Islam and Representational Imagery?

Question:

Islam and Representational Imagery?

I've heard that many islamic nations forbid the representation of nature in art. What are the reasons for this and what impact has it had on Muslim societies?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: The term for prohibiting the depiction of living (or divine) beings is ANICONISM.

As other respondents have mentioned, versions of Aniconism have been or are practiced not only in Islam, but also in Judaism; in Christianity; and –arguably at least – in Buddhism and in the Bah??ai Faith. A common inter-faith thread in the rationale for Aniconism is the prevention of idolatry. This makes sense, because idol-worshipping Pagans were the common enemies of all monotheistic religions.

Within Islam, while the Qur??an condemns idolatry, it does not go so far as to require Aniconism. It is, in fact, from the Hadith that Islam bases its Aniconism.

In one Hadith, the Prophet Muhammad rebukes his wife Aisha for buying a cushion embroidered with pictures of animals. In another Hadith, we are told that Muhammad obliterated idols and pictures within the Ka??ba, which is now the holiest shrine of Islam. Strangely, however, it appears that Muhammad actually protected pictures of Jesus and Mary displayed within the Ka??ba.

So, even there at the roots of Islamic Aniconism, there is a hint of inconsistency.

Inconsistency in interpretation remained a feature of Aniconism in Islamic history. Allah was never depicted. But there certainly were depictions of humans and animals in Islamic art, both two-and-three-dimensional. From approximately 1400 to 1700, in Persia, Turkey and (Muslim) India there were numerous paintings of biblical and historical humans, including some of Muhammad in person. One apparently permissible device to circumvent Islamic Aniconism during this period was to veil the faces of the humans depicted; but some (including some of Muhammad) were depicted without veils.

In today??s Islamic world, confusion over the requirements of Aniconism continues. Portraits of both secular and religious leaders are commonplace, indeed almost universal, within Islamic societies. They are on banknotes, on photographs cherished in millions of households, and even decorate buses and trucks in countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh. And, of course, they are on TV and on the Internet.

It is, therefore, difficult to say just where the line is drawn between prohibition and acceptance. We know, from recent bitter experience, that non-Muslim Danes are not supposed to draw irreverent cartoons of Muhammad. But we also know that it is, apparently, OK for Muslim cartoonists to draw pictures of Jews, Christians and Hindus depicted as pigs or dogs.

Or ?? does that have nothing to do with Religion, and a lot to do with Politics?