Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

If you had to pick..

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Tough question, but If you had to pick between the fall of the house of Saud or the fall of Zionism, what would you pick? I think I would pick the house of Saud, even though I think Wahhabism and Zionism are two sides of the same coin. The Zionists are open enemies of Islam, the Wahhabis are hypocrites claiming to be Muslim while they destroy the image of Islam, this in my opinion is worse. Plus, the Saudi funded terrorism is responsible for many more Shia deaths than Zionism is. Also, the destruction of Syria and by extension, Iran and Hezbollah could not have been attempted if we didn't have the Saudi Wahhabi establishment brainwashing "muslims" to think that killing Shias and Christians is something that Islam encourages. Its true that the Israelis will try and destroy any attempts of resisting their power but without a tool to do it i.e. the Saudis, this would be quite difficult. What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Tough question, but If you had to pick between the fall of the house of Saud or the fall of Zionism, what would you pick? I think I would pick the house of Saud, even though I think Wahhabism and Zionism are two sides of the same coin. The Zionists are open enemies of Islam, the Wahhabis are hypocrites claiming to be Muslim while they destroy the image of Islam, this in my opinion is worse. Plus, the Saudi funded terrorism is responsible for many more Shia deaths than Zionism is. Also, the destruction of Syria and by extension, Iran and Hezbollah could not have been attempted if we didn't have the Saudi Wahhabi establishment brainwashing "muslims" to think that killing Shias and Christians is something that Islam encourages. Its true that the Israelis will try and destroy any attempts of resisting their power but without a tool to do it i.e. the Saudis, this would be quite difficult. What do you think?

Thrash thy Zionists. They deliberately poison the Earth and kill off the oppression. They are Companions Of The Shaytan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I will Pick fall of house of SAUD.

1.It is easy to fight against open enemy (Zionist) than MUNAFIQ. (house of Saud)

2. Zionist will not have such dumb to brain wash.

3. World will get to know true Islam when we will not have such manipulators. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The House of Saud and the Israelis (Zionists) basically work in tandem to destabilize the world, with the ultimate objective of maintaining power within their own nations and abroad.

The Saudis fund and promote Wahhabist/Salafist extremism and terrorism throughout the world, and every time there is an attack, the Zionists jump on it an claim they need more financial and military support in order to protect "democracy" in the Middle-East. Meanwhile, Israel covertly funds and arms groups like Nusra and ISIS in an effort to counter Syria and Iran. Violence and atrocities then act as a justification for blanket support of the Israel by the US and other nations.

All this chaos simply pulls everyone's eyes away from the oppression of the Arabs by their own governments and the illegal actions of Israel. 

So I would say get rid of the House of Saud first and the Zionists second.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
10 minutes ago, realizm said:

:salam:

It is like asking do you cut the head off the snake or its tail. 

A world of a difference between the two. In a battle you always cut off the head of the snake first which is why I would prefer Zionists to go down first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
  • Forum Administrators
On 7/8/2017 at 7:32 PM, hasanhh said:

Sura 7 Ayat 34

Brother, good answer! I like the way you force people to open the Holy Qur'an and read it. If we don't do that, we won't know what your reply is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
  • 5 weeks later...
On 7/9/2017 at 2:23 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

Tough question, but If you had to pick between the fall of the house of Saud or the fall of Zionism, what would you pick? I think I would pick the house of Saud, even though I think Wahhabism and Zionism are two sides of the same coin. The Zionists are open enemies of Islam, the Wahhabis are hypocrites claiming to be Muslim while they destroy the image of Islam, this in my opinion is worse. Plus, the Saudi funded terrorism is responsible for many more Shia deaths than Zionism is. Also, the destruction of Syria and by extension, Iran and Hezbollah could not have been attempted if we didn't have the Saudi Wahhabi establishment brainwashing "muslims" to think that killing Shias and Christians is something that Islam encourages. Its true that the Israelis will try and destroy any attempts of resisting their power but without a tool to do it i.e. the Saudis, this would be quite difficult. What do you think?

I think that world is all about politics. Even among Ummayads who were bitter enemies of Ahlebait (عليه السلام), there were born good people like Hazrat Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz (عليه السلام). I think that Saudis should reorient their foreign and domestic policies for their own survival. Aal-e-Saud is one tribe, if it thinks, it can fight several other tribes in Middle East for which they have been struggling since the beginning of 19th Century, they will eventually fall and will be lead to face same difficulties with which they struck their opponents because one day like Saddam, the family of Aal-e-Saud will be of no value to them. Then they will like them to be destroyed by another group and who knows such plans are being thought in the US. 

The coming Saudis should deprecate past policies and atrocities of their predecessors and make a strong political strategy, include all tribes in political system. Give all of its rivals their rights and establish sound political and administrative structure. Change your rivals to your friends, make your army and raise the shrines of Holy Personalities. Only then it might happen that Muslim world will respect them and feel an obligation to support them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Strange Samurai said:

Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz

The view on him is not so black and white. I used to have the same view on him. Later, I found out that it is said that although he is praised on earth, he is cursed in the heavens. No doubt he rendered great service to the Ahul Bayt by stopping the cursing on Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)), but still, he occupied a position that was reserved for Ahlul Bayt.

That's not to say that there existed good people among Banu Ummaya, such as maybe Yazid's wife, or his son Mu'awiya who was allegedly put to death for voicing his support for Ahlul Bayt. Or maybe the Ummayad man who went to Imam Baqar ((عليه السلام)), in great anguish and pain when he heard of Ziarat e Ashura. This area requires greater research on part of the individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

They are twins of British Empire, created for a purpose, according to a plan. One can not be without the other. And Wahhabism and jihadists cannot be without them, their financial and political support. The amount of money Saudi sends to my district alone is astounding. They erect fortresses with very tall walls over night with that money, eat heaps of fried fish, recruit and upkeep throngs of children of the poorest people, the madrassah system. Then the armies protect and help Israel expand and cause terror to help and further their agendas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 7/9/2017 at 2:53 AM, Mohamed1993 said:

Tough question, but If you had to pick between the fall of the house of Saud or the fall of Zionism, what would you pick? I think I would pick the house of Saud, even though I think Wahhabism and Zionism are two sides of the same coin. The Zionists are open enemies of Islam, the Wahhabis are hypocrites claiming to be Muslim while they destroy the image of Islam, this in my opinion is worse. Plus, the Saudi funded terrorism is responsible for many more Shia deaths than Zionism is. Also, the destruction of Syria and by extension, Iran and Hezbollah could not have been attempted if we didn't have the Saudi Wahhabi establishment brainwashing "muslims" to think that killing Shias and Christians is something that Islam encourages. Its true that the Israelis will try and destroy any attempts of resisting their power but without a tool to do it i.e. the Saudis, this would be quite difficult. What do you think?

Tough choice but I would pick the zionists. Because they are the real root. 

Also, if we pick the house of saud, Zionists will find another friend over here. If you know, their is also a battle between these wahabi kingdoms. UAE, Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain all are competitors in the race of becoming the best puppet.

So, it would be better to remove the Zionists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

The view on him is not so black and white. I used to have the same view on him. Later, I found out that it is said that although he is praised on earth, he is cursed in the heavens. No doubt he rendered great service to the Ahul Bayt by stopping the cursing on Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)), but still, he occupied a position that was reserved for Ahlul Bayt.

That's not to say that there existed good people among Banu Ummaya, such as maybe Yazid's wife, or his son Mu'awiya who was allegedly put to death for voicing his support for Ahlul Bayt. Or maybe the Ummayad man who went to Imam Baqar ((عليه السلام)), in great anguish and pain when he heard of Ziarat e Ashura. This area requires greater research on part of the individual.

How do you know that such Hadith is authentic ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, Strange Samurai said:

How do you know that such Hadith is authentic ? 

The source for this is mentioned in the wiki shia entry on him. I've also heard this mentioned from multiple Urdu and English scholars (I'm not confusing zakirs with scholars.)

Chain of narrations aside, think about it. If he knew about the rights of Ahlul Bayt, why didn't he abdicate the throne to Imam Baqar ((عليه السلام))? Or at least offer to (I'm unaware of any traditions that say he did this). Or maybe make him the heir apparent like Mamun did with Imam Ali ibn Musa ((عليه السلام))?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

The source for this is mentioned in the wiki shia entry on him. I've also heard this mentioned from multiple Urdu and English scholars (I'm not confusing zakirs with scholars.)

Chain of narrations aside, think about it. If he knew about the rights of Ahlul Bayt, why didn't he abdicate the throne to Imam Baqar ((عليه السلام))? Or at least offer to (I'm unaware of any traditions that say he did this). Or maybe make him the heir apparent like Mamun did with Imam Ali ibn Musa ((عليه السلام))?

Would abdicating throne have convinced others that he had done good? There were still people like Yazeed there always thinking Banu Hashim as their political rivals. Let alone Ummayads, what did the Cousins of Ahlebait (عليه السلام), Banu Abbas did to Aaimah (عليه السلام). 

Scholars have differing views and this difference show that there are multiple ahadith appearing authentic but contradicting each other. It means that Allah (عزّ وجلّ) would not want people to reveal the reality of some matters which would otherwise have led to the disadvantage of religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

The source for this is mentioned in the wiki shia entry on him. I've also heard this mentioned from multiple Urdu and English scholars (I'm not confusing zakirs with scholars.)

Chain of narrations aside, think about it. If he knew about the rights of Ahlul Bayt, why didn't he abdicate the throne to Imam Baqar ((عليه السلام))? Or at least offer to (I'm unaware of any traditions that say he did this). Or maybe make him the heir apparent like Mamun did with Imam Ali ibn Musa ((عليه السلام))?

Umar ibn Abdul Aziz was the only just king from the Umayyads. It was said by Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) before Umar became the king that he will spread justice. 

He offered throne to Imam or not we don't know. But whoever offered throne to any Imam in much more favourable conditions than this one, he was sent back and his proposal was rejected. For Example, Imam As Sadiq (عليه السلام) got this offer when Umayyad reign had ended and Abbasids were still far from acwuiring the throne and stablizing it. 

Read the chapter about Umar ibn Abdul Aziz in the below book by Baqir Sharif al Qureshi:

https://www.al-islam.org/life-imam-muhammad-ibn-ali-al-baqir-baqir-shareef-al-qurashi/chapter-8-insignificant-kings

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...