Salafis on Khilafah?

Discussion in 'Global Affairs' started by Sir Paindoo Pants, Mar 8, 2009.

  1. 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?
     
  2. 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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2009
  3. Yousef al Khattab

    Yousef al Khattab <A HREF="showpost.php?p=136821"></A>

    Jazak Allah Khair akhi Aboo Ayaat well said.
     
  4. Miqdad

    Miqdad New Member


    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.
     
  5. 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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2009
  6. Tisatashar

    Tisatashar <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2009
  7. Nooruddeen

    Nooruddeen New Member

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

    Tisatashar <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>

    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.
    [​IMG]

    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...

    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2009
  9. I was looking for some serious discussion, but never mind.
     
  10. nomad

    nomad muslim female

    has anyone read lawrance of arabias book 7 something or other. I bought it but it seems really boring. IS it?
     
  11. justabro

    justabro Salafi (Retd.)

    I don't see a problem with what they did.

    They were spreading the "Wahhabi" da'wah in the Arabian Peninsula while the Ottomans were working hard to dismantle Shari'a. I mean, look at who they sent to crush the First Saudi State, Muhammad Ali Pasha, la'natullahi alayh.

    While the present Saudi state has probably outlived its usefulness, it did have a very important role to play in the current awakening the Muslim world is undergoing.
     
  12. But did they have the best approach in this regard? The symbolic importance of "Khilafah" was immense especially for Muslims in places like Sub-continent, it was pretty much the last proof of Muslim glory and 'izzah. Its dismantlement was a huge psychological blow. I'm not sure if Wahhabis even knew what was happenning outside their enclave of a desert, because their actions coupled with whatever else was happening did make them look 'treacherous' to many. Actually, many people who may not disagree with Wahhabis on issues of Tawhid and Shirk (such as Tanzim-e-Islami), tend to stick this point up.

    How do we explain it away?
     
  13. justabro

    justabro Salafi (Retd.)

    While no one should get the impression I'm happy about the dismantling of the Ottoman state, the Ottoman rulers themselves created the environment that fostered that.

    If they had not interfered with the spread of MAW's da'wah, his followers would not have interfered with their state. However, it was inevitable that they would clash. The Ottomans were not going to sit by and let Hijaz be lost, and the Wahhabis were not going to sit by and let the Mushriks continue their hold over it. Clash was inevitable.

    Whatever the case, the Ottoman Empire would have ended around the time that it did, regardless of the Najdi Da'wah. At that point in time, they did not have real control of much of their territories anyways (thanks to colonialism). To allow shirk to continue because attempts to eradicate might be seen as a challenge to a hollow symbol would not have been the right thing to do. However, it is what Salafis would probably do in that situation.

    Besides, even before the Ottoman state collapsed, "Wahhabi" was a cuss that meant a person was a hater of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. The Saudis of today would have combated this by hiring a public relations firm to show that they are just as cuddly and loveable as Sufi mushriks.
     
  14. Abu Maryam PK

    Abu Maryam PK New Member

    u came to the wrong place, bro.
     
  15. Ismail Ibrahim

    Ismail Ibrahim Formerly Harris Hammam

    The Khilaafah is a Khilaafah when it can do its job as stated in the books of Aqeedah.

    The mere name of "the Khilaafah" is not as important as the operations of the Khilaafah are.

    The Ottomans towards the were a Khilaafah by name, but on the theological level AND the political level, it was anything but.

    Aal Saud filled the vacuum in Arabia when it collapsed. This was inevitable. If not Aal Saud, it would have been the British or Portuguese.

    Now just because Aal Saud filled in this gap, anybody who opposes their theology as obviously going to use this argument of "You were implicit in the collapse of the Khilaafah". This is natural.

    The reply to this is: "A Khilaafah by mere name without being able to execute its functions is not a Khilaafah. Islam and Muslims is primarily about content, not names. Furthermore, even if Aal Saud was not around, does anybody think that the Ottomans would have been around today given the theological and political mess they got themselves in at the turn of 20th century? You are fooling yourself if you think they would have still been around today".


    And Allah al-Musta'aan at the state of affairs.
     
  16. Tisatashar

    Tisatashar <A HREF="showthread.php?t=70991"></A>


    I thought my comments were totally serious.

    It's Nooradeen's mob - the asharees who hitched up with the British in World War One and drove the Ottaman Khalifa out of the Middle East - NOT THE GOAT HERDERS & CAMEL JOCKEYS of NAJD.

    The leader of the asharis was the Shareef of Mecca Hussein ibn Ali. His turf was called THE HIJAZ.

    If you watched the movie you'd know this.

    His sons were Prince Faisal who ended up with Iraq &got bombed by the british as a "thanks for the Memories" contribution for defeating the Islamic Khilafa & the other son who got Jordan.

    After the Khilafa was dissolved by Attaturk primarily out of anger with the arab asharis, the British decided to show Hussein ibn Ali what great 'kafir awliya' they were and how much they were to be trusted by paying the goat herders of Najd under an "Awakening Council" deal to finish the little bloke off in the Hijaz. That was late 1924.

    That part wasn't in the movie. But people like Nooradeen like to pretend that Omar Shareef, Anthony Quinn and Alec Guiness were Wahabbis. They weren't. They were from Nooradeen's lot!!
     
  17. suhail

    suhail New Member

    Yes the idiots will always screw the thread. Anyways these people like Noorudeen and Aboo Ayat need lesson in history or they forgot there history lessons.

    Who was involved in destroying the Ottoman Empire? This is the basic premise of the discussion. If you read about this then you will see the tensions already existing between young turks and arabs. Turks thinking themselves as more advanced and superior than arabs who were mostly nomads at this time. Arabs were feeling more disenchanted and removed from Ottoman empire dealings. It didn't have anything to do with Ibn Abdul Wahab at this time. He was not even a significant person if you see what was going on in the whole world.

    Muhammad Ali Pasha crushed the first Aal-Saud and that too quite brutally. He was congrutalated by the british for doing just that. So how a crushed nation will destroy the Ottoman Empire. Can these guys answer that?

    Secondly if they really have any idea about history then they will know that at the time the Ottoman Empire collapsed Sharif Hussein of Mecca was the ruler there not Aal Saud or anybody related to Ibn Abdul Wahab. Sharif Hussein is the same guy whose kids are still ruling us in Jordan and Iraq before Saddam. He was the one who made a treaty with british to betray Ottomans not Ibn Abdul Wahab. He was nowhere on the scene even remotely.

    Also the second Saudi State came into existence much much later after the collapse of Ottomans. It has nothing to do with Ibn Abdul Wahab because he was already dead in 1700. Also at this time there was a lot of chaos all over Middle east and there was no khilafah that existed.

    The Saudi state today is totally impotent and kuffar lackey but so is egypt, jordan, Oman, Qatar, Turkey and any other middle eastern country. What has Ibn Abdul Wahab has to do with these states. The answer is nothing at all. These people are clutching at straws and idiotic rants nothing else.
     
  18. ilyas

    ilyas New Member

    I want to know from clear text of quran and sunnah the "establishing Khilfah" is obligatory?

    We all agree that Muslim should live Under the Shariah Laws, the adhereing is a Must, whether you are a salafi or not, whether you have the khilafah or not!

    I do not want a Ijtihad agreement, or qiyaas or i think, we think....... just facts.

    Jazak Allah khairan.
     
  19. Expergefactionist

    Expergefactionist hmmm... Staff Member

    ثم إن نصب اللإمام واجب قد عرف وجوبه في الشرع بإجماع الصحابة و التابعين — و استقر ذالك إجماعا دالا علي وجوب نصب الإمام

    -- Ibn Khaldun
     
  20. AbdulMatin

    AbdulMatin New Member

    Without too much history - going past the days of Abdul Wahhab to the time of ibn Saud and world war 1 - both Sherif Hussain and ibn Saud were collaborating with the British against the Uthmani Khilafa. This is documented in official correspondance and is pretty much a given. Whatever ta'weel is given for this is another issue.

    About the proofs for the obligation of the Khilafa - there are several, and as the quote mentioned there is an ijmaa' upon those evidences that they indicate its obligation
     

Share This Page