Saudis launch Islamic unity drive

[Uthman]

Saudi Arabia's monarch has urged Muslims to speak with one voice in preparation for interfaith dialogue with the Jewish and Christian worlds.

King Abdullah was speaking at a three-day conference in Mecca, attended by hundreds of Muslim delegates.

The king, whose country is mainly Sunni Muslim, said extremists were exploiting the tolerant nature of Islam.

As well as extremism, delegates hope to tackle what is seen as the negative perception of Islam in the West.

BBC Arab affairs analyst Magdi Abdelhadi says the meeting is supposed to be the Saudi answer to the controversial "clash of civilizations" thesis of US academic Samuel Huntington.

Muslim writers often cite Prof Huntington's ideas as evidence of Western hostility to Islam in particular.

'Voice of justice'

King Abdullah entered the hall alongside Iranian politician Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who sat beside him on the stage.

... I tell you that there are many things in common and there's no need to look at differences

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

Correspondents say the message was that the Sunni kingdom was now in agreement with moderate Shia Muslims such as Mr Rafsanjani, a former Iranian president.

"You have gathered today to tell the whole world that... we are a voice of justice and values and humanity, that we are a voice of coexistence and a just and rational dialogue," King Abdullah told the delegates.

Extremism was a challenge to Islam that targeted the "magnanimity, fairness and lofty aims" of the religion, he said.

"That's why this invitation was extended - to face the challenges of isolation, ignorance and narrow horizons, so that the world can absorb the good message of Islam."

Mr Rafsanjani said Saudi Arabia "presented a great message to all humanity in the world" and appealed for Shia-Sunni dialogue and mutual support.

"We should... not weaken each other or sully each other's reputation," he said. "As a Muslim and a Shia and an expert in Islamic issues ... I tell you that there are many things in common and there's no need to look at differences."

Banned symbols

Delegates said the aim was to agree on a global Islamic charter for dialogue with Christians and Jews, ahead of a call by Saudi Arabia for an interfaith dialogue.

Saudi Arabia currently has no diplomatic ties with Israel, and non-Muslim religious services and symbols are banned in the kingdom.

Mainly Sunni Saudi Arabia and mainly Shia Iran stand on opposite sides of many of the conflicts dividing the Muslim world, and some observers say political rifts are being laid bare, such as different attitudes towards the US.

Mr Rafsanjani also urged the world's one billion Muslims to stop Washington
controlling the natural resources in their countries - a pointed comment in oil giant Saudi Arabia, a top ally of Washington.

"Why should this tremendous group be weak before the international arrogance?" he said, using the Iranian revolutionary term for the US.

Earlier this week, a group of independent clerics issued a statement saying Shia political movements like the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon were posturing against Israel to hide an anti-Sunni agenda.

Source

[------]

:salamext:

Saudi Arabia currently has no diplomatic ties with Israel, and non-Muslim religious services and symbols are banned in the kingdom.

MashaaAllaah :thumbs_up

[KAding]

:salamext:

Saudi Arabia currently has no diplomatic ties with Israel, and non-Muslim religious services and symbols are banned in the kingdom.

MashaaAllaah :thumbs_up

No compulsion in religion, but other religions just can't practice their faith? Has God really willed that?

[AvarAllahNoor]

:salamext:



MashaaAllaah :thumbs_up

You agree with this?

If I was livng in SA and I wasnt' allowed to wear Sikh Symbols, well there would be hell to pay! NOBODY is going to dictate to me about what I'm allowed to wear that's in full observance of my RELIGION! :raging::raging:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[AvarAllahNoor]

No compulsion in religion, but other religions just can't practice their faith? Has God really willed that?

Not the God I follow. And certainly not the God Muslims follow that I know. Some people are intolerant, but don't class them as Muslims. Just crentins who are lost and shall burn in the fires of hell for eternity!

[Izyan]

Mr Rafsanjani also urged the world's one billion Muslims to stop Washington
controlling the natural resources in their countries - a pointed comment in oil giant Saudi Arabia, a top ally of Washington.

Washignton controlling their national resources? Who are they talking about? The Saudis who told the US to bugger off when Bush asked them to up production? Iran? Iraq? Kuwait?

[------]

:salamext:

Yeh I do agree with it. Makkah and Madina are religious cities...so only Islaam should be there. No offence to anyone.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you young brother Osman, I hope your exams are going well.

The Suadi Monarch is searching for ways forward in interfaith relations, and that is a wonderful aim. He is hoping to heal division within Islam as well.

Saudi Arabia currently has no diplomatic ties with Israel, and non-Muslim religious services and symbols are banned in the kingdom.

The use of the word ‘currently’ in his statement suggests there may be room for change. If his intentions are truthfully for greater interfaith friendship and harmony he may try to influence this in his own country too.

In the spirit of praying for greater interfaith friendship

Eric

[Fishman]

:salamext:

Yeh I do agree with it. Makkah and Madina are religious cities...so only Islaam should be there. No offence to anyone.

:sl:
But Makkah and Madinah are not the only cities in Saudi Arabia...

Anyway, I think Pakistan and Indonesia should be the ones playing these roles, they are the largest Muslim countries after all. Saudi controls the Holy sites, which is a reson for them to have a say in the matter, but Iran? What has Iran done for Islam in the modern age? And both Saudi and Iran are not really representative of the Muslim world anyway, so they shouldn't be the talking ones.
:w:

[Malaikah]

But why does being the largest Muslim country make you eligable? Shouldn't this be something with representatives from all Muslims countries?

