Prominent Shiekh says: Creation of Saudi Arabia a betrayal to Islam

[BenInHer]

libya, tusnia, egypt, palestine, somalia, yemen, iraq and syria..

all are in ruins because of the gulf nations( Uae and Saudis). these arabs are not to be followed when it comes too islam, soo my dad says..

 

[AishaBarri]

He is wrong.

You’re vocabulary seems very limited

 

[Dhaforqiiq]

You’re vocabulary seems very limited

Your knowledge is very limited

 

[AishaBarri]

Your knowledge is very limited

You’re a whole week late

 

[fox]

Creation of Saudi Arabia a betrayal to Islam By Sheikh Imran Hosein
NOTHING BUT RAW HARD TRUTH.

Poor thread.

 

[Helios]

Poor thread.

How so? I didn't watch the video tbh but the Saudis were part and parcel in overthrowing the Caliphate

 

[Lum]

How so? I didn't watch the video tbh but the Saudis were part and parcel in overthrowing the Caliphate

How? As If Imran Khan is knowlegdeable.

 

[Helios]

How? As If Imran Khan is knowlegdeable.

It isn't Imran Khan making things up. Saudis allying with the British and launching revolts against the Ottomans is treacherous to the Caliph

 

[fox]

How so? I didn't watch the video tbh but the Saudis were part and parcel in overthrowing the Caliphate

Ah it's really long. I wrote up an essay on the Anglo-French rivalry post WW1 and the Anglo-American rivalry post WW2 in the Middle East a year ago. I'll keep it short:

> The Hashemites of Hijaz wanted British support support against the Ottomans.
> British governor of Egypt told em jog on. Good relations with the Turks was necessary; the Bosphorus strait that passes through Istanbul was the achilles heel of the Russian empire.
> Turks back the Germans in WW1.
> In response the Brits back several Ayrab factions; notably the Hashemites and the Saud.
> Saud attacks the British protectorate of Kuwait (a bit hazy on this)
> Brits are cornered and have no choice but to recognise Al Saud's sovereignty over the Najd
> Anyways the two factions in the peninsula - Hashemites and the Saud, end up clashing
> Saud comes on top and annexes the Hijaz
> Then the Brits airlifted the Hashemite King of Hijaz to Cyprus.
> The end.

The Al Saud fella was a sneaky semite; the Brits favoured the Hashemite but with tact and brute force the Saud came on top.

Edit:
This is just a summary. Probably missed a few points and have made a few mistakes.

 

[fox]

In short, it's a lot more complicated than "the Al Saud were in cahoots with the British and they brought down the Ottoman empire".

 

[fox]

In short, it's a lot more complicated than "the Al Saud were in cahoots with the British and they brought down the Ottoman empire".

This is a btec sufi/paki take .

 

[Omar del Sur]

Imran Hosein???

I'm not into insulting people but Imran Hosein isn't credible.

The man is some kind of Sufi.

It's funny how so much of the anti-Saudi stuff is driven by a coalition of Sufis, Shia, feminists and liberals- not a boat that any reasonable person should want to be on

Saudi isn't perfect but neither is any other country that exists. The agenda of the anti-Saudi campaign is to pressure Saudi into becoming super liberal. I suppose it's the boat to hop on if you aspire to having a daughter who dies her hair blue.

 

[Helios]

Ah it's really long. I wrote up an essay on the Anglo-French rivalry post WW1 and the Anglo-American rivalry post WW2 a year ago. I'll keep it short:

> The Hashemites of Hijaz wanted British support support against the Ottomans.
> British governor of Egypt told em jog on. Good relations with the Turks was necessary; the Bosphorus strait that passes through Istanbul was the Russian empire's Achilles heel.
> Turks back the Germans in WW1.
> In response the Brits back several Ayrab factions; notably the Hashemites and the Saud.
> Saud attacks the British protectorate of Kuwait (a bit hazy on this)
> Brits are cornered and have no choice but to recognise Al Saud's sovereignty over the Najd
> Anyways the two factions in the peninsula - Hashemites and the Saud, end up clashing
> Saud comes on top and annexes the Hijaz
> Then the Brits airlifted the Hashemite King of Hijaz to Cyprus.
> The end.

The Al Saud fella was a sneaky semite; the Brits favoured the Hashemite but with tact and brute force the Saud came on top.

The Ottomans had to deal with the Saudis rebelling for decades before they finally got their British support and statehood. They viewed the Caliph as illegitimate so they found it justifiable. The first fight was the Wahhabi war in like the 1810s. They even captured Mecca and Medina before they eventually lost

 

[fox]

The Ottomans had to deal with the Saudis rebelling for decades before they finally got their British support and statehood. They viewed the Caliph as illegitimate so they found it justifiable. The first fight was the Wahhabi war in like the 1810s. They even captured Mecca and Medina before they eventually lost

Yeah they rebelled against the Ottomans in the late 1700s/early 1800s. But let's be honest that's got nothing to do with the Brits.

 

[Helios]

Yeah they rebelled against the Ottomans in the late 1700s/early 1800s. But let's be honest that's got nothing to do with the Brits.

I mean the Saudis are usurpers if anything. Some people booty clap for them as legitimate rulers of Arabia but they aren't

 

[fox]

I mean the Saudis are usurpers if anything. Some people booty clap for them as legitimate rulers of Arabia but they aren't

Legitimacy is a grey area imo. It's subjective.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Imran Hosein has an anti-Saudi thing because they're an obstacle to him being able to promote Sufism

I have a book of his and his message if you read the whole thing is that basically Salafism is a giant conspiracy to prevent Muslims from "evolving" and becoming Sufis

he openly says that all Muslims should become Sufis and that if they attain a higher spiritual level they'll all become Sufis

if that's your point of view, it's not exactly surprising you'd despise Saudi.....

this is all in either his book on Surah Al Kahf
or his one on his weird theories of Gog and Magog
I have both

 

[Helios]

Legitimacy is a grey area imo. It's subjective.

I would rather see Banu Hashim rule Arabia than some dusty Najdis. This Saudi family was instrumental in the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate but not necessarily key in the defeat of the Empire. Separate Mecca and Medina from a Caliph and their legitimacy will plummet

 

[Omar del Sur]

I would rather see Banu Hashim rule Arabia than some dusty Najdis. This Saudi family was instrumental in the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate but not necessarily key in the defeat of the Empire. Separate Mecca and Medina from a Caliph and their legitimacy will plummet

I think you would rather see Aisha-slandering Shia rule

 

[fox]

I would rather see Banu Hashim rule Arabia than some dusty Najdis. This Saudi family was instrumental in the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate but not necessarily key in the defeat of the Empire. Separate Mecca and Medina from a Caliph and their legitimacy will plummet

The Ottoman empire wasn't really a thing in the 19th century tbh. Brits only kept around because of the Bosphorus; their demise was inevitable.