Skip to main content

I have met the Mashayikh

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

Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

I have met the Mashayikh; their circumstances were different and their stations of knowledge varied. The most beneficial of them for me in companionship was the scholar who acted upon his knowledge, even though there were others more knowledgeable than him.

I met Abdul Wahhab Al-Anmaatee, who adhered to the principles of the pious predecessors. Backbiting was not heard in his gatherings (a) nor did he seek any reward for sharing hadith. Whenever I read to him the hadiths related to Raqaa’iq, he would weep and his tears would flow continuously. As a young person at that time, his weeping profoundly affected my heart. He embodied the characteristics of the scholars whose descriptions we had heard in the reports.

I met Abu Mansur Al-Jawaaleeqee, who was notably quiet and very meticulous in his speech. Even when asked about a clear matter, which some of his young students would quickly answer, he paused to ensure accuracy. He fasted and kept quiet a lot. I benefited from these two men more than I benefitted from others. I understood from this situation that guidance through action is more effective than verbal instruction. The truly impoverished one is the person who spends their life acquiring knowledge without applying it, missing out on the pleasures of this world and the goodness of the hereafter, ultimately proceeding as one bankrupt in deeds with strong proofs against him. [1]

Some Other Important Matters In This Path to Salvation

Imam Ash-Shatibi, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated:

Know that Allah has established this Shariah as proof against the creation (humankind and jinn) – the old and young alike, the obedient and the disobedient, the righteous and the wicked. He did not specify the proof against anyone in exclusion of another one. Also, all the other revealed laws were established as proof against all the nations to whom they were revealed. The Shariah is the judge- in general, and specifically- the judge on all those who have reached the age of responsibility. It is the path attached to (what Allah has ordained) and it is the Greatest Guide. Have you not heard the statement of Allah, The Most High:

وَكَذَٲلِكَ أَوۡحَيۡنَآ إِلَيۡكَ رُوحً۬ا مِّنۡ أَمۡرِنَاۚ مَا كُنتَ تَدۡرِى مَا ٱلۡكِتَـٰبُ وَلَا ٱلۡإِيمَـٰنُ وَلَـٰكِن جَعَلۡنَـٰهُ نُورً۬ا نَّہۡدِى بِهِۦ مَن نَّشَآءُ مِنۡ عِبَادِنَاۚ وَإِنَّكَ لَتَہۡدِىٓ إِلَىٰ صِرَٲطٍ۬ مُّسۡتَقِيمٍ۬

And thus We have sent to you (O Muhammad) Ruhan (an Inspiration, and a Mercy) of Our Command. You knew not what is the Book, nor what is Faith? But We have made it (this Qur’an) a light wherewith We guide whosoever of Our slaves We will. And verily, you (O Muhammad) are indeed guiding (mankind) to the Straight Path (i.e. Allah’s religion of Islamic Monotheism). [Ash-Shura 52]

He (the Prophet) – peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- was the first to be guided to the Book and Iman, and then those who followed him. The Book is the Guide and also the Sunnah that was revealed to him explains that guidance (i.e. the Sunnah and the Qur’an explain each other). All the creation (mankind and Jinn) are guided through it.  Therefore, when this is the case that the Shariah is worthy of being a decisive proof against them and a beacon by way of which they are guided to the truth, their nobility is determined by the extent to which they embrace its rulings- through acting upon them in speech, belief, and deeds– and not merely due to the level of their intellects or their nobility amongst their people. That is because Allah, The Most High, has determined nobility through Taqwa and no other than it. Allah, The Most High, says: [إِنَّ أَڪۡرَمَكُمۡ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ أَتۡقَٮٰكُمۡۚ- Verily, the most honourable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has At-Taqwa] [49:13] [2]

Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “O you! Eloquence in speech is not what is desired; rather, it is eloquence in actions that truly matter. If eloquence in speech were more commendable than in actions, then Harun, peace be upon him, would have been more deserving of the message than Musa, peace be upon him” [4]

Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: It is befitting for a novice seeking understanding (in the religion) to ensure that he is well-grounded in what he acquires and should not take too much. He should take bit by bit, taking into account what he can memorise and understand, as indeed Allah, The Most High, said:

وَقَالَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ لَوۡلَا نُزِّلَ عَلَيۡهِ ٱلۡقُرۡءَانُ جُمۡلَةً۬ وَٲحِدَةً۬‌ۚ ڪَذَٲلِكَ لِنُثَبِّتَ بِهِۦ فُؤَادَكَ‌ۖ وَرَتَّلۡنَـٰهُ تَرۡتِيلاً۬

And those who disbelieve say: “Why is not the Qur’an revealed to him all at once?” Thus (it is sent down in parts), that We may strengthen your heart thereby. And We have revealed it to you gradually, in stages] [25: 32] [5]

Imam Al-Barbahaaree, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “And know, may Allah have mercy upon you that knowledge is not in being able to narrate much and in having many books, rather the scholar is the one who follows the knowledge and the Sunnah, even if his knowledge and his books are limited, and whoever opposes the Book and the Sunnah, he is a proponent of Bidah, even if he narrates much and has many books”.

Al-Allamah Rabee Bin Haadi al-Madkhali, may Allah preserve him, stated:

He [Al-Barbahaaree] sees that the abundance of books and knowledge is not a criterion for the required knowledge of Shariah. Knowledge is what benefits; even if this scholar has little knowledge and few books, he will benefit from his knowledge and it is benefited from in belief, methodology, and application. This is the knowledge that counts in the Sight of Allah- the knowledge He loves, loves, and praises its possessors. Allah said: [إِنَّمَا يَخْشَى ٱللَّهَ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ ٱلْعُلَمَٰٓؤُا۟ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَزِيزٌ غَفُورٌ – It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allah]. [35:28]

Hence they [the scholars] said, “Knowledge is to fear Allah”. If one with a lot of knowledge does not fear Allah, he is not a scholar and his knowledge has no value because it is a source of evil to him. The Qur’an is proof for or against you, so evil is the state of that scholar- I seek refuge in Allah – who is under the threat of punishment. The Quran is proof against you, the Sunnah is proof against you and knowledge is proof against you, and Allah’s refuge is sought. He may have many books, but he is misguided. He may have a lot of knowledge of the Arabic language, Tafseer, Hadith, and so on, but he is misguided. This is the knowledge that harms and does not benefit, and it is from this that we seek Allah’s protection, and Allah’s Messenger taught us to seek (Allah’s) protection against it. However, knowledge (in and of itself) is beneficial, so if there is a lot of knowledge and books, it is very good, and there are Imams who have abundant knowledge and many books. If the two are combined: a lot of knowledge and many books, it is desirable; and if devoid of benefitting from this knowledge (i.e. due to misguidance or not acting upon it), then neither an abundance of books or knowledge is beneficial, for it is a source of evil on the person. This is why (Allah stated that) some Prophets said: [وَمَآ أُرِيدُ أَنْ أُخَالِفَكُمْ إِلَىٰ مَآ أَنْهَىٰكُمْ عَنْهُ – I wish not, in contradiction to you, to do that which I forbid you]. [11:88]

Allah said:

أَتَأْمُرُونَ ٱلنَّاسَ بِٱلْبِرِّ وَتَنسَوْنَ أَنفُسَكُمْ وَأَنتُمْ تَتْلُونَ ٱلْكِتَٰبَ أَفَلَا تَعْقِلُونَ

Do you order righteousness of the people and forget yourselves while you recite the Scripture? Then will you not reason? [2:44]

Allah said:

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لِمَ تَقُولُونَ مَا لَا تَفۡعَلُونَ
ڪَبُرَ مَقۡتًا عِندَ ٱللَّهِ أَن تَقُولُواْ مَا لَا تَفۡعَلُونَ

O you who believe! Why do you say that which you do not do? Most hateful it is with Allah that you say that which you do not do. [As-Saff. 2-3]

Some people are merely speakers and they do not act, therefore, a Muslim must combine statements and deeds so that his actions confirm his statements. He calls to belief and believes, and calls to action and acts. This is beneficial knowledge, calling to the Sunnah and adhering to it, fighting Bidah and being serious about fighting it, and being one of the people who are most distant from it. [6]

Imam Adh-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

The focus of the Muhadditheen at present is on the six (major) collections of hadith- the “Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal” and “Sunan al-Bayhaqi”, precise memorisation of its texts and chains of transmission. However, one cannot (truly) benefit from this unless he fears his Lord and adheres to (the teachings) of the hadith. So, for the knowledge of Hadith and its scholars let one weep if he is to weep because Islam has returned to being strange as it was at its inception. Therefore, every person should save himself from the fire of Hell, and there is no power or strength except through Allah. knowledge is not (merely) an abundance of narrations; rather, it is a light that Allah places in Allah upon the heart, and its prerequisite (for seeking after it) is to adhere to it, fleeing from (vain) desires and innovation in religious matters. May Allah grant us and you success in His obedience. [7]

Al-Hafidh Ibn Rajab, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

It must be recognised (based on conviction) that not everyone who is verbose in their discourse and speech regarding knowledge is (necessarily) more knowledgeable than those who are not. We have been afflicted with the ignorance of people who believe that some people who are expansive in their speech possess greater knowledge than their predecessors. [8]

Imam Ibn Rajab, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

Many of those who came (after the early generation) have been captivated (or put to trial) by this, (mistakenly) believing that the one whose speech, debate, and contention is much more in the issues of religion possess greater knowledge than those who do not. This is sheer ignorance. Consider the seniors and scholars of the Sahabah, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, Muadh, Ibn Mas’ud, and Zayd Ibn Thabit; what was their affair? Their speech is lesser than that of Ibn Abbas despite being more knowledgeable than him. Similarly, the statements of the Tabi’in are more than those of the Sahabah although the Sahabah possess more knowledge. Similarly, the speech of followers of the Tabi’in are more than those of the Tabi’in, while the Tabi’in are more knowledgeable than them. Knowledge is not (measured) through the abundance of narration or speech; rather, it is a light that Allāh places in the heart through which a servant (of Allah) comprehends the truth and distinguishes it from falsehood, and expresses concise statements – through it – that leads to the intended goals. [9]

Question: Who narrated more hadith – Abu Bakr or Abu Hurairah?

Imam Muhammad Ibn Salih Al-Uthaymin, may Allah have mercy upon him, responded: Indeed, Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, narrated more Hadith than Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, but that does not mean that Abu Hurairah heard more Hadith than Abu Bakr?! Abu Bakr was a companion of Allah’s Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, in the summers, winters, nights, days, (during) journeys, and whilst at home, thus he heard (more) and had more knowledge regarding the circumstances of Allah’s Messenger. However, he did not spend a lot of time sitting and narrating to the people what was heard from the Prophet. [10]

Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, said: Had it not been for two Ayaat in the Book of Allah, The Mighty and Majestic, I would not have narrated anything to you. Allah said:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَكْتُمُونَ مَا أَنزَلْنَا مِنَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالْهُدَىٰ مِن بَعْدِ مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِي الْكِتَابِ ۙ أُولَٰئِكَ يَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَلْعَنُهُمُ اللَّاعِنُونَ

Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, and the guidance, which We have sent down after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers [2:159] and the Ayah after it.  Then he said: “(However), the people say, ”Indeed Abu Hurayrah (narrates) a lot.” [11]

The questioner asked Shaikh Salih Aala Ash-Shaikh, may Allah preserve him, “I have been seeking knowledge for some years, but despite this, neither have I consolidated the knowledge-based information nor am I aware of the benefit (acquired from that). What do you advise me? May Allah reward you”.

Response: Do not say that you are not aware of a benefit because a student of knowledge is (considered to be engaged) in worship. The aim behind seeking knowledge is that the person receives Allah’s Pleasure. You all know about the man who went away to repent, so the angel of death came to him (i.e. took his soul); then the angels of mercy and the angels of punishment disputed his affair. The angels of mercy said, “He came along being repentant and remorseful in his heart in the presence of Allah” but the angels of punishment said, “He has done no good at all”. Then another angel came in the form of a human being to decide between them and said, “Measure between the two lands” (i.e. to find out which of them he was closer to). They measured it and found him nearer to the land where he intended to go (i.e. the land of the pious people), so the angels of mercy took him. This repentant man was forgiven because his steps (towards repentance) were recorded for him; therefore the steps of a student of knowledge towards knowledge are an act of worship similar to the steps of the repentant migrator towards the land of goodness. Seeking knowledge is better for you than supererogatory prayer or some of the supererogatory acts of worship. Therefore, there has to be a truthful intention (behind it), and then the benefit will (be acquired) bit by bit. The aim is not to become a scholar or a student of knowledge initially; rather the aim behind your seeking knowledge is to remove ignorance from yourself-worshiping Allah, The Mighty and Majestic, with correct acts of worship and that your Aqeedah is sound, become submissive to Allah, safeguarded from doubtful matters that are made to resemble the truth and from seeking fame. Allah (The Most High) said:

يَوۡمَ لَا يَنفَعُ مَالٌ۬ وَلَا بَنُونَ
إِلَّا مَنۡ أَتَى ٱللَّهَ بِقَلۡبٍ۬ سَلِيمٍ۬

The Day whereon neither wealth nor sons will avail; except him who brings to Allah a clean heart [clean from Shirk (polytheism) and Nifaq (hypocrisy)].

Allah, The Mighty and Exalted, says: [إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَعَمِلُواْ ٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتِ إِنَّا لَا نُضِيعُ أَجۡرَ مَنۡ أَحۡسَنَ عَمَلاً – Verily! As for those who believe and do righteous deeds, certainly! We shall not suffer to be lost the reward of anyone who does his (righteous) deeds in the most perfect manner].

If you never benefited except yourself and your family, then there is great good in this. [12]

——————————

[a] Backbiting: When is speaking about someone behind his back not considered backbiting? It is not considered backbiting when a person makes a complaint about an oppressor to a person who has the ability to stop the oppression; when seeking help to stop an evil- by making that known to the person who has the ability to stop the evil; when seeking for a fatwa; when warning the Muslims so that they are not deceived; when mentioning a person who commits his evil openly or one who calls to bidah and when identifying someone with a physical defect, whilst not intending defamation. [Subul As-Salaam- 4/553-554]

We ask Allah:

اللَّهُمَّ بِعِلْمِكَ الْغَيْبَ وَقُدْرَتِكَ عَلَى الْخَلْقِ أَحْيِنِي مَا عَلِمْتَ الْحَيَاةَ خَيْراً لِي وَتَوَفَّنِي إِذَا عَلِمْتَ الْوَفَاةَ خَيْراً لِي، اللَّهُمَّ إِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ خَشْيَتَكَ فِي الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ كَلِمَةَ الْحَقِّ فِي الرِّضَا وَالْغَضَبِ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ الْقَصْدَ فِي الْغِنَى وَالْفَقْرِ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ نَعِيماً لَا يَنْفَذُ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ قُرَّةَ عَيْنٍ لَا تَنْقَطِعُ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ الرِّضِا بَعْدَ الْقَضَاءِ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ بَرْدَ الْعَيْشِ بَعْدَ الْمَوْتِ، وَأَسْأَلُكَ لَذَّةَ النَّظَرِ إِلَى وَجْهِكَ وَالشَّوْقَ إِلَى لِقَائِكَ فِي غَيْرِ ضَرَّاءَ مُضِرَّةٍ وَلَا فِتْنَةٍ مُضِلَّةٍ، اللَّهُمَّ زَيِّنَّا بِزِينَةِ الْإِيمَانِ
وَاجْعَلْنَا هُدَاةً مُهْتَدِينَ

O Allah! By Your Knowledge of the unseen and by Your Power over creation, let me live if life is good for me, and let me die if death is good for me; O Allah! I ask You to grant me (the blessing of having) fear of You in private and public, and I ask You (to make me utter) a statement of truth in times of contentment and anger, and I ask You for moderation when in a state of wealth and poverty, and I ask you for blessings that never ceases, and I ask You for the coolness of my eye that never ends, and I ask You (to make me pleased) after (Your) decree; and I ask You for a life of (ease, comfort, tranquillity, etc) after death; I ask You for the delight of looking at Your Face (i.e. in the Hereafter) and yearning to meet You without any harm and misleading trials (coming upon me). O Allah! Adorn us with the adornment of Iman, and make us (from those who are) guided and guiding (others). [13]

اللَّهُمَّ أَصْلِحْ لِي دِينِي الَّذِي هُوَ عِصْمَةُ أَمْرِي

وَأَصْلِحْ لِي دُنْيَايَ الَّتِي فِيهَا مَعَاشِي

وَأَصْلِحْ لِي آخِرَتِي الَّتِي فِيهَا مَعَادِي

وَاجْعَلِ الْحَيَاةَ زِيَادَةً لِي فِي كُلِّ خَيْرٍ

وَاجْعَلِ الْمَوْتَ رَاحَةً لِي مِنْ كُلِّ شَرٍّ

O Allah! Rectify my religion for me, which is the safeguard of my affairs; rectify my worldly [affairs], wherein is my livelihood; and rectify my Afterlife to which is my return; and make life for me [as a means of] increase in every good and make death for me as a rest from every evil. [Saheeh Muslim Number: 2720] [14]

اللهُمَّ إِنِّي أَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنْ عِلْمٍ لَا يَنْفَعُ، وَمِنْ قَلْبٍ لَا يَخْشَعُ، وَمِنْ نَفْسٍ لَا تَشْبَعُ، وَمِنْ دَعْوَةٍ لَا يُسْتَجَابُ لَهَا

O Allah! I seek refuge in Your from knowledge that does not benefit, from the heart that is not fearful, from the soul that is not contented and the supplication that is not answered. [15


[1] Saydul Khaatir. page 138

[2] Al-I’tisam 3/434

[4] Bahr Ad-Damoo 171

[5] Al-Faqee Wal-Mutafaqqih 2/100

[6] Awnul Baaree Bi-bayaan Maa Tadammanahu Sharh As-Sunnah Lil-Imaam Al-Barbahaaree 2/688-689.

[7] Siyar A’laam An-Nubulaa 13/313

[8] Bayan Fadl Ilm As-Salaf page 40

[9] Bayan Fadl Ilm As-Salah 57-58

[10] Sharh Hilyati Talib Al-Ilm. page 49. 1st Edition. Rabi’ul Awwal 1434AH

[11] Jami Bayan Al-Ilm 1/22

[12] Source: الوصايا الجليّة للاستفادة من الدروس العلميّة للشيخ العلامة صالح آل الشيخ- Question 3. Page 24.

[13] https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2021/01/01/o-allaah-let-me-live-if-life-is-good-for-me-and-let-me-die-if-death-is-good-for-me/

[14] https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2020/12/29/o-allaah-rectify-my-religion-for-me-which-the-safeguard-of-my-affairs-a-tremendous-supplication/

[15] Sahih Abi Dawud 1548

[29] The Ascent and Decline of The Ottoman Empire

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

European powers urged Sultan Mahmud II to utilise his army to quell the rebellion in Greece. They advised Muhammad Ali to accept this mission, misleading him into believing that he could become the most prominent leader in the region, potentially positioning him as the Caliph of Muslims once the authority of the caliphate was diminished. He accepted Sultan Mahmud II’s offer on the condition that he would gain control over both Crete and Greece. Upon receiving the news of acceptance regarding this condition, he instructed his son Ibrahim Pasha to take charge of the Morea campaign. Consequently, the Egyptian forces, led by Ibrahim Pasha and his advisor, they set sail from Alexandria in 1823 CE (1339 AH) towards Crete and the Morea Peninsula, the epicenter of the rebellion. They captured Navarino in 1824 CE (1240 AH) and entered Athens in 1823 CE (1241 AH), despite the support provided to the Greek Crusaders by the English naval commander Lord Cochrane. After they successfully quelled the Greek Crusader uprising, the European Crusaders revealed their true intentions by declaring their protection over Greece.

Furthermore, Russia openly supported the Greek rebellion, seizing the opportunity to advance towards Istanbul, aiming to restore it as a center of pagan Crusader influence, with the English siding with Russia. Russia was granted the right to navigate the Black Sea and allowed its ships to pass through the Ottoman straits without inspection. Russia had the right to navigate the Black Sea and to pass its ships through the Ottoman straits without inspection. Although the treaty was established in response to the Greek insurrection, shortly thereafter, England requested the Ottoman Empire in Rajab 1344 AH / 1828 CE to mediate, citing that this was a blatant interference in its internal affairs, without mentioning anything about the declaration of war once again. The request was denied, and this refusal became a pretext for Europe. Russia, France, and England reached an agreement on the 11th of Dhul-Hijjah to compel the Ottoman Empire to grant independence to Greece, effectively separating it from the Ottoman state. The Ottoman Sultan, however, refused to comply. In response, the European powers ordered their fleets to proceed to the shores of Greece and requested Ibrahim Pasha to cease hostilities. His response was predictable, as he stated that he received orders only from the Caliph of Muslims or from his father, not from any other authority. Nevertheless, the fighting was halted for twenty days while he awaited further instructions.

The allied European forces entered the port of Nuwarin without raising the banners of war, thus their entry was one of deception. These fleets launched a surprise attack on the joint Ottoman-Egyptian fleet, betraying it and opening fire, resulting in a significant defeat. The ships were sunk in an unexpected turn of events, which had not been anticipated or accounted for. As a consequence of this treacherous battle, the situation shifted dramatically, leaving the Ottoman forces in a position of weakness and defeat, in stark contrast to their previous state of strength and victory. European nations received this incident with expressions of joy and delight. More than thirty thousand soldiers from Muhammad Ali’s army were killed, thus fulfilling the adversaries’ plan, which weakened Muhammad Ali’s forces and separated a portion of the Islamic territories from the Ottoman Empire. France and England engaged in a dual action, encouraged the Sultan to dispatch an army to suppress the rebellion in Greece, only to subsequently eliminate that very army.

When Muhammad Ali Pasha, the Governor of Egypt, observed the situation he was in, he instructed his son to withdraw. The French forces then occupied the positions left by Muhammad Ali’s retreating army. Subsequently, France and England convened a conference in which they decided to separate Greece from the Ottoman Empire, stipulating that it would be governed by a Christian ruler selected by the three nations. British and French politicians perceived that allowing Muhammad Ali to direct his armies towards Syria and then Anatolia would serve their interests in countering the increasing Russian influence within the territories of the Ottoman Empire. This strategy was welcomed by Muhammad Ali, as it aligned with the objectives of his British superiors. Supporting this perspective is the fact that England strongly opposed Muhammad Ali’s initiation of the French proposal to invade Algeria on their behalf, which occurred a year prior to his campaign in Syria. They threatened him with an attack on his fleet and army should he proceed with such an operation, prompting him to withdraw despite having previously entered into an agreement with the French regarding this matter. This situation underscores that Muhammad Ali abandoned the occupation of Algeria due to British pressure and their strategic plans, which ultimately aided Britain in hindering the growing Russian influence in the region. Nevertheless, he endeavored to conceal the true nature of his role, resorting to superficial justifications for his assault on Syria, such as the sheltering of six thousand Egyptian deserters by Abdullah Pasha, the governor of Acre, who refused to return them, as well as Abdullah Pasha’s extortion of the pasha’s merchants.

Muhammad Ali wrote to the Porte informing them of his attack on Abdullah Pasha. In response, the Grand Vizier indicated the extent of the weakness of the Ottoman state and its inability to confront Muhammad Ali. He stated that the complaints of certain merchants could not justify the use of force, igniting conflict, or war. Furthermore, he emphasised that disputes arising between neighboring pashas could not be resolved through the display of weapons but required intervention from the Porte. Mohammed Ali was not convinced by the Grand Vizier’s statements and sent his armies, led by his son Ibrahim Pasha. The Maronites supported Mohammed Ali’s forces and stood by him, while the French encouraged the Christian Maronites to ally with Ibrahim Pasha, providing them with arms. The Christians of the Levant declared Ibrahim Pasha as their ally and expressed their full readiness to assist him. Furthermore, Ibrahim Pasha abolished all restrictions imposed on Christians and Jews in every territory he controlled, under the pretext of equality and freedom.

Although Ibrahim Pasha’s army succeeded in defeating the Ottoman forces and extended its control over the Levant, the Ottomans managed to incite the local population against Ibrahim Pasha. They exploited various factors, both religious and economic, particularly after Ibrahim Pasha imposed restrictions on Muslims while granting extensive freedoms to Christians and Jews. This situation ultimately culminated in the signing of the London Agreement in 1840, which defined the Egyptian presence in the Levant as contingent upon the life of Muhammad Ali. The stages of Muhammad Ali’s occupation of the Levant underscored his antagonistic stance towards Muslims, while simultaneously supporting Christians and Jews. Furthermore, it highlighted his role as an executor of British political objectives and a facilitator of French cultural aims in the region. Ibrahim Pasha opened the doors wide for the entry of French and American missionary missions. He abolished all exceptional laws and regulations that had applied solely to Christians. Some scholars consider the year 1834 to be a significant turning point in history, marked by the announcement of the Jesuits and the expansion of American missions. The American missionary printing press was relocated from Malta to Beirut, and a girls’ school was established in Beirut by Eli Semen and his wife. Additionally, several monasteries were equipped with other printing presses as part of European countries’ efforts to restrict printing capabilities to Christians alone, thereby enabling them to achieve their objectives while limiting Muslims’ ability to express their opinions or disseminate their ideas in this regard.

The entry of Muhammad Ali Pasha’s armies into the Levant marked a significant turning point for missionary activities. The reestablishment of the “Ain Tura” college, which still exists today, played a crucial role in developing a cadre of writers and thinkers. Simultaneously, an educational policy was implemented among Muslims aimed at promoting nationalism among the people of the Levant. To oversee this initiative, a Frenchman named Clot Bey was brought from Egypt, having gained experience in its application there. He was provided with a complete printing press to facilitate the publication of Arabic books, aiding him in achieving his objectives. Through these methods, alongside the collaboration of missionary organizations and clergy in monasteries, he was able to transform educational practices within a few years and advance the goals of French Masonic lodges in their campaign against Islam and Muslims. As Muhammad Ali’s armies were empowering Christians in the Levant and weakening the position of Muslims in the region, French forces invaded Algeria in 1830, taking advantage of the weakened Ottoman Empire. The French contingent consisted of approximately 28,000 soldiers, supported by a fleet of one hundred ships, including three vessels carrying 27,000 naval troops. European nations endorsed this blatant act of aggression, as the time had come to divide the spoils of the “sick man of Europe” and resolve the Eastern Question in a manner consistent with European interests.

We find ourselves questioning the position of Muhammad Ali Pasha, the Governor of Egypt, during the French occupation of Algeria. Why did he remain silent? Was it due to a lack of resources to support the struggle of the Muslim Algerian people, or was Algeria simply too distant for him to intervene? Alternatively, could it be that his silence came at a cost, perhaps in exchange for assurances from European powers, including France, that he would retain his governorship in Egypt while being given the opportunity to annex the Levant, among other shadowy promises made behind closed doors? He was perceived as a tool and a poisoned dagger utilised by adversaries to execute their schemes. Consequently, they supported him in his scientific, economic, and military reforms, having recognised the fragility of his Islamic foundations, as well as those of his associates and soldiers. As a result of his influence in the region, European nations became acutely aware of the Ottoman Empire’s declining strength, which in turn prepared them for the eventual division of its territories when the political circumstances became favorable.

Following the defeat of the Ottoman armies by Muhammad Ali’s forces in the Levant and Anatolia, the Ottoman Empire was compelled to seek assistance from Russia, having realized that Muhammad Ali enjoyed the support of Britain and France. This led to the signing of the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi in 1833, which was established after the armistice of Kütahya. The treaty functioned as a defensive alliance between Russia and the Ottomans, prompting both Britain and France to act swiftly against Muhammad Ali to prevent further Russian intervention. Consequently, the London Convention of 1840 was imposed upon him. These developments ultimately thwarted the reform efforts that Sultan Mahmud II had initiated within the Ottoman Empire, forcing the state to accept the guardianship of European powers in exchange for protection against Muhammad Ali’s ambitions. The policies implemented by Muhammad Ali were a calculated maneuver by the adversaries of Islam to prepare the entire region for a colonial phase, the repercussions of which continue to afflict the nation to this day. The European Christian agenda successfully achieved the following objectives through its loyal agent, Muhammad Ali:

[1] The dismantling of the First Saudi State, which posed a significant threat to British ambitions in the Arabian Gulf and the broader Eastern region.

[2] The establishment of institutions hostile to Islam and Muslims, including Masonic lodges, missionary organizations, monasteries, churches, and schools, which sowed the seeds of nationalist movements antagonistic to Islam and propagated ideas detrimental to the interests of the Islamic community.

[3] Providing opportunities for European commercial enterprises to dominate the economy.

[4] Granting extensive privileges to Europeans while denying those same privileges to the local populations of Egypt and the Levant.

[5] Restricting scholars and jurists, and preventing Muslims from uniting for their noble objectives.

[6] Muhammad Ali emerged as a model for European nations in cultivating their agents within Muslim territories, akin to Mustafa Kemal and others.

After the European nations achieved their objectives through their agent Muhammad Ali, it became necessary to weaken and constrain his forces. Their goals had been met, and thus, the focus shifted to diminishing Muhammad Ali’s military power. The British engaged in conflict alongside Muhammad Ali’s troops and, with the support of the people of Greater Syria, succeeded in defeating his forces and seizing control of the Syrian frontiers. In these battles, three-quarters of the population from Egypt and the Levant perished, compelling Muhammad Ali to sign the treaty under the pressure exerted by the British. He renounced the governance of the Levant, ensuring that the rule of Egypt remains hereditary for himself and his descendants. The Egyptian army was to be limited to eighteen thousand troops and Egypt was not to construct ships for the fleet. The governor of Egypt shall not appoint any officer in the army with a rank higher than lieutenant etc.

France and England began to incite sectarian strife (from 1841 to 1860) among the non-Muslim minorities in Lebanon, with the aim of weakening the Ottoman Empire, which dispatched forces to quell the unrest. This also served to justify French and British intervention in Lebanon, paving the way for its fragmentation and occupation. Russia occupied Wallachia and Moldavia, leading to an Ottoman-Russian agreement in Balta Liman, near Istanbul, in 1265 AH (June 1848), which allowed for the presence of an Ottoman-Russian army in the regions until stability was restored. What role did the Russians play in this matter? Through this cunning, Christians established a military presence in the lands of Islam.

The competition among European nations intensified over the division of the Ottoman Empire, a legacy of the ailing state. The countries most concerned with the decline of the Ottoman Empire and its territories included: 1. Britain, which sought to secure its trade routes to the Far East, particularly India, and to ensure its commercial interests through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, or via the Arabian Gulf and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. 2. The Russian Empire, which aimed to establish a passage from the Black Sea to the warm waters of the Mediterranean by seizing Constantinople and the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, thereby aspiring to exert significant influence in the Balkans and to establish a major Slavic state in the region. France, which took upon itself early on the responsibility of safeguarding the interests of Catholic Christians in the Levant, particularly the Maronites in Lebanon, sought to protect its own interests in this region. Additionally, it aimed to extend its influence over the territories of other nations along the North African coast, specifically in Tunisia and Algeria. Aside from the three primary countries mentioned, other nations such as Austria and Prussia expressed concern regarding the decline of the Ottoman Empire, which was anticipated to face demise and dissolution, earning it the moniker of the “sick man of Europe.” Several factors contributed to the emergence of the Eastern Question into the global arena, including:

[1] The route through which Russia can access warm waters is the one connecting the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara, then to the Aegean Sea, and finally to the Mediterranean Sea, which involves passing through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, both of which are under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

[2] The great powers that establish strong bases in the Black Sea and gain control over the straits acquire a significant position that enables them to extend their influence over the eastern Mediterranean basin and the trade routes from the Mediterranean to India and the Far East.

[3] The state that extends its influence into the Balkans exerts control over the Balkan peoples following the decline of Ottoman authority in the region. This position also grants it a significant advantage, enabling it to potentially seize Constantinople itself, thereby threatening the international balance of power. During the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the policies of various nations—excluding Russia and France—focused on preserving the integrity of the Ottoman Empire due to the factors previously mentioned.

Britain was at the forefront of nations committed to preserving the integrity of the Ottoman Empire at that time. However, as the opportunity arose to fill the void created by the diminishing Ottoman influence in the Balkans, she, along with other countries, abandoned the principle of maintaining the Ottoman state. They actively sought to resolve the majority of this issue by supporting the independence of Balkan states. By the end of the nineteenth century, the Balkan nations included Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia were disassociated from the Ottoman Empire.

An Excerpt from ‘Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awaamil An-Nuhood Wa Asbaab As-Suqoot. 6/406 -415

[28] The Ascent and Decline of The Ottoman Empire: [A very dangerous letter]

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

The Greek Revolution:

Europe was intent on dismantling the Ottoman Empire and employed various means to achieve this goal, including inciting sectarian and religious strife, as well as instigating internal revolutions through both material and moral support. Greece had long been a part of the Islamic world, where the call to prayer resonated in its cities and countryside for centuries, governed by Islamic law. This situation was unacceptable to Christian leaders, both from Greece and other European nations. Consequently, they began to establish secret societies within Greece, Russia, and elsewhere, aimed at reviving the ancient Byzantine Empire under the administration of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul. Many patriarchs, priests, and religious figures became active members of these clandestine organizations opposing the Ottoman state. Clergy utilized their influence over the populace to incite rebellion against the Ottoman Empire, maintaining close ties with European leaders, particularly those in Russia. Historical documents reveal significant evidence of this collaboration aimed at coordinating efforts to dismantle the Ottoman state and undermine its people and institutions.

Here is a text of a message from Patriarch Gregorius Rios to the Tsar of Russia, outlining how to dismantle the Ottoman Empire from within:

“It is impossible to crush and destroy the Ottoman Turks through military confrontation, as they are highly revolutionary, resilient, and self-assured. Their evident pride stems from their deep connection to their faith, acceptance of divine will, and strong adherence to their beliefs. Additionally, their strength is derived from their rich heritage, history, loyalty to their sultans and leaders, and respect for their elders. The Ottoman Turks are intelligent, diligent, and responsive to their leaders who guide them along a positive and constructive path, which transforms them into a formidable force that inspires fear. They are characterized by their contentment, determination, resilience, and steadfastness in the face of challenges. The numerous advantages and heroic qualities of the Ottoman Turks stem from their strong adherence to their faith, their connection to their customs and traditions, and their robust moral character.

Therefore: Firstly, it is essential to undermine their sense of loyalty towards their Sultan and leaders, as well as to diminish their morale and religious bonds. The most effective way to achieve this is by encouraging them to coexist with foreign ideas and behavious that are incompatible with their national and moral heritage.

Secondly, it is crucial to entice the Ottoman Turks to accept external assistance, even if this leads to a dependency on such aid. This dependency may initially be resisted due to their sense of pride and apparent strength, but it is only sustainable for a limited time. On the day their morale falters, their self-capabilities will also wane. It is this morale and these connections that propel them toward victory, in addition to their other abilities and numerical strength, which may appear more formidable in form than they are in reality regarding control, governance, and their presence in the international community. Moreover, they can be undermined and destroyed by elevating the significance and value of material matters in their perceptions and minds—essentially corrupting them through material temptations. It is not sufficient to achieve victories over them solely in the realm of military conflict; rather, the opposite is true. If one solely pursues the path of war to dismantle the Ottoman state, it may serve as a catalyst for their awareness, swiftly awakening them to the reality of the plans being devised against them and their homeland, which involve destruction and ruin. What we must do is to complete these disruptions in their intrinsic, social, and international standing without them being aware of it”.

Patriarch Gregorios of Istanbul was an active member in the service of the society, utilizing all his staff and influence to carry out the directives of the secret society that aimed to establish a Greater Greece. The steps taken by the society were as follows:

1. Establishing secret associations throughout the Ottoman Empire and registering wealthy and influential Greeks in these associations to ensure both material and moral support.

2 – Appointing prominent Hellenic church leaders as heads of the society.

3 – Establishing commercial enterprises to secure a financial source for the secret society.

4 – Utilizing the Hellenic youth studying in Europe.

5 – Seeking assistance from major powers.

The networks of the secret society extended throughout the Morea and beyond, orchestrating schemes to eliminate internal obstacles. In 1821, it declared its rebellion, during which Germanos, the Bishop of Patras and leader of the secret society in the Morea, carried a banner depicting the image of Mary, proclaiming, “O Greek nation! Arise and slay the Turks!” He called upon all Greeks to wage war against the Ottomans. At this time, the rebellion was also beginning to expand its scope and reach.

This rebellion commenced in 1821, acquiring a national and religious character, and was led by clergymen. Makarios, the former President of Cyprus, stated in an interview with Turkish journalist and lawyer Nuzad Karakil in 1951: “You may know that the church led the Greek uprising against the Ottomans in 1821, with the priests taking the initiative; they were the first to raise the banner of rebellion, and through them, Greece achieved its independence from the Ottoman Empire”. Furthermore, he remarked that freedom is the ideal concept of Christianity. Indeed, this reflects the truth. The priests were tasked with informing the villages and towns that an attack on the Turks to eliminate them would occur on the night of Easter. They took an oath to keep this plan secret until the appointed time. However, the Ottomans learned of this strategy from some of their allies and, as a precaution, withdrew to their fortresses. Unfortunately, these fortifications proved inadequate, and they fell one after another into the hands of the rebellious insurgents.

In a short period of approximately three weeks, the rebels managed to gain control over the entire region of Morea, with the exception of the fierce resistance demonstrated by the Ottomans at the fortress of Tripolitsa, which served as the administrative center of the Morea. This resistance persisted for several months. The Greeks exhibited unprecedented brutality towards the Ottoman soldiers who were captured during this uprising, mercilessly killing them and plundering their possessions. The clergy maintained a continuous and strong connection with the prominent members of the Great Idea Society, consistently collaborating closely with them. The priests in the monasteries provided assistance to the Greek forces in Wallachia and Moldavia, and the church allocated funds from its treasury to support their efforts. The clergy permitted the rebels to utilize the monasteries as storage facilities for cannons and gunpowder, and they also allowed them to use these monasteries as shelters. The bishop of Balyadra sent a letter to the Russian consul, stating that in order to completely rid themselves of the Turks, Russia must assist the rebellious people. As previously mentioned, Patriarch Gregory played a significant role in the Greek uprising against Ottoman rule. However, it is important to clarify that despite being a member of the society advocating for the establishment of Greater Greece, known among the Greeks as the Great Idea, he became apprehensive when Russia declared, in accordance with its political interests at the time, its condemnation of the Orthodox rebellion. Consequently, Patriarch Gregory was compelled to issue a decree known as the “Declaration of Excommunication” against the rebels. The Ottoman intelligence managed to obtain confirmed and documented information indicating that the plan to establish a Greater Orthodox Greek state had been devised by the patriarch himself.

When the news reached Sultan Mahmud II, he was taken aback and promptly ordered a search of the patriarch’s residence. Ali Pasha skillfully devised a plan to raid the patriarchate, which, when executed, resulted in the acquisition of the aforementioned documents by the officials and government representatives. Among these documents were letters addressed to the clergy who led the rebellion in the Morea, information regarding the necessary measures to be taken against the insurrection in Istanbul, as well as the preparations and secret arrangements that the Ottoman state had kept confidential. These details were leaked by the Greek princes affiliated with the church. Additionally, there were correspondences and intelligence received by the patriarchate from the embassies of England and France, particularly concerning the stages of Greek preparations in Russia, news of arms dispatched from the center of the secret society in Odessa, and appeals for assistance directed to Orthodox Christians worldwide, along with receipts for financial aid sent to the patriarchate to support the rebellion.

All of this came to the attention of the Ottoman government, and the patriarch did not deny any of it; he stated that he was responsible for all actions and accepted the accusations against him, acknowledging that he had accomplices in the crime, who were known to the government. Sultan Mahmud II issued a decree to depose Patriarch Gregorius from his position, followed by his execution. The execution took place on the day of the Orthodox Easter, after which the Sultan issued another decree for the election of a successor to the former patriarch. This decree was handed to Istafrakı Bey, the translator of the imperial council, causing great fear among his group. Upon Istafrakı’s arrival at the patriarchate, he read the decree to the officials, who subsequently elected Oyanios as the new patriarch.

The Ottoman government initiated the execution of certain leaders of the rebellion, which significantly contributed to restoring order. The patriarch became an intermediary between the rebels in the Morea and the Ottoman authorities. He even went so far as to send a petition requesting permission to advocate for the Ottoman rule and seek safety. The new patriarch’s efforts were met with a positive response from the Ottoman authorities, who granted amnesty to all who expressed remorse for their actions, allowing them to reclaim their properties and assets. The heirs of the deceased were also compensated accordingly. The churches continued to fulfill their roles, and Christian religious practices proceeded as usual. Furthermore, the government committed to ensuring the safety and stability of these individuals, and foreign ambassadors were informed of these developments. Despite these measures, unrest persisted, necessitating further intervention by the government.

An Excerpt from “Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awamil An-Nuhud Wa Asbab As-Suqut 6/400-405

A harmful behaviour observed in numerous nations across history

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

Allah [The Exalted] said:

وَلَقَدۡ صَرَّفۡنَا فِى هَـٰذَا ٱلۡقُرۡءَانِ لِلنَّاسِ مِن ڪُلِّ مَثَلٍ۬‌ۚ وَكَانَ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنُ أَڪۡثَرَ شَىۡءٍ۬ جَدَلاً۬

And indeed We have put forth every kind of example in this Quran, for mankind. But, man is ever more quarrelsome than anything]. [Al-Kahf. 54]

Allah informed us about the greatness of the Qur’an, its majesty and (perfect) inclusiveness, and that He has placed every kind of example in it – every path that leads to beneficial sciences and eternal happiness; every path that protects against evil and destruction. In it is clarification of halal and haram, recompense for one’s deeds, exhortation (towards good) and warning (against evil), true (information, stories) that are beneficial for the hearts regarding creed, a source of tranquillity and light (i.e. guidance). This necessitates that one should submit to this Qur’an, receive it with submission and obedience, and not to argue against it in any matter. Despite this, many people argue against truth – based on falsehood – after it has become clear.

لِيُدۡحِضُواْ بِهِ ٱلۡحَقَّ‌ۖ

“to dispute with false argument, in order to refute the truth thereby”.

This is why Allah stated:

وَكَانَ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنُ أَڪۡثَرَ شَىۡءٍ۬ جَدَلاً۬

“But, man is ever more quarrelsome than anything”.

Meaning, arguing and disputing against it, despite the fact that this is neither befitting (permissible) nor just, and what inevitably led him to this and make him not accept Iman is wrongdoing and obstinacy; but not due to any flaw in its explanation, Hujjah [clear and overwhelming proof that defeats all the obstinate and stubborn ones] and Burhaan [proof that clarify and distinguish between truth and falsehood in affair], rather, if the punishment and what happened to the previous nations came to them, this would have have been their state of affairs (i.e. disbelief). This is why Allah said:

وَمَا مَنَعَ ٱلنَّاسَ أَن يُؤۡمِنُوٓاْ إِذۡ جَآءَهُمُ ٱلۡهُدَىٰ وَيَسۡتَغۡفِرُواْ رَبَّهُمۡ إِلَّآ أَن تَأۡتِيَہُمۡ سُنَّةُ ٱلۡأَوَّلِينَ أَوۡ يَأۡتِيَہُمُ ٱلۡعَذَابُ قُبُلاً۬

And nothing prevents men from believing, now when the guidance (the Quran) has come to them, and from asking Forgiveness of their Lord, except that the ways of the ancients be repeated with them (i.e. their destruction decreed by Allah), or the torment be brought to them face to face? [Al-Kahf. 55]

An Excerpt from Tafseer As-Sadi

[27] The Ascent and Decline of The Ottoman Empire: [Emergence of The First Saudi State]

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

Sultan Mahmud II [1223 – 1255 AH /1808 – 1839 CE]

He ascended to the throne at the age of twenty-four and gained valuable insights during his house arrest with Salim III, who acquainted him with various reform initiatives. Initially, he was forced to acquiesce to the demands of the Janissaries, resulting in the annulment of all reforms to placate them until a more favourable time for their execution.. He demonstrated patience, biding his time to free himself from the Janissaries, who represented a considerable threat to the Ottoman state. Regrettably, this opportunity eluded him for several years, particularly as his reign was characterised by wars and significant events that consumed much of his energy and resources.

The War With Russia

A peace treaty was concluded with England in 1224 AH / 1809 CE, and efforts were made to forge a similar agreement with Russia; however, these attempts were unsuccessful, culminating in a conflict between the two nations. The Ottomans suffered defeat, resulting in the Russians seizing several strategic positions. As a consequence, Grand Vizier Dhiya Yusuf Pasha was dismissed and succeeded by Ahmad Pasha, who successfully repelled the Russians and reclaimed the occupied territories. Concurrently, relations between France and Russia soured, edging them toward war. In light of this, Russia sought to establish peace with the Ottoman Empire, leading to the signing of the Treaty of Bucharest in 1237 AH / 1812 AD. This treaty ensured that Wallachia, Moldavia, and Serbia would remain under Ottoman sovereignty. The resulting peace enabled Sultan Mahmud to pursue various reforms and address the revolts and insurrections occurring within the empire. Upon learning of the Treaty of Bucharest and their reestablished subjugation to the Ottoman Empire, the Serbians launched a rebellion. Nevertheless, the Ottoman military quelled the uprising with considerable force, leading the movement’s leaders to seek refuge in Austria. Among these leaders, Theodore Futch exhibited allegiance to the Ottomans and accepted their dominion, which resulted in him being granted special privileges by the state.

The Abolition of the Janissaries: The Janissaries experienced a decline in their character, their ethical standards shifted, and their original mission was altered, ultimately rendering them a source of disaster for the state and its subjects. They began to meddle in governmental affairs, driven by an insatiable desire for power, engaging in indulgent and illicit behaviours. They were forced to march through the harsh winter, imposed with royal tributes, and gravitated towards looting and pillaging during their military campaigns. They strayed from the foundational purpose of their establishment, succumbing to excessive alcohol consumption. Their actions led to military defeats, as they neglected religious laws, doctrines, and principles, distancing themselves from the true elements of success. They played a pivotal role in the deposition and assassination of sultans, including Uthman II. Throughout the reign of Sultan Murad IV, they persisted for a decade in their misguided ways, deeply entrenched in their oppressive rule. They were instrumental in his ascension to the throne, thereby seizing control over governance. They also suffocated Sultan Ibrahim I when he sought to liberate himself from their dominance. Their conduct plunged the state into disorder, as they eliminated sultans and placed their young heirs, such as Sultan Mehmed IV, on the throne. This chaos enabled foreign powers to seize portions of the territory, prompting the Grand Vizier and scholars to step in and remove him from power.

During the reign of Sultan Salim II, the Janissaries revolted, leading to enemy forces invading and occupying parts of the state. The Janissaries deposed several sultans, including Mustafa II, Ahmed III, and Mustafa IV, until Allah granted Sultan Mahmud II the opportunity to rid the state of their influence in the year 1241 AH. The Sultan summoned a meeting of the state’s dignitaries and high-ranking Janissary officials at the residence of the Grand Mufti. During this gathering, Grand Vizier Salim Ahmad Pasha articulated the diminished and disreputable condition of the Janissaries, while stressing the urgent need for modern military reforms. His persuasive discourse resonated with the attendees, leading the Mufti to issue a fatwa that authorised measures against the insurgents. While the Janissary officers publicly voiced their concurrence, they privately nurtured dissent. Recognising the impending threat to their privileges and the possible restriction of their activities, they began to strategise a rebellion, seeking support from segments of the general populace.

On the 8th of Dhu al-Qi’dah in the year 1241 AH, a faction of the Janissaries initiated harassment against the soldiers during their training sessions, which soon escalated into a full-scale rebellion. In response, the Sultan summoned the scholars to discuss the situation, who urged him to take decisive action against the uprising. Consequently, he ordered the artillery to prepare for engagement, balancing a conciliatory stance with concerns over the potential intensification of the rebels’ hostility. On the morning of the 9th of Dhu al-Qi’dah, the Sultan proceeded with the artillery units in tow, accompanied by scholars and students, towards the At Meydani square, where the insurgents had congregated to foment disorder.

The artillery encircled the battlefield and seized the elevated positions, targeting the Janissaries with their shells. In a desperate attempt to charge the cannons, the Janissaries encountered a relentless barrage that compelled them to take refuge in their barracks to avoid certain death. However, these shelters were set ablaze and ultimately collapsed upon them, including the Bektashi lodges, resulting in their defeat. The following day, a royal edict was issued to eliminate their ranks, uniforms, terminology, and name from the state. Those who survived and fled to the provinces faced either execution or exile. Consequently, Hussain Pasha, who was instrumental in their destruction, was appointed as the Commander-in-Chief (Serasker), signaling the onset of a new military system.

Sultan Mahmud subsequently acquired the autonomy to enhance his military forces, aligning with the principles of Western military. He replaced the traditional fez with the turban and adopted European clothing, mandating this style as the official uniform for all military and civilian state personnel. Additionally, he instituted an order known as the Order of Distinction, becoming the first Ottoman sultan to do so. The measures implemented by Sultan Mahmud, including the replacement of the fez with the turban and the enforcement of European attire among military ranks, signify his deep sense of psychological defeat. We will examine the underlying reasons for this, InShaAllah.

Muhammad Ali Pasha, the Governor of Egypt:

Muhammad Ali was a figure known for his infamous reputation, characterised by his brutality and stern disposition. The Ottoman Empire sent him to enforce discipline in villages that were slow to fulfill their financial responsibilities. He would establish his camp with his punitive troops around the village, partaking in acts of plunder, theft, and instilling terror among the defenseless inhabitants. As a result, the villagers frequently determined that it was more advantageous to pay the required amounts, despite the considerable strain it placed on them. His fixation on opulence approached the realm of insanity. He entered Egypt leading a group of Rumelians with the objective of driving out the French troops. Utilizing his astuteness and strategic thinking, he successfully earned the confidence of the Egyptian scholars. He resorted to underhanded and deceptive tactics to remove his competitors for the governorship of Egypt, ultimately achieving the title of Wali on the 20th of Rabi’ al-Awwal in the year 1220 AH, corresponding to June 18, 1805 CE.

Muhammad Ali showed strong eagerness to act as a devoted servant to the Sultan, frequently articulating sentiments of submission and respect towards both the Sultan and his rulership. Nevertheless, the Sultan began to grasp the potential consequences of these declarations, which raised his concerns about this new governor. As a result, he commanded Muhammad Ali’s transfer from the governorship of Egypt. However, the intervention of scholars prompted the Sultan to issue a subsequent decree reaffirming Muhammad Ali’s authority in Egypt on the 24th of Sha’ban in the year 1221 AH, which corresponds to November 6, 1806 CE. He began to strengthen his personal position and consolidate the authority within his own lineage. This raises numerous questions that require answers, such as: What was the true nature of Mohamad Ali’s role in serving French and British interests? Who was responsible for the downfall of the First Saudi State and the annexation of the Levant to Egypt? These are inquiries we seek to address through a thorough historical study.

The historian Abdur Rahman Al-Jabarti describes Muhammad Ali: Al-Jabarti described Muhammad Ali “as a deceitful individual, characterised by dishonesty and false oaths. He is depicted as unjust, devoid of integrity and accountability, and filled with malice, all while exercising oppression and tyranny under the guise of promising justice. Consequently, some have likened Muhammad Ali to Machiavelli or suggested that he was influenced by Machiavellian principles, which assert that the ends justify the means”. He was intent on enhancing his image in the eyes of the West and followed their lead in modernisation, even claiming to think with a “European mind while wearing the Ottoman cap.” On behalf of France, Britain, Russia, Austria, and other European nations, Muhammad Ali dealt significant blows to the Islamic direction in Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, the Levant, and the Ottoman Caliphate. These actions contributed to the preparation of the Islamic world for Western ambitions. After consolidating his power, he surrounded himself with a cadre of advisors, including Greek and Armenian Christians, as well as scribes from the Copts and Jews. He also recruited Mamluks to serve as governors of the provinces. Al-Jabarti described this situation by stating, “He opened his doors to the Christians from the Greeks and Armenians, allowing them to take the lead, while the lower classes were elevated. He had a penchant for control and dominance, showing little tolerance for opposition.” He confiscated land from farmers, imposed a tax known as the “shakra,” or an alternative tax. He significantly increased the prices of essential goods, imposed unbearable taxes, and monopolised all economic activities. This led to widespread resentment among the people.

The implementation of this policy resulted in a profound animosity among the peasants towards him and his associates, leading many to abandon their agricultural lands and flee their villages in response to the oppressive measures. Consequently, there was a notable reluctance to enlist in his army, with reports indicating that in the year 1831 alone, approximately six thousand peasants had escaped. In urban areas, particularly in Cairo, al-Jabarti notes that when Muhammad Ali tasked the populace with the reconstruction of the city, ten vices emerged among the people. These included sorcery, exploitation, labour costs, humiliation, degradation, the tearing of garments, monetary demands, the gloating of enemies, disruption of their livelihoods, and the fees for public baths. Al-Jabarti was a contemporary of the oppressive policies enacted by Muhammad Ali against the Muslim population in Egypt, who suffered the loss of their rights and resources. He opened the doors wide for European traders to enter Egypt and dominate its economy, transforming the country into a farm that supplied European markets with agricultural products. This led to a significant cultural and commercial connection between Egypt and Europe. The emerging merchant class in Egypt became economically and politically dependent on European markets, while proponents of European culture gained control over intellectual life, effectively stifling advocates of Islamic ideals. This shift was further exacerbated by the cessation of religious-based educational curricula, a move aligned with Napoleon’s Masonic policies. This situation was corroborated by the English historian Arnold Toynbee, who stated that Muhammad Ali was a dictator capable of turning Napoleonic ideas into effective realities in Egypt. European colonialism achieved its objective of exploiting the facilities and material reforms instituted by Muhammad Ali. Meanwhile, the Muslim population of Egypt was engulfed in despair, paying a heavy price that far exceeded the extent of any reforms, namely the destruction of its cultural identity shaped by Islam, which had distinguished its role throughout the Islamic eras. The call for nationalism and patriotism was initiated, while simultaneously imposing restrictions on advocates of Islam among scholars. This approach aligned with efforts aimed at achieving independence for Egypt, thereby distancing it from the ties to the Islamic Caliphate. This direction received support from Masonic lodges, which viewed this movement as integral to their objectives.

Salafi Call By (Imam) Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, masy Allah have mercy upon him:

Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab Ibn Sulayman Ibn Ali Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rashid al-Tamimi was born in the year 1115 AH / 1703 CE in the town of Al-Uyaynah, located approximately seventy kilometers north of Riyadh, or roughly that distance to the west. He grew up with a passion for knowledge, pursuing it from a young age, and exhibited remarkable talent and distinction. He memorised the Quran and studied Hanbali Fiqh, Tafsir and the science of hadith. He was greatly influenced by the works of (Shaikh Al-Islam) Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, in jurisprudence, creed, and opinions, and he held them in high regard. Additionally, he was inspired by the writings of (Imam) Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Urawah al-Hanbali, and other prominent figures from this Salafi fountain. In his quest for knowledge, he traveled to Makkah, Madina, Basra, and Al-Ahsa, where he faced numerous trials when he openly expressed his views in Iraq, before eventually returning to Najd. Upon his return to Huraymilah in Najd, he commenced his mission by promoting virtue and prohibiting vice, engaging in scholarly pursuits, education, and advocating for the pure creed of Islamic monotheism. He cautioned against polytheism, its dangers, and its various forms. He faced an assassination attempt from certain individuals in Huraymilah. Subsequently, he moved to his hometown of Al-Uyaynah, where the local ruler welcomed him and encouraged his efforts in the call to faith. He established Islamic law, enforced legal penalties, and dismantled shrines. His stay in Huraymilah was brief due to pressure from the Amir of Al-Ahsa on the Amir of Huraymilah to eliminate Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, prompting him to leave on foot to Al-Dariyah.

The alliance with Muhammad Bin Saud: Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab successfully formed an alliance with Prince Muhammad bin Saud, who utilised his wealth and resources to support the call for monotheism. This partnership was established on solid foundations, enabling the Shaikh to continue his mission through education, correspondence, and preaching. He diligently taught, wrote letters, and fortified his arguments with evidence and reasoning to substantiate his claims. His efforts included advocating for the eradication of wrongdoing, the dismantling of grave structures, the prevention of idolatry, and the affirmation of servitude to Allah alone. The call remained peaceful and measured, gently reaching out to hearts and inviting people to the path of Allah with wisdom and good counsel. He continued to educate those who attended his lessons, clarifying his beliefs and explaining the principles of his call to all, regardless of their background. However, he recognised that gentleness was often met with harshness, truth with falsehood, and good counsel with conspiracies.

Consequently, it became necessary to enter a phase of Jihad and to confront wrongdoing with strength. The Shaikh, with the assistance of Prince Muhammad bin Saud, began to prepare the necessary resources, including men and weapons, to mobilise the fighters from Diriyah beyond its borders. The aim was to spread the call and solidify its foundations both within the island and beyond. The Shaikh personally oversaw the training of the men, the organisation of the armies, and the dispatch of smaller units, all while continuing his studies, teaching, corresponding with the people, and receiving and bidding farewell to guests. Allah granted him knowledge, prestige, dignity, and authority after a prolonged struggle. He possessed keen political insight and extensive experience in matters of war and governance.

The conflicts between the supporters of the call and their adversaries persisted for many years, with the proponents of the call often emerging victorious. Villages fell one after another. In the year 1178 AH / 1773 CE, Riyadh was captured under the leadership of Prince Abdul Aziz Muhammad bin Saud, while its previous ruler, Dhahham bin Dawwas, fled. Dhahham was a tyrannical ruler who repeatedly oppressed the callers to Tawhid and violated the agreements he had made with those leading the call. Following the conquest of Riyadh, the territory under the influence of the call expanded significantly, and many people willingly accepted the call to Tawhid. The obstacles that had previously hindered their acceptance were removed, leading to a period of relief after hardship, with prosperity following adversity. Wealth increased, conditions improved, and the people found security under the nascent Islamic state, which had deprived them of the blessing of safety during its absence.

Following the death of Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, the call ontinued, receiving strong support from the Al Saud family, who wielded significant authority. They shifted their focus to the Hijaz region, which was under the control of Sharif Ghalib bin Musaid. The Sharif initiated military and religious attacks against the Saudis. This conflict persisted until the year 1803, when the Saudis entered Makkah without facing any resistance from Sharif Ghalib, who chose to flee to Jeddah. Two years later, the Saudis captured Madina. The influence of the Salafi call extended across much of the Arabian Peninsula, prompting Britain to recognise the threat this posed to its interests. The First Saudi State established its dominance over the Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea, bringing the Qawasim in the Arabian Gulf under its control. Its influence reached into southern Iraq, affecting the overland route between Europe and the East. Moreover, the religious foundations upon which this state was built made it impossible for Britain to manipulate or negotiate agreements with it, as opposition to foreign influence in the region was one of the primary objectives of this state. The Qawasim, supported by Saudi strength, were able to deliver significant blows to the English fleet in 1806, resulting in their control over the waters of the Gulf. During the reign of Saud bin Abdul Aziz, the state reached its political zenith, extending its influence to Karbala in Iraq and Hauran in the Levant, with the entire Arabian Peninsula coming under its authority, except for Yemen.

Conspiracies Against The Salafi Call: The malevolent minds among the European descendants contemplated the consequences of the continued existence of the First Saudi State. They recognised that its persistence would undermine their interests in the East as a whole. Consequently, they deemed it essential to dismantle this state, employing various insidious methods to eradicate the influence of the Salafi call, including:

First: There was a concerted effort to sway public opinion within the Islamic state against the teachings of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Those who adhered to Bidah and superstitions, mistakenly believing them to be integral to Islam, actively opposed the Shaikh’s call. This resistance was not limited to a single faction or group; rather, it emerged from various quarters and individuals. It was particularly pronounced among scholars who relied on the influence granted to them by the general populace and the uneducated, seeking to preserve their practices rooted in Bidah and superstitions, which they erroneously considered part of the faith. These individuals included caretakers of graves and those who profited from offerings, as well as those who thrived on the food and funds provided during commemorations of the deceased. They also believed that Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab introduced a new religion that contradicted their established customs. This opposition was widespread throughout the Ottoman Empire and across the entire Islamic world, exacerbated by the dissemination of fatwas issued by corrupt scholars, which were propagated by the English and French, adversaries of Islam, to discredit the teachings of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab.

Secondly: There was a campaign of intrigue and discord between the call of Shaikh and the leadership of the Ottoman Empire. The British, French, and others instilled in Sultan Mahmud II the belief that Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab’s movement aimed for the independence of the Arabian Peninsula, a separation from the Ottoman Caliphate, the unification of the Arab world, the seizure of the banner of the caliphate, and the establishment of an Arab caliphate. Sultan Mahmud II succumbed to the malicious whispers of his adversaries, a course of action that was unwarranted. It would have been more prudent for him to question this deceitful counsel and to dispatch trustworthy officials to investigate the matter. The Sultan of the Muslims failed to recognise the peril of believing this fabricated news regarding a genuine Islamic call and acquiesced to the enemies’ suggestions to eliminate it before it could gain strength, resulting in significant expenditures of both resources and manpower to suppress it.

The Ottoman Empire devised a strategy to combat the First Saudi State, intending to delegate this responsibility to the governors of neighboring regions. This approach aimed to achieve two objectives: first, to eliminate Saudi expansion in the Arab East, and second, to weaken these governors and deplete their resources, ensuring their continued subservience to the Empire. Initially, the focus was on the governor of Baghdad, as he was the closest to Najd. However, this governor was preoccupied with local disturbances in his province, and his military forces were too weak to confront the Saudis effectively. He faced multiple failures in repelling their incursions along the Iraqi borders. Consequently, the Empire turned to the governor of Syria, hoping he would succeed where the governor of Iraq had failed, but his outcome was even more disastrous. After losing faith in the capabilities of the governors in Baghdad and Syria, the Empire directed its attention to Egypt, requesting Governor Muhammad Ali in 1807 to launch a campaign against the Arabian territories to reclaim the holy sites from Saudi control and restore the Empire’s authority, which was waning in the Arabian Peninsula. However, Muhammad Ali did not respond to the Empire’s request until 1811, after he had dealt with the Mamluk beys in the Citadel massacre.

The followers of the Salafi call did not seek the caliphate, nor did they express any objections to its authority. However, the disagreement was confined to two main issues. The first was the Salafis’ insistence on the necessity for pilgrims to adhere to the principles of Islam and to refrain from any actions that would contravene them. The second issue was the Ottoman Empire’s sense of embarrassment and vulnerability in light of the control over the holy cities in Hijaz by the helpers of Shaikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, as they recognized that this situation undermined their prestige and political standing. Al-Jabarti indicated that the stance of the helpers of Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab regarding the pilgrims from the Levant was that they should only come under the conditions they imposed, which included arriving without the palanquins, drums, flutes, weapons, or any other items that contradicted Islamic law. Upon hearing this, the pilgrims returned without performing the pilgrimage and did not abandon their objectionable practices. He also noted a similar position regarding the Egyptian pilgrimage procession.

The decree issued by the Ottoman Sultan, which called for war against the Saudis at the behest of Muhammad Ali and influenced by the letters from the Sharif of Jeddah, as well as encouragement from the British, was limited to the objectives of reclaiming the sacred cities. This request was reiterated, focusing solely on the liberation of the sacred sites. Following the military’s successful conquest of the Hijaz, after enduring several defeats against the followers of Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, Sultan Mahmud II sent a decree to Egypt to be read in mosques, announcing the restoration of the sacred cities. This indicates that the Ottoman Sultan’s primary aim was the reestablishment of Ottoman sovereignty over the Hijaz.

The war could have concluded at this point, as Muhammad Ali’s forces had taken control of the cities in Hijaz. Muhammad Ali appointed a new Sharif for the region, who was compelled to travel there and subsequently expelled Sharif Ghalib, who had supported his forces and facilitated their entry into Hijaz. Additionally, the leaders of the Saudi Salafi call proposed a peace agreement; however, Muhammad Ali imposed conditions that were exceedingly difficult to fulfill for the acceptance of peace. In his response to the peace request, he included a threat, as narrated by al-Jabarti, stating: “As for the peace, we do not reject it under conditions that require us to be reimbursed for all expenses incurred for the troops from the beginning of the war until this date, and to return all that was taken and received from the treasures and supplies that were in the sacred chamber, as well as the value of what was consumed. After that, he must come and meet with me, and we will formalise our peace agreement. If he refuses to do so and does not come, we will proceed to him.”

The Reality of Muhammad Ali’s Campaign in Hijaz and Najd: The conflict between Muhammad Ali and the followers of Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was not a war between two forces both adhering to Islam, nor was it an Arab war, as some may describe it. Rather, this conflict represented a struggle between a Saudi Islamic force, which had no political ambitions but demonstrated a fervent commitment to returning to the fundamental principles of Islam, and an opposing force sent by the governor of Egypt. This opposing force was not Egyptian in nature; it primarily consisted of Albanians, some Turks, Christians, and a few French officers. Most of its leaders bore only the name of Islam. The historian al-Jabarti illustrates the nature of this force through the account of a pious and devout observer, who witnessed the initial defeat of these troops at the hands of the followers of the Salafi call: “The question of our victory arises, especially when many of our soldiers do not adhere to our faith. Among them are those who do not practice any religion or follow our creed. They are accompanied by containers of alcohol, and there is no call to prayer in our midst, nor are the obligatory prayers performed. The faithful gather in orderly lines behind a single Imam, demonstrating humility and reverence. When the time for prayer arrives, even amidst the chaos of battle, the Mu’adh-dhin calls for prayer, and they perform the prayer of fear. One group advances to engage in combat while another remains behind to pray. Our troops are astonished by this practice, having neither heard of it nor witnessed it before. They call out in their camp, urging one another to confront the polytheists, those who shave their beards, indulge in fornication and sodomy, and consume alcohol. Upon examining many of the fallen soldiers, they discovered that they were uncircumcised. When they reached Badr and took control of it, along with the surrounding villages and territories inhabited by the best of people and learned individuals, they plundered them, seizing their women, daughters, and children, as well as their books”.

Muhammad Ali did not adhere to the Shariah in his warfare; rather, he acted in opposition to divine commandments, transgressing the boundaries set by the Almighty and showing disregard for Islamic rulings. His army engaged in killing, destruction, plundering, and violating the rights of the monotheistic Muslims. In the Battle of the Camel, Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, instructed his companions: “Do not pursue a commander, nor finish off the wounded, and whoever lays down his weapon is safe.” He also cautioned: “Beware of women, even if they insult your honor and curse your leaders, for a man may strike a woman with a stick or a club, and he will be reproached for it, as will his descendants thereafter.” Abu Umamah Al-Bahili, may Allah be pleased with him, reported: “I witnessed the Battle of Siffin, where they did not finish off the wounded, nor did they kill those who turned to flee, nor did they loot the slain.”

The Ottoman Sultan was primarily concerned with the submission of the Hijaz to his rule, and the attack on Dariyah was not an urgent or necessary demand for the Ottoman state. Muhammad Ali was inflexible in his terms for peace, indicating his desire to prolong the conflict; his objective in this war was to further his expansionist ambitions within the framework permitted by British political goals in the region. The Saudi state had become a significant threat to British interests across the entire area, including the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf, and the overland route through Iraq. Consequently, Britain felt a genuine threat to its interests in the East, which justifies the characterisation of this campaign as a crusade cloaked in Islamic guise.

When Tosun Pasha, under Muhammad Ali, was defeated by Prince Abdullah bin Saud, resulting in the destruction of half his army, Muhammad Ali personally ventured to the Hejaz in 1813. He apprehended Sharif of Makkah Ghalib bin Musaid, accusing him of conspiring with the Saudis. Muhammad Ali confiscated all of Ghalib’s possessions, including his wealth, furniture, and belongings, effectively making the Sharif an employee of Muhammad Ali in the Hejaz. Subsequently, in January 1815, Muhammad Ali achieved victory over Saudi forces, a conflict regarded by some as one of the most significant events and a crucial battle in the military history of Egypt.

Muhammad Ali did not remain in the Arabian Peninsula to oversee the victory he had achieved; instead, he returned to Egypt, leaving his son Tosun in Hijaz. Soon after, Tosun succeeded in inflicting a new defeat on the Saudis for the first time and quickly advanced into the northern region of Najd, reaching the city of Al-Rass. He then occupied Al-Shabiyah, thereby opening the route to Al-Dariyah. In response, Prince Abdullah hastened to request the initiation of negotiations to prevent bloodshed and protect the towns and villages. Negotiations commenced between the two parties regarding a peace agreement under the following condition

1 – The occupation of the Egyptian forces in Diriyah. 2 – Prince Abdullah is to place himself at the disposal of Tosun Pasha, traveling to the location he deems appropriate. 3 – Prince Abdullah must ensure the safety of the pilgrimage routes and remain subject to the governance of the city by Muhammad Ali until an agreement on the peace terms is reached.

These conditions, if agreed upon, shall not take effect until they are ratified by Muhammad Ali. However, these conditions were not accepted by Prince Abdullah, who decided to send a delegation to Egypt to negotiate directly with Muhammad Ali regarding the terms of peace, but the delegation’s efforts were unsuccessful due to the pasha’s rigidity, and the Saudis prepared for war and combat. Consequently, Muhammad Ali dispatched a new campaign in 1816, led by his son Ibrahim Pasha.

Ibrahim Pasha advanced his forces from Hijaz towards Najd, successfully capturing the cities of Unayzah, Buraydah, and Shuqra, thereby subjugating the entire Qassim region. In his campaign, Ibrahim employed a conciliatory approach towards the tribes, a strategy that endeared him to many in Najd. He frequently convened councils and distributed gifts to the populace, initially adopting a method that appealed to the tribes by prohibiting looting and pillaging. With the assistance of his French military advisors, he continued his advance until he laid siege to Dir’iyyah, which was known for its strong defenses. This siege lasted from April 6 to September 9, 1818, culminating in the surrender of Prince Abdullah bin Saud and Ibrahim’s entry into Dir’iyyah. From there he dispatched the Saudi prince under heavy guard to Egypt, who was subsequently sent from Cairo to Istanbul. In Istanbul, Prince Abdullah was publicly displayed for three full days before being ordered to be executed by hanging. The truth of his execution will be revealed on the Day of Judgment. He had called for peace among the people of the island through a message sent by Shaikh Ahmad al-Hanbali to Tosun, in which they acknowledged the authority of the Ottoman Sultan and affirmed their loyalty to the caliphate. Therefore, why was there a persistent insistence on directing forces to the Arabian Peninsula? Thus, the lives of Muslims were lost at the hands of one another, a consequence of the machinations of their enemies. The inhabitants of the island supported the Muslims of Egypt during the French occupation; therefore, what is the reason for this deliberate aggression? Muhammad Ali was able, through the leaders associated with Islam, to persuade many ordinary people that their actions were in compliance with the orders of the Caliph of the Messenger of Allah to whom they owed their obedience and allegiance. However, the issue of loyalty and disavowal was entirely absent in the actions of Muhammad Ali. This is evidenced by his allegiance to the enemies of Islam, allowing them to lead him and guide the nation towards its demise.

The joy in Britain was immense upon learning of the fall of Dir’iyyah, the capital of the First Saudi State, to the forces of Ibrahim Pasha. This state was a Salafi entity that had supported the Qawasim in their struggle against British interests in the Arabian Gulf, which posed a threat to British interests in India. It is pertinent to consider, particularly in light of the events that unfolded in the Islamic world during its modern history, what might have transpired had the armies of Muhammad Ali and the Ottoman Empire collaborated with the First Saudi State instead of opposing it. Together, they could have stood against European ambitions in general, and British interests in particular. Such a collaboration could have altered the course of history, especially since the Saudi state was a Muslim entity founded on the correct Salafi principles, which the Islamic world desperately needed at that time. Regardless, Britain recognised the potential benefits of this situation and quickly extended congratulations to Ibrahim Pasha, motivated by its own self-interests. Captain George Forster Sadler was dispatched to convey these congratulations to Ibrahim Pasha for his conquest of Dir’iyyah while also seeking to establish a framework for coordination between Pasha’s land forces and the British naval forces for a joint military operation against the Qawasim, followers of the First Saudi State.

The relationship between Britain and Muhammad Ali is longstanding. At the onset of his rule, he engaged in negotiations with them that lasted four months, during which he demonstrated his seriousness and sincere desire to establish a connection with them. He even requested to place himself under their protection. This is corroborated by the report from Fraser, who was responsible for the negotiations. Their eventual acceptance of his proposal led to their abandonment of their alliances with the Mamluks. The report prepared by Fraser, who negotiated with Muhammad Ali’s envoys and sent to General Moore on October 16, 1807, outlined the key aspects of these negotiations. It stated: “I hope you will allow me to clarify for you the essence of a conversation that took place between the Pasha of Egypt, Major General Shryock, and Captain Philows during their mission with His Excellency. I have reason to believe that this conversation, along with many other private communications I had with him, indicates that he is earnest and sincere in his proposals. Muhammad Ali Pasha expressed his desire to place himself under British protection, and we promised to relay his suggestions to the leaders of the British forces, so they could present them to the English government for consideration. In return, Muhammad Ali committed to preventing the French, Turks, or any army from another state from entering Alexandria by sea, and he pledged to maintain Alexandria as an ally.”

The French consul, Drugeti, commented on the information he received regarding the agreement between Muhammad Ali and the British, suggesting that this treaty represented a type of agreement that, if concluded, would fulfill the objectives the British sought by sending their campaign to Egypt. However, its impact might exceed what they anticipated from this military expedition. The British chose not to disclose all the terms of this agreement following its signing, the evacuation of Alexandria, and its handover to the Pasha of Egypt. Britain deemed it necessary to exercise caution in this regard due to the explicit declaration of hostility towards the Ottoman Empire contained within the agreement, as it supported a ruler seeking independence at a time when British diplomacy had significant interests with the empire and aimed to benefit from its new ally to extend its influence in the region, if possible. [An Excerpt from “Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awamil An-Nuhud Wa Asbab As-Suqut 6/375-400]

Read: The State of the Region of Najd, Arabia in the Time of Ibn Abdul-Wahhāb and the First Saudi State- By Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, may Allah preserve him. https://abukhadeejah.com/the-state-of-the-region-of-najd-arabia-in-the-time-of-ibn-%CA%BFabdul-wahhab-and-the-first-saudi-state/

Did Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhāb rebel? The First Saudi State. https://abukhadeejah.com/did-shaikh-muhammad-bin-%CA%BFabdul-wahhab-rebel-the-first-saudi-state/

Admonition when Shariah schools began to emerge in Baghdad

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

Al-Allamah Siddeeq Hasan Khan, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated:

(You) should know that sound knowledge does not contain any harm. Conversely, ignorance does not hold any benefits. This is because every piece of sound knowledge has a benefit that is connected to matters of the Afterlife, the life (in this world), or human perfection. However, in certain sciences, it may be mistakenly assumed that harm can arise or that the knowledge is not beneficial due to a failure to consider the necessary conditions that must be observed in acquiring knowledge and by the scholars, because every branch of knowledge has its boundaries, and these boundaries should not be exceeded. It is erroneous to believe that knowledge can surpass its intended purpose, just as it is incorrect to assume that mainstream medicine can cure all ailments. In reality, certain diseases cannot be cured through (medical) treatment. [I] Among them (the people) is one who thinks that (some specific) knowledge is above its rank, just as one thinks that jurisprudence is the most honourable of all sciences without exception, but this is not the case, as the knowledge of pure Islamic monotheism is more honourable without exception. [II]

Among them is (one) intending through knowledge other than its purpose, such as the one who learns for the sake of wealth or prestige. The purpose of sciences of the religion in and of themselves is not to earn wealth, but rather acquaintance with facts and refining morals. Therefore, he who pursues knowledge of the religion for the sake of professionalism is not a scholar, but rather he is someone who feigns resemblance to the scholars. [III] The scholars of Transoxiana revealed and stated this when they were informed of the construction of schools in Baghdad; so, they held gatherings of religious knowledge and stated: “The people with lofty aspirations and the pure souls used to preoccupy themselves with it, whose goal behind the pursuit of knowledge was because of its nobility and perfection (attained) through it, thus, they came to the scholars to benefit from them and their knowledge. However, if it becomes a means of earning, the mean (vile) and lazy people will approach it and this will be a reason for its disappearance, thus the sciences of wisdom are abandoned, even though they are noble in and of themselves”. [IV] [1]

—————————————————–

[I]https://abukhadeejah.com/what-are-the-principles-of-medicine-with-the-scholars-of-islam/ https://abukhadeejah.com/why-i-post-health-articles-on-my-site-and-top-12-tips-for-cancer-prevention/

[II]Al-Allamah Rabee Bin Haai Al-Mad’khali, may Allah preserve him, stated: The Muslims have to be acquainted with the knowledge of Tawheed and Shirk. Shirk is the gravest sin that can be committed in disobedience to Allah. The Prophets brought the greatest (aspect) of knowledge, and that is the knowledge of Tawheed, and they warned against the greatest wrong-doing, which is to ascribe partners to Allah. [ إِنَّ ٱلشِّرۡكَ لَظُلۡمٌ عَظِيمٌ۬ – Verily! Associating partners to (Allah in worship) is a great wrong indeed]. [Luqman. 13]

This is an affair that many of the callers to Islam have turned away from at present and do not give importance. The knowledge of Tawheed is the first thing they snub and flee from, (and) Shirk is the first thing they decline (to address) when seeking to guide the Ummah. Neither do they warn the people nor caution them against this greatest danger known to mankind [i.e. Shirk]. Tawheed is the greatest (knowledge) brought by Prophets as glad tidings, but they (i.e. many of the callers) do not convey it; rather the greatest affair to them is modern politics. The knowledge of Tawheed is the affair by way of which this Ummah is distinguished. Neither is there anything more impure (i.e. corrupts the heart, deeds, manners, thoughts, ideas, intentions, goals, aims, etc) nor filthier than shirk, so why do we not purity the Ummah from this impurity and filth? Why do those callers to Islam deliberately feign ignorance of this impurity, in which the people wander blindly and belittle its severity, even though there is nothing equal to its (filthiness and impurity)? It is obligated to the Muslims to free themselves from the filth of shirk and sincerely worship Allah alone so that they become the cleanest people and purest [i.e. in creed, deeds, thoughts, views, intentions, goals, aims, etc]. And through this, they will be distinguished [in every virtuous trait]. If the mosques of the Muslims in the Islamic world are filled with graves- even though the Messenger severely cursed those who turn graves into places of worship- and those callers to Islam have not taken any steps to confront this filthy practice, then there can be no betrayal and deception -against the ummah- greater than this.

إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ يَكۡتُمُونَ مَآ أَنزَلۡنَا مِنَ ٱلۡبَيِّنَـٰتِ وَٱلۡهُدَىٰ مِنۢ بَعۡدِ مَا بَيَّنَّـٰهُ لِلنَّاسِ فِى ٱلۡكِتَـٰبِ‌ۙ أُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ يَلۡعَنُہُمُ ٱللَّهُ وَيَلۡعَنُہُمُ ٱللَّـٰعِنُونَ

Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences, and the guidance, which We have sent down after We have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers. [Al-Baqarah. 159]

The greatest clear proof is Tawheed and it is the guidance that will remove the people from shirk. Therefore, O callers to Islam! Fear Allah, safeguard the Muslims from this greatest danger, and raise them to the highest station in this worldly life – the station of Tawheed because there is no station loftier than the station of Tawheed. Tawheed is the greatest station in the entire universe and Shirk is the lowest. [2]

[III] https://salafidawahmanchester.com/2025/01/04/certificates/

[IV] Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy upon him,  said: I saw that solely being preoccupied with studying Fiqh and listening to hadeeth is not enough to rectify the heart, except combined with (the authentic narrations concerning the) softening of the hearts, and looking into the biographies of the pious predecessors. As for knowing Halal and Haram only, it does not have a great strength in softening the heart; rather the softening of the heart is (attained) by mentioning the Ahadith on the subject matter and the stories of the pious predecessors. That is because they (i.e. the pious predecessors) grasped the intent behind narrating, demonstrated the tangible obligated actions by way of them, practical encounter with their meanings, and the goals behind them. And there is nothing that will make you experience this, except after cultivation and experience. That is because I find that the ambition of the majority of the Muhadditheen and the students of hadeeth is (focused on acquiring hadeeth that has the closest chain of transmission from the Prophet and gathering numerous authentic Ahadith on a particular subject matter in the religion. And the majority of the jurists (focus on) the science of debate and that which gives one the upper hand, so how can the heart be softened through these affairs? Indeed, a group of pious predecessors aspired to see that a righteous slave should look to his character and upright guidance and not (merely) the knowledge he has acquired. That is (because) his character and upright guidance are the fruits of his knowledge. So understand this! The students of Hadeeth and Fiqh should combine (seeking after hadeeth and fiqh) with studying the lives of the pious predecessors and the Zuhhaad so that it can be a means to soften the heart. Indeed, books have been compiled regarding the affairs and manners of each one of those well-known outstanding men (of piety). A book has been compiled regarding the affairs of Al-Hasan [Al-Basri], Sufyaan Ath-Thawri, Ibraaheem Bin Ad-ham, Bishr Al-Haafiy, Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Ma’roof and other than them amongst the scholars and the Zuhhaad. [6]

It is necessary that the seekers of Hadeeth should have the most perfect (behaviour, manners, etiquette, etc) amongst the people, be the most humble amongst the people, the greatest in their impartiality and adherence to the religion, the least in (deviating from good conduct) and (being overcome with) anger because they constantly listen to the narrations that gather the excellent manners and etiquettes of Allah’s Messenger [peace and blessings of Allah be upon him], the lives of the virtuous pious predecessors, the path of the scholars of Hadeeth and the virtues of the (pious ones and scholars) who have passed away; so they adhere to the purest and excellent (aspects of those traits, etiquettes, manners, etc) and turn away from the most despised and lowly (traits, behaviour, manners, etiquettes, etc). [7]


[1] An Excerpt from “Abjad Al-Ulum” 1/77-78. slightly paraphrased

[2] An Excerpt from “Marhaban Yaa Taalibal Ilm”. pages 104-106. slightly paraphrased

[3] Sharh Hilya Taalib Al-Ilm..page:22. slightly paraphrased

[4] An Excerpt from ‘Saydul khaatir’ Page 171. Daar Ibn Rajab. 1st edition 2003

[5] Source: An Excerpt from ‘Jaami Bayaan Al-Ilm 1/78. By Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadi

A case illustrating how poisonous ideas permeated minds of certain people within the Ummah.

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

Shaikh Shamsuddeen Al-Afghaanee As-Salafi, may Allah have mercy upon him, said:

The books of Greek Philosophy, which encompassed notions of grave and idol worship, were translated into Arabic, thus, many who identified with Islam, such as Al-Farabi, (a) Ibn Sina Al-Hanafi, (b) and Nasir at-Tusi, an advocate of disbelief and shirk, (c) and others among who played tricks Islam, akin to how Paul manipulated the tenets of Christianity, busied themselves with these books. They were influenced by the ideas of the Greek philosophers, particularly the veneration of graves, transforming them into proponents of such practices. The practices of these people were rife amidst the ranks of the proponents of theological rhetoric among the Hanafi Maturidiyyah (d) and the Ash’ariyyah Kullabiyyah, as they immersed themselves in the writings of these philosophers, thus, influenced by the creed of grave worship. They emerged as advocates for grave worship and the creed of the Jahmiyyah at the same time, exemplified by the likes of Taftazani Al-Hanafi, a philosopher of the Maturidiyyah and a proponent of grave worship, alongside Jurjanee Al-Hanafi, who was a caller to superstition.

[a] Al-Faraabee said that Philosophy is more perfect than Prophet hood. Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said about him: “Misguided, a disbeliever”. Ibn Sina adopted his books and ideas of disbelief. [For further details concerning Al- Faraabee, See Majmoo Al-Fataawaa 2/67—86] [Dar At-Ta’aarud 1/10] [Ighaathatul Luhfaan 2/372-373].

[b] Ibn Sina: Imam Ibnu Salah, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: “He was a devil amongst the human devils”. [See Fataawaa Ibn Salaah 1/209] [Also see: ‘Ar-Radd Alal Mantaqiyyeen’ by Shaikh Al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah 278-279] [Ighaatha Al-Lahfaan’ by Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim 2/373-380] [Al-Bidayah Wan-Nihaayah’ by Imam Ibn Kathir12/43]

[c] Nasir at-Tusi: He was a magician and a minister of the Tartars. He rejected the ‘resurrection’. For further details, see: As-Sawaa-iq Al-Mursalah of Imaam Ibnul Qayyim (rahimahullaah) 2/790; 3/1077-1078]

[d] Al-Maturidiyyah: Followers of the Jahmi Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi Al-Hanafi [Al-Maturidiyyahby Shaikh Shamsuddeen Al-Afghani 1/205—376] [1]

Revival of The Authentic Sunnah Every Hundred Years

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Allah will raise for this Ummah at the end of every hundred years the one who will revive its religion for it”. [2]

“Allah will raise for this Ummah”- Meaning the Ummah Ijabah [i.e. the Muslims]. “At the end of every hundred years”- Meaning at the end of every hundred years when there is little knowledge of the Shariah and the authentic Prophetic Tradition, whilst ignorance and religious innovation is rife. “One who will revive its religion for it”- Meaning a scholar who is alive and well known. He will clarify the authentic Prophetic Tradition and distinguish it from the religious innovations. knowledge will be abundant again and its adherents will be aided, and the proponents of religious will be overcome and degraded. This reviver is non else but a scholar who has sound understanding of the religious sciences that deal with acts of worship, the underlying wisdoms of the religion and the texts that deal with beliefs of the heart. [3]

Imam Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy upon him, said, “A group amongst the scholars- including Ahmad Bin Hanbal – stated that Umar Bin Abdul Azeez was alive at the end of the first hundred years and he is more worthy and entitled to be entered into this category of people due to his leadership and striving to establish truth”. [4]

There will not cease to be a group of people upon the Truth and Sunnah’ – Sharhus-Sunnah al-Barbahārī by Shaikh Abu Khadeejah, may Allah preserve him.

https://www.salafisounds.com/there-will-not-cease-to-be-a-group-of-people-upon-the-truth-and-sunnah-sharhus-sunnah-al-barbahari-by-abu-khadeejah/https://www.salafisounds.com/there-will-not-cease-to-be-a-group-of-people-upon-the-truth-and-sunnah-sharhus-sunnah-al-barbahari-by-abu-khadeejah/


[1] An Excerpt from Juhud Ulamaa Al-Hanafiyyah Fee Ibtal Aqa’id Al-Quburiyyeen. 1/ 19-25

[2] Sahih Sunan Abee Daawud. Hadeeth Number 4291.

[3]An Excerpt from Awnul Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Abee Daawud. Vol 11. Pages 259-260. Publisher: Daaer Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah. 1st Edition 1419AH (Year 1998). Slightly paraphrased]

[4]Al-Bidaayah Wan-Nihaayah. 9/303-309. Publisher: Maktabah Al-Ma’aarif and Daar ibn Hazm. 9th Edition. 1414 AH (1994)

[26] The Ascent and Decline of The Ottoman Empire

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

Sultan Salim III

He ascended to power following the death of his uncle, Abdul Hamid I, in 1203 AH / 1788 CE, marking the beginning of a new phase in the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and its adversaries. He initiated efforts to revive the morale of his troops, drawing upon the historical achievements of the Ottoman state and its heroic deeds. During his accession to the throne, the Sultan delivered an impassioned speech to the state leaders, highlighting the victories of the Ottoman armies over their enemies in the past. He addressed the reasons for their recent defeats, attributing them to a departure from their faith and a failure to adhere to their book and the teachings of their Prophet. He urged them to embrace sacrifice and strive against their foes, to rely on Allah, obey their leaders, and to resist the enemies who had seized Muslim lands and killed or imprisoned thousands, until the state could reclaim Crimea from them.

His fervor for Jihad: [Footnote a]

His eagerness for Jihad compelled him to dismiss the peace initiatives proposed by the ambassadors from Spain, France, and Prussia. He directed the Grand Vizier, Yusuf Pasha, to undertake the necessary preparations to confront the state’s adversaries. He acknowledged the suffering endured by his people due to the ongoing defeats faced by the Ottoman Empire. In a bid to mitigate the rising anger and dissatisfaction, he rejected the peace proposals and resolved to personally lead an army towards the Danube. Additionally, he raised the soldiers’ salaries and offered extra bonuses that surpassed those provided during his predecessor’s rule. He understood the importance of fortifying his position by appointing his long-time associate, Hussain Pasha al-Karidli, as the commander of the Ottoman fleet. He reassigned the former commander, Hassan Pasha, to lead the land forces in Moldavia and appointed him as the governor of Ismail, while also entrusting him with the mission of reclaiming Ozi and advancing overland towards Crimea. The shifts in military leadership were influenced by various factors. On one side, Commander Hasan Pasha was in disagreement with Grand Vizier Yusuf Pasha, as he felt that declaring war on Russia was poorly timed and that comprehensive preparations were essential before engaging in battle. Conversely, the failure of the Ottoman army, under Hasan Pasha’s leadership, to recover Ozi within the stipulated timeframe adversely affected the Sultan’s morale, leading him to contemplate a change in command. Nevertheless, the most logical explanation for this decision was that the new commander was a close confidant of the Sultan, which provided a solid foundation for his appointment as Grand Vizier and bolstered his position against both internal and external threats.

He was in a situation that required him to face his enemies. To handle this, he gave his Grand Vizier, Yusuf Pasha, the task of managing Wallachia and protecting Belgrade from possible threats in the Kuban region. The goal was to stir up the Caucasus against Russia and help the Ottoman Empire take back Crimea. The Grand Vizier felt motivated by the Sultan’s trust in him and was confident that success was near as he aimed to achieve the goals set by the state.

The Defeat of the Ottoman Armies: Russian and Austrian troops bolstered their defenses and gathered their forces near Belgrade and Moldavia. The Grand Vizier could not drive the enemies away from Belgrade, resulting in the Sultan replacing him with Hasan Pasha. Yusuf Pasha faced a series of defeats against the Russian general Suvorov and the Austrian commander Coburg.

The Sultan was set on taking back Crimea and defeating his enemies. He knew he needed to rebuild the army and instructed the Grand Vizier to take action for military growth and reforms. He also planned to send troops to the battlefield. To aid these efforts, he wanted to create a friendship treaty with Sweden, promising to pay certain amounts each year for ten years in return for Sweden’s support against Russia from the north. Both sides agreed to keep working together in the war against Russia and not to sign any peace deal with others without informing each other.

European countries had different views on these treaties: Russia was in favour of the treaty because it was influenced by Selim III to keep fighting, worried it might also be targeted by Russia. France opposed the treaty since it did not fit with its political goals. Britain had a mixed stance; it accepted the treaty and wanted a strong Ottoman Empire but did not want to support the Ottomans against Russia or Austria. This behavior from European nations is understandable, as their relationships with the Ottoman Empire were driven by self-interest. Even those who wanted a strong Ottoman presence did so not out of goodwill, but to achieve political aims related to the balance of power in Europe and to safeguard their economic interests, both in the Ottoman Empire and beyond.

The Sultan remained optimistic about his mission, despite the challenges posed by European events affecting the empire’s policies and its presence in Europe. He believed that with effective leadership, his army could succeed. As a result, he ordered the mobilisation of forces through Moldavia and Wallachia, advancing his troops to the River Rimnik, close to Nema’s borders. However, the Russian and Austrian armies unexpectedly attacked the Ottoman forces, achieving a significant victory. This battle, known as the Battle of Yozza or Rimnik, took place by the river and had serious consequences for the Ottoman Empire. It hindered their military organisation and led to a series of defeats, forcing a retreat towards the eastern Danube. This allowed the Austrians to lift the siege of Belgrade, paving the way for allied forces to push the Ottomans out of Europe.

The Crusades against the Ottoman territories in late 1789 were some of the most destructive events in the border areas between the two sides. As a result, the time after these battles saw two main developments. First, there was an increase in diplomatic efforts and religious and political movements in Europe that indicated a looming threat. This led stronger nations to push for peace and call for an end to the fighting between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. At the same time, the French Revolution was approaching, and its effects were becoming more apparent across Europe. This situation created a strong feeling among European countries, including Russia, that it was time to show support for the Ottoman Empire, fueled by concerns over the rising Napoleonic revolution and France’s influence in Europe.

The second aspect focuses on the new military actions and changes that arose from the repeated losses faced by the Ottoman Empire before and after the Battle of Yozgat. These defeats caused frustration and anger among the people, prompting demands for reform and the removal of the Grand Vizier. As time went on, the Ottoman state continued to weaken due to further defeats. With the French Revolution, European nations saw the need to form a treaty with the Ottoman Empire to unite against Napoleon’s expansion and the French interests that threatened their own goals in Ottoman lands. This diplomatic effort led to the signing of the important Treaty of Zsitvatorok on the 22nd of Dhul-Hijjah in the year 1205 AH, which corresponds to August 4, 1791 CE. After achieving their goal, they faced the second stage, which was to stop the Ottoman-Russian war. Without this, the situation in Europe would be at risk due to Napoleon’s adventures or Russia’s dominance over the Ottoman Empire, posing a threat to Europe. The events affecting the Ottoman Empire weakened its power and impacted its campaigns in Europe. This put them in a position where they were willing to agree to any terms for peace. These events aided the mediators, who, after negotiations with both Russia and the Ottoman Empire, managed to sign a peace treaty in the city of Iași on January 9, 1792.

One important part of this treaty was the exchange of prisoners of war. It also allowed people from their home country, who were living abroad due to political issues, to choose whether to go back home or stay where they were. The Ottoman Empire gave Russia the port of Azov, the Crimean lands, the Taman Peninsula, and the areas of Koyan, Yessentuki, and the regions between the Bug and Dniester rivers, with the last month marking the border between the two nations. In exchange, Russia returned the areas of Bessarabia, Akkerman, Kili, and Ismail to the Ottoman Empire, provided that the Ottoman state would not tax the people of Bessarabia and would not ask for war reparations or similar payments from Russia. The Sublime Porte also banned its people from attacking Russian territories like Tiflis and Katelina, as well as Russian ships in the Mediterranean, and agreed to pay for any damages caused by its subjects. The treaty effectively ended the Russo-Turkish War and achieved the objectives of European nations, primarily halting the conflict during a period when Europe was grappling with the upheaval of the Napoleonic Wars and fearing its impact on their governance. Consequently, the hopes of the Ottoman Empire were dashed, along with the loss of territories under its influence, leading to the Black Sea falling under Russian control. Ottoman ports such as Azov, Odessa, and Sevastopol became bases for the Russian fleet, while major river mouths like the Danube, Bug, Dniester, and Prut were placed under Russian navigation authority. Thus, this treaty significantly reduced the territorial extent of the Ottoman Empire in Europe and simultaneously conferred a legal status of concession regarding its gains to its adversaries.

European nations took significant steps that contributed to the break up of the Ottoman Empire in the region, effectively bringing an end to numerous projects advocated by intellectuals. For centuries, European thinkers had opposed the Ottoman state, while Crusader forces, colonial powers, and Jewish interests worked diligently and systematically towards their common goal. It resembled a global consortium where European founders exchanged glances of agreement; despite their differences, they united in their animosity towards the Ottomans, each eager to undermine, destroy, and absorb the empire.

The Treaty of Bucharest may have temporarily halted the Russo-Ottoman confrontations, but it essentially marked the beginning of a more tragic decline than the previous one. Following the cessation of hostilities, Salim III focused on internal reforms, initiating the restructuring of the military to eliminate the Janissaries, who had become a source of unrest. He sought to emulate Europe, which had advanced significantly, emphasizing shipbuilding and weaponry, particularly cannons in the French style, while also witnessing the early stages of Western military education during his reign. The Sultan’s initiatives for reform and the establishment of the new military corps provoked the Janissaries, who were supported by the notables against the new system. Although the Sultan issued a decree to abolish the new military structure, the rebels opted to depose the caliph, leading to the ascension of his cousin, Mustafa IV, who was controlled by those who appointed him to the throne. Subsequently, imperial decrees were issued to dismantle the new system along with all associated schools, institutions, and reforms. Despite these measures, his reign faced significant challenges that ultimately resulted in his overthrow.

The French Crusader Invasion of the Ottoman State in Egypt (1213 AH / 1798 AD): The enemies of Islam took advantage of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, with France exploiting this weakness by launching its famous campaign led by Napoleon Bonaparte. This campaign echoed the French Revolution and was influenced by its revolutionary ideas. Napoleon was accompanied by a significant number of French intellectuals, totaling 122. The intellectual influences on these people were predominantly shaped by the French efforts to reform the Catholic Church and their opposition to Protestant reform movements since the early sixteenth century. Prior to their arrival in the East, they were also impacted by the ideas of Rousseau, Voltaire, and Montesquieu, prominent thinkers of the French Revolution, who were associated with Jewish Masonic lodges and advocated for principles such as liberty, fraternity, and equality. These concepts collectively oppose religion and its derived ideas. Therefore, it is simplistic to accept the historical narrative that the primary aim of this campaign was solely to undermine British interests in the East, as such a goal would not necessitate the mobilisation of a vast number of intellectuals. Alongside this, there was the ambition to establish a French empire in the East to satisfy the aspirations of the bourgeois class that had risen to power after the revolution, as well as to appease the Church, which, despite suffering some setbacks from the revolution that diminished its influence in France, continued to wield significant power over many French citizens and played a crucial role in bolstering French influence in its colonies and the Islamic East. Thus, the objectives of the campaign were a complex amalgamation of various interests.

An Excerpt from Ad-Dawlah al-Uthaniyyah Awamil An-Nuhud Wa Asbab As-Suqut 6/352-360

Footnote a:

https://abukhadeejah.com/salafi-shaikh-fawzaan-on-jihaad-in-our-times-and-the-guidelines-of-jihaad-according-to-islam/

[25] The Ascent and Decline of The Ottoman Empire

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

Sultan, Abdul Hamid I (1187 – 1203 AH /1773 – 1788 CE)

He ascended to the throne in 1187 AH /1773 CE following the death of his brother, Mustafa III. During Mustafa III’s reign, Abdul Hamid was confined to his palace. Russia achieved a victory over the Ottomans in the city of Varna, Bulgaria, on the Black Sea, prompting the Grand Vizier to seek peace and negotiations. This culminated in an agreement in the city of Kinarca, Bulgaria, in 1187 AH /1774 CE, which primarily aimed to eliminate hostilities between the Ottoman Empire and Russia, establish peace, safeguard agreements from alterations, and grant amnesty for offenses committed by the subjects of both parties.

Both parties acknowledge the complete freedom and independence of Crimea, allowing its inhabitants the right to elect their Khan without interference and without the obligation to pay taxes.

As Muslims, their religious affairs were to be governed by the Sultan in accordance with Islamic law. The withdrawal of Ottoman forces from Crimea, along with the surrender of fortresses and the prohibition of sending soldiers or military governors.

Each state retains the right to construct fortifications and buildings, as well as to make necessary repairs. A Russian ambassador of second rank to be appointed in Istanbul, with a formal apology issued for any disruptions.

The Ottoman Empire commits to safeguarding the rights of Christian churches within its territories and granting permission for necessary repairs.

Russian monks permitted to visit Jerusalem and other sites without the requirement of tribute or tax, and they are to be provided with assistance and protection during their visits.

The navigation rights of Russians in all Ottoman ports in the Mediterranean and Black Seas guaranteed, along with the protection of Russian nationals’ trade activities both on land and at sea within the Ottoman Empire.

Russian merchants afforded the freedom to import from and export to these regions, as well as the right to reside there.

Russia entitled to appoint consuls in any locations it deems appropriate. The Ottoman state is required to commit to supporting the governments of African provinces should the Russians wish to establish commercial treaties in those areas.

The Russians entitled to construct a church on the public road in the district of Galata in Istanbul, separate from the designated church, which will be maintained by the Russian ambassador. Full provisions for its upkeep and complete security will be ensured to prevent any interference.

The agreement stipulated the return of certain territories to the Ottoman Empire from Russia under specific conditions, including amnesty for the local population, religious freedom for Christians, the construction of new churches, the prohibition of privileges for monks, unrestricted migration for the elite, non-interference with their affairs, exemption from war costs, and the removal of tribute obligations. Additionally, Russia is to return Mediterranean islands under its control to the Ottoman Empire, which must grant amnesty to their inhabitants, waive annual fees, ensure religious freedom, and allow those who wish to leave their homeland to do so. Other provisions addressed regions in Crimea, withdrawal measures, the evacuation of Wallachia, Bujak, and Moldavia, the release of prisoners, and the appointment of ambassadors for reconciliation. The Ottoman Empire committed to paying Russia fifteen thousand bags of currency over three years, with an annual installment of five thousand bags.
Upon examining these conditions, several observations can be made:

The end of Ottoman control over the Black Sea facilitated the groundwork for future Russian diplomatic interventions in internal Ottoman affairs.

Russian borders expanded to the southern Bug River, incorporating Azov, the Kersh steppes, and the eastern ends of the Dnieper and Bug rivers, including the regions of Mohyliv and Kinburn. Additionally, Crimea gained independence, with its subjects remaining connected to the Ottoman Empire solely in a religious capacity.

Russia was granted the right to establish consulates in the Ottoman Empire and to navigate its waters freely. The treaty also allowed Russians to obtain privileges, within Ottoman territories, affecting Orthodox communities in Wallachia, Moldavia, and the Aegean Islands and Russia became a protector of Orthodox Christians throughout the Ottoman Empire.

The Russian Crusaders did not stop there; they continued their conspiracies and surprised the Ottoman Empire by invading Crimea with an army of seventy thousand soldiers, disregarding the Treaty of Kainarji. Catherine, their queen, was captivated by this victory and toured the regions of Crimea, where celebrations and triumphal arches were erected, inscribed with “The Road to Byzantium.” The Ottoman Empire reacted strongly, prompting the Sublime Porte to send a memorandum to the Russian ambassador in Istanbul during the summer of 1200 AH, outlining several demands, including the renunciation of protection over the Georgian territories under Ottoman sovereignty and the surrender of the rebellious Wallachian governor. Russia rejected the memorandum, leading the Sublime Porte to declare war and imprison the Russian ambassador. The alliance between Austria and Russia was marked by significant military maneuvers. Katarina instructed the military leader Potemkin not to wait for the Ottomans and to advance towards the cities of Bender and Ozi. This strategy allowed him to capture Ozi, prompting Austria to declare war on the Ottoman Empire. Emperor Joseph II of Austria attempted to seize Belgrade but ultimately retreated in disappointment to Timișoara, pursued by the Ottoman army, which inflicted a severe defeat upon him.

The death of Sultan Abdul Hamid I had a profound impact on the course of events. The morale of the troops diminished, and despair took hold of their hearts, which adversaries exploited to weaken the Ottomans. Consequently, they achieved victories on July 31 and September 22, 1789, with the Russians capturing the fortified city of Bender and occupying much of Wallachia, Moldavia, and Bessarabia. The Austrians also entered Belgrade and Serbia, which later responded in accordance with the Treaty of Jassy.

An Excerpt from Ad-Dawlah al-Uthaniyyah Awamil An-Nuhud Wa Asbab As-Suqut 6/349-352

Antisemitism is not world’s oldest hatred- Remind Michael J Salamon and Louis Libin

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

Allah, The Exalted, said:

وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِى كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولًا أَنِ ٱعْبُدُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَٱجْتَنِبُوا۟ ٱلطَّٰغُوتَ فَمِنْهُم مَّنْ هَدَى ٱللَّهُ وَمِنْهُم مَّنْ حَقَّتْ عَلَيْهِ ٱلضَّلَٰلَةُ فَسِيرُوا۟ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ فَٱنظُرُوا۟ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَٰقِبَةُ ٱلْمُكَذِّبِينَ

And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (nation) a Messenger (saying): “Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut (all false deities, etc.i. e. do not worship false deities).” Then of them were some whom Allah guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth). [An-Nahl. 36]

In the hadith Qudsi, the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said that Allah said: “Indeed, I have created all of My servants inclined to worship (Me alone), but devils come to them who turn them away from their religion (of pure monotheism). They outlaw what has been made lawful for them, and they command them to associate partners with Me for which no authority has been revealed”. [Sahih Muslim 2865]

The rejection of Tawhid and the teachings of Allah’s Messengers stands as the most ancient source of animosity between the noble Messengers, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, and their adversaries, rather than antisemitism. [Footnote a] It is utterly ludicrous to delve into a topic and inflate its significance to a degree that distorts their true nature. Antisemitism, like any form of racial prejudice and unwarranted animosity, is unequivocally condemned. In fact, Zionism exemplifies an ideology that exacerbates the deepest divisions among humanity, as it diverges from the essence of pure monotheism and the path laid out by the Prophets. However, our focus here is not on that specific issue; rather, we aim to highlight that the most enduring hatred is perpetuated by those who seek to eradicate pure monotheism and the teachings of the Messengers, replacing them with their ideologies and vain desires. Consequently, they nurture profound enmity towards those who have historically endeavoured to uphold pure monotheism. The Messengers themselves were the first to face this lethal hostility from their own communities, which is why those among the Jews who rejected the noble Prophet Isa, peace be upon him, relentlessly pursued his death, but Allah protected him. Let us now reference select verses from the Qur’an that illuminate this ancient animosity.

Allah said:

أَفَلَمْ يَسِيرُوا۟ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ فَيَنظُرُوا۟ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَٰقِبَةُ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ كَانُوٓا۟ أَكْثَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَأَشَدَّ قُوَّةً وَءَاثَارًا فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ فَمَآ أَغْنَىٰ عَنْهُم مَّا كَانُوا۟ يَكْسِبُونَ
فَلَمَّا جَآءَتْهُمْ رُسُلُهُم بِٱلْبَيِّنَٰتِ فَرِحُوا۟ بِمَا عِندَهُم مِّنَ ٱلْعِلْمِ وَحَاقَ بِهِم مَّا كَانُوا۟ بِهِۦ يَسْتَهْزِءُونَ

Have they not travelled through the earth and seen what was the end of those before them? They were more numerous than them and mightier in strength, and in the traces (they have left behind them) in the land, yet all that they used to earn availed them not. Then when their Messengers came to them with clear proofs, they were glad (and proud) with that which they had of the knowledge (of worldly things): And that at which they used to mock, surrounded them (i.e. the punishment). [Ghafir 82-83]

Allah said:
وَمَا نُرْسِلُ ٱلْمُرْسَلِينَ إِلَّا مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِينَ وَيُجَٰدِلُ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ بِٱلْبَٰطِلِ لِيُدْحِضُوا۟ بِهِ ٱلْحَقَّ وَٱتَّخَذُوٓا۟ ءَايَٰتِى وَمَآ أُنذِرُوا۟ هُزُوًا

And We send not the Messengers except as giver of glad tidings and warners. But those who disbelieve, dispute with false argument, in order to refute the truth thereby. And they treat My Signs, and that with which they are warned, as jest and mockery! [Al-Kahf 56]

Allah said:
وَلَوْ أَنَّ أَهْلَ ٱلْقُرَىٰٓ ءَامَنُوا۟ وَٱتَّقَوْا۟ لَفَتَحْنَا عَلَيْهِم بَرَكَٰتٍ مِّنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَلَٰكِن كَذَّبُوا۟ فَأَخَذْنَٰهُم بِمَا كَانُوا۟ يَكْسِبُونَ

And if only the people of the various townships (to whom we sent messengers) had believed (in their call to pure monotheism) and displayed piety (by abiding by Allāh’s commands), we would have certainly opened up blessings upon them from the sky and from the earth. But they belied (the Messengers), so we seized them (in retribution) for the deeds (of ingratitude and disbelief) they used to earn. https://www.thenoblequran.com/q/#/search/7_96

Allah said:
وَلَقَدْ كُذِّبَتْ رُسُلٌ مِّن قَبْلِكَ فَصَبَرُوا۟ عَلَىٰ مَا كُذِّبُوا۟ وَأُوذُوا۟ حَتَّىٰٓ أَتَىٰهُمْ نَصْرُنَا وَلَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَٰتِ ٱللَّهِ وَلَقَدْ جَآءَكَ مِن نَّبَإِى۟ ٱلْمُرْسَلِينَ

Verily, (many) Messengers were denied before you (O Muhammad), but with patience they bore the denial, and they were hurt, till Our Help reached them, and none can alter the Words (Decisions) of Allah. Surely there has reached you the information (news) about the Messengers (before you). [Al-An’am 34]

Allah said:
سَأَصْرِفُ عَنْ ءَايَٰتِىَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَتَكَبَّرُونَ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ بِغَيْرِ ٱلْحَقِّ وَإِن يَرَوْا۟ كُلَّ ءَايَةٍ لَّا يُؤْمِنُوا۟ بِهَا وَإِن يَرَوْا۟ سَبِيلَ ٱلرُّشْدِ لَا يَتَّخِذُوهُ سَبِيلًا وَإِن يَرَوْا۟ سَبِيلَ ٱلْغَىِّ يَتَّخِذُوهُ سَبِيلًا ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَذَّبُوا۟ بِـَٔايَٰتِنَا وَكَانُوا۟ عَنْهَا غَٰفِلِينَ
وَٱلَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا۟ بِـَٔايَٰتِنَا وَلِقَآءِ ٱلْءَاخِرَةِ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَٰلُهُمْ هَلْ يُجْزَوْنَ إِلَّا مَا كَانُوا۟ يَعْمَلُونَ

I shall turn away from My Ayat (verses of the Quran) those who behave arrogantly on the earth, without a right, and (even) if they see all the Signs, they will not believe in them. And if they see the way of righteousness (monotheism, piety, and good deeds), they will not adopt it as the Way, but if they see the way of error (polytheism, crimes and evil deeds), they will adopt that way, that is because they have rejected Our Signs and were heedless (to learn a lesson) from them. Those who deny Our Signs and the Meeting in the Hereafter (Day of Resurrection,), vain are their deeds. Do they expect to be rewarded with anything except what they used to do? [Al-A’raf 146-147]

Allah aid about the first Messenger, Nuh, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
فَكَذَّبُوهُ فَأَنجَيْنَٰهُ وَٱلَّذِينَ مَعَهُۥ فِى ٱلْفُلْكِ وَأَغْرَقْنَا ٱلَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا۟ بِـَٔايَٰتِنَآ إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا۟ قَوْمًا عَمِينَ

But they belied him, so We saved him and those along with him in the ship, and We drowned those who belied Our Signs. They were indeed a blind people. [Al-A’raf 64]

Allah said after mentioning the story of Nuh, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:
ثُمَّ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلَنَا تَتْرَا كُلَّ مَا جَآءَ أُمَّةً رَّسُولُهَا كَذَّبُوهُ فَأَتْبَعْنَا بَعْضَهُم بَعْضًا وَجَعَلْنَٰهُمْ أَحَادِيثَ فَبُعْدًا لِّقَوْمٍ لَّا يُؤْمِنُونَ

Then We sent Our Messengers in succession, every time there came to a nation their Messenger, they denied him, so We made them follow one another (to destruction), and We made them as Ahadith (the true stories for mankind to learn a lesson from them). So away with a people who believe not. [Al-Muminun 44]

Allah said:
وَإِلَىٰ مَدْيَنَ أَخَاهُمْ شُعَيْبًا فَقَالَ يَٰقَوْمِ ٱعْبُدُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَٱرْجُوا۟ ٱلْيَوْمَ ٱلْءَاخِرَ وَلَا تَعْثَوْا۟ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ مُفْسِدِينَ
فَكَذَّبُوهُ فَأَخَذَتْهُمُ ٱلرَّجْفَةُ فَأَصْبَحُوا۟ فِى دَارِهِمْ جَٰثِمِينَ

And to (the people of) Madyan (Midian), We sent their brother Shu’aib (Shuaib). He said: “O my people! Worship Allah, and hope for (the reward of good deeds by worshipping Allah Alone, on) the last Day, and commit no mischief on the earth as Mufsidun (those who commit great crimes, oppressors, tyrants, mischief-makers, corrupts). And they belied him [Shu’aib (Shuaib)], so the earthquake seized them, and they lay (dead), prostrate in their dwellings. [Al-Ankabut 36-37]

Allah [The Exalted] said:

وَإِلَىٰ مَدۡيَنَ أَخَاهُمۡ شُعَيۡبً۬ا‌ۗ قَالَ يَـٰقَوۡمِ ٱعۡبُدُواْ ٱللَّهَ مَا لَڪُم مِّنۡ إِلَـٰهٍ غَيۡرُهُ ۥ‌ۖ قَدۡ جَآءَتۡڪُم بَيِّنَةٌ۬ مِّن رَّبِّڪُمۡ‌ۖ فَأَوۡفُواْ ٱلۡڪَيۡلَ وَٱلۡمِيزَانَ وَلَا تَبۡخَسُواْ ٱلنَّاسَ أَشۡيَآءَهُمۡ وَلَا تُفۡسِدُواْ فِى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ بَعۡدَ إِصۡلَـٰحِهَا‌ۚ ذَٲلِڪُمۡ خَيۡرٌ۬ لَّكُمۡ إِن ڪُنتُم مُّؤۡمِنِينَ
وَلَا تَقْعُدُوا بِكُلِّ صِرَاطٍ تُوعِدُونَ وَتَصُدُّونَ عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ مَنْ آمَنَ بِهِ وَتَبْغُونَهَا عِوَجًا وَاذْكُرُوا إِذْ كُنْتُمْ قَلِيلًا فَكَثَّرَكُمْ وَانْظُرُوا كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الْمُفْسِدِينَ
وَإِن كَانَ طَآٮِٕفَةٌ۬ مِّنڪُمۡ ءَامَنُواْ بِٱلَّذِىٓ أُرۡسِلۡتُ بِهِۦ وَطَآٮِٕفَةٌ۬ لَّمۡ يُؤۡمِنُواْ فَٱصۡبِرُواْ حَتَّىٰ يَحۡكُمَ ٱللَّهُ بَيۡنَنَا‌ۚ وَهُوَ خَيۡرُ ٱلۡحَـٰكِمِينَ
قَالَ ٱلۡمَلَأُ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱسۡتَكۡبَرُواْ مِن قَوۡمِهِۦ لَنُخۡرِجَنَّكَ يَـٰشُعَيۡبُ وَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ مَعَكَ مِن قَرۡيَتِنَآ أَوۡ لَتَعُودُنَّ فِى مِلَّتِنَا‌ۚ قَالَ أَوَلَوۡ كُنَّا كَـٰرِهِينَ
قَدِ ٱفۡتَرَيۡنَا عَلَى ٱللَّهِ كَذِبًا إِنۡ عُدۡنَا فِى مِلَّتِڪُم بَعۡدَ إِذۡ نَجَّٮٰنَا ٱللَّهُ مِنۡہَا‌ۚ وَمَا يَكُونُ لَنَآ أَن نَّعُودَ فِيہَآ إِلَّآ أَن يَشَآءَ ٱللَّهُ رَبُّنَا‌ۚ وَسِعَ رَبُّنَا كُلَّ شَىۡءٍ عِلۡمًا‌ۚ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ تَوَكَّلۡنَا‌ۚ رَبَّنَا ٱفۡتَحۡ بَيۡنَنَا وَبَيۡنَ قَوۡمِنَا بِٱلۡحَقِّ وَأَنتَ خَيۡرُ ٱلۡفَـٰتِحِينَ
وَقَالَ ٱلۡمَلَأُ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَوۡمِهِۦ لَٮِٕنِ ٱتَّبَعۡتُمۡ شُعَيۡبًا إِنَّكُمۡ إِذً۬ا لَّخَـٰسِرُونَ
فَأَخَذَتۡہُمُ ٱلرَّجۡفَةُ فَأَصۡبَحُواْ فِى دَارِهِمۡ جَـٰثِمِينَ
ٱلَّذِينَ كَذَّبُواْ شُعَيۡبً۬ا كَأَن لَّمۡ يَغۡنَوۡاْ فِيهَا‌ۚ ٱلَّذِينَ كَذَّبُواْ شُعَيۡبً۬ا كَانُواْ هُمُ ٱلۡخَـٰسِرِينَ
فَتَوَلَّىٰ عَنۡهُمۡ وَقَالَ يَـٰقَوۡمِ لَقَدۡ أَبۡلَغۡتُڪُمۡ رِسَـٰلَـٰتِ رَبِّى وَنَصَحۡتُ لَكُمۡ‌ۖ فَكَيۡفَ ءَاسَىٰ عَلَىٰ قَوۡمٍ۬ كَـٰفِرِينَ

And to (the people of) Madyan (Midian), (We sent) their brother Shu’aib. He said: “O my people! Worship Allah! You have no other Ilah (God) but Him. [La ilaha ill-Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah)].” Verily, a clear proof (sign) from your Lord has come unto you; so give full measure and full weight and wrong not men in their things, and do not mischief on the earth after it has been set in order, that will be better for you, if you are believers. “And sit not on every road, threatening, and hindering from the Path of Allah those who believe in Him. and seeking to make it crooked. And remember when you were but few, and He multiplied you. And see what was the end of the Mufsidun (mischief-makers, corrupts, liars). And if there is a party of you who believes in that with which I have been sent and a party who do not believe, so be patient until Allah judges between us, and He is the Best of judges.” The chiefs of those who were arrogant among his people said: “We shall certainly drive you out, O Shu’aib, and those who have believed with you from our town, or else you (all) shall return to our religion.” He said: “Even though we hate it! “We should have invented a lie against Allah if we returned to your religion, after Allah has rescued us from it. And it is not for us to return to it unless Allah, our Lord, should will. Our Lord comprehends all things in His Knowledge. In Allah (Alone) we put our trust. Our Lord! Judge between us and our people in truth, for You are the Best of those who give judgment.” The chiefs of those who disbelieved among his people said (to their people): “If you follow Shu’aib, be sure then you will be the losers!” So the earthquake seized them and they lay (dead), prostrate in their homes. Those who belied Shu’aib, became as if they had never dwelt there (in their homes). Those who belied Shu’aib, they were the losers. Then he (Shu’aib) turned from them and said: “O my people! I have indeed conveyed my Lord’s Messages unto you and I have given you good advice. Then how can I sorrow for the disbelieving people’s (destruction).” [Surah Al-A’raaf. 85-93]

Allah said about those Jews who rejected the Messenger Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

وَلَقَدْ ءَاتَيْنَا مُوسَى ٱلْكِتَٰبَ وَقَفَّيْنَا مِنۢ بَعْدِهِۦ بِٱلرُّسُلِ وَءَاتَيْنَا عِيسَى ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ ٱلْبَيِّنَٰتِ وَأَيَّدْنَٰهُ بِرُوحِ ٱلْقُدُسِ أَفَكُلَّمَا جَآءَكُمْ رَسُولٌۢ بِمَا لَا تَهْوَىٰٓ أَنفُسُكُمُ ٱسْتَكْبَرْتُمْ فَفَرِيقًا كَذَّبْتُمْ وَفَرِيقًا تَقْتُلُونَ

And indeed, We gave Musa (Moses) the Book and followed him up with a succession of Messengers. And We gave ‘Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), clear signs and supported him with Ruh-ul-Qudus [Jibrael (Gabriel)]. Is it that whenever there came to you a Messenger with what you yourselves desired not, you grew arrogant? Some, you disbelieved and some, you killed. [Al-Baqarah 83]

Allah said about the pagan Arabs:
وَإِن يُكَذِّبُوكَ فَقَدْ كَذَّبَتْ قَبْلَهُمْ قَوْمُ نُوحٍ وَعَادٌ وَثَمُودُ
وَقَوْمُ إِبْرَٰهِيمَ وَقَوْمُ لُوطٍ
وَأَصْحَٰبُ مَدْيَنَ وَكُذِّبَ مُوسَىٰ فَأَمْلَيْتُ لِلْكَٰفِرِينَ ثُمَّ أَخَذْتُهُمْ فَكَيْفَ كَانَ نَكِيرِ

And if they belie you (O Muhammad), so were belied the Prophets before them, (by) the people of Nuh (Noah), ‘Ad and Thamud, and the people of Ibrahim (Abraham) and the people of Lout (Lot), and the dwellers of Madyan (Midian); and belied was Musa (Moses), but I granted respite to the disbelievers for a while, then I seized them, and how (terrible) was My Punishment (against their wrong-doing). [Al-Hajj 42-45]

Allah, The Most High, said:
قَدۡ مَڪَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبۡلِهِمۡ فَأَتَى ٱللَّهُ بُنۡيَـٰنَهُم مِّنَ ٱلۡقَوَاعِدِ فَخَرَّ عَلَيۡہِمُ ٱلسَّقۡفُ مِن فَوۡقِهِمۡ وَأَتَٮٰهُمُ ٱلۡعَذَابُ مِنۡ حَيۡثُ لَا يَشۡعُرُونَ
ثُمَّ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَـٰمَةِ يُخۡزِيهِمۡ وَيَقُولُ أَيۡنَ شُرَڪَآءِىَ ٱلَّذِينَ كُنتُمۡ تُشَـٰٓقُّونَ فِيہِمۡ‌ۚ قَالَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ ٱلۡعِلۡمَ إِنَّ ٱلۡخِزۡىَ ٱلۡيَوۡمَ وَٱلسُّوٓءَ عَلَى ٱلۡڪَـٰفِرِينَ

Those before them indeed plotted, but Allah struck at the foundation of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them, from above them, and the torment overtook them from directions they did not perceive. Then, on the Day of Resurrection, He will disgrace them and will say: “Where are My (so called) ‘partners’ concerning whom you used to disagree and dispute (with the believers, by defying and disobeying Allah)?” Those who have been given the knowledge (about the Torment of Allah for the disbelievers) will say: “Verily! Disgrace this Day and misery are upon the disbelievers. [Surah An-Nahl. 26-27]

[قَدۡ مَڪَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبۡلِهِمۡ – Those before them indeed plotted]: The Mufassiroon say that this refers to Namrood who built a tall tower in order to climb – as he claimed – the heavens and fight its inhabitants.

[فَأَتَى ٱللَّهُ بُنۡيَـٰنَهُم مِّنَ ٱلۡقَوَاعِدِ فَخَرَّ عَلَيۡہِمُ ٱلسَّقۡفُ مِن فَوۡقِهِمۡ – but Allah struck at the foundation of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them, from above them]: The Mufassiroon say: Allaah sent a wind which flung the top of the tower to the sea and the rest was destroyed. [وَأَتَٮٰهُمُ ٱلۡعَذَابُ مِنۡ حَيۡثُ لَا يَشۡعُرُونَ – and the torment overtook them from directions they did not perceive]: Meaning, from where they thought they were safe. [ثُمَّ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَـٰمَةِ يُخۡزِيهِمۡ – Then, on the Day of Resurrection, He will disgrace]: Meaning, disgraced with punishment. [1]

[قَدۡ مَڪَرَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبۡلِهِمۡ – Those before them indeed plotted]: Meaning plotted against their Messengers, employed various types of tricks in order to reject that which the messengers brought and established gigantic safeguards [by way of arguments, views etc] on their plots. [فَأَتَى ٱللَّهُ بُنۡيَـٰنَهُم مِّنَ ٱلۡقَوَاعِدِ – but Allah struck at the foundation of their building]– Meaning, an affair came to them from its basis and foundation [فَخَرَّ عَلَيۡہِمُ ٱلسَّقۡفُ مِن فَوۡقِهِمۡ – and then the roof fell down upon them, from above them] -Meaning, so what they built became a punishment for them. [وَأَتَٮٰهُمُ ٱلۡعَذَابُ مِنۡ حَيۡثُ لَا يَشۡعُرُونَ – and the torment overtook them from directions they did not perceive]: Meaning, that is because they thought that such a building will benefit and protect them from punishment, but their punishment occurred from that which they built and established.

This is one the best of parables regarding how Allaah nullifies the plots of his enemies, for indeed they pondered and reflected on that which the Messengers brought when they belied them, made up principles and rules for it based on falsehood, referred back to them to reject that which the Messengers came with, employed tricks to bring discomfort to the Messengers and inflict harm on them and those who followed them, but their plot became a source of evil against them, so their plan became their destruction, because their plot was evil as Allaah said: [َلَا يَحِيقُ الْمَكْرُ السَّيِّئُ إِلَّا بِأَهْلِهِ – But the evil plot encompasses only him who makes it]. This is in this worldly life and the punishment in the afterlife would be more disgraceful, and due to this Allaah said: [ثُمَّ يَوۡمَ ٱلۡقِيَـٰمَةِ يُخۡزِيهِمۡ – Then, on the Day of Resurrection, He will disgrace them]. [2]

Bad Behaviour, Obstinacy, Lies and Plotting of The Majority of ( الْمَلَأُ ) Throughout Human History!

This is the oldest struggle between the people of Iman and the people of Kufr. Nevertheless, the people of sound Iman and adherents to the sound Prophetic Methodology do not overstep their bounds in dealing with members of society. They stand apart from groups such as the Zionists, the Kharijites of ISIS, and others of that nature.

Read:

Living With Non-Muslims In The West: With Fine Conduct
https://abukhadeejah.com/living-with-non-muslims-in-the-west-with-fine-conduct/

Footnote a: https://abuiyaad.com/sn/muslims-antisemitism


[1] An Excerpt from ‘Zaadul Maseer Fee Ilmit Tafseer’ By Imaam Ibnul Jawzi.
[2] An Excerpt from Tafseer as-Sadi. Slightly paraphrased]