Saddam Hussein

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd

Mostly sufi's who turned a blind eye to what was going on or themselves who participated in shirk, grave worship, etc.

it's nothing to do with wrong sufis. You are making false allegations of tolerating or involving in fornication, drinking, homosexuality on ulama of 17th and 18th century, imams of ka'abah and masjid nabwi, noble Muslims who went for performing hajj. Astaghfirullah..!

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

it's nothing to do with wrong sufis. You are making false allegations of tolerating or involving in fornication, drinking, homosexuality on ulama of 17th and 18th century, imams of ka'abah and masjid nabwi, noble Muslims who went for performing hajj. Astaghfirullah..!

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't report that the sufi shiekhs were involved with debauchery but the people were. Though I don't doubt that those sufi sheikhs were involved with some form of shirk which is even worse than the sins of the flesh that were going on but you take exception to the sins of the flesh rather than the shirk that was prevalent in the land of Hijaz at the inception of the reforms about to take place by Sheikh abdul Wahaab. Doesn't suprise me at all.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_

rather it is you who is blinded by your sufi hatred of the great sheikh and having a knee jerk reaction to eye witnesses and can't come to terms with accepting the truth.

Who was the eye witness ?, quote him. Any contemporary scholar of ibn abdulwahab , preferably, ulama of makka and madina of 17th or 18th century.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't report that the sufi shiekhs were involved with debauchery but the people were. Though I don't doubt that those sufi sheikhs were involved with some form of shirk which is even worse than the sins of the flesh that were going on but you take exception to the sins of the flesh rather than the shirk that was prevalent in the land of Hijaz at the inception of the reforms about to take place by Sheikh abdul Wahaab. Doesn't suprise me at all.

What I'm asking you aren't answering. I quoted some of famous ulama of 17th and 18the century. You prove your allegations from their statements. Nobody is interested in your sectarian propaganda to justify the killing of Muslims and revolting against the khilafah

Famous to who? You? I gave evidences of the condition of Hijaz at the time of Abdul Wahaab. I also told you that the same debauchery and shirk was prevalent during the time of Ibn Jawzi according to his book, Tablis Iblis. So sufism has a problem where people can transgress all bounds if they are not careful. Its like chemotherapy. It can kill the cancer but too much exposure can also destroy vital organs in the process. If you don't like the truth then you have to deal with it.

1) Methodology of the Wahhabi movement in fighting bidah - takfir then slaughter

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd

So you want to condemn a man for something that his followers did 10 years after his death? How is he personally responsible for that? And I really would like to see all the details of this incident before commenting. Allah will judge those who treated innocent Muslims harshly. But if this is you line of thinking and condemnation then you must really despise Abu Bakr r.a., and Salahudin. You see, there are times when commanding the right and forbidding the wrong can be achieved with dawah and other times the sword is necessary. For instance, Abdullah ibn Abbas r.a. was able to go into the Khawraj camp and use dawah and the correct interpretation of the Quran to win over some of their soldiers before they fought Ali r.a. On the other hand, Abu Bakr was firm and unleashed the Sword of Allah, Khalid bin Waleed r.a., on tribes who refused to pay the zakat. They said there is no god but Allah, they prayed, but they didn't want to pay zakat. He brought them back forcefully until they seen the errors of their ways and the strength of the Caliphate. Salahudin was not able to effectively expel the Crusaders out of Jerusalem and its vicinity because the Shiites and the Muslim governors in the area of Ash Sham were putting their whims and desires first and colluding with the Christians to preserve their control. So Salahudin had to eradicate the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt and fight the Muslim governors by laying siege to their cities until they submitted under the banner of Islam. Then Salahudin was able to expel the Crusaders out of Jerusalem. So is this how Muslims are treated? Sometimes yes because Islam comes before Muslims and sometimes the sword has to be used to get those people under the Tawheed of Islam. And Allah Knows Best.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a lot of misinformation out there concerning the sheikh. But I also believe that the modern Saudi state contradicts some of his teachings and could very well violate some of his 10 nullifiers of Islam even though they claim they are followers of his.

Actually I did not want to express any condemnation of Ibn Abdulwahhab. For, honestly I do not have certain knowledge on his teachings. I can merely judge on what his followers did, and they are but attributed to him - that's not really my fault. We where talking on Saddam Hussein and the post-Saddam conditions in Iraq. And my main concern was to touch upon the great similarities between the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) and the early Wahhabi movement, as they carry the same mentality and methodology. To me, I cannot say anything concerning the question whether these ideas did really emanate from him, or if it was just misinterpreted by his followers. And nor is that any concern for me, because there is no benefit in accusing dead people. Only the Wahhabi mentality concerns me; takfir on Muslims, massacring/slaughtering them and looting their goods, attacking people and running away to let the remaining Muslims bear the burden. You may call it something else, it does not really matter. But if we follow the course of this idea, it may be helpful in exploring its causes...

As for using the sword. Abu Bakr (r.a.) unleashed the sword and eliminated those who transgressed against the authority of Muslims and caused fitnah (here strife-kufr) between the Muslims. Furthermore, the fight between different Muslim dynasties was just as you have described, a fight between armies and forts. Did Salahuddin slaughter the Muslims of Egypt in the markets and in their houses? That is exactly what the Wahhabis did, as the Najdi Ibn Bishr has described in plain Bedouin accent. This can only indicate that they were viewing single Muslims as disbelievers, not a particular city-collective that exclaimed its riddah by rejecting zakat or prayer. And if this analogy had been valid, that would mean the Hejaz just left Islam... I understand your loathing of bidah, which I, and every truthful Muslim shares, but that does not mean that we should just start a movement, enter cities and kill those who partake in bidahs. This exactly what's meant by "takfir due to major sins", which is not from the methodology of Ahl as-Sunnah, but rather an ill concept of deviated extremist sects like Kharijis, and obviously Wahhabis.

As we all here do not have profound historical knowledge on the events, maybe it would be better to just talk about actions and manner beyond their perpetrators? And that was actually my main intention when addressing this topic. Historical movements and people themselves do not concern me personally, only their remnants and influence on the present do.


2) Wahhabi movement - Ottoman Khilafa relations

format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime

"Wahhabi" is a term used by extremely uneducated individuals who believe they sound smart while using it, Wahab is one of Allah's 99 names and using it in a derogatory fashion is nothing less than Haram, but indeed I am a follower of the most generous and therefore a Wahhabi, for taking from the knowledge of al-Wahab, Allah.

- - - Updated - - -



The "Ottoman Khilafah" wasn't even valid, and by all Islamic standards they were indeed guilty of various forms of Bidah and Shirk, as well as their tyranny against Muslims, this Romanticized view of the Ottomans that plagues many is extremely distorted.

a- If you have read my previous posts, I responded to the claim that one is supposedly talking about Allah when using the word Wahhabi. It is a coined term, it is not a conventional Arabic word. We are talking about the Wahhabi movement, not about al-Wahhab, subhanahu wa ta'ala. Instead of derailing the topic, concentrate on the core...

b- As for the Ottoman Khilafah, you would have to explain what you mean by valid. I admit that they had fallen into many illegitimate actions, but my main concern is not a rebellion against an unjust imam, though it is regarded contra-productive by most scholars, but rather the manner how the Wahhabi movement treated ordinary Muslim living in the Ottoman Khilafah, and with with they had replaced that order, a just one? Then, agreeing to the scholars, they contributed to a major mafsadah by this rebellion, as they opened another front against the Muslims contemporaneous to the attacks of the disbelievers. And if an actual collaboration can be proofed, as what is claimed for the "later Wahhabis", this would be a grave error; allying with disbelievers against Muslims. But of course, people carrying the Wahhabi mentality will choose the exit door and claim that the Ottomans were, beyond unjust leaders, apostates... why not?

3) Disgusting conditions in the holy haram ash sharif

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd

These were eye witness accounts. So show evidence to the contrary if you can. You can also read Ibn Jawzi's Tablis Iblis and he recounts the same type of debauchery in his time from those misguided and deviant sufi's 800 years earlier.

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd

Famous to who? You? I gave evidences of the condition of Hijaz at the time of Abdul Wahaab. I also told you that the same debauchery and shirk was prevalent during the time of Ibn Jawzi according to his book, Tablis Iblis. So sufism has a problem where people can transgress all bounds if they are not careful. Its like chemotherapy. It can kill the cancer but too much exposure can also destroy vital organs in the process. If you don't like the truth then you have to deal with it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_

rather it is you who is blinded by your sufi hatred of the great sheikh and having a knee jerk reaction to eye witnesses and can't come to terms with accepting the truth.

As you admitted yourself, your source is forwarding the accounts of Western travelers, and in Islam the witness of disbelievers is not accepted. As for Ibn Qayyim rahimahullah, did he mention the holy lands particularly in his work? And did he particularly talk about fornication and homosexuality?

Moreover, it is very disrespectful and irrational to build ones claims around a false target and then attach every evil to them... You are talking as if everyone else beside Salafis /"Wahhabis" were "Sufis", which is a very vague term also. As if the Muslim world was divided into two parts, where the people in Najd where the only righteous people adhering to the true belief, and every others from Istanbul to Delhi deviant Sufis. This has actually been the premise for the bloodshed of Muslims by people carrying this mentality. You may not precisely consider it like this, but this lies in the unconscious. Wallahu a'lam. Anyway, if you have any claims, please state them in particular instead of attaching everything to the "deviant Sufi" dummy.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zzz_

Wikipedia is not considered a reputable source in academia, not by a long short and nor should an educated person trust it. I doubt there will be much reliable information found in the mainstream world about "wahabi movement" or historical facts surround the events. Not to mention, much of the history the world learns is fake.






Well that explains why you consider them ISIS. I don't know the historical facts around the formation of saudia arabia and I certainly will not take my knowledge from lying propaganda outlets like wiki nor from sufi Turkey of post kemalist era . Regarding the killing and stuff, that's been going on for 1400 years among the shia and sunni so i'll just leave that at that. Regarding the shayk being involved in the rebellion, i recommend reading this :https://islamqa.info/en/9243

I just quoted Wikipedia as an example of information on how the things went on. Ibn Abdulwahhab created the first Saudi state in Darriyah with Muhammed bin Suud as a reaction to the Ottoman rule. Ottoman Empire was a de fecto protector of all Arabian peninsula although the inner parts of the peninsule were not directly ruled by the official rulers. Later on their children and grand children invaded entire Arabia including the territories under the direct Ottoman rule such as Taif, Mekkah and Medina. They killed also Sunni Muslims there. Wahhabi-Suudi movement considred the Ottoman rule illegitimate.

Post Kemalist era has nothing to do with Sufism in Turkey. Islam was spread withing Turks in Turkistan (Central Asia) and Turkey with the works of Sufi dervishes hundreds of years before the Kemalist era. Ottomans also valued the Sufi teachers a lot and they followed their footsteps. There is a Sufi sheykh in every milestone of the Ottoman Empire. This was one of the reasons of Ibn Adulwahhab's reaction against them. Ibn Suud was just looking for an independant state based on a religious fundemental.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime

The "Ottoman Khilafah" wasn't even valid, and by all Islamic standards they were indeed guilty of various forms of Bidah and Shirk, as well as their tyranny against Muslims, this Romanticized view of the Ottomans that plagues many is extremely distorted.

Just prove us where they commited bidah and shirk and tyranny against Muslims and how it illegitimates their rule according to Quran and Sunnah. There is no romanticization of Ottomans here but we need to analyze the history correctly inorder to synthesize the future.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

I just quoted Wikipedia as an example of information on how the things went on. Ibn Abdulwahhab created the first Saudi state in Darriyah with Muhammed bin Suud as a reaction to the Ottoman rule. Ottoman Empire was a de fecto protector of all Arabian peninsula although the inner parts of the peninsule were not directly ruled by the official rulers. Later on their children and grand children invaded entire Arabia including the territories under the direct Ottoman rule such as Taif, Mekkah and Medina. They killed also Sunni Muslims there. Wahhabi-Suudi movement considred the Ottoman rule illegitimate.

Bro,

all those who say he rebelled against the ottomons have their info wrong. And lot of that info comes from anti-wahhabi haters for being called out for their shirk saint and grave worships among other innovations.

Did ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab rebel against Ottoman Caliphate

He lived in a region that wasn't even part of the ottomon empire. As for the so called "islamic" practices of those people , well read the previous posts and you'll see how jahil they had become.

Post Kemalist era has nothing to do with Sufism in Turkey. Islam was spread withing Turks in Turkistan (Central Asia) and Turkey with the works of Sufi dervishes hundreds of years before the Kemalist era. Ottomans also valued the Sufi teachers a lot and they followed their footsteps. There is a Sufi sheykh in every milestone of the Ottoman Empire. This was one of the reasons of Ibn Adulwahhab's reaction against them. Ibn Suud was just looking for an independant state based on a religious fundemental.

We don't look at the validity of sufism based on what some empire admired and followed. We judge its practices against the quran and Sunnah. The book Tablis Iblis by Ibn Jawzi does a great job of highlight how they emerged and deviated.

------------

Book: Tablis Iblis

by Ibn Jawzi

Chapter 11 The Devil's Deception of the Sufis

(excerpts)

Sufism started as a way of extreme asceticism. Later, its followers practiced listening to songs and dancing. The name came into use before the year 200AH, and when the first of these people proclaimed it, they talked about it, expressing its import in various ways; whereof the gist is that according to them Sufism means disciplining of the soul, and resistance to nature by restraining it from vices and impelling it to virtues such as asceticism, gentleness, patience, sincerity, truthfulness, etc, such earn praise in this world and reward in the next.

I would observe that the first Sufis carried this out, the devil however deceived them in various ways, and yet further deceived their successors. As a century elapsed, his hopes for the next century increased, and he deceived them still further, and obtained complete control over the later generations. He started deceiving them by diverting them from knowledge, making them suppose that the object to be aimed at is action. When he had extinguished the lamp of knowledge which they had, they floundered in darkness. He persuaded some to the point that the purpose of their system was complete abandonment of the world; hence they discarded what was good for their bodies; compared wealth to scorpions, forgetting that it was ordained for useful purposes; imposed all sorts of penances on themselves, so that some of them would never lie down. The aims of these people were good, only they were diverted from the Straight Way. Some of them through lack of knowledge used to act according to fabricated hadiths unknowingly.

Later came authors who presented Sufism an independent school of thought, and gave it certain distinguishing characteristics, such as the patched garment, listening to music, ecstatic rapture, dancing, clapping of the hands. They further distinguished themselves by excessive purity and cleanliness. So the gulf between them and the true scholars widened more and more until they started to consider Sufism as the most complete knowledge, which they called the inner knowledge, whereas they made knowledge of the Shariah the outer knowledge. Some Sufi's were caused by extreme hunger to hallucinate. They imagined that they saw Allah in the form of a beautiful form and fell in love with him. These were something between kufr and bidah. And then the paths of some branched out, and their beliefs were even more corrupted. Some of them adopted the doctrine of incarnation, others of union; and the devil continued to encompass them with various heresies to the point that they even made for themselves laws.

