Constantinople (now Istanbul)

[Muhammed Bahauddin]

GF Haddad and others have claimed that because the conqueror of Constantinople (now Istanbul) was a 'classic maturidi hanafi', his cult is somehow validated because of the several sahih narrations that praise the conqueror of this city. I will make it clear that the general referred to is NOT Muhammad al-Faatih al-Hanafi, but in fact the blessed Mahdi ('alayhi as-salam).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART I

Muhammad al-Faatih at-Turki is not a great guy and not praised in the sunnah because:

- He was a taaghut who replaced many corporal punishments with monetary fines

- He ordered the killing of his infant brother Ahmad when he came to power

- He was the sultan who legislated the killing of the sultan's siblings when one rose to power (to prevent a power struggle). So he gets the punishment for starting a bad sunna and for being an open sinner (by having his brother killed)

- He was a mushrik who built a dome over the grave of the sahabi abu Ayyub al-Ansari (raddi Allahu 'anhu) and took a sufi shaykh

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PART II

Muhammad al-Faatih at-Turki is not the one referred to in the sahih, sarih ahadith. It is the Mahdi ('alayhi as-salam) who leads the true conquest of Constantinople; Muslim makes this clear in his sahih by narrating that:

"The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

The Last Hour would not come until the Romans would land at al-A'mâq or in Dâbiq (places in Greater Syria). An army will come from Madinah [smile- Madinah is salafi city] consisting of the best people of the Earth at that time.

When they will arrange themselves in ranks, the Romans will say: “Leave open the way between us and those who took prisoners from amongst us. Let us fight them.”

The Muslims will say: “No. By Allah, we will never leave open the way between you and our brethren.”

They will then fight, and a third of the army will flee and Allah will never forgive them. A third will be killed, and they will be the best of martyrs in Allah’s estimations eye. A third will be victorious and they will never succumb to trial and they will be the conquerors of Constantinople.

And as they are busy distributing the spoils of war after hanging their swords by the olive trees, Satan will cry: “The Antichrist (al-Dajjâl) has taken your place among your family.” They will then go forth, but it will have been a false claim. When they reach Syria, he will then emerge while they will be still preparing themselves for battle, drawing up in ranks.

When the time of prayer arrives, Jesus (peace be upon him) the son of Mary will descend and will lead them in prayer. When the enemy of Allah sees him, he will dissolve just as salt dissolves away in water. If Jesus were not to confront him at all, even then he would dissolve away completely, but Allah will kill him by his hand and he will show them his blood on his lance". [End of Quote]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART III

al-Mahdi ('alayhi as-salam) and his followers possess attributes which raise them high above the army of Turkish mushrikun. So the true conquerors of the city will be muwahiddun on the 'aqida of the salaf:

- al-Mahdi will be stern towards the muqallida (not that taqlid is always haram), according to Imam Sidiq Hasan Khan

- al-Madhi will erase shirk from Dar al-Islam and be followed into battle by ahlus-sunna rather than followers of the mu'tazila

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION

The most obvious conclusion would be "don't trust the Jahmiyya and their propaganda" and "follow the salaf".

U all know the Hadith with Fatih Sultan Mehmed.

What would you answer? I think thats a really stupid "refuting" but i am interested in your answers.

Salaamun alaikum

[Muawiyah]

He was a mushrik who built a dome over the grave of the sahabi abu Ayyub al-Ansari (raddi Allahu 'anhu)

Building a dome over a grave is (according to many `ulama) Haram. At the most we can say that perhaps he commited a sin by having a dome constructed on the grave of Sayyidina Abu Ayyub al-Ansari radi Allahu `anhu declaring him a mushrik for doing this is classic kharjism i.e takfeer of Muslims on sins.

[abu_rashid]

as-salaamu alaykum,

What would you answer? I think thats a really stupid "refuting" but i am interested in your answers.

I have come across this and much worse claims against Dowlat al-aliyat al-uthmaniyyah.

The obvious refutation which should be given to such people is this.

1) If you want to speak about Taghut, why do you not remove the biggest taghut today sitting back in his palace in Riyadh surrounded by kufr troops who've come to spill the blood of the Muslims and dishonour our mothers and sisters. This movement which has claimed to come to cleanse Islam from shirk, bid'ah and misguidance has done nothing but institute such things. It replaced independant Khilafah with subservient Monarchy. It replaced the well being and victory of the Muslims with our disgrace and defeat. It replaced our bay'ah to 'our shield' the Khaleefah (as commanded by the prophet (saw)) with grovelling and kissing the feet of a worthless foriegn puppet called a King.

2) Sultan Muhammad al-Fatih (rh) did not kill his brother, nor did he institute such a practise, this is absolute nonsense taken straight from the propaganda books of the Ottoman's Venetian and Byzantine rivals. The brother of Sultan Muhammad (rh) was murdered by the Janissaries, who feared that rival troops would gather around him and oust them from their positions of power. Sultan Muhammad (rh) had them arrested and executed for this horrendous crime. Such a claim against Sultan Muhammad (rh) is nothing but placing the lies and opinions of the kuffar over the statements of the Muslims. Such a claim is just as bad as those wayward sufis who use "Tales of a British spy" to attack the salafis.

3) If he built domes over graves then this was perhaps a sin on his part, but no leader is free of misguidance. However as you mentioned, it certainly doesn't warrant a charge of shirk or kufr. But again look at the shirk and kufr of those who bow down to their false gods in Riyadh, and take their legislation above the legislation of Allah (Swt) and even sit on so called fatwa councils and give such rulings according to their own desires and the commands of the Americans and others. Such people have done far worse than the one who constructed a tomb for a grave. As they have taken themselves as gods besides Allah (swt) and claimed themselves worthy to legislate halaal and haraam in his place.

[Janissary]

Even Albani says that Sultan Muhammad is the one who was foretold as the conquerer of Istanbul.

http://thetruereligion.org/modules/w...?articleid=113