Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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..
          Per aspera ad astra.

          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


              • #22
                I find this to be too simplistic an explanation. The causal links are not followed through consistently, let alone being proved. Though, admittedly, this is a difficult topic and there is no uniform, agreed upon answer. I agree that decline did not start with Imam al-Ghazzali -rahimahullah- or the institutionalisation of religious education in the Nizamiyya madrasas or the Mongol invasion in the 13th century that devastated Khorasan. Evidently, there were still great achievements after these events.

                It is not possible to pinpoint the decline to certain individual actions or minor institutional changes in the reign of Sultan Suleiman I. The Ottoman Sultanate continued to thrive throughout the 16th-17th centuries. Despite several defeats (1571 Lepanto, 1606 Austria, 1684 Austria, 1718) it was an equal match to European powers in the 18th century. Public discussions often pass on the structural/global developments that happened in the meantime, which are, I would argue, crucial. Europeans discovered the New World and circumvented the medieval trade system which greatly profited Muslims and they rose from being a periphery to the centre of commerce. This allowed them to finance scientific endeavours, leading to new inventions and technological development, culminating in the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. There are other factors that facilitated Europe's development contra the Muslim and Asio-African world, such as institutional developments like fedarlism/constitutionalism and the Westphalian order, where peace was achieved both intranationally (between merchants, nobles and king) and internationally (between European states and confessions). We may turn to judge the reaction of Ottomans and other Muslim empires to these structural developments, but we should also concede that not everything might have been feasible to notice at the right time and counter. So, errors of individuals put aside (which are of course open to criticism), there is a play of Allah's qadar in the course of history.

                Europeans had developed better means of financial and military organisation, increasing their wealth. They also had better military technology. Muslims seem to have been late in recognising this change and in due course they were also overwhelmed with European ideas, which has been a great fitna. But I do not see materialism to be the culprit of the sultanate's dissolution, because materialist trends were in a minority in the public. I would rather replace this ideological part with intellectual confusion. As new ideas diffused in the Muslim world supported by Western dominance, scholars and the public alike were challenged to respond to them. Even when scholars issued a good response, it took time for this to enter mass consciousness and induce action. For instance, the rural Turkish population had no clue about nationalism or secularism, because these issues were not sufficiently dealt with, let alone reach rural areas. So when the caliphate was abolished and secular reforms gradually enacted, there was no movement in considerable size and strength to counter it.
                This, too, can be said to be the effect of structural problems. For, when modern education was introduced, it was permeated by secular or materialist thinking, as pointed out in this thread. Religious education, however, was left to the madrasas, which was left with scarce economic potential, leading many influential families to send their children to modern schools, which left madrasas with poor people (cf. Richard Repp, "Some Observations on the Development of the Ottoman Learned Hierarchy", Scholars, Saints, and Sufis, Muslim Religious Institutions in the Middle East since 1500, ed. Nikki Keddie (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), pp. 17-32). Consequentially, there developed an elite that lacked proper religious education. Though healed to a degree, this still seems to be a challenge today. We need a balance for the general citizenry between elemental religious education (education of ulema experts put aside) and technological/scientific education that prepares for work in the modern economy.

                As for the Tanzimat reforms that started from 1839 on and continued until 1876, they were an attempt to modernise the empire and enhance its organisation. The first edict of 1839 set the supremacy of the Sharia and strengthened property rights and the hirma of life, as the central government and especially Sultan Mahmud II. recently had embezzled much property and massacred many elites for the sake of fortifying central power (See Anscombe, Frederick E. ‘ISLAM AND THE AGE OF OTTOMAN REFORM’. Past & Present, no. 208 (2010): 159–89.). A point of criticism can be the citizenship law in the 1856 edict that made Muslims equal to non-Muslims, whereas the Ottoman system had been a plurinationalist one where the Muslim nation was supreme as "ruling nation" (millet-i hakime). However, due to popular protest this law was not enforced consequentially.
                There were attempts to bring in Western law codes, but these were countered and modified by scholars like Ahmed Cevdet Pasha. The 1858 Criminal Law code again asserted the supremacy of Sharia rights against Qanun (positive law). The prior 1840 Penal Code was French inspired but its provisions were that of the Sharia. When Reshid Pasha wanted to introduce a French Commercial Code in 1841, it was resisted and Ahmed Cevdet Pasha was given the task to devise a Sharia code. So the Commercial Code was delayed until 1850. Then Jawdat Pasha compiled the Metn-i Metin for mu'amalat law. And in the years 1869-76 Mecelle was prepared. (On these developments see Chambers, Ottoman Ulema and the Tanzimat)

                To my view, our greatest problem holding us back from progress is that we are divided and unable to coordinate efforts. Islamic movements must coordinate to counter the corruption of Muslim states and establish a righteous government. After righteous governments are established on a national level, these in turn must coordinate and harmonise their policies. On individual level, Muslims must show affection to each other and overcome differences through mutual tolerance. Theological or juristic disagreements should not be politicised. We need a political framework representing the ummah that is beyond the particular interests of any one religious movement. This needs training and education in tolerance, for which there is abundant resource in Islam and usul al-fiqh.

                The Ottoman caliphate was not doomed to dissolve in the 1920s, except for the qadar of Allah. It performed well in the Great War, as exemplified by the battles in Gallipolli and Iraq. It was on the way of achieving efficiency following several crises and reforms. Yet after that system collapsed and the caliphate abolished, the believers were not able to agree on a caliph among themselves. Hijaz and Syria accepted Sharif Hussein, but the French mandate blocked this demand in Syria. Imam Yahya of Yemen, Saudi King Abd al-Aziz as well as King Fuad of Egypt neither of them assumed the role of cailph, as their domains were all small, weak and unable to resist imperialism, if not already dominated by it.

                A stable system relies on the harmony among its citizens, the believers. Since the times of Caliph Uthman -radiyallahu anh- there has been disagreement on the imamate. We need a system that resolves this issue while establishing righteous governance. This requires from Muslims that they turn to themselves and abandon disbelievers and apostates who reject divine law.
                Last edited by YahyaIbnSelam; 16-12-20, 09:17 PM.
                “Let whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day either speak good or be silent.” — Prophet Muhammad pbuh | مَن كانَ يُؤْمِنُ باللَّهِ والْيَومِ الآخِرِ فَلْيَقُلْ خَيْرًا، أوْ لِيصْمُتْ

                Comment


                • #23
                  Good book on the subject:

                  https://archive.org/details/TheKhila...as%20Destroyed

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
                    I find this to be too simplistic an explanation. The causal links are not followed through consistently, let alone being proved. Though, admittedly, this is a difficult topic and there is no uniform, agreed upon answer. I agree that decline did not start with Imam al-Ghazzali -rahimahullah- or the institutionalisation of religious education in the Nizamiyya madrasas or the Mongol invasion in the 13th century that devastated Khorasan. Evidently, there were still great achievements after these events.

                    It is not possible to pinpoint the decline to certain individual actions or minor institutional changes in the reign of Sultan Suleiman I. The Ottoman Sultanate continued to thrive throughout the 16th-17th centuries. Despite several defeats (1571 Lepanto, 1606 Austria, 1684 Austria, 1718) it was an equal match to European powers in the 18th century. Public discussions often pass on the structural/global developments that happened in the meantime, which are, I would argue, crucial. Europeans discovered the New World and circumvented the medieval trade system which greatly profited Muslims and they rose from being a periphery to the centre of commerce. This allowed them to finance scientific endeavours, leading to new inventions and technological development, culminating in the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. There are other factors that facilitated Europe's development contra the Muslim and Asio-African world, such as institutional developments like fedarlism/constitutionalism and the Westphalian order, where peace was achieved both intranationally (between merchants, nobles and king) and internationally (between European states and confessions). We may turn to judge the reaction of Ottomans and other Muslim empires to these structural developments, but we should also concede that not everything might have been feasible to notice at the right time and counter. So, errors of individuals put aside (which are of course open to criticism), there is a play of Allah's qadar in the course of history.

                    Europeans had developed better means of financial and military organisation, increasing their wealth. They also had better military technology. Muslims seem to have been late in recognising this change and in due course they were also overwhelmed with European ideas, which has been a great fitna. But I do not see materialism to be the culprit of the sultanate's dissolution, because materialist trends were in a minority in the public. I would rather replace this ideological part with intellectual confusion. As new ideas diffused in the Muslim world supported by Western dominance, scholars and the public alike were challenged to respond to them. Even when scholars issued a good response, it took time for this to enter mass consciousness and induce action. For instance, the rural Turkish population had no clue about nationalism or secularism, because these issues were not sufficiently dealt with, let alone reach rural areas. So when the caliphate was abolished and secular reforms gradually enacted, there was no movement in considerable size and strength to counter it.
                    This, too, can be said to be the effect of structural problems. For, when modern education was introduced, it was permeated by secular or materialist thinking, as pointed out in this thread. Religious education, however, was left to the madrasas, which was left with scarce economic potential, leading many influential families to send their children to modern schools, which left madrasas with poor people (cf. Richard Repp, "Some Observations on the Development of the Ottoman Learned Hierarchy", Scholars, Saints, and Sufis, Muslim Religious Institutions in the Middle East since 1500, ed. Nikki Keddie (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972), pp. 17-32). Consequentially, there developed an elite that lacked proper religious education. Though healed to a degree, this still seems to be a challenge today. We need a balance for the general citizenry between elemental religious education (education of ulema experts put aside) and technological/scientific education that prepares for work in the modern economy.

                    As for the Tanzimat reforms that started from 1839 on and continued until 1876, they were an attempt to modernise the empire and enhance its organisation. The first edict of 1839 set the supremacy of the Sharia and strengthened property rights and the hirma of life, as the central government and especially Sultan Mahmud II. recently had embezzled much property and massacred many elites for the sake of fortifying central power (See Anscombe, Frederick E. ‘ISLAM AND THE AGE OF OTTOMAN REFORM’. Past & Present, no. 208 (2010): 159–89.). A point of criticism can be the citizenship law in the 1856 edict that made Muslims equal to non-Muslims, whereas the Ottoman system had been a plurinationalist one where the Muslim nation was supreme as "ruling nation" (millet-i hakime). However, due to popular protest this law was not enforced consequentially.
                    There were attempts to bring in Western law codes, but these were countered and modified by scholars like Ahmed Cevdet Pasha. The 1858 Criminal Law code again asserted the supremacy of Sharia rights against Qanun (positive law). The prior 1840 Penal Code was French inspired but its provisions were that of the Sharia. When Reshid Pasha wanted to introduce a French Commercial Code in 1841, it was resisted and Ahmed Cevdet Pasha was given the task to devise a Sharia code. So the Commercial Code was delayed until 1850. Then Jawdat Pasha compiled the Metn-i Metin for mu'amalat law. And in the years 1869-76 Mecelle was prepared. (On these developments see Chambers, Ottoman Ulema and the Tanzimat)

                    To my view, our greatest problem holding us back from progress is that we are divided and unable to coordinate efforts. Islamic movements must coordinate to counter the corruption of Muslim states and establish a righteous government. After righteous governments are established on a national level, these in turn must coordinate and harmonise their policies. On individual level, Muslims must show affection to each other and overcome differences through mutual tolerance. Theological or juristic disagreements should not be politicised. We need a political framework representing the ummah that is beyond the particular interests of any one religious movement. This needs training and education in tolerance, for which there is abundant resource in Islam and usul al-fiqh.

                    The Ottoman caliphate was not doomed to dissolve in the 1920s, except for the qadar of Allah. It performed well in the Great War, as exemplified by the battles in Gallipolli and Iraq. It was on the way of achieving efficiency following several crises and reforms. Yet after that system collapsed and the caliphate abolished, the believers were not able to agree on a caliph among themselves. Hijaz and Syria accepted Sharif Hussein, but the French mandate blocked this demand in Syria. Imam Yahya of Yemen, Saudi King Abd al-Aziz as well as King Fuad of Egypt neither of them assumed the role of cailph, as their domains were all small, weak and unable to resist imperialism, if not already dominated by it.

                    A stable system relies on the harmony among its citizens, the believers. Since the times of Caliph Uthman -radiyallahu anh- there has been disagreement on the imamate. We need a system that resolves this issue while establishing righteous governance. This requires from Muslims that they turn to themselves and abandon disbelievers and apostates who reject divine law.
                    My issue with you is that you take an approach where you make assumptions. You start with the assumption that an Autocratic system is bad, then look at Democracy and say it is good. The very thing you are measuring by is arguably null and void according to Shariah. There will be tyrant rulers - your job is not to attempt to legislate your own system where you try (badly) to stop that - it is to accept that tyrant rulers are a possibility.

                    The fact of the matter is someone/some group, always has power. If you try to empower the Judiciary you are just shifting where the actual power lies. This is the issue - your judgement in these areas is clouded by a love and desire to imitate the west.

                    And ironically it is this exact desire that destroyed the last Khilafah.

                    So no, democracy is not Islamic. Rather than trying to reform Islam, reform yourself.
                    Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 09-01-21, 10:00 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      YahyaIbnSelam, would I be correct in saying the only reason you want Khilafah in the first place is that the Muslims can be on top of the world again?

                      You are literally the type of person I was addressing in the original posts - you are the problem. If Islamists were not like you, salivating at the materialistic peak of civilisation, but were instead honest, simple and pious people who just wish to enact Allah's Shariah for His sake (not for the sake of being better than others), then we wouldn't have this issue. I roll my eyes when I see Hizb at-Tahrir or any other group making their little constitutional documents. Your minds are so colonised that the very endeavour of Islamic government is clouded by western thinking.

                      Secondly, as shown by the disputes we have had with certain users on other threads, there can be no unity (theologically) with the innovators. Sure, am I willing to accept political unity where we recognise they are not Sunnis? Yes. Am I willing to compromise Sunni theology? No. There are lines that cannot be crossed.

                      Finally, as for your criticising of the narrative I've espoused, I just want to point out that when I talk about these issues I take my knowledge from Muslim/Islamic sources, whilst you take your knowledge from western sources. The very way you look at your own history is from the mindset of the Kuffar. This is because, inside - and you may not admit it - you see them as superior to yourself. You see the white man as giving you objective knowledge whilst the Muslims are not objective. You have an inferiority complex. And what is worrying is that you are the very Islamist who is meant to be decolonising such a complex.

                      What does it say about us when our Islamists suffer from an inferiority complex?

                      Subhanallah, the colonisation of the Muslim mind is complete.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Actions are by intentions.

                        Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:

                        I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, "The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for."

                        - Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 1

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I wrote a short essay on the subject from my perspective in answer to a video where an atheist is being interviewed by some Muslims:

                          Dr Edward Dutton is basically correct when he talks about what causes societies to be succesful and I am pleasantly surprised and shocked that a western thinker would be bold enough to come to his conclusion. Unfortunately for him, it is precisely his mindset that caused Islamic civilisation to decline. Confused?

                          Ibn Khaldun was criticised by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani who said his works sound like those of a Mutazilite and that is because they are.
                          Correction: Ibn Khaldun was of course an Ash'ari - I meant his work sounds like that of a Mu'tazili. By the way he also argued (may Allah forgive him) that we no longer need Ilm al-Kalam as all the heretics have been refuted. I think Abu Sulayman and aMuslimForLife will agree with me that, that thesis is very wrong.

                          Ibn Khaldun was indeed a Sunni scholar but he made crucial mistakes.

                          Now how do the Mutazilis view themselves? They view themselves as people of reason and rationalism, just as I am sure our good doctor does. They thus apply what they think is pure reason and objectivism and argue that we need social cohesiveness (Asabiyyah) in order to be succesful. They are correct - as I said above - Asabiyyah to a certain extent is needed for success. Unfortunately however they are only correct to a point. The doctor alludes to this when he states that "Muslims have the correct balance" His statement is however technically wrong, Muslim do not have the correct balance, rather they have gone in the opposite direction, into an opposite extreme.

                          Ibn Khaldun's work was read by turkish ottoman intellectuals who theorised that the supposed decline of Islamic civilisation was due to a lack of tribalism. I.e. the people in the supposed decline recognised that the empire needed to become more nationalistic/tribalistic.

                          In reality, any decline was caused by anti-intellectual education reforms initiated by Sulayman Kanuni - take a look at the empire in the early Ottoman period. You had religious geniuses such as Ali Qushji, influenced by al-Ghazali, who was furthering the idea that the Earth orbits the sun (and unlike certain Christian thinkers, he wasn't being persecuted for his ideas).
                          Slight correction: Imam Ali Qushji's idea was specifically on the rotation of the Earth upon its axis instead of the Sun orbitting the Earth - he makes no comment on whether the Earth orbits the Sun. This is still very impressive, and a denial of the incorrect system and affirmation of the correct system (that the movement of the Sun is due to the rotation of the Earth).

                          Emphasis on "any" decline - I am not saying there was a decline (later on I go on to talk about it as stagnation and intellectual decline).

                          Ali Qushji met and wrote treatised for Mehmed II, conquerer of Constantinople.

                          But reason/rationality/intelligence goes hand in hand with spirituality. This is why in the Islamic "golden" age, you had the likes of al-Biruni, Ibn al-Haytham and Fakhruddin al-Razi (scientists/ rational theologians), but you also had your Abdul Qadir Jilanis, Baha ud-din an-Naqshbandis and Abu Hasan ash-Shadihilis, famous founders of the largest Sufi tariqahs. I.e. it was a period where you had heightened intellect and heightened spirituality and sometimes you would get geniuses who exhibited both e.g. al-Ghazali, who is false blamed by westerners/ modernist muslims as causing the decline in islamic intellectualism. In reality, al-Ghazali pushed Muslims to abandon heritical greek philosophy, said studying mathematics is fard al-Kifayah and pushed Muslims such as Ali Qushji to seperate philosophy from astronomy and introduce empiricism into it.

                          We forget that al-Biruni criticised and argued with Ali Ibn Sina (Avicenna) who westerners praise for being a key figure in pushing forward muslim civilisation forward. In reality the likes of Avicenna employ faulty logic and irrationality, irrationality that I am sure is shared by the Mutazilites, Atheists etc. e.g. the idea that you can complete infinity i.e. "I have entered this door after passing infinitely many doors" (a contradiction as you would never reach an end point of infinitely many doors). So what did those Ottoman intellectuals who read Ibn Khaldun's works do?

                          They went to the west and observed a highly nationalistic society that had abandoned their religion due to finding it to be contrary to reason. But impressed by the materialistic achievement* of the west, they thought "they must be doing it right". So they argued for and enacted reforms and we ended up with the tanzimat period, where secular and nationalistic ideas entered the Muslim mindset. On one hand this does increase cohesiveness, but it does it in the wrong way - it makes the invidual tribes and ethnicities of the Ummah hate each other and argue for supremacism. It was during this time that they tried to make turkish the language of instruction in schools. Result? The Arabs got sick of what they saw as racism and bigotry from their brothers and started fostering ideas of Arab supremacism.
                          I continued this in reply to my comment:

                          The response? The turks responded by intensifying Turkic supremacism - and when it comes to the first world war we get a revolt where brothers fight against brothers. In other words what happened is that after Suleiman Kanuni's reforms the muslims fell into stagnation, not decline, in general terms. But in intellectual terms, the muslims fell into actual decline and it is this decline that lead to Ottoman intellectuals actually considering the view point of Ibn Khaldun. Ibn Khaldun's ideas are not fully formed, because if you take what he says and literally enforce it, you will actually cause decline not stop it.
                          And this is what you misinterpreted - I was saying Sulayman Kanuni's reforms put the Muslims into stagnation, not decline.

                          Why?

                          Ibn Khaldun didn't recognise that you need both Asabiyyah (tribal cohesion) AND tolerance and love between the muslims (and a limited amount of tolerance for non-Muslims e.g. allowing them to have their own laws etc.). You can only have this if we make the religious group i.e. the Ummah, the unit of cohesion. I.e. you must remove Asabiyyah from the lower levels and make the different races and ethnicities love each other. You must also unite these races and ethnicities, in order to make them have this cohesiveness that will make them succesful. Of course the muslim scholars at the time were educated and intelligent enough to dismiss Ibn Khaldun's ideas, but the later muslims adopted them as that drop in intelligence facilitated by Suleiman Kanuni's reforms in education allowed them to not see the flaws in Ibn Khaldun's reasoning.

                          Ask yourself, who praises Ibn Khaldun? The West, the Mu'tazilites, modernist egyptian and pakistani intellectuals... All these groups are blind and oblivious to the fact that the muslims did take his advice but taking it didn't help them - it made it worse! This led to the collapse of the Ummah and the defeat of the Ottomans as the evil of tribalism overtook us. He should have instead criticised racism in the Ummah, like Ahmad Baba al-Timbukti, and he should have argued for Islamic supremacism (as forwarded by al-Timbukti's teacher al-Maghili), whilst also maintaining the rights of the Dhimmis etc. inside muslim society (e.g. to have their own legal system etc.)
                          Finally, in my last reply:

                          The one that uses his mind and ignores his heart cannot fully utilise his mind and the one who uses his heart and ignores his mind cannot fully utilise his heart. Those that reject spirituality will eventually reject reality and any truth and those that reject reason will believe anything, even falsehood. The skepticists have no certainty and the trivialists even believe in contradictions, but we believe equally in skepticisim and trivialism - we believe some facts are certainly true and some are certainly false and maintain a rational balance. We Muslims were more rational and scientific than the current west and we were more spiritual and traditional than the prior west. We maintain a balance between mind and heart but fully utilise both.

                          The Muslim is the one who when the maths teacher writes 0.999...(recurring) = 1 he has certainty and does not need to see a proof, for the doubt that it is not 1 is non-existant (the limit of 1/10^h as h approaches infinity is 0), yet the westerner admits it must exist and doubt still remains in his heart that it is 1 after seeing the proof. He will continue doubting, having no certainty. The easterner conversely believes that it is both 1 and not 1...

