by
Damien F. Mackey
King Suleiman I as
“a second Solomon”, and “a new Solomon”.
Suleiman the Magnificent,
King of the Ottoman Turks
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Suleiman
… is therefore called the second Solomon by many Islamic scholars …”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
King Suleiman ‘the
Magnificent’, C16th AD Ottoman emperor, was, according to this source
And, similarly, Suleiman was “the second
Solomon”.
Süleyman I was everything a magnificent ruler should be. He was just, making
the right decisions in cases set before him. [Cf. I Kings 3:16-28] He was
brave, leading his armies in battle until he had greatly expanded his
sultanate. He was wealthy, living in luxury and turning his capital Istanbul into a splendid
city. And he was cultured, his court teeming with philosophers and artists, and
the Sultan himself mastering several
arts, especially that of poetry.
…. Süleyman ascended to the
throne in 1520 and stayed there for all of 46 years. During his reign he
furthered the work of his forefathers until he had made the empire of the
Ottomans into one of the world’s greatest.
The Sultan was named after
Solomon, who was described as the perfect ruler in the Quran. Like the legendary king of the
Jews, Süleyman was seen as just and wise, and a worthy follower of his namesake.
He is therefore called the second Solomon by many Islamic scholars, although he
was the first of that name among the Ottomans. Like the Solomon of old, this
ruler was surrounded by splendour and mystery, and his time is remembered as
the zenith of his people.
[End of quote]
The
Problem with Islamic History
In some cases, Islam and its scholars
have shown a complete disregard for historical perspective. I had cause to
discuss this in my review of Islamic scholar Ahmed Osman’s book, Out of Egypt. The Roots of Christianity
Revealed, in:
Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses
this book being a diabolical historical
mish-mash in which the author, Osman, sadly attempts to herd a millennium or
more of history into the single 18th Dynasty of ancient Egypt.
But getting right to the heart of the
situation, the historical problems pertaining to the Prophet Mohammed himself
are legendary. My own contributions, amongst many, to this subject, are, for
example:
Scholars have long pointed out the historical problems associated with the
life of the Prophet Mohammed and the history of Islam, with some going even so
far as to cast doubt upon Mohammed’s actual existence. Biblico-historical
events, normally separated the one from the other by many centuries, are
re-cast as contemporaneous in the Islamic texts. Muslim author, Ahmed Osman,
has waxed so bold as to squeeze, into the one Egyptian dynasty, the Eighteenth,
persons supposed to span more than one and a half millennia. Now, as I intend
to demonstrate in this article, biblico-historical events that occurred during
the neo-Assyrian era of the C8th BC, and then later on, in the Persian era,
have found their way into the biography of Mohammed supposedly of the C7th AD.
and
Added to all this is the highly
suspicious factor of a ‘second’ Nehemiah, sacrificing at the site of the Temple
of Yahweh in Jerusalem during a ‘second’ Persian period, all contemporaneous
with the Prophet of Islam himself. The whole scenario is most reminiscent of
the time of the original (and, I believe, of the only) Nehemiah of Israel.
And so I wrote in an article, now
up-dated as:
This … later Nehemiah “offers a sacrifice on the site
of the Temple”, according to Étienne Couvert (La Vérité sur les Manuscripts de la Mer Morte, 2nd ed, Éditions de
Chiré, p. 98. My translation). “He even seems to have attempted to restore the Jewish
cult of sacrifice”, says Maxine Lenôtre (Mahomet
Fondateur de L’Islam, Publications MC, p.111, quoting from S.W. Baron’s,
Histoire d’Israël, T. III, p. 187. My translation), who then adds (quoting from
the same source): “Without any doubt, a number of Jews saw in these events a repetition
of the re-establishment of the Jewish State by Cyrus and Darius [C6th BC kings
of ancient Persia] and behaved as the rulers of the city and of the country”.
[End
of quote]
So, conceivably, the whole concept of a
Persian (or Sassanian) empire at this time, with rulers named Chosroes, again
reminiscent of the ancient Cyrus ‘the Great’, may need to be seriously
questioned.
Coins
and Archaeology
Emmet Scott, who asks “Were the Arab
Conquests a Myth?”, also points out major anomalies relating to the coinage of
this period, and regarding the archaeology of Islam in general, though Scott
does not go so far as to suggest that the Sassanian era duplicated the ancient
Persian one (http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/160197/sec_id/160197):
Note the remark [in Encyclopdaedia Iranica]: “The Arab-Sasanian coinages are not
imitations,” but were “designed and manufactured by the same people as the late
Sasanian issues.” We note also that the date provided on these artefacts is
written in Persian script, and it would appear that those who minted the coins,
native Persians, did not understand Arabic. We hear that under the Arabs the
mints were “evidently allowed to go on as before,” and that there are “a small
number of coins indistinguishable from the drahms of the last emperor,
Yazdegerd III, dated during his reign but after the Arab capture of the cities
of issue. It was only when Yazdegerd died (A.D. 651) [in the time of the
Ummayad Caliph Mu'awiya] that some mark of Arab authority was added to the
coinage.” (Ibid.) Even more puzzling is
the fact that the most common coins during the first decades of Islamic rule
were those of Yazdegerd's predecessor Chosroes II, and many of these too bear
the Arabic inscription (written however, as we saw, in the Syriac script) besm Allah. Now, it is just conceivable
that invading Arabs might have issued slightly amended coins of the last
Sassanian monarch, Yazdegerd III, but why continue to issue money in the name
of a previous Sassanian king (Chosroes II), one who, supposedly, had died ten
years earlier? This surely stretches credulity.
The Persian-looking Islamic coins are of course
believed to date from the time of Umar (d. 664), one of the “Rightly-guided
Caliphs” who succeeded Muhammad and supposedly conquered what became the
Islamic Empire. Yet it has to be stated that there is no direct archaeological
evidence for the existence either of Umar or any of the other “Rightly-guided”
Caliphs Abu Bakr, Uthman or Ali. Not a brick, coin, or artifact of any kind
bears the name of these men. Archaeologically, their existence is as unattested
as Muhammad himself. ….
[End
of quote]
But surely what Scott alleges about
these early Caliphs, that: “Not a brick, coin, or artifact of any kind bears
the name of these men”, cannot be applied to Suleiman the Magnificent himself,
evidence of whose building works in, say Jerusalem, are considered to abound
and to be easily identifiable. A typical comment would be this: “Jerusalem’s current walls were built under the orders of
Suleiman the Magnificent between the years 1537 and 1541. Some portions were
built over the ancient walls from 2,000 years ago. The walls were built to
prevent invasions from local tribes and to discourage another crusade by
Christians from Europe” (http://www.generationword.com/jerusalem101/4-walls-today.html).
Previously, I have discussed Greek appropriations of
earlier ancient Near Eastern culture and civilization. But might Arabic Islam
have, in turn, appropriated the earlier Byzantine Greek architecture, and
perhaps some of its archaeology? There appears to be plenty written on this
subject, e.g.: “The appropriation of Byzantine elements into Islamic
architecture”, by Patricia Blessing, “art
and architecture of the Muslim World, focusing on trans-cultural interactions
in the Middle Ages, the appropriation of Byzantine elements into Islamic
architecture, the transfer and authentication of relics in East and West,
historical photographs of architecture and urban spaces” (http://cmems.stanford.edu/tags/appropriation-byzantine-elements-islamic-architecture). And, again (http://www.daimonas.com/pages/byzantine-basis-persian.html): “This page is related to the Byzantine origins of what
are claimed to be "Islamic" ideas. This page is limited to showing
the Byzantine/Greek basis of Sassanian ideas which were absorbed by the even
less original Arabs who replaced the faith of Zoroaster with one more brutal;
that of Mohammed”. A rock relief of Chosroes II at Taq-I Bustan “clearly shows
the symbol which was to be appropriated by Islam, the crescent moon …”.
As for the archaeology of the walls of the city of
Jerusalem itself, relevant to Sultan Suleiman the supposed wall builder there,
the exact identification of these various wall levels is highly problematical,
as attested by Hershel Shanks, “The Jerusalem Wall That Shouldn’t Be There. Three major
excavations fail to explain controversial remains” (http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=13&Issue=3&ArticleID=5).
So perhaps art and architecture attributed to the
direction of Suleiman the Magnificent might need to be seriously re-assessed
for the purposes of authentication.
Words are put into the
mouth of a supposed Venetian visitor to the glorious kingdom of Suleiman the
Magnificent that immediately remind me of the remarks made by the biblical
Queen of Sheba upon her visit to the court of the truly magnificent King
Solomon.
with (I Kings
10:6-9):
Then [Sheba] said to the king [Solomon]: “It was a true report which
I heard in my own land about your words and your wisdom. However I did not
believe the words until I came and saw with my own eyes; and indeed the
half was not told me. Your wisdom and prosperity exceed the fame of which
I heard. Happy are your men and happy are these your servants, who
stand continually before you and hear your wisdom! Blessed be the Lord
your God, who delighted in you, setting you on the throne of Israel!
Because the Lord has loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to
do justice and righteousness.”
And in the article, “How Sultan Süleyman became ‘Kanuni [Lawgiver]’”, we
find Suleiman likened to, not only King Solomon, again, but also to King
Solomon’s law-giving alter ego, Solon,
and to Solomon’s contemporary (revised) Hammurabi:
The first written, complete code
of laws is nearly 4,000 years old, from the time of Hammurabi, the king of
Babylon (r. 1792 B.C. to 1750 B.C.), although fragments of legal codes from
other cities in the Mesopotamian area have been discovered. Hammurabi is still
honored today as a lawgiver. In the Bible, it was Moses whom the Jews singled out
as a lawgiver and among the ancient Greeks, Draco and Solon. ….
….
Süleyman oversaw the codification of a new general code of laws. Not
only were previous codes of law taken into account, new cases and analogies
were added. Fines and punishments were regularized and some of the more severe
punishments were mitigated.
….
The kanunnames are collections of kanuns or statutes that are basically
short summaries of decrees issued by the sultan. The decrees in turn were made
on the basis of a particular individual, place or event but when issued, these
particular details were not included. The publication of such a general
kanunname throughout the empire was the responsibility of the nişancı, an
official whose duty it was to attach the sultan’s imperial signature on the
decrees issued in his name.
….
The sultan held the judicial power and judges had to follow what he
decreed.
….
What Kanuni Sultan Süleyman did
to earn his sobriquet as ‘lawgiver’ has often been compared to the just ruler
King Solomon, from the Old Testament.
[End of quote]
For King Solomon as Solon, and as at least a
contemporary of Hammurabi, see my:
(Vatican
Radio) Let us pray to God that the weakness that leads us to sin will
never lead to corruption. This was the theme of Pope Francis homily at
daily Mass on Friday morning, a theme he has taken up many times.
Beginning with the first reading, which tells the story of David and
Bathsheba, the Pope distinguished between regular sinners and those who
are corrupt. Unlike regular sinners, the corrupt do not feel the need
for forgiveness.
