Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
karl 12

Why can't non muslims go to mecca?

104 posts in this topic

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 organised religious mindset?

Isn't tolerance is a two way street?

Has it got more to do with delusional superiority complexes and bigotted insecurity?

Edited by karl 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not as strange as it seems ,or as sinister, or really as divisive. Christianity had thousands of such sites on a minor scale and may still have some. They were called cloistered monasteries. With very few excetpions only priests/monks were allowed into these and any other visitors allowed would have been devout christians.

As a young man i encountered closed places (nunneries or monasteries for women) where nuns lived, completely isolated from external life. Very few people could enter those areas.

The jewish temple, from the time of its inception as a portable tent, was only allowed to be entered by the most devout priestly caste. I have heard, but dont know if this is true that they had a rope attached to their leg, so that if they died or became unconscious they could be pulled out from the most holy part of the temple without anyone else having to enter it. In many melanesian/polynesian societies there are houses for menstruating women and no one else is allowed in them.

In at least one such culture there was a house where, if you broke one of the taboos punishable by death, you could find refuge. You had to stay there for a lengthy period of time to ensure your safety and evidence that any "curse" resulting from your actions had worn off.

Alll these restrictions are based on beliefs, and particular rationalisations within those beliefs. If a religion/group believes a most holy place should only be accesible to that group, this seems reasonable. After all, it is their belief which has made the place holy and thus to a non believer access should not really matter one way or another. Its a bit like the forbidden fruit. Even if we dont like the taste, we want to try it just because its forbidden.

Apart from the laws and sanctions involved, its a bit rude and ignorant to try and sneak your way in, like gate-crashing a party to which you are not invited.

Australian aboriginal people have ceremonies which are restricted to groups like; initiated men, women, or totem /clan groups. Within their beliefs there are good reasons for restricting access to such ceremonies, and also to the landscapes involved with them.

I dont have the spiritual belief of an australian aboriginal person, but i would not want to encroach on a ceremony or landscape where i was not welcome. And i do not feel either threatened or excluded by this, because i can understand and respect their beliefs, while not agreeing with them.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 organised religious mindset?

Isn't tolerance is a two way street?

Has it got more to do with delusional superiority complexes and bigotted insecurity?

My question to you is, if Mecca is a Muslim holy site, why is it you feel that you need to go there so badly? It is a religious site (as you have admitted) so what reason would you (a non religious person) have to go there? The answer to that is you wouldn't have a good reason. Of course I don't think getting lost is all that bad, you shouldn't complain about it if you blatantly break a law and get punished for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would wonder how a person would know you are not a Muslim if you went to Mecca. Do you have an ID card that says, "I am Muslim, do not lynch" and if you don't produce it on request you're taken away and shot. The only conceivable way for non-Muslims to be targeted is to walk in there with a sign saying, "I am an infidel and Mohamed wears diapers". And if you're going to do that at the most holy site of Islamic Faith, then you deserve to be thrown into a Muslim jail by Muslims in a Muslim-run country. At the very least for being so disrespectful to what the millions who make the pilgrimage see as the most Holy day of their lives (every Muslim is required to make the pilgrimage at least once in their lifetime unless they are financially unable - if they have the means, they are bound to go at least once).

It is possible that there might be more scrutiny on a "westerner" who made the pilgrimage to Mecca, but with the rise of Islam in the West, I doubt it would be a major issue.

I'm not sure where this story came from about the taxi-driver who was pulled from his vehicle, but how did the crowd who lynched him know he wasn't a Muslim? Was he wearing an "I Love Jesus" T-shirt when he got out to ask directions? Do the authorities have detailed number-plates and identify Muslim and non-Muslim drivers?

The whole thing sounds a little implausible to me, unless the people advertise their non-Muslim beliefs (or perhaps anti-Muslim beliefs) which is just totally disrespectful for the millions who make what is the most holy trip in their entire lives.

Just my observation,

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm not suggesting that Muslims are alone in denying access to a sanctified place to non-believers, I would like to ask, what is sanctity? If god - in the case mentioned one of the montheistic deities and therefore presumably a 'god of everyone' whether they realise it (believers) or not (unbelievers) - is truly god then surely any place, item etc, considered 'holy' is a place for everyone.

Exclusion, in these cases, such as cloistered monasteries, the Temple in Jerusalem and Mecca, smack to me of elitism. Is this a practice demanded by the various religions involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would wonder how a person would know you are not a Muslim if you went to Mecca. Do you have an ID card that says, "I am Muslim, do not lynch" and if you don't produce it on request you're taken away and shot. The only conceivable way for non-Muslims to be targeted is to walk in there with a sign saying, "I am an infidel and Mohamed wears diapers". And if you're going to do that at the most holy site of Islamic Faith, then you deserve to be thrown into a Muslim jail by Muslims in a Muslim-run country. At the very least for being so disrespectful to what the millions who make the pilgrimage see as the most Holy day of their lives (every Muslim is required to make the pilgrimage at least once in their lifetime unless they are financially unable - if they have the means, they are bound to go at least once).

It is possible that there might be more scrutiny on a "westerner" who made the pilgrimage to Mecca, but with the rise of Islam in the West, I doubt it would be a major issue.

I'm not sure where this story came from about the taxi-driver who was pulled from his vehicle, but how did the crowd who lynched him know he wasn't a Muslim? Was he wearing an "I Love Jesus" T-shirt when he got out to ask directions? Do the authorities have detailed number-plates and identify Muslim and non-Muslim drivers?

The whole thing sounds a little implausible to me, unless the people advertise their non-Muslim beliefs (or perhaps anti-Muslim beliefs) which is just totally disrespectful for the millions who make what is the most holy trip in their entire lives.

Just my observation,

~ PA

Muslims, like Jews, have distinct clothing traditions that would make it obvious if you aren't a Muslim. Many of them do not shave their beards and/or wear turbans. That would probably be the best way. If you are clean-shaven and not wearing a turban they probably ask about you.

While I'm not suggesting that Muslims are alone in denying access to a sanctified place to non-believers, I would like to ask, what is sanctity? If god - in the case mentioned one of the montheistic deities and therefore presumably a 'god of everyone' whether they realise it (believers) or not (unbelievers) - is truly god then surely any place, item etc, considered 'holy' is a place for everyone.

Exclusion, in these cases, such as cloistered monasteries, the Temple in Jerusalem and Mecca, smack to me of elitism. Is this a practice demanded by the various religions involved?

As far as the Temple, it "shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples" (Isaiah 56). However, there are some parts (like in the inner sanctuary) where only certain people are allowed. It's not a matter of elitism but of observance. If you're not as observant and are less involved, it would be disrespectful for you to enter that holy place in such a condition. Elitism is elevating a certain group to a point that no one else can get to. It isn't elitism if everyone can reach that point if they want to. If you're non-religious and want to go to a religious place that is forbidden to non-religious people, then the owners of the place aren't being elitists because you could always become religious if you really wanna go there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as the Temple, it "shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples" (Isaiah 56). However, there are some parts (like in the inner sanctuary) where only certain people are allowed. It's not a matter of elitism but of observance. If you're not as observant and are less involved, it would be disrespectful for you to enter that holy place in such a condition. Elitism is elevating a certain group to a point that no one else can get to. It isn't elitism if everyone can reach that point if they want to. If you're non-religious and want to go to a religious place that is forbidden to non-religious people, then the owners of the place aren't being elitists because you could always become religious if you really wanna go there.

I'm sorry, HaParash, but 'disrespectful' implies those who enter the areas are 'worthy of respect' and this is elitism.

What you are forgetting is that god didn't make these rules, people did. People, of course, will say that god made these rules, but people will say what they want.

If something is of god, it should be of god for everyone, and not just some who think they are somehow more 'holy' than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, HaParash, but 'disrespectful' implies those who enter the areas are 'worthy of respect' and this is elitism.

What you are forgetting is that god didn't make these rules, people did. People, of course, will say that god made these rules, but people will say what they want.

If something is of god, it should be of god for everyone, and not just some who think they are somehow more 'holy' than others.

Clubs have dress standards and if you aren't wearing the right pants and collared shirt, or if said clothes are dirty, they have the right to exclude you on the basis of the clothes you wear. Is this being "disrespectful" to "exclude" certain members from the club on basis of what they wear? Does this imply that those that are allowed in are thus "worthy of respect"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, HaParash, but 'disrespectful' implies those who enter the areas are 'worthy of respect' and this is elitism.

What you are forgetting is that god didn't make these rules, people did. People, of course, will say that god made these rules, but people will say what they want.

If something is of god, it should be of god for everyone, and not just some who think they are somehow more 'holy' than others.

It doesn't matter who made the rule. If I were to own property and I were to place conditions on that property, then it would be perfectly fair.

Ok, so let's say that we are implying that those who enter are "worthy of respect". Elitism is only elitism if other people aren't able to reach the point your at. If you can reach the point where you're "worthy of respect" then we're not being elitist. It's like a hospital saying "you can't come into the operating room unless you're a surgeon". Would it be elitist for the hospital to say that? Or would it just be having standards for that which is considered important. A non-religious person's lack of respect of something isn't validation for that person to go and be rude and intruding. I mean, just as a person could become a surgeon and gain entry to the operating room, so could a person become religious and gain entrance into the religious site. People these days have no sense of property or respect for other people or their things and (quite frankly) it's disgusting. People think they should be allowed to do whatever the hell "makes them happy" and God forbid anyone should tell them no.

Besides, why would a religious person want to go to a religious site? What difference does it make?

Edited by ~HaParash~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't non muslims go to mecca?

I think the reason is, a non muslim westerner might be able to point out- it's not a 'holy magic rock from god' but in fact a meteorite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why can't non muslims go to mecca?

I think the reason is, a non muslim westerner might be able to point out- it's not a 'holy magic rock from god' but in fact a meteorite.

Just curious, but do you actually know why Mecca is sacred to the Islamic people? By this comment, it sounds like you do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I'm not suggesting that Muslims are alone in denying access to a sanctified place to non-believers, I would like to ask, what is sanctity? If god - in the case mentioned one of the montheistic deities and therefore presumably a 'god of everyone' whether they realise it (believers) or not (unbelievers) - is truly god then surely any place, item etc, considered 'holy' is a place for everyone.

Exclusion, in these cases, such as cloistered monasteries, the Temple in Jerusalem and Mecca, smack to me of elitism. Is this a practice demanded by the various religions involved?

I am with you on this ,the Muslims are forever saying there is only one God ,so the God that other religions worship must be the same one ,So why would God exclude anyone from the holy place .? It is a man made rule in my opinion with no logic behind it and does smack of elitism as you said

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clubs have dress standards and if you aren't wearing the right pants and collared shirt, or if said clothes are dirty, they have the right to exclude you on the basis of the clothes you wear. Is this being "disrespectful" to "exclude" certain members from the club on basis of what they wear? Does this imply that those that are allowed in are thus "worthy of respect"?

If you wish to consider religion as being a club, PA, then I would agree with you. You might wish to assess what a club actually is though in light of making this (implied) analogy. As far as I am aware, clubs are only clubs because they promote exclusivity.

It doesn't matter who made the rule. If I were to own property and I were to place conditions on that property, then it would be perfectly fair.

Ok, so let's say that we are implying that those who enter are "worthy of respect". Elitism is only elitism if other people aren't able to reach the point your at. If you can reach the point where you're "worthy of respect" then we're not being elitist. It's like a hospital saying "you can't come into the operating room unless you're a surgeon". Would it be elitist for the hospital to say that? Or would it just be having standards for that which is considered important. A non-religious person's lack of respect of something isn't validation for that person to go and be rude and intruding. I mean, just as a person could become a surgeon and gain entry to the operating room, so could a person become religious and gain entrance into the religious site. People these days have no sense of property or respect for other people or their things and (quite frankly) it's disgusting. People think they should be allowed to do whatever the hell "makes them happy" and God forbid anyone should tell them no.

Besides, why would a religious person want to go to a religious site? What difference does it make?

So, HaParash, the Temple inner sanctum is not a place of God, but a place belonging to Jews?

I didn't bother to correct your definition of elitism before, but I will have to as you insist on stating it only applies in the case of an actual ability. Elitism is exlcusion based on perceived superiority, it has nothing to do with actual ability or knowledge etc. As with PA's club analogy, your surgeon analogy is false because, for one, it is not only a surgeon who is allowed into an operating theatre and, secondly, a surgeon is allowed to practice based on recognised ability and knowledge - not on perceived superiority.

Now, you are the only person bringing the subject of disrespect in to the discussion. Why is it disrespectful to admire places of worship? I have been to many cathedrals, a mosque or two and other places where religious worship has taken place and I can appreciate the places as being worthy of admiration without believing in the religion those who frequent them practice. As for the rest of your exclamations, I can only suggest you calm down as you appear to be over-reacting. Perhaps aggression and bluster is your only defence in the face of reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May Peace Be On You...

Ever heard of Cantonment Area?

A Civilian is not allowed there in many cases...

Same goes for Mecca, Non-Muslims cannot go there, it's a sacred place which has it's own respects which must be fulfilled, and it might be possible that non-Muslims might not be able to fulfill these...

You have to qualify certain requirements to be there and being a believer (as per Islam) is the requirement. You can understand it like this: not all civilians are allowed in some cantonment areas or high security areas. You need a certain permit to be there. Its the same with Mecca. In this case the permit is being a Muslim. Also please note that Mecca as a city has no significance. The only significance is the presence of Haram (or Kaaba) over there. So what would a non muslim want to do there? Kaaba is not a touristic site. Its a place of worship. If someone does not worship God, then why does he want to waste time being there?

Hope that helps...

Regards Zeeshan ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May Peace Be On You...

Ever heard of Cantonment Area?

A Civilian is not allowed there in many cases...

Same goes for Mecca, Non-Muslims cannot go there, it's a sacred place which has it's own respects which must be fulfilled, and it might be possible that non-Muslims might not be able to fulfill these...

You have to qualify certain requirements to be there and being a believer (as per Islam) is the requirement. You can understand it like this: not all civilians are allowed in some cantonment areas or high security areas. You need a certain permit to be there. Its the same with Mecca. In this case the permit is being a Muslim. Also please note that Mecca as a city has no significance. The only significance is the presence of Haram (or Kaaba) over there. So what would a non muslim want to do there? Kaaba is not a touristic site. Its a place of worship. If someone does not worship God, then why does he want to waste time being there?

Hope that helps...

Regards Zeeshan ;)

I understand the rules and the reasons, Zeeshan, and I understand also that these are human rules and reasons - not the rules and reasons of god. My question was not why people have such rules, but why god would?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand the rules and the reasons, Zeeshan, and I understand also that these are human rules and reasons - not the rules and reasons of god. My question was not why people have such rules, but why god would?

It's nice to hear that you understand that, Leonardo.

Pagans Forbidden from Visiting the Ka'bah

Towards the end of that year, an order was issued prohibiting non-believers from entering the Ka'bah or performing idolatrous rites and degrading ceremonies of their cults within its sacred precincts.

It is recorded that first Abu Bakr was sent with Chapter Al­ Bara'ah to proclaim it before the pagans. But Gabriel said to the Holy Prophet:

"Except for the person who is from thy own house, nobody can ably preach it."

So he called 'Ali and charged him with the duty of preaching the relevant ayats of Al-Bara'ah. Abu Bakr, therefore, returned to the Prophet and asked him:

"O Messenger of Allah! Did you receive any decree from Allah against me?"

The Prophet replied by saying:

"No, but the Lord ordered that either I or someone from my own house should preach it."

At the time of the pilgrimage, this proclamation was read out by'Ali:

"No idolater shall after this year perform the pilgrimage; no one shall circle (the Ka'bah) naked. Whoever has a treaty with the Prophet, it shall continue to be binding till its termination. For the rest, four months are allowed to everyone to return to his territories. Thereafter, there will be no obligation on the Prophet except towards those with whom treaties have been concluded."

Source : http://www.al-islam.org/lifeprophet/22.htm

Here's what i found.

In other cases 'People of the Book' (Jews and Christians) might be allowed in the 'City' of Mecca but shouldn't perform Hajj...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am with you on this ,the Muslims are forever saying there is only one God ,so the God that other religions worship must be the same one ,So why would God exclude anyone from the holy place .? It is a man made rule in my opinion with no logic behind it and does smack of elitism as you said

Actually, I recall being instructed by a Muslim here that I misspoke when I referred to someone "converting" to Islam. Nobody converts to Islam, I was told, everybody already is Muslim, but some don't know it yet.

So... we all get to go to Mecca, right? I can wear a turban and skip the shave.

Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 organised religious mindset?

Isn't tolerance is a two way street?

Has it got more to do with delusional superiority complexes and bigotted insecurity?

Here's the rational Answer, Mecca was a pagan place of worship, people travelled from all round to pay homage (money gifts etc.) to the meteorite and other idols i.e. moon god Allah and is daughters, some 40 year old guy called Mohammed wanted some of the action, so he made up his own cult, no one was interested and still paid homage to the idols, so Mohammed got rid of the Idols, one of those in the islam franchise: "Mo no one's turning up to pay homage" Mo: "why's that then" Franchise holder: "they say theirs nothing to worship"

Mo: "what did you do with that black stone thingy" franchise holder "it's propping my back door open" Mo: "well put it on show, tell them they can come and worship it only if they become Muhammedans" that's why you have to be a muslim to enter mecca.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you wish to consider religion as being a club, PA, then I would agree with you. You might wish to assess what a club actually is though in light of making this (implied) analogy. As far as I am aware, clubs are only clubs because they promote exclusivity.

So, HaParash, the Temple inner sanctum is not a place of God, but a place belonging to Jews?

I didn't bother to correct your definition of elitism before, but I will have to as you insist on stating it only applies in the case of an actual ability. Elitism is exlcusion based on perceived superiority, it has nothing to do with actual ability or knowledge etc. As with PA's club analogy, your surgeon analogy is false because, for one, it is not only a surgeon who is allowed into an operating theatre and, secondly, a surgeon is allowed to practice based on recognised ability and knowledge - not on perceived superiority.

Now, you are the only person bringing the subject of disrespect in to the discussion. Why is it disrespectful to admire places of worship? I have been to many cathedrals, a mosque or two and other places where religious worship has taken place and I can appreciate the places as being worthy of admiration without believing in the religion those who frequent them practice. As for the rest of your exclamations, I can only suggest you calm down as you appear to be over-reacting. Perhaps aggression and bluster is your only defence in the face of reason?

How is it perceived superiority? It's just a matter of some people are a certain way and other people are another way. I would venture to say that superiority doesn't even come into the picture. It has nothing to do with being better or superior. It's just a matter of what is considered holy and what isn't. In my opinion, something isn't elitist if everyone can gain it. It isn't elitist of me to only like people who are in good shape, because everyone can attain good shape. It's not something that's exclusive.

I suppose that my frustration with this topic is more for the fact that the OP seems to think that he/she should have a right to Mecca, and in my opinion that's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the rational Answer, Mecca was a pagan place of worship, people travelled from all round to pay homage (money gifts etc.) to the meteorite and other idols i.e. moon god Allah and is daughters, some 40 year old guy called Mohammed wanted some of the action, so he made up his own cult, no one was interested and still paid homage to the idols, so Mohammed got rid of the Idols, one of those in the islam franchise: "Mo no one's turning up to pay homage" Mo: "why's that then" Franchise holder: "they say theirs nothing to worship"

Mo: "what did you do with that black stone thingy" franchise holder "it's propping my back door open" Mo: "well put it on show, tell them they can come and worship it only if they become Muhammedans" that's why you have to be a muslim to enter mecca.

I would not accept such things...It's pure fun...

Isn't this man breaking the rules here>?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you wish to consider religion as being a club, PA, then I would agree with you. You might wish to assess what a club actually is though in light of making this (implied) analogy. As far as I am aware, clubs are only clubs because they promote exclusivity.
It would depend on your definition of "religion", but to an extent (not completely, but an extent), I agree that it is a "club". From a purely Christian point of view, there isn't an "organisation" that defines who or what a Christian is, but there are certain things all Christians adhere to and agree as right. Christianity doesn't believe in a super-holy place in the same way that Muslims or Jews do. But Mecca is a very important part of Islamic history. Contrary to the ridiculing nature of some of the posts in this thread, Mecca is not about some piece of rock, but rather it is considered the birthplace of Islam. It has its place in history and is revered by over a billion people worldwide.

Something that has not been addressed in this thread that I think needs to be addressed is the time of year in which entry into Mecca is forbidden. Is it all-year round, or just during the Hajj when pilgrims make their way to the sacred site? I don't know the laws, so it could be the former, but I have a slight suspicion that it is only during the holy pilgrimage. Why? It is simple - millions of Muslims descend on Mecca during the festival. It (making a pilgrimage) is one of the 5 pillars of Islam (ie, it MUST be made by those who believe). The only thing to stop someone is financial inability. If it is possible to make the journey, it is a religious duty to make the journey. Many Muslims take it further and make the pilgrimage every year. As a result, there are literally millions of people who want to make the Holy Pilgrimage every single year. But the Holy City is not big enough for all. If the site is filled with non-believers, then those who make a spiritual journey are left on the outer because there is no room. For those who are making a once-in-a-lifetime journey in particular, this is the time when they fulfil their vows to Islam and visit the Holy City, and if there is no room, then they can not ever fulfil the wishes of their religious beliefs.

Making laws to ensure it possible for all Muslim pilgrims to enter Mecca during their pilgrimage is sensible. It is not restrictive to non-Muslims, but rather a helpful action to aid those Muslims who make the trip from all over the globe.

For the record, I completely disagree with the idea of exclusivity as the existence of clubs. My local RSL (Returned Serviceman's League) allows everyone. But out of respect for the type of club it is, certain clothing must be worn. You can't wear open-footwear (unless you're a woman, in which case heels are ok). You can't wear torn clothes, dirty clothes, or clothes with offensive logos on them. This is all out of respect for those who died in war to keep us free, and for those who came back. I don't think of that as exclusivity, and I can't see how being respectful is simply a euphemism of exclusivity. Respect is something that we give those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country (even if they come back alive, war is something I cannot conceive and so I can only imagine how it would change people).

Just a few thoughts to consider,

Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it perceived superiority? It's just a matter of some people are a certain way and other people are another way. I would venture to say that superiority doesn't even come into the picture. It has nothing to do with being better or superior. It's just a matter of what is considered holy and what isn't. In my opinion, something isn't elitist if everyone can gain it. It isn't elitist of me to only like people who are in good shape, because everyone can attain good shape. It's not something that's exclusive.

I suppose that my frustration with this topic is more for the fact that the OP seems to think that he/she should have a right to Mecca, and in my opinion that's ridiculous.

Does Judaism not say everyone can gain the blessing of eternal life? Even if they are not Jews themselves? One does not have to consciously be a follower of the 7 Noahide commandments to be 'saved' according to Judaism.

So why, then, if god is so accommodating, are the priests of god not so? I can answer my question for you if you wish, but you won't like the answer.

Your opinion of what elitism means does not change what elitism is, the actual meaning of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter who made the rule. If I were to own property and I were to place conditions on that property, then it would be perfectly fair.

Ok, so let's say that we are implying that those who enter are "worthy of respect". Elitism is only elitism if other people aren't able to reach the point your at. If you can reach the point where you're "worthy of respect" then we're not being elitist. It's like a hospital saying "you can't come into the operating room unless you're a surgeon". Would it be elitist for the hospital to say that? Or would it just be having standards for that which is considered important. A non-religious person's lack of respect of something isn't validation for that person to go and be rude and intruding. I mean, just as a person could become a surgeon and gain entry to the operating room, so could a person become religious and gain entrance into the religious site. People these days have no sense of property or respect for other people or their things and (quite frankly) it's disgusting. People think they should be allowed to do whatever the hell "makes them happy" and God forbid anyone should tell them no.

Besides, why would a religious person want to go to a religious site? What difference does it make?

Click:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_s..._attacks_s.html

Heres the actual definition of 'bigoted' to aid discussion:

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

I think you are failing to address the crux of the matter and actualy avoiding it.

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.

Edited by karl 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would depend on your definition of "religion", but to an extent (not completely, but an extent), I agree that it is a "club". From a purely Christian point of view, there isn't an "organisation" that defines who or what a Christian is, but there are certain things all Christians adhere to and agree as right. Christianity doesn't believe in a super-holy place in the same way that Muslims or Jews do. But Mecca is a very important part of Islamic history. Contrary to the ridiculing nature of some of the posts in this thread, Mecca is not about some piece of rock, but rather it is considered the birthplace of Islam. It has its place in history and is revered by over a billion people worldwide.

Something that has not been addressed in this thread that I think needs to be addressed is the time of year in which entry into Mecca is forbidden. Is it all-year round, or just during the Hajj when pilgrims make their way to the sacred site? I don't know the laws, so it could be the former, but I have a slight suspicion that it is only during the holy pilgrimage. Why? It is simple - millions of Muslims descend on Mecca during the festival. It (making a pilgrimage) is one of the 5 pillars of Islam (ie, it MUST be made by those who believe). The only thing to stop someone is financial inability. If it is possible to make the journey, it is a religious duty to make the journey. Many Muslims take it further and make the pilgrimage every year. As a result, there are literally millions of people who want to make the Holy Pilgrimage every single year. But the Holy City is not big enough for all. If the site is filled with non-believers, then those who make a spiritual journey are left on the outer because there is no room. For those who are making a once-in-a-lifetime journey in particular, this is the time when they fulfil their vows to Islam and visit the Holy City, and if there is no room, then they can not ever fulfil the wishes of their religious beliefs.

Making laws to ensure it possible for all Muslim pilgrims to enter Mecca during their pilgrimage is sensible. It is not restrictive to non-Muslims, but rather a helpful action to aid those Muslims who make the trip from all over the globe.

For the record, I completely disagree with the idea of exclusivity as the existence of clubs. My local RSL (Returned Serviceman's League) allows everyone. But out of respect for the type of club it is, certain clothing must be worn. You can't wear open-footwear (unless you're a woman, in which case heels are ok). You can't wear torn clothes, dirty clothes, or clothes with offensive logos on them. This is all out of respect for those who died in war to keep us free, and for those who came back. I don't think of that as exclusivity, and I can't see how being respectful is simply a euphemism of exclusivity. Respect is something that we give those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country (even if they come back alive, war is something I cannot conceive and so I can only imagine how it would change people).

Just a few thoughts to consider,

Regards,

Would agree with you :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.