The Ottomans smelt petrol in Istanbul

According to the Ottoman Archives, during the Ottoman era petrol was discovered in Istanbul, but due to being found in a residential area, permission to explore was denied.

News Desk

A document dated on October 1, 1915, reveals the details of petrol being found in the historic Balat district of Istanbul, but due to it being found in the Molla Aski neighborhood, which is a residential area, permission to explore was denied.

The Ottoman Archives document was found by historian Dervis Basa, who pointed out that during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II, the Ottoman authorities had started a campaign to find petrol in the region. ‘This document shows that petrol was found in Istanbul,’ he said.

‘While the address at which the petrol was found is explained, the location is supported by a number of names,’ he summarized.

The petrol was found in the Molla Aski neighborhood, inside the Tekfur Palace of the Balat district, in front of the home of Hayim Bahar. Basa also said that a request was sent to the Board of Ministers to give Egyptian Dr. Ahmed Fuad Bey the license to investigate the source of amount of petrol. However, this request was refused.

Commenting on the document, the head of the Turkish History Board Prof. Dr. Metin Hulagu said that for the discovery to reach the Board of Ministers shows that it was quite an important issue. He added that when it comes to petrol, one must look back at the era of Abdulhamid II, claiming that the reason for his dethroning in 1909 was because of two reasons – his pan-Islamic politics and the fact that he gave just as much importance to petrol as the British and the French did.

A symbol of resistance: Omar Mukhtar

Omar Mukhtar took full responsibility of leadership in Libya and sent a letter to Ahmed Al-Sharif Al-Senusi in February 1924. The letter which was full of rebuke stated that all prior agreements made between the Italians and Idris Al-Senusi have been cancelled and that the Tripoli community had been left without a leader.

History

In Africa, the leaders of the Senusiyyah, which was the greatest religious order of the region, joined forces with the Ottomans and used all their strength to start up a new resistance against the French and Italian imperialist invasion. Especially after Ahmed Al-Sharif Al-Senusi took leadership, the Senusiyyah order turned into a political and armed movement with religious and social roles, and in keeping the spirit of struggle continuously alive in Libya it became well-organised.

The Senusi continued to struggle alongside the Ottomans after the signing of the Quchy agreement between the Ottoman State and the Italians, and during the first world war. In 1917, believing that he would be more beneficial to the movement from Istanbul, Ahmed Al-Sharif Al-Senusi accepted the invitation of the Ottoman Sultan, and so Muhammed Idris Al-Senusi subsequently took Ahmed’s position. After signing an agreement that partially recognised the Italian invasion and also for medical reasons, he went to Egypt in 1922 which slowed down the resistance. However the order regained strength around another name that emerged from within it.

With Mustafa Akkad’s directorship and Anthony Quinn playing leading role, as well as with the great support given by the leader of Libya at the time Muammar Gaddafi, the name which became world renowned from the 1981 film ‘Lion of the Desert’ was Omar Mukhtar, who was the father of Muhammed Idris Al-Senusi, who studied under Sheikh Muhammed Mehdi and had exceptional leadership skills. He was born in 1862 and was a member of one of the biggest Arab tribes known as ‘Manfiya’, from the Qays family. He was against the Italian invasion, and attended the meeting in Kufra where the decision was made to fight, and with the group of 1000 fighters which he organized, he was amongst the first to fire shots against the Italians. As a commander he managed many raids and joined in the battles, and didn’t give the slightest concession even in the toughest of times in the fulfilment of the fighting spirit which Islam commanded.

By the time it was 1923, Omar Mukhtar went to Egypt to visit Muhammed Idris Al-Senusi, who had made an agreement with the Italians which recognised the invasion. However, not being able to receive a positive response, he returned back to Libya after the Italians made generous offers for him to give up fighting them. Omar Mukhtar took full responsibility of leadership in Libya and sent a letter to Ahmed Al-Sharif Al-Senusi in February 1924. The letter which was full of rebuke stated that all prior agreements made between the Italians and Idris Al-Senusi have been cancelled and that the Tripoli community had been left without a leader. He also let them know that they will continue to fight alongside the troops that aren’t in alliance at Jabalu’l-Akhdar; and asked them to send him money, weapons and provisions. By traveling to all the regions he gathered the Barqa, Tripoli, and Fizan forces under one helm. He then restarted a huge resistance against the Italians.

The thing that the Senusi order preached to the tribe members who participated in the fight without fear was that with revenue from tax, zakat, donations and the like given by the Muslim community, in addition to the booty taken from the enemy, all of which they depended on, was to be used for the successful struggle against the gorilla forces with which the Italians wanted to stop the fighting with, and that they ‘the Italians’ began resorting to using oppression, tyranny, threats and bribes. In this period, a fascist administration came into power under Benito Mussolini's leadership which decided to fiercely crush the resistance that the previous governors who he sent before such as Bongiovanni, Mombelli, Teruzi, Sicilliani and Pietro Badoglio couldn’t do. And for this job he employed Rodolfo Graziani, the most relentless out of those whom he had sent there until that day.

To stop Omar Mukhtar’s troops from receiving help from the community they destroyed the animals, crops and goods. The forests were set on fire. The armoured vehicles and planes dispatched to Libya under the command of the invasion began operations of apprehension to divide the Muslims from within. The Italians, which pulled to their side Omar Mukhtar’s childhood friend Sharif Al-Ghiryani, used Muhammed Riza, one of the leaders of the Senusi movement, as a means to invite Omar Mukhtar and his fighters to submission. However when they didn’t receive the results they wanted, this time they began to imprison the community that supported the resistance into camps. Of the tens of thousands of Libyan Muslims that where kept at these camps, some lost their lives due to starvation and sickness. Many of them were executed. Because most of the resistance came from Egypt, the new Governor Graziani had an area with total of about a two hundred and seventy kilometre distance from the Mediterranean coast, that was close to the Sellum bank and to the south of Jagbub, closed off with two meter high and three meter wide barbed wire fences.

Like this, the only way in which the fighters were receiving help was cut off. After all this, due to the systemized attacks, Omar Mukhtar's valuable friends became martyrs. Then, with the fall of Kufra, their fight seemed to be put in a rather troublesome situation. Despite all the negative circumstances, continuing the war and not giving up on his jihad, on the 11th of September 1931 when Omar Mukhtar and his men went to visit the grave of a companion of the Prophet named Sayyid Rafi, they fell into a circle of Italian soldiers and thus captured.

Tried in a court for being a rebellious Italian citizen, at that time 74-year-old Omar Mukhtar had this to say: 

The Judge: Who did you fight against?

Omar Mukhtar: I fought against the Italian government. 

The Judge: How many battles did you participate in?

Omar Mukhtar: Quite a few, I don’t know exactly. For the ones I didn’t participate in they were carried out by my command.

The Judge: Were you the one who gave the order to kill Sergeant Beati?

Omar Mukhtar: He became a hostage. One day when I wasn’t there the Italian forces came very close to our men, and because of this, as you know it’s a war situation, they killed him.

The Judge: Did you give the order to kill all those whom you took as hostage?

Omar Mukhtar: No, I did not give such a command.

The Judge: Were you the one who gave the command to kill the people repairing the phone lines at the Qasr Bani Qadem site and invade the Italian forces?

Omar Mukhtar: Yes, I gave these commands. 

After this the judge said: “Italy’s martial law court has decided for your execution”. In response Omar Mukhtar replied: “The ruling and decision is Allah’s alone. Your fake and fabricated ruling has no worth to it… To Allah we belong and to him we shall return”.

And so, on September 15th 1931, at the Suluk camp, he was executed in front of a crowd of 20,000. Omar Mukhtar, his life and struggle were a topic for research and the making of a film, as well as being the symbol of resistance in Libya. Thus his name was written in the pages of history for ever.

Resources:

Ahmet Ağırakça, Ömer Mukhtar, Beyan Yayınları, İstanbul, 1994. Ahmet Kavas, Ömer el-Mukhtar, Dia. Cilt,34. Hayrettin Yücesoy, Senusilik-Sufi Bir İhya Hareketi, İstanbul, 1985.

Israel's foundation laid by the Balfour Declaration

A copy of the original Balfour Declaration at the Israel Museum.

95 years ago, the British Foreign Affairs Minister Lord Arthur James Balfour sent a letter to the head of the head of the Federation of Jewish Organizations, Lionel Walter Rothschild, starting the settlement of Jews to Palestine.

News Desk

Having been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries, Palestine was occupied by the British during the First World War in 1917. Shortly after its occupation, the Foreign Affairs Minister of Great Britain, Lord Arthur James Balfour, sent a letter dated on 2 November 1917 to Lionel Walter Rothschild. Thus, the settling of Jews in Palestine commenced.

