|
The Iconoclasts of Afghanistan
By Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D.
12/03/2001
A cold shudder is passing through the Muslim world as we look on in frustration while the Taliban show their contempt for fourteen centuries of Muslim tolerance and civility and undermine the recent gains Muslims have made in refuting the stereotype of Islam as barbarism by their willful destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
Muslims from America to Iran to Malaysia are responding appropriately to the situation, both by condemning the barbarity of the Taliban and by noting the hypocrisy of Western commentators who are more concerned about stone statues than about the welfare of Afghani children who will now be victimized by United Nations' sanctions as the children of Iraq have been since the Gulf War.
It was ironic that I was attending a forum on Islam and Civil Society when the news broke about Mullah Mohamad Omar's decision to destroy the giant Buddhist statues that have stood in Bamiyan for over 1,500 years. The forum consisted of a discussion of readings by both defenders and critics of Islam, including Samuel Huntington's (in)famous piece in
Foreign Affairs on the Clash of Civilizations.
"What could have possibly triggered such an act?" asked one of the participants. That was an easy question to answer: the U.N. sanctions on Afghanistan, provoked by the United States over Afghanistan's refusal to extradite Osama Bin Laden. The Taliban have repeatedly insisted that, if the U.S. has evidence proving Bin Laden's guilt, they themselves will prosecute him.
Instead of offering evidence, however, the United States has successfully pressed the Security Council to sanction Afghanistan. China has a veto over Security Council actions, but elected not to use it. So much for Huntington's theory of a Sino-Islamic alliance!
The reasons that Afghanistan would want to lash out are understandable, but the manner in which they did so is unacceptable. The attempt to cloak their actions with the command to defy
shirk is harmful to the ummah.
Alas, there have been a few Islamists who have tried to defend the vandalism by citing alleged precedents from the Sunnah of Ibrahim and Muhammad (peace be upon them both). There is no doubt that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) smashed the idols of the Ka`ba. But the Ka`ba was a Muslim shrine built by Ibrahim and Isma'il (AS) as a house of worship for Allah; therefore, the Prophet was cleansing a Muslim place of worship, not despoiling a shrine built by and for the people of another religion.
It is also important to note that the Prophet did not destroy a depiction of Mary and Jesus (AS) in the Ka`ba, but ordered them to be moved elsewhere. This concession was both because Mary and Jesus are respectfully mentioned in the Qur'an, and because Christianity does not teach the worship of statues even if some Christians engage in it.
Similarly, Buddhism does not teach the worship of statues even if some Buddhists engage in it. And although Buddha is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an, there is no doubt that Allah sent messengers to every people and, if Buddha was one of them, the fact that his original message has been corrupted can no more justify destroying the statues that Buddhists have made to him than the corruption of Christian scriptures can justify the destruction of statues Christians have made to Jesus.
Nor can Ibrahim's destruction of the idols of his people be made a precedent. Similar to Muhammad, Ibrahim was dealing with idolatry, but perhaps more to the point, his acts were done before his call to prophethood; they were the impetuous acts of a young man as yet unguided by divine revelation. Even the most simple-minded literalist could not use Ibrahim's act as a precedent since, contrary to the Taliban, Ibrahim left the biggest idol standing.
The destruction of these statues after one Muslim regime after another has left them standing for over a thousand years confuses the historical record. It is this history of Muslim forbearance that makes the Hindu charge that the Babri mosque that they destroyed in Ayodhiya was originally a shrine to Rama so incredible. However, the acts of the Taliban make the charge seem less absurd in the mind of onlookers. It distances them from the historical record.
For example, when the Muslims took over the Hagia Sophia church in Turkey, they did not plunder, loot, or destroy the Christian icons (as the Roman Catholics did when they conquered the city), but merely covered them up. In a civilized way, they brought the former church up to Islamic standards.
The Taliban's abandonment of Islamic practices, including Afghani practices, forms a horrendous precedent. Are they suggesting that American Muslims should demolish Mt. Rushmore?
This is a precedent that will be, and already is being, used against us. Earlier this week, Hindus burned the Qur'an
(Washington Post, March 2001). Tomorrow, the Israelis may demolish al-Aqsa. In Islamic history, the Muslims who have failed to heed the Qur'an's advice, "Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides God, lest they out of spite revile God in their ignorance," (6:108) have been rare indeed. It is a shame that the Taliban, apparently unaware of the significance of this verse, seek to be among the rare exceptions.
Mohamad Omar's decision is, at best, an ignorant application of a very conservative interpretation of Shari`a. In reality, it is something far worse. Why didn't Mohamad Omar's order the statues destroyed before now?
The fact is that Mohamad Omar himself promised, during the siege of central Afghanistan, that if the Taliban prevailed, they would protect the historical monuments in question
(Khan, 1998). What kind of Muslim goes back on his word? Certainly not an Islamic scholar.
References
Khan, Behroz. "Fate of Bamiyan Buddha Statues Hangs in Balance," The News
International, 9/6/98. http://www.rawa.org/bamyan.htm, 9/20/98
"Outrage at Taliban Grows," The Washington Post, 3/6/2001, A19.
|
