[Phoneemer]

Fall of Khilafat / Fall of Ottoman Empire

Salaam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu brothers and sisters

I saw on the other forum people bashing,hating ata turk . anyways i do not knw much about him and would like knowledgeble bro n sis to educate me .

Please bros and sis keep your nationalism etc aside and carry on the discussion in nice friendly way .

My ques is :

1) who were the people responsible for the fall of Khilafat?
2) can i say Fall of Khilafat and Fall of Ottoman empire as the same thing ?
3) is it true rulers of saudi arabia took aside with the british and fought the ottoman empire the result being fall of islamic khilafat.
4) if they did so were they greedy for power ?
5) had the fall of khilafat not happened would muslims be in much better and powerful state?
6) do we held al-saud family for being traitor to islam and rebelling against the islamic khilafat?

NOTE : bro and sis from saudi arabia pls dont find this post offensive , all ques r based from what i heard from some people . so please people of both sides for argument keep the discussion in a nice friendly manner .

Jazakallah Khair

[HonestSean]

Fall of Khilafat / Fall of Ottoman Empire

Salaam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu brothers and sisters

I saw on the other forum people bashing,hating ata turk . anyways i do not knw much about him and would like knowledgeble bro n sis to educate me .

Please bros and sis keep your nationalism etc aside and carry on the discussion in nice friendly way .

My ques is :

1) who were the people responsible for the fall of Khilafat?
2) can i say Fall of Khilafat and Fall of Ottoman empire as the same thing ?
3) is it true rulers of saudi arabia took aside with the british and fought the ottoman empire the result being fall of islamic khilafat.
4) if they did so were they greedy for power ?
5) had the fall of khilafat not happened would muslims be in much better and powerful state?
6) do we held al-saud family for being traitor to islam and rebelling against the islamic khilafat?

NOTE : bro and sis from saudi arabia pls dont find this post offensive , all ques r based from what i heard from some people . so please people of both sides for argument keep the discussion in a nice friendly manner .

Jazakallah Khair

Well, all I know is that the Saudis did side with the British against the Ottomans, to the extent that the Ikhwan (i.e. the nomadic militia used to fight the battles of the Saudis) were only stopped from fighting when they reached British territiory (I believe Jordan). The Ikhwan, who believed they were fighting a Jihad, became angry over this, and revolted.

I don't know how much this had to do with the fall of the Khilafa, which is more likely due to the weakening of the the moral and leadership capabilities of the later Ottoman Khalifas, the rebellions across the Khilafa lands, the abolishment of the Sultan and then Khalifa by atascumbag, and finally the Ummah's inability to elect a new Khalifa.

[Roker]

Fall of Khilafat / Fall of Ottoman Empire

Salaam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu brothers and sisters

I saw on the other forum people bashing,hating ata turk . anyways i do not knw much about him and would like knowledgeble bro n sis to educate me .

Please bros and sis keep your nationalism etc aside and carry on the discussion in nice friendly way .

My ques is :

1) who were the people responsible for the fall of Khilafat?

We the Muslims are to blame. If we do what we're supposed to do the kuffar cannot touch us.

2) can i say Fall of Khilafat and Fall of Ottoman empire as the same thing ?

Yes

3) is it true rulers of saudi arabia took aside with the british and fought the ottoman empire the result being fall of islamic khilafat.

That is true, without doubt.

4) if they did so were they greedy for power ?

Yes, greedy, and also racist against non-arabs.

5) had the fall of khilafat not happened would muslims be in much better and powerful state?

Yes, of course.

6) do we held al-saud family for being traitor to islam and rebelling against the islamic khilafat?

Yes, without doubt.

[Roker]

The other main reason why the khalifate fell was because they were bankrupted, because of the cost of desiring to reduce a seven day journey to a forty hour one by building a rail line from Vienna to Istanbul. So in fact the real reason more than anything was the involvement of us Muslims with the practice of riba.

[Phoneemer]

We the Muslims are to blame. If we do what we're supposed to do the kuffar cannot touch us.


Yes


That is true, without doubt.


Yes, greedy, and also racist against non-arabs.


Yes, of course.

Yes, without doubt.

hmmmm makes sense loooking at those greedy al saud family , corrupt rulers , stupid fatwas coming from saudi arabia. call it arabia ! its haram in my view to use the name "saudi" derived frm good old saud greedy families.

and look atthe people , scholars of saudi arbaia , they never speak against their corrupt leaders but very busy slandering the 4 imams of ahle sunnat wal jammah.

i recently saw on youtube people on streets shouting slogans for bringing back the khilafat.

one thing muslims should make it very very clear , even if the khilafat is going to come bak in coming yrs inshallah THE LEADER WONT BE A SALAFI/WAHABI

if the khalifa has to be it wil be and shuld be from the 4 school of thought.

but never from salafis/wahabies crackheads.

i hope i can use the word carckhead on sunniforum , dont know what they allow and what they dont.

Jazakallah Khair

[nanyaHgoc]

Salam

I think there are opinions amongst Muslim historians that the Ottoman empire was never a khilafa in the first place. Khilafa was continuous from the time of Abu Bakr to about 126 ah until the removal of al Walid ibn Abdul Malik of the Ummayad dynasty. We all know that the first four Imams were all legitimate leaders, and we may even extend that to Mu'awiyah as well. But thereafter it was definitely a dynasty which was completely unIslamic. Nonetheless, the Ummayads had control over all the Arab lands and thus were considered khilafa. The Abbasids, however, never had control over all the Muslim lands. Darul Islam split into many kingdoms, with different people claiming the title of khilafa. States became independent and thus the whole function of khilafa was diminished. It can be argued that khilafa ended with the Ummayads. Perhaps an even stronger argument is that it ended during the time of the Abbasids, where they lost states like falling dominoes.

The Ottomans very rarely used the term khalifa, instead preferring the term amir. They only really used the title when at war with the Russians and against the British.

The Ottomans certainly represented the strongest and largest of the latter Muslim kingdoms, but it's claim to khilafa is disputed. I know many Hanafi jurists believed the Ottomans did represent a legitimate khilafat as they were the largest and actively engaged in jihad against the kuffar, thus being most entitled to be considered a khalifa amongst all the Muslim kingdoms.


1) who were the people responsible for the fall of Khilafat?

If you mean the Ummayad khilafat, it was their own corruption and the thrid fitnah. If you mean the Ottomans, it was a result of many things. It is true that the Ottomans were bankrupt. But what many people don't know is that the Ottomans were actually aided by the British and their allies between 1240 and 1260 ah. Ottomans needed protection from Russia and thus forged an allegiance with Britain. So their hands were not clean either. The real reason they collapsed is because they switched sides before WWI, and decided to befriend Russia and Germany against Britain and her allies. Thus they involved themselves in a European war and basically chose the wrong side. They became a target for Britain, who used Arab nationalism to invade and destroy the Ottoman Empire. So in a nutshell, who was responsible? The Ottomans themselves and the British.

2) can i say Fall of Khilafat and Fall of Ottoman empire as the same thing ?

This is disputed. I don't know what the majority opinion is, perhaps someone else could inform you.

3) is it true rulers of saudi arabia took aside with the british and fought the ottoman empire the result being fall of islamic khilafat.

Yes. But to paint them as evil hypocrites and the Ottomans as noble defenders would be wrong. They BOTH took sides with the British at different times.

4) if they did so were they greedy for power ?

It was nationalism. The jahil mindset of identity politics, using your ethnicity as your main reference. But again, is it fair to paint the Arabs as the bad guys? Muslims had been fighting eachother for years by that time. States all over the Muslim world were seeking independence. Nationalism was already in place.

5) had the fall of khilafat not happened would muslims be in much better and powerful state?

The khilafat was never going to survive, regardless of what happened in WWI. There was rank-corruption in Ottoman ranks, with successive leaders having no talents or abilities whatsoever. Dynasties never last. Would the Muslims be in a better position if the Ottomans were not carved up? Allahu alam. I think in all likelihood civil wars would have broken out with nationalists all over the place. So what the British did quickly would have happened slowly anyway, in my opinion.

6) do we held al-saud family for being traitor to islam and rebelling against the islamic khilafat?

They certainly rebelled against an Islamic state. They used help from the kuffar to kill other Muslims. But using kuffar aid was not new, as mentioned earlier, the Ottomans did it too to survive. But it is worth noting that befriending the kuffar is clearly a Saud characteristic, which continues to this very day.

[Tinasblue]

Salam

I think there are opinions amongst Muslim historians that the Ottoman empire was never a khilafa in the first place. Khilafa was continuous from the time of Abu Bakr to about 126 ah until the removal of al Walid ibn Abdul Malik of the Ummayad dynasty. We all know that the first four Imams were all legitimate leaders, and we may even extend that to Mu'awiyah as well. But thereafter it was definitely a dynasty which was completely unIslamic. Nonetheless, the Ummayads had control over all the Arab lands and thus were considered khilafa. The Abbasids, however, never had control over all the Muslim lands. Darul Islam split into many kingdoms, with different people claiming the title of khilafa. States became independent and thus the whole function of khilafa was diminished. It can be argued that khilafa ended with the Ummayads. Perhaps an even stronger argument is that it ended during the time of the Abbasids, where they lost states like falling dominoes.

The Ottomans very rarely used the term khalifa, instead preferring the term amir. They only really used the title when at war with the Russians and against the British.

The Ottomans certainly represented the strongest and largest of the latter Muslim kingdoms, but it's claim to khilafa is disputed. I know many Hanafi jurists believed the Ottomans did represent a legitimate khilafat as they were the largest and actively engaged in jihad against the kuffar, thus being most entitled to be considered a khalifa amongst all the Muslim kingdoms.


1) who were the people responsible for the fall of Khilafat?

If you mean the Ummayad khilafat, it was their own corruption and the thrid fitnah. If you mean the Ottomans, it was a result of many things. It is true that the Ottomans were bankrupt. But what many people don't know is that the Ottomans were actually aided by the British and their allies between 1240 and 1260 ah. Ottomans needed protection from Russia and thus forged an allegiance with Britain. So their hands were not clean either. The real reason they collapsed is because they switched sides before WWI, and decided to befriend Russia and Germany against Britain and her allies. Thus they involved themselves in a European war and basically chose the wrong side. They became a target for Britain, who used Arab nationalism to invade and destroy the Ottoman Empire. So in a nutshell, who was responsible? The Ottomans themselves and the British.

2) can i say Fall of Khilafat and Fall of Ottoman empire as the same thing ?

This is disputed. I don't know what the majority opinion is, perhaps someone else could inform you.

3) is it true rulers of saudi arabia took aside with the british and fought the ottoman empire the result being fall of islamic khilafat.

Yes. But to paint them as evil hypocrites and the Ottomans as noble defenders would be wrong. They BOTH took sides with the British at different times.

4) if they did so were they greedy for power ?

It was nationalism. The jahil mindset of identity politics, using your ethnicity as your main reference. But again, is it fair to paint the Arabs as the bad guys? Muslims had been fighting eachother for years by that time. States all over the Muslim world were seeking independence. Nationalism was already in place.

5) had the fall of khilafat not happened would muslims be in much better and powerful state?

The khilafat was never going to survive, regardless of what happened in WWI. There was rank-corruption in Ottoman ranks, with successive leaders having no talents or abilities whatsoever. Dynasties never last. Would the Muslims be in a better position if the Ottomans were not carved up? Allahu alam. I think in all likelihood civil wars would have broken out with nationalists all over the place. So what the British did quickly would have happened slowly anyway, in my opinion.

6) do we held al-saud family for being traitor to islam and rebelling against the islamic khilafat?

They certainly rebelled against an Islamic state. They used help from the kuffar to kill other Muslims. But using kuffar aid was not new, as mentioned earlier, the Ottomans did it too to survive. But it is worth noting that befriending the kuffar is clearly a Saud characteristic, which continues to this very day.

good post!!!!!!!

pretty much on the money.

