Islam Treats Muslims and Non Muslims alike. Fact or Myth?

[justahumane]

Following is the reply of Dr. Zakir Naik when asked-Why Building of Temples and Churches, and Propagating Other Religions, is Prohibited in Saudi Arabia?

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.

So does it mean that ppls of other religion have a valid reason to fear the propogation of Islam? Because when Islam will spread, good maths teachers will increase, and they wont allow other religions to be practised. Isnt it depressing for a practicing hindu/christian/sikh and so on?

 

[aamirsaab]

...So does it mean that ppls of other religion have a valid reason to fear the propogation of Islam? Because when Islam will spread, good maths teachers will increase, and they wont allow other religions to be practised. Isnt it depressing for a practicing hindu/christian/sikh and so on?

Not really. Since it is an Islamic state, and thus believs Islam is the truth and others are false and that we should be calling others to Islam, it would make sense to not build new Churches/synagogues etc.

BUT, this is not to say members of other religions are to be persecuted - rather, they are to be protected and helped. It is the duty of the Islamic government to aid the dhimmis, so repairing places of worship would be allowed (and is encouraged!).


If you still don't get it: One of the beliefs of muslims is not to consume alcohol. So, would it make sense for a muslim to purchase a pub given that ruling? Unless you are a hypocrit, no it wouldn't. Ergo, muslims do not (and should not) own pubs (or anything to do with alcohol).

And no I'm not comparing non-muslims to alcohol. The example I gave is pretty straight forward in its intent.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Not really. Since it is an Islamic state, and thus believs Islam is the truth and others are false and that we should be calling others to Islam, it would make sense to not build new Churches/synagogues etc.

BUT, this is not to say members of other religions are to be persecuted - rather, they are to be protected and helped. It is the duty of the Islamic government to aid the dhimmis, so repairing places of worship would be allowed (and is encouraged!).

Surely it's possible to see why members of other religious communities would find such a policy threatening and unwelcome?

Peace

 

[aamirsaab]

Greetings,


Surely it's possible to see why members of other religious communities would find such a policy threatening and unwelcome?

Peace

I would agree with you if the ruling said no other religion was allowed to be practiced in an islamic state and/or the followers were to be persecuted. On this occasion, however, I see it as rather fair: it is allowing others to freely practice their religion. It is not however encouraging it (via building of new places of worship). Were it to do so, do you not think that would be hypocritical of it, especially given the emphasis on the belief that Islam is the truth?

Again, I think the ruling is quite fair. Certainly more so than say the BNP's or KKK's views on such matters (you know, ''if it aint white, it aint right'' - grammatical errors intended)

If we were to take the maths example from the OP; a school wouldn't even accomodate a mathematician that cannot calculate 2 + 2; whereas by the logic presented in my argument, the school actually would. Pretty fair, me thinks.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I would agree with you if the ruling said no other religion was allowed to be practiced in an islamic state and/or the followers were to be persecuted.

The reality is that some Muslims do persecute members of other faiths, and they invariably claim they are justified in doing so by referring to Islamic scripture.

On this occasion, however, I see it as rather fair: it is allowing others to freely practice their religion. It is not however encouraging it (via building of new places of worship). Were it to do so, do you not think that would be hypocritical of it, especially given the emphasis on the belief that Islam is the truth?

Yes, the belief that Islam is the truth. Unless it's generally agreed, upon, though, laws should not be made that are based on that assumption.

Again, I think the ruling is quite fair. Certainly more so than say the BNP's or KKK's views on such matters (you know, ''if it aint white, it aint right'' - grammatical errors intended)

Please tell me you're not seriously making the argument that because this view is more fair than the BNP or the KKK, it must be right?

If we were to take the maths example from the OP; a school wouldn't even accomodate a mathematician that cannot calculate 2 + 2; whereas by the logic presented in my argument, the school actually would. Pretty fair, me thinks.

If you really think the truth is that simple, then I suppose all your conclusions will be just as obvious.

Peace

 

[AntiKarateKid]

On a more commonsense note, why would a religion view those that uphold it's ideals alike to those that reject it?

It's not a trick question...honest.:?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

On a more commonsense note, why would a religion view those that uphold it's ideals alike to those that reject it?

It's not a trick question...honest.:?

Because we're all people?

Peace

 

[alcurad]

zakir naik is not the prophet, his is only an opinion that could be right or wrong. personally I see no problem with non-muslims living in an Islamic state building their places of worship or celebrating their fetivals etc, provided it doesn't get out of hand.
there is no particular ruling in Islam forbidding these things, rather it's the attitude some muslims have had in the past, and it continues today.

 

[alcurad]

On a more commonsense note, why would a religion view those that uphold it's ideals alike to those that reject it?

It's not a trick question...honest.:?

that attitude was a result of there not being much distinction between religion/state authority.
it's up to the creator to judge them, not us.

 

[BoredAgnostic]

Those that do not have a problem with this, say the U.S. and other western countries developed into a Christian theocracy and wouldn't allow the building of Mosques or anything that would be perceived as proselytizing, would that be a just ruling?

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


Because we're all people?

Peace

Again with this pseudo-noble nonsense. We are all indeed people, but people who act according to the laws of said religion are obviously going to be exalted above the rebellious.

You are distorting the question by implying that just because it treats them differently that automatically means it is unfair and demeaning to them.

I don't see Allah calling you a dog. Just an unbeliever who will get his due reward like everyone else.


So please, do us all a favor and drop your opportunistic habits. You jump on these types of questions and distort their meanings to make yourself look "noble."

 

[AntiKarateKid]

that attitude was a result of there not being much distinction between religion/state authority.
it's up to the creator to judge them, not us.

I was talking purely with regards to Allah's view of our place in this life and the next.

And whoever desires a way of life other than the Submission (to the Commands of Allah), it shall not be taken from him with approval, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers. [3:85]

 

[justahumane]

Not really. Since it is an Islamic state, and thus believs Islam is the truth and others are false and that we should be calling others to Islam, it would make sense to not build new Churches/synagogues etc.

BUT, this is not to say members of other religions are to be persecuted - rather, they are to be protected and helped. It is the duty of the Islamic government to aid the dhimmis, so repairing places of worship would be allowed (and is encouraged!).


If you still don't get it: One of the beliefs of muslims is not to consume alcohol. So, would it make sense for a muslim to purchase a pub given that ruling? Unless you are a hypocrit, no it wouldn't. Ergo, muslims do not (and should not) own pubs (or anything to do with alcohol).

And no I'm not comparing non-muslims to alcohol. The example I gave is pretty straight forward in its intent.

Well a perfect reply I would say. But U are defending something which cant be defended. I would extend my original question a bit. What happened to those synogogues and churches which were already built there in Saudi Arabia? I mean during the times when jews and christians were living there and practising their religion? How can u say that repairing is encouraged when there is nothing left to repair at all?

By ur standards (and by mine too), anyone owing a pub has to be a hypocrite. So are U trying to say that all those muslims who are dealing with interest-paying banks are hypocrites? I already agree but I m sure that ur fellow muslims wont.

And my question still stands...........Should, hindus/christians/sikhs/buddhists/jains/Bahais/ and so on fear, that after spreading of Islam in India, the religious freedom they are enjoying will be clipped? The places of their worship will be demolished, (Same way like Hindu fanatics had demolished Babri Mosque in India and presumably some muslims demolished synogogues and churches in S.A.) and the act will be called rightous around the Islamic world and not a crimilnal and henious one? is there possibility that proverbial good maths teachers have some pity on religious minorities?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Again with this pseudo-noble nonsense. We are all indeed people, but people who act according to the laws of said religion are obviously going to be exalted above the rebellious.

Why? As long as their views aren't criminal, people deserve respect whatever they believe. We live in a divided world, and views like yours will only increase that division.

You are distorting the question by implying that just because it treats them differently that automatically means it is unfair and demeaning to them.

I don't see Allah calling you a dog. Just an unbeliever who will get his due reward like everyone else.

Allah calls me things that I find much more insulting than that throughout the Qur'an.

So please, do us all a favor and drop your opportunistic habits. You jump on these types of questions and distort their meanings to make yourself look "noble."

I say what I think. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions.

Peace

 

[aamirsaab]

Greetings,


The reality is that some Muslims do persecute members of other faiths, and they invariably claim they are justified in doing so by referring to Islamic scripture.

I don't deny that happens but that is actually a sin in Islam.

Yes, the belief that Islam is the truth. Unless it's generally agreed, upon, though, laws should not be made that are based on that assumption.

Keep in mind this is a theocratic state where the LAW is the RELIGION.

Please tell me you're not seriously making the argument that because this view is more fair than the BNP or the KKK, it must be right?

Nope. Just saying that out of those options, a hindu, sikh, taoist, buddhist, jew etc would be better off in an Islamic state than say under KKK or BNP rule.

If you really think the truth is that simple, then I suppose all your conclusions will be just as obvious.

Peace

The truth isn't that simple but it doesn't have to be complicated. I've said it before: Islam and sharia is like a spine; room for flexibility but it will always retain its original shape. Compare that with modern social law that changes on mere whims and bandwaggons, I think the deal is fair in Islam.

What happened to those synogogues and churches which were already built there in Saudi Arabia? I mean during the times when jews and christians were living there and practising their religion? How can u say that repairing is encouraged when there is nothing left to repair at all?

Destroying any places of worship is a sin in Islam.

By ur standards (and by mine too), anyone owing a pub has to be a hypocrite. So are U trying to say that all those muslims who are dealing with interest-paying banks are hypocrites? I already agree but I m sure that ur fellow muslims wont.

Not for me to pass judgement on such people, but if it is a sin in Islam, and you commit the action, you're a sinner.

And my question still stands...........Should, hindus/christians/sikhs/buddhists/jains/Bahais/ and so on fear, that after spreading of Islam in India, the religious freedom they are enjoying will be clipped? The places of their worship will be demolished, (Same way like Hindu fanatics had demolished Babri Mosque in India and presumably some muslims demolished synogogues and churches in S.A.) and the act will be called rightous around the Islamic world and not a crimilnal and henious one? is there possibility that proverbial good maths teachers have some pity on religious minorities?

Erm, no they shouldn't fear. As I said, they are welcome in muslim land (under sharia/Islamic law) to prey and follow their respective religion without being prosecuted/persecuted and enjoy all the freedoms that come with it. Just not allowed to build NEW places of worship.

 

[justahumane]

Posted by aaamirsaab
Destroying any places of worship is a sin in Islam

I agree with ur statement, but that was not my question, I just want U to agree that places of worship ie churches and synogogus were destroyed in Saudi Arabia, the only shariyah-abiding nation today. Can U defend their action as Islamic?

Posted by aamirsaab
Not for me to pass judgement on such people, but if it is a sin in Islam, and you commit the action, you're a sinner.

Brother, U cant be selective in declaring someone as hypocrite. How come that a muslim owing a pub is a hypocrite but not a muslim dealing with riba? Plz correct urself.

Posted by aamirsaab
Erm, no they shouldn't fear. As I said, they are welcome in muslim land (under sharia/Islamic law) to prey and follow their respective religion without being prosecuted/persecuted and enjoy all the freedoms that come with it. Just not allowed to build NEW places of worship.

Brother plz check out how much non muslims are free to practise their religion in the only shariyah-abiding country in this big world. And this causes a natural fear irrespective of repeated assurances of moderate muslims like U. I m not asking about persecution or prosecution. I m asking about destroying of religious places of non muslims. Will good maths teachers spare any such place? The past experiance in this regard has been worse than bad. We have example of Saudi Arabia where no trace of any other religion could be found, and we have memories of erstwhile Islamic state of Afganistan demolishing Bamiyaan Buddha.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

The maths analogy is bad simply because maths offers its own very real proof, but we cannot even prove that God exists. If we could prove beyond a doubt that God exists we would not be having this conversation.

We can only claim belief and not truth. When we use our truth like a sword against others, we harm the truth.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people

Eric

 

[aamirsaab]

I agree with ur statement, but that was not my question, I just want U to agree that places of worship ie churches and synogogus were destroyed in Saudi Arabia, the only shariyah-abiding nation today. Can U defend their action as Islamic?

No I cannot defend their actions since destroying places of worship is a sin Islam.

Brother, U cant be selective in declaring someone as hypocrite. How come that a muslim owing a pub is a hypocrite but not a muslim dealing with riba? Plz correct urself.

Fine, they'd be counted as hypocrite.

.....We have example of Saudi Arabia where no trace of any other religion could be found, and we have memories of erstwhile Islamic state of Afganistan demolishing Bamiyaan Buddha.

You keep assuming saudi is representative of sharia/Islamic law. The interpretation they are using is far from correct; it's become dogmatic without a proper caliphate and that's why you get stupid outcomes from there.

As for the Bamiyaan Buddha in Afghanistan, that is a long story that I've already discussed previously. I'm not going to get into that again.

Ultimately, however, Sharia and Islam both allow non-muslims to practice their religion (this is the answer you were looking for originally). Certain muslim countries do not always follow those rules laid out (which is often why muslims criticise those countries!). Apart from condemning those sinful acts, there is very little I can do on the internet.

 

[sevgi]

I would agree with you if the ruling said no other religion was allowed to be practiced in an islamic state and/or the followers were to be persecuted. On this occasion, however, I see it as rather fair: it is allowing others to freely practice their religion. It is not however encouraging it (via building of new places of worship). Were it to do so, do you not think that would be hypocritical of it, especially given the emphasis on the belief that Islam is the truth?

Again, I think the ruling is quite fair. Certainly more so than say the BNP's or KKK's views on such matters (you know, ''if it aint white, it aint right'' - grammatical errors intended)

If we were to take the maths example from the OP; a school wouldn't even accomodate a mathematician that cannot calculate 2 + 2; whereas by the logic presented in my argument, the school actually would. Pretty fair, me thinks.

Salams

Fearing an Islamic state in today's societal makeup is validated utterly by some of the machinations of Saudi Arabia. Whilst their dealings do not appear fair let alone appealing to most of us from the West, we must understand that the standards set by SA are not indicative of what Islam as a way of life is.

The destruction of religious centres of non-Islamic foundation is wrong in every sense. The prevention of the building of such places of worship may seem like a bad thing, but it is totally understandable. I wouldn't call it fair though.

I say this because the prevention of the building of such places is seen here in the west too. We see Islamic school and mosque proposals being knocked back by all levels of parliment here in Australia. I mean, we sit down and have a cry about it not being fair. What is not fair in the west against Islam cannot be fair for the non-muslims in SA.

WS.

 

[justahumane]

No I cannot defend their actions since destroying places of worship is a sin Islam.


Fine, they'd be counted as hypocrite.


You keep assuming saudi is representative of sharia/Islamic law. The interpretation they are using is far from correct; it's become dogmatic without a proper caliphate and that's why you get stupid outcomes from there.

As for the Bamiyaan Buddha in Afghanistan, that is a long story that I've already discussed previously. I'm not going to get into that again.

Ultimately, however, Sharia and Islam both allow non-muslims to practice their religion (this is the answer you were looking for originally). Certain muslim countries do not always follow those rules laid out (which is often why muslims criticise those countries!). Apart from condemning those sinful acts, there is very little I can do on the internet.

No brother, I know for sure that Islam doesnt encourage any such system which could look so intolrable towards other religion where one cant even practice his or her religion. And neither I assume that they are representative of Islam or shariyah. But likes of Dr. Zakir Naik show this notion to the world. And his muslim audience cheer him too. I m looking forward for the day when I can ask this and some other questions from him live, InshAllah.

I too have few points to discuess with U on ur view about Bamiyaan Buddha, but some other time. I have read ur discussion on this topic.

And thanks for kind reply, I was always sure, keeping in view ur previous posts, that we are already in agreement on this subject. :statisfie.