Recent Aleppo Updates

[anatolian]

Imaam ibn Katheer رحمة الله عليه mentions in his Tafseer that whosoever allies himself with the Kuffaar against Muslims becomes a Kaafir himself.

I thought so..

It would be a very long discussion but simply Ottomans were heroes of Islam even before taking the Khilafah in 1517. Each century they got more corrupted just like all other Muslims. However, they were legitimate until 1918. Your critics may apply to the period after 1918. But technically there was not an Ottoman Empire after 1918. It was a period of under control by the occupying forces. However, They were %100 legitimate until 1918.

I have been writing in discussion boards more than ten years. I have been to foreign countries in real life as well. I can assure you, I have been respected by other Muslims just becuse I am Turk. This is because of my ancestors' service to Islam I gues..Tthere is a romantic connection between today's Turkish people to Turko-Islamic history.

 

[Cherub786]

I thought so..

It would be a very long discussion but simply Ottomans were heroes of Islam even before taking the Khilafah in 1517. Each century they got more corrupted just like all other Muslims. However, they were legitimate until 1918. Your critics may apply to the period after 1918. But technically there was not an Ottoman Empire after 1918. It was a period of under control by the occupying forces. However, They were %100 legitimate until 1918.

I have been writing in discussion boards more than ten years. I have been to foreign countries in real life as well. I can assure you, I have been respected by other Muslims just becuse I am Turk. This is because of my ancestors' service to Islam I gues..Tthere is a romantic connection between today's Turkish people to Turko-Islamic history.

The Ottomans were just another ordinary government and dynasty like many other dynasties and governments past and present (i.e., the Ummayads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, Mughals, Ghaznavids, Saudis, etc.). What is so special about the Ottomans?

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

The Ottomans were just another ordinary government and dynasty like many other dynasties and governments past and present (i.e., the Ummayads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, Mughals, Ghaznavids, Saudis, etc.). What is so special about the Ottomans?

I have to point out something:

The Faatimids were Raafidhi (Twelve Imaamer) Shi`as so they do not count as a Khilaafah. The Saudis are a monarchy, not a Khilaafah.

 

[Cherub786]

I have to point out something:

The Faatimids were Raafidhi (Twelve Imaamer) Shi`as so they do not count as a Khilaafah. The Saudis are a monarchy, not a Khilaafah.

Actually, the Fatimids were Isma’ili. They were not Ithna Asharis. The Isma’ilis say that Isma’il b. Ja’far was the legitimate Seventh Imam, and the Imamate passed down through his son Muhammad b. Isma’il. The Ithna Asharis contend that the legitimate seventh Imam was Musa b. Ja’far, and the Imamate passed down through his son ‘Ali b. Musa.

But if you say that the Saudis are not a Khilafah, then neither were the Umayyads, Abbasids, and Ottomans. They too were monarchies.

The Khilafah only lasted for 30 years, as predicted by the Prophet (Sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam), and ended with al-Hasan b. ‘Ali (Radiy Allahu ‘anhuma).

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

The Faatimids were Isma'ilis, not Ithnaa `Ashariyyah. You are correct about that.

However, you are incorrect about the other issue. The Abbasids and Umayyads were legitimate Khulafaa although among them there were those who were Zhaalimeen. They fulfilled the Shuroot (conditions) for Khilaafah.

The Saudis have never claimed to be a Khilaafah. Not a single one of the so-called "Wulaat-ul-Amr" of Saudi Arabia, from the time of Muhammad ibn Sa`ood himself, ever claimed to be the Khaleefah. They call themselves "Mulook" (kings). "Al-Malik, Fahd ibn `Abdil `Azeez." That's why it is called:

المملكة العربية السعودية

"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

 

[anatolian]

What is so special about the Ottomans?

The topic of the thread you asked your question gives us the answer. They were the last Islamic power and protector of Muslims even if you do not accept them a Khilafah. If there were still Ottomans in the region, these kind of lunatics could not commit such kind of crimes against Muslims. Is that not enough?

 

[Cherub786]

However, you are incorrect about the other issue. The Abbasids and Umayyads were legitimate Khulafaa although among them there were those who were Zhaalimeen. They fulfilled the Shuroot (conditions) for Khilaafah.

