An Ottoman mission to Tehran: Mehmed Tahir Münif Paşa’s second ambassadorship to Tehran and the re-making of Perso-Ottoman relations (1876-1897)

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on Mehmet Tahir Münif Paşa’s second ambassadorship to Iran (1896–1897) in the aftermath of Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar’s assassination in May 1896. It argues that the Shah’s death brought about a turning point in Perso-Ottoman diplomatic relations and that Sultan Abdülhamid’s decision to assign Münif as his representative in Tehran was an affirmation of a new age in Ottoman foreign policy. In what follows, the article will consider Münif’s second mission to Tehran in an attempt to bring greater specificity to Perso-Ottoman relations in the first half of the Hamidian era (1875–1896). It also seeks to explore how the rapprochement between the two states in the mid-1890s had unexpected consequences for Iranian émigrés in the Ottoman Empire, thereby considering how Perso-Ottoman diplomatic history is entangled with the construction and negotiation of the the life trajectories and circumstances of these trans-national actors in the Ottoman Empire.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their feedback. I am also indebted to Dr Sara Ababneh for their interest in earlier drafts of the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

¹ Tanya Elal Lawrence is an Associate Lecturer in Iranian and Middle Eastern History at the Department of History, University of St Andrews and an Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of History, Archaeology and Classics at Birkbeck, University of London.

The London Times, ‘The Shah of Persia’, 2 May 1896. London, England.

² The New York Times, ‘King’s King Murdered: Persia’s Sovereign Victim of a Fanatic,’ 2 May 1896. New York, USA.

³ Başbakalık Osmanlı Arşivleri (BOA.). Y.PRK.HR. 21/76, 18 Zilkadeh 1313/1 May 1896.

⁴ Jamal al-Din al-Afghāni (1838–1897), was a political activist and Islamic ideologist who travelled throughout the Muslim world during the late 19th century. He is considered one of the pioneers of Islamic modernism and was an advocate of pan-Islamic unity. He was critical of Nasir al-Din Shah, whom he believed had ‘sold’ Iran to European powers, mainly the British and Russians. For al-Afghāni, see Nikki Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism: Political and Religious Writings of Sayyid Jamal al-Din ‘al-Afghani’. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968.

⁵ BOA. Y.EE. 3/100/31/1709, (undated).

⁶ BOA. PRK.HR. 21/83, 24 Zilkadeh 1313/7 May 1896.

⁷ Ebüziyya Tevfik, ‘Münif Paşa’, Yeni Tasvir-i Efkār, no. 253 (Istanbul, 12 February 1910).

⁸ Carter Vaugh Findley, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The Sublime Porte, 1789–1922. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980; Roderic Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–1876 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963; Matthew S Anderson, The Eastern Question: 1774–1923. London: Arnold, 1966; Matian Kent (ed.). The Great Powers and the End of the Ottoman Empire. Abindgon: Routledge, 1996; F.K. Yasamee, Ottoman Diplomacy: Abdülhamid II and the Great Powers, 1878–1888. Istanbul: Isis, 1996; Sinan Kuneralp, Ottoman Diplomatic Documents on the Eastern Question. Istanbul: Isis, 2012.

⁹ The ‘Eastern Question’ revolved around a question that emerged in European diplomatic circles the late eighteenth century, namely the fate of the Balkans if the Ottoman Empire disappeared as the fundamental political presence in the Southeastern Europe. At the core of the Question lay the imperialist desire of the Great Powers and Russia to extend their power and influence through diplomacy, military intervention, commerce, and missionary activities in Ottoman lands.

¹⁰ AS Kanya-Forstner. ‘French expansion in Africa: The Mythical Theory’ in Studies in the Theory of Imperialism, Roger Own and Bob Sutcliff (eds), London: Longman. 279.

¹¹ See, for example, Selim Deringil, The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and Legitimacy in the Late Ottoman Empire 1876–1909. London: IB Tauris, 1999; Maurus Reinkowski, ‘Hapless Imperialists and Resentful Nationalists: Trajectories of Radicalization in the Late Ottoman Empire’ in Maurus Reinkowski and Gregor Thum (eds.), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 2014; Selim Deringil and Sinan Kuneralp, Studies on Ottoman Diplomatic History. Istanbul: ISIS, 1990.

¹² There are notable exceptions. See for example, Mostafa Minawi, The Ottoman Scramble for Africa: Empire and Diplomacy in the Sahara and Hijaz. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2017; Sabri Ateş, The Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands: Making a Boundary 1843–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2103; Janet Klein, The Margins of Empire: Kurdish Militias in the Ottoman Tribal Zone. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011; Karen Kern, Imperial Citizen: Marriage and Citizenship in the Ottoman Frontier Provinces of Iraq. New York: Syracuse University Press, 2011.

¹³ See Ateş, Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands.

¹⁴ Khan Malek Sāsāni, Yādbudhā-ye Safārat-e Istanbul. Tehran, (1345/1966). 259–261.

¹⁵ The enthronement of Mozaffar al-Din Shah was a moment of opportunity for the Ottoman state, but it was also a period of ‘possibilities’ to pursue political reform within Iran due to the Shah being perceived as ‘feeble and ignorant’, as argued by Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet. See, Kashani-Sabet, Frontier Fictions. 84–87.

¹⁶ Gökhan Çetinsaya, Ottoman Administration of Iraq, 1880–1908. London: Routledge, 2006. 115–116.

¹⁷ Şükrü Hanioğlu, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2008. 31.

¹⁸ Jeremy Salt, ‘Britain, the Armenian Question and the Cause of Ottoman Reform: 1894–1896,’ Middle Eastern Studies, 26, No. 3, (1990): 308–328. The end of active British support for the Ottoman Empire was an indirect outcome of the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877–1878.

¹⁹ For a discussion on Iran’s perennial struggle to bring into check its periphery, Abbas Amanat. Iran: A Modern History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. 76–78; 897–908.

²⁰ Letter from Abdülhamid to Nasir al-Din Shah. BOA. YEE 36/23.

²¹ BOA. Y.EE. 3/110/31/1709, 21 Zilkadeh 1313/4 May 1896.

²² Tanya Elal Lawrence, ‘The Iranian Community of the Late Ottoman Empire and the Egyptian “Crisis” through the Persian Looking Glass: The Documentation of the ʿUrabi Revolt in Istanbul’s Akhtar,’ Iranian Studies, 51, no. 2, (2018): 245–267.

²³ Hamid Dabashi, Persophilia: Persian Culture on the Global Scene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015. 163–173.

²⁴ In 1895 the Iranian dissidents demanded by the Qajar state were Jamal al-Din al-Afghāni, Mirzā Āqā Khan Kermāni and Shaikh Ahmad Ruhi, all of whom were residents of Istanbul. With the exception of al- Afghāni, these men would be extradited to Iran following Nasir al-Din Shah’s assassination.

²⁵ Mirzā Malkum Khan (1834–1908), was an Iranian statesmen-turned-dissident who started his career in the service of the Qajar state, but who became one of the most vocal of its critics after falling from grace in 1872. See, Hamid Algar, Mirza Malkum Khan: A Study in the History of Iranian Modernism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.

²⁶ Undated letter from Mirzā Āqā Khan Kermāni to Malkum Khan, Sarvān Muhammad Kashmiri, ‘Nāmehā-ye Mirzā Āqā Khan Kermāni’ in Makāteb-e Tārikhi be Khatt-e Bozorgān. Tehran, 1350/1971. 222.

²⁷ BOA. Y. MTV. 80/120 (undated).

²⁸ Ibrāhim Safāʾi, Barghā-ye Tārikh. Tehran, 1351/1972. 113–114.

²⁹ Lawrence, The Iranian Community. 12.

³⁰ Nikki Keddie, ‘Religion and Irreligion in Early Iranian Nationalism,’ Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 4, no. 3 (1962), 283–289.

³¹ ʿAtabāt (literally ‘thresholds’), denotes the Shiʿi shrine cities of Iraq—Najaf, Karbalā, Samarra and Kazemeyn—and contains the tombs of six of the twelve imams as well as the secondary sites of Shiʿi pilgrimage. Traditionally the crucible for Shiʿism, these cities are also major sites of religious learning. The ʿatabāt constituted a frontier zone between the Ottoman Empire and Iran from the sixteenth century onwards, and the politics of a Sunni Ottoman Empire ruling over the Shiʿi population of these holy shrine cities remained a contentious issue through to the twentieth century. See, Selim Deringil, ‘The Struggle Against Shiism in Hamidian Iraq,’ Die Welt des Islams, 30, No. 1 (1990): 45–62.

³² Gökhan Çetinsaya, ‘The Caliph and Mujtahids: Ottoman Policy towards the Shiite Community of Iraq in the Late Nineteenth Century,’ Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4 (July 2005), 569–570.

