the West in Promoting Salafism Over Ottoman Islam - The Misuse of Hadith: A Colonial Tool? - How the West "Fornicated" Islam: The Bigger Role - Key Question: Was this intentional or a side effect? - Conclusion: Did the West Shape Modern - Extremism? IV. Western Influence on Salafism, Hadith Misuse, and Extremism: A Comparative Analysis with Evstatiev’s Work - The Ottoman Model vs. The Rise of Fragmented Salafism - Western Colonialism and the Fragmentation of Islamic Thought - The "Sick Man of Europe" Narrative as a Political Weapon - The same logic applied to Islamic thought Itself V. Western vs. Muslim Historiographical Approaches to Ottoman Decline - The "Decline" Narrative: A Western Construct? - Muslim Historians' View: Ottoman Decline Was Engineered, Not Inevitable - How This Debate Shapes Modern Political Perceptions - Conclusion: Decline or Transformation? A Battle Over Historical Memory VI. Historical Timeline of the Ottoman Empire: A Dual Perspective with Salafist/Wahhabist Movements VII. Bridging the Divide: A Holistic Approach to Combat Extremism and Salafism - How the Dual Framework Helps Combat Extremism - Empowering Contemporary Muslim Identity - Counteracting the Growing Influence of Extremism - Conclusion
I. Ibn Khaldun’s Five-Phase Theory
Ibn Khaldun, in Muqaddimah, proposed that states go through five inevitable phases:
Formation Phase
Consolidation & Rival Elimination
Glory & Wealth Accumulation
Imitation of Predecessors
Decadence & Collapse
The Ottoman Empire Through Ibn Khaldun’s Lens
Phase 1: Formation (1299–1402)
The Ottoman state was founded by Osman I and solidified under Orhan, Murad I, and Bayezid I.
These rulers displayed strong leadership, focusing on territorial expansion and administrative stability.
They established the Janissary Corps, ensuring military dominance. —> Ibn Khaldun’s “strong leadership and unity” stage.
Phase 2: Power Consolidation & Civil War (1402–1413)
The empire faced internal strife, known as the Ottoman Interregnum, with a civil war among Bayezid I’s sons. (Sectarian differences, while not outright conflicts yet, can be seen taking shape here)
After a series of battles, Mehmed I emerged victorious, stabilizing the empire.
—> Ibn Khaldun’s “ruler eliminating rivals” phase.
Phase 3: Glory & Expansion (1444–1687)
The Ottomans reached their peak under Mehmed II (1453) and Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566).
Major events: Fall of Constantinople, expansion into Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.
The Ottomans adopted laws, centralized administration, and established the caliphate after taking Egypt in 1517.
—> Ibn Khaldun’s “accumulation of wealth and power” phase.
Phase 4: Stagnation & Reform Attempts (1687–1922)
The empire stopped expanding after losing major wars (e.g., against the Holy League).
European technological advancements surpassed Ottoman military capabilities.
Reforms, such as those by Mahmud II (1808–1839) and Abdülhamid II (1876–1909), sought to modernize the state.
—> Ibn Khaldun’s “imitation of predecessors without innovation” phase.
Phase 5: Collapse & Westernization (1922–1924)
The Ottomans were defeated in WWI and dismantled by the Treaty of Sevres (1920).
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk abolished the Sultanate (1922) and Caliphate (1924), creating the secular Turkish Republic.
Western influences dominated reforms, aligning with Ibn Khaldun’s idea that defeated nations imitate their conquerors.
—> Ibn Khaldun’s “final stage of indulgence and collapse.”
Takeaways:
The Ottomans survived longer than expected because they reversed decline by returning to earlier phases (e.g., reforms of Mahmud II).
The “Sick Man of Europe” label is misleading, as the empire remained strong until the 19th century.
The Ottoman collapse was not due to luxury alone—external pressures, European expansion, and industrialization played key roles.
The Ottomans did not just collapse but transformed, evolving into a modern nation-state rather than vanishing.
II. Western Impact and the ”Sick Man of Europe” Narrative in the Ottoman Decline:
The prior phrase is attributed to Tsar Nicholas I of Russia (1853), who described the empire as weak and near collapse.
Contradictions to the “Sick Man” Narrative:
Military Reforms: The Ottomans modernized their army, adopted Western tactics, and built railways to improve mobility.
Economic Strength: The empire maintained control over key trade routes and resources until the late 19th century.
Political Reforms: The Tanzimat Reforms (1839–1876) introduced a modern bureaucracy, constitutionalism, and legal equality.
Why Was the Label Used?
Western powers needed justification for intervention in Ottoman lands (e.g., Crimean War, Balkan Wars).
The British and French framed the Ottomans as weak to justify economic control (e.g., debt management via the Ottoman Public Debt Administration).
The phrase became a self-fulfilling prophecy as European intervention accelerated Ottoman decline.
Imitation, Dependence, and Resistance
A. European Military & Economic Dominance:
Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) exposed Ottoman military weaknesses.
Crimean War (1853–1856) saw the Ottomans allied with Britain and France but left financially dependent on European creditors.
By the late 19th century, European banks controlled much of the Ottoman economy.
B. Ottoman Imitation of the West
Tanzimat Reforms (1839–1876): Modeled on European governance, introducing secular laws, modern education, and infrastructure projects.
Westernization of Society: Western clothing, architecture, and even language (French influence) became widespread among Ottoman elites.
Legal Reforms: Inspired by the Napoleonic Code, aiming to align with European trade laws and diplomacy.
C. European Meddling & Balkan Nationalism
Western-supported nationalist uprisings in Greece (1821), Serbia, and Bulgaria weakened Ottoman control.
The Treaty of Berlin (1878) reduced Ottoman territories, further destabilizing the empire.
British & French intervention in Egypt (1882) cut Ottoman influence over the Suez Canal, a key strategic asset.
D. The Final Blow: World War I & Partition
European powers used Ottoman involvement in WWI as a pretext for dismantling the empire.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) and Treaty of Sevres (1920) divided Ottoman lands among Britain and France.
Did the Ottomans Collapse Due to Western Pressure or Internal Weakness?
Let’s suggests a balance of both:
Western interference accelerated Ottoman struggles, creating debt, military dependency, and nationalist uprisings.
Ottoman mismanagement and internal conflicts (e.g., the Janissary corruption, lack of industrialization) weakened the state.
Westernization itself created instability—elites embraced reform, but traditionalists resisted, leading to political strife.
The collapse was not inevitable, but shaped by both internal stagnation and European intervention.
III. Western Influence on Salafism, Extremism, and Hadith Misuse in the Ottoman Context (Based on the Analysis)
- The Ottoman Empire as a Barrier Against Extremism
Ottoman Islam was Hanafi-Sufi-dominated, balancing between tradition and pragmatism.
The Ottomans used Hadith pragmatically, emphasizing justice (adl) and public welfare (maslaha) over rigid textualism.
The Caliphate provided unity, preventing extreme factionalism.
Western Disruption:
European intervention weakened the Ottoman religious authority, opening space for more rigid, anti-Ottoman interpretations of Islam.
The abolition of the Caliphate (1924) removed a central religious authority, allowing ideological fragmentation.
Colonial strategies favored Salafism over Sufism, as Salafism was easier to manipulate against the Ottomans and later against nationalist movements.
- The Role of the West in Promoting Salafism Over Ottoman Islam
A. British and French Policies
British alliances with Wahhabis in the 19th century helped establish the First Saudi State (1744–1818), a direct challenge to Ottoman authority.
French and British secularism policies in North Africa and the Levant created a reactionary movement—hardline Salafism grew as a rejection of Westernization.
Hadith literalism was promoted to counter Ottoman interpretations that allowed flexibility and reform.
B. The Destruction of Ottoman Religious Institutions
Western-backed secular reforms in Turkey (1924 onward) dissolved Ottoman religious institutions, cutting off centuries of Islamic jurisprudence.
Madrasas were replaced with nationalist, secular institutions, leading to a loss of traditional scholars and Hadith experts.
Western educational models promoted fragmented Islamic learning, allowing extremists to cherry-pick Hadith without traditional oversight.
- The Misuse of Hadith: A Colonial Tool?
A. British Divide-and-Rule Strategies
British policy encouraged Hadith-based sectarianism, funding groups that opposed Ottoman-style Hanafi and Sufi interpretations.
