What is wrong with smashing the idols?

[LuisDantas]

They destroyed many, is the point. If I burn down half the mosques in Jordan, that is still very intolerant, even though I left half alone.

Pretty much so.

Offensive as the very thought is, I can only assume that @FearGod wants to argue that if "true Muslims" were behind the destruction of statues they would have gone through with it to the end. Perhaps because good Muslims do not have a reason to hesitate or to be only halfway through?

As arguments go, it is beyond the pale. If it is an argument at all. It compares closely to "the West has not been a bad influence on Middle East, for after all the native people survive to this day."

 

[Kirran]

Pretty much so.

Offensive as the very thought is, I can only assume that @FearGod wants to argue that if "true Muslims" were behind the destruction of statues they would have gone through with it to the end. Perhaps because good Muslims do not have a reason to hesitate or to be only halfway through?

As arguments go, it is beyond the pale. If it is an argument at all. It compares closely to "the West has not been a bad influence on Middle East, for after all the native people survive to this day."

That's a good analogy!

 

[FearGod]

Pretty much so.

Offensive as the very thought is, I can only assume that @FearGod wants to argue that if "true Muslims" were behind the destruction of statues they would have gone through with it to the end. Perhaps because good Muslims do not have a reason to hesitate or to be only halfway through?

As arguments go, it is beyond the pale. If it is an argument at all. It compares closely to "the West has not been a bad influence on Middle East, for after all the native people survive to this day."

You are insisting in saying "true Muslims" while I am speaking about evidences that Islam
didn't target the places of worshiping, Islam is in the region for 1500 years, so if Islam
demands that the places of worshiping and idols should be destroyed then why they
didn't finish with them, was it a hard task to achieve, I'm not talking about false Muslims
and true Muslims, I'm talking about evidences.

 

[FearGod]

That's a good analogy!

Because you liked it since it doesn't defend Islam while evidences are stronger than both of you.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are insisting in saying "true Muslims" while I am speaking about evidences that Islam
didn't target the places of worshiping, Islam is in the region for 1500 years, so if Islam
demands that the places of worshiping and idols should be destroyed then why they
didn't finish with them, was it a hard task to achieve, I'm not talking about false Muslims
and true Muslims, I'm talking about evidences.

You did not understand my point at all, did you?

Because if you did, you would realize that you sound desperate and utterly unconvincing. At this point I am not sure whether you even believe what you are saying.

 

[Kirran]

You are insisting in saying "true Muslims" while I am speaking about evidences that Islam
didn't target the places of worshiping, Islam is in the region for 1500 years, so if Islam
demands that the places of worshiping and idols should be destroyed then why they
didn't finish with them, was it a hard task to achieve, I'm not talking about false Muslims
and true Muslims, I'm talking about evidences.

It hasn't been said that it demands they be destroyed, but that its historical orthodoxies have encouraged such activities.

 

[Kirran]

Because you liked it since it doesn't defend Islam while evidences are stronger than both of you.

Do Western governments cause harm in the Middle East? Obviously not, because there are still people living there.

 

[FearGod]

They destroyed many, is the point. If I burn down half the mosques in Jordan, that is still very intolerant, even though I left half alone.

I'm not talking if it is good or bad, but if you have a task to destroy or mosques then you can,
that's my point.

Evidences point to that Islam didn't target the places of worshiping.

 

[Kirran]

I'm not talking if it is good or bad, but if you have a task to destroy or mosques then you can,
that's my point.

Evidences point to that Islam didn't target the places of worshiping.

No, but they point to a strong intolerance of minority faiths, in particular those judged to be participating in idolatry.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do Western governments cause harm in the Middle East? Obviously not, because there are still people living there.

Well, that sure is a relief. For a couple of years there I thought there was a quagmire in Syria and other places of the Middle East that "the West" had considerable responsibility for. I guess I am entitled to disregard the whole matter as harmless now.

Not.

 

[Kirran]

Well, that sure is a relief. For a couple of years there I thought there was a quagmire in Syria and other places of the Middle East that "the West" had considerable responsibility for. I guess I am entitled to disregard the whole matter as harmless now.

Not.

Ah, a brief and blissful moment free of Western guilt

 

[FearGod]

It hasn't been said that it demands they be destroyed, but that its historical orthodoxies have encouraged such activities.

Muslims can easily destroy all places of worshiping if Islam promoting for doing so,
evidences show that Islam doesn't demand destroying any place of worshiping,
for example the church of Nativity is very holy for the Christians and Muslims
did never disturb the Christians or their places of worshiping even though
that they can during the Islamic empire.
Church of the Nativity - Wikipedia

 

[Kirran]

Muslims can easily destroy all places of worshiping if Islam promoting for doing so,
evidences show that Islam doesn't demand destroying any place of worshiping,
for example the church of Nativity is very holy for the Christians and Muslims
did never disturb the Christians or their places of worshiping even though
that they can during the Islamic empire.
Church of the Nativity - Wikipedia

Right, yeah, but you're thinking in absolutes here, which is very rarely a good idea.

 

[FearGod]

Do Western governments cause harm in the Middle East? Obviously not, because there are still people living there.

If they stay for 1500 years in the region then yes the native people will disappear,
do you think the native Americans do exist.

 

[Kirran]

If they stay for 1500 years in the region then yes the native people will disappear,
do you think the native Americans do exist.

Yes. Yes I do.

This is another excellent analogy.

 

[FearGod]

Right, yeah, but you're thinking in absolutes here, which is very rarely a good idea.

I am talking about present facts and evidences.

 

[Kirran]

I am talking about present facts and evidences.

That also, yes. But it is your analysis which is betrayed by this absolutes-only mentality.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

do you think the native Americans do exist.

No, I don't think that the indigenous Americans exist; I know they do. So by your logic the American settlers didn't do any harm, because the indigenous nations are still here.

 

[FearGod]

Yes. Yes I do.

This is another excellent analogy.

It'll be an excellent analogy if you see no more or very few Indians
living in India the same as what happened in America, you can't
see the difference.

 

[FearGod]

No, I don't think that the indigenous Americans exist; I know they do. So by your logic the American settlers didn't do any harm, because the indigenous nations are still here.

Compared to the Arabs invading India for hundreds of years and the same for Spain.