This is a guest post by Jabrail Gadgiev.

It should come as no surprise to avid readers of Muslim Skeptic that the ultimate goal of the Western neocolonial elite has not merely been to shed the blood of Muslims and destabilize our societies through force of arms.

It has also been to monopolize the ideological and historical narratives that prevail in the hearts and minds of Muslim populations.

Billions of dollars have been spent over the last few decades alone for the sole purpose of distorting the image of the religion and its followers for both a Western and Muslim audience. As brother Daniel Haqiqatjou has explained on numerous occasions, corporations and think tanks such as RAND lay out the exact blueprint to subvert and divide the Islamic world on the principles of modern secularism. On the other hand, a wide array of “right-wing” figures and institutions convince non-Muslims across the globe that political Islam is the greatest threat to humanity and that, by extension, military action must be taken against it.

By the late 19th century, the seeds of the calamities we are now facing were already being planted. The caliph of the Ottoman Empire, Sultan Abdul Hamid II (may Allah have mercy on him) was presiding over an Islamic empire that was a shadow of its former self. In the upper echelons of society, the Ottoman intelligentsia had been deeply impacted by post-enlightenment ideologies such as secularism, liberalism, and nationalism. Indeed, many of them were directly educated in European curricula since the Tanzimat reforms had begun. Simultaneously, a wave of Christian missionary efforts funded by the colonial powers was attempting to make inroads into the Ottoman population. Neither of these trends would, however, prove particularly impactful with regard to the common Muslim countryman. Traditional madrasahs and scholarly networks that primarily utilized oral knowledge transmission in local languages (e.g. Turkish, Arabic, Persian, etc.), along with the lack of material means to indoctrinate through public schools or media, meant that they were mostly insulated from liberal ideological currents.

As for the Christianization efforts, these proved to be all but a complete failure. Karl Gottlieb Pfander, dubbed “the greatest of all missionaries to the Mohammadens,” faced a resounding defeat at the hands of the Indian ‘alim Shaykh Rahmatullah Kayranawi (may Allah have mercy on him), during a debate in Agra, 1854. Shaykh Rahmatullah Kayranawi went on to publish a compendious refutation of Christianity based on both classical Islamic scholarship and Western historical criticism titled Izhar al-Haqq in 1867, with the support of Sultan Abdul Hamid’s predecessor, Sultan Abdul Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him). The debate and subsequent book spread rapidly across the Islamic world, to the point where the infamous Ignaz Goldziher, during a visit to Damascus in 1877, is reported to have claimed that:

“…everybody was talking of al-Kairânawîs ‘Demonstration of the Truth’ (Izhâr Al-Haqq)”[1]

This demonstrates that Muslim populations in the 19th century were not unaware of the da’wah scene of their day, and they considered it notable if not a matter of great importance. Indeed, Pfander’s associate missionary Sigismund Wilhelm Koelle considered the failure of missionary activity in Muslim territories to be an inexplicable divine mystery:

“Koelle wrote to his superiors in London that it was only due to the mysteries of providence, not their lack of zeal, that they did not establish a Turkish congregation: “There was therefore never any doubt amongst us here as to the purely Musulman character of our Mission, and it is obvious that if you find now that your Mission in Constantinople has not drawn to itself a congregation from amongst the Christians, as has been the case e.g. in Isfahan, this cannot fairly be put down to want of success of divine blessing.”[2]

But this is not to say that the missionaries did not make much progress in other fields. With copious funding from the United States, Britain, as well as other European states and private sponsors, missionaries would produce millions of books, establish schools, hospitals, and institutions all over the Ottoman Empire. In a parallel to modern “humanitarian” agencies like the UN, these were poised for ideological subversion, even if it did not involve outright religious conversion. The primary beneficiaries of the material aid provided by these institutions would not be Muslims, as one might assume. Rather, the native Christian minorities would be the primary target of the missionary and “humanitarian” work, especially the relatively large Armenian population.

The Armenians served as one of the oldest Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire, and contrary to popular belief, they tended to be more politically quietest compared to their Balkan coreligionists. This would change with the arrival of the West European presence in the region. Missionaries were not just vessels of proselytization or so-called “humanitarian” work. They were also direct or indirect agents of the very colonial powers and institutions that funded their activities, and this was clearly demonstrated in their beliefs and writings. James S. Dennis, American missionary and lecturer at the Princeton Theological Seminary, professed this political agenda unashamedly:

“Islam must be put under external restraint, and must be brought into providential subjection to civilized Christian governments, before its inaccessible fields will be fully opened to the entrance of the Christian missionary.”[3]

RELATED: The Newest Christian Missionary Deception Against Muslims

The connection between missionary activity and Western colonial aspiration is just as clear now as it was then, with modern Christian proselytization efforts being actively funded by Zionist organizations such as Turning Point USA.

The Hunchak party was formed in 1887, by Armenian students from Switzerland and the Russian Empire. Inspired by the Russian “Narodniks,” the party believed in the effectiveness of terrorism as a means of achieving political goals. Armenian politician Ruben Der Minassian concisely explained their agenda:

“…the Hunchaks intended to build up antagonism between Armenians and Kurds. The Hunchaks, he stated, had great expectations that conflict between the Kurds and Armenians would lead to the intervention of Europe in favor of the Armenians. Their plan depended on the identification of Armenian Christians with the Christians of Europe. To that end, they were in constant contact with Christian organizations.”[4]

This was an established method of 19th century Christian nationalists in Ottoman domains, and it proved quite effective. Christian militants would murder Muslim populations, sparking reprisals by the Muslim locals or Ottoman authorities. In the ensuing violence, the Western press would portray the Muslims as barbaric savages who went around slaughtering innocent Christians, leading to direct intervention by powers such as Russia. The thousands upon thousands of Muslim civilians slaughtered by Christians were forgotten and expunged from the historical record. Bulgaria in 1876 would experience this very phenomenon, as explained by historian Justin McCarthy:

“The result was the loss of Bulgaria to the Ottomans and the expulsion or death of more than half of the Muslim population of Bulgaria. A new Bulgarian state was born, devoid of much of its Muslim population.”[5]

Armenian nationalists saw this as a template for success, and it would set in motion a cascade of events leading up to what is now labelled the “Hamidiya Massacres.” To understand the context of what occurred, it is important to note that eastern Anatolia, the region primarily inhabited by Armenians and Kurds, had already been the subject of nomadic Kurdish raids from certain unruly tribes outside the jurisdiction of the state for decades. In fact, Sultan Abdul Hamid would send contingents of soldiers every year to the eastern regions of the empire in order to protect the settled Kurds and Armenians from these raiders.

When the Hunchaks began instigating Armenian bandits against the Kurdish population in the city of Sasun, they knew full well that the reprisals by the tribesmen would inflict greater harm to the poorly armed Armenians. The Armenian villagers would flee from the territory following the communal violence, and in a demonstration of how the common Armenian population viewed the Ottoman state, they would only return to Sasun with the arrival of the official Zekki Pasha:

“…to keep out of the clutches of either Armenians or Kurds, he (an Armenian villager) and the other inhabitants of Mezre fled to a Kurdish village, from which he returned ten days later on the arrival of the Mushir, Zekki Pasha, who restored order.”[6]

The Eastern provinces would experience a wave of intercommunal violence following these events. In the city of Mardin of the Diyarbakir province, the Sultan’s governor Muhammad Anis Pasha decreed that there should be no attacks on the Armenian civilians on the basis that Islam forbade the murdering of dhimmis. Although violence did occur after a shooting outside the grand mosque of the city and lasted for three days, the governor was eventually able to regain control and decreed that anyone caught using a weapon would receive severe punishment. In Turabdin, another city in Diyarbakir, the governor ordered the protection of the Christian population from unruly tribes. 

Wherever Sultan Abdul Hamid’s authority was strongest, there the least number of civilians died. The massacres in the eastern provinces were primarily instigated by Armenian bandits and were carried out by unruly tribesmen. But this was not the story that the Western media portrayed. The caliph of the Muslim world, the “Bloody Sultan” as they referred to him derogatorily, was an urgent threat to the colonial establishment due to his Pan-Islamist rhetoric. Through a concerted effort to unite and revitalize the ummah of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, the Sultan was actively engaged with Muslims living under European imperialism all over the world. The colonial elites could not tolerate this. The press, using local missionaries as their primary source of information, began viciously slandering Sultan Abdul Hamid and holding him personally responsible for the violence. Claims were made that the Sultan decreed forced conversion for Armenians all throughout the empire. H. H. Van Meter, an American missionary known for supporting colonial occupation across the globe, made the utterly absurd claim that:

“20 million (Armenians) had been lost over the (last ten) years.”[7]

RELATED: The Armenian Genocide: A Fictitious Narrative Manufactured by the Liberal Order

The American press would continue the media campaign against the caliphate, with wordings surprisingly (or not) reminiscent of 21st century “war on terror” slogans. A summary of comments from various newspapers on the subject was made by the Chicago Tribune, a few of which are listed below:

Philadelphia Press:

“…What the Turk needs is a thrashing of unspeakable severity, and he needs it very badly”

New York Recorder:

“…the Moslem monster is as insatiable as ever. The Turk cannot outrage humanity in this way and remain in Europe. He is in the wrong century for this kind of business.”

Philadelphia Record:

“The time has come when the existing administration of Armenian affairs should be abolished and replaced by a government more consistent with the civilization of the nineteenth century. The powers have a duty to perform in this matter…”

New York Advertiser:

“…It is time for civilization to arise and crush the Turk…”[8]

The British government, both conservative and liberal, mirrored the American sentiment on the matter. Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, known more commonly as “Lord Salisbury,” would become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 1895. He (in)famously stated that:

“Islam was ‘capable of the most atrocious perversion and corruption of any religion on the face of the globe.’”[9]

The British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Philip Currie, stated his intention to murder the Sultan:

“I find Philip very strong on the necessity of getting rid of Abdül Hamid. ‘We have come to the conclusion,’ he said today, ‘that it will be necessary to kill him.’”[10]

