Scholars of Islamic law and images as from the 19th century
The mainstreaming of easel painting and sculpture and the introduction of new technologies such as photography then cinema, video and numeric imaging, soon adopted by predominantly Muslim countries, resulted in the proliferation of images. This new situation required the ulama to reconsider the authoritative religious texts. At the turn of the 20th century, the positions ranged from a prudent acceptation of all images not presenting any moral risk, to the restriction to images “of practical use”. For Muhammad Abduh[1], rasm[2] is first and foremost useful for it helps learning and furthers education. However, Abduh goes further; by comparing painting to poetry the Arabs' highest art form, he dignifies it with a high status. For his disciple, Muhammad Rashid Rida[3], who ended up adopting positions close to Wahhbism[4], images are only licit when they are useful and necessary: in the first place in education but also in in the fields of security and defence. He vigorously opposed the erection of statues such as those Mustafa Kemal[5], the president and founder of the new Turkish Republic had raised in his country in order to modernise it. In view of their tri-dimensionality, Rida equates them with pagan idols, which further represent in his view an unnecessary expenditure for the peoples of the “Muslim world” whose financial means are limited. They are a luxury item as had already been pointed out in the 11th century by philosopher al Ghazali[6] and must accordingly be avoided by observant Muslims.
This thinking is driven by the then prevailing sense of a need to modernise and make up for Muslims' scientific and economic underdevelopment through education, hence the notion of the faida[7] to be drawn from figurative imagery. Behind the broad consensus, no homogeneous position has emerged, however, for the texts can be read and interpreted differently. Thus many religious scholars object to academic painting in its “Western” mode, invoking the hadith to censure painters for the sin of pride. The very same hadith no less commands a quasi-unanimity around the admissibility of photography – and by analogy of cinema and television in due course, the thinking being that the users of these technical devices do nothing more than reproducing what already exists. The photographer does not add his own creation to God's.
In his treatise entitled The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam published in Arabic in 1960, translated into several languages including English (1981) and widely quoted on his site, Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi[8] states his position regarding images. He states that he has no problems with photography as it “merely captures the image” of what pre-existed it. On his site he develops his thought by drawing on the originally Arabic word aks[9] the Persian uses for photography. As against that, he asserts that statues must be rejected as they could become the object of veneration whilst their authors could fancy themselves as “creators”. Besides, they often represent religiously prohibited subjects such as “naked women” or “crosses” and grace the palaces of the rich and mighty. The Egypto-Qatari sheikh does however consider that bi-dimensional images are allowed if they command no respect and are at no risk of eliciting any form of adoration. Qaradawi prohibits the images of heads of states, especially “tyrants, atheists, and immoral individuals, for to respect them is to degrade Islam.” Such luxury items as oil paintings –– are, in his view, to be shunned.
