ABSTRACT
The term iconoclasm mostly is related to events in European history, in particular the Byzantine Iconoclasm and that of the Reformation.1 It seems that the loci classici of iconoclasm may be understood against the background of a broader set of intentions than the strictly religious. One may well argue that iconoclasm has military, political, ideological and economic agendas beside the religious, and that religion at times appears to be a mere pretext. Yet the term iconoclasm should be applied to the destruction of religious objects and heritage, and connected to the religious beliefs and behaviour of one of the parties of the conflict, bearing in mind that the conqueror may have no explicit religious belief and nevertheless destroy the religious heritage and identity of the defeated. This brings us to the question of how best to define religion. Despite numerous attempts to do so, on the basis of function, content, rituals and so on, the concept remains ill-defined.2 If our intention is to use iconoclasm as a broad category we may profit from a similarly wide definition of religion. Thus the imagery and practices of Marxism are often aptly analysed within the category of religious studies, even though Marxism defines itself as a scientific atheistic ideology. The removal and destruction of statues of Stalin and other communist leaders could therefore be included as well as the repeatedly quoted demolition of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in 2003.3 These cases may be labelled secular iconoclasm yet share most of the traits characteristic of religious iconoclasm proper. Thus limiting the definition of iconoclasm to the destruction of religious objects nevertheless results in a rather inclusive understanding of the concept. Religion seems to be one of the strongest forces of identity throughout history, and the destruction of sacred objects therefore takes on particular significance.
