₦airaland Forum

To own the country, its wealth, and its people as well, they are not accountable before any one about how they spend the income of the country. After the Saudi army was unable to defend the Saudi border during the crises of Gulf War, some scholars asked about all these hundreds billions of dollars alleged spent to build a strong modern army. This was equal to crime of treason because the Saudi King is not responsible before any human being, although he has the unlimited authority to do whatever he wants.

The reports of the CDLR analyzed the mentality of the Saudi family in one key word; “the slavery”, arguing that they believe that all the people inside the kingdom are owned by the Saudi family as any assets and the assets has no right to protest.

It is so clear that the Wahabi faith gives the Saudi family the religious justification to monopolize the wealth and the political power for themselves exclusively, as it used to be in the Middle aged Muslim Empire when the [Khalifah] used to own the people and the land as well. This is their mentality and their understanding of Islam.

It explains why they give the kingdom their Saudi family name. It reflects the Middle Ages culture in naming the state by the name of its dynasty like the Abbasy, the Fatemy, the Omawy, and the Ottoman Empires. Every one in this modern world has the citizenship of his country to prove the equality, as no difference between the regular poor person and the president of this country. In the Saudi official document they have another term for the other people who are not from the Saudi family members. It is [Al Tabe’eyah] means they belong to the Saudi family, while the Saudi family members are only those who are citizens in their owned country and kingdom.

1- The Saudi Crown family is against democracy and reform

The Saudi family has two great sins, its dictatorship, and its Wahabi bloody culture. This family represents in our modern time the worst of the Middle Ages culture in the political and religious life. The worst sin is to attribute all these vices to the religion of Islam, while Islam is the religion of peace, tolerance, freedom of belief and speech, justice and human rights.

For 25 years I have cleared this fact but the Saudi State by its influence inside Egypt has persecuted me during these 25 years, proving one fact: they insist to keep their Wahabi faith without any reform, even if this reform comes from inside the core of Islam.

The Saudi Family will deceive the international society and the U.S by some actions and decisions that will enable them to enforce their political tyranny and oppression under the title of eliminating the radical terrorists without harming the Wahabi faith itself. Also they will delay and postpone the real reform in educational and cultural and political fields.

This needs some explanation:

IS IT POSSIBLE TO REFORM THE SAUDI STATE?

The Saudi State must be reformed. But they(Saudi Family) refuse the reform to keep their dictatorship. The Saudi crown family has to choose either the Wahabi faith or reforming it from inside the religion of Islam, meaning the real Islamic values of peace, tolerance, justice, total freedom of speech and belief, and human rights and democracy.

Because of democracy, the Saudi regime will choose the Wahabi faith because it gives them the dictatorship they want and the Wahabi religious legislation to monopolize the power and the wealth.

Last week, Ajibam had a topic on Religion section; You Can't Reform Islam Without Reforming Muslims.

In a poor demonstration of professionalism, the moderators shoved the topic to this section. Though highly disappointed, i took time to prepare my response and posted it. But within 24 hours, some persons had come villifying me with very rude remarks that aren't even worth responding to. With that thread virtually frozen, i 've come with an alternative.

Below is an article; IS IT POSSIBLE TO REFORM THE SAUDI STATE?, written by Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansur who is a Ph.D holder from Al-Azhar University of Egypt and majored in Islamic History.

Peace!

Did it ever occur to you that the problem could be from this section itself?
Do you know what the mods did to logicboy01 e.t.c?
Do you have any idea what they did to me and my topics?
Seun is clearly fed up with this section, especially the moderating. Things here aren't as you have assumed. Know the truth, balash.

Be consumed by the flames of truth.

Peace!

Cramjones: Thirdly, on the issue of religion, we must entartain facts and not political correctness. I had earlier posted a topic stating that ISIS and Boko Haram were simply obeying the Quran. I came up with facts from the Holy Quran to corroborate my assertion. It was very clear that the Quran had commanded muslims to behead those who do not practice Islam, the so called infidels. This is by no means an insult to peace loving muslims, it was only stating the fact that ISIS and Boko Haram were only following the teachings of the Quran. Again, I maintain, Islam is a violent religion, but majority of muslims are not violent but peaceful. This is fact and the Quran proves it.

