4 ms·

That's definitely not Islamic art, though. Islamic art quite notably does not depict humans or animals, and instead combines calligraphy and geometric patterns

That's definitely not Islamic art, though. Islamic art quite notably does not depict humans or animals, and instead combines calligraphy and geometric patterns (and floral, maybe? I'm not entirely sure). You should definitely check that out too, though, it's beautiful! As for this art piece, I think it would certainly cause some controversy. I'm a Muslim myself, and afaik depictions of living beings are discouraged, and depictions of the Prophet (PBUH) are a no-no (though perhaps I should mention that I do believe firing that teacher was absolutely the wrong decision, and what she did was not at all an instance of Islamophobia).

tptacek 4y ago
Sunni Islamic art doesn't depict humans or animals, but my understanding is that's actually not a universal characteristic of Islam. You'd know better than I do, but Ken White (who is not a Muslim) pretty stridently takes the university to task for universalizing the anti-art stance to all of Islam, as opposed to the specific sects involved. Is he wrong?
- atlintots 4y ago
  No, he's not wrong. It's definitely not a universal stance. My own belief (based on my sect) is that the depictions that the Prophet (PBUH) banned were done so to discourage idolatry among muslims (much more relevant at that time than now). Beyond that, there is little to suggest that Islam explicitly forbids art depicting humans. In the case of prophets though, I think it is discouraged (by muslims) largely to prevent misattributing features or misrepresenting them (and of course, mockery as well). I should add, there is probably a bit of miscommunication when people use the term "Islamic art". Some may mean art that does not violate Islamic principles (whatever those may be to them), others may take it to refer specifically to the typical aniconistic style of art that has now become synonymous with "Islamic art" (at least that's what I, admittedly, thought of in my previous comment), or perhaps art originating from muslim territories / made by muslims, etc.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Gotcha. This is super helpful, thank you so much for taking the time.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  He's wront imo, and it's important to keep in mind the almost complete opposition in belief between sunni islam and shiism, w.r.t idolatry and iconoclasm. The difference is so wide that I don't think it makes sense to speak about a universal islamic characteristic on that subject. Just as an example, in sunnism even the grave of the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is basically completely anonymous and unremarkable, to the point where you wouldn't know about it even if you were right in front of it. That's to avoid any grave worshiping, or ritualistic "pilgrimage." Shiism, on the other hand, involves a LOT of rituals around saint worshipping, huge shrines, and important relics. Because of that, representations of saints and even the prophet are a lot, lot less problematic (and even mainstream, with portraits of Husayn being common in religious ceremonies). Even then, Persian art was historically even less restrictive than the mainstream modern shia tendency of not really representing the prophet itself anymore. Now, you might say that this proves Ken White's point, but it really doesn't!. The reality is that for most muslims, sunnism being the biggest denomination by far, there is really no debate that this type of representation is completely forbidden. There is also virtually no disagreement on the subject between the different sunni branches (who usually are pretty similar in general anyways). The only rift is between sunnis and shias, but it is so wide that it makes no sense to even lump the two groups together in this conversation. It's not just a sectarian disagreement over interpretation that could be open for debate, it's almost two completely different approaches and beliefs. So basically those "specific sects" would basically include 99.99% of practicing sunnis, all branches of sunnism, and every sunni religious authority. That's more than 80-85% of muslims, including shias. So there is definitely some universality of opinion here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dekhn 4y ago
Sorry, I guess I should have said "Persian" art? I'm having trouble finding the origin of the painting, this is about it: "The illustration was originally found in a work of history called “The Compendium of Chronicles” (or “Jami al-Tawarikh” in Arabic) by Rashid al-Din Hamadani (1247–1318), a Persian physician and bureaucrat who served the Mongol conquerors of Iran in the 13th and 14th centuries." Dunno if I agree all Islamic art doesnt depic humans, that does not agree with what I've seen in museums. Also, since it's a representation of an event that occurred in islam, I thin kit's not entirely unfair to say it's "islamic art" even if it was created by a Persian jew.

tptacek 4y ago

Sunni Islamic art doesn't depict humans or animals, but my understanding is that's actually not a universal characteristic of Islam. You'd know better than I do, but Ken White (who is not a Muslim) pretty stridently takes the university to task for universalizing the anti-art stance to all of Islam, as opposed to the specific sects involved. Is he wrong?

atlintots 4y ago
No, he's not wrong. It's definitely not a universal stance. My own belief (based on my sect) is that the depictions that the Prophet (PBUH) banned were done so to discourage idolatry among muslims (much more relevant at that time than now). Beyond that, there is little to suggest that Islam explicitly forbids art depicting humans. In the case of prophets though, I think it is discouraged (by muslims) largely to prevent misattributing features or misrepresenting them (and of course, mockery as well). I should add, there is probably a bit of miscommunication when people use the term "Islamic art". Some may mean art that does not violate Islamic principles (whatever those may be to them), others may take it to refer specifically to the typical aniconistic style of art that has now become synonymous with "Islamic art" (at least that's what I, admittedly, thought of in my previous comment), or perhaps art originating from muslim territories / made by muslims, etc.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Gotcha. This is super helpful, thank you so much for taking the time.
mardifoufs 4y ago
He's wront imo, and it's important to keep in mind the almost complete opposition in belief between sunni islam and shiism, w.r.t idolatry and iconoclasm. The difference is so wide that I don't think it makes sense to speak about a universal islamic characteristic on that subject. Just as an example, in sunnism even the grave of the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is basically completely anonymous and unremarkable, to the point where you wouldn't know about it even if you were right in front of it. That's to avoid any grave worshiping, or ritualistic "pilgrimage." Shiism, on the other hand, involves a LOT of rituals around saint worshipping, huge shrines, and important relics. Because of that, representations of saints and even the prophet are a lot, lot less problematic (and even mainstream, with portraits of Husayn being common in religious ceremonies). Even then, Persian art was historically even less restrictive than the mainstream modern shia tendency of not really representing the prophet itself anymore. Now, you might say that this proves Ken White's point, but it really doesn't!. The reality is that for most muslims, sunnism being the biggest denomination by far, there is really no debate that this type of representation is completely forbidden. There is also virtually no disagreement on the subject between the different sunni branches (who usually are pretty similar in general anyways). The only rift is between sunnis and shias, but it is so wide that it makes no sense to even lump the two groups together in this conversation. It's not just a sectarian disagreement over interpretation that could be open for debate, it's almost two completely different approaches and beliefs. So basically those "specific sects" would basically include 99.99% of practicing sunnis, all branches of sunnism, and every sunni religious authority. That's more than 80-85% of muslims, including shias. So there is definitely some universality of opinion here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dekhn 4y ago

Sorry, I guess I should have said "Persian" art? I'm having trouble finding the origin of the painting, this is about it: "The illustration was originally found in a work of history called “The Compendium of Chronicles” (or “Jami al-Tawarikh” in Arabic) by Rashid al-Din Hamadani (1247–1318), a Persian physician and bureaucrat who served the Mongol conquerors of Iran in the 13th and 14th centuries." Dunno if I agree all Islamic art doesnt depic humans, that does not agree with what I've seen in museums. Also, since it's a representation of an event that occurred in islam, I thin kit's not entirely unfair to say it's "islamic art" even if it was created by a Persian jew.