Friday, January 27, 2012
DEENUL ISLAM: THE MAMLUKS, WHO WERE THEY?
DEENUL ISLAM: THE MAMLUKS, WHO WERE THEY?: THE MAMLUKS, WHO WERE THEY? The word Mamluk means ‘owned’ and the Mamluks were not native to Egypt but were always slave soldiers, mainly ...
THE MAMLUKS, WHO WERE THEY?
THE MAMLUKS, WHO WERE THEY?
The word Mamluk means ‘owned’ and the Mamluks were not native to Egypt but were always slave soldiers, mainly Qipchak Turks from Central Asia. In principle (though not always in practice) a Mamluk could not pass his property or title to his son, indeed sons were in theory denied the opportunity to serve in Mamluk regiments, so the group had to be constantly replenished from outside sources. The Bahri Mamluks were mainly natives of southern Russia and the Burgi comprised chiefly of Circassians from the Caucasus. As steppe people, they had more in common with the Mongols than with the peoples of Syria and Egypt among whom they lived. And they kept their garrisons distinct, not mixing with the populace in the territories. The contemporary Arab historian Abu Shama noted after the Mamluk victory over the Mongols at Ayn Jalut in 1260 that, ‘the people of the steppe had been destroyed by the people of the steppe’.
Boys of about thirteen would be captured from areas to the north of the Persian empire, and trained to become an elite force for the personal use of the sultan or higher lords. The Arabic word Ghulam (boy) was sometimes employed for the bodyguards they would become. The boys would be sent by the caliph or sultan to enforce his rule as far afield as Spain (Venice and Genoa were major players in their transportation despite Papal interdictions) and sold to the commanders of the Islamic governments of the region. Under their new masters they were manumitted, converted to Islam, and underwent intensive military training.
The Mamluks ruled Egypt and Syria from 1250 until 1517, when their dynasty was extinguished by the Ottomans. But Mamluks had first appeared in the Abbasid caliphate in the ninth century and even after their overthrow by the Ottomans they continued to form an important part of Egyptian Islamic society and existed as an influential group until the nineteenth century. They destroyed the Crusader kingdoms of Outremer, and saved Syria, Egypt and the holy places of Islam from the Mongols. They made Cairo the dominant city of the Islamic world in the later Middle Ages, and under these apparently unlettered soldier-statesmens’ rule, craftsmanship, architecture and scholarship flourished. Yet the dynasty remains virtually unknown to many in the West.
The dynasty had two phases. From 1250 to 1381 the Bahri clique produced the Mamluk Sultans; from 1382 until 1517 the Burgi Mamluks were dominant. These groups were named after the principal regiments provided by the Mamluks for the last Ayyubid sultan Al-Salih whom they served before overthrowing him in 1250; the Bahirya or River Island regiment, based on a river island in the centre of Cairo and the Burgi or Tower regiment.
The Mamluks, who had been taken from their families in their youth and had no ties of kin in their new homelands, were personally dependant on their master. This gave the Mamluk state, divorced as it was from its parent society, a solidity that allowed it to survive the tensions of tribalism and personal ambition, through establishment of interdependency between the lower orders and sergeants and the higher lords.
And at the centre Mamluk were not supposed to be able to inherit wealth or power beyond their own generation but attempts to create lineage did occur and every succession was announced by internecine struggles.
In theory a Mamluk’s life prepared him for little else but war and loyalty to his lord. Great emphasis was placed upon the Furusiyya – a word made up of the three elements: the ‘ulum (science), funun (arts) and adab (literature) – of cavalry skills. The Furusiyya was not dissimilar to the chivalric code of the Christian knight insofar as it included a moral code embracing virtues such as courage, valour, magnanimity and generosity; but it also addressed the management, training and care of the horses that carried the warrior into battle and provided him with leisure time sporting activities. It also included cavalry tactics, riding techniques, armour and mounted archery. Some texts even discussed military tactics: the formation of armies, the use of fire and smoke screens. Even the treatment of wounds was addressed.
The Mamluk dynasty carefully codified the Furusiyya, and beautiful illustrated examples were produced. These books also carry the mark of the Mongol influence; many pages are decorated with lotuses and phoenixes, motifs carried from China through the Pax Mongolica.
The Mamluks lived almost entirely within their garrisons, and their leisure activities show a striking correspondence to the much earlier comment of the military writer Vegetius that the Romans’ drills were bloodless battles and their battles were bloody drills. Polo was the chief among these for the Mamluks; with its need for control of the horse, tight turns and bursts of speed, it mimicked the skills required on the battlefield. Mounted archery competitions, horseback acrobatics and mounted combat shows similar to European jousting often took place up to twice a week. The Mamluk sultan Baybars constructed a hippodrome in Cairo to stage these games and polo matches.
The Mamluks’ opportunity to overthrow their masters came at the end of the 1240s, a time when the Kurdish Ayyubid dynasty, set up by Saladin in the 1170s, had reached a modus vivendi with the Crusader states; skirmishing, rather than outright war, was the order of the day in Syria and the Holy Land. However, events in the east were beginning to impact on the region. The Mongols on the eastern steppes were attacking western Chinese tribes and advancing into southern Russia, pushing other peoples west. In 1244 and with the tacit support of the Ayyubids in Cairo, Jerusalem fell to a wandering band of Khwarezmians, an eastern Persian group who were themselves fleeing the Mongol destruction of their fledgling empire. One of their first acts was to destroy the tombs of the Latin kings of Jerusalem. In response, Louis IX of France (St Louis; r.1226-70) called a crusade (the seventh) though neither the papacy nor any other major Christian monarch was stirred to action. Rather than directly attacking the Holy Land, Louis planned to wrest the rich lands of Egypt from Islam, hoping that control there would lead to the control of Syria.
Louis took Damietta in the Nile delta in June 1249 with an army of about 20,000 men. The Egyptian army withdrew further up the river. Louis started to march on Cairo in November and should have gained an advantage from the death of the last Ayyubid sultan, al-Salih. Despite chaos in Cairo during which the sultan’s widow, Shaggar ad Durr, took control – initially with Mamluk support – Louis and the Templars were roundly defeated by the Mamluk Bahirya commander Baybars at al-Mansourah (al-Mansur). Louis refused to fall back to Damietta and his troops starved, before a belated retreat during which he was captured in March 1250. He was ransomed in return for Damietta and 400,000 livres. Louis left for Acre where he attempted a long-distance negotiation with the Mongols (who he may have believed to be the forces of the mythical Christian king Prester John) to assist with him against the Muslims.
Louis took Damietta in the Nile delta in June 1249 with an army of about 20,000 men. The Egyptian army withdrew further up the river. Louis started to march on Cairo in November and should have gained an advantage from the death of the last Ayyubid sultan, al-Salih. Despite chaos in Cairo during which the sultan’s widow, Shaggar ad Durr, took control – initially with Mamluk support – Louis and the Templars were roundly defeated by the Mamluk Bahirya commander Baybars at al-Mansourah (al-Mansur). Louis refused to fall back to Damietta and his troops starved, before a belated retreat during which he was captured in March 1250. He was ransomed in return for Damietta and 400,000 livres. Louis left for Acre where he attempted a long-distance negotiation with the Mongols (who he may have believed to be the forces of the mythical Christian king Prester John) to assist with him against the Muslims.
Al-Salih had done much to promote the power of the Mamluks during his reign, perhaps too much, and the Mamluks eventually forced Shaggar ad Durr to marry their commander Aybeg. Louis’ crusade therefore proved the catalyst for the Mamluks to finally dispense with their Ayyubid overlords. The Bahri Mamluk dynasty was set up in 1250, with Aybeg as its first, though not uncontested, sultan.
However, Aybeg was later murdered in his bath on his wife’s orders. More political murders followed including the beating to death of Shaggar ad Durr until Qutuz, the vice-regent, brought the factions bloodily under his control.
In February 1258 the Mongol armies of Hulegu, grandson of Genghis Khan and the brother of Kublai, later the Great Khan and Emperor of China, took Baghdad. The Mongols undertook a wholesale massacre: at least 250,000 were killed, but the intercession of Hulegu’s wife spared the Nestorian Christians. Mongol troopers kicked al-Musta’sim, the last Abbasid caliph and spiritual leader of Islam, to death after having rolled him in a carpet – the Mongols did not wish to spill royal blood directly. Aleppo fell almost as bloodily soon after, and it was widely reported, though perhaps untrue, that the Mongols used cats with burning tails sent running into the city to end the siege by fire.
Damascus quickly capitulated, but one of those who escaped the Mongols was the Mamluk general Baybars (1223-77), who had been instrumental in the defeat of Louis in 1249. He fled back to Cairo.
The Mongols completed their conquest of Syria by the near-annihilation of the Assassin sects and by over-running the kingdoms of Anatolia. Only Egypt, a few isolated cities in Syria and the Arabian Peninsula were left to Islam in its historic heartland. The Mamluk sultanate, in power for less than a decade, had shown few signs of enduring. It was led by sultan Qutuz, who had seized power in November 1259 and was still consolidating his authority.
Hulegu sent envoys to Qutuz in Cairo demanding his surrender. Qutuz killed the envoys and placed their heads on the gates of the city, considering treaty with the Mongols to be impossible and that exile into the ‘bloodthirsty desert’ was equivalent to death. Qutuz mobilized and was joined by Baybars.
At this point news arrived that the Mongol Great Khan Mongke had died, and Hulegu returned to Karakorum to support his branch of the family’s claim on power. The remaining Mongol army in Syria was still formidable, numbering about 20,000 men under Hulegu’s lieutenant, Kit Buqa. The Mamluk and Mongol armies encamped in Palestine in July 1260, and met at Ayn Jalut on September 8th.
Initially, the Mamluks encountered a detached division of Mongols and drove them to the banks of the Orontes River. Kit Buqa was then drawn into a full engagement; Qutuz met the first onslaught with a small detachment of Mamluks; he feigned retreat and led the Mongol army into an ambush that was sprung from three sides. The battle lasted from dawn till midday. The Mamluks employed fire to trap Mongols who were either trying to hide or flee the field; Kit Buqa was taken alive and summarily executed by Qutuz. According to the Jama al-Tawarikh (a fourteenth-century Persian history) he swore his death would be revenged by Hulegu and that the gates of Egypt would shake with the thunder of Mongol cavalry horses.
As the Mamluks returned to Cairo, Baybars murdered Qutuz and seized the sultanate himself. This event set the pattern of succession in the Mamluk Empire: only a handful of Sultans ever died of natural causes and of these, one died from pneumonia brought on by permanently wearing armour to ward off assassination attempts. The average reign of the sultans was a mere seven years. Despite this the dynasty proved to be one of the most stable political entities of the medieval Middle East. After the Ottomans had hung the last Mamluk sultan in 1517, the loss of the Mamluks was universally lamented in Egypt, and many minor Mamluk functionaries remained to manage the Turks’ new province.
Baybars I proved thorough and ruthless, and a gifted exponent of realpolitik. Even though he was to follow his victory over the Mongols with an assault on the remaining Crusader cities in Syria, he maintained friendly relations with Norman Sicily; and even though he attempted to destroy what remained of Assassin power in Syria, he employed what was left of them to carry out political murders amongst both his domestic rivals and enemy leaders. Indeed the future king Edward I of England was fortunate to survive a Baybars’ sponsored Assassin attempt on his life in Acre in 1271 during the Eighth Crusade. For some years Baybars kept a member of the Abbasid family as a puppet caliph to engender legitimacy for the Mamluk dynasty – until the unfortunate man was packed off to North Africa; he was never heard of again. Baybars is said to have died in 1277 from drinking a cup of poisoned wine intended for a guest; the story is probably apocryphal but it fits well with the nature of his life.
It has been suggested that the Mongols, the invincible force of the time, were outclassed by the Mamluks on the battlefield; the Mongols were lightly armoured horse-archers riding small steppe ponies and carrying little but ‘home-made’ weapons for close combat, whereas the heavily armoured Mamluks, on larger Arab-bred horses, could match them in their mounted archery and then close and kill with the lance, club and sword. It has also been argued that the Mongols were lacking in organizational training whereas the Mamluks spent their lives in training. According to this view, the Mongols were most effective only in terms of their mobility and their rate of fire. The Mongols’ use of ‘heavy’ arrows, allied with the waves of galloping cohorts each of which would fire four or five arrows into the enemy would exhaust the opposition. Indeed, this together with outflanking manoeuvres, appears to have been the pattern of Mongol attacks. Each Mongol trooper had several fresh mounts ready to ensure the momentum of the attack was not lost.
The Mamluks could match the Mongols’ archery assault with their crafted bows and armour and, though they had just one horse each, they could use the larger size of these mounts to deliver a charge like that of Norman knights but with the addition of mobile archery and a ‘Parthian shot’ if required during withdrawal. The timing of the charge was all. The Mamluks were able to destroy the Mongol army at Ayn Jalut – and again at the second battle of Homs in 1281 – by a series of attacks; their command and control mechanisms must have been impressive.
The Mamluks themselves formed only the core of Syrian and Egyptian armies. Shortly after Ayn Jalut, the Mongols were defeated again at Homs in 1260 by an army combining Ayyubid levies and Mamluks. Islamic success against the Mongols was founded on the military abilities of the Mamluks, but it was Mamluk statecraft that ultimately defeated the invaders. As well as rapidly clearing Syria of Mongols, they began a process of fortification and improved communications and diplomacy with the Islamic princes of the region, thus consolidating Egyptian power in Syria. The protection of Syria was central to the Mamluk claim to be the defenders of Islam. Egypt’s resources were devoted to building and training the army for Syria, which was always mobilized at the slightest provocation from the Mongols.
As well as holding the Mongols at bay, Baybars destroyed the Christian lands of Outremer. In 1263 he captured Nazareth and destroyed the environs of Acre. In 1265 he captured Caesarea and Haifa. He then took the fortified town of Arsuf from the Knight Hospitallers and occupied the Christian town of Athlit. Safed was taken from the Knight Templars in 1266. He slaughtered the Christians if they resisted, and had a particular enmity for the military orders: the Templars and Hospitallers received no quarter. Qalawun, his general and a later sultan, led an army into Armenia in 1266. Sis, the capital, fell in September 1266. With the fall of Armenia the Crusader city of Antioch, first captured by Bohemond in 1098, was isolated. Baybars commenced its siege on May 14th, 1268 and the city fell four days later. All the inhabitants who were not killed were enslaved.
Baybars may have feared an alliance between the Mongols and Christian powers. The Mongols certainly tried to achieve this and in 1271 Edward Plantagenet, during the Eighth Crusade, was able to convince them to send a sizeable force into Syria to reduce the Mamluk pressure on the remaining Crusader cities. But after the failure of the Crusade the last cities soon fell: Tripoli was taken by the army of Sultan Qalawun, Baybar’s successor, in 1289 and the Crusader settlement of Acre fell in 1291. This effectively made the Syrian coast an impossible beachhead for Christians; there would be no more Crusader attempts to regain the Holy Land or Syria.
The Mamluk dynasty was now secure, and it lasted until the sixteenth century. Power struggles prevented continuity at the centre, and even after the Circassian Burji Mamluks seized power from the Bahri Mamluks in the mid-fourteenth century, factionalism and insecurity continued unabated. The Mamluks managed successfully to re-establish their Syrian powerbases following Timur’s brief but hugely destructive invasion in the early 1400s; but the dynasty had been left weakened by the Black Death which had made repeated onslaughts through the Middle East from the mid-fourteenth century and it soon lost the valuable trade revenues of Syria after the Portuguese had opened up Europe’s Ocean trade and the route to India in the later fifteenth century. In the end it took two only two brief battles for the Ottoman Sultan Selim I to decimate the last Mamluk army to take the field just outside Cairo near the Pyramids in 1517. The Ottoman army used firearms and artillery, but the Mamluks rode out to meet them with bow, lance and sword. History had caught up with them.
Selim I continued to employ a Mamluk as viceroy, however, and recruitment of Circassians as ‘tax farmers’ continued until the new age arrived in Egypt with Napoleon’s army in 1798. Indeed faction building and Mamluk infighting were still characteristic of Egyptian politics in the early nineteenth century.
Although warfare was the primary concern of these slave soldiers, their contribution to the Islamic arts and architecture was immense. Many of the sultans were remarkable builders, a fine example being Sultan Qalawun’s mausoleum complex in Cairo, which includes a mosque, a religious school and hospital. The dynasty’s achievements in the arts of the book, especially of the Qur’an, are also very fine. The importance of fighting and training meant that the art of the armourer was highly prized; Mamluk armour was decorated and intricate, helmets, leggings, spurs and shields often carried inscriptions such as:
The word Mamluk means ‘owned’ and the Mamluks were not native to Egypt but were always slave soldiers, mainly Qipchak Turks from Central Asia. In principle (though not always in practice) a Mamluk could not pass his property or title to his son, indeed sons were in theory denied the opportunity to serve in Mamluk regiments, so the group had to be constantly replenished from outside sources. The Bahri Mamluks were mainly natives of southern Russia and the Burgi comprised chiefly of Circassians from the Caucasus. As steppe people, they had more in common with the Mongols than with the peoples of Syria and Egypt among whom they lived. And they kept their garrisons distinct, not mixing with the populace in the territories. The contemporary Arab historian Abu Shama noted after the Mamluk victory over the Mongols at Ayn Jalut in 1260 that, ‘the people of the steppe had been destroyed by the people of the steppe’.
Boys of about thirteen would be captured from areas to the north of the Persian empire, and trained to become an elite force for the personal use of the sultan or higher lords. The Arabic word Ghulam (boy) was sometimes employed for the bodyguards they would become. The boys would be sent by the caliph or sultan to enforce his rule as far afield as Spain (Venice and Genoa were major players in their transportation despite Papal interdictions) and sold to the commanders of the Islamic governments of the region. Under their new masters they were manumitted, converted to Islam, and underwent intensive military training.
The Mamluks ruled Egypt and Syria from 1250 until 1517, when their dynasty was extinguished by the Ottomans. But Mamluks had first appeared in the Abbasid caliphate in the ninth century and even after their overthrow by the Ottomans they continued to form an important part of Egyptian Islamic society and existed as an influential group until the nineteenth century. They destroyed the Crusader kingdoms of Outremer, and saved Syria, Egypt and the holy places of Islam from the Mongols. They made Cairo the dominant city of the Islamic world in the later Middle Ages, and under these apparently unlettered soldier-statesmens’ rule, craftsmanship, architecture and scholarship flourished. Yet the dynasty remains virtually unknown to many in the West.
The dynasty had two phases. From 1250 to 1381 the Bahri clique produced the Mamluk Sultans; from 1382 until 1517 the Burgi Mamluks were dominant. These groups were named after the principal regiments provided by the Mamluks for the last Ayyubid sultan Al-Salih whom they served before overthrowing him in 1250; the Bahirya or River Island regiment, based on a river island in the centre of Cairo and the Burgi or Tower regiment.
The Mamluks, who had been taken from their families in their youth and had no ties of kin in their new homelands, were personally dependant on their master. This gave the Mamluk state, divorced as it was from its parent society, a solidity that allowed it to survive the tensions of tribalism and personal ambition, through establishment of interdependency between the lower orders and sergeants and the higher lords.
And at the centre Mamluk were not supposed to be able to inherit wealth or power beyond their own generation but attempts to create lineage did occur and every succession was announced by internecine struggles.
In theory a Mamluk’s life prepared him for little else but war and loyalty to his lord. Great emphasis was placed upon the Furusiyya – a word made up of the three elements: the ‘ulum (science), funun (arts) and adab (literature) – of cavalry skills. The Furusiyya was not dissimilar to the chivalric code of the Christian knight insofar as it included a moral code embracing virtues such as courage, valour, magnanimity and generosity; but it also addressed the management, training and care of the horses that carried the warrior into battle and provided him with leisure time sporting activities. It also included cavalry tactics, riding techniques, armour and mounted archery. Some texts even discussed military tactics: the formation of armies, the use of fire and smoke screens. Even the treatment of wounds was addressed.
The Mamluk dynasty carefully codified the Furusiyya, and beautiful illustrated examples were produced. These books also carry the mark of the Mongol influence; many pages are decorated with lotuses and phoenixes, motifs carried from China through the Pax Mongolica.
The Mamluks lived almost entirely within their garrisons, and their leisure activities show a striking correspondence to the much earlier comment of the military writer Vegetius that the Romans’ drills were bloodless battles and their battles were bloody drills. Polo was the chief among these for the Mamluks; with its need for control of the horse, tight turns and bursts of speed, it mimicked the skills required on the battlefield. Mounted archery competitions, horseback acrobatics and mounted combat shows similar to European jousting often took place up to twice a week. The Mamluk sultan Baybars constructed a hippodrome in Cairo to stage these games and polo matches.
The Mamluks’ opportunity to overthrow their masters came at the end of the 1240s, a time when the Kurdish Ayyubid dynasty, set up by Saladin in the 1170s, had reached a modus vivendi with the Crusader states; skirmishing, rather than outright war, was the order of the day in Syria and the Holy Land. However, events in the east were beginning to impact on the region. The Mongols on the eastern steppes were attacking western Chinese tribes and advancing into southern Russia, pushing other peoples west. In 1244 and with the tacit support of the Ayyubids in Cairo, Jerusalem fell to a wandering band of Khwarezmians, an eastern Persian group who were themselves fleeing the Mongol destruction of their fledgling empire. One of their first acts was to destroy the tombs of the Latin kings of Jerusalem. In response, Louis IX of France (St Louis; r.1226-70) called a crusade (the seventh) though neither the papacy nor any other major Christian monarch was stirred to action. Rather than directly attacking the Holy Land, Louis planned to wrest the rich lands of Egypt from Islam, hoping that control there would lead to the control of Syria.
Louis took Damietta in the Nile delta in June 1249 with an army of about 20,000 men. The Egyptian army withdrew further up the river. Louis started to march on Cairo in November and should have gained an advantage from the death of the last Ayyubid sultan, al-Salih. Despite chaos in Cairo during which the sultan’s widow, Shaggar ad Durr, took control – initially with Mamluk support – Louis and the Templars were roundly defeated by the Mamluk Bahirya commander Baybars at al-Mansourah (al-Mansur). Louis refused to fall back to Damietta and his troops starved, before a belated retreat during which he was captured in March 1250. He was ransomed in return for Damietta and 400,000 livres. Louis left for Acre where he attempted a long-distance negotiation with the Mongols (who he may have believed to be the forces of the mythical Christian king Prester John) to assist with him against the Muslims.
Louis took Damietta in the Nile delta in June 1249 with an army of about 20,000 men. The Egyptian army withdrew further up the river. Louis started to march on Cairo in November and should have gained an advantage from the death of the last Ayyubid sultan, al-Salih. Despite chaos in Cairo during which the sultan’s widow, Shaggar ad Durr, took control – initially with Mamluk support – Louis and the Templars were roundly defeated by the Mamluk Bahirya commander Baybars at al-Mansourah (al-Mansur). Louis refused to fall back to Damietta and his troops starved, before a belated retreat during which he was captured in March 1250. He was ransomed in return for Damietta and 400,000 livres. Louis left for Acre where he attempted a long-distance negotiation with the Mongols (who he may have believed to be the forces of the mythical Christian king Prester John) to assist with him against the Muslims.
Al-Salih had done much to promote the power of the Mamluks during his reign, perhaps too much, and the Mamluks eventually forced Shaggar ad Durr to marry their commander Aybeg. Louis’ crusade therefore proved the catalyst for the Mamluks to finally dispense with their Ayyubid overlords. The Bahri Mamluk dynasty was set up in 1250, with Aybeg as its first, though not uncontested, sultan.
However, Aybeg was later murdered in his bath on his wife’s orders. More political murders followed including the beating to death of Shaggar ad Durr until Qutuz, the vice-regent, brought the factions bloodily under his control.
In February 1258 the Mongol armies of Hulegu, grandson of Genghis Khan and the brother of Kublai, later the Great Khan and Emperor of China, took Baghdad. The Mongols undertook a wholesale massacre: at least 250,000 were killed, but the intercession of Hulegu’s wife spared the Nestorian Christians. Mongol troopers kicked al-Musta’sim, the last Abbasid caliph and spiritual leader of Islam, to death after having rolled him in a carpet – the Mongols did not wish to spill royal blood directly. Aleppo fell almost as bloodily soon after, and it was widely reported, though perhaps untrue, that the Mongols used cats with burning tails sent running into the city to end the siege by fire.
Damascus quickly capitulated, but one of those who escaped the Mongols was the Mamluk general Baybars (1223-77), who had been instrumental in the defeat of Louis in 1249. He fled back to Cairo.
The Mongols completed their conquest of Syria by the near-annihilation of the Assassin sects and by over-running the kingdoms of Anatolia. Only Egypt, a few isolated cities in Syria and the Arabian Peninsula were left to Islam in its historic heartland. The Mamluk sultanate, in power for less than a decade, had shown few signs of enduring. It was led by sultan Qutuz, who had seized power in November 1259 and was still consolidating his authority.
Hulegu sent envoys to Qutuz in Cairo demanding his surrender. Qutuz killed the envoys and placed their heads on the gates of the city, considering treaty with the Mongols to be impossible and that exile into the ‘bloodthirsty desert’ was equivalent to death. Qutuz mobilized and was joined by Baybars.
At this point news arrived that the Mongol Great Khan Mongke had died, and Hulegu returned to Karakorum to support his branch of the family’s claim on power. The remaining Mongol army in Syria was still formidable, numbering about 20,000 men under Hulegu’s lieutenant, Kit Buqa. The Mamluk and Mongol armies encamped in Palestine in July 1260, and met at Ayn Jalut on September 8th.
Initially, the Mamluks encountered a detached division of Mongols and drove them to the banks of the Orontes River. Kit Buqa was then drawn into a full engagement; Qutuz met the first onslaught with a small detachment of Mamluks; he feigned retreat and led the Mongol army into an ambush that was sprung from three sides. The battle lasted from dawn till midday. The Mamluks employed fire to trap Mongols who were either trying to hide or flee the field; Kit Buqa was taken alive and summarily executed by Qutuz. According to the Jama al-Tawarikh (a fourteenth-century Persian history) he swore his death would be revenged by Hulegu and that the gates of Egypt would shake with the thunder of Mongol cavalry horses.
As the Mamluks returned to Cairo, Baybars murdered Qutuz and seized the sultanate himself. This event set the pattern of succession in the Mamluk Empire: only a handful of Sultans ever died of natural causes and of these, one died from pneumonia brought on by permanently wearing armour to ward off assassination attempts. The average reign of the sultans was a mere seven years. Despite this the dynasty proved to be one of the most stable political entities of the medieval Middle East. After the Ottomans had hung the last Mamluk sultan in 1517, the loss of the Mamluks was universally lamented in Egypt, and many minor Mamluk functionaries remained to manage the Turks’ new province.
Baybars I proved thorough and ruthless, and a gifted exponent of realpolitik. Even though he was to follow his victory over the Mongols with an assault on the remaining Crusader cities in Syria, he maintained friendly relations with Norman Sicily; and even though he attempted to destroy what remained of Assassin power in Syria, he employed what was left of them to carry out political murders amongst both his domestic rivals and enemy leaders. Indeed the future king Edward I of England was fortunate to survive a Baybars’ sponsored Assassin attempt on his life in Acre in 1271 during the Eighth Crusade. For some years Baybars kept a member of the Abbasid family as a puppet caliph to engender legitimacy for the Mamluk dynasty – until the unfortunate man was packed off to North Africa; he was never heard of again. Baybars is said to have died in 1277 from drinking a cup of poisoned wine intended for a guest; the story is probably apocryphal but it fits well with the nature of his life.
It has been suggested that the Mongols, the invincible force of the time, were outclassed by the Mamluks on the battlefield; the Mongols were lightly armoured horse-archers riding small steppe ponies and carrying little but ‘home-made’ weapons for close combat, whereas the heavily armoured Mamluks, on larger Arab-bred horses, could match them in their mounted archery and then close and kill with the lance, club and sword. It has also been argued that the Mongols were lacking in organizational training whereas the Mamluks spent their lives in training. According to this view, the Mongols were most effective only in terms of their mobility and their rate of fire. The Mongols’ use of ‘heavy’ arrows, allied with the waves of galloping cohorts each of which would fire four or five arrows into the enemy would exhaust the opposition. Indeed, this together with outflanking manoeuvres, appears to have been the pattern of Mongol attacks. Each Mongol trooper had several fresh mounts ready to ensure the momentum of the attack was not lost.
The Mamluks could match the Mongols’ archery assault with their crafted bows and armour and, though they had just one horse each, they could use the larger size of these mounts to deliver a charge like that of Norman knights but with the addition of mobile archery and a ‘Parthian shot’ if required during withdrawal. The timing of the charge was all. The Mamluks were able to destroy the Mongol army at Ayn Jalut – and again at the second battle of Homs in 1281 – by a series of attacks; their command and control mechanisms must have been impressive.
The Mamluks themselves formed only the core of Syrian and Egyptian armies. Shortly after Ayn Jalut, the Mongols were defeated again at Homs in 1260 by an army combining Ayyubid levies and Mamluks. Islamic success against the Mongols was founded on the military abilities of the Mamluks, but it was Mamluk statecraft that ultimately defeated the invaders. As well as rapidly clearing Syria of Mongols, they began a process of fortification and improved communications and diplomacy with the Islamic princes of the region, thus consolidating Egyptian power in Syria. The protection of Syria was central to the Mamluk claim to be the defenders of Islam. Egypt’s resources were devoted to building and training the army for Syria, which was always mobilized at the slightest provocation from the Mongols.
As well as holding the Mongols at bay, Baybars destroyed the Christian lands of Outremer. In 1263 he captured Nazareth and destroyed the environs of Acre. In 1265 he captured Caesarea and Haifa. He then took the fortified town of Arsuf from the Knight Hospitallers and occupied the Christian town of Athlit. Safed was taken from the Knight Templars in 1266. He slaughtered the Christians if they resisted, and had a particular enmity for the military orders: the Templars and Hospitallers received no quarter. Qalawun, his general and a later sultan, led an army into Armenia in 1266. Sis, the capital, fell in September 1266. With the fall of Armenia the Crusader city of Antioch, first captured by Bohemond in 1098, was isolated. Baybars commenced its siege on May 14th, 1268 and the city fell four days later. All the inhabitants who were not killed were enslaved.
Baybars may have feared an alliance between the Mongols and Christian powers. The Mongols certainly tried to achieve this and in 1271 Edward Plantagenet, during the Eighth Crusade, was able to convince them to send a sizeable force into Syria to reduce the Mamluk pressure on the remaining Crusader cities. But after the failure of the Crusade the last cities soon fell: Tripoli was taken by the army of Sultan Qalawun, Baybar’s successor, in 1289 and the Crusader settlement of Acre fell in 1291. This effectively made the Syrian coast an impossible beachhead for Christians; there would be no more Crusader attempts to regain the Holy Land or Syria.
The Mamluk dynasty was now secure, and it lasted until the sixteenth century. Power struggles prevented continuity at the centre, and even after the Circassian Burji Mamluks seized power from the Bahri Mamluks in the mid-fourteenth century, factionalism and insecurity continued unabated. The Mamluks managed successfully to re-establish their Syrian powerbases following Timur’s brief but hugely destructive invasion in the early 1400s; but the dynasty had been left weakened by the Black Death which had made repeated onslaughts through the Middle East from the mid-fourteenth century and it soon lost the valuable trade revenues of Syria after the Portuguese had opened up Europe’s Ocean trade and the route to India in the later fifteenth century. In the end it took two only two brief battles for the Ottoman Sultan Selim I to decimate the last Mamluk army to take the field just outside Cairo near the Pyramids in 1517. The Ottoman army used firearms and artillery, but the Mamluks rode out to meet them with bow, lance and sword. History had caught up with them.
Selim I continued to employ a Mamluk as viceroy, however, and recruitment of Circassians as ‘tax farmers’ continued until the new age arrived in Egypt with Napoleon’s army in 1798. Indeed faction building and Mamluk infighting were still characteristic of Egyptian politics in the early nineteenth century.
Although warfare was the primary concern of these slave soldiers, their contribution to the Islamic arts and architecture was immense. Many of the sultans were remarkable builders, a fine example being Sultan Qalawun’s mausoleum complex in Cairo, which includes a mosque, a religious school and hospital. The dynasty’s achievements in the arts of the book, especially of the Qur’an, are also very fine. The importance of fighting and training meant that the art of the armourer was highly prized; Mamluk armour was decorated and intricate, helmets, leggings, spurs and shields often carried inscriptions such as:
Father of the poor and miserable, killer of the unbelievers and the polytheists, reviver of justice among all.An offshoot of this artifice was high quality metalwork, such as candlesticks, lamps, ewers and basins, highly decorated with musicians and dancers, warriors and images of the hunt. Intricate decoration of Mamluk glassware can also be seen in mosque lamps, many carrying the Qu’ranic inscription,
The lamp enclosed in glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star’– a suitable testament to a dynasty that prevailed against the most powerful empire of the medieval age.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Его наставления слушали даже птицы | islam.ru
Его наставления слушали даже птицы | islam.ru
Scientists all articles
Listened to his teachings, even the birds
January 23, 2012 Gadzhimurad Omargadzhiev
Seville - a city in southern Spain with a population of 700 000 inhabitants
Shuaib ibn Husayn al-Andalusi, better known as Abu Madhya. He was the sheik and Mr. West cognizant of Allah, the leader of his time have taken the path of Allah students. He was a devout and zealous in the worship, devoted himself to the service of Almighty Allah.
Abu was born in Seville in Madhya Arab family in the 509th year of the Hijra. He was orphaned at an early age and ran away from home of his brother to quench his thirst for knowledge. After many wanderings finally arrived in the city of Fez, where he received recommendations from several scientists on a clear and secret sciences, while he earned his living by weaving. It was at this time works of Imam al-Ghazali reached Fez. Scholar Abu al-Hasan ibn Harazm publicly denounced them. The following night he dreamed that the author complained to him the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the four Caliphs and that he was sentenced to a number of lashes. When he awoke, he found traces of a whip on his body. He abandoned his conviction and he began to study those works which are condemned. Thanks to Abu al-Hasan Abu Madyan met not only with the works of Imam al-Ghazali, but also works with al-Muhasibi and other Sufi scholars.
Sheikh Abu al-Abdillya Tilmasani in his book "Al-Najm Sakib ..." said: "Our lord, Sheikh Abu Madhya was one of the people of tasawwuf awliya, Allah has united in its knowledge of Shariah and haqiqati (comprehension of divine truth)."
His dignity
At-Tada, and others mentioned that under his spiritual education of thousands of people have become awliya, having Karamatov (miracles).
At-Tada said of him: "He had a deep knowledge was constantly turned their heart to God, in this state and died."
Great Sheikh Abu Sabar of his time said: "Abu Madhya an ascetic, a worthy who know God, aspired to spiritual growth and reached a secret knowledge of Allah. Especially in the degree of Tavakkul (trust in Allah). "
The path to knowledge
Abu Madhya said: "I went to the city of Fez, and very much like to find someone to teach me Shariah solutions bathing and praying, then I found out about the meetings of scientists and visited them one by one."
At these meetings he received the knowledge of great scientists, and remained with them. Some scholars, with whom he stayed to take their knowledge, it was Sheikh Abu Yaza (died in 572 Hijri), Sheikh Abu Hassan Ali ibn Hirz, known as Ibn Harazm (may Allah be pleased with him) (he died in 559, the Hijri) - he has read the book Madhya Abu 'al-Riayatulil Muhasabi. "
He also studied with scholars such as Sheikh Abul Hasan ibn Ghalib, who was a clergyman's analysis in the city of Fez, - he read a book by Abu Madhya "Sunanuat-Tirmidhi" while Sheikh Abu al-Abdillya Dakaka studied tasawwuf.
It was said that Abu Madhya said: "At the beginning of their studies, when I heard the interpretation of a verse or hadith meaning, then content with this and went to where no one went out of town. Stayed in any place, to act according to what is learned. When I was alone, came to me gazelle (animal) and entertain me. So I stayed for a while. Until I've heard reports of Sayyid Abu Yaza and its Karamata, people tell each other about it Karamata, and when reached me this news, my heart filled with love for him. I came to Abu Yaza with a group of people and immediately saw an amazing Barakah from him. Then he took permission and went to perform Hajj. "
Then Abu Madhya went to the East, has received much benefit from the ascetics, awliya. In the areas of Arafah met with Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, have him read a lot of Jarama in hadith and `Abd al-Qadir Jilani, clothed in its garb of Sufism.
After he returned and settled in Jazairi there and got married. His wife bore him a son. On the town in which he lived, he said: "It helps me get tolerated." Every day his power before Allah rose, came to him by various delegations and individuals who have had the need, on all sides.
Sharani in "Tabakat al-Kubra," writes: "His son, Madhya buried in Egypt, the mosque of Sheikh Abdul Qadir al-Dashtuti, and his tomb visited by people."
Degree in a number of scientists
Madhya Abu was one of the notable scientists. He asked difficult questions by madhhab of Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), and he at the same moment to answer them. He had Majlises knowledge, preaching, people coming from different places, to hear him, and even birds flying nearby, stop in order to listen to instructions. On his Majlises went not only ordinary people but also great scholars and awliya muhadisy from different cities to learn the answer to any question.
Imam Sharani in the book "Tabakat al-Kubra," writes that Sheikh Abu al-Hudzhazh aksar said: "I have heard from our Abdurazzak Sheikh (may Allah be pleased with him), he said:" I met with the Prophet Khizri (peace be upon him) in the 580th year of Hijri and asked our Sheikh Abu Madyane, to which he replied that it was the imam of the righteous in our time. '"
Sharani Imam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "I said, sheikhs magnify his calling, to observe ethics in relation to him, Abu Madhya was a witty, beautiful appearance, humble, ascetic, pious, refined and incorporated the decent manners, but will be pleased with him. "
Imam al-Dhahabi suggests in his book "Al-Alam Siyar Nubalyai" that Muhiddin Ibn Arabi said: "Abu Madhya - this is the Sultan of heirs. When Jamal Abdul Hufaz Khaki came to him and saw what Allah has given him - an explicit and implicit, that in itself is a worthy find a state that has never felt so long, yet not visited Abu Madhya, and in this state, said: "This the true heir. '"
Akida Abu Madhya
He has a book called "Uns al-Wahid wa nuzhatul murid financial Ilmi Tawhid wal-Hikma." In his book on Sheikh Abu Akida Madhya said: "Praise be to Allah, who is pure from the boundaries of the words" where "" how, "from time to time, place, talking to the eternal speech, self! Nothing is separated from him and not returned to Him, He is not like the creatures, not to describe his letters with sounds. Cleansed the quality of our Lord from the heavens and the earth. O Allah, we do not You the One, and you assign the border, we believe in thee, and not reject, we worship Thee, and not to be like you creations. We are convinced that anyone who compares the creatures you do not know the Creator's creations. "
In his book he writes: "God is not sitting on Arshem and strengthening (for him there is no place and the parties)."
Abu Madhya also said: "arsh is the boundary, size, and the Lord can not comprehend the sights. Minds, thoughts give way Arshu and describe its length, width, and is worn with it is not excluded, does not go away. Arche itself - a place he has the party support. And Allah was and he had no place, and now he too is, as it was. For Him there is no such thing as the bottom, to carry, as above, to form a shadow, not hand, as from behind to draw the front, to create him abroad. "
The most common expression
So many good and wise words have been in Abu Madhya, here we present some of them:
"Karamata (miracles) awliya - this results mudzhizatov (miracles of the prophets) of our Prophet (peace be upon him), and this is our way (Sufism), we took from Abu Aza chain of Dzhunayda from Sari al-Sakata - from Habib Ajami - by Hasan al-Basri - from Ali ibn Abi Talib - from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). "
"Who granted the sweetness of communion with God, his dream will be gone and who is searching for worldly things, get into trouble with the humiliation, and in whose heart there is no deterrent, he lost everything."
"With the death of the common people appear oppressors, and the death of special people - deceiving religion troublemakers."
"He who knows himself, will not fool the people praise, and who serve the righteous - exalted before God, and who will honor God, and that people will respect. Allah is testing man, bringing him to hate people. "
"Your life - it's a sigh; strive to make it for you, not against you."
"Parties friendship with novovvedentsami, fearing for their religion."
"The austerity - is the well-being."
"Reporting himself, a servant comes to the degree murakaba (permanent spiritual vision of the heart in all things God of Majesty)."
Karamata
One day Abu Madhya walked along the shore, and the enemies of the Romans, he was seized, captured and took away the ship, where the other captives from the Muslim community. When Abu Madhya boarded a ship, he stopped to swim and did not budge, despite the fact that strong winds. The Romans realized that they did not get to swim, and some said it captured a Muslim land, surely it is - the owner of the mysteries of God near. Abu Madyanu indicated that he left the ship, but he replied that he would leave the ship, only to be released if all Muslims. They have no choice: they are all Moslem prisoners were released, and the ship sailed immediately.
It is said that between Sheikh Ahmad al-Rifai and Abu Madyanom was friendship, and they corresponded, lived far away from each other, but every day, morning and evening, greeted one another, and he answered.
His disciples
Imam Yafii in the book "Miratul Janan ..." writes that Abu Madhya had many students who are righteous Sheikh Abu Muhammad Abdulrahim Al-Canada, Abu Abdullah al-Curonians, Abu Muhammad Abdullah Al-Farsi, Abu Muhammad, Abu Salim Ghanim, Abu Ali Vazih, Abu al-Sabr Ayib Maknasi, Abu Muhammad Abdul Wahid, Abu Rabi 'al-Muzaffar Abu Zaydayni and others.
The death of Sheikh
When Abu Madhya became famous and increased the number of his students, some officials and his people began to hate the gossip about and slander Sheikh Sultan Yakub it Mansour. They said: "We are afraid of him in your state, he has many followers in every town."
The Sultan has sent people to him to inquire about him, and wrote a chapter of Beja with the will and asking to bring Abu Madhya for yourself. It was a painful event for the environment sheik, and he even said: "My death is near, Allah sent a man who will take me to him with kindness. I do not see the Sultan, and he will not see me. "
Procession of the Sultan, together with Abu Madyanom hit the road. But when they came to town and there Tlemsanoni stopped sheik went into the mosque, turned in the direction of the Kaaba, and read the Shahadah with the words: "God is alive" - passed away. It was the 594 th year of Hijra.
Scientists all articles
Listened to his teachings, even the birds
January 23, 2012 Gadzhimurad Omargadzhiev
Seville - a city in southern Spain with a population of 700 000 inhabitants
Shuaib ibn Husayn al-Andalusi, better known as Abu Madhya. He was the sheik and Mr. West cognizant of Allah, the leader of his time have taken the path of Allah students. He was a devout and zealous in the worship, devoted himself to the service of Almighty Allah.
Abu was born in Seville in Madhya Arab family in the 509th year of the Hijra. He was orphaned at an early age and ran away from home of his brother to quench his thirst for knowledge. After many wanderings finally arrived in the city of Fez, where he received recommendations from several scientists on a clear and secret sciences, while he earned his living by weaving. It was at this time works of Imam al-Ghazali reached Fez. Scholar Abu al-Hasan ibn Harazm publicly denounced them. The following night he dreamed that the author complained to him the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the four Caliphs and that he was sentenced to a number of lashes. When he awoke, he found traces of a whip on his body. He abandoned his conviction and he began to study those works which are condemned. Thanks to Abu al-Hasan Abu Madyan met not only with the works of Imam al-Ghazali, but also works with al-Muhasibi and other Sufi scholars.
Sheikh Abu al-Abdillya Tilmasani in his book "Al-Najm Sakib ..." said: "Our lord, Sheikh Abu Madhya was one of the people of tasawwuf awliya, Allah has united in its knowledge of Shariah and haqiqati (comprehension of divine truth)."
His dignity
At-Tada, and others mentioned that under his spiritual education of thousands of people have become awliya, having Karamatov (miracles).
At-Tada said of him: "He had a deep knowledge was constantly turned their heart to God, in this state and died."
Great Sheikh Abu Sabar of his time said: "Abu Madhya an ascetic, a worthy who know God, aspired to spiritual growth and reached a secret knowledge of Allah. Especially in the degree of Tavakkul (trust in Allah). "
The path to knowledge
Abu Madhya said: "I went to the city of Fez, and very much like to find someone to teach me Shariah solutions bathing and praying, then I found out about the meetings of scientists and visited them one by one."
At these meetings he received the knowledge of great scientists, and remained with them. Some scholars, with whom he stayed to take their knowledge, it was Sheikh Abu Yaza (died in 572 Hijri), Sheikh Abu Hassan Ali ibn Hirz, known as Ibn Harazm (may Allah be pleased with him) (he died in 559, the Hijri) - he has read the book Madhya Abu 'al-Riayatulil Muhasabi. "
He also studied with scholars such as Sheikh Abul Hasan ibn Ghalib, who was a clergyman's analysis in the city of Fez, - he read a book by Abu Madhya "Sunanuat-Tirmidhi" while Sheikh Abu al-Abdillya Dakaka studied tasawwuf.
It was said that Abu Madhya said: "At the beginning of their studies, when I heard the interpretation of a verse or hadith meaning, then content with this and went to where no one went out of town. Stayed in any place, to act according to what is learned. When I was alone, came to me gazelle (animal) and entertain me. So I stayed for a while. Until I've heard reports of Sayyid Abu Yaza and its Karamata, people tell each other about it Karamata, and when reached me this news, my heart filled with love for him. I came to Abu Yaza with a group of people and immediately saw an amazing Barakah from him. Then he took permission and went to perform Hajj. "
Then Abu Madhya went to the East, has received much benefit from the ascetics, awliya. In the areas of Arafah met with Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, have him read a lot of Jarama in hadith and `Abd al-Qadir Jilani, clothed in its garb of Sufism.
After he returned and settled in Jazairi there and got married. His wife bore him a son. On the town in which he lived, he said: "It helps me get tolerated." Every day his power before Allah rose, came to him by various delegations and individuals who have had the need, on all sides.
Sharani in "Tabakat al-Kubra," writes: "His son, Madhya buried in Egypt, the mosque of Sheikh Abdul Qadir al-Dashtuti, and his tomb visited by people."
Degree in a number of scientists
Madhya Abu was one of the notable scientists. He asked difficult questions by madhhab of Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), and he at the same moment to answer them. He had Majlises knowledge, preaching, people coming from different places, to hear him, and even birds flying nearby, stop in order to listen to instructions. On his Majlises went not only ordinary people but also great scholars and awliya muhadisy from different cities to learn the answer to any question.
Imam Sharani in the book "Tabakat al-Kubra," writes that Sheikh Abu al-Hudzhazh aksar said: "I have heard from our Abdurazzak Sheikh (may Allah be pleased with him), he said:" I met with the Prophet Khizri (peace be upon him) in the 580th year of Hijri and asked our Sheikh Abu Madyane, to which he replied that it was the imam of the righteous in our time. '"
Sharani Imam (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "I said, sheikhs magnify his calling, to observe ethics in relation to him, Abu Madhya was a witty, beautiful appearance, humble, ascetic, pious, refined and incorporated the decent manners, but will be pleased with him. "
Imam al-Dhahabi suggests in his book "Al-Alam Siyar Nubalyai" that Muhiddin Ibn Arabi said: "Abu Madhya - this is the Sultan of heirs. When Jamal Abdul Hufaz Khaki came to him and saw what Allah has given him - an explicit and implicit, that in itself is a worthy find a state that has never felt so long, yet not visited Abu Madhya, and in this state, said: "This the true heir. '"
Akida Abu Madhya
He has a book called "Uns al-Wahid wa nuzhatul murid financial Ilmi Tawhid wal-Hikma." In his book on Sheikh Abu Akida Madhya said: "Praise be to Allah, who is pure from the boundaries of the words" where "" how, "from time to time, place, talking to the eternal speech, self! Nothing is separated from him and not returned to Him, He is not like the creatures, not to describe his letters with sounds. Cleansed the quality of our Lord from the heavens and the earth. O Allah, we do not You the One, and you assign the border, we believe in thee, and not reject, we worship Thee, and not to be like you creations. We are convinced that anyone who compares the creatures you do not know the Creator's creations. "
In his book he writes: "God is not sitting on Arshem and strengthening (for him there is no place and the parties)."
Abu Madhya also said: "arsh is the boundary, size, and the Lord can not comprehend the sights. Minds, thoughts give way Arshu and describe its length, width, and is worn with it is not excluded, does not go away. Arche itself - a place he has the party support. And Allah was and he had no place, and now he too is, as it was. For Him there is no such thing as the bottom, to carry, as above, to form a shadow, not hand, as from behind to draw the front, to create him abroad. "
The most common expression
So many good and wise words have been in Abu Madhya, here we present some of them:
"Karamata (miracles) awliya - this results mudzhizatov (miracles of the prophets) of our Prophet (peace be upon him), and this is our way (Sufism), we took from Abu Aza chain of Dzhunayda from Sari al-Sakata - from Habib Ajami - by Hasan al-Basri - from Ali ibn Abi Talib - from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). "
"Who granted the sweetness of communion with God, his dream will be gone and who is searching for worldly things, get into trouble with the humiliation, and in whose heart there is no deterrent, he lost everything."
"With the death of the common people appear oppressors, and the death of special people - deceiving religion troublemakers."
"He who knows himself, will not fool the people praise, and who serve the righteous - exalted before God, and who will honor God, and that people will respect. Allah is testing man, bringing him to hate people. "
"Your life - it's a sigh; strive to make it for you, not against you."
"Parties friendship with novovvedentsami, fearing for their religion."
"The austerity - is the well-being."
"Reporting himself, a servant comes to the degree murakaba (permanent spiritual vision of the heart in all things God of Majesty)."
Karamata
One day Abu Madhya walked along the shore, and the enemies of the Romans, he was seized, captured and took away the ship, where the other captives from the Muslim community. When Abu Madhya boarded a ship, he stopped to swim and did not budge, despite the fact that strong winds. The Romans realized that they did not get to swim, and some said it captured a Muslim land, surely it is - the owner of the mysteries of God near. Abu Madyanu indicated that he left the ship, but he replied that he would leave the ship, only to be released if all Muslims. They have no choice: they are all Moslem prisoners were released, and the ship sailed immediately.
It is said that between Sheikh Ahmad al-Rifai and Abu Madyanom was friendship, and they corresponded, lived far away from each other, but every day, morning and evening, greeted one another, and he answered.
His disciples
Imam Yafii in the book "Miratul Janan ..." writes that Abu Madhya had many students who are righteous Sheikh Abu Muhammad Abdulrahim Al-Canada, Abu Abdullah al-Curonians, Abu Muhammad Abdullah Al-Farsi, Abu Muhammad, Abu Salim Ghanim, Abu Ali Vazih, Abu al-Sabr Ayib Maknasi, Abu Muhammad Abdul Wahid, Abu Rabi 'al-Muzaffar Abu Zaydayni and others.
The death of Sheikh
When Abu Madhya became famous and increased the number of his students, some officials and his people began to hate the gossip about and slander Sheikh Sultan Yakub it Mansour. They said: "We are afraid of him in your state, he has many followers in every town."
The Sultan has sent people to him to inquire about him, and wrote a chapter of Beja with the will and asking to bring Abu Madhya for yourself. It was a painful event for the environment sheik, and he even said: "My death is near, Allah sent a man who will take me to him with kindness. I do not see the Sultan, and he will not see me. "
Procession of the Sultan, together with Abu Madyanom hit the road. But when they came to town and there Tlemsanoni stopped sheik went into the mosque, turned in the direction of the Kaaba, and read the Shahadah with the words: "God is alive" - passed away. It was the 594 th year of Hijra.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Isra' (Night Journey) and Mi'raj (Ascension)
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Holy is He Who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque (in Makka) to the farther Mosque (in Jerusalem) - whose surroundings We have blessed - that We might show him some of Our signs 1. Indeed He alone is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. (Quran 17:1)
This is a reference to the event known as Mi'raj (Ascension) and Isra' (Night Journey). According to most traditions - and especially the authentic ones - this event took place one year before Hijrah. Detailed reports about it are found in the works of Hadith and Sirah and have been narrated from as many as twenty-five Companions. The most exhaustive reports are those from Anas ibn Malik, Malik ibn Sa'sa'ah, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari and Abu Hurayrah. Some other details have been narrated by 'Umar, 'Ali, 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, 'Abd Allah ibn Abbas, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, and 'A'ishah among other Companions of the Prophet .
The Quran here only mentions that the Prophet was taken from the Ka'bah to the mosque in Jerusalem, and specifies that the purpose of the journey was such that God might "show him some of His signs". Beyond this, The Quran does not concern itself with any detail. However, according to Hadith reports, Gabriel took the Prophet at night from the Ka'bah to the mosque in Jerusalem on a buraq.* On reaching Jerusalem the Prophet along with other Prophets offered Prayers. (Al-Nasa'i, Sunan, K. al-Salah, 'Bab Fard al-Salah wa Dhikr Ikhtilaf al-Naqilin...' -Ed.) Gabriel then took him to the heavens and the Prophet met several great Prophets in different heavenly spheres. (See al-Nasa'i, Sunan, K. al-Salah, 'Bab Fard al-Salah' - Ed.) Finally, he reached the highest point in the heavens and was graced with an experience of the Divine Presence. On that occasion the Prophet received a number of directives including that Prayers were obligatory five times a day. (Al-Bukhari, K. Manaqib al -Ansar, 'Bab al-Mi'raj ; K. al-Tawhid, 'Bab Kallama Musa Taklima' - Ed.) Thereafter, the Prophet returned from the heavens to Jerusalem, and from there to the Holy Mosque in Makka. Numerous reports on the subject reveal that the Prophet was also enabled on this occasion to observe Heaven and Hell. (Al-Bukhari, K. al_Salah, 'Bab Kayfa Furidat al-Salah fi al-Isra' and Ibn Hisham, Sirah, vol. I, p. 404 - Ed.)
It may be recalled that according to authentic reports when the Prophet narrated the incidents of this extraordinary journey the following day to the people in Makka, the unbelievers found the whole narration utterly amusing. (Muslim, K, al-Iman, 'Bab Dhikr al-Masih ibn Maryam' - Ed.) In fact, even the faith of some Muslims was shaken because of the highly extraordinary nature of the account. (See Ibn Hisham, Sirah , vol. I, p.398 and al-Qurtubi, comments on verse 1 of the surah - Ed.)
The details of the event provided by the Hadith supplement the Quranic account. There is no reason, however, to reject all this supplementary information on the grounds that it is opposed to the Quran. Nevertheless, if someone is not quite convinced and hence does not accept some of the details concerning the Ascension mentioned in the Hadith as true, he should not be considered an unbeliever. On the contrary, if someone were to clearly deny any part of the account categorically mentioned in the Quran, he would be deemed to have gone beyond the fold of Islam.
What was the nature of this journey? Did it take place when the Prophet was asleep or when he was awake? Did he actually undertake a journey in the physical sense or did he have a spiritual vision while remaining in his own place? These questions, in our view, have been resolved by the text of the Quran itself. The opening statement: "Holy is He Who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the farther Mosque... " (verse 1) itself indicates that it was an extraordinary event which took place by dint of the infinite power of God. For quite obviously, to be able to perceive the kind of things mentioned in connection with the event, either in a dream or by means of intuition, is not so wondrous that it should be prefaced by the statement : "Holy is He Who carried His servant by night..." ; a statement which amounts to proclaiming that God was free from every imperfection and flaw. Such a statement would make absolutely no sense if the purpose of it was merely to affirm that God had the power to enable man to have either visions in the course of a dream, or to receive information intuitively. In our view, the words of the experience or a dream vision, was an actual journey, and the observation in question was a visual observation. All was contingent upon God's will that truths be revealed to the Prophet in this fashion.
Now, let us consider the matter carefully. The Quran tells us, in clear terms, that the Prophet , went from Makka to Jerusalem and then returned to Makka during the night (obviously, without the use of anything resembling an aircraft), owing to God's power. Now, if we believe this to be possible, what justification can there be to reject as inherently impossible the additional details of the event mentioned in the traditional sources? Statements declaring certain acts to be possible and others to be beyond the range of possibility are understandable if these acts are deemed to have been performed by creatures in exercise of the natural powers with which they are endowed.
However, when it is clearly stated that it is God Who did something out of His power, any doubts about the possibility of these acts can be entertained only by those who do not believe God to be all-powerful.
Those who reject the Hadith as such raise several objections against the traditions concerning this incident. It seams that only two of these objections are worth of any consideration.
First, it is claimed that the contents of the traditions relating to the Ascension imply that God is confined to a particular place. For had that not been the case, it is argued there would have been no need to transport the Prophet in order for him to experience the presence of God. Second, it is questionable whether the Prophet was enabled to observe Heaven and Hell and to see people being chastised for their sins even though they had not yet been judged by God. How is it that people were subjected to punishment even before the coming of that Day when all will be judged?
Both these objections, however, carry little substance, The first objection is to be rejected on the grounds that although the Creator is infinite and transcends both time and place, yet in dealing with His creatures He has to have recourse to the means which are finite and are circumscribed by time-space limitations. This is because of the inherent limitations of man. Hence when God speaks to His creatures, He employs, of necessity, the same means of communication which can be comprehensible to the latter even though His Own speech transcends the means employed in the speech. In like fashion, when God wants to show someone the signs of His vast kingdom, He takes him to certain places and enables him to observe whatever he is required to observe. For it is beyond the power of man to view the universe in the manner God can. While God does not stand in need of visiting a certain place in order to observe something that exists there, man does need to do so. The same holds true of having a direct encounter with the Creator. Although God is not confined to a particular place, man needs to experience His presence at a defined place where the effulgence of His Being might be focused. For it is beyond man's power to encounter God in His limitlessness.
Let us now consider the second objection. That too is fallacious for the simple reason that the objects shown to the Prophet represented , in symbolic form, certain truths. For instance , a mischievous statement has allegorically been represented by a fat ox that could not return via the small hole through which it had come. (See Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, comments on Bani Isra'il 17:1 - Ed.) Or the other allegory relating to those who indulge in fornication - that they prefer to eat rotten meat when fresh, clean meat is available to them. (Loc.cit ; see also Ibn Hisham, vol. 1 p. 406 - Ed.) The same holds true for the punishments to which sinners will be subjected in the Next Life - they are anticipatory representations of the sufferings to which they will be subjected in the Life to Come. The main point which needs to be appreciated regarding the Ascension is that it belongs to a genre of experience through which each Prophet is enabled to observe- consonant with his standing and mission - aspects of God's dominion of the heavens and the earth. Once the material barriers to the normal vision of human beings are removed, it becomes possible to view physically, the realities which the Prophets are required to summon others to believe in as part of faith in the Unseen. This is done in order to distinguish the Prophets from mere speculative philosophers. For a philosopher's contentions are based on speculative reason and hence are essentially conjectural. Were a philosopher to recognize his true position - the position of a philosopher - he would shrink from testifying to the truth of his contentions. In contrast, what the Prophets say is based on their direct knowledge and observation. They can testify before others with full conviction that whatever they expound are realities which they themselves have directly perceived.
Note:
*Buraq was the name of the heavenly steed on which the Prophet rode on his nocturnal journey from Makka to Jerusalem, and then to the heavens (For this nocturnal journey q.v. Mi'raj.)
Holy is He Who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque (in Makka) to the farther Mosque (in Jerusalem) - whose surroundings We have blessed - that We might show him some of Our signs 1. Indeed He alone is All-Hearing, All-Seeing. (Quran 17:1)
This is a reference to the event known as Mi'raj (Ascension) and Isra' (Night Journey). According to most traditions - and especially the authentic ones - this event took place one year before Hijrah. Detailed reports about it are found in the works of Hadith and Sirah and have been narrated from as many as twenty-five Companions. The most exhaustive reports are those from Anas ibn Malik, Malik ibn Sa'sa'ah, Abu Dharr al-Ghifari and Abu Hurayrah. Some other details have been narrated by 'Umar, 'Ali, 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud, 'Abd Allah ibn Abbas, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, and 'A'ishah among other Companions of the Prophet .
The Quran here only mentions that the Prophet was taken from the Ka'bah to the mosque in Jerusalem, and specifies that the purpose of the journey was such that God might "show him some of His signs". Beyond this, The Quran does not concern itself with any detail. However, according to Hadith reports, Gabriel took the Prophet at night from the Ka'bah to the mosque in Jerusalem on a buraq.* On reaching Jerusalem the Prophet along with other Prophets offered Prayers. (Al-Nasa'i, Sunan, K. al-Salah, 'Bab Fard al-Salah wa Dhikr Ikhtilaf al-Naqilin...' -Ed.) Gabriel then took him to the heavens and the Prophet met several great Prophets in different heavenly spheres. (See al-Nasa'i, Sunan, K. al-Salah, 'Bab Fard al-Salah' - Ed.) Finally, he reached the highest point in the heavens and was graced with an experience of the Divine Presence. On that occasion the Prophet received a number of directives including that Prayers were obligatory five times a day. (Al-Bukhari, K. Manaqib al -Ansar, 'Bab al-Mi'raj ; K. al-Tawhid, 'Bab Kallama Musa Taklima' - Ed.) Thereafter, the Prophet returned from the heavens to Jerusalem, and from there to the Holy Mosque in Makka. Numerous reports on the subject reveal that the Prophet was also enabled on this occasion to observe Heaven and Hell. (Al-Bukhari, K. al_Salah, 'Bab Kayfa Furidat al-Salah fi al-Isra' and Ibn Hisham, Sirah, vol. I, p. 404 - Ed.)
It may be recalled that according to authentic reports when the Prophet narrated the incidents of this extraordinary journey the following day to the people in Makka, the unbelievers found the whole narration utterly amusing. (Muslim, K, al-Iman, 'Bab Dhikr al-Masih ibn Maryam' - Ed.) In fact, even the faith of some Muslims was shaken because of the highly extraordinary nature of the account. (See Ibn Hisham, Sirah , vol. I, p.398 and al-Qurtubi, comments on verse 1 of the surah - Ed.)
The details of the event provided by the Hadith supplement the Quranic account. There is no reason, however, to reject all this supplementary information on the grounds that it is opposed to the Quran. Nevertheless, if someone is not quite convinced and hence does not accept some of the details concerning the Ascension mentioned in the Hadith as true, he should not be considered an unbeliever. On the contrary, if someone were to clearly deny any part of the account categorically mentioned in the Quran, he would be deemed to have gone beyond the fold of Islam.
What was the nature of this journey? Did it take place when the Prophet was asleep or when he was awake? Did he actually undertake a journey in the physical sense or did he have a spiritual vision while remaining in his own place? These questions, in our view, have been resolved by the text of the Quran itself. The opening statement: "Holy is He Who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the farther Mosque... " (verse 1) itself indicates that it was an extraordinary event which took place by dint of the infinite power of God. For quite obviously, to be able to perceive the kind of things mentioned in connection with the event, either in a dream or by means of intuition, is not so wondrous that it should be prefaced by the statement : "Holy is He Who carried His servant by night..." ; a statement which amounts to proclaiming that God was free from every imperfection and flaw. Such a statement would make absolutely no sense if the purpose of it was merely to affirm that God had the power to enable man to have either visions in the course of a dream, or to receive information intuitively. In our view, the words of the experience or a dream vision, was an actual journey, and the observation in question was a visual observation. All was contingent upon God's will that truths be revealed to the Prophet in this fashion.
Now, let us consider the matter carefully. The Quran tells us, in clear terms, that the Prophet , went from Makka to Jerusalem and then returned to Makka during the night (obviously, without the use of anything resembling an aircraft), owing to God's power. Now, if we believe this to be possible, what justification can there be to reject as inherently impossible the additional details of the event mentioned in the traditional sources? Statements declaring certain acts to be possible and others to be beyond the range of possibility are understandable if these acts are deemed to have been performed by creatures in exercise of the natural powers with which they are endowed.
However, when it is clearly stated that it is God Who did something out of His power, any doubts about the possibility of these acts can be entertained only by those who do not believe God to be all-powerful.
Those who reject the Hadith as such raise several objections against the traditions concerning this incident. It seams that only two of these objections are worth of any consideration.
First, it is claimed that the contents of the traditions relating to the Ascension imply that God is confined to a particular place. For had that not been the case, it is argued there would have been no need to transport the Prophet in order for him to experience the presence of God. Second, it is questionable whether the Prophet was enabled to observe Heaven and Hell and to see people being chastised for their sins even though they had not yet been judged by God. How is it that people were subjected to punishment even before the coming of that Day when all will be judged?
Both these objections, however, carry little substance, The first objection is to be rejected on the grounds that although the Creator is infinite and transcends both time and place, yet in dealing with His creatures He has to have recourse to the means which are finite and are circumscribed by time-space limitations. This is because of the inherent limitations of man. Hence when God speaks to His creatures, He employs, of necessity, the same means of communication which can be comprehensible to the latter even though His Own speech transcends the means employed in the speech. In like fashion, when God wants to show someone the signs of His vast kingdom, He takes him to certain places and enables him to observe whatever he is required to observe. For it is beyond the power of man to view the universe in the manner God can. While God does not stand in need of visiting a certain place in order to observe something that exists there, man does need to do so. The same holds true of having a direct encounter with the Creator. Although God is not confined to a particular place, man needs to experience His presence at a defined place where the effulgence of His Being might be focused. For it is beyond man's power to encounter God in His limitlessness.
Let us now consider the second objection. That too is fallacious for the simple reason that the objects shown to the Prophet represented , in symbolic form, certain truths. For instance , a mischievous statement has allegorically been represented by a fat ox that could not return via the small hole through which it had come. (See Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, comments on Bani Isra'il 17:1 - Ed.) Or the other allegory relating to those who indulge in fornication - that they prefer to eat rotten meat when fresh, clean meat is available to them. (Loc.cit ; see also Ibn Hisham, vol. 1 p. 406 - Ed.) The same holds true for the punishments to which sinners will be subjected in the Next Life - they are anticipatory representations of the sufferings to which they will be subjected in the Life to Come. The main point which needs to be appreciated regarding the Ascension is that it belongs to a genre of experience through which each Prophet is enabled to observe- consonant with his standing and mission - aspects of God's dominion of the heavens and the earth. Once the material barriers to the normal vision of human beings are removed, it becomes possible to view physically, the realities which the Prophets are required to summon others to believe in as part of faith in the Unseen. This is done in order to distinguish the Prophets from mere speculative philosophers. For a philosopher's contentions are based on speculative reason and hence are essentially conjectural. Were a philosopher to recognize his true position - the position of a philosopher - he would shrink from testifying to the truth of his contentions. In contrast, what the Prophets say is based on their direct knowledge and observation. They can testify before others with full conviction that whatever they expound are realities which they themselves have directly perceived.
Note:
*Buraq was the name of the heavenly steed on which the Prophet rode on his nocturnal journey from Makka to Jerusalem, and then to the heavens (For this nocturnal journey q.v. Mi'raj.)
Monday, January 9, 2012
Разгорелся скандал вокруг афганской «Абу-Грейб» | Ислам в мире | islam.ru
Разгорелся скандал вокруг афганской «Абу-Грейб» | Ислам в мире | islam.ru
Еще одно бельмо на глазу для мусульманской уммы видя столько прошлые усилия потрачены впустую, и отсутствие политической воли в афганской администрации, чтобы серьезно заняться вопросом тирании и несправедливости
так подло жестокому обращению со стороны врагов ислама.Где такое количество этих событий не были услышаны простых людей со стороны международного сообщества, и независимо от новых недостатков в отношениях настоящей реальности, которая в настоящее время страдает от horrenduously мусульман во всем мире на планете, должны постоянно находиться противостояние зло встреча хороша, и воистину Истина не будет подавлен ложь, следовательно, многое предстоит увидеть и себя показать, в ходе видя правосудие действительно сделано по всем направлениям сегодня.
А для любимого мусульманской уммы и братства в человечестве, как пищу для размышлений:
Благословенный Посланник Salallahu'alaihi ва Салам, в резюме рассказ о 3 Друзья, он спросил группу товарищей,''Скажите, вы знаете, кто эти трое друзей?''
''Вы знаете лучше, Посланник Аллаха'', сказали они.
''Первый друг нашей собственности и богатства. Активы будут с нами, пока мы живы, но, когда мы умираем, мы не будем использовать. Другой друг нашей семьи - родители, дети, братья и сестры. Они будут заботиться о нашем гусль, кафе и захоронения, после чего они оставят нас. Третий друг настоящим другом. Он возьмет нас, и мы будем наиболее полезны, когда ты умрешь. Это наши добрые дела, молитвы, пост, благотворительность и другие. Он сделает наше путешествие после смерти, чтобы быть приятной и безаварийной,''Пророк сказали они.
Вспоминая смерти побуждает нас делать добрые дела и выполнять свои обязанности в полной приверженности к Аллаху. Когда мы видим похороны ставится в положение умершего и с величайшим смирением должны спросить себя,''Молитесь ли вы регулярно?'',''У вас есть харам продукты?'',''А я даю на благотворительность? ». ''Вы носите шарф?''. Эти вопросы помогут нам стать лучше и лучше подготовиться к смерти, с верой и доверием на Аллаха, чтобы отразить на себя, если бы мы сделали достаточно, чтобы прийти на помощь дорогие братья, что в настоящее время в тюрьму без справедливости, любое чувство справедливостиничтожным в здравомыслие умов.
Закономерность, которую Аллах создал на этой земле, которая не изменилась, то, что Аллах будет иметь своего раба ...
Всевышний Аллах говорит в Коране: «Неужели люди полагают, что их отпуск и не поддавайтесь искушению, просто за то, что они говорят" мы считаем "Мы уже подвергается искушению тех, кто был до них Аллах, конечно, знаете, кто.. говорить правду, и, конечно, знаете лжецов ".
Также Аллах говорит в Коране - "А люди думали, что войдете в Рай, не испытав того, что постигло ваших предшественников Они бьют нищеты и болезней Они прошли через такие потрясения, что Посланник Аллаха (вассалов алейхи салату.) А те, которые уверовали с ним.. , говоря, - «Когда же помощь Аллаха?" Воистину помощь Аллаха близка ». Также Аллах говорит, - "Или вы думаете, что войдете в Рай, пока Аллах знает тех из вас, кто воевал и тех, кто был пациентом ..."
Задаваемые имама Шафии (рахматуллахи ва) - "Что это лучший тест или одобрении Он сказал:" Это не будет утвержден, пока тест »,
Как Всемогущий говорит: "Это чувствовал, что Бог Авраама команду, и он выполнил их, он сказал:".. Я сделаю вас вождем "Он сказал:" Из моих потомков "Он сказал:". Завет Мой, не делает? сенсорный нечестивых ".
Знайте, братия мои, что же произошло на нас, смерть, мучения и наказания на пути Аллаха - это не что иное, как рост и славу на этой земле.
А также увеличение Аджарии (дела, которые приносят пользу людям перед Аллахом) в этом свете. Как говорится в хадисе, который передается от Ибн Аби Ваккас:
"Я спросил Пророка (да благословит его вассалов салата), которые состоят из людей больше, чем кто-либо будет проверена Он сказал:" Пророки, то, как они, то, как они. По Вашему Раб будет протестирован в соответствии со своей верой, когда его вера сильна, то тест будет сильным. Будет протестирована в офисе, пока он не будет ходить по этой земле очищается. "
Да, мы уверены, что эта ненависть к нам и место - это только потому, что мы уверовали в Аллаха Единого и было сказано, что Господь наш - Аллах, и выполнить свой долг перед Богом, защищать слабых. Просто хочу, чтобы установить справедливость на земле.
Всемогущий Аллах говорит: «Они мстят им только за то, что они верят в Аллаха Всемогущий и Слава" ... », Которые были изгнаны из своих домов несправедливо только потому, что они сказали:. Господь, Аллах"
"... Если бы Аллах не позволяет людям защищаться от других, то клетки будут уничтожены, синагоги, церкви и мечети, где чрезмерно поминать Аллаха. Воистину, Аллах Всемогущий и Больше всего Могучий".
так подло жестокому обращению со стороны врагов ислама.Где такое количество этих событий не были услышаны простых людей со стороны международного сообщества, и независимо от новых недостатков в отношениях настоящей реальности, которая в настоящее время страдает от horrenduously мусульман во всем мире на планете, должны постоянно находиться противостояние зло встреча хороша, и воистину Истина не будет подавлен ложь, следовательно, многое предстоит увидеть и себя показать, в ходе видя правосудие действительно сделано по всем направлениям сегодня.
А для любимого мусульманской уммы и братства в человечестве, как пищу для размышлений:
Благословенный Посланник Salallahu'alaihi ва Салам, в резюме рассказ о 3 Друзья, он спросил группу товарищей,''Скажите, вы знаете, кто эти трое друзей?''
''Вы знаете лучше, Посланник Аллаха'', сказали они.
''Первый друг нашей собственности и богатства. Активы будут с нами, пока мы живы, но, когда мы умираем, мы не будем использовать. Другой друг нашей семьи - родители, дети, братья и сестры. Они будут заботиться о нашем гусль, кафе и захоронения, после чего они оставят нас. Третий друг настоящим другом. Он возьмет нас, и мы будем наиболее полезны, когда ты умрешь. Это наши добрые дела, молитвы, пост, благотворительность и другие. Он сделает наше путешествие после смерти, чтобы быть приятной и безаварийной,''Пророк сказали они.
Вспоминая смерти побуждает нас делать добрые дела и выполнять свои обязанности в полной приверженности к Аллаху. Когда мы видим похороны ставится в положение умершего и с величайшим смирением должны спросить себя,''Молитесь ли вы регулярно?'',''У вас есть харам продукты?'',''А я даю на благотворительность? ». ''Вы носите шарф?''. Эти вопросы помогут нам стать лучше и лучше подготовиться к смерти, с верой и доверием на Аллаха, чтобы отразить на себя, если бы мы сделали достаточно, чтобы прийти на помощь дорогие братья, что в настоящее время в тюрьму без справедливости, любое чувство справедливостиничтожным в здравомыслие умов.
Закономерность, которую Аллах создал на этой земле, которая не изменилась, то, что Аллах будет иметь своего раба ...
Всевышний Аллах говорит в Коране: «Неужели люди полагают, что их отпуск и не поддавайтесь искушению, просто за то, что они говорят" мы считаем "Мы уже подвергается искушению тех, кто был до них Аллах, конечно, знаете, кто.. говорить правду, и, конечно, знаете лжецов ".
Также Аллах говорит в Коране - "А люди думали, что войдете в Рай, не испытав того, что постигло ваших предшественников Они бьют нищеты и болезней Они прошли через такие потрясения, что Посланник Аллаха (вассалов алейхи салату.) А те, которые уверовали с ним.. , говоря, - «Когда же помощь Аллаха?" Воистину помощь Аллаха близка ». Также Аллах говорит, - "Или вы думаете, что войдете в Рай, пока Аллах знает тех из вас, кто воевал и тех, кто был пациентом ..."
Задаваемые имама Шафии (рахматуллахи ва) - "Что это лучший тест или одобрении Он сказал:" Это не будет утвержден, пока тест »,
Как Всемогущий говорит: "Это чувствовал, что Бог Авраама команду, и он выполнил их, он сказал:".. Я сделаю вас вождем "Он сказал:" Из моих потомков "Он сказал:". Завет Мой, не делает? сенсорный нечестивых ".
Знайте, братия мои, что же произошло на нас, смерть, мучения и наказания на пути Аллаха - это не что иное, как рост и славу на этой земле.
А также увеличение Аджарии (дела, которые приносят пользу людям перед Аллахом) в этом свете. Как говорится в хадисе, который передается от Ибн Аби Ваккас:
"Я спросил Пророка (да благословит его вассалов салата), которые состоят из людей больше, чем кто-либо будет проверена Он сказал:" Пророки, то, как они, то, как они. По Вашему Раб будет протестирован в соответствии со своей верой, когда его вера сильна, то тест будет сильным. Будет протестирована в офисе, пока он не будет ходить по этой земле очищается. "
Да, мы уверены, что эта ненависть к нам и место - это только потому, что мы уверовали в Аллаха Единого и было сказано, что Господь наш - Аллах, и выполнить свой долг перед Богом, защищать слабых. Просто хочу, чтобы установить справедливость на земле.
Всемогущий Аллах говорит: «Они мстят им только за то, что они верят в Аллаха Всемогущий и Слава" ... », Которые были изгнаны из своих домов несправедливо только потому, что они сказали:. Господь, Аллах"
"... Если бы Аллах не позволяет людям защищаться от других, то клетки будут уничтожены, синагоги, церкви и мечети, где чрезмерно поминать Аллаха. Воистину, Аллах Всемогущий и Больше всего Могучий".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)