The Islamic World's Contradictory Standards on Occupation
In the Islamic world, the legitimacy of rulers is often judged not by their governance or contributions but by their religious identity. Muslim occupiers are embraced as rightful leaders, regardless of their failures, while non-Muslim rulers, even those bringing progress or rightful return, are condemned as colonizers. This dichotomy reveals a theology that prioritizes faith over facts, leading to a distorted perception of justice and history.
Ottoman Rule: Faith Over Function
When the Ottoman Empire conquered Arab territories, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and the Hijaz, in 1516–1517, it was not seen as an occupation but as a unification of Muslim lands under a Sunni caliph. The Ottoman sultan's claim to the caliphate, formalized in Cairo in 1517, positioned the empire as the Ummah's leader, instantly legitimizing their rule in Arab eyes. Despite this, Ottoman governance brought little progress to the Arab world.
By 1700, the Ottoman GDP per capita in Arab provinces was 80% of European levels, falling to 60% by 1900. Infrastructure remained rudimentary, with no major advancements in irrigation or urban development. Yet, Arab religious scholars and local leaders welcomed the Ottomans, with mosque sermons in Damascus and Cairo hailing them as defenders of Islam. The Ottomans' Muslim identity, not their negligible contributions, ensured their rule was seen as a natural Islamic order.
This acceptance persisted throughout the Ottoman era, even as conditions worsened. By the 19th century, economic decline deepened, with Syria's trade balance dropping 25% from 1850 to 1910. Administrative corruption and neglect were rampant, with no significant modernization in education or industry. The 1915–1918 Syrian famine, killing 500,000, underscored Ottoman failure.
Yet, the Islamic world's loyalty to the Ummah held firm, with Islamic scholars "ulema" and the majority of the public continuing to view Ottoman rule as legitimate. Even after the empire's collapse in 1918, the 1924 abolition of the caliphate sparked protests across Arab lands, as Muslims mourned the loss of their Caliphate for the first time in the Islamic history.
Ottoman Rebellion: Economic Grievance, Not Religious Rejection
The Arab Revolt of 1916–1918, sparked by economic and administrative grievances, targeted Ottoman mismanagement but never questioned their Muslim legitimacy. By the early 20th century, heavy taxation and economic strain, exacerbated by World War I, alienated Arab populations, with conscription of 200,000 Arab men deepening discontent. Turkification policies, prioritizing Turkish language and culture, further frustrated Arab elites.
Yet, the revolt's leader, Sharif Hussein, framed his June 1916 Proclamation of Mecca as a demand for improved Islamic governance. His vision of an Arab-led Muslim state underscored that the rebellion was driven by practical concerns, economic hardship and administrative failures, rather than theological opposition to Muslim rule.
British and French Mandates
The British and French mandates imposed after World War I, Syria and Lebanon under France, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine under Britain, were met with immediate hostility, not for their governance but for their Christian identity. Unlike the Ottomans, these powers introduced modernity to the Arab world. The British built railways, roads, and schools in Iraq and Palestine, with oil revenues funding infrastructure. The French modernized Syrian cities, constructing hospitals and telegraph lines. Literacy rates in mandate territories rose, with Iraq's urban schools expanding significantly by 1930.
Yet, these advancements were overshadowed by religious rejection. In Iraq, a 1920 fatwa mobilized 100,000 fighters against British rule, costing substantial resources to quell. The Syrian Revolt of 1925–1927, resulting in thousands of deaths, demanded Islamic sovereignty, not better governance.
The mandates' Christian identity rendered their contributions irrelevant; they were seen as infidel occupiers, a stark contrast to the Muslim Ottomans, whose failures were excused by faith.
Israel: Decolonization Branded as Occupation
Israel's establishment in 1948 was not an occupation but the ultimate act of decolonization, restoring Jewish sovereignty to their ancestral homeland after millennia of Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Ottoman, and British rule. The Jewish people's return ended foreign domination, reclaiming a land tied to their history since biblical times. Yet, the Islamic world labeled Israel an occupier, waging wars and sustaining hostility to this day, solely because it is Jewish.
The rejection of Jewish sovereignty was not born from territorial disputes or questions of civil rights, it was rooted in a deeper theological conviction that Jews, as a non-Muslim people, had no divine legitimacy to govern land once ruled by Islam. This was not merely political resistance; it was a doctrinal revolt.
In Islamic jurisprudence, any land that once belonged to Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam) must never fall permanently under non-Muslim control. Thus, the rebirth of a Jewish state in Palestine, regardless of historical ties or legal foundations, was perceived as a theological offense. Islamic leaders, from the Mufti of Jerusalem to clerics across the Arab world, declared jihad against the “infidel state,” not because of settlements or borders, but because Jewish rule itself was seen as a reversal of Islamic supremacy.
Religious Identity Over Reality
The Islamic world's embrace of the Ottoman Empire, from its 1516 conquests to its 1918 collapse, was rooted in their Muslim identity, despite their failure to bring progress to Arab lands. Economic stagnation, high taxes, and famines were overlooked because the Ottomans were part of the Ummah, their rule sanctified by faith. The Arab Revolt sought reform, not rejection, of Muslim governance. In contrast, the British and French mandates, which built infrastructure and modernized the region, were reviled as Christian occupiers, their contributions dismissed. Israel, the Jewish people's return to their homeland, was branded an eternal occupation, warred against because it is Jewish, not because it occupies. This glaring hypocrisy, excusing Muslim occupiers while condemning non-Muslim progress, exposes an Islamic theology that values religious identity over truth, a sickness that keep on perpetuating conflict.
Wrote a piece called “the Shining Knights of Islam,” which you may enjoy