[Pippoles]

from a previous thread:

ajeeb post by matbooh...ajeeb...my uncle was questioned by the jordanians and terrorized for more than 1 week. He said they are worse than the jews....the sharif of hussain. Enough can be said that he was a traitor. Before anyone pulls out the syed card and makes an excuse for the fool and his descendents the foolish abdullah of jordon he was responsible for the capture and imprisonment of syed husain ahmed madni and syed uzair gul rh along with shaykh ul hind. One of the people of this forum nayyarsh is from the family of syed uzair gul and he shall tell you more about the treachery of sharif hussain. I would anyday live in saudi arabia over jordon. Compare both countries and see a world of difference. Jordan does not use deen to justify itself? Is that why the ahle baitt foundation comes up with dodgy stuff all the time with the common word etc....The queen of jordan has openly spoken out against shariah. Man matbooh seriously you need to live in jordan for sometime and then live in saudi. The jordanian mukabarat are dogs....... i wasn't aware that sharif hussain bore some responsibility for the capture of Shaikhul hind..this is news to me.

i want to know more about him. at first i thought he was of good character and was a great scholar etc. but had differences with the turks which lead to his war with them. then i learned from my family, that he was a power hungry guy who basically seized power for himself and betrayed the turks in their time of weakness. what's the whole truth of the story?

n.b. i've read all the wikipedia articles but they lack a lot of info.

also i watched "lwarence of arabia" along time ago and in that movie they depict the arab fighters as "freedom fighters" who are basically regaining their freedom from the turks who have been denying them education, forcing them into poverty and other such things.....is there any truth to this?

do the arabs of today view the ottomans with resentment?

br. tripoly sunni your views would be greatly appreciated.

[NEronchik]

He was a traitor who was responsible for handing over shaykh ul hind and the 2 syeds maulana syed husain ahmed madni rh and hazrat maulana syed uzair gul rh to the british where they were imprisoned. So before anyone pulls out the syed card do remember these 2 giants were also syeds who he handed over to the british. My friend nayyarsh is from the family of hazrat syed uzair gul and he shall elaborate further. Our akabir were never fond of him.

[Aswdwdfg]

He was a traitor who was responsible for handing over shaykh ul hind and the 2 syeds maulana syed husain ahmed madni rh and hazrat maulana syed uzair gul rh to the british where they were imprisoned. So before anyone pulls out the syed card do remember these 2 giants were also syeds who he handed over to the british. My friend nayyarsh is from the family of hazrat syed uzair gul and he shall elaborate further. Our akabir were never fond of him.

the question is What do the scholars/historians say regarding sharif hussain and the ottomans?

Please provide substantiation.

was salaam

[NEronchik]

brother matbooh I don't think I will agree with you. Have you given bait to the current amir of jordan? I spoke to a big shaykh recently. He was very dismissive of jordan and its government and praised the gulf and saudi state in comparison to them (though he was also critical of these countries also due to the kuffar bases) but in comparison to jordan it is an oasis. If you think so highly of jordan please go and do bait to the ruler of jordan. Please forgive me for my harshness but bro man I got to say it. You say you are a lover of ahlul bait. I told you the sharif is responsible for the capture of 2 high syed ulema. By the way the shaykh who was critical of jordan is a lover of ahlul bait. He personally told me that he drank the leftover water of a syed but because the syed was a smoker he got ill. That is how much love our akabir have for syeds but the jordanians are jokers. Traitors to the Muslim nation!!!

[Suentiend]

Shareef Hussain, the Governor of Makkah was responsible for cutting of Haramain from the Khilafah. This is documented. Maulana Hussain Ahmed Madani RA and others were in Taaif when the forces of Shareef e Makkah attacked Taaif. They fought against the Turks. The Turks were defending. Long story short, then he was kicked out by Shah Abdul Aziz. What you sow is what you reap!

[Aswdwdfg]

lol,bro london he is not from aal al saud.he does not give bay'ah/accept bay'ah.
I've already answered some of your allegations here.
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...ht=#post523904
It seems your memory is weakining.
My request to you was simple.Provide substantiation.


Moulana Taliban,you might be mistaken.the saudi thugs attacked taif at some stage and massacred on a mass scale.Perhaps the murabitun bro's would be able to expound on this.Could someone please provide the documented first hand accounts of Shaykhul hind with regards this episode.

[Suentiend]

lol,bro london he is not from aal al saud.he does not give bay'ah/accept bay'ah.
My request to you was simple.Provide substantiation.

Moulana Taliban,you might be mistaken.the saudi thugs attacked taif at some stage and massacred on a mass scale.Perhaps the murabitun bro's would be able to expound on this.Could someone please provide the documented first hand accounts of Shaykhul hind with regards this episode.

These are two separate incidents. Both of them did it to capture Hijaaz. Hijaaz was the most important place to capture to establish your Rule in the hearts of the Muslims. Whoever controls Haramain, he gets automatic respect from the whole Ummah.

Please read:

Chiraagh e Muhammad: Biography of Hazrat Sheikh ul Islam, written by Maulana Zahid Al-Hussaini [RA] (Khailfah and Student of Hazrat Hussain Ahmed Madni Rahimahullah Ta'ala)

Also read the Biography of hazrat Sheikh ul Hind (RA), I forgot the name.

[Aswdwdfg]

These are two separate incidents. Both of them did it to capture Hijaaz. Hijaaz was the most important place to capture to establish your Rule in the hearts of the Muslims. Whoever controls Haramain, he gets automatic respect from the whole Ummah.

Please read:

Chiraagh e Muhammad: Biography of Hazrat Sheikh ul Islam, written by Maulana Zahid Al-Hussaini [RA] (Khailfah and Student of Hazrat Hussain Ahmed Madni Rahimahullah Ta'ala)

Also read the Biography of hazrat Sheikh ul Hind (RA), I forgot the name.

If you have read these books,is there any indication that Shaykhul Hind felt betrayed/felt Sharif Hussein was a traitor/had a bad opinion of Sharif Hussein,or did it come accross as Sharif Hussein had a different opinion and felt that seccession from the ottomans was better while Shaykhul Hind aadopted the view that seccession would be detrimaental.




was salaam

[Pippoles]

Salam

okay so he handed over fellow syeds to the brits shame on him.

next issue was he a power hungry egotistic person who betrayed the turks, after waswasa of the brits (T.E. Lawrence et al.), or was he a freedom fighter trying to secure the rights of the long neglected arabs who were "suffering" and were under the turks as the movie "lawrence of arabia" suggests. ideas? any arab bros/sis views would also be much appreciated.


also if anyone has links to articles on this subject that would be nice.

[Suentiend]

If you have read these books,is there any indication that Shaykhul Hind felt betrayed/felt Sharif Hussein was a traitor/had a bad opinion of Sharif Hussein,or did it come accross as Sharif Hussein had a different opinion and felt that seccession from the ottomans was better while Shaykhul Hind aadopted the view that seccession would be detrimaental.




was salaam

They supported the Turks and encouraged them to fight

[Aswdwdfg]

Salam

okay so he handed over fellow syeds to the brits shame on him.

next issue was he a power hungry egotistic person who betrayed the turks, after waswasa of the brits (T.E. Lawrence et al.), or was he a freedom fighter trying to secure the rights of the long neglected arabs who were "suffering" and were under the turks as the movie "lawrence of arabia" suggests. ideas? any arab bros/sis views would also be much appreciated.


also if anyone has links to articles on this subject that would be nice.

He was governor of Hijaz under the ottomans,he was brought up in the ottoman court and he was their grandson and he was married to their daughter.
This all happened during a critical juncture.The ottoman court was corrupted by secularists and this was having an effect on the ottoman rule.At the same time corrupt practices,spiritual and otherwise seemed to have been on the rise.Sharif Hussein was a scholar and was religious.At the same time the saudi thugs were causing problems on the pretext of the corrupt practices and secularisation e.t.c. and were becoming popular in najd.The british e.t.c. offered to help Sharif Hussein become khalifah.Considering the circumstances,he felt that it would be better if he overthrew the ottomans and establish himself as khalifah.He succeeded in taking control.However,the mistake is that he took the kuffar as his friends and they were never willing to except the ummah being united under one ruler.Thus they activated and conspired with their saudi thugs to expel him from hijaz and in the end they left him with the small territory called Jordan.They could not allow him to have control of the haramain,because he was a Sharif,he was a scholar and he was heavily linked to the ootomans.Hence he was not a willing stooge and a liability unlike aal al saud.
This is my understanding and I might be wrong,but I'm than contented being wrong while on the side of the Family of Nabi on a matter that does not have much bearing on us presently.

was salam

[NEronchik]

matbooh the shaykh ul hind incident had nothing to do with difference of opinion. It was pure treachery by sharif hussain. Like how our brothers were handed over to the americans by the pakistani government the same thing happened. Shaykh ul hind and the 2 respected syeds were handed over by the treacherous sharif hussain. This treacherey continued with his son who flew to israel in 1967 and disclosed everything to israelis. The same treachery is continuing with the current ruler of jordan and his wife who openly. He barely knew arabic before he came on the throne. Even now he hardly knows arabic. They are proper angrez.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...assed-cia-link

The jordanians are such scared people that they refused to accept the body of abu musab al zarqawi as they feared it would become a shrine. How low can you get????

[Suentiend]

This is my understanding and I might be wrong,but I'm than contented being wrong while on the side of the Family of Nabi on a matter that does not have much bearing on us presently.

was salam

Then be on my side

[Aswdwdfg]

They supported the Turks and encouraged them to fight

ofcourse.maybe you never understood what i stated.did they come accross as believeing that Sharif Hussein made a mistake,or did they come accros as viewing him a traitor that deliberately tried to rebel against the khilafah only for personal gain? and did they have the attitude towards him that london has

was salaam

[Suentiend]

ofcourse.maybe you never understood what i stated.did they come accross as believeing that Sharif Hussein made a mistake,or did they come accros as viewing him a traitor that deliberately tried to rebel against the khilafah only for personal gain? and did they have the attitude towards him that london has

was salaam

Will look insha'Allah. Whatever it was, khair it's been done already. Now let us concentrate on more important issues and you should support the family of Nabi in this campaign :P

[Aswdwdfg]

Then be on my side

If so,then I accept your khilafah that you gave me yesterday wholeheartedly.Moulana please make du'a for me.A very special du'a.If i can get you e-mail I'll request from you privately.
My du'a is related to Nabi hadith "Yanqati3u kulla sababin wa nasbin illa sababee wa nasbee" as related at a particular time by Umar(R.A.)....but only for one and a very particular one that I have in mind.
I love you countless times for the pleasure of Allah.By the way are you a Shareef or a Sayyid?

was sallam

[Suentiend]

If so,then I accept your khilafah that you gave me yesterday wholeheartedly.Moulana please make du'a for me.A very special du'a.If i can get you e-mail I'll request from you privately.
My du'a is related to Nabi hadith "Yanqati3u kulla sababin wa nasbin illa sababee wa nasbee" as related at a particular time by Umar(R.A.)....but only for one and a very particular one that I have in mind.
I love you countless times for the pleasure of Allah.By the way are you a Shareef or a Sayyid?

was sallam

You can leave a comment with ur email on the blog.

Shareef and Sayyid are the same.

In indopak they are called Sayyids and here in Saudia we are called Shareefs. Some write Al-Hashmi, some of them write Al-Hussaini. Usually Shareef is for Hasani Sayyids.

We're from the lineage of Sheikh Abdul Qaadir Jilani (RA)

[Aswdwdfg]

You can leave a comment with ur email on the blog.

Shareef and Sayyid are the same.

In indopak they are called Sayyids and here in Saudia we are called Shareefs. Some write Al-Hashmi, some of them write Al-Hussaini. Usually Shareef is for Hasani Sayyids.

We're from the lineage of Sheikh Abdul Qaadir Jilani (RA)

amongst indo-pak they are generally referred to as sayyid.i was under the impression that authentically Hussain progeny are Sayyids while Hasan progeny are Ashraaf

was salaam

[furious1]

perhaps the sayyid vs. ashraaf dvivision owes its origin to the hijaz, which was made up, primarily, of the Hasani progeny (including the famous 'sharif' family being discussed). the hadramis including the ba 'alawis [husayni progeny] moved into the hijaz too, and took up ifta' of the shafi'iyyah for a number of generations, and they were known as 'sayyids' in yemen, and thus known as 'sayyids' in the hijaz too. hence hasanis began to be known as ashraaf while husaynis began to be known as saadah.

was-salam

[Suentiend]

ofcourse.maybe you never understood what i stated.did they come accross as believeing that Sharif Hussein made a mistake,or did they come accros as viewing him a traitor that deliberately tried to rebel against the khilafah only for personal gain? and did they have the attitude towards him that london has

was salaam

To Brother Mathbooh,



I just confirmed it. Hazrat Sheikh ul Hind (RA) was captured by Shareef e Makkah in Jeddah on the orders of the British in 1335 Hijri. He was sent to Egypt. When they got off the train, Hazrat Sheikh ul Hind (RA) was interrogated by two British guys. They were speaking good urdu. I'll skip the whole conversation and just point out the questions pertinent to our discussion:

1) Why did Shareef e Makkah capture you?

Sheikh: Because I did not sign his Document (1)

2) Why didn't you sign it?

Sheikh: Because it is Against Shariat

3) What is your opinion about Shareef e Makkah?

Sheikh: He is a Baghi!



(1) Shareef e Makkah had prepared a detailed Fatwa against Khilafat e Usmania. He had gotten many Hindi Ulama to sign it. But the Hindi Agents told him that it will hold no value unless Hazrat Sheikh ul Hind (RA) signs it. Hazrat refused to sign it.