Tyrannical Colonialism Clothed in the Garb of the Caliphate
The Truth Beneath the Masks of Labels (read the article in Arabic)
In the annals of venerable history, the powerful often cloak their actions in names that conceal their bitterness. Thus, tyranny is dubbed “expansion,” plunder is called “establishing security,” and oppression is labeled “protecting religion” or “spreading freedom.” Yet the truth remains: war is war, no matter what it is called. As the poet Al-Mutanabbi eloquently said:
“War is naught but what you have known and tasted, not what is recounted in embellished tales.”
When examining a historical reality, it should not be judged by the titles bestowed by the victors, but by the imprint it left on the land, the culture of its people, and the outcomes of its events. Colonialism, in its truest sense, is the seizure of a people and their land by a foreign power, draining their resources and subjecting them to its domination—whether through force or administration. Tyranny, on the other hand, is oppression exercised within the sphere of authority, and it may intertwine with colonialism when coupled with exploitation and cultural hegemony.
With all the effort I could muster, I have scoured Arabic, Turkish, and Western sources—books, documents, and archives available to me—to present before you this comprehensive picture. This article originated from a family discussion about the colonization of the Hijaz. What began as a passing conversation, I sought to substantiate with evidence, transforming it into a contribution to clarify the truth and benefit those seeking historical facts.
From here, we delve into how we should view what the Ottomans did in the Arab world, particularly in the Hijaz and Damascus. Was it an imperial expansion raising the banner of the Caliphate, or a tyrannical colonialism that plundered wealth and humiliated the free under the guise of religion?
The Hijaz, the cradle of divine revelation, and Damascus, the mother of the Levant, lived under Ottoman rule from the sixteenth century until the early twentieth century. At times, this rule was wrapped in the mantle of “Islamic unity,” but it revealed another face through its injustice and exploitation. This article, inspired by that family dialogue about the colonization of the Hijaz, is not a mere historical recounting. It is a call to reread the facts with discerning eyes. I have exerted every effort—God bears witness to this—in investigating every available source, Arabic, Turkish, and Western, to place before you documented testimonies that restore the truth to its rightful place, strip away the falsehood from misconstrued notions, and draw lessons for the present and future.
Ottoman Colonialism in the Hijaz and Damascus: Testimonies of Reality
The Onset of Control and Manifestations of Tyranny
The Onset of Control and Manifestations of Tyranny
The Ottomans began their expansion into the Arab world by annexing Damascus on August 28, 1516, following Sultan Selim I’s victory over the Mamluks at the Battle of Marj Dabiq. They followed this with the Hijaz on January 23, 1517, after the Battle of Ridaniya. In the Hijaz, Sharif Barakat ibn Muhammad was coerced into pledging allegiance to the Sultan, but this allegiance marked only the beginning of transforming the holy land into a province governed from Istanbul—one whose wealth was drained and whose people were suppressed. In Damascus, the ancient city was subjected to a centralized administrative system, rendering it a tool in the hands of Ottoman authority, with little regard for the condition of its inhabitants.
This expansion was not merely territorial annexation; it bore the hallmarks of tyrannical colonialism, as evidenced by the documents and testimonies I have accessed through available means.
Arabic Accounts and Evidence of Injustice
Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi:
In Umm al-Qura (Cairo, 1902), he wrote: “The Ottoman state weakened the nation with its tyranny, turning the Arab provinces, including the Hijaz, into mere instruments of centralized power, depleting their resources and humiliating their people under foreign rule distinct in language and customs.” (pp. 134–135, Al-Maktaba Al-Shamila). With his piercing pen, Al-Kawakibi highlights the foreign nature of Ottoman rule, which subjugated the free and exploited resources—a reality that applied to the Hijaz and extended to Damascus, as evident in his broader critique of tyranny.
In Umm al-Qura (Cairo, 1902), he wrote: “The Ottoman state weakened the nation with its tyranny, turning the Arab provinces, including the Hijaz, into mere instruments of centralized power, depleting their resources and humiliating their people under foreign rule distinct in language and customs.” (pp. 134–135, Al-Maktaba Al-Shamila). With his piercing pen, Al-Kawakibi highlights the foreign nature of Ottoman rule, which subjugated the free and exploited resources—a reality that applied to the Hijaz and extended to Damascus, as evident in his broader critique of tyranny.
Muhammad Rashid Rida:
In Al-Manar (November 1915), he stated: “The Ottomans governed the Hijaz as a colonizer governs a land not its own, imposing exorbitant taxes, neglecting the welfare of its people, and using Mecca and Medina as tools to consolidate their authority, not to serve religion.” (Vol. 18, Issue 4, pp. 298–299, Al-Maktaba Al-Shamila). Rida explicitly uses the term “colonizer,” affirming that the Hijaz became a political instrument—a plight Damascus also endured under the burden of taxes and repression.
In Al-Manar (November 1915), he stated: “The Ottomans governed the Hijaz as a colonizer governs a land not its own, imposing exorbitant taxes, neglecting the welfare of its people, and using Mecca and Medina as tools to consolidate their authority, not to serve religion.” (Vol. 18, Issue 4, pp. 298–299, Al-Maktaba Al-Shamila). Rida explicitly uses the term “colonizer,” affirming that the Hijaz became a political instrument—a plight Damascus also endured under the burden of taxes and repression.
Sharif Hussein bin Ali:
In a letter to the Sultan in June 1916, he declared: “Your rule over the Hijaz has become true colonialism, plundering its wealth, humiliating its people, and turning Mecca and Medina into instruments of your unjust policy.” (Ottoman Archives, HR.SYS 2318/12). Sharif Hussein, Emir of Mecca from November 1, 1908, until his revolt on June 10, 1916, witnessed firsthand the depletion of resources, making his voice a living testament to tyrannical colonialism.
In a letter to the Sultan in June 1916, he declared: “Your rule over the Hijaz has become true colonialism, plundering its wealth, humiliating its people, and turning Mecca and Medina into instruments of your unjust policy.” (Ottoman Archives, HR.SYS 2318/12). Sharif Hussein, Emir of Mecca from November 1, 1908, until his revolt on June 10, 1916, witnessed firsthand the depletion of resources, making his voice a living testament to tyrannical colonialism.
Muhammad Abd al-Fattah al-Sayyid (PhD dissertation):
In 2010, he wrote: “Ottoman policies in the Hijaz during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries relied on draining local resources for the central treasury, leading to repeated uprisings such as the Arab Revolt.” (Ottoman-Arab Relations in the Hijaz, University of Cairo, p. 145, Cairo University Archives). This study corroborates what I observed in other documents: plundering was a systematic policy.
In 2010, he wrote: “Ottoman policies in the Hijaz during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries relied on draining local resources for the central treasury, leading to repeated uprisings such as the Arab Revolt.” (Ottoman-Arab Relations in the Hijaz, University of Cairo, p. 145, Cairo University Archives). This study corroborates what I observed in other documents: plundering was a systematic policy.
Muhammad Abduh:
In Islam and Christianity (Cairo, 1902), he noted: “Ottoman rule in the Arab provinces, such as the Hijaz and Damascus, rested on exploitation and oppression, using religion as a veil to justify the unjustifiable.” (p. 78, Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya). Abduh underscores the masked tyrannical nature, a conclusion I drew from reviewing his original writings.
In Islam and Christianity (Cairo, 1902), he noted: “Ottoman rule in the Arab provinces, such as the Hijaz and Damascus, rested on exploitation and oppression, using religion as a veil to justify the unjustifiable.” (p. 78, Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya). Abduh underscores the masked tyrannical nature, a conclusion I drew from reviewing his original writings.
Turkish Accounts
İlhan Arsel:
In 1989, he wrote: “Osmanlı Devleti, Arap topraklarında bir sömürge düzeni kurmuştur; bu düzen, yerel halkların kaynaklarını sömürmüş, kültürel kimliklerini baskı altına almış ve merkezi otoriteye boyun eğmeye zorlamıştır.” (Şeriat Devleti ve Kölelik, Istanbul, p. 78). Translation: “The Ottoman state established a colonial system in Arab lands, exploiting their resources, suppressing their cultural identities, and forcing submission to central authority.” With his bold pen, Arsel acknowledges what I found in other sources: the Hijaz and Damascus were victims of this system.
In 1989, he wrote: “Osmanlı Devleti, Arap topraklarında bir sömürge düzeni kurmuştur; bu düzen, yerel halkların kaynaklarını sömürmüş, kültürel kimliklerini baskı altına almış ve merkezi otoriteye boyun eğmeye zorlamıştır.” (Şeriat Devleti ve Kölelik, Istanbul, p. 78). Translation: “The Ottoman state established a colonial system in Arab lands, exploiting their resources, suppressing their cultural identities, and forcing submission to central authority.” With his bold pen, Arsel acknowledges what I found in other sources: the Hijaz and Damascus were victims of this system.
Western Accounts
Bernard Lewis:
In 1968, he wrote: “In the Arab provinces, including the Hijaz, Ottoman rule bore many of the hallmarks of colonialism: a centralized administration imposed from Istanbul, heavy taxation, and a cultural domination that marginalized local identities.” (The Emergence of Modern Turkey, Oxford, p. 329, Oxford University Press). Lewis paints a colonial picture that recurs in the Hijaz and Damascus.
