Salafi vs Muslim Brotherhood

[Tikolo]

What? Use Islam? In what way? Our population has been Muslims for 1400 years. Our country is the cradle of Islam. The Al-Saud are completely irrelevant. Every ruler on the territory of KSA or the Arabian Peninsula have been bound by Islam otherwise they would not be able to rule. Simple as that.

What? Which Salafists? Are you talking about the Hanbali fiqh? We have the most diverse makeup of religious sects that are indigenous to our region. Sunni madahbi such s the Hanafi fiqh in the Northern Areas, the Shafi'i fiqh in Hejaz, the Maliki fiqh among the Sunnis in the Eastern Province, the Hanbali one in Najd and across the country. Among the Shias the Zaydi's in Najran, the Ismailis in the South and the Twelver sect among the Shias in the Eastern Province.

Can you name me just one country that are as diverse? No, they don't exist.

All in all I am not sure what you are hoping for. If I remember then you are not even a Muslim and a gay too. Such opinions are only shared by a tiny little minority.

Regarding Egypt then what democracy? There is no Western democracy in the Middle East. Don't get fooled by the ability to vote every 4 years or so as democracy.

Look how stable and prospering our country is. Most Saudis are satisfied otherwise the Al-Saud would not be here. No need to kid yourself. I am sure all Saudis here agree.

The Egyptian people spoke and we have to respect that. Egypt did not stop being Muslim overnight. The Muslims in Egypt being all Sunnis (99,9%) should unite instead of fighting for power. Egypt is our neighbor and we hope first of all for stability and peace because unrest will effect us and all of the Arab world.

Oh, if you think that Islam will disappear from KSA then I must wake you up from your dream.

BTW, you should visit how people live in Hejaz and the remaining KSA outside the cities and visit private families etc. Not much has changed in terms of our regional culture, dialect, religion, cuisine, traditions etc.

Uniting KSA instead of having 1000 different small countries, regions, emirates, kingdoms is the best that could have happened given that we are all Arabs.

Also all that ultra-conservative is nonsense. This is highly exaggerated. We both know all this. But that does not mean that we are not proud Muslims.

My point. Islam is part of our lives more naturally than most and this is undeniable. Even non-Saudis and analysts often say this. This is not something I invented tonight. Nothing to do with our rulers.

EDIT: Egypt was a Ottoman and later English colony for hundreds of years. I am not sure where you read all your history from.

Most saudis are a backward race, thats why you can not see who is right or wrong. If Saudi Arabia was a proper state, you will be in a much more better position. The king feeds you like dogs, and like slaves you obey him. Saudi Arabia has a potential to the be the richest most advance country, yet Bedouin mentality Saudis will never achieve that status, because to do that you need brain. You will always be a failure of a people and failure of race, no matter how much money you get

 

[Serpentine]

Egypt is not the biggest Arab country but the most populous.

Being 'big' geographically is not important.
Kazakhstan is also big, Mongolia is relatively big, Canada is second largest country on earth, does it mean they all have strong political and human power? Like it or not, Egypt is the most important Arab country, it has a great history going back far before Islam, it has a young and motivated human resource and it has cultural power.Not everything is about oil money.

Regarding Egypt being ruled by Ottomans, well they also ruled 2 cities of Mecca or Medina, right? 2 most important cities in Hejaz, so you can't play that game. Today, Egypt has been weakened because of 30 year rule of that corrupt puppet, Mubarak and the unrest after the revolution.Yet, it has still strong political power and it will be even more powerful after it reaches a stability course.

 

[al-Hasani]

The Fatimids were Arabs too, man. Nobody looked at the regions at that time since the borders were very different.

But he is wrong in nearly every one of his points. The one about KSA I already contoured. The one about so-called democracy too. Western styled democracy is against the core values of Islam btw. How are rulers wrong? The Caliphs were rulers aside from Caliphs. Call it king, emir, custodian or whatever. They had the same function as leaders.

The Al-Saud family is enormous. Just because some members do behave badly from time to time or are bad examples of Muslim it does not mean that the whole family or system is wrong.

The Al-Saud's did not appear out of nowhere. Their movement was a movement of the people. Without the people they would not have come to power. Them uniting KSA is the best thing that could have happened.

