• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Inside Mecca

Their country, their laws. Maybe if you want Saudi Arabia to support human rights you should stop buying their oil.
Alas that would be impossible at the moment so your suggestion really just a wisecrack.

The laws barring entry of non-Muslims have existed before the declaration of human rights, so that argument is not really valid to me. Kind of reminds me of "Christian scientists" who claim that the Bible contains scientific evidence, even though scripture pre-dates the rise of science.
Or people wanting to make Israel adhere to the NPT when they had nukes before there was an NPT.

I'm okay with any religion having rules for its sacred ground.
And since No other religion has such giant 'sacred grounds' your disingenuous statement is really just endorsing Islam's.
 
Last edited:
And since No other religion has such giant 'sacred grounds' your disingenuous statement is really just endorsing One religion.

It is not my fault that other believers in religions have allowed their sacred spots to be opened up as entertainment.
If they banned me, I'd understand it and abide by it.

I think that allowing a sacred space to become a tourist attraction is considered a violation of the commitment to maintain it as sacred imo.
But I know Christians and Jews do not forbid entry to Non- ... that is their choice.
 
What is wrong with the image?

Mecca is not a tourist spot. Non Muslims have no need to enter it, it means nothing to them.

It is plain weird to have a place, where only Muslims can go. Why exclude others... But, I am making the mistake again, of trying to see a point in religious practices. Most religious practices are a far cry from what their prophets taught. A central part of what the profit Mohammad taught was that all are equal and entitled to equality. One has to wonder what the point of religions are, when what the prophets taught is so widely ignored by their followers.
 
Alas that would be impossible at the moment so your suggestion really just a wisecrack.

No actually it's not. Saudi Arabia has one of the worst humanitarian records in the world yet they receive full U.S. support, just because you need their oil. So don't blab on about human rights when your country is fully complicit in denying them.

Or people wanting to make Israel to the NPT when they had nukes before there was an NPT.

You're comparing nuclear security to people not being allowed to enter religious ground? If Israel has nukes it affects the security of the entire Middle East, and beyond. Unless you can prove that Mecca's rules are creating a security dilemma for the rest of the world en par with nuclear weapons, I'll assume this was just a wisecrack.

And since No other religion has such giant 'sacred grounds' your disingenuous statement is really just endorsing One religion.

You are wrong, but that's not surprising. I visited Pashiputinath last summer, in Nepal. It is the biggest Hindu temple in the sub-continent and one of the most sacred. Non-Hindus cannot enter and it is also a pilgrimmage site. In fact, many major Hindu centres do not allow non-Hindus to enter their sacred ground.

Like I said, I respect any religion's right to sacred ground from outsiders, and I'm not just isolating Muslims. It is their faith and their rules, and more importantly it is their country's sovereign right to allow such behavior.

Your attempt to turn this into a cause against Islam is a miserable FAIL.
 
It is plain weird to have a place, where only Muslims can go. Why exclude others... But, I am making the mistake again, of trying to see a point in religious practices. Most religious practices are a far cry from what their prophets taught. A central part of what the profit Mohammad taught was that all are equal and entitled to equality. One has to wonder what the point of religions are, when what the prophets taught is so widely ignored by their followers.

Equality to what?
Destroy the holiness of a city for the pleasure of those who do not respect it for what it is? Understand it for what it means to Muslims?

If I went to Jerusalem and approached the wailing wall and started taking pictures next to religious Jews who were attempting to pray. They'd find it insulting and rightly so.
When I go Mecca, it will be a place for me to be surrounded by my own faith, in spirituality that comes with it. The understanding of the purpose of being there.
It is a once in a lifetime opportunity for every Muslim, Mecca and Medina are there for a religious purpose. Not for tourism.
 
Last edited:
I think that allowing a sacred space to become a tourist attraction is considered a violation of the commitment to maintain it as sacred imo.

The more opulent the sacred place, the more blood that was spilled to pay for it. Those places should be made into human rights museums, out of respect for those who died for the sake of having them gold gilded, marble floored... etc. They should tell us the real story of how they came about. Without this suffering, they likely would not be spectacular enough to attract the usual camera wielding tourist, anyway, and those who really want to get in touch with their spiritual side would be left in peace and quiet to do so.
 
The more opulent the sacred place, the more blood that was spilled to pay for it. Those places should be made into human rights museums, out of respect for those who died for the sake of having them gold gilded, marble floored... etc. They should tell us the real story of how they came about. Without this suffering, they likely would not be spectacular enough to attract the usual camera wielding tourist, anyway, and those who really want to get in touch with their spiritual side would be left in peace and quiet to do so.

Mecca's history is understood by those who worship there, there is no need to open it up.

You never know, perhaps one day Saudi Arabia will change its mind.
 
Actually, now that I think about it, there have been many Buddhist places I visited in southeast Asia and Tibet where they do not allow you to enter their sacred temples and monasteries. So even the "peaceful religion" has its rules on sacred ground.

The argument put forward is that Mecca is a city and not en par to a temple, but I think it is en par. If you've seen footage and images of mecca, the whole thing is one giant place of worship. Just because it is bigger doesn't mean it lacks the equivalent function of a smaller, sacred space. Most of the people attending are not from there, but are pilgrims.
 
'' Understand it for what it means to Muslims?''
The muslims should respect me as a women. I do not receive respect, when I visit islamic countries, let alone visit the mosques there. In fact, they treat women with such discrimination that I cringe at the idea of visiting a mosque, where it is even worse, in the God, Allah or whatever. It seems to me that Allah is constantly displeased by women being present anywhere near him(if it is a him) and barely tolerates them in the holy places, according to what his 'followers' say anyway. About time that crap stopped and that hateful religion is assigned to history.
 
Actually, now that I think about it, there have been many Buddhist places I visited in southeast Asia and Tibet where they do not allow you to enter their sacred temples and monasteries. So even the "peaceful religion" has its rules on sacred ground.
And those are often far from pleasant either with their signs about ladies not being allowed in, or ladies not being allowed near the main alter, or ladies who are menstruating are not allowed in because they are dirty... It is a disgusting brainwashing way to legitimise hate.
 
It's a discrimination based on religion, and hence is a violation of the universal declaration of human rights and the freedom of movement.
Though I do agree with you that it's not a big deal due to the fact that no one besides Muslims really cares about that place, and due to the fact that this is far from being the biggest human rights violation in Suadia.

would you say the same thing if it was a health club and it didn't let non member in?
 
If you've seen footage and images of mecca, the whole thing is one giant place of worship. Just because it is bigger doesn't mean it lacks the equivalent function of a smaller, sacred space.

People assume Hajj is just the mosque and black stone but it is not.

Pilgrims are obliged to perform several rituals, including walking seven times around the Ka'bah shrine. They must also visit holy places outside Mecca and sacrifice an animal in honor of Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac and then after all the rituals they return to Mecca and perform a farewell circling of the shrine.

The hajj is a series of extensively detailed rituals which is rigorous. Special garment worn that symbolizes unity and modesty, the symbolic stoning of evil, pilgrimage to the plain of Arafat, some ten miles from Mecca, where the pilgrim is required to be completely alone with God performing the rite of wuquf or “standing.” (where Prophet Muhammad addressed his followers during his last pilgrimage)

After all of these rituals are observed, traditionally a visit to the Prophet's Mosque in Medina.

The entire city (or two) are used in Hajj.
 
Last edited:
And those are often far from pleasant either with their signs about ladies not being allowed in, or ladies not being allowed near the main alter, or ladies who are menstruating are not allowed in because they are dirty... It is a disgusting brainwashing way to legitimise hate.

I understand the feminist viewpoint of religion but respectfully I do not think it is relevant to this particular thread. People are arguing that Mecca should be opened to tourism and failing to do so is some kind of international violation. Although I am sympathetic to what you are talking about, your arguments are hardly new. Women have had issues with male-dominated religion for most of recorded history and that is unlikely to change.
 
You never know, perhaps one day Saudi Arabia will change its mind.

Even if they do, you wont be allowed to go there without a man, if you are a women under 30 years old. Saudi Arabia seems to think it is stepping into the modern world by lightening up its tourist laws, in the last year, but it is still nowhere near world standards of human rights. And, religion is frequently given as the excuse for this.
 
Even if they do, you wont be allowed to go there without a man, if you are a women under 30 years old. Saudi Arabia seems to think it is stepping into the modern world by lightening up its tourist laws, in the last year, but it is still nowhere near world standards of human rights. And, religion is frequently given as the excuse for this.

So?
I have no problem with it as a Muslim women.
Why should a Non Muslim have a say in the rules?

If you ever are allowed to visit Mecca. Follow the rules or don't come.
 
I understand the feminist viewpoint of religion but respectfully I do not think it is relevant to this particular thread. People are arguing that Mecca should be opened to tourism and failing to do so is some kind of international violation. Although I am sympathetic to what you are talking about, your arguments are hardly new. Women have had issues with male-dominated religion for most of recorded history and that is unlikely to change.

Well, your dismissive attitude is not respectful, so why include the word respectfully in your post. And, women are relevant to any discussion about religion, because religion is supposed to cater for the spiritual needs of all human beings.

IT IS AN INTERNATIONAL VIOLATION, IF GROUPS ARE EXCLUDED!! You dont see the point in inclusion of any non muslims, let alone women.

Sympathetic, my arse. You are dismissing womens issues completely, with light weight cliches such as ''women have issues''. You couldnt give a toss about human rights standards as far as I can see.
 
Sympathetic, my arse. You are dismissing womens issues completely, with light weight cliches such as ''women have issues''. You couldnt give a toss about human rights standards as far as I can see.

I could give a toss of what you are saying.
That is not what this topic is about.

If you wish to have a good complaint about how horrible religion is to women. Make another thread.
 
Well, your dismissive attitude is not respectful, so why include the word respectfully in your post. And, women are relevant to any discussion about religion, because religion is supposed to cater for the spiritual needs of all human beings.

IT IS AN INTERNATIONAL VIOLATION, IF GROUPS ARE EXCLUDED!! You dont see the point in inclusion of any non muslims, let alone women.

Sympathetic, my arse. You are dismissing womens issues completely, with light weight cliches such as ''women have issues''. You couldnt give a toss about human rights standards as far as I can see.

You are now trolling and I've reported your post. I will not respond to anything further that you say.
 
''I have no problem with it as a Muslim women.''

Well, that is no new thing. In western countries, most women also hid under the kitchen table while others stood up for their rights. Then when those rights became normal and accepted, they came out to claim them. It doesnt stop them bashing the feminists though, whom they claim have nothing to do with them, but they dont either want to give up their hard won rights and step back 200 years.

It is shameful and cowardly, when women dont support their own rights to equality. For sure, there are circumstances where it would be dangerous to do so openly, but for a women to actually dismiss the need for womens rights, when she is under not threat... If I was to be kind, I would say it is based on fear, of being lashed with the same negativity that the feminists are constandly being lashed with, despite the level of success they have experienced and the benefits to women in general. I try to be understanding of the under the kitchen table women, but it is patience trying.

End anti human rights, in the name of Islam NOW! Mecca IS a tourist attraction, because anything that violates human rights standards should be invalidated.
 
Oh just be quiet already with your whining about women's lib in Islam and in general.

Stay on topic ... which is once again, MECCA.

Edit: Oh and lol at 'kitchen table women'
 
Oh just be quiet already with your whining about women's lib in Islam.

Stay on topic ... which is once again, MECCA.

Just don't engage. I've reported him/her.
 
Just don't engage. I've reported him/her.

I don't think there is anything else about Mecca we can discuss.
Unless you have any questions about Hajj or Mecca?
 
Oh just be quiet already
I will say as much as I want. This is not Saudi Arabia.

''women's lib in Islam.''
There is No womens lib, in Islam. Islamic rules are something that were somewhat appropriate 2000 years ago, but in todays world they are barbaric and little or nothing to do with spirituality. Muslims for this reason, should NOT have a right to cordon off a so called holy city and claim that only muslims can enter it. And, if you dont want to look at the womens situation in Saudi Arabia, then take a look at the discrimination against those of any other religion there, besides the 'right' one.
 
Unless you have any questions about Hajj or Mecca?
So, you are now a self proclimed expert, who is going to answer the questions? Do you have any questions yourself, to ask me? Probably not. Religious 'teachings' are not called dogma for no reason. Those who are heavily religious respect the religion by being dogmatic about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom