golpen:

On the no mosque issue, @betathings was referring to a university in rivers state where a mosque has been denied the muslim students of the school.

The wearing of hijab, making a slight change in the uniform makes it a sub of the uniform (the muslims students' dressing) and doesn't go in anyway to affect the activities of the school. That is why a man in the armed force is allowed to keep his beards because he is devout and he still participates actively in the force.

Why should that organisation try to compel them to go to fellowship. I went to loyola college in ibadan, though I was a day student. The school was a catholic mission school before the state government took over it. Still the christians have not shown a pinch of the tolerance your talking about when they forcefully drive the muslim boarding students to the chapel for morning mass. Even as a day student, they made us act like them, regardless the religion. A student who doesn't stand still for angelus is surely in hot soup. Even christians that don't belong to catholism also complain.

You do not make unauthorized changes to a uniform and expect the organization to accept. I believe there are channels through which such changes may be demanded and approved to go against the grain simply because you have a conviction will net you untoward reaction, this happens whether the circumstances are religious or not.

It's unfortunate that any organization should compel anyone to fellowship if their faith is contrary. The RSU has perpetrated an injustice against its Muslim population no one should say their actions are just.

golpen:

I won't go in line with your weak excuse of exempting the vatican from the accusations you lay against saudi. As the owner of your house, you have the choice to choose the type of person that enters into it, you make your choices on many issues for yourself and even if you have your way, choose the kind of friends your child makes. The vatican and saudi have the same ground on this and the land mass is not an excuse. We have every possibility that the same ground will be stood if the vatican was as large in mass as saudi.

Nobody should criticise you for what decision you make to suit your own self, how much less a decision made by several good heads to protect the image of a whole country.

My argument is not weak because the analogies do not parallel. The entire landmass of Saudi is not devoted to Mecca and Medina or other holy sites. Secondly if you sovereignty grants you the right to draw up unfavorable policies then whence do we expect any system of government to be perfected if we cannot point out errors?

Lord_Reed:

You do not make unauthorized changes to a uniform and expect the organization to accept. I believe there are channels through which such changes may be demanded and approved to go against the grain simply because you have a conviction will net you untoward reaction, this happens whether the circumstances are religious or not.

It's unfortunate that any organization should compel anyone to fellowship if their faith is contrary. The RSU has perpetrated an injustice against its Muslim population no one should say their actions are just.

I agree with you that the changes have to be authorised.

then if you agree these things are happening in the christian world, why do you question islam's tolerance, when christianity's is not in any way better.

Lord_Reed:

My argument is not weak because the analogies do not parallel. The entire landmass of Saudi is not devoted to Mecca and Medina or other holy sites. Secondly if you sovereignty grants you the right to draw up unfavorable policies then whence do we expect any system of government to be perfected if we cannot point out errors?

This opinion of yours is to you. No matter how large the land mass, an average mind pictures the islamic religion relating to saudi. I don't know how to start mentioning on and on, but the bottom line is saudi is a non-secular state. I've not seen an error in a decision made, when the citizens are not complaining. And besides, the christians who have found the place suitable at the expense of practising their religion as deserved should be blamed.

It is sad when some of my fellow muslims are not honest about Saudi Arabia just to win an argument.


Saudi Arabia gives a very wrong impression of Islam and sharia. A great country to look at is Malaysia- Christians are allowed to practice their religion and build churches in Malaysia. However, it must be noted that the permits to build churches in Malaysia are not easy to obtain.

Saudi Arabia shows a very intolerant attitude to christians with the banning of their freedom to openly practice their religion and banning other religious items like bibles and co.

This is the same Saudi Arabia that prohibits women from driving and is the only country to do so. If any Nigerian muslim here that has a wife/sister/mother that drives or is a woman that drives supports Saudi Arabia, then there is a real problem.


Please, let us be honest

vedaxcool:

Yes even Christians, atheists, America, Is-not-real have a point or two about Saudi or Iran, but the problems always lies in hypocrisy, when one closes his eyes to their crimes or even legitimises their own crimes and ignore the salient issues, Sunni in Iran suffer three times as much as Shias in Saudi, in fact Iran prefers Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians to sunnis are allowed to build their place of worship, as Sunnis in whole of Tehran are not allowed to even build their mosques, remember even in the heart land of non Muslims you would find sunnis being allowed to build their own mosques, yet in a supposedly muslims country takes great pains from allowing Sunnis to build their places of worship, so yet the child who licks the boots of men from old persia, has never for once found that wrong, it even gets worse stories of persecution and even depriving them of saying eid fitr prayer in congregation, they arrest, torture and imprison sunni scholars, yet the child who thinks he is an Iranian agent is as silent as ever on this issues, and usual provide justification for such. This underscores the problem why his points should better be ignored because it is based on malice and maliciousness and not aimed at bringing any change but instead invovles the use of propaganda to discredit others, while he actively justifies the evil crimes of his persian masters. Now muslims should notice a change of language, which betathings warned us, first his grouse was with the wahabis, now he equates wahabis = Salafist, now his grouse is with wahabis/salafist - two differing terminology, gradually as we were warned he would soon start referring to us all, the truth of the matter is, anit - Islamic elements like this are always a disappointment on the ummah, if a wahabi or salafist or sunni does some good he would never refer to them as being that, he would conveniently use Muslim, immediately it is a shia, he calls such a person a shia, but if it is a bad story, the label of the individual becomes important, he refers to such a person as salafist or wahabi or sunni, the sort of a behavior invokes the same attitude of the non - muslims but takes an even more twisted logic behind it. The truth remains the ummah faces no bigger headache than the regimes in Saudi and Iran, while Saudi continues to perform it pragmatic twist on issues serving the interest of the royals at the expense of other, the safavid regime in Iran actively engages in deceit, lies, slander and every evil form of propaganda it has to fool people in addition to financing an actively supporting the murder of people from Syria to Lebanon and etc. whether the child who thinks he is an agent of Iran, likes the bitter truth or not remains his problem, I am glad that there are shias who see Iran for what is it https://www.nairaland.com/1335082/shiite-leader-iran-uses-shiites, just as many muslims see Saudi for what it is.

It is unfortunate that almost every dominant group tramples on the others. Very unfortunate.

Two wrongs dont evrer make a right though. Imagine that the sunnis lead by example and show the true Islam by their actions, it would then be easy to tag shiites as the trouble makers.

But now, it appears everyone is trouble-making.

golpen:


This opinion of yours is to you. No matter how large the land mass, an average mind pictures the islamic religion relating to saudi. I don't know how to start mentioning on and on, but the bottom line is saudi is a non-secular state. I've not seen an error in a decision made, when the citizens are not complaining. And besides, the christians who have found the place suitable at the expense of practising their religion as deserved should be blamed.

Ok so I begin to see the entire Saudi region is hollowed to Islam, even though that seems unreasonable to me seeing as there are places that can not be called religious grounds. However I think we can close this discussion for now but let me state that without a channel to seek redress how can the differing Faiths express their desires in Saudi? Your postulation that it is their fault holds no water.

golpen:

I agree with you that the changes have to be authorised.

then if you agree these things are happening in the christian world, why do you question islam's tolerance, when christianity's is not in any way better.

This discussion was not about determine who has the best faith but to understand if Saudi's public policy is representative of what public policy will be in a theocratic Islamic state established elsewhere. As you asserted Saudi is the picture of Islam.

deols:

It is unfortunate that almost every dominant group tramples on the others. Very unfortunate.

Two wrongs dont evrer make a right though. Imagine that the sunnis lead by example and show the true Islam by their actions, it would then be easy to tag shiites as the trouble makers.

But now, it appears everyone is trouble-making.

It appears everyone prefer speaking of other peoples bad rather than speak of theirs!

Nairatalks: It is sad when some of my fellow muslims are not honest about Saudi Arabia just to win an argument.


Saudi Arabia gives a very wrong impression of Islam and sharia. A great country to look at is Malaysia- Christians are allowed to practice their religion and build churches in Malaysia. However, it must be noted that the permits to build churches in Malaysia are not easy to obtain.

Saudi Arabia shows a very intolerant attitude to christians with the banning of their freedom to openly practice their religion and banning other religious items like bibles and co.

This is the same Saudi Arabia that prohibits women from driving and is the only country to do so. If any Nigerian muslim here that has a wife/sister/mother that drives or is a woman that drives supports Saudi Arabia, then there is a real problem.


Please, let us be honest

Hahahaha, yes, Saudi has problems and it will change over time as everything involving human activity does.

You chose Malaysia as an example, the question is: can we Muslims afford the bitter politics that goes on there in Saudi? I seriously don't think so. Nothing in this world beats security. The Saudi government has managed that for years and for that alone, I can overlook many of their shortcomings.

When I say security, I mean it as a total concept that affects an individual's and societal wellbeing.

deols:

It is unfortunate that almost every dominant group tramples on the others. Very unfortunate.

Two wrongs dont evrer make a right though. Imagine that the sunnis lead by example and show the true Islam by their actions, it would then be easy to tag shiites as the trouble makers.

But now, it appears everyone is trouble-making.

How politically sophisticated are you? Does the term subversion mean anything to you? If we two mods, here cannot agree many times with clashes. How do you think it will be for governing a country?

Egypt and Syria would have been jokes over what would have happened in Saudi many years ago. The Saudi's were the first to sanction Osama bin Laden before the Americans ever took him seriously. Afterall they (Americans) trained him.

It is many times not about victimising anybody but putting volatile elements in check. The Islamic utopia you seek is still far away from reemerging.

Back to the main question, Is Islam as receptive as Saudi arabia in permitting the freedom of religion and worship?

vedaxcool:

It appears everyone prefer speaking of other peoples bad rather than speak of theirs!

Not everyone sir. I am probably Sunni and still dont like it when our people are doing the oppressing wrong.

maclatunji:

Hahahaha, yes, Saudi has problems and it will change over time as everything involving human activity does.

You chose Malaysia as an example, the question is: can we Muslims afford the bitter politics that goes on there in Saudi? I seriously don't think so. Nothing in this world beats security. The Saudi government has managed that for years and for that alone, I can overlook many of their shortcomings.

When I say security, I mean it as a total concept that affects an individual's and societal wellbeing.

What security does Saudi have? Isn tht where the 9/11 bombers came from?

Isnt that where a lot of our Westernized and Shia muslim brothers claim the Extremist Wahabbi ideology comes from?

In as much as I think saudi do certain things I don't approve of, and I don't support monarchy system.
It is fair to understand why Saudi won't allow Christians practice openly, let's be analytical, freedom in a society is a myth.
And theirs absolutely nothing wrong with them banning people from worshipping publicly
1. There's no law in Christianity that is being broken
2. It doesn't stop the Christian adherents from worshiping and following their faith. Or not practising a part of their religion.
The reason some christians won't look for a job their is cause they don't want to be bored, not because they can't practice publicly, people are crying more than the bereaved.
They could have sunday fellowships in their houses, and all that.
It's absolutely different when it comes to fasting in Ramadan for the students, or wearing hijab for females.

Saudis are ultra conservative and conservative not extremist.

All this Shia outcry, for the first time Shia imams where added to the committee by the royal leader, am not sure what commitee thou will get back to you on that. But Shia imams are gradually being to the decision makers, and that's a move politically.

I don't know of Sunnis being added in Iran.

I personally have a problem with labels, shia, Sunni, wahhabi, salafist.
First and foremost you are a Muslim.
Then a whatever you choose to call yourself.
But the most important label is Muslim so act as Muslims. Me am a Muslim and that's it.

vedaxcool:

Yes even Christians, atheists, America, Is-not-real have a point or two about Saudi or Iran, but the problems always lies in hypocrisy, when one closes his eyes to their crimes or even legitimises their own crimes and ignore the salient issues, Sunni in Iran suffer three times as much as Shias in Saudi, in fact Iran prefers Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians to sunnis are allowed to build their place of worship, as Sunnis in whole of Tehran are not allowed to even build their mosques, remember even in the heart land of non Muslims you would find sunnis being allowed to build their own mosques, yet in a supposedly muslims country takes great pains from allowing Sunnis to build their places of worship, so yet the child who licks the boots of men from old persia, has never for once found that wrong, it even gets worse stories of persecution and even depriving them of saying eid fitr prayer in congregation, they arrest, torture and imprison sunni scholars, yet the child who thinks he is an Iranian agent is as silent as ever on this issues, and usual provide justification for such. This underscores the problem why his points should better be ignored because it is based on malice and maliciousness and not aimed at bringing any change but instead invovles the use of propaganda to discredit others, while he actively justifies the evil crimes of his persian masters. Now muslims should notice a change of language, which betathings warned us, first his grouse was with the wahabis, now he equates wahabis = Salafist, now his grouse is with wahabis/salafist - two differing terminology, gradually as we were warned he would soon start referring to us all, the truth of the matter is, anit - Islamic elements like this are always a disappointment on the ummah, if a wahabi or salafist or sunni does some good he would never refer to them as being that, he would conveniently use Muslim, immediately it is a shia, he calls such a person a shia, but if it is a bad story, the label of the individual becomes important, he refers to such a person as salafist or wahabi or sunni, the sort of a behavior invokes the same attitude of the non - muslims but takes an even more twisted logic behind it. The truth remains the ummah faces no bigger headache than the regimes in Saudi and Iran, while Saudi continues to perform it pragmatic twist on issues serving the interest of the royals at the expense of other, the safavid regime in Iran actively engages in deceit, lies, slander and every evil form of propaganda it has to fool people in addition to financing an actively supporting the murder of people from Syria to Lebanon and etc. whether the child who thinks he is an agent of Iran, likes the bitter truth or not remains his problem, I am glad that there are shias who see Iran for what is it https://www.nairaland.com/1335082/shiite-leader-iran-uses-shiites, just as many muslims see Saudi for what it is.

bla bla bla...Iran this and Iran that-but even so,two wrongs do not make a right.not worth wasting my time with confusion and silly adjectives and personal attacks.

the only point I must clarify again because it is an outright Salafist aka Wahhabi lie : areas in iran with majority Shia population have mosques with a Shia administration.areas in iran with Sunni majority like Sistan and Balouchistan have mosques with a Sunni administration;in other words Shia in those areas do not have mosques and pray in sunni administered mosques.the Iranian policy is that all mosques are for Allah (swt) and all muslims can worship in any mosque.if you don't want to pray behind a Shia (or sunnis) imam (prayer leader),then feel free to enter the mosque and pray on your own,or alongside others when the congregational prayers are over;that is do your mini congregation and gain all the blessings you want.i have read a rebuttal to this Salafist/Wahhabi lie that Sunnis don't have a mosque in Tehran,where the majority is Shia.the article cited the example of Pakistan where within every 100 meters there is a mosque-one for Sufis,one for shia,one for sunnis,and one for each sub-group under each of those branches.then you have adhan blazing from many mosques within one street.that nonsense is not good to the Iranians.as for the Shia in Saudi Arabia,giving them what sunnis enjoy in iran (i.e. just allowing them to have their places of worship in areas they are majority) would be a welcome development,until then back to the topic.

maclatunji:

How politically sophisticated are you? Does the term subversion mean anything to you? If we two mods, here cannot agree many times with clashes. How do you think it will be for governing a country?

Egypt and Syria would have been jokes over what would have happened in Saudi many years ago. The Saudi's were the first to sanction Osama bin Laden before the Americans ever took him seriously. Afterall they (Americans) trained him.

It is many times not about victimising anybody but putting volatile elements in check. The Islamic utopia you seek is still far away from reemerging.

do not dramatize here.the Saudi monarchy did not oppose bin laden because he was a terrorist or because his alqaeda and its ally,the Taliban,massacred thousands of Hazara Shia in Afghanistan,long before the 9/11 attacks.the Saudi regime clashed with bin laden because the royal family supported the americans to drive saddam out of Kuwait,while bin laden refused and wanted a "mujahideen" (I put the word in quotes because true mujahideen have nothing to do with terrorists like bin laden) style battle in Kuwait to drive saddam,as the Saudis are presently sponsoring terrorists in Syria to overthrow a legitimate regime of another country.then bin laden wanted to challenge the authority of the ruling family.from an Islamic point of view,bin laden even though a terrorist who killed innocent people,he still had the decency to refuse the presence of alcohol and pork consuming American soldiers in the holy land,while the ruling family invited them.so the excuse of refusing others their worship places within Saudi Arabia, when there pork and alcoholic consumers in the holy land at the behest of the regime,is just pure oppression and the nature of every fascist regime,of which a Wahhabi/salafist regime is part of.an example is recently when morsi was ruling Egypt and a salafist/Wahhabi mob attacked Shia Muslims observing Mid-Sha'ban and killed Sheikh Hassan Shahata.Egyptian Sunnis are decent enough (of course under the leadership of al-Azhar,representing mainstream Sunni Islam and opposed to Salafist/Wahhabi Sunnis) to condemn the attack and later overthrow the salafist Morsi,just a year after he was elected.

deols:

Not everyone sir. I am probably Sunni and still dont like it when our people are doing the oppressing wrong.

my dear sister,this is Ramadan and in the last three days over 100 Shia Muslims have been bombed to their graves in Iraq.check the list:

Pakistan-Shia Genocide

Iraq-Bombing Shia endlessly

Saudi Arabia-persecution

Afghanistan-(Hazara) Shia Genocide

Egypt-Mob Attack Against Shia

Syria-destroying Syria because its leader who commands a majority of popular support is Alawite (an offshoot of Shia Islam) and Shia Muslims (including children) were literally slaughtered (i.e. beheaded) in Hatlah,Syria.

[b]give me one example where a Shia suicide bomber attacked a Sunni mosque or church, or killed Sunni/christian civilians.you will find none.give me one example of a Shia group calling for the extermination of Sunnis,you will find none.all the time the Shia call for debate,dialogue and unity,and they continue to be killed and oppressed.why? even if the Shia forgive,the Almighty God will not forgive.the Wahhabi/salafist ideology is dividing muslims,making muslims servants of the west and also giving islam a bad image in the interest of the west.there is a leadership crisis for sunnis the world over (and I am not happy that is the case),while the shia have leaders who have influence over the adherents;not every group has an emir declaring jihad as salafists/Wahhabis do.for the shia it requires a faqih (i.e. an ayatollah,a learned Islamic jurist who issues fatwa to declare jihad).to become an ayatollah,you need other ayatollahs to sign your certificate.not every tom and harry can issue fatwa for the shia.you can compare to see the reasons behind the differences that lead to problems of the sunni side.[/b]

Saudi Wahhabi/Salafist Father Auctioning His Son in Saudi Arabia to Die As Suicide Bomber in Syria:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av0gz7PzRMc

LagosShia:

do not dramatize here.the Saudi monarchy did not oppose bin laden because he was a terrorist or because his alqaeda and its ally,the Taliban,massacred thousands of Hazara Shia in Afghanistan,long before the 9/11 attacks.the Saudi regime clashed with bin laden because the royal family supported the americans to drive saddam out of Kuwait,while bin laden refused and wanted a "mujahideen" (I put the word in quotes because true mujahideen have nothing to do with terrorists like bin laden) style battle in Kuwait to drive saddam,as the Saudis are presently sponsoring terrorists in Syria to overthrow a legitimate regime of another country.then bin laden wanted to challenge the authority of the ruling family.from an Islamic point of view,bin laden even though a terrorist who killed innocent people,he still had the decency to refuse the presence of alcohol and pork consuming American soldiers in the holy land,while the ruling family invited them.so the excuse of refusing others their worship places within Saudi Arabia, when there pork and alcoholic consumers in the holy land at the behest of the regime,is just pure oppression and the nature of every fascist regime,of which a Wahhabi/salafist regime is part of.an example is recently when morsi was ruling Egypt and a salafist/Wahhabi mob attacked Shia Muslims observing Mid-Sha'ban and killed Sheikh Hassan Shahata.Egyptian Sunnis are decent enough (of course under the leadership of al-Azhar,representing mainstream Sunni Islam and opposed to Salafist/Wahhabi Sunnis) to condemn the attack and later overthrow the salafist Morsi,just a year after he was elected.

Funny how your epistle does not refute what I said. If you like say the Saudi's took action against bin Laden because of a plate of amala. The fact is they were efficient enough to identify the threat he posed and took action ahead of everybody else.

maclatunji:

Funny how your epistle does not refute what I said. If you like say the Saudi's took action against bin Laden because of a plate of amala. The fact is they were efficient enough to identify the threat he posed and took action ahead of everybody else.

it does refute what you said.you want to paint the Saudi regime as one that is standing against terrorism and is "security conscious".that is not the case.this same bin laden was a CIA agent and Saudi backed when it was time to fight the soviets in Afghanistan.today this same Saudi regime (subservient to the west and the Zionist regime,israel) is sending terrorists-the likes of bin laden-into Syria.two vilains clashed,and it doesn't vindicate the destructive role Saudi Arabia plays in fuelling sectarianism and terrorism.had bin laden not turned against it and was still alive,he could have been one of those sent into Syria to spill the blood of muslims and cause sectarian bloodshed.

Sadly, Lagosshia has turned this thread to an intra-religious battle arena. Throwing tantrums at Sunni or whatever sect you think you have a problem with at every opportunity doesn't make Shia look better but rather, it tends to put Islam in a bad light which unfortunately beats one of the reasons this section was probably created for - dawah.
I await the day you represent Islam in its entirety without a stint of sectarianism.
What!? O wait! Your username is even sectarian....I guess I'll have to wait for long.

AbdH: Sadly, Lagosshia has turned this thread to an intra-religious battle arena. Throwing tantrums at Sunni or whatever sect you think you have a problem with at every opportunity doesn't make Shia look better but rather, it tends to put Islam in a bad light which unfortunately beats one of the reasons this section was probably created for - dawah.
I await the day you represent Islam in its entirety without a stint of sectarianism.
What!? O wait! Your username is even sectarian....I guess I'll have to wait for long.

#Hehehe

Lord_Reed:

This discussion was not about determine who has the best faith but to understand if Saudi's public policy is representative of what public policy will be in a theocratic Islamic state established elsewhere. As you asserted Saudi is the picture of Islam.

And I think I've made it clear to you that there's nothing bad in protecting you own opinion and deciding your own practice - an image you so cherish at that.

There's this statement by an atheist. It is 'the condescension of tolerance'. Where tolerance of a view doesn't appreciate it and but allows it for tolerance's sake. One can look up the video on that statement on YouTube's bigthink channel. The relevance to this topic is not to be repugned. Tolerance can be demeaning where it demeans or undercuts a cherished position. Some of the same people clamoring for tolerance (eg the likes of Obama and Cameron) in the Middle East didn't tolerate Nigeria's anti-gay bill, or tolerate Rigby's murder, nor will they tolerate communism etc. This should be kept in mind when considering religious restrictions in the Middle East.

AbdH: Sadly, Lagosshia has turned this thread to an intra-religious battle arena. Throwing tantrums at Sunni or whatever sect you think you have a problem with at every opportunity doesn't make Shia look better but rather, it tends to put Islam in a bad light which unfortunately beats one of the reasons this section was probably created for - dawah.
I await the day you represent Islam in its entirety without a stint of sectarianism.
What!? O wait! Your username is even sectarian....I guess I'll have to wait for long.

I really feel sad reading your post-sad because you want me to join hands with you and the likes of those defending the Saudi regime over what conflicts with Islam,under the name of defending Islam.if you are a Muslim,and you mess up,muslims have no obligation to defend your mess-up because non-muslims think that mess-up is supported by your religion.in fact as I am doing it is compulsory for muslims to disassociate themselves from wrong actions.remember what the Holy Quran states:

"O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to give it, verily, Allah is Ever Well-Acquainted with what you do". (4:135)

a Saudi regime fueling sectarian killings in Pakistan,iraq and Syria does not represent islam.my name symbolizes one of the two main branches of islam,but the monarchy you are crying for have no basis in islam.may Allah (swt) make us among those who listen and follow the best of it.

Uyi Iredia: There's this statement by an atheist. It is 'the condescension of tolerance'. Where tolerance of a view doesn't appreciate it and but allows it for tolerance's sake. One can look up the video on that statement on YouTube's bigthink channel. The relevance to this topic is not to be repugned. Tolerance can be demeaning where it demeans or undercuts a cherished position. Some of the same people clamoring for tolerance (eg the likes of Obama and Cameron) in the Middle East didn't tolerate Nigeria's anti-gay bill, or tolerate Rigby's murder, nor will they tolerate communism etc. This should be kept in mind when considering religious restrictions in the Middle East.

Exactly, only the unelightened will believe there is such a thing as "absolute freedom". The so called "fundamental human rights" unenlightened people go screaming about have limitations. People should actually learn in school, it is a topic in SS2 Government.

Imagine my irritation when people claim rights without even understanding what it entails.

LagosShia:

bla bla bla...Iran this and Iran that-but even so,two wrongs do not make a right.not worth wasting my time with confusion and silly adjectives and personal attacks.

the only point I must clarify again because it is an outright Salafist aka Wahhabi lie : areas in iran with majority Shia population have mosques with a Shia administration.areas in iran with Sunni majority like Sistan and Balouchistan have mosques with a Sunni administration;in other words Shia in those areas do not have mosques and pray in sunni administered mosques.the Iranian policy is that all mosques are for Allah (swt) and all muslims can worship in any mosque.if you don't want to pray behind a Shia (or sunnis) imam (prayer leader),then feel free to enter the mosque and pray on your own,or alongside others when the congregational prayers are over;that is do your mini congregation and gain all the blessings you want.i have read a rebuttal to this Salafist/Wahhabi lie that Sunnis don't have a mosque in Tehran,where the majority is Shia.the article cited the example of Pakistan where within every 100 meters there is a mosque-one for Sufis,one for shia,one for sunnis,and one for each sub-group under each of those branches.then you have adhan blazing from many mosques within one street.that nonsense is not good to the Iranians.as for the Shia in Saudi Arabia,giving them what sunnis enjoy in iran (i.e. just allowing them to have their places of worship in areas they are majority) would be a welcome development,until then back to the topic.

yada yada yada an article that does not have a name and only lagoshia read is an article that simply exist in your head and yes calling Adhan nonsense only shows the level of you have sank into, as far as it goes Iran remains the only country that arest people for praying eid fitr in congregation and


http://sonsofsunnah.com/2013/03/11/another-iranian-sunni-scholars-along-with-11-sunni-activists-are-going-to-be-executed-in-the-shia-republic/


http://sonsofsunnah.com/2012/10/29/2160/


http://sonsofsunnah.com/2012/08/23/for-3rd-time-tehrans-sunnis-banned-to-offer-eid-prayer/

See Iranian scholar complaining about the rising sunni population;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Q9SFdK-AL18

LagosShia:
it is very funny that someone above is calling Saudi Arabia a "theocracy".monarchy and theocracy are two different things,and monarchy have no basis and no place in Islam,be you as Sunni as Salaheddine or as Shia as Ayatollah Khomeini.

*******
*******

^^^

and tomorrow he would insist only the prophet pbuh family are allowed to rule muslims! So he has invalidated the entire lies of Shiasm! where is the consistency? How Allah hang them with their own lies!

Lord_Reed:

Pardon me but is there any state in Nigeria were Christians have said no mosque will be built? In an institution were they have recognised uniforms why should hijab be permitted? Are female Muslim police women wearing hijab? Female Armed Forces? Do those organisations were that are made to go fellowship stop Muslims from salat?

When Zamfara state declared sharia, Christians started a media propaganda about the sanctity of the constitution
when Plateau state declared itself a Christian state, where was the constitution and the vocal christian defenders of its sanctity?

As for uniform, how can a school rule become superior to the constitution?
So Hijab allowed by the constitution can be abrogated by a school rule?
Do you need permission to exercise the rights given to you under the constitution?
(1) If you are a Nigerian, can a state require you to obtain a visa to be able enter in violation of your constitution right to move around?

Actually there is no reason why muslim police women should not wear Hijab if the applicant is normally a hijabite
Female Muslims are allowed in countries that don't have inveterate hatred of Islam like Nigerian Christians
The fact that some Christians don't go to church on Sundays does not mean we should now hold important public events on Sunday mornings

I don't get this. So if I am allowed to pay salat, it does not matter that I am forced to do shirk which worshipping Jesus during a fellowship is
(2) In other words, as long as a christian is allowed to go to church by his employer, you see no wrong in his being forced to go to the join in muslim salat?

(3) what is your view (since you like rules) about spending public money on National Christmas Tree in a country governed by a secular constitution

vedaxcool: ^^^

and tomorrow he would insist only the prophet pbuh family are allowed to rule muslims! So he has invalidated the entire lies of Shiasm! where is the consistency? How Allah hang them with their own lies!

"Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations.Offspring one of the other; and Allah is Hearing, Knowing".(Holy Quran 3:33-34)

"And when Abraham was tested by his Lord with certain commands and he fulfilled them. Then He said: Lo! I appoint you an Imam for mankind. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring (will there be Imam)? He said: My covenant does not reach the wrong-doers (among them)." (Holy Quran 2:124).

"Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House of Muhammad (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification". (Holy Quran 33:33)