Author: Abdullah Jallow

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

After the demise of Alp Arslan, the Sultanate was inherited by his son, Malik Shah. However, his uncle Qaaward (or Qavurt) Bin Chaghri, who ruled over the Seljuks of Kerman, challenged his authority and sought to claim the Sultanate for himself. This led to a confrontation near Hamadan, resulting in Qaaward’s defeat and demise. Consequently, Malik Shah gained control over the Seljuk state of Kerman, while Sultan Shah Bin Alp Arslan [Malik Shah’s brother] was designated as the governor of Kerman in the year 465 AH. The Seljuk state experienced growth under the rule of Sultan Malik Shah. It expanded its territory from Afghanistan in the east to Asia Minor in the west and Shaam in the south. After the fall of Damascus in 468AH, Atsiz played a significant role in establishing communication with the Abbasid caliph. In 470AH, Malik Shah assigned his brother Taj Al-Dawlah to govern the areas in Shaam and continue the conquest. Taj Al-Dawlah went on to establish the Seljuk state of Shaam.

Additionally, Sulayman Bin Qatlamish Bin Israa’eel, a relative of Taj Al-Dawlah, was appointed as the ruler of Asia Minor, which was connected to the lands of Rome. This led to the establishment of the Seljuk state of Rome in 470AH. The rule of this state lasted for 224 years with fourteen descendants of Abul Fawaaris Qaltamish Ibn Israa’eel continuing the rulership. Sulaymaan Qaltamish, the first descendant, is credited as the state’s founder and successfully conquered Antioch in 477 AH. His son Dawud later made Konya his capital in 480 AH, transforming the once wealthy Byzantine city into an Islamic Seljuk city. The state eventually fell to the Mughals in 700 AH and later became part of the Ottoman Empire. The Seljuks of Rome played a key role in Turkifying Asia Minor and spreading Islam in the region. They facilitated the spread of Islamic civilization and weakened the defensive barrier protecting European Christianity from Islam in the East.

Despite the powerful rule of Sultan Malik Shah, Atsiz was unable to unite Shaam and Egypt after the Seljuks, and the Abaydiyyah state in Egypt, which was Shiite and Fatimid, posed a real threat. When Atsiz attempted to invade Egypt, he was defeated by an Arab force before facing the large army led by Minister Badr al-Jamaalee in Rajab 469 AH. This failure resulted in further fragmentation, political turmoil, and violent conflict, ultimately leading to Atsiz’s death in 571 AH. After the death of Sultan Malik Shah, the Seljuk state experienced a decline in strength and glory, which had been prominent during the reigns of Tughrul Beg, Alp Arslan, and Malik Shah, between 447 AH and 485 AH.

[Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awaamil An-Nuhood wa Asbaab As-Suqoot. 6/31-32]

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

Alp Arslan assumed control of the nation following the demise of his uncle Tughrul Beg, despite facing some contention regarding the rightful successor. However, he successfully navigated through this dispute and emerged as a skilful and fearless leader, much like his uncle. He implemented a distinct strategy, focusing on consolidating his authority within the territories under the Seljuk influence before expanding his dominion to encompass new regions. His fervent desire for Jihad drove him to propagate the message of Islam in the neighbouring Christian nations, namely the Armenian and Roman lands. [I]

He spent seven years examining different parts of his extensive country before initiating any foreign expansion. Once he was confident in the restoration of security and the potential rule of the Seljuks in all regions and lands under their influence, he began strategizing to achieve his long-term objectives. These goals included conquering neighboring Christian countries, overthrowing the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt, unifying the Islamic world under the Sunni Abbasid caliphate, and expanding the influence of the Seljuks. To accomplish this, he assembled a large army and directed it toward the territories of the Armenians and Georgia, successfully conquering and incorporating them into his kingdom. Additionally, he actively worked towards spreading Islam in these lands. He also launched a raid on northern Shaam and laid siege to the Mirdaasid state in Aleppo, which was established by Salih Bin Mirdas and followed the Shiite sect. Through his efforts, he compelled Mahmoud Bin Salih Bin Mirdas, the leader of the Mirdaasid state, to advocate for the Abbasid caliphate instead of the Fatimid caliphate. Furthermore, he dispatched his Turk commander, Atsiz Ibn Uwaq al-Khawaarizmee, on a campaign to southern Shaam, resulting in the capture of Ramle and Baytul Maqdis from the Fatimids. However, he was unable to seize Asqalaan, which served as the gateway to Egypt. These endeavors brought the Seljuks closer to the heart of the Abbasid Caliphate, with the Seljuk Sultan establishing his presence within Baytul Maqdis. In 462 AH, a messenger from the sultan approached the governor of Makkah, Muhammad Bin Abee Haashim, and instructed him to deliver the Friday sermon under the authority of the Caliph. The messenger also requested that the sermon previously delivered under the authority of the Ubaidi Shiite ruler of Egypt be abandoned. Additionally, the messenger urged the governor to cease the religious innovation of the Shiites, who had deviated from the prescribed wording of the A’dhaan. Instead of saying “Hayyaa Alas Salaah, Hayyaa Alal Falaah” (come to the prayer, come to success), they had introduced the phrase “Hayyaa Alaa khayril A’mal” (come to the best of deeds). As a reward, the sultan granted Muhammad Bin Abee Haashim a thousand dinars and expressed that if the governor of Madinah followed suit, he would receive twenty thousand dinars.

The Emperor of the Romans, Romanos Diogenes, was angered by the conquests of Alp Arslan, prompting him to take action to defend his empire. His troops engaged in numerous skirmishes and battles against the Seljuk forces, with the most significant being the clash in 463 AH. According to Imam Ibn Kathir, during this battle, the Roman king Romanos led a vast army that was well-equipped. He was supported by 35,000 commanders, 200,000 knights, 35,000 Franks, 15,000 raiders from Constantinople, 1,000 excavators and diggers, 1,000 clay workers, 400 wheeled carriages carrying shoes and nails, 1,000 wheeled carriages loaded with weapons, saddles, bows and arrows, catapults, and one particularly formidable catapult armed with thousands of missiles and manned by 200 soldiers. Their sole purpose was to eradicate Islam and its followers. He encountered Romanos and his army of Romans at a place called Zahwa. With his army of nearly 20,000, he was initially concerned about the large number of Romans; however, the jurist Abu Nasr Muhammad Bin Abdil Malik Al-Bukharee advised him to choose Friday as the day for the battle, when the Khateebs would be supplicating for the Mujahideen. Following this advice, the two parties faced each other on the chosen day. Before the battle began, Sultan Alp Arslan dismounted from his horse, prostrated to Allah with his face covered in soil and sought His help. Allah granted victory to the Muslims, resulting in the death of many Romans and the capture of their king, Romanos.

When Romanos was brought before Alp Arslan, he struck him three times and asked him what he would do if their roles were reversed. Romanos replied that he would commit every ugly deed. Alp Arslan then asked Romanos for his thoughts on his own fate. Romanos expressed his preference for being pardoned, paying a ransom, and being returned home rather than being killed and humiliated in Alp Arslan’s country. In response, he stated that his firm decision was to pardon Romanos and accept a ransom. He deducted a large sum from the ransom – five hundred thousand dinars. Ramanos paid his respects to Alp Arslan, who then provided him with 10000 dinars for preparations, released some commanders to accompany him, and dispatched an army to ensure his safe journey back to his country. The triumph of Alp Arslan’s army, consisting of only fifteen thousand soldiers, over Emperor Romanos’ massive army of over two hundred thousand troops, marked a significant moment in Islamic history. This victory led to the decline of Roman influence in key regions of Asia Minor, weakening the foundations of the Byzantine Empire and ultimately paving the way for its downfall at the hands of the Ottomans.

Alp Arslan, a righteous man, sought both religious and material means to achieve victory. He valued the advice of scholars and maintained a close relationship with them. During the battle of Manzikert, the erudite scholar Abu Nasr Muhammad Bin Abdil Malik Al-Hanafi gave him a remarkable piece of advice. He reminded Sultan Alp Arslan that they were fighting for a religion ordained by Allah, and that victory was promised by Allah for that cause. The scholar expressed hope that the conquest would be written in the Sultan’s name. He advised Alp Arslan to engage the enemy on a Friday, at the time when the khateebs were on the pulpits, as they would be supplicating for the Mujahideen. When the appointed hour arrived, the Sultan led his army in prayer, shedding tears that moved the people to tears as well. He prayed fervently, and his soldiers responded with Aameen. He then gave them the choice to leave, emphasizing that he would not force them to stay. He prepared for battle by equipping himself with a crossbow sling, and a sword, and dressing in white, declaring that if he were to fall, his white attire would serve as his shroud.

He was kind-hearted, compassionate towards the poor, and frequently supplicated to Allah to preserve the blessings bestowed upon him. On a particular occasion, he was moved to tears upon encountering impoverished individuals in Khurasan, beseeching Allah to grant him abundance from His Grace. Known for his generous donations, during Ramadan he would contribute 15000 dinars. His public treasury records contained numerous names of needy individuals across the regions under his governance, associated with various state departments and organizations. Throughout his lands, there were no instances of wrongdoing or property confiscation, as he opted for a modest land tax payment from cultivators each year, collected in two instalments, out of consideration for his subjects. Some of the clerks corresponded with him regarding his minister’s conduct concerning the governance system, highlighting his wealth. Consequently, he called for the minister and advised, “If the allegations against you are true, then take this as a warning to improve your behavior and rectify your affairs. However, if the accusations are false, then forgive the accuser for their error.” He was regularly informed about the history of the kings, their conduct, and the laws of the Shari’ah. As his reputation for good behaviour and honouring agreements spread among the kings, they willingly submitted to him in obedience and approval. Leaders traveled from distant lands, spanning from the river to the farthest regions of Shaam, to seek his counsel. He was murdered by one of the insurgents called Yusuf al-Khawarizmi, and that was on the tenth of Rabi al-Awwal in the year 465 AH, and he was buried in the city of Merv near the grave of his father. He was succeeded by his son Malik Shah. [An Excerpt from Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awaamil An-Nuhood Wa Asbaab As-Suqoot. 6/26-31]

[I] https://www.abukhadeejah.com/the-life-of-the-muhammad-in-madinah-treaties-conquests-and-his-death/
https://www.abukhadeejah.com/treaties-with-the-non-muslims-do-they-necessitate-allegiance/
https://www.abukhadeejah.com/salafi-shaikh-fawzaan-on-jihaad-in-our-times-and-the-guidelines-of-jihaad-according-to-islam/

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

In the region beyond the river, we call today Turkestan- which extends from the Mongolian plateau and northern China in the east to the Khazar Sea (Caspian Sea) in the west, and from the Siberian plains in the north to the Indian subcontinent and Persia in the south – settled the clans of the Oghuz Turks and its large tribes in those areas, and they were known as Turks or Al-At’rak. Then, during the latter half of the 6th century, these tribes undertook massive migrations from their original homelands to Asia Minor. Historians have cited various reasons for their migration. Some argue that it was driven by economic factors and the severe drought, causing these tribes to grow restless in their original habitats and seek greener pastures and a more comfortable life elsewhere. Others attribute these migrations to political pressures, as these tribes faced significant threats from stronger and larger tribes, such as the Mongols, compelling them to search for a new home and abandon their lands in pursuit of security and stability. These migrating tribes lacked organization as they moved westward and eventually settled near the shores of the Gihon River. They temporarily resided in Tabaristan and Gorgan, bringing them closer to the Islamic lands that the Muslims had conquered following the Battle of Nahavand and the collapse of the Sasanian state in Persia.

In the 22nd year after the Hijra, the Islamic armies advanced towards the territory of Al-Baab intending to conquer it. This land was inhabited by the Turks, and it was there that Abdur Rahmaan Ibn Rabi’ah, the commander of the Islamic army, encountered a king of the Turks known as Shahr Baraz. The king expressed his desire for peace and even offered to join the Islamic army in their fight against the Armenians. Abdur Rahmaan sent his commander Saraqah Ibn Amr to meet with him, and Shahr Baraz accepted his presence. Abdur Rahmaan then wrote to the Caliph Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab, informing him of the situation. Umar agreed with Abdur Rahman, leading to the establishment of a peace treaty. Consequently, there was no conflict between the Turks and the Muslims; instead, both sides united to conquer the Armenian lands and spread the message of Islam there. The Islamic armies continued their march towards the northeastern regions of Persia, successfully spreading the call to the path of Allah after the downfall of the Persian empire, which had previously posed a formidable obstacle. Through these conquests, the people of these lands, including the Turks, were able to freely interact with the Muslims. As a result, the Turks embraced Islam and joined the ranks of the Muslim armies, actively working to propagate Islam and elevate Allah’s statement “None has the right to be worshipped except Allah”.

During Uthman’s Khilafah, Tabaristan was conquered, and the Muslims successfully crossed the Gihon River in the 31st year after Hijrah. They ventured into the lands beyond the river, where many Turks embraced Islam and became staunch defenders of the faith. These brave individuals actively participated in Jihad. [a] The Muslim armies continued their conquests in these regions, eventually capturing Bukhara during the Khilafah of Muaawiyah Bin Abee Sufyan. These victorious armies pushed forward until they reached Samarkand. With the establishment of the Islamic state, justice prevailed over all the countries beyond the river, and the people thrived under a flourishing Islamic civilization.

The Role of Some of The Turks During The Khilafah of Banu Abbas

The number of Turks in the court of the caliphs and the Abbasid princes increased, and they started taking on leadership and administrative positions in the state. They served as soldiers, leaders, and writers, and remained calm and obedient until they achieved higher ranks. When Al-Mutasim al-Abbaasee assumed the caliphate, he welcomed Turkish influence and appointed them to key positions in the state, thus involving them in state affairs. His policy aimed to diminish the Persian influence, which had been dominant in the administration of the Abbasid state since the time of Al-Mamoon’s caliphate. Al-Mutasim’s favoritism towards the Turks caused significant discontent among the people and the soldiers. Fearing their potential backlash, Al-Mutasim established a new city called Samarra, located approximately 125 km from Baghdad, where he resided with his soldiers and supporters. From that point onwards, the Turks began to play significant roles in Islamic history, eventually establishing a powerful Islamic state closely tied to the successors of the Abbasid state, known as the Seljuk state.

The rise of the Seljuks in the Arab Islamic East had a significant impact on the political landscape of the region. This area was being contested by the Sunni Abbasid Caliphate and the Shiite Fatimid Caliphate. The Seljuks established a powerful state in the fifth century after the Hijrah, which encompassed Khurasan, Iran, Iraq, Shaam, and Asia Minor. The focal points of their rule were Iran and Baghdad in Iraq, where the Seljuk Sultanate was based. Additionally, Seljuk states were established in Khurasan, beyond the River (Kerman), Shaam, Asia Minor, and even Rome, with the Seljuks of Rome following the Seljuk Sultan in Iran and Iraq. They provided support to the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad and upheld its Sunni path amidst the threat of collapse from Buwayhid Shiite influence in Iran and Iraq, as well as the Ubaydi (Fatimid) influence in Egypt and Shaam. Tughrul Beg, the Seljuk leader, successfully overthrew the Buwayhid state in 447 AH in Baghdad, quelled unrest, put an end to insults directed at the Prophet’s Companions at mosque entrances, and eliminated the Shiite Shaikh of the Rawaafid, Abu Abdillah Al-Jallaab, due to his extremist Shiite Rafidah beliefs. Following the removal of the Buwayhid state from Baghdad by the Seljuks, their sultan Tughrul Beg entered the capital of the Abbasid caliphate. The Abbasid Caliph Al-Qaa’im Bi-Amrillaah warmly welcomed him, presented him with a Sunni robe, seated him beside him, and bestowed upon him grand titles, including “Sultan, a cornerstone (or pillar) in the religion, Tughrul Beg”. The Abbasid Caliph also decreed that Sultan Tughrul Beg’s name be inscribed on the currency and mentioned in sermons at mosques in Baghdad and beyond, elevating the status of the Seljuks. Consequently, the Seljuks replaced the Buwayhids in control of Baghdad.

Tughrul Beg possessed a strong character, keen intellect, and immense bravery, alongside his devout religious beliefs and just nature. As a result, he garnered significant support from his people, built a formidable army, and aimed to unite the Seljuk Turks into a powerful state. To strengthen the bond between the Abbasid caliph Al-Qaa’im Bi-Amrillaah and Seljuk leader Tughrul Beg, the Caliph wedded the daughter of Chaghri Bey, Tughrul Bey’s elder brother, in 448 AH. Subsequently, in Shaban of 454 AH, Tughrul Beg married the daughter of the Abbasid Caliph, but he passed away shortly after, on a Friday night on the eighth day of Ramadan in 454 AH, at the age of seventy. Before his death, the Seljuks, under his command, successfully conquered Khurasan, Iran, and northern, and eastern Iraq. [Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awaamil An-Nuhood Wa Asbaab As-Suqoot. 6/22-26]

[a] Jihaad in our times and the guidelines of Jihaad according to Islam – By Shaikh Abu Khadeejah: https://www.abukhadeejah.com/salafi-shaikh-fawzaan-on-jihaad-in-our-timesand-the-guidelines-of-jihaad-according-to-islam/

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

Some historians from Europe, Jews, Christians, and secularists have not hesitated to attack the history of the Ottoman State. They have used various methods to insult and distort the Ottomans’ service to Islam. Despite their different affiliations, and inclinations towards nationalism and secularism, many Arab historians have also followed this misguided path. Additionally, some Turks influenced by Mustapha Kamal’s advocacy for secularism have joined in. (a) It was only natural for them to condemn the Ottoman State’s era, as they found support for their shift towards nationalism and secularism in the writings of Christians and Jews – particularly in Turkey – after the First World War. The European historian’s perspective on Ottoman history was shaped by the remarkable victories of the Ottomans, particularly following the capture of Constantinople, the Byzantine capital, (b) which transformed into an Islamic territory. As a result, European sentiments held animosity and resentment towards Islam, which could be observed in their language, actions, and written works. The Ottomans endeavoured and persisted in their march towards annexing Rome to the Islamic state, eventually making their way through the heart of Europe and reaching Spain to defend the Muslims there. This led to a period of fear, anxiety, and panic in Europe, with their hearts only finding solace after the death of Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih [may Allah have mercy upon him].

The European streets were filled with animosity and animosity towards Islam and Muslims by Christian leaders, including priests, monks, and kings. The Christian clergy actively raised funds and recruited volunteers to launch attacks against Muslims. As the Ottomans continued to defeat these groups, the hatred and hostility towards Islam and its followers grew stronger. To safeguard their own political and material interests, the Christian leaders falsely accused the Ottomans of piracy and brutality, leaving these false accusations ingrained in the memories of Europeans. These public attacks carried out by Christian leaders were aimed at preserving their hatred for Islam and its people, allowing certain ruling families in Europe to exert control over European societies for an extended period. They amassed immense wealth, enriched themselves, and established a powerful presence, often continuing down this path through deception and misleading others. Even though European societies rebelled against these groups during the Renaissance, the conscience of European society still couldn’t shake off the remnants left by these groups towards the Islamic world as a whole and the Ottoman Empire specifically. Consequently, fuelled by their military might and supported by their material civilisation, they swiftly sought retribution against Islam and the Muslims, seizing their valuable assets under the guise of religious, economic, political, and cultural justifications. Their writers and historians actively backed the defamation and misrepresentation of Islam, spreading scepticism about its beliefs and history, with the Ottoman Empire being a primary target of these fierce attacks. [1] 

————————————————–

(a) Imam Al-Albani [may Allah have mercy upon him] stated:

كما يقال إنه جمعني مجلس مرة مع قسيس من قساوسة النصارى فجرى بحث طويل بيني وبينه ، والقصة فيها طول وفيها فائدة ولكن الوقت ضاق يعني معنا نحو خمس دقائق .ولذلك فأذكر منها ما يتعلق بهذا المقام ، لقد أنكر هذا القسيس على المسلمين أنهم حكموا بكفر الذي كان من قبل يسمى بمصطفى كمال باشا ، ثم سمي بأتاتورك ، أبو الأتراك والذي حاد بالأتراك المسلمين عن كثير من أحكام دينهم كما هو معلوم ، هذا القسيس هاجم المسلمين ونسبهم إلى الغلو في تكفيرهم لأتاتورك هذا بزعمه هو أنه لم يصنع شيئا يذكر ويستحق عليه التكفير سوى أنه فرض على الشعب التركي القبعة ، البرنيطة معروفة هذه البرنيطة عندكم وهي القلنسوة التي لها مظلة ، إما مظلة كاملة أو مظلة أمامية ، فكان ردي عليه من ناحيتين ، الناحية الأولى ولا أطيل فيها أن الرجل لم يخالف الإسلام فقط في هذه الناحية وإنما غير كثيرا من أحكام الشريعة ، منها أن جعل للأنثى في الإرث مثل حظ الذكر ، أما فيما يتعلق بمسألة البرنيطة فهنا خضت معه بحثا طويلا خلاصته أن الإسلام من كماله أنه وضع أحكاما وتشريعات في سبيل أن يحافظ المسلمون بها على شخصيتهم الإسلامية لكي لا ينماعوا مع الزمن في شخصية أمة أخرى ، وذكرت له وهو رجل مع الأسف مثقف بأن علماء الإجماع يقولون بأن أي شعب يريد أن يحافظ على شخصيته فعليه أن يحافظ على تقاليده وعلى تاريخه وعلى لغته ، هذا أمر مسلم لديهم في علم الاجتماع ، فقلت له فكان من فضل الإسلام وكمال تشريعه أنه شرع للمسلمين أن يحافظوا على شخصيتهم المسلمة وأن لا يتشبهوا بالمخالفين لهم بل وأن يتقصدوا مخالفتهم كما شرحت لكم آنفا ، هذا الرجل أتاتورك وهنا الشاهد من هذا المثال لو كان يريد الخير للشعب التركي المسلم ووجد فرضا في القبعة مصلحة لا يجدها في لباس آخر فكان باستطاعته أن يجعل فارقا بين قبعة المسلم التركي وقبعة غير المسلم التركي ، كأن يجعل مثلا شريطا على قبعة المسلم كل من يرى هذا المسلم المتبرنط يقول هذا مسلم ولو أنه لبس لباس الكفار ، لكن الرجل فعل ما فعل عداء لدين الإسلام ولذلك حكم عليه علماء المسلمين بالكفر والردة والخروج عن دين الإسلام ، بحث طويل كان بيني وبينه في هذه القضية حتى ألهمني الله عزوجل فقلت له بعد أن قال هذه قضية أن هذا اللباس صار أمر أممي وليس خاصا بشعب من الشعوب أو بدين من الأديان فجئته من ناحية حساسة ، هذا القسيس لبناني والقساوسة اللبنانيون لهم زي خاص ، أولا لباسهم سواد في سواد وثانيا قلنسوتهم هي كطربوش تعرفونه الطربوش الأحمر ولكنه طويل ضعف الطربوش طولا وأسود
السائل
مثل الهرم يعني ؟
الشيخ : لا ، الهرم يكون رأسه رفيع ، هذا يكون مثل السطل هكذا ، الشاهد قلت له هل أفهم من كلامك أن اللباس ليس له علاقة بالدين أنه مث بالنسبة إليك أنت يجوز أن ترفع هذه القلنسوة وتضع على رأسك الطربوش الأحمر وعليه العمامة البيضاء ؟ فمن نظر إليك ظن فيك أنك شيخ من شيوخ المسلمين ؟ قال : لا ، لا ، لا ، قلت له لماذا فهذا لباس ؟ وليس له علاقة بالدين ؟ قال لا ، نحن علماء النصارى يعني ، نحن رجال الدين ولنا زي خاص من بين النصارى عموما لنا زي خاص ، فألهمني الله عزوجل وقلت له كلمة يعني سقط من بعدها تماما وتبين أنه لا مجال لأحد أن يجادل في الإسلام ، قلت له هذا هو الفرق بيننا نحن معشر المسلمين وبينكم أنتم معشر النصارى ، فنحن لا فرق عندنا بين عالم ومتعلم وغير متعلم مادام أنه يجمعنا الإسلام ، فما لا يجوز لأكبر عالم لا يجوز لأقل مسلم ، هذا عندنا ، أما عندكم فعندكم رجال دين ورجال لا دين ، هكذا قلت له ، بدليل أنك تقول هذا لباس خاص بكم أنتم معشر القسيسين ، أما النصارى الآخرون فيلبسون ما يشاءون ، لا هذا عندنا لا يجوز ، ما يحرم على أكبر إنسان وأتقى إنسان يحرم على أصغر وما لا يجوز أن يلبسه العالم لا يجوز أن يلبسه الأمي ، وهكذا ، فسقط في يده والحقيقة هذه من فضائل الشريعة الإسلامية ولعل في هذا القدر كفاية والحمد لله رب العالمين

