This is the English translation of «الدين المفتري عليه» (The Slandered Religion), Part 5 of 10.

Chapter Four: The Mamluks and the Ottomans — Sultanate and the Hollow Caliphate (الفصل الرابع: المماليك والعثمانيون — السلطنة والخلافة الشكلية)

Baghdad Burns: The End of the True Caliphate

Picture the scene: Safar 656 AH / February 1258 CE. Baghdad — the City of Peace, capital of the Abbasid caliphate for five centuries, city of al-Rashid and al-Ma’mun and the House of Wisdom — burns. Hulagu’s hordes, grandson of Genghis Khan, storm the walls after a short siege, and begin forty days of killing, plundering, and pillage the like of which history never saw: scholars slaughtered, libraries burned, books thrown into the Tigris until its water blackened with ink, blood flowing in the streets like rivers.

And at the heart of this catastrophe stands one man summing up five centuries of deviation: the caliph al-Musta’sim Billah. Hulagu entered his palace and ordered him to show him the treasures of Banu Abbas; the trembling caliph showed him basins beneath the palace courtyard filled with red gold — the wealth of five centuries hoarded under the tiles while the armies starved! And the Mongol historians report that Hulagu asked him a question that kept echoing in the history books: “If you knew that gold cannot be eaten, why did you keep it and not distribute it to your soldiers to protect your kingdom for you? And why did you not turn those iron gates into arrows and hasten to the banks of the Oxus to bar my crossing?” The caliph answered: “Such was God’s decree.” Hulagu replied: “And what will befall you is but God’s decree.”

Then — in the most famous account — al-Musta’sim was wrapped in a carpet and trampled by the Mongol horses’ hooves until he died, because the Mongols avoided shedding royal blood on the ground, believing it brought ill omen. Thus died the last of the Abbasid caliphs in Baghdad: not in a battle defending his nation, but wrapped in a carpet beneath horses’ feet — after hoarding gold, dismissing armies, and leaving the nation prey. Is this ending not the logical conclusion of mixing religion with power? A caliph ruling by “divine right,” never held accountable nor removed, hoards and withholds and weakens, until one stronger comes and takes everything — taking with him five centuries of history!

And with al-Musta’sim’s death, the caliphate seemed to end forever. But — and this is the marvel — the “idea” of the caliphate did not die; the true caliphate died and the hollow caliphate was born: a title without authority, rented to beautify tyrants’ faces. And this is the fourth chapter of the deviation.

The Mamluks: The Sword Rules in Religion’s Name

After Baghdad’s fall, Egypt was the last hope. But Egypt itself was living the Mamluks’ chaos: it is reported that six kings mounted its throne in ten years only! Coups and assassinations, and whoever reached the throne by the sword ruled by the sword until killed by the sword.

And in this chaos an exceptional man emerged: Sayf al-Din Qutuz. And when Hulagu’s letter reached him — a letter of threat and menace ordering him to surrender the land — Qutuz gathered the Mamluk princes and state leaders to consult them, and found hesitation and fear: who dares meet the army that crushed Baghdad and destroyed Syria? Indeed, some advised surrendering the land “to ward off a certain evil”!

And here Qutuz stood and delivered his famous words history preserved: “O princes of the Muslims, you have long eaten the wealth of the treasury, while hating to raid! And I am setting out — so whoever chooses jihad, let him accompany me; and whoever does not choose it, let him return to his house; for God is watching over him, and the sin of the Muslims’ womenfolk is on the necks of those who lag behind!”

Contemplate these words: a commander reproaching his commanders for eating from the treasury while hating battle, then saying: I am going myself — whoever wishes, let him follow me! He did not say “I am the infallible caliph, so obey me,” nor “jihad is an obligation by the caliph’s order,” but addressed their consciences and reminded them of responsibility. The words moved souls, hesitation was cut — and the heads of Hulagu’s four messengers were cut off and hung on Bab Zuwayla in Cairo — a declaration of war with no return.

And Qutuz needed money to equip the army, so he wanted to impose new taxes — but Shaykh al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam — the sultan of scholars — confronted him and spoke his famous words: do not impose anything on the people until you — the princes — first sell what you own of wealth and luxurious instruments, and become equal in that, you and the common folk! And Qutuz complied, being the first to place his gold and wealth in the Muslims’ treasury, followed by the princes and ministers.

Do you not notice the difference? Here — for the first time in centuries — a ruler held accountable before holding others accountable! A scholar standing in the sultan’s face telling him: begin with yourself! This is the spirit of the eternal principle: the ruler is the nation’s servant, not its master — asked before he asks. Was Qutuz a “caliph”? No. Did he claim infallibility? No. He was a leader who bore responsibility and deserved victory.

And the army went out in Ramadan 658 AH, meeting the Mongols — led by Kitbuqa, Hulagu’s deputy — on the plain of Ayn Jalut on 26 Ramadan 658 AH / 3 September 1260 CE. And Qutuz laid a tight plan: a small vanguard to draw the Mongols into the middle of the plain, and a large army hidden behind the hills to close in on them. And the battle raged, and when it intensified and the Muslims retreated under Mongol pressure, Qutuz dismounted from his horse — yes, the supreme commander dismounted in the heart of battle! — and cried his immortal cry: “Wa Islamah! Wa Islamah! Wa Islamah!” (O Islam! O Islam! O Islam!) Then he supplicated: “O God, grant victory to Your servant Qutuz over the Tatars!”

How beautiful his admission! He did not say “grant victory to al-Malik al-Muzaffar” nor “to the sultan of Egypt,” but said: “Your servant”! A servant admitting his servitude in the hour of hardship. So the Muslims held firm, the battle turned, the Mongol army that had never been defeated was crushed, Kitbuqa was killed, and the fugitives were pursued to Baysan where a second, fiercer battle raged — and the Mongol army was annihilated entirely.

Qutuz saved the Islamic world — indeed, saved civilization itself — from an invasion that would have reached Egypt and North Africa. A great military achievement by every measure. But — and here is the crux — what happened after the victory? On the road back to Cairo, Qutuz was assassinated at the hands of Baybars — his comrade in victory, and the new throne-seeker! The hero who saved the nation was killed by his companion, to sit on his throne!

Does this crime not sum up the entire Mamluk system? The sword makes the hero, the sword kills him, and the sword bequeaths the throne to his killer. A great military achievement that did not change the nature of rule one bit: power seized by the sword and legitimized by religion, and the nation a spectator applauding the victor, whoever he is!

A Caliph for Blessing: An Office for Notarizing Coups

And after Baybars seized the throne by assassination, he faced every usurper’s problem: legitimacy! So how does a man who reached power by killing his predecessor rule Egypt and Syria? The answer was ready in the heritage of deviation: revive the caliphate!

Baybars summoned a fugitive Abbasid prince from the Baghdad massacre and installed him as “caliph” in Cairo in June 1261 CE / 659 AH, under the name “al-Mustansir Billah II.” Baybars and the princes pledged him, he was preached for on the pulpits, coinage was struck in his name… and then what? The new caliph — poor man — went out at the head of a campaign to recover Baghdad from the Mongols, and was killed in Iraq that November, only five months into his “caliphate”!

Baybars did not despair: he summoned another Abbasid and installed him as caliph in the year 1262 CE under the name “al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah,” and the chain of figurehead caliphs continued in Cairo two and a half centuries: a caliph for blessing, sermon, and supplication — and a sultan for the army, the land tax, and decision-making.

Thus was born the new formula — the formula of the fourth chapter of deviation: the Mamluk — himself a mamluk slave, bought by his master as a child — would reach the throne by military coup, then ask the figurehead caliph to “invest” him with the sultanate, to gain for his rule a religious cover. Religion here became an office for notarizing coups: whoever seized Cairo by force received the deed of legitimacy from the caliph! Kill your sultan, then take the blessing from the caliph, then rule in Islam’s name!

And ask yourself: what is the value of a “caliph” who owns no army, no treasury, no decision? And what is the value of a “pledge” given to one who came over his predecessor’s remains? The caliphate — once the symbol of the nation’s unity — had become mere religious décor beautifying tyranny’s façade. And the irony is that the Mamluks — for all that — protected what remained of the Islamic world for two centuries: they repelled the Mongols and expelled the Crusaders from their last strongholds in Syria. A great achievement, but it poses the bitter question: is it enough for the ruler to protect you from the foreign enemy, if he is himself your enemy within — usurping your authority and barring you from choosing your rulers and holding them accountable? And are homelands built by swords alone, or by the justice that places the sword in the nation’s service rather than above its necks?

Baybars: Builder of the State and Prisoner of the Formula

But let us be fair to Baybars — for the man was no mere ambitious killer. After seizing the throne, he built a true state: he continued the war against the Mongols until he broke their power in Syria, continued the war against the Crusaders until he uprooted many of their strongholds, built citadels and fortresses, organized the army and administration, and made Cairo the capital of the Islamic world after Baghdad’s fall. He was — by his age’s standards — a strong, competent ruler.

But ask: did Baybars — for all his competence — change the nature of rule? No! For he reached the throne by assassination, ruled by the sword, and needed the “figurehead caliph” to beautify his authority’s face! Personal competence — however great — does not reform a corrupt system; it may even prolong its life! For the problem was never in the ruler’s person — righteous or wicked — but in the system that makes the nation a spectator of whoever usurps its authority, then asks it to chant his praise because he “protects religion”!

And so the Mamluk cycle continued two and a half centuries: a strong sultan assassinated, another deposed, a third killed in his palace — each beginning his rule by taking the “investiture” from the figurehead caliph, each ruling in Islam’s name! Two hundred and fifty years with the nation entirely outside the equation: not choosing, not holding accountable, not removing — only watching and praying for the victor!

The Ottomans: The Great Hollow Caliphate

And the Ottomans inherited the Mamluk formula and expanded it until it became an empire. The great story began in the year 857 AH / 1453 CE, when Mehmed the Conqueror stormed Constantinople — the Romans’ capital for eleven centuries — and the world trembled, and the Ottomans became the region’s superpower.

But Mehmed the Conqueror — for all his military greatness — instituted a black practice that haunted the state for centuries: the “qanun-name” (law book) that legitimized fratricide! Yes — a written law saying: the sultan may kill his brothers to preserve the throne’s unity and prevent sedition! So every new sultan began his reign with a family massacre: his brothers — and sometimes their sons — strangled with the bowstring on coronation night! What religion is this that legitimizes killing brothers? And what “Islamic caliphate” begins its rule by strangling princes? Ask: did the Prophet, peace be upon him, strangle his brothers? Did Abu Bakr or Umar do so? No — it is the throne’s law, not religion’s law, wearing religion’s garb!

Then came Selim I, who annexed Syria, Egypt, and the Hijaz in two years only (922–923 AH / 1516–1517 CE), ended the Mamluk state, and transferred the figurehead Abbasid caliph from Cairo to Istanbul. Thus the “hollow caliphate” passed to the House of Osman, and the Ottoman sultan bore the weightiest religious titles: “Caliph of the Muslims,” “Servant of the Two Holy Sanctuaries,” and “Commander of the Faithful”!

But look at the truth behind the titles: the sultan acceded by inheritance within the Ottoman family — no true pledge, no choice by the nation. And sometimes he was removed by military deposition — a coup! — or killed in his palace by strangling or poison. So where is the “shura“? And where is the “bay’ah“? The pledge had become a theatrical rite: scholars and princes gathering to feign pledging whoever the palace or the army had chosen!

As for the Shaykh al-Islam — the highest religious authority in the state — he was an employee the sultan appointed and dismissed at will! So he ruled as the sultan wished: a fatwa of war when the sultan wanted war, a fatwa of deposition when he wanted to depose his predecessor, a fatwa of execution when he wanted his opponent’s head! The circle was completed: religion an official institution subordinate to the palace, the caliph an absolute sultan speaking in Islam’s name, and the jurist an employee signing what was dictated to him.

And contemplate the decline across the centuries: in the sixteenth century the state reached the peak of its expanse and power, then began the slow retreat before rising Europe — militarily, scientifically, economically. So what did the “caliphs of the Muslims” do to face this decline? Did they open the door of shura? Did they involve the nation in decision-making? No! Rather, the clinging to religious slogans increased the greater the true weakness! The “caliphate” — the emptier of content it became — grew louder in its rhetoric! As though verbal sanctity compensated for practical impotence: the more the sultan failed to protect the nation, the higher he raised the banner of “Pan-Islamism”!

Is this not the complete institutional picture of mixing religion with power? Religion was no longer even a cover borrowed when needed, but had become one of the state’s apparatuses: with a budget, employees, and a chief the sultan appoints! And when religion becomes the sultan’s employee, who rules for the nation? And who says to the wrongdoer: you are wrong?

The Belated Reform: The Tanzimat

And when the Ottoman state collided with Europe’s military and scientific superiority in the nineteenth century, some of its men realized absolute sultanship no longer sufficed. So came the “Tanzimat” — top-down reform attempts: a modern army, modern administration, modern schools… Then came the decisive moment: the December 1876 constitution and an elected parliament! For the first time in the Ottoman state’s history — indeed, in Muslim history for centuries — it was written that the sultan is bound by law, and that the nation has elected representatives!

And behind this achievement was a man worth naming: Midhat Pasha, called “the father of the constitution.” He believed the state could be saved only by modern institutions: a constitution binding the sultan, a parliament watching him. But Sultan Abdulhamid II — who mounted the throne in 1876 CE — had another opinion. On 14 February 1878, only fourteen months later, he suspended the constitution and dissolved the parliament!

Nor did he stop there: he tried Midhat Pasha — the father of the constitution himself! — on charges of involvement in killing his uncle Sultan Abdulaziz; he was sentenced to death, then the sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, and he was exiled to Taif in the Hijaz, where he died strangled in mysterious circumstances in 1884 CE! Such was the reward of whoever wanted to bind the sultan by law: a show trial, exile, and strangling in a distant prison!

Then Abdulhamid II ruled in absolute despotism some three decades (1876–1909 CE), raising two great slogans: “the Islamic Caliphate” and “Pan-Islamism”! He presented himself as the caliph of all Muslims — from India to the Maghreb — and protector of Islam against Europe. And in these slogans’ name he crushed every opposition, suspended every reform, and ran an empire of informers and censorship: spies in every café, censorship of every newspaper, exile for whoever whispered the word “constitution”!

And ask yourself: was “Pan-Islamism” — as Abdulhamid presented it — a project of true unity among Muslims? Or a project for one throne’s survival? Look at the evidence: when the Muslim peoples themselves — in the Balkans and in the Arab lands — demanded their rights and freedoms, the “caliph of the Muslims” crushed them with iron and fire! What “Pan-Islamism” is this that fires bullets at Muslims themselves? Pan-Islamism was — in application — the pan-ism of the throne, not of the nation: gathering Muslims around the sultan, not gathering the sultan around the Muslims’ will!

And among his famous projects in this context: the Hijaz Railway (1900–1908 CE)! The sultan directed an appeal to the Islamic world to donate to the project; he himself contributed a huge sum from his own pocket, and Muslims donated from everywhere — until donations covered some two-thirds of the line’s costs! The project was presented as the symbol of Pan-Islamism: a train linking Damascus to Medina with Muslim money and enthusiasm!

But ask: was this railway to serve the pilgrims — or to serve the Ottoman armies transported swiftly to crush the Arab revolts? And was “Pan-Islamism” a project of true unity — or a slogan covering absolute despotism? The answer in the end: when democracy conflicted with the throne, democracy fell and the throne remained — protected by religion! The constitution was suspended “in the caliphate’s name,” the parliament dissolved “in Pan-Islamism’s name,” and Midhat Pasha strangled “in the Sharia’s name”! Have you seen how religion — when mixed with power — turns into a weapon by which reformers are killed?

And in April 1909 CE, the Unionists finally deposed him after three decades of despotism. But the state had corroded from within: provinces falling, debts accumulating, peoples revolting. Then came World War I, and it was the finisher.

The Conclusion

The Mamluks and Ottomans are the fourth chapter of the deviation: the mixing of religion with power reached its complete institutional form — a figurehead caliph granting legitimacy to whoever owns the sword (an office for notarizing coups!), a Shaykh al-Islam employed by the sultan ruling for him in killing and deposing, a law legitimizing the strangling of brothers to preserve the throne, a constitution suspended in the caliphate’s name, and a reformer strangled in his exile in the Sharia’s name.

Contemplate the whole journey: the caliphate began as a symbol of the nation’s unity, then became a title three fought over at once, then became décor in the Mamluks’ hand, then became an official institution in the Ottomans’ hand — and at every stage religion moved away from being a relationship between servant and Lord, and closer to being a tool in the sultan’s hand. Fifteen centuries of mixing, and the result was always one: thrones protected by sanctity, and a nation barred from its right to choose and hold accountable.

And when the Ottoman state fell and the caliphate was abolished in 1924 CE, it was not “the caliphate” as an Islamic value that fell, but a sultanate that had hidden behind it for centuries. The hollow formula died, and the true question remained — the question tyrants have dodged for fifteen centuries: who rules after the sultan? Who chooses the ruler? And who holds him accountable? And who removes him? It is the same question Abu Bakr posed on the Saqifa’s day — “if I do well, help me; if I err, set me straight” — the question once answered with the eternal principle, then buried under the rubble of thrones for fifteen centuries, and here it is returning to knock on doors anew.

But the exhausted nation — emerging from a devastating world war — found no chance to answer. For while the throne stood empty in Istanbul, other offices in London and Paris were at work: maps being drawn, borders ruled with a straightedge, peoples divided as booty is divided. Colonialism was answering the question instead of the nation… So how did it answer? And what price did the nation pay? That is what we shall see in the next chapter.