Why can't non muslims go to mecca?

Not at all bigoted. It's based on what I heard from several immigrants I know. Both women and men that I've met all say the same thing. I form my opinions based on those that have been there and these people are trustworthy, educated and now free.

If the facts stink, it's a matter of plugging the nose. Just repeating what I heard from my friends. Before 10 years ago I always envisioned a utopia where everyone is rich, happy, peaceful.

Originally posted by Atlantican
Not at all bigoted. It's based on what I heard from several immigrants I know. Both women and men that I've met all say the same thing. I form my opinions based on those that have been there and these people are trustworthy, educated and now free.

If the facts stink, it's a matter of plugging the nose. Just repeating what I heard from my friends. Before 10 years ago I always envisioned a utopia where everyone is rich, happy, peaceful.

No it is the definition of bigoted. You are generalizing to millions of people based off pre-conceived notions you "heard" from a a handful of "immigrants" that you know. It should occur to you that your sample of people is not generalizable to all Muslims, in fact it has its own selection bias, since those who move away from the area are more likely to have a negative opinion of it overall than those do not.

I form my opinions based on doing actual research and being a student of world religions, and having traveled to quite a few religious sites to watch religious practices first hand.

The fact's dont stink because you have offered no facts. And I have no idea what Islam has to do with a communist utopia.

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
No it is the definition of bigoted.

Isn't the 'defintion of bigoted' in the title of this thread ?

How would you explain this obvious prejudice against 'kuffars' other than delusional religious bigotry?

Heres the actual definition of 'bigoted' to help:

'utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.'

To me that just about sums up the Saudi Arabian wahhabbi muslim attitude-do you not think so?


.

reply to post by karl 12


Perhaps, perhaps not. It depends on how Mecca is received in Islamic ideology, and as you know from Islamic worship practices Mecca is very important.

Its just like how, were King Solomon's temple still around, you would not be allowed to go inside beyond the Court of the Gentiles. In fact, no one but the priests would be allowed anywhere near the inner sanctuary. Would you also be demanding to be inside the Holy of Holies? Muslims revere the entirety of Mecca in much the same way.

My only problem with is that I think the reactions to people who do end up in Mecca are overboard. The Saudi government has chosen to be unnecessarily severe with it - instead of just making someone leave they are throwing them in jail.

What goes on in Mecca does not concern me. I have no desire to visit there. If Saudi Arabia deems its laws to be valid, then it is up to me, a visitor, to abide by their laws or leave. That being said, I also have no desire to visit an Assembly of God church. I let my children go see a childrens program there once with their friends and they returned traumatized by the ridiculous play put on. There were children in the parking lot after the play making a big pile of pop music cd's and jumping on them and afterwards they made a big fire and burned the cd's and books, etc. It took me many months to convince my youngest child that that I was not going to hell just because I don't take her to that church. I gave up church and religion long ago, when the preacher's wife at my mom's church told her she would go to hell if she remarried after divorcing my cheating father. Only later did we learn that this preacher's wife was having affairs with other married men in the church. As my sister and I decided, we did not need to be in such an environment, exposed to such hypocritcial sinners. It was bad for our spiritual and mental health.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by karl 12

 

All natives of Saudi Arabia would be muslims. This seems a fair assumption. All people who would be taxi drivers in Saudi Arabia would be muslim. It seems a fair assumption. How on earth would a non-muslim (non-native) become a taxi-driver?

I am a non-mooslem and I lived & worked in Riyadh for 3 years, there are plenty of Pakistani & Indian taxi drivers there.

A Saudi owns the taxi company and hires expats to drive for him.

reply to post by LowLevelMason


I don`t think that is realy addressing the crux of the matter .
Let us hypothetically put the boot on the other foot and imagine the furore if we cordoned of the city of London and forbade those of muslim `opinion` entrance.

After utilising fingerprinting technology, if we found any muslims had then `slipped through the net` so to speak, we would then imprison them with no trial for up to 12 months,after which we would eject them from the country.

I suspect the people who are so flippant in their denouncement of this Saudi Arabian practise would be rabidly frothing at the mouth and filled with `righteous indignation` at this apparent outrage.

Well it works both ways-tolerance IS a two way street and,those that are failing to criticise this wholly bigoted,prejudiced practise are in fact condoning it.

As for the `leave the Saudi Arabians alone,its none of your business`argument-unfortunately it is as this wahhabi extremist mindset of severe intolerance and inherent religious bigotry has insinuated itself into many mosques here in England and across Europe-usualy targeting disillusioned,disenfranchised,impressionable youths.
Also,there is a very real problem with it inside many British prisons where the `conversion by the sword` mentality is encouraged and applauded.

Of course I understand not all muslims are bigoted hypocrits or suffer from delusions of grandeur, but this failing to address this extremist wahabbi attitude is akin to failing to addresss the rise of the Nazi party or the K.K.K.-the fact that it hides behind religion makes no difference whatsoever.

I think all decent people,muslim and non muslim alike, should put pressure on the international community to publicly criticise,condemn and denounce this practise of complete and utter prejudice and intolerance.

reply to post by wookiee

Wookiee, considering that we're talking about Saudi's here, I'd assume that they are all Pakistani and Indian muslims?

reply to post by karl 12

I don't think it's really balanced to compare London with Mecca. London is the capital of England and the UK. It has almost no significance as a religious city, (except when the religion is tied with it's monarchy and history), and is significant in many other secular ways. The ONLY significance of Mecca is it's religious significance for muslims.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is any real reason to prevent non-muslims from entering Mecca, but I hardly consider it a travesty of justice. Nobody's missing anything

I don't think it's really balanced to compare London with Mecca. London is the capital of England and the UK. It has almost no significance as a religious city, (except when the religion is tied with it's monarchy and history), and is significant in many other secular ways. The ONLY significance of Mecca is it's religious significance for muslims.

Thanks for the reply-is it not fair to speculate that,by using that rationale,IF London was a supposed holy city then this behaviour would be acceptable?

If we conjectured that an imagined religious cult/sect came along and actualy beleived London to be their 'holy site´,then stopping non beleivers of said cult/sect from entering the city would be the correct thing to do ?

Would it not be construed as delusionaly prejudice (and highly illegal) for a group of people,on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever,to stop,
harrass,intimidate,fingerprint and arrest non cult/sect members who travelled to London?

It may sound outlandish but it is an exact parrallel of what is occuring in Saudi Arabia.

reply to post by karl 12


You have set up an apples to oranges comparison that is not really like Mecca. A more appropriate analogy would be:

If London had a history of being the founding place and center of a religion, and had been treated as holy for over 1,000 years since that religion's birth, and had a history of being exclusive in that it only admitted the adherents to that religion, then yes, it would be acceptable.

The truth is all the world's religions have places or rituals which are exclusive to those religions. It is only recently in some protestant faiths that there is a "everything is open" ideology, this is still the exception and not the norm.

- Until recently, the Catholic Church stated that only clergy could witness the transformation of the communion wine and bread - it was done behind a curtain. No Muslims, or even Catholic lay people, allowed.
- Still in the Greek Orthodox Church, only Greek Orthodox may partake of Communion. No Muslim, or any other Christian, allowed.
- Most monasteries I have been to cordon off the sections in their worship ceremonies and lots of other physical spaces where only the monks and nuns are allowed to be. No Muslims, or anyone else except the monks, allowed.

That's just Christianity, but it happens in every other world religion too.

Tolerance does not mean you are allowed to know all the mysteries and sacred parts of every other religion. It never has meant that. Your wrong in characterizing it as "intolerance" because it has nothing to do with tolerance.

I take issue with how infractions are dealt with, as I said before throwing people in jail for being found in Mecca goes beyond whats needed. However, not wanting people IN a Muslim holy space unless they are Muslim is understandable, even if personally I'd love to go there.

reply to post by LowLevelMason


Thanks for the reply but I think you failed to address the point.
The hypothetical thought experiment is a valid one and,since in the field of relgious credibility,each sect/cult/organisation is just as valid as the next one due to a complete lack of evidence,the argument holds water.
Validity of Religion is not a numbers game,nor does it deal in times or epochs-just because of the number of acolytes/supporters`or the length of time said opinion has prevailed it does not allow it, nor should we afford it ,any special priveleges.
So that said-if a particular religious cult/sect designated London as their `holy site`,would it and should it be acceptable for them to eject everyone else who did not share that opinion from the city on pain of imprisonment?

Originally posted by ashamedamerican
I hate to be the ONE guy to point this out.
We are "infidels" according to the Qur'an.
I don't remember a passage in the bible saying that we should be killing muslims. (correct me if I am wrong please)
_____________________________________________________________

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst." (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

reply to post by Terra Serranum


Yeah, several thousand years ago, those were the principles the Jews lived by, but at this time in history, Western Nations, which have a considerable Christian influence, have established freedom of religion, and pay no heed to these ancient verses. Islam, however, continues to live by such barbaric standards.

At some point in time, Muslims need to start respecting the beliefs of others, and creating forbidden cities, and destroying ancient relics of other religions is not becoming tolerant.

Originally posted by LowLevelMason

Originally posted by Atlantican
It is because they are scared to death of us and their women being told of the freedoms outside of that wretched, primitive, jealous, insecure land where they are NOT allowed to vote or drive a car.

It is a land of hypocritical fat, scared, cowardly pigs. A terribly insecure, inferior culture of enslavement through extreme violence. Everyone I know that is from there, and I know several, tells me so and they are all glad to be rid of that dark chapter of their lives. You should see how they prosper *anywhere else*!

Wow, that is really bigoted. This might be exactly why they don't let non-muslims into Mecca.

erm i think youll find atlantican is right. its the muslim religion that i extremely bigoted, just like the rest of religions.

reply to post by 18x Adults Only


No, no hes not. And its shameful on a site like ATS that we have so many embracing ignorance through bigotry.

reply to post by karl 12


No, its not a valid thought experiment unless it meets the conditions I specified so that we are comparing apples to apples. Otherwise we are comparing apples to oranges.

If it met the conditions to make it like Mecca, then yes, it would be perfectly acceptable.

Let's just all jump on hearsay and judge an entire religion and country by it! Let's compare apples to oranges then simmer in indignant outrage when we see they are different! Let's give some blanket statement as to why we're not being bigoted, then keep moaning about stuff we don't understand, in an entirely bigoted fashion!

I think that's a pretty fair appraisal of this thread so far.

Originally posted by karl 12
In the U.K. ,muslims often complain of inequality,intolerance and racism (even though islam is just an opinion and not a geographical location).
I agree that equality is all important and that,despite of people's opinions,we are all of the same worth.
That said,why is it that if I go to Mecca as a non muslim (unworthy kuffar) I will not be permittted entrance?
If I then persist ,find a way into mecca and am found there ,I will then get up to one year in prison (and after that extradited).
I can visit any other 'religious' location on the planet with no problems whatsoever-what makes muslims so special?
I actualy read a horrific report that described how one taxi driver who ended up in mecca after a wrong turn got dragged out of his car,beaten and murdered just for being a 'non beleiver'.
What is wrong with this highly prejudiced religious mindset?
Isn't tolerance is a two way street?
Has it got more to do with delusional superiority complexes and bigotted insecurity?


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Let's make it clear: Islam is not the problem. Religion is the problem. You can find the same kind of intolerance in other religions:
en.wikipedia.org...
It's sad, but it's true.

Originally posted by dave420
Let's just all jump on hearsay and judge an entire religion and country by it! Let's compare apples to oranges then simmer in indignant outrage when we see they are different! Let's give some blanket statement as to why we're not being bigoted, then keep moaning about stuff we don't understand, in an entirely bigoted fashion!

I think that's a pretty fair appraisal of this thread so far.

No,lets completely and wilfully ignore sincere remarks about the understanding of how not all muslims suffer from delusions of grandeur/inherent prejudice and instead just focus on muddying the water with hysterical,kneejerk accusations whilst simultaneously,and quite conveniently,never addressing the issue at hand.

I´d like to hear your defense or justification for the actions and attitudes of some Saudi Arabian wahhabi muslims and if you agree with their religiously inspired,seemingly sociopathic opinions.

If you do,then why?
If you do not,then why not?

reply to post by karl 12


Then be specific. Let's discuss something that isn't a massive generalisation, even within a community.