If not, obviously such a passive stance is everything but being in expectation. If the resurrection we are awaiting is a revival during which we become ourselves in our feelings, thoughts, spiritual lives, and lives of the heart – and there is no doubt that it is – then it is necessary to once more review our situation and our expectations. For according to the principle of causality, there is a proportional relationship between our current attitude, behavior, and our expectations.

This great expectation is not a task for the ignorant, those without ideals, those bereft of a cause, or those poor in wisdom. It is an ideal for those spirits who possess knowledge and wisdom and who are dedicated to the truth. If one day our ill-fated fortune is to change, it will change with God’s permission by the hands of these heroes, and anything other than God’s will is an unnecessary condition (shart al-adi). To date it has always happened like this – God knows best, after all, but it will be like this again, and attacks from both inside and outside will continue. Loyalty that is normally expected from friends will not be shown. Destruction will follow destruction. Our spiritual roots that make us who we are will constantly be harmed. Our hearts will long for love, and moans of death will be heard from all sides. But, despite all these negative things there will always be the vanguards of revival who will blow life in every direction.

Our society has suffered from many different ruptures and disintegrations throughout history. People’s cultural and religious values were snatched from their hands while they were made to endure the most painful alienations. Their sun was stolen, the moon was extinguished, and they were subjected to eclipses one after another.

While writhing under their adversaries’ oppression, they cried because of the disloyalty of “friends.” The bands of evil that were destroyed and dispersed were followed by new ones that always made their predecessors look good. The oppression of tyrants has never ceased nor did the hostility toward and hatred of the faithful; it did not end and they turned this world into Hell.

Today, the same despotism, oppression, and assaults are continuing. There is an attempt being made to put out the lights of people’s hope, and their rights and justice are being infringed. Those who want to live what they believe, as individuals or as societies, are not given the opportunity to do so; in fact, they are being subjected to an inquisition.

Despite all of this, the torches of hope that promise revival on behalf of the future, and in different dimensions are burning brightly. Those enlightened spirits who interpret everything according to love and respect are continuing on their journey. They move towards reviving our exalted human values without getting caught up in anger, hatred, and assault, and they do not falter. God has never forsaken servants faithful to His door, as opposed to oppressive tyrants and despots – may His grace upon these servants never diminish!

Although sporadically false thought has drowned the surroundings in noise and done everything to cut the voice and breath of the truth, the cawing of society is always transitory; the voice of truth is heard in a higher pitch. Even if God gives tyrants respite upon respite in some periods; but when their tyranny reaches to a point where divine response becomes inevitable, He eventually takes them in His grip and punishes them. He raises up the innocent and shows them the path to gathering themselves together. He always alerts them of the roads to scientific, social, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual revival.

Thus, the people God held and supported, and those He will hold and support, will give voice – in the near future, if not today – to those deep feelings of compassion that constantly rise in their spirits. Like a celestial angel, they will embrace the innocent everywhere; they will say to all the oppressors and high-handed tyrants and those merciless cutthroats, “This day let no reproach be (cast) on you: God will forgive you, and He is the Most Merciful of those who show mercy!” (12:92) They will not hesitate to open their bosoms with compassion to even the bloodiest madmen who, until the revival, always thought blood, talked blood, spilled blood and drank blood.

Yes, it’s certain that one day these idealistic people, who represent the manifestation of such broad mercy; these heroes of faith and action; and these servants who are cautious and vigilant in their relationships with God, will appear from all four sides, each embodying mercy, and they will offer us goblets filled with the tonic of revival.

Now, if God is going to realize such a revival with people of this high level, first, He will spiritually resurrect them according to the principles necessary in this world, and then He will revive all of us. It is not possible for believers who have no purpose or goals in this life, who are tired in their feelings and enthusiasm, and who are not fully alive, to help revive others.

God’s promise of reviving people and making them a vehicle for the revival of others is dependent upon people turning towards Him sincerely and that they have a prophetic resolution and determination. These people are such monuments of sincerity that if God is going to give special favors, He will give them to these servants because of their steadfastness and devotedness. They possess an unshakable faith, always stand firm in their place, ignore all the pressures that may come from any direction, and are never distraught by the difficulties and disasters that they may face. On the contrary, they are always a source of morale for those around them, are advanced in service and duty, have no desire for monetary rewards, and are absorbed in silent self-accounting. If God is going to blow life into people, He will do it using the breaths of these servants.