Knows as the Balfour Declaration, the letter to the Zionist leader reads:

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

"His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour.

With this letter, the British government handed the predominantly Muslim Arab land of Palestine as a homeland to the Jewish people and laid the foundation for the establishment of a Jewish state in the region. Within a year, France, Italy and the United States offered their support.

Following this, Zionist leaders H. Weizman and N. Skoly officially declared the settlement of Jews to Palestine. However, the Jews did not just settle in Palestine. Terrorist organizations like Haganah, Irgun and Stern were set up to terrorize the Palestinian people. These incidents increased after the end of the First World War, as Palestinians found themselves intimidated and repressed on their own soil. At the end of the Second World War, the state of Israel was officially established on 14 May 1948. 

Jewish state in Saudi Arabia proposed in 1917

A Russian Jewish doctor in Paris asked the British government to gather an army to seize eastern Arabia land for a Jewish national home, a month before Balfour declaration backed the idea.

News Desk

A letter to the British ambassador to France in 1917 proposed a Jewish state in modern-day Saudi Arabia, documents released by the British Library show.

Dr. M. L. Rothstein, a self-described ‘Russian medical doctor’ of Jewish origin based in Paris, wrote to Ambassador Francis Bertie on September 12 ‘for the conquest of the Turkish province of El Hassa (Hasa)’.

Al-Hasa is an oasis region in eastern Arabia.

Bertie explained to then Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour that Rothstein proposed the Entente Powers (Russia, France and the UK) should organize an army to carve out ‘a Jewish State on the Persian Gulf’.

Rothstein was serious about his proposal and laid out his action plan in the letter.

‘I undertake to assemble, for next spring, a Jewish fighting troop, a force of 120,000 strong men’ which would double ‘in cooperation… with the troops of the Entente,’ he said.

The troops would concentrate in Bahrain and once they reached 30,000, a ‘coup de main’ (swift attack) would follow, taking the ‘Turkish province of Al Hassa, near the Persian Gulf.’

It would then ‘become a Jewish State (un État juif)’, Rothstein suggested.

He predicted a ‘state of war’ with Turkey due to the invasion and said that ‘the Jewish troops will immediately enter into a campaign… until the final victory of the Entente or until their destruction.’

MYSTERIOUS DOCTOR

Little is known about the Russian doctor. He started his letter with his family’s ‘moral qualities’, an explanation of his roots in Jewish patriotism.

Thomas Holderness of the British Library’s India Office said Al-Hasa had ceased to be a Turkish province when Rothstein wrote the letter, suggesting he might be out of touch with the realities on the ground.

A response letter by Balfour’s assistant in October showed that the British government rejected the proposal outright.

‘His Majesty’s government regret that they cannot give effect to his proposals,”said the reply.

A month later, Balfour issued his now-famed declaration that threw the Kingdom’s support for the idea of establishing a ‘national home for the Jewish people in what was Palestine.

The documents are from the India Office Records held at the British Library. They are being digitized, along with others relating to the history of the Gulf, as part of the Library’s partnership with the Qatar Foundation.

Seljuks on the Baltic: Polish-Lithuanian Muslims in the Ottoman Empire.

Polish-Lithuanian Muslims des rather from the noble and valiant line of the Seljuks, the ancestors of the Ottomans. Their “Risâle-i Tatar-i Leh” (Polish Tatar Account) was composed with the help of scholars from the Ottoman court and attempted to address the problems of a Muslim people that chose to settle in non-Muslim lands.

Michael Połczyński

In 1558 three Muslims from Poland-Lithuania left their homes and set out on hajj. Their journey to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina took them south to Istanbul where they were approached by Grand Vizier Rüstem Pasha and asked to write an account of the history and condition of the Muslim community in Poland-Lithuania for Sultan Süleyman I. As one of the largest integrated, legally protected Muslim populations living in Christian Europe during the early modern period, Poland-Lithuania’s Muslims, called “Lipka Tatars” in later times, had a unique relationship with the most proximate and powerful Muslim power, the Ottoman Empire. The “Risâle-i Tatar-i Leh” (Polish Tatar Account) was composed with the help of scholars from the Ottoman court and attempted to address the problems of a Muslim people that chose to settle in non-Muslim lands and that were compelled by historical legal and social obligations to fight for Christian princes, at times against their fellow Muslims. 

