Abdülhamid's legacy, today's struggle

One of the figures most beloved, fondly remembered, and emulated by the conservative community, led by President Erdoğan, is Sultan Abdülhamid. For instance, Interior Minister Mustafa Çiftçi established a connection between Sultan Abdülhamid and Erdoğan in recent months, stating:

"Whatever Abdülhamid Han was in the past, our President is the same today. A leader who comes once every 100 years"  As a sign of his affection for him, Minister Çiftçi had a portrait of Sultan Abdülhamid hung in his office, thus bringing Erdoğan and Abdülhamid side-by-side on the office wall. Like a meeting of the past and the future.

We mentioned that the President loves the Sultan very much. So much so that even when mentioning him, Erdoğan calls himthe great khan, may he rest in heaven" Again, according to him, Abdülhamid is one of the most important figures with a visionary and strategic mind who left his mark on the last 150 years of the state. His horizon and dreams were very broad; his projects were very grand. Ultimately, Erdoğan says this about Abdülhamid:

"For those who can approach his legacy impartially, there is truly a dazzling treasure before us"

If you allow me, at this point, I would like to look at Abdülhamid's wealth in the literal sense and share with you that dazzling treasure(!) as Erdoğan puts it. Let us see what kind of wealth the Abdülhamid who adorns walls, is the subject of TV series, and is constantly commemorated actually possessed. And consequently, what kind of legacy he truly left behind?

Houses, lands, farms, mansions, apartment buildings, casinos, factories... Piles of money in banks... The list is quite long. With your permission, let me share some examples from that list:

İzmirli Han in Sultanhamam, Istanbul

Letafet Apartment in Direklerarası, Istanbul

21 decares of farmland in Eyüp Kopçageçidi

18-decare Bahariye Barracks in Eyüp

20 decares of land in Kağıthane

Silahtarağa Farm in Kağıthane

70 decares of land in Bakırköy

30 decares of vegetable gardens in Dolmabahçe

Ahmet Celalettin Pasha Mansion and Kamil Pasha Mansion in Nişantaşı

One decare of land in Teşvikiye

2 decares of vineyard in Beşiktaş Serencebey

3 decares of land in Ihlamur, Istanbul

A mansion and 5 decares of land in Horhor, Istanbul

A casino and its outbuildings at Akıntı Burnu in Arnavutköy

Dalyan Neighborhood in Ortaköy and Ali Saib Pasha Yalı (waterfront mansion) and its outbuildings

The island in front of Kuruçeşme (Galatasaray Island)

A villa and 3 decares of land in Soğanlık village, Kartal

Alemdağı Farm, Çakmak Farm, and 21 plots of farmland in Kartal

40 decares of land and a glass factory in İncirli village, Paşabahçe

40 decares of vegetable gardens, three orchards, 6 fields, 2 meadows, 3 plots of land in Beykoz,

Tokat Farm and Yalnız Servi Farm with 1 vineyard, 1 shop, and a waterfront mansion

38 decares of land acquired from Abraham Pasha in Beykoz, along with the farms and their outbuildings and appurtenances

Farmland, meadow, and a coffeehouse in Fenerbahçe

İzzet Pasha Farm in Şişli

An 11-room inn, a Turkish bath, a 17-room hotel, a 7-room guesthouse in Yalova,

a shop, a bakery, and 2,500 decares of forest.

The list goes on and on.

According to a statement made in 2016 by Zeynel Abidin Türkoğlu, Head of the Archive Department of the General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre, it is understood that the Sultan owned a total of 7,756 real estate properties. 

Their distribution by region is as follows:

2,369 properties in Anatolia, 

4,280 properties in the Balkans (2,843 in Greece,

1,424 in Albania, 8 in Bulgaria, 5 in Macedonia)

1,107 properties in the Middle East (390 in Syria, 333 in Lebanon,

223 in Palestine, 83 in Iraq, 60 in Arabia, 10 in Israel, 8 in Libya)

Abdülhamid's legendary wealth is, of course, not limited to these real estate properties. We know that he possessed wealth of a similar scale in banks as well.

According to information provided in 2017 by Metin Hülagü, President of the Turkish Historical Society, Abdülhamid's money was held in the German Bank İstanbul Branch, Deutsche Bank of Berlin, The Reichsbank; the British The Bank of England; the American New York Bank, and an unknown bank in France. The total value of these funds was exactly 250 million dollars. 

In the words of former AKP Minister Hüseyin Çelik, Abdülhamid was the third richest monarch of his era. Moreover, the Sultan possessed such wealth while the empire was on the verge of bankruptcy, while the state had millions of liras in foreign debt, and while the public was struggling to survive in misery. Let us remember that the Debt Administration, also known as the Düyun-u Umumiye, was established during the reign of the aforementioned Sultan. 

Speaking of the public's situation, we need to point out an important point here: the image of the benevolent Sultan!

According to Hüseyin Çelik's account, while the state was helpless even in the face of the slightest natural disaster, the aid Abdülhamid provided to the needy public was published in full-page spreads in the newspapers of the time. "There is no doubt," says Çelik, "that Sultan Abdülhamid was very successful in creating an image as a sultan who distributed his own money to the public and did not leave them alone in the face of calamities and disasters." Because the media of the time could not publish a single piece of news or even a line against Abdülhamid. As such, in the world of the poor, the Sultan was a benevolent ruler, a protector of the downtrodden. "They did not know that the Sultan was not giving them even one percent of what he took from them." These words also belong to Çelik.

Another striking fact to keep in mind about the Abdülhamid era concerns the gifts and medals he distributed. The Sultan distributed numerous gifts and medals to ensure that statesmen maintained their loyalty to him. The gifts ranged from mini palaces and villas to farms, from waterfront mansions and estates to jewelry. According to state archive documents, Sultan Abdülhamid was the sultan who distributed the most gifts and medals. 

In recent years, members of the Şanlıurfa AKP Youth Branch organized a march on the occasion of the 97th anniversary of the Sultan's passing, and the youth branch president of the time, Osman Uludağ, spoke as follows:

"To understand Sultan Abdülhamid is to be part of the Ummah. Commemorating our ancestor with respect throughout our lives and ending the oppression currently experienced in Palestine was the greatest gift that could be given to his person."

Isn't life surprising? Sources, legacies, documents, and gifts tell you one thing, and others something completely different. Despite the truth standing there as clear as day, you do not see the reality shed by the light, and despite that reality, you create another story, another narrative, and build a history, a present, and a future on top of it. Then you make films and TV series, write books, pen praise-filled texts at commemorations, and turn podiums into election rallies. 

Sources say one thing, political narratives say another.

While land registry records, bank accounts, witnesses of the era, and archive documents are all out there, the narrative built around Abdülhamid chooses to make a significant portion of these invisible. Because history is often used not to understand the past, but to legitimize the present.

That is why a sultan's wealth is not discussed; instead, his self-sacrifice is recounted. The personal wealth accumulated while the state was in debt is not questioned; instead, stories of benevolence are highlighted. While thousands of properties, millions of dollars in wealth, and the privileges distributed to consolidate power are covered up, a portrait of a flawless ruler is left behind.

The reason for the interest in Abdülhamid today is not just historical curiosity. Those who see themselves in a power model from the past embrace his legacy and turn him into a symbol. Because the struggle for legacy is as much a struggle of today as it is of the past.

For this reason, history does not divide us on its own. What divides us is which piece of history we choose and for what purpose we use that piece. Some try to derive justice from the past, others legitimacy; some leave a legacy of virtue and struggle to the people, while others leave inns, baths, and fortunes.

Even if the sharing changes, the struggle does not.

Indeed, it is so.

Source: Hüseyin Çelik-Sultan Abdülhamid/Alfa Publishing.