Khadaffi: End Middle East Apartheid

It seems an almost incontrovertible rule of geopolitical machinations: at some point, up will always seem like down and yesterday's despot is today's voice of reason.  Such is the case with the typically odious Moammar Khadaffi.  Yesterday, Kahdaffi suggested that the Saudi government end its religious apartheid over the city of Mecca.

Mecca is the holiest city in Islam, and only Muslims are allowed entry by the Saudi government.  No other city in the Middle East, and possibly the world, practices such open religious discrimination.

As the traditional Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca is upon us, Khadaffi has taken the opportunity to call on the Saudis to end such discrimination. Saudi Arabia should "allow Jews and Christians to visit Mecca and circle the Kaaba [cubical building surrounded by the Sacred Mosque]." (Yediot).  More after the flip.

(Highway sign leading into Mecca)

In the up is down, somewhat "bizarro" world of the Middle East, Khadaffi is also the leader supporting a sham court decision sentencing five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor to death for supposedly infecting some 400 children with HIV.  Maybe this is him throwing a bone to the Western audiences that condemn such an audacious decision, maybe this is part of an overall shift, or maybe it's just the broken clock being right twice a day.

Either way, Khadaffi is right. Saudi Arabia is pretty blatant about their discrimination. One can only imagine that if they made a good faith effort to rectify their own situation, they might prove to be a peacemaker in the Middle East.

•  "Either way, Khadaffi is right"

  Never has a scarier sentence been written on DailyKos.

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 06:36:00 PM PDT

  •  Like I said...

    ...up is down sometimes over there. Hell, Sharon spent his entire career as a warmonger and was what passed for a moderate before his stroke. Arafat personified terrorism but won a Nobel Peace Prize. Bizarro World...

    by Red Sox on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 06:38:35 PM PDT

  •  I've gotta say...

    ...as far as somewhat mentally unstable dictators go, Quadaffi is better than most.

    by metal prophet on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:10:19 PM PDT

•  Tip Jar. n/t

  by Red Sox on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 06:37:11 PM PDT

•  Even a broken, dictatorial clock...

  ...is right once a millenium.

  by DH from MD on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 06:45:57 PM PDT

•  I heard an in depth report

  on the Libya nurse thing somewhere (probably NPR -- yeah, yeah, I know, they're Republicans, yeah, yeah) and, as you might expect, it's more complicated than it's made out to be.  It's all going down in a part of the country in which Quadaffi is unpopular and in which he apparently has relatively little control -- thus the Libyan supreme court decision throwing out the original decision, now reinstated by the original court.

  by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 06:51:41 PM PDT

  •  Quadaffi

    is unpopular and has little control in part of Libya, that is interesting.

    by ohcanada on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:03:56 PM PDT

•  I cannot agree. It's their religion

  So long as they are ceded the authority to make religious determinationas, and administer access to the holy sites, the Saudis can certainly decide who has access. It's not the same as the situation here where state governments mandated separation and sanctioned discrimination. It may be discrimnation, but it's not necessarily wrong. It might be cool for me to circle the thing and participate with a million Muslims, but it its their right to restrict my access. And, out of respect for their faith, I shouldn't be offended. It's not like I'm being denied equal treatment to some secular thing. This is a place whose sole attraction is its religious aspect. I may believe it would be interesting to see it, but their right to define their own faith supercedes my right to intrude on their religious ground.

  by FischFry on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:04:31 PM PDT

  •  I have to agree with you

    It's rather like the right to be wrong.  If the prohibition is in the Quran, to do otherwise would be against the religion - and it is the state religion.

    by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:07:43 PM PDT

    •  Being in a religious text

      doesn't make it right. If states acted in accordance with religious texts or in accordance with their preferred interpretation of religious texts, there'd be a whole lot more dead people.

      by Red Sox on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:12:27 PM PDT

      •  That's why I called it the right

        to be wrong.

        I don't believe in religion, but I defend the right of people who want to practice it, as long as they keep it out of my space.

        by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:38:27 PM PDT

    •  So you wouldn't object

      to the Temple being rebuilt in Jerusalem?

      by Pumpkinlove on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:15:10 PM PDT

      •  Why should I -

        if it didn't involve tearing down the Al-Aqsa Mosque or confiscating any more Palestinian property to put it on.

        by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:34:59 PM PDT

        •  Why can't they tear down al-Aqsa?

          I don't think they should, but if you're willing to grant that much latitude to the Saudis based on their religious-based demand for a Muslim-only city, why not grant equal sovereignty to Israel over the Temple Mount and al-Aqsa? Maybe both tearing down a mosque and practicing apartheid in Mecca are both bad ideas...

          by Red Sox on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:37:51 PM PDT

          •  Should they tear down the mosque

            in [whereveritis] in India to rebuild the Temple of Shiva?

            Each religion has a claim.

            The difference is that no one who is not a Muslim can be said to have a right to go to Mecca.  The people who were displaced to build the mosque there have been blown away with the sands, and therefore no one else has a claim on the place.   No one not a Muslim is forced to go to Saudi Arabia, and anyone who does is aware of the restrictions.  So I can not identify anyone who is wronged by this particular act of discrimination.

            by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:15:06 PM PDT

            •  Whoa. That's circular reasoning

              "The difference is that no one who is not a Muslim can be said to have a right to go to Mecca."

              That's the whole question isn't it? Whether or not someone who is not a Muslim can be said to have a right to go to Mecca. The Saudis say no, and offer up the tenets of their religion as an explanation. You're accepting the Saudis right to decide who has and who does not have a right to go there. As it happens, I agree with you. Not everyone does. Qaddafi is saying that's discrimination -- that everyone should have a right to go there. He's correct -- it's just that in comparing the relative weight of the discrimination against the insult to the religion to change that practice, I come out on the Saudis side.

              by FischFry on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:24:35 PM PDT

              •  It is discrimination

                but not all discrimination violates a right.

                What right would be violated by not allowing a non-Muslim to go to Mecca?  On what grounds could such a right be said to exist?

                by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:55:15 PM PDT

                •  As you said -- it's the state

                  if the state is setting rules like that, it must be a violation of right -- by US standards, this would require strictest scrutiny. I still say it's OK, but it is a country saying where I can and can't go -- fundamental right of access.

                  by FischFry on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 10:16:45 PM PDT

                  •  It's the state, for the most part,

                    that determines what rights anyone can exercise, anywhere.

                    by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 11:23:06 PM PDT

                    •  A state's power comes from people not vice versa

                      by FischFry on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 07:44:58 AM PDT

            •  Scholars, businessmen

              by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:33:00 AM PDT

            •  Scholars, businessmen

              by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:33:41 AM PDT

              •  They have an interest

                This doesn't equate to a right.

                I may have an interest in examining the original Dead Sea Scrolls, but I am not allowed to do so.

                by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:07:10 AM PDT

                •  Are you qualified to do so?

                  Do you have the skills?
                  Or do you think you would be turned away because of your religion?

                  by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:10:55 AM PDT

            •  "Blown away with the sands"

              Such a callous and chilling way to describe the destruction of the animists, Christians and Jews who refused to accept the new Muslim faith upon the conquest of Mecca. The Kaaba was an object of veneration before the advent of Islam.

              by word is bond on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:58:59 AM PDT

              •  So it was

                and so was Jerusalem.

                Read Shelley's Ozymandias.

                Nothing beside remains.  Round the decay
                Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
                The lone and level sands stretch far away.

                That's the way history is.

                My point is that if any of the nonMuslim descendants of those animists, Christians and Jews could show their ancestors once lived in Mecca and they had a legal claim to property there, they might have a case to having a right to go there.

                Failing this, I know of nothing that would give anyone any such right.

                by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:04:27 AM PDT

          •  What are we the Taliban?

            Are we really disusing this?
            The Buddhas of Bamyan, Built in the 6th century.
            
            Destroyed by the Taliban.

            The Al Aqsa Mosque built in the 8th century.
            It is a historic monument.

            There are a number of Religions that don’t allow outsides into their places of worship: Tibetan Buddhists- Mormons- there are more...

            by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:56:53 AM PDT

            •  Because of the hypocrisy

              of people who get so up in arms about Palestinians not being allowed into Israel itself are supporting keeping non-Muslims out of Mecca.

              Do I think the temple needs to be rebuilt?  Of course not, there are very strong religious reasons for not rebuilding it.   However, Curmudgiana's bizarre acceptence of this prohibition is highly hypocritical considering her concerns about Israel

              by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 02:04:04 AM PDT

              •  good to know

                Are you mad at Curmudgiana over this Diary post- link

                Do you know who you are

                or am I just silly?

                ;`)

                by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 04:12:03 AM PDT

                •  Sigh

                  That's a shame.  I had not seen that.  

                  Frankly, that was abusive on curmudgiana's part stalking Red Tulips like that.

                  by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 04:17:45 AM PDT

                  •  It was

                    kind of abusive, but RT was trolling, as evidenced by her blog post. It's like she came her seeking to gather evidence for a conclusion she already reached.

                    by Red Sox on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 04:21:36 AM PDT

                    •  But

                      Curmudgiana acted without proof,  The proof only came after the ban.  She could do that to any one of us.

                      by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 04:24:10 AM PDT

                      •  Maybe, but...

                        ...I had suspicions about RT and usually avoided uprating her posts because I thought there might be something fishy. Guess there was...

                        by Red Sox on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 05:22:18 AM PDT

                        •  that's reasonable

                          Many of RT's posts went way off the deep end.  Sometimes she had something useful to say.

                          Now what I wnat to know is in the same thread where I asked curmugiana to take it to the admins, Shergald admitted to have posted in LGF and Shergald has admitted to being a shill.  But Shergald isn't hunted down.

                          by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 05:44:05 AM PDT

                      •  Nope

                        read my comments I have have been leaving a trail of links hahahaha

                        all those years with the ap taught me a few things, dont worry....

                        nothing to fear unless.....

                        by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 07:00:10 AM PDT

                  •  My Red Tulips Polls

                    This is what killed off Red Tulips...http://

                    1. Not so bad

                    2. It could have been worce

                    3. I dont care what she said Shee is my Friend

                    4. Pie

                    5. OMG I cant F*ck*n Believe that C*t said such filth!

                    by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 02:39:59 PM PDT

        •  Because Al Aqsa rests on the Temple's remains

          or so we believe. It was built deliberately to do so.  So rebuilding the Temple would require destroying the mosque.

          Furthermore,  Judaism is Israel's state religion.  The Temple Mount, Western (no longer wailing!) Wall and the Cave of the Patriachs are the most important sights to Judaism.  Should Israel assert her authority over them?

          by Pumpkinlove on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:48:50 PM PDT

          •  No, because that would mean violating

            someone else's rights.

            If a Temple is so important, it can be built elsewhere.  It wouldn't be the same Temple, regardless.  

            by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:08:09 PM PDT

            •  So...

              banning one from entry into a city based on their religious beliefs is OK.

              Eliminating a building based on one's religious beliefs is not OK.

              Doesn't seem to compute.

              by Red Sox on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:10:14 PM PDT

              •  It is a question of rights

                What right do non-Muslims have to enter Mecca?

                You can ban me from entering your house.  You have a right to do this, I don't have a right to be there.

                by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:37:35 PM PDT

                •  What rights

                  What right do non-Muslims have to enter Mecca?

                  Well, no one in Saudi Arabia really has many rights, but non-Muslims have as much right to go to Mecca as non-Jews have to go to Jerusalem. That is to say one has effectively as much right as the state grants them.  Any athiest, Buddhist, or any other kind of believer may go to any city in just about any country. States that forbid entire religions (and non-religions) of people from entry to an entire city deserve scorn.

                  You can ban me from entering your house.  You have a right to do this, I don't have a right to be there.

                  A landowner exercising domain over his home is not entirely analogous to a state determining which religions may enter an entire city. One has to do with private property rights, the other with freedom of movement and travel.

                  by Red Sox on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:42:10 PM PDT

                  •  Any state has the right

                    to bar entry to noncitizens and to regulate the activies of those it allows entry.  There is not absolutely free, unregulared freedom of movement and travel anywhere.

                    Saudi Arabia considers its entire nation as existing to serve the Muslim religion.  That's their thing.  But nobody else is forced to go there.

                    by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 09:03:13 PM PDT

                    •  So its ok w/ you

                      that Israel doesn't allow Palestinians married to Israelis to enter Israel because Israel has the right to bar entry to noncitizens.   I'm so glad we've cleared that up.

                      by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:42:12 AM PDT

                      •  Its not ok with me

                        Its not ok with
                        Amnesty International, The UN, Human Right Groups

                        by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 02:07:13 AM PDT

                        •  Why can S. Arabia control who enters

                          their country but Israel cannot?

                          by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 02:13:59 AM PDT

                          •  S. Arabia control enters their holy city

                            Israel Control who enter the country- who can have a visa and who can not.

                            "Nationality and Entry into Israel Law"
                            Prohibits Palestinian spouses from obtaining citizenship, permanent residency and temporary residency status in Israel by marriage to an Israeli citizen, a process referred to as "family reunification."

                            The law defines "area" as Judea, Samaria or the Gaza Strip; Judea and Samaria are more commonly known as the West Bank

                            The Law impacts couples who had been living together in Israel while trying to get reunification approval. Under the new law, thousands of Palestinians living in Israel must go back to the West Bank or Gaza, and they will be denied identity cards—their passports to get past police checkpoints.

                            According to the law a child over the age of 12 who was born in the West Bank will not be able to receive a permit to enter or a permit to reside in Israel even if his parent is an Israeli Citizen or Resident.

                            I want to know of any country that removes Children from their parent?

                            The Law is it was passed in 2003 at the time there were thousands of families with children waiting for their applications to go through. These people were married in the 1990's they had no way of knowing this would happen to their families.  

                            The Law also ignores background and summarily rejects everyone.

                            by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 03:30:30 AM PDT

                            •  Hmmm

                              The Law also ignores background and summarily rejects everyone.

                              Which you could say about Saudi laws governing access to Mecca. If you're not a Muslim, then you have to get out. But if Israel does it, then it's not OK for some reason.

                              by Red Sox on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 04:14:47 AM PDT

                              •  Wow, Israel laws Equal to S. Arabia

                                Gosh how proud you must be, Israel on the same playing filled as S. Arabia. Bravo!

                                Which you could say about Saudi laws governing access to Mecca. If you're not a Muslim, then you have to get out. But if Israel does it, then it's not OK for some reason.

                                How proud you must be, next thing I’ll hear is Israel Religious Police Let Girls Burn in there School For Not wearing the Right Clothes- Or Killing Women that were Raped unless Her Rapist want to Marry her!

                                Fan F*cken Tastic!

                                by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 05:43:05 AM PDT

                                •  And the goalposts fly

                                  How proud you must be, next thing I’ll hear is Israel Religious Police Let Girls Burn in there School For Not wearing the Right Clothes- Or Killing Women that were Raped unless Her Rapist want to Marry her

                                  Fan F*cken Tastic!

                                  You're cute when you're frothing at the mouth. If your scneario ever happened, you can be quite sure you'd hear about it no no end here from the usual suspects. You can be equally sure that if that Saudi bastion of religious enlightenment repeated those scenarios, the Israel-obsessed would have very little to criticize. After all, who are we to judge...unless it's Israel.

                                  Israel's standards aren't the point of this diary. If you wish to continue with your semi-lucid rants about how awful Israel is, I'm sure you'll find plenty of diaries where it's germane.

                                  This diary is about how the delightful Saudi government practices state-sponsored apartheid and how the usualy odious Moammar Jhadaffi voiced his disapproval.

                                  by Red Sox on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 05:51:19 AM PDT

                                  •  Laughing, hot dam ur adorable!

                                    I was only answered a questions Monsieur Red Sox...

                                    Butter Cup'
                                    Oh no, you already know this because I was replying to you?
                                    
                                    Monsieur Red Sox, it was in jest... I love my Israel

                                    I will be happy to go back to you diary
                                    or sleep on the beach?
                                    Monsieur, forgive....

                                    by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:07:08 AM PDT

                                    •  Um

                                      OK...

                                      I was only answered a questions Monsieur Red Sox...

                                      May I reasonably assume that English is not your first language?

                                      by Red Sox on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:14:27 AM PDT

                                      •  No English is my first language

                                        I just think french is a little sexy, No?
                                        Monsieur, is Mister.
                                        I speeck seven language- what a shame, I am dyslexic in all*

                                        by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:58:28 AM PDT

                              •  IFF

                                a nonMuslim were already living in Mecca, with family and/or property there, and was told to get out, I would agree that this would violate that person's rights.

                                Indeed, I could see a case for arguing that a Muslim's rights might be violated if the Muslim living in Mecca married a Jew, say, and were forced to move because of this.

                                by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:38:47 AM PDT

                            •  Read curmudgiana's post again please

                              by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 04:19:29 AM PDT

                            •  Source?

                              by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 05:47:58 AM PDT

                      •  In this case,

                        the restriction does indeed violate a human right, as right-thinking Israelis agree.

                        by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:30:48 AM PDT

                        •  What right does it violate?

                          Americans are not always allowed to bring their spouses in, why should Israel be different?

                          by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:13:26 AM PDT

                    •  That's their thing? how did I miss this?

                      Saudi Arabia considers its entire nation as existing to serve the Muslim religion.  That's their thing.  But nobody else is forced to go there.

                      Israel conssiders its entire nation as existing to serve the Jewish religion.  That's their thing.  Nobody else is forced to go there.

                      Two things... what about non-Muslims who live in Saudi Arabia?  Is it ok to keep them out of Mecca?    If so, why can't Israel keep out non-Jews from Jerusalem?  It is their thing after all.

                      by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 02:06:52 AM PDT

                      •  If Israel

                        had been established as a Jewish state in a place where there were no non-Jews already living, and it restricted the right of entry to Jews, that would be its right.

                        Unfortunately, it did not.

                        by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:44:05 AM PDT

                    •  It's their thing

                      so its okay when they arrest people for practicing Christianity?
                      when they kill non-Muslims for entering holy sites?
                      when they arrest people and deport them for having a Bible?

                      by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 02:13:06 AM PDT

                      •  You are just hate-mongering

                        and I am not going to indulge you in it.

                        by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:45:37 AM PDT

                        •  curmudgiana

                          Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly expressed concern about the states of human rights in Saudi Arabia-

                          Tell me you know this?

                          by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:12:36 AM PDT

                          •  The state of human rights in SA

                            is pretty dismal, but not letting non-Muslims into Mecca is fairly low on the scale of oppressions.

                            People who mistakenly enter the city are simply let go unless they are judged to have malicious intent.  It happens frequently.

                            But I have not the time at the moment to refute every piece of propaganda Pumpkin dredges up.

                            by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:51:54 AM PDT

                            •  Yes if you read my

                              Comments you would see that it what I tp have been staying- I Beginning to think that both Red Sox & Punkinlove are having some fun with us...

                              or friends of RT

                              by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:34:16 AM PDT

                              •  I'm sure that if Punkin

                                wants to move over to RT's place, she'll find plenty of company to share her tales of the Eeeeeviles of Islamofascism.

                                But there are more important issues demanding attention at the moment.

                                by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:19:29 PM PDT

                        •  So when you say hateful things

                          about Israel, it's just because you don't like the policies.. even if what you say isn't true.

                          When I describe truths about Saudi Arabia, its hate mongering.

                          by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:14:25 AM PDT

                      •  Some of what you say is true-

                        The House of Saud is a F*ckin nightmar in the Human Right department. what they do to  practicing Muslims that convert to Christianity is Terrible - Beating women for not wearing full burks" letting girls burn-

                        If you want to write a dairy on the Horor of the House of Saud I'm with you- But getting bent because No Muslims can enter the Holy city of Mecca- is not one of them.

                        by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:08:37 AM PDT

                        •  Again, its the hypocrisy of it all

                          How can someone support keeping non-Muslims outta Mecca while going apeshit on keeping non-Israeli citizens/residents out of Jerusalem?

                          by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:15:21 AM PDT

                          •  the Saud's didnt already have them there-

                            The Saud's didnt invite them in and the kick them out- and chaange the law, this law has been in place of 1400 years-

                            If the Temple had not been destroyed by Romans in A.D. 70, If the Jewish people had stayed on the land with the Temple I would agree- but that is not what happened.

                            by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:49:37 AM PDT

                            •  Jews has stayed

                              What about Hebron?  Jews lived there for thousands of years until the 1929 massacre.. it is arguably the second holiest city to Jews after Jerusalem.  Do Palestinians get to kick all Jews out with the creation of their state?

                              by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:42:06 AM PDT

                              •  True that poor small on clave suffered

                                Many Jews survived by hiding in their Arab neighbors' houses-

                                by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 02:53:19 PM PDT

                •  What right to non-Catholics have to enter

                  the Vatican city?   Should they be kept out too?

                  What a loss to scholars, architects, historians and tourists then.

                  by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 02:07:54 AM PDT

                  •  I would not dispute the right of the Pope

                    to so decree.

                    by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:09:47 AM PDT

                    •  Can Jews keep out Muslims from Rache's tomb?

                      by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:15:56 AM PDT

                •  Why aren't nonMuslims allowed to enter Mecca?

                  Is it because they are dirty?

                  by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 02:12:11 AM PDT

                  •  Punpkin, please you are being ridiculous

                    its the same reasin nonJews are forbidden to enter an orthodox Hessidic synagogue.

                    Non-Christians are not allowed to enter the Coptic orthodox churches in Ethiopia.

                    you have to understand this it just so silly.

                    by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:19:50 AM PDT

                    •  Yes, it is.

                      by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:42:42 AM PDT

                      •  do you want me to

                        TU- Because this is a Racist ugly statement

                        Why aren't nonMuslims allowed to enter Mecca
                        Is it because they are dirty?

                        by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:30:15 AM PDT

                •  Your opinion on the US restricting immigration?

                  Do we have the right to ban others from entering our house? Sounds lilke you would have no problem with building the fence? How about this: What if in the 1950s, the US declared it was a white nation, and restricted where blacks could go? Obviously, blacks would be free to leave -- no one would be forcing them to remain.

                  Your reasoning is just completely circular -- you say that non-Muslims have no right to go to Mecca, so the Saudis have the right to keep them out. Where does a state derive the power to say one group of people can come to this city, but others can't? Where does the first group get the right to go there, but the second group not have the same right?

                  You can't say non-Muslims have no right to go there -- that only Muslims do have such a right. Where would that right come from? I don't deny the right of non-Muslims to go anywhere in the world that they please -- I just argue that it may be OK to restrict the right in some circumstances.

                  by FischFry on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 07:38:47 AM PDT

                  •  There is no such thing

                    as an unrestricted natural right to go wherever one pleases.

                    A state, in its sovereignty, decides what civil rights people will have within its jurisdiction.  This power derives from its sovereignty as a state.  These civil rights vary from one state to another.

                    The question here is whether Saudi Arabia, in denying non Muslims the civil right to go to Mecca, is denying their natural rights as human beings.

                    I believe it is not.  I see no argument that there is such a natural right.

                    by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:16:23 AM PDT

                    •  So Israel can

                      revoke residency of non citizens?  
                      refuse entry of non citizens?

                      by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:18:20 AM PDT

                      •  differant-

                        Israel said obey the law and you can become a Resident.
                        They open doors and wove path of paper work saying if you do all of this things you family can live here make a home here-

                        and then said Oh never you mind- go live in the ghetto now and take you half breed children with You!

                        How can you not see that this is differant?

                        by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:24:38 AM PDT

                        •  That's not what happened and you know it.

                          Nor should it be what happens.

                          But Curmudgiana is applying different standards for Israel than other places.

                          by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:44:19 AM PDT

                          •  Isreal changed Law in 2003- without warning

                            Adel Hussein- who Son (Muhammad Hussein) is serving in the Israeli army.

                            If you live in Israel you know what I am talking about

                            There is also Israel Arab woman that is divorced with 7 children all of her children live with her and her family in Jerusalem after the law was passed she tried to find a way to keep her children in Israel. Her three oldest were all over the age of 12, she lost and her children now live in the West Bank with their father.

                            This was all over the News in 2003 If you don’t know what I am talking about you are not who you say you are.

                            by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:22:41 AM PDT

                            •  LOL

                              If you don’t know what I am talking about you are not who you say you are.

                              What an impeccably sourced story.

                              by Red Sox on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:26:31 AM PDT

                              •  I was not responding to you-

                                I was posting a reply to Punkinlove who says she lives in Israel- I have posted a picture off my deck in my home in Israel. If she can not name the woman- I will give you a source in 24hours-

                                But know this Punklove Is a Liar-
                                "She does not live in Israel"

                                by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 11:49:54 AM PDT

              •  Thats right-

                I dont get what you dint understand?

                Indigenous peoples thoughout the world have scarce places- Hawaiians have scarce place where they dont allow visitors - They have  Scarce Holy Rituals on Reservations "Tribal Lands" that you are not welcome to Witness unless you belong to the Tribe- Orthodox do not let men sit with woman- this could go on...

                What are we The Holy Mother Church That Decides the pagans beliefs are less important then our own?

                I believe in the "Bill of Right" and freedom of religion-

                you pick the wrong Argument, there is enough horor in the house Saud, but you are Comparing Apple and Oranges.

                Link

                by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:47:37 AM PDT

            •  How?

