Abraham and the idols
-
To me it seemed obvious.
Well, I can't read your mind.
I do have family members who are on what 'I' would percieve to be the wrong path. Lets take one of them as an example. She is catholic but I do not feel the need to smash any of her things, nor go to any church she might attend and break, smash or vandalise anything there either.
As do I. I've had discussions with some in my family, heated ones, but at some point I just let 'em be; no point to it. Each his own, different paths and all that. I do firmly believe in this, but I also believe that Abraham wasn't wrong here. You smashing her things will accomplish absolutely nothing, first of all. Abraham was making a larger point. Abraham is called the leader of men, are you a leader of men? Am I? No. What Abraham did is rather brave, required some gigantic cajones, that did, but he did stand up for he felt was the right thing. Damn him for caring about his father's fate.
Instead I pray for them and to the best of my abilities I try to lead a reasonable life.
Perfectly understandable, as do I.
Isn't this kind of attitude the same one that led to the destruction of the Buddhist carvings in Afganistan? http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan I don't know if you think that is ok, but I don't. I prayed they wouldn't do it and when it happened I was horrified and disgusted that muslims felt the need to impose 'their' religion and their beliefs on others by destruction of something that was historically and religiously significant to so many.
Hardly. First of all those who wish to 'impose their religion on others' will find any excuse and reason to do so. It's never the tool. It's always the human. Is that okay? I don't know. Tell me why is it wrong? We should have respect for somebody's history, faith, etc but I am not sure if this is a logical view.
Is that why the Abraham-idols thing infuriates you so?
Let me give you an example. Pork is mentioned in the Quran. It's clearly prohibited so....should I go around and kill any pigs that people in my town might be keeping in order to prevent them from being eaten? Should I go into peoples houses and check their fridge and freezer for pork products and then destroy them?
Unfair analogy. Again, different contexts. We are not talking about random people. We are talking about Abraham's own father. He didn't 'prevent' them from doing anything. They can just build a new idol? You're missing the point entirely with this story. He was making a point!
I know what you are saying about standing up for the truth. I just don't see that as a reasonable or ethical way to stand up for it.
Okay, I see nothing unreasonable or 'unethical' about it. Please define for me, in objective means, what is a 'reasonable' and 'ethical' way of standing up for the truth.
Who was the destructive force? They were trying to burn him 'after' he destroyed all but one of their statues, correct me if I'm wrong. Of course I'm not advocating burning people here - but, I'm not asking about what the nonbelievers did. I want to know what Abraham really did and why.
You don't see how this could be 'forcing your beliefs onto others?'. Seriously?
First, Abraham was threatened even before he thought to break the idols (1946), pay strict attention to Abraham's response (1947). Abraham also prays for his father, even after his father tries to burn him. The jerk he is.
Aren't you advocating it? So is it okay if i go ahead and burn the Taliban who broke Buddhist idols? Somebody steals my quran, I should burn the bastard? Are you seriously telling me the latter is less adverse than the former?! I don't care what caused it. Attempted murder is attempted murder. No need to rationalize it.
You are missing the point. It's not about 'forcing your beliefs onto others', It was very much about calling a illogical thing as an illogical thing. You are turning a logical issue into an emotional one. Which makes all debates pointless.
Maybe we are getting closer to one answer now - viewing it as non-literal.
Yes, notice for a moment his father sees Abraham's point, but the leaders shun him away from it. The hive mentality. The lengths some will go to, to 'fit in'. ETC.
-
Are you saying because Abraham was special so he had a special mindset which made smashing up statues beneficial?
Wat.
Smashing his father's statues, yes. And it was beneficial. His father, and the leaders realized the point he made, but their response was to burn the messenger.
-
- but, I'm not asking about what the nonbelievers did. I want to know what Abraham really did and why.
...but why would he do that if it wasn't for what his people did?
See if it can help you see the real problem
Out-sourcing your thought process (including decision-making on just about everything life has to offer) to a man-made device that does not and can not do anything by its own is the real danger to and the real destruction of humanity. It renders the God-given facility useless. Furthermore, authority becomes the next great concern, as whoever takes control of the idol, takes control of the idolizer. Scale it up to a whole nation and watch the people regress.
What have all the prophets done, if not smash the-idols-of-the-age and bring the responsibility back to where the true power is?
-
Well Jack, or anyone else, is the way for Muslims to change things by force and destruction? To make a point by smashing up other peoples things.
To me it sounds like vandalism. A criminal act. Forcing ones beliefs onto others.
That leaves me this morning feeling very uneasy because I can't say ''it's the hadith''. It's written right there in Quran.
Pls give me a hand here someone. Thanks
RanaSo was the observation of those who were managing those hand sculpted idols.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/021.%20Al%20Anmbia/21.59.gif
They/clergy men said, "Who has done this act with our various iela'aha? Indeed he who has done this is certainly from amongst the unjustly cruel ones"
Howver, the moment point became clear to onlookers, they who had said this were declared as
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/021.%20Al%20Anmbia/21.64.gif
In consequence/thereby they returned to their own selves whereby they said, "Indeed you people you are the people who are distorters/unjust"http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/021.%20Al%20Anmbia/021.%20D%20Al%20Anmbia.htm
-
Aren't you advocating it? So is it okay if i go ahead and burn the Taliban who broke Buddhist idols? Somebody steals my quran, I should burn the bastard? Are you seriously telling me the latter is less adverse than the former?! I don't care what caused it. Attempted murder is attempted murder. No need to rationalize it.
No I never suggested for a moment that I support burning anybody for ANYthing. Perhaps I worded in such a way that lets someone take that impression if they want to.
Clearly attempted murder is attempted murder and one must protect myself. If a catholic comes to try and kill me though - I won't be protecting myself by smashing their idols.
-
Wat.
Smashing his father's statues, yes. And it was beneficial. His father, and the leaders realized the point he made, but their response was to burn the messenger.
So what happened that was beneficial? I hate to try and help you with this but is it simply the fact that 'maybe' a seed was planted in their heads that idols are not a great thing to put your faith in?
-
...but why would he do that if it wasn't for what his people did?
San that was my original question - why? The answer I've been given seems to be because they threatened to burn him (I think?).
See if it can help you see the real problem
Out-sourcing your thought process (including decision-making on just about everything life has to offer) to a man-made device that does not and can not do anything by its own is the real danger to and the real destruction of humanity. It renders the God-given facility useless. Furthermore, authority becomes the next great concern, as whoever takes control of the idol, takes control of the idolizer. Scale it up to a whole nation and watch the people regress.
What have all the prophets done, if not smash the-idols-of-the-age and bring the responsibility back to where the true power is?
Did they really all smash idols? Did I manage to miss that - entirely possible I suppose since I missed the bit about Abraham. I mean, I've read the whole Quran but it doesn't always all sink in - I can't take it all in that easily.
Or are you speaking metaphorically?
Because I don't see what physical smashing would have to do much of the time with bringing people to true Islam. To me that is like bringing people to Islam by the sword. I understand when people have no rights and/or are being attacked. To me that is the time for physical action - demonstrations, attacks, self-protection. But otherwise? It seems wrong to me.
So can someone tell did Abraham smash the idols because his rights were being smashed? Or because he was in danger?
-
Background
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596544.0As a side note, pointless destruction is not the same as destruction with a beneficial purpose and outcome.
Wakas I totally agree with you. As I said in the last post there are times when I very much believe it's a good idea to take physical (and sometimes) destructive action. I would like to work out if this is one of those times.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it more thoroughly.
-
Rana
So was the observation of those who were managing those hand sculpted idols.
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/021.%20Al%20Anmbia/21.59.gif
They/clergy men said, "Who has done this act with our various iela'aha? Indeed he who has done this is certainly from amongst the unjustly cruel ones"
Howver, the moment point became clear to onlookers, they who had said this were declared as
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/021.%20Al%20Anmbia/21.64.gif
In consequence/thereby they returned to their own selves whereby they said, "Indeed you people you are the people who are distorters/unjust"http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/021.%20Al%20Anmbia/021.%20D%20Al%20Anmbia.htm
I appreciate the effort Mazhar but I can't understand this or your point. )
-
Just so you know, this is source of my current problems
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szo_949-_Yg
I would never have watched it except I've started going to women's study group again with my friends. I don't know if I can attend again though since this has really rocked my world in a bad way. '( Just for the record (and I know this will sound horrible) I hate that sheikh. His whole way of presenting Islam disgusts me. He's so high and mighty - like the disbelievers are such a joke. The thing is, I may not agree with the disbelievers when it comes to religion - but I like them! There are some great non-Muslims out there, doing great things....and I don't think that becuase they think differently to me that they are a joke.
I freakin' hated this video....nearly had an aneurism watching it. sigh
But he did point out the Abraham/idols thing and now I have to deal with that.
-
San that was my original question - why? The answer I've been given seems to be because they threatened to burn him (I think?).
Did they really all smash idols? Did I manage to miss that - entirely possible I suppose since I missed the bit about Abraham. I mean, I've read the whole Quran but it doesn't always all sink in - I can't take it all in that easily.Or are you speaking metaphorically?
Because I don't see what physical smashing would have to do much of the time with bringing people to true Islam. To me that is like bringing people to Islam by the sword. I understand when people have no rights and/or are being attacked. To me that is the time for physical action - demonstrations, attacks, self-protection. But otherwise? It seems wrong to me.
So can someone tell did Abraham smash the idols because his rights were being smashed? Or because he was in danger?
From my understanding Abraham smashed the idols to show the idolaters how foolish there idol worship was. He wanted to show them from a logical perceptive how stupid it was to worship(and idolize) what you and I create.
However make no mistake, no true prophet or true messenger would willfully try to force someone to believe in Islam.
God says in the Quran,2256 There is no compulsion in the system; the proper way has been made clear from the wrong way. Whoever rejects the transgressors, and acknowledges God, has grasped the firm branch that will never break. God is Hearer, Knower.
We are given the freedom to choose. This means that no one including messengers of God and prophets of God can spread God's religion by the sword or through force. This is also true for cases where parents have children. For example, if i had children I can't force them to believe in the Quran and God Signs. They themselves must come to this understanding. I am not responsible for what you believe and you are not responsible for what i believe. Every person is responsible for his or her own belief. All we can do is admonish one another through discourse.
Peace,
Kevin -
From my understanding Abraham smashed the idols to show the idolaters how foolish there idol worship was. He wanted to show them from a logical perceptive how stupid it was to worship(and idolize) what you and I create.
But please, please, please someone tell me/show me how that was showing thm "from a logical perspective how stupid" their actions were. If you can, that is what I need.
However make no mistake, no true prophet or true messenger would willfully try to force someone to believe in Islam.
God says in the Quran,2256 There is no compulsion in the system; the proper way has been made clear from the wrong way. Whoever rejects the transgressors, and acknowledges God, has grasped the firm branch that will never break. God is Hearer, Knower.
Yes. That's right, it does say there is NO COMPULSION. So what was the purpose of destroying property that didn't belong to him? To make a point? Again, what point? What point is demonstrated when we go and destroy something important from another religion?
We are given the freedom to choose. This means that no one including messengers of God and prophets of God can spread God's religion by the sword or through force. This is also true for cases where parents have children. For example, if i had children I can't force them to believe in the Quran and God Signs. They themselves must come to this understanding. I am not responsible for what you believe and you are not responsible for what i believe. Every person is responsible for his or her own belief. All we can do is admonish one another through discourse.
Peace,
KevinThank you and yes I totally agree. I guess I just don't understand how this really important Prophet's behaviour fits with that.
-
But please, please, please someone tell me/show me how that was showing thm "from a logical perspective how stupid" their actions were. If you can, that is what I need.
But you have read the story in AQ right? ???
Smash em all, except the biggest one, when the idolaters return, tell them to ask the biggest one who did it etc.
-
Dear Rana,
I must admit that what Abraham did in my view was sort of risky. Also you are 100% right .There can hardly be any point in destroying someone else?s property. But even so he was genuinely trying to show to his people that what they were doing was wrong. Hence the purpose of not breaking the biggest idol. You can say that it was a sort of tactic that he used to trigger there brains to think.For example
2162 They said, "Did you do this to our gods O Abraham?"
2163 He said, "It was the biggest one of them here who did it, so ask them, if they do speak!"
2164 So they turned and said to themselves "It is indeed ourselves who have been wicked!" (Thinking begins )
2165 Then they reverted to their old ideas "You know that they do not speak!" (Tactic worked only momentarily. "Let's burn Abraham" >D )Abraham didn't break the idols out of hate or malice. He did it only to help them contemplate seriously on there beliefs. Yes he did pull a prank on his people. However in God's eye what Abraham's people did was FAR more worse.
Peace,
Kevin. -
Because I don't see what physical smashing would have to do much of the time with bringing people to true Islam. To me that is like bringing people to Islam by the sword. I understand when people have no rights and/or are being attacked. To me that is the time for physical action - demonstrations, attacks, self-protection. But otherwise? It seems wrong to me.
Now you're equating Abraham's actions to 'islam by the sword'?! ??? When did he attack anyone?! He was ATTACKED, which is a point you continuously ignore. First idols were pork, now idols are people? Seriously? This is silly.
I am sorry but this is obviously an issue of seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest because a prophet wasn't deemed as nice and sweet as you want him to be, or some sheikih (with SHADY in his name!) found a way to abuse the quran. I am sorry to be blunt, but I think you're reading the wrong book, to be honest. Non-muslims doesn't equate to a disbeliever, by the way. And nowhere in the quran are you allowed to "befriend" disbelievers. If you've read the quran, you'd know there is some strong language about disbelievers.
Earlier you mentioned 'reason', I see none in your objections, only emotionally based responses. How can we 'logically' show you anything when you refuse to be logical yourself?!
-
But you have read the story in AQ right? ???
Smash em all, except the biggest one, when the idolaters return, tell them to ask the biggest one who did it etc.
Yeah I know. And there is an ayah whre they actually say they understand or believe or something but then they continue to carry on with idolatry. 2164
Alright so Quran does suggest that on some level it had effect. I just find it a really odd way to make a point, in particular given that we are not supposed to force someone. Since you can't get inside someones head to implant a belief then that would always be through force, coercion etc I would think.
Also I think what is confusing the issue here (for me) is that most idols are not worshipped as though they can do anything anyway. They tend to be more of a "focus" when praying & meditating. Christians might revere the statues 'becuase' to them they're in the likeness of God but I've never met one who though that a statue 'was' God. Nor a Buddhist. I don't know much about Hindu practices. Maybe my lack of knowledge about what they practiced is a problem.
-
Abraham didn't break the idols out of hate or malice. He did it only to help them contemplate seriously on there beliefs. Yes he did pull a prank on his people. However in God's eye what Abraham's people did was FAR more worse.
Peace,
Kevin.Hehe Kevin, yeah I just referred to that ayah in my last post. I can see (or I assume) that 2164 was like a seed sprouting even if they then go on to do more wrong. I appreciated your post - the way you described it is a more comfortable way for me to think about it at the moment )
-
Or are you speaking metaphorically?
In cases other than Abraham's (where it is both literal and figurative), yes.
Because I don't see what physical smashing would have to do much of the time with bringing people to true Islam. To me that is like bringing people to Islam by the sword. I understand when people have no rights and/or are being attacked. To me that is the time for physical action - demonstrations, attacks, self-protection. But otherwise? It seems wrong to me.
So can someone tell did Abraham smash the idols because his rights were being smashed? Or because he was in danger?
You don't think that it was his people who were actually in danger (that was only perceived by Abraham at the moment)?
If you want to get a glimpse of Abraham's actual method for "bringing people to true Islam", then passages about how he built a House and maintain it with his family should be much more interesting to you.
-
Peace
Rana, I think perhaps your discomfort with the story is because you're seeing it as a matter of religious freedom. It's important to distinguish between someone who has an erroneous concept of God i.e. praying to Jesus, and being a mushrik in the quranic sense. Here's a few verses regarding shirk
5/82 Surely you will find strongest (of) the people (in) enmity to those who believe, (are) the liberty-takers and those who are polytheists ;
The mushriks are the ones who have enmity for the believers. This is not just a mere dislike for believers, but an active opposition to their ethos and works.
6/121 And do not consume of that (which) naught has been mentioned (the) name of Allah upon it, and indeed it (is) a grave disobedience. And indeed, the devils surely inspire to their allies so that they dispute with you, and if you obeyed them, indeed, you (are) surely polytheists .
Note here that the devils inspire people to consume (this goes beyond food food, it's the things we consume in life) that which Allah's essence/name has not been mentioned. We're told that if we join/obey these devils and men, we have become mushriks. So the mushrik is one who disputes, opposes and violates things that Allah has approved.
6/137 And likewise, made pleasing to many of the polytheists - (is) killing (of) their children - (by) their partners, so that they may ruin them and make confusing upon them their obligation . And if willed, Allah, naught (would) they have done so. So leave them and what they invent.
Here, we see that those partners the mushriks associate with Allah not only inspire them to kill their children, but provide justification for the crime and make it seem pleasing. The "idols" here confuse the people regarding the deen, they corrupt it so that what is bad is made to seem good and vice versa.
From my understanding, the mushrik is not merely someone who bows to an idol and gives it food everyday, rather the mushrik is one who corrupts the system of humanity and confuses people into acting immorally by raising institutions and ideologies (idols) as authorities. Perhaps the IMF or NATO qualify for this...?
Ibrahim was fighting shirk in his community, not the mere adulation of statues. Note that the statues would have been the front for the shirk. We know that the people of Ibrahim were violating universal justice (the deen) because they attempted to burn Ibrahim alive. It is clear he was opposing an utterly corrupt social system.
With this in mind, how do I understand his actions? I believe his actions were definitely civil disobedience. There's no need to hide from it and it is nothing to be ashamed of. He definitely broke the rules of his corrupt society. But it had nothing to do with religious freedom or trying to convert anyone. He was fighting corruption and immorality and he smashed the idols because they represented the head of the snake. And thus demonstrated to the people that the idols (the institution that spawned the corruption) they had associated with Allah had no authority and the evil ideologies that originated from them should be stopped.
If the people of Ibrahim were living moral, peaceful lives but simply bowing to idols everyday, then smashing the statues would have been questionable. But as shown by 6/121 and 6/137, the idols were the institution that caused criminality and evil.
Hope that helps.
