Taliban To Impose Media Ban On Images Of Living Things
www.rferl.org
Afghanistan's Taliban morality ministry pledged on October 14 to implement a law banning news media from publishing images of all living things, with journalists told the rule will be gradually enforced.
  • PonyOfWar@pawb.socialEnglish
    1833·
    2 months ago

    No music, no images… two things that have defined Human culture for millennia. The Taliban must really love leading a miserable existence.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      101·
      2 months ago

      Well, I know less about music, but iconoclasm is a pretty traditional feature of Islam. That’s why they have all the crazy geometrical art everywhere.

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      2 months ago

      And the Afghans have had music and art since forever, well after their conversion to Islam. The taliban are freaks.

      • Cadeillac@lemmy.worldEnglish
        415·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, sending troops to Israel sure helps Hamas. Wanting Israel to stop killing innocents and children sure is wanting Hamas to be in charge. Try harder next time

        • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          133·
          2 months ago

          Imagine living in 1940’s Europe and saying the sentence “oh, look, it’s the Zionist apologists again” when someone criticised the Nazis.

          No, no. I’m not arguing you in anything. Just take 10 seconds and imagine that scenario as vividly as you can.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    911·
    2 months ago

    Make sure that mountain is free of any trees before taking that scenic picture.

    This essentially bans all photography - it’s fucking weird.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      541·
      2 months ago

      Afghan Art exhibition:
      Here’s a picture of a brick.

      Afghan religious leader:
      Should we execute him? Just to be safe you know!

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            8·
            2 months ago

            See, that’s what we need to settle the debate about the biological status of viruses. A fatwa.

            Maybe they can decide between tabs and spaces next.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          13·
          2 months ago

          Ah yes, I guess we better execute him, the whole thing smells fishy, like an attempt to oppose authority.

            • xmunk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              7·
              2 months ago

              Get them - err, I mean get that thing which may or may not be a person… but, if they are currently a person, I’m sure it’s just a very temporary condition.

            • floofloof@lemmy.caEnglish
              5·
              2 months ago

              What if my own blasphemous eyes and mind keep creating images of living things?

            • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
              51·
              2 months ago

              Goddammit I’m just trying to keep us safe from immorality! Or worse questioning authority. 😋

              • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
                4·
                2 months ago

                “Keeping us safe”, yeah, sure. Squad, this one. Also the one above. And the fellow below, too. Goddamn infidels, destroying our lovely… Uh, lovely… Lovely love for living in the present, yes! Just as the prophet would’ve wanted!

        • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          2 months ago

          Bacteria, spores, and other microscopic life are in every picture taken of the natural world at a minimum.

    • Dicska@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      Nah, you just have to photoshop X eyes and a stuck out tongue on every living thing. They didn’t say anything about dead things.

    • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      I wonder where the limit is.

      Like is it just photos or all depictions? If it’s all depictions, how far does it go? Will certainly combinations of letters be banned? :O :P :) \o/

      If so, will kanji be banned as well? We Lemmings all know this one by now

      :.|:;

      And I don’t know any actual kanji but I do know lots of their origins are depictions of living things, plants, animals, people.

  • ⓝⓞ🅞🅝🅔@lemmy.caEnglish
    361·
    2 months ago

    I really, really wish the linked article explained more. What are they playing at? This is such a confusing level of control.

      • Obinice@lemmy.worldEnglish
        20·
        2 months ago

        Okay but what about the image cast on our retinas through our eyeballs that we use to see?

        Those are imperfect imitations of reality also. What’s their stance on those images…

      • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        2 months ago

        But apparently written religious works or talking about god’s work is perfect, or that would be banned too.

      • floofloof@lemmy.caEnglish
        3·
        2 months ago

        Why only images of sentient beings though? Did God not create the rest of it too?

      • freeman@feddit.orgEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        I knew someone who believed that it sucks the soul out of you if you get photographed…

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      172·
      2 months ago

      God doesn’t want you to mix fabrics or eat certain foods on certain days. “Confusing level of control” is on brand.

      It’s not about making sense though. It’s about making you do what they want so that you know who is in control.

      • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
        131·
        2 months ago

        Not mixing fabrics and certain food practices were originally based on lived experience, like safety guidance, before getting coopted by religion. Kosher practices avoid cross contamination, and mixed fabrics could have something to do with temperature regulation in desert areas where it swings between extreme heat and cold daily. Or it could have existed to discourage lying about prodict quality by those who would sneak in poor quality materials.

        When religion got ahold of these concepts they were absolutely twisted into controlling people.

      • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
        52·
        2 months ago

        These are not rules of Islam though. On the contrary Islam made many rules of Judaism obsolete, taking away complication in religion. Islam also provided a much clearer theology than Christianity and specifically rejects the “trinity”, “holy people” and other concepts contrary to the oneness of god.

        What the Taliban and other Salafi/Wahabi people do, is quite fringe and it is infuriating that the Brits and later the Americans helped the Saudis to seize power in Arabia and furthered these extremist interpretations.

          • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
            31·
            2 months ago

            Ramadan does not have rules about what to eat. The rules are when to eat and quie straightforward. During Ramadan you fast from Dawn till sunset, unless fasting poses a risk to your health (sick, children, elderly, pregnant…)

            • WldFyre@lemm.eeEnglish
              11·
              2 months ago

              Oh well that makes complete sense and isn’t about control at all!

              /s

              • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
                21·
                2 months ago

                As someone who has fasted for Ramadan the first time this year i can assure you, that nobody was controlling me except myself. While i also felt it to help me physically, it helped me a lot mentally.

                I learned to appreciate the abundance of food and water we have and to have more compassion for people lacking it.

                I also learned to have more control over my body and differentiate between actual needs and mere wants.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
      10·
      2 months ago

      According to wikipedia, that isn’t even a problem within the Quran itself, but rather a hadith (oral tradition) from some other fellow: “Sahih Bukhari explicitly prohibits the making of images of living beings, challenging painters to “breathe life” into their images and threatening them with punishment on the Day of Judgment.”

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
        142·
        2 months ago

        But they still have TV, right? They did the last time the Taliban was in charge. I remember a news segment about it way back when the war started. The programming was mostly a bunch of religious stuff and their idea of news. So I guess no more news? Or no more TV? Or just text…

        • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          7·
          2 months ago

          The russian way is to set up extremely restrictive laws covering everyone as guilty, so a governing body can use them to charge everyone they want. I guess, talibs learnt some of that wisdom visiting Kremlin while being a designated terrorist organization here, kek - and this status would get lifted in coming months.

        • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
          6·
          2 months ago

          I suspect some of them might still have cell phones with internet. I wonder if they’ll also force people to use text images as avatars on twitter or something

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    26·
    2 months ago

    That’s accurate to historical Islamic practice, unlike a lot of their crazy shit, but nobody else does it because it’s going to be insanely difficult to work with.

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.eeEnglish
      24·
      2 months ago

      Except historically the arts flourished under Islamic rule. While Islam does have an anti icon streaks it was never enforced save for the depiction of the prophet Mohammad.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          41·
          2 months ago

          Yeah, they were big on arts (and had the civilisation to actually sponsor a lot of it) but with a strong bent towards geometric and abstract art, and calligraphy. Y’know, like mosques are famously covered in.

          They also had a thing for water features and gardens, which are the actual articles instead of mere depictions. I’m wondering now if they had much in the way of zoos.

  • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.worldEnglish
    111·
    2 months ago

    Obviously I’m not pro Taliban or this, but one thing that has been amusing me has been the US institute for peace decrying the fact that they outlawed poppy production again because it increases poverty. Western media on the subject is a mixture of it’s bad and it won’t work (they’ve actually reduced poppy production by over 90 percent though). Pre war we were justifying sanctions due to heroin production, post war it actually increased under American administration and the fragile kleptocracy we encouraged(which “banned” poppy production), and now it’s bad they’re slashing and burning poppy fields.

    https://www.usip.org/publications/2023/06/talibans-successful-opium-ban-bad-afghans-and-world

  • Zement@feddit.nlEnglish
    8·
    2 months ago

    Now it’s just a bunch of religious fascists trying to one up each other.

    Give it enough time and they have implemented so many rules, no rule is relevant any more

  • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    7·
    2 months ago

    Are you Taliban and want someone dead, but frustrated with your fundamentalist movement’s pesky adherence to the rule of law? Upset at the heretic you can’t quite get proof of? Overbearing parents trying to arrange another marriage?

    With new Taliban Ban on Images of Living Things®, you are back in the driver’s seat. Just take a picture of your target. After it’s done, the authorities will be practically begging you to murder that person to prevent the inevitable consequences, including the collapse of society and the rending of the fabric of space-time.