The Ka fir

Ottoman state
If a state is Islamic, but its people are not muslims the
constitution of this state has to be the Qur'an.
If the state is taghut, but the people are muslims, the
people has to come in masses to the street and declare
that they are against this taghut and have to show there
annoyance to this state and have to rise against this
state.
If both of those aren't available in a nation, than there is
no difference between them and trash.

Important note: In a lot of the books of the scholars of

Najd are some kufr, like seeing ignorance in grave
worshiping as an excuse, not making takfeer before
delievering the evidences, not seeing walaa as part
from Aslu Deen. If these things were really written by
these scholars and haven't been put into their books
later -and there is not much doubt, that it is their original
work- they are not muslims, but they are mushrikun.
Yet they were much closer to Islam than the Ottoman
Empire and fought against the Ottomans because of
the many obvious shirks, kufrs and evils of the Ottomans.
In the Name of Allaah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

All praise is due to Allaah, and may prayers and peace be upon the Messenger
of Allaah, and upon his family and his companions and all who followed him.

To proceed:

Introduction: A short and general evaluation on the Islamic religion of the

Turks

The Turks had accepted the Islamic religion and converted in masses in the
tenth century; approximately 300 years after they came in contact with Islam
for the first time. Apparently this massive case of conversion took place on a
religious holiday which is the holiday of animal sacrifice in 1043 and
supposedly 30.000 animals had been sacrificed that same day.

I would not be reflecting the truth if I had said it took the Turks 300 years of
research and evaluation before they could convert to become Islamic. If these
300 years had been a process of research and learning then by the end of this
period there would not have been acceptances and conversion in masses.
Recognising and learning such faith is not a process which takes place for 8 or
10 generations, it is a process of materialisation of a persons act within the
period of time the person itself is alive. The reason behind this is that
knowledge and a persons experience can not be inherited through generations
in a sense of continuation through spirit. This is why such faith could not have
been transmitted through generations.

It is rare that we come across a nation which had changed their religion and
even alphabet as often as the Turks have. It could be said that a person’s
inclination towards the strongest one and to find the strong one to be rightful is
one of the essences of being human.

Departing from this point of view, it could also be said that the Turks had
accepted Islam as their religion due to the loss of their troops and becoming the
weak power in the 10th century. During this era the Turks had attested they had
accepted and that they have surrendered their faith to Islam. However, this
submission had been to 'the Islam' they had learned from the Persians who had
already added some of their own culture in to their religion and some
recognized Sufis of the era rather than the pure Islam which had been presented
by the Prophet Mohammad (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) and the Qur’an.

For this reason it is inevitable that we come across some corrupted Shia and
mystical traditions within the 'Islamic faith' of the Turks (i.e. Alevi, Bektashi).

Adding on to this type of corrupted Islamic faith the Turks have not stood back
in adding on to these traditions and making such faith more colourful than it
already had begun with. It seems as if they are a bus which first departed from
the midst of Asia and made many stops on its way to its newest homeland;
which became the Turkish Republic, picking up and dropping of traditions as it
continues on its way.

As a result of this, it would not be unjust to seek religious traditions and

ideologies other than that which actually belongs to that of the faith passed on
by God through His original messenger and book. Most of these corruptive
traditions are elements actually belonging to the religion of the Turks before
they had accepted Islam which is Shamanism. Therefore when we look at this
accepted corrupted religious belief the importance of Shamanism within all of
this is increased. Even today in the midst of the nation; in Anatolia, it is quite
obvious how the tradition of faith within its people has become a homogenous
tradition having inherited many elements from many other religious traditions
and ideologies which do not have anything to do with Islam at all.

When the Turkish army under the administration of Sultan Tuğrul had seized
the "khilafa" headquarters and saved the so-called "Khaliph" which had been a
puppet of the Buveyhi people in Baghdad for a long time, the official
declaration of secularism; the separation of religion and state, had been
declared maybe not verbally but in action.

After this period the political power was in the hands of Tuğrul Bey and the
"khalif" was in a position no different from that of which Abdülmecid "Efendi"
had been after the establishment of the brand new Turkish Republic or just like
the chairman of the Religious Services Organisations (Diyanet İşleri) today.

After the first official separation of the political and religious leadership this
tradition had continued with no change. With serious arrangements such as the
‘Kanunname’ during the reign of Fatih Sultan Mehmet (Muhammad al Fatih),
secularism or rather laicism had been placed on a political conjuncture.

When we deal with the period of the Ottoman Empire, even though Yavuz
Sultan Selim had seized the khilafate and made it apart of the empires system
no one had used the title ‘Khalif (halife)’ other than Abdülmecid II. and
Vahdettin and this is the point when the pan-Islamist politics had commenced.

It is not even known if any of these so called khalifs had gone to Mecca for
pilgrimage. It is known that only Young Osman II. had the intention of going
to Mecca to perform his pilgrimage but he had been beheaded at a revolt
caused by the Janissaries.

While on the topic of the Janissaries, the Ottoman Empire; which is said to
have accepted the Ahl-u Sunnah belief and tradition of Islam, had trained its
most important military section; the Janissaries, according to the Bektashi life
style and belief. The so called Ahl-u Sunnah Empire made its soldiers
Bektashi!

Cemal Kutay states that it is not known that the Ottoman rulers had done the
five times a day prayer obligation either. On the other hand as the centre of
khilafate and shariah application, within the Ottoman Empire it had been
permitted to kill a sibling as a result of a governing quarrel. This is definitely a
non-Islamic tradition which has nothing to do with Islam either however, it is a
tradition yet practiced by the Turks. Imagine if a khalif falls into such wrong
doing as so, there by Islamic law must be a Sheikh al-Islam, a Muslim judge or
even a Muslim society present to warn the wrong doer leader of his wrongful
doings, but there wasn’t.

The fact that there has not been a real reaction towards these continuous un-
Islamic applications provides us with evidence of the weakness in the Islamic
character among the Turks. A couple of examples could be given to show the
seriousness of this statement.

The law reform ‘Tanzimat’ which began with the Gülhane Hattı Humayun
visibly seems to be according to and tied with the Islamic shariah meanwhile it
contains many elements which contradict the shariah.

In 1850 the French law of trade and in 1856 the French law of penalty had
been accepted within the nation empire. Other than retaliation, all of these laws
oppose the Islamic Shariah.

Within the laws on loans and equality, applications had been accepted
officially even though they were un-Islamic.

And finally the Ahkami Adliye Mecelleleri protocol had announced on March
22nd 1869 that it is not necessary to resort to the Islamic legal books of
jurisprudence (fiqh) any longer.
A new un-Islamic law had been added with the temporary family law which
had been accepted by the Young Turks in 1917.

With this law before getting married, a man was obligated to marry only one
wife; men had been restricted from marrying more than one wife. The laws
accepted during the era of the Constitutional Monarchy (Meşrutiyet 1908-
1920) have been constituted completely against the Islamic shariah.

It has been observed that generally after their acceptance of "Islam" the Turks
have acted according to their own Turkic traditions within all the nations they
had established and as they needed the Islamic traditions had been used
accordingly. Obviously the last state constructed by the Turks is completely
left out of this observation due to the fact that, the Republic of Turkey; the last
state which had been established by the Turks had not been established based
on neither the Islamic shariah nor the traditions of the Turks. The elements or
principals of this state had been based on the interpretation of the west.

Our intake of the road trip of the Turks adhering to Islam should not be taken
as a racist act toward the Turkish nation. The Turks are not taken as target.
What we are trying to do is to provide evidence of the truth. If we were to take
in hand and compare the Turks with others, for example the Persians we would
see that the approach of the Turks towards Islam is much further optimistic.

Fatih Sultan Mehmed (Muhammad al-Fatih), his period and his relation
with conquering Constantinople/Istanbul

Fatih Sultan Mehmed is not the one who is praised in the sunnah. And getting
closer to the period of Fatih Sultan Mehmed, we come across a bunch of non-
Islamic applications as follows:

Fatih had made laws and regulations he himself called “the laws of my
ancestors-my grandfather” -Atam dedem kanunu- and named it “Kanunname-i
Al-i Osman (the laws of the Ottomans)”.

The regulation of the ruler having his siblings murdered was practiced for 140
years by the new ruler who sat on the throne. Many Turkish governments have
given into their weaknesses engage in this throne fight. Due to this sibling
rivalry many have died. We can take account the following names:

The son of Murad: Savcı Bey.

 The brothers of Murad I: Halil and İbrahim.
The brother of Murad II: Mustafa.
The uncle of Murad II: Düzme(ce) Mustafa.
The brothers of Yavuz Sultân Selim: Korkut and Ahmed.
The son of Kanunî Sultân Süleyman: Bâyezid and his five sons.

If we are to take account the time of Fatih and make an evaluation:

During this era of Fatih there were many sheiks and derwishes of different
cults who we see take place as religious leaders. First of all there was Hodcha
Akshemseddin (863/1459) a Bayrami sheikh and another person known as
‘Othman Baba’ who carried the beliefs of Hulul and Tanasuh was known as a
derwish with ecstasy. He had come to Anatolia in the time of Timur and met
Fatih when he was a Shahzade in Manisa. The Kalendersits began there
activities in Qustantiniyya (Istanbul) and especially in the Balkans.

The Hindis Tekke in Aksaray was built by Fatih in the name of a Nakshi
sheikh named Ishaq Buharî-i Hindî. This was an important step for the
commencement of the Nakshi activities later on within the government
especially during the reign of Beyazid II. when the Nakshibandis try to find a
place within the government.

Again the Mawlawiyya and the Zayniyye found the opportunity as did other
religious orders, to enter the daily life of Istanbul during the reign of Fatih
Sultan Mehmed.

The Halvetiyya, Bayramiyya, Nakshibandiyya and its divisions, Mujaddidiyya

and Halidiyya were the other religious sects which came to spotlight.

After Fatih during the era of Bayezid II. (1481-1512) we come across the fact
that the government supported and economically helped the families of the
sheikhs of many sects which haven’t been in the spotlight before, in order to
help organize such administrations. Other than the times of depression, the
steadiness of the ready cash flow from the government’s treasury to the sects
and their family’s exemption from the financial politics of the avânz-ı
divâniyye and tekâlif-i örfiyye are the completers of the economic auxiliary
which have been mentioned.

It is worth mentioning once again in the same era ‘the social desultory’
function. This notion meant that in order to come to some formal government
position one had to adhere to one of the sects which was supported by the
government itself. Today this tradition still continues although it has lost its
importance, the sects are determinative of the political arena and functions as
collimators of the nation.

During the reign of Beyazid II. we see the Halveti sect commence its activities
and come to the spotlight. Upon an invitation from the Sultan, Cemaleddin
Halveti came to Istanbul with his dervishes. First they stayed in Uskudar and
than at Koca Mustafa Pasha’s mansion near the Gul Mosque. The Hosios
Andreas Church belonging to the Byzantine was turned into a mosque in 1486
by Koca Mustafa Pasha and was assigned to him, with this action the first
orderly Halveti movement had commenced.

The son-in-law of the famous mathematician Ali Kuscu and the father of
"Sheikh al-Islam" Ebussuud Muhyiddin Iskilibi had seized the "caliphate" from
Ibrahim Tennuri (887/1482) who had established the Tennuri School of the
Bayrami.

Ebussuud Muhyiddin Iskilibi went to Amasya and joined the close

surroundings of Shahzade Beyazid.

The era which began with the Laws of Fatih the sects were disciplined,
organized and had been made into the control mechanism of the nation.
Alongside by sending the dervishes to the newly conquered lands the
couriering of the culture was also achieved. Within the following era the sects
had tried to take up more space in the government and as a result conflict
between religion and politics had begun. With the movements of
westernization the ahlul kitab (people of the book) had taken the place of the
sects and in the same period the Christians; especially the Armenians became
great powers within the government.

With the change of stipulation and conspiracies of the Jewish minorities as

such had left their places to the Jewish and the Sabataist and as a result, so-
called-caliphate was overcome and the new westernized secular government;
the Turkish Republic was established.

After this brief summary it could be said that the first contact the Turks had
with Islam and from the time they stated they had accepted it, tasavvuf/Sufism
had been very influential in the faith, belief and the culture of the Turks. If it
has been noticed there was no need to even refer to the sects such as the
Bektashi’s (a sect/cult of the Ottoman army) or even the Yesevi’s. It is not
possible to call such faith a divine faith with all of these cults and non-Islamic
acts occurring. It could only be called a faith of tasavvuf/Sufism or a cultural
faith which isn’t worth anything beside the religion of Allah.
The conquering of the city Qustantiniyya (Constantinople/Istanbul)

When we come back to our argument regarding the conquering of the city
Constantinople/Istanbul we find it useful to mention the hadeeth and its
explanation;

"The city of Heracle (i.e. Constantinople) would be liberated first." (Ahmad,

authentic)

Narrated by `Abdullah Bin Bashar Al Khath`amy according to his father that

he heard the prophet (peace and blessings upon him) saying: "You will liberate
Constantinople, blessed is the Amir who is its Amir, and blessed is the army,
that army." (Narrated by Imam Ahmad)

These hadeeth are in Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s Musned and is seen dayeef and/or
authentic. However similar hadeeth’s also appear in Muslim and other hadeeth
books.

According to the hadeeth, Fatih Sultan Mehmed is not the one referred to. It is
Mahdi ('alayhi as-salam) who leads the true invasion of
Constantinople/Istanbul. Mahdi ('alayhi as-salam) and his followers are the
ones who posses attribute which raise them high above the army of Turkish
(Ottoman) mushrikun. Therefore the true conquerors of the city will be the
muwahiddun with the command of Mahdi, which will be taken place just
before Qiyamah.

Muslim makes this clear in his saheeh by narrating that:

"The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The Last Hour would not come until
the Romans would land at al-A'mâq or in Dâbiq (places in Greater Syria). An
army will come from Madinah consisting of the best people of the Earth at that
time.
When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans will say: “Leave open
the way between us and those who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us
fight them.”
The Muslims will say: “No. By Allah, we will never leave open the way
between you and our brethren.”
They will then fight, and a third of the army will flee and Allah will never
forgive them. A third will be killed, and they will be the best of martyrs in
Allah’s estimations eye. A third will be victorious and they will never succumb
to trial and they will be the conquerors of Constantinople.
And as they are busy distributing the spoils of war after hanging their swords
by the olive trees, Satan will cry: “The Antichrist (al-Dajjâl) has taken your
place among your family.” They will then go forth, but it will have been a false
claim. When they reach Syria, he will then emerge while they will be still
preparing themselves for battle, drawing up in ranks.
When the time of prayer arrives, Jesus (peace be upon him) the son of Mary
will descend and will lead them in prayer. When the enemy of Allah sees him,
he will dissolve just as salt dissolves away in water. If Jesus were not to
confront him at all, even then he would dissolve away completely, but Allah
will kill him by his hand and he will show them his blood on his lance".

In summary the news given in the hadeeth has not yet taken place and therefore
Constantinople/Istanbul has not been conquered yet. This event will in shaa
Allah take place just before the end of time (Qiyamah) and has nothing to do
with Fatih Sultan Mehmed’s event of conquering Constantinople/Istanbul.

The 'Uthmaani State And The Standpoint Of The Da'wah Of Muhammad

Ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhaab Concerning It

(remember the note at the beginning of this book)

This is a short study that clarifies the reality of the 'Uthmaani state, which
many from among those who are called "Islamic thinkers" praise and speak
well of, and describe it as the last of the bastions of al-Islam, the destruction of
which took away the honour of the Muslims.

Also, it clarifies the reality of the position of the da'wah of Muhammad ibn
'Abd al-Wahhaab concerning this state.

And I have divided it into two sections:

The first section: Regarding the 'Uthmaani state.

The second section: Regarding the standpoint of the Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-
Wahhaab's da'wah concerning it.

THE FIRST SECTION:

THE REALITY OF THE 'UTHMAANI STATE

Verily, whoever considers the nature of the 'Uthmaani state – from its rise up to
its fall – will not have any doubt regarding its direct contribution in corrupting
the 'aqaa'id (beliefs) of the Muslims, and this becomes clear through two
matters:

The first one: through its spreading of shirk.

The second one: through its war against tawheed.

Those who defend the war of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against ad-Da'wah as-
Salafiyyah claim that this war was a political war. But the case is not so; rather
it was from the very beginning a war based on 'aqeedah, started by the
fataawaa of their 'ulamaa' from the qubooriyyoon. [See Haashiyat Ibn
'Aabideen, 4/262.]

And the 'Uthmaani state spread shirk by spreading the shirk-based tasawwuf
that is founded on worshipping the graves and the awliyaa', and this is an
established fact that no-one argues about, even those who defend it. And I will
quote in what follows some of the texts that prove this, from the very
sympathisers with the 'Uthmaani state themselves:

'Abd al-'Azeez ash-Shanaawi said in his book ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah:

Dawlah Islaamiyyah Muftaraa 'Alayhaa (The 'Uthmaani State: An Islaamic
State Slandered) (1/59) – by way of praise – :

"And one of the manifestations of the religious direction in the policy of the
state was the encouragement of tasawwuf among the 'Uthmaaniyyoon. And the
state gave the mashaayikh of the sufi tareeqahs wide-ranging authorities and
powers over their students and followers. And these tareeqahs initially became
widespread in Central Asia, then they moved to the majority of the areas of the
state... And the state extended a helping hand financially to some of the sufi
tareeqahs... And some of the most important sufi tareeqahs were the
Naqshabandiyyah, the Mawlawiyyah, the Baktaashiyyah and the Rifaa'iyyah..."
[End of quote.]

And these tareeqahs are all founded on worshipping the graves and the
awliyaa', and indeed upon shirk in the ruboobiyyah that the Arab mushrikoon
confirmed belief in, and that is through the soofiyyah's beliefs in "al-ghawth",
"al-aqtaab", "al-abdaal", and others whom they claim to control the universe.

Refer to what Ibn Taymiyyah wrote about the soofiyyah, and his debates with
the followers of the Rifaa'iyyah (al-Fataawaa, volume 11), and refer to what
Ihsaan Ilaahi Dhaheer wrote about the soofiyyah and about these tareeqahs and
their practices of shirk in his book Diraasaat fit-Tasawwuf (Studies Regarding
Tasawwuf), and what as-Sindi wrote in his book at-Tasawwuf fee Meezaan al-
Bahth wat-Tahqeeq (Tasawwuf in the Balance of Investigation and
Verification), and what al-Wakeel wrote in his book Haadhihi Hiyas-Soofiyyah
(This is Sufism). And a detailed description of some of these tareeqahs will
follow, in shaa' Allaah.

And Muhammad Qutb said in his book Waaqi'unaa al-Mu'aasir, page 155:
"Sufism began to spread in the 'Abbaasi society, however it was an isolated
corner of the society. But in the shade of the 'Uthmaani state, and in Turkey to
be exact, it became the society itself, and it became the religion itself." [End of
quote.]

A n d i n al-Mawsoo'ah al-Muyassarah fil-Adyaan wal-Madhaahib al-

Mu'aasirah (The Simplified Compendium of Contemporary Religions and
Sects), page 348:
"Al-Baktaashiyyah: The 'Uthmaani Turks were affiliated with this tareeqah,
and it continues to be widespread in Albania. And it is closer to the shee'i
tasawwuf than the sunni tasawwuf... and it had great authority over the rulers
of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon themselves." [End of quote.]

All of tasawwuf is innovation and bid'ah, and there is no such thing as a "sunni
tasawwuf". And there will follow the details of this particular tareeqah.

And in the book al-Fikr as-Soofi fi Dhaw' al-Kitaab was-Sunnah (The Sufi
Thinking in the Light of the Book and the Sunnah), page 411:
"And the 'Uthmaani sultaans competed with each other in building tekkes,
zaawiyahs, and the graves of the Baktaashiyyah. So some of the sultaans
supported it, and others were opposed to them, preferring another different
tareeqah." [End of quote.]

For this reason, it is unsurprising that shirk and kufr became widespread, and
tawheed began to fade away, in the lands that they ruled. And Husayn ibn
Ghannaam said, describing their lands:
"Most of the people in his time – i.e. Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab – were
sunk in pollution and smeared by the mire of impurity to the extent that they
went headlong into shirk, after the Sunnah had been buried... So they turned to
worshipping the awliyaa' and the righteous people, and they discarded the
collar of tawheed and the religion. So they exerted themselves in seeking aid
from them in times of calamities, accidents, and disastrous events, and they ran
to them asking them to fulfill their needs and remove their difficulties, from the
living ones among them as well as their dead. And many people believed that
inanimate objects could bring help or harm..." Then he mentioned the forms of
shirk that existed in Najd, al-Hijaaz, al-'Iraaq, ash-Shaam, Egypt, and
elsewhere. [End of quote.] [Rawdhat al-Afkaar, page 5 onwards.]

And Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez (died 1229H) said in one of his letters to the
'Uthmaani governor of al-'Iraaq, describing the nature of their state:
"So the sha'aa'ir (symbols) of kufr in Allah and shirk, this is the situation that
exists among you. Such as building domes over the graves, lighting lamps over
them, hanging curtains over them, the visits to them in manners not legislated
by Allah or His Messenger, celebrating yearly festivals there, and asking those
buried therein to fulfill needs, remove difficulties and answer pleas; all of this
along with the abandoning of the obligatory duties of the religion that Allah
has ordered to be established, such as the five prayers and other than them. For
the one who wants to pray prays alone, and the one who leaves the prayer is
not objected to. And likewise is the case with zakaah. And this matter has
spread and become well-known, and has filled the ears of many in the lands of
ash-Shaam, al-'Iraaq, Egypt and elsewhere from among the lands." [End of
quote.] [Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 1/382.]

This was, very briefly, the situation of the 'Uthmaani state. If the above
quotations are not sufficient to convince a person of this, then there is no hope
for him to understand.

And as for the situation of its sultaans – which I have briefly indicated already
– it is also of this kind. And I will mention a number of miscellaneous
examples of these sultaans, in order to clarify their situation:

Sultaan Orkhaan the First (died 761H):

He is the second sultaan of this state, after his father 'Uthmaan ('Uthmaan the
first, died 726H). His rule lasted for 35 years. And this sultaan was a sufi upon
the Baktaashi tareeqah.

[See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah al-'Uthmaaniyyah, page 123, and al-

Fikr as-Soofi, page 411. And al-Baktaashiyyah is also spelled al-
Bakdaashiyyah (with a "daal") and al-Baktashiyyah (with a "taa''). And the
historians have mentioned about this sultaan that he helped the Roman king
against the Serbian king, because the Roman king promised to give his
daughter to him in marriage. See Taareekh ad-Dawlah, page 125.]

And the Baktaashi tareeqah – which I have mentioned several times already –
is a sufi, shee'i, baatini tareeqah founded by Khankaar Muhammad Baktaash
al-Khurasaani, who spread it in Turkey in the year 761H. And it is a mix of the
'aqeedah of wahdat al-wujood (the unity of all existence, essentially negating
the separateness of Allaah from His creation), worship and deification of the
mashaayikh, the 'aqeedah of the Raafidhah regarding the imams, and they
exaggerate regarding the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam) in a manner
that takes them out of al-Islaam.

And from that is the saying of the student or "mureed" when he wants to enter
into this tareeqah: "I have come with longing to the door of the Truth as a
beggar, affirming Muhammad and Haydar (i.e. 'Ali), and seeking the "secret"
(as-sirr) and the "outpouring" (al-faydh) from both of them, and from az-
Zahraa' (i.e. Faatimah) and Shubayr and Shabar (i.e. al-Husayn and al-
Hasan)."

Then he says: "And with love I have submitted my inner self as a servant of the
family of al-'Abbaas, and my refuge is al-Haajj Baktaash, the qutb (pivot) of
the awliyaa'."

And he says to his shaykh: "Your face is a lamp, and a lighthouse of guidance,
your face is an indicator to the form of the Truth, your face is the Hajj and the
'Umrah and the Ziyaarah, your face is to the obedient ones the qiblah of
leadership, your face is a summary of the Qur'aan."

And the awraad of the Baktaashiyyah are on the 'aqeedah of the Ithnaa'
'Ashariyyah Raafidhah. And they have in their 'aqeedah, from their baatini
awraad, and the way that they visit the graves to get their shirk-based
"acceptance", such things that are too terrible to mention. [See them in detail in
al-Fikr as-Soofi fi Dhaw' al-Kitaab was-Sunnah, page 409-424.]

Sultaan Muhammad the Second (al-Faatih) (died 886H):

He is one of the most famous of the sultaans of this state, and he ruled for 31
years.

After conquering Constantinople in the year 857H, he discovered the site of the
grave of Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari – radhiyallaahu 'anhu – and built a tomb over
it, and next to it he built a masjid, and the masjid was decorated with white
stone. And he built over the tomb of Abu Ayyoob a dome. And the custom of
the 'Uthmaaniyyoon, in their blind-following of the sultaans, was that they
would come in a big procession to this masjid, then the new sultaan would
enter this tomb, and he would then receive the sword of Sultaan 'Uthmaan the
First from the shaykh of the Mawlawi tareeqah. [See ad-Dawlah
al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah Muftaraa 'Alayhaa, 1/64.]
And this sultaan was the first to lay down the foundations of "civil law" and
"penal law". So he replaced the shar'i bodily punishments that are narrated in
the Book and the Sunnah – i.e. a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye – with
monetary fines, in a clear methodology that was completed by Sultaan
Sulaymaan al-Qaanooni. [See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 177, and
Fath al-Qustanteeniyyah wa-Muhammad al-Faatih, page 177.]

