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

  • #76
    YahyaIbnSelam so you're part of HT or just interested in them?



    What do you think of the topics they discussed?

    Comment


    • #77
      Ottoman province of Karaman, yes.

      Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
      How do you know that what I have linked is not an objective appraisal? You haven't even read it, its written in an western academic style, not Islamic scholarly one, and it references orientalist opinions etc.

      It seems you think the western orientalist is the objective judge of your religion. Why do you have such an obsession with the west, their academia, western democracy, liberalism etc.?

      I'm guessing you agree with the statement of Abduh (al-Mubtadi') who said:



      The essence of modernism and Islamic reformism.
      I did not say it is not objective. I had looked through the document but it has a very large scope. Muslims can write objective, too, of course, but that is seldom because that genre is not prevalent with Sharia scholars whose main work is to prove their own point, which is not a bad thing in itself, just a different genre.

      I know that statement of shaykh Abduh, but I strongly disagree with that appraisal of Western society. Islam is a whole. Ethics and justice are located in the same equation with obedience, which is all maruf and hasan. so they cannot be separated either. The only thing one can say about a moral disbeliever is that he would make a good believer. Such way of thinking as mentioend reminds me of the wrong Iman is ilm position, which suggests that non-believers are just ignorant of Islam. Yet in reality there are many disbelievers refusing to submit to Allah, despite their knowledge of the religion and its proofs. Besides that, I want to remind you that sheikhulislam Mustafa Sabri Efendi mentioned Abduh as al-sheikh, and al-marhum. There is no need to denigrate your opponent.

      I am not with HT, its program is autocratic based on a wrong understanding of the Sharia. He calls it a hukm shari, whereas scholars have discussed whether the caliphate is even obligatory by reason or by Sharia (see al-Mawardi's book). Yet he assumes that every rule is set by the Sharia, whereas disagreement existed even on the fundament. They demand AFAIK everyone to give bay'a to their Imam and they apply the hadiths on bay'a and jama'a on this issue, as if there was not any other jama'a working towards the caliphate, which is only the last stage of our goal. Defending Muslims at all levels but especially their lives and establishing Sharia rule at the local level is more urgent than establishing a global caliphate by collecting bay'a for their Imam, which is not a tangible strategy anyway. Nonetheless, I appreciate their subsidiary political work. They would make a good political party in the Islamic republic.

      You seem bad at guessing people brother, so I recommend you to avoid it and just be open, not attempting to fit people into categories.
      Last edited by YahyaIbnSelam; 19-03-21, 07:37 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


      • #78
        Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
        I did not say it is not objective. I had looked through the document but it has a very large scope. Muslims can write objective, too, of course, but that is seldom because that genre is not prevalent with Sharia scholars whose main work is to prove their own point, which is not a bad thing in itself, just a different genre.

        I know that statement of shaykh Abduh, but I strongly disagree with that appraisal of Western society. Islam is a whole. Ethics and justice are located in the same equation with obedience, which is all maruf and hasan. so they cannot be separated either. The only thing one can say about a moral disbeliever is that he would make a good believer. Such way of thinking as mentioend reminds me of the Iman is ilm position, which suggests that non-believers are just ignorant of Islam. Yet in reality there are many disbelievers refusing to submit to Allah, despite their knowledge of the religion and its proofs. Besides that, I want to remind you that sheikhulislam Mustafa Sabri Efendi mentioned Abduh as al-sheikh, and al-marhum. There is no need to denigrate your opponent.

        I am not with HT, its program seems autocratic to me.

        You seem bad at guessing people brother, so I recommend you to avoid it and just be open, not attempting to fit people into categories.
        Right. So you won't read it because it has "large scope"... Also what you have said confirms my views of you - you consider the westerner to judge your religion objectively. I wonder how much orientalist literature you've read... That's interesting, if you are working to prove your own point, your subjective in your view. So you think orientalists do not have an agenda or points they seek to prove then?

        I retract what I said on Allah's slave Muhammad 'Abduh in light of hearing from a respected Shaykh that he repented at the end of his life. As for Shaykh al-Islam calling him "al-Shaykh", I mean he also pointed out that what he was calling to was clear-cut heresy, so its not like he was calling him that in recognition (at that time) of any orthodoxy, if that's the point you're trying to make. He likely knew what he had said at the end of his life. As for 'al-Marhum', this is just showing respect for the deceased.