[Fishman]

But why does being the largest Muslim country make you eligable? Shouldn't this be something with representatives from all Muslims countries?

:sl:
Yes, but having the two largest countries is more representitive than having two unpopular countries, one with hardly any people (Saudi) and the other being a country whose opinion is not taken seriously by any developed country (Iran).

If there were representatives from all countries, that would be good, it would be a step towards uniting Islam under an organised leadership again.
:w:

[S_87]

scholars from all over the world were invited to partake in this event....

[Fishman]

scholars from all over the world were invited to partake in this event....

:sl:
Suppose so, but then it still goes back the question:
Why is Saudi proposing a conference on religious tolerance when non-Muslim religions are practically outlawed there?
:w:

[Izyan]

:salamext:

Yeh I do agree with it. Makkah and Madina are religious cities...so only Islaam should be there. No offence to anyone.

Jerusalem and Nazarath are religious cities so only Christians should be there. Rome is a religious city so only Catholics should be there. Salt Lake City is a religous city so only Mormons should be there. Do you see how stupid that argument sounds?

[S_87]

:sl:
Suppose so, but then it still goes back the question:
Why is Saudi proposing a conference on religious tolerance when non-Muslim religions are practically outlawed there?
:w:

well with the religious tolerance islam must still be adhered to

One of Muhammed :arabic5: last orders were to expel other religions from Arabia.
Religious tolerance and no compulsion is religion does not and should not mean accepting other religions to be right.
First and foremost we are muslims, and religious tolerance does not mean we help other religions in their kufr by building them places of worship.

[AvarAllahNoor]

:salamext:

Yeh I do agree with it. Makkah and Madina are religious cities...so only Islaam should be there. No offence to anyone.

Well in that case in Panjab only Sikhism should be allowed, as it's the Sikhs holy cities!

btw - SA may be holy, but the Sheikhs re servants of the USA You need to deal with them first!

[S_87]

Well in that case in Panjab only Sikhism should be allowed, as it's the Sikhs holy cities!

btw - SA may be holy, but the Sheikhs re servants of the USA You need to deal with them first!

and your proof for that is...

[AvarAllahNoor]

And your proof for that is...

You've not studied the History then. Ask some of the Muslims on here, they'd agree with me.

[aadil77]

But why does being the largest Muslim country make you eligable? Shouldn't this be something with representatives from all Muslims countries?

saudi is nowhere near the largest muslim country

[------]

:salamext:

Jerusalem and Nazarath are religious cities so only Christians should be there. Rome is a religious city so only Catholics should be there. Salt Lake City is a religous city so only Mormons should be there. Do you see how stupid that argument sounds?

It sounds kool to me.

Well in that case in Panjab only Sikhism should be allowed, as it's the Sikhs holy cities!!

Okay.

btw - SA may be holy, but the Sheikhs are servants of the USA You need to deal with them first!

I'm sorry I cannot accept this statement, unless you have proof.

[Fishman]

[quote=amani;957450]well with the religious tolerance islam must still be adhered to

One of Muhammed :arabic5: last orders were to expel other religions from Arabia.

I've read somewhere that that was just refering to the Hejaz region, don't know where though.

Religious tolerance and no compulsion is religion does not and should not mean accepting other religions to be right.

Nobody said it does, that's a strawman argument. Tolerance and 'no compulsion in religion' means letting people follow their own religion, not you following theirs.

First and foremost we are muslims, and religious tolerance does not mean we help other religions in their kufr by building them places of worship

What about how Umar refused to pray in the Christian Church in Jerusalem so that future Muslims didn't turn it into a Mosque?

Whoever hurts a non-Muslim person under protection, I am his adversary, and I shall be an adversary to him on the Day of Resurrection.

Source
:w:

[Fishman]

saudi is nowhere near the largest muslim country

:sl:
Nobody said it was, I said that Pakistan and Indonesia should have the say on it because they are the biggest countries, but people disagreed...
:w:

[Malaikah]

I've read somewhere that that was just refering to the Hejaz region, don't know where though.

Yeh, which makes up a large bulk of the Arabian peninsula... so I'm not sure what you are disagreeing about? :?

[aadil77]

Well in that case in Panjab only Sikhism should be allowed, as it's the Sikhs holy cities!

btw - SA may be holy, but the Sheikhs re servants of the USA You need to deal with them first!

those sheikhs are the biggest suckups in the world!

[Malaikah]

:sl:

Astagfirullah fear Allah before making such claims, if what you are saying is not true, it is slander. (which is a serious sin).

[crayon]

well with the religious tolerance islam must still be adhered to

One of Muhammed :arabic5: last orders were to expel other religions from Arabia.
Religious tolerance and no compulsion is religion does not and should not mean accepting other religions to be right.
First and foremost we are muslims, and religious tolerance does not mean we help other religions in their kufr by building them places of worship.

