Building Hindu Temple In Abu Dhabi

[Sumerian 6,086]

Perfect comment CM.

[Wahdat 1,626]

That's basic along with the fact that hundism is pagan religion.

 

So the Council of Ulema refused to call Afghan Hindus and Sikhs, a community that has been in Afghanistan for about 400 years, Afghan citizens and instead called them guests. They too had their perverted and skewed religious interpretation to justify their retarded decision. Most 'religious' folks were happy due to same retarded reasoning. And this included Shias as well.....then the same council petitioned the govt to limit the 'spread' of Jafari fiqh in universities and other Afghan institutions.....then the Shias complained and...... But Hannafis were happy......

What the very pious and by the book and heavenly Muslim brothers and supporters did not know was that such moronic edicts ruins a society by creating division.....and when a society is divided, economy goes down and creates hardship for everyone irrespective of their religion......and when economy goes down then 120 000 people leave Afghanistan per month...then we have the EU migrant crisis....and most of them are Hannafi Sunnis....

 

This is worse than Jahilya.....yes they can justify their racism and sectarianism by bringing in Hadees or Quran....but the fact remains that nature or haq cares little for such moronic and opportunistic justifications......and makes their lives a living hell....all of which is their own doing....

So the moral of the story is- do unto others what you want to be done to you...or vice versa.... if some system gives  you the privilege of living with honor and dignity and to freely practice your religion then the LEAST you can do is support the notions to give the same for others.

hypocrisy and double std is the poisons that damage all. And these are the MAIN reason for the miserable state of affairs of the most of our societies.

[Chaotic Muslem 5,773]

So the Council of Ulema refused to call Afghan Hindus and Sikhs, a community that has been in Afghanistan for about 400 years, Afghan citizens and instead called them guests. They too had their perverted and skewed religious interpretation to justify their retarded decision. Most 'religious' folks were happy due to same retarded reasoning. And this included Shias as well.....then the same council petitioned the govt to limit the 'spread' of Jafari fiqh in universities and other Afghan institutions.....then the Shias complained and...... But Hannafis were happy......

What the very pious and by the book and heavenly Muslim brothers and supporters did not know was that such moronic edicts ruins a society by creating division.....and when a society is divided, economy goes down and creates hardship for everyone irrespective of their religion......and when economy goes down then 120 000 people leave Afghanistan per month...then we have the EU migrant crisis....and most of them are Hannafi Sunnis....

 

This is worse than Jahilya.....yes they can justify their racism and sectarianism by bringing in Hadees or Quran....but the fact remains that nature or haq cares little for such moronic and opportunistic justifications......and makes their lives a living hell....all of which is their own doing....

So the moral of the story is- do unto others what you want to be done to you...or vice versa.... if some system gives  you the privilege of living with honor and dignity and to freely practice your religion then the LEAST you can do is support the notions to give the same for others.

hypocrisy and double std is the poisons that damage all. And these are the MAIN reason for the miserable state of affairs of the most of our societies.

I am sorry to inform you that Afghans problems aint the rest of muslim world problems. Nationality has nothing to do with islam and the lack of knowledge regarding racial groups among afghans isn't universal on all pious muslims around the world.

 

Just because you know a little bit of randomness done by muslims doesn't mean your world view is anyhow valid and can be generalised.

 

As far as I know, there are arab jews, arab christians and arab atheists. There are Arab belonging to other sects and religions that i can't remember. 

There are Iraqi Arabs, Iraqi Kurds, Iraqi i don't know what.

Same goes for Syrians and Lebanese, Egyptians and north africans.

I think there are similar situations around africa.

 

NOW

there is this group of empty skulls who would call any shia a majoosi persian. Even if they are Yemenis and more Arabs than them. Even if they practice Islam more than them! But for political/media goals they opted for that comical description.

is that the fault of Islam?

Do you see me running around the forum and rubbing that incident in the face of every sunni who is posting something about islam against racism?

 

No. Because that's absurd.

[Wahdat 1,626]

It was less about Afghans and more about shortsightedness,  hypocrisy, intolerance, and double std. Vices that are universal in the Muslim world with few exceptions here and there.

[Ruq 6,254]

I love my country, Australia. And I recognise that Australia is not ruled by religion, but don't be telling Muslims how to run their country.

 

Hypocrisy much? last time i looked the UAE was a Muslim country and you seem very happy indeed to be expressing your opinion about them allowing the building of a Hindu temple.

[LeftCoastMom 4,930]

I've always been of the opinion that if you can't treat your guest workers well and attend to all their needs ( spirituality would be included in needs as a human right, cocktail bars are not) then you should pick your own food, build your own houses, and clean your own toilets.

As I read the article it became apparent to me that the writer, perhaps speaking for many, realized that their nation had been built by the efforts of people not of their ethnicity or religion. ( For some reason, neither Muslims within the country could or would do it and, as some here pointed out, they didn't seem to want to restrict guest workers to Muslims). They realized they had become a global community and were benefitting from that. You can't take without giving. Well, you can.... but then it's exploitation and I don't know of any religion that officially approves of that.

At any rate, every religion ( and law code)can have interpretations of its traditions that allow more or less space for what are now called human rights. The UAE seems to be reaching for a more inclusive interpretation. I'd actually like to see the arguments for the temple.

I also think sometimes Muslims I read in here might sell themselves short. In history class here in the West ,Islamic Spain was often held up as an imperfect, but pretty fascinating example of inter-religious cooperation and learning. I think we might find more Islamic DNA in the " good" " western" values than a lot of us think.

Edited August 30, 2015 by LeftCoastMom

[Ruq 6,254]

Guys

 

You are all a bit extreme , yo know?

 

First of all, it isn't being built in any of your lands. Secondly, your opinions are not going to a fact its building. Thirdly, Islam dose not call for destruction of already present worship houses BUT building a worship house on islamic majority (or even exclusively) land is not allowed.

 

I thought there was some debate about whether Hindu's are ahlul kitab? as i understand it, Hinduism is a term that refers to various religions that sprung up on a particular land mass, so their beliefs range quite a bit. Some Hindu's could be considered monotheists.

[Marbles 16,034]

Hypocrisy much? last time i looked the UAE was a Muslim country and you seem very happy indeed to be expressing your opinion about them allowing the building of a Hindu temple.

 

In Pakistan a hawk promoting a theocratic state where devilish "Western freedoms" would be rooted out was allowed for a long time to say whatever he liked in media, hold protests and address seminars, preparing his paltry following for a grand showdown against the enemies of Islam, which included the country's rulers and anyone who didn't buy his khilafah system. The administration pretty much let him speak. At worst, the civil society condemned his views and warned the people to steer clear of him. He used to visit Western countries too, saying the same thing. Recently he visited Saudia Arabia and held a little of his meetings there and, overconfident, fired off some criticisms of Saudi Islam...

 

He is in jail now with a few dozen lashes given him as punishment for "stirring strife in the country."

 

So what goes around....

Edited August 30, 2015 by Marbles

[AhlulBayt_313 2]

"There is a difference between setting rules on entertainment (such as bars and pubs) and rules for religion. Religion should be openly and freely practiced. Yet if you are going to be exclusive in your religious tolerance as a country, then don't bring thousand's of Hindus to work to your country and then deny them a human right such as religious freedom."

Bakir, this is one of the best points made thus far, and there is a word for such a display and/or lack of this human right, it's called slavery. I agree, if the UAE or any Islamic country wanted to remain exclusive; they would hire Muslim people only, but that isn't the case.

 

So, why is it so important for them to hire these Hindu people? That's the question...It's not hard to figure out why they use them. They took a populous of people, who are relatively poor; however, the majority are educated. They seen a market for them and pounced, and it's generated billions for them. Does that make it alright? No.  

 

These people work for months to years, send money home, and barely have time to ever visit their loved one's who were left behind. The worker's are aware it's an Islamic run country. So, now the question remains, should a temple be allowed? And this goes back to the very point you made, Bakir. If you are going to bring in a multitude of people into your country and use them to generate billions of dollars, why not let them have a temple? This is; ultimately, up to that particular region, and going back to The Batman's stance on the matter, it will be their downfall if a temple causes turmoil amongst that society.

 

To shed some light on the matter, many countries that are run by an Islamic state or some other prominent religion have other religious sector's and establishments on their land. That was their choice, and it's their choice to maintain that very acceptance they offered.

 

Many people here have brought up some relevant points and concerns, alike. Let's maintain cordiality when replying to other's, Insha'Allah.

Edited August 30, 2015 by AhlulBayt_313

[baradar_jackson 8,057]

Moral of the story: don't ask for duas on shiachat or someone will use that against you in another topic

 

#embracedebate

[Chaotic Muslem 5,773]

I thought there was some debate about whether Hindu's are ahlul kitab? as i understand it, Hinduism is a term that refers to various religions that sprung up on a particular land mass, so their beliefs range quite a bit. Some Hindu's could be considered monotheists.

i think you are referring to Zoroastrians ?

That's what I know at least, Zoroastrians are said to be once upon a time from the people of the book but they lost their book. Under islamic laws, they are not proper people of the book.

[baradar_jackson 8,057]

^ No she's referring to Hindus.

 

Sr Ruq: even if many Hindus are monotheistic, it does not make them ahlul kitab. To be ahlul kitab they have to have had a text which was revealed by God, which they do not. Of course if you listen to some Hindu yogis speak, what they say matches our view of tawhid almost to the T. But that does not make Hinduism a revealed religion and thus, they are not ahlul kitab by any measure.

Edited August 30, 2015 by baradar_jackson

[Ruq 6,254]

^ No she's referring to Hindus.

 

Sr Ruq: even if many Hindus are monotheistic, it does not make them ahlul kitab. To be ahlul kitab they have to have had a text which was revealed by God, which they do not. Of course if you listen to some Hindu yogis speak, what they say matches our view of tawhid almost to the T. But that does not make Hinduism a revealed religion and thus, they are not ahlul kitab by any measure.

 

Well this is what i thought too, but then i heard some Muslim speakers suggesting otherwise and it made me question. Let me see if i can find the video...

[Wahdat 1,626]

Moral of the story: don't ask for duas on shiachat or someone will use that against you in another topic

 

#embracedebate

 

really tired of this little SC gang....unable to discuss ideas, they only attack and get personal- sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly.

[baradar_jackson 8,057]

^ except you're the one who always makes everything personal. In fact every time anyone discusses anything you MUST make it personal. We're not stupid. We can read. We can see in this very topic how personal you got: making fun of someone for asking for duas, and then dismissing not just a person but a thousand generations of that person (which I think may be a new form of racism: futuracism). I know you THINK you are the epitome of intellectual integrity but anyone who can read knows otherwise.

[Ruq 6,254]

Im having trouble finding where ive seen people mention Hindu's because its something ive only heard people mention in passing (ive not seen lectures/discussions specifically about that subject), but i have managed to find an interview with Jonathan Brown that touches on it very briefly:

 

 

6:20 - 9:20 is relevant but watch 8:40 - 9:20 for the crux.

[Wahdat 1,626]

^ except you're the one who always makes everything personal. In fact every time anyone discusses anything you MUST make it personal. We're not stupid. We can read. We can see in this very topic how personal you got: making fun of someone for asking for duas, and then dismissing not just a person but a thousand generations of that person (which I think may be a new form of racism: futuracism). I know you THINK you are the epitome of intellectual integrity but anyone who can read knows otherwise.

 

I give personal examples....and not attack a person. There is a big difference between the two.

 

For example- Those who demean secular system of govt and portray it as anti-Islamic, I subtly remind them that they are very much part and parcel of these secular system. I do not call them stupid for not liking secularism. For the lack of a logical and better response....you and your fellow gang members assume I say the latter and ignore the former....

 

AGAIN- If you lot are unable to back your views with your lives and actions that hardly makes me 'the epitome of intellectual integrity' for I have always maintained, cuz I belive, I am but a regular person just like any other. It however shows a double std on your part where your talks dont match your walks.

And in regards to Magma...go be a sport and look at all his replies to me....none of them has been discussing an issue...its always one personal attack after another after another....And those who make it personal, I have no problem returning the favour...sometimes 100 fold.

[Sumerian 6,086]

Hypocrisy much? last time i looked the UAE was a Muslim country and you seem very happy indeed to be expressing your opinion about them allowing the building of a Hindu temple.

 

Lol, now big Ruq comes in. The difference between me and the others is I believe it is against UAE constitution to build the Temple, and then suddenly it became a discussion on freedom.

[Ruq 6,254]

big Ruq

 

...

[Sumerian 6,086]

Exactly, I'm the only big boy here.

[Gaius I. Caesar 7,880]

I love my country, Australia. And I recognise that Australia is not ruled by religion, but don't be telling Muslims how to run their country.

As much as I agree with you on not wanting pagan, Hindu and Satanic temples in a Muslim country but the United Arab Emirates is not our country and by expressing your opinions on what should happen in the UAE, you are in effect telling the Muslims in Abu Dhabi how to live their lives. Hence, Ruq said it was hypocrisy and I have to agree with her, also try not to insult her.

Exactly, I'm the only big boy here.

I disagree but hey, that's just my opinion from reading the entire thread.

[Ruq 6,254]

Exactly, I'm the only big boy here.

 

I fail to see how your weight relevant.  I applaud you for retaining a positive body image in a fat shaming culture though.

[Sumerian 6,086]

I fail to see how your weight relevant.  I applaud you for retaining a positive body image in a fat shaming culture though.

 

Ahlulbayt have emphasised numerous times on how we eat, but of course those who reject their ahadith wouldn't care about their advice, and may end up being fat themselves.

 

"Positive body image" is Western propaganda, to be pleased of yourself and be who you are, when really you should be striving harder to perfect yourself.

[Zendegi 376]

.And in regards to Magma...go be a sport and look at all his replies to me....none of them has been discussing an issue...its always one personal attack after another after another....And those who make it personal, I have no problem returning the favour...sometimes 100 fold.

Well that's just Magma for you. He always talks like this, in his usual overly sarcastic and insulting tone. He really thinks his some sort of hero behind the computer monitor and his the one whose always turning things personal.

 

This post was a big low for magma and his nature to quickly assume such things about someone else on the internet.

  Let's be honest with this, and may God forgive me if I'm wrong.  But you don't really care.You don't really care if everyone kills each other off.  You don't care about who's right or wrong, who oppresses or who doesn't.  You don't mind sitting back, sipping doogh in the ethnic amusement park of your mind, watching the whole world ablaze. 

 

[Ruq 6,254]

Ahlulbayt have emphasised numerous times on how we eat, but of course those who reject their ahadith wouldn't care about their advice, and may end up being fat themselves.

 

"Positive body image" is Western propaganda, to be pleased of yourself and be who you are, when really you should be striving harder to perfect yourself.

 

[Bakir 3,085]

Wahdat it is counter-productive to reply to personal stuff with personal stuff. Especially in a debate forum.

Magma's reaction addresses though a sad reality of our world, and maybe this is what he is condemning by assuming (wrongly in an absolute sense but probable through estimation) humans are desensitized from the world problems, from information calling our humanity for action. Though generalizing is not appropiate, magma is not the pioneer of such thinking, but Aldous Huxley in Brave New World. And indeed, I won't dare questioning the ideas of one of the fathers of modern thinking (a great writer from whom I would recommend reading Point counter point and the one mentioned above).

Edited August 31, 2015 by Bakir

[forte 532]

Umm maybe because there is a form of Sharia Law implemented in the UAE? And building of Hindu Temples isn't allowed in Islamic Law? And that these people believe it is against the country's law and Sharia to build this temple?

 

Now let the progressives shout and scream!

 

Bit of a disconnect here.  I am sure that they don't question the fact that they are eating food handled and prepared by Hindus. At least I have never heard of such.

[Haydar Husayn 9,671]

This thread is like the modernists' hang out. It's nice to see Shirk isn't a big deal to you guys, not that this is a major surprise. I wonder why you aren't consistent in your views by criticising the Prophet for destroying the idols of the Arabs, and driving polytheism out of Arabia? That wasn't very tolerant. And what about all those harsh things Allah says in the Qur'an towards polytheists, Christians, and Jews? It's hardly in the spirit of modern interfaith dialogue.

As for 'double-standards', there are none. The West is secular, hence Muslims have as much right to practice their religion, and have spaces to worship, as anybody else. By claiming the right to mosques, we are just holding secular society to its principles. If on the other hand, we lived in a society where religious buildings were banned for everyone, then we would just meet in a building that wouldn't be called a mosque, or even simply pray at home. It wouldn't be that big a deal. But since everyone else can have places of worship, then why not us? On the other hand, we wouldn't go to Vatican City and ask to build a mosque there, because it's a Catholic state, and all it's places of worship are Catholic. There are plenty of Muslims about though, selling bits and pieces to tourists.

The West allows freedom of religion because religion is inconsequential to it. It's all a load of superstitious nonsense to them, so who cares what people do? However, they don't allow freedom in matters they do find offensive. So for example, if you wanted to make a temple dedicated to Nazism, something tells me you wouldn't get planning permission. Why? Because celebrating Nazism is offensive (and often criminal) in the West.

Now, for Muslims, Shirk is offensive. Very offensive in fact (or it should be, at any rate). Look at how Allah talks about it in the Qur'an. It's the biggest sin there is. So I don't think Allah rejoices at a temple dedicate to Shirk being built anywhere on his green earth, let alone in a supposedly Muslim country.

The fact that the West gives us certain rights doesn't mean we have to give those same rights in return by the way. What can be expected is that just as all we want is the West to remain consistent with its values, we should be consistent with ours, rather than making special rules up as we go along just for the sake of discriminating against people. However, for those that do believe we should reciprocate in every aspect, I would ask the following question. Christians allow Muslims to marry their women, so does that mean Muslims should also allow them to marry our women?

[Sumerian 6,086]

Haydar Husayn is a pro at commenting. Couldn't have said it any better.

[King 3,988]

This thread is like the modernists' hang out. It's nice to see Shirk isn't a big deal to you guys, not that this is a major surprise. I wonder why you aren't consistent in your views by criticising the Prophet for destroying the idols of the Arabs, and driving polytheism out of Arabia? That wasn't very tolerant. And what about all those harsh things Allah says in the Qur'an towards polytheists, Christians, and Jews? It's hardly in the spirit of modern interfaith dialogue.

 

Except the UAE isn't very islamic when abusing and exploiting these workers to the bone, have you ever bothered to visit? To deny people you enslave and exploit to generate superficial growth a place of worship is the most sickening, twisted perversion of "staying true to your religion". 

 

 

As for 'double-standards', there are none. The West is secular, hence Muslims have as much right to practice their religion, and have spaces to worship, as anybody else. By claiming the right to mosques, we are just holding secular society to its principles. If on the other hand, we lived in a society where religious buildings were banned for everyone, then we would just meet in a building that wouldn't be called a mosque, or even simply pray at home. It wouldn't be that big a deal. But since everyone else can have places of worship, then why not us? On the other hand, we wouldn't go to Vatican City and ask to build a mosque there, because it's a Catholic state, and all it's places of worship are Catholic. There are plenty of Muslims about though, selling bits and pieces to tourists.

 

And thankfully we don't live in such ridiculous societies, perhaps you would be okay with praying at home, most people on the other hand realize such freedoms are worth fighting for, on common sense grounds really.

 

It is also good to know that you would not hesitate in lending a helping hand if say, in the future the muslim's of Vatican city decide to struggle for their right to practice their religion and god forbid, attempt to build a small mosque somewhere.  Comparing Vatican City to the UAE is a bit silly in any case.

 

The West allows freedom of religion because religion is inconsequential to it. It's all a load of superstitious nonsense to them, so who cares what people do? However, they don't allow freedom in matters they do find offensive. So for example, if you wanted to make a temple dedicated to Nazism, something tells me you wouldn't get planning permission. Why? Because celebrating Nazism is offensive (and often criminal) in the West.

 

This is odd, just the other week you posted articles/arguments about a secular/liberal/western war on islam and secular intolerance, and all of a sudden it's inconsequential to them?  For someone who keeps asking for some consistency, you sure as hell do contradict yourself a lot.

Edited August 31, 2015 by King

[Haydar Husayn 9,671]

Except the UAE isn't very islamic when abusing and exploiting these workers to the bone, have you ever bothered to visit? To deny people you enslave and exploit to generate superficial growth a place of worship is the most sickening, twisted perversion of "staying true to your religion". 

I never defended the UAE (and in fact criticised it earlier in the thread). What we are discussing here is building Hindu temples on Muslim lands, not how religious those Muslim lands are. They could be Sodom and Gomorrah for all I care, since it has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of building a Hindu temple in a Muslim country. That is something's that needs to be assessed on its own merits. If the UAE treated it's Hindu workers like royalty would it change their right to a temple? If not, then bringing up their condition is completely irrelevant.

 

And thankfully we don't live in such ridiculous societies, perhaps you would be okay with praying at home, most people on the other hand realize such freedoms are worth fighting for, on common sense grounds really.

If a country forbids religious institutions, I don't see how it would be reasonable to move to that country to start agitating for a religious institution. Instead, just move to a country that will let you practice your religion.

It is also good to know that you would not hesitate in lending a helping hand if say, in the future the muslim's of Vatican city decide to struggle for their right to practice their religion and god forbid, attempt to build a small mosque somewhere.

Why should I support such a struggle? I'm sure Muslims can cope without a mosque in such a tiny state. To demand one would just be provocation.

 

 

 

This is odd, just the other week you posted articles/arguments about a secular/liberal/western war on islam and secular intolerance, and all of a sudden it's inconsequential to them?  For someone who keeps asking for some consistency, you sure as hell do contradict yourself a lot.

I don't have time to explain to you the difference, which I'm sure is obvious to most. Try using your brain for once. If that doesn't work, maybe I'll explain it for you tomorrow.

[baradar_jackson 8,057]

Gaiz whatever the UAE is, however exploitative it is (btw I am pretty sure most of the south Asian workers in UAE are Muslims rather than Hindus anyhow, although I don't really know so I won't say with certainty). Whether it follows Islamic law or not. (it doesnt). Some of yall be like: this is inherently intolerant (to not allow the temple to be built). Thats means our fiqh is intolerant. I understand that there is more to Islam than this one fiqhi ruling, but it exists nonetheless. If you are opposed to this then you are saying Islam is intolerant. Again, this is separate from the discussion on the UAE. The UAE is a nonsensical "country" and we all know it. Another point: just because certain impure forces do or say a certain thing, does not mean we should disassociate from that. I am sure even the most evil men in history have done SOME things right. So comparing someone to Daesh for believing in this Islamic ruling on Hindu temples is absurd. This is our fiqh, not manufactured takfiri "fiqh."

[King 3,988]

I never defended the UAE (and in fact criticised it earlier in the thread). What we are discussing here is building Hindu temples on Muslim lands, not how religious those Muslim lands are. They could be Sodom and Gomorrah for all I care, since it has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of building a Hindu temple in a Muslim country. That is something's that needs to be assessed on its own merits. If the UAE treated it's Hindu workers like royalty would it change their right to a temple? If not, then bringing up their condition is completely irrelevant.

 

 

The title of this thread is building a hindu temple in Abu Dhabi.  I know you love to be an armchair expert who ignores all the relevant realities on ground, but this sort of thing isn't helpful and contributes nothing to the discussion other than stroking your own ego.  

 

If a country forbids religious institutions, I don't see how it would be reasonable to move to that country to start agitating for a religious institution. Instead, just move to a country that will let you practice your religion.

 

Then why do you get all touchy when people like Wahdat suggest that you move to an islamic country?  More hypocrisy.

 

 

Why should I support such a struggle? I'm sure Muslims can cope without a mosque in such a tiny state. To demand one would just be provocation.

 

As I said before the comparison you made was ridiculous in the first place, but I went along anyway, but yes, most struggles are provocative, it doesn't make them illegitimate, what is your point?

 

Are you also against shias fighting for their religious freedom in Saudi Arabia?  Is this not provocation? Or is it not appropriate since it doesn't go against Saudi values?  I hope you would stop defeating your own arguments for once by thinking these things through a little more.

Edited August 31, 2015 by King

[Bakir 3,085]

Haydar, the problem with this issue was this specific case, not a global concept for which in Islam we already have a strict answer.

So the problem isn't the law against shirk in muslim land, which is inherent to Islam. It is the incoherence of bringing around half a million hindus (people who practice or follow hinduism) to your country. The problem here is not with Islam being intolerant to other faiths, but the UAE who has forced this situation to take place originally. That is condemnable, and not Islam. Islam is just a language, a set of beliefs, and a set of beliefs by itself shall not be judged with self-righteousness by another set of beliefs.

I hope, thus, that my words were not misunderstood as anti-islamic.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Bakir

[Chaotic Muslem 5,773]

 

 

As per the requests of the Prime Minister of India on his visit to the United Arab Emirates, The Government of Abu Dhabi has allocated land in the emirate for Indians who make up the majority population in UAE, to construct a Temple to house their GODS for worship purpose.

When Africans are bowing in mental slavery to foreign faiths and supporting boko haram ideologies etc.. while we abandon our indigenous Traditional Faiths..Indians are setting new heights by spreading their Traditional Religion to the world.

The Gods bless the Hindus.

 

Isn't the same idea about islam is what is holding Europeans from exploring it? That it is indigenous to them? Although christianity came from same lands.

 

These Comments by Hindus by the way

 

 

Sahih Muslim #1767a: "It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say:

'I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.'

It cannot get any clearer than that. But given the comments on the issue made by the scholars you cite, it seems that, once again, religious scripture means whatever people want it to mean (but we've known that forever. Secondly, this is more proof that religious scripture is a mish-mash of contradicting statements concocted by humans.

Do you really think that Muhammad would allow a new pagan temple to be constructed in Arabia, given his contempt for them as seen in the Quran?

so, we follow a mish mash scripture.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Chaotic Muslem