In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Bestower of Mercy.
Some historians from Europe, Jews, Christians, and secularists have not hesitated to attack the history of the Ottoman State. They have used various methods to insult and distort the Ottomans’ service to Islam. Despite their different affiliations, and inclinations towards nationalism and secularism, many Arab historians have also followed this misguided path. Additionally, some Turks influenced by Mustapha Kamal’s advocacy for secularism have joined in. (a) It was only natural for them to condemn the Ottoman State’s era, as they found support for their shift towards nationalism and secularism in the writings of Christians and Jews – particularly in Turkey – after the First World War. The European historian’s perspective on Ottoman history was shaped by the remarkable victories of the Ottomans, particularly following the capture of Constantinople, the Byzantine capital, (b) which transformed into an Islamic territory. As a result, European sentiments held animosity and resentment towards Islam, which could be observed in their language, actions, and written works. The Ottomans endeavoured and persisted in their march towards annexing Rome to the Islamic state, eventually making their way through the heart of Europe and reaching Spain to defend the Muslims there. This led to a period of fear, anxiety, and panic in Europe, with their hearts only finding solace after the death of Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih [may Allah have mercy upon him].
The European streets were filled with animosity and animosity towards Islam and Muslims by Christian leaders, including priests, monks, and kings. The Christian clergy actively raised funds and recruited volunteers to launch attacks against Muslims. As the Ottomans continued to defeat these groups, the hatred and hostility towards Islam and its followers grew stronger. To safeguard their own political and material interests, the Christian leaders falsely accused the Ottomans of piracy and brutality, leaving these false accusations ingrained in the memories of Europeans. These public attacks carried out by Christian leaders were aimed at preserving their hatred for Islam and its people, allowing certain ruling families in Europe to exert control over European societies for an extended period. They amassed immense wealth, enriched themselves, and established a powerful presence, often continuing down this path through deception and misleading others. Even though European societies rebelled against these groups during the Renaissance, the conscience of European society still couldn’t shake off the remnants left by these groups towards the Islamic world as a whole and the Ottoman Empire specifically. Consequently, fuelled by their military might and supported by their material civilisation, they swiftly sought retribution against Islam and the Muslims, seizing their valuable assets under the guise of religious, economic, political, and cultural justifications. Their writers and historians actively backed the defamation and misrepresentation of Islam, spreading scepticism about its beliefs and history, with the Ottoman Empire being a primary target of these fierce attacks. [1]
————————————————–
(a) Imam Al-Albani [may Allah have mercy upon him] stated:
كما يقال إنه جمعني مجلس مرة مع قسيس من قساوسة النصارى فجرى بحث طويل بيني وبينه ، والقصة فيها طول وفيها فائدة ولكن الوقت ضاق يعني معنا نحو خمس دقائق .ولذلك فأذكر منها ما يتعلق بهذا المقام ، لقد أنكر هذا القسيس على المسلمين أنهم حكموا بكفر الذي كان من قبل يسمى بمصطفى كمال باشا ، ثم سمي بأتاتورك ، أبو الأتراك والذي حاد بالأتراك المسلمين عن كثير من أحكام دينهم كما هو معلوم ، هذا القسيس هاجم المسلمين ونسبهم إلى الغلو في تكفيرهم لأتاتورك هذا بزعمه هو أنه لم يصنع شيئا يذكر ويستحق عليه التكفير سوى أنه فرض على الشعب التركي القبعة ، البرنيطة معروفة هذه البرنيطة عندكم وهي القلنسوة التي لها مظلة ، إما مظلة كاملة أو مظلة أمامية ، فكان ردي عليه من ناحيتين ، الناحية الأولى ولا أطيل فيها أن الرجل لم يخالف الإسلام فقط في هذه الناحية وإنما غير كثيرا من أحكام الشريعة ، منها أن جعل للأنثى في الإرث مثل حظ الذكر ، أما فيما يتعلق بمسألة البرنيطة فهنا خضت معه بحثا طويلا خلاصته أن الإسلام من كماله أنه وضع أحكاما وتشريعات في سبيل أن يحافظ المسلمون بها على شخصيتهم الإسلامية لكي لا ينماعوا مع الزمن في شخصية أمة أخرى ، وذكرت له وهو رجل مع الأسف مثقف بأن علماء الإجماع يقولون بأن أي شعب يريد أن يحافظ على شخصيته فعليه أن يحافظ على تقاليده وعلى تاريخه وعلى لغته ، هذا أمر مسلم لديهم في علم الاجتماع ، فقلت له فكان من فضل الإسلام وكمال تشريعه أنه شرع للمسلمين أن يحافظوا على شخصيتهم المسلمة وأن لا يتشبهوا بالمخالفين لهم بل وأن يتقصدوا مخالفتهم كما شرحت لكم آنفا ، هذا الرجل أتاتورك وهنا الشاهد من هذا المثال لو كان يريد الخير للشعب التركي المسلم ووجد فرضا في القبعة مصلحة لا يجدها في لباس آخر فكان باستطاعته أن يجعل فارقا بين قبعة المسلم التركي وقبعة غير المسلم التركي ، كأن يجعل مثلا شريطا على قبعة المسلم كل من يرى هذا المسلم المتبرنط يقول هذا مسلم ولو أنه لبس لباس الكفار ، لكن الرجل فعل ما فعل عداء لدين الإسلام ولذلك حكم عليه علماء المسلمين بالكفر والردة والخروج عن دين الإسلام ، بحث طويل كان بيني وبينه في هذه القضية حتى ألهمني الله عزوجل فقلت له بعد أن قال هذه قضية أن هذا اللباس صار أمر أممي وليس خاصا بشعب من الشعوب أو بدين من الأديان فجئته من ناحية حساسة ، هذا القسيس لبناني والقساوسة اللبنانيون لهم زي خاص ، أولا لباسهم سواد في سواد وثانيا قلنسوتهم هي كطربوش تعرفونه الطربوش الأحمر ولكنه طويل ضعف الطربوش طولا وأسود
السائل
مثل الهرم يعني ؟
الشيخ : لا ، الهرم يكون رأسه رفيع ، هذا يكون مثل السطل هكذا ، الشاهد قلت له هل أفهم من كلامك أن اللباس ليس له علاقة بالدين أنه مث بالنسبة إليك أنت يجوز أن ترفع هذه القلنسوة وتضع على رأسك الطربوش الأحمر وعليه العمامة البيضاء ؟ فمن نظر إليك ظن فيك أنك شيخ من شيوخ المسلمين ؟ قال : لا ، لا ، لا ، قلت له لماذا فهذا لباس ؟ وليس له علاقة بالدين ؟ قال لا ، نحن علماء النصارى يعني ، نحن رجال الدين ولنا زي خاص من بين النصارى عموما لنا زي خاص ، فألهمني الله عزوجل وقلت له كلمة يعني سقط من بعدها تماما وتبين أنه لا مجال لأحد أن يجادل في الإسلام ، قلت له هذا هو الفرق بيننا نحن معشر المسلمين وبينكم أنتم معشر النصارى ، فنحن لا فرق عندنا بين عالم ومتعلم وغير متعلم مادام أنه يجمعنا الإسلام ، فما لا يجوز لأكبر عالم لا يجوز لأقل مسلم ، هذا عندنا ، أما عندكم فعندكم رجال دين ورجال لا دين ، هكذا قلت له ، بدليل أنك تقول هذا لباس خاص بكم أنتم معشر القسيسين ، أما النصارى الآخرون فيلبسون ما يشاءون ، لا هذا عندنا لا يجوز ، ما يحرم على أكبر إنسان وأتقى إنسان يحرم على أصغر وما لا يجوز أن يلبسه العالم لا يجوز أن يلبسه الأمي ، وهكذا ، فسقط في يده والحقيقة هذه من فضائل الشريعة الإسلامية ولعل في هذا القدر كفاية والحمد لله رب العالمين
During a conversation with a Christian priest, we engaged in a lengthy discussion and analysis. Although the story is extensive and contains numerous benefits, our time is limited to just 5 minutes. Hence, I will only mention what is relevant to this occasion. The priest expressed disapproval towards the Muslims, specifically the scholars, for declaring Mustapha Kamal Pasha, later known as Ataturk, as a disbeliever. Ataturk, who is considered the father of the Turks, implemented policies that restricted Turkish Muslims from adhering to many of the rulings of their religion, as is widely known. The priest verbally attacked the Muslims and accused them of extremism for excommunicating Ataturk, arguing that his only offense was making the wearing of Western-style hats compulsory for Turkish civil servants. In response, I presented two arguments against the priest. Firstly, it is important to note that Ataturk not only opposed Islam in this particular matter, but he also made significant changes to the Shariah, such as altering the inheritance laws to equate the shares of females and males. (I)
In terms of the hat’s subject matter, I engaged in an extensive discussion and analysis, the essence of which is summarised as follows: One of the aspects of Islam’s perfection is its establishment of laws and divine regulations to help Muslims maintain their Islamic identity and avoid adopting the (un-Islamic) identities of other groups. I pointed out to him that scholars specialising in the topic of Ijmaa [(II) religious consensus] assert that any society wishing to preserve its distinctiveness must safeguard its customs, history, and language, considering this an undeniable principle in the field of consensus. Therefore, I explained to him that among the virtues of Islam and the excellence of its laws is the provision for Muslims to uphold their Muslim identity and refrain from emulating those who oppose it; instead, they should be in opposition to the ways of those who contradict their identity.
And if Ataturk, as an example, truly desired the welfare of the Turkish Muslim society and believed that making the hat mandatory would bring about such benefits that other forms of clothing could not, then he possessed the capability to differentiate between the Turkish Muslim hat and the non-Muslim Turkish hat. For instance, he could have placed a distinctive band on the Muslim hat, so that anyone who saw a Muslim wearing it would immediately recognize their religious affiliation, even if they were dressed in garments typically associated with unbelievers. However, Ataturk’s actions were in direct contradiction to the principles of the Islamic faith, leading Muslim scholars to declare him an apostate and disbeliever (i.e. not due to this matter regarding the hat, but other affairs that are tantamount to apostasy).
The discussion and examination between him and me regarding this matter was quite extensive until Allah made me mentally stimulated and bestowed on me the ability to utter a timely statement when the priest stated, “This attire is not specific to any particular society or religion, but rather a global matter.” In response, I approached the topic from a sensitive standpoint. This particular priest is Lebanese, and Lebanese priests have a distinct attire. Firstly, they wear all black, and secondly, their hoods resemble a cowl, similar to a red cowl but longer and darker. I questioned him, “Does your statement imply that clothing has no connection to religion? For instance, would it be permissible for you to remove your hood and instead wear a red cowl with a white turban, giving the impression that you are a respected Shaikh among the Muslim community?”
He responded, “No, no, no.” I then questioned him, “If that’s the case, why do you wear this attire and does it not have any connection to religion?” He explained, “We are Christian scholars, meaning we are religious men and we have a specific attire that is common among Christians. We have a distinct dress code.” Then by the will of Allah, I was inspired and I made a profound statement that left him speechless, showing that there was no room for argument against Islam. I pointed out, “This is the distinction between us Muslims and you Christians; we do not differentiate between a scholar, a student, or anyone else, as long as we are united in Islam. What is impermissible for the most knowledgeable scholar is also impermissible for the least knowledgeable Muslim. This is what is between us, but as for yourselves, you have ‘Men of Religion’ and ‘Men who are not Men of Religion”
This is the manner in which I presented the situation to him, citing evidence that you, as a priest, claim that this attire is specific to priests, while others can wear whatever they please. However, this is not acceptable for us – it is not allowed. What is forbidden for the most honorable and devout individual (muslim) is also forbidden for the one with the lowest rank. What is prohibited for a Muslim scholar to wear is also prohibited for an ordinary individual. Consequently, he was filled with remorse and left speechless. This indeed exemplifies the virtues of the Islamic Shariah. [https://youtu.be/iKlyiyjwyRw Paraphrased. Your feedback is welcomed to improve the content of this article Jazaakumullaahu Khayran]
Footnote I: Inheritance:
Introduction to the Science of Inheritance – By Uways At-Taweel
Footnote II: Muslim life – By Shaikh Abu Khadeejah [may Allaah preserve him]
https://www.abukhadeejah.com/the-importance-of-the-muslim-lifestyle-and-community-islam-4-9/
https://www.abukhadeejah.com/muslim-lifestyles-choices-and-adopting-non-muslim-practices-that-conflict-with-islamic-teachings-islam-4-1/
https://www.abukhadeejah.com/muslim-lifestyles-choices-and-adopting-non-muslim-practices-that-conflict-with-islamic-teachings-islam-4-1/
https://www.abukhadeejah.com/living-with-non-muslims-in-the-west-with-fine-conduct/
https://www.abukhadeejah.com/ibn-taymiyyah-on-participating-in-the-annual-celebrations-of-the-unbelievers/
https://www.abukhadeejah.com/origin-of-pinata-and-why-it-is-a-must-that-muslims-do-not-use-in-celebration/
Finally: NB: Imaam Al-Albani [may Allah have mercy upon him] only mentioned one amongst some of Ataturk’s misguidance, rather the upright scholars declared him a disbeliever due to his many evil beliefs and deeds that are founder on secularism. Al-Allamah Muhammad Amaan Al-Jaami [may Allah have mercy upon him] said, “Secularism is disbelief and the mother of all evil”. [Asbaab Al-Ijaabah Cassette 2] However, we are reminded of the fact that removing someone from Islaam is the job and responsibility of the upright scholars of Ahlus Sunnah- neither the responsibility of the common people nor the misguided sects such as the khawaarij. Read and Listen Regarding Principles of Takfeer (excommunication)
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?secID=MNJ&subsecID=MNJ09&loadpage=displaysubsection.cfm
http://www.sahihalbukhari.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ09&articleID=MNJ090006&articlePages=1
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ05&articleID=MNJ050003&pfriend=
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/MNJ050018.pdf
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MNJ05&articleID=MNJ050018&articlePages=1
(b) Regarding the fall of the Byzantine capital Constantinople – at the hands of Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih (may Allah have mercy upon him), this is not the conquest of Constantinople that is intended in the Ahaadith. Al-Allamah Hamood at-Tuwayjiree [may Allah have mercy upon him] stated, “I say, indeed Constantinople was conquered in the year 857 AH at the hands of the Uthmaanee Turkman Sultan Muhammad Al-Fatih [he was referred to as Al-Fatih (the Conqueror) due to his conquest of Constantinople], and Constantinople has not ceased to be in the hands of the Uthmaaniyyeen up until this era of ours at the end of the fourteenth century after the Hijrah. This conquest is not the one mentioned in the Prophetic reports which have already been mentioned (in this discourse), because indeed that one will only occur after the great combat and a short period before the Dajjaal appears, as it has already been made known in several Prophetic reports in this chapter, as will also be stated in the two Prophetic reports (transmitted) by Mu’adh and Abdullah Ibn Bishr [may Allah be pleased with both of them].
Its conquest [i.e. Constantinople] will occur together with Tasbih [i.e. utterance of the statement ‘Subhaan Allah’ – Glory be to Allah and free is He from all imperfections], Tahleel (i.e. the statement Laa Ilaaha Illal laah – There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah] and Takbir [i.e. the statement Allaahu Akbar- Allah is the Greatest], but not with many people (i.e. army men) and (many) weaponry, as clearly mentioned in more than one hadeeth in this chapter. Its conquest will occur at the hands of the Arabs and not at the hands of the Turks, and this is proven in his (i.e. the Prophet – peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) statement reported in the hadeeth that was transmitted by Amr Bin Awf [may Allah be pleased with him] that “Thereafter, (the forceful, firm, strong, etc youth of the Muslims) of the Arabian Peninsula – who whilst striving in the path of Allaah do not fear the blame of the blamers – will come out to them, until Allah grants them the conquest of Constantinople and Rome with Tasbih and Takbir”. And in the hadeeth transmitted by Abu Hurairah [may Allah be pleased with him] in Sahih Muslim, (he stated), “Then an army from Madinah will come out to them who will be the best of the people of the entire Earth at that time”. [2]
[1] An Excerpt from ‘Ad-Dawlah Al-Uthmaaniyyah Awaamil An-Nuhood Wa Asbaab As-Suqoot. 6/6-15]
[2] An Excerpt from It’haaf Al-Jamaa’ah Bimaa Jaa’a Fil Fitan Wal-Malaahim Wa Ashraat As-Saa’ah. Vol 1. pages 403-404]