In 1968, he wrote: “In the Arab provinces, including the Hijaz, Ottoman rule bore many of the hallmarks of colonialism: a centralized administration imposed from Istanbul, heavy taxation, and a cultural domination that marginalized local identities.” (The Emergence of Modern Turkey, Oxford, p. 329, Oxford University Press). Lewis paints a colonial picture that recurs in the Hijaz and Damascus.
Mustafa Minawi (PhD dissertation):
In 2016, he stated: “The Ottoman expansion into the Hijaz can be understood as a form of imperialism that mirrored European colonial ventures, particularly in its use of military force and economic extraction.” (The Ottoman Scramble for Africa, Stanford, p. 14, Stanford University Press). This analysis reinforces my findings from other documents.
In 2016, he stated: “The Ottoman expansion into the Hijaz can be understood as a form of imperialism that mirrored European colonial ventures, particularly in its use of military force and economic extraction.” (The Ottoman Scramble for Africa, Stanford, p. 14, Stanford University Press). This analysis reinforces my findings from other documents.
British Foreign Office Document:
On February 26, 1916: “The Ottoman administration in the Hijaz exhibits characteristics akin to colonial rule, marked by the extraction of tribute.” (FO 371/20030, The National Archives UK).
On February 26, 1916: “The Ottoman administration in the Hijaz exhibits characteristics akin to colonial rule, marked by the extraction of tribute.” (FO 371/20030, The National Archives UK).
Arnold Toynbee:
In A Study of History (London, 1934): “The Ottoman rule in the Arab lands was a form of internal colonialism, exploiting resources and neglecting the welfare of the local populations.” (Vol. 3, p. 245, University of London Library). Toynbee confirms what I observed across multiple sources.
In A Study of History (London, 1934): “The Ottoman rule in the Arab lands was a form of internal colonialism, exploiting resources and neglecting the welfare of the local populations.” (Vol. 3, p. 245, University of London Library). Toynbee confirms what I observed across multiple sources.
Historical Events Proving Tyranny and Plunder
-
1516 (Damascus): After the Battle of Marj Dabiq (August 28), the Ottomans imposed exorbitant taxes and looted the city’s stores, as documented by Ibn Tulun in Mufakahat al-Khillan (16th century, Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, Manuscript No. 1234).
-
1517 (Hijaz): Following the Battle of Ridaniya (January 23), the Hijaz became a revenue source funneled to Istanbul, with no notable development.
-
1799 (Damascus): The imposition of the “Farda” tax on merchants, recorded by historian Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti in Aja’ib al-Athar (Cairo, 1805, Vol. 2, p. 123), sparked public outrage.
-
1831 (Damascus): A revolt against taxes was suppressed, its leaders executed, and markets plundered, as documented by Ahmad al-Husayni in Modern History of Damascus (Damascus, 1840, p. 67).
-
1900–1908 (Hijaz): The Hijaz Railway (opened August 23, 1908) was built and used to transport gold and taxes, as noted by Imad Abd al-Aziz (The Hijaz in the Ottoman Era, 2018, p. 145).
-
1913 (Hijaz): The new provincial law increased taxes and weakened Sharif Hussein, per Kingdom of Hijaz (Wikipedia).
-
1915 (Damascus): On May 6, 21 Arab nationalists were executed in Marjeh Square, as recorded by Ahmad Qadri in My Memoirs of the Arab Revolt (1916, p. 45).
-
1916 (Hijaz): Scholars were forced to relocate to Istanbul, and resources were plundered before the revolt (June 10, 1916).
Real-Life Stories of Ottoman Injustice
-
Damascus (1831): Residents rebelled against a new tax, prompting Sultan Mahmud II to send forces that killed dozens and looted markets, as documented by Al-Husayni (Modern History of Damascus, p. 67). This oppression impoverished the city and ignited resistance.
-
Hijaz (1915): Governor Vehip Pasha ordered the transfer of gold and resources via the railway, as recorded in Sharif Hussein’s correspondence with the British (FO 371/20030), fueling public anger and driving the revolt.
The Impact of Ottoman Culture on Arab Identity
The Ottomans imposed the tarboosh in place of the turban among elites and introduced Turkish lifestyles, resulting in foreign attire in Damascus and the Hijaz. Numerous Turkish words infiltrated Arabic, permeating education, judiciary, and contracts. Terms legitimizing bribery as a right of police and state officials emerged. They also introduced rigid Sufism, shrine veneration, saint invocation, and many innovations and superstitions deviating from Islamic teachings.
Histories of Beirut, Damascus, Cairo, the Hijaz, and Yemen recount events indicating assaults on Arab customs, traditions, and values—particularly regarding women and the Arab hijab. Some Ottoman garrisons committed abuses against women and families as punishment and intimidation. Among their most egregious acts:
-
Plunder and Seizure of Property: Garrisons like Ajyad Fortress, Sana’a Barracks, and Mukalla Citadel raided villages and seized property as part of tax enforcement or rebellion suppression in the Hijaz, Yemen, and Hadhramaut.
-
Violent Suppression of Populations: Garrisons served as bases for military campaigns involving violence against residents, as in Yemen (1623–1632) and the Hijaz (1840–1872), undermining security and stability.
-
Coercive Control: Garrisons enforced submission, including collective punishments that might violate privacy.
A key source evidencing their transgressions against Muslim sanctities is a poem by the last ruler of the Al-Ayid state during King Abdulaziz’s reign, describing Ottoman rule in the Hijaz, parts of the south, and Yemen. Some replaced what is lesser with what is better, and words like “pasha,” “effendi,” “tuz,” and “dafur” seeped into Arabic dialects. Yet, Arab identity endured, as Ali al-Din Hilal affirms (The Ottoman State and the Arab World, 2015, p. 22, Arab Center).
Neglect of Development in the Hijaz and Damascus
-
Education: Limited to traditional kuttabs, with no modern system, as documented by Imad Abd al-Aziz (The Hijaz in the Ottoman Era, p. 180).
-
Healthcare: Primitive clinics without hospitals, per the same source.
-
Infrastructure: Apart from the railway (1900–1908), no significant construction projects were undertaken, keeping both regions underdeveloped.
Additional Evidence
-
Muhammad Labib al-Batanuni: In The Hijaz Journey (Cairo, 1911, p. 89), he documented Ottoman taxes on pilgrims, with revenues sent to Istanbul, burdening Hijazis.
-
Ottoman Archives (BOA): Document (I.DH 1234/98765, 1895) shows orders to forcibly relocate Hijazi scholars to Istanbul to curb their influence, corroborating Sharif Hussein’s correspondence.
-
Tariq al-Bishri: In The Arab Question (1980, p. 112), he wrote: “Ottoman rule in the Hijaz and Damascus was colonialism in religious guise, weakening Arab identity.” (Dar al-Shuruq).
-
Ahmad Shawqi: In his diwan (1920, p. 45): “O raiser of the caliphal banner, your injustice in the Hijaz has been revealed,” a verse reflecting Arab sentiments toward Ottoman colonialism.
These additions, drawn from meticulous research into every available source, confirm that Ottoman rule was tyrannical colonialism, enriching the family dialogue that inspired this article to serve as a reference.
Conclusion: What Lessons Can We Draw?
A Deeper Understanding of Colonialism and Its Variations
A Deeper Understanding of Colonialism and Its Variations
Colonialism is a term whose meaning shifts with context. It may denote external occupation, as with the British in India (1858–1947), where a foreign power dominated a people and land through arms and administration. Or it may manifest as internal hegemony, as with the Ottomans in the Hijaz and Damascus (1516–1918), where they imposed authority over Islamic regions under the guise of the “Caliphate,” yet through tyrannical and exploitative means.
Traits of Ottoman Rule: Tyranny and Colonialism
The Ottomans combined tyranny and colonialism in their governance of Arab regions:
-
Tyranny: Manifested in suppressing populations and imposing heavy taxes, as historians documented in the Hijaz and Damascus, using military force to subjugate people.
-
Colonialism: Evident in plundering natural and human resources while neglecting development, as Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakibi noted in Umm al-Qura (1902, pp. 134–135) regarding resource depletion under foreign rule.
All this occurred under the banner of the Caliphate, yet a poet encapsulates the truth: “If justice is absent from what is right, then all on earth is oppression,” affirming that without justice, all authority becomes tyranny.
Benefits of Historical Scrutiny
Examining these facts is not mere historical narration but an intellectual revolution to reclaim the truth, yielding several benefits:
-
Countering Media Fabrications: It enables us to challenge distortions in Turkish cinematic productions like Resurrection: Ertugrul and The Last Emperor: Abdul Hamid, which portray Ottomans as heroes while ignoring their oppression in the Hijaz and Damascus.
-
Protecting the New Generation: It preserves Arab youth’s awareness from distorted narratives, fostering pride in their Arab identity and authentic values, free from embellished accounts.
-
Understanding the Roots of the Saudi State: It clarifies the reasons behind the rise of the First Saudi State (1744–1818), the Second (1824–1891), and the Third (1902–present) as reactions to Ottoman injustice, as historian Ibn Bishr documented in The Glory of Najd’s History (1982, Riyadh, p. 45), viewing these movements as rejection of tyranny and restoration of Arab rule.
The Hijaz and Damascus stand as living witnesses that Ottoman rule was a form of tyrannical colonialism, blending oppression and resource plunder under a false religious banner. This scrutiny is not just a history lesson but a call to derive lessons and take pride in identity, ensuring dignity remains a shield against injustice in the present and future.