“Jihad” rhetoric was selectively promoted—Britain encouraged jihad against the Ottomans but suppressed it against colonial rule.
Hadith-based law was selectively applied to reinforce colonial control (e.g., in India, British courts applied Hadith only when it supported their rule).
B. French and Dutch Policies in North Africa & Indonesia
Colonial powers emphasized strict Hadith adherence to weaken local Sufi traditions that were resistant to foreign rule.
Salafi movements were tolerated or even encouraged because they rejected Ottoman authority and were easier to control than Sufi-led nationalist groups.
Western anthropologists studied Hadith selectively, emphasizing problematic texts while ignoring reformist traditions.
- How the West “Fornicated” Islam: The Bigger Role
Rather than simply “suppressing” Islam, Western powers helped reshape it, often unintentionally reinforcing extremist and literalist tendencies:
By dismantling Ottoman authority, they removed Islam’s political unity, creating ideological chaos.
By funding Wahhabi-Salafi movements, they empowered extremist factions over moderate Ottoman Islam.
By selectively applying Hadith, they created a fragmented legal and religious structure.
By imposing secularism, they triggered a reactionary backlash—modern extremism is, in part, a rejection of Western-imposed secularism.
Key Question: Was this intentional or a side effect?
Some aspects (e.g., British support for Wahhabis) were deliberate.
Other effects (e.g., Hadith misuse, Salafi dominance) may have been unintended consequences of Ottoman collapse.
Conclusion: Did the West Shape Modern Extremism?
Yes, but not in the way people usually think. Western colonial policies did not create Islamic extremism from scratch, but they significantly shaped its modern form by:
Destroying Ottoman religious unity
Funding literalist movements over pragmatic Ottoman Islam
Encouraging Hadith misuse as a political tool
Triggering a reactionary return to ultra-conservatism
Final Thought:
The Ottoman Empire acted as a stabilizing force against radicalism, and its fall—accelerated by Western intervention—left a vacuum that extremist movements filled. Western influence didn’t just “attack” Islam; it re-engineered it, often in ways that distorted its historical balance.
IV. Western Influence on Salafism, Hadith Misuse, and Extremism: A Comparative Analysis with Evstatiev’s Work
Evstatiev argues that Salafism is not a monolithic ideology but a spectrum of beliefs and practices that have been shaped by varying historical and socio-political contexts.
- The Ottoman Model vs. The Rise of Fragmented Salafism
A. Ottoman Islam: Pragmatic and Unified
Before its collapse, the Ottoman Empire acted as a theological and legal stabilizer, ensuring that:
Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) was guided by scholarly consensus (ijma’) rather than individualistic interpretations.
Hadith was contextualized rather than rigidly applied in a literalist manner.
Sufism and Hanafi jurisprudence balanced the spiritual and legal dimensions of Islam, preventing extremism.
This centralized control over religious thought, kept extreme interpretations in check.
The Ottomans, for example, saw the Wahhabi movement as a major threat, repeatedly crushing Saudi-Wahhabi revolts in the 18th and early 19th centuries. However, the West, particularly Britain, took the opposite stance.
B. Western Support for Wahhabism and Salafism
The British alliance with Wahhabism during the 19th century marked the beginning of a shift from Ottoman theological balance to Salafi literalism. As we previously discussed:
Britain saw Wahhabism as a useful tool to counter Ottoman power in the Arabian Peninsula.
By promoting a strict Hadith-based interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism gained ground at the expense of the Ottoman school of thought.
- Western Colonialism and the Fragmentation of Islamic Thought
Salafism became a contested and fragmented concept after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. This aligns with our earlier analysis in several ways:
A. Dismantling Ottoman Institutions → Rise of Competing Islamic Narratives
Western-backed secularism in Turkey (1924 onward) erased traditional Ottoman religious structures.
Colonial administrations (British in India, French in North Africa, Dutch in Indonesia) promoted specific Hadith-based laws selectively, reinforcing rigid interpretations of Islam.
Without a unified legal-religious authority, radical movements emerged, each claiming legitimacy based on different Hadith interpretations.
This echoes Ibn Khaldun’s theory: after the fall of a great empire, fragmented states mimic their conquerors. In this case, post-Ottoman Muslim societies mimicked European bureaucratic models but applied them to fragmented Islamic movements, resulting in disunity and radicalization.
B. The Colonial Creation of “Orthodox” Islam
Salafism became associated with “authentic Islam” in the colonial period, reinforcing our earlier point that the West had a role in shaping Islamic extremism. Key strategies included:
Replacing traditional Islamic learning (madrasas) with colonial-approved schools, where Islamic education was reduced to Hadith memorization.
Dismissing Sufi and Ottoman-era Islamic scholarship as “corrupt”, reinforcing a purist, legalistic Islam.
British and French officials funding specific Islamic scholars who supported anti-Ottoman and anti-Sufi narratives.
This process of erasing historical Islamic diversity and replacing it with a rigid, Hadith-centric legalism was not accidental. It served two key colonial objectives:
Divide and rule—creating divisions among Muslims prevented unified resistance.
Control and pacify—Salafism, when stripped of its revolutionary potential, became a conservative force that discouraged political activism against colonial rule.
The “Sick Man of Europe” Narrative as a Political Weapon
The earlier analysis argued that:
The Ottomans were not inherently weak; they were actively reforming.
The phrase was a tool used by European powers to justify intervention.
Ottoman weakness was partly engineered—Europe promoted internal divisions while funding anti-Ottoman movements.
The same logic applied to Islamic thought itself:
Just as Europe framed the Ottomans as “sick” to justify dismantling their empire, Europe also framed Ottoman Islam as “corrupt” to justify replacing it with a purist, Hadith-driven Islam.
Thus, Western discourse shaped not only political realities but religious perceptions:
Ottoman Islam = “degraded” and “innovative” → to be replaced by purist movements.
Salafism = the “authentic” Islam → despite being a historically minor movement, it became dominant due to Western narratives.
- The Unintended Consequences: Salafism, Extremism, and Hadith Misuse Today
A. Salafism as a Product of Modernity
Salafism is not a return to the past but a modern ideological construct. This strengthens our earlier discussion of how Western powers indirectly manufactured extremist ideologies by:
Destroying Ottoman pragmatism in favor of rigid legalism.
Funding and weaponizing Hadith literalism for political gain.
Erasing Ottoman scholarly traditions, creating an intellectual vacuum filled by extremists.
B. Extremism as a Reaction to Western-Engineered Islam
Ironically, the very Salafist movements that the West once supported turned against them.
Al-Qaeda and ISIS use the same Hadith literalism that the British and French once encouraged.
Western-promoted Salafi clerics (e.g., in Saudi Arabia) later became critics of Western imperialism.
Muslim societies, stripped of their Ottoman-era legal balance, became vulnerable to ideological extremism.
Thus, Western intervention did not just distort Islam—it created the conditions for violent radicalism.
Conclusion: Did the West Reengineer Islam?
The destruction of Ottoman Islam created a theological vacuum, filled by externally funded Salafi movements.
Western promotion of Hadith literalism weakened classical Islamic legal traditions, leading to ideological extremism.
The “Sick Man” narrative applied to both Ottoman politics and religion, framing Islamic traditions as outdated to justify intervention
Modern extremism is partly a product of these engineered distortions, turning political Islam into an ungovernable force.
Thus, Islamic extremism, Hadith misuse, and Salafi literalism are not purely internal phenomena—they are partially products of Western manipulation. The “fornication” of Islam was not just moral decay but an imposed transformation of its structures.
V. Western vs. Muslim Historiographical Approaches to Ottoman Decline
The concept of Ottoman decline has been one of the most debated topics in historical studies.
Western scholars generally present the Ottoman decline as inevitable, self-inflicted, and a consequence of Islamic stagnation,
while Muslim scholars often argue that external pressures, European interference, and colonial policies accelerated or even manufactured the decline.
By analyzing how each side constructs decline, we can better understand the political and ideological forces behind historical narratives.
- The “Decline” Narrative: A Western Construct?
The Western decline thesis argues that the Ottoman Empire:
Peaked under Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) and entered decline immediately after.
Failed to modernize while Europe underwent the Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, and Industrialization.
Collapsed due to internal corruption, military stagnation, and Islamic rigidity.
This interpretation suggests that Islamic civilization was inherently incapable of long-term progress, reinforcing colonial justifications for European intervention in the Muslim world.
A. Bernard Lewis and the Eurocentric “Decline Model”
Bernard Lewis’ thesis suggests that the Ottomans’ downfall was primarily a result of internal failures, reinforcing a broader Orientalist argument that Islamic civilizations, once they reached their peak, inevitably declined due to their resistance to progress. His main claims include:
Religious conservatism led to scientific stagnation – Lewis argues that the Ottoman ulema (scholars) resisted new knowledge (e.g., banning the printing press in the 15th century) while Europe advanced through the Renaissance.
Military stagnation and defeat by European powers – The Ottomans lost major wars after 1683 (e.g., Karlowitz Treaty, 1699) and never recovered militarily, supposedly because they refused to adopt Western tactics.
The state became corrupt and inefficient – The devshirme (slave recruitment system) broke down, the Janissaries resisted reform, and the empire was left with an incompetent administration.
B. The “Ottoman Decline Thesis” in Western Academia
Many Western historians in the 20th century adopted Lewis’ framework, leading to a standard historical narrative in Western education.
The problem with this Western decline thesis is that it often ignores European intervention as a factor in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Instead, it treats the Ottomans as passive victims of their own mistakes rather than an empire engaged in global struggles.
- Muslim Historians’ View: Ottoman Decline Was Engineered, Not Inevitable
In contrast, many Muslim historians argue that the Ottomans were deliberately weakened through external interference, European military aggression, and colonial economic warfare.
A. Halil İnalcık: Ottoman Adaptability vs. Colonial Aggression
The Turkish historian Halil İnalcık, one of the most respected Ottoman scholars, challenges the Western “decline model” by arguing that:
- The Ottomans did not decline after 1683 but transformed.
European states industrialized and changed their economies, which forced the Ottomans to shift from conquest-based expansion to internal administration.
Instead of military conquest, the Ottomans focused on diplomacy, trade, and internal reforms, which Western scholars mistook for decline.
- The Ottomans were not technologically backward—Europe cut them off.
The Ottomans built steam-powered ships and reformed their military in the 18th and 19th centuries.
European powers restricted technology exports to the Ottomans (e.g., Britain and France controlling arms sales) to ensure military superiority.
- Economic “decline” was a result of European trade dominance.
The Ottomans lost their economic independence due to the Capitulations—treaties that gave European merchants unfair privileges.
The British and French flooded Ottoman markets with cheap goods, destroying local industries.
B. Mustafa Aksakal: The Ottoman Empire Was Pushed into Collapse
Another key Muslim historian, Mustafa Aksakal, argues that:
- The Ottomans did not collapse due to stagnation but due to European sabotage.
The empire was forced into debt by European banks, leading to the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (1881), which gave European powers control over Ottoman finances.
Nationalist revolts (Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian) were secretly backed by Britain and France, weakening Ottoman control over its provinces.
- The Ottomans tried to modernize, but the West did not allow them.
The Tanzimat Reforms (1839–1876) were an effort to modernize governance, education, and military.
Western powers interfered constantly, supporting separatist movements instead of helping the Ottomans modernize.
- How This Debate Shapes Modern Political Perceptions
The battle between Western and Muslim historical narratives is not just an academic issue—it influences modern geopolitics, foreign policy, and Muslim self-perception.
A. Western Implications: Justifying Secularism & Westernization
If the Ottoman Empire collapsed due to Islamic stagnation, then modern Islamic governance is also doomed to fail.
This justifies Western-style secularism, portraying it as the only path to progress.
It also justifies past European intervention in the Muslim world, suggesting that colonialism helped “fix” Islamic governance.
B. Muslim Implications: The Case for Reclaiming Historical Agency
If the Ottoman decline was engineered, then Muslim nations today should resist Western economic and political control.
It strengthens the argument for reviving Islamic governance, rather than blindly following Western models.
It also provides a historical foundation for challenging Islamophobia, showing that Islamic civilizations were actively sabotaged, rather than collapsing due to inherent flaws.
- Conclusion: Decline or Transformation? A Battle Over Historical Memory
The Ottoman decline debate is ultimately a battle over historical memory.
Western scholars present decline as an internal failure to justify colonial intervention and secular modernization.
Muslim scholars argue that decline was artificially imposed through economic warfare, political destabilization, and military containment.
VI. Historical Timeline of the Ottoman Empire: A Dual Perspective with Salafist/Wahhabist Movements
17th Century: Early Signs of Decline and Religious Movements
1683: Battle of Vienna
Western: Ottomans’ defeat ends westward expansion, signaling military stagnation.
Muslim: Begins internal shift as pressures from Europe mount; religious conservatives start pushing against reforms.
1690s–1700s: Stronger Emerge of Wahhabism
Western: Wahhabism challenges Ottoman religious authority, seen as a threat to unity.
Muslim: Reaction to perceived Ottoman moral decay, advocating a return to “pure” Islam.
18th Century: Growing Religious Tensions
1744: Founding of Saudi-Wahhabi Alliance
Western: Alliance with House of Saud grows, challenging Ottoman control.
Muslim: Wahhabism seen as a reformist movement against Ottoman religious practices.
1774: Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca
Western: Ottoman loss of Crimea marks the beginning of territorial decline.
Muslim: Treaty reflects both European pressures and growing Wahhabi influence.
19th Century: Reform and Religious Resistance
1811–1818: Ottoman-Saudi Conflict
Western: Ottomans reassert control over Arabia, combating Wahhabi threat.
Muslim: Wahhabi conflict viewed as a response to Ottoman corruption and declining religious legitimacy.
1839–1876: Tanzimat Reforms
Western: Reforms aimed at modernization and secularization.
Muslim: Reforms alienate conservative religious groups, including Salafists and Wahhabis.
1840s: Spread of Wahhabism
Western: Wahhabism seen as destabilizing force in Muslim world.
Muslim: Wahhabism’s spread reflects the empire’s weakening authority and loss of religious legitimacy.
Early 20th Century: The Empire’s Collapse and Salafist Movements
1908: Young Turk Revolution
Western: Secular movement to modernize the Ottoman Empire along European lines.
Muslim: Revolution seen as alienating religious conservatives; rise of Salafist ideas for Islamic governance.
1914–1918: World War I
Western: Ottoman defeat marks the empire’s final disintegration.
Muslim: End of the caliphate, seen as a loss of Islamic political authority.
1924: Abolition of the Caliphate
Western: Seen as a step toward secularizing Turkey.
Muslim: A blow to Islamic unity; many view it as the loss of an Islamic political entity.
Mid-20th Century: The Rise of Salafism
1930s–1940s: Salafi Movements in Egypt and the Arab World
Western: Salafism viewed as reactionary, countering Western-style modernization.
Muslim: Salafism pushes for a return to the practices of the early generations of Muslims, a reaction against Ottoman legacy and Western colonialism.
1940s–1950s: Wahhabism’s Influence Expands
Western: Saudi Arabia funds Wahhabism globally, seen as fostering extremism.
Muslim: Saudi influence promotes Wahhabi ideology, positioning it as a model of puritanical Islamic governance.
Late 20th Century to Early 21st Century: The Globalization of Salafism and Wahhabism
1970s–1980s: Wahhabi Ideology Exportation
Western: Saudi Arabia spreads Wahhabism worldwide, seen as promoting radicalism.
Muslim: Wahhabism as an ideological response to Western imperialism and political oppression in Muslim-majority countries.
1980s–1990s: Rise of Islamic Extremism
Western: Wahhabi-Salafi ideology linked to radicalism and terrorism (e.g., al-Qaeda).
Muslim: Extremism viewed as a hijacking of Salafism by radical elements exploiting political instability.
2000s–Present: Salafism and Wahhabism in Political Islam
Western: Linked to terrorism and extremism, posing a security threat.
Muslim: Salafism seen as a call for religious purity, though political exploitation distorts its true intentions. Extremist groups continue to damage the image of Salafism within the broader Muslim community.
IV. Bridging the Divide: A Holistic Approach to Combat Extremism and Salafism
By integrating both Western and Muslim perspectives on the fall of the Ottoman Empire, we can not only gain a deeper understanding of history but also find crucial tools to counter the rise of extremism and the growing influence of Salafism in modern Islamic discourse. Understanding the dual forces of internal stagnation and external interference—rather than attributing the empire’s downfall solely to internal failure—helps contextualize the broader challenges faced by Islamic societies today.
