DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - New way to call to prayer in mecca,! bida? Did i say something wrong?

**Suvaxal** · 02-11-2012, 07:12 AM

First of all it's a question i.e. is this bida. thus the question mark. Check the thread.

With all due respect, mecca is a religious city i.e. muslim. Without the support of RELIGIOUS LEADERS of Saudi Arabia can the royal family really do anything, the mufti's/ulema can just call boycott and refuse to lead prayers, catch a plane out of the country and saying they're not going to be part of this, hunger strike, how will the masjids function then? but these ulema dont do any of this, meaning what?

Some people are trying to differentiate between saudi royal family and the wahabi ulema. They are not separate but basically a DEPARTMENT under the government. That is their position. Without this hierarchy they can't/don't exist. So when/IF they disagree it's like a government minister disagreeing in the west, if the minister knew no one was listening to him/her, they would walk out.

it is a new way to call people to prayer, although people say it's not "bida in that way". Alot of people (scholars) when asked about many "cultural" issues answer generally with, it's haram to imitate the kufar, then what is this. A cross between big ben and the empire state building.

Plus it TOWERS above the meccan city, making it the focal point rather than the kabba. How many people around the world go as tourists to places like New York to see the empire state building, people go to Paris to see the eiffel tower, leaning tower of pisa in italy etc.. How long before people start saying let's go to mecca to see the abraj al bait and we can do hajj/umra while we're there.

In my opinion this building would have been better suited to less holy cities like riyadh or jeddah.

You have an overly simplistic idea of how Saudi Arabia functions.

First of all, there is the obligation to follow the orders of the leader of a country. The ulama are not forced to do anything but is there any hikmah in what you suggest - "just call boycott and refuse to lead prayers, catch a plane out of the country and saying they're not going to be part of this, hunger strike". This is not how it works. Is it better that all good ulama leave the country so only those who are in it for the money become leaders in the community and lead the laymen astray?

many laymen in Saudi Arabia are religiously minded and do not like a lot of the things that the monarchy is doing, but the solution isn't to run away. Change takes time.

And no, you have no idea what you're talking about if you think that the ulama of Saudi Arabia are supposedly a department under the government. An example I can give you is that of the prominent scholars of Saudi Arabia, some of whom have passed away: these scholars gave a fatwa against paintings and photography. Yet, in Saudi Arabia, you see giant portraits of kings and princes. So the monarchy tends to do what it feels like. And it is an absolute monarchy so it is NOTHING like the West where a minister can just walk out in protest. If anyone were to do that in Saudi, they lose their post and a replacement that agrees with the policies is put up for the job. So, many ulama are not vocal on such minute issues like the tower because if they were to leave, their replacements would be corrupt and in it for the money.

Of course a lot of people, myself included, have issue with the tower and see it as something negative, rather than positive. But it isn't a bid'ah. In fact, this issue about the tower has been discussed time and time again on this forum since it became known to the public - and the majority of people were against it on this forum and many Saudis are also against it - but no one called it a bid'ah. It would fall under israaf and wasteful spending, though, but then so would a lot of other things, such as the umbrellas in masjid an-Nabawi

.

02-11-2012, 07:12 AM	#35
Suvaxal Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 515 Senior Member	First of all it's a question i.e. is this bida. thus the question mark. Check the thread. With all due respect, mecca is a religious city i.e. muslim. Without the support of RELIGIOUS LEADERS of Saudi Arabia can the royal family really do anything, the mufti's/ulema can just call boycott and refuse to lead prayers, catch a plane out of the country and saying they're not going to be part of this, hunger strike, how will the masjids function then? but these ulema dont do any of this, meaning what? Some people are trying to differentiate between saudi royal family and the wahabi ulema. They are not separate but basically a DEPARTMENT under the government. That is their position. Without this hierarchy they can't/don't exist. So when/IF they disagree it's like a government minister disagreeing in the west, if the minister knew no one was listening to him/her, they would walk out. it is a new way to call people to prayer, although people say it's not "bida in that way". Alot of people (scholars) when asked about many "cultural" issues answer generally with, it's haram to imitate the kufar, then what is this. A cross between big ben and the empire state building. Plus it TOWERS above the meccan city, making it the focal point rather than the kabba. How many people around the world go as tourists to places like New York to see the empire state building, people go to Paris to see the eiffel tower, leaning tower of pisa in italy etc.. How long before people start saying let's go to mecca to see the abraj al bait and we can do hajj/umra while we're there. In my opinion this building would have been better suited to less holy cities like riyadh or jeddah. You have an overly simplistic idea of how Saudi Arabia functions. First of all, there is the obligation to follow the orders of the leader of a country. The ulama are not forced to do anything but is there any hikmah in what you suggest - "just call boycott and refuse to lead prayers, catch a plane out of the country and saying they're not going to be part of this, hunger strike". This is not how it works. Is it better that all good ulama leave the country so only those who are in it for the money become leaders in the community and lead the laymen astray? many laymen in Saudi Arabia are religiously minded and do not like a lot of the things that the monarchy is doing, but the solution isn't to run away. Change takes time. And no, you have no idea what you're talking about if you think that the ulama of Saudi Arabia are supposedly a department under the government. An example I can give you is that of the prominent scholars of Saudi Arabia, some of whom have passed away: these scholars gave a fatwa against paintings and photography. Yet, in Saudi Arabia, you see giant portraits of kings and princes. So the monarchy tends to do what it feels like. And it is an absolute monarchy so it is NOTHING like the West where a minister can just walk out in protest. If anyone were to do that in Saudi, they lose their post and a replacement that agrees with the policies is put up for the job. So, many ulama are not vocal on such minute issues like the tower because if they were to leave, their replacements would be corrupt and in it for the money. Of course a lot of people, myself included, have issue with the tower and see it as something negative, rather than positive. But it isn't a bid'ah. In fact, this issue about the tower has been discussed time and time again on this forum since it became known to the public - and the majority of people were against it on this forum and many Saudis are also against it - but no one called it a bid'ah. It would fall under israaf and wasteful spending, though, but then so would a lot of other things, such as the umbrellas in masjid an-Nabawi .
	Quote