Straight Answers to Controversial Questions about Islam (OP)
Bismillaahir Rahmaanir Raheem
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah,
Download the book, Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam, from: http://cris.co.nf/English.html
This book is very good in studying comparative religion.
Copy the link given and paste in your browser.
Was-Salaamu ‘alaikum wa Rahmatullah
The other point I was making in my reply was, why would they target mosques only?
Well, this is a Muslim forum so we're talking about mosques. If the US banned all religious houses except Christian ones, would that make it any better? Surely the principle is, there should be no bans, anywhere. Anyone can create a reason to ban something if they want.
You seem to be ending up with a position that it would be ok for eg Saudi to ban churches, but not ok for the US to ban mosques. I'm really struggling to see how that can be fair.
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
You seem to be ending up with a position that it would be ok for eg Saudi to ban churches, but not ok for the US to ban mosques. I'm really struggling to see how that can be fair.
The same level of fairness that Vatican city enjoys!
It isn't a tourist spot and they've enough problems accommodating Muslims many who go on a waiting list & die before completing a compulsory ritual. Saudis themselves are restricted from going except every five years unless they're to accompany a woman as a mahram.
Once the Vatican has a mosque will Saudi have one!
Seems quite fair to anyone not blinded by doublespeak!
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
i hope you can understand.
No I don't. I think you failed to understand at least the portion I'd written. And secondly I have reservations on calling Christianity a 'Monotheism' it is clearly not!
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Well, this is a Muslim forum so we're talking about mosques. If the US banned all religious houses except Christian ones, would that make it any better? Surely the principle is, there should be no bans, anywhere. Anyone can create a reason to ban something if they want.
You seem to be ending up with a position that it would be ok for eg Saudi to ban churches, but not ok for the US to ban mosques. I'm really struggling to see how that can be fair.
The idea of idolatry, crosses, etc hanging around in places like Mecca or Medina should not be allowed. I'll leave the rest of the post open for someone who is more knowledgeable in regards to Islamic laws and religious tolerance rather than to continue giving my opinion. As I stated in my very first post, its all about what the laws are and not what you or I think. That's about as simple as I can make it.
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
format_quote Originally Posted by Vito
The idea of idolatry, crosses, etc hanging around in places like Mecca or Medina should not be allowed
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the symbols of other faiths should be placed directly in the churches, mosques or temples of others. But they should at least be allowed to be in the same city or country. (For instance, the largest mosque in Italy is indeed in Rome.)
format_quote Originally Posted by Vito
As I stated in my very first post, its all about what the laws are and not what you or I think
A country can make any law it likes, but that doesn't make it just or fair. And it's especially unfair if citizens of that same country expect rights of worship etc in other countries which they visit/emigrate to.
You can't in fairness criticise any country for discriminating against Islam if you think it's ok to discriminate against other religions in a Muslim country.
Looking at Saudi in particular, it seems that they do indeed ban churches from any part of their vast country (if someone thinks this is inaccurate please say so). Clerics are not allowed to visit the country at all. In addition the Saudis ban all visible signs of Christianity including crucifixes, statues, imagery and even Bibles.
There are many hundreds of thousands of Christians in the country including a few Saudi citizens - although they don't officially exist according to the government. Conversion from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death. (How is that not 'compulsion in religion'? You could be brought up a Muslim with no say in the matter.)
Do you think this is fair? You say you wouldn't mind not having a mosque in another country - how about not being allowed the Qur'an either? Even more extremely, 'visible signs of religion' could be taken to include dress and beards.
Shouldn't all countries agree complete freedom of worship of all religions?
Last edited by Independent; 05-17-2013 at 09:25 AM.
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
Where's the mosque in the Vatican Indy?
I'll be waiting!
furthermore which part of even Saudis aren't allowed in Makkah except every five years unless they can prove they're accompanying a different Mahram each time mean to you?
Kaffirs are there in Saudi a plenty robbing it, and thanks to (I can't think of an adjective filthy enough to describe the UK) having given birth to kaffir Ahamadis to separate Muslims from the act of Jihad around the time they came to colonize India, they also enable them to Makkah since they mark them as Muslims when they apply for visas which is very sneaky since they're not Muslim. So we've kaffirs from your neck of the wood in the holiest spot taking up space for someone who really needs to fulfill their ritual but can't.
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
Where's the mosque in the Vatican Indy
This has been dealt with already. It's a shame you derail so many threads this way, you turn everything into pointless abuse. I'll run though it again:
1. The Vatican is tiny, it's a city in name only - all it consists of is a Church, a museum, the Pope's residence, some offices, and a nice garden. Whereas Mecca or Medina are true cities with large populations. In any case the comparison here is with Saudi as a country, not just these two cities.
2. Planning permission for anything at all in the Vatican would be very hard to obtain. Whether it was a mosque or a Macdonalds restaurant. Out of interest I checked online and I can find no properties at all currently for sale.
3. The Vatican's tiny population of 800 includes (so far as it's known) zero Muslims so there is no need to be filled. Whereas in Saudi, it is estimated there are over 1 million Christians. There is huge need - but it is not fulfilled.
4. It's not actually illegal to build a mosque in the Vatican anyway - it's just that no one has ever asked. They haven't asked, because there is absolutely no need. Whereas, it is illegal to build a church anywhere in the vast expanse of Saudi.
5. The Vatican is in Rome, and Rome is a true city which can be properly compared with Mecca or Medina. Rome has not banned mosques. In fact now it has the largest mosque in Italy.
6. Why is ok to build a mosque in Rome, but not a church in Mecca?
i think anyone should be free to practice their faith in any country, including having their own places of worship. But if you don't think that, and you oppose the building of churches in Saudi, then you should equally oppose building mosques in countries such as the US, Japan, China and Europe.
format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
which part of even Saudis aren't allowed in Makkah except every five years unless they can prove they're accompanying a different Mahram each time mean to you
Visiting restrictions is another, irrelevant, subject.
format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
Kaffirs are there in Saudi a plenty robbing it
Another irrelevant diatribe - you can't seem to get through even a short post with a good rant. But I'll answer it anyway.
The largest number of 'kaffirs' by far are employed as servants to rich Saudis. Most of them are women. Most of them are from the Philippines. Most of them are Christian. No matter how many years they work there, they will never ever be given citizenship. They have no rights. They are servants. I very much doubt that these unfortunate women, who because of poverty have had to leave their country and their families to work in a country that cares nothing for them, are the ones doing the exploiting.
Last edited by Independent; 05-17-2013 at 04:13 PM.
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
This has been dealt with already. It's a shame you derail so many threads this way, you turn everything into pointless abuse. I'll run though it again:
It is the crux of the argument in fact- your inability to deal with it doesn't turn the query into pointless abuse. Just renders you a hypocrite!
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
1. The Vatican is tiny, it's a city in name only - all it consists of is a Church, a museum, the Pope's residence, some offices, and a nice garden. Whereas Mecca or Medina are true cities with large populations. In any case the comparison here is with Saudi as a country, not just these two cities.
So is Makkah and Medina barely able to accommodate Muslims even the natives of that country hence the restrictions.. outside of the two cities there are kaffirs galore doing whatever it is they're doing there!
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
2. Planning permission for anything at all in the Vatican would be very hard to obtain. Whether it was a mosque or a Macdonalds restaurant. Out of interest I checked online and I can find no properties at all currently for sale.
Same for Makkah & Medinah- but how does this reconcile with your other statement? that it isn't illegal to build or we're descending down to word play as usual? like with the opium wars? legal when your country imposes it on the chinese, illegal when a poor country plants it for whatever reasons medicinal or otherwise. God how do you live with yourself?
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
3. The Vatican's tiny population of 800 includes (so far as it's known) zero Muslims so there is no need to be filled. Whereas in Saudi, it is estimated there are over 1 million Christians. There is huge need - but it is not fulfilled.
Of course it has zero Muslims, Makkah and Medinah have zero kaffirs, what kind of argument is that exactly? You're funny!
