Aniconism
Aniconism is the absence of material representations ("icons") of both the natural and supernatural worlds in various cultures, particularly in the monotheistic Abrahamic religions. This prohibition of material representations may extend from only God and deities to saint characters, all living beings, and everything that exists. The phenomenon is generally codified by religious traditions and as such it becomes a taboo. When enforced by the physical destruction of images, aniconism becomes iconoclasm. The word itself derives from Greek εικων 'image' with the negative prefix "an-" (Greek privative alpha) and the suffix "-ism" (Greek -ισμος). General aspects. Aniconism was shaped  in monotheist religions by theological considerations and historical contexts. It emerged as a corollary of seeing God's position as the ultimate power holder, and the need to defend this unique status against competing external and internal forces, such as pagan idols and critical humans. Idolatry was seen as a threat to uniqueness, and one way that prophets and missionaries chose to fight it was through the prohibition of physical representations. The same solution worked against the pretension of humans to have the same power of creation as God (hence their banishment from the Heavens, the destruction of Babel, and  the Second Commandment in the biblical texts). Some modern scholars, working on various cultures, have gathered material showing that the idea of aniconism is in many cases an intellectual construction, suiting specific intents and historical contexts, rather than a fact of the tangible reality. In Buddhism. Since the beginning of the serious study of the history of Buddhist art in the 1890s, the earliest phase, lasting until the 1st century CE, has been described as aniconic; the Buddha was only represented through symbols such as an empty throne, Bodhi tree, a riderless horse with a parasol floating above an empty  space (at Sanchi), Buddha's footprints, and the dharma wheel. This aniconism in relation to the image of the Buddha could be in conformity with an ancient Buddhist prohibition against showing the Buddha himself in human form, known from the "Sarvastivada vinaya" (rules of the early Buddhist school of the Sarvastivada): "Since it is not permitted to make an image of the Buddha's body, I pray that the Buddha will grant that I can make an image of the attendant Bodhisattva. Is that acceptable?" The Buddha answered: "You may make an image of the Bodhisattava". Although there is still  some debate, the first anthropomorphic representations of the Buddha himself are often considered a result of the Greco-Buddhist interaction, in particular in Gandhara, a theory first fully expounded by Alfred A. Foucher, but criticised from the start by Ananda Coomaraswamy. Foucher also accounted for the origins of the aniconic symbols themselves in small souvenirs carried away from the main pilgrimage sites and so becoming recognised and popularized as symbolic of the events associated with the site. Other explanations were that it was inappropriate to represent one who had attained nirvana. However, in 1990, the notion of aniconism in Buddhism  was challenged by Susan Huntington, initiating a vigorous debate among specialists that still continues. She sees many early scenes claimed to be aniconic as in fact not depicting scenes from the life of the Buddha, but worship of cetiya (relics) or re-enactments by devotees at the places where these scenes occurred. Thus the image of the empty throne shows an actual relic-throne at Bodh Gaya or elsewhere. She points out that there is only one indirect reference for a specific aniconic doctrine in Buddhism to be found, and that pertaining to only one sect. As for the archeological  evidence, it shows some anthropomorphic sculptures of the Buddha actually existing during the supposedly aniconic period, which ended during the 1st century CE. Huntington also rejects the association of "aniconic" and "iconic" art with an emerging division between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Huntington's views have been challenged by Vidya Dehejia and others. Although some earlier examples have been found in recent years, it is common ground that the large free-standing iconic images of the Buddha so prominent in later Buddhist art are not found in the earliest period; 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. In Hinduism. Although aniconism is better known in connection to Abrahamic religions, basic patterns are shared between various religious beliefs including Hinduism, which also has aniconistic beliefs. For example, although Hinduism is commonly represented by such anthropomorphic religious murtis, aniconism is equally represented with such abstract symbols of God such as the Shiva linga and the saligrama. Moreover, Hindus have found it easier to focus on anthropomorphic icons, because god Krishna said in the Bhagavad Gita, chapter 12, verse 5, that  it is much more difficult to focus on God as the unmanifested than God with form, because human beings have a need to perceive via the senses. In Christianity. Byzantine iconoclasm. There were two periods of iconoclasm, or icon-destruction, in the Byzantine Empire, in the mid eighth and early ninth centuries. The political aspects of the conflicts are complex, dealing with the relationship between the Byzantine Emperors, the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church councils, and the Pope. Theologically, the debate, as with most in Orthodox theology at the time, revolved around the two natures of Jesus. Iconoclasts believed that  icons could not represent both the divine and the human natures of the Messiah at the same