Wednesday, November 5, 2014

How the Muslims Killed Dracula SHIBLI ZAMAN

Author’s Note 10-10-2014: I wrote “How the Muslims Killed Dracula” in 2010 in hopes of telling the little known story of an unsung hero, Radu cel Frumos the Voivod and warrior of Wallachia who led the battle against the genocidal mania of his own brother, Vlad Ţepeş, known in infamy as Dracula. Since then, the article has been shared thousands of times, translated into multiple languages and built upon by other talented authors with greater detail than presented in my article. Unfortunately, it has also been copied not so discretely or elegantly without any credit to me. In one instance it was even plagiarized by an infamous sympathizer of terrorism twisting the information in the article for his nefarious ends. Simply put —mostly good, but occasionally bad— it got around. I thank you for that and I am sure Radu and his dear friend Sultan Mehmet II thank you as well.
Who would have thought that 117 years after Dracula was introduced to the western world by Bram Stoker he would ever be seen as a hero. But, sadly, in today’s geopolitical climate and all its medieval saber rattling it seems that anyone who ever brutally massacred Muslims will be reinvented as a hero. But this weekend a seemingly ridiculous sci-fi/quasi-historical film that butchers the historical narrative of Vlad Ţepeş and completely reverses the antagonists with the protagonists will be hitting a theater near you. The film tries to evoke parallels to Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart” by painting a picture of an invading army, who happen to be Muslims, being opposed by a local prince who must resort to the most grotesque forms of violence in order to repel them. As many of you may be seeing the film —though I actually hope you don’t— I’d like you to take some points into the theater with you:
The film depicts an invading Muslim army demanding the children of the poor conquered Christians from whom Vlad Ţepeş (whom I will henceforth refer to as Dracula) supposedly rises as a rebel leader. This is pure nonsense.
Dracula’s father Vlad Dracul II and their clan, the House of Drăculești, had been dutiful allies of the Ottoman Turks. The Ottoman Turks actually fought John Hunyadi, the bitter enemy of the House of Drăculești, in order to place Vlad Dracul II upon the throne. So, not only were the Ottoman Turks not the enemies of Dracula’s family, they actually fought to put them in power. (As an aside, John Hunyadi is the patriarch of the Corvinus family who are portrayed as vampire royalty in the “Underworld” films.)
Furthermore, the father of Dracula himself offered the Ottoman Turks the military service of Wallachia’s young boys to train in the Ottoman Turkish military which was, by far, the greatest military in the world at that time. Not only that, he even offered his own two sons, Dracula and Radu, to serve in their army and to be raised as Muslims. You can read about their childhood in Ottoman Turkish military service in my article.
So why did Dracula rise up against the Ottomans? The opportunist that he was, the reason is simple: Gold. Even though the Christians had lost nearly every single Crusade against the Muslims, in 1459 at the Council of Mantua, Pope Pius II called for yet another Crusade against the Muslims. At that time, the Muslim world was championed by the Ottoman Empire. Pope Pius II gave Matthias Corvinus, Dracula’s rival and son of John Hunyadi who was Dracula’s father’s rival, an astounding amount of gold. No less than 40,000 gold pieces which was enough, in and of itself, to raise and build a whole new armyand navy. Dracula simply wasn’t going to let his rival get all the pie to himself. It was at this point that Dracula took the House of Drăculești from being allies of the Ottomans to being their enemies.
We often bemoan the negative portrayal of Muslims in film and television. We get angry when we see absurd portrayals of our prayers and traditions on shows like “Homeland”. But who is to blame when we have absolutely no presence in popular media? I’m sorry to say, we are ultimately to blame. If we will not get involved in and excel in the media from journalism to producing, acting and directing and the plethora of niches in-between and beyond, then we risk our stories almost certainly being told by those who do not favor us. Case in point, in the 4 years since my article was written, I’ve had multiple hit-and-run queries to join an effort to tell this amazing story of the real historical Dracula in film. But in the end, no Muslim, nor even parties sympathetic to just plain telling the truth, ever took up this project. So guess what happened? “Dracula Untold.” That was an opportunity lost. But this is a story that has been told countless times over. It’s not too late for Radu, the heroic brother of Dracula, to have his day.

Originally Posted November 2010 
Born in the Ottoman Principality of Wallachia, Romania in 1435 AD, he was known as Radu al III-lea cel Frumos to his Romanian countrymen, Yakışıklı Radu Bey to the Turks, Radu al-Wasim to the Arabs, and Radu the Handsome in English. This ally and childhood friend of Sultan Mehmet II was instrumental in the conquest of Constantinople for Islam. Radu’s participation in that conquest ensured that Mehmet II would go down in history as “Fatih,” or “Conqueror.” Radu was the Ottomans’ secret weapon against the Safavids to the East and the Serbs, Romanians and Hungarians to the West. The Muslim world owes much to this hero of Islam, yet they recorded little other than cursory references to him, perhaps for fear of taking away from Fatih Sultan Mehmet’s limelight. The Byzantines recorded Radu as a reviled despot due to their hatred for his conversion to Islam and instrumental role in ending the Byzantine Empire.
Yet, this Ottoman general had a greater war, a war against darkness. He hunted the very progenitor of the vampire legend who impaled his enemies and drank their blood – Vlad al III-lea Ţepeş, also known as Vlad Drăculea, who would go down in infamy as, simply, Dracula. The character of Professor Abraham Van Helsing was no more than a figment of Bram Stoker’s terrifying imagination, but Sultan Mehmet II and Radu cel Frumos were perhaps the first and only true vampire hunters in history.
The Blood Brothers
Looking back, Radu’s devotion to Islam and to Sultan Mehmet II could be traced to the political alliance of their respective fathers before them. Vlad II from the House of Drăculeşti (“House of the Dragon”) was an ally and vassal of Sultan Mehmet’s father, Sultan Murad II. Vlad II had 4 sons: Mircea IIVlad IV Călugărul (“The Monk”), Vlad III who would come to be known as Dracula, and Radu III cel Frumos (“The Handsome”). As a gesture of unity with the Sultan, Vlad II offered his sons, Dracula and Radu, to serve the Ottoman Sultan. Under the Janissaries they studied the Qur’an, Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Islamic Theology and Jurisprudence, and, coveted above all, Turkish military strategy and tactics of war.
The Ottoman special forces who held a higher status both militarily as well as socially than the rank and file were the Janissaries and the Sipahis. The Janissaries were the elite infantry of the Ottoman military as well as the personal bodyguards of the Sultan and his family. The Sipahis were the elite cavalry who surrounded the Sultan in battle and would be sent to deal with the most stubborn of adversaries. They were the commandos and special forces of their day. Though the Sipahis were almost exclusively Turkic in origin as demanded by Sultan Mehmet II himself in his treatise of law entitledKanun Nameh-e-Sipahi (“Law Book of the Sipahis”), the Janissaries, within whose ranks Dracula and Radu found themselves, were conversely converts to Islam.
The young Dracula continually abused and rebelled against his hosts earning himself imprisonment and castigation. Due to the heavy handedness of the Turks in response to his insolence, he developed a compounded and complex series of grudges. He hated his father for allying with the Turks, which he saw as a betrayal of the Order of the Dragon to which his father had sworn an oath. The Order of the Dragon was a Christian fraternity whose sole aim was to wipe out Islam from the Balkans forever. Dracula hated Radu for his successes and the favor the Turks bestowed upon him. He was filled with jealousy for the then young Mehmet II who, like him, was a prince, but, very unlike him, lived in splendor. He was also jealous of his brothers Mircea and Vlad the Monk due to what he perceived as his father’s preference for them. His sentiments for Mircea however, would teeter between jealousy and awe. It is from him that the young Dracula learned the terror tactic of impaling thousands to create forests of the dead.
Radu remained faithful to Islam and the Sultan and spent his entire life in battle on the frontiers of the Ottoman Empire, vanquishing the most difficult adversaries of the Empire. His natural knack for battle was unparalleled even amongst the Janissaries and elite Sipahis of the Ottoman military, and he would be called upon frequently to subdue any foe that seemed insurmountable. It is reported that he turned the very course of Near Eastern history when he stopped the mighty Ak Koyunlu from overrunning the Ottomans, an event that, if not stopped, would have definitely changed the faces of both the Middle East and Europe today. For this very reason, he was called upon to face the threat from his homeland of Wallachia that neither the elite Janissaries nor the Sipahis could route.
The Conquest of Constantinople
“On the third day after the fall of our city, the Sultan celebrated his victory with a great, joyful triumph. He issued a proclamation: the citizens of all ages who had managed to escape detection were to leave their hiding places throughout the city and come out into the open, as they were to remain free and no question would be asked. He further declared the restoration of houses and property to those who had abandoned our city before the siege, if they returned home, they would be treated according to their rank and religion, as if nothing had changed.” (George Sphrantzes, 1401-1478, Byzantine Christian chronicler and witness of the fall of Constantinople)
It was a time of relief and rejoicing. It was a relief for the inhabitants of Constantinople who expected a prompt culling following the fall of their city. It was a time of celebration for the entire Muslim world for this historical conquest of a city that has remained, to this very day, the capital of the Turks. Yet as Sultan Mehmet II rode into the city victorious, a glance over to his childhood friend and chief of the Janissaries, Radu cel Frumos, son of Vlad II Duke of Wallachia, may have served as a sobering reminder that to the North, beyond the spoils of Byzantium, their fiercest enemies lay in wait. Among those enemies was the most feared of them all, Dracula, who just so happened to be Radu’s own brother.
The Rise of Dracula
Opportunistic betrayal was the way of Wallachia’s rulers and in one such brief betrayal, Vlad II silently allowed his older sons, Mircea and Vlad IV, to launch an insurrection after which Mircea impaled all his prisoners upon stakes. The young Dracula loved the sight of this and later joined Mircea in further insurrections against the Ottomans as well as the rival Dăneşti clan supported by the Hungarian warlord, John Hunyadi. Ultimately, Hunyadi overran Dracula’s father, slew him in the marshes of Bălteni and blinded and buried Mircea alive at Târgovişte. Hunyadi installed a Dăneşti prince, Vladislav II, over Wallachia. In his ambition and lust for power, Dracula put aside any vengeful sentiments for his slaughtered father and brother and allied with Hunyadi and served him as an adviser. As John Hunyadi went to face the Turks at Belgrade in modern day Serbia, Dracula attacked and slew Vladislav and took the throne for himself. As fortune would have it, a plague broke out amongst Hunyadi’s camp, infecting him which lead to his death. Sultan Mehmet was severely wounded in the battle. These events left Dracula to rule Wallachia uninterrupted for 6 years. It was the only time he ruled his home for so long.
The Impaler
“I have killed men and women, old and young… We killed 23,884 Turks and Bulgarians without counting those whom we burned in their homes or whose heads were not cut by our soldiers.” (Dracula, in a letter to Matthias Corvinus bragging of his tyranny)
As Sultan Mehmet approached what appeared to be a fetid balding forest of rotting trees in the distance he soon realized the horror of what he approached. They were so close to their destination – the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște -that he was in no mood for this puzzling sight. But the figures became more clear as the steeds in the cavalry grew unruly and the infantry felt ill. Before him stood 20,000 impaled bodies of innocent men, women and children, all victims of Dracula in that winter of 1462.
Dracula’s Muslim upbringing, albeit abandoned in deference to opportunity, and fluency in Turkish enabled him to move about the Ottomans’ most secured camps freely as a Turk without being noticed. This had deadly consequences for the Muslims. Dracula had entered Serbia with his men all dressed as Turkish Sipahis and slaughtered all the Muslim villagers, and those non-Muslims friendly to them that they could find. The intent was to leave a horrifying memento for Sultan Mehmet whom they knew to be soon taking their capital city. They erected this unholy monument in a bid to alarm the Sultan and terrorize his troops in hopes that they might turn around and retreat home.
What is remarkable is that there are no records of mass desertion of Ottoman troops after witnessing this. They pressed on unflinchingly. However, some historians have suggested that Sultan Mehmet II lost his taste for hunting down the ‘vampire’ following this invasion of Wallachia and left the task up to the only one who was capable of hunting down Dracula and killing him. After taking the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște, Mehmet returned home, leaving the hunt to Radu. After all, it would take someone who knew the mind of Dracula to defeat him, and none fit this bill better than his own brother.
This event earned Dracula the name of Vlad Ţepeş, the Romanian word “Ţepeş” meaning “Impaler”. Legend has it that if you look closely at the word you can see Dracula’s fangs dangling beneath as a hidden warning to the vampire’s terrible lust for blood.
Radu vs. Dracula: Brothers in Blood
As Târgoviște was taken, Dracula fled towards Transylvania in hopes of finding refuge with John Hunyadi’s son Matthias Corvinus. As was typical of Dracula’s opportunism and lack of reverence for religion, he offered to become Catholic in order to win Corvinus’ favor. He scorched the earth and slaughtered all the living in his path leaving a wake of desolation and writhing impaled bodies. He would not give up his homeland to the Muslims that easily. He began a beleaguering campaign of guerilla warfare that the elite Ottoman Sipahis could not endure. It is said he slaughtered 15,000 of the Ottoman soldiers in one single night. Still, as the mightiest of the Ottomans fled, Radu was undeterred seemingly driven by what can only be interpreted as an austere piety, to end the bloody reign of his haplessly misguided brother. None remained to fight Dracula save Radu and his fellow Romanian Muslim Janissaries.
The brothers fought lingering battles for the throne of Wallachia and Radu’s control of the region increased staggeringly with Dracula receiving less and less support from Matthias Corvinus in Hungary. In a strange twist of fate, Corvinus, the one to whom Dracula retreated, had him imprisoned for 12 years on charges of high treason. The people of Wallachia and their Christian nobles had enough of Dracula’s terror and put their support behind Radu who was pronounced Voivod, Prince and Ruler of Wallachia in 1462. Radu ruled the land prosperously for 11 years until his death while Dracula wasted away in a Budapest prison patiently waiting to rise again from the darkness.
Dracula’s Release and Final Battle
After Radu’s death in 1473, Dracula was released from prison. He immediately assembled an army and invaded Bosnia, slaughtering its Muslim population and impaling 8,000 on stakes in a forest of human bodies. Once again, Dracula had arisen from the darkness with the objective of eliminating Islam from the Balkans forever. He finally acquired the throne of Wallachia after his departed brother, but only for a month. Sultan Mehmet invaded Wallachia to remove this profanity from the throne his dear friend Radu had vacated in death. In 1476 the forces of Sultan Mehmet faced the forces of Dracula in Bucharest, Romania. Dracula’s army was overrun in a blitz and all were killed, including Dracula himself. The vampire had been slain. News of this did not suffice. His head was cut off and preserved in a jar of honey and sent to Constantinople. There, in a fitting end, Dracula’s head was impaled upon a stake in the center of Constantinople for all to see. There was to be no doubt or mystery.
The Muslims had finally, at last, killed Dracula.

