What if you saw this in Europe?

[MazloomYarMasud]

There was a huge fuss over the Swiss banning the Arab Minaret and the whole fuss of the ground zero mosque, but why are Arabs in Saudi Arabia placing signs that prohibit Non Muslims to enter but they complain about Christians opposing the construction of Mosques on their land.

What are the Political Implications once the Saudi Arabian Petrol dollars have stopped flowing, would such open calls for segregation be welcomed by the West from Arabs?

Why is this world so full of Hypocristy, there is nearly a Mosque on every street in the West yet in Saudi Arabia by law you can be arrested for being non Muslim.

What if Rome choose to adapt the same tactic on Muslims, you and I know there would be global uproar.

Cant we all as Mankind let go of these "Gang style Religonist Mentalities" and start uniting in developing this world instead of segregating it in whos god is truthful and whos is false?

Kind Regards

[ScimitarXEdge]

To be perfectly honest; given the Imperial History of Europeans and what they did in South Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere; they have no right to be whining even if they were forced to lick doodie off of someone's shoe.

Europeans should always be reminded of their history and carry it with guilt and shame.

[Toramana]

Hahaha, MazloomMasood, I see you as one of the sane voices on this forum. Now if the US and other Western and non-Muslim countries go ahead and subject Muslims to the same treatment as non-Mulslims in Muslim countries are treated, all Muslims will make hue and cry...

It is strange that Muslims are demanding and enjoying equal rights with non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries, but are not willing to grant the same rights to non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

That is why I say Muslims generally would appear lowest on the scale of universal morality, fair play, and sense of justice.

[ScimitarXEdge]

That's because

Muslims gave them equal rights and more when they came in intruded upon us and divided everything and then exploited everything and imposed their corrupt systems of economics on us.

You cannot evaluate Muslims by measures of whether Europeans can do things in Muslim countries; you have to look at the whole picture. They got what they wanted from us, now it's their turn to show reciprocity, not us.

The only reason it seems "sane" to you is because both of you are marching to the Imperialist Drum Beat, it shows in your ideas.

[torkham]

i have no problem with the sign seen as one enters the vilayat of makkah.
it is a sacrosanct place. there is plenty in history where europeans came to the region disguised and churned out reports to the west of what they saw, through their blinkered euro-centric, judeo-christo centric mindsets (eg richard burton, not the actor but the ethnologist/orientalist/pervert)

i have no problems with the signs, the vilayat of mecca and madina are tahir places (pure/pak/clean). non-muslims are socially,morally and religiously NOT tahir.

As for the freedom (of building mosques etc) enjoyed by muslins in the west, well that freedom is based on their (the westerners) principles, which they have learnt through years of blundering and plundering. look at UK, USA, Sweden, Germany etc and how they have allowed foreigners to settle amongst them, given them rights, passports, identity crises, chidren bringing boyfriends and girlfriends home etc, that is the choice of those countries given the awakening after centuries plundering and blundering. compare that with saudia, UAE, Kuwait, no nationality, no passports (except in very rare circumstances)

As for our people not holding up to values of our faith and mores, well that is the social and moral problem of our people. in terms of cultural and social anthopology, you cannot juxtapose one culture with another, since culture is deeply rooted in the evolution(development) of each society. our people are responsible for self-regulation through intervention of our neighbours, a little like turkey's role for afghanistan and pakistan, or SEAC etc. these are our problem, this is a case of 'it is relative'.

is there any case in history when a nation of black/indiginous or muslim people, colonising other countries when you consider south africa by dutch and english, the americas by spanish, english and europeans, india by english and portugese, australia by english in modern history where eurpeans were supposidly enlightened and gone through revolutions.

if you will use example of iberian conquest by the moors, then look how the muslims treated the locals fairly with freedom of religion, then juxtapose how the iberian christians treated their jews. they kicked every single jew out (good reading is Under the Shadows of the Pomegranite Groves by Tariq Ali.

i apologise for going off in a tangent, but these subplots are the foundations that we need to know. i acknowledge my points overlap what is already said very eloquently by scimitar rex.

[IamDZJ]

it's just sign leading people the right way. with the amount of people they have there for hajj and other religious purposes , it's only fair for them to try and lead people on the right direction. why would a non muslim even go there? it's not for sight seeing.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Well said Torkham; that is precisely how we need to address this issue.

Based on holistic understanding of things from the pespective of social and political dynamics.

[torkham]

manana.

[ScimitarXEdge]

When I was a teenager I went to India with my father and a close American friend of mine; my father wanted to take us because he's a strong believer that you have to be exposed to different societies and cultures to understand the human condition and why differences exist.

One time we went to Varnasi during the times of some of their Poojas; while although we went into the city and were allowed to go most places; We were strictly excluded from any of the most Sacred Temples; these were reserved for Brahmins and Kshatrias only. Not even other castes of Hindu were allowed, they were allowed to go to some of the "lesser" temples. Since we were not Hindus we not hindus we were considered outcaste, and had to go to one of the lesser temples.

Point being is that most belief systems have areas which they consider sacrosanct as Torkham said for those who follow the faith. It isn't necessarily bias or preudice but on account that certain places are established specifically for the participation of their respective believers

It's ironic though why Mazloomyar will want to highlight Makkah Mukarramah but will take a blind eye to other practices of a similar nature in Societies he favors.

[sahil112]

it's just sign leading people the right way. with the amount of people they have there for hajj and other religious purposes , it's only fair for them to try and lead people on the right direction. why would a non muslim even go there? it's not for sight seeing.

this i think

[Catya Sher]

Superb counter-arguments by Scimitar and Torkham.

There is nothing wrong at all in having certain areas set up for certain categories, no matter what.
It's this way that a certain sanctity is preserved IN HOLY AREAS.

That's WHY they are holy, because they are set aside for a type of believer.

I see those signs posted as natural and correct. Nonbelievers should not be on holy ground, it's always this way. They go by another route.

Munafiq sounds like the equivalent of a feminist Christian screaming that women are prejudiced against because they are not allowed behind a certain screen, for example, in very traditional Churches. That screen separates the area of the altar from the general people outside who may bring in all sorts of impurities.
So the idea is to preserve that altar area only for men so that it would be purer for the Liturgies.

Therefore, even WITHIN some types of Christianity there are such rules to preserve purity by excluding various categories.

This is normal and right.

It's only modern American women who are brought up to NOT respect heavenly authority but to clamor for their "rights" and make a huge deal over nothing, in reality.
Why on earth do they need to barge in to an area preserved for clergy, anyway?
It's a sign of being led by dark influences.
Only demons want to intrude in sanctified places, in order to ruin the rarified purity that has been built up by keep the area free from outside influences, whatever those may be.

Likewise, demons are suggesting this same idea to MunafiqYar. Very similar wish to pretend to demand "rights" which would de-sanctify an area set aside for a particular group only.

Glad good responses to that suggestion have been made by you guys.

Oh, one more like this is some European 'women's rights' groups demand to force their way into the ancient monasteries of what's called "the Holy Mountain" in Greece, Mt Athos.

There is a law observed for many centuries, if not a millenium, that no woman may set foot on that mountain.

So what kind of brash, unattractive woman would spend time trying to push herself to harass the monks quietly living in seclusion from the world in order to win their salvation.

Yet some Western women make this their agenda.
Clearly only Shaitan is behind this idea, in order to cause disruption to the prayer life of the monks there. Guess which force HATES anyone trying to offer their life for prayer for the world ?!

[Toramana]

Superb counter-arguments by Scimitar and Torkham.

There is nothing wrong at all in having certain areas set up for certain categories, no matter what.
It's this way that a certain sanctity is preserved IN HOLY AREAS.

That's WHY they are holy, because they are set aside for a type of believer.

I see those signs posted as natural and correct. Nonbelievers should not be on holy ground, it's always this way. They go by another route.

Munafiq sounds like the equivalent of a feminist Christian screaming that women are prejudiced against because they are not allowed behind a certain screen, for example, in very traditional Churches. That screen separates the area of the altar from the general people outside who may bring in all sorts of impurities.
So the idea is to preserve that altar area only for men so that it would be purer for the Liturgies.

Therefore, even WITHIN some types of Christianity there are such rules to preserve purity by excluding various categories.

This is normal and right.

It's only modern American women who are brought up to NOT respect heavenly authority but to clamor for their "rights" and make a huge deal over nothing, in reality.
Why on earth do they need to barge in to an area preserved for clergy, anyway?
It's a sign of being led by dark influences.
Only demons want to intrude in sanctified places, in order to ruin the rarified purity that has been built up by keep the area free from outside influences, whatever those may be.

Likewise, demons are suggesting this same idea to MunafiqYar. Very similar wish to pretend to demand "rights" which would de-sanctify an area set aside for a particular group only.

Glad good responses to that suggestion have been made by you guys.

Oh, one more like this is some European 'women's rights' groups demand to force their way into the ancient monasteries of what's called "the Holy Mountain" in Greece, Mt Athos.

There is a law observed for many centuries, if not a millenium, that no woman may set foot on that mountain.

So what kind of brash, unattractive woman would spend time trying to push herself to harass the monks quietly living in seclusion from the world in order to win their salvation.

Yet some Western women make this their agenda.
Clearly only Shaitan is behind this idea, in order to cause disruption to the prayer life of the monks there. Guess which force HATES anyone trying to offer their life for prayer for the world ?!

Hahahaha Lonely Lady, what a satire....Hahahahahahahaha...hahahha

[ScimitarXEdge]

Toramana what's your response about me being barred from a Hindu temple on account of not being "Brahmin" and a Muslim?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Am I the only one who notices the chalaki of Mazloom and Toramana, they are hell bent on trying to scrutinize Islam and it's practices


but when similar things happen amongst Hindus, an ideology both have strong favoritism for; they're completely silent? is this a coincidence? Hmmmmm.

Jalaluddin Rumi's famous saying really applies here.

"Jawab-e-Ablahan khamosh ast"

[IamDZJ]

^ i don't know about toranmana but everyone else has stopped paying attention to maseed. his absurdness worn out it's novelty a very long time ago. just this morning i was wondering how long it will be before you give up on him.
by the way, jawabi ablahan khamosh ni, khamoshi ast.