                          I recommend muslims contemplate Surah Fatihah, particularly the last two verses, that they contemplate the middle ayat of Surah Baqarah and that they read the book, "Islam Between East and West" by Alija Izetbegović.

                          *Of course their materialistic achievements are flawed and temporary, leading to their own destruction. They build tall buildings not realising the societal misery caused by putting so many people in one place. They invented TVs, industry and the computer not realising that these would eventually cause their own destruction. They rushed in inventing and polluting and search for the solution after causing the problem rather than avoiding the problem in the first place. They repeat the mistakes of the past nations: they are no different from the Egyptians, thinking they have understood the world better than anyone before them, their arrogance taking form and reaching into the sky. True material progress is gradual and sustainable.

                          As Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "Do not make your buildings tall. That will come about in the worst of your days."'
                          But instead we are seeking the tall buildings. YahyaIbnSelam may Allah bless and guide you. We need more people like you but we also need your lot to have the correct mindset and to learn from History, not repeat it.

                          Insha'Allah you will consider what I have said.
                          Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 09-01-21, 10:56 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The Ottoman Bureacratic class was towards the end of the Empire reading all sorts of nonsense, and were intellectually weak. Whether you blame Sulayman's reforms etc. doesn't matter - what matters is that our Elite became materialists and people of weak rationality. The works of the like of Ibn Khaldun helped facilitate this - but it wouldn't have done if there were more critical thinkers. The bureacratic class did not learn Ilm al-Kalam (as shown by the fact that they would even read heretical works of 'Muslim' Neo-platonic emanationists.)

                            I do not believe that laypeople should study Kalam - definitely not. Athari Aqeedah suffices. The Qur'an and Hadith suffice.

                            But I do believe the bureacrats and elites must learn it if we are to avoid the mistakes that happened previously. We need critical thinkers at the top of government who will not inter foreign ideas into Islam as they are convinced in Islam's own solutions and can reason through them.

                            But all of this can only happen if we have pious, simple people in the first place who just want Allah Azza Wa Jal. We need to fix our intentions and get rid of the inferiority complex. We need to seek Allah not the Khilafah. Then Allah will grant dominion (and Khilafah) to whoever he wants.

                            Exalted is He above all things.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Also read this on the topic:

                              https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/li...7#post12728977

                              And a link to the book I discussed above (Alija Izetbegović's Islam Between East and West):

                              https://ia601307.us.archive.org/28/i...zetbegovic.pdf

                              And Tafsir of the middle Ayah of Surah al-Baqarah by Nouman Ali Khan:

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk2-...UbsE&index=144

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                We do not accept all foreign ideas.

                                Nor do we reject all foreign ideas.

                                We do not blindly accept or reject foreign ideas - instead we turn to our own tradition and use the tools and Usul of our own tradition to objectively make judgement on new foreign ideas. And we take the old positions that are reliable on foreign ideas that have resurfaced from the past.

                                For example: I reject Democracy as it is objectively speaking unIslamic.

                                But as a Muslim who believes Adam Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam is our father, the father of us all, created in Jannah, who has no parents and whose wife was made from his rib, who also believes in the reality of Sihr and al-Ayn - what do you YahyaIbnSelam think I think of Evolution?

                                This is the difference between us - I take my answers from inside the tradition and that tradition is blessed and excellent, and I can use that to comment on any issue. That is what we need to do. We need to connect ourselves to our own tradition and our own tradition has the answers to modernity.

                                Stop forming new movements and go back to the old institutions and Madahib of Islam - the solutions you are looking for are there, either already answered or you will be provided with the old but reliable tools to answer them.

                                Consider a new issue never considered before by the classical scholars (in reality this is extremely rare as people make assumptions about what the Ulama have considered).

                                One says "Absolute Ijtihad on the new issues with a Mas'alah calculator", another says, "No we reject even commenting on these or hold the most restrictive position by default of strict Taqlid that musn't ever change," but the answer is "We work inside the Madahib according to their Usul upon the Qur'an and Sunnah to approach new Issues with an Ijtihad within the Madahib congruent to the existing rulings of the Madhab - and the ruling whether prohibition or permission - we will take whichever one our Usul dictates, not our Nafs". Be objective. Throw away emotion and what you want and seek what Allah wants. The truth is there.
                                Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 09-01-21, 12:02 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X