References
  • Dracula: Essays on the Life and Times of Vlad Ţepeş, Kurt W. Treptow
  • Vlad III Dracula: The Life and Times of the Historical Dracula, Kurt W. Treptow
  • The Complete Dracula, Radu Florescu, Raymond T. McNally
  • Vlad Ţepeş, Prince of Walachia, Nicolae Stoicescu
  • Tarikh al-Dawlah al-`Uthmaniyyah  fi-l `Usur al-Wusta (Arabic), Dr. Mahmud al-Huwayri
  • Al-`Uthmaniyin fi-l Tarikh wal-Hadharah (Arabic), Dr. Muhammad Harb
  • Tarikh al-Dawlah al-`Uthmaniyyah (Arabic), Dr. Ali Hassoun
  • Al-Sultan Muhammad al-Fatih (Arabic), Dr. Sayyid Ridwan `Ali

Alahazrat Per 150 Aetirazat Aur Un Kay Jawabaat


 Alahazrat Per 150 Aetirazat Aur Un Kay Jawabaat



Author:Maulana Muhammad Jahangir Naqshbandi


Category:Shaksiyat
      

Language:Urdu
Pages:42

Download




Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Mehmed II and the Prophet’s Promise

Mehmed II and the Prophet’s Promise


Prophet Muhammad ﷺ  promised his followers in the Arabian Desert that they would one day conquer the most powerful and legendary city of the day, Constantinople. For centuries, it seemed like an impossible task. The city is incredibly well-defended, being a peninsula with a giant wall on it’s land side that deterred most conquerors. The city was laid siege to by Muslim armies during the Umayyad Caliphate, but those sieges were unable to defeat her mammoth walls.
When the Ottoman Empire sprang up in the early 1300s as a small Turkish beylik in Western Anatolia, it threatened the security of the Byzantines and their capital, Constantinople. By the time Sultan Mehmed II takes the throne in 1451, the Ottomans have expanded to control land in both Europe and Asia, thus surrounding the city of Constantinople. Sultan Mehmed made it his goal from the moment he took the throne to finally capture the legendary city. He ordered the building of a fortress on the Bosporus Strait, north of Constantinople to control ship movement in and out of the city. To honor the Prophet who declared the Muslims would conquer Constantinople, Mehmed had the fortress built in a way that it’s shape spelled out “Muhammad” in Arabic when seen from above.
On April 1st, 1453, Mehmed and his Ottoman army of over 100,000 soldiers arrived at the walls of Constantinople. The sight that greeted them must have been terrifying. The inner walls of Constantinople were 5 meters thick at their base and 12 meters high. 20 meters away from the inner wall was the outer wall, which was 2 meters thick and 8.5 meters tall. These walls had never been conquered in history, and numerous previous sieges by the Ottomans as well as the Umayyads during the caliphate of Mu’awiya in the 600s attested to that.
In addition to the walls, the Byzantines had a giant iron chain installed in the Golden Horn, a small inlet to the north of the city. This would prevent a navy from sailing to the weaker northern coast of the city and attacking from there. The Byzantines had a clear defensive advantage before the battle began. Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, the Byzantines were confident of their impending victory. Especially once additional soldiers and commanders were sent from the Italian city-state of Genoa.
Mehmed offered the defenders the option to surrender and remain in possession of their property, lives, and families in peace, but this offer was refused by the Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI. Thus, Mehmed began the attack on the city on April 6th. Despite the best effort of the Ottoman soldiers, and the bombardment of the world’s biggest cannons, the city held out for weeks. On April 22nd, Mehmed ordered the Ottoman navy to be carried over land to bypass the chain in the Golden Horn. Over one night, 72 ships were carried over land and put into the Golden Horn, threatening the city from the north.
It seemed that the battle of the city would soon be over as the Ottomans clearly had the upper hand. On May 28th, Mehmed halted all attacks and allowed his army to spend the day praying to Allah for victory. The next day, on May 29th, the army began a final assault on the city walls and before the morning was over, the walls were conquered and the city was taken.
Perhaps the most important part of this historical event was Mehmed II’s treatment of the defeated Byzantines. He did not kill the residents of the city and in fact encouraged them to stay in Constantinople by absolving them of taxes. He insisted that the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate stay in the city and rule the Christians of the city on his behalf. While to the rest of Europe, the idea of religious tolerance was a foreign concept, Mehmed followed the Islamic principles on treatment of non-Muslims and gave religious freedom and rights to the Christians of Constantinople. His abilities in battle and his virtuous qualities earned him the nickname “al-Fatih” or “the Conqueror”.

Al-Biruni: A Master of Scholarship

When learning about Islamic history, it’s hard to not be amazed at the scientific and intellectual accomplishments of Muslims in the past. From medicine to mathematics to philosophy to art to physics, during their golden age, Muslims were at the forefront of almost all sciences, making new discoveries and building on earlier ones. Names like Ibn Sina, Ibn al-Haytham, Ibn Khaldun, and al-Farabi come to mind when people think of the giants of Islamic science.
One man who is in this elite group of the greatest scholars of all time is the Muslim Persian polymath, Abu Rayhan al-Biruni. He lived from 973 to 1048 and spent most of his life in Central Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. During his illustrious career, al-Biruni became an expert in numerous subjects, including history, physics, mathematics, astronomy, linguistics, comparative religion, and earth sciences. Despite the unsettling political problems the Muslim world was dealing with during his life, he managed to rise above the instability and become one of the greatest scholars of history.

Early Life

An illustration of a lunar eclipse, drawn by al-Biruni and annotated in Persian.
An illustration of a lunar eclipse, drawn by al-Biruni and annotated in Persian.
Al-Biruni was born in the province of Khorasan, in Northeastern Persia in 973. Like many other children in his time, he was educated at a young age, learning the Arabic and Persian languages, as well as basic Islamic studies, and natural sciences. Early on, he took an interest in mathematics and astronomy, which he specialized in under the eminent astronomers of the day.
In his 20s, he moved away from home in his pursuit of knowledge. For 3 years he traveled throughout Persia, learning from scholars about numerous subjects. When he finally settled in Jurjan (modern Gorgan) in 998, he worked for the local ruler, Shams al-Ma’ali Qabus. For the next 10 years, he lived in this small northern Irani city, doing research, writing books, and learning more.
During this time, he wrote a monumental work that analyzed historical chronologies of ancient civilizations, along with the rise and fall of empires. The book foreshadowed his future as a scholar of numerous subjects. It is more than just a history book, as it brings history, science, astronomy, and cultural studies together to explain events of the past. Al-Biruni clearly became one of the foremost minds of his day through his work in Jurjan.

In Ghazni

Al-Biruni would not accomplish some of his greatest works until he moved to Ghazni, and was under the patronage of Sultan Mahmud. Ghazni was a major city at the time, located in what is now Afghanistan. Mahmud’s empire stretched far beyond the borders of modern Afghanistan, however, into present-day Iran, Pakistan, and India. In this powerful empire, al-Biruni had the resources and ability to show what he was capable of doing.
Al-Biruni's travels into India opened the door to some of his greatest discoveries.
Al-Biruni’s travels into India opened the door to some of his greatest discoveries.
Of particular benefit to al-Biruni was the fact that Sultan Mahmud regularly embarked on military expeditions into India to protect his domain there. Mahmud had a habit of taking al-Biruni along on all his military campaigns, so al-Biruni was exposed regularly to language, culture, and religion in India.
Blessed with a mind that was capable of picking up new ideas easily, al-Biruni quickly managed to learn Sanskrit, the language of Hindu liturgy. This opened up an entire realm of Indian books that he could learn from and compare with books from other parts of the world. He translated books from Sanskrit into Arabic and Persian, and also translated from Arabic to Sanskrit. He was a firm believer in the idea that civilizations should aim to learn from each other instead of destroy each other.
Because of his ability to read ancient Hindu texts, al-Biruni was able to compile an encyclopedia of ancient Indian history, known as Kitab Tarikh al-Hind - The Book of Indian History. In fact, much of what is known today about ancient India comes directly from al-Biruni’s book. Tarikh al-Hind does more than tell the reader about ancient India, however. It is also a testament to the fact that al-Biruni was able to put together so many different sciences to fully understand the background of historical events. The book is a window into Indian philosophy, geography, and culture, which al-Biruni immersed himself in to give himself a better understanding of Indian history. As such, Tarikh al-Hindcan truly be considered one of the world’s first books on anthropology – the study of human societies and their development.

Scientific Discoveries

Besides being an expert in Indian history and culture, al-Biruni managed to find time to make scientific advances as well. Because of his travels, he was able to see different geographic features first-hand, and come up with theories as to how they are connected. By analyzing the different types of soil particles in the Ganges River from its source to the Bay of Bengal, al-Biruni formulated theories about erosion and how land forms are shaped, particularly noting the role of water in this process.
In a related study, he discovers fossils of ancient sea animals in the mountains that cut India off from the rest of the world – the Himalayas. It seems unlikely that lowly sea snails and other shellfish would travel thousands of miles inland and up the side of a mountain, so al-Biruni came to the conclusion that the Himalayan Mountains must have been under the ocean at one point, and moved to their present location over millions of years. This directly led to the modern understanding of plate tectonics – how continents move and shift over time.
Al-Biruni also pioneered the field of geology, as he collected, analyzed, and compiled hundreds of metals and gems. He described their properties, how they are made, and where they can be found. His books on gemstones served as a standard for understanding precious stones for hundreds of years.
Al-Biruni on a modern Iranian stamp
Al-Biruni on a modern Iranian stamp
Al-Biruni continued a remarkable career in the early 1000s, doing research into fields such as:
How the earth spins on its axis
How wells and springs transport water to the surface
Combining statics and dynamics into the study of mechanics
Recording the latitude and longitude of thousands of cities, which allowed him to determine the direction towards Makkah for each city
The optical nature of shadows, particularly their use for the calculation of prayer times
Separating scientific astronomy from superstitious astrology
During his 75 years, al-Biruni managed to revolutionize the way numerous subjects were understood. By the time he died in 1048, he had authored well over 100 books, of which many have not survived till today. His intellect and mastery of various subjects, and his ability to relate them together to gain a better understanding of each puts him among the greatest Muslim scholars of all time. His life serves as proof of the ability of Muslim scholars of the past to push the limits of knowledge and establish new frontiers in the sciences. It also serves to show the ability of the best scholars to rise above political problems, wars, and and general instability to still do world-changing research and make remarkable discoveries.

Al-Ghazali and the Revival of Islamic Scholarship

Al-Ghazali and the Revival of Islamic Scholarship


Prophet Muhammad ﷺ promised that every century, a re-newer of the faith of Islam will arise. Throughout history, great Muslim intellectuals, rulers, generals, and artists have come and managed to rejuvenate faith in the Muslim world and help Muslims deal with the problems of that age. For each one of these great figures, a specific historical context was necessary for them to accomplish what they did.
One of the greatest renewers of the faith in history was the 11th century scholar Abu Hamid al-Ghazali. Today, he is known as Hujjat al-Islam, the Proof of Islam, because of his efforts in intellectually fighting against some of the most dangerous ideas and philosophies that plagued the Muslim world during his time. From the ubiquitous nature of ancient Greek philosophy to the rising tide of political Shi’ism, Imam al-Ghazali did not leave a stone unturned in his effort to bring back serious Islamic scholarship in the face of heterodox threats.

Early Life

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali was born in 1058 in the city of Tus, in modern Iran. He hailed from a Persian family but was fluent in Arabic, which he wrote in, like many other Muslim scholars of his era. He was educated in the basics of Islam and Islamic law from an early age, and counted the eminent Shafi’i scholar al-Juwayni among his teachers.
During his self-imposed exile, al-Ghazali lived in the al-Aqsa Mosque.
During his self-imposed exile, al-Ghazali lived in the al-Aqsa Mosque.
After completing his education, he joined the court of the Seljuk vizier Nizam al-Mulk in Isfahan in 1085. Nizam al-Mulk was known for his efforts to establish advanced educational centers around the Muslim world. He thus appointed al-Ghazali as a teacher in the Nizamiyya School in Baghdad in 1091. In Baghdad, al-Ghazali had a very prestigious position and regularly attracted huge crowds to his lectures.
In 1095, however, al-Ghazali experienced a spiritual crisis during which he began to doubt his intentions in teaching. He stated in his autobiography that his intention “was not directly purely to God, but rather was instigated and motivated by the quest for fame and widespread prestige.” Recognizing his spiritual dilemma, he abandoned his post at the Nizamiyya and traveled to Damascus, Jerusalem, and the Hejaz. During his travels, he focused on tazkiya (purification) of his soul and analysis of the various approaches to Islam that were popular during his day.
He did eventually go back to Baghdad in 1106 and began teaching again. His travels and search for a way to purify his intentions had a huge influence on his public role, and he was sometimes met with controversy during his stay in Baghdad. He eventually moved back to his hometown of Tus, where he died in 1111.

Refutation of Philosophy

In his autobiography, Deliverance from Error, al-Ghazali describes the approaches to finding truth that people follow. One of the popular ideologies at the time was philosophy, based on the ancient Greek philosophical models of Aristotle. Prominent Muslim proponents of Aristotelian philosophy included Ibn Sina and al-Farabi.
The dangers of Aristotelian philosophy and logic, according to al-Ghazali, was the conclusions the philosophers came to. Some philosophers would come to believe things such as the eternity of the world and the non-existence of God, or that God is not all-knowing. For al-Ghazali and other Muslims grounded in orthodox Islamic beliefs, these new ideas were counted as disbelief in the tenants of Islam.
As al-Ghazali saw it, no Muslim scholar had so far managed to effectively refute these philosophers. Since the philosophers were experts at logic and argument, they appeared to make very clear and sensical arguments for their positions, despite the fact that those positions directly contradicted Islamic belief.
Al-Ghazali took on the challenge of showing the problems in the philosophers’ arguments on their own terms in The Incoherence of the Philosopherswhich was published in 1095. Using the philosophers’ logic against them, he managed to clearly show the holes in the philosophical arguments that led to disbelief. To do this, he had to delve deeply into philosophy itself, a practice he did not recommend for the masses  Throughout his writing, he emphasizes the importance of being firmly grounded in correct belief before delving into heterodox beliefs.
Another major problem that al-Ghazali had to deal with was the rising tide of Muslims who accepted the Ismaili Shi’a belief that an infallible Hidden Imam is a valid source of Islamic law and creed. For the Ismailis,who ruled Egypt during al-Ghazali’s life, the prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ was not the final word in religious matters, and a special holy figure, known as an Imam, can be turned to for guidance.
In Deliverance from Error, al-Ghazali refuted their claims of having an Imam on a scriptural basis, by showing that there existed no authentic narrations of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ regarding an Imamate after his death. He also went beyond that to logically answer the claims that an Imam is necessary by analyzing the role of Islamic law and how it is derived. Without going too far into his proofs (which are much better understood by reading his original work), he comes to the conclusion regarding the Ismailis that:
“The substance of their doctrine comes down to deceiving the common folk and the dimwitted
by showing the need for the authoritative teacher.”1
After analyzing the approaches to Islam through philosophical, Shi’a, and other means, al-Ghazali comes to the conclusion that the only effective way to understand the world is through the authentic practice of Islam as was taught by the Prophet ﷺ and early generations. At his time, this was being practiced by the Sufis, a group who renounced dependence on this world and focused entirely on purification of their own souls in an attempt to better serve Allah.2

Al-Ghazali and Science

A common accusation that has been leveled at Imam al-Ghazali by Orientalist scholars is that his refutation of philosophy led to a general decline of Islamic scientific advancement. They base their claims that many of the people that al-Ghazali refuted, such as Ibn Sina and al-Farabi, were some of the leading scientific scholars of the day. The truth, however, is of course more nuanced.
While al-Ghazali clearly did take issue with the philosophical ideas of scholars who also wrote great mathematical and scientific treatises, he makes very clear the distinction between philosophy and science. Al-Ghazali states:
“Whoever takes up these mathematical sciences marvels at the fine precision of their details and the clarity of their proofs. Because of that, he forms a high opinion of the philosophers and assumes that all their sciences have the same lucidity and apodeictic solidity as this science of mathematics.”3
The danger in studying mathematics and other sciences, argues al-Ghazali, is not that the subject itself is contrary to Islam and should be avoided. Rather, the student must be careful to accept the scientific ideas of scholars without blindly accepting everything they say regarding philosophy and other problematic subjects.
He goes on to state that there is another danger for an ignorant student of the sciences, and that is the rejection of all scientific discoveries of scholars on the basis that they were also philosophers with heterodox beliefs. He states:
“Great indeed is the crime against religion committed by anyone who supposes that Islam is to be championed by the denial of these mathematical sciences. For the revealed Law nowhere undertakes to deny or affirm these sciences, and the latter nowhere address themselves to religious matters.”4
When one reads Imam al-Ghazali’s works at a very superficial level, one can easily misunderstand what he is saying as anti-scientific in general. The truth, however, is that al-Ghazali’s only warning to students is to not fully accept all the beliefs and ideas of a scholar simply because of his achievements in mathematics and science. By issuing such a warning, al-Ghazali is in fact protecting the scientific enterprise for future generations by insulating it from being mixed with theoretical philosophy that could eventually dilute science itself to a field based on conjecture and reasoning alone.

Legacy

This article does not attempt to provide a comprehensive overview of Imam al-Ghazali and all his ideas and contributions. To do so would require full textbooks analyzing his writings. Instead, the purpose is to show the impact that al-Ghazali had on his own era and subsequent Islamic history.
Imam al-Ghazali today is known as Hujjat al-Islam, Arabic for “the Proof of the Religion” due to his contributions in protecting the Muslim world from the intellectual challenges that were facing it. Traditional Islamic beliefs and practices were being confronted by a rise of nihilistic philosophy and extreme Shi’ism that threatened to erase change the face of Islamic scholarship forever. Due to his efforts and the numerous scholars he inspired, the path was paved for the resurgence of Islamic belief as it was taught by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, free from external corruption. His life clearly kept in line with the saying of the Prophet ﷺ promising a renewer of the faith every century, 500 years after it was spoken.
Footnotes:
2 – A distinction should be made between the Sufism of Imam al-Ghazali and some of the various brands of Sufism today. Al-Ghazali’s support of the Sufis in his time should not be taken as a blanket endorsement of all Sufi ideologies today, some of which may lead to innovation or misguidance. In Imam al-Ghazali’s time, Sufism at its core simply meant purifying the soul and turning it towards Allah, as al-Ghazali states about the Sufis:”The aim of their knowledge is to lop off the obstacles present in the soul and to rid oneself of its reprehensible habits and vicious qualities in order to attain thereby a heart empty of all save God and adorned with the constant remembrance of God.”

¤ NIYAZ E IMAM HUSSAIN رضي الله تعالى عنه

¤ NIYAZ E IMAM HUSSAIN رضي الله تعالى عنه
BARA E ESALE SAWAAB ¤
Imam Alama Tahtawi farmate hai:
" Ahle sunnat ke nazdeek yeh jaiz hai ki koi insaan apne amal ka sawab kisi gair ko phochaye khwa woh amal namaz ho ya roza ya hajj ya sadka wa kahirat ho ya tilawat e quran ya zikr ya uske alawa nek amaal mein se koi bhi amal ho. Aur un amaal ka sawab marhoom ko phochta hai aur use fayda bhi deta hai. [¤ HASHIYA AL TAHTAWI ALA MARAQI AL FALAH:376]
▶ KHANE YA PEENE KI CHEEZ (JAISE SHARBAT WAGAIRA) KA ESALE SAWAB KARNA JAIZ HAI.
¤ HADEES :
" Hazrat Saad Bin Ubada رضي الله تعالى عنهbayan karte hai ki unhone kaha Ya Rasulallah صلی اللہُ علیہِ و آلہِ وسلمِ! Saad ki walida faut ho gayi. Pas kis cheez ka sadqa karna sabse afzal hai? Aap صلی اللہُ علیہِ و آلہِ وسلمِ ne farmaya PAANI KA. Unhone kuwa khudwaya aur kaha yeh (kuwa) Saad ki maa ke liye hai.
[¤ SUNAN ABU DAWOOD, KITAB UL ZAKAT, JILD1]
▶ ESALE SAWAB SAHIH HADEES SE SABIT HAI?
¤ HADEES :
"Hazrat Aisha رضي الله عنها bayan farmati hai ki , Ek shaks ne Huzoor صلی اللہُ علیہِ و آلہِ وسلمِ se arz kiya ki meri Maa achanak faut (inteqaal) ho gayi aur mera gumaan hai ki agar woh kuch baat kar sakti to sadqa karti. Agar mein un ki taraf se kuch sadqa kar du to kya unko Ajr (sawab) milega? Aap صلی اللہُ علیہِ و آلہِ وسلمِne farmaya , HAAN!."
[¤ SAHIH BUKHARI, KITABUL JANAIZ,JILD1;
¤ SAHIH MUSLIM, KITAB UL ZAKAT;
¤ SUNAN ABU DAWOOD, KITAB UL WASAYA;
¤ SUNAN NASAI, KITAB UL WASAYA]


¤ HADEES
" Hazrat Anas رضي الله تعالى عنه se marwi ek Hadees mein Huzoor Nabi e Kareem صلی اللہُ علیہِ و آلہِ وسلمِ ne farmaya: Jab Ahle khana (ghar walo) mein koi apne faut shuda azeez ke liye sadqa wa khairaat kar ke Esale Sawab (Fatiha) karta hai to us ke sawab ka tohfa Hazrat Jibraeil (alayhissalaam) ek khoobsurat thaal mein rakh kar us Qabr wale ke sirhaane ja kar pesh karte hai ki tere fala'a Azeez ne ye sawab ka tohfa bheja hai. Tu isse Qubool kar. Woh shaks use qubool kar leta hai. Woh us par khush hota hai aur dusre Qabr walo ko khushkhabri sunata hai aur uske padosiyo mein se jin ko is qism ka koi tohfa na mila ho woh gumgeen hote hai."
[¤ TABRANI - Al MAUJAMUL AWSAT, jild 7]
▶ ESALE SAWAB MEIN KISI KHANE YA PEENE KI CHEEZ KO SAAMNE RAKH KAR QURAN KI AYAT PADHNA.
¤ QURAN :
SURAH AN'AM, AYAT NO 118-119
"SO TUM USSE KHAYA KARO JIS PAR ALLAH KA NAAM LIYA GAYA HO. AGAR TUM USKI AYATO PAR IMAAN RAKHNE WALE HO. AUR TUMHE KYA HO GAYA KI TUM US SE NAHI KHATE JIN PAR ALLAH KA NAAM LIYA GAYA HO."
"Tum ko muzdaa naar ka ae dushman'ane ahle bait,
Yun kaha kar teh h SUNNI dastane ahle bait."

‪#‎RespectForHussain‬ ‪#‎Muharram‬ ‪#‎Islam‬

Bagh Jannat Kay Hain Lyrics

Bagh janat kay hain behr e madha khwan e Ahl e Bait
Tum ko mujda naar ka aie dushman’anain Ahl e Bait.
Unkay ghar to bay ijazat Jibrail aatay nain
Qadr walay jantay hain qadr o shaan e Ahl e Bait .
Unki paki ka Khuda e Pak karta hai bayaan
Ayah e tat’heer say zahir hai shaan e Ahl e Bait.
Ghar lutana jaan dena koi tujsay sekh jaye
Jaan e alam houn fida aie kha’ndanain Ahl e Bait.
Ahl e Bait e Pak say gustakhiyan bay bakiyan
La’natullahi alaikum dushmananain Ahl e Bait.
Bay adab gustaakh firqay ko suna day aie Hassan
Youn kahan kartay hain aashiq dastaan e Ahl e Bait.

Total Pageviews