Status Updates From Machiavelli, Islam and the ...

Machiavelli's translator imported concepts unknown in the Ottoman public sphere, also drawing on Islamic semantics. Circulating versions of 'The Prince' in nineteenth-century Cairo in the author's view, was part of a trans-regional "Mediterranean Renaissance". A 2nd translation, by Muhammad Lutfi Jumah aimed at defining a nation against British takeover, using Orientalism to portray Machiavelli as a political hero

Machiavelli's writings entered the Ottomans domain when they're diplomatic and military issues motivated them to search for solutions by turning to European political literature, motivated by Frederick II's perceived genius, despite Mustafa III's dislike of 'The Prince' and its principles

The Prince found itself in the Ottoman world when it was translated into Ottoman Turkish alongside its critique 'Anti-Machiavel' during the 18th century

Machiavelli and Celalzade Mustafa at the time is approach to religion somewhat differently, Mustafa is a devout Sunni Muslim which is apparent in his works, whereas Machiavelli critiques organised religion, reflecting its usage as a political tool employed instrumentally in Italian politics at the time. Mustafa notes Sunnism's political potential as an identity marker against Safavid encroachment.

Machiavelli and Celalzade Mustafa's work have several convergences, their central principles are 'virtu', which is withstanding fortune and winning its favour to win glory, and 'akl', a God-given quality that has two forms, a pure and experiential/practical one. Akl deflects individuals from worldly pleasure and directs them towards good deeds. Both are elitist in assuming the masses are unable to understand these.

The author wishes to compare the state of political thought in Europe and in the East through a case study of both Machiavelli and Celalzade Mustafa's works. He finds that both advocate for centralised political and military power in the background of violent political, economic and cultural transformations. Both can be seen as variations on a similar theme brought forth by the early modern world.

Machiavelli drew parallels between the armies of the Turks and that of the Romans, allowing readers to glimpse the hypothesis that the Turks were the heirs of the ancient military valour of the latter. In his eyes, the Islamic world is a space for the emergence of political powers able to compete for the legacy of ancient Rome's imperial greatness. Ottomans were the new Romans.

Castrodado's refashioned the image of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ according to Machiavelli's political terminology, romanizing him along with making him a mask for the Sultan Suleyman himself, who was proclaimed by some Venetian jewellers in 1532 as a sort of divine Caesar that surpassed all empires of the world, a cult of Roman antiquity in this divinisation is seen in 1530s/40s pro-Ottoman literature by Venetians

Portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in Italian thought in the 15th.c presented him a political/military authority as a prince, rather than religious. The Prophet ﷺ was moved among the Caesars, an Arab forerunner of the Ottomans as captain, which removed his perceived savagery and granted him more legitimacy in European eyes

Italian Renaissance tended to portray Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as a wise lawgiver, alongside others such as Zoroaster/Buddha, etc. Machiavelli never referred directly to the Prophet ﷺ, but reception of his work helped fashion the Prophet ﷺ as a successful ruler/'armed prophet' who used both religion and violence as political tools. The author believes the Renaissance considered Islam an essential element of late antiquity.

Machiavelli took a comparative religious approach to politics, reflecting on works of antiquity alongside his current understandings. The emergence of the New World in the importance of politics in the Old took a comparative approach between Christianity and paganism, with some praising the virtues of the latter, making claims that undermined the uniqueness of Christians and praising those found in the New World

Idea of the unbeatable Turk, by the end of the 16th.c took a turn. Unlike Machiavelli, who their military discipline and strength deserving of the mantle of Rome, authors like Giovanni Botero believed that the pleasures of Constantinople had now eroded their strength, and made the Turks unwilling to go to war effectively. Europeans, once seen as undisciplined drunk gamblers, were to now set an example in their stead

Turkophilia in the 16th.c arose owing to awe of Ottoman military might, debates took place to understand this success, with Machiavelli believing that Christians had a problem with enjoying worldly victory, and that Christianity was unable to mobilise for war, enfeebling the spirit, by substituting humility for glory. This theory reflected a wider reconciliation Christendom faced at the time between doctrine and war

Machiavelli came into contact with the Islamic political tradition, since one of the Arab mirrors for princes, the Pseudo Aristotelian Kitāb sirr al-asrār, was extremely popular in Europe, under the Latin title Secretum secretorum and left significant traces both in The Prince and in its reception, whose Islamic roots allowed it to be readily absorbed and translated into Ottoman Turkish, Arabic and Persian