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

  • #46
    Originally posted by salaam_7cgen View Post
    When you look at ataturks law and compare it with tanzimat kufr reform you will see he came up with nothing jew he simply implemented those kufr laws and found it easy to make them active because the tanzimat kufr reform sultans who may have been kafir and had a confirmed kafir freemason had already began the implementation and sowed the seeds from before which allowed ataturk to easily accomplish his evil mission
    Was al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf, the Umayyad governor, a Muslim?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

      Point number one alone yes means that democracy is not immediately illegitimate. However, point 2 and 3 are wrong, it does contradict rules proscribed. As I've stated before, one can divide democracy into legislative and policy-based/executive. A legislative democracy is Shirk. As for a policy-based/executive democracy (or one where "legislation is in line with the Qur'an and Sunnah" etc.) that is against the Sunnah of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and the Sahabah, and against what the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam has ordered in that regards. It is also objectively a bad system - one has to analyse it critically to understand why.

      Point number 4 is wrong, there is a very basic sort of political system mandated by Islam. It is then up to the Amir how much power he does or does not want to delegate to others, but all that power ultimately rests with him and this is also shows by the Seerah of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and the Sahabah. I have given you Hadith in the past showing Autocracy (which I just use as a general term for one man rule) is what is mandates. The most one can argue for is that democracy (as a policy based system) is contrary to the Sunnah of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam, his Khulafah, and the Muslims throughout history.

      As for Democracy being an efficient system, I have addressed this in the past on another thread. It is not an efficient system, I mean there is some irony we are talking about this in the present political climate. Read this.

      The book I linked for you by the way, has some excellent points on this subject, why democracy is antithetical etc. If you do want me to bring evidence again, then I'll have to dig up that book on the Khulafah by as-Suyuti, as that book has some more detailed points that I'll need to refer to, but also my evidence can be found in the Kutub al-Sittah etc. and from works of Seerah as well.
      Originally posted by Stoic Believer View Post

      Setting aside whether or not democracy is antithetical to Islam, why do you believe democracy is the best system of governance for the Muslim world?

      I havenโ€™t read the entire thread so I apologize if youโ€™ve already answered this; if you have, then please direct me to the post.
      What I am foremost concerned for is peaceful transition of power between governments and the rule of law (preservation of rights as well as shar'i legitimacy), besides effective governance and a resolute foreign policy. I am content with any system that guarantees these principles. Democracies are more effective at forestalling the concentration of power at one person, thus enabling peaceful transitions and the effective rule of law. Muhammad Hasan's main political argument against democracies is that they are slower at decision making. Yet as he himself mentioned, there are many options to alleviate this disadvantage, such as giving the president more leverage in foreign policy. What I find problematic about his and many other Islamic movements' discourse is that they envisage the Muslim polity to be above politics, as if Allah ta'ala had absolved as of all problems and the caliph, once elected, would sit on a general consensus and by default lead us to success. This is an overly idealistic view that has lost touch with reality.

      Concerning your argument of democracy being mob rule, this is an elitist argument and founded on the traditional pessimistic view of man, here in particular the believers, whereas Allah has described our umma as a righteous one. Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato who criticised mob rule did not see the remedy in monarchy as you do, rather they supported a constitution agreed upon by all citizens, which I also do. The question here is, how to best preserve the constitution, which guarantees the rights of all, and how to seek the common good and avoid serving particularistic interests? You are right, a monarch can be a neutral patron giving everyone his due, as he was often portrayed in the Persianate tradition. But at the same time, he favours his own family, then his servants and the nobility. He perpetuates the unequal social hierarchy of classes. Poor people have to stay poor all their life long. This is how the traditional Ottoman system had been. No wonder your rule is stable then. Only equals (pashas and aghas) could challenge you, and that for some concessions, not for the seat of the sultanate.

      If we succeed in providing all citizens (the believers) general education, both Islamic and political, than there is no danger of mob rule. Everyone will abide by the constitution. To avoid an overturn by one group, be it a social group or a politicla jama'a, there are checks and balances in government institutions. Nobody can monopolise all power in himself. Scholars build the judiciary and education infrastructure, there is an Ifta Council (as in the Turkish Republic before being deactivated by secularsits, which they had been able to as they monopolised power, which should be avoided, and as they were brainwashed by secularists ideas, which should be avoided through education) or a supreme constitutional court, that supervises legislation over sharia conformance. This is just what the Muslim Brothers in Egypt under Mursi's presidency were about to establish with the constitution they had enacted, but they lacked the support of the judiciary and the army. Hence, it is important that there is a general Islamic revolution turning all state institutions to default and cleansing them of secularists, as was achieved in Iran. Afterwards, a multiparty rule is established, where Islamic parties vie for power peacefully, forwarding their politics programs. Politics is not the place for religious debates, which need to be worked out among scholarly circles. As for religious debates affecting legislation, the elected Imam may favour one mujtahid's/mufti's fatwa over another, as all mujtahids are recompensed. Of course, a healthy grassroots religious institution (similar in kind to the Azhar, or Ottoman Mashikhat) will guarantee that all muftis are qualified.

      I was in a casual try not able to access the book by Hizbu't Tahrir you linked me, as it is banned in Germany, but I can already imagine the way they speak on this issue. I strongly disagree with this methodology of yours, where you take ambiguous evidence for your points and declare one thing illegitimate (haram) and another obligatory (wajib/sunna). I don't remember the hadith you mentioned concerning autocracy, can you repost it? Besides, you have not provided any scriptural evidence buttressing your claim. There are many evidences where the Prophet favoured his companions' opinions. Such as in Uhud, where he was compelled to go the offensive despite preferring a defensive battle position.

      "It is by Allah's mercy that you are gentle to them; had you been harsh and hardhearted, they would have surely scattered from around you. So excuse them and plead for forgiveness for them, and consult them in the affairs, and once you are resolved, put your trust in Allah. Indeed Allah loves those who trust in Him." (Al Imran 159 translation) This verse is evidence that shura is binding. Once you consult, you must listen to the majority, as long as something is not prescribed by revelation, as was sometimes the case with the Prophet s.a.w. Arabs were an egalitarian society, they were not hierachic until the Umayyads. The story of the Badouin who warned Abu Bakr r.a. upon his election to the caliphate and the warning of another man to Umar concerning his share from the spoils of war, are points in case. After he is elected, the Imam has authority and the right to be obeyed. But Imamate and the pledge of alliance is with consent (rida). People were pleased with the righteous caliphs, except for single individuals. Hence, the Imam needs to be representative of his constituency. This is guaranteed when the majority of believers, through the Islamic parties, elect the Imam from amongst these parties nominees.


      Originally posted by salaam_7cgen View Post
      When you look at ataturks law and compare it with tanzimat kufr reform you will see he came up with nothing jew he simply implemented those kufr laws and found it easy to make them active because the tanzimat kufr reform sultans who may have been kafir and had a confirmed kafir freemason had already began the implementation and sowed the seeds from before which allowed ataturk to easily accomplish his evil mission
      I would like to remind you, and readers in general, that the Tanzimat period 1839-1876 covered many reformed law codes besides the two principal edicts of 1839 and 1856, as I attempted to explain across the posts. Scholars had a say in adopting these laws, and we should first look to the historical reception of these reforms instead of discarding all as imitation of the west or even disbelief, which is overly simplified, not balanced and further mistaken. These reforms also had good effects, on governance and rights. Sultans' absolutism, chopping down heads at will, was abolished. Sultan Mahmud II. had before Tanzimat slaughter many Albanians, and seized the property of many people to centralise power.
      โ€œLet whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day either speak good or be silent.โ€ โ€” Prophet Muhammad pbuh | ู…ูŽู† ูƒุงู†ูŽ ูŠูุคู’ู…ูู†ู ุจุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ูˆุงู„ู’ูŠูŽูˆู…ู ุงู„ุขุฎูุฑู ููŽู„ู’ูŠูŽู‚ูู„ู’ ุฎูŽูŠู’ุฑู‹ุงุŒ ุฃูˆู’ ู„ููŠุตู’ู…ูุชู’

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post



        What I am foremost concerned for is peaceful transition of power between governments and the rule of law (preservation of rights as well as shar'i legitimacy), besides effective governance and a resolute foreign policy. I am content with any system that guarantees these principles. Democracies are more effective at forestalling the concentration of power at one person, thus enabling peaceful transitions and the effective rule of law. Muhammad Hasan's main political argument against democracies is that they are slower at decision making. Yet as he himself mentioned, there are many options to alleviate this disadvantage, such as giving the president more leverage in foreign policy. What I find problematic about his and many other Islamic movements' discourse is that they envisage the Muslim polity to be above politics, as if Allah ta'ala had absolved as of all problems and the caliph, once elected, would sit on a general consensus and by default lead us to success. This is an overly idealistic view that has lost touch with reality.

        Concerning your argument of democracy being mob rule, this is an elitist argument and founded on the traditional pessimistic view of man, here in particular the believers, whereas Allah has described our umma as a righteous one. Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato who criticised mob rule did not see the remedy in monarchy as you do, rather they supported a constitution agreed upon by all citizens, which I also do. The question here is, how to best preserve the constitution, which guarantees the rights of all, and how to seek the common good and avoid serving particularistic interests? You are right, a monarch can be a neutral patron giving everyone his due, as he was often portrayed in the Persianate tradition. But at the same time, he favours his own family, then his servants and the nobility. He perpetuates the unequal social hierarchy of classes. Poor people have to stay poor all their life long. This is how the traditional Ottoman system had been. No wonder your rule is stable then. Only equals (pashas and aghas) could challenge you, and that for some concessions, not for the seat of the sultanate.

        If we succeed in providing all citizens (the believers) general education, both Islamic and political, than there is no danger of mob rule. Everyone will abide by the constitution. To avoid an overturn by one group, be it a social group or a politicla jama'a, there are checks and balances in government institutions. Nobody can monopolise all power in himself. Scholars build the judiciary and education infrastructure, there is an Ifta Council (as in the Turkish Republic before being deactivated by secularsits, which they had been able to as they monopolised power, which should be avoided, and as they were brainwashed by secularists ideas, which should be avoided through education) or a supreme constitutional court, that supervises legislation over sharia conformance. This is just what the Muslim Brothers in Egypt under Mursi's presidency were about to establish with the constitution they had enacted, but they lacked the support of the judiciary and the army. Hence, it is important that there is a general Islamic revolution turning all state institutions to default and cleansing them of secularists, as was achieved in Iran. Afterwards, a multiparty rule is established, where Islamic parties vie for power peacefully, forwarding their politics programs. Politics is not the place for religious debates, which need to be worked out among scholarly circles. As for religious debates affecting legislation, the elected Imam may favour one mujtahid's/mufti's fatwa over another, as all mujtahids are recompensed. Of course, a healthy grassroots religious institution (similar in kind to the Azhar, or Ottoman Mashikhat) will guarantee that all muftis are qualified.

        I was in a casual try not able to access the book by Hizbu't Tahrir you linked me, as it is banned in Germany, but I can already imagine the way they speak on this issue. I strongly disagree with this methodology of yours, where you take ambiguous evidence for your points and declare one thing illegitimate (haram) and another obligatory (wajib/sunna). I don't remember the hadith you mentioned concerning autocracy, can you repost it? Besides, you have not provided any scriptural evidence buttressing your claim. There are many evidences where the Prophet favoured his companions' opinions. Such as in Uhud, where he was compelled to go the offensive despite preferring a defensive battle position.

        "It is by Allah's mercy that you are gentle to them; had you been harsh and hardhearted, they would have surely scattered from around you. So excuse them and plead for forgiveness for them, and consult them in the affairs, and once you are resolved, put your trust in Allah. Indeed Allah loves those who trust in Him." (Al Imran 159 translation) This verse is evidence that shura is binding. Once you consult, you must listen to the majority, as long as something is not prescribed by revelation, as was sometimes the case with the Prophet s.a.w. Arabs were an egalitarian society, they were not hierachic until the Umayyads. The story of the Badouin who warned Abu Bakr r.a. upon his election to the caliphate and the warning of another man to Umar concerning his share from the spoils of war, are points in case. After he is elected, the Imam has authority and the right to be obeyed. But Imamate and the pledge of alliance is with consent (rida). People were pleased with the righteous caliphs, except for single individuals. Hence, the Imam needs to be representative of his constituency. This is guaranteed when the majority of believers, through the Islamic parties, elect the Imam from amongst these parties nominees.




        I would like to remind you, and readers in general, that the Tanzimat period 1839-1876 covered many reformed law codes besides the two principal edicts of 1839 and 1856, as I attempted to explain across the posts. Scholars had a say in adopting these laws, and we should first look to the historical reception of these reforms instead of discarding all as imitation of the west or even disbelief, which is overly simplified, not balanced and further mistaken. These reforms also had good effects, on governance and rights. Sultans' absolutism, chopping down heads at will, was abolished. Sultan Mahmud II. had before Tanzimat slaughter many Albanians, and seized the property of many people to centralise power.
        These are all good points.

        You speak of cleansing secularists and having only Islamic parties, but what measures are put in place to prevent the rise of secularist parties in the future?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Stoic Believer View Post

          These are all good points.

          You speak of cleansing secularists and having only Islamic parties, but what measures are put in place to prevent the rise of secularist parties in the future?
          This is a crucial question I was also lately reflecting over. My thoughts for now are:

          Secularism rose in a period where Islamic thought was less powerful in confronting it. There were only a few Muslim scholars who actively fought against the secularist tide. Many others were not acquainted with Western thought to understand it in the first place, while many others were themselves overwhelmed and taken by nationalist or socialist thought. We today, however, have many people well versed in Western thought and there are many Muslims in the West who know the Western civilisation with all its sides, unlike the past Muslism who from far away only came to see the glamour and might of Western civilisation. So, first of all, we are in a more advantageous position by the grace of Allah.

          This base of educated believers must dominate the public space and take upon themselves the leadership of the Muslim state. The constitution, the education sector and other state organs need to be shaped accordingly. When Islam is fixed in the constitution and the dominant public consent is in accordance with that, it will be difficult for anybody to go against it, because it is the societal consensus. This was not the case in the past, as people did not have a clear opinion on new currents of thought. There was no orientation. The supreme court may ban any party that disregards Islamic principles (as embodied in the constitution).

          Military organisations like the Taliban have it easier in this regard, because when they transform into the national army, they preserve their influence and establish a balance against any possible political threat to their victory. Afghanistan is not a good example here though, as the secularist camp is very weak there, but nonetheless we can infer that Islamic movement elsewhere need to care for a balance political, economic and military power simultaneously, as they are else dependent on others as was the case with the Muslim Brothers in Egypt or Necmettin Erbakan's movement in Turkey. Those who are not willing to take this path are forced to distort the Islamic project, as does Erdogan who is currently pushing an Islamo-nationalist agenda to appease his secular-nationalist coalition partners and even incorporating secularism and the legacy of Ataturk into his program; exactly the opposite of what the Islamic movement had hitherto achieved to fight.

          We may still have to work further on the intellectual level. The problem of secularism we have was not without parallel in Islamic history. In the Abbasid era there were also some Persian (and also Arab) bureaucrats like Ibn al-Muqaffa who were called zanadiqa and who disliked the Islamic character of the state. The esoteric (batini) Ismailites as well as naturalist philosophers some centuries later also posed a threat to the Muslim nation, whereupon Muslim scholars had to fight their falsehood. An Imam al-Ghazzali in the 11th century was among those scholars who were together able to establish an Islamic consensus all believers could relate to. Even prior that, the Abbasid caliph had attempted to establish a consensus by issuing a common creed. We have to achieve a similar degree of consensus and I believe we are on the path to it.
          Last edited by YahyaIbnSelam; 30-01-21, 10:24 AM.
          โ€œLet whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day either speak good or be silent.โ€ โ€” Prophet Muhammad pbuh | ู…ูŽู† ูƒุงู†ูŽ ูŠูุคู’ู…ูู†ู ุจุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ูˆุงู„ู’ูŠูŽูˆู…ู ุงู„ุขุฎูุฑู ููŽู„ู’ูŠูŽู‚ูู„ู’ ุฎูŽูŠู’ุฑู‹ุงุŒ ุฃูˆู’ ู„ููŠุตู’ู…ูุชู’

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

            Was al-Hajjaj bin Yusuf, the Umayyad governor, a Muslim?
            Yes he was viewed muslim but a tyrant by the majority muslim as umar ibn abdul aziz described him as the worst tyrant

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by salaam_7cgen View Post

              Yes he was viewed muslim but a tyrant by the majority muslim as umar ibn abdul aziz described him as the worst tyrant
              Did he change the law with regards the Jizya?

              What is the ruling upon such people who change Allah's law?

              I thought you made takfir of such people as you make takfir of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire during the Tanzimat.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                Did he change the law with regards the Jizya?

                What is the ruling upon such people who change Allah's law?

                I thought you made takfir of such people as you make takfir of the rulers of the Ottoman Empire during the Tanzimat.
                Hajjaj wasn't legalising and promoting incest and sodomites like tanzinat kufr did nor did he legalise the drinking of alcohol amongst the public to the point a ottoman meeting would have alcohol for everyone to drink or ban hudood of death penalty and one last example allow men women to dress like western world

                even many scholars of past especially from the tabieen called him a kafir made takfir on him and with this also as scholars said tyrants of the past like hajaj were not like today same with tanzimat ottoman kufr was not like that of even the abbasid mutazila where again acts if kufr were being done and it is a sect were scholars said some escaped the kufr others did not.

                Hence acts of kufr by a sultan or calipha were done by ummayad and abbasid aswell but tanzimat kufr reform was the worst out of the three

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post



                  What I am foremost concerned for is peaceful transition of power between governments and the rule of law (preservation of rights as well as shar'i legitimacy), besides effective governance and a resolute foreign policy. I am content with any system that guarantees these principles. Democracies are more effective at forestalling the concentration of power at one person, thus enabling peaceful transitions and the effective rule of law. Muhammad Hasan's main political argument against democracies is that they are slower at decision making. Yet as he himself mentioned, there are many options to alleviate this disadvantage, such as giving the president more leverage in foreign policy. What I find problematic about his and many other Islamic movements' discourse is that they envisage the Muslim polity to be above politics, as if Allah ta'ala had absolved as of all problems and the caliph, once elected, would sit on a general consensus and by default lead us to success. This is an overly idealistic view that has lost touch with reality.

                  Concerning your argument of democracy being mob rule, this is an elitist argument and founded on the traditional pessimistic view of man, here in particular the believers, whereas Allah has described our umma as a righteous one. Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato who criticised mob rule did not see the remedy in monarchy as you do, rather they supported a constitution agreed upon by all citizens, which I also do. The question here is, how to best preserve the constitution, which guarantees the rights of all, and how to seek the common good and avoid serving particularistic interests? You are right, a monarch can be a neutral patron giving everyone his due, as he was often portrayed in the Persianate tradition. But at the same time, he favours his own family, then his servants and the nobility. He perpetuates the unequal social hierarchy of classes. Poor people have to stay poor all their life long. This is how the traditional Ottoman system had been. No wonder your rule is stable then. Only equals (pashas and aghas) could challenge you, and that for some concessions, not for the seat of the sultanate.

                  If we succeed in providing all citizens (the believers) general education, both Islamic and political, than there is no danger of mob rule. Everyone will abide by the constitution. To avoid an overturn by one group, be it a social group or a politicla jama'a, there are checks and balances in government institutions. Nobody can monopolise all power in himself. Scholars build the judiciary and education infrastructure, there is an Ifta Council (as in the Turkish Republic before being deactivated by secularsits, which they had been able to as they monopolised power, which should be avoided, and as they were brainwashed by secularists ideas, which should be avoided through education) or a supreme constitutional court, that supervises legislation over sharia conformance. This is just what the Muslim Brothers in Egypt under Mursi's presidency were about to establish with the constitution they had enacted, but they lacked the support of the judiciary and the army. Hence, it is important that there is a general Islamic revolution turning all state institutions to default and cleansing them of secularists, as was achieved in Iran. Afterwards, a multiparty rule is established, where Islamic parties vie for power peacefully, forwarding their politics programs. Politics is not the place for religious debates, which need to be worked out among scholarly circles. As for religious debates affecting legislation, the elected Imam may favour one mujtahid's/mufti's fatwa over another, as all mujtahids are recompensed. Of course, a healthy grassroots religious institution (similar in kind to the Azhar, or Ottoman Mashikhat) will guarantee that all muftis are qualified.

                  I was in a casual try not able to access the book by Hizbu't Tahrir you linked me, as it is banned in Germany, but I can already imagine the way they speak on this issue. I strongly disagree with this methodology of yours, where you take ambiguous evidence for your points and declare one thing illegitimate (haram) and another obligatory (wajib/sunna). I don't remember the hadith you mentioned concerning autocracy, can you repost it? Besides, you have not provided any scriptural evidence buttressing your claim. There are many evidences where the Prophet favoured his companions' opinions. Such as in Uhud, where he was compelled to go the offensive despite preferring a defensive battle position.

                  "It is by Allah's mercy that you are gentle to them; had you been harsh and hardhearted, they would have surely scattered from around you. So excuse them and plead for forgiveness for them, and consult them in the affairs, and once you are resolved, put your trust in Allah. Indeed Allah loves those who trust in Him." (Al Imran 159 translation) This verse is evidence that shura is binding. Once you consult, you must listen to the majority, as long as something is not prescribed by revelation, as was sometimes the case with the Prophet s.a.w. Arabs were an egalitarian society, they were not hierachic until the Umayyads. The story of the Badouin who warned Abu Bakr r.a. upon his election to the caliphate and the warning of another man to Umar concerning his share from the spoils of war, are points in case. After he is elected, the Imam has authority and the right to be obeyed. But Imamate and the pledge of alliance is with consent (rida). People were pleased with the righteous caliphs, except for single individuals. Hence, the Imam needs to be representative of his constituency. This is guaranteed when the majority of believers, through the Islamic parties, elect the Imam from amongst these parties nominees.




                  I would like to remind you, and readers in general, that the Tanzimat period 1839-1876 covered many reformed law codes besides the two principal edicts of 1839 and 1856, as I attempted to explain across the posts. Scholars had a say in adopting these laws, and we should first look to the historical reception of these reforms instead of discarding all as imitation of the west or even disbelief, which is overly simplified, not balanced and further mistaken. These reforms also had good effects, on governance and rights. Sultans' absolutism, chopping down heads at will, was abolished. Sultan Mahmud II. had before Tanzimat slaughter many Albanians, and seized the property of many people to centralise power.
                  A small amount of good mixed with kufr is of no value

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by salaam_7cgen View Post

                    A small amount of good mixed with kufr is of no value
                    What kufr?
                    โ€œLet whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day either speak good or be silent.โ€ โ€” Prophet Muhammad pbuh | ู…ูŽู† ูƒุงู†ูŽ ูŠูุคู’ู…ูู†ู ุจุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ูˆุงู„ู’ูŠูŽูˆู…ู ุงู„ุขุฎูุฑู ููŽู„ู’ูŠูŽู‚ูู„ู’ ุฎูŽูŠู’ุฑู‹ุงุŒ ุฃูˆู’ ู„ููŠุตู’ู…ูุชู’

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by salaam_7cgen View Post

                      Hajjaj wasn't legalising and promoting incest and sodomites like tanzinat kufr did nor did he legalise the drinking of alcohol amongst the public to the point a ottoman meeting would have alcohol for everyone to drink or ban hudood of death penalty and one last example allow men women to dress like western world

                      even many scholars of past especially from the tabieen called him a kafir made takfir on him and with this also as scholars said tyrants of the past like hajaj were not like today same with tanzimat ottoman kufr was not like that of even the abbasid mutazila where again acts if kufr were being done and it is a sect were scholars said some escaped the kufr others did not.

                      Hence acts of kufr by a sultan or calipha were done by ummayad and abbasid aswell but tanzimat kufr reform was the worst out of the three
                      Sulaiman al-Aโ€™mash said:

                      I prayed the Friday prayer with al-Hajjaj and he addressed. He then transmitted the tradition of Abu Bakr b. โ€˜Ayyash. He said in it: Hear and obey the caliph of Allah and his select โ€˜Abd al-Malik bin Marwan. He then transmitted the rest of the tradition, and said: If I seized Rabiโ€™ah for Mudar. But he did not mention the story of the clients (i.e. non Arabs).

                      - Sunan Abi Dawud 4645
                      He prayed behind him. Can you tell me what that means? And that is despite him changing/distorting the Shariah (i.e. ruling by other than what Allah has legislated).

                      So I have to choose between you and al-A'mash Rahimullah Alay - a Tabi'i.

                      I think I'll go with him.
                      Note: I am not saying it isn't Kufr to believe in other legislators than Allah (which it is - in pariticular it is Shirk Billah), but there is a thin but important line between that and sinfully implementing or innovating laws against the Shariah. The Kufr comes from the belief and the intention of that, not from the action. The Ottoman rulers of the Tanzimat, as incompetant as they were, were not Kuffar. Nor did they consider Liwat Halal, despite enforcing

                      "western laws. They essentially adopted the french legal code. This means that technically (astaghfirullah) they would legalise homosexuality. Western punishments had to be administered - ask yourself how much disruption did this caused to the Qadis?"
                      I would say that even the Mongol rulers upon the Shahadah who enforced the Jasag code are Muslims.

                      I've made it clear exactly what needs to happen to declare a ruler a Kafir due to them performing Tashrih:

                      Summary - when is a testifying ruler performing Tashrih declared a disbeliever?

                      If a testifying ruler who performs the act of legislation so is in contravention of the Qur'an and Sunnah, believes in himself as a legislator (i.e. in the manner of Caesar, of Firaun etc.) besides Allah and so believes that it is Halal/Mubah to perform Tashrih, then he is declared a Mushrik.

                      If such a testifying ruler who performs the act of legislation so is in contravention of the Qur'an and Sunnah, however believes that Allah is alone the legislator and so that he may only implement in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah i.e. not in opposition to the Qur'an and Sunnah, then he is declared a Fasiq but still a Muslim.
                      Shirk is by belief in it and intention.

                      Even if a person ignorant of the present Shariah were to prostrate to other than Allah, it is only Shirk if Ibadah (worship) was intended. Also they are a Muslim and there is no sin if someone is forced to perform that act under threat of death. The only other type of Sajdah - Sajdah as-Sahw is Haram but not Shirk (it does not take one out of the fold of Islam). The same principle applies here. We make takfir on the one who performs the Sajdah of Ibadah, we make takfir on the ruler who believes in a legislator other than Allah Azza Wa Jal. In fact action is not required, mere belief of that is enough to render one out of the fold of Islam. Other people would make takfir based off of what they have evidence/testimony of - we cannot see into people's hearts.

                      So you would have to bring me explicit evidence that the Ottoman rulers of the Tanzimat period believed in a lawgiver (Musharri') indepedent of Allah (al-Shari').

                      This cannot be some statement of theirs where they implement some Kufr law where you take an inference rather they have to have stated, "I am a legislator apart from Allah" or "I dictate what is Halal and Haram independently of Allah" etc. things that clearly reflect the above. Then we will happily make Takfir. Such a person (who believes in a legislator independent of Allah) is not a Muslim. A person who declares something known by Muhkam, Qat'i text Haram to be Halal (and vice versa) is also not a Muslim, but there is a difference between this and the ruler who incompentantly implements a foreign legal code. Such a ruler clearly still believes in the Hurmah of Liwat.

                      The "Muslim" gay-rights activist is a Kafir, whilst the Ottoman ruler who implemented a french civil code (which permits Sodomy) is still a Muslim, albeit a Fasiq. If you asked that ruler, "is it permitted to perform the sin of the people of Lut Alayhis Salam", he would obviously say, "No," Similarly ruler who says he is a Muslim, in a Muslim land not implementing the Shariah in a Muslim land today e.g. due to international pressure, is a sinner but not a Kafir. Sultan Hassanul Bolkiah of Brunei is an open sinner not a Kafir. He would only be a Kafir if he believes in a legislator besides Allah, which it is evident he doesn't. Do you make takfir of Hassanul Bolkiah? Clearly you don't.

                      Otherwise al-A'mash Rahimullah Alay and others are correct. Al-Hajjaj was a tyrant and a fasiq but not a Kafir. I would go as far as saying he was a Mubtadi' (innovator). So too for any other Muslim rulers against whom you cannot prove believed in a legislator other than Allah. According to Islamic law, even the rulers are innocent until proven guilty, so present your evidences.

                      So until then, we say of them that they are sinful for not implementing Allah's law, when they know they should and they will answer to Him for that.

                      Note: It is arguable that there are such rulers/officials who you can make Takfir of who believed in themselves as legislators other than Allah, but you will have to bring evidence of that. Then we will make takfir.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Tashrih and ruling by other than what Allah has legislated is of course Haram. It is only Kufr however with the specific intention/belief in legislating independent of Allah.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Abu 'Abdullaah, what is your view on al-Hajjaj?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post



                            He prayed behind him. Can you tell me what that means? And that is despite him changing/distorting the Shariah (i.e. ruling by other than what Allah has legislated).

                            So I have to choose between you and al-A'mash Rahimullah Alay - a Tabi'i.

                            I think I'll go with him.
                            Note: I am not saying it isn't Kufr to believe in other legislators than Allah (which it is - in pariticular it is Shirk Billah), but there is a thin but important line between that and sinfully implementing or innovating laws against the Shariah. The Kufr comes from the belief and the intention of that, not from the action. The Ottoman rulers of the Tanzimat, as incompetant as they were, were not Kuffar. Nor did they consider Liwat Halal, despite enforcing



                            I would say that even the Mongol rulers upon the Shahadah who enforced the Jasag code are Muslims.

                            I've made it clear exactly what needs to happen to declare a ruler a Kafir due to them performing Tashrih:



                            Shirk is by belief in it and intention.

                            Even if a person ignorant of the present Shariah were to prostrate to other than Allah, it is only Shirk if Ibadah (worship) was intended. Also they are a Muslim and there is no sin if someone is forced to perform that act under threat of death. The only other type of Sajdah - Sajdah as-Sahw is Haram but not Shirk (it does not take one out of the fold of Islam). The same principle applies here. We make takfir on the one who performs the Sajdah of Ibadah, we make takfir on the ruler who believes in a legislator other than Allah Azza Wa Jal. In fact action is not required, mere belief of that is enough to render one out of the fold of Islam. Other people would make takfir based off of what they have evidence/testimony of - we cannot see into people's hearts.

                            So you would have to bring me explicit evidence that the Ottoman rulers of the Tanzimat period believed in a lawgiver (Musharri') indepedent of Allah (al-Shari').

                            This cannot be some statement of theirs where they implement some Kufr law where you take an inference rather they have to have stated, "I am a legislator apart from Allah" or "I dictate what is Halal and Haram independently of Allah" etc. things that clearly reflect the above. Then we will happily make Takfir. Such a person (who believes in a legislator independent of Allah) is not a Muslim. A person who declares something known by Muhkam, Qat'i text Haram to be Halal (and vice versa) is also not a Muslim, but there is a difference between this and the ruler who incompentantly implements a foreign legal code. Such a ruler clearly still believes in the Hurmah of Liwat.

                            The "Muslim" gay-rights activist is a Kafir, whilst the Ottoman ruler who implemented a french civil code (which permits Sodomy) is still a Muslim, albeit a Fasiq. If you asked that ruler, "is it permitted to perform the sin of the people of Lut Alayhis Salam", he would obviously say, "No," Similarly ruler who says he is a Muslim, in a Muslim land not implementing the Shariah in a Muslim land today e.g. due to international pressure, is a sinner but not a Kafir. Sultan Hassanul Bolkiah of Brunei is an open sinner not a Kafir. He would only be a Kafir if he believes in a legislator besides Allah, which it is evident he doesn't. Do you make takfir of Hassanul Bolkiah? Clearly you don't.

                            Otherwise al-A'mash Rahimullah Alay and others are correct. Al-Hajjaj was a tyrant and a fasiq but not a Kafir. I would go as far as saying he was a Mubtadi' (innovator). So too for any other Muslim rulers against whom you cannot prove believed in a legislator other than Allah. According to Islamic law, even the rulers are innocent until proven guilty, so present your evidences.

                            So until then, we say of them that they are sinful for not implementing Allah's law, when they know they should and they will answer to Him for that.

                            Note: It is arguable that there are such rulers/officials who you can make Takfir of who believed in themselves as legislators other than Allah, but you will have to bring evidence of that. Then we will make takfir.
                            Comparing tanzimat rulers kufr to lut alayuwasallam wife makes it clear ottoman tanzimat rulers were far worse then her in kufr.

                            All the comparisons you made has no link to the tanzimar kufr reform scenario

                            Your post is mixed with assumptions anyone can assume anything, besides the wife of lut alayuwasallam would never commit sodomite this is confirmed in the quran, yet she was still confirmed a kafir, the ottoman tanzimat rulers were far worse then her infact they even began the acceptance legalising of incest, hence these are not assumption these are facts

                            Second scholars who made takfir on al hajjaj had valid reasons to do so and were on the right from their point of view no on can criticise them here, even those who disagreed with them said they had their valid reasons, so Muslim including myself who viewed him a sinner tyrant would no doubt pray behind him however those who made the takfri they obviously wouldn't pray behind him because from their point of view the scenario was different

                            The ottoman tanzimat kufr many of the ottoman scholars resigned afterwards and although some didn't make takfir they still couldn't deny that those tanzimat rulers were doing clear kufr and this they admitted the acts of kufr were being done, they simply refrained from doing takfir on those rulers

                            Either way this doesn't matter because in my original post I said they were doing clear acts of kufr, and with this I add on the day of judgment we will find out if they were are kafir or not, murad v was a kafir because he was a open freemason the rest of the tanzimat kufr reform rulers did clear acts of kufr and we will find out on the day of judgment if they are kafir or not

                            Fact remains tanzimat record was a clear act of kufr
                            Major kufr was done which were in a different level compared to hajjaj, if you can't compare the taghits of today like house of saud to hajjaj then the tanzimat reform rulers were far worse in many of their kufr, hence the comparison was wrong to begin with.

                            again the Brunei situation isn't even comparable to tanzimat infact all examples you used were flawed to be compared to tanzimat kufr reform

                            Conclusion here is the tanzimat kufr rulers were doing kufr and if a good muslim empire existed at that point them rebelling against them would have been valid unfortunately that wasn't the case Allah had other plans and the tanzimat kufr reform made ataturks job easier to do



                            Last edited by salaam_7cgen; 05-02-21, 12:00 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by salaam_7cgen View Post

                              Comparing tanzimat rulers kufr to lut alayuwasallam wife makes it clear ottoman tanzimat rulers were far worse then her in kufr.

                              All the comparisons you made has no link to the tanzimar kufr reform scenario

                              Your post is mixed with assumptions anyone can assume anything, besides the wife of lut alayuwasallam would never commit sodomite this is confirmed in the quran, yet she was still confirmed a kafir, the ottoman tanzimat rulers were far worse then her infact they even began the acceptance legalising of incest, hence these are not assumption these are facts
                              I mean I know that a lot of people who have discussions with me skim through some of my longer posts but this is getting ridiculous. Actually read what I write, it's not going to harm your beliefs - you can think for yourself right?

                              This cannot be some statement of theirs where they implement some Kufr law where you take an inference rather they have to have stated, "I am a legislator apart from Allah" or "I dictate what is Halal and Haram independently of Allah" etc. things that clearly reflect the above. Then we will happily make Takfir. Such a person (who believes in a legislator independent of Allah) is not a Muslim. A person who declares something known by Muhkam, Qat'i text Haram to be Halal (and vice versa) is also not a Muslim, but there is a difference between this and the ruler who incompentantly implements a foreign legal code. Such a ruler clearly still believes in the Hurmah of Liwat.

                              The "Muslim" gay-rights activist is a Kafir, whilst the Ottoman ruler who implemented a french civil code (which permits Sodomy) is still a Muslim, albeit a Fasiq. If you asked that ruler, "is it permitted to perform the sin of the people of Lut Alayhis Salam", he would obviously say, "No," Similarly ruler who says he is a Muslim, in a Muslim land not implementing the Shariah in a Muslim land today e.g. due to international pressure, is a sinner but not a Kafir.
                              Now the wife of Lut Alayhis Salam relates to this how? She would come under the gay rights activist. You don't even read half of what I write, I agree with you that merely believing in Kufr is enough to render you outside the fold of Islam. The wife of Lut Alayhis Salam never commited a Haram act, but believed the Haram is Halal - this is what I was stating - we judge based off of beliefs and intentions not actions.

                              You've acted as if I have stated that one is required to act a Haram to be a Kafir, rather one can even perform a Haram action and not be a Kafir. Is the Sodomite who believes what he is doing is Haram, a Kafir? No!

                              Ask the wife of Lut Alayhis Salam, is liwat halal, she says: "Yes" - she's a Kafir.

                              Ask Sultan AbdulAziz, is liwat halal, he says, "No!" - he's a Muslim. Moreover you have no clear evidence that he believes in a Musharri' other than Allah.

                              So you're only proving my point - the wife of Lut Alayhis Salam believed that the Haram is Halal so is a Kafir. As I said "Shirk is by belief and intention", the mere act of performing Haram or not politically enforcing the correct laws, is an act not a belief. It is a sinful act. The Muslim homophile who acts on his desires is sinful, commiting a major and disgusting sin, but he is still a Muslim. As for even a normal person who even believes that liwat is Halal (and some of these people will distort the clear Ayat of the Qur'an to attempt to prove it), that person is a Kafir.


                              again the Brunei situation isn't even comparable to tanzimat infact all examples you used were flawed to be compared to tanzimat kufr reform
                              Does the Sultan of Brunei enforce Shariah law? Of course not. So what is he enforcing? He is enforcing English Common Law.

                              You seriously haven't even thought this through. You say that if a ruler rules by other than Allah (this is an act) that such a ruler is a Kafir, and yet you refuse to even be consistent in applying your principles. You then accuse me of somehow believing that one requires do perform an act in order for Takfir to be made (I mean I am literally arguing the exact opposite of that!)

                              The ottoman tanzimat kufr many of the ottoman scholars resigned afterwards and although some didn't make takfir they still couldn't deny that those tanzimat rulers were doing clear kufr and this they admitted the acts of kufr were being done, they simply refrained from doing takfir on those rulers

                              Either way this doesn't matter because in my original post I said they were doing clear acts of kufr, and with this I add on the day of judgment we will find out if they were are kafir or not, murad v was a kafir because he was a open freemason the rest of the tanzimat kufr reform rulers did clear acts of kufr and we will find out on the day of judgment if they are kafir or not
                              And this is my entire point!

                              Why are you making Takfir based off of acts of Kufr? Takfir is based off of belief and intention - what evidence do you have that they believed in a legislator other than Allah? None. Bring a statement where one says, "I am a legislator independent of Allah" and I'm sure even our resident democrat YahyaIbnSelam will make takfir.

                              And what are these acts? If ruling by other than what Allah has revealed (the act thereof) was Kufr, then you should have been consistent in your Takfir.

                              As for the freemasonry etc. we do not look into peoples hearts. We can't. That is an issue for the day of judgement - you said it yourself. Unless you have clear evidence of the person holding Kufr beliefs, you cannot make Takfir. What does the Kafir do? He covers the truth in his heart because he doesn't have belief. The one who does have belief but commits sinful acts is not a Kafir.

                              What is this to you? Some kind of game? "Guess the Kafir"? Is your religion in Takfir or something? Why are you so addicted to it??

                              Let us say there is a brother who is a Munafiq. But outwardly he professes Islam. Now you suspect something as you have seen him drink Alcohol before and eat pork. (e.g. as some said of Damat Ferid Pasha) Can you make Takfir? No. Never. Until he openly states Kufr, you cannot make takfir of him, we base our judgement on the outward, we do not play some kind of kufr-guessing game!

                              Takfir is a serious issue not something for you play around with and hope you guess is correct.

                              The one who makes such baseless Takfir of a Muslim is himself a Kafir.

                              Narrated Abu Huraira:

                              Allah's Messenger (๏ทบ) said, "If a man says to his brother, O Kafir (disbeliever)!' Then surely one of them is such (i.e., a Kafir). "

                              - Sahih al-Bukhari 6103
                              Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 05-02-21, 05:44 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Tashrih and the act of ruling by other than what Allah has legislated is of course Haram. It is only Kufr however with the specific intention/belief in legislating independent of Allah.

                                The rulers who otherwise testify to be Muslims, are Muslims but they are sinful due to ruling by other than what Allah has legislated.

                                E.g. Erdogan is a sinful Muslim, not a Kafir.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X