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

UAE likes to import thousands and thousands of Hindus to come and build their skyskrappers and work their companies and banks but their scholars or whoever object to the building of their temple where they can pray?

 

There's a word for such attitudes....

 

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

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!

 

The trouble is that double standards don't go far before reversing and taking you in their wake. Not in in this day and age at least, where nations and nationality is not defined by religion but by passport and civic citizenship, and  by basic rights of birth and residence etc. 

 

I think the ones whose turn has come to shout and scream are the ones like that Imam (and their ilk have already been frothing at the mouth for some time now) while the world moves towards more tolerance and inclusiveness.

 

That said, the funnier bit is that if the same UAE government is to implement their shariah law "properly," it'd have to ban all mosques and hussainiyas of Shias. Because the truth is, Shias belong to a deviant cult who should strictly controlled, as per more conservative Sunni view.

 

Like I said, double standards have a habit of seeking their fair share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble is that double standards don't go far before reversing and taking you in their wake. Not in in this day and age at least, where nations and nationality is not defined by religion but by passport and civic citizenship, and  by basic rights of birth and residence etc. 

 

That's not the case in the Middle East. Are you against implementing Sharia Law? I'm sure most UAE citzens would be supportive of having Sharia Law as their main Judicial System.

 

I think the ones whose turn has come to shout and scream are the ones like that Imam (and their ilk have already been frothing at the mouth for some time now) while the world moves towards more tolerance and inclusiveness.

 

Again, your definition of "tolerance" is defined by the West, while a great deal of UAE citzens would happily disagree. This is their country. This is like 98% of Iran voting for an Islamic Government, what right do people have to criticise Iran's Laws if their own people are happy with it?

 

 

That said, the funnier bit is that if the same UAE government is to implement their shariah law "properly," it'd have to ban all mosques and hussainiyas of Shias. Because the truth is, Shias belong to a deviant cult who should strictly controlled, as per more conservative Sunni view.

 

1) It doesn't implement it properly, they're not like Saudi Arabia

2) Hindu Temples would be seen as worse than Shia Mosques

Edited by The Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Ah, the same old hot air. My definition(?) of "tolerance" is not "Western" LOL - It's a human concept, a universal language, it's not hard to see when double standards are put into place and when you give others what you want for yourself. You may argue for exceptions in an intelligent way and that would constitute an argument but I see that you have not done it save fire off some high school-level retorts. 

 

The argument of a majority voting or agreeing to suppress basic minority rights is inherently and manifestly based on hypocritical double standards and doesn't need to be expounded upon. Hitler had a majority vote too. Tomorrow, a far right group may gain power with majority people in The Netherlands or France voting to ban all mosques for the dens of hate and terrorism they have become, as per the growing European view. 

 

By the way, what you emboldened and said it's not the case in ME, I think you need to understand what I'm saying than denying the obvious. Religion is not a basis of citizenship and residence in any country of the world, including the ME. Neither is conversion or renunciation of the majority faith a basis of revoking citizenship, which was how things had been in the old days everywhere, when religion defined nationality and vice versa and minorities could only expect a few very basic curtailed rights. Even those countries that have been founded on the basis of religion in modern times have a provision for granting citizenship rights to those belonging to other faiths.

Edited by Marbles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Well put Marbles. What the majority wants and asks for is not always humane, let aside whether it respects and observes global human rights or not.

The whole behaviour in the UAE towards the South Asian community leaves much for desire to be honest. I would even label this behaviour as racist and say it has nothing to do with religious beliefs actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the same old hot air. My definition(?) of "tolerance" is not "Western" LOL - It's a human concept, a universal language, it's not hard to see when double standards are put into place and when you give others what you want for yourself. You may argue for exceptions in an intelligent way and that would constitute an argument but I see that you have not done it save fire off some high school-level retorts. 

 

Lol alright mate, as if the above comment brought anything intelligent to the table. Just a bunch of words which I would expect from some users on here. I don't care about your fight against double standards, I'm disagreeing with your version of tolerance. I guess the Prophets, Imams and the righteous scholars had a different "human concept" and were speaking another Universe's language by being anti-Hindu temples.

 

The argument of a majority voting or agreeing to suppress basic minority rights is inherently and manifestly based on hypocritical double standards and doesn't need to be expounded upon. Hitler had a majority vote too. Tomorrow, a far right group may gain power with majority people in The Netherlands or France voting to ban all mosques for the dens of hate and terrorism they have become, as per the growing European view.

 

Lol, you have a point here. 

 

By the way, what you emboldened and said it's not the case in ME, I think you need to understand what I'm saying than denying the obvious. Religion is not a basis of citizenship and residence in any country of the world, including the ME. Neither is conversion or renunciation of the majority faith a basis of revoking citizenship, which was how things had been in the old days everywhere, when religion defined nationality and vice versa and minorities could only expect a few very basic curtailed rights. Even those countries that have been founded on the basis of religion in modern times have a provision for granting citizenship rights to those belonging to other faiths.

 

???

 

 

Well put Marbles. What the majority wants and asks for is not always humane, let aside whether it respects and observes global human rights or not.

 

lol at global human rights, again, rights defined by the West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Lol alright mate, as if the above comment brought anything intelligent to the table. Just a bunch of words which I would expect from some users on here. I don't care about your fight against double standards, I'm disagreeing with your version of tolerance. I guess the Prophets, Imams and the righteous scholars had a different "human concept" and were speaking another Universe's language by being anti-Hindu temples.

 

There are no prophets and Imams around and the countries some of them founded do not exist anymore. They had to found the religion of truth by breaking the idols in Kaba. Today, you don't go around breaking idols to emulate the prophet do you? Islam has been established and doesn't need any more demolitions, unless you're a Daesh type who are still going around blowing up ancient ruins of Bamiyan and Palmyra. Justify religious discrimination in today's nation-state in the name of the prophet and Imams is a sign of poverty of thought and an indication of literalist boneheadedness.

 

lol at global human rights, again, rights defined by the West.

 

Rights which Muslims run to the West to get...those same human rights :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no prophets and Imams around and the countries some of them founded do not exist anymore. They had to found the religion of truth by breaking the idols in Kaba. Today, you don't go around breaking idols to emulate the prophet do you? Islam has been established and doesn't need any more demolitions, unless you're a Daesh type who are still going around blowing up ancient ruins of Bamiyan and Palmyra. Justify religious discrimination in today's nation-state in the name of the prophet and Imams is a sign of poverty of thought and an indication of literalist boneheadedness.

 

Just because the Prophets and Imams aren't around that does not mean that Islamic Sharia is perished until Imam al-Mahdi [as] returns. I guess you would be happy to see a Hindu Temple in Mecca as well so that there is no "religious discrimination" as well? (astaghfirullah)

 

 

Rights which Muslims run to the West to get...those same human rights :)

 

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.

Edited by The Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

And what do you think global human rights are about? Abouy fancy pointless rights? No, these rights precisely condemn the tyranical opression you are referring to.

I honestly dislike the stereotypes imposed by anything labeled as Western honestly. The great thinkers, philosophers and morals that have been developed in the West shouldn't be ignored through such unjust stereotypes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I want to add another point.

 

UAE government is very mad at Pakistan for not standing with gulf countries to attack Yemen. Read the statement of their cabinet minister on this issue. 

so it is obvious that UAE will bend towards india to show Pakistan its place. 

 

Bunch of our higher courts also banned the hunting which the UAE sheikhs were quite fond off.  You can say things are quite complicated between Pakistan and UAE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

And what do you think global human rights are about? Abouy fancy pointless rights? No, these rights precisely condemn the tyranical opression you are referring to.

I honestly dislike the stereotypes imposed by anything labeled as Western honestly. The great thinkers, philosophers and morals that have been developed in the West shouldn't be ignored through such unjust stereotypes.

Sometimes you have to have the least level of such stereotypes, otherwise there won't be any distinction between a kafir (a person whose body is najis) and a muslim (the person whose body is tahir)

Whatever great achievements "west" has, they all have been used (deliberately or accidentally) to maximize human disobedience to God and to dominate "the rest".

These two are the main characteristics of a Taghut system. Accidental use of good people for bad purpose.

Edited by mesbah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Mesbah, I never talked about wester governments. Throughout history their legacy to humanity has not been (except for a very few cases) other than sorrow, wars, poverty, colonization and injustice.

I was talking about Western great personalities who have had offered great contributions to humanity, and I'm not thinking just in scientific contributions. Labeling their achievemnts as a whole as achievements towards the disobedience of God is making a very serious generalization that could hardly be argued in favour of. No offense intended, and don't take it as an ad hominem argument, it's just my honest opinion on your statement.

Edited by Bakir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

You may notice that the world isn't made up of independent cultures and societies. We have been mixed since the beggining of civilization. We have to be careful labeling things as western/propaganda/agenda/etc. It is very easy to fail into misconceptions and wrong understanding of human history and heritage. So fight against oppression and a set of human principles and values isn't a creation by one society, but the development and achievements done by humanity and especially pushed by certain individuals who lead the way in different points of the planet.

Many western figures have been exemplary in their fight against corruption and tyranny, and it is important we can go beyond judging governments and actually appreciate the people inside those countries that are fighting for real values and principles. Because the same could happen the other way around when one studies Arab history.

Edited by Bakir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

You may notice that the world isn't made up of independent cultures and societies. We have been mixed since the beggining of civilization. We have to be careful labeling things as western/propaganda/agenda/etc. It is very easy to fail into misconceptions and wrong understanding of human history and heritage. So fight against oppression and a set of human principles and values isn't a creation by one society, but the development and achievements done by humanity and especially pushed by certain individuals who lead the way in different points of the planet.

Many western figures have been exemplary in their fight against corruption and tyranny, and it is important we can go beyond judging governments and actually appreciate the people inside those countries that are fighting for real values and principles. Because the same could happen the other way around when one studies Arab history.

 

You stated that "these rights precisely condemn the tyranical opression you are referring to.And until now you haven't given me one example of these Western-rights which condemn tyranical oppression. And this started because Marbles said "Rights which Muslims run to the West to get...those same human rights  :)", and this implies that these rights are somehow more available in the West than in the Middle East.

 

So please,  can you give me one example of these golden rights which are 1) Islamically acceptable and 2) Not available in the Middle East at all? 

 

There is only one that I can think of.

Edited by The Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

So Al-Baghdadi, Mola Omar, Jihad John, etc are clean...Chavez, Castro, Bill Gates najis......? What year is it according to you?

Nasibis are more najis than dogs.

Mesbah, I never talked about wester governments. Throughout history their legacy to humanity has not been (except for a very few cases) other than sorrow, wars, poverty, colonization and injustice.

I was talking about Western great personalities who have had offered great contributions to humanity, and I'm not thinking just in scientific contributions. Labeling their achievemnts as a whole as achievements towards the disobedience of God is making a very serious generalization that could hardly be argued in favour of. No offense intended, and don't take it as an ad hominem argument, it's just my honest opinion on your statement.

I was talking about the system, the direction.

Good action and good intention of very good people, yet used in the wrong direction. Wrong direction (Taghut system) ruins the whole thing.

Edited by mesbah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It has turned to be a growing minority and its status should be observed and respected now Haydar.

Batman: Freedom of speech (threatened by extraofficial detentions and torture), freedom of religion (take Saudi Arabia as an example), the status of women and LGBT (honor killings). These are just some examples.

Edited by Bakir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Batman: Freedom of speech (threatened by extraofficial detentions and torture)

 

This was the only one I can think of, and Islamically, it would be moderated.

 

freedom of religion (take Saudi Arabia as an example), the status of women and LGBT (honor killings). These are just some examples.

 

golden rights which are 1) Islamically acceptable

 

Let me ask you a question, would you be happy with a Hindu Temple in Mecca?

Edited by The Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Why should building a temple be an issue? If other non-Muslim communities held such a primitive outlook today there wouldnt be any mosque outside the 'Islamic' countries. Sometimes I think some views among some Muslims are no better than the Jewish/Zionist one that justifies usurpation of Pal lands... Too bad there only 15 million Jews out there....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is Islamic Law doesn't allow Hindu temples to be built in Muslim Land, Muslim land is viewed as land which has to be protected from corruption. It's no different from protecting Mecca from corruption. Both Mecca and the UAE are Muslim land, if you're against Hindu Temples in Mecca than you should be against Hindu Temples in the UAE, the only difference is Mecca extends the prohibition to Churches, Synagogues etc...

What are you going to tell us next, to open bars and clubs in Muslim countries just because they're allowed in the West? Please use your brains.

"I wonder how Muslims would feel if the West ban their Mosques, since they have banned non-Muslim workers from excercising their Western-given right of going to bars and clubs."

That is not relevant in any way...

As for your quote, the abuse and lack of proper protection towards women and minorities speaks of itself when there are so many people leaving their countries out of fear of getting killed or keep getting physically abused.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic Laws or rights. The way people behave has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Where is the lack of protection of women? Edited by The Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

It is relevant when the government position is passive or not commited enough towards the problems of such nature. We were also discussing human rights, not just the temple, hence my previous clarification.

In a globalized world, honestly, I advocate for religious tolerance and if the government of UAE is up to it, then I congratulate them. It is already time to be more tolerant and inclusive. Otherwise, bringing so many people who belong to the hindu community to private them for their own place of worship is just pure biggotry. And definitely an unwanted double standard.

As for the bar... no need to be rude :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Whatever great achievements "west" has, they all have been used (deliberately or accidentally) to maximize human disobedience to God and to dominate "the rest".

 

Blaming achievements that Allah reveal as blessing to humanity as maximizing human disobedience to God? It just the ignorance and arrogance that leads them to disobedience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

is it true that hindu worship the male organ?

what religious ceremonies in Hidu require the existence of temple?

Muslims can survive without a mosque (as individuals) Mosques are sign of established community.

Is it the same for Hindu?

As far as I know, Hindu are expats and not citizens in UAE. Do you think this is a demographic change policy?

 

Hinduism also is neutral to encouraging to the LGTB cause? Satan worship in UAE is well known so I'm wondering if this is step to bring the LGTB to the light with blessing from the Islamic affairs ministry of UAE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is relevant when the government position is passive or not commited enough towards the problems of such nature. We were also discussing human rights, not just the temple, hence my previous clarification.

 

Fair enough.

 

 

In a globalized world, honestly, I advocate for religious tolerance and if the government of UAE is up to it, then I congratulate them. It is already time to be more tolerant and inclusive. Otherwise, bringing so many people who belong to the hindu community to private them for their own place of worship is just pure biggotry. And definitely an unwanted double standard.

As for the bar... no need to be rude :P

 

No, nothing rude about it. In fact, if we want "religious tolerance", why stop at Hindu Temples, in fact, let's keep going and open up a Satanist Worshipping Site too. Many Westerners work in the UAE, is the UAE denying them their right to visit clubs and bars? Yes or no? 

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...