Saudi warning over Hajj politics

[The_Prince]

The Shi’ah have many sects. Some of them are kaafirs who worship ‘Ali and call upon him, and they worship Faatimah, al-Husayn and others. Some of them say that Jibreel (peace be upon him) betrayed the trust and the Prophethood belonged to ‘Ali, not to Muhammad. There are also others among them, such as the Imamiyyah – the Raafidi Ithna ‘Ashari – who worship ‘Ali and say that their imams are better than the angels and Prophets.

There are many groups among them; some are kaafirs and some are not kaafirs. The mildest among them are those who say that ‘Ali was better than the three (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan). The one who says this is not a kaafir but he is mistaken, because ‘Ali was the fourth, and Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan were better than him. If a person prefers him over them then he is erring and is going against the consensus of the Sahaabah, but he is not a kaafir. The Shi’ah are of different levels and types. The one who wants to know more about that may refer to the books of the scholars, such as al-Khutoot al-‘Areedah by Muhibb al-Deen al-Khateeb [available in English under the same title, translated by Abu Ameenah Bilaal Philips], Manhaaj al-Sunnah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, and other books that have been written on this topic, such as al-Shi’ah wa’l-Sunnah by Ihsaan Ilaahi Zaheer [also available in English translation] and many other books which explain their errors and evils – we ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound.

Among the most evil of them are the Imamis, Ithna ‘Asharis and Nusayris, who are called al-Raafidah because they rejected (rafadu) Zayd ibn ‘Ali when he refused to disavow the two Shaykhs Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, so they went against him and rejected him. Not everyone who claims to be a Muslim can be accepted as such. If a person claims to be a Muslim, his claim should be examined. The one who worships Allaah alone and believes in His Messenger, and follows that which he brought, is a real Muslim. If a person claims to be a Muslim but he worships Faatimah or al-Badawi or al-‘Aydaroos or anyone else, then he is not a Muslim. We ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound. Similarly, anyone who reviles the faith, or does not pray, even if he says that he is a Muslim, is not a Muslim. The same applies to anyone who mocks the faith or mocks the prayer or zakaah or fasting or Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or who disbelieves in him, or says that he was ignorant or that he did not convey the message in full or convey the message clearly. All such people are kaafirs. We ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound.



Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz (28/257).

 

[The_Prince]

Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi:

We have seen all over the world how all the religious groups and sects try to reconcile their differences; the Jews are trying to have common ground with the Christians, so they claim innocence to what the history records of the Jews’ responsibility in crucifying Jesus. The same happens among the Christians as they are trying to bring together all the Christian denominations around the world.

Amidst all these amiable gestures, where do we Muslims stand? Why do we kindle the fire of disagreement? What is the reason for all this argument about Shi`ah as if they are not Muslims?

Let it be known to all that the Shi`ah are Muslims who believe in the Oneness of Allah and the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).

Yes, there is no doubt that the Shi`ah have their beliefs and dogmas which we condemn as heresy but this doesn’t make them non-Muslims.

We should try to make use of what we have in common for the benefit of all Muslims. No one can deny that all Muslims, Sunni and Shi`ah, condemn the Zionists and what they do against our brethren in Palestine. We maintain the same view concerning the persecution of Muslims in many parts of the world. This means that we have many things in common, which should be the pivot of our interaction.

All Muslims should be alert against the schemes and plots planned by the enemies of Islam. They are the ones that want us to disagree and fight each other. Now they resort to another scheme by filling our minds with hatred against one another under the name of belief. We should not give them this chance.

 

[The_Prince]

Al-Azhar fatwa on Shias:

1) Islam does not require a Muslim to follow a particular Madh'hab (school of thought). Rather, we say: every Muslim has the right to follow one of the schools of thought which has been correctly narrated and its verdicts have been compiled in its books. And, everyone who is following such Madhahib [schools of thought] can transfer to another school, and there shall be no crime on him for doing so.

2) The Ja'fari school of thought, which is also known as "al-Shia al- Imamiyyah al-Ithna Ashariyyah" (i.e., The Twelver Imami Shi'ites) is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought.

 

[The_Prince]

i could go on to quote other mainstream Islamic scholarship, but the point is clear, to say that mainstream Islamic scholarship labels all Shias and Shiasm as being outside Islam and being as kaffirs is blatantly false and to make such a claim is not only false, but dangerous as well.

 

[Sampharo]

If you'll start taking quotes out of context in order to include Zaidi's, you're just confusing the matter. Zaidi's were not excluded in the first place and do not have rituals or husseineyyat to ban. The discussion was clearly regarding the Shia that I called "Rafeda" in my post, which are Imameyya Rafeda, I also described their precise belief and faith that took them out of Islam:

Shia have corrupted the Shahada, the declaration, the most crucial and central of the five pillars, by adding Ali to be the Waleyy of Allah to the declaration statement. Also they replaced Hajj with pilgrimage to Qomm, their shrine in Syria as a more fundamental pillar, more important than Haj that you were talking about. Additionally they corrupted their faith, specifically tawhid, by accepting their clerics and mullas as instruments of salvation, forgiveness, and that their Imams are recipients of direct inspiration, as well as most claim the Quran to be modified, and all of them (Imameyya Rafeda) declare that Ali and his progeny are infallible inspired prophets.

Zaidi did none of the above, and are not classed as Rafeda (refusers), and actually are the basis on which Rafeda as a name was launched (The Shia's refusal to stick by Imam Zaydi's movement despite his support of Hussein just because he refused to insult companions and degenerate the prayer, so they withdrew).

The fact that some individual shia do not believe in Shia polymecs and is actually embracing that of proper Islam, does not absolve the faith and sect from being outside the fold of Islam.

As for the quotation "2) The Ja'fari school of thought, which is also known as "al-Shia al- Imamiyyah al-Ithna Ashariyyah" (i.e., The Twelver Imami Shi'ites) is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as are other Sunni schools of thought." That is NOT the opinion of Al-Azhar, that is the political statement that Tantawy has announced and horrified the entire Islamic Scholarly World and drew nothing but condemnation against him, along with his announcement to ban the niqab saying it has nothing to do with Islam! You're also talking about the person who made Bank interest Halal because it is spread amongst people and now necessary! It's more than obvious that all three are worthless statements of someone who no longer represenents scholars let alone mainstream Islam.

As for Qaradawi he has his own political battles to fight and he is a known opponent against Shia, however he made this announcement of not to declare them Kafir without evidence and alone against all other scholars. In addition you would not find an Imam of the Salaf ever saying that "Imameyya Ethna Ashareyya (Rafeda) is an acceptable madhab of Islam, EVER.

With that then all the quotes you brought are in line and I do not need to enter a copy/paste contest to publish the more detailed opinions.

if you want to start making takfir on shias how about you make takfir on your beloved rulers in egypt and saudia who themselves have openly broken several Islamic rules that makes them KAFFIRS.

As for takfir, I especially appreciate your own post: "Not everyone who claims to be a Muslim can be accepted as such. If a person claims to be a Muslim, his claim should be examined. The one who worships Allaah alone and believes in His Messenger, and follows that which he brought, is a real Muslim. If a person claims to be a Muslim but he worships Faatimah or al-Badawi or al-‘Aydaroos or anyone else, then he is not a Muslim." So as you can see, the act of withholding the status of muslim by scholars is permissible and sound, and something that all the Kholafa Al-Rashedoon did after the prophet -pbuh- (starting with Abu Bakr who fought "the apostasy" wars with people who simply denied the zakat, one of the five pillars).

Brother To put the title of kufr on rulers for not being to your liking or to your belief are not upholding shariah and Islamic laws, is a despicable act forbidden by over a dozen hadiths and clear unambiguous text even if they are horrible despots. Unless you wish to join Al-Khawarej, I suggest you review your words and compare them with those websites you quoted from before falling victim to the angry rants all over the internet.

There are several threads here that discussed that and you will find the detailed evidence regarding that within them, I chose the following evidence to copy and paste here for your information and hope for calm contemplation brother. This is not about pride or right/wrong, this is about the evidence that we have, without which we are straying from the path just like the ones before Islam:

B- Rebellion against rulers no matter how corrupt, is strictly forbidden by more than a dozen hadiths. Some of which:Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman narrated a hadith in which he said, “The Prophet (saws) said, ‘there will be after me leaders who do not follow my guidance and do not follow my sunna, and there will be among them men whose hearts are like those of satan in the body of a human being.’ And I asked the Prophet (saws), ‘What I should do at that time if I reach it?’ He said, ‘listen and obey the ruler, even if he lashed your back and took your money, listen and obey.’" [Sahih Muslim]

In another narration, Auf bin Malik said, “O Prophet of Allah, do you recommend that we fight them?” He said, “No, don’t fight them as long as they do not prevent you from your prayers. And if you see from them something that you dislike, dislike their acts, do not dislike them. And do not take your hand out from obedience to them.” [Sahih Muslim] it has other narrations:

1) “There will be upon you leaders who you will recognize and disapprove of; whoever rejects them is free, whoever hates them is safe as opposed to those who are pleased and obey them”, they said, “should we not fight them”. He said, “No, as long as they hold the prayer, as long as they do hold the prayer!”

2)”The best of your leaders are those you love and they love you, you pray for them and they pray for you. The worst of your leaders are those who anger you and you anger them and you curse them and they curse you. He said we replied, “O Messenger of Allah, should we not remove them at that?” He r said, “No, as long as they establish the prayer amongst you.”
​

From Abdullah ibn al-Abbas, “if someone dislikes his ruler, he must be patient, because if he comes against the ruler in a rebellious or destructive manner by only a handspan and dies, he dies in a state of pre-Islamic ignorance (jahiliyyah) and sin.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

Aside from that, to say that a ruler is a kafir because of a lack of application of islamic ruling is a false accusation from top to bottom, because Islamic ruling application is not part of the pillars or articles of faith in the first place. This innovated thought is propagated by modern groups who adopt deviated faith and are mostly commiting far worst crimes and themselves breaking Islamic rulings by their very acts of mischief and corruption. The argument of sticking the rulers in conversations like that are only aimed to build political and emotional hatred against the rulers to recruit more towards their ways. No matter how desperately corrupt and incompetent Egyptian rulers appear to most definitely be, or how that Saudi ones are far from being the shining muslim leaders we wish they were, their Islam is not to be refuted on such weak basis even if we don't like it as per the evidencial statement brother Hamza misquoted earlier "whomever passes takfir on a muslim without him being one returns on him." Additionally, I can understand the statement regarding Egypt, but the one regarding Saudi rulership is a grossly refutable one considering that Saudi Arabia applies Shariah Law.

May God grant all us all guidance, and accept all muslim prayers, and grant us leaders that are better than what we deserve.

 

[Khaldun]

What has to be remembered as stated above is, not all shias are outside the fold of islaam rather they are in degrees. And the large masses are not like the scholars of the shia. Having said that one only has to read the history of Islaam to see who the true shias were and the fact that 'Ali himself burnt them to death should show people that these type of people are not upon Islaam. Again, this does not apply to every shia.

Even in the very recent years the shia have caused alot of havoc not inleast in madeenah, where they some years ago tried to dig up the grave of the noble Prophet. They even curse the companions in public not to mention spit on the graves of abu bakr and 'umar! [This lead Huthayfi to becoming furious and made a entire khutbah about them]

As for goverments then we all know no one is sin free, not even saudi arabia. But in Islaam we do not bash rulers in public since we are commanded to give sincere advice to people specially our rulers. And from sincere advice is not to keep talking about mistakes made by someone in public rather that is public humiliation and we should rather take their hand and pull them into a secluded area and advice them there.

 

[Uthman]

May Allah(swt) forgive me for anything that I have said wrong. But it is correct to say that those who actually follow what is taught by the Shi'i scholars are outside of Islam, is it not?

And obviously if they don't do that, then they aren't really proper Shias.

 

[Khaldun]

May Allah forgive all of us brother Uthman.

We have to be clear on the difference between a shia scholar and the average iranian [just as an example] the normal lay man is not well versed with the shia doctrine and it might even be that if you make it clear to him of what the shia aqeedah is he might be from amongst the people who hate it the most. The truth is that most shias might say they are shia thinking it only means loving the ahlu bayt but in reality they do not understand what shia means, everthing from saying the Ali is a god himself to believing that all the companions left islam after the death of the Prophet.

 

[Sampharo]

May Allah forgive all of us brother Uthman.

We have to be clear on the difference between a shia scholar and the average iranian [just as an example] the normal lay man is not well versed with the shia doctrine and it might even be that if you make it clear to him of what the shia aqeedah is he might be from amongst the people who hate it the most. The truth is that most shias might say they are shia thinking it only means loving the ahlu bayt but in reality they do not understand what shia means, everthing from saying the Ali is a god himself to believing that all the companions left islam after the death of the Prophet.

Barak Allahu Feek brother Khaldun,

Brother Uthman means that if someone knows what the Shia belief is, and knowingly subscribes to them in full, is he outside the fold of Islam or still a proper muslim following an acceptable methodology in Islam?

Also can you comment on the suggestion that Saudi Arabia should allow Shia to take positions in government and army and practice their husseineyyat rituals.

Jazak Allahu Koll Kheir

 

[Khaldun]

First of all I would like to make clear that my comments do not carry any weight in Islaam, rather it is what Allah and His Messenger said. Having said that, I understand what you mean brother Sampharo.

If a person with full knowledge accepts the beliefs of the Raafidah, then there is no doubt that such a person has left Islaam.

Also because of the huge differences between Islaam and the beliefs of the Raafidah many scholars have said they are actually two different religions. And what is known is that a non muslim should not be place as a ruler above muslims. So then how can a Raafidiyy ever enter positions of power in a muslim land, not to mention the lands of the two holy mosques?

 

[OurIslamic]

Interesting article, I hope nothing goes wrong

 

[nocturnal]

I don't think Hajj should be used for political purposes. To politicize so sacred and spiritual an event is tantamount to sacrilege. People undertake the Hajj to not just spiritually cleanse themselves, but also to refrain from other worldly matters which inherently feature politics.

Sampharo, surely there is some merit in the notion of e.g. incorporating into the Saudi Government, at least some form of Shia representation? It would go along way in enhancing the Kingdom's credentials as somewhat of an inclusive state, especially by regional standards.

Supreme, i think that Saudi Arabia, is a Monarchy cum Theocracy, unlike Iran which made the transition between the two. I don't think it's right for Saudi Arabia to make pretensions to leadership of the Islamic world simply by the fact that it houses the two most sacred sites in Islam. Yes, many of the most important scholars are based there, but likewise, in other countries and cities accross the world as well.

But you both have merits in your arguements i guess. Sampharo, your right the Vatican wouldn't ostensibly allow any non-Catholic to partake in policy formulation in its senior echelons, it wouldn't make sense in any case to do so.

But Saudi Arabia is a country, it has a constitution, markedly different to that of the Vatican, and whether it likes to accept the fact or deny it, it does have Shia subjects and cannot treat them like second class citizens, irrespective of doctrinal differences. What difference then, would there be between them and the raging Zionist regime in Palestine which treats Israeli Arabs as leeches.

I guess all im saying is that if you can introduce a measure of meritocracy into as rigid an administration as the Saudi Government, then surely that helps to facilitate the redress of human rights abuses in the country.

 

[Sampharo]

I can understand where you're coming from and many of your arguments are logically sound. There are a few principals however in which muslims and non-muslims differ on, upon which there may seem to be a strange divide:

Saudi Government exclusion of non-muslim is not a racial or a sectarian issue, it is an Islamic directive that is based since the days of the prophet -pbuh-. Just as you will say you don't believe religion should be part of government under the whole "separation of church and country", the response will be always that we do not agree with the secular approach to start with. So rather than disagree over Saudi's position, it is actually a more basic one over the secular option. As brother Khaldun above explained, Shia are pronounced out of the fold of Islam if they truly believe the polymecs of Shia Rafeda, and hence are by Islamic ruling and directive unfit to take any rulership or governorship positions even if it is book-keeping. If they don't, and actually embrace Shia out of ignorance, then why hand rulership and governing power of a religious country and community to ignorants? Based on that it's a closed subject.

It needs to be noted that rulership and government jobs in an Islamic nation are not matters of right or even privilage, but a matter of necessity of service. Judges had to be prospected and most had to be ordered into their positions as they feared failing their brethren or being held accountable to God for any shortage of dispatching their duties. Islamic rulings stated that seekers of positions should never be appointed because that is a clear sign of intention towards corruption, and alternatively muslim scholars should be sought and commissioned to serve based on their knowledge and piousness. Many duties by their very nature cannot be discharged except by muslims: no military action can be made or lead by non-muslim, no judicial or police work (shariah law). Omar Ibn Al-Khattab even removed a non-muslim book-keeper for one of his assistants, so like I said, it is not policy but Islamic ruling and directive.

If you are talking about representation as in a delegation to communicate on their behalf as a group, that is allowed and already there. The only thing they are not granted are Husseineyyat where they mutilate themselves and call the companions of our prophet as heretics.

It would go along way in enhancing the Kingdom's credentials as somewhat of an inclusive state, especially by regional standards.

They're not trying to do so in the first place. Saudi Arabia is not an immigration administrative region that is advertising itself as a melting pot, it is an Islamic nation comprising Arabs of the peninsula and governs under Islamic rule. It's true that a monarchy is not Islamic and that Al-Saud are not exactly the best rulership in the World, however the Islamic shariah law and structure underneath is one that the nation wants and upholds, and if the monarchy is replaced, they would replace it with a complete Khalifa (Ruler of the Faithful) position and it will be 100% theocratic.

I don't think it's right for Saudi Arabia to make pretensions to leadership of the Islamic world simply by the fact that it houses the two most sacred sites in Islam. Yes, many of the most important scholars are based there, but likewise, in other countries and cities accross the world as well.

You're right, but as a beacon of Islamic knowledge and the only country today properly applying shariah islamic law and housing the two biggest universities of Islamic scholarship, muslims around the World will continue to regard it as the leading authority in Islamic terms. Politically speaking I don't think Al-Saud royal family themselves are deluded into thinking they are leading the Islamic World.

But Saudi Arabia is a country, it has a constitution, markedly different to that of the Vatican, and whether it likes to accept the fact or deny it, it does have Shia subjects and cannot treat them like second class citizens

This is where fundamental difference of opinion is going to rise again. You believe in nationalism, which is forbidden Islamically, yet entertained by Saudi Arabia as a necessity to maintain passports, census and borders. Saudi scholars even say that they shouldn't celebrate independence or royal days or any of that. As mentioned earlier, aside from Husseineyyat and government positions, Shia and others have all national rights as the rest of the people.

What difference then, would there be between them and the raging Zionist regime in Palestine which treats Israeli Arabs as leeches.

Very good point. Strangely though Israel seems to be a praiseworthy nation of the first world and can do no wrong, and here we are bashing Saudi Arabia. Haven't seen any Shia in Saudi being lined up to walls and shot dead, or have their homes demolished and land taken to build the homes of muslims.

then surely that helps to facilitate the redress of human rights abuses in the country.

There are no human rights violations in Saudi Arabia at all that is attributed to this matter in specific, and as a matter of fact its record in human rights violation is far lower than most surrounding countries including Iran, Yemen and Egypt. Like I said, if everyone will jump up and down about secular views that Shia must have access to government positions and mutilate themselves in Husseineyyat, then yes that is what is being touted as human rights abuse, and I do not believe that an Islamic country must abandon its own laws and rulings in order to serve concepts that should not apply to them as a non-secular nation.

 

[nocturnal]

But you can also make a similar case for other countries too which have ovewhelmingly Muslim populations like Egypt for example. I don't see how it would contravene the fundamental laws and teachings of Islam to appoint for example, to a senior position in the Civil Service, a Coptic Christian. I understand your point about having non-Muslims in very sensitive positions such as that in the Military or to superintend the disbursements to Islamic institutions etc.

Also, i have a bit of an issue with the assertion that Saudi Arabia is the one nation that is fully and comprehensively applying Shariah law. If this were the case would the Saudis not then reappraise their foreign policy? would they not then withdraw their shameful and immutable 2002 Arab Peace Initiative which even in the face of genocidal onslaughts on the Palestinians is still being held up as a blandishment for peace in whcih the Saudis would eventually recognise Israel?

A state that professes to be rigorously upholding Islamic virtues and precepts turns out to be scornfully dismissing of one of Islam's most cherished precepts; to care for your fellow brothers and sisters. Yet the Saudi government's support for ovetly biased US policies is lockstep and unchanging, and astoundingly enough, as if to illustrate the point, they bombard Houthi rebels in the South who are already being subjected to pitiless persecution by the Yemeni government.

I understand and agree with alot that you have said. The need to maintain an overarching Islamic structure, even if it were to be devoid of the guardianship of the Al Saud family, the need to preserve and sustain Sunni Muslim preponderance in important governmental positions, but there must also be reforms to the system to ameliorate poverty, bestow basic rights on expatriates who suffer horrendous privations and are expolited, and at least implement some sunstantive affirmative action programmes to assist minorities who have been ostracized.

 

[Sampharo]

But you can also make a similar case for other countries too which have ovewhelmingly Muslim populations like Egypt for example.

True, but Egypt is not applying Islamic law, and as a matter of fact, since it has a much worse human rights violations record, much more poverty, much more corruption, and terrible reputation as a political system shows that the Islamic structure in Saudi is free from blame regarding any criticism towards Al-Saud's specific way of rulership.

I don't see how it would contravene the fundamental laws and teachings of Islam to appoint for example, to a senior position in the Civil Service, a Coptic Christian.

We've been over this, haven't we? You're not seeing it, because you're unknowledgable in Islamic rulings, but I have already explained it very clearly and I think you already spent enough time on the forum to learn that Islamic rulings are not based on personal renegotiation. Islam dictates that community management has to be confined to muslims 100%, we believe in it and uphold it. There cannot be criticism of that without simply criticising muslims for their belief, which people are welcome to do in their own hate groups. Fruther, any pressure towards hiring non-muslims violates the common sensible right of the muslim country not to run its nation based on western nationalism standards, when obviously these pressures are only directed for the benefit of non-muslims, showing clearly that just like Saudi Arabia, other countries are thinking of creed, because we don't hear them complaining about the treatment of muslims in other countries starting with Israel.

If this were the case would the Saudis not then reappraise their foreign policy? would they not then withdraw their shameful and immutable 2002 Arab Peace Initiative which even in the face of genocidal onslaughts on .... to care for your fellow brothers and sisters. Yet the Saudi government's support for ovetly biased US policies is lockstep and unchanging.

Now this is turning into the political ranting that is neither here nor there and has no logic to start with. It is also going back to meshing the Islamic rulings that maintained government by muslims only, into politically charged arguments about "foreign policy" and "2002 Arab Peace initiative". Sorry but I am not interested.

and astoundingly enough, as if to illustrate the point, they bombard Houthi rebels in the South who are already being subjected to pitiless persecution by the Yemeni government.

There is nothing reprehensible about Khawarej rebels being fought out of a country's terrirtory. Your value system is highly doubtful if you believe that wild fighters who illegally cross borders with firepower should be welcomed with open arms.

but there must also be reforms to the system to ameliorate poverty, bestow basic rights on expatriates who suffer horrendous privations and are expolited, and at least implement some sunstantive affirmative action programmes to assist minorities who have been ostracized.

The adjectives are highly exaggerated and do not reflect the on the ground reality. Saudi's work less than yet are better off than 90% of the World citizens, and expats are staying and maintaining their lives there not wanting to leave (except western non-muslims who need a liberal lifestyle and have options elsewhere). Elsewhere in this forum amadeus and other christians who voiced protest to the growing anti-religious tendencies of Europe, were told that if they don't like it they can leave. So why should Saudi Arabia then respond to minorities who are living just as well as the majorities of the country when they are showing further lack of loyalty by calling for foreign pressure using their religion, just to score what they think are a few government jobs, even when it's against the foundational rulings of the Islamic nation? Why shouldn't we say: If you want government control and secularism, go somewhere else.

Then again it is amazing that people are still trying to address the apparent human rights abuses, POVERTY, and whatever other non-sensical non-issues with Saudi and only Saudi, while China, India, Iran, Israel, Russia, Colombia and other big populated countries are in taters. Don't see expats in Iran getting happy life, nor do muslims can even study Arabic in peace in China (Islamic studies are officially banned).

Let's call off the dancing around: Nationalism and government is only a few hundred years old, attachment to creed is established thousands upon thousands of years ago, in Saudi it takes precedence, end of story. Wars have been fought because of the "minorities" living within Islamic nations for centuries, every time falsified stories of abuse are used as a precursor to invade, bombard, and occupy, while until today muslims are being treated horrendously the World over. Not only are the stories false, but even if true and foreign nations are only supporting religious groups they are interested in, it further then shows that it is due to their religion that these people are getting this support and further solidifies the hypocricy.

So frankly all this whining is getting old and tired, and I hope you'll forgive me but I too am tired of this subject that is not going anywhere. If you understood the points addressed then I am glad, otherwise then please accept my best wishes.

:wa:

 

[nocturnal]

I do see your points, but you seem to be dismissing out of hand almost every plausible accusation that anyone can even reasonably level against the Saudi regime. You say that political "ranting" has no logic, yet it is inextricably linked to the strict Islamic values and system of governance that you so eloquently propagate. If the Islamic system was so unfailing in its present form, the third holiest site in Islam, with the tacit support of this odious regime, would not be subjugated in the awful manner that has abided for the past 60 odd years.

I agree that im not very knowledgeable in Islamic jurisprudence, fatwas, Quranic interpretation, etc but is it not true that after certain battles during the time of the Prophet (pbuh), it was decreed by the prophet himself that any prisoner of war who taught the Muslims how to read and write ought to be set free? If the very messenger of Allah (swt) can issue such ordinance, then how is it possible that someone who may be Non-Muslim, but is aptly qualified to discharge efficient and effective service, under rigorous operational guidlelines that would in no way undermine the stability and structure of the Islamic system in Saudi Arabia, be inhibited from doing such a task? Your arguement on this issue is highly emotive, and indefensible.

Keep in mind that the very state for which you are being a stout apologist, has preserved itself with billions of dollars worth of investment, arms and succour from countries that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Muslims. According to your logic, that is fine, but to appoint a non-Muslim to a nugatory government position is an apparent act of treachery and sedition? When the Saudi government, not to long ago, called in the serivce of French special forces to end a siege on the Grand Mosque in Makka, a non-Muslim force, to liberate Islam's holiest site, that was supposedly acceptable, yet calling for basic rights for all human being irrespective of their ethnic background or religious affiliation is wrong?

I think your entire rationale for every arguement that you make undeprinned by a belief that the very concept of humanity, dignity, respect, should be subordinated to your own ill-conceived conception of a flawless Islamic entity, no matter what inherent iniquities lie therein.

 

[Sampharo]

I do see your points, but you seem to be dismissing out of hand almost every plausible accusation that anyone can even reasonably level against the Saudi regime.

What purpose does anyone (which till now are only the hypocrit Supreme and you) have to just come out of the blue and make accusations in the first place at an Islamic forum?!!? You want to bash Al-Saud, do it with someone who gives a rat. Open a new thread saying "Al-Saud, to bash or not to bash". But when you bash Islamic values then you are automatically an ignorant person to us and therefore you will by all right either be shown the complete error of your argument or dismissed if it doesn't even pass the litmus test or is true. Are you seriously stating that you are not satisfied until people here accept your stupid political agenda?

You say that political "ranting" has no logic, yet it is inextricably linked to the strict Islamic values and system of governance that you so eloquently propagate.

There you go!! Bring out the true colour of your posting. You are unsatisfied with the Islamic values and rulings and want to bash them. I am glad we got all the feined niceties and fake "respect" you posed with out of the way. Now go jump off a bridge or something because no muslim here will give you the time of day to consider your opinions to be better than Islamic rulings and law.

Your arguement on this issue is highly emotive, and indefensible.

It requires a person to be a complete bumbling bufoon to keep ignoring/misunderstanding a simple statement made over half a dozen times in this thread. Why would you risk joining the category by continuing to do just that and keep referring to dictated Islamic rulings as "argument" or "opinion"? I specifically did not even try to explain worldly justifications behind it, and solely explained WHAT the Islamic ruling was as our religion, and what OTHER rulings were attached to it. Goes to show how much one goes to only see what they want to see, and also goes to show that it is YOUR ARGUMENT that is mind-numbingly off-point and pathetically baseless, and all you have is start ranting again in politics and make strange undeserved or false accusations along with made-up results and attachments like the millions of muslims Saudi apparently caused to die.

I think it's time for moderators to bring this bashing campaign to a close.