Why can't non muslims go to mecca?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Though to be fair, Karl, there is a difference between "not allowing anyone of any belief other than Muslim" into a building, compared to "allowing everyone except Muslims" into a different location. One allows only one type, the other forbids only one type. I think there is a very big difference between these. I would also think that my previous comment on the pilgrimage to Mecca having preference would also apply, but as I said, i don't know the issue well enough.

All the best,

[Leonardo]

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,

PA,

I never said respect was a euphemism for exclusive, in fact it was religious people who suggested the idea that a non-religious person visiting a 'holy' shrine would be disrespectful - I never made any link prior to that between religion and respect. You then made hthis a link to clubs - and would respectfully suggest your RSL is, as you say, a different 'type' of club. Saying that, I am not a person who thinks the clothes make the man or woman. Actions count for me and if a person dressed in clothing as you described acted in a respectful way I would have no issue with that.

With all your, rather vague and tangential, defending of this idea of a non-religious person visiting a holy shrine or place you have not actually voiced a clear opinion. I respect you might not desire to indicate clearly so, but your action of defending the religious perspective implies you think that, if a non-religious person was to go to Mecca, or go into the Inner Sanctum of the Jerusalem Temple, you would consider this a sign of disrespect? Could you inform me who is being disrespected? Is it God, or is it those people who make up rules in God's name?

Edited October 19, 2008 by Leonardo

[oldvariant42]

Rather it's the respect of that Holy Shrine being blemished...

Islam's concept of Cleanliness demands proper instructions as prescribed in Hadith and Qur'an.

A person who is a non-Muslim and doesn't know those values and haven't performed them would be blemishing the respect of that Shrine...

In Islam, Only 'Masjidul-Haram' in Mecca and 'Masjid-e-Nabwi' in Medina is the place which demands such respect...

[Omnaka]

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?

You cannot see the inner temple of The Morman's If you are not A Morman, or found worthy by The Mormans.

If one is not a Muslim, why would he want to visit a Muslim shrine?

Not that it matters, I would rather Go someplace I was welcomed in Love which Is not Bias Or predgiduice, as The God I know Is not Bias or Predjiduice, and Love's all unconditionally.

The temple is in Here *Points To Heart*.

Love Omnaka

[karl 12]

Rather it's the respect of that Holy Shrine being blemished...

Islam's concept of Cleanliness demands proper instructions as prescribed in Hadith and Qur'an.

A person who is a non-Muslim and doesn't know those values and haven't performed them would be blemishing the respect of that Shrine...

In Islam, Only 'Masjidul-Haram' in Mecca and 'Masjid-e-Nabwi' in Medina is the place which demands such respect...

Your use of the excuse of it being a `holy site` is an interesting one.

Is it then not only 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 highly 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.

[eight bits]

Islam's concept of Cleanliness demands proper instructions as prescribed in Hadith and Qur'an.

Surely you are not suggesting that my hygiene is so poor that I could not wash myself if you instructed me in the ritual requirements.

I am of two minds about excluding people because of their religion. In any case, I have no vote in Saudi Arabia, and to speak of human rights in connection with that country is a waste of breath.

However, if it is in fact an error to speak of "converting" to Islam, then on what basis am I being excluded from Mecca, provided that I respect the dress and cleanliness requirements like everybody else there?

[Dakotabre]

I actually agree with you Carl, I think it is highly unfair that a group of people can expect equality and acceptance in another place, but then not let you go to one of their places.

It's got nothing to do with who makes the rules, or what religion believes what, or even if the person wishing to go does not believe in religion or not! It's a matter of the groups being hypocrites!! They demand to be treated like everyone else, yet in their own country and their own places they expect to be able to make their own rules of acceptance and treat people outside that group horribly!!

I think, and please can someone correct me if I am wrong, but it's kind of like either China or Japan.... Chinese and/or Japanese people can move to another country, and get residency and buy land/property, yet no-one else is allowed to buy property in their country. -As I said anyone feel free to correct me, as I am not sure 100% on this if it is still the rule. They expect to be treated the same as everyone else in what ever country they are in and have the same rights, but yet in a foreiner in their country doesn't get the same rights!

No I am not racist, but I don't think it's fair, that people can scream for their rights, especially the rights to be treated like everyone else, yet they also want to have their own little rules and rights that suit them, and exclude everyone else!!

[timincal]

"I can visit any other 'religious' location on the planet with no problems whatsoever."

Wrong, If you are not Mormon you are not getting inside a Mormon Tabernacle.

Try sometime.

[Mr Walker]

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?

I should go right back and check out the difference here, but certainly god might have set aside excusive areas for believers. It is more likely however that the believers set aside areas for a variety of good/legitimate reasons. The aboriginal people, as i mentioned, have areas only certain people may go for"religious" reasons. Those reasons exist because their spirituality is completely integrated into their lifestyle. All religions were once like this.

Cloistered monasteries were cloistered for practical reasons relating to the purposes of the people inside them. They wanted a life of devotion and study separated from the distractions of a worldly existence. They were entitled to that lifestly and it was reasonable that they exclude fromit those who would not observe the necessary requirements

There are many requirements for strict observance of most major faiths, including specialised hygiene, customs and clothing. It may well be a simple matter that any person not meeting those requirements might destroy the sanctity of a holy place.

If god is a construct of humanity, then "god" may well have constructed reasons for sacred places. If god is real he might have good reasons for wanting people to create exclusive sacred places for a variety of reasons, such as creating a place where certain rules and conventions apply which make contemplation/worship of him more effective.

More "primitive" cultures had a belief which i like, that there are certain areas on earth, where god is more accessible and where communication is facilitated. Alternatively the physical places may not be important, but the conditions created by the way they are respected, and how people act near them, may have the same effect.

While, in theory, these areas might be accesible to all, god could well have given instructions that only a certain type or class of people could access them, Or this might have been controlled by a religious class/group.

For example, i find it difficult to access god in a class of year 9's, all listening to different music and talking at the same time. I would exclude either them, or myself, if i wished effective contemplation/worship or comunication with god.

You ask a bit, much asking people to explain why god might make such rules. We only have writings, like the bible, and our own logic to go by. Nonetheless, given what we know about the nature of god, i see no reason why this would be unlike him, or something he would not do.

[Mr Walker]

"I can visit any other 'religious' location on the planet with no problems whatsoever."

Wrong, If you are not Mormon you are not getting inside a Mormon Tabernacle.

Try sometime.

And many aboriginal areas you would be prevented, by both australian law and commnity belief/action, from entering. You dont get something much more explicitly religious or protected than a legislated "sacred site"

[Dakotabre]

And many aboriginal areas you would be prevented, by both australian law and commnity belief/action, from entering. You dont get something much more explicitly religious or protected than a legislated "sacred site"

The aboriginals is another example of a 'group' that want fair rights, but only when it suits them. They want the same rights as the white people, claiming if they don't get it then we are racist, yet they have their own rules and rights that don't include us white people!

Again, I'm not racist, I just think that certain groups are hypocritical!!

[Bee Eff]

"I can visit any other 'religious' location on the planet with no problems whatsoever."

Wrong, If you are not Mormon you are not getting inside a Mormon Tabernacle.

Try sometime.

Temples not tabernacles, tabernacles are open to the public, temples are not.

Also, I believe the Israelite temples were off limits to gentiles.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Bee Eff

[danielost]

Temples not tabernacles, tabernacles are open to the public, temples are not.

And sometimes usually when they first open temples have an open house when anyone can go in.

[Mr Walker]

The aboriginals is another example of a 'group' that want fair rights, but only when it suits them. They want the same rights as the white people, claiming if they don't get it then we are racist, yet they have their own rules and rights that don't include us white people!

Again, I'm not racist, I just think that certain groups are hypocritical!!

Australia is one of the few self declared "multicultural"nations in the world. That means we try to encompass all cultural beliefs(although unfortunately it is sometimes reflected in blanding down cultural content to not offend anyone)

But anyway, the aboriginal(and other races) comment to your pov would probably be that equality does not mean something as simple as treating everyone the same. For example where areas of disadvantage, racially, are identified these need to be addressed.

Likewise it does not mean everyone having to fit under exactly the same laws. We have finally legally established that religious/spiritual rights have some precedent over other cutural expectations.EG sikh boys can now wear their headgear in schools even where that contravenes the schoools expectations/dress rules. i imagine the same is true for religious customs of other faiths. it is the same in a spiritual sense as allowing a blind man to take a guide dog in a taxi or restaurant when no other dogs are allowed. Under australian law not only is this allowed but it is an offence to prohibit or attempt to prohibit the access of a guide dog in such cases.

For many people their spiritual beliefs are just as important to them as a guide dog is to a blind person.'

Lets put it in even simpler terms. Does just anyone have a right to enter your own home? If not why not? Why do i not have the same right of access as say your parents or your friends?

As you answer these questions, you may come to understand why people wish to restrict access to sites of spiritual significance or attachment.

For example i would not let someone in my home who had no intrinsic value for private property or who failed to recognise my social/legal right of ownership over the things in the house.

Why should spiritual people let anyone who is not spiritual into their "homes" if there is a chance they may do harm?

( That harm may not even be physical. Some societies value spiritual property/ownership more than material property and ownership)

Edited October 20, 2008 by Mr Walker

[Dakotabre]

Australia is one of the few self declared "multicultural"nations in the world. That means we try to encompass all cultural beliefs(although unfortunately it is sometimes reflected in blanding down cultural content to not offend anyone)

But anyway, the aboriginal(and other races) comment to your pov would probably be that equality does not mean something as simple as treating everyone the same. For example where areas of disadvantage, racially, are identified these need to be addressed.

Likewise it does not mean everyone having to fit under exactly the same laws. We have finally legally established that religious/spiritual rights have some precedent over other cutural expectations.EG sikh boys can now wear their headgear in schools even where that contravenes the schoools expectations/dress rules. i imagine the same is true for religious customs of other faiths. it is the same in a spiritual sense as allowing a blind man to take a guide dog in a taxi or restaurant when no other dogs are allowed. Under australian law not only is this allowed but it is an offence to prohibit or attempt to prohibit the access of a guide dog in such cases.

For many people their spiritual beliefs are just as important to them as a guide dog is to a blind person.'

Lets put it in even simpler terms. Does just anyone have a right to enter your own home? If not why not? Why do i not have the same right of access as say your parents or your friends?

As you answer these questions, you may come to understand why people wish to restrict access to sites of spiritual significance or attachment.

For example i would not let someone in my home who had no intrinsic value for private property or who failed to recognise my social/legal right of ownership over the things in the house.

Why should spiritual people let anyone who is not spiritual into their "homes" if there is a chance they may do harm?

( That harm may not even be physical. Some societies value spiritual property/ownership more than material property and ownership)

I understand what you are saying in most of your post, however the questions you posted of 'Does just anyone have a right to enter your home?' and 'Why should spiritual people let anyone who is not spiritual into their 'homes' if there is a chance they may do harm?' If we are discussing aboriginals here, that seems to be a very interesting comment to me.

My parents both work in aboriginal communities in the outback NT. Their fences around their house are 8 feet high!! The fences have to be this high because the aboriginals of the communities just come and help themselves to whatever they want, and they see it as their 'right' to just take what they want. When one was even confronted by my dad as to why he broke into their place and stole the new 4wd tyres, the aboriginal man replied, well I needed them so I took them so now they are mine, and that is the way the people out there think, if they need something then they think they have that right to take it. So I cannot see how this is respect for person or property. They want respect yet a large number of them cannot give it!! So again that double standard applies, a group thinks they have the right to do anything they wish, yet they restrict another from doing that very same thing!!

Certain muslim groups don't respect others person or property either, so I cannot see them being worried about people harming their places as being the reason why they don't allow other people to go to their spiritual places.

If a group, whether that group have religeous, or racial or any other differences treat others a certain way for their beliefs or differences then they shouldn't complain when they are treated that same way. If you won't let me come see your place, your land, your city, your buildings, your history, then why should I let you come see mine?! As the old saying, treat others as you wish to be treated.

[3rd rock resident alien]

Why non muslim can't go? Its for their safety. They will kill non-muslim found wandering around mecca medina. If you really want to go, learn and practice their faith and rituals and all others then go to see mecca as a pilgrim. On your return tell us your story or what have you discovered being there.

[Lt_Ripley]

there are plenty of places in other religions where people even of the same faith can't go - like that church in Ethiopia which supposedly holds the Ark. Only one priest is allowed to care for it. And he's locked in with it for life. or no other woman aside from the wife of a Hasidic Rabbi can touch him ( along with alot of other do nots)

some have restrictions just for family. Like the Buddhist festival of Losar. The first day is just for family. In catholic churches one can't take communion or be buried unless cathoilc ( burial also for christians in christian churches only too ) I'm sure there are lots more out there.

Mecca is not restricted. but the Hajj is. And with all the traffic and crowds during the Hajj I don't know anyone crazy enough to want to be in Mecca during that time. How many people have been crushed by crowds ? killed by falling bridges because of weight ? The Hajj is not a place so much as it is a ceremony. A pilgrimage for muslims that must be done at least once in their lives. Other religions have ceremonies too where it would be disrespectful for anyone else to join.

[Omnaka]

I will not allow any Heavy Medal or death rock to be played On my trap kit, Have repramanded a few for trying,

It boils down to simple respect Of anothers values, while in their House.

Love Omnaka

[oldvariant42]

Surely you are not suggesting that my hygiene is so poor that I could not wash myself if you instructed me in the ritual requirements.

I am of two minds about excluding people because of their religion. In any case, I have no vote in Saudi Arabia, and to speak of human rights in connection with that country is a waste of breath.

However, if it is in fact an error to speak of "converting" to Islam, then on what basis am I being excluded from Mecca, provided that I respect the dress and cleanliness requirements like everybody else there?

That is you spiritual being, you're a Non-Muslim. the cleanliness requite the Proper faith too, i.e Islam...

Actually, once is Saudia Arabia, an attempted destruction of the inner places was carried out, but it was stopped...

At that time Non-Muslims were allowed in the outer areas of the Mosque, but after the findings that revealed several Non-Muslims were involved in the attempt, they barred them permanently....

[oldvariant42]

there are plenty of places in other religions where people even of the same faith can't go - like that church in Ethiopia which supposedly holds the Ark. Only one priest is allowed to care for it. And he's locked in with it for life. or no other woman aside from the wife of a Hasidic Rabbi can touch him ( along with alot of other do nots)

some have restrictions just for family. Like the Buddhist festival of Losar. The first day is just for family. In catholic churches one can't take communion or be buried unless cathoilc ( burial also for christians in christian churches only too ) I'm sure there are lots more out there.

Mecca is not restricted. but the Hajj is. And with all the traffic and crowds during the Hajj I don't know anyone crazy enough to want to be in Mecca during that time. How many people have been crushed by crowds ? killed by falling bridges because of weight ? The Hajj is not a place so much as it is a ceremony. A pilgrimage for muslims that must be done at least once in their lives. Other religions have ceremonies too where it would be disrespectful for anyone else to join.

Agreed with you...

[Belle.]

Mecca is not restricted. but the Hajj is.

See I thought the whole of Mecca was restricted. With checkpoints and such.

Zeeshan - (Twisted!) - you seem to know a bit about it, so is it just Hajj or the whole of Mecca?

[Mr Walker]

I understand what you are saying in most of your post, however the questions you posted of 'Does just anyone have a right to enter your home?' and 'Why should spiritual people let anyone who is not spiritual into their 'homes' if there is a chance they may do harm?' If we are discussing aboriginals here, that seems to be a very interesting comment to me.

My parents both work in aboriginal communities in the outback NT. Their fences around their house are 8 feet high!! The fences have to be this high because the aboriginals of the communities just come and help themselves to whatever they want, and they see it as their 'right' to just take what they want. When one was even confronted by my dad as to why he broke into their place and stole the new 4wd tyres, the aboriginal man replied, well I needed them so I took them so now they are mine, and that is the way the people out there think, if they need something then they think they have that right to take it. So I cannot see how this is respect for person or property. They want respect yet a large number of them cannot give it!! So again that double standard applies, a group thinks they have the right to do anything they wish, yet they restrict another from doing that very same thing!!

Certain muslim groups don't respect others person or property either, so I cannot see them being worried about people harming their places as being the reason why they don't allow other people to go to their spiritual places.

If a group, whether that group have religeous, or racial or any other differences treat others a certain way for their beliefs or differences then they shouldn't complain when they are treated that same way. If you won't let me come see your place, your land, your city, your buildings, your history, then why should I let you come see mine?! As the old saying, treat others as you wish to be treated.

That is fair comment and i dont doubt a word of it. However what principle would you rather live by/have society organised under? That we all respect others "rights" or that no one respects any but their own rights?

I appreciate that aboriginal culture is different to white culture, and I know many are bitter that so much has been taken from them, but i agree with you, it has to work both ways.

My posts pointed out that I would prefer we all respect each others cultural/spiritual values, and if mecca is sacred to one belief (muslim) then other groups should respect that. The aborginals should respect your home and property. White people should respect aboriginal cultural values.

Or the other way round. If a group of aboriginal people think your property is theres(and you disagree with this,) does that make it morally right for you to think their property is yours? No, because you have a different set of values, and should try to live by them, regardless of how others chose to live.

Person ally if iwas your parents, while accepting the rights of aboriginal peole to a comunal interpretation of aboriginal property if they couldnt leave my propert alone id withdraw my services and self from their community. If it is their land and community i guess they do have a right to expect the people who live there to abide by their values, but those who differ also have a right to withdraw their participation in the community.

I have some feeling for aboriginal people who are trying to ban all alcohol on their lands and are being resisted by white people living there. If you have to drink alcohol, you probably shouldnt live in that community, or in mecca either:)

[Lt_Ripley]

The aboriginals is another example of a 'group' that want fair rights, but only when it suits them. They want the same rights as the white people, claiming if they don't get it then we are racist, yet they have their own rules and rights that don't include us white people!

Again, I'm not racist, I just think that certain groups are hypocritical!!

lot's of places restrict. Muslims can't join the Knights of Columbus.

What about the Skull and Crossbones Society ?

I doubt Ayran Nation would admit blacks, gays , hispanics , jews ect............... anything other than white christian.

[Lt_Ripley]

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?

God wouldn't. Just as God wouldn't be concerned with any little patch of earth --- like all this fighting over Jerusalem. ridiculous. just proves what a myopic view of God religions have let alone have made God petty because of it.

[Dakotabre]

lot's of places restrict. Muslims can't join the Knights of Columbus.

What about the Skull and Crossbones Society ?

I doubt Ayran Nation would admit blacks, gays , hispanics , jews ect............... anything other than white christian.

Hi Lt Ripley

I wasn't talking about letting people 'join' groups... My issues was with groups/sect/religions/races etc who are screaming and making a fuss about it not being fair because they don't have equal rights as others, yet they themselves don't treat people equally...