Governor of Bamiyan province in Afghanistan wants to put back together Buddha statues blown up by Taleban

[Veiled Princess 1]

Is the muslim ruler the taliban?? Because they are the ones who destroyed it.

No, the taliban is neither muslim nor ruler of anything... they're just a bunch of terrorists.... to answer someone elses question here... does a terrorist have to have a reason o be a terrorist??? I don't sympothise with them and I'm not going to justify them.

The question is not whether they had the right to do it in the first place... the point is it's already done... it would be wrong IMO to rebuild it now.

Edited to add: when I leave to reply to one person's question and I return there are three more pages of new questions all directed at me. I only have one PC and two little hands and I am going back and checking to see who asked what and trying to reply to everyone so please do not say that I'm dodging anyone's question. Thanks

Edited August 9, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[iceyspots 0]

The shaykh who runs this site is Salafi, like VP. This is not mainstream Islam and is not the type of Islam practiced by the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

If he is, he is not one that I have ever heard of.

The methodology of the Salafiyyh is to return to original Islam based on the Quran and Sunnah as was understood by the salaf/sahaba/companions of the prophet. They understood better what they observed than we do. We're not supposed to change the religion. There have been many sects pop up since the time of the prophet calling people to shirk and allowing the haraam and the salafiyyah's objective is to teach muslims the true Islam.

You are, of course, free to disagree.

Some Salafis believe that violent jihad is permissible against foreign, non-Muslim, occupation, but not against governments that claim to be Islamic. Those governments are to be reformed, not violently overthrown. Civil war (fitna) is to be avoided. (Salman Al-Auda)

Some Salafis believe that most majority-Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, have strayed and that the only answer to the plight of Muslims today is Jihad. Osama bin Laden is a prominent example of a Salafi Saudi Muslim who has gone from supporting the Saudi regime to violently opposing it.

Source

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The question is not whether they had the right to do it in the first place...

Humor us. Was it right to destroy them in the first place?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The question is not whether they had the right to do it in the first place...

Humor us. Was it right to destroy them in the first place?

Not only that - but should a country maintain its historical heritage?

[GaryC 7]

Judaism and Islam reject the Christian beliefs that God is Triune and that Jesus is the eternal Son of God in the flesh. Which means that, no Christians do not believe in the same God as the Muslims and Jews, though we share a belief in monotheism.

I really don't know about the Islam faith so I can't comment on that part of it, but Jesus was born into a Jewish society and prayed in the Jewish temple to the Jewish God. Christianity is based upon the idea that Jesus is the Son of God so it seems to me that the God of the Hebrews and the God of Christians is one in the same. I also understand that Islam prays to the God of Abraham?? Please correct me if I am wrong. And the God of Abraham is the same God the Hebrews pray to? That makes them one in the same? Please don't think I am dissrespecting anyone here, I just want to understand.

[iceyspots 0]

Is the muslim ruler the taliban?? Because they are the ones who destroyed it.

No, the taliban is neither muslim nor ruler of anything... they're just a bunch of terrorists.... to answer someone elses question here... does a terrorist have to have a reason o be a terrorist??? I don't sympothise with them and I'm not going to justify them.

The question is not whether they had the right to do it in the first place... the point is it's already done... it would be wrong IMO to rebuild it now.

I don't think terrorists randomly bomb things just for kicks.

The question is not whether they had the right to do it in the first place...

Humor us. Was it right to destroy them in the first place?

Not only that - but should a country maintain its historical heritage?

[Veiled Princess 1]

If so, what specifically is the justification for this?

I believe she's already quoted the relevant Quranic verses on this thread.

But (I'm too lazy to check) then said it had nothing to do with religion or politics...?

I'm pretty sure she said the terrorists aren't 'muslim', on that basis what right do they have to use a religious justification for their act of national vandalism?

If you read her responses on this thread, nowhere does she say that their destruction of the Buddha statues was unislamic. In fact, she clearly implies that it is. If they are not Muslim, that must be for some other reason.

I'm sure they thought or think it's for Islam but they have done many things that take them out of the fold of Islam so any small thing they might have done amongst all the bad doesn't mean anything, religiously.

[iceyspots 0]

Is the muslim ruler the taliban?? Because they are the ones who destroyed it.

Edited to add: when I leave to reply to one person's question and I return there are three more pages of new questions all directed at me. I only have one PC and two little hands and I am going back and checking to see who asked what and trying to reply to everyone so please do not say that I'm dodging anyone's question. Thanks

You seemed to have conveniently ignored all my questions about how you would feel if another religion came in and took over Saudi Arabia, blew up Mecca and Medina and thought it would be just fine to ship the pieces off to another muslim country.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think terrorists randomly bomb things just for kicks.

Considering that Afghan muslims were apparently quite content to live with the statues for a fair few centuries before the Taliban arrived on the scene...

Not to mention the obvious - Egypt. The Tomb of pagan pharoahs were pillaged over many centuries, but the statues, buildings and monuments are still part of that countries historical heritage - and a major draw for foreign tourism. In fact, I'm pretty sure the Egyptian government has petitioned the British Museum to return artifacts taken by 19th century archaelogists.

Edited August 9, 2006 by erekose

[Scott & Lai 12]

Judaism and Islam reject the Christian beliefs that God is Triune and that Jesus is the eternal Son of God in the flesh. Which means that, no Christians do not believe in the same God as the Muslims and Jews, though we share a belief in monotheism.

I really don't know about the Islam faith so I can't comment on that part of it, but Jesus was born into a Jewish society and prayed in the Jewish temple to the Jewish God. Christianity is based upon the idea that Jesus is the Son of God so it seems to me that the God of the Hebrews and the God of Christians is one in the same. I also understand that Islam prays to the God of Abraham?? Please correct me if I am wrong. And the God of Abraham is the same God the Hebrews pray to? That makes them one in the same? Please don't think I am dissrespecting anyone here, I just want to understand.

When I speak of Jews not believing in the same God as the Christians, I'm referring to Judaism today. The God of the Hebrews before Christ came is the same God that Christians worship. But Christians believe that the God of Abraham showed Himself to be Triune, and that His eternal Son became flesh; hence, Jesus is the same God that Abraham worshipped. But in rejecting God's revelation of Himself in Christ, the Jews ended up worshipping a different God. Not all Jews rejected this, though; they were the first Christians. Since Islam also rejects the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, I would say that they are similar to Jews today in this respect.

[jordanianprincess 0]

So Islam came first and Jesus was a muslim? Well in the Christian calendar it's 2006, what year is it in the Muslim Calendar?

Jesus didn't make the calendar considering it didn't come about until after his alleged death

BC means before Christ I just love the fact that you are re-writting history, it just shows your ignorance.

Did I call you names?

Islam teaches that all the prophets were muslims because they submitted to God. It's not about what their followers called themselves after that time passed.

Ignornance means lack of knowledge or information, its not a name or derogatory remark. If you are telling me that Islam came before Judiasm and Christianity and that Jesus is a Muslim then YES you are ignorant. because you are going against written history.

Then let the buddhists rebuild it themselves on Afghani land. It is not haraam for buddhists to do it.

So the muslim ruler would have to order it be destroyed again?

Is the muslim ruler the taliban?? Because they are the ones who destroyed it.

Exactly and those statues stood their ground in a that country for thousands of years before the taliban destroyed them, no one else had a problem with them.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Ok, let's put the questions directly. VP, answer them if you'd like.

1. Do you believe the Talibans actions in destroying the Buddha statues were consistent with the beliefs of the Islamic faith?

Yes/No. Let's keep it simple.

It's not simple but I'll try....

Had it been the muslim ruler in a country governed by the sharia then yes I would agree it was right. However, the taliban does not have any right to act as ruler in any country so they don't have the right to make decisions like that. Does that mean it should be rebuilt? IMO, no.

2. Why, specifically, do you say the Taliban were not Muslim?

There are many reasons but specifically they make takfir (declare people to be non-believers) in general. Like they say ALL shias are kufar... or ALL americans are kufar... or basically anyone who doesn't follow their particular school of thought are kufar... this is wrong. It's not allowed in Islam and our prophet warned when anyone who makes takfir against one of his brothers it will surely be true of one of them. In other words if you're not sure (they haven't done anything to show you they are) then don't say it or you risk becoming what you accuse another of... putting them in that realm of kufr (disbelief). This is not my personal opinion but the opinions and warnings of the scholars I read and seek knowledge from. (Those hated salafis)

The reason you can't make general takfir like that is because you don't know what's in anothers' heart... there are plenty of muslim Americans so you can't say all Americans are kufar.... there are plenty of Shia who believe there is no god but God and don't commit shirk (associating partners with God) so you can't say all of them are kufar.... the same is true of other sects.

There is also two different levels of kufr (disbelief)... one is major (takes you out of Islam and makes you a kafir and if you died before repenting, paradise would be forbidden for you) and the other is minor (it's a sin and you need to repent but you're still a muslim and if you died before repenting you could still enter paradise). They do not differentiate between the two and declare anyone who commits any sin as a kafir. (although apparently not themselves)

They also kill innocent people which is forbidden in Islam and the Quran says if you kill only one innocent person it's as if you've killed all of humanity... doesn't matter their religion.

Furthermore, they kill muslims. The Quran says if you purposefully kill a believer without just cause you are a kafir.

They also forbid what God has allowed and allow what God has forbidden.

They are oppressors... the Quran says oppression is worse than death and curses the oppressors.

Whew.... did I answer everyone sufficiently????

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why should sharia law be applicable to things that predate muslim civilisation in the country?

Crucially, do you think a nation's historical treasures should be protected and preserved?

Should the rule of religious law intrude into a nations cultural and historical heritage?

[Veiled Princess 1]

Some Salafis believe that violent jihad is permissible against foreign, non-Muslim, occupation, but not against governments that claim to be Islamic. Those governments are to be reformed, not violently overthrown. Civil war (fitna) is to be avoided. (Salman Al-Auda)

Some Salafis believe that most majority-Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, have strayed and that the only answer to the plight of Muslims today is Jihad. Osama bin Laden is a prominent example of a Salafi Saudi Muslim who has gone from supporting the Saudi regime to violently opposing it.

Source

Thanks for trying to pass judgement on Islam based on a western concept of something that's misunderstood.....

I agree that jihad is very important for us as an ummah right now... if you knew what jihad was you would hopefully agree. Jihad is a struggle... there is a lot of fitnah from within the ummah today and many muslims have strayed from the teachings of the Quran and our prophet and we must fight our inner selves to strive to be pious muslims to better our ummah.

No salafi scholar calls for jihad in the sense you are using it above. What they call for is for us to learn our deen and practice it to make us better people for the sake of Allah.

Saudia is not ruled by the scholars there. And civil war and fighting amongst ourselves or our governments is haraam in Islam.

Bin Losing is not salafi... he is from the khawarij.

All salafi scholars publicly and privately condemn those terrorists.

You seemed to have conveniently ignored all my questions about how you would feel if another religion came in and took over Saudi Arabia, blew up Mecca and Medina and thought it would be just fine to ship the pieces off to another muslim country.

They would have a hard fight taking it

Consequently... anything that happens is by Allah's will and as such I would accept it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

<<Shakes Head>>