Holy Ka'bah - indestructible?

Sean Howard · Post by **Sean Howard** » 2005-07-19 07:31pm

A recent thread about bombing Mecca in retaliation for terrorism reminded me of this thing I read several years ago.

I read in this book on comparative religion that Muslims believe their most holy shrine, the Ka'bah in Mecca is physically indestructible. I'm having a hard time finding this on Google right now. Does anyone know what I am talking about?

I remember thinking, ok, lets see if a couple of B52s can't test that theory shall we? If its unscathed, you would have millions of converts worldwide.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2005-07-19 07:38pm

Sure, why not?. Afterall, last I heard you can't attack Mecca because it's "defended by angles".

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-07-19 07:41pm

I wonder what would happen if we offered to take them up on that and put their faith to the test? Think they'd let us plant about 50 pounds of military grade C4 and see what happens?

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2005-07-19 07:44pm

No, I get the feeling that they'd come up with some justification about how infidels cannot walk upon the holy ground or some such. And make some excuse about why they can't take the C4 to the pillars by themselves. You know, the usual fundy evasions, not that dis-similar to what we see in America from Christian fundies.

Erik von Nein · Post by **Erik von Nein** » 2005-07-19 07:45pm

Utsanomiko wrote:Sure, why not?. Afterall, last I heard you can't attack Mecca because it's "defended by angles".

"We've got angles at six o'clock!"

Anyway, I would imagine whatever would happen it wouldn't be what the fundamentalist Muslims would expect.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-07-19 07:54pm

I suppose an educated Muslim would just say that their Holy Book had a very early understanding of the law of conservation of mass.

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2005-07-19 07:59pm

If it gets blown up, they might claim that its still not destroyed, since it's all there, just scattered around.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-07-19 08:28pm

Erik von Nein wrote:
Utsanomiko wrote:Sure, why not?. Afterall, last I heard you can't attack Mecca because it's "defended by angles".
"We've got angles at six o'clock!"

Please. We already got that covered. See?

Decoys, yo. The angles will be all:

Angel: Whoa. That's a big fucking angel.
*Soft thuds in the background*
Angel: OH, GODDAMMIT!

Sean Howard · Post by **Sean Howard** » 2005-07-19 08:29pm

Chmee wrote:I suppose an educated Muslim would just say that their Holy Book had a very early understanding of the law of conservation of mass.

Dear god, you're right. It would just be infinite twisting and flailing. I thought "here we go, a testable prediction!", but you're right, the rules would get broken immediately.

How about putting the shoe on the other foot, lets say the thing IS unscathed... would you convert to Islam?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-07-19 08:39pm

I remember someone on this forum actually saying that angels would shoot down any missiles. This AABM, or Angel-based Anti-Ballistic Missile system, does of course represent a potentially testable hypothesis

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-07-19 08:42pm

No. Just because what they said about the stone was true, doesn't mean the rest of it is. It would merit a lot more investigation though.

Really, the fact that it technically "survived" the bombings wouldn't mean anything in terms of defending their faith. It would just proof that the stone is no different from all other matter on earth. It'd still be a disproof of that claim.

If the book had really meant the conservation of mass, then they'd say, "And yea, all of Allah's creations are indestructable. Kisseth his holy ass. So sayeth Allah the compassionate conservative."

So you'd be placing our former good little Muslim in a conundrum: the Koran says that the stone cannot be broken, and they obviously didn't mean conservation of mass. Could the book be wrong?

Actually, they'd probably avoid the whole affair by saying several things.

1. Fire bombing Mecca would kill most of the populace, an unacceptable crime.

2. Even if you forced all Meccans to evacuate, you'd still cause massive property damage.

Therefore you cannot bomb the Kabah to test the prediction.
Also:

3. You may not remove the Kabah from Mecca, lest it lose its holiness or some such bullshit.

Still, I suppose you could set up some sort of barricade around the whole thing and watch the building succumb to moderate explosives.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2005-07-19 08:46pm

I think....I think that the Kohr-Ah is missing a few words. It probably was supposed to say something like The Qapla Or whatever cannot be broken...if you all want to come to heaven.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2005-07-19 09:05pm

The Spartan wrote:No, I get the feeling that they'd come up with some justification about how infidels cannot walk upon the holy ground or some such. And make some excuse about why they can't take the C4 to the pillars by themselves. You know, the usual fundy evasions, not that dis-similar to what we see in America from Christian fundies.

Actually, they *do* have a rule like that in effect-- non-Muslims cannot enter Mecca. And of course, it would be incredible sacrilege for one to even consider damaging the center of their faith....

Bah, let 'em have it. Let's go for the ultimate test... how much glass can we make from Saudi Arabia by means of thermonuclear explosives?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-07-19 09:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:I remember someone on this forum actually saying that angels would shoot down any missiles.

"Regarding nuking mecca it is a bad idea. Firstly no one can destroy mecca since it is guarded by angles."
- evilcat4000

He got himself a mention on FStDT for that.

felineki · Post by **felineki** » 2005-07-19 10:08pm

Utsanomiko wrote:Sure, why not?. Afterall, last I heard you can't attack Mecca because it's "defended by angles".

Accute or obtuse?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-07-19 10:24pm

Sean Howard wrote:
Chmee wrote:I suppose an educated Muslim would just say that their Holy Book had a very early understanding of the law of conservation of mass.
Dear god, you're right. It would just be infinite twisting and flailing. I thought "here we go, a testable prediction!", but you're right, the rules would get broken immediately.

How about putting the shoe on the other foot, lets say the thing IS unscathed... would you convert to Islam?

No, but I'd think our country should get its hands on some of that rock to see what the hell it's made of ....

You think they'll mind? Well, I guess there won't actually be anybody around TO mind in this hypothetical.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-07-19 11:07pm

Accute or obtuse?

Both.... acute delusions causing obtuse stubborness.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2005-07-19 11:08pm

felineki wrote:
Utsanomiko wrote:Sure, why not?. Afterall, last I heard you can't attack Mecca because it's "defended by angles".
Accute or obtuse?

Definitely obtuse.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-07-19 11:13pm

Jadeite wrote:If it gets blown up, they might claim that its still not destroyed, since it's all there, just scattered around.

"Our holy monument is not destroyed! It is still all around us! It is still here . . . just in a lower state of entropy. Yeah, that's it!"

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-07-19 11:14pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
Jadeite wrote:If it gets blown up, they might claim that its still not destroyed, since it's all there, just scattered around.
"Our holy monument is not destroyed! It is still all around us! It is still here . . . just in a lower state of entropy. Yeah, that's it!"

"Did I mention that the Koran predicted entropy before science?"

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-07-19 11:53pm

I suspect your average moderate Muslim would not take that bit literally, much like your average moderate Christian doesn't take the whole "6 days" thing literally.

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2005-07-20 12:20am

Chardok wrote: -snip-

Whoa... Chad, that pic does mke the plane to look like some eerie Angle, what is it shooting?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-07-20 12:22am

HemlockGrey wrote:I suspect your average moderate Muslim would not take that bit literally, much like your average moderate Christian doesn't take the whole "6 days" thing literally.

Unfortunately, I don't think the average Muslim IS moderate. Isn't the largest concentration of Muslims in Indonesia? And isn't that place more or less a fundie breeding ground?

Post by **fgalkin** » 2005-07-20 12:23am

HemlockGrey wrote:I suspect your average moderate Muslim would not take that bit literally, much like your average moderate Christian doesn't take the whole "6 days" thing literally.

Except that being a Muslim requires the belief that the Koran is the literal word of God passed on to the Prophet Mohammed via the angel Gabriel. it is one of the 6 articles of belief one must accept to be a Muslim.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-07-20 12:32am

Isn't it worded more vaguely than that? To allow for wiggle room?

"There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet."