Obama Bowed to the Saudi King - Does It Matter?

[zeeshan809]

Conservatives in the United States have been creating fuss on whether Obama bowed to Saudi King Abdullah. They are not letting any opportunity pass by their hands to humiliate President Obama. Probably many Americans were still not ready for a black President. Why then would they try to malign him in such derogatory ways. Look at Fox News, for instance, they have tried their level best to link Obama to terrorists, put doubts in people's minds about his religious background and tried to make him look like a liar time and again. Is this the way you treat you President who has hardly spent 100 days in office?




Why does it matter in the first place whether Obama bowed to the Saudi King? Don't the international dignitaries bow in front of the Japanese just to show them that they respect their culture. Don't heads of states bow and kiss the hand of the British Queen as a mark of respect? Why then is it so strange to these "self-respecting" Americans if Obama bowed to the Saudi king? The reason seems to be racial motivation on three counts. First its an attack on the first black President on United States as everyone has not accepted him. Second its superiority complex connected to the President of a "super power" bowing to the king of a "lesser" state. Third, its the bias against the Muslims and specifically Arabs that is being vent out indirectly specially by the right wing American media.



One should not forget that the same arrogance is the reason why the United States is finding itself in a declining position in the world today. The globe will not remain a unipolar world for long. President Obama has done the right thing by accepting past American mistakes. And as far as bowing is concerned, why does anyone not talk about the American government's bowing down to the Israeli government for the past 50 years? Why does the American government put the interests of Israel over those of the American people themselves. Who controls America and when would the American people get out of the slavery imposed on them by Israeli lobbyists and bankers for so long?

 

[A1Kaid]

Here is the video of Obama bowing down to the mighty affluent Emir Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

"Bow down to your King?"

Here are some still photo shots.

View attachment 64fee63bf45600aebe72ba03255fc3f6.jpg

Pres. Obama should not have bowed down to the Emir of KSA, I don't think even a dog should bow down to this Emir.

The Presidential staff should have alerted Pres. Obama not to do this.

 

[A1Kaid]

Conservatives in the United States have been creating fuss on whether Obama bowed to Saudi King Abdullah. They are not letting any opportunity pass by their hands to humiliate President Obama. Probably many Americans were still not ready for a black President. Why then would they try to malign him in such derogatory ways. Look at Fox News, for instance, they have tried their level best to link Obama to terrorists, put doubts in people's minds about his religious background and tried to make him look like a liar time and again. Is this the way you treat you President who has hardly spent 100 days in office?




Why does it matter in the first place whether Obama bowed to the Saudi King? Don't the international dignitaries bow in front of the Japanese just to show them that they respect their culture. Don't heads of states bow and kiss the hand of the British Queen as a mark of respect? Why then is it so strange to these "self-respecting" Americans if Obama bowed to the Saudi king? The reason seems to be racial motivation on three counts. First its an attack on the first black President on United States as everyone has not accepted him. Second its superiority complex connected to the President of a "super power" bowing to the king of a "lesser" state. Third, its the bias against the Muslims and specifically Arabs that is being vent out indirectly specially by the right wing American media.



One should not forget that the same arrogance is the reason why the United States is finding itself in a declining position in the world today. The globe will not remain a unipolar world for long. President Obama has done the right thing by accepting past American mistakes. And as far as bowing is concerned, why does anyone not talk about the American government's bowing down to the Israeli government for the past 50 years? Why does the American government put the interests of Israel over those of the American people themselves. Who controls America and when would the American people get out of the slavery imposed on them by Israeli lobbyists and bankers for so long?

You raise fair and legitimate fundamental points here, the reason I am against Pres. Obama bowing down to Emir Abdullah, is because I find Emir Abdullah a despicable man and a dishonorable man.

I don't mind a US President respectfully bowing down to a Muslim Head-of-State as long as the Head-of-State is an honorable and respectable person, and in my opinion Emir Abdullah is neither.

 

[ajpirzada]

Here is the video of Obama bowing down to the mighty affluent Emir Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

"Bow down to your King?"

LEUif1--r38[/media] - Did Obama bow to Saudi King Abdullah, or was he cleaning the floor?


Here are some still photo shots.

View attachment 64fee63bf45600aebe72ba03255fc3f6.jpg

Pres. Obama should not have bowed down to the Emir of KSA, I don't think even a dog should bow down to this Emir.

The Presidential staff should have alerted Pres. Obama not to do this.

well he is not bowin to the king. he is bowin to the keeper of two most sacred places of muslim world. i dont know if it matters or not but if it matters it only matters in a gud way. remember he said he wants to re create relations with the muslim world.
another question is that is he really bowin or is he simply pickin something up???

 

[DarkStar]

A1Kaid...The King of Saudi Arabia is Khadim Al Haramain, Al Sharifain...Our religious epicentre.

He also happens to be the head of State, of perhaps Pakistan's greatest friend, a time tested ally, who've always put their money where their mouth is.

Ever wondered why the name of Lyallpur was changed to Faisalabad, and the main mosque in Islamabad called Faisal Mosque?

Or Indeed, where the financing for the 'Islamic Bomb' came from?

 

[A1Kaid]

A1Kaid...The King of Saudi Arabia is Khadim Al Haramain, Al Sharifain...Our religious epicentre.

He also happens to be the head of State, of perhaps Pakistan's greatest friend, a time tested ally, who've always put their money where their mouth is.

He is also other things which I will not get into...

No he is not the religious "epicentre", understand Islam does not revolve around him, you know little about the innovations and fabrications these people have made in their practice of Islamic law and methodology.

"Our religious epicentre", with all respect DarkStar speak for yourself. He is not my "religious epicentre". The religious guidance is from Al-Quran, the Holy Words are there and the guidance from Allah is there...

This man "Is our religious epicentre" How? Because he's the son of a former Saudi King? Because these people are "Custodians of the Holy Place" fact is they are "Custodians of the Holy Place" because of their gifted geography not because they are the most suitable to rule. I advise you to learn about the Islamic stance on "nepotism" and what Al-Nabi Muhammad Sallahu Alayhi Wasallam commented on Rulers who practiced "nepotism"...

"He also happens to be the head of State, of perhaps Pakistan's greatest friend, a time tested ally, who've always put their money where their mouth is."-DarkStar

Sir he is not my "religious epicentre" maybe for you but not me. This Emir may throw around his millions, I'm not impressed! Your religious epicentre stood by as Lebanon was being pummeled by Israeli Jets, and while Israeli war machines raped Gaza over and over and over and over again. Yes I know many are to blame, perhaps our country as well...

I just don't find this tyrant (which he technically is) a honorable man.

 

[A1Kaid]

By the way, this Saudi King, his country with all his millions has not even accepted Iraqi refugees from the War, into his country, the bulk of the burden has been laden on Syria and Jordan. He officially closed off the borders to refugees, again not even accepting one common Iraqi family...So much for your religious epicentre...

Even Sweden and the US (the aggressor and pervert) in the War has accepted more Iraqi refugees than Saudi Arabia...


And you people have the nerve to tell me he is my "religious epicentre", I don't bow down to this King. And you wonder why I don't find this Emir honorable...




Something to ponder...

"Companion Asked: '...what is the best type of Jihad [struggle].' He (Prophet Muhammad pbuh) answered: 'Speaking truth before a tyrannical ruler.' " Riyadh us-Saleheen Volume 1:195 Hadith


MashAllah

 

[DarkStar]

He is also other things which I will not get into...

No he is not the religious "epicentre", understand Islam does not revolve around him, you know little about the innovations and fabrications these people have made in their practice of Islamic law and methodology.


"Our religious epicentre", with all respect DarkStar speak for yourself. He is not my "religious epicentre". The religious guidance is from Al-Quran, the Holy Words are there and the guidance from Allah is there...

You are either purposefully misconstruing what I said, or are unaware of the basics of the English language. My comment about the 'epicentre', was immediately preceded by the words Haramain Sharifain, meaning Makkah al Muazzimah. How you could correlate the word epicentre with a man, even though a King, is beyond me.

This man "Is our religious epicentre" How? Because he's the son of a former Saudi King? Because these people are "Custodians of the Holy Place" fact is they are "Custodians of the Holy Place" because of their gifted geography not because they are the most suitable to rule. I advise you to learn about the Islamic stance on "nepotism" and what Al-Nabi Muhammad Sallahu Alayhi Wasallam commented on Rulers who practiced "nepotism"...

Our Prophet SalallAllahu alaihi wasallam also told us to obey our rulers, even if they make dhulm and are tyrants. If you have not read these Ahadeeth, I'd be honoured to point you in their direction.

Who are you to decide that they are not the most suitable to rule?

As for learning about Islamic stances, that is a good advise that you give me. HOpe you have followed it yourself first, though.

"He also happens to be the head of State, of perhaps Pakistan's greatest friend, a time tested ally, who've always put their money where their mouth is."-DarkStar

Sir he is not my "religious epicentre" maybe for you but not me. This Emir may throw around his millions, I'm not impressed! Your religious epicentre stood by as Lebanon was being pummeled by Israeli Jets, and while Israeli war machines raped Gaza over and over and over and over again. Yes I know many are to blame, perhaps our country as well...

I just don't find this tyrant (which he technically is) a honorable man.

You may call him that, since God has given you a tongue to speak and fingers to type.

It is true, that when faced with the hegemony of the world powers, the Saudi State seems weak and feeble, as do all other muslim states.

But I believe if their regime ever collapses, and they are replaced by another one, people will remember them with nostalgia. For it is easy to criticise the devil we know, while not be aware of the viler one to replace him.

By the way, this Saudi King, his country with all his millions has not even accepted Iraqi refugees from the War, into his country, the bulk of the burden has been laden on Syria and Jordan. He officially closed off the borders to refugees, again not even accepting one common Iraqi family...So much for your religious epicentre...

Even Sweden and the US (the aggressor and pervert) in the War has accepted more Iraqi refugees than Saudi Arabia...

No doubt, accepting refugees should be done, and you have a valid point there. But their policy regarding such, does in no way justify your rants which reveal a specific hatred for the State of Saudi ARabia, and its ruling family. Now whether the reasons are ideological, sectarian or political, I am not sure, nor do I care.

And you people have the nerve to tell me he is my "religious epicentre", I don't bow down to this King. And you wonder why I don't find this Emir honorable...

Easy does it, tiger. I don't know what you mean about 'you people', but I certainly have the 'nerve' to tell it how it is, even if it is disagreeable to foks with xenophobic or sectarian attitudes, and that includes you.

As long as their relationship with Pakistan is good, I do not care what their national policy is regarding their neighbours, and refugees.

Pakistan should take a leaf out of Saudi Arabia's book, and look after its own interests first.


ps. As for your point about 'innovations' in Saudi Arabia, then the Indo-Pak subcontinent may be termed a 'land of innovations', with all sorts of theological opinions creeping up all the time. Would you therefore, say the same thing about Pakistan's rulers, some of whom may practice the 'innovations' that you speak of?

 

[DarkStar]

"Companion Asked: '...what is the best type of Jihad [struggle].' He (Prophet Muhammad pbuh) answered: 'Speaking truth before a tyrannical ruler.' " Riyadh us-Saleheen Volume 1:195 Hadith

MashAllah

Yes, that is true. If you were to speak the truth in front of the tyrant ruler, then that would be a good thing.

However, going on international fora, and badmouthing your own leaders, is not included in this Hadeeth, nor does it achieve the purpose of it. Namely, to advise a ruler of the error of his ways.

The first people to openly criticise the muslims' ruler was the first 'sect' in Islam, the Khawarij. About these Khawarij, the Prophet of Islam has said "They are the dogs of hell fire" (Musnad Imam Ahmad).

It is worth noting, this is the only sect that the Prophet has condemned by name, in Saheeh Ahadeeth literature.

It is also a prophecy that came to pass, in that the sect of the Khawarij were created when some dissidents from the army of Imam Ali (ra) rebelled against him, and crticised him along with Ameer Muawiya (ra), and called their actions against the Qur'aan, and declared them apostates, and subsequently waged war against them, and ended up assasinating Hazrat Ali.

Scholars call this the first ever 'sect' created in Islam.

Today, the Neo-Kharjites, expound a similar ideology, in a different name.

 

[A1Kaid]

Yes, that is true. If you were to speak the truth in front of the tyrant ruler, then that would be a good thing.

However, going on international fora, and badmouthing your own leaders, is not included in this Hadeeth, nor does it achieve the purpose of it. Namely, to advise a ruler of the error of his ways.

The first people to openly criticise the muslims' ruler was the first 'sect' in Islam, the Khawarij. About these Khawarij, the Prophet of Islam has said "They are the dogs of hell fire" (Musnad Imam Ahmad).

It is worth noting, this is the only sect that the Prophet has condemned by name, in Saheeh Ahadeeth literature.

It is also a prophecy that came to pass, in that the sect of the Khawarij were created when some dissidents from the army of Imam Ali (ra) rebelled against him, and crticised him along with Ameer Muawiya (ra), and called their actions against the Qur'aan, and declared them apostates, and subsequently waged war against them, and ended up assasinating Hazrat Ali.

Scholars call this the first ever 'sect' created in Islam.

Today, the Neo-Kharjites, expound a similar ideology, in a different name.

Due to time constraints I must be brief and I will return to this thread at a later time.

"The first people to openly criticise the muslims' ruler was the first 'sect' in Islam, the Khawarij. About these Khawarij, the Prophet of Islam has said "They are the dogs of hell fire" (Musnad Imam Ahmad).

It is worth noting, this is the only sect that the Prophet has condemned by name, in Saheeh Ahadeeth literature."

Well for your information I am not apart of that sect, second thing the Khawarij were criticizing the noble Muslim leaders, the true Muslim leaders of that time who were honorable and respectable and decent men...So there you go, trying pin one on me..But nice try.



Anyways I do not criticize the early Muslim leaders as I have respect for them, we are talking about Emir Abdullah who is hardly a great man.


I will return to this thread at a later time...

 

[Patriot]

By the way, this Saudi King, his country with all his millions has not even accepted Iraqi refugees from the War, into his country, the bulk of the burden has been laden on Syria and Jordan. He officially closed off the borders to refugees, again not even accepting one common Iraqi family...So much for your religious epicentre...

Even Sweden and the US (the aggressor and pervert) in the War has accepted more Iraqi refugees than Saudi Arabia...


And you people have the nerve to tell me he is my "religious epicentre", I don't bow down to this King. And you wonder why I don't find this Emir honorable...




Something to ponder...

"Companion Asked: '...what is the best type of Jihad [struggle].' He (Prophet Muhammad pbuh) answered: 'Speaking truth before a tyrannical ruler.' " Riyadh us-Saleheen Volume 1:195 Hadith


MashAllah

We accepted Afghan Refugees and today, we are paying for it!
Saudi Arabia is our long time tested ally and our relations should be always good with Saudi Arabia.

 

[DarkStar]

Due to time constraints I must be brief and I will return to this thread at a later time.

You be as brief as you want. It's fine by me. I'll be awaiting those pearls of knowledge that will flow from your mighty pen.

Well for your information I am not apart of that sect, second thing the Khawarij were criticizing the noble Muslim leaders, the true Muslim leaders of that time who were honorable and respectable and decent men...So there you go, trying pin one on me..But nice try.

If it walks like a monkey, talks like a monkey, then the chances are that it must be? Must be a chicken.

I did not try to pin anything on you, but it seems I must have touched a raw nerve, since I was making a general statement about the attitudes of some who criticise muslim rulers.

Anyways I do not criticize the early Muslim leaders as I have respect for them, we are talking about Emir Abdullah who is hardly a great man.

Who are you to decide which man is decent and respectable and which not?

You will only follow great men, like the forementioned? It goes beyond saying, that we will not see the likes of the Prophet, and his companions again...So where will this utopia be, who is this great man you will follow.

If you decide ruler A is indecent and unresespectable, would you condone criticising ruler A, calling him an apostate, and fighting to replace his regime?

I will return to this thread at a later time...

I won't be holding my breath, Socrates. Or is it Ibn Khaldun?

 

[A1Kaid]

We accepted Afghan Refugees and today, we are paying for it!
Saudi Arabia is our long time tested ally and our relations should be always good with Saudi Arabia.

You know what, that's exactly my point. I want to thank you for your comment.

We are not Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia is an affluent Nation, deeply oil rich, with billions and billions of dollars, and bank notes around the World, they unlike us have the capacity to take in massive numbers of refugees and provide decent shelter.

I am going to make a historical connection here with a contemporary issue.

In the 1980's

Saudi Arabia was deeply involved during the Jihaad in Afghanistan against the Soviets. What did they do? They sent fighters from the Gulf countries on a "one-way ticket" to Afghanistan/Pakistan to fight the Jihaad and they financed the Jihaad as well. But in 1989, when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the Saudis ditch Pakistan leaving us with a massive burden and massive influx of war refugees from Afghanistan! The Saudis did not not even offer to accept refugees from Afghanistan, and alleviate Pakistan's share of the burden, however they were involved as much as we we're in the conflict. Even if they did not want to accept refugees from Afghanistan, they could at least have provided us (Pakistan) with the material and financial resources to alleviate the burden of mass war refugees that we had very little choice of accepting...But they Saudis never did!


Now in 2003-2009

Saudi Arabia does the same thing, the Iraq War has been a bloody war some call it a "Crusade" but whatever you call it the War has been bloody and hellish. Millions of people have been internally displaced within Iraq.

Today the "Pakistan" in this situation are Syria and Jordan, now they are being forced to accept over 2 million Refugees from Iraq (divided up between the two countries) with Syria accepting the largest number of War refugees from Iraq...Now Syria like Pakistan doesn't have the billions and billions of Dollars and rich oil fields, but we both took in refugees.

But look at what the "epicentre of our religion" the "The King of Saudi Arabia is Khadim Al Haramain, Al Sharifain"...This time they are doing the same thing to Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. They have been completely neglectful to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. They have officially closed their borders, not allowing or accepting one common Iraqi family that asks for safety...

Now let's talk about KSA's role in Iraq War, it has been noted that most of the "foreign fighters" in Iraq have come from KSA! Now we know those borders are well guarded, so what does this suggest...Again KSA will be involved in a War, but when it comes time to share the burden the King of KSA is no where to be found but his Royal Palace.

KSA doesn't even accept wounded Iraqis treatment in Saudi Hospitals, Saudi Arabia with all it's financial might and wealth doesn't even establish medical clinics and send it's World Class Doctors to treat Iraqi victims! Even the US has treated Iraqis in their medical camps in Iraq, for God Sakes even the Israelis from time to time treat Palestinians in Israeli Hospitals!!!



Need I say More...

 

[DarkStar]

Saudi ARabia should support the Iragi regime of Saddam, and the people who are fleeing that regime change, when it was Goddamn Insane that occupied Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia?

When the Saudis did not rely on OBL's boast that he and his militants can defend Saudi Arabia from teh ARab world's most powerful army, he threw the toys out of his pram, and stropped off to become a dissident?

Maybe you'd want Saudi Arabia to end up like Pakistan, being flooded with cheap guns, cheap drugs and cheap women all given at this mightily discounted rate in exchange for the favour of housing their refugees?

 

[A1Kaid]

Saudi ARabia should support the Iragi regime of Saddam, and the people who are fleeing that regime change, when it was Goddamn Insane that occupied Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia?

When the Saudis did not rely on OBL's boast that he and his militants can defend Saudi Arabia from teh ARab world's most powerful army, he threw the toys out of his pram, and stropped off to become a dissident?

Maybe you'd want Saudi Arabia to end up like Pakistan, being flooded with cheap guns, cheap drugs and cheap women all given at this mightily discounted rate in exchange for the favour of housing their refugees?

These moot counter questions provide little insight you really make no sense, please read my previous post to get a better understanding. What I am saying is historically true.

"Maybe you'd want Saudi Arabia to end up like Pakistan, being flooded with cheap guns, cheap drugs and cheap women all given at this mightily discounted rate in exchange for the favour of housing their refugees?"-DarkStar-

You know if Saudi Arabia takes in several thousand Iraqi refugees, people who are victims of War, it will not turn them into what your saying here...In fact this is kind of insulting to Iraqi refugees, what you just said above in your 'counter-question'...If KSA wants they can establish departments, and process refugees give them ID's, at least take in some families, and provide shelter.

Problem is if KSA doesn't take in it's fair share of refugees it will be counter-productive to the Middle East population and states. Currently, Syria and Jordan are dealing with a massive refugee crisis, they are having trouble to shelter and feed the refugees, why isn't KSA offering real help, why isn't offering money, building supplies, why isn't offering any comfort to the victims who I may add are it's brothers and sisters in Islam. It's also an Islamic duty to protect your brother and to care.

Now that Syria and Jordan are trying to bear the brunt of this issue, this MAY destabilize their economies! If KSA does not do it's fair share of support, how would it like to live with 3 destabilized Arab countries on it's Northern Borders...


I think even you must agree with me on this.