Timbuktu shrine destruction 'a war crime

[N.O.R.F]

ElPunto;847565 wrote:

 

Yes - Norf - but it doesn't give them the right to destroy them still. Nor does it add to their political cause. This requires education and time to change this errant mentality.

Whether its right or wrong depends on what the correct course of action is islamically.

[N.O.R.F]

ailamos;847594 wrote:

Enraged because it is a part of Islamic heritage that should be preserved and not destroyed and because I've read about Timbuktu as a child in Islamic Studies class and how it was part of the Islamic Golden Age.

Huh? What Islamic heritage is being destroyed? Are any mosques being destroyed? Any of the ancient school buildings? The report says tombs are being destroyed.

[ElPunto]

ailamos;847594 wrote:

So you're the ultimate skeptic? You question the motives behind every news story? This reminds me of Mel Gibson in 'Conspiracy Theory'.

 

 

 

That's rich. What are you basing your skepticism on?

 

 

 

Enraged because it is a part of Islamic heritage that should be preserved and not destroyed and because I've read about Timbuktu as a child in Islamic Studies class and how it was part of the Islamic Golden Age.

I don't get the reasoning that because I question the motives of a particular story - I must necessarily question all stories in order to be ideologically pure..That makes no sense.

 

I'm basing my skepticism on western hypocrisy and double standards. The hue and cry surrounding this story while actual people die in the conflicts surrounding the very monuments western media purport to care about.

 

You do know Timbuktu is more than one shrine or 10 shrines destroyed or preserved. It;s about mosques, libraries a whole way of life that people preserve in their memories and histories. I'm not sure you're doing this place justice when you reduce its entirety to a shrine or shrines being destroyed.

[Che -Guevara]

Somalia;847583 wrote:

No surprise there.

You rush to judgement and susceptible to populist hysteria. Of all the problems posed by Salafists, should the destruction of these shrines be on the top of the list?

[The-freeman]

N.O.R.F;847597 wrote:

Huh? What Islamic heritage is being destroyed? Are any mosques being destroyed? Any of the ancient school buildings? The report says tombs are being destroyed.

I'm no expert but are some revered sheikhs' tombs important for some sects of Sufi Islam? I'm sure these people were maintaining these tombs for a reason and not because it's a fun thing to do on the weekend.

[Somalia]

ElPunto;847595 wrote:

This simply validates my earlier point - that this portrayal and consquent errant conclusion - Islam/Muslims is intolerant - is the work primarily of the media. Thanks.

 

I'm not defending destruction - you would know that if you actually read what I wrote - I'm simply questioning motives and not wholeheartedly in the camp of hypocritcal western media.

The media portrays Muslims as intolerant, but when we do this, we give them ammunition. Are you expecting them not to report this? Why not be concerned with the Muslims who do this?

 

It's like the drunk Somali girls who attacked the girl who was walking with her boyfriend, and then after getting arrested saying that they aren't used to drink cause they are Muslims so they weren't thinking straight. This time it's Muslims destroying something, then going around and saying "oh, the media, you are portraying us badly".

[ailamos]

N.O.R.F;847597 wrote:

Huh? What Islamic heritage is being destroyed? Are any mosques being destroyed? Any of the ancient school buildings? The report says tombs are being destroyed.

And tombs are not part of Islamic heritage?

 

The spokesperson of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), in a statement today, deplored the destruction of historical sites in Timbuktu, Mali by religious extremist groups. The spokesperson said that the sites were part of the rich Islamic heritage of Mali and should not be allowed to be destroyed and put in harms way by bigoted extremist elements. The spokesperson expressed the OIC’s satisfaction at the actions taken by the Government of the Republic of Mali against the perpetrators. He added that the OIC calls for taking necessary measures and appropriate steps for the protection and preservation of the historical sites.

[ElPunto]

N.O.R.F;847596 wrote:

Whether its right or wrong depends on what the correct course of action is islamically.

The correct course of action Islamically is that people not worship at shrines - but you can about 2 ways. Either destroy them or the better and longer lasting course - teach people that shrines can be no good nor harm to them and that worship is reserved solely for Allah.

 

As to Islamic heritage - defined broady - it includes everything that an Islalmic culture produces - including that which is secular in nature.

[ElPunto]

Somalia;847602 wrote:

The media portrays Muslims as intolerant, but when we do this, we give them ammunition. Are you expecting them not to report this? Why not be concerned with the Muslims who do this?

 

It's like the drunk Somali girls who attacked the girl who was walking with her boyfriend, and then after getting arrested saying that they aren't used to drink cause they are Muslims so they weren't thinking straight. This time it's Muslims destroying something, then going around and saying "oh, the media, you are portraying us badly".

I'm not unconcerned with what Muslims do. And I understand that some Muslims do give them ammunition. But then what they do with that ammunition is their handiwork. The 'portrayal' that ensues is owned by them. And that is the point I"m making. Western media are not generally impartia,l unbiased or without an agenda when reporting about Muslims or Islam.

[ailamos]

ElPunto;847599 wrote:

I don't get the reasoning that because I question the motives of a particular story - I must necessarily question all stories in order to be ideologically pure..That makes no sense.

Apparently this has nothing to do with a particular story. From what I've gather so far is that you distrust Western media, which leads me to the assumption that you would question the motives of every story that comes out of a Western media outlet, or any other outlet (e.g. "Al Arabiya and company) because apparently they are all controlled by the West. Subsequently, all media would be unreliable and their motives must be questioned.

 

ElPunto;847599 wrote:

I'm basing my skepticism on western hypocrisy and double standards. The hue and cry surrounding this story while actual people die in the conflicts surrounding the very monuments western media purport to care about.

I believe the stories of the actual people dying in conflicts surrounding these very monuments have been extensively covered by the "untrustworthy" Western media prior to the desecration of these monuments.

 

ElPunto;847599 wrote:

You do know Timbuktu is more than one shrine or 10 shrines destroyed or preserved. It;s about mosques, libraries a whole way of life that people preserve in their memories and histories. I'm not sure you're doing this place justice when you reduce its entirety to a shrine or shrines being destroyed.

If you think there is a reduction of Timbuktu to it's shrines then you're sadly mistaken. The shrines were the first historical monuments that have been destroyed, hence the story. Who knows what will be next?

[N.O.R.F]

ailamos;847603 wrote:

And tombs are not part of Islamic heritage?

It depends on which side of the fence one sits. The spokesperson for the IOC can't change the interpretations of others.

 

The ideology and justification of those who destroyed the tombs is explained on this wiki page as:

 

Islam’s core tenet is the recognition and worship of one supreme God, which it shares with the other Abrahamic religions. Islam espouses the direct link between a believer and the God and rejects the intercession or the existence of a medium between the two. Although this position can be considerably more complex within the different schools and strains of Islamic theology, the conservative orthodoxy of Wahhabism adheres strictly and literally to this position and prefers to abide by a more narrow and safeguarded interpretation.

 

The widespread demolition of gravesites, tombs, mausoleums, birthplaces, mosques or locations otherwise connected with the prophet Muhammad, his family and companions, pious individuals or important events in Islamic history after the Saudi conquest of the Hejaz was an attempt to eradicate non-orthodox practices that had become established in regional Islam during that time. The ongoing demolition of similar places until the present day may constitute the continued effort by Saudi authorities to safeguard Islamic monotheism against non-orthodox practices that are not recognized by Islam.

 

Controversy arises because, like any theological issues, there are wide differences in opinion concerning orthodoxy, and with what constitutes acceptable Islamic practices and what does not. This is further compounded by the countless interpretations of Islamic theology that can be present in places such as Mecca and Medina, where millions of Muslim visitors from diverse regions and backgrounds of the Islamic World can congregate in the same space at any given time.

 

What is certain is that Islam prohibits the deification of anything other than God and this includes the attributing of divine characteristics (such as all-encompassing power or the control or knowledge of human destiny) to anyone or thing other than god, including prophets and saints. Furthermore, there exist within the accredited traditions of Muhammad (Sunnah) several injunctions prohibiting the visitation of sites and more specifically the erecting of structures over graves such as mausoleums and Mosques. It is according to these specific orders from the Prophetic authority of Muhammad that Wahhabi and other orthodox Muslims devise the rulings that permit the demolition referenced above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites#Theological_justification

 

What I'm asking is, are they (those that destroyed the tombs) wrong considering those tombs are being used by people to pray to God through the dead 'saints'? This spreads ignorance when people copy eachother and pass on the practice to others. Who is responsible? Who should be held accountable?

[ElPunto]

ailamos;847610 wrote:

Apparently this has nothing to do with this or any other particular story. From what I've gather so far is that you distrust Western media, which leads me to the assumption that you would question the motives of every story that comes out of a Western media outlet, or any other outlet (e.g. "Al Arabiya and company) because apparently they are all controlled by the West. Subsequently, all media would be unreliable and their motives must be questioned.

 

 

 

I believe the stories of the actual people dying on conflicts surrounding these very monuments have been extensively covered by the "untrustworthy" Western media prior to the desecration of these monuments.

 

 

 

If you think there is a reduction of Timbuktu to it's shrines then you're sadly mistaken. The shrines were the first historical monuments that have been destroyed, hence the story. Who knows what will be next?

No- I don't distrust western media on a broad basis. I question when they report on Islam/Muslims. As to your assumption etc - you know how the saying goes. You do know that there is a difference between being controlled and setting the news agenda. The New York Times is widely known to set the news agenda in the USA - does that mean it controls WasPo, LATimes, CNN etc. Clearly not - I think you're intelligent enough to make this differentiation.

 

No I don't believe the conflict in Mali has been adequately covered by western media. But this is a judgement call.

 

Really - you really ask what will be next? Let me ask you - if they destroy a heritage building in London - does anyone think that Buckingham palace is next? Why is that do you think? It's funny.

[ailamos]

Could you clarify your positions here. You say:

 

ElPunto;847608 wrote:

I'm not unconcerned with what Muslims do.

Which is interpreted to mean that what certain Muslims do is their business and should not be attributed to the wider community.

 

And a few minutes later you state:

 

ElPunto;847608 wrote:

The correct course of action Islamically is that people not worship at shrines - but you can about 2 ways. Either destroy them or the better and longer lasting course - teach people that shrines can be no good nor harm to them and that worship is reserved solely for Allah.

Which is interpreted to mean that there should be a consequence or remedy for what certain Muslims are doing.

 

So how do you reconcile your earlier statement with the latter? On the one hand Muslims are free to do what they want and you are unconcerned with their actions. On the other hand you think what certain Muslims are doing is wrong, and that they should be conducting themselves in a specific manner which you construe to be Islamically pure.

[ailamos]

ElPunto;847614 wrote:

The New York Times is widely known to set the news agenda in the USA

Is that a fact? What are you basing this on?

[ElPunto]

Norf,

 

There is no question that shrine worship and saint reverence is absolutely xaram and the worst of sins. But if you think that destroying shrines will solve this misguidance easily I think you're mistaken. If you don't try to change people's hearts through education you haven't really changed them.