³³ BOA. BEO. 341/25,569, 4 Rajab 1311/11 January 1894.

³⁴ Letter from Halil Rıfat Paşa to Sultan Adbülhamid, BOA. Y.EE. 87/86. May 1896.

³⁵ Nikki Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism. p. 31.

³⁶ For references to Iranian influences on Ottoman revolutionaries, see Mardin, Jön Türklerin Siyasi Fikirleri, 67–69; Sina Akşin, Jön Türkler ve İttihat ve Terakki. Istanbul: İmge Yayınları, 2017. 56–57; İsmail Temo, İttihad ve Terakki Anıları. Istanbul: Alfa, 2013. 59; Tāqizadeh, ‘Panislamisme et Panturquisme,’ Revue du Monde Musulman. Paris, 1913. 185.

³⁷ Mehmed Emin Yurdakul (1869–1944) was an ideologue of pan-Turkism and is considered the father of patriotic Turkish poetry.

³⁸ Yusuf Akçura, ‘Vahdet-i Cinsiye Felsefesi,’ Türk Yurdu III. Istanbul, 1330/1912; ‘Şeyh Cemaleddin-i Efgani,’ Türk Yurdu VI. Istanbul, 1330/1912, 2263–2267. Akçura refers to Afghāni’s ‘unrelenting belief that Islamic nations could rise up as one,’ as being an inspiration for subsequent pan-Turkists, who maintained that the same notion could be applied to Turkish-speaking peoples. In the same way that Afghāni believed Muslims of one nation could look outside the borders of their country and come together with Muslims around the globe; Turkic peoples could create a system based on kinship and on purely ethnic terms.

³⁹ İbrahim Temo, İttihak ve Terakki Anılarım: Atatürk’ü N’için Severim? Istanbul: Alfa Yayınları, 2000. 22.

⁴⁰ Mirzā Āqā Khan Kermāni provided Malkum with much of the material which was published in the newspaper. In other words, Kermāni exported from Istanbul to London material for Qanun which was deeply critical of the Shah’s regime, and which in return was read by Ottoman opposition groups in the Ottoman Empire. See, Undated letter from Mirzā Āqā Khan Kermāni to Malkum Khan in Sarvān Muhammad Kashmari, ‘Nāmehā-ye Mirzā Āqā Khan Kermāni,’ in Makāteb-e Tārikhi be Khatt-e Bozorgān. Tehran, 1350/1971. 217.

⁴¹ Temo, İttihad ve Terakki Anılarım. 69.

⁴² BOA. MKT. MHM. 534/37, 8 Zilkadeh 1312/3 May 1895.

⁴³ Sina Akşin, Jön Türkler ve İttihat ve Terakki. Istanbul: İmge Yayınları, 2017. 55–56.

⁴⁴ BOA. Y.A.HUS. 287/39, 23 Jumadaʾl-ākhar 1313/11 November 1895.

⁴⁵ Münif Paşa to Yıldız Palace: BOA. Y.A.HUS. 1176/14/126. 25 May 1312/6 June 1896.

⁴⁶ BOA. Y. PRK. 79.41. 3 Zilhiccah 1313/16 May 1896.

⁴⁷ Sultan Abdülhamid’s relationship to Münif Paşa is observed in some detail in Ali Budak, Batılaşma Sürecinde Çok Yönlü Bir Osmanlı Aydını: Münif Paşa. Istanbul: Kitabevi Yayınları, 2004.

⁴⁸ Established by Münif Paşa) and endorsed by imperial decree on May 1861, the Cemiyet-i İlmiyye undertook a programme of scientific popularization (similar to the encyclopedists in France) and published a periodical, Mecmūa-i Fünūn (Journal of Sciences), which remained in circulation—albeit with intervals—between 1862 and 1883. Mecmūa-i Fünūn aimed to introduce Ottoman audiences to scientific ideas, but the definition of ‘scientific’ was employed broadly. For example, the journal published on economic themes, and was the first publication to write about Muslim communities outside the Ottoman Empire (an interest which was to gain prominence among the Young Ottomans in subsequent years). For Mecmūa-yı Fünūn, see, Ali Budak, Mecmūa-yı Fünūn: Osmanlı’nın İlk Bilim Dergisi. Istanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat Yayınları, 2011.

⁴⁹ BOA. İ. HR. 355/21,576, 8 Safar 1298/10 January 1881.

⁵⁰ Münif Paşa to Şirvanzade Rüştü Paşa. BOA. Y.EE. 91/38. Undated. The report (lāyiha) is undated but must have been drafted sometime in 1873 given that Münif was posted to Tehran in late 1872 and Rüştü Paşa was grand vizier February 1874.

⁵¹ See, Kayahan Özgül. XIX. Asrın Benzersiz Bir Politekniği: Münif Paşa. Istanbul: Dergah Yayınları, 2014; Budak, Ali. Mecmūa-yı Fünūn: Osmanlı’nın İlk Bilim Dergisi. Istanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat Yayınları, 2011; Ali Fuat, ‘Münif Paşa,’ Türk Tarih Encümeni Mecmuası. May 1930, Vol.1; İsmail Doğan, Tanzimat’ın İki Ucu: Münif Paşa ve Ali Suavi. Istanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2018.

⁵² Münif Paşa to Rüştü Paşa. BOA. Y.EE. 91/38.

⁵³ For an examination of the network of Phanariot elites bound in Ottoman ‘governance’, see, Christine Philliou, Biography of an Empire: Governing Ottomans in an Age of Revolution. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2011.

⁵⁴ Münif Paşa to Rüştü Paşa.BOA. Y.EE. 91/38.

⁵⁵ For an overview of Perso-Ottoman relations, in particular the question of the settling of border disputes between the states, refer to Stanford Shaw, ‘Iranian Relations with the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,’ in Peter Avery et al., (eds.) Cambridge History of Iran, vol.7. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Ateş, The Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands; Kashani-Sabet, Frontier Fictions; Amanat. Iran: A Modern History. 66–69.

⁵⁶ See, Sāsāni, Yādbudhā, 247–261; Rahim Raʿis Niyā. Irān va Osmāni dar Āstāne-ye Qarn-e Bistom. Vol. 1. Tehran, 1385/2006. 69–81.

⁵⁷ Sāsāni, Yādbudhā. 260–261.

⁵⁸ Kayahan Özgül, Münif Paşa, 37–38.

⁵⁹ Münif Paşa’s ‘Report on the Armenians’ (Ermenilere Dair Ma’ruzāt). BOA. Y.EE. No. 8 1087/77/3.

⁶⁰ Sultan Abdülhamid to Münif Paşa. BOA. Y.EE. No. 1, 156/15/3. Dated Shavvāl 1312/March 1895.

⁶¹ BOA. Y.EE. No. 1, 156/15/3. Dated Shavvāl 1312/March 1895.

⁶² BOA. Y.EE. No. 15/1161. Münif had already been out of a job since his dismissal from his post as Minister of Education in 1892. His repeated requests for re-assignment to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were ignored.

⁶³ İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal İnal, Son Asır Türk Şairleri. Vol. 2. Ankara: MEB Yayınları, 1971. 1005.

⁶⁴ Münif Paşa’s Letter to the Grand Vizier, Mehmed Rüştü Paşa, 26 Temmuz 1289/7 August 1873. ‘Münif Paşa’nın Mektupları,’ in Uhuvvet-i Fikriye. No. 19(3). 26 Haziran 1330/9 Temmuz 1914.

⁶⁵ Letter from Münif (undated), ‘Ehibbādan bir zāta’. ‘Münif Paşa’nın Mektupları,’ in Uhuvvet-i Fikriye. No. 19(3). 26 Haziran 1330/9 Temmuz 1914.

⁶⁶ Letter from Münif to Makam-ı Celil-i Sadāret, 16 Rajab 1290/9 September 1873 in ‘Münif Paşa’nın Mektupları,’ in Uhuvvet-i Fikriye. No. 19(3). 26 Haziran 1330/9 Temmuz 1914.

⁶⁷ Ussama Makdisi, who coined the term, refers to how the Ottoman centre represented their own Arab periphery as an integral part of the Ottoman ‘theatre of backwardness’ and the construction of the Ottoman Empire ‘Other’. Although the treatment of Iran is not part of Makdisi’s argument, it can be applied to Münif’s treatment of Qajar Iran. See, Ussama Makdisi, ‘Ottoman Orientalism, ’The American Historical Review, Volume 107, Issue 3, June (2002): 768–796.:

⁶⁸ Münif Paşa, Ehibbādan bir Zāta.

⁶⁹ Münif Paşa to Yıldız Palace. BOA. Y.EE. Resmi Maruzat. 1/1 No. 102. (Undated).

⁷⁰ BOA. Y.EE. Resmi Maruzat, No. 521. 6 Jumadaʾl-ākhar 1292/10 July 1875.

⁷¹ BOA. Sicil-i Ahval Defteri, No. 3, 246. 24 November/25 Shavvāl 1292.

⁷² İnal, Son Asır Türk Şairleri, 1005.

⁷³ Münif Paşa to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, BOA. Y.EE. 14/1176/126. 25 Mayıs 1312/6 June 1896.

⁷⁴ Amin al-Sultan was quick to act, and immediately secured British and Russian support and demanded that all princes of the royal family declare loyalty to Mozaffar al-Din. See, Abbas Amanat, Pivot of the Universe: Nasir al-Din Shah and the Iranian Monarchy. London: I.B. Tauris, 2008. 440–442.

⁷⁵ Amanat, Pivot. 442.

⁷⁶ Edward Granville Browne, The Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905–1909. London: Mage Publishers, 2006. 65, 183.

⁷⁷ BOA. Y.PRK. HR. 21/76, 18 Zilkadeh 1313/1 May 1896.

⁷⁸ BOA. PRK.HR. 21/83, 24 Zilkadeh 1313/7 May 1896. All three men were executed on the orders of Mozaffar al-Din Shah in Tabriz in June 1896.

⁷⁹ Tanya Elal Lawrence. The Newspaper Akhtar and the Iranian Exile Community of Istanbul in the Late Nineteenth Century. Istanbul: Libra Press, 2016. 18.

⁸⁰ Letter from Nasir al-Din Shah to Amin al-Sultan, from Safa’i, Ibrahim, Asnād-i Siyāsi-yi Daurān-i Qajāriyeh. Tehran, 1347/1968. Document no. 71.

⁸¹ Lawrence, Iranian Community, 3. The article argues that the publication’s treatment of developments in the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, India and Europe was not only in keeping with the Porte’s policy, but was an extension of Hamidian foreign policy.

⁸² Niyā, Irān va Osmāni.355–357.

⁸³ Niyā. Irān va Osmāni. 277–279.

⁸⁴ The last of these petitions dates to 1898. See, Y.A.RES. 93/12, 8 Muharram 1316/29 May 1898.

⁸⁵ Sāsāni, Yādbudhā. 108–109.

⁸⁶ Notwithstanding, Hamidian policy was not without inherent contradictions to, namely in the Empire’s borderlands to Iran in the province of Iraq. As Karen Kern and Selim Deringil have noted, Abdülhamid’s reign also saw the restrictions on Ottoman-Iranian marriages in Ottoman Iraq harden in the period under study. This was a consequence of the Ottoman Sultan’s move towards a pan-Islamic understanding of Ottomanism, which was expressed in terms of religious (Sunni) uniformity. This quest for religious uniformity discouraged the union between Sunni and Shiʿi populations in the ʿatabāt. However, marriage between Iranian and Ottoman subjects elsewhere in the Empire was not prohibited. See, Kern, Imperial Citizen: Marriage and Citizenship; Deringil, The Struggle Against Shiism.

⁸⁷ Sāsāni, Yādbudhā, 242–243.

⁸⁸ Ebüziyya Tevfik, ‘Münif Paşa,’ in Yeni Tasvir-i Efkār.

⁸⁹ Nejat Göyünç, ‘Muzafferüddin Şah ve II. Abdülhamid Devrinde Türk-İran Dostluk Tezahürleri,’ in İran Şehinşahlığı’nın 2500. Kuruluş Yıldönümüne Armağan. Istanbul 1971. 147.

⁹⁰ It appears that Münif was unhappy in Tehran and that his daughter had been unwell. For copies of these letters see, İbnülemin Mahmut Kemal İnal, Son Asır Türk Şairleri, 1009–1010.

⁹¹ Muhammad Reza Nasiri. Nasireddin Şah Döneminde Osmanlı-İran Münasebetleri, 1848–1896. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1991. 122–125.

⁹² BOA. Y.EE. 3/110/31/1709. 22 Nisan 1313/4 May 1897.

⁹³ Münif Paşa to Yıldız Palace, see, Hikmet Dağlıoğlu, ‘Münif Paşa’nın Mektuplarından,’ Başpınar Mecmuası, II/No.20.

⁹⁴ BOA. Y.EE. 20/411/49/63.

⁹⁵ BOA. Y.EE. 20/411/49/63.

⁹⁶ Çetinsaya, The Ottoman Administration of Iraq, 116–117.