Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The last paragraph of the article is very telling:
From what I remember reading not that long ago, the destruction of Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia has as its basis the Wahhabi perspective that the veneration of those things is idolatrous. This is similar to how some Christians, especially here in the US, refuse to even display a cross because to them it is an 'idol.' Perhaps someone who knows more than us can inform us what is going on in Saudi?
The last paragraph of the article is very telling:
"“The Saudis know the oil is going to run out,” he said. “Hajj is already their second major source of income, after oil. They look at Dubai, and Qatar, and ask ‘what are we going to do?’ And they say, ‘We have Hajj, and we’re going to exploit it to the max.'"
I'm going to Islamic Disneyland!!
At least that is what it looks like.
Well the article was a bit old at 2014, but I dont see why it is propaganda to call for important historical sites to be preserved.Why are you bringing this topic up again? Smells like propaganda.
It is the repeated posting of an article that is propaganda in itself.Well the article was a bit old at 2014, but I dont see why it is propaganda to call for important historical sites to be preserved.
In my opinion.
It is the repeated posting of an article that is propaganda in itself.
And what is the actual complaint? That they built over some 300-year-old buildings? Is that a crime? Who cares? They're allowed to build what they want, aren't they? Do other countries preserve all their "historical" sites - i.e. old buildings?
There is nothing special about average mosques other than their use. So to destroy a building that has been used as a mosque is not destroying anything holy or a "religious site". Muslims shouldn't put importance to mosques due to when they were built or how. The whole earth is a masjid for Muslims.
As for the Prophets ﷺ grave, I don't think it should be in the mosque at all, though I don't see how it could be removed, if that's what they mean.
Then it complains about the birth place of the prophet ﷺ - what is the significance of that? Is it a place to pray and make special supplications? Should people venerate a spot on earth because the Prophet ﷺ was born there? Did he not specifically warn people:
"Narrated `Umar: I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle."'
Or is their purpose to attract tourists?
The library is new anyway. It's just that the Prophet ﷺ was allegedly born in that spot of the earth. So are they now going to remove that spot altogether?
It then goes on to talk about wahabbism - not exactly surpsiring. What is wahabbism? Allegedly it is following Abd Al-Wahabb. But did he bring anything new to the table when it comes to Islamic doctrine? Nope. So what does it mean to follow him? Does it not equal following all those before him who held the same views? Are his views not based on the Qur'an and the authentic hadiths?
Unfortunately some people do not value history and think that no one else should either. I do not mind that much if some people ignore history. It is a problem when they try to enforce their beliefs upon others.What about the tombs of Muhammad's family members and in-laws ?
What about their birthplace?
The problem is ignoring history can be intertwined with forcing their beliefs.Unfortunately some people do not value history and think that no one else should either. I do not mind that much if some people ignore history. It is a problem when they try to enforce their beliefs upon others.