Utter Humiliation: The Building of Churches and Temples in the Gulf

The Pope is giving some Catholic service in the UAE this week. He was invited by the UAE’s crown prince Mohammed bin Zayed. This is yet another public relations exercise from the UAE at the expense of Islam and the Umma. Recently, the UAE prince also agreed to build a large Hindu temple in honor of diplomatic relations with India’s extremist Hindu PM Modi, whose party is oppressing and regularly inciting violence against India’s Muslims.

This is, of course, humiliating that non-Muslims are able to build their religious temples and and proselytize in Muslim lands. We know, obviously, that the rulers of most of these Muslim Arab countries are nothing other than cheap Western agents, slavishly serving Western interests. They don’t even pretend anymore to care about the interests of Muslims let alone the directives of the Sharia. And the Sharia is very clear and unambiguous in regard to building religious temples and the proselytization of kufr in Dar al-Islam and specifically the Arabian peninsula. It’s strictly forbidden.

Isn’t it bad enough that Muslims in Dar al-Islam are being indoctrinated 24/7 by Western media, Western entertainment, Western education, etc., etc., being broadcast through internet and satellite into every home, bending and distorting the Muslim mind and transforming it beyond recognition? Isn’t that enough? Do we also have to build churches and temples and bring the Pope to give mass? The temples for worshiping liberal secular capitalism were built decades ago: the corporate centers and markets that line, for example, the Haram in Mecca. But now, these subsidiary falsehoods are putting their boot print on the face of Muslim lands.

World-class shopping right outside the Haram.

But What About Reciprocity and Tolerance?!

First of all, ignorant people shouldn’t talk about issues they don’t know the first thing about.

They want to argue that, since Muslims are allowed to have mosques and Islamic institutions in the West, that means Muslims should allow churches and temples in Muslim countries. This is a simple matter of mutual respect and reciprocity, they claim.

Such words demonstrate the depth of their ignorance on these issues.

What is reciprocity? The definition is quite simple, according to the dictionary:

The practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one country or organization to another.

For example, if someone gives me a gift, I should reciprocate by giving that person a gift or exchanging something else of value that demonstrates good will.

So, doesn’t that mean if non-Muslims allow mosques to be built in their lands, we should allow churches and temples to be built in Muslim lands? Absolutely not! There is absolutely nothing reciprocal about this. This is the exact opposite of reciprocity!

By building mosques and calling to Islam, Muslims are spreading truth and calling to salvation, Heaven, the pleasure of Allah. This is what Muslims are offering: service to humanity. How is that the same as building structures of kufr, calling to destruction, Hell, the displeasure and anger of Allah? How are those things the same?

The only people who view mosques, churches, and temples as all being essentially the same thing are secularists and atheists. From the batil secular perspective, there really is no difference between any of these religions. So reciprocity entails that if mosques are built in the West, then churches should be built in the East. “You scratch my back, I will scratch yours.”

But tell me why Muslims would accept this secular assumption? Why would we grant this atheistic premise? This is like, “I scratch your back, you stab me in the back and send me to the Fire.” How is that fair? How is that reciprocal?

Truth is clear from falsehood. There is no equivalence there.

I can understand why the Pope would see an equivalence and accept the secular presumption. Because he is the figurehead of a false religion, bereft of Divine Guidance. As such, he easily will fall into whatever popular ideologies come along, even when those ideologies contravene his own religion. Prior to the domination of secularism post-Enlightenment, the Catholic Church never allowed non-Catholics to build religious centers in their lands. At the same time, the Church was heavily involved with proselytizing all over the globe. It saw no contradiction in this. But the new Pontiff feels no hesitation in breaking the conventions of his own Church. Oh well. They just went from one kind of batil to another kind of batil.

But alhamdulillah, as Muslims, we have the Sharia as preserved by the ulama. Unlike the Papacy, we have the anchor that prevents us from drifting away from obedience to our Maker.

I found it sad yet amusing that some are claiming the Pope’s visit is meant as a gesture of good will from the UAE’s monarchy to the Christian migrants in the Gulf from poor South East Asian countries. This is a farce. If the UAE ruling class cared about these poor migrants, they would do something about the terrible working and economic conditions they have to endure. They would do something about the despicable racism, elitism, prejudice (`asabiyyah, `unsuriyyah, etc.) plaguing the Gulf that treat migrants as sub-human. How about real representation of good will by treating these poor non-Muslims with true justice and kindness, which the Sharia requires? And while they’re at it, the UAE and Saudi can stop bombing Muslims and otherwise contributing to their oppression around the world.

8 COMMENTS

  1. «Prior to the domination of secularism post-Enlightenment, the Catholic Church never allowed non-Catholics to build religious centers in their lands.»

    This is straightforwardly false. Whilst the Popes forbade proselytizing Christians, they did not forbid synagogues per se. Plenty of synagogues from the ancient and middle ages existed in Europe. The same goes for the ancient Church. John Chrysostom, the highly influential Bishop of Constantinople, wrote a highly polemic treatise against Judaism wherein he condemned Christians visiting synagogues by saying that it was just like going to pagan temples, but this only demonstrates that synagogues and temples existed in his day. And throughout his _Adversus Iudaeus_, as much as he hurled polemic after polemic against the Jews, not once did he call for destroying their synagogues or harming them. One might also mention Martin of Tours, the later Justinian, or Maximos the Confessor. There are also numerous Sicut Judaeus bulls issued by multiple Popes who called for the tolerance of the Jews by Christian clergy and laity. Even in the fourth Lateran Council, although its canons called for Jews and Muslims to dress differently from Christians, didn’t forbid them from having synagogues or mosques. This is not to say that there were no instances of intolerance, the Spanish Inquisition is a notorious example. But to say tout court that the Catholic Church was intolerant of other traditions simpliciter is erroneous.

  2. Also,Daniel please tell us what you acknowledge as sources of Sharia? Do you follow any madhab or not? Do you regard the founders of the Sunni schools as infallible? Thoughts on the Shia and ASWJ?
    Please tell so I can know where you are coming from and hence decide whether to give you any attention or not.

  3. As much as I love brother Daniel and I understand his point of view on the rulers of the Arab countries. I think, it’s better to not speak against the rulers, as mentioned in the Hadith. The scholars must advice the rulers and the general crowd mustn’t be instigated to rebel against the rulers. The outcome of rebellion is nothing but chaos and death of masses. As seen by the “Arab Spring”. We have to make dua that Allah guides these rulers to do Khair.
    I dunno what stand we must take against or in support of these rulers but for now this is what we have and we don’t have any other alternative because a known devil is better than an unknown angel.
    May Allah rectify the rulers and spread khair in the ummah.

  4. Well I must say, King John of England did ask for the law of Muhammad (link that which remains over him and save) in 1209 but no one came to help him, so That Which Remains gave England power over the world. Now you can read Edward William Lane’s Lexicon and try your best at translating القرآن into English.

    Surely we would not join gog magog iran and the other such revolutionaries.

  5. Surely more intelligent people than the author realize that a Christian or a Hindu could believe precisely the same thing, only with their religion as the truth. If all this rather stupid author can say is, “yes, but my religion is the true one,” he will be in a neverending argument with a Christian or Hindu who says exactly the same thing about their religion. What a dummy.

  6. Should we shut down all the mosques in non-muslim majority nations in the west, east, Asian nations to be fair?

    So in conclusion: no churches in Muslim lands, and no mosques or Muslims in non-muslim land. Do you really want to play this game, you hypocrite.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here