No new Mosques?

[smaneck]

The prohibition to preach, build churches, and distribute Bibles is not a caprice of the Saudi royalty, but a principle of Sharia law. That's why your argument is invalid.

Uh, not. And I don't think it has much to do with land tenure in Saudi Arabia. Most of the land there is owned by the government but by no means all of it. Individuals may own farm land and urban property, but granted there isn't much farm land in Saudi Arabia.

The reason the Saudi government does not allow the practice of any religion other than Islam within their realm, with the exception of housing areas for foreign workers, is because of the way in which they see their role as protectors of the Hijaz and the Hajj, the pilgrimage and the areas around which the pilgrimage takes place. Traditionally non-Muslims have been banned from the Hijaz which is the area surrounding Mecca and Medina. This is based on the actions of some of the early Caliphs. The Hanbali madhab to which the Saudis belong believe that hadith not just from the Prophet but from any of the Four Righteous Caliphs are authoritative. The Hanafite school to which Woodrow and most Sunni Muslims belong rejects this. In any case, the Saudis have reinterpreted the Hijaz to include the entire Arabian Peninsula. This is an innovation and not part of the shariah as understood by any of the schools.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Do you condemn the restrictions that Saudi Arabia imposes on non-Muslims......such as banning prosyletizing?

Do you condemn the supposed commandment of God to slaughter entire cities? Do you think it was wrong of God? Why or why not?

Traditionally non-Muslims have been banned from the Hijaz which is the area surrounding Mecca and Medina. This is based on the actions of some of the early Caliphs. The Hanbali madhab to which the Saudis belong believe that hadith not just from the Prophet but from any of the Four Righteous Caliphs are authoritative. The Hanafite school to which Woodrow and most Sunni Muslims belong rejects this. In any case, the Saudis have reinterpreted the Hijaz to include the entire Arabian Peninsula. This is an innovation and not part of the shariah as understood by any of the schools.

Not so.

It is based on narrations of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him):

Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula (Ar. Jazîrat Al-'Arab), respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them. (Sahîh Bukhârî)

I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula (Ar. Jazîrat Al-'Arab) and will not leave any but Muslims. (Sahîh Muslim)

Two religions shall not coexist in the Arab lands (Ar. Ard Al-'Arab). (Muwatta Mâlik)


This is referring to all those who broke/did not have a treaty with the Muslims, since there were clearly a few non-Muslim tribes left in these regions (People of the Book for sure, I'm not sure about the pagans). Abu Bakr, and I believe 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them), renewed the treaties with these non-Muslim tribes since they didn't break them. But then later on during 'Umar's caliphate, they violated the treaty. So he had them leave that region....but they were given land in other parts of the Arabian peninsula.

Due to the terminology of the narration, some scholars thought that the Arabian peninsula meant the entire peninsula, but the majority of scholars believe otherwise and say it is limited to Makkah & Madinah & a few other areas surrounding them due to 'Umar's actions.

As for the Hanbali opinion:

Likewise, the Hanbalî scholar Imâm Ibn Qudâmah Al-Maqdisî (d. 1223CE) mentions Imâm Ahmad b. Hanbal's (d. 855CE) opinion that the Arabian Peninsula refers to Madinah and its environs. He then goes on to say: This means that what is forbidden is for unbelievers to settle in "Madinah and its environs" which includes Makkah, al-Yamâmah, Khaybar, al-Yanbu`, Fadak and their outlying areas. This is the opinion of al-Shâfi`î. It is as if the Arabian Peninsula referred to in those hadîth is intended to mean the Hijâz region. The only reason this reason is named Hijâz, a word implying a boundary or division, is because it divides between the regions of Tihâmah and Najd. It is not forbidden for them to live in the borderlands of Hijâz, like Taymâ and Fayd, since `Umar did not prohibit this.(al-Mughnî 13/242-244)

Taken from this link (there's more here):

Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth - View Single Post - rights of a non muslim in muslim lands



I find it astonishing that out of all the Muslim lands, they want to live in Makkah & Madinah (and a few other areas surrounding them). Muslims don't protest about wanting to live in the Vatican City permanently.

