What is wrong with smashing the idols?

[gnostic]

Why? So, people would continue to worship them?

So you think the "no compulsion" is irrelevant in the Qur'an?

Is Islam a religion for hypocrites? Do Muslims or should Muslims only accept rules, guideline, law, only when it suit them?

Islam cannot be called a religion of peace and tolerance, if they force people to worship your God and only convert to your religion.

But then, why should I be surprise with your attitude towards other people's religions.

Muhammad was a big hypocrite too. Muhammad give Qur'an and law, but sometimes feel the need to bend them or break them, when it suit him. And in doing so, he set the trends where rules can be broken as long as you do it against non-Muslim people.

 

[gnostic]

Idols had no place in Muhammad's society. Destroying them was only option.

Muhammad didn't like it when he and his followers was persecuted for his religion.

But you think it is ok to destroy other people's religion.

You do realise you are supporting religious persecution?

But then again, I am not at all that surprise of "double-standard" that exist in Islam.

After all, Muhammad is The Prophet for "double-standard" and for hypocrisy, and for religious intolerance.

 

[sovietchild]

Muhammad did like it when he and his followers was persecuted for his religion.

But you think it is ok to destroy other people's religion.

You do realise you are supporting religious persecution?

But then again, I am not at all that surprise of "double-standard" that exist in Islam.

After all, Muhammad is The Prophet for "double-standard" and for hypocrisy, and for religious intolerance.

 

[paarsurrey]

"If you think you are smart you are an ignorant idiot." -Prophet Muhammad

I read in the signatures of post #609 above.
Anybody, please provide the reference of the saying or the quote from Prophet Muhammad.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

I don't know about making him look better. I think he is trying to make him look worst. Prophet Muhammad basically got tortured for preaching against those idols. Why would he order his people to move those idols to a different spot? When he conquered Mecca, destroying the idols was the most natural thing to do.

I have never heard of Muhammad ever being tortured.

Sources, please.

 

[Astravalon]

When Prophet Muhammad finally conquered Mecca in 631 AD, he allegedly entered the Ka'ba and destroyed the 360 idols in its precincts shouting
"Falsehood is destroyed, truth prevails".

I prefer not to make an idol out of the fear of other religions.

-

 

[sovietchild]

I have never heard of Muhammad ever being tortured.

Sources, please.

I think I overrated when I said that. Didn't he had to escape from Mecca because some people were trying to kill him? Didn't people throw rocks at him because he preached against the practices of idol worshiping?

 

[sovietchild]

"If you think you are smart you are an ignorant idiot." -Prophet Muhammad

I read in the signatures of post #609 above.
Anybody, please provide the reference of the saying or the quote from Prophet Muhammad.
Regards

Didn't we ask you to provide us with some sources? Have you provided us with anything?

 

[gnostic]

I think I overrated when I said that.

Yes, I know that you have exaggerated it. Muhammad was never tortured.

Didn't he had to escape from Mecca because some people were trying to kill him? Didn't people throw rocks at him because he preached against the practices of idol worshiping?

Yes, Muhammad and his followers were being persecuted and forced to leave Mecca.

But I think that the persecution ONLY STARTED when Muhammad began preaching and telling his followers to start destroying idols at Kaaba.

Preach people to destroy another person's or other people's religion is a "threat".

So it was Muhammad himself who started this trouble in the first place.

In the early stage of his preaching, Muhammad didn't threaten pagans' religion, so Muhammad was only mocked, not harmed or persecuted. At this stage, Muhammad was harmless so the pagans didn't stop him from preaching and they didn't stop Muhammad's followers from converting.

Muhammad only became a threat, when the tone of preaching had changed to, e.g. telling his converts to destroy idols at Kaaba. This is when trouble started. This is when Muhammad became the troublemaker.

The pagans were only reacting to his preaching of destroying their religion. So Muhammad was really the cause of his own persecution; he was the one who started threatening the pagans, first.

You cannot possibly threaten a person's way of life, and expect that person not to react to a threat.

The Kaaba was a public place of worship, so no one really personally owned the Kaaba. Muhammad don't have private ownership of Kaaba, so for Muhammad to threaten to destroy idols that pagans have being worshipping their for generations, the pagans began to see him as a threat.

Yes, the pagans persecuted Muhammad, but only because Muhammad had threatened them first.

 

[sovietchild]

Yes, I know that you have exaggerated it. Muhammad was never tortured.



Yes, Muhammad and his followers were being persecuted and forced to leave Mecca.

But I think that the persecution ONLY STARTED when Muhammad began preaching and telling his followers to start destroying idols at Kaaba.

Preach people to destroy another person's or other people's religion is a "threat".

So it was Muhammad himself who started this trouble in the first place.

In the early stage of his preaching, Muhammad didn't threaten pagans' religion, so Muhammad was only mocked, not harmed or persecuted. At this stage, Muhammad was harmless so the pagans didn't stop him from preaching and they didn't stop Muhammad's followers from converting.

Muhammad only became a threat, when the tone of preaching had changed to, e.g. telling his converts to destroy idols at Kaaba. This is when trouble started. This is when Muhammad became the troublemaker.

The pagans were only reacting to his preaching of destroying their religion. So Muhammad was really the cause of his own persecution; he was the one who started threatening the pagans, first.

You cannot possibly threaten a person's way of life, and expect that person not to react to a threat.

The Kaaba was a public place of worship, so no one really personally owned the Kaaba. Muhammad don't have private ownership of Kaaba, so for Muhammad to threaten to destroy idols that pagans have being worshipping their for generations, the pagans began to see him as a threat.

Yes, the pagans persecuted Muhammad, but only because Muhammad had threatened them first.

What do you expect him to do? Do nothing, say nothing, be nothing? What he did was good. He tried to help people.

"Truth has come and Falsehood has Vanished.. (Qur'an 17:81)"

 

[gnostic]

What do you expect him to do? Do nothing, say nothing, be nothing? What he did was good. He tried to help people.

"Truth has come and Falsehood has Vanished.. (Qur'an 17:81)"

I would not threaten you to become "agnostic". You are free to be a Muslim. I would not take away your rights of whatever religion you wish to follow.

Do I have the same rights to being agnostic, and not a Muslim or a Christian? Don't I deserve the same curtesy?

What Muhammad did, was to cause trouble, a trouble he started once he began threatening to take away the pagans' rights to worship at Kaaba.

In the early stage of Muhammad's preaching, the pagans may have mocked his teaching, they didn't threaten Muhammad, nor did they stop him from preaching or gathering followers.

The pagans' attitude only changed, when Muhammad began to changing his preaching, when he began inciting his followers into destroy the idols in Kaaba.

So really, Muhammad started this trouble first, not the pagans, because he threatened the pagans first. That's when the pagans felt the need to react.

If Muhammad never threaten them first, then Muhammad might have been left alone. Muhammad might not have been forced into exile.

Things would have been different if Muhammad had left them alone.

Persecution can happen both ways. Muhammad threatened the pagans, the pagans pushed back. Muhammad felt his life was threatened, so he left, and migrated to Medina.

Muhammad could have left Mecca in peace, but he didn't. Muhammad began arming his followers in 623, and started a series of raiding, attacking and looting Meccan merchant caravans. Again, the Meccans were reacting to another new problem started by Muhammad, and began sending an armed force to protect the latest caravan, in 624, but this triggered a war that didn't end until 630.

So it was Muhammad again, who started a new trouble with the Meccans. Those raids and looting led to war, a war that Muhammad started.

Muhammad caused other troubles in Medina, with the Jewish tribes that were living in Medina. Muhammad exiled the Banu Qaynupa from Medina, in 624, and Muhammad stealing their lands and properties. This exile triggered trouble with the Banu Nadir, and then the Banu Qurayza.

After Mecca submitted in 630, Muhammad started a new war, with Ta'if, when he began besieging the city. The Ta'if weren't at war with Muhammad, but the motive for attacking Ta'if is because the townspeople, back in 622, didn't want Muhammad brewing trouble in their pagan town, so they rejected giving sanctuary to Muhammad in 622.

So really all the wars were started by Muhammad himself. None of these were defensive wars, because Muhammad was the aggressor.

 

[sovietchild]

I would not threaten you to become "agnostic". You are free to be a Muslim. I would not take away your rights of whatever religion you wish to follow.

Do I have the same rights to being agnostic, and not a Muslim or a Christian? Don't I deserve the same curtesy?

What Muhammad did, was to cause trouble, a trouble he started once he began threatening to take away the pagans' rights to worship at Kaaba.

In the early stage of Muhammad's preaching, the pagans may have mocked his teaching, they didn't threaten Muhammad, nor did they stop him from preaching or gathering followers.

The pagans' attitude only changed, when Muhammad began to changing his preaching, when he began inciting his followers into destroy the idols in Kaaba.

So really, Muhammad started this trouble first, not the pagans, because he threatened the pagans first. That's when the pagans felt the need to react.

If Muhammad never threaten them first, then Muhammad might have been left alone. Muhammad might not have been forced into exile.

Things would have been different if Muhammad had left them alone.

Persecution can happen both ways. Muhammad threatened the pagans, the pagans pushed back. Muhammad felt his life was threatened, so he left, and migrated to Medina.

Muhammad could have left Mecca in peace, but he didn't. Muhammad began arming his followers in 623, and started a series of raiding, attacking and looting Meccan merchant caravans. Again, the Meccans were reacting to another new problem started by Muhammad, and began sending an armed force to protect the latest caravan, in 624, but this triggered a war that didn't end until 630.

So it was Muhammad again, who started a new trouble with the Meccans. Those raids and looting led to war, a war that Muhammad started.

Muhammad caused other troubles in Medina, with the Jewish tribes that were living in Medina. Muhammad exiled the Banu Qaynupa from Medina, in 624, and Muhammad stealing their lands and properties. This exile triggered trouble with the Banu Nadir, and then the Banu Qurayza.

After Mecca submitted in 630, Muhammad started a new war, with Ta'if, when he began besieging the city. The Ta'if weren't at war with Muhammad, but the motive for attacking Ta'if is because the townspeople, back in 622, didn't want Muhammad brewing trouble in their pagan town, so they rejected giving sanctuary to Muhammad in 622.

So really all the wars were started by Muhammad himself. None of these were defensive wars, because Muhammad was the aggressor.

Trouble? It was the pagans who caused all the trouble. They were the ones who deceived others into believing that one should bring offerings to an idol. Becoming rich of it. And you accusing Prophet Muhammad of causing trouble? He only warned people not to engage in bringing offerings to an idol or pray to them.

 

[gnostic]

Trouble? It was the pagans who caused all the trouble. They were the ones who deceived others into believing that one should bring offerings to an idol. Becoming rich of it. And you accusing Prophet Muhammad of causing trouble? He only warned people not to engage in bringing offerings to an idol or pray to them.

No, the trouble only began when Muhammad began brewing trouble with his preaching of destroying idols of another religion.

He threatened the pagans first.

If a person threaten you, demanding that you burn you Qur'an, then wouldn't you react?

That's what the pagans were doing; they were reacting to threat to them.

Muhammad wasn't a liberator, he was a warmongering troublemaker. He caused his own problems.

 

[sovietchild]

No, the trouble only began when Muhammad began brewing trouble with his preaching of destroying idols of another religion.

He threatened the pagans first.

If a person threaten you, demanding that you burn you Qur'an, then wouldn't you react?

That's what the pagans were doing; they were reacting to threat to them.

Muhammad wasn't a liberator, he was a warmongering troublemaker. He caused his own problems.

It was a dirty business. How can you not see this? Inviting people of all regions and making them give something to the idols. And, becoming rich of it.

 

[gnostic]

Is it OK for the non-believers to put idols in a house of worship built specifically for the purpose of worship of ONE-GOD?

God didn't build the Kaaba, nor did Abraham.

The story of Abraham building the Kaaba for Ishmael, is nothing more than a myth and propaganda. There are no evidences of Abraham building anything in Arabia, no evidences of Abraham ever travelling to Arabia, and no evidences that Abraham ever existing as a real historical person.

Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac are all mythological characters.

Ancient people invented and wrote made-up history of their ancestries all the time. Muhammad is no different.

Scriptures and traditions are never reliable; and even when there are trace of history, often they are distorted and embellished.

According to Genesis, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born. When Isaac was old enough to walk, his mother Sarah didn't like Ishmael playing with her son, mainly because Ishmael being Abraham's eldest son, and her son could lose his inheritance, so she demanded that Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael. Ishmael lived and grew up in the wilderness outside of Canaan.

No where in Genesis does it say that Abraham travelled all the way to where Mecca supposed to be, and build them a house, before returning to Canaan. This Muhammad's invention.

Why would a man then over a hundred years old would travel just over 1200 kilometres from Beersheba to Mecca, build a house, then travel another 1200 kilometres back to Beersheba?

And that distance, is only if you were traveling in a straight line, as they would say "as the crow flies". There was no roads in the Bronze Age between these two places, so the distance would be greater than 1203 km.

No, Muhammad's story about Abraham and Ishmael is unrealistic, and clearly exaggerated.

 

[sovietchild]

God didn't build the Kaaba, nor did Abraham.

The story of Abraham building the Kaaba for Ishmael, is nothing more than a myth and propaganda. There are no evidences of Abraham building anything in Arabia, no evidences of Abraham ever travelling to Arabia, and no evidences that Abraham ever existing as a real historical person.

Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac are all mythological characters.

Ancient people invented and wrote made-up history of their ancestries all the time. Muhammad is no different.

Scriptures and traditions are never reliable; and even when there are trace of history, often they are distorted and embellished.

According to Genesis, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born. When Isaac was old enough to walk, his mother Sarah didn't like Ishmael playing with her son, mainly because Ishmael being Abraham's eldest son, and her son could lose his inheritance, so she demanded that Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael. Ishmael lived and grew up in the wilderness outside of Canaan.

No where in Genesis does it say that Abraham travelled all the way to where Mecca supposed to be, and build them a house, before returning to Canaan. This Muhammad's invention.

Why would a man then over a hundred years old would travel just over 1200 kilometres from Beersheba to Mecca, build a house, then travel another 1200 kilometres back to Beersheba?

And that distance, is only if you were traveling in a straight line, as they would say "as the crow flies". There was no roads in the Bronze Age between these two places, so the distance would be greater than 1203 km.

No, Muhammad's story about Abraham and Ishmael is unrealistic, and clearly exaggerated.

 

[gnostic]

It was a dirty business. How can you not see this? Inviting people of all regions and making them give something to the idols. And, becoming rich of it.

Sorry, but this sounds more like propaganda than anything else.

Do you have independent sources that say they were making money out of worshipping idols?

The problem is verifying Islamic sources with independent sources. There are no other sources other than Muslim version of the event.

 

[gnostic]

There are only two main sources to the story of Abraham and Ishmael: Genesis and the Qur'an.

Other sources come from Jewish traditions (e.g. Talmud, Midrash, Aggadah, etc) and Muslim traditions (e.g. The Hadiths).

There are no independent sources to verify Abraham's and Ishmael's existence, except through scriptural literature and traditions. There are no literature contemporary to Abraham, about Abraham. The Jewish sources didn't exist until the Iron Age, and Muhammad's version didn't exist until 1000 years later after Jewish version.

So yes, really.

Do you have a single source about Abraham and Ishmael around the supposedly time they have existed, in 1900 - 1700 BCE?

Until you can provide such Bronze Age sources, I am within my rights of being sceptical about Muhammad's Qur'an and the hadiths.

 

[sovietchild]

There are only two main sources to the story of Abraham and Ishmael: Genesis and the Qur'an.

Other sources come from Jewish traditions (e.g. Talmud, Midrash, Aggadah, etc) and Muslim traditions (e.g. The Hadiths).

There are no independent sources to verify Abraham's and Ishmael's existence, except through scriptural literature and traditions. There are no literature contemporary to Abraham, about Abraham. The Jewish sources didn't exist until the Iron Age, and Muhammad's version didn't exist until 1000 years later after Jewish version.

So yes, really.

Do you have a single source about Abraham and Ishmael around the supposedly time they have existed, in 1900 - 1700 BCE?

Until you can provide such Bronze Age sources, I am within my rights of being sceptical about Muhammad's Qur'an and the hadiths.

In that case Jie of Xia is a myth too. Right? Do you recognize that he ever existed? According to your theory Jie of Xia never tortured anyone and never was a tyrant. According to your theory he never existed, he was only made up for confidence booster.

 

[sovietchild]

There are only two main sources to the story of Abraham and Ishmael: Genesis and the Qur'an.

Other sources come from Jewish traditions (e.g. Talmud, Midrash, Aggadah, etc) and Muslim traditions (e.g. The Hadiths).

There are no independent sources to verify Abraham's and Ishmael's existence, except through scriptural literature and traditions. There are no literature contemporary to Abraham, about Abraham. The Jewish sources didn't exist until the Iron Age, and Muhammad's version didn't exist until 1000 years later after Jewish version.

So yes, really.

Do you have a single source about Abraham and Ishmael around the supposedly time they have existed, in 1900 - 1700 BCE?

Until you can provide such Bronze Age sources, I am within my rights of being sceptical about Muhammad's Qur'an and the hadiths.

Isn't there a tomb of Abraham?