The Ottoman Empire

a reply to: RAY1990

I believe you are right.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Islam has never had a world leader. The Caliphate may think otherwise but it is far from true. There are two predominant sects, Shia and Sunni, and they each had their own leader since shortly after the death of Mohammed.

It's not there is a ''Pope" of Islam as those two sects have factions of their own as well as a third movement called Sufism that is like the Gnostic branch of Islam.

In Islam you are not obligated to obey anyone but God, unfortunately some nations are corrupt and use the police and military to gain the submission of its citizens.

But that is not unique to Islam. Communist and atheist by law Russia was worse.

There is no one leader of all of Islam.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Islam has never had a world leader.

If one person had authority over all Muslims, then isn’t that person the world leader of Islam? Then at least all Muslims were united under Muhammad.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: SethTsaddik

Islam has never had a world leader.

If one person had authority over all Muslims, then isn’t that person the world leader of Islam? Then at least all Muslims were united under Muhammad.

And did you not read that I said right AFTER Mohammed died they split in two? That means that I am aware that at one point all of Islam was united and am not talking about Mohammed when I say Islam has never had a world leader.

Islam wasn't a world religion then, just a local one. So saying Islam has never had a world leader is accurate. The Governor of Idaho is not a world leader but leads Idaho. So to have a world leader you need to be a world organization, not a brand new local one.

So he wasn't a world leader, he was the inaugural Prophet. Of a new movement that has never had one leader since.

Big difference really. And like I said as soon as he died there became two sects that became more and more sects, and no one person since the Prophet has led all of Islam. I pretty much made this clear in my previous comment so I don't understand why you are mentioning Mohammed as if I didn't or wasn't aware of who the founder of Islam was.

It's like you wanted to make a point out of the obvious as if it was worth it, but it was not. It is not like I didn't know about Mohammed.

And it was because someone thought that the Caliphate was the leader of Islam, something worth pointing out as false as ignorance needs to be dealt with.

But for the record I was already aware that Mohammed was the founder and leader of Islam in its genesis because I don't live in a cave and didn't think anyone would actually misinterpret my comment as you have.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

No, I didn't read that, because it is not true. The factional split occurred 30 years after Muhammad died. One post-split faction then claimed that the previous three caliphs had been illegitimate rulers. Not the same thing at all.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

It is evident that you mean to denigrate Islam and show how superior and dominant your own culture (Jewish, to judge by your username) is. The topic of this thread is the Ottoman Empire, not your personal prejudices. I have no wish to split hairs with the prejudiced.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: SethTsaddik

It is evident that you mean to denigrate Islam and show how superior and dominant your own culture (Jewish, to judge by your username) is. The topic of this thread is the Ottoman Empire, not your personal prejudices. I have no wish to split hairs with the prejudiced.

Actually I am a Muslim, I bet you feel foolish for assuming. And I didn't denigrate anything, I was just correcting errors.

You probably feel denigrated because I pointed out that your comment was pointless and you misinterpreted mine.

Oh well.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: SethTsaddik

No, I didn't read that, because it is not true. The factional split occurred 30 years after Muhammad died. One post-split faction then claimed that the previous three caliphs had been illegitimate rulers.

If you didn't read it how could you know if it was true?

And how is it not true?

You again misinterpreted my comment, I didn't mean the second he died, just soon after.

And 30 years is soon when talking about something from the 7th century.

Boy, you are really miffed. And terrible at deducing information. And just plain off. And angry, wrong and need to get over it and stop pretending I said something that wasn't true.

Because you misinterpret what is usually obvious and goes without saying being absent as equivalent to not being known (by me) which is foolish.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: SethTsaddik

It is evident that you mean to denigrate Islam

How so? I am not the type to self denigrate and didn't say anything remotely evident of a desire to do so.

Stop making up lies.

and show how superior and dominant your own culture (Jewish, to judge by your username) is. The topic of this thread is the Ottoman Empire, not your personal prejudices. I have no wish to split hairs with the prejudiced.

You are just mad that I corrected you and are behaving foolishly. Grow up.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

If you didn't read it how could you know if it was true?

Trivial. You’re off topic. And I don’t believe for a moment that you are a Muslim.

Anyone can pretend to be anything they like on the Web, but their writings give them away.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: SethTsaddik

If you didn't read it how could you know if it was true?

Trivial. You’re off topic. And I don’t believe for a moment that you are a Muslim.

Anyone can pretend to be anything they like on the Web, but their writings give them away.

Irrelevant as I am not just claiming to be a Muslim, I am. And anyone can say anything, is this news to you?

It's only "trivial" because you effed up by saying something you didn't read was not true.

How can you know if something is untrue without reading it?

You opened the door, I am entitled to walk through it.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

I am not just claiming to be a Muslim, I am.

Pull the other one, it has ringlets on it.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I'm going to apologize because I was drinking a metric ton. My background deals in theology across many religions. Specifically the interplay between them. Also, I'm a touch of a lush. My apologies if I have offended you in my midnight ramble.

What a shame a pleasant thread was ruined by one anti-Muslim ideologue.

a reply to: mnemonicmania
Thank you for the apology.
I wasn't offended. I just took note of "I do this for fun" and classified you on that basis for future reference. If you're not like that when sober, I may read your future posts after all.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I've got gems and personal garbage. It isn't you, it is actually me, at times. Would you believe Philosophy and Anthropology have a great deal of unpaid uses?

I always find it hilarious when certain muslims talk about wanting to go back to the "good old days" of the Caliphate, that ended in the early 20th century with the Ottoman Turks.

What the Ottoman Turks had at the end of the 20th century was a meaningless title tacked on to the end of a long list of emperor titles the ruler had, passed down through hereditary to cement their authority over the people. The "Caliphate" hadn't existed since the year 661.

As for the original question, no, the dominant school of thought of the Ottoman Empire (enforced through the fact that they were nominally the religious as well as the political rulers) was the Hanafi school of thought. They ruled over the Sauds (one of the main causes of the spread of Wahabist salafiism), but the influence of the Sauds at the time wasn't all that much.
As for whether a Western Christian person could travel safely through the Ottoman Empire in 1910 (an odd date to choose, because the empire was almost finished at that point), the answer is a bit obvious, because the Ottoman Empire covered areas with majority Christians (such as the Serbs and Bulgarians in the Balkans).
You would most likely be just as safe as a western christian travelling anywhere else in Europe, unless you were Armenian, I suppose (but their targeting was more political rather than religious-based).