At any rate, these heroes of resurrection, who have dedicated themselves to the revival of mankind, are determined to use, to the last centimeter, their capabilities and capacities that God has bestowed upon them to establish their ideals. They are always willing to make enormous sacrifices, are as sure as possible in seeing and monitoring the trust they have taken upon themselves, possess a deep feeling of submission, and are waiting with active patience for the commendation and favor of God. These are things that must be done by a spirit that has truly dedicated itself to the Truth. They do everything necessary to gather themselves together and stand on their feet, yet they are also aware of the fact that results cannot be obtained when their time is not yet due – they know how to wait for years and years; they never panic.

Yes, sometimes all responsibilities are fulfilled; however, standing up and expressing oneself as a servant of revival may not be realized immediately. Sometimes this is because the person waiting for revival has not fully ripened, or, even if they have, are not being able to concentrate all their energy to awaken their spirit. At other times they are distracted by busying themselves with things that they should not be, things that can in no way contribute to the process of revival.

Reviving and becoming ourselves is a divine favor, and indeed it is. If that favor is given before the people are ready for it, its value will not be appreciated, thus it will go as immediately as it comes, and it will cause some new deprivations to be experienced, the compensation of which will be very difficult.

In addition, if God has tied His material-spiritual blessings to people’s giving their willpower its due – which we believe to be the case – then divine favor will probably be delayed until the moment they can utilize all the opportunities. 

Other matters related to this topic are as follows:

Sometimes, God does not immediately give to the travelers of this path what they want, because they have either fallen – or there is a danger that they may fall – into the mistake of considering their own power, strength, and capability to be absolute – and relying solely on them, thus straying from God. This is to protect them from this mistake of associating partners to what is within the domain of divine power. In this what may be called a favor that is rather compelled upon them, God turns their faces towards a perfect faith in His uniqueness. Sometimes, servants of revival may fail to fully achieve this turn, although all the conditions are convenient; in such a situation, they are subjected to different oppressions, attacks, and pressures, and God does not respond to their efforts at revival for a certain period of time in order for them to turn towards Him with a spiritual state of need and to divulge their difficulties to Him. Sometimes, they may entertain some worldly expectations and not be able to purify their hearts from considerations of position, status, high rank, and their personal future aspirations. They may also have difficulty being fully selfless. In this respect, until the moment they can fully escape from other considerations and turn towards God with pure resignation, they may not be able to obtain the results of revival.

In addition to all these matters, such tribulations serve as a litmus test to see who is sincerely involved with pure intentions and those who are not. Such difficult tests also reveal the true identity of the tyrants and oppressors to be recognized as they are by every sector of society. Based on their partisanship with the oppressors, masses who are easily deceived might oppose the heroes of revival, and this is partly due to the fact that things are not clearly revealed to them as they are supposed to be. In this respect, until the moment when good and evil are separated from one another, and where everyone, the learned and the ignorant, will position themselves become apparent, everyone is given an opportunity to reflect; consequently, the result becomes delayed a little.

Regardless of the reason, it is our duty to perform our jobs according to the rules and within the circle of wisdom, and refer the rest to God. Every servant of revival should know that as long as they respond to the call of God and His messengers, God will show them the paths to revival and will never allow them to fall.

Jacques Derrida¹

For over two thousand years despotism has been used by the West as a concept for slandering systems that differ from it. What this means is that the term itself is European. It was used against the French king as a means of opposition. It was also used by Montesquieu and Engels as a strategy of accusation against Oriental regimes. Karl Wittfogel attempted to adopt it for the case of Soviet Russia, but he did not succeed, because the term has been indexed to the East since the time of ancient Greece. The East for the Greeks was Persia, then, it became Seljuk-Ottoman Empire and the Mongols for a while.

“Enlightened despotism” was used in positive terms for Frederic the Great and Catherine II; however, even this positive attempt did not conceal this myth or alleviate the burden of this prejudice. To sum up, the term despotism has cast a silhouette over the Eurasian map since the time of Aristotle’s Politics. What is more, the notions developed in the West still dominate today, even in the mindset of some “intellectuals” in the East.

There have been many books written on this subject. Edward Said struggled greatly at the beginning with his Orientalism, published in 1978, and in subsequent studies. There has been much research conducted on the problems and contradictions of Eurocentrism. In 1748 Montesquieu presents us with a discussion of despotism in his The Spirit of Laws. However, his outmoded theory was found to be ridiculous by Voltaire at the time and by Anquetil-Duperron thirty years later in 1778.

In fact, the aim of the “Eastern Orientalists” is clear: they are trying to find an explanation for the lack of development in the East. Montesquieu-who invented the term despotism while criticizing the French king-would be pleased if he could hear the repercussions of his theory still haunting Eastern history after 250 years. The philosophers of the Enlightenment were very clever men, they used special terms for special aims, and the myth of “Oriental despotism” is one of the terms used for multiple aims.

The French thinker Louis Althusser analyzes and criticizes Montesquieu in his book Politics and History.2 Althusser first of all tries to “understand” the thinker he is examining. He evaluates works by Montesquieu in general terms and he divides the thoughts into themes. Despotism is one of these themes.

Althusser thinks that Montesquieu’s main aim was not to defend a republic or a democracy against despotism, but rather to support monarchy and make it something that the King would opt for. Therefore, he continually tries to frighten the King with the specter of despotism, a degenerated form of monarchy. He wanted to show the King that if you abuse the monarchy you will become a despot, like that of the Turkish and Chinese states. His warning was, “Be careful not to abuse the monarchy!”

Montesquieu was not an innocent philosopher merely giving advice to his ruler. Philosophers are at least as far removed from innocence as politicians are. However, Althusser does not see things so simple. He thinks that Montesquieu uttered these “great ideas” in order to consolidate the importance of the feudal lords, of whom he was one, in the eyes of the King.

According to Althusser, Montesquieu was trying to bring back the interests of his class that would be lost by centralizing the monarchy.3 Montesquieu was in the camp of the feudal rightist party and he was constantly criticizing Louis XIV-a monarch who represents French monarchy at its peak; he was advising him not to be a despot. If the French king became drawn into the sphere of despotism, then the privileges and rights of the upper classes would be abolished, and they would have to hand over not only their power, but also their wealth to the control of the central authority. Montesquieu lists all the problems inherent in despotism; Louis XIV would continue to distribute offices that had formerly belonged to the aristocrats-a practice started by Cardinal Richelieu-to the newly emerging bourgeoisie, and the logical consequence of this is that Louis XIV would come close to establishing a tyranny.4

Here is what Montesquieu said clearly: Despotism is a regime of fear. There is only one ruler. There are no intermediaries between the King and the people. The despot who rules arbitrarily does stand much of a chance if the people, living like a herd of animals, were to rebel against him en masse. Despotism can not oppose rebellions because the King will be the only target of a huge upsurge, and therefore the life of the king and the continuity of the regime can easily be threatened. However, if there are intermediary classes-of which Montesquieu was a member-who stand between the king and the people, they would be the target of the masses. The king would be free from blame and he would not be a direct target. Finally, Montesquieu concludes: “O Kings! Distance yourself from despotism if you want to protect your reign from the violence of the people.”5

Montesquieu denigrates despotism, particularly in his Letters from Persia, by giving examples from the administration of the Ottoman sultan and the Iranian shah (the Ottomans and the Safavids became the devils in this despotism context and were the parties accused of despotism).6 Yet, as Althusser cleverly recognized, Montesquieu’s problem was not with the Ottoman Empire or Iran. They were just distorted mirrors, fake images, or boogeyman chosen to serve the aim of the feudal rightist opposition that was trying to stand against the king. In short, Althusser wanted the Turks and the Ottomans to be left alone and he was calling for European thought to confess their faults.

Concepts should be perceived as an umbrella rather than as a shopping bag into which we can cram everything. If we use them in the latter fashion then, as implied by Braudel, they tell us nothing, while trying to tell everything. Likewise, Karl Popper-a philosopher of science-was right when he said if we do not limit a concept, a theory, or a scheme and if we try to use it to explain everything, then it is difficult to call it scientific. This is also true for the concept of despotism. If this term is used in an unrestricted sense and is universalized, there will be a superficiality that eliminates all minor differences within the concept. This leads to an evaporation of the deep meanings that are hidden in the nuances, an atrophy of complex thinking and an establishment of thinking based on limits and ease. Because of this we need to talk about multiple despotisms rather than unique despotism.

In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought, 7 there are four meanings for the term despotism:

1. In political terms, despotism emerged for the first time in the war between the Persians and Greeks in 5th century B.C. However, the term was formulated by Aristotle. According to him, despotism was an administration confined to Asian barbaric people. Therefore, the first conceptual iron door between Asia and Europe was constructed by Aristotle, who is known as “the first teacher” in Islamic philosophy. According to him, Asian peoples are natural born slaves and are accustomed to living under the authority of a single leader. He thought that their power was derived from despotism. However, since Greek (Europeans) people were superior to Asians in terms of rational capability and spirit, they should be the rulers. Thus, despotism was commonly used in a pejorative sense.

2. In the 16th century, the colonial powers that went to discover new lands to plunder frequently remembered Aristotle’s legitimizing despotism concept. The slave trade was inspired by this ancient obsession with despotism. The people who divided the world into two camps, the free and the barbaric, like Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes, and Grotius, believed that the soldiers of European republics were more virtuous than those of the barbarians. According to this belief, it was therefore acceptable for the virtuous to convert the slavish barbarians into slaves.

3. In the 17th and 18th centuries two opposing groups in France, the French aristocrats and the Huguenots (French Protestants, some of who took refugee in the Ottoman Empire after the Edict of Nantes) used the term despotism as a tool of criticism for a European state. Therefore, the content of the term despotism expanded to European rulers who were ruling over free people. In conclusion, the term became two-sided; one for “Western despotism” and the other for “Eastern.” The despotism concept of Montesquieu emerged in the context of this century.

4. There is one other thesis which originated from the Swedish-born French liberal Benjamin Constant and was developed by Tocqueville. This thesis argues that the term of despotism had lost its ancient and original meaning after the French Revolution. These discussions allowed despotism to enter European politics and led to many interesting discussions, like “democratic despotism” or “the tyranny of the majority.”

After all these definitions those of Hegel, Marx, Weber, J. Stuart Mill, and Wittfogel follow; these are not very different in the main line of thought, also seeing despotism as something reserved for the East. They use terms “petrification, “resistance to change” and “static” as symbols of despotism and see it as the reason why eastern societies did not create democratic tendencies and a civil society.

Edward Said in his Orientalism has already shown that the concept of “the East” is a fiction. To put it more correctly, it is an image constructed by the European imperial subject in his mind and then imposed on the world. Therefore, there is no fixed “reality” of the East; rather there is only the ideologically distorted image of the “East” constructed over the ages in the Western imagination. Yet, our mission seems more difficult, as Said does not present us with any clue that can differentiate the “factual” and “fictional” faces of the East. He only diagnoses the existence of the fiction and analyzes the roles of the most important actors (Orientalists) in creating such a fiction. This critical tradition of Orientalism developed greatly after the pioneering role of Edward Said. According to his perception, the East has been singly constructed in the West. Arif Dirlik in his The Postcolonial Aura elegantly criticizes Said”s thought and says that Said is obsessed with external Orientalists; however, Dirlik puts it that Said seems to be unable to recognize the internal Orientalists among easterners.

According to Dirlik, Edward Said takes Orientalism as something that has finished; however Dirlik suggests that it is a continuing process. Thus, he advises that we closely examine local compradors. He asks the question that if there were not collaborationists in the “Orient” would it be so easy for a perspective like Orientalism to settle there? Finally, departing from the Chinese example, he tries to display how Asian intellectuals supported and adopted the Orientalist discourse at its birth and throughout its evolution, and how they worked hard in order to make their societies adopt this perspective.8 This striking thought of Arif Dirlik may facilitate our task, as it is very interesting to note how eastern intellectuals adopted a pejorative and humiliating term like eastern despotism for defining their own histories without questioning and criticizing it, how they were able to take on the habit of seeing their societies through the eyes of a Western subject and in the name of liberation and modernization. According to this approach, the commoditization of Chinese culture and its presentation as a static and petrified entity and marketing it like a commodity to Western people are one side of the Orientalization of the Orient itself.

