I accept that there are some things that lead to prejudice - however Islam is not completely prejudice free. It makes clear prejudice with people on certain matters. It teaches us how to be good to others, yet if we adopt its teachings partially then indeed we would end up misconstruing certain verses and injunctions and end up exhibiting problematic behaviour.
I believe the Jews were at one stage “the chosen race” - their partial adherence led them to interpret this phrase in a way that made them feel superior without cause that they inherited a right that placed them above other humans. Rather, this chosen race actually meant they were supposed to be the most hardest working ones, the example for mankind to follow. They were supposed to be standard of piety and some of them were.
Racism and elitism in Muslims would set in only if partial adherence is seen in Islam and neither you nor I should criticise little elements within the faith without looking at the whole picture and its mechanism of context.
There is also a logistic and practical basis to preventing non-Muslims within the sanctuary.
@psyah Agreed. OP simply wants to know why non-muslims are not allowed. There might be historical, law & order and religious reasons. Makkah & Madina are highly sacred places. If everyone is allowed then this may attract serious law & order problems by orthodox school. Not all places have such restrictions for eg. Ajmer Shareef, Hazrat Nizamuddin. Muslims too visit Shirdi temple. This does not mean that people from different faith are inferior. This has nothing to do with ethics as religions contain ethical doctrines but morals and ethics have not originated from religion. And almost every religion/religious book/religious belief has serious faults if we see from todays perspective.
Actually this is a futile exercise to find fault rather we should understand the core idea and follow good teachings. Asking when & why is very good as it provides scope for discussion. We should try to understand and analyse things before saying them good or bad.
If we look to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), there simply was no such restriction. When the Jihad was over finally, he went into the Kaaba and broke the idols. The myth is that at that moment everyone finally submitted to Islam, but this can't be possibly true. There must have been people who still did not believe in Islam.
But he didn't check each person to see if they were really muslim or not and he did not block anyone from coming to Makkah. Makkah even then was a small city, it was not just the Kaaba and a few shops. People lived there. There is no evidence he asked anyone to leave their home who refused to fully practice Islam or embrace the religion. His own uncle remained non-muslim - never threw him out of his home. And his uncle lived in that area.
So I see no evidence we should be blocking nonmuslims from visiting, when Prophet Muhammad (SAW) didn't even block people from living there.
I also know ZERO evidence of him blocking other peoples from doing trade with Makkah / Madinah, and this trade would have involved the traffic of nonmuslims into and out of the city (they didn't have Fedex back then).
^ and so the above clear SUNNAH argues that the Quranic verses are only in reference to the setting up of idols in the area of the Kaaba. The idea was keep "idolators" out, hence refers more to the verb of "worshipping the idols". Notice, the term "non-muslims", or "disbelievers" or "people of the book" isn't used. It's "idolators". Meaning people who want to expressly worship their idols in the Kaaba. The act of worshipping and setting up idols and letting people set up their idols there for parallel worship is what's prohibited. Not tourism and curious people wanting to explore the faith before they convert, or for journalistic purposes or academic purposes. These things were allowed all before King Faisal, who saw a dream of a few jewish people digging a tunnel to Prophet Muhammad's (SAW) grave and thereafter banned the entry of nonmuslims to the 2 holy cities. Prior to this, non-muslim people visited the two cities.
If we look to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), there simply was no such restriction. When the Jihad was over finally, he went into the Kaaba and broke the idols. The myth is that at that moment everyone finally submitted to Islam, but this can't be possibly true. There must have been people who still did not believe in Islam.
But he didn't check each person to see if they were really muslim or not and he did not block anyone from coming to Makkah. Makkah even then was a small city, it was not just the Kaaba and a few shops. People lived there. There is no evidence he asked anyone to leave their home who refused to fully practice Islam or embrace the religion. His own uncle remained non-muslim - never threw him out of his home. And his uncle lived in that area.
So I see no evidence we should be blocking nonmuslims from visiting, when Prophet Muhammad (SAW) didn't even block people from living there.
I also know ZERO evidence of him blocking other peoples from doing trade with Makkah / Madinah, and this trade would have involved the traffic of nonmuslims into and out of the city (they didn't have Fedex back then).
^ and so the above clear SUNNAH argues that the Quranic verses are only in reference to the setting up of idols in the area of the Kaaba. The idea was keep "idolators" out, hence refers more to the verb of "worshipping the idols". Notice, the term "non-muslims", or "disbelievers" or "people of the book" isn't used. It's "idolators". Meaning people who want to expressly worship their idols in the Kaaba. The act of worshipping and setting up idols and letting people set up their idols there for parallel worship is what's prohibited. Not tourism and curious people wanting to explore the faith before they convert, or for journalistic purposes or academic purposes. These things were allowed all before King Faisal, who saw a dream of a few jewish people digging a tunnel to Prophet Muhammad's (SAW) grave and thereafter banned the entry of nonmuslims to the 2 holy cities. Prior to this, non-muslim people visited the two cities.
How do you guys not know this??
Sister PCG
Well you are obviously an expert in this area. Instead of then asking us here, I suggest you do something. Look through the annals of Islamic writings, legislation and whatnot and find the exact time in history when this was made law. Therein you will find the reasoning for having such an act in place.
Yes, but people use these practices of ancient pagan Arabs as an excuse to not allow Non-Muslim of today from coming near the Ka'abah. Non-Muslims today arent going to be circumambulating, they wont have idols, and they certainly wouldn't be naked. And yet...
The world is a changed place, isnt it about time Muslims started acting more inclusive and accepting? This notion of them and us is really detrimental to the Muslim psyche. It promotes bigotry and prejudices, and contradicts the otherwise magnanimous nature of the faith.
Bravo!
Islam = living religion. We should reconsider
How I understand this, is that Mosques and places reserved for worship have one essential requirement for entry - Purity. This principle drives the restriction not to allow anyone 'unclean' inside the Mosque or it's surroundings, they may be Muslim or may not. Cleanliness is obligatory in Islam, which is why we cannot perform Sal'ah or touch the Qur'an without Wudhu.
For many who do not know, Muslims are not allowed to enter a holy site without being in a state of purity, however it is unto themselves to be certain of it.
Sorry MuNiYa ... These pictures were not posted in justification for the banning of non-Muslims from Makkah, they were posted as evidence that others are doing the same.
And it appears you don't follow them because they are not our teachers, however, when it comes to our teachers ... Do you accept their verdicts? Apparently not if you believe this verdict is wrong.
Yes, but people use these practices of ancient pagan Arabs as an excuse to not allow Non-Muslim of today from coming near the Ka'abah. Non-Muslims today arent going to be circumambulating, they wont have idols, and they certainly wouldn't be naked. And yet...
I don't know what my stance is on this issue. I don't have knowledge.
But tell me one place, where its steaming hot weather, where goirs go, where they wont wear chadi ?????
I am all ears.
I don't know what my stance is on this issue. I don't have knowledge.
But tell me one place, where its steaming hot weather, where goirs go, where they wont wear chadi ?????
I am all ears.
Well wearing "Chadi" is technically NOT being naked.
That being said, putting restrictions on what you may or may not wear, or how you dress, in the confines of a holy place, is not an unreasonable request.
Sorry MuNiYa ... These pictures were not posted in justification for the banning of non-Muslims from Makkah, they were posted as evidence that others are doing the same.
And it appears you don't follow them because they are not our teachers, however, when it comes to our teachers ... Do you accept their verdicts? Apparently not if you believe this verdict is wrong.
Our teachers are those who earn respect and our obedience through their deeds and by the logic of and veracity of their teachings. People who's teaching dont stand up to the scrutiny of logic and reason, as those who would try to convince us that Non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca despite it all rational arguments against it, are perhaps not the best teachers to be guiding us. This ban, seems to contradict the teaching of Islam as a whole, and they just run in the face of logic. Why try to prop up such a clear and obvious discriminatory policy?!?!
I mean really, there are so many things in Islam which might have worked 1000 years ago, but dont work today. The Saudis still practice beheading for example, which most people would consider barbaric, even among Muslims today.
Well wearing "Chadi" is technically NOT being naked.
That being said, putting restrictions on what you may or may not wear, or how you dress, in the confines of a holy place, is not an unreasonable request.
:D ab yeh to aap ki miana rawi hy
If men were wearing such things, I have feeling people would consider them more then naked.
BTW another way to look at it is, put 2 travel package,
1-700$ all inclusive to bahamas, chadi driking.. food sun...
2-1500$ none of the above, + full clothing.
I have feeling no gori would want to go.
So now if no one wants to go how is this an issue??? Its not like people are demonstrating over, not being able to wearing hijab and burqa, while not misbehaving, while not drinking during all their vacation trip.