During a conversation with a Christian priest, we engaged in a lengthy discussion and analysis. Although the story is extensive and contains numerous benefits, our time is limited to just 5 minutes. Hence, I will only mention what is relevant to this occasion. The priest expressed disapproval towards the Muslims, specifically the scholars, for declaring Mustapha Kamal Pasha, later known as Ataturk, as a disbeliever. Ataturk, who is considered the father of the Turks, implemented policies that restricted Turkish Muslims from adhering to many of the rulings of their religion, as is widely known. The priest verbally attacked the Muslims and accused them of extremism for excommunicating Ataturk, arguing that his only offense was making the wearing of Western-style hats compulsory for Turkish civil servants. In response, I presented two arguments against the priest. Firstly, it is important to note that Ataturk not only opposed Islam in this particular matter, but he also made significant changes to the Shariah, such as altering the inheritance laws to equate the shares of females and males. (I)

In terms of the hat’s subject matter, I engaged in an extensive discussion and analysis, the essence of which is summarised as follows: One of the aspects of Islam’s perfection is its establishment of laws and divine regulations to help Muslims maintain their Islamic identity and avoid adopting the (un-Islamic) identities of other groups. I pointed out to him that scholars specialising in the topic of Ijmaa [(II) religious consensus] assert that any society wishing to preserve its distinctiveness must safeguard its customs, history, and language, considering this an undeniable principle in the field of consensus. Therefore, I explained to him that among the virtues of Islam and the excellence of its laws is the provision for Muslims to uphold their Muslim identity and refrain from emulating those who oppose it; instead, they should be in opposition to the ways of those who contradict their identity.

And if Ataturk, as an example, truly desired the welfare of the Turkish Muslim society and believed that making the hat mandatory would bring about such benefits that other forms of clothing could not, then he possessed the capability to differentiate between the Turkish Muslim hat and the non-Muslim Turkish hat. For instance, he could have placed a distinctive band on the Muslim hat, so that anyone who saw a Muslim wearing it would immediately recognize their religious affiliation, even if they were dressed in garments typically associated with unbelievers. However, Ataturk’s actions were in direct contradiction to the principles of the Islamic faith, leading Muslim scholars to declare him an apostate and disbeliever (i.e. not due to this matter regarding the hat, but other affairs that are tantamount to apostasy).

The discussion and examination between him and me regarding this matter was quite extensive until Allah made me mentally stimulated and bestowed on me the ability to utter a timely statement when the priest stated, “This attire is not specific to any particular society or religion, but rather a global matter.” In response, I approached the topic from a sensitive standpoint. This particular priest is Lebanese, and Lebanese priests have a distinct attire. Firstly, they wear all black, and secondly, their hoods resemble a cowl, similar to a red cowl but longer and darker. I questioned him, “Does your statement imply that clothing has no connection to religion? For instance, would it be permissible for you to remove your hood and instead wear a red cowl with a white turban, giving the impression that you are a respected Shaikh among the Muslim community?”

He responded, “No, no, no.” I then questioned him, “If that’s the case, why do you wear this attire and does it not have any connection to religion?” He explained, “We are Christian scholars, meaning we are religious men and we have a specific attire that is common among Christians. We have a distinct dress code.” Then by the will of Allah, I was inspired and I made a profound statement that left him speechless, showing that there was no room for argument against Islam. I pointed out, “This is the distinction between us Muslims and you Christians; we do not differentiate between a scholar, a student, or anyone else, as long as we are united in Islam. What is impermissible for the most knowledgeable scholar is also impermissible for the least knowledgeable Muslim. This is what is between us, but as for yourselves, you have ‘Men of Religion’ and ‘Men who are not Men of Religion”

This is the manner in which I presented the situation to him, citing evidence that you, as a priest, claim that this attire is specific to priests, while others can wear whatever they please. However, this is not acceptable for us – it is not allowed. What is forbidden for the most honorable and devout individual (muslim) is also forbidden for the one with the lowest rank. What is prohibited for a Muslim scholar to wear is also prohibited for an ordinary individual. Consequently, he was filled with remorse and left speechless. This indeed exemplifies the virtues of the Islamic Shariah. [https://youtu.be/iKlyiyjwyRw Paraphrased. Your feedback is welcomed to improve the content of this article Jazaakumullaahu Khayran]

Footnote I: Inheritance:

Introduction to the Science of Inheritance – By Uways At-Taweel

Footnote II: Muslim life – By Shaikh Abu Khadeejah [may Allaah preserve him]

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/the-importance-of-the-muslim-lifestyle-and-community-islam-4-9/

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/muslim-lifestyles-choices-and-adopting-non-muslim-practices-that-conflict-with-islamic-teachings-islam-4-1/

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/muslim-lifestyles-choices-and-adopting-non-muslim-practices-that-conflict-with-islamic-teachings-islam-4-1/

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/living-with-non-muslims-in-the-west-with-fine-conduct/

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/ibn-taymiyyah-on-participating-in-the-annual-celebrations-of-the-unbelievers/

https://www.abukhadeejah.com/origin-of-pinata-and-why-it-is-a-must-that-muslims-do-not-use-in-celebration/

Finally: NB: Imaam Al-Albani [may Allah have mercy upon him] only mentioned one amongst some of Ataturk’s misguidance, rather the upright scholars declared him a disbeliever due to his many evil beliefs and deeds that are founder on secularism. Al-Allamah Muhammad Amaan Al-Jaami [may Allah have mercy upon him] said, “Secularism is disbelief and the mother of all evil”. [Asbaab Al-Ijaabah Cassette 2] However, we are reminded of the fact that removing someone from Islaam is the job and responsibility of the upright scholars of Ahlus Sunnah- neither the responsibility of the common people nor the misguided sects such as the khawaarij. Read and Listen Regarding Principles of Takfeer (excommunication)

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=MNJ&subsecID=MNJ09&loadpage=displaysubsection.cfm

http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ09&articleID=MNJ090006&articlePages=1

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ05&articleID=MNJ050003&pfriend=

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/MNJ050018.pdf

http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ05&articleID=MNJ050018&articlePages=1

(b) Regarding the fall of the Byzantine capital Constantinople – at the hands of Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih (may Allah have mercy upon him), this is not the conquest of Constantinople that is intended in the Ahaadith. Al-Allamah Hamood at-Tuwayjiree [may Allah have mercy upon him] stated, “I say, indeed Constantinople was conquered in the year 857 AH at the hands of the Uthmaanee Turkman Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih [he was referred to as Al-Fatih (the Conqueror) due to his conquest of Constantinople], and Constantinople has not ceased to be in the hands of the Uthmaaniyyeen up until this era of ours at the end of the fourteenth century after the Hijrah. This conquest is not the one mentioned in the Prophetic reports which have already been mentioned (in this discourse), because indeed that one will only occur after the great combat and a short period before the Dajjaal appears, as it has already been made known in several Prophetic reports in this chapter, as will also be stated in the two Prophetic reports (transmitted) by Mu’adh and Abdullah Ibn Bishr [may Allah be pleased with both of them].

Its conquest [i.e. Constantinople] will occur together with Tasbih [i.e. utterance of the statement ‘Subhaan Allah’ – Glory be to Allah and free is He from all imperfections], Tahleel (i.e. the statement Laa Ilaaha Illal laah – There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah] and Takbir [i.e. the statement Allaahu Akbar- Allah is the Greatest], but not with many people (i.e. army men) and (many) weaponry, as clearly mentioned in more than one hadeeth in this chapter. Its conquest will occur at the hands of the Arabs and not at the hands of the Turks, and this is proven in his (i.e. the Prophet – peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) statement reported in the hadeeth that was transmitted by Amr Bin Awf [may Allah be pleased with him] that “Thereafter, (the forceful, firm, strong, etc youth of the Muslims) of the Arabian Peninsula – who whilst striving in the path of Allaah do not fear the blame of the blamers – will come out to them, until Allah grants them the conquest of Constantinople and Rome with Tasbih and Takbir”. And in the hadeeth transmitted by Abu Hurairah [may Allah be pleased with him] in Sahih Muslim, (he stated), “Then an army from Madinah will come out to them who will be the best of the people of the entire Earth at that time”. [2]

[1] An Excerpt from ‘Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awaamil An-Nuhood Wa Asbaab As-Suqoot. 6/6-15]

[2] An Excerpt from It’haaf Al-Jamaa’ah Bimaa Jaa’a Fil Fitan Wal-Malaahim Wa Ashraat As-Saa’ah. Vol 1. pages 403-404]