Umar Lee writes here:
1) Islam is attempting to be defeated by ‘Sufis’ supported by think-tanks such as the ‘Rand Institute’.
Part of the RIM line of thinking is to invent an Islam that is completely detached from politics. Instead of looking at those Muslim leaders, such as Imam Hasan al-Banna, who saw the modern world , colonialism and Western domination and developed a system based on Islamic principals to reform Muslim societies based on the principals of the Sunnah, and admiring them, RIMS call this “Islamist Modernism” as they sit in non-Muslim countries in their affluence.
The historic role of many Muslim organizations in America has been to raise money for and support groups in Muslim countries seeking to reform their societies based on the principals of al-Islam. RIMS reject this. They want no part of helping any Islamic Movement and even slander those engaged in the revival. Simultaneously they are at peace with many corrupt Muslim regimes and are joined at the hip in fighting the Islamic Movement which they both seek to destroy. They cede the public and political life of Muslim societies to secular forces and opt to relegate the role of Islam to the home and family life.
In America RIMS use their position to claim the role of good harmless upper-class Western Muslims who have no affinity for, or attachment to, those misguided Third World Muslim movements trying to establish Sharia and remove tyrants. While the Islamic Revival is working in the trenches of Muslim societies to reform; RIMS prefer to sit in circles and make dhikr and make duah that one day a miracle will occur and everything will change. Those RIMS in America sit in coffee shops using language strange to Muslims, but well-known to grad students of liberal arts colleges, to distance themselves from the dirty masses in the revival.
Which category do we put people such as Umar Lee, a white convert to Islam, dictating to us what Islam really means, while wearing his beret backwards? Muslims will inshaAllah have justice, but it will be on our terms Umar Lee. It won’t be in the terms of ‘revolution’ or ‘democracy’ with ‘political parties’. If a 100 years of history haven’t shown you that, then its time to write up “Rise and Fall of the American-Convert-pseudo-Salafi-Worldview”.
Our Sufi forefathers fought actual Jihad, our grandfathers are buried in Muslims graveyards and we visit them. ‘Sufism’ as a tradition contains wisdom from 1400 years of thought and action (including battle). Your ideas came from your own ego, yesterday.
One of the aspects of the Dajjalic freemasonic system is to create and promote two sides which are, ostensibly, against each other, but driven by the same agendas and methodologies. In other words, the world is filled with opposing teams, but they are playing the same game, they follow the same rules, and their continued success is connected to when the game succeeds.
Succeeding in ‘politics’ got us Ellison, that turned out well didn’t it? Ellison voted ‘present’ on HRES 34.
Succeeding in ‘politics’ got the Gazan people, Hamas. Where is their victory? Are the body counts truly affecting any side of this?
Who was it that killed Aslan Mashkadov, who fought a real sufi jihad? Which burning cancer came in to destroy that righteous movement which led to numerous successes?
We don’t have to be ‘Rand Institute Muslims’ to recognize that Hamas is an entity which exists for its own nationalistic agendas. And last time I checked, nationalistic agendas are in direct contradiction with the Khalifat. The choice Umar Lee gives us is: either buy into this new age of “Islamic states”, which will one day be able to exist for longer than 6 months, through the power of Allah, and ‘elect’ a Khalifa through their new-found-brotherhood-ness or…. be a sell-out. This is ridiculous.
It is above and beyond the ‘Rand System’ to create entities and personalities who simply advocate for Islam as a ‘side’ in this twisted game, rather than recognizing how deep the rabbit hole goes.
How do you establish Shariat through a constitution and by-laws? How do you establish Shariat without a Khalifa? Where is their nominee? Where is his success?
Umar Lee’s political positions are so confused between his actual genuine anger and post-modern government rhetoric that in one of his online videos, I would think that the first part of his video (speaking of the terrorism of the West), would make fun of the second part of his video (whose height of direction is to suggest Muslims in the West to stop the blockade of aide.. the how is not specified.).
This is your jihad Umar? A blog and a video? And you stand ready to criticize, who exactly?
http://umarlee.com/2009/01/04/video-response-to-ground-invasion-of-gaza/
Umar Lee, I suggest you watch this video of someone who actually fought for Islams sake:
Most Muslims, even so called ‘traditional’ Muslims, carry a wide gap of knowledge when dealing with their tradition. That gap is history.
Indeed, the history of Muslim nations may not be relevant to ones personal faith. Faith is faith, and nation is nation. Yet, Islam is a faith that, as espoused by most Muslims, contains answers for matters of public utility and the foundation and details of creating a just, moral nation. Hence, various political organizations have come into being, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb Tahrir, and numerous so-called ‘Islamists’ groups. Most educated Muslims are familiar with them and their efforts in attempting to inject Islam piece-meal into the political landscape.
Unfortunately, the pieces these groups try to inject are usually in the wrong order, if not the wrong pieces all together.
The efforts of these organizations are usually of some interest to Muslims in their active regions. They work on educating many Muslims towards a ‘proper’ understanding of their faith (as understood through the lens of their own political machinations). Generally their explanation of Islam is completely ahistorical, and that is because a historical view of the practice of the faith is actually completely contrary to their rigid interpretation of the religion.
The history of Islamic nations is only as useful to Muslims in as much as it can be used to bolster their self-confidence. When we speak of Muslims contribution to mathematics, the sciences of optics, and medicine, we feel satisfaction that Islam brought progress to humanity. Yet, we are so easily able to forget and dismiss the leadership which created the environment which allowed people of different faiths to come together, a society which carried and defended Islam in the first place. Instead, many Muslims have bought into a fake historical tale which was put together by the combining the gossip and imaginations of the enemies of Islam.
Let us put analysis of successes aside, as most modern Muslims may tend to avoid that subject to concentrate on the ever-important ‘present’. These are the ones who would say, “Why should I care about what happened so long ago?” Often the verse of the Quran is quoted to further cement that disconnection:
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
Those are a people who have passed away; theirs is that which they earned and yours that which ye earn. And ye will not be asked of what they used to do. (2:141)
However, it is an odd contradiction that these same people will clamor over learning and understanding classical Arabic so they can spend time reading fiqh and aqeedah works from centuries past, whether it be Imam Ghazali or Ibn Tayimiyya. For some reason, these ancient people and texts are extremely important and relevant. How can it be then, that the lifestyle, texts and manners of a living, thriving, Muslim society of not only 100 years ago is completely irrelevant?
One might say that the aforementioned figures were giants in their field, and that is what gives them the right to be studied today. Yet, they too have passed away, and their teachings are not being carried by any nation. Unlike the nations gone astray mentioned in the Quranic Ayat, the Ottomans were and are Muslims, and Muslims are not a nation that has passed. We are not a people to forget the legacy of our greatest leaders and teachers.
Let us put aside that the direct spiritual inheritors of the Ottoman example live today, the Sultans were also giants in their field, which was Islamic leadership and with strength and tolerance. The awliya of the time were also giants, and yet we learn very little of their lives and how they practiced Islam as a reality. Put that aside, we are so disconnected that we learn very little how even the average Muslim lived their lives.
This present-centric Muslim will, focusing on the news of the day, speak of the problems and depravities of the various modern day states. “Lashing a woman for being raped? Bombings in Palestine? Heads rolling in Iraq? That is not part of Islam!”
Yes, you are right it is not part of Islam, but other people seem to think otherwise, so who should we choose from to represent Islam? The Saudi’s are doing the lashing. The bombings continue by Palestinian groups. And the heads are still rolling in Iraq by those proclaiming “AllahuAkbar!”.
So is it only a purely theoretical, personal Islam that we have to present as a proof of a different understanding of Islam to the world and to our own selves? Are Muslims and Islam becoming like college students wearing dark rimmed glasses professing communism: an ideal which never reaches any practicable form? Or are we only somewhat controllable and palatable as a faith and as a nation when we are living within the boundaries of a westernized host-state?
Why don’t we count on the simple reality that not only a hundred years ago, the Islamic world was much more compassionate, considerate, and just?