When they do come they're there to fill their bags full money & take off, there is hardly a spiritual need to be fulfilled!
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
4. It's not actually illegal to build a mosque in the Vatican anyway - it's just that no one has ever asked. They haven't asked, because there is absolutely no need. Whereas, it is illegal to build a church anywhere in the vast expanse of Saudi.
Yeah not illegal? You've insider info? let me see it writing!
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
5. The Vatican is in Rome, and Rome is a true city which can be properly compared with Mecca or Medina. Rome has not banned mosques. In fact now it has the largest mosque in Italy.
Kaffirs have their churches all over the Muslim world!
Midan Aljami3 in Egypt so named after a mosque has more churches than mosques in fact Christians of Egypt have illegally taken land including those where endangered species exist that are larger than Makkah, medina and Vatican city combined even though they're a tiny population less than 10% and if anyone questions them about it they go crying human abuses.. your point being at the end of this?
by the way here it all is in pictures: http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ml#post1555635
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
6. Why is ok to build a mosque in Rome, but not a church in Mecca?
Again, perhaps this time it will stick. Makkah is a tiny place barely able to accommodate its pilgrims, even with them removing buildings and expanding the area every other day, when the Vatican accommodates a mosque will Makkah accommodate a church!
Some places are just that a 'makkah' for a certain type of people!
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Visiting restrictions is another, irrelevant, subject.
There's no visitation it isn't a tourist spot, it is a place to complete a pillar of Islam!
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Another irrelevant diatribe - you can't seem to get through even a short post with a good rant. But I'll answer it anyway.
Adequate assessment of your drivel!
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
The largest number of 'kaffirs' by far are employed as servants to rich Saudis. Most of them are women. Most of them are from the Philippines. Most of them are Christian. No matter how many years they work there, they will never ever be given citizenship. They have no rights. They are servants. I very much doubt that these unfortunate women, who because of poverty have had to leave their country and their families to work in a country that cares nothing for them, are the ones doing the exploiting.
This is much crock as we're so accustomed from you- you've been to Saudi? You haven't established credibility for anyone to simply go by your words..
for others who are interested to know exactly what kaffirs are doing in Saudi please read:
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
I think this would provide better info on the subject than I ever could. That index is probably the best thing on this forum. I wasn't really aware of it.
And just for the record, I don't care much for the governing bodies of Saudi. I only used them as an example because of the area having religious significance in Islam. And you're right, any country can come up with whatever laws they like which is why most Muslims would love to see a khalifah established during their lifetime because what we have now is a mixture of man made laws and religious laws put in place by corrupt people.
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
But if a country were to prohibit building mosques, would you think that was acceptable? The principle of fairness has to go both ways.
There are already places where Mosques are not allowed to be built:
Athens - the EU capital city without a mosque
Since Greece gained independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1832, no government has allowed a mosque to be built in the city. It was seen by many as "un-Greek" - out of place in a country in which much more than 90% of the population are Orthodox Christians.
When we speak of 'fairness' we need to consider the vast differences in principles on which governments work. Western countries like the UK and USA pride themselves in promoting freedom of speech and religion, and are secular in nature. If they prohibit Mosques, that contradicts the principles they claim to uphold. On the other hand, places like Saudi Arabia draw heavily on religious and cultural norms. They do not claim to be unrestrictedly accepting of all practices, hence we would not expect it to 'go both ways'.
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
Greeting Muhammad
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
There are already places where Mosques are not allowed to be built:
As I said, I am in favour of freedom of worship and places of worship in all countries, for all religions. So if Greece restricts that freedom, I don't agree with it - although you must understand that Greece was occupied for many centuries by the Ottomans. Independence was achieved at great cost and great brutality (on both sides) with intense bad feeling to this day. So even if I don't agree with it, there is a background.
Curiously enough - and this is bizarrely topical - I could almost get religious about the timing - but Greece has just 5 days ago approved the building of a mosque in Athens. This is to be funded - astonishingly - by the Greek government. I see also that there is a legal challenge against it, because this seems to break Greek planning laws, but nevertheless it's expected to go through. I can't think of anything remotely similar in the Islamic world:
So i guess the Greeks have wiped their particular slate clean. Time for the Saudis!
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
When we speak of 'fairness' we need to consider the vast differences in principles on which governments work. Western countries like the UK and USA pride themselves in promoting freedom of speech and religion, and are secular in nature. If they prohibit Mosques, that contradicts the principles they claim to uphold. On the other hand, places like Saudi Arabia draw heavily on religious and cultural norms. They do not claim to be unrestrictedly accepting of all practices, hence we would not expect it to 'go both ways'.
I think I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it. If I understand him correctly, this is also what Vito is getting at. I respect your principles, and if you believe they are inscribed in Islam there's not much you or anyone else can do about it except follow them.
But let's look at the result. Essentially, it means that it's ok for the Saudis to prohibit churches etc in their country - yet if another country (the US or otherwise) were to prohibit mosques in their country, this would be wrong and the cause of outrage amongst Muslims. That's a very hard sell to convince anyone who isn't a Muslim that it's fair.
In this instance, the US, or any other country, could quite reasonably ban mosques on the grounds of reciprocity, fairness and equality (all of which are key western principles). This is typical of the way states relate to each other in other areas such as trade (ie you put a tax on my imports and I'll do the same to yours). So this action of reciprocal banning could be taken by the US on principle (although again I say i don't agree with it).
Your belief is in Islam, mine is equality. Both of them are wonderful ideals although a little harder in practice. I fundamentally and passionately don't see how it's fair or anything less than hypocritical for Saudi to restrict other religions in Saudi - unless they also agree that Islam should be restricted to the exact same degree of reciprocity in other countries.
If those other countries decide to ignore Saudi's actions, and still permit freedom of worship to Muslims on a unilateral basis, this is for them to be praised (which is very far from what happens in this forum or other Muslim circles).
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
When we speak of 'fairness' we need to consider the vast differences in principles on which governments work. Western countries like the UK and USA pride themselves in promoting freedom of speech and religion, and are secular in nature. If they prohibit Mosques, that contradicts the principles they claim to uphold. On the other hand, places like Saudi Arabia draw heavily on religious and cultural norms. They do not claim to be unrestrictedly accepting of all practices, hence we would not expect it to 'go both ways'.
I agree with this. If a country claims to be secular and fair and egalitarian to all of its citizenry, it is hypocritical for it not to try to live up to that. If it doesn't make such a claim, then this doesn't apply. It isn't hypocritical; just oppressive.
I also understand what Independent is saying though. People who will endorse the repression of religious freedom of others are hypocrites if they then themselves complain if they are likewise repressed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect their rights, even if they would deny them to others.
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
format_quote Originally Posted by العنود
So is Makkah and Medina barely able to accommodate Muslims even the natives of that country hence the restrictions.. outside of the two cities there are kaffirs galore doing whatever it is they're doing there!
Hold on... are churches banned all throughout Saudi or just in those two cities?
We seem to have conflicting claims in this thread. Which is true? Can you build a big Christian Cathedral on the outskirts of Saudi legally?
Re: Straight Answers to the Controversial Questions about Islam
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Hold on... are churches banned all throughout Saudi or just in those two cities?
We seem to have conflicting claims in this thread. Which is true? Can you build a big Christian Cathedral on the outskirts of Saudi legally?
The place of Hijaz aka modern day saudi in its entirety can be considered for the 1.8 billion Muslims to be 'Vatican city' it is a relative compared to population size. Do non-Muslims visit? sure they do, they come raking in the money - that's not the purpose of that place.. the entire Muslim world otherwise is studded with churches that are hardly frequented since christian practices in general include nothing but idolatry, song and dance which doesn't need a congregation in fact like many mosques in the west where even minarets are banned and are confined to nothing but a room where all parishioners can't fit in can be held for them if the worship is busting at the seams in anyone's house. So in conclusion if you understand about relativity, purposes and percentages the day the Vatican builds a mosque can we have this conversation again!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
ba51th liked this post
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks