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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

    Regarding the Tanzimat reforms and the Ottoman state:
    People should really stop relying on European sources or the claims of secularists and nationalists! If we really want to know what these Tanzimat were we have to refer the Ottoman archives and not rely on the claims of our enemies! If we were to trust them, then according to them one of the greatest Ottoman leaders was gay! Do you accept these claims / lies?!

    If the Tanzimat were as claimed and outright disbelief, then why did the Shaykh al-Islam of that time don’t clarify that? This with the knowledge that when Mustafa Kemal - who some call as "father of the Turks" without any right! - started to implement his disbelief on a state level, the Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri warned against this openly and even left Turkey when he saw that he can’t change anything. A lot of scholars in Turkey stood up at that time and many were either suppressed or even killed!

    What does this show us? That the Ottoman state had not implemented outright disbelief otherwise these same scholars would have rebelled against the state. Please start to think a little bit logically and don’t let our enemies always fool you!
    No it just shows the deen is not based on one scholar are we going to say sheikh ul islam ibn taymiyyah didn't make takfir on that person so that proves they're ok, we don't base this on one person not making takfir but we look at the situation as a whole and see evidence as well.

    TanzimaT reform were full kufr, them starting the process to legalise sodomites, allowing the creation of freemasons lodges to then making a open freemason murad v their so called caliph shows clearly what their intention was.

    Islam was no longer their interest it was now to be like the kafir of west.

    Peoples two facedness of viewing madkhali and house of saud one way then treating the tanzimat reform in another way clearly shows their insincerity in islam, it is fatwashopping and sect mentality if your sect does this crime it's ok another one does it declare them deviant the salafi do this attack them but if it is tanzimat sultan defend them at any cost with poor man excuse that you showed above

    I'm sure if that was house of saud now you would have not made that excuse for them bit gone for a all out attack which is the same thing madkhalis do in everyone both of you are equally bad as each other in sincerity.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by salaam_7cgen View Post

      No it just shows the deen is not based on one scholar are we going to say sheikh ul islam ibn taymiyyah didn't make takfir on that person so that proves they're ok, we don't base this on one person not making takfir but we look at the situation as a whole and see evidence as well.

      TanzimaT reform were full kufr, them starting the process to legalise sodomites, allowing the creation of freemasons lodges to then making a open freemason murad v their so called caliph shows clearly what their intention was.

      Islam was no longer their interest it was now to be like the kafir of west.

      Peoples two facedness of viewing madkhali and house of saud one way then treating the tanzimat reform in another way clearly shows their insincerity in islam, it is fatwashopping and sect mentality if your sect does this crime it's ok another one does it declare them deviant the salafi do this attack them but if it is tanzimat sultan defend them at any cost with poor man excuse that you showed above

      I'm sure if that was house of saud now you would have not made that excuse for them bit gone for a all out attack which is the same thing madkhalis do in everyone both of you are equally bad as each other in sincerity.
      Did you even understand my point before writing the above comment?

      You trying to compare me with Madkhalis is dishonest in itself.
      These people are "Salafis" and their creed is nearer to your creed than to mine.
      These people defend the governments no matter what, but I don’t even regard today's governments as legitimate (but this does not necessitate me making general Takfir against them!)!
      These people make Tabdi' upon almost everyone including their fellow "Salafi" brothers, while I regard the followers of the 4 Madhhahib and those upon the Hanbali / Ash'ari / Maturidi creed as Sunnis!

      Now back to the Tanzimat:
      Are the points that you mentioned all established issues? If yes, then please give proper and reliable sources.
      Then:
      Some things maybe deviance without it reaching Kufr. Then there are things that are Kufr duna Kufr. And even in the case of Kufr, then it does not always necessitate Takfir upon the state or the government!

      I even gave you an example from the Umawi state, which lead to apostasy of huge numbers of people (I have Islamic sources saying so!):
      They took Jizya even after people accepted Islam. 'Umar bin 'Abd al-'Aziz - radhiallahu 'anhu - abolished this unislamic law, but some time after him the Umawi rulers re-established this law (leading to apostasy!). What do you call this? Is there anything worse than this?! Yet, the scholars of the Salaf al-salih didn’t make Takfir!