time, but separately. Because an icon which depicted Jesus as purely physical would be Nestorianism, and one which showed Him as both human and divine would not be able to do so without confusing the two natures into one mixed nature, which was Monophysitism, all icons were thus heretical. Reference was also made to the prohibitions on the worship of graven images in the Law of Moses. During the Protestant Reformation. Aniconism was also prevalent during the Protestant Reformation, when some Protestants began  to preach rejection of what they perceived as idolatrous Catholic practices which filled its churches with pictures, statues, or relics of saints. The Reformed (Calvinist) churches and certain sects (most notably the Puritans and some of the Baptist churches) began to prohibit the display of religious images. A famous example of this comes from Oliver Cromwell, who expelled King Charles I, and who once destroyed a golden relic placed in his church. Among Christians today. In the Church of the East, also known as the Nestorian church, opposition to religious images eventually became the norm due to the rise of  Islam in the region, where it forbade any type of depictions of Saints and biblical prophets. As such, the Church was forced to get rid of their icons. This tradition is still in practice today, with many Assyrian churches lacking artistic depictions of biblical figures, including those of Jesus and Mary. The Amish continue to avoid photographs or any depictions of people; their children's dolls usually have blank faces. Among Jehovah's Witnesses, followers are prohibited from wearing religious themed jewelry displaying icons such as the cross, as idol worship is prohibited. Having images or sculptures of Jesus, Jehovah  (God), and angels is also considered a taboo according to their interpretation of Exodus 20:4,5 and 1 Corinthians 10:14. Followers are also admonished to avoid any objects portraying depictions of the supernatural. In Islam. Theological views. The Quran, the Islamic holy book, does not explicitly prohibit the depiction of human figures; it merely condemns idolatry (e.g.: , ). Interdictions of figurative representation are present in the Hadith, among a dozen of the hadith recorded during the latter part of the period when they were being written down. Because these hadith are tied to particular events in the life of the Prophet Muhammad , they need to be interpreted in order to be applied in any general manner. Sunni exegetes, from the 9th century onward, increasingly saw in them categorical prohibitions against producing and using any representation of living beings. There are variations between religious schools and marked differences between different branches of Islam. Aniconism is common among fundamentalist Sunni sects such as Salafis and Wahhabis (which are also often iconoclastic), and less prevalent among liberal movements in Islam. Shi'a and mystical orders also have less stringent views on aniconism. On the individual level, whether or not specific Muslims believe in aniconism may depend  on how much credence is given to hadith (e.g. Submitters do not believe in any hadith), and how liberal or strict they are in personal practice. Aniconism in Islam not only deals with the material image, but touches upon mental representations as well. It is a thorny question, discussed by early theologians, as to how to describe God, Muhammad and other prophets, and, indeed, if it is permissible at all to do so. God is usually represented by immaterial attributes, such as "holy" or "merciful", commonly known from His "Ninety-nine beautiful names". Muhammad's physical appearance, however, is amply  described, particularly in the traditions on his life and deeds "Sira al-Nabi". Of no less interest is the validity of sightings of holy personages made during dreams. Aniconism in practice. In practice, the core of normative religion in Islam is consistently aniconic. 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. Other spheres of religion – schisms, mysticism, popular piety, private level – exhibit in this regard significant variability. Profane aniconism is even more fluctuating. 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. Depending on which segment of Islamic societies are referred to, the application of aniconism is characterized with noteworthy differences. 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. Today, the concept of an aniconic Islam coexists with a daily life for Muslims awash with images. 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-Jazira, with a global reach, beyond the Arabic speaking and Muslim audience. Portraits of secular and religious leaders are omnipresent on banknotes and coins, in streets and offices (e.g.: presidents like Nasser and Mubarak, Arafat, Al-Asad or Hezbollah's Nasrallah and ayatollah Khomeini). Anthropomorphic statues in public places are to be found in most Muslim countries (Saddam Hussain's are infamous), as well as Arts schools training sculptors and painters. In the Egyptian countryside, it is fashionable to celebrate and advertise the returning of pilgrims from Mekka on  the walls of their houses. Sometimes those who profess aniconism will practice figurative representation (cf. portraits of Talibans from the Kandahar photographic studios during their imposed ban on photography). For Shi'a communities, portraits of the major figures of Shi'ite history are important elements of religious devotion. Portraits of 'Ali – with veiled and unveiled face alike – can be bought in Iran around shrines and in the streets, to be hung in homes or carried with oneself, while in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh they notoriously