# Prince Hall Military Lodges in the Middle East



## Cornell Wallace (Dec 3, 2014)

Yes there are Prince Hall Military Lodges in the Middle East.


----------



## middle east traveller (May 19, 2015)

I have been traveling all over the middle east for quite some time now , and i have noticed that a majority of lodges from
dubai , saudi, iraq , qatar , afghanistan all operate under the jurisdiction of the MW prince hall lodge of oklahoma, Im just curious on how this came to be.

When did these middle east countries become part of oklahoma jurisdiction?

I know they call all their lodges military lodges, and a majority of them operate a lodge inside a us military base
which is technically still us soil, which supposedly legitimizes their charter

but what about the land of shinar lodge in dubai? is it inside a us base? if not does this still make their charter
valid if they are operating a lodge on foreign soil?

just looking for further information on these lodges bretheren


----------



## Joe Wilson (Apr 3, 2017)

www.landofshinar213.com


----------



## acjohnson53 (Apr 8, 2017)

Darn Oklahoma Masons  


 they are everywhere, Grand Master D Vaughan don't mind making Good Men Mason, keep em working...


----------



## goomba (Apr 8, 2017)

Generally speaking when there is not a grand lodge in an area it is a free for all.  Ergo any grand lodge can set up lodges in a country with no grand lodge.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Apr 9, 2017)

Cornell Wallace said:


> Yes there are Prince Hall Military Lodges in the Middle East.


Cool!


goomba said:


> Generally speaking when there is not a grand lodge in an area it is a free for all. Ergo any grand lodge can set up lodges in a country with no grand lodge.


Good info. I did not know this.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Apr 9, 2017)

goomba said:


> Generally speaking when there is not a grand lodge in an area it is a free for all.  Ergo any grand lodge can set up lodges in a country with no grand lodge.


So heres a question...what about sovereign land within a country?  Ie embassy or military reservation..or...Indian Reservations?  Or could lodges of say GLofNM that are on rez land split and start the GLoNavajo nation and still be regular and recognizable?

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Apr 9, 2017)

goomba said:


> Generally speaking when there is not a grand lodge in an area it is a free for all.  Ergo any grand lodge can set up lodges in a country with no grand lodge.


You're kinda and sorta right. ETJ doctrine doesn't really mean that a territory has to be unoccupied by a Grand Lodge. There can be a multiple of GLs in the same territory and they can hold concurrent jurisdictions over their own membership if all parties are in agreement.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Apr 9, 2017)

Warrior1256 said:


> Cool!
> 
> Good info. I did not know this.


I recommend that you follow up with some research of your own before accepting this on good faith alone. 

Territories and jurisdictions are not all about geography such as States, towns, countries or what have you. 

Technically, in a true Masonic sense, it's conceptual more than actually what makes a Masonic jurisdiction.

For example, my GL and your GL plus any other GL could share jurisdiction anywhere regardless whether old or new land. Geography doesn't matter much in many current Masonic scenarios.


----------



## goomba (Apr 9, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> So heres a question...what about sovereign land within a country?  Ie embassy or military reservation..or...Indian Reservations?  Or could lodges of say GLofNM that are on rez land split and start the GLoNavajo nation and still be regular and recognizable?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app



This reply is based on my thoughts and is only my opinion.

As far as the tribal nations since they are commonly considered geographically part of the state I would think not.  While legally they are separate the land is still located in area X.

So lets say an Army base in Germany.  The land is sovereign US land but there is no US grand lodge.  Since the land does not belong to a state no US state grand lodge has Masonic claim.  I see two options:  the country in the base is in (like the above mentioned tribal nation) could have a Masonic claim or it is an unclaimed Masonic.  While typing this I also thought of a third option:  The Grand Lodge of DC (since DC is a federal district and the capitol of the USA) could claim all federal lands are within their Masonic jurisdiction.

Government boundaries and Masonic boundaries are naturally going to differ as they are two different governing bodies with different purposes.  There are still UGLE lodges on US soil, http://harmoniclodge.com/.


----------



## goomba (Apr 9, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> You're kinda and sorta right. ETJ doctrine doesn't really mean that a territory has to be unoccupied by a Grand Lodge. There can be a multiple of GLs in the same territory and they can hold concurrent jurisdictions over their own membership if all parties are in agreement.




Having no grand lodge and having one or more are two different topics.  I was talking about the first topic.  ETJ would not come into play if there was no grand lodge.


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 9, 2017)

goomba said:


> Generally speaking when there is not a grand lodge in an area it is a free for all.  Ergo any grand lodge can set up lodges in a country with no grand lodge.


Just as a clarification, a country need not have a its own grand lodge to be off limits to another jurisdiction.  NY and Scotland had district GLs covering in Lebanon. DC decided to start a lodge there. NY suspemded recognition of D.C. (There was also an issue with the former NY Masons they took in)


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Apr 9, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> So heres a question...what about sovereign land within a country?  Ie embassy or military reservation..or...Indian Reservations?  Or could lodges of say GLofNM that are on rez land split and start the GLoNavajo nation and still be regular and recognizable?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


Brother, i think you're mixing apples & oranges in that scenario. Lol

If they have to deal with both issues of Regularity & Recognition at the same time, then there's going to be some controversy that will create a winner & a loser, so to speak.

What i mean is that if some members split from the GL of NM to just start up the GLof Navajo Nation without the majority of the constituency within the GL of NM agreeing then the issue of sharing the Reservation Land is a moot point at that juncture. Why would the GL of NM agree to a split in their ranks? What the heck is going on? Why in the State?

They'll have these issues among others to work out first and fast.


----------



## goomba (Apr 9, 2017)

I'm going to post this as apparently my first post is getting misread.

I said generally, not always, not 100%, but generally as in: broadly, commonly, mostly, typically, roughly.

Generally as in the opposite of exactly.


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 9, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> So heres a question...what about sovereign land within a country?  Ie embassy or military reservation..or...Indian Reservations?  Or could lodges of say GLofNM that are on rez land split and start the GLoNavajo nation and still be regular and recognizable?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


Interesting question. Does NM currently have lodges in a reservation?


----------



## Ripcord22A (Apr 9, 2017)

Well their are towns that are technically within the boarders of a rez but are not technically part of the rez, like Gallup, that have a lodges.  It was really just a hypothetical...

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 9, 2017)

It is my understanding that Gallup is not part of tribal lands. For your hypothetical, I would posit that if there  are no lodges  within Indian country, then a separate Lodge could be established there.  The Indian Nations have inherent sovereignty. For a general discussion, see http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/jurisdiction.htm


----------



## Ripcord22A (Apr 9, 2017)

It is not part of tribal lands but is smack in the middle of it.  Its weird out here....youll be driving and randomly see a sign "now entering XXX Pueblo" then youll enter a town like gallup and then several miles on the other side of town another sign "now leaving XXX pueblo"

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 9, 2017)

A common issue here in the Southwest US.  I'm admitted to practice before the Ute Tribal Court.


----------



## acjohnson53 (Apr 12, 2017)

Like I said Dr. Vaughan is not afraid to open a new Lodge in other country, to me that Dreemasonry is being practiced where need be, and keeping Brothers working. regardless the situation Brothers need to keep building the Temple.....


----------



## Brother H (Apr 16, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> Just as a clarification, a country need not have a its own grand lodge to be off limits to another jurisdiction.  NY and UGLE had district GLs covering in Lebanon. DC decided to start a lodge there. NY suspemded recognition of D.C. (There was also an issue with the former NY Masons they took in)



I think UGLE does not exist so far, it is GL of NY, GL of Scotland, and GL of Washington DC. Please correct me if you know about UGLE, i'm not up to date with my information!


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 16, 2017)

Brother H said:


> I think UGLE does not exist so far, it is GL of NY, GL of Scotland, and GL of Washington DC. Please correct me if you know about UGLE, i'm not up to date with my information!


Thanks. I've amended my post


----------

