[ClorrerVeks]

with regards to dear brother suleiman's comments...well the article is not an accurate reflection of what happened. The sharif of mecca sided with the disbelivers against the muslims. Even though the turkish empire towards the end was very weak it was still an islamic state. There was no justification in this behaviour. Also the treachery of the sharif of mecca is very clear. He handed over shaykh ul hind mahmood ul hasan deobandi and shaykh ul islam maulana madni to the brits and they were held captive in malta. They had made elaborate plans for a big offensive against the brits. Anyway with regards to rebelling against the khalifah then many people were involved in this mess so to point fingers at wahabis only is injustice. With regards to saudi rule presenting itself as an islamic country...so do all the others...the jordananian royals all claim that they are part of ahlul bayt and thus entitled to rule. The king of morroco the same thing...claims the title amir ul mumineen. All of them use religious justification. With regards to destroying historical sites and promoting incorrect beliefs then yes saudi is guilty of this. With regards to aiding the kuffar show me 1 country which does not? Yemen allowes the americans to carry out strikes in their country, the whole of the gulf is full of military bases...france just opened a base in abu dhabi recently, tunisia banned the hijab, morroco is the same....actually all of them are the same....so why blame just