Abdulmecid I Quotes

Khomeini was a politician as well as a cleric. He was not always consistent depending on his audience. This book was the publication of 17 different speeches with different audiences. Here he opposes all monarchy, but there is little doubt that his main target was the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. In {620335} he suggests that monarchy would be acceptable if the monarch followed Islamic law. Here he leaves no room for monarchies of which there were and are a number in the Muslim world. And at the height of Islam there was a Caliph who not only had absolute rule of ALL Muslim countries, but he was the absolute ruler of the religion. The Caliph and later the Islamic Sultan held more absolute power than any king or Pope ever had. Most of the Islamic fundamentalists claim that they want a return to having a Caliph with absolute power. And even in Iraq today, the “Supreme Leader” exercises more autonomous power, than any monarch or dictator does in his own country.

In most of the world this is an accepted truism. However, where there is judicial independence as in the United States, Israel, Norway, England and other countries, those who appoint judges have little or no control over a judiciary that has lifetime tenure and a tradition of non-interference. The influence is limited to the appointment of a judge with a particular philosophy. However, in some countries, not only do the courts follow the lead of the government but if they do not the judges themselves might be jailed or worse. Borelli’s principle therefore holds there.

Turks and Arabs tend to blame each other for the stagnation of Islam.

The Byzantine emissary had pointed out that Mehmed’s predecessors had signed a treaty agreeing to “consult” with Constantinople before building any fortified structure in the area surrounding Constantinople. Mehmed was only 19 years old at this time. His intention f building a fort was to have a platform from which to attack and capture Constantinople itself which he did 2 years later. Earlier, the Eastern Roman Empire was much stronger and the Ottoman sultans were more cautious in dealing with them. However, the various Christian factions were all feuding with each other, and Mehmed II, despite his youth, was much better organized and was a better leader than his predecessors.

Sharif Husain was the leader of the Hashemite Tribes who had agreed with the British to lead a Hashemite Arab revolt against the Ottoman Turks in exchange for the Hashimites to have their own independent state—Jordan. This also explains the close relationship between Jordan and Britain. The notion of enslavement to the British illustrates a blind spot that the Ottoman Empire had in its waning years. The Ottoman Sultan had the power of life and death over everyone in the empire, and Istanbul appointed all public officials for all jurisdictions, and made laws that applied to all. The Hashemites would instead have their own nation, make their own laws and would by subject to British foreign policy to the extent that the British guaranteed their independence from the Sultan and the Ottomans. They regarded it as freedom and not slavery.

In the Middle East, counties have often made bad deals or embarked upon damaging policies in order to appear to be strong. In that part of the world there is a firm belief that showing any weakness at all will invite many different forces to go after you. Iran has this vision of Islamic world leadership and if they so not appear to be very strong and powerful to the Muslim world, their aspirations will have been for naught.

The Sultan, led 17 different military expeditions to India to spread the Muslim faith He is one of the few major conquerors of the world who was never defeated in Battle. He conquered the Lahore area and others of India that became Muslim and eventually became Pakistan. He was the first Islamic leader to bear the Title of Sultan demonstrating the separation of the civil power from the Caliph.

This quotation is often given by those who believe that nothing has really changed regarding the Arabs and non-Islamic Westerners in the last century. While the support of dictators, Israel and support for that democracy, the artificial Western imposed borders, 9-11, or the Iraq war is often cited as the cause of Arab hostility and murderous aggression, as this quotation demonstrates, the problems and attitudes and behaviors existed long before any of these occurred. The borders were not set until after WWI and all the other causes occurred almost 50 years later, Yet there was still the propensity for fanaticism and violence. Sikes actually was one of those who was to determine the Arab borders, making one of the first “suggested” maps of the area for the English.

The modern Islamic interpretation of this statement is no corrupt sovereign can be removed without a divine edict -- in other words, he ceases to rule only upon his death, because he does not abandon his palace unless he is on his way to the grave. The result is that many Muslims do not countenance revolution.

Televised throughout the Arab Speaking world by Al-Jazeera TV. He and many other Muslims believe that with the greater Muslim birth rate, and with enough intimidation to maintain the large Muslim immigration rate, it is only a matter of time when the Mosems will take over Europe without a war.

All modern legal systems conflict in some respects with a literal interpretation of the Koran which is the basis for the traditionalists view of Sharia—Islamic law. Therefore a student of modern law is learning things which go against Sharia as interpreted by fundamentalists. There was a time when Jewish and Christian American religious families were uncomfortable with studding modern law as there were contradictions with Biblical law. There are still a few.

While it is true that the English wanted a legal system that would enforce modern western views of business and property, there was another major reason that the British wanted special courts. There were many British businessmen and civil service who insisted on their rights as Englishmen. These were not provided by traditional Islamic law (Sharia). On the other hand the British wanted to give the Egyptians a great deal of autonomy and the compromise was to have two legal systems—one for each culture. This is a solution that has existed many times and many places. The most common is when the U. S. has a military base in a foreign country and agreement is entered into as to what laws will govern the Americans. Even in the United States it was common for many years for Indians accused of a crime on an Indian reservation to be tried by the tribal council while whites accused of the same crime would be tried before a Federal Magistrate. Even today there are conflicts between the legal systems and traditions of some tribes and the United States Constitution which also protects all Indians.

This problem which was so well described over a century ago in Egypt, still vexes most of the Islamic world.

The last Calif of the Muslims was removed in 1924 as part of the Turkish Reform. The position has had attraction for many Muslim leaders who saw themselves in the role, but since 1924, nationalism and modernism and the lack of an effective international Muslim leader has precluded it.

When the Turks defeated the Christians, the only explanation many Christians could conceive of was that God was on the side of the Turks.

The Muslims were poised to make the final assault on Constantinople. Religious leaders were whipping up the troops by calling for Jihad and telling them those who fell in battle would enjoy immediate access to Paradise and the virgins that went with Islamic martyrdom. However, the Sultan did not trust religious fervor alone. He said this to the leaders of his soldiers who then spread the word. The City fell the next day. The troops had 3 days of looting, rape and pillage which the Sultan had promised, but there was almost no further damage to the infrastructure other than that caused by the seige cannons.

The Caliph in the past was the religious and secular leader of all Muslims. Many of the fundamentalist terrorists have as their objective, the reestablishment of the Caliphate which will unite all Islamic countries under one leader who is both the secular and religious supreme authority—a religious and a civil dictatorship. Most Muslims, like most people of all religions, are not terrorists and believe that much of terrorist activity violates many basic tenets of Islam. However, in order to function, the terrorist must have the tacit support of sufficient numbers of people so that they can function without being exposed. That is an important objective for Al-Qaeda: to enlist sufficient numbers of ordinary people who although they will not commit the terrorist acts, will support the objectives of the terrorists and provide money, shelter, and other services.

The Arabs have a long history of arrogant and disdainful treatment by others given the British Colonial history in the Middle East, the French (who invaded Egypt under Napoleon), the Islamic Ottoman Empire which controlled the Middle East before that, and others. Along with the arrogance that usually comes with empire, Western support of the only democracy and modern state in the Middle East—Israel—was even more resented by the Arabs. Historically, there was a general feeling by much of the world that if the Arabs had no oil, no one would pay much attention to them. The Arabs naturally resented these attitudes. It was not until Nasser’s successor, Anwar Sedat, came to government in Egypt and King Hussein reformed Jordan, that Western attitudes began to change towards the Arab nations. The Western change was not because of any Arab “lesson” but the result of new, exceptionally capable leaders who have been reforming the Arab nations.

Bulgaria was under the control of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Levski always made it clear that Muslims were welcome in the Bulgaria that would be created after the Revolution. Most Muslims did not believe him, and many could not understand the concept of a nation without the Sultan who was the political AND religious head of Islam the world over. Essentially for many Muslims there can be no such thing as separation of church and state. To two cannot be distinct.

“Musalmans” was then another English term for Muslims. At the time, the Hindus and Muslims of India were both under the rule of the British. As bad as Colonial Rule was, it had some advantages for the subjects and their desire to reform government and education. Ironically, there is no Islamic nation today, with the exception of Turkey, where Muslims have the rights, freedom and privileges as they had at the turn of the century in Colonial India.

He was in many ways centuries ahead of his time with constructive ideas for any people and age. However, this was one of the exceptions. Unfortunately it became the norm for most Islamic countries even to modern times. Essentially, a bad ruler in this Islamic doctrine can be removed only if he does not follow Islam. For just being unjust or incompetent, revolution is not allowed and prayer is the only recourse. That is one of the major reasons that there have been so few Arab uprisings and revolutions although there have been many assassinations for alleged religious apostasy or insufficiency.