[sobre]

im not a salafi or pro arab but constantly sayin their the sell outs and aiding the kuffar when non arab and non salafi including DEOBANDIS who doing the same. if anything most of the scholars who have openly spoken the haqq and are in prison for it are ARABS. too many people on this forum have tinted lense and cant see the reality. i agree with u to, bt i dont think u shud b to hard on the scholars i mean i heard one arab imam saying that he doesn't feel to sorry for the innocent americans dying under terrorist attatcks b'coz america is goin everywhere and killing innocent muslims - this statement is nothing big, just his opinion- bt wen president obama heard about it, he didn't order for this guy to b put in prison bt for him to be attacked & killed!!

they attempts have failed so far, jus in case u were interested

[meridiasas]

What the Ottomons did or didn't do is irrelevent to whether it's permissible or not. As Mufti Taqi says Abu Hanifa has permitted non-permanent entry into the two cities.

It's relevant. The Ottomans were Hanafis so their behavior, law, and the logic behind it (and how it was received by other 'ulema) would be relevant for other Hanafis. They were the only ones in the position to actually implement a law on this.

[meridiasas]

prove me wrong. where was mufti taqi and mufti rafi??? not a peep out of either. what scholar condemn the shaytaan bushaaraf?? how many scholars spoke in favour of the mujaahideen??? how many scholars condmen pakistan given america help???

im not a salafi or pro arab but constantly sayin their the sell outs and aiding the kuffar when non arab and non salafi including DEOBANDIS who doing the same. if anything most of the scholars who have openly spoken the haqq and are in prison for it are ARABS. too many people on this forum have tinted lense and cant see the reality.

here in the uk what scholars spoke haqq? shaikh faisal shaikh abu hamza shaikh abu qatadah. all of them are non deobandis. what you going to say to this? there not scholars? or they they have no hikmah.

You do know there are many Deobandis, right? UK, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan? The Taliban are Deobandi and there are 'ulema who even fight with them.

What did the Salafis do? Besides cause havoc in Iraq... The Taliban even started winning the war as soon as AQ disappeared from Afghanistan. Now they've become Pakistan's problem.

[Bromikka]

You do know there are many Deobandis, right? UK, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan? The Taliban are Deobandi and there are 'ulema who even fight with them.

What did the Salafis do? Besides cause havoc in Iraq... The Taliban even started winning the war as soon as AQ disappeared from Afghanistan. Now they've become Pakistan's problem.

yes apart from taliban and their ulema. hardly any scholars including the ones in uk or pakistan openly support them. infact iv heard doebands ulema say its becausing of their sins they were removed. what rubbish are you talking al qaeda where in afghanistan post 9-11 and are still with them. if your against them then your very ignorant as TALIBAN openly love and support their arab ( salafi/wahhabi/alqeda woteva you wana call them) .

how have they caused havoc in iraq? alhamdulillah the sunni insuregecy have done a great job giving the invaders a good hiding dispite fighting not only dirty kuffar but with shia and munafiqs from within. il twice if i was you before you ever bad mouth those who are fighting feesabilillah.

[meridiasas]

il twice if i was you before you ever bad mouth those who are fighting feesabilillah.

I have not bad mouthed anyone fighting in the way of Allah nor would I ever.

[Efksqhyu]

Did the Ottomans allow kuffar into Makkah and Madinah?

Give it 30 years maybe the Ottoman Empire will have arisen again but this time beardless and in suits if current trends in Turkey are anything to go by.

[Efksqhyu]

yes apart from taliban and their ulema. hardly any scholars including the ones in uk or pakistan openly support them. infact iv heard doebands ulema say its becausing of their sins they were removed. what rubbish are you talking al qaeda where in afghanistan post 9-11 and are still with them. if your against them then your very ignorant as TALIBAN openly love and support their arab ( salafi/wahhabi/alqeda woteva you wana call them) .

If the Ulema speak out in support of Taliban they are opening all institutions that they run to being closed.

If they suspect that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are still boosom buddies then this will put them off from speaking out in support of the Taliban even more.