The other side is glorifying the superior Western race, its land and its culture after humiliating the Orient. Furthermore, the East believes that if it possesses superior properties to that of the West it will be also superior and have a free-minded society. To sum up, much as Hegel strived to achieve, Easterners have put themselves onto this scale of frozen, static and unchanging societies because that is what the West thinks of them. So we have to admire the success of the Orientalist project. Lucette Valensi, in his encompassing and striking study, The Birth of the Despot: Venice and the Sublime Porte, draws conclusions from reports of Venetian ambassadors and arrives at how the concept of the “despot” was constructed in Europe. He says that the Ottoman sultan had not been called a despot and the Ottoman order had not been conceptualized as despotism before. On the contrary, the power, brilliance, and progressiveness of the Ottoman administration were often discussed.

However, beginning with the 17th century, the discourses of the Venetian ambassadors started to change. It was strange, according to Valensi, how the “grand Turc” was transformed into a “despot” in the 17th century. He rightfully asks why the Venetian ambassadors had glorified the Ottoman sultan until the 16th century and then humiliated him in the 17th century. It is clear that there was a change in the Venetian perspective of the Ottomans during this century. As Valensi himself elegantly points out: In the end, the ambassadors and then Montesquieu dressed an ancient Greek concept in a Turkish robe. To say it more correctly, that time is not very distant from us. The fantasy of pure power follows us and transforms its vision continuously.9 According to Valensi, Oriental despotism is just an image reflected onto non-western societies by the West in order to satisfy its fantasy of power. Yet, this image reflects the passion of power in the West; a passion that desires to be as powerful as the Ottomans. Voltaire declares the concept of despotism as presented by his contemporary Montesquieu as ridiculous; he defends that a mass of people ruled by a regime led by a single leader cannot survive; even though it might be possible for it to remain standing, it will not be for long. There was no despotic rule according to Voltaire because it could not exist. It is nothing less than a lie to talk about the existence of such a regime.

As I mentioned above, the concept of despotism, which Voltaire found absurd and fictive, has been used with the aim of concealing rather than describing, complicating rather than explaining. However, we should direct our energy and attention to understanding the facts rather than thinking within limits and fantasies. Then, our attempt to find the realities will remind us that our past is not “a foreign country,” it will give us sound clues about our present and past. Likewise, Voltaire, addressing Montesquieu, explained the Ottoman reality to those who thought like Montesquieu. Voltaire underlined that not only were the Turks free, but they also did not discriminate according to class. Their only criterion of privilege was merit. The facts Voltaire provides about the Ottomans are in complete contrast with the fiction. In conclusion, when carefully examined, myths like “Oriental despotism” do not amount to anything more than European fantasies about the East. Seeing despotism as an oriental concept is no more realistic than the Western misconception of the harem, where the sultan is depicted with hundreds of women. As long as we adopt orientalist presumptions without thoroughly questioning them, we will be unable to tell where the fictional ends and where the factual starts.

Notes

1. Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, The John Hopkins University Press, 1976, p.80
2. Louis Althusser, Politika ve Tarih: Montesquieu-Rousseau, (Politics and History: Montesquieu-Rousseau) Ankara: Verso, 1987. Translated by Alaattin Azenel and Ömür Sezgin.
3. For this transitional period, the seigneurs or landlords were delivering their rights to central government, that is, the central state was becoming a universal seigneurate, see W. H. Lewis, The Splendid Century: Life in the France of Louis XIV, Anchor Books, 1957, pp. 73-79.
4. Stephan J. Lee, Aspects of European History, 1494-1789, Routledge, 1986, p. 167.
5. Micheal Curtis, “The Oriental Despotic Universe of Montesquieu&”, Princeton Papers in Near Eastern Studies, n. 3, 1994, pp. 1-33.
6. Montesquieu, Ãran Mektuplari (Letters from Persia), Anka, Istanbul, 2001, p. 88-89. Translated by Muhiddin Gaklu.
7. David Miller (ed), The Blackwell Encylopedia of Political Thought, Blackwell, 1998.
8. Arif Dirlik, Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism, Westview Press, 1998
9. Lucette Valensi, The Birth of the Despot: Venice and the Sublime Porte (Despotun Dogusu: Venedik ve Bab-i Âli), tr. A. Turgut Arnas, Baslam, Istanbul: 1994.