Shadi Hamid | Secular Islam & The Ottoman Empire

In this segment of "Exploring Minds", Shadi Hamid explains how the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate in the 1920s has contributed to the relationship between Islam and democracy in the Middle East.
-
Shadi Hamid is a senior fellow in the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World in the Center for Middle East Policy and the author of "Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World" (St. Martin's Press), which was shortlisted for the 2017 Lionel Gelber Prize. He is also co-editor with Will McCants of “Rethinking Political Islam” (Oxford University Press) and co-author of “Militants, Criminals, and Warlords: The Challenge of Local Governance in an Age of Disorder” (Brookings Institution Press). His first book “Temptations of Power: Islamists and Illiberal Democracy in a New Middle East” (Oxford University Press) was named a Foreign Affairs "Best Book of 2014." Hamid served as director of research at the Brookings Doha Center until January 2014. Hamid is also a contributing editor at The Atlantic and vice-chair of the Project on Middle East Democracy's board of directors.
-
SUPPORT US ON PATREON:
/ exploringmindsshow
FOLLOW ALONG FOR UPDATES AND NEW EPISODES:
Discord - / discord
Facebook - / exploringmindsshow
Twitter - / exploreminds_tv
Instagram - / exploreminds_tv
Website - exploringminds.show
-
Exploring Minds with Michele Carroll is the online show committed to exploring the world beyond talking points.
Thank you for watching!

[@jacovichstabs841]

This is really interesting, thanks!

[@isitsafe6166]

One of the first Arabs if heard being honest about the things that the ppl from the culture he grew up in need to come to terms with.
The Arabs abandoned math and reason in the middle ages, then, generally speaking, never recovered from the sack of Baghdad by Genghis Khan in the mid 12 00s

[@adamburke1088]

Its good to see people finally discussing what was perhaps the largest international dealing in slaves. For some reason only Europeans are criticized for having slaves - discussing the Ottoman Empire should help show people how Europeans barely dealt in slaves when compared to the Muslim empires; like the Ottomans.

[@isitsafe6166]

The circle I want squared is the transition of Mohamed from a genuine, legit prophet to a violent warlord. How is that circle going to be squared?
In Christianity we disagree about all kinds of doctrine and religious practice, but we can always come back to; what would jesus do? Can't do that with Islam

[@AbdulKhader-786]

Many prophets were warlords like Moses and Joshua

[@nuux1560]

It's got nothing to do with squaring a circle.
Muhammad's transition is perfectly natural, gradual, even a theoretically logical one, over the course of 20 yearn transformation. Built like a house, from bottom-up.
Muhammad in Mecca preached the fundamentals of Islam; monotheism, values/principles and ritual practice. Then with his migration, acquired a political status, with growing converts, became a community that saw those principles practically applied and acquiring wider dimensions of justice, law and order, and also warfare. It makes him a complete figure.
The Medinan transition, is basically to do with including of law and order. Does the Old Testament have laws, involving crime and punishment? You're criticising this because you come from a Christian background that lacks a legal tradition, which explains Europe's instablility, in contrast with the extreme legalism of the Jewish tradition. That's why Islam - and the Muslim tradition is relatively balanced between the 2 with equal ingredients of both aspects.
There is nothing that suggests Muhammad was a 'violent warlord' whatsoever. He is caught up by his ongoing attack by the Meccans after his migration, to which after he becomes a head of state in Medina, establishes defensive wars in retaliation. What part of any of this makes him a warlord?
Then, after 8 years, he literally signs a 10 year peace agreement, that the Meccans then violate - to which he then ultimately is left with no option but to use his power to conquer Mecca away from the warring Meccans, and to bring them under his control and justice, and he gives three options: 1) convert to Islam and all is good, 2) choose to punished (executed) for war crimes and 3) Depart and migrate away from Mecca and the region. Vast majority chose 1.
So you tell me, a man who made those 2 decade transformation, with justice, perseverance and activism, became a 'violent warlord' merely because he picked up a sword due to necessity. This would then be succeeded by the Caliphates, who bring all of this trans-nationally.
The transition of Islam in its formative stages can be described as the following:
A Call - A movement (Mecca) - A community - A state (Medina) - An Empire (Caliphates).
That last statement is false.
In Islam, there are differences of in theology as well (minute), and a range of difference in jurisprudence of ritual, ethical and legal practice. In fact that sources of Islamic scripture, with God as the fundamental basis (Quran) and Muhammad as the human working example (Hadith) are more fixed. And given that Muhammad practiced what he preached in 20 years, it is even more defined.
The reference point for Muslims is very easily, Muhammad's tradition (Sunnah) and his Companions.