Currie was apparently not intending to do this directly, but rather he would welcome (and most likely support) such an action if it was done by others. A decade later in 1905, an attempt would be made on Sultan Abdul Hamid’s life (by alleged Marxists), which failed. Another, even more sinister plan, was also devised by Currie and agreed to by Lord Salisbury:

“Currie also favored radical actions to bend the sultan to his will. He suggested that the British should blockade the Holy Cities in Arabia, ‘proclaiming that the Sultan had ceased to be the sovereign of the Hedjaz,’’[11]

The despicable intention of Western colonial and neocolonial figures in targeting the holy cities of Islam, as well as the pilgrims that reside therein, is echoed by modern Zionists such as Sam Harris in his suggestion to “nuke” Makkah. It was also posited by the Portuguese Crusaders centuries earlier. This satanic obsession with the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah should be subject to further study. In any case, none of the aforementioned plans have succeeded, by the will of Allah ﷻ.

Of course, not all of the Christian observers were as venomous opponents of Islam as these. Alexander W. Terell, one such American ambassador, disagreed with the preponderant anti-Ottoman sentiment of his time. He stated plainly:

“With absolute knowledge that revolutionary societies, composed of native Armenians, existed in the principal cities of the United States … whose avowed purpose was to goad the Turks to perpetrate atrocities, until the Christian powers would intervene, and create an autonomous state, I have been cautious; doing my best not to increase the popular excitement by giving too much prominence to mere rumors.”[12]

Terell did not believe that the Ottoman government held any particular intention to violently extinguish Christian or Armenian minorities, noting that at the time of the conflict in the east, many Armenian officials held high positions in the state apparatus. He also noted the large number of places of worship for Armenians and Christians as a whole in the capital itself. Indeed, only a fool would believe that the Caliphate would suddenly desire to genocide Christian populations after tolerating them for centuries, conspicuously at a time when nationalist movements began to take hold among these minorities. He also criticized the greed and colonial aspiration of the British, French, and Russian Empires, pointing out their hypocritical stances in regards to the treatment of their own “subject races.”

These controversial takes would lead to a media war against Terell by both missionaries and the American government itself. His analysis was not included in the official printed record. Newspapers called for his resignation and even death:

“The Chicago Tribune wrote that Terrell “is so utterly unfit for his post as to be a disgrace.” The New York Times wrote: ‘He [Terrell] does not know the Turks, their Government, or the history of diplomatic dealings between the two Governments [the United States and the Ottoman Empire].’ Newspapers in secondary cities were even less charitable: The Syracuse Standard headlined ‘Terrell a Traitor.’ A story in the Reno Weekly Gazette and Stockman headlined ‘Says Terrell Ought to Be Hanged’.”[13]

While reading through this information, one can’t help but see the parallels between the methods employed by colonial empires of the 19th & 20th centuries and the neocolonial Zionist establishments of today. The venomous hatred towards Muslims, fear of political Islam and unity of the ummah, fomentation of internal strife through the establishment and support for fifth columns within the Islamic realm, ideological subversion mixed with supposed humanitarian effort, inflated victim numbers (e.g. 20 million) and narratives in order to justify intervention, suppression of dissenting voices, showing partial or total obliviousness towards the victims of colonial imperialism, and so on.

We mustn’t forget that it was during this very period that the Muslims in the Balkans were facing brutality and massacres at the hands of the Christian nationalist regimes, Libyans at the hands of the Italians, Caucasus Muslims and Tatars at the hands of the Russians, East Africans at the hands of the Germans, Algerians and West Africans at the hands of the French, Congolese at the hands of the Belgians, Indonesians at the hands of the Dutch, Moros at the hands of the Americans, and Indians at the hands of the English. Indeed, just a few decades prior to Sultan Abdul Hamid’s rule, the British Empire had started a war with China with the sole intent of selling addictive drugs to its population. These are the people that were crying crocodile tears and victimizing themselves, presenting the leader of the believers as a bloodthirsty savage, claiming that Muslims need to be punished and subjugated for purported crimes, and so on. Despite appearances, the enemy has not changed.

And Allah ﷻ knows best.

RELATED: Sultan Aurangzeb Alamgir: The Maligned Mughal Emperor

Notes

[1] Christine Schirrmacher, “The influence of German Biblical criticism on Muslim apologetics in the 19th century,” Contra Mundum, accessed August 5, 2026, https://web.archive.org/web/20181108065525/http://www.contra-mundum.org/schirrmacher/rationalism.html.

[2] Scott Rank, “Disputing Religion, Empire, and Modernity: Christian-Muslim Polemics in the Ottoman Print Sphere, 1861–1915” (PhD diss., Central European University, 2015), p. 130.

[3] Justin McCarthy, Sasun: The History of an 1890s Armenian Revolt (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2014), p. 74.

[4] Ibid., p. 20.

[5] Ibid., p. 20.

[6] Ibid., p. 37.

[7] Ibid., p. 69.

[8] Ibid., p. 63–65.

[9] Ibid., p. 101.

[10] Ibid., p. 105.

[11] Ibid., p. 105.

[12] Ibid., p. 113.

[13] Ibid., p. 114–15.