Kufr Secularization – Cause of the Obliteration of the Ottoman Empire






“…When We empower them on earth (to rule), they (the Mu’mineen) establish Salaat, pay Zakaat, command righteousness, and prohibit evil. (Surah Hajj, aayat 41)

The system of government which Allah Ta’ala has ordained for Muslims long before creation of man is called Khilaafat (Vicegerency). In this system Muslim Man has been divinely appointed the Vicegerent (Representative) of Allah Azza Wa Jal. Man is termed the Vicegerent or the Khalifah, the Representative of Allah Azza Wa Jal on earth, for his obligation is the administration of Allah’s Law on earth to the servants of Allah Ta’ala. Announcing the appointment of His Vicegerent, Allah Azza Wa Jal, declared to His Angels:

“Verily, I shall create on earth a Khalifah.”

Allah’s first Khalifah on earth was Hadhrat Aadam (alayhis salaam). Subsequently all those who had administered Allah’s Law on earth were His Khulafa (plural of Khalifah). In relation to the Ummah of Islam, the first four Khulafa via the agency of being Rasulullah’s representatives, were the Khulafa of Allah Ta’ala.

The system of administration of Allah’s Law on earth is called Khilaafat. True and perfect Khilaafat relative to this Ummah consists of only the Khilaafat of the first Four Khulafa-e- Raashideen, and of the Khilaafat of Hadhrat Umar Bin Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh) who is known as Umar The Second. Whilst the Bani Umayyah, Abbaasi (Abbaside) and Uthmaani (Ottoman) Khilaafats were Islamic systems of rule, they were mere shadows of the real Khilaafat of the aforementioned Five Khulafa.

Thus, when Muslims speak of Khilaafat, the only model which is intended and which comes to mind is the Khilaafat of the Khulafae- Raashideen. It is not the khilaafat of the Bani Umayya nor 4 Abbaasi reign nor the rule of the Ottomans despite the validity of their Khilaafat. Although in theory the Shariah was the law of these three Khilaafats, the Shariah and the Sunnah did not dominate government as it had during the Khilaafat of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen. And in the latter days of the Ottoman empire the Shariah was being incrementally displaced and substituted by a policy of kufrization.

One modernist miscreant known as Ishtiaq Husain, representing some organization of deviation called Faith Matters, propagating his dystopian idea, writes in an article:

“Islamists often present the Ottoman Empire as the most recent historical precedent of their dystopian vision: according to them it was the perfect Islamic society with a model political system.”

The miscreant commenced his article with this fundamental error which has no basis in the Khilaafat concept of those who ardently desire and pray for the restoration of this divine system of governance. Since his very first fundamental premises on which he developed his corrupt argument is a fallacy, the entire quotient emerging from the baseless premises is fallacious.

When “Islamists” speak about khilaafat, the reference is to the Khilaafat of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, not to the khilaafat of Bani Umayyah nor the khilaafat of Banu Abbaas nor to the Ottoman khilaafat. The only model for true Muslims is the Sunnah, and the only Khilaafat which governed according to the Sunnah was the Khilaafat of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, and obedience to these Khulafa is a Fardh command of Islam. In this regard Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Make incumbent on you my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen.” The Ottoman Empire or the system of law and governance of the Ottoman Empire is not to be equated to the Sunnah or to the Khilaafat of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen.

In his misconceived dystopia, Mr. Ishtiaq Husain avers:

“…..This assertion is then used to support the general Islamist vision within which the establishment of an Ottoman-style empire, in the form of a Caliphate, or ‘Khalifah’, is presented as being viable, achievable and much needed.”

The writer has spoken in riddles. What does he mean by an ‘Ottoman-style empire”? The ideal of Muslims is not an ‘Ottomanstyle empire’ whatever this ambiguity may connote. The ideal is the Sunnah which is encapsulated in the Khilaafat of the Khulafae- Raashideen. By no stretch of Islamic imagination do the Ottoman Sultans constitute models for the Ummah. Our models are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan and Ali (radhiyallahu anhum), not the Ottoman Sultans, especially the final links in the chain who were eliminated by Allah Ta’ala.

When a reign becomes morally corrupt, Allah Ta’ala removes such rulers from power. The fact that the Ottoman Empire disintegrated and was finally eliminated is the evidence for Divine Chastisement which had settled on the Ottoman rulers who had veered sharply from the Shariah and the Path of true Khilaafat. Stating this fact, the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“And, if you turn away (from the Deen), He (Allah) will substitute you with another nation. Then they will not be like you.” (Muhammad, aayat 38)

The writer of the article says:

“…..rather than implementing the Shariah, the Ottomans were actually attempting to secularise their laws and state institutions. Secular reforms in the Ottoman Empire can be traced back to the 17th century. However, this paper focuses on the period of reformation better known as the Tanzimat (1839-1876). During this period, as will be demonstrated, customary and religious laws were either abolished or repealed in favour if secular European ones.”

