DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ExpodoDop** · 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM

bruv

in a nutshell,yeah. Ive read abit about it and seen a few documentaries and what you posted is a good enough conclusion. Simple,yet concise. It was all about nationalism(arabs) and they could not bear being ruled over by non arabs(turks). Once the opportunity arose to dispose of the turks,they took it with both hands. He got the backing of some arab scholars that the turks were involved in shirk and thus they were not muslim and thus their blood and property were theirs(arabs,meaning they could kill them)(the turks) and take their property.

Either I take your word for it, or I take Maulana Tariq Jameel's word. Last year before Hajj, Maulana said it infront of Masjid e Nabawi that Malik Abdul Aziz was a Waliullah.

I have no recording about this but I have witnesses.

So if Malik Abdul Aziz really did that, how can he be a Waliullah?

09-04-2012, 04:22 AM	#23
ExpodoDop Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 388 Senior Member	bruv in a nutshell,yeah. Ive read abit about it and seen a few documentaries and what you posted is a good enough conclusion. Simple,yet concise. It was all about nationalism(arabs) and they could not bear being ruled over by non arabs(turks). Once the opportunity arose to dispose of the turks,they took it with both hands. He got the backing of some arab scholars that the turks were involved in shirk and thus they were not muslim and thus their blood and property were theirs(arabs,meaning they could kill them)(the turks) and take their property. Either I take your word for it, or I take Maulana Tariq Jameel's word. Last year before Hajj, Maulana said it infront of Masjid e Nabawi that Malik Abdul Aziz was a Waliullah. I have no recording about this but I have witnesses. So if Malik Abdul Aziz really did that, how can he be a Waliullah?
	Quote