Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Building Hindu Temple In Abu Dhabi

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

What this thread proves partly that many new age Muslims have a serious problem with respecting and tolerating other religions. The smug, pidram-sultan-bood attitude of superiority when we have nothing to show the world to make them proud of us beggars belief. Like I said, this is funny in the age when Muslims as a whole suffer from a negative image and when things are tightening around them the world over.

 

We have known about nations and peoples in history bringing down their cudgels on their own feet and then looking around to find someone to blame...It's looks like we are in the same phase and it's likely to last a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

What this thread proves partly that many new age Muslims have a serious problem with respecting and tolerating other religions. The smug, pidram-sultan-bood attitude of superiority when we have nothing to show the world to make them proud of us beggars belief. Like I said, this is funny in the age when Muslims as a whole suffer from a negative image and when things are tightening around them the world over.

 

We have known about nations and peoples in history bringing down their cudgels on their own feet and then looking around to find someone to blame...It's looks like we are in the same phase and it's likely to last a while.

I have an indian Sikh working for us, fully practicing his religion and hanging these little temple or Budha . This individual tolerance of his own beliefs has nothing to do with the laws of forbidding Sikhs from building their own temples on Muslim lands. These laws were not written by me or you.

You won't find me calling for kicking the non muslims out of islamic lands, nor mistreating them, nor holding up their rights. I know many of them gather in a house and celebrate their own holidays, they mix men and women, they drink. They are free to do as they please and no one should harm them. I don't have a law telling me to harm them physically or in any sort BUT i have a law in my book saying non muslims cannot get into a mosque, non muslims cannot enter macca and non muslims who are not already existing on muslim lands cannot build new worship temples on muslim lands.

 

The muslim that sells them the land is sinner and can be even a mushrik. Any one who agrees on such is accomplice in this deed. This is our religion by our own God.

Couldn't care less about others beliefs, after all we are all gonna die and return to our God and be asked about His obedience only.

 

No one is promoting violence in this thread nor a hatred to individual Hindus nor promoting abuse to that religion or their dieties as this is forbidden in our religion and this is is islamic tolerance .

 

Tolernce dose not mean , from islamic point of view, to accept Hinduism as probably correct religion nor accept Hindus as non najis nor accepting their temples as places of worship of God. They are pagans. This is our beliefs , these are our Lord instructions and this should suffice as rational Muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

For various reasons, historically, other countries have allowed the building of mosques. That's their prerogative and just reflects different doctrines and practicalities.

 

India has lots of different religions and deities. Doctrinally, many Hindus are perfectly happy asking Shia Imams to help grant their prayers for having kids. Their religion allows this, ours doesn't allow us to go into a Hindu temple to ask for divine help.

 

Similarly, the colonial era British and Dutch actually built mosques but that was simply to help their Empires rather than any love for another religion. 

 

If Islamic doctrine is totally inflexible in the case of allowing other faiths to build places of worship, that is its prerogative.

 

It seems illogical to expect faiths to change to the level of the one which is the most liberal, although there is an imperative in the West for this to happen given the spread of liberal orthodoxy.

 

The counter-argument seems to be that of reciprocity. What if other countries were to be as illiberal as Muslim countries are and place restrictions on mosques?

 

If and when that point comes, perhaps it can be addressed via treaties and agreements that ulema believe are acceptable?

Edited by Haji 2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I have an indian Sikh working for us, fully practicing his religion and hanging these little temple or Budha . This individual tolerance of his own beliefs has nothing to do with the laws of forbidding Sikhs from building their own temples on Muslim lands. These laws were not written by me or you.

 

...and non muslims who are not already existing on muslim lands cannot build new worship temples on muslim lands.

 

Tolernce dose not mean , from islamic point of view, to accept Hinduism as probably correct religion nor accept Hindus as non najis nor accepting their temples as places of worship of God. They are pagans. This is our beliefs , these are our Lord instructions and this should suffice as rational Muslim.

 

Thanks for addressing it CM. I'm gonna quote the lines I want to address.

 

IMO the neat division of land mass between Muslim and non-Muslim is obsolete and misleading outside the limited confines of the Arabian peninsula where first Islamic state was founded and where this division made sense in light of the existence of the most sacred religious places of Islam. Let me explain why.

 

It started to become misleading soon after the death of the Prophet when Muslims expanded into neighbouring countries and created a massive empire. In those days, as you know, the lands out of Arabian peninsula were inhabited by Christians in the Levant and Zoroastrians in the Persian empire. For a long time a Muslim minority ruled a non-Muslim majority population by right of conquest. This has always been true in India where starting from early 8th century Muslim minority ruled an infidel majority in one shape or another for nearly a thousand years. Should they be labelled as Muslim lands because rulers professed Islam or non-Muslim lands because a large majority was still non-Muslim (In Levant and Persia it only changed much later with conversions and new Muslim arrivals). Likewise in Eastern Europe where Muslims ruled, were they Muslim lands or non-Muslims? I find it quite tricky to label so perhaps you can help in this regard.

 

But Muslim who came to rule countries where most were still unbelievers generally allowed and tolerated other peoples' religious places. Christians by the time of Muslim conquest had turned their kaleesas into shirk houses with images and statues of Maryam and Isa and saints. Shouldn't then the worship in churches had been proscribed or building new churches outlawed, as per the Islamic law being promoted in this thread? Likewise in India Muslim rulers were far-sighted enough to allow the continuation of Hindu and Buddhist religious observance and of building of new temples. Muslim rulers even funded the construction and renovation of temples and no mullah around there accused them of committing shirk by doing so. Therefore we have a long precedent in history and what's happening in Abu Dhabi with a temple isn't something new.

 

In our times is Malaysia categorised as 'Muslim land' for its 60% population or not? What about those non-Muslims who came later on in a state run by Muslims? Were they doomed to hide in their houses to worship their respective deities? It seems no. (Ironically, the same Malaysia when it applies its shariah bans Shia mosques and hussainyas and any slightest public practice of our faith so here's modern day shariah for you). The contemporary nation-state of Lebanon is populated nearly half by Christians. Is it a Muslim land or not.

 

As for what tolerance means, I think we can't invent our own Muslim definition of tolerance and insist others accept it. We have to go by the same standard by which we want others to go by when it comes to Muslim minority rights. No one is asking us to accept Hinduism as correct or valid religion. This does not what tolerance means, but only to let others have the environment and freedom to practice their religious rites if they don't interfere in other peoples' lives. 

 

The purpose of having written this all is to say that I don't see the building of a hindu mandir in AUH an issue relevant to Islamic law, but of politics, coexistence and toleration. This is because the laws and its terminology that applies to those situations do not exist, have not existed for a long long time, outside the confines of the historic Arabian peninsula. Muslims of the past everywhere recognised that reality and allowed the building of worship places and tolerated minority religious observance. In that I think Muslims a 1000 years ago were far more tolerant than the sad literalist breed of neo-Muslims of our times - a people devoid of any idea of vision and leadership.

If Islamic doctrine is totally inflexible in the case of allowing other faiths to build places of worship, that is its prerogative.

 

That's the main contention. It's being promoted as such. History shows otherwise. The general practice of Muslims of yore, religious elite and rulers, puts this assertion into doubt. I think we wouldn't have been having a conversation If everything had stayed crystallised as the Prophet had left it at the time of his death.

 

The world where we have to live like a discriminated religious minority, under a regime of severely curtailed rights (Shia in KSA? Muslims in Burma?), with the help of treaties (which never work for more than a few months/years) is a world we shouldn't be looking forward to, even if some of us believe that to be a more "realistic" than the ideals of tolerance and coexistence current today.

 

This is because what has generally not worked well in the pat is unlikely to work well in the future.

Edited by Marbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

This is free world Marbles, One gots to have some bone and stand for what they believe a day, a week a, month, a year a century . The world admires courage and consistency. Respect follows.

But if as Muslims we are too shy to be such, I am not sure why we bother even with asking the non muslims to show us mercy and compassion and give us bits of rights here and there.

By definition of islamic tolerance is part of my identity and it shapes my interaction with the outside world with honesty. I'd prefer honesty over sugar coating.

 

Can you imagine a land that you used to be human and respected on it. Living simple life, mounting came, fishing and live in mud huose. Then all gone and instead you are either forced to live on lands that sees you as criminal by default or lands that forces you to sin against your beliefs or even your taste of good manners.

 

Then you try to return to your own land and sees it also turned to comfortable place for everyone but you!

 

Marble, everyone but me is welcomed in my country.

Can we go to beach and enjoy the sea? No

The sea for those living on islands like me is the air , is the food, is the poetry and everything. When we are happy we walk on beach, when we are sad we walk on beach, when we are busy and worried we walk on beach, when we are over bored we walk on beach. Sea is the tale of our ancestors, our memory, our civilisation.

What can i find now on the beaches of Dubai?

Shameless humans without cloths walking and whatever they do on my land and against my taste. I can take the kids nor enjoy the sea. I cannot say no or object or else i'll be thrown in jail like so many others.

 

Tolerance ? how about the world tolerance to my own special religion? on my own lands? by my own money?

A hindu temple for shia linga

 

do you know how many freely practicing shia there? without monitoring ? How many lebanese were deported and how many shia were denied to work in UAE?

Tolerance much?

 

there is a saying used mostly by shia speakers around here "حدث العاقل بما لا يليق فإن قبل فلا عقل له"

talk to a rational person with whats unsuitable , if he accepts then he is irrational and have no mind.

 

UAE are not tolerant, they are money and power seekers. Ana Ammar has a point that can correlate well with the topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

CM, you're going rather off-topic, I must say. It's not about whether UAE extends tolerance in all its policy matters or whether its socioeconomic role as a fancy international theme park is good or bad. Of course I agree that UAE is not the tolerant country they pretend to be and I'm also well aware of their surveillance of Shia communities and deportations etc. I think this has lot more to do with Iran vs the Arab politics than simply a case of religious bias toward a minority they don't like. But anyway I don't hold UAE policies in good regard due to all the issues you've pointed out and more. I also think AnaAmmmar has a valid point. All things considered, however, this does not deflect from the advanced discussion the thread has got into with respect to tolerating non-Muslim worship places in Muslim majority countries. If Muslims seriously think it's a not a problem of our times, then minorities (whether non-Muslims or minority Muslim sects such as Shias) wouldn't be suffering from discrimination and oppression on many levels in many Muslim countries.

 

The idea of reciprocity was commented on earlier. I think it's a good discussion point. What if tomorrow West becomes illiberal and starts banning Muslim religious freedoms etc? I think the answer to this lies in how would Muslims respond to it. Would they accept a new program under which their mosques are banned and their congregations forced into the private? Would they accept exclusion from certain employment opportunities, barred from running for public office, banned to proselytize, disallowed to procreate more than two per couple, or restricted from state's social assistance, or any number of other restrictions that might come?

 

If the answer is yes then I think Muslims would have grounds for promoting an equally restrictive system in Muslim countries without being seen as hypocrites. However if they stand up to fight the future oppression in non-Muslim countries and demand rights (the same bedamned human rights), then this changes the whole scenario. People should realise that the idea of reciprocity isn't to please some other countries but to make our own Muslim societies a better and safer place to live so that people don't queue up to jump on boats bound for tolerant countries to apply for asylum on religions grounds.

Edited by Marbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

If the west went illiberal, which is not really far from current state , Muslims will migrate somewhere else or will live under taqqyiah. We will swallow it and live with it instead of making  unrealistic drama.

If someone accepted you in their lands under the conditions they presented to you, then you decided to live your way irrespective of the natives taste, i don't think that's friendly behaviour from any race or religious group.

As for tomorrow, i think the orthodox muslims will not change the laws of islam. Islam faced much harder times than this and survived the way it is, not the way it was suppose to be bent by force.

The days before iranian islamic revolution were even darker and many muslims were liberal by today's standards. Yet, Islam has the ability to revive itself and survive with its old ways.

It brings a lot of discomfort, specially for the colonists who killed the natives in almost every content then set themselves as guardians of human morality. They can rephrase their dis comfort in so many eloquent ways, by this age i guess i can tell the lies being warped with honey. 

 

Anyways, as i said before, laws of islam are not a subject of discussion. They are what they are. If anyone wants to live by their own fiqh, that's up to them but i don't feel the need to follow some whims that tomorrow can change, depending on the state of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

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.

What are you talking about? The part you quoted was making the point that the issue of building a Hindu temple in Abu Dhabi has nothing to do with the conditions Hindus live in there. As far as I can see, everyone in the thread has framed the discussion in terms of general rights to religious freedoms, not the poor socio-economic condition the Hindus find themselves in. Instead of this nonsense, maybe you should have just contented yourself with answering the question I asked at the end of the quotation.

 

 

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

Did you even read what I wrote?

"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."

In what way is this analogous with the discussions I've had with Wahdat? Does the West forbid us to build religious institutions? No. Am I calling for the West to change its laws? No. Wahdat responds to any discussion amongst Muslims about the mistakes of the West with a suggestion to 'go back home'. On the other hand, I have no problem with Hindus meeting up and discussing the many problems of the UAE, and I would never say to them that just because they have criticisms of where they live, that they should leave. Another key difference is that I am criticising the West for changes they are making to their traditional values. The building of this temple is a change away from the UAE's traditional values.

 

So in future try thinking a bit more before making some lame attempt at pointing out the supposed hypocrisy of others.

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?

My point is that when you know a state doesn't allow something, don't move there and ask them to change it.

Just in case you are tempted to reach for the 'hypocrisy' argument again, please think through the difference between moving somewhere in the knowledge that something isn't allowed, and something being made illegal after you are already there, in contravention to the state's own laws and values.

 

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?

Again, the situations are not analogous. Shias have always lived in the area now called Saudi Arabia, and have always been considered Muslims. What the Saudis are attempting to do is remove rights that Shias have held up to now. If Shias moved into a Wahhabi area and started opening Husayniyas, then that would be provocation that would arguably be haram, as it would be completely opposed to the doctrine of taqiyya.

I hope you would stop defeating your own arguments for once by thinking these things through a little more.

I think it's pretty clear that you don't even understand the arguments, so I don't know how you would recognise whether they had been defeated or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

If the west went illiberal, which is not really far from current state , Muslims will migrate somewhere else or will live under taqqyiah. We will swallow it and live with it instead of making  unrealistic drama.

If someone accepted you in their lands under the conditions they presented to you, then you decided to live your way irrespective of the natives taste, i don't think that's friendly behaviour from any race or religious group.

As for tomorrow, i think the orthodox muslims will not change the laws of islam. Islam faced much harder times than this and survived the way it is, not the way it was suppose to be bent by force.

The days before iranian islamic revolution were even darker and many muslims were liberal by today's standards. Yet, Islam has the ability to revive itself and survive with its old ways.

It brings a lot of discomfort, specially for the colonists who killed the natives in almost every content then set themselves as guardians of human morality. They can rephrase their dis comfort in so many eloquent ways, by this age i guess i can tell the lies being warped with honey. 

 

Anyways, as i said before, laws of islam are not a subject of discussion. They are what they are. If anyone wants to live by their own fiqh, that's up to them but i don't feel the need to follow some whims that tomorrow can change, depending on the state of power.

 

The laws of Islam? Which ones? Hmm, I think my post #110 is completely lost.

 

You've said yourself that you're not welcomed in your own country because of your religious affiliation. And your government practices a shariah system which requires them to suppress and control deviant sects (in their view) because they believe the laws of Islam are not subject to discussion and they are what they are...

 

Amid all this it's irony I marvel at, sis CM. 

 

But never mind :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The logic that equates some actions of the Prophets or Khalifas and justify events that run contrary to common sense today are blind and counterproductive. Since the early Muslims broke statues then it should make it OK for the Taliban to destroy the biggest Bhudda statue. It should further make it OK for ISIS to destroy ancient places of worship in Syria. Or it should motivate Sayid Khamenei to launch attacks on non-Muslim neighbors (India, Georgia, Armenia, Russia etc)...Or since Imams (as) had slaves and concubines then Sayid Nasrullah, like Baghdadi, too should acquire some war booty and slaves Dont they sound insane? Is Sayid Nasrullah less of a Muslim for not acting like Baghdadi who uses a 1400 year old reality to enslave Yazidi girls?

 

Humanity as a whole grows the by day. Our generation is far different than those of our parents and grandparents....now imagine how much the world and the perception of its people has changed in 1400 years. Islam shone like a bright light for a thousand years because it was the most progressive and logical attitude compared to other world-views. Today it is suffering the vices of dark ages because most Muslims, instead of thinking ahead of their time as the founding fathers of Islam, are thinking backwards 1400 years. And apparently they have 'good' reason for it.

