Religious Freedom in Islamic Countries- can u plz explain this?

[ice_man]

Saudi Arabia is 1.88 million times bigger than the Vatican.

You should have directed it towards a highly catholic country.

PS: Muslims can visit the Vatican but non-Muslims cannot visit Mecca.

VATICAN and MECCA & MADINAH are equal in terms of symbolic significance! so size really doesn't matter!

however you have a point about non muslims not being allowed to visit mecca or madinah.

the reason is that in mecca and madinah we go for pilgrimage they might by mistake end up inside a holy place of worship with shoes on or something

i experienced this first hand in malaysia i by mistake entered a hindu temple with shoes on and without washing my hands and feet! lead to a whole load of commotion until i apologized.

so i guess prevention is better than cure its better to ensure that non muslims don't enter leading to no mistake that might hurt some people's feelings.

 

[KS]

And we see many Hindus as anti-Islam so should we discard the thread started by an Indian Hindu member?


I feel Sparklingray is anti-Islam so is it mean that we should not accept any of his argument here ????????

yes if i question the existence of prophet muhammed..ur free to discard my argument.

Many NON-MODS here say the same so do not try to be smart and bank on your favourit mod .

No one acts smart here Miss. Its u who brings in topics irrelevant to the thread and play innocent

And who questioned your faith here??? i just put a part from your own Indian author who was questioning.

Putting that part in ur post implies u agree with her in questioning that divine faith.

 

[sparklingway]

Then what it has to do with Islam only ???????????

I was talking in the context of Islam

Lolzzz you mean you are founding excuses for bashing Islamic rules in case in future there is any post based on work of scholars anyway.

No. I do not expect you to base your judgments on their works.

If something is not there in Quran or did NOT practice by Prophet (PBUH) then i do not need to go into details what current day scholars are saying.

Choosing your interpretations is a different thing altogether. Societies work on a unified interpretation.

There are relevant ahadith and they are explicit. I don't want to enter into a messy debate.

Please do enlightened me how do you expect to separate religious debate here in this thread ???????

I accept we're going off-topic with this argument. I'll stop after this.

when a member brings the question of Apostasy which is directly related to religion here?

It is a legal matter as well having social implication as well. As I said, the line is meek but should not be crossed altogether.

and why should one accept the views if these were accepted during era of caliphs and not during era of the Prophet (PBUH).

They were accepted very well then as well. Have you read what the caliphs stated before carrying out the said judgments (remember that concretely there is just one case of an apostate during the Prophet's time).

I see alot of political angling and view point just like the popular one-sidedness when there was this much storm in a cup of tea with regard to that kazab issue recently but have seen the same people having different views with regard to ahamdis. In both the cases it was the blasphemy issue but people chose to speak selectively.

Okay.

The bottomline is: Quran is very clear in this regard and i would prefer it more than anything.

Your choice and certainly a better one. However, most scholars still do not agree with you. The Quran-alone scholars are negligible.

i am done with this religious debate here.

So am I.

 

[Solomon2]

How many Muslim countries follow the Tyrant ways of Saudi Arabia ??
and frankly speaking these Saudi rulers just worst than tyrants.

Analyst Barry Rubin comments:

They [Arab despots] are very cunning and if you understand why and how then you can understand the Middle East. Conversely, those who don't get it understand nothing.

Here is the order of priorities and methods that make up what might be called the Middle East version of pragmatism. It goes like this:

The most important priority is regime survival, which means the current rulers staying in power. The people's well-being and country's interest is secondary at best. To stay in power, a dictatorship needs to generate foreign enemies, reduce freedom, and monopolize economic power. This is in many ways the opposite of the Western democratic framework that a government which provides freedom and material benefits is the one most likely to stay in power...

To ensure regime survival, the dictatorship must protect its Muslim and Arab credentials. Using these two pillars in various combinations, the rulers mobilize the people to support them. A key way to do this is anti-Western and anti-Israel demagoguery: the government portrays itself as a champion of Islam and Arabism against the West...

Suppose the United States distances itself from Israel or Israel makes concessions, for example. How will the Arab populaces know this? They will be told that nothing has happened, it is all a trick...

In these dictatorships, the main purpose of the army is to support the regime and not to threaten it with a coup. This is more important than the military being able to win wars. The main purpose of the educational system and media is to glorify the regime, not to improve the society and help correct its mistakes. The main purpose of the economy is to provide the regime with assets with which to reward friends and punish enemies, not to create general prosperity -

In other words, all twenty-two Arab governments, save Tunisia and Iraq, follow this pattern. (In Lebanon the gov't is compelled by Hezbollah's force of arms to do so.)

A key foreign policy initiative of these Arab despots consists of spreading this system to non-Arab Muslim states to strengthen the despot system further. Guess which country has been their prime target for the past thirty years?

 

[Patriot]

^Pakistan.

 

[Dr sim]

Another point I want to raise is how can these people, who deny religious freedom in their own countries , ask for religious freedom when they go to western countries like France ( Burqa issue).

 

[v9s]

Another point I want to raise is how can these people, who deny religious freedom in their own countries , ask for religious freedom when they go to western countries like France ( Burqa issue).

Maybe because those so called western countries have it in their constitution to allow freedom of religion/expression? They'd be hypocrites if they didn't.


But don't get me wrong, i agree with you that some of those people (from countries that deny religious freedom) are hypocrites.

 

[v9s]

Secondly, they are not the weak ahadith. As I said, please search online. If you have any difficulty with that, I am more than willing to help you, albeit through PM.

They very well may be classified as strong hadith, but all hadiths in general are pretty weak. You'll understand what i'm saying when you see the blatant contradictions filled in all the sahih books. But then again, hadiths are man made so that's to be expected.

As a muslim, i was pretty shocked when i read the sahih hadith books. Many muslims don't even bother, they just accept what's fed to them by their 'maulana sahebs'.

 

[sparklingway]

They very well may be classified as strong hadith, but all hadiths in general are pretty weak. You'll understand what i'm saying when you see the blatant contradictions filled in all the sahih books. But then again, hadiths are man made so that's to be expected.

As a muslim, i was pretty shocked when i read the sahih hadith books. Many muslims don't even bother, they just accept what's fed to them by their 'maulana sahebs'.

True that.

 

[into the wild]

every kind of religious freedom should be given to the minorities, but not to an extent that it hurts the feelings of muslim majority..

propagation of their faith should be limited to debating, and engaging with inter religious discussion, scholarly debates but not like to spread propganda like most christian missionaries do, lies and deciet, giving open pamphelets, distributing bible, or leting missionaries knocking doors and inviting people... it hurts the majority which is wrong..

my answer is no then..

 

[jbond197]

every kind of religious freedom should be given to the minorities, but not to an extent that it hurts the feelings of muslim majority..

propagation of their faith should be limited to debating, and engaging with inter religious discussion, scholarly debates but not like to spread propganda like most christian missionaries do, lies and deciet, giving open pamphelets, distributing bible, or leting missionaries knocking doors and inviting people... it hurts the majority which is wrong..

my answer is no then..

I agree with you on this but is that a common understanding in Pakistan? Why do people have problem when majority sentiments are respected in other countries? Why do people start mud slinging and bashing other religions? I feel people do that just for the sake of making themselves happy as I don't think doing that will make you any better muslim.

Few hyprocrites who indulge in this should not expect any better treatement when you travel to non-islamic countries.

 

[somya]

VATICAN and MECCA & MADINAH are equal in terms of symbolic significance! so size really doesn't matter!

however you have a point about non muslims not being allowed to visit mecca or madinah.

the reason is that in mecca and madinah we go for pilgrimage they might by mistake end up inside a holy place of worship with shoes on or something

i experienced this first hand in malaysia i by mistake entered a hindu temple with shoes on and without washing my hands and feet! lead to a whole load of commotion until i apologized.

so i guess prevention is better than cure its better to ensure that non muslims don't enter leading to no mistake that might hurt some people's feelings.

Dnt make thing so simple. we do have brain, we know the reason why someone is not allowed in a place of worship as this ill thing has prevailed in India.
But atleast we recognised it and made effort to stop it.