Skip to main content

[42] Ascent and Decline of the Ottoman Empire

Written by abumuaawiyah on . Posted in History of Islam.

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Sultan Abdul Hamid viewed the idea of the Islamic University as a strategy to fulfill specific goals, such as:

Tackling the adversaries of Islam who are influenced by Western education, especially those occupying critical administrative and political positions in Islamic nations overall, and more specifically within the Ottoman Empire, and to assert their limits when they come to understand that a formidable and robust Islamic barrier is obstructing their path.

Efforts to curb the ambitions of European colonial powers and Russia emerge when they recognize that Muslims have come together as one, becoming aware of their colonial intentions and opposing them through Islamic unity. This demonstrates that Muslims can form a formidable political and military force in response to the cultural, intellectual, and doctrinal encroachments from Russian and European Christianity.

The new Islamic unity plays a crucial role in shaping global politics. The Ottoman Empire regains its strength as a caliphate, facilitating its revitalization and equipping it with modern scientific advancements across various fields. In this manner, it can reclaim its identity and serve as a historical lesson. It is asserted: “Indeed, working to fortify the Islamic political and social entity is preferable to neglecting it and establishing a foreign entity both intellectually and socially on the same land. Reviving the caliphate position should serve as a powerful instrument rather than a mere formality as it was for a period, ensuring that the sultan is not the sole figure confronting the ambitions of the West and its internal agents, but rather nurturing a collective awareness among all Muslim communities. He will be the symbol, the guide, and the unifier.

The British historian Arnold Toynbee highlighted this when he remarked: “Sultan Abdul Hamid sought, through his Islamic policy, to bring Muslims around the globe together under one banner, representing nothing short of a counter-offensive by Muslims against the Western world’s attack on the Muslim domain.”

Consequently, Sultan Abdul Hamid made full use of all the resources available during his reign by enlisting advocates from diverse nationalities across the Islamic world. This included scholars, influential political figures, and missionaries who traveled to various regions to engage with Muslim communities, comprehend their needs, and communicate the Sultan’s views and directives. His goal was to spread Islamic knowledge, set up Islamic study centers both at home and abroad, publish vital Islamic texts, and for the first time in Ottoman history, implement Arabic as the state language, a process now referred to as the Arabization of the Ottoman state. He also prioritised the renovation and construction of mosques and places of worship, launched fundraising initiatives to restore mosques globally, enhanced transportation to link different areas of the Ottoman Empire, aimed to win the allegiance of Arab tribal leaders, and founded a school in the capital of the caliphate to educate the children of tribal chiefs and prepare them for administrative roles. Furthermore, he sought to secure the backing of Sufi leaders, utilised the Islamic press to promote unity among Muslims, employed certain newspapers to advocate for this cause, and focused on fostering scientific and technological advancements within the Ottoman state, modernising it as needed.

A group of advocates, including Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (footnote a), Mustafa Kamal from Egypt, Abu al-Huda al-Sayyadi from Syria, Abdul Rashid Ibrahim from Siberia, and the Sanusi movement in Libya, among others, came together to champion the cause of Islamic unity.

Firstly, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Sultan Abdul Hamid: Jamal al-Din al-Afghani endorsed Sultan Abdul Hamid’s vision for Islamic unity and suggested initiatives that went beyond the Sultan’s aspirations. The Sultan envisioned a unified purpose among Islamic nations and a cohesive movement, which would represent a practical emotional unity, while the caliphate would embody dignity and strength. In contrast, al-Afghani offered the Sultan a strategy aimed at uniting both Sunni and Shia Muslims. (footnote b) In this context, Sultan Abdul Hamid’s perspective was confined to merging the political efforts of the two factions to combat global colonialism. He significantly gained from Afghani’s advocacy for Islamic unity, despite their differing ideologies. Several factors contribute to this divergence, including:

Afghani’s belief in the unity of Muslims, while simultaneously supporting the revolutionaries against Sultan Abdul Hamid from the Turkish nationalists and the Ottomans in general.

Afghan’s call for the unity of Islamic peoples, aiming for a cohesive structure like a single building, stands firm against European nations intent on dividing the Ottoman Empire and contributing to its downfall. Simultaneously, he did not address French colonialism, not even with a word of condemnation, at a time when Sultan Abdul Hamid needed to resist the French in North Africa.

His condemnation of British colonialism, even though Sultan Abdul Hamid mentions: that the Ottoman intelligence obtained a plan prepared in the British Foreign Office, in which Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Blunt participated. This plan aimed to remove the caliphate from Sultan Abdul Hamid and from the Ottomans in general. Blunt is a British politician working in the British Foreign Office and the author of the book “The Future of Islam,” in which he explicitly called for efforts to strip the caliphate from the Ottomans and bestow it upon the Arabs. Mustafa Kamal Pasha, the leader of the national movement in Egypt, responded to Blunt in his famous book “The Eastern Question.”

He stated: In summary, the distinguished author of “The Future of Islam” posits – reflecting the hopes of his community – that it would be most appropriate for Islam to designate England as its state, with the caliph being English. In light of Russian ambitions and the conflicts waged by Russia against the Ottoman Empire, along with their annexation of Ottoman lands, al-Afghani’s perspective on Russian expansion was unique in relation to the idea of Islamic unity; he recognized the crucial and strategic interests that Russia held in India, which necessitated their occupation. He did not contest this potential occupation; instead, he recommended that the Russians adopt the most sensible and practical strategy to achieve it, proposing that they collaborate with Persia and Afghanistan to facilitate access to India, on the condition that these nations would partake in the gains and advantages. The theological disagreement that emerged among scholars in Istanbul and al-Afghani, coupled with the release of Shaikh (Khalil Fawzi’s) book titled: “The Cutting Swords” which sought to challenge al-Afghani’s views, and al-Afghani’s reticence regarding this issue, as well as his lack of self-defense. The book was originally in Arabic and subsequently translated into Turkish during that period.

The Sultan sought to centralise power in his own hands after facing challenges from his ministers, military leaders, and influential figures swayed by Western ideologies. These individuals aimed to create a European-style democracy featuring an elected council that would represent all the diverse peoples of the Ottoman Empire. However, Sultan Abdul Hamid was against this idea, contending that Muslim representatives would only make up about half of the parliament’s total members. On the other hand, Jamal al-Din al-Afghani was a proponent of democracy and opposed the concentration of authority in one person, championing the cause of free speech. In his memoirs, the Sultan  described Jamal al-Din al-Afghani as a fraud with connections to British intelligence:

“I discovered a scheme devised in the British Foreign Office by a fraud named Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and an Englishman named Blunt, which proposed to strip the caliphate from the Turks. They suggested to the British that Sharif Hussein, the Emir of Mecca, should be declared the caliph for Muslims. I had known Jamal al-Din al-Afghani personally. He was in Egypt and was quite an imposing figure. At one point, he claimed to be the Mahdi and proposed that he should incite all the Muslims in Central Asia. I recognized that he was not capable of such an undertaking, and he was aligned with the English. It seemed very likely that the English had groomed him to test my resolve, so I promptly declined, leading him to form an alliance with Blunt. I called him to Istanbul with the help of my father, Al-Huda Al-Sayyadi Al-Halabi, a man esteemed across the Arab world. Both Munif Pasha, the former guardian of the Afghans, and the poet Abdul Haq Hamid played a role in this situation, leading to Jamal al-Din al-Afghani’s arrival in Istanbul, from which I ensured he would not depart again”.

Concerning Jamal al-Din al-Afghani’s perspective on Sultan Abdul Hamid, he remarked: “If Sultan Abdul Hamid were measured against four of the most exceptional men of his time, his intellect, shrewdness, and political skill would surpass theirs. This is particularly evident in his ability to manage his associates. It is not surprising that he successfully navigates the challenges to his rule posed by Western powers, leaving his opponents content with his presence, behavior, and reasoning, whether they are kings, princes, ministers, or ambassadors.”

He continued: “I observed him mastering the complexities of political matters and the motives of Western nations, always ready with a contingency plan for any crisis that could arise for the king. What impressed me the most was the covert strategies and formidable tools he created to thwart Europe from orchestrating any perilous actions against the Ottoman Empire, making it clear to them that the disintegration of the Ottoman sultanate would only result in widespread devastation across all European lands”. He remarked, “Regarding my observations on the Sultan’s vigilance, his wisdom, caution, and preparedness to counter the schemes of Europe, along with his noble intentions and commitment to uplift the state, which would, in turn, elevate the Muslims collectively, it inspired me to reach out to him, and I pledged my allegiance to him for the caliphate and kingship. I was fully aware that the Islamic territories in the East cannot evade the traps set by Europe, nor the efforts to weaken, divide, and ultimately diminish them one by one, except through a united awakening, awareness, and solidarity under the banner of the supreme caliph.”

The mystery surrounding Jamal al-Din al-Afghani is intriguing; some support him while others cast accusations. For example, Mustafa Fawzi Abdul Latif Ghazal’s book, “The Call of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani in the Balance of Islam,” argues that he played a role in the nation’s decline in modern history. In contrast, Dr. Mohsen Abdul Hamid’s work, “Jamal al-Din al-Afghani: The Misunderstood Reformer,” depicts him as a reformer, despite claims of his involvement with Masonic lodges. [An Excerpt from Ad-Dawla Al-Uthmaniyyah Awamil An-Nuhud Wa Asbab As-Suqut 6/462-468]

—————————————————————–

Footnote a: Jamal al-Din al-Afghani: 

https://abukhadeejah.com/jamal-aldin-afghani-muhammad-abduh-rashid-rida-hasan-albanna-radicals-modernists/

http://www.ikhwanis.com/articles/oqqxcoo-the-baatinee-movements-secret-organizations-freemasonry-al-ikhwaan-al-qaidah-and-isis-part-3.cfm

Footnote b: Unity between Sunni and Shia:

https://abukhadeejah.com/understanding-the-differences-between-ahlus-sunnah-and-the-shiah-free-leaflet-download-print-share/

http://www.shia.bs/index.cfm

[41] Ascent and Decline of the Ottoman Empire

Written by abumuaawiyah on . Posted in History of Islam, Morals and Manners - 'Akhlaaq'.

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Abdul Hamid II

The Islamic University

The concept of the Islamic University did not emerge in the realm of international politics until the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid, specifically after he ascended to the Ottoman throne in 1876. Once Sultan Abdul Hamid caught his breath, he stripped those influenced by European thought of their powers and took firm control of the country and became invested in the idea of the Islamic University. In his memoirs, he spoke about the necessity of strengthening the bonds of Islamic brotherhood among all Muslims worldwide.

He discussed the relationship between the Ottoman Empire and England, which poses obstacles to Ottoman unity. He stated:

“Islam and Christianity are two distinct perspectives, and it is impossible to merge them within a single civilization.” Therefore, he believed that the English had corrupted the minds of the Egyptians, as some began to prioritise nationalism over religion. They think that it is possible to blend Egyptian civilization with European civilization, and England’s aim in promoting nationalist thought in Islamic countries is to undermine my throne. Furthermore, nationalist thought has made significant progress in Egypt. The Egyptian intellectuals have unwittingly become puppets in the hands of the English, thereby undermining the power of the Islamic state and shaking the prestige of the caliphate”. [Footnote a]

He commented on the English policy towards the caliphate:

“The English newspaper Standard stated: ‘Arabia should come under English protection, and England must control the sacred cities of the Muslims’. England is pursuing two objectives: to weaken the influence of Islam and to strengthen its own power. Therefore, the English want the Khedive in Egypt to be the caliph of the Muslims, but there is not a single sincere Muslim who would accept the Khedive as the Commander of the Faithful; for he began his studies in Geneva, completed them in Vienna, and has adopted the characteristics of the unbelievers”.

When the proposal from England emerged to declare Sharif Hussein, the Emir of Makkah, as the Caliph for Muslims, Sultan Abdul Hamid II acknowledged that he lacked the energy and strength to combat European nations. However, the major powers trembled at the might of the Caliphate, and their fear of it led them to agree on the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire encompassed a diverse array of ethnicities, including Turks, Arabs, Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and Africans, among others. Despite this diversity, the unity of Islam binds us as one family.

Abdul Hamid II expressed his confidence in the unity of the Islamic world by stating: “We must strengthen our ties with other Muslims everywhere; we need to draw closer to one another, more and more. There is no hope for the future except through this unity. The time for it has not yet come; however, it will come. The day will arrive when all believers unite and rise together as one, and in that moment, they will break the necks of the unbelievers.” [An Excerpt from ‘Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awaamil An-Nuhood Wa Asbaab As-Suqoot 6/461-462]

Footnote a: Culture and Islam: https://salafidawah.uk/2025/05/25/the-current-discussion-among-some-african-muslims-about-aththaqafah/

To the “duly inquisitive” who inquired, “What prompted you to share history of the Ottomans?”

To the “duly inquisitive” who inquired, “What prompted you to share history of the Ottomans?”

Aid with no strings attached – Generosity of Ottoman Turks during “The Great Irish (Potato) Famine”

Written by abumuaawiyah on . Posted in Contemporary Issues, History of Islam, Methodology - 'Manhaj', Morals and Manners - 'Akhlaaq', Purification of The Soul, Worship - 'Ibaadah'.

In the Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Abdullah ibn Amr reported that Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, “The merciful will be shown mercy by the Most Merciful. Be merciful to those on the earth, and the One in the heavens will have mercy upon you.” [Sahih Abu Dawud 4941]

Potatoes have a special place in Irish culture, as for centuries the people of the Emerald Isle have depended on this tuber as a diet staple.

A seven-year famine in the 19th century, known as the Great Famine or Potato Famine, killed more than a million people in Ireland. The famine in Ireland, which was under British rule at the time, was triggered by the potato blight or late blight, a disease caused by a fungus-like organism causing collapse and decay.

The greatest single disaster Ireland has ever suffered – Gorta Mor in Gaelic – forced more than a million citizens to migrate to the U.S., but those who were too poor to go anywhere were doomed to die from starvation or illnesses that struck the weak and malnourished.

Observing the suffering, English philanthropist James Hack Tuke said people in the worst-affected areas were “living, or rather starving, upon turnip-tops, sand-eels and seaweed, a diet which no one in England would consider fit for the meanest animal.”

The worst year for the famine was 1847, as it saw no improvement in crop yields from the first two years of the plague. But it was at that time, the plague’s worst year – “Black ’47” – that unexpected aid arrived from afar.

Thousands of miles away, in the Ottoman capital Istanbul, Sultan Abdul Majid I was made aware of this great human suffering when his dentist, who came from Ireland, told him about the desperate situation. The sultan quickly offered 10,000 British pounds – just over a million pounds at current values, or $1.3 million – to be used to help the starving people of Ireland.

However, Queen Victoria had already aided Ireland with 2,000 British pounds, and her advisors in London refused to accept any offer exceeding the monarch’s aid.

Faced with this dictate, the unwillingly slashed his original offer of aid and sent Ireland 1,000 British pounds instead.
However, he had a fierce desire to extend more help for this humanitarian cause. “He was eager to do more, and that’s why he ordered three ships to take food, medicine and other urgent necessities to Ireland,” said Levent Murat Burhan, Turkey’s ambassador in Dublin, describing what happened next.
Speaking to Anadolu Agency (AA), Burhan said the historic aid operation was done on the sly, as the British navy would not allow any foreign ships to dock at harbors in either the capital Dublin or Cork.

“So the Ottoman ships had to travel further north and deliver the aid to the harbor of Drogheda,” Burhan said.

The aid was delivered to the wharves of Drogheda on the coast of the River Boyne, and it is especially in that place that the generosity of the Ottoman Empire is still remembered by the locals, 173 years later.

Visitors to Dublin museums can come across memorials and information about this unforgettable aid from the Ottoman Turks, but a plaque on the wall of a central Drogheda building, unveiled in 1995 by Mayor Alderman Godfrey and then-Turkish Ambassador to Ireland Taner Baytok, reads, “The Great Irish Famine of 1847 – In remembrance and recognition of the generosity of the People of Turkey toward the People of Ireland.”

During a 2010 visit to Ankara, Ireland’s then-President Mary McAleese expressed the Irish people’s gratitude for the aid, saying that the people of Drogheda had “incorporated into their coat of arms your own beautiful emblems, beautiful crescent and star, and they are there to the present day.”

Apart from the plaque of gratitude in the center of the town, the crescent and star are engraved on stones and painted on a wall.

But perhaps the most significant evidence of the aid and the local gratitude for it comes in a letter signed by local dignitaries of Drogheda. Ambassador Burhan showed AA a copy of the letter in his official room in Dublin. The letter reads: “We, as Irish nobles, dignitaries and people, submit our gratitude to the Ottoman Sultan for his generous assistance to us due to famine disaster. It is inevitable that we apply for other countries’ assistance to get rid of the threat of hunger and death.

The answer given to assistance call generously by the Ottoman Sultan has also been a model for the European countries. Thanks to this accurate behavior, many people have been relaxed and got rid of death. We submit our gratitude on behalf of them and pray for the Ottoman Sultan and his country not to face any disasters as we do.”

Irish novelist James Joyce referred to the Sultan’s aid in his work, Ulysses. “Even the Grand Turk sent us his piasters”.

Excerpt from Daily Sabah (Turkish Online News)

Identity crisis – a brief dialogue with Samuel J. Hyde

Written by abumuaawiyah on . Posted in Contemporary Issues, History of Islam, Methodology - 'Manhaj', Morals and Manners - 'Akhlaaq', Refutations.

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said:

The Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allah wills it to be. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be the khilafah upon the Prophetic methodology. And it will last for as long as Allah wills it to last. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be biting kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship and it will remain for as long as Allaah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be a khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology. [1]

The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: Allah drew the ends of the world near one another for my sake. And I have seen its eastern and western ends. And the dominion of my Ummah would reach those ends which have been drawn near me and I have been granted the red and the white treasure and I begged my Lord for my Ummah that it should not be destroyed because of famine, nor be dominated by an enemy who is not amongst them to take their lives and destroy them root and branch, and my Lord said: Muhammad, whenever I make a decision, there is none to change it. I grant you for your Ummah that it would not be destroyed by famine and it would not be dominated by an enemy who would not be amongst it and would take their lives and destroy them root and branch even if all the people from the different parts of the world join hands together (for this purpose), but it would be from amongst them (i.e. your Ummah) that some people would kill the others or imprison the others. [2]

The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: “There will not cease to be a group of my Ummah uppermost upon the truth. They will not be harmed by those who forsake them, until Allah’s affair comes to pass and they are uppermost”. [3]

The sacred texts mentioned above, along with many others, clearly indicate that despite the current weakness of the Ummah following its previous strength, victory will eventually return. Even in this state of weakness, the religion remains dominant and evident through those whom Allah has chosen to uphold its truths against all other lifestyles, based on an infallible Book until the Day of Judgment. In contrast, while other Scriptures may seem to have followers with greater military power today, their texts have been altered and abrogated. Their current advantage is not due to Islam but rather our failure to fully adhere to and implement the teachings of the Qur’an and authentic Sunnah. This article will explore this further, and a link will be provided for additional reading from Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, InShaAllah.

This article aims to provide a brief response to Samuel J. Hyde’s piece titled “How Sovereign Jews Became the Target of an Islamic Identity Crisis.” To begin with, there is no inherent identity crisis; the identity defined by the Qur’an and Sunnah, as interpreted and practiced by the Prophet’s companions, is clear and unambiguous. The so-called identity crisis pertains only to those Muslims who have strayed from the path of the companions, as well as all the people of the Scripture who have deviated from the teachings of Prophets Musa and Isa, peace and blessings be upon them. [Footnote a] Followers of these earlier Scriptures are united in their disbelief, as Jews reject Isa, whom they were instructed to follow, and Christians reject Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon both of them. In contrast, Muslims accept all Prophets and Messengers, peace and blessings be upon them. Within the Ummah of Muhammad, those who stray from or oppose the companions’ way are easily identifiable, just as those who remain faithful to it are. Unlike the other people of the Scripture, who collectively reject Muhammad and thus undermine their belief in Allah, the Ummah of Muhammad will never unite in misguidance. The Prophet said: “Verily, Allah will not let my Ummah agree upon misguidance”. [4]

There is no inherent identity crisis in Islam; instead, such crises arise among those who have strayed from the beliefs, practices, and methodology of the companions, as well as the people of the Scripture who have deviated and substituted the religion of Prophets Musa and Isa, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them.

Samuel said: If the Jews of 1898—who were fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe and those who were living as second class citizens throughout the Arab world—could push Islam back, it signified an intolerable disaster of Islamic weakness. [end of quote]

Response: Samuel refers to Jews in a broad sense rather than pinpointing a specific group among them that took advantage of Muslim vulnerabilities. It’s important to note that this vulnerability is not exclusive to Muslims; followers of the Prophets have experienced periods of both strength and weakness throughout history. Additionally, the rise of Zionism did not solely contribute to Muslim decline; various significant events in Europe also played a crucial role in increasing Zionist activity in Palestine. Before delving into that, we should examine earlier occurrences in regions under Ottoman control, particularly regarding Sultan Abdul Hamid II and the Young Turks, and how Zionists leveraged their influence to facilitate the sale of Muslim territories. First, however, let’s explore the origins of Zionist initiatives in other global contexts.

“In 1897, the held a conference in Basel, Switzerland. This conference saw the participation of approximately three hundred dedicated Zionists, who represented fifty Jewish organisations; however, the identity of the individual who initiated these protocols remains unknown. The intent of these protocols was to provide guidance to the Zionists on how to exercise governance upon attaining power. They were uncovered in 1901 when a French woman encountered them during a meeting with a prominent leader of the Zionist movement at a Masonic lodge in Paris. This woman successfully acquired several documents and managed to escape with them. These documents eventually came into the possession of Alex Nikolaevich, a prominent figure in Eastern Russia during the Tsarist period, known for his vehement campaign against the Jewish population (he perceived as adversaries). Upon reviewing the documents, he recognised their significance for his nation and the broader global context. Consequently, he entrusted them to a friend, a Russian author named Sergei Nilus. Nilus examined the contents and understood their implications, subsequently translating them into Russian and providing an introduction that forecasted the collapse of Tsarist Russia due to anarchist communism, the nature of its authoritarian governance, and its role as a base for inciting turmoil—aiming to dismantle the Islamic Caliphate, establish the State of Israel in Palestine, and bring down monarchies across Europe.

In 1902, a book was published for the first time in the Russian language, produced in limited quantities. The Zionists reacted vehemently upon its release, initiating intense campaigns to discredit the book. Despite their efforts, the claims linking the book to them were accurate. In response, Tsarist Russia undertook a severe campaign against the Zionists, resulting in the deaths of ten thousand individuals in a single massacre. The book underwent a reprinting in 1905, which quickly sold out in an unusual and covert manner, as Zionist groups procured copies from the market and incinerated them. A subsequent edition was released in 1911, but, similar to the earlier instance, copies vanished. In 1917, another printing occurred, yet it was seized by the communists following their ascension to power in Russia and the overthrow of the tsarist regime. A copy of the 1905 Russian edition found its way to the British Museum in London, where it was stamped in 1906. This copy remained largely overlooked until the communist coup in Russia in 1916 prompted the “Morning Post” to request updates from its correspondent, Victor Madson, who then examined various Russian publications. He dedicated his efforts to translating the work into English, subsequently publishing it in that language. The book saw five printings, the most recent occurring in 1921, yet no publisher in either Britain or America was willing to take on the project. Despite the efforts of Zionists to suppress the book, it was published in various languages, such as German, French, Italian, and Polish. The English edition from 1921 served as the basis for its first translation into Arabic, which was released in 1951″. [5]

Thus, in evaluating the perceived weaknesses of Muslims in relation to the rise of Jews, it is essential to consider the broader context and the various factors involved. The Jewish migration during the period referenced by Samuel was not solely a result of their leaders’ actions or inactions. Instead, the emergence of Zionism and its strategic objectives played a significant role in shaping the events of that time. Therefore, attributing the Muslims’ inability to respond effectively only to the circumstances surrounding the Jews migration overlooks the fact that the Ummah was also grappling with the constraints of colonialism, which, interestingly, provided substantial advantages to the Zionists, as will be explored further in this article.

Samuel said: Hamas is the product of a deep and ongoing debate within the Muslim world, a debate that has raged for the last 150 years and dwarfs the magnitude of any of the discussions we find in Western academia today. This debate is not just political but a profound theological reckoning. It revolves around a critical question: Why has Islam become weak? This question became particularly pressing after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent rise of Western powers in the Middle East (Britain and France). [end of quote]

Response: Hamas cannot be viewed as a standalone entity in the context of distinguishing truth from falsehood, as the correct path is clearly outlined in the sacred texts of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, as interpreted and practiced by the Prophet’s companions, peace and blessings be upon him. Instead, Hamas represents a deviation from the Prophet’s creed and methodology in confronting Islam’s adversaries. The discussions surrounding political and theological issues do not stem from Islam itself; rather, they emerged following a departure from the ways of the righteous predecessors. The pressing question is not only why Muslims are divided in facing their enemies, but rather why they do not return to the Qur’an and the Sunnah to resolve their differences, as Allah has instructed them to do. Allah said:

يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ أَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ فَإِن تَنَٰزَعْتُمْ فِى شَىْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْءَاخِرِ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا

O you who have believed, obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and those in authority over you. And if you disagree among yourselves over anything then refer it back to Allāh and the Messenger if you truly believe in Allāh and the Last Day. That is better (conduct) and (leads to) the most excellent outcome. [6]

Allah said:

وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ ٱلرَّسُولَ مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ ٱلْهُدَىٰ وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِۦ مَا تَوَلَّىٰ وَنُصْلِهِۦ جَهَنَّمَ وَسَآءَتْ مَصِيرًا

And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way (i.e. the companions). We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination. [An-Nisaa 115]

Allah said:

فَلْيَحْذَرِ ٱلَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِۦٓ أَن تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

And let those who oppose the Messenger’s (Muhammad) commandment (i.e. his Sunnah legal ways, orders, acts of worship, statements, etc.) (among the sects) beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials, afflictions, earthquakes, killing, overpowered by a tyrant, etc.) befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them. [An-Nur 63]

Samuel said: For over a century, leading Islamic thinkers and theologians have examined their civilization’s history, grappling with the dramatic decline of a once-great empire. They contemplate how Islam—once the epicenter of scientific advancement and geopolitical power, home to the world’s largest astronomical observatory in the 16th century—could fall so far. They pondered how their empires, which had once expanded to the middle of France and halfway to Afghanistan within a century, had lost their dominance. The answer to that question produces the Muslim world of today. Arab nationalism, in its essence, is a direct answer to the inquiry, “What happened to us as a civilization?” At its core, Al-Qaeda represents another answer, proposing a path for the Muslim world to regain the power and agency that once defined its history four centuries ago. [end of quote]

Response: The upright scholars of Islam have meticulously delineated the roots of our current frailty, alongside the pathways to rejuvenation. The remedy does not lie in nationalism, nor in any other ideology, nor in factions that stray from the prophetic methodology. Instead, the solution rests solely in the actions the Ummah must undertake to reclaim its vigor, by the grace of Allah. A thorough examination of this document offers the reader a profound insight into this pivotal issue. https://abukhadeejah.com/state-of-ummah-causes-of-weakness-means-of-rectification-ebook/

Samuel said: Early Islam’s explosive rise was a historical marvel. Within a few decades, it conquered vast swathes of territory across continents. This success was not only surprising but also confirmed the truth of Muhammad’s Revelation in the eyes of its leaders. This divine grace, which Islam shares with Judaism and Christianity, rests on the idea that there is a God, a God of Justice, who oversees history. Therefore, history has an arc, a purpose, and an end goal—a trajectory. [end of quote]

Response: The expansion of Islam is entirely attributed to the mercy of Allah, and there is no question that Islam represents the ultimate truth. Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is the seal of the Prophets, as stated in the infallible Qur’an and authentic Sunnah. Victory belongs exclusively to Allah, who grants it to whomever He chooses in every age, while it is the servants of Allah who bring harm upon themselves through their deeds. The Prophet cautioned us about the dangers of weakness, its origins, and its repercussions in numerous reports, including his notable statement: “When you partake in usury, hold on to the tails of cattle, become satisfied with cultivation and abandon Jihād, Allah will send upon you humiliation and He will not remove it until you return back to your religion”. Read again on this link: https://abukhadeejah.com/weakness-in-the-ummah-jihad-of-evidence-and-speech-in-defense-of-islam/

Samuel said: The crucial divergence here is that Islam took a leap that Judaism did not. Muslims believed that being powerful in history meant being in sync with the divine plan and aligned with the divine trajectory. In other words, if they were successful in conquering a continent in 10 or 40 years, it signified their truth and closeness to God, and God’s favor was with them. [end of quote]

Response: Islam is not comparable to Judaism because, following the arrival of the seal of the Prophets, all previous scriptures and laws were rendered obsolete. Additionally, earlier texts have been altered and corrupted. The early Muslims did not follow Allah’s path blindly or hesitate in their commitment; they made a conscious decision to dedicate themselves. They trusted in Allah’s promise to the righteous, knowing that He fulfills His promises completely. Therefore, they committed fully to their cause, confident that Allah would uphold His end of the covenant, regardless of the uncertainties ahead. Allah said:

يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ إِن تَنصُرُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ يَنصُرْكُمْ وَيُثَبِّتْ أَقْدَامَكُمْ

O you who believe, if you aid (the cause of) Allāh, He will aid you (against your enemy) and make your foothold firm (upon faith and upon the straight path and against your enemy). [7]

Allah said:

وَعَدَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا۟ ٱلصَّٰلِحَٰتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ كَمَا ٱسْتَخْلَفَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ ٱلَّذِى ٱرْتَضَىٰ لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّنۢ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِى لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِى شَيْـًٔا وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْفَٰسِقُونَ

Allah has promised those among you who believe, and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the earth, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion, that which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islam). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me. But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah). [An-Nur 55]

The devout predecessors were not simply taking risks or making bold choices; they were obeying a divine directive to deliver the ultimate message, regardless of the repercussions, because they had unwavering faith in Allah. Any weakness observed cannot be blamed on Islam itself, as the religion remains strong, flawless, and unerring, with compelling evidence that is applicable across all times, places, and situations. Instead, the shortcomings arise from Muslims failing to adhere to Islamic teachings and looking for answers in alternative ideas. Total submission to Allah is essential for success, as evidenced throughout Islamic history. The believers were given victory despite their inferior numbers and weaponry. Read on this link: https://salafidawah.uk/2024/10/04/ash-shanqeetee-and-ibn-baz-two-mountains-of-knowledge-and-their-precise-statements-regarding-sound-rectification/

Samuel said: Now, imagine you are a Muslim leader in Cairo in 1890, watching the British take the city from the Ottomans without any resistance. You are not only asking, “What happened to us?” but also, “How could Islam, in its divine form, grow weaker than Europe?” Ultimately, you are questioning, “How did we lose God’s favor, and how do we regain His grace?” Here lie the beginnings of the ideas of Islamic renewal—what many today call Islamism. These are all responses to the question of how to restore the old piety of Islam that ensured geopolitical power through closeness to God. This is what Al-Qaeda represents, what the Muslim Brotherhood represents, and what Hamas represents—a chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood established in Gaza in 1987. Hamas doesn’t fly Palestinian flags or promote a nationalist agenda; it rejects nationalism, seeing it as a European construct imposed on Muslims to divide and weaken them. This is crucial because it explains why Israel is so significant to terror organizations and regimes like the Islamic Republic in Iran, which has spent untold billions on Israel’s destruction. [end of quote]

Response: A clear distinction must be made between Islam and Muslims when discussing the challenges faced by Muslims. The weakness observed is not a reflection of Islam itself, but rather a result of neglecting or compromising its teachings. Similar to the experiences of Bani Israel, who faced periods of strength when they followed their prophets and weakness when they strayed, Muslims have undergone similar cycles. The remedy is straightforward for those who listen to the final Messenger’s guidance on the issue. True revival cannot be achieved through innovative methodologies like those of the Kharijites, Al-Qaeda, the misguided Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, or nationalism. Instead, sound revival and strength can only be realised through the approach of the Prophet’s companions. Any alternative, regardless of its claims to represent Islam, is destined to fail. Additionally, revival is not found in the path of the Rafidah of Iran, which leads to Shirk and Bidah. [Footnote b] Thus, what the Zionists oppose is not authentic Islamic revival, despite their labels for various sects and groups; they are confronting deviant sects that stray from the Prophetic methodology.

As for the Ottomans, their rise and fall was clearly due to the extensive external and internal pressures they faced, alongside their gradual departure from the piety of their early leaders who spread the faith fearlessly. It is overly simplistic to claim that the Ottomans could not defend Egypt without considering the significant external and internal factors contributing to their decline. Colonialism was rampant, with many Muslim nations already suffering under the brutal onslaught of colonisers, compounded by the infiltration of outsiders who finally corrupted the Young Turks. The story of how the Zionists aimed to undermine Sultan Abdul Hamid II and the later corruption among the Young Turks is well known.

When the Zionists, in the late 1800s, advocated for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, Sultan Abdül-Hamid II implemented various measures aimed at thwarting this initiative. Nevertheless, following the sultan’s deposition and the rise of the Young Turks to power, the movement gained traction and began to proliferate throughout the area. Also, it is important to acknowledge the significant support provided by the British Empire and other entities to this Zionist endeavour. Read below:

The Initial Rise and Gradual Impact of Christian Zionism on Some European Political Decision-makers:

The Initial Rise and Gradual Impact of Christian Zionism on Some European Political Decision-makers

An Overview of Christian Zionism in America Since the Arrival of The Puritans: https://salafidawah.uk/2024/10/08/an-overview-of-christian-zionism-in-america-since-the-arrival-of-the-puritans/

The aforementioned links present the names of some notable British politicians who supported the Zionist movement both from a theological and political perspective, influenced by the British Empire. Many contemporary historians have noted that as the Zionist efforts became more prominent, the British recognised the growing strength of this movement and proposed territories such as Uganda, Siberia, and Cyprus. However, these offers were declined, as the Zionists sought Palestine instead. Many Turkish historians assert that in 1871, prior to any significant actions by the Zionists, the Ottomans designated 80 percent of Palestine as state property. Subsequently, Sultan Abdul Hamid II implemented stricter measures to prevent Jewish settlement in Palestine. By 1883, he imposed restrictions on the acquisition of land in Palestine and opted to retain control over this strategically important territory.

He additionally forbade the acquisition of land by foreign Jews within the Ottoman Empire, including Palestine. It was asserted that the Ottoman Empire was not a resettlement area for individuals exiled from Europe. Prominent Zionists, including Theodor Herzl, who was at the forefront of the Zionist movement, sought a meeting with Sultan Abdul Hamid II. When this request was turned down, he conveyed his proposal to the sultan through his close associate, Polish Phillip Newlinsky, in May 1901. They proposed to settle the Ottoman Empire’s foreign debts and to offer support to the Sultan in Europe in return for the opening of Palestinian territories to Jewish settlement and the transfer of governance to the Jewish community. The sultan rejected the proposal, stating, “I will not part with anything, not even a fraction of this land, for this nation does not belong solely to me but to all Ottomans. My people acquired these territories through their sacrifices. We offer what we possess in the same manner as it was originally obtained.” Herzl reiterated his proposal the subsequent year, yet the response remained unchanged.

During that period, certain territories still under Ottoman rule were home to the largest Jewish population in the world, who enjoyed a degree of freedom. Thessaloniki, then part of the Ottoman Empire, was recognised as the largest Jewish city globally. In 1909, the Young Turks overthrew Sultan Abdülhamid II, subsequently exiling him to Thessaloniki, where he was confined in the residence of a Jewish banker named Allatini. The properties belonging to the sultan were nationalised, and the Young Turks permitted prominent Zionist figures to settle in Palestine. Among the Young Turks were numerous Freemasons and Sabbateans. Notably, Emmanuel Carasso, a Jewish banker and Freemason, was a close associate of Grand Vizier Talat Pasha and was part of the delegation that informed Sultan Abdl-Hamid II of his removal from power.

Thessaloniki’s deputy, Carasso, emerged as a prominent figure of his era and played a crucial role in facilitating Jewish migration to Palestine. The Young Turks repaid their obligations by assisting Carasso in amassing wealth and enabling him to engage in a black market for food during the Great War. In 1917, this group reached an agreement with British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour. The subsequent Balfour Declaration signified the British Empire’s endorsement of the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestinian territories. Following World War II, the lands that had belonged to Sultan Abdülhamid and were appropriated by the Young Turks came under British control. This British occupation led to an increase in Jewish settlement in Palestine, allowing Jews to acquire land. Meanwhile, Arabs faced economic pressures that compelled them to sell their properties.

Sultan Abdul Hamid reportedly stated on September 22, 1913, “I relinquished my position as Khalifah due to the oppression and intimidation from the Young Turks. This faction pressured me to endorse the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, which I firmly opposed. They ultimately proposed a sum of 150 million British gold pieces, which I also declined, asserting: ‘I would never consent to your demands, even if you offered not just 150 million British gold, but all the gold in the world. I have dedicated over 30 years to serving the Muslim community and have not betrayed my ancestors.’ Following my definitive refusal, they proceeded with my dethronement and exiled me to Thessaloniki.” By 1947, the Jewish population in Palestine had surpassed half of the total population, and a considerable portion of the land was under their control. The subsequent move was towards independence, as certain Jewish groups compelled the British to withdraw from the region. A referendum resulted in the decision to establish a Jewish state, which was ratified by the United Nations in 1948.

Therefore, Samuel’s assertion regarding the weakened state of the Ottoman Empire, rather, he should have called it the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, which rendered it incapable of defending Egypt from British intervention, is insufficiently detailed. A more comprehensive discussion of the circumstances contributing to this decline is essential, particularly the treachery of the Young Turks and their exploitation by wealthy Zionists. This aspect, along with other factors that had already compromised the latter Ottoman Empire—such as issues of religious creed and the adoption of Sufism and other innovations—constitutes a significant recipe for vulnerability, defeat, and eventual catastrophe.

Samuel said: Muhammad Rashid Rida was a prominent Islamic scholar, reformer, and thinker in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He played a significant role in the intellectual and political discourse of his time, advocating for Islamic renewal and the establishment of Salafi Islam in the modern age. He also taught several important Palestinian leaders, such as Haj Amin al-Husseini and Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, for whom Hamas’s military brigades are named. Al-Qassam was a young cleric in the 1930s whose massacre of Jewish farmers sparked the Great Arab Revolt of 1936. [end of quote]

Response: The individuals in question have been analyzed, and their trajectory was not aligned with Salafism; instead, it was characterized by Ikhwanism. Read: Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Rashid Rida, Hasan al-Banna: Modernism, Revolution and the Muslim Brotherhood: https://abukhadeejah.com/jamal-aldin-afghani-muhammad-abduh-rashid-rida-hasan-albanna-radicals-modernists/

Samuel said: Rida wrote an astonishing letter in a journal in 1898 called Al-Manar, one of the most influential journals in the Arab world at the time. In this letter, he addressed Palestinian Arabs and called them “complacent nothings.” It was not a polite letter; he was enraged with the Arabs of Palestine following the first Zionist Congress, whose minutes Rida followed very carefully. Initially, he was pro-Zionist, thinking that Zionists and Muslims could team up to expel the Christian empires from the Middle East. However, he later turned against Zionism when he realized it aimed to establish a Jewish nation-state, to turn Jews into a sovereign people rather than aid the birth of another Muslim state “from the river to the sea.”

Rida was concerned not with Palestinian nationalism—because such a movement did not yet exist—but with the theological implications of Jewish success. He wrote to the Arabs of Palestine, saying, “You are going to allow the weakest of all nations, the paupers of the earth, those expelled from every land in civilization, to push you back and become masters in your land.”

For Rida, the issue was not about rights or military occupation. As a Muslim theologian living under British rule, he found it inconvenient and theologically problematic but tolerable given the British Empire’s power. [end of quote]

Response: Whatever Rida wrote, regardless of some truth in it, would not have led to any success, as his approach did not align with the principles established by the righteous predecessors.

Samuel said: However, if the Jews of 1898—who were fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe, arriving in New York Harbor with nothing and those who were living as second class citizens throughout the Arab world—could push Islam back, it signified an intolerable disaster of Islamic weakness. This explains why groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis view the destruction of Israel as so crucial. They believe that Islam’s current weakness is due to its impiety and distance from God. They argue that by returning to God’s grace, Islam will regain its strength. Destroying Israel, which they see as a symbol of Islamic weakness, would be the first step in this process. The epiphenomenon of Israel’s presence, in more recent times, as an immovable actor who could not be manipulated only added to the necessity of its destruction.

When Westerners used to gaze upon Hamas and say things like, “Well, you know, they’re extremists, but they might moderate over time,” there was an implicit assumption that the group’s motivations were nothing more than raw, unexamined emotions driven by political grievances. This view was predicated on the belief that if one approached them with enough empathy, kindness, and economic benefits, they might somehow evolve into more moderate actors. But the reality is that all of this radicalism, not just found in Hamas but sitting at the heart of the Palestinian cause, is not a product of external circumstances or temporary emotions; it is a manifestation of a carefully considered, long-standing ideological framework that, for the sake of its own standing, cannot accept sovereign Jews and, as such, the existence of the State of Israel. That in its purest sense is the conflict. [end of quote]

Response: The persecution faced by Jews in 1898 is intricately linked to a series of events, including the Zionist plans discovered by Russians at the time. Conversely, many scholars of Islam have stated that the perceived weakness among Muslims—distinct from any inherent flaw in Islam—primarily stems from factors outlined in final revelation, which contributed to European domination. Thus, this weakness, exacerbated by colonialism, is largely a result of many Muslims straying from the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and failing to resolve their affairs through it, unlike the pious predecessors. Additionally, during this period, a significant development in Europe facilitated the Zionist agenda: the collaboration between Jewish and Christian Zionists. To analyse Muslim weakness without considering these underlying causes and the various stakeholders involved would leave us with an incomplete understanding of the historical context. The political and theological partnership between Jewish Zionism and influential Christian Zionists within the British Empire was pivotal, and relevant connections have been previously outlined.

It is important to clarify that the crisis at hand is not one of Islam itself, nor is there an inherent identity crisis within the religion. As we noted earlier, the real issue lies with those who have strayed from the teachings of the righteous predecessors. These individuals, whether intentionally or out of ignorance, fail to recognise the singular approach of these early scholars and pious predecessors. Consequently, the identity crisis affects only those who reject a return to the Sunnah, including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Rafidah of Iran, Al Qaeda, and others. These factions either perpetuate weakness through their flawed methodologies or serve as instruments for Zionists and other adversaries of Islam, who aim to tarnish the religion’s image and undermine the morale of Muslims.

The downfall of any nation is in the hands of Allah alone and not in the hands of Hamas, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood Sect or other deviated sects. The early Muslims, particularly the first three generations of Islam, did not aim to annihilate any community, instead, they spread the principles of justice inherent in Islam, adhering closely to the Prophet’s teachings. and remained resolute against those who sought to divert humanity from the path of Allah. It was this commitment to justice and unwavering dedication to pleasing Allah that brought them strength and success, emphasising the importance of worshiping Allah alone, following the Sunnah, and treating even adversaries with fairness. It is clear that the weakness observed among Muslims stems from a lack of piety, not from Islam itself. Ironically, some those who make such claims among the Rafidah and others embrace practices that reflect a departure from true faith. The presence of Shirk and Bidah within these groups poses the greatest obstacle to a return to strength. Read:

https://abuiyaad.com/a/rabi-harm-of-ikhwan-kharijites-rafidah-muslim-societies

An Exposition Of The Ikhwāni Principle Of Excusing Differences For The Sake Of Unity: “We excuse one another in that which we differ.”

https://learnaboutislam.co.uk/2017/07/historical-roots-al-qaida-isis-abu-iyad-amjad-rafiq-manchester/

Thus, the core issue isn’t solely the presence of Zionists in Palestine, which has developed not just because of their strength, but as a result of various factors in Europe and the Muslim world, alongside the impact of Colonialism that hastened their arrival. This situation isn’t just about a single, unyielding force; it reflects the vulnerabilities of many Muslims who have strayed from the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, leading to the suffering of the Palestinian people. True victory over opponents cannot be achieved through mere slogans calling for the destruction of nations, races, or religious groups. Instead, it hinges on adhering to the principles of Islam as guided by the Messenger, rather than following misguided groups that claim revival while collaborating with those who undermine the core tenets of Tawhid, which is the very essence of Islam. How can one claim to build when the foundations are ignored? How can one aspire for honour and success while simultaneously eroding the very principles that support them? Listen here:

Furthermore, no matter the opinions that Westerners may have about Hamas, it is crucial to recognise that their approach to revival and resistance does not align with the Prophetic methodology. This holds true regardless of their political issues, the kindness shown to them, the economic support they receive, or their feelings towards Jewish independence. The core concern lies in their methodology, which, along with that of other innovative groups, contributes to the overall weakness of Muslims. Additionally, it is important to note that Hamas serves as a tool for the Israeli Right. Read:

https://www.abuiyaad.com/w/hamas-israeli-right
https://abuiyaad.com/a/hamas-khomeini-iran

Imam Abdul Aziz Bin Baz, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

The latter part of this Muslim nation will not be rectified except through that which rectified its early part, as the people of knowledge and sound faith have stated. This is a statement of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy upon him, – the well-known scholar of sound understanding and piety. Many other people of knowledge reported this statement during and after his era and they all agreed with it- that ‘’The latter part of this Muslim nation will not be rectified except by way of that which rectified its earlier part.” This means that the path followed by its earlier generations -the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His noble Messenger- is what will rectify its future generations until the Day of Judgement. The one who wishes to rectify an Islamic society, or any other society in this worldly life through other than the path and practical steps that rectified those who have preceded [i.e. the Prophet and his companions], then such a person is mistaken and has spoken untruth. There is no path [to rectification] other than the path [of the Messenger and his companions]. The only path of rectification and uprightness is the one that was followed by our Prophet and his noble companions, and then those who follow them exactly in righteousness till this era of ours. [8]

We ask Allah to guide us to everything that will rectify our religious and worldly affairs, protect us from deviation and enable us to follow the path that will return the Ummah to strength and victory, remove the oppression of the Palestinians and all other Muslims facing the persecution and brutality of the callous one among humankind Aameen.

——————————————————

Footnote a: https://salafidawah.uk/2024/12/28/all-in-the-fire-except-one/

Footnote b: https://abukhadeejah.com/the-devils-deception-of-the-raafidah-shiah/

[1] https://www.aqidah.com/creed/articles/kyvik-the-khilaafah-lasted-for-30-years-then-there-was-kingship.cfm

[2] Sahih Muslim 2889

[3] Sahih Muslim 4715

[4] Sahih Sunan at-Tirmidhi 2167

[5] An Excerpt from “Diraasaat Al-Adyaan Al-Yahudiyyah Wan-Nasraaniyyah. pages 127-130

[6] https://www.thenoblequran.com/q/#/search/4_59

[7] https://www.thenoblequran.com/q/#/search/47_7

[8] https://salafidawah.uk/2024/10/22/quranic-and-prophetic-methodology-for-the-rectification-of-society-by-imam-abdul-aziz-bin-baz/

[40] Ascent and Decline of the Ottoman Empire- [Otto von Bismarck and Others Plotted]

Written by abumuaawiyah on . Posted in History of Islam, Morals and Manners - 'Akhlaaq'.

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Sultan Abdul Hamid II

The Russian envoy presented preconditions and requested their immediate signing; otherwise, the Russian armies would advance and occupy Istanbul, leaving the Ottomans with no choice but to sign.
The treaty stipulated:

1 – The establishment of borders for Montenegro to resolve the dispute, granting this principality independence.

2 – The Principality of Serbia gains independence and acquires additional territories.

3 – Bulgaria achieves administrative self-governance, paying a specified amount to the Ottoman Empire, with state officials and soldiers being exclusively Christians appointed by the Ottomans and Russians. The prince is elected by the inhabitants, and the Ottomans withdraw their troops completely from Bulgaria. The borders are to be defined.

4 – Romania is granted full independence.

5 – The Sublime Porte commits to protecting Armenians and Christians from Kurds and Circassians.

6 – The Sublime Porte will reform the conditions for Christians on the island of Crete.

7- The Ottoman state is to pay a war indemnity of 250 million gold lira, and Russia may receive territories in exchange for this amount.

8- The straits (Bosphorus and Dardanelles) will remain open to Russian ships in both peace and war.

9 – Muslims in Bulgaria are permitted to migrate to any part of the state they desire.

Thus, the fragmentation of state properties in Europe took place, even though Bulgaria’s expansion caused dissatisfaction among other Balkan countries like Austria, Greece, and Serbia. Moreover, Britain was unhappy with the growing Russian influence in the Balkans and was ready to challenge Russia. In June 1878, Britain obtained the right from the Ottoman Empire to occupy and manage the island of Cyprus, on the condition that it would stay under Ottoman control. In return, Britain agreed to protect the state’s properties in Asia from any further Russian threats, as long as the Sultan from Aleppo promised to carry out necessary reforms in his Asian regions in cooperation with Britain. Additionally, Britain promised to leave Cyprus if the Russians withdrew from the territories they held in Asia.

Sultan Abdul Hamid was initially not pleased with entering this war, which is why Britain supported him. This led to another conference (the Berlin Conference) to ease the situation. He did not approve the treaty and engaged in intense political and diplomatic efforts. The effects of the San Stefano Treaty, along with the fear of Russia competing with Britain, helped divert Russia’s attention from the war. He managed to secure gains for the state and reduced the losses outlined in the first treaty. The events surrounding both treaties showcased Sultan Abdul Hamid’s political genius, which was evident in creating a rift between Russia and Germany as well.

The German Emperor “Wilhelm II” mentioned in his memoirs:

I had a conversation with one of the senior commanders who served in the imperial court during the reign of “Alexander II”, the Tsar of Russia, about the relations between the Russian and German courts, as well as between the two armies and countries. I told this commander: I see a definite shift in these relations. He replied: The blame lies with the Berlin Conference! That was a major mistake made by (Bismarck) as it destroyed the old friendship we had and eroded Germany’s trust with the Russian court and government. It made the army feel it had suffered a great injustice after the bloody war it fought in 1877.

The Berlin Conference (1305 AH /1887):

The major powers (at the time) attended the conference (England, France, Germany, and Austria). Discussions were held regarding the amendment of the San Stefano Treaty between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, as the involved countries opposed this treaty because it did not align with their strategic interests. The conference participants agreed to modify the San Stefano Treaty. The Berlin Treaty was then established, which included the following terms:

1 – The independence of Bulgaria, with adjustments to its borders, and the establishment of a province named Eastern Rumelia in the southern Balkans, which would be under the political and military sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. A Christian governor would be appointed for five years by agreement of the states, and Russia would maintain a military presence in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia, limited to fifty thousand soldiers.

2 – Greece’s borders were slightly extended to the north, noting that Greece did not participate in the fighting, and the San Stefano Treaty did not include any of its territory.

3 – The annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria.

4 – The annexation of Bessarabia by Russia after it was taken from Romania, along with the inclusion of the Dobruja region and some islands to Romania, granting it full independence.

5- The independence of Serbia and Montenegro.

6- The annexation of the cities of Kars, Ardahan, and Batumi to Russia.

7- The conference decided to maintain the war indemnity established by the Treaty of San Stefano on the Ottoman Empire, amounting to 250 million gold lira.

8- The Sublime Porte pledged to accept all its subjects’ testimonies in court without discrimination based on religion.

9- Approval to improve the conditions of Christians on the island of Crete.

The German Chancellor Bismarck was the one who called for the conference, fearing that Britain’s opposition to Russia could lead to a general European war and threaten the German Empire, which he had worked hard to establish. Therefore, he invited the great powers (at the time) to the conference in Berlin to review the Treaty of San Stefano and settle the outcomes of the Russo-Turkish War.

Some historians have noted that behind the scenes of the Berlin Conference, Bismarck proposed dividing the Ottoman Empire for the sake of European peace. He offered Britain Egypt, France Tunisia, and the Levant, Austria Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Russia the Bosporus and Dardanelles, among other possessions of the Sultan. However, these proposals were not included in the conference’s resolutions. [Footnote a]

The Berlin Conference marked a significant decline for the Ottoman Empire, which was forced to give up large areas of its territory. It also highlights Britain’s and France’s efforts to maintain control over Ottoman possessions. Furthermore, both Britain and France revealed their colonial intentions; France occupied Tunisia in 1881, while Britain took control of Cyprus. Additionally, Britain invaded Egypt in 1882, claiming that its occupation was temporary. As a result of the war between the Ottoman Empire and Russia, the Sultan had to adopt the title of Caliph to address the new challenges. He also worked on establishing the Islamic University to unite all Muslims both domestically and abroad. There is no doubt that the Islamic University movement was well-received by Muslims, who believed that the weakness of the Ottoman Empire stemmed from a decline in religious sentiment among Muslims. This perception encouraged enemies of Islam to invade Islamic lands, plundering one country after another. [An Excerpt from ‘Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awaamil An-Nuhood Wa Asbaab As-Suqoot 6/456-460]

Footnote: Another Berlin Conference took place from 1884 to 1885, during which several of the same colonialists convened to partition Africa using arbitrary borders. Thus, while the author does not provide evidence that Bismarck privately advocated for the division of the Ottoman Empire to serve European interests, it is not unreasonable to assume that he may have made such proposals. This is because of the fact that some of these same colonialists, after invading, brutalising, and plundering Africa, divided the continent as if it were a mere commodity- systematically fragmented Africa to facilitate an agreement on resource sharing, perpetuating exploitation, injustice, and brutality. Therefore, concerning the alleged suggestions to fragment the Ottoman Empire, readers are encouraged to conduct further research to verify the facts.

To the “duly inquisitive” who inquired, “What prompted you to share history of the Ottomans?”

To the “duly inquisitive” who inquired, “What prompted you to share history of the Ottomans?”

[2] The Mali Empire before arrival of the oppressive and greedy French colonialists

Written by abumuaawiyah on . Posted in History of Islam, Morals and Manners - 'Akhlaaq'.

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

What prompted us to start this series was an incredible and repugnant nonsense uttered by a French ideologue who says that Africa should show gratitude to France! Gratitude for what exactly? For 147 years of plundering, violence, oppression, exploitation, cruelty, theft, and arrogance? This is why none deserves Imam As-Sadi’s, may Allah have mercy on him, rebuke against the oppressors more than the French Colonialists. He said: “What kind of progress is this? A progress that turns its people into vicious wild animals, marked by oppression, annihilation, and the colonisation of weaker nations while stripping them of their rights?” He also noted that their so-called development is disconnected from submission to Allah and the religion He ordained, leading to harm and resulting in savagery and barbarism, with outcomes that bring about destruction, ruin, and unparalleled evils. [1]

The inhabitants of the kingdom were very dark-skinned. Its king Mansa Musa strengthened Islam through what his brother Sulayman had gathered from the lands of Sudan. He built mosques, established congregational prayers and the call to prayer, and brought scholars of the Maliki Mad’hab to his land, ensuring the authority of the the Muslim sultan and seeking understanding of the religion. The ruler of this kingdom was known among the people of Egypt as the King of Takrur, though he would preferred to be called the owner of Mali, as it is the more prestigious title and he was more renowned by it. He was the most powerful among the Muslim kings of Sudan, possessing the largest territory, the greatest army, the strongest might, the most wealth, the best condition, the most formidable against enemies, and the most capable of bestowing gifts. The regions included in this kingdom were Ghana, Zafun, Terinka, Takrur, Singhana, Darmuda, Zaga, Kabra, Kuku amd other regions.

The name given to all these regions was Mali, which served as the base for the provinces of the kingdom, consisting of fourteen provinces with cities, villages, and districts. The kingdom was square-shaped, measuring four months or more in length and the same in width. It was located south of Marrakesh and the interior of the enemy’s territory, extending southwest to the ocean, with its length from Muli to Tora, which is on the coast. Most of the area was inhabited, except for a few places. In the domain of the Sultan of this kingdom, there was a barren land of gold, from which they brought gold every year. The inhabitants of the barren land were untaught disbelievers.

In the northern part of Mali, there were tribes of white Berbers under the rule of their Sultan, namely: Yennayer, Madira, and others. They had leaders who ruled over them, except Yennayer, as they were ruled by kings from among them under the authority of the ruler of Mali. Additionally, in the same region, there were people of different faiths, including some who consume human flesh, some who reverted to Islam, and others who remain in their beliefs. The The kingdom consisted of several palaces surrounded by a wall. A branch of the Nile encircled this city on all four sides. In some areas, it could be waded through when the water was low, while in others, it could only be crossed by boats. The construction of this city was made of clay, similar to the walls of the gardens in Damascus. It was built by layering clay to a height of about two-thirds of a cubit, then left to dry before adding another layer, repeating this process until completion. Its roofs were made of wood and reeds, with most roofs being domes.

All those lands were lush with palm trees, and their mountains were filled with thick wild trees, where a single tree could provide shade for five hundred knights. Their main food sources were rice and a type of grain called ‘quni’, which is a fine, fluffy substance that resembles mustard seeds or is even smaller. It is white, sweetened with honey, then ground and kneaded, and consumed. They also had wheat, which was scarce, and corn, which served as food for both them and their horses, as well as fodder for their animals. They possessed horses of the Tatar Akadish breed, and all their mules were very small in size. Likewise, their cattle, sheep, and donkeys were the finest creatures. They cultivated a plant called ‘qafi’, which consists of thin pods buried in the ground that grew until they become thick. Its taste was similar to taro but distinct from pepper. It grew in the open, and if the king learned that someone has stolen any of it, he would cut off their head and hang it in place of what was taken. This was a tradition passed down through generations. They also grew beans, squash, turnips, onions, garlic, eggplants, and cabbage. However, eggplants and cabbage were rare among them. Wild molokhia also grew there.

They had a variety of garden fruits, particularly the Jiz, which was abundant in their region. Wild trees bearing edible and pleasant fruits also grew there, including a tree called Tadmout that produced something resembling large pods. Inside these pods was a substance similar to fine wheat flour, which is very white and has a delicious taste. When dried, it was used in henna, turning it black like ammonium. They stored this tree for food and firewood. There was also a tree known as Qumi that bore fruit similar to quince, with a delightful taste reminiscent of bananas, and it has seeds that resemble cartilage. There was a tree named Farini that produced fruit similar to lemons, with a taste akin to pears. Inside, it contains a fleshy seed. This seed, when fresh, could be pierced to extract a substance similar to ghee, which was sour. Its seeds were used for making soap. If this ghee like thing was to be consumed, it must be carefully heated. The method involved placing it over a gentle fire, covering it, and allowing it to boil until it reaches a strong simmer. The person managing it should keep a close watch, testing it periodically, and adding small amounts of water gradually while it remains covered until it reached the desired strength. Afterward, it should be left to cool and can be used in cooking like ghee. If the cover is unexpectedly removed, it may bubble over and rise to the ceiling, and in some cases, the heat could ignite a fire that burns the house, or even escalate to a larger fire that could devastate the area. This fat would burn any skin it came into contact with, and it can only be contained in pumpkin shells.

In this region, there were wild fruits that resemble various cultivated fruits, but they were bitter and unpalatable, consumed only by the local Sudanese, as they formed a significant part of their diet. Additionally, salt was available here, unlike in the coastal areas and what is beyond that.

In their deserts, the buffaloes were wild, resembling beasts, and their hunting method involved capturing young ones that they raised at home. When they wished to hunt buffaloes, they took one to the buffaloes’ area so it can see and approach it, becoming familiar with the species. Once it is accustomed, they shoot it with a poisoned arrow, then they cut out the poison spots. A single goat could give birth to seven or eight kids at once. In their deserts, there were various wild animals such as donkeys, cattle, deer, ostriches, and others like them. Elephants, lions, and tigers also existed, but they only harmed those who provoked or disturbed them, and they did not interfere with a person unless surprised. Thety also had an animal called Tirma which is a hermaphrodite, the size of a wolf, and whenever it finds a small human or adolescent at night, it snatches and eats them, but during the day, it does not harm anyone and does not approach a fully grown man. It bellows like a bull when it wants to charge. It also scavenges on the dead and consumes them. Its teeth are like those of a crocodile.

There were enormous crocodiles in the Nile, some measuring over ten arms in length. Its bile was valuable and is taken to the treasury of their king. Elephants were in the neighbouring lands of the disbelievers. The sea in this entire region was abundant, especially in the land of Ghana, where disputes were often brought before their king. It is said that someone was killed by sorcery, whether it be a brother, son, daughter, or sister, the killer is sentenced to retribution, and the sorcerer is executed.

The sultan of this kingdom sits on a large platform in his palace, known as ‘Yinbi,’ with a large ebony throne that resembles a grand council chamber. The platform is adorned with the tusks of elephants on all sides. He possessed weapons made entirely of gold: a sword, a spear, a bow, and a book. He wore a large pair of trousers tailored from about twenty pieces, and no one dares to approach him. Behind him stood around thirty slaves from the Turks and others purchased from Egypt. His commanders sat around him under two large canopies, to his right and left, with notable knights of his army seated nearby.

The king Mansa Musa was asked by an Arab Maliki scholar whether he has enemies, so he said: “Yes, I have fierce enemies in Sudan, similar to the Tartars for you. There is a resemblance between them and the Tartars in that they have broad faces and flat noses, they are skilled in archery, and their horses are swift with flat noses. We have had encounters with them, and they possess great strength in their archery. There are disputes between us and them, and wars occur intermittently”.

He was asked how he came came to power. He replied: “The previous ruler did not believe that the ocean has an end, and he was eager to discover it. He prepared hundreds of ships filled with men, and an equal number filled with gold, water, and provisions sufficient for years. He instructed those on board: ‘Do not return until you reach the end, or until your supplies and water run out’. They set sail, and their absence was prolonged, with no one returning for a long time. Eventually, only one ship returned. We asked their leader about their journey and what they encountered. He said: ‘Yes O Sultan. We traveled for a long time until we came across a strong valley in the depths of the sea. I was the last of those ships. As for the other ships, they advanced, but once they reached that place, they did not return or reappear, and we did not know what happened to them. As for me, I turned back from my position and did not enter that valley’. The Sultan was skeptical of this account. He then prepared two thousand ships, one thousand for himself and the men he took with him, and one thousand for water and provisions. He appointed me as his deputy and sailed into the ocean with those who were with him. That was the last time he was seen, along with all his companions. The kingdom then fell to me”.

It is said that during his transit through Egypt on his way to Hajj, he maintained a consistent pattern in worship and devotion to Allah. He and those with him exhibited similar behavior, dressed well, and displayed tranquility and dignity. He was generous, charitable, and known for his many acts of kindness. He left his homeland with a hundred wasqs of gold, which he spent on his pilgrimage, from his country to Egypt, then in Egypt, and finally to Makkah and Madinah, both on his way there and back.

An Excerpt from “The Mali Kingdom As Narrated By Muslim Geographers” pages 43-61

To be continued…InShaAllah

[1] Excerpt from Al-Adillah al-Qawaatiq Wal-Baraaheen Fee Ib’taal Usool al-Mul’hideen 44

They were not governed by Netanyahu’s ideas

Written by abumuaawiyah on . Posted in History of Islam, Methodology - 'Manhaj', Monotheism - Tawheed, Morals and Manners - 'Akhlaaq', Prophets, Purification of The Soul, Scholars of Islam, Worship - 'Ibaadah'.

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

They were not governed by Netanyahu’s notions of ethnic supremacy and his reckless behavior, but by noble, upright and selfless Prophets of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them

The Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, “Bani Isra’eel used to be ruled and guided by prophets. Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.” [Sahih Al-Bukhari 3455]

Imam Ibn Hajr, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “Whenever corruption appeared amongst them, Allah sent a Prophet to rectify their affairs and put an end to that which they changed in the rulings of the Torah”.

An Excerpt From ‘Fat’hul Baaree Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhaari’. Vol 6. page 607. Publisher: Daarus Salaam. 1st Edition 1421AH (Year 2000)

Read: Who are Bani Israel in reality?

A Brief Discussion on the Attribution to the Offspring of Prophet Yaqub In Our Era

Visit: https://www.islammoses.com/im/

To the “duly inquisitive” who inquired, “What prompted you to share history of the Ottomans?”

Written by abumuaawiyah on . Posted in Contemporary Issues, History of Islam.

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Al-Allamah Salih Aala Ash-Shaikh, may Allah preserve him, said:

When Muslims conquered different regions of the earth and Islam spread, it appeared as though it began with non-Arabs, until Persians and other non-Arabs became scholars and Imams of mosques, and people learned from them. Many non-Arabs are mentioned in Islamic history as leading the Muslims in knowledge, pronouncing religious verdicts, and other matters. Consider Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy on him), who was not Arab, and Imam Al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him), whose book became an upright example. There is no Muslim who is not familiar with Imam Abu Abdillah Muhammad Bin Isma’eel Al-Bukhaari. And take into account other Imams of Islam other than Al-Bukhaari and Abu Haneefah.

Thus, when Islam was implemented, it erased the differences that the people had created; and why did those non-Arabs become the leaders and Imams of the Arabs? That is because they carried the religion, raised the banner of true Islamic monotheism – there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger – and because there is no differences in virtue between a non-Arab and an Arab except through fear of Allah.

When Muslims disciplined themselves with Islam, there was no dispute between them regarding social class by way of that pre-Islamic dispute and distinction, because they did not accept leadership or give precedence to anyone based on this; rather, they accepted everyone because people are equal in this matter. The Quraish rulership, the Umayyad rulership, and the Abbasid rulership ended; then the Mamluk rulership arose, followed by the rulership of Banee Uthman – meaning in the beginning when it was upright; so the Muslims obeyed them and they became the leaders and rulers because the Muslims saw that there was welfare for the people in doing so. As a result, class distinction and its practice were eradicated from the start, and no one had any reservations about implementing Islam. Islamic history attests to the application of this magnificent principle. Listen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRkeYjcJ728 [end of quote]

Secondly, anyone who delves into the history of the Ottomans recognizes the remarkable way in which Islam transformed the lives of the early Ottomans, alongside the various periods of decline and revival, and the concerted efforts made to undermine it from both internal and external forces. Moreover, the Ottomans provide us with significant insights into European history during their reign, particularly when considering the political landscape of Muslim dominance before the onset of colonialism. Today, we can observe who holds power on the global stage and how this dominance gradually developed when viewed through the lens of Ottoman history.

Additionally, the various figures who emerged at the height of Islamic history following the era of the Salaf, both the positive and negative aspects, paint a vivid picture of what contributed to dominance and what ultimately led to decline. Personalities such as Nidham Al-Mulk, Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi, and others rose among the Ottomans to restore some strength to the Ummah. Therefore, when Al-Allamah Salih Aala Shaikh briefly highlights the success and resilience of the early Ottomans, it becomes clear what factors contributed to that success. This history is an integral part of our glorious past, and the decline of the Ottomans, along with other Muslim Sultanates, serves as a valuable lesson. The scholarly works addressing the themes of ascension and decline are plentiful, as are their explanations of the clear reasons behind this decline. We are eager to celebrate the victories and learn from the causes of decline, yet this religion remains evident and supreme through its proofs and evidences. Whenever we deserve dominance, Allah will grant it, as it is a promise. Allah said:

وَعَدَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا۟ ٱلصَّٰلِحَٰتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ كَمَا ٱسْتَخْلَفَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ ٱلَّذِى ٱرْتَضَىٰ لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّنۢ بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِى لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِى شَيْـًٔا وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْفَٰسِقُونَ
وَأَقِيمُوا۟ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَءَاتُوا۟ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱلرَّسُولَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ

Allah has promised those among you who believe, and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the earth, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion, that which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islam). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me. But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah). And perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat and obey the Messenger (Muhammad) that you may receive mercy (from Allah). [Al-Nur 55-56]

[39] Ascent and Decline of the Ottoman Empire

Written by abumuaawiyah on . Posted in History of Islam, Morals and Manners - 'Akhlaaq'.

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Sultan Abdul Hamid II

continued….

Russia aimed to gain access to warm waters for religious, economic, and geographical reasons. Peter the Great (1672 – 1725) stressed in his will to the Russians, especially in paragraphs nine, eleven, and thirteen, the importance of a civilizational fight against the Ottomans until the Ottoman Empire is no more. Peter the Great states in paragraph nine of his will:

“As we get closer to Constantinople and India, it is clear that whoever controls Constantinople has effectively taken charge of the world. Thus, it is crucial to persist in the conflict against the Ottomans”.

The eleventh paragraph states:

“We are working with Austria to drive the Ottomans out of Aurea”.

The twelfth paragraph notes:

“After God, or in relation to the Ottoman territories, we will assemble our forces, our fleets will navigate into the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, and we will initiate discussions with France and the Austrian Empire about the partitioning of the world between us”.

Russia showed a strong interest in that decree, and under Sultan Abdul Hamid II’s rule, many revolutions took place with backing from Russia and various European nations in the Balkans, Greece, and other areas of the Ottoman Empire. Their efforts didn’t end there; they also aimed to create independent Christian nations like Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece. Following the Ottomans’ significant victories in the Balkans, Russia geared up for war and then announced a relentless conflict against the Ottoman Empire. Romania formed an alliance with Russia, drawing the Ottomans into a fierce confrontation with the Russians. The Russian forces crossed the Danube River and took control of multiple cities that belonged to the Ottomans, such as “Turnu” and “Nicopole,” which are now situated in Bulgaria.

Moreover, the Russians captured several strategic locations and crossings that lead to the Balkans. Sultan Abdul Hamid made important adjustments in the command of the Ottoman forces to resist the Russian invasion. The Russians tried to capture the city of (Balkan), now situated in Bulgaria. During that period, Uthman Pasha valiantly faced them, pushing them back in defeat and regaining the vital crossings to the Balkans. However, the brave Ottoman commander initiated another assault with a greater number of troops. Still, that notable Ottoman leader effectively drove the Russians away again, leading the Ottoman Sultan to release a special decree commending that commander.

In response to this resilience, the Russians sought to change their strategy for capturing the city. They enacted a siege policy designed to block supplies from reaching the Ottoman armies positioned there. At the same time, they strengthened their forces, with the Russian Tsar personally preparing for the upcoming battle, and the Prince of Romania forming an alliance with Russia. He brought along 100,000 troops, which altered the military balance in favour of the Russians, whose forces numbered over 150,000. They laid siege on three fronts against the Ottoman troops. However, the besieged Ottomans, commanded by Uthman Pasha, exhibited remarkable resilience. Despite having around 50,000 fighters, they crafted a brilliant plan for a counteroffensive against the enemy’s besieging lines, aiming for either victory and relief from the siege or martyrdom (InShaaAllah).

Uthman Pasha commanded his troops against the enemy, who were celebrating and rejoicing. Many of them died as martyrs (InShaAllah) at the hands of the Russian forces; however, they succeeded in breaking through the first and second lines of the besiegers, seizing the artillery within. He suffered some injuries at the third line, which ignited a strong rumour among his men regarding his martyrdom (InShaAllah). This news demoralised them, prompting an attempt to retreat to the city. Yet, some Russian troops had already penetrated it, leaving the Ottoman soldiers vulnerable to various enemy fire. As a result, they were forced to surrender to the Russian forces. This took place in the year 1294 AH, towards the end of 1877. The Ottoman commander, despite his injuries, surrendered to the Russians, who respected and commended his courage and bravery. The chief commander of the Russian troops even congratulated him for his outstanding defense, reinstating his rank in acknowledgment of his fighting abilities and determination. In December of that same year, 1877, he was taken to Russia, where the Tsar welcomed him with full honours, and not treating him as a prisoner.

The victories of the Russians inspired the Serbs in the Balkans to act against the Ottomans, prompting their forces to assault Ottoman strongholds in the area, which diverted focus from the Russians, who were concurrently aiming to seize new lands. In fact, the Russians managed to take Sofia (now the capital of Romania) and continued their advance; they moved south towards the former Ottoman capital, getting within just fifty kilometers of Istanbul, creating a critical predicament for the Ottoman Empire. Simultaneously, many battles were occurring between the Ottomans and the Russians on the Asian front, where the Russians advanced into Anatolia. Nevertheless, the Ottomans managed to defeat and chase them back into Russian land. Under the leadership of Ahmad Mukhtar Pasha, the Ottomans won over six battles against the Russians, however, the Russians renewed their offensives in those regions, once again focusing on specific areas within Anatolia. In the year 1295 AH, they succeeded in defeating the Ottoman forces and taking control. Given the Ottoman setbacks in both Europe and Asia, the Ottoman Empire was forced to agree to a truce with the Russians and enter negotiations, resulting in the signing of the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878. This treaty was finalised on March 3, 1878, and was signed by “Saffet Pasha” on behalf of the Ottoman Empire, who was visibly emotional. It was unavoidable that this treaty would contain terms unfavourable to the Ottoman Empire.

An Excerpt from ‘Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awaamil An-Nuhood Wa Asbaab As-Suqoot 6/454-456

[38] Ascent and Decline of the Ottoman Empire

Written by abumuaawiyah on . Posted in History of Islam, Morals and Manners - 'Akhlaaq'.

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.

Sultan Abdul Hamid II

continued….

In 1293 AH (1876), the people of Montenegro and the Serbs encouraged Herzegovina to rise up against the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were able to quell this rebellion. To deter European nations from intervening, Sultan Abdul Hamid enacted a decree that separated the judiciary from the executive branch. He also required that judges be elected by the local populace and instituted tax equality for both Muslims and Christians.

The residents were unhappy with the situation, leading them to return to revolution, which was also quelled. Nevertheless, Austria, which supported the revolution and aimed to annex Bosnia and Herzegovina, kept stirring up discontent against the Ottoman Empire. Austria worked alongside Russia, Germany, France, and England to pressure the Sultan into enacting reforms. He consented, but the Christians in Bosnia rejected this. This shows that the call for reforms was just a weak pretext; in reality, they sought to intervene both directly and indirectly in state matters to undermine and topple it.

The Bulgarian revolution took place at the same time as the uprising of Christians in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which received support from Austria and various European nations, especially Russia. In Bulgaria, societies were formed to promote Russian influence among Orthodox Christians and Slavs, with assistance from Russia, which provided them with arms. These societies actively encouraged the populations of Serbia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina to rise up against the Ottomans. When the Ottoman Empire moved some Circassian families, the Bulgarians objected, leading to a revolution that was backed by Russia and Austria with weapons and financial support. The Ottoman Empire was able to quell the uprising, which led European nations to circulate rumors about the atrocities committed by the Ottomans against Christians, despite the reality being quite the opposite. These rumors influenced European public sentiment against the Ottoman Empire, prompting European governments to call for stringent actions against the Ottomans, including granting self-governance to the Bulgarians and appointing a Christian governor for them.

The Russians, Germans, and Austrians pushed the Serbs and Montenegrins to wage war against the Ottomans, as Russia aimed to expand its borders towards Bulgaria. Meanwhile, Austria sought to extend its territory towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, promising support to these nations, including the Prince of Montenegro. Russian soldiers began to secretly flow into Serbia and Montenegro, and the Ottoman Empire managed to defeat the Serbs and their allies. This prompted European nations to intervene, demanding a ceasefire, or else a larger war would ensue.

Delegates from European nations convened in Istanbul and suggested to the state regarding its security: to split the Bulgarian territories into two provinces, appointing Christian governors, to establish an international committee to carry out the resolutions, to extend these privileges to the principalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well, and for the state to relinquish certain lands to Serbia and Montenegro. However, the Ottoman Empire dismissed these proposals and negotiated a separate peace with the Turks, leading to the retreat of its forces from Serbia, while the Ottoman and Serbian flags were hoisted as a symbol of Ottoman authority. Sultan Abdul Hamid II was convinced that the Western powers aimed to bring about the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In his memoirs, he stated: (During the conference of the great powers held in Istanbul, I observed their intentions, which were not as they claimed to secure the rights of Christian subjects, but rather to ensure their autonomy, followed by efforts for their complete independence, ultimately leading to the division of the Ottoman Empire.

They were working on dividing this goal into two aspects: inciting Christian families and disturbing the peace, thus these countries can protect them. Second, advocating conditionality to create division among ourselves, and unfortunately, they managed to find supporters among us who would serve both purposes. Sadly, some educated Ottoman youth could not distinguish between easy implementation and constitutional governance in a nation with national unity, and the impossibility of such governance in countries lacking national unity.

An Excerpt from ‘Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awaamil An-Nuhood Wa Asbaab As-Suqoot. 6/451-453