The relationship between our generation and the Ottomans should be very tight indeed. Yet, often Muslims know more about the Abbasids or the times of Andalus (if even that), than they know of the Ottoman Sultan prophesized by the hadith:
“Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will her
leader be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!” -Hadith (related: Ahmed, Bukhari)
Not only was the Ottoman empire ended not yet a hundred years ago from our time period, it ruled for over 600 years leading Muslims into an environment of modern day diplomacy, economics, and approaching globalization. Frankly, it is the circumstances of the Ottoman Empire which closely match the challenges that Muslims of today have faced, and it is in their example that we may find numerous answers towards dealing with the modern world.
For traditional Muslims this is even more of an important connection. The reality is that when Wahabis and Salafis speak of ‘returning’ to the Quran and Sunnah, it is largely the Ottomans which they wish to forget. It is the Ottomans they took up arms against. In fact, it is the Ottomans that carried what is commonly understood as “traditional” Islam in its spiritual and political form together as a reality. It was in Ottoman times that the Sultans that came to sit at the feet of the Sheykhs of the true Sufi orders.
Modern day Muslims are usually pleasantly surprised to learn only a sample of the true facts of the Ottoman Empire. Through those facts, the last great Islamic empire becomes understood as highly educated, sober and scrupulous about Islam’s edicts, charitible, and scientific. As a consequence, the false history written largely by combining the medieval gossip and conjecture of the enemies of Muslims becomes obliterated.
However, Muslims may say, “The Ottoman Sultans ultimately failed.” Or, even more disturbing (and slightly obscene when compared to the facts ), they will attempt portray the Ottoman Sultans as corrupt (and hence why they lost their power). On the other hand, high scholars such as Mufti Taqi Usmani and Sheykh Abdul Hakim Murad have written about the departure of power from the Sultans in a completely different light:
This was the beginning of the Uthmaani or Muslim reign over Istanbul and Turkey which lasted for five centuries. The Uthmaani Sultans reigned over it with great splendour and it ended in the beginning of the twentieth century through the treachery of Kamal Ata Turk, and the secular state which came into being. – Mufti Taqi Usmani
Shaikh Abdul Hakim Murad’s work on the Ottomans is a testament to his study on the matter, and his fluency in the Ottoman tongue gives him unique access to the records relevant to coming to appropriate conclusions. What was his take on the downfall of the Ottomans?
Much of the recent history of the Umma can be understood as the simple consequence of ghafla – of heedlessness of Allah ta‘ala. The Ottoman empire, for instance, is a good example. By Allah’s decree and permission, this state continued for an astonishing six hundred years or more, from 1280 until 1924. In fact, the Ottoman sultans were the longest-reigning of any significant dynasty in world history. No family, in China, India, Europe or anywhere else, ruled for so long. And the achievement is the more remarkable when we look at the size and the diversity of the empire. Many races, religions and languages were present; there was no obvious unifying criterion for all the sultan’s subjects; and yet the empire endured.
It is not difficult to see why Allah should have given the Ottoman state such success. The sultans always respected the ulema and the shuyukh: Sultan Mehmed, who liberated Constantinople from the Byzantine oppression, was the disciple of Ak Shamsuddin, himself of the lineage of Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, radiya’Llahu anhu. With such men to pray for them, the early sultans could hardly be defeated in battle. Another factor in Ottoman success was the insistence of the Ottoman ulema on tolerating differences of opinions among Muslims. All classical writers on Muslim political theory have taken to heart Imam al-Ghazali’s insistence that the Muslims are never served by attempts to impose one narrow definition of the faith on everyone else. That kind of totalitarian approach results only in hatred and civil war, bringing misery and weakness to the Muslim community.
The Ottoman demise resulted not from the adoption of a narrow definition of Islam that set Muslim against Muslim, but from a thoughtless Westernisation among the ruling classes. Adopting the materialism of Western Europe, the Ottoman nobility and middle classes began to abandon the Sunna. The turban began to disappear, followed by the remainder of Muslim dress. Houses began to be designed to bring the sexes together, rather than to separate them. The mosques in rich sections of town emptied, except on Fridays. And the high men of the state, with some exceptions, were increasingly reluctant to ask the great ulema for their prayers.
The Ottoman empire ended, effectively, with the First World War. Sultan Abd al-Hamid had been overthrown by a Westernising clique which then decided to bring the empire into the war which ended in its dismemberment. If the Ottomans had remained loyal to the Sunna, and hence avoided injustice, bribery, and weakness on the field of battle, the Ottoman state would in all probability be in existence today, and its model of an Islam which tolerates diversity would still prevail, instead of the nervous, intolerant little groups which fill the Islamic scene today.
The Sultan may have been removed by ‘the people’, but it was not the Sultans who suffered as a result of people choosing unbelief over belief. They lived fairly simple lives before and after the removal of power, Sultan Abdul Hamid died continuing his love for carpentry. It is us, the people, who have suffered.
In any event, this is not a call to a new political party or some other form of obtuse power play. The spiritual inheritors to the Ottomans are making subtle preparations awaiting Imam Mahdi (AS) rather than making bold power moves. Rather this is a small reminder that when understanding things about our tradition, the Ottomans should not be forgotten. And it is a history which should be learned at the feet of one of those spiritual inheritors.
It is there we dropped the flag, and it will be from there that Muslims will pick it up.
A wave of energy sweeps through each generation of Muslims, leaving some stuck to specific organizations and ideologies, and quite a few left in the wake of disillusionment. They are the ones living on the sidelines, looking in. For these people all of the debates are just too much, all of the articles are just too much, and all of the people involved are just too much. It is these ones who believe they have struck gold by sticking to a middle way, a way which allows them to observe extremes on all sides of the spectrum.
What is interesting about this approach is that it is developed solely based on extremely superficial understandings of the groups involved. For those unstudied in the subtleties of the major issues, Ikhwanis become solely political activists, Salafis become strict legalists, and Sufis are the liberal spiritualists. From the perspective of the outsiders, each is willing to sacrifice the truth for their banner philosophy.
Yet the reality is that even these other groups (from the traditional point of view), have a far broader reality than simply each upholding one or another virtue of Islam to an extreme.
The reality is that Salafis are not strong legalists sticking to Shariat closely, they are literalists. Salafis end up taking some unnecessarily harsh positions of law, yes. This may make them seem superficially very stringent about Shariat. Though, at the same time, it is their wide interpretive possibilities that also end up with very lax opinions towards the law. Taking a few very mundane and crass examples of fiqh: which group deems it valid to wipe over business socks for wudu? Salafis. Who is supporting 8 rakats of Tarawih vs 20 rakats? Salafis. Who is it that believes no special significance should be given to the nights of Shabaan (Baraat), Isra wal Miraj, Mawlid? Salafis. And who spends those nights in prayer? Ahl ul Zikr.
Does all of this make Salafis more accurate? Not in my opinion.
Ikhwani’s are not solely obsessed in politics and social work, but are in fact establishing their prayers as well and Islamic studies. In fact they have roots in traditionalism, and even keep up with some practices of zikr. However, it is true, from the perspective of the traditionalist, that this is another group which has left the traditional ways of the Tariqats. By leaving the powerful line of transmission of knowledge from saint to saint, scholar to scholar that lives within the traditional ways, aspects of their movement are compromised. Thus they are focused on forcing the creation of Islamic government on earth, disconnected from the Islamic governments of the past, when the reality of the time dictates patience and connection.
Finally, Sufis are not lost in spirituality, rather they are practicing Islam as closely to the ways of the Prophetic tradition. Within the lessons taught from within Tarikat, spirituality and worldly life are balanced in the best ways possible through the real example of the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم). Following a Tarikat is simply the best means to submitting oneself to the authority of the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم) through the training that he (صلي الله عليه و سلم) gave to his Sahabi (R), and that they gave to the next generation and so on and so on, until it reached to us.
Tarikats are “Ways”, holistic practical as well as spiritual way to live Islam, representing the teachings of the Sahabi (R) from the hadith: “My Companions are like the stars; whoever among them you use for guidance, you will be rightly guided.”
Muslims taking the approach of the ‘outsider’ don’t hold to such stars, rather they carry the flag entitled “the Middle Way”, recalling the famous verse of the Quran:
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
“We made you to be a community of the middle way, so that (with the example of your lives) you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind.” (Qur’an, 2:143)
But by what measuring stick do we use to determine the middle way? Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (R) gave all his wealth away for the sake of Allah. Was that extreme? Would you, should you be so fortunate to be in their presence, be the Sahabi shaking his/her head complaining, “that is so extreme, that is against the sunnah!” Yes, some today might say so… yet, he is the aforementioned star of the Naksibendi Tarikat.
When the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم) was sleeping on a bed of rough leaves, and his wife prepared a more comfortable bed, and he (صلي الله عليه و سلم) made clear he preferred rough leaves to comfort, would you be shaking your head: “That is so extreme, no need to be uncomfortable” ?
Really, who gets to define what is extreme except for the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم), and who has a right to tell us what the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم) thought was extreme other than those connected to him through proper instruction, those with a living, breathing connection?
Do we think we can be trusted with our own judgment? We, who have been raised in a society where enormities are accepted norms and transmitted directly into our brains. What is our position in the scheme of Islamic understanding, when we have seen and witnessed with unguarded eyes and ears in five minutes that which previous generations were not able to imagine in a lifetime? Are our minds, souls and hearts made of Teflon? Are we impervious to the conditioning that occurs by living an entire lifetime in, what all the Saints have said, are the most troublesome end of times, where confusion reins free?
Are we cleansed somehow of all of this when we pick up the Quran al-Karim or Sahih Bukhari?
Do we, who have become soft and complacent to the constant chatter of gluttony, greed, lust that surrounds us, remain miraculously unaffected and unconditioned? Would you open up the books and leave the interpretive possibilities of Islam in your hands or would you trust it over to Allah and the guardianship of transmission and tradition which brings with it, at least, some safety?
When Imam Ghazali (R) found he couldn’t trust even his sense of sight or touch, why are we so comfortable in trusting our own judgment in finding the best path for us?
When will we accept one ounce of weakness from ourselves? What will it take to say, “no.. Alhamdulillah, I did not escape this dunya without scars, I need to connect myself to the Prophet’s example as taught to me by his noble inheritors who also lived and died for Islam? ”
The reality is a ‘middle way’ is a middle way when presented with two extremes. When you start defining your extremes in terms other than what the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم) taught, then your middle way has become skewed. Have we thought that what are considered ‘normal’ lives today would have been viewed as extremes by the communities before us?
The only question then becomes, did the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم) live a life of the middle way according to these individuals? Or has very selective reading of his life caused us to believe the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم) would have commanded upon us the urban/suburban/activist/seminar attending/TV-filled/sedentary/internet-based lifestyles of Muslims today?
Excerpted from:
Newsweek – On Faith
-
The Ottoman Caliphate, the supreme representative of Sunni Islam, formally abolished this penalty in the aftermath of the so-called Tanzimat reforms launched in 1839. The Sheykh al-Islam, the supreme head of the religious courts and colleges, ratified this major shift in traditional legal doctrine. It was pointed out that there is no verse in the Qur’an that lays down a punishment for apostasy (although chapter 5 verse 54 and chapter 2 verse 217 predict a punishment in the next world). It was also pointed out that the ambiguities in the hadith (the sayings of the Prophet) suggest that apostasy is only an offense when combined with the crime of treason. These ambiguities led some medieval Muslims, long before the advent of modernisation, to reject the majority view. Prominent among them one may name al-Nakha’i (d.713), al-Thawri (d.772), al-Sarakhsi (d. 1090), al-Baji (d. 1081), and al-Sha’rani (d.1565). The debate triggered by the Ottoman reform was continued when al-Azhar University in Cairo, the supreme religious authority in the Arab world, delivered a formal fatwa (religious edict) in 1958, which confirmed the abolition of the classical law in this area.
Among radical Salafis and Wahhabis who do not accept the verdicts of the Ottoman or the Azhar scholars, it is generally believed that the majority medieval view should still be enforced.
-
My comments:
The general ignorance of Muslims towards the Ottoman Caliphate, its legal process, and the true nature of its Sultans have left the door open for its history to be written largely by its enemies and detractors. Sh Abdul Hakim hints at a part of this misrepresentation when describing “so-called Tanzimat reforms”. There are few actual citations for the numerous allegations against the Sultans and Ottomans, and very little understanding when it comes to the deeply religious nature of their rule.
the truth on 
m.a.kidwai,CME/IND.RLY.(retd.) on 