Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ottoman factors behind the rise and decline

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ottoman factors behind the rise and decline

    Currently available in arabic and urdu

    Arabic version
    https://ar.islamway.net/book/3456/ال...ط?__ref=iswy

    Urdu version
    https://www.pdfbooksfree.org/2013/07...-urdu.html?amp

    The book has not been translated in english yet

    "Saltanat e Usmania Treekh Saltan-e-Usmania history of Turkey in Urdu language. This book was originally written by Dr. Ali Muhammad Muhammad Al-Slabi and translated into Urdu by Allama Muhammad Zafar Kalyari.

    The “Saltanat-e-Usmania” book described the complete and brief history of Turkey from the acceptance of Islam to the fall of Uthmaniyah Caliphate. It is also provides historical review of the present Islamic religious movements and struggles. A comprehensive work on the Political, Civilization, and Cultural history of Turkey in Urdu."

  • #2
    Sultan Muhammad al-Fatih

    by محمد علي الصلابي, Ali Muhammad Al-Salaabi

    This book talks about Muhammad al-Faatih, the liberator of Constantinople and the defeater of the Romans. It is also about his great grandfathers who lived with Islam and died for the sake of raising the word of Allah high. This book discusses the biographies of ' uthman the first, Urkhan, Murad the first, Bayzid the first, Muhammad Halabi, Murad the second and Muhammad Al-Faatih. It details their attributes, the course they adopted, and the way they followed the rules, set out by Allah SWT, to build their state. It showed that the liberation (conquest) of Constantinople was the result of the accumulated efforts of scholars, leaders and soldiers. The reader will learn the Ottoman renaissance, during the reign of Sultan Muhammad al-Faatih, encompassed scientific, political, economic. and military fields. The characteristics of victory and governance should exist in a nation and its leader, in order for state to prevail.

    Comment


    • #3
      Most of the books on Ottoman history ( by english writers) are biased, it follows the phrase , history is written by victors.

      don't know much abt Arab writers, but this one translated in Urdu is definitely a good unbiased read.
      "Europe died in Bosnia and was buried in Syria. Bodies of innocent children washing ashore are the
      western civilization's tombstones"


      Rajab Tayyab Erdogan

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by imran1976 View Post
        Most of the books on Ottoman history ( by english writers) are biased, it follows the phrase , history is written by victors.

        don't know much abt Arab writers, but this one translated in Urdu is definitely a good unbiased read.
        Yes you are correct European and also many arab and north African history on ottoman is usually negative biased with lots of fabricated narration

        Al sallabi is one if the reliable scholars in history the book on muhammad al fatih is also very good

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by imran1976 View Post
          Most of the books on Ottoman history ( by english writers) are biased, it follows the phrase , history is written by victors.

          don't know much abt Arab writers, but this one translated in Urdu is definitely a good unbiased read.
          There's no such thing as unbiased history.

          "History that favors my side" isn't unbiased.

          All historians are affected by their own perceptions and culture.

          Comment


          • #6
            simple

            rise = the followed islam

            fall = they didn't, the arabs didn't too muslim can't fight other muslims but arabs started it

            Comment


            • #7
              ^^^ the above post just shows the collective knowledge of social media muslim reactionaries.

              Orhan the son of Osman, was closer to Alevi islam, than sunni. And he was responsible for a lot of the expansion in Europe.

              Meanwhile one of the man responsible for the fall, Enver Pasha, was a pious muslim. He did mix religion with nationalism, but he was a religious Sunni at the end of the day.

              So what happened to your theory now?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SwordofKhaine View Post
                ^^^ the above post just shows the collective knowledge of social media muslim reactionaries.

                Orhan the son of Osman, was closer to Alevi islam, than sunni. And he was responsible for a lot of the expansion in Europe.

                Meanwhile one of the man responsible for the fall, Enver Pasha, was a pious muslim. He did mix religion with nationalism, but he was a religious Sunni at the end of the day.

                So what happened to your theory now?
                Were the Ottomans caliphs like the ‘Abbasids and Umayyads?


                Were the Ottomans caliphs like the ‘Abbasids and Umayyads? Because some people say that they were not caliphs because they were not from Quraysh.

                Answer:
                Praise be to Allah

                Firstly:

                The majority of scholars are of the view – and it was narrated that there was consensus – that it is stipulated that the caliph of the Muslims should be a Qurashi (i.e., from Quraysh), because of the report narrated by Ahmad (12307) from Anas ibn Maalik, according to which the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The imams (rulers) are to be from Quraysh.”

                This is a mutwaatir, saheeh hadith, as al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said, as is stated in Sharh Nakhbat al-Fikr by al-Qaari (p. 190)

                It says in al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah (6/219):

                According to the majority of fuqaha’ it is stipulated that the ruler should be a Qurashi, because of the hadith, “The imams (rulers) are to be from Quraysh.” Some scholars disagreed with that, such as Abu Bakr al-Baaqillaani, and they quoted as evidence the words of ‘Umar: If Saalim the freed slave of Abu Hudhayfah was alive, I would have appointed him as my successor. End quote.

                Secondly:

                The caliphate belongs to Quraysh and it is not permissible for anyone to compete with them for it, so long as they uphold the faith.

                Al-Bukhaari (3500) narrated that Mu‘aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “Verily this matter belongs to Quraysh and no one opposes them but Allah will throw him onto his face (in the Fire), so long as they uphold the faith.”

                What is meant is that they must obey them and not dispute with them, so long as they uphold the laws of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted.

                Ahmad (4380) narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ood that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “O Quraysh, you are in charge of this matter, so long as you do not disobey Allah; but if you disobey Allah, He will send against you people who will strip you (of your authority) like this twig” – referring to a twig he had in his hand, which he stripped of its bark and cast aside, and it was shining white.

                Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in as-Saheehah (1552), who then said:

                This hadith is one of the signs of his Prophethood (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) because the caliphate remained with Quraysh for several centuries, then their state came to an end, because they disobeyed their Lord and followed their whims and desires. So Allah gave the non-Arabs power over them, and they seized power from them. End quote.

                Thirdly:

                If a Qurashi caliph does not uphold the faith and is not able to rule the people, and the caliphate grows weak, and is taken over by one who is able to uphold the faith, unite the Muslims and raise the banner of jihad, then his rulership is valid and sound.

                Ibn Qudaamah said:

                If a man rebels against the ruler and defeats him, and prevails over the people by the sword until they submit to him and obey him, and they swear allegiance to him, then he becomes a ruler and it is forbidden to fight him and rebel against him. ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwaan rebelled against Ibn az-Zubayr and killed him, and he took control of the land and its people, until they swore allegiance to him either willingly or unwillingly. Thus he became a ruler and it became prohibited to rebel against him. That is because rebelling against him would cause division among the Muslims, and lead to the shedding of their blood and the loss of their wealth. The one who rebels against the ruler is included in the general meaning of the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): “Whoever rebels against my ummah, when they are united, strike his neck with the sword, no matter who he is.”

                End quote from al-Mughni (8/526)

                Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

                Ability to rule people either stems from their obedience to the leader or from his compelling them. When he becomes able to rule them, whether by means of their obedience or his compulsion, then he has authority and is to be obeyed, if he enjoins people to obey Allah.

                Hence Ahmad said in a letter to ‘Abdoos ibn Maalik al-‘Attaar: The basic principle of Ahl as-Sunnah, in our view, is to adhere to the way of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)… Whoever takes on the position of caliph, if the people are united behind him and are pleased with him, and whoever prevails by the sword until he becomes a caliph and is called ameer al-mu’mineen, then giving zakaah to him is permissible, whether he is righteous or an evildoer.

                And he said – according to the report of Ishaaq ibn Mansoor – when he was asked about the meaning of the hadith of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), “Whoever dies and does not have an imam (ruler) has died a death of Jaahiliyyah”:

                Do you know what the imam (ruler) is? The imam is the one on whom all the Muslims agree, and all of them say: This is an imam (ruler). This is what it means.

                End quote from Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (1/528-529)

                Ibn Battaal (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

                The fuqaha’ are unanimously agreed that obedience to the imam who seized power by force is obligatory so long as he establishes Jumu‘ah and Eid prayers, wages jihad and in most cases treats those who have been wronged fairly, because obeying him is better than rebelling against him, so as to calm the masses and and avoid bloodshed.

                End quote from Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhaari (2/328)

                It says in al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah (8/37):

                If someone seizes the position of imam (ruler) or any other position of authority by force, then he is a valid imam, and he must be obeyed with regard to what it is permissible to obey of his commands, prohibitions and decree, according to the consensus of the fuqaha’, even if he is one of those who follow innovations and whims and desires, so long as his innovation does not constitute kufr. That is so as to ward off a means that may lead to fitnah (and internal strife), so as to protect and preserve Muslim unity. End quote.

                It was narrated that ‘Ubaadah ibn as-Saamit (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) called us to swear allegiance to him, and among the pledges that he took from us, we swore allegiance, promising to hear and obey whether we liked it or not, whether it was difficult for us or easy, even if others were favoured over us, and (we promised) not to dispute with people in authority, and he said: “Unless you see blatant kufr on his part for which you have proof from Allah.”

                Narrated by al-Bukhaari (7056) and Muslim (1709)

                Whoever seizes power by force and becomes a ruler, it is obligatory to obey him, so long as the people do not see blatant kufr on his part .

                Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked:

                How can we reconcile between the words of the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), “You must hear and obey, even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed as ruler over you,” and his words, “The rulers are to be from Quraysh”? Is it possible or permissible for an Abyssinian slave to attain the highest position of authority (caliph)?

                He replied:

                Yes, if Allah enables an Abyssinian slave to attain the highest position of authority (caliph), then he may attain that position. The Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) only said that with regard to situations where we have the choice. If we want to choose a ruler for the Muslims, then we should choose someone from Quraysh, but who from Quraysh?

                We should choose those who uphold the faith. As for merely belonging to Quraysh, or being from the family of the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), that is not a virtue in and of itself, unless it is accompanied by religious commitment. If a man from Quraysh comes to us and says that he is more deserving of being the ruler than anyone else, but he is an evildoer, we would say: No, because one of the conditions of being the ruler, when appointing a ruler, is that he should be of good character. But if someone subdues the people and becomes the ruler (by force), then it is obligatory to listen and obey him, even if he is an Abyssinian slave with a head like a raisin. There is a difference between the case when people have the choice and the case when someone seizes power and takes control of people by force. In the latter case we say that we should hear and obey, and not rebel, unless we see blatant kufr for which we have proof from Allah.

                End quote from Liqa’ al-Baab al-Maftooh (185/19)

                Fourthly:

                When the ‘Abbasid caliphate grew weak at the time of al-Mustamsik Billah and his son al-Mutawakkil, and the Ottoman sultan was strong, he seized the caliphate after the death of al-Mutawakkil, the ‘Abbasid caliph (may Allah have mercy on him).

                Al-‘Isaami (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

                Al-Mustamsik Billah remained as caliph until he grew old and lost his sight, and the Ottoman state was strong; they took over Egypt and Sultan Saleem took him (al- Mustamsik Billah) with him to Istanbul, where he remained until Sultan Saleem died. Then he returned to Egypt and was deposed, and his son al-Mutawakkil ‘Ali ibn al-Mustamsik Billah was appointed caliph in Sha‘baan 914 AH, and remained caliph until he died on 12 Sha‘baan 995 AH. With his death the nominal caliphate in Egypt also ended.

                End quote from Samt al-Nujoom al-‘Awaali (3/533)

                So the rule of Sultan Saleem became a valid rule by means of force. He was a powerful ruler and a courageous leader. His main ambition was to unite the Muslim regions, especially after the fall of Andalusia, and because of the weakness of the Abbasids and the danger posed by the Crusaders to the Muslim world.

                If the Qurashi caliphate grows weak, and one who is stronger and more powerful seizes the position of caliph and rules in accordance with the Book of Allah, and he is more beneficial to the Muslims, his rule is legitimate and valid, and it is obligatory to hear and obey in his case.


                Conclusion:
                The Ottoman caliphate was a legitimate and valid caliphate, under whom the ummah was united. The Ottoman caliphate carried the banner of islam. The Ottoman caliphate carried the banner of Islam and raised the flag of jihad for several centuries, and crusader Europe used to fear it
                and looked for an opportunity to put an end to it, until they were able to achieve that at the end of the beginning of the last century. The ottoman sultans varied in terms of their adherence to the faith and the soundness of the 'aqeedah (beliefs). But we do not cast aspersions upon ​the validity of their caliphate, especially during the times when they were strong and the Muslims were united behind them. Whatever​​​​​​ happened of shortcomings of deviations among them in later eras, it is for Allah to judge.

                And Allah knows best

                https://islamqa.info/en/answers/2276...s-and-umayyads
                https://m.facebook.com/islamquestion...11116652234289

                Comment


                • #9
                  What does this long passage have to do with my comment.

                  Orhan being a Bektashi / Alevi did more for the Ottomans than the late-Ottoman Sunnis. It can be argued that Enver Pasha being a Sunni was closer to Islam than Orhan Gazi.

                  So where does that put the theory of "Oh they were successful because they were closer to islam"? The early ottomans were successful, because of being better fighters, diplomats and administrators, not religion.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SwordofKhaine View Post
                    What does this long passage have to do with my comment.

                    Orhan being a Bektashi / Alevi did more for the Ottomans than the late-Ottoman Sunnis. It can be argued that Enver Pasha being a Sunni was closer to Islam than Orhan Gazi.

                    So where does that put the theory of "Oh they were successful because they were closer to islam"? The early ottomans were successful, because of being better fighters, diplomats and administrators, not religion.
                    The ottoman khilafah didn't begin until sultan saleem before that they were a sultanate or kingdom, by the time they were fully a superpower they were far away from those alevi days

                    Success of a empire isn't based on conquest only, ali radiallahuanhu khilafah was one where he was tested greatly by Allah does that mean it was a rule with no success ni rather it was s rule full of successes
                    a successful ruler isn't the one who simply rules at the time of peak rather one whom whatever tests allah puts in front of him he succeeds in that no matter what

                    Abdul hamid ii was a far better ruler then many of the earlier ottomans who may have been more successful on other areas

                    Without islam no matter what you do your rule will have no value, you can conquer make a science economic peak but if the islam is not there there will never be any halaqah and you will easily see the fall coming, to reject the case of not following islam hence downfall started is equally bad as those who say the empire also fell for the other mistakes they made

                    It is a mixture of both going hand to hand

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by salaam_7cgen View Post

                      The ottoman khilafah didn't begin until sultan saleem before that they were a sultanate or kingdom, by the time they were fully a superpower they were far away from those alevi days

                      Success of a empire isn't based on conquest only, ali radiallahuanhu khilafah was one where he was tested greatly by Allah does that mean it was a rule with no success ni rather it was s rule full of successes
                      a successful ruler isn't the one who simply rules at the time of peak rather one whom whatever tests allah puts in front of him he succeeds in that no matter what

                      Abdul hamid ii was a far better ruler then many of the earlier ottomans who may have been more successful on other areas

                      Without islam no matter what you do your rule will have no value, you can conquer make a science economic peak but if the islam is not there there will never be any halaqah and you will easily see the fall coming, to reject the case of not following islam hence downfall started is equally bad as those who say the empire also fell for the other mistakes they made

                      It is a mixture of both going hand to hand
                      Yes and without Orhan Gazi and the Bektashi Janissaries they would have been another failed Beylik like the Karamans, Candar, Eretna, Ramazan.

                      He was the one who first conquered European territory in Greece, and was instrumental in Ottoman expansion. Again, a successful leader doesn't depend on sect, but on political nous, diplomatic skills and war making.

                      Abdul Hamid II was a great ruler, but it's not a valid comparasion to Orhan Gazi who made a small Beylik into a regional power house.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by SwordofKhaine View Post

                        Yes and without Orhan Gazi and the Bektashi Janissaries they would have been another failed Beylik like the Karamans, Candar, Eretna, Ramazan.

                        He was the one who first conquered European territory in Greece, and was instrumental in Ottoman expansion. Again, a successful leader doesn't depend on sect, but on political nous, diplomatic skills and war making.

                        Abdul Hamid II was a great ruler, but it's not a valid comparasion to Orhan Gazi who made a small Beylik into a regional power house.
                        Why would they be another failed beylik it is possible one of his successors could have easily done this like murad who himself was a capable ruler and got if not bigger equally big decisive victories, besides the ottoman interregnum stopped all this for a while anyway so either way the ottoman would get to where they were, if one sultan didn't do what orhan did another could have easily, and those ideas were also given by alauddin, it was the work of both orhan and alauddin to make those changes in ottoman.

                        Uthman was the founder while orhan was the second ruler at that moment those were still.the early days the ottoman were in development each sultan to come next would alway add new developments ideas to the newly found empire, however why did the empire become what it became afterwards was the blessing of allah for the future sultans commitment for islam, otherwise they would just be another empire who came and went like timur who is viewed a tyrant today and many others like him who were successful rulers yet are they accepted as islamic rulers whom we praise and talk about today? No.

                        They are just another kingdom

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SwordofKhaine View Post
                          What does this long passage have to do with my comment.

                          Orhan being a Bektashi / Alevi did more for the Ottomans than the late-Ottoman Sunnis. It can be argued that Enver Pasha being a Sunni was closer to Islam than Orhan Gazi.

                          So where does that put the theory of "Oh they were successful because they were closer to islam"? The early ottomans were successful, because of being better fighters, diplomats and administrators, not religion.
                          Even though there are specific qualifications that indeed lead to building successful states (even if their leaders are disbelievers), but this does not mean that religion does not play any role in this. Especially in the case of Muslims: For Allah ta'ala may help one if one struggles for his sake and he may humiliate one if one turns ones back to the religion.

                          As for Orhan Ghazi: Do you have any clear proof that he was an Alevi? (Don't forget that politics also play a role in favoring a group!)
                          In Turkey when they say "Alevi" in our time, they think of people who don't go to the mosque, don't pray, but rather go to the Cemevi in order to dance (men and women mixed!) and are secular.
                          I doubt that any of this applies to Orhan Ghazi?!?

                          Add to this: The Bektashi order was simply understood as a Sufi Tariqa back in those days and people were not necessarily Alevis just because they belonged to the Bektashi Tariqa.
                          Don't forget that some groups have underwant changes and that their modern form does not necessarily represent their original form.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                            Even though there are specific qualifications that indeed lead to building successful states (even if their leaders are disbelievers), but this does not mean that religion does not play any role in this. Especially in the case of Muslims: For Allah ta'ala may help one if one struggles for his sake and he may humiliate one if one turns ones back to the religion.

                            As for Orhan Ghazi: Do you have any clear proof that he was an Alevi? (Don't forget that politics also play a role in favoring a group!)
                            In Turkey when they say "Alevi" in our time, they think of people who don't go to the mosque, don't pray, but rather go to the Cemevi in order to dance (men and women mixed!) and are secular.
                            I doubt that any of this applies to Orhan Ghazi?!?

                            Add to this: The Bektashi order was simply understood as a Sufi Tariqa back in those days and people were not necessarily Alevis just because they belonged to the Bektashi Tariqa.
                            Don't forget that some groups have underwant changes and that their modern form does not necessarily represent their original form.
                            Orhan Gazi built several lodges for two bektashi dervish groups, the Ahi Dervishes and the Babai dervishes both who practiced bektashi sufism.

                            Ahi dervishes are those infamous dancing sufis stereotypes.

                            There is a matter of confusion regarding his sect. because he also built the first madrassa in Iznik. And for madrassas he placed them under Davud-i-Kayseri who was a sufi in the same vein as Ibn Arabi, so not Alevi/shia as I had first mentioned.

                            Also, it was Orhan who assigned Bektashi dervishes to the Janissaries so they are trained to learn and believe in Bektashi sufism.

                            But it should be noted, that Davud-i-Kayseri and the Ottoman madrassas taught Wahdatul Wujud (Unity of Being) from Muhiuddin Ibn Arabi. Halil Inalcik said (thank Allah i remembered to copy paste this one): "The alperens, abdalân and Iznik Madrasah around Orhan adopted the vahdet-i vücûd mysticism of Muhyiddin İbnü'l-Arabî"

                            So although I was wrong about him being Alevi and I admit my mistake in that, we come to the same issue as before. Salafi scholars regard Wahdatul Wujud as a major kufr and something that takes someone from Islam.

                            So you have Orhan who may have been bektashi or atleast a sufi who believed in Wahdatul Wujud (regarded as major kufr by salafi schoalrs), and even then he managed to make so much gains, fought the Byzantines successfully, and 'islamize' the conquered lands.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                              Even though there are specific qualifications that indeed lead to building successful states (even if their leaders are disbelievers), but this does not mean that religion does not play any role in this. Especially in the case of Muslims: For Allah ta'ala may help one if one struggles for his sake and he may humiliate one if one turns ones back to the religion.
                              And now to the reason why I made that post.

                              This is because some posters here and some commentors in social media make a lot of religious rhetorical statements, and they really don't have any kind of plan or idea of how we can rebuild the Islamic world. They have no realistic plans or roadmaps just rhetorical speech.

                              You have to understand that the muslims fought the pagan arabs themselves, and yes while they had aid from angels like Jibrail (A), they didn't leave everything to the Angels, they didn't just sit and kept praying for angel to fight their own fight.

                              Faith is central to our beliefs and without faith in Allah we are nothing.

                              BUT, behind that faith must be cold, pragmatic, calculated plan. If we keep questioning people's faith because of pragmatism then what about Treaty of Hudaybiyah?

                              And this is my personal understanding. For me it's like computers. Without both hardware and software the PC can't work. Similarly without Faith and Pragmatism working together we can't achieve anything like what the great muslim caliphates in the past achieved.

                              And that is why some of those posts annoy me, because they imply as if the Sultans, Emirs, caliphs only prayed their problems away.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X