Islamic Art: Where are the Women?

Last weekend was the official start of the Cherry Blossom Festival here in DC. As a part of the Festival the Smithsonian had a special exhibit on Japanese art. When I was there I also looked at various paintings from around the world. One thing I noticed after it was all done was that I didn't see any women represented in the Islamic Art section. I saw women represented in all cultures except this one. Now, granted, I gave the exhibits a cursory glance but I think I would have noticed them.

Personally I consider the female body a work of art (with various exceptions of course) but what about Islamic artists? Is the culture which produced these works so biased against women that they won’t even acknowledge them in art, or is it the opposite? Of course a bit sarcastically I thought that maybe there are no Islamic women (because who knows what’s hiding under a burka) and maybe they’re so viciously against homosexuality because they’re afraid their secret will get out. But following that logic lead me to believe that their children spring out of holes in the ground like dwarves which doesn’t seem too probable.

So, did I miss something here? Any art historians here?

Well this is how the Persians reproduce:

https://img128.imageshack.us/img128/1700/persie0ek.gif

Contrary to common disbelief, figural secular art is not forbidden under islam. There are plenty of islamic paintings of women that would break the forum rules. But museums are a bit wary about exhibiting them nowadays, you can guess why I presume. :no:

Well I was hoping to learn about ANY depictions of the female form, not just the one's I'd rather see.

Islam forbids the depictation of Muhammed, eventually this prohibition was perceived and resulted in a halt of any depictations/illustrations in Islam world in general. Ottomans have some miniature artists that used to make brief depictations of several padishahs, a part of an army etc. However I'm not sure if they ever illustrated the female body. That would be something "hard" to do in those times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Islam forbids the depictation of Muhammed, eventually this prohibition was perceived and resulted in a halt of any depictations/illustrations in Islam world in general. Ottomans have some miniature artists that used to make brief depictations of several padishahs, a part of an army etc. However I'm not sure if they ever illustrated the female body. That would be something "hard" to do in those times.

---

You know, once I had borrowed an Osprey book, and in it you see depictions of Muhammed from inside early mosques, of course the images have since been etched off again. But I found it very interesting.
Supposedly from the places these pictures were taken it was fairly widespread in the middle east and Persia (as in, not located in a specific region, numbers can be speculated on). Sadly I don't remember which one it was, but it could be the one that deals with Yarmuk or the initial expansion of Islam.

The point is, that apparently those early muslims were not as certain about that rule. Of course they could easily have been a very small minority.

It's my understanding that this Iconoclastic movement within Islam is a recent development. I know the Eastern and Western Catholic churches had a hell of a fight over this. There's been a depiction of Mohamed in the Supreme Court building since it was built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

It's my understanding that this Iconoclastic movement within Islam is a recent development. I know the Eastern and Western Catholic churches had a hell of a fight over this. There's been a depiction of Mohamed in the Supreme Court building since it was built.

---

Where is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Where is that?

---

SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington DC.

Really?
I think we better keep this quiet... Wouldn't want the world to go up in flames. If Denmark can cause so much trouble I wouldn't like to know what the USA could do.~:rolleyes:

Islam had a serious "interpretion" problem after prophet's and the following four Caliphs' deaths. What you see in your countries and all around the world concerning Islam today is the result of such stiffness created after the period I just mentioned.

And about that depictation in of the hot topics in the backroom, AdrianII (IIRC) had showed that photo from the Supreme Court asking about my personal idea if it should have been erased as well. Let's keep it even more quite since we are somewhere not suitable for politics as well. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Islam had a serious "interpretion" problem after prophet's and the following four Caliphs' deaths. What you see in your countries and all around the world concerning Islam today is the result of such stiffness created after the period I just mentioned.

And about that depictation in of the hot topics in the backroom, AdrianII (IIRC) had showed that photo from the Supreme Court asking about my personal idea if it should have been erased as well. Let's keep it even more quite since we are somewhere not suitable for politics as well. :juggle2:

---

This makes me think of an interesting historical fact in the history of Christianity. Evidently there were very few anti-Jewish factions within the early Christian Church. It just happens that one of the factions that was, became the state religion of the Roman Empire, but I have no idea why. Talk about a difference of interpretation and irony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Where is that?

---

i found the image Shhhh, dont tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

i found the image Shhhh, dont tell.

---

HEY ! YOU THERE ! I GOT YOU ! :charge:

Well, the Persians never could abandon their old beliefs entirely; see shi'ism et al (I'm generalizing big time here, but please, let me :p). A result of that is that miniature painting in the Iranian-influenced world (mostly Iranian and Turkic dynasties of Islam) is greatly developed and very beautiful. I have even seen several examples of Muhammad depicted; his face was the part that was IIRC completely prohibited from depiction, which is always the case; but he is shown on those miniatures, and almost always with a fiery aura around him. On women, I am not sure. They are depicted a few times here and there; besides that, in literature, they are mentioned often. If they are treated as lesser beings by Muslims, then that has nothing to do with the Qur'an or the suras (sp? the sayings of Muhammad and corrections of the Qur'an), but is purely cultural, like the head scarf.

On religious matters, however, Islam is very strict: no pictures, please. This is to counter what they percieve as the danger for idolatry. Jews hold the same line in this sense. Christians have never been able to choose, subject of not a little strife and debates between different Christian movements throughout history (one thinks of the iconoclasts, and, more recently and permanently, the Protestants).

Thanks for the information. I was mainly curious about the culture which produced this art and you addressed that as well. I believe it was some famous Turk who asked: "How can we have a modern society when half our population is [help me here, somebody] considered inferior(?)." He was referring to the status of women in Turkey. I respect Turkish culture more than that of the "sand people" (gross generalization, I apologize) further south because they have progressed more in this area than many of their southern neighbors. [Just as an aside: Liberating women still doesn't mean we have to take them seriously, but bikinis are nice ~;) ]

I mainly want to know how we can bring Middle Eastern culture into the present (or at least into the 19th century) without the bloodshed Europe experienced. One way to understand a culture is through its art; art is also a mechanism by which we can improve a society.

Quote:

---

Thanks for the information. I was mainly curious about the culture which produced this art and you addressed that as well. I believe it was some famous Turk who asked: "How can we have a modern society when half our population is [help me here, somebody] considered inferior(?)." He was referring to the status of women in Turkey...

---

Which period are you referring to ? Ottoman or modern Turkey era ?

Quote:

---

I mainly want to know how we can bring Middle Eastern culture into the present (or at least into the 19th century) without the bloodshed Europe experienced.

---

Sorry to say but this is the only way. "Western liberation" meant disturbance and frustration than anything else. We are all familiar with the consequences of such steps, let alone what plans may have been undermined. Sticking a regimé on someone never worked out to be performing well. What's more a change is more permanent when it is the deed of one's self. Whether the monarch/despot governments feel fine with their status, the society itself will someday want more, or let's say what they deserve as humans. Although this leans towards politics a bit, West should be calmer than ever, even though I personally find it really hard to -living in your capital with fear of bombings should be annoying. Those people will improve their life standards themselves, let them do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Which period are you referring to ? Ottoman or modern Turkey era ?

---

I think it was in more modern times (I can't even remember when Ataturk lived [and can’t spell his name]). I've only heard of that particular quote in the context of something else so there wasn't much focus on it. It's just one of the interesting details I picked up about the country that bridges Europe and Asia (and I don't mean Russia!)

Half of the population were who supplied our victorious army, sacrificing their sons and accomplishing great duties such as carrying weaponry to the battlefield during War of Independence, they were never considered inferior. Maybe elsewhere, but not Turkey.

As a Turk proud of his young motherland, I can assure you that what any Turkish women owe today about their role in social life goes to his revolutions that were really hard to do in a Muslim country of 20's. It was around 30's that women were given their right to be elected and vote. I'd like more detail if you can, so as to clarify about what the quote was about and how accurate it was.

P.S. You just spelled my leader's name just right. Full name is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

:bow:

Atatürk, to be absolutely precise. A great man.

On the subject of Western liberation: if you study the entire phenomenon, you see two paths, that reach approximately the same consensus but reached it very differently.

These two paths can be illustrated with two solid entities, in this case countries. One is called Great Britain. There, the ideas of liberty and democracy advanced slowly, steadily, evolving from the Magna Carta through the Glorious Revolution up to William III (yes, the Dutch guy :p) signing an act that gave Parliament considerable power over the royal element. From there, power was passed to the people, again slowly but steadily. The entire process was revolutionary if you compare beginning to end -- but in the end it was rather more evolutionary, seeing as it took some eight hundred years to complete.

The other country is called France. Famed for both its absolutists as well as for its liberals (not to mention its revolutionaries), the nation has reached the same point as Great Britain, but in a very different way. In France, things did not go gradually; they often went hand in hand with uprisings, instability and bloodshed. Entirely the opposite of Britain, the nation went from bastion of royal autocracy and absolutism to the focal point of the liberal revolution and back again in the space of a few years. Over the course of the nineteenth century, the nation experienced the entire process twice more. In the end, liberty prevailed, leading to what we know as the Fifth French Republic. The process as displayed in France is remarkably akin to what the rest of Continental Europe experienced.

To conclude, I fear that countries in the Middle East will become new versions of France rather than more Britains. That is inevitable; the case of Britain is very rare and required a whole slew of special circumstances to take the path it has. Plus, I don't think most Arabs, Kurds and Iranians will be content to wait some eight hundred years on peace and prosperity. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Thanks for the information. I was mainly curious about the culture which produced this art and you addressed that as well. I believe it was some famous Turk who asked: "How can we have a modern society when half our population is [help me here, somebody] considered inferior(?)." He was referring to the status of women in Turkey. I respect Turkish culture more than that of the "sand people" (gross generalization, I apologize) further south because they have progressed more in this area than many of their southern neighbors. [Just as an aside: Liberating women still doesn't mean we have to take them seriously, but bikinis are nice ~;) ]

I mainly want to know how we can bring Middle Eastern culture into the present (or at least into the 19th century) without the bloodshed Europe experienced. One way to understand a culture is through its art; art is also a mechanism by which we can improve a society.

---

Some "sand people" are just as advanced as Turkey, if you could bother and ask some educated "sand people" (hint: this post was made by yours truly, a sand person) instead of Fox News. :furious3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

Some "sand people" are just as advanced as Turkey, if you could bother and ask some educated "sand people" (hint: this post was made by yours truly, a sand person) instead of Fox News. :furious3:

---

:laugh4: Just a little friendly ribbing, hence the pre-emptive apology (I hate the desert and love the jungle). I haven't been outside the hemisphere but I do know a little more about people than that. I just want to find naked pictures of historical women from the Middle East. ~;)

Am I wrong in thinking that it is or was forbidden in early Islam, not just to depict the prophet, but to depict any living things? Perhaps this was from a hadith and not the Koran? I seem to recall reading that the decorative art in the great Bibi-Khanym mosque in Samarkand is somewhat unusual in the Islamic world for its depictions of various creatures along with the more usual decorative quotes from scripture and abstract designs.

Edit: Thinking about it, perhaps the prohibition was more for depictions of living things when used for religious purposes, which makes the animals in the Samarkand mosques unusual because the depictions are on a religious building. Any Islamic scholars out there care to clarify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

:laugh4: Just a little friendly ribbing, hence the pre-emptive apology (I hate the desert and love the jungle). I haven't been outside the hemisphere but I do know a little more about people than that. I just want to find naked pictures of historical women from the Middle East. ~;)

---

Oh i find it real hard to make out whats sarcasm and whats not sarcasm these days ~;p,but anyways there are some naked women art in iraq, but they were drawn pretty recently (1950's) but they are drawn in your typical european style of naked women.

There is also egyptian art in the same vein, but probably the oldest is 19th century.

I'm not sure that there were naked women before that, well except from antiquity i think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Am I wrong in thinking that it is or was forbidden in early Islam, not just to depict the prophet, but to depict any living things? Perhaps this was from a hadith and not the Koran? I seem to recall reading that the decorative art in the great Bibi-Khanym mosque in Samarkand is somewhat unusual in the Islamic world for its depictions of various creatures along with the more usual decorative quotes from scripture and abstract designs.

Edit: Thinking about it, perhaps the prohibition was more for depictions of living things when used for religious purposes, which makes the animals in the Samarkand mosques unusual because the depictions are on a religious building. Any Islamic scholars out there care to clarify?

---

Note: I'm in no position to speak about things i don't know, the following is strictly my opinion till another more knowledgable person answers:

There is no actual hadith or verse from the koran i think, but rather scholars agreed that depictions of living things should be avoided using anecdotes from the koran, for example when the isrealites disobeyd moses' and started worshipping a golden statue of an animal, or when the arabs built idols for their heroes and started worshipping them. I think you get the idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

There is no actual hadith or verse from the koran i think, but rather scholars agreed that depictions of living things should be avoided using anecdotes from the koran, for example when the isrealites disobeyd moses' and started worshipping a golden statue of an animal, or when the arabs built idols for their heroes and started worshipping them. I think you get the idea.

---

Ah... so it has more to do with the idolation rather than the images themselves? Sort of 'keep the temptations away from the people, then all will be right."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Ah... so it has more to do with the idolation rather than the images themselves? Sort of 'keep the temptations away from the people, then all will be right."

---

That was my understanding, anyway; that it had to do with idolatry. I just wasn't sure if the prohibition extended to all depictions. There's the story of Mohammed having all the religious icons destroyed except for one he deemed acceptable, which was a depiction of the Virgin and Child. Most of the early depictions of Mohammed, many of them Persian in origin, always show him with no face, or veiled in white. I've been discovering a lot of interesting things wandering about the internet looking into this whole issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Ah... so it has more to do with the idolation rather than the images themselves? Sort of 'keep the temptations away from the people, then all will be right."

---

Precisely. The same goes for Judaism. It is all to avoid idolatry from resurfacing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Am I wrong in thinking that it is or was forbidden in early Islam, not just to depict the prophet, but to depict any living things? Perhaps this was from a hadith and not the Koran? I seem to recall reading that the decorative art in the great Bibi-Khanym mosque in Samarkand is somewhat unusual in the Islamic world for its depictions of various creatures along with the more usual decorative quotes from scripture and abstract designs.

---

I wondered the same thing myself.My incompetent AP Art History teacher said that no living things were supposed to be depicted, but I knew it was wrong right away, mainly from my reading about Islamic military, and depection of soldiers and people. I'm not sure if this was a more recent thing or not, and it seems more of it seems to be of Persian orgin.