Towards the middle of the nineteenth century, various European Masonic obediences set up lodges throughout the Ottoman empire, many in Istanbul, while another important centre was Smyrna. Freemasons were also active in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Cyprus and Macedonia. Lodges were established in the main political, economic and cultural centres of the Empire. There was a strong parallelism between the Ottoman Masonic geography and that of European colonial expansion. It is easy to delineate the social and ethnic structure of lodges, but we know less about what was going on behind the walls of Masonic temples. For sure, Ottoman Freemasons, like their brethren in other parts of the world, when not busy with ‘table works’ or ceremonies, dedicated themselves to philanthropic activities. A considerable part of the annual income of the lodges was used to finance various charitable works (assistance to orphans, to brethren in distress …) and to fund educational institutions. The lodges were also places for the discussion and exchange of ideas about current themes: socialism, feminism, venereal diseases, progress of science, etc. Some mingled with politics, displaying a highly nationalistic discourse. The politicization of Ottoman/Turkish freemasonry climaxed during the years of the Young Turk revolution (1908–1914), when an autochthonous obedience was created. One of the goals of the new organization, coldly received by most European freemasonries, was to rid the Ottoman Empire of foreign penetration. After the proclamation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, this national freemasonry continued to flourish, except for 13 years between 1935 and 1948 when Masonic activity was banned.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=EF33F4826E94713591111F9888132C04.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=318561
A few Naqshbandi shaykhs cultivated relations with Ottoman sultans. We recall Ishaq Bukahri al-Hindi, for whom Sultan Mehmed II built the first Naqshbandi tekke of the capital shortly after the conquest [6]. Uzun Muslihuddin, a khalifa of Ahmad Bukahri from the area of Kastamonu near the Black Sea, had Sultan Bayezid II remove an ‘injustice’ (zulm) against the local population, having informed the sultan that local “pious people” had seen the Prophet “saddened” in their dreams [7]. Ahmad Sadiq Tashkandi and Sa’ban Efendi were both close to Sultan Murad III, the first perhaps initiating him into the tariqa and the second having him visit his tekke in the Fatih district on several occasions. When Ahmad Sadiq died in the plague of 994/1586, the sultan is said to have suspended the work of the Imperial Council for three days [8]. However, the relations that all these individuals established with the members of the Ottoman dynasty and governing elite were squarely within the traditional mold of Sufi Shaykhs extending spiritual advice, guidance, and sustenance to the powerful in exchange for patronage. Not one of these individuals was involved in dynastic or factional conflicts or influenced crucial political decisions. In other words, none of this amounted to anything close to Ahrarian politics.
ref: Le Gall, Dina (2005). A Culture of Sufism: Naqshbandi’s in the Ottoman World, 1450-1700 (pg 139) New York: State University of New York Press.
[6] Ayvansarayi, Hadikat ul-cevami, 1:219
[7] Taskopruzade, Shaqaiq, 1:561-62; Baldirzade, Revzat el-evliya, 37a; Belig-iBursevi, Guldeste-i riyaz, 180
[8] On the first, see Sadiqi, Manhaj, 11b-12a; NEvizade Atai, Hadaik, 362; Selaniki, Ta’rih-i Selaniki (Freiburg reprint), 211-12. On the second, Mustafa b. Hayreddin, Silsile-i hocagan, 14b; Nevizade Atai, Hadaik, 371-72, 380; Selaniki Tarih-i Selaniki (ed. Mehmet Ipsirli), 1:343-44
Comments:
A clearer picture of Naksibendi relations with politics emerges. They had little to do with political squabbles, but often represented the interests of the weak to the powerful.
The character of the Sultans is again demonstrated as it wasn’t Shaykhs visiting Sultans, but Sultans visiting and sitting at the feet of Shaykhs in Fatih district of Istanbul.
Which political leader of today would react to an injustice on the account of a Shaykh’s recounting of a dream of the Prophet (S)?
Le Gall says spiritual advice was given in exchange for patronage, but discounts the reality that this advice was given to commoners who had no patronage to give as well. The understanding of the wealthy giving sadaqa to support dergahs which fed and housed the poor and the saintly is somewhat beyond the scope of a Non-Muslim reading of sufism.
People are ambitious in life, they seek to be the biggest and best at whatever it is they do. The goal of most peoples lives boils down to making the most money, earning the most fame, or otherwise being the best at whatever it is they do. Seems somewhat reasonable to live life in this manner, doesn’t it? It certainly provides for a comfortable lifestyle, if successful.
This type of lifestyle is in contrast to those who are perfectly happy in positions that provide for their basic necessities. These are the ones who deliberately don’t want to be exceptional at what they do, because they feel it introduces them to greater problems of politics and insecurity.
So there they are: the ambitious and the unambitious.
Of course there are consequences to both approaches, the people ambitious for the world are often deeply unhappy, finding little satisfaction in anything they do. Any level they achieve is a step down in some aspect of their personal life. Often the unambitious are content and live very fulfilling lives, however they may worry occasionally about their basic needs.
There is also a flip-side, an ‘alternative universe’, of ambition.
In this parallel understanding there is different target and goal for the ambitious, and another way to be unconcerned for the unambitious. When examining the results of pursuing and running away from this form of ambition, we find that it has almost opposite consequences to what we might normally think. The more ambitious ones are the ones finding peace, the less ambitious ones are the ones finding concerns. This is the realm of spirituality.
For modern day people of faith, this may be a perplexing idea. Ambition? Spirituality?
Ambition inherently involves ranks and gain. And modern day spirituality has been the great ‘equalizer’, everyone has become the same. For Muslim literalists, this is even more true. They refuse to accept spiritual training in a manner which inherently depends on recognizing the spiritual superiority of ones teacher. For them, the questions become asinine repetitions of “How do you know that teacher is not going to hell fire? No one knows!”
Didn’t Allah order us to be with the Saliheen? Is that not in itself a recognition of levels better than us? If our hearts are closed enough not to recognize the Saliheen when we sit with them, or constantly question whether they are going to hellfire or not, then certainly progress is impossible. We haven’t even applied for the school, so how do we plan to attend the class, much less get an A?
Being spiritually ambitious is about getting that A (or an A+, if we can manage)!
At the same time, in an interesting twist, the goal for getting that high grade of character involves humbling oneself to the point of servitude. The highest title the spiritual aspirant hopes to achieve is, in fact, “Servant of Allah”. Abdullah. The highest rank for the spiritually ambitious is to lose oneself in servanthood.
And ranks and levels have been a part of creation forever , whether it be ranking of angels or mankind. There are so many practical examples of the levels of spirituality. For example, when presented with the opportunity to give wealth for the sake of their Lord, it was Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (R) who gave all of his wealth away, this story is recounted by Umar (R):
From Abu Daud: Umar ibn Al-Khattab said: The Prophet (sas) ordered us to give sadaqa. It happened to coincide with some wealth I had just acquired and I said to myself: If I will ever surpass Abu Bakr, this is the day I will surpass him. And so I came to the Prophet (sas) with half of my wealth and he (sas) said to me: “What have you left for your family?” I said: The same amount. Then Abu Bakr came with all of his wealth. The Prophet (sas) said to him: “What have you left for your family?” He said: I have left them Allah and His Messenger.” I said: I will never surpass you in anything.”
So, indeed, the Sahabi were knowing the rank of each other in spiritual endeavors.
Yet, this should not be mistaken for a competition for a crude worldly recognition. In fact, in this flip-side world of the ambition of the spiritually elite, the goal is less recognition! The less you want to be known, the more Allah may cause you to be known. The less highly you think of yourself, the higher Allah makes you.
Again, the case of Abu Bakr (R) and how he was given the authority as the Khaliph of Islam, yet witness the humility of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (R):
“I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you. If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right. Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery. The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God will; and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God will. Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger (Muhammad, pbuh). But if I disobey God and His Messenger, ye owe me no obedience. Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you.”
These are not mere words to be read and passed by, they are witness to the spiritual struggle that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (R) underwent. From the very first line Abu Bakr (R) is acknowledging the authority has been given to him. This is specifically contrary to how modern day people like to believe, we like to think we ‘earn’ things.
If we look further, we find the next gem: “I am not the best of you”.
This is not the pretentious and pretending humility that fills our world today, rather this is the reflection of the true belief that he was indeed lower than others. With that acknowledgment, we see that Allah opened the door for complete authority of all Muslims to him. But not only did Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (R) not desire this position and not seek it, he also didn’t even desire the salary from it, and continued for some time his clothing trade while ruling the Muslim empire until he was forced to stop by the people.
How can we achieve levels such as this? Achieving clarity of purpose and a state of mind which produced such character is purely an imaginary fantasy for us when being raised in a society filled with such deviancy. Can we hope to do so in the same exact manner as the Sahabi? I am quite certain there are acts, positions and parts of the human body, violences that they have never imagined much less witnessed, that you have both imagined and witnessed. Is that not a scar on your soul? Do you feel it?
In a world where even writing this article seems doomed to spiritual failure, not only due to the faults of the author, but due to the spiritual bankruptcy of the very language we communicate with, how are we hoping to make it ‘on our own’?
Without being spiritually ambitious how can we hope to escape from this? Certainly realizing our weakness is one of the first steps. Then comes understanding that in these days we must follow a path which has been adapted to take us from this disastrous situation to one of progress.
It is the spiritually ambitious who make the struggle against the ego, the greater struggle, one of the highest priority in their lives in order to progress. Removing that drive for worldly gains and turning it into one of spiritual gains is a reality which leads them to the path of spiritual training, now called ‘sufism’. In this way, certainly, we might be expected to be doing real things which others would deem ‘extreme’ for Allah’s sake (just as Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (R) did with his wealth, just as Ibrahim (AS) did with his son), since without struggle and sacrifice, progress is an illusion.
But arbitrary self sacrifice (as perceived by us) is no guarantee to progress. Rather this first involves enrolling in a ‘school’ which seeks to train you in this specific regard. Let it be known that not all of these schools are equal either, there are kindergarten levels, high schools, and colleges. The Naksibendi order of Sufism traces its lineage back to Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (R), and in this same manner the Tarikat aims to bring its initiates to the highest levels of spirituality and character following Abu Bakr as-Siddiq’s (R) example.
Yes, at a fundamental level all of this involves following the Sunnah of the Prophet (S) which any person believes they can read up on and understand. But there is something more to Abu Bakr’s (R) approach, something which all of the other Sahabi recognized. This somewhat amorphous quality of spiritual insight is what the spiritually ambitious are after.
Of course, there are also those who are content to ‘pass’, to do the basics and move on when it comes to spirituality. Alhamdulillah, the Prophet (S) met many who questioned him to know exactly that. What is the bare minimum in order to pass this examination of life? He delivered the instructions that we all know. However, we know our states and how much we waver. When we are at the pass fail mark its much easier to fall into the negative.
So, just like there were those who are content to simply pass, there are those of us who seek a bit more, and the benefits of living a lifestyle such as that bring a serenity and peace and success in both lives.
So, in our own weak way, we are trying to be a little spiritually ambitious. Of course, we hope to do so without building even an ounce of pride, for that in itself would be contrary to our ambition!
From sohbet of Sheykh Maulana:
“Look, a king may have thousands of subjects in his employ. Each of the king’s servants has a distinct rank and a distinct duty to perform. The King will be pleased with the servant who performs the duty that has been assigned him well, as pleased with the common infantryman as with a Field Marshall. That Field Marshall has an awesome responsibility towards his king, and he will have attained that rank, presumably, because he is qualified for it, and will be expected to live up to his immense responsibilities. But the foot soldier is not expected to perform the duties of a Field Marshall; his duties are simpler, but they are also important, and doing them will earn the good pleasure of the king.
And so, Allah Almighty has called all mankind to His service, everyone according to his rank. According to her circumstance that elderly woman was given a light load, and if she carried it well, she will be rewarded. If you are carrying more than that you must persevere in carrying your appointed burden and not throw it off halfway towards your goal — then you may attain your Lord’s pleasure.
And you should know also that a Field Marshall should not be proud because of his position, glorying in the edge that he has over those who have been assigned lower ranks. He must be thankful to his king who has honored him with such responsibilities, and must strive to fulfill that trust. It is not seemly for him to boast and gloat, saying ‘I am a Field Marshall.’”
InshaAllah, I will be wrapping up the few more select excerpts from this book and then provide my thoughts and rationale in sharing these snippets.
–
‘Of bigoted Mussalman’, Bara Banki’s settlement officer conceded, “I have little personal knowledge; these men either stay at their own houses or keep their bigotry to themselves in government service’ [1] This simple observation says a lot about Awadh’s qasba life in the second half of the nineteenth century.
A devout Muslim told Meer Hasan Ali about the strong similarities between his community and the Hindu population: “the out-of-door celebrations of marriage festivals, for instance, which are so nearly resembling each other, in the same classes of society, that scarcely any difference can be discovered by the common observer” More than a century later, a leading scholar at Lucknow’s Nadwat al-ulama opined that social life of India’s Muslims did not present any marked difference from the cultural norms and pattern around them. Distinctive features, customs, and manners, too, like those of their local compatriots, marked their culture [2]
In other words, besides differences and distinctions there were also relationships and interactions.
Today, the history of Islam in South Asia – the writing of which has always been peculiarly susceptible to the climate of current politics – demands a serious intellectual reassessment. The historian Aziz Ahmed (1913-1978) refers to ‘the alternating and simultaneous process of mutual attraction and repulsions’ in medieval Indian society. Steering clear of such generalizations, I suggest that the qasbas predisposed ashraf or families comprising the gentry to the rational and ethical dimensions of Islam, to the virtues of charity, tolerance, generosity, good neighbourly conduct, and to those elements of piety that go into the making of the Perfect Man or Insan -e Kamil. Without denying the existence of negative critiques or the wide gap between ideals and reality, I draw attention to one Weltanschauung of significance, the rationalist and humanist construction of Islam. To be educated in the second half of the nineteenth century meant to be steeped in those values, and promised signity and advancement in life. Hence the comment that, presumably, alludes to such people, especially the aspiring intellectuals: “The Mussalamans of Oudh cannot, as a body, be accused of bigotry or intolerance” [3] This is corroborated by Meer Hasan Ali’s experience in Lucknow, of being received without prejudice, and allowed to observe her European habits and Christian faith. [4] Some, if not all, the men who figure in her narrative thus became typical carriers of moral and ethical piety or akhuwat, in the qasbas.
Excerpted from “Pluralism to Seperatism Qasbas in Colonial Awadh”
Mushirul Hasan – Oxford University Press
[1] Chamier, Report, p51
[2] S.A.H.A Nadwi The Masalman (Luikcnow 1977) p41
[3] Irwin Garden of India, p 38
[4] Ali, Observations on the Mussulmans of India Vol 2. p 424
BismillahirRahmanirRahim
The parable of those who spend
of their substance in the way of Allah
is that of a grain of corn:
It grows seven ears, and each ear has a hundred grains.
Allah gives manifold increase to whom He pleases;
And Allah cares for all and He knows all things.
Qur’an (2:261)
One Islamic understanding about charity is that money you give will directly bring reward to you, if not in this world but in the hereafter. Interestingly enough, the reward in this world has been directly measured and shown to have a distinct relationship to the money your give. That is right, as odd as it may sound to some, giving money has actually been economically proven to cause you to gain money!
SubhanAllah, the things Islam contains within it benefit people in this world and in the Day of Judgement. Of course, the secular article below attempts to explain it away with various worldly factors, but the prediction of this growth of wealth from giving is clear in the Quran. And Muslims know the source of all their sustenance is with their Lord.
Charity Makes Wealth – Portfolio.com [click for full article]
This is precisely what is found in the S.C.C.B.S. data: More giving doesn’t just correlate with higher income; it causes higher income. And not just a little. Imagine two families that are identical in size, age, race, education, religion, and politics. The only difference is that this year the first family gives away $100 more than the second. Based on my analysis of the S.C.C.B.S. survey, the first family will, on average, earn $375 more as a result of its generosity.
How can this be? Is it a statistical anomaly—or even a metaphysical phenomenon? While the link between giving and prosperity is not as mechanistic as returns on municipal bonds, there are some very earthbound explanations for it. Psychologists and neuroscientists have identified several ways that giving makes us more effective and successful. For example, new research from the University of Oregon finds that charity stimulates parts of the brain called the caudate nucleus and the nucleus accumbens, which are associated with meeting basic needs such as food and shelter—suggesting to the researchers that our brains know that giving is good for us. Experiments have also found that people are elevated by others into positions of leadership after they are witnessed behaving charitably.
The financial advantages of giving aren’t limited to individual givers. There is also evidence that donations push up income even more at the level of an entire nation’s economy. We can demonstrate this by looking at average household charity and per capita G.D.P. as they change over time. Charity and G.D.P. levels have moved together over the years. Corrected for inflation and population changes, U.S. government data show that G.D.P. per person in America has risen over the past 50 years by about 150 percent. At the same time, donated dollars per person have risen by about 190 percent.
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 