Is say this as a somewhat Hejazi nationalist (wrong word but I am a proud Hejazi and Makkawi and I value our regions ancient culture, history, traditions, dialect, cuisine etc.). If even I and most of Saudis who identify with their regions etc. see the Al-Saud family in a positive light then what is that saying about them?

Well, we all appreciate that as Muslims and Arabs but what I am pointing towards is that it was the Ummah back then more than just a sole state or city or region. People were much more united back then overall.

Ohterwise you are right.

I know about the Muhammad Ali Dynasty and their Albanian past etc. But in terms of contribution to Islam then only the first 2 generations are noteworthy the rest were busy pleasing the English, building English/French styled palaces in Cairo and Alexandria than Islam.

Anyway without changing the subject and talking about theology then kingdoms are not against Islam per definition.

Proof-texts for the concepts of malakiyya - "monarchy, kingship, royalty" - and mulukiyya - "monarchic rule, monarchism, kingship, royalty" - as viable systems in Islam and Shari`ah.

For instance. Prophecy that there shall be kingship in Islam. Exalted status of righteous monarchy and kingship in the noble Qur'an and the Sunnah. Every epoch having a divinely-appointed king reflecting its people, the awaited Mahdi (as) shall be a king
besides the belief in the Mahdi is obligatory in Islam.

Although it is forbidden to call oneself the King of Kings (Malik al-Mulook) which only belongs to Allah (swt).

 

[KingMamba]

Questions for @Yzd Khalifa @Arabian Legend @al-Hasani and other bros in KSA : Is it possible for the Salafi and Brotherhood to unite against the Shia onslaught in Arab world?

I personally neither support political Islam nor the Salafi creed, but if I have to choose, I feel that Brotherhood is more pragmatic, while Salafi's seem like going back in time. Also Brotherhood accepts and works with democracy, which I believe is inevitable eventually for all society, although the timeline and the evolutionary path is different for different societies.

Also, I have seen in some of the above articles that Brotherhood was supporting groups in Gulf countries to overthrow Monarchies. That definitely was meddling in internal affairs of other countries, in my opinion, and irresponsible on their part, a practice they should stop absolutely.

For Arab world and greater Sunni world to unite, I think a reconciliation and unity between these two groups is essential, of course in a path that is free from violence and anti-west polemics, like it happened in the case of Afghan war veterans like OBL and Zwahiri. Egypt could be a great place to make this unity work, specially after Morsi moved away from Iran and started supporting Syrian opposition just about a month ago. But may be it was too little too late?

So going forward, is there a way to reconcile the difference between these two forces?

While there is a salafi influence in nearly all Sunni countries, the brotherhood is mostly confined to Arab nations. The Pakistani equivalent of the brotherhood has no rule influence, Afghanistan's political situation is still up in the air, and idk about Bangladesh but those two woman seem to have a monopoly on things over there. As for Central Asian states while they are majority Muslim they have been brainwashed by years of communist rule and the majority are none practicing unfortunately. Also their current leadership are remnants of their communist past and have strong ties to Moscow including defense ties.

As for what I put in bold I believe you need to add shias as well, they are still a part of whats left of this Ummah although a lot of their beliefs have been mixed up by their clerics (twelvers at least) based on some of the videos I have seen on this forum on what they follow. That being said we should not ignore them instead we should try to re-include them into the right Islamic school of thought once their regime falls. If you want to believe in Ummah and uniting Muslims then you must believe in all sects not pick and choose. The Iranians were once all Sunnis and were the forefront of Islamic knowledge, food for thought.

 

[Doritos11]

Being 'big' geographically is not important.
Kazakhstan is also big, Mongolia is relatively big, Canada is second largest country on earth, does it mean they all have strong political and human power? Like it or not, Egypt is the most important Arab country, it has a great history going back far before Islam, it has a young and motivated human resource and it has cultural power.Not everything is about oil money.

Regarding Egypt being ruled by Ottomans, well they also ruled 2 cities of Mecca or Medina, right? 2 most important cities in Hejaz, so you can't play that game. Today, Egypt has been weakened because of 30 year rule of that corrupt puppet, Mubarak and the unrest after the revolution.Yet, it has still strong political power and it will be even more powerful after it reaches a stability course.

Its not about pre-islam history, if thats the case then Iraq surpasses Egypt.
Egypt is the political center of the Arab world, I agree on that 1!

 

[United]

U need a reason.......u got a reason lets unite to kick some Bashar *** ad

its duty of every Muslim Sunni,Shiaa or what ever sect to Unite or this pigeon faced son of a Bit*h will destroy our Muslim world.

 

[Azizam]

U need a reason.......u got a reason lets unite to kick some Bashar *** ad

its duty of every Muslim Sunni,Shiaa or what ever sect to Unite or this pigeon faced son of a Bit*h will destroy our Muslim world.

My friend, don't ruin a rational discussion.

 

[al-Hasani]

KSA is the most important Arab country solely for Makkah and Madinah. Hejaz was always the most important and most revered region in the Arab world and in the Muslim world. Iranians don't really know this and especially not Iranians like you who have confessed to not knowing much about Islam, let alone the Arab world.

Aside from that then KSA is important for it's extremely strategical position, natural wealth (second to none in the region), cultural and religious importance (no country is even close in the region), for being the ancestral homeland of hundreds of Arab tribes and hundreds of millions of Arabs (at least partially) and for currently being the biggest Arab economy and one of the most populous Arab countries and fastest growing.

Hejaz was ruled by the Sharifs of Makkah. Ever heard about them? Ruled for 1000 years. They were independent rulers although LOYAL to every Caliph, meaning all the Arab Caliphs who ruled for the first nearly 1000 years and lastly the Ottoman Caliphs and Sultans. Even when the Caliphates were ruled by Arabs for nearly 1000 years before the Ottoman took it the Sharif of Makkah was independent and revered.

Also a Caliphate had no legitimacy if they did not have Makkah and Madinah under their influence.

Tikolo:

Go take some medicine and stop writing complete and utter nonsense. Besides you are not even an Arab or an Arab Bahraini but a frustrated Shia Pakistani false flagger. Already admitted that. You have no clue about KSA. Your comments show that.

Besides we do not care what Safavids like you say in the Land of the Two Holy Mosques or among the descendants of Prophet Muhammad (saws), all the Prophets before him such as Prophet Ibrahim (as), the Sahabah, all the Arab Caliphs, the Ahl al-Bayt, famous clerics and Imams etc.

Our results and history speak for itself.

Besides of the current realities.

 

[KingMamba]

The Fatimids were Arabs too, man. Nobody looked at the regions at that time since the borders were very different.

But he is wrong in nearly every one of his points. The one about KSA I already contoured. The one about so-called democracy too. Western styled democracy is against the core values of Islam btw. How are rulers wrong? The Caliphs were rulers aside from Caliphs. Call it king, emir, custodian or whatever. They had the same function as leaders.

The Al-Saud family is enormous. Just because some members do behave badly from time to time or are bad examples of Muslim it does not mean that the whole family or system is wrong.

The Al-Saud's did not appear out of nowhere. Their movement was a movement of the people. Without the people they would not have come to power. Them uniting KSA is the best thing that could have happened.

Is say this as a somewhat Hejazi nationalist (wrong word but I am a proud Hejazi and Makkawi and I value our regions culture, history, traditions, dialect, cuisine etc.). If even I and most of Saudis who identify with their regions etc. see the Al-Saud family in a positive light then what is that saying about them?

Well, we all appreciate that as Muslims and Arabs but what I am pointing towards is that it was the Ummah back then more than just a sole state or city or region. People were much more united back then overall.

Ohterwise you are right.

I know about the Muhammad Ali Dynasty and their Albanian past etc. But in terms of contribution to Islam then only the first 2 generations are noteworthy the rest were busy pleasing the English, building English/French styled palaces in Cairo and Alexandria than Islam.

Anyway without changing the subject and talking about theology then kingdoms are not against Islam per definition.

Proof-texts for the concepts of malakiyya - "monarchy, kingship, royalty" - and mulukiyya - "monarchic rule, monarchism, kingship, royalty" - as viable systems in Islam and Shari`ah.

For instance. Prophecy that there shall be kingship in Islam. Exalted status of righteous monarchy and kingship in the noble Qur'an and the Sunnah. Every epoch having a divinely-appointed king reflecting its people, the awaited Mahdi (as) shall be a king
besides the belief in the Mahdi is obligatory in Islam.

Although it is forbidden to call oneself the King of Kings (Malik al-Mulook) which only belongs to Allah (swt).

The function of Caliph differs from a king in that they were elected and approved by the people of the time and certain checks and balances were put in place (a Caliph could Islamically be removed while a king cannot). What makes kingship haram is that it passes from bloodline to bloodline staying in one family and Islam puts an emphasis of merit over that of blood which is BTW the main split between sunnis and shias (shias putting an emphasis on bloodline more than merit and covering it up by saying that the bloodline they follow is infallible so there is no need to look at merit). Besides Hazrat Muhammad PBUH predicted that the caliphate would end and be followed up by kingship in the Muslim world which soon once again be overtaken by a righteous caliphate.

The Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allah wills it to be. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be the khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology. And it will last for as long as Allah wills it to last. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be biting kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be a khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology.
Reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud. Silsilah as-Saheehah of Imaam al-Albani (1/34 no. 5) and it is Saheeh.

Imam Mehdi will be a Caliph and not a King. All hadiths considered Sahih agree he will not take over and declare himself king rather the people will elect him Caliph and he will reluctantly agree.

Anyway I know western democracy will not work in any Muslim nations rather Muslim nations should form Islamic Republics until the real Caliphate is once again reformed by Imam Mehdi.

Also I brought up Muhammad Ali of Egypt because although Egypt was an Ottoman vassel that was only in allegiance to the Ottoman Caliph and in reality they were autonomous and could have declared independence anytime but the Europeans ironically did not want the Ottomans to collapse because of fear of the Russians and so destroyed Muhammad Ali's armies every time he tried to declare independence until the English took over Egypt from his descendants. Just like Hejaz was a part of Ottomans but was administered by the Sharif of Mecca and Medina.

 

[KingMamba]

Also I brought up Muhammad Ali of Egypt because although Egypt was an Ottoman vassel that was only in allegiance to the Ottoman Caliph and in reality they were autonomous and could have declared independence anytime but the Europeans ironically did not want the Ottomans to collapse because of fear of the Russians and so destroyed Muhammad Ali's armies every time he tried to declare independence until the English took over Egypt from his descendants. Just like Hejaz was a part of Ottomans but was administered by the Sharif of Mecca and Medina.

 

[Sedqal]

The function of Caliph differs from a king in that they were elected and approved by the people of the time and certain checks and balances were put in place (a Caliph could Islamically be removed while a king cannot). What makes kingship haram is that it passes from bloodline to bloodline staying in one family and Islam puts an emphasis of merit over that of blood which is BTW the main split between sunnis and shias (shias putting an emphasis on bloodline more than merit and covering it up by saying that the bloodline they follow is infallible so there is no need to look at merit). Besides Hazrat Muhammad PBUH predicted that the caliphate would end and be followed up by kingship in the Muslim world which soon once again be overtaken by a righteous caliphate.

The Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allah wills it to be. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be the khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology. And it will last for as long as Allah wills it to last. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be biting kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be a khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology.
Reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud. Silsilah as-Saheehah of Imaam al-Albani (1/34 no. 5) and it is Saheeh.

Imam Mehdi will be a Caliph and not a King. All hadiths considered Sahih agree he will not take over and declare himself king rather the people will elect him Caliph and he will reluctantly agree.

Anyway I know western democracy will not work in any Muslim nations rather Muslim nations should form Islamic Republics until the real Caliphate is once again reformed by Imam Mehdi.

In most Muslim countries, its Army which comes up with this slogan then kicks politicians out and starts ruling itself. Thank you but no more dictators for Pakistan, we are very happy with our crooked lot of politicians.

Secondly no one has any idea when Mehdi will come, it can be next year or after 200 years so its very harmful to stop the struggle for Caliphate saying only Mehdi can make one. (Caliphate here means a Muslim block where leaders are democratically elected but there is one core state which can defend the Muslim interest)

 

[Naifov]

Woohooo, I see it has gotten easier on people to call others as non muslims !, being against your ill government or mullahs does not mean I am non muslim. Democracy was used in Islam and that was the way to do it in first 4 khalifs. Even back then we were not ready for that method of ruling since it has created the fraction of sunnis and shias. Othman was elected, Ali was elected by the people of medina. Shoura is our own copy of a parliament, this great idea of shoura council is ruined by your lovely monarchs. You must know that Islam and monarchy cannot be mixed.


Egypt was, is and will be the heart of the middle east whether politicaly, culturally or even in terms of religions. Egypt's failure is a failure of all the Arabs. That's why I'm sad, I do not support MB but because Egypt have failed the meaning of democracy. This is something you will never understand since you convince yourself to support monarch and mullahs.

Again, I'm muslim and don't want to remove Islam from Arabia. Now don't write an entire article claiming that I want to

 

[Sedqal]

Woohooo, I see it has gotten easier on people to call others as non muslims !, being against your ill government or mullahs does not mean I am non muslim. Democracy was used in Islam and that was the way to do it in first 4 khalifs. Even back then we were not ready for that method of ruling since it has created the fraction of sunnis and shias. Othman was elected, Ali was elected by the people of medina. Shoura is our own copy of a parliament, this great idea of shoura council is ruined by your lovely monarchs. You must know that Islam and monarchy cannot be mixed.


Egypt was, is and will be the heart of the middle east whether politicaly, culturally or even in terms of religions. Egypt's failure is a failure of all the Arabs. That's why I'm sad, I do not support MB but because Egypt have failed the meaning of democracy. This is something you will never understand since you convince yourself to support monarch and mullahs.

Again, I'm muslim and don't want to remove Islam from Arabia. Now don't write an entire article claiming that I want to

No offense but there was something about homosexuality

Right here >

All in all I am not sure what you are hoping for. If I remember then you are not even a Muslim and a gay too. Such opinions are only shared by a tiny little minority.

 

[KingMamba]

In most Muslim countries, its Army which comes up with this slogan then kicks politicians out and starts ruling itself. Thank you but no more dictators for Pakistan, we are very happy with our crooked lot of politicians.

Secondly no one has any idea when Mehdi will come, it can be next year or after 200 years so its very harmful to stop the struggle for Caliphate saying only Mehdi can make one. (Caliphate here means a Muslim block where leaders are democratically elected but there is one core state which can defend the Muslim interest)

Brother we can strive for it but the hadiths are clear that Imam Mehdi will be the one to reestablish the Caliphate so we cannot just wait around for him? I mean we can try to form a caliphate again but since the hadiths that are considered Sahih say only he will recreate it we can assume our attempts will be futile so instead Islamic Republics are a stop gap solution.

 

[al-Hasani]

Well there is no point discussing the religious legitimacy of any rulers in Islamic history besides the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs which was my point.

The Ottoman Caliph was a Sultan at the same time. Not really Islamic. Nor could he be removed. Only if he voluntarily stepped down or was killed. The Ottoman Caliphs imprisoned or killed their younger or elder brothers, depending on who took the throne, because they saw each other as threats.

Well, Abdullah is a head of state of KSA (king) but at the same time the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. He is not a Islamic figure. He is bound by Islamic law and the clergy and their influence.

He is not any worse or better than all Muslim rulers in the last 1350 years, if we look apart from the 4 Rightly Guided Caliphs.

Well, this must be semantics we are discussing since some words cannot be translated to English perfectly. Kingdoms are mentioned in ahadith though.

For example:

3.1 Nor did the Prophet (SAWS) condemn monarchy in itself, as shown by the hadiths already cited. A more specific proof that it is not monarchy but evil rule that is condemned - whether under caliphate or kingship - is the following narration: "Every epoch has a king whom Allah sends in the semblance (`ala nahw) of the hearts of its people. If He desires their reform He sends them a reformer, and if He desires their destruction He sends them one who shall cause their perdition." Al-Fattini said in Tadhkira al-Mawdu`at (#182): "`Umar said: 'People follow the religion of their kings.' I do not know it as a Prophetic hadith, but ... it supported by what al-Tabarani narrates [and al-Bayhaqi from Ka`b, as stated in Kashf al-Khafa (2:166)] raised [to the Prophet, Allah bless and greet him]: "Every epoch has a king... etc."

Well, in fact the Ottomans did not really control anything on the Arabian Peninsula - only through the local rulers who were loyal to them such as the Sharifs of Makkah and Madinah or the Al-Rashid Emirate who ruled large parts of Najd and parts of current day Al-Anbar. In short there were many local rulers and large areas who were not even a formal part of the Ottoman Empire or their vassal/loyal areas.