This might come as a surprise, maybe even a shock to some, but neither the crescent nor the star has any basis as an Islamic religious symbol.

Ask almost any Pakistani today, or even many Muslims across the world, what the crescent and star on the Pakistani flag mean, and you’ll probably hear a confident answer: “They are Islamic symbols!”

But here’s the truth — they are not.

This might come as a surprise, maybe even a shock to some, but neither the crescent nor the star has any basis as an Islamic religious symbol. Not in the Quran, not in the teachings of Prophet Mohammed, and not even among the early generations of Muslims.

In fact, according to a clear ruling from IslamQA, one of the most respected Saudi fatwa (Islamic ruling) portals, the crescent and star have no roots in Islamic teachings whatsoever.

When someone asked on IslamQA (Question No: 1528): “What is the symbolism behind the Muslim star and crescent?”

The scholars answered clearly: “There is no basis in Shari`ah for taking the crescent or star as a symbol of the Muslims. This was not known at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), or at the time of the Khulafa Al-Rashidun, or during the Umayyad dynasty.”

They went on to explain that historians disagree on exactly when Muslims started using these symbols. Some say they came from the Persians, others say from the Greeks. What’s certain is that it wasn’t the Muslims who invented it, and it definitely wasn’t something the Prophet Mohammad or his companions endorsed.

A Symbol Borrowed, Not Revealed

So where did the crescent and star actually come from?

Long before Islam even appeared, civilizations like the Greeks, Romans, and Persians were already using the crescent and star in their emblems, coins, and banners. In fact, around 300 BC, the Greek colony of Byzantium (which later became Constantinople, and eventually Istanbul) used the crescent in its city flag. Later, the famous Pontic king Mithridates VI adopted the crescent and star combination as a royal emblem after he took control of Byzantium for a brief period.

Fast forward a few centuries: The Persian Sassanian Empire, long before Islam, minted coins bearing the crescent and star. And when early Muslim rulers conquered Persia, they initially continued using the same coin designs — not out of religious endorsement, but simply because they were replicating existing currency systems.

Later, during the rise of the mighty Ottoman Empire, the crescent and star became closely tied with Muslim identity, not through divine instruction but through politics and imperial symbolism. The Ottoman flag of 1844 — a white crescent and star on a red background — became a powerful emblem of their rule.

When Turkey modernized in the 20th century, they kept the crescent-star motif, and many Muslim countries — like Pakistan, Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, Malaysia, Tunisia, Algeria — incorporated it into their national flags too.

Why Some Muslims Think It’s Islamic

Because the Ottoman Empire was seen for centuries as the seat of the Islamic caliphate, the association between their state symbol and Islam grew stronger in people’s minds. Over time, many Muslims — especially during the nationalist and Islamist movements of the 20th century — started embracing the crescent and star as “Islamic.”

But let’s be clear: This connection is cultural, not religious.

Unlike the cross in Christianity — which directly symbolizes Jesus’ crucifixion — there is no divine event, revelation, or command linking Islam with the crescent and star.

It’s just a case of history blending with perception.

Theological Reality: Stars and Moons Are Just Creation

In Islam, celestial bodies like the moon and stars are indeed respected — but as creations of God, not as sacred symbols.

Islamic teachings emphasize that the moon and stars have no power to influence our fate, bring blessings, or cause harm. They are signs of God’s creative power, nothing more. Worship or reverence is strictly reserved for God alone.

Thus, attaching sacred meaning to the crescent and star, treating them as holy, or reacting angrily if someone “disrespects” them, is simply not part of Islamic belief.

So, Is It a Sin to Walk Over a Crescent and Star Symbol?

Absolutely not.

Since neither the crescent nor the star are Islamic symbols, walking over them, wearing them on socks, printing them on T-shirts, or even using them in decorative ways is not a sin or an act of rebellion against God.

If someone feels emotional about it out of patriotism — for instance, feeling hurt if the Pakistani flag is trampled — that’s understandable as a matter of national pride for Pakistanis alone, but it’s not a religious issue for all Muslims.

God has not commanded us to venerate flags or symbols. His command is to worship Him.

A Call for Clear Thinking

In today’s world, where misinformation spreads easily, it’s crucial for Muslims to stay anchored in authentic knowledge rather than cultural myths.

Islam is a faith of clarity, not confusion. Our symbols are not man-made designs but eternal truths: Belief in God and righteous deeds.

So the next time you see a crescent and star, appreciate their beauty, admire their history, recognize their role in culture and heritage — but don’t mistake them for something they’re not.

Our strength as Muslims lies in knowledge, truth, and clear understanding, not in clinging to symbols that history accidentally handed down to us.

The prophecies about the conquest of Constantinople made by Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) are yet to happen before the end of times, and it has nothing to do with Ottoman emperor Sultan Mehmet Fatih…

All the Prophetic narrations which are also known as “Ahadith” that talk about the conquest of Constantinople are related to the end of times—especially during the sequence of the events like the arrival of the Antichrist, the emergence of the Mahdi, the descent of Jesus Christ, till the last Hour. So technically, the best leader who’ll conquer the modern-day secular Turkey is yet to emerge.

.لاَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ التُّرْكَ قَوْمًا وُجُوهُهُمْ كَالْمَجَانِّ الْمُطْرَقَةِ يَلْبَسُونَ الشَّعَرَ وَيَمْشُونَ فِي الشَّعَرِ

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: “The Last Hour would not come until the Muslims fight with the Turks – a people whose faces would be like hammered shields wearing clothes of hair and walking (with shoes) of hair.” [Sahih Muslim Book 54, Hadith 79]

حَدَّثَنَا مَحْمُودُ بْنُ غَيْلاَنَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، عَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ فَتْحُ الْقُسْطُنْطِينِيَّةِ مَعَ قِيَامِ السَّاعَةِ ‏.‏ قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ غَرِيبٌ ‏.‏ وَالْقُسْطَنْطِينِيَّةُ هِيَ مَدِينَةُ الرُّومِ تُفْتَحُ عِنْدَ خُرُوجِ الدَّجَّالِ وَالْقُسْطَنْطِينِيَّةُ قَدْ فُتِحَتْ فِي زَمَانِ بَعْضِ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم. ‏

Anas bin Malik said: “Constantinople will be conquered with the coming of the Hour.” [Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 33, Hadith 82]

The most famous Islamic contemporary scholars and the historians who lived during the time of the conquest of Constantinople such as Al-Suyuti, Al-Sakhawi, Ibn Al-Imad mentioned about the Ottoman commander Mehmet Fatih in their books describing his conquests, but they never associated him with Prophet Mohammed’s (peace be upon him) prophecies about the conquest of Constantinople.