[v74ClzKY]

As-salamu 'alaykum

The issue of Khilafa is not black and white, it has a lot of grey areas. The Ottoman Empire was not the only claim to the Caliphate. While once upon a time it might have been ruled according to Islamic law, in the early 20th century it was not so. Let us remember that it was not only the secularists but also many traditional muslims who felt that they needed change. The Ottoman rule had become decadent and corrupt.

If the 20th century Ottoman's were the same as a Caliphate, then why not call Morocco a Caliphate? The Idrisids have a long history as a Muslim kingdom and as a matter of fact the King of Morocco is called Amir al-Mu'minin. But since this is right in front of us, we can see it clearly and would reject such a notion. Many Muslims have this fantasy about the Ottoman Empire being some Islamic utopia, that is simply not the case.

[*Playergirl*]

As-salamu 'alaykum

The issue of Khilafa is not black and white, it has a lot of grey areas. The Ottoman Empire was not the only claim to the Caliphate. While once upon a time it might have been ruled according to Islamic law, in the early 20th century it was not so. Let us remember that it was not only the secularists but also many traditional muslims who felt that they needed change. The Ottoman rule had become decadent and corrupt.

If the 20th century Ottoman's were the same as a Caliphate, then why not call Morocco a Caliphate? The Idrisids have a long history as a Muslim kingdom and as a matter of fact the King of Morocco is called Amir al-Mu'minin. But since this is right in front of us, we can see it clearly and would reject such a notion. Many Muslims have this fantasy about the Ottoman Empire being some Islamic utopia, that is simply not the case.

Slightly offtopic, but were the early Idrisids shia/zaydi?

[v74ClzKY]

Slightly offtopic, but were the early Idrisids shia/zaydi?

Yes, the founder was Moulay Idris bin Abdallah bin Hasan al-Thani bin Al-Hasan bin Ali bin Abi Talib and is accepted as a Zaidi Imam.

[Tinasblue]

As-salamu 'alaykum

The issue of Khilafa is not black and white, it has a lot of grey areas. The Ottoman Empire was not the only claim to the Caliphate. While once upon a time it might have been ruled according to Islamic law, in the early 20th century it was not so. Let us remember that it was not only the secularists but also many traditional muslims who felt that they needed change. The Ottoman rule had become decadent and corrupt.

If the 20th century Ottoman's were the same as a Caliphate, then why not call Morocco a Caliphate? The Idrisids have a long history as a Muslim kingdom and as a matter of fact the King of Morocco is called Amir al-Mu'minin. But since this is right in front of us, we can see it clearly and would reject such a notion. Many Muslims have this fantasy about the Ottoman Empire being some Islamic utopia, that is simply not the case.

another good post!!!

[Tinasblue]

People need to listen to 'The Crusades Through Arab Eyes' to see how fragmented the Muslim ummah has actually been. The pure unity of the ummah lasted for about 100 years where the Muslims were under one banner but as soon as the dynasty system took rise, the ummah fragmented.

People don't realise but unity within the ummah is a very very very important factor through which Allah helped the Muslims.

[Shiplyopidomi]

I'm wondering if the Mughals of Delhi acknowledged the Caliphate in Istanbul.

Does the Caliphate have to rule all of the Muslim World, or just a large chunk of it? Even when the Ottomans were at their mightiest, there were vast Muslim territories where neither they nor any previous Caliphate did not rule: central Asia east of Crimea to western China, all of Islamic Africa south of the Sahara, and my own brethren in here Southeast Asia.

We're people of the fringes, I guess.

[Deribasov]

hmmmm makes sense loooking at those greedy al saud family , corrupt rulers , stupid fatwas coming from saudi arabia. call it arabia ! its haram in my view to use the name "saudi" derived frm good old saud greedy families.

and look atthe people , scholars of saudi arbaia , they never speak against their corrupt leaders but very busy slandering the 4 imams of ahle sunnat wal jammah.

i recently saw on youtube people on streets shouting slogans for bringing back the khilafat.

one thing muslims should make it very very clear , even if the khilafat is going to come bak in coming yrs inshallah THE LEADER WONT BE A SALAFI/WAHABI

if the khalifa has to be it wil be and shuld be from the 4 school of thought.

but never from salafis/wahabies crackheads.

i hope i can use the word carckhead on sunniforum , dont know what they allow and what they dont.

