Salafis on Khilafah?

**Sir Paindoo Pants** · 8th March 2009

OK, basically I'm very ignorant on the topic of Khilafah, but what I do know is that it's establishment is obligatory.

Now, the salafi response regarding is always beating about the bush more so than anything else.

Also, if we look from an historical perspective, the Wahhabi movement for all intents and purposes did form an 'alliance' with the Aal-Sa'ud. Whether it was viable or not, I'm not sure. Whether it was necessary I don't know. Whether it was the best decision, given that Aal-Sa'ud were complicit in abolishment of Khilafah (even if it was only a symbolic entity by then) is one BIG ?. So, it seems to me that Wahhabi movement's alliance with Aal-Sa'ud was a great display of political naivete. Some may even say treachery.

So how do we explain all this, and where do Wahhabis stand on this issue, and by extension Salafis?

**aboo ayaat al hindee** · 8th March 2009

the so called 'wahhabis' were a bit over-zealous so to speak and they did indirectly aid in further weakening what was the last dominant islamic world power. by islamic i don't mean that it was a true islamic state but that it was a state that was founded upon islamic principles which had the potential to return to one.

the 'wahhabis' were deceived by al-saud who was working closely with the british govt. to establish his own kingdom. when they realized that he was a traitor it was too late. many of them even stood by his side afterwards along with their shayookh because their extremism caused them to believe that it was a lesser evil to pledge allegiance to a king who was upon the 'salafi creed' even if he was collaborating with the enemies of islam. this is why til this day many support the saudi regime's actions against saddam, the 'khawarij' al-qaeda and 'sufi' taliban.

i see many similarties between them (wahhabis) and the taliban movement. however the taliban movement is less 'extreme'. they understand that they are walking on thin ice when it comes to dealing with other muslims. instead of alienating them (accusing them of bidah and shirk and fighting against them) they would much rather win them over to their side. this is why they initially were allied with ksa, uae and pakistan and even now they are extremely lenient towards pakistan. even though these people are in a worse state (in terms of their wala at least) than the ottomans.

**Yousef al Khattab** · 8th March 2009

Jazak Allah Khair akhi Aboo Ayaat well said.

**Miqdad** · 8th March 2009

Originally Posted by aboo ayaat al hindee

the 'wahhabis' were deceived by al-saud who was working closely with the british govt. to establish his own kingdom. when they realized that he was a traitor it was too late. many of them even stood by his side afterwards along with their shayookh because their extremism caused them to believe that it was a lesser evil to pledge allegiance to a king who was upon the 'salafi creed' even if he was collaborating with the enemies of islam. this is why til this day many support the saudi regime's actions against saddam, the 'khawarij' al-qaeda and 'sufi' taliban.

i see many similarties between them (wahhabis) and the taliban movement. however the taliban movement is less 'extreme'. they understand that they are walking on thin ice when it comes to dealing with other muslims. instead of alienating them (accusing them of bidah and shirk and fighting against them) they would much rather win them over to their side. this is why they initially were allied with ksa, uae and pakistan and even now they are extremely lenient towards pakistan. even though these people are in a worse state (in terms of their wala at least) than the ottomans.

I disagree with you on this part. Taliban are nothing like the Saudi 'wahabis'. The Saudi scholars were dogs of the British before and now they are the dogs of the Americans. And in the future they will be dogs of some other kaafir harbi nation. The question is why? Because state run scholarship will remain leashed and cannot be freed until they separate themselves from the ruling elite and be their own individuals who fear only Allah.

The Taliban on the other hand are neither. They are knights under the Prophets banner. Their only concern is what pleases Allah.

**aboo ayaat al hindee** · 8th March 2009

i meant the initial movement of ibn abdul wahhab (the najdi dawah) those who wanted to cleanse the muslim world of innovations and western influences. some of them chose to remain loyal to the cause and they were routed and suppressed by those who chose to remain loyal to the king due to the endorsement of his ulema. i mean those that juhayman al-utaybi spoke about.

**Tisatashar** · 9th March 2009

Haruummpph !! Sandhills, both of you. Don't listen to them, listen to someone who has seen Lawrence of Arabia on the big Screen and again on DVD.

The arabs all, were fourMadhabbers and were led from Mecca by the Shareef of the Hijaz, Hussein ibn Ali. The on-screen heroes, Peter O'toole and his mate Omar Shareef, and not without the help of Quinn the Eskimo, and a huge cast of extras defeated the Islamic Caliphate in Sham.

But like all blockbusters, there was a 'twist' in the fairytale ending. Peter O'toole's mob shafted Omar Shareef & Quinn the Eskimo. The fourmadhabbers had hoped to set up an arabic caliphate by swallowing some magic potion called 'kafir awliya' but it wasn't to be.

In the sequel to Lawrence of Arabia that never went to the cinemas, The Shareef of Mecca, Hussein ibn Ali, picked up the caliphate in a fire sale after Kamel de'Jerk did a big house cleaning binge in Turkey. At this point the british cut a deal with some goat herders in Najd that if they promised to bury the caliphate and deny the ummah another caliph, then they could extend their goat grazing lands to the Hijaz.......

....alas, the sequel never made it to the screen.

**Nooruddeen** · 9th March 2009

Originally Posted by aboo ayaat al hindee

the so called 'wahhabis' were a bit over-zealous so to speak and they did indirectly aid in further weakening what was the last dominant islamic world power. by islamic i don't mean that it was a true islamic state but that it was a state that was founded upon islamic principles which had the potential to return to one.

the 'wahhabis' were deceived by al-saud who was working closely with the british govt. to establish his own kingdom. when they realized that he was a traitor it was too late. many of them even stood by his side afterwards along with their shayookh because their extremism caused them to believe that it was a lesser evil to pledge allegiance to a king who was upon the 'salafi creed' even if he was collaborating with the enemies of islam. this is why til this day many support the saudi regime's actions against saddam, the 'khawarij' al-qaeda and 'sufi' taliban.

i see many similarties between them (wahhabis) and the taliban movement. however the taliban movement is less 'extreme'. they understand that they are walking on thin ice when it comes to dealing with other muslims. instead of alienating them (accusing them of bidah and shirk and fighting against them) they would much rather win them over to their side. this is why they initially were allied with ksa, uae and pakistan and even now they are extremely lenient towards pakistan. even though these people are in a worse state (in terms of their wala at least) than the ottomans.

Masha Allah...may Allah reward you for speaking Haqq

**Tisatashar** · 9th March 2009

Hollywood seems to have hijacked our history. The constant attacks against salafis for being the Caliphate-killers lies squarely at the feet of.... Egypt. And in particular there second most famous export after the pyramids, Omar Shareef.

in "Lawrence of Arabia" Omar Shareef played the 'fourMadhabbee' hero who along with Don Quixote and Quinn the Eskimo. After the euphoria of the movie passed and fingers started to point at who was responsible for bringing down the caliphate, Omar Shareef was looking very much like "the one who dun'it".

But the fourmadhabbers got a reprieve when Omar Shareef was exposed as a KGB spy masquerading a doctor.

That left Obewan Kanobe as the 'one most likely. And history has a strange way of changing peoples fates. Obewan, who played Prince Faisal ibn Hussein ibn Ali in the movie bore an uncanny resemblance to the bloke below who also had the same name, Faisal. So as fate would have it the blame shifted to Faisal ibn Saud. Let's face it it could be him...