Destruction of Buddhist Sculpture in Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Asalaamalikum,

Do you guys think it was right for the Taliban to destroy the Buddhist sculpture in the valley of Bamyan, Afghanistan back in 2001?

Some think it was one of the wonders of the world. However, since there are hardly any Buddhists in Afghanistan, the Taliban and perhaps many others thought it should be destroyed because concerns of people worshiping them as idols.

In May 2002, a mountainside sculpture of the Buddha was carved out of a mountain in Sri Lanka. It was designed to closely resemble one of the Buddhas of Bamyan.

In December 2004, Japanese researchers discovered that the wall paintings at Bamyan were actually painted between the 5th and the 9th centuries, rather than the 6th to 8th centuries as previously believed. The discovery was made by analysing radioactive isotopes contained in straw fibers found beneath the paintings. Further discoveries are expected to be made after comparing the paintings' dates and styles.

The Afghan government has commissioned Japanese artist Hiro Yamagata to recreate the Bamyan Buddhas using fourteen laser systems to project the images of the Buddhas onto the cliff where they once stood. The laser systems will be solar-powered and wind-powered. The project, which will cost an estimated $9 million, is currently pending UNESCO approval. If approved, the project is estimated to be completed by June 2012.

I don't know why they are trying to spend millions in recreating the sculpture, when Afghanistan needs help in building it's economy, hospitals, roads, and other infrastructures.

Before:
bamian.jpg


After:

buddha_d3.jpg
 

Optimist

قل هو الله أحد
yes Taliban was right in destroying those idols. This is a matter of belief and we should not compromise on it.

Islam hold humans in such a high dignified position that it would not tolerate humans humiliating themselves to a heap of stones - no matter how beautiful it is. It is still a stone.

If that even caused one person to see the truth and realise that those statutes are not Gods then it was worth it.

That's my take on it.
 

ShyHijabi

Junior Member
Salaam,

But that's the thing, the Buddhist do not worship Budda, they think he was an enlightened person who taught the way through life was moderation in all things. Many Islamic scholars feel he may have been a prophet since we do not know all the names of the prophets. He was a gentle and compassionate man and his teachings weren't even really religious so much as philosophical.

The Ummah is divided on whether or not the Taliban did the right thing destroying this ancient statue. We do not destroy the Washington monument or a the statue of Abraham Lincoln so why destroy this statue? Personally I feel there wasn't any good in destroying this ancient statue anymore than destroying the sphinx would serve a purpose. It just made Muslims look ignorant.

Wasalaam

~Sarah
 

Faisal_01

Art is my Expression
Salaam,

But that's the thing, the Buddhist do not worship Budda, they think he was an enlightened person who taught the way through life was moderation in all things. Many Islamic scholars feel he may have been a prophet since we do not know all the names of the prophets. He was a gentle and compassionate man and his teachings weren't even really religious so much as philosophical.

The Ummah is divided on whether or not the Taliban did the right thing destroying this ancient statue. We do not destroy the Washington monument or a the statue of Abraham Lincoln so why destroy this statue? Personally I feel there wasn't any good in destroying this ancient statue anymore than destroying the sphinx would serve a purpose. It just made Muslims look ignorant.

Wasalaam

~Sarah

EXACTLY!!! Right on point.
 

Optimist

قل هو الله أحد
Wa salam Sarah

But that's the thing, the Buddhist do not worship Budda, they think he was an enlightened person who taught the way through life was moderation in all things. Many Islamic scholars feel he may have been a prophet since we do not know all the names of the prophets. He was a gentle and compassionate man and his teachings weren't even really religious so much as philosophical.

I'm sorry, Buddhism is a religion, not a philosophical school. Whether Buddha is originally a prophet is immaterial. It is only his current status that matters.

Your logic reminds me of this verse:

They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allâh - 9:31

The companions asked the prophet: but they do not worship them, so the Prophet answered: They put their words over that of God (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allâh). This is rather similar to the status of Buddha.

The Ummah is divided on whether or not the Taliban did the right thing destroying this ancient statue. We do not destroy the Washington monument or a the statue of Abraham Lincoln so why destroy this statue? Personally I feel there wasn't any good in destroying this ancient statue anymore than destroying the sphinx would serve a purpose. It just made Muslims look ignorant.

Those statues are not being currently worshiped nor was sphinx at the time of muslim conquer to Egypt, therefore the comparison if wrong.

It is not ignorant to embark on spreading monotheism and the so called "world opinion" does not matter. Multiple Islamic sites have been destroyed (Babri Mosque) or are being destroyed (Aqsa) and the world does not seem to care about it.

Islam is about saving humanity not rocks and we should not compromise on this task. When the prophet (pbuh) entered Makkah, he readily forgived all her people but did not leave one idol standing. This is our mission and our message. What use is Islam if we compromised on this ?
 
Salaam,

Many Islamic scholars feel he may have been a prophet since we do not know all the names of the prophets.

upsss it seems to something new information for me.Can you sister mention the name of some scholars who use to think that buddha was a prophet?just for my knowledge.

We do not destroy the Washington monument or a the statue of Abraham Lincoln so why destroy this statue?
What you wanna say sister with "WE"? where is the statue of abraham ´s?i think it is in USA or?and the main religion of USA? not islam , am i right?If america were a islamic country with right islamic laws then they will also destroy such stautes.

Personally I feel there wasn't any good in destroying this ancient statue anymore than destroying the sphinx would serve a purpose. It just made Muslims look ignorant.

acctuelly sister most of us are not aware about the history how pwople start to pray infront of statues.At first they just built it because of respect and then saitan provpkate them to pray infront of it.For this reason prophet mohammad(sw) destroyed all the statues of kaaba and he also not even let to b uilt a picture of him.Becuase people first see it, then show respect and after 100 years they will pray infront of it.Acctuelly we muslims are not ignorant but the human being.

It was just my opinion.
 

Aapa

Mirajmom
Salaam,

DId not Ibrahim destroy the idols. We have to be very clear. Is it not written that we can not have images? Someone correct me if I am wrong.
 

Karima80

Junior Member
I agree to some point with shyhijab. In one way I feel it is just a piece of rocks that were build by humans. But historically it was so unnecessary to destroy them, because I saw a reportage about all the people (muslims) leaving their and lived of tourism and business and had grown up in that area, almost all had now lost income. Because it is not only the statues it is a lot of monuments around. But I agree why spend money on that when there are people starving, no medicalcare and so on.. Focus on the people not the material things
:hijabi:
 

MuslimaSeattle

New Member
Photographs is harem-and making idols as well

Salaam,

DId not Ibrahim destroy the idols. We have to be very clear. Is it not written that we can not have images? Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Ruling on photographs

Question:
ASSALAMALEIKUM
My question is : IS the taking of PHOTOGRAPHS ALLOWED,(I know drawing pictures of living things is not allowed -but what about taking photograph's of people etc.), can you supply me with some evidence please. I need this information quickly.- Inshallah.
Jaazakala hair.


Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Photography (tasweer) means the taking of pictures of living, animate moving beings, like people, animals, birds, etc. The ruling is that it is forbidden on the basis of a number of reports, such as the following:

'Abdullaah ibn Mas'ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Those who will be most severely punished by Allaah on the Day of Resurrection will be the image-makers." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, see al-Fath, 10/382).

Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Allaah, may He be exalted, says: 'Who does more wrong than the one who tries to create something like My creation? Let him create a grain of wheat or a kernel of corn.'" (Reported by al-Bukhaari, see Fath al-Baari, 10/385).

'Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: "Shall I not send you on the same mission as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent me? Do not leave any built-up tomb without levelling it, and do not leave any picture in any house without erasing it." (Reported by Muslim and al-Nisaa'i; this is the version narrated by al-Nisaa'i).

Ibn 'Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him and his father) reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Every image-maker will be in the Fire, and for every image that he made a soul will be created for him, which will be punished in the Fire." Ibn 'Abbaas said: "If you must do that, make pictures of trees and other inanimate objects." (Reported by Muslim, 3/1871)

These ahaadeeth indicate that pictures of animate beings are haraam, whether they are humans or other creatures, whether they are three-dimensional or two-dimensional, whether they are printed, drawn, etched, engraved, carved, cast in moulds, etc. These ahaadeeth include all of these types of pictures.

The Muslim should submit to the teachings of Islam and not argue with them by saying, "But I am not worshipping them or prostrating to them!" If we think about just one aspect of the evil caused by the prevalence of photographs and pictures in our times, we will understand something of the wisdom behind this prohibition: that aspect is the great corruption caused by the provoking of physical desires and subsequent spread of immorality caused by these pictures.

The Muslim should not keep any pictures of animate beings in his house, because they will prevent the angels from entering. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or pictures." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, see al-Fath, 10/380).

But nowadays, unfortunately, one can even find in some Muslim homes statues of gods worshipped by the kuffaar (such as Buddha etc.) which they keep on the basis that they are antiques or decorative pieces. These things are more strictly prohibited than others, just as pictures which are hung up are worse than pictures which are not hung up, for how easily they can lead to glorification, and cause grief or be a source of boasting! We cannot say that these pictures are kept for memory's sake, because true memories of a Muslim relative or friend reside in the heart, and we remember them by praying for mercy and forgiveness for them.

Taking pictures with a camera involves human actions such as focusing, pressing the shutter, developing, printing, and so on. We cannot call it anything other than "picture-making" or tasweer, which is the expression used by all Arabic-speakers to describe this action.

In the book Al-I'laam bi naqd kitaab al-halaal wa'l-haraam, the author says: "Photography is even more of an imitation of the creation of Allaah than pictures which are engraved or drawn, so it is even more deserving of being prohibited… There is nothing that could exclude photography from the general meaning of the reports." (p. 42, see also Fataawa Islamiyyah, 4/355).

Among the scholars who have discussed the issue of photography is Shaykh Naasir al-Deen al-Albaani, who said: "Some of them differentiate between hand-drawn pictures and photographic images by claiming that the latter are not products of human effort, and that no more is involved than the mere capturing of the image. This is what they claim. The tremendous energy invested the one who invented this machine that can do in few seconds what otherwise could not be done in hours does not count as human effort, according to these people! Pointing the camera, focusing it, and taking the picture, preceded by installation of the film and followed by developing and whatever else that I may not know about… none of this is the result of human effort, according to them!

Some of them explain how this photography is done, and summarize that no less than eleven different actions are involved in the making of a picture. In spite of all this, they say that this picture is not the result of human action! Can it be permissible to hang up a picture of a man, for example, if it is produced by photography, but not if it is drawn by hand?

Those who say that photography is permitted have "frozen" the meaning of the word "tasweer," restriciting it only to the meaning known at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and not adding the meaning of photography, which is "tasweer" or "picture-making" in every sense - linguistic, legal, and in its harmful effects, and as is clear from the definition mentioned above. Years ago, I said to one of them, By the same token, you could allow idols which have not been carved but have been made by pressing a button on some machine that turns out idols by the dozen. What do you say to that?"
(Aadaab al-Zafaaf by al-Albaani, p. 38)

It is also worth quoting the opinion of some contemporary scholars who allow the taking of photographs but say that the pictures should not be kept: "The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or pictures." (See al-Sharh al-Mumti', 2/198).

There are many bad things involved in the making of pictures. Besides the element of imitating the creation of Allaah - which is an accusation denied by many of those who make pictures - reality bears witness to the great extent of immorality and provocation of desires caused by the prevalence of pictures and picture-making nowadays. We must remove or blot out every picture, except when it is too difficult to do so, like the pictures which are overwhelmingly prevalent in food packaging, or pictures used in encyclopaedias and reference books. We should remove what we can, and be careful about any provocative pictures that may be found.

"So keep your duty to Allaah and fear Him as much as you can…" [al-Taghaabun 64:16 - interpretation of the meaning]

Photographs which are essential are permitted - such as those required for identity documents, or for identifying or pursuing criminals [e.g. "wanted" posters and the like - translator's note], or for educational purposes which cannot be achieved otherwise. The principle in sharee'ah is that we should not exaggerate about what is necessary.

We ask Allaah to accept our repentance and have mercy on us, and to forgive our excesses, for He is the All-Hearing Who answers prayers. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.




Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
 

uskupi

Junior Member
yes Taliban was right in destroying those idols. This is a matter of belief and we should not compromise on it.

Islam hold humans in such a high dignified position that it would not tolerate humans humiliating themselves to a heap of stones - no matter how beautiful it is. It is still a stone.

If that even caused one person to see the truth and realise that those statutes are not Gods then it was worth it.

That's my take on it.

assalam alaikum...i think that main reason why Taleban destroyed those Budha statue were as folowes: the Swedish government geve (donate) 95 milion dollars to the Taleban government to make reconstruction on those statues.Taleban gov. proposed that those money should be used for other moore human purposes and some of them to use for food.But the Swedish gov. was insisting that those money should be used for that purpose namley for statues, that decision angerd Taleban gov. and they decide to destroy them, i personaly agree with that decision of Taleban.Islam does not opose if there were budha worshipers in Bamyan region to leave them but since there were not budhists there ...that was one moore reason to blow them up... just to reminde you this was official explanation of the Taleban regime and i agree with that...assalam alaikum
 

Optimist

قل هو الله أحد
I agree to some point with shyhijab. In one way I feel it is just a piece of rocks that were build by humans. But historically it was so unnecessary to destroy them, because I saw a reportage about all the people (muslims) leaving their and lived of tourism and business and had grown up in that area, almost all had now lost income. Because it is not only the statues it is a lot of monuments around. But I agree why spend money on that when there are people starving, no medicalcare and so on.. Focus on the people not the material things
:hijabi:

Can you elaborate on the historical argument ? How do you know that millions of Buddhist would not see the truth in the future because of the removal of these statues ??

A Q: would the saving of one human soul from eternal hellfire not worth more than a piece of rock -even if was made of gold- ? Consider yourself this human or your son or daughter or one of your parents and then try answering this question. In my book, yes it does.

And now that the statues are going to be rebuilt, have the world started talking about how civilised muslims are ??? How come everyone was up in arms when they were destroyed ?

and for the argument that keeping them was beneficial to muslims. I'd argue that gaining money from trading in wine & drugs is better than selling shirk!! What's happened to relying on Allah SWT, Alrazzak (the giver)?? Come on guys, this is the core of our faith.

Do not just accept what the media sells. It is actually not that big matter. Every political change in history has been accompanied with the removal of the symbols of the previous period regardless of their historical value. Think about it. Did they keep the symbols of communism in eastern Europe ? Did the allies keep the symbols of the Nazis ? Did the communist keep the symbols of the emperor in China ?? Did all these symbls not have historical / artistic value ? Just follow this argument and you will see how natural it is for muslims to remove the symbols of shirk when they can ... and remember, they are doing this for the sake of ALL humanity.
 

MuslimaSeattle

New Member
Please Read

Salaam,

But that's the thing, the Buddhist do not worship Budda, they think he was an enlightened person who taught the way through life was moderation in all things. Many Islamic scholars feel he may have been a prophet since we do not know all the names of the prophets. He was a gentle and compassionate man and his teachings weren't even really religious so much as philosophical.

The Ummah is divided on whether or not the Taliban did the right thing destroying this ancient statue. We do not destroy the Washington monument or a the statue of Abraham Lincoln so why destroy this statue? Personally I feel there wasn't any good in destroying this ancient statue anymore than destroying the sphinx would serve a purpose. It just made Muslims look ignorant.

Wasalaam







I am glad they destroyed the idol, why do we need that? There is no need for any idols to be standing..subhanallah! I see no problem for a muslim country to destroy the idol. Lets not forget that the lincoln statue. etc are in a Kuffer country. It just made Muslims look ignorant. How is that making Muslims look ignorant, we are just following THE RULES AND COMMANDS OF ALLAH. and I got a good Fatwa down below please read it.


Obligation to destroy idols

Question:
Is it obligatory to destroy statues in Islam, even if they are part of the legacy of human civilization? Why is it that when the Sahaabah conquered other lands and saw statues there they did not destroy them?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

The evidence of sharee’ah indicates that it is obligatory to destroy idols, for example:
1 – Muslim (969) narrated that Abu’l-Hayaaj al-Asadi said: ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib said to me: “Shall I not send you with the same instructions as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent me? ‘Do not leave any image without defacing it or any built-up grave without leveling it.’”

2 – Muslim (832) narrated from ‘Urwah ibn ‘Abasah that he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “With what were you sent?” He said, “I was sent to uphold the ties of kinship, to break the idols, and so that Allaah would be worshipped alone with no partner or associate.”

The obligation to destroy them is even stronger if they are worshipped instead of Allaah.

3 – al-Bukhaari (3020) and Muslim (2476) narrated that Jareer ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Bajali said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to me: “O Jareer, will you not relieve me of Dhu’l-Khalsah?” That was a house (in Yemen) belonging to the (tribe of) Khath’am, which was called Ka’bat al-Yamaaniyyah. I set out with one hundred and fifty horsemen. I used not to sit firm on horses and I mentioned that to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He struck me on my chest with his hand and said, 'O Allaah! Make him firm and make him one who guides others and is guided on the right path.' " So Jareer went and burned it with fire, then Jareer sent a man called Abu Artaat to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, “I did not come to you until we had left it like a scabby camel.” Then the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) blessed the horses of (the tribe of) Ahmas and their men five times.

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said:

This hadeeth indicates that it is prescribed to remove things that may tempt or confuse the people, whether they are buildings, people, animals or inanimate objects.

4 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent Khaalid ibn al-Waleed (may Allaah be pleased with him) on a campaign to destroy al-‘Uzza.

5 – and he sent Sa’d ibn Zayd al-Ashhali (may Allaah be pleased with him) on a campaign to destroy Manaat.

6 – And he sent ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allaah be pleased with him) on a campaign to destroy Suwaa’. All of that happened after the Conquest of Makkah.

Al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah, 4/712. 776. 5/83; al-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah by Dr. ‘Ali al-Salaabi, 2/1186.

Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Muslim when discussing the issue of image-making:

They were unanimously agreed that whatever casts a shadow is not allowed and must be changed.

Images that cast a shadow are three-dimensional images like these statues.

With regard to what is said about the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) not destroying idols in the conquered lands, this is merely conjecture. The companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would not have left idols and statues alone, especially since they were worshipped at that time.

If it is asked, how come the Sahaabah left alone the ancient idols of the Pharaohs and Phoenicians? The answer is that these idols fall into one of three categories:

1 – These idols may have been in remote places that the Sahaabah did not reach; when the Sahaabah conquered Egypt, for example, that does not mean that they reached every part of the land.

2 – These idols may not have been visible, rather they may have been inside Pharaonic buildings etc. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us to hasten when passing through the abodes of the wrongdoers and those who had been punished, and he forbade entering such places. In al-Saheehayn it is says: “Do not enter upon those who have been punished unless you are weeping, lest there befall you something like that which befall them.” He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that when he passed by ashaab al-hijr [the dwellers of the rocky tract – see al-Hijr 15:80], in the land of Thamood, the people of Saalih (peace be upon him).

According to another report narrated in al-Saheehayn, “If you are not weeping, then do not enter upon them, lest there befall you something like that which befall them.”

What we think is that if the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw a temple or building belonging of these people, they did not enter it or even look at what was inside it.

This will dispel any confusion about why the Sahaabah did not see the Pyramids or what is inside them. There is also the possibility that their doors and entrances were covered with sand at that time.

3 – Many of these idols that are visible nowadays were covered and hidden, and have only been discovered recently, or they have been brought from remote places that the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not reach.

Al-Zarkali was asked about the Pyramids and the Sphinx etc: Did the Sahaabah who entered Egypt see them?

He said: They were mostly covered with sand, especially the Sphinx.

Shibh Jazeerat al-‘Arab, 4/1188

Then even if we assume that there was a statue that was visible and not hidden, then we still have to prove that the Sahaabah saw it and were able to destroy it.

The fact of the matter is that the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) would not have been able to destroy some of these statues. It took twenty days to destroy some of these statues even with tools, equipment, and explosives etc that were not available to the Sahaabah at all.

This is indicated by what Ibn Khuldoon said in al-Muqaddimah (p. 383), that the caliph al-Rasheed was unable to destroy the estrade of Chosroes. He started to do that, and he gathered men and tools, and burned it with fire, and poured vinegar on it, but he was unable to do it. And the caliph al-Ma’moon wanted to destroy the Pyramids in Egypt and he gathered workers but he could not do it.

With regard to the excuse that these statues are part of the legacy of mankind, no attention should be paid to such words. Al-Laat, al-‘Uzaa, Hubal, Manaat and other idols were also a legacy for those who worshipped them among Quraysh and the Arabs.

This is a legacy, but it is a haraam legacy which should be uprooted. When the command comes from Allaah and His Messenger, then the believer must hasten to obey, and the command of Allaah and His Messenger cannot be rejected on the grounds of this flimsy excuse. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The only saying of the faithful believers, when they are called to Allaah (His Words, the Qur’aan) and His Messenger, to judge between them, is that they say: “We hear and we obey.” And such are the successful (who will live forever in Paradise)”

[al-Noor 24:51]

We ask Allaah to help the Muslims to do that which He loves and which pleased Him.

And Allaah knows best.
 

abou haytam

Junior Member
Salam o Alikom

Taliban did good job not just destroying those idols. Please learn about taliban from other sources. I beleive 98% of brothers and sisters here on TTI don t have any single information about taliban from other source rather that CNN and FOX.

wasalam.
 

ShyHijabi

Junior Member
upsss it seems to something new information for me.Can you sister mention the name of some scholars who use to think that buddha was a prophet?just for my knowledge.


It is well*!known that Muslims believe in the Israelite Prophets, including Jesus. How do they regard the great figures of other religions, such as Krishna, Buddha, and Confucius?

It is quite obvious from the teachings of the Holy Quran that, as God sent Prophets to every nation, and quite a large number of them appeared all over the world, the ancient founders of these other religions too would have been Prophets and messengers of God. In fact, wherever there are people following a sacred scripture older than the Quran, their religious founders mentioned in those Books should be accepted by Muslims as true prophets of God. It has been suggested that Buddha is mentioned in the Holy Quran by the name Dhul*!Kifl, meaning man of Kifl, where Kifl is the Arabic form of the name of his birth-place Kapilvestu.

http://www.aaiil.info/simplyIslam/prophets.htm

Those statues are not being currently worshiped nor was sphinx at the time of muslim conquer to Egypt, therefore the comparison if wrong.

And Budda is not worshipped...they do not believe he is a god therefore the it was not an idol in the classical sense. Furthermore there were no Buddists worshipping the statue when it was destroyed. The sphinx represents a god of a polytheistic religion for goodness sakes!! What if people decide to start worshipping it? Should not this risk justify it's destruction too? And this is a Muslim run country we are talking about.

I feel we did more harm than good by destroying this statue. If any Buddist were ever curious about Islam I am sure this action completely turned them off to us. We offended Buddist by destroying this ancient work of art and it's reflects poorly on our manners. Why don't we begin destroying hindu temples in Pakistan while were at it? I mean they are actively worshipping false gods so is it our obligation to remove this offense? Or should we trust in the Quran when it states there is no compulsion in religion?

I know people are bringing up the story of Prophet MOhammed (pbuh) and the removal of idols form the Kabbah but that was the Kabbah. He did not go to other parts of Saudi and seek to destroy statues...only in a sacred place. Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) destroyed the idols to prove that the rocks were not gods but simply rocks. The Buddhists did not think the statue was a living god or that they needed to worship it. So the comparisons are not sound.


Wasalaam

~Sarah
 

apocalypse77

Junior Member
yes Taliban was right in destroying those idols. This is a matter of belief and we should not compromise on it.

Islam hold humans in such a high dignified position that it would not tolerate humans humiliating themselves to a heap of stones - no matter how beautiful it is. It is still a stone.

If that even caused one person to see the truth and realise that those statutes are not Gods then it was worth it.

That's my take on it.


so if muslims are a minority in a non muslim country do they have a right to destroy idols too?

arent we giving this whole "islam is the best- islam is the most puritanical - islam is intolerant islam" elitism vibe?

btw, buddhists are not suppose to worship buddha
 

apocalypse77

Junior Member
Those statues are not being currently worshiped nor was sphinx at the time of muslim conquer to Egypt, therefore the comparison if wrong.
?


why the double standard? iran also has a rich pre islamic past. does that mean we shoudl destroy all the idols there just ebcause most iranians ar emuslism and thye dont worship their pre islamic deities?

one minute its the rleigion of peace, the next minute we are destroying idols. a lip service is in progress. im sure buddhists who at that time want to search more about islam was mightily offended and has lost interest to open books about islam after this incident
 

apocalypse77

Junior Member
Ruling on photographs

Question:
ASSALAMALEIKUM
My question is : IS the taking of PHOTOGRAPHS ALLOWED,(I know drawing pictures of living things is not allowed -but what about taking photograph's of people etc.), can you supply me with some evidence please. I need this information quickly.- Inshallah.
Jaazakala hair.


Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

Photography (tasweer) means the taking of pictures of living, animate moving beings, like people, animals, birds, etc. The ruling is that it is forbidden on the basis of a number of reports, such as the following:

'Abdullaah ibn Mas'ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Those who will be most severely punished by Allaah on the Day of Resurrection will be the image-makers." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, see al-Fath, 10/382).

Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Allaah, may He be exalted, says: 'Who does more wrong than the one who tries to create something like My creation? Let him create a grain of wheat or a kernel of corn.'" (Reported by al-Bukhaari, see Fath al-Baari, 10/385).

'Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: "Shall I not send you on the same mission as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent me? Do not leave any built-up tomb without levelling it, and do not leave any picture in any house without erasing it." (Reported by Muslim and al-Nisaa'i; this is the version narrated by al-Nisaa'i).

Ibn 'Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him and his father) reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Every image-maker will be in the Fire, and for every image that he made a soul will be created for him, which will be punished in the Fire." Ibn 'Abbaas said: "If you must do that, make pictures of trees and other inanimate objects." (Reported by Muslim, 3/1871)

These ahaadeeth indicate that pictures of animate beings are haraam, whether they are humans or other creatures, whether they are three-dimensional or two-dimensional, whether they are printed, drawn, etched, engraved, carved, cast in moulds, etc. These ahaadeeth include all of these types of pictures.

The Muslim should submit to the teachings of Islam and not argue with them by saying, "But I am not worshipping them or prostrating to them!" If we think about just one aspect of the evil caused by the prevalence of photographs and pictures in our times, we will understand something of the wisdom behind this prohibition: that aspect is the great corruption caused by the provoking of physical desires and subsequent spread of immorality caused by these pictures.

The Muslim should not keep any pictures of animate beings in his house, because they will prevent the angels from entering. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or pictures." (Reported by al-Bukhaari, see al-Fath, 10/380).

But nowadays, unfortunately, one can even find in some Muslim homes statues of gods worshipped by the kuffaar (such as Buddha etc.) which they keep on the basis that they are antiques or decorative pieces. These things are more strictly prohibited than others, just as pictures which are hung up are worse than pictures which are not hung up, for how easily they can lead to glorification, and cause grief or be a source of boasting! We cannot say that these pictures are kept for memory's sake, because true memories of a Muslim relative or friend reside in the heart, and we remember them by praying for mercy and forgiveness for them.

Taking pictures with a camera involves human actions such as focusing, pressing the shutter, developing, printing, and so on. We cannot call it anything other than "picture-making" or tasweer, which is the expression used by all Arabic-speakers to describe this action.

In the book Al-I'laam bi naqd kitaab al-halaal wa'l-haraam, the author says: "Photography is even more of an imitation of the creation of Allaah than pictures which are engraved or drawn, so it is even more deserving of being prohibited… There is nothing that could exclude photography from the general meaning of the reports." (p. 42, see also Fataawa Islamiyyah, 4/355).

Among the scholars who have discussed the issue of photography is Shaykh Naasir al-Deen al-Albaani, who said: "Some of them differentiate between hand-drawn pictures and photographic images by claiming that the latter are not products of human effort, and that no more is involved than the mere capturing of the image. This is what they claim. The tremendous energy invested the one who invented this machine that can do in few seconds what otherwise could not be done in hours does not count as human effort, according to these people! Pointing the camera, focusing it, and taking the picture, preceded by installation of the film and followed by developing and whatever else that I may not know about… none of this is the result of human effort, according to them!

Some of them explain how this photography is done, and summarize that no less than eleven different actions are involved in the making of a picture. In spite of all this, they say that this picture is not the result of human action! Can it be permissible to hang up a picture of a man, for example, if it is produced by photography, but not if it is drawn by hand?

Those who say that photography is permitted have "frozen" the meaning of the word "tasweer," restriciting it only to the meaning known at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and not adding the meaning of photography, which is "tasweer" or "picture-making" in every sense - linguistic, legal, and in its harmful effects, and as is clear from the definition mentioned above. Years ago, I said to one of them, By the same token, you could allow idols which have not been carved but have been made by pressing a button on some machine that turns out idols by the dozen. What do you say to that?"
(Aadaab al-Zafaaf by al-Albaani, p. 38)

It is also worth quoting the opinion of some contemporary scholars who allow the taking of photographs but say that the pictures should not be kept: "The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or pictures." (See al-Sharh al-Mumti', 2/198).

There are many bad things involved in the making of pictures. Besides the element of imitating the creation of Allaah - which is an accusation denied by many of those who make pictures - reality bears witness to the great extent of immorality and provocation of desires caused by the prevalence of pictures and picture-making nowadays. We must remove or blot out every picture, except when it is too difficult to do so, like the pictures which are overwhelmingly prevalent in food packaging, or pictures used in encyclopaedias and reference books. We should remove what we can, and be careful about any provocative pictures that may be found.

"So keep your duty to Allaah and fear Him as much as you can…" [al-Taghaabun 64:16 - interpretation of the meaning]

Photographs which are essential are permitted - such as those required for identity documents, or for identifying or pursuing criminals [e.g. "wanted" posters and the like - translator's note], or for educational purposes which cannot be achieved otherwise. The principle in sharee'ah is that we should not exaggerate about what is necessary.

We ask Allaah to accept our repentance and have mercy on us, and to forgive our excesses, for He is the All-Hearing Who answers prayers. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.




Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

correct me if im wrong but there are ALOT of idols on earth. will the angels not go into earth with what they see as alot of idols? wont they even enter earth when they see alot of pple who keep pictures and pple who have camera to take pictures which are seem to be blasphemous to allah's creation?

so the whole of the muslim world will not be happy until we create a PURE islamic state right?

the first thing we need to do now is to ban cameras, photography, camera phone, videos, televisions and computers because they create visual images that imitate allah;s creations. right?

give me a break.
 

Mrmuslim

Smile you are @ TTI
Staff member
salaam alikom

With all do respect to every one You guys are talking about a PAST something happened 4, 5 years a go, whats the point? this my opinion, POOR people are dying every day in every part of the earth and we arguing about if what Taliban did with those Buddah images was right or wrong....


Dont look at past what happened is gone you cant change it, today is your day do what you can now (Good deeds, helpiing Humans, poor and needey, make Dawah) and tomorrow you dont even know if you will live it !

I know most of you dont understand arabic BUT just watch this ... http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21986

its about making Quran as your guidance and your manner

in summery about the video

Now, as you reading these words there are many people suffering from injury ... Some suffer from hunger ... and others are forced to work and forced out while they are young ... and there are others driven from their homes and prevented them from their families, deprived of live with their children, and exiled from their country ... every day the news papers and television tell us about these people.

As more we read in the newspaper and turn the page the news of these people will be increasing, and as we flip the television channel that talk about those suffering people, we forget them completely once we flip the page or change the channel and these people will be forgotten.

As long as the entire world to act in this way, the injustice and the pain will never ended. The solution lies in the consciences of providing assistance to others without charge. Religion is only extend this sense of conscience, and the honest believers who sacrifice for others and help them to win the consent of (Allah)God when we follow the Quran teaching and take our manners from it we will be able to help these people.


mayAllah give us guidance.

Wa salaam alikom
 

apocalypse77

Junior Member
I agree to some point with shyhijab. In one way I feel it is just a piece of rocks that were build by humans. But historically it was so unnecessary to destroy them, because I saw a reportage about all the people (muslims) leaving their and lived of tourism and business and had grown up in that area, almost all had now lost income. Because it is not only the statues it is a lot of monuments around. But I agree why spend money on that when there are people starving, no medicalcare and so on.. Focus on the people not the material things
:hijabi:

the tourism business can boost the economy and then the revenue can be use to help the poor what.

besides what else can you do to boost the economy when one doenst even have natural resources other than tourism?
 
And Budda is not worshipped...they do not believe he is a god therefore the it was not an idol in the classical sense. Furthermore there were no Buddists worshipping the statue when it was destroyed. The sphinx represents a god of a polytheistic religion for goodness sakes!! What if people decide to start worshipping it? Should not this risk justify it's destruction too? And this is a Muslim run country we are talking about.

I feel we did more harm than good by destroying this statue. If any Buddist were ever curious about Islam I am sure this action completely turned them off to us. We offended Buddist by destroying this ancient work of art and it's reflects poorly on our manners. Why don't we begin destroying hindu temples in Pakistan while were at it? I mean they are actively worshipping false gods so is it our obligation to remove this offense? Or should we trust in the Quran when it states there is no compulsion in religion?

I know people are bringing up the story of Prophet MOhammed (pbuh) and the removal of idols form the Kabbah but that was the Kabbah. He did not go to other parts of Saudi and seek to destroy statues...only in a sacred place. Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) destroyed the idols to prove that the rocks were not gods but simply rocks. The Buddhists did not think the statue was a living god or that they needed to worship it. So the comparisons are not sound.


Wasalaam

~Sarah

Asalaamalikum,

Sure the Buddhists might of been angry after it was destroyed, but what if a Muslim child, especially in Afghanistan, where many children are illiterate and uneducated starts to worship it. Is this okay? Now they are trying to rebuild it back in Afghanistan, why don't these Buddhists build it in their own country and community?

As Muslims, we respect other religions, but that is like saying Jews should allow a sculpture of Hitler to be built in their community.

Allahu alam (Allah Knows Best)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top