Differences And Similarities Between The Three Empires

Islam began in Arabia, but flourished in Asia. The three greatest empires of the Islamic world, the Ottoman Empire, the Safavid Empire, and the Mughal Empire, all came into being in the Asian continent. All three empires began with Turkic roots and developed into distinct cultures of their own, with unique religious interpretations and ideas of leadership.

All three empires had Turkic origins. Additionally, the ruling classes of all three empires were literate in Persian. All three empires appreciated Persian-language histories and poetry and Sufi poetry. Despite these similarities, each empire had distinct tribal origins and dialects. Owing to the cultural importance of Persian in the Islamic world, the Ottoman dialect was a mixture of

Turkish and Persian. The Ottomans were speakers of Oghuz Turkish who descended from Oghuz Khan. The Safavids were Aq Quyunlu Turks who spoke Azeri Turkish, and the Mughals were speakers of Changatai Turkish who descended from Timur Khan.
The three great empires were highly invested in forging new cultural identities for themselves, distinct from one another.

The Ottomans regarded the countryside Turks as backwards, yet still identified strongly with their Turkic roots. They made it their mission to create an identity for themselves that was Turkic, yet highly sophisticated, with no contradiction.

All three empires used Turkic troops. The troops of all three empires identified strongly with the label, ghazi, heroic warriors fighting in the name of the faith. Ghazis were considered to be the “guardians of Islam.” Although, the term was not used with any connotations of religious fanaticism. The connotations were more closely aligned with patriotism. The term was used as a synonym of soldier. The term ghazi was used all over the Islamic world through until 1923, when Ataturk founded the Republic of

Turkey.
All three empires had rulers who claimed to be devout Muslims. They proved their piety by sponsoring the ulema (Islamic clergy), masjids (mosques), madrasas (religious schools), and Sufi shrines. The Safavid family were originally Sunnis, who became Sufi pirs (spiritual masters), and later became Shi’ites. The Safavids’ unique mix of Sufism and Shi’ism united the many hostile tribes contained within the empire, especially the Oghuz tribes of northwestern Iran and eastern Anatolia. These Turks were used to a melange of different religions and Sufi masters bore great resemblance to Turkic shamans. Sufism was wildly popular in the region in which the Safavids ruled. The khangah (Sufi chapter house or hospice) was highly influential throughout the region and followers of Sufism regularly made pilgrimage to Sufi shrines all over the empire. Sufism in the area was diverse. Some Sufi masters preached withdrawal from society, others actively engaged in politics, even marrying into the ruling elite. The Safavids originally used Shi’ism to legitimize their rule. Eventually however, the Shi’ite clergy used Shi’ism to dispute the Safavids’ legitimacy. Nevertheless, this did not sway the populace and the Safavids continued to exercise influence over their subjects. Their followers considered them to be “infallible guides to salvation” and representatives of the Imams on Earth. This is especially significant because Shi’ites consider the Imams to be the only legitimate leaders of the Ummah.
The Ottomans fought against the Safavids, whom they believed to be heretics. Specifically, Sultan Selim rallied against Shah Ismail’s heretical practices. Shah Ismail would at times demand prostration from his subjects, an act innocuous to Shi’ites and Sufis, but that the Sunni Ottomans found abhorrent. The Ottomans identified as Hanafi Sunnis, though they used this label to legitimize their rule. Hanafi Sunnism was not practiced as an “organizing principle of the state.” In other words, the ulema had to obey the sultans; the sultans did not have to obey the ulema. The Ottomans emphasized their Sunnism only as their conflicts with the Safavids increased, though their emphasis never reached the level of the Safavid’s. The Safavids were so concerned with sectarian homogeneity that they would torture and kill Sunni protestors, going so far as to burning some of them alive.
Hanafi Sunnism and the Chisti Order of Sufism were already popular in India when Babur entered. The Mughals were also Hanafi Sunnis. However, the Mughals did not enforce their particular interpretation of Islam. The Mughals also did not control the clergy or facilitate its growth as a state institution.
Treatment of non-Mulims varied across the empires. In the Ottoman Empire, Dhimmis (non-Muslims) were allowed to self-govern in communities known as millats. The Ottomans preferred to use Christian slaves in their court system, whereas the Safavids and the Mughals largely preferred to use freemen. The Mughal rulers employed Sunnis, Shi’ites, and Hindus in higher level positions, regardless of their own personal religious views. For example, Babur deplored the Hindu caste system, yet employed Hindus in some of the highest echelons of the court system.
In the Islamic world, legitimacy of a ruler was cemented by coins minted in his name and the mention of his name during the Friday khutbah (sermon). As in any part of the world, the first task of any emperor in the Islamic world was to legitimize his rule. In other words, the ruler had to prove his right to rule in some way. The three great empires of the Islamic world each had different reasons to claim legitimacy. Their different claims to legitimacy reflected the different values of the people over whom they ruled.
The Ottomans claimed to be successors of the Sejulk dynasty.

However, the Ottomans were not descendent of famous conquerors or successors of any prestigious dynasty. They derived their legitimacy gradually from their military successes. The success that secured their legitimacy, however, was their long-awaited success against the Byzantines. Their conquest of Mecca and Medina, the two most holy cities of Islam, gave the Ottoman Empire legitimacy as a Caliphate. Some historians attribute the Ottoman’s success to the fact that they had “risen so early and rules for so long.” After the Ottomans conquered a people, they needed to use constant warfare to maintain their leadership position. It would be hard to maintain such a vast empire had they not been among the first people to establish themselves in the

region.
The Safavids began as “loosely organized pastoral nomadic bands of raiders.” Like the Ottomans, the Safavids also fought against non-Muslims but did not emphasize their military imperialism when claiming legitimacy. The Safavids derived their legitimacy from their piety and status as Sufi pirs.
The Mughals, too, fought as ghazis against non-Muslims. However, in contrast to the Safavids, and similar to the Ottomans, the Mughals emphasized the military prowess, which they owed to their Timurid lineage, rather than their piety when claiming legitimacy. The Mughals derived their success from their status as descendants of Timur Khan, the great Turko-Mongolian conqueror. The Timurids were largely responsible for the golden age of Islam. The pre-existing political structure of South Asia also aided the Mughals in conquering the region. Rulers like Asoka and Alexander the Great set a precedent for autocratic military rulers presiding over a “militarized society with a standing army.” In other words, Alexander the Great and Asoka paved the way and lay the groundwork for Babur. That combined with the military acumen the Mughals inherited from their Timurid ancestors made the conquest of India elementary.
The three great empires of the Ottomans, the Safavids, and the Mughals had the fundamentals such and ethnicity and language in common, yet developed cultures so different from one another that it is almost impossible to believe they share common roots.