And he also issued a legislation – that continued to be implemented after him –

which was that every sultaan who came to power could kill all of his brothers,
so that the throne would be safe for him alone!! [See ad-Dawlah
al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah...", 1/64. And he began his rule by
killing his own infant brother Ahmad! (Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page
161).]

Sultaan Sulaymaan al-Qaanooni (i.e. the legislator) (died 974H):

And he is also one of the most famous sultaans of the 'Uthmaani state, and his
rule was approximately 46 years.

When he entered Baghdaad, he built a dome over the tomb of Abu Haneefah.
And he visited the holy places of the Raafidhah in an-Najaf and Karbalaa', and
he rebuilt the structures there that had begun to deteriorate. [See ad-Dawlah
al-'Uthmaaniyyah: Dawlah Islaamiyyah...", 1/25, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah
al-'Aliyyah, page 223.]

And he was called "Al-Qaanooni" because he was the first to introduce the
European laws upon the Muslims, and to make them enforced in the courts.
And it was the Jews and Christians who influenced him to do that. [See
Waaqi'unaa al-Mu'aasir, page 160, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page
177 and page 198 onwards.]

Sultaan Saleem Khaan the Third (died 1223H):

Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez said in his letter to the governor of Baghdaad, which
we have previously mentioned:
"Your situation, and the situation of your imams and your sultaans, testifies to
your falsehood and your lying in regard to that (i.e. their claim to al-Islam). For
we have seen, when we opened al-Hujrah ash-Shareefah (the room of the
Prophet), upon its owner be the best of prayers and peace, in the year 22, a
letter from your sultaan, Saleem, sent by his cousin to the Messenger of Allaah
(sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam), asking help from him and calling upon him to
grant victory over the enemies. And it contains enough lowliness, humilation
and self-abasement to testify to your falsehood. It begins: "From your little
slave, Sultaan Saleem. To proceed: Yaa Rasoolallaah, we have experienced
difficulty and hardship that we are unable to avert, and the slaves of the cross
have taken over the slaves of ar-Rahmaan! We ask you to grant us victory over
them and help us against them." And he mentioned a lot of words of this
general meaning. So look at this enormous shirk, and kufr in Allah, the One,
the All-Knowing! The mushrikoon did not even ask this from their idols
al-'Uzzaa and al-Laat, for when hardship and calamities befell them they used
to call only on the Creator of all beings!" [End of quote.] [See ad-Durar as-
Saniyyah, page 160, and Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah, page 177 and page
190 onwards.]

Sultaan 'Abd al-Hameed the Second (died 1327H):

This sultaan was a fanatical sufi upon the Shaadhili tareeqah. Here is a letter
from him to the shaykh of the Shaadhili tareeqah of his time. He says in it:
"All praise is due to Allaah... I lift up this request of mine to the shaykh of the
high Shaadhili tareeqah, and to the one who pours out the spirit and the life, the
shaykh of the people of his age, Shaykh Mahmood Effendi, Abush-Shaamaat,
and I kiss his two blessed hands, hoping for his righteous prayers. My master:
By the tawfeeq of Allaah ta'aalaa I am constantly reciting the awraad of the
Shaadhiliyyah night and day, and I request that I continue to be in perpetual
need of your heartful prayers." [See Imaam at-Tawheed, by Ahmad al-Qattaan
and Muhammad Zayn, page 148, and at-Tareeq ilal-Jamaa'ah al-Umm, page
56, and the filthy Kuwaiti magazine al-'Arabi, number 157-169.]

And the Shaadhili tareeqah is a sufi, grave-worshipping, shirk-based tareeqah,

full of enough enormities and blasphemies to classify it among the idol-
worshipping kuffaar. [See some of the forms of their shirk, deviance and
bid'ahs in Diraasaat fit-Tasawwuf, page 235, and at-Tasawwuf fee Meezaan al-
Bahth wat-Tahqeeq, page 327.]

As for the stories of the relations of this state with the Jews and Christians and
other kuffaar, in their appointing them to positions of power, aiding them, and
even making them equal with the Muslims, then they are many. Look, if you
wish, in Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-'Aliyyah and ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah:
Dawlah Islaamiyyah... and you will hardly find a single 'Uthmaani sultaan
whose life does not feature something of that. See, for example, the life of 'Abd
al-Majeed ibn Mahmood, who issued the Gulkhaanah Decree in the year
1255H, in which he declared total freedom in personal matters and in ideas,
and made non-Muslims equal to the Muslims. [See Taareekh ad-Dawlah
al-'Aliyyah, page 455, and al-Islaam wal-Hadhaarah al-Gharbiyyah, page 15.]

Section:

As for the war of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against tawheed, then it is well-known.

For they declared war against the da'wah of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab
as is known. "They wish to extinguish Allaah's Light with their mouths."

And they sent campaign after campaign to war against the people of Najd, until
they crowned this war of theirs with the destruction of ad-Dir'iyyah, the capital
of ad-Da'wah an Najdiyyah, in the year 1233H. [To know about some of their
crimes, see 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/157]

And the 'Uthmaaniyyoon, in their war against tawheed, sought help from their
brothers the Christians. For one of the researchers in Europe discovered
documents of correspondence between Napoleon Bonaparte, the ruler of
France, and "al-Baab al-'Aali" (the "High Door", the title of the 'Uthmaani
ruler), regarding the da'wah of Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab, and the
necessity of taking decisive action against it, as it was a threat to their interests
in the east.

The introduction of 'Atiyyah Saalim to the book al-Imaam Muhammad ibn

'Abd al-Wahhaab, by Ibn Baaz. And the researcher was Ahmad at-Taweel,
while presenting his doctorate.

And during the wars of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon against the people of Najd, such
atrocities were committed that made those of the crusaders pale in comparison.
Here are some examples for you:

The 'Uthmaani state wanted to incite its troops to kill the people of Najd, so it
issues a decree that every soldier will receive a reward for every one that he
killed, and it was necessary that the soldier prove his kill by cutting off the ears
of his victim and sending them to the capital al-Astaanah (Istanbul). So they
did that in al-Madeenah, al-Qunfudhah, al-Qaseem, Dhirmaa, and elsewhere.
[See that in detail in Taareekh al-'Arabiyyah as-Sa'oodiyyah, by the Russian
historian Vasiliev, page 173, 183, 176, and 184.]

As for their destruction of villages and cities, and even their burning of
masaajid, then narrate without difficulty. [See that in 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/157-
219, and also in the previous reference.]
And from their crimes is that they took the women and children as captives,
and sold them as slaves. Al-Jabarti said in his Taareekh:
"And the month of Safar began on a Friday in the year 1235H... and during it a
group of the Arab and Maghaaribah troops arrived, who had been in the land of
al-Hijaaz. And they were accompanied by prisoners from the "Wahhaabiyyah",
women, girls, and boys. They came to al-Hamaayil, and sold them to whoever
would buy them, even though they were Muslims and free people." [End of
quote.] [Taareekh 'Ajaa'ib al-Aathaar, 3/606. But be careful regarding this
book, for al-Jabarti, as is apparent from his Taareekh, was a sufi khalwati who
venerated the graves and the awliyaa', indeed even the heretical deviants such
as the zindeeq Ibn 'Arabi.]

And I conclude that with this event that was narrated by a Russian historian.
He said:
"In the year 1818M – i.e. 1234H – 'Abdullaah ('Abdullaah ibn Sa'ood ibn 'Abd
al-'Azeez ibn Muhammad ibn Sa'ood, the last imaam of the first Sa'oodi state)
was taken via al-Qaahirah (Cairo) road to al-Astaanah (Istanbul), accompanied
by two of those close to him, at the beginning of Kaanoon al-Awwal
(December). And the Russian ambassador in al-Astaanah gave the following
information:
Last week, the leader of the Wahhaabiyyoon, his minister and his imaam, who
had been captured in ad-Dir'iyyah and later taken to the capital, were beheaded.
Seeking to add to the impression of his victory over the worst enemies of the
two cities that are considered to be the cradle of al-Islam, the sultaan ordered
on that day for an assembly to be made in the old palace in the capital, and they
brought to the palace the three prisoners, bound in heavy chains and
surrounded by the crowds of spectators. And after the introductory formalities,
the sultaan ordered their execution, so the leader was beheaded in front of the
main gate of the "Hagia Sofia", and the minister was beheaded in front of the
"Saraay Entrance", and the third was beheaded in one of the main markets in
the capital. And their bodies were put out on display with their heads under
their armpits, and after three days they were thrown into the sea. And His
Majesty ordered the observance of a special prayer of thanks to Allah for the
victory of the sultaan's armies, and for the extermination of the group that had
laid waste to Makkah and al-Madeenah, spread fear in the hearts of the
Muslims, and exposed them to danger." [End of quote.] [Taareekh ad-Dawlah
as-Sa'oodiyyah, by Vasiliev, page 186.]

