WI: Butterfly Wahhabism/Salafism/Hanbalism*

Oh thought we were talking about ottomans.

No, the point was; the Ottomans waged war against the Safavid for their kufr, namely for the following reasons:

1. The Qizbilash worshipped Is’mail I as a god or the living representation of Allah upon earth.

2. The Safavid ruling system revolves around constant cursing of the companions, which they placed upon their coins, announced in all documents and at all sermons.

3. Their assaults upon the Muslim were intolerable.

Hence, the Ottomans did their duty as the caliph to destroy such transgressors as Is’mail, a taghoot and his radical twelver-ghulat supporters. The Nejdi warriors likewise were waging their own wars against varied Shi’a near them, who fled into Ottoman Iraq. The Ottomans chose to protect these groups against the Nejdi and hence the Nejd went to war against the Ottomans. In other words, this action was permitted for the Ottomans, but not for the Nejd?

Mind you, jihad is permissible for an emir below the caliph. This is an accepted practice, from the time of the prophet (SAW), the caliph may arbitrate and coordinate, but jihad is required when it is possible, even if the caliph is not commanding such, as commands from Allah transcend commands from the caliph. The point was this, the ottomans held their empire as a Turkish empire more important than their role as caliph and thus sought to accommodate those who otherwise they were not permitted to accommodate.
 
Anyway, the description of Wahhabi and Hanbali fiqh must be given. Otherwise, there is little difference between it and Hanafi-Shaf’i and so forth on most matters aside from topics such as when one enforces rulings and such.
 
No, my point was that the ottomans lost legitimacy by way of stopping the Nejd warriors from fighting their foes in Iraq.

How do the Ottomans lose legitimacy by not allowing the Najdi's to wage war against the Shia of Karbala and Najaf? The Shia there were hardly a force... and they were Ottoman subjects so the Ottomans have the right and duty to protect them.
 
With a POD after 1600, butterfly any movement that arrived to the same conclusions as Muhammad Wahhab. Thus butterfly Hanbalism as a significant tradition of note.
@John7755 يوحنا @haider najib @Khanzeer

Hanbali fiqh can't go away. Or the Ottomans or any other dynasty promotes other madhabs. I'd say the Safavids being more aggressive against in Arabia by just genociding all Sunnis there. But they don't have the capabilities to enforce it in the interior + the Ottomans have even more support to crush the Safavids which ends all of those attempts.

Wahabism was a reaction of Mohammed ibn Abdal Wahab. His travel to Iraq and encountering the Shias there pretty much helped the formation on his view. He either leaves for Egypt and avoids contact with ths Shia or he dies early. No Wahabism.
 
How do the Ottomans lose legitimacy by not allowing the Najdi's to wage war against the Shia of Karbala and Najaf? The Shia there were hardly a force... and they were Ottoman subjects so the Ottomans have the right and duty to protect them.

Islamically, the ruler does not have rights to defend those who are not within the protection pacts of Jizya or Muslim. According to Ottoman standards, as well as the “Wahhabi” viewpoint, the mainstream Shi’a did not fit this standard. Though, this does not mean you eradicate such peoples per sé. Rather, even a Sunni group, say is having a dispute of some kind, it is not necessary for the ruler to intervene militarily but only to arbitrate the issue. By taking the side of ‘his subjects’ he is choosing the radical ghulati Shi’a. Also, the Ottomans were caliphs, accepted as such by the al-Saud, thus they were Ottoman subjects also, the Ottomans thus were preferring their imperial subjects to their Islamic duties.

It should be mentioned, that the Abbasid and Umayyad allowed groups within their empire to deal with their own disputes, even with arms. It is the Ottomans that break precedence in this regard.
 
The ottoman can easily enforce doctrinal unity here, they are unquestionable in the legitimacy and strength who going to fight there opinion?
The Nejdi for one... Then you got the Mamluk parastates within the empire, the Barbary States which are only nominally subservient to the Sultan, to say nothing of what the peer powers surrounding the Ottomans can/will do should the Ottomans waste their efforts on trying to impose doctrinal unity.
 
The Nejdi for one... Then you got the Mamluk parastates within the empire, the Barbary States which are only nominally subservient to the Sultan, to say nothing of what the peer powers surrounding the Ottomans can/will do should the Ottomans waste their efforts on trying to impose doctrinal unity.
Enforcing doctrinal unity is not that big of a difference or big issue here. They are not changing prayers or anything what do you think they are changing thats going to cause the barbery to revolt? Also you mean the mamaluks destroyed in there conquest and left them to rule for them big threat there. What peers? persia shia, Mughals don't care, oman yes that big threat, Caucasia region what are they going to do, morroco do they even have any major difference in the sunni islam.

You really think doctrinal differences are going to ripe the empire up? They are not changing the quran just making sure everyone of the sunni faith is doing the same thing, which are little and not importance differences, which only imans and scholars would know.
 
Enforcing doctrinal unity is not that big of a difference or big issue here.
I don't think you're really considering the implications of an Ottoman empire willing to persecute a school of jurisprudence out of existence. If the Hanbali are different enough to warrant destruction, what hope is there for other non-Hanafi schools?* To say nothing of the Empire's Shia.

*and that's a genuine question, I'll admit up front that I'm not at all well-versed in the differences between the different schools of jurisprudence.

you think they are changing thats going to cause the barbery to revolt?
The barbary will resist any attempt to centralize, which enforcing doctrinal unity certainly qualifies as.

Also you mean the mamaluks destroyed in there conquest and left them to rule for them big threat there.
They still have armies. By the early 1700s the Ottomans are outsourcing their regional defence needs to them.

What peers?
Safavids, Austrians, Russians, Spanish. All would love to take advantage of an Ottoman state which is tied up internally. You don't need a religious reason to kick your enemy when they're down.

You really think doctrinal differences are going to ripe the empire up?
No. As history proves, ignoring doctrinal differences isn't going to significantly hurt the Empire.

Kicking off a sequel to the Mihna on the other hand...
 
I don't think you're really considering the implications of an Ottoman empire willing to persecute a school of jurisprudence out of existence. If the Hanbali are different enough to warrant destruction, what hope is there for other non-Hanafi schools?* To say nothing of the Empire's Shia.

*and that's a genuine question, I'll admit up front that I'm not at all well-versed in the differences between the different schools of jurisprudence
Islamic rulers have destroyed schools of thought before even mainstream ones done before can done again.

Also who says the barbery will ignore it, they will follow as they are vassals if the ottomans wanted to annex them they would.

hey still have armies. By the early 1700s the Ottomans are outsourcing their regional defence needs to them
Still no match for the ottoman armies also do it pre 1700 when the ottomans are powerful.

Safavids, Austrians, Russians, Spanish. All would love to take advantage of an Ottoman state which is tied up internally
Yes getting ride of a school of thought that only a couple of tribes which number maybe in the few thousands which most of the empire don't even know exist will take up alot of ottoman resources and time. Its not like the ottomans partially destroyed the saudis before oh wait they did and the were not destroyed doing so. This isn't the counter reformation or reformation. This is literally the sultan saying these groups of Bedouins are doing it worng but the ummah will rise up to fight for them now.

Again how most muslims won't care. Second the ottomans are undisputed most powerful muslim state in the world! They have standing armies, Janissery they are not middle abbasids they have nothing that can threaten them for kicking a bunch of Bedouins.
 
Islamic rulers have destroyed schools of thought before even mainstream ones done before can done again.
Again, "If the Hanbali are different enough to warrant destruction, what hope is there for other non-Hanafi schools?"

Ottomans who "aren't religiously slacking" are going to have to contend with the fact that there are plenty of non-Hanafi Sunnis within their empire. Unless you're simply suggesting an arbitrary campaign specifically against the Hanbali, rather than a broader policy of imposing unity (in which case you most likely end up with OTL's botched half effort).

Also who says the barbery will ignore it,
As Malikis they may find "become Hanafi" rather abrasive. As independant states in all but name on the other side of a sea the Ottomans don't control they may find "or else" to be rather amusing.

Still no match for the ottoman armies
And yet when they marched on Baghdad the Ottomans rolled over and accepted it.

also do it pre 1700 when the ottomans are powerful.
Problem! al-Wahhab isn't even born until 1703.

Its not like the ottomans partially destroyed the saudis before oh wait they did and the were not destroyed doing so.
It only took seven years, involved tens of thousands of the Empire's finest, and helped set the stage for the Oriental Crisis... You're right, nothing destabilizing or significant in the slightest. The Sublime Porte is just lucky the Europeans were dealing with a certain corsican manlet.

Oh, not to mention the part where it failed miserably in terms of suppressing (let alone eliminating) Wahhabism.
 
It only took seven years, involved tens of thousands of the Empire's finest, and helped set the stage for the Oriental Crisis... You're right, nothing destabilizing or significant in the slightest. The Sublime Porte is just lucky the Europeans were dealing with a certain corsican manlet.
What does the oriental crisis have to do with this?

Wahhabi war was big but not ultimately a major threat to the empire also they had bigger things to deal witg then. When they did there major push it took 1 year to capture there land and 1 year more to break them.

Problem! al-Wahhab isn't even born until 1703
Yeah so.... ottomab ruled nejd or atleast more religious minded ottomans would butterfly wahhab ideas, again look at the thread anything after 1600 so im well within my rights to use that.

Unless you're simply suggesting an arbitrary campaign specifically against the Hanbali, rather than a broader policy of imposing unity
Yeah actually most sects pose no threats to the ottomans or offer a bigger change unlike salafism.

And yet when they marched on Baghdad the Ottomans rolled over and accepted it.
More like they didn't care and overthrow them later which happened without major war or anything.

Again, "If the Hanbali are different enough to warrant destruction, what hope is there for other non-Hanafi schools?"
Well its simple

Is your school of thought appose the heterodox doctrines of majority sunni muslims? Yes with wahhabism.

Do you reject the ottoman caliph, yes in the case wahhab with his saud allaince.

You do realise wahhabist war happened when sauds were at there most powerful but only took 2 years of campaigning to crush, if any proper caliph cared they would see whats happening earlier and deal with it and nip it before it could get worse.


Also there no evidence it took the empires 'finest' to win the wahhabist war.
 
What does the oriental crisis have to do with this?
The war assisted Muhammad Ali of Egypt's rise.

Yeah so.... ottomab ruled nejd or atleast more religious minded ottomans would butterfly wahhab ideas, again look at the thread anything after 1600 so im well within my rights to use that.
Fair enough.

More like they didn't care and overthrow them later which happened without major war or anything.
Over a century later.

Well its simple

Is your school of thought appose the heterodox doctrines of majority sunni muslims? Yes with wahhabism.

Do you reject the ottoman caliph, yes in the case wahhab with his saud allaince.
Ok, thanks.

You do realise wahhabist war happened when sauds were at there most powerful but only took 2 years of campaigning to crush, if any proper caliph cared they would see whats happening earlier and deal with it and nip it before it could get worse.
I was under the impression that the First Saudi State's rise to general middle eastern prominence was fairly abrupt, rather than something which could have been foreseen far earlier.
 
I was under the impression that the First Saudi State's rise to general middle eastern prominence was fairly abrupt, rather than something which could have been foreseen far earlier.
Thats why i said in my original post a sultan who cares more for the caliph title, he doesn't need to be harun al rashid but one to keep track on whats happening. Its like jordan why does it exist? Because people didn't care enough not to. The ottomans have always used the tribes to keep order (ish) and keep them in check, simply a more islam focused would act earlier or outright annex them as more muslims.

Over a century later
Because its the middle east was the backwards part of the empire, and remote. The ottomans really didn't care that much about the muslim lands the balkans first and foremost. More caliph sultan would focus a bit more on the middle east. The russian empire allowed the muslims of the Caucasus and turan to keep the local rulers and do there shit because it was the ass end of the empire why bother reforming a place you give zero shits about except for making your empire bigger.

The war assisted Muhammad Ali of Egypt's rise
Okay were going off somewhere else here now lol.
 
The question still needs to be for what reason would the Ottomans remove the Hanbali fiqh? The Abbasids attempted only due to their Mu’tazilite sectarianism over their view of the Quran. So, I request the poster to outline why and what is the basis for such prohibitions.
 
So, I request the poster to outline why and what is the basis for such prohibitions
The ottomans want to rule more muslims so they go for arabia at its the easiest target.
This either butterflies away wahhabism due to there direct rule.
Or the ottomans wipe out the little sect simply so its easier to ruler arabia, as the sect isn't causing tension in the region which is remote and the middle of nowhere. It gives the region less reason to fight or rebel.
 
The ottomans want to rule more muslims so they go for arabia at its the easiest target.
This either butterflies away wahhabism due to there direct rule.

Najd and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula was nothing more than a desert backwater with little material value whatsoever at this point in history. It was only until the British took an interest in securing routes to their possessions in the Subcontinent that they became involved in the area's geopolitics. The Ottomans on the other hand have no reason to waste thousands of men, money, and resources governing a region that produces nothing. They were an already decaying empire—it's like the Romans trying to conquer Germania in the 3rd century.
 
Top