The Hadith scholars like Imam Abu Dawood – author of Sunan, Imam Ahmad – author of Musnad Ahmad, and Imam Ibn Majah mentioned the reason for the conquest of Constantinople, that is—first the Muslims and Romans will make a strong alliance to fight a third enemy, then the Romans will betray, which will lead to the fierce fight between Muslims and the Romans at a place called Al-Ghouta, that will eventually lead to Al-Malhamah.

The great Scholar of Hadith Shiekh Ahmed Shakir stated that, “Conquest of Constantinople, Turkey which was prophesied in the Ahadith will be in a near or far future which only Allah Almighty knows. The correct conquest is that, when Muslims return to the religion which they had left.”

The Hadith scholar continues, “As for the Turkish conquest that was before our time, it was a prelude to the greatest conquest. Then it came out of the hands of the Muslims, since their government announced that it is a non-Islamic and a non-religious government.” [Source: حاشية عمدة التفسير عن ابن كثير ٢/٢٥٦]

It’s as clear as a day that the prophecies about the conquest of Constantinople made by Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) are yet to happen before the end of times, and it has nothing to do with Ottoman emperor Sultan Mehmet Fatih, while the sequence of events are clearly mentioned in the prophetic narrations—which don’t collide with Fateh’s invasion of Constantinople.

Dr. Areej Hussain is specialized in Arabic Studies from the American university of Cairo.

It is clear that the Turkish president cannot get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood’s disease of lusting after power and expansion without taking into account the realities and the balance of power in the world.

One should not underestimate Turkey’s role in the region, knowing that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is obsessed with restoring the former glory of the Ottoman Empire. Still, the open questions will always be: Does Turkey really have the means to pursue Erdogan’s foreign adventures currently supported by Qatari money? What will happen when this money runs out one?

The answer is simply that the Turkish president is behaving in a manner characteristic of leaders whose minds have become unstable. It won’t come as a surprise to discover that he is afflicted with the same megalomania that has touched Iran since 1979. Until now, the regime in Tehran believes that it could play the role of the dominant power in the region and persists in its dream of establishing the Persian crescent that links Tehran to Beirut, via Baghdad and Damascus.

And that is not all of Iran’s ambitions. On September 21, 2014, Tehran celebrated the fall of Sana’a into its hands after the Yemini capital was overrun by the Houthis. In the final analysis, the latter are nothing more than one of the sectarian militias managed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), specifically by the Quds brigade that was under the command of Qassem Soleimani before his demise at American hands on January 3, 2020.

Erdogan’s moves outside Turkey’s borders are also not far removed from marking the 100th anniversary of the San Remo Conference of April 1920, which ended in dividing the Ottoman Middle East, under the supervision of the League of Nations (the international organisation that existed before the end of World War II), between Britain and France. Following that conference that practically killed the Ottoman Empire, Turkey turned its attention to its internal affairs and soon became a secularist republic led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Ataturk, an army officer, knew how to manage the collapse of the Ottoman Empire with the least possible losses and enabled Turkey to reconcile itself with its new environment and with the new international geopolitical realities, away from the delusions of grandeur that seem to still be entrenched in the mind of Erdogan. It is clear that the Turkish president cannot get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood’s disease of lusting after power and expansion without taking into account the realities and the balance of power in the world.

It is not yet known whether Erdogan will be able to fulfil his ambitions in light of his scoring some points in Libya and in light of the American-Russian-Israeli acceptance of the extension of Turkish hegemony over northern Syria. The Turkish presence in the Syrian north along the border between the two countries has become a reality, just like the Turkish presence in Cyprus, a presence that covers an area of ​​about 35% of the island’s area and includes important areas such as Famagusta.

The Turks have been present militarily in Cyprus as an occupying power since the summer of 1974 under the pretext of protecting the Turkish Cypriots, who make up 18% of the local population. This occupation has been in place for 46 years now and Ankara has proven that it will always be there. This also appears to be the expected fate of northern Syria. Trustworthy reports indicated that Ankara was seeking to expand within two months its presence inside the Syrian Arab Republic all the way to the outskirts of Hama.

We will have a clearer picture of Turkish plans in Syria following the expected visit to Ankara by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Defence Minister Sergey Shoygo.

It is quite possible that Turkey will succeed in its plan in Syria, especially since the Bashar Assad regime is almost finished there after it was found to be an integral part of the Iranian expansion project, a project that is itself on the brink of collapse due to the great difficulties caused by US sanctions. In the end, the mighty Islamic Republic established in 1979 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini turned out to be no more than a paper tiger. The glaring evidence of this is its inability to respond to the assassination of Soleimani. Each day that passes seems to highlight the important role that this man had played in putting in place Iran’s hegemonic ambitions in the region, whether in Iraq, ​​Syria, Lebanon and even Yemen.

Erdogan can certainly succeed in Syria, but it is unlikely he will achieve any positive results in Libya. Like Iran, he is trying to play a role that exceeds Turkey’s ability to survive economically. More than that, he has shoved Turkey into political mazes that greatly trouble Europe. There are limits to blackmailing Europe, even though it does not have a unified position on what is going on in Libya. However, there is, by contrast, a unified European position against allowing Turkey to reach a stage where the continent is subjected to threats of waves of illegal African migrants released from Libyan shores, which are just a stone’s throw from Italian coasts. And let’s not forget that Turkey is also directly threatening the interests of two European Union member states, Greece and Cyprus.

The upshot of all of this is that it is very unlikely that Turkey will be allowed to control a large chunk of the Mediterranean Sea, that is to say from the Bosporus to the Gulf of Sidra in Libya. So, this is not the right time to be bringing the Ottoman Empire back to life. It’s more like the right time for Erdogan to focus on Turkey’s internal problems rather than picturing himself at the top of an imperial power whose might can reach all the way to Yemen and Somalia, yes Yemen and Somalia.

Unfortunately, it will be impossible to convince the Turkish president that he is failing inside Turkey itself and that this failure does not allow him to possess any imperial delusions, especially since he is still inhabited by the fear of the ghost of his archenemy, Islamic guru Fethullah Gulen, who is now a refugee in the United States and is quite popular inside Turkey, a popularity greatly resented by Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is indeed this deeply rooted resentment that has recently pushed the Turkish president to launch yet another wave of arrests in the ranks of the army and security forces, doctors, engineers, journalists and members of the House of Representatives. In just one day on June 9, the Turkish authorities arrested 414 people, according to the French newspaper Le Monde. Most of these were military personnel who were arrested for suspected ties to the Gulen movement.

Erdogan accuses Gulen of having ordered the failed coup against him in 2016, and he is not yet over that “personal affront to the emperor” and remains captive of his Gulen complex. Anyone with his complexes cannot go far with his dreams and delusions. The Turkish president may still be able to score a few points in Turkey, at least from his point of view, but conquering Libya and playing a regional role might be a bigger bone for Turkey to chew on. It will just be a repeat of the Iranian syndrome, where poor Iran is no longer cognisant of the existence of red lines that it can’t cross.

Article first appeared on The Arab Weekly.

Khairallah Khairllah is a Political analyst and writer based in Lebanon.

Ottomans benefited from the propaganda of Islamist groups from the beginning of the twentieth century

The Riyadh municipality’s decision to remove the name of Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent from one of its main streets has encouraged other Arab cities to get rid of reminders of Ottoman legacy as illustrated by the names of streets and landmarks.

This trend was in great part a reaction to Turkish intervention in Syria and Libya and the projected desire of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to impose his country’s influence on the region like in the days of the Ottoman empire.

Saudi Twitter users shared pictures showing the moment the Riyadh municipality removed the street plate bearing the name of Suleiman the Magnificent from one of its streets.

The municipality’s decision was a symbolic message that fuelled calls in Arab cities to get rid of other modern day reminders of Ottoman colonialism. This happened amid growing calls for former colonial powers to issue apologies and compensations for their past misdeeds against occupied nations.

In contrast to the Saudi decision, the Libyan municipality of Tajoura, east of the capital Tripoli, named one of its main roads after Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent.

This was announced in a social media post shared Monday by Tajoura Mauor Hussein Bin Attia.

The mayor stated that the municipality of Tajoura had formally decided to give the road that starts from the lighthouse of Al-Hamidiya “Al-Fanar” and runs all the way to the island of Al-Duran (known as “the island of Spain”), the name of Sultan Suleiman.

These events could trigger a “street war,” with designations and counter-designations in the region between opponents of Turkish military intervention and its apologists.

The name Suleiman the Magnificent carries special symbolism for Erdogan’s regime because of his expansionist ambitions at the expense of other peoples and nationalities. Suleiman also exhibited intense cruelty during his reign, including by victimising his closest relatives because of his obsession with raw power and penchant for tyranny.

The Saudi move coincided with mass demonstrations in the West calling for a review of the past, the prosecution of those responsible for racially motivated crimes and the toppling of statues of prominent historical figures accused of bigotry in the United States and Britain.

There is also a growing trend in the Arab world to reevaluate the past. This would include putting Ottoman colonialism on trial and doing what it takes to rid the history books of the glorification of the Turks and their activities. Particularly resented are unjustified efforts to ascribe a religious dimension to the Ottomans’ colonial actions. The truth is that the Turks expelled some colonial powers (the Spanish in North Africa for example), only to play the same role if not worse.

Categorising Ottoman invasions in the Arab world as part of a Muslim conquest does not hold water since the notion of Muslim conquests applies only to lands that were previously non-Muslim. The Ottomans, on the other hand, entered Arab countries in the Maghreb and the Middle East as invaders. Their only concern was humiliating the population and demanding loyalty to the Othman dynasty, which imposed its will east and west by force of arms.

Historians say that Ottoman colonialism does not differ in nature from the Western colonialism it left behind in the region. Ottomans also paved the way for powerful Turkish families to control fertile lands and settle in the best parts of the region, in addition to imposing unfair taxes aimed at forcing hapless populations to bear the cost of Turkey’s old wars.

Experts point out that the Ottomans benefited from the propaganda of Islamist groups from the beginning of the twentieth century, which bestowed on them the image of Muslim conquerors. But the matter is now different after the direct Turkish expansion in Syria and Libya. With the expansion of Turkish economic and political influence in many countries of the region, locals increasingly view Turkey as a colonial power, regardless of the historical rationale it tries to invoke to anchor its influence.

The same way Armenians demanded compensation for Ottoman crimes, Arab voices have begun making a case against Ottoman colonialism and demanding a Turkish apology for the massacres carried out by the Ottomans in the countries of the Levant and the Maghreb, as well as holding this colonialism responsible for the backwardness which has held back the region for centuries.

Article first published on The Arab Weekly.

According to Dr. Anjum, the Turkish drama Dirilis Ertugrul has been well-received on social and electronic media, which made a lot of Pakistani viewers call it “the story of golden age of Islamic history”, but a lot of them have no idea about the actual history.

He said that, major scholarly work on Turkish history is available in four-volumes titled “Cambridge History of Turkey”, edited by Professor. Suraya Farooqi, who holds authority on Turkish and Ottoman history. Interestingly, the first volume deals with the period from 1071 till 1453 C.E., and Ertugrul’s name is mentioned only once on page 118.

Dr. Anjum cited Farooqi’s statement that, “We know nothing about the life of Ertugrul, and his existence is independently attested only by a coin of his son Osman”.

Further he quoted, Dr. Muhammad Uzair’s two-volume book in Urdu, “Daulat-e-Osmania” which means The Ottoman Wealth. The preface of the book was written by Syed Sulaiman Nadvi where he mentioned the purpose of the book was to familiarize Indian Muslim with the Turks’ accomplishments. The book was later published by Darul Musnafin, Azamgarh in India.

Dr. Anjum backed his claim with Dr. Uzair’s statement that, “Suleiman Shah and Ertugrul were non-Muslims and the first person in the tribe to convert to Islam was Ertugrul’s son Osman”.

Further, Dr. Uzair presented the testimony of the western historian, who said, “In the beginning of the thirteenth century AD, the tribes of Khurasan and other Trans-Canal regions appeared on the borders of Asia Minor. There is no explicit mention of their conversion to Islam in any of the histories. That is, Osman’s great heir Sulaiman Shah and his companions, who left their homeland, were non-Muslims”.

Further the testimony states, “The majority of tourist testimonies from the twelfth century onwards and later show that these nations were pagan, the various Turkish tribes who entered Asia at that time found themselves in an Islamic environment. The conversion of Uthman and his tribe to Islam gave rise to the Ottoman Nation. It was as a result of this conversion that Uthman’s victorious activities began after 9 AH (1290)”.

The testimony also states that Ertugrul had peaceful relations with neighbors and he never fought “infidels”.

“Ertugrul and Uthman lived a simple life in Sagut as a village chief. There is no mention of any war or victory of his time in history. Ertugrul’s relations with his neighbors were very peaceful. The broadcast states that both the infidels and the Muslims of this country respected Ertugrul and his son. There was no question of Kafir (Non-Muslim) and Muslim. Then all of a sudden we see ‘Uthman attacking his neighbors and conquering their forts. There is a preaching zeal in these people which is found only in those who have recently converted”, the testimony ended.

Dr. Anjum explained that, “The Ertugrul of history was probably not even a Muslim and even if he was a Muslim, all the details of the Jihad against the Crusaders and the Mongols which are the adornment of the drama are not backed by historical evidence”. “If you like the drama, you must consider it as fiction or story, but please don’t make it a drama of Islam”.

Here are Dr. Anjum’s academic credentials.

The series puts the Turkish people and their values at the forefront, thereby relegating Islam to the background…

Diriliş Ertuğrul

‘Diriliş Ertuğrul’ a historical TV series first aired in 2013, which has taken the Muslim world by storm since then. The series is based on Ertugrul Bey, who was the founding father of Ottoman Empire, Osman I.

The series is focused on events leading to the formation of the Ottoman Empire. It is also known for its unique decision to abstain from the use of nudity within the series.

It is part of the Islamic faith to be passionate about anything that demonstrates the superiority and dominance of Islam. As such, we understand why Muslims feel empowered by such a TV series.

We also understand the need to educate the masses regarding Islamic history, including the rise of the Ottoman Empire. Considering it from this angle, there is some benefit to the series.

The main purpose behind the series is to incite patriotism, especially amongst the Turkish nationals, who were its initial intended target audience.

The series puts the Turkish people and their values at the forefront, thereby relegating Islam (and its rise, values, and history) to the background. As such, it will not be correct to say that the purpose behind the show is to educate the masses regarding Islamic history.

If one truly desires to learn about Islamic history, including that of the Ottoman Empire, there are a plethora of well written interesting books available on the subject.

The permissibility of something in the Shari’ah is not solely based on the fact that it has benefits in it. Similarly, while we acknowledge the benefits of this TV series, there are also violations of the Shari’ah in these series. The mere claim of no nudity in the TV show is no justification of the show being permissible.

The Holy Qu’ran acknowledges that there are benefits in Wine, yet it is prohibited. Almighty Allah says in the Holy Quran, Surah Baqarah, Verse 219,

يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ قُلْ فِيهِمَا إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ وَإِثْمُهُمَا أَكْبَرُ مِنْ نَفْعِهِمَا

Translation: “They ask you regarding wine and gambling. Say (O Muhammad), in them is a great sin and benefit for the people. (But) their sin is greater than their benefit.”

Free mixing of gender

The TV series also promotes free intermingling with the opposite gender. If we were to permit the series, it would imply that segregation of sexes and hijab are not a requirement whereas hijab and segregation of sexes are explicitly ordained by Almighty Allah in the Holy Quran and by the Prophet peace be upon him in Hadith,

قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِعَلِيٍّ: ” يَا عَلِيُّ، لَا تُتْبِعِ النَّظْرَةَ النَّظْرَةَ، فَإِنَّ لَكَ الْأُولَى وَلَيْسَتْ لَكَ الْآخِرَةُ “.

Translation: “Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said to Ali (RadiyAllahu Anhu): “O Ali! Do not allow your glance to follow a glance, because the first (glance) is forgiven but not the second.”

Music

There is also music in the series. If we were to permit the series, it would imply that music is also permissible whereas music is prohibited in Quran and hadith. See the following,

وَمِنَ النَّاسِ مَن يَشْتَرِي لَهْوَ الْحَدِيثِ لِيُضِلَّ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ وَيَتَّخِذَهَا هُزُوًا ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ مُّهِينٌ

Translation: “And of the people is one buys the amusement of speech to mislead [others] from the way of Allah without the knowledge and who takes it in ridicule. Those will have a humiliating punishment.”

Ibn Abbas (Radhiyallahu Anhu) said: amusement of speech in this verse refers to music. The following hadith also shows the impermissibility of music.

أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: فِي هَذِهِ الأُمَّةِ خَسْفٌ وَمَسْخٌ وَقَذْفٌ، فَقَالَ رَجُلٌ مِنَ المُسْلِمِينَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، وَمَتَى ذَاكَ؟ قَالَ: إِذَا ظَهَرَتِ القَيْنَاتُ وَالمَعَازِفُ وَشُرِبَتِ الخُمُورُ

Translation: “Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “In this Ummah will be earthquakes, disfiguration (of faces which will be transformed into apes and pigs) and showers of stone (descending o­n them from the heaven).” A man from among the Muslimeen said: “O Rasulullah! When will this be?” Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “When singing girls and musical instruments will become profuse and when liquor will be consumed (in abundance)”.

The above-mentioned violations of Shari’ah are more detrimental to ones Imaan than the perceived and assumed benefits in the series. Furthermore, the series is viewed as a form of entertainment in which many hours of one’s valuable time is wasted.

The intermingling of sexes, music, and patriotism are some of the main causes of the moral decline and retrogression of the Ummah. Hence, it is incumbent upon us to abstain from viewing such series.

Fatwa about watching historical dramas

Shaykh Muhammed Saalih al-Munajjid, General Supervisor of leading English fatwa portal islamqa.info, issued a similar ruling on watching dramas and historical other shows.

Shaykh Munajjid mentioned that, these shows may contain many things that are contrary to shari’a. For example:

1. Distortion of historical texts and the addition of many details that are not limited to making up a dialog between the characters; rather it involves fabricating events with details that never happened, and telling lies about the early generations, the scholars and the mujaahideen by mentioning things that did not happen during their lifetimes, or exaggerating about them. The worst things that you will find in some cases are stories of love and infatuation between a scholar or mujaahid and a girl who is in love with him!

2. Showing those great men in an abhorrent manner that is contrary to sharee‘ah, in terms of clothing and appearance, and going further than that by depicting their families and womenfolk in contemporary style, according to the whims and desires of the people in charge of the production.

3. What is shown of free mixing between men and women in those dramas, and who knows what goes on during filming and beforehand? Indeed, anyone who knows the nature of that environment, and the attitude of the people involved and those who work in it, does not need any further information to find it reprehensible.

4. What is played of music before the show begins, during it, and at the end?

5. Wanton display and unveiling in all types of TV shows are obvious to anyone. The appearance of women in the first place is not permissible, so how about if women appear wearing make-up and adorned?

6. What some of these shows include of dancing, singing and drinking alcohol on the part of slave women, which is shown on the grounds of showing what really happened of immoral deeds and blatant sin, which also involves telling lies and distorting the biographies of many of those whose life stories they claim to be presenting.

7. The portrayal by actors of the Sahaabah in a very bad way; these roles may be played by an actor who is an evildoer or a disbeliever!

8. Playing the role of a disbeliever who wears a cross or prostrates to it, or the role of a disbeliever who reviles the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) or Islam. All of that is tantamount to disbelief in Allah, may He be exalted, and apostasy from Islam. We do not know of any shar‘i concession that allows actors to say or do anything that constitutes kufr. This also applies to the one who does plainly evil actions in a real manner, such as one who drinks real alcohol when acting, or he kisses a woman who is not permissible for him, and so on. The scholars have stated that it is haraam to pretend to do such things or to imitate people who do such things, such as the one who drinks water in the manner of one who drinks alcohol, and the like.

9. Distracting the Muslims and wasting their time with the foolish drama shows that present a distorted picture of our glorious history or of a great character, or that provoke desires in young men and women, or encourage them to form haraam relationships and many other things contained in these shows.

Why such dramas only in Ramadaan?

Regrettably, this distraction comes to the Muslims in Ramadan, which is the month of the Qur’aan, qiyaam and i‘tikaaf.

This is indicative of evil intent and plotting on the part of the devils of mankind, who take on the role of the chained devils and distract the Muslims from obedience and worship, and cause them to watch and listen to haraam things.

Hence we think that it is not permissible for the Muslim to watch any type of these shows, and that the prohibition is more emphatic when they contain many things that are contrary to sharee‘ah.

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him) said: What is required of every Muslim, man and woman, is to avoid these evils and to beware of them. The same applies to watching TV shows that include wanton display on the part of women. It is haraam to watch them because of the grave danger that watching them poses of causing spiritual sickness and loss of protective jealousy, and because that might cause him to fall into that which Allah has forbidden, whether the viewer is a man or a woman. (Fataawa Islamiyyah, 3/72)

It is not arduous to conclude the impermissibility to watch such a series, given the prohibitions are greater than the benefits.

Abdul Rahman Irfan is a Teacher and Quran Proofreader at Zill Noorain Academy, based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Red herring tactics were used to attack Erdoğan’s foes while a massive PR campaigns were actively portraying him as the Muslim World savior…

Turkey’s ruling Islamists in the Justice and Development Party (AKP) are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, known as the Ikhwan in Arabic. The Ikhwan is international and its strategies and tactics are different in each country, he said, though the various national chapters often communicate and cooperate with each other.

Erdoğan’s ties to the Brotherhood go back to the 1970s, when he was one of the more trusted political pupils of Necmettin Erbakan, the father of Islamism in Turkey.

Muslim Brotherhood branches in the Gulf helped support Erbakan and Turkey’s Islamists in this era when they faced repression from the secular establishment.

The historical roots are the same, as well as the ideological closeness in political and religious interpretation, and finally, self-interest as political opportunism.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a belief system found throughout the world, the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey (the Erdoğan administration) is the only group in charge of a country in this big belief system.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership is a very tight network that loyal to their cause, when Necmettin Erbakan died in 2011, most prominent leading figures of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership attended his funeral in Istanbul. Around this time, as the Arab spring protests grew, so did Turkey’s support for Islamists.

“The AKP government’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood movements abroad changed dramatically in 2010 and 2011, as Ankara sought to fund Muslim Brotherhood offshoots that were ideologically ranging from the covert loyalists like to the religious extremist overzealous.

The Turkish Regime with strong hopes of expanding their influence in the Middle East worked with Qatar in funding, supporting and expanding the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood parties in the region.

The main parties were Islamic Action Front (Jordan), Justice and Welfare Party, Islamic Renaissance Party in Tajikistan, Iraqi Islamic Party, Islamic Action Front (Lebanon), Justice and Construction Party (Libya), National Assembly for Reform and Development, The Malaysian Islamic Party, Freedom And Justice Party, Yemeni Congregation for Reform, Islamic Constitutional Movement HADS (Kuwait).

Turkey and Qatar invested billions of dollars in expanding AKP and Brotherhood-linked institutions in the United States relations, AKP and Qatari government officials members can be spotted presence at events of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been linked to the Brotherhood.

Turkish names were increasingly appearing on the boards of Brotherhood-linked NGOs and the influence of Turkish Islamists is growing in the United States.

Red herring tactics were used to attack Erdoğan’s foes while a massive PR campaigns were actively portraying him as the Muslim World savior there for people will dismiss reports of Erdogan’s poor reputation regarding human rights.

Muslim Brotherhood TV shows broadcasting around the world painting Turkey under AKP as a progressive and prospering nation, Erdogan was recognized anywhere in the Middle East as a well established leader who saved Turkey and now he wants to save the Islamic world.

Muslim Brotherhood and Turkish mosques in Europe, North America even in the Middle East have become propaganda tools, where Imams are trained to maintain a positive image of Turkey under Erdogan and attacking the Saudis and Egyptian governments, painting them as regressive, brutal and evil regimes, more and more people subscribed mix the AKP and Turkish Islamist groups ideology and the belief of the caliphate return, Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs, or Diyanet, has taken on an Islamist identity, even a Muslim Brotherhood identity in many places throughout Europe mainly in Germany where they were accused of espionage.

Some groups linked to the Brotherhood in Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Egypt may be terrorist organisations, while some others are not, it’s no longer 1950s, there is no singular Muslim Brotherhood that can be identified and abolished easily, the Muslim Brotherhood is active in politics, arts, social life.

They are celebrities, musicians, actors, scholars, terrorists, businessmen, public figures, the are liberals, theocratic zealots, because they will be whatever they are needed to be in the name of the Neo Ottoman Empire.

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He regularly tweets under @0khalodi0.

Ottoman conquerors pursued a harsh and brutal policy of forced expropriation of the peasants’ land.

In the beginning of the 16th century, almost all the Arab countries were subjugated by the Turks and incorporated in the Ottoman state.

In 1514, Sultan Selim I (the Cruel) led the Turkish army to conquer northern Iraq. In 1516, he wrested Syria and Palestine from the Egyptian Mamelukes and one year later routed the Mameluke army, destroyed the Mameluke state and conquered Egypt and the Hejaz.

In Egypt, historians painted a gruesome picture of the extent of the suffering and discrimination practiced against the Arabs by the Ottomans.

Authors like Muhammad Refaat, Abdul Karim Al-Surbouni, Shafiq Ghorbal, Ahmad Ezzat Abdel Karim, and Hassan Othman wrote about Egypt under Ottoman rule from 1517 till 1918, those were the periods of the Ottoman occupation characterized by chaos, unrest and discord, poverty, decline in agriculture, crafts, industries, and underdevelopment at all economic, scientific and cultural levels, and this image persisted for decades until the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Within a period of about one hundred years almost all the Arab countries, except Morocco in the west and inner Arabia and Oman on the Arabian Peninsula, were included in the Ottoman Empire and for some three or four centuries suffered Turkish oppression.

The desire to impose the feudal system of exploitation on the people prompted the Ottoman feudalists to conquer the Arab countries. There was also the advantage to be gained from the Arab countries’ position on the world trade routes. By controlling Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli, the Ottoman could carry on extensive trade with the European countries. They could even squeeze out the Europeans and practice piracy on the Mediterranean.

This was the era of the primary accumulation of capital, when piracy was part and parcel of sea trade.

Additionally, Egypt, Syria and Iraq were very important centers of transit trade between Europe and the East which although it declined somewhat after the discovery of the direct sea route to India (round the Cape of Good Hope), still continued to yield large profits.

The degree of subordination to the Ottoman Empire varied from country based on the severity of the Ottoman’s oppression of the natives. Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli were considered Ottoman provinces, but by the beginning of the 17th century gained a level independence.

In the middle of the 17th century, the Turks lost real power in Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iraq, where Turkish pashas were installed, the domination of the Porte was often only nominal, while the inner areas of Arabia continued to rise time and time again against the porte.

The pashas organised plots against the sultan. The local Arab feudal lords rose against the Turkish pashas, and from time to time fierce uprisings shook the Ottoman Empire as the Arab people seek independence from the oppressive Ottoman role.

Under the Ottomans religious establishments owned large tracts of land. Ecclesiastical estates (waqfs) were formed by “endowments” and were exempt from taxation since they were proxies of the Ottomans.

The clergy was the mainstay of the feudal system and in order to consolidate it, big feudal lords presented large estates to religious establishments: mosques, madrasahs (collegiate mosques), Dervish monasteries.

It was not uncommon for small peasants to sacrifice their plots to religious establishments in order to save them from feudal usurpation. Usually these small holders had the use of the land until the family died out. They had only to pay taxes to the religious establishment.

The peasants on the ecclesiastical land (waqf) were no better off than under a feudal lord.

At the time of the Turkish conquest, in some Arab countries there still existed communal ownership of land. Among the nomad herdsmen of North Africa, Iraq and Arabia, the pastures were owned in common by the bedouin clans. In the settled farming areas, the Fellaheen communities periodically redistributed land among large families and individual households.

In such countries, the Ottoman conquerors pursued a harsh and brutal policy of forced expropriation of the peasants’ land. The communally-owned land was declared Ottoman state property and passed under the individual control of the nobility—the Emirs and Sheikhs loyal to the Ottomans .

This was the 400 years of dark and evil Ottoman empire’s role in the Arab lands.

Khaled Homoud Alshareef holds PhD in Business and he earned Masters in Philosophy. He regularly tweets under @0khalodi0.

Turks themselves wanted to get rid-off the latter – womanizing, corrupt, harem maintaining — monarchy of Ottoman Sultans, who not once performed Hajj in 600 years.

Ironically, often we come across articles designed and propagated by partisan Sufi ignoramuses, whose composure of delusional fantasy tales end up misleading oscillating Muslims, swayed by mercurial emotions rather knowledge.

Regrettably, we have been brainwashed by the same ideological institutions who instituted the ‘Arab Spring’ to develop this biased infatuation for the Ottomans, deliberately to emasculate our reverence and obedience towards the one and only genuine Caliphate – that of the four righteously guided Caliphs.

We do not cast aspersions upon their faith or rule, however the shortcomings and deviations among their latter Sultans in subsequent eras are documented as part of History.

First of all, it needs to be known — the Ottoman Empire and King AbdülHamid-II, were overthrown by the conspiring Young Turks in the 1908 political reform revolution, similar to Arab Spring and replaced it with a military government coup led by the “Three Pashas”.

In 1889 – Turk students started grouping in Istanbul colleges, uprising & rebelling against Ottoman Sultan’s absolute monarchy. This was 27 years before the Arabs decided to push the secular (freemason) Turk Military Pashas out of Arab lands.

These Young Turks were from the ‘Secular Westernized’ group. In 1902, they convened their first congress in Paris against Sultan Abdülhamit ll.

Were Arabs responsible for this internal revolution? No.

It was a pro-democracy fervor and a military coup, eight years before the Arab revolt of 1916.

Turks themselves wanted to get rid-off the latter – womanizing, corrupt, harem maintaining – monarchy of Ottoman Sultans, who not once performed Hajj in 600 years. Who not once expanded the Holy Mosques to serve pilgrims. Therefore, the responsibility to dissolve the Ottoman empire lies squarely on Turks.

The period of defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922) began with the Second Constitutional Era with the Young Turk Revolution.

101 years ago #todayinhistory Ottoman Sultan and Sunni Caliph Abdülhamid II passed away under house arrest, at the orders of the Young Turks, in the Beylerbeyi Palace. He was laid to rest beside his grandfather Mahmud II and his uncle Abdülaziz. May Allah illuminate his tomb! pic.twitter.com/cvgt1A9Tkx

— Ottoman Records (@ottomanrecord) February 10, 2019

It restored the Ottoman constitution of 1876 and brought in multi-party politics with a two stage electoral system (electoral law) under the Ottoman parliament.

The formal abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate was performed by Grand National Assembly of Turkey on 1st November 1922.

On 23 April 1924, the republic declared 150 high-ranking Ottomans, including the former Sultan, to be personae-non-gratae, banished and exiled to Italy.

Second, importantly — they need to know the first Saudi State was established in 1744 as the Emirate of Dir’iyah — 172 years before Ottomans collapsed. Saudis had the entire areas of Najd, Kuwait, parts of Oman, Asir, Taif, Qatar and Bahrain under their control.

This First Saudi State ended in 1818, when Turkish Ottoman troops invaded the Arab lands under the command of barbaric Ibrahim Pasha, the son of Mohammed Ali Pasha.

Despot Ibrahim murdered several Al-Saud; tortured ruler Abdullah bin Saud by pulling all his teeth out, his head shaved, led him in chains through streets, beheaded and their naked bodies exposed for three days in Istanbul. Ottomans executed the 33 year-old grandson of the noble Scholar Shaikh Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, the noble Al-Imaam al-Muhaddith Shaikh Sulaimaan b. Abdullaah.

Where was Islam in this horrific humiliation and execution?

خلافتِ عثمانیہ کی وجہ سے اسلام اور مسلمانوں کا   بہت  دبدبہ تهاً

In 1818 Abdullah bin Saud was taken to Istanbul for execution. Among the various public humiliations before Ibn Saud’s execution – the Ottomans made him listen to the lute (since the Wahhabi's forbade it). The cruelest punishments were reserved for the rebels’ religious leaders. pic.twitter.com/lNXH7Oiq2C

— Ottoman Records (@ottomanrecord) October 17, 2018

Shaikh Muhammad b. Ibraaheem Aalush-Shaikh stated in the introduction of Tayseer al-Azeez al-Hameed (p. 13) – Ibrahim Pasha brought with him —singing women, musical instruments and alcoholic drinks when he invaded Dir’iyah – along with French military and English naval officers.

What was Islamic about this cruel genocide perpetrated against the Arab Muslims – people and tribes of the Prophet (peace be upon him)?

Our hilarious romance with Ottomans is reflected in ridiculous sentences like — “اسی لئے کافروں نے خلافتِ عثمانیہ کو ختم کرنے کی سازش شروع کی ” – seriously?

Britain had spent the last 200 to 300 years desperately trying to protect and keep their Ottoman Empire allies intact together. In 1853, in the Crimean war declared against the Russians, Anglo-French fleet entered the Black Sea in support of the Turks.  Even in 1914, the British had a naval mission advising the Ottomans on how to modernize their navy.

Why did that “best friend alliance” change?

Because, during WW1 in 1914 – the solipsistic Ottomans vainly decided to support the rival Germans (Central powers) against their British & French allies (Allied forces).

A secret treaty was concluded between the Ottoman Empire (some accounts say military officer Enver Pasha) and the German Empire on August 2, 1914.

In Oct 1914, Ottoman military launched an ill-prepared offensive attack on Russian ports, hoping that an impressive demonstration of Ottoman strength could incite an insurrection amongst the Tsar’s Turkish speaking vassals.

Instead, the Russian counter-offensive inflicted staggering losses on Ottoman forces. The Allied Forces of Britain + France + Russia declared war on Ottomans.

Who initiated the war enmity? Yes, Ottomans! 325,000 Muslim men were conveniently killed in this battle and over 600,000 Armenians were slaughtered by Turks.

Ottoman treachery prompted the British to ditch the Ottomans, and setup new alliances in Middle East. Fair enough. That’s when the ‘Raymond Davis’ of yore ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ was send with British diplomatic objectives – not before, but AFTER Ottomans ditched British first!

Turkish Professor Dr Azmi Ozcan, who is currently a professor of History at Sakarya University and has a PhD in British-Ottoman Relations from the University of London, says ….

“One such instance is of when Tipu Sultan, in his struggle against the British, asked the Ottomans for help. However, at the time the Ottomans needed military assistance from the British as they were fighting off the Russians. The British told the Sultan that “if you really need our help against the Russians, you must help in our fight in the subcontinent to which they agreed and did not lend their support to Tipu Sultan.”

Did the Ottomans help Tipu Sultan? No.

Chest-thumping sentences like ‘کیونکہ جب بهی دنیا میں کہیں مسلمانوں پر ظلم و ستم هوتا، تو ترکی حکمران فوراً اس کا منہ توڑ جواب دیتے ‘ – are nothing but gullible benightedness.

Britain had about 60 to 100 million Muslim subjects in Hindustan and elsewhere under them. They would not risk it for a declining, unpredictable, unstable, corrupt and bankrupt Ottoman empire.

The Ottomans had gone financially bankrupt in 1875, and in response, Britain took control of Cyprus and seized Egypt in 1882. Ottomans surrendered Jerusalem in 1917.

Another reason for the Ottoman’s terminal decline — Europeans had advanced greatly in Sciences and technology during the renaissance and industrial revolution, while the Ottomans remained in a state of stagnation.

Moreover, the excessive interference of the Harem Women in state politics was instrumental in debilitation and fall of the Ottoman empire.

Muslims must get out of this credulous superstition, that Turks were خلافتِ عثمانیہ. They were Kings. Absolute Monarchy. Khilafah had ended with the rule of Hazrat Alī ibn Abī Tālib.

Hussein al-Husayni, the last #Ottoman Mayor of Jerusalem and Director of the Red Crescent society. He formally surrendered #Jerusalem to the British forces led by Gen. Allenby after the Ottoman defeat in 1917, on the grounds of 'protecting the Holy sites from damage by shelling'. pic.twitter.com/yQTBvGZQLS

— Ottoman Records (@ottomanrecord) April 10, 2019

The latter Turkish and Ottomans followed a policy of ‘Turkification’ infuriating the non-Turks. They were followers of mystical Sufi orders, grave worshipping heretics, invaders who invaded, plundered and occupied Arab lands. Arabs NEVER hurt Turks.

Turks ruled by a mixture of Qanun based on localized customs (urf) remnants of the Yassa of Genghis Khan, secular laws (1858 – 1875) and Hanafi laws. Ref:Sexual slavery of females was part of Ottoman slave system till 1908.

Thirdly – On June 5th 1916, when Sharif Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, the Ottoman Emir in Makkah attacked the Turkish garrison in Medina, the Hashemite ruler proclaimed that “he was not fighting the Ottoman sultan, but rather the Turkish nationalists and supremacists who had taken the helm in Istanbul – the secular westernized Pashas”.

#Ottoman Mevlevi Dervishes during the reign of Sultan-Caliph Abdülhamid II in 1890. The Ottoman State sponsored #Sufism; every Ottoman Sultan was a disciple of a Mystic of a traditional #Sufi Order. The #Mevlevi Order became a dominant force during the collapse of the Ottomans. pic.twitter.com/mJccBPphvw

— Ottoman Records (@ottomanrecord) March 14, 2019

His statement clarifies his intention. It was an instinctive self-preservation decision more than an act of rebel.

Fourth – the esteemed scholar Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab died in 1791, some 84 years before the founding father of Saudi Arabia King Abdul Aziz Al Saud was even born in 1875. They never met!

Fifth – The Islamic Conference, held in Riyadh on the 29th October 1924, brought a wide Islamic recognition of Al-Saud’s jurisdiction over Makkah. Islamic world endorsed it!

Last, Yathrib was changed to Madinah and Bakkah was changed to Makkah. Changing of names does not change Islam, nor our obedience and worship to Allah almighty in upholding Tawheed. It is of no importance that Saudi has been named after a tribe, descendants of Adnanites, traditional ancestors of our Prophet (peace be upon him).

Also read: The Decline of the Ottoman Empire (1565-1918)

Why the Ottoman Empire’s Siding with Germany in 1914 Terrified the British

Harem, and the Ottoman Women

Harem, and the Ottoman Women – 2

Afreen Baig is a political observer, writer and blogger.

King Abdulazeez Aal-e-Saud had stipulated that there would be no public ceremony nor any marker for the grave.

Princess Niloufer who was married to Moazzam Jah, the second son of the last Nizam of Hyderabad, Mir Osman Ali Khan, helped her cousin Princess Durru Shehvar to fulfil her desire to see her father, the last Ottoman Ruler, Abdul Majid II, buried in the graveyard attached to the holy mosque in Madina, a decade after his demise. Princess Durru Shevar was married to Azam Jah, the eldest son of Mir Osman Ali Khan.

Princess Niloufer Khanum Farhat was born on January 4, 1916 in Istanbul. Her mother Adile Sultan was the granddaughter of Sultan Murad V. Her father, Salahuddin, died when Niloufer was only two years old.

Arvind Acharya, a city-based historian, who has a unique collection of personal belongings of Princess Niloufer, said that a significant moment in Princess Niloufer’s life occurred in 1954. She received a call from Princess Durru Shehvar requesting help for a specific action. The action was difficult and so Niloufer was reluctant to do it. She consulted her mother, who told her to do the best she could.

Princess Niloufer then placed a call to one of her friends, Ghulam Mohammed, a former official in the Nizam’s Government, who was at that time the President of Pakistan.

Ghulam Mohammed called the then King Abdulzeez bin Abdurrahman Aal-e-Saud of Saudi Arabia to relay the request. The King finally agreed to grant the request.

Thereby hangs a tale. Ten years earlier, the Khalifa Abdul Majid who was living in France after the Ottoman Caliphate was abolished and the Ottoman dynasty deposed and expelled from Turkey, died during the German occupation of France. For several days, his body lay in his flat and was only discovered when neighbours complained. The body was then shifted to the Paris Mosque and lay there in a frozen condition till Niloufer’s intervention.

Princess Durru Shehvar had made several efforts to have her father’s body buried in Istanbul, but could not obtain the permission of the Turkish government. The Khalifa had wanted to be buried in either Turkey or Hyderabad. It was not feasible to fulfil the last will of Khalifa at his death or later as at the time of his death Saudi Arabia had become independent. Niloufer’s intervention ensured that he was finally buried in Saudi Arabia in the Jannat-ul-Baqi.

King Abdulazeez Aal-e-Saud had stipulated that there would be no public ceremony nor any marker for the grave.

Arvind Acharya said that on the recommendation of Maulana Shaukat Ali, a freedom fighter and one of the founders of the Khilafat Movement, the Nizam of Hyderabad decided to give Khalifa Abdul Majid a pension of £300 a month when he was living in exile.

Seven years later, in 1931, the Khalifa was looking for marriage matches for his daughter, Durru Shehvar. Shaukat Ali proposed the match between her and Azam Jah, the elder son of the Nizam.

The negotiations for the terms of the marriage started, but soon broke down as the Nizam felt that the requirement for the mehr (dowry given by husband to his wife) was exorbitant. Following several discussions, it was settled that the dowry to be paid would be £40,000.

As the Nizam wanted to perform the marriage of his younger son Moazzam Jah at the same time, and within the same dowry, efforts were made to find a match for him within the Turkish royal family. This resulted in his marriage to Niloufer.

On their way back from the Round Table Conference in London in 1931, the two princes Azam Jah and Moazzam Jah visited Nice and were married there. The Caliph himself performed the role of Qazi at the wedding.

In 1977, Princess Niloufer was living in an apartment in Paris and one evening, she came out of her bedroom and crossed the hallway to go to her mother’s bedroom where she wanted to read a Quran given to her by her one-time secretary, Fathema Ghani. At that moment, a bomb went off inside the building.

Algerian terrorists had wanted to assassinate the chief of the French electric utility, who was living in the flat below Niloufer’s. The bomb ripped open Niloufer’s bedroom, but nothing happened on the other side of the building. Princess Niloufer wrote in her memoirs that she was saved because of her visit to the room of her mother to fetch the Quran. The Princess died in 1989 and was buried near Paris.

Article first published in Deccan Chronicle.