Destroy all churches in the Arabian Peninsula – Saudi Grand Mufti

rt.com/news/peninsula-saudi-grand-mufti-701/

                                      From the country that even some Catholics feel we have an obligation to protect.

Oh my… so much hatred in his face :mad:

If you read the article, he has stated that existing churches are to remain, and it is only NEW church buildings which are, under the proposed legislation, to be banned.

I cannot really think what to say personally. I would personally love to agree, but I would also argue that Christians as Ahl Al-Kitaab are entitled to the same legal protection of their faith as Muslims.

Either way, Christians will still be oppressed, for no good reason.

If the U.S. Congress were considering a law to ban the construction of all new mosques on American soil while allowing those already in existence to remain, Muslims everywhere would (rightly) be in an uproar.

I cannot really think what to say personally.

Given that you come from a Western country, the United Kingdom, where you are able to practice Islam–or whatever religion you choose–with no legal or other constraints whatsoever placed upon you, I must say that I find this response profoundly disappointing.

I would personally love to agree,

Why?

but I would also argue that Christians as Ahl Al-Kitaab are entitled to the same legal protection of their faith as Muslims.

If adherents of the Sikh or Bahá’í faiths wished to build temples in Saudi Arabia, what rights would you advocate Saudi Arabia grant them?

And if you believe that “Christians as Ahl Al-Kitaab are entitled to the same legal protection of their faith as Muslims”, would you be in favour of Saudi Arabia permitting Christians to share their faith with Muslims freely and openly just as Muslims can do with Christians?

Wrong, sweetheart.

The Grand Mufti (Saudi Arabia) indeed is calling for the destruction of all churches, not merely prohibiting new ones. He does so under no less an authority that the Prophet Mohamet !!!

You are confusing his comments with the Kuwaiti official’s proposed legislation (NOT yet proposed, please note) for that country. You might want to read more carefully. Direct excerpt from article:

The Grand Mufti, who is the highest official of religious law in Saudi Arabia, as well as the head of the Supreme Council of Islamic Scholars, cited the Prophet Mohammed, who said the Arabian Peninsula is to exist under only one religion.

The Sheikh went on to conclude that it was therefore necessary for Kuwait, being a part of the Arabian Peninsula, to destroy all churches on its territory.

In February, Kuwaiti MP Osama al-Munawar announced on Twitter that he was planning to submit legislation that would remove all churches in the country. However, he later clarified that existing churches should remain, while the construction of new non-Islamic places of worship would be banned.

The Grand Mufti is of course correct under the logic of his conviction. Moreover, he has the courage to speak his conviction, which is admirable. But if he believes Islam is truth (and of course he does)why would he encourage the dissipation of truth in the name of a false freedom?

The liberal West detests political Islam because it raises the spectre of having to deal with a re-established Church.

Islam and the Church have co-existed for well over 1400 years. The Austrian empire had many Muslim subjects, as did Russia. The Ottomans had untold numbers of Christians within its vast domains. Extirpation of one religion was the exception - it happened in what is now Saudi Arabia for theological reasons, and in Spain for nationalistic reasons. Accomodation was the rule, as in Turkey up to the populaton exchange and in Albania and Bulgaria up to the present day.

Fair enough.

Given that you come from a Western country, the United Kingdom, where you are able to practice Islam–or whatever religion you choose–with no legal or other constraints whatsoever placed upon you, I must say that I find this response profoundly disappointing.

Don’t think my choice to practice Islam is anything to do with my country or where I’m living. I’d happily practice Islam openly and with all my strength even if it were illegal for me to do so. Similarly, there are times when I wish I could move to a Muslim country or that I was born into a Muslim family.

Why?

I’m a Muslim, what do you want me to say?

If adherents of the Sikh or Bahá’í faiths wished to build temples in Saudi Arabia, what rights would you advocate Saudi Arabia grant them?

Given that Iran (another country with string Islamic law) extends Iranian religious legal protections (certainly in recent times anyway) to Zoroastrians, even though the strict Qur’anic definition of the term ‘People of the Book’ is only Jews, Muslims and Christians, I cannot see a problem with this.

And if you believe that “Christians as Ahl Al-Kitaab are entitled to the same legal protection of their faith as Muslims”, would you be in favour of Saudi Arabia permitting Christians to share their faith with Muslims freely and openly just as Muslims can do with Christians?

Legal protection and active authorization of proselytizing are two entirely seperate matters. If I were in charge of Saudi Arabia, I’d allow the practice of other religions but not for religions to proselytize. People would however be free to inquire into which religion they chose, and to convert and practice free from the pressures of often pushy (and often dishonest) evangelists.

Looks like George C Scott to me.:shrug:

Nope - not at all ~

Your opinion Publisher -

GCS (rip) looks nothing like this person on the news article.

Seriously?:confused:

Your life would be very different, and many choices would not have been available to you.

It’s only by living in the UK that you have the freedom to make the choices you do.

Should I have been born in a Muslim family and country, I would have lived a different life and I would have not known any different because that’s how I’d have been brought up. The choices I’d have made and the life I’d have led would be all I knew.

Saudi Arabia is an ally! :rolleyes:

And I’m majoring in… math! :stuck_out_tongue:

(It was my worst subject in high school.)

Thank you.

Don’t think my choice to practice Islam is anything to do with my country or where I’m living. I’d happily practice Islam openly and with all my strength even if it were illegal for me to do so. Similarly, there are times when I wish I could move to a Muslim country or that I was born into a Muslim family.

I never made such assumptions. But you must admit that Britain offers far more freedom to its citizens on matters of faith than almost any country with a large proportion of Muslims. (I would imagine that exceptions to this rule would consist mostly or solely of African states.)

I’m a Muslim, what do you want me to say?

Are you acknowledging that treating religious minorities as second-class citizens is an unchangeable doctrine inherent to orthodox Islam?

Given that Iran (another country with string Islamic law) extends Iranian religious legal protections (certainly in recent times anyway) to Zoroastrians, even though the strict Qur’anic definition of the term ‘People of the Book’ is only Jews, Muslims and Christians, I cannot see a problem with this.

Yes. But are you Shi’a? Would your Muslim acquaintances agree with this sentiment?

Legal protection and active authorization of proselytizing are two entirely seperate matters.

Right. I wouldn’t expect you to support “active authorization of proselytizing” for the Christian faith. :smiley:

If I were in charge of Saudi Arabia, I’d allow the practice of other religions but not for religions to proselytize. People would however be free to inquire into which religion they chose, and to convert and practice free from the pressures of often pushy (and often dishonest) evangelists.

I see what you mean. Would you also forbid Muslims from proselytizing Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and even animists?

Something different? Are you not the same Kouyate that made this post just a couple months ago?

???

So your choices would have been severely limited, and your freedom to be who you are today would have been curtailed? Is that what you are saying? That you might have to live out a role in life that felt fundamentally foreign to you, and that would be OK? That you might have to hide the truth about who you are, and that would be OK? And so it’s OK for those born in Muslim countries to live like that, because they are ignorant?

Why on earth do we trade with this nation when Saudi Arabia doesn’t even give their citizens the basic right of freedom of religion? :mad: Also, it would seem as though they deny women many rights as well! :frowning:

And this:

Jan 7, '12, 9:35 am

Islamic understanding of the Bible is to say the least, very limited and most of the evidence I’ve heard for the claims that Jesus Himself said he wasn’t God is based on the usual cherry-picking of quotes out of context and misreading passages.

Because you need the oil.

As soon as the oil is gone the West won’t be so polite to the Arab world.

In the meantime: Canadians are nice and we’ve got oil - plenty of it!

We’ve got more oil than we are permitted by federal law to know what to do with here in Louisiana, and I am not referring to the vast quantities of oil in the gulf.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.