      By the way: I‘m not denying that secularists were trying to infiltrate the Ottoman state towards its end and were even successful in doing so to a certain degree and that is why Sultan 'Abd al-Hamid II. tried to stop them, but the scholars never made a general Takfir upon the state!

      How after mentioning all of this you’re able to even mention Madkhalis in one sentence with me is beyond me!

      And: It’s the mindset of your likes (from among those who claimed religiosity like the Najdis or the Sharif of Makka!), which lead to the fall of the Khilafa!
      Instead of trying to rescue what can be still saved and restoring its glory, you directly jump to Takfir thereby making it easy for the state to fall!
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 26-06-20, 11:10 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Just so there are no misunderstandings:
        The Takfir of the Najdis - who were judged as Khawarij by the scholars of their time! - against the Ottoman state was not dependent on the Tanzimat issue. Even though they also mentioned the issue of "not ruling by Allah’s laws" as a reason, but their main reason was not this.

        The main reason for fighting basically all other Muslims was the issue of seeking intercession with our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and this was allowed by the scholars of the 4 Madhahib because of the religious proofs for doing so (with the exception of the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya and his followers, who would regard it as forbidden). The son of IAW acknowledged that they indeed allowed this, yet he said that this justifies Takfir upon the people of their time ("because our call has reached them") for either regarding this as allowed or aiding those who are like this. (This can be found in al-Durar al-Saniyya.)

        Comment


        • #34
          Abu Sulayman The Shaykh-ul-islam already had lost the education department under Mahmud II's reforms. This is the same Mahmud that burnt and killed thousands of the remaining janissaries, lodges, etc. At that point the ulema had no choice but to concede to Sultan Mahmud II and the Jacobin pashas.

          But you are right, the Najdi revolt didn't happen because of the Tanzimat reforms, it wasn't even implemented then. And even when implemented, the scholars of the second Najdi state, who were more extreme than any Salafi scholar in history made no mention of this.

          Th Tanzimat reforms were very likely not implemented outside of Rumelia. The Pashas who pushed for the Tanzimat reforms were inspired by the French Jacobin variant of secularism (The worst one) and they implemented what the French did in the Tanzimat reform.

          And since they learnt to tolerate homosexuality from the French (French are world's most famous gay people), they brought their new found teachings back to the Empire.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            Just so there are no misunderstandings:
            The Takfir of the Najdis - who were judged as Khawarij by the scholars of their time! - against the Ottoman state was not dependent on the Tanzimat issue. Even though they also mentioned the issue of "not ruling by Allah’s laws" as a reason, but their main reason was not this.
            What they meant is the presence of the "Tora" laws, or Turkic tribal laws, in Ottoman laws. When Sultan Suleiman implemented Sharia into the newly acquired Caliphate titled state, some of the old Turkic laws were also co-opted into the Shariah for the turkish tribe in Crimea and some in Eastern Anatolia, who still weren't urbanized.

            I think it was Abdul Hakim Murad who explained that the laws which were co-opted into the Shariah were not contradictory to the islamic laws.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by SwordofKhaine View Post
              Abu Sulayman The Shaykh-ul-islam already had lost the education department under Mahmud II's reforms. This is the same Mahmud that burnt and killed thousands of the remaining janissaries, lodges, etc. At that point the ulema had no choice but to concede to Sultan Mahmud II and the Jacobin pashas.

              But you are right, the Najdi revolt didn't happen because of the Tanzimat reforms, it wasn't even implemented then. And even when implemented, the scholars of the second Najdi state, who were more extreme than any Salafi scholar in history made no mention of this.

              Th Tanzimat reforms were very likely not implemented outside of Rumelia. The Pashas who pushed for the Tanzimat reforms were inspired by the French Jacobin variant of secularism (The worst one) and they implemented what the French did in the Tanzimat reform.

              And since they learnt to tolerate homosexuality from the French (French are world's most famous gay people), they brought their new found teachings back to the Empire.
              Yet the Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri (who was a very knowledgeable scholar) stood openly against the Taghut Mustafa Kemal, while none of the classical scholars made Takfir upon the Ottoman state!
              So there was a clear difference between the Ottoman state and the later Turkish Republic.

