I think we need some elaboration, external references to substantiate the list of Taliban deeds. -- css
Some links:
I added a few links to external references that give specific mention of the abuses. Don't assume that if there is no reference listed that it is erroneous; I just didn't have time to research those particular ones. --
BryceHarrington
Controversy around destroying Buddist statues
It's quite suprising that Western media cared more about these statues than about breaking human rights in Afganistan.
Moreover, destroying statues isn't really unusual in history. For example, when communism were overthrown in Eastern Europe,
most of Lenin statues were destroyed and nobody really cared.
In earlier times, new dominant religions often destroyed sacral objects of the previous one.
Another important point to note is that representational art is at best irrelevant to Muslims (ever see a Mosque? all patterns and designs... no pictures of people) so big statues that represent a real person (Buddha) would be sort of sacrilegious. Furthermore, it has been reported on NPR? in an interview with a leading Taliban official that the story behind the destruction is more complex than has been reported. According to the official, the problem arose when a Western art preservation group came to the country to do work on the statues. The Taliban said, "Great, come on in and fix the statue... but can we ask you one favor? There is this town near the statue where the people are starving and the children are dying. Could you split your budget in half, giving half to the statue and half to the children of the town?"
And the art preservation group said no way. So the Taliban blew up the statues rather than re-hear the request.
Certainly the Taliban official could have been lying or exagerating WRT to this account, but it is an interesting lesson nonetheless.
- given the way they behave towards other aid workers trying to feed people, I have my doubts. From what I've read the statues are quite isolated. From the point of view of Muslims and representational art (a) they have never banned other people's represenational art so long as it is not publically displayed. Thus, if the statues were isolated, they were not offensive. Islam has long banned any external display of other religion's symbols (even including the ringing of bells by Christians), but never interfered on the inside of churches or synagogues. When Islamic groups took over a building belonging to a former religion they often painted over earlier art (see Hagia Sophia, for instance) but they did not often go further than that. They never, for instance, chiselled off the Persian reliefs at the Sassanid tombs. (b) The Wahabbi style of Islam practiced by the Taliban is not just opposed to images - it is opposed to minarets (the Prophet didnt' have one) and gravestones (they 'lead to idolatry'). They even refuse to practice a normal decorative technique of mosques -- yes, the ones I've seen are covered with inscriptions of Koranic texts, except the ones that are empty. Those are Wahabbi-influenced ones. They don't like that. I forget why that would be bad, but they don't do it. They DO use Koranic inscriptions and secular inscriptions outside mosques (the new airport in Riyadh has an incredible dome with inscriptions). --MichaelTinkler
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)