How the Dual Framework Helps Combat Extremism
Salafism and extremism often thrive on distorted historical narratives that promote the idea of a glorious past untainted by external interference, while casting modernity and reform as a betrayal of Islamic principles.
This view frequently romanticizes the early Islamic period and promotes an idealized return to a supposed “pure” state, ignoring the complexities and nuances of history that shaped the development of Islamic societies.
By emphasizing the role of external interference in the decline of the Ottoman Empire—such as colonial exploitation, economic destabilization, and military containment—we challenge the narrative that Islam’s problems are solely self-inflicted or inherent.
This reframe provides a more sophisticated and empowering narrative for Muslims, showing that their struggles have not been the result of an inherent flaw within Islam, but rather a consequence of historical forces beyond their control.
This shift in understanding helps disrupt the simplistic and rigid views espoused by extremist ideologies that present modernity and progress as threats to Islam.
Further, by focusing on the Ottoman efforts to modernize and reform, we provide a counter-narrative to Salafist ideas that reject all forms of adaptation and reform.
The Tanzimat Reforms, for example, were a genuine attempt by the Ottomans to balance Islamic principles with the demands of a rapidly changing world.
Recognizing these efforts as part of Islamic tradition encourages a more dynamic and engaged form of Islamic thought—one that embraces the values of justice, freedom, and progress within an Islamic framework, rather than rejecting all change as un-Islamic.
Empowering Contemporary Muslim Identity
A more nuanced historical perspective also empowers Muslims today by reclaiming their historical agency.
Rather than seeing themselves as victims of an inevitable decline, Muslims can understand that the challenges they face are often the result of external forces, such as imperialism and global economic manipulation.
This realization fosters a sense of empowerment and encourages a critical examination of current geopolitical structures.
Salafism and extremism often thrive in environments where Muslims feel disenfranchised, powerless, or disconnected from their history.
By revisiting the rich history of the Ottoman Empire and emphasizing its agency and attempts at modernization, Muslims can reclaim a narrative of self-determination and resilience.
This could provide a foundation for modern efforts to resist exploitation and assert sovereignty over their political and economic futures.
A more informed perspective allows Muslims to challenge the idea that secularism or Western governance is the only path forward, fostering a sense of confidence in their ability to chart a course rooted in their own values and traditions.
Counteracting the Growing Influence of Extremism
Finally, by providing a broader historical context, this dual framework offers critical tools to counteract the growing influence of extremist ideologies.
Salafism thrives in part because it capitalizes on discontent and a sense of loss—loss of power, respect, and agency in the face of Western dominance.
By highlighting the historical processes that led to the Ottoman decline—especially European interference and sabotage—we offer a means for Muslims to resist the fatalism that extremism often propagates.
Rather than falling into the trap of rejecting the modern world entirely or turning inward in a reactionary fashion, Muslims can draw on their own history of adaptation, reform, and resilience.
This approach offers a vision of an Islamic future that is both grounded in tradition and open to necessary change, promoting engagement with the world rather than retreating from it.
By emphasizing this historical adaptability, we can undermine the extremist narrative that seeks to isolate Muslims from the global community, offering instead a model for constructive engagement with both Islamic principles and modernity.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, a holistic approach that integrates both Western and Muslim perspectives on the fall of the Ottoman Empire provides critical insights into how we can combat extremism and Salafism.
By challenging oversimplified narratives of decline and highlighting both external and internal factors in the empire’s collapse, we provide Muslims with a more empowering historical narrative—one that underscores the importance of agency, resilience, and the potential for reform within an Islamic framework.
This approach not only helps combat extremism but also offers the tools necessary to counteract the growing influence of rigid, reactionary ideologies, fostering a more dynamic, inclusive, and progressive vision of Islamic governance and identity.
Sources:
The Rise and Fall of The Ottoman Empire and How it fits Ibnu Khaldun’s Theory
https://eudl.eu/pdf/10.4108/eai.20-10-2020.2305158
Salafism, Wahhabism and The Definition of Sunni Islam https://digitalcommons.augustana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=honrstudent