"Sahih Bukhari Volume 4 : Book 52 : Hadith 288 :

Narrated by Said bin Jubair:

Ibn 'Abbas said, "Thursday! What (great thing) took place on Thursday!" Then he started weeping till his tears wetted the gravels of the ground . Then he said, "On Thursday the illness of Allah's Apostle was aggravated and he said, "Fetch me writing materials so that I may have something written to you after which you will never go astray." The people (present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They said, "Allah's Apostle is seriously sick.' The Prophet said, "Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for." The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" (Ya'qub bin Muhammad said, "I asked Al-Mughira bin 'Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, 'It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen." Ya'qub added, "And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.")

edit- so it's not the entire peninsula as one may think... that would not only include saudi, but also ALL the GCC countries and bilad al sham, which are also usually considered part of the peninsula.

[S_87]

You've not studied the History then. Ask some of the Muslims on here, they'd agree with me.

sorry i meant your second sentence about scholars ...

[------]

those sheikhs are the biggest suckups in the world!

:salamext:

La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah :omg:

[S_87]

[QUOTE=Fishman;957467]

Nobody said it does, that's a strawman argument. Tolerance and 'no compulsion in religion' means letting people follow their own religion, not you following theirs.

its not about a muslim following a non muslim religion its about a muslim supporting non muslims in practising their religion..by building them places of worship etc.

What about how Umar refused to pray in the Christian Church in Jerusalem so that future Muslims didn't turn it into a Mosque?


Source
:w:

nowhere does it say muslims should persecute the other religions under islamic law :? Umar radhiallahu anhu showed islamic tolerance, he allowed them to pray in their religious place, giving religious freedom.
He did not construct churches and synagogues for jews and christians though...

Help you one another in Al‑Birr and At‑Taqwa (virtue, righteousness and piety); but do not help one another in sin and transgression

5:2

[Fishman]

sorry i meant your second sentence about scholars ...

:sl:
Shiekh doesn't always mean scholar, it can just mean 'leader' or 'wise old man'.

Not saying I support the Saudi Scholars either, but just clearing up something...
:w:

[S_87]

those sheikhs are the biggest suckups in the world!

and you have been given the authority to say that because....

[Fishman]

:sl:

its not about a muslim following a non muslim religion its about a muslim supporting non muslims in practising their religion..by building them places of worship etc.

Its not a question of the Saudis not helping them build places of worship, but not letting them. They refuse to allow non-Muslims (people of the Book like Christians and Jews) to practice their religion. That's more than just not helping, that's actively persecuting.

nowhere does it say muslims should persecute the other religions under islamic law :? Umar radhiallahu anhu showed islamic tolerance, he allowed them to pray in their religious place, giving religious freedom.

Maybe the Saudis should show tolerance then?

He did not construct churches and synagogues for jews and christians though...

Jerusalem was already filled with Churches, and refusing to pray in the Church shows that he wanted it to exist...

Help you one another in Al‑Birr and At‑Taqwa (virtue, righteousness and piety); but do not help one another in sin and transgression

5:2

Isn't showing kindness piety? And is it not true that if Muslims are tolerant to non-Muslims, they will be more likely to convert to Islam?


And anyway, the Saudi persecution extends beyond Churches, it extends to religious symbols, citizenship, holy books, the list goes on. And don't forget sectarian persecution of other Muslims. And racial discrimination. And their complete disregard to Islamic history by demolishing monuments such as an 18th century Ottoman fort. There is no point listing anything else about them, the post would be too long for anybody to bother reading it...
:w:

[crayon]

So makkah and median do not have any non muslims there at the moment.
Al arj is a tiny little area where no one ever goes anyway:

Tihama is the hottest place in the world (according to wiki, lol), and it is a small part of this province, the bright green one:

I can't find anything about yamama.
And yemen has many jews but no pagans.

So besides those tiny areas mentioned, the rest of Saudi is fair game for non muslims.

[------]

:salamext:

^ Yeh, so I don't see what the problem is lol.

[S_87]

Its not a question of the Saudis not helping them build places of worship, but not letting them. They refuse to allow non-Muslims (people of the Book like Christians and Jews) to practice their religion. That's more than just not helping, that's actively persecuting.

well hope this answers that:

The church is a building in which the Christians practice their rituals, which include kufr, belief in trinity and worshipping someone other than Allaah.

Based on this, building churches or collecting donations to build them, renovate them and support them, is an serious evil action, because it involves helping to spread kufr and approving of it.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

Whoever believes that churches are houses of God, or that He is worshipped in them, or that what the Jews and Christians do is worship of Allaah and obedience to Him and His Messenger, or that He likes that or is pleased with it, is a kaafir, because his beliefs imply that their religion is valid, and that is kufr. If he helps them to open churches and establish their religion, and believes that this is an act of worship or obedience, then he is a kaafir, because this belief implies that their religion is valid.

Elsewhere he said:

Whoever believes that visiting the churches of the ahl al-dhimmah is a way to draw closer to Allaah is an apostate. If he is unaware that this is haraam, he must be told, and if he persists in that he becomes an apostate, because he has implicitly denied the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Truly, the religion with Allaah is Islam”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:19]

End quote from Mataalib Ooli al-Nuha, 6/281.

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (14/482):

It is not permissible for a Muslim who believes in Allaah and the Last Day to build a church or a place of worship that is not based on Islam with which Allaah sent Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), because that is one of the greatest means of helping in kufr and making its symbols manifest, and Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Help you one another in Al‑Birr and At‑Taqwa (virtue, righteousness and piety); but do not help one another in sin and transgression”

[al-Maa'idah 5:2]

You have to remind him of Allaah and advise him to repent to Allaah, and to give up the work he is doing lest he fall into kufr and apostasy, and his good deeds come to nothing without him realizing.

Based on this, there is the fear that something worse will happen to your friend than his fasting not being accepted, namely kufr. We ask Allaah to guide him and to help him to do all that is good.
islam q&a

The saudis havent banned non muslims from entering the country, but so far they have and rightly so, banned them building places of worship.

Maybe the Saudis should show tolerance then

show tolerance by putting up churches next to masjids? You have to remember, Arabia is the land of tawheed. Tawheed and kufr do not and cannot go together.

Jerusalem was already filled with Churches, and refusing to pray in the Church shows that he wanted it to exist...

it showed religious tolerance, it didnt show that Umar radhiallahu anhu was for building up churches all over the place.

Isn't showing kindness piety? And is it not true that if Muslims are tolerant to non-Muslims, they will be more likely to convert to Islam?

yes showing kindness is piety- thats the tolerance part.

why dont we go the whole hog and allow these churches to have statues? and pagans to build idols :? why stop at just buildings of worship? should we tolerate them building all that too as part of their worship?

And anyway, the Saudi persecution extends beyond Churches, it extends to religious symbols, citizenship, holy books, the list goes on.
And don't forget sectarian persecution of other Muslims. And racial discrimination.

its unfair to paint a whole nation with this..

And their complete disregard to Islamic history by demolishing monuments such as an 18th century Ottoman fort. There is no point listing anything else about them, the post would be too long for anybody to bother reading it...

they took down shrines and tombs over graves something clearly forbidden by Muhammed :arabic5: what is wrong with that?
Did Muhammed :arabic5: completely disregard history by knocking down idols and things worshipped?
They followed the orders of Muhammed :arabic5: can you blame them for that?
so what if it was history, it was something warned against!

[crayon]

Yusuf Al-Qaradawi

"Islam establishes a relationship with the people of different faiths on the basis of tolerance, justice, benevolence, and mercy. The basis of this relationship is Allah’s saying in the Qur’an: [Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.] (Al-Mumtahinah 60: 8- 9)

According to the Qur’an, Muslims are required to deal with all people kindly and justly as long as they do not oppose or oppress Muslims or place obstacles in the way of spreading Islam.

Of non-Muslims, Islam gives special consideration for the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians, whether they reside in a Muslim society or not.

Being a divine religion revealed to guide all mankind, Islam tackles all aspects of man's life, regardless of whether he believes in it or not. That is why we see it granting many rights and privileges to non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Muslims are ordered to show full consideration to this injunction and give due respect to non-Muslims' places of worship, which are part and parcel of their property enjoying full protection in Islam.

Protection of property:

The Islamic government is bound to protect the properties of non-Muslims. In his book Al-Kharaj, Abu Yusuf sheds light on the Prophet’s contract with the people of Najran: “Najran and its neighboring area are in the security of Allah, the Almighty, and His Messenger. The property, religions and churches of the inhabitants, as well as properties, whether much or little, are under the protection of the Prophet.”

`Umar ibn Al-Khattab, in his letter to Abu `Ubaydah ibn Al-Jarrah (may Allah be pleased with them both) wrote: “Prevent Muslims from wronging or causing harm to them (non-Muslims) or taking their property illegally.”

Freedom of worship:

This means the freedom to practice any religion or ideology and not to be forced to adopt a certain faith or compelled to convert to Islam. This is based on the verse:

[Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.] (Al-Baqarah 2: 256)

Commenting on the verse, the famous exegete Ibn Katheer states: “Don’t force anyone to embrace Islam as it is clear and self-evident in its proofs and realities and does not need to exert force to be accepted.”

Islam protects the places of worship of non-Muslims, and allows them to observe their religious ceremonies. Allah says:

[To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;- (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).] (Al-Hajj 22: 39-40)

In the reign of `Umar ibn Al-Khattab, the religious freedom of the citizens of Ilya (Jerusalem) and the sanctity of their synagogues and places of worship were confirmed: “This is the protection which the slave-servant of Allah, `Umar, the Commander of the Believers, extends to the people of Ilya: The safeguarding of their lives, properties, churches, crosses, and of their entire community. Their churches cannot be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched. They will never be forced to abandon their religion, nor will they be oppressed. None of the Jews will live with them in Ilya….” (At-Tabari, Tarikh, Vol III, p. 609, ed. Dar Al-Ma`arif, Egypt.)

Khalid Ibn Al-Waleed, in his covenant with the People of `Anat, wrote: “They are allowed to ring the bells at any time of the day or night, except in the time of the Islamic prayer times. They are allowed to bear their crosses in their festivals.” (Abu Yusuf, Al-Kharaj, p. 146)

Muslims not only allowed non-Muslims to enjoy the freedom of their faith, but also let them follow their way even though some of their practices might conflict with the religion of the majority. Actually, this is the highest degree of tolerance. Muslims tolerated the religious practices of their minorities by not prohibiting even those practices which were contrary to the state ideology.

History bears witness to the fact that Muslims accepted and applied the Islamic laws to an extent that has no parallel in the history of mankind. The fair and tolerant approach they show to other faiths are no secret.

Asserting the tolerance of Muslims, Tritton says:

“Muslim rulers frequently went beyond what was required of them in their relations with non-Muslims. The best example of this is the presence of churches and other (non-Muslim) places of worship in purely Arab (Muslim) cities. Government departments always had Christians and Jewish officials who were sometimes given very sensitive and influential posts. Some non-Muslims thus acquired great wealth. In addition, Muslims were accustomed to sharing with Christian their festivals.” (Khartubali, Hasan Ali, Islam and Ahl Adh-Dhimmah, p. 256)"

source

another link

[crayon]

"Their churches cannot be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched"

By not demolishing their churches was the umar then aiding in kufr? (of course not astaghfirullah)

[Fishman]

[quote=amani;957510]

well hope this answers that:

I don't accept anything Islamqa says unless another more trustworthy source says it as well. Mainly its sectarian reasons, which I won't go into, but there is also the 'be glad of the Holocaust' thing that they said.

The saudis havent banned non muslims from entering the country, but so far they have and rightly so, banned them building places of worship.

As well as any other aspect of their religion that can be seen in public...

show tolerance by putting up churches next to masjids? You have to remember, Arabia is the land of tawheed. Tawheed and kufr do not and cannot go together.

Who says 'Churches next to Masjids'? And as Arabia, didn't Crayon just prove that the explulsion was referring to the Hijaz only?

it showed religious tolerance, it didnt show that Umar radhiallahu anhu was for building up churches all over the place.

Jerusalem was already full of Churches, he didn't need to build more. And I'm sure that the Christians would have just built one themselves without Umar's help if they wanted.

yes showing kindness is piety- thats the tolerance part.

why dont we go the whole hog and allow these churches to have statues? and pagans to build idols :? why stop at just buildings of worship? should we tolerate them building all that too as part of their worship?

Christians are people of the Book, they are allowed to practice their religion as long as they don't rebel, remember? As far as I know, idolatry doesn't come under the same protections. Even in the UK Satanist cults are not allowed to run around unwatched.

its unfair to paint a whole nation with this..

I'm not painting the whole nation like this. Crayon is a Saudi and she's perfectly reasonable. But I am painting the whole government like this.

they took down shrines and tombs over graves something clearly forbidden by Muhammed :arabic5: what is wrong with that?
Did Muhammed :arabic5: completely disregard history by knocking down idols and things worshipped?
They followed the orders of Muhammed :arabic5: can you blame them for that?
so what if it was history, it was something warned against!

1. Not everybody (infact almost nobody, for that matter) thinks Mazzars are Shirk. But that is a sectarian discussion which is banned on the forum, as well as by the 'do not debate with the Innovators' prohibiton.

2. More to the point, an Ottoman fort is not a grave, or a shrine, or an idol! Its a historic site that should be protected from damage and preserved for the future, not blown up and turned into a housing block! If that was done in any other developed country the people who demolished it would be thrown into prison for breaking conservation laws.
:w:

[crayon]

"Crayon is a Saudi and she's perfectly reasonable"
:eek:
........I'm actually Syrian, I just happen to live in Saudi...:omg:

"it showed religious tolerance, it didnt show that Umar radhiallahu anhu was for building up churches all over the place."
But by your reasoning, allowing them to worship in a country that umar was in charge of would be allowing shirk to take place, right? There's no difference as to whether the church was already there or whether it was built, the same act is being done, giving Allah partners, calling Jesus the son of God, etc.

[Amadeus85]

For me personally it is just fine that the churches can not be built in Saudi Arabia, I can understand that SA is one big Vatican where are also no mosques. These christians who come to SA must be aware that they go there to work and they wont get citizenship, so they cant except to stay there for longer time. They just do their job and go back, I guess. The same way europeans should do with muslim immigrants coming here since 60's.

[Malaikah]

Unless Europeans give up their secularism and become strictly Christian countries, I don't see how they will be justified forbidding mosque. Oh, and of course, they will have to ban ALL places of worship other than Churches for it to be fair, not only Muslim places of worship.

[north_malaysian]

:sl:
Nobody said it was, I said that Pakistan and Indonesia should have the say on it because they are the biggest countries, but people disagreed...
:w:

You must include Bangladesh too.... they have 100,000,000+ Muslims...

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl: Br. Fishman,

I hope you're in the best of Imaan and health, Insha'Allaah. I wanted to reply to a couple of points of your post as follows:

1. Not everybody (infact almost nobody, for that matter) thinks Mazzars are Shirk. But that is a sectarian discussion which is banned on the forum, as well as by the 'do not debate with the Innovators' prohibiton.

In reality brother, this will not fall into a sectarian discussion as long as the individuals taking part in the discussion will bring forth evidences, discuss in an academic manner with the proper adaab and not engage in naming of sects and/or bashing. I believe as long as this is adhered to, there is no reason why we cannot discuss these issues as mature individuals, Insha'Allaah.

To proceed to address your point, you said:

Not everybody (infact almost nobody, for that matter) thinks Mazzars are Shirk.

You are correct that they, in and of themselves are not shirk but this does not prove that building them is permissible. They are pathways to shirk and there is a principal that whatever leads to something haram is haram; for example: free-mixing is haram because it can lead to zina. I believe that you have not experienced and seen what goes on at such places; akhee, I have, and believe me when I tell you that there are people that make sujood to these graves, perform tawaaf around them, touch it with their hands and then touch their eyes thinking it will cleanse them and stand there making Dua' to Allaah at these graves, and at worse cases calling out to and making dua' to the buried person in the mazzar. I have seen others, women, coming there and staying next to these graves in hopes that by the "barakah" there they will get married or have a child or some calamity will be removed from upon them. They have formed rituals, some going to a particular mazar and some to others after Jumua'h believing that it is from Islaam. Believe me when I tell you that, though they in and of themselves are not shirk, they are pathways to shirk.

Let me clarify my points from two directions:

1. Numbers generally, in and of themselves are not an evidence - the evidence is from the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. صلى الله عليه و سلم

2. In fact, the reality is that many scholars, including those of the ahnaaf (the madhab which I assume you follow) have stated that it is impermissible to build these structures time and time again in their works because of the obvious danger of the fitnah it will cause amongst the lay-persons. The ahadeeth in this regard are well known, so I will not quote them, but following are some quotations from scholars of the ahnaaf:

• Imam Sarkhasi says in al-Masbut,"Do not reinforce the graves because its forbiddance is proven from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alaihiwasallam."[Al-Masbut by Imam Sarkhasi v.2, p.26]
• Imam Kasani says,"It is detestable to strengthen the graves and Imam Abu Hanifah considered it detestable to build tombs and similar structures over the graves. It contains wastage of wealth. Whereas there is no harm in sprinkling of water over the grave but it is related from Imam Yusuf that even sprinkling of water is detestable because the grave cements due to it."[Badai' as-Sinai' by Imam Kasani v.1 p.320]
• Qadhi Ibrahim writes mentioning the foundations of those who worship graves,"Nowadays some deviant people have started making Hajj of the graves and have established manners (or rituals) for it. And from those matters that oppose the religion and Shari'ah is that people express helplessness and humility near the graves, and light lamps upon them. To offer Chadar upon the graves, to assign a guard for them, to kiss them and to seek provision and children near them, all these matters have no proof from the Shari'ah Islamiyyah." [Ja' al-Haq p.302]

Insha'Allaah you can refer to this thread for more:
http://www.islamicboard.com/tawheed-...move-them.html

2. More to the point, an Ottoman fort is not a grave, or a shrine, or an idol! Its a historic site that should be protected from damage and preserved for the future, not blown up and turned into a housing block! If that was done in any other developed country the people who demolished it would be thrown into prison for breaking conservation laws.

Al-Shaatibi said: Ibn Waddaah said: I heard ‘Isa ibn Yoonus, the mufti of the people of Tarsoos, saying: ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab ordered that the tree beneath which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had received the oath of allegiance (bay’ah) be cut down, because the people were going and praying beneath it, and he feared that they might fall into fitnah.

al-I’tisaam, 1/448

Al-Haafidh ibn Hajar said: I found with Ibn Sa’d a saheeh isnaad from Naafi’, saying that ‘Umar heard that some people were going to the tree and praying there, so he warned them (not to do that), then he ordered that it be cut down, and it was cut down.

Fath al-Baari, 7/513

This Umar رضي الله عنه, is the same Umar رضي الله عنه about whom the Messenger صلى الله عليه و سلم said: "Verily Allaah Azzawajall has placed the truth upon the heart and tongue of Umar." Ahmad from Ibn Umar with saheeh Isnad.

Akhee this tree was not a grave, nor a shrine, nor an idol - I find no better words to describe it with, except yours: it was a historic site.

I am not familiar with the incident of the Ottoman fort so I have no opinion in regards to it, all I wanted here was to highlight to you the importance Islaam gives to cutting down the pathways to fitnah.

I hope Allaah guides us to the truth in that which wherein we differ. Ameen.

:w:

[north_malaysian]

why people used to associate Sufis with tomb-worshipping?

There are millions of Sufis practicioners in Malaysia, but I never see them worshipping tombs...

Maybe there are different type of Sufi madhhabs or something?:?

[Malaikah]

:sl:

There are many 'types' of sufis, brother, some of which go to shocking extremes, and others who do nothing haram.

Abu Sayyad - excellent post, mashaAllah.

[north_malaysian]

:sl:

There are many 'types' of sufis, brother, some of which go to shocking extremes, and others who do nothing haram.

Before 1980s there were saint worshipping cult among most of the Muslims but during Islamisation under former Prime Minister Mahathir, Muslims (especially the Malays) left it totally. I was among the generation who never witness any tomb worshipping in my whole life.

There is one saint tomb in Georgetown which I used to eat breakfast in the tomb compartment as nobody visit the tomb.

Most Sufis in the northern region are Naqshabandis, Qadiris and Shadhilis. They just do ordinary dhikrs with no music or dancing. Many dont celebrate Mawlids excessively too... they just organise talks about seerah of the Prophet.

There are several Sufi groups banned in Malaysia as their beliefs are contrary to sunnism.

[KAding]

Unless Europeans give up their secularism and become strictly Christian countries, I don't see how they will be justified forbidding mosque. Oh, and of course, they will have to ban ALL places of worship other than Churches for it to be fair, not only Muslim places of worship.

"Fair", right. I think using economic terminology this would be called "unfair competition" :blind:.

You know, it really is threads like these that make me VERY uncomfortable about Islam. The ease with which non-Muslims are denied their rights using 'Islamic' logic is quite frankly flabbergasting and dumbfounding! One can only imagine the outcry and calls for "resistance" if other cultures would attempt to institute similar laws in Muslim minority countries. Thank god that what generally goes around for "Islam" on this forum isn't how most Muslims in the West seem to interpret it. At least thats what I always tell myself to stop myself from radicalizing when I read sites like Islam-Q&A :-[.

[AvarAllahNoor]

:sl:

There are many 'types' of sufis, brother, some of which go to shocking extremes, and others who do nothing haram.

Abu Sayyad - excellent post, mashaAllah.

Shri Sheikh Farid Ji was a Sufi, but not the extreme twirling kind!

I have seen those that worship graves of dead Saint's but I think they are Shia Muslims. Not sure if Sunnis do this too.

[Fishman]

:sl:
I hope you're in the best of Imaan and health, Insha'Allaah. I wanted to reply to a couple of points of your post as follows:

In reality brother, this will not fall into a sectarian discussion as long as the individuals taking part in the discussion will bring forth evidences, discuss in an academic manner with the proper adaab and not engage in naming of sects and/or bashing. I believe as long as this is adhered to, there is no reason why we cannot discuss these issues as mature individuals, Insha'Allaah.
:w:

:sl:
I have a reason why we can't discuss it: because we are not scholars! We are not experts in these matters, we are just people on an internet site. Also, 'do not debate with the innovators'. You think Mazars are innovation. I think that those who go against Mazars are the ones at fault. So Wouldn't having a discussion on the matter contradict both our beliefs?

As for the fort, nobody was even attempting to worship it. It had no connection to the Sahabah or the Prophet (peace be upon him) at all.
:w:

[S_87]

I don't accept anything Islamqa says unless another more trustworthy source says it as well. Mainly its sectarian reasons, which I won't go into, but there is also the 'be glad of the Holocaust' thing that they said

.
thats your choice, what holocaust comment?

Who says 'Churches next to Masjids'? And as Arabia, didn't Crayon just prove that the explulsion was referring to the Hijaz only?

theres a dif of opinion as to what exactly came under arabia in the hadith.
but ok hijaz
Jeddah- quite a modern if not the most modern city in saudi. they gonna have a church there? if not, why not? and how would you explain to a non muslim they cant have churches there but they can have it in some muslim full city in najd

Jerusalem was already full of Churches, he didn't need to build more. And I'm sure that the Christians would have just built one themselves without Umar's help if they wanted.

yes showing kindness is piety- thats the tolerance part.

what about other parts of the muslim world? did the muslims build churches and synagogues for the citizens?

Not everybody (infact almost nobody, for that matter) thinks Mazzars are Shirk. But that is a sectarian discussion which is banned on the forum, as well as by the 'do not debate with the Innovators' prohibiton.

i didnt actually mention the word shirk, i was speaking on building over graves. is it allowed islamically then? even though building over a grave does not = shirk, it doesnt make it right?

the ottoman fort was knocked down to make way for pilgrims is that not so?
If all historical places were to be kept and preserved we wouldnt have much places to stay. they made way for the great demand of pilgrims coming into Makkah. many other historical places have had to be taken away to make space for masjid ul haram itself. whats wrong with that?

[Amadeus85]

.

what about other parts of the muslim world? did the muslims build churches and synagogues for the citizens?

Wait wait, I think that you misunderstood the whole idea.Christians dont want Saudis to build churches for them in Saudi Arabia.No way. They want to build them by themselves with their own money, if they are allowed of course. I think that it worked this way in muslim world in the times of caliphs.

[Uthman]

Greetings KAding,

I hope you are well. :)

"Fair", right. I think using economic terminology this would be called "unfair competition" :blind:.

You know, it really is threads like these that make me VERY uncomfortable about Islam. The ease with which non-Muslims are denied their rights using 'Islamic' logic is quite frankly flabbergasting and dumbfounding! One can only imagine the outcry and calls for "resistance" if other cultures would attempt to institute similar laws in Muslim minority countries. Thank god that what generally goes around for "Islam" on this forum isn't how most Muslims in the West seem to interpret it. At least thats what I always tell myself to stop myself from radicalizing when I read sites like Islam-Q&A :-[.

"Non-Muslim religious buildings are banned in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, mosques should be banned in Europe".

Would you agree with this statement and why?

Regards

[Amadeus85]

"Non-Muslim religious buildings are banned in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, mosques should be banned in Europe".

Would you agree with this statement and why?

Regards

Its not a question to me, but hope you dont mind if I answer.

I wont agree, because SA is not whole muslim world.

[Uthman]

Its not a question to me, but hope you dont mind if I answer.

Not at all. :)

I wont agree, because SA is not whole muslim world.

Do you mean to say that mosques should be allowed in Europe on the basis that there are parts of the Muslim world that allow churches (for instance) to be built?

[Whatsthepoint]

"Non-Muslim religious buildings are banned in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, mosques should be banned in Europe".

Would you agree with this statement and why?

Regards

I'm not Gator either..
I don't agree with the statement, but I'm pissed off when Saudis go about preaching religious tolerance..

[Amadeus85]

not At All. :)



Do You Mean To Say That Mosques Should Be Allowed In Europe On The Basis That There Are Parts Of The Muslim World That Allow Churches (for Instance) To Be Built?

Yup.

[S_87]

Wait wait, I think that you misunderstood the whole idea.Christians dont want Saudis to build churches for them in Saudi Arabia.No way. They want to build them by themselves with their own money, if they are allowed of course. I think that it worked this way in muslim world in the times of caliphs.

well that brings the question, is purchasing land and property allowed for all in saudi? i dont think so. Even muslims cant just buy land there :?

[Amadeus85]

well that brings the question, is purchasing land and property allowed for all in saudi? i dont think so. Even muslims cant just buy land there :?

You opposite building churches just in SA or in other muslim countries also? :?

[KAding]

Greetings KAding,

I hope you are well. :)



"Non-Muslim religious buildings are banned in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, mosques should be banned in Europe".

Would you agree with this statement and why?

Regards

No I wouldn't agree with that statement. I don't think we want to have laws that actively undermine the religious freedoms that are so fundamental. I would be a massive breach of a basic human rights, to have the state determine what diety the people should follow.

I just find it frustrating that Muslims in the West are free to preach in public, build mosques, convert non-believers and whatnot, yet no sign that Islam in any way reciprocates this. In fact, anyone trying to stop Muslims from doing these things is marked (perhaps rightly so) as an Islamophobe or even an "enemy of Islam". Yet, at the same time apparently Islam itself teaches to put all kinds of restrictions on "people of the book" (let alone atheists and polytheists!). And many Muslim countries implement at least some of these restrictive and discriminatory. The more "religious" the government, the more strict the rules apparently!

I want a free market of ideas: Let the best and most just win the most converts. Let everyone find it's own way to salvation and happiness! I don't want a totalitarian government telling people they can't build houses of worship or statues!

Sorry for the rant.

[snakelegs]

Yup.

you think the continent of europe should look to the muslim world for cues? if some muslim countries prohibit the building of churches, europe should punish them by forbiding the building of mosques?
doesn't that strike you as a bit juvenile? it does me.

[crayon]

you think the continent of europe should look to the muslim world for cues? if some muslim countries prohibit the building of churches, europe should punish them by forbiding the building of mosques?
doesn't that strike you as a bit juvenile? it does me.

I'm pretty sure he meant the opposite, snakey... :statisfie

[S_87]

You opposite building churches just in SA or in other muslim countries also? :?

dont many other muslim countries already have churches? :blind:

[Amadeus85]

dont many other muslim countries already have churches? :blind:

Yes, they have.

[north_malaysian]

dont many other muslim countries already have churches? :blind:

all Muslim countries have churches, in fact in one of the state in Malaysia called Sabah, there are 3 churches for every mosque.

[Uthman]

:sl:

all Muslim countries have churches,

Even Saudi? :omg:

:w:

[Amadeus85]

:sl:



Even Saudi? :omg:

:w:

Almost the whole thread is about the fact that Saudis dont have any churches. :)

[Uthman]

Almost the whole thread is about the fact that Saudis dont have any churches. :)

Yeah, that's why I got so confused. :-[

[Ninth_Scribe]

The king, whose country is mainly Sunni Muslim, said extremists were exploiting the tolerant nature of Islam.

The extremists are the only ones trying to prevent the fall of the Islamic nations, of which, Saudi Arabia is included. And exactly where does he (of all people) come off saying that?

"You have gathered today to tell the whole world that... we are a voice of justice and values and humanity, that we are a voice of coexistence and a just and rational dialogue," King Abdullah told the delegates.

In his kingdom, there is only Islam, so I don't quite get where he comes off suggesting that others should embrace co-existence, when he can't even do it himself. I wonder though, if and when his own kingdom comes under the gun by the west (to liberate its oppressed people), will he still expect others (extremists) to have the guts to do what he hasn't been able to? Just let it all slide because everyone has the right to practice their own faith? I think not.

I agree with the interfaith dialogue, but only because the sons of Abraham are one family in my eyes. I don't care if the Sunnis are displeased with their in-laws, the Shia, or their grouchy elders, the Jews. After the study I just made, NO ONE has the right to "OWN" Palestine - because it was pledged to Allah in good faith... and EVERY family member has had a hand in trying to OWN what doesn't belong to them! My "angel" is right - the ones who lay claim to that land should ALL forfeit their claims to it... together. It should be re-instated as a Holy Land and headed by a religious council - just like the one he was talking about... the Council of Princes and Elders. That's how to get this business of religious tolerance settled - by actually respecting the religion!

As for the extremists, they obey Holy Law and only if their scholars agree with a resolution, will they lay down their arms (al Qaeda included). Just one more reason to establish a religious council, so these issues can be resolved - without weapons! The only reason that hasn't happened is because no one is willing to go up against their scholars (respectfully), besides me! I've gone back and forth with them and the others so many times I feel like a **** tennis ball.

Anyway, I'm working on that presentation right now and hope to have it finished by the autumn. If it doesn't work - well, a least I can go to God with the words... I TRIED! But seriously, it beats blaming others for one's own behavior or calling each other out by using disrespectful names. I would have thought a king of all people, would know that.

The Ninth Scribe

[AvarAllahNoor]

You think the continent of europe should look to the muslim world for cues? if some muslim countries prohibit the building of churches, europe should punish them by forbiding the building of mosques?
doesn't that strike you as a bit juvenile? it does me.

Well ALL religions need the freedom to be practiced, If one isn't allowed to do that, then in response it shold be reciprocated. It'll make then reconsider!