              Yes the secularists were infiltrating the Ottoman state, but what was the solution:
              1) Making Takfir upon the whole state and leaving it to fall into the hands of the secularists?
              2) Or trying to save the Ottoman state and to bring back its glory!

              The correct option is obviously the second and the Sultan 'Abd al-Hamid II. tried his best to save the Ottoman state, but unfortunately he had not many supporters.

              An additonal point:
              When speaking about Takfir - especially upon a whole state that has faught for Islam for centuries! -, then one has obviously to refer to classical scholars. To act as if their position is of no importance is from the way of the Khawarij!
              Laymen should really start knowing their limits and understand that they are in no position to speak regarding the blood of people!
              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 27-06-20, 12:28 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by SwordofKhaine View Post

                What they meant is the presence of the "Tora" laws, or Turkic tribal laws, in Ottoman laws. When Sultan Suleiman implemented Sharia into the newly acquired Caliphate titled state, some of the old Turkic laws were also co-opted into the Shariah for the turkish tribe in Crimea and some in Eastern Anatolia, who still weren't urbanized.

                I think it was Abdul Hakim Murad who explained that the laws which were co-opted into the Shariah were not contradictory to the islamic laws.
                The 'urf (tradition) of the people plays a role in the Shari'a and its implementation and this is known to anyone with the a little bit knowledge regarding the Shari'a.

                It‘s quite rich for the Najdis with their first and second Kharii Taghut state to point their fingers at others!
                Which of the the objectives of the divine law had they reached with their Kharijism?:
                1) The preservation of religion: Their books contain Dhalalat and Kufriyyar in a similar manner as the books of the Rafidha!
                2) The preservation of life: The Najdis were trying to kill basically all other Muslims!
                3) The preservation of intellect: Did Najdis even know what intellect is? They were ignorant of basic Islamic sciences and thought that everyone should be ignorant like them!
                4) The preservation of lineage: They were actively trying to extinguish the lineage of all other Muslims!
                5) The preservation of wealth: They were stealing the wealth of Muslims and burning down their properties and fields!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                  Yet the Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri (who was a very knowledgeable scholar) stood openly against the Taghut Mustafa Kemal, while none of the classical scholars made Takfir upon the Ottoman state!
                  So there was a clear difference between the Ottoman state and the later Turkish Republic.

                  Yes the secularists were infiltrating the Ottoman state, but what was the solution:
                  1) Making Takfir upon the whole state and leaving it to fall into the hands of the secularists?
                  2) Or trying to save the Ottoman state and to bring back its glory!

                  The correct option is obviously the second and the Sultan 'Abd al-Hamid II. tried his best to save the Ottoman state, but unfortunately he had not many supporters.

                  An additonal point:
                  When speaking about Takfir - especially upon a whole state that has faught for Islam for centuries! -, then one has obviously to refer to classical scholars. To act as if their position is of no importance is from the way of the Khawarij!
                  Laymen should really start knowing their limits and understand that they are in no position to speak regarding the blood of people!
                  Yes.

                  But there is another matter to consider here. Reshid Pasha who wrote the Tanzimat reform, if you look into his quote he says Islam is the sole identity of what the Ottoman empire is based on.

                  As for young Turk pashas, the love of Fakhruddin Pasha for the Prophet (S) is recorded in his statements while defending Madinah.

                  Enver Pasha's affinity for islam is also seen many times. In one occasion while listening to the lecture regarding a story of the Prophet (S), tears were dropping down from cheeks.

                  Do you notice the pattern here? The Young Turk Pashas were heavily influenced by Western enlightenment and French philosophy but they couldn't let go of their religion. So they sought to make syncretism between the two.

                  What made Mustafa Kemal Pasha different was that he completely rejected Islam and sought to eliminate it from Anatolia altogether. This is why the ulema finally rebelled, but they were too late as much of the intellectual camp had moved to Kemalizm.

                  And to make sure Islam never returns, Mustafa Kemal devised an ingenious plan to pretend to allow a second party and when the conservatives joined that party, he called it traitorous and executed all the members. From then until 1950, Kemalizm reigned supreme in Turkey.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I saw interesting documentaries about this.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X