[polleroy]

yes apart from taliban and their ulema. hardly any scholars including the ones in uk or pakistan openly support them. infact iv heard doebands ulema say its becausing of their sins they were removed. what rubbish are you talking al qaeda where in afghanistan post 9-11 and are still with them. if your against them then your very ignorant as TALIBAN openly love and support their arab ( salafi/wahhabi/alqeda woteva you wana call them) .

how have they caused havoc in iraq? alhamdulillah the sunni insuregecy have done a great job giving the invaders a good hiding dispite fighting not only dirty kuffar but with shia and munafiqs from within. il twice if i was you before you ever bad mouth those who are fighting feesabilillah.

sunni insurgency in iraq are lso killing sunnis too their have been many kilings in the sunni provinces of salah ad deen, ninawa, al anbar they have destroyed the nation more than the invaders they target restrounts and markets in baghdad because their are shia shopers their and they still kill sunnis to because baghdad is a mixed city ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMyPPOd8AOA

go to 6 minuts a sunni chiled is killed in baghdad from it their sunni because i saw them pray

[GalasaKoll]

The salafi mujahideen in afghanistan/khorasan are not the same as the salafis in Iraq & elsewhere. In afghanistan, we (hanafis) lead and the salafis follow. When they or anyone else commits a crime, we punish them. Look up the case of the turkish mujahid ABU ZARR, a veteran of chechnya. His crime was killing two rivals over financial disputes after they left his jamaat and was part of another jamaat. He murdered them, so the sharia court of the Waziristan Taliban executed them.

If it were iraq, then the salafis would have sent an entire carbomb to kill their rivals, and there would be no justice afterwards. The salafis were always our allies and noble, but this started changing from around 2007, after the martyrdom of Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a veteran of the Afghan-Soviet war. He was the one who established the "media j!had" (online/forums/movies). In his absence, the vacuum was filled by more extreme salafis: Abu Umar al-Baghdadi and Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

These two, instead of allying with the other jamaats in Iraq, started fighting with them (demanding others give bayah to them). So from here a split occured, since then the US had started to win, because the Sunnis became divided, and many deserted to the "Sahwa" pro-US militias. Compare this to Afghanistan, where numerous jamaat co-exist in harmony: Hezb-e-islam, Taliban, IMU, and even Salafis/AQ. But the biggest impact wasnt what happened inside Iraq, but what happened now that these more-extreme salafis had the "j!hadi media and forums" in their hands. They banned the material/correspondents of all the rival iraqi groups, and since then TAKFIRI ideology was re-born.


This took another twist in 2008, after the Ethiopians pulled out. Instead of Al-Shabaab merging with their former allies, be it Hizbul-Islam of Sheikh Aweys of Sheikh Sharif Ahmed (who went on to join the govt). Shabaab started fighting with their allies; it was no more about "Islam" but now Salafiyya-Islam. The takfiri/sectarian ideology was now started in somalia. and in 2009 after much clashes against Hizbul Islam, they were forced to surrended and give bayah to Al-Shabaab. After that, Shabaab has now resorted to fighting the fake-sufi group "Ahlus Sunna wal jamaa", and this erupted because Shabaab has been going around breaking tombs and mosques. The difference between the wahhabis and the hanafis is that, we show UNITY by doing alliance and co-operation. Whereas the salafi version of UNITY means subduing their rivals or beating a person into giving Bayah.

In 2010, Abu Umar and Abu Hamza were killed in 2010, and a new era in extremism began in Iraq. While the previous two fought with their rivals with the excuse of forming an "islamic state of iraq" (ISI), they showed tolerance towards the christians and minorties. There is a famous case where the soldiers of ISI saved several christian hostages from a criminal gang, and when they wanted to reward them they paid "jizya" as thanks. In 2010, after these two were killed, their replacement were now even more extreme. One of their first major missions was to bomb and raid the Baghdad Church, massacring several innocent people and children.

The logic for this attack was that, it was in response to the crime of the Coptic Church in egypt, who were holding two women who had allegedly converted to Islam. The idiocy of this is that, they bombed a CATHOLIC church in revenge for the crimes of COPTS??... this is the idiocy of these wahhabis. When the Catholic Crusaders invaded Arabia, did Salahuddin kill off our own (orthodox/copts), they were our allies!? This is what deferentiates sufis (ottomans, abbassids) from the salafis. There is ONE synongogue in afghanistan, and the Taliban never touched it!!


