Sculpture

Line 78:

According to Alireza A’rafi, while explicit statements from early scholars regarding the prohibition to keep sculptures or the obligation to destroy them are not found, some jurists' statements can be interpreted to imply this obligation<ref>Abidinzadeh, Mujassameh wa Naqqashi: Taqrirat-e Dars-e Ayatollah A’arafi, p. 552.</ref>. The evidence that may indicate the obligation to destroy sculptures and the prohibition to keep them include:

• Just as creating a sculpture is considered disliked (makruh) by God, its existence is also disliked (makruh)<ref>Rouhani, Fiqh al-Sadiq, Vol. 14, p. 238.</ref>. Therefore, what implies the prohibition of sculpture-making also suggests the obligation to destroy it<ref>Sheikh Ansari, Kitab al-Makasib, Vol. 1, p. 193.</ref>. However, Sheikh Ansari believes that, based on narrations, only creating a sculpture is prohibited, but its existence is not disliked (makruh) in the view of God to conclude that destroying it is obligatory. Similarly, Mohammad Fazel Lankarani believes that there is no ~~explicit obligation~~ between the prohibition of sculpture and the necessity to destroy it<ref>Fazel Lankarani, Tafsil al-Shari'ah: Al-Makasib al-Muharramah, p. 157-158.</ref>.

• Just as creating a sculpture is considered disliked (makruh) by God, its existence is also disliked (makruh)<ref>Rouhani, Fiqh al-Sadiq, Vol. 14, p. 238.</ref>. Therefore, what implies the prohibition of sculpture-making also suggests the obligation to destroy it<ref>Sheikh Ansari, Kitab al-Makasib, Vol. 1, p. 193.</ref>. However, Sheikh Ansari believes that, based on narrations, only creating a sculpture is prohibited, but its existence is not disliked (makruh) in the view of God to conclude that destroying it is obligatory. Similarly, Mohammad Fazel Lankarani believes that there is no no necessary connection between the prohibition of sculpture and the necessity to destroy it<ref>Fazel Lankarani, Tafsil al-Shari'ah: Al-Makasib al-Muharramah, p. 157-158.</ref>.

• There are narrations where breaking sculptures is commanded<ref>Kulayni, Al-Kafi, Vol. 13, p. 233.</ref>. However, scholars like [[Sayyid Mohammad Sadeq Rohani]] and Mohammad Fazel Lankarani argue that these narrations specifically refer to cases where sculptures are used as idols for worship and veneration<ref>Rouhani, Fiqh al-Sadiq, Vol. 14, p. 240; Fazel Lankarani, Tafsil al-Shari'ah: Al-Makasib al-Muharramah, p. 142.</ref>.

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 According to Alireza A’rafi, while explicit statements from early scholars regarding the prohibition to keep sculptures or the obligation to destroy them are not found, some jurists' statements can be interpreted to imply this obligation<ref>Abidinzadeh, Mujassameh wa Naqqashi: Taqrirat-e Dars-e Ayatollah A’arafi, p. 552.</ref>. The evidence that may indicate the obligation to destroy sculptures and the prohibition to keep them include:
-•	Just as creating a sculpture is considered disliked (makruh) by God, its existence is also disliked (makruh)<ref>Rouhani, Fiqh al-Sadiq, Vol. 14, p. 238.</ref>. Therefore, what implies the prohibition of sculpture-making also suggests the obligation to destroy it<ref>Sheikh Ansari, Kitab al-Makasib, Vol. 1, p. 193.</ref>. However, Sheikh Ansari believes that, based on narrations, only creating a sculpture is prohibited, but its existence is not disliked (makruh) in the view of God to conclude that destroying it is obligatory. Similarly, Mohammad Fazel Lankarani believes that there is no explicit obligation between the prohibition of sculpture and the necessity to destroy it<ref>Fazel Lankarani, Tafsil al-Shari'ah: Al-Makasib al-Muharramah, p. 157-158.</ref>.
+•	Just as creating a sculpture is considered disliked (makruh) by God, its existence is also disliked (makruh)<ref>Rouhani, Fiqh al-Sadiq, Vol. 14, p. 238.</ref>. Therefore, what implies the prohibition of sculpture-making also suggests the obligation to destroy it<ref>Sheikh Ansari, Kitab al-Makasib, Vol. 1, p. 193.</ref>. However, Sheikh Ansari believes that, based on narrations, only creating a sculpture is prohibited, but its existence is not disliked (makruh) in the view of God to conclude that destroying it is obligatory. Similarly, Mohammad Fazel Lankarani believes that there is no no necessary connection between the prohibition of sculpture and the necessity to destroy it<ref>Fazel Lankarani, Tafsil al-Shari'ah: Al-Makasib al-Muharramah, p. 157-158.</ref>.
 •	There are narrations where breaking sculptures is commanded<ref>Kulayni, Al-Kafi, Vol. 13, p. 233.</ref>. However, scholars like [[Sayyid Mohammad Sadeq Rohani]] and Mohammad Fazel Lankarani argue that these narrations specifically refer to cases where sculptures are used as idols for worship and veneration<ref>Rouhani, Fiqh al-Sadiq, Vol. 14, p. 240; Fazel Lankarani, Tafsil al-Shari'ah: Al-Makasib al-Muharramah, p. 142.</ref>.

Sculpture: Difference between revisions