I’m reading the e-book ‘Eeman and its Compononents [and explaining the misguidance of the Khawarij and Murjiyah]’. It explains the dangers of being too strict and being too negligent in faith.
There is a chapter called ‘The Incident of Juhaymaan’ about how he seized Masjid al_Haram and even declared his brother in law a fake Mahdi. I never heard about this event and was quite surprised.
Here are some excerpts from that chapter:
**Juhaymaan al-Utaibi and his followers, some of whom were ****students **
**of the Islamic University in Madeenah, started a dawah ****movement and **
**established various study circles - but their ****extremist views led them to **
**reject the legitimacy of their government ****and they began to adopt ** khawarij-like views.
In their enthusiasm, they broke away from the society and started to dwell in the desert where they formed a cult that drew manyfollowers from theArabian Peninsula and beyond. From those who joined them was a student of the Islamic university, Muhammad ibn Abdullah al-Qahtani, about whom many in Juhaymaan’s group dreamt that he was the awaited Mahdi. This led them to declare al-Qahtani as the Mahdi.
**Eventually, this group schemed to take over al-Masjid al- ****Haraam ** and in the 1980’s they smuggled weapons and explosives into the Haraam concealed in funerals.
**After Fajr, they began their assault by killing some security ****guards, **
**locking the gates of the Haraam and taking the worshipers **inside as hostages. Al-Qahtani was then declared the Mahdi and the process of Bay’ah (the oath of allegiance) at his hands was initiated. When all efforts to end the crisis were exhausted, intense fighting took place, which led to the death of al-Qahtani following which Juhayman and his followers surrendered to the security forces after two weeks.
Here is a download link of the e-book, I had received the link in an email of a yahoogroup, I think History Islam Yahoogroup, but this link has more information about the e-book:
I find it really funny how people will remember the 1987 riots just because they were Irani, but have never heard of what happened in '79 from Ibn Baaz's students xD
In 1987 I was 10 years old. I remember news coverage of many events which at the time I never really understood. We used to watch news with the entire family. My Dad had spent his first years in England when he first came to live in Europe, so he was quite used to watching BBC news in addition to news from Dutch tv channels. Only now when I read about events of those days, I begin to understand the news images I saw back then. It's interesting and strange at the same time. :)
I don't know much about those riots, but what does that have to do with the topic of this thread, if I may ask? Nobody in this thread has used those riots against Shias (yet). This thread is about a different historical topic. :)
When all efforts to end the crisis were exhausted, intensefighting took place, which led to the death of al-Qahtani followingwhich Juhayman and his followers surrendered to the securityforces after two weeks.
I don't think that quite does it justice.
The Saudis were incredibly unprepared for anything like this (then again, something as vile as attacking the holiest site in Islam and taking tens of thousands of namaazis hostage was unprecedented). They had to call in Pakistani and French special forces (who were allegedly temporarily converted to Islam so they could enter the site). Ultimately supplies ran low and the hostages were freed. Supposedly at that point the French came up with the idea of flooding the basement with water, then running a high voltage electrical current though it to electrocute the terrorists while minimizing damage to the structure.
Of course many Muslims initially blamed the US for taking over the Haram (I think the Iranian government had some role in spreading the lies and inciting the violence); as a result, Muslim mobs rioted in Islamabad and burned down the US Embassy there. I think there was a similar attack on the US embassy in Tripoli. Perhaps if the Saudis had allowed the in media instead of issuing a complete media blackout over the city, there could have been more impartial information available about who was actually responsible. Still, it's unfortunate that many Muslims always feel the need to resort to conspiracy theories to blame the West for everything, even when its clear that the actual perpetrators call themselves Muslims.
Janab-e-ali, your quote was part of my post. Thank you for the additional information. :) I was wondering if you perhaps know the correct year. I've read more about this event online and some sources say the year was 1980 while others say 1979.
Was just saying there was this seizure too, so there's no need to blame us for anything.
I don't mind going a bit off topic, but I want to understand why and how a different topic came in a discussion. I need to understand why it's being brought up.
Now you've explained why you made that comment, I understand much better and you're right, unfortunately every religious group has done something negative in history, intentionally or unintentionally.
Janab-e-ali, your quote was part of my post. Thank you for the additional information. :) I was wondering if you perhaps know the correct year. I've read more about this event online and some sources say the year was 1980 while others say 1979.
It took place in November of 1979.
Now you've explained why you made that comment, I understand much better and you're right, unfortunately every religious group has done something negative in history, intentionally or unintentionally.
Not to take the discussion further off topic, but I don't see how the Shias can be blamed for the massacre in 1987. The Iranian hujjaj were staging a largely peaceful (though admittedly pro-Khomeini) demonstration along a preplanned route as they had for years, with full knowledge of the Saudi authorities. The Saudi government tried to suppress the demonstration, and ultimately resorted to opening fire on unarmed hujjaj, with anywhere from 400-1,500 people shot, beaten, or trampled to death (most of them women and crippled veterans of the Iran-Iraq War). It was at best, a galling example of Saudi police brutaliy, and at worst, a shameless massacre of Shia pilgrims just outside the gates of the house of God. Either way, I don't see how this would be used "against Shias."
Those Iranis and Irani backed saudis should be put in jail and banned from the holy cities. Enough of this revolution bs.
'Those Iranis'? Which Irani's are you referring to? If you are referring to all of them just because they are dominantly Shia, you are just plain racist.
You can't ban Muslims from entering the holy cities ;)