              The Al Aqsa mosque was bult deliberately to restrict the Jews rights to rebuild their Temple.  Shouldn't it then be torn down and the Temple be rebuilt?  Why do their rights supercede the Jews?

              The Temple wouldn't be the Temple if it were not built on the remains of the other two Temples or so many believe.

              by Pumpkinlove on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:11:57 PM PDT

              •  You will have to show evidence

                about this claim wrt the mosque.

                No matter where it is built, the Temple won't be the Temple, as it will not contain the Ark.  Unless the Ethiopians are right, and they have it there, and are willing to sell it.

                by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:34:27 PM PDT

                •  ,

                  "We believe that Islam is the third and last religion. It came to complete the monotheistic message. The mosque is here at the place of the temple to serve for the same purpose, for the work of Allah."

                  They put the Mosque on the Temple.  They knew it was the Temple and they knew that putting their Mosque there would forestall any futre rebuilding.

                  Shouldn't it be torn down and returned to those to whom it belongs?

                  by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 02:27:37 AM PDT

                  •  The Dome of the Rock

                    The Koran (Quran) mentions the twofold destruction of the Temple. It also tells us that while in Medina, Muhammad changed the qiblah from Jerusalem to Mecca. Originally, that is, he prayed in the same direction as the Jews, who formed a large congregation in Medina. Thus the Muslims knew about the Temple, although it had disappeared almost 500 years before the birth of Islam. The chief name for Jerusalem among their early historians was "the Holy House." This was later shortened to the present designation, "the Holy" (al-Quds).

                    It is not surprising, then, that when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638 AD under the Caliph Omar, they reverently cleaned the area and erected a wooden mosque. This was "near the eastern wall," said Arculf around 680. Eight years later the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik began to build the Dome of the Rock, which he finished in 691. The original building has survived (except for the dome, replaced in 1022, and some of the decoration).

                    No one does archaeology near the Dome. Maimonides reported that Josiah hid the Ark of the Covenant below the Temple (The Book of Temple Service, 17), yet earlier sources say nothing of this. It is doubtful whether a dig would turn up much: if the Romans didn't level the area, later builders surely did. Despite the lack of definitive evidence, however, most scholars accept the place of the Dome as that where the Temple stood.

                    How would the Muslims have known that this was the holy place? The decisive factor was probably the prominent outcropping of bedrock: no other spot on the mountain could compete with it for numinous power. Another factor may have played a part: in the decades between the Muslim conquest and the building of the dome in 691, Jews were again permitted to pray on the Mount, and they focused on "the pierced stone."  

                    As to al-Malik's motive in building it, the founder's inscription offers a clue. We can see this upon entering. Piers and pillars divide the area around the rock into two "ambulatories," outer and inner. These eight dividing piers and sixteen pillars support arches, above which is a band of writing. It runs on both sides of the arcade for a total of 240 meters. Apart from giving credit to the builder and telling us the date, it contains a citation from the Koran (Qur'an), Sura 4, verse 171:

                    O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son. Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

                    This shows one of al-Malik's motives. The Koran had laid on Muslims the religious duty of striving (jihad) to bring Islam to the world. The only serious rival was Christianity. Here the Muslims had taken over a Christian city with many beautiful churches, among them the (then) magnificent Church of the Resurrection (now called the Holy Sepulcher). In the words of a 10th-century Muslim historian who lived in Jerusalem:

                    Caliph Abd al-Malik, noting the greatness of the Dome of the Holy Sepulcher and its magnificence, was moved lest it should dazzle the minds of Muslims and so erected, above the Rock, the Dome which is now seen there. (Muqaddasi, pp. 22-23 )

                    (Many say that al-Malik had a political rival in Mecca: he built the Dome so that his subjects would pilgrim to Jerusalem, rather than make the obligatory haj. If so, that would have been heresy, but the notion is suspect. Its earliest source is a 9th-century Abbasid historian, Yaqubi. No other contemporary or near-contemporary historian mentions it. The Abbasids were interested in discrediting the Umayyad caliphs. One of them even substituted his own name for al-Malik's in the founding inscription of the Dome of the Rock, but forgot to change the date.)

                    Murphy-O'Connor (p.86)  suggests an additional motive. By its splendor, we have seen, this Muslim-funded building was to outshine the Christian Holy Sepulcher. By its place, it would present Islam as God's more perfect successor to Judaism. In Muslim belief, Islam completes and perfects the truths of both its monotheistic forebears. The embodiment of this fulfillment is the Dome of the Rock.

                    That makes sense, and yet -- why not then erect a specifically Islamic building? In those days that would have meant a mosque for congregational prayer, to replace the modest wooden one that Arculf saw in 680. The Dome of the Rock, an octagon, will not do for a congregation. Rather, it closely resembles contemporary octagonal churches of Christendom: for example, that over Peter's House in Capernaum, the Church of Mary on Mt. Gerizim, and the portion of the Holy Sepulcher around the grave of Jesus. The dome of the last was 20.46 meters in diameter, that of the Muslim shrine 20.44: a one-inch difference.

                    The octagonal church in Christendom, not built for a congregation, typically commemorates an event or honors a saint. Instead of erecting a mosque on the rock, al-Malik put up this shrine. Was he commemorating something?

                    In the minds and hearts of Muslims, the Dome of the Rock does have a specifically Islamic significance, and perhaps it already had it then. Muslims believe that Muhammad ascended to heaven from here. The first verse of Sura 17 in the Koran states:

                    Glory be to Him who carried His servant by night from the holy shrine to the distant shrine (al-masjid al-aqsa)  the precincts of which We have blessed, that We might show him some of our (miraculous) signs.

                    (This verse appears on the drum outside. The tiling, redone in the 20th century, copied the 16th-century repairs of the Turkish Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. He too may have copied an inscription that was already there.)

                    http://72.14.205.104/...

                    by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:23:11 AM PDT

                    •  Not a terribly reliable source there.

                      A cached site??

                      by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:21:11 AM PDT

            •  I don't believe it can be somewhere else

              I believe most strains of Judaism maintain that the Temple must be rebuilt on the site of the old -- as was done once before. It's not about whether it is the same Temple, so much as the site. Therein lies the rub. One site requiring two separate, incompatible uses -- though one may question whether the Islamic claim is a legitimate part of the religion, or a fabrication raised to lay calim to the site, we are stuck with it.

              by FischFry on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:17:23 PM PDT

              •  Muslim tradition

                states that the original direction for prayer was toward Jerusalem, before the prophet changed it to Mecca.

                by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:52:31 PM PDT

                •  That's got nothing to do with anything

                  Al Aksa is meant to be on the spot that Mohammed went up to Heaven. It's the spot we we're talking about -- not the city

                  by FischFry on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 10:18:41 PM PDT

                  •  It was towards Jerusalem

                    because it was a holy place to the prophet during his lifetime.

                    He ascended to heaven there because it was a holy place.

                    by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 11:25:39 PM PDT

                    •  A Jewish holy place.

                      by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:50:22 AM PDT

          •  Um

            I don't believe it is correct to say that "Judaism is Israel's state religion". Israel is a Jewish state, and elements of Judaism influence public policy (such as Sabbath observance), but I don't think Israel had declared a state or official religion.

            by word is bond on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:30:29 AM PDT

            •  Fair enough

              by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:50:55 AM PDT

            •  De facto if not de jure it is

              by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:32:33 PM PDT

        •  Furthermore

          You cannot have a non-Cohenim in the holiest of holies, now can you?  So, that would defintely require the destruction of the mosque deliberately built on the Temple's remains to keep it from being rebuilt.

          Why are you going to stifle the fullest expression of Judaism by forcing Jews to allow non-Cohenim to walk above the holiest of holies while supporting Islam's right to keep non-Muslims out of an entire city?

          by Pumpkinlove on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:05:09 PM PDT

          •  I believe that prohibition

            only applies to Jews.

            In fact, the rabbinical authorities prohibited Jews to enter the complex at all, lest they inadvertently step foot in the H of Hs.  

            by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:31:18 PM PDT

            •  Some rabbinc authorities

              Some do NOT.

              And you honestly think that non-Jews would have been allowed in the Holiest of Holies.

              by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:51:58 AM PDT

              •  I believe the point was

                that anyone else would have been smitten dead, so whether they were allowed is rather beside the point.

                by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:08:48 AM PDT

        •  Are Palestinians allowed to restrict Jews

          access to holy sites in the West Bank once there is a Palestine?

          by Pumpkinlove on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:17:27 PM PDT

          •  You'll have to ask a fortune-teller

            who can look into the future.

            by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:32:32 PM PDT

            •  But would that be ok for you?

              If so, could Israelis keep Palestinians from the Temple Mount?

              by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:52:37 AM PDT

              •  In a peaceful settlement

                there should be no reason why tourists from one state should not visit holy sites in another.

                You keep trying to make this issue into something that serves your hate for the Palestinians, but that's your problem, not mine.

                by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:28:45 AM PDT

                •  Indeed

                  there should be no reason why tourists from one state should not visit holy sites in another.

                  And yet Saudi Arabia prohibits just that. If Israel were to do so, I can't imagine there would be such indifference. Not sure about the Vatican.

                  by Red Sox on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:45:29 AM PDT

                  •  I would prefer, myself,

                    to have the right to visit Mecca if I so wished.

                    The issue, however, is whether I can say I have a right to do so, that SA is violating.

                    by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:55:30 AM PDT

                •  Merely pointing your hate of Israel out

                  in your bizarre double standard.

                  by Pumpkinlove on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 09:22:25 AM PDT

          •  The Jordanians did, but...

            Jews couldn't even go to their own holiest site to pray -- to the Wailing Wall -- hence the scenes of Jews weeping at this wall in June '67. And some people on this site don't get why Israeli Jews do not trust their Arab neighbors --- nor why Israel doesn't just unilaterally withdraw to the Green Line? Israel would not agree to a peace settlement that did not speak to the issue of assuring Jewish access...all drafts have Israel in control of the Temple area. But, they would insist on access to sites in Hebron and elsewhere. Amazing that they would have to do that, since Palestinians ought to welcome such religious tourism...

            by FischFry on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 07:15:30 AM PDT

      •  where in Jerusalem?

        by npbeachfun on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:09:08 AM PDT

    •  Agree with whom? Me or the diarist?

      I'm not sure if your comments are saying you're OK to allow such discrimination, so long as it's in the Qu'ran? If so, I'm not sure why you limit it to the Qu'ran. There other sources of Islamic law.....Are we to set up outside judges to determine whether and what a religion requires, or assess the authoritativeness of certain sources? One may decide from the outside that some practices are so odious that we will not accept them, regardless of what the religion may or may not require -- but I wouldn't want to judge whether a practice is or is not required by that religion -- and I wouldn't find this prohibition to be so odious that it should be stopped.

      by FischFry on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:12:41 PM PDT

      •  I was agreeing with you, actually

        In Islam, the Quran is believed to be the literal and actual word of God.  It has an authority than no other source does.  Other sources are subject to interpretation, that one is not.

        In this country, with no state religion, we tolerate religious practices only up to a point.  The law can override them.

        In a country with a state religion, who or what is to override it?  What sanctions can be taken against it?

        by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:29:03 PM PDT

    •  Source of the prohibition

      Does anyone know if the prohibition is in the Quran? Downthread, londonbear says it is not.

      by word is bond on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 01:20:02 AM PDT

  •  So you'd be cool with Jews being kept out of

    Notre Dame in Paris? Or any of the hundreds of other religious sites there? Hell, why don't we just keep 'em out of the city altogether? Since the religious sites are so close together and all. Or maybe we can keep them in ghettoes . . .yeah, that's the ticket.

    by Indexer on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:29:15 PM PDT

    •  I don't think there's a logical leap

      from "X Religion Only in This Town" (a practice I agree is quite odious) and ghettoizing religious communities. Maybe there's a slippery slope argument to be made, but I think it's a bit of a stretch.

      I also think that if it was a Christian state or Israel with a policy like this, there'd be a greater uproar here.

      by Red Sox on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:35:35 PM PDT

      •  I think it's a quite reasonable leap.

        Keeping out and ghettoizing are really the same thing. The difference is only in the pre-existing population. Once a people are kept out of a certain area, no matter how small, it's a very small step to keep the in their "appropriate" place. The only difference in the post I was responding to seems to be whether or not anybody of the marginal group would like to go there.

        My example was perhaps a bit disingenuous, since Paris did of course keep Jews out of Notre Dame and did put Jews in ghettoes during most of its history.

        by Indexer on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 07:48:36 PM PDT

        •  THe thing is it would be OK

          If it was in the religion that it was sacred ground only to be tread upon by those who accept the faith -- I think that would be fine. Of course, how one determines who has accepted the faith and who has not could be problematic. But, the principle would not bother me. Heck, in my religion, only Priests were allowed in the Holy of Holies -- it wasn't even open to 99.99999% of the faith. I'm not for dicrimination based upon religion, but neither to I believe in disrespecting religions to the point of telling them thar they must open their ceremonies and their most sacred places to curious non-believers.

          There is no connection with ghettoizing. We're not talking about telling people where they may live or work or any such thing. Just a question of whether non-believers must be granted access to religious rites and the sites on which those rites occur.

          As for access to those rites -- I don't know if you're Jewish, but most temples now retrict access on the high holidays to Temple members who've purchased tickets for the services. This is done as a fundraiser, but it now doubles as a security measure -- as many Temples are forced now to employ security. In some countries, those security measures apply on Sabbath services as well.

          Do you believe that is illegal? If you do, I think you've allowed a belief in "law" or "non-discrmination" to overcome reason. Frankly, if you think the Saudis should be forced to open those sites to non-believers, I say the same.

          by FischFry on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:05:59 PM PDT

          •  So it would be ok for Israel

            to restrict access to the Temple Mount of all non-Jews?

            As for the High Holy Day tickets, most syngogues require tickets because it is the only time of the year when the entire congregation is likely to show up.  Arrangments can be made for non-members who will be away from home and tickets must be purchased by non-members though the Rabbi usually has a set to give out at will.  My congregation has to hold High Holy day services at a much larger facility and we are still crowded.

            by Pumpkinlove on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:10:09 PM PDT

          •  Ah, but you've changed the debate.

            We were talking about the CITY of Mecca, not the specific holy site itself. I can conditionally agree with you about the sacredness of certain sites, and how they should be left to those of the faith to determine access, but I have a problem when that restriction enlarges to encompass non-religious sites. Hence my bit of disingenuousness with the Paris example.

            by Indexer on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 08:25:26 PM PDT

    •  There are

      sacred and semi-sacred precincts all over the world. The Forbidden City was forbidden not only because of the emperor's presence but because it was the place of the gods. Humans have always restricted sacred areas. As a residue of sacredness, when the Royals are in residence at Windsor you can't just go wandering about.

      If Notre Dame were a purely religious site for Catholics, I wouldn't be allowed there either--I can't take communion in a Catholic church. If Jerusalem were a purely Hebrew holy site then it would be within the rights of Jews to restrict access. And because the Ka'aba and Makkah are Muslim holy sites, it's okay for the Saudis to restrict access.

      by crose on Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 10:31:43 PM PDT

      •  But since

        those religious who consider Jerusalem holy are descendents of Judaism.. why doesn't Judaisms claim on Jerusalem outweigh theirs?

        Why is it Judaisms holiest site doesn't have the same privaledge of exclusivity because it is Muslims third?

        by