aal saud: jahili roots, destructive role · his father, ‘abdul wahhab and brother sulayman ibn...

Aal Saud: jahili roots, destructive role

By Zafar Bangash

Despite the immense damage inflicted on Islam and its historic sites by the House of Saud,most Muslims remain blissfully oblivious of their true nature and the toxic ideology they preach.Part of the reason may be found in the Muslims’ innocent belief that the sanctity of theHaramayn — the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah — is somehow linked with the rulingfamily in the Arabian Peninsula. Some Muslims may even be impressed by the massiveconstruction work underway around al-Masjid al-Haram in Makkah and Masjid

al-Nabi in Madinah, although this is a recent phenomenon. Saudi propagandists eagerlypromote the shiny new glass and concrete towers turning Makkah and Madinah into replicas ofLas Vegas and New York as “signs of progress”. What is less well understood is the cost ofsuch projects, not in dollars but in the permanent loss of the historic sites of Islam through theirwholesale destruction. In a few decades, virtually nothing would be left of the history of Islam, itshistoric sites or the Haramayn’s link with the struggle of the noble Messenger (pbuh) toestablish the din of Allah (swt) on earth.

How did the Saudi clan that originated in the remote corner of Nejd, Central Arabia — not theHijaz where the two holy cities of Makkah and Madinah are located — take control of theHaramayn as well as the Arabian Peninsula? This is a sordid tale of intrigue, guile andindescribable cruelty perpetrated by the beduin hordes from Nejd in the name of “purifying”Islam. In their quest, they also found support from the British, starting in the early part of the lastcentury.

Tribal roots, obscurantist ideology

The Aal Sauds from Dar’iyyah, a backward tribal outpost north of Riyadh, were one of manyclans that dotted the desert landscape. Like most clans and tribes at the time, they lived byattacking and robbing other tribes as well as pilgrims’ caravans (the Saudis have developedmore sophisticated forms of robbing pilgrims today but the practice nevertheless continues).Killing people and grabbing their women was common practice among the beduins. The AalSauds were one of many primitive tribes, which also included Banu Rashid, Banu Hashim andBanu Khalid, among others. They all vied for domination and control. In 1744, however, thereoccurred one of those freak developments that had a profound impact not only on the ArabianPeninsula but the entire Muslim world. Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab (1703–1792ce), a

1 / 10


self-proclaimed preacher and qadi, moved to Dar’iyyah and struck an alliance with Muhammadibn Saud, head of the Saudi clan. This proved a potent combination.

It is important to understand what Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab preached. He latched ontothe idea of promoting tawhid — the Oneness of Allah (swt). Every Muslim believes in tawhid;this is the fundamental pillar of iman (faith-commitment). What he did was to denounce everypractice that he did not agree with as shirk (the assignment of rival or competitive authorities inplace of Allah – Â). He drew up a list of acts that if indulged in would make a Muslim a kafir or mushrik(for an example of this, one can see: Bayan al-najah wa-al-fakak min muwalat al-murtaddin wa-ahl al-shirk: al-Risalah al-Thaniya‘Asharah, collected by Hamad ibn ‘Atiq al-Najdi in Majmu‘at al-Tawhidby Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab). Thus, Muslims that visited cemeteries to pray for thedeceased, were denounced as committing shirk, hence legitimate targets for killing. Similarly, Muslims that showed respect for the greatscholars of Islam or for spirituality were denounced as mushriks. Again, they were considered legitimate targets for killing. That the noble Messenger of Allah(pbuh) used to visit the Baqi‘ Cemetery in Madinah to pray for the deceased was and continuesto be dismissed by these obscurantist zealots as irrelevant. For them, the Sahabah (companions of the Prophet – r), the Tabi‘in(that followed the Sahabah), their subsequent generations and Muslim scholars for more than 1,100 years since the time ofthe noble Messenger (pbuh) had not understood Islam correctly. It was only Muhammad ibn‘Abdul Wahhab who had finally discovered true Islam. The Wahhabi ideology, therefore, wasthe only pure and correct ideology.

While this peculiar ideology is commonly referred to as Wahhabism, it is an unfortunate label.His father, ‘Abdul Wahhab and brother Sulayman ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab were good Muslims.Neither approved of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s rantings and narrow interpretations ofIslam. Suleyman in particular refuted his brother’s extreme views in a treatise, al-Sawa‘iqal-Ilahiyyah .Chiding the Wahhabis for their illogical stance, Sulayman writes (p. 54), “Wa taj‘alun mizan kufr an-nass mukhtalafatakum wa mizan al-Islam muwaffaqatakum: You assess or measure people’s faith by the degree of their agreement with you and theirrejection of faith by the level of their disagreement with you.” It is interesting to note thatSulayman’s book is not available in most major Muslim cities in the world today. The Saudishave used their considerable wealth and influence — and continue to do so — to ensure suchcopies disappear as soon as they appear in any market. In contrast, books promoting theSaudis’ narrow interpretation of Islam are widely available and freely distributed by their paid

2 / 10


agents and preachers.

Toxic alliance

Like most beduins at the time, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab also wandered into the desert.But unlike others, he did not go merely in search of food or water; he went, allegedly to seekknowledge. Wandering eastward, he went to the Persian Gulf, a more cosmopolitan regionbecause of its contacts with the outside world, unlike his native Najd. For a while, Muhammadibn ‘Abdul Wahhab dabbled in Sufism but ultimately he adopted the more harsh interpretationsof a narrow ideology that came to be associated with him. It is commonly, but again mistakenly,assumed that his views were influenced by the 14th-century Islamic scholar, Imam IbnTaimiyyah. The Wahhabis use those rulings of Ibn Taimiyyah that fit their narrow thinking butreject others. They use Ibn Taimiyyah’s name to gain legitimacy for their extremist views.Further, while they denounce taqlid (following some scholar’s opinion in matters of religion),they insist all Muslims must follow their extremist interpretations otherwise they are kafirs and,therefore, must be killed.

Most scholars in Riyadh and the larger Najd region rejected his views denouncing them as aheretic and outside the fold of Islam. Denounced by the ‘alims of Riyadh, ‘Abdul Wahhab wasforced to move to Dar’iyyah where he found a receptive ear in Muhammad ibn Saud. Theystruck an alliance that proved lethal for the Ummah.

In his quest for power and domination over rival clans and tribes, Muhammad ibn Saudneeded a religious crutch, while the preacher needed an audience and swords to impose hisnarrow views. The Saudi hordes, now charged with an extremist ideology, erupted fromDar’iyyah in 1745 and quickly subdued Riyadh. Islamic scholars in Riyadh and elsewhere thathad opposed ‘Abdul Wahhab were summarily executed. Their primitive savagery and barbarismquickly brought the whole of Najd under control. Flushed with such victories, the Saudi-Wahhabihordes now spread both west toward the Hijaz and east toward Karbala, Kufa and Baghdad.Muhammad ibn Saud died in 1762 and was succeeded by his son ‘Abd al-Rahman but thepreacher, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab lived for another 30 years. Thousands of Shi‘is werebutchered in Karbala and Kufa in 1803 and 1804. They also destroyed the mosque where ImamHusain is buried. The Saudi-Wahhabi zealots also murdered hundreds of Islamic scholars inBaghdad accusing them of spreading a distorted message of Islam because it did not conformto their extremist views. Even the children of these scholars were not spared because theywould grow up to become “heretics” like their parents!

3 / 10


Slaughter and desecration

Similar pogroms were perpetrated in Makkah and Madinah. For the Saudi-Wahhabi zealots, anyMuslim not subscribing to their narrow views was a “heretic” and his killing was, therefore, notonly justified but mandatory. In 1802, they invaded Ta’if, a town 40km southeast of Makkah.When the people resisted, the marauders murdered every male inhabitant they could grab.When news of the Ta’if massacre reached Makkah and Madinah, the people opened their gatesfor the savages, hoping this would spare them the fate that befell the residents of Ta’if. Thebarbarians from Najd were not impressed by such gestures. After satiating their blood lustagainst the “kafirs” of Makkah and Madinah, they turned their attention to religious shrines andplaces of historical significance. The Baqi‘ Cemetery was a particular target of their wrath. Asrulers of the Muslim world, the Ottoman Turks were responsible for the preservation andmaintenance of these historical monuments. They had built domes over the graves of theProphet’s (pbuh) companions and members of his family, including ummahat al-muminin(mothers of the believers) for easy identification. The Saudi-Wahhabi hordes smashed all theseand vandalized the Baqi‘ Cemetery under the spurious pretext that these would lead to shirk. For more than 1,100 years this had not happened. All of a sudden Muslims were in danger ofbecoming mushriksby visiting the Baqi‘ Cemetery or the graves of the shahidsof Uhud.

Dealing with the Saudi-Wahhabi hordes

When news of the massacres at Ta’if, Makkah and Madinah and the Saudi-Wahhabis’vandalism and desecration of Islamic sites reached Sultan Mehmud II in Istanbul, he wasfurious. He immediately ordered Muhammad ‘Ali, his viceroy in Egypt, to deal with themarauders and punish them for killing Muslims and desecrating Islamic sites. Thereafter,Makkah and Madinah were liberated from their clutches in 1813 but Dar’iyyah proved moredifficult. It took another six years before Muhammad ‘Ali’s son, Ibrahim Pasha, was able todefeat and drive the Saudi-Wahhabi hordes out. As punishment for their crimes, Dar’iyyah wasrazed to the ground; but unfortunately for later generations, Ibrahim Pasha did not pursue themfurther assuming that this was sufficient punishment for their crime. ‘Abd al-Rahman ibnMuhammad ibn Saud took his demoralized followers down the Wadi Hanifah to Riyadh. Havingdefeated and driven out other clans from the area during their first eruption from Dar’iyyah, itwas not difficult to re-establish control in Riyadh. But the Aal Sauds were vanquished when

4 / 10


Banu Rashid, who had been driven out of Dar’iyyah, returned to exact revenge, expelling themin 1891. Banu Rashid extended its authority over much of Najd by making alliances with otherclans and tribes.

Abdul Aziz ibn Saud

‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Saud fled eastward and sought refuge with Mubarakal-Sabah in what is present-day Kuwait. While he sulked in his tent over the loss of Riyadh, oneof his teenage sons, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, better known as Abdul Aziz ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman Aal Saud(founder of the Saudi Kingdom), excelled in raiding pilgrims’ caravans. He soon gained notorietyfor ruthlessness and guile. In January 1902, Abdul Aziz launched a pre-dawn raid on BanuRashid’s Mismak fortress in Riyadh. The governor of Riyadh, Shaikh Ajlan was killed and thegarrison surrendered after a brief fight. Other skirmishes followed in which Abdul Aziz survivedeither through good fortune, as at al-Dilam (1903), or by bribing other tribes to betray BanuRashid. In 1905, Abdul Aziz even pledged allegiance to Sultan Mehmud II in Istanbul but dideverything in his power to undermine the sultan’s authority. In April 1906, the Aal Sauds andBanu Rashid clashed at Rawdah al-Muhannah. The Banu Rashid chief, also named ‘Abdal-‘Aziz, was killed. This was a loss not only for Banu Rashid but also a setback for theOttomans who had backed the Banu Rashid.

Abdul Aziz Aal Saud understood another fact of life in the constantly shifting loyalties of thedesert: since most clans and/or tribes were virtually equal in power, the only way to beat themwas through external help. While the Ottoman Turks had exercised control over the areathrough their governors, their power was in decline as British colonialists marched in. Abdul Azizwas well aware of this as the British had already installed the Sabah family in Kuwait. Theymight do the same for him if he offered his services against the Ottomans. Britain, however, wasmore interested in the Hijaz at the time. Unlike the Persian Gulf, Britain’s interest in the Hijazwas not merely commercial. True, the Red Sea port of Jeddah is important but its realsignificance was political because of the Haramayn (Makkah and Madinah). It had to be wrestedfrom Ottoman control.

British intrigue

A British military officer, Captain R.F. Burton (later Sir Richard Burton) had already expressedsuch views in the early 1850s following his visits to Makkah and Madinah under the guise ofhaving converted to Islam. In 1881, the British Consul General in Jeddah, Zohrab, spelled out ineven more clear terms the significance of the Hijaz and Hajj. He wrote to London, “[Certainpersons] I am persuaded, proceed on the Hajj for political reasons (emphasis added). Meccabeing free of European intrusion is safe ground on which meetings can be held, ideasexchanged… Up to the present time we have kept no watch on those who come and go… thusmeetings may be convened at Mecca at which combinations hostile to us may form without ourknowing anything till the shell bursts in our midst…”

The Hijaz had become a velayat (province) of the Ottoman State in 1840 and appointment of

5 / 10


the sharif (governor-administrator) of Makkah had devolved to the Sultan in Istanbul. By thebeginning of the 20th century, Britain had started to cultivate its own independent links with thesharif in an attempt to undermine Turkish authority.

Husayn ibn ‘Ali, the Sharif of Makkah

Aware of such British plans, the Turks published a commentary in the Makkan paper, Hijaz,pointing to this plot calling it most “devilish” (Hijaz, No.1896, Safar 25, 1433ah (1914ce), p.1).The British plan proceeded apace with a number of its agents — T.E. Lawrence, CaptainShakespear, Sir Henry McMahon, Sir Percy Cox, et al — bribing Arabian chiefs with money andpromises to make them rulers of the Arabian Peninsula if they would help Britain defeat theOttomans. They found willing accomplices in Sharif Husayn ibn ‘Ali (of the Hashemite clan),Abdul Aziz Aal Saud and others. All of them were put on the British payroll and paid 20,000£annually plus guns to attack Turkish troops in the Arabian Peninsula. At the same time, theBritish pledged to create a homeland for the Jews in Palestine under the now infamous BalfourDeclaration of November 1917.

The British had no intention of honoring their pledges to these naive Arabian chiefs. This wasexposed following the overthrow of the Czar in Russia. In November 1917, the Bolsheviksstumbled upon the Sykes-Picot Agreement under which the British and French had agreed todivide the Middle East into their respective spheres of influence. Civil servants Mark Sykes ofBritain and George Picot of France had secretly agreed in February 1916 on the division of theMiddle East, completely ignoring promises made to the various tribal chiefs.

Following Turkey’s defeat in the First World War (their army had already been infiltrated byBritish agents and many Turkish officers had become freemasons), the British reneged on theirpledges to the Arabian chiefs. Husayn ibn ‘Ali was furious at this betrayal; he had dreamed ofbecoming king of the entire Arabian Peninsula. In order to placate him, the British placed one ofhis sons, ‘Abdullah, as amir of Transjordan (breaking it from Palestine) and the other son,Faysal, as king of Syria from where he was soon driven out. The British then installed Faysal asking of Iraq (the monarchy in Iraq finally ended with the military coup of 1958 that killed theHashemite ruler).

Abdul Aziz meanwhile worked hard to consolidate his home base. It appears, until then hisinterest was confined to his native Najd. Besides, the Hijaz already had an Ottoman-appointedgovernor who also enjoyed British support. Using his legendary guile, Abdul Aziz started to

6 / 10


cultivate the Wahhabis (now called Ikhwan) who were based around al-Artawiyah. Heencouraged them to settle near Riyadh, especially Ghot Ghot. He brought Wahhabi tribes likethe ‘Utaybah, Mutayr and Ajman to settle there. He promised to implement the Shari‘ah(according to their narrow understanding) once they helped him establish the Islamic State inNajd. Abdul Aziz also continued his links with the British. Had the Wahhabi Ikhwan known ofthis, they would certainly have declared him a kafir and killed him. It was too late when theyfound out. From 1928–1931 they rose in revolt against Abdul Aziz but British planes, guns,money and military advice helped crush the Ikhwan revolt. The very people that had helpedAbdul Aziz and his family in their early conquests and later helped him consolidate his hold overNajd were now betrayed and murdered by him with the help of the British kafirs!

Abolition of the khilafah

In Turkey meanwhile Mustafa Kemal, a freemason, had come to power. He first abolished thesultanate in November 1922 and then on March 3, 1924, announced abolition of the khilafah aswell, forcing Abdulmecid II (‘Abd al-Majid), the last nominal khalifah of the Muslims, into exile.This severed the last link, however tenuous, with the first Islamic State established by noneother than the noble Messenger of Allah (pbuh) in Madinah nearly 1,300 years earlier. Husaynibn ‘Ali, then living in Transjordan, immediately pounced on this and declared himself khalifahhoping this would garner the support of the Muslims as well as force the hand of the British toaccept him as ruler of all the Arabs. The Muslims of India had led a Khilafat Movement in hopesof preserving this institution during the period 1922–1924. But Husayn ibn ‘Ali’s declaration didnot go down well with the Muslims; he was known as a British agent who led the Arab Revoltthat had helped defeat the Ottomans. This in turn paved the way for the destruction of thekhilafah altogether.

Abdul Aziz, ever the canny operator, realized that this was his opportunity to make a move. Asan obscure figure, at least in view of the larger Muslim world, his links with the British were notwidely known. He thought he could move against the Sharif of Makkah and that the Muslimswould support him. This also suited the British since Husayn ibn ‘Ali had become troublesomeespecially after the British refused to make him ruler of all the Arabs. Britain agreed to AbdulAziz’s attack on Makkah. The Saudi-Wahhabi hordes’ assault on Makkah was preceded by twoother events: the massacre of 5,000 pilgrims from Yemen in July 1923 and the Saudis’ assaulton Ta’if in September 1924. The Saudis slaughtered between 600 and 900 residents of Ta’if,including many that had sought refuge in masjids. Even the sanctity of masjids did not preventtheir being attacked and killed. The Saudi hordes first slit people’s throats inside the masjidsand then set fire to the buildings, all in the name of “purifying” Islam.

7 / 10


Saudi vandalism in the Hijaz

When the Saudis stormed Makkah, the terrified people fled to Jeddah and barricadedthemselves inside their homes, news of the Ta’if massacre having reached them before theSaudi-Wahhabi hordes arrived. This was almost a repeat of the slaughter the Saudis hadperpetrated in 1802. Husayn ibn ‘Ali had also fled Makkah for Jeddah before the Saudimarauders entered the city. Without British help, he could not resist the Saudi onslaught. TheBritish put him on an old steamer into exile in Cyprus.

The Saudi hordes led by Abdul Aziz indulged in their customary brutality and destruction ofthe holy places. Many entered the sacred sanctuary of al-Masjid al-Haram wearing ihram whilesimultaneously armed with British-supplied guns. The Saudi-Wahhabis’ rallying cry had alwaysbeen to “purify” Islam but they violated every tenet of Islam: sanctity of the Haram, no weapons,altercation or bloodshed in Makkah, and safety of the pilgrims. Even the mushriks at the time ofthe noble Messenger (pbuh), the mortal enemies of Islam, had more respect for these tenetsbut the Saudis that claim to be Muslims, openly flouted them.

When Makkah fell to his hordes, Abdul Aziz issued a disclaimer eschewing any claims to thethrone of the Hijaz or the khilafah. He insisted he was content with his possessions in Najd butwanted to “rid the Hijaz and my people of the cruelty of the Sharif.” This was a lie. While theSharif, Husayn ibn ‘Ali, may have been cruel, he could not match the cruelty and murderouszeal of the Saudi-Wahhabi hordes. Besides, Abdul Aziz was already planning to attack Madinahand captured it on December 5, 1925.

Abdul Aziz declares himself king

Within a few weeks (January 1926), while accompanied by the imam of al-Masjid al-Haram,Abdul Aziz declared himself “king of the Hijaz”. Even then he continued to indulge in duplicityand lies. Allah (swt) has condemned liars in the strongest terms in the noble Qur’an, “The curseof Allah is upon those that lie” (3:61). He said he was forced to declare himself king because ofthe “indifference of foreign Muslims” despite his repeated requests for advice about themanagement of holy places. Besides, the merchants and notables of Jeddah had asked him tobecome the king! Those leading the charge of “purifying” Islam have never seen fit to explainwhether kingship is permitted in Islam. The Saudis and their court ‘alims that have opened abid‘ah factory denouncing everything not to their liking are guilty of a mega-bid‘ah but their paidagents never broach this subject.

Until the Second World War, Abdul Aziz remained a British agent. With the emergence ofAmerica as a global power, Abdul Aziz quickly moved to become Uncle Sam’s loyal servant, a

8 / 10


relationship that has continued to this day. For keeping the House of Saud in power, theAmericans are given whatever they wish: oil, military bases and trillions of dollars in cash. TheHouse of Saud has also cultivated close links with the ruling oligarchy in America, especially theHouse of Bush, and other families.

Abdul Aziz had also acquired multiple wives from whom he sired many children. Today theHouse of Saud has expanded to some 40,000 princes. Barring a few, the vast majority displaythe worst kind of behavior. They indulge in virtually every vice forbidden in Islam: drinking,adultery, gambling, stealing the country’s oil wealth and being subservient to the enemies ofIslam. They conform to everyone and everything, except Allah (swt), nastaghfir-allah. Officially,the Qur’an has been declared the country’s constitution but the system of government ishereditry. When one king dies, he is succeeded by the next brother in line. One is forced to ask:if the Qur’an is the kingdom’s constitution, what Qur’anic ayah permits such succession, or thedevice of kingship as a legitimate method of representation in Islam? Did the noble Messengerof Allah (pbuh) or his successors, al-Khilafah al-Rashidah, declare themselves kings? If not, onwhat basis do the Saudis impose the system of kingship?

Theoretically, the kingdom is governed by Shari‘ah (Islamic Law) but it does not apply insidethe walls of the numerous palaces where every vice takes place. Under the guise of applyingthe Shari‘ah, the Saudis have perpetrated the worst kind of zulm imaginable on ordinary people,especially poor workers and laborers from places like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and thePhilippines. Public beheadings are a frequent occurrence in Riyadh. In order to increase theirterror potential, they are carried out after Jumu‘ah Salah. Offenders are often poor workersfound guilty of importing a few grams of heroin. The “royals” steal billions of dollars and smugglethem out of the country, smuggle alcohol into the country, manage the drug trade from the crimesyndicate on the eastern part of the country, and traffic poor women from all over the world fortheir carnal pleasures, but the law has never touched them. If the Shari‘ah were appliedequitably, there would not be a single Saudi prince with a safe pair of hands. And if punishmentfor adultery were fairly and judicially instituted, there would not be enough stones in thekingdom to administer proper justice to the hordes of Saudi royals.

The Saudis have spent at least $87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the pasttwo decades, and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years. Thebulk of this funding goes towards the construction and operating expenses of masjids,madrasas, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports imamtraining; mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of textbooks and other literature; andendowments to universities (in exchange for influence over the appointment of Islamicscholars). Some of the millions of non-Saudis who live in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulfhave been influenced by Wahhabism and preach Wahhabism in their home country upon theirreturn. Agencies controlled by the Kingdom's Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wahand Guidance are responsible for outreach to non-Muslim residents.

Even for Muslims in Saudi Arabia, the Wahhabi ideology denies them basic rights. Conceivedin 1744 by Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, the lay preacher, it employed violent enforcerscalled mutawwi‘ or mutawwi‘un to ensure obedience. Nowadays the mutawwi‘un (religiouspolicemen) allegedly enforce the promotion of virtue and prevention of vice. The mutawwi‘un

9 / 10


are ruthless. On one occasion, they caused 15 schoolgirls to die on 3-11-2002 when a firebroke out in a school dormitory. Several girls tried to escape the burning building, but were metby members of the mutawwi‘un, who found the girls not dressed in appropriate attire. They beatthe girls to send them back into the flames. The mutawwi‘unalso prevented approaching firemen from putting out the fire.

The mutawwi‘un’s powers were slightly reduced in May 2006, but their repression continues.On 6-6-2006 a 70-year old Saudi woman was placed in jail because she went into a shop whereonly a male shopkeeper was present. The elderly and disabled woman was arrested by themutawwi‘un because she had been “in close proximity to a man” (khalwah).

The mutawwi‘un are involved in destroying national monuments which had survived since thetime of the Prophet (pbuh), lest they become places of pilgrimage. In 1998, the grave of Aminahbint Wahb, the Prophet’s (pbuh) mother, was destroyed. The house of Khadijah, the Prophet’s(pbuh) first wife, has been replaced with lavatories. Only 20 structures from the time of Islam’sProphet (pbuh) now remain.

Muslims must seriously consider whether the Haramayn can be left in the hands of peoplewith such low character. Are the Haramayn the common heritage of the Ummah or the privateproperty of the Saudi hordes who are guilty of egregious crimes against Islam and the Muslims?We must seriously reflect on why our supplications are not answered by Allah (swt). TheUmmah is suffering so much because we have allowed such people to take control of the mostsacred places of Islam.

Unless the Haramayn — Makkah and Madinah — are liberated from the clutches of theserecalcitrant thieves, adulterers, and despots, Allah’s (swt) mercy will not manifest itself in ourlives. We need to look deeply into ourselves for some serious reflection.

10 / 10

aal saud: jahili roots, destructive role · his father, ‘abdul wahhab and brother sulayman ibn...

Documents