I agree with you that we need to entertain facts and not political correctness but understand that you musn't be too direct. Some people are emo- sensitive when it comes to religious criticism.

Considering the status quo, i believe you have a point. But to be ideal, you are getting it wrong. Here is an article to clarify the whole matter;
http://flamesoftruth./2014/10/07/they-ask-you-about-jihad/

Read, learn and build upon it. No prejudice, no sentiment, no window dressing, no political correctness, no secret, no lie. Just plain fact.

Be consumed by the flames of truth.

Peace.

Maclatunji, did you hide my thread or it was antispambot.

Wristler: 2) If she has psychologically dealt with it

This is important. Some victims never deal with it completely. They just don't see themselves worthy or trust any man after the trauma to go into commitment. So while there is nothing wrong in it, the deciding factor should be the girl.

ayinba1: If you are any objective and without ulterior motive, pray tell what the relationship is between Boko Haram, Ihejirika and MEND?

If you have a point, state it instead of beating about the bush. I don't know, so you tell me the relationship among the three.

And where is your objectivity (or honesty) when the video above gets no response from you? It appears that you just hate Islam.

The whole events are too convoluted to just point fingers based on mini video clips that don't add up, and interpreted out of context.

ISIS are muslims, majority immigrating from their places to ISIS are muslims.
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/schoolgirl-jihadis-female-islamists-leaving-home-join-isis-iraq-syria
Am neither condemning all muslims nor absolving the West.

Stop wallowing in victimhood and man up. The likes of Ayman al Zawahiri and Al Baghdadi are the flag bears of ISIS, they are muslims, scholars and have no relation with the west. They draw inspiration from your religious texts and ideologies. The root of the whole menace stem from the muslim community. The West are only exploiting it to meet their political goals as seen in those clips.

I wouldn't bother myself debating this only to have sensitive persons conive behind my back & hack my posts.

For those who want the truth on the muslim/east machinations for this turmoil, i recommend these books;

Black flags from Arabia PDF
Black flags from the East PDF
Black flags from Syria PDF
http://salaf-stories..com.es/2013/05/ebook-black-flags-from-syria.html?m=1

Those were pened by a Salaf, a pro ISIS agent.


However much the West has her hand dirty, the East is just as dirty.

ayinba1: And where is your objectivity (or honesty) when the video above gets no response from you? It appears that you just hate Islam.

It(video) is not relevant to the topic. I post for you hadith motivating ISIS and you give me videos implicating Western colonialists? Am i a western agent?

^^^
Ibn Tamiyya and Ibn Abdulwahhab calls to monotheism were justified and credible. But they went too extreme and out of Islam by permitting fighting these muslims who according to them were indulging in idolatry practices. This is compulsion in religious matter, sinful and anti Islamic.

Here are some of these sheikhs' radical and violent teachings.

1. It is permissible to fight people for not observing general obligations like Salat, Pilgrimage, Zakat or Fasting.

Of course, these are obligatory rites. But only God wield the authority to penalise defaulters, not man.

2. It is permissible to fight people for not observing general prohibition such as eating unclean meat.

Again, this is baseless from Islamic perspective. The only occasion man is permitted to punish another man is if it involves crimes that hurt or harm others such as theft, adultery, murder etc.

3. It is compulsory to fight against muslim rulers who do not follow sharia law.

Isn't this what Boko haram and Isis militants are complying with?

Ibn Abdulwahhab and Ibn Tamiyya ideology weren't foreign to orthodox Islam at all. These two scholars were ardent followers of Ibn Hanbal, a revered sunni Hadith scholar. Ibn Hanbal 's madhab were compiled by his students. They rejected dialogue, rejected the authority of any other madhab, insisting interpretation of Islam is exclusively theirs and they were intolerant of critics and opposite views. These radical traits have been wrongly related to the Prophet and his companions, and can be observed in the followers of these Sheikhs till date.

Peace.

ISIS supporters share another hadith to invite muslims to their cause. You won't be surprised anymore that many are migrating from all over to join them, and that include young muslim ladies raised in the West. Those who cannot migrate sympathise and defend the militant in any possible means. Radicals may be outnumbered in the muslim community but they are far numerous and stronger than we think, and their count is rising.

Saeed (or Sayyid) bin Al- Musayyab reported: “Black Banners will come from the East from the descendants of Al-Abbas. They will remain for whatsoever Allah wishes. Then, small Black Banners from the East will come to fight a man from the descendants of Abu Sufyan. They will give their allegiance to the Mahdi.” (Nuaim bin Hammad’s book Kitab Al- Fitan)

Al Baghdadi claim descent from the Al Abbas.

Who is Sufyan? Assad. Hafez Assad.

Notice that it is said “… fighting against someone from the descend of Sufyan”, see how clear it is, right? “They come under the obedience of Hazrat Mahdi.” At the end, they abide by Hazrat Mahdi (as). At the end, they abide by Hazrat Mahdi (as). Otherwise if that power were leaderless, that would devastate the world .. but because they will come under the obedience of Hazrat Mahdi (as), the problem would be settled.

First al-Qaida’s black flags appeared, the big black banners. Now, they are smaller, again from the East. “… this time small black banners appear and fighting against someone from the descend of Sufyan”, right now this is already happening, “… they come under the obedience of Hazrat Mahdi.”

http://zenpundit.com/?p=37041&wpmp_tp=1

In a nutshell, even ISIS militants and sympathizers are motivated by eschatology.

^^^
A little more of attention and you will understand my post better. I didn't say this is a prophesy fulfilled by the abbasids. I said the descriptions fit the abbasids and is most likely an anti abbasid hadith, fabricated after the abbasid conquest by the shiites, mutazilites, ummayads and others betrayed or persecuted by the abbasids.

In fact when you first posted the hadith, 'abbasid' occured to me. But for some reasons i felt it would be wrong. In the wake of recent discoveries, i realised that i had been wrong and my first assumption seem to me more accurate.

PS: Hadith books were first compiled during the Abbasid era, so there was room for anti abbasid hadith to be fabricated and inserted into the collections.

^^^
I haven't mention British empire in this thread. Why are you misquoting me? Can't you differentiate my post from LagosShia? You are reading with a kaleidoscope.

If you were critical you would also start considering why the Wahabbists sided with the British Empire.

Also you talk as if the current Saudi wahabbists are the only guilty.

The Ottomans you are sympathising with shed blood, forcefully tore down the Abbasid caliphate to establish their empire. Are they guilty or not?

The Abbasids shed blood, forcefully tore down the Ummayad caliphate to establish their own. Are they guilty or not?

The Ummayads aggressed against the family of the Prophet, shedding blood to usurp the caliphate. Are they guilty or not?

Please contribute your quotas amicably and stop getting worked up. NL is a past time for you, remember that.

Nu’aym ibn Hammad narrates in Al-Fitan, that the 4th Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib said:

1. When you see the black flags, remain where you are and do not move your hands or your feet.

2. Thereafter there shall appear a feeble insignificant folk.

3. Their hearts will be like fragments of iron.

4. They will have the state.

5. They will fulfil neither covenant nor agreement.

6. They will call to the truth, but they will not be people of the truth.

7. Their names will be parental attributions, and their aliases will be derived from towns.

8. Their hair will be free-flowing like that of women.

9. This situation will remain until they differ among themselves. Thereafter, God will bring forth the Truth through whomever He wills.

1.
Before anyone, the abbasids were the first to use the black flag. It was introduced as a symbol for their revolt and later on became the symbol of their caliphate.

2. This applies to mawalis, Jews, Zoroastrians and mostly Persians considered weak and insignificant by the tyrannic ummayads. They make up the abbasid revolters.

3. With hardened heart, the abbasids pursued, ambushed persecuted and ruthlessly killed those who they considered rejecting their ideas. Ever heard of 'The Inquisition' in muslim history? The abbasids introduced it.

4.
Obviously, the abbasids had the state, the caliphate. Perhaps this was fabricated after the abbasids were enthroned.

5.
Though mostly Persians, the abbasids pledge allegiance with the Shiites during the revolution, on victory, they betrayed and persecuted the shiites till the end of their caliphate.

6.
The abbasids accused the ummayads of materialism and negligence of Islam. They called to Islam and promised to establish a state run by pristine Islam. But they didn't truely mean it. Many innovations like killing apostates or blasphemer and compulsion in religious matters were incorporated into Islam during their reign. Slavery, concubinage, aggressing against non muslim empires were sanctioned by the abbasids.

7. Names of some of the abbasid army officers include;
Abu Muslim Al Khorasani, Abu Awn Al Khorasani.

8.
Many of these abbasid fighter were Persians who are very hairy, keeping long hair or ponytail.

9.
Like most states, the abbasid caliphate crumbled from within, when the abbasids differed with the Turks who make up the Abbasid army.

Probably, the scholars of hadith noticed the relation of this with Abbasids. That could also account for classing black flag ahadith as fabricated or weak at best.

Thank you, i see what you guys are saying and i 'll be pleased to get a pdf soft copy with this hadith. But i have expressed the problem with the isnad and matn of this hadith. A true matn is not a full guarantee that a hadith is not fabricated.

Hadith on black flags have been used for several propagandas throughout muslim history. The talibans(90s), al qaida(80s) used this flags while invoke similar hadith. At the time, many assumed the occuring events were fulfilment of some of these hadith on black flags. How wrong of them.
Till today, the Ahmadi community used the black flag. They refer to the hadith of black flag from Khursani and the mahdi as a prophesy of Ghulam Ahmed 's Prophethood.

https://unity1./tag/abbasid/

For this particular hadith, a clear resemblance of the abbasids come to mind. It is factual that post and pre abbasid enthronement, pro and anti abbasid hadith were fabricated. This hadith is just another one of them. No wonder, early hadith scholars like Ahmad Hanbal discarded hadith of fitan like these as weak or fabricated.

LagosShia: brother, i think you are assuming things here.

Ibn Abdul Wahab did not appeal to any heart and minds of the Muslims at large. his own father and brother disowned him. his brother even authored a book to counter his ideas which were seen as innovations and extreme. Ibn Abdul-Wahab was the "scholar of the monarch". Al-Saud found in him a willing hand to issue fatwas to legitimize their rule.it was brute force through the sword that al-saud established their rule in the arabian peninsula. ever since then, the descendants of al-saud held political power, and the descendants of Ibn Abdul-Wahab held religious authority. how many people know that mufti of saudi arabia is a descendant of ibn abdul wahab?

I know he was exiled and condemned by sufis and shiites. But he appealed to some and brainwashed many especially from among Sunnis. Even today i 've met muslims who support all his teachings including the takfir ideology and killing of those venerating tombs etc.

secondly, it was the wahhabis allied with the british that brought an end to the ottoman empire and the sunni caliphate. read about Lawrence of Arabia!

I didn't say contrary.

AfricanApple: it doesn't always come down to reality uh! isn't it the physical u see before d inward? can u walk up to an obese and woo her? can u walk up yo a dwarf and woo her? common

what i mean is that, if you are already in love with her/him, you won't find yourself contemplating whether that scarred cheek is manageable or not.

@ underlined, "no". But i wont walk up to even a beautiful lady on the street to woo her. There has be be a bit of friendship before i can decide to open up or not.

Empiree, that the content of a hadith is proved true or correct doesn't make it truely the word of the Prophet. Have you got any other hadith to substantiate this hadith? What is this hadith number? It is no where to be found in Hameed 's kitab al fitan.

http://makashfa./2014/07/24/kitab-al-fitan-by-nuaim-bin-hammad-first-view/

There is no indication in the chain that it was first delivered from the Prophet. The common phrase to indicate that by the companion, "i heard from the Apostle...." is missing here. It seem the fabricator wary of the punishment for attributing lies to a Prophet. Thus he attribute it to Ali, afterall most people will take it as the Prophet 's word as long as it is called 'hadith'. The fabricator is also given away by the content of the hadith. How can the Prophet prophesy on the arrival blood thirsty murderers like ISIS but yet instruct us remain where we are and not move our limbs instead of confronting and fighting them off?

The implication is clear, ISIS have been killing Iraqis/Syrians here and there, while the rest of the middle east have remained where they are, yet to move their hand or feet to defend their poor neighbours. This an hadith fabricated most likely in anticipation or emergence of ISIS. It is a subtle device to appeal to muslims while keeping oppositions off ISIS path to guarantee a calculated outcome for the enemies of humanity.

These hadith on black flags has been used to decieve muslims several times. In 1979, another hadith on black flags from Khorasan(Afghanistan) was invoked by the Jihadists during the Soviet-Afghan war. Even ISIS supporters invoke hadith on black flags.

Kitab al Fitan
And al-Hasan ibn Sufyan and Abu Nu'aym narrated from Thawban [radhiyallahu 'anhu] that he said: "The Messenger of Allah [sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam] said: "The black banners will come from the east, with hearts like iron bars. So whoever hears of them, let him go to them and give them bay'ah, even if he must crawl over ice."

NB: All hadith on black flags call for support of the holders. Only tbaba1234 's latest hadith is an exception. I smell a rat.

maclatunji: ^I might not be so nice as to edit the offensive parts out of your posts next time.

Pls highlight that offensive path of my post and let us find the truth. If you have no tenable response to a claim, it is better you step aside. Every information i posted can be backed with a proof.

Good job, tit. There is no difference between the establishment of the saudi state and ISIS. The founders of the Saudi states who are revered as noble scholars and pious muslims today are as guilty as the scholars and militants of ISIS.

Salafism or Wahabism is an off shoot of sunni sect. The ideology of this group has to be defeated from within Islam. But that is not given concern. Military action which has often been sought against ideology is often counterproductive.

When Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahhab began his call, he won the heart of many muslims. Many of them were convinced that he was preaching the true but forgotten Islam and thus they joined his cause. Unfortunately, the opposers couldn't find any response to his theological challenges and thus proving themselves weak. So even after the Salafis were militarily defeated and the first saudi state was crushed by the Ottomans, the Salafis will return larger and stronger to establish the second and later on the third/current Saudi state because their ideology was never intellectually confronted, refuted or debunked.

I

MacCantStopMe: Well said. Well said.

For the first time, I agree with you

Peace be with you.

But me, i do not agree with everything he said.

For one, it is incorrect to assume that the ulemas simply side with US to oust tyrannic regime. This is only half truth. The ulamas support US to get rid of pro-secular regimes like Asaad 's to pave way for establishing a full theocratic sharia state. Tyranny is the least concern of the Ulamas. This has a long history in the muslim world. For instance, the Ottomans fell out with the ulamas/traditionalists when they began seeking secular policies like terminating slavery, empowering women and elevating the status of dhimmis. Consequently, the Ottomans were backstabbed by their own loyalists when the latter allied with the imperial west, pulling down the Ottoman empire for good.

For two, in-fighting among Christians isn't truely responsible for growth of atheism in the west. Most of their in-fightings in the last few centuries were political and rarely was religion invoked. Thus, this differ from the situations in the middle east.

For 3, tbaba 's hadith is fabricated, weak, lacking reference and even the narrator is rejected by hadith scholars. Fabrication of hadith is still going on to this day. The whole stuff is an hoax. 'Abu bakr Al Baghdadi' is a code name. ISIS is a Salafi/Zionist plot drawn out of mainstream Islam Jihad ideology.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/11/how-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-became-the-worlds-most-powerful-jihadi-leader/