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

There are a number of Muslims who post regularly on RFF. They don't seem to have a problem with photography, and neither do most other Muslims. Islamic religious art traditionally has avoided depicting people and animals because those could be worshipped as idols. Some Christian groups feel like that as well, and so far as I know Jewish religious art also avoids depictions of people.

That said, most Muslims have no problem with photos or art depicting ordinary people (not religious figures like Muhammed), and some Muslim societies HAVE produced paintings and drawings of Muhammed. Iran, Turkey, and the central Asian Muslim khanates like Bokhara were especially noted for such art, which was often made to illustrate religious books.

Here's an example:

Muhammad_1514.jpg


This is an illustration of Muhammed's Night Journey, from a book of Persian poetry published in Bokhara (modern-day Uzbekistan) in the 16th century. The Prophet is shown riding a horse. The photo is from Wikimedia, and is public domain according to the site (in case anyone wants to start foaming at the mouth over copyright).
 
Not to start a debate. But I was in a coma for eight weeks and am positive there is an after life, take it for what it's worth or not.
 
kbg32 said:
http://petapixel.com/2013/09/11/photography-sin-according-indias-leading-islamic-seminary/
Click to expand...

This interpretation of the Koran is gullible, even by today's standard of islamic integralists: while it is true that it is forbidden to paint Muhammad for obvious reasons (if they could they would make him like a saint of the Catholic Church, in some places people preaches more the saint than God) in Islam there is a long tradition of portraits of important people, the Ottoman Emperors first.

Even extremists like Osama Bin Laden or Khomeini never had problems with people taking pictures at them!

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
There are a number of Muslims who post regularly on RFF. They don't seem to have a problem with photography, and neither do most other Muslims. Islamic religious art traditionally has avoided depicting people and animals because those could be worshipped as idols. Some Christian groups feel like that as well, and so far as I know Jewish religious art also avoids depictions of people.

That said, most Muslims have no problem with photos or art depicting ordinary people (not religious figures like Muhammed), and some Muslim societies HAVE produced paintings and drawings of Muhammed. Iran, Turkey, and the central Asian Muslim khanates like Bokhara were especially noted for such art, which was often made to illustrate religious books.

Here's an example:

Muhammad_1514.jpg


This is an illustration of Muhammed's Night Journey, from a book of Persian poetry published in Bokhara (modern-day Uzbekistan) in the 16th century. The Prophet is shown riding a horse. The photo is from Wikimedia, and is public domain according to the site (in case anyone wants to start foaming at the mouth over copyright).
Click to expand...

This is the first time I see a paint of Muhammed...not that I'm an expert of islamic law (I worship Godan, Tyr and Thor, these guys were serious Gods) but interesting indeed.

The Islamic council of India should be a littel more informed about Islam it seems. Somebody should write them a memo.
 
Wulfthari said:
This is the first time I see a paint of Muhammed...not that I'm an expert of islamic law (I worship Godan, Tyr and Thor, these guys were serious Gods) but interesting indeed.

The Islamic council of India should be a littel more informed about Islam it seems. Somebody should write them a memo.
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert in Islamic theology either, but I have studied art history and the history of the Muslim world quite a bit. There are a lot of paintings like this. As I said, most are small pieces done as illustrations for books, and most were made by Iranian and Turkish artists. Bokhara, where this came from, was a Persian city. The land that is now Uzbekistan had Persian townsmen and Uzbek (Uzbeks are a Turkic people) people in the rural areas.

Arabs generally did not produce any of this kind of art.
 
Most native/primative cultures in the world have/had this view. Of course, they will always get around it by asking for cash. Example, San Blas Indians in Panama'. I paid to take this shot in 1972.

2491135082_71e7d9886e.jpg
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.
Click to expand...

So Lomography is Ok then

David
 
tunalegs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course they are. It's just that what they are 'extreme' about isn't generally that harmful.

A worldwide rise in Jain extremism would worry no one.
 
Navajo Indians do not allow adults to be photographed so that their souls are not stolen.
 
It's interesting that many religous must-do's have had some scientific foundation for survival. Not eating pork - trichinosis & parasites, perhaps the linen and wool is to prevent anthrax infection? This may be the only way they were able to pass on these survival techniques.

Now in this day and age, perhaps we should consider some of these other "Must-do's" in a similar vain. I would argue that photography HAS stolen some souls, although not in the way they profess - can you say "Miley" or "Lindsay"? Too much self-attention and promotion is not necessarily good.

I don't care to have them cram their beliefs down my throat, nor attack me if I don't agree. They are free to believe what they want. But perhaps underneath much of what they say there is perhaps a nugget of truth. Perhaps their burka is a response to our twerking bikinis.

Now relative to Cosmo's comment about the coma, I would love to hear that story. I find these things fascinating and like to learn all I can.

If they don't wish to be photographed, I will be happy to respect that. If they want money, I can respect that too, being a true capitalist. But preventing me from doing what I like with those who it does not offend is really NONE of their business.
 
I think the proclamator of the fatwah probably got beat out at the Bert Stern "Last Sitting" auction, so now no one is allowed any pleasure from photography.

PF
 
raid said:
A religion may have many different interpretations depending on the sect.
Click to expand...

So true Raid. The Hispanic Catholics in Florida will take their statues to church on Christmas Eve to have them blessed. The Filipinos have similar tradition. I was raised that this was idolatry and not to be done.

Yet we all have the same Pope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom