saudi arabia-salafee state?

[abu-musa_al-leeby]

as-salaamu alaikum

i've lived the ksa for 3 yrs and know very well that there are mistakes that are not to be taken lightly like:

1-The chamber of commerce in ksa in some affairs doesnt refer back to sharee'ah rule and this is known to the 'ulamaa and even shaikh muhammad ibn ibraaheem complained to the rulers and wrote them personal letters criticizng and refering to it as being judging to the taaghoot(refer to vol12 of the fatawaa of ibn ibraheem)
2-the army salute in the saudi army which was declared by permanent commitee to be haraam and the army anthem which contains musical instruments.
3-there laws concerning nationality and making distinctions between muslims based on their jinseeyah(nationality) ex"did you know a saudi man cannot marry a non-saudi woman unless he gets permission and pays a particular amount??????
4-double standards on who is allowed to enter mecca and madeena ex"qadeeyaanees are not permitted to enter the area(rightly so) but why are kuffar like faraakaan and alqathaafee allowed when the 'ulamaa of saudi arabia decalre these 2 to be kuffar??????
5-there relationship wtih arab rulers that hate islaam like the nusairee)ali worshipper )haafith al-asaad and not to mention al-qathaafee but only when he doesnt insult the ksa governement.there funding of the algerian government and not to mention there close relationship with the usa and there giving them logistical aid to in toppling the taalibaan and when uncle sam said to the ksa rulers"break your ties with taalibaan" what did they do???they heard and obeyed and no one one was shocked when they heard ghaaazi alqosaibee the former ambassador to the uk say on a show called hardtalk on bbc"i am glad to see the talibaan go"which means the secular regime the us was going to put in power was better!!!! and if one wants to see the latest episode in the us saudi ties then listen to the new saudi radio add where the speaker said about the ksa/us ties "strong allies.....close friends"

and trust me what i mentioned here is nothing compared to the other mashakill but i will mention one more ex mentioned by the mujaddid of the salafee da'wah in yemen shaikh muqbil in a book entitled "asuyooful baatiraah fee -ilhaad ashuy'iatil-kaafiraah"where he said that in the 60's the saudi' rulers would encourage the ulamaa to make takfeer of jamaal abdunnasir due to a political problem they had with him but soon after the ties became better and jaamal died they ordered all the masaajid to pray salaatul-ghaa'ib over him!!!!!now this was an historical occurence and no one can say now that shaikh muqbil retracted it !!!!!!!but rather shaikh muqbil retracted his stance and that is his ijtihaad but history is history(may allah be merciful with him)


wassalaamu alaikum

[gag order]

i heard a story about abdullah ibn ubay bin salul the leader of the munafiqoon of medina, it reminded me of the saudisalafies of today.

the saudisalafies, like abdullah ibn ubay, was correct in aqeeda but very very wrong in fiqh insomuch that allah ordered not pray over hypocrites who die after abdullah ibn ubay died.

both the saudisalafies and the hypocrites of medina have common traits:

"jihad is innapropriate now is not the time for it, why should we kill ourselves, it is suicide" and on and on.

freindship with the enemies of allah and the rasool (saw). both the SS and medinite hypocrites maintained allainaces with jews and entered into intrigues with them.

if you read all the ayahs where the "hypocrites" are mentioned it seems as though the descriptions fit the saudisalafies like hand to glove!

the saudisalafies ie the KSA government with blessing of its chosen "ulema" is entering into an alliance with rich and wealthy KSA shias and iran to form a pact against sunni alqaida. KSA was instrumental in creating the newest shia state - Iraaq.

[ali]

Subhanallah.

You have stated that Abdullah ibn Ubay the kafir munafiq had correct aqeedah.
Allahu musta'an

If this was so then either you are right or Allah's messenger salallahu alaihi wa salam is incorrect about Abyullah ibn Ubay being munaafiq.Im starting to see why Salih al-Fawzaan viewed khawarij as kuffar.

[Mansoor Ali]

To Those who Support the Saudi Government:

MURDER :In the late sixties, Fahad, when still a Minister of Interior arranged for the kidnapping, torturing, and murdering of a Palestinian writer named Nasser Al-Said. Al-Said wrote a book against al-Saud family that apparently hit its target and whose writer paid for with his life. Another writer named Mohammad Mirri was also murdered by Fahad and Naef, his brother.

THEFT :He schemed the famous "Oil to Rotterdam" heist which history records as probably the largest heist ever.

THEFT : Prince Sultan bin Abdulazeez is a master at robbing the country. Over the years, he has managed through defense contracts, the largest of which is al-Yamamah to receive kickbacks ranging from 25 to 40% of the contract value. In al-Yamamah case which is a total of $40 billion, the amount stolen by Sultan over a 10 year period is anywhere from $10 billion to $16 billion. What does he do with all that wealth ? It is sitting in Swiss bank accounts for protection should he one day be removed from power.

MURDER : Of all al-Saud, Prince Naef bin Abdul Azeez is a true murderer. So many people have been killed at his hands that no one knows for sure how many.

In 1995, Naef was accused of murdering Abdullah Abdel Rahman al-Hadhif, while trying to torture a confession out of him.

[ali]

Maybe if you were or were not reffering to me then I say that I really dont care so much for the government in of itself. Imy millah is not directed at protecting the tyranical regimes in our time as the prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam has stated.

The only thing I wish to note are a couple things.
1. My position is really aimed at our deen in our principles and in how the salaf used to deal with the rulers whtehr righteous, tyranical, or kaafir.

2. If you actually look at all the rulers of the muslim world today then I doubt that anyone would say that there is no ruler worse then saud saud and to be honest probably every ruler is in fact worse. so If you were to use measuring as a way of evaluating which ruler is the best ruler in OUR times for the muslims then I don't think that the rest of the rulers in the muslim world could even compare to saud.

3. Since it was not in the practise nor beleif of the salaf to expose the sins, faults, or evils of the rulers then I have come to adopt that understanding as well in my millah. But for the sake of this platform that you have laid out then everything has two sides. This is stressed by our nabi when he said something to the effect that you should hear vboth sides of a story (with additional wording not in my memory). Also Allah tells us how we are to be fair and just.

Basically in modern times "what goes around comes around"

So if you have laid out all the bad from saud then why were whatever good he has contributed to Islam not mentioned. Allah says "whosoever does an atoms weight of good shall see it, and whoever does an atoms weight of evil shall see it".
So if Allah tabaraka wa ta'ala would allow for saud to be in this state then who on Allah's earth are we to nullify his state unless there are clear proofs from his statements in beleif that negate his belief in al-Islam by which any good deed becomes nullified. Its not like he beleived in islam or about Islam the way Husaain the baa'athi, communist kaafir did or any of the other rulers from turkey or elsewhere.

So the essense or summary of what im saying is that right now we are in a state of accepting what we have. and the rulers that we have are only because of the dumb stupid innovations, deviated concepts and fundamental, shirk that the muslims fallen into along with many of them beleiving that so called western values are better than Islam. So once we get back to the correct understanding then I have full and total faith that Allah would definately send his aid to the ummah and a way that both muslims and kuffar would not have imagined.

When the salaf were put to trial with the tyranical rulers we do not see them revolting and speaking openly and ill against the rulers be he muslim or kaafir and when they did then what came after was even worse as history bore witness to. Instead we find the most knowledgable of the salaf having patience and sabr and enjoining the muslims upon that until Allah granted victory to them.

asaalamu alaikum

[gag order]

ali,

abdullah ibn ubay bin salul is NOT a "kafir-munafiq" as you say

the prophet did janazah over him when he died therefore he did not die a kafir!

but

allah revealed after his death that those who are like abdullah ibn ubay do not pray over them. be careful you do not become takfeeri yourself!

he was only hypocritical in terms of al wala wal bara, alliagiance, jihad, and "political" issues hence my comment that he had correct aqeeda (as in, he understood tawhid like all the other sahaba) he prayed and had a beard and even did khutba so was knowledgable!

but unfortunately pious though he may have been politically he was trecherous ie alliance with jews and pagans rather like the saudisalafies of today whos tawhid is so pure it shines but politically and as far as al wala wal bara is concerned they support the "forces of dajjal" against their OWN KIND calling them takfeeris, jihadis, khawarij etc etc

ali, i know u understand what i'm saying do not let pride hold you back on this. if you are not a fahdi supporter u should feel no hurt or resentment.

the reason why the house of saud gets a lot of harsh critiscm is that they are no longer the "Jihadis/takfiris" when they first began ie correcting the uthmani rulers by force when necassary. now the exact same thing is bieng done to the house of saud THEY ARE BIENG CORRECTED BY FORCE OF ARMS BY THEIR OWN MUSLIMS - alqaida!

in our history, every group loses steam eventually and slides in to some sort of deviance it happened to the uthmanis who began as champions of tawhid and jihad but then fell into sufism and major biddah even shirk.

like wise

the house of saud under the direction of muhammad ibn abdul wahhab were the champions of tawhid and jihad but as soon as allah removed him the house of saud were quick to deviate and later on making alliances with the british and fighting the uthmanis for not for the sake of allah but for nationalist kufr reasons.

the house of saud does not want muslims to do to them what they did to the uthmanis hence:

do not rebel
rebelling is not jihad
takfeer even for iraated is wrong we should make excuses
do not backbite the leaders
do not confront the leaders
go behind close doors to correct the ruler

by force of arms they removed the uthmanis from hijaz, aqaba and dimashq then by force of arms they will also be removed.

[ali]

You may have been right about Abdullah ibn Ubay but I qill perform some tadh habut on the matter inshallah.


as for this

like the saudisalafies of today whos tawhid is so pure it shines but politically and as far as al wala wal bara is concerned they support the "forces of dajjal" against their OWN KIND calling them takfeeris, jihadis, khawarij etc etc

I think that is way to much of an exageration. All the slafees whom you call saudi salafees that I know are in no way shape or form fit the description you stated above and to be honest I think that they are the only ones weho truly hate the kuffar more so than other meaning that no one's hatred can match their's but AT THE SAME TIME we're not going to let our hawaa to cloud our judgement especially in these matters as it affects our manhaj as is clearly known to happen to many.

No im not a fahdi but If there is any muslim ruler on this planet that I wouls have to support islamically then it would have to be him based off the fruits he has planted (considering the fruits of other rulers in our era). So no Im not hurt at all. Rather Im speaking literally about ouir millah, or way. I dont care if it was some bugali bin bogaly who did what fahd did. It doesnt matter.

u said
[/quote]the reason why the house of saud gets a lot of harsh critiscm is that they are no longer the "Jihadis/takfiris" when they first began ie correcting the uthmani rulers by force when necassary. now the exact same thing is bieng done to the house of saud THEY ARE BIENG CORRECTED BY FORCE OF ARMS BY THEIR OWN MUSLIMS - alqaida!

Historical misunderstanding my brother. I've said it before and will say it again that It was not the saud family that actually rebelled against the uthmanis it was the turkish governor of hijaz himself. Another person who went along with this was Muhammad Ali the Pasha of Misr. This is known not onlythe muslim historians but the kuffar as well.

u said
in our history, every group loses steam eventually and slides in to some sort of deviance it happened to the uthmanis who began as champions of tawhid and jihad but then fell into sufism and major biddah even shirk.

like wise

the house of saud under the direction of muhammad ibn abdul wahhab were the champions of tawhid and jihad but as soon as allah removed him the house of saud were quick to deviate and later on making alliances with the british and fighting the uthmanis for not for the sake of allah but for nationalist kufr reasons.
[/quote]

I know this haq. Even if al-qaida gain control of whatever land and implement whatever distorted sufi aqeedah like the talibaan did then obediance still has to be met to them and If I was in their land that they had control over then I would be the first to give baya provioded they can fullfill their end of it as well as is the sunnah. If you understand where im coming from then you know that I dont care what happens except that it should be halaal. Example. The abbassi slaughtering the umawi khilafa. That was totally haram as the daylight sun. but once in power then they must be obeyed. SO Im not goingto be a supporter of haraam rather a supporter of sunnah and sabr as our predecessors did. So let qaida do what they wish. Until they get there Im not going to gain the wrath of Allah in being in the state of what Allah said "And whosoever takes a way other then the Messenger AND the beleivers, then We will leave him on that way and land him to the fire."

there is a double effect going on with this situation whether you see it or not.
1. My wala and bara is that I hopethe muslims win over the kuffar anyday any how be he ikhwaani, qaidi, takfeeri.
at the same time
2. those going around doing things that opposed what the salaf were upon (example qaidah) is not really helping the ummah but instead plaguing the ummah as all other groups who opposed the fahm of the salaf did.

So Im caught in the middle of well I hope they win cuz their muslim and yet haram and bida practices to attain the goal which im not down with.

asalamu alaikum

[Mansoor Ali]

Ali, you said No im not a fahdi but If there is any muslim ruler on this planet that I wouls have to support islamically then it would have to be him based off the fruits he has planted (considering the fruits of other rulers in our era).

When the Saud ruling family spent billions of dollars on arms deals at multiple times the fair share; when I see how the Saudis open their land to the American military and pay for the construction of bases, the American government is the master of the Saud ruling family.
The royal family involved America to protect them until protecting them became part of the Saudi national security.

From 1998 :

UNITED STATES - SAUDI ARABIA JOINT STATEMENT

His Royal Highness Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, the Second Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Defense and Aviation, and Inspector General, and his delegation was received at the Pentagon today by Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen for in- depth discussions of bilateral security relations and other matters.

The two ministers discussed in detail the arrangements that have been made in recent months to improve the security and safety of American military personnel, and Secretary Cohen praised the support and cooperation given in this regard by Saudi Arabia.

OIL

Through oil, they have built an empire worth $100 billion traceable to Swiss bank accounts and investments such as the famed BCCI, OK Petroleum in Sweden, and WorldSpace, Inc. in Washington D.C. (Al-Mahfouz Family, the accountants and financiers of Fahad were indicted in the BCCI scandal). With oil money they have indirectly allowed commissions and sale of lands to supplement and pilfer further the Government coffers.

Early on, King Fahad devised a diabolic scheme that would pilfer the country's resources in an organized way. The scheme is based on dividing the spoils into two distinct areas : Industry and Geography. Certain Princes controlled certain industries and certain Princes controlled certain geography.
At the end of all this planning, this is what we know today of the al-Saud operations

[gag order]

the difference between saudisalafi and salafi is like the difference between night and day!

saudisalafies are the deviants who support king fahd. they pass themselves off as the saved sect.

salafies are those who reject the king. they are often labelled as sufis as soon as their opposition to the king is known.

when i say saudisalafies i mean fahdis no one else but fahdis.

secondly the only group who are doing all the fighting and dying are the jihadis. allah will give them the victory.

the saudisalafies can continue following their deviant minhaj that says that there is no khilafah and there is no jihad and that its biddah to say allah is a law giver and continue slandering the jihadis and show empathy and sympathy for US/isreali aspirations but in the end the saudisalafies will suffer the same fate as the shia wahdat and kerbala shias.

finally, i compared the saudisalafies to the hypocrites of medina then that comparison is a true and accurate comparison however hateful this may seem to the saudisalafis and their new freinds the rich gulf state shias!

[ali]

the saudisalafies can continue following their deviant minhaj that says that there is no khilafah and there is no jihad and that its biddah to say allah is a law giver and continue slandering the jihadis and show empathy and sympathy for US/isreali aspirations but in the end the saudisalafies will suffer the same fate as the shia wahdat and kerbala shias.

finally, i compared the saudisalafies to the hypocrites of medina then that comparison is a true and accurate comparison however hateful this may seem to the saudisalafis and their new freinds the rich gulf state shias!

I dont know no salafi that says that its a bida to say that Allah is the lawgiver.

Well I Im legislatively right to say that the takfeeris (not jihaadis or whoever) is like Abdullah bin Saba for working against Islam and wishes for the disunity and discord amongst muslims and for Islam to fail. Is this or would this be correct

asalamu alaikum

[gag order]

but the jihadis are the ones who make takfir surely your not saying that the mujahideen are the ones who are causing discord and disunity and for islam to fail?

and as for heretic saba neither one of us cares bout him but when the saudi govenment invited shia rafsanjani the heretic of iran to come and pray in masjid al nabuwwat, so much for saudi bieng so islamic where sharia rules.

the rules of takfir should have been applied on rafsanjani but saudisalafis bieng so liberally looney left murjis on the issue of takfir let shias in not forgetting the 500 000 jews and christians during the first gulf war.

anyway takfeeris from what i can gather would even make takfir if you burp without covering your mouth. Know anyone who makes takfir for burping? off course not the real takfeeris ended a long time ago.

nowadays people make takfir for real reasons like the invalidators of iman which are known. also the group that makes the most takfir today are the salafies but no one ever calls them "takfeeri".

[ali]

u said
anyway takfeeris from what i can gather would even make takfir if you burp without covering your mouth. Know anyone who makes takfir for burping? off course not the real takfeeris ended a long time ago.

nowadays people make takfir for real reasons like the invalidators of iman which are known. also the group that makes the most takfir today are the salafies but no one ever calls them "takfeeri".

These statements only demonstrate sheer dhalaah.

you claim the age of takfeer is over and that people who do takfeer are doing it for real reasons wa iyaadhubillah from this misguidance. If you are to follow your principle of takfeer of invalidators of emaan then excomunicate Shaykhul-Islam Ibn tamiyyah. The Imaam beleived that the Hell fire ends. And what a great falsehood this is and the aimah are agreed that anyone who says such a thing is a kaafir. So go ahead and pronounce takfeer if you dare.
And then you argue with me for lack of takfeer and not understanding the issues of emaan and kufrand yet make a statement that the salafees (like myself) make the most takfeer (yet Im warning you away from illegitmate takfeer).

Brother gag I suggest you learn and study from the works of Shaykhul-Islam and the aimah on kufr and emaan and read and understand it in its correct intent and do not twist the words and meaning to suit your desire like the takfeeris do and as Abu Zubair exposed to us that you did on the other forum.

asalamu alaikum

[Perestroika]

u said
then excomunicate Shaykhul-Islam Ibn tamiyyah. The Imaam beleived that the Hell fire ends. And what a great falsehood this is and the aimah are agreed that anyone who says such a thing is a kaafir.


Akhi, I think u should read this article on this same site:

http://www.as-sahwah.com/viewarticle.php?articleID=743&pageID=370&

[gag order]

abuz zubair did not expose anything and neither have you! all he did was make it look as though he was anti-jihadi and your swinging the same way

my suggestion to you is to decide wether you are salafi or saudisalafi get hold of shaeikh faisals casette "the devils deception of the salafi"

i end with a test for you make takfir on FAHD! he wore the CROSS

"whoever legitimizes to follow a religion other than the religion of islam or a sharia other than the sharia of muhammad, then he is a kafir. his kufr is similar to that of the one who believs in some part of the quran and rejects another part" (majmoo fatawa 28/524).

[ali]

as for my statement about Ibn Taymiyyah then May ALlah forgive me in saying it and spreading it ameen.

so to gag

Im not going to say he is a kaafir until he is. if he did where the cross then that does not fit what Shaykhul-Islam said from what you quoted. him wearing that cross (if he did) does not by default signify in beleiving in other than Islam.