Question: Whats left in Saudi Arabia dating back to the prophets time

muslim4life76

Junior Member
Asalamualakum i heard Saudi Arabia have destroyed nearly everything dating back whats left ? like mount uhud cave hira anything else please name and send pictures and do they exist today
wouldnt this cause doubt to the next generation they might even doubt the prophets existence and the companions and think islam is a myth like other figures and is there any relics dating back to islam how historical is Islam the prophet as compared to other religious figures etc
 

Mabsoot

Amir
Staff member
wa alaykum salam,

Cave Hira exists and is not destroyed. There is a lot of construction work around the main holy sites as the number of pilgrims and visitors increases. As for historic buildings, Allah knows best what has happened with regards to them. It is also known that Saudi Arabia has a lot of detractors who will not hesitate to provide negative news with regards it.

If people begin to think Islamic figures are a myth, then they need to get an education. There is plenty of sources from that time period that provide evidence they existed. This includes non-Muslims who wrote about the news of a Prophet in Arabia.
 

Abu Juwairiya

Junior Member
wa alaykum salam,

Cave Hira exists and is not destroyed. There is a lot of construction work around the main holy sites as the number of pilgrims and visitors increases. As for historic buildings, Allah knows best what has happened with regards to them. It is also known that Saudi Arabia has a lot of detractors who will not hesitate to provide negative news with regards it.

If people begin to think Islamic figures are a myth, then they need to get an education. There is plenty of sources from that time period that provide evidence they existed. This includes non-Muslims who wrote about the news of a Prophet in Arabia.

I would add to Brother Mabsoot's answer that while Islam is not against having historical places for the sake of history, there has been much said about why the Saudi government has in the past demolished both some tourist attractions, masjids, old homes of the Sahaba, monuments and places of value worth seeing.

The reasons are sometimes the same as Umar Ibn Khattab's ruling that the Tree of Ridwan should be cut down while he was the Caliph. This was the place where 1, 400 Sahaba pledged allegiance to the Prophet the first time, one of those present at the time was Umar and the tree had a special memory for him personally just as it did to the remaining Sahaba still alive at the time. He ordered the tree to be cut down because more and more people were beginning to lose sight of the importance of the Ba'yah (oath of allegiance) that happened there and had started to see it only as a tourist attraction.

Since Bid'ah and Shirk are so large today across the world, the 'tourist' element is not so much of a problem as is the Bi'dah and Shirk manifestations in many of the old places where Muslims have started to adopt the view these places have divine powers and the dirt, soil, ground and even some of the masjids are more blessed than anywhere else simply because they are in Saudi Arabia or specific areas.
 

abou_elkacem

Junior Member
the same principle that makes ISIS destroys monuments and historical places, it is the same school of thought in Saudi arabia and ISIS : Wahabi doctrines. I would agree that it is important to preserve tawhiid but not to that extent.
 

asifmorie

Member
Assalamu alaikum watch your words before commenting why are you against wahabis are not they sunni muslims.Donot your remember words of great caliph umar(RA) when he said about Black stone(aswad) I might have destroyed you if i have not seen my prophet kissing you that is why i am kissing you.Neither you can benefit me nor you harm me.Regarding destroying Tombs it is important to prevent people from doing shirk and in islam it is prohibited to built tombs over graves as our prophet (SAW) has clearly prohibited.
 

abou_elkacem

Junior Member
I agree with you in the importance of preserving Tawhiid from the menace of Shirk especially the wide spread habit of calling dead people in tombs. About my words against wahabis, it is a long story, you may need to read for elfawzan, cheikh ibn baz, ibn otheimin, ibn taymeya who is the corner stone and others. Also read for the mutazela , ashareya, ibadheya to know the clear true theology in Islam . Also frankly, I dont see any difference between ISIS and the bases of Saudi Arabia. the atrocities and crimes committed by ISIS now are similar to what Al saud did when they founded their first state. If you know Arabic, there is a great book called " Akhbar Najd" written by "Ibn Ghannam", he depicts the crimes of saudis against the peoples in the arabian peninsula, he called those crimes " fetouhat".
 

Abu Juwairiya

Junior Member
Please refrain from using the word, 'Wahabi'. Islam is not an ideology, a set of doctrines, a political concept or a philosophy which allows adherents to create offshoots based on difference of opinion or personal perspectives. While a huge bridge has come to exist in the form of the Sunni Shia divide where there are varying points of diversity, Islam is not something that can be labelled as easily as political parties or the cult of personality by virtue of individual styles and strong beliefs in certain principles.

'Wahabiism', as it is often named is so called because of a distinct Saudi amalgamation of Islam, monarchial rule and Saudi culture based on the personal rule and dominance over a nation by a family. However, the term should be rejected because Islam does not believe in intermixing. You either take Islam fully as it is or reject it one hundred per cent.

Whatever our differences with the Saudi form of government, both Non Muslims and Muslims should not address them with designated labels such as this as it has no place in Islam and shows a lack of ignorance and hatred on the part of the user towards Islam as a religion and to Muslims when it is known such a practice is meaningless and without foundation.

By employing useless and unmeaningful terms you are causing division and inciting hatred between Muslims by implying the differences are actually greater than what they appear to be. Let us deal with our brethren in our own way and leave judgement on us as your ignorance since Shariah is so complex and vast that it takes years of careful training and learning to comprehend it fully. Laymen like me cannot hope to pass judgement, to condemn or to scold when my own knowledge is so limited in the first place.
 

abou_elkacem

Junior Member
I used that term " wahabi" to refer to a certain vision of Islam , it is a specific interpretation different from Ashaera and mutazela and other schools of thought. I do not say that they are not muslims, but sure they are not the only muslims or their interpretations are the true islam. I noticed that this forum spreads their doctrines.
 

Abu Juwairiya

Junior Member
I used that term " wahabi" to refer to a certain vision of Islam , it is a specific interpretation different from Ashaera and mutazela and other schools of thought. I do not say that they are not muslims, but sure they are not the only muslims or their interpretations are the true islam. I noticed that this forum spreads their doctrines.

I object to the term because it was coined by the enemies of Islam in the same way 'Ottoman Empire' was created by our adversaries and we are legitimising their usage by using the same words ourselves. They have little understanding of Islam, yet they affix labels to divide us. Terms such as Mutazila and Asherah were made by Muslims about themselves so I have less to say against their designation [differences in opinion over certain aspects of creed are another matter].
 

abou_elkacem

Junior Member
I object to the term because it was coined by the enemies of Islam in the same way 'Ottoman Empire' was created by our adversaries and we are legitimising their usage by using the same words ourselves. They have little understanding of Islam, yet they affix labels to divide us. Terms such as Mutazila and Asherah were made by Muslims about themselves so I have less to say against their designation [differences in opinion over certain aspects of creed are another matter].
If the problem is about the term, then there is no problem at all. the problem is the killing and takkfir they are spreading everywhere. that's it. What would I call them ? they are not like the other sunnis ! is it ok to call them salafis ?
 

Abu Juwairiya

Junior Member
If the problem is about the term, then there is no problem at all. the problem is the killing and takkfir they are spreading everywhere. that's it. What would I call them ? they are not like the other sunnis ! is it ok to call them salafis ?

Yes, 'Salafis' is fine. The word itself was coined by Muslims and is still accepted without negative connotations worldwide. You can if you wish, to differentiate them from other Salafis who want to be known as separate from them, call those within Saudi Arabia and those who have a very high regard for the Saudi royal family 'Saudi Salafis', which is also OK instead.
 
Top