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.
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
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by islam-truth
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
Salaamformat_quote Originally Posted by Truth_Seeker
What does the sharia say about this.
format_quote Originally Posted by islam-truth
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
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
format_quote Originally Posted by 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.
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
format_quote Originally Posted by rubiesand
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
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.
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.format_quote Originally Posted by azim
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.
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.format_quote Originally Posted by izmi
From my favorite fiqh work, Abu'l-Hasan al-Mawardi's "al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah"
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!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.
Greetingsformat_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
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]Abdulaziz Sachedina writes in his book The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism:
[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]
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Truth_Seeker
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.
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.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!
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.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.
[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.
Contrary to what practices of the early community? Let me quote from the Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 50: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.
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)."
Is this an admission or an accusation about the hadith?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.
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.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 securityIt is difficult to see how the same caliph could have instituted the discriminatory laws against the protected people, as later sources report.
I do not see how this contradicts anything I have said.
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?format_quote Originally Posted by azim
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.format_quote Originally Posted by azim
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks