Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Should Christians And Jews Be Allowed In Mecca?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

Here is a quote from the fundamental book of fiqh that is studied in the hawzas today Sharaa'i` al-Islaam by Muhaqqiq al-Hilli.Here is what he says regarding the Ahl al-Dhimmah, he puts this under the chapter of "Rules for the Ahl al-Dhimmah".

æ ÃãÇ ÇáãÓÇÌÏ

ÝáÇ íÌæÒ Ãä íÏÎáæÇ ÇáãÓÌÏ ÇáÍÑÇã ÅÌãÇÚÇ æ áÇ ÛíÑå ãä ÇáãÓÇÌÏ ÚäÏäÇ æ áæ ÃÐä áåã áã íÕÍ ÇáÅÐä áÇ ÇÓÊíØÇäÇ æ áÇ ÇÌÊíÇÒÇ æ áÇ ÇãÊíÇÑÇ.

æ áÇ íÌæÒ áåã ÇÓÊíØÇä ÇáÍÌÇÒ Úáì Þæá ãÔåæÑ æ Þíá ÇáãÑÇÏ Èå ãßÉ æ ÇáãÏíäÉ æ Ýí ÇáÇÌÊíÇÒ Èå æ ÇáÇãÊíÇÑ ãäå ÊÑÏÏ æ ãä ÃÌÇÒå ÍÏå ÈËáÇËÉ ÃíÇã æ áÇ ÌÒíÑÉ ÇáÚÑÈ æ Þíá ÇáãÑÇÏ ÈåÇ ãßÉ æ ÇáãÏíäÉ æ Çáíãä æ ãÎÇáíÝåÇ æ Þíá åí ãä ÚÏä Åáì ÑíÝ ÚÈÇÏÇä ØæáÇ æ ãä ÊåÇãÉ æ ãÇ æÇáÇåÇ Åáì ÃØÑÇÝ ÇáÔÇã ÚÑÖÇ

As for the Masājid:

It is an ijmā` (unanimously agreed upon) that it is not permissible for them (ahl al-dhimmah) to enter Masjid al-Harām, not (enter) from the other masājid (pl. of masjid) of ours, and if they are given permissible (to enter), it is not a valid (correct) permission, they cannot settle, pass by, and they cannot eat (or bring food into the masjid).

And it is not permissible for them to reside in al-Hijāz according to the mashhoor (famous) opinion, and some say that what is meant by it is just Makkah and al-Madīnah. And about passing by and eating from it there is a disagreement. And whoever permits it will receive punishment for three days. And they cannot (reside in) the Arabian Peninsula, and some say what is meant by it is Makkah, al-Madīnah, Yemen and mukhaalifihā (its districts?). And some say it is from `Adn (Yemen area) to the countryside of `Abadān lengthwise, and from Tahāmah** and what comes to the tip of Shām widthwise.

Source:

  • al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, Sharaa'i` al-Islaam, vol. 1, Kitaab al-Jihaad, Third Section, Fourth Chapter, pg. 303

** Narrow coastal region of Arabia on the Red Sea

(salam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam isnt for just muslims, its for the whole of humanity, and how else is someone going to know the beauty of Hajj (even if they are not muslims) if they are not allowed to experience it? besides, its the house of God

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Though I know that some on here object to the Sufis, but I'd just like to, for the sake of argument, quote Farid al-Din Attar's hagiograpy, Memorial of the Saints, which touches on this very subject in the biographies he wrote on one of the saints, Abu Bakr al-Shebli.

Once Shebli was in Baghdad. He said, “We require a thousand dirhams, to buy shoes for the poor and despatch them on the pilgrimage.” A Christian jumped up and said, “I will give them, only on one condition, that you take me with you.”

“Young sir, you are not qualified for the pilgrimage,”

“There is no mule in your caravan,” the youth replied. “Take me along as your mule.” The dervishes set out, the Christian along with them loins girded to the trail.

“How are you faring, young man?” asked Shebli.

‘I am so happy at the thought of accompanying you that I cannot sleep,” he replied.

On the road the Christian took a brush and at every halting place he swept the floor for the pilgrims and

plucked out the thorns. When the time came for putting on the white robes, he saw what the rest were doing and followed their example. At last the party arrived at the Kaaba. “With your girdle I cannot let you enter the Holy House,” Shebli told the Christian.

“O God,” the Christian cried, laying his head on the threshold, “Shebli says he will not allow me into Thy

House.”

“Shebli,” came a voice out of heaven, “We have brought him here from Baghdad. Kindling the fire of love in his heart, We have dragged him to Our House with the chains of loving kindness. Shebli, get out of the way! You, friend, come in!”

The Christian entered the Holy House and performed the visitation. The rest of the party then entered and in due course emerged, but the youth still did not come out.

“Young man, come out!” Shebli called. “He will not let me out,” the youth replied. “Every time I make for the door of the House I find it shut. What will become of me?”

Though I know that some here criticize the Sufis and see Sufism as deviant, but I just wanted to show that there have been well respected scholars and teachers, such as Attar, who is viewed by many around the world as a saint himself, who agreed that Ahlul Kitab should be allowed to go to the Kaaba. Here in this tale, Attar's point of view is rather clear: The Christian's desire to see the Kaaba is a sincere spark of divine love within him and no Muslim has a right to try to stop the flames of passion for God in anyone's heart. Attar writes here that this is divinely confirmed by the response to the Christian's prayer. So some Muslims before modern times have felt that it is unfair to bar the Christians, or others for that matter, who sincerely wish to see the Kaaba.

(salam)

(bismillah)

Who said this?!

Here is what al-Sistani says:

Question :

Is Kosher meat halal?

Answer :

It is not halal.

Source: http://www.sistani.o...1251&perpage=12

(salam)

With all due respect to Sistani, I think his objection is not from the Quran as the Quran says Ahlul Kitab's meat is lawful to us (provided it meets the already stated guidelines of halal) Kosher dietary laws are more or less the same thing as Islamic ones is regards to dairy and meat products, with a few more restrictions here and there. The market I go to sells both halal and kosher stamped products and the owner is a Muslim.

I think al-Sistani's objection is mainly due to the fact that most Kosher products you may buy, the money goes to Israel. But if a Jewish man slaughters a lawful animal in the Kosher fashion, which is the same as the Muslim Halal fashion, and prays over it in the name of no obvious heresies, and serves it to you fresh then there's no reason to object to eating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ ۖ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَهُمْ ۖ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ وَلَا مُتَّخِذِي أَخْدَانٍ ۗ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالْإِيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ {5}

[Pickthal 5:5] This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 5:5]

According to Imam Jafar bin Muhammad al Sadiq (a) the word ta-am implies food made of grains not containing flesh of permitted animals.

The Jews and the Christians do not follow the prescribed method of slaughtering the animals, nor do they seek Allah's pleasure before killing the animal, therefore, to eat flesh of any animal offered by them is not lawful for the Muslims.

"Whosoever denies the faith, his deeds will be rendered useless" clearly lays down the principle that good deeds cannot be of any use unless one believes in Allah, His messengers and guides appointed by Him, and the day of judgement .

Aqa Mahdi Puya says:

This verse gives permission to the Muslims to eat the food (made of grains) offered by the people of the book; and also the chaste women of the people of the book are lawful for the Muslims. Wal muhsanat should be understood with reference to ujurakunna, because both these words have been used in verse 24 of an Nisa while allowing mutatun nisa (temporary marriage). Therefore, instead of permanent wedlock, this permission relates to mutatun nisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

الْيَوْمَ أُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ ۖ وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَهُمْ ۖ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ إِذَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ وَلَا مُتَّخِذِي أَخْدَانٍ ۗ وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالْإِيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ وَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ {5}

[Pickthal 5:5] This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter.

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 5:5]

According to Imam Jafar bin Muhammad al Sadiq (a) the word ta-am implies food made of grains not containing flesh of permitted animals.

The Jews and the Christians do not follow the prescribed method of slaughtering the animals, nor do they seek Allah's pleasure before killing the animal, therefore, to eat flesh of any animal offered by them is not lawful for the Muslims.

"Whosoever denies the faith, his deeds will be rendered useless" clearly lays down the principle that good deeds cannot be of any use unless one believes in Allah, His messengers and guides appointed by Him, and the day of judgement .

Aqa Mahdi Puya says:

This verse gives permission to the Muslims to eat the food (made of grains) offered by the people of the book; and also the chaste women of the people of the book are lawful for the Muslims. Wal muhsanat should be understood with reference to ujurakunna, because both these words have been used in verse 24 of an Nisa while allowing mutatun nisa (temporary marriage). Therefore, instead of permanent wedlock, this permission relates to mutatun nisa.

Now that I think about it, the kosher products at the market I go to are all dairy products.

But Jews slaughter as per the same method as us, and most of the time, there is a blessing before it. But it is not always required (which is probably why meat being "kosher" is not enough to sell in a Muslim market). Luckily for me, I only buy fresh meat from a Muslim butcher, except in the case of fish.

But if hypothetically, you were present at the slaughter and the Jew blessed the animal before slaughtering it in the kosher method, and you witnessed it, I see no logical reason to reject the meat in that case or in the rare event that a Christian did the same method with a lawful animal. Whereas with processed or pre-packaged meat, kosher may not be enough, because you don't know if it was blessed.

The only thing I could think of that would make it void even it was slaughtered the right way would be if the Christian or Jew blessed it in the name of an obvious heresy like a Christian blessing it in the name of the Trinity or a Jew speaking a curse against Ahlul Bayt over it. :donno:

Also, if you were present at the blessing and you participated in the blessing, then I think that would make it a de facto Muslim ritual, even if you did not do the actual slaughter with your own hands. So if what you have posted is true, then perhaps all that is needed for kosher slaughter at the hands of a Jew to be halal is a Muslim present to participate in the blessing?

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

This is shaykh Makarem Shirazi's answer to the question of the ahl ul-kitab going to hajj

quis.gif What is the ruling of Ahl al-Kitab about entering holy place like holy Mecca, holy Medina, shrines of Imams (a.s.), mosques and like them?

answer.gif If it desecrates these places then it is Haraam.

http://english.makar...fta/?it=116=

Rohani says its halal to marry the ahl ul-kitab

5]
Question:
What is your opinion about marriage between Muslim boy and a girl possessed with a heavenly book? What about for a Muslim girl with a boy of a book?
5]
Answer:
A Muslim boy can marry a girl who possessed with a heavenly book like Jewish or Christian but it is not permissible for a Muslim girl to marry a boy of a book.
mohr.jpg

Edited by Ali_Hussain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can fight about this issue as much as we want in any angle, whether it be Jewish, Islamic or Christian. But these Jahil Saudi Wahabhis won't even allow Shi'as near the Kaaba in the future. What makes you think they will allow Jews/christians..? Unless the Zionist Puppet Abdullah is ordered to :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

This is shaykh Makarem Shirazi's answer to the question of the ahl ul-kitab going to hajj

quis.gif What is the ruling of Ahl al-Kitab about entering holy place like holy Mecca, holy Medina, shrines of Imams (a.s.), mosques and like them?

answer.gif If it desecrates these places then it is Haraam.

http://english.makar...fta/?it=116=

This is what happens when you try to make your own `illa to the rule. His opinion on the reason why Ahl al-Kitaab are forbidden from entering Makkah and Madeenah is because they might "desecrate" these holy places. Now given that reason for it being forbideen, if the Ahl al-Kitaab do not desecrate these Holy Places, then it is perfectly fine for them to enter.

I do not understand why he is going against the mashhoor (famous) view that it is unconditionally impermissible for them to enter Makkah or Madeenah. Which is given here:

و أما المساجد

فلا يجوز أن يدخلوا المسجد الحرام إجماعا و لا غيره من المساجد عندنا و لو أذن لهم لم يصح الإذن لا استيطانا و لا اجتيازا و لا امتيارا.

و لا يجوز لهم استيطان الحجاز على قول مشهور و قيل المراد به مكة و المدينة و في الاجتياز به و الامتيار منه تردد و من أجازه حده بثلاثة أيام و لا جزيرة العرب و قيل المراد بها مكة و المدينة و اليمن و مخاليفها و قيل هي من عدن إلى ريف عبادان طولا و من تهامة و ما والاها إلى أطراف الشام عرضا

As for the Masājid:

It is an ijmā` (unanimously agreed upon) that it is not permissible for them (ahl al-dhimmah) to enter Masjid al-Harām, not (enter) from the other masājid (pl. of masjid) of ours, and if they are given permissible (to enter), it is not a valid (correct) permission, they cannot settle, pass by, and they cannot eat (or bring food into the masjid).

And it is not permissible for them to reside in al-Hijāz according to the mashhoor (famous) opinion, and some say that what is meant by it is just Makkah and al-Madīnah. And about passing by and eating from it there is a disagreement. And whoever permits it will receive punishment for three days. And they cannot (reside in) the Arabian Peninsula, and some say what is meant by it is Makkah, al-Madīnah, Yemen and mukhaalifihā (its districts?). And some say it is from `Adn (Yemen area) to the countryside of `Abadān lengthwise, and from Tahāmah** and what comes to the tip of Shām widthwise.

Source:

  • al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, Sharaa'i` al-Islaam, vol. 1, Kitaab al-Jihaad, Third Section, Fourth Chapter, pg. 303

** Narrow coastal region of Arabia on the Red Sea

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

This is what happens when you try to make your own `illa to the rule. His opinion on the reason why Ahl al-Kitaab are forbidden from entering Makkah and Madeenah is because they might "desecrate" these holy places. Now given that reason for it being forbideen, if the Ahl al-Kitaab do not desecrate these Holy Places, then it is perfectly fine for them to enter.

I do not understand why he is going against the mashhoor (famous) view that it is unconditionally impermissible for them to enter Makkah or Madeenah. Which is given here:

(salam)

(salam)

Although it is the famous and prevalent view, is it backed up by authentic narrations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I know that some on here object to the Sufis, but I'd just like to, for the sake of argument, quote Farid al-Din Attar's hagiograpy, Memorial of the Saints, which touches on this very subject in the biographies he wrote on one of the saints, Abu Bakr al-Shebli.

Once Shebli was in Baghdad. He said, “We require a thousand dirhams, to buy shoes for the poor and despatch them on the pilgrimage.” A Christian jumped up and said, “I will give them, only on one condition, that you take me with you.”

“Young sir, you are not qualified for the pilgrimage,”

“There is no mule in your caravan,” the youth replied. “Take me along as your mule.” The dervishes set out, the Christian along with them loins girded to the trail.

“How are you faring, young man?” asked Shebli.

‘I am so happy at the thought of accompanying you that I cannot sleep,” he replied.

On the road the Christian took a brush and at every halting place he swept the floor for the pilgrims and

plucked out the thorns. When the time came for putting on the white robes, he saw what the rest were doing and followed their example. At last the party arrived at the Kaaba. “With your girdle I cannot let you enter the Holy House,” Shebli told the Christian.

“O God,” the Christian cried, laying his head on the threshold, “Shebli says he will not allow me into Thy

House.”

“Shebli,” came a voice out of heaven, “We have brought him here from Baghdad. Kindling the fire of love in his heart, We have dragged him to Our House with the chains of loving kindness. Shebli, get out of the way! You, friend, come in!”

The Christian entered the Holy House and performed the visitation. The rest of the party then entered and in due course emerged, but the youth still did not come out.

“Young man, come out!” Shebli called. “He will not let me out,” the youth replied. “Every time I make for the door of the House I find it shut. What will become of me?”

Though I know that some here criticize the Sufis and see Sufism as deviant, but I just wanted to show that there have been well respected scholars and teachers, such as Attar, who is viewed by many around the world as a saint himself, who agreed that Ahlul Kitab should be allowed to go to the Kaaba. Here in this tale, Attar's point of view is rather clear: The Christian's desire to see the Kaaba is a sincere spark of divine love within him and no Muslim has a right to try to stop the flames of passion for God in anyone's heart. Attar writes here that this is divinely confirmed by the response to the Christian's prayer. So some Muslims before modern times have felt that it is unfair to bar the Christians, or others for that matter, who sincerely wish to see the Kaaba.

With all due respect to Sistani, I think his objection is not from the Quran as the Quran says Ahlul Kitab's meat is lawful to us (provided it meets the already stated guidelines of halal) Kosher dietary laws are more or less the same thing as Islamic ones is regards to dairy and meat products, with a few more restrictions here and there. The market I go to sells both halal and kosher stamped products and the owner is a Muslim.

I think al-Sistani's objection is mainly due to the fact that most Kosher products you may buy, the money goes to Israel. But if a Jewish man slaughters a lawful animal in the Kosher fashion, which is the same as the Muslim Halal fashion, and prays over it in the name of no obvious heresies, and serves it to you fresh then there's no reason to object to eating it.

ive been to a 'halal' butchers where they say Bismillah after the meat of the animal is in their shops to make it halaal, it isnt halal. Kosher is very similar to halal however we have a different procedure to the Jews, we have to say a prayer that is different to that of the Jews.

Edited by AlHamdulillah110
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Veteran Member

I've been under the impression that their being forbidden to visit the Kaaba was just the Sunna of Umar.

Hello,

As a Christian woman, I personally have no desire to go to Mecca. I have never been to the Middle East, but if God wills I ever go, I would love to go to Israel, to visit Bethlehem and see around where Jesus was born, to the Sea of Galilee where Jesus taught, to Jerusalem where Jesus taught in the Temple... I would love to walk where Jesus walked!

One thing that is sad is the lack of freedom of religion in Muslim dominated countries. I think that is why many people from the Middle East migrate to Non-muslim dominated countries, because of freedom of religion, as well as opportunities not found or as easily attained in the country of their birth.

Peace and God bless you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(wasalam)

^^^

To Christian Lady

There was a time my Lady, that Muslims were saying the same thing about Christian-dominated countries. How fickle are the winds that blow!

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

On the topic though, the main question asked is "why shouldn't the Ahlul-Kitaab be allowed in Mecca"?

My question is "why should Christians and Jews be allowed in Mecca?" Mecca is meant to be a Muslim city - a city of Tawheed. That seems to have been the purpose.

If a country can differentiate between law-abiding citizens and non-law-abiding non-citizens, then why can't a ultra-significant religious city differentiate between a "shari'ah-abiding Muslim" and a "non-shari'ah-abiding non-Muslim"?

Countries wouldn't think twice to let a non-citizen into that country which affronts its deepest values - isn't Tawheed the deepest value of Islam? And isn't Shirk - of any kind - the gravest sin?

There is good rationality for keeping a city purely for Muslims - where non-Muslim businesses don't (or rather, shouldn't) dominate. Do we want Harrod's, McDonalds, Hilton, and Apple to open in Mecca? Do we want G. Bush and T. Blair to visit the Temple of Tawheed? (Although, I don't want Abdullah of Arabia to visit it either, but heck, what can we do?)

Even if the ruling permitted Ahlul-Kitaab to enter Mecca, I see more reasons to restrict this than reasons to encourage it. Especially today, with technology, where everyone non-Muslim can see and learn everything about Hajj without actually entering Mecca.

-------

Islam was meant for the world - so that the citizens of the world actually adopt the beauties of Islam. When they worship the One and Unique God and obey His Messenger, inshaAllah, they would be welcome to act on His Message and go on the Pilgrimage to Mecca, to circumambulate Abraham's Temple of Tawheed.

----

As for the legal ruling, if you are Usooli, take your ruling from your Marja' - and if you are Akhbaari, take your ruling from the Sources - although, you would probably have to have a sound command of Arabic, know a sound amount about the Hadeeth and Rijaal in general. Until then, perhaps best not to speculate.

(wasalam)

Edited by Jebreil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(wasalam)

^^^

To Christian Lady

There was a time my Lady, that Muslims were saying the same thing about Christian-dominated countries. How fickle are the winds that blow!

(wasalam)

Hello Jebrell,

Sad to say, Jewish people also had a horrible experience with Christian dominated countries long time ago. However, thank God, more and more Christians are understanding Jesus' teachings, which do NOT including killing or persecuting people of other beliefs.

Peace and God bless you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The freedom of religion in Christian dominated countries is due to secularism, not Christianity.

Hello Haydar Husayn,

The freedom is due to the specific declaration of freedom of religion, without giving a preference to any belief system. This is not based on secularism, but rather on the experiences of European immigrants, many of whom (like the Pilgrims) migrated for religious reasons.

In the Constitution of the USA, the freedom of religion was what Christians and Agnostics decided, and which is why in the USA, people can be Muslim (Shia or Sunni), Jewish Orthodox, Hindu, Buddhists, and so on, as long as they follow the other commands, including not killing or force converting.

"

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

The European nations that now allow people of different beliefs also emphasize freedom of religion, not because of secularism, but because during the Great Reformation, many Christians questioned the Catholic leaders rule over the nations.

Peace and God bless you

Ah yes, what a coincidence. Just as secularism was on the rise, and Christianity was to all appearance dying, Christians suddenly started to understand the true teachings of Jesus. More likely they started to adapt their faith to the changing circumstances.

Hello Haydar Husayn,

Have you ever heard of the Great Reformation?

Peace and God bless you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Here is a quote from the fundamental book of fiqh that is studied in the hawzas today Sharaa'i` al-Islaam by Muhaqqiq al-Hilli.Here is what he says regarding the Ahl al-Dhimmah, he puts this under the chapter of "Rules for the Ahl al-Dhimmah".

و أما المساجد

فلا يجوز أن يدخلوا المسجد الحرام إجماعا و لا غيره من المساجد عندنا و لو أذن لهم لم يصح الإذن لا استيطانا و لا اجتيازا و لا امتيارا.

و لا يجوز لهم استيطان الحجاز على قول مشهور و قيل المراد به مكة و المدينة و في الاجتياز به و الامتيار منه تردد و من أجازه حده بثلاثة أيام و لا جزيرة العرب و قيل المراد بها مكة و المدينة و اليمن و مخاليفها و قيل هي من عدن إلى ريف عبادان طولا و من تهامة و ما والاها إلى أطراف الشام عرضا

As for the Masājid:

It is an ijmā` (unanimously agreed upon) that it is not permissible for them (ahl al-dhimmah) to enter Masjid al-Harām, not (enter) from the other masājid (pl. of masjid) of ours, and if they are given permissible (to enter), it is not a valid (correct) permission, they cannot settle, pass by, and they cannot eat (or bring food into the masjid).

And it is not permissible for them to reside in al-Hijāz according to the mashhoor (famous) opinion, and some say that what is meant by it is just Makkah and al-Madīnah. And about passing by and eating from it there is a disagreement. And whoever permits it will receive punishment for three days. And they cannot (reside in) the Arabian Peninsula, and some say what is meant by it is Makkah, al-Madīnah, Yemen and mukhaalifihā (its districts?). And some say it is from `Adn (Yemen area) to the countryside of `Abadān lengthwise, and from Tahāmah** and what comes to the tip of Shām widthwise.

Source:

  • al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, Sharaa'i` al-Islaam, vol. 1, Kitaab al-Jihaad, Third Section, Fourth Chapter, pg. 303

** Narrow coastal region of Arabia on the Red Sea

Salam,

Are there sahih/muwaththaq/hasan ahadith that back this up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Hello Haydar Husayn,

The freedom is due to the specific declaration of freedom of religion, without giving a preference to any belief system. This is not based on secularism, but rather on the experiences of European immigrants, many of whom (like the Pilgrims) migrated for religious reasons.

In the Constitution of the USA, the freedom of religion was what Christians and Agnostics decided, and which is why in the USA, people can be Muslim (Shia or Sunni), Jewish Orthodox, Hindu, Buddhists, and so on, as long as they follow the other commands, including not killing or force converting.

"

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

http://www.usconstit.../const.html#Am1

The European nations that now allow people of different beliefs also emphasize freedom of religion, not because of secularism, but because during the Great Reformation, many Christians questioned the Catholic leaders rule over the nations.

Peace and God bless you

The people who drafted the U.S. constitution were hardly fervent Christians.

Hello Haydar Husayn,

Have you ever heard of the Great Reformation?

Peace and God bless you

You mean the same Reformation that included John Calvin as one of it's principal driving forces? The same John Calvin who had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for blasphemy? Yeah, it rings a bell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The people who drafted the U.S. constitution were hardly fervent Christians.

You mean the same Reformation that included John Calvin as one of it's principal driving forces? The same John Calvin who had Michael Servetus burned at the stake for blasphemy? Yeah, it rings a bell.

Hello,

Many people, both Catholics and Protestants, had others burned at the stake... one of the men I admire very much was burned at the stake .... William Tyndale.

"

William Tyndale Overview

Tyndale was a theologian and scholar who translated the Bible into an early form of Modern English. He was the first person to take advantage of Gutenberg’s movable-type press for the purpose of printing the scriptures in the English language. Besides translating the Bible, Tyndale also held and published views which were considered heretical, first by the Catholic Church, and later by the Church of England which was established by Henry VIII. His Bible translation also included notes and commentary promoting these views. Tyndale's translation was banned by the authorities, and Tyndale himself was burned at the stake in 1536, at the instigation of agents of Henry VIII and the Anglican Church.

The Early Years of William Tyndale

Tyndale enrolled at Oxford in 1505, and grew up at the University. He received his Master’s Degree in 1515 at the age of twenty-one! He proved to be a gifted linguist. One of Tyndale’s associates commented that Tyndale was “so skilled in eight languages – Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, English, and German, that whichever he speaks, you might think it his native tongue!” This gift undoubtedly aided him in his successful evasion of the authorities during his years of exile from England."

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

Anyways, the Protestant Reformation radically changed Europe from being controlled mainly by the Roman Catholic Church. Secularism didn't do that, same as secularism didn't put freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.

Peace and God bless you

Here is the article talks about William Tyndale being burned at the stake... I don't think he hurt anybody though. However, his name lives on for what he did (translating the New Testament into English for the English people to read and understand) and what he believed (and notice he did not curse or hate the people responsible for his murder.)

"Tyndale was then strangled and burnt at the stake in the prison yard, Oct. 6, 1536. His last words were, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes." This prayer was answered three years later, in the publication of King Henry VIII’s 1539 English “Great Bible”."

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

Anyways, I guess this is distracting from the thread's topic. I guess how it relates is that to most Christians, we could care less if we ever go to Mecca or not. I personally don't know any Christian who has said they wish they could go to Mecca. However, I know many, including myself and my family, who would love to someday visit Israel, where Jesus walked!

Peace and God bless you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(wasalam)

My lady, InshaAllah you will visit Palestine, where Jesus (as) walked.

(wasalam)

Hello Jebrell,

I am sorry I do not know the other language in your post (is it Farsi or Arabic or another language?)

However thanks for the kind wish. :) If God wills, I hope to someday! Just the thought of someday walking where Jesus walked makes me cry happy tears. :)

Is that what Muslims think concerning Mecca and Muhammad?

Peace and God bless you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I am sorry I do not know the other language in your post (is it Farsi or Arabic or another language?)

It is Arabic.

However thanks for the kind wish. :) If God wills, I hope to someday! Just the thought of someday walking where Jesus walked makes me cry happy tears. :)

Is that what Muslims think concerning Mecca and Muhammad?

Peace and God bless you

Pretty much yes. However, do not get us wrong, Mecca's importance has a lot more than just being the place where Muhammad (pbuh) walked. The thing about Mecca is that in our faith it is was holy long before the coming of Muhammad (as). The structure of the Kaaba in Mecca is believed by us to have built by Abraham (as) and that Mecca was also the site where Adam (as) built the first temple to God.

Also, like you, we greatly value the lands where Jesus (as) walked and preached his revelations and wisdom, such as Jerusalem and Nazareth and many holy sites in the Palestinian territories, including those within the Israeli borders are visited by both Christians and Muslims due to their being places where Jesus and his companions resided or traveled. The trouble is that many of us Muslims who live outside of Israel do not recognize the Israeli government as a legitimate government and so are not enthusiastic about going to there and being tourists whom they obtain money from. The cost of this is not being able to see many of the holy sites of the Hebrew prophets, including Jesus (as).

With Mecca, for many years, Muslims who have ruled the area have forbidden Christians and Jews from entering Mecca. You can only legally go to Mecca if you are Muslim. As Shia Muslims we understand what it's like to be barred from the holy site as some Sunni Muslims assert that we are not Muslims and therefore shouldn't be allowed to go there either. Though we can, You are likely to hassled for being Shia there. Also, before the arrival of Muhammad (as) Mecca was considered a sacred place even to the Arabian Jews and Christians where they would pilgrimage and honor the memory of Abraham (as) and his song Ishmael (as) who built the Kaaba. So for those reasons, and due to a lack of seeing any convincing evidence the Prophet Muhammad (as) forbade "People of the Book" which includes Christians and Jews to go there, I'm in favor of the Christians and Jews being allowed to visit Mecca for spiritual and educational purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 years later...
Guest FreePalestine
On 11/14/2011 at 8:49 AM, Saintly_Jinn23 said:

He's referring to Surah 9:28

O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. (Yusufali Translation)

Salam,

Besides that we need to see experts reliable opinions about this instead of just assuming, this seems to talk about the Sacred Mosque, not entire city of Mecca. And also, which boundaries would that be? And does this also mean in cases of someone who comes for media or other purposes which will perhaps improve Islam's goals and humanities freedom? 

I want to see opinion of Imam Khamenei and Imam Sistani for example or really reliable sources of us not just too easy with this verse...
Saudis are also many times wrong..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Guest FreePalestine said:

Besides that we need to see experts reliable opinions about this instead of just assuming, this seems to talk about the Sacred Mosque, not entire city of Mecca. And also, which boundaries would that be? And does this also mean in cases of someone who comes for media or other purposes which will perhaps improve Islam's goals and humanities freedom? 

Salam

 Masjid al Haram is an exception which disbelievers can enter to other mosques likewise Masjid Nabawi if they follow rules about following rules likewise keeping respect of mosques which their behaviour must be Sharia friendly or at least for understanding truth which as an example debate between Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) & Abil Awja has happened inside Masjid al Haram because Abil Awja has entered to Masjid al Haram for better understanding & removing his doubts not for disrespecting to holy place of mosque .

 
Quote

Reminder:
1. The issue of the inadmissibility of infidels entering all mosques, considering that there was no valid reason, the question comes to mind, when and how did this talk enter the jurisprudential debates?
What emerges from some interpretations and jurisprudential sources of Sunnis: For the first time, the inadmissibility of unbelievers entering mosques was issued as a government decree during the time of Umar bin Abdul Aziz:
(… وقال عمربن عبدالعزیز… ولا یدخل احد من الیهود و النصارى شیئاً من المساجد بحالٍ.)65
Umar bin Abdul Aziz said... No one from the Jews or Christians should enter any mosque.
Qutb Ravandi writes:
(… وقال عمربن عبدالعزیز: ولایجوز ان یدخل المسجد احد من الیهود والنصارى و غیرهم من الکفار. و نحن نذهب الیه….)66
Umar bin Abdulaziz said: No one from Jews, Christians and other disbelievers is allowed to enter the mosque. We are also on it.
Therefore, it is not far off that for the first time, as a government decree, Umar bin Abdul Aziz stopped the unbelievers from entering the mosques, and after that it entered the sources of jurisprudence. If this is the case, the time conditions of Umar bin Abdul Aziz should be considered and why he made such a decision?
2. From what has been said, it can be concluded that disbelief does not prevent one from entering the mosques and non-Muslims can also enter the mosque, but without a doubt, this does not mean that every non-Muslim is allowed to be in the mosque without rules and plans.  
A mosque is a place of worship, guidance and propagation of religion. It is not permissible to do anything that is incompatible with this dignity and status in the mosque, even for a Muslim,either  a non-Muslim.
Therefore, the entry of non-Muslims into the mosque should first of all have a shariah-friendly motive, such as: familiarity with Islamic teachings, listening to the words of revelation and familiarity with Muslim worship customs and... or at least rational motives: such as observing, works and Islamic civilization remains in the buildings of mosques.
Therefore, entering the mosque should have a goal and the goal should be religious and rational. However, it is also necessary to maintain the affairs of the mosque. In this sense, in terms of clothing and how to move around and maintain politeness and respect, the behaviors should be such that there is no disrespect to the mosque and desecration of it, which in this case will definitely not be permissible.
About the group of Najran Christians who were honored in the presence of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), it is said:
(Because they have been wearing special clothes and symbols, the Prophet has  not paid attention to them, and when they asked the Prophet's companions the reason for the lack of attention, the companions said: "The Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) does not like your clothes and clothing." The Najranis changed their clothes. They reached the presence of the Prophet and he accepted them. Perhaps their clothing was not compatible with the position of the mosque.

From what has been said, the order of unbelievers to enter the shrines of Imams ((عليه السلام).) and Imam Zadegan was also clarified. Because most of the jurists have considered the shrines of imams to be the same as mosques in terms of rulings, especially regarding the entry of non-Muslims.
And if according to the investigation, disbelief does not stop you from entering the mosque, it will not stop you from entering the shrine of the imams ((عليه السلام).) although respect of those sacred places must be observed completely .

 

http://ensani.ir/fa/article/60285/ورود-کافران-به-مساجد-و-اماکن-مقدس

 

 
Quote

Ibn Abi al-Awja', Ibn Talut, Ibn al-Ama and Ibn al-Muqaffa with a group of Zindiqs were gathered in the Sacred Mosque during the season of the pilgrimage. Abu Abd Allah Jacfar ibn Muhammad, peace be on them, was there giving legal decisions to the people, explaining the Qur'an to them and answering their questions with arguments and proofs. The group said to Ibn Ab, al-Awja': “Can you induce this man sitting here to make a mistake and question him about what would disgrace him in front of those who are gathered around him? For you can see the fascination of the people for him; he is (supposed to be) the great scholar of his time.”

“Yes,” replied Ibn Abi al-Awja'. He went forward and the people moved aside. He said: “Abu Abd Allah, gatherings for discussion are things to be taken care of. Everyone who has a cough must cough, so will you permit me to ask a question?”

“Ask, if you want to,” Abu Abd Allah, peace be on him, answered him.

 

Scholars say that the reason for this ruling is the noble verse that says: "The polytheists are impure, so they should not come near Masjid al Haram after this year!"[not only] between Shia scholars even all muslims there is consensus that entering people of Book is not allowed in Masjid al-Haram.

It is obvious that Makkah is the spiritual capital of Islam and the base of revelation, and the house of Allah is located there, and accordingly, the land of Mecca is a sacred valley. Because it is a mosque and every mosque is sacred. The sanctity of the mosque is due to the fact that it is the place of thought, reflection  and worship. As a result, filth and evil thoughts have no way to get there. This is why we see that the commentators of the Qur'an have addressed this issue in their interpretations. The owner of Tafsir al-Kashif writes about this: "It is obligatory to prevent the entry of any impurity, whether it is human, animal, etc., and whether the impurity is of the type of liquid (whether it is material, physical, or spiritual) that causes flow. Whether it is spreading and causing desecration, or not - it should be prevented from entering any mosque, and if it is in a mosque, it should be cleaned and expelled from there.

The author of  interpretation of من هدی القرآن (Min Hoda Al-Qur'an) mentions three things as the philosophy of this ruling:

One. Polytheism is a false belief and the culture based on polytheism is a corrupt culture, and it is up to Muslims to distance themselves from polytheists so that their negative effects do not spread to Muslims.

two. Polytheists have no practical commitment to Islamic laws and customs, especially regarding personal cleanness and hygiene. Therefore, they should not enter Muslim cities that have their own rules and regulations. Three. Islamic countries are economically independent, so they should strive for economic self-sufficiency to achieve complete independence, especially with regard to needs such as food and drink, so that they do not have to reach out to foreigners!

Therefore, it is obvious that such people (polytheists and infidels) do not deserve to enter holy places and this is a rational issue. When we observe that governments and countries prevent the entry of nationals of other countries into their country, to ensure their health through medical tests, now that physical health is so important, then how can mental and spiritual health , don't be like that. Doesn't Islam have the right to protect the intellectual health of its followers!

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/fa2326

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/infallibles-imam-jafar-ibn-muhammad-al-sadiq-shaykh-al-mufid

https://madrasahonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/M1-F2-Imam-Sadiqs-debate-with-Ibn-Awja.pdf

https://makarem.ir/compilation/Reader.aspx?lid=0&mid=81508&catid=6538&pid=72270

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

8 hours ago, Guest FreePalestine said:

I want to see opinion of Imam Khamenei and Imam Sistani for example or really reliable sources of us not just too easy with this verse...
Saudis are also many times wrong..... 

Note: prophet Muhammad (pbu) is also infallible 

What is the ruling on non-Muslim tourists visiting mosques and shrines of imams and Imam Zadegan (children of imams)?
question
Can an unbeliever (a person of the book or not) enter the mosque or shrine of the inflatables (عليه السلام) to visit?
Brief answer
The mosque is a private place for Muslims to worship and its sanctity should be respected by non-Muslim communities as well. Based on this, most of the Taqlid authorities have not considered it permissible for infidels to enter the mosques and shrines of the infallible imams (عليه السلام), but some jurists [1] believe that there is no problem if their entry is free of any insult and has positive effects for Islam and Muslims. . In addition, it is not forbidden for infidels to enter the Shrine of Imam Zadegan (children of Imams)and the courtyards of the Shrine of the Infalibles (عليه السلام) by observing the standards and regulations.

Appendices:

The answer of the great authorities of Taqlid to this question is as follows: [2]

Grand Ayatollah Khamenei:

It is not permissible for infidels to enter the mosques and shrines of the imams ((عليه السلام).) as a matter of precaution, and it is not permissible if it is traditionally considered sacrilege.

Grand Ayatollah Sistani:

It has problem.

 Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi :
There is no problem if their entry brings optimism to Islam and Muslims and has beneficial results and it will be free of any insult.

 Ayatollah Hadavi Tehrani :

If it does not desecrate the mosque or shrine of the infallible, then there is no problem.

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/fa78298

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...