What's new

Deoband ulema term all Taliban actions un-Islamic

Deoband is only a madrasah ,they follow the Iman Abu Hanifa Fiqa , there are four recognised fiqa's Hanafi ,Safi,Hanbali,Maliki, .They recognised each other and respect each other.

Wahabi is also not any fiqa ,Wahab is the name of person who started struggle for independence of Saudi Arabia with King Abdul aziz.

Wahab and his follower dont follow any of four fiqa Imams.In Pakistan there are groups known as KAIR MUKALAD ,they also dont follow any Imam.JI and DAWAT IRSHAD also belong to this group also known as Ahle hadees.

You are right - Wahab and his followers don't follow any of the four fiqa imams. His teachings were inspired in large part by those of Ibn Tamiyya and soaked in the regressive tribal traditions of Najd.

You correctly point out that the JI belongs to Ahl-Hadees - another name for the Wahhabis. The JI has enjoyed the patronage of the saudi wahhabis for a while now. No wonder they are the leading mouthpiece for the taliban these days.

The dots are all there - we just need to connect them. :)
 
Last edited:
Deoband madrasah has great respect in all well known hanafi fiqa madrassahs of Pakistan they follow the same course developed by Deoband Ullema .
Hence we can say all mufti's following Hanafi Fiqa in Pakistan have no contradiction with Deoband Madrasah Fatwa.

I agree - they are highly respected.

The fact that the deobandi ulema have condemned the taliban while the ulema of the wahhabi/ahl hadees variety continue supporting these criminals reveals who our real enemy is.
 
Last edited:
The Kingdom in Pakistan - Saleem Ali

The assassination of Dr Sarfraz Naeemi at a prominent madrassa in Lahore marks a turning point in Pakistan’s civil strife. The Taliban profess to be “pure” Sunni Muslims, and have targeted Shia mosques and seminaries many times before. However, Maulana Naeemi is the first notable Sunni scholar to be murdered by the Taliban.

The growing rift within Sunni Islam that has spread across Pakistan and fuelled the Taliban with foot soldiers from some radical centres of learning has clear connections to Wahhabi doctrines. The culpability of Saudi Arabia, both officially and privately, in perpetuating intolerance across the Muslim world must be duly acknowledged. No longer can we afford to believe cultural excuses from the Saudis for spreading ossified worldviews in other Muslim countries as a means of shielding their own state.

Pakistanis have also been made acutely aware of the arcane interpretations of sharia law in Saudi Arabia this week with the arrests of some poor pilgrims who were duped into drug trafficking by a Karachi agent.

While returning from Hajj three years ago, I had my first encounter with the pernicious evangelism of the Saudi brand of Wahhabi Islam. Before boarding the flight from Jeddah to Islamabad, each passenger was handed a book in Urdu, free of charge, by the Saudi boarding agent in which allegations of heresy were made against any Muslims who did not adhere to the “pure” Saudi brand of Islam. If each Haji returning to Pakistan is to be gifted such vitriol against pluralism, imagine what is going on in madrassas that receive funds from Saudi sources.

Let us not forget also that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were initially the only two countries to recognise the Taliban regime in Afghanistan before 9/11 (the UAE also briefly recognised the regime).

Saudi financing of radical doctrines was acknowledged by the 9/11 Commission report, which points out that “awash in sudden oil wealth, Saudi Arabia competed with Shi’a Iran to promote its Sunni [sic!] fundamentalist version of Islam, Wahabbism.”

In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Looming Tower, veteran journalist Lawrence Wright described how the rate of Saudi investment would impact the Muslim world: “...eventually, Saudi Arabia, which constitutes only a little over 1 percent of the world Muslim population would support 90 percent of the expenses of the entire faith, overriding other traditions in Islam.”

The Saudi influence in Pakistan is palpable everywhere. They bail us out when we run out of wheat; they provide political asylum in palaces to former prime ministers; they broker peace deals and provide funds for our weapons programmes.

No doubt some aspects of Saudi assistance to Pakistan and other Muslim countries are to be appreciated. However, what they want in return is an insidious evangelism of their exclusionary version of Islam, which must be resolutely rejected. They feel vindicated in destroying several mosques in their own country (such as the destruction of the Sabah Masajid in Medina) for fear of bidda’, or innovation, and we see the same callous destruction by the Taliban now of shrines and places of worship that deviate from their definition of “pure”.

While the world worries about Iran’s return to radicalism in the aftermath of the election, let us not forget the other radical Islamist country across the Gulf. In terms of human rights and treatment of minorities and women, Saudi Arabia is far more retrogressive than Iran and has played a more consequential role in the radicalisation of strategically important countries like Pakistan.

The Saudi government and Wahhabi sympathisers have recently attempted to differentiate Wahhabi Doctrine from “Qutbist” doctrine, named after the Egyptian Muslim Brother Syed Qutb, who travelled extensively in Western countries as well. They have argued that Al Qaeda leaders follow Qutbist views rather than Wahhabi views. However, this argument is not as compelling if one reads some of the writings of Syed Qutb, in books with misleading titles such as Islam and Universal Peace (1977). Much of this book follows a supremacist ideology that can be found in the Wahhabi tradition as well.

The Saudi government would claim that it has been a victim of terrorism by Al Qaeda as well. Indeed, Osama bin Laden has repeatedly declared war on the Saudi royal family. However, the Saudi government has realised that there is tacit support for many of Al Qaeda’s ideas within the Saudi people, and so they have co-opted many of the radical clerics by allowing them to evangelise in other Muslim countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Even from a theological perspective, the Saudi view of Islam is highly hypocritical. For example, there is no concept of a monarchy in the Islamic tradition and yet Saudi Arabia is a kingdom. Strict Wahhabi doctrine also forbids photography yet the Saudi monarch insists on his portrait being displayed in every office in the country!

The Saudi establishment has thus kept an uneasy and unprincipled balance of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. Such an approach is unsustainable from the perspective of regional conflict resolution as well as for Saudi Arabia’s own viability as a state.

Maulana Naeemi had repeatedly warned against the influence of absolutist Saudi doctrines in Pakistan. He recognised that the Taliban ideology was most closely associated with the Salafi/Wahhabi brand of Islam. Many of the draconian capital punishments that the Taliban practised in the Swat valley were emulating judicially prescribed practices in Saudi Arabia. However, this source of Taliban doctrines is still not being fully recognised by Pakistanis or the West.

During my last visit to Lahore when I interviewed various progressive scholars, they also expressed the strongest concern about America’s unflinching support for Saudi Arabia’s policies, which made them more suspicious of the West’s resolve in tackling extremism. Perhaps such matters were on President Obama’s mind as he visited Saudi Arabia last month. The lack of transparency in any communications during that visit has once again left an unsettling impression.

The unholy alliance between the United States and the Saudis is going to be mutually destructive unless it is predicated on international principles and norms. As a member of the new G-20 group of world powers, the Saudis must be pressured by the other members to reform internally and stop exporting intolerance. The Great Kingdom of the Khaadim-ul Harmain risks becoming an unpleasant anachronism if it continues to resist positive change.
 
>>You are right - Wahab and his followers don't follow any of the four fiqa imams. His teachings were inspired in large part by those of Ibn Tamiyya and soaked in the regressive tribal traditions of Najd.

You correctly point out that the JI belongs to Ahl-Hadees - another name for the Wahhabis. The JI has enjoyed the patronage of the saudi wahhabis for a while now. No wonder they are the leading mouthpiece for the taliban these days.

what a load of crap, i bet you don't even know the meaning of Ahl-Hadees.
 
First of all, there was no such guy called wahab. Al Wahab is one of the 99 names of Allah.

The person you are referring to is Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, who incidently, was not a 'ghair Muqallid', but a scholar of the Hanbali Fiqh, as are the majority of scholars in Saudi Arabia.

Jamate Islami's founder Maulana Maududi was a Sunni Hanfi scholar, and many of his followers describe themselves as Deobandis also, although they are not as rigid as some. The reason why Maulana Maududi was not accepted by his Deobandi brethren, was because he had not himself graduated from any established Madrassah.

Jamate Islami is a political organisation, and although most of it's membership can be described as creedal Deobandis, there are also Barelwis, Ahl Hadees and Ahl Tashee in high posts in this Jamaat.


The Wahhabi tag was first used by the British in the Subcotinent to describe those muslims that they deemed as troublesome for the authorities, especially the likes of Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi (not to be confused with the Barelwi sect) and Ismail Dehlwi, who fought the Sikh kingdoms and gave their lives in the famous last stand of Balakot.

In the aftermath of 1857's unsuccesful War of Independance, the British authorities went on a manhunt to find any 'Wahhabis' who may 'rebel' in the future, and lots of innocent Ahl Hadeeth followers were hounded, killed, tortured, their properties confiscated, especially in Delhi, the seat of Ahl Hadeeth Learning and places like Bhopal, etc. It was a veritable 'Bounty Hunt' which huge sums of money given to 'informants' who alerted the authorties to any 'hidden' Wahabbis. It is documented that people were arrested and executed for treason if they were found to be praying and raising their hands to their ears more than once during their prayers (as Ahl Hadeeth practice multipal RAfa al Yadain). The name Wahabbi gained notoriety during that time, and many 'scholars' aided the British govt. in demonising this 'sect', and encouraging people to boycott any 'Wahabbi'.

Much of this condemnation came from 'scholars' who had a vested interest, because the Ahl Hadeeth had made their lives difficult and their livelihoods doubtful as they constantly spoke out against what they saw as superstitious practices of certain scholars/sufis and people, such as festivals around Shrines, the venerating of graves, and were known for their puritanical preaching that condemened as what they saw as innovations that had crept into Muslim creed and practice.

The Deobandis came much later into the picture, with the establishment of their Madrassah, ten years after the war of INdependance of 1857. Although it is undeniable that people like Qasim Nanotvi, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Ashraf ali Thanvi (the three biggest scholars of early deobandi movement) were definitely influenced by some of the puritanical preachings of Ismail Dehlwi and to a lesser extent by Muhammad bin Abdulwahaab, they formed and developed a seperate and distinct creedal and doctrinal formula, based upon adherence to the Hanfi schoolf of law, as opposed to the Ahl Hadeeth, who did not give precedence to any of the four canonised schools of law.

Taking away the puritanical streak that permeated the Deobandi mindset, they are not much different in terms of fundamental creed and practice from the majority Barelwi's who inhabit the subcontinent. It is in fact this closeness, which makes the Barelwi Deobandi rivalry so ferocious, and their condemnation of each other so harsh.
 
scholars, they also expressed the strongest concern about America’s unflinching support for Saudi Arabia’s policies, which made them more suspicious of the West’s resolve in tackling extremism.

The growing rift within Sunni Islam that has spread across Pakistan.

Even from a theological perspective, the Saudi view of Islam is highly hypocritical. For example, there is no concept of a monarchy in the Islamic tradition and yet Saudi Arabia is a kingdom. Strict Wahhabi doctrine also forbids photography yet the Saudi monarch insists on his portrait being displayed in every office in the country!

Its very simple house of Saud is working with or working for west
1-divide and rule.
2-do as we say not as we do.

They spend billions/yr where the make Muslim fight Muslim yet invest heavily in the west it cant get any clearer then that.
They were involved in the destruction of Iraq Iran Afghanistan Lebanon Palestine and now Pakistan no wonder west favorite dictators to install on Muslim countries are mostly wahabies.

I am glad to see most in pakistan are starting to wake up and realize who the real enemy of Muslims and pakistan is.
 
Deoband madrasah has great respect in all well known hanafi fiqa madrassahs of Pakistan they follow the same course developed by Deoband Ullema .
Hence we can say all mufti's following Hanafi Fiqa in Pakistan have no contradiction with Deoband Madrasah Fatwa.

The course was not developed by Deobandi Ulema, but rather by Mulla Nizamuddin Sialvi, in the early 18th century, and it is thus called "Dars e Nizami" and is the same DArs given in almost every Sunni Madrassa in the subcontinent and beyond, since the past 300 years.

It should be understood that Fatwas are more than simple religious rulings on questions, the environment and context in which they are given must also be looked at. While the Deoband Madrassah in Bharat condemned the Kashmiri Freedom struggle as Fasad, the Deobandi scholars in Pakistan declared it as jihad, and supported the creation of a deobandi jihad force, Harkatul Ansar/Mujahideen and Jaishe Muhammad.

It's sad to say, that Pakistan is probably the only country where scholars of religion have the freedom to give any fatwa and preach any opinion, without fear of the govt. For a long time, this freedom in itself was the greatest bulwark to radicalisation and extremism.
 
I agree - they are highly respected.

The fact that the deobandi ulema have condemned the taliban while the ulema of the wahhabi/ahl hadees variety continue supporting these criminals reveals who our real enemy is.

What rubbish is this? Who's condemnation do you want?

The biggest Ahl hadeeth scholars of Pakistan like Ibtisam Ilahi Zahir, Professor Sajid Mir, Shaikh Wasiullah Abbas (who gives dars in Khana kaba), Shaikhul Hadees Zubair Ali Zai (probably the most knowledgable man on Hadees in Pakistan), all the major scholars of Saudi ARabia, have all not only condemened terrorism and the Taliban, but the internet is replete with hundreds of recordings of their sermons condemning and refuting the ideas and claims of the takfiris and irhabis.

Almost every other speech from a major scholar in Saudi Arabia condemns these terrorists, and this has been the case since the mid 90's. When apologists were supporting the hamaas movement's suicide campaigns in Palestine, the Ahl hadeeth and Saudis were castigated for condmening suicide bombings...

You really need to get out there, and browse the internet...you'll find out who is saying what on terrorism...
 
Its very simple house of Saud is working with or working for west
1-divide and rule.
2-do as we say not as we do.

They spend billions/yr where the make Muslim fight Muslim yet invest heavily in the west it cant get any clearer then that.
They were involved in the destruction of Iraq Iran Afghanistan Lebanon Palestine and now Pakistan no wonder west favorite dictators to install on Muslim countries are mostly wahabies.

I am glad to see most in pakistan are starting to wake up and realize who the real enemy of Muslims and pakistan is.

Some Saudis may be working for the West just like some Iranians or some Pakistanis.

Afghanistan and Iraq self destruct themselves with the help of USA and USSR (now Russia).

Lebanon and Palestine had forces supported by Iran so why blame the Saudis?

Fact of the matter is that the Saudis are one of the closest friends of Pakistan and have always supported us.
 
Some Saudis may be working for the West just like some Iranians or some Pakistanis.

Afghanistan and Iraq self destruct themselves with the help of USA and USSR (now Russia).

Lebanon and Palestine had forces supported by Iran so why blame the Saudis?

Fact of the matter is that the Saudis are one of the closest friends of Pakistan and have always supported us.
Working of Al-e-Saud is a complex matter and I for one have never been able to understand if they are on the side of fellow Muslims or not. Al-e-Saud came into power with the help of the British and the role of infamous Major T.A. Lawrence is a very established historical fact. Al-e-Saud is pretty much indebted of the British for their help to re-gain power and hold of the Hijaz during early 20th century. One thing can be said for sure that Saudis are friend of themselves and for their own interest and welfare if they had to go on the dead body of the rest of the non-Saudi Muslims, they will do so (and have done so during Iraq-Kuwait conflict).
 
What rubbish is this? Who's condemnation do you want?

The biggest Ahl hadeeth scholars of Pakistan like Ibtisam Ilahi Zahir, Professor Sajid Mir, Shaikh Wasiullah Abbas (who gives dars in Khana kaba), Shaikhul Hadees Zubair Ali Zai (probably the most knowledgable man on Hadees in Pakistan), all the major scholars of Saudi Arabia, have all not only condemened terrorism and the Taliban, but the internet is replete with hundreds of recordings of their sermons condemning and refuting the ideas and claims of the takfiris and irhabis.

You really need to get out there, and browse the internet...you'll find out who is saying what on terrorism...

You mentioned Professor Sajid Mir....

{ New Jang Group May 29 2009

Speakers at an Ulema and Mashaikh convention on Thursday demanded the government that it should identify and address the root cause of Taliban-problem instead of using military operation to merely cure the symptoms.

Terming the Swat military operation as an American conspiracy to shift a lost Afghan war to Pakistani soil, they demanded immediate halt to military action and initiation of dialogue.The convention held at Jamia Manzoor ul Islamia was chaired by its principal and veteran scholar Pir Saifullah Khalid and addressed by Ulema and Mashaikh belonging to different schools of thought and from different parts of the country. Prominent among them were Jamiat Ahle Hadith president Senator Sajid Mir, JUI-F leader Hafiz Hussain Ahmad, Tanzim Islami founder Dr Israr Ahmad, Jamaat ud Dawah leader Maulana Ameer Hamza, Mufti Hameed Ullah Jan, JI deputy secretary general Dr Farid Paracha.......}

I'm afraid your 'scholar' Professor Sajid Mir sounds more like an apologist for the Taliban terrorists.

Just because you want to believe that saudi wahhabi clerics and their stooges in pakistan like the JI are peace loving exemplary muslims, does'nt make it so. Perhaps you should do some more research on the topic......
 
First of all, there was no such guy called wahab. Al Wahab is one of the 99 names of Allah.

The person you are referring to is Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, who incidently, was not a 'ghair Muqallid', but a scholar of the Hanbali Fiqh, as are the majority of scholars in Saudi Arabia.

Jamate Islami's founder Maulana Maududi was a Sunni Hanfi scholar, and many of his followers describe themselves as Deobandis also, although they are not as rigid as some. The reason why Maulana Maududi was not accepted by his Deobandi brethren, was because he had not himself graduated from any established Madrassah.

Jamate Islami is a political organisation, and although most of it's membership can be described as creedal Deobandis, there are also Barelwis, Ahl Hadees and Ahl Tashee in high posts in this Jamaat.


The Wahhabi tag was first used by the British in the Subcotinent to describe those muslims that they deemed as troublesome for the authorities, especially the likes of Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi (not to be confused with the Barelwi sect) and Ismail Dehlwi, who fought the Sikh kingdoms and gave their lives in the famous last stand of Balakot.

In the aftermath of 1857's unsuccesful War of Independance, the British authorities went on a manhunt to find any 'Wahhabis' who may 'rebel' in the future, and lots of innocent Ahl Hadeeth followers were hounded, killed, tortured, their properties confiscated, especially in Delhi, the seat of Ahl Hadeeth Learning and places like Bhopal, etc. It was a veritable 'Bounty Hunt' which huge sums of money given to 'informants' who alerted the authorties to any 'hidden' Wahabbis. It is documented that people were arrested and executed for treason if they were found to be praying and raising their hands to their ears more than once during their prayers (as Ahl Hadeeth practice multipal RAfa al Yadain). The name Wahabbi gained notoriety during that time, and many 'scholars' aided the British govt. in demonising this 'sect', and encouraging people to boycott any 'Wahabbi'.

Much of this condemnation came from 'scholars' who had a vested interest, because the Ahl Hadeeth had made their lives difficult and their livelihoods doubtful as they constantly spoke out against what they saw as superstitious practices of certain scholars/sufis and people, such as festivals around Shrines, the venerating of graves, and were known for their puritanical preaching that condemened as what they saw as innovations that had crept into Muslim creed and practice.

The Deobandis came much later into the picture, with the establishment of their Madrassah, ten years after the war of INdependance of 1857. Although it is undeniable that people like Qasim Nanotvi, Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Ashraf ali Thanvi (the three biggest scholars of early deobandi movement) were definitely influenced by some of the puritanical preachings of Ismail Dehlwi and to a lesser extent by Muhammad bin Abdulwahaab, they formed and developed a seperate and distinct creedal and doctrinal formula, based upon adherence to the Hanfi schoolf of law, as opposed to the Ahl Hadeeth, who did not give precedence to any of the four canonised schools of law.

Taking away the puritanical streak that permeated the Deobandi mindset, they are not much different in terms of fundamental creed and practice from the majority Barelwi's who inhabit the subcontinent. It is in fact this closeness, which makes the Barelwi Deobandi rivalry so ferocious, and their condemnation of each other so harsh.

His full name was "Muhammad ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab Al-Tamimi (1703–1792) (Arabic: محمد بن عبد الوهاب التميمي‎) was an Islamic scholar born in Najd, in present-day Saudi Arabia. Despite never specifically calling for a separate school of Islamic thought, it is from ibn Abd-al Wahhab that the western world derived the term Wahhabism."

Deobandi Ullema have great respect for Muhammad ibn Al Wahhab and also for Bin Baz follower of teaching of Abd Al Wahhab.

In Saudi Arabia Tablegi Jamat have only permission to do tableeg ,who belong to Deobandi school of thaught (Fiqa Hanafi).

Saudi Arabia government had implemented basic fundamentals of islam in country ,Zakat system is active and Riba,Alcohal ,music etc are banned at national level.

I think that is reason Saudia is safe from bloodshed and natural disasters.

If we want peace in Pakistan we need to implement these fundamental teaching of islam ,which invites Rahmat of Allah and restore peace in muslim society.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's sad to say, that Pakistan is probably the only country where scholars of religion have the freedom to give any fatwa and preach any opinion, without fear of the govt. For a long time, this freedom in itself was the greatest bulwark to radicalisation and extremism.

Shouldnt the so called Ulema Fear God then the present government.
 
Fact of the matter is that the Saudis are one of the closest friends of Pakistan and have always supported us.

SSGPA - lets not kid ourselves. We need to stop living in denial.

National Post

Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the attacks, is a native of Saudi Arabia and has long been a conduit for secret funds from members of the Saudi royal family to various Islamist groups in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sudan.

But bin Laden is merely the most visible aspect of a far deeper connection: The Taliban, the extremist ruling regime in Afghanistan that harbours bin Laden, is in fact largely a Saudi creation. Members of the royal family armed and financed the Taliban's rise in the 1990s and, until recently, were among its strongest allies in the Arab world.

"The Saudis have a great deal to answer for," says Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist and author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. "They are the main backers of the Taliban and tried to expand Wahhabi Islam around the world by promoting narrow-minded groups."

Those "narrow-minded" groups took their inspiration from Wahabism, a harsh and puritanical subset of Islam that originated in Saudi Arabia.

The sect is named for Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahab, an 18th-century reformer whose descendants worked to unify the Saudi kingdom. Today, members of the Wahab family continue to occupy important positions in the country.

"Wahabism rejected other types of Islam and its reformist leaders imposed a puritanical order on the tribes they conquered," says Earle H. Waugh, a professor of religion at the University of Alberta. "Unlike other Muslims, the Wahabis said they would base society strictly on the Koran."

According to Prof. Waugh, Muslim societies were traditionally ordered through what he called "an intellectual consensus," which drew on precedents to establish laws and rules of governance. For instance, traditional Muslim legal scholars seeking to establish regulations governing landing rights at airports would bypass the Koran, looking for guidance instead to laws governing docking rights at medieval Islamic ports and adapting them to present-day circumstances. The Wahabis rejected this form of intellectual consensus and focused strictly on the Koran as the final arbiter.


Wahabism is, in fact, a kind of Islamist totalitarianism. It denies equal rights to women and invokes the death penalty as punishment for drinking or sexual transgressions. The sect rejects Western influence and does not permit mingling of the sexes, eating pork or interacting closely with non-Muslims. Wahabi mosques are traditionally simple, undecorated affairs, and Wahabis do not permit ostentatious displays of spirituality. Those who follow Wahabi teachings, such as bin Laden, believe their faith should be spread around the world and the Koran allows them to defend their brand of Islam by violence, if necessary. In the late 18th century, the cult was associated with the mass murder of all who opposed it. When the Wahabis took the city of Qarbala in what is now Saudi Arabia in 1801, they massacred 2,000 civilians in the streets and marketplaces.

Analysts say the impetus behind Saudi Arabia's recent export of Wahabism to central Asia came largely from a political decision on the part of the Saudi government to reduce the power of Wahabism at home by exporting it abroad.

Wahabism, says Mr. Rashid, "is increasingly undermining the authority of the royal family."

In recent years, Saudi Arabia "has proved incapable of evolving a rational foreign policy which suits its national interests rather than merely appeasing its domestic Wahabi lobby."

This policy of appeasement has prevented the Saudi government from co-operating too closely with the United States on investigations into a number of recent terrorist attacks, some of them committed on Saudi soil. Saudi authorities have only grudgingly complied with U.S. law enforcement officials over investigations into the 1996 suicide attack on the Khobar Towers, a military compound housing U.S. troops, which left 19 U.S. servicemen dead and hundreds injured.

They have also been slow to help U.S. investigators probe the Sept. 11 attacks despite the fact more than half of the suspected hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Having exported Wahabi extremism that helped to create the current climate of terror in the world, the Saudi government is now faced with containing strong Islamist fundamentalist pressures in their own country.
 
Working of Al-e-Saud is a complex matter and I for one have never been able to understand if they are on the side of fellow Muslims or not. Al-e-Saud came into power with the help of the British and the role of infamous Major T.A. Lawrence is a very established historical fact. Al-e-Saud is pretty much indebted of the British for their help to re-gain power and hold of the Hijaz during early 20th century. One thing can be said for sure that Saudis are friend of themselves and for their own interest and welfare if they had to go on the dead body of the rest of the non-Saudi Muslims, they will do so (and have done so during Iraq-Kuwait conflict).
@qsaark

Dear Sir,

A small correction: T. E. Lawrence had nothing to do with the Saudi house establishing itself in Saudi Arabia.

Sincerely,

'Joe S.'
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom