Hindu stone temple to be built in Abu Dhabi by 2020

[third eye]

Personally no

People need the freedom to worship

I hate Hindus and everything about them but they should have the freedom to worship within reason

No comments on the uneducated part underlined.

What is ' within reason" ? How much is within & whats is without ?

 

[Metanoia]

Where does it end? The Saudi Arabian religious police (at its deathbed luckily and with no powers left basically) used to (some 30 years ago) to make such random checks among non-Muslim expat workers to check if they were worshipping other religions than Islam. Is that what you want to do? What you propose is a half-measure. Using your logic every singe non-Muslim should be expelled. And here we are not even talking about differences among Muslims. Jews and Christians might be people of the book but they are in the wrong. Should grave/tomb worship/veneration as done by Shia Twelvers also be banned? Should all Husseiniyas (pseudo-pagan place of worship IMO) also be destroyed in KSA? Or dubious Sufi practices in Hijaz?

1) With due apologies brother, but this is just hysterical. Idolaters can practice/worship whatever they want behind closed doors in the God given privacy of their own homes. No one here is talking about expelling or forceful conversions or any of that nonsense as it has NO BASIS in religious text or history.

2) Not all Husseinyas or tombs are a hub of practices comprising fundamental of Islam. Those that are should be closed down. Those mosques(regardless of school of thought) which teach extremism, deviancy, or any other concept which compromises the religious principles should be closed down as this has basis from the religious texts and history.

3) And this is the last time I am repeating this, not because this is my personal view but because this has basis in religious text and history, churches, synagogues etc(People of the Book, Abrahamic faiths) can not be compared to temples of idolatry. These two are different and do not compliment each other.

4) Islam is not based on my personal preferences or feelings.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

What's the big deal?
Indian rulers gave refuge to Jews and Zora strains and you see synagogues and fire temples in India. Tibetan refugees have built Buddhist temples. Of course there are tons of Churches all over too - built by British and built by Indian Christians. None of this bothers Indians - it adds to the cultural milieu.

Arabia used to be one of the most religiously diverse areas of the world in pre-Islamic times. India/South Asia (for most of its recorded history) seem to have been a tolerant place as well expect for the strange and very outdated caste system that I have no clue why is still in existence.

Don't forget that some of the oldest mosques outside of Arabia and the Arab world were built in modern-day India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_mosques

1) With due apologies brother, but this is just hysterical. Idolaters can practice/worship whatever they want behind closed doors in the God given privacy of their own homes. No one here is talking about expelling or forceful conversions or any of that nonsense as it has NO BASIS in religious text or history.

2) Not all Husseinyas or tombs are a hub of practices comprising fundamental of Islam. Those that are should be closed down. Those mosques(regardless of school of thought) which teach extremism, deviancy, or any other concept which comprises the religious principles should be closed down as this has basis from the religious texts and history.

3) And this is the last time I am repeating this, not because this is my personal view but because this has basis in religious text and history, churches, synagogues etc(People of the Book, Abrahamic faiths) can not be compared to temples of idolatry. These two are different and do not compliment each other.

4) Islam is not based on my personal preferences or feelings.

1) I see no logic in such hypocrisy then. If the society accepts the presence of non-Muslims, including their right to private worship, why can they not fund their own place of worship? They are NOT proselytizing.

2) Many unfortunately are. Yet they are accepted as "Islamic" by millions of Muslims. I would even claim that Jewish worship of God is more monotheistic than such practices.

3) I am not saying that they can be compared. I gave my own personal opinion as a private individual. I am no scholar or any religious authority, lol, nor do I want to be.

4) That we can agree with but Islam, like anything else, can be interpreted differently. The Islamic world is a perfect example of this and Islamic history itself.

5) Is there not some hadith (it's authenticity can be disputed as many ahadith) that states that all non-Muslims should be expelled from the Arabian Peninsula? I recall the current Grand Mufti using this hadith during a sermon years ago. Never heard him say anything similar since then so his opinion might have changed.

So using this interpretation and source, not only should non-Muslim places of worship (people of the Book as well) not be built/allowed, non-Muslims should not be allowed to pray in private, no, they should be completely expelled from the land.

 

[Metanoia]

1) I see no logic in such hypocrisy then. If the society accepts the presence of non-Muslims, including their right to private worship, why can they not fund their own place of worship? They are NOT proselytizing.

2) Many unfortunately are. Yet they are accepted as "Islamic" by millions of Muslims. I would even claim that Jewish worship of God is more monotheistic than such practices.

3) I am not saying that they can be compared. I gave my own personal opinion as a private individual. I am no scholar or any religious authority, lol, nor do I want to be.

4) That we can agree with but Islam, like anything else, can be interpreted differently. The Islamic world is a perfect example of this and Islamic history itself.

5) Is there not some hadith (it's authenticity can be disputed as many ahadith) that states that all non-Muslims should be expelled from the Arabian Peninsula?

1) That's where my point# 4 comes in, about personal preference or feelings.

2) I have attended a lot of them, we'll completely diverge from the topic but I'll say this...yes many are unfortunately...but not as many as people would like to believe. True shiism is as monotheistic as it can get (and I am contrasting this with Salafism) [Topic for another day as this is not an appropriate thread]

5) I am not aware of such hadith. Islam recognizes non-Muslims and they have their rights within the religious texts. Non-Muslims are also classified, for instance people of the book for instances where one can marry with them(although it's disliked) whilst on the other hand we have the idolaters with whom we're not allowed to marry.

 

[Saif al-Arab]

1) That's where my point# 4 comes in, about personal preference or feelings.

2) I have attended a lot of them, we'll completely diverge from the topic but I'll say this...yes many are unfortunately...but not as many as people would like to believe. True shiism is as monotheistic as it can get (and I am contrasting this with Salafism) [Topic for another day as this is not an appropriate thread]

5) I am not aware of such hadith. Islam recognizes non-Muslims and they have their rights within the religious texts. Non-Muslims are also classified, for instance people of the book for instances where one can marry with them(although it's disliked) whilst on the other hand we have the idolaters with whom we're not allowed to marry.

I know that not all are like this. I know that "true" (original and traditional) "Shia Twelver Islam" is as monotheistic as any other Islamic sect with the exception of pseudo-Islamic sects (IMO) like the Alawites. That is another discussion as well and last time I discussed this in detail using religious sources, I was banned, lol.

كتاب الجهاد والسير
32
The Book of Jihad and Expeditions


(21)
Chapter: Expulsion of Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula
(21)
باب إِخْرَاجِ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى مِنْ جَزِيرَةِ الْعَرَبِ ‏‏


It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say:

I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

وَحَدَّثَنِي زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الضَّحَّاكُ بْنُ مَخْلَدٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، ح وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رَافِعٍ، - وَاللَّفْظُ لَهُ - حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي أَبُو الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، يَقُولُ أَخْبَرَنِي عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ "‏ لأُخْرِجَنَّ الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى مِنْ جَزِيرَةِ الْعَرَبِ حَتَّى لاَ أَدَعَ إِلاَّ مُسْلِمًا ‏"‏ ‏.‏

https://sunnah.com/muslim/32/75

So what is your view about this?

So maybe what you are confined of being in the wrong, is up to personal interpretation depending on the context.

That is my view of this after sharing your current view earlier. As I wrote, I personally draw (based on my understanding) the line at proselytization and whether the Muslim state itself finances non-Muslim places of worship that do not belong to the People of the Book.

 

[Metanoia]

So using this interpretation and source, not only should non-Muslim places of worship (people of the Book as well) not be built/allowed, non-Muslims should not be allowed to pray in private, no, they should be completely expelled from the land.

Brother I think this is common sense that there's a huge difference between a public congregation/public property and private affair. Why should they be expelled from the land if they're following the law and living well within their given rights?

The sole point of contention here is only the opening up of a first ever public temple for idolatry. That's it. Synagogues and most of the Churches worship God of Abraham....temples do not!

I know that not all are like this. I know that "true" (original and traditional) "Shia Twelver Islam" is as monotheistic as any other Islamic sect with the exception of pseudo-Islamic sects (IMO) like the Alawites. That is another discussion as well and last time I discussed this in detail using religious sources, I was banned, lol.