What is show is: when extreme deviancy is tolerated, it become more deviant. when extremism is tolerated, it become more extreme. Sheikh Zarqawi an afghan veteran, preached that we should fight the Crusaders & Rawafid, and we should ally with the sunnis and protect the Ahlul-Kitab. After he died, his followers protected the Ahlul-Kitab but they fought the rival sunnis for power/domination. But then when those two died, their followers now respected neither. Total disregard for innocent lives within a church. This is when i formally stopped supporting them.

The same thing is happening in Somalia. Islamic Courts Union was a unity of all muslims or all persuasions. After war started, the salafis saw opportunity and decided become an independant force. After the ethiopians left, Shabaab decided to fight the rivals instead of uniting with them. This just caused the muslims to be divided between multiple factions. And this extremism merely brought back the Ethiopians this time along with AU troops from several other countries. Now shabaab, after having beaten up their only rival (Hizbul Islam), started fighting the fake-sufis. Who themselves have now allied with the AU invaders in response.

Salafis when left on their own, always resort back to extremism/fitnah. ONLY those salafis are reliable whom are veterans of muqallid mujahideen, i mean afghan/pak. Everyone else cannot be trusted. And certainly the AQ factions in middle-east and north-africa are extremist (with blood of innocents on their hands). Which is why their actions bear little to no fruit, they only succeed in brining more enemies not friends. And they persecute sufis left and right, DRIVING them to join the opposite side (kaffirs/invaders). That is why salafis in khorasan are different from elsewhere, because they are innocent of these crimes/fitnah.

[forotis]

The salafi mujahideen in afghanistan/khorasan are not the same as the salafis in Iraq & elsewhere. In afghanistan, we (hanafis) lead and the salafis follow. When they or anyone else commits a crime, we punish them. Look up the case of the turkish mujahid ABU ZARR, a veteran of chechnya. His crime was killing two rivals over financial disputes after they left his jamaat and was part of another jamaat. He murdered them, so the sharia court of the Waziristan Taliban executed them.

If it were iraq, then the salafis would have sent an entire carbomb to kill their rivals, and there would be no justice afterwards. The salafis were always our allies and noble, but this started changing from around 2007, after the martyrdom of Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a veteran of the Afghan-Soviet war. He was the one who established the "media j!had" (online/forums/movies). In his absence, the vacuum was filled by more extreme salafis: Abu Umar al-Baghdadi and Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

These two, instead of allying with the other jamaats in Iraq, started fighting with them (demanding others give bayah to them). So from here a split occured, since then the US had started to win, because the Sunnis became divided, and many deserted to the "Sahwa" pro-US militias. Compare this to Afghanistan, where numerous jamaat co-exist in harmony: Hezb-e-islam, Taliban, IMU, and even Salafis/AQ. But the biggest impact wasnt what happened inside Iraq, but what happened now that these more-extreme salafis had the "j!hadi media and forums" in their hands. They banned the material/correspondents of all the rival iraqi groups, and since then TAKFIRI ideology was re-born.


This took another twist in 2008, after the Ethiopians pulled out. Instead of Al-Shabaab merging with their former allies, be it Hizbul-Islam of Sheikh Aweys of Sheikh Sharif Ahmed (who went on to join the govt). Shabaab started fighting with their allies; it was no more about "Islam" but now Salafiyya-Islam. The takfiri/sectarian ideology was now started in somalia. and in 2009 after much clashes against Hizbul Islam, they were forced to surrended and give bayah to Al-Shabaab. After that, Shabaab has now resorted to fighting the fake-sufi group "Ahlus Sunna wal jamaa", and this erupted because Shabaab has been going around breaking tombs and mosques. The difference between the wahhabis and the hanafis is that, we show UNITY by doing alliance and co-operation. Whereas the salafi version of UNITY means subduing their rivals or beating a person into giving Bayah.

In 2010, Abu Umar and Abu Hamza were killed in 2010, and a new era in extremism began in Iraq. While the previous two fought with their rivals with the excuse of forming an "islamic state of iraq" (ISI), they showed tolerance towards the christians and minorties. There is a famous case where the soldiers of ISI saved several christian hostages from a criminal gang, and when they wanted to reward them they paid "jizya" as thanks. In 2010, after these two were killed, their replacement were now even more extreme. One of their first major missions was to bomb and raid the Baghdad Church, massacring several innocent people and children.

The logic for this attack was that, it was in response to the crime of the Coptic Church in egypt, who were holding two women who had allegedly converted to Islam. The idiocy of this is that, they bombed a CATHOLIC church in revenge for the crimes of COPTS??... this is the idiocy of these wahhabis. When the Catholic Crusaders invaded Arabia, did Salahuddin kill off our own (orthodox/copts), they were our allies!? This is what deferentiates sufis (ottomans, abbassids) from the salafis. There is ONE synongogue in afghanistan, and the Taliban never touched it!!


What is show is: when extreme deviancy is tolerated, it become more deviant. when extremism is tolerated, it become more extreme. Sheikh Zarqawi an afghan veteran, preached that we should fight the Crusaders & Rawafid, and we should ally with the sunnis and protect the Ahlul-Kitab. After he died, his followers protected the Ahlul-Kitab but they fought the rival sunnis for power/domination. But then when those two died, their followers now respected neither. Total disregard for innocent lives within a church. This is when i formally stopped supporting them.

The same thing is happening in Somalia. Islamic Courts Union was a unity of all muslims or all persuasions. After war started, the salafis saw opportunity and decided become an independant force. After the ethiopians left, Shabaab decided to fight the rivals instead of uniting with them. This just caused the muslims to be divided between multiple factions. And this extremism merely brought back the Ethiopians this time along with AU troops from several other countries. Now shabaab, after having beaten up their only rival (Hizbul Islam), started fighting the fake-sufis. Who themselves have now allied with the AU invaders in response.

Salafis when left on their own, always resort back to extremism/fitnah. ONLY those salafis are reliable whom are veterans of muqallid mujahideen, i mean afghan/pak. Everyone else cannot be trusted. And certainly the AQ factions in middle-east and north-africa are extremist (with blood of innocents on their hands). Which is why their actions bear little to no fruit, they only succeed in brining more enemies not friends. And they persecute sufis left and right, DRIVING them to join the opposite side (kaffirs/invaders). That is why salafis in khorasan are different from elsewhere, because they are innocent of these crimes/fitnah.

Bro

you are well-informed. Can I have your e-mail if i have any questions in future?

Jazakallah.

[GalasaKoll]

Bro

you are well-informed. Can I have your e-mail if i have any questions in future?

Jazakallah.

Thanks, actually i have been admin in several forums in my lifetime. It is actually the extremism of salafis that have repelled me into hiatus, because it makes me feel such sorrow/disgust.
But time and time again, i look too the noble mujahideen in Khorasan, and it makes me feel happy. Truly, this is where the "black flags" shall come from, i think to myself.

Actually, you should post your e-mail, and i will send you a message. You can feel free to remove it then after 48hrs from the post, if thats what you wish.

[buyviagraonlineusatoday]

Bro, how can you say that the Salafi's of AQ in Afghanistan are different to the ones in Yemen or Somalia Or Iraq when they are under the same leadership (previously of Bin Laden and now Dr Ayman)?

I mean, I heard Shabaab had to fight Hizb Ul Islam because they were disorganised and were in fact becoming a problem to the jihad rather than aiding it. With regards to Salafi's killing Muslims in Iraq, what are your sources for such information?

[forotis]

Thanks, actually i have been admin in several forums in my lifetime. It is actually the extremism of salafis that have repelled me into hiatus, because it makes me feel such sorrow/disgust.
But time and time again, i look too the noble mujahideen in Khorasan, and it makes me feel happy. Truly, this is where the "black flags" shall come from, i think to myself.

Actually, you should post your e-mail, and i will send you a message. You can feel free to remove it then after 48hrs from the post, if thats what you wish.

Wa'alaikum salaam

haha let's obey the rules of not posting e-mail addresses...

MODS please give my e-mail to Brother Warrior1

@Warrior1 drop me a short mail when mods have done their part.

Jazakallah

[expiclefich]

great, another saudi/salafi bashing thread.

"Sami Baroum, the managing director of Savola group, the largest private owner in the project, said that one-third of the new city, which will be developed on an area of 4.8 million square metres, will be outside of the forbidden area known as the Haram. It is expected to open in five years. "For the first time, non-Muslims will be able to experience living within a Muslim holy city," Mr Baroum said. "They will not live inside the Haram area, but they will be very close to it as they can see the lights of the Prophet Mohammed's Mosque."

but dont let facts get in the way of a good saudi/salafi bashing thread.

You people are pathetic. Deobandis are in MASSIVE numbers in the indian subcontinent, yet look at teh state of pakistan and bagladesh and central asia. Lok at the state of uzbekistan where women are forced to be sterilised and tajikstan where teaching your children qur'an is illegal. Wallahi Saudi is the best land out of all teh muslim lands yet takes up more portion of your tongues than the rest of the muslim lands put together. Rather than talk about the lands where your from than your failing to sort out, whilst you cower in fear in the west.

The article clearly states that its a NEW city and teh non muslims will only be allowed in the part of the city built OUTSIDE of the boundry, so its nothing different than before.

perhaps the dajjal al already here, and the earthquake that took out the munafiqeen took out the ahlal bid'ah and let salafis take over saudi.

the fact is, that it kills many of you, that saudi is the most islamic country, one of the most developed countries, one of the biggest contributers to islamic dawah, whilst your own countries are pathetic messes, and your bitter hatred of salafis means taht you'd rather slag off saudi all day long rather than look at getting basic rights for the muslimeen in your own countries, some of which even it is not legal to wear the hijab amongst other things.

Saudi and Qatar are the only two nations arming the syrian rebels, tehre is os much khair in saudi.

You fanatics froth at the mouth any time a chance to attack saudi comes about.


I stand behind my scholars on these issues:

The Noble Qur'an - Al-Ma'idah 5:8

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allâh and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allâh. Verily, Allâh is Well*Acquainted with what you do.


Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ibn Baaz, hafidahullah was asked, "Is it from the manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf to criticise the Rulers from the minbar (the pulpit)? And what is the manhaj of the Salaf with respect to advising the Rulers?" He responded:

It is not from the manhaj of the Salaf to publicise the faults of the Rulers and to mention such things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion/disorder and the absence of hearing and obeying the ruler in what is good. it also results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters, arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit. The followed path with the Salaf, however is to give naseehah (advice) with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the leader, writing to him or by reaching him through the scholars who keep in touch with him (to advise him) until the ruler is directed towards the good. Repelling the evil occurs without mentioning the doer of the evil. So fornication, drinking of intoxicants and the taking of usury are curbed without mentioning the one who does such things. Warding off the evil and warning and the people against it is sufficient without it being mentioned that such and such a person does it, whether he is a ruler or other than the ruler.

And when the fitnah occurred in the time of 'Uthmaan , some of the people said to Usaamah ibn Zaid , "Will you not speak to "'Uthmaan?" So he replied, "You think that I will not talk to him without letting you know about it (also). Indeed, I will certainly talk to him regarding that which concerns me and him without initiating a matter which I do not love to be the first to initiate."




YET YOU PEOPLE WHO BANG ON DAY AND NIGHT ABOUT TAQLEED OF THE ULEMA, JUMP TO PRECEED THEM IN MATTERS WHENEVER YOUR HAWAH DECIDES TO. SO HOW ABOUT WAITING FOR THE ULEMA TO CRITICSE THE RULERS BEFORE YOU LET YOUR FANATICAL HATRED OF"WAHHABIS" CAUSE YOU TO COMMIT HARAAMS SUCH AS CRITICISING RULERS!!!

[FoetAgerhot46]

@Brother Abu Fatimah - Please do not resort to this type of post. It does not befit you.

The aspect of criticising the rulers has very many different forms and can be done in many different ways. Openly, publicly, privately etc.. Each has been practised by the Salaf.

However, you are at present annoyed with people criticsing Saudi, Salafis etc... so please do not write anymore until you have calmed down. Rasulullah said "A man slips more by hsi tongue than his feet."

[Theateetetuig]

great, another saudi/salafi bashing thread.

"Sami Baroum, the managing director of Savola group, the largest private owner in the project, said that one-third of the new city, which will be developed on an area of 4.8 million square metres, will be outside of the forbidden area known as the Haram. It is expected to open in five years. "For the first time, non-Muslims will be able to experience living within a Muslim holy city," Mr Baroum said. "They will not live inside the Haram area, but they will be very close to it as they can see the lights of the Prophet Mohammed's Mosque."

but dont let facts get in the way of a good saudi/salafi bashing thread.

You people are pathetic. Deobandis are in MASSIVE numbers in the indian subcontinent, yet look at teh state of pakistan and bagladesh and central asia. Lok at the state of uzbekistan where women are forced to be sterilised and tajikstan where teaching your children qur'an is illegal. Wallahi Saudi is the best land out of all teh muslim lands yet takes up more portion of your tongues than the rest of the muslim lands put together. Rather than talk about the lands where your from than your failing to sort out, whilst you cower in fear in the west.

The article clearly states that its a NEW city and teh non muslims will only be allowed in the part of the city built OUTSIDE of the boundry, so its nothing different than before.

perhaps the dajjal al already here, and the earthquake that took out the munafiqeen took out the ahlal bid'ah and let salafis take over saudi.

the fact is, that it kills many of you, that saudi is the most islamic country, one of the most developed countries, one of the biggest contributers to islamic dawah, whilst your own countries are pathetic messes, and your bitter hatred of salafis means taht you'd rather slag off saudi all day long rather than look at getting basic rights for the muslimeen in your own countries, some of which even it is not legal to wear the hijab amongst other things.

Saudi and Qatar are the only two nations arming the syrian rebels, tehre is os much khair in saudi.

You fanatics froth at the mouth any time a chance to attack saudi comes about.


I stand behind my scholars on these issues:

The Noble Qur'an - Al-Ma'idah 5:8

O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allâh and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allâh. Verily, Allâh is Well*Acquainted with what you do.


Shaykh Abdul-Azeez ibn Baaz, hafidahullah was asked, "Is it from the manhaj (methodology) of the Salaf to criticise the Rulers from the minbar (the pulpit)? And what is the manhaj of the Salaf with respect to advising the Rulers?" He responded:

It is not from the manhaj of the Salaf to publicise the faults of the Rulers and to mention such things from the pulpit because that leads to confusion/disorder and the absence of hearing and obeying the ruler in what is good. it also results in (the people) becoming engrossed (with these matters, arguing and debating) which causes harm and produces no benefit. The followed path with the Salaf, however is to give naseehah (advice) with respect to the matters which are between themselves and the leader, writing to him or by reaching him through the scholars who keep in touch with him (to advise him) until the ruler is directed towards the good. Repelling the evil occurs without mentioning the doer of the evil. So fornication, drinking of intoxicants and the taking of usury are curbed without mentioning the one who does such things. Warding off the evil and warning and the people against it is sufficient without it being mentioned that such and such a person does it, whether he is a ruler or other than the ruler.

And when the fitnah occurred in the time of 'Uthmaan , some of the people said to Usaamah ibn Zaid , "Will you not speak to "'Uthmaan?" So he replied, "You think that I will not talk to him without letting you know about it (also). Indeed, I will certainly talk to him regarding that which concerns me and him without initiating a matter which I do not love to be the first to initiate."




YET YOU PEOPLE WHO BANG ON DAY AND NIGHT ABOUT TAQLEED OF THE ULEMA, JUMP TO PRECEED THEM IN MATTERS WHENEVER YOUR HAWAH DECIDES TO. SO HOW ABOUT WAITING FOR THE ULEMA TO CRITICSE THE RULERS BEFORE YOU LET YOUR FANATICAL HATRED OF"WAHHABIS" CAUSE YOU TO COMMIT HARAAMS SUCH AS CRITICISING RULERS!!!

Have you ever been there? I haven't gone since I was a kid, but I know people who have been as recently as last year and that fact is, most of the people there still live in abject poverty. Racism is a huge problem, and aside from oil, they have no viable industry. They certainly aren't leaders in education or science. Whatever they have, is due to the resources they are able to trade for Western expertise to come and build. In relation to the vast amount of unearned wealth they have, they've accomplished very little.

The Saudi government are American lapdogs. How do they fit into the category of rulers if they are de facto a foreign proxy?

[expiclefich]

@Brother Abu Fatimah - Please do not resort to this type of post. It does not befit you.

The aspect of criticising the rulers has very many different forms and can be done in many different ways. Openly, publicly, privately etc.. Each has been practised by the Salaf.

However, you are at present annoyed with people criticsing Saudi, Salafis etc... so please do not write anymore until you have calmed down. Rasulullah said "A man slips more by hsi tongue than his feet."

can you see how hypocritical it looks when brothers on here start thread after thread attacking "ghair muqalids" for not following the ulema, and then people jump to attack saudi rulers dispite the kibaar of deoband making no such fatawa (in fact they gave the opposite fatawa). If you believe in taqleed then let the ulema proceed you.

[expiclefich]

Have you ever been there? I haven't gone since I was a kid, but I know people who have been as recently as last year and that fact is, most of the people there still live in abject poverty. Racism is a huge problem, and aside from oil, they have no viable industry. They certainly aren't leaders in education or science. Whatever they have, is due to the resources they are able to trade for Western expertise to come and build. In relation to the vast amount of unearned wealth they have, they've accomplished very little.

The Saudi government are American lapdogs. How do they fit into the category of rulers if they are de facto a foreign proxy?

the claim taht they have made no advancements is aboslutely nonsense firstly. Saudi has come leaps and bounds in development

The racism there is no different than the racism in pakistan or somalia so why highlight saudi specifically? Same applies regarding poverty. I have friends in Uni who are from saudi and the rulers are loved and the accusations thrown against saudi is certainly not in agreement with what my many friends from the khaleej have said. Most of them believe its propaganda against saudi and based on the fanatasism ive seen against saudi dispite teh rest of teh ummah being much worse, makes me think these attacks on saudi are only from the shaytaan, especially when the salafi AND deobandi ulema do not attack the saudi regime at all and tehse seem to be teh most reliable of the ummah in this day and age

[orgagsUpsepsy]

The salafi mujahideen in afghanistan/khorasan are not the same as the salafis in Iraq & elsewhere. In afghanistan, we (hanafis) lead and the salafis follow. When they or anyone else commits a crime, we punish them. Look up the case of the turkish mujahid ABU ZARR, a veteran of chechnya. His crime was killing two rivals over financial disputes after they left his jamaat and was part of another jamaat. He murdered them, so the sharia court of the Waziristan Taliban executed them.

If it were iraq, then the salafis would have sent an entire carbomb to kill their rivals, and there would be no justice afterwards. The salafis were always our allies and noble, but this started changing from around 2007, after the martyrdom of Sheikh Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a veteran of the Afghan-Soviet war. He was the one who established the "media j!had" (online/forums/movies). In his absence, the vacuum was filled by more extreme salafis: Abu Umar al-Baghdadi and Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

These two, instead of allying with the other jamaats in Iraq, started fighting with them (demanding others give bayah to them). So from here a split occured, since then the US had started to win, because the Sunnis became divided, and many deserted to the "Sahwa" pro-US militias. Compare this to Afghanistan, where numerous jamaat co-exist in harmony: Hezb-e-islam, Taliban, IMU, and even Salafis/AQ. But the biggest impact wasnt what happened inside Iraq, but what happened now that these more-extreme salafis had the "j!hadi media and forums" in their hands. They banned the material/correspondents of all the rival iraqi groups, and since then TAKFIRI ideology was re-born.


This took another twist in 2008, after the Ethiopians pulled out. Instead of Al-Shabaab merging with their former allies, be it Hizbul-Islam of Sheikh Aweys of Sheikh Sharif Ahmed (who went on to join the govt). Shabaab started fighting with their allies; it was no more about "Islam" but now Salafiyya-Islam. The takfiri/sectarian ideology was now started in somalia. and in 2009 after much clashes against Hizbul Islam, they were forced to surrended and give bayah to Al-Shabaab. After that, Shabaab has now resorted to fighting the fake-sufi group "Ahlus Sunna wal jamaa", and this erupted because Shabaab has been going around breaking tombs and mosques. The difference between the wahhabis and the hanafis is that, we show UNITY by doing alliance and co-operation. Whereas the salafi version of UNITY means subduing their rivals or beating a person into giving Bayah.

In 2010, Abu Umar and Abu Hamza were killed in 2010, and a new era in extremism began in Iraq. While the previous two fought with their rivals with the excuse of forming an "islamic state of iraq" (ISI), they showed tolerance towards the christians and minorties. There is a famous case where the soldiers of ISI saved several christian hostages from a criminal gang, and when they wanted to reward them they paid "jizya" as thanks. In 2010, after these two were killed, their replacement were now even more extreme. One of their first major missions was to bomb and raid the Baghdad Church, massacring several innocent people and children.

The logic for this attack was that, it was in response to the crime of the Coptic Church in egypt, who were holding two women who had allegedly converted to Islam. The idiocy of this is that, they bombed a CATHOLIC church in revenge for the crimes of COPTS??... this is the idiocy of these wahhabis. When the Catholic Crusaders invaded Arabia, did Salahuddin kill off our own (orthodox/copts), they were our allies!? This is what deferentiates sufis (ottomans, abbassids) from the salafis. There is ONE synongogue in afghanistan, and the Taliban never touched it!!


What is show is: when extreme deviancy is tolerated, it become more deviant. when extremism is tolerated, it become more extreme. Sheikh Zarqawi an afghan veteran, preached that we should fight the Crusaders & Rawafid, and we should ally with the sunnis and protect the Ahlul-Kitab. After he died, his followers protected the Ahlul-Kitab but they fought the rival sunnis for power/domination. But then when those two died, their followers now respected neither. Total disregard for innocent lives within a church. This is when i formally stopped supporting them.

The same thing is happening in Somalia. Islamic Courts Union was a unity of all muslims or all persuasions. After war started, the salafis saw opportunity and decided become an independant force. After the ethiopians left, Shabaab decided to fight the rivals instead of uniting with them. This just caused the muslims to be divided between multiple factions. And this extremism merely brought back the Ethiopians this time along with AU troops from several other countries. Now shabaab, after having beaten up their only rival (Hizbul Islam), started fighting the fake-sufis. Who themselves have now allied with the AU invaders in response.

Salafis when left on their own, always resort back to extremism/fitnah. ONLY those salafis are reliable whom are veterans of muqallid mujahideen, i mean afghan/pak. Everyone else cannot be trusted. And certainly the AQ factions in middle-east and north-africa are extremist (with blood of innocents on their hands). Which is why their actions bear little to no fruit, they only succeed in brining more enemies not friends. And they persecute sufis left and right, DRIVING them to join the opposite side (kaffirs/invaders). That is why salafis in khorasan are different from elsewhere, because they are innocent of these crimes/fitnah.

Very true.

I have personally experienced how wayward an understanding of Deen, the Salafi methodology can lead to, especially under environments where the Nafs is subject to extreme pressures. Their methodology which involves chaotically variable forms of Taqleed and virtually non-existent or malleable restrictions on ijtihad allow them to justify practically anything. Nowhere is this danger manifested greater than in the effort of Jihad, where perverted Ijtihad is practised willy nilly by their numerous Talibul Ilms who act as if they have reached the rank of Mujtahid, a rank which is within easy reach of any incompetent laymen who spends a certain number of years studying. All the perverted deviations from true Jihad you mentioned above are regarded as noble deeds amongst such extreme Salafis. Only the sincere ones amongst them under the fetters of the Taliban, the true muqallideen of the Hanafi Madhab, are of any benefit.

[Theateetetuig]

the claim taht they have made no advancements is aboslutely nonsense firstly. Saudi has come leaps and bounds in development

The racism there is no different than the racism in pakistan or somalia so why highlight saudi specifically? Same applies regarding poverty. I have friends in Uni who are from saudi and the rulers are loved and the accusations thrown against saudi is certainly not in agreement with what my many friends from the khaleej have said. Most of them believe its propaganda against saudi and based on the fanatasism ive seen against saudi dispite teh rest of teh ummah being much worse, makes me think these attacks on saudi are only from the shaytaan, especially when the salafi AND deobandi ulema do not attack the saudi regime at all and tehse seem to be teh most reliable of the ummah in this day and age

Look brother, I'm not saying other countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh aren't horrible. They are. And there are plenty of threads on here criticizing them. I'm just disputing your claim that Saudi is much better than those countries in terms of social issues. Saudi has an unemployment rate above 10%. Poverty is a huge problem in Saudi, and the government doesn't even permit reporting on poverty levels. With the vast amount of wealth and relatively small population they have, why should any Saudi citizen live in poverty? The fact that your friends are able to come to the UK to study tells me that they are well-off enough that these issues don't affect them. Also, the Saudis are very reliant on foreigners for their tech and infrastructure.

I also didn't say they haven't made progress, just saying that in comparison to the vast amount of wealth they have which they didn't have to work for, their progress is nowhere near where it should be. Where are the world-class research institutions, medical centers, etc? Funding shouldn't be an issue. You mentioned Qatar; at least they are developing their education system. They have brought in talent from major US universities like Cornell and Carnegie Mellon. The only thing Saudi imports from the US are out-of-date military hardware and American troops.

As for the ulema not criticizing them, it's simply not true, and even if it were, the ulama are not infallible. I am not criticizing the Saudis on religious issues here, but on social, economic, and political ones.