 

The irony of the story and history of the Catholic Church is that the apparently most pious refused to acknowledge the progression of time and hence the evolution of the perception of people caused its inevitable downfall. Muslims today seem to be sleep walking on the same path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Humanity as a whole grows the by day. Our generation is far different than those of our parents and grandparents....now imagine how much the world and the perception of its people has changed in 1400 years. Islam shone like a bright light for a thousand years because it was the most progressive and logical attitude compared to other world-views. Today it is suffering the vices of dark ages because most Muslims, instead of thinking ahead of their time as the founding fathers of Islam, are thinking backwards 1400 years. And apparently they have 'good' reason for it.

 

The irony of the story and history of the Catholic Church is that the apparently most pious refused to acknowledge the progression of time and hence the evolution of the perception of people caused its inevitable downfall. Muslims today seem to be sleep walking on the same path.

Define 'progressive attitude', and tell me what was 'progressive' about the Prophet destroying idols that many people held dear, while essentially forcing people to convert to Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Define 'progressive attitude', and tell me what was 'progressive' about the Prophet destroying idols that many people held dear, while essentially forcing people to convert to Islam.

 

This line of argument has been answered numerous times, Haydar. Though granted it has a potent verisimilitude by which many Muslims are deceived, it's essential error comes to the fore with a little thinking. Not very difficult, methinks.

 

Actions at one time cannot possibly be repeated for all time, simply because time and place changes the situation that called for those actions. We are the ones explaining to non-Muslims that verses pertaining to doctrines such as Jihad be looked into context and that if Quran says go out and kill all unbelievers, it isn't saying to go out and kill everyone right now, sans any conditions. But then we turn around and use the same reasoning for some Islamic laws that non-Muslims use to put down Islam, and so contradict ourselves.

 

For instance why is that the custodians of the Prophet and the Imams, our ulema, aren't sending out sorties of mujahids to demolish idols sitting in temples and shrines anymore? Why, have they forgotten the august sunnah of waging war against the competitors of Allah? Why, there is so much idol worship shirk being committed in Muslim countries and outside and our ulema say not a word about it.

 

So far no one has discussed the context in which the Islamic law banning new temples in so called Muslim lands may be applied. But, as I have observed earlier, one must first satisfactorily define what constitutes "Muslim lands." One must also explain how the Prophet's clean up of the Kaba (which had always been the House of Allah but corrupted with idolatry), is analogous to breaking or banning random temples for people who don't follow Islam to begin with.

 

No one has done the homework but only issued their frozen edicts on the matter under discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

This line of argument has been answered numerous times, Haydar. Though granted it has a potent verisimilitude by which many Muslims are deceived, it's essential error comes to the fore with a little thinking. Not very difficult, methinks.

I'm not making an argument, I'm asking a question. What I've noticed is that people are quick to condemn things, while being very vague on what exactly their rationalisation is for the Prophet doing certain things. It's like a form of cognitive dissonance.

I just want to hear how exactly his actions were progressive, even for that time.

 

Actions at one time cannot possibly be repeated for all time, simply because time and place changes the situation that called for those actions. We are the ones explaining to non-Muslims that verses pertaining to doctrines such as Jihad be looked into context and that if Quran says go out and kill all unbelievers, it isn't saying to go out and kill everyone right now, sans any conditions. But then we turn around and use the same reasoning for some Islamic laws that non-Muslims use to put down Islam, and so contradict ourselves.

The context in the Qur'an was clear, and when people use it to attack us, they are clearly taking it out of context. It's not so clear to me that the rulings of idol worship are contrained by some specific context. If you are aware of one, perhaps you could share it with us.

 

For instance why is that the custodians of the Prophet and the Imams, our ulema, aren't sending out sorties of mujahids to demolish idols sitting in temples and shrines anymore? Why, have they forgotten the august sunnah of waging war against the competitors of Allah? Why, there is so much idol worship shirk being committed in Muslim countries and outside and our ulema say not a word about it.

Does Iran allow Bahai houses of worship to be built on their land? Does anyone seriously think they would allow Hindu temples to be built?

There is a difference between not destroying temples that already existed, and allowing the building of new ones. Apart from on the Arab peninsula, Muslims have allowed houses of worship of other faiths to remain (at least until they fall into disuse), but have generally not allowed new ones to be built.

 

So far no one has discussed the context in which the Islamic law banning new temples in so called Muslim lands may be applied. But, as I have observed earlier, one must first satisfactorily define what constitutes "Muslim lands." One must also explain how the Prophet's clean up of the Kaba (which had always been the House of Allah but corrupted with idolatry), is analogous to breaking or banning random temples for people who don't follow Islam to begin with.

 

No one has done the homework but only issued their frozen edicts on the matter under discussion.

It wasn't simply the Ka`aba that the Prophet cleansed of idols. He also sent people out to destroy idols in other areas of the Arab pensinsula (even as far as Yemen). All the Arabs were also made to abandon idol worship. Do you think they all suddenly just 'saw the light'? Did everyone in Mecca suddenly realise that Islam was the truth as soon as the Prophet entered the city in victory?

Again, the question is for someone to explain how this could be considered progressive. It's not good enough to say 'times have changed', rather what is needed is an analysis of what exactly has changed since then that made these actions praiseworthy at the time, but blameworthy now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I think there must be a reasonable, wiser middle ground here. If they allowed a temple to be built but banned statues/idols in the temple would that be ok? then Hindus of any stripe could use it whilst living in a country where (ideally) Muslims would be inviting them to the religion with their good behaviour. It seems to me that this could be a good opportunity to show Hindus the beauty of Islam and give them and their children the opportunity to learn about it and become Muslim themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

What are you talking about? The part you quoted was making the point that the issue of building a Hindu temple in Abu Dhabi has nothing to do with the conditions Hindus live in there. As far as I can see, everyone in the thread has framed the discussion in terms of general rights to religious freedoms, not the poor socio-economic condition the Hindus find themselves in. Instead of this nonsense, maybe you should have just contented yourself with answering the question I asked at the end of the quotation.

 

The question you posed doesn't arise since we aren't in some theoretical seminar, we are talking about the real world and in this particular case a state which in practice is a hell of a lot more unislamic than islamic.  Hardly anyone is interested in you lecturing others as to where islam theoretically stands on this matter, it isn't terribly enlightening or useful here.

 

Did you even read what I wrote?

"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."

In what way is this analogous with the discussions I've had with Wahdat? Does the West forbid us to build religious institutions? No. Am I calling for the West to change its laws? No. Wahdat responds to any discussion amongst Muslims about the mistakes of the West with a suggestion to 'go back home'. On the other hand, I have no problem with Hindus meeting up and discussing the many problems of the UAE, and I would never say to them that just because they have criticisms of where they live, that they should leave. Another key difference is that I am criticising the West for changes they are making to their traditional values. The building of this temple is a change away from the UAE's traditional values.
 
So in future try thinking a bit more before making some lame attempt at pointing out the supposed hypocrisy of others.

 

Where do you keep coming up with this stuff?  Who the hell ever moves to any country to start agitating for these things?

 

There is nothing in principle wrong with wanting to change traditional practices which participants in society now deem immoral or unjust, traditional values aren't inherently superior, so I don't know what you are talking about. 

 

 

.My point is that when you know a state doesn't allow something, don't move there and ask them to change it.

Just in case you are tempted to reach for the 'hypocrisy' argument again, please think through the difference between moving somewhere in the knowledge that something isn't allowed, and something being made illegal after you are already there, in contravention to the state's own laws and values.
 

Again, the situations are not analogous. Shias have always lived in the area now called Saudi Arabia, and have always been considered Muslims. What the Saudis are attempting to do is remove rights that Shias have held up to now. If Shias moved into a Wahhabi area and started opening Husayniyas, then that would be provocation that would arguably be haram, as it would be completely opposed to the doctrine of taqiyya.

 

Sure, just don't move there, how convenient of you, do you have any idea about the circumstances which in most cases forced them to leave their homelands?  Are workers working in the UAE not human beings? Are they not contributing significantly to that society?   Who made you an authority to say they have no business struggling to change policy within these societies which they deem severely unfair?  Especially considering the fact that they can peacefully organize and present sound arguments which any sane person would find valid? Do you think there is no precedent? Are you really that ignorant about the evolution of law and political history?

 

If migrants or foreign workers are concerned about provocation and subsequent violence that might ensue, then that is a practical tactical concern that needs to be dealt with on an individual cases, no one here is opposed to people keeping quiet if they see fit.  The problem is pretentious experts like you telling them that this is what they should always do, essentially just continue to be treated unfairly without a word of protest or simply just return home.

 

Hopefully these people will be allowed to build their places of worship, and the UAE will be better for it.

Edited by King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

What can Muslims in the West do? You think they "ran" to the West to look at Hindu Temples? They left there countries cause they were war torn or they lived under tyranical governments.

 

And, why do you think these Hindus are running from their homeland to the Saudis and the Arabs who don't even treat their Muslim counterparts - whether they be from Iran or Pakistan - with respect, let alone someone who they consider Kafirs? You think they ran away to the Arabs lands to look at mosques and to be stopped from worshiping their gods? The reasons they ran away are often similar to those of the Muslim immigrants in the West, primary of which is poverty. Remember what Imam Ali (as) said about poverty: if he could give human form to one thing, it would be poverty and then he would cut it down!

 

 

Until now the tolerance people haven't answered the challenge. Would you be happy with a Hindu Temple in Mecca? :)

 

Bringing up extreme and exaggerated hypotheticals does nothing to help the discussion. Would you want Muslims to worship in a Hindu Temple? Would Hindus want Muslims praying in their temples? Probably not but that doesn't stop them from letting Muslims build mosques and pray in their own place of worship. These Hindus aren't asking for a temple in Mecca so exactly what purpose does asking this question serve? They are asking for the right to build a place of worship outside of Mecca so they can pray in private and not disturb the Muslims. What's so hard about that?

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I think there must be a reasonable, wiser middle ground here. If they allowed a temple to be built but banned statues/idols in the temple would that be ok? then Hindus of any stripe could use it whilst living in a country where (ideally) Muslims would be inviting them to the religion with their good behaviour. It seems to me that this could be a good opportunity to show Hindus the beauty of Islam and give them and their children the opportunity to learn about it and become Muslim themselves.

maybe that middle ground can be feasible ...but i doubt those in UAE really care that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

It's worth remembering that the reason why there are so many Hindus and Christians in places like the UAE and Saudi is because of anti-Muslim discrimination by the Arabs in these countries.

 

They could easily employ the vast army of unemployed Egyptians, but I think they don't do so, because it would be far more difficult to exploit fellow Arabs, who'd also be better able to integrate. There are also vast numbers of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis that could be taken on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Define 'progressive attitude', and tell me what was 'progressive' about the Prophet destroying idols that many people held dear, while essentially forcing people to convert to Islam.

 

Prophet (SAW) did not force people to convert.

What was progressive? Women's right....the condition of slaves.....helping the poor (charity).....openness to foreign ideas (Greek philosophy)....humaneness of Islamic laws.....trade....etc etc etc

I think there must be a reasonable, wiser middle ground here. If they allowed a temple to be built but banned statues/idols in the temple would that be ok? then Hindus of any stripe could use it whilst living in a country where (ideally) Muslims would be inviting them to the religion with their good behaviour. It seems to me that this could be a good opportunity to show Hindus the beauty of Islam and give them and their children the opportunity to learn about it and become Muslim themselves.

 

really?

Its like the Church of England saying let the Muslims build their mosques without taking qibla into consideration in the hopes of their children seeing the beauty of Christianity..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I think there must be a reasonable, wiser middle ground here. If they allowed a temple to be built but banned statues/idols in the temple would that be ok? then Hindus of any stripe could use it whilst living in a country where (ideally) Muslims would be inviting them to the religion with their good behaviour. It seems to me that this could be a good opportunity to show Hindus the beauty of Islam and give them and their children the opportunity to learn about it and become Muslim themselves.

 

What Wahdat said. If you remove the idols from the temple, it's like removing the Takbiratul Ihram from the Salah. The one defines the other. Without the Allahu Akbar, it's not Salah and without the idols, it's not a temple. Exactly what would they go to worship, then?

 

While I appreciate your attempt to find a middle ground, this is not it. As you've said, there must be a more reasonable, wiser middle ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Prophet (SAW) did not force people to convert.

What was progressive? Women's right....the condition of slaves.....helping the poor (charity).....openness to foreign ideas (Greek philosophy)....humaneness of Islamic laws.....trade....etc etc etc

These are examples of what you consider progressive attitudes, but not a definition of what a progressive attitude is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

You are the one who introduced the term, so you are the one who needs to tell me. I'm asking for the sake of clarification, so I can properly respond to your post.

 

but i did...lol and you said it was not...hence its now up to you to tell me what it really is. no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It's worth remembering that the reason why there are so many Hindus and Christians in places like the UAE and Saudi is because of anti-Muslim discrimination by the Arabs in these countries.

 

They could easily employ the vast army of unemployed Egyptians, but I think they don't do so, because it would be far more difficult to exploit fellow Arabs, who'd also be better able to integrate. There are also vast numbers of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis that could be taken on.

 

There is another reason too, of eligibility. Middle tier semi-skilled job vacancies in particular are often filled by Indians (Hindus) because they are better educated and conduct themselves in competent English, a necessary condition for employability in the environment of UAE. India also offers abundant supply of highly skilled workers in which neighbouring Muslims are also thought to be lacking.

 

However, this could be overcome if the government specially followed a policy whereby it would prefer taking on surplus Muslim workers from South Asia and poor Arab countries. But it does not do that, because UAE doesn't want to lose trade leverage and connections thousands of Indian expats provide it.

Edited by Marbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

but i did...lol and you said it was not...hence its now up to you to tell me what it really is. no?

No, what you gave doesn't qualify as a definition, but rather as examples. It would be like if I asked what you what a planet was, and you give me some examples of planets. That won't help me recognise other planets, since I still won't know what the definitional characteristics of a planet are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
  • Veteran Member

No, what you gave doesn't qualify as a definition, but rather as examples. It would be like if I asked what you what a planet was, and you give me some examples of planets. That won't help me recognise other planets, since I still won't know what the definitional characteristics of a planet are.

 

Ok...here is the definition from dictionary.com

 

favoring or advocating progresschange, improvement, or reform, asopposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially inpolitical matters:
a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocatingmore enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
a progressive community.

And everything in Islam was better than what were Christianity or Zorosatrianism.....Christian and Jewish women, for example, preferred Islamic courts for their divorce as opposed to their own religious courts...why? because they got better conditions under Islamic law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

this is the definition of progression 

turn a naive sunni muslim to salafi

then to wahabi

then either he will turn to ISIS or will become christian

turn the christian to skeptic

then from skeptic to atheist 

then from atheist to agnostic

then finally leftist liberal XD

 

progressiveness.

 

The path for Shia :

naive gullible shia 

anti taqlid shia

free form shia

shia as cult 

shia as background

bitter shia angry at everything that is shia

half a shia

one tenth shia

anti shia

da'awah to shia

shia friend with west and the shia

liberal shia XD (one who doesn't pray or anything) i.e. kafir insisting on the title of shia

couldn't careless shia

non shia atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

this is the definition of progression 

turn a naive sunni muslim to salafi

then to wahabi

then either he will turn to ISIS or will become christian

turn the christian to skeptic

then from skeptic to atheist 

then from atheist to agnostic

then finally leftist liberal XD

 

progressiveness.

 

The path for Shia :

naive gullible shia 

anti taqlid shia

free form shia

shia as cult 

shia as background

bitter shia angry at everything that is shia

half a shia

one tenth shia

anti shia

da'awah to shia

shia friend with west and the shia

liberal shia XD (one who doesn't pray or anything) i.e. kafir insisting on the title of shia

couldn't careless shia

non shia atheist.

 

wow...lol....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Ok...here is the definition from dictionary.com

 

favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, asopposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially inpolitical matters:

a progressive mayor.

2.

making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocatingmore enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:

a progressive community.

Ok, so basically you don't even understand the terms you use. No wonder there is so little progress from any of these discussions.

I could take this definition, unpack it, and then show why it is fundamentally unIslamic, but then you'd probably just tell me that this isn't how you understand the term (but you can't tell me how you do understand it), so I'm not going to bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Ok, so basically you don't even understand the terms you use. No wonder there is so little progress from any of these discussions.

I could take this definition, unpack it, and then show why it is fundamentally unIslamic, but then you'd probably just tell me that this isn't how you understand the term (but you can't tell me how you do understand it), so I'm not going to bother.

 

how so very typical....constantly making excuses...labels...passes judgement....talks about everything but the subject at hand...

Such a waste of time.

If you are not going to bother then why you bothered in the first place? Seems like you dont really know what you are talking about...no wonder

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...