TteFAboB
05-21-06, 04:43 PM
NOT!
The Taliban got rid of those terrible Bhuddas, in the name of a better, more perfect, Afghanistan, based on the same concept:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19913_Egyptian_Mufti_Hates_Sculpture#commen ts
Many attempted to destroy the Sphinx before (even if only symbolically), fine, some were just toying with it, like Napoleon, but perhaps it is the will of Mohammad that Muslims shall be the ones to bring the final destruction to the Icon (since the fatwah is based on the Hadith, the interpretation of the teachings of Mohammad). Why don't the European museums return every last Egyptian relic to the hands of these tolerant Muslims so they can finally fulfill the will of Mohammad and destroy them?
It couldn't be more clear:
Keeping of statues: does Shariah recognize concepts like 'heritage belongs to all humanity' in the case of pictures, images and statues, and Taliban.
1) The keeping of statues in museums and other public places?
1. This is not permissible
2) The keeping of statues as objects of worship confined in places of worship by non-muslim minorities?
2. This is permissible as long as it is not exposed to the public.
3) Is it correct to criticize, Darul Islam, if it decides to destroy all pictures, images, statues and carvings? And what is the position of a Muslim's Imaan if he decides to criticize like this?
3. It is the duty of Darul Islam to destroy statues and idols found in public places. One who criticises them may be a Muslim, but has weak Imaan.
4) Can Darul Islam protect statues and such just for the purposes of culture or heritage?
4. 'Culture' and 'heritage' are no valid reasons for allowing idols to be displayed.
5) Does Shariah recognize concepts like 'heritage belongs to all humanity' in the case of pictures, images and statues?
5. Shari'ah does not recognise such concepts with regards to images and statues.
6) Is it correct to take as a valid argument that Amr bin al-'As Radhi allahu anhu did not break statues during his governorship of Egypt, therefore it is wrong for the Taliban to break statues?
6. This argument is incorrect.
7) Lastly, did the Taliban go against Shariah by destroying images and statues in Afghanistan?
7. It was an Islamic duty for the Taliban to have destroyed the statues. This should have been carried out a long time ago.
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=42f5e6c82ed326b9b7ac779d3f518768
More on it:
Allah Ta?ala has mentioned the incident of Hazrat Ibraaheem Alayhis Salaam breaking the idols a number of times in the Quráan. Ahaadith Narrated Ibn `Abbas (Radiyallahu anhuma): When Allah's Apostle came to Makkah, he refused to enter the Ka`ba with idols in it. He ordered that the idols be taken out). (Bukhari 2.671) Narrated `Abdullah bin Mas`ud (Radiyallahu anhu): The Prophet entered Makkah and (at that time) there were three hundred-and-sixty idols around the Ka`ba. He started stabbing the idols with a stick he had in his hand and reciting: "Truth (Islam) has come and Falsehood (disbelief) has vanished." (Bukhari 3.658) It is reported from Abul al-Hayaj al-Asadi who said 'Ali bin Abu Talib (Radiyallahu anhu) told me: "Should I not instruct you to do as the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam instructed me? Do not leave a statue standing without removing it. Do not leave a grave raised without leveling it." (Naylul Awtaar vol.4 pg.83) Hazrat 'Amr b.
'Abasa Sulami (Radiyallahu anhu) reported: (Before becoming a Muslim) I said to Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam: Who are you? He said: I am a Prophet (of Allah). I again said: Who is a Prophet? He said: (I am a Prophet in the sense that) I have been sent by Allah. I said: What is that which you have been sent with? He said: I have been sent to join ties of relationship (with kindness and affection), to break the Idols, and to proclaim the oneness of Allah (in a manner that) nothing is to be associated with Him. (Muslim Book 4, Number 1812 Chapter 142: HOW 'AMR B. 'ABASA EMBRACED ISLAM ) There cannot be anything more abhorrent in Islam than statues and idols. It was one of the primary duties of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam to destroy idols. He was sent for this purpose. He instructed Hazrat Ali (Radiyallahu anhu) not to leave any statue standing. At the very first opportunity, he demolished the idols found in Makkah Mukarramah.
