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

**tLO0hFNy** · 09-04-2012, 03:22 AM

how exactly did the saudis take over hijaz if the did not go against the khalifah then?

btw arab mujahideen (at least in afghanistan) cannot even bear to use the name saudi arabia. they still use the name hijaz and take offense when they hear saudi arabia.

The First Saudi State did in fact take over the Hejaz under the second Imam of the state. I don't know that the Second Saudi State even entered Ottoman territory, but they slaughtered them anyway, Allahu alim.

And look, the Ottomans were not exactly Walis- allowing the Bektashi 'tariqah' to exist at all is a grave offense against Tawhid.

But the Arab Revolt had nothing to do with Aal Sa'ud, it was Sharif Hussein and his cohorts- and that was really the last nail in the coffin of the Ottomans.

09-04-2012, 03:22 AM	#31
tLO0hFNy Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 511 Senior Member	how exactly did the saudis take over hijaz if the did not go against the khalifah then? btw arab mujahideen (at least in afghanistan) cannot even bear to use the name saudi arabia. they still use the name hijaz and take offense when they hear saudi arabia. The First Saudi State did in fact take over the Hejaz under the second Imam of the state. I don't know that the Second Saudi State even entered Ottoman territory, but they slaughtered them anyway, Allahu alim. And look, the Ottomans were not exactly Walis- allowing the Bektashi 'tariqah' to exist at all is a grave offense against Tawhid. But the Arab Revolt had nothing to do with Aal Sa'ud, it was Sharif Hussein and his cohorts- and that was really the last nail in the coffin of the Ottomans.
	Quote