Iblis continued his efforts of deceiving them until they fabricated their own hadiths and books of tafsir. Then arose Abu Abdu'l Rahman al-Sulami who composed for them the Kitab al-Sunan, and collected for them Haq'iq al-Tafsir, in which he mentioned extraordinary ways that they have of interpreting the Quran according to their whims and desires without finding the correct chains of narrations for them in any principles of knowledge, but merely only relying on their own principles. Strange indeed how they were careful about what they eat, but not careful about how they interpreted the Quran.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

I just quoted Wikipedia as an example of information on how the things went on. Ibn Abdulwahhab created the first Saudi state in Darriyah with Muhammed bin Suud as a reaction to the Ottoman rule. Ottoman Empire was a de fecto protector of all Arabian peninsula although the inner parts of the peninsule were not directly ruled by the official rulers. Later on their children and grand children invaded entire Arabia including the territories under the direct Ottoman rule such as Taif, Mekkah and Medina. They killed also Sunni Muslims there. Wahhabi-Suudi movement considred the Ottoman rule illegitimate.

Post Kemalist era has nothing to do with Sufism in Turkey. Islam was spread withing Turks in Turkistan (Central Asia) and Turkey with the works of Sufi dervishes hundreds of years before the Kemalist era. Ottomans also valued the Sufi teachers a lot and they followed their footsteps. There is a Sufi sheykh in every milestone of the Ottoman Empire. This was one of the reasons of Ibn Adulwahhab's reaction against them. Ibn Suud was just looking for an independant state based on a religious fundemental.

- - - Updated - - -



Just prove us where they commited bidah and shirk and tyranny against Muslims and how it illegitimates their rule according to Quran and Sunnah. There is no romanticization of Ottomans here but we need to analyze the history correctly inorder to synthesize the future.

Their shirk lied in their preservation of shrines and elevated graves such Karbala and the tombs of various Ottoman figureheads like Suleyman Shah (who's shrine is still protected by the Turkish government today).

Their Bidah shouldn't even be questioned, anyone with a slight amount of knowledge of Ottoman history would know that things such as the Tanzimat reforms are Bidah and Shirki in nature, as well as the adoption of their constitution. Another Bidah they committed was the Janissaries they removed Muslims from their military and relied on non-Muslim slaves for the expansion of their "Caliphate". Another Bidah they practiced which also extremely homosexual and disgusting was pederasty, they would sit and stare at young boy for "spiritual" reasons, one Ottoman wrote in a memoir that a young Austrian boy approached him and offered to have sex with him, because the Austrian knew of the Ottoman customs.

The Ottomans also sought to emulate the Europeans in almost anyway they could, this is a fact and something Haram. The Ottomans would also drink alcohol, they allowed alcohol in their lands and this is a failure to enforce the laws of Allah.

Their oppression lied in how they would deal with actual Muslims who support the Hukm of Allah over the illogical satanic whims of Ottoman rulers that mocked them while executing them by playing music just to rub in the fact that they have killed a Muslim.

Their illegitimacy falls in the fact that their leadership fell deep into disbelief, they had absolutely no authority as they failed to rule with the law of Allah and they exceeded the boundaries of simply being tyrants to waging war on Islam and its people and forbidding what is good and enjoining what is evil which is contrary to what Allah has ordered, and as stated they left the religion which is the gravest of sins. They also had no grounds or right to call themselves a Khilafah either as it is required that the position is held by a member of Quraysh and no Ottoman ruler was Qurayshi or could have ever been by any means as they were all Turkish.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.

1) Methodology of the Wahhabi movement in fighting bidah - takfir then slaughter



Actually I did not want to express any condemnation of Ibn Abdulwahhab. For, honestly I do not have certain knowledge on his teachings. I can merely judge on what his followers did, and they are but attributed to him - that's not really my fault. We where talking on Saddam Hussein and the post-Saddam conditions in Iraq. And my main concern was to touch upon the great similarities between the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) and the early Wahhabi movement, as they carry the same mentality and methodology. To me, I cannot say anything concerning the question whether these ideas did really emanate from him, or if it was just misinterpreted by his followers. And nor is that any concern for me, because there is no benefit in accusing dead people. Only the Wahhabi mentality concerns me; takfir on Muslims, massacring/slaughtering them and looting their goods, attacking people and running away to let the remaining Muslims bear the burden. You may call it something else, it does not really matter. But if we follow the course of this idea, it may be helpful in exploring its causes...

As for using the sword. Abu Bakr (r.a.) unleashed the sword and eliminated those who transgressed against the authority of Muslims and caused fitnah (here strife-kufr) between the Muslims. Furthermore, the fight between different Muslim dynasties was just as you have described, a fight between armies and forts. Did Salahuddin slaughter the Muslims of Egypt in the markets and in their houses? That is exactly what the Wahhabis did, as the Najdi Ibn Bishr has described in plain Bedouin accent. This can only indicate that they were viewing single Muslims as disbelievers, not a particular city-collective that exclaimed its riddah by rejecting zakat or prayer. And if this analogy had been valid, that would mean the Hejaz just left Islam... I understand your loathing of bidah, which I, and every truthful Muslim shares, but that does not mean that we should just start a movement, enter cities and kill those who partake in bidahs. This exactly what's meant by "takfir due to major sins", which is not from the methodology of Ahl as-Sunnah, but rather an ill concept of deviated extremist sects like Kharijis, and obviously Wahhabis.

As we all here do not have profound historical knowledge on the events, maybe it would be better to just talk about actions and manner beyond their perpetrators? And that was actually my main intention when addressing this topic. Historical movements and people themselves do not concern me personally, only their remnants and influence on the present do.


2) Wahhabi movement - Ottoman Khilafa relations




a- If you have read my previous posts, I responded to the claim that one is supposedly talking about Allah when using the word Wahhabi. It is a coined term, it is not a conventional Arabic word. We are talking about the Wahhabi movement, not about al-Wahhab, subhanahu wa ta'ala. Instead of derailing the topic, concentrate on the core...

b- As for the Ottoman Khilafah, you would have to explain what you mean by valid. I admit that they had fallen into many illegitimate actions, but my main concern is not a rebellion against an unjust imam, though it is regarded contra-productive by most scholars, but rather the manner how the Wahhabi movement treated ordinary Muslim living in the Ottoman Khilafah, and with with they had replaced that order, a just one? Then, agreeing to the scholars, they contributed to a major mafsadah by this rebellion, as they opened another front against the Muslims contemporaneous to the attacks of the disbelievers. And if an actual collaboration can be proofed, as what is claimed for the "later Wahhabis", this would be a grave error; allying with disbelievers against Muslims. But of course, people carrying the Wahhabi mentality will choose the exit door and claim that the Ottomans were, beyond unjust leaders, apostates... why not?

3) Disgusting conditions in the holy haram ash sharif







As you admitted yourself, your source is forwarding the accounts of Western travelers, and in Islam the witness of disbelievers is not accepted. As for Ibn Qayyim rahimahullah, did he mention the holy lands particularly in his work? And did he particularly talk about fornication and homosexuality?

Moreover, it is very disrespectful and irrational to build ones claims around a false target and then attach every evil to them... You are talking as if everyone else beside Salafis /"Wahhabis" were "Sufis", which is a very vague term also. As if the Muslim world was divided into two parts, where the people in Najd where the only righteous people adhering to the true belief, and every others from Istanbul to Delhi deviant Sufis. This has actually been the premise for the bloodshed of Muslims by people carrying this mentality. You may not precisely consider it like this, but this lies in the unconscious. Wallahu a'lam. Anyway, if you have any claims, please state them in particular instead of attaching everything to the "deviant Sufi" dummy.

