Merriam-Webster defines Apologetics as:
1: systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)2: a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity
Amongst the Muslim community, there are those who defend the
Saudi regime as if defending their religion or a doctrine. These apologists
either have financial interests in doing so, or at the very least,
subconsciously seek to soothe their hidden guilt at allowing an anti-Islāmic force to rule the
sacred soil of Arabia. They are not bothered at the broader issues and crises
of Islām as long as
they can continue their lifestyle as they please.
The arguments they present are patently naïve and never
refer to the Qurān or Ḥadīth, for indeed the sacred texts of Islām cannot condone the
existence of a tyrannical, treasonous regime devoted to Ghayrullāh. To even call these
arguments “apologetics” is a kindness, for apologetics is defined to be
“systematic,” unlike the statements of Saudi apologists.
"The excesses of the Saudis are to be balanced against their great service to the Muslims"
Okay, so the Saudis have made the Maṭāf marble when previously Ṭawāf
was more physically taxing. They have installed air-conditioning and many other
material amenities. This is not in dispute. What I do dispute is firstly, this
argument presents nothing of a scriptural basis. It is pure concocted defence.
Secondly the defence is invalid.
·
The apologists pretend that
the Saudis have spent of their own personal wealth in the cause of Allāh and deserve recognition
for this supposed selfless sacrifice. How many minutes of honest labour have
the Saudis engaged in and how many millilitres of sweat have they perspired to
acquire this wealth of “theirs”? Unless
the apologists wish to stoop to unheard of levels of shamelessness, nobody is
able to deny the fact that the thousands of Saudis who call themselves princes
are nothing but parasites leeching off the wealth of Allāh and the Ummah. When they do engage in work, it is in
the fields of drug trafficking, stealing
property from commoners, taking loans and not repaying and the like.
·
When the Jews offer the
Palestinians some scraps of amenities, we are not impressed, and rightfully so.
The wealth is stolen and if a portion is thrown back, why should the victim
show gratitude? What is the difference between Jewish and Saudi theft?
·
The amounts spent on the Ḥaramayn should be weighed
against the mind boggling billions which the House of Saud lavishes not just on
extravagant lifestyles, palaces and yachts, but Allāh alone knows the incalculable amount spent on gambling
and prostitution. Consider just two facts – ABC reported in 2004 how Saudi
princes paid prostitutes of both sexes in the French Riviera up to $50,000 per session; and
consider that in 1969, i.e. just two years after the loss of al-Aqṣā, Fahd gambled 5.6m USD
away in a single night. Adjust that to current values and ask with what face do
the apologists ask us to be grateful to this house?
·
Even if the wealth came
from the personal funds and generosity of the Saudis, I would advise the
apologists to read the Qurān,
at least once in a while. Remember that Pharaoh had raised Mūsā ‘alayhis salām since he was a baby. He not only paid for his
food, clothing and the roof over his head, even the mother’s milk which Mūsā ‘alayhis salām drank was not for free. Pharaoh paid his mother
to breast-feed him. The Qurān
describes how the now Nabī
Mūsā ‘alayhis salām denounces the shirk
and tyranny of Pharaoh. Pharaoh responds in the same vein as the apologists and
reminds Mūsā ‘alayhis
salām of his past generosity to him. I shall limit myself to quoting the
reply of Mūsā ‘alayhis salām. If an explanation is needed on comparing
the two scenarios then may Allāh have mercy!
وتلك
نعمة تمنها علي أن عبدت بني إسرائيل
And that is the favour which you flaunt against me
despite your enslaving Banū
Isrāīl? [ash-Shuara:
22]
"If Allāh was unhappy with the Saudis He would not allow them control over the Ka ‘bah"
If not for the fact that I have heard this argument many a
time, I would feel it a sheer waste of time to even respond to it.
·
Three centuries before Rasūlullāh صلى
الله عليه و سلم ‘Amr bin Luḥayy al-Khuzā‘ī ruled Makkah. It was this
wretched person who defiled the Ka‘bah and introduced idolatry to Makkah.
According to the Saudi apologists, control of the Ka‘bah is indicative of Allāh’s
sanctioning a ruling. By this reasoning, Allāh sanctioned the rule of ‘Amr and
the idolators for the next three centuries. Note that the Saudis have not yet
completed a century of ruling Makkah, as opposed to the three centuries of idolatrous
rule. If we extend the strange reasoning of the apologists, this would mean
that Allāh is triply more pleased with the idolaters than with the Saudis.
·
Again, if Allāh is pleased with whoever rules Makkah, what was
the purpose of Rasūlullāh militarily صلى الله عليه و سلم opposing the government of Makkah and conquering Makkah?
·
During the Islāmic period
Makkah has been ruled several times by the Shī‘ah. These included the Qarāmatīyah
and Fāṭimīyah, both whom subscribed to Ismā‘īlī heresy i.e. ‘Alī رضى الله عنه is
God incarnate! So… was Allāh pleased with these governments?
·
Rasūlullāh
صلى الله عليه
و سلم has informed us that Ẓū Suwayqatayn will conquer
Makkah and demolish the Ka‘bah. Indeed, by the reasoning of the Saudi
apologists, Allāh’s
pleasure not only encompasses pious rulers such as Abū
Bakr رضى
الله عنه, but a host of tyrants and disbelievers who have ruled and will
rule Makkah.
·
I again ask the apologists
to refer to the Word of Allāh.
Al-‘Abbās رضى الله عنه is honoured as
both a Ṣaḥābī and uncle of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم , notwithstanding his relative late
entry into Islām. In fact he fought on the Quraysh side at Badr. He held a post
in the Quraysh government and could be termed as the Minister of Ḥajj and
Custodian of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām. He defended his perceived honour in regards
the early Muslims by saying, “You may have preceded us in Islām, Hijrah and Jihād,
but indeed we maintained the building of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām and gave water to
the pilgrims and spent on the needy.” Allāh’s reply in the form of the 19th
verse of at-Tawbah should be well heeded by those who defend the House of Saud:
أجعلتم
سقاية الحاج وعمارة المسجد الحرام كمن آمن بالله واليوم الآخر وجاهد في سبيل الله
لا يستوون عند الله والله لا يهدي القوم الظالمين
Do you make the giving of water to the pilgrims and
building the Sacred Masjid equal to those who believe in Allāh and the Last Day and
strive in Allāh’s
way? They are not equal in the Sight of Allāh! And Allāh does not guide the wrong-doing folk.
Although the scum of kufr seems to be overwhelming the pure
river of Islām, inshāllāh Allāh’s
Dīn will soon triumph.
Islām’s triumph is
guaranteed, Allāh
alone knows when. The question each Muslim should ask, is whether he or she
wishes to sell his or her religion and associate with the scum for the sake of
temporary worldly pleasure, or whether he or she wishes to be amongst Allāh’s party. May Allāh guide us all.
سليمان الكندي
No comments:
Post a Comment