Straight Answers to Controversial Questions about Islam

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

I guess this indirectly confirms that yes, it is the whole country.

According to what i read on the web the ban extends not just to religious buildings but also all religious imagery, symbols, church representatives and writings (including the Bible in Christianity's case).

and I certainly hope they impose that policy which I doubt since I have seen with my own eyes in the four years that I have lived there, bacon in the supermarkets and liquor in the palatial homes where kaffirs dwelt. I gather if they didn't like it there, they should just leave, and from what I understand you yourself subscribe to that philosophy as you suggested I do the same not a couple of days ago!

best,

i guess for any objective viewpoint to be achieved a person would have to know the religious history of mecca and madina.

i know there were jews in the area at the time of the prophet pbuh but i am not sure about christians.

i dont know how and when that religious standing changed or what became of those people belonging to other religions.


so i guess unless somebody with real knowledge enters the thread its just going around in circles like many others.



in personal opinion i can understand why the saudi's dont want any churches

...and can not blame any other country for not wanting mosques.. the fact they allow it is a reflection of the non religious governments and secular states that most muslims love to hate.

insane.

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.

i know there were jews in the area at the time of the prophet pbuh but i am not sure about christians.

There were only two christian tribes in that area during the time of the prophet banu harith & I forget the name of the other now, they converted to Islam and no backing from the Roman empire came to save them from the savages!

best,

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.

...and can not blame any other country for not wanting mosques.. the fact they allow it is a reflection of the non religious governments and secular states that most muslims love to hate.

They only allow them so they can spy on them and plant agents provocateurs and then flash it over the front page news about how 'intolerant' we're and how we preach hate- who are you kidding with that comment?
The mosques that I have seen here in the U.S with the exception of one which no one frequents are downtrodden rooms that barely fit anyone and often have a cop outside to make sure you feel as uncomfortable as possible.

format_quote Originally Posted by العنود

They only allow them so they can spy on them and plant agents provocateurs and then flash it over the front page news about how 'intolerant' we're and how we preach hate- who are you kidding with that comment?
The mosques that I have seen here in the U.S with the exception of one which no one frequents are downtrodden rooms that barely fit anyone and often have a cop outside to make sure you feel as uncomfortable as possible.

absolutely, if you would only stop listening to anybody wanting to make a bomb we could finally move forward!

as for the second part of your post, i dont understand the problem?

iv prayed outside in the company of my friends.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

Yes there were Christians in the area both at the time of and before the Prophet. But I don't think that matters. There were no Muslims in Europe at the time of the Prophet - does that mean they're not allowed now? The presence or absence of religions in the distant past is not relevant to freedom of worship today.

All countries should allow all people freedom of religion - and that has to include places of worship, holy books, clerics etc. It's what every country and every religion has the right to expect for their own citizens/members if they're abroad.

it matters because the manner in which they were treated is actually relevant to some posts in the thread if not the actual thread.


the post before yours, i actually cant take at face value.

there is a lot of evidence within the quran about treating people of other faiths and non aggressors.

also the inclusion of the sabians requires some thought,

although again im not sure of the historical time line of those people, although they are included in the quranic definition of.. ?people of the book?



im not in any way qualified to question the saudi peoples.

they have lived according to there own choices.

they have according to some posts, the modern day equivalent of slaves.

which may be a foreign concept to some, but thats how the world works.

i read recently that the pyramids were actually built by paid workers.

...the internet.

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.

absolutely, if you would only stop listening to anybody wanting to make a bomb we could finally move forward!

What does this mean exactly?

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.

as for the second part of your post, i dont understand the problem?

I didn't say there was a problem in fact the opposite!

format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.

iv prayed outside in the company of my friends.

Yes christians in Saudi can do the same find a room clap & dance hallelujah ..
I hope you lay off whatever you're smoking though when you pray!

let's stop here just so we don't turn this into 35 pages nonsense which is incoherent and irrelevant.
Generally have a look around at who enjoys your posts the most and that should tell you something about your person & priorities!

best,

Greetings Independent,

The reason I mentioned Greece was to point out that restrictions of this kind are not exclusive to certain Muslim countries, and that it is not simply a case of one-sided unfairness. Whilst it is good news that Athens may be considering a change in its policy, the discomfort with Islamic symbols is still apparent in Europe with the minaret ban in Switzerland and the ban on Niqab in France, and perhaps other examples.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

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.

As I said above, this comparison is flawed due to the very different values and systems according to which these countries are governing. If a country declares that only Islamic practice can be apparent, we will expect no different from it. The hypocrisy arises when a country says that it is open to all religions and thought, and allows all places of worship and practices, but then decides to only prohibit Mosques. In the latter case, the country is going against the values it is promoting whereas in the former case that is not so.

I can't think of anything remotely similar in the Islamic world:

Saudi Arabia is only one of a few Muslim countries that apparently prohibit churches. According to Wikipedia, there are 48 countries that are predominantly Muslim, and from what I could find, many if not most of these allow churches.

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).

The reciprocation would be totally unfair because it would be based on the policies of only a few countries such as Saudia Arabia and ignore those of many other Muslim countries. It would also be quite strange for secular, multicultural countries to demonstrate this level of concern for the Christian community. If they were genuinely concerned, they would not have, as an example, totally ignored what their own churches have been protesting against by legalising same-sex marriages. Reciprocity may work in universal areas like trade. But I cannot see how it could work in something far more complex as religious freedoms.

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).

I didn't understand what you meant by your last statement. But as mentioned above, allowing other places of worship is not unique to countries like UK or USA.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

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.

I am not endorsing repression of religious freedom here. I was simply commenting on the comparisons being made with Saudi Arabia. It is interesting to note the implications of Muslims being hypocritical (not from you specifically), and on this point of tolerance and thinking about entitlement to praise, I think it's worth remembering the centuries of tolerance Muslims have demonstrated to people of other faiths across the Muslim world, from Moorish Spain and Sub-Saharan Africa to Egypt, Syria, India and Indonesia. Here are just some of the quotes:

Gustave Lebon says:

From the said verses of the Qur'an we can see that Muhammad's tolerance towards Jews and Christians was truly very great. None of the founders of the religions which appeared before his time, especially Judaism and Christianity, has spoken or acted in this manner. Then we saw how his caliphs followed his traditions. This tolerance has been recognized by some European scholars who have deeply contemplated Arab history. The following quotation, which I have taken from their numerous books prove that these are not exclusively our opinions. Robertson says in his book The History of Charles V that Muslims are the only people who possess a zeal for their faith as well as a spirit of tolerance toward the followers of other religions. Although they fight for the sake of Islam and its dissemination, they leave those who do not know their religion free to adhere to their own religious teachings. (Gustave Lebon, Arab Civilisation (trans. 'Adil, Za'aytar), p. 128)


Patriarch Ghaytho wrote:

The Arabs, to whom the Lord has given control over the world, treat us as you know; they are not the enemies of Christians. Indeed, they praise our community, and treat our priests and saints with dignity, and offer aid to churches and monasteries. (Arthur Stanley Tritton, The People Of The Covenant In Islam, p. 158)


Gustav Lebon writes:

"The Arabs could have easily been blinded by their first conquests, and committed the injustices that are usually committed by conquerors. They could have mistreated their defeated opponents or forced them to embrace their religion, which they wished to spread all over the world. But the Arabs avoided that. The early caliphs, who had a political genius that was rare in proponents of new religion, realized that religions and systems are not imposed by force. So they treated the people of Syria, Egypt, Spain, and every country they took over with great kindness, as we have seen. They left their laws, regulations, and beliefs intact and only imposed on them the jizya, which was paltry when compared to what they had been paying in taxes previously, in exchange for maintaining their security. The truth is that nations had never known conquerors more tolerant than the Muslims, or a religion more tolerant than Islam." (Lebon, G, The Civilization Of The Arabs, p. 605)

American historian Will Durant wrote:

At the time of the Umayyad caliphate, the people of the covenant, Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Sabians, all enjoyed degree of tolerance that we do not find even today in Christian countries. They were free to practice the rituals of their religion and their churches and temples were preserved. They enjoyed autonomy in that they were subject to the religious laws of the scholars and judges. (Will Durant, The Story Of Civilization, Volume 13. p. 131-132)

Muslims protected Christian churches in the lands they occupied from being harmed. In a letter to Simeon, the Archbishop of Rifardashir and leader of all the bishops of Persia, the Nestorian Patriarch Geoff III wrote:

'The Arabs, to whom God has given power over the whole world, know how wealthy you are, for they live among you. In spite of this, they do not assail the Christian creed. To the contrary, they have sympathy with our religion, and venerate our priests and saints of our Lord, and they graciously donate to our churches and monasteries.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Invitation To Islam, p. 102)


Sir Thomas Arnold wrote:

'We never heard of a report of any planned attempt to compel non-Muslim minorities to accept Islam, or any organized persecution aimed at uprooting the Christian religion. If any of the caliphs had chosen any of these policies, they would have overwhelmed Christianity with the same ease with which Ferdinand and Isabella exiled Islam from Spain, or with which Louis XIV made following Protestantism a punishable crime in France, or with which the Jews were exiled from England for 350 years. A that time Eastern churches were completely isolated from the rest of the Christian world. They had no supporters in the world as they were considered heretical sects of Christianity. Their very existence to this day is the strongest evidence of the policy of Islamic government's tolerance towards them.' (Sir Thomas Arnold, Invitation To Islam, p. 98-99)

The American author, Lothrop Stoddard wrote,

'The caliph Umar took the utmost care to tend to the sanctity of the Christian holy places, and those who became caliph after him followed his footsteps. They did not harass the many denominations of pilgrims who came annually from every corner of the Christian world to visit Jerusalem.' (Lothrop Stoddard, The Islamic World At Present, Volume 1, p. 13-14)

Regarding Saudi Arabia specifically, I'm not sure what their exact policies are - from what is apparent, it doesn't look like they allow churches but as for freedom of worship, this could still be possible. In any case, I don't think I've said they are justified or not. It's important to note that Saudi Arabian laws and practices in that country are not necessarily representative of Islam. Some of their decisions may be based on other factors.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

I thought that's what you meant when you said this:

But perhaps not?

I have not said that they are right or wrong in making those restrictions. I've only said that the country is not going against its own policies, in contrast to others which would be.

I used the phrase 'complete freedom of worship', in order to include all possible progressive degrees of restriction such as no churches etc. (There are many ways to make a religion difficult to practise short of outright prohibition.) Again, if any country were to ban mosques, for whatever reason (principled or not) I would certainly define that as preventing 'complete freedom of worship' - wouldn't you?

Yes, I agree.

To clarify for me - when Saudi bans churches, do you think they are following Islamic principles, or not?

This is what I don't know. I was about to write in my earlier post that whether this ban stems from their understanding of Islamic law or is based on other factors needs to be verified. I don't know of any country which governs entirely according to Shariah law, hence we have to be careful of assuming that anything a Muslim country does is from Islamic law.

format_quote Originally Posted by Independent

I realise it's a controversial question, but that is the title of the thread...



I agree that these could be considered as affecting complete freedom of worship (although on that basis you could argue that a woman visiting a Muslim country, and being obliged to cover up, is also restrictive - clothing is such a complicated issue as to what extent it relates to 'worship'). I'm certainly agree there are issues in a number of countries - but it seems to me Saudi is one of those countries.

Just to keep repeating, I personally believe in freedom of worship for all religions in all countries, and that includes their permitting their places of worship.

thats the thing, its a progressive society as time passes trends take hold and disappear.

some things are beneficial and some are not.

time does not stand still but you have to ask where these social trends come from?


...and so the restrictiveness of a religious society is not necessarily a bad thing.. for religious people.

so muslims and christians and jews dressing conservatively.. is not an issue.

because its part of religion.. and i guess you can point to much in the bible that goes against that.

but i guess having words and making meaning of them is what makes the world turn..


but actually it is the people.


so we have to go back to something fundamental, how to achieve a productive and almost self reliant society.

that has moral value and integrity.



..any steps towards it will teach you all you need to know about monothiesm.

..i dont know what happens if you dont take life seriously, case in point.




and so we get to "religious freedom"

what you preach and how you act, for what intent.. and how the people receive it.



so how does one change a restrictive government?

well "other" thats a thing to think about.



(as a person who knows my own sins, i know im not one for preaching.. but whatever)