Revolting against the Muslim ruler | Sheikh Uthman Al Khamees

[Deleted L]

May Allah bless the sheikh for speaking the truth. Rebelling against the Muslim rulers has done us far more harm then good. May Allah guide the Muslims to the Quran and Sunnah and keep us far away from misguidance.

 

[Sheikh Kulkuli]

Funny thing is alsauds got to power by revolting against their rulers.
Alsaud wa beduin cheiftana that sweeped across arabia with the help of the british empire.

 

[reer]

Funny thing is alsauds got to power by revolting against their rulers.
Alsaud wa beduin cheiftana that sweeped across arabia with the help of the british empire.

abdulaziz bin saud fought sherif hussein and invaded hijaz.

 

[Deleted L]

Funny thing is alsauds got to power by revolting against their rulers.
Alsaud wa beduin cheiftana that sweeped across arabia with the help of the british empire.

If the Muslim ruler takes over power by force, it’s an obligation to obey him as long as he allows you to practice Islam and doesn’t force you to sin. Even if he’s sinful and oppressive, you still have to obey him and be patient with him.

 

[Deleted L]

abdulaziz bin saud fought sherif hussein and invaded hijaz.

Yeah, they just filled the power vacuum but the earlier Najdis attacked the Ottomans (who were the leaders of the Islamic world at that time), declared takfir against them and raided Ottoman controlled territories until Muhammad Ali Pasha destroyed them.

 

[Maxmfhjkhd]

May Allah bless the sheikh for speaking the truth. Rebelling against the Muslim rulers has done us far more harm then good. May Allah guide the Muslims to the Quran and Sunnah and keep us far away from misguidance.

How are Ash'ari and like this man?
He described you that you are not Sunni

 

[reer]

If the Muslim ruler takes over power by force, it’s an obligation to obey him as long as he allows you to practice Islam and doesn’t force you to sin. Even if he’s sinful and oppressive, you still have to obey him and be patient with him.

you right. but modern day saudi was kinda indirect british. suspiciously also despite controlling makkah and madinah no one declares themselves emir ul muminiin. sharif hussein only did it when he realised he was used like a condom.

 

[World]

you right. but modern day saudi was kinda indirect british. suspiciously also despite controlling makkah and madinah no one declares themselves emir ul muminiin. sharif hussein only did it when he realised he was used like a condom.

The hashemites in saudi were supported by the British to revolt against the Ottomans. However when they saw that they weren’t going to lead a united arab kingdom after being used as condoms to fight the ottomans, and that the Europeans were gonna divide and take their lands, they said f*ck you to the British. So when the saudis fought the hashemites and conquered them, the british stood to the side and didn’t intervene. As much I hate them, it’s false to say that the later wahhabis were supported by the british in their take over of saudi.

 

[Sheikh Kulkuli]

The hashemites in saudi were supported by the British to revolt against the Ottomans. However when they saw that they weren’t going to lead a united arab kingdom after being used as condoms to fight the ottomans, and that the Europeans were gonna divide and take their lands, they said f*ck you to the British. So when the saudis fought the hashemites and conquered them, the british stood to the side and didn’t intervene. As much I hate them, it’s false to say that the later wahhabis were supported by the british in their take over of saudi.

The British used to pay the saudi royals stipends and they the Saudi claim its jizya collected from the British.

Saudi secretly allowed the establishment of state of israel but pretended to the muslim world they are anti Israel.

 

[World]

The British used to pay the saudi royals stipends and they the Saudi claim its jizya collected from the British.

Saudi secretly allowed the establishment of state of israel but pretended to the muslim world they are anti Israel.

True but that is after their conquest of Saudi.

 

[Sajid]

Saudis didn't revolt against neither hashimites or ottomans.

Because ottomans only ruled Kuwait levant Iraq and Hejaz and Yemen for short period of time.

The area of nejd which is the modern Riyad and the land around it was lawless and ruled by tribes.

So under Al Saud and Al Shiekh they united them then went to war with the ottomans so it isn't revolt it's a war between two independent nations

 

[Omar del Sur]

the fact that people have to go into all this kind of talk about the Saudis shows how weak the arguments against Salafiyyah are.

when Salafis refute Sufis, they use the Quran and the Sunnah. it isn't some "did you know some Sufi in history did this?".

Salafiyyah goes back to Ibn Taymiyyah and earlier. it is way older than the Saudi states or the British empire. you could prove mbs eats kittens and it would make zero difference as to whether Salafiyyah is true or not.

 

[Omar del Sur]

honestly, if the best the anti-Salafi crowd has is "did you know the Saudis did such-and-such"... if that's the best they've got, it's more evidence in favor of Salafiyyah. if that's all they've got, it means they can't refute the actual ideas.

and they are constantly using these lame arguments. i saw that dawah man thread the other day and people were acting like dawah man allegedly engaging in questionable business practices somehow disproves salafiyyah. you have to be really disingenuous or very simple-minded to think these kinds of lame arguments prove anything against Salafiyyah.

 

[Aurelian]

If the Muslim ruler takes over power by force, it’s an obligation to obey him as long as he allows you to practice Islam and doesn’t force you to sin. Even if he’s sinful and oppressive, you still have to obey him and be patient with him.

So revolting and taking power by force is ok, but revolting after that is not ok

 

[Aurelian]

honestly, if the best the anti-Salafi crowd has is "did you know the Saudis did such-and-such"... if that's the best they've got, it's more evidence in favor of Salafiyyah. if that's all they've got, it means they can't refute the actual ideas.

and they are constantly using these lame arguments. i saw that dawah man thread the other day and people were acting like dawah man allegedly engaging in questionable business practices somehow disproves salafiyyah. you have to be really disingenuous or very simple-minded to think these kinds of lame arguments prove anything against Salafiyyah.

Let the Saudis, Ali revolted, Hussein revolted, Muhammed al-nafs al-zakya revolted etc.

 

[Sheikh Kulkuli]

the fact that people have to go into all this kind of talk about the Saudis shows how weak the arguments against Salafiyyah are.

when Salafis refute Sufis, they use the Quran and the Sunnah. it isn't some "did you know some Sufi in history did this?".

Salafiyyah goes back to Ibn Taymiyyah and earlier. it is way older than the Saudi states or the British empire. you could prove mbs eats kittens and it would make zero difference as to whether Salafiyyah is true or not.

So how come the saudi dawah of " salafiya" didnt sweep through palestine?
Saudis share a border with palestine at aqaba and at that tome it was under the V
British then later under Israel.

How come saudis didnt use force and remove britosh from Egypt?

So what kind of dawah was it one sided dawah or an expansionist agenda whwre they were engulfing other tribes violentsly becauase you cat spread caqida through guns.No wonder large swaths of Eastern Saudia are still shias and some sufis.How was this dawah salafiya?

Fakenwes spread by saudis?

 

[Omar del Sur]

So how come the saudi dawah of " salafiya" didnt sweep through palestine?
Saudis share a border with palestine at aqaba and at that tome it was under the V
British then later under Israel.

How come saudis didnt use force and remove britosh from Egypt?

So what kind of dawah was it one sided dawah or an expansionist agenda whwre they were engulfing other tribes violentsly becauase you cat spread caqida through guns.No wonder large swaths of Eastern Saudia are still shias and some sufis.How was this dawah salafiya?

Fakenwes spread by saudis?

“There is no blame upon one who outwardly manifests, ascribes himself, and attributes himself to the madh-hab of the Salaf. Rather, it is obligatory to accept that from him by concensus. For the way of the madh-hab of the Salaf is nothing but the truth.” -Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah.

Okay, let's say for sake of argument that the Saudis were British agents. Was Ibn Taymiyyah a British agent too? The British Empire didn't even exist yet. For the "Salafiyyah is a British plot" theory to be true, scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah would have had to have been on it too. So this claim is a joke in light of the evidence.

 

[Sheikh Kulkuli]

“There is no blame upon one who outwardly manifests, ascribes himself, and attributes himself to the madh-hab of the Salaf. Rather, it is obligatory to accept that from him by concensus. For the way of the madh-hab of the Salaf is nothing but the truth.” -Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah.

Okay, let's say for sake of argument that the Saudis were British agents. Was Ibn Taymiyyah a British agent too? The British Empire didn't even exist yet. For the "Salafiyyah is a British plot" theory to be true, scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah would have had to have been on it too. So this claim is a joke in light of the evidence.

Ibn taymiya fought the mongols that were super power of that time.
Why didnt the Saudis fight the british?

Why was Palestine under British rule?
Why wasx oil?

Let me tell you wgo did mexicans feel when california,texas and new mexico fell under the USA?

 

[Omar del Sur]

also this argument "the Saudis did such-and-such, therefore Salafiyyah is wrong"..... it is similar to the Hindu nationalist argument "the Mughals did such and such, therefore Islam is wrong".....

did the Mughals do some criminal stuff? maybe they did, maybe they didn't. it doesn't make any difference in regards to whether Islam is true or not. same with Saudis and Salafiyyah, Ottomans and Sufism, Spanish Empire and Catholicism, Soviets and Marxism, etc.

this is a joke way to try to refute Salafiyyah. it's like if Zakir Naik went on stage and just talked about historical crimes of Christians instead of talking about what's in the Bible. Zakir could do hours and hours of lectures on historical crimes of Christians- but there's a reason he doesn't do that and focuses directly on refuting the Bible and the aqeedah of the Christians.

 

[Sheikh Kulkuli]

Ibn taymiya fought the mongols that were super power of that time.
Why didnt the Saudis fight the british?

Why was Palestine under British rule?
Why wasx oil?

Let me tell you wgo did mexicans feel when california,texas and new mexico fell under the USA?

...

Also the ottomans are known to have concquered constinapol and large parts of Eastern Europe protrcting the muslim ummah.

So what did the saudi "salafiya" gain by using guns donated by the british to pretend to be spreading dawah by the sword?

There are still clans sufis and Shias in Saudi so how was this a spread of salafiya.