THE KEMALISTS` BETRAYAL ON THE CALIPHATE

14-01-2020

Mustafa Sabri Efendi, the Ottoman scholar, member of the Ottoman House of Representatives and last Shaykh-ul Islam of the Ottoman Empire
 

The Kemalists' betrayal on the Caliphate

With regard to this topic I have already made my judgement and I see how this judgment now becomes reality. Had they really given their appreciation to the Caliphate, they would not have deprived him of all his powers and authority. The person they appointed as caliph is not a sultan, nor does he have any authority to participate in government. It can neither appoint nor dismiss, nor write nor reject laws, nor command nor forbid them. It ( the caliph Abdulmecid Efendi; translator's note) is literally a figurehead, a mere symbolic figure.

 

Exactly those signs show the treachery the Kemalists committed against the Caliphate. They aligned the state according to their secular principles and removed and abstracted the state from religion and religion from the state.

 

After all, caliphate and government had been one and the same and the caliphate consisted of the representation and empowerment of that Islamic government of the Prophet.

 

Just as the government represents the guiding and determining force, so the caliphate represents its inherent qualities and attributes. It expresses that it is a spiritual leadership and government.

 

So we can say that the separation of government and caliphate is a separation of government from Islam and when this separation takes place, the caliphate has only one quality left: spirituality.

 

If the government has come to such a result with its spiritual quality, it means that neither the spiritual nor the governmental power has remained with the caliph. The fact that the state has taken on its present form shows that it has already discarded all spirituality.

 

Within this framework, it shows us what mere logic and reason can lead to. If the Kemalists should not have done all this, then secularization was only a bad dream in my eyes.

 

The Kemalists promised to address the population with the Sharia for the time being in order to bind them to themselves and until the opportunity arose for them to be the only ones in the ranks of power. When the conditions were in their favor, they finally showed their true face, whereupon they did not waste a moment moving Islam one blow at a time.

 

Shaykh Muhammad Al-Ghazali wrote the following in his book "Zalam-fil-Garb":

 

"The only element in the hearts and ranks of the Turkish army that is the occupiers were expelled was Islam. Mustafa Kemal, who led them, was merely a vehicle sent by the Sultan himself."

 

The Muslims helped the Turks with everything they had and did not hesitate for a moment to give them the necessary spiritual and material support. One example was Egypt at that time, where the people took to the streets and called out the following:

 

"O Egyptian half-moon rise up to help and hasten to call Mustafa Kemal!"

 

But when the victory was won, the true face of M. Kemals was revealed. Now to the claim that the Kemalists ruled with Sharia law:

 

When Mustafa Kemal and his associates transferred the power to form a government to the parliament that consisted only of their men, they left the execution of Sharia law to the caliph, to whom those very executive powers and obligations were torn from his hands. Thus the Sharia was de facto prevented from being implemented and prevented from doing so. Thus, by separating the government from the caliphate, those two institutions lost their legitimacy.

 

 

Caliphate in its meaning is called "representation and empowerment" in the literal sense.

 

In the traditional sense it is the representation of the government of the Prophet and the leadership of his Ummah.

 

If the caliphate is abstracted from this element, nothing Islamic remains in this institution and thus loses its Islamic characteristics.

 

Just as the monarchy and the constitutional monarchy are individual forms of government, so too is the caliphate. Just as the constitutional disappears from the constitutional monarchy and loses importance, so does the caliphate lose importance when separated from the government.

 

If we now come to the loss of meaning, we see the following:

 

A government that is bound to the form of government of the Caliphate is subject to the principles of Islam. The government that holds the Caliphate manifests itself through representation by addressing the judgments of the Prophet and the judgments of Islam.

 

A government that is not bound to the Caliphate is therefore not a substitute for the Prophet's or Islam's judgments.

 

 

The separation of caliphate and government leads to two results:

 

1. The government is no longer willing to represent the government of the Messenger of Allah.

For the Kemalists, however, this is a disadvantage rather than an advantage, which has the following consequences that they might have to accept a loss of legitimacy and reputation.

 

2. To move away from the Islamic judgments and their duties and necessities to the

release.

 

The real reason for the separation of government and caliphate was precisely this. Despite the disadvantages of not having the honour of being deputized and the rejection of all Muslims, they saw exactly this risk.

 

Their intention was to follow their inclinations and desires. In their eyes the Islamic judgments, i.e. the Sharia, only stood in their way, from which they wanted to distance themselves.

 

I wanted to open the eyes of those who have taken this topic all too lightly.

 

All this leads to the following:

The intention of the Kemalists was to separate the spiritual from the worldly.

(Secularization/Laicism)

 

 

Source: Hilafet'in ilgasının arka Planı