كتاب الجهاد والسير
32
The Book of Jihad and Expeditions


(21)
Chapter: Expulsion of Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula
(21)
باب إِخْرَاجِ الْيَهُودِ وَالنَّصَارَى مِنْ جَزِيرَةِ الْعَرَبِ ‏‏


It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say:

I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

وَحَدَّثَنِي زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الضَّحَّاكُ بْنُ مَخْلَدٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، ح وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ رَافِعٍ، - وَاللَّفْظُ لَهُ - حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ جُرَيْجٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي أَبُو الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، يَقُولُ أَخْبَرَنِي عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ "‏ لأُخْرِجَنَّ الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى مِنْ جَزِيرَةِ الْعَرَبِ حَتَّى لاَ أَدَعَ إِلاَّ مُسْلِمًا ‏"‏ ‏.‏

https://sunnah.com/muslim/32/75

So what is your view about this?

So maybe what you are confined of being in the wrong, is up to personal interpretation depending on the context.

That is my view of this after sharing your current view earlier. As I wrote, I personally draw (based on my understanding) the line at proselytization and whether the Muslim state itself finances non-Muslim places of worship that do not belong to the People of the Book.

I will have to get this Hadith checked if it's Saheeh, Hasan, Daeef, or Fabricated.

 

[El Sidd]

Baal is back !!

 

[Saif al-Arab]

Brother I think this is common sense that there's a huge difference between a public congregation/public property and private affair. Why should they be expelled from the land if they're following the law and living well within their given rights?

The sole point of contention here is only the opening up of a first ever public temple for idolatry. That's it. Synagogues and most of the Churches worship God of Abraham....temples do not!

See the hadith that I quoted in post 35. Some people (once again a question of interpretation) agree with this hadith and use it actively.

How can it be a public sphere when this worship occurs INSIDE the temple and when that same temple is only frequented by Hindus? Is the building itself a problem?

Public for me (in a religious context) are some kind of Catholic festivals where entire streets are filled with religious symbols and worshipping people. If religious worship is confined to a building, I look at this as a "private sphere" just a larger "private sphere" for Hindus since I don't expect any non-Hindus to show up. I have no clue if they are even allowed to in the first place.

What about (another topic altogether) the historical rulings and interpretations regarding aniconism?

Depiction of humans as well as animals is discouraged yet it is found everywhere today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam

I believe that what we are discussing is a minor issue in the context that I describe it in and that my interpretation (without sounding too arrogant) is the most logical since Islam is not practiced in a vacuum. Society changes. Core teachings of Islam do not however. I know this sounds like a Swedish Buffet but that is not what I am suggesting. Using that logic we can claim that this is the case with all Islamic sects as I can find contradicting issues with all of them and practices of its adherents.

 

[Metanoia]

What about (another topic altogether) the historical rulings and interpretations regarding aniconism?

Depiction of humans is discouraged yet it is everywhere today.

I replied about the Hadith in my previous post.

In regards to the above, I was basically trying to avoid saying this as it's an unpopular opinion, this is what personal opinions and liberal use of intellect gets you...innovations which over time pollute the purity and normalizes deviancy. Aniconism is everywhere and widespread...and so are man other things which are expressly forbidden.

(Hadith from Shiism btw)
Here is a Hasan (Good) hadeeth Al-Qudsi (Sacred Hadeeth) about what Allaah (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) thinks of those who interpret His (جل جلاله) words by his/her own opinion. This hadeeth shows that you must interpret the Qur’aan only through the Ahl Al-Bayt (عليهم السلام), and not by our opinions. This hadeeth also shows the abandonment of Qiyaas (analogical reasoning).

حدثنا محمد بن موسى بن المتوكل رضي الله عنه قال حدثنا علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم عن أبيه عن الريان بن الصلت عن علي بن موسى الرضا عن أبيه عن آبائه عن أمير المؤمنين ع قال قال رسول الله ص قال الله جل جلاله ما آمن بي من فسر برأيه كلامي و ما عرفني من شبهني بخلقي و ما على ديني من استعمل القياس في ديني

From Al-Rayyaan bin Al-Salt from `Alee bin Moosa Al-RiDaa from his father from his fathers from Ameer Al-Mu’mineen (عليه السلام) said: The Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: “Allaah (جل جلاله) said: ‘No one believes in me whoever interprets my words with his own opinions, and no one recognizes me whoever likens me to my creations, and no one is upon my religion whoever employs Qiyaas (analogical reasoning) in my religion’”

Source:
1. Al-Sadooq, `Uyoon Al-Akhbaar, vol. 1, ch. 11, pg. 115, hadeeth # 4

How can it be a public sphere when this worship occurs INSIDE the temple and when that same temple is only frequented by Hindus? Is the building itself a problem?

1) Bars/Pubs vs. drinking at home.
2) Brothels vs. fornication behind closed doors(at home)

I am not equating temples with bars...not at all. I am providing the example of pubs and brothels just so that you may draw a parallel between public and private. Also, the story of Caliph Umar jumping over in to an individual's private property upon hearing music and laughter...we are all aware of how that anecdote ended with a vital lesson. Everyone has the right to privacy in Islam...Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

 

[DarkPrince]

They need democracy.

 

[Timur]

good Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan can visit it since he hates so much the extremists and is fighting against them for this temple

and lets see if the hearts of some ppl cannot bear this here..

 

[SQ8]

Nothing wrong with this.. and BAPS temples are gorgeousx

 

[Manidabest]

BTW pre-Abrahamic/Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) of the Arab world, are the oldest recorded religions and most complex ones. If you compare it with paganism in most other places of the world, they were quite complex and progressive for their time. In fact a lot. However using Islamic sources is not the best source for that. You need to look at non-Islamic sources as historians have already done.

Personally Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism or whatever, it does not bother me.

BTW maybe this will be used by some people from the Pakistani Hindu community too? I am serious, here, why not?

There are approximately 3.5 million Pakistani Hindu nationals. Not a huge number but not too negligible either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Pakistan

It seems that there are quite a few Hindu temples in Pakistan itself.

No shame in UAE adjusting to the ground realities (for the time being) and opening 1 single Hindu temple. I thought that they had done that ages ago and that there would be more than 1. Shows how much this kind of news (the establishment of Hindu temples in UAE) is on my agenda.

If not you would hear crying about UAE being "intolerant" and when they do it "they are gathering for pagans". Can't make everyone happy.

I know that there are plenty of churches in all GCC countries with the exception of KSA. "All" that we have are some of the oldest churches (ruins) in the world. No longer in use.

For instance the Jubail Church built 1700 years ago.



Jubail Church
Jubail Church is a 4th-century church building near Jubail, Saudi Arabia, discovered in 1986. It originally belonged to the Assyrian Church of the East, an ancient Nestorian branch of Eastern Christianity in the Middle East.

The Saudi government hides it from locals and even archaeologists as the Kingdom follows a strict version of Islamic law and prohibits all non-Islamic forms of worship. Recently, they have put a fence around the church to prevent potential tourists from seeing it. However, the fences have not stopped locals from coming in to vandalize and damage the building. Churches are officially banned in Saudi Arabia and a limited number of Christians, mostly westerners, are permitted to worship in private as long as no Christian symbols are openly visible.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubail_Church

Really, it is a no-issue. I doubt that most locals in the UAE will have a problem with it.

I don't have a clue how Hindus and Buddhism were looked at by early Muslims and if they were given freedom to worship as Jews and Christians were. There were not many (if any) Hindus and Buddhists in Arabia/Arab world in the early Islamic age and until recent migrations to the region, mainly starting with the oil boom after 1973, so not sure what to compare with here. Pre-Islamic Pagans died off/disappeared from history long ago and from what I understand not much was written by them aside from the initial era.



Pakistan is apparently home to 3.5 million native Hindus. Don't you think that they have their own places of worship inside Pakistan?

I know that the Brits built churches in Pakistan (seen some myself being posted here power by users) so I am quite sure that Hindu temples exist in Pakistan. If that is the case, why would any Pakistani user here have a problem with UAE building 1 Hindu temple for the local Hindu expat community that is what, 2 million big?

Such topics should not be a priority for us as Muslims or societies IMO. Tons of more important issues.

Muslim societies, even the earliest Caliphates were very tolerant and progressive for their time (the most in fact). That Mongol destruction in 1258 pretty much destroyed much of what was seen as normal before that. You can read about this in detail in 1000's of books.

Your views, Your perspective, & your thinking is very clear but sadly our people's views, perspectives, & thinking r not clear... Pakistanis believe that idol worship has been destroyed on Arabian peninsula and its shocking for them to see it coming back even though the locals or the nationals of Arabian peninsula are not practicing. but the thought of a temple on Arabian peninsula is just unacceptable to them and moreover it will specifically serve indian community.

We r still following the "ummah concept" whereas modern arab countries are clear about the status of nation states in modern times and they adopted it for the betterment of their population. We Pakistanis have to come out of religious emotional thinking and should work on making our own country, provinces, cities, villages and towns better with our contribution regardless of religion, race , tribe & creed.