Ottoman caliphate survives how does long does it survive (the later ottomans no longer represented the ummah and were mere puppets) and would have any impact on modern sunni islam.
He might be talking about the Prophet's (PBUH) letter to Heraclius.3. I doubt this will occur, the Abbasid would also be highly reluctant to accept such a conversion.
"1. There was no conflict during the period of Ali ibn Talib in the sense that is often framed in the West. The conflict between Mu'awiyah, Amr ibn al-A'as and Ali ibn abi Talib was one of a personal anture, nto theological or political. Do you mean the death of Husayn ibn Ali? So which sort of victory are we discussing?"
Ali is not assassinated and his authority as Caliph is accepted. He doesn't have to be succeeded by relatives in this scenario. A POD might be that Mu'wiyah and not Ali is assassinated. So no Ummayyads and this could potentially butterfly away Shiism.
"3. I doubt this will occur, the Abbasid would also be highly reluctant to accept such a conversion."
The earlier commentator was correct, I was thinking of Heraclius converting. I realize the episode is legendary and Heraclius had a hard enough time getting his Christian theological views to prevail, but its an interesting scenario.
He might be talking about the Prophet's (PBUH) letter to Heraclius.
Recently, I have noticed after being less active on the forum, he numbers of posts regarding the Islamic middle ages or early middle ages slow to a trickle after having some fair numbers of previously. As a result, I wished to decide to do a post or series of posts where I describe and give opinions on certain events of the past in Islamic history as I have done with several other topics on this site to generate interest or educate. Thus, is there any suggestions on a topic that someone would enjoy to read about or discuss?
This might be too modern or too wide of a topic but ill say anyway. Why is ibadi islam not attacked by salafists/sunni jihadists in the same way as modern shia islam is. Why does algerian ibadi minorities and omani muslims not targetted, is this due to simply modern islamic sectarianism being geopolitical and ibadis do not pose a geopolitical threat? or are ibadis historically not seen as much of enemies. I remeber reading that when terrorists took the grand mosque in 1979 the saudis initially blamed Kharijites, why is it then that the descendents or those kharijites are not targeted in the same way.
A post at par excellence.Ibadi as a group represent a minor influence in today’s time as it often held in the past, when compared to other more radical Kharijite. To understand this mentality though, it is important to understand Islam in ways similar to Christendom with its complexities. The Shurha as a group we can say are mostly removed as a group or sect, aside from the Ibadhi. However, the theological abd methodology of the Kharijite Shurha remain and appear among people in the Islamic world periodically.
In terms of the relation of the terrorist groups such as ISIS, they too have made public their enmity to the Kharijite-Shurha impulse. In 2016, they executed a cadre of their own operatives, as supposed Kharijite spies and apostates. Claiming further, that their ranks would be combed to search out those who use the Kitman (a form of deception used by the various clandestine sects of the past; it differs from taqqiyya as Kitman is an offensive usage of outright lie and deception to gain trusts and positions and widely known in Fiqh al-Hiyal [the laws of trickery] and is considered haram by Sunni Muslim and allowed for Shi’a and Ibadhi/Shurha).
Within Saudi Arabia, there is also similarly those who adopt certain traits of the Shurha. Namely, they believe that one can make takfir (sort of, excommunicate) upon people for minor sins, such as drinking alcohol. However, these excessive Ghulat (exaggerators) are always rejected by the higher scholars in Saudi Arabia. Yet it is still a reality that due to many factors, people develop these ideas. Mainly because the ideals of the Shurha are attractive to people who espouse both an overtly emotional and austere Islam and take a fashion to rebellion and rebellious actions. In the days of the Abbasid Caliphate, Khawarij generally were found in extremely diverse backdrops, speaking to its appeal, but especially with ethnic minorities, Bedouin and some intellectuals.
In short, the terrorist attacks upon Shi’a are generally both religious and political. Ibadhi carry less political power in today’s time than Shi’a. Also, according to many scholars, the innovations of the Shi’a is objectively worse than the Khawarij in terms of the matters of theology. Especially the Ibadhi. Now, the more radical Shurha of the Abbasid Caliphate were often in danger of execution due to their views that Uthman ibn Affan, Ali ibn Talib, Mu’awiya, etc etc were all apostates and they frequently abused these companions in their discourse. So, in the case of a true Shurha who makes takfir upon the companions, like the Shi’a, then the ruling is similar. However, most scholars place the Shi’a as a more ‘deviant’ large group (aside from Zayydi) on account of its manyfold views that are considered idolatry, polytheism, anthropomorphism, some Shi’a scholars who hold the narrative of the false Quran or corruption of Quran, the erroneous message to Muhammad, Ghulat views that Ali is Allah or Fatima is Allah or that Allah creates a new deity, etc etc. Further, the idea of Wilayat al-Tawkwaniyyah (complex topic) is enough for most major scholars of the Sunni field to consider Shi’a more divergent if you will.
Have you read The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, and if so what are your thoughts on it? Its a candidate for my Christmas gift to myselfRecently, I have noticed after being less active on the forum, he numbers of posts regarding the Islamic middle ages or early middle ages slow to a trickle after having some fair numbers of previously. As a result, I wished to decide to do a post or series of posts where I describe and give opinions on certain events of the past in Islamic history as I have done with several other topics on this site to generate interest or educate. Thus, is there any suggestions on a topic that someone would enjoy to read about or discuss?
Have you read The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, and if so what are your thoughts on it? Its a candidate for my Christmas gift to myself![]()
Seconding this.When and how did the whole slave bureaucracy system start and what were the benefits and drawbacks of it. It seems to me to be one of the major reasons the Middle East never developed feudalism to same extent Western Europe did.