Propagation of religion other than Islam in Muslim Countries

[Truth_Seeker]

I was wondering why it is that islamic countries appear intollerant of other religious beliefs, for example churches and synagogues can't be built in places like Saudi Arabia. below is an answer i found on www.irf.net in the FAQ section in miscelllaneous, the last question there

Q. Why is building of temples and churches and the propagation of any religion other than Islam not allowed in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia?

A. 1. Example of selecting a Maths teacher:

Suppose you are a principal of a school and you have to select a Mathematics teacher. It is obvious that you will interview the candidates. If one teacher says that 2 + 2 = 3, the other says 2 + 2 = 4 and the third says 2 + 2 = 5 whom will you select? Since you know mathematics is logical, you will never select or allow a person to teach mathematics who doesn’t even know the basics of arithmetic that 2 + 2 = 4.

2. Where religion is concerned Muslims are experts:

Similarly in the field of religion, Muslims are the best and Qur’an clearly mentions in Surah Ale Imran, Chapter 3, verse 19 (3:19):

“The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His will)”. [Al-Qur’an 3:19]

It is further mentioned In Surah Ale Imran Chapter 3, verse 85 (3:85)

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).” [Al-Qur’an 3:85]

3. No other religious scripture claims that its religion alone is true.

There is no other religious scripture on the face of the earth besides the Qur’an which says that only its religion is true, correct and acceptable to Almighty God, and that all the other religions are false and hence not acceptable to Almighty God.

If you are a school principal who knows Maths, you will never allow a person to teach Maths in your school who does not know Maths. Similarly Muslims, who are experts in the field of religion and know that Islam is the only true religion, will not allow anyone in the country of Saudi Arabia to preach any other religion besides Islam. Muslims also know that what the true concept of Almighty God i.e. Allah (SWT) is, and thus we will not permit anyone to build, in the country of Saudi Arabia, a place of worship where they worship anyone besides Allah (swt).

And Allah Knows Best.

I think its a quite unacceptable answer. imagine if UK didn't let us muslims build mosques here because they thought they thought they were the experts in the way of life and we don't need mosques, what would have happened then? Is this teachings of Islam, or is this Dr Naik's own answer

[Ghazi]

Salaam

But that won't happen, and why build some church in saudi arabia when most the population is muslim, I too live in the uk and trust me apart from islam I don't see any other religion apart from sundays.

[Truth_Seeker]

Salaam

But that won't happen, and why build some church in saudi arabia when most the population is muslim, I too live in the uk and trust me apart from islam I don't see any other religion apart from sundays.

Theres over 14 Million Christian Arabs in Saudi. I'm sure some of them are religious and some of them may wish to build and improve their churches. I'm just saying it's hypocrisy from Muslims, if in the UK we were refused permission to build Mosques there would be uproar

[Ghazi]

Theres over 14 Million Christian Arabs in Saudi. I'm sure some of them are religious and some of them may wish to build and improve their churches. I'm just saying it's hypocrisy from Muslims, if in the UK we were refused permission to build Mosques there would be uproar

Salaam

What does the sharia say about this.

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

[Truth_Seeker]

Salaam

What does the sharia say about this.

yeah thats what i want to know, but since Dr Naik tries to teach and clarify misconceptions of islam, aswel as proving shariah is best, i assume this law is based on shariah

[akulion]

Salam Alaikum

Islam puts no restriction on building Churches or Synagogs, temples, etc for other religions.

The only exception is in the case of Mecca where it is prohibited because this is a very central place for Muslims where the Kabah is located.

Saudia Arabia has some very unislamic laws such as:

- saudis get 50% of any foreign investors profits if they wish to start a business there (this used to be a law I dont know if it still exists)

- saudi women can only marry saudi men

So remember that Saudia Arabia does not represent Islam

[rubiesand]

Theres over 14 Million Christian Arabs in Saudi.

Hi Truth Seeker,

Could you please provide your source for this statistic?
According to the CIA factbook site, the population of Saudi is "26,417,599
note: includes 5,576,076 non-nationals (July 2005 est.) "
And it also says "Religions: Muslim (100%)"
So I would like to know where the 14 million Christians come from? Even if every non national was Christian, which they are not, that would still only make 5.5 million, and they are non citizens. The citizens of Saudi are 100% Muslim.

[Ghazi]

Salaam

"saudi women can only marry saudi men" Thats Racism and this is the type of govement thats running the country, plus I'd doubt they'd ever let me do hijra to madinah

[Truth_Seeker]

Hi Truth Seeker,

Could you please provide your source for this statistic?
According to the CIA factbook site, the population of Saudi is "26,417,599
note: includes 5,576,076 non-nationals (July 2005 est.) "
And it also says "Religions: Muslim (100%)"
So I would like to know where the 14 million Christians come from? Even if every non national was Christian, which they are not, that would still only make 5.5 million, and they are non citizens. The citizens of Saudi are 100% Muslim.

I dunno i got this figure from Dr Zakir Naik,he said there are 14 million christian arabs in saudi arabia.
Back to the topic, i'm asking why would Dr Naik say such a ridiculus thing then if it wasn't allowed by shariah. dr naik could easily have said saudi doesn't represent islam but he ddnt

[rubiesand]

Thanks Truth_Seeker!

I googled it and found on a Dr. Naik website where he says:

"Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword, there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian. "

So you see, he does not say that there are 14 million Arab Christians in Saudi Arabia, but that there are 14 million Arab Christians period. Since we know that 100% of the citizens of Saudi Arabia are Muslim, these Coptic Christians must be citizens of other countries.

Thank you for helping clear that up.

[azim]

I havent come across any rules preventing the building of places of worship for other religions in Islamic land, but not I'm exactly knoweldgeable in it. It'd be great if someone could clear this up for us.

I don't imagine it being prevented since we know Churches etc.. can exist in Khalifa countries, as long as theres a public need for it. Theres no point in building a Church in Saudi if no one is going to go there.

[HeiGou]

I havent come across any rules preventing the building of places of worship for other religions in Islamic land, but not I'm exactly knoweldgeable in it. It'd be great if someone could clear this up for us.

I don't imagine it being prevented since we know Churches etc.. can exist in Khalifa countries, as long as theres a public need for it. Theres no point in building a Church in Saudi if no one is going to go there.

The Pact of Umar states that People of the Book may not build new places of worship nor repair old ones. There are some other restrictions that may or may not have been included at the time of Umar I (or probably Umar II) including a ban on Churches being higher than Muslim buildings, any external display of Christian or Jewish symbols, the use of bells and so on. This produces a type of Christian architecture in places like Romania where the Churches are long low wooden building that look more like barns.

The second issue is specifically Saudi Arabia. After the death of Muhammed (or perhaps Umar - it depends how you interpret some hadith) all non Muslims were expelled from Arabia. This is still technically the law. So there was no need for Churches or Synagogues there.

Of course neither law has been observed all the time. Jews survived in Yemen until the 1950s. But Islamic law does not allow Jews or Christians to build.

[HeiGou]

The real issue is whether that Islamic law is rightful ?
A similar law could be applied in non muslim countries asking for the closing down of mosques funded by Saudis.

Well I don't think that would be a similar law. After all I don't think the Pact of Umar forbids foreigners from funding Churches. It forbids the building of new places of worship so if it was imposed the West would have no mosques.

From my favorite fiqh work, Abu'l-Hasan al-Mawardi's "al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah"

The contract of jizyah contains two kinds of conditions: obligatory and recommended. The first comprises six conditions: i. they may not denigrate or misquote the Book of Allah; ii. they may not accuse the Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be apon him, of lying, or speak of him disparagingly; iii. nor mention the deen of Islam with slander or calumny; iv. nor approach a Muslim woman to commit fornication or with a view to marriage; v. nor try to undermine a Muslim's faith in his deen or to cause harm to his wealth or deen; vi. nor help the enemy or any of their spies. These six count as obligatory duties and must be adhered to without condition .... The recommended conditions are six in number: i. the changing of their outward form by imposing the wearing of distinctive clothes and a special zunnar belt; ii. they are not to erect any buildings higher than those of the Muslims and must either be of equal or lesser height; iii. they must not allow the sound of their bells, or the reciting of their books or their talk of Uzayr or Jesus to reach the ears of Muslims; iv. they must not drink their wine in front of the Muslims, display their crosses or allow their pigs to be seen openly; v. they must conceal the burial of their dead and not lament or wail openly for them; vi. they are prevented from riding horses, be they thorough-bred or of mixed race, but not from riding mules or asses.

But I think if these were imposed, Muslims would have bigger problems than mosques. Is there any Muslim boy in the West who has not broken one of them - especially that bit about approaching women!

[kadafi]

Well I don't think that would be a similar law. After all I don't think the Pact of Umar forbids foreigners from funding Churches. It forbids the building of new places of worship so if it was imposed the West would have no mosques.

Greetings

Thomas Arnold writes in his book the spread of Islam in the world:

A later generation attributed to 'Umar a number of restrictive regulations which hampered the Christians in the free exercise of their religion, but De Goeje [3] and Caetani [4] have proved without doubt that they are the invention of a later age; as, however, Muslim theologians of less tolerant periods accepted these ordinaces as genuine, they are of the importance for forming a judgement as to the condition of the Christian Churches under Muslim rule. This so-called ordinace of 'Umar runs as follows: "In the name of God………. you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels". [5]

[1] Baladhuri, p. 129 [Liber Expugnationis Regionum]
[2] Ibn S'ad, Vol. III, p. 246 [Al-Tabaqat]
[3]Memoire sur la conquete de la Syrie, p. 143
[4] Annali dell' Islam, Vol. III, p. 957.
[5] Gottheil pp. 382-4 [Dhimmis and Moslems in Egypt]

Abdulaziz Sachedina writes in his book The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism:

The discriminatory regulations in exchange for protection are usually traced back to a document known as the Pact (pahd) of 'Umar. The contents of this document suggest that its attribution to Umar b. al-Khattab, who ruled from 634 to 644, is doubtful. The discriminatory stipulations—a non-Muslim's word was not to be accepted against a Muslim in the qadi's court; the murder of a non-Muslim was not to be treated as quite so heinous a crime as the murder of a Muslim—not only run completely counter to the spirit of justice in the Koran, but they also contravene the practice of the early community. The tendency among later jurists, in the eighth and ninth centuries, was to seek justification for the eighth-century rulings by ascribing the documentary evidence in support of these rulings to the early community, whose prestige in such matters was a source of authentication for the later jurists' extrapolations. Thus, for instance, the prohibition against building new churches or repairing old ones, which was instituted under some Umayyad and 'Abbasid caliphs, did not prevail in the early decades, because it is well documented that non Muslims erected such places of worship following the conquest. When Muslims took Jerusalem in 638, the caliph 'Umar b. al-Khattab, on his visit to that city from Damascus, sent the inhabitants of the city the following written message:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is a written document from 'Umar b. al-Khattab to the inhabitants of the Sacred House (bayt al-maqdis). You are guaranteed (aminun) your life, your goods, and your churches, which will be neither occupied nor destroyed, as long as you do not initiate anything [to endanger] the general security

It is difficult to see how the same caliph could have instituted the discriminatory laws against the protected people, as later sources report.

[Trumble]

I think its a quite unacceptable answer. imagine if UK didn't let us muslims build mosques here because they thought they thought they were the experts in the way of life and we don't need mosques, what would have happened then? Is this teachings of Islam, or is this Dr Naik's own answer

It is unacceptable, because it quite simply isn't an answer at all. It just comes down to "muslims are right, and therefore no other religious practice should be permitted or taught". Of course, all muslims no doubt believe they ARE right, but so do all Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha'i or whatever. Who is? How can we know?