 

[Crypto]

Do you condemn the supposed commandment of God to slaughter entire cities? Do you think it was wrong of God? Why or why not?



Not so.

It is based on narrations of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him):

Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula (Ar. Jazîrat Al-'Arab), respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them. (Sahîh Bukhârî)

I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula (Ar. Jazîrat Al-'Arab) and will not leave any but Muslims. (Sahîh Muslim)

Two religions shall not coexist in the Arab lands (Ar. Ard Al-'Arab). (Muwatta Mâlik)


This is referring to all those who broke/did not have a treaty with the Muslims, since there were clearly a few non-Muslim tribes left in these regions (People of the Book for sure, I'm not sure about the pagans). Abu Bakr, and I believe 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them), renewed the treaties with these non-Muslim tribes since they didn't break them. But then later on during 'Umar's caliphate, they violated the treaty. So he had them leave that region....but they were given land in other parts of the Arabian peninsula.

Due to the terminology of the narration, some scholars thought that the Arabian peninsula meant the entire peninsula, but the majority of scholars believe otherwise and say it is limited to Makkah & Madinah & a few other areas surrounding them due to 'Umar's actions.

As for the Hanbali opinion:

Likewise, the Hanbalî scholar Imâm Ibn Qudâmah Al-Maqdisî (d. 1223CE) mentions Imâm Ahmad b. Hanbal's (d. 855CE) opinion that the Arabian Peninsula refers to Madinah and its environs. He then goes on to say: This means that what is forbidden is for unbelievers to settle in "Madinah and its environs" which includes Makkah, al-Yamâmah, Khaybar, al-Yanbu`, Fadak and their outlying areas. This is the opinion of al-Shâfi`î. It is as if the Arabian Peninsula referred to in those hadîth is intended to mean the Hijâz region. The only reason this reason is named Hijâz, a word implying a boundary or division, is because it divides between the regions of Tihâmah and Najd. It is not forbidden for them to live in the borderlands of Hijâz, like Taymâ and Fayd, since `Umar did not prohibit this.(al-Mughnî 13/242-244)

Taken from this link (there's more here):

Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth - View Single Post - rights of a non muslim in muslim lands



I find it astonishing that out of all the Muslim lands, they want to live in Makkah & Madinah (and a few other areas surrounding them). Muslims don't protest about wanting to live in the Vatican City permanently.

So, you agree with the mistreatment of Christians because it is part of your system of beliefs. I already knew that. Let's see if the liberals finally wake up.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Don't make me laugh, hypocrite. The Muslims killed nearly all the non-Muslims in Pakistan, or forced them to leave.

Where did you hear that from?

 

[Crypto]

Where did you hear that from?

I learned it from an Indian friend. However, it is not difficult to find online:

"At the time of partition in 1947, almost 23 percent of Pakistan’s population was comprised of non-Muslim citizens. Today, the proportion of non-Muslims has declined to approximately 3 percent."

Cleansing Pakistan of Minorities » Current Trends in Islamist Ideology

 

[Crypto]

Hey, my Muslim friends. Let's share a story of love and peacefulness:

"Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood." (Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4348)

 

[WoodrowX2]

I learned it from an Indian friend. However, it is not difficult to find online:

"At the time of partition in 1947, almost 23 percent of Pakistan’s population was comprised of non-Muslim citizens. Today, the proportion of non-Muslims has declined to approximately 3 percent."

Cleansing Pakistan of Minorities » Current Trends in Islamist Ideology

Ever think that the Hindu population might have wanted to be Indian Citizens and not Pakistani citizens?

If for some reason Texas decided to secede from the Union and Become the Hispanic Nation of Tejas, do you think Most Non-Hispanics would migrate to the USA?

 

[Crypto]

Ever think that the Hindu population might have wanted to be Indian Citizens and not Pakistani citizens?

If for some reason Texas decided to secede from the Union and Become the Hispanic Nation of Tejas, do you think Most Non-Hispanics would migrate to the USA?

I am still confused about you. I don't know if you fail to see the obvious atrocities committed by Islam, or if you think that we can fail to see them. Those Hindus that stayed on the Pakistani side of the border were extremely attached to their lands. That's why they refused to leave those territories even though they knew that they were going to be attacked by the Muslims. This is not my personal opinion, but what my Indian friend told me. The vast majority of those non-Muslims never left Pakistan. They are still buried there, somewhere.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Hey, my Muslim friends. Let's share a history of love and peacefulness:

"Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood." (Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4348)

Are you sure you understand that hadith>

Was the Blind man who killed his Mother a Muslim?

It seems his mother was a slave. As it was not permitted to have Muslims as slaves, it raises some question about the blind man.

Notice that the blind-man was nervous when asked who killed the woman.

The only thing Muhammad did was say that no one was permitted to profit from the woman's death. In other words the blind man was not entitled to collect any money for the death of his mother.

 

[Crypto]

Are you sure you understand that hadith>

Was the Blind man who killed his Mother a Muslim?

It seems his mother was a slave. As it was not permitted to have Muslims as slaves, it raises some question about the blind man.

Notice that the blind-man was nervous when asked who killed the woman.

The only thing Muhammad did was say that no one was permitted to profit from the woman's death. In other words the blind man was not entitled to collect any money for the death of his mother.

Now I understand what kind of person you are. Thanks for showing us what lies within you.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Hey, my Muslim friends. Let's share a history of love and peacefulness:

"Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood." (Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4348)

Was the man commanded to kill the Woman?

The only thing Muhammad(saws) said is that no one was permitted to kill the blind man for killing the Woman.

Murder is not a Hadd Crime it is Qissas. The family of the murdered persons decides what is to be done with the Murderer.

 

[smaneck]

Muslims don't protest about wanting to live in the Vatican City permanently.

Vatican City is only about one square mile. But your point is taken that banning non-Muslims from two towns sacred only to Muslims hardly constitutes oppression. It was not like the Byzantines banning Jews from Jerusalem (a ban Muslims lifted.)

 

[smaneck]

The Muslims killed nearly all the non-Muslims in Pakistan, or forced them to leave.

The violence associated with Partition was as much the doing of Sikhs and Hindus as Muslims. In fact Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who was angry at his attempts to establish peace between the communities.
Significantly Christians did not leave Pakistan during Partition nor was there any pressure for them to leave. They preferred Pakistan to India because most of them were regarded as Untouchables there. Parsis who were living in Pakistan at the time also chose to stay.
It is only very recently that Christians in Pakistan have suffered any harassment whatsoever. Other groups like the remaining Sikhs, Hindus and Parsis likely left because of Pakistan's continuing poverty versus India's growing prosperity. Twenty-five years ago when I lived in India just the opposite was true. Pakistan was better off than India.

 

[WoodrowX2]

Now I understand what kind of person you are. Thanks for showing us what lies within you.

While I have met violent Muslims I still have not seen anything in the Qur'an, Shariah law or the Ahadith that promotes violence or aggression.



Nor have seen anything that you have posted that convinces me Islam promotes violence and aggression.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

Then answer the question: do you denounce the fact that in Saudi Arabia Christians are not allowed to preach, to build churches, and to distribute Bibles? Say yes or no.

I've already responded, but it's clear you didn't read what I wrote. Go back and read what I replied with on the earlier post, and present your case of what my responses were. If you can't do that, please feel free to leave me alone, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[TG123]

Do you condemn the supposed commandment of God to slaughter entire cities? Do you think it was wrong of God? Why or why not?

No, because this was in the time of the prophets and it was something God directly commanded, according to my faith. I do not expect you to condemn Al Khidr for slaughtering a child.

This is now, however, and you are quite vocal about calling for the West to respect the rights of Muslims living in it to practice their faith. If you want the West to respect the religious rights of Muslims, you should have the expectation that Muslim majority countries respect the rights of non-Muslims to practice their faith.

 

[WoodrowX2]

No, because this was in the time of the prophets and it was something God directly commanded, according to my faith. I do not expect you to condemn Al Khidr for slaughtering a child.

This is now, however, and you are quite vocal about calling for the West to respect the rights of Muslims living in it to practice their faith. If you want the West to respect the religious rights of Muslims, you should have the expectation that Muslim majority countries respect the rights of non-Muslims to practice their faith.
[/font]

I think many of us look at the wrong factors. Yes it is true that in nations in which Christians are a minority the Christians generally do suffer. Often regarding the ability to worship is hindered. But that does not mean Just Muslim nations. It seems in every non-Christian nation. The Christians are often persecuted.

In today's world the Nations in which Christians face the most persecution are every Nation in which Christians are a minority. This includes not just Muslim Nations but any nation in which Christianity is a minority. Currently there are 71 Nations in which Christianity is a Minority. Fifty of those are Muslim 21 are other religion majority.

Something that has to be looked at. There are 196 recognized countries. 125 of them are Christian Majority. Many of them having become so within the past 200 years.

In every one of the 71 Non-Christian Majority Nations various Christian denominations have sent in Missionaries either openly or clandestinely.

While that may seem to be Joyous for Christians it is quite scary for non-Christians.

The Message, non-Christians see, is If Christians are permitted to proselytize the established religion is going to vanish.

The 10 Nations most hostile to Christians in my opinion are: China, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Somalia, India, Afghanistan. Just my own opinion others will probably come up with a different list.

On a Christian site I found a list of 17 Nations in which Christians are persecuted: Apparently the site is a denomination that does not consider Catholics as Christian as some of the Nations they name are Majority Catholic.

CAMBODIA, CHINA, COLOMBIA, CUBA, EGYPT, INDIA, INDONESIA, LAOS, MALAYSIA. MEXICO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, NORTH KOREA, PHILIPPINES, RUSSIA, SUDAN, VIETNAM,

SOURCE

In my opinion out of the 50 Muslim Nations the majority are not hostile to Christians.

In most Islamic Majority Nations Christians are treated with Respect.

 

[Crypto]

I think many of us look at the wrong factors. Yes it is true that in nations in which Christians are a minority the Christians generally do suffer. Often regarding the ability to worship is hindered. But that does not mean Just Muslim nations. It seems in every non-Christian nation. The Christians are often persecuted.

In today's world the Nations in which Christians face the most persecution are every Nation in which Christians are a minority. This includes not just Muslim Nations but any nation in which Christianity is a minority. Currently there are 71 Nations in which Christianity is a Minority. Fifty of those are Muslim 21 are other religion majority.

Something that has to be looked at. There are 196 recognized countries. 125 of them are Christian Majority. Many of them having become so within the past 200 years.

In every one of the 71 Non-Christian Majority Nations various Christian denominations have sent in Missionaries either openly or clandestinely.

While that may seem to be Joyous for Christians it is quite scary for non-Christians.

The Message, non-Christians see, is If Christians are permitted to proselytize the established religion is going to vanish.

The 10 Nations most hostile to Christians in my opinion are: China, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Somalia, India, Afghanistan. Just my own opinion others will probably come up with a different list.

On a Christian site I found a list of 17 Nations in which Christians are persecuted: Apparently the site is a denomination that does not consider Catholics as Christian as some of the Nations they name are Majority Catholic.



SOURCE

In my opinion out of the 50 Muslim Nations the majority are not hostile to Christians.

In most Islamic Majority Nations Christians are treated with Respect.

So, basically you are condoning the persecutions. Oh, the "religion of peace". When will people see you for what you really are?

 

[Crypto]

While I have met violent Muslims I still have not seen anything in the Qur'an, Shariah law or the Ahadith that promotes violence or aggression.



Nor have seen anything that you have posted that convinces me Islam promotes violence and aggression.

Then you are not thinking straight. Don't write to me again. Reading your nonsensical ideas and realizing how distorted your worldview is make me wanna puke.

 

[smaneck]

Then you are not thinking straight. Don't write to me again. Reading your nonsensical ideas and realizing how distorted your worldview is make me wanna puke.

Excuse me but unless Woodrow is writing to you privately you are in no position to tell him not to respond to your posts. If you don't want him doing that, don't post here.