Jazakallah Khair

So if Imam Mahdi is a Salafi or Wahhabi will you follow him?

Secondly saudi scholars do speak against the Saudi Murtad regime but are automatically imprisoned, for a matter of fact there around I think 20,000 scholars in jail?

Thirdly why are you going back to the four Imams for legislation even without no proof is that not shirk and taking them as Gods besides Allah?

Fourhtly the Ottoman empire desreved to be foaght since they stopped the Jizya in the early 1800s system thus making legislation with other then what Allah has sent down?

Fiftly the Ottoman Empire was not a khilafah but a kingdom?

Sixthly who is slandering your Imams, while we all know you deobandi are people of cleatr ennovation and most of the Deobandi areas are areas with low Imaan while there areas of Salafis who only obey Allah and his messenger are areas where there is clear islamic revival

[N1bNXuDb]

When I notice Muslims (NOT) speak of the Armenian genocide...I get a vague idea as to why the Ottoman Empire really fell.

[HonestSean]

So if Imam Mahdi is a Salafi or Wahhabi will you follow him?

Secondly saudi scholars do speak against the Saudi Murtad regime but are automatically imprisoned, for a matter of fact there around I think 20,000 scholars in jail?

Thirdly why are you going back to the four Imams for legislation even without no proof is that not shirk and taking them as Gods besides Allah?

Fourhtly the Ottoman empire desreved to be foaght since they stopped the Jizya in the early 1800s system thus making legislation with other then what Allah has sent down?

Fiftly the Ottoman Empire was not a khilafah but a kingdom?

Sixthly who is slandering your Imams, while we all know you deobandi are people of cleatr ennovation and most of the Deobandi areas are areas with low Imaan while there areas of Salafis who only obey Allah and his messenger are areas where there is clear islamic revival

That was pretty laughable, my brother.

[BritneySpearsFun@@@]

When I notice Muslims (NOT) speak of the Armenian genocide...I get a vague idea as to why the Ottoman Empire really fell.

I don't know much about the Armenian genocide but from what I've read, I'm disgusted

[logpogingg]

the Armenian genocide..

This is a plain lie and fabrication; there wasn't any massacre of Armenians. In fact in Ottoman they were considered as Millet-i Sadiqa/A Loyal Nation. However, when they united with enemies against Ottomans and also killed many innocent Muslim families; then because of their trait, the Sultan ordered their exile out of Ottoman territory. It was during their migration where they lost lives by natural causalities such as weather, diseases etc.. and not in battle field. This was all historically documented.

Although Turkey challenged many times and still continues to challenge Armenians to open up all of the historical archives they have and leave the rest for research to the historians, Armenians never agreed to it.

[BritneySpearsFun@@@]

This is a plain lie and fabrication; there wasn't any massacre of Armenians. In fact in Ottoman they were considered as Millet-i Sadiqa/A Loyal Nation. However, when they united with enemies against Ottomans and also killed many innocent Muslim families; then because of their trait, the Sultan ordered their exile out of Ottoman territory. It was during their migration where they lost lives by natural causalities such as weather, diseases etc.. and not in battle field. This was all historically documented.

Although Turkey challenged many times and still continues to challenge Armenians to open up all of the historical archives they have and leave the rest for research to the historians, Armenians never agreed to it.

Could you please provide any sources for this information? I am only asking as I have very little knowledge of this event. For example, I heard that many Armenians were starved, etc (although this information IS from wikipedia).

[logpogingg]

Could you please provide any sources for this information? I am only asking as I have very little knowledge of this event. For example, I heard that many Armenians were starved, etc (although this information IS from wikipedia).

There are many Western references such as Stanford J. Shaw's book "History of the Ottoman Empire" and many more. For online quick read you can refer to this link:http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html