[Dylflon]

Here's part of a presentation I did about Islam and the Image that might drop some knowledge bombs:

In his article Islam and the Image, Salah Stetie provides some foregrounding that helps explain Islam's mistrust of representational images and why Islam historically forbids pictorial representation of human beings and other living things. Of importance are the metaphysical ideas which Muslims use to understand time. Stetie explains that Muslims do not view time as sequential but rather as a succession of moments without shape or continuity. In addition, the shapes that we see are merely temporary combinations of atoms that will inevitably change or pass away. In Islam, the only permanent being is God. To create an image such as a painting goes against these basic principles as the artist that paints a human being, creates a figure whose permanence exceeds that of man and gains an unnatural longevity as well as potentially cements a moment in time. This attempt at permanence could be read as an affront to God.

Also problematic for orthodox Muslims is the act of creation inherent in artistic practices. In creating representational forms that could potentially go on to influence people to think or do certain things, artists put themselves on the same level as God, and moreover, in creating representational images, these artists are mimicking God's very creations.

The other issue of images for Islam is historical, since images were the chief tools of polytheists. Pagans worshipped idols and images that were representative of their various Gods, and it is this practice that explains Islam's aversion to such images and objects. As we saw in The Message, monotheism could not truly and finally take root until these idols were destroyed. In such a rudimentary society, it is not unreasonable to fear the power of the image especially with the pagan tradition as a testament to such power. In order to ensure that these created figures did not divert the faithful from prayer, idolatry had to be done away with.

Understandably, this has had a major and lasting impact on art in the Muslim world. Since most arts were originally inherited from idolatry, Islamic religions don't do much in the way of nurturing them. That of course is not to say that there is no Muslim art, as art was not outright prohibited. However, what art did exist conformed to Muslim principles and artists were forced to find ways of not arousing the ire of the Islamic community. For example, in order to emphasize that God is the only permanent thing in the universe, Muslim art places an emphasis on change. And as not to imitate the creator, the rule among much of art forbids representation of live figures. If artists wanted to draw or sculpt animals or people, they would have to do things like behead or maim them so that they were not representing something capable of life. Though it seems strange that painting a beheaded dog would be more acceptable than a painting of a normal one. In carpet weaving or on coats of arms, artists would adorn their art with made up creatures such as gryphons or phoenixes, since nobody could argue that these were actual living things. Another practice was to make animals resemble flowers which incidentally like other plant life were less contested when illustrated. This is most likely because as Ryder mentioned earlier, plants have less symbolic power than beings with living spirits.

However, bathhouses had the rare privilege of being allowed to house paintings with representational figures since “in the eyes of orthodox Muslims, that part of the house is too despicable for a painting to lend itself to the slightest equivocation, [or] the smallest spiritual danger”.

One is left to wonder though why this aversion to images continues despite the fact that monotheism has clearly prevailed over pagan faiths and the thought of worshipping a statue is not one that would readily enter one's mind.

Some believe that these rules come from the Koran. There is a saying of the Prophet to the effect that “on the day of resurrection, painters will be the men to suffer most.”
But this saying came about at a time when “painting was conceived only for the purposes of entertainment or adoration” and was most likely aimed entirely at idolatry and not our current conceptions of artistic practice. In fact, according to Stetie, the Koran says nothing definitive on the subject. The most likely reason why this condemnation of representational art continued was because of the literal interpretation of certain Koran passages by spiritual leaders or through those leaders' own imposed rules.

However, one rule that seems to be undisputed amongst Muslims is that the prophet Muhammad is not to be depicted in any way, the central concern being that people would begin to worship Muhammad through images and focus less on God and his message. This is especially important given Muhammad's teachings which state that he is nothing more than a man chosen by God to spread his message and is not to be put above any other man. However, the relationship between how Muhammad wishes to be perceived and how he is portrayed creates an unintended issue. Or rather, I should say in the way he is not portrayed. It could become difficult to perceive Muhammad as simply a man when an entire religion insists that he nor his family members can never be depicted. Nobody can gain a sense of the things that made him like other men. If there were a picture depicting Muhammad as an old frail man (as he undoubtedly was before passing on), people would be able to gain an understanding of his mortality. However, in being unable to see him and hearing him referred to as a Prophet could easily cause people to perceive him not only as more than just a man, but also a man who is above other men. Although this train of thought may be irrelevant since there are a million pictures of Jesus looking like some hippy and much of the western world accepts him as God or at the very least as someone who has godly magic powers. These issues of representation become especially complex when one tries to make a film about Muhammad.

By and large, cinema has faced far less opposition than other art forms. Part of this must be because as it is an art form created in more contemporary and progressive times, a modern Muslim understands that films will not necessarily draw worship away from God. Additionally, films are incapable of fulfilling the role of the idol since as a simple object, the film reel has no inherent power. In contrast to all other image based art forms, film does not stop a static moment in time, and therefore does not contrast with the Muslim feelings about permanence. Film actually keeps in line with Islamic artistic practice which focuses on change. The image on the film screen is constantly changing, each frame flickering for a fraction of a second before disappearing. Films also showcase the fickleness of living beings and fate as in some films we see things and people deteriorate, thus highlighting the impermanence of man and object alike. To take it a step further, film itself even deteriorates, so what's not to like? Film also avoids the pitfall of artists putting themselves on the same level as God in terms of creation. The filmmaker is not creating their own representations of living things, but rather capturing the things that God has already created. For these reasons, cinema is a very useful artistic tool for Islam, especially since as Charkawi says in his article, “the cinema is the most readily understood and most persuasive of all idioms of art”. From there it's a short step to conclude that cinema would be the perfect tool to spread the story of Islam. Yet, this is difficult as even film is not exempt from the prohibition on images of Muhammad.

How does one even go about portraying a religion in film, that refuses the portrayal of most of the key figures in its foundation? For many years, one simply didn't. Several attempts at films about the life of the Prophet were made prior to the release of the message, but were met with swift and raucous opposition. In 1925, Wada Orfy, a Turkish writer, attempted to make a film about Muhammad that would depict the Prophet and was tried in court as a result. Italian and American companies attempted co-productions with Egypt to make religious films dealing with the life of the Prophet and despite willing to accept all conditions of censorship, were still denied. This opposition is understandable, since not only would a film that depicted Muhammad have to be dealt with very delicately, it would somehow have to not offend millions of Muslims who firmly believe that Muhammad is not to be depicted.

However, as we know, a very well-received film about the life of Muhammad was eventually made. The Message, released in 1976 was a successful Islamic religious film as director Moustapha Akkad, out of respect chose not to represent Muhammad or any of his wives, children, sons in law, or his Caliphs who are all also representationally off-limits. Akkad is able to lovingly craft the tale of Islam's birth, using powerful and beautiful images. The closest we come to a representation of any of these figures is the Caliph Ali's sword being swung about in a duel. Though, while this film does not seem to break any of the rules that would cause one to oppose it, issues in the representation of Muhammad still seem to arise. In any scene where Muhammad's presence is absolutely necessary, we see a shot from Muhammad's point of view. This is a great work-around since it avoids depiction of the Prophet, however, to react to Muhammad, the other characters look right into the camera making myself, Ryder, and possibly others keenly aware that the fourth wall is being broken and that we as the audience are sitting in place of the Prophet. Allow us to play these clips for you and see if you feel any of the unease that we felt.

This may seem like a nit-picky argument, however I feel that if one were to read into it, they could be just as offended if not more offended by putting someone in the place of Muhammad, than by representing him in a picture. We have another clip for you which highlights our other concern.

The other issue we uncovered is that of the non-present voice of Muhammad. Granted, portraying Muhammad's voice is also incredibly taboo, but putting the words of the Prophet into the mouths of other characters compounds a problem that stems from making a movie about a person you cannot see; a person who like God himself, and unlike man, is invisible. By erasing the key person of interest from the film and putting his words in other people's mouths, one runs the risk of turning those characters into the leads in the Prophet's story. However, as we've learned, there is no problem-free way to make a film or any other art about Muhammad. The best that can be done is try to tell the story of his life as honestly as possible and let the narrative overshadow the borderline-absurd exclusion of the protagonist. Despite these problems, The Message is a success, since we can learn about Islam and enjoy the glorious irony of a depiction of Islam doing away with depictions in the name of God.

How far has the image come since the founding of Islam and does it still require censorship within Muslim communities? The main reason for prohibition of certain images has not been an issue for a long time. In much of the world, monotheism has long since conquered Pagan idolatry and polytheism. Additionally, art means different things now than it did then and art is created for different reasons. In a time when art was made for only entertainment and worship, there are understandable desires to limit the power of the image. Now, however, the image is largely not for recreating God's creations that we see every day. We have abstract art, art we use to express ourselves, and to understand the world a little better. Children grow up completely surrounded by images. Representational art is everywhere. This normality must surely signify a decline in the power of the image. As Bergson tells us, the life of the image and therefore its power, is dictated by the audience that views it. When an image is exposed to a society that believes very firmly that certain images hold a lot of power, their thoughts and reactions will dictate the desire of that image and decide exactly how powerful the image is.


------



We also showed the famous Dutch picture of Muhammed and posed the theory that a pictorial representation of Muhammed only exists because you label it as a picture of Muhammed. If one were not to label it, it would only be a picture of an Arab man since there is no historical pictorial reference to base a Muhammed illustration on.