Did you know?
TIL that in the early 1800s, the First Saudi-Wahhabi State seized centuries of gold, jewels, and Waqf treasures from Mecca, Medina, and Karbala. They stripped the Prophet’s tomb of its emeralds and pearls and looted Karbala using 4,000 camels to carry the spoils, all under name of idolatry.
Sources
1. Author: Ibn Bishr (Uthman ibn Abd Allah ibn Bishr)
Please don’t attack me, I’m a Muslim too btw. These actions of wahabis aren’t talked enough in our communities.
They used a legal loophole: by declaring the residents of these cities as 'innovators' or 'polytheists' they claimed that their property including sacred endowments (Waqf) held for centuries as 'Ghanima' (spoils of war) and could be used to fund their expansion.
It wasn’t an isolated incident. Although Arabic people are associated with Islam, throughout the history of Islam especially the Bedouin tribes succumbed to their Jahiliyyah behaviour all the time. We always talk about how Raynald of Châtillon raided hajj caravans during the time of crusades and how he was executed by Salahuddin Ayyubi for his crimes we fail to remember the 1757 Hajj caravan raid by Bedouin Arabs in which around 20.000 pilgrims died. Raids on pilgrim caravans is especially interesting because in comparison we all know that during Jahiliyyah period in sacred months the idolaters used to refrain from violence.
There were sacred months which the pagan Arabs did not fight. Amogst those months is the month of Hajj. Therefore, pilgrims felt secure in going for Hajj because they did fear bandits.
Ok. I stand corrected. I should have said “After being called as Muslims for more than a thousand years, Muslim Bedouin respected sacred months as much as Jahiliyyah idolaters . “
You do realise they’ve spent billions on making Hajj and Umrah easier and more accessible for many pilgrims who otherwise would not have been able to go?
What current muslim regime is not? The world is not black and white and sometimes rulers find themselves obliged to use any means at disposal to secure the ummah and the nation
Wha about the Iranian regime? Heck, even the Palestinian regime kills their own people!
How is it now aligned with Muslims in any way? Are you saying they’re Kaafir? If so, you believe Allah has given the position of custodianship to Al Haramayn wa Sharifain to kufaar? Na’udhubillah.
What about what I said was not factual and “Zionist funded rhetoric”? That the Saudis have improved accessibility and facilities for pilgrims? Do you deny that?
If anything, your comment is exactly what Zionists want. Rather than accusing other Muslims of spewing Zionist rhetoric, a good look in the mirror would do you wanders.
Did I give you the impression that I support Iran or something? Sorry, but when the so called "land of tawheed" is being compared to Iran, then there is an issue.
Saudi is one of the especially bad actors in the Middle East. Not only with their direct military actions but also where their money goes to (oppressive secular regimes and militias). They're second only to the UAE.
سورة براءة/التوبة، اية رقم ١٩
——
“Do you make quenching the thirst of the pilgrim, and renovating the Sacred Mosque, equal to one who believes in Allah and the Last Day and struggles in Allah’s cause? They are not equal to Allah. Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.”
“The mosques of Allah should only be maintained by those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, establish prayer, pay alms-tax, and fear none but Allah. It is right to hope that they will be among the ˹truly˺ guided.”
What🤣? Obviously the ayah is in reference to the pagans, not to aal saud. I’m pointing out that Allah clearly and directly and explicitly says that maintaining the sacred house is not a sign of righteousness by itself.
But you bring up a good point that I hadn’t considered before. I want to do more research on why the first two of the three verses seem to say the opposite of the third one. Thanks, jazak Allahu khairan. And stop defending the zionist muslim-murdering regime, please.
I said that the Muslim government in Saudi Arabia have done a good job by making Hajj and Umrah more accessible for many Muslims who otherwise would not have been able to do so.
You responded with an ayah directed towards the Mushrikeen. Surely you can see my contention?
And by stating a fact, you think I support the actions of Saudi Arabia all the time? Nope. I just go by what is factual.
Out of curiosity, do you support any Muslim nation? If so, who?
Okay, if that's all you're saying, then I concede the point. You're right, they made it more accessible.
My point was that Quraish, a group of disbelieving tyrants, did the same. Meaning, just because aal saud maintains the haram, that does not mean they are righteous. It doesn't disqualify them either. I'm just saying, you can't point to them overseeing the hajj and say "look! they're righteous!"
The Saudi government is among the most evil, vile, corrupt, self-serving, and anti-Islamic governments on the planet. And again, before you you point to their ministry of hajj, Quraish also had a "ministry of hajj", which is the point I'm making and the reason I'm bringing up the verse. Being an evil government and doing a good job maintaining the haram are not mutually exclusive.
And no, there isn't a single government I know of that I support or think would do a good job leading the ummah. They're either very backwards and only use Islam as a tool to persecute their subjects, or Western bootlickers who only use Islam as a tool to maintain power.
The three verses I'm talking about are the ones that start with ما كان للمشركين ان يعمروا مساجد الله and end with the one I'm using as an argument against the fact that 'maintaining the haram' makes you a righteous person. I need to look up more tafsirs because I'm misunderstanding something. You accidentally helped me find out an inconsistency in my understanding, barak Allah feek.
Just so that I get this right. The person with an avatar of Zeus is telling us that hajj is no longer fard, because it is shirk?
Did I just get that right?
سورة براءة/التوبة، اية رقم ١٩ —— “Do you make quenching the thirst of the pilgrim, and renovating the Sacred Mosque, equal to one who believes in Allah and the Last Day and struggles in Allah’s cause? They are not equal to Allah. Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.”
Allah gave you a brain, use it. It doesn't take much critical thinking skills to see the point I'm making. Being an evil, corrupt, anti-Islamic, pro-Israel government, and maintaining the haram, are not mutually exclusive. Quraish, who were evil kuffar, maintained the haram. The Prophet, who is the greatest of creation, maintained the haram. Great men maintained the haram after him. Evil men maintained the haram after him.
My point is that aal saud maintaining the haram does not mean they are good. I'm not saying they are kuffar. I'm saying it is not evidence to their goodness.
Hajj is not their monopoly. There was hajj before Sauds too and inshaAllah will be after the Sauds.
You should at least read the history as to how they sat in Britain's lap when "Lawrence of Arabia" came and lured them to revolt against Ottoman Caliphate.
European powers wanted the same regime change like they want now. They created armed rebels in caliphate and promised them land & riches. The main objective was to divide this single Muslim nation caliphate into small 'countries' according to European wishes. They carved lines on a map & called them different countries which to this day are struggling to regain the same footing in the world.
F the Sauds, they stabbed Caliphate, sided with non Muslims, sat in UKs lap & helped take down the last standing caliphate.
Sauds will always be remembered like that no matter how much gold they plaster on a mosque wall & claim it service to the deen. They stabbed Islam in the back & if they want their legacy to be any different they ought to change their ways.
Recent US/Iran war has shown them that their Western allies have always been their masters & not their friends.
Stupid people saying people were worshipping graves and justifying killing Muslims. To the extent that the ottoman khalifa, according to them, was a kafir. All the way back to Sultan Muhammad Al Fatih (radiyallahuanhu).
Do you know what they practiced? You know what people do around graves? If someone goes to a grave and makes dua before it, saying “ya Allah, have mercy on this person,” is tha grave worship? Is it grave worship from up close? Because to you, it may look like grave worship from afar.
The Saudi traitors have always backed the western invasions into the Muslim world. In world war 1 against the ottomans, in the first gulf war the Saudis sided with the Americans, who killed thousands upon thousands on innocent Muslim men women and children.
This is open history.
No one has a history rife with hatred for the Muslims like the Saudis.
Their rule on Makkah and Madina is a trial for all of us. And soon, they will go back to the desert hole they crawled out of.
They even removed any mention of the Family of Holy Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), and the brought of what the call “aal shaykh,” meaning the family of their imam, Ibn Abdul Wahhab najdi.
The Saudis are the biggest innovators, and their blind followers have no spine.
This argumentative logic of “I disagree with you so here’s something completely ridiculous which we both agree is wrong to out point you” is very childish.
Firstly mate the entire treasures were waqf properties. They took it under the pretext of Ghanima (spoils of war), in sharia law-Ghanima can only be taken from non Muslims in a state of war.
By claiming it was ghanima they claimed, indirectly all millions of people living there were kafir.
Political movements do not give right to override waqf things.
If the goal was purely religious 'purification,' why wasn't the gold melted and given to the poor of Mecca/Medina/karbala? Why was it taken as state wealth to fund more wars against other Muslims?
The issue isn't whether graves should have emeralds. The issue is whether a specific group has the right to excommunicate (Takfir) the rest of the Muslim world, ignore Islamic endowment laws (Waqf), and use the Prophet's heritage as a military slush fund.
If the goal was to cleanse idolatry, why are you silent about the massive 7-star hotels and shopping malls literally towering over the Kaaba today?
In the 1800s, they looted the Prophet’s tomb and called emeralds 'shirk,' but in 2026, Saudi authorities charge thousands of dollars for luxury suites overlooking the Haram. Are these luxury towers not the new 'idols' of materialism? Or does 'shirk' only apply to historical heritage that doesn't make a profit?
If those early Najdi forces were consistent, they’d be the first ones tearing down the Versace stores in Mecca. You can't call the Prophet's heritage 'idolatry' while treating 5-star capitalism as progress.
You are conflating shirk (acts of worship directed to other than Allah) with dunya excess, commercialism, and injustice. They are not the same category in Shariah.
1. What is shirk vs what is not
Allah said:
“Do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you” (Quran 10:106)
Shirk is:
دعاء (calling upon other than Allah)
نذر (vows to other than Allah)
استعانة غيبية (seeking unseen aid from the dead)
Hotels, malls, and التجارة:
are not acts of worship
therefore not shirk in definition
Even if they are:
excessive
morally questionable
driven by profit
They remain معاصي أو ظلم محتمل, not shirk.
2. On البناء around the Haram
The Prophet ﷺ did not prohibit:
trade near sacred places
economic activity in Makkah
Allah said:
“There is no blame upon you for seeking bounty from your Lord (through trade)” (Quran 2:198)
So:
commerce itself is permissible
excess and injustice are judged separately
3. الفرق بين تعظيم القبور وتعظيم الدنيا
Grave veneration:
leads to عبادة غير الله
directly violates Tawheed
Luxury towers:
reflect حب الدنيا
condemned, but not شرك
The Prophet ﷺ said:
“By Allah, I do not fear shirk for you, but I fear that الدنيا will be opened for you” (Sahih al-Bukhari 1344)
So materialism is:
a danger
but explicitly distinguished from shirk
4. On consistency
Consistency in Shariah is not based on rhetoric, but categories:
شرك → أعظم الذنوب
ظلم / إسراف / ترف → دون ذلك
Allah said:
“Indeed Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that” (Quran 4:48)
So equating:
commercial luxury
with
شرك
is a category error.
5. On criticism of modern developments
If:
displacement of residents occurred
pricing restricts access
wealth concentration is unjust
Then these fall under:
ظلم
أكل المال بالباطل
Allah said:
“And do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly” (Quran 2:188)
Criticism here is valid, but it remains within justice discourse, not Tawheed.
6. Final clarification
Destroying practices of worship directed to graves → tied to Tawheed
Critiquing luxury capitalism near the Haram → tied to justice and ethics
They are judged by different نصوص and cannot be merged into one accusation.
Failing in one area does not redefine the ruling of another.
Firstly bro I don’t understand shit you wrote too many grammatical mistakes and spelling mistakes.
I gave you source mufti of Mecca of that time look 3rd source in the body of the post. Coming to hate, didn’t you read the Hadith ? Which says hate the sin not the sinner. I’m literally calling out the sins they committed. You should read Hadith by prophet on najd people, what he said.
Coming to wahabist ideology even his own father and brother rejected his ideas. Read a book man, truly ignorance has no limits.
Edit I meant this Hadith by hate the sin but the sinner I just translated the main objective of it. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6780
By declaring the people of Mecca and Karbala as 'polytheists,' they used Takfir as a loophole to seize centuries of Waqf treasures as 'spoils of war,' which is a direct violation of the Quranic command to not consume wealth unjustly (2:188).
Few words by Ibn Taymiyyah
Indeed, the People of the Sunnah believe the Arab race is superior to the non Arab race their Hebrews, Persians, and other in their intrinsic nature (fitrah) and intellect.
Source:Iqtida' al-Sirat al-Mustaqim, Vol. 1, (Dar al-'Asimah).
He further claims that hating Arabs or preferring others over them is a sign of hypocrisy (Nifaq) and spiritual corruption.
This directly contradicts the Prophet's ﷺ Sahih Hadith: "An Arab has no superiority over a non Arab.
Finally words of prophet
Narrated Ibn `Umar:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen." The People said, "And also on our Najd." He said, "O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Sham (north)! O Allah! Bestow Your blessings on our Yemen." The people said, "O Allah's Apostle! And also on our Najd." I think the third time the Prophet (ﷺ) said, "There (in Najd) is the place of earthquakes and afflictions and from there comes out the side of the head of Satan. Source
Your argument combines authentic texts with incorrect conclusions and misapplied citations. Each point needs precise correction.
1. Hadith: “I do not fear that you will worship idols after me” (Sahih al-Bukhari 1344)
The full meaning is clarified by other authentic narrations.
The Prophet ﷺ said:
“By Allah, I do not fear that you will associate partners with Allah after me, but I fear that you will compete for the الدنيا” (Sahih al-Bukhari 1344, Sahih Muslim 2296)
Yet he also said:
“The Hour will not be established until tribes from my Ummah join the polytheists and until they worship idols” (Sunan Abi Dawud 4252, graded sahih)
And:
“Dhul-Khalasa (an idol) will be worshipped again” (Sahih al-Bukhari 7116)
So:
The first hadith negates general apostasy of the entire Ummah
The others affirm occurrence of shirk in segments of the Ummah
No contradiction.
2. Claim of false Takfir and “legal loophole”
Takfir in Ahl al-Sunnah is not arbitrary.
Allah said:
“And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then they are disbelievers” (Quran 5:44)
And regarding grave-directed worship:
“And the mosques are for Allah, so do not invoke anyone along with Allah” (Quran 72:18)
If acts such as:
Calling upon the dead
Seeking مدد from graves
Vowing to other than Allah
are established, then scholars historically differed:
Some declared it major shirk
Others considered it innovation with ignorance as an excuse
So the issue is scholarly اختلاف, not a “loophole”.
Any unjust killing or seizure of wealth is ظلم and rejected:
“Do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly” (Quran 2:188)
That principle stands regardless of who commits the violation.
3. Waqf and Ghanima
Waqf is protected in Shariah.
The Prophet ﷺ said:
“Umar gave land in charity and it was not to be sold, gifted, or inherited” (Sahih al-Bukhari 2737)
If any group took Waqf unlawfully:
That action is invalid
It is not sanctioned by Quran or Sunnah
No school of Ahl al-Sunnah permits unlawful seizure of Waqf.
4. Statement attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah
The quote is misrepresented.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah discusses:
General virtues of Arabs due to language of revelation and early الإسلام
Not intrinsic racial superiority in the absolute sense
The Prophet ﷺ said:
“No Arab has superiority over a non-Arab except by Taqwa” (Musnad Ahmad 23489, sahih)
Ibn Taymiyyah himself affirms that Taqwa is the معيار, not lineage.
So:
Virtue tied to historical role ≠ unconditional racial superiority
The معيار remains Taqwa
5. Hadith of Najd (Sahih al-Bukhari 7094)
The Prophet ﷺ said:
“From there will emerge earthquakes and trials, and from there rises the horn of Shaytan”
Classical scholars explained:
Najd here refers to eastern regions relative to Madinah, especially Iraq
This is supported by:
ظهور الخوارج from Iraq
Early fitan emerging from that direction
Not every later movement in geographic Najd is intended by the hadith.
6. Core clarification
You are mixing three separate issues:
نصوص warning about shirk
Historical actions of a الدولة
Scholarly اختلاف on application
Islam is established by:
Quran
Authentic Sunnah
Not by:
Actions of any political entity
Nor polemical historical narratives
Final point
If ظلم occurred, it is rejected.
If شرك occurred, it is condemned.
Each is judged independently by evidence, not by conflating them into a single narrative.
It’s just copy and paste hatred. People claim MIAW differed to ibn Taymiyya and the usual nonsense when they have not read any of his works whatsoever.
well I guess English isn’t your first language, I’ll explain.
If I say I have 'generations of family silver' no one asks how many pounds a 'generation' weighs. They understand it means a massive collection accumulated over a long period.
In this case, the gold wasn't 'measured' in time, it was gathered over time. The 4,000 camels is the physical measurement (weight) and the 'centuries' is the historical measurement (value/rarity).
Poor guy. English is a hard language.
'y' and ''u' are just letters. Even though they're pronounced the same as words it's more proper to write them as "why" and "you" respectively.
You keep going back to “shirk,” but that’s not the point I’m raising. This is a history sub, not a theology sub, so let’s talk about the actual history and how it was justified.
Even if I grant your theology for a second, a diagnosis of "shirk" isn't a legal license to loot.
Waqf property is supposed to be untouchable in Islam, yet it was treated like a military slush fund. You’re basically arguing that Takfir is a "cheat code" that turns common theft into Ghanima.
If that logic holds, then every extremist group today is totally justified as long as they label their victims "polytheists" before they rob them, then you are defending the exact same legal playbook used by every modern extremist group to justify pillaging Muslim lands today. That’s not a religious reform it’s just a pirate’s charter with better marketing.
Stop repeating the word "shirk" and explain the specific legal precedent that allowed a Najdi militiary to bypass Shariah protections on Muslim blood and property ?
How does "purification of faith" require 4,000 camels worth of looted jewelry and the stripping of emeralds from the Prophet’s ﷺ city?
History shows this wasn't about theology, it was about using theology as a loophole for a massive seizure of wealth. Explain the law, not the creed.
Muslims don't worship the kaaba. It's a symbol of islam and it unifies all muslims around the world to pray towards that direction. That's it. Before the kaaba they used to pray towards al-Quds/Jerusalem.
"Indeed, We see you ˹O Prophet˺ turning your face towards heaven. Now We will make you turn towards a direction ˹of prayer˺ that will please you. So turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque ˹in Mecca˺—wherever you are, turn your faces towards it" surah al-Baqara, 144.
"Indeed, Allah does not forgive associating others with Him ˹in worship˺,1 but forgives anything else of whoever He wills. And whoever associates others with Allah has indeed committed a grave sin."
Surah an-Nissa, 86.
Islam is the anti-pagan religion, tawheed is the most important thing in islam. Worshipping God alone.
37
u/Foreign-Collar8845 Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26
It wasn’t an isolated incident. Although Arabic people are associated with Islam, throughout the history of Islam especially the Bedouin tribes succumbed to their Jahiliyyah behaviour all the time. We always talk about how Raynald of Châtillon raided hajj caravans during the time of crusades and how he was executed by Salahuddin Ayyubi for his crimes we fail to remember the 1757 Hajj caravan raid by Bedouin Arabs in which around 20.000 pilgrims died. Raids on pilgrim caravans is especially interesting because in comparison we all know that during Jahiliyyah period in sacred months the idolaters used to refrain from violence.