What is wrong with smashing the idols?

[paarsurrey]

Might want to change your signature, paarsurrey.

It reflects my heart and soul, I love all the humanity. Please
I thank God that he created all human beings, they are all my kind.
Regards

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Only that shows a lot of religions, not all humanity. Though in advocating the destruction of other's cultures and practices, you're not showing much love for them.

 

[paarsurrey]

Only that shows a lot of religions, not all humanity. Though in advocating the destruction of other's cultures and practices, you're not showing much love for them.

That is one's wrong perception. I never said to destroy others. I believe and love in revelation, rationality, knowledge and truth.
Regards

 

[QuestioningMind]

I actually do, and that is the only thing I like about them. They also want to destroy the Black Stone.

Then I can only conclude that you're a phenomenal hypocrite, because I seriously doubt that you support the rights of other people to destroy your property just because they find it offensive.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That is one's wrong perception. I never said to destroy others.

So, hypocrisy, in a word. Hate their culture and beliefs, but so long as you don't harm them then you're golden.

 

[gnostic]

The reverence Muslims placed on Muhammad, showed that Muhammad is their idol.

Example, an insult to Allah is blasphemy. And insult to Muhammad is also treated as blasphemy. If both are treated as blasphemy, to insult either god or prophet, then that would mean Muhammad is on par with Allah as god.

Another example, is how often Muslims would include Muhammad their prayers, using Muhammad's name as mantra. That's also view as idol worship.

Then there is the Qur'an. The level of reverence placed on a book would also suggest that the Qur'an is also Muslims' idol.

The Kaaba is is also object of worship, with the annual pilgrimage made. The need to focus their prayers and rites round the Kaaba, the house of Ishmael, said to be built by Abraham, has turned the place into an idol.

And many Muslims feel the needs to touch the Black Stone, and even kiss it. If that's not example of idol, then what is it.

And sovietchild, you speak of people profiting from idols being worshipped during Muhammad's time. Well, the Saudis profited from the hundreds of thousands pilgrims, who turn up to pray in front and ritually walk around it.

The need for Muslims to pray in the direction of Mecca, has turned the whole city into object of worship, hence Mecca is an idol.

You speak of idol worship being wrong, but I am sorry that I have to break it to you, but Muslims are among the largest groups of idol worshippers.

 

[sovietchild]

Then I can only conclude that you're a phenomenal hypocrite, because I seriously doubt that you support the rights of other people to destroy your property just because they find it offensive.

One of us is a phenomenal hypocrite.

It sounds like you are talking about USA and NATO when they evaded Iraq, because they chose to invade the country because they found it offensive.

I have a question for you Q. do you justify the actions of Ukrainian people when they chose to smash all the Lenin statues?

Then I can only conclude that you're a phenomenal hypocrite, because I seriously doubt that you support the rights of other people to destroy your property just because they find it offensive.

Oh, and we should end this right now. Okay? Because when a rebel comes to your town, it smashes any statues left behind. Understood? When USA came they smashed the statues in Iraq, when ISIS came they smashed the statues in Syria, when western Europeans came to eastern Europe they smashed the statues of Soviet Union.

 

[sovietchild]

The reverence Muslims placed on Muhammad, showed that Muhammad is their idol.

Example, an insult to Allah is blasphemy. And insult to Muhammad is also treated as blasphemy. If both are treated as blasphemy, to insult either god or prophet, then that would mean Muhammad is on par with Allah as god.

Another example, is how often Muslims would include Muhammad their prayers, using Muhammad's name as mantra. That's also view as idol worship.

Then there is the Qur'an. The level of reverence placed on a book would also suggest that the Qur'an is also Muslims' idol.

The Kaaba is is also object of worship, with the annual pilgrimage made. The need to focus their prayers and rites round the Kaaba, the house of Ishmael, said to be built by Abraham, has turned the place into an idol.

And many Muslims feel the needs to touch the Black Stone, and even kiss it. If that's not example of idol, then what is it.

And sovietchild, you speak of people profiting from idols being worshipped during Muhammad's time. Well, the Saudis profited from the hundreds of thousands pilgrims, who turn up to pray in front and ritually walk around it.

The need for Muslims to pray in the direction of Mecca, has turned the whole city into object of worship, hence Mecca is an idol.

You speak of idol worship being wrong, but I am sorry that I have to break it to you, but Muslims are among the largest groups of idol worshippers.

