Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tanzimat destroyed the Ottoman Empire

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
    Abu Sulayman

    I remember you telling us that you were a layman in Kalam/Aqeedah, but I'm curious to hear your view on this:

    Do you accept that the Ash'ari Madhhab went through several different stages? Were the early Asha'irah (Imam Ashari/Bayhaqi/Baqillani, etc) identical to the later Asharis (Juwayni/Ghazzali/Razi)?

    I already have my mind made up on this issue. But you're very adamant on "exposing" the discrepancies between the Hanabila. Do you also recognize the differences within your own Madhhab?

    "Even within the Ashari strand you have different understandings. al-Bayhaqi is one; Ibn Fawraq is another; al-Juwayni is another. And al-Juwayni strand because of his student al-Ghazzali became the more prominent one. But when Juwayni was alive these were all variant strands within Asharism" - Yasir Qadhi [14:30]


    Brother, this "early Asha'ira vs later Asha'ira"-thing exists primarily in the heads of "Salafis" . You know when they see one Ash'ari saying "Allah is described with Yadayn" (like Imam al-Baqillani for example) and another one making Ta`wil of the Yadayn (like Imam al-Razi for example) they think that this is the greatest difference upon this earth, while they've not even understood the Ash'ari way in the first place. They think that the first Ash'ari is in agreement with them, while that is not the case. The first Ash'ari is accepting Yadayn as Sifat Ma'ani (attributes subsisting in the divine essence), while the "Salafi" scholars regard it as Sifat A'yan (tangible "attributes" which make up the divine essence and this is pure Tajsim!). This first Ash'ari's statement goes back to Tafwidh in reality and even the second Ash'ari believes that Tafwidh is the correct way and only resorts to Ta`wil for necessity.
    Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) (major Ash'ari scholar!) mentioned three ways regarding the Sifat (which he included among the Ahl al-Sunna): Tafwidh, Ta`wil and Ithbat with Tanzih (while this goes in reality back to Tafwidh).

    As for "exposing" Hanabila: I'm nowhere exposing them or trying to show that they had huge discrepancies. In fact I'm telling you that the major Hanbali authorities agreed upon the major issues of 'Aqida. And some of their criticism against Ash'aris is also agreed upon among their authorities.
    The only real discrepancy happened with Ibn Taymiyya: He disagreed on major issues with the Hanabila like saying that Allah ta'ala is subject to changes (explicitly denied by all major Hanbali authorities!) and that the speech of Allah is muhdath (new) as a singular (the Hanabila attacked the Ash'aris for much less than this statement!) and his rejection of Tafwidh (while the Hanabila stress very very very much upon the correctness of Tafwidh and the falseness of Ta`wil).

    It's correct that there were differences in very detailed issues between the Asha'ira themselves and same is true for the Hanabila, but they were in agreement in the major issues,

    And: The Ash'aris, Maturidis and Hanabila had differences among eachother, but their difference was in detailed issues (and even in these issues many of their differences are only Lafdhi!) and they were in agreement in the major issues and that is why Imam al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) (major Hanbali authority in 'Aqida and Fiqh!) regarded all of them as Sunnis.
    The "Salafis" of today however have left the agreed upon positions (Mu'tamad) of the Hanabila in beliefs and opted for Ibn Taymiyya's views, who is also a Hanbali scholar, but disagreed with them in some major issues (which by the way he himself admitted!).
    If "Salafis" were following the footsteps of someone like Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH), then I would be the first to defend them (and this with the knowledge that the Imam was very much Anti-Ash'ari!)!

    You can also listen to this here by Shaykh Muhammad al-Azhari al-Hanbali with English subtitles:



    If you understand Arabic you'll find much more detailed lectures from him about this issue, where he brings a lot of quotes from Hanbali authorities to prove his point.

    (Note: Let's not get more off-topic. If I get time I'll open another thread regarding this issue insha`Allah.)
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 27-12-19, 08:59 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Habib Urrehman View Post

      Overall all a good thread. I personally think Muslim Caliphate (Khilafah) was over after first 30 years of Prophet's (peace be upon him) death, everything afterwards is pretty much dynasties/Kingship which has nothing to do with Islam. This in fact was prophesized by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
      Even though the real Khilafa was for 30 years this does not mean that the Muslim states and rulers after this period where all illegitimate from a Shar'i point of view. The details of this issue were discussed by the scholars and the fall of the Ottoman Khilafa was a huge loss for Muslims in general.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
        Point 2: A slow decline after the conquest of Constantinople
        In 857 H (1453), Sultan Mehmed conquered Constantinople. Go study this man and you will learn he had a great respect for the Ulama and learning. The Ottoman sultans at that time claimed their position of Caliph and it was well merited as they did rule by full sharia law (for most of the Ottoman empire at the time this was Hanafi law, which later became codified).

        After this though we have the period of history no-one talks about. Well let's talk about it. A few years after the siege, in 926 H (1520) Suleiman the "Magnificent" came to the throne. Westerners call him magnificent. Want to know why? He is also known as Suleiman the lawgiver: He promulgated the Kanun laws. Now these laws may not seem inherently unislamic - they are restricted to the domain of the ruler's siyasa, however the content of these reforms are kind of questionable. In it for example is the method of succession: The Sultan's sons were to kill or imprison each other. I'll let you think about how acceptable that is (what's worse is the Mughal's had a similar thing). This lead to weakening leadership - in Suleiman's own rule he failed to conquer Vienna (preventing Muslim conquest into Europe).

        Ok so maybe through poor management the Muslim empire declined? Well it did sort of decline but really that decline is relative to the West skyrocketing in material wealth during this period, mainly off the exploitation of natives they conquered in the new world. Remember: When the Muslims conquered Constantinople, those Greeks were still there and able to demonize the Muslim rulers and invent lies against them. When Westerners conquered the New World, were the Aztec's able to complain afterwards? No they were eradicated by disease and silenced by colonial distortion of their culture.

        Really the Ottoman decline in this period is more in respect to the Westerners skyrocketing in wealth. Still bad years of leadership did affect the Ottoman empire. There was literally a period where the Sultan's mother was essentially in power, which reminds me of a Hadith of the Prophet alayhis salam...

        So how did we go from a slow decline to a nose dive? Well...
        The ottoman declared caliphate after sultan selim grandson of muhammad al fatih conquered mamluks

        Comment


        • #19
          Interesting..
          Pray. Fast. Zakat. Pilgrimage. Allah.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by salaam_7cgen View Post

            The ottoman declared caliphate after sultan selim grandson of muhammad al fatih conquered mamluks
            This is true though I don't see how that contradicts what I have written.

            Nevertheless an interesting discussion can be had on the Mamluks, and the end period of the Abbasid and how the Caliph's power was curtailed. Technically at that time, the Sultans who ruled over vast empires at the time, were somehow de jure subordinate to the Caliphs but we know that the Sultans held the actual power. It seems fitting then that Selim I brought the Khilafah back into its rightful place rather than being a mere ceremonial institution.

            I note that the hadith in Tarikh Dimashq does not mention Egypt or Cairo as locations for the Khilafah. I wonder why...

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

              This is true though I don't see how that contradicts what I have written.

              Nevertheless an interesting discussion can be had on the Mamluks, and the end period of the Abbasid and how the Caliph's power was curtailed. Technically at that time, the Sultans who ruled over vast empires at the time, were somehow de jure subordinate to the Caliphs but we know that the Sultans held the actual power. It seems fitting then that Selim I brought the Khilafah back into its rightful place rather than being a mere ceremonial institution.

              I note that the hadith in Tarikh Dimashq does not mention Egypt or Cairo as locations for the Khilafah. I wonder why...
              This was bot mentioned above so it makes it seem that ottoman declared caliph right from the start as they did with sultanate

              Sultan selim being caliph was part of the prophecy muhammad salallahualayuwasallam mentioned
              https://islamqa.info/en/answers/2276...s-and-umayyads

              Also ummayad abbasid ottoman each wen through either same similar or other problems within example would be the women ruling the ottoman empire at one point which again was unfortunately a mistake that came from Suleiman qanuni when he declared the position of valide sultan something no previous caliph or sultan did and we know something sultan selim would never have done

              Same with his marriage to a slave girl unfortunately

              Comment

              Working...
              X