Pretty simply that prohibiting non-believers from entering a church or other religious structure would not really be considered out of the ordinary nor discriminatory as you so strongly stated in the post I quoted.
There is a big difference between making hiring decisions based on certain criteria and refusing access to a whole city based on religious belief. The hiring decision is understandable because the person you hire has to represent your company/organization and what it stands for. Refusing access based on religious belief (or lack thereof) is not.
i can understand their stance. as someone who was raised in a catholic home, i was a little appalled at the behavior of some tour bus folks in st. peter's basilica in rome... some people imitating the statue of st. peter while taking pictures, allowing children to climb or hang off the statue, running up and down the aisles, scratching into the wood, etc... people clearly who didn't understand the importance of the space. i felt so bad for the people who were deep in prayer (after making quite possibly a long pilgrimage across thousands of miles.)
I've traveled to India in the past, and even some of the Hindu temples don't really allow non believers inside. They have signs saying temples only for Hindu's, but I'm not sure how enforced the rule is.
The restrictions on travel is related to security. There were multiple attempts previously by groups of people plotting to blow up the holy mosque in Mecca.
This is hypocritical and a slap in the face to true followers of Islam. True believers can pray with minor distractions and because they have a deep connection with Allah. This is reminiscent of the silly rules in the Middle east where you can't walk around with water bottles during Ramadan because you are "tempting" the locals. The whole point is resisting temptation via internal strength! I've visited all the major Mosques (and several minor ones) in Istanbul, photography and shoes were not allowed and the tourists were respectful to the people praying. There was pindrop silence at times. This "city can only be understand by us" mentality is why Islam is a relatively backwards religion and has struggled to integrate into modern society. The whole vibe is pretentious and elitist, and I know quite a bit about these subjects. Except I'm honest about who I am and you hide behind veils of lies. You might say all religions are like this, but none go to the extent of Islam. None inspire such vitriolic mongers of hate. Just like hypocrites talk about big sins and small sins, as well as people who "half" perform Ramadan with water/snack breaks as opposed to those who don't even swallow their own spit, I'm sure the true pilgrims of Mecca can co-exist with curious travelers. Or I might just pretend to be a westernized Muslim and go one day, and report back to everyone on what really goes on. On what's really said.
Locations of deep religious significance? Check. Holiest place for a particular religion? Check in the case of the Western Wall, arguable with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Desire of many to engage in prayer at that location, either alone or communally? Check. Muslim? Oh, I see how it is totally different. You are right, no need to debate at all.
i watched a documentry on mecca, it may have been on youtube. im pretty sure they said you need some type of proof that you are muslim to be able to get in (along with a passport and visa) so you have a long process on your hands to be honest it crossed my mind as a non-muslim that i would like to go one day, but i guess thats impossible.
These posts seem to be asking the same question. The simple answer is that there are hundreds of thousands of situations where free societies allow the suspension of rights in a limited scope. You can't talk in a movie theatre. You can't yell bomb on a plane. You can't wear a burqa in France. You can't drink and drive. Apparently, you can discriminate if you're hiring for a church too. Apparently there are Hindu temples which have the same rules. I know I have been denied entry into a synagogue in the UK for being Muslim. I know I was questioned far too long at the airport in Germany, purely because I am part Arab. So on and so forth forever and ever. Like I said, I agree with you that the system does not yield good results in that there are some people genuinely interested in attending who are not allowed to attend. There must be better criteria than "Muslim/Non-Muslim", but the intention is not discriminatory, though it may have become discriminatory in practice on some occasions. This is a very specific situation. There needs to be a group of people, their differences need to be dramatically minimized (this is why you are only allowed to wear identical sheets during pilgrimmage). Everyone needs to have the same purpose and observe the rules and not be worried about differentiating themselves. They shouldn't be worried about tripping on cameras or accomodating tourists or answering questions or giving directions. The reality is that there's currently no good way to weed out people who would disrupt the experience, from people who wouldn't, and that's NOT a good reason to not care about protecting the experience. The current rule is what has been in place forever, and yes they have found it to be an easy rule to enforce, therefore no real move has been made to change it, especially since space is limited anyway. It doesn't seem like any of you are interested in suggesting ways to make it possible and have any interest in protecting the experience, but you are very interest in being allowed to go there and do whatever you want (which is moronic, because the demolition of the experience would render such a trip worthless anyway, unless you love hot sand and black cube-shaped buildings.) I'd love to engage in some discussion about solutions. Otherwise, I've reached the ceiling of amusement with these arguments. I'm interested on both sides - (1) to protect the experience and (2) to have an improved system which better reflects the intention of filtering some types of behavior out. I want to accomplish both of these. As long as I see someone is only interested in one or the other (rather than both at the same time), I don't think a discussion can be fruitful. It's not sight seeing. It's not a museum. It doesn't have much of a physical historical significance. It is a small building covered in a black sheet that is routinely changed. The inside is new, nothing really historic. It's washed very regularly. It's been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times. It's been under siege by terrorists. The black rock has been shattered and stolen many times. The important thing about it is the human experience. When Muslims pray towards it, they are not praying towards the black cube. They are praying towards the place they have designated for human spiritual unity. The key thing here is human spiritual unity. The Kaaba in Saudi is the current Qibla (i.e. designated place). It used to be the Al Aqsa Mosque in Israel/Palestine/Whatever. If Saudi Arabia is destroyed by nuclear warfare and earthquake, they have to develop another designated point, and it could be in New Orleans. It doesn't matter where. The only thing that matters is that it is the place designated for people to focus on connecting to each other and God. There could be a pyramid in the middle, it doesn't matter. The point is, no matter where it goes, they will have to protect the experience somehow, and that 'somehow' is obviously lagging in development. There are people who selfishly only care about the experience. There are people who selfishly only care about being allowed to go there. If you're not on board with both these issues simulataneously, my experience is that there is not point discussing, because we are not searching for the same answer nor following a similar objective. I'm not going to sit around and get bashed for holding the exact same opinion you hold (I hate discrimination), in addition to another one which you are indifferent about (Must protect Kaaba experience). FYI (I think Baqui mentioned this) It's not a security issue, I'm pretty sure almost all recent attacks on the Kaaba are by Muslims.
Lots of words to justify your bigoted world view that is in favor of discrimination. Ronny's and Hydra's posts are perfectly on target.
As much fun as I'm having watching the regular D&D **** slinging fest make it's way into the Hangout, wanted to add a site note for the pure hangout "tourist" value of this thread. The "black rock" has many "myths" surrounding it, one of which is the one Mathloom mentioned regarding people believing it is not from this world and has turned back accumulating people's sins over time. However I have heard and read other theories from hardcore Hindus who believe the Kaaba was an old Hindu temple, a part of the Hindu dynasty that stretched across the Arabian peninsula. They believe that black rock is a left over part of symbolism for Lord Shiva. They cite various vedic traditions similar to the traditions at the Kaaba currently as the reason for their beliefs. However this "evidence" of Hindu empire stretching across the Arabian peninsula seems to be on very very shaky grounds, as they all cite the same Hindu fundamentalist historian, who cites 1 book supposedly hidden from the public in a museum in Turkey. Almost every post related to "Hindu Kaaba" seems to cite verbatim the exact paragraph by paragraph explanation. That hurts the credibility of the issue for me when looked at in it's entirety. I'll leave you and your googlebilities to research further. Another myth/theory is that the stone was originally a white meteorite, and has oxidized over time. In addition to the Hindu theory, there's also another theory that has to do with the Kaaba actually being a temple for a Goddess (Al'Laat), the evolution (if you will) from Greek mythological tradition having undergone cultural/regional change. They also seem to claim blackstones at their original temples for gods/godesses. Another myth has it that the rock was passed down from Adam all the way down to Abraham til it was placed at the Kaaba. Guess the overall point here is, anyone can take any information and try to twist it to the closest thing to their version of the truth. Just gotta wait til that time machine comes out, do your research til then and I side with the majority opinion on this one for now.
I don't understand why this has turned into a Debate and Discussion in the Hangout. OP put an interesting video up for many who might be curious to see, but the usual people decide to change the direction of the thread to "Lets 'tear-up' Islam" and then the back and forths begin. I am curious as to what possible reason there could be to starting something as unnecessary as this. Thread title doesn't say anything demeaning towards anyone or asking a question for that matter. Attention seeking haters who have nothing better to do, starting something out of nothing. I thought it was a nice video and thanks for posting Mathloom, I always wondered how the Kaaba looked inside. Just curious as to how they fixed it up over the years, in terms of decorations and re-tiling and what not, and how it would get done.
They have rebuilt the kaabah about 12 times. When the bricks start deteriorating they rebuild it. I think the most recent time was under King Fahad in 96. They put up 4 huge white walls around it and the construction was completed without much access to the public. I think once or twice they let people go inside during the reconstruction. I know they replace the black cloth "Kiswa" once a year, maybe more. There is a documentary on how it is made of gold thread (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3MQk-q1cfY)
I notice that, on the wall inside the Kabaa, there are some inscriptions and there is this image. What is this?
There is at least one well documented case of a westerner getting into mecca and writing about it, but it was quite a while ago.
It's not discriminatory. There are certain rules in Islam. A person has to perform wudu before entering. In fact, he/she also has to do ghusl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghusl Obviously, another rule is that a man has to be circumcised. This might sound silly but why would a non-Muslim want to visit the Kaaba anyway? You can go by any mosque if you're interested in the religion. I think it's common sense that one would convert before actually going to Masjid al-Haram.
Those are both incorrect. There have been many non Muslims that have been in the holy cities of Islam. The most famous ones are, Richard Burton, and Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje (who I think fake converted to Islam) However, it is not easy for the average guy to walk in without prior authorization.
