The Tanzimat: Secular reforms in the Ottoman Empire

A brief look at the adoption of Secular Laws in the Ottoman Empire with a particular 

focus on the Tanzimat reforms (1839-1876)

Foreword

Faith Matters is launching this paper to offer a brief insight into the secular reforms of the Qaeda, who portray it historically as an Islamic Caliphate, strictly governed by Shariah Law. The Ottoman Empire is often presented by such groups as a model political system upon which to re-build a global Caliphate. Osama bin Laden marked the decline of the Empire as the fall of Islam  -  that the Islamic world “has been tasting this humiliation and this degradation for more than 80 years” and that “the righteous  Khilafah will return with the permission of Allah”. Through the implementation of an Islamic legal and political system, extreme groups who mis-use the Islamic faith, call for the rejection of liberal values and of the current political and societal  structures in place. We believe that the very systems that such groups seek to overhall do not fundamentally clash with Islam.The report authored by Hussain who has long studied such ideologies, offers a new challenge to Islamist claims, arguing that the Ottoman Empire bares little resemblance to the model proposed by such groups. In focusing on the period known as the Tanzimat Reforms (1839-1876), Hussain shows that the Ottomans were in fact attempting to secularise their 

laws and state institutions rather than integrating narrowly interpreted religious laws into the 

State’s legal framework. 

These are some of the key findings in the report, which show that:

- Homosexuality was decriminalized

- Ottoman society in general moved away from punishments such as stoning

- The death penalty for Apostasy was not implemented

Islamists often bypass these facts and use a warped interpretation of history in order to weave their own narrative into mainstream debate. They project their own picture of a ‘perfect’ Ottoman society, living under a deeply rigid interpretation of Shariah Law in order to argue for the building of a modern day Islamic Caliphate. Those who spin this historical account help to prop up the ideological  narrative  that such extremist groups use as their basis. The attacks of 9/11 were even marked by Bin Laden as “a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the righteous Caliphate”. Until now, their account has been met with little intellectual resistance.

This important paper is the first of its kind to expose and dismantle the Islamist historical account of the Ottoman Empire. By debunking one of the fundamental layers of the Islamist narrative, this paper provides an opportunity for debate and discussion within the public sphere. It also supports those civil society organisations and policy makers who defend the liberal democratic values that underpin communities in Britain and also provides another tool for Muslims to counter the small yet vocal groups who espouse such a warped interpretation of the Ottoman Empire and the Khilafah.  We also hope that it counters those who 

undermine the history of majority Muslim countries as places where pluralism  has been very much alive and thriving.

Fiyaz Mughal OBE FCMI,

Founder and Director – Faith Matters 

Preface

Islamists often present the Ottoman Empire as the most recent historical precedent of their 

dystopian vision; according to them, it was the perfect Islamic society with a model political 

system. They also claim that the empire strictly enforced and adhered to a single 

interpretation of Shariah (Islamic law/code of conduct) across its lands for over 600 years, 

from 1299 until its demise in 1924. According to this narrative, the success of the empire

was largely linked to its adherence to Islamic law. This assertion is then used to support the 

general Islamist vision within which the establishment of an Ottoman-style empire, in the 

form of a Caliphate, or ‘Khalifah’, is presented as being viable, achievable and much 

needed. 

This line of argument has become a fundamental part of the Islamist narrative and is rarely 

challenged in any meaningful way. This paper aims to refute this  misleading historical 

narrative by showing that, rather than implementing Shariah, the Ottomans were actually 

attempting to secularise their laws and state institutions.  Secular reforms in the Ottoman 

Empire can be traced back to the 17thcentury. However, this paper focuses on the period of 

reformation better known as the Tanzimat (1839-1876). During this period, as will be 

demonstrated, customary and religious laws were either abolished or repealed in favour of 

secular European ones. This was done on the orders of the Sultan/Caliph himself and with 

the approval of the religious authorities.  Also during this period, the Ottomans attempted to 

integrate non-Muslim communities and afford those communities equal rights and privileges. 

Understanding these reforms is important in the context of today’s political climate. Islamist 

activists of various stripes seek to resist reform and modernisation in the political sense by 

employing distorted historical facts to further their restrictive ideological goals.  I believe that 

an objective analysis of the Tanzimat period can illustrate how the Ottoman Empire was far 

from being the ideological Caliphate that Islamist groups purport it to be.  Rather, it was a 

pragmatic military empire doing whatever it needed in order to survive.  The implication is 

that the Islamist political system has no recent historical precedent to offer Islamist groups.   

I would like to thank Prof. Muhammad Bukari of  Fatih University (Istanbul) for taking his 

valuable time to proof read this paper.

Ishtiaq Hussain

15 February 2011

1: Introduction

The Ottoman Empire was one of the longest lasting empires in history.  One of the reasons 

for its longevity was, to some degree, that it tolerated the existence of multiple faith 

communities.  As such, ten million Turks were able to rule over 250 million people on three 

continents.  The Ottomans ruled their subjects through the Millet (communities) structure; 

each community had its own autonomous courts and could legislate according to its own 

religious laws.  They also appreciated religious diversity.  When the Sephardic Jews were 

expelled from Spain during the inquisition in 1492, the eighth Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II 

(1447-1512) welcomed them to his dominions and granted them Ottoman citizenship.

During the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire was at its peak as a world super power, but by 

the mid-18th Century it had considerably weakened.  It suffered increasing losses on the 

battlefield and its territories began to shrink.  Internal and external revolts became 

commonplace and the empire’s collapse seemed imminent. These realities pushed reformist 

Sultans and influential thinkers to look for new solutions to the empire’s problems. 

The first Sultan to recognise the empire’s serious decline was Selim III (1789-1807). After 

being proclaimed Emperor, he began a programme of reforms along European lines. He 

started by initiating changes in education, legal and military systems.  These  reforms were 

not welcomed by the Janissaries (Ottoman soldiers) who, through the terror of Europe, had 

now become ineffective on the battlefield.  When Selim began developing an infantry force 

known as the Nizam-i Cedit (New Order) ‘it aroused bitter opposition among the Janissaries 

who saw this new army as a threat to their existence’.The Janissaries eventually declared the European-inspired reforms to be bidah and with the backing of the Shaykh ul Islam (grand scholar of the Ottoman Empire), they revolted. They succeeded in deposing (and later murdering) Selim and replacing him with his brother Mustafa (1807-08). A year later, after a bloody struggle, Mustafa was removed by supporters 

of Selim and replaced by his nephew Mahmud II (1808-39).  Mahmud, like his uncle Selim, 

was determined to modernise the empire by adopting European laws  over the traditional 

Ottoman ones (Kanun-i Osmani), which at the time combined religious, customary and 

secular law through imperial decrees. During this period, European states had also started pressuring the Ottomans to give their non-Muslim subjects equal legal status.

The modernising secular reforms were carried out mainly through imperial decrees 

(firmans), better known as the Tanzimat (reorganisation).  However, the reforms were not 

without opposition, in particular the Kuleli incident in 1860 (a revolt and an assassination attempt on the Sultan’s life).  Nevertheless, the Ottomans continued their reforms 

undeterred and with mixed success, gaining momentum under the reign of Mahmud II.

2: The Gulhane Decree (Hatt-i Sharif) 1839

Sultan Mahmud’s first aim in modernising the military was to remove the ineffective 

Janissaries and replace them with a modern army trained along European lines.  He spent 

the next decade building a new armed force and placing his nominees in key positions of 

power amongst the Janissaries: 

‘By May 1826 Mahmud was confident that most senior officers were 

sympathetic to reform, and at the end of the month he required the corps to 

accept a European code of drill, European uniforms and training in the use of 

rifles’

As expected, the Janissaries refused to obey and revolted. The Sultan’s new army, 

equipped with modern rifles, gunned down the Janissaries. The Janissaries were completely 

destroyed, and by Saturday 18th June 1826 ‘the Janissaries corps was finally abolished’

After this event, the Ottoman Army and state officials all wore European style uniforms and 

progress was made in modernising military, navy and state laws. Sultan Mahmud did not live 

to see all his reforms implemented, as he died in 1839, but his son Sultan Abdul Majid, who 

succeeded him, continued with them at a greater pace. Shortly after Abdul Majid’s 

succession, on 3rd November 1839, the ‘Gulhane Decree’ was proclaimed. 

The Gulhane decree (Hatt-i Sharif) promised to:

Protect the lives and properties of its subjects;

Insert a new code of Justice asserting equal status of Muslims, Jews and 

Christians before the law;

Institute a regular system of levying taxes;

Develop a fair method of conscripting subjects for service in a 

modernised army and navy.

The Gulhane decree, whilst acknowledging Islamic principles, paved the way for the 

introduction of new laws in the coming years. For example, ‘in 1843 a new penal code was 

introduced, and in 1844, the death penalty for apostasy from Islam was abolished’.  In 

general, Ottoman society had already moved away from punishments such as stoning for 

adultery:

Throughout Ottoman history only one case of rajm (stoning) was decided and 

carried out (in 1680). This happened in a period of extreme religious 

fanaticism, and it encountered such opposition that it was not repeated.

The Gulhane decree was one of the most important documents in Ottoman history, mainly 

because it initiated a period where the state would endeavour to implement a whole series of 

modernising reforms (i.e. moving from religious to secular laws.

3: The Imperial Rescript (Hatt-i Humayun) 1856

After the Crimean War, on 18th February 1856, the Imperial Re-script (Hatt-i Humayun) was 

proclaimed. This was another step in further reforming the existing laws of the Ottoman 

Empire. This edict was also supported by European states, who felt that the previous 

proclamation had not gone far enough in providing equal rights to the non-Muslim subjects 

of the empire. Unlike its predecessor, this edict did not make any reference to Islamic 

principles and favoured a European inspired penal code: 

The Ottoman Penal Code of 1858 was based on the Napoleonic code of 

1810, putting aside Islamic punishments.  It established a French-type system 

of courts, with tribunals of first instance, courts of appeals and a high court of 

appeals.  These were the first distinct hierarchy of a secular court system of 

the country…This secular criminal code and court system remained in 

operation till 1923’.

Putting aside the Hadd (Islamic punishments) was not wholly unprecedented for the 

Ottomans.  In fact, the Hadd punishment for stealing had been suspended before by the 2nd Caliph (leader) of Islam Umar ibn al-Khattab, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad  (pbuh):

The decision of `Umar ibn al-Khattab to suspend the hadd penalty (a penalty 

prescribed by the Qur’an and the Sunnah) of amputating a thief’s hand during 

a time of famine is an example of istihsan (juristic preference). Here the law 

was suspended as an exceptional measure in an exceptional situation. 

Istihsan is considered a method of seeking facility and ease in legal 

injunctions and is in accord with Qur’an 2:185. This suggests that the 

Companions were not merely literalists. On the contrary, their rulings were 

often based on their understanding of the spirit and purpose of the Shari`ah.

The Ottoman Sultans considered their decision to set aside the Hadd punishments to be in 

the best interest of their subjects and a way to meet the challenges they were facing. For 

example, ‘During the Ottoman administration of the Arabian Peninsula, the Hadd 

punishments  were not applied’13. It was only after Arabia became independent, and  was 

ruled by the Saudi Royal family, that the Hadd punishments put into force. 

The duty of providing legal edicts all across the Ottoman Empire fell to the Shaykh ul Islam; 

a system which had existed for over 500 years.  The putting aside of Hadd punishments for 

the benefit and in the interest of the people (Maslaha) was accepted by the Shaykh ul Islam 

as being in accordance with Islamic theological reasoning.  Sultan Mahmud and Abdul 

Majid’s reforms were assisted by two prominent Shaykh ul Islams of the empire: Seyyid Wahab Effendi and Mustafa Asim.

  

The Imperial Rescript (Hatt-i Humayun) also elevated the role of non-Muslims from Dhimmi

status by abolishing the Jizya (head tax paid by non-Muslim subjects of the Empire): 

The bedel-i askeri essentially replaced the jizya (head tax) traditionally paid 

by non-Muslims, which was abolished with the 1856 Hatt-i Hümayun 

declaration that all subjects of the Ottoman Empire were equal and therefore 

obligated to serve in the military.

In the Tanzimat period, the Ottomans also adopted: ‘...the Napoleonic Trade Laws in 1850, 

the French Penal Code in 1858, the Property Law also in 1858 and the Maritime Trade Law 

in 1864.’Homosexuality was decriminalised in 1858.Although there were still Shariah 

courts in the empire, these were not the only legal institutions of the period: 

Sharia courts had primary jurisdiction over urban Muslims, rural tribes 

followed customary rules and procedures (urf), and Milliya courts were 

regulated by and for the various sects of Christians and Jews. Hence Sharia 

courts were by no means the only form of law and administration. Indeed the 

ruler had his own body of administration law (Qanun) that did not draw 

authority from the Sharia.

The 19thcentury saw the establishment of secular Nizamye courts across the empire. 

These courts were created by the Ottoman Sultans to apply the new secular laws.  Attempts 

to codify Shariah were also made in the late nineteenth century. This resulted in the 

‘Mejelle’, codified law based on Hanafi fiqh . However, the Mejelle covered only a small 

part of the Shari’a law - mainly contracts, hire, surety, obligations and trust, agencies as well 

as testimony and evidence: that is mainly economic and procedural matters. It did not cover 

family law, where traditional Shari’a was dominant nor criminal law, which was already 

codified on a European-inspired basis.

The Ottoman Empire was adapting to new realities and the Tanzimat reforms were a direct 

manifestation of this change.  Another significant point to mention here is that the founder of 

the Bahai faith, ‘Baha’u’llah’ (1817-1892), claimed to be a new messenger of God. He also 

claimed that the Qur’an and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) were no longer 

applicable. Despite these claims, Sultan Abdul Hamid II (1876-1909) did not have 

Baha’u’llah executed on charges of apostasy, but had him imprisoned instead. This incident goes to show that the death sentence for apostasy was not only abolished in theory but in 

practice as well.

4: The Tanzimat Legacy

The Tanzimat reforms accelerated the process of secularisation as intended by Sultan 

Mahmud: 

…the most significant aspect of the innovations initiated by Mahmud II was 

the emergence of an Ottoman state based on secular aspects of sovereignty 

as contrasted with the medieval concept of an Islamic empire.  The real 

beginning of modernisation and secularisation was in this change.

  

Despite the mixed success, the Tanzimat reforms were successful in bringing about equality 

for all citizens, especially non-Muslims who had previously only been tolerated as dhimmis. 

They also led to the creation of a new identity known as Ottomanism, which replaced the 

millet system.  Ottomanism technically meant that all citizens of the empire were equal in the 

eyes of the law, regardless of faith, however, in reality old prejudices remained (the Ottoman 

Empire’s crimes against the Armenians are well documented).

The Ottoman Sultans, from the late 18th  century onwards, were held back from initiating 

further reforms because they believed their subjects were not ready for them. An example of 

this is in the late introduction of the printing press to the Ottoman Empire. The printing press 

was invented in 1450 and was transferred to the Balkan domains of the Ottoman Empire by 

Jewish migrants from Spain as early as 1493. Although it found its way to Ottoman Greece 

in 1627, it was not permitted in Anatolia until 1727. In 1742, the Ottomans banned the 

printing press, and although it reappeared in 1784, printing in Arabic was forbidden 

altogether - ‘The printing press, as may be imagined was resisted by the priesthood...It was 

pronounced an innovation of Satan, sure to bring every sort of heresy and infidelity in its 

train.’

It was not until Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798 that moveable type printing was 

available in the Arabic-speaking regions of the empire. This fear of the printing press meant 

that the Ottoman Empire fell at least 200 years behind other European states in most fields 

of intellectual thought. Radical changes were needed in order to bring the empire up to date 

with the rest of the world and the Tanzimat reforms went some way towards achieving that goal.

Although the Tanzimat reforms never quite produced the results the later Sultans had hoped 

for, they did improve various aspects of the empire such as the education system and the 

status of non-Muslims.  It could be argued that, had the empire been around today, it would 

have had a very similar political structure to modern day Turkey.  After all, it was only 

because of the reforms that the Turkish Republic was able to emerge from the ashes of the 

Ottoman Empire and resist being colonised by European powers.

5: Conclusion

By constantly citing 1924 as the last time that a Caliphate system existed, Islamists seek to 

convince the world that their ideal is an achievable and workable political model exemplified 

within recent history (the last one hundred years). Writing their own history of the Caliphate

is, therefore, a tactical move on their part and a vital component in their grand narrative. The 

political model that modern day Islamists are seeking to introduce bears little resemblance to 

the past, despite using language such as ‘Caliph’ (for political expediency) to invoke 

nostalgic imagery of Muslim Empires of the past. In fact, the Ottoman Empire did not enforce 

a single interpretation of Shariah on their citizens and  differing political systems were 

implemented across the various Muslim Empires.

Therefore, the modern day Islamist vision has no historical precedent and is more inspired 

by European political constructs than Islam. It is rooted in a totalitarian vision of society, 

where the state is seen as a tool for social engineering, capable of shaping obedient citizens 

at the mercy of theocratic dictators. It is devoid of the essence of Islam, which is to seek 

social justice through a fair and flexible framework. 

This paper aims to fundamentally  challenge, balance and  re-write  a historical narrative

dominated by extremist organisations  such as Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb-u-Tahrir,  who 

promote a ‘Khilafah’ concept state, intent on   a literalist interpretation of religious texts. 

Whilst Hizb-u-Tahrir does not espouse violence in communities, their pamphlets and 

literature regularly promote a narrow historical view of the Ottoman Empire by harping back 

to a misleading narrative on the Khilafah. In so doing, they ignore the pragmatism that 

formed the basis of the Tanzimat period of the Ottoman Empire.  Such  pragmatism that 

developed in this period, fused with the strong Islamic roots of the Ottomans, to produce an 

outwards-looking country that actively engaged with its neighbours and tried to secure its 

future by implementing equality laws and the inclusion of minorities. It was hoped that this 

would bind minorities to the empire while complying with the Islamic principles of social 

inclusion for the ‘People of the Book’ (meaning Christians and Jews).

Therefore, this research shines a light on a fundamental pillar of the narrative that radical 

groups promote within towns and cities in the United Kingdom. Their literature portrays the 

Ottoman Empire as a shining example of an Islamic state, due to its apparent adherence to 

fundamental scriptural edicts. However, this view is formed through a narrow ideological 

lense, which ignores the range of reliable historical sources that express more accurately the 

the values and practices of the Tanzimat period. Through this contextualised and rigorous 

enquiry, the Tanzimat reforms can now be understood to have formed a fundamental part of Ottoman history rather than a simple deviation or aberration. Furthermore, such radical groups ignore the very flexibility of the Islamic religious framework that was so integral to the survival of the Empire during this period. They fail to accurately reflect the religious narratives and theological discussions that have been present throughout Islamic history and that fuse spirituality and belief with the realities of living in changing political and social 

environments.

It is hoped that this paper can provide a focal point for discussions on the Tanzimat and the 

manner in which Ottoman history is used by certain groups to promote an exclusionist and 

restrictive ideological viewpoint. History demonstrates that groups viewing the past through 

such a narrow lense are in danger of not only reducing their life chances, but also of 

corroding communities from within. Islam and Muslim communities deserve better and the 

influence of these historical misreadings and hence misunderstandings can be countered by 

considering a range of differing narratives. Without these varied perspectives, history can be 

manipulated into a dangerous tool for ulterior polical and radical Islamist motives.

(http://faith-matters.org/images/stories/fm-publications/the-tanzimat-final-web.pdf)

Rumi

"Knock, and He'll open the door


Vanish, and He'll make you shine like a sun


Fall, and He'll raise you to the heavens


Become nothing, and He'll turn you into everything."


(Jalal ud Din Rumi)

Individuality-

its your sad story that makes you different, happy endings are all the same. 

Discovery- People's Republic of Capitalism- A Documentary

Difference Between Socialism and Communism 1

What is the difference between socialism and communism?


Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).
The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.
Obviously, before it can be achieved, production must reach undreamed of heights—to satisfy everyone’s needs there must be the greatest of plenty of everything. In addition, there must have developed a change in the attitude of people toward work—instead of working because they have to, people will work because they want to, both out of a sense of responsibility to society and because work satisfies a felt need in their own lives.
Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people. It is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism.
It must not be assumed, from the distinction between socialism and communism, that the political parties all over the world which call themselves Socialist advocate socialism, while those which call themselves Communist advocate communism. That is not the case. Since the immediate successor to capitalism can only be socialism, the Communist parties,-like the Socialist parties, have as their goal the establishment of socialism.
Are there, then, no differences between the Socialist and Communist parties? Yes, there are.
The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.
The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.
The attitude of both parties toward the Soviet Union grows directly out of their approach to this problem. Generally speaking, Communist parties praise the Soviet Union; Socialist parties denounce it in varying degrees. For the Communists, the Soviet Union merits the applause of all true believers in socialism because it has transformed the socialist dream into a reality; for the Socialists, the Soviet Union deserves only condemnation because it has not built socialism at all—at least not the socialism they dreamed of.
Instead of wanting to take away people’s private property, socialists want more people to have more private property than ever before.
There are two kinds of private property. There is property which is personal in nature, consumer’s goods, used for private enjoyment. Then there is the kind of private property which is not personal in nature, property in the means of production. This kind of property is not used for private enjoyment, but to produce the consumer’s goods which are.
Socialism does not mean taking away the first kind of private property, e.g. your suit of clothes; it does mean taking away the second kind of private property, e.g. your factory for making suits of clothes. It means taking away private property in the means of production from the few so that there will be much more private property in the means of consumption for the many. That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property, more suits of clothes, more furniture, more food, more tickets to the movies.
More private property for use and enjoyment. No private property for oppression and exploitation. That’s socialism.


Huberman and Sweezy, "Introduction to Socialism," Monthly Review
http://www.marxmail.org/faq/socialism_and_communism.htm

Sun Tzu (born 544 BC - died 496 BC)

(Sun Tzu was anscient Chinese military general, strategist, and philosopher who is traditionally believed to have authored the Art of War, an influential, ancient Chinese book on military strategy).

The most important war is with the enemy within.


Pretend to be weak, then he may grow arrogant.


Attack him when he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril.

Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.

The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.

Opportunities multiply as they are seized.

You have to believe in yourself.

Development Tangle: Knowledge as Iceberg

Development Tangle: Knowledge as Iceberg by Faheem J. Khan

Nusrat The Legend

Globalization- A new definition

‎'The poor complain; they always do,
But that's just idle chatter.
Our system brings rewards to all,

At least to all who matter'


Poem by a Canadian economist (Gerald Helleiner)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Globalization

Some wise words by George Orwell.

"In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

"War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength."


"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.


"The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history."


"Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it." 


"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."


"The best books... are those that tell you what you know already."


"Big Brother is Watching You." 


"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." 


"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me."

"All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting."

Posing Humility - Earning Cheap Spirituality (by Samima)

It’s a trend these days of ‘Posing Humility’ in ones social circle. The extent to which beautiful the concept of humbleness is in its original unadulterated form, such masquerading makes it unbearably treacherous. This show offing of piety starts with a lie and ends in an even bigger lie. Its dodging one self, ones society and betraying God. It’s the same as people act religious these days coz this might earn them respect in the social circle. Such  ‘pose down to earth attitude’ sect of people, act according to situation while meeting a high material status person.  These shallow personalities exist all around us, we just need to have an eye for such opportunistic actors.  
by: Samima shah

Islamic History (600-750 A.D) by Shaban - A review

Islamic history- A new interpretation by M.A. Shaban as the name says is giving a relatively different historical perspective. The details of even the smallest events provided  is quite impressive. This read clearly shows that Political and Economic factors were inevitable and were given due importance by our then leaders in early years of Islam's dispersal. I came to know many leaders other than Khulf e Rashideen whose works are undermined by Historians like Amir Muawiya and Marwan Alhakam. The never knew terms like Ridda warriers, Muqatila, Khawarij, etc. were explained in the book. On the whole a good book to read.
by: Samima Shah

The Seasonals (by Samima)

We all have experienced seasons, read and heard about the Noun all the time from the Weather guy to poets. But today I feel like discussing its Adjective form the Seasonals, no I’m not talking about seasonal fruits n veggies, yes they do effect out lives considerably, but my Seasonals are the moving ones showing their  talents quite explicitly all the time.

Seasonal Chefs: impressed by Zubaida apa, Chef Zakir etc etc , are mostly women, proving their passion for cookery by clinging to cooking channels 9 to 5 some times even after it . Though some do excel while other will try another recipe. You should be careful here as your stomach is their testing ground. An advice: be nice and careful with such seasonals.

Seasonal Readers/ Writers: as the name explains a lot these people start to show others during discussions or  via fb status that they have a reading/ writing habit since long. Even their fellows and parents can’t give you any idea how all this developed out of thin air (without any warning to the rest of us). Afterwards they prove to be from the very early age readers of some Big authors whose names were alien to them 2 yrs back. We come to now after every couple of days that they have finished a 300 – 500 page book  in mere hours and  in weeks they review half a dozen of books (via fb status again).  Now they think they can write and afterwards one can actually experience  how jumping and somersaulting can be done in writing. The incoherence and stupidity I won’t dare to discuss, as its already getting pretty personal.

Seasonal Philosophers: These seasonal  are most dangerous of all , as they directly affect u , your ears and your brain. They start by sharing some poetry or philosophical quote. Don’t bother to use quotation mark, leave alone any reference, as they themselves are the philosophers now, real deep thinkers, so why to give presumably a dead person any credit (I just drowned).  They must have heard the lines “every person is a philosopher” so why not try the easy way, be like some philosopher, think like him, even write like him (which of course means copy him all the way). You call them copy cats to copy cows or even copy donkeys, they don’t care, perhaps they also heard the lines  ‘every great man’s  genius wasn’t acknowledged by people of his times’.

  

Father and Daughter - A short film

Dawn O hara- A review

 An amazingly compelling character 'Dawn', all the way to its end. Ferber is good at making humor tragic. Authors who can’t make you take tragedy seriously are a lot easier to find, and a lot less worthy of respect.
by: Samima Shah

Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan- A review

A unique novel style writing by S.Wolpert biographize Z.A. Bhutto. How can 5 and a half years of disgraceful power can still move millions... terming Zulfi Bhutto's personality from charismatic , Oxford-educated to "Islamic Napoleon" with power driven 'schizoid personality'. Giving both positive and negative aspects of his rule and personality, and in the end how Wolpert agrees that he (Bhutto) deserves the fate he received.
by: Samima Shah