With the help of their Ottoman ulema redactors, the Polish-Lithuanian Muslim authors of the Risâle developed a legitimizing historical narrative of their own settlement that was grounded in contemporary sensibilities of the Ottoman court. Gâza, millenarianism, and a fascinating hybridization of Polish/Ottoman historical myths of origin were employed in order to deny the Tatar ancestry of Poland-Lithuania’s Muslim nobility in favor of a dual Chingissid/Seljuk heritage linking them directly to the Ottoman dynasty and other powerful Islamic regimes. The ultimate solution to the separation of Poland-Lithuania’s Muslims from the dar al-Islam, and more immediately the immoral conflict between Muslims that occurred whenever Poland-Lithuania and the Ottoman Empire were at war, was for Süleyman to extend his shadow to the north and conquer Lehistan.

Muslims began to settle in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland before the reign of Osman I (1258-1326), the progenitor of the Ottoman dynasty, and continued to do so throughout the early modern period. Most came during times of conflict within the Golden Horde and its successor state, the Crimean Khanate, though Muslim prisoners of war were also forcibly settled. Rights to land and other privileges were given in exchange for military service, leading to the stratification of Muslim society between noble and non-noble populations. In the late 14th century Catholic Poland and pagan Lithuania were joined in a personal union under the newly baptized Lithuanian monarchs.

The authors of the Risâle described early Muslim settlement under pagan Lithuanian Grand Dukes in the 14th century as a form of gâza, or holy war aimed at the spread of Islam. Rather than betraying the directives of their faith for personal gain or security, the renegade settlers coming from the Hordes were in fact expanding the bounds of the Islamic world. For the audience of the Risâle, gâza was a powerful ideological tool used to legitimize the sovereignty of the Ottoman dynasty and an integral unifying factor for the orthodox Sunni military class of the Ottoman society. Further explanation offered for the settlers’ choice to align themselves with non-Muslim rulers was the high regard of Lithuanian and Polish leaders for the martial prowess of Muslim warriors as well as for the Islamic faith itself. Though they may have been unbelievers, the Risâle consistently portrays the monarchs of Poland-Lithuania as righteous leaders that respected to manifest superiority of the Islamic faith.

Foremost amongst these historical non-Muslim sovereigns mentioned in the Risâle was the pagan Grand Duke Vitold (1350-1430), who is portrayed as a saint-like figure venerated by Polish-Lithuanian Muslims. “The name of the king, who was like a pillar supporting Islam in the lands of the infidels [gâvur], is Vitold, whose memory is preserved up to our present age, as every year there is a day reserved to memorialize this king. Muslims living in this country gather in temples on this day and his name is recalled with reverence.” The details of this unusual ritual, memorializing a pagan convert to Latin Christianity, are unknown. Despite the alleged magnanimity of Vitold, the choice of the Polish-Lithuanian Muslim authors’ ancestors to settle in the land of the unbelievers caused them some remorse; “Our ancestors, always longed for those countries where our faith and our customs have a blissful abode. They were resigned, however, to their existence, and willingly surrendered to God’s purpose.”

The authors of the Risâle invoked the “Sarmatian” myth of origin of the Polish-Lithuanian noble estate alongside a parallel myth linking local Muslim nobles to both the Seljuk Turks and Genghis Khan. The Risâle informed the Ottoman court that the Lehs (Poles) “descend from a warlike nation in ancient times, from which they derive valor and strength. In fact, they are valiant in war, and the greater part of their people have a brave demeanor, full of life and movement, and when you see one on a horse you will think that you see a resident of the blessed realms of the Prophet.” By incorporating the Sarmatian narrative in their description of Lehistan (Poland), the Risâle’s authors reinforced the Polish-Lithuanian nobility’s belief in a common descent, as an estate, from Sarmatian tribes inhabiting the Pontic Steppe in antiquity. Sarmatism manifested in a powerful unifying ethos expressed through normative cultural practice amongst the multi-confessional Christian nobility, regardless of individual geographical/ethnic identities, reinforcing a sense of equality through mythological lineage and the legitimate leadership of the nobility vis-à-vis the peasantry and urban populations.     

It is evident that the Polish Lithuanian co-authors of the Risâle, who were very likely Muslim noblemen, had internalized the Sarmatian myth. They could not, however, partake in it directly. The social stratification of Polish-Lithuanian society created clear distinctions between noble and non-noble Muslims. Noble Muslims were not included within the “Sarmatian nation”. "Tatars" were thought by Poles to descend from the Scythians, another steppe culture of antiquity. The authors of the Risâle developed a parallel myth of origin for Muslim nobility that claimed both Seljuk and Chinggisid origins for the Muslim nobility of Poland-Lithuania. The text informs its readers that the ennobled portion of the Muslim population of Poland-Lithuania were not Tatars at all; “in this country they call us Tatars, though the bulk of us do not come from those ruffians, who are always held in the greatest contempt by Muslims, but rather from the noble and valiant line of the Seljuks, the ancestors of the Ottomans.” This alleged relation to the Seljuk Turks created a de-facto kinship with the Ottoman dynasty, binding them to a historical narrative that lay at the root of Ottoman sovereignty.

Non-noble urban Muslims of Poland-Lithuania, on the other hand, were described as descending from common Tatars of the Hordes. The authors’ distaste for Tatars was linked to the unsettled lifestyle of contemporary Tatars of the Crimean Khanate and Hordes; “we neither camp in tents, nor do we wander the steppes. But in (Lehistan) it is all the same; if someone professes a faith other than that of the idolaters [mushrık], they call him a Tatar”. It should be noted that, aside from this text, there is no historical record indicating that Polish-Lithuanian Muslims claimed Seljuk descent.

The alleged Seljuk patrimony of Muslim nobles of Poland-Lithuania was further elevated by emphasizing historical familial connections to Chinggisid Khans Jochi, Batu, and Tokhtamish. Unlike the Seljuk myth, there were Chinggisids amongst Polish-Lithuanian Muslims. Chinggisid descent was a legitimizing narrative supporting the rule of numerous dynasties in the Muslim world, including the Ottomans vassal Giray Khans of the Crimea. This was well known in the 16th century, as the Girays owed their power, in part, to Lithuanian patronage and support during the wars of succession that began their reign, and which witnessed a wave of Muslim settlement in Lithuania.

For the authors of the Risâle, the ultimate solution to the problematic status of Polish-Lithuanian Muslims, bound as they were to fight fellow Sunni Muslims at the command of their Christian monarchs, was for Süleyman I to conquer and convert Lehistan. In the first half of Süleyman’s rule, both in popular and elite circles, there arose a powerful eschatological notion of Ottoman sovereignty linked to the impending close of the first millennium of the Islamic world and the spread of the Islamic world under Selim I and Süleyman I. The authors of the Risâle-i Tatar-i Leh partook in this narrative by using titles such as zul karneyn (Alexandrine world conqueror) and the notion that the Sultan was the żill Allâh (shadow of God on earth). While the authors of the Risâle did not seek to create an explicit relationship of patronage between Süleyman I and the Muslim population of Poland-Lithuania, they implied that it was the Sultan’s responsibility and fate to conquer Poland-Lithuania and bring the local Muslim population back into the fold.

The authors indicated that the multi-confessional and relatively tolerant nature of Polish-Lithuanian society would fascilitate the spread of Islam in those lands. “If there were more frequent relations with the Sublim Porte, it may ensure that the Islamic faith would spread in those lands... From (Lehistan) it is apparent that there is no similar country where there might be so many ways to praise Allah. Here there is no faith that may have any aparent advantage over the others, and elsewhere amongst the infidels it is forbidden that Muslims settle and live.”


Regardless of the sincerity of this request, posed as it was by unknown members of a rather famously tolerated and loyal European Muslim minority community whose descendents still exist today, the Risâle-i Tatar-i Leh provides an opportunity for Ottomanists to reconsider the political and social influence that the Ottoman Empire exerted on neighboring European societies. The Polish-Lithuanian Muslim community may have been the largest in Christian Europe by the mid-16th century, and yet we know very little about their relationship with the Ottoman state. Amidst inventive settlement narratives and myths of origin, it is clear that the authors’ vision of the Ottoman Sultan’s role in the lives of Polish-Lithuania Muslims was not purely aspirational; it was critical to the immediate endeavor of the hajji authors. While the Padishah may not have been the Polish-Lithuanian Muslims’ legal sovereign, he exercised ultimate control over their ability to perform a critical obligation of their faith; “to kiss the Ka’aba and see the grave of the Prophet.” The Risâle therefore sought to affirm the sanctity of Süleyman’s supremacy over the entire world, and in particular his role as protector of all Muslims, partly legitimized by his title as Khalif and fascilitation of the hajj. It is clear that without the Sultan’s generosity, clemency, and patronage during the hajj, the Muslim community of Poland-Lithuania could never hope to fulfill the duties that were central to their Islamic faith.