The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Be that as it may, the topic is Mohammed being a religious vandal, not the modern questionable actions of the USA.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is wrong with smashing the idols?
- Thread starter sovietchild
- Start date
Be that as it may, the topic is Mohammed being a religious vandal, not the modern questionable actions of the USA.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, the US was 100% wrong to invade Iraq and take it by force. So do you also agree that it was wrong for Muhammad to conquered Mecca take it by force and destroy their property?
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
I agree with Muhammad. Those bricks are only useful for building buildings. God is The Invisible. Why invent visible gods?
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
As you can see, it's perfectly okay for Muhammad to do things to non-Muslims that are immoral when non-Muslims do them to Muslims. How very convenient, eh?
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
Muhammad was born in Mecca, he had a right to take the city back from people who engaged in idol worshiping.
So, you agree that Christians had the right to reclaim Spain from Muslims? Right?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I see... so you've decided that YOU get to decide what other people can build with their own bricks. So if I decide that the bricks that your house is built from is not useful, I would be in the right to tear down your house and use the bricks to build a wall instead. I mean if you get to decide for other people the worth of their own property then I should be able to decide the worth of your property as well, right? Or is this a one-way street where only YOU get to decide for other people, but OTHER PEOPLE aren't allowed to decide for you?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Being born in Mecca does not mean that Muhammad OWNED Mecca and could destroy property that wasn't his. Do you think that the city/town you were born in belongs to you and that you can destroy the property of people in your birth city just because you don't agree with them?
Actually, he does think that.
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
I think Muhammad did the right thing by destroying those idols that people thought were gods.
gnostic
The Lost One
What does your reply have anything to do with what QuestioningMind have written?
They are not related.
(A) your thread is about destroying idols. You have been trying to justify it. So QuestioningMind responded by answering your original question, that it is wrong for anyone destroying properties that don't belong to the vandals.
The properties, the idols in Kaaba, don't belong to Muhammad, so Muhammad was wrong in destroying those idols.
(B) The primary goal in war in Iraq have more to do with getting rid of Saddam Hussein than destroying sacred Islamic sites or burning copies of the Qur'an.
Don't get me wrong, I have never supported war in Iraq, but the war had nothing to do with attacking Islam, had nothing to do with the mosques, and nothing to do with the Qur'an.
I actually despised George Bush Junior. I think Bush is a moron, who should have never started the war in Iraq. But (me, hating Bush) that not because I like Hussein. I do think Hussein was a butcher when committed genocide using biological weapon upon Shiite Iraqis.
I disagree with American and allies policy and strategy regarding to Iraq. However, it was never the American goal, to remove Islam from Iraq or convert Iraqis to Christianity.
What the Americans did in Iraq, it is not the same with what Muhammad did to Mecca. Muhammad started the war against Mecca, when he started a series of raids, attacking and looting Meccan merchant caravans, from 623 to 624, which led to the Battle of Badr (624). It ended with Mecca surrendering, as Muhammad's army approached the city.
Kaaba was a public property of worship so the idols were public properties as well. The Kaaba was never a private property of any single individual Meccan.
Muhammad destroyed public properties, by destroying those idols. Those idols were Muhammad's private properties, so clearly Muhammad is legally wrong in damaging that don't belong to him, he had no rights to destroy those idols.
Personally, I don't think the idols were "holy", nor do I think the Kaaba "holy", nor that of the Qur'an.
But just because I follow your religion, or anyone else's religions, doesn't mean I will vandalise or destroy properties that belong to those religions.
Only criminals take or destroy properties that don't belong to them, and I viewed Muhammad to be no better than a criminal and warmongering troublemaker, who like to start wars.
gnostic
The Lost One
This is why I think Muslims put Muhammad on too high pedestal, whitewashing his crimes with apologetic excuses.
gnostic
The Lost One
Yes, the double standards that exist in Islam and among Muslims are staggering.
I know that many religions practised hypocrisy at some levels, but Muslims have pushed Islam to whole new level of hypocrisy.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
So you think it is okay to destroy property that does not belong to you if you are offended by it. If someone is offended by your house do you think that they have the right to tear your house down?
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
In that case then it's absolutely right what the Sons of Odin are doing in Norway, taking it back from the book-worshipers who think a book is god. They're doing the right thing.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Sovietchild... with all due respect, how about answering the question I've asked several times now. Since you think you have a right to destroy the property of someone else because you find it offensive or see no use for it, do you also then believe that other people have the right to destroy your property if they find it offensive or can see no use for it? Any reason why you keep refusing to answer?
gnostic
The Lost One
It is very clear to me, that sovietchild have no concept of what ownership means.
I think because Islam have indoctrinated Muslims to view the world askew, so to them, up is down, left is right.
Vandalism is about people damaging or destroying properties that they don't privately owned. Vandalism is a criminal act.
Muhammad clearly was committing a vandalism by destroying those idols at Kaaba. He had no rights in damaging properties that he doesn't privately owned.
Sovietchild clearly cannot see how this is wrong, because of backward Qur'an, which would justify any criminal acts committed by Muhammad.
And sovietchild doesn't see it as criminal acts, because for Islam it is not breaking the law when you are doing against non-Muslims.
That's how very backward Islam is. As long as Muslim attack a non-Muslim or damage properties of non-Muslim, it is not considered a crime.
Islam supported and condoned slavery as long as the slaves are non-Muslims. It is only against the (Islamic) law to sell Muslims as slaves. In Saudi Arabia, slavery was still legal in the 20th century; slavery was only abolished in 1962, because of international diplomatic pressures.
So as long as Muslims are only destroying properties of non-Muslims, no law is broken.
The double standard of Islam is staggering...but I have already said that.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
I suspect that you're right. I'm just hoping that maybe I can get him to face his hypocrisy.
sovietchild
Well-Known Member
Who owned those idols that Muhammad destroyed? They belonged to no buddy. And, if they did belonged to some buddy they belonged to the government of the city. The government got conquered by Muhammad and his army.
gnostic
The Lost One
That's a really a draconian logic.
It is no wonder why i think Muhammad is a hypocrite and idiot, because he has made looting and vandalism the "norm".
This is why I think the Qur'an and Islamic law are backward jokes. This is why I view Muhammad to be a Lawbreaker, not a Lawgiver.
If you truly think Muslims being conquerors, can do anything they like, then Muslim Palestinians have no rights to consider their holy mosque in Jerusalem to be their, because the Israeli had won the war. So perhaps, Israeli should tear down the Mosque.
I am not saying the Israeli should do this. I am just using your absurd logic about Muhammad and the idols ("idiotic" would be more appropriate word to describe your "conqueror's rights" logic, instead of "absurd").
Last edited: