Fumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 12 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
As has been said in a previous deleted thread...perhaps if I don't swear than the mods will be nice.
The Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban under the orders of Mullah Mohammed Omar. In light of the recent Danish events in which moslems are claiming that the sacred image of Mohammed has been desecrated, there seems to be a hypocritical attitude that Islam does not wish to address. That is, when moslems blow up the 2,000 year old buddha statues while much of the moslem world sat back and watched, there were no mass demonstrations or violence. Part of this has to do with the beliefs of buddhists, but there were only a few objections by Islam- nothing serious was initiated to stop the destruction.
In light of this, what right does Islam have to expect a sovereign nation to repeal their citizen's rights. It is after all, only a drawing. Something was created for people to express themselves. Nothing was destroyed like the Mullah had done with the statues.
I am aware that Islam, much like most Western religions, promotes conversion and assimilation, yet to destroy an object of veneration older than Mohammed himself, must surely have been outrageous to moslems. So why did they not stop this? To me this seems to be a very selfish and centralist attitude.
Can there be a fair discussion concerning this hypocrisy that I am hearing from many moslems that religous sentiments should be held above free speech, yet if it involves someone else's religion, than desecration is not so outrageous?
Aseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2046 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (8 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1141 times:
At that time Indian and Japanese govts had jointly approached Taliban, requesting them to allow moving statues to either of the countries (not sure how it would have been possible). But that was never allowed to happen, maybe it didn't fit into Taliban's scheme of things.
Something interesting to read Time Asia
Aseem From India, joined Feb 2005, 2046 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 1083 times:
how does one rebuilt them? They were carved out of stone. Moreover, rebuilding them at the same location won't be a wise decision. Can anyone guarantee stability in Afghanistan for next 2000 yrs.
Its a good idea, but I have read that they built these buddhas along a trade "highway" where millions of buddhists over the last 2,000 years have passed. They have been able to see them from a mile a way and pray even if they were in a hurry. That is an AWESOME legacy that has been destroyed in the name of a different religion and can never be fully recovered.
But, moslems do not believe in the veneration of images or statues.
AA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2551 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 978 times:
Quoting Fumanchewd (Thread starter): That is, when moslems blow up the 2,000 year old buddha statues while much of the moslem world sat back and watched, there were no mass demonstrations or violence. Part of this has to do with the beliefs of buddhists, but there were only a few objections by Islam- nothing serious was initiated to stop the destruction.
Sadly, very few people cared about the goings-ons in Afghanistan at the time. You might recall that the U.S. even supported the Taliban pre- 9/11. So obviously the U.S. would turn a blind eye to them destroying priceless pieces of history. You would also know, if you did research, that there was much disapproval among moderate afghans when the statues were destroyed. You arent discriminating enough between MODERATE muslim = majority, and fundamentalist Muslims = MINORITY.
Its not practical to Recarve it.But maybe reconstruct it with other materials.
If you rebuild a classic piece of art or architecture from antiquity, it is no longer that. Its a cheesy replica. It's schmaltz. Back when these Buddhas were built, people didn't have modern engineering tools, machines, and cranes. The fact that the ancients built these based on spiritual inspiration, artistic vision, and pure chutzpah made them what they are. At best, a small memorial to these statues will be a tacit reminder of the ugliness of bigots for perpetuity.
Fumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 943 times:
Quoting AA777 (Reply 18): So obviously the U.S. would turn a blind eye to them destroying priceless pieces of history. You would also know, if you did research, that there was much disapproval among moderate afghans when the statues were destroyed. You arent discriminating enough between MODERATE muslim = majority, and fundamentalist Muslims = MINORITY.
The US did not support the Taliban in the 90's. During the fight with the Soviets the US did supply the Taliban with training and weapons, but once we realized the monstrous potential the US considered them their enemy. As soon as the first attack on the World Trade and the embassy in Africa happened, then the tides changed.
I did do alot of research on this paticular subject, so don't judge me in an area that you know nothing about. The US an NATO did condem the attack but were not in a position to do anything about it. As has been stated above, if you were to try to read, Japan and India attempted to have the Buddha's exported but the Taliban wanted to destroy the "sinful" statues.
The middle eastern Islamic countries were the only ones at the time who had an opportunity to stop the destruction. Besides a few small complaints to appease the media, they did not act in any way to stop the destruction or to SERIOUSLY condemn it.
I can't discriminate between moderate and hardline anymore. I am seeing so many moslems that I would once have considered moderate expressing that they do no want the Western countries to have their freedoms anymore.
Lastly, where were the riots and death threats from the moslem community in defending the sacredness of the buddhist religion? That would be silly, as it is a passive and peaceful religion. But then isn't Islam???????????????????????