Why are you keep denouncing Muhammad? How come you don't see anything good that he did?

 

[gnostic]

Why are you keep denouncing Muhammad? How come you don't see anything good that he did?

Muhammad is human being, make mistakes like everyone else, and he can experience range of emotions, from love to hate, compassionate to ruthlessness, and in those emotion, he reacted accordingly, with generosity as well as taking something that don't belong to him.

The Qur'an tell Muslims that stealing is wrong, and yet enshrined taking the fifth in spoils. Taking plunders and loots from people, which doesn't to Muslims, is stealing.

You said it yourself before, sovietchild. If Muslims can conquered a city or kingdom, then they can take what they like, including humans as slaves. You have said it yourself that as conquerors, Muhammad can do what he like, including destroying temples and idols.

I am sure you believe that Muhammad and his followers were oppressed and forced into exile in 622, but for years he has preaching to his followers about destroying other people's religion, e.g. destroying idols.

Don't you see, sovietchild, you in this thread that you have started up, you have been trying to justifying Muhammad to oppress other people's religion?

You are favouring double standard, it is not okay for other people to persecute Muslims for following Islam, but it is okay for Muhammad and Muslims persecuting other people for following their own religion.

YOU were the one who think that Muhammad was in the right to break the law, by preaching destruction of pagans' religion.

It was Muhammad who started the trouble with pagan Meccans, when he began his preaching in 612, inciting Muslims to destroy idols in the Kaaba. That's when they saw Muhammad as a threat, a threat to destroy their way of life.

If Muhammad wanted to left alone in peace, to start and follow his own religion without trouble, then he shouldn't have started this trouble in the first place.

Just because Mecca surrendered to him after 6 years of war, doesn't make it what he did "right".

I am sure that you see and believe in that Muhammad is a perfect man, but I don't have to believe in such things. I don't think anyone is perfect, and based on what scriptures say, not just the Qur'an, but also the Tanakh and bible, none of the prophets were perfect.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon are all prophets to Muslims, and yet none of them in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures are "perfect" men. (Note that Jews and Christians don't consider David and Solomon to "prophets".)

Isaac for instance, as a patriarch and prophet, wasn't as wise as his wife, Rebecca. Isaac favoured and spoiled Esau, because he was his favourite son. Rebecca favoured Jacob, the same as God.

Abraham had tenacity to argue with god in sparing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and had arranged to have her husband killed so that he could marry her.

Solomon became idol worshipper his old age, being influenced by his many foreign wives and concubines; his action led to God dividing Solomon's kingdom into two, after his death.

I may not believe stories in the bible to be true, or that Abraham and Moses existed historically, but at the least the bible don't depict them as perfect men. The Qur'an on the other hand, whitewashed everything, including everything about Muhammad.

This is why the Qur'an is even less believable to me than the bible.

 

[sovietchild]

Muhammad is human being, make mistakes like everyone else, and he can experience range of emotions, from love to hate, compassionate to ruthlessness, and in those emotion, he reacted accordingly, with generosity as well as taking something that don't belong to him.

The Qur'an tell Muslims that stealing is wrong, and yet enshrined taking the fifth in spoils. Taking plunders and loots from people, which doesn't to Muslims, is stealing.

You said it yourself before, sovietchild. If Muslims can conquered a city or kingdom, then they can take what they like, including humans as slaves. You have said it yourself that as conquerors, Muhammad can do what he like, including destroying temples and idols.

I am sure you believe that Muhammad and his followers were oppressed and forced into exile in 622, but for years he has preaching to his followers about destroying other people's religion, e.g. destroying idols.

Don't you see, sovietchild, you in this thread that you have started up, you have been trying to justifying Muhammad to oppress other people's religion?

You are favouring double standard, it is not okay for other people to persecute Muslims for following Islam, but it is okay for Muhammad and Muslims persecuting other people for following their own religion.

YOU were the one who think that Muhammad was in the right to break the law, by preaching destruction of pagans' religion.

It was Muhammad who started the trouble with pagan Meccans, when he began his preaching in 612, inciting Muslims to destroy idols in the Kaaba. That's when they saw Muhammad as a threat, a threat to destroy their way of life.

If Muhammad wanted to left alone in peace, to start and follow his own religion without trouble, then he shouldn't have started this trouble in the first place.

Just because Mecca surrendered to him after 6 years of war, doesn't make it what he did "right".

I am sure that you see and believe in that Muhammad is a perfect man, but I don't have to believe in such things. I don't think anyone is perfect, and based on what scriptures say, not just the Qur'an, but also the Tanakh and bible, none of the prophets were perfect.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon are all prophets to Muslims, and yet none of them in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures are "perfect" men. (Note that Jews and Christians don't consider David and Solomon to "prophets".)

Isaac for instance, as a patriarch and prophet, wasn't as wise as his wife, Rebecca. Isaac favoured and spoiled Esau, because he was his favourite son. Rebecca favoured Jacob, the same as God.

Abraham had tenacity to argue with god in sparing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and had arranged to have her husband killed so that he could marry her.

Solomon became idol worshipper his old age, being influenced by his many foreign wives and concubines; his action led to God dividing Solomon's kingdom into two, after his death.

I may not believe stories in the bible to be true, or that Abraham and Moses existed historically, but at the least the bible don't depict them as perfect men. The Qur'an on the other hand, whitewashed everything, including everything about Muhammad.

This is why the Qur'an is even less believable to me than the bible.

"then he shouldn't have started this trouble in the first place"

First of all it was meant to be. 2nd of all what do you expect a believer to do? Of course he will preach against those idols. How come you don't see anything wrong with Mecca pagans? Why is it always Muhammad? Can you list some good things that Muhammad did to the society?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

When USA came they smashed the statues in Iraq,

What statues?

 

[sovietchild]

What statues?

Saddam. If someone were to conquer America the first thing they might do is smash the liberty, and all the statues in Washington.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Uh huh. The Iraqui people tried to topple it first. Imagine that; they didn't like the dictator. And even then, you're comparing a statue of a man to a people's possessions depicting and representing their gods.

 

[gnostic]

First of all it was meant to be.

Perhaps, sovietchild.

But perhaps not, Muhammad could have made different choice, he could have made a better choice, like not angering pagans with with "threat" to destroy their religion.

You cannot threaten a person, and not expect a person not to react.

When Muhammad first started preaching, and claiming himself, he was only mocked, not attacked with violence. But when he began inciting his followers that idols in the Kaaba should be destroyed, then he became a threat.

I am mean just look at some of your posts. You condoned destruction of properties, especially those that done agree with you or your belief.

Have you re-read your most recent reply?

Here, it is:

Saddam. If someone were to conquer America the first thing they might do is smash the liberty, and all the statues in Washington.

You seemed to what to destroy every single statues in the US.

This is why you are getting a lot of backlash from non-Muslims here. If you are going to condone violent, you won't get any respect here at all.

This is the 21st century, and yet you have the mentality of a barbarian, who seek to destroy anything its path.

Have you heard of the Vandals? They were Germanic tribe of the 4th and 5th century that went through Western Europe (then the Western Roman Empire), destroying and damaging properties for the sake of destruction.

You have the same mentality as these destructive barbarians.

After Muhammad's death, the Islamic empires brought new life to civilisation, but with your mentality, you want to go back to the time, when damage properties, kill and rob people. Is that really what you want?

 

[gnostic]

Saddam. If someone were to conquer America the first thing they might do is smash the liberty, and all the statues in Washington.

Like Raging Pagan said...

Uh huh. The Iraqui people tried to topple it first. Imagine that; they didn't like the dictator. And even then, you're comparing a statue of a man to a people's possessions depicting and representing their gods.

...Saddam was a dictator. He persecuted and committed genocide on the Shiite city, when he used nerve gas on them.

Are you really that surprise that Shiite pull down his statues?

The man was a butcher. His sons were no better. They terrorised their own citizens. The statues here, of Saddam, had nothing to do with religion, but about tyrant's own powers.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Have you heard of the Vandals? They were Germanic tribe of the 4th and 5th century that went through Western Europe (then the Western Roman Empire), destroying and damaging properties for the sake of destruction.

And they left such a lasting impression on the European psyche that their name has become a byword for pointless destruction.

 

[sovietchild]

So, its okay for western Europeans to destroy Soviet Union statues, but its not okay for ISIS to destroy Persian statues? New government in Ukraine have killed many people, destroyed many statues, and renamed many cities.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You're shifting the point, soviet. Quite a dishonest tactic.

 

[von bek]

What is wrong with those people who cannot admit to themselves they need a Brazilian vacation?

 

[sovietchild]

You're shifting the point, soviet. Quite a dishonest tactic.

How so? They tried to label me as a hypocrite, because I support the destruction of Persian statues.