What is wrong with smashing the idols?

[sovietchild]

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.

Lawbreakers are usually anti-social people. Anti-social people deceive others in order to obtain money. Mecca pagans were telling others to give wealth to statues, so that they could collect it, and become wealthy.

 

[gnostic]

Lawbreakers are usually anti-social people. Anti-social people deceive others in order to obtain money. Mecca pagans were telling others to give wealth to statues, so that they could collect it, and become wealthy.

Sorry, but it is my understanding that Muhammad has no political power in Mecca, prior to his exile (before 622). Muhammad could not dictate any law at that time, so the pagans broke no law.

Between 610 (when he proclaimed himself as prophet) and 622, Muhammad did not have any power to change policy in Mecca, including banning idol worshipping. And Muhammad only took matters in his own hands, when he returned to Mecca in 630.

So between 610 and 630, but before Muhammad came in with his army, the pagan Meccans broke no law, because technically there was no law to ban idols in Kaaba or to ban pagan religion.

You are totally ignorant. You don't understand politics and you certainly don't understand law.

Law only exist if it is enacted by the present government. Between 610 and 630, Muhammad wasn't a part of any government in Mecca; he had no power to legislate any law.

He only became the government, when he accepted Mecca surrender, and took power for himself, but before that, he held no office in government in Mecca. So technically, pagan Meccans broke no law.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Muhammad was born in Mecca, he had a right to take the city back from people who engaged in idol worshiping.

He had no such right. Mecca had done him no wrong - Muhammad violated the communal spirit by prating against Mecca's religion for years; by recruiting followers to behave violently towards the Meccans and by insulting the Meccan's traditions. He had no right to take by force a city that exiled him after putting up with his intolerant demagoguery for over a decade. He had no right to conquer the city, install himself as its ruler and force his religious beliefs on everyone else. The double standards at work in your logic are unbelievable:

1. Muhammad raved against the Meccans' religion for over a decade and when he was exiled he left behind notable amounts of property. To Muslims, this is unjustifiable and amounts to little more than theft;
2. In Medina, Muhammad exiled the Jewish Banu Qaynuqa tribe from Medina - probably because they didn't accept him as a Prophet - and stripped them of their property. This is as much theft as the Meccan seizure of Muhammad's property yet Muslims see this as totally justified.

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.

If you honestly believe this then you're essentially arguing for 'might makes right' which is a ridiculously primitive way of doing things. But such a barbaric sentiment isn't really all that out of place in this context...

Presumably you'd be perfectly happy for non-Muslims - say, America? - to conquer Mecca and tear down all the mosques if Muslims weren't strong enough to stop them because 'might makes right'.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Lawbreakers are usually anti-social people.

Like Muhammad did when he preached intolerant garbage for over ten years?

Anti-social people deceive others in order to obtain money.

Like Muhammad did when he obtained power, money & followers over the course of his career as a warlord? Hence the Muslim narrative where Muhammad and his followers are always the victim?

Mecca pagans were telling others to give wealth to statues, so that they could collect it, and become wealthy.

I'm almost certain the Meccan Pagans didn't actually tell people to do this; mostly because Muslims, based on their behaviour I've observed here and elsewhere on the Internet, have an inveterate habit of misrepresenting or even lying about other belief systems in order to make Islam seem more rational and civilised. Besides, on the subject of giving wealth to & worshipping idols, isn't Saudi Arabia making an absolute fortune off of Muslims going on pilgrimage to worship the Kaaba?

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

Of course they belonged to somebody. They belonged to whomever created them or their descendants. Who gave Muhammad the right to conquer and take property that was not his? If I come and take your house by force does that then mean it's okay if I tear it down because it offends me? Please clarify for me. It almost sounds as if the religion you follow says you can forcibly take what does not belong to you.

 

[gnostic]

I'm almost certain the Meccan Pagans didn't actually tell people to do this; mostly because Muslims, based on their behaviour I've observed here and elsewhere on the Internet, have an inveterate habit of misrepresenting or even lying about other belief systems in order to make Islam seem more rational and civilised. Besides, on the subject of giving wealth to & worshipping idols, isn't Saudi Arabia making an absolute fortune off of Muslims going on pilgrimage to worship the Kaaba?

sovietchild doesn't see the irony of all his claims. Every claims sovietchild has made, actually reflect back what Muhammad and his followers did.

There were no crime committed in worshipping pagan religion or worshipping idols. Muhammad did preach for banning pagan worship, but he has no legal and political authority to ban when he was a prophet between 610 and 622.

You are right, Scotsman this, and about that too:

He had no such right. Mecca had done him no wrong - Muhammad violated the communal spirit by prating against Mecca's religion for years; by recruiting followers to behave violently towards the Meccans and by insulting the Meccan's traditions. He had no right to take by force a city that exiled him after putting up with his intolerant demagoguery for over a decade. He had no right to conquer the city, install himself as its ruler and force his religious beliefs on everyone else. The double standards at work in your logic are unbelievable:

1. Muhammad raved against the Meccans' religion for over a decade and when he was exiled he left behind notable amounts of property. To Muslims, this is unjustifiable and amounts to little more than theft;
2. In Medina, Muhammad exiled the Jewish Banu Qaynuqa tribe from Medina - probably because they didn't accept him as a Prophet - and stripped them of their property. This is as much theft as the Meccan seizure of Muhammad's property yet Muslims see this as totally justified.

Before leaving Mecca, in 622, Muhammad was never part of any government, he was no prince or noble, so he had no authority to enact legislation to ban pagan religion.

Just because he self-proclaim himself as a prophet, that doesn't give him any authority to tell what Meccans should or shouldn't do.

If anyone was a traitor, it was Muhammad and his followers, they were acting against the law, when they were inciting their followers to destroy or damage properties that don't belong to them.

Just because Muhammad returned to Mecca with his army and made himself ruler of Mecca, doesn't mean he did the right thing. And he went against his own scripture by ignoring the "no compulsion" rule. That's an example of Muhammad's arrogance and hypocrisy.

He may call himself a "prophet" or "messenger", but to me, he looked no better than a warlord or a bandit.

Anyone who attack a civilian target, like the series of raids and looting of merchant caravans, from 623 to 624, is nothing more than a bandit, a robber or a pirate. Which is exactly what Muhammad did and what he is. Instead of getting jobs or starting new jobs, Muhammad became leader of bandits, robbing people who travel with trade goods.

And what you said about Banu Qaynuqa is also right. Muhammad claimed that that they lost everything when they went into exile, in 622. So I find it hypocritical of Muhammad in exiling and robbing the Qaynuqa (624) because they rejected him as a prophet.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

This is just absolutely deplorable.

 

[sovietchild]

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".

How can one be a hypocrite when one is known to be as trust worthy? How can one be an idiot and go to war with 1,000 soldiers vs 10,000 soldiers and come out victorious? How can one be an idiot and conquer Mecca?

 

[sovietchild]

He had no such right. Mecca had done him no wrong - Muhammad violated the communal spirit by prating against Mecca's religion for years; by recruiting followers to behave violently towards the Meccans and by insulting the Meccan's traditions. He had no right to take by force a city that exiled him after putting up with his intolerant demagoguery for over a decade. He had no right to conquer the city, install himself as its ruler and force his religious beliefs on everyone else. The double standards at work in your logic are unbelievable:

1. Muhammad raved against the Meccans' religion for over a decade and when he was exiled he left behind notable amounts of property. To Muslims, this is unjustifiable and amounts to little more than theft;
2. In Medina, Muhammad exiled the Jewish Banu Qaynuqa tribe from Medina - probably because they didn't accept him as a Prophet - and stripped them of their property. This is as much theft as the Meccan seizure of Muhammad's property yet Muslims see this as totally justified.

If you honestly believe this then you're essentially arguing for 'might makes right' which is a ridiculously primitive way of doing things. But such a barbaric sentiment isn't really all that out of place in this context...

Presumably you'd be perfectly happy for non-Muslims - say, America? - to conquer Mecca and tear down all the mosques if Muslims weren't strong enough to stop them because 'might makes right'.

How is offering things like food and candles to statues not barbaric?

 

[sovietchild]

Of course they belonged to somebody. They belonged to whomever created them or their descendants. Who gave Muhammad the right to conquer and take property that was not his? If I come and take your house by force does that then mean it's okay if I tear it down because it offends me? Please clarify for me. It almost sounds as if the religion you follow says you can forcibly take what does not belong to you.

Those idols didn't belong to no buddy. Apparently, people started to put idols inside the Kaaba for over many of years. So, basically they belonged to the government of the city. Once the government was captured, Muhammad destroyed the idols.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Apparently, people started to put idols inside the Kaaba for over many of years.

Then they belonged to the people.

 

[sovietchild]

Then they belonged to the people.

What if they died long time ago?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

What if they died long time ago?

Their ancestors are still the people. What, you would urinate on graves too?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Lawbreakers are usually anti-social people.

Conquest is not typically viewed as pro-social behavior.

Mecca pagans were telling others to give wealth to statues, so that they could collect it, and become wealthy.

And there is no tourism to Mecca under Muslim control?

Muhammad: Hey, guys! Make sure, 'cause, uh, God said so, to pack up and hang out with us in Mecca at least once a year.

Hmm, making a pilgrimage essentially mandatory to ensure influxes of cash...

Of course they belonged to somebody. They belonged to whomever created them or their descendants.

Even if they were legally "public" property, like a road or a power line or something, that doesn't mean you can just vandalize it.

How can one be an idiot and go to war with 1,000 soldiers vs 10,000 soldiers and come out victorious?

You think others didn't win battles "against the odds"?

How is offering things like food and candles to statues not barbaric?

How is running around a block of rock not so?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Who owned those idols that Muhammad destroyed? They belonged to no buddy.

They more than likely belonged to the temple or the temple's curators who, by all accounts, were Muhammad's extended family - the Banu Quraysh.

How is offering things like food and candles to statues not barbaric?

It only seems barbaric if you're stupid enough to believe that the food & candles were being literally offered to a statue as opposed to the deity depicted by said statue which is a fundamentally silly position to take - saying a Pagan's statue is there god is as fallacious as claiming that once I get into a car, that car becomes me and I become that car - or if you don't understand the concept of symbolism (or if you assume people of other faiths are too stupid to understand it). The point of sacrificing isn't so we can say 'Here, statue, take this [insert food or other offering] here as it will nourish your inanimate body' - it's an offering to the being depicted by the statue. Say the Quraysh made a lot of wealth from trade, say, with Syria - they might offer some of that wealth up at temple in thanks to their gods for blessing them with mercantile success. It's not because the statues they offer it to will literally benefit from this wealth - it's because the Quraysh merchants recognise the part the gods represented by those statues played in helping them get that wealth in the first place. It's an act of symbolism.

Actually there's something similar in Islam - zakat. Zakat is a symbolic offering to Allah. You give a portion of your wealth to the needy as an act of sacrifice in recognition of the fact that Allah created all things, that you are benefiting from his creation & that others should too. It's actually one of the best features of Islam - might actually be the best feature.

See @FearGod? I said something nice about Islam and I didn't even implode a little bit

 

[RESOLUTION]

What is wrong with smashing the idols? I have smashed one and then trashed it, also I once throw the cross away. Have you ever smashed an idol?

Prophet Abraham once said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error."

Why build idols in the first place. I have a strong dislike for crucifix's and any type of icon or idol.
Jesus Christ is not on a cross. He is sat at the right hand of God the Father in heaven.
His body and blood both a sacrifice for us. But he was victorious God rose him up from the grave.

Idols are for those who seek with their eyes what they do not see with their heart.

Don't need to smash what you would never buy in the first instance. I like plain crosses in Churches and I believe the truth should always be centred on God alone giving him the glory. I thank Christ for loving us and God so much. But he showed he did it all for God and the love of God and man.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why build idols in the first place. I have a strong dislike for crucifix's and any type of icon or idol.
Jesus Christ is not on a cross. He is sat at the right hand of God the Father in heaven.
His body and blood both a sacrifice for us. But he was victorious God rose him up from the grave.

Idols are for those who seek with their eyes what they do not see with their heart.

Don't need to smash what you would never buy in the first instance. I like plain crosses in Churches and I believe the truth should always be centred on God alone giving him the glory. I thank Christ for loving us and God so much. But he showed he did it all for God and the love of God and man.

"Idols are for those who seek with their eyes what they do not see with their heart."

I agree with what I have colored in magenta above.
Jesus was never a god, however. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What is wrong with smashing the idols?

Muhammad held the human rights of freedom of religion , freedom of life and freedom of opinion with high esteem, he could never go against it, he could never even think about and intend to as God had revealed on him:


Sahih International: [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation
Please
Regards

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Idols are for those who seek with their eyes what they do not see with their heart.

It astounds me that with multiple people who utilize and have idols (and even those that don't) explain just what an idol is and what it means, we still have this level of complete misunderstanding.

 

[YmirGF]

It astounds me that with multiple people who utilize and have idols (and even those that don't) explain just what an idol is and what it means, we still have this level of complete misunderstanding.

In my neck of nirvana we commonly refer to that as "stuck on stupid".