My own personal take on that is that no religion is "the only true" one. Each religion can, however, be "right" for different individuals. I believe that one of the most important freedoms for all men and women is to be able undertake their own quest for spiritual fulfillment and to make their own choice of the religion and way of life that seizes both their mind and heart. Obviously, there will be a certain unavoidable cultural bias - most in a predominantly muslim country will become muslim, and so on, but the choice and the possibility to practice your religion of choice should always be there.

My question here is what do Saudi muslims have to fear? If the case for Islam being "the only true" faith is as strong as Naik claims, it is the only religious life anybody would select.

[azim]

But I think if these were imposed, Muslims would have bigger problems than mosques. Is there any Muslim boy in the West who has not broken one of them - especially that bit about approaching women!

Yeah - us crazy muslim boys. We just can't help stealing your jobs, raping your women, mugging your OAP's and living off income benefit.

[azim]

My question here is what do Saudi muslims have to fear? If the case for Islam being "the only true" faith is as strong as Naik claims, it is the only religious life anybody would select.

Saudi are very unIslamic in a lot of things they do so using them as some sort of yard stick is usually flawed. As far as choosing Islam - Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West - so we must have something. Islam has also survived without problems vicious Christian missionaries in India and Africa.

[HeiGou]

[QUOTE=kadafi;186070]Thomas Arnold writes in his book the spread of Islam in the world:

A later generation attributed to 'Umar a number of restrictive regulations which hampered the Christians in the free exercise of their religion, but De Goeje [3] and Caetani [4] have proved without doubt that they are the invention of a later age;

Well it has been claimed that they are the work of Umar II (Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz) not Umar I (Umar ibn al-Khattab), so they are not that much later.

However these are dangerous grounds. I notice you cite them but do not give us your opinion. Caetani in particular is someone I do not think many Muslims would be comfortable endorsing.

as, however, Muslim theologians of less tolerant periods accepted these ordinaces as genuine, they are of the importance for forming a judgement as to the condition of the Christian Churches under Muslim rule. This so-called ordinace of 'Umar runs as follows: "In the name of God………. you are at liberty to treat us as enemies and rebels". [5]

Yes. Muslim theologians accept them are genuine. They form part of Islamic law. In fact most Muslims get annoy if you suggest these are the work of anyone else besides Umar. So that is all very interesting, but Islamic law is, whatever Caetani says, what exactly?

The invitation of the strong to the weak to treat them as enemies is hardly enticing.

Abdulaziz Sachedina writes in his book The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism:

The discriminatory regulations in exchange for protection are usually traced back to a document known as the Pact (pahd) of 'Umar. The contents of this document suggest that its attribution to Umar b. al-Khattab, who ruled from 634 to 644, is doubtful. The discriminatory stipulations—a non-Muslim's word was not to be accepted against a Muslim in the qadi's court; the murder of a non-Muslim was not to be treated as quite so heinous a crime as the murder of a Muslim—not only run completely counter to the spirit of justice in the Koran, but they also contravene the practice of the early community.

Contrary to what practices of the early community? Let me quote from the Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50:

Narrated Abu Juhaifa:

I asked 'Ali "Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur'an?" Or, as Uyaina once said, "Apart from what the people have?" 'Ali said, "By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper." I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)."

The tendency among later jurists, in the eighth and ninth centuries, was to seek justification for the eighth-century rulings by ascribing the documentary evidence in support of these rulings to the early community, whose prestige in such matters was a source of authentication for the later jurists' extrapolations.

Is this an admission or an accusation about the hadith?

Thus, for instance, the prohibition against building new churches or repairing old ones, which was instituted under some Umayyad and 'Abbasid caliphs, did not prevail in the early decades, because it is well documented that non Muslims erected such places of worship following the conquest. When Muslims took Jerusalem in 638, the caliph 'Umar b. al-Khattab, on his visit to that city from Damascus, sent the inhabitants of the city the following written message:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is a written document from 'Umar b. al-Khattab to the inhabitants of the Sacred House (bayt al-maqdis). You are guaranteed (aminun) your life, your goods, and your churches, which will be neither occupied nor destroyed, as long as you do not initiate anything [to endanger] the general security

It is difficult to see how the same caliph could have instituted the discriminatory laws against the protected people, as later sources report.

Notice that Umar does not promise that the Christians could build any new Churches. Just that the existing ones would be "neither occupied nor destroyed". And even then as long as they behaved themselves.

I do not see how this contradicts anything I have said.

[Turin Turambar]

Saudi are very unIslamic in a lot of things they do so using them as some sort of yard stick is usually flawed. As far as choosing Islam - Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West - so we must have something. Islam has also survived without problems vicious Christian missionaries in India and Africa.

But it is not only Saudi Arabia. There are no countries with a muslim majority in which I would be allowed to preach Christianity. In many I would be killed, in some I would be put in jail, etc. Why? If Islam is so obviously true, it should benefit from free discussion, because it could show how true it is. Could it be that perhaps muslims aren't so sure about their ability to win arguments? But the problem is that free discussion of all topics is critical for democracy and the advancement of science. Could that be the reason why all countries with muslim majorities are so hopelessly behind in both democracy and science, because they are afraid of free discussion?

[HeiGou]

Yeah - us crazy muslim boys. We just can't help stealing your jobs, raping your women, mugging your OAP's and living off income benefit.

That is not fair. It is not even close to fair. If you think that is an adequate response to what I said, which admittedly was meant to be humorous, I feel sorry for you.

[kadafi]

Well it has been claimed that they are the work of Umar II (Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz) not Umar I (Umar ibn al-Khattab), so they are not that much later.

Then I say, it is a flimsy claim since the Umariyyah has never been transmitted to the Muslim Ummah with an authenthic isnad. In addition to that, that so-called pact was never endorsed fully and this why Historians always highlight how the Jewish and Christians in the Islamic Empire enjoyed their religiously and wordly rights.

However these are dangerous grounds. I notice you cite them but do not give us your opinion. Caetani in particular is someone I do not think many Muslims would be comfortable endorsing.

Why should I give my opinion considering that these statements are self-explanatory. Furthermore, Caetani was quoted by Thomas Anderson if you have fully read the quote that I provided.

Contrary to what practices of the early community? Let me quote from the Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50:

I have said this in the slave-girls thread. You cannot quote a hadeeth without adding the rest of the text as the Islaamic Law is not based on a single hadeeth. It is a fundemental rule in the jurisprudential methodology.
A non-Muslim would conclude, based on his preconceived perception from the hadeeth, that it advocates that a Muslim cannot be heavily punished if he murders an innocenent non-Muslim.

The hadeeth is referring to the qisaas (retribution). Islaam does not legislate capital punishment for the crime of murder.

Allaah (Exalted is He) says in Soorah al-Baqarah:

O ye who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. In the law of equality there is (saving of) life for you, o people of understanding; that you may restrain yourselves.

Thus what Islaam does is let the victim's family decide what he shall receive. If they decide that he shall be killed in retribution, then it will be carried out. If not, then they have the option to demand blood-money or forgive the murderer.

However, the right of killing the murder (retribution) does not extend to the family of a non-Muslim. Whilst they are entitled to receive the blood money, they cannot command to the court that the murderer should be killed as retribution. Besides, murderers who are not killed (retribution) are subjected to the discretionary punishment called tazeer which is an harsh punishment. It would indicate that they would serve a lengthy prison sentence or any other harsh punishment that the court imposes.

Similiary non-Muslims were exempted from many things such as paying the alms, being drafted in military service, following the personal Muslim laws and amongst other things.


