If you Read my post correctly I was highlighting Hasan al-Banna’s racist views against non-Arabs and not endorsing the Ottoman political system.

Please read before commenting.

http://www.spittoon.org/archives/2388/comment-page-1#comment-11539

what a one-trick pony.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Since you zionists/neo-cons at Spitton support Israel, the US, India etc invading Muslim lands am not quite sure why you dont support

Where do we do that?

“According to Banna, the Ottomans and every other non-Arab Muslim power had not properly understood Islam. Banna lists this as one of the reasons why these Muslim empires failed in the past:

The transfer of authority to non-Arabs: Persians at one time, at another, the Mamluks, Turks and others who had never had the genuine taste of Islam, and whose hearts had never been illuminated with the light of the Qur’an because of the difficulty they encountered in trying to grasp its concepts, even though they read the words of Allah (swt)…

(Between Yesterday and Today by Hasan al-Banna, Pg 5, Prelude Ltd, 1997)

This is a strange statement considering that the Ottoman Muftis had been giving fatwas to Muslims around the world for over 500 years. It was also under the Ottoman Turks that Muslim power reached its zenith. But none of this mattered to Banna, as far as he was concerned only his party had the correct political model.”

Raziq in fact made a positive assertion, namely, most scholars held an opinion about the Ottoman Caliphs (ie they disputed their title) – that can be proven by providing a list of all scholars who held an opinion in the Ottomans and showing the majority opinions disputed their title.

Raziq cannot do it as it probably did not happen – either way, I held no fixed opinion on this point until he raised the issue and it appears from the brief research I did regarding his limited six scholars which he hasn’t still provided any references for that he is misquoting some (or maybe all) of them and cannot provide a majority – I have cited references that seem to go against what he has said. (BTW The quote from Suleman’s time cited a scholar who was defending Ottoman use of the title which Raziq appears not to have read the source text in full if at all. Either way the onus is on you to prove majority – I make no assertions either way until I investigate the matter and am simply questioning your assertions.)

By the way Raziq, whilst your at it, can you also provide the source to say Nabhani was a former baathist – or did you make that up too? I hope you will reply – unlike your history of evading questions

provide the proof that the majority of scholars did not recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs.

Fraid it doesn’t work like that matey. It’s not up to Raziq to prove a negative, it’s up to you to prove the positive – that the majority of scholars recognised the Ottomans as Caliphs.

I did indeed misread the point. My question remains unsanswered so please respond in kind: provide the proof that the majority of scholars did not recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs.

Regarding Iqbal my question also remains unanswered – where does he state he does not recognise the Ottoman Caliphs – even with the correct reading of your quote, it is about republicanism, not the fact he does not recognise the Ottoman Caliph. Please provide a reference.

And finally please address my questions that indicated you were misquoting some of the other scholars in my last post.

JZK.

Assalamu-Alaikum

When Iqbal said he believed the Turkish view was perfectly sound, he was talking about the Turkish secularists view of deposing the Ottoman sultan, dismantling the Ottoman state and having a republican form of government in it’s place. Please read the quote again:

““The first question that arises in this connection is this – should the Caliphate be vested in a single person? Turkeys ijtihad is that according to the spirit of Islam the Caliphate or Imamate can be vested in a body of persons or an elected assembly. The religous doctors of Islam in India and Eygpt have not yet commented on this point. Personally, I believe the Turkish view is perfectly sound. It is hardly nessescary to argue this point. The republican form of government in not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that are set free in the world of Islam.” (Reconstruction Of Islamic Thought In Islam by Allama Muhammad Iqbal, pg 124)

This is the view that Iqbal says is perfectly sound: “The republican form of government is not only consistent with Islam but also a nessescity in view of the new forces that set free in the world of Islam”

Meaning that Mustafa kemal and Turkish secularists were perfectly justified in dismantling the Ottoman state and creating the Turkish republic.

I have not misquoted brother, it’s you who has misread/misintepreted Iqbal’s quote. Can you acknowledge this point first before we discuss further?
This seems to be the main problem, you are not reading the references in the correct context and this is why our discussion is not moving forward.

Also, the one reference you cited from Suleman’s time, still does not prove they called themselves ‘Caliph’.

Can you ackowledge your misreading of Iqbal first brother? if not then it’s no point discussing further.

Jaza-kallah

I hope you are sincere in your efforts unlike much of the rabble here – I will have one final attempt at moving the discussion forward.

Please address the point that is at question – there are no doubt numerous interesting and important issues we can discuss, but they detract and are not as simple as you make them to be (for instance, academic research I have read argues the Brtish were trying to install an Arab Caliph instead of the Ottoman Caliph – the Sharif of Mecca being a candidate – as opposed to the Ottoman Caliphate being used as a British tool – this requires a separate discussion thread). My question of “proving majority of scholars did not accept the Ottomans as Caliphs” came first and I would appreciate if we finalise it one way or the other and maybe discuss the others subsequently.

You may believe your questions are linked, I don’t and thus do not want to enter them as they will become long discussions in themselves – for instance the notion of the Caliphate transfer in 1519 maybe fiction or fact, however, it does not assist your argument as the Ottomans did use the title Caliph from the 15th century onwards, a fact not lost on academic researchers (some of which I have already cited).

You stated the majority of scholars did not accept the Ottomans as Caliphs in an unqualified way and have still have not provided the list of majority of scholars that was asked of you from the 15th to 20th century. You appear to be changing your argument to modernist and rebellious scholars of the eighteenth/nineteenth century which was not you original argument, which is above for all to see.

You listed six unreferenced and and somewhat questionable characters that by any stretch of the imagination don’t count as majority. Your logic is that many other scholars agreed with these 6 (could you please list these many scholars and their references so they along with these 6 can be verified!) most are post nineteenth century and cannot comprise the majority of scholars from the 15th to the 20th century. I have yet to have seen any academic work where someone has researched what majority of scholars have said – you may be the first to do it (alhumdulillah).

Can you also provide specific references for the 6 scholars as you have already misquoted Iqbal and I have noticed the following discrepencies against some of the scholars you have cited leading me to doubt your referencing:
The researcher Oliver Scharbrodt in his comparative study comments “(Abduh, Afghani and Rashid Rida) plea for Muslim unity under the “firmest bond” of the Ottoman Caliph…” and “In 1884 Abduh left Beirut and joined his mentor in Paris where they founded the secret society Al-Urwa al-Wuthqa(The firmest Bond). Abduh and Afghani used the Quranic term to name their society and applied it to the Ottoman Caliphate held by Sultan Abdul Hamid II”.
Micheal Laffan comments on Ridda’s views saying “(his view was) from the Ummayad dynasties onwards the claim for Caliphate was spurious… however the Ottoman claim should be accepted in the interests of Muslim unity”.
Ayesha Jalal in Self and sovereignty: individual and community in South Asian Islam since 1850, states that there was an apparent CONSENSUS for the Ottoman Caliphate
Ahmed Raza Khan believed the Caliphate did not exist after the first four Caliphs – his view is thus irrelevant to the discussion. Interestingly in his Tahzib Al-Akhlaq he praises the reforms in the Ottoman lands!
The Iqbal reference does not state that he doesn’t recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs – your own reference states, “Personally, I believe the Turkish view is perfectly sound. It is hardly nessescary to argue this point…” – contradicting you.

Arguing the Ottomans called themselves Caliphs only from the 18th century onwards is incorrect as per provided references dating back to the 15th century which highight this term was in use and scholars were debating the legitimacy thereof. Likewise stating they used the term spiritually, or not in accordance with HT or from a given point of time onwards is irrelevant – br Jav did not qualify the usage of the term nor did you at the start – you simply stated the Ottomans did not even call themselves Caliphs and now you admit they did so you have failed in your argument on that point.

Finally, Br Raziq, if you cannot provide this list of scholars, as I am fully aware you cannot, please simply say so. Maybe the hecklers may be helpful enough to assist you but I personally doubt it as they seem to specialise in heckling on all posts rather than contribute any substance.

Fear Allah (swt) brother and refrain from slander, especially in this holy month of Ramadhan.

I’ve answered your questions in my previous posts. Read them again and stop repeating yourself.

Masalaama.

again i say you are either a liar or ignorant

I suggest you return and read Minaults book first hand. Then you might realise exactly how much widespread support there was for the khilafat movement, including the majority of the deobandi ulama, even if “several” refused to sign a fatwa (which doesn’t mean they didn’t recognise the caliphate since there is the concept of the one who takes the caliphate by force and therefore though he may not fulfil all the conditions he is accepted)

youalso have no response to the position of Rida which you misrepresented – or the other ulama who i mentioned who all supported the ottomans.

wihch undermines the whole stupid statement of yours that the majority of muslims rejected the ottomans as being a caliphate.

anyhow if you are a liar – its no use to discuss cause you will keep misquoting and misleading

and if you are an ignorant its no use to discuss since stupidity cannot be debated.

Most Indian Muslims believed that the Caliphate could only be held by someone who descended from the Quraysh clan. The Ottomans were not of Quraysh descent. They did not, therefore, satisfy an indispensable condition for Caliphate. This was also the opinion of Imam Ghazali amd Imam Mawardi. However:

“Maulana Abdul Bari of Firangi Mahal issued a fatwa in February 1919 laying down inter alia that Quraysh descent was not a necessary condition for Caliphate. Lined up against Bari were such major figures in Islamic learning as Imam al-Ghazali and al-Mawardi. His ex cathedra judgement was rejected not only by the Barelvis but also by influential groups of ‘Deobandi’ Ulama. Minault records the fact that several senior Ulama refused to sign the fatwa. Amongst those who signed, says Minault, the Ulama of Deoband, Punjab and Bengal were conspicuous by their absence.” (Sanyal Usha 1995 Devotional Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and his Movement, 1870-1920′, New Delhi)

The Deobandis also believed in the concept of ‘composite nationalism’, ever heard of it?

You shouldn’t lie/accuse in Ramadhan brother without knowing the facts.

Masalaama

Also – you lied/ are mistaken about the deobandis too

Ever heard of the khilafat movement????

Rashid Rida didn’t believe in having a Caliph as head of state. He believed there could be a role for a Caliph, but it had to be a purely spiritual one. Hence he supported the idea of having a spiritual Caliph with no political power. This is different to HT’s idea of a Caliph.

Please do not try and twist his ideas.

He won’t be coming back anytime soon : – )

No need to debate these prats anymore Raziq – they don’t no how to discuss. Let them carry on targeting schools kids and university dropouts, that’s all they are good for. AR was just looking for a get out clause. After failing to find ‘red herrings’ he ran off, typical HT tactic!

Seriously, debating these jokers is a pure waste of time. You can give them all the evidence in the world and all they will do is ignore it and carry on repeating the same drivel. That’s what HT does to you.

Great to see AR and his ilk squirming and trying to condemn you when they can no longer debate the points : )

I have to admit you decked Javed & AR (who now don’t want to debate anymore)

These Islamist liars and fabricators will never succeed.

May Allah (swt) bless you brother.

Keep up the good work!