ornate trucks, buses and rickshas. Contrary to the Sunni tradition, a photographic picture of the deceased can  be placed on the Shi'ite tombs. A curiosity in Iran is an Orientalist photography supposed to represent Prophet Muhammad as a young boy. The Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Najaf in Iraq has given a fatwa declaring the depiction of Muhammad, the Prophets and other holy characters, permissible if it is made with the utmost respect. Neither is the representation of living beings in Islamic countries a modern phenomenon or due to current technology, westernization or the cult of the personality. Statues of humans and animals adorned palaces of the Ummayad era, while frescoes were common under the Ummayads, 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. Potent rulers like Shah Tahmasp in Persia and Akbar 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, unveiled) and other prophets or Biblical characters, like Adam, Abraham or Jesus; and  Solomon and Alexander the Great, became common in painted manuscripts from Persia, India and Turkey. Extreme rarities are an illustrated Qur'an depicting Muhammad and, in a Spanish-Muslim manuscript datable from the 16th century, five Ummayad and Abbasid caliphs. Iblis too is present in various illustrated manuscripts.There aren't, however, known figurative depictions of God. Medieval Muslim artists found various ways not to infringe any prohibition of the image, while still representing living beings. It can be argued that since God is absolute, the act of depiction is his own and not that of a human; and miniatures are  obviously very crude representations of the reality, so the two can't be mistaken. At the material level, prophets in manuscripts can have their face covered by a veil or all humans have a stroke drawn over their neck, a symbolical cut defending them to be alive. Calligraphy, the most Islamic of arts in the Muslim world, has also its figurative side due to anthropo- and zoomorphic calligrams. In Judaism. Hebrew Bible. 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: Leviticus 26:1 reads: 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 ( , ) are generally used interchangeably with words typically translated as 'idol' (e.g. ). (An important exception is , 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.) Based on these prohibitions, the Hebrew prophets, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah , Amos, and others, preached very strongly against idolatry. 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. Lenient Torah commentators permit drawing of humans as long as the images are not used for idolatry. Section::::"Halakha". Despite the semantic association with idols, "halakha" (Jewish law) as codified by the "Shulkhan Aruch" interprets the verses as prohibiting the creation of certain types of graven images of people, angels, or astronomical bodies, whether or not they  are actually used as idols. The Shulkhan Aruch states: "It is forbidden to make complete solid or raised images of people or angels, or any images of heavenly bodies except for purposes of study". ("Heavenly bodies" are included here because the stars and planets were worshipped by some religions in human forms. Astronomical models for scientific purposes are permitted under the category of "study.") A breakdown can be found in the "Shulkhan Aruch," section "Yoreh De'ah", which takes the literal meaning of as "graven image" (from the root , 'to engrave'.) The prohibition is therefore seen as applying specifically to certain  forms of sculpture and depictions of the human face. 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. The most well-known is the Birds' Head Haggadah (Germany, circa 1300). Because such creatures as gryphons, harpies, sphinxes, and the phoenix do not actually exist, no violation of the prohibition is perceived in such depictions. This is based on the fact that the commandment, as stated in Exodus, refers specifically to "anything in the heaven above , on the earth below, or in the water below the land." However, it is forbidden to make the four faces on the Divine Chariot of the Book of Ezekiel or the ministering angels, because these are believed to be real beings that actually exist "in the heaven above." ("Kitzur Shulchan Aruch" 168:1) Differences across media. Although the prohibition applies mainly to sculpture, there are some authorities who prohibit two-dimensional full-face depictions. Some base this upon their understanding of the Talmud, and others based it upon Kabbalah. Of note is the portrait of Rabbi Tzvi Ashkenazi (known as "the  Hakham Tzvi"), which is housed in the Jewish Museum in London. Based on his interpretation of this prohibition, Tzvi refused to sit for his portrait. However, the London Jewish Community wanted a portrait, so they commissioned the portrait to be done without the Tzvi's knowledge. Tzvi's son, Rabbi Jacob Emden, says it was a perfect likeness. There is one type of representation, bas-relief or raised representation on a flat surface, that is particularly problematic. Rabbi Jacob Emden discusses a medal struck in honor of Rabbi Eliezer Horowitz that features Horowitz's portrait. Emden ruled this violated the  injunction against depictions. Many hold that such representations in the synagogue either violate this injunction or are not permitted, as they give the appearance of violating this injunction. Most notably, Rabbi David ibn Zimra and Rabbi Joseph Karo hold that carvings of lions (representing the Lion of Judah) are inappropriate in synagogues. Some authorities hold that Judaism has no objection to photography or other forms of two-dimensional art, and depictions of humans can be seen in religious books such as the Passover Haggadah, as well as children's books about biblical and historical personages. 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. Hasidim of all groups regularly display portraits of their Rebbes, and, in some communities, the children trade "rabbi cards" that are similar to baseball cards. In both Hasidic and Orthodox Judaism, taking photographs or filming are forbidden on the Shabbat and Jewish holy days, but this prohibition has nothing to do with idolatry. Rather, it is related to the prohibition against working or creating on these days. In historical periods. Many art historians have long believed  that there was a tradition in antiquity, with no surviving examples, of luxury illuminated manuscript scrolls of books from the Tanakh among Hellenized Jews. The evidence for this is Christian works of the Late Antique and Early Medieval periods whose iconography is thought to derive from works in this tradition. Examples of the later works include the Joshua Roll and, more controversially, the Utrecht Psalter. The 3rd century CE Dura-Europos synagogue in Syria has large areas of wall paintings with figures of the prophets and others, and narrative scenes. There are several representations of the Hand of God, suggesting  that this motif reached Christian art from Judaism. A virtually unique Christian mosaic depiction of the "Ark of the Covenant" (806) at Germigny-des-Prés, which includes the hand, is believed also to be derived from Jewish iconography; the Ark also appears at Dura-Europos. Several ancient synagogues in the land of Israel have also been excavated, revealing large floor-mosaics with figurative elements, especially animals and representations of the Zodiac. Some of these, notably at Naaran in the West Bank, have had the living figures removed, leaving inanimate symbols such as the Temple menorah intact. It has been proposed  that this was done by the Jewish community in the 6th or early 7th century, as part of a controversy within Judaism over images that paralleled that within Christianity leading to the Byzantine iconoclasm, leading to a stricter attitude towards images, at least in synagogues. There is also evidence that from about 570 new synagogue mosaics were aniconic. An alternative explanation for the removals is that they were done after the Muslim conquest, and related to the decree of Caliph Yazid II in 721 (although this referred to Christian images). 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. There are many later Jewish illuminated manuscripts from the Middle Ages, and some other works with human figures. The "Birds Head Haggadah" (German, now in Jerusalem) gives all the human figures the heads of birds, presumably in an attempt to mitigate any breach of the prohibition. Recent scholarship. In a refutation of the belief in an aniconic Judaism, and more generally in an underestimation of Jewish visual arts, the historian of ideas Kalman Bland recently proposed that the phenomenon is  a modern construction, and that "Jewish aniconism crystallized simultaneously with the construction of modern Jewish identities". Others have also argued that the notion of a total prohibition of figural representation in the Biblical and Hellenistic-Roman periods is untenable. Until the 20th century, Judaism was believed always to have been aniconic. The view was probably first challenged by Dávid Kaufmann, who marshalled a large and comprehensive corpus of data in order to prove it untenable. He was the first to use the term "Jewish art" in an article published in 1878, and is regarded as the founder of the scholarly  discipline of Jewish art history. His disciple Dr. Samuel Krauss wrote in 1901: In the Baháʼí Faith. For the followers of the Baháʼí Faith, the photographs and depictions of the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh, who are considered Manifestations of God, are considered very precious. They are viewed and handled with reverence and respect, and their existence itself is not considered offensive. However, Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baháʼí Faith, stated that believers should only view the images when they can be treated with the utmost respect, and not let them be exposed to the public or displayed in their private  homes: Shoghi Effendi has also written in the "Directives from the Guardian" regarding the portrait of the Báb: Two pictures of Bahá'u'lláh and a portrait of the Báb are on display at the Baháʼí World Centre in the International Archives building, where the Baháʼís view it as part of an organized Baháʼí pilgrimage. Other religions. In Africa aniconism varies from culture to culture from elaborate masks and statues of humans and animals to their total absence. A common feature, however, across the continent is that the "High God" is not given material shape. On 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." 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). In the ancient Etruscan religion, the "dii involuti" or "veiled gods", a group of gods who were superior to the ordinary pantheon and regulated the infliction of disasters, were never named or depicted. 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. An Etruscan divination calendar describes being "visited with visions of the faces of the gods" as a negative event. 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". It is believed that depicting them will inhibit their passage to the Great Dreaming of the Ancestors. Some broadcasters (such as the ABC) include content warnings in  programs or articles that depict Aboriginal people. The prohibition does not apply to the depiction of non-Aboriginal people who are deceased.