Religious Mobilisation - Report Example

Religious mobilisation Introduction During the colonial period in the late 19th and early 20th century, pilgrims’ mobility was a major concern for both the colonials and the ottomans empire due to the significance of such a religious events in the Muslim’s world as being a subject of the colonial plan to suppress further power, and the mass travellers crossing a vast area of territorial disputes. A new modernised technology of mobilization that was available at the time was introduced. Consequently, multi-dimensional issues of security, management, surveillance, are the political requirement in that perspective and demand adding new model of arguably strict administration for Haj to resolve these issues. The bureaucracy did not only limit the free movements, but also generated different acts of resistance and the imperial clashes in colonization milieu. During that period, the administration of Haj was still political legitimately under the Ottoman Sultan as being the Caliph of Muslims. The legitimation was a vital tool for the Ottomans to maintain their stretched power over centuries on the haj routs and areas around the holy land. The abovementioned process of modernisation explored the idea of either improving the existing routs such as the Hejaz railway carried by the ottomans, or forming new routs like crossing Suez canal carried by the British and the French to shorten the distance and ease the tough long journey, specially for pilgrims who are far from Hijaz This exploration was coloured with a religious favour, hiding behind a larger political scheme of powers struggle and using a large planed infrastructures to deploy the empires’ political plans in the region. This essay reviews the works of different writers aiming at drawing the connection of their subjects to the use of large mobilization infrastructures and the role of such infrastructures serving the political agenda of power and control. The first text is a work of Valeska Huber in her book Channelling mobility, the second is The Evolution of transport in Turkey by Philip Ernest Schoenberg, and finally Muhamad Inshalah and the Hijaz Railway by Syed Tanvir Wasti. A new route for Haj Since the opening of the Sues Canal, The new routes and the help of modern technology improved mobilisation systems, which resulted in the abandonment of the long caravan routs and a shift toward the alternative sea route, particularly through the Suez Canal. As a result, Jeddah port, which is the main port for sea-travellers pilgrims, showed a colossal traffic of ships (Huber, 2013). Al Sham caravan rout, now Damascus, shows drastic yearly declination in pilgrim’s numbers during the 19th century which couple of thousands in comparison to the 400,000 in the 18th century (Blake & King, 2007). The private business also saw a great opportunity for shipping service trade and monopolize the traffic of this religious mobilization, which was a issue for frequent monopolization disputes. Although this privatised pilgrims transportations services shortened the distance, it provided another demotion service. It was a result of a typical lucrative businesses of maximising the profit either by reducing the quality of services, which extend the limit to became an immoral practice, or by the clashes of the different monopolization games practiced by different players with the consideration of the different authorities’ hands that were involved in the mobilisation scheme as a result of imperial’s and colonial struggle. Huber argues that it was a challenge to regulate an superlative religious mobilisation services due to the power of the responsible shipping companies for the Haj services, and what she called “complicated trans-imperial nature of Haj and its control in the other hand”( Huber 211). Some imperials had fear of social activism that was also put on the top subject of the imperial surveillance concerns particularly after the British struggle against the Indian uprising during 1850s. Therefore the colonial administrator in the field were carefully trying to avoid provoking Muslims, similarly this fear was carried against the speculative dream of the pan-Islamism and the pan- Arabism movements carried by the follower Husien bin Ali, the sheriff of Mecca, where he was spreading his propaganda among the multi-ethnic pilgrims. This fear was expressed by a different reaction of the colonial official often considing the arrest of pilgrims. Hubert states that the notion of Haj as being a global gathering event where Muslims from all around the world localised in Mecca, increase the risk of the Muslims uprising against imperialism, however some examiners were spectacle about the danger of the pan-Islamism influence on pilgrims. The imperial’s surveillance, which was practiced by the British, French and the Ottoman was not always encompassed by political agenda, however, it was accompanied by the fear of spreading diseases (Huber, 2013). Modernising the historical route The 19th century witnessed a great number of ‘railway fever’ projects covering Egypt, the Levant, and Asia Minor, connecting this region with major capitals in Europe such as Istanbul and Berlin (Blake & King, 2007). The Ottoman saw the necessity to implement this fashionable infrastructure by developing the Hejaz railway to cover a multidimensional interest of expressing authority. Abdul Hamid II, The Ottoman sultan, hoped to increase his control over the different territorial part of his empire to deliver a strategic presence in the imperials competition. He saw the project as an effective tool for his main role of Muslim’s Caliph, who had to maintain the solidity of his nation and to foster his military control (Wasti , 1998). Howeve, Blake and King (2007) claimed that the railway project was perceived initially by the German in the 1860s as a German respond to the British growing control influence in the region (Blake & King, 2007). Schoenberg in his text explained the challenges the Ottoman Empire faced in its attempt to modernize its transportation. One of the key factors is a military mission of securing the empire, that required a huge budget. He argued that the Crimean war indicated the insufficiency of the existed transportation system that made it hard to travel for a large group of militants for the long distance during a short period of time. And there was a lack of the culture and vision to get acquainted with emergence of western ideology of modernisation. Therefore, the main driving force for these railways projects were non-economic . The empire didn’t express any interest in improving the water mobilisation, which this mobilisation left in the hand of the other rivals (Schoenberg19) . The funding of the project was collected as an endowment by Muslims around the world, and later other sources were organized including cutting ten percent of the salary of the Muslim officials as a contribution for this religious project (Blake & King, 2007). Unlike the other ottoman railways at the time where all the lines were fully managed and operated by foreign specialized companies, the Hejaz railway was fully managed and operated by the Ottoman with the technical help with the construction by using their political ally that was the German. This exception was clearly made due to the vital role of such a huge infrastructure built for faith, which embodied the ideology of Pan-Islamic movement, in which it aimed to sustain their imperial power when the threat of the other Imperial competitors such as the British and the French is present. (Wasti, 1998). Thousands of Ottoman soldiers worked on the construction of the bridges, stations along with the technical assistance of the Italian and Greek engineers (Blake & King, 2007). On the other hand, they also found some international influence to hinder the project. For instance, the French, who controlled Beirut port and railway that linked both Beirut and Damascus at the time, made it very difficult for the Ottomans to use these facilities (Safran & Goren, 2010). The construction of the railway to connect Madinah to Mecca ’t was not fulfilled due to the position of local Bedouins, who were against the scheme fearing of losing their income from caravan trading (Wasti, 1998) It was also due to the Arab revolt organized with the help of the British to take this control from the ottoman by using the Arab Bedouins led by Hussain bin Ali, Sharif Mecca. (Johnson, 1982). The rivals chose the Hejaz railway as a scene for rebellious activities to express their rejection of the Ottoman control, and that the Hejaz railway was a symbolic permanent power statement that they had to erase. Conclusion In conclusion, it’s important to note that the struggle between the different imperial powers during the colonial period was heavily practiced by applying or capturing large mobilisation infrastructures. These infrastructures helped the colonials manipulate the geographical territories to control and expand their colony. These large scaled infrastructures helped shrink the global space by shortening the distances, but also created the disputes that captured rebellions and clashes between the different power players. Read More