Saudi destroying Islamic history

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

you think opening a paris hilton store yards away from the most holy place in Islam is Sunnah? Well to you wahabhis it probably is actually, considering your a pure satanic sect

I think selling luxury bags is less of a threat to peoples faith than grave sights being worshipped by sufis and shia. Therefore, I think equating luxury handbags with graves is wrong.

But you are obviously loosing your temper and being all emotional. Maybe you should calm down, visit your pundit or something.

[Karachi]

idiot, it's not just grave sites that are being destroyed, read the first post, it is pretty much every site related to the early people of Islam. Many of them are mosques, houses etc...

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Wikipedia. LOL

[Karachi]

This is good show on this topic: Wahabi Destruction Of Makkah - YouTube


Like I said before, The wahabhi movement is the real cause of the destruction, the royals are just making money of it

[Manzareh]

The prophet said to level all graves, fair enough but did he say built shopping malls and toilets over them? I doubt you would favour the idea of a public toilet with people ****ting over where where members of your family are buried.

As for Islamic heritage, children are growing up learning all types of non islamic history, why should we destroy ancient houses and structures and Islamic history, we have information written in books and now only left with imaginations.

[Karachi]

The prophet said to level all graves, fair enough but did he say built shopping malls and toilets over them? I doubt you would favour the idea of a public toilet with people ****ting over where where members of your family are buried.

As for Islamic heritage, children are growing up learning all types of non islamic history, why should we destroy ancient houses and structures and Islamic history, we have information written in books and now only left with imaginations.

IN the above video, the host made the same point. Tourists guides in Makkah these days say this "use" to be a important places in Islamic history, because they dont even exist anymore, instead there are shopping malls, parking lots, toilets etc... in there places


I think it's too late already to be honest, every thing except the Kaaba is gone, even the historical mountains are being torn apart

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Building monuments around graves, asking people for money to enter them and allowing people to prostrate to them is against Islam. Therefore, destruction of graves is a very good matter. The Prophet Muhammad sal allahu alayhi wasalam ordered Ali ibn Abi Talib radiallahu anhu to level all graves.

WHo ever demolished those graves is following the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad sal allahu alayhi wasalam.

The reason why you lot are angry, is not because you have something against Saudi royal family or Paris Hilton shops. The real reason is because you are influenced by Hinduism. Worshipping shrines and graves and idols is engraved in your minds. Therefore, destruction of graves makes you angry.

Lets discuss the matter. This is not purely on the discussion of grave sites etc., but rather the issue of wholesale behavior.

There are deep complexities in the early mannerisms of the Prophet, his companions, and even the oligarchial early generation Muslims that followed.

I am no way claiming scholarship nor am I claiming to be a paragon of virtue. Let me make that apparent.

I do however, in the modern era that we live in, try to reconcile my inability to find any area with a suitable theological seminary for Islamic law, history, and religion with as much reading as I can do.

So for instance, in the conquest of Makkah, admittedly having not confirmed the isnaad of this, but it is something enough that classicist convert Lings included it in his own sirah:

"[After the conquest of Mecca] "Apart from the icon of the Virgin Mary and the child Jesus, and a painting of an old man, said to be Abraham, the walls inside [Kaaba] had been covered with pictures of pagan deities. Placing his hand protectively over the icon, the Prophet told `Uthman to see that all other paintings, except that of Abraham, were effaced." (Martin Lings, "Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources" p.300, ref: al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi 834, and Azraqi, Akhbar Makkah"

Ibn Ishaq (admittedly rebuked by one that I favor - Malik) also discussed this incident and Ibn Hishaam removed it.

Now what of the behavior of the Prophet after he took control and was firmly seated in power?

He used quiet a bit of wisdom when dealing with his own people:

Narrated 'Aisha: I asked the Prophet whether the round wall (near Ka'ba) was part of the Ka'ba. The Prophet replied in the affirmative. I further said, "What is wrong with them, why have they not included it in the building of the Ka'ba?" He said, "Don't you see that your people (Quraish) ran short of money (so they could not include it inside the building of Ka'ba)?" I asked, "What about its gate? Why is it so high?" He replied, "Your people did this so as to admit into it whomever they liked and prevent whomever they liked. Were your people not close to the Pre-lslamic Period of ignorance (i.e. they have recently embraced Islam) and were I not afraid that they would dislike it, surely I would have included the (area of the) wall inside the building of the Ka'ba and I would have lowered its gate to the level of the ground."

The point here is the Prophet exercised sound judgement and tried to understand the state of mind of his contemporaries before doing things. At least this is the Prophet Muhammad (S) that I encounter time and time again in my travels through the histories and canons of our early literature.

There are shades of complexity. Just as the unfirm and less trustworthy biblical text records the behavior of Christ the Lamb, so too does it discuss the renegade Jesus that overturned money lender tables in the temple and used a whip to drive them out.

In a similar but more reliable way, the early literature provides us glints and vantage points and a panoramic view into the historical figure, the beloved Abul Qasim Muhammad ibn Abdullah (S).

So regarding grave sites, we also see the different contexts of how he behaved toward the graves sites.

1. He visited his mother's grave:
Abu-Hurairah reports that the Prophet "visited his mother's grave and wept until everyone around him was in tears."

2. In the early years of Islam, in a manner so as to perhaps cleanse his own society of this idolatrous practice, he did stop visiting graves. One can imagine that the pagan and tribalistic Arabs probably had similar shamanistic beliefs to our own tribal people (which is why we are stuck with the concepts of Pir and Piryaan).

He did however subsequently allow prayer for the departed at these sites (not seeking things from the dead of course or praying to them):

3. Related by Al-Hakim on the authority of Abdullah ibn Maulaikah, who saw her coming back from visit to the grave of her brother, Abdurrahman. He asked her : "Had not the Prophet prohibited this?" She said: "Yes, he had prohibited it, but he later encouraged visiting them (graves)."

Anas ibn Malik, a companion of the Prophet, reports: "The Prophet (peace be upon him) passed by a woman crying at a grave. He said to her: Fear Allah and be patient. She said: Leave me alone, for you have not had a calamity like mine and you have not known him. She was subsequently told that she was talking to the Prophet. She went to him at his place where she found no door-keepers. She said: I did not know you. He said: Real patience is that shown at the first shock" (related by Al-Bukhari).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the leveling of graves and with the above in mind

I would posit that one has to be of sound mind wrorraka when making decisions.

Americans also level graves - for the purpose of imminent domain. They relocate bodies as well to new grave sites.

So what was the context of the Prophet's grave leveling? was it similar to imminent domain (i.e. to benefit the people)? Was it a specific set of graves? If so, we have to discuss the fact that no one leveled his mother's grave, his grave, Abu Bakr's grave, etc. This means there is MORE COMPLEXITY to this issue than simply leveling graves and replacing them with a Starbucks or a giant clock tower.

For instance - if a highway will benefit a large city in a certain way they may do exactly that.

I think what the larger body politic of Muslims is upset about is that these actions don't pass the SNIFF test.

Don't you honestly think its rather uncouth to take a holy sanctuary and turn it into a vegas like setting?

Mecca and Medina are spiritual bastions of the Muslim faithful. A part of spirituality is departing, in a reasonable way, from the materialistic aspects of this world. What was lacking in foodstuffs before so that they had to put in a gaudy Kentucky Fried Chicken and Starbucks?

Why would Muslim business owners and land owners not get the first crack at setting up less gawdy and more proper food and lodging facilities?

The very same corporations and chains that destroy the health of people world round are set up so that millions of Muslims can clog their arteries with crap and send a portion of profits into the family coffers or Baron Hilton?

Also, consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of the times when the earliest Muslims encountered other civilizations they did not level things wholesale. Some places like Alhambra were made into centers of Muslim worship.

Contrast their behavior to that of Napolean's (used sphinx as target practice). When Misr was in their hands they did not go and level the Pharoah tombs and use the Sphinx as target practice.

And that is where their (Saudi Royal Planners) behavior fails the sniff test.

I agree that labeling every member of the Saud tribe as a rap star wannabe is a little far fetched. Just as there are Dorani folks like Zahir Shah and Karzai and then there are good simple folks around Kandahar that are religious - a tribe of 100,000 members deserves not to be judged wholesale.

That however does not recuse the behavior of core royals which is well documented in the press. The past behavior of Khalid and Fahd for instance was a detriment not just to the denizens of Arabia but to the Muslim states world round.

In the modern era Saud princes have been caught red handed shipping massive luxury item laden jets in AirBus with British blessings of course - while their princesses frequented British shops wherein a shirt may cost $200 for some average material.

And they do all of that while their own average people cannot find jobs and while others starve.

Or look at their behavior in taking in that guy Saleh from Yemen - a complete autocrat.

I agree with you that Muslims need to think out of the box and learn a scientific manner of scrutiny (for instance the Chinese allowed a Starbucks into the forbidden city that was eventually closed down).... which means that if something is done that is scriptural they cannot just shrug it off and call it Wahhabi to make themselves comfortable in not doing an obligation.

but it certainly looks bad when even the corrupt Catholic officials are outclassing the Puff Daddy Gucci pursuit of the Saudi Kingdom:

Vatican to challenge Starbucks? - Dec. 20, 2004

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The Turks seem to have exercised the best judgement when it came to management of the Haram - they simply expanded the structures with finesse instead of conducting a greasy injection of corporate goodies and giant replicas of Big Ben. And they generally left historical sites alone.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Martin Lings is a perennialist. He deliberately added words to an already weak narration.

Books of Sirah are not suitable for deriving rulings.

Quraish is muslim for the last 1400 centuries. Likewise millions and millions of other people are muslims for generations.

The reason the green dome is still intact is because muslims are not prepared to accept that it is against Islam to build on graves.

I think you should ask hanbali scholars why they demolish those sites. It is not the king who is against those sites. The hanbali jurists and the salafis are against it.

The othomans were misguided sufis who permitted shirk, sodomy and alcohol consumption in the name of spirituality.

[khushal]

@Shamlawar,
you avoided my question.
can you give your insight.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

The saudis earn their money with oil.

Annual hajj actually costs more money. Saudis do not make profit from it.

[khushal]

The othomans were misguided sufis who permitted shirk, sodomy and alcohol consumption in the name of spirituality.

you can condemn certain acts of the Osman but that does not mean all acts can be condemned just like you can condemn certain acts of the Taliban but that does not mean you can condemn all their acts. you pulling a strawman fallacy here.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

The prophet said to level all graves, fair enough but did he say built shopping malls and toilets over them? I doubt you would favour the idea of a public toilet with people ****ting over where where members of your family are buried.

As for Islamic heritage, children are growing up learning all types of non islamic history, why should we destroy ancient houses and structures and Islamic history, we have information written in books and now only left with imaginations.

There are 1, 7 billion muslims. Where do you want them to do number one and number two during Hajj?

How about learning arabic and memorizing quran for heritage instead of some buildings with no religious significance?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Is burial against Islam? Should we now start cremating.

Also is paris Hiltons store more important than the mosque where the prophet used to teach?

Question loaded with false assumptions. Try again.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

you can condemn certain acts of the Osman but that does not mean all acts can be condemned just like you can condemn certain acts of the Taliban but that does not mean you can condemn all their acts. you pulling a strawman fallacy here.

The early othomans were better. The latter were responsible for the demise of islamic civilization. I will condemn every person, be it mullah omar or who ever if i find out that he did what the othomans did.