Saudi king expresses support for Egypt's fight against "terrorism"

[RevolutionThroughReason]

^Ow thats funny, they are against regime change becuase there would be to much blood, but they all are eager to propagate and support wahabist blowing themself up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but is that also not human blood? Or is the blood of Saudies more valuabel than that of Afghans?

To be fair the Saudi Ulema never supported Suicide bombing; but they did support cretins like Sayyaf and other tyrants to run amok in Afghanistan as well as support the Taliban in the 90's

apparently turmoil is only a problem when Saudi blood is at stake.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Allot of rhetorical questions suggesting things only based on superficial understanding of the situation.

So why not just let the Americans have the whole of it? If they already defacto run it through these stooges, why not just eliminate the middle men (Saudi Kings and Princes) and make Saudi the 52nd state? I am sure the Americans would do a far better and more capable job than these transplant hobos.

How is that commentary supposed to be taken? So basically because of the risk of blood loss (which has occurred in every context in history where power changes hands) a completely corrupt autocrat should get to stay in power?

There are many other capable Saudi Arabs who could lead and who are more honest.

For that matter, these same "scholars" had no qualms about loosening supposed Turkish shackles.

And the House of Saud still has not answered for its criminal behavior decades ago when it massacred Bedouins wholesale for opposing their sell off of precious Saudi resources to the highest bidder.

By this logic, one would perpetuate their rule into eternity.

And its really an issue for the Saudi people themselves. If the Saudi people amongst themselves decide to overthrow these cockroaches why should the scholars interfere?

Where was the concern of these "scholars" when it came to the blood of Iraqis as opposed to taking a neutrality stance years ago? One could excuse them the first time around, but they did it again with Gulf War 2.

Take that stance to the extreme. Lets say a despot took control of Saudi Arabia, and he gave an ultimatum that he would execute 1 Saudi citizen per 24 hours in the vicinity of Medina or Mecca until any particular adversary of his turned himself in.

Would it then be incumbent on a fugitive to turn themselves in even though they are in the right?

The answer would be clearly no, because this excuse for sustained stability doesn't really hold historical water.

The shrines have changed political hands many times across the centuries with some blood loss.

Out of all of these centuries, this particular species of roach is the worst and has really no moral authority or imperative.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

To be fair the Saudi Ulema never supported Suicide bombing; but they did support cretins like Sayyaf and other tyrants to run amok in Afghanistan as well as support the Taliban in the 90's

apparently turmoil is only a problem when Saudi blood is at stake.

Saudi scholars do support martyrdom operations. But taliban are not salafis or hanbalis. They have hanafi scholars who give fatwa of jihad and martyrdom operations.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Saudi scholars do support martyrdom operations. But taliban are not salafis or hanbalis. They have hanafi scholars who give fatwa of jihad and martyrdom operations.

mainstream Saudi Ulema who are supported by their government as far as I know have not given the Green light for suicide attacks.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Allot of rhetorical questions suggesting things only based on superficial understanding of the situation.

Nothing rhetorical about it. Back when the Ottomon protectorate was being ousted the first time around, its historical fact that Imam Abdul Wahhab had no issue with serving as the theological underpinning the supposed Emir or Diriyah in seizing the sites in the initial.

An insubstantial answer to a series of valid questions indicates in inability to validate ones view.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

mainstream Saudi Ulema who are supported by their government as far as I know have not given the Green light for suicide attacks.

How about Bin Baz? He aint mainstream for you?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Nothing rhetorical about it. Back when the Ottomon protectorate was being ousted the first time around, its historical fact that Imam Abdul Wahhab had no issue with serving as the theological underpinning the supposed Emir or Diriyah in seizing the sites in the initial.

1. Actions of a scholar, any scholar is no Hujjah in Islam.

2. There is a difference of opinion among scholars whether Najd was under Othmani rule because Najd had its own Amir.

3. Othmanis legalized shirk akbar and sodomy as rulers. For this reason people do not consider them as legitimate rulers.

An insubstantial answer to a series of valid questions indicates in inability to validate ones view.

Allah is my witness, I seriously do not intend to offend you in any way, I respect you and I like you quite allot dr. Barakzai. But the way you discuss religious matters, it seems to me that you haven't even grasped the basics in fiqh of Istinjah. Yet you are trying to debate ahkaam takfeer, Ahkaam khurooj or even worse, advocating khurooj and spilling of blood.

Mind you, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf killed many people including companions of the Prophet Muhammad sal allahu alayhi wasalam. The scholars at his time did not advocate khurooj against him because of that.

And here you are sitting comfortably somehwere in US of A with zero knowledge of Sharia suggesting that Aale Saud should be removed because they support the indiscriminate killing of Egyptians.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

1. Actions of a scholar, any scholar is no Hujjah in Islam.

2. There is a difference of opinion among scholars whether Najd was under Othmani rule because Najd had its own Amir.

3. Othmanis legalized shirk akbar and sodomy as rulers. For this reason people do not consider them as legitimate rulers.





Allah is my witness, I seriously do not intend to offend you in any way, I respect you and I like you quite allot dr. Barakzai. But the way you discuss religious matters, it seems to me that you haven't even grasped the basics in fiqh of Istinjah. Yet you are trying to debate ahkaam takfeer, Ahkaam khurooj or even worse, advocating khurooj and spilling of blood.

Mind you, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf killed many people including companions of the Prophet Muhammad sal allahu alayhi wasalam. The scholars at his time did not advocate khurooj against him because of that.

And here you are sitting comfortably somehwere in US of A with zero knowledge of Sharia suggesting that Aale Saud should be removed because they support the indiscriminate killing of Egyptians.

No problem, I respect your opinion, but like I said, refer to that bolded part above.

The reference to date that indicates the Othmanis, in their law codes legalized it goes back to a single source put out be a secularist society.

I have searched everywhere, high and low, in Turkish historical sources to find the exact wording of said regulation and it is still lacking.

Also, I hardly see how disobeying the Prophet directly and allowing kharijaan to create military bases in the peninsula alongside their known debauchery (the royal family member for instance who killed his gay lover, or the well known drinking they undertake etc) is a worse offense than what the Othman empire did.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

The reference to date that indicates the Othmanis, in their law codes legalized it goes back to a single source put out be a secularist society. I have searched everywhere, high and low, in Turkish historical sources to find the exact wording of said regulation and it is still lacking.

Thats because legal texts are not translated. For this you need to know Arabic. It is in Durar Saniyyah. I'll see if I can find a reference for you.

Also, I hardly see how disobeying the Prophet directly and allowing kharijaan to create military bases in the peninsula alongside their known debauchery (the royal family member for instance who killed his gay lover, or the well known drinking they undertake etc) is a worse offense than what the Othman empire did.

Vast majority of Saudi and non-Saudi scholars were and still are against the permission given to Americans to enger Saudi soil.

However, the Mufti of that time, Bin Baz allowed it not because he is a jaahil or because he is a corrupt criminal who deliberately goes against the Shariah.

He argued that since both, Saddam and Americans are mushrikoon, it is permissible to ask for help from a Mushrik against another Mushrik. His reasoning was based on the fact that Rasool Allah sal allahu alayhi wasalam used kafir help during his wars and conflicts.

His opponents claim that his ruling is invalid because the kafirs in this case have superiority over Muslims and their arrival is not without consequences.

His opponents were right, as we have seen, the Americans entered under false pretext, but today, they are there permanently.

Even though there are some scholars in Saudi who still look for justifications for American presence there, the stronger view is that it was a mistake.

You must learn to understand that scholars are not all corrupt, evil and hypocritical. If you don't understand their reasoning and if you haven't investigated the matter, don't assume bad things about them. Even if they are not scholars.

In Islam we are suppose to have husnu dhan for the believers.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Thats because legal texts are not translated. For this you need to know Arabic. It is in Durar Saniyyah. I'll see if I can find a reference for you.




Vast majority of Saudi and non-Saudi scholars were and still are against the permission given to Americans to enger Saudi soil.

However, the Mufti of that time, Bin Baz allowed it not because he is a jaahil or because he is a corrupt criminal who deliberately goes against the Shariah.

He argued that since both, Saddam and Americans are mushrikoon, it is permissible to ask for help from a Mushrik against another Mushrik. His reasoning was based on the fact that Rasool Allah sal allahu alayhi wasalam used kafir help during his wars and conflicts.

His opponents claim that his ruling is invalid because the kafirs in this case have superiority over Muslims and their arrival is not without consequences.

His opponents were right, as we have seen, the Americans entered under false pretext, but today, they are there permanently.

Even though there are some scholars in Saudi who still look for justifications for American presence there, the stronger view is that it was a mistake.

You must learn to understand that scholars are not all corrupt, evil and hypocritical. If you don't understand their reasoning and if you haven't investigated the matter, don't assume bad things about them. Even if they are not scholars.

In Islam we are suppose to have husnu dhan for the believers.

Shamlawar,

They were told by people that they were doing wrong. They made military assumptions based on photographs given to them by Colin Powel and Jim Baker claiming Saddams Army had amassed on the Arabian border and was due to attack any day.

The other problem with that thought process was that the very "mushrikoon" they claimed would fight their cause for them was the very one that put the other fool in Baghdad in power - and that was common knowledge.

This kingdom has its doldrums before. If you read the British era rise of the Saudi Kingdom, what you see is genuine bedu tribes helping that family gain power. Subsequently FDR and their King made agreements parceling out oil and letting these companies in. A real scholar back then and the Bedouin armies warned the king that this was Unislamic and he appealed to the court scholar for a fatwa to mass exterminate these people which they did.

In the 70s a sort of small local insurrection happened in the holy shrines and they had to resort to French and Paki commandos and ended up killing all of the insurrectionists in the haram.

In the Bush I era, Bin Baaz was extremely rude to people who told him he was doing wrong and that this was an internal Arab affair that could be resolved by Arab means.

Basically, Shamlawar this family knows that they are living off kharij largesse and since the Carter doctrine was promulgated and since certain countries in the Arab region were gaining some strength and might affect the ability of these despots to dole out Muslim resources for below the market value - they agreed to a symbiosis before hand to allow for Western bases and strong holds in the region in exchange for perpetual protection.

There were very respectful pleas given to Bin Baaz by even a scholar in England who fled there about his decision and Bin Baaz scoffed and called these guys Takfiris etc and validate a Saudi torture and crackdown.

And I am not talking about their big bogeyman Mr B., I am talking about others not labeled as terrorists by the West who wrote letter after letter after letter to Bin Baaz that resulted in Bin Baaz vindictively pursuing his own agenda and labeling these guys as takfirists.

Also, their selective justice really shows their legitimacy. You should basically see how Talal Bin Walid runs his business and the sort of stuff he does with Saudi largesse both locally with Saudi girls and abroad. They are willing to execute or kill a Filipino, Afghan, Bengali, or Paki migrant but they never execute justice on their own folks who do much worse.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Do you think that I support saudis and consider them to be a legitimate Islamic state? Do you think that I dont know the history of Saudis?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Thats because legal texts are not translated. For this you need to know Arabic. It is in Durar Saniyyah. I'll see if I can find a reference for you.




Vast majority of Saudi and non-Saudi scholars were and still are against the permission given to Americans to enger Saudi soil.

However, the Mufti of that time, Bin Baz allowed it not because he is a jaahil or because he is a corrupt criminal who deliberately goes against the Shariah.

He argued that since both, Saddam and Americans are mushrikoon, it is permissible to ask for help from a Mushrik against another Mushrik. His reasoning was based on the fact that Rasool Allah sal allahu alayhi wasalam used kafir help during his wars and conflicts.

His opponents claim that his ruling is invalid because the kafirs in this case have superiority over Muslims and their arrival is not without consequences.

His opponents were right, as we have seen, the Americans entered under false pretext, but today, they are there permanently.

Even though there are some scholars in Saudi who still look for justifications for American presence there, the stronger view is that it was a mistake.

You must learn to understand that scholars are not all corrupt, evil and hypocritical. If you don't understand their reasoning and if you haven't investigated the matter, don't assume bad things about them. Even if they are not scholars.

In Islam we are suppose to have husnu dhan for the believers.

If you can get me a copy of the Tanzimat and get me the section specifically that discusses homosexuality I would be ever grateful.

As I said, I have been searching for a long time, have seen some translated scripts of the Islâhat Hatt-ı Hümâyûnu

This 1856-58 promulgation is the one discussed many times online as being the law code that legalized homosexuality. When I traced all references they come back to one single source:
http://faith-matters.org/images/stor...-final-web.pdf

This group is run by some hyper secularist Pakistanis who reference the tanzimat but do not produce a quote.

I emailed them and they promised to get back to me but never did.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Do you think that I support saudis and consider them to be a legitimate Islamic state? Do you think that I dont know the history of Saudis?

No I didn't say that, but I just think there has to be constant pressure on these horrible people with the hopes of their eventual downfall.

People cannot be lulled into the false sense of "do not shake the throne." when there are so many caveats to who these guys are.

Also, Bin Baaz has to be held accountable for his mistake. If a doctor in the US was operating on your father or mother and even if he had a shining career before but he was negligent in the writing and proof he would be liable for losing his license, fortune, and career. It would be even worse if he was warned by colleagues but remained cavalier.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

I havr maktaba shamela. I will see how far i can get.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

No I didn't say that, but I just think there has to be constant pressure on these horrible people with the hopes of their eventual downfall.

People cannot be lulled into the false sense of "do not shake the throne." when there are so many caveats to who these guys are.

Also, Bin Baaz has to be held accountable for his mistake. If a doctor in the US was operating on your father or mother and even if he had a shining career before but he was negligent in the writing and proof he would be liable for losing his license, fortune, and career. It would be even worse if he was warned by colleagues but remained cavalier.

There are thousands of scholars, callers, activists and writers behind bars. There are numerous scholars under house arrest.

People are doing allot more than we know.

Bin Baz did many things we disagree with. But the amount of good resulting from his tireless efforts for the sake of Islam cannot be described in a few sentences.

He is now dead and his affair is with Allah who will judge him.