Section:

So this was their enmity towards tawheed and the people of Najd -whom for
them represented tawheed-, and this was their spreading of shirk and kufr. So
how can it possibly be claimed that this corrupt, infidel state was an "Islaamic
khilaafah"?! The 'Uthmaani governor of al-'Iraaq said to Sa'ood ibn 'Abd
al-'Azeez (died 1229H): "For we are Muslims in truth, and this is what all of
our imaams have agreed upon, from all four madhaahib, and the mujtahidoon
of the Deen and the Millah."

He replied:
"We have clarified from the Words of Allah ta'aalaa, the words of His
Messenger, and the words of the followers of the four imaams, that which
refutes your weak case, and defeats your false claim. For not everyone who
makes a claim proves it by his action. And a poor person does not become rich
simply by saying: "A thousand deenaars!" And a tongue does not burn simply
by saying: "Fire". For verily, the Jews, the enemies of the Messenger of Allah
(sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam) said to the Messenger of Allah when he called
them to al-Islaam: "We are Muslims!" And the Christians said similar to that.
And likewise Fir'awn said to his people: "And I show you not except that
which I see to be correct, and I guide you not except to the path of
correctness." Yet he lied and uttered falsehood in that." [End of quote.] [Ad-
Durar as-Saniyyah, 1/391.]

And likewise, whoever claims that the 'Uthmaani state was a Muslim state,
then he has uttered a lie and a falsehood, and the greatest forgery in this regard
is that it was an Islaamic khilaafah!

And know that no-one claims that the 'Uthmaani state was an Islaamic state
except for one of two people:
Either a misguided deviant who sees that shirk is al-Islaam.
Or a person ignorant about the affair of this state.

THE SECOND SECTION:

THE STANDPOINT OF THE DA'WAH OF MUHAMMAD IBN 'ABD

AL-WAHHAAB CONCERNING IT

One of the misconceptions that is often brought up about the da'wah of

Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab is that it rose up against the 'Uthmaani
khilaafah, and divided the Muslims.

And many of the 'ulamaa' who defended the da'wah of the Shaykh tried to
respond to this misconception, but the most that they could say was: "Najd
was, from the beginning, independent from the 'Uthmaani state, so for that
reason the Shaykh's coming was not an uprising against it." [See Da'aawaa al-
Munaawi'een, 233-240.]

And the reality is that this statement is incorrect, for three reasons:

The first is that the 'Uthmaani state did have nominal rule over Najd, because
it ruled al-Hijaaz, al-Yemen, al-Ahsaa', al-'Iraaq and ash-Shaam, and the taxes
of the ameers of Najd used to come to the state via some of these countries.
[See ad-Dawlah al-'Uthmaaniyyah... 1/20, and 'Unwaan al-Majd, 1/97
onwards.]

The second is that even if we were to assume that Najd was independent, the
da'wah of the Shaykh had entered al-Hijaaz, al-Yemen, al-Ahsaa', al-Khaleej,
and the outlying areas of al-'Iraaq and ash-Shaam. They attacked Karbalaa' and
beseiged Dimashq, and all of these were indisputably under the control of the
'Uthmaani state.

The third is that the sayings of the imaams of the da'wah are in agreement that
the 'Uthmaani state was daar al harb, except those who responded to the
da'wah.

One of the greatest defenders of shirk in that time was the 'Uthmaani state. So
the da'wah was an act of war against it. And I will narrate, in what follows,
various quotes from the imaams of the da'wah and their followers, clarifying
their standpoint regarding this state:

Sa'ood ibn 'Abd al-'Azeez (died 1229H):

I have already narrated some quotes from him regarding the affair of this state.
Here are more of his statements in the letter that he sent to the governor of
Baghdaad:
"And as for your saying: "How can you so boldly and recklessly stir up fitnah
by making takfeer of the Muslims and the people of the qiblah, and fight
against a people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day...?" So we say: "We
have already stated that we do not make takfeer due to sins, but rather we only
fight against those who made shirk with Allaah, and attributed to Allaah
partners, calling upon them as they call upon Allaah, slaughtering for them as
they slaughter for Him, vowing to them as they vow to Allaah, fearing them as
they fear Allaah, calling to them for aid in difficulties and for bringing good,
and who fight to defend the idols and the domes built over the graves, which
have been taken as idols worshipped besides Allaah. So if you are truthful in
your claim that you are on the Millah of Ibraaheem and following the
Messenger (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa-sallam), then demolish those idols, all of
them, and level them to the ground. And repent to Allaah from all of the shirk
and bid'ah."

Then he said: "Or, if you persist in this state of yours, and do not repent from
the shirk that you are upon and observe correctly the religion of Allaah with
which He sent His Messenger, leaving the shirk, bid'ah and superstitions, then
we will not cease fighting you until you return to Allaah's straight religion."
[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/397.]

Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah ibn ash-Shaykh (died 1233H):

When the Turks invaded the land of tawheed, Shaykh Sulaymaan ibn
'Abdillaah wrote a book entitled ad-Dalaa'il (The Proofs), regarding the
apostasy and kufr of whoever aided them and sided with them, even if he was
not upon their religion of shirk. And he mentioned therein more than twenty
proofs for that, and he referred to the invading army as "the troops of domes
and shirk." [Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/57-69.]

'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Hasan (died 1293H):

In one of his letter to Shaykh Hamad ibn 'Ateeq regarding the case of
'Abdullaah ibn Faysal, the imaam at that time, seeking help from the
'Uthmaaniyyoon against his brother Sa'ood ibn Faysal, when the latter defeated
him in the battle of Joodah during the events around the year 1289H, he said:
"And 'Abdullaah had a legitimate rule and bay'ah in general, but later on I
found out that he had corresponded with the kaafir state (i.e. the 'Uthmaani
state), sought help from it and brought it to the lands of the Muslims. So he
became like the one about whom it is said [poetry]:

And the one who seeks protection with 'Amr in his difficulty,
Is like the one who seeks protection with fire from the burning heat.

So I spoke to him verbally, objecting to his action and declaring my

disassociation from it, and I spoke harshly to him, telling him that this is
destruction of the fundamentals of al-Islaam and uprooting of its bases, and
that it was this and that and the other... the details of which conversation I
cannot remember right now, so he expressed repentance and regret, and he
made much istighfaar. And I wrote, at his dictation, to the governor of
Baghdaad: "Allaah has sufficed, made easy, and arranged for the people of
Najd and the bedouins that which has fulfilled our need, in shaa' Allaah. So we
are no longer in need of the army of the state," and words to that effect. And I
believe he sent the letter and disassociated himself from what had occurred,
and it was a long letter." [End of quote.] [Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/184, and
Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa wal-'Irfaan, events of the year 1289H, from the first
volume.]

And he said in another letter to one of the students of knowledge regarding the
same affair:
"As for Imaam 'Abdullaah ibn Faysal, then I have advised him, as I have
mentioned, with very harsh advice. And I reminded him in the advice of the
aayaat of Allaah and His right, and the obligation of preferring His good-
pleasure, and keeping far away from the enemies of His religion, the people of
ta'teel (negation of the Sharee'ah), shirk, and clear kufr. And he expressed
repentance and regret..." [End of quote.] [Majmoo'at ar-Rasaa'il, 2/69.]

And he said regarding the entry of the 'Uthmaaniyyoon to the Peninsula in the
year 1298H:
"So whoever understands this fundamental principle – i.e. tawheed – will
understand the harm of the fitnah that is current in these times regarding the
Turkish armies. And he will understand that it (i.e. the fitnah) comes back to
this principle, breaking it and demolishing and and utterly effacing it. And it
leads to the predominance of shirk and ta'teel, and the raising of its banners of
kufr." [Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/148-152.]

And he said in a poem about this affair:

And the leader of the people has brought to the Turks a state
Which has committed the greatest crimes against the Millah of al-Islaam.

And it contains:
And they travelled to the people of shirk and submitted to them,
And there came to them every slander and every magician.

And it contains:
And the power has gone to the people of refusal and shirk,
And by them has been established the marketplace of destruction and evil.
And places for sodomy and vileness have returned among them,
That are frequented by every immoral one.
And the unity of the religion has been shattered, and its rope cut,
And it has become lost among the ranks of the soldiers.
And it contains:
And you have made alliance with the people of the Fire, in your stupidity,
And you have become, for the religion of Allaah, the first kaafir.
So ask the dweller of al-Ahsaa', are you a believer
In this, and what is contained in the authentic books?
[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/187-191, and Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa... 1/198-202.
And he made particular mention of al-Ahsaa' here because the
'Uthmaaniyyoon, after Imaam 'Abdullaah had asked them for aid, entered al-
Ahsaa' and took over it first. See the details of that in the events of the year
1289H, from Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa 1/197, from his saying: "The mention of
what occurred and took place with the arrival of the 'Uthmaani soldiers and the
Turkish troops."]

And he said in another poem:

When the army of deviation appeared, to demolish
The land of guidance and the laws of goodness,
A people intoxicated, their companion would not wake up,
Never, and he would end up in loss,
A people, you see them rushing to every gathering
In which is misfortune and every kufr is close by,
Indeed, in which the laws of the Christians are ruling,
Without any text that has come from the Qur'aan.
So look at the rivers of kufr that have exploded,
They have clashed with the Sharee'ah of ar-Rahmaan.
[Ad-Durar 192-194, at-Tadhkirah 1/203-206. And the amazing thing is that this
is the description of the 'Uthmaani troops in the year 1289H, and in the
Taareekh of al-Jabarti there is an identical description of the troops who
entered the Peninsula around the year 1226H, as he says in his Taareekh
(3/341): "And some of their high-ranking people who call to righteousness and
piety said to me: "How will we attain victory when the majority of our soldiers
are not on the Millah, and among them are those who do not practice the
religion? And boxes of intoxicating drinks were brought with us, and you
would never hear in our ranks the adhaan being called, nor was the obligatory
salaah established among them, and they gave no concern at all to the symbols
of the religion... etc." [End of quote.]

Hamad ibn 'Ateeq (died 1301H):

He was one of the hardest of the 'ulamaa' in his stance regarding this state. See
the letters written between him and 'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn
Hasan in the seventh and eighth volumes of ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, and I have
mentioned some of them. And when the kaafir 'Uthmaani armies entered the
Arabian Peninsula, some of the traitors and deviants from the bedouin entered
their ranks. So just as Sulaymaan ibn 'Abdillaah had written the book ad-
Dalaa'il, when the 'Uthmaaniyyoon entered the Peninsula in his time, regarding
the ruling of aiding them, likewise Shaykh Hamad wrote a book entitled
Sabeel an-Najaah wal-Fikaak min Muwaalaat al-Murtaddeen wal-Atraak
(The Path of Salvation and Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and
the Turks), regarding the takfeer of whoever aided these armies that were
called "Islaamic"!!
[This book is well-known by the name Sabeel an-Najaah wal-Fikaak min
Muwaalaat al-Murtaddeen wa-Ahl al-Ishraak (The Path of Salvation and
Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and the People of Shirk) instead
of wal-Atraak (and the Turks), and the correct name is the one we have
mentioned for the following reasons:

a] The original written copy was of this title, and it was from the time of the
Shaykh. See Sabeel an-Najaah with the editing of al-Faryaan, page 12.

b] The Shaykh himself mentioned this title in the introductory khutbah of his
book Sabeel an-Najaah, page 24.

c] The time of the book's writing and also its contents point to this title, such as
his saying on page 35: "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and
Christians as awliyaa'..." And likewise whoever allies with the Turks becomes
a Turki." And Allaah knows better.]

'Abdullaah ibn 'Abd al-Lateef (died 1339H):

He was asked about the one who did not make takfeer of the state – i.e. the
'Uthmaani state – and the one who brought them to fight against the Muslims,
and chose their wilaayah (authority) and that it was obligatory to wage jihaad
alongside them, and about another who did not have that view but rather said
that the state and those who brought them were Muslim transgressors
(bughaat), and it is not lawful do deal with them except in the way that the
Muslim transgressors are dealt with, and that what was taken as booty from the
bedouins is haraam. So he replied:
"Whoever does not know the kufr of the state, and does not differentiate
between them and the Muslim transgressors, then he does not know the
meaning of "laa ilaaha illallaah". So if he believes, along with that, that the
state are Muslims, then this is even worse and severe, because it is doubting the
kufr of one who has committed kufr in Allaah and shirk with Him. And
whoever brought them and aided them against the Muslims with any form of
aid, then this is clear apostasy (riddah)." [End of quote.] [Ad-Durar as-
Saniyyah, 8/242.]

Sulaymaan ibn Sahmaan (died 1349H):

He said in one of his poems:

And what is said of the description of the Turks regarding their kufr,
Then it is true, for they are the most disbelieving of the people (akfar an-
naas) in the religions.
And their enmity towards the Muslims and their evil,
Grows and increases in the deviation, more than the other sects.
And whoever takes the kaafiroon as awliyaa' then he is like them,
And there is no doubt regarding his takfeer for anyone with intelligence.
And whoever might ally with them or go towards them for support,
Then there is no doubt as to declaring him a faasiq, and he is in a shaky
position.
[Deewaan ibn Sahmaan, page 191.]

And Husayn ibn 'Ali ibn Nufaysah [one of the contemporaries of Shaykh
Sulaymaan ibn Sahmaan] said in one of his poems:
So O state of the Turks, may your power never come back
To us, and to our homelands may you never return,
You took power, and opposed the way of our Prophet,
And the evils and intoxicants you made permissible.
You made the symbols of the mushrikoon your own symbols,
So you were quicker to committing shirk than they were.
You gave the religion of the Christians pre-eminence,
So you have borne impurity upon great impurity.
So away with you, off with you, defeat upon you,
And whoever loved you and inclined towards you.
[Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 2/149. And in a poem of Saalih ibn Saleem, in memory
of Ibn Sahmaan: And he clarified therein the ruling of the Turks, and their kufr
And the ruling of friendship and alliance with the state. (Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa,
3/254.)]

A n d 'Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn 'Abd al-Lateef ibn 'Abdillaah ibn 'Abd al-
Lateef Aal ash-Shaykh said:
"And it is well-known that the Turkish state was an idol-worshipping state,
whose religion was shirk and bid'ah, and which used to defend such things..."
[End of quote.] ['Ulamaa' ad-Da'wah, written by him, page 56.]

Section:

It is clear from what has preceded that the imaams of the da'wah viewed the
kufr of the 'Uthmaani state, and that it was a daar harb. And this is an open and
clear matter – I mean the kufr of the 'Uthmaani state – and I do not believe that
anyone who has read or heard what they were upon of shirk, or who has read
what the imaams of the da'wah said regarding their standpoint from this state,
will continue to hold any doubt regarding them.

Otherwise, one of the following three applies to him. Either:

a] He is accusing the imaams of the da'wah of ignorance.

b] Or he considers tawheed to be a secondary matter.

c] Or he is a stubborn rejector.

We ask Allaah to grant us sincerity and conformity in our knowledge and

deeds, and may Allaah bless and grant peace to our Prophet Muhammad, his
family and all of his companions.

Hamad Ibn ‘Atīq An-Najdī declared the city of Makkah and others which were
controlled by the Ottoman Empire as Dar al-harb.

Can Makkah become Dār Al-Harb?

Hamad Ibn ‘Atīq An-Najdī

Hamad Ibn ‘Atīq said in his answer to someone who debated him regarding the
Hukm (ruling) of the People of Makkah [during his time], and what is to be
said regarding the city itself… So he replied as follows (The main text of Imām
Hamad Ibn ‘Atīq in this treatise is taken from Majmū’ Ar-Rasā’il Wal-Masā’il
An-Najdiyyah 1/742-746):
“Glory be to You (O Allāh), we have no knowledge except what you have
taught us. Verily, it is You, the All-Knower, the All-Wise.” (Al-Baqarah: 32)

The discussion has come to the situation of Makkah – Is it a Land of kufr, or a

Land of Islām?

So we say, and the ability is from Allāh:

Indeed Allāh sent Muhammad with the Tawhīd, which is the Dīn of all the
Messengers. And its reality is contained in the testimony of Lā Ilāha Ill Allāh –
and it is that Allāh should be the One worshipped by the creation, so they do
not worship other than Him with any type of the various forms of ‘Ibādah. And
Du’ā (supplication) is the core of ‘Ibādah. And also from it (worship) is:

• Khawf (fear of Allāh)

• Rajā’ (hope in Allāh)
• Tawakkul (reliance on Allāh)
• Inābah (turning to Allāh in repentance)
• Thab’h (sacrificing/slaughtering for Allāh)
• Salāt (praying to Allāh)

And the types of ‘Ibādah are many, and this [singling out Allāh in all forms of
‘Ibādah] is the most supreme fundamental, which is the stipulation for the
validity of every action.

And the second fundamental [Muhammad Rasūlullāh], is obedience to the

Prophet in his commandment, and seeking judgment from him in both, little
and important matters, and exalting his legislation and his Dīn, and submitting
to his rulings in the fundamentals of the Dīn, and its branches.

So the first [fundamental] negates shirk, and it [Tawhīd] is not valid with it
[shirk].

And the second [fundamental] negates bid’ah (innovative heresies), and it

[obedience to the Messenger] is not complete along with the presence of it
[bid’ah].

So if these two fundamentals are fulfilled – in knowledge, action, and Da’wah

(calling to it) – and if this was the Dīn of the people of the city, no matter
which city; and they act upon these two fundamentals, and call to it, and they
are allies with those who are upon it, and enemies to those who oppose it: [If
they are as such] then they are Muwahhidūn.

But if shirk is widespread, like supplicating to and calling upon the Ka’bah,
and the Maqām [the stone on which Ibrāhīm (as) stood while he was building
the Ka'bah] and the Hatīm [the Enclosure of Ismā’īl, near the Ka’bah], and
calling upon the Prophets and righteous; and if the derivatives of shirk become
prevalent, such as adultery, usury, and various types of dhulm (oppression),
and the throwing the Sunnah behind the backs, and spreading of heresies and
deviations; and Tahākum [judgment is sought] from the oppressive leaders and
the agents of the mushrikīn; and Da’wah becomes to other than the Qur’ān and
the Sunnah- And if this becomes known – regardless of what city it is – then
whosoever has even the least knowledge will have no doubt: That those lands
will be ruled upon as Lands of kufr and shirk, especially if they are enemies of
the People of Tawhīd, and are attempting to demolish the their Dīn, and
destroy the Lands of Islām.

And if you seek the evidence for this ruling, then you will find the entire
Qur’ān (as the evidence) for it- and the ‘Ulamā’ have formed consensus upon
it, and it is known by necessity to each and every scholar.

As for the statement of the one who says, “What you have mentioned of (the
presence of) shirk is only amongst the nomads, not from the people of the
city.”

Then it is said to him:

Firstly, this is either due to arrogance, or lack of knowledge of the reality.
Because it is well known that the nomads follow the people of those lands [in
question] in invoking and calling upon the Ka’bah, and the Maqām [the stone
on which Ibrāhīm (as) stood while he was building the Ka'bah] and the Hatīm
[the Enclosure of Ismā’īl, near the Ka’bah] - as is heard by everyone who can
hear, and every pure Muwahhid (monotheist) knows.

And it is said secondly; if this has been established and become well known,
then that is sufficient in the issue, and who is it that has made this distinction in
that (saying that it is only the nomads that do this and not the people of the
city)?

And how strange! O Allāh! If you [people] hide your Tawhīd in their lands,
and you are not capable of displaying your Dīn, and you conceal your Salāt
because you know of their enmity against this Dīn and hatred of those who
adhere to it:
Then how can a person who possesses an intellect be in confusion [with
regards to the land being a Land of kufr]!?

Do you see that if a man from you [Muwahhidīn] were to tell those who invoke
the Ka’bah, or the Maqām, or the Hatīm and makes Du’ā’ to the Messenger
and the Sahābah: “O you! Do not invoke other than Allāh,” or, “You are a
mushrik”; Do you see them allowing you to you? Or plotting against you?

So let the disputer know, that he is not upon the Tawhīd of Allāh; and By
Allāh, he does not know Tawhīd, nor has he implemented the Dīn of the
Messenger.

Do you see a man that would be amongst them who says to those ones, “Come
back to your Dīn [of Islām]” or, “Demolish these structures which are built
upon the graves, and it is not permissible for you to call upon other than
Allāh”; Do you see them being satisfied towards him with what Quraysh did to
Muhammad [from inflictions and tortures]?

No, By Allāh! No! By Allāh {they exceed in their tortures and atrocities
compared to the Quraysh}.
(So have you seen that man who says to the people of that land, “Worship
Allāh (Alone), and avoid the tāghūt”, “Do not legislate laws contradictory to
the Qur’ān and the Sunnah”, “Do not assist the Zionists and Crusaders
against the Muslims”, “Expel them from the Arabian Peninsula” – If someone
says this to the people of that land, Do you see them being kind to him? Or are
they plotting against him to either kill him, or imprison him, or banish him, or
hand him over to the Crusaders?)

So if indeed this land is a Land of Islām- Then due to what thing have you not
called them to Islām, and command them to demolish the domes (which are on
top of the graves), and order them to forsake shirk and its derivatives?

(Similarly today- If you consider a land to be a Land of Islām, then why do you
not call its people to establish the Laws of Allāh, why do you not order them to
destroy the domes and parliaments, and to abstain from collaboration
[Mudhāharah] and loyalty (Muwālāt) to the kuffār? Why do you not order
them to wage Jihād to elevate the Tawhīd of Allāh?

So if you have been deceived by them due to their praying Salāt, performing
Hajj, fasting, and giving charity - then ponder over this matter from its very
beginning…

And it is that Tawhīd had been established in Makkah by the Da’wah of

Ismā’īl the son of Ibrāhīm Al-Khalīl, may peace be upon both of them – and
the People of Makkah were upon it for a period of time. And then shirk was
spread amongst them due to ‘Amr Ibn Luhay (He was the first person after the
era of Ibrāhīm (as) to introduce shirk into the Arabs. Ibn Is’hāq narrates, “He
was the first one to change the Dīn of Ibrāhīm, and erected statues.”), and thus
they [the People of Makkah] became mushrikīn- and the lands became Lands
of shirk, even though they still had remnants from the Dīn of Ibrāhīm (as), and
just as they [continued] performing Hajj, giving charity to both the pilgrims
and non-pilgrims. And the poem of ‘Abdul-Muttalib has already reached you,
in which he narrated the Story of the Elephant. And [they had] other than that
from the remnants (of the Dīn of Ibrāhīm) – yet that era did not prevent from
their [the People of Makkah’s] takfīr, nor their hostility.

Rather, that which is apparent to us and to other than us, is that their shirk
today is worse than it was in that era.

And even before all of this – the people of Earth lived upon Tawhīd for ten
generations after Ādam (as); until some Ghuluw [excesses] appeared within
hem towards the righteous, so they called upon them along with Allāh; so they
disbelieved, and thus Allāh sent Nūh (as) to them, calling to Tawhīd. So
ponder deeply over what Allāh has narrated regarding them.

And likewise is what was mentioned regarding Hūd (as), that he called them to
the pure ‘Ibādah for Allāh– because they did not disagree with him regarding
the basis of worshiping Allāh [they merely disagreed regarding the obligation
of worshiping Allāh Alone and singling Him out in all forms of ‘Ibādah].

And likewise was Ibrāhīm (as). He called his people to the pure Tawhīd, but
other than that, his people had already accepted the worshiping of Allāh. And
the conclusion of all this is:
That if the supplication to other than Allāh and its derivatives becomes
manifest in a land, and its people continue upon it and fight for it, and the
hostility towards the People of Tawhīd becomes established, and they refuse to
submit to the Dīn – then how can that land not be ruled upon as a Land of kufr?

(It is a Land of kufr) even if they do not attribute themselves to the People of
kufr and claim that they are free from them, while they curse them [the People
of Tawhīd] and they consider those who take it as their Dīn as mistaken, and
label them as “Khawārij” or “kuffār”. So what about if all of these qualities are
combined!

So this is a general Mas’alah in completeness.

As for the particular matters – then we say:
Indeed the Qur’ān and the Sunnah have proven that if allegiance comes from a
Muslim towards the People of shirk, as well as obedience to them [against
Muslims], then he commits riddah (apostasy) by that from his Dīn. So
contemplate over the Saying of Allāh (Most High):
“Verily, those who have turned back (have apostatized) after the guidance has
been manifested to them – Shaytān has beautified for them (their false hopes),
and (Allāh) prolonged their term (age).” (Muhammad: 25)

Along with His Saying:

“And if any amongst you takes them as Awliyā’, then surely he is one of
them.” (Al-Mā’idah: 51) [Al-‘Allāmah Ibn Hazm (ra) said, “It is correct that
this verse is only to be taken literally, meaning that he is a kāfir from the group
of the kuffār; and this is the truth, not even two Muslims will disagree on this
issue.” Refer to Al-Muhallā (11/138)]

And study carefully the Saying of Allāh (Most High):

“Then do not sit with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; (but if
you stayed with them) certainly in that case you would be (just) like them.”
(An-Nisā’: 140)

And the evidences for this [form of apostasy] are many.

And do not forget what Allāh mentioned in Sūrat At-Tawbah:

“Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed.” (At-Tawbah:
66)

And His Saying:

“But really they said the word of disbelief.” (At-Tawbah: 74. “They swear by
Allāh that they said nothing (bad), but really they said the word of disbelief,
and they disbelieved after accepting Islām.”)

And remember His (Most High) Saying:

“Nor would he order you to take the Angels and the Prophets as lords (gods).
Would he order you with disbelieve after you were Muslims (submitted to
Allāh's Will)?” (Āl ‘Imrān: 80)

And then, also, reflect deeply upon His (Most High) Saying in two places [in
the Qur’ān]:
“And when Our Clear Verses are recited to them, you will notice a denial on
the faces of the disbelievers! They are nearly ready to attack with violence
those who recite Our Verses to them.” (Al-Hajj: 72)
And you have already known their condition when they are called to Tawhīd.

Completed, and Allāh Knows Best.”

– End of the words of Hamad Ibn ‘Atīq An-Najdī

The Ottoman Empire, World War I, Declaration of Jihad and Asking

Help from the Prophet (saws)

With the entrance of the Ottoman Empire to the World War I, it is seen on
official documents that meanwhile the Ottoman Empire waited for the help of
Allah to be victors of the war they also waited for the help of Prophet
Muhammad (saw).

Let’s take a look at the statements on these documents:

The expressions which take place on the manifesto regarding Sultan Reshad’s
announcement of the war:

a - “Because we are rightful and honest, and our enemies are arbitrary and
aggressive, in order to defeat our enemy there is no doubt that Allah whose
fairness is infallible with His almighty support and with his spiritual support
our Prophet will be of help and beloved to us…” [22 Zilhicce, 1332 dated
Bayannâme-i Humâyûn, Carîde-i ilmiyye, Muharram 1333 dated copy, edition
7, p. 436.]"

b- Deputy of the supreme commander –since the supreme commander is the

padishah Enver Pasha is the most authoritative soldier after the padishah- The
announcement of Enver Pasha begins with the following “The support of
Allah, The spiritual help of our Prophet and the beneficence blessing of our
venerable padishah our army will defeat our enemy.”

In the midst of the announcement we find the following:

“…We must all pretend that the spirits of our Prophet and his distinguished
friends are flying above our heads…” [The announcement of the Supreme
commander mandate, Carîde-i ilmiyye, Muharram 1333 dated edition, edition
7, p. 436 and 437]"

c- The announcement of calling upon the countries of Islam to jihad:

This announcement has been prepared by the Meclis-i Ali-i ilmî (High Scholar
Council) and has been signed by Sultan Reshad with the title of Chaliph. There
are the signatures of a total of 34 scholars beneath the announcement. Amongst
them three of them old and one still on duty four shayhulislam and the trusty
fatawa giver Ali Haydar Efendi take place.

On the fourth paragraph of the announcement and with the following

statement:
“It has been promised with His high grace that those Muslims who went to war
with speed in the name of Allah’s open religion will be successful and will be
helped. The holy spirit of the Prophet is ready and present to hold the hands
and support the ones who sacrifice their lives and goods to glorify the luminous
shariah of Hz Ahmad…”

The last paragraph of the announcement is as such:

“…O ye the Mujahid of Islam! It has been confirmed, and announced by the
promise given by Allah Almighty and with the help and support of Allah, the
spiritual help of our honorable Prophet to defeat the enemies of religion and to
delight the hearts of the Muslims with eternal happiness." [4 Muharram 1333
(23 November 1914) dated Bayannâme, Carîde-i ilmiyye, Muharram 1333
dated edition, edition 7, p. 456 and 457]."

The ’Uthmaanee (Ottoman) Role on the Development and Spreading of

Matudiriyyah ’aqeedah against ’aqeedatul salafiyya: 700-1300 AH

Named after the Ottoman Empire and this stage combined many stages of the
Maturidis. Such as: the role of the establishment of Sharee’ah by ’Ubaydullaah
bin Mas’ood (? – 747 AH); the role of at-Tiftaazaanee (712-792 AH); the role
of al-Jurjaanee (740-816 AH); the role of al-Kamaal ibn ul-Humaam (790-861
AH) and other stages that the Ottoman Empire went through.

All of these stages return back to the main stage which is the role of the
Ottoman Empire who had the most important role in spreading the Maturidi
’aqeedah. The Ottoman Empire was Hanafi in its subsidiary matters of fiqh and
Maturidi in ’aqeedah, so the power of the Maturidis spread with the growth of
the Ottoman Empire, so all of the judges, muftees, khutabaa’ of masaajid,
heads of teaching were Hanafi in matters of fiqh and Maturidi in ’aqeedah.
Also from another angle, this stage was characterised by authoring many books
of kalaam whether they be texts, explanatioans, explanations of explanations,
commentaries, commentaries of commentaries etc. Also during this stage the
Maturidi ’aqeedah spread throughout the East and West in India, Turkey,
Persia, Europe, the Arab lands and the non-Arab lands.

Ibn Abidin: The followers of Abdulwahhab are hawarij and they call their
muhalif as mushrik

Ibn Abidin claims Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab to be a takfiri. He does not
call the wahdat wujuud mushrik and the grave worshipper sufi kafir. He is an
enemy of the najd scholars. However he has made a correct and true
establishment with his statement of Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab and his
followers from the scholars of Najd making takfir upon the Ottoman Empire
which the claimants stated Ottomans were Muslim.

“The followers of Abdulwahhab those subject to the hawarij, have come from
among the najd and were defeated by Mecca and Madina. They supposedly
make tahlil and tahrir of the Hanbali madhab. According to their itiqad they are
the only Muslim. They call their muhalif as mushrik and they believe it is
mubah to kill the scholars of ahl Sunnah wal jamaah. And they have even
killed many of the Muslim scholars. Haq teala broke them all and their cities.
Finally the Muslim soldiers found peace by defeating them.” (Radd ul Muhtar,
Ibn Abidin, v 4 p 262)

The views of two so-called caller to tawheed but in reality kuffar groups

Dhiya'addin al-Qudsy, the writer of many books about tawheed and

hakimiyyah (and among them are some good books too) and his thoughts on
the Ottoman Empire

Qudsy’s Manifestation Query on The Ottoman Empire and Fatih Sultan

Mehmed

No matter how wrongful it was, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a
considered Islamic state which supposedly applied the Islamic laws, some
problems had occurred, which were very open and accepted without any
controversy, and came to attention.

For instance the truth of; ”A Muslim can only be ally with Allah, His Envoy
and the Muminun” was accepted without any controversy and it was impossible
to come across someone who believed/ argued else wise.

As is above “the belief of; hakimiyyah belonging only to Allah, the authority of
legislation and judgement not belonging to any other’ was also seen as a part of
the tawheed belief and the allegation of anything else was considered as kufr.
(Hakimiyyah belongs to Allah, Introduction)

Qudsy’s fatawa on Fatih Sultan Mehmed and the conquering of Istanbul

(Constantine)

In the hadeeth regarding conquering Istanbul the conqueror commander and his
army is praised. The question is, was the commander in this hadeeth Fatih
Mehmed and his army?

Qudsy states:
“According to some scholars the hadeeth regarding the conquering of Istanbul
is saheeh and to some of the scholars it is dayeef. If we are to accept that it is
saheeh since the conqueror of Istanbul is Sultan Fatih and his army than the
praise is for them. However this does not mean that they have not made any
mistakes, because Sultan Fatih has made mistakes. There also is a good side to
him. He is a Muslim.” (From Qudsy’s personal fatawas)

al-Qaeda's view on the Ottoman Empire (and hence the view of isis, the kufr
state in iraq and shaam, because they divide al Qaeda in two sections; the
older qaeda, and the newer qaeda; they are calling the qaeda until the "death"
of Usama ibn Ladin older qaeda and are stating, that they are in totally
consens with them; and because they are still seeing Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi as
their hero)

Usame bin Ladin and Ayman adh-Dhawahiri are almost always saying in their
speechs“ba’da sukuti dawlati’l-khilafati’l-Uthmaniyyah” which menas "after
the collaps of the Ottoman Khilafa State".

It is not hard to understand, that they are accepting the Ottoman Empire as a
Khilafa and hence an Islamic state.
In a speech of Abu Mus'ab az-Zarqawi shortly before he was killed this point of
view is repeated in a very clear and open manner.

He said: "And the Rafidha (the Shia) harmed the muslims to control their
islamic country and take it away from them, during the Ottomans reesteblished
the movement of Jihad and were fighting against the crusaders and reached
europe." (Hal atake hadith ar-rafidha; http://tawhed.ws/r?i=4048&c=6010)

The view of az-Zarqawi is very clear from this statement; he called the
Ottomans "muslims", he called their war "jihad" and he called their state
"islamic country".

Another statement of Usama ibn Ladin, which was in a video that showed az-
Zarqawi, Bin Ladin stated: "Oh grandsons of Muhhamad al-Fatih! Help the
jihad in Iraq!"