The Saudis have never claimed to be a Khilaafah. Not a single one of the so-called "Wulaat-ul-Amr" of Saudi Arabia, from the time of Muhammad ibn Sa`ood himself, ever claimed to be the Khaleefah. They call themselves "Mulook" (kings). "Al-Malik, Fahd ibn `Abdil `Azeez." That's why it is called:

المملكة العربية السعودية

"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

Khilaafah in a general sense simply means any government. Khilaafah can also be manifested in the form of monarchy. For example, King David عليه السلام was the Khaleefah of Allah on the Earth, but he was also a King, as was Taaloot and Nabi Sulemaan عليهما السلام

But I think you are talking about the technical sense of Khilaafah. That Khilaafah ended within 30 years of the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who said:

الْخِلَافَةُ فِي أُمَّتِي ثَلَاثُونَ سَنَةً ثُمَّ مُلْكٌ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ

The Khilafah in my Ummah is for Thirty Years, then there will be Monarchy after it (Tirmidhi)

Safinah (Radi Allahu 'anhu) explained this Hadith by calculating the 30 years as including the 2 years of Abu Bakr's caliphate, 10 years of Umar's caliphate, 12 years of Uthman's caliphate, and 6 years of Ali's caliphate (Allah be pleased with them).

In fact, Ali's caliphate was 5 years and 6 months, but his son al-Hasan (Allah be pleased with them) was Caliph for 6 months, which is why Ulama like Shaikh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah consider al-Hasan as a Khaalifah Raashid.

So the total is 30 years.

Then when Mu'awiyah b. Abi Sufyan :ra: became ruler, the Khilaafah ended and monarchy began. So Mu'awiyah :ra: was the first King in the history of the Ummah.

So the Umayyads, Abbasids, Ottomans etc., were never a Caliphate in the technical sense. They too were Kings. In fact the Salaf regarded Bani Umayya as the worst of kings:


قَالَ سَعِيدٌ : فَقُلْتُ لَهُ : إِنَّ بَنِي أُمَيَّةَ يَزْعُمُونَ أَنَّ الْخِلَافَةَ فِيهِمْ ، قَالَ : كَذَبُوا بَنُو الزَّرْقَاءِ بَلْ هُمْ مُلُوكٌ مِنْ شَرِّ الْمُلُوكِ

(Tirmidhi)

This claim that people make that the "Caliphate" ended in 1924 is simply wrong. The Ottomans were never a Caliphate. They were dynastic monarchy, where power was inherited from father to son.

The real Khilaafah ended in 661 C.E., exactly 30 years after the Prophet (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) died.

 

[sister herb]

Why you are talking about Ottomans when this thread is about ongoing happenings in Aleppo? Could you respect victims of this horrific war even that much that you would keep your discussion with them?

:hmm:

Ottomans to the separate thread if possible, please.

 

[anatolian]

This claim that people make that the "Caliphate" ended in 1924 is simply wrong. The Ottomans were never a Caliphate. They were dynastic monarchy, where power was inherited from father to son.

The real Khilaafah ended in 661 C.E., exactly 30 years after the Prophet (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) died.

I am agree with this statement. Real Khilafah ended with Ali r.a. or Hasan r.a. as you claim. But it doesnt have to be a Khalifa for Muslims to obey. Any legitimate Muslim ruler must be obeyed. If your ruler is "a black slave man" but rules according to Allah's book you are ordered to obey him as the Prophet a.s. says.

 

[anatolian]

Why you are talking about Ottomans when this thread is about ongoing happenings in Aleppo? Could you respect victims of this horrific war even that much that you would keep your discussion with them?

:hmm:

Ottomans to the separate thread if possible, please.

I agree you for the other history but the Ottomans are really related to this topic. If there were Ottomans still today Assad kind of lunatics could not do such attrocities.

 

[Cherub786]

I am agree with this statement. Real Khilafah ended with Ali r.a. or Hasan r.a. as you claim. But it doesnt have to be a Khalifa for Muslims to obey. Any legitimate Muslim ruler must be obeyed. If your ruler is "a black slave man" but rules according to Allah's book you are ordered to obey him as the Prophet a.s. says.

