Muslims will thereby learn by force-feeding that their hateful God (Allah) cannot protect them and is a figment of their collective imagination, and millions will leave the failed cult. Nothing harms an Arab more than humiliation and defeat. They sincerely believe that their most-powerful Allah has promised to protect and preserve Mecca, and so their false faith in the Pagan deity will crumble with the meteorite in the intense heat and pressure of a fusion fireball. Can a billion Moslems worldwide face radioactive glass 5 times a day and still take it seriously, I don’t think so, or at least not over the long term. Cut off the head and the snake will still squirm for a while, but it will soon stop.
Name:
uneducated hick2007-05-16 0:50 ID:AOjSXTBB
An interesting sociological question. I am not a Muslim, but I like to study cultures, civilisations and religions. I think it wouldn't matter much. The Black stone was robbed for a time (somewhat like the Scottish Stone of Destiny) and Mecca and other holy sites were destroyed several times, aspecially the Shia sites. The many destructions and defeats of Islamic empires and destruction of Holy sites did not destroy Islam. It is similar with the Jewish, Christian and Hindu religion. Certainly some believers are shocked when a holy site is destroyed, of when unbelievers are victorious, but in the end the religious system holds.
1. A Muslim theologian confronted with a nuclear destruction of the Kabbah could take the life of Mohammed and use it as an example of many ups and downs, also during his time as declared messenger of Allah and leader of Islam.
2. Also, Islam in essence does not make the (de facto) veneration of material items a central part of it's worship. It could simply bee seen as a justification of the most radical interpretation of Salafite Islam, the most radical interpretation of Wahabism. In Islam theology there is simply Allah, the creator, and the created matter. If Mecca is destroyed by a H-bomb this would be nothing, seen from such a philosophical point of view.
3. This could also be presented as a test of the faithful.
Jews, Christians and Hindus lost the heartland of their civilisation, but it did not end these systems, so there is no reasons to assume that this would be different for Islam. The defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 CE and end of the Califate in 1924 CE brought some stress to some Muslims, but overall the effect was minimal. Catholic Christianity lost Jerusalem in 640 CE, 1187 CE and 1240 CE, and Christianity remained a strong force. Constantinopel was lost by the Orthodox in 1204 CE and 1453 CE (aldough the Emperor technically converted to Catholicism), but Orthoxy remains strong. The Hindu Civilisation was utterly destroyed and the most holy tempels and sacred sites taken over by Muslim mosques between 1100 CE and 1700 CE, but still Hinduism is strong.
The only example that I know off that is claimed to be succesful is the destruction of the Donar-Oak and similar symbols of Northern-European paganism. Catholic Christian literature has this topos. Such destructions were seen as proof of the greater strength of the Christian God than the Heathen Gods. It's a claim by the Christian historians, and other factors may have been much more important in the conversion. I suspect for this tactic to have effect would need a very big difference between the civilisation of the missionaries and the potential converts. The religion of the potential converts would need to be anismistic and shamanistic with no real evolved philosophy or worldview outside the most simple concepts. Aldough some tribal and rural populations may still have such simple views on the universe we may assume that for example modern Islamic fundamentalism, with it's many Western educated intellectuals, is far beyond such simplicity.