what is this bickering and arguing doing for the ummah?
all of you get off the computer, stop arguing and do some thikr or something else that is productive !
imam Ibn Raghib al-Ifsahani (r) said “Arguing is Makruh for the `ulama and it is haram for commoners.”
wassalam `alaykum

s

Personally I think the “wahabi” term and discourse more attention than it deserves, and it has become a term that means too many different things.

Regardless I wanted to post the following examples of scholars that wrote against him to see the controversy surrounding him:

http://www.sunnah.org/publication/fajr/fajr.htm
an article that lists approximately 30 scholars that wrote against him

http://www.sunnah.org/aqida/fitnatulWahhabiyyah.htm
Mawlana Shaykhu-l-Islam Ahmad Zayni Dahlan
al-Makki ash-Shafi’i (Chief Mufti of Mecca al-Mukarramah)

http://www.marifah.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=46
The Mufti of the Hanbali School of Mecca al-Mukarrama who died in the year 1295 A.H

There are too many critics of not only his doctrines, but more about his actions, and what his followers did, to say that he was a mujadid. I believe that his history has had an great impact, but one that has caused more confusion and division within the muslims than others.

Abu Hurairah RA narrates that Rasulullah saw said: A man speaks something without realising what he has said, but because of it he falls deep into hell to a distance more than between the east and the west. (Muslim)

Abu Hurairah reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “Whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him say what is good or remain silent.” (Bukhari)

I may be understanding you incorrectly, but I am getting the vibe that you regard Muhammad ibn Abul Wahab as some sort of mujadid. Is this true?

I want to know how you treat the many testimonials and writings of ulama who were warning against the Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab.

Do you consider their testimonails of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab “atrocities” such as murder, pillaging, etc., as true or false?

If true, was Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab justified in doing these things?

If false, do you feel his contemporary ulama conspired against him?

Do you believe that the khilafah belongs to the Quraysh?

I am pointing out that the Sultans were not infallible and some of them had serious character flaws

You’ve done far more than that. Please don’t try to escape the reality of your words. Own up, and say that you don’t know something rather than rushing to slander great people in defense of the founder of the Wahabi sect.

You have in the course of this conversation:

1) Questioned the interpretation of the hadith of Constantinople by Imam Zaid and Mufti Taqi and basically the majority of the Ahl ul Sunnah.

2) Questioned Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murads conclusion that all the sultans respected the ulema and shayukh.

3) Promoted the heretical point of view that power was lost by Allah’s decree because of personal failings on the part of the Sultans.

4) Accused the Sultans of being heretical Bektashi’s, when it was the Sultans who banned the order entirely.

5) Claimed, uncited, that the ulema revolted against more than one Sultan

6) Claimed, uncited, that the Sultans engaged in pedastry

7) Claimed, uncited, that the Sultans were ‘butchering competitors to the throne’ (this is relevant specifically in Sultan Mehmed Fateh’s case -praised by contemporary and past ulema- as the orientalists tell this interpretation of the tale as well regarding him and his younger brother)

Claimed, uncited, that the Sultans were falling into drunken stupors.

If the accusation list continued we may run out of Sultans to individually assign them to. If there was an orientalist lie that you didn’t repeat I might be ready to give you an excuse.

Yet, I’ve already addressed, using actual primary sources in an article about that they call “Selim the Sot” and exposed your true ‘primary source’ for #8 ala wikipedia and Kinross. MA Lahoz linked you to it. InshaAllah when I get time I will address the other orientalist lies you have swallowed and decided to transmit onto this comment board.

You cannot claim that all of the flaws were due to meddling Viziers and nobles

I didn’t claim that somehow character flaws appeared from meddling Viziers. What I did state is your limited view of the ShaikhulIslam office ‘removing’ a Sultan needs more broader scope than simply, the ‘Sultan was against Islam’.

Frankly, it is a childish and simplistic understanding of politics of any age, much less that of the Ottomans.

You have ignored political struggles and stated the removal of some sultans was due to Islamic infractions *rather* than greater political realities.

Your next sentence assumes the Sultans were powerless in the face of this.

They were not, and from my opinion and from my knowledge of their actions they worked with wisdom especially when dealing with matters like this.

However when it became clear that the avenues were closed for them and their strategies exhausted, they stepped down, rather than weakening the Muslim world in ego-driven conflict.

Again, this is a personal opinion based on fact interpretation, and why also I can hold any opinion about the state of the Sultans and it should be as legitimate as yous. When it coincides with positive statements from others, my position is only strengthened.

I didn’t claim infallibility for the Sultans. In fact for all the questions you have asked and I have answered, you have failed to answer any for me.

All these have been asked:
1) Are the Awliya infalliable? Not in my opinion. In yours, it seems: yes. In my opinion, even someone with a character flaw can work on themselves and die a saint. Those who have subdued their ego can be saints, even if they dont have knowledge of the Shariat.

2) Who mentioned Sultans as awliya here? My opinion on their waliyat is a personal one, and is based on interpretation of facts. Further, I clearly have a broader understanding of the Awliya than you do. As stated matters of Waliyat are in the realm of the Sufis. I understand your elite sufis take, I also understand that reasoning. But who is to say that the Sultans didnt follow the Shariat?

I’ve read what the Sultans dealt with, in my opinion (as dervishes) they were never out to secure power for their ego’s sake. I also see the burden they beared for protecting Islam, and what each and every one of them did for the sake of the religion. There is much good to find in each of them.

The Ottomans are unlike other Sultanates which one can simply many problems, and therefore choose to remain silent on (Abbasids, Ummayads etc). In each and every of the Ottoman Sultan one can find a tremendous desire for Islam and Allah and cite specific examples of their Islamic character.

Looking for an academic treatise on the subject is trying to explain beauty of a particular woman. Yes, its somewhat fact based, but it is also largely in the ‘eyes of the beholder’ .. in the process of explaining, facts can be conveyed yet the beauty itself is never appreciated.

Frankly, they would be considered awliya for simply all the abuse they have taken on this thread in my opinion, you’ve eaten enough of their flesh and wiped away enough of their sins with lies.

3) You have failed to give the name of a Sultan whom you consider guilty of major sins.

4) ‘Primary sources’ includes the Ottoman Achives for me. They have only been open since the 1980’s and even until now only 25% of the Ottoman Archives are available to those who apply for special access. I’ve given names of those that I use to aggregate and interpret that information, you have given none.

Whenever evidence is presented to support this assertion, you cannot claim that it is merely Orientalist or Kharajite in nature

Certainly I can claim that.

The uncited example of the ‘ulema’ attacking a Sultan which you constantly turn to that directly points to this.

The only ‘ulema’ like this were those of the Wahabi sect, as it is inherently a Kharjite idea to depose a rule on account of sins, and certainly the Ottomans bled them for it.

InshaAllah, may Allah give them more of what they are deserving.

I have never attacked the legitimacy of the Ottoman Empire and have always viewed the majority of the Sultanate in high esteem. Have you forgotten how often you and I defended the Ottoman Empires in various discussions? I am the last person to question the legitimacy of the Ottoman Khalifate. I am not a Salafi and I do not appreciate the accusation of being a Khwaraj merely because I am pointing out that the Sultans were not infallible and some of them had serious character flaws.

Whenever evidence is presented to support this assertion, you cannot claim that it is merely Orientalist or Kharajite in nature. You cannot claim that all of the flaws were due to meddling Viziers and nobles. If the Ottoman Sultans had no power, then they should not be praised either. Praise should instead be given to their Viziers, the nobles, and the janissaries. There is a severe contradiction in the historical method and the level of deference given to the Sultanate is absurd.

Also, many of the elite Sufis of our age have made it clear that Wilayat is not the procurement of magical powers, psychic abilities, or other feats, but complete and total adherence to the Shari’ah of Allah (subhana wa ta’ala) inwardly and outwardly.

everyone has an ego issue, even myself. just the fact that I would type this, is the product of some arrogance and pride that hovers in my soul, some portion of my mind that has convinced to me believe that I am somehow better than these ppl, that they need MY advise. (which you probably dont)

i don’t know where i’ve heard it before, but it was something more or less to the meaning of ” do not argue, even if you know you are right”. although i don’t agree with the statement under all circumstances, it is a pretty wise statement that takes a lot of patience for one to put into action.
Please forgive me for my arrogance, pride, and big-headedness. please make du’a . jazaks