Excerpt: On December 26, 2015 a 24-minute audio message was released by the Islamic State Organization’s (ISO) official media arm al-Furqan.

The early split of Islam is regarded as one of the most profound and complex events in Islamic history, not only would it lay the foundation of two predominant branches of Islam, but it would also be one of the oldest arguments in Islamic history. Who is the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammed? This essay aims to explore the deep root behind the initial schism of Islam and understand the arguments both schools use to legitimize their position. What do the Sunnis and Shi’as say about the event of Ghadir, the hadith of the two weighty things and the incident of Saqifa, and how do each school of Islam interpret these events? The source material consists of Hadiths and scholastic literatures from both Sunni Islam, Shi’a Islam, as well as literatures from Secular sources. By basing the analysis on Wilfred Madelung’s and Ali Asghar’s theory of disserting Orientalist understanding of a monolith perspective on Islamic history, the essay aims to understand and broaden the reality of the schism of Islam and to bring emphasis on the events that often goes ignored throughout history. Finally, the results prove that both Sunnis and Shi’as differ regarding the caliphate, and the assertions for these lay in their respective interpretations. The Shi’as maintain that Ali should’ve been the successor, while the Sunnis believe Abu Bakr was the caliph.

The past years have seen a renewed interest in the study of Ottoman and African relations. Several works have been published in Turkish and partly in English; they cover the periods from the 16th century to World War I and geographically referred to the Ottoman provinces in North and North East Africa mostly Egypt, Tripoli, Tunisia, and Ethiopia (Habesh Province) by using the Ottoman archival sources. However, no comprehensive study has been undertaken on the relations between the Ottoman Empire and the rest of the continent except for a few works. This Ph.D. study had begun as an investigation into the Zanzibar Sultanate which was frequently referred to as Zengibar, the local Muslim sultanate in East Africa in the Ottoman archival sources of the late nineteenth century. After examining more than a hundred documents that were first transcribed from the original version of Ottoman Turkish and then translated into English with annotations, this study revealed the existence of the entangled world of East Africa where Europeans, Ottomans, and local African powers had been constantly in contact with each other at the global age of colonialism. In this sense, this work, first questioned how the Ottoman State, as the Caliph of the Muslim world, produced knowledge about Africa and perceived what was taking place in the region in the related period. Secondly, it deals with the Ottoman’s relationship with the European States in the context of the scramble for Africa. Thirdly, it questioned the nature of the mutual relations between the Zanzibar Sultanate and the Ottoman Empire which was fostered by imperial competition between European powers in the period of high colonialism.:CONTENTS...................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................ vii LIST OF DOCUMENTS ...................................................... viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………..xi INTRODUCTION………………………1 The Congo Conference and East Africa .......................................................... 1 East Africa in Ottoman Sources: An Imperial but Non-Colonial Perspective ...... 4 Aims, Sources, and Methodology ............................10 Structure of the Thesis .................................................................. 13 PART I: THE OTTOMAN PERCEPTION OF EARLY COLONIAL INITIATIVES IN EAST AFRICA (1885-1890) ............................................ 17 1.1 AFRIKA-YI OSMANI: OTTOMAN MAPPING OF AFRICA ................... 20 1.1.1 The Berlin Conference and its Reflection in Ottoman Mapping of Africa ... 24 1.1.2 The Sources ................................. 25 1.1.3 Annotated and Translated Documents with original maps ................... 27 1.2 THE OTTOMAN VIEW OF THE SCHUTZBRIEF IN 1885 ..................... 67 1.2.1 The Ottoman Perception of the Schutzbrief ..................................... 69 1.2.2 The Sources ................................................ 73 1.2.3 Annotated and Translated Documents ............................... 76 1.2.4 Original Documents .................................................... 90 1.3 “BRITISH PLOT” OR “FALLING PREY TO THE DESIRE OF HAVING A COLONY IN EAST AFRICA”? THE OTTOMAN PERCEPTION OF THE BLOCKADE OF THE COASTS OF THE ZANZIBAR SULTANATE, 1888-89 ......................... 101 1.3.1 The Sources ....................................... 104 1.3.2 Annotated and Translated Documents .................. 107 1.3.3 Original Documents ................................... 139 PART II: ALLIANCE OR COMPETITION? IMPERIAL ENCOUNTERS IN EAST AFRICA ...........150 2.1 RELUCTANT MIDDLEMAN BETWEEN GERMANY AND ZANZIBAR (1886-94) ........152 2.1.1 The Wissmanntruppe ................................................... 153 2.1.2 The Sources ........................................................... 156 2.1.3 Annotated and Translated Documents ............................ 158 2.1.4 Original Documents ................................................ 165 2.2 WHICH GOD FOR CONGO? A CONVERTED MUSLIM’S VOICE IN THE ANTWERP PRESS AND HIS NETWORKS IN ISTANBUL AND CONGO ........ 171 2.2.1 Muhammad Muhtar ............................................................. 172 2.2.2 The “Civilising Mission” of Muslim Missionaries ................... 174 2.2.3 The Sources ................................................................ 176 2.2.4 Annotated and Translated Documents ........................... 179 2.2.5 Original Documents ................................ 200 2.3 THE PRESS AND THE OTTOMAN ROLE IN AFRICA (1885-1892) ..... 208 2.3.1 The Sources ............................................................. 210 2.3.2 Annotated and Translated Documents ..................... 214 2.3.3 Original Documents ............................................ 236 PART III: BEING CONNECTED IN HARD TIMES: RELATIONS BETWEEN THE ZANZIBAR SULTANATE AND THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE (1879-1908) ........... 255 3.1 “GOD SAVE THE QUEEN” VS “GOD SAVE OUR BRAVE SAYYID”: SULTAN BARGHASH’S DESIRE FOR A ZANZIBAR NATIONAL ANTHEM IN 1879.................... 259 3.1.1 Introduction ............................................ 259 3.1.2 The Magazine an-Nahlah (The Bee) and Barghash’s Desire for a National Anthem…………………………… .. 263 3.1.3 The Sultan’s Band .......................................... 265 3.1.4 The Age of Images: Ceremonies, Symbols, and Rites ..................... 267 3.1.5 The Sources .............................................................. 269 3.1.6 Annotated and Translated Documents ........................... 271 3.1.7 Original Documents .................................. 275 3.2 IT TOOK LONGER TO ARRIVE THAN TO STAY: AN OTTOMAN ENVOY’S VISIT TO ZANZIBAR IN 1888 ............................................. 281 3.2.1 The Sources .............................................................. 285 3.2.2 Annotated and Translated Documents ............................. 288 3.2.3 Original Documents .................................. 309 3.3 FROM ITALY TO ZANZIBAR: THE TRANSLOCAL NETWORK OF AN ANARCHIST IN 1905 ............................ 329 3.3.1 The Sources ........................................ 335 3.3.2 Annotated and Translated Documents ......................... 337 3.3.3 Original Documents ...................................... 349 3.4 THE ZANZIBAR SULTAN’S VISITS TO ISTANBUL IN 1907-1908 ......... 370 3.4.1 The Sources .......................................................... 373 3.4.2 Annotated and Translated Documents ................................. 375 3.4.3 Original Documents............................................................... 389 CONCLUDING REMARKS .............................................. 416 BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................428

No description available.

Excerpt: On May 14, 2015 a 34-minute audio message was released by the self-proclaimed Islamic State’s media arm al-Furqan.

The history of Banu Umayya has since the collapse of the caliphate occupied a major part in Islamic historiography. The present thesis analyses the presentation of the Umayyads in Ibn Khaldun’s al-Muqaddima and its relation to previous historical traditions. The thesis examines the social and intellectual context in which Ibn Khaldun stood and how it is represented in his historiography, while also providing an overview of the various socio-political, intellectual and historiographical developments in Islam. The theoretical perspectives are based on the concept of agency, examining the intellectual room for manoeuvre that the historian disposed of while composing the works. The relation between the past-as-history and the historical past is emphasised and analysed by examination of narrative arrangements and content in relation to the historians’ contexts. Rather than viewing Ibn Khaldun as an exception, the study clarifies his contextual representativity by analysing his views on the Umayyads. The thesis also discusses the historiographical significance of the Umayyad history for the later development of Islam, while thereby attempting to open the field of research regarding the Umayyad history and its importance as self-definitions among later movements, historians and traditions of Islam.

Thesis (Master of Military Studies)-Marine Corps Command and Staff College, 2008. / Title from title page of PDF document (viewed on: Feb 11, 2010). Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.

Das arabische Wort „Khalifa“ in der Bedeutung „Stellvertreter“ oder „Nachfolger“ wird im Koran, dem heiligen Buch der Muslime an zwei Stellen verwendet (Sure 7, Vers 69 und Sure 38, Vers 26). Darin wird der Mensch als der Stellvertreter Gottes auf Erden bezeichnet. Im historischen Kontext entsteht der Begriff nach dem Tod des Propheten Muhammad im Jahr 632. Die ersten vier Nachfolger in der politischen Führung der Gemeinde werden in der sunnitischen Geschichtsschreibung als die „Raschidun“ (die Rechtgeleiteten) bezeichnet. In dieser Zeit, also zwischen 632 und 661, entsteht auch der Begriff „Amir al-Muminin“ (Beherrscher der Gläubigen) als Titel des Kalifen, mit dem die Herrscher auch angeredet wurden. Die Frage der Nachfolge des Propheten Muhammad entwickelte sich zu einem grundlegenden Streitpunkt innerhalb der jungen muslimischen Gemeinde. Aus diesen Auseinandersetzungen heraus entstand dann die konfessionelle Spaltung der muslimischen Welt in die sunnitische Mehrheit und die schiitische Minderheit. Grundlegend gibt es Gemeinsamkeiten sowie Unterschiede zwischen den zwei Hauptströmungen der islamischen Gemeinde, den Sunniten und Schiiten. Der Umfang der Meinungsverschiedenheiten zwischen Sunniten und Schiiten sind mehr als deren Ähnlichkeiten, obwohl diese Unterschiede auf den ersten Blick nicht erkennbar sind. Die Wurzeln all dieser Differenzen sind darauf zurückzuführen, dass die Schiiten nach dem Hinscheiden des Propheten die Dogmen ihres Glaubens von den Ahl al-Bayt (Angehörige des Hauses Man darf das Thema Kalifat als den Schwerpunkt aller anderen Diskrepanzen der Glaubensauffassungen der sunnitischen und schiitischen Gelehrten betrachten. / The Arabic word "Khalifa" in the meaning "deputy" or "successor" has been used in the Coran, the holy book of the Muslims at two locations: sura 7, verse 69 and sura 38, verse 26. In These verses is the human being known as God''s representative on earth. In historical context, the term arises after the death of Prophet Muhammad in 632. The first four successors of him in the political leadership of the community calls in the Sunni historiography as the "Rashidun" means (the rightly guided). During this time, i. e. from 632 to 661, the term "Amir al-Mu''minin" (Commander of the Faithful) was created as the title for the Caliphs; thereby the rulers were also addressed. The question of the succession of the Prophet Muhammad became a fundamental point of conflicts within the young Muslim community. From these contentions arose then the confessional division of the Muslim world in the Sunni majority and the Shia minority. Basically, there are similarities and differences between the two mainstreams of the Islamic community, the Sunnis and Shiites. The dimensions of disagreements between Sunnis and Shiites are more than their similarities, although these differences at first glance are not recognizable. The roots of all these differences are due to the fact that the Shiites after the passing away of the Prophet adopted the dogmas of their faith from the Ahl al-Bayt (solely 13 members of the house of the Prophet) and the Sunnis from others. It must be considered, that the issue Caliphate is the focus of all other discrepancies in the beliefs of the Sunni and Shiite scholars.

From roughly 1865 to 1926, the forces of European imperialism brought the Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca under the scrutiny of non-Muslim interests. The driving force behind this dramatic change was the expansion of the British Empire’s maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean basin. With the development of steamship travel and the opening of the Suez Canal, colonial authorities became increasingly involved in the surveillance of seaborne pilgrims. During this period, the hajj came to be recognized as both the primary conduit for the spread of epidemic diseases, such as cholera and plague, and a critical outlet for the growth of Pan-Islamic networks being forged between Indian dissidents, pilgrims, and the Ottoman Empire. As a result, the British and Ottoman empires engaged in a struggle for control of the hajj, which would ultimately reshape both the hajj and the political landscapes of the Middle East and South Asia.