Calling To Hajj Is Calling To Unity Of Power

[Muslimwoman]

MW, I think we are comparing apples and oranges here.

I think the key issue here is a sense of muslims being 'better' than non-muslims. It also gives the feeling that non-muslims cannot get to heaven, so keep them out of Mecca because they are 'wasting their time and everyone else's time.' (Does Islam teach that non-muslims cannot get to heaven?) And, quite frankly, it is outright discrimination.

Just to make a point, churches and synogogues do NOT remain places solely for Christians and Jews. Christianity and Judiasm reject such exclusivity, and I think they are right in doing so.

There are certain restrictions in many religions.

Judaism:

[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial, helvetica]The Temple mount is even holier: persons who are impure on account of a running issue cannot enter there. The outer zone is even holier: non-Jews and persons who are impure on account of contact with a corpse cannot enter there. [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Halacha-Overview - Torah.org

Should I be insulted? Of course not, it is a holy place for Jews and as a non Jew I have no business being there, it is a holy place to Jews and not a tourist attraction. Should I feel discriminated against? Of course not, I am not a Jew so I have no business there except for oggling and taking tourist pictures which would be disrespectful.

Hindu faith:

A marble plaque in front of Kashi Vishwanath declares: "Those who do not have faith in Arya dharma are strictly prohibited from entering the temple precincts."

Temples of unmodern India - The Times of India Temples of unmodern India - The Times of India​

So the idea that a place is sacred to the followers of that faith is certainly not a Muslim only idea. If you don't have any business there (and the only business anyone can have is practicing their faith) then why would you want to go there and why should you be allowed to .. for what purpose, just so you don't feel excluded?

 

[Muslimwoman]

The woman who was killed was killed deliberately, and that is forbidden in our Religion.

asalam aleykum

I can't find a reference for this woman being killed deliberately, do you have one please?

I did find this though, which supports what you are saying:

Question:


Asalamu alaykum Shaykh, I have read the fatwa section on Jihad but I am looking for clarification of a specific Hadith found in Sahih Bukhari which is propagating as some as a refutation to what you have mentioned: Narrated as-Saíb bin Jaththama: The Prophet passed by me at a place called al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They are from them." Could you please clarify the context of this Hadith and whether it contradicts the general ruling of prohibition of targeting civilians which you mentioned elsewhere? JazakAllah khair.



Answered by Sheikh `Abd Allah al-Manî`î


Al-Salâm `Alaykum wa Rahmah Allah wa Barakâtuh.


Those who are not generally engaged in fighting – like women, children, the elderly, the handicapped, and others who do not participate in the fighting – are not to be killed. The Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited this. His prohibition of the killing of women and children is clearly related by Ibn `Umar in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3015) and Sahîh Muslim (1744).


The only exception to this is where such people participate directly in the fighting or are so intermixed with the fighters that it is impossible to separate them from those who are fighting. This exception is indicated by the hadîth of al-Sa`b b. Jathâmah. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked about the women and children of the polytheists who were among them and who would be injured if the enemy was attacked. He said: “They are of them.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (3021) and Sahîh Muslim (1475)]


In short, non-Muslims living in Muslim lands, those who are under covenant, and those with whom we have peace cannot be attacked. As for those who are at war with us, the combatants may be fought and killed. Those who are not combatants cannot be killed or targeted for killing. The only way that they can be killed is as an unintentional consequence of fighting against the enemy combatants.


Indeed, the hadîth in question actually shows us that the general rule is not to kill non-combatants, even when they are present on the battlefield. The only exception is when the non-combatants are so mixed in with the fighters that it is impossible to fight against the combatants without the possibility of some non-combatants inadvertently being killed. This is only out of dire necessity.


Ibn Hajar writes in his commentary on this hadîth in Fath al-Bârî (6/146):


His statement “They are of them” means that they are construed as such under those circumstances. It does not mean that it is permissible to deliberately target them.


It is a matter of agreement among scholars that a person’s unbelief is not reason for that person to be killed. There is considerable evidence for this. Aside from the Prophet’s prohibition of killing non-combatants, we have where Allah says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]

 

[Jibrael]

It is a matter of agreement among scholars that a person’s unbelief is not reason for that person to be killed. There is considerable evidence for this. Aside from the Prophet’s prohibition of killing non-combatants, we have where Allah says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]

و عليكم السلام

There are different categories of disbelievers, and different rules and conditions apply to them.

There are the ordinary Kuffaar (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc.,)

Then there are the Munafiqeen (hypocrites who outwardly display faith, but inwardly reject Islaam)

Then there are the Murtadeen (apostates who openly leave Islaam)

Then there are the Zanaadiq (heretics, who claim to be Muslim but perpetrate heresies or blasphemies that take them out of Islaam)

Regarding the ordinary Kuffaar, it is forbidden to kill them unjustly or force them to convert to Islaam, as the Quraan says: "Let there be no compulsion in Religion." [Soorah 2:256]

As for the Munafiqeen (Hypocrites), it is likewise forbidden to fight or oppress them, because they will receive their divine punishment in the Hereafter, but in this world they are to be treated as Muslims, though they are not Believers.

As for the apostates, in an Islaamic state, it is the responsibility of the government to execute them for apostasy.

The same ruling applies to the Zanaadiq (heretics).

That is why, for example, during the time of the First Khaleefah رضى الله عنه, the apostate Bedouin tribes of Central Arabia were fought against, because they rejected the Zakaat as one of the Pillars of Islaam, and refused to pay it.

Similarly, the followers of the false prophets such as Musaylima were also fought in killed, because they were heretics who denied the Finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم.

In the time of the Fourth Khaleefah رضى الله عنه, the heretics who declared him to be divine, were killed for their heresy. The Fourth Khaleefah had a trench dug, had thrown in it, and had them burnt alive.

 

[bob x]

Similarly, the so called "Muslims" of Karbala are also heretics... They were fulfilling the commandment of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. They went to Karbala and wished to level the shrine of Hussain رضى الله عنه to the ground. Obviously they were met by stiff resistance by those people who are attached to the tombs...

OK, so if any Muslim disagrees with another's interpretation of Islam, it is a duty to destroy what they call holy places but are really blasphemies, and kill anyone who gets in your way? For example, c0de disagrees with your version of Islam in that he thinks the treatment of ahl e-kitab is not to be the same as that of kuffar, so therefore it is his duty to invade Saudi Arabia and blow up Wahhabi mosques that preach dangerous distortions of Islam, and of course kill anybody who resists.

 

[Jibrael]

OK, so if any Muslim disagrees with another's interpretation of Islam

There is no such thing as "interpretations" of Islaam.

There is only one Islaam.

, it is a duty to destroy what they call holy places but are really blasphemies,

A holy place can only be dedicated to God alone.

A grave is not a holy place, it is forbidden to turn graves into places of worship, as that is not only idolatry, it is the root of idolatry.

the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم himself gave the following orders. If you come across a high grave, level it to the ground, and if you come across an image of an animate being, smash it to pieces.

Our Prophet Muhammad, and we the Muslims are only following in the footsteps of Abraham, the first idol-breaker.

Breaking the idols and smashing the tombs shows our zeal and commitment to God, who alone must be worshiped.

This is the central, most basic instruction of Islaam. All else is secondary. Muslims may have disagreements over minor issues such as what to eat and what not to eat, etc., but when it comes to the most fundamental part of our Religion, the Oneness of Allaah...no Muslim can dissent, if any does, he has left the pale of Islaam.

Unfortunately the majority of today's Muslims are involved in polytheism, by venerating the tombs and seeking intercession through the dead. With the sole exception of Saudi Arabia and perhaps a few other Gulf countries, grave worship is mainstream throughout the Muslim world. Allaah raised the great reformer and reviver, Imaam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhaab to purify the most holy land of our religion from all the polytheism and unholy innovation that used to be commonplace there. Alhamdulillaah for that!

 

[c0de]

As for the apostates, in an Islaamic state, it is the responsibility of the government to execute them for apostasy.

"... there is no compulsion in religion."

256 Al-Baqara

The matter ends here, period.

I don't care what convoluted argument, using what hadith or "scholar" you come up with.

 

[bob x]

There is no such thing as "interpretations" of Islaam.

There is only one Islaam.

But you have one interpretation of what that "only one" Islam is, and c0de has another, and the people of Karbala another. Do you claim yourself to be GOD? If not, then your opinion is as likely to be in error as any other human's, but I see in you the arrogance of the Devil himself, unwilling to admit that you are less than God and might be mistaken, and eager to commit acts of murder to show off what you consider your own "righteousness".

 

[Waleed]

"... there is no compulsion in religion."

256 Al-Baqara

The matter ends here, period.

I don't care what convoluted argument, using what hadith or "scholar" you come up with.

There are tonnes of internal contradictions in the Quran and hadith:

Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
Sahih Bukhari 4:52:260

You can keep pretending the hadith doesnt exist or is a lie but the fact is, its only one of many Sahih hadiths which confirm the death sentence for apostasy. Islamic scholars agree and you're not one so you have no authority to reject this ruling.

If there's really no compulsion in religion, why will people get burned in Hellfire if they dont believe in Allah and Muhammad? (Quran 48:13)

If someone said to you "Give me $1 million within 6 months or I'll gouge your eyes out and then let you bleed to death", would you say thats not compulsion?

Compulsion = being forced.

Threatening someone with harm unless they dont do something is compulsion, its not freedom. You can make excuses all day long e.g. "you are free to choose but you have to face consequences".

Sahih hadiths, you cant ignore them.

 

[c0de]

There are tonnes of internal contradictions in the Quran and hadith:

No there are a lot of contradictions between the Quran and Hadith.

You can keep pretending the hadith doesnt exist or is a lie but the fact is, its only one of many Sahih hadiths which confirm the death sentence for apostasy. Islamic scholars agree and you're not one so you have no authority to reject this ruling.

You really love this fallacy don't you?

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

If there's really no compulsion in religion, why will people get burned in Hellfire if they dont believe in Allah and Muhammad? (Quran 48:13)

Good question, glad you brought it up. The answer is in the distinction between: Societal Laws vs. God's Laws.

2:256 is clearly talking about the latter, under which apostasy falls. There is no harm being caused to anyone when one leaves religion (other then the person himself.) This is the same reason why there is no punishment for using drugs in the Quran. But there is a punishment for adultery. In one instance, the subject is only causing harm to himself. But the other is seen as a direct detriment to societal functioning. The same goes for theft.

This is how the Quran deals with stuff (with uber sophistication,) something which the "scholars" and most misguided Muslims, don't get. Again, I'll warn you against attempting the same fallacy again. If you want to have a debate, then deal with -my- argument on its own merit. It doesn't matter what the mainstream says. It has no relevance in a debate.

Sahih hadiths, you cant ignore them.

Sure I can. I do it all the time. It's easy.

 

[Muslimwoman]

A holy place can only be dedicated to God alone.

A grave is not a holy place, it is forbidden to turn graves into places of worship, as that is not only idolatry, it is the root of idolatry.

What are your views on how people have built a structure over the Prophet's (pbuh) grave and adorned the outer walls with such ornate decoration? Would you go to pray at his grave?

"The Messenger of Allah forbade plastering over graves, sitting on them and erecting structures over them. (Sahih Muslim, 970)"

Unfortunately the majority of today's Muslims are involved in polytheism, by venerating the tombs and seeking intercession through the dead. With the sole exception of Saudi Arabia and perhaps a few other Gulf countries, grave worship is mainstream throughout the Muslim world.

May I ask on what you base this view? Have you met a "majority of today's Muslims" and in what way are they worshiping graves or involved in polytheism?

 

[Jibrael]

What are your views on how people have built a structure over the Prophet's (pbuh) grave and adorned the outer walls with such ornate decoration? Would you go to pray at his grave?

It is forbidden to pray at any grave, including the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Regarding those who built a structure over his grave, that was totally wrong, and yes it should be removed. Similarly, the "green dome" which is over the Prophet's grave should also be removed.

"The Messenger of Allah forbade plastering over graves, sitting on them and erecting structures over them. (Sahih Muslim, 970)"

Exactly!

May I ask on what you base this view? Have you met a "majority of today's Muslims" and in what way are they worshiping graves or involved in polytheism?

The majority of Muslims venerate the tombs and seek intercession through the dead, which is nothing but shirk.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Muslimwoman,

You are an open-minded person, and I enjoy having religious discussions with you, especially since you are usually able to see the other person’s point of view. Let’s turn our discussion around, and see if you and I can see this particular discussion from each other’s point of view.

I see your points of view as being:
　
a need to keep Medina untainted
a need to protect the sanctity of the Holy Mosque
keeping it untainted shows respect for Mohamed
keeping Medina from becoming a tourist attraction
Some people save their whole lives to visit Mecca, and letting tourists in would be a mockery to these pilgrims
Non-Catholics have the right to close off their churches to non-Catholics, you don’t see anything wrong in this, and you would not be offended if they did so.
Women in Mecca would be a distraction.
The only reason you would enter a Jewish temple would be to be a tourist and take pictures, which would be wrong.
People who have no business in an Indian temple should not go in one.

~~~

Let me know if I got all these right. I would be curious to hear how you see my points of view.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Regarding those who built a structure over his grave, that was totally wrong, and yes it should be removed. Similarly, the "green dome" which is over the Prophet's grave should also be removed.

I agree with you but do you believe violence would be acceptable to achieve this?

The majority of Muslims venerate the tombs and seek intercession through the dead, which is nothing but shirk.

How can we know that a majority of Muslims do this? I have asked the question of my husband many times (he is an Arab Muslim) when I have seen certain practices but we must consider a persons intention and this can surely only be known by Allah (swt)?

I see your points of view as being:
　
a need to keep Medina untainted

Hi Nick, always a pleasure to discuss topics with you.

Yes I believe our holy sites should remain places of worship and not tourist attractions. I also believe there are security issues in todays modern world which have far reaching consequences and I would rather not face.

a need to protect the sanctity of the Holy Mosque

There are two Holy mosques, Mecca and Medina ... I assume you mean Mecca?

Yes I think that must be protected ... not the surrounding area but the mosque itself.

keeping it untainted shows respect for Mohamed

If you are talking about the Mosque in Mecca then it was built by Prophet Abraham (pbuh) and is the worlds first mosque. It could then be argued that it shows respect for him but I personally believe the respect is for Allah (swt) and his religion, Islam.

If you mean Medina, this is what Jibrael is discussing above, a Muslim should go there simply to pray to Allah (swt), being the mosque that Prophet Mohamed (pbuh) built himself and not to pray to the Prophet (pbuh) for intercession. So again it should be about worshiping Allah (swt) and not about the Prophet (pbuh) but of course there is a degree of respecting the Prophet who brought the final revelations. This mosque has further significance in that it is where Allah (swt) turns Muslims to face Kaaba in Mecca when we pray, which is of course a defining point in Islamic history.

keeping Medina from becoming a tourist attraction

Again it is only my personal view but my concern with Medina would be to protect the mosque and grave of the Prophet (pbuh) from disturbance by non-Muslims in an aggressive/antagonistic act (like graffiti or damage). However I add that my feelings on this are largely politically motivated. We saw what a few cartoons could do, so imagine what would happen if the Prophet's mosque or grave site were attacked

Also I have to say that most non-Muslims who were interested enough to go there would no doubt treat the place with the respect we would hope for but there are always bad apples and idiots from every walk of life .. so for me it is better to keep everyone away in order that the idiots can't cause problems.

Some people save their whole lives to visit Mecca, and letting tourists in would be a mockery to these pilgrims

Yes that is my opinion. Someone who has scrimped and saved for 20 years to fulfill a religious obligation should not be surrounded by people in plaid shorts who went there on a whim and a plastic mastercard.

Non-Catholics have the right to close off their churches to non-Catholics, you don’t see anything wrong in this, and you would not be offended if they did so.

Correct.

Women in Mecca would be a distraction.

No, women in monasteries (of which we have none in Islam) would be a distraction to those Christian priests wishing to devote their lives to God, which is why they don't let us in .... as men in convents would be a distraction to the nuns.

The only reason you would enter a Jewish temple would be to be a tourist and take pictures, which would be wrong.

Not quite. Jews, like Christians have certain family celebrations in synagogues and churches so if I were invited by a Jewish or Christian friend to attend such a celebration I personally would be delighted to go, as I had been invited (Islam has no such celebrations inside mosques, not even funerals which are usually held outdoors). If I just fancied a look inside a synagogue or now a church, since I became Muslim, to take pictures and ogle then yes it would be the wrong reason to be there in my opinion.

People who have no business in an Indian temple should not go in one.

As a tourist yes I would say that. If they were invited to observe a wedding or such then fine they have some business there.

Just to note Nick, this is all just my own opinion off the top of my head because I have never thought about the issue before. I looked this up and it is interesting to see the difference between Saudi and non-Saudi scholars on the subject

Can a Non-Muslim Enter the Mosque? - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

 

[Nick the Pilot]

MW,

This is going well. Now let's turn it around and see if you can see things from my point of view.

 

[bob x]

There are two Holy mosques, Mecca and Medina ... This [Medina] mosque has further significance in that it is where Allah (swt) turns Muslims to face Kaaba in Mecca when we pray, which is of course a defining point in Islamic history.

Historical question: the story as I have heard it is that the Holy Mosque in Medina (as opposed to the Mosque of the Kaaba, in Mecca) is called the "Mosque of Kiblayin [double kibla]" because it has two direction-pointing niches ("kibla"), one toward Jerusalem and one toward Mecca. All the Muslims originally prayed facing Jerusalem until one day, in the middle of prayers, Muhammad got up and turned around to bow toward Mecca. The congregation followed, of course, and a new niche was built in the walls, but the old niche has always been left there to memorialize the occasion.

Is that right, or has the story gotten a little garbled in transmission?

 

[Muslimwoman]

Historical question: the story as I have heard it is that the Holy Mosque in Medina (as opposed to the Mosque of the Kaaba, in Mecca) is called the "Mosque of Kiblayin [double kibla]" because it has two direction-pointing niches ("kibla"), one toward Jerusalem and one toward Mecca. All the Muslims originally prayed facing Jerusalem until one day, in the middle of prayers, Muhammad got up and turned around to bow toward Mecca. The congregation followed, of course, and a new niche was built in the walls, but the old niche has always been left there to memorialize the occasion.

Is that right, or has the story gotten a little garbled in transmission?

Hi Bob

That is my understanding of the story, that during prayers one day the Prophet (pbuh) received revelation as follows:

2:144 We see the turning of thy face (for guidance to the heavens, now shall We turn thee to a Qibla that shall please thee. Turn then Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque. Wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction. The people of the Book know well that that is the truth from their Lord. Nor is Allah unmindful of what they do.

It has been debated for many centuries as to why Allah (swt) would have Muslims praying toward Jerusalem for many months and then change the direction of prayer but most arguments allude to the changing relationships between the Muslims and Jews of Medina during the period.

I have read on the internet (that trustworthy place) during the last remodeling of the mosque the former kibla was bricked over and there is now only one .... having not been there and having no faith in what I read on the net I have no idea if this is true or just a rumor.

 

[Muslimwoman]

MW,

This is going well. Now let's turn it around and see if you can see things from my point of view.

Hi Nick

Oh no I feel like I'm taking school exams again and will be in detention if I get it wrong lol.

ok here goes. My understanding of your point of view is:

1. You feel insulted by the idea of "tainting" somewhere because it suggests you are a lesser being.
2. Not being admitted to a place based on faith/gender/race etc would make you feel excluded and slighted.
3. You do not feel that Islamic restrictions should apply to you .. or rather in a wider sense, you do not feel religious groups should be able to restrict anyone.
4. You feel it is wrong if Muslims say or suggest, by other means, that you cannot go to heaven, as this is discriminatory.
5. You would much rather live in a world where all faiths and people of no faith respect each other as equals and include everyone, despite differences of opinion or belief.
6. There is only so far you will go in trying to respect the traditions/accepted norms of any group and then you feel they respect your right to be different to them.

How did I do?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

MW,

It is fascinating to see how each of us views the other person’s belief system. (Our beliefs are as different as night and day, and we certainly disagree on many things.) But I think this has been a great example of how interfaith discussions should work. The big problem with most interfaith discussions is that they usually break down into arguments. The trick (as I see it) is first to see if we can see things from the other person’s point of view, and acknowledge (not agree with, nor criticize) each other’s belief systems.

One thing that I have noticed is that many people who get into arguments about religion refuse to even try to see things from the other person’s point of view. They just say, "You believe that? That’s nonsense," and then they call this ‘interfaith dialogue.’ I have come to realize that, if two people cannot first see things from the other person’s point of view, then trying to go further and discuss specific points from each other’s belief system is really just a waste of time.

Sometimes this is just how it is. For example, I have very strong opinions about how China is treating Tibet, and quite frankly, I do not think a Chinese person who disagrees with me on Tibet has a valid opinion — I refuse to see things from the Chinese point of view when it comes to Tibet. (So, I do not even try to talk to Chinese people about Tibet.)

The first step, then, is to see if we can see things from the other person’s point of view. (If we can’t, then we are wasting our talking with each other.) You and I have been able to do this, and I can only hope this will be an inspiration for others to follow.

If you think about it, the purpose of interfaith is to see what we can agree on, not to find things we can argue about (or to find out we can't agree on anything, then stop wasting time arguing, because any subsequent discussion will only turn into an argument). Trying to see things from the other person's point of view is the first step, as we have demonstrated here.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Salam Nick

Indeed it has been an excellent way to understand each other without accepting each others points of view .... now, if only we can teach the rest of the world how to do it lol.

Admission I think is important .. you have admitted your inability or lack of desire to see the Chinese pov on Tibet ... I admit political Israel is a real blind spot for me, as is American foreign politics and I confess I get utterly exasperated when people can't see what I see as a no brainer. It is important, particularly in interfaith dialogue to remember that every religious scholar/teacher/student/auther/etc must also suffer from such inabilities on certain subjects.

So now we have established that I hold Mecca and Medina as sacred and don't want tourists trapesing around and I now know you are insulted by such exclusions ... where do we go from here? I have no desire to insult you but I hold my faith very dearly .... I believe you have no desire to bend me to your will but you don't wish to feel excluded or made to feel a lesser being ..... how do we solve this situation?

(I have my own idea but would be interested to hear yours first)

 

[Nick the Pilot]

MW,

I think the word ‘insulted’ is too strong. Perhaps dismayed is a better word. Which brings up another important point: we sometimes assume the other person has had a stronger emotional reaction to what is going on than they actually did. (As in my case, where you chose the word ‘insulted,’ which I see as too strong a word.) The trick is to accurately see both person’s emotional reactions to what is going on. If you think about it, a lot of this comes down to our emotional responses to both the issue at hand and to the other person. Let’s take a look at, say the Tamil Tiger uprising in Sri Lanka or the communist rebellion in the Philippines. Neither you nor I have an emotional connection to either of these tragedies, so it is easier for us to discuss them in a calm, cool way. The Arab/Israeli conflict is an emotionally charged topic for you, while it is not for me. (I feel just as strongly about the Arab/Israeli conflict as I do for, say, the war in Darfur or the killing fields in Cambodia. You, on the other hand, do not.) One thing I have learned is that what is an emotionally charged issue for you is not for me, and vice versa. Then there is the problem when two people have opposite and emotionally charged opinions on the same issue, for example an Israeli and a Palestinian who are trying to discuss the Arab/Israeli conflict. (This is the exact thing I come across as a marriage counselor.)

I am reminded of a Jewish couple who were having dinner with a group of Americans. (The Americans were not Jewish.) The Jewish couple went around the table and asked everyone what they thought of the Holocaust, and were insulted when no one had much of an emotional response. We must always be willing to take a look at how emotionally charged an issue is (many people do not do this) and be willing to accept the fact that what is emotionally charged for me is not emotionally charged for you, and I must not allow myself to be insulted by the fact that you do not have an emotional reaction to something that is very emotionally charged for me.

You said,

"I believe you have no desire to bend me to your will but you don't wish to feel excluded or made to feel a lesser being ..... how do we solve this situation?"

--> On this particular issue, it is easy for me to decide. I have no desire to become a Muslim, and I am perfectly willing to let Muslims decide who can and cannot enter a particular mosque. (It does make me less likely for me to enter any Muslim mosque, I must admit.)

I want to share a story. I was once in a Buddhist temple, and an American ‘tourist’ was inside taking photos, the sign outside said No Photos, but we was taking them anyway. He was told to stop, he became disgusting, cussed out the man telling him to leave, and then left. I was very insulted by what that idiot did. I share your view that I do not want tourists taking photos inside Buddhist temples. (On a side note, during the Buddhist service later that afternoon, a nun was taking photos of the congregation during the service! "How unfair!" I thought to myself.)

Okay, I’m ready to hear your ideas.