Royal highness

Hangout GupShup Cafe
21

Re: Royal highness

Yes I am definately saying that the privilidged Royals are over piad and hardly shift for a real cause, I mean the last Queen (The late Queen Mother lived through hard times) but Elizabeth the Second, like most Royals since the 15th Century never done a days hard work and that I can say with absolute confidence.

22

Re: Royal highness

What has Islam to do with Saudi royal family? :konfused:

23

Re: Royal highness

Yes over ostentatious displays and the excessive Hubris that is asccotiated with Royalty is most certainly against Islam and it is also very abusive of human dignity. True Kings and Queens did not make thier subjects kneel like serfs but were proud of the fact that thier people could stand tall and fight for what they believed.

In my opinion Richard the Lionheart, Alfred the Great and probably the best Henry the V were real Kings I could have shook hands with or even embraced. England deserves better than these Hanovers… but since the rest are all now very much an extinct bunch of dynasties it’s probably time to call it a day and make the United Kingdom into a United Republic. :bummer:

24

Re: Royal highness

Well the house of Saud base part of thier right to Rule to the fact that the Sauds were Sharif’s of Makah… one of Islams holiest cites.

Co-incidently the Arab word Sharif used to denote a man of rank who was Guardian or Cartaker of the Public is now used commonly in America and much of Europe as Sherif. Today Sherif’s are in many counties the first port of call when the law is called for.

The Saudi’s have come to abuse those caretaker powers and made themselves a very profitable and powerfull dynasty. I and those who are my ideological brethren are to the Saudi Sharif’s what Rambo was to Sherif Teasel. :rotfl:

25

Re: Royal highness

^ Is that 'sharafat' justified... Islamically?

26

Re: Royal highness

Yes the concept of stewardship does, but the current Sharif’s only took over the Kabah shrine in Makah a few centuries ago under Ottoman guidance before that the Sharafat changed hands many times and its been under various protection since Pre Islamic times.

However the Term Sharif itself is purely Islamic and the first Sharifs were apointed by Rasool Allah himself, before that time the protectors were simply reffered to as Stake holders and no sole power was responsible for Example the Quraysh trible who held it for some time only took the Kabah after what we could call a bloody coup when they wrested the Kabah and massacred the other stakeholders. :cb:

The Quraysh in turn were eventually forced to stop idolatrous practice and although men from among that tribe would become the Sharif stewards you have to realise that Islam destroyed the idea of personal ownership the Kabah would from then no no longer be a status symbol for the elite but a shrine for all to enjoy.

Sadly it seems the Sauds have disregarded the very ruling of Allah’s Prophets and chose to make themselves formal custodians again… much to the chagrin of Muslims the World over.

27

Re: Royal highness

I concur. If the Government is so caught up in cutting public spending to pay off everything, they should get rid of the Royals first...overrated, over paid for nothing whatsoever. Just a bit of british traditions/history/culture and to lure in tourists.

28

Re: Royal highness

And it’s a false culture to boot the real Angles for whom the country England is named are so watered down these days… If I could be Dr Who I would bring back Sir William Marshal or Alfred of Wessex and show them todays Kings and Queens. :omg:

Only if it keeps within the prescribed limits. Sharif’s are Islamically apointed to do good in the name of Allah. Principally they were charged with the sacred duty of looking after and protecting the shrines and the public around them. However there is no justification to having a monoploy on those shrines or using the power as a political tool. Sharifs were also what we could say democratically appointed the people chose the most able and wisest among them for such duty and the first like I said earlier were confirmed in thier posts by Rasool Allah. If I remember correctly the Nabi Pak Salalho Alyahi Wassalam actually allowed the original owners to keep thier station so long as they served the will of Allah and his people. Yet down the ages the potent power has been abused and today the Sauds have actually done more damage than improved things… they certainly spent a lot on upgrading things but at the expence of demolishing and destroying several other shrines which they though might offer competition and thier loyalty is not to the people and Allah but to thier own pockets they are eliteist capitalist facists to the core.

29

Re: Royal highness

Regarding Saudi Arabia and the equality in Islam thing if they were really into that they would be also be allowing women to drive, let them marry Muslim men of other races without special permission and a million other things..

When it comes to Queen Elizabeth there’s actually a certain way you’re meant to greet her (curtsey, bow or whatever I can’t remember)..She once visited the place where my mum used to work and as mum wouldn’t do it on religious grounds she didn’t get to say hello to her (but did tell me the queen still gave her a smile lol)..

30

Re: Royal highness

I understand what you’re saying about needing a system, but I don’t agree with people being handed positions because of who their ancestors were. You earn positions. Obama earned his presidency. Bush earned, er, never mind…you get my point. The queen was born into her position. Hell, even the Governor General who represents the queen in Canada earned his position. While the queen did a good job, who’s to say Charles will?

Who? Lol and I don’t think anyone is allowed to touch the queen.

I disagree. I get your point about those kings being good for their time, but the common man, in that time, was required to show even more respect to royalty than today.