The Kufr ‘Tanzimat’ interpolation which the writer discusses is the evidence for Allah’s Wrath and Curse which ultimately eliminated the Ottoman reign. Since the ‘Tanzimat’ brought the Ottomans within the purview of the following Qur’aanic pronouncement, the Athaab of Allah Ta’ala humiliated and destroyed them:

“Those who do not rule according to that (Shariah) revealed by Allah,
verily they are the kaafiroon.”

Continuing with his drivel, the writer says:

“Islamist activists of various stripes seek to resists reform and modernisation in the political sense by employing distorted historical facts to further their restrictive ideological goals.”

 Here the writer disgorges absolute drivel. He fails to understand the nonsense he has blurted out. Which aspects of ‘modernisation’ do the Islamists resist? What does the writer mean by ‘reform’? For his benefit, we should inform that the Islamists resist western immorality, atheism and crass materialism which obliterates the attitudes of altruism and moral excellence of humanity. These are vices spawned by westernism. If ‘modernization’ means the adoption of western culture, then undoubtedly, all Islamists vigorously resist such Satanism. Can the writer cite a single Islamist movement who resists reform and modernization in the technological and industrial spheres? Do the Mujaahideen and all those who clamour for Khilaafat resist modern technological equipment, technological progress and all the modern amenities of life provided by technology? What precisely are the reforms and modernization which the Islamists resist? With such ambiguity the modernist deviate attempts to pull wool over the eyes of unsuspecting and unwary readers.

We can emphatically maintain that there is not a single Islamist who resists meaningful reform and modernisation. All Islamists utilize all the equipment of ‘modernization’. However, Islamists reject and resist the kufr concepts which underlie the assertion of the writer. By ‘reform’ and ‘modernization’ he actually means abandonment of the Sunnah, re-interpretation of Islam, and the adoption of western culture with all its evils and vices. That is the meaning of reform and modernization which the writer has in mind. It is the Waajib obligation of every Muslim to vehemently resist all such kufr reforms and modernization which the modernist munaafiqeen propose.

The writer says:

“During the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire was at its peak as a world super power, but by the mid-18th Century it had considerably weakened. It suffered increasing losses on the battlefields and its territories began to shrink. Internal and external revolts became commonplace and the empire’s collapse seemed imminent. These realities pushed reformist Sultans and influential thinkers to look for new solutions to the empire’s problems.”

Did any of the ‘new solutions’ save the empire from collapse and disintegration? Or did any of the ‘new solutions’ instituted by the reformists even stem the tide of the Ottoman Empire’s final demise? Allah Ta’ala states in His glorious Qur’aan:

“ Say: ‘O Allah! It is You (and only You) Who bestows Mulk (political power) to whomever You wish, and it is You Who snatches away sovereignty from whomever You wish. It is You Who gives honour to whomever You wish, and it is You who humiliates whomever You wish. All goodness is (only) in Your Hand, Verily You have power over all things.”

Commensurate with the extent of reformist policies and laws was the disintegration of the Ottoman empire. Far from saving it from its demise, the kufr reforms hastened its demise. There is no Islamist who desires to emulate the un-Islamic governance policies and ways of the Ottomans.

With the increase in the move away from the Shariah, the social and political problems of the Ottomans became more complex and intractable in the abyss of disintegration and demise into which they were sliding. Far from applying the brakes to their rapid decline, the reforms only hastened the doom of the Ottoman empire. Depicting such a state of affairs, the Qur’aan Majeed says:

“If Allah aids you, no one can conquer you, and if He withholds aid from you, then who is there besides Allah who can help you?”

The Europeanization of the army and other spheres of life by the Ottoman rulers ultimately led to the obliteration of Ottoman rule by the Europeans whom the Turks were emulating and aping. On the contrary, we see the old-fashioned Taliban fighting and defeating the combined might of the super powers and the armies of 50 countries in their primitive style. That is because they have with them the nusrat (help) of Allah Ta’ala.

Justifying the setting aside of Islam’s Hudood punishments, the writer stupidly cites Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), the Second Khalifah of Islam. Thus he falsely contends:

“Putting aside the Hadd (Islamic punishments) was not wholly unprecedented for the Ottomans. In fact, the Hadd punishment for stealing had been suspended before by the 2nd Caliph (leader) of Islam Umar ibn al-Khattaab, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).”

This is a blatant LIE. Ameerul Mu’mineen, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) did not set aside or abrogate the Hadd for stealing. The Hudood are governed by many conditions. A Hadd punishment cannot be meted out in the absence of the fulfilment of the imperative conditions for the validity of Hudood. In any case where the Hadd was not applied, it was on account of the absence of the imperative conditions. Furthermore, a principle governing all Hudood punishments is established by the following statement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam):

“Hudood are warded off by doubts.”

A doubt introduced in the case cancels the Hadd punishment. Abstaining from issuing the Hadd sentence in a specific case may not be interpreted as ‘setting aside the Hadd punishment.” However, such cancellation in specific cases should not be misconstrued and understood to mean abrogation.

Every abolition of a Shar’i injunction by the Ottomans was an act of kufr which expelled such rulers from the pale of Islam. Thus the abolition of Jizyah and the Dhimmi status of non-Muslim citizens, and all other laws introduced in conflict with the Shariah were all acts of kufr which ensured the ultimate obliteration of the Ottoman reign. The Ottoman reign had ceased being a valid Shar’i Khilaafat. Hence, in Allah’s Wisdom there was a need for its obliteration. Abolition of the Shariah brought about the ruin and abolition of the Ottoman empire.

The writer of the article states about the Islamists:

“Their literature portrays the Ottoman Empire as a shining example of an Islamic state, due to its apparent adherence to fundamental scriptural edicts.”

This portrayal is undoubtedly highly erroneous. The Ottoman rule in its era of decay never was a ‘shining example of an Islamic state’. If it was, Allah Ta’ala would not have displaced and eliminated it. Its obliteration is the effect of Allah’s Wrath which was the consequence of the kufrization policy of the Ottoman rulers as is evidenced by the Tanzimat and other kufr reforms.

Any ‘Islamist’ who portrays the decadent Ottomans as a ‘shining example of an Islamic state’ is an ignoramus. There is no need to present the Ottomans for the ideal of Khilaafat. Khilaafat is only the system of governance established by the Khulafa-e- Raashideen. We have no need to look beyond the confines of Khilaafat-e-Raashidah of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen. There is no better system of government for the world than the system of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen. The reforms which advocate a parliament of a hundred baboons and donkeys is a shaitaani system. There is no room in Islam for the corrupt systems of government of the kuffaar.

The writer in his article has shown that the Ottoman empire, especially in its era of decadence and demise was not an Islamic system modelled along the lines of the Khilaafat of the Khulafae- Raashideen. In this respect he has achieved his objective. We are in agreement with him on this score. If there are ‘Islamists’ who present the Ottoman rule as a ‘shining example of an Islamic state’, then it is due to lamentable ignorance. The writer’s criticism of such ignorant ‘Islamist’ is correct.

The lesson for Muslims to learn from Turkey’s kufrization policies is that it did not save the empire from being obliterated. The Ottomans had turned their backs on the Shariah, so Allah Ta’ala removed them. They had failed to understand that the very Shariah in vogue during the era of the Khilaafat of the Khulafa-e- Raashideen was valid for their era and will remain valid until the Day of Qiyaamah. This failure brought about the annihilation of the Ottoman empire which was not a true Khilaafat in its later stage. The Ottomans had sealed their own doom with the displacement of the Shariah and their secularization.


“Allah has promised those who have Imaan among you and those who practise virtuous deeds that He will most certainly make then khulafa on earth just as He had made those before them khulafa, and He will certainly powerfully establish for them their Deen which He has chosen for them, and He will replace their fear with peace. They worship Me and they do not associate anything with Me (i.e. they do not commit shirk). And those who commit kufr thereafter, verily they are the faasiqoon. (Surah Noor, aayat 55)

For this Ummat-e-Muslimah, Allah Ta’ala had beautifully fulfilled His promise. During the Khilaafat of the Khulafa-e- Raashideen, within a short period of a couple of decades, the denizens of the desert, the Sahaabah, had raised the Standard of Islam on the hilltops of the world. A vast area of the world was brought under Islamic domination. The Khilaafat was the Rule of Allah on earth.

After the fulfilment of the divine promise, moral decline set into the Ummah. Muslims surrendered themselves to opulence, extravagance, indolence, and they abandoned the objective of life which is the Aakhirah. With their moral decadence, they drifted far, very far from Siraatul Mustaqeem. They abandoned the Sunnah and became intellectually stagnated. In fact, they retrogressed intellectually and morally. In their state of advanced intellectual, moral and spiritual decomposition they failed to understand what was the original cause of their glorious success and victory.

When their Islamic moorings were destroyed, fear overcame them. They began losing control of the lands they once dominated with power and glory in the name of Islam and on behalf of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The Shariah was either ignored, interpolated or banished. Rudderless, Muslims looked at aliens for a direction. When they saw the worldly prosperity and progress of the kuffaar, especially the western kuffaar, they (the morally rotten Muslims) began to believe that the means and ways of the kuffaar were the only road for success.

Thus, Muslims looked askance at the West for direction and directive. They appointed the Western countries to be their leaders. Hence Allah Ta’ala made the West our rulers. The Ottomans and all other Muslim entities adopted secularization which is another name for kufrization. The Shariah was abandoned, and the Ottoman Empire sealed its doom with its secularization and westernization. They tried to westernize and secularize Islam and the Ummah. In the wake of this satanic policy of kufrization, the Ottomans lost and committed suicide. Allah Ta’ala terminated the reign of the Ottomans. Ignominy and humiliation were their end, and to this day the Ummah grovels in ignominy and humiliation.

Despite the miserable failure of westernization, secularization and kufrization to extricate the Ummah from its morass of disgrace, ‘Muslims’ still remain blind to the causes of their decline and defeat. This is because they are no longer Muslims. They all come within the scope of the Hadith:

There will dawn a time when people will gather in their Musaajid and perform Salaat while not a single one (in the crowd) will be a Mu’min.”

 It was Kufrization that had destroyed the Ottoman Empire.

[Mujlisul Ulama]




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *