Why can't Jews live or visit Mecca or Saudia Arabia
sy_ra
whatever, that's beside the point.
There are several reasons why non-Muslims--particularly Jews--cannot
live in the two cities.
First is that the Qur'an (or perhaps some Hadith, i do not remember
exactly which) orders that all non-Muslims are to be .... asked to
leave the Arabian peninsula... that is, the Saudi Arabia. Perhaps this
is because there is a show-down predicted between God's followers and
God's non-followers which can turn pretty confusing if Muslim's prime
land in inhabited with non-Muslims. i mean, when the time comes when
there will be a show-down between the Muslims and non-Muslims -
primarily Jews - then Saudi Arabia will Act as a Muslim fort. It is
obvious why this 'fort' has to be for Muslims only.
Reason number two is an incident that I do not remember too well the
specifics of--perhaps it happened in the time of Omar the Caliph or
some other king, accounts differ. Jews at that time lived in Medina
after the Prophet's death when a group of them conspired to steal the
Prophet's body from his grave. The idea was to then invite the Muslims
to exhumation of the grave:: upon which ewither the Muslims would get
very confuse and riots would follow, or they'd lose their heart, or
genuine doubts could be raised whether the Prophet was, after all,
just a wizard or something?
As it goes, the conspiracy was discovered (through indication to the
Caliph/king in a dream, they say) and the Jews were caught just as
they had dug a tunel right up to the Prophet's feet. It was, it is
said, after that time that Jews were specifically barred from living
in the city.
The third reason can be the fact that Saudi Arabia is intended to be a
Holy Land. Theoretically, in other place--whether Muslim territories
or not--non-Muslims have the right to differ and live life as they
wish, which may include some non-Islamic aspects. this is not
desirable in a land that is purely to be the primary seat of God and
his followers on Earth. Possessive, but if Allah is the Creator (which
Muslims believe He is) it makes perfect sense that He claims at least
one piece of land as entirely His own and of His followers.
H.E.
news:acl40i$bio$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> I am answering to HE here. Apparantly, HE, you re now a Jew?
no, just a human being
> First is that the Qur'an (or perhaps some Hadith, i do not remember
> exactly which) orders that all non-Muslims are to be .... asked to
> leave the Arabian peninsula... that is, the Saudi Arabia.
Please do not quote the Quran as justification for your racist position.
80% of the world's population does not believe in the words of the Quran,
and using to make a rational argument is rather childish.
>Perhaps this
> is because there is a show-down predicted between God's followers and
> God's non-followers which can turn pretty confusing if Muslim's prime
> land in inhabited with non-Muslims.
please explain this...obviously only a tiny percentage of the world's
muslims actually live in Saudi Arabia...what is "prime" about this land
other than having the holy sites there?
>i mean, when the time comes when
> there will be a show-down between the Muslims and non-Muslims -
> primarily Jews - then Saudi Arabia will Act as a Muslim fort. It is
> obvious why this 'fort' has to be for Muslims only.
This is almost not even worth responding to. Your justification is based on
a belief that the Muslims and Jews will one day be in a great war and that
the Muslims will need Saudi arabia as a fort?
> Reason number two
[snip]...#2 is even more ridiculous than #1
> The third reason can be the fact that Saudi Arabia is intended to be a
> Holy Land. Theoretically, in other place--whether Muslim territories
> or not--non-Muslims have the right to differ and live life as they
> wish, which may include some non-Islamic aspects. this is not
> desirable in a land that is purely to be the primary seat of God and
> his followers on Earth. Possessive, but if Allah is the Creator (which
> Muslims believe He is) it makes perfect sense that He claims at least
> one piece of land as entirely His own and of His followers.
Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever. God would somehow care about a
small piece of desert land? I would think if there were a God, it would
care much more about what is in one's heart, and not be concerned with silly
human rituals and arbitrary geographic borders, holy shrines etc. Sorry to
say this, but I am being perfectly honest: If this is the best
justification you can come up with, it's pretty sad. This simply serves as
more proof that Islam has some intolerance built-in.
Alwi Kamus
since the beginning of Islam
thousands, perhaps millions of jews have lived or visitied Mecca
One of the most famous jews who lived in the 2 holy cities were
Abdullah bin Salam (radiallahu anhu).
Many of Palestinian arabs have jewish blood in their vein,
they are descendants of these noble people...
perhaps more jewish in their blood than the euro-ashkenazim
And in the future, a very great jewish man will become leader and
saviour of the Muslim in the final battle against antiChrist.
His name is Jesus - Isa (alaihissalam)
The incident about the attempt to steal the blessed body of sayyidina
Rasulullah happened during the time of Sultan Nuruddin Zangi, the
conqueror
of Egypt.
and furthernore, it was an attempt by the crusading christians,
not jews.
We must differentiate between jews as a race, judaism as a religion
and modern day zionism as a religio-political movement.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
G. Waleed Kavalec
news:acojpg$87n$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> "sy_ra" <purple-...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:acl40i$bio$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> > I am answering to HE here. Apparantly, HE, you re now a Jew?
>
> no, just a human being
>
> > First is that the Qur'an (or perhaps some Hadith, i do not remember
> > exactly which) orders that all non-Muslims are to be .... asked to
> > leave the Arabian peninsula... that is, the Saudi Arabia.
>
> Please do not quote the Quran as justification for your racist position.
H. when will it be as clear to you as it is to the rest of this newsgroup
that we do not need to justify ourselves to you.
That land is ours. You are not welcome there. Live with it.
G. Waleed Kavalec
H.E.
news:actiq7$fk3$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> H. when will it be as clear to you as it is to the rest of this newsgroup
> that we do not need to justify ourselves to you.
No, you certainly do not. You do, however, need to explain your intolerant
practices to the rest of the world if you wish to have any credibility...the
choice is yours.
> That land is ours. You are not welcome there. Live with it.
Sorry to burst your protectionist bubble Waleed, but I've already been
there. Live with it.
Abbeyboi
Why are Muslims or non jews not allowed in a synagogue...(sorry if
misspelled)????
If you go to India there are special places where no one but no one except
the true Hindus are allowed???
For miles surrounding this area if they come to know that you are not a
Hindu they kill you.
I have been there with my brother and were on the verge of death.....
though we had everything ready like we had the thing they put on there heads
then we had different names we were wearing clothes like them
But the hotel Manager told us look you are not Hindus and mind u if they
know this they will roast you alive.
But why
then why aren't non christians not allowed into the Vatican City??????????
If you can answer these questions that is the answer to your question
toooooo
"H.E." <bit...@home.com> wrote in message
news:actlr3$ga9$1...@samba.rahul.net...
H.E.
news:ae6tpg$2de$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> I would just like to ask you
>
> Why are Muslims or non jews not allowed in a synagogue...(sorry if
> misspelled)????
i don't know, i'm not a jew, and even doubt if this is true
> If you go to India there are special places where no one but no one except
> the true Hindus are allowed???
> For miles surrounding this area if they come to know that you are not a
> Hindu they kill you.
this is barbaric and inhumane. but how does this excuse muslims from
practicing intolerance?
> But why
> then why aren't non christians not allowed into the Vatican City??????????
they are allowed into Vatican city....i've been there myself and I am not a
christian
> If you can answer these questions that is the answer to your question
> toooooo
Well, my answer to these questions is that where religious intolerance is
practiced, it is barbaric and inhumane...is this the answer to my question
concerning Islam and its holy cities?
David / Amicus
"None should visit the mosques of God except those who believe in God
and the last day ...".
Eric
>
> Why are Muslims or non jews not allowed in a synagogue...(sorry if
> misspelled)????
>
> then why aren't non christians not allowed into the Vatican City??????????
> If you can answer these questions that is the answer to your question
> toooooo
Who is moderating this newsgroup?
One of the original participants in the little conversation above is a
non-Christian who testifies from experience that he has been permitted to
visit the Vatican City. But this testimony is not needed because it is well
known that the Catholic Church shares the architectural treasure of the
Vatican City with all the world regardless of any individual visitor's
personal faith. Perhaps "H.E." can tell us whether he/(she) needed a
special permit to enter the Vatican as a non-Christian.
I am a Christian who has visited a synagogue and also participated with a
Jewish friend in a Passover Seder (misspelled?). But we don't need this
testimony either because the Jewish faith is nearly as open and inclusive as
the Christian one -- and this is well known around the world.
So why do the moderators allow a misinformed person to make a misleading
argument in this enlightened forum? It appears to me that such misleading
perspectives are allowed only (or at least much more frequently) if they
mischaracterize a religion other than Islam. Mischaracterizations of Islam
are treated as hate speech and banned from this forum -- which is fine, but
let's try to find a little more balance.
Omnipitus V2.0
>
> "None should visit the mosques of God except those who believe in God
> and the last day ...".
As H.E. has pointed out - please don't point to the Koran to justify racism
and intolerance.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> "Abbeyboi" <mth...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:ae6tpg$2de$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> > I would just like to ask you
> >
> > Why are Muslims or non jews not allowed in a synagogue...(sorry if
> > misspelled)????
>
> i don't know, i'm not a jew, and even doubt if this is true
>
> > If you go to India there are special places where no one but no one except
> > the true Hindus are allowed???
> > For miles surrounding this area if they come to know that you are not a
> > Hindu they kill you.
>
> this is barbaric and inhumane. but how does this excuse muslims from
> practicing intolerance?
>
There is no intolerance in the act of not allowing mushrikeen from
entering the Kaaba. This is an EXCEPTIONAL rule and it is very
clearly outlined in the Quran after it was established through the
revelational movement that Muhammad and His Companions were inheritors
of the deen of Abraham. It is belived by Muslims that Abraham
established the holy site under the direct COMMAND of God as the
center of monotheism throughout the world and the central point of
dispute between the Quraysh and Muhammad was over the rightful legacy
of Abraham. Even then, the Quran has only disallowed the
non-mushrikeen and that is in surah Taubah as it becomes clear that
they testified to their own rejection. They knew the truth of
Muhammad and they knew him being the rightful bearer of the legacy of
Abraham and yet they still disbelieved.
As far as the ahl-kitaab there is no dictate in the Quran but if they
affirm its holiness then they affirm the truth of the claims of the
Muslim.
The case of intolerance could only be established if islam does not
permit the freedom of religion and it clearly allows and expresses it.
A non-Muslim is freely allowed to build his religious sites anywhere
in the world under there dominion and the Muslims are expressly
commanded to protect freedom of thought and conscience. The issue of
allowing an idol-worshipping person to enter the sacred precincts of
Mecca is absoluitely irrelevant to the issue of intolerance and as
staed above it is an exceptional rule.
> they are allowed into Vatican city....i've been there myself and I am not a
> christian
>
The Vatican City is not believed to have been established under the
orders of a Prophet of God and there is no claim in their religion to
say that it is.
> Well, my answer to these questions is that where religious intolerance is
> practiced, it is barbaric and inhumane...is this the answer to my question
> concerning Islam and its holy cities?
There is nothing barbaric or inhumane about it. God chose the burning
valley of Mecca for an express purpose. After it was established by
Abraham and his son Ishmael, over time it became polluted. God sent
Muhammad as the final Prophet to descend from Mount Paran and
establish the fiery law with his ten thoud=sand saints and to cleanse
the Kaaba as the center of monotheism for the world, where the rites
of monotheism would be commemorated until the end of time. If the
other religions want to build their temples, churches or synagogues in
the Muslim world they are free to do it. But if one wants to dedicate
any form of polytheism in MECCA we will not allow it.
h.E.
news:aeccau$ecr$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> There is no intolerance in the act of not allowing mushrikeen from
> entering the Kaaba.
the vast majority of humanity disagrees with you
>This is an EXCEPTIONAL rule and it is very
> clearly outlined in the Quran
Sorry, but a quote from the Quran does not suffice as an acceptable
explanation of intolerant beliefs and practices
> The case of intolerance could only be established if islam does not
> permit the freedom of religion and it clearly allows and expresses it.
uh, what were you just saying about polytheists? athiests? what happens to
their rights?
> A non-Muslim is freely allowed to build his religious sites anywhere
> in the world under there dominion and the Muslims are expressly
> commanded to protect freedom of thought and conscience.
I think you should check the current status of non-muslims in muslim
countries these days. Try to build a church in Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan,
Egypt. Ain't happening dude.
>The issue of
> allowing an idol-worshipping person to enter the sacred precincts of
> Mecca is absoluitely irrelevant to the issue of intolerance and as
> staed above it is an exceptional rule.
I will repeat. A Quranic quote does not suffice as justification for
intolerance....sorry
> The Vatican City is not believed to have been established under the
> orders of a Prophet of God
neither is mecca, by the vast majority of humanity
>and there is no claim in their religion to
> say that it is.
and that is entirely irrelevant. should all muslims be expelled from
Jerusalem by your theory?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> <asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aeccau$ecr$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> > "H.E." <bit...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:<aea85i$rki$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>
> > There is no intolerance in the act of not allowing mushrikeen from
> > entering the Kaaba.
>
> the vast majority of humanity disagrees with you
>
And how do you speak on behalf of humanity?
> >This is an EXCEPTIONAL rule and it is very
> > clearly outlined in the Quran
>
> Sorry, but a quote from the Quran does not suffice as an acceptable
> explanation of intolerant beliefs and practices
>
What an impressive logic. Ypou are trying to say that Islam is an
intolerant religion and then when the Quran is brought up you say it
is irrelevant? Why do I waste my time with such poor and unimpressive
logic. The fact of the matter is that Islam's dealing with Mecca is
EXCEPTIONAL as related to any its normal practice, and I told the
reaosn why. Whether you cannot deal with it, is your problem.
> > The case of intolerance could only be established if islam does not
> > permit the freedom of religion and it clearly allows and expresses it.
>
> uh, what were you just saying about polytheists? athiests? what happens to
> their rights?
>
Like I said. They are freely allowed to live in Muslim society, but
they are not allowed entrance into the sacred territory.
> > A non-Muslim is freely allowed to build his religious sites anywhere
> > in the world under there dominion and the Muslims are expressly
> > commanded to protect freedom of thought and conscience.
>
> I think you should check the current status of non-muslims in muslim
> countries these days. Try to build a church in Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan,
> Egypt. Ain't happening dude.
>
Dude? Egypt is full of churches, and I do not speak for any of these
countries. I speak for what i belive the Quran and Islam says. You
can tell me that the leaders of the Muslim world waste extravangant
amounts of money on fulfilling their lusts, but that does not mean
anything to Islam.
> > The Vatican City is not believed to have been established under the
> > orders of a Prophet of God
>
> neither is mecca, by the vast majority of humanity
>
No Christian claims the Vatican was established under the orders of a
Prophet of God. But a vast majority of humanity believes the Temple
of Solomon was and a fifth of humanity believes the Kaaba was.
Muslims have no qualms with the Vatican not allowing Muslims there if
they wanted. The point is that the decision with regards to Mecca is
an EXCEPTIONAL rule and does not guide the noraml practices of Muslims
with respect to other faiths.
> >and there is no claim in their religion to
> > say that it is.
>
> and that is entirely irrelevant. should all muslims be expelled from
> Jerusalem by your theory?
Where in the Quran does it say ahl-kitab cannot enter the sacred
terroitory and those that suscribe to monotheism? And where in the
Old Testament does it say that Muslims cannot enter Jerusalem?
Aaliyah Olson-Ahmed
here. Just because you don't believe in the Quran doesn't mean that the
quote is no good. In fact I will tell you something that has no need for a
Quranic quote:
The Jews and Christians - particularly Jews - while in the cities of Mecca
and Medina really screwed up by acting disgracefully, disrespecfully, and
ignorantly against the Prophet (saws) and his companions. So after MANY
chances the Prophet (saws) finally told them they were no longer welcome.
They didn't like that of course and the rest is history. So basically -
Jews and christians aren't allowed because they were already given their
chance and they screwed it up. End of story.
h.E.
<asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ai5lus$bdv$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> And how do you speak on behalf of humanity?
5 billion non-muslims is the vast majority by my calculations
> What an impressive logic.
it has nothing to do with logic. You quote from your holy book to
rationalize why islam is so intolerant...this simply doesn't wash with a
non-Muslim. i hear this stuff repeatedly...Muhammad wasn't responsible for
a massacre because the BQ deserved it, Muhammad could do this because God
made an exception, Muhammad could do that because the Quran made an
exception....ad nasuseum.
> Like I said. They are freely allowed to live in Muslim society, but
> they are not allowed entrance into the sacred territory.
This is simply false. What happened to the *original* polytheists of Mecca?
What did the Quran *demand* be done to them? Even today, polytheism or
athiesm is not an option in SA, and for you to state otherwise indicates
either ignorance or dishonesty on your part
> Dude? Egypt is full of churches, and I do not speak for any of these
> countries.
talk to a Coptic about what it is like for a Christian living in
Egypt...then we can talk
> > > The Vatican City is not believed to have been established under the
> > > orders of a Prophet of God
> >
> > neither is mecca, by the vast majority of humanity
>
> No Christian claims the Vatican was established under the orders of a
> Prophet of God.
And the relevance of that statement is what? Just because someone believes
a city was established under the order of god, they must be intolerant
concerning said city?
> Muslims have no qualms with the Vatican not allowing Muslims there if
> they wanted.
I would venture to say that you cannot speak for all Muslims, and that
furthermore, you are wrong about objections to being *restricted* from
traveling anywhere in the world because of religion
>The point is that the decision with regards to Mecca is
> an EXCEPTIONAL rule and does not guide the noraml practices of Muslims
> with respect to other faiths.
Are you saying Muslims should take no guidance from this? No lessons in
this?
> Where in the Quran does it say ahl-kitab cannot enter the sacred
> terroitory and those that suscribe to monotheism? And where in the
> Old Testament does it say that Muslims cannot enter Jerusalem?
in case you didn't know it, there *were no* Muslims when the OT was
written...LOL
h.E.
"Aaliyah Olson-Ahmed" <aaliya...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ai5qh1$cni$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> The Jews and Christians - particularly Jews - while in the cities of
Mecca
> and Medina really screwed up by acting disgracefully, disrespecfully, and
> ignorantly against the Prophet (saws) and his companions.
What would you do to someone who claimed to be a prophet of God and had come
to replace Islam with something better? I can tell you that those who have
made this claim in Islamic countries have been imprisoned or murdered (and I
am going to guess that you support this punishment). Can you not see *why*
they rejected Muhammad?
>So after MANY
> chances the Prophet (saws) finally told them they were no longer welcome.
Please cite your references to support this story.
> They didn't like that of course and the rest is history. So basically -
> Jews and christians aren't allowed because they were already given their
> chance and they screwed it up. End of story.
Wow. Now I'm convinced. Some guy 1400 years ago got mad at Jews and
Christians and today we can still discriminate against them because of that.
I am absolutely amazed that a modern human can not see intolerance and
discrimination in this practice
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
I just have to point out that mindlessly blaming descendants for
the actions of ancestors is pretty stupid. Yes, in medieval times
it was very common, but in the centuries since then this practice
has become quite disreputable: for example, the US constitution
explicitly disallows it ("bills of attainder").
Who in the world were the Jews and Christians who "really screwed
up" 1.4 millennia ago? What could they possibly have to do with
the actions of individual Jews and Christians today? Admittedly,
there are people living today who apparently do strive to emulate
the cultural values of their 7th century forebears in thought
and action, but most modern Christians and Jews--and also Muslims,
Humanists, Agnostics, and Atheists--do not, or so I believe.
I argue that those ancient legends, whether true or false, have no
predictive value whatsoever today. Assuming that a 21st century
Jew or Christian is going to "really screw up" in Mecca or Medina
*because* 7th century Jews and Christians did is completely
unwarranted and speaking for myself only, it would be deeply
embarrassing to be associated with such an irrational position.
A much better argument is simply to state, as others here have
done, that the Muslim owners prefer that only Muslims enter these
private, reserved holy places: surely any civilized person would
understand and respect that preference. Jazzing it up with how
Christians and Jews are eternally tainted by the actions of 7th
century Christians and Jews just makes you sound dumb. IMHO.
Greg Shenaut
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > And how do you speak on behalf of humanity?
>
> 5 billion non-muslims is the vast majority by my calculations
You have not answered the question yet. Do you speak on behalf of humanity
which is non-Muslim or do you not? If you do then show us the evidence. It
is not about whether there are 5 billion non-Muslims according to your
calculations. We are not interested in your basic mathematical skills.
> talk to a Coptic about what it is like for a Christian living in
> Egypt...then we can talk
So, you also speak on behalf of Coptic Christians? And in (allegedly)
doing so hiding behind assumed names like h.E. All this more makes us
little bit more suspicious.
> I would venture to say that you cannot speak for all Muslims, and that
> furthermore, you are wrong about objections to being *restricted* from
> traveling anywhere in the world because of religion
So, all of sudden you realize that a Muslim can't speak on behalf of
others. But you did not realize that you can speak on behalf of 5 billion
non-Muslims or say the Coptic Christians in Egypt. How is swallowing a
little bit of your own advice like? Kindly enlighten us.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Kalis_Finest
visit mecca in the first place??
asimm...@yahoo.com
> <asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ai5lus$bdv$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> > "h.E." <d...@longbone.net> wrote in message
> news:<ai31sj$jcs$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>
> > And how do you speak on behalf of humanity?
>
> 5 billion non-muslims is the vast majority by my calculations
>
You just have an extremely difficult problem to simply admit you are
wrong and pull yourself out of the argument. I want to know how you
claim to speak on behalf of these 5 billion non-muslims on the issue
of intolerance in Islam?
> > What an impressive logic.
>
> it has nothing to do with logic. You quote from your holy book to
> rationalize why islam is so intolerant...this simply doesn't wash with a
> non-Muslim. i hear this stuff repeatedly...Muhammad wasn't responsible for
> a massacre because the BQ deserved it, Muhammad could do this because God
> made an exception, Muhammad could do that because the Quran made an
> exception....ad nasuseum.
>
No, you argued that Islam was intolerant and that is based upon your
misunderstanding. I said that the issue of Mecca being forbidden to
mushriks is an EXCEPTIONAL rule and has nothing to do with how Islam
relates to other faiths in its general practice. It is like saying a
Muslim not being allowed to go to Philadelphia and replace the
Declaration of Independence with the copy of the Quran represents the
intolerance of the US. Muslims believe that God ordered Abraham to
establish the Kaaba as the center of monotheism for the world and it
was the mission of Muhammad (S) to restore the Kaaba to its rightful
place. Thus, from a religoius perspective it is purely the symbol of
monotheism for the world. As far as other faitsh are concerned, they
are allowed to build their temples of worship in Muslim lands wherever
they deem fit, just as they are allowed in the US. It is that simple.
> > Like I said. They are freely allowed to live in Muslim society, but
> > they are not allowed entrance into the sacred territory.
>
> This is simply false. What happened to the *original* polytheists of Mecca?
> What did the Quran *demand* be done to them? Even today, polytheism or
> athiesm is not an option in SA, and for you to state otherwise indicates
> either ignorance or dishonesty on your part
>
In the Quran, there are periods of history where Messengers are sent
to unveil to the truth to those that bear witness to it. This is so
that the past nations become historical proofs for those that follow
that God will judge mankind for their acceptance or rejection of the
truth. It is during these periods that the truth manifests itself by
God Almighty through the hands of a Messenger. Thus the people of
Pharoah witnessed the signs of Moses and rejected them one by one,
until God himself inflicted the punishment of drowning upon them and
the nation of Salih rejected their Messenger and they hamstrung the
she-camel. Because of this they were devastated with the punishment
in the form of a natural disaster. In the case of Muhammad and His
Companions, as the truth unfolded itself and the polytheists persisted
in their rejection and raised the hands of violence against the truth,
God ultimately laid down his punishment through the hands of Muhammad
and His Companions. "We will punish them through YOUR hands." The
final punishment was outlined in surah Tauba, which deals with the
punishment of God for those who DIRECTLY bore witness to the unveiling
of the truth. "They testify to their own rejection." In the same
manner, Moses and the Israelites were demarcated a certain land
specified by God that they would inherit through fighting as a
corolarry to this principle.
Life is a test and God ultimately judges mankind through his
acceptance or rejection of the truth on the Last Day. But there are
periods in history that serve as a historical proof and sign that God
does actually inflict his punishment.
I never said Saudi Arabia allows building of churches, and whether SA
does nto accept it is not my problem. You could claim me for
dishonesty if I actually said it, which I did not. My issue is what
the Quran and Islam says and nothing in islam preaches intolerance for
other faiths. But it no way coincides with stubborn refusal to admit
to the truth, but God will judge that in the end, just as he judged
those during the time of the Rasul, where time 'sped up'.
> > Dude? Egypt is full of churches, and I do not speak for any of these
> > countries.
>
> talk to a Coptic about what it is like for a Christian living in
> Egypt...then we can talk
>
And you continue to talk. You say that Egypt does not allow the
building of churches and anyone thta has been to Egypt knows that
churches are all over the place. You claimed Egypt was intolerant and
it is its policy to allow the freedom of religion. So what is your
point? If it is not Islam, it is Egypt, if it is not Egypt, it is
some extremists. Either way you have to continue to argue and bicker
because you just want to win. It is as simple as that. I do not
speak for the extremists who can hardly read, just as I don't speak
for the Hindus that have massacred Muslims in Gujrat or attempted to
tear down and continue to attempt to tear down the babri masjid, just
as I do not speak for the Muslims that open fire on shia masjids and
shias that open fire on the sunni masjids. Just as I don't speak for
the religious right that fire bomb abortion clinics. I care what
islam says.
> And the relevance of that statement is what? Just because someone believes
> a city was established under the order of god, they must be intolerant
> concerning said city?
>
Notice how I followed it up with that if the Christians believed it
so, then a Muslim should have no qualms not violating their rights. I
am just pointing out to you that your arguments are absolutely basless
and to liken the two cities as related is false because the Christian
concpet of the Vatican is different than the Muslim concept of the
Sacred territory of Mecca. A chriistian can build his church in an
Islamic country if he so desires.
> > Muslims have no qualms with the Vatican not allowing Muslims there if
> > they wanted.
>
> I would venture to say that you cannot speak for all Muslims, and that
> furthermore, you are wrong about objections to being *restricted* from
> traveling anywhere in the world because of religion
>
I never claimed that I speak for all Muslims, but you claimed you
speak on behalf of humanity. Wow.
> >The point is that the decision with regards to Mecca is
> > an EXCEPTIONAL rule and does not guide the noraml practices of Muslims
> > with respect to other faiths.
>
> Are you saying Muslims should take no guidance from this? No lessons in
> this?
>
Of cousre and you should also take lessons from this that you are
simply spewing forth baseless opinions. Muslims should learn to
tolerate other faiths but Muslims should hold the sacred territory in
the hearts and internalize this point very well. That is why we trun
to the Kaaba five times a day because it is the symbol of monotheism.
But if God forbid it ever comes under the control of another and is
filled with idols once again, we will still continue to pray towards
it.
> > Where in the Quran does it say ahl-kitab cannot enter the sacred
> > terroitory and those that suscribe to monotheism? And where in the
> > Old Testament does it say that Muslims cannot enter Jerusalem?
>
> in case you didn't know it, there *were no* Muslims when the OT was
> written...LOL
LOL, wow impressive. Do you think I did not know this. You argues
what if the Jews say a Muslim cannot enter Jeruslame. The point is
there is no religious basis in their books for them to even make such
a judgement. If there was, then so be it. But there books foretell
the coming of the Last prophet (S) and that is a different story.
h.E.
"M.S.M. Saifullah" <ms...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:aicbej$6p4$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> You have not answered the question yet. Do you speak on behalf of humanity
> which is non-Muslim or do you not? If you do then show us the evidence.
I think it is self-evident that banning *anyone* from *any place* based
merely on their religious beliefs is, by definition, intolerant. Would you
disagree? If you fail to reach this basic conclusion based on your own
adherence to this intolerant belief then it is not surprising to me.
> So, you also speak on behalf of Coptic Christians?
Uh, no. Nowhere did I claim to speak for Coptics. I merely suggested the
person did not know what many Coptics have experienced under Egyptian law.
I *do* know Coptics who would disagree with the "tolerant" example given by
the poster.
>And in (allegedly)
> doing so hiding behind assumed names like h.E. All this more makes us
> little bit more suspicious.
And what would be the advantage or revealing my true identity? Threats
against me would be more effective? My email could be overloaded with junk
mail? My wife and children could be harassed? My co-workers could be
harassed? This has been my experience, as an ex-Muslim, with the
"tolerance" of Islam.
> So, all of sudden you realize that a Muslim can't speak on behalf of
> others.
No. I've always known this basic fact.
>But you did not realize that you can speak on behalf of 5 billion
> non-Muslims or say the Coptic Christians in Egypt.
Making a simple observation of the *definition* of intolerance is quite
different than making a claim to speak for 5 billion people. I would expect
a reasonable mind to be able to make such a distinction.
>How is swallowing a
> little bit of your own advice like? Kindly enlighten us.
I'd be glad to enlighten you, if only the request had a smidge of sensical
nature to it. What "advice" are you refering to?
h.E.
<asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aickg4$936$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> I want to know how you
> claim to speak on behalf of these 5 billion non-muslims on the issue
> of intolerance in Islam?
I didn't claim that. I said that the vast majority of humanity thinks that
discrimination based strictly on religious belief is a form of intolerance.
Do *you* disagree with this conclusion?
> No, you argued that Islam was intolerant and that is based upon your
> misunderstanding.
I argued that discrimination based strictly on religious belief is a form of
intolerance. Do you disagree with this basic fact?
>It is like saying a
> Muslim not being allowed to go to Philadelphia and replace the
> Declaration of Independence with the copy of the Quran represents the
> intolerance of the US.
Poor analogy. It is actually like a Muslim not being allowed into the US
because of his beliefs. Would you support that kind of intolerance? I
don't...why do you support it when it comes to Mecca?
>As far as other faitsh are concerned, they
> are allowed to build their temples of worship in Muslim lands wherever
> they deem fit, just as they are allowed in the US. It is that simple.
This is simply not true. You keep repeating this as though you are
attempting to brainwash someone. It is a *fact* that in some Muslim
countries, it is very difficult or impossible to build a church or
synagogue, and I won't even start the discussion on Hindu and Buddhist
temples.
> > > Like I said. They are freely allowed to live in Muslim society, but
> > > they are not allowed entrance into the sacred territory.
> >
> > This is simply false. What happened to the *original* polytheists of
Mecca?
> > What did the Quran *demand* be done to them? Even today, polytheism or
> > athiesm is not an option in SA, and for you to state otherwise indicates
> > either ignorance or dishonesty on your part
[snip rationalization of genocide]
So, to sum up your response. They were all killed because God commanded it
after they stubbornly refused to bow down to Muhammad. You have thus proven
my point.
> I never said Saudi Arabia allows building of churches, and whether SA
> does nto accept it is not my problem. You could claim me for
> dishonesty if I actually said it, which I did not.
here is your quote:
"As far as other faitsh are concerned, they
are allowed to build their temples of worship in Muslim lands wherever
they deem fit, just as they are allowed in the US."
Is this an "honest" statement?
>My issue is what
> the Quran and Islam says and nothing in islam preaches intolerance for
> other faiths. But it no way coincides with stubborn refusal to admit
> to the truth, but God will judge that in the end, just as he judged
> those during the time of the Rasul, where time 'sped up'.
LOL. So, you're saying Islam has no intolerance for other religions as long
as the other religions "admit to the truth", as Muslims see it, of course.
When the polytheists are massacred, it's all OK because they were "stubborn"
and "refused to admit the truth." This makes mass murder ok in your world
eh?
> And you continue to talk. You say that Egypt does not allow the
> building of churches and anyone thta has been to Egypt knows that
> churches are all over the place.
I said they have severe restrictions on the renovation and/or new
construction of churches. This is not a matter of opinon, but well
documented fact. Research it.
>You claimed Egypt was intolerant and
> it is its policy to allow the freedom of religion. So what is your
> point?
I have no idea what you are getting at here. I never said Egypt had a
policy of "freedom of religion." Far from it.
[snip]
> I
> am just pointing out to you that your arguments are absolutely basless
> and to liken the two cities as related is false because the Christian
> concpet of the Vatican is different than the Muslim concept of the
> Sacred territory of Mecca.
Baseless? Are you saying because the concepts are different, discrimination
based on religious belief is OK? I fail to see how *any* concept of Mecca
justifies the discrimination against non-Muslims that is so tolerated by you
and other Muslims.
> A chriistian can build his church in an
> Islamic country if he so desires.
Here we go again. Please stop making these false statements.
> > > Muslims have no qualms with the Vatican not allowing Muslims there if
> > > they wanted.
> I never claimed that I speak for all Muslims, but you claimed you
> speak on behalf of humanity. Wow.
see above statement. Who are you then speaking for with the term "Muslims"
in the above statement?
[snip]
M.S.M. Saifullah
> > You have not answered the question yet. Do you speak on behalf of humanity
> > which is non-Muslim or do you not? If you do then show us the evidence.
>
> I think it is self-evident that banning *anyone* from *any place* based
> merely on their religious beliefs is, by definition, intolerant. Would you
> disagree? If you fail to reach this basic conclusion based on your own
> adherence to this intolerant belief then it is not surprising to me.
We asked you a simple question. Do you speak on behalf of your 5 billion
humanity which is non-Muslim? If you do then produce the evidence. If you
do not then say you do not. The case will be finished quickly.
We are not interested in your "self-evident" case where banning "*anyone*
from *any place* based merely on their religious beliefs is, by
definition, intolerant". The case here is not a general case. It is a
specific case, in particular, of the haramayn in Makkah and Madinah where
non-Muslims are not allowed. In all the other mosques, the non-Muslims are
allowed to visit. Further, there are restricted areas in other religions
or even in mundane activities such as visiting a laboratory. In some areas
visitors are allowed and in some other they are not. This is nothing to do
with the tolerance or intolerance.
> >And in (allegedly)
> > doing so hiding behind assumed names like h.E. All this more makes us
> > little bit more suspicious.
>
> And what would be the advantage or revealing my true identity? Threats
> against me would be more effective? My email could be overloaded with junk
> mail? My wife and children could be harassed? My co-workers could be
> harassed? This has been my experience, as an ex-Muslim, with the
> "tolerance" of Islam.
Have you got any better excuse than that? Surely, I do get harrassing
emails sometimes from non-Muslims but that does not make me hide behind
assumed identities and pseudonyms. What do you say about the "tolerance"
of non-Muslims then?
> > little bit of your own advice like? Kindly enlighten us.
>
> I'd be glad to enlighten you, if only the request had a smidge of sensical
> nature to it. What "advice" are you refering to?
We will be glad to hear your enlightening speech provided you come to the
point quickly. Do you speak on behalf of 5 billion non-Muslims or do you
not? If yes, you do then show us the evidence. I can verify it immediately
with my colleagues in the office to see what they think.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Aaliyah Olson-Ahmed
islam. Books are for reading and so maybe you should take me up on it and
go read?
h.E.
> We asked you a simple question. Do you speak on behalf of your 5 billion
> humanity which is non-Muslim? If you do then produce the evidence. If you
> do not then say you do not. The case will be finished quickly.
I think it quite obvious that I do not. If you require me to clear that up
for you, then here it is.
> We are not interested in your "self-evident" case
Who is "we?" Are you now claiming to speak on others' behalf?
>The case here is not a general case. It is a
> specific case,
And as I previously stated, *all* cases where one is banned based on
religious reasons are a form of intolerance. This includes specific cases.
> In all the other mosques, the non-Muslims are
> allowed to visit. Further, there are restricted areas in other religions
and this is intolerance of other religions
> or even in mundane activities such as visiting a laboratory.
based on religion? I don't think so.
>In some areas
> visitors are allowed and in some other they are not. This is nothing to do
> with the tolerance or intolerance.
if it is based strictly on religion, it certainly does.
> Have you got any better excuse than that?
Yes, and I just gave them to you, including threats.
>Surely, I do get harrassing
> emails sometimes from non-Muslims but that does not make me hide behind
> assumed identities and pseudonyms.
Do you get threats against yourself and family?
>What do you say about the "tolerance"
> of non-Muslims then?
I say some are intolerant, and some are not. The question is not the
tolerance of individuals, but of ideologies, like Islam.
MahmudTaha
refusal of the Saudi Arabian authorities to permit the Christians (mostly from
the Philippines) working there to have their Christian service.
Some years ago the Vatican didn't object the construction of a great mosque in
Rome, built mainly by Saudi money, though it could have done so based on the so
called Lateran treaties with Italy. The Vatican had hoped that the Saudi
authorities would honour this kind of obviating by a more lenient attitude
towards their Christian inhabitants. This idea, however, later was dismissed,
Saudi Arabian diplomats were quoted to have insisted on the traditional Islamic
position that by Allah's decree there must not be other religions than Islam in
the Arabian peninsula.
Regrettably a good opportunity for peace was missed.
Peace,
Mahmud K. Taha
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
mahmu...@aol.com (MahmudTaha) wrote:
> This idea, however, later was dismissed, Saudi Arabian diplomats were
> quoted to have insisted on the traditional Islamic position that by
> Allah's decree there must not be other religions than Islam in the
> Arabian peninsula.
Where is this decree to be found? The People of the Book have a
particular status in Islam and in the time of the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be on him) they continued to practice their religion inside the
Muslim State and continued to have churches and synagogues.
Some of the Companions of the Prophet (God be pleased with them) prayed
in Christian churches if they were in the vicinity of a church when the
time for prayers had come.
Assayid Sabiq mentions this in _Fiqh us-Sunnah_:
"Abu Musa al-Ash'ari and 'Umar ibn 'Abdulaziz prayed in a church.
Ash-Sh'abiy, 'Ata, and Ibn Sireen did not see anything wrong with
praying in a chruch.... Al-Bukhari says: 'Inb 'Abbas would pray in
churches...except for those with statutes or sculptures.' The Muslims of
Najran wrote to 'Umar saying that they found no place cleaner or better
to pray in than a church. 'Umar wrote to them: 'Sprinkle it with water
and pray therein.'"
Among the four schools of jurisprudence, the Hanafi and Shaf'i schools
dislike (but do not forbid) praying in churches and synagogues.
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Helmi
-> Regrettably a good opportunity for peace was missed.
-> Peace,
-> Mahmud K. Taha
How dare you say it's a good opportunity for peace was missed. What kind
of peace you are talking about and with whom.
Allah says:
5:51
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends (or
patrons): they are friends (or patrons) to each other. Whoso amongst you
takes them for friend (or patron), verily, he is of them, and, verily,
Allah guides not an unjust people.
2:120
The Jews will not be satisfied with thee, nor yet the Christians, until
thou followest their creed. Say, "Allah's guidance is the (sufficient,
correct or only) guidance;" and if thou were to follow their lusts
(desires, prejudices, fantasies, superstitions) after the knowledge that
has come to thee, thou hast not then from Allah a patron or a help