NationStates

While I don't know all that much about the destruction of the sites, it is something that I have rather strong feelings about, because I love history, particularly ancient history.

Yup, there went a fourth century monastery. And they just cut off water to some Christian villages in the scorching sun.

I hope there will be an actual international campaign designed to make an example out of these unholy freaks.

Pope Joan wrote:If it causes a Sunni rift, it's a good thing.

We are overdue for some self-correcting from the Sunnis.

After the 30 Years War, Christians of all opinions were sick at heart over their barbarities, and things got better on the religious violence front. I hope that happens soon in Islam.

The Thirty Years War wasn't solely a religious war, mind you.

Iconoclasm: it's like herpes for religions. Keeps getting passed around and is a constant pain.

Napkiraly wrote:Considering that they say this is to prevent idolatry, one wonders that if they were to ever to take Medina, would they destroy the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi.

That's a possibility. I mean, even the Wahhabis have destroyed many sites associated with the Prophet Muhammad and his companions in Mecca and Medina.

And this is our problem why exactly? I don't understand really. Can someone please clarify?

Couasia wrote:And this is our problem why exactly? I don't understand really. Can someone please clarify?

History of the world and things came to be are a good thing.

You can go back to your x-box now.

Sjovenia wrote:

Respawn wrote:I'm not trying to defend these scum but to be fair, the Nazis burned down historic synagogues, the Soviets did the same with many churches and St Paul's Cathedral was extremely lucky to have survived the Blitz.

Oh I was talking mainly just Heritage sites in general. Not just Religious sites. Like Vatican, Great Wall, Big Ben although I'm pretty sure that got blown to pieces?

Assuming you're using the common colloquial terminology, and are applying the name of the Big Ben bell to the entire clocktower (now officially known as the Elizabeth Tower)....

No, Big Ben was not "blown to pieces" during the Second World War. It suffered some air raid damage (the Palace of Westminster was hit multiple times, and the House of Commons was destroyed in 1941 - perhaps the source of the confusion here), but otherwise the clock remained operational except for 12 hours in June 1941 when - in rather ironic circumstances - a maintenance man repairing air raid damage dropped a hammer into the mechanism. But then Big Ben isn't a religious site; it's the parliament building's clock tower.

More appropriate examples of WWII cultural vandalism with an impact on religious sites would be the Nazi bombings of York and Coventry, and the allied destruction of Monte Cassino and firebombing of Dresden. In all cases the bombing side could offer some form of justification for the attack (despite the "Baedeker Raid" reputation, York was an important railroad junction and centre of train manufacture [and York Minster itself wasn't hit]; Monte Cassino - like Krak des Chevaliers in modern Syria - was a strategically placed historical site that formed a key fortification point for one side in the conflict); in all cases the primary impact was the destruction of important cultural heritage.

And again, I would draw a key distinction between the Wahhabi-inspired destruction of sites (like the Tomb of Jonah or Khadijah's house) for purely ideological reasons, and the destruction/damage of sites via conflict (like the damage to Krak des Chevaliers or the Great Mosque of Aleppo).

Quintium wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:Considering that they say this is to prevent idolatry, one wonders that if they were to ever to take Medina, would they destroy the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi.

The Al-Masjid al-Nabawi that you see today is the umpteenth Al-Masjid al-Nabawi. They've also demolished centuries-old houses once visited by Muhammed himself in Mecca to build hotels and shopping centres, because the people who talk about idolatry also happen to run Saudi Arabia.

A (likely unintentionally) slightly misleading question and answer. The Al-Masjid al-Nabawi has indeed evolved over time, in some cases featuring substantial rebuilding; but then the same is true of St. Peter's in Rome, St. Paul's in London, or York Minster. Even Hagia Sophia - which has been standing since the 6th century - is the third church on its site. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Classical or medieval Christian site where this wasn't true.

A better question from Napkiraly would have been "one wonders that if they were to ever to take Medina, would they destroy the tombs in the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi."

And they already did, and they already have; at least if by "they" we mean "Wahhabi-inspired Islam".

When bin Saud took Medina in 1805, his followers, the Wahhabis, demolished nearly every tomb dome in Medina in order to prevent their veneration, and the [Ottoman] Green Dome [covering Mohammed's tomb, as housed in an earlier 13th-century structure] is said to have narrowly escaped the same fate. [The] Prophet Mohammed 's tomb was stripped of its gold and jewel ornaments, but the dome was preserved either because of an unsuccessful attempt to demolish its hardened structure, or because some time ago Ibn Abd al-Wahhab wrote that he did not wish to see the dome destroyed despite his aversion to people praying at the tomb. Similar events took place in 1925 when the Saudi ikhwans retook—and this time managed to keep—the city. In the Wahabi interpretation of Islam, the veneration of tombs and places thought to possess supernatural powers was an offense against tawhid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masjid_al-Nabawi [some minor edits in square brackets added for clarity].

There are occasional noises from the Saudi religious authorities about demolishing the Green Dome (which also contains the tombs of the Rashidun Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar); but for now it still stands, despite the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi increasingly resembling "Vegas in Hejaz". And given that the latter criticism comes from Muslim Emirati colleagues in Abu Dhabi and Dubai who know a thing or two about garish modern architecture (for obvious reasons I've never been to Medina), it carries some sting.

Similarly, all of the mausoleums at Medina's Al-Baqi' cemetery - where a host of significant figures in Islamic history, including many of Mohammed's family members, are buried - were torn down when the Saudis took the city in 1925. See here for further details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqi.

The same happened at the equally significant Mualla cemetery in Mecca: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannatul_Mualla

Note that in the cases of both cemeteries, the demolitions happened over the objections of the international Islamic community.

It's also worth noting that Medina's less well-known - but almost equally significant - Masjid al-Qiblatain has also recently been renovated by the Saudis. This was the site where Mohammed suddenly announced that he had a revelation that Muslims should pray while facing the Qibla rather than Jerusalem (which had hitherto been the emerging community's preferred practice). As a result, the Masjid al-Qiblatain uniquely contained two mihrabs [prayer niches], one facing Mecca, and one facing Jerusalem. Curiously, the recent Saudi renovation removed the 1400 year old historical mihrab facing Jerusalem. This actually renders the name of the mosque ("the Mosque of the Two Qiblas") rather redundant.

Couasia wrote:And this is our problem why exactly? I don't understand really. Can someone please clarify?

It's a destruction of historical sites.

History = Important.

Czechanada wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:If it causes a Sunni rift, it's a good thing.

We are overdue for some self-correcting from the Sunnis.

After the 30 Years War, Christians of all opinions were sick at heart over their barbarities, and things got better on the religious violence front. I hope that happens soon in Islam.

The Thirty Years War wasn't solely a religious war, mind you.

The current conflict in Iraq/Syria isn't solely religious either.

As for ISIS: Why can't an international military task force consisting of Russia, Western countries and Muslim countries be assemled together to put them down? Now that would be a noble common goal.

On a personal matter: I've been to Syria in 2006, and I've visitied the Krak de Chevaliers, which is a spectacular site. It's very eery to think about what kind of people are now roaming around/occupying that region.

Baltenstein wrote:As for ISIS: Why can't an international military task force consisting of Russia, Western countries and Muslim countries be assemled together to put them down? Now that would be a noble common goal.

Yes, but the problem is that those countries can't agree on what should be done with ISIS territory after ISIS has been put down, and because of this disagreement they can't work together to crush ISIS.

Herskerstad wrote:

Nervium wrote:I always like the story of Jonah.


Why doesn't like anyone deal with ISIS though?

Cause it would be a huge embarrassment if Obama had to put ground troops back into Iraq, so that strikes the US of the list. Cameron and Hollande probably have already funded groups that fund ISIS, so that would be more pie on the face. Germany generally tends to be relatively low profile.

So that pretty much leaves about Italy, which cannot wait to jumpstart a new colonial rush.

Well what of other Nations besides the US?

The Archregimancy wrote:

Sjovenia wrote:Oh I was talking mainly just Heritage sites in general. Not just Religious sites. Like Vatican, Great Wall, Big Ben although I'm pretty sure that got blown to pieces?

Assuming you're using the common colloquial terminology, and are applying the name of the Big Ben bell to the entire clocktower (now officially known as the Elizabeth Tower)....

No, Big Ben was not "blown to pieces" during the Second World War. It suffered some air raid damage (the Palace of Westminster was hit multiple times, and the House of Commons was destroyed in 1941 - perhaps the source of the confusion here), but otherwise the clock remained operational except for 12 hours in June 1941 when - in rather ironic circumstances - a maintenance man repairing air raid damage dropped a hammer into the mechanism. But then Big Ben isn't a religious site; it's the parliament building's clock tower.

More appropriate examples of WWII cultural vandalism with an impact on religious sites would be the Nazi bombings of York and Coventry, and the allied destruction of Monte Cassino and firebombing of Dresden. In all cases the bombing side could offer some form of justification for the attack (despite the "Baedeker Raid" reputation, York was an important railroad junction and centre of train manufacture [and York Minster itself wasn't hit]; Monte Cassino - like Krak des Chevaliers in modern Syria - was a strategically placed historical site that formed a key fortification point for one side in the conflict); in all cases the primary impact was the destruction of important cultural heritage.

And again, I would draw a key distinction between the Wahhabi-inspired destruction of sites (like the Tomb of Jonah or Khadijah's house) for purely ideological reasons, and the destruction/damage of sites via conflict (like the damage to Krak des Chevaliers or the Great Mosque of Aleppo).

Quintium wrote:
The Al-Masjid al-Nabawi that you see today is the umpteenth Al-Masjid al-Nabawi. They've also demolished centuries-old houses once visited by Muhammed himself in Mecca to build hotels and shopping centres, because the people who talk about idolatry also happen to run Saudi Arabia.

A (likely unintentionally) slightly misleading question and answer. The Al-Masjid al-Nabawi has indeed evolved over time, in some cases featuring substantial rebuilding; but then the same is true of St. Peter's in Rome, St. Paul's in London, or York Minster. Even Hagia Sophia - which has been standing since the 6th century - is the third church on its site. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Classical or medieval Christian site where this wasn't true.

A better question from Napkiraly would have been "one wonders that if they were to ever to take Medina, would they destroy the tombs in the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi."

And they already did, and they already have; at least if by "they" we mean "Wahhabi-inspired Islam".

When bin Saud took Medina in 1805, his followers, the Wahhabis, demolished nearly every tomb dome in Medina in order to prevent their veneration, and the [Ottoman] Green Dome [covering Mohammed's tomb, as housed in an earlier 13th-century structure] is said to have narrowly escaped the same fate. [The] Prophet Mohammed 's tomb was stripped of its gold and jewel ornaments, but the dome was preserved either because of an unsuccessful attempt to demolish its hardened structure, or because some time ago Ibn Abd al-Wahhab wrote that he did not wish to see the dome destroyed despite his aversion to people praying at the tomb. Similar events took place in 1925 when the Saudi ikhwans retook—and this time managed to keep—the city. In the Wahabi interpretation of Islam, the veneration of tombs and places thought to possess supernatural powers was an offense against tawhid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masjid_al-Nabawi [some minor edits in square brackets added for clarity].

There are occasional noises from the Saudi religious authorities about demolishing the Green Dome (which also contains the tombs of the Rashidun Caliphs Abu Bakr and Umar); but for now it still stands, despite the Al-Masjid al-Nabawi increasingly resembling "Vegas in Hejaz". And given that the latter criticism comes from Muslim Emirati colleagues in Abu Dhabi and Dubai who know a thing or two about garish modern architecture (for obvious reasons I've never been to Medina), it carries some sting.

Similarly, all of the mausoleums at Medina's Al-Baqi' cemetery - where a host of significant figures in Islamic history, including many of Mohammed's family members, are buried - were torn down when the Saudis took the city in 1925. See here for further details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqi.

The same happened at the equally significant Mualla cemetery in Mecca: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannatul_Mualla

Note that in the cases of both cemeteries, the demolitions happened over the objections of the international Islamic community.

It's also worth noting that Medina's less well-known - but almost equally significant - Masjid al-Qiblatain has also recently been renovated by the Saudis. This was the site where Mohammed suddenly announced that he had a revelation that Muslims should pray while facing the Qibla rather than Jerusalem (which had hitherto been the emerging community's preferred practice). As a result, the Masjid al-Qiblatain uniquely contained two mihrabs [prayer niches], one facing Mecca, and one facing Jerusalem. Curiously, the recent Saudi renovation removed the 1400 year old historical mihrab facing Jerusalem. This actually renders the name of the mosque ("the Mosque of the Two Qiblas") rather redundant.

I've been to York. Really nice, very old and authentic. Dunno how it survived WWII but it did (Houses from the 1300s)

Damned brits...

Alcase wrote:Damned brits...

Is there a problem?

Couasia wrote:And this is our problem why exactly? I don't understand really. Can someone please clarify?

Basically imagine if I, and most other people here, went around smashing various historical things from American History for god, such as Mount Rushmore, Paul Revere's house, the White House, and the Washington Monument, etc.


And they're doing that with the generally more important WORLD History. They're destroying it, which is horrible.

This thread is basically Arch writing extremely substantive and informational posts, complete with sources and images and such, followed by everyone else writing one- or two-liners about how culture is good

Seriously though, this is disgusting. IMHO, if China and Russia want to be world powers so bad, they should join the Western Powers in condemning ISIS and launching a joint intervention.

Cyrisnia wrote:Basically imagine if I, and most other people here, went around smashing various historical things from American History for god, such as Mount Rushmore, Paul Revere's house, the White House, and the Washington Monument, etc.

And they're doing that with the generally more important WORLD History. They're destroying it, which is horrible.

Ah.

The Klishi Islands wrote:This thread is basically Arch writing extremely substantive and informational posts, complete with sources and images and such, followed by everyone else writing one- or two-liners about how culture is good

Seriously though, this is disgusting. IMHO, if China and Russia want to be world powers so bad, they should join the Western Powers in condemning ISIS and launching a joint intervention.

But how exactly does that make them a world power? To me, just because you police the world doesn't make you a world power. A world "Enforcer" and or "Protector" sure but not necessarily a world power.

Sjovenia wrote:

Alcase wrote:Damned brits...

Is there a problem?

Blaming your scholars of certain interest for creating Iraq. Got to admit haven't seen that before.

The Klishi Islands wrote:This thread is basically Arch writing extremely substantive and informational posts, complete with sources and images and such, followed by everyone else writing one- or two-liners about how culture is good

Seriously though, this is disgusting. IMHO, if China and Russia want to be world powers so bad, they should join the Western Powers in condemning ISIS and launching a joint intervention.

Well? China has done it's part for significant historical finds. Take the Caucasoid mummies. They challenged a centric belief of their history. They preserved them versus hiding or worst destroying them.

Even with the question of intervention. I am not sure you will see much of Europe or the US willing to commit ground forces over historical sites. You also have to consider people are still annoyed over those little affairs we called the crusades....

I sincerely hope the Kerak de Chevaliers survives all the kak intact.

Lydenburg wrote:I sincerely hope the Kerak de Chevaliers survives all the kak intact.

It hasn't.

It's an important strategic hill-top location, which is why there's a large medieval castle on that hill top, and why both sides in the conflict have occupied it.

Superficially, the exterior of the castle looks fine, but then those are some fairly massive exterior walls that would take sustained assault to seriously damage. However, I know for a fact that there's been significant damage to the interior of the castle caused by Syrian airstrikes on rebel positions and mortar fire from both sides.

I know the medieval chapel has been virtually destroyed; and where it existed, almost all of the delicate medieval Gothic tracery has collapsed or been damaged. There's also concerns that all of the Crusader frescoes - virtually the only surviving examples of the latter in the Middle East - have been destroyed.

I did have good before and after pictures of the chapel, but I can't find them this morning. If I do find them, I'll try and remember to post them.


Edit:

Found pictures of damage to the interior Gothic architecture via a BBC story - not the professional source I originally had, but good enough





The pictures aren't taken from quite the same angle. The first arch on the left in the upper photo is the second arch from the left in the lower photo.


The BBC article is worth reading for those interested in the topic as it covers a range of examples of damage to Syrian historical sites, with photos: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28191181

Thought I'd post an update on this thread regarding Iraq - the 7th century Assyrian Green Church is the latest to be destroyed by IS militants.

http://www.aina.org/news/20140925012701.htm

Here is a timeline of Mosul's historical decapitation. There are pictures of ancient Assyrian statues being shattered which make my heart ache.

Should we send badass archaeologists to keep ancient religious artifacts from falling into sinister hands?