DECONSTRUCTING THE LEGAL MISCONCEPTION

Perhaps the most pervasive misconception of Islamic art is the notion that portraiture and the representation of human features is expressly prohib­ited by Islamic law. Islamic art is often understood as being unwaveringly iconophobic and iconoclastic in its approach to portraiture and figuration.

Because the Holy Qur’an - the primary source of Islamic law - does not make reference to the use of images in Islamic art, jurists must turn to the explanatory ahadith to derive the legal principles on images.

However, Moderates from both divisions of Islam believe the rule of the Hadith is open to interpretation by ijtihad which has resulted in diverse applications of the law in practice as variously informed by the understanding of the Divine as elucidated in the Qur’an. In his fatwa concerning the legality of a representation of the Prophet Muhammad in a sculptural frieze in the Supreme Court of the United States, Taha Jaber al-Alwani notes that although the use of images of the Prophet conflict with some of the more objectively anti-image passages, hadith must be interpreted with respect to the cultural context in which an image is produced.^[1176] He also cites the need to take a holistic approach by considering the legal ratio of the hadith on images, and the purposive approach of the Prophet to representations of the human figure, rather than the matter of the representation itself.^[1177]

Commonly cited hadith that deal with the representation of the human figure in Islamic art often include accounts of the Angel Gabriel refusing to enter houses where images are displayed in places of honour, and passages that relate interactions between the Prophet Muhammad and his wife ‘A’ishah with respect to figurative images on items of her clothing, motifs on decor and her dolls.

When taken literally, this hadith can be understood as an express prohibition on the creation of images in art. However, when looked at critically, it is clear that the true issue of the image in the hadith lies in the intention of the artist to create an image that rivals God’s creation, rather than the use of the image itself.^[1180] This is a violation of one of the central messages of the Qur’an, that of the ‘Oneness’ and sole creativity of God embodied in the first shahada: ‘There is no God but Allah.’^[1181] This belief that the divinity of Allah transcends what can be understood and replicated has contributed to the notion that in the process of image making, an artist competes with the creative power of God, and thus his sole authority.^[1182] A simple example of the widespread practical appli­cation of this law is evidenced through the fact that Islamic art almost never bears the signature of the artist. This ensures that the artist remains anonymous, and provides a safeguard against any accusation that he or she wishes to divert worship and praise from God onto themselves. Often, artists are only uncovered by considerable historical research and analysis by conservators.

The second category of hadith that regulate the production of imagery are those warning against the power of images to distract the mind from focussing on the only true object of devotion, God. Warnings against the deceptive danger of ‘idols’, a term which refers to alternative, and therefore false, figures of adolation is also a strong theme in the Qur’an.^[1183] The concern with human and animal portraiture in art as a manifestation of an ‘idol’ arose from the Pagan, Jewish and Christian tradition of praying to artistic representations of their Gods in places of worship. This is closely related to the third category of hadith, which warns against the overvaluing and worshipping of items of luxury and wealth, such as expensive commissioned portraits. These two maxims of law are clearly manifested in the architecture of Islamic places of worship, where both imagery and elaborate ornamentation are absent in severe juxtaposition to Christian churches.

The fourth and final category of hadith express concern for the power of images to diminish the ability of the mind to conceive of the abstract and unknowable greatness of God. This issue is particularly important to Islamic art because it supports the contention that the use of geometry and linear pattern is not a decorative necessity but a conscious aesthetic decision that promotes contemplation of the infinite earthly transcend- ance of God. This will be discussed further in the context of aversionary artistic practices.

It is important to note that all of these hadith deal with the way in which images are intended to be used, rather than the use of images themselves. By analysing these hadith, it is clear there is little evidence that a prohibitive ban on all images is justified or required under Islamic law. Further evidence that image making is, at worst, makruh, can be inferred by reference to an artistic tradition of portraiture in Islamic art which can be traced back through history.^[1184]

IV.