        What are you using to judge that a disbeliever is "moral", and would you consider western society "moral"?

        HT is democratic and constitutionalist, you know that as much as I do. You were the one promoting some literature they have not to long ago, and I've spoken to some of them, and they are of the exact same mindset as you. Do you wish for me to show you evidence of that or something?

        And what do you mean by be more open? I used to hold the views you do, although I debated whether parliamentary/presidential/semi-presidential is better etc. But you learn to think more critically, you learn more history, learn more about politics and political structure and come to the conclusion that it is actually a pretty bad system. There is no Muslim scholar who gave me that view on democracy, no disbeliever either. I just critically examined it, and realised it is flawed. Insha'Allah you'll come to the same conclusion eventually, if you are critical enough. (On top of that though it also contradicts the Sunnah)

        You say I am bad at guessing, but I've essentially guessed your perspective, not that this was some kind of goal. Fitting people into categories is what I do best, people are naive enough to think they are unique and there are none others like them. Western civilisation thinks this of itself. Its just a repeat of a cycle that is hundreds and thousands of years old. The same ideas, including denialism, thinking he is "progressing" etc. that we have seen since ancient times. Man doesn't change, he thinks he changes, but he makes the same mistakes, uses the same logic, etc. over and over again.

        It is a good idea for us to ponder on the Prophets Alayhim Salam and their missions.

        Ottoman province of Karaman, yes.
        Ottoman province? That's over a hundred years ago... So your grandparents or great-grandparents migrated? Tell me more about that, sounds interesting.

        Also, how did your ancestors answer the call to Jihad? What were their experiences of the great war like?
        Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 19-03-21, 08:33 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

          What are you using to judge that a disbeliever is "moral", and would you consider western society "moral"?

          HT is democratic and constitutionalist, you know that as much as I do. You were the one promoting some literature they have not to long ago, and I've spoken to some of them, and they are of the exact same mindset as you. Do you wish for me to show you evidence of that or something?
          Moral in the sense of Abdullah b. Jud'an.
          قُلتُ: يا رَسولَ اللهِ، ابنُ جُدْعانَ كانَ في الجاهِلِيَّةِ يَصِلُ الرَّحِمَ، ويُطْعِمُ المِسْكِينَ، فَهلْ ذاكَ نافِعُهُ؟ قالَ: لا يَنْفَعُهُ، إنَّه لَمْ يَقُلْ يَوْمًا: رَبِّ اغْفِرْ لي خَطِيئَتي يَومَ الدِّينِ..

          الراوي: عائشة أم المؤمنين | المحدث: مسلم | المصدر: صحيح مسلم
          الصفحة أو الرقم: 214
          خلاصة حكم المحدث: [صحيح]
          التخريج: أخرجه مسلم (214))



          I did not know that HT supported constitutional democratic government, that is delightening to hear. Probably that is only in the final stage, after they have established the caliphate as the vanguard party, right? So still they are insisting that people pledge allegiance to them, in exclusion of other movements. Correct me if I am wrong.

          “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


          • #80
            Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post

            Moral in the sense of Abdullah b. Jud'an.
            قُلتُ: يا رَسولَ اللهِ، ابنُ جُدْعانَ كانَ في الجاهِلِيَّةِ يَصِلُ الرَّحِمَ، ويُطْعِمُ المِسْكِينَ، فَهلْ ذاكَ نافِعُهُ؟ قالَ: لا يَنْفَعُهُ، إنَّه لَمْ يَقُلْ يَوْمًا: رَبِّ اغْفِرْ لي خَطِيئَتي يَومَ الدِّينِ..

            الراوي: عائشة أم المؤمنين | المحدث: مسلم | المصدر: صحيح مسلم
            الصفحة أو الرقم: 214
            خلاصة حكم المحدث: [صحيح]
            التخريج: أخرجه مسلم (214))
            This is not "moral", this is showing kindness. Even in an extremely immoral society which allows people to marry animals etc. you can get kind people who give charity or stop one societal wrong. "Moral" is the wrong word. The same person could be involved in something very immoral - would you count this kindness as a sort of morality? So e.g. a man who eats human flesh (of his deceased father) and is married to another man, feeds some orphans, stops murder, helps Muslims etc. He's moral is he?

            The biggest immorality is to not worship only and consider divine only Allah Azza Wa Jal.

            Originally posted by YahyaIbnSelam View Post
            I did not know that HT supported constitutional democratic government, that is delightening to hear. Probably that is only in the final stage, after they have established the caliphate as the vanguard party, right? So still they are insisting that people pledge allegiance to them, in exclusion of other movements. Correct me if I am wrong.
            Not that I want you to support HT and their laughable concept of "Islamic" democracy, though you have in the past, I find it funny that you are irked by them requiring people to pledge 'allegiance' to them in exclusion of other movements. So what is it that you exactly want? People to join different movements and parties and then form the Khilafah together or something? You actually support Partisan politics?

            Optimates and Populares, they're unavoidable.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

              This is not "moral", this is showing kindness. Even in an extremely immoral society which allows people to marry animals etc. you can get kind people who give charity or stop one societal wrong. "Moral" is the wrong word. The same person could be involved in something very immoral - would you count this kindness as a sort of morality? So e.g. a man who eats human flesh (of his deceased father) and is married to another man, feeds some orphans, stops murder, helps Muslims etc. He's moral is he?

              The biggest immorality is to not worship only and consider divine only Allah Azza Wa Jal.

              Moral means: "1. Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. 2. Holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct." (Oxford Lexico.com)

              Considering that disbelievers cannot know everything which is right and wrong via reason, especially so according to Ash'arites, their fault is in failing to submit to the Sharia. Maturidi scholars say some good can be established by reason before revelation. Do you konw any details on that?

              You are right when we see that right and wrong is universal and not relative, besides constituting a whole. Obviously disbelievers hold a different moral, but it does overlap with ours, with the univeral Islamic ethics. The second sense does not seem wrong: people may have high principles, while failing on others. Also, which word do you find more appropriate? Decent, right-minded, benevolent, gracious, honest, principled? It is not always about charity. People may stand up against injustice. They may be honest and refrain from cheating, lying and scamming. Reject bribes.

              We see in the narrations on Hilf al-Fudul and Hilf al-Mutayyabin words used such as al-mutayyabin (lit. making good and better) and non-believers making amr bil-maruf by fighting injustice. I have heard of the position that non-Muslims are not to be considered just/adil, but I assume there is some limitation for evident matters we can know by reason they are good. These are no judgements/hukm, but evident behaviour.

              Even if we do not call non-believers moral, they can certainly act morally. And we may call them mutayyab.

              لقدْ شَهِدْتُ في دارِ عبدِ اللهِ بنِ جُدْعانَ حِلْفًا، لو دُعِيتُ به في الإسلامِ لأَجَبْتُ، تَحالَفوا أنْ يَرُدُّوا الفُضولَ على أهْلِها، وأنْ لا يعد ظالمٌ مَظلومًا..

              الراوي: محمد وعبدالرحمن بن أبي بكر | المحدث: ابن الملقن | المصدر: البدر المنير
              الصفحة أو الرقم: 7/325
              خلاصة حكم المحدث: صحيح

              - شَهِدتُ حِلفَ المُطَيَّبين مع عمومتي وأنا غلامٌ، فما أحِبُّ أنَّ لي حُمرَ النَّعَم وأني أنكُثُه .

              الراوي: عبدالرحمن بن عوف | المحدث: الهيثمي | المصدر: مجمع الزوائد
              الصفحة أو الرقم: 8/175
              خلاصة حكم المحدث: [رجاله] رجال الصحيح


              Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
              Not that I want you to support HT and their laughable concept of "Islamic" democracy, though you have in the past, I find it funny that you are irked by them requiring people to pledge 'allegiance' to them in exclusion of other movements. So what is it that you exactly want? People to join different movements and parties and then form the Khilafah together or something? You actually support Partisan politics?

              Optimates and Populares, they're unavoidable.
              I support a majlis shura of Islamic movements with central command for the time being, similar to now-dissolved Jaysh al-Fath in Syria.
              Last edited by YahyaIbnSelam; 21-03-21, 06:49 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


              • #82
                Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
                Point 3: Materialism, "Oh look at the West!" and the Tanzimat
                It got to a point where Ottoman intellectuals (not necessarily the traditional Ulama) were questioning why this decline was taking place. Of course one should note that at this point the decline was mainly materialistic - I.e. the Ottoman's were concerned with a decline in wealth... What does that tell you about their mindset?

                So these Ottoman intellectuals started looking through the books to find the cause of the decline. They came upon a book not well received by the other Scholars of its time: The Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun. This book fascinates me as it reveals much that is wrong with the Islamic mindset. To this day you will get Muslims who praise the book and Ibn Khaldun as being a genius. For Westerners it is more important - it lays the foundation for western Sociology. At its time though great scholars like Ibn Hajar (rahimullah) criticised the book - and by the way this is a book which exhibits mild racism and glorification of "Asabiyya" (Tribalism which the Prophet Sallahu Alayhi Wa Salam condemned). Ibn Khaldun's whole thesis in the book, unsupported by Quran or Hadith, is that societies decline due to being less tribalistic (cohesive) and becoming more settled. So what did the Ottoman scholars think? "We need to be more tribalistic" This is the root of the development of "Ottomanism". Another thing Ibn Khaldun does is that he praises and glorifies the Greeks, and criticises the Muslims for being critical of the Greeks. This and the material success of the West caused these intellectuals to turn to examine the west.

                Of course what they found were peoples much more materially developed and much more nationalistic (the Asabiyya of Ibn Khaldun). The Ottomans started to compare themselves to the the west and the Ottoman upper class started to buy western luxury goods. An obsession developed. Then between the late 18th and 19th century something unthinkable happened.

                The Ottomans abandoned the Sharia.

                Go and take a look at Ottoman decline before the Tanzimat. Its talked about a lot but... Is it practically there? When did the Ottoman empire start losing land? When did the empire which had never taken a foreign loan go bankrupt? When did they start having problems with the Armenians and the Greeks? All in the Tanzimat period.

                In the Tanzimat period, the Ottoman empire reformed. They did several things which utterly destroyed them.
                1. Over time they implemented 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?
                2. They overhauled the tax system, introducing western-style income taxes. The Muslims did not implement Income taxes until the Tanzimat period - taxes were on property and goods. Think about how this effected the financial situation of the common people.
                3. They crushed the Awqaf system, centralizing it and bringing it under their control. The Awqaf system is a broad system of charitable endowments unique to Islam. It allowed us to have healthcare without paying for it (directly or through tax), it allowed pilgrims to have free lodging.
                4. They started to take out foreign loans (terrible idea - a war on Allah and his messenger and it led to their bankruptcy).
                5. They ignored or imprisoned the Ulama.
                What do I mean by the last one? During the Tanzimat period there was an Ottoman sultan who imprisoned his Sheikh-ul-Islam after he refused to give a fatwa allowing the massacre of Greeks as payment for some of them rebelling. This is what these Sultans of this period thought of the scholars.

                Western ideas proliferated and the old system of Jizya was abolished (awful idea) and replaced with this idea that all the millets (the religious communities) were equal. As these communities got access to this "freedom", western ideas of nationalism proliferated leading rebellion and discontent.

                In this period the Ottoman upper class were now addicted to importing western goods and they taught their children French. What does this tell you of their mindset?

                Of course in this period the Ottomans lost a lot of territory both in the Balkans and in the Muslim heartlands. The Ottoman elite became addicted to western ideas and democracy was advocated. They established a parliament.
                I would like to correct the record here after further reading on this topic.

                From what I said it seemed that the Tanzimat incursion against the Sharia was quite widespread and brutal as far as 'implementing western laws' goes. These ideas can be found in some material I read in Modern Islamist works recounting and criticising the Ottomans during this period (I linked one of these at one point too). To be honest though Tanzimat incursions against Shar'ia have widely exaggerated in those accounts and in what I have written. This doesn't take away from the broader points I was making in those posts, but is nevertheless an important detail to correct.

                Brother YahyaIbnSelam first opened my mind to this with what he had said at one point. So Insha'Allah I will provide a more accurate explanation, based off of what is more historically accurate as far as I know, on roughly what the Tanzimat incursions against the Sharia were:

                Overview of Pre-Tanzimat Ottoman Legal System

                This is what I would refer to as 'Full' Shari'a. It was based off of the Hanafi Madhab and was uncodified and subject to the Intra-Madhhab Ijtihad of the scholars (the late Imam Ibn Abidin and his works are a perfect example of that.)

                Shari'a itself can be roughly divided into three components:
                1. Ibadat (Personal Worship Law - the Fiqh we all deal with on a daily basis regardless of what country we are in, dealing with Wudu, Salah, Zakah, Fasting (Sawm), Hajj etc.)
                2. Mu'amalat (Civil Law - Dealing with transactions, business law, property ownership, slavery, agency, marriage, inheritance, child-custody etc.)
                3. Uqubat (Criminal Law - Dealing with punishment for crimes including Ta'zeer, Hudood, and Qisas.)

                Outside/complementary to Shari'a was Urf (Customary Law) and the Qanuns of the rulers (you can think of this as executive orders that relate to administration, orders given to military personnel and matters pertaining to rulership - these decrees also have a basis in the Khulafah ar-Rashidin and Sunnah of RasulAllah Alayhis Salam though obviously certain Ottoman Sultans not unlike the Abbassid before them gave questionable decrees e.g. the fraticide of princes present in the earlier empire - Qanun though has never been perfect since the fall of the Khulafah ar-Rashidin). The rulers also held control of the practical implementation of Shari'a, policing etc.

                Sometimes specific pre-Tanzimat Ottoman Sultans would also enact some ridiculous measures as far as implemation of the Sharia goes, though these were supposedly done in the public interest and did have some loose albeit questionable basis in the Sunnah e.g. an Ottoman Ruler famously bringing back the death penalty for drinking alcohol to curb societal degeneracy (which was abrogated in the Prophet Alayhis Salam's time + he Alayhis Salam only levied this on the third offence unlike our ruthless Ottoman ruler).

                So whilst it wasn't some kind of utopian or near-utopian implementation of the Shari'a, nevertheless is was a complete and uncodified implementation of it. What followed this was a scaling back in some areas during the Tanzimat and then a return to a complete implementation in the Hamidian period, albeit with codification.

                Ottoman Tanzimat Era Reforms

                Yes some of Shari'a was compromised, but not at all to the degree I previously suggested. The Hudood were left untouched (with one sort-of exception). For example, if you stole in that period or killed someone you would still get the Hadd punishment and Qisas if applicable. Most of the changes to the state legal framework were in the Mu'amalat (Civil Law) and to Taz'eer punishments - the former is indeed breaking away from Shari'a in certain aspects whilst the latter is arguably within the scope of Shari'a (especially when we go into where these changes orginate from).

                Now technically there was no proscribed punishment according to the 1858 penal code act for Homosexual Sodomy - that is correct. But this is only half the story, the fact of the matter is that the official position of the Hanafi school, and of Imam al-Azam, is that there is no proscribed punishment for that act. It is a Ta'zeer offence. Technically the penal code did not at all legalise that, it merely (by accident rather than intention) left out stipulating what the punishment should be. So no Sodomy wasn't legalised either.

                Things that were compromised:
                • Uncodified nature of Shari'a - this continued to be compromised even after the State returned to what I would describe as 'Full' Islamic Law under Sultan Abdul Hamid II, with the passing of the Majalla - as the Majalla itself was a codification of Hanafi Mu'amalat, discluding what the Sultan ordered to be discluded (marriage and inheritance if I remember correctly).
                • Aspects of Mu'amalat e.g. certain types of Riba even at times were permitted (then prohibited even during the same period). It is well known that the Ottoman State got itself into a debt crisis during this period too (reminding me of al-Qur'an, Surah al-Baqarah 279). Non-Muslim financial institutions prevailed in the Tanzimat era, with many a western-style bank being set up.
                • Sunnah method of punishment of the Tazeer - Discretionary Lashings were done away with (some argue this is not a requirement but nevertheless against the Sunnah, though I still view it as an abberation to get rid of this).
                • The de jure execution of the Murtadeen was stopped in 1844 just after the beheading of some Armenian Murtad stoked international animosity from the likes of the British and the French. This is the one sort-of exception to the fact that they did not touch the Hudood. Now technically the Ottomans of course did not actually stop executing the Murtadeen, they simply told the foreigners that it was banned, issuing certain edicts. In practice though the Ottoman public were not told this and the Murtadeen were still executed - a Murtad in one of the provinces would be sent to Istanbul (secretly as far as the locals were concerned, to not rise local protest against the Hudood apparently not being implemented), where the foreigners would witness them being imprisoned instead of being executed. Then after things had cooled down and largely forgotten, the prisoner would 'escape' if you catch my drift. In fact they sometimes even 'escaped'on route to Istanbul...
                There were some other things that were unislamic without relating law itself - e.g. the abandonment of the Alsina-i-Thalatha ('Three Languages' that were the official/court languages of the Empire up till that point - Arabic, Farsi and Ottoman Turkish), with only Ottoman Turkish being made official (and members of the public worryingly given increasing importance to French etc.) This distancing from the language of RasulAllah Alayhis Salam cannot be said to be Islamic. There was indeed actions taken against the teaching of other than Ottoman Turkish, and though these actions were repealed and acted against during the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid (who in particular promoted Arabic under the Pan-Islamism drive), the official bigotry against non-Turkish instruction in schools came back after he was deposed and the Tanzimat era-esque constitution re-instituted - so these actions had lasting changes (and of course led to the rise of Arab and Turkish Nationalism which in essence led to the destruction of the Khilafah in the end).

                As I mentioned previously, the Millet System and Awqaf etc. were also destroyed in this period, important Islamic institutions that date to the time of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and the Sahabah. The Millet system in particular has never again been instituted in any Muslim country since. You also had the introduction of paper money and other evils too.

                Was the Napoleonic Code Instituted?

                Yes, but the question is - how did this effect implementation of the Sharia?

                Well the bizarrre thing is: Not much.

                The Napoleonic Code is in turn based off of Maliki Fiqh... So much of the practical changes were simply a switch from valid interpretation of Shari'a to another and the Hudood were exempted of course from any changes. Nevertheless you did have some incursions against Shari'a in field of Mu'amalat as explained and the fact of codification cannot be denied either.

                Tanzimat Era Ottoman State - How should we view it?

                Well admittedly if you are the sort of person who naively thinks Saudi Arabia or Mauritania today are implementing the Shari'a 'comprehensively', then actually you would not have much of an issue with the Tanzimat Era Ottoman attacks on Shari'a, as the level of implementation is similar, though the Tanzimat era Ottoman State would still be considered more Islamic than these nation states in my view.

                Now I, like Insha'Allah most of you reading this, am not that kind of person. Compromise on the Shari'a in any aspect, whether that be in the Mu'amalat e.g. allowing Riba at times (with the innovators today attacking the prohibition of Riba an-Nasiya) or simply abandoning the method of discretionary punishment we have had since the time of the Prophet Alayhis Salam. So I still condemn the Ottoman Empire for lapsing in their implementation of the Shari'a in this period. The degree and extent of their lapse was simply mistakenly judged by myself in the past, but I remain of the view that there was a condemnable lapse. A Saudi/Mauritanian level of implementation of Shari'a, is not in my view an actual comprehensive implementation of it, I am not fooled by states that merely implement the Hudood on a surface level whilst allowing foreign interest-based banks to operate etc.

                Thankfully by Sultan Abdul Hamid's reign, these things changed though I do not like the codification present during his reign either, but that's an acceptable compromise comparatively.

                Really my views towards the Tanzimat Era Ottomans has not changed - they were heavily influenced by materialism and the west and this led to our downfall. To think we have some people who defend the likes of Saudi today when they get rid of corporal punishment for Ta'zeer speaks to our collective ignorance of our history, our inability to rightfully criticise the rulers (which some weak-willed individuals think is the same as calling for rebellion against them) and the apparent causes of such reforms.

                With the likes of Bin Salman saying the Non-Mutawatir Hadith are optional, it seems Allahu Alam we will only continue to see a decrease in Shar'ia implementation in certain regions in the future.
                Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 3 weeks ago.

                Comment

                Collapse

                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                Working...
                X