Islamic Iconoclasm

In March 2001, the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan which Finbarr Barry Flood said would define Islamic iconoclasm for many decades to follow. The author argues that the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas does not represent Islam’s attitude towards figuration, but rather a response at a particular moment in time. This point is still true today considering Islam’s view on images has never been the reason for iconoclasm, but what defines iconoclasm has certainly changed in recent years with ISIS’s destruction of artwork. Although Flood does make one good point that can still hold up about iconoclasm today, his article “Between Cult and Culture: Bamiyan, Islamic Iconoclasm, and the Museum” does not contribute to the understanding of ISIS’s destruction of cultural heritage and
Instead it states that one cannot worship an image or another figure besides God, which is referred to as polytheism. Moreover, the Hadith, the words of Prophet Muhammad, has parts that lead some to believe images are prohibited. It is not a universal agreement whether images are allowed or not allowed in Islam. There have been certain cases that refer to why one may preform iconoclastic acts for their own initiative and beliefs. An early example of iconoclasm would be described by writer Evliya Celebi. She wrote about an individual who got an illustrated manuscript that had miniatures in it. He then took his knife and scarped out the eyes, drew lines through their throats, or smuggled the faces. Later when an auctioneer opened up the manuscript he was shocked and horrified by what this man had done. This iconoclast later was lashed and stoned for what he did (Flood, 645). This example shows that iconoclasm occurs due to one’s personal beliefs but Islam itself is not the reason for iconoclasm. People have their own motives that can spark inspiration for iconoclasm but the religion is not the reason