Recently there have been some videos posted attacking Sheykh Abdul Kerim openly and the Osmanli Dergah from Michigan. They are claiming that Sheykh Abdul Kerim is opening a dergah in Cyprus next to Maulana and that this is an act of craziness.
What is craziness is to think that Sheykh Abdul Kerim Effendi would or could do anything (especially in Lefke) without Sheykh Maulana Nazim’s explicit order and direction. Maulana specifically wanted a Dergah to be opened and run according to Ottoman/Osmanli ways in Cyprus.
This is what he ordered Sheykh Abdul Kerim to do, and that is what he is doing.
This is a continuation of his 2008 message where Maulana ordered Sheykh Abdul Kerim to work in Maulana’s area. Available on video here.
They say Seyh Effendi isn’t praying at that dergah, but goes elsewhere. Of course he goes elsewhere.
People who have never been to Cyprus are being taken for fools. The dergah next to Maulana’s house is not visited by Maulana himself. In fact, countless times Maulana was the one praying in these masjids with Sheykh Abdul Kerim right next to him.
When was the last Jummah Khutba you heard from Sh Maulana?
Want some pictures of ‘not praying at the Dergah’?
Now we know Maulana doesn’t come pray very often to the Dergah next to his own house, but Maulana visited the Osmanli Dergah in Lefke to open it himself.
Wouldn’t it be real craziness to think that Maulana would visit a place like this when it is against his wishes?
One can see Maulana openly praying in the dergah, blessing it. 
http://www.yursil.com/blog/2010/03/sheykh-mevlana-new-dergah-cyprus/
Or do you think that Awliya are just tricking you (Hasha Astahgfirulllah)? This is a clear message that the dergah is opened by Sheykh Maulana. Then they are second guessing Sheykh Maulana by saying he is being ‘patient’ with people who are doing work all around him. This is a sign of a deep disease. In this pseudo reality world these people create, what Maulana does is actually the opposite of what he really wants. For them, he doesn’t really want a Dergah, he just opens it up for some twisted game!
It is said on this site: “THE PRESIDENT OF CYPRUS IS THERE, AND THEY HAVE HIJACKED AND PREVENTED SUFILIVE TO BROADCAST THAT IMPORTANT EVENT AND THEY CANNOT SAY IT IS PRIVATE AS THEY WERE BCASTING IT THEMSELVES. ”
These people are upset that the President of Cyprus came and they were not able to broadcast. Like their past history, it is clear they are quiet until it becomes an issue of politics and gain. Could it be Maulana wants a direct feed of his sohbets unassociated with contrary messages?
What has Maulana said about Khalifa, about Democracy openly?
http://www.sufismus-online.de/TheocracyDemocracy
On top of that, all Islamic countries are now making advertisements for democracy, not theocracy, which would be following the Sharia. No! They want democracy, because the Europeans want it, they would never want a theocracy. And now our people are trying to copy this. Also in the private lives of people they want to copy the western people. It makes them proud to be like the western people.
What are these people saying about the same? They make Sahabis into political parties and shariat into democracy. What is real craziness is how these people reconcile these obvious conflicts in their minds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNE-GcHhHU#t=6m45s 6:45
InshaAllah this Osmanli Dergah will be a big success because of Sh Maulana’s blessing and permission.
Many people will be assisting in this effort, including Cafer Iskenderoglu.
They are complaining about Sheykh Abdul Kerim by calling him crazy, and by doing so they have fulfilled the hadith: Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Engage in the Dhikr of Allah in such abundance that people comment that ‘you are insane’.” (Ahmed, Abu Ya’la, Ibn Habbaan)
Fill out a form, write your check, get your ticket, head down to the University.
Listen to Imam such-and-such speak, hang out with friends after and relax. Rinse and repeat.
This is the paradigm for Suburban Muslims which has been put forward to the youth, and it seems to be failing miserably. Everyone knows someone who has left faith at some seminars doorstep.
The foundation of this approach is based on a few unspoken assumptions which no one questions.
I will question them.
First, they should be listed:
1) American culture is the primary definition of the way we dress, the food we enjoy, the entertainment we seek (Movies, TV, video games).
2) Islam can be understood practically as a filter of the ‘bad’ aspects of the American lifestyle out of ones life. The bad aspects are the obvious haraam (forbidden actions). It can also be an encouragement of the ‘good’ aspects of American life.
3) Since Islam is a filter of good and bad, one needs to obtain ‘ilm’ (religious knowledge) in order to learn how to behave. Studying ‘ilm’ is paramount in Islam, and most ‘ilm’ is in Arabic.
4) What is taught by people in classes at seminars and ‘events’ is a translation and summarization of what is considered ‘ilm’.
5) Your status is defined by how much of this seminar-event-based ‘ilm’ you know.
6) Your source of English-’ilm’ is infinitely better than other peoples source of English-’ilm’.
7) If you learn Arabic yourself you will one day know exactly without a doubt that #6 is true.
8) ‘Ilm’ can be expensive.
9) What defines a good Muslim is how well integrated he is with Suburban-Middle-class Society (job, wife, kids, house) plus the combination of his ‘ilm’
10) With real ‘ilm’ we can combat a Non Suburban-Capitalist-Islam. The end result of Non Suburban-Capitalist-Islam is a lifestyle absent of the luxuries and principles of Suburban Capitalist Islam, primarily #1.
11) Non Suburban-Capitalist Muslims are extremists of different sorts, and Suburban Capitalist Muslims are moderate. They are moderate because they are largely indistinguishable from n0n-Muslim Americans within the workforce, except for a beard/Hijab and some dietary requirements.
12) Isa’s (AS) return, Imam Mahdi (AS) and the Dajjal are topics of events far in the future. They are so far that they are largely understood as metaphors without meaning.
13) Islamic history is something left to be studied in a superficial manner, because most of Muslim history is filled with various mistakes and evil people. It is far more important to learn about the primary sources of ‘ilm’ and attend more seminars.
14) Actual change from a Western to an Islamic society will come from those who participate in the political and economic system and give Dawah within.
15) Most immigrants have no idea about ‘ilm’, because they have never attended these seminars. Therefore most parents are without knowledge.
I will add more later. If you have some more to add, put them in comments sections and later I will flesh all of these out.
The “Noble Edict of the Rose Chamber” was an 1839 proclamation by Ottoman Sultan Abdül Mecid I that launched the Tanzimat period of reforms and reorganization within the Ottoman Empire.
Below is the text of the edict:
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
—-
All the world knows that since the first days of the Ottoman State, the lofty principles of
the Qur’an and the rules of the Sheriat were always perfectly observed. Our mighty
Sultanate reached the highest degree of strength and power, and all its subjects [the
highest degree] of ease and prosperity. But in the last one hundred and fifty years,
because of a succession of difficulties and diverse causes, the sacred Sheriat was not
obeyed nor were the beneficent regulations followed; consequently, the former strength
and prosperity have changed into weakness and poverty. It is evident that countries not
governed by the laws of the Sheriat cannot survive.
From the very first day of our accession to the throne, our thoughts have been
devoted exclusively to the development of the empire and the promotion of the prosperity
of the people. Therefore, if the geographical position of the Ottoman provinces, the
fertility of the soil, and the aptitude and intelligence of the inhabitants are considered, it is
manifest that, by striving to find appropriate means, the desired results will, with the aid
of God, be realized within five or ten years. Thus, full of confidence in the help of the
Most High and certain of the support of our Prophet, we deem it necessary and important
from now on to introduce new legislation to achieve effective administration of the
Ottoman Government and Provinces. Thus the principles of the requisite legislation are
three:
1. The guarantees promising to our subjects perfect security for life, honor, and
property.
2. A regular system of assessing taxes
3. An equally regular system for the conscription of requisite troops and the
duration of their service.
Indeed there is nothing more precious in this world than life and honor. What
man, however much his character may be against violence, can prevent himself from
having recourse to it, and thereby injure the government and the country, if his life and
honor are endangered? If, on the contrary, he enjoys perfect security, it is clear that he
will not depart from ways of loyalty and all his actions will contribute to the welfare of
the government and of the people.
If there is an absence of security for property, everyone remains indifferent to his
state and his community; no one interests himself in the prosperity of the country,
absorbed as he is in his own troubles and worries. If, on the contrary, the individual feels
complete security about his possessions then he will become preoccupied with his own
affairs, which he will seek to expand, and his devotion and love for his state and his
community will steadily grow and will undoubtedly spur him into becoming a useful
member of society.
Tax assessment is also one of the most important matters to regulate. A state, for
the defense of its territory, manifestly needs to maintain its borders, the costs of which
can be defrayed only by taxes levied on its subjects. Although thank God, our Empire has
already been relieved of the affliction of monopolies, the harmful practice of tax-farming
[iltizam], which never yielded any fruitful results, still prevails. This amounts to
handing over the financial and political affairs of a country to the whims of an ordinary
man and perhaps to the grasp of force and oppression, for if the tax-farmer is not of good
character he will be interested only in his own profit and will behave oppressively. It is
therefore necessary that from now on every subject of the Empire should be taxed
according to his fortune and his means, and that he should be saved from any further
exaction. It is also necessary that special laws should fix and limit the expenses of our
land and sea forces.
Military matters, as already pointed out, are among the most important affairs of
state, and it is the inescapable duty of all the people to provide soldiers for the defense of
the fatherland [vatan]. It is therefore necessary to frame regulations on the contingents
that each locality should furnish according to the requirement of the time, and to reduce
the term of military service to four or five years. Such legislation will put an end to the
old practices, still in force, of recruiting soldiers without consideration of the size of the
population in any locality, more conscripts being taken from some places and fewer from
others. This practice has been throwing agriculture and trade into harmful disarray.
Moreover, those who are recruited to lifetime military service suffer despair and
contribute to the depopulation of the country.
In brief, unless such regulations are promulgated, power, prosperity, security, and
peace may not be expected, and the basic principles [of the projected reforms] must be
those enumerated above.
Thus, from now on, every defendant shall be entitled to a public hearing,
according to the rules of the Sheriat, after inquiry and examination; and without the
pronouncement of a regular sentence no one may secretly or publicly put another to death
by poison or by any other means. No one shall be allowed to attack the honor of any
other person whatsoever. Every one shall possess his property of every kind and may
dispose of it freely, without let or hindrance from any person whatsoever; and the
innocent heirs of a criminal shall not be deprived of their hereditary rights as a result of
the confiscation of the property of such a criminal. The Muslim and non-Muslim subjects
of our lofty Sultanate shall, without exception, enjoy our imperial concessions. Therefore
we grant perfect security to all the populations of our Empire in their lives, their honor,
and their properties, according to the scared law.
As for the other points, decisions must betaken by majority vote. To this end, the
members of the Council of Judicial Ordinances [Mejlis-i Ahkam-i Adliyye], enlarged by
new members as may be found necessary, to whom will be joined on certain days we
shall determine our Ministers and the high officials of the Empire, will assemble for the
purpose of framing laws to regulate the security of life and property and the assessment
of taxes. Every one participating in the Council will express his ideas and give his advice
freely.
“Committee of Union and Progress”
It should be remembered that the ulema, as a class, did not form a homogeneous but a fragmented body, members of which defending somewhat contradictory theses. Many high-ranking members of the ulema strongly supported the Hamidian regime and policies implemented by the sultan for different reasons. In retrospect, however, it would not be inaccurate to comment that those who wholeheartedly supported the aforementioned regime were of a negligible quantity. This comment might seem contradictory, given the policies implemented by the sultan. The examination of a host of memoirs, pamphlets, and newspaper and journal articles published by members of ulema in exile and after the reinstatement of the constitutional regime unequivocally reveals this significant fact, however.
The idea of creating a political opposition movement was born in 1889 among military medical school students, but similar or identical ideas had entered the minds of a grater mass of people. Since there was no other influential authority apart from religion that could legitimize the opposition, the sympathizers of CUP discovered that clamorous opposition, shrouded in religious motifs, was the best way of guaranteeing the future of their movement, of legitimizing it and of delegitimizing the regime of Abdulhamid II. This became more urgent as Abdulhamid II and the palace increasingly labeled members of the opposition as ‘irreligious’ ‘traitors’, ‘intriguers’, ‘immoral’, ‘lacking in patriotism’, and ‘bandits’, this increasing tension by appealing to religious sentiments. So the ulema, who had not yet gone into action, were urged to do so through celebrations, persuasion, threats, satire and contempt.
….
It is strange that a member of the Ottoman ulema should question the legitimacy of the title of caliph of Sultan Selim I, but the real aim of this discussion is to establish an historical framework that would delegitimize the titles of caliph and sultan held by Abdulhamid II and diminish his reputation. If the author could establish that the title of caliph held by the Ottoman dynasty was an usurpation obtained by massacring thousands of Muslims then the caliphate and sultanate of Abdulhamid II would be null a pirori. Similar ideas, and the notion of the caliph as a member of the Quraysh tribe were first created as a political maneuver by English functionaries in India and developed by London newspapers in order to weaken the power and influence of the Ottoman state over the Islamic world. That such ideas questioning the legitimacy of the Ottoman caliphate were adopted after a decade by the ulema and presented as if they constituted a local and religious question illustrates the ulema’s political situation and the loss of their ability to use their own judgment to follow and interpret political developments.
The conclusion expounds on the subjects touched on in the introduction of the pamphlet. It reiterates the need to weaken absolute obedience to the caliph and, consequently to Abdulhamid II, and the need for outright disobedience; it reinterprets the verse of the Koran ordering obedience to established authorities in a way that excludes sultans and emirs and includes ‘learned mystics with the capacity of governing people’; and it includes a defence of a constitutional, even republican, regime in place of the caliphate-sultanate. It also stresses the need for consultation and to found a parliament, which is considered as a synonym for ‘a council of the Muslim community and a national council, both of which are a religious necessity’. The final ‘personal comment’ frequently points to the affinity between the ulema and the CUP opposition.
..
As in the case of Imamet ve Hilafet Risalesi, the author remains anonymous, but to increase his legitimacy, credibility, influence and also his potential threat, he is described as ‘the most virtuous scholar’. The Egyptian branch of CUP published this pamphlet twice in 1896. It must have been one of the first joint acts (or the first) by the recently formed CUP, the opposition and the ulema. The fact that – to our knowledge – it is the first pamphlet in which the CUP is mentioned by name increases its importance. The cover states that the publication was made in conformity wit hthe CUP regulations (Article 21).
The aim of this publication was to incite the ulema to revolt against the authorities, while at the same time asking the authorities to grant a constitution, and attempting to politicize the Muslim community. Its political aims were important and clear. It was successful in using cherished symbols and in playing on common sentiments in a provocative language.
(Late Ottoman society: the intellectual legacy (2005) By Elisabeth Özdalga)
Recent attacks by France’s President Nikolas Sarkozy have brought new attention to traditional Muslim dress. Sarkozy is quoted as saying, to Parliament:
The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly,” he said. “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.
This is after they have already banned the Hijab in the public sphere, such as schools and government offices:
“The protesters condemned last week’s announcement by the mayor of Nogent-sur-Marne, a Paris suburb, that he would refuse to marry any woman arriving for a civil wedding in a headscarf.”
As usual, the atheistic secular humanists are not satisfied with such statements, for on the face of it, they could be easily be taken as bigoted. So now they reach towards ‘science’ to justify oppressive words and practices. And haven’t we all have agreed that ‘science’ is impartial?
What all this means is if you’re a typical woman from the Middle East, one of the worst things to do, in terms of health, is to don a burka every time you step foot outside.
It is true Vitamin D deficiency is found in many countries around the globe, north and south.
The Middle East, however, has been noted in a number of scientific studies over the years as a particularly problematic area in this regard. Many of these same studies have singled out the garments worn by many women there, like the burka and niqab, as significant factors in reducing exposure to sunlight.
Schneidereit doesn’t hide his bias, stating that “That said, let me be clear that I agree with the thrust of what Sarkozy stated”.
At the same time he believes that since it’s scientifically “unhealthy”, there is no need to engage with the “political, cultural or religious aspects” of this debate. In other words, why actually talk about this? Why seek to understand the burka, what it represents and how complex of an issue this really is? It’s unhealthy!
The article is missing a whole lot of science and is instead filled with a whole lot of uncited opinions. One actual scientific study conducted on Arab women in Michigan came to interesting conclusions directly about the veil and the relationship to Vitamin D:
“RESULTS: Eighty-seven women participated. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were uniformly low“
In other words, unveiled Arab women are also deeply deficient in Vitamin D. While the currently advertised ‘optimum level’ is 35–55 ng/mL, the breakdown of the women with the highest levels was as follows:
Unveiled – Combination Supplemented and Unsupplemented:
8.5 ng/mL [5.75-13.5 ng/mL])
Veiled & Taking Vitamin Supplements:
7 ng/mL [4-11.5 ng/mL]
Veiled, Unsupplemented:
4 ng/mL [2-6.8 ng/mL]
Note the range, some veiled, unsupplemented women actually had higher levels of Vitamin D than the some completely unveiled women.
Unveiled Arab women seem to already have a natural ‘deficiency’ according to the standards outlined by the medical community today. The unveiled women were only getting 25% of the daily recommended value, the unveiled women with supplements 20%, and the unveiled women without supplements – 11%.
When there is a gap of 75% deviation from recommended values even in the unveiled women, this indicates other issues such as genetics, diet, and environment have a bigger influence on the ‘problem’ than simply blaming the veil.
In fact, the study states that its variable considerations (which primarily focused on the veil and supplements) were insufficient to explain the Vitamin D deficiency:
Our participants had exceedingly low concentrations of
25-hydroxyvitamin D (<10 ng/mL), with the concentrations
decreasing as the groups progressed from unveiled
to veiled with supplements and to veiled without supplements.
Clearly, our variables are insufficient to explain
the entire deficit in 25-hydroxyvitamin D.
Armed with actual facts, we now take a look at the motivations behind articles such as Schneidereit’s. To base an opinion about the extermination of cultural or religious expression based on narrow-minded and selective ‘science’ is reminiscent of eugenics. Eugenics is defined:
“”the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).”
-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenics
By considering the burka as proven ‘scientifically’ inferior, Schneidereit believes enough justification is present to ignore the deep context surrounding this mode of dress and simply close the book on the burka forever. This is not far from those who considered Jews worthy of extermination based on slipshod science which justified their opinions about the quality of their race. We’ve entered the era of mainstream cultural eugenics.
Not only has Schneidereit ignored actual studies which demonstrate the minimal aspect to the veil, but by ignoring social context he has left aside important facts.
Why is it not relevant that veiled women do not wear veils in their comfort and privacy of their own homes and gardens? When determining an overall position on the veil, why is it not scientific to consider that incidence of skin cancer is dramatically lower in the sun-blazing Middle East and its relationship to the veil?
Moreover, why is it socially acceptable to promote near nudity in tanning and sunbathing as a valid cultural expression when its only debatable benefit is cosmetic and results in dramatic rise in incidence of skin cancer?
Gai Eaton addresses this problem of non-specialists deriving social policy based on inaccurate scientific notions:
What matters, from this point of view, is not the pure form of a particular theory but the form in which it has been popularized, processed through the educational machine and assimilated by the masses. Religious (or metaphysical) ideas, when they penetrate whole populations within a traditional environment, may adopt simplified and what might be described as “picturesque” forms without thereby sacrificing either integrity or effectiveness, but secular and scientific notions soon become slipshod and inaccurate when they are popularized.
-Gai Eaton, “Knowledge and its Counterfeits”
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 