Of course that fact is not in dispute.
I am simply repudiating the romantic idea many Muslims have about history, beginning with the Umayyads. Actually, Islamic history is very dark and a history of oppression from the angle of government.
Only a handful of Muslim rulers were truly good like ‘Umar b. ‘Abdul ‘Aziz.
The history of Islam is a history of violent uprisings, civil wars, and tyrannical governments, up until today (witness Aleppo and the Syria-Iraq conflict).
Some Muslims have this mistaken impression that everything was honky dory until 1924 when the Young Turks abolished the Ottoman “caliphate”.
Of course the Ottomans had their good points, but I don’t understand why they are singled out as some kind of caliphate when they are, theoretically, no different from the other governments like Saudis, Mughals, Mamluk Egypt, and so on. There’s no reason to single out the Ottoman government as something exceptional among the host of other Muslim governments in the modern era.
The only reason some Muslims romanticize about the Ottomans was because they were the last great empire in the history of Islam. These people think that Islam is all about empires and territorial expansion, but they do not really understand the true significance of Khilaafah.

 

[fhmn63]

There are certain ways in which each one of us can make a change inn the life of our brothers and sisters in Syria : http://islamhashtag.com/6-ways-in-which-you-can-help-aleppo/

 

[BeTheChange]

Allah swt tests the ones whom HE loves the most.

May Allah swt fill the hearts of Muslims with hope & peace Ameen.

 

[cooterhein]

Allah swt tests the ones whom HE loves the most.

May Allah swt fill the hearts of Muslims with hope & peace Ameen.

That is a rather intriguing video. It wasn't as specific as it could have been (although it was a short vid, there's only so much you can do) but it mentioned some apocalyptic teachings of Islam and touched on some eschatological expectations. Now, this is quite interesting because so much of what Daesh is doing in Iraq and Syria is laser-focused on exactly these types of things, and I do mean the exact passages that were referenced in this vid. Of course, Daesh casts themselves as the end-times heroes of Islam, they believe they are the ones who will defeat the massive armies of the world....and that's not what the rest of Islam believes about them. Of course not.

This intrigues me though. I don't think I've seen anything quite like this- which is to say, an explanation of these hadiths and end-times teachings from a regular Sunni Muslim that basically cuts Daesh out of the picture and denies them the role that they want to play. This video just barely started talking about it- and it didn't mention Daesh whatsoever- but I would be interested in knowing if you have some other vids you can link to that comes from a proper Muslim perspective, that is opposed to Daesh, and that presents and explains the relevant texts in the proper way (and to an English-speaking audience, if you could, please).

Is that something you think you'd be able to find? If so, I would very much appreciate it.

 

[Cherub786]

That is a rather intriguing video. It wasn't as specific as it could have been (although it was a short vid, there's only so much you can do) but it mentioned some apocalyptic teachings of Islam and touched on some eschatological expectations. Now, this is quite interesting because so much of what Daesh is doing in Iraq and Syria is laser-focused on exactly these types of things, and I do mean the exact passages that were referenced in this vid. Of course, Daesh casts themselves as the end-times heroes of Islam, they believe they are the ones who will defeat the massive armies of the world....and that's not what the rest of Islam believes about them. Of course not.

This intrigues me though. I don't think I've seen anything quite like this- which is to say, an explanation of these hadiths and end-times teachings from a regular Sunni Muslim that basically cuts Daesh out of the picture and denies them the role that they want to play. This video just barely started talking about it- and it didn't mention Daesh whatsoever- but I would be interested in knowing if you have some other vids you can link to that comes from a proper Muslim perspective, that is opposed to Daesh, and that presents and explains the relevant texts in the proper way (and to an English-speaking audience, if you could, please).

Is that something you think you'd be able to find? If so, I would very much appreciate it.

The region of Syria plays a very important role in Islamic eschatology. Daesh is actually collapsing. They are just another manifestation of the Kharijite tendency which is characterized by mass-excommunication of Muslim society and rebellion against Muslim governments. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said that the Kharijites will cyclically emerge and be cut off, until the last of them become aligned with the Dajjal.

The Hadith also state that the Dajjal will emerge in the frontier (border region) between Syria and Iraq, and I don't think its a coincidence that that is the region where Daesh is centered.

The Hadith also say that the Romans will arrive in Dabiq (in Syria). The Romans represent the American/European powers who are predominantly Roman Catholic, or some say it represents Russia, who have inherited the Eastern Orthodox Christianity of the Byzantines.

The Hadith says that the Messiah will descend to Damascus (in Syria) accompanied by two Angels.

According to Islamic eschatology, Constantinople (modern day Istanbul in Turkey) will also play a crucial role in End times. The Believers will conquer Constantinople but without weapons. It will be a spiritual or religious conquest of the population there.

The Hadith also speak about the Malhama al-Kubra or Armageddon, the final and great battle between Islam and Christianity, which will also take place in Syria.

Islamic eschatology is a very vast subject, and no doubt the unfolding events in the Middle East are constantly moving in the direction that Islamic prophecy has foretold us.

 

[hisnameiszzz]

Please keep these poor souls in your prayers.

Please try and donate money if you can. A lot of Masjids are doing collections.

Please contact your local MPs and whoever else is in power. Do it via letters or emails or social media. They need to know we are unhappy about what is happening there.

Thanks.

 

[sister herb]

I agree you for the other history but the Ottomans are really related to this topic. If there were Ottomans still today Assad kind of lunatics could not do such attrocities.

If. We can´t really know what would happens if Ottomans be there now or what if Ottomans wouldn´t never been there. It´s all about if. We can´t turn the history clock back and start wondering what would be if this and that. Reality is that there isn´t any Ottomans right now at this time and even if there would to be them, are they really be similar like history books show they were. What if your Ottomans would be today different and for example allies of the USA or Russia or the most brutal oppressors of others? We can´t never be sure because all of this is just "if".

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

But I think you are talking about the technical sense of Khilaafah. That Khilaafah ended within 30 years of the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who said:

Explaining this Hadeeth, Imaam an-Nawawi رحمة الله عليه in his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim says:

قال العلامة النووي في - شرح مسلم - ج 21 ص 201 :

(( قوله ( صلى الله عليه وسلم ) ( أن هذا الأمر لا ينقضي حتى يمضي فيهم اثنا عشر خليفة كلهم من قريش )

وفي رواية (لا يزال أمر الناس ماضيا ماوليهم اثنا عشر رجلا كلهم من قريش ) وفي رواية ( لا يزال الإسلام عزيزا إلى اثنى عشر خليفة كلهم من قريش )

قال القاضي قد توجه هنا سؤالان :

أحدهما أنه قد جاء في الحديث الآخر الخلافة بعدى ثلاثون سنة ثم تكون ملكا وهذا مخالف لحديث اثنى عشر خليفة فإنه لم يكن في ثلاثين سنة إلا الخلفاء الراشدون الأربعة والأشهر التي بويع فيها الحسن بن علي قال !!

* والجواب عن هذا أن المراد في حديث الخلافة ثلاثون سنة خلافة النبوة وقد جاء مفسرا في بعض الروايات خلافة النبوة بعدى ثلاثون سنة

ثم تكون ملكا ولم يشترط هذا في الاثنى عشر

​

For those who don't understand Arabic, Imaam an-Nawawi said that the meaning of the Hadeeth is that the "Nabawi Khilaafah", i.e. the Khilaafah upon the methodology of Nubuwwah, the "Raashidi Khilaafah", would last only 30 years after Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم. However, Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم himself said that there would be 12 Khulafaa in this Ummah, all of them from Quraysh. So just that alone throws out the notion that Khilaafah could only exist for 30 years, because there weren't 12 Qurashi Khulafaa in those 30 years.

There is a very big difference between a Khaleefah and a king. Muslims are duty-bound to obey the Khaleefah. No one on is duty-bound to obey the "kings" of Saudi Arabia. If the "King" of any country gives an order, I wouldn't attach any more importance to it than what I would to a dog barking on a street corner. He can dream on if he hallucinates that anyone in the Muslim world other than a handful of Madaakhilah will follow him.

Bay`ah is given to a Khaleefah. No Bay`ah is given to a king.

In summary: What Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم meant was that the Raashidi Khilaafah would last only 30 years. He did not mean that Khilaafah ended 30 years after him, because that would contradict other Ahaadeeth wherein he said that there would be 12 Khulafaa from Quraysh.

Imaam ibn Taymiyyah mentions the other Riwaayah in his Kitaab. He writes:

قال شيخ الإسلام في منهاج السنة1/515

[ وعن سعيد بن جهمان عن سفينة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم (( خلافة النبوة ثلاثون سنة ثم يؤتي الله ملكه من يشاء )) أو قال الملك !

"Sa`eed ibn Jahmaan reports from Safeenah, who said: Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: "Khilaafat-un-Nubuwwah (The Prophetic Khilaafah) is 30 years. Thereafter, Allaah will give His Kingship to whomsoever He wills." (Or in another Riwaayat) "al-Mulk" (the kingship). [Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, 1/515]

 

[Cherub786]

For those who don't understand Arabic, Imaam an-Nawawi said that the meaning of the Hadeeth is that the "Nabawi Khilaafah", i.e. the Khilaafah upon the methodology of Nubuwwah, the "Raashidi Khilaafah", would last only 30 years after Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم. However, Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم himself said that there would be 12 Khulafaa in this Ummah, all of them from Quraysh. So just that alone throws out the notion that Khilaafah could only exist for 30 years, because there weren't 12 Qurashi Khulafaa in those 30 years.

There is a lot of difference of interpretation about the Hadith predicting the 12 Quraishi Caliphs. Some say that it is consecutive, and would therefore include the Umayyad rulers like Mu'awiyah, Yazid, Abdul Malik, Walid, etc.

Others say it is not necessarily consecutive, and can refer to any 12 righteous Muslim rulers, so may include Umar b. Abdul Aziz, and possibly the Mahdi.

The point is that the Khilafah upon the methodology of Nubuwwah was for 30 years, as you admit, after that monarchy was established until this day. There is a prophecy that Khilafah upon the methodology of Nubuwwah will be revived, but that hasn't happened yet, most people including myself think it will happen through the Mahdi عليه السلام

In any event, we cannot consider most of the Umayyad and Abbasid rulers as having been a caliphate. There were dozens of such rulers, and the Hadith only specifies 12 as being Caliphs.

Even more problematic are the Ottomans, since they were Turks and not from Quraish. Yet for some strange reason people are duped into thinking that the Ottomans were a Khilafah and lament its termination in 1924.

There is a very big difference between a Khaleefah and a king. Muslims are duty-bound to obey the Khaleefah. No one on is duty-bound to obey the "kings" of Saudi Arabia. If the "King" of any country gives an order, I wouldn't attach any more importance to it than what I would to a dog barking on a street corner. He can dream on if he hallucinates that anyone in the Muslim world other than a handful of Madaakhilah will follow him.

Bay`ah is given to a Khaleefah. No Bay`ah is given to a king.

Hmm, up until now you were on a roll with your academically inclined arguments, but now you just went off on an emotional tangent.

The fact of the matter is there is nothing in Islam which says Muslims are only duty bound to obey a Caliph and not a King. No one from Ahlus Sunnati wal Jama'ah has ever claimed that this distinction that Muslims are only obliged to obey a Caliph who rules over them but not a King.

This would mean Muslims were never obliged to obey the Umayyad, Abbasid, Mamluk, Mughal, Ottoman and many other royal dynasties? All of those were monarchies and Ahlus Sunnati wal Jama'ah never said you are not obliged to obey those ruling kings.

I see you have some enmity to the Saudi government. That is not my business. But you have invented a new general principle that Muslims are not obliged to obey a king just because you have some beef with the Saudis specifically.

I mean if you think the Saudis are bad, sure fair enough, but I hope you are not that naive to think that the Umayyads were superior to them? The Umayyads were the worst government that ruled over the Muslims in our entire history. They are the ones who martyred the Prophet's own beloved grandson عليهما السلام You can't get more evil than that. Not to mention the incident of Harra and the attack on the sacred Ka'bah.

 

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

The fact of the matter is there is nothing in Islam which says Muslims are only duty bound to obey a Caliph and not a King.

Do you obey the king of Saudi? Do you consider him to be your leader, your king, and you will do whatever he says?

I want a yes or not answer.