Why Did The Othoman Empire Allow Europeans to Capture Muslim Lands?

[شمله ور خراساني]

As salaamu aleikoum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

I do not have suffient knowledge about this subject. So therefore I would like to invite other mebers to discuss this with me.

The Othoman Empire allowed the British to capture vast portions of land and colonize Muslims. Afghanistan and northern India was ravaged by war. And similarly, many other parts of the world were being occupied by non-Muslims.

The supporters of Othoman Empire claim that the caliphate of the Othomans was Islamic and that they represented Islam.

I do not consider this to be true. So if anyone has anything valuable to say, please join this discussion.

[Catya Sher]

Sangar,

That's a very useful question.
I agree that the Ottomans did NOT do what they should have. For example, to help Imam Shamyl and his followers fighting against the Russian Tsars in the 1830s - 1859, when he was finally defeated - due to lack of help.

Officials talked but did not follow up with appreciable materiel. They mainly welcomed the family and followers to Istanbul and other parts of the Ottoman Empire after a stay in the Russian city of Kaluga, where they were under house arrest.

It's a complex question which needs much further thought.

Remember that the Ottomans focused more on attacking westward into Europe.
After they were pushed back on various sides, I think they became less militarily triumphant and tried to appease a bit. Probably there were trade-offs behind the scenes.

With the Crimean War, the French and English came to the help of the Ottomans and all three defeated the forces of the Tsar in the early 1850s. Perhaps after that time, there was accommodation to European prerogatives out of a sense of debt.

I'm tossing out a few thoughts off the top of my head.

What exactly were you thinking about here?

[KhalsaWarrior]

The Othoman Empire allowed the British to capture vast portions of land and colonize Muslims. Afghanistan and northern India was ravaged by war. And similarly, many other parts of the world were being occupied by non-Muslims.

Sangar, I couldnt understand what you meant by the above excerpt. Why would they allow it? Perhaps it was just that the British were more powerful and tactically adept than the Ottomans. Every empire has its weaknesses. The British used the Arabs to incite a rebellion when the Ottomans were busy concentrating their efforts elsewhere.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Ottoman Empire was severely weakened by the late 19th century and from their on they were forced to make concessions. They had went through any real time of industrialization and there were internal fracturing of the khilafah. The Janissaries were taking more power than they should have and from what little I know were corrupt adn inept. They were either too weak from their ongoing wars, lack of innovation or too fractured. In terms of South Asia, they were the khilaafah in the symbolic sense and their authority never really went there. Basically the weakening of the Muslims in Central and South Asia had more to do with their immediate Kingdoms.

Again this is very brief but I would like to see if I can find some more detail work inshallah.

[Catya Sher]

[ in reply to Khalsa W. observation] Right, I doubt it was deliberate.

We know the Ottomans had huge far-flung territories and many headaches. Perhaps they were too distracted and the British took advantage. It happens all the time to everyone, whether nations or individuals, unfortunately without extreme vigilance.

I get so angry about that Desert Rebellion with the horrendous Lawrence who was turned into some hero. He was really weird to put it mildly. That's MY opinion, someone else may think differently.

[Remember he was stationed in Miran Shah under a code name of Shaw, I think, for awhile til return to England where he died in a motorcycle crash.
Everybody be careful please if ever getting near one -- !]

Overall the Ottomans were excellent rulers. Their Empire lasted 600 YEARS, quite an achievement, and had beautiful mosques, a pious culture, much learning, beautiful art, etc.

Of the Padishahs, I like best Sultan Murat II and his son, Sultan Mehmet II, the Conqueror of Istanbul, by far.
Western historians rave over Sultan Suleiman Kanuni but I never cared for him. He was also tricked the vicious Russian Roxelana. He should have known better.
I could complain about that for ages!

Why do you not regard the Sultans as Caliphs, Sangar? I thought everybody does or did?
Do you believe the Abbasids were proper Caliphs then, or not?