The Caliph must be from Quraysh and enforce the laws of Allah

format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime

The Caliph must be from Quraysh and enforce the laws of Allah

The caliph does not necessarily need to be from Quraysh, that was a conditional term for the time when the rule of Muslims was comprised to the Arabian Peninsula. Because a noble tribal status was required to unite the various warring Arab tribes. Obviously the Abyssinian slave¹ we might be supposed to follow is not from Quraysh either. As for the enforcement of Shariah, the Ottomans did enforce it... Bidah or tyranny do not amount to the abandonment of Shariah. If someone desires to make any differences, he should do it through dawah, not aggression. Massacring Muslims in their homes, markets and mosques is not the right manner to induce islaah, nor is it an indication of a new just rule.

---

¹ Anas (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "Hear and obey even if an Abyssinian slave whose head is like a raisin is placed in authority over you."

[Al- Bukhari].

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya.

The caliph does not necessarily need to be from Quraysh, that was a conditional term for the time when the rule of Muslims was comprised to the Arabian Peninsula. Because a noble tribal status was required to unite the various warring Arab tribes. Obviously the Abyssinian slave¹ we might be supposed to follow is not from Quraysh either. As for the enforcement of Shariah, the Ottomans did enforce it... Bidah or tyranny do not amount to the abandonment of Shariah. If someone desires to make any differences, he should do it through dawah, not aggression. Massacring Muslims in their homes, markets and mosques is not the right manner to induce islaah, nor is it an indication of a new just rule.

---

¹ Anas (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "Hear and obey even if an Abyssinian slave whose head is like a raisin is placed in authority over you."

[Al- Bukhari].

They did not enforce Sharia they allowed alcohol, they didn't collect the Zakat or Jizya or close stores for salah and so on they were Disbelievers all of them.

format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime

They did not enforce Sharia they allowed alcohol, they didn't collect the Zakat or Jizya or close stores for salah and so on they were Disbelievers all of them.

Nobody can kill another Muslim until he's utterly brainwashed and systematically indoctrinated. Who filled so much hatred in your heart...?

The Ottoman Caliphate was legitimate. The Arabs had lost their way and were more concerned about the dunya and fighting each other than the kuffar. So Allah Azza wa Jal replaced them as the leaders of this Ummah. But the same thing happened to the Ottomans and they were on the decline in the late 18th centuries till the early 20th century. So now the Ummah is without a head and is in total disarray, following the ideologies of the kuffar and being humiliated by them. May Allah Azza wa Jal unify us once again. Ameen.

Read this link and the conclusion at the end of it:

https://islamqa.info/en/227620

Exactly. It is Allah who gives and takes back. He replaced Arabs with Turks when they fell but He did not replace Turks with any other people after they fell . Maybe it is bc we are just going to the end times..

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

Nobody can kill another Muslim until he's utterly brainwashed and systematically indoctrinated. Who filled so much hatred in your heart...?

The Bara towards the Ottoman state is based on evidence from the Quran and Sunnah.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

Exactly. It is Allah who gives and takes back. He replaced Arabs with Turks when they fell but He did not replace Turks with any other people after they fell . Maybe it is bc we are just going to the end times..

You are just a Nationalist who exagerates the status of the the Turks.

- - - Updated - - -

format_quote Originally Posted by Misbah-Abd

The Ottoman Caliphate was legitimate. The Arabs had lost their way and were more concerned about the dunya and fighting each other than the kuffar. So Allah Azza wa Jal replaced them as the leaders of this Ummah. But the same thing happened to the Ottomans and they were on the decline in the late 18th centuries till the early 20th century. So now the Ummah is without a head and is in total disarray, following the ideologies of the kuffar and being humiliated by them. May Allah Azza wa Jal unify us once again. Ameen.

Read this link and the conclusion at the end of it:

https://islamqa.info/en/227620

They had zero legitimacy by not beinf from Quraysh, if that was their only problem it would be okay, but it isnt they had numerous issues that did ammount to kufr.

format_quote Originally Posted by JustTime

You are just a Nationalist who exagerates the status of the the Turks.

Its not about “status”. Its rather a mission. You need to study the history of Islam in detail to understand it.

Note: There is a misconception regarding who/what the Turks are. You need to solve that at first to unferstand what I mean above