Talk:Islamic art

message: Tables, templates and images are skewing each other. Joffeloff 11:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: I know that many Muslims follow that tradition suggesting Muslims are not to make art representing the human form. However, both Mughal and Safavid art are considered "Islamic art", and both OFTEN portray the human figure. I think the point needs to be mentioned...Some Muslim traditions exclude imageries of the human forms, others are less restrictive. The article mentioned an 'exposure to the west' reason for Muslims relaxing the rules on depicting humans..I don't know that I believe that. If it's true, it's not only the west that shaped the change- Indian and Persian art has alot to do with motivating the artistic qualities of Muslim art in Asia. I think there's a consensus that human depictions are almost never found in mosques. I have a source anyway- the Pilot Guides video on mosques. I don't know that video sources count as documentation. If there's a challenge to that fact, I'll look up a textual source. His Excellency... 22:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human figure 

message: Ok, the tags at the top of the talk page are right. This entry is as good as useless, completely ahistorical, and lacks a single concrete example (Dome of the Rock, anyone?). The French entry is superb. Would anyone object to my translating it and placing it here?  --Javits2000 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I've tried to find some time to translate the French article but couldn't. I'd help if you'd start it. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 11:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Brilliant. At present I've produced a rough text up through the Fatimids. At most points it's a fairly literal translation, but I've exercised some editorial discretion -- i.e. "L'art d'Afrique du nord est assez méconnu, par manque de recherches depuis la décolonisation" (!) is weg, as the Germans say. What's the protocol for a project like this: should I post little by little, or all at once when finished? --Javits2000 12:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French article; overhaul? 

message: I came here expecting to find some Islamic art images, --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the link at the bottom of the page to WikiCommons; or the link at the side to the French article. And if anything you find there strikes you as a useful contribution to the main article, please feel free to help out by adding it in.--Javits2000 13:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images anyone

message: I agree, I think this article should remind there are different traditions in Islam and human representation and the representation of the Prophet exists --tupinambah 12:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, and many thanks for your contribution -- especially for a very useful source, and indeed one that's available online! I've moved it to a footnote only because it seemed too specific a discussion for the introductory paragraphs, which in any case already quite clearly acknowledge the existence of depictions of humans and of the Prophet. I also attempted to remove the rather contentious passages of your text (e.g. "contrary to the false claims of the media," or wording to that effect). It strikes me, however, that if this is a subject of particular interest to you (that is, the history of depicitons of the Prophet), then it might make a very interesting article in its own right, and one that could be prominently linked from this page. Regards, --Javits2000 12:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeking the truth

message: The gallery at the bottom should be edited; either labelled with periods and placed with its respective text. A photo gallery is nice to look at, but it is not informative.Elliotb2 03:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; it's my opinion that the present images in the text and the link to Wiki Commons are sufficient. The gallery could probably be removed. --Javits2000 08:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo gallery

message: The foundation of Islamic art cannot be placed into a single century and onwards. Right? As with all art, it has absorbed some prior styles. It first sort of took form as a series of appropriations of preexisting Graeco-Roman, Byzantine Christian, and Sasanian art forms. 
Aren't the actual periods of art and their crossovers/stops/starts sort of difficult to date into a century or less? 
Just wondering. 
Also, the phrase "arts", in the intro, seems a little ambiguous and vague in my opinion. Could there be a more exact word to use?
Sedonaarizona 03:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the influences of Byz., Sasanian, etc. are discussed in the article, right? In any case the article starts with the foundation of the Islamic community, which can be dated pretty precisely. Before the 7th century, no Islam, hence no Islamic art.--Javits2000 21:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. Islam as a religion did not develop until the seventh century, and therefore the title of 'Islamic Art' could not be granted prior to that. Got it. Thanks!!!! Sedonaarizona 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Art Origins 

message: Can someone please clarify what a "commercial link" exactly is that does not qualify as a valid "external link"?
- Mussnoon (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. I assume your post is in reference to this link, which you have added a couple of times. I see a couple of reasons for not including this; first, it appears to be designed to highlight the work of a specific contemporary artist working in the Islamic tradition, and does not constitute a major resource for information about Islamic art in general, or even about a particular subfield (compare e.g. Museum with no frontiers, a good example of a genuine resource). Second, its primary purpose seems to me to be "to sell products or services" (see under the guidelines, "Links normally to be avoided," no. 5) -- whether for charity or for profit is beside the point. --Javits2000 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Yes, my post was in reference to that link. I had assumed it could serve as a collection of examples and since it was non-profit, I'd went ahead and put it in. I think the commercial link description in the first removal was inappropriate. - Mussnoon (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Although I have not had time  to read it completely, this impresses me as a good and informative article. However it could be improved by better sourcing because many sections do not cite any sources . I do not want to put a tag it because that might give readers the impression there is something wrong with the article. Nevertheless, some editors could do a good deed by adding what is needed: WP:VERIFY. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: Are we omitting cinema of Egypt, cinema of Iran and cinema of Turkey because they are of the modern era, after the ancient accomodation with formal Islam?Dogru144 (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Art" is normally reserved for visual art in articles like this. A section in Islamic culture would be the appropriate place to have links to all these, and other articles, and a short summary. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Film, anyone?

message: Arabesque is properly  a style of  European art derived from Arabic sources. Arabesque is a French word denoting "like Arabic". It is not about the prototype itself nor about motifs in Arabic art per se. A replacement word needs to be used to refer to Arabic motifs used in Arabic art, and substituted for arabesque in this article. I would suggest "Arabic Motifs". Perhaps the actual Arabic word for such motifs could be used, with anglicised spelling? does anybody know what that word would be? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said at Talk:Arabesque, your perception is just incorrect, & the term is widely used in the art history of Islamic art - see this gbooks search. There is no "style of  European art derived from Arabic sources" as such, but motifs called arabesque are used at various times & places in Europe, as Wetman articulates at the other page.  Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Word ''Arabesque'' misused

message: Whats the redundancy/tautology for? If you have the same thing written in obverse & reverse, it by definition is a mirror image.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.4.85 (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  in obverse and reverse, creating an exact mirror image.

message: The article should make it clear the sheer notion of Islamic art is not accepted by all specialists. Racconish  Tk   07:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It does: "Though the whole concept of "Islamic art" has been criticised by some modern art historians, the similarities between art produced at widely different times and places in the Islamic world have been sufficient to keep the term in wide use by scholars." - para 3. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I added the above ref there.Racconish  Tk   11:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh - it's very over the top, & he is no art historian. I'll have to upgrade it at some point. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, good now, though the intro of the Yale History of Art  has a good bit too. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I was researching for an essay and I was shocked to find no list of contemporary artists :(
Maybe someone could put a list up?? ;)
*Contemporary art tends to be covered by modern nationality rather than the blanket "Islamic art".  Try :Category:Artists by nationality and some articles. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Great :(

message: I read an article once that in Malaysia would be illegal to have, the Arabic word or calligraphy of Allah and Muhammad, such as a visible tattoo. Is this true? And includes the Islamic ban on images, in which case these two things normally? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not heard that but, looking at Blasphemy law in Malaysia, I wouldn't be surprised. If you find a reference it could go in there. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic ban on images 

message: This sentence 
"Typically, though not entirely, Islamic art has focused on the depiction of patterns and Arabic calligraphy, rather than on figures, because it is feared by many Muslims that the depiction of the human form is idolatry[13] and thereby a sin against God, forbidden in the Qur'an." 
Implies that the Qur'an bans the depiction of human figures, or it is at least ambiguous about whether the Qur'an bans images of humans or only idolatry.   I looked into this, and it is only idolatry which is banned, and all traditional bans on the depiction of figures is on the basis that the depiction of a figure is an idol.  I would think that either the sentence needs to be softened such that its clear that the Qur'an bans idolatry, and that some have interpreted this to mean that all figures constitute idolatry, or some references should be given to the relevant parts of the Qur'an, so that the reader can see for him or herself.  As it stands, the sentence regarding the ban is ambiguous, the Qur'an is not actually cited, and the only concrete reference is to a book of secondary literature written by a Christian westerner.  This seems like inappropriate justification for the claim of the sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byrnesj (talk • contribs) 02:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is more detail at where it belongs at Aniconism in Islam and Depiction of Muhammad, which I think are linked here; I suggest you look into it a bit more, including considering the wording of the text here more carefully. The relevant texts are mainly in the Hadith, and the statement here is quite enough I think. We are supposed to use secondary sources (WP:PRIMARY), and a Western scholar is a perfectly good reference to use on this very well explored issue, especially as he is neither a Sunni nor a Shia, which tends to colour Islamic views. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the ban on images accurate? 

message: An interesting study here]. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a classic study of 1928, now massively out of date in many ways. We used to use it as a reference, maybe still do, but should only do so with caution: "Sir Thomas Walker Arnold (1864–1930) .....".  For a long time there were very few books on the subject, but this has now not been the case for some decades. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A study of Islamic painting 

message: People may have seen recent work on the :Template:Islamic art which now perhaps reflects the field a little better. Its structure implies several articles which might be useful to readers, such as:
* Regional styles in Islamic architecture
* Decorative elements in Islamic architecture
* Islamic decorative arts
* Islamic arts of the book
* Islamic textiles
Other articles in the field that are needed (or need development) include (according to Johnbod):
* Arabic miniature
* Islamic bookcover
* Islamic silk
* most periods of regional art other than Safavid art, Qajar etc.
Suggestions and contributions welcomed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic art articles that need writing 

message: Is there an article somewhere on Mugal architecture in Pakistan? I'm trying to understand the architecture of the mosques (Masjid) there. e.g.  in Lahore.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalbbes (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Islamic art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041203232347/http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf to http://www2.let.uu.nl/solis/anpt/EJOS/pdf4/07Ali.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623185919/http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice_popup.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226262&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226262&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500781 to http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice_popup.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226262&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673226262&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500781
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041203232347/http://www2.let.uu.nl/Solis/anpt/ejos/pdf4/07Ali.pdf to http://www2.let.uu.nl/solis/anpt/EJOS/pdf4/07Ali.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120608004825/http://www.calligraphyislamic.com/ to http://calligraphyislamic.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Sources have not been updated since 2001. Although the information is mainly historical, updating to current articles would strengthen the page. Skylareades (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you mean the latest source used is from 2001, before the article was started. That's a very different thing. But even that is wrong, as many are more recent than that.  So I'm puzzled.  Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at  Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome. 
Posting message here too for neutrality sake
Thanks and greetings
Bookku (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting wider attention

message: Greetings,
This is basically continuation of first round of discussion which took place previously @ Talk:Islamic literature and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) 
 Present Wikipedia tendency 
An average tendency on Wikipedia seems to be of transforming word Muslim into Islam or Islamic wherever possible without visiting nuanced aspects. As a small example title Islamic feminism is nuanced and correct since it specifically refers to theory of Islam. But is it correct to redirect title Muslim women to Women in Islam those who are not exposed to nuances might think so. Some might take refuge to fallacy of Appeal to popularity, but nuanced view suggests otherwise. Pl. do read on below given copy pasted discussion from Talk:Islamic literature  
 Here comes concept of normative. 
* Quick google search of term Normative gives definition as "...establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behaviour...."
Is present lack of nuanced approach, risks throwing in  and enforcing a sided normative. All Islamic art can be called Muslim art, but whether all Muslim art can be called Islamic art. For example recently one Saira Khan recently openly declared of not being practicing Muslim, and still we can not list her in List of former Muslims so formally remains a Muslim at the most one can categories them in Cultural Muslim; take one more point, there can be former Muslim who reverts to Islam  is it easy to classify their art Muslim or Islamic ? Or take example of M.F. Husain many of his drawings are of living things so whether it is safe to classify his art Muslim or Islamic ?
:File:Khamseh Nizami 001.jpg is included in article Islamic Art how far it can be called Islamic Art or is it safer to call it Muslim art?
Those Wikipedians who do have lesser familiarity with Muslims or Islam usually tend to take position I/We don't have understanding on the topic, pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam, even when topic is critical of Islam that is categorized Islamic project pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam. Doesn't it risks throwing in  and enforcing a sided normative?
Scholarship highlighting this issue 
:::1) According to  Muslim is purely someone who practices Islam and Islamic is anything influenced by Islam or produced by Muslims.
:::2.1) According to M.M. Knight, when one does not speak for real Islam (i.e.'an abstracted ideal' that floats above, Muslim, human cultures but speaks for 'lived traditions') it is preferable to use the term Muslim instead of the term Islam or Islamic. 
:::2.2) M.M. Knight further says,terms 'Islam/ Islamic' imposes claim of normativity, which is distinct with lived experiences hence need not be conflated. (My emphasis)
 Question of Grammar 
One copyeditor user  points out his difficulties @ Talk:Islamic literature, he says:
:::...According to  Muslim is purely someone who practices Islam and Islamic is anything influenced by Islam or produced by Muslims. So I’ve done some of the (requested via women’s rights article) copyediting on that basis. Please correct my ignorances with sources if wrong. Thanks!... 
Similar points of grammar have been discussed @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) similar to  their point is architecture,  music,  art,  thought are not humans so saying Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought, should be avoided. 
Since personally I am more concerned with normative I am okay with Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought since those are more inclusive terms in spite issues of grammar inaccuracies, but terms are understandable to human mind; my human brain can  very well understand those terms as 'architecture/ music/  art/  thought created by Muslims.'
Nuanced differences and other Wikipedia articles
Please see below given table.
List of articles With Word Muslim or Islam in title
	Muslim             	Islam             	Comment
	Muslim dietary laws	                  	This needs to be Islamic dietary laws ?
	                   	Apostasy in Islam 	Article Former Muslim of Ex Muslim needs to exist separately because title Apostasy in Islam has Islamic normative that atheists don't share?
	                   	Islamic culture   	Needs to be Muslim culture?
	                   	Islamic literature	Needs to be Muslim literature?
	                   	
Islamic Golden Age	Needs to be Muslim Golden Age ?
	                   	Women in Islam    	Need to be Muslim women?
	                   	Islamophobia      	Need to be Anti Muslim Sentiment?
::* Would term Muslim culture represent cultural diversity  among Muslim communities over time and places reflect better than monolithic representation in term "Islamic culture"?
::* Can we draw a parallel, In between Your point differentiating between "Women in Islam" and "Muslim women" and Apostasy in Islam and Former muslims being both valid, and have entirely different normative directions? 
I am very well aware of grammar related points of  &   maintained by them  and others  @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) and not too keen to break grammar related rules but want other readers also to be aware of issues involved for wider consultations. 
Bookku (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of this article is rather straightforward, it is based on sources that use the expression Islamic Art (see sections References and further reading). This is also currently the reference expression in libraries for art throughout the world, Muslim art being seen as a less used synonym (See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q189594). I don't see any reason for normalizing over reliable sources for the domian of art. --Anneyh (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ? 

message: I understand that the mere notion of "the Islamic or Arabic world " is problematic, as there are probably more differences in modern cultures of these countries than common traits. But nevertheless, art historians and other commentators of culture from these countries continue to use the label "Arabic art", and this would certainly provide enough material for an article on "Contemporary visual arts in the Arabic world". Most of all, it seems to me necessary to distinguish between religiously inspired cultural works and modern or contemporary artworks that have no obvious relation to Islam as religion. - After all, we do make a distinction between modern Western art and Christian art, and many contemporary artists from "the Arab world" do not see the religion they were born into as a determining aspect of their art or lives. (A good starting point would be this book or the catalogue from the Institut du Monde Arabe:   - Any helpful comments on this would be very much appreciated. Munfarid1 (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we no doubt should have a Contemporary visual arts in the Arabic world, but I don't think there should be much more than a brief section here (and "the Arabic world" is only a fraction of the Islamic world). At the moment what we have is country by country, or artist by artist. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about contemporary art from "the Arabic world"? 

message: The article never used to have this. Normally where there is a substantial separate article like Islamic architecture, the equivalent art one wouldn't cover architecture too.  The section is very poor quality. Unless anyone objects, I will remove it in a few days, seeing if any can be merged. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree, and the article on Islamic architecture is much better than the scant information under Islamic art. - A short sentence resuming what Islamic architecture is about would be enough here. Munfarid1 (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A belated comment here to agree with the above. I guess the section was never removed, though? As it is, it's not very helpful to have two short, kind of random, subsections about "columns" and "arches", as if this is what Islamic architecture is mainly about. Should it still be deleted altogether, or replaced with a summary? R Prazeres (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Architecture" section 

message: List down additional Art forms produce by the principal ethnic groups of the sultans 102.143.9.41 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sultans