Therefore, any person with a clear mind, unclouded by ramblings of those that deny Allah, can understand that there can be no place whatsoever for idols in Islam. It is the very antithesis of Islam. The very doctrine of the Deen is in diametrical opposition to the keeping of statues and idols. Most unfortunately, some Muslims of weak Imaan have been put into doubt over such a clear-cut issue.
The primary argument presented is that the destruction of idols is offensive to the religious convictions of certain communities. Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims. Answer: It is wrong to say that Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims. To respect the beliefs of others means to respect kufr and shirk. This is totally unacceptable. Yes, what we do respect is their right to practice their religion. In other words, despite the fact that we intensely abhor their beliefs, should they wish to practice on those beliefs, we will grant them the freedom to do so. This too is on condition that it does not conflict with our interests. As far as our attitude being offensive, well, if the truth be told, the whole of Islam is offensive to some of the kuffaar. Even our kalimah is offensive to the mushrikeen. Our kalima denounces all deities besides Allah Ta?ala as false. This emphatically implies that the gods of the mushrikeen are false. So are we going to abandon our kalima because it is offensive to some of the kuffaar? Certainly not! In the same light there are numerous teachings of Islam which are offensive to one community or the other. Are we then going to discard these teachings merely because someone is offended? Are we then going to court the pleasure of the kuffaar at the expense of earning the displeasure of our Creator Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta?ala? It is obvious that by acting on the law of Allah Ta?ala we will be earning the rebuke of the kuffaar, for Islam and kufr are two diametrically opposed ideologies.
Egypt, Some have claimed that when Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) conquered Egypt, he allowed statues to remain. Hence they are standing till this day, e.g. the sphinx or the thousands of artifacts on view at the Egyptian National Museum. This indicates that we should not interfere with such statues.
Answer: The fact that these statues "are standing today" does not imply that Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) "allowed statues to remain". Almost all the statues found today in Egypt were unearthed in the last century. Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) conquered Egypt in 20 AH. At that time these statues were unknown of, both out of sight and out of mind.
Thus it cannot be claimed that Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) condoned the display of statues. The only statue that may have been in public display would have been the sphinx. But it would have been impractical to destroy such a huge mass of rock. Consider the size of the sphinx. It is about 20 m (66 ft) high and about 73 m (240 ft) long. At that time there were no modern implements, hence it would have been impractical to remove this rock by mere pick and shovel.
The impracticality can be gauged from the fact that French canons could not demolish the sphinx, but only managed to cause some damage. Furthermore, consider the hard facts. Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) strictly enforced the rule of not allowing non-Muslims to display their religious symbols in public. He refused the Christians permission to display the Cross within the city, even if only once a year. Would he then condone the public display of statues? The assumption that he "allowed statues to stand" is in conflict with his general position, a position attested to by many historical facts. Thus the assumption must be dismissed as baseless.
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=1289098c1eed9ac22e93d9ec56960030
During this quick survey, I came across the execution fatwa, a digression perhaps, but a sign of (lack of)tolerance nonetheless:
The religion of Islam is the most perfect and complete religion. The laws of Islam are flawlessly designed by Allah. These laws of Islam are for the benefit and of mankind.
Islam induces unity and always condemns division and sects.
Once a person accepts Islam, he sees its beauty and perfection. If after seeing the beauty of Islam, a Muslim turns away from it, it means he turned away from perfection towards imperfection, disassociating himself from the unity of the Muslims ummah towards a way that is unacceptable by Allah.
Allah always wishes good for His servants. By one accepting Islam, he will be Insha Allah entitled to paradise. However, after accepting Islam, one turns renegade, it means he has become entitled to Jahannam (Hell). This is not what Allah wishes for His servants. To prevent more people from becoming true candidates of the fire of Hell, Allah legislated a deterrent for it, i.e. the law of execution.
This law of executing the renegade is a unanimously accepted rule according to all Muslims.
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=09dd6c4a67c686f5bc692572bb8082f0
I don't know about you, but that sounds alot like Borg to me, resistance is futile.
Apparently I'm not the only one who thought of that comparison, look what I found on a trivial Google image search for "Muslim Borg":
"The Borg - Islamic Assimilation. A friend of mine pointed out an interesting observation - the fictional bad guys in Star Trek called collectively as "The Borg" has simliar characteristics to radical Islam. This civilization seeks to absorb and assimilate all existing civilizations it comes in contact with. There is no negotiation - resistance is futile [not entirely true, the step before the war is to attempt to extort taxes from the Infidel and send a convertion ultimatum]. I know this comparison is silly - but what the hell. Regular humans are contaminated by the Borg virus - or nano-technology robots thru the bloodstream. Thru this method regular clear thinking humans morph into being one with the Borg and forget all past memories and relationships.
He pointed out that when people embrace Islam - they change their name, appearance and become mindless drones of their new religious "submission". Individuality and creativity is often supressed and frowned upon - and if you are a woman who is a free spirit thinker - fah-get-a-boutit - you can can be killed if you resist "the rules". If you try and leave the Borg - it's an automatic death sentence - that is santioned by "the collective".
I guess the "prime directive" does not apply here."
http://www.jroller.com/page/grego/20040531
The more I research into Islam, the more difficult it appears for one to become a peacefull, cosmopolitan, 21st century-loving/living Muslim, unless he starts ignoring what doesn't taste good, as I suppose most do. You are constantly bombarded with non-sense, and if you dare to raise your voice in Teheran for example, you certainly won't last long, because you become an apostate, and must be executed.
It seems we don't have enough Muslims raising their voices. Words must be spoken, Imams must be refuted and attacked mercilessly untill they are proven to be wrong, or an alternative reading offered to contrast.
The Bible is a wonderfull book (The Roman Catholic, that is, and some ecumenical when picked by hand), you do not have to have any faith in the Christian religion to appreciate its mystics and historical narrative. This book must be defended from insults such as the Bible version from the "theology of freedom", if we are to keep its principles for future generations. I will always participate when possible in any study to refute these Bibles that twist the proper exegesis into a piece of paper without any theological meaning or value.
The same must be done in Islam. If the Imams quoted previously are currently organized and active in their spread of the Dark Ages, then all the Muslims who do not agree with them must also organize and act against their voice.
Where is the contrasting Islam? Where are the refutals? Where is the opposition? Which Imam will prove me Peace can be put above Jihad, instead of being a mere accomplishment to be fulfilled only when there is no more Dar al-Harb to fight with?
I'm waiting.
The Taliban got rid of those terrible Bhuddas, in the name of a better, more perfect, Afghanistan, based on the same concept:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19913_Egyptian_Mufti_Hates_Sculpture#commen ts
Many attempted to destroy the Sphinx before (even if only symbolically), fine, some were just toying with it, like Napoleon, but perhaps it is the will of Mohammad that Muslims shall be the ones to bring the final destruction to the Icon (since the fatwah is based on the Hadith, the interpretation of the teachings of Mohammad). Why don't the European museums return every last Egyptian relic to the hands of these tolerant Muslims so they can finally fulfill the will of Mohammad and destroy them?
It couldn't be more clear:
Keeping of statues: does Shariah recognize concepts like 'heritage belongs to all humanity' in the case of pictures, images and statues, and Taliban.
1) The keeping of statues in museums and other public places?
1. This is not permissible
2) The keeping of statues as objects of worship confined in places of worship by non-muslim minorities?
2. This is permissible as long as it is not exposed to the public.
3) Is it correct to criticize, Darul Islam, if it decides to destroy all pictures, images, statues and carvings? And what is the position of a Muslim's Imaan if he decides to criticize like this?
3. It is the duty of Darul Islam to destroy statues and idols found in public places. One who criticises them may be a Muslim, but has weak Imaan.
4) Can Darul Islam protect statues and such just for the purposes of culture or heritage?
4. 'Culture' and 'heritage' are no valid reasons for allowing idols to be displayed.
5) Does Shariah recognize concepts like 'heritage belongs to all humanity' in the case of pictures, images and statues?
5. Shari'ah does not recognise such concepts with regards to images and statues.
6) Is it correct to take as a valid argument that Amr bin al-'As Radhi allahu anhu did not break statues during his governorship of Egypt, therefore it is wrong for the Taliban to break statues?
6. This argument is incorrect.
7) Lastly, did the Taliban go against Shariah by destroying images and statues in Afghanistan?
7. It was an Islamic duty for the Taliban to have destroyed the statues. This should have been carried out a long time ago.
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=42f5e6c82ed326b9b7ac779d3f518768
More on it:
Allah Ta?ala has mentioned the incident of Hazrat Ibraaheem Alayhis Salaam breaking the idols a number of times in the Quráan. Ahaadith Narrated Ibn `Abbas (Radiyallahu anhuma): When Allah's Apostle came to Makkah, he refused to enter the Ka`ba with idols in it. He ordered that the idols be taken out). (Bukhari 2.671) Narrated `Abdullah bin Mas`ud (Radiyallahu anhu): The Prophet entered Makkah and (at that time) there were three hundred-and-sixty idols around the Ka`ba. He started stabbing the idols with a stick he had in his hand and reciting: "Truth (Islam) has come and Falsehood (disbelief) has vanished." (Bukhari 3.658) It is reported from Abul al-Hayaj al-Asadi who said 'Ali bin Abu Talib (Radiyallahu anhu) told me: "Should I not instruct you to do as the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam instructed me? Do not leave a statue standing without removing it. Do not leave a grave raised without leveling it." (Naylul Awtaar vol.4 pg.83) Hazrat 'Amr b.
'Abasa Sulami (Radiyallahu anhu) reported: (Before becoming a Muslim) I said to Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam: Who are you? He said: I am a Prophet (of Allah). I again said: Who is a Prophet? He said: (I am a Prophet in the sense that) I have been sent by Allah. I said: What is that which you have been sent with? He said: I have been sent to join ties of relationship (with kindness and affection), to break the Idols, and to proclaim the oneness of Allah (in a manner that) nothing is to be associated with Him. (Muslim Book 4, Number 1812 Chapter 142: HOW 'AMR B. 'ABASA EMBRACED ISLAM ) There cannot be anything more abhorrent in Islam than statues and idols. It was one of the primary duties of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam to destroy idols. He was sent for this purpose. He instructed Hazrat Ali (Radiyallahu anhu) not to leave any statue standing. At the very first opportunity, he demolished the idols found in Makkah Mukarramah.
Therefore, any person with a clear mind, unclouded by ramblings of those that deny Allah, can understand that there can be no place whatsoever for idols in Islam. It is the very antithesis of Islam. The very doctrine of the Deen is in diametrical opposition to the keeping of statues and idols. Most unfortunately, some Muslims of weak Imaan have been put into doubt over such a clear-cut issue.
The primary argument presented is that the destruction of idols is offensive to the religious convictions of certain communities. Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims. Answer: It is wrong to say that Islam teaches us to respect the religious beliefs of non-Muslims. To respect the beliefs of others means to respect kufr and shirk. This is totally unacceptable. Yes, what we do respect is their right to practice their religion. In other words, despite the fact that we intensely abhor their beliefs, should they wish to practice on those beliefs, we will grant them the freedom to do so. This too is on condition that it does not conflict with our interests. As far as our attitude being offensive, well, if the truth be told, the whole of Islam is offensive to some of the kuffaar. Even our kalimah is offensive to the mushrikeen. Our kalima denounces all deities besides Allah Ta?ala as false. This emphatically implies that the gods of the mushrikeen are false. So are we going to abandon our kalima because it is offensive to some of the kuffaar? Certainly not! In the same light there are numerous teachings of Islam which are offensive to one community or the other. Are we then going to discard these teachings merely because someone is offended? Are we then going to court the pleasure of the kuffaar at the expense of earning the displeasure of our Creator Allah Subhaanahu wa Ta?ala? It is obvious that by acting on the law of Allah Ta?ala we will be earning the rebuke of the kuffaar, for Islam and kufr are two diametrically opposed ideologies.
Egypt, Some have claimed that when Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) conquered Egypt, he allowed statues to remain. Hence they are standing till this day, e.g. the sphinx or the thousands of artifacts on view at the Egyptian National Museum. This indicates that we should not interfere with such statues.
Answer: The fact that these statues "are standing today" does not imply that Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) "allowed statues to remain". Almost all the statues found today in Egypt were unearthed in the last century. Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) conquered Egypt in 20 AH. At that time these statues were unknown of, both out of sight and out of mind.
Thus it cannot be claimed that Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) condoned the display of statues. The only statue that may have been in public display would have been the sphinx. But it would have been impractical to destroy such a huge mass of rock. Consider the size of the sphinx. It is about 20 m (66 ft) high and about 73 m (240 ft) long. At that time there were no modern implements, hence it would have been impractical to remove this rock by mere pick and shovel.
The impracticality can be gauged from the fact that French canons could not demolish the sphinx, but only managed to cause some damage. Furthermore, consider the hard facts. Hazrat Umar (Radiyallahu anhu) strictly enforced the rule of not allowing non-Muslims to display their religious symbols in public. He refused the Christians permission to display the Cross within the city, even if only once a year. Would he then condone the public display of statues? The assumption that he "allowed statues to stand" is in conflict with his general position, a position attested to by many historical facts. Thus the assumption must be dismissed as baseless.
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=1289098c1eed9ac22e93d9ec56960030
During this quick survey, I came across the execution fatwa, a digression perhaps, but a sign of (lack of)tolerance nonetheless:
The religion of Islam is the most perfect and complete religion. The laws of Islam are flawlessly designed by Allah. These laws of Islam are for the benefit and of mankind.
Islam induces unity and always condemns division and sects.
Once a person accepts Islam, he sees its beauty and perfection. If after seeing the beauty of Islam, a Muslim turns away from it, it means he turned away from perfection towards imperfection, disassociating himself from the unity of the Muslims ummah towards a way that is unacceptable by Allah.
Allah always wishes good for His servants. By one accepting Islam, he will be Insha Allah entitled to paradise. However, after accepting Islam, one turns renegade, it means he has become entitled to Jahannam (Hell). This is not what Allah wishes for His servants. To prevent more people from becoming true candidates of the fire of Hell, Allah legislated a deterrent for it, i.e. the law of execution.
This law of executing the renegade is a unanimously accepted rule according to all Muslims.
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=09dd6c4a67c686f5bc692572bb8082f0
I don't know about you, but that sounds alot like Borg to me, resistance is futile.
Apparently I'm not the only one who thought of that comparison, look what I found on a trivial Google image search for "Muslim Borg":
"The Borg - Islamic Assimilation. A friend of mine pointed out an interesting observation - the fictional bad guys in Star Trek called collectively as "The Borg" has simliar characteristics to radical Islam. This civilization seeks to absorb and assimilate all existing civilizations it comes in contact with. There is no negotiation - resistance is futile [not entirely true, the step before the war is to attempt to extort taxes from the Infidel and send a convertion ultimatum]. I know this comparison is silly - but what the hell. Regular humans are contaminated by the Borg virus - or nano-technology robots thru the bloodstream. Thru this method regular clear thinking humans morph into being one with the Borg and forget all past memories and relationships.
He pointed out that when people embrace Islam - they change their name, appearance and become mindless drones of their new religious "submission". Individuality and creativity is often supressed and frowned upon - and if you are a woman who is a free spirit thinker - fah-get-a-boutit - you can can be killed if you resist "the rules". If you try and leave the Borg - it's an automatic death sentence - that is santioned by "the collective".
I guess the "prime directive" does not apply here."
http://www.jroller.com/page/grego/20040531
The more I research into Islam, the more difficult it appears for one to become a peacefull, cosmopolitan, 21st century-loving/living Muslim, unless he starts ignoring what doesn't taste good, as I suppose most do. You are constantly bombarded with non-sense, and if you dare to raise your voice in Teheran for example, you certainly won't last long, because you become an apostate, and must be executed.
It seems we don't have enough Muslims raising their voices. Words must be spoken, Imams must be refuted and attacked mercilessly untill they are proven to be wrong, or an alternative reading offered to contrast.
The Bible is a wonderfull book (The Roman Catholic, that is, and some ecumenical when picked by hand), you do not have to have any faith in the Christian religion to appreciate its mystics and historical narrative. This book must be defended from insults such as the Bible version from the "theology of freedom", if we are to keep its principles for future generations. I will always participate when possible in any study to refute these Bibles that twist the proper exegesis into a piece of paper without any theological meaning or value.
The same must be done in Islam. If the Imams quoted previously are currently organized and active in their spread of the Dark Ages, then all the Muslims who do not agree with them must also organize and act against their voice.
Where is the contrasting Islam? Where are the refutals? Where is the opposition? Which Imam will prove me Peace can be put above Jihad, instead of being a mere accomplishment to be fulfilled only when there is no more Dar al-Harb to fight with?
I'm waiting.