The Uthmani State And the Standpoint of the Da’wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdil-Wahhab Concerning It

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
All praise is due to Allah, and may prayers and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah, and upon his family and his companions and whoever followed him.

To proceed:
This is a short study that clarifies the reality of the Uthmani state, which many from among those who are called “Islamic thinkers” praise and speak well of, and describe it as the last of the bastions of al-Islam, the destruction of which took away the honour of the Muslims. Also, it clarifies the reality of the position of the da’wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (  رحمه الله) concerning this state. And I have divided it into two chapters:

• The first chapter: Regarding the reality of the Uthmani state.
• The second chapter: Regarding the standpoint of the Shaykh’s da’wah
  concerning it.

And may the Blessing of Allah Be upon Muhammad.

The Reality of the Uthmani State

Verily, whoever considers the nature of the Uthmani state – from its rise up to its fall – will not have any doubt regarding its direct contribution in corrupting the aqaa’id (beliefs) of the Muslims, and this becomes clear through two matters:

• The first one: through its spreading of shirk.
• The second one: through its war against tawheed.1

And the Uthmani state spread shirk by spreading the shirk-based tasawwuf that is founded on worshipping the graves and the awliyaa’, and this is an established fact that no-one argues about, even those who defend it. And I will quote in what follows some of the texts that prove this, from the very sympathisers with the Uthmani state themselves.

Abd al-Azeez ash-Shanawi said in his book ad-Dawlah al-Uthmaniyyah: Dawlah Islamiyyah Muftaraa ‘Alayha (The Uthmani State: An Islamic State Slandered) (1/59) – by way of praise –:

“And one of the manifestations of the religious direction in the policy of the state was the encouragement of tasawwuf among the Uthmani’s. And the state gave the mashayikh of the Sufi tariqa’s wide-ranging authorities and powers over their students and followers. And these tariqas initially became widespread in Central Asia, then they moved to the majority of the areas of the state… And the state extended a helping hand financially to some of the Sufi tariqa’s… And some of the most important Sufi tariqa’s were the Naqshbandi’s, the Mawlawi’s, the Baktashi’s and the Rifaa’i’s…” 2

And Muhammad Qutb said in his book Waaqi’unaa al-Mu’aasir (Our Present Situation), page 155:

“Sufism began to spread in the Abbasid society, however it was an isolated corner of the society. But in the shade of the Uthmani state, and in Turkey to be exact, it became the society itself, and it became the religion itself.”

And in al-Mawsu’ah al-Muyassarah fil-Adyan wal-Madhahib al-Mu’asirah (The Simplified Compendium of Contemporary Religions and Sects), page 348:

“Al-Baktashiyyah: The Uthmani Turks were affiliated with this tariqa, and it continues to be widespread in Albania. And it is closer to the Shi’i tasawwuf than the Sunni tasawwuf 3… and it had great authority over the rulers of the Uthmani’s themselves.”

And in the book al-Fikr as-Sufi fi Dhaw’ al-Kitab was-Sunnah (The Sufi Thought in the Light of the Book and the Sunnah), page 411:

“And the Uthmani sultans competed with each other in building tekkes, zawiyahs, and the graves of the Baktashi’s. So some of the sultans supported it, and others were opposed to them, preferring another different tariqa.”

For this reason, it is unsurprising that shirk and kufr became widespread, and tawheed began to fade away, in the lands that they ruled. And Shaykh Husayn ibn Ghanam (رحمه الله) said, describing their lands:

“Most of the people in his time – i.e. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab – were sunk in pollution and smeared by the mire of impurity to the extent that they went headlong into shirk, after the Sunnah had been buried… So they turned to worshipping the awliyaa’ and the righteous people, and they discarded the collar of tawheed and the religion. So they exerted themselves in seeking aid from them in times of calamities, accidents, and disastrous events, and they ran to them asking them to fulfill their needs and remove their difficulties, from the living ones among them as well as their dead. And many people believed that inanimate objects could bring help or harm…”

Then he mentioned the forms of shirk that existed in Najd, al-Hijaz, Iraq, ash-Shaam, Egypt, and elsewhere. 4

And Imam Sa’ud ibn Abd al-Azeez (رحمه الله) (d. 1229H) said in one of his letters to the Uthmani governor of Iraq, describing the nature of their state:

“So the sha’aa’ir (symbols) of kufr in Allah and shirk, this is the situation that exists among you. Such as building domes over the graves, lighting lamps over them, hanging curtains over them, the visits to them in manners not legislated by Allah or His Messenger, celebrating yearly festivals there, and asking those buried therein to fulfill needs, remove difficulties and answer pleas; all of this along with the abandoning of the obligatory duties of the religion that Allah has ordered to be established, such as the five prayers and other than them. For the one who wants to pray prays alone, and the one who leaves the prayer is not objected to. And likewise, is the case with zakah. And this matter has spread and become well-known, and has filled the ears of many in the lands of ash-Shaam, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere from among the lands.” 5

This was, very briefly, the situation of the Uthmani state. If the above quotations are not sufficient to convince a person of this, then there is no hope for him to understand. And as for the situation of its sultans – which I have briefly indicated already – it is also of this kind. And I will mention a number of miscellaneous examples of these sultans, in order to clarify their situation:

• Sultan Orkhan the First (d. 761H): He is the second sultan of this state, after his father Uthman (Uthman the first, d. 726H). His rule lasted for 35 years. And this sultan was a Sufi upon the Baktashi tariqa. 6
  And the Baktashi tariqa – which I have mentioned several times already – is a Sufi, Shi’i, baatini tariqa founded by Khankar Muhammad Baktash al-Khurasani, who spread it in Turkey in the year 761H. And it is a mix of the aqeedah of Wahdat al-Wujood 7, worship and deification of the mashayikh, the aqeedah of the Rafidha regarding the imams, and they exaggerate regarding the Prophet (ﷺ) in a manner that takes them out of al-Islam. And from that is the saying of the student or “mureed” when he wants to enter into this tariqa: “I have come with longing to the door of the Truth as a beggar, affirming Muhammad and Haydar (i.e. ‘Ali), and seeking the “secret” (as-sirr) and the “outpouring” (al-faydh) from both of them, and from az-Zahra (i.e. Fatimah) and Shubayr and Shabar (i.e. al- Husayn and al-Hasan).” Then he says: “And with love I have submitted my inner self as a servant of the family of al-Abbas, and my refuge is al-Hajj Baktash, the qutb (pivot) of the awliyaa’.” And he says to his shaykh: “Your face is a lamp, and a lighthouse of guidance, your face is an indicator to the form of the Truth, your face is the Hajj and the Umrah and the Ziyarah, your face is to the obedient ones the qiblah of leadership, your face is a summary of the Qur’an.” And the awrad of the Baktashiyyah are on the aqeedah of the Ithnaa’ ‘Ashariyyah Rafidha. 8 And they have in their aqeedah, from their baatini awrad, and the way that they visit the graves to get their shirk-based “acceptance”, such things that are too terrible to mention. 9
• Sultan Muhammad the Second (al-Fatih) (d. 886H): He is one of the most famous of the sultans of this state, and he ruled for 31 years. After conquering Constantinople in the year 857H, he discovered the site of the grave of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (رضي الله عنه) and built a tomb over it, and next to it he built a masjid, and the masjid was decorated with white stone. And he built over the tomb of Abu Ayyub a dome. And the custom of the Uthmani’s, in their blind-following of the sultans, was that they would come in a big procession to this masjid, then the new sultan would enter this tomb, and he would then receive the sword of Sultan Uthman the First from the shaykh of the Mawlawi tariqa.10 And this sultan was the first to lay down the foundations of “civil law” and “penal law”. So he replaced the Shar’i bodily punishments that are narrated in the Book and the Sunnah – i.e. a tooth for a tooth, and an eye for an eye – with monetary fines, in a clear methodology that was completed by Sultan Sulayman al- Qanuni.11 And he also issued a legislation – that continued to be implemented after him – which was that every sultan who came to power could kill all of his brothers, so that the throne would be safe for him alone!12
• Sultan Sulayman al-Qanuni (i.e. the legislator) (d. 974H): And he is also one of the most famous sultans of the Uthmani state, and his rule was approximately 46 years. When he entered Baghdad, he built a dome over the tomb of Abu Hanifah. And he visited the holy places of the Rafidha in an-Najaf and Karbala’, and he rebuilt the structures there that had begun to deteriorate.13 And he was called “al-Qanuni” because he was the first to introduce the European laws upon the Muslims, and to make them enforced in the courts. And it was the Jews and Christians who influenced him to do that.14
• Sultan Saleem Khan the Third (d. 1223H): Imam Sa’ud ibn Abd al-Azeez (رحمه الله) said in his letter to the governor of Baghdad, which we have previously mentioned: “Your situation, and the situation of your imams and your sultans, testifies to your falsehood and your lying in regard to that (i.e. their claim to Islam). For we have seen, when we opened al-Hujrah ash-Shareefah (the room of the Prophet), upon its owner be the best of prayers and peace, in the year 22, a letter from your sultan, Saleem, sent by his cousin to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), asking help from him and calling upon him to grant victory over the enemies. And it contains enough lowliness, humiliation and self-abasement to testify to your falsehood. It begins: “From your little slave, Sultan Saleem. To proceed: Ya Rasulullah (O’ Messenger of Allah), we have experienced difficulty and hardship that we are unable to avert, and the slaves of the cross have taken over the slaves of ar- Rahman! We ask you to grant us victory over them and help us against them.” And he mentioned a lot of words of this general meaning. So look at this enormous shirk, and kufr in Allah, the One, the All-Knowing! The mushriks did not even ask this from their idols al-Uzza and al-Lat, for when hardship and calamities befell them they used to call only on the Creator of all beings!”15
• Sultan Abd al-Hameed the Second (d. 1327H): This sultan was a fanatical Sufi upon the Shaadhili tariqa. Here is a letter from him to the shaykh of the Shaadhili tariqa of his time. He says in it: “All praise is due to Allah… I lift up this request of mine to the shaykh of the high Shaadhili tariqa, and to the one who pours out the spirit and the life, the shaykh of the people of his age, Shaykh Mahmood Effendi, Abush-Shamaat, and I kiss his two blessed hands, hoping for his righteous prayers. My master: By the tawfeeq of Allah (تعالى) I am constantly reciting the awrad of the Shaadhiliyyah night and day, and I request that I continue to be in perpetual need of your heartful prayers.”16 And the Shaadhili tariqa is a Sufi, grave-worshipping, shirk-based tariqa, full of enough enormities and blasphemies to classify it among the idol-worshipping kuffaar.17

As for the stories of the relations of this state with the Jews and Christians and other kuffaar, in their appointing them to positions of power, aiding them, and even making them equal with the Muslims, then they are many. Look, if you wish, in Tareekh ad-Dawlah al-Aliyyah and ad-Dawlah al-Uthmaniyyah: Dawlah Islamiyyah... and you will hardly find a single Uthmani sultan whose life does not feature something of that. See, for example, the life of Abd al-Majeed ibn Mahmood, who issued the Gulkhaanah Decree in the year 1255H, in which he declared total freedom in personal matters and in ideas, and made non-Muslims equal to the Muslims. See Tareekh ad-Dawlah al-Aliyyah, p.455, and al-Islam wal-Hadhaarah al-Gharbiyyah, p.15.

Warring Against Tawheed

As for the war of the Uthmani’s against tawheed, then it is well-known. For they declared war against the da’wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (رحمه الله) as is known,

﴾They want to extinguish the Light of Allah with their mouths…﴿ [at-Tawbah 9:32]/[as-Saff 61:8].

And they sent campaign after campaign to war against the people of tawheed, until they crowned this war of theirs with the destruction of ad-Dir’iyyah, the capital of ad-Da’wah as-Salafiyyah, in the year 1233H.18

And the Uthmani’s, in their war against tawheed, sought help from their brothers the Christians. For one of the researchers in Europe discovered documents of correspondence between Napoleon Bonaparte, the ruler of France, and “al-Baab al-Aali” (the “High Door”, the title of the Uthmani ruler), regarding the da’wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and the necessity of taking decisive action against it, as it was a threat to their interests in the east.19 And during the wars of the Uthmani’s against the people of tawheed, such atrocities were committed that made those of the crusaders pale in comparison. Here are some examples for you:

1. The Uthmani state wanted to incite its troops to kill the people of tawheed, so it issues a decree that every soldier will receive a reward for every single one that he killed, and it was necessary that the soldier prove his kill by cutting off the ears of his victim and sending them to the capital Astanah (Istanbul). So they did that in Madinah, Qunfudhah, Qassim, Dhurma, and elsewhere.20
2. As for their destruction of villages and cities, and even their burning of masaajid, then narrate without difficulty. 21
3. And from their crimes is that they took the women and children of the people of tawheed as captives, and sold them as slaves. Al-Jabarti said in his Tareekh: “And the month of Safar began on a Friday in the year 1235H… and during it a group of the Arab and Magharibah troops arrived, who had been in the land of Hijaz. And they were accompanied by prisoners from the ‘Wahhabi’s’, women, girls, and boys. They came to al-Hamaayil, and sold them to whoever would buy them, even though they were Muslims and free people.”22
4. And I conclude that with this event that was narrated by a Russian historian. He said:“In the year 1818M – i.e. 1234H – Abdullah (Imam Abdullah ibn Sa’ud ibn Abd al-Azeez ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’ud, the last imam of the first Sa’udi state) was taken via al-Qahirah (Cairo) road to al-Astanah (Istanbul), accompanied by two of those close to him, at the beginning of Qanun al- Awwal (December). And the Russian ambassador in al-Astanah gave the following information: Last week, the leader of the Wahhabi’s, his minister and his imam, who had been captured in ad-Dir’iyyah and later taken to the capital, were beheaded. Seeking to add to the impression of his victory over the worst enemies of the two cities that are considered to be the cradle of Islam, the sultan ordered on that day for an assembly to be made in the old palace in the capital, and they brought to the palace the three prisoners, bound in heavy chains and surrounded by the crowds of spectators. And after the introductory formalities, the sultan ordered their execution, so the leader was beheaded in front of the main gate of the “Hagia Sofia”, and the minister was beheaded in front of the “Saraay Entrance”, and the third was beheaded in one of the main markets in the capital. And their bodies were put out on display with their heads under their armpits, and after three days they were thrown into the sea. And His Majesty ordered the observance of a special prayer of thanks to Allah for the victory of the sultan’s armies, and for the extermination of the group that had laid waste to Makkah and Madinah, spread fear in the hearts of the Muslims, and exposed them to danger.”23

So this was their enmity towards tawheed and its people, and this was their spreading of shirk and kufr. So how can it possibly be claimed that this corrupt, infidel state was an “Islamic Khilafah”?!

May Allah have mercy on Imam Sa’ud ibn Abd al-Azeez (died 1229H) when the Uthmani governor of Iraq said to him: “For we are Muslims in truth, and this is what all of our imams have agreed upon, from all four madhhabs, and the mujtahidun of the Deen and the Millah.”
So the Imam replied: “We have clarified from the Words of Allah (تعالى), the words of His Messenger, and the words of the followers of the four imams, that which refutes your weak case, and defeats your false claim. For not everyone who makes a claim proves it by his action. And a poor person does not become rich simply by saying: “A thousand dinars!” And a tongue does not burn simply by saying: “Fire”. For verily, the Jews, the enemies of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to the Messenger of Allah when he called them to Islam: “We are Muslims!” And the Christians said similar to that. And likewise, Fir’awn said to his people: “And I show you not except that which I see to be correct, and I guide you not except to the path of correctness.” Yet he lied and uttered falsehood in that.” 24

And likewise, whoever claims that the Uthmani state was a Muslim state, then he has uttered a lie and a falsehood, and the greatest forgery in this regard is that it was an Islamic Khilafah! 25 And know, O’ my brother, that no-one claims that the Uthmani state was an Islamic state except for one of two people:

• Either a misguided deviant who sees that shirk is Islam.
• Or a person ignorant about the affair of this state.

As for the one who understands tawheed, and who understands what this state was upon, and still has doubt regarding its affair, then he is in a very dangerous position, and from Allah all help is sought.

The Standpoint of the Da’wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab Concerning It

One of the misconceptions that is often brought up about the da’wah of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab (رحمه الله ) is that it revolted against the Uthmani Khilafah, and divided the Muslims. And many of the ‘ulama who defended the da’wah of the Shaykh tried to respond to this misconception, but the most that they could say was: “Najd was, from the beginning, independent from the Uthmani state, so for that reason the Shaykh’s coming was not an uprising against it.”26

And the reality is that this statement is incorrect, for three reasons:

• Firstly: the Uthmani state did have nominal rule over Najd, because it ruled Hijaz, Yemen, al-Ahsaa’, Iraq and ash-Shaam, and the taxes of the ameer’s of Najd used to come to the state via some of these countries.27
• Secondly: even if we were to assume that Najd was independent, the da’wah of the Shaykh had entered Hijaz, Yemen, al-Ahsaa’, al-Khaleej, and the outlying areas of Iraq and ash-Shaam. They attacked Karbala and besieged Dimashq, and all of these were indisputably under the control of the Uthmani state.
• Thirdly: the sayings of the Imams of the da’wah (رحمهم الله ) are in agreement that the Uthmani state was Dar Harb (in a state of war with the Muslims), except those who responded to the da’wah of tawheed, as we will later see, if Allah Wills – Exalted Be He. For the da’wah of the Shaykh (رحمه الله ) was the da’wah to pure tawheed, and war against shirk and its people. And one of the greatest defenders of shirk in that time was the Uthmani state. So the da’wah was an act of war against it. And I will narrate, in what follows, various quotes from the imams of the da’wah and their followers, clarifying their standpoint regarding this state:

Imam Sa’ud ibn Abd al-Azeez (رحمه الله ) (d. 1229H):

I have already narrated some quotes from him regarding the affair of this state. Here are more of his statements in the letter that he sent to the governor of Baghdad:

“And as for your saying: “How can you so boldly and recklessly stir up fitnah by making takfeer of the Muslims and the people of the qiblah, and fight against a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day…?” So we say: “We have already stated that we do not make takfeer due to sins, but rather we only fight against those who made shirk with Allah, and attributed to Allah partners, calling upon them as they call upon Allah, slaughtering for them as they slaughter for Him, vowing to them as they vow to Allah, fearing them as they fear Allah, calling to them for aid in difficulties and for bringing good, and who fight to defend the idols and the domes built over the graves, which have been taken as idols worshipped besides Allah. So if you are truthful in your claim that you are on the Millah of Ibrahim and following the Messenger (ﷺ), then demolish those idols, all of them, and level them to the ground. And repent to Allah from all of the shirk and bid’ah.”

Then he said:

“Or, if you persist in this state of yours, and do not repent from the shirk that you are upon and observe correctly the religion of Allah with which He sent His Messenger, leaving the shirk, bid’ah and superstitions, then we will not cease fighting you until you return to Allah’s straight religion.”28

Shaykh Sulayman ibn Abdillah ibn ash-Shaykh (رحمه الله) (d. 1233H):

When the Turks invaded the land of tawheed, Shaykh Sulayman ibn Abdillaah wrote a book entitled ad-Dalaa’il (The Proofs), regarding the apostasy and kufr of whoever aided them and sided with them, even if he was not upon their religion of shirk. And he mentioned therein more than twenty proofs for that, and he referred to the invading army as “the troops of domes and shirk.”29

Shaykh Abd al-Lateef ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Hasan (رحمه الله) (d. 1293H):

In one of his letter to Shaykh Hamad ibn ‘Ateeq (رحمه الله) regarding the case of Abdullah ibn Faisal, the imam at that time, seeking help from the Uthmani’s against his brother Sa’ud ibn Faisal, when the latter defeated him in the battle of Judah during the events around the year 1289H, he said:

“And Abdullah had a legitimate rule and bay’ah in general, but later on I found out that he had corresponded with the kaafir state (i.e. the Uthmani state), sought help from it and brought it to the lands of the Muslims. So he became like the one about whom it is said [poetry]:

And the one who seeks protection with ‘Amr in his difficulty; Is like the one who seeks protection with fire from the burning heat.

So I spoke to him verbally, objecting to his action and declaring my disassociation from it, and I spoke harshly to him, telling him that this is destruction of the fundamentals of Islam and uprooting of its bases, and that it was this and that and the other… the details of which conversation I cannot remember right now, so he expressed repentance and regret, and he made much istighfar. And I wrote, at his dictation, to the governor of Baghdad: “Allah has sufficed, made easy, and arranged for the people of Najd and the Bedouins that which has fulfilled our need, if Allah Wills. So we are no longer in need of the army of the state,” and words to that effect. And I believe he sent the letter and disassociated himself from what had occurred, and it was a long letter.” 30

And he said in another letter to one of the students of knowledge regarding the same affair:

“As for Imam Abdullah ibn Faisal, then I have advised him, as I have mentioned, with very harsh advice. And I reminded him in the advice of the aayaat of Allah and His right, and the obligation of preferring His good-pleasure, and keeping far away from the enemies of His religion, the people of ta’teel (negation of the Shari’ah), shirk, and clear kufr. And he expressed repentance and regret…”31

And he said regarding the entry of the Uthmani’s to the Peninsula in the year 1298H:

“So whoever understands this fundamental principle – i.e. tawheed – will understand the harm of the fitnah that is current in these times regarding the Turkish armies. And he will understand that it (i.e. the fitnah) comes back to this principle, breaking it and demolishing and utterly effacing it. And it leads to the predominance of shirk and ta’teel, and the raising of its banners of kufr.” 32

And he said in a poem about this affair:

And the leader of the people has brought to the Turks a state
Which has committed the greatest crimes against the Millah of Islam

And within it (he says):

And they travelled to the people of shirk and submitted to them

And there came to them every slander and every magician.

And within it (he says):

And the power has gone to the people of refusal and shirk
And by them has been established the marketplace of destruction and evil

And places for sodomy and vileness have returned among them 
That are frequented by every immoral one
And the unity of the religion has been shattered and its rope cut

And it has become lost among the ranks of the soldiers

And within it (he says):

And you have made alliance with the people of the Fire, in your stupidity;

And you have become, for the religion of Allah, the first kaafir 

So ask the dweller of al-Ahsaa’, are you a believer
In this, and what is contained in the authentic books? 33

And he said in another poem:

When the army of deviation appeared, to demolish The land of guidance and the laws of goodness
A people intoxicated, their companion would not wake up Never, and he would end up in loss
A people, you see them rushing to every gathering In which is misfortune and every kufr is close by Indeed, in which the laws of the Christians are ruling Without any text that has come from the Qur’an;

So look at the rivers of kufr that have exploded
They have clashed with the Shari’ah of ar-Rahman 34

Shaykh Hamad ibn ‘Ateeq (رحمه الله) (d. 1301H):

He was (رحمه الله) one of the hardest of the ‘ulama in his stance regarding this state. See the letters written between him and Shaykh Abd al-Lateef ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Hasan in the seventh and eighth volumes of ad-Durar as- Saniyyah, and I have mentioned some of them. And when the Kaafir Uthmani armies entered the Arabian Peninsula, some of the traitors and deviants from the Bedouin entered their ranks. So just as Shaykh Sulayman ibn Abdillah (رحمه الله) had written the book ad-Dalaa’il, when the Uthmani’s entered the Peninsula in his time, regarding the ruling of aiding them, likewise Shaykh Hamad (رحمه الله) wrote a book entitled Sabeel an-Najaat wal-Fikaak min Muwalaat al-Murtaddeen wal-Atraak (The Path of Salvation and Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and the Turks), regarding the takfeer of whoever aided these armies that were called ‘Islamic’!35

Shaykh Abdullah ibn Abd al-Lateef (رحمه الله) (d. 1339H):

He was asked (رحمه الله) about the one who did not make takfeer of the state – i.e. the Uthmani state – and the one who brought them to fight against the Muslims, and chose their wilaayah (authority) and that it was obligatory to wage jihad alongside them, and about another who did not have that view but rather said that the state and those who brought them were Muslim transgressors (bughaat), and it is not lawful to deal with them except in the way that the Muslim transgressors are dealt with, and that what was taken as booty from the Bedouins is haram. So he replied:

“Whoever does not know the kufr of the state, and does not differentiate between them and the Muslim transgressors, then he does not know the meaning of ‘Laa ilaaha illallaah’ (There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah). So if he believes, along with that, that the state are Muslims, then this is even worse and severe, because it is doubting the kufr of one who has committed kufr in Allah and shirk with Him. And whoever brought them and aided them against the Muslims with any form of aid, then this is clear apostasy (riddah).”36

Shaykh Sulayman ibn Sahman ((رحمه الله)) (d. 1349H):

He said ((رحمه الله)) in one of his poems:

And what is said of the description of the Turks regarding their kufr
Then it is true, for they are the most disbelieving of the people (akfar an-naas) in the religions
And their enmity towards the Muslims and their evil
Grows and increases in the deviation, more than the other sects And whoever takes the kaafiroon as awliyaa’ then he is like them
And there is no doubt regarding his takfeer for anyone with intelligence And whoever might ally with them or go towards them for support
Then there is no doubt as to declaring him a faasiq, and he is in a shaky position.37

Shaykh Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Saleem (رحمه الله) (d.1351H):

The Shaykh ((رحمه الله)) was sitting one afternoon in the corner of al-Masjid al- Jaami’, waiting for the Maghrib prayer, and in the first row there were men who did not know that the shaykh was present there. So one of them spoke to his companion saying to him: “It has reached us that the Uthmani state has predominated, and that its banners have become victorious!” And he went on praising it. So as the shaykh prayed with them, and after the salah he gave a touching sermon, and he went on to blame the Uthmani’s and to blame those who loved them and praised them [saying]: “Whoever said that saying must regret what he said and make repentance for it! What religion is there for the one who loves the kuffaar and is happy with their predominance and their advancement?! If the Muslim does not affiliate himself with the Muslims, then with whom will he affiliate himself?”38

Shaykh Husayn ibn Ali ibn Nufaysah:

He is one of the contemporaries of Shaykh Sulayman ibn Sahman and he said in one of his poems:

So O’ state of the Turks, may your power never come back To us, and to our homelands may you never return
You took power, and opposed the way of our Prophet And the evils and intoxicants you made permissible
You made the symbols of the mushriks your own symbols So you were quicker to committing shirk than they were You gave the religion of the Christians pre-eminence
So you have borne impurity upon great impurity So away with you, off with you, defeat upon you
And whoever loved you and inclined towards you. 39

Abd ar-Rahman ibn Abd al-Lateef ibn Abdillaah ibn Abd al-Lateef al-ash- Shaykh said:

“And it is well-known that the Turkish state was an idol-worshipping state, whose religion was shirk and bid’ah, and which used to defend such things…”40

Conclusion

It is clear from what has preceded that the imams of the da’wah viewed the kufr of the Uthmani state, and that it was a Dar Harb. And this is an open and clear matter – I mean the kufr of the Uthmani state – and I do not believe that anyone who has read or heard what they were upon of shirk, or who has read what the imams of the da’wah said regarding their standpoint from this state, will continue to hold any doubt regarding them.
Otherwise, one of the following three applies to him. Either:

• He is accusing the imams of the da’wah of ignorance.
• Or he considers tawheed to be a secondary matter.
• Or he is a stubborn rejecter.

We ask Allah to grant us sincerity and conformity in our knowledge and deeds, and may Allah bless and grant peace to our Prophet Muhammad, his family and all of his companions.

1 Those who defend the war of the Uthmani’s against ad-Da’wah as-Salafiyyah claim that this war was a political war. But the case is not so; rather it was from the very beginning a war based on aqeedah, started by the fatawa of their ‘ulama from the quburiyyun. See Haashiyat Ibn ‘Aabideen (4/262).

2 And these tariqas are all founded on worshipping the graves and the awliyaa’, and indeed upon shirk in the rububiyyah that the Arab mushrikeen confirmed belief in, and that is through the Sufi beliefs in “al-ghawth“, “al- aqtaab”, “al-abdaal”, and others whom they claim to control the universe. Refer to what Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyyah] wrote about the Sufi’s, and his debates with the followers of the Rifaa’i’s (al-Fatawa, volume 11), and refer to what Ehsan Elahi Zaheer wrote about the Sufi’s and about these tariqa’s and their practices of shirk in his book Dirasaat fit-Tasawwuf (Studies Regarding Tasawwuf), and what as-Sindi wrote in his book at-Tasawwuf fee Meezan al-Bahth wat-Tahqeeq (Tasawwuf in the Balance of Investigation and Verification), and what al-Wakeel wrote in his book Haadhihi Hiyas-Sufiyyah (This is Sufism). And a detailed description of some of these tariqas will follow, insha’Allah.

3 All of tasawwuf is innovation and bid’ah, and there is no such thing as a “Sunni tasawwuf“. And there will follow the details of this particular tariqa.

4 Rawdhat al-Afkaar, Pp.5 onwards.

5 Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (1/382).

6 See Taareekh ad-Dawlah al-‘Aliyyah al-Uthmaniyyah, p.123, and al-Fikr as-Sufi, p.411. And al-Baktashiyyah is also spelled al-Bakdashiyyah (with a “daal” د ) and al-Baktashiyyah (with a “taa'” ط ). And the historians have mentioned about this sultan that he helped the Roman king against the Serbian king, because the Roman king promised to give his daughter to him in marriage. See Tareekh ad-Dawlah, p.125.

7 The unity of all existence, essentially negating the separateness of Allah from His creation.

8 The Twelver Shia’s.

9 See them in detail in al-Fikr as-Sufi fi Dhaw’ al-Kitab was-Sunnah, Pp. 409-424.

10 See ad-Dawlah al-Uthmaniyyah: Dawlah Islamiyyah Muftara ‘Alayha (1/64).

11 See Tareekh ad-Dawlah al-‘Aliyyah, p.177, and Fath al-Qustantiniyyah wa-Muhammad al-Fatih, p.177.

12 See ad-Dawlah al-Uthmaniyyah: Dawlah Islamiyyah…” (1/64). And he began his rule by killing his own infant brother Ahmad! (Tareekh ad-Dawlah al-‘Aliyyah, p.161).

13 See ad-Dawlah al-Uthmaniyyah: Dawlah Islamiyyah…” (1/25), and Tareekh ad-Dawlah al-Aliyyah, p.223.

14 See Waqi’unaa al-Mu’aasir, p.160, and Tareekh ad-Dawlah al-Aliyyah, p.177 and p.198 onwards.

15 See ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, p.160, and Tareekh ad-Dawlah al-Aliyyah, p.177 and p.190 onwards.

16 See Imam at-Tawheed, by Ahmad al-Qattaan and Muhammad Zayn, p.148, and at-Tareeq ilal-Jamaa’ah al-Umm, p.56, and the filthy Kuwaiti magazine al-Arabi, number 157-169.

17 See some of the forms of their shirk, deviance and bid’ahs in Dirasaat fit-Tasawwuf, p.235, and at-Tasawwuf fee Meezan al-Bahth wat-Tahqeeq, p.327.

18 To know about some of their crimes, see Unwaan al-Majd (1/157).

19 The introduction of Atiyyah Salim to the book al-Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, by Ibn Baz. And the researcher was Ahmad at-Taweel, while presenting his doctorate.

20 See that in detail in Tareekh al-Arabiyyah as-Sa’udiyyah, by the Russian historian Vasiliev, Pp. 173, 183, 176, and 184.

21 See that in Unwaan al-Majd (1/157-219) and also in the previous reference.

22 Tareekh Ajaa’ib al-Athar (3/606). But be careful regarding this book, for al-Jabarti, as is apparent from his Tareekh, was a Sufi khalwati who venerated the graves and the awliyaa’, indeed even the heretical deviants such as the zindeeq Ibn Arabi.

23 Tareekh ad-Dawlah as-Sa’udiyyah, by Vasiliev, p.186.

24 Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (1/391).

25 The fact that the Uthmani state was a kaafir state does not necessitate the takfeer of everyone in it, and the two sons of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (Husayn and Abdullah (رحمه الله) said,

“It might be ruled that this village is one of kufr, and its people kuffaar whose ruling is that of the kuffaar, but it is not ruled that every single individual of them is himself a kaafir, because it is possible that among them were those upon Islam who were excused from making hijrah, or who openly displayed his religion yet the Muslims did not know about him.” Majmu’at al-Masaa’il (1/44).

26 See Da’awaa al-Munaawi’een (233-240).

27 See ad-Dawlah al-‘Uthmaniyyah... (1/20), and Unwaan al-Majd (1/97) onwards.

28 Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (7/397).

29 Ibid (7/57-59).

30 Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (7/184) and Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa wal-‘Irfaan, events of the year 1289H, from the first volume.

31 Majmu’at ar-Rasaa’il (2/69).

32 Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (7/148-152).

33 Ibid 7/187-191, and Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa... (1/198-202).

And he made particular mention of al-Ahsaa’ here because the Uthmani’s, after Imam Abdullah had asked them for aid, entered al-Ahsaa’ and took over it first. See the details of that in the events of the year 1289H, from Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa (1/197) from his saying:

“The mention of what occurred and took place with the arrival of the Uthmani soldiers and the Turkish troops.”

34 Ad-Durar (192-194) at-Tadhkirah (1/203-206). And the amazing thing is that this is the description of the Uthmani troops in the year 1289H, and in the Tareekh of al-Jabarti there is an identical description of the troops who entered the Peninsula around the year 1226H, as he says in his Tareekh (3/341):

“And some of their high- ranking people who call to righteousness and piety said to me: “How will we attain victory when the majority of our soldiers are not on the Millah, and among them are those who do not practice the religion? And boxes of intoxicating drinks were brought with us, and you would never hear in our ranks the adhaan being called, nor was the obligatory salah established among them, and they gave no concern at all to the symbols of the religion… etc.“

35 This book is well-known by the name Sabeel an-Najaat wal-Fikaak min Muwalaat al-Murtaddeen wa-Ahl al- Ishraak (The Path of Salvation and Release from the Alliance with the Apostates and the People of Shirk) instead of wal-Atraak (and the Turks), and the correct name is the one we have mentioned for the following reasons:

• • The original written copy was of this title, and it was from the time of the Shaykh. See Sabeel an-Najaat with the editing of al-Faryaan, p.12.
  • The Shaykh himself mentioned this title in the introductory khutbah of his book Sabeel an-Najaat, p.24.
  • The time of the book’s writing and also its contents point to this title, such as his saying on p.35: “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians as awliyaa’…” And likewise, whoever allies with the Turks becomes a Turki.” And Allah knows better.

36 Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah (8/242).

37 Deewaan ibn Sahman, p. 191.

38 Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa (3/275).

39 Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa (2/149).

And in a poem of Saalih ibn Saleem, in memory of Ibn Sahman:

And he clarified therein the ruling of the Turks, and their kufr And the ruling of friendship and alliance with the state (Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa, 3/254.)

40 Ulama’ ad-Da’wah, written by him, p. 56.