WI: Butterfly Wahhabism/Salafism/Hanbalism*

Ottoman focus more on taking arabia, maybe more focus on the title of caliph and trying to take morr muslim land rather than push into hungary and austria.
 

Anawrahta

Banned
Ottoman focus more on taking arabia, maybe more focus on the title of caliph and trying to take morr muslim land rather than push into hungary and austria.
So the Ottomans rather than the khedivate conquer Diriyah and annex hijaz and najd to the ottoman domain? But attempts to suppress the hanbali doctrines at a later date could lead to an earlier emergence or strengthening of Wahhabi/Salafi ideologies if I'm not mistaken. I'm considering a POD to significantly reduce and eliminate hanbali and its daughters wahhabism/salafism respectively.
If I'm mistaken please inform me.
 
So the Ottomans rather than the khedivate conquer Diriyah and annex hijaz and najd to the ottoman domain? But attempts to suppress the hanbali doctrines at a later date could lead to an earlier emergence or strengthening of Wahhabi/Salafi ideologies if I'm not mistaken. I'm considering a POD to significantly reduce and eliminate hanbali and its daughters wahhabism/salafism respectively.
If I'm mistaken please inform me.

Sorry, but can you define what you wish to remove from the Hanbali, what is at offense with the Hanbali fiqh school?
 
If I'm mistaken please inform me.
Thats what the importance of the caliphate is meant for, the caliph uses his title as ummah to declare it not proper islam and use it to push the right doctrine. The abbasids did this to great effect. If the ottomans took their role as calioh seriously they can easily do this.
 
Thats what the importance of the caliphate is meant for, the caliph uses his title as ummah to declare it not proper islam and use it to push the right doctrine. The abbasids did this to great effect. If the ottomans took their role as calioh seriously they can easily do this.

The caliph is not absolute in his judging regarding statements of religion though... The Abbasid caliphate attempted to define general Sunni Islam and particularly Hanbali fiqh as deviant and were ousted in this opinion and had to step back from such things.
 
The Hanbalis were the fiercest opponents of the Najdi movement; Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab's own family, Hanbali scholars, distanced themselves from him and wrote some of the earliest polemical writings against his doctrines. The premise of this scenario isn't consistent with the history of the region nor jurisprudence. If you want to butterfly Salafism, defeat the Saudis by the hands of either the Egyptians or Rashidis.
 
Last edited:
The caliph is not absolute in his judging regarding statements of religion though... The Abbasid caliphate attempted to define general Sunni Islam and particularly Hanbali fiqh as deviant and were ousted in this opinion and had to step back from such things.
Well its how much can the caliph can enforce doctrinal unity, and that depends on power, majority of abbasids caliphate was a bunch of upstarts ruling only Baghdad then yoloing the mongols. The ottoman can easily enforce doctrinal unity here, they are unquestionable in the legitimacy and strength who going to fight there opinion? He can easily point out the wahhabist as a bunch of people causing fitna, and liken them to the Qarmatian.
 
Well its how much can the caliph can enforce doctrinal unity, and that depends on power, majority of abbasids caliphate was a bunch of upstarts ruling only Baghdad then yoloing the mongols. The ottoman can easily enforce doctrinal unity here, they are unquestionable in the legitimacy and strength who going to fight there opinion? He can easily point out the wahhabist as a bunch of people causing fitna, and liken them to the Qarmatian.

The Ottomans were fundamentally different from the Umayyads or Abbasids in the way that they compartmentalized religion, as opposed to other dynasties. They never concerned themselves with the ideas or qualifications of Islamic scholars, the most important positions in Istanbul were simply mouthpieces for the Sultan. This negligence of jurisprudence was in part the reason why the Salafis became so prominent in the Arabian Peninsula in the first place.
 
. They never concerned themselves with the ideas or qualifications of Islamic scholars, the most important positions in Istanbul were simply mouthpieces for the Sultan. This negligence of jurisprudence was in part the reason why the Salafis became so prominent in the Arabian Peninsula in the first place.
Look at my first post i said if the ottomans took the role of caliph seriously and did their jobs there would be no salafism.
 
Look at my first post i said if the ottomans took the role of caliph seriously and did their jobs there would be no salafism.

and this would require changing the Ottomans to the extent that we no longer recognize them as the Ottomans. As I said, they were fundamentally different than the Umayyads or Abbasids, it's not going to happen.
 
and this would require changing the Ottomans to the extent that we no longer recognize them as the Ottomans. As I said, they were fundamentally different than the Umayyads or Abbasids, it's not going to happen.
The question is to get ride of salafism not get ride of salafism and keep the ottoman being a bunch lazy caliphs. Also they will still be the ottomans just need ruler who tends to be more religious and care for being caliph.
 
Well its how much can the caliph can enforce doctrinal unity, and that depends on power, majority of abbasids caliphate was a bunch of upstarts ruling only Baghdad then yoloing the mongols. The ottoman can easily enforce doctrinal unity here, they are unquestionable in the legitimacy and strength who going to fight there opinion? He can easily point out the wahhabist as a bunch of people causing fitna, and liken them to the Qarmatian.

Well that is the issue, what sort of fitna were the Wahabi causing? The Ottomans in fighting the Najdi state who waged war against Shi'a, lost legitimacy as the Ottomans had only 200 years prior done similar things to the Safavids. Further, the wars and points against the Qarmatians were not because simply that they were causing fitna, but because the Qarmatians were spreaders of a different religion and waging war against the Abbasid directly. The Ottomans were not attacked directly by the Nejd warriors, rather the dispute was with Arab tribes and units who were Shi'a and living within the Ottoman lands. The Ottomans had no Islamic right to prohibit such actions...

Further, the views of the Wahhabi were not very different from the Ottoman's and their Hanafi fiqh.The Ottomans were simply not of the same stuff that they were in the past, where they waged wars against the enemies of Islam and favored the Sunni.
 
Wahabi causing?
sacking mecca, and raiding muslims.

The Ottomans in fighting the Najdi state who waged war against Shi'a, lost legitimacy as the Ottomans had only 200 years prior done similar things to the Safavids.
A yes but they came up with an excuse to justify it.

This pod is post 1600s so the ottomans are absolutely legitimate and powerful enough to get away with it.

lost legitimacy as the Ottomans had only 200 years prior done similar things to the Safavids.
Ali didn't punish the people who killed the last caliph, the umayyads killed Muhammad grandsons, the abbasids red wedding the umayyad clan you are overplaying how legitimacy losing waging war against muslims is, the greatest caliphates have all done terrible stuff and they are still legitimate and by the time of the ottomans waging war on fellow muslims was fine, even if the religion says no everyone did it.
 
sacking mecca, and raiding muslims.


A yes but they came up with an excuse to justify it.

This pod is post 1600s so the ottomans are absolutely legitimate and powerful enough to get away with it.


Ali didn't punish the people who killed the last caliph, the umayyads killed Muhammad grandsons, the abbasids red wedding the umayyad clan you are overplaying how legitimacy losing waging war against muslims is, the greatest caliphates have all done terrible stuff and they are still legitimate and by the time of the ottomans waging war on fellow muslims was fine, even if the religion says no everyone did it.

No, my point was that the ottomans lost legitimacy by way of stopping the Nejd warriors from fighting their foes in Iraq.
 
No, my point was that the ottomans lost legitimacy by way of stopping the Nejd warriors from fighting their foes in Iraq.
legitimacy can be regained easily, the sunni muslim world didnt go shouting out traitor when they did this know did they. They can simply demand the nejdi bend the knee as the caliph has the right to rule all muslims and use this as the excuse to then fight them when they reject this.
 
legitimacy can be regained easily, the sunni muslim world didnt go shouting out traitor when they did this know did they. They can simply demand the nejdi bend the knee as the caliph has the right to rule all muslims and use this as the excuse to then fight them when they reject this.

My position was not what the Ottomans can or cannot do. Only that what the Nejdi did was not anywhere similar to what the Qarmatians did or said; this is even the consensus among most serious Sunni Muslim scholars.
 
Top