As for the policy that they have to be distinct from the Muslims (i.e. not dress as the Muslims), then this is true and has been enforced for various reasons.

• It helps them preserve their identity
• It protects them incase they do something contrary in Islaam for which a Muslim would face punishment and for which they by being non-Muslims are exempt from punishment.

Compare this to the new policy that is adopted in many non-Muslims countries where they prevent the Muslims from wearing their Islaamic clothes.

[HeiGou]

Then I say, it is a flimsy claim since the Umariyyah has never been transmitted to the Muslim Ummah with an authenthic isnad. In addition to that, that so-called pact was never endorsed fully and this why Historians always highlight how the Jewish and Christians in the Islamic Empire enjoyed their religiously and wordly rights.

Enjoyed some religious and worldly rights. If it has not been transmitted then there is less reason to think that it was imposed, and that Umar I treated Jews and Christians particularly well.

I have said this in the slave-girls thread. You cannot quote a hadeeth without adding the rest of the text as the Islaamic Law is not based on a single hadeeth. It is a fundemental rule in the jurisprudential methodology.

Well the simple answer to that is if I had that level of knowledge I would not be here trying to learn. I do my best. I try not to quote anything that is out of line with what Muslims believe and I am happy, delighted in fact, to be corrected as it means I learn something.

However if I was to add commentary to that, I would point out its use in doctrinal battles between Sunnis and Shia - who may have claimed Ali had a different version of the Quran. But that is a different argument (and I notice the Shia have never produced such a Quran).

A non-Muslim would conclude, based on his preconceived perception from the hadeeth, that it advocates that a Muslim cannot be heavily punished if he murders an innocenent non-Muslim.

The hadeeth is referring to the qisaas (retribution). Islaam does not legislate capital punishment for the crime of murder.

Allaah (Exalted is He) says in Soorah al-Baqarah:

O ye who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. In the law of equality there is (saving of) life for you, o people of understanding; that you may restrain yourselves.

Thus what Islaam does is let the victim's family decide what he shall receive. If they decide that he shall be killed in retribution, then it will be carried out. If not, then they have the option to demand blood-money or forgive the murderer.

However, the right of killing the murder (retribution) does not extend to the family of a non-Muslim. Whilst they are entitled to receive the blood money, they cannot command to the court that the murderer should be killed as retribution. Besides, murderers who are not killed (retribution) are subjected to the discretionary punishment called tazeer which is an harsh punishment. It would indicate that they would serve a lengthy prison sentence or any other harsh punishment that the court imposes.

So a non-Muslim might assume from my quote that a Muslim could not be put to death and that kafir would be right - even you think so. I was expecting a furious denial of the traditional view and an insistence on the modern liberal version. But what do you know?

Similiary non-Muslims were exempted from many things such as paying the alms, being drafted in military service, following the personal Muslim laws and amongst other things.

And so were Blacks in the Old South of America.

[kadafi]

Enjoyed some religious and worldly rights. If it has not been transmitted then there is less reason to think that it was imposed, and that Umar I treated Jews and Christians particularly well.

And I repeat that it is a flimsy claim to attribute it to 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz. If it's not authentically transmitted, then we cannot trace the origin.

Well the simple answer to that is if I had that level of knowledge I would not be here trying to learn. I do my best. I try not to quote anything that is out of line with what Muslims believe and I am happy, delighted in fact, to be corrected as it means I learn something.

Citing hadeeths and claiming that is what Islaam teachings is different to inquiring about a hadeeth.


I see that you have left out some points in my previous reply.

[HeiGou]

And I repeat that it is a flimsy claim to attribute it to 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz. If it's not authentically transmitted, then we cannot trace the origin.

Which makes it hard to justify using it as a defense of whatever Umar I might or might not have done.

Citing hadeeths and claiming that is what Islaam teachings is different to inquiring about a hadeeth.

Where did I make any claims about what Islam teaches based on a flawed hadith?

I see that you have left out some points in my previous reply.

Probably. Anything of any importance?

[yasin]

i think the intolerance claims is a load of rubbish to be frank,

there are plenty of non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

Why should there be Churches in one of Islam's holiest lands?

I doubt the Mormons would be happy to have us building a Mosque in Salt Lake City!

[HeiGou]

i think the intolerance claims is a load of rubbish to be frank,

there are plenty of non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

A decreasing minority and decreasing all the time. Muslim countries used to be Christian and Zoroastrian countries. Every major Muslim city outside of Arabia has mosques that used to be Churches or were built on the sites of temples. The fact that persecution is not 100 percent effective is not proof that there is no persecution.

Why should there be Churches in one of Islam's holiest lands?

Why should there be a mosque in Rome? But there is. Why should there be any in Europe at all? Fifty years ago there were not, or at least not many.

I doubt the Mormons would be happy to have us building a Mosque in Salt Lake City!

I'd bet there is one though.

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,

A very interesting question?

If Islam is so true why does it not allow otehr reliogn to enter it.

It is simple,BEACASUE IT IS TRUTH and every other reliogn has been proven false.
Islam expands everywhere.Muslim go to where MAN is.

Every otehr reliogn is in stagnant or growth is negligible,where as Islam spread despite war or oppresion.

Where man is ,ISLAM is..

[HeiGou]

A very interesting question?

If Islam is so true why does it not allow otehr reliogn to enter it.

It is simple,BEACASUE IT IS TRUTH and every other reliogn has been proven false.

If other religions had been proven to be false, they would pose no threat and hence there would be no need to prevent them from operating openly and equally. But there is such a need.

I do not accept that it is possible to prove that a religion is true or false, and I do not think anyone has done so, but it is clear that Muslims behave as if they lack confidence in the truth of their religion.

Islam expands everywhere.Muslim go to where MAN is.

Every otehr reliogn is in stagnant or growth is negligible,where as Islam spread despite war or oppresion.

Where man is ,ISLAM is..

I don't see that other religions are stagnant or their growth is neglible. It looks to me as if Catholics and Buddhists and Hindus have all done well these last 50 years or so. It is true that Islam is strongly associated with poverty and poverty is strongly associated with a lack of education and both are strongly associated with high birth rates. So most Muslim communities have very high birth rates. But that is not the same as spreading other ways.

Nor, of course, is anyone waging a war on Islam. On the contrary the only religion that uses violence is various strains of, well, can anyone guess?

[Zulkiflim]

If other religions had been proven to be false, they would pose no threat and hence there would be no need to prevent them from operating openly and equally. But there is such a need.

I do not accept that it is possible to prove that a religion is true or false, and I do not think anyone has done so, but it is clear that Muslims behave as if they lack confidence in the truth of their religion.



I don't see that other religions are stagnant or their growth is neglible. It looks to me as if Catholics and Buddhists and Hindus have all done well these last 50 years or so. It is true that Islam is strongly associated with poverty and poverty is strongly associated with a lack of education and both are strongly associated with high birth rates. So most Muslim communities have very high birth rates. But that is not the same as spreading other ways.

Nor, of course, is anyone waging a war on Islam. On the contrary the only religion that uses violence is various strains of, well, can anyone guess?

Salaam,

The very reason why Islam is the Truth that is why no other reliogn is needed.

May i ask if you have arm or leg that is dead and of no use,would you leave it there to becoe putrid? To kill otehr parts of the body?You wont you would cut it off.

Muslim know of TRUTH so have no need for MISGUIDANCE.It is not a lack of confidence or too much of a superiority complex,,it is just TRUTH.simple.

PErhaps you cna provide us with deatil of the number according to what you say that the other reliogn are doing well.Thanks.

By the way when i say spread i do not count the Born Muslim but rahter the i count the converts.

Islam gorws where man is.
Where man is Islam will be there.

Finally,Islam is a rleiogn from birth to death,it is life,Form war and peace,in good times and bad times.
We even have days when BEST to cutour nails.It is that encompassing.

the only reliogn that uses violence,,well really,

Let see,every heard of the KKK? or Hitler? Christiaans arent they?
Every heard of the americna who bombed an abortion clinic based on their religon ?
Every heard of the just Philiphines bombing their own goverment offices to get the president to be over thrown?

So,in all i would say,when you point your finger at toehr you've got 3 pointing back at you.

For Islam is it clear it is the TRUTH,why would we seek darkness after light.

[justahumane]

Salaam,

The very reason why Islam is the Truth that is why no other reliogn is needed.

May i ask if you have arm or leg that is dead and of no use,would you leave it there to becoe putrid? To kill otehr parts of the body?You wont you would cut it off.

Muslim know of TRUTH so have no need for MISGUIDANCE.It is not a lack of confidence or too much of a superiority complex,,it is just TRUTH.simple.

PErhaps you cna provide us with deatil of the number according to what you say that the other reliogn are doing well.Thanks.

By the way when i say spread i do not count the Born Muslim but rahter the i count the converts.

Islam gorws where man is.
Where man is Islam will be there.

Finally,Islam is a rleiogn from birth to death,it is life,Form war and peace,in good times and bad times.
We even have days when BEST to cutour nails.It is that encompassing.

the only reliogn that uses violence,,well really,

Let see,every heard of the KKK? or Hitler? Christiaans arent they?
Every heard of the americna who bombed an abortion clinic based on their religon ?
Every heard of the just Philiphines bombing their own goverment offices to get the president to be over thrown?

So,in all i would say,when you point your finger at toehr you've got 3 pointing back at you.

For Islam is it clear it is the TRUTH,why would we seek darkness after light.

Good to know ur views brother zulkifilms, many misconceptions about islam and muslims removed. Now I know why so called muslims dont tend to tolerate another religions. But I want to remove one of ur misconception too, its really not islam which is spreading fast, its munafiqism that is spreading and how fast? Its not ummah of the holy prophet Muhammad which is spreading, so far I know him he never had great thoughts like U.

ISLAM IS SHRINKING FAST, FASTER THAN U THINK THAT ITS SPREADING, AWAKE. look where Islam is alive in its true form? Ya u are right, its NOWHERE.

Thanks

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,

In Islam to become a muslim is simple.
Say the shahadah 3X infront of 2 witnesses.

Then the trial and life trully begins.
Where every muslim must learn to be BETTER MUSLIM in the light of the Quran and Sunnah.

Becoming a muslim is the first important step but it is not the end,The end comes when you die and live agian .

Say the shahadah then learn to be better muslims.Many muslim show they are muslim but do not behave as a Islam teaches.

For that we often hear,YES HE IS A MUSLIM BUT HIS ACTIONS ARE NOT ISLMAIC"..
But he is still a Muslim till he say toehrwise or unless he break the covenat,Ther is only 1 god :Allah and Prophet Muhammad saw is a Prophet.

So again i say,for every member of the ummah including myself,before i can correct other i must correct myself first.
Before the Ummah can be strong there must be no weaknesses in the indivudal parts.
The time of the Prophet Muhammad saw was clear.

LOVE ALLAH FIRST
LOVE THE PROPHET NEXT.

But in this life and times,amy try to defend or show their love by acting unIslmaic .
As one scholar say,many born muslim or covnerts who think they have found faith are misguided .they think to show faith is take a sword ang threatne everyone for the action of otehr in Islamic countries.

So learn of Islam.
Be not a Muslim whom is hollow.
Pray to Allah for patience,for knowledge and the will to control oneself first.
But again that does not mena you are to keep quite when a brother or sister does wrong,but merely poitn out their error,Inshallah,if they fear/love Allah then surely they will understand and repent.

[NahidSarvy]

I doubt the Mormons would be happy to have us building a Mosque in Salt Lake City!

Except there are at least two: Masâjid an-Nûr & Khadîja.