Aniconism

The same solution worked against humans who pretended to have the same power of creation that God had (hence, their banishment from the Heavens, the destruction of Babel, and the Second Commandment in the biblical texts).

Some modern scholars who have studied various cultures have gathered material which shows that in many cases, the idea of aniconism is an intellectual construction rather than a fact of tangible reality, it suits specific intents and historical contexts.

[7] Although they are still a subject of debate, the first anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha are frequently considered a result of the Greco-Buddhist interaction, a cultural exchange which was particularly widespread in Gandhara, a theory which was first fully expounded upon by Alfred A. Foucher, but from the start, it was criticized by Ananda Coomaraswamy.

[10] As for the archeological evidence, it shows that some anthropomorphic sculptures of the Buddha actually existed during the supposedly aniconistic period, which ended during the 1st century CE.

[10] Although some earlier examples of them have been found in recent years, it is widely-believed that the large free-standing iconic images of the Buddha which are so prevalent in later works of Buddhist art are not prevalent in works of Buddhist art which were produced during the earliest period of the history of Buddhism; discussion is focused on smaller figures in relief panels, conventionally considered to represent scenes from the life of the Buddha, and now re-interpreted by Huntington and her supporters.

This tradition is still in practice today, with many Assyrian churches lacking artistic depictions of biblical figures, including those of Jesus and Mary.

This has been attributed to the Biblical commandment "Thou shalt not make unto thyself a graven image," and the belief that photographs can "steal your soul," among other reasons.

Its embodiment are spaces such as the mosque and objects like the Qur'an or the white dress of pilgrims entering Mecca, deprived of figurative images.

Generally speaking aniconism in Islamic societies is restricted in modern times to specific religious contexts, while its prevalence in the past wasn't enforced in numerous areas and during extended periods.

[17] Factors are the epoch considered, the country, the religious orientation, the political intent, the popular beliefs, the private benefit or the dichotomy between reality and discourse.

TV stations and newspapers (which do present still and moving representations of living beings) have an exceptional impact on public opinion, sometimes, as in the case of Al Jazeera, with a global reach, beyond the Arabic-speaking and Muslim audience.

Anthropomorphic statues in public places are to be found in most Muslim countries (Saddam Hussein's are infamous[21]), as well as arts schools training sculptors and painters.

The Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Najaf in Iraq gave a fatwa declaring the depiction of Muhammad, Islamic prophets and other characters considered holy, permissible if it is made with the utmost respect.

Statues of humans and animals adorned palaces of the Ummayad era,[28] while frescoes were common under the Umayyads,[29] and later in many Muslim countries, notably under the Safavids and various Central Asian dynasties.

Figurative miniatures from Medieval Arabic countries, India, Persia and Turkey are among the pinnacles of Islamic art and account for a good deal of its attraction.

[30][31] Potent rulers like Shah Tahmasp in Persia and Akbar[32] in India, patrons of some of the most beautiful figurative miniatures in arts from Islamic countries, migrated during their life between an extravagant 'figurative' and an extremist 'aniconic' period.

During the 15th and 17th century representations of Muhammad (veiled,[33] unveiled[34]) and other prophets or Biblical characters, like Adam,[35][36] Abraham[37] or Jesus;[38] and Solomon[39] and Alexander the Great,[40] became common in painted manuscripts from Persia, India and Turkey.

[41] At the material level, prophets in manuscripts can have their face covered by a veil[33] or all humans have a stroke drawn over their neck, a symbolic cut preventing them from being alive.

A number of verses in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) refer to prohibitions against the creation of various forms of images, invariably linked directly with idolatry.

The strongest source is based on what Judaism counts as the second of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.Leviticus 26:1 reads: Ye shall make you no idols, neither shall ye rear you up a graven image, or a pillar, neither shall ye place any figured stone in your land, to bow down unto it; for I am the LORD your God.Similar injunctions appear in Numbers 33:52, Deuteronomy 4:16, and 27:15; in all cases, the creation of the image is associated with idolatry, and indeed, the words commonly translated as 'image' or some variant thereof (פסל pesel, שקוץ shikuts) are generally used interchangeably with words typically translated as 'idol' (e.g. אליל elil).

[citation needed] (An important exception is צלם tselem, used in such verses as Genesis 1:26: "let us make man in our image", where this word for 'image' was not associated with idols.

[citation needed] In many of their sermons, as recorded in the biblical books bearing their names, the prophets regarded the use of religious images as a negative sign of assimilation into the surrounding pagan cultures of the time.

In keeping with this prohibition, some illustrations from the Middle Ages feature fantastic creatures—usually animal-headed humanoids, even when the depictions are quite clearly meant to be those of historical or mythological humans.

[citation needed] Although most Hasidic Jews object to having televisions in their homes, this is not related to prohibitions against idolatry, but, rather, to the content of network and cable programming.

[47] The decoration of cave walls and sarcophagi at the Jewish cemetery at Beit She'arim also uses images, some drawn from Hellenistic pagan mythology, in the 2nd to 4th centuries CE.

This view was probably first challenged by David Kaufmann, who marshalled a large and comprehensive corpus of data in order to prove that this belief was untenable.

About the Germanic tribes, the Roman historian Tacitus writes the following: "They don't consider it mighty enough for the Heavens to depict Gods on walls or to display them in some human shape.

"[55] His observation was not general to all the Germanic peoples (or, similar to the Greeks, it evolved after his time) as documentary evidence suggests (see Ardre image stones).

Depictions of gods more generally were infrequent in Etruscan civilization until after the adoption of Greek influences in the "Orientalizing" period of the 7th–6th centuries BC, and sometimes carried negative associations, their faces in particular.

[56] In some Australian Aboriginal cultural groups, the "naming and depiction of recently deceased people is often prohibited under customary law and the mourning period may last for weeks, months or years".