Photography is a Sin, According to India’s Leading Islamic Seminary

I wonder which specific sentence in the traditional texts makes photography sinful, since they were certainly written centuries before any type of photographic equipment were invented...
 
Well, that doesn't surprise me. If the truth were known, they probably outlaw toilet paper as well.
 
pakeha said:
well done, give the minority extremists as much coverage as you can:bang:
Click to expand...
Quite. Certainly, the Muslims I know are not loonies like that. But then again, I don't know many right-wing born-again Christian loonies either. It's always all too easy for those who naturally foam at the mouth to demonize any group they may choose. Who's for all gays being mad rapist paedophiles?

The photographic exhibition that Frances and I had at Arles this year was in a shop owned (and run, on the spot) by a Muslim.

Cheers,

R.
 
I've had middle eastern guys on the street of NYC tell me it is illegal to photograph people in public without their permission. I just tell them that it may be where they lived previously (if they lived elsewhere outside the US) but it's not the case in NYC. They are genuinely shocked and have a hard time believing me. Perhaps these cultural and religious beliefs come into play.

I just tell them that if they don't want their photo taken in public in the US, they can ask not to and most photographers will comply with their wishes. However, if you tell them it is illegal, most photographers will have a chip on their shoulder and will try to prove a point.
 
pakeha said:
well done, give the minority extremists as much coverage as you can:bang:
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Is it really so extreme? I wonder too if it is so much a minority, India does have more Muslims than Saudi Arabia for instance. But then again Indonesia has even more, and I don't think I've heard of anybody in Indonesia declaring photography (in general at least) to be a sin.

I suppose like many things in religion it's all up to who interprets what.
 
I assume the seminary think it is wrong to take pictures of people, but it may very well be that they have no objections to pictures of objects - say for a technical manual. Religion and religious views are not subjects to be discussed in this forum, but I think it may be OK to discuss (for clarification, not for bashing...) issues involving religious views' impact on photography.

The idea could probably be summed up as: If there is a God, He has to be perfect. Any attempt to try to make something (or more importantly; someone) look better than they are, would be like lying or trying to be a better artist than God Himself.

We may or may not accept this point of view, but as always it is a good idea to try to understand the background, cultural context and philosophy before hammering down harsh comments on the computer keyboard... :)
 
Food for thought: If anyone finds it difficult to understand how and why some people get extreme in their religious views, there are a number of threads on this forum where Leicaism may be observed... ;)

(I have a Leica myself, but I don't make it an object of worship... :angel:)
 
This isn't about giving extremists as much publicity as possible, it's about exposing limited thinking to the light of reason.
 
Rune said:
I assume the seminary think it is wrong to take pictures of people, but it may very well be that they have no objections to pictures of objects - say for a technical manual. Religion and religious views are not subjects to be discussed in this forum, but I think it may be OK to discuss (for clarification, not for bashing...) issues involving religious views' impact on photography.

The idea could probably be summed up as: If there is a God, He has to be perfect. Any attempt to try to make something (or more importantly; someone) look better than they are, would be like lying or trying to be a better artist than God Himself.

We may or may not accept this point of view, but as always it is a good idea to try to understand the background, cultural context and philosophy before hammering down harsh comments on the computer keyboard... :)
Click to expand...
True, but once you get into theology, there's not always that much scope for reason. For example, I'd suggest that blasphemy is impossible, because any deity that is weak enough to be harmed by blasphemy ain't much of a deity, and any professed believer who finds blasphemy offensive enough to warrant temporal punishment is not really convinced that they're right. If they were, they'd simply treat the "blasphemers" as misguided. This is not to say that "blasphemy" may not offend people: only that those who are too deeply offended are not bothering to think things through.

Cheers,

R.
 
FrankS said:
This isn't about giving extremists as much publicity as possible, it's about exposing limited thinking to the light of reason.
Click to expand...

So far as I know the Amish are not very fond of taking pictures, or having their picture taken either. They have their own views of light and reason of course. Just as any religion does. Reason like most things is relative to one's experiences